ML19290E291
| ML19290E291 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/14/1980 |
| From: | Kelley W, Whitesell D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19290E288 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900262 NUDOCS 8003100147 | |
| Download: ML19290E291 (12) | |
Text
,
U. S. NUCLEAR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No.
99900262/79-02 Program 51300 Company:
Babcock & Wilcox Control Components, Inc.
2567 S. E. Main Street Irvine, California 92714 Inspection Conducted:
December 10-13, 1979 Inspectors:
.( j
/f /.</ [(_)
Wm. D. Kelley, Contractorfinspector
' Da te' Vendor Inspection Branch /
//'Y'ba C
~
seL D. E. Whitesell, Chief Date Components Section i Vendor Inspection Branch Approved By:
d cwh
///#[9 D. E. Whitesell, Chief Date Components Section 1 Vendor Inspection Branch Summary Inspection on December 10-13, 1979 (99900262/70-02).
Areas Insoected:
Implementation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, and applicable codes and standards including, design and document control, design veri-fication, manufacturing process control, control of special processes -
weld heattreating and visual examination of welds, inspection and test -
liquid penetrant examination, and training qualification of personnel performing special processes.
Also reviewed vendor action on previously identified items and vendors activities and conducted exit inte rview.
The inspection involved sixty (60) inspector-hour on site by two (2) NRC inspectors.
Results:
In the seven (7) areas inspected, no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
FOO310014]
DETAILS SECTION I (Prepared 1.y Ws. D. Kelley)
A.
Persons Contacted Babcock & Wilcox - Control Components, Inc. (B-WCC)
D. Capps, Senior Quality Engineer
- M. J. Gancar, Vice President of Marketing
- H. L. Miller, Vice President of Engineering
- A. M. Riggle, Manager, Quality Assurance Engineering D. W. Smeller, Senior Research Engineer
- R. E. Topping, Director of Quality Assurance Babcock & Wilcox - Bailey Controls Company (B-WBC)
B. C. Petrick - Senior Programmer
- Denotes those persons who attended the Exit Interview (See paragraph G).
3.
General Review of Vendor's Activities 1.
The inspector verified that there has been no change in the status of the ASME Certificates of Authorization, the authorized inspection agency, or the authorized nuclear inspector, and the percent of total workload that is nucelar as reported in NRC-IE Report No. 99900262/79-01.
2.
B-WCC has limited its participation in the nuclear valve pro-duction to class 2 and 3 valves; however, it will retain its Certificates of Authorization which includes class 1 valves.
C.
Previously Identified Items (Closed) Deviation (Report No. 79-01);
Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, paragraph NCA-4134.5 of Section III to the ASME Code, and paragraph 5.0 of Section No. 5 of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual, the following procedures had not been reviewed and approved by Quality Assurance prior to their. release.
1.
0405-01, Design Review for New Products and/or Generic Design Changes for Retrofit.
2.
0405-02, Preliminary Design Review
3 3.
DS-101, Revision 0, Pressure Boundry Design Standards 4.
DS-701, Seismic Proposal Guidelines The inspector verified that paragraph 5.0 of Section No. 5 of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual had been revised to require section procedures, and interdepartmental procedures, which provides for the coordination, timing, and sequential functions, and operations to be reviewed and approved, by the applicable section, or depart-ment.
The revision was accepted by the Authorized Nuclear Specialist, and is being implemented.
D.
Design Verification 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that:
Procedures had been prepared and approved by the vendor to a.
prescribe a system for design verification which is consistent with NRC rules and regulations, and the vendor's commitments in the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Program.
b.
The design verification procedures are properly and effectively implemented by the vendor.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The objectives of this area of the inspection were accomplished by:
Review of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual 100 a.
revision 3, (1) Section 3, " Design Control," and (2) Section 5, " Instructions, Procedures and Drawings,"
b.
Reviewed the following procedures:
(1) 0405-04, " Design Control,"
(2) 0410-01A, " Engineering Change Order," and (3) 0410-06,." Engineering Graphic Control of Nuclear Documents,"
to verify that they had been prepared by the designated authority, approved by management, and reviewed by QA.
4 Reviewed the documents referenced in paragraphs a. and b.
c.
to verify that they contained measures to verify the adequacy of design, require documented results of the design verifica-tion, required the design verification to consider the impor-tance to safety, identify the method of performing the design verification, identify items to be addressed during the design review, and prescribes the requirements for performing veri-fication by alternate calculations, or by qualification test.
d.
Reviewed design verifications:
(1) Shop Order Number 39203 and (2)
Shop Order Number 18789 to verify that the design verification procedures are being implemented.
Interviews with personnel to verify that they are knowledgeable e.
in the procedures applicable to design Verification.
3.
Findings a.
The inspector verified that:
(1)
Procedures had been prepared and approved by the vendor prescribing a system for design verification which is consistent with the vendor's commitments in the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Program, and (2) The design verification procedures as stated in the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Program are implemented.
b.
B-WCC audits No. 79-010A and 79-010B were performed on June 18, 1979, and the audit reports were issued the same day.
The auditor's reply was issued August 1, 1979; however, the audi-tor had not closed out the findings.
However, the quality assurance program does not specify a time limit on the close-out of audit findings.
It was observed that audit No.79-010 states in the " Conclusion" -
c.
that there is a general lack of proper organization, and that successful answers to inquiries seem to depend more on " finding someone who knows" rather than references to retrievable and auditable information, and also states in part, ".
. However, there appears to be no evidence of a comprehensive review of the Design Specificatioc by Engineering, and no consistent system of identifying Engineering " glitches"
5 and maintaining this information in a retrievable system."
The inspector experienced the same problem in trying to review the design calculations and design verification on Shop Orders Number 39203 and Number 18789.
d.
In the review of the design calculations and design verifi-cation on Shop Order Number 39203, it was noted, and brought to the B ~WCC cognizant personnel's attention, that the design calculation did not take into consideration the maximum thrust of the operator in the flange bolting and flange stress analysis.
The cognizant personnel agreed that the design calculation that the inspector was reviewing did not take into consideration the maximum thrust of the operator.
In the review of the design calculation the inspector ques-e.
tioned whether the design seating stress used for the spiral-wound asbestos filled gasket, met code requirements.
In the discussion the inspector was informed that the edition of the ASME code, applicable to the original shop order, specified a minimum design seating stress of 4500 psi.
The inspector verified that the calculation being documented by the B-WCC cognizant personnel used the 4500 psi valve; however, it was ascertained that the gasket manufacturer had recommended a design seating stress of 12,000 psi and this stress valve had been used to size the bolts. The inspector pointed out that the 4500 psi stress value was permissable by the ASME code, however, the actual stress value of 12000 psi used in the design, must be documented to enable the checker to verify that the bolts specified were correctly sized, and not oversized, as would be the case if the code allowable stress were used in verifying the design adequacy.
f.
Certain calculations reviewed by the inspector were identi-fied by the B-WCC cognizant personnel as " preliminary" and this was the reason that the calculations were not identified by Shop Order Number and the proper numbers with which to establish retraceability.
The inspector was also informed that the calculations in question were being documented by a person other than the originator and that after the documentation was completed the design verification would be performed by a registered professional engineer.
The ASME accepted Quality Assurance Program does not address preliminary calculaticcs, or establish a time limit for design calculation verification by a second party.
6 g.
'4ithin this area of the inspection no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
4.
Follow-Up Item Due to the finding in pargraphs 3.c., d., and e. the inspector will review the design calculation verification on Shop Orders Number 29103 and Number 18789 on a subsequent inspection.
E.
Training - Qualification of Personnel Performing Special Processes 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that:
The vendor'a qualification of personnel performing special a.
processes, other than welding, meet NRC rules and regulations and the ASME Accepted Quality Assurance Program.
b.
All personnel performing special processes are qualified in accordance with the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Program.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The objectives of this area of the inspection were acc:=plished by:
Review of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual 100 a.
Revision 3, Section 2, " Quality Assurance Program,"
to verify that the vendor had established a procedure for the control and administration of personnel performing special processes training, examination and certification.
b.
Review of the following procedure 1702-03, "Indoctrinatica and Training of Personnel,"
to verify that it was consistent with ASME Code ASNT Recommended Practice No. SNT-TC-1A requirements for the level of qualification, education and experience levels, written examinations, and practical examinations for certification, period visual acuity and color vision examination, and periodic recertification.
c.
Review of the documents referenced in paragraphs a. and b.
to verify that the vendor had established procedurr-for training, indoctrination, and qualification of pet performing special processes.
7 d.
Reviewed the training, examination, and certification records of:
(1) Assemblers and Inspectors, and (2) Nondestructive Examiners, to verify that they had been trained, examined, qualified, and certified, in accordance with the Quality Assurance Program requirements.
Interviewed personnel performing the following special pro-e.
cesses:
(1) Product Engineering, and (2) Nondestructive Examinations, to verify that they are knowledgeable in their assignments and that the information in their certificition records was accurate.
3.
Findings a.
The inspector verified that:
(1) The vendor's qualification of personnel performing special processes, other than welding, is consistent with the NRC rules and regulations, and the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Program.
(2) All personnel performing special processes are qualified in accordance with the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Program.
b.
Within this area of the inspectica no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
F.
Control of Saecial Processes-Weld Heat Treatment 1.
Objective The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that the heat treatment related to welding is specified and performed in accordance with NRC and regulations and the ASME accepted quality Assurance Program.
8 2.
Method of Accomplishment The objectives of this area of the inspection were accomplished by:
Review of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual 100 a.
Revision 3 (1) Section No. 7, " Control of Purchased Materials, Items, and Services,"
(2) Section No. 9, " Control of Manufacturing Processes,"
to verify that the vendor had established procedures to prescribe a system for weld heat treatment, and b.
Interviews with personnel to verify they are knowledgeable in the procedures, applicable to weld heat treatment.
3.
Findings The inspector verified that B-WCC does not perform heat treat a.
of welds in-house. All heat treatment is performed by a sub-contractc who is on the Approved Vendor List, and has been subject to an audit ey B-WCC in accordance with commitments in the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual.
b.
Within this area of the inspection no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
G.
Exit Interview At the conclusion of the inspection on December 12, 1979, the inspector met with the company's management, identified in paragraph A, for the purpose of informing them as to the results of the inspection.
During this meeting management was informed no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
The company's management acknowledged the inspector's statement and had no additional comments.
9 EETAILS SECTION II (Prepared by D. E. Whitesell)
A.
Manufacturing Process Control 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to ascertain whether the quality assurance program provided for the control of tne manufacturing process is being implemented, is effective and ensures compliance with the requirements of the code and ensures the achievement of the prescribed quality.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The foregoing objectives were ace:mplished by the following:
Review of the QA Manual, Section 9, " Control of Manufacturing a.
Processes," Revision 3, dated July 18, 1979, to verify that the program provides for manufacturing planning and procedures, including metrology requirements, for controlling the manufac-turing processes in a manner which is consistent with the NRC regulations, ASME Section III Code requirements, and contract commitments.
b.
Review of Design Specification No. 6600-M-506; and specifica-tion No. 6600-G-1, Revision 5, dated January 19, 1979; to ascertain the governing code quality class, design pressures and temperatures, type and grade of material, and the QA requirements imposed on B-WCC, by its customer.
Review of three (3) Job Material Bills for valve assembly c.
Serial Number (S/N) 21478-1-2 to verify that the material type and grade complied with the requirements of the Design Specifi-Cation.
d.
Reviewed the following Certified Material Test Reports to verify that the material purchased and received were in com-pliance with the DS and JMB.
(1) Body - SA240, grade 316 Heat No. 24953 (2) Bonnet - SA479, grade 316 Heat No. 8653192 (3) Plug - SA479, grade 316 Heat No. 8653205 (4) Packing Nut, SA479, grade 316, Heat No. 8643313
10 Review of five shop travelers to verify that the WO number, e.
part number, material type, grade and heat number were identi-fied and that the ANI and customer had been given the oppor-tunity to select their hold points.
Also to verify that those operations which are controlled by approved written procedures were identified, and that the procedure numbers and revisions, were noted on the traveler, f.
Observations of work in progress to verify that the proper drawings and revisions were included in the traveler package.
Also to verify that copies of the procedures and revisions were available at the work center there the activity was being performed.
3.
Findings From the recceds reviewed, and observation of the work in progress, it was determined that the manufacturing processes are being con-trolled and that the controls are consistent with the NRC regulations, code requirements, and the contract commitments.
Within this area of inspection, no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
3.
Examinations. Tests and Inspections 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to ascertain that the quality assurance program provides for examinations, inspections and tests, to be performed by qualified personnel using approved written procedures.
Also whether the level of examinations, inspections and tests are adequate to assure the achievement of the quality prescribed by the code and contract commitments.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The foregoing objectives were accomplished by:
The review of the following documents:
a.
(1)
Section 10 of the QA manual, " Examinations, tests and Inspection," to verify that the program required person-nel performing examinations, tests and inspections to be properly qualified, and the activity to be performed in accordance with approved written procedures.
11 (2) Review of Procedure Specification No. YDE 101, Revision D, dated August 27, 1978, " Radiographic Examination," to verify that it had been prepared by qualified personnel, reviewed for compliance with Section III and V of the ASME codes, and released and issued, as prescribed in the QA manual. Also to verify that the technique, film, penetra-meter size, number and placement for both single wall viewing and double wall viewing, and the acceptance standards were in compliance with Section III and V of the ASME codes.
(3) Review of LP procedure Specification No. NLE-102, Revision B, dated March 21, 1978, to verify that the pre-scribed surface preparation, cleaning, dwell time, removal and final cleaning were provided for both water soluble and solvent removal methods, and the acceptance standards are consistent with the requirements of Sec-tions III and V of the ASME codes.
(4) Review of the Magnetic particle procedure specification No. 105, Revision E, dated September 5, 1979, to verify that equipment to be used was identified and the safety precautions relating to its use prescribed, the magne-tizing equation was provided, the examination medium, color, and demagnetizing equipment specified. Also to verify that the technique and acceptance limits were consistent with the ASME Code requirements.
(5) Review of the reports of the results of the LP examinations of Seat Ring, heat No. 8643313, and Plug, heat No. 8653205, to verify that the examination had been performed in accordance with the procedure number and revision identi-fied on the traveler for Job No. 21478-1, and that the findings were within the acceptance limits.
(6) Review of the inspection equipment Log maintained in the final inspection work center, to verify that traceability between specific instruments and the parts on which they are used was being maintained. Also to ensure that cali-bration status is maintained on the inspection equipment being used to determine the acceptability of the item being inspected.
(7) Review of the Hydrostatic Test report for valve S/N 21478-1-2, to verify that the test pressure, gage number and graduation, and calibration status were recorded, and were consistent with the specified accep-tance limits. Also to verify that the test had been witnessed, signed, and dated, by the ANI as being acceptable.
12 (8) Review of the water Quality Report to verify that the water quality, chemistry and temperature used to clean and hydro test valves SN 21478-1-1 and 21478-1-2, were consistent with the code requirements and the program commi tments.
(9) Reports of the results of the dimensional check of the body and bonnet of valve No. 21478-1-1 to verify that the minimum dimensions specified on the drawings were achieved.
b.
Observation of an LP examination of a spare plug (WO 417538-5-1) being performed at work center No. 15, to verify that the procedure and revision were identified on the work order, and that the procedure was available at the work center.
Also to verify whether the penetrant and developer being used were as identi-fied in the procedure.
c.
Discussion with the inspectors to verify that they are familiar with the requirements of the procedures for the NDE examina-tions for which they are qualified.
d.
Review of the inspectors training records to verify that they are properly qualified, and received periodic training to maintain their proficiency.
Review of the ANI log book to ascertain whether he witnesses e.
any of the required nondestructive examinations and dimensional checks in addition to witnessing the hydro tests.
3.
Findings From the records reviewed, observation of the work being a.
processed, and discussions with the inspectors, supervisors, and management, it was determined that inspections, tests, and examinations, are being performed by properly qualified personnel, using approved written procedures, that have been demonstrated to the ANI satisfaction, that the procedures will identify code rejectable defects.
Also that the number of inspections, and examinations performed and verified, ensures compliance with code requirements and the achievement of the prescribed product quality.
b.
Within this area of the inspection, no deviations or unresolved items are identified.
.