ML19290E338
| ML19290E338 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/03/1980 |
| From: | Kelly W, Whitesell D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19290E336 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900058 99900058-79-2, NUDOCS 8003100242 | |
| Download: ML19290E338 (13) | |
Text
,
U.S. N5 CLEAR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No.
99900058/79-02 Ccmpany:
Rockwell International Flow Control Division 1900 South Saunders St.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Inspection Conducted: November 26-28, 1979
.o Inspector:
[
pjI
/ [J/di'O
~
Wm. D. Kelley, Contractor Inspector Date ComponentsSection I Vendor Inspection Branch Approved by
.e/[
//S/40 D. E.'Whitesell, Chief
'Date ComponentsSection I Vendor Inspection Branch Summary Inspection on November 26-28, 1979 (99900058/79-02)
Areas Inspected:
Implementation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, and applicable codes and standards including, design document control, procurement control -
evaluation of suppliers performance, manufacturing process control-machining, special welding processes, training, and audits - internal management.
Also reviewed 10 CFR 21 report by Tennessee Valley Authority and per-formed exit interview. The inspection involved eighteen (18) inspector-hour on site by one (1) NRC inspector.
Results:
In the seven (7) areas inspected, no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
Es O C) 3 i O O 2 42_
2 DETAIL SECTION A.
Persons Contacted Rockwell International-Flow Control Division (RI-FCD)
- S. L. Adams, Design Engineering Supervisor J. B. Abernethy, Welding Engineer
- R. A. Bandukwala, Manager, Quality, Assurance
- B. E. Hildreth, Jr., Manager Customer Requirements
- W. F. Kindsvatter, Materials Manager
- W. G. Rains, Supervisor, Quality Assurance Engineering J. Petterson, Design Engineer
- R. D. Timbrook, General Plant Manager
- T. E. Toothman, Production Superintendent
- Denotes those persons who attended the Exit Interview.
B.
General Review of Vendor's Activities 1.
The ASME issued the following Certificate of Authorization to RI-FCD.
Certification No.
Symbol Product N-14737 U
U Pressure Vessels The certificate expires on August 11, 1981.
2.
The ASME performed their resurvey on October 1, 2, and 3,1979, and issued a letter dated November 14, 1979, extending the expiration date to January 15, 1980, or the date of the evaluation of the survey by the ASME Subcommittee on Nuclear Certification, which-ever comes first.
3.
There is no change in the status of the authorized inspection agency, the authorized nuclear inspector, or the percentage of total work-load that is nuclear as previously reported in Report No.
99900058/79-01.
C.
Design Document Control 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to ascertain whe:her procedures have been developed and properly implemented to control the review, approval, release and issuance, of design docu-ments in a manner consistent with NRC rules and regulations, and the vendor's commitments in the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Program.
3 2.
Method of Accomplishment The objectives of this area of the inspection were accomplished by:
a.
Review of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual, Revision 8:
(1) Section 3.0, " Design Control" (2) Section 5.0, " Instructions, Procedures and Drawings" (3) Section 6.0, " Document Control" to verify that the vendor has established procedures to prescribe a system for controlling design documents.
b.
Reviewed the following documents:
(1) PIOP 36-70-03-04, " Design Control" (2)
PIOP 36-40-13-07, " Controlling Material for N/U Stamp and Traceable Components, Values and Actuators" (3) FIOP 36-40-07-02, " Development of Quality Assurance Plan" (4) PIOP 36-70-10-04, " Structured Bill of Material Development and Issue" to verify that they had been prepared by the designated author-ity, approved by management, and reviewed by QA.
c.
Review of the documents referenced in paragraphs a. and b.,
to verify that they provided for identification of the per-sonnal responsible for preparing, reviewing, approving, and issuing the design documents and that the review and ap-proval of significant change 4, are performed by the same personnel. Also, to ascert.:ua whether minor changes to de-sign documents, that do not require review and approval, are identified.
d.
Review of Sales Order 36-14000/14001, to verify that the distribution lists are current and that the proper documents are identified, accessible, and are being used.
e.
Interviewed personnel to verify whether they are knowledgeable in the procedures applicable to design document control.
3.
Findings a.
The inspector verified that procedures have been developed and properly implemented to control the review, approval, release
4 and issuance of design documents, in a manner consistent with NRC rules and regulations, and the vendor's commitments, b.
Within this area of inspection no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
D.
Procurement Control - Evaluatics of Supplier Performance 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that Procedures have been prepared and approved by the vendor to a.
prescribe a system for evaluation of supplier performance, which is consistent with NRC rules and regulations, and the vendor's commitments. The procedures for evaluation of supplier performance, are being properly and effectively implemented by the vendor.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The objectives of this area of the inspection were accomplished by:
a.
Review of:
(1) ASME Quality Assurance Manual, Revision 8, Section 7.0, " Control of Purchased Materials, Items, and Services;"
(2) PIOP 36-41-01-06, " Procedure for Performance of Vendor Audits;" and (3) PIOP 36-40-20-06, " Procedure for Sampling Pattern Equipment" to verify that the vendor had established procedures for effective evaluation of suppliers, that is consistent with NRC rules and regulations and the vendor's commitments.
b.
Review of six (6) sets of documents applicable to three (3) suppliers to verify that the procedures, and necessary pro-curement documents, were available to the persons responsible for performing the quality activities; r'd that the procedures were properly implemented.
Interviews with personnel to verify whether they are knowl-c.
edgeable in the procedures applicable to the evaluation of the suppliers' performance.
3.
Findings a.
The inspector verified that:
5 (1) Procedures had been prepared and approved by the vendor which prescribes a system for the evaluation of supplier's performance, which is consistent with NRC rules and regula-tion and the vendor's commitments.
(2)
The procedures for the evaluation of supplier's perfonnance are being properly and effectively impleniented.
b.
Within this area of the inspection no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
E.
Audits (Internal Management) 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that:
Procedures have been prepared and approved by the vendor which a.
prescribes a system for internal management audits which are consistent with NRC rules and regulation, and the vendor's commitments in the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual.
b.
The audit procedures are effective and are being properly implemented.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The objectives of this area of the inspection were accomplished by:
Review of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual, a.
(1) Section 2.0, " Quality Assurance Program;" and (2) Section 18.0, " Audits" to verify that the vendor had established procedures which prescribes a system for internal management audits.
b.
Review of Procedure No. 36-40-23-05, " Quality Assurance Internal Audit and Corrective Action," to verify that it had been prepared by the designated authority, approved by responsible management, and reviewed by the quality assurance staff.
Review of the documents referenced in paragraphs a. and b.
c.
to verify that they identify the organization responsible for auditing, establishes the audit personnel qualifications,
6 provides for training and qualification of audit personnel, establishes the essential elements of the audit system, pro-vides for audit schedules to assure coverage of all elements of the quality assurance program, and requires reporting to and follow-up corrective action by both the audited and the auditing organizations, d.
Review of four (4) audit reports to verify whether the pro-cedures and the necessary audit system documents, are avail-able to the auditing personnel; and whether the procedures are being properly and effectively implemented.
Interviews with personnel to verify whether they are knowledgeable e.
in the procedures applicable to internal management audits.
3.
Findings a.
The inspector verified that:
(1) Procedures have been prepared and approved by the vendor which prescribes a system for internal management audits consistent with NRC rules and regulation, and the vendor's commitments.
(2) The internal management audit procedures are effective and are being properly implemented.
b.
Within this area of the inspection no deviation or unresolved item were identified.
F.
Training 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to ascertain:
Whether procedures had been developed and approved by the a.
vendor prescribing a system for training personnel whose activities affect the quality of the products, in a manner consistent with NRC rules and regulations, and the vendor's commitments in the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual.
b.
That the training procedures areeffective and are being properly implemented.
7 2.
Method of Accomplishment The objectives of this area of the inspection were accomplished by:
Review of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual, a.
(1)
Section 2.0, " Quality Assurance Program";
(2) Section 10.0, " Examinations, Tests, and Inspections"; and (3)
Section 18.0, " Audits,"
to verify that the vendor had established procedures to prescribe a system for the indoctrination and training personnel performing quality related activities.
o.
Review of the following documents:
(1) S01 40-25-03, " Training Program for Inspectors";
(2) S01 40-26-02, " Qualification and Training of Auditors Performing Quality Assurance Audits";
(3) 501 40-23-03, " Qualification and Training of Auditors Performing Vendor Audits"; and (4) S01 40-39-02, " Training of Radiographs Personnel,"
to verify that they had been prepared by the designated authority, approved by management, and reviewed by QA.
Also that provisions are made for the training and retraining of new employees, inspection and testing personnel, personnel performing special processes, audit personnel, and personnel involved in quality related design and procurement activities.
Review of the documents referenced in paragraphs a. and b.
c.
to verify that they provided for the indoctrination and training which is commensurate with the activities to be performed and includes codes and standards to be used, and the quality assurance /
control elements that are to be employed.
Also, to verify that they provided for the testing of the capability and proficiency of non-destructive examination personnel, and, the retraining and recer-tification if the evaluation of performance fails to meet the speci-fied acceptance criteria.
d.
Review of the training records of inspectors, nondestructive exam-ination personnel, auditors, designers, and quality assurance and procurement personnel, to verify that the procedures and neces-sary training documents are available to the personnel performing the training and that the training procedures are being effectively implemented and appropriately documented.
8 Interviewed personnel to verify whether the training received e.
was commensurate with the persons assigned quality related activities.
3.
Findings a.
The inspector verified that:
(1) The vendor had developed and approved procedures that pre-scribed a system for the training of personnel performing quality activities, in a manner consistent with NRC rules and regulations and the vendor's commitments.
(2) The training procedures are effective and are properly implemented.
b.
Within this area of the inspection, no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
G.
Special Welding Processes 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that the program provides for the control of i.e. cladding, hard surfacing, seal welding, and weld repair vithout postweld heat treatment in conformance with NRC rules and regulations, the Code requirements, and the vendor's commitments.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The objectives of this area of the inspection were accomplished by:
Review of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual, a.
Revision 8:
(1) Section 8.0, " Identification and Control of Materials and Items," and (2) Section 9.0, " Control of Processes,"
to verify that the vendor had established procedures which pre-scribes a system for the development and qualification of special welding specifications, and for qualifying welders and/or welding machine operators.
9 b.
Review the following documents:
(1) MS-P1-431N, Revision 2, "Hard surfacing of Carbon Steel.
(2) MS-P1-442N, Revision 0, " Plasma Hardsurfacing without Post Heat Treatment", and (3) MS-P1-222N, Revision 1, " Seat Ring Weld to verify that the special requirements governing special welding application specifications and performance qualifications imposed by the ASME Code regarding test sample size, examination of test sample, and special essential variables, are satisfied.
c.
Interviews with personnel to verify that they are knowledgeable in the specifications applicable to special welds.
3.
Findings a.
The inspector verified that special welding is controlled in compliance with NRC rules and regulations, the Code requirements, and the vendor's commitments.
b.
Within this area of the inspection no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
H.
Manufacturing Process Control - Machining 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that the machining operations are performed under a controlled system of manufacturing which meets the NRC rules and regulations, the code requirements, and the vendor's commitments, and is effective in as-suring product quality.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The objectives of this area of the inspection were accomplished by:
a.
Review of the ASME accepted QA Manual, Revision 8, (1)
Section 6.0, " Document Control",
(2) Section 9.0, " Control of Processes", and (3) Section 14.0, " Examination or Test Status",
to verify that procedures bad been established which prescribes a system for controlling the manufacturing operations.
10 b.
Review the following specification and procedures:
(1) PIOP 36-80-06-02 D, " Order Ticket Procedure", and (2) PIOP 36-80-10-07, " Preparation Issurance, Approval, and Revision of Manufacturing Route Card",
to verify that they had been prepared by the designated authority, approved by management, and reviewed by QA, and are consistent with NRC regulation, Code requirements, and QA commitments.
c.
Review the following documents:
(1) Factory Order Route Card Packets, (2) Drawings, (3) Bills of Material, and (4) D-Orders Tickets to verify that they provide drawing / document control in the shop, and also provides for part identification and trace-ability, in process and final inspections, identification and segregation of defective items, the disposition of noncon-forming items, and that the gages and measuring devices are under a controlled calibration system.
d.
Examined three (3) representative samples of finished machined parts, to verify that they were properly identified, and had been machined in conformancc with the drawings and specifications.
3.
Findings The inspector verified that the machining operations are per-a.
formed under a controlled system of manufacturing which meets the NRC rules and regulations, the Code requirements and the ven-dor's commitments, and is effective in assuring product quality.
b.
Within this area of the inspection no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
I.
Follow-up Reported Deficiencies 1.
Valve Cracks a.
Background Information On August 21, 1979, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) notified NRC -
IE - Region II, by telephone that a two inch (2") check valve in the safety injection system, at Sequoyah Unit 1, was leaking.
11 Cracks were identified above and below the valve seat and also in the valve body.
The valve was identified as being a Rockwell-Edwards valve.
Region II requested the Vendor Inspection Branch to determine the generic impact of the valve deficiencies.
b.
Findings During the record search to retrieve the pertinent records with which a manufacturing history of the deficient valve could be developed, the inspector was informed by RI-FCD that the Raleigh, N. C. plant had no record of ever having manufactured a 2" check valve.
Orders for 2" and smaller valves are manufactured by the RI-FCD plant located in Sulphur Springs, Texas.
A call was placed to the RI-FCD facility in Sulphur Springs, Texas, and the following information was obtained.
(1) No records could be found for the manufacture of a 2" check valve for TVA or Sequoyah; (2) They had not been contacted by TVA concerning this valve problem.
However, it is possible that this specific valve had been pur-chased by a Piping Fabricator who had a contract with TVA for the fabrication of piping systems at Sequoyah.
To make this determin-ation, it will be necessary to obtain the serial number of the valve, and if possible, all of the information on the valve identi-fication tag.
This information will be requested from RII and should the final report concerning this problem indicate that it is not an isolated case, its generic impact will be pursued as appropriate at a later date.
2.
RI-FCD Purchase Order to NAMCO a.
Background Information On June 14, 1979, the NAMCO Controls Corporation, reported in compliance with 10 CFR 21, that they did not entirely comply with the written Quality Assurance procedures on purchase orders received form three customers.
The report listed the customers, their PO numbers, shipping information, quantity involved, part numbers, and shipping dates of the suspected limit switches.
Al-though Rockwell International Flow Control Division (RI-FCD) was not identified as one of the three customers identified in the Part 21 Report, they were identified as the recipient of 25 of the suspected switches.
12 The inspector performing the follow-up Part 21 report, at NAMCO, identified specific customers and their purchase order numbers which he requested the assigned inspector to review during his next routine inspection to ascertain whether the P0s obligated NAMCO to QA/QC and/or Test Requirements.
b.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to ascertain whether the customer's obligated RI-FCD to a single source and/
or type of limit switches, and if not, what QA/QC and test re-quirements, were specified to be imposed by RI-FCD on its sup-plier of limit switches.
Also to ascertain whether RI-FCD P0s to NAMCO, included any QA/QC and/or Test requirements.
c.
Method of Accomplishment The foregoing objectives were accomplished by reviewing the following documents:
(1) Bechtels purchase specification number A4AR17, Revision 1, to ascertain what QA/QC and Test requirements that RI-FCD was obligated to pass on to its limit switch supplier.
(2) The following RI-FCD purchases orders to NAMCO:
(a) PO#36-53170, dated 5/22/79; (b) PO#36-52319, dated 4/18/79; and (c) PO#36-48435, dated 3/2/79.
To ascertain what QA/QC and/or Test requirements were included.
(3) NAMCO's Report, titled " Qualification of NAMCO Controls Limit Switches Model EA-180 to IEEE Standards numbers 344(75), 323(74); and 382(72)."
(4) Discussions with RI-FCD cognizant personnel.
d.
Findings (1)
It was determined that only one of the RI-FCD purchase orders (36-48435) was for a domestic nuclear facility (Vogel Nuclear Plant), and the other two were for limit switches which were to be shipped to a foreign reactor.
The limit switches for the Vogel facility was purchased by Poechtel, and Bechtels purchase documents specified
13 not only a single source, but the specific model of limit switches for Georgia Power Companys Vogel plant.
Para-graph 4.1.23.2 of the customers purchase specification required the limit switches to be NAMC0 series EA-170 or equal.
(2) RI-FCD purchase order number 36-48435 to NAMC0 specified that the limit switches were to be NAMCO No. EA-180-32802, and was stamped "10 CFR 21 Applies." There were no QA/QC or test requirements specified.
(3) To establish whether EA-180-32302 was " equal" to Series 170 identified in the customer's P0, it was explained to the inspector that NAMCO had informed RI-FCD that the EA 170 Series had been replaced by the EA 180 Series which had been qualified to IEEE Standards nos. 323-74; 344-75, and 382-72, and to support this claim had provided RI-FCD with a copy of the Qualification Report.
The in-spector noted that the report had been certified by a registered professional engineer, but copies of the iden-tified IEEE Standards were not available for the inspector to perform a meaningful evaluation of the report.
(4)
It is RI-FCD position that the valves and limit switches furnished to Bechtel for installation at Vogel met the requirements of the customers procurement documents.
(5) Within the area of this inspection, no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
J.
Exit Interview At the conclusion of the inspection. the inspector met with the company's identified in paragraph A, for the purpose of informing them management, 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.