ML19296C876
| ML19296C876 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/28/1979 |
| From: | Barnes I, Hunnicutt D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19296C866 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900066 99900066-79-2, NUDOCS 8002290012 | |
| Download: ML19296C876 (7) | |
Text
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0i2iLAION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No. 99900066/79-02 Program No. 51300 Company:
Texas Pipe Bending Company Post Office Box 5188 Houston, Texas 77012 Inspection Conducted:
December 3, 4, and 6, 1979.
Inspector:
8-u
' 2 - 2 '
~7 7 I. Barnes, Contractor Inspector Date ComponentsSection II Vendor Inspection Branch A
Approved by:
khOL
/
Np d%
('2-2-Y'l7 D. ff. ~Hunnicutt, Clli'e f
(
\\
Date ComponentsSection II Vendor Inspection Branch Summary Inspection on December 3, 4, and 6, 1979 (99900066/79-02)
Areas Inspected:
Implementation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, criteria and applicable codes and standards; including action on previous inspection findings, manufacturing process control, and nonconformances and corrective action. The inspection involved twenty-one (21) inspector-hours on site.
Results:
In the three (3) areas inspected, no apparent deviations or un-resolved items were identified in two (2) areas, with the following deviation identified in the remaining area:
Deviation: Action on Previous Inspection Findings - Procedure addressing handling and storage requirements was not prepared by August 6, 1979, as required by 'lexas Pipe Bending Company corrective action response letter to Inspection Rep et No. 78-03 (Notice of Deviation).
B0022 N
(
2 DETAILS SECTION A.
Persons Contacted
- B. A. Graham, Executive Vice President
- R. L. Pearson, Vice President, Engineering
- W. W. Trujillo, Assistant Manager, Quality Assurance
- L. W. Hensl ', Manager, Power Engineering
- B. V. Kiel:.an, Supervisor, Quality Control M. Hooper, Welding Engineer M. R. Wood, Supervisor, Documentation B.
Ac.1:en on Previous Inspection Findings 1.
(Closed) Deviation (Details II, D. 3.
a., Inspection Report No. 77-04):
Nonconforming items found in process not segregated as required by Section 9 of the QA Manual.
The inspector verified that a Nuclear Hold Area had been established for nonconforming items and ascertained that the present QA Manual (Issue 3 dated 6-21-79), which was rece ntly accepted by an ASME Survey team, made provisions for in-place segregation of items found to be nonconforming during the manufacturing process.
2.
(Closed) Deviation (Item A, Notice of Deviation, Inspection Report No. 78-03): Training procedure not revised to require a response within two weeks from responsible individuals after they become avare of a firiing, as committed by May 23, 1978, corrective action response letter The inspector verified committed actions, with respect to management response time for identified findings, had been accomplished by QA Manual and Training Procedure revision.
3.
(Closed) Deviation (Item B, Notice of Deviation, Inspection Report No. 78-03): Handling and storage not accomplished in accordance with applicable approved procedures as required by Section 4 of the QA Manual, in that procedures had not been developed.
This finding has been closed on the basis that the immediate correc-tive action specified was accomplished.
I.e., meetings were con-ducted which addressed the need for control of handling, by Presi-dent of Texas Pipe Bending Company.
The failure to accomplish the committed corrective action, namely, preparation of a procedure
=
that defines handling and storage requirements, is reflected in a further deviation from corrective action commitment.
3 It was additionally noted that the present QA Manual, which was re-cently accepted by ASME, does not appear to be in compliance with NCA-4134.13 in Section III of the ASME Code.
It is required by NCA-4134.13 that measures be established to control handling and storage in accordance with established instructions, procedures, or drawings, to prevent damage, determination, or loss.
Paragraph 4.9.2 in Sectiot.
4 of the present QA Manual states in part, " Handling, cleaning, storage, and shipping will be accomplished by standard shop practice unless otherwise specified.
Standard shop practice has, how-ever, not been defined by Texas Pipe Bending Company for handling and storage, in the form of established instructions, procedures, or drawings.
(See Notice of Deviation).
4.
(Closed) Deviation (Item C, Notice of Deviation, Inspection Report No 78-03):
Minutes not : intained by pipe mill department manager to indicate training sessions had been conducted relative to Revision 3 of the QA Manual, as required by procedure, TIP-1 Revision 0.
The inspector verified that the committed training actions had been performed and a training file established for Pipe Mill personnel.
5.
(Closed) Deviation (Item D, Notice of Deviation, Inspection Report No. 78-03):
Performance of shielded metal arc weld repairs, without specification of or evidence of use of a qualified weld repair procedure.
The inspector verified that welding procedures had been developed for use in the Pipe Mill by the Welding Engineer, the application of the procedures had been defined and the procedures were being specified on Manufacturing Control Sheets for current work.
6.
(Closed) Deviation (Item E, Notice of Deviation, Inspection Report No. 78-03): Acceptance of a purchased fitting with data on the Material Test Report (MTR) indicating wet magnetic particle exam-ination had not been performed in accordance with the purchase order specification.
The inspector verified that the committed revisions to the fitting MTR and examination procedure had been accomplished and that training for the MTR reviewer had been performed relative to wet magnetic particle examination.
7.
(Closed) Deviation (Item F, Notice of Deviation, Inspection Report No. 78-03):
Use of a film side penetrameter for radiography of pipe, when the source side of the material being examined was accessible for hand placement of a source side penetrameter.
4 4
The inspector verified that re-radiography of the identified pipe was performed using source side pe letrameters, the equipment had been modified to permit ready accessibility for hand placement of source side penetrameters, and current radiographic practice was utilizing source side penetrameters for examination of pipe.
8.
(Closed) Deviation (I.em A, Notice of Deviation, Inspection Report No. 79-01). Failure to place an assembly, which was under Engineering hold for drawing revision, in a designated hold area for nuclear fabrication.
The inspector verified that the committed instructions had been trans-mitted, current items under engineering hold were being physically segregated in a designated hold area, and that the QA Manual had been revised to make physical segregation of in-process hold items non-mandatory.
9.
(Closed) Deviation (Item B, Notice of Deviation, Inspection Report No. 79-01):
Changes made directly to a Shop Drawing by the Project Engineer of a type not permitted by the QA Program.
The inspector verified that the commiteed re-instruction on per-missible changes to Shop Drawings had been performed.
It was also established that the present QA Manual, which was recently accepted by ASME, had deleted prior specific permitted shop floor changes and now gave a more general approval, with those changes affecting quality requ ing QA Manager approval.
10.
(Closed) Deviation (Item C, Notice of Deviation, Inspection Report No. 79-01): Use of a submerged arc welding procedure specification for the manufacture of welded pipe, that was not qualified for at least 80 percent of the maximum postweld heat treat time that could be applied to component weld material.
The inspector verified that welding procedure specifications in current use for nuclear pipe manufacture had been qualified for up to ten (10) hours accumulated postweld heat treatment time.
It was also established that a review sys*em had been implemented for monitoring accumulated postweld heat treatment time with respect to qualifications and procedure requirements.
11.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (Details D.3.b.(1), Inspection Report No. 79-01):
Status of corrective actions incomplete relative to nonconforming solution annealna heat treatment.
This item has been resolved on the basis that ASTM A262 Practice A screening tests were performed on the individual bends to verify freedom from sensitization.
5 12.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (Details, D.3.b.(2), Inspection Report No.
79-01):
Compliance with ASME Code requirements for metal temper-ature and metal temperature vaiformity could not be established for the pipe mill furnace, owing to absence of documentation of prac-tices to oe followed.
This item has been resolved on the basis that the control system, as defined in procedure, AFT-2 Revision 0, was implemented at the pipe mill furnace and records were being maintained to show locctions and numbers of thermocouples.
C.
Manufacturing Process Control 1.
_?)j ectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify whether:
A system had been established for the control of manufacturing, a.
which was consistent with applicable regulatory and contract requirements.
b.
The system was implemented.
2.
Method o'f Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
Review of Section 4, Revision 0, dated June 21, 1979, of the a.
QA Manual, "In-Process Control."
b.
Examination of Manufacturing Control Sheets applicable to the manufacture of pipe, with respect to:
(1) Definition and control of sequencing of manufacturing operations to provide for compliance with material speci-fication and ASME Section III fabrication requirements.
(2) Performance of required ASME Code nondestructive examin-ations and at appropriate times of examination.
(3) Completeness of operation signoff.
(4) Use of approved welding and nondestructive examination procedures.
=
(5) Use of appropriately qualified personnel.
6 (6) Evidence of fabrication inspection definition and performance cansistent with QA program commitments.
Observation of submerged arc welding operations applic.ble e.
to manufacture of pipe, with respect to:
(1) Compliance with welding procedure specification parameter requirements.
(2) Use of qualified welding materials.
3.
Findings Within this crea of the inspection, no deviations from commitment or unresolved items were identified.
D.
Nonconformances and Corrective Action 1.
Objective The objective of this area of the inspection was to verify that a system for control nonconformances and for assuring effective corrective actions has been established and implemented.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objective was accomplished by:
a.
Review of Section 9, Revision 0, dated June 21, 1979, of the QA Manual, "Nonconformances."
b.
Review of Section 10, Revision 0, dated June 21, 1979, of the QA Manual, " Audits."
Examination of the 1979 internal audit records with respect c.
to:
(1) Nature and type of findings made.
(2)
Identification of personnel responsible for resolution of findings.
(3) Scope of corrective actions and verification of imple-mentation.
(4) Evidence of management participation in corrective action review.
7 (5) Performance of training sessions for repetitive
- findings, d.
Review of twelve (12) completed nonconformance reports with respect to:
(1)
Identification of item and description of nonconformance.
(2)
Identification of reportin party and personnel responsible for resolution.
(3) Disposition of nonconformances in accordanc4 with program commitments.
(4) Evidence of senior management awareness of nonconforming conditions.
(5) Assigned responsibilities are carried out in an effective manner.
3.
Findings Within this area of the inspection, no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
E.
Exit Meeting The inspector met with the management representatives denoted in para-graph A above on December 6,1979, at the conclusion of the inspection.
The scope of the inspection and the findings were discussed with the management representatives present. The inspector also informed manage-ment that his program assignment had been completed at Te:cas Pipe Bending Company and another NRC inspector would be assigned inspection responsibilities for the facility.
Management acknowledged the state-ments of the inspector and had no specific questions relative to the identified deviation from commitment.
s