ML19318B848
| ML19318B848 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/13/1980 |
| From: | Barnes I, Hunnicutt D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19318B834 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900287 NUDOCS 8006300172 | |
| Download: ML19318B848 (8) | |
Text
_
U. S. NUCIIAR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No.
99900287/80-01 Program No. 51300 Company:
TRW Mission Manufacturing Company Post Office Box 40402 Houston, Texas 77040 Inspection Conducted:
February 25-28, 1980 Inspector :
k
%,_f yf 3,h3 70 1/ I. Barnes, Contractor Inspector
/ Date ComponentsSection II
.(
Vendor Inspection Branch Observer:
" k j b'. lmf( -
8//3/fC D. M. Hunnicutt Chief
' Date ComponentsSection II Vendor Inspection Branch Approved by:
hff ww M 3,h3/fC D. M. Hunnicutt, Chief
' Date ComponentsSection II Vendor Inspection Branch Summa ry Inspection on February 25-28, 1980 (99900287/80-01)
Areas Inspected:
Implementation of 10 CFR 30 Appendix B Criteria, and i
applicable codes and standards, including action on previous inspection findings; manufacturing process control; handling, storage 'and shipping; j
and audits. The inspection involved fif ty (50) inspector-hours on site i
by two (2) NRC inspectors.
Results:
In the four (4) areas inspected, no deviations or unresolved items were identified in two (2) areas, with the following deviations identified in the remaining areas:
f i
i troos soo \\7it.
4 7
+
2 Deviations: Manufacturing Process Control ---- Dispositioa of an MDR by other than a Material Review Board and failure to record an MDR in the Shop Traveler are contrary to Criterion V of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, and Section 13.0 of the QA Manual (Notice of Deviation, Item A.).
Failures to attach MDR copies to nonconforming parts and mark MDR numbers on parts are not in acccordance with Criterion V of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, and Section 13.0 of the QA Manual (Notice of Deviation, Item B.).
Failure to record serial numbers of pressure gages used for hydrostatic pressure tests on Valve Inspection and Test Reports is not in accordance with Criterion V of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, and Section 17.0 of the QA Manual (Notice of Deviation, Item C.).
Absence of guidelines in the QA program relative to determining corrective action need is not in accordance with Criterion V of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, and customer specification SP-521-01-4549-00, Revision 1 (Notice of Deviation, Item D.).
- Handling, Storage and Shipping ---- Sign of' f unpackaged valves on shop travelers as being packaged is not in accoraance with Criterion V of 10 CFR~50, Appendix B, and Section 1.0 of the QA Manual (Notice of Deviation, Item E.).
3 DETAILS SECTION A.
Persons Contacted
- V. G. Stewart, Director of Technical Operations
- D. Hanink, Director of Manufacturing
- S. P. Buckner, Manager, Quality Assurance / Project Quality Engineering
- J. D. Harrison, Supervisor, Quality Assurance / Project Quality Engineering
- R. F. Kane, Manager, Metallurgy
- 0. Kyle, Manager, Project Valves
- C. E. Davila, Chief Engineer, Valves
- K. Moss, Manager, Quality Control W. L. Clark, Quality Engineer E. Morris, Quality Engineer R. E. Wright, Quality Engineer
- Denotes those persons attending the exit meeting.
B.
Action on Previous Inspection Findings 1.
(Closed) Deviation (Item A, Notice of Deviation, Inspection Report No. 79-01): Utilization of certain Shop Travelers and related work defining documents was not consistent with QA program commitments.
The inspector verified that the committed review and issue of instructions had been performed. An examination of eight (8) traveler packages for valve items was also made to ascertain current manufacturing personnel practices with respect to operation sign off. No additional failures to sign off completed operations were observed during this review.
2.
(Closed) Deviation (Item B, Notice of Deviation, Inspection Report No. 79-01): Verification of performance of required design review could not be established.
The inspector verified by review of jobs processed since October 20, 1978, that design reviews had been performed and documented on Design Review Checklists.
3.
(Closed) Deviation (Item C, Notice of Deviation, Inspection Report No. 79-01): Review and approval of certain manufacturing drawings were not performed in accordance with QA program requirements.
The inspector verified by sampling of drawings, which had been newly revised or issued since July 1, 1979, that required independent checks and approvals had been performed.
4 4.
(Closed) Deviation (Item D, Notice of Deviation, Inspection Report No. 79-01): Accomplishment and review of a certain tempering heat
. treatment were not performed in accordance with heat treatment specification and QA program requirements.
The inspector verified that committed re-instruction of personnel had been performed and that the committed system of accumulation and review of heat treatment charts had been implemented and was currently in effect.
5.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (Details, D.3.b., Inspection Report No. 79-01):
Conflict between Product Assurance Manual and Design Control Procedure relative to requirements for issue of Design Reports.
This item was resolved on the basis that Design Control Procedure DCP-004 had been revised to be consistent with the QA Manual.
C.
Manufacturing Process Control
)
1.
Objective The objective of this area af the inspection was to verify that the manufacturing process is controlled in accordance with
{
arplicable regulatory and code requirements.
2.
Method of Acccmplishment The preceding objective was accomplished by:
a.
Review of Section 5.0 of the QA Manual, Revision VIII, l
" Process of Control."
b.
Review of Section 6.0 of the QA Manual, Revision VIII,
" Welding Quality Assurance."
c.
Examination of shop travelers and applicable weld repair records on eight (8) valve items, which were selected from,four (4) contracts, relative to:
(1) Definition of manufacturing operations and sequencing controls to provide for compliance with ASME Section III Code fabrication requirements.
(2) Compliance with designated hold and witness points.
(3) Performance.of all ASME Section III Code required nondestructive e::aminations and at correct ' times of examination.
5 (4) Use of nondestructive examination, welding and heat treatment procedures and revisions, that had been approved for the specific contract.
(5) Completeness of operation signoff and conformance with QA program requirements.
(6) Effectivity of documentation review controls, d.
Review of Section 13.0 of the QA Manual, Revision VIII, "Nonconformities."
e.
Review of Section 14.0 of the QA Manual, Revision VIII,
" Corrective Action."
f.
Evaluation of use of Material Discrepancy Reports with respect to QA program mechanics.
g.
Examination of corrective actica records for 1979.
h.
Observation of hydrotesting operations on one (1) eight inch class 3 check valve with respect to compliance with designated procedures.
3.
Findings a.
Deviations from Commitment (1) See Notice of Deviation, Item A.
(2) See Notice of Deviation, Iten B.
(3) See Notice of Deviation, Item C.
(4) Section 14.0 of the QA Manual and corre'etive action procedure QCP-100, Revision 0, both require issue by QA of a Corrective Action Request (CAR), when a significant condition detrimental to quality is determined to exist. Neither the QA Manual nor the procedure, however, describe the bases or interia to be used, in order to make a determination of whether a specific nonconforming condition is significant.
l 6
In the case of vendor nonconformances, the la program does not specifically address corrective action measures, with the exception of when a vendor fails to enclose a Material Review Board disposition letter with a shipment for pre-dispositioned nonconforming materials.
During 1979 it was established that 59 castings had been returned to the TRW Mission Foundry and 273 to outside vendors. No CARS were issued relative to any of the rejected material.
See Notice of Deviation, Item D.
b.
Unresolved Items None.
D.
Handling, Storage and Shipping 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that:
Procedures had been established for handling, interim storage, a.
packaging and shipment of parts and components and that the procedures were consistent with applicable regulatory, code and contract requirements.
b.
The procedures were effectively implemented.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Review of Section 11.0 of the QA Manual, Revision VIII,
" Handling, Storage, Preservation, Cleaning, Packaging and Shipping."
b.
Review of cleaning and packaging requirements in Brown and Root Specification IL529TS100c and Gilbert Associates Con-formed Specification SP-521-01-4549-00, Revision 1.
Observation of storage practices prior to packaging for c.
shipment.
d.
Observation of surface cleanliness of six (6) valves that had been subjected to final cleaning and examination of applicable cleaning procedure QCS 020, Revision 0.
7 3.
Findings a.
Deviation from Commitment See Notice of Deviaton, Item E.
b.
Unresolved Items None.
E.
Internal Audits 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to:
a.
Ascertain that a system has been prescribed and documet ed for auditing, which is consistent with the commitments of the QA program.
b.
Determine that the system has been properly and effectively implemented.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
Review of Section 15.0 of the QA Manual, Revision VIII, a.
" Audits."
b.
Examination of audit check lists used to perform the 1979 audits of the QA program.
c.
Verification that the audit check lists provided for adequate measurement of departmental compliance with the documented QA program.
d.
Review of team leader qualifications and team orientation records.
e.
Verification of reporting of audit results to responsible levels of management.
f.
Review of follow-up actions regarding Laplementation of agreed corrective actions for audit findings.
g.
Review of audit frequencies relative to QA program commitments.
1 i
r-
+,o 8
3.
Findings Within this area of the inspection, no deviations from commitment or unresolved items were identified.
F.
Exit Meeting A post inspection exit meeting was held on February 28, 1980, with the management representatives denoted in paragraph A. above. The assigned inspector sustarized the scope and findings of the inspection. Management acknowledged the statements of the inspector and had no specific questions regarding the findings of the inspection as presented to them.
9