ML19343B669
| ML19343B669 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/14/1980 |
| From: | Barnes I, Roberds H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19343B657 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900036 NUDOCS 8012300026 | |
| Download: ML19343B669 (6) | |
Text
.O U.S. NUCI. EAR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSION
' 'OTFTCE'0F ' INSPECTION'AND ENFORCEMENT
~'
~ ' '
~
REGION IV Report No. 99900036/80-02 Program No. 51300 Company:
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
911 West Main Street Chattanooga, Tennessee Inspection Conducted: September 22-26, 1980 Inspector:
/// dub
/0/#/
'H. W. Roberds, Contractor Inspector
'Date ComponentsSection II Vendor Inspection Branch Approved b
//
j[
p/g
/I. Barnes, Chief
'/ /Date ComponentsSection II Vendor Inspection Branch Summary Inspection on September 22-26, 1980 (99900036/80-02)
Areas Inspected:
Implementation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, criteria and appli-cable codes and standards, including actions on previous inspection findings, review of special welding applications, review of welding procedure specifica-tions and manufacturing process control. The inspection involved thirty (30) inspector-hours on site by one (1) NRC inspector.
Results:
In the four (4) areas inspected, no apparent deviation or unresolved items were identified in three (3) areas; the following deviations were identified in the remaining areas:
Deviations: Manufar.turing ? ocess Control - Status Quality tags not attached
(
to the appropriate traveler as required by Criterion V of 10 CFR 50, Appendix 3 and QC Procedure No. 11. 1 (Notice of Deviation, Item A).
The applicable traveler (material anc. file copy) had not been arriot #1 that work was act to proceed until the rejettion notice had 'e.en comn-as required by Criterion V of 10 CFR 50, appendix :', and QC Procedure No.
'4
.otice of Deviation, Item 3).
l t
i l
l l
l 8 012 8 0 00.2[e i
-s
2 n,
s..
,~
DETAILS SECTION A.
Persons Contacted
- W. A. Stone Jr. Managec, Nuclear Quality Assurance
- T. L. Bailey, Manager, FPSM Quality Assurance
- G. S. Cushman, Manager, Nuclear Component Manufacturing
- L. C. Miller, Section Manager, Nuclear Quality Engineering
- L. A. Hoenig, Supervisor, Standards and Engineering Quality Assurance
- R. J. Sullivan, Senior Quality Engineer, FPSM
- B. J. Bates, NQA Audit Coordinator
- M. R. McLellan, Authorized Nuclear Inspector, Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Co.
N. S. Wamack, Supervisor, Design Materials and Welding G. L. Burton, Welding Methods Engineer B. G. Carlton, Design Engineer, Materials and Welding J. W. Keeton, Manufacturing Foreman F. J. McAllister, Inspection Foreman F. E. Fitz, Authorized Nuclear Inspector Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Co.
- Denotes those persons who attended the exit meeting.
B.
Actions on Previous Inspection Findings 1.
(Closed) Deviation (Item A, Notice of Deviation, Inspection Report No. 80-01): Certain operation sequences had not been signed off on the traveler prior to the start of the next operation.
The inspector verified that the traveler signoffs had been corrected and a review of records indicated that a meeting had been held on April 17 with all manufacturing foremen relative to following the quality system in all aspects as committed in Combustion Engineering -
Chattanooga Nuclear Operations (CE - CNO) corrective action response letter of May 22, 1980.
2.
(Closed) Deviation (Item B, Notice of Deviation, Inspection Report No. 80-01): Certain M&P specifications did not detail the necessary information to assure compliance in manufacture with ASME forming qualification requirements.
The inspector verified from records that a review of pipe forming activit es had been completed and that M&P specifications had been amended to include a tabls of percent strain for forming plate i
of various thicknesses to different diameters, and, that an operation had been added to the traveler to record the actual diameter dimension after hot forming.
l
3 3.
(Closed) Deviation (Item C, Notice of Deviation, Inspection Report No. 80-01): Certain weld procedure qualification records did not provide for full qualification of the permitted electrical parameter ranges.
The inspector verified that the DWP in question, SAA-SMA-1.1-103-1, had been revised to include PQR SMA-1.1-163 and PQR SAA-SMA-1.1-104, which provides for the full range of electrical parameters reflected on the applicable DWP.
4 (Closed) Deviation (Item D, Notice of Deviation, Inspection Report No. 80-01): A vendor audit had been performed by another CE division, which had not been approved by CE-CNO.
The inspector verified that the qualification of the CE division in question was completed, approved and placed on the AVC on April 25, 1980.
5.
(Closed) Deviation (Item E, Notice of Deviation, Inspection Report No. 80-01): Returned electrodes were not segregated as to type as required.
The inspector verified from records, that a training session had been held on April 25, 1980 with each foreman and rod room attendant relative to the importance of maintaining weld material segregation and a visual inspection of the weld material storage area did not reveal a similar discrepancy.
6.
(Open) Unresolved Item (Paragraph C.3.b., Report No. 80-01): This item remains unresolved pending the completion of conaitted verification testing.
7.
(Resolved) Unresolved Item (Paragraph G.3.b., Report No. 80-01) Instruc-tions had been given for the placement of four (4) thermocouples be placed l
on the ID of vessels and a review of heat treat charts indicated a maximum of approximately 30 F spread of OD and ID thermocouples from the average i
temperature of the chart.
l C.
Review of Special Welding Applications I
1.
Objective The objective of this. area of the inspection was to perform a follow-up inspection relative to the need to monitor voltage of tube to tube sheet welding as delineated in paragraph D.3.b. of Report No. 80-01.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objective was accomplished by:
1 4
Review of Detail Weld Procedure Specification GTAA-43.43-103-1.
a.
b.
Review of Nuclear Fabrication Practice No. 727-2-7 of January 28, 1980, " Standard Tubing Practice for Steam Generators."
c.
Visual examination of tube to tube sheet welds completed on two steam generators.
d.
Observation of welding being accomplished on a mock-up of tube to tube sheet with the specialized automated equipment equipped with a voltmeter.
3.
Findings a.
Within this area of the inspection no deviations from commitment er unresolved items were identified.
b.
The inspector determined that existing practices were adequate to assure control of are voltage within the specified range, as evidenced by:
(1) Prior to a production run each operator is required to weld a series of sample joints at established machine settings used in production welding. The sacple welds are cross sectioned, etched and examined for fusion and penetration.
1 (2) The arc length is set up on a gage block at a tolerance of 0.040 >.005 inch electrode to tube sheet distance locked at this position.
(3) The equipment is equipped with a micro switch that has to be activated for the are to fire, which assures that the are length established by the use of the gage block is maintained.
(4) Each completed weld is visually inspected by the operatcr for i
any anomalies that would indicate a malfunction of the equip-ment.
(5) The monitoring of the voltage during the simulated production welding revealed that the voltage was maintained with within the 13-14 volts of the Detail Weld procedure specification.
3.
Review of Welding Procedure Soecifications 1.
Obiective The objective of this area of the inspection was to perform a followup inspection relative to the single voltage referenced on the WPS for the submerged are process.
f
. 5
...:..e 2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objective was accomplished by:
a.
Review of General Voltage Range Correction Sheet of May 7,1980.
b.
Interviews with cognizant personnel.
3.
Findings a.
Deviations None.
b.
Unresolved Items None.
c.
Comments The general voltage range correction sheet, applicable to all DWPs that list a single voltage valve, provides a voltage range of three (3) volts, which will provide a sufficient tol-erance for the applicable weld processes.
E.
Manufacturing Process Control 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that:
a.
Manufacturing is performed under a controlled system.
b.
Certain processes are accomplished by qualified personnel using approved procedures.
c.
Results of specific operation are reported.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Review of System No. 5, Revision F, of the QA Manual, "Instruc-tions, Procedures, and Drawings."
b.
Review of System No. 14, Revision D, of the QA Manual, " Examination or Process Status."
c.
Review of QC Procedure No. 14.1, Revision ? " Inspection ind Test Status."
6
,a.
d.
Examination of traveler documentation for vessel subassemblies with respect to:
(1) Definition and control of sequencing of manufacturing opera-tions to provide for compliance with Section III of the ASME Code and QA program commitments.
1 (2) Compliance with designated hold points.
(3) Completeness of operation signoff.
(4) Evidence of fabrication inspection definition.
3.
Findings a.
Deviations (1) See Notice of Deviation, Item A.
(2) See Notice of Deviation, Item B.
b.
Unresolved Items None.
F.
Exit Meeting A post inspection exit meeting was held by the inspector on September 26, 1980, with the management and Authorized Inspection Agency representatives denoted in paragraph A.,
above. The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. Management acknowledged the statements of the inspector, with questions being confined primarily to clarification of the findings presented.
i
.