ML19346A104
| ML19346A104 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/19/1981 |
| From: | Kelley W, Whitesell D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19346A092 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900371 NUDOCS 8106050084 | |
| Download: ML19346A104 (14) | |
Text
--. - - -
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV R(port No. 99900371/80-02 Program No. 51300
& 51400 Company:
Bristol Steel & Iron Works,.Inc.
P. O. Box 471 Bristol, Virginia 24201 Inspection Conducted:
November 18-20, 1980 Inspector:
1 d u /4 /ff/
Wm. D. Kelley, contractor Inypector
/ Date ComponentsSection I
/
Vendor Inspection Branch
/
Approved by k W Ji?// dim /f /fS/
- 0. E. Whitesell, Chief Datd ComponentsSection I Vendor Inspection Branch Summary Inspection on November 18-20, 1980 (99900371/80-02)
Areas Insoected:
Implementation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B and applicable codes and stanoards including, design document control; manufacturing process control-material identification and control; forming and bending of pressure retaining materials; cont.ol of other special processes; inspection and test - magnetic particle examination; and training - welder qualification.
Also, reviewed vendor's activities, reviewed vendor's corrective action on previously identified i
items, interfaced with authroized nuclear inspector and conducted an exit interview.
i l
The inspection involved twenty-four (24) inspector-hour on site by one (1)
NRC inspector.
l l
Results:
In the nine (9) areas inspected, no deviations or unresolved items l
were identified in six (6) areas.
The following were identified in the remain-ing three (3) areas.
8106050 OM
{
2 Deviations:
(1) Design Document Control (Details Paragraph D.3.a) Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, paragraph 10.6 of both the ASME and customer accepted Quality Assurance manuals and BSIW Welding Procedure Specification SMA - 1.1-59 the AWS joint was not detailed on approved shop drawings F-0391/18-1 and 2 and F-0391/17-1, 2, and 3.
(2) Design Document Control (Details Paragraph D.3.a) Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, paragraph 7.6.12 of TVA Design Specification, YCP-DS-1705-3506-01 neither the applicable drawings or the welding procedure SMA -
1.1-59 requires arc gauging or back-chipping to sound or clean metti.
Unresolved Items:
(1) Design Document Control (Details Paragraph D.3.b) BSIW is working witn TVA to identify the welds susceptable to lamellar tearing and the development of an ultrasonic procedure to detect lamellar tearing.
(2) Inspection and Test - Magnetic Particle Inspection (Details Paragraph H.3.c)
The authorized nuclear inspector is to have BSIW to demonstrate to him that the permanent magnetic yoke is capable of lifting the forty (40) pounds per their procedure MT-0316-1 paragraph 4.1.3.2 when used in the same configuration as in the actual test.
(3) Training - welder qualification (Details Paragraph 1.3.b) the BSIW Quality Assurance Representative was unaware that procedures had been written and approved for the training of personnel.
The training and indoctrination records of the Quality Assurance Representative will be reviewed on a subsequent inspec-tion.
l
l 3
OETAILS A.
Persons Contacted Bristol Steel & Iron Works Inc.
J. Christian - Receiving Inspector
- L. E. Collins - Plant Manager
- J. E. Corrin - Director of Engineering
- J. Hagood - Senior Purchasing Engineer
- 0. Newell - Vice President of Operations
- G. W. Roberts - Quality Assurance Representative
- R. S. Schmidt - Quality Assurance Manager G. E. Tart - Inspector Plant 2 L. Weddle - Job Supervisor Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance Company (HSB)
- M. S. Green - Inspector
- Denotes those persons who attended the Exit Interview (See paragraph J) 8.
General Review of Vendor's Activities 1.
There has been no change in the status of the Certificates of Author-ization.
The authorized inspection agency, or the authorized nuclear inspector as reported in NRC IE:RIV Report 99900371/80-01.
2.
BSIW has been accredited by the ASME as a material supplier of ferrous bolting, clad products. structural shapes, seamless and welded without filler metal tubular products and wrought products.
Their ASME Quality System Certificate (Materials) Number QSC-417 accreditation expires on October 27, 1983.
3.
SSIW's contribution to the.1uclear industry represents approximately fifteen (15) percent of its total workload.
C.
Previously Identified Items (Closed) Deviation (Report No. 80-01):
Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, paragraph 16.2.2 of the ASME accepted Quality Assuranca Manual, and paragrapn 5.3 of ANSI N45.2.9 - 1974 BSIW Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 9.2 did not require records removed from storage to be checked out with QA or provide for a method for maintaining control or accountability of records removed from storage.
The inspector verified that 50P 9.2 had been revised as stated in BSIW's letters of May 13, 1980 which provides a method for maintaining control or accountability of records removed from storage and the revised procedure has been implemented.
I t
.. -. ~.
4 D.
Desian Document Control 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of tne inspection were to ascertain whether procedures had been developed and properly implemented to control the review, approval, release and issurance, of design documents in a sanner consistent wi'.h NRC rules and regulations, and the vendors commitments in the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Program.
2.
Method of Accomolishment The objectives of this area of the inspection were accomplished by:
a.
Review of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual, Revision 9:
(1) Section 2.0, Control of Design Documents; and (2) Section 5.0, Control of Fabrication and Erection Drawings.
b.
Review of the customer accepted Quality Assurance Manual for 10 CFR 50 for Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 7:
(1) Section 2.0, Control of Design Drawing's; and (2) Section 5.0, Control of Fabrication and Erection Drawings; to verify that the vendor had established procedures to prescribe a system for design document control.
c.
Reviewed these selective documents:
(1) Drawings, F-0391/18-1 and 2 "Stop Assemblies - Pipe Stop F;"
(2) Drawings, F-0391/17-1, 2 and 3, " Beams;"
(3) TVA Design Specification, YCP-05-1705-3506-01; (4) Welding Procedure Specification, SMA-1.1-59, no title; and (5) Procedure MT-0391-2, " Magnetic Particle Examination in Accordance with AWS 0.1.1;"
to verify that they had been prepared by the designated authority, approved by management, and reviewed by QA.
l l
5 d.
Review of documents referenced in paragraphs a and b to verify that they provided fon identification of personnel responsible for preparing, reviewing, approving, and issuing design documents; and that the review and approval of significant changes were performed by the same personnel.
Also to ascertain whether minor changes to design documents, that do not require review and approval, are identified.
e.
Reviaw of Job Order F-0391, to verify that the distribution lists are current and that the proper documents are identified, accessible, and are being used.
f.
Interviewed personnel to verify whether they were acknowledgeable in the procedures applicable to design document control.
3.
Findings a.
From the documents reviewed it was determined that certain quality requirements had not been correctly translated into procedures, instructions, drawings or specifications, as demonstrated by the following deviations and unresolved item.
b.
Deviation:
Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix 8 to 10 CFR 50, paragrapn 7.6.12 of TVA Design Specification, YCP-05-1705-3506-01 neither the applicable drawings or the welding procedure SMA -
1.1-59 requires arc gouging or back-chipping to sound or clean metal.
(See Notice of Deviation, Item A).
During the exit interview, the inspector was informed that where required, back gouging was performed in accordance with AWS requirement.
c.
Deviation:
The AWS joint was not detailed on approved shop drawings F-0391/18-1 and 2; and F-0391/17-1, 2, and 3; as required by paragraph 10.6 of both the ASME and customer accepted Quality Assurance manuals and BSIW Welding Procedure Specification SMA-1.1-59.
(See Notice of Deviation, Item B).
The inspector was informed during the exit meeting, that the AWS weld joints were detailed on the welding procedure qualification record and copies were available to the shop personae 1.
d.
Unresolved Item Paragraph 7.33 of TVA Design Specification YCP-OS-1705-35 G states, "The manufacture is responsible for identifying weie susceptible to lamellar tearing and shall use appropriate pre cedures as approved by TVA to alleviate this condition.
He is
6 responsible for performing sufficient examinations to provide assurance that welding has not resulted in lameliar tearing of
)
base material.
The examination and acceptance standards shall be approved by TVA."
The inspector was informed that BSIW is working with TVA to identify all welds susceptable to lamellar tearing, and to develop an ultrasonic procedure to detect lamellar tears.
4 This unresolve ites will be reviewed on a subsequent inspection.
E.
Manufacturing Process Control -
Material Identification and Control 1.
Objective The objectives of this are of the inspection were to verify that material identification and control during aanufacturing is in accordance with NRC rules and regulation, and the vendor's commit-ments in the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Program.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The objective of this area of the inspection were accomplished by:
a.
Review of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual, Revision 9; used in Plant #3:
(1) Section 6, Control of Material Before Fabrication; (2) Section 7, Control of Fabrication, and (3) Section 8, Control of Purchased Materials, Items and Services.
b.
Review of the Customer Accepted Quality Assurance Manual Revision 7, used in Plant #2:
(1) Section 6, Control of Material Before Fabrication; (2) Section 7, Control of Fabrication; and (3) Section 8, Control of Procured Materials and Service; to verify that procedures had been estaolished fre material identification and control during manufacturing.
r x -
...,..-.m
7 c.
Review of the following procedures:
(1) SOP 4.3, Revision 3, " Control of Fabrication - Stockyard Receiver (ASME);"
(2) SOP 4.5, Revision 5, " Control of Fabrication - Router (ASME);"
and (3) SOP 4.8, Revision 2, " Control of Fabrication - Layerout (ASME);"
to verify that they provided for the identification and control of purchased saterials, and to maintain identification of materials throughout the manufacturing cycle, and provide for the segrega-tion evaluation, and disposition, of nonconforming materials.
d.
Reviewed certified material test reports to verify that they conform with ASME Code requirements, applicable material specifi-cations, and that special requirements, had been included in the procurement documents.
e Examined representative materials in various stages of manufacturing and verified that tne identification, and traceability to the certified mill test report, was being maintained.
f.
Interviews with personnel to verify that they are knowledgeable in the procedures applicable to material identification and control.
3.
Findings a.
The inspector verified that the material identification and control during manufacturing was consistent with NRC rules and regulation, and the vendor's commitments, b.
Within this area of the inspection no deviations or anresolved items were identified.
F.
Forming and Bending of Pressure Retaining Materials 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of tne inspection were to verify that:
8 a.
The forming and bending of pressure retaining materials were under a controlled system of fabrication which meets NRC rules and regulations and the vendor's commitments in the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Programs.
b.
The controlled system of forming and bending of pressure retaining materials was effective in achieving the specified product quality.
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 9, Section 7, Control of Fabrication.
b.
Review of SOP 4.16, Revision 2, Control of Forming Operations, c.
Interviews with personnel to verify they were knowledgeable in the procedures applicable to forming and bending of pressure retaining materials.
3.
Findings a.
The inspector verified that the forming and bending of pressure retaining materials meets the appiicable NRC rules and regulations, and the vendor's commitments in the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Program, b.
Within this area of the inspection no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
G.
Control of Other Soecial Processes 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that:
a.
Procedures had been prepared and approved by the vendor to prescribe a system for control of special processes (other than welding, nondestructive testing and heat treating) which is consistant with NRC rules and regulations and the vendor's commitments in the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Program.
b.
These special processes are accomplished in accordance with l
these procedures by qualified personnel.
e c
y
9 2.
Method of Accomplishment The objective of this area of the inspection was accomplished by:
a.
Review of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual, Revision 9, Section 11.0, Control of Measuring and Test Equipment.
to verify the vendor had established procedures to prescribe a system for control of special processes.
b.
Review of Standard Operating Procedure, SOP 5.17, Revision 5,
" Control of Preparation and Testing of Charpy V-Notch Impact test in accordance with ASME and AWS Codes" to verify require-ments have been established for identifying special processes, qualifying the implementing procedure, training and/or certifi-cation of personnel performing special processes, documentation of work performance when special processes are used.
c.
Review of:
(1) Standard Operating Procedure 50P 6.1, Revision 6,
" Calibration and Verification of Measuring and Testing Equipment;" and (2) Army Materials and Mechanical Research Center
" Comparison" tests on Charpy Impact Machines, dated September 26, 1980 to verify the special process procedures are followed and work performed by trained and/or certified in accordance with the vendors Quality Assurance Program.
d.
Interviews with personnel to verify they were knowledgeable in the procedures applicable to special processes.
3.
Findings a.
The inspector verified that:
(1) Procedures had been prepared and approved by the vendor to prescribe a system for control for ~special processes (other than welding nondestructive testing and heat treating) which is consistent with NRC rules and regulations and the vendor's connitments.
(2) These special processes are accomplished in accordance with these procedures by qualified personnel.
b.
Within this area of the inspection, no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
..-,--,,4
,,,y n,..,,
--s
_,,--y y,,
10 H.
Inspection and Test - Magnetic Particle Examination 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection was to verify that:
a.
The magnetic particle examination procedures used by the vendor meets the applicable NRC rules and regulations, and the vendor's commitments in the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Program.
b.
The magnetic particle examinations are performed by properly qualified personnel in accordance with the procedures.
2.
Metaod of Accomplishment The objectives of this area of the inspection were accomplished by:
a.
Review of the ASME accepted Quality-Assurance Manual, Revision 9, Section 14.0 Examination and Testing.
b.
Review of the customer accepted Quality Assurance Manual Revision 7, Section 14.0, Examination and Testing to verify that procedures had been established for magnetic particle examination.
c.
Review of Engineering Procedures and Instructions, HT-0316-1, Revision 1, " Magnetic Particle Examination in Accordance with the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code."
to verify that it hau been reviewed, approved, and qualified, in accordance with the quality assurance program and Code requirements, and accepted by the Authroized Nuclear Inspector.
d.
Observed the performance of magnetic particle examination and verified that:
i l
(1) The applicable traveler specified the appropriate test procedure, and that a copy of the procedure is availaule at the work station.
(2) The personnel performing the examination are properly qualified.
(3) The test equipment has been calibrated and materials sur-faces to be examined had been properly prepared.
11 (4) The test parameters are specified in the examination procedure.
(5) The indications are evaluated in accordance with the procurement requirements, and the results reported in the
. prescribed manner.
d.
Interviews with personnel to verify they are knowledgeable in the procedures applicable to magnetic particle examination.
3.
Findings a.
The inspector verified that the magnetic particle examination procedures used by the vendor meets the applicable NRC rules and regulations, and the vendor's co7-itments in the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Program.
b.
Within this area of the inspection no deviations were identified.
c.
Unresolved Item The inspector observed the magnetic particle examination on Shop Order F-0316 was in accordance with the magnetic particle procedure MT-0316-1. The technician was using a permanent magnetic yoke.
However, he was making contact with the work piece using the edge and hinge area of the probe with prod spacings greater than six (6) inches.
The inspector brought his concern to the attention of the authorized nuclear inspector that the permanent magnetic yoke was being used in a confined space of the fabrication, which could affect the results of the examination.
Subsequent to the inspection, and after review of code and procedure require-ments, the inspector telephoned the authorized nuclear inspector that it would be appropriate for BSIW to demonstrate to him that the perman.7t magnetic yoke will comply with the forty (40) pound lifting power specified in the ASME code when used in the same conditions and configuration as observed during the actual MP examination.
The inspector will review the authroized nuclear inspector log during a subsequent inspection.
~
,.--_.-.--~v.
3..-,,
wy.-
,+m.,+
3_.
--i-
--9ea.
--r-
>g.-
--9
.e
,-v
-, - - * * * - + - - - - -
w-
%w=
P-*--we V
T 9'
- "W-v-'M e--'
12 I.
Trainina - Welder Qualification 1.
Objective The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that the welders and welding operators are qualified in accordance with NRC rules and regulations, and the vendor's commitments in the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Program.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The objectives of the inspection were accomplished by:
a.
Review of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual, Revision 9:
(1) Section 10, Welding, and (2) Section 14, Examination and Testing.
b.
Review of the customer accepted Quality Assurance Manual Revision 7 (1) Section 10, " Welding,"
(2) Section 14, " Examination and Testing" and (3) The following documents:
(a) 50P 5.14, Revision 1, " Welder Training;"
(b) 50P 1.2, Revision 3, " Indoctrination and Training,;"
(c) SOP 5.3, Revision 5, " Welding / Welding Operator Qualification Procedure;"
(d) Training Outline, Number 10.7.1, Revision 0,
" Welding / Welding Ooerator Welding Procedure l
Specification;"
(e) Training Outline, Number 10.7.2, Revision 0,
" Welding Procedure Specification - Welder Quali-l fication Log;" and (f) Training Outline, Number 10.7.3, " Welder / Welding Operator Qualification Procedure;"
to verify that procedures had been established requiring the qualification of welders and welding operators.
e
~
-g-
- w-i--,,y y
9,.
-w-w w
---,yw%-
e-g g.-
em my-97---__.a-.9,g y,--9.-wwg-w-4*--
wg=-
-~
--e--es-
~m
-+---*---
13 Review of the Record of Performance Qualification tests c.
of welders and welding operators to verify that they are in conformance with ASME Code requirements.
d.
Review of welders qualification log to verify that the vendor has provided a system for maintaining a continuous record of the welder qualifications and that the welders have been, and are currently, qualified to weld under the prescribed procedures, Interviews with personnel to verify they are knowledgeable in e.
the procedures applicable to welder qualification.
3.
Findings The inspector verified that the welders and welding operators a.
were qualified in accordance with NRC rules and regulations, and the vendor's commitments in the ASME accepted Quality Assurance program.
b.
It was noted that the ANI identified, and notified BSIW on October 3, 1980, that the records of twenty nine (29) welders had been altered using " white out" or eraser contrary to SOP 1.4, Rev. O.
BSIW informed the ANI that their corrective action would be completed by December 8, 1980.
c.
Within this area of the inspection no deviations were identified.
d.
Unresolved item:
The Quality Assurance representative who has been employed by BSIW for approximately five years was unaware that standard operating procedures pertaining to the training of welders and welding operators and their training records existed.
The inspector will review the Quality Assurance Representative training and indoctrination records on a subsequent inspection.
J.
Exit Irterview At the conclusion of the inspection on November 20, 1980, tne inspector met with the company's management, identified in paragraph A, for the purpose of informing them the results of the inspection.
During this meeting each identified deviation was discussed and the evidence which supported the findings were identified.
The company's management acknowledged the findings and supporting evidence as being understood, and informed the inspector.
l
. ~.
~
14 (1) AWS weld joints were detailed on the welding procedure qualification records and copies were available to the shop personnel.
(2) All back gouging was performed in accordance with AWS requirements.
(3) BSIW is working with TVA to identify the welds susceptable to lamellar tearing and to develop an ultrasonic procedure to detect lamelTar tear.
~
---. - -.--.J -.
- 1. -
1.
- - - - - -