ML19351E796
| ML19351E796 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/28/1980 |
| From: | Kelley W, Whitesell D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19351E791 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900118 NUDOCS 8012190312 | |
| Download: ML19351E796 (7) | |
Text
..
J U. S. NUCI. EAR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No.
99900118/80-01 Program No.
51300 Company: Walworth Company P. O. Box 1103 Greensburg, Pennsylvania 15601 Inspection Conducted: October 8-9, 1980
., $fdh /'.
if
// 'b
[e _ e*, / f b-/-ff/97g Inspectors:
/
Wm. D. Kelley, C5aFractor Inyfpector Date ComponentsSection I
/
Vendor Inspection Branch f
.O
'D Y
J l0*$d=A)
D.
E'. khitesell,~ Chief, Date ComponentsSection I Vendor Inspection Branch bf n
e.
Approved by:
[
s.ff((
/0.,z/ /0 e
D. E. Whiteseil, Chief -
Date
~
ComponentsSection I Veedor Inspection Branch Summarv Inspection on October 8-9, 1980 (99900118/80-01) i Areas Inspected:
Implementation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B and Applicable Codes and Standards Including, review of the vendor's action on previously identified items, the vendor's activities, and verified that the design documents and the quality assurance records will be protected and available to their customers
[
after closure of the Greensburg plant to ascertain whether certain allegations could be substantiated and conducted an exit interview. The inspection involved twenty-four (24) inspector-hours on site by two (2) NRC inspectors.
l Results:
In the four (4) areas inspected no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
l l
l seizi90 3t<A
2 DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Walworth Company (WC)
- R. G. Knopf, Quality Assurance Manager
- S. N. Shields, Plant Manager
- Denotes those persons who attended the exit interview (See paragraph F).
B.
Previously Identified Item Unresolved Item (Closed) Report No. 99900118/79-02 (Details paragraph D. 3.
c.).
Procurement Control Procedures.
Documents and Drawing Control. The engineering functions of the corporate offices had been transfered to WC-G and the corporate procedures affecting engineering were to be integrated into the WC-G Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual.
.j The Corporate procedures affecting engineering were integrated into the WC-G Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual.
C.
General Review of Vendor's Activities 1.
The Walworth Company has announced the closing of the Greensburg, Pennsylvania plant effective November 1, 1980. Effective this date-the ASME "N" and "NPT" Certificates of Authorization and the stamps will be surrendered to the ASME in accordance with code requirements.
2.
All order for ASME "N" stamped valves that have not been cancelled will be transferred to the Walworth Alayce plant in Linden, New Jersey.
3.
Only orders for non "N" stamped valves and balance of plant valves that have not been cancelled will be transfered to other valve companies.
4 Approximately thirty (30) management personnel will be transfered to ARILAN Technical Services Division of the Walworth Company and they will provide technical services to the parent company ARILAN Co rporation.
5.
Records will be disposed in the following manner:
a.
WC-G is negotiating with all of their customers to turn over to them the radiograph for their orders.
b.
All WC-G design and seismic reports will be transfered to the Walworth-Alyco plant.
l l
3 c.
All original design drawing will remain in the custody of the ARILAN Technical Service Division and copies made available in accordance with the requirements of their customers con-tract requirements thru the Walworth Company Corporate offices, Valley Forge, Pennsylvania.
d.
All WC-G quality assurance records will be microfilmed and stored in a bank vault in the Greensburg, PA area with ARILAN Technical Service Division as custodian. All WC-G customers will be notified of the location of the quality assurance records and that copies will be made available upon request through the Walworth Company Corporate offices, Valley Fotge, Pennsylvania.
D.
Design Document Control 1.
Obiectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to ascertain whether procedures had been developed and properly implemented to control the release, retention, storage, and access to design documents, after closing the Greensburg, Pennsylvania plant.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The objectives of this area of the inspection were accomplished by:
a.
Reviewed the following WC-G procedures:
(1) " Proposed Procedure for Retention of Valworth Company Greenburg Plant Records," Draft 9/26/80 and (2) " Procedure for Storage of Records," Draft 9/24/80; to verify that they had been prepared by the designated authority, approved by management, and reviewed by QA, and.
that they provided for the identification of personnel responsible for the custodianship of the design documents and records after Walworth has vacated it's Greenburg facilities.
3.
Findings 2.
The inspector verified that the WC-G has announced that they are closing the Greensburg, PA plant on November 1, 1980, and draft procedures has been developed to control the design documents after the date.
t 4
4 b.
Within this area of the inspection no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
E.
Quality Assurance Records 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that:
a.
Procedures h.d been prepared and approved by the vendor that prescribed a system for control of quality assurance
. records after closing the WC-G plant on November 1, 1980.
b.
The quality assurance record procedures are properly and effectively implemented by the vendor.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The objectives of this area of the inspection were accomplished by:
Review of the ASME accepted Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual, a.
Revision 8; i
(1) Section G-11, " Drawing and Print Distribution and Control," and (2) Section G-19, " Documentation;"
to verify that the vendor had established procedures that prescribed a system for control of quality assurance records.
b.
Review of the following WC-G procedures:
(1) " Proposed Procedure for Retention of Walworth Company Greensburg Plant Records," Draft 9/26/80, and (2) " Procedure for Storage of Records," Draft 9/24/80; to verify they have been prepared by the designated authority, approved by respor.sible management and reviewed by QA.
c.
Review of the procedures identified in paragraph a. and b.,
to verify they identify the records that are to be retained, where and how they are to be stored for preservation and safe-keeping, provide for their retrieval without undue delay.
d.
Verify that the procedures and necessary resources are-available to the personnel identifying and filing quality assurance documents.
~
5 Interviews with personnel to verify they were knowledgeable e.
in the procedures applicable to the identification and filing of quality assurance documents.
3.
Findings a.
The inspector verified that:
(1) Procedures had been prepared and approved by the vendor that prescribed a system fo control of quality assurance records after the closing of the WC-G plant.
(2) The Quality Assurance records procedure are being properly implemented by the vendor.
b.
Within this area of the inspection no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
F.
Alleged Construction Deficiencies 1.
Background Information On August 7, 1980, the NRC Inspector on a nuclear site, was contacted by a former employee of Walworth Corporation in Greensburg, PA., who alleged that certain nuclear safety related valves had not been pro-perly hydrostatically tested, inspections signed off by inspectors who had not witnessed the inspections, the documents kept from officials of the ASME Code Committee; and valve parts as shipped were knowingly not according to QA records. He provided specific valve serial numbers which he stated would support his allegation.
He also provided the inspector with an internal audit report which would identify certain adverse findings and QA problem which he believed would substantiate his allegations.
2.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to ascertain the following:
l a.
Were the valves identified by serial number _ purchased for in-l stallation in a nuclear facility; b.
Whether the QA/0C documents and fabrication history substantiate the allegations.
3.
Method of Accomplishment The foregoing abjectives were accomplished as follows:
l
-w-e-y.w
+5gre --,
b gg-m e,
y e
eze--=
mi.
4
i 6
4 Review of the " Report of Internal Quality System Audit Walworth a.
Company, Greensburg, Pennsylvania," dated August 1-31, 1977.
b.
Review of Serial Sheets for the following valves.
(1) SIN D64917, size 2 ", 2500# Body Ht. G382P4 Bonnet Ht.
G343P5 Disc G680P2, (2) D64866, 2\\", 2500# Body Ht. G335P1, Bonnet G343P4 Disc
- G726P1, (3) D64867, 2 ", 2500# Body Ht. G335P4, Bonnet G343P1 Disc
- G680P3, (4) D64899, 2\\", 2500# Body Ht. 382P4 Bonnet G987P4 Disc Notreaded.
Review of the following P0s from Newport News Shipbuilding to c.
Walworth:
(1) PO 661N-3120-N16 (2) PO 611D-9551-N3 (3) PO 612D-9551-N2 (4) PO 612D-9550-N2 d.
Discussions with cognizant QA/AC'and Manufacturing personnel.
4.
Findings From the documents reviewed and discussions with cognizant personnel the following was determined:
a.
The four valves identified by serial number in b. above, were purchased by Esco Supply Company for the Lower Colorado River Authority, and are not code valves.
i b.
The four purchase orders identified in c. above were for valve parts ie packing, hardwheels etc. which are not code items.
c.
The internal audit report refere ced in a. above is an audit n
conducted by a consultant hired 17 Valworth. The purpose of the audit appears to be two-fold.
The first was to perform an internal audit in conformance with the ' frequency committed. in the QA manual, and the second was to identify areas and sections u
m...a.
x--
--a-
1 1
7 in the QA Manual which should be revised for clarification or for consistency with new code edition and addendas, prior to the ASME survey scheduled for October 1977.
d.
Since the valves identified in the allegations were not destined for safety related nuclear applications or covered by the ASME Code rules the document review was terminated.
Based on the abcve the allegations were not substantiated.
G.
Exit Interview At the conclusion of the inspection on October 9, 1980, the inspector met with the company's management, identified in paragraph A, for the purpose of informing them 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.
I
?
't