ML20148A506

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
IE Inspec Rept 99900616/78-09 on 781023-25 During ASME Nuc Certification Survey at Tubeco,Inc Facil in Broklyn Ny.Areas Inspec:Asme Nuc Survey Team Performance.Survey Team Is in Conformance W/Scnc Procedures Manual
ML20148A506
Person / Time
Issue date: 11/03/1978
From: Brown R, Hale C, Potapovs U
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
References
REF-QA-99900616 NUDOCS 7812290050
Download: ML20148A506 (5)


Text

_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _

Q REPORT OF INSPECTION U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV l Report No. 99900616/78-09 Program flo. 44104 Organization: American Society of Mechanical Engineers United Engineering Center 345 East Forty Seventh Street New York, New York 10017 Dates of Inspection: October 23-25, 1978 Inspector: - [ p

~

4-< aw 7V Ross L. Brown, Contractor Inspector, Vendor / Date Inspection Branch Reviewed by: 2% dl .s O Date77

. C. J. flalf, Chief. Project Section, Vendor ~

l Inspection Brarch f I---

Approved by: ) hA \h@

U.Potapovs,CIBef,VjndorInspectionBranch ll-1-16 Date Sunmary, Inspection conducted October 23-25,1978,(99900616/78-09) during the ASME Nuclear Certification Survey at Tubeco, Inc. , facility in Brooklyn, New York.

Areas Inspected: American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Nuclear Survey Team Performance in the following areas: (1) Program Survey; (2) Manual Review and Acceptance Criteria; (3) Program Implementation; (4) Certification of Authorization Status; (5) Survey Team Report; (6) The inspection involved thirty-six (36) inspector hours on site.

I 781329Co5b 1

1

h

_2_

DETAILS SECTION A. Persons Contacted C. R. Funk, ASME Team Leader E. C. Petrie, ASME Team Member T. W. Lincoln, National Board (NB) Team Member R. H. Zong, Utility Representative (U) (Philadelphia Electric Company)

R. L. Loper, Commercial Union Insurance Company, (CU), Authorized Nuclear Inspector Specialist (ANIS) Team Member i D. Shrage, CU Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI) Team Member C. R. Wells, CU, Authorized Nuclear Inspector Supervisor (ANIS)

Observer C. J. Bruno, CU, Observer This survey team appears to be in conformance with the team makeup ds described in the SCNC Procedures Manual, Appendix I, Table 1.

B. Program Survey The vendor (Tubeco, Inc.) requested this nuclear survey for renewal of their N and NPT Certificates. The survey team reviewed the Pre-survey Questionaire submitted to the Society (ASME) by Tubeco on October 23, 1978.

This questionaire stated that l'ubeco is not responsible for the pre-paration of the Design Specification (s), Stress Report and/or Design Report, therefore, Tubeco is not responsible for the structural integrity of the compor,nts.

The survey team determined that since Tubeco does not have any design responsibilities, they do not qualify for N Certificate as stated in the scope of the application, therefore, the survey was directed toward an NPT authorization only.

C. Manual Review and Acceptance Criteria The entire survey team started a detailed review of the Tubeco, Inc.

Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual, Issue No. 4 - dated 1978, to evaluate its acceptability relative to the NPT requirements set forth in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III (B&PV Code).

After the team review of the first four (4) sections of this manual it was determined that the quality program described in their manual was totally unacceptable and will require a complete rewrite, r

The team leader contacted the Tubeco, Inc. , Director of Quality Assurance to inform him of the survey team decision.

The Director of Quality Assurance requested the survey team to review and consider the program described in the previous Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual Issue No. 3 dated 1975, (This manual is presently in use and was used during the ASME survey conducted in 1975) for this survey.

The entire survey team agreed to the substitution of Issue No. 3.

A review of this manual indicated that a number ~ of revision, additions, deletions, clarifications and editorial changes must be made before the team can recommend it as an acceptable quality program for the authorization requested.

The team leader and the ANIS presented the suggested manual changes to the Tubeco, Inc. , Director of Quality Assurance.

The Tubeco, Inc., management agreed to the suggested changes, however, these changes were not made to the manual prior to the conclusion of the survey.

D. program Implementation The survey team leader divided the remainder of the survey team into two (2) groups and assigned each group certain major categories to verify implementation ^in accordance with the code requirements.

The two (2) groups reviewed the QA program implementation relative to NPT requirements in the following categories: order entry, instruc-tions and procedures, document control, procurement control, material control, manufacturing control, control of measuring and test equip-ment, control of nonconformances and corrective action, quality records, audits, and control of nondestructive examination.

1. The inspector observed the group assigned to the following categories: procurement control, material control, manufacturing control, control of nondestructive examination, quality records and addits.

The group members reviewed documents relative to each discipline (e.g. receiving reports, receiving inspection reports, purchase orders; qualified vendors list; shop travelers; product planning standard; nondestructive examination procedures and personnel i qualifications; calibration records; corrective action requests, l disposition, and followup; and document files, index and file content; heat treatment charts and records; weld control records l

l

4 (including welding materials); indoctrination and training schedule, agenda and attendance; and audit reports.

2. The team leader conducted a meeting of the entire survey team to discuss the findings made during the implementation survey.

l The meeting covered the following:

a. Each group presented their findings.
b. Each finding (includin unsatisfactory manual)g wasfour (4) coderelative discussed deficiencies and the to severity, code requirements, and corrective action.
c. The team leader informed the team members that the following options were available:

(1) Issuance of a certificate.

(2) Issuance of a certificate after Tubeco, Inc. , has accomplished the corrective action and it has been reviewed and approved by the ANIS.

(3) Resurvey after the deficiencies have been corrected.

The entire survey team participated in the discussion of the findings and the available options. All participants agreed with the findings.

A vote was conducted and four (4) members voted for option (3) and two (2) members (ANIS and ANI) voted for option (2).

The team leader conducted a discussion period during which all team members presented their conflicting views., after which another vote was conducted and all six (6) survey team members voted for option (3).

E. Certificate of Authorization Status The team leader conducted a meeting with Tubeco, Inc., management at the conclusion of the survey. The following items were discussed:

1. The survey team leader stated that during the survey it was determined that Tubeco, Inc., is not responsible for the structural integrit'/ of the components, therfore, the request for a N Certificate will be deleted from the application.

4 l 2. The survey team leader also stated that during the survey relative to the NPT application, it was determined that the suggested changes in the Quality Assurance Manual had not been satisfact-crily completed, and that during the evaluation of the program in',siementation the survey team identified four (4) deficiencies relative to code requirements.

3. The survey team leader informed the Tubeco, Inc. , management l that the survey team will recommend to SCNC that a resurvey l

be conducted after the necessary corrective actions have been completed and a resurvey date arranged with ASME Headquarters.

l The current certificate expires on January 5,1979.

F. Survey Team Report A draft of the survey team leader's report was not reviewed by the inspector, but the corrective actions required and the decisions and recommendations made by the team leader represented the view of the entire survey team.

')

.a

_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _