ML20148L334

IE Inspec Rept 78-02 on 780807-11 During Which 1 Item of Noncompliance Was Noted:Nonconforming Matl Designated as Scrap Not Disposed of as Specified

ML20148L334
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/13/1978
From:	Barnes I, Sutton J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20148L308	List: ML20148L303 ML20148L320 ML20148L334
References
REF-QA-99900114 NUDOCS 7811200233
Download: ML20148L334 (11)

Text

O _ . -

VENDOR INSPECTION REPORT, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV-Report No. 99900114/78-02 Company: Lamco Industries, Incorporated El Cajon, California 92020 Inspection Conducted: August 7-11, 1978 Inspectors: W 9-2-98 J.V W. Sutton, Contractor Inspector, Vendor Date Inspection Branch -

i Sm 9-L-76"

1. Barnes, Contractor Inspector, Vendor Date Inspection Branch i.

Approvedby;".I p. ^ ';?, 98 D. E. Whitesell, Chief, Components Data Section 1, Vendor Inspection Branch Sumary Inspection on August 7-11,1978(99900114/78-02)

Areas Inspected: Implementation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix 8, and applicable ,

codes and standards, including QA Records, Deviations and Corrective Ac. tion, Weld Joint Fitup and Welding, Weld Heat Treatment, and Material Forming.

The inspection involved fifty-five (55) inspector-hours on site by two (2) inspectors.

Results: In the six (6) areas inspected, no apparent deviations or unresolved items were identified in one (1) area. The following were identified in the remaining five (5) areas.

l 781120h;L3j

1

..ew am '+*-='

Deviations: Nonconformance and Corrective Action - nonconforming material designated as . scrap not disposed of as specified (Enclosure, : tem A.).

Review of Joint Fitup and Welding - Control of production flux core arc welding not consistent with Criterion IX of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, and the amperage and gas flow rate requirements of the applicable welding procedure specification (Enclosure, Item B); qualification of flux core welding materials not consistent with Criterion IX of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, and the ASME Code,Section III, with respect to interpass temperature selection (Enclosure, Item C); qualification of two (2) welding procedure specifications not in accordance with Criterion IX of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, and the essential variable requirements of the ASME Code,Section IX (Enclosure, Item D); qualification of welding procedure specification not censistent with Criterion IX of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, and the ASME Code,Section III, relative to required toughness properties for permitted-thickness range of_ application (Enclosure, Item E); control of temporary attachments not consistent with requirements of Criterion V of 10 CFR 50, Appendix D, and the ASME Code,Section III (Enclosure, Item E).

Weld Heat Treatment - Control of component weld metal accumulated postweld heat treatment time relative to applicable procedure qualifications not in accordance with Criterion IX of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, and th; ASME Code,Section III (Enclosure, Item G).

i Unresolved Item: Nonconformance and Corrective Action - a component had been fabricated, inspected, accepted, and stamped which did not meet design tolerance limits and a nonconformance report generated as results of buyers rejection. (See Details Section 1, paragraph C.3.b.)

w w ,, , - < 4m.,m~, --~~ r r--- - -, . .%e... -s--, -,. - -< w . - e

- .- - = , .. _ . . . -- . - - - -- . - . ... .

4 4 i _ ._. .,g. .. + . . . - - ~e""t"~'

3-

, DETAILS SECTION I (Prepared by u W. Sutton) -

A. Persons Contacted- ,

• R. R. Laser, President .

• R. Mathias, Director, Quality Assurtice. '

• D. 01 son, Plant-Manager (Greenville, North Carolina)

• R. E.' Smith, Engineering Manager i

• L. Bianco,. Vice President i O. Menard, Chief Inspector .  ;

0. Appleby,' Quality Assurance Engineer- .

LeRoy Kerr, Quality Assurance Engineer R.' Shank, Documentation Specialist-M. Stadnyk,; Quality Control Secretary -

The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and I'surance Company I.

• J. M. Stark, Authorized Nuclear Inspector Supervisor-

• H. L. Robison, Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI) i

• Denotes those persons who attended the Exit Icterview. (See Paragraph D.) .

l B. -QA Records

1. Objectives The objectives of this inspection were:

a.. To verify that procedures have been prepi rad and approved "1 by the company to prescribe a system for 7ontrol of 4A Records which is consistent with the NRC rules anc commitment.s of the l

-QA Program; and- i

b. Ta verify that the QA Records procedures are being procerly and effectively implemented by the company. 1

2. Method of Accomplishment

. The objectives of this area of the inspection were accomplir,hed by:

a. Review of the QA Manual, QA Procedure N17, issue date February 1978, " Quality Assurance. Records," to verify that QA-Records are defined as records.that furnish documentary e 'idence of the

- quality of items and of activities affecting quality.

=v.*+-+-,- w erev-',v2. ewwa, we--*---- rw -e a w-,.w----mww -w i - es y .-weww a. w e+ ,ee,-+we-e-s--- e-e e,-+,~,er.e---wre*- + , ws- e a e e.re-se-+. -- -g

.n_, e s n. .m

b. Review of job orders 7901, 7405, 7407, 7204, 6947, 6948, 6955, 6956, 6957, 6958 to verify that procedures provide for:

'(1) Classification of QA Records; (2) Distribution and handling; 1 (3) Identification; (4) Corrections and/or supplementing Records; (5) Receipt of Records, and Status of inspection and/or tests; (6) Retrieval of Records; and (7) Sign off, initialing, or otherwise authentication and dating by the authorized personnel to document that a ,

required quality activity was correctly accomplished.

c. Review of data work orders / data packages 6883 and 5845 to verify that:

(1) Records contain a data package index.

(2) Records have been audited.

(3) Records have been properly signed off; and (4) Records have been indexed for storage purposes.

d. Inspection of the records storage facilities. ,

1

e. Interviews with technical and supervisory personnel. l

3. Findings, ,

1 General i The inspector was informed that a new record storage. facility will be constructed within throe (3) months. The storage area will meet the requirements of AUSI 45.2.9, 1974 criteria.

Within this area of the inspection no deviations or unresolved items were identified.

2..+ .- - . . ~ . . y C. Nonconformance and Corrective Action

1. Objectives t

.The objectives of this inspection were to:

r

a. Verify that a system'for. control of.nonconformances and .

corrective actions has been established and is consistent with NRC rules and the QA Program requirements; and-

b. To verify that the system is properly implemented.

2. Method of Accomplishment The objectives of this area of the inspection were accomplished by:

a. Review of the QA Manual, QA Procedures N 15 and N 16, titled, " Control of Nonconforming Items and Services and Corrective Action"' to verify that procedures have been developed and approved for controlling nonconformances/

deviations and also that the system provides for the

' following:

(1) The program and Procedures provide for the identiff-cation and reporting of nonconformances; and .!

(2).Theprogramdelegates:  !

l (a) Responsibilities for receipt, review, and analysis; conformances reports; i (b) Responsibility for recommending corrective action; (c) Responsibility for approving recommended corrective action; (d) Responsibility for follow-up to verify that correc-tive action has been implemented, is effective, and precludes recurrence;

.(e) Management participates in the review of noncon-formance report and corrective actions; and (f) The nonconformances and corrective actions are reviewed by the_ANI.

l l

l l

b. Review of fifteen (15) Nonconformance Reports, Work Order 6882(RN16111)andWorkOrder6878(RN15730)toverify that the nonconformances were appropriately dispositioned *

.and that; (1) The assigned responsibilities are carried out by the designated persons.

(2) The system for identifying and reporting nonconformances, and for evaluating and enacting corrective action, is timely and effective.

(3) That nonconforming items are properly disposed of.

(4) - That corrective action follow-up was properly performed.

(5) That management participation is effective in minimizing recurrence.

c. Inspection of the Segregation Areas;

d. Review of the Log of the Internal Rejection Notices; e

e. Review of the Statistical Discrepancy Analysis for the years 1977-78;

f. Review of Internal Corrective Action requests;

g. Review of the Supplier Quality History Sheets;

h. Review of the Quarterly Quality Assurance Review of Suppliers Performance; and

i. Discussions with cognizant personnel.

3. Findings

a. Deviations See Enclosure Item A.

General It was observed that Rejection Notices 12835 and 15730, dated in April and May 1978, recommended disposition as

" scrap." Discussions with responsible personnel and review of disposition records, indicated that the nonconforming

i material had been removed from the segregated area and' scrapped. However, the items had not been moved from the '

nonconformance area as prescribed by the QA manual commit-

-ments.

i

b. Unresolved Items It was observed that Part No. 6882-1-1, had a rejection ,

tag affixed to it and it was stored in the nonconformance area. Further inquiry disclosed that the buyer had rejected the part during his acceptance inspection as not conforming i to the approved drawing requirements. It was also learned that a nonconformance had been initiated and was in the process of resolution. This is an unresolved item, and the disposition of .the nonconformance and the corrective action to prevent recurrence will be reviewed during the next inspection.

D. Exit Interview The inspector met with management representatives. (denoted in paragraph A) at the conclusion of the inspectior, on August 11, 1978.

. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.

The management representatives had no comment in response to each item discussed by the inspector.

The inspector reviewed the fonnat to be used by the company when  :

responding to inspection findings which requires corrective action to be initiated. ,

I

4 DETAILS SECTION II (Prepared by I. Barnes)

A. Persons Contacted R.. N. Mathias, Director - Quality R. Sutton, Welding Engineer B. Review'of Joint Fitus and Welding .

1

1. Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that production welding was controlled in accordance with the Lamco QA Program and NRC and ASME Code requirements.

2. Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:

t a. Review of QA Manual, Section N10, Issue Date February, 1978, " Control of Special Processes and Tests," to verify that measures had been established to control welding '

activities, and that these measures were consistent with l NRC and Code requirements. I

b. Observation of one (1) gas tungsten arc and three (3) flux core arc production welding operations, to verify that the welding procedure specifications parameters were being properly followed.

l

c. Examination of shop travelers and welding records for operations'. witnessed to ascertain that identification of procedures, personnel and welding materials were consistent with observed procedures, p,esonnel and welding materials being used in production. j

d. Examination of shielded metal are repair records for Part No. 6884-1-1.

e. Examination of applicable welding procedure specifications for operations witnessed relative to observed production welding parameters.

f. Review of supporting procedure qualification records for welding procedure specifications referenced in b. and d.

above.

w gt * =---+ - y ,. y- w v

. . . , . . - - - - --~ . .. . - - - -

g. ' Review of- procurement .and certification data for welding material observed in production use.

h. Observation of welding materials storate area and review of welding materials approval and release system.

1. . Review of temperature control and electrode segregation in electrode ovens.'

j. Review of calibration status of meters on welding equip-ment' utilized for operations witnessed.

k. Review of welder qualifications for operations witnessed and system used to maintain qualifications.

1. Observation of practices used and records' maintained rel-ative to use and removal of temporary attachments.

m. Review of assembly and alignment criteria used in manufac-turing.. ,

3. Findings

a. Deviations from Commitment

. 1) See Enclosure, Item B.

2) See Enclosure, Item C.

3) See Enclosure,. Item D.

4 See Enclosure, Item E.

5 See Enclosure, Item F.

b. Unresolved-Items None.

C. Weld Heat Treatment

1. Obj ectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify 1 that heat treatment applicable to welding was specified and-performed in accordance.with the Lamco QA Program and applicable NRC and ASME Code requirements. t I

• .. .,.+... . -- - . s.,'m,. .-,s-,. ,,'-+....m. .+,,,w..

1 i

2. Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:

a. Review of QA Manual, Section N10, Issue Date February,1978, -*

" Control of Special Processes and Tests," to ascertain whether the procedures for controlling heat treating was properly reviewed and approved and are consistent with NRC and Code requirements.

b. Review of specification 6881-PWHT Revision D, " Post Weld Heat Treatment."

c. Examination of two (2) postweld heat treatment charts for compliance to specification requirements relative to compo-nent temperature uniformity during heat treatment, heating rates, cooling ratos and hold time at temperature.

d. Examination of accumulated postweld heat treatment time ,

relative to times permitted by applicable welding procedure qualification records.

e 3. Findings

a. Deviation from Commitment See Enclosure, Item G.

b. Unresolved Items None.

c. General Comment All heat treatments of Lamco components are performed by a subcontracted source. A review of the Lamco source survey with respect to adequacy of vendor equipment and accuracy of control instrumentation will be made during a future inspection.

D. Material Forming

1. Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that existing process control provisions included forming or

bending of component support material and that these operations were conducted in accordance with applicable ASME Code require-ments.

2. Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives.were accomplished by:

a. Review of procurement requirements imposed on vendor utilized for forming rings on Work Order No. 68840002.

b. Examination of traveler for Part No. 6884-1-1 relative to sample removal for verification of toughness properites after forming.

c. Review of toughness properties obtained from sample, to verify that they met established acceptance limits.

d. Discussion with cognizant personnel, to verify that they I' were familiar with the procedures defining their duties and responsibilities.

I 3. Findings Within this area of the inspection, no deviations or unresolved items were identified.

t l

I l

, , _ _ , - - , _ . . . , . . . . . _ , , , ,- - . _ . , . . . - . . . . . . , . . . _ - . . _ . - , , . . ..-.. _...J