ML20151D647
| ML20151D647 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/04/1988 |
| From: | Stone J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Chapman J AUSTRALIA, GOVT. OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151D590 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99901075 NUDOCS 8804140348 | |
| Download: ML20151D647 (1) | |
Text
j r
~
/
'o,,
UNITED STATES E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
- E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
/
Anril 4, 1988
+...+
Docket No. 99901075/88-01 i
Mr. John Chapman Ship Safety Branch Maritirne Safety Division Department of Transport Braddon, ACT 2601
Dear Mr. Chapman:
Enclosed is a copy of the letter Circleville Metal Works (CMW) sent to the NRC describing the corrective actions taken in response to the Items of Nonconformance which were identified during the inspection of the fabrication of the LHRL-120 spent fuel transportation cask. Also enclosed is a copy of the NRC letter to CMW which closes out these items.
As stated in the inspection report, the inspectors were able to informally review the corrective action taken by CMW during the inspection. We found CMW's response and corrective action adequate and no further action is planned.
If you have any questions or coments, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely, wrd.A &)
James C, Stone, Acting Chief Vendor Inspection Branch Division of Reactor Inspection and Safeguards Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
Circleville Metal Works response, dated March 15, 1988 2.
NRC letter to Circleville Metal Works, dated March 29, 1988 8804140340 080404 OA999EMVCg PDR 99901075
~
~
CIRCLEVILLE METAL WORKS. INC.
March 15, 1988 Mr. James C. Stone Acting Chief Vendor Inspection Branch Division of Reactor Inspection and Safegur. ds Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Sir:
This letter is in response to your letter concerning the inspection of Circleville Metal Works, Inc. on January 11-14, 1988, and the findings by your staff. Reference Docket No. 99901075/88-01.
We wish to inform you of the corrective actions that have been taken, the steps taken to prevent recurrence, and when these steps were taken.
Item 1 of your Appendix A was corrected as follows:
The purchase order for the tubing was issued under the Q.A. Program of Eggers Ridihalgh Partners (ERP) without review by Ofa' Inc.'s Q.A. Manager. Until the time of the audit. Ofa'. Inc. was operating under the impression that material supplied and purchased by their customer under their Q.A. Program was not required to be controlled by CHW, Inc. 's Q. A. Program. A copy of the material certification and purchase order was not supplied to Ofa', Inc. until the first set of baskets constructed with the tubing was shipped to the customer. After reviewing the material certification, Ora', Inc.'s Q.A. Manager noted that the certification paper lacked the ASTM designation, was missing the chromium and nickel valves, and did not include the mechanical properties. He did not sign the certificat, ion due to these deficiencies. The material was placed on hold January 14, 1988, and a Non-Conformity Report Form SA was completed by Ofd's Q. A. Manager.
In accordance with ASTM specifications, samples of the tubing were tested to determine if they met the mechanical requirements.
A report dated January 15, 1988, issued by the testing lab, confirmed that the material did meet the mechanical requirements of ASTH B241. On January 13, 1988, the tubing manufacturer issued to Ofa', Inc. a j
corrected copy of the test report showing the actual amounts of chromium and nickel to be.00%.
Due to the complete lack of these two elements the original certifi-cation was issued showing no percentage for these two elements.
It is now under-stood that all material purchased by or for Ofa' controlled items shall be reviewed prior to placement, of the order by Ofa"s Q. A. Manager, and that no material shall be issued for use until complete certifiestion has been received and reviewed in accordance with Ofas Q. A. Program.
M' O 305 Logan Street
- RO. Box 410 + Circievine, onlo 43113
- 614I474 6016
--65va 1051 v 180315 nf PDR QA999 EMVCIRCL I}C 99901075 oco
{
Mr. Jtmas C. Stone brch 15,1988 Page No. 2 Item 2 of your Appendix A was corrected as follows:
Tne requirement that all material be purchased to ASE/ASME Section II was applied to the materials purchased new for the bolt removal tool. However, the material in question was taken from CMb' stock, and it was recognized at the time that no ASE/
ASME specification was listed on the material certification. 'Ihe Q. A. Manager did compare the results of the testing with the ASE /ASME Section II Hanual and found that they did raeet all the requirements on November 10, 1987 He did not note this comparison on the material test report or obtain a copy of QQ-A-200 to compare to AS E SB11. The material was placed on hold on January 11, 1988, and a Non-Con-formity Report Form SA was completed. A copy of QQ-A-200 was obtained for compar-ison to ASE SB211. The material was found to comply with both specifications.
The Q. A. Manager noted this on the material certification and released the material for use on January 14, 1988. Future recurrences will be avoided by obtaining all of the required specifications prior to releasing material for fabrication as outlined by CMhs Q. A. Program.
Item 3 of your Appendix A was corrected as follows:
Based on the weld rod manufacturer's recommendation that open rod containers be stored in a warm, dry place, thermometers were placed in the rod ovens to monitor the storage temperature. The thermometers were not intended to measure a specific temperature, but were used as a guide for the welder to show that the rod was being stored in a warm enough environment to reduce the possibility of moisture retention in the rod coating.
In the case of the thermometer used to monitor the parts being checked with liquid penetrant, maintenance of the temperature between 60*F and 125'F is only a guide and in fact may be varied through demonstration of a technique at greater or lower temperatures which is achieved by lengthening or ahortening (soak) dwell time of the penetrant.
Since neither instance dictates that the exact temperature be known or recorded and that no sections of the ASME Code were being violated, it was decided and agreed upon by all parties involved to remove the temperature monitoring thermometers from the calibration system when used for' veld rod ovens and penetrant testing. ON has attempted to purchase thermometers with a guaranteed accuracy of 12' by the manu-facturer.
On January 15, 1988, the Quality Control Manual was revised to remove temperature gauges from the calibration system, however, serial numbers are still assigned to them and they sill be replaced anytime there is reason to believe that they are in error.
Should you have any questions concerning this response, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely, CIRCLEVILLE METAL WORKS, INC.
K N
oe E. Riddlebarger Quality Assurance Manager cc: Herman Crawford, ERP Howard Sobel EIC JR/sjm