ML20213A531
| ML20213A531 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/29/1987 |
| From: | Baker E, Naidu K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20213A499 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99901074 99901074-86-01, 99901074-86-1, NUDOCS 8702030328 | |
| Download: ML20213A531 (5) | |
Text
m ORGANIZATION: VIATRAN CORPCRATION GRAND ISLAND, NEW YOPK REPORT INSPECTION INSPECTION NO.: 99901074/86-01 DATE: December 2-4, 1986 ON-SITE HOURS: 22 CORRESPONDENCE ADpRESS: Viatran Corporation ATTN: Mr. Don Joslyn President 300 Industrial Dri.ve
}
Grand Island, New York 14072 ORGANIZATIONAL CONTACT: Mr. L. Lilian, OA Panager TELEPHONE NUMBER:
(716) 773-1700 NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ACTIVITY: Manufactures pressure transmitters, differential pressure transmitters, and pressure transducers.
df d?
ASSIGNED INSPECTOR:
& Mry K. R. Naidu, Reactive inspection Secticn (RIS)
Date OTHER INSPECTOR (S):
$I'7 APPROVED BY:
Me
-1 /
Edward T. Baker, Acting Chief, RIS, Vendor Program Branch Date l
INSPECTION BASES AND SCOPE:
A.
BASES:
10 CFR Part 21 and Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
B.
SCOPE:
Review Viatran design and production of pressure transmitters and transducers to ascertain similarities and differerces when compared to other manufacturer's products which have experienced setpoint drif t.
PLANT SITE APPLICABILITY:
Viatran supplies pressure transmitters, differential pressure transmitters and transducers to other equipment tranufacturers who in turn install them in equiprer.t supplied to nuclear power plants.
8702030328 870129 PDR GA999 EMV*****
99901074 PDR
ORGANIZATION: VIATRAN CORPORATION GRAND ISLAND, NEW YORK REPORT INSPECTION NO.:
99901074/86-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 2 of 5 A.
Violations No violations were identified during this inspection.
B.
Nonconformances No nonconformances were identified during this inspection.
C.
Unresolved Items No unresolved items were identified during this inspection.
D.
Inspection Findings and Other Comments 1.
Background Information Viatran manufactures pressure transducers, pressure transmitters and differential pressure transmitters for industrial use.
Viatran transducers are purchased by other eouipment manufacturers who may have used them in equipment installed in nuclear power plants as items which are importart to safety. Viatran transmitters have not been qualified to IEEE-323 and IEEE-344 requirements. Viatran implements a quality assurance program which meets the reouirements of MIL-0-9858A and Canadian Standard Z-299.3.
2.
Principle of Operation The Viatran transmitters consist of a sensor which is a strain sensitive elenent machined from a single piece of high-strength l
stainless steel alloy. Specially designed strain gauges are bonded to this element and electrically connected in a Wheatstone bridge i
circuit. When forces generated from the applied pressure develop stresses in the element, each strain gauge changes resistance and the resultant voltage imbalance produce an output signal. The output signal is fed to a printed circuit board which provides i
three operations. They are:
(1) e voltage regulator to accurately i
establish the excitation voltage for the strain gauge sensor, (2) an amplifier to receive the multivolt-level sensor output as it changes with applied pressure, and boost it to a higher voltage level signal, and (3) to maintain a constant current in the loop between 4-20mA, prcportional to process pressures.
j I
.O ORGANIZATION: VIATRAN CORPORATION GRAND ISLAND, NEW YORK REPORT INSPECTION NO.:
99901074/86-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 3 of 5 3.
Control of Design Changes The design changes to the established product line are required to be reviewed and signed by quality control (QC) and engineering.
This is accomplished by attaching an M12 Form which describer any special applications, such as substantial alteration of the instrument range, and assures that the product is tested to verify that it meets these specified requirements. The inspector verified the implementation of the M12 Form by reviewing two special applica-tions transmitters and determined that the form contained specific requirements and was signed by engineering and QC representatives.
4.
Control of Purchased Materials and Services The inspector reviewed the control of purchased material and services to determine compliance to the established quality assurance program.
l Purchase Orders (P0s) specify the item to be purchased by designated part number.
Each part number is then traced to a drawing number which also lists the vendors approved to supply that particular part. The approved vendors were selected by previous experience or by vendor audits. QC monitors the performance of vendors and subcontractors as reflected in the quantity of items rejacted either during receipt inspections or in-process testirq.
First part inspections are performed on machined parts. A sampling plan conforming to the requirements of MIL-105D is utilized for items received in quantities in excess of 50. The inspector reviewed five P0s issued for calibration services, connectors, strain gauges, and machined parts and determined that the est'ablished procurement prncedures were being implemented. The inspector observed that two batches of machined parts were received and rejected during receipt inspections. The material was being returned to the vendor with proper documentation identifying the reason for rejection.
5.
In-process Inspections The inspector accompanied by the QC Panager tourad the assembly area where the various instruments were assembled and tested.
A routing sheet lists the various steps of assembly. At the end of each step, the arsembler inserts the date on which it was completed. The final test is performed by a quality control inspector.
ORGANIZATION: VIATRAN CORPORATION GRAND ISLAND, NEW YORK REPORT INSPECTION NO.:
99901074/86-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 4 of 5 a.
The inspector reviewed the assembly of a 5017AM2AAA20 type 0-100 psig range pressure transmitter and determined that the appropriate in-process inspections were performed after o.ach manufacturing step.
b.
The inspector reviewed the assembly of 118?AMAAA20 type 0-100 psig ran0e pressure transducer and determined that the appropriate in-process inspections were performed after each manufacturing step.
Random sampling techniques meeting the requirements of the c.
MIL-1050 specification are used to inspect and accept components in the following areas:
(1) Machine parts (2) Roving inspection - all areas (3) Basic subassemblies d.
In the following areas a 100% inspection is required:
(1) Sensors (2)
Finished subassemblies (3) Areas unaccessible at final inspection Procedures were available for the following special processes e.
including inspection requirements:
i (1) Tungsten Inert Gas Welding l
(2) Heat treatment (3) Encapsulation of sensors (4) Strain gauge bending 6.
Control of Measuring Equipment The inspector randomly selected two measuring devices and verified that the established precedure for calibration was being implemented.
In each case, the calibration certificate was current and the prinary cells were calibrated with standards traceable to the National Bureau l
of Standards.
I i
ORGANIZATION: VIATRAN CORPORATION GRAND ISLAND, NEW YORK REPORT INSPECTION N0.:
99901074/86-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 5 of 5 7.
Review of Repaired Items The QC manager tabulates the work performed on repair nf instruments which were returned during the warranty period and subassemblies which were rejected during in-process or final inspections, providing the cause of the rejection and the origin where it occurred. The inspec-tor reviewed the tabulation and determined that there were no repeti-tive failures and that the quantity of errors during assembly is being progressively reduced.
8.
Audits Performed on Viatran The inspector reviewed audits perforred by the following organizations and determined that no unacceptable findings were identified.
Factory Mutual Research, Norwood, Massachusetts performed a.
a survey in March 1986 to verify the design and manufacture of 500-24 series pressure transmitters used at hazardous locations and determined that they are intrinsically safe.
b.
Quality Management Institute, Ontario, Canada audited Viatran on June 27 and 28, 1986 to the reouirements of Canadian Standard Z299.3-1979 and identified ro adverse findings, c.
Northrup Corporation, Electronics division, Hawthorne, California, audited Viatran in January 1986 and determined that Viatran's progran meets their specification 500-1 level 2 requirements, which is the equivalent to MILQ-9858A.
d.
Bell Aerospace, Buffalo, New York audited Viatran on January 24, 1985 and identified no adverse findings.
E.
Exit Interview The inspector met with Viatran representatives mentioned in Section F l
and discussed the scope of the inspection and findings.
F.
Persons Contacted r
l D. Joslyn, President L. Lilian, Quality Centrol Manager l
{
-v.
f o
UNITED STATES
~'
y*
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
g i
WASHtNGTON. D. C. 20656
/
December 23, 1986 Decket No. 99900837/86-01 Tobar Inc.
ATTN: Mr. T. Fisher President and General Manager 1441 West Alameda Tempe, Arizona 85282 Gentlemen:
This refers to the inspection conducted by K. R. Naidu of this office on November 3-5, 1986, of your facility at Tempe, Arizona and to the discussions nf our findings with you and members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
The purpose of this inspection was to verify that the corrective action outlined in your letters dated May 24 and June 7,1984 to noncompliances identified during an inspection conducted on April 9-13, 1984 have been implemented, to obtain additional infonnation on the Veritrak transmitters which have exhibited setpoint drift problems, and to verify the implementation of your quality assurance program in selected areas.
Areas examined during the inspection and our findings are discussed in the enclosed report. Within these areas, the inspection con-sisted of an examination of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector.
The inspection detennined that the Veritrak transmitters supplied to Seabrook were manufactured by Westinghouse and that subsequent tests by Tobar at stabi-lized ambient temperatures indicated that the deviation from the reference accuracy exceeded the acceptance requirements at certain temperatures. These deviations necessitated the replacement of Veritrak transmitters.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Conunission's regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely, O
r obert F. Heishman, Chief Vendor Program Branch Division of Quality Assurance, Vendor and Technical Training Center Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
QQJ lddN C
Inspection Report No. 99900837/86-01 Ip-
ORGANIZATION: TOBAR INC.
TEMPE, ARIZONA REPORT INSPECTION INSPECTION NO.: 99900837/86-01 DATE:
11/3-5/86 ON-SITE HOURS: 40 CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: Tobar, Inc.
ATTN:
T. R. Fisher President 1441 West Alameda Tempe, Arizona 85282 ORGANIZATIONAL CONTACT:
J. H. Murphy TELEPHONE NLPBER:
(602) 968-3171 NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ACTIVITY: Manufactures pressure and differential pressure transmitters.
ASSIGNED INSPECTOR: '
Dvt
/2/9//f
~
K. R. Naidu, Reactive Inspection Section (RIS)
Date OTHER INSPECTOR (5):
R. Moist, Program C tjn n Section r!sc
'2 APPROVED BY:
IS, Vendor Program Branch Date ITITs W. Merschoff, Chie INSPECTION BASES AND SCOPE:
A.
BASES:
10 CFR Part 21 and Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
B.
SCOPE:
Review corrective action taken on nonconformances identified during a previous inspection, obtain additional infctmation on setpoint drift problem identified at Seabrook, verify the implementation of selected portions of the quality assurance program.
PLANT SITE APPLICABILITY:
Seabrook Station (50-443), South Texas Project (50-498).
JLoM24@dW toff
ORGANIZATION: TOBAR INC.
TEMPE, ARIZONA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900837/86-01 RESULTS:
PAGE P of 10 A.
VIOLATIONS:
No violations were identified during this inspection.
B.
NONCONFORMANCES:
No nonconformances were identified during this inspection.
C.
UNRESOLVED ITEMS:
No unresolved items were identified during this inspection.
D.
ACTION TAKEN ON PREVIOUS INSPECTION FINDINGS:
The inspectors reviewed the corrective action on the nonconformances identified durirg an inspection conducted on' April 9-13, 1984 and documented in Inspection Report 99900837/84-01. Tobar's corrective actions wera outlined in their letters dated May 24 and June 7,1984.
1.
(Closed) Nonconformance Item A: The nonconformance identified that contrary to the Tobar Nuclear Quality Progran Procedures
-(NQPP) manual PI-2, page 5-6, Revision 0, the form " Request for Engineering Action" (REA) was baing used prior to the formal approval of the procedure. Tchar representatives stated that due to charge in ownership of the company from Westinghoure to Tobar, they were rewriting the QA manual and precedures with the new owrers name.
During the transition, they were implemerting the program and procedures established by Westinghcuse. The irspectors determined that the REA was approved on July 11, 198a. Review of the REA forms initiated during July-August 1986 indicates that in each instance, the raasen for action and the action taken were stated including the necessary signatures with dates.
2.
(Closed) Nonconformance Item B: The nonconformance identified that contrary to the Tobar NQPP manual PI-?, page 18-7, Revision 0, the Annual Internal Audit Report (AIAR), dated October 1983, was not signed by the Product Integrity Marager (PIM) ar.d did not identify the General Manager as recipient. As stated in Tobar letter dated June 7, 1984, the format has been revised and the AIAR is addressed to the General Marager and signed by the PIM. Paview of the AIARs corducted in 1984 and 1985 indicate that the procedure was implemented.
ORGANIZATION: TOBAR INC.
TEMPE, ARIZONA REPORT INSPECTION N0.: 99900837/86-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 3 cf 10 3.
Nonconformance Item C: The nonconformance identified that contrary to the NQPP manuel PI-2 Section 18 titled Audits, page 31, Revision 1, the Tobar employee who performed the October 1983 internal audit of the areas of " Purchased Material Inspection" and
" Products Integrity Program" was not trained ir all five steps of training and was not certified. As stated in Tobar letter dated June 7, 1984, Tobar sent two empicyees in 1984 to GA Techrelogies in San Diego, California for training in audits. The inspectors reviewed the certificates for these two individuals and determined them accept-able.
E.
INSPECTION FINDINGS AND OTHER COMMENTS:
1.
Background Information a.
General Tobar Incorporated (Tobar) was establish;d in 1983 by a former employee of Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Westinghouse).
Prior to 1983 Westinghouse manufactured a complete line of panel instruments at this location, including pressure trans-mitters which were known as Veritrak. The Veritrak line of transmitters was originally designed and manufactured by Motorola until 1971. Vestinghouse bought and manufactured the Veritrak lire in 1971 and in 1983 cualified the Veritrak trans-mitters to the reouirements of IEEE 323-1974 and IEEE 344-1P75.
In 1983, Westinghouse transferred the lire of panel instruments to a location in Orrville, Ohio, leaving the facilities to Tcbar.
Tobar marufactures the same lire o' transmitters under the trade rare Tobar model 32, which include gauge prassure transmitters, absolute pressure transmitters, and differential pressure trans-mitters for use in nuclear pcwer plants. Tobar also manufactures a similar line of transmitters for ror-nuclear applications and the model rumbers are distinguished by the prefixes 75 or 56 (instead of 32 for nuclear).
b.
Principle of Operation - Pressure Transmitters The prirciple components in the Tebar Model 3 PA type pressure ard absolute pressure transmitters are the measuring head and the AC amplifier. The measuring head consists of a capsule assembly ard process connection flerge, both welded together as a single unit.
The capsule assembly consists of a diaphram on which has been deposited a bridge network of strain sensitive
.-__---,_--w-,y
ORGANIZATION: TOBAR fNC.
TEMPE, ARIZONA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900837/86-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 4 of 10 resistive elements. The diaphram is electron beam welded to the support and header assemblies. The header assembly con-tains hermetic feed through leads which carry the electrical signal from the diaphram to the amplifier.
The amplifier emplifies the measured signal received and furnishes a proportional 4-20nA cutput signal. An oscilletor/
AC amplifier /demodulator set-up is used to provide stable operation with minimal therral drifts.
c.
Principle of Operation - Differential Pressure Transmitters The principle compenents in the Tobar model 32DP type pressure differential transmitters are the measuring head and the AC amplifier.
The measuring head consists of a differential pressure capsule assembly (capsule) and two process connection flanges.
The capsule consists of a flexure on which has been deposited a bridge network of strain sersitive elements. The flanges are bolted together with the capsule between them. A pressure applied to each flange is transferred as a force to the respective diaphram. The capsule converts the algebraic difference between the two pressures into an electrical sigr.al and provides it to the amplifier.
The amplifier amplifies the received signal and furnishes a proportional 4-20 cA output signal. An oscillator /AC amplifier /
demodulator set-up is used.to previde stable operation with minimal thennal drifts.
2.
Review of 50.55(e) Reports e.
South Texas Project 50.55(e)
On August 1, 1986, Houston Lighting & Power (HLP) the cwrer of South Texas Project Nuclear Power Plant reported that Veritrak l
pressure transmitters ranufactured and supplied by Westirghouse exhibited excessive changes in their accuracy under varying ambient tenperatures.
In a subsequent letter to the NRC dated August 29, 1986, HLP stated that Westinghouse confirmed that Veritrak transmitters which provide input for various Reactor Protection System trip functions, ESF actuation, and post-l l
ORGANIZATION:
TOBAR INC.
TEMPE, ARIZONA REPORT INSPECTION N0.:
99900837/86-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 5 of 10 accident nonitoring, are subject to excessive change in trans-mitter accuracy under varying ambient temperatures. Westinghouse provided the confirmation to HLP based on the results of tests performed on Veritrak transmitters which were supplied to Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant and subsequently returned to Tobar for additional tests, b.
Seabrook Nuclear Pcwer Plant 50.55(e) Report On March 7, 1986, Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH), the owner of Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant (Seabrook), reported
- hat during testing of pressure transmitters, Veritrak type 76PH2, calibration shifts due to ambient temperature changes in excess of the 1% per 100*F specified maximum were recorded.
The transmitters were returned te Westinghouse to analyze the cause and to repair the transmitters.
On June 30, 1986, PSNH reported that they installed Tobar Model 32 type pressure transmitters to replace Veritrak trarsmitters after performing arbient temperature corpersating tests on Tobar transmitters and determining that their ambient terperature compensation shif ts were within Seabrook's allowable technical specification limits.
c.
Sunpary of Discussiens with Tobar Managenent
'he inspectors discussed the performance of Veritrak pressure and differential pressure trarsmitters with Tobar management personnel and determined the following.
1)
The Veritrak absolute pressure trarsnitters (APTs) and differential pressure transt.itters (DPTs) installed et Seabrook and South Texas Project were manufactured by Westinghouse. During the change of owrership from Westinghouse to Tobar, Tobar ccmplated the essembly of selected Veritrak transmitters which were in various stages of assembly.
2)
Tobar performed tenperature compensation tests (TCTs) on 5 APTs and 20 DPTs returred by Westinghouse. These were Veritrak transmitters which had been supplied tc Seabrock.
During these tests, Tobar datermired that 3 APTs, with date cede 8240 (manufactured during the 40th week of 1982),
exhibited a large change in the terpereture coefficient
1 1
~
ORGANIZATION: TOBAR INC.
TEMPE, ARIZONA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900837/86-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 6 of 10 between the time of shipment (as shipped) and the time of tests (as received).
The temperature ccefficient is the change in calibration setpoint with the change in ambient temperature. The date code refers to the maru-facturing date of the sensing capsule. Tobar determined from the records that 3 other Veritrak APTs with date code 8240 had been shipped to Braidwocd Nuclear Pcwer Station.
Tobar arranged for their return and performed similar tests to ascertain whether they also exhibited a large change in temperature coefficient between the as shipped and the as returned condition. The test results indicated that these APTs did exhibit a shift, but not as large as the ones returned from Seabrook.
3)
Tobar performed TCTs on 2 pts, 5 APTs and 8 DPTs manufac-tured by Tobar. The 5 APTs were manufactured durirg the 15th, 16th and 17th week of 1984. The accuracy ranged from -1/2% to +1/8%. The accuracy of all the pts and DPTs were within the specified accuracy for operating terpera-tures (80"F to 130 F) ard accident corditions (280*F).
The accurecy was above the 6% margir at accident conditier (320*F).
3.
Tests Performed on Transmitters Tobar perforced TCTs en Veritrak transmitters returned to them by Vestinghouse and on Tobar transmitters. After the unit was stabi-lized at the temperature, the reference accuracy was established for each transnitter at 80"F, by adjusting the cutputs at 0, 50% and 1007 of the input per range. The accuracies were verified subsequently at 130*F, 280*F, and 320*F.
At each of these temperatures, the unit was soaked for at least 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> to attain then al stabilization. The temperature cycle used to verify the accuracy fnr each unit was 80 F-130*F-80*F-130*F-80"F-280 F-320"F-80 F.
The deviations from the reference accuracy were recorded. A surrary o' the results are as follows:
a.
The deviations from the reference accuracy in a population of 25 Veritrak transmitters manufactured and stored over 1 year exhibited a standard deviatier of approxirately 5%.
l l
l
ORGANIZATION: TOBAR INC.
TEMPE, ARIZONA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900837/86-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 7 cf 10 J
b.
The above test results were compared with the test results recorded during the environmertal qualification terts performed in 1983 to qualify Veritrak transmitters to IEEE 323-1974.
The final test results obtaired after the Veritrak transmitters were artifically aged, irradiated, and subjected to loss of coolant accidert (LOCA) also exhibited a 5% standard deviation.
It must be noted that the 5% standard deviation is a statistically derived deviation and individual units may exhibit a larger deviation.
For instance, the output of one of the units prepared for environmental qualification test exceeded the permissible 6*
deviation at 320 F stabilized temperature. However, the outputs of all transmitters were within 6% deviation during the entire LOCA simulation.
c.
Three of the Veritrak APTs returned by Westinghouse with manu-facturing date code 8240 exhibited a large change in temperature coefficient between the time of shipment and the time of testing.
d.
The deviation from the reference accuracy in a population of 13 Tobar transmitters ranufactured and stored for more than one year exhibited a 1% standard deviation. At 280*F stabilized temperature, for all transmitters, the outputs were within the 6% deviation limits. At 320"F stabili:ed temperature, one unit exhibited a 6.5% deviation. The original test records indicate that the deviation was balnw 6%.
e.
Recently manufactured Tobar transmitters exhibited a 1% standard deviation in steady state accuracy at 4 different ambient temperatures.
f.
The inspectors observed that there is no correlation between the results obtained during stabilized condition at 320 F elevated temperature ard the output results during a simulated LOCA.
During LOCA, the 320*F elevated temperature is briaf (only a few seconds) after which the temperature drops. There-fore, the output deviation beyond 6% cbserved during the 320"F steadystate temperature should not affect the performance of the transnitters under LOCA conditions.
Furthermore, the calibration of the units in place are not verifiable at 320*F, because 320*F steadystr.te temperature canrot he generated and maintained inside the containment.
\\
.,. - - -. _ _ _ ~ - - - -,
m
ORGANIZATION: TOBAR INC.
TEMPE, ARIZONA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900837/86-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 8 of 10 4.
Procurement Document Control The NRC inspectors verified the irplementation of the established procurenent document control by review of 5 purchase orders relating to transistors, resistors, capacitors, sensing elements, and printed circuit boards used in manufacturing Tobar transmitters. The NRC inspectors determined that Tobar purchased material from manufac-turers listed on the Approved Vendor List, that applicable quality requirements including revision levels were referenced, and that the manager of prcduct integrity signed and dated purchase ordars after the review cycle.
5.
Document Control The NRC inspectnrs verified the implenertation of document control by reviewing 5 drawings pertaining to transistors, capacitors, sensing elements, resistors, and printed circuit boards used in manufacturirg Tobar transmitters. The inspector determined that the drawirgs were reviewed and approved; that drawing chargas were approved and that the master drawing file including status records, revision notices, and the original drawing was being maintained in accordance with established procedures.
The NRC inspectors also reviewed the established procedures for preparing ard controlling the Product Integrity Nuclear Quality Program Procedures Manual. The NRC inspectors determined that the manual was being distributed, controlled, reviewed, and approved in accordance with established procedures.
6.
Control of Purchased Material, Equipment and Services The NRC inspectors verified the implementation of the control of purchased material by reviewirg racords such as purchase orders, drawings, inspection plans, data cards, test reports and certi-fications relating to transistors, resisters, capacitors, sensing elements and printed circuit boards.
The NRC inspector verified that the vendors were on the Approved Verdor List, that the inspection plan listed the attributes to be inspected such as visual, dimensional, testirg as determined by the drawing, that the inspector annotated acceptarce/rejectier of the material on the inspection plan, that a sampling plan was used, the proper revision of the drawing was used, that material certification was on file, and that the test data was in the file when required.
ORGANIZATION: TOBAR INC.
TEMPE, ARIZONA REPORT INSPECTION N0.: 99900837/86-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 9 cf 10 The inspectors determired that the sensors are manufactured in West Germany. Tobar sends the parts for the diaphrams (for pts) and flexures (DPTs) and the manufacturar returns the mater.a1 with the depcsited strain guage. Specifically, for a DPT, the metal volume filler and header nade of stainless steel are sent to Gemany. A molybdenium 138 flexure beam is welded to the header and the volume filler is welded to the header. Both welds are performed by electron beam. A printed circuit is applied to the volume filler, lead bonds are attached from the deposited flexure to the printed circuit and connections are made to the header pins. The manufacturer performs electrical tests to determine acceptability. Tobar verifies the operability during receipt inspections.
8.
Nonconformino Materials, Parts, or Components The NRC inspecters verified the implementation of nonconforming material by reviewing Discrepant Material Disposition Reports (DMDP) initiated at receiving inspection. Of the DMDRs reviewed, the NRC inspectors determined that proper disposition of the naterial war taken by Tobar, that the DMDRs were corcurrently signed by the appropriate parsonnel, that appropriate corrective action was taken, and that control of nonconformirg material was being implemented.
9.
Inprocess Inspections The inspectors observed work in progress and partially completed in-process travellers on which in-process inspection results are docurerted. Selected travellers were verified to have traceability to the partially assembled parts. The inspectors observed the following in-precess inspections that were being performed or differential pressure capsules and that the Tobar QC inspector sigred-off indicating that the workmanship was acceptabla.
The formed diaphrams which enclose the capsule were visually a.
irspected for deform 4 ties.
b.
The wire leads soldered to the header pir and the flexure assembly were inspected for workrarship.
c.
A leak chack test was performed on the flange /diaphram
- asserbly, d.
The serial number of the assembly was recorded.
l l
l
ORGANIZATION: TOBAR 1NC.
TEMPE, ARIZONA e
i REPORT INSPECTION MO.:
99900837/86-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 10 of 10 The solder on the header wirirg was visually inspected.
e.
f.
A leak check test was perforned on the header / body tube and body tube / base.
g.
The capsule assembly was to be electrically tested for zero balance and activity.
A traveller was available with sinilar inspection attributes for inprocess inspections for pressure capsules.
F.
EXIT INTERVIEW:
The inspectors ret with individuals identified in section G and discusted the scope and findings et the conclusion of the inspection.
G.
PERSONS CONTACTED:
T. R. Fisher, President and General Manager E. J. Miller, Vice President Engineering J. H. Murphy, Product Integrity Assurance Manager I
e l
_ _ _ _