Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Comparative Analysis of Qa Systems
Comparative Analysis of Qa Systems
Comparative Analysis of Qa Systems
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
OF QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEMS
WHICH EFFECTIVELY CONTROL,
REVIEW AND VERIFY THE QUALITY
OF COMPONENTS MANUFACTURED
FOR LIQUID METAL COOLED
FAST BREEDER REACTORS WITHIN THE
Report
EUR 10123 EN
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
OF QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEMS
WHICH EFFECTIVELY CONTROL,
REVIEW AND VERIFY THE QUALITY
OF COMPONENTS MANUFACTURED
FOR LIQUID METAL COOLED
FAST BREEDER REACTORS WITHIN THE EEC
FINAL REPORT
This work was performed under the Commission of the European Communities study
contract RAP-014-81-UK for the Working Group Codes and Standards and for the
Activity Group 1 "Manufacturing Standards" within the Fast Reactor Coordinating
Committee.
LEGAL NOTICE
Neither the Commission of the European Communities nor any person acting on behalf
of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following
information
and
SYNOPSIS
A comparative analysis of quality assurance systems which effectively control, review and
verify the quality of components manufactured for liquid metal cooled fast breeder reactors within
the EEC.
It also includes an examination of the classification of component parts, destructive and non-
destructive controls applied to components and typical records produced at the delivery of a
component.
Comparative analyses are made of Quality Assurance Systems, by techniques and the
methodology used, foi the manufacture of component parts fur the Liquid Metal Cooled Kisl Breedei
Reactor (LMFBR) within the EEC.
First, a tabulated analytical treatment which analyses 14 codes and standards relating to Quali
ty Assurance which can be applied to LMFBR's The comparison equates equivalent clauses bet
ween codes and standards on Table 3, followed by an analysis of individual clauses in tabular form,
Tables No. 4 to 2 1 . the International Standard ISO 6215 1980(E) entitled "Nuclear Power Plant
Quality Assurance" being used as a reference base using 18 criteria.
A statistical summary and recommendations conclude this analysis.
The second alternative system used in the comparison is a descriptive analytical method applied
to 9 selected codes and standards relating to Quality Assurance based on the 13 criteria of the
International IAEA Code of Practice No. 50 C Q A entitled "Quality Assurance for Safety in Nuclear
Power Plants". This alternative system is contributed by NERATOOM.
An investigation is then made of the state of the art on the subject of classification of com
ponent parts bearing generally on Quality Assurance. The method of classification is segregated
into General, Safety and Inspection categories.
A summary of destructive and non destructive controls that may be applied during the
manufacture of LMFBR components is given, together with tests that may be applied to selected
components, namely Primary Tank, Secondary Sodium Pump and the Primary Cold Trap allocated
to Safety Classes, 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
The report concludes with a summary of typical records produced at the delivery of a
component.
The Study is carried out in conjunction with NERATOOM to Agreement No. 4R 54446B bet
ween the UKAEA and NERATOOM.
CONTENTS
Page
PART 1
SECTION A - GENERAL
Introduction 7
Scope 7
General Preamble 7
Recommendations 59
Page
Comparative analysis 61
Criterion 1 Introduction * 62
2 Quality assurance programmes 64
3 Organisation 68
4 Document control 72
5 Design control 74
6 Procurement control 79
7 Material control 82
8 Process control 83
9 Inspection and test control 84
10 Non-conformance control 90
11 Corrective actions 92
12 Records 93
13 Audits 95
Summary of analysis 97
Conclusions 97
Recommendations for further work 99
APPENDIX A: IAEA SAFETY GUIDES SUPPORTING 5 0 C-QA 100
B: NRC REGULATORY GUIDES SUPPORTING 10CFR50 101
APPENDIX
C: ANSI QUALITY ASSURANCE STANDRDS 102
SUPPORTING ANSI 45.2
D: CSA N286 SERIES OF STANDARDS 103
PART 2
SECTION A - GENERAL
Introduction
1. A study entitled "Qualitative Comparison of National Standards (Manufacture, Test and Quality
Standards) which are used for the construction of Fast Reactors in Belgium, France, Germany, Great
Britain, Italy and the Netherlands" Report No. INTAT-77.73 was made by "Internationale
Atomreaktorban GMBH of Bergish - Gladback 1 (Bensberg) in June 1977 for the commission of
the European Communities, Fast Reactor Co-ordinating Committee, Working Group, Codes and Stan-
dards, activity Group No. 1, Manufacturing Standards, Reference No. X11/1105/79.
2. Subject No. 1 of the above study, subtitled "Qualification of Manufacturer's Works" was
sub-divided into sections, one of which No. 1.4, "Quality Assurance System", forms the subject
of this study.
3. The codes and standards for Quality Assurance Systems itemised and analysed under Sec-
tion 1.4 are minimal in number. This study purports to analyse the subject of Quality Assurance
Systems applied to LMFBR components over a much broader spectrum and in greater detail, cover-
ing practices in all the countries which are signatories to the CEC and other relevant countries.
Scope
4. The following description of this study scheme is extracted from the contract document bet-
ween the European Atomic Energy Community and the UKAEA.
"The subject selected for the study is to compare, where possible, Quality Assurance
Systems, which effectively control, review and verify the quality of the components
manufactured for fast reactors within the EEC.
A comparison will be made by reference to the various Quality Assurance Systems
in use within the manufacturing organisation of the EEC for carrying out Quality Con-
trol of LMFBR Components. It will include a comparison of the types and frequency
of destructive and non-destructive controls'during manufacture of the constitutive parts
of FBR Components. The study will also cover a comparison of records produced at
the delivery of the components.
The comparison will cover those structures, systems and components that are specific
to LMFBRs, namely those in contact with sodium, sodium varour or blanket gases.
The replaceable in-core components such as fuel elements and control rods will be
excluded.
Differences between various QA systems will be identified and evaluated."
5. The study is in 2 parts. The first analyses the multiplicity of codes and standards published
internationally and for committees of the CEO Cpdes and standards originating from the USA and
Canada are also included where these are either used in the CEC countries, referred to in the national
specifications or are being considered for use in the future.
6. The second part studies Quality Assurance Systems applied to selected structures, systems
and components that are specific to LMFBR's which are in contact with sodium, sodium vapour
or blanket gases. This will include a comparison of the types and frequency of destructive and non-
destructive testing and a comparison of records produced at the delivery of the components.
General preamble
7. This study is stated to be specifically for the study of Quality Assurance Systems applied
to the manufacture of LMFBR components. No national or international codes or standards are publish-
ed relating solely to the construction of LMFBR's. Numerous codes and standards are published,
however, relating to Quality Assurance applied to nuclear reactors in general, and also specifically
to thermal neutron reactors. These codes and standards are analysed in the following paragraphs
since they can be applied directly to LMFBR components or could form the basis for national stan-
dards that will be produced in the future.
8. A standard closely allied to Quality Assurance for LMFBR's has been published by the American
Nuclear Society in draft form No. ANS 54.6, published in October 1979 entitled "Proposed American
National Standard, LMFBR Safety Classification and Related Requirements", comments on which
will be made in Section F.
9. The emphasis in all quality assurance documents is that of safety of the reactor. Various stan
dards on quality assurance state that different levels of quality assurance may be applied to com-
ponents depending upon the safety and economic implications on the reactor in the event of failure
of the component. Details of these levels are not spelt out in the majority of specifications w i t h
the one exception of the Canadian Standard - CSA Standard Z2991 - 1978 entitled "Quality
Assurance Programme Requirements" which is the most comprehensive of 4 quality assurance pro-
gramme standards.
10. There is a subtle difference in the meaning and application of quality assurance between the
USA and Europe. The American definition of quality assurance is " a l l planned and systematic ac
tions to give sufficient assurance that plant and equipment will be reliable in use. The European
tendency is to define it, as "all activities taken together w i t h the aim of supplying assurance and
proof that the whole quality control process has been carried out efficiently".
Section A
SECTION
A list of codes and standards by countries used in this analysis is given below together with
a brief note of their use and limitations.
10 Section
It also includes 5 appendices dealing in turn with ways of applying this document
to the manufacture of mechanical products, ways in which the Inspector's task
is performed, inspection documents, departure (MUTI specification mu\ a quality
.is,in,mi : | ' , < ' loi by :.ub u n i t i l i . l o i s
11 Section
It covers quality assurance from scope and applicability to audits and particularly
for the construction, fabrication, manufacture and installation of the aforementioned
classes of items.
It includes eighteen system functions from organisation to audits.
(xiv) ANS 54.6 - Proposed American National Standard (Draft) LMFBR Safety Classifica
tion and related requirements
The pertinent requirement of Appendix to 10CFR Part 50, "Quality Criteria for
Nuclear Power Plants" and ANSI N 4 5 . 2 1 9 7 1 , "Quality Assurance Programme
Requirement for Nuclear Power Plants" are applicable to all activities affecting the
safety related functions of structures, systems, components or parts thereof, which
fall within the scope of this standard which is written specifically for loop type
LMFBRs, but may be interpreted to include pool type LMFBRs.
This standard gives four safety classes for mechanical components in ascendine)
order of relaxation, the classes based on ASME BPVC Section III and associated
code cases for higher temperatures.
(xv) RDT-F2 2 Quality Assurance Programme Requirements
This Standard is issued by the US Energy Research and Development Administra
tion, Division of Reactor Research and Development. The Standard sets forth
general requirements for planning, managing, conducting and evaluating QA pro
grammes for reactor development and test facility projects and systems.
The Standard is divided into eight sections covering Design through Operation. It
is being applied in the US to fast reactor technology.
This Standard is not on general publication.
Canadian Standards
(xvi) CSA Preliminary Standards
N286.0 - 1978 Quality Assurance Program Requirements for Nuclear Power
Plants (first tier)
N286.1 1979 - Procurement Quality Assurance for Nuclear Power Plants
(second tier)
N286.2 - 1979 Design Quality Assurance for Nuclear Power Plants (second
tier).
This series of standards covers Quality Assurance requirements for Nuclear Power
Plants from design and procurement through to decommissioning. Only the first
3 standards are referred to here since this study is limited to the manufacture of
LMFBR Components.
Second tier Quality Assurance of the actual making of the components is covered
in the CSA Standard Z299 series.
These standards include 8 general system functions from scope to quality assurance
records. The design standards include non mandatory appendices covering design
quality assurance processes model, design input and procedures lists and a design
review list.
These standards cover Nuclear Power Plant in general.
All three standards quoted above are analysed in this report.
(xvii) CSA Standard Z299.1 1978 Quality Assurance Program Requirements.
Quality Program Category No. 1 analysed
in this report.
CSA Standard Z299.2 1978 Quality Assurance Program Requirements.
Quality Program Category No. 2.
CSA Standard Z299.3 1978 Quality Assurance Program Requirements.
Quality program Category No. 3.
12 Section
CSA Standard Z299.4 1978 Quality Assurance Program Requirements.
Quality Program Category No. 4 .
This standard covers four quality programme standards of ascending order of
simplicity. The programme is selected by applying six evaluation factors from
design, manufacturing complexity, safety and economies to the component or plant.
It covers quality assurance from design through to construction.
It includes eighteen system functions lioin contract review to corrective action.
It also includes scope of general applicability, audit and quality programme
document.
This is a general standard, based on the requirements of the electrical power genera
tion industry.
Standard No. Z299.1 is analysed in detail in this report.
(a) A summary of the legal status of the codes and standards related to quality assurance
analysed in this report, referred t o the country of origin, is given in Table 1 , which is
correct at the time of writing.
TABLE 1
Status of codes and standards relating to quality assurance
in the country of origin
COMPARISON
COUNTRIES CRITERIA NATIONAL STATUTORY NATIONAL INTERNATIONAL
GUIDE BY CODE CODE OR
CODE OR LAW OR STANDARD
STANDARD STANDARD
International IS06215
IAEA 50-C-QA
UK BS5882 /
BS5750 Pt 1 /
NII/R/38/78 /
FRANCE A/44 /
CPQ
CNEN TECHNICAL
ITALY GUIDE NO 8
GQ-7 /
13 Section B
Definite meanings of status columns of Table 1
(b) National Guide
A National Guide is a guide of information produced by the licencing authority of the
country concerned which identifies guide lines around which the requirements to satisfy
the licencing authority are based.
(c) Statutory by-law
Documents classified as statutory by law must be complied w i t h as legal requirements
in the country concerned. These legal requirements, enacted by legislation, are man
datory and enforced by government appointed inspectors or surveyors without whose
approval the specified work or operations are not allowed to proceed.
(d) National Code or Standard
A National Code or Standard is a document usually produced by a central standardisa
tion organisation of the country concerned, which specifies standard requirements to
be met by plant, components or services as called for by a contractor or other deman
ding organisation. The aim of the document is to foster standardisation of nominated
items or services throughout the country.
(e) International Code or Standard
An International Code or Standard is a document produced by a consortium of nations
which specifies standard requirements to be met by plant, components or services as
called for by a contractor or other demanding organisation. The aim of the document
is to foster standardisation of nominated items or services internationally between na
tions. It cannot be modified except by international agreement.
14 Section
3. a
Cl ssific
a tion of codes a nd sta nda rds a ccording to nuclea r a pplica tion
The classification of the codes and standards relating to quality assurance used in this analysis
according to the characteristic application or not to nuclear components is given in Table 2. No codes
or standard are available that deal w i t h quality assurance applied to L MFBR components only.'
TABLE 2
Classification of codes and standards
relating to quality assurance according to nuclear application
(i) () (iii)
COUNTRIES CATEGORIES APPLICATION TO APPLICATION TO APPLICATION TO
SPECIFIC LMFBR NUCLEAR NON-NUCLEAR
CODE OR COMPONENTS COMPONENTS COMPONENTS
STANDARD GENERALLY
International IS06215 / / XX
IAEA50-C-QA X / X
UK BS5882 / / X
BS5750 Pt I XX XX /
NII/R/38/78 / / X
FRANCE A/44 / XX X
CPQ
1b Section B
4. Identification of clauses between codes and standards
Table 3 has been ili.iwn up to show the coiielation ol simil.ii named clauses between the
codes and standards relating to quality assurance used in this analysis.
The description and order of the clauses is based on ISO 6 2 1 5.
16 Section
SECTION
TABLE 3
Comparative ta ble of similar na med cla uses between codes a nd sta nda rds
relating to quality a ssura nce
PRELIMINARY
00 M
GUIDE NO 8
SECTION
NIIMIIKR
r~ M
TECHNICAL
.
STANDARD
STANDARD
m v.
ITALIAN
S \IM 3 5
N286.1
S-
286.0
Z299.1
286.2
( co
l
CNEN
m * t a. H in
8 <
CSA
CSA
in u
u
M *
S
S3
M
3z sa EC
1 Introduction 0 1 Foreword 0 Page 3 1 Intro Preface Preface Introduction 1-1 0
2 op 1 1.2 0.1 1 1 1.1 4110 1. 1 1 1-3 0.1 1
3 Applicability 1.2 4110 1.2 1-2 0.3 1.3
; <*-iponslblllty 3 1.3 0.3 1.3 3.1 1.3 3 1-4 0.2 2.
5 Uflnltiona 4 0.4 3 2.2 1.4 4120 2. 2 2 0.5 0.
6 ifereaced DocuunC* 2 1.5
7 Language 2 2.1 0.2 g
8 0-^allty Assurance Programe 5.1 2.1 1 4.1/4.3/4.4 2.3 2.0 2 4134.2 S 3.1 3 II-l.l 2
9 Organisation 3.2 3 2 4.2/4.19 2.1 3 1 4134.1 3.3 3.2 4 11-1.2 1 3
10
10.1
design Control
Cenerai
3.3
5.3.1
5
5.1
3
3.1
4.8 2.5
2.5.1
4
4.1
3 4134.3 prfi 4 . 01286.2)
4.1
3.5.2 5
5.1
II-2.2
II-2.2(a)
3 4
10.2 Interface Control 5.3.2 5.2 3.2 4.8(d) 4.2 4.6.5 4.3 II-2.2(b)
10.3
10.4
Design V e r i f i c a t i o n
Cr.ang Control
5.3.3
5.3.4
5.3
5.4
3.3
3.4
*-8(J)
4.9
2.5.5
2.5.6
4.3
4.4 * 5.
4.9
5.4
5.5
II-3.1 2.2(c)
II-2.2(d)
4.1.2
4.4
11 Procurement Document Control 5.4 6.1 4 4.11.2 2.6.2/5 5 4 4134.4
P
M
4.2(1286.1) 3.5.5(b) 5.2 II-2.3 4 3.
12 Instructions, Procaduraa e Drawinga 5.5 2.2 5 4.5 6 5 4134.5 n S 4.8(H286.2) 3.4.3 5.3/7 5
13 Document Control 5.6 4 6 4.9 2.4 7 6 4134.6 SS 4.2(H286.1) 3.5.3 5.4/3.5/5.6 I1-1.4 6 3.
14 Control of Purchaaed Material II-2.3(b) 7
Equipment & Service 5.7 6.3 7 4.11 8 7 4134.7 a
>* 4.3(N286.1) 6.1/6.2/6.3 2.4(d)
15 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and Control of
Materiale, Parta & Components 5.8 7.1 4.17 2.7 9 8 4134.8
16 Control of S p a d a i Process 5.9 8 9 4.12.2 2.8 10 9 4134.9
iy 4.4(11286.0) 3.5.10 5.6
6.4
II-2.1 8 7.8
3.5.13 I1-2.4(b) 9
17 Inspection and Surveillance 5.10 9.1 10 4.14/4.15 2.9 11 10 4134.10 3.4.2 5.3/6.4/7 II-3.2 10 6.
18 Test Control 5.11 9.2 11 4.14 12 11 4134.11 3.4.2 7 II-2.5 11 8.
19 Control of Measuring 4 Teat Equipment 5.12 9.3 12 4.10 2.10 13 12 4134.12 4.5(N286.0) 3.5.4 10 II-6 12
20 Handling, Storage t Teat Equipment 5.13 7.2 13 4.18 2.12 14 13 4134.13 4.6(W286.0) 3.5.11 6.3 II-2.4(c) 13
3.5.14
21 Inspection, Teat 4 Operating Statua 5.14 9.4 14 4.17 15 14 4134.14 3.5.9 II-5 14 7.
22 on-ConformIng Items 5.15 10 15 4.16 2.11 16 15 4134.15 7.KN286.1) 3.5.16 11 II-4 15 7.2
23 Corrective Action 5.16 11 16 4.7 17 16 4134.16 7.2(N286.1) 3.5.18 11 II-1.3 16 7.3
24 Quality Assurance Records 5.17 12 17 4.6 2.13 18 17 4134.17 8. (N286.0) 3.5.15 12 II-1.4(b) 17 9/10
23 Audita 5.18 13 18 4.3 2.14 19 18 4134.18 6. (H286.0) 3.3 13 II-1.5 18
17 Section
SECTION C - STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF CODES AND STANDARDS
The following tables purport to examine the individual clauses of the selected codes and stan
dards of quality assurance used in Ibis analysis by dividing each clause into selected criteria and
I . I I M I I . H I I I I I lb complin.on I lie la ir., ha ve been scic l;l to In lite m.ijoiity ol Ib.: sta nda rds, a nd
for then Itinciloiil nnpoi lanci: in lomiini) the specifica tion A bnel description ol lhe criteria is given,
followed by a tabulated analysis of each clause applied to each code or standard.
I In I.ni..:, .imi .men. selected lm th; foundation ol this analysis are in general, based on
the International Standard ISO 6215 which is sub divided into 18 system functions or clauses, ex
cluding the preamble of introduction, scope etc. Each system function represents a separate activity
pertaining to quality assurance. The majority of specifications dealing with quality assurance are
based on these 18 functions, which if not specifically itemised, are included or inferred in the majority
of specifications. The International Standard is used since it cannot be changed or modified unilaterally
nor without adequate notice. It is also fully compatible with the International Atomic Energy Agency
Code of Practice of Quality Assurance for Safety in Nuclear Power Plants IAEA No. 50CQA which
is subdivided into 13 named system functions that include the 18 system functions used in this
analysis.
Nu it) t iiiii| .in:.mi cuten, wen IIII analysis in Un:, MM linn lm li n It' I lii-lnw aie Intel
notes which explain the meaning ot the terms. I able shows how the nteiia aie coven! hy
individual standanls.
1. Establishment of programme
A quality assurance programme shall be established at the earliest practicable time consis
tent w i t h the schedule for implementing the activities associated with a specific project or consti
tuent activity.
The programme shall ensure the implementation of the various activities associated with a
specific project and shall include the methods of assuring that the plant items and services are sup
plied in accordance with the specified requirement.
19
3. Organisational structure
The programme shall define responsibility, levels of authority and the internal and/or external
interface arrangements of the personnel and organisations involved.
4. Language
The programme shall identify the items and services to which the standard applies. Since
items and services will differ in regard to relative safety, reliability and performance, importance,
various methods or levels of control and verification may be used to assure adequate quality.
Factors to be considered are as follows:
(a) Consequences of failure of the item
(b) Design complexity of the item
(c) Special surveillance over processes and equipment
(d) Degree that functional compliance can be demonstrated by inspection or test
(e) Quality history and standardisation of the item
(f) Difficulty of repair or in-service inspection.
6. Provision of documentation
The programme shall provide for documents such as plans, procedures and instructions and
compliance with standards codes and practices.
7. Training
The programme shall provide for training and qualification for personnel performing activities
affecting quality.
8. Controlled conditions
The programme shall provide for activities affecting quality to be carried out under suitably
controlled conditions which include the use of appropriate equipment, such as processes, best equip-
ment or tools.
The programme shall provide for the regular review of the Quality Assurance programme by
management of organisations participating.
20 Section C
TABLE 4
Table Section No. 8 Quality Assurance Programme
COMPARISON
COUNTRIES CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
CODE OR
STANDARD
CNEN TECHNICAL
ITALY GUIDE NO 8 / - / / / / /
GQ-7 / / / - / / / /
21 Section C
Table Section No. 9 - Organisation
Nine comparison criteria were selected for analysis in this section. Included below are brief
notes which explain the meaning of the terms. Table 5 shows how the criteria are covered by
individual standards.
1. Organisational structure
Should be documented with clearly defined functional responsibilities and lines of communica-
tion for management.
3. Assignment of responsibility
Quality objectives are attained by those w h o have been assigned responsibility for perform-
ing work (for example, the designer, welder etc.).
4. Verification of conformance
Is accomplished by those who do not have direct responsibility for performing the work (for
example, design reviewer, inspector etc.).
5. Delineation of authority
The authority and duties of persons and organisations responsible for quality shall be delineated
in writing.
Persons performing the quality assurance functions of ensuring that the programme is
established and effectively executed, and verifying that activities have ben correctly performed shall
have authority and organisational freedom to implement solutions to quality problems. They shall
control non-conforming items until proper dispositioning has occurred.
Persons performing quality assurance functions shall report to a management level of required
authority and organisational freedom from cost and schedule considerations.
8. Organisational interfaces
Where multiple organisations are involved, the responsibility to each organisation shall be
clearly documented. Communications between organisations shall be by means of appropriate
documents.
22 Section C
9. Staffing and training
Personnel performing activities affecting quality shall have the appropriate education and/or
training and/or experience for performing the assigned tasks.
Where training is applied, it shall ensure that suitable proficiency is achieved and maintained.
TABLE 5
Table Section No. 9 - Organisation
COMPARISON
COUNTRIES CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
CODE OR
STANDARD
UK BS5882 / / / / / / / / /
BS5750 PT 1 / 0 0 0 - - 0
NII/R/38/78 - / / - 0 0
23 Section C
Table Section No. 1 0 - Design Control
Ten comparison criteria were selected for analysis in this section. Included below are brief
notes which explain the meaning of the terms. Table 6 shows how the criteria are covered by in-
dividual standards.
Control measures shall be established to ensure that specified design requirement such as
regulatory requirements, codes and standards are correctly translated into specifications, drawings
or written instructions.
The design control measures shall provide for design analysis; evaluation of accessibility for
in-service inspection, maintenance and repair and delineation of acceptance criteria for inspections
and tests.
4. Comptability of items
A review for the suitability of application and compatibility of items for the essential func-
tioning of the plant shall be established.
To facilitate assessment by technical personnel other than those executing the original design.
Design control measures to control design interfaces and for co-ordination among participating
design organisations. These measures will also include procedures for controlling documents involving
design interfaces.
7. Design verification
Measures for verifying the adequacy of design such as by design reviews, alternative
calculating methods or by a testing programme. This shall be carried out by persons other than those
who executed the original design, but who may be from the same organisation.
24 Section C
8. Test progra mme for design verifica tion
This shall include suitable testing under the most adverse design conditions or under condi
tions that can be extrapolated. If the testing shows that modifications are necessary, the item shall
be retested to assure satisfactory performance.
9. Document
a tion of design cha nges
Procedures shall be provided for effecting design changes including onsite changes.
10. Approv
a l of design cha nges
Design changes shall be subjected to the original design control measures, and shall be
reviewed and approved in the same manner as the original design documents. Where this is not
piai tical other responsible design oiganisalions may bo designated, provided that they have access
to peilinent background inloinialiun, have demonstrated competence in the specific design aiea
and have adequate understanding of the original design.
TABLE 6
Table Section No. 10 Design Control
COMPARISON
COUNTRIES CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CODE OR
STANDARD
UK BS5882 / / / / / / /
BS5750 Pt 1 0 / - 0 - 0 0
NII/R/38/78 / -/ - /
25 Section C
Table Section No. 1 1 - Procurement Document Control
Eleven comparison criteria were selected for anlaysis in this section. Included below are brief
notes which explain the meaning of the terms. Table 7 shows how the criteria are covered by in
dividual standards.
Measures shall be established and documented to ensure that design bases, standards and
other requirements necessary to assure adequate quality are clearly specified in the procurement
documents.
Procurement requirements for assuring quality shall include the following:
Provisions for access to plant facilities for source inspection surveillance and audit purposes
when required.
8. Timing of submittal
Provisions shall be made for the controlled distribution, retention, maintenance and disposi-
tion of quality assurance records.
26 Section C
10. Itopoiting ol non t m l o i n u n i >>
Requirements for reporting non confoimances that reiluin pumhnsei s approvai knowledge
Provisions for extending procurement documents to lower tier suppliers, including purchaser's
access to facilities and records.
TABLE 7
COMPARISON
COUNTRIES CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
CODE OR
STANDARD
UK BS5882 / / / / / / / / /
BS5750 Ptl 0 / / - / -
Nil/R/38/78 0 - 0 0 - -0 - 0
USA ANSI/ASME N45.2 / - / / / 0 - - / / /
10CFR50 APP / 0 -
NCA4000 0 0 0 0 0
ASME-BPV-III
27 Section C
Table Section No. 1 2 - Instruction, Procedure and Drawings
Five comparison criteria were selected for analysis in this section. Included below are brief
notes which explain the meaning of the terms. Table 8 shows how the criteria are covered by in-
dividual standards.
Where applicable, instructions or drawings shall include appropriate quantitative criteria such
as dimensions, tolerances or operating limits for determining quality compliance.
3. Comparative samples
Where appropraite, instructions may include comparative workmanship samples for deter-
mining satisfactory work performance and quality compliance.
Procedures for implementing the quality assurance programme on a planned and systematic
basis for different phases of the nuclear power project shall be developed and documented by the
organisation performing the constituent activities.
5. Revision of procedures
The procedure shall periodically be reviewed and updated as necessary to ensure adequate
coverage of those activities.
28 Section C
TABLE 8
I able Section No. 12 Instructions, procedutes and drawings
COMPARISON
COUNTRIES CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5
CODE OR
STANDARD
International ISO 6 2 1 5 / / /
IAEA 50-C-QA / 0 0 /
UK BS5882 / / /
BS57 5 0 0 0 / 0 -
NII/R/38/78
29 Section C
Table Section No. 1 3 - Document Control
Six comparison ciiteria were selected for analysis in this section. Included below are brief
notes which explain the meaning of the terms. Table 9 shows how the criteria are covered by
individual standards.
1. Document preparation
The preparation and issue of documents for performing and verifying the work shall be con-
trolled. This includes the identification of individuals or organisations responsible for reviewing and
issuing documents related to activities affecting quality.
The reviewing and approving organisation or individuals shall have access to pertinent
background information upon which to base their review or approval.
Documents shall be released through an established system, which shall ensure that those
participating in an activity use appropriate and correct documents.
Information on the revision of documents shall be relayed to all affected persons and organisa-
tions to control and preclude the use of non-applicable documents. The change shall be identified
on the document and when more than one item is affected they shall be clearly identified.
30 Section C
TABLE 9
Table Section No. 13 - Document Control
COMPARISON
COUNTRIES CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 6
CODE OR
STANDARD
UK BS5882 / / / / /
BS5750 Pt 1 0 - 0 -0 0
NII/R/38/78 0 -0
USA ANSI/ASME N45.2 / / / /
10CFR50 APP / 0- -0
NCA4000 0 -0
ASME-BPV-III
31 Section C
Table Section N o . 1 4 - Control of Purchased Material Equipment and Services
Six comparison criteria were selected for analysis in this section. Included below are brief
notes which explain the meaning of the terms. Table 10 s h o w s how the criteria are covered by
individual standards.
Controls shall be effected to ensure that purchased items conform to the requirements set
d o w n in the procurement documents. These controls include supplier evaluation, inspection during
manufacture and upon delivery, audit etc.
Access shall be provided by the supplier to enable the above controls to be implemented.
The effectiveness of the suppliers control of quality activities shall be assessed by the pur-
chaser at intervals consistent w i t h the importance, complexity and quality of the product.
This shall include the suppliers technical capability and documented quality system, use of
past quality performance data or previous evaluation, the suppliers current quality records, or evalua-
tion of selective product sample.
This shall be available at the nuclear plant site prior to installation. The evidence shall identify
all requirements met by the purchased material and equipment.
6. Archive samples
These shall be retained at an agreed location for an agreed retention time t o provide means
for further examination as necessary.
32 Section C
TABLE 10
Table Section No. 14 - Control of Purchased Material Equipment and Services
COMPARISON
COUNTRIES CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 6
CODE OR
STANDARD
UK BS5882 / / / /
BS57 59 PT 1 0 00 00
NII/R/38/78 / -
33 Section C
Table Section No. 1 5 - Identification and Control of Materials, Parts and Components
Four comparison criteria were selected for analysis in this section. Included below are brief
notes which explain the meaning of lhe terms. Table 11 shows how the criteria ate covered by
individual standards.
These shall be established for the identification and control of items throughout fabrication,
erection, installation and use. Identification shall be maintained by heat number, part number, serial
number, supplier's name or other appropriate means, either on the item or on records throughout
manufacture and use. Documents shall be available throughout these stages.
This shall be used to the maximum extent possible. Where it is impracticable, physical separa-
tion, procedural control or other means shall be used. Identification measures shall be used to pre
vent the use of incorrect or defective items.
Where these are employed, they shall be clear and indelible and will not affect the function
of the item. They shall not be hidden by surface treatment or coatings, and shall be transferred to
each part of an item when it is sub-divided.
34 Section C
TABLE 11
Table Section No. 15 Identification and control of materials, parts and components
COMPARISON
COUNTRIES CRITERIA 1 2 3 4
CODE OR
STANDARD
UK BS5882 / / / "
BS5750 PT 1 0
NII/R/38/78 / 00
USA ANSI/ASME N45.2 / /
10CFR50 APP / 0-
NCA4000 / 00 /
ASME-BPV-III
35 Section C
Table Section No. 1 6 - Control of Special Processes
Four comparison criteria were selected for analysis in this section. Included below are brief
notes which explain the meaning of the terms. Table 12 shows how the criteria are covered by
individual standards.
2. Examples of processes
Such processes include, for example, joining, forging, heat treatment, electroplating, corro-
sion protection, non-destructive testing, chemical analysis and mechanical tests.
Where required by regulations, codes, standards or other criteria the above processes shall
be documented to ensure that they are accomplished by qualified personnel using qualified procedures
and equipment.
36 Section C
TABLE 12
COMPARISON
COUNTRIES CRITERIA 1 2 3 4
CODE OR
STANDARD
UK BS5882 / / / /
BS5750 PT 1 0 - /
NII/R/38/78 - / 0
37 Section C
Table Section No. 1 7 - Inspection and Surveillance
Seven comparison criteria were selected for analysis in this section. Included below are brief
notes which explain the meaning of the terms. Table 13 shows how the criteria are covered by
individual standards.
1. Inspection schedule
An inspection schedule for items and activities affecting quality shall be established and ex-
ecuted by or for the organisation performing the activity to verify conformance w i t h instructions.
Inspections shall be performed, where necessary for work operations and during storage, to assure
quality.
Such inspection shall be carried out by individuals other than those performing the activity
being inspected in order to assure quality.
5. Hold points
Appropriate documents shall indicate that work shall not proceed beyond hold points without
documented approval of designated individuals or organisations who shall witness the inspection.
6. In-service inspection
The sampling procedure shall be based on recognised practice for both sample size and selec-
tion process.
38 Section C
I AHI t 13
Table Section No. 17 Inspection
COMPARISON
COUNTRIES CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
CODE OR
STANDARD
39 Section C
Table Section No. 1 8 - Test Control
Three comparison criteria were selected for analysis in this section. Included below are brief
notes which explain the meaning of the terms. Table 14 shows how the criteria are covered by
individual standards.
1. Test programme
A performance test programme! shall be established to ensure that items are tested to prove
that they will perform satisfactorily in service. The programme shall cover all required tests and shall
include procedures, prototype and equipment qualification tests, proof tests prior to installation,
start-up and operational tests.
2. Test performance
3. Test results
Shall be documented and evaluated to assure that the specified requirements have been
satisfied.
40 Section C
TABLE 14
Table Section No. 18 Test ( ' n n l m l
COMPARISON
COUNTRIES CRITERIA 1 2 3
CODE OR
STANDARD
UK BS5882 / /
BS5750 PT 1 0 0 -
NIl/R/38/78
41 Section C
Table Section No. 1 9 - Control of Measuring and Test Equipment
Seven comparison entena were selected toi analysis in this section. Included below are brief
notes which explain the meaning of the terms. Table 15 shows how the criteria are covered by
individual standards.
Steps shall be taken to ensure that tools, gauges, measuring and testing equipment used in
determining conformance criteria are of the proper range, type and precision.
Testing and measuring devices affecting quality shall be controlled, calibrated and adjusted
at specified intervals or prior to use to maintain accuracy within necessary limits.
Testing and measuring devices shall be calibrated against certified equipment having k n o w n
valid relationship to nationally recognised standards.
Where no national standard exists, the bases for calibration shall be documented.
When this occurs, previous measurements shall be checked for validity and the tested items
re-assessed.
Controls shall be established t o ensure proper handling, storage and use of calibrated
equipment.
42 Section C
TABLE 15
Table Section No. 19 Control of Measuring and Test Equipment
COMPARISON
COUNTRIES CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
CODE OR
STANDARD
43 Section C
Table Section No. 2 0 - Handling, Storage and Shipping
Seven comparison criteria were selected for analysis in this section. Included below are brief
notes which explain the meaning of the terms. Table 16 shows how the criteria are covered by
individual standards.
Handling, storage and shipping of items shall be controlled and documented in accordance
with established instructions, procedures or drawings to prevent damage, deterioration or loss. This
shall include cleaning, packing and preservation.
2. Sensitive items
Specific written procedures shall be used for critical, sensitive, perishable or high value items.
3. Handling tools
4. Disturbed packaging
Shall be restored to its original condition unless acceptable alternative storage arrangements
have been made.
Adequate instructions shall be given for marking and labelling for packaging, shipment and
storage of items. Marking shall identify special environments or the need for special control.
6. Protective environments
When necessary, special covering and protective environments such as inert gas atmosphere
specific moisture content levels and temperature levels shall be specified and their existence verified.
Storage arrangements should ensure the identification, segregation and control of items re-
jected, non-conforming, awaiting modification or quarantined. All items should be stored to minimise
deterioration.
44 Section C
TABLE 16
Table Section No. 20 - Handling, Storage and Shipping
COMPARISON
COUNTRIES CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
CODE OR
STANDARD
UK BS5882 / / / / -
BS5750 PT 1 0 - / -0 -0
NII/R/38/78 / - / - -
USA ANSI/ASME N45.2 / / - / / -
10CFR50 APP / -
NCA4000 / / -
ASME-BPV-III
45 Section C
Table Section No. 2 1 - Inspection, Test and Operating Status
Four comparison criteria were selected for analysis in this section. Included below are bnef
notes which explain the meaning of the terms. Table 17 shows how the criteria are covered by
individual standards.
Items shall be identified by markings, tags, routing cards, inspection records, physical loca-
tion or other suitable means which can indicate the acceptability or non-conformance of items to
inspections performed.
The identification of inspection and test status shall be maintained throughout manufacture,
installation and operation to ensure that only certified items are used.
The operating status of systems and components of nuclear power plant shall be indicated
by tagging valves and switches to prevent inadvertent operation.
Procedures shall be layed down for the authority for application and removal of status in-
dicators such as tags, labels and stamps.
46 Section C
TABLE 17
Table Section No. 21 - Inspection, Test and Operating Status
COMPARISON
COUNTRIES CRITERIA 1 2 3 4
CODE OR
STANDARD
UK BS5882 / /
BS5750 PT 1 0 / -
NU/R/38/78 _
47 Section C
Table Section No. 2 2 - Non conforroincAtems
Six comparison criteria were selected for analysis in this section. Included below are brief
notes which explain the meaning of the terms. Table 18 shows how the criteria are covered by
individual standards.
Non-conforming items shall be reviewed and either accepted, rejected, repaired or re-worked
in accordance with documented procedures. Authority for review and disposition shall be defined.
The disposition of non-conforming items shall be reported to the designated authority. When
these have been accepted, or repaired, the description shall be documented to denote the "as-built"
condition.
48 Section C
TABLE 18
Table Section No. 22 - Non-conforming Items
COMPARISON
COUNTRIES CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 6
CODE OR
STANDARD
UK BS5882 / / / / / /
BS5750 PT 1 / / / 0
NII/R/38/78 0- - /
49 Section C
Table Section No. 23 - Corrective Action
Three comparison criteria were selected for analysis in this section. Included below are brief
notes which explain the meaning of the terms. Table 19 shows how the criteria are covered by
individual standards.
These shall be provided for in the programme, and shall be identified and corrected. They
include conditions such as equipment malfunctions, deviations and nonconformances.
The cause of such conditions shall be determined and corrective actions taken to prevent
repetition.
Includes the corrective actions taken. The cause of the conditions shall be reported to
management.
TABLE 19
Table Section No. 23 Corrective Actions
COMPARISON
COUNTRIES CRITERIA 1 2 3
CODE OR
STANDARD
UK BS5882 / /
BS57 50 PT 1 0 / 0
NII/R/38/78 / / /
Six comparison criteria were selected for analysis in this section. Included below are brief
notes which explain the meaning of the terms. Table 20 shows how the criteria are covered by
individual standards.
Adequate records for use in management of the quality assurance programme shall be prepared
and shall represent objective evidence of quality. They shall include the results of reviews, inspec-
tions, audits, materials analysis and power plant operation logs as well as associated data such as
personnel qualifications, procedures and equipment, repairs required and other appropriate
documents.
All records shall be legible and identifiable to the item or activity involved.
A record system shall be established and executed in accordance with written procedures.
It shall furnish evidence of activities affecting quality.
4. Storage of records
Records shall be identified, stored, and readily retrievable in facilities that minimise deteriora-
tion and prevent loss.
5. Retention of records
Retention times of quality assurance records and specimens shall be established in writing.
" A s b u i l t " records shall be maintained by the owner for the life of the plant.
6. Disposition of records
51 Section C
TABLE 2 0
Table Section No. 24 - Quality Assurance Records
COMPARISON
COUNTRIES CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 6
CODE OR
STANDARD
UK BS5882 / / / / / /
BS5750 PT 1 0 - / -0
NII/R/38/78 / / 0/
USA ANSI/ASME N45.2 / / / / / 0
10CFR50 APP / /0 00
NCA4000 / 0 0 / /
ASME-BPV-III
52 Section C
Table Section No. 2 5 - Audits
Six comparison criteria were selected for analysis in this section. Included below are brief
notes which explain the meaning of the terms. Table 21 shows how the criteria are covered by
individual standards.
1. Planning of audits
Internal and external audits shall be planned as necessary to verify compliance with the quality
assurance programme and its effectiveness.
2. Performance of audits
Audits.shall be performed in accordance w i t h written instructions and shall cover all work
areas and review of documents and records.
3. Auditing organisations
The responsible auditing organisations shall assign qualified auditors who shall be indepen-
dent of the activities which they audit. For internal audits, persons having direct responsiblity for
activities being audited shall not be involved in the selection of the audit team.
4. Results of audits
The results of the audits shall be reviewed by the responsible organisations in the area audited,
and management shall take the necessary corrective action on deficiencies found. Follow-up action
shall be taken to verify that noted deficiencies, and where practical, the causes have been corrected.
5. Scheduling of audits
This will depend upon the status and importance of the activity, and may be supplemented
by random audits when necessary.
53 Section C
TABLE 21
Table Section No. 25 Audits
COMPARISON
COUNTRIES CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 6
CODE OR
STANDARD
UK BS5882 / / / / / "*
BS5750 PT 1 0
NII/R/38/78 / 0 / / -
54 Section C
SECTION D - S U M M A R Y OF CODES A N D S T A N D A R D S ANALYSED
1. There are no codes or standards for Quality Assurance written specifically for Liquid Metal
Cooled Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) Components.
2. All the codes and standards analysed can be applied in some measure to all types of reactors
except one, IAEA 50-C-QA, which specifically applies to land based stationary thermal neutron power
plants.
3. The classification of codes and standards relating to Quality Assurance according to Nuclear
Application, analysed in this report is given in Table 2.
4. The status of Quality Assurane Codes and Standards analysed by this report are tabulated
in Table 1.
5. No Quality Assurance Standard analysed has a statutory status in law in the EEC countries.
6. Two Quality Assurance Standards of the United States of America have a statutory status
in law. The first is 10CFR50, Appendix of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 1, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, entitled Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plant and Fuel
Reprocessing Plants, which gives a description of the Quality Assurance Programme to be submit
ted by the applicant for a construction permit or operating license.
7. The second standard is Article NCA 4000, Quality Assurance of Section III of the ASME Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Code, Nuclear Power Plant Component. The licensing authority for this is the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers. This standard covers Quality Assurance for various sub
sections on classes of pressurised components and relevant support structures for Nuclear Power
Plants.
8. The foregoing analytical tables of the varying criteria and sub-sections for the examination
of codes and standards relating to Quality Assurance are summarised by documents in tabular form
below in Table 22. The percentage of sub-sections covered is the sum of the markings relating to
the individual standards expressed as a percentage of the total possible. No account is taken of
the relative importance that may be assigned to the individual sub-sections.
9. Three standards cover less than 50% of the criteria selected. They are BS 5750 Part 1,
NII/R/38/78, and A/44 CPQ, the first two being UK standards and the remaining one being a French
Standard.
10. An analysis of the detailed criteria by sub-sections is given below in Paragraph 1 1 .
55
TABLE 22
Summary of comparison of codes an d stan dards
COMPARISON
CRITERIA PERCENTAGE
COUNTRIES OF S UB-S ECTIONS
CODE OR COVERED
STANDARD
UK BS5882 92Z
BS5750 PT 1 0 71Z
NII/R/38/78 0 50Z
11. A summary analysis of the criteria of each clause pertaining to each standard is given in the
following Table 23.
56 Section D
TABLE 23
Summary of criteria assigned to standards by tables
Number of c r i t e r i a covered
Table No
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
IS06215 9 9 10 11 3 6 6 3 4 7 3 7 4 3 6 3 6 5
IAEA 50-C-QA 9 9 10 11 5 6 6 3 4 7 3 7 3 3 5 3 6 6
BS 5882 9 9 10 11 3 6 6 3 4 7 3 7 4 3 6 3 6 5
BS 5750 Pt 1 7 5 5 5 4 4 5 1 2 4 2 4 4 2 5 3 3 1
NII/R/38/78 6 4 3 7 - 3 1 3 2 6 - 4 4 4 3 5 4
ANSI/ASME N45.2 8 9 10 8 4 6 5 3 4 7 3 7 5 4 6 3 6 6
10CFR50 App 6 3 8 2 2 3 4 2 3 5 3 1 2 3 3 3 5 5
NCA 4000 7 3 6 5 2 2 3 4 3 3 3 5 2 2 5 3 5 5
ASME-BPV-III
CSA Standard
Z299.1 2 6 5 6 2 4 2 1 3 3 1 5 2 2 5 3 5 6
CSA P r e l Standard
N286.0/1/2 6 7 9 8 4 6 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 3 5 6
KTA 1401 8 8 9 5 4 4 6 1 3 4 3 3 1 1_
4 2 3 3
A/44 CPQ 6 5 7 6 3 2 1 2 2 4 2 3 - 2 6 - 5 -
CNEN Technical t
Guide No 8 6 7 8 7 - 5 2 1 4 6 3 6 5 3 6 3 6 5
GQ-7 8 9 10 9 3 5 5 3 3 7 3 7 5 4 6 3 6 6
T o t a l Number of
C r i t e r i a per t a b l e 9 9 10 11 5 6 6 4 4 7 3 7 7 4 6 3 6 6
12. Examination of the table shows that five of the standards analysed were totally deficient of
at least one clause up to a maximum of three. These deficient standards are tabulated below:-
UK NII/R/38/78 - 3 deficiencies
France A/44 CPQ - 3
German KTA 1401 - 1 deficiency
Canada N286.0/1/2 - 1
Italy Tech Guide No. 8 - 1
13. Each of the following two standards are deficient in the clause corresponding to the quoted
table number. These are as follows:-
(a) Table 8 - Instructions, Procedures and Drawings
The following standards are deficient in this clause.
UK NII/R/38/78
Italy Tech Guide No. 8
57 Section D
(b) Table 17 - Inspection, Test and Operating Status
The following standards are deficient in this clause.
UK NII/R/38/78
Germany KTA 1401
14. Each of the following nominated standards are deficient in one clause corresponding to the
quoted table numbers. These standards are identified below.
15. The following analysis examines detail deficiencies in the more important criteria.
16. The following criteria have been omitted from seven or more standards.
8 5 - Revision of Procedures
This criteria is omitted from ten standards namely ISO
6215, BS 5882, BS 5750, NII/R/38/78, ANSI/ASME
N45.2, 10CFR50 App. B, NCA 4000, N286.0/1/2,
CNEN Technical Guide No. 8, GQ-7
58 Section D
Table No. Column No.
11 4 Characteristics of Material Specifications
The essence of this criteria is that all characteristics on
material specifications should be referred to or shown
on the check lists and signed by the Inspector. This is
omitted from all the standards analysed except t w o ,
namely NCA 4 0 0 0 , the ASME-BPV-III Pressure Vessel
Code and the French A / 4 4 CPQ.
13 6 - In-service inspection
No reference is made to planning in-service inspection
in the lower 5 standards in the table and BS 5 7 5 0 Part
1.
16 2 to 7 - Handling, Storage and Shipping
This clause has the greatest number of deficiencies of
all the standards for the detailed criteria except Column
1, the control of handling, storage and shipping.
21 6 - Conditions for Audits
No details are given as to when to conduct an audit of
Quality Assurance measures in eight standards, namely
ISO 6 2 1 5 , the UK standards, 10CFR50 App. and
NCA 4 0 0 0 of the USA, KTA 1401 of Germany and
A/44 CPQ of France.
Recommendations
59 Section D
SECTION E - ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIVE ANALYTICAL METHOD
OF A N A L Y S I N G CODES A N D S T A N D A R D S
Contributed by NERATOOM
Introduction
1. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate and select those elements of the various
Quality Assurance Codes and Standards (which have, over the past fifteen or t w e n t y years, been
established (nationally and internationally)) that are considered best representing necessary criteria
and sound practice in a comprehensive nuclear QA programme adequate for application to Fast Reac
tor programmes. It was not the intent of this study to write or propose yet another standard on
QA, but in comparing the elements of the basic criteria in various similar Codes and Standards, to
illustrate the similarities and yet highlight the differences which have appeared, even though Codes
and Standards were written with the same basic objectives and scope in mind. Therefore, with these
differences and similarities identified, subjective judgement were to be utilised in selecting which
Code or Standard best expressed the necessary criteria.
2. The ultimate goal was to select and recommend that Code or Standard which overall best
contained and adequately described the majority of those necessary and sufficient criteria and to
suggest as an addendum any elements or criteria not covered, but which are considered in the light
of today's practices to be desirable. The scope of the evaluation and the methodology used in mak
ing the comparisons and selections are described in the sections following.
Scope of Evaluation
3. Since the objective of this study was a comparison of Quality Assurance Programme re
quirements appertaining, or potentially applicable to Fast Reactor construction, a selection of cur
rent national and international QA codes and standards was established for analysis. A listing of
these codes and standards is given in Section B, together w i t h a brief note on their origin. Although
some of these codes and standards are supplemented by other codes and standards or supporting
guides the analysis was confined to the top level code of standard in any series evaluated. Further
discussion on the impact of the lower level guides and standards is given in the conclusions to this
section, paragraphs 26 to 4 0 .
Methodology
4. The preceding section of this report (SCOPE) describes the scope of this study and identified
the QA Codes and Standards utilised in the comparative evaluations. For the comparative analysis,
the IAEA Code of Practice 50-C-QA was selected as the reference standard against which the other
Codes and Standards were compared. This Code was chosen because of its international basis,
its degree of adaptability and its current acceptance level in the nuclear industry. In addition, the
criteria was presented in a logical and sequential order.
5. The structure of this Code into twelve sections (thirteen when the " I n t r o d u c t i o n " is included)
was used to generate the basic " C r i t e r i a " selected to form the basis of the comparative evaluation.
Each of the criteria was then broken down into sub-criteria whenever a specific QA programme
related requirement standards evaluated. Because of the obvious mis-match between the number
of sections (criteria) in each QA standard a straight comparison between the contents in each sec
tion of each standard was not sufficient. It was necessary many times to refer to sections other
than the one directly under evaluation in order to obtain a true comparison of the coverage given
to any particular sub-criteria in each standard evaluated. In some caes, the sub-criteria under evalua
tion in one section was found to be non-existent, but covered completely adequate in other sec
tions of the standard. Although the comparative analysis initially commenced w i t h all the Codes
and Standards noted in Section of this report the following standards were subsequently dropped
for the reasons stated below:
(i) BS 5882 1980: "Total Quality Assurance Programme for Nuclear Power Plants." This
standard is essentially the same in format and content as ISO 6 2 1 5 "Nuclear Power
'Plants - Quality Assurance."
60
(ii) EDF: "L'Annex a la Convention Assurance de la Qualit" (annexe to the Contract,
Quality Assurance). This standard was dropped from the detailed evaluation because
it now requires compliance to IAEA 50-C-QA and, as an annexe to a contract, is not
a stand-alone document.
(iii) ASME III NCA 4 0 0 0 : This code unlike the others, is primarily limited in its application
to the pressure boundaries of nuclear equipment and their supports. There are many
safety related components and systems to which this standard does not apply, conse-
quently, it cannot be selected on its o w n for fast reactor projects. In addition, it has,
except for its requirements on "Authorised Inspection Agencies", essentially been made
compatible with 10CFR50 App B.
6. During the detailed comparison analysis an attempt was made to select the code or standard
which was considered in the light of today's requirements to best describe or cover that sub-criterion
being evaluated.
Comparative Analysis
7. As stated earlier, the thirteen criteria of the IAEA code have been chosen as the basic criteria
to be compared because it is our opinion that these criteria cover all necessary elements of a full
QA programme in the most logical and sequential order.
IAEA QA programme criteria:
(1) Introduction
(2) Quality Assurance Programmes
(3) Organisation
(4) Document Control
(5) Design Control
(6) Procurement Control
(7) Material Control
(8) Process Control
(9) Inspection and Test Control
(10) Non-Conformance Control
(11) Corrective Actions
(12) Records
(13) Audits
Each of the above 13 basic criteria are sub-divided into sub-criteria for the comparison analysis
between the applicable codes/standards.
In this comparison analysis of applicable codes and standards the following abbreviations are
used to facilitate the write-up. Also the sequence of codes/standards for which the sub-criteria are
compared has been fixed as below. However, the code/standard giving the best description for a
sub-criteria has been described first.
IAEA - IAEA Code of Practice No. 50-C-QA. "Quality Assurance for Safety
in Nuclear Power Plants." (International)
ISO - International Standard ISO/DIS 6 2 1 5 . "Nuclear Power Plants Quality
Assurance." (International)
ASME-ANSI - ASME N45.2. "Quality Assurance Programme Requirements for
Nuclear Facilities." (USA)
CFR* - 10CFR50 App. B. "Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power
Plants and Reprocessing Plants." (USA)
61 Section E
Nil - NII/R/38/78. " A Guide to the Quality Assurance Programme for
Nuclear Power Plants." (UK)
RDI RUI 1-2 2. "Quality Assurance Programmo Requit erneut s . " (USA)
Criterion 1 : Introduction
"This Code of Practice provides the principles and objectives to be adopted as regards safety
when establishing both a satisfactory overall quality assurance programme for a nuclear power
plant and also separate quality assurance programmes for each of the constituent areas of
activity (e.g. design, manufacturing, construction, commissioning, operation). The principles
to be followed in each case, for each type of programme, are the same. The establishment
and implementation of a quality assurance programme for a nuclear power plant are essen-
tial. However, it shall always be recognised that the basic responsibility for achieving quality
in performing a particular task (e.g. in design, in manufacturing, in commissioning, in opera-
tion) rests with those assigned the task and not with those seeking to ensure by means of
verification that it has been achieved.
Quality assurance is an essential aspect of " g o o d management". Good management con-
tributes to the achievement of quality through thorough analysis of the tasks to be perform
ed, identification of the skills required, the selection and training of appropriate personnel,
the use of appropriate equipment, the creation of a satisfactory environment in which activi-
ty can be performed and as already noted, a recognition of the responsibility of the individual
who is to perform the task. Briefly stated then a quality assurance programme shall provide
for a disciplined approach to all activities affecting quality including, where appropriate, verifica-
tion that each task has been satisfactorily performed and that necessary corrective actions
have been implemented. It shall also provide production of documentary evidence to
demonstrate that the required quality has been achieved. The manner in which the principles
described in this document are implemented, both at the overall plant level and at the consti-
tuent activity levels, will vary from country to country and organisation to organisation. These
variations will be due to such consideration as regulatory requirements, the general organisa-
tion of industry, and the degree of sophistication and experience of the technical organisa-
tions involved in providing and operating the nuclear power plant. In any event, the basic
intent of the principles shall be kept in mind at all times and the detailed implementational
procedures shall be arranged accordingly."
CFR - No description
Nil - No description
62 Section E
RDT - No description
KTA - No description
CSA - No description
CNEN - No comparable description
Sub-Criterion 2: Scope
ANSI - para 1.1 best description
(a) " T h i s standard provides general requirements and guidance for the establishment and
execution of Quality Assurance Programmes for the design, construction and operation
of structures, systems, and components of the following nuclear facilities: nuclear power
plants, fuel processing plants, plutonium processing plants, plutonium fuel fabrication
plants, and spent fuel storage facilities.
(b) The requirements and guidance pertain to activities including designing, procuring,
fabricating, handling, shipping, storing, cleaning, erecting, installing, inspecting, testing,
operating, maintaining, repairing, refuelling and modifying, which affect the quality of
structures, systems and components."
IAEA - Comparable description for part (b) only.
ISO - See IAEA. Comparable description.
CFR - See ANSI. Comparable description but too much detail on individual activities
comprising the total scope (design, procuring, manufacturing etc.).
KTA - Somewhat comparable description for part (a) only.
CSA - No comparable description.
CNEN - Somewhat comparable description for part (a) only but not as detailed.
Sub-Criterion 3: Applicability
ANSI - para 1.2 - best description
(a) " T h i s standard is intended to apply to the facility owner, major contractors, such as
the nuclear steam supply system designer or suppliers, process equipment designer or
suppliers, the architect-engineer or facility designer, the constructor, and other organisa-
tions participating in activities affecting quality.
(b) The extent to which the individual sections and elements of this standard are applied
will depend upon factors such as the nature and scope of activities to be performed
and the required quality of items and services."
IAEA - Comparable description for part (a) only.
ISO - Comparable description for part (b) only.
CFR No comparable description.
Nil - No comparable description.
RDT - No comparable description.
KTA - Somewhat comparable description for part (a) only.
CSA - No comparable description.
CNEN - No comparable description.
Sub-Criterion 4: Responsibility
ANSI - para 1.3 - best description
(a) " I t is the responsibility of the facility owner to provide for the establishment and execu-
tion of a quality assurance programme for the facility consistent w i t h the provisions of
this standard.
63 Section E
(b) The facility owner or his designated representative and other organisations invoking this
standard are responsible for identifying the structures, systems and components for
specifying the extent to which the provision of this standard apply.
(c) The facility owner or his designated representative and other organisations are also
responsible for assuring that the necessary arid appropriate requirements of this stan-
dard are invoked.
(d) The facility owner may delegate to other organisations the work of establishing and ex-
ecuting the quality assurance programme, or any part thereof, but shall retain respon-
sibility for overall programme effectiveness.
(e) In no way shall the programme operate to diminish the responsibility of any contractor
for the quality of items or services furnished or for execution of the contractor's
designated portion of the quality assurance programme."
IAEA - Comparable description for parts (d) and (e) only.
ISO - Comparable description for parts (c), (d) and (e) only.
CFR - No comparable description.
Nil - Comparable description for parts (a), (c) and (d) only.
RDT - Comparable description for parts (a) and (d) only.
KTA - Comparable description for parts (a) and (d) only.
CSA - Comparable description for parts (a) only.
CNEN - Comparable description for parts (c) and (d) only.
64 Section E
KTA No description
CSA - No description
"Management in the overall and constituent areas of activity shall provide for effective im-
plementation of the QA programmes consistent with the time schedule for accomplishing
project activities, including the procurement of materials for long delivery i t e m s . "
Nil - No description
KTA - No description
CSA - No description
" T h e programme shall contain provisions to assure identification of and compliance w i t h re-
quirements of appropriate recognised engineering codes, standards, specifications and
practices."
From the comparison evaluation we consider that the IAEA programme structure with its thir-
teen criteria does cover the substance given in the eight to twenty t w o criteria of the other
codes/standards while the sequencing of the criteria follows a more logical approach.
The comparison of the different programme structures are described in detail in Section B,
Table 3.
65 Section E
Sub-Criterion 5: Control of Activities affecting Quality
" T h e programme shall provide assurance that activities affecting quality are documented
within a document control system and accomplished in accordance with written instructions,
procedures or drawings."
IAEA Calls for "all programmes shall provide control and verification over activities
affecting quality".
CFR - Call for " T h e Quality Assurance Programme shall provide control over activities
affecting quality". No verification is called for.
" T h e programme shall provide for the accomplishment of activities affecting quality under
suitable controlled conditions. Controlled conditions inlcude the use of appropriate equipment,
suitable environmental conditions for accomplishing the activity, and assurance that pre-
requisites for the given activity have been satisfied.
Nil - No description
CSA - No description
66 Section E
(b) Qualifications
Personnel, procedures and equipment shall be qualified in accordance w i t h specified re-
quirements. For special processes not covered by existing codes or standards, or where
item quality requirements exceed the requirements of established codes and standards,
or equipment for processes such as welding, heat treating, cleaning, non-destructive
examination, coating and concrete platement shall be defined. Only qualified personnel
shall be authorised to accept items for services by required inspection and tests. This
applies also to manufacturing or other personnel w h o perform inspections and tests that
are not independently verified by qualified personnel.
Qualification requirements shall be stated in writing, and shall include periodic requalifica
tion to assure continued proficiency and understanding of technical requirements.
Qualification of personnel shall be based on demonstration of proficiency, skill, or
knowledge. If it is found through subsequent examination or inspection that work has
been improperly performed or accepted, management action shall be initiated to deter-
mine the cause of deficient work practices and the corrective action required to prevent
recurrence. When appropriate, corrective action shall include revoking the authority of
the individual responsible for performing or accepting work and removing the individual
from the work activity until he is requalified.
The contractor shall maintain records of personnel qualification status, including train-
ing and experience, results of examinations or tests to demonstrate proficiency or skill,
and evidence of familiarity w i t h applicable codes, standards, specifications and
procedures."
IAEA - Has a limited statement, " A l l programmes shall provide for training of personnel
performing activities affecting quality". Training however is more detailed in Sub-
Criterion 7 "Staffing and Training" of Criterion 3 "Organisation".
ISO - "The program shall provide for indoctrination and training and/or qualifications of
personnel performing activities affecting quality as necessary to ensure that suitable
proficiency is achieved and maintained.
ANSI - See ISO, same description
CFR - See ISO, same description
Nil - See ISO, similar description but not well defined.
KTA - Short description on indoctrination and training only.
CNEN - See ISO. Comparable description; however, does not call for qualification of
personnel.
67 Section E
Sub-Criterion 9: Language
IAEA para 2.1 - best description
" A l l programmes shall state the languages used for documentation. Measures shall be
established to ensure that persons performing the QA function have adequate knowledge
of the langauge in which the documentation is written. Translations of the documentation
shall be reviewed by competent persons. Verification of conformance to the original is
necessary."
ISO Same description
All other codes and standards have no descriptions on this Sub Criterion.
Criterion 3: Organisation
68 Section E
ISO Same description
ANSI - Same description
CFR - No comparable description
NNI - Comparable description but not as well defined
RDT - Comparable description
KTA - Comparable description
CSA - Comparable description
CNEN - Comparable description
69 Section E
shall have sufficient authority mcl oiganisatioual lieedoin to iilenlilv quality problems; to in
itiate, recommend or piovide solutions; and where necoss.iiy, to initiate actions to control
further processing, delivery or installation of an item which is non conforming, deficient or
unsatisfactory, until proper disposition has boen achieved.
ISO - Same description
ANSI - Comparable description. Does not include the QA management function of estab
lishment, effective execution and verification of an appropriate QA program.
CFR - Comparable description. Does not include the description " T o initiate actions to
control further processing, delivery, e t c . "
Nil - Comparable description but not as detailed
RDT - Comparable description
KTA - Comparable description but very limited
CSA - Comparable description
CNEN - Comparable description, but not as detailed.
70 Section E
RDT - Comparable description
KTA - No description
CSA - No comparable description
CNEN - Comparable description
ISO - Comparable description, but does not include timely planning for selection, training
and certification of personnel.
ANSI - Short description of indoctrination and training (see Sub-Criterion 7, of Criterion 2
" Q A Programmes")
CFR - See ANSI. Same description
Nil - Short description on training only
RDT - Has a very detailed section on training, indoctrination and qualification but does
not include the timely planning for selecting and training of personnel. (See Sub-
Criterion 7 of Criterion 2 " Q A Programmes".)
KTA - Short description on personnel qualifications only
CSA - Short description on indoctrination and training only
CNEN - Short description on training only.
71 Section E
Criterion 4 : Document Control
"The control measures shall include the identification of all individuals or organisations respon-
sible for preparing, reviewing, approving and issuing documents related to activities affec-
ting quality."
ISO - Same description
ANSI - Similar description
CFR - No specific description
Nil - No specific description
RDT - Comparable description but limited
KTA - No specific description
CSA - No specific description
" T h e reviewing organisations shall have access to pertinent background information upon
which to base its approval and shall have adequate understanding of the requirements and
intent of the original document."
72 Section E
IAEA - Good description
73 Section E
Cl M finnin in ,
74 Section E
CFR - See IAEA, same description
Nil - Comparable descriptions, but limited
RDT - Comparable description
KTA - Somewhat comparable description
CSA - No specific description
CNEN - Comparable description
75 Section E
Nil - Comparable description but limited
RDT - Comparable description but limited
KTA - No description
CSA - No comparable description
CNEN - No comparable description
76 Section E
KTA - No comparable description
CSA - No comparable description
CNEN - Comparable description but limited
77 Section E
can range from a formalised multi-organisation review to an informal single person review.
The depth of review can range from a detailed check of the complete design to a limited check
of such things as the design approach and the results obtained in the original degree.
In those cases where the adequacy of a design is to be verified by tests, the testing shall
be identified.
Testing shall demonstrate adequacy of performance under the most adverse design condi-
tions. Operating modes and environmental conditions in which the item must perform satisfac
torily shall be considered in determining the most adverse conditions. If testing indicates that
modifications to the item are necessary to obtain acceptable performance, the item shall be
modified and retested as necessary to assure satisfactory performance."
IAEA - Good description, but less guidance than ANSI on design review
ISO - See IAEA, similar description
CFR - Similar to ISO
Nil - Comparable description but limited
RDT - Emphasis on design review
KTA - No comparable description
CSA - No comparable description
CNEN - Comparable description but limited
78 Section E
CFR - Comparable description but limited
Nil - Comparable description but limited
RDT - Comparable description but limited
KTA - No comparable description
CSA - No specific description
CNEN - Comparable description
79 Section E
Sub-Criterion 2: Specify Requirements for Assuring Quality
ANSI - para 5(1 )(2)(3)(4)(5) - best description
(e) Lower Tier Procurements. Provisions for extending applicable requirements for procure-
ment documents to lower tier sub-contractors and suppliers, including purchaser's access
to facilities and records."
IAEA - Comparable description, but not structured as well as ANSI
ISO - See IAEA, similar description
CFR - Comparable description but limited
Nil - Comparable description
RDT Comparable description but limited
KTA - No comparable description
CSA - Good description on passing through requirements to sub-contractors
CNEN - Comparable description
(b) The use of supplier's current quality assurance records supported by documented
quantitative or qualitative information than can be objectively evaluated.
(c) Source evaluation of supplier's technical capability and a quality system.
(d) Evaluation by selective product samples."
80 Section E
ISO - Same description
ANSI Comparable description
CFR See ANSI, sumu description
Nil - Comparable description
RDT - Comparable description
KTA - No comparable description
CSA - Comparable description but limited
CNEN - Comparable description
81 Section E
Criterion 7: Material Control
Where identification marking is employed, the marking shall be clear, unambiguous, and in-
delible, and shall be applied in such a manner as not to affect the function of the item. Mark-
ings shall be transferred to each part of an item when sub-divided and shall not be obliterated
or hidden by surface treatment or coatings unless other means of identification are substituted.
When codes, standards, or specifications require traceability of materials, parts, or components
to specific inspection or test records, the programme shall be designed to provide such
traceability."
IAEA - Comparable description
ISO - See IAEA, similar description
CFR - Comparable description but limited
Nil - Comparable description but limited
RDT - Comparable description but limited
KTA - Comparable description but very limited
CSA - Comparable description but limited
CNEN - Comparable description
For critical, sensitive, perishable, or high-value articles specific written procedures for handl-
ing, storage, packaging, shipping and preservation should be used. Special handling tools and
equipment should be provided and controlled as necessary to ensure safe and adequate
handling.
Special handling tools and equipment shall be inspected and tested, in accordance w i t h writ
ten procedures and at specified times, to verify that the tools and equipment are adequately
maintained.
Special attention shall be given to providing adequate instructions for marking and labelling
for packaging, shipment and stores of items. Marking shall be adequate to identify, maintain,
82 Section E
and preserve the shipment, including indication of the presence of special environments or
the need for special c o n t r o l . "
IAEA Comparable description but limited
ISO - Comparable description
CFR - Comparable description but limited
Nil - Comparable description
RDT - Comparable description
KTA - No comparable description
CSA - Comparable description
CNEN - Comparable description
83 Section E
RDT - No comparable description
KTA - No comparable description
CSA Comparable description
CNEN - Comparable description
16. Sub-criteria
Inspection
Testing
84 Section E
Sub-Criterion 1 : Establishment of Inspection Programme
ANSI - para 11 - best description
" A programme for inspection of activities affecting quality shall be established and executed
by or for the organisation performing the activity to verify conformance to the documented
instructions, procedures and drawings for accomplishing the a c t i v i t y . "
IAEA - Same description
ISO - Same description
CFR - Same description
Nil - Comparable description
RDT - Comparable description but not as well defined
KTA - No comparable description
CSA - No comparable description
CNEN - Comparable description
85 Section E
CSA - No comparable description
CNEN - Comparable description
"(a) A programme for required in-service inspection of completed systems, structures and
components shall be planned and executed, and
(b) The results shall be evaluated against base-line d a t a . "
ISO - Same description for part (a) only
ANSI - See ISO, same description
CFR - No description
Nil - Comparable description for part (a) only
86 Section E
RDT - No description
KTA - No description
CSA - No description
CNEN - No description
Test results shall be documented and evaluated to assure that test requirements have been
satisfied."
ISO - Same description
ANSI - Similar description
CFR - Similar description
Nil - No description
RDT - No comparable description
KTA - No comparable description
CSA - No comparable description
CNEN - Comparable description
87 Section E
IAEA Same description
88 Section E
Sub-Criterion 12: Handling of Calibrated Equipment
"Controls shall be established to assure proper handling storage, and use of calibrated
equipment."
ANSI - No description
CFR - No description
Nil - No description
CNEN - No description
"Records shall be maintained and equipment suitably marked to indicate calibration s t a t u s . "
IAEA - No description
CFR - No description
Nil - No description
RDT - Comparable description
KTA - No description
CSA - Comparable description for part (b) only
CNEN - Same description for part (b) only
89 Section E
Sub-Criterion 15: Status Indicators
"(a) The inspection and test status of items shall be maintained through the use of status
indicators such as physical location and tags, markings, shop travellers, stamps or in
spection records.
(b) The measures shall provide for assuring that only items that have passed the required
inspections and tests are used, installed or operated.
(c) These measures shall include procedures for control of status and removal of tags, mark
ings, laneis and s t a m p s . "
IAEA - Comparable description for parts (a) and (b) only but not as specific
ISO - See IAEA, same description
CSA - Comparable description for parts (a) and (b) only but not as specific
CNEN - Comparable description but not as specific
"Measures shall also be established for indicating the operating status of systems and com
ponents of the nuclear power plant, such as by tagging valves and switches to prevent in
advertent operation."
Nil - No description
RDT - No description
KTA - No description
90 Section E
ISO - Same description but calls for "Items and Processes" instead of " I t e m s "
ANSI - Same description but calls for " I t e m s , Services or Activities" and it does not
describe " I n order to e t c . "
CFR - Similar description but uses instead of " I t e m s " the denominations "Materials,
Parts of Components" which does not cover systems of processes. " I t e m s " is
general and covers all.
Nil - See ANSI
RDT - Comparable description
KTA - No comparable description
CSA - Similar description
CNEN - Same description
91 Section E
KTA - No comparable description
CSA - Comparable description for part (b) only
CNEN - Comparable description
92 Section E
ISO - Same description
ANSI - Same description
CFR - Same description
Nil - Comparable description. Applies to "all conditions" and not only to significant
conditions.
RDT - Comparable description
KTA - No comparable description
CSA - Comparable description
CNEN - Comparable description. See Nil.
Criterion 1 2 : Records
93 Section E
CSA Comparable description but not as well defined
CNEN Comparable description
(b) Records shall be stored in such a way that they are readily retrievable and maintained
in a suitable environment to minimise deterioration or damage and to prevent loss.
94 Section E
(c) Retention times of quality assurance records and associated test material and specimen
shall be established in writing.
(d) In general, records which correctly identify the " a s b u i l t " condition of items in the plant
shall be maintained by or for the responsible organisation for the useful life of the item
from manufacture through storage, installation and operation.
(e) Periods of retention for records other than lifetime records shall be assigned retention
times consistent w i t h the type of record involved.
Disposal of records shall be in accordane with written procedures."
ISO - See IAEA, identical description
CFR - No comparable description
ANSI - See IAEA, comparable description
Nil - Comparable description for part (d) only
RDT - No comparable description
KTA - No comparable description, does call for retention times of records to be established
in writing
CSA - See IAEA, comparable description but not as detailed
CNEN - Comparable description for part (b) only
Criterion 1 3 : Audits
95 Section E
ISO - Same description
ANSI - Similar description, but does not call for "Qualified A u d i t o r s " , but for "Appropriate
Trained Personnel".
CFR See ANSI, same description
Nil - See ANSI, comparable description
RDT Comparable description, calls for "Experienced personnel" instead of qualified
auditors
KTA Does call for personnel who are independent of any responsibility for the activities
which they audit, but no qualification requirement.
CSA - See ANSI, comparable description
CNEN - See ANSI, same description
Sub-Criterion 3: Documented Audit Results and Follow-up Action
ISO para 5.18.3 best description
"The results of the audits shall be documented by the auditors and reviewed by organisa
tions having responsibility in the area audited. Responsible management shall take necessary
corrective action on the deficiencies found by the audit. Follow-up action shall continue to
be taken to verify that deficiencies noted in the audit, and, where practicable, the causes
have been corrected."
IAEA - See ISO, but it does not call for correction of causes of deficiencies
ANSI - See IAEA, comparable description
CFR - See IAEA, comparable description
Nil - See IAEA, comparable description
RDT See IAEA, comparable description
KTA - See IAEA, comparable description
CSA - See IAEA, comparable description
CNEN - See IAEA, comparable description
96 Section E
() When a systematic, independent assessment of programme effectiveness or item
quality or both is considered necessary.
(vi) When it is considered necessary to verify implementation of required corrective
actions.
IAEA - See ANSI, however, less specific. It does not call for the development of an audit plan
CNEN - No description
Summary of Analyses
21. The scope of the analyses in Section E initially commenced with twelve codes and standards,
but three were subsequently eliminated for the reasons given earlier. The codes and standards
evaluated represented national and international requirements and, w i t h the exception of the Cana
dian Standard Z.299, are specifically limited to the nuclear industry.
22. Using the IAEA Code 50-C QA as a reference base, its structure of thirteen chapters (including
the Introduction) was utilised to establish the basic " C r i t e r i a " against which the eight other stan
dards were evaluated. These criteria were in turn reduced to between t w o and fourteen "Sub-criteria"
given a total of approximately eighty five quality system elements. Each of the other standards were
then analysed to evaluate the adequacy with which they reflected or described the sub-criteria under
review. In total, in the order of seven hundred and fifty description were evaluated on this basis.
23. The results of the analyses indicated that the IAEA code most frequently (55%) provided
the " b e s t description" reflecting the sub-criteria under evaluation followed by the ANSI 45.2 stan
dard (36%).
However, the ISO Standard followed closely the ANSI Standard, both in format and content.
It was interesting to note how often the same description (verbatum) was used in so many different
standards. It is obvious that each standard, during its evolution commencing with 10CFR50 App. B,
acknowledged the existence of a previous standard and utilised the same verbage.
24. Thus the comparative analysis indicated the IAEA code as the most preferable, but it recognised
that the selection of this code as the reference standard could be considered as possibly biasing
the analysis in its favour. It is the opinion of the authors that except for the language requirement
there is no significant difference between the IAEA code and ANSI 45.2 in their requirements on
Quality Assurance Programme requirements.
25. This comparative analysis can be used as the basis for further work or reference when
evaluating any one particular standard (from those anlaysed) for use on a specific project. However,
for the reasons stated in the following section, no code or standard should be considered in isola
tion from the total system to which it belongs.
Conclusions
26. The comparative analysis indicated that IAEA 50 C QA, ISO 6 2 1 5 , ANSI 45.2 or
10CFR50 App. B are all relatively equivalent in stipulating the necessary QA programme criteria
for nuclear power plants. However, a note of caution on the methodology used should be given
at this stage.
97 Section E
27. It is not completely valid to compare each of these codes or standards in isolation from the
systems to which they now belong. Some of the codes and standards evaluated are relatively brief
on their criteria statements, but it must be remembered that they are now, in many cases, sup
ported by further supplementary guides or daughter standards.
28. The particular systems to which the IAEA, CFR, ANSI and CSA codes and standards belong
are summarised below:
29. The IAEA Codes of Practice and Safety Guides are recommendations issued by the agency
for use by member states in the context of their o w n nuclear safety requirements. These codes
and guides are written in such a form as would enable a member state, should it so decide, to make
the contents of such documents directly applicable to activities under its jurisdiction.
30. The IAEA have issued five Codes of Practice to cover the following topics:
50-C G - Governmental Organisation for the Regulation of Nuclear Power Plants
50 C S Safety in Nuclear Power Plant Sitting
50-C D - Design for Safety of Nuclear Power Plants
50-C O - Safety in Nuclear Power Plant Operation
50-C-QA - Quality Assurance for Safety in Nuclear Power Plants.
31. These five codes are considered to establish the objectives and minimum requirements that
should be fulfilled to provide adequate safety in the operation of nuclear power plants.
The safety guides are issued to describe and make available to member states accepting
methods of implementing specific parts of the relevant Codes of Practice. Methods and solutions
varying from those set out in these guides may be acceptable, if they provide at least comparable
assurance that nuclear power plants can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety
of the general public and site personnel. Although these codes of practice and safety guides are
considered to establish an essential basis for safety, it is also noted that they may not be sufficient
or entirely applicable and that other safety documents published by the Agency should be consultod
as necessary.
33. As noted in Section 3, every applicant, in the United States, for a nuclear plant construction
permit has to establish a quality assurance programme which meets the requirements of 10CFR 50
App. B. For this and other Federal Regulations the NRC have issued a series of regulatory guides.
These regulatory guides are issued to describe, and make available to the public, methods accep
table to the NRC staff of implementing specific parts of the Commission's regulations, to delineate
techniques used by the staff in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, or to provide
guidance to applicants.
Regulatory guides are not substitutes for regulations, and compliance with them is not required.
Methods and solutions different from those set out in the guides can be considered as acceptable.
34. A listing of the regulatory guides supporting 10CFR 50 App. and the associated ANSI Stan
dards that they refer to, are given in Appendix of this report. It can be seen that this Federal Regula
tion is supported by seventeen regulatory guides, fourteen of which make reference to ANSI
standards.
ANSI 4 5 . 2 Series
35. This Standard was developed as a general industry standard to satisfy the intent and amplify
the requirements of 10CFR50 App. B. This Standard, in turn, is now supplemented by various
" d a u g h t e r " standards which directly expand on some of the various criteria (such as Packing,
Housekeeping, Installation, Design Control etc.) given in ANSI 4 5 . 2 . A listing of the daughter stan
dards supplementing ANSI 45.2 is given in Appendix C.
98 Section E
CSA Series
36. Although the comparative analyses in Section E utilised CSA Z299.1 including its guidelines
, and C, this standard is now considered as an integral part of the N286 series which have been
written specifically for nuclear power plants. A summary of the integration of the Z299 and the
N286 series is given in Appendix D.
37. In conclusion and in the light of today's practices, no one particular code or standard should
be considered in isolation. The selection for application of any QA code or standard can only be
made w i t h an awareness and understanding of the total system to which it belongs.
38. The integrated system within which 10CFR50 App. opertes (i.e. US Federal Regulations
and the NRC Regulatory Guides) is probably the most proven. It has been under continual develop
ment since 1970 and applied during the design, construction, and operation of over 100 reactors
in the US and throughout the world.
39. Today, it is equally applicable to Fuels Reprocessing Plants as it is to the various reactor con
cepts (PWR, BWR, GCR) under the jurisdiction of the NRC. However, it is rigidly tied to US Law,
can be modified unilaterally by the US, and requires significant transposition for application outside
of the USA.
40. The IAEA Code of Practice 50-C-QA and its current and planned series of safety guides, may
be considered to form a more suitable integrated QA system for use outside the US. As an alter
native, consideration could be given to selecting the ANSI Standard 45.2 together w i t h its daughter
standard in the 45.2XX Series without reference to the US Regulatory Guides.
41. It is recommended that a qualitative analysis can be conducted to evaluate and compare:
(i) the IAEA Code 50-C-QA with its associated Safety Guides; and
(ii) the ANSI Standard 45.2 with its daughter standards.
42. The object of this evaluation would be to select one complete integrated QA system and recom
mend its application to Fast Reactor Programmes within the CEC.
99 Section E
APPENDIX A T O SECTION E
Codes of Practice
Safety Guides
50-SG-QA1 Preparation of the quality assurance programme for nuclear power plants
50-SG-QA2 Quality assurance records system for nuclear power plants
50-SG-QA3 Quality assurance in the procurement of items and services for nuclear power
plants
50-SG-QA4 Quality assurance during site construction of nuclear power plants
50-SG-QA5 Quality assurance during operation of nuclear power plants
50-SG QA6 Quality assurance in the design of nuclear power plants
50-SG-QA7 Quality assurance organisation for nuclear power plants
50-SG-QA8 Quality assurance in the manufacture of items for nuclear power plants
50-SG-QA10 Quality assurance auditing for nuclear power plants
50-SG-QA11 Quality assurance in the design and manufacture of fuel and fuel cladding for
nuclear power plants.
100
APPENDIX TO SECTION E
101
APPENDIX C TO SECTION E
102
APPENDIX D TO SECTION E
(b) Separate standards, covering each of the constituent phases of the plant life cycle, which
develop in greater detail the principles expressed in N286.0 as appropriate to each phase.
These are:
N286.1 Procurement QA
N286.2 Design QA
N286.3 Construction QA
N286.4 Commissioning QA
N286.5 Operation QA
(e) CSA Z299.1 - 4 Quality programme requirements
This series, introduced earlier for the manufacturing and fabrication of components,
although not numbered in it, is now considered to be an integral part of the N286 series.
The CSA Z 2 9 9 series provides for several types of programmes and they are comprised
of four individual fixed-step, graded documents, beginning w i t h CSA Z 2 9 9 . 1 , which is
the most demanding standard, and ranging d o w n to CSA Z 2 9 9 . 4 , which is the least
demanding.
103
PART 2
1. The following analysis deals w i t h the mechanical systems of nuclear reactors only.
3. The following analysis purports to show the references to classification in the various Quality
Assurance Codes and Standards, and to the details of classification in the safety codes.
4. The classification of component parts of a nuclear reactor at the present state of the art,
based on various diverse principles, three concepts of which, in use at present, are given below :-
(a) General Statement of Classification in a Quality Assurance Standard
(b) Safety Criteria
(c) Level of Assurance or Inspection in the Quality Assurance Standard.
Exposition of Concepts
5. General statement
(a) ISO 6215 - Nuclear Power Plants Quality Assurance Section 5.1.1.4, and
BS 5882 - Total Quality Assurance Programme for Nuclear Power Plants -
Section 1.1.4.
The following is the relevant extract from the above standards:-
"Since items and services will differ in regard to relative safety, reliability
and performance importance, various methods on levels of control, and ver
i f i c a t i o n may be used to assure adequate quality."
(b) IAEA 50-C-QA - Quality Assurance for Safety in Nuclear Power Plants - A Code of
Practice. Section 2 . 1 .
" I t e m s , services and processes to which the quality assurance will apply
shall be identified. Appropriate methods or levels of control and verification
shall be assigned to those items, services and processes."
(c) USA - 50CFR 10 Appendix - Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants
and Fuel Reprocessing Plants - Introduction.
" T h e pertinent requirements of this Appendix apply to all activities affec
ting the safety related functions of those structures, systems and com
ponents; these activities include designing, purchasing, fabricating, handl
ing, shipping, storing, cleaning, erecting, installing, inspecting, testing,
operating, maintaining, repairing, refuelling and modifying.
... quality assurance comprises all those planned and systematic actions
necessary to provide adequate confidence that a structure, system or com
ponent will perform satisfactorily in service."
(d) USA ANSI/ASME N45.2 - Quality Assurance Program Requirements for Nuclear
Facilities. Section 2 .
"Since items and services will differ in regard to relative safety, reliability
and performance importance, various methods on levels of control and
verification may be used to assure adequate quality."
105
Safety Criteria
6. bxtracts from IAEA 50 SG D I "Safely Functions and Component Classification for BWR, PWR
and PTR A Safety Guide."
It is recognised that some systems, components and structures are more important to safety
than others. Two methods of assigning graded requirements to safety related systems, components
and structures are given below:-'
(i) Deterministic Method - Requirements placed on those safety-related systems, com
ponents and structures whose failure could result in significant radioactive releases. These
requirements are imposed without explicit consideration of the probability of such failures
or mitigating effects.
(ii) Probability Method Utilises the probability of 2 factors, that a safety function would
be required, and the consequences of failure of that safety function, in order to assess
the safety importance. The safety classification is arrived at by using a combination of
the following criteria:-
(a) the consequence of failure of that safety function;
(b) the probability that the safety function would be required;
(c) the probability that the safety function would not be accomplished when required.
The product of these three factors must be acceptably low.
The resultant classification is based on the function and the corresponding design code.
7. This safety guide for light water moderated thermal neutron reactors is included in this analysis
since this type of reactor is well established for power generation and comparable documents deal-
ing with LMFBRs are sparse.
8. The safety guide deals with radiological safety, and the need to limit radiation exposure of
the public and site personnel for all operational states and accident conditions of a nuclear power
plant. It categorises components into four descending safety classes, depending upon the conse-
quences and probability of failure, based on the probabilistic method.
9. The actual design code associated with each safety class will depend upon the individual
member states.
10. Safety Classes according to IAEA 50-SG-D1.
(i) Safety Class 1 - Safety functions necessary to prevent the release of fission products
to the environment in the absence of appropriate safety system action.
Suggesting Design Code ASME-BPV-III-1-NB, Class 1.
(ii) Safety Class 2 Safety functions necessary to mitigate the consequences of an ac-
cident which would otherwise cause the release of fission products to the environment.
Need only be considered after the initial failure of another safety function.
Includes functions in which the combination of the consequences and probability
associated with the safety function is high.
Suggested Design Code - ASME-BPV III-1-NC, Class 2, MC and Division 2.
(iii) Safety Class 3 - Safety functions in a support role to Safety Classes 1, 2 and 3. Failure
would not lead to a direct increase in radiation exposure.
Suggested Design Code ASME BPV III-1 ND, Class 3.
(iv Safety Class 4 Safety functions that do not fall within Safety Classes 1, 2 or 3.
It includes functions to limit the release of radioactive waste below prescribed units
which, if they fall, would not result in the exposure of the public or site personnel in
excess of prescribed limits.
Suggested Design Code ASME VIII.
106 Section F
A N S 5 4 . 6 - Proposed American National Standards LMFBR Safety Classification and
Related Requirements - Draft
1 1. l h e following safety classes ol LMFBR Components aie based on the safety 11 met ions to
be performed, consequences of failure and quality standards commensurate w i t h the importance
of the safety functions to be performed.
12. A "deterministic" approach to Safety Classification is used in this standard, the design base
for the various classes being ASME BPV-lll-1 w i t h its various sub-sections for low temperature ap
plications and its associated variants for the high temperature applications. Quality Assurance Criteria
for these classifications are covered by pertinent requirements of 10CFR 50 Appendix and AN
SI/ASME N 4 5 . 2 .
14. This concept classifies the level of components by the application of varying degrees of Quality
Assurance or Inspection. It can be applied in t w o forms, namely:
(i) System oriented
(ii) Product oriented
107 Section F
15. The system oriented approach places the emphasis on a prescribed Quality Assurance
methodology, which obligates the nuclear power plant owner and its contractors to plan, conduct,
control and document their work in a systematic way. It programmes work from conceptual design
through controlled performance of all activities and quality verification to commissioning and may
be extended to the final decommissioning. Various levels of On.ihly Assurance and Inspection may
be established in the programme depending upon safety, economic or other applicable (actors.
16. The product oriented approach accepts the inspection programme laid down from the design
and process layouts, and places emphasis on extensive verification of the pre-established quality
characteristics of a component by inspections and tests. These are performed in a redundant way
by the manufacturers or purchasers of the plant and verified by an independent inspection
organisation.
1 7. This is a product oriented system. Classification of components is based on the level of Quality
Assurance and Inspection applied to them.
Class 1 - CSA 299.1 - Full Quality Assurance
Class 2 - CSA 299.2 - Quality Control only
Class 3 - CSA 299.3 - Quality Verification
Class 4 - CSA 299.4 Final Inspection only
18. The classes are determined by summing marks over the range 0 to 4 in ascending order of
importance for each of the following categories:
Design Process Complexity
Design Maturity
Item or Service Characteristics
Manufacturing Complexity
Safety
Economic
19. The Quality Assurance standard to be used is selected from the following ranges:-
Value Range QA Standard
18-24 CSA Z299.1
13 - 17 Z299.2
8 12 Z299.3
4 7 Z299.4
0 3 -
108 Section F
Ultrasonic testing is not required, except where it is difficult to apply
radiography.
Standard 3 - Non-destructive testing is not required except where specifically called for,
and for the following:-
Stub ends of valves of diameter greater than 100 mm
Longitudinally welded tube
Materials are classified as follows:
Safety Class 1
Safety Class 2
Safety Class 3
22. The class depends upon the operating conditions, dimensions, safety factors, conditions of
operation (intermittent functioning, etc.) and the effect of a fault on the availability of the plant.
109 Section F
SECTION G - COMPARISON AND SUMMARY OF THE
TYPES AND FREQUENCY OF DESTRUCTIVE AND
NON-DESTRUCTIVE CONTROLS DURING THE MANUFACTURE
OF THE CONSTITUENT PARTS OF THE LMFBR COMPONENTS
Introduction
1. Details of destructive and non destructive controls enunciated below will vary between the
countries manufacturing the components and the codes and standards used. They will also vary
with the individual design of the components. However, it is considered that the controls given below
represent a more than average state of the art.
Destructive Controls
2. All the following tests are required in some measures by all applicable Pressure Vessel Codes
and relevant National Codes of Practice and Standards.
110
The results of the above tests are compared w i t h the properties quoted in the rele-
vant specifications called for in the design, procurement and manufacturing
documents. The material is accepted for further processing if the properties fall within
the acceptance band given on the specification.
In addition to the above the following destructive tests may be made on pipes and
tubes:
Flattening test
Reverse flattening test for welded tubes
Flaring test
Flange test
111 Section G
The weld procedure and the results of the testing programme are recorded on pre-
arranged forms.
Any deviation or change in procedure to the welding practice will necessitate re-proving
or testing of the revised procedure.
Non-destructive Controls
112 Section G
(ix) Check welding electrodes for the correct type, size and that they are correctly stored.
(x) The heat treatment procedure is to be monitored to ensure that the component under-
goes the correct process, and that all parameters are recorded.
(xi) Carry out non-destructive tests, examinations and inspection of welds according to the
Quality Assurance Programme by the following methods:-
(a) Radiograph
(b) Ultrasonic tests
(c) Dye penetrant
(d) Magnetic particle tests where applicable for ferritic materials
(e) Eddy current tests where approved
All welds are to be clearly identified and sentenced to the specific procedure.
(xii) All nonconformances arc to be logged and corrective actions clearly recorded.
(xiii) Proving or performance tests on completed components are to be made according
to a predetermined programmo
(xiv) Cleaning process to be used on the completed component to be checked to specification
Clean conditions for working in to be checked where specified
(xv) Component to be checked for cleanliness by testing the surface
(xvi) The packing of the component to be checked to specification and environmental
conditions established
9. All controls executed during manufacture must be fully documented, since this information
provides a reference for later inspection during the life of the component in order to monitor its con-
tinued performance or for investigative purposes in the event of mal-operation.
113 Section G
SECTION H - TESTS AND CONTROLS APPLIED TO
LMFBR COMPONENTS DURING MANUFACTURE
1. The components chosen for this section are from a pool type of liquid metal cooled fast breeder
reactor. The pool type is chosen since it is the design that is gaining predominance in EEC countries.
3. The classification system used is that according to the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) Safety Guide No. 50-Sg-D1. This is very similar to the American ANS 54.6 issued in draft
form, which is specifically written for loop type LMFBRs. No safety class number is specifically
assigned to individual component parts of a LMFBR, in any standard, due, no doubt, to the present
state of the art of varying designs. The classification given above is made by the author.
4. The primary reactor tank constitutes the main pressure circuit boundary for the primary ac-
tive sodium in a pool type of liquid metal cooled fast breeder reactor.
5. - It is essentially a pressure vessel designed and constructed to the highest standards of integrity,
characterised by its low design pressure and medium temperature. The design code would be based
on ASME Section III - sub-section NB Class 1 : Components or Code Cases N-47 through N-51
depending upon temperature.
7. The following controls are made on the vessel during manufacture, which is mainly carried
out on site from pre-formed sections made in a factory.
Destructive Tests
114
Non-Destructive Tests a nd Inspections
9. Carry out the undermentioned inspections on the following unit components made from plate:
Dome pressing
Pressed petal sections forming the toroidal knuckle
Cylindrical sections
Inspections
10. (i) Check that material agrees with that for which the mechanical test certificates apply,
(ii) Check dimensions and profile to drawings.
(iii) Check the surface of the plates for irregularities visually.
(iv) Check the pressed profiles for cracks by visual, dye penetrant and ultrasonic tests.
(v) Check the machined edge weld preparations for accuracy to drawing and for cracks by
dye penetrant and ultrasonic tests.
(vi) Check that the welding procedure is correct for the job and that the welders have all
been approval tested, particularly for the position of welding on the job.
(vii) Check that the electrodes to be used are correct and that they are stored correctly and
are in the correct condition.
(viii) Check that the alignment of all weld seams is correct after tacking or jigging on initial
assembly.
(ix) Check that all weld seams are in correct alignment after completion of welding.
(x) Measure the thickness of all weld seams after grinding level in preparation for radiography
to ensure that no undercutting of the plate thickness has taken place.
(xi) Check the sizes and contour profile of the finished welded vessel. Particular attention
will be paid to the contour of the bottom torispherical end, contraction due to weld
shrinkage and overall dimensions.
(xii) Mark all weld seams for detailed identification purposes during nondestructive testing.
(xiii) Carry out nondestructive testing of all weld seams according to the Quality Assurance
Programme. The testing may take the form of:
Radiography
Ultrasonic
Dye penetrant for surface cracks.
(xiv) Record the sentencing of all welds together with the history of all weld repairs.
11. The vessel is next pressure tested and tested for leak tightness. In view of the geometry of
the vessel and the low design pressure of the cover gas, most of the pressure in the vessel is
developed by the static head of fluid, namely sodium. The pressure test is therefore carried out by
building an extension on to the top of the vessel and filling it with chloride free water.
12. The following is the procedure carried out to pressure test the vessel:
(i) L ower the vessel into the leak jacket, which is fitted with facilities to detect water leakage
from the vessel in a sump in the bottom.
(ii) Fit temporary head section at the top of the vessel to give the required over pressure
at the bottom.
(iii) Fit strain gauges both internally and externally at pre determined positions.
(v) Fit mechanical movement gauges to the inside of the vessel.
(v) Fill vessel w i t h demineralised chloride free water to the specified height, to which is
added a fluorescent dye to detect any leaks on the outside.
(vi) Measure the strains on the internal and external strain gauges and mechanical move
ment gauges and carry out an underwater inspection of the profile of the vessel by means
of profile gauges. Particular attention being paid to the knuckle radius of the torispherical
end for signs of wrinkling and buckling.
115 Section H
(vii) Check for permanent set on strain gauges and mechanical movement gauges upon release
of pressure by emptying the vessel.
(viii) Carry out an ultra-violet light scan on the outside of all welds when the vessel is
withdrawn from the leak jacket to check for leaks from the dyed water inside.
(ix) Check the inside and outside surfaces of the vessel for distortion.
13. After pressure testing the vessel, it should be cleaned to an approved procedure and the
cleanliness inspected by monitoring the liquid effluent and by surface inspection after drying out.
14. The function of the secondary sodium pump is to maintain a flow of sodium in the secondary
hoat transport circuit from the intermediate heat exchanger situated in the primary sodium pool to
the steam raising plant situated externally to the main containment building.
1 5. The design is characterised by the following features:-
(i) Vertical pump shaft mounted in a vertical tank electrically driven.
(ii) Pumping sodium at medium temperature.
(iii) large temperature gradient along shaft.
(iv) Lower bearing immersed in medium temperature sodium.
(v) Long periods of constant running.
(vi) Provision made for draining sodium from the pump tank and from the impeller system.
(vii) Shaft gland and seal at top end to seal against inert cover gas and to provide a free
sodium surface.
(viii) Pump tank and rotating impeller system usually made from austenitic stainless steel.
16. The following tests and controls are made on the pump during manufacture up to despatch
from the manufacturer's works. They deal with the mechanical pump only, manufacturing and per-
formance tests on the electric motor are conducted separately.
Destructive Tests
116 Section H
(vii) Check that all weld seams are in correct alignment after completion of welding.
(viii) Supervise any specified heat treatment of the completed vessel.
(ix) Chuck that no undercutting of the welds has occurred after grinding of welds, where
necessary, in preparation for radiographing.
(x) Check the size of the vessel dimensionally and the profile for any irregularities.
(xi) Mark all weld seams for detailed identification purposes during non-destructive
testing.
(xii) Carry out non-destructive testing of all weld seams according to the Quality
Assurance Programme. The testing may take the form of:-
Radiography
Ultrasonic Testing
Dye Penetrant for surface cracks.
(xiii) Record the sentencing of all welds, together with the history of all weld repairs.
(xiv) Pressure test the vessel by the specified medium and to the specified conditions
of pressure, temperature and time.
(xv) Test the vessel for leak tightness. Usually carried out by a vacuum test and measur-
ing the in leakage. Locate leaks and repair as necessary.
(xvi) Clean the vessel to the approved procedure and check for cleanliness by the method
laid down.
19. (i) Check that the constituent parts of the pump are clean and treated according to specifica-
tion before packing.
117 Section H
(ii) Check that the method of packing and the fixing of lifting points are according to
specification.
(iii) Check that any specified lifting gear despatched w i t h the pump is correct to drawing
and that it has been tested and that test certificates accompany the gear.
(iv) Check that the environment of the constituent parts of the pump in the packing is correct.
Tests
22. Destructive and non-destructive tests carried out during the manufacture of the cold trap are
similar to the tests made on the secondary sodium pump tank.
118 Section H
SECTION J - RECORDS PROVIDED AT THE DELIVERY OF A COMPONENT
1. The number and form of records produced during the manufacture of a component and subse-
quently delivered with the component will depend upon the design, type, configuration, material,
method of manufacture and duty of the component. They will conform with the Quality Assurance
Programme, which will incorporate the requirements of the code or standard to which the compo-
nent is being made, the requirement of the statutory regulations of the country in which it will be
operated, built or manufactured and the customer.
2. They will also include certificates and documents produced by independent inspection organisa-
tions where these are required by the contract.
3. The following list purports to show, typically, the number and type of documents and records
produced during the manufacture of a medium sized pressure vessel with forged machined flanges
and a number of machined nozzles spaced round the vessel for a specified matrix. The records are
subsequently despatched with the vessel in a suitable collated form.
Material Test Certificates
(i) Chemical analysis certificates of all materials used.
(ii) Mechanical test certificates.
(iii) Certificate of examination of plate.
(iv) Radiographs of forgings and certificates of ultrasonic inspection.
(v) Certificates of heat treatment of forgings, plates and pipes where specified, giving
temperature charts and positions of temperature measurements.
Certified Weld Procedure
(vi) Record of welds and names of welders identified against welds.
(vii) Drawing showing identification marks of welds.
(viii) Radiographs of welds together with the technique used in taking the radiographs and
identification of welds.
(ix) Certificates of sentencing of radiographs of welds.
(x) Certificates of ultrasonic tests of welds where relevant.
(xi) Certificates of dye-penetrant tests of welds where relevant.
(xii) List of faulty welds, areas cut out and re-welded.
(xiii) Certificates of heat treatment of completed vessel, where specified giving temperature
charts and positions of temperature measurements.
(xiv) Dimensional survey of vessel, flanges, supports and nozzles.
(xv) Concessions to original drawings.
(xvi) Certificate of pressure test of vessel.
Positions of strain gauges if used.
Records of movements of vessel during test and of permanent set upon release of
pressure.
(xvii) Certificate of vacuum test of vessel and record of leak rate and methods used to detect
and positions thereof. Corrective action taken to correct leaks.
(xviii) Certificate of calibration of instruments used for pressure test and vacuum test.
(xix) Record of cleaning and certificate of final cleanliness.
(xx) List of non-conformities agreed with purchaser.
(xxi) Drawing list of as-made drawings.
(xxii) Copy of the as-made drawings.
(xxiii) Set of design calculations of the vessel.
(xxiv) Photographs of vessel during various stages in construction - if specifically requested
in the contract.
119
4. The following documents and records are typical of those produced during the manufacture
ol ii mechanical centrifugal pump, electrically driven. I he documents lor the pump .ink will be similar
to those described above for a medium size pressure vessel. In addition, the following documents
will be produced during the manufacture, inspection and test of the mechanical part of the pump.
b. I In:, si n nm. n y only includes inspections inni It.:.I:, pei Liming in the mechanical components
of the pump. Similar inspections and performance tests on the electric drive motor and control gear
are not included.
Material Test Certificates of Rotating Parts
(i) Chemical analysis certificates of all materials used.
(ii) Mechanical Test Certificates.
(iii) Certificates of heat treatments of shaft and impeller, giving temperature charts and
positions of temperature measurements.
(iv) Inspection measurements of the build-up of the pump.
(v) Certificate of balancing of impeller system including details of balance weights or weight
removal.
(vi) Certificate of overspeed test of impeller system.
6. The following tests refer to performance tests w i t h water w i t h the pump erected in a
demineralised water loop.
(i) Certificate of detailed readings of tests to measure the performance characteristics of
the pump of head against flow at various speeds and the calculation of the pump
efficiency.
(ii) Certificate of amplitude and phase of vibration readings at pre determined stations.
(iii) Plotted curves of the measured pump characteristics of head against flow and efficiency
in cold water.
(iv) Corrected curves of pump characteristics to specified sodium conditions of pump of
temperature and density.
(v) Certificate of cavitation measurements.
(vi) Log of endurance run of pump in cold water loop.
(vii) Certificate of inspection of components of pump when stripped d o w n after test.
(viii) Certificate of limiting dimensions of pumps for subsequent build-up on site.
(ix) Drawing list of as-made drawings.
(x) Copy of as-made drawings.
(xi) List of nonconformances agreed with the purchaser.
(xii) Calibration certificate of instruments used during characteristics tests in water.
(xiii) Certificate of performance of oil supply and cooler system.
(xiv) Maintenance manual and assembly instruction.
120 Section J
CDNA10123ENC