ML19263B665
| ML19263B665 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/06/1978 |
| From: | Potapovs U NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Etheridge M ABB COMBUSTION ENGINEERING NUCLEAR FUEL (FORMERLY |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19263B662 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900401 NUDOCS 7901220347 | |
| Download: ML19263B665 (2) | |
Text
e""C, UNITED STATES O
o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION R h, REGION IV o
O > > '-
611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 1000 fM ' [ !
\\
0 6 SEP W Cocket No. 99900401/78-02 Combustion Engineering, Inc.
Attn: Mr. M. R. Etheridge Vice President General Services 1000 Prospect Hill Road Windsor, CT 06095 Gentlemn:
Thank you for your letter of August 23, 1978, in response to our letter dated July 21, 1978, with enclosures. As a result of our review, we find that no additional information is needed.concerning your response to items A.,
B., and F.of our tiotice of Deviation enclosure. The following relates to the remaining items in that enclosure.
Item C Figure 17-5 of CEtiPD-210-A indicates a broader internal audit scope than the words of paragraph 17.18; however, we recognize that the words " procurement" and " engineering" include those groups identified on Figure 17-5 as Manufacturing Services, Purchasing, Development, and Plant Apparatus. flonetheless, we concur with your opinion that this deviation is premature. We therefore will consider this an unresolved item for further evaluation in 1979, from the standpoint of both scope and staff-ing of the CE internal audit program.
No further information is necessary at this time.
Item D This deviation did not question the fact that design verification was accomplished but rather the adequacy (or effectiveness)of the design verification that was done by whomever. Since these valves were returned to the vendor for modification from five different sites, it appears that a design error occurred either in the pre-paration of the engineering / purchase specification or the vendor's design process. This deviation deals with the fact that the 7901220 3'/7
Combustion Engineering 2
design verification process did not detect this design error, wherever it occurred, in not only one case, but at least five cases. Accordingly, please provide the requested information (corrective and preventative actions) concerning the weaknesses in the area of verification of design adequacy that pennitted these apparent design errors to occur.
Item E Your response indicates that the subject valves met your require-ments and that no deviation existed from your purchase order, contract, specifications, or drawing requirements.
(flote that these valves are the same valves involved in the above deviation, Item D.) Based on our review of CE documents and related 10 CFR 50.55(e) reports these valves were returned to the vendor for re-work or replacement of plug assemblies which had or would result in excessive pressure drops that in turn had the potential of invalidating the analysis of ECCS performance. From this review it appears that the valves were returned because of their inability to meet operational requirements. Since your procedure NPD-MPI-17 states in part, "The Field Action Request will be prepared and submitted... to describe a nonconforming condition... such as:
... (2) Inability of CE syr,tems, equipment or material to meet re-quireinents of installation, test or operating procedures or technical specifications...," this deviation appears appropriate and re-quires a response (corrective and preventative actions) by CE.
Concerning Item C. above, our records will be changed to reflect the change in this finding.
Concerning Items D. and E., please provide this additional information within (20) days in order that we may complete our review.
Sincerely, r
/7 d}L oLn Uldis Potapovs, ChiOf Vendor Inspection Branch
.