ML19319B985
| ML19319B985 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 10/05/1972 |
| From: | Vandel T, Vetter W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19319B986 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-346-72-04, 50-346-72-4, NUDOCS 8001290715 | |
| Download: ML19319B985 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000346/1972004
Text
_
_ _
..___ _____ -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS
REGION III
RO Inspection Report No. 050-346/72-04
S ubj ect : Toledo Edison Company (Davis-Besse)
License No. CPPR-80
Oak Harbor, Ohio
Priority: N/A
PX Engineering Company, Incorporated
Category: A
Woburn, Massachusetts
Type of Licensee:
Type of Inspection:
Licensee Vendor Audit Surveillance Inspection
Dates of Inspection:
August 22 and 23, 1972
D stes of Previous Inspection: N/A
/
s
Y
k.' W. .Vancbl
/O .f*? k
Q.)
Principal Inspector:
(Date)
Accompanying Inspectors: None
Other Accompanying Personnel: None
N.E.Vettfr, Chief
sWC
W
Reviewed By:
/O -f-9 P
Reactor Construction Branch
(Date)
Proprietary Information: None
J
80012S07 6
__
_
.
s
ib
.
SECTION I
i
Enforcement Action
A.
Noncompliance
An audit by the licensee, of a Class I structure vendor, for a number
of changes and revisions to the applicable purchase specifications.
(Paragraph 3)
B.
Nonconformance: None
C.
Safety Items: None
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters: N/A
4
Unresolved Items: None
S tatus of Previously Reported Unresolved Items: N/A
Design Changes: N/A
Unusual Occurrences : N/A
Persons Contacted
PX Engineering Company, Incorporated (PXE)
P. X. O'Neil, President
H. W. Hopwood, Vice President
.
W. F. Peabody, Chief Engineer
!
A. L. Bradbrook, Quality Control Manager
.
J. Infantino, Shop Foreman
Toledo Edison Company (TECO)
E. M. Wilcox, Quality Assurance Specialist
M anagement Interview
i
A.
Licensee Representative Interview With the Vendor
Mr. Wilcox conducted a management interview discussion with Mr.
Peabody and Mr. Bradbrook of PXE. The following items were discussed.
l
-2-
!
sm/
-
_. _ - - - .
.
._
. .
..
. , _ .
- - - - -
. . _ .
._
- . _
!
,
I
('
\\
\\s.
i
-
'
1.
The material control practices did not appear to provide for
segregation of nonconforming weld rod.
Mr. Peabody said that
this was an oversight and that it would be corrected immediately.
2.
Mr. Wilcox stated that a number of PXE procedures had not
been reviewed or approved by TECO and requested that these
be submitted for review as soon as possible.
(Paragraph 4)
3.
Mr. Peabody agreed with a statement by Mr. Wilcox that PXE
did not have documentation to establish that welder qualifi-
cations do not lapse for lack of usage.
Peabody said that
he would develop a system to document procedure usage by all
q
j
PXE welders.
B.
RO Inspector's Interview With the Licensee Representative
The interview with Mr. Wilcox included:
,
i
1.
A discussion of the adequacy of inspection information available
to Wilcox for use during his inspections.
(Paragraph 3)
2.
A discussion concerned with an apparent lack of quality
assurance control.
(Paragraph 5)
!
i
i,
.
-
.
.
SECTION II
,
Additional Subjects Inspected, Not Identified in Section I, Where No
Deficiencies or Unresolved Items Were Found
1.
General
TECO purchase order numbers 1160 and 1344, twarded to the PX
Engineering Company, Incorporated, relate f.o the equipment support
structures for the primary coolant syster. The Bechtel Specifica-
tion No. 7749-C-48 provides the basis for the original quality
requirements contained in the purchase orders.
The licensee
representative conducted the vendor audit to determine:
(1) con-
formance to the purchase orders, and (2) the adequacy of the
quality assurance program. The RO inspector cbserved the audit
techniques, practices, and reviewed the information utilized during
the conduct of the audit.
2.
Purchase Order Status
Six of eight reactor vessel support structures are on a hold status
at the construction site. The remaining two structures are being
repaired at the vendor's plant. Other primary component supports
fh
are in the process of fabrication at the vendor's plant.
s._/
Details of Subjects Discussed in Section I
j
3.
Appendix B, Criterion XVIII, requires, in part, that, "A compre-
l
hensive system of planned and periodic audits shall be carried
out to verify compliance with all aspects of the quality assurance
program and to determine the effectiveness of the program." Contrary
to this, it was learned that TECO's QA inspector was unaware of
several changes to the purchase specifications for the equipment
tupport structures. Consequently, the subject audit was conducted
without benefit of sufficient information to verify conformance
to the purchase specifications. Letters, telegrams, conference
notes, etc., located in PX Engineering's files and relating to
specification changes, were not made available to TECO QA personnel.
Examples of information not available to the TECO inspector prior
to the inspection were:
(1) conference notes No. 151, dated May 4,
1972, which imposed 100% UT examination of the full penetration welds
of the reactor vessel supports and deleted this requirement for all
other supports, (2) a TWX dated June 30, 1972, confirming adherence
to Revision 0 of Specification C-48, rather than Revision I to this
-4-
-
.
s
_
m
(G
)
specification, and (3) conference notes No. 156 among other things,
deleted interior enclosed stiffeners from the design of cold leg
discharge restraints.
4
The licensee representative's review of the purchase order specifi-
cations disclosed that a number of fabrication procedures had not
been submitted by the vendor to appropriately authorize personnel
for review. Procedures not submitted are listed.
a.
Magnetic particle procedure,
b.
Ultrasonic procedures for the 10% fillet weld scan.
1
c.
Radiographic procedures for butt welds.
d.
Liqbid penetrant procedure.
e.
Stress relieving procedure.
Mr. Wilcox requested that these procedures be submitted immediately
for TECO review and approval.
5.
The RO inspector informed Mr. Wilcox, during a management interview
at the conclusion of the inspection, that, based on the inspector's
[
)
observations, it appeared that adequate QA control was not being
'
\\._/
exercised for this vendor. The following examples of QA shortcomings
were identified to support the inspector's position.
a.
Design change implementation resulting from conferences, without
benefit of design review or formal documentation.
b.
Procurement document review by TECO without identifiecation
and correction of omissions. This is typified by the fact
that required review and approval of certain procedures
'
affecting quality had not been accomplished by TECO.
c.
Shipment of equipment without proper determination of quality,
either at the vendor's plant or at the construction site.
d.
Unavailability of information to identify quality requirements
during the course of audits.
Mr. Wilcox said that the above identified shortcomings appeared
to be a matter of fact and that he would take immediate steps to
bring about obviously needed changes in this area of the TECO
Quality Assurance Program.
-5-
m
..
_
___ ___ ___
_-
-. -
-
. .
I
During a subsequent routine inspection at the Davis-Besse'construc-
tion site on September 12 - 14, 1972, the inspector wa:. informed
that corrective action in the form of QA program revisions was being
implemented on a priority basis,
i
-6-
r
i
.,
a .--- - ---- , - - - ,
-
. - .
.
. , , -- - - . - - -