ML19329A935
| ML19329A935 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 03/02/1973 |
| From: | Sampson G TOLEDO EDISON CO. |
| To: | Grier B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19329A934 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001270077 | |
| Download: ML19329A935 (3) | |
Text
r.
~
. s_
r
%)
/,
[
T Z.".4 e m, ToLEoD
(/
' 7:31
.C. LEON GLe:n J. Sr.uosa ;
Vr:e FraaJear, Nwe,-
March 2, 1973 Docket No. 50-346 Mr. Boyce H. Grier, 0
0 i
Regional Director U.S. Atomic Energy Co=21ssion UU Directorate of Re6ulatory Operations p<
g Region III 799 Roosevelt Road 1.
_1 Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
Dear Mr. Grier:
Toledo Edison acknowledges receipt of your January 10, 1973, letter and enclosure referencing an apparent violation of AEC regulations and a nonconformance with our quality assurance progran. These two items resulted from site inspections conducted by your office on November 29-2-
30, 1972, and December 12-13, 1972.
Following a thorough examination of the two items of concern, Toledo Edison offers the following infor=ation regarding these apparent viola-tions including corrective action and steps thvt have been taken to avoid further occurrences.
Item 1 - Nonconforming Pinint; This concerns the AS:4E Section III piping spools which had been fabri-cated at the Kernersville Plant of ITT Grinnell and which contained fit-up tack velds made by previously unqualified velders. This deficiency was considered as a nonconformance at the Kernersville Plant regarding manufacturing procedures which did not place the affected field-delivered pieces in a nonconformance status. The resolution of the problem was given in its entirety to Grinnell subject to conditions presented by Toledo Edison, through Bechtel, to Grinnell. Grinnell, Kernersville,
-vorking in close conjunction with the authorized ASME code inspector sithin their fabricating shop, had promptly resolved the means whereby the unqualified tack velders could be properl'y certified, such as, with
- radiography; therefore, not requiring Grinnell's use of nonconformance procedures regarding.the affected pipe spool pieces.
The affected pieces received at the Davis-Besse site vere not treated as
/^N nonconformances untiI after the AEC site audit of Dacember 12-13, 1972.
'()'
After this. audit, they were appropriately tagged in the field as noncon-forcing, avaiting the Grinnell detailed report preparation, submittal and -
approval by the Davis-Besse project engineers. Following the January 31, j
8 0 01 ggO. OHIO 70332 M
.THE TOLEDO EC; SON COMPANY.
EDiSOrd/PJ62/o g MAOISON AV:NUE
~
f a
. f m, Mr. Boyce H. Grier j
I Page 2-O
' March 2, 1973 1973, acceptance of the Grinnell report, the tags were rechve:1 from the spools in the field. Grinnell's report was subnitted by Toledo Edicon to AEC-DRO under separate report, dated February 12, 1973.
Even though the quality of the affected site-delivered pieces was not in question, they should have been identified, tagged, handled, and disposed of in accordance with established procedures for nonconforming items because their fa'orication had involved nonconforcing practices.
All appropriate personnel in the organizations involved have been instructed
.to pay particular attention to the requirements of.nonconformance procedures in any similar situation. Toledo Edison's quality a'surance group vill s
give added attention to this area to prevent a sicilar occurrence.
Item 2 - Significant Deficiency Reuorting uer 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) 2 This also concerns the ASME Section III piping fabricated at the Kernersville Plant of ITT Grinnell whicr had been fabricated utilizing previously un-qualified velders to perform fit-up tack velds.
This 'nonconformance had not been considered a major deficiency since the quality of the piping spools involved was not affected and the nonconformance at-the fabricator's plant was discovered by routine inspection and surveil-lance on the part of Toledo Edison and Bechtel as their agent for shop in-spection.
This nonconformance was discussed during telephone conversations with your
. representative and further reviewed during the site inspections on Novecber
.29-30_ and December 12-13, 1972, at which time your representatives stated that it was their opinion that this nonconformance should be considered as a significant deficiency and reported pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50.55(e). This nonconformance vac reported as a significant deficiency by letter, dated January 18, 1973, following receipt of your letter of January 10, 1973. A further ' detailed report has been submitted by letter of February 12, 1973, including a report prepared by ITT Grinnell which contains a co:plete resolu
. tion.-
-The requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) vill be reviewed in regard to any significant" deficiency which might be found to have occurred to ascertain if such a deficiency should be reported.
If in doubt, your office vill be con-tacted for clarification.
4~
x;
i t
lfre*Ecyce H. Grier Page 3 l
O March 2, 1973 i
i We believe this letter, together with the report dated Fe'oruary 12, 1973, on the nonconformnce, has provided all information required; hot ever, if i
there are any questions or additional information desired, please contact I
i us.
i Yours very truly, i
.,d'/.e
,/
\\
I n
i
- %
- ' M7 */=CAh %
v30 !d *1/~',/
./
j
//
/
/
i 4
GJS:cd i
)
l l '
i i
f i
i i
1 i
l i
1 i
9 6
1
+
--+g-F9 vgu+s'e-
=g y
ee*
9 m w w
-.eea-e.
y m-ww ms,ee wa
-Ay, y*.
- -w==
- we es-=>_me,ew.
m-%,-w,wr--e
__,ss-weg +, e wewer