ML20024H660
| ML20024H660 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/03/1991 |
| From: | Potapovs U Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Landberg G VALCOR ENGINEERING CORP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024H661 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900728 NUDOCS 9106070318 | |
| Download: ML20024H660 (2) | |
Text
Txy m Co0b'et_
$ Uoy
~
'o,'
UNITED $TATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.[
r-wAsHiworow, p. c. rosss
\\
June 3, 1991 Docket No. 99900728/91-01 Mr. George Landberg Executive Vice President Valcor Engineering Corporation
'2 Lawrence Road Springfield, New Jersey 07081
Dear Mr. Landberg:
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 99900728/91-01)
This -letter addresses the inspection of your facility in Springfield, New Jersey
- led by Mr. Joseph-Petrosino of this office on February 11-15, 1991, and the discussions of his findings with you and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
The U.S. Nuclear-Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff conducted the inspection to review the circumstances surrounding two recenti identified problems regarding the-operation.of Valcor Engineering Corporation Valcor) solenoid volves at the
-South Texas Project Electric Generoting Stetion STPEGS) and at the Hadtfam Neck Plant. At STPEGS, two main feedwater isolation valves-failed to close as required. At'Haddam Neck, the Yalcor valve assemblies with Litton-Veam t.lectrical connectors developed short circuiting problems.
The enclosed report describes the areas examined during the NRC inspection and our findings.
This inspection consisted of an examinotion of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector.
During this irspection it was found that the implementation of your qualityL assuM nce (QA) program failed to meet certain NRC requirements. The most signhicant inspection finding was th6t Valcor failed to adopt appropriate-procedures to implement the requirements of Part 21 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 21). As a result, a problem identified'to Velcor by-NRC-licensees-in 1989-1990 regarding excessive valve leakage -in Valcor's nuclear safety-related 526 series volves at. three different nuclear power plant facilities was neither evaluated by Valcor nor dic-Valcor identify and inform all other applicable customers.. At the exit meeting-on February 15, 1991,- Valcor senior management committed to the NRC inspector that Valcor would identify all other applicable purchasers of the subject solenoid valves and inform them of the deviation as soon as possible.
r However,-during-a telephone conversation on May 6, -1991, between the NRC inspector and Valcor staff, it was revealed th6t Valcor had not yet informed its customers of the deviation as Yalcor had committed.
Under the provisions-p of Section 21.21(a) of 10 CFR Part 21, it is incumbent upon Valcor to inform its s
9106070318 910603 pon QAo?9 EECVALCE_
0 9990072e PDR
}
George Landberg June 3,1991 Valcor Engineering Corp.
customers in e timely manner of any deviation in order that our licensees riay determine whether the deviation can cause a loss of 56fety function to the extent that there is a major reduction in the degree of protection provided to public health and safety. The NPC staff presumes that Valcor understands that Section Pl.21(c) requires that they either perform the evaluation, or inform their customer (s).
The NRC staff understands that, in many cases, a vendor will not have sufficient information or expertise to n,ake the required evaluation, in those cases, the licensee must be promptly infermed of a deviation in ordtr for the licensee to perform the necessary evaluation.
The NRC staff considers this deviation significant since the licensees' applications are within systems whose degradotions could result in causing a substantial safety hazard.
You are required to respond to th',s letter and should follow th instructions specified in the enclosed Notice of Violation when preparing y.
- response, in your response, you shoulo cocument the specific actions t6 ken and any 6ccitional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. Af ter reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future inspections, the hRC will determine whether further NRC enf orcement action is necessary to ensure compiknce with hRC regulatory requirenients.
You are also requested to respond regarding your failure to inform licensees prorrptly of the vbive degradation discussed above as committed ic NRC staff on February 15, 1991.
The response requested by this letter is not subject to the clearance procedures of the Of fice of Management and Eudget as required by the Paperwor6 Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 90.511.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will t+ placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely, Mi Oldis Potapovs Act opg Chief Vendor Inspection Branch Division of Reactor Inspection and Safeguards Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
Inspection Rcport 99900728/91-01
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ -