ML20058D567
| ML20058D567 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/30/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058D554 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99901176 99901176-90-01, 99901176-90-1, EA-90-167, NUDOCS 9011060162 | |
| Download: ML20058D567 (2) | |
Text
-_.
(
4 APPENDIX-A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Welded Tube Company of America Docket No: 9901176/90-01 Chicago, 1111nois EA-90-167 During an inspection conducted at the Welded Tube Company of America (WTC),
Chicago, Illinois facility)on July 16-18, 1990, a violation of Nuclear Regulatory Connission (NRC requirements was identified.
In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1990), the violation is listed below:
A.
Section 21.21, " Notification of Failure to Comply or Existence of a Defect,"
of 10 CFR Part 21, requires, in part, that each individual, corporation or other entity subject to the regulations adopt a)propriate procedures for either evaluating deviatiors or for informing tie licensee or purchaser of-the' deviation.
Contrary to the-above, WTC did not have procedures to provide for (a) evaluating deviations to determine whether a particular deviation could create a substantial safety hazard or (b) informing the licensees or purchasers of the deviation in order that the licensees or purchasers may cause the deviation to be evaluated. As a result, on two occasions described below, WTC failed to perform an evaluation or notify purchasers so they could cause an evaluation.to be performed. (90-01-01) 1 1.
WTC failed to evaluate the cracked weld seam on square tubing l
supplied to Hub Inc. (HUB) on purchase order (PO) No. T8106102 in l
March 1987. The tubing was ordered by HUB as nuclear safety-related p
-and invoked in the PO the requirements of 10 CFR Part 21,10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers t
l-
-(ASME) Code. WTC certified compliance with the.P0 on March 24, 1987.
HUB issued a Nonconformance Report, dated March 10,-1988, rejecting 20 feet of the tubing due to cracks _in the weld seam. A WTC representative inspe:ted the rejected tubing at HUB and documented the inspection in WTC Complaint Report No. 203. However, WTC did not evaluate the deviation to determine whether'other nuclear customers may have received defective material from the same heat, lot, or run of tubing material.
j 2.
WTC failed to evaluate the lack of fusion in the weld seam on square tubing supplied to HUB on PO No. T8106002'in February 1988'and subsequently supplied to Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES),-
l l
L 1:
9011060162 901030 PDR GA999 EttV*****
999901176 PNU'
't Unit 2.
The tubing was ordered by HUB as nuclear safety-related and invoked in the PO the requirements of 10 CFR Part 21,10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, and the ASME Code.
WTC certified compliance with the P0 on April 12, 1988.
HUB issued a Nonconformance Report, dated December 12, 1989, scrapping the remaining stock of square tubing. A copy of the Nonconformance Report was sent to WTC. HUB's Nonconformance Report was based on Pennsylvania Power & Light Company's Nonconformance Reports 89-0487 and 89-0498 which identified cracked and incomplete welds in tubing used in safety-related modifications at SSES. However, WTC did not evaluate the deviation to determine whether other nuclear customers may 1
have received defective material from the same heat, lot, or run of tubing material.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement VII).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR'2.201, WTC is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTH: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the Chief, 1
Vendor Inspection Branch, Division of Reactor Inspection and Safeguards, Office i
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, within 30 days of the date of the letter trans-mitting this Notice of Violation. This reply should be clearly marked as a
" Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation:
(1)the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the viola-
- tion, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4)Lthe date when full compliance will be achieved. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.
f Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 30th day of October 1990.
- - - -