ML20064G340
| ML20064G340 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 12/30/1982 |
| From: | Jackie Cook CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| 10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, 20651, 82-09-#2, 82-9-#2, MCAR-60, NUDOCS 8301110438 | |
| Download: ML20064G340 (7) | |
Text
,
e
't
@ Consumers Power Jessies W Ceek h
Vice President - Projects, kngsneering and Construction General office : 1946 West Pernell Moed, Jocheon, MI 49201 * (617) 788 0463 December 30, 1982 82-09 #2 Mr J G Keppler, Regional Administrator US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 MIDLAND NUCLEAR COCENERATION PLANT -
DOCKET NOS 50-329 AND 50-330 QUALITY PROGRAM AND MANUFACTURING DEFICIENCIES AT VICT0REEN, INC.
FILE:
0.4.9.65 SERIAL:
20651
Reference:
J W Cook Ictter to J G Keppler, same subject, serial 19074, dated October 13, 1982 This letter, as was the referenced letter, is an interim 50.55(c) report concerning quality program and manufacturing deficiencies af fecting radiation monitoring equipment being supplied by Victoreen. The attachment to this letter provides a ntatus of the actions in progress to correct these deficiencies.
Another report, either interim or final, will be sent on or before March 9, 1983.
o WRD/1r
Attachment:
Bechtel MCAR-60, Interin Report 2, dated December 17, 1982 CC: Document Control Desk, NRC Washington, DC RJCook, NRC Resident Inspector Midland Nuclear Plant r301110438 821230 PDR ADOOK 03000329 5
PDR JAti 5 933 OCl282-0036A-MP01 yY,
f 1
S2 riel 20651 2
82-09 #2 d
CC: CBechhoefer, ASLB Panel
.RSDecker, ASLB Panel FPCowan, ASLB Panel J11 arbour, ASLB Panel t
AS&L' Appeal Panel t
HMCherry, Esq MSinclair BStamiris CRStephens, USNRC WDPaton, Esq. USNRC I
FJKelley, Esq, Attorney General SilFreeman, Esq Asst Attorney General i
WHMarshall l
CJMerritt, Esq. TNK&J i
i i
i f
1 i
l I
4' I
5 l
I T
l l
OCl282-0036A-MP01
Attachment to Serial 20651 0 9 8 5 I 3 Bechtel Associates Professional Corporatf0ff a2 ij h 8 4 h h 777EastEisenhowerParkway i
Ann Arbor, Michigan afed Aseees P.O. Box 1000, Ann Arbor, Michgart 48106 Management Corrective Action Report (MCAR)
SUBJECT:
MCAR 60 (issued September 17, 1982)
INTERIM REPORT NO. 2 DATE:
December 17, 1982 PROJECT:
Consumers Power Company Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Bechtel Job 7220 Description of Deficiency Approximately 80% of the Midland radiation monitoring system electronic modules (IE and non-lE), manufactured by Victoreen, Inc. of Cleveland, Ohio, and reviewed by project personnel, were found to be nonconforming due to workmanship problems because they did not meet the approved Victorcen's Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 500.002.
Four out of the twelve class lE radiation monitors were reviewed at the Midland jobsite and were found to have similar nonconforming conditions.
The majority of nonconforming conditions are in the area of soldered connections. The soldered connections were found to have (1) insufficient soldering, (ii) excessive soldering,(iii) cold solder joints, (iv) excessive heat, (v) capacitor body enamel protruding into the plated through holes, (vi) diode bodies partially embedded in solder, and (vii) flux not cicaned from boards. Also observed were several occurences of circuit board delamination (meas 11ng), contamination on wire wrap connectors, duplicate serial numbers on like modules, lifted circuit foil, excessive insulation removal from jumper wires,and components not properly attached mechanically.
Historical Background and Summary of Investigation During the second week of August 1982, eight of the electronic modules were inspected at the vendor's shop by project supplier quality personnel. Numerous occurences of poor workmanship (rejectable per Victorcen SOP 500.002) were encountered and all electronic modules in the Victorcen plant were rejected for use in the Midland Plant.
During the period September 1 through 13, 1982 HPQAD and Bechtel supplier quality assembled a team of experienced individuals who went to Victorcen to quantify the workmanship problems. The team reviewed 877 modules, of which 730 were found to be nonconforming.
Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation 98496 098513 McAn interi= nerort No. 2 Page 2 A full scope audit of the suppliers QA program performed on September 8 through 10, 1982, at Victoreen's facility, revealed that there are deficiencies in the execution of its QA program (12 of the 19 audit elements were identified as deficient). On September 23, 1982, a sample inspection of workmanship on four of the twelve class IE radiation monitors shipped to the Midland jobsite was conducted. Nonconforming workmanship was found in all four monitors.
Analysis of Safety Implication There were approximately 1,500 nonconforming conditions found in the four class 1E monitors inspected at the jobsite. This represents approximately 35 deficiencies / module. The class IE monitors had been conditionally shipped to the jobsite because their qualification was not complete. It is probable that during qualification testing one or more of the deficiencies would have been uncovered. However, had the deficiencies not been discovered and corrected, it is possible that the nonconforming workmanship could have resulted in a reduction of the predicted reliable life expectancy of the equipment resulting in a loss of operability.
The class 1E monitors are designed in a manner such that loss of power or failure of certain components will result in an alarm condition.
However, due to the large number of nonconformances, the types of failures and results thereof cannot be analysed.
It is considered probable that one or more of the nonconforming conditions could have adversely affected one or more of the class IE radiation monitors, thereby affecting the safe operation of the plant.
Probable Cause The cause of the poor workmaaship appears to be a breakdown of the supplier's QA program which resulted f rom an apparent de-emphasis of the quality program following a shift in senior management and frequent changes in quality assurance personnel. The following significant deficiencies in the supplier's QA program were noted:
1.
Victorcen rewrote and implemented a new QA manual without prior approval from Bechtel.
2.
Inadequate in process inspection by Victoreen.
l 3.
Victorcen's QA department failed to review test and inspection documents as required by their SOPS.
l l
I
Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation a98496 0985I3 "c^^ '"i= R* Port No. 2 Page 3 4.
Victoreen's QA department failed to review their formal purchase orders and also were delinquent in performing required evaluation of their suppliers.
5.
Some of Victoreen's SOPS did not have the required formal sign-off by their Engineering, Manufacturing, and Quality assurance organizations.
6.
Victoreen had used several tools / instruments which were not currently recorded in their calibration systems.
7.
Inadequate employee training.
The reason that deficiencies in soldering in the 1E modules at the jobsite were not detected prior to shipment appears to be that printed circuit boards are not normally inspected for soldering workmanship. The procedures submitted by the vendor for soldering were considered satisfactory, and were similar to standard industry practices. Since we have not had a history of deficiencies in this area, and because it was determined through previous audits, including the September 23 through 25, 1981 audit, that the vendor appeared to be utilizing his procedures extraordinary inspection efforts in this area were not deemed necessary.
Corrective Action i
1.
Failure by Victoreen to submit their revised QA program (Revision 7, QA Manual and SOPS) to Bechtel for review and approval resulted in Bechtel issuing a stop work order on June 8, 1982. Subsequently, the QA program was submitted by Victoreen, was reviewed and commented on by Bechtel, and ultimately received Bechtel approval.
Following the approval, Bechtel lifted the stop work order on June 18, 1982. No lE equipment was shipped during this period.
2.
A stop further process for inspection and testing activities and a restriction on shipment was placed on all 1E equipment on September 10, 1982, as a result of the September 8 through 10, 1982 audit.
3.
On September 23, 1982, MPQAD over-inspected a sample of 4 of 12 class 1E monitors that had been shipped to the jobsite during August 1982. In the four monitors over inspected, approximately 1,500 nonconforming conditions were identified as described in the Analysis of Safety Implication section. These nonconforming conditions are also identified on Consumers Power Company Nonconformance Report M-01-9-2-129.
Hold tags were applied to all twelve class lE montiors.
r
~
Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation J 9 8 4 g)d) 8 513 MCAa Interi= neport No. 2 On September 30, 1982, Bechtel project personnel and Victoreen personnel again went to Midland to further investigate the deficiencies. Victoreen concurred with the nonconformances.
Bechtel met with Victoreen on October 27, 1982, and again on December 2,1982, to discuss corrective action required from these monitors. Corrective action is being finalized and will be addressed in the next report.
4.
Bechtel supplier quality met with Victoreen on September 24, 1982, to establish corrective action and completion dates to resolve Victoreen QA program deficiencies. Subsequent meetings were held on October 4 and 5, October 28, and November 18, 1982, to monitor the status of the corrective actions. Of the 12 deficient audit elements, Victoreen has corrected two (audit element XII - control of measuring and test equipment, and audit element XV --
nonconforming items) and supplier quality verified one of the two elements (audit element XII).
t 5.
100% reinspection of all class 1E equipment by supplier quality, with an overinspection by Consumers Power Company, will be pe rfo rmed. Additional supplier quality personnel have been assigned j hg i
to this order and all supplier quality personnel inspecting this equipment have or will receive additional training in inspection of printed circuit boards prior to the 100% reinspection.
6.
At Victoreen's request, Bechtel performed a follow-up investigation on November 18, 1982, to determine the action required by Victoreen before Bechtel could lif t the "stop further processing audit restriction". As an outcome of the investigation, Victoreen was informed that the following corrective actions require completion before the stop further process can be lifted:
- a. Submit the newly revised quality program (revised SOPS) for Bechtel approval (audit element II - QA program)
- b. Investigate status of shop travelers and identify to Bechtel any actions required (audit element XIV - inspection, testing and operating status)
Reportability Based on the safety implication analysis of this report, the described deficiency is considered reportable in accordance with the code of Federal Regulation 10 CFR 50.55(e).
e Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation bbbbb 2
MCAR Interim Report No. 2 Page 5 Submitted by:
ef G. 4fingh Control Systems Group Supervisor Approved by:
, W d_ /
M.M. Hughes Project Engineer
^
- - -P Concurrence by:
V W.G. Amey Control Systems Chief Engine'er
/ I, Concurrence by L o t.t N
.H. Sdtitfi Engineering Manager Concurrence by:
p/M.A.Dietrich Project Quality Assurance Engineer 9bb CS/JDB/se(J) 12/10/4-5
., - -,,