ML20069K247

Interim Deficiency Rept 82-09 Re Quality Program & Mfg Deficiency Affecting Victoreen Radiation Monitoring Equipment.Initially Reported on 820917.Caused by Poor Workmanship & QA Breakdown.Next Rept Expected by 820107

ML20069K247
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	10/15/1982
From:	Jackie Cook, Senora 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, 19074, 82-09-#1, 82-9-#1, 82-9-1, NUDOCS 8210260121
Download: ML20069K247 (8)

Text

1 Consumers Power James W Cook C0mp20Y Vice President - Projects, Engineering and Construction 82-09 #1 General Offices: 1945 West Pernall Road, Jackson, MI 49201. ($17) 78&O453 October 15, 1982 W J G Keppler Regional Administrator United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Rd Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 MIDLAND NUCLEAR C0 GENERATION PLANT Docket Nos 50-329 and 50-330 Quality Program and Nnufacturing Deficiencies At Victoreen, Inc.

File: 0.4.9.65 Serial: 19074 This letter provides an interim 50.55(e) report concerning quality program and manufacturing deficiencies affecting radiation monitoring equipment being supplied by Victoreen. This was reported to Mr Wayne Shafer of your staff on September 17, 1982. The attachments to this letter provide a description of the deficiency and the actions being taken to correct the situation.

Another report, either interim or final, will be sent on or before January 7, 1c83 WRB/jin Attachments: (1) Bechtel Management Corrective Action Report MCAR-1, Report No 60, Dated September 17, 1982 (2) Bechtel MCAR-60, Interim Report 1, Dated October 14, 1982 CC: Document Control Desk, NRC Washington, D.C.

RJCook, NRC Resident Inspector Midland Nuclear Plant s

8210260121 821015 I 2 0' WLe DR ADOCK 05000329 PDR

1 -Sarial 19074 2 82-09 fl CC: CBechhoefer, ASLB Panel RSDecker, ASLB Panel FPCowan, ASLB Panel JHarbour, ASLB Panel

' 'AS&L Appeal Panel MMCherry, Esq MSinclair BStamiris CRStephens, USNRC WDPaton, Esq, USNRC FJKelley', Esq Attorney General SHFreeman, Esq. Asst Attorney General WHMarshall GJMerritt, Esq, TNK8J Great Lakes QA Managers i

i 1

1 i

i i

i i

I i

i i

I-I i

l I i

! 'OC1082-0019A-MP01 l-

- . _ _ _ . . . . _ , . . _ . _ , . . _ _ ,_. .._,._.. _ .. ._,.- _..._..- __.-. .__,_... _..,___ .. . _ _ __. _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ , . _ . _ . ~ . . .

. , AI#t A5010 Prii :y: 1 s/u PCM000 u, # ,, ,

OUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM serial 1907h 8 6 l l; i MANAGEMENT CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT 82-09 #1 MCAR1 REPORT NO.:

7220 Q NO.: DATE:

JOB NO.:

1 DESCRIPTION * (including References):

Recent audit of Victoreen, Inc. of Cleveland, Ohio performed September 8-10, 1982 revealed that there are deficiencies in the execution of its QA program. 12 of the 19 criteria were identified as deficient, which represents a significant breakdown in the Cupplier QA Program. Subsequent inspection by project personnel at the vendor and at Midland Cite also revealed that Victoreen Workmanship Standard (con't.)

RECOMMENDED ACTION * (Optional):

1. Engineering Control Systems: a) to evaluate impact of unacceptable workmanship on equipment qualification and life expectancy; b) if these deficiencies would affect the safety operation of the plant; c) take appropriate corrective action to preclude recurrence.

2. Supplier QA and Project QA: evaluate breakdown of Victoreen's QA program, determine root cause, and establish required corrective action.

REFERRED TO: 5 Engineering O Construction O QA Management 6SupplierQA x rroject yA 59 Procurement 2

ISSUED BY-Note: NRC was notified by the client on 9/17/82 that this is "potentially reportable". W ""

• ll REPORTABLE DEFICIENCY:

I l

NOTIFIED CLIENT: /d/Jb O NO  ! O YES /d 8[

l 44/ oa I

111 CAUSE:

CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN:

AUTHORIZED BY:

om 4APO Di&TRitutioN PAoJ DesTateUTioes oTHta DasTarouTloM uon or constauction cour consta oc tuon won or ca.reo FORMAL REPORT TO CUENT wonortieser=No cut =t oro or von (If Section11 Applies) om

won or raocuarwewt eroct t.4eo or uon l

uca or Paos optaarms racutci coNbin WGa sFPo OA Won uoa cr ovum assuanset racurci suon.cta CORRECTIVE ACTION IMPLEMENTED l

CoNsfauCTsoN Won PaQJEct Moa (NonettmNo Moa PaoJ PROCUn[WLNT Won suPruER ou4UTV WGa SITE Moa OE SUFYRVISon l VERIFIED BY

'Desenbe in space provided and attach reference document. Pmect oA E ngmew este aseoooo. Section Number Page 1 of 2

'~

. Septemb2r 17, 1982 ,86l4/

, MCAR 60 Page 2 of 2 I. Operating Procedure S.O.P. 500.002 (Bechtel V.P. 7220-J244-243-2) was not adhered to. This has resulted in nonconforming workmanship on un to 80T of the radiation monitoring system modulee being produced by Victoreen.

Inadequate in-process quality documentation is also involved. "Stop Process" and "Stop Shipment" orders have been imposed for all safety-related ("Q")

equipment. It is possible that the unacceptable workmanship could be detrimental to the equipment's ability-to successfully complete the Equipment Qualification Test Program (currently scheduled to commence in November 1982). It is also possible that the unacceptable workmanship could result in a reduction of the predicted reliable life expectancy of the equipment, thereby requiring early replacement of individual modules during normal maintenance periods.

Recommended Action (con't.)

3. Procurement obtain Victoreen implementation of required corrective action.

4. Issue report on or before October 8, 1982.

. 089438

• • • " '"*"t 2 8933S Serial 190Th Management Corrective Action Report (MCAR) 82-09 #1

SUBJECT:

MCAR 60 (issued September 17, 1982)

INTERIM REPORT No.1 DATE: October 14, 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 (1E and non-lE), manufactured by Victoreen, Inc. of Cleveland, Ohio, and reviewed by project personnel, were found to be nonconforming due to workmanship problema because they did not meet the approved Victoreen's Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 500.002.

5 Four out of the twelve class lE radiation monitors were reviewed at the

! Midland jobsite and were found to have similar nonconforming conditions.

i The majority of non-conforming conditions are in the area of soldered connections. The soldered connections were found to have (i) 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 cleaned from boards. Also observed were several occurences of circuit board delamination (measling), 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 Auguct 1982, eight of the electronic modules l were inspected at the vendors shop by project supplier quality

! personnel. Numerous occurences of poor workmanship (rejectable per

, Victoreen SOP 500.002) were encountered and all electronic modules in the l Victoreen plant were rejected for use in the Midland Plant.

l During the period September 1 through 13, 1982, MPQAD and Bechtel supplier quality assembled a team of exparienced individuals who went to

! Victoreen to quantify the workmanship problems. The team reviewed 877 modules, of which 730 were found to be nonconforming.

{

l l

l i

l i

l

089438 8g33g MCAR Interim Report No.1 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 criteria ,

were identified as deficient). On September 23, 1982, a sample &

inspection of workmanship on four of the twelve class 1E 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 11 the four class IE monitors inspected at the jobcite. This represents approximately 35 deficiencies / module. The (lass IE monitors had been conditionally shipped to the jobsite becaus,e 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 reduition of the predicted reliable life expectancy of the equipment resultin3 iria loss of operability.  ;

Ihe class lE 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 cf 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 lE radiation monitors, thereby affecting the safe operation of the plant.

Probable Cause

• The cause of the poor workmanship appears to be inadequate employee training, inadequate supplier in process quality inspection, and a breakdown of the supplier's QA program. The following significant areas of deficiencies in the supplier's QA program were noted:

j 1. Victoreen's QA department failed to review test and inspection I

documents as required by their SOPS.

l

2. Victoreen's QA department failed to review their purchase orders and

also were delinquent in performing required evaluation of their i suppliers.

3. Some of Victoreen's SOPS did not have the required formal sign-off by L

their Engineering, Manufacturing, and Quality assurance organizations.

4. Victoraen had used several tools / instruments which were not currently recorded in their calibration systems.

[

, 6 089339 089438 MCAR Interim Report No. 1 Page 3 Corrective Action

1. A stop further process for inspection and testing activities and a restriction on shipment was placed on all IE equipment on September 10, 1982, as a result of the audit.

2. On September 23, 1982, MPQAD over-inspected a sample of 4 of 12 class 1E monitors that had been shipped to the jobsite. 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 IE monitors. Further inspection was not conducted pending resolution of where the equipment would be repaired.

3. On September 30, 1982, Bechtel project personnel and Victoreen personnel again went to Midland to further investigate the deficiencies. Victoreen concurred with the nonconformances.

Corrective action for these are still under development.

4. Bechtel supplier quality met with Victoreen on September 26, 1982, to establish corrective action required by Victoreen to resolve their QA program deficiencies. Victoreen has committed to provide intermediate dates for milestones by November 1, 1982.

5. A project team composed of engineering, supplier quality, MPQAD, quality engineering, and Consumers Power Company design production has been assembled and will visit Victoreen's shop to determine corrective action required to bring the equipment up to acceptable standards according to the approved SOPS.

l 6. The determination of how 12 Class lE monitors with numerous l nonconformances were shipped to Midland jobsite is under investigation and will be addressed in the next report.

l Reportability l

Based on the safety implication analysis of this report, the described I deficiency is considered reportable in accordance with the code of l Federal Regulation 10 CFR 50.55(e).

i 1

l l

l

^

f

• ' l:8933S MCAR Interim Report No. 1

..89438 Submitted by:

Gl Singh Control Systems Group Supervisor Approved by: [M 8 f- _ -

E.M. Hughes Project Engineer Concurrence by: .

W.G. Amey V Chief Control stems Engineer Concurrence by: .

M

).

E.H. Smith "

Engineering Manager Concurrence by:

M.A. Dietrich Project Quality Assurance Engineer GS/JDB/se(J) 10/6/1

_