ML20132F463

Rev 0 to QA Plan QAP-3747, Engineering/Technical Svcs to Perform Spare Parts Evaluation & Analysis. Related Documentation Encl

ML20132F463
Person / Time
Site:	05000000, Waterford
Issue date:	12/31/1982
From:	BURNS & ROE CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML082320156	List: IR 05000382/1984005 IR 05000382/1984020 IR 05000382/1984024 ML082560741 ML20132B693 ML20132C198 ML20132C370 ML20132F274 ML20132F304 ML20132F314 ML20132F332 ML20132F342 ML20132F355 ML20132F369 ML20132F381 ML20132F421 ML20132F439 ML20132F451 ML20132F463 ML20132F470 ML20132F497 ML20132F510 ML20132F513 ML20132F521 ML20132F535 ML20132F548 ML20132F553 ML20132F580 ML20132F588 ML20132F592 ML20132F607 ML20132F611 ML20132F618 ML20132F626 ML20132F631 ML20132F640 ML20132F648 ML20132F651 ML20132F657 ML20132F663 ML20132F695 ML20132F717 ML20132F733 ML20132F814 ML20132F875 ML20132F883 ML20132F898 ML20132F909 ML20132F923 ML20132F937 ... further results
References
FOIA-84-206 QAP-3747, NUDOCS 8510010332
Download: ML20132F463 (21)

Text

BU?JIS NiC ROE, It!C.

u - - r _... P,.c. o..

.c.,,,. r.:.,.. : s.,.,,.,.. n..

....m

w.i OUALIN ASSURA!iC' PLAfi for WA ERFORD fiU LEAR ?LA';T Uti!T 5 LOUI5*A!!A POWER NID LIGiT KILL 0flA, LOUISIAtiA EilGIfiEERI!!G/TECHil: CAL SERVICIS

~

to PERFORM A SPARE PAP.75 EVALUATIO't AliD AtlALYSIS W.O. 5747-01 REVISIOil 0 DATED 12./51/82 Acoroved by b

Jn m:ca eroject Manager

=

M.<?}.. ( i

!A r-Asproved by Manager prporate QA Controlled Cooy fio.

[

Uncontrolled Cocy (

)

f o u -/Y-sof 8510010332 850227 PDR FOIA BERNABE84-206 PDR

/

LIST CF EFFECTIVE PAGES

Pag, Revision Number Number lo l I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

cover 1 l* I 1

I I

I I

l l

l 1

I i

I i

I I

i i

2 l* I l

I l

l l

l l

l l

I I

I I

I I

i l

l l* I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

i a

II I

I I

I i

i I

I l

l 1

I I

I I

I l

l 5

1. I I

I I

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I I

i 9,w r _,l. I I

I I

i l

i i

I i

i l

l I

I i

I Enibt: I 1 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

i 1.

I Ex.51 bit I-s

• i l

l l

l l

l l

l l

I I

I I

I I

I I

Axendix II* I I

i l

i l

i l

I I

I l

l l

l 1

I I

l 1

I I

I I

I I

I I

I i

i l

i i

l i

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I l-1 I

I I

I I

I I

i i

l I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

i I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l l

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l-l _j l

i I

l l

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

i l

i I

l l

I l

l l

l l

1 l

I I

I I

I I

I I

l l

l l

l l

I i

l l

I I

I I

I I

l l

I I

I l

i l

l I

I I

I I

I I

l I

l l

l l

1 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I l

l I

l l

l l

l l

1 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I i

I I

I I

i l

l I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I i

i l

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

i l

i I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I i

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

i i

l I

1 I

I I

l i

I l

l l

l l

t I

I I

i l

l I

l I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

i l

I I

I I

I I

I I

i l

I I

I i

i I

l l

l l

l l

l l

l l

l l

l l

l l

l l

l l

l l

1 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

i i

i I

i i

i I

I i

l l

l l

l I

I i-l I

I i

i I

I I

i l

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l-i i

l I

i i

I i

l I

i l

i I

I i

~l i

I i

l i

l l

l 1

I I

I I

I i

l i

i i

i I

i l

l I

I I

I I

i i

l I

Note: Mi Asterisk (*) indi:stes snects enangec since last issue.

E Ai4XKJ Page 2 cf 5

_-~....

m.

r.

g.

Cuality Assurance Plan 12/31/S2 l

3 e

5 i 3AF-3 17

.0 Crear.f :ation 1.1 The crgani:a:icnai stra :ure established to perforr a scare :ar:s evalua-tion and analysis of existing procuremer: :ackages fer :ne coerati:nal pnase of the Waterford Nu: lear Plant, Uni 3 is depi::e: in Exhibits I-i

+

and !-2 of this Plan.

4 1.2 Exnibit I-i depicts the en site func-icnal grou: cf :ne Operating Plan:

Services Project (OPSP) that is assigned primatv re:consibility for the specific tasks.

Exnibit I-2 depicts tne corocrate stru::ure responsible for :ne overall task.

1.3 Resconsibilities 'and autnority of Oreje cersonnei and suopor personnel are described in Caacter I of :ne Burns and Roe, In: Nuclear Cuality As-l surance Manual, 3&R-COMA-i-NP-2A (Topicai Recor:) wnien is consicered as a part of this Plan.

2.0 Ouality Assurance Procram 2.1 All project activities saaii be performed in ac'cordance with applicable corporate colicy and dire:: ion establisned in Cna::er II of -he Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual which is considered as a part of this Plan.

2.2 This Plan and its associated crocedures are intended t im:lemen: the re-cuirements of the Louisiana Power and Light document, Cuality Assurance Requirements Specification for Engineering Services, Craft i, Revision 0, dated September 17, 1982.

2.3 As appropriate to the scope of project activities and in ac:ordance with the policy contained in Cha:ter II of the Nu: lear Quali y Assurance Manual, project activities will be conducted in acccrdance wi:n the Pr: Ject In-structions icentified in Exnibit I-3 of tnis Plan, Project Instruc-ion Index.

2.4 As described in Project Procedure PM-000, Project Instructions shall be used to implement standard corocrate Proje:: Procedures on :ne project as aporopriate to the scope of succiied services.

j 2.5 The Project Instructions are included in the Acpencix of this QA Plan.

I 3.0 General 3.i' The scope of services to be provided to the Client consists of a review of Client pre ared crocureren: do:urants to determine :nct :ne cocuments cor-rectly specify the materials / items and any required testing, documentation, certifications, or otner recuirements as necessary for ne intended use.

These recuirements will be based primarily on input derived from Client furnisned constru:: ion p'ase specifications and a;olicable regulatory re-qui rements.

3.2 Tne technical process included in~ this activi y in:ludes the folicwing basic functions wnica will be performed by :ne acpr.opriate discioline 4

engineers and shall inciade home office suppor-functions wnen reouirec.

eRC156-5 (3M6)

%n'e: (3/82) 4M

4 e mm. om

'w.

Quality Assuran:e Plan l12/31/E2 e5 OAF-3747

@,d Je vi eII.1$.5;5ciij3Ali.0? Jim,QCtM@2.E5 erd &.Qfq-I g@ui m=~sRs 's'ui:S Ta s~:ote s ~,T an ca rcs.- M etTl a toryl,ry hT"c~i'*te3 tin;WcWrToeiTsfald1Gle_jgpatjog:j,e_sg-nc :17

,.>....=..

c.

_ w....c,.4, ~. ~= _ --

.~.:a e,.a.w c w -.-.u

<;.n.: aw

.~~

.%.,... w 3,,,2:2',n_v_a.lUe. te..tne_re:;ui rrst estic s.p.eci.f~f e.r i.._.tTe..?rocuremenr3A;Tce a_g_a.iut r.

a t.a.gw.. n..e o.T. e.%,ments,. n._ph ragraon-Z Z_..

cui re s.

- -.. _ m m _-u 3.2.3 Provide documented rec =endations to resolve the ncted deficiencies in the existing procuremen documentaticn.

3.2.4 Tne ce: ailed ::rocess f:r review of procurement da:uments, t,eir classi-fication as to safe:v related sta:us, and the recortine of cro:uremen document a :ertaciliiy is cescribed in Pr:Je:: Proceduf Q GPX Qi,

~~

Procurement Document Review.

3.3 Comoliance to other criteria as defined in tne Louisiana Power and Licnt ouality program document ( Atta nmen: A :: the Pur: nase Order) is desefibed in the following sections as considered appropriate to the Burns cnd Roe scope of supplied services.

4.0 Desien Control 4.1 A design control program for Eurns and Roe activities is nc: recuired, as Burns and Roe's scope of service.dces not recuire Burns and Roe to perform primary design.

?.2 Burns and Roe involvement witn plant / system design is limited to tne review of technical see:ifications, regulatory, or other documents to the extent necessary to cefine requiremen s (paragra:n 3.2.1).

5.0 Documentation 5.1 Tne documentation to be supplied to Louisiana Power and Light is limited to the listed documents generated during the Purchase Order evaluation in ac-cordance witn Projec: Procedure LPL DP-001.

5.1.1 Procurement Status Sur:tary 5.1.2 Document Status Matrix 5.i.3 Documentation Deficiencies t

5.1.4 Documenta:icn Package Transmittal Memorandum 5.0 N0ncon formances 1

Any non:unformances on the par: cf Burns and Roe identified during the cer-forcance of tais task shall be adequately documented te allow croper c:r-rective a:: ion.

l a

4 BRGiS4 B (3/7Si Sn mec 13/t h 4M

i

! v*en.n : m ew.,

a Cuality Assurance : Tan l 12/31/82 l

5 g 5 CA?-2747 7.0 Occre::ive Action Any : rre::ive action recuirements ir.cesed on Burns and be shall be in res;:rse :: identified -)on:onfo cances or : findines icentified durine the Oor: orate Ouali:y Assurance Acci: Progra, described in paragra::n S 0,

~

Audits.

8.0 Audits 8.1 To assure conformance witr. the requirements of this Quality Assuran:e Plan, Sur.s and Roe site a:tivities sr.all be audited in accordance with ne Cor: orate Ouality Assuran:e 3rograr and :ne in-lementing :ro:edure 0 SD-0A-001, Audi s :f P-je:: Quality Assurance Progra=.

l 2.2 Program recuirerents snail in:1ude tne scheduling of audits based on the activities to be reviewed in a::ordance wita written Oro:edures anc check-lists.

• 8. 3 Audit reports, which are documented and issued to acprocriate management personnel, recuire written reso:nses within establisned schedules and f 11cw-uo, as necessary, to determine that identified discrepancies are 1

appropriately resolved. -

3.4 All audit eersonnel are appropriately indoctrinated and certified in l

at:ordance with industry standards, t

l l

t l

4 i

l 1

I BRC156-8 (3CG)

Prmtec (3/82) av

........ -....- = =. 0g.

e - :, p..g.,. :

n.,.

.. g. m

... :=

..v

=

..-...a C o..e '.'*. - **. r'_.". '" C '..'s~ ~e'.:'.".

=

an..

- - S D r,.,..

c.u C "a' ~ = u.,'u','

e.. n..see CPSD D_a._c~~_OR W. White l

PRCJECT PROJECT ENG"'NEER MANAGER 3US-' NESS 0.%. E~ OP. MENT A.S. Dam R.D. Ocvle I

w_m

}

l l

PROJECT PRCJECT PROJECT' ENGINE 2R OiGINEER ENGINEER O

hI9,0 E...-

M.

8

=

Kevisier. 0

i l

I.OUISIAllh PO111:n AllD I.IGitT SPARE PARTS RE0tIAT.IPICATIOli PilOGitAtt 1

WATERFORI)-3 STEA!! Er.ECTilIC STATIOt!

PROJECT ORGAtIIZATIOll CilART l

ColtPORATE PitOJECT OA 11AIIAGElt El3GIIIEEll D.J. !!ccormick It. T. Simmons l

1 I

IIOt1G OFFICE _ g _

SIT::

3 l

l r.OuTSrAriA g

1 Poll!'.It T.

g SITE OA SITE I.EAD SITE I.EAD r.IGitT L__.

Et:GIrieER cr.ECT/I cC rieCii/rit C E!1GIllEEll Et1GItIEI:It D.D.

Ileckwith II. P. Sabol P.K.

De If.'J. Ilayen j

I I

S U P P O ltT Ill G Et1 G Ill E E II S f

~

EXilillIT I-2 Itevision 0

6

/. UDI~ NC.

SA-v:-CA-83-04 g

~

r?

p FINDING NC.

1 A.UDIi

. ~... _ =...

1 c.=

I Lemunesi i

ve::t.e scum C,.\\

4 d

c.msr. sysisM I

T I

I, i,

l 1.

AUDITED ORGANIZA!!CN: Burns and Roe, 'nc.

Mr. Oavid 2ee* rith, 2u=s and Roe CONTAC S:

c Mr. Willia = Eayes, Burns and Roe Mr. Praph211a De, 3 urns and Roe 4

Mr. Clayton Taravella, LP&L A~DI LOCA!!CN: Waterford 3 2.

REQU 1." INT:

f Burns and Roe, 1:c. QA Pla Q/.?-3747, Rev. O, dated 12/31/82 See:ic 3 s:a:ec in

,,ar::

i 5

(

2.1 Reviev the specificaticus, c: ci:he; base documents, to identify requiremsets such as codes, standards. regulatory require =ents, ce::1fications or testing requi:ements, and the safety rela:ed classification of the material or itsm.

j 2.2 Evaluate the requirements specified i: he procureces: pach.2ges agains:

j the desined requiremen:s in paragraph 3.2.1.

j 2.3 ?: ovide documented rece=menda:1cus :c resolve the noted deficiencies ia the existing p;ccure ent documentation.

Turthur, Burns and Roe precedure L?L-PF-001, Rev 0 dated 12/31/82 paragraph 8.5 sea:es in part:

The Ccgnica:: I:gi=ecr prepares Deficiency List. Exhibi: IV, to identify under-specified require =ents, unacceptable, er unavailable documen:atic:.

NC E: Deficiency List muct indicata the reason fo: the deficiency and a l

rec:==anded resolution to resolve :Se deficie:cy.

h 3.

FINDUIC:

Contrary to the recuiremnats ci:ed above, deficiencies in the precure=sn:

decu=ects have :o been iden+.ified totally by Burns and Roe. Exa=ples of these findings ara as listed belev:

a P.O. *03290-D The substitutica of Suss an Fuse #.C M-1 for the c dered #MDC-;A 4

based on a le::e: f;ce Bussman at:esting to the elee::10:1 equivalency of the a

l fo /& /Y.2 06

[L

!+

r_

i A L* DI-~

NO.

SA *J3-QA-33-04 FINDING NO.

1

.p..

.r..

2 or.

3 1

/

4 i

f MDM-1 (glass) to.50,1-(cara=1c) was not questioned by Bur:s and Ree.

• he

{

electrical eq.1 valency cf MDM-1 to.C C-1A was act addressed, nor was :he l

seismic qualifications addressed.

J

\\

?.C. A81024 for Mercuoid Pressurc Switches. Burns and Roe's cely iden:ified deficiancy in this package was that< hasco's specification needed clarification due to the apparen: requirement that these items be " Cede" stamped and these ite=s do no: require "N" stampi 3 Burns and Roe did co-l identify the folleving addi:iceal deficiencies I

1.

Items are not capablu cf being II qualified.

d i

0.

Items are not a " catalog" i:em.

l U

3.

No 10CyR21 i= posed.

~

4.

.No requiremen: in P.O. for hydrostatic test report.

5.

No ASME class specified for manufacture.

i 6.

Required cperating ranges of switches en specificatien vs d aving was

=

in conflict and not resolved.

i 7.

LP&L's ?:ocurunen: Method Evaluation Sheet does net properly identify classification of 1:e=.

S:stes items are non II when' intended use was IE.

l t

?.0. L14200 - Emergency Diesel Generator Spare Parts l

Burns and Roe generated a documentation matrix which iden:1fies the j

' documentation requirements for the~ items ordered by L?$L. Both the L?&L P.O.

l and the B & R matrix do not identify the proper dccumentation require:ents for the ASHE Sectice ~~I circulating vatar pump.

l l

4 AUDITOR'S IICOMMDCED CCKlEOTI7E ACTION:

l Burns and Roe Inc., re-review the L?&L documen:ation packages, they classified i

" unacceptable for intended application" to insure all discrepancies have been

' identified.

l

.c y

.(

AUDI*CR'S SIGNAn*RE:

A

/

DATE: 2-/C-8.3 V

w I

(

i i

k i

b___

AUC*T NO.

SA-W3-QA-33-0!*

FINDING NO.

I qu. _e _r.

3 O.

3 t

5.

ACUC*a' CGDCC:

This finding was identified during the c:nduct of an audit. As a nember of the audi:ed c:gani:aticu's nanage=ent, ycur signa : e signifies acknowledgenent of :his finding, no necesscrily agree =en:.

SIGNATUTf: AI i/

TITLE:

C.

DA E: 1 /d f 3

/t PLEASE COMPLETE I-D'. 6 SE:.0*J AND RE~C7.N TO THE AUDITING ORGANIZA~ ION *a'.*EIN 30 DAYS OF YOUR ACD O*a'LDOIMENT.

6.

CCRRECTIVE ACTION TAKEf: In the event that corree:1ve action cannet be c:nplated within 30 days, ycur response shall include a scheduled date for the correc:ive ac:1cn.

9

+

e e

J I

AUDIT NO.

SA-W3-0A-83-04

'N rINDING NO.

1 M

L]

AU D as ssss:

1 Or 3

me.ss:urs I"

\\lq UNn'ts sys:N

["

l

\\;

1.

AUDITED ORG/.NIZATION: Burns and Roe, Inc.

CCNTACTS:

Mr. David Beckwith,'Eurns and Roe Mr. William Hayes, Eurns and Roe Mr. Praphulla De, Burns and Roe Mr. Clay:en Taravella, L?&L AUDIT LOCATION: Waterford 3 2.

RIQUIREFENT:

Burns and Roe, Inc. QA Plan QAP-3747, Rev. O, dated 12/31/S2 Section 3 states in part:

2.1 Review the specifications, or other base documents, to identify requirements such as codes, standards, regulatory requirements, certifications or testing requirements, and the safety related classification of the =aterial or ites, s

2.2 Evaluate the require =en:s specified in the procure =ent packages against the defined requirements in paragraph 3.2.1.

r-2.3 Provide docu=ented rece==endations to resolve the noted deficiencies in the existing procurement docu=entation.

Further, Burns and Roe procedure L?L-Pi-001, Rev.0 dated 12/31/82 paragraph S.5 states in part:

, The Cognizant Engineer prepares Deficiency List, Exhibit IV, to identify under-specified requirements, unacceptable, er unavailable documentation.

NOTE: Deficiency List cust indicate the reason for the deficiency and a recen ended resolutien to resolve the deficiency.

3.

FINDING:

Contrary to the requirements cited above, deficiencies in the procurement documents have not been identified totally by Burns and Roe.

Examples of these findings are as lis:ed belcw:

P.O. LOS390-D The substitution of Eussman Fuse #MDM-1 for :he ordered #MDC-1A based on a letter frc: Sussman c :esting to the electr1 cal equivalency of the

AUDIT NO.

SA-W3-0A-83-C' FINDING NO.

1 SHIIT 2

OF 3

MDM-1 (glass) to MDC-1 (ceramic) was not questioned by Burns and Roe.

~he electrical equivalency cf MDM-1 to STO-1A was not addressed, nor was the scismic qualifications addressed.

P.O. AS1024 for Mercueid Pressure Switches. Burns and Roe's only identified deficiency fn this package was that Ebasco's specificatica needed clarification due to the apparent requirement that these 1: ens be " Code" sta= ped and these items do not require "N".sta= ping. Burns and hoe did not identify the following additional deficiencies 1.

Items are not capable of being IE qualified.

2.

Items are not a " catalog" ites.

3.

No 10CFR21 imposed.

4.

No requirement in P.O. for hydrostatic test report.

5.

No ASMI class specified for manufacture.

s 6.'

Required operating ranges of switches.on specification vs drawing was in conflict and net resolved.

7.

LP&L's Procure:ent Method Evaluation Sheet does net properly identify classification of ite=.

States itecs are non IE when intended use was IE.

P.O.'L14200 - Emergency Diesel Generator Spare Parts Burns and Roe generated a documentation matrix which identifies the docu=en:ation requirements for the items ordered by LP&L. Both the L?&L P.O.

and the B & R = atrix do not identify the proper docu=entation requirements for the ASMI Section III circulating vater pu=p.

4.

AUDITOR'S'RICOMMENDED CORRECTIVE ACTION:

Burns and Roe.Inc., re-review the LP&L documentation packages, they classified

" unacceptable for intended applicatien"-to insure all discrepancies have been identified.

AUDITOR'S SIGNAT'JRE:

6" J

DATE: 3-/C-83 v

.r O.

SA-W3-QA-83-0!.

A t m.r.-

s

~

FINDING NC.

5. - :

3 C-a n:

5.

AC130*a"&EDGEYJ.NT :

This finding was identified during the conduct of an audit. As a =e=ber cf the audi:ed organi:ation's nanagenent, your signature signifies acknowledgenent of this finding, no: necessarily agreenent.

b dJ 6,,fp* zh _j) j.

(d,d C.

DATE:.O /d Ed; m

o I

SIGNATURf:

TITLE:

i

't PLEASE COVJLETE ITEM 6 EELOW AND RETURN TO THE AUDITING ORGANISATION WITHIN 30 DAYS 0F YOUR ACi30KI EDGE.v.ENT.

3 6.

CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN: In the event that corrective action canne be conpleted within 30 days, your response shall include a scheduled date for :he corrective action.

4

'l n

i e

r

(

f l

t i

(

r i

1 I

1

-,,---..,__-..----.....,~~_,.--.%_.,-...._,_--._,-,--.,..-..,_..

"fd

']

,)

[3M Lo u ts t Atun / INTEF-OFFICE CORRES ggg;7 P O W E R & L i,G H T UTl W 3SYSC M Septe=ber 7, 1982

,/

,/ '

\\

W3CE2-0257 TO:

M. P. Flasch FROM:

C. L. Larsen SUEJECT_;. Waterford 3 SES Spare Parts Re-Tvaluation Program Sunnary of' Initial Technical Review Results l

II:TRODUCTION:

A ceeting was held August 31, 1982, to discuss additional inforration that

'had cone to light as a result of the processing of the first procure ent document packages for the spare parts re-evaluation (back-fit) program. The

[

meeting, attended by Messrs. D. 3. Lester, R. Prados, W. Morgan, S. A. Alle=an, l

J. R. McGaha, M. P. Flasch, W. Cross and C. L. Larsen, was convened to discuss l

the relevance of the inforcation recently acquired to the reporting require-l nants of 10CFFJi0.55(e). The additional, new informatien is that a substantially

~

larger cross-section of items ordered as spare or replace' cent parts prior to May, 1982 do not have sufficient quality-related docu=entation to percit their use in safety-related systems than was previously envisicned at the close of the Fay, 1982 QA sudit. Also, a substantial number of these "indeterninate quality" items were rer.oved from the warehouse and installed in plant syste=s with little, if any, documentation a's to the installatien or the technical and quality review do: u=cnting the acceptability of their use.

During the meeting it was decided that insuf ficient objective evidence was on hand to document the above concerns. As a result, Plant Engineering was direc-ted.by D. E. Lester to identify technical deficiencies in approxicately 10 procurement document packages selected at randem fres these assigned for back-fit' review. This ne=o transtits the results of this investigation. The onsite operatiens QA organization perforced a siciliar review and cecrdinated the document scarch with the onsite operatiens QC organization to identify where the' items were, if at all, installed in the plant. The results of this effert, it is presumed, will be developed in a separate necerandum issued by QA or QC organizatiores.

The fo11 ewing information is provided as background for tl e spare parts re-evaluation cffert and the concerns presented above.

.4 r

i.

a eML/Y-10f

\\

S3

l L

l M. P. Flasch l

Page 2 W3CS2-0257 I

EACKGROUND:

l t

The basic prerequisites needed to ensure that " qualified" spare /replaccuent parts are used in " qualified" systems are:

1.

A purchase document that contains appropriate technical, quality and cctnercial requirements to ensure that the purchased item is "at least' equivalent to" the ite= it vill replace.

2.

Purchase from an approved supplier (i.e. the original equipment manufacturer). Approved as used here neans: judged by LP6L to be capable of providing the items) ordered in strict confor=ance p-to the requirements (e.g. technical, quality, co= ercial) imposed by the purchase document.

3.

An onsite receipt inspection to verify that the essential charac-teristics and required documentation (both) as specified in the purchase document.are provided in accordance with the requirements.

This is not just a shortage / damage overview; it is detailed inspection perforced according to a specific inspection plan that has been reviewed and approved-by the technical and quality organi-zaticas that reviewed and approved the purchase documents.

4.

Proper carking, tagging or other appropriate identification of caterials, and appropriate storage facilities.

5.

Appropriate controls (e.g. inventory and issuance) to ensure that only " qualified" parts are installed in " qualified" systems and traceability to ensure that the part issued was installed in the component the part was issued for.

The prerequisites above cannot, in and of the=selves, ensure that " qualified" spare / replacement parts are ordered, received, stored and installed as neces-

~

sary to. ensure continued qualification of the system within which they are installed. Nevertheless, there =ust be a consistent and traceable chain of doce:ents from beginning to end; co=plete, with no-holes or missing evaluation.

. analyses, certifications, paperwork, etc. in order to raintain the recuired cualification.

.Present LP6L QR's and QP's address these prerequisites, however, this is not sufficient-to ensure a cceplete product. Procedures are necessary for each organication involved'in the handling of the purchase documents. Until >by, IcS2 rest of the necessary procedures did not exist; and even today there are

'a few not yet approved.

Even so, spare parts hcve been ordered and " received"

!~

for use in the'plcnt; spare parts that the recently corpleted review has indicated Icaves ruch to be desired in all prerequisite areas. Unfortunately, l

l' c

- -. _...., - _. - _. _., -,. ~ -, _., _

!!. P. Flasch Page 3 W3CS2-0257

'the spare /replacecent parts ordered during this tire are even new availeble for use (and probably being used) in safety-related systems with little, if any, acceptable docuzentaticn. Until such tire as this situation is corrected, no safety-related system having "indeterrinate quality" cpare/ replacement part(s) can be considered "cperable" to meet its' intended safety function.

The following infer =ation and discussion is based upcn the review of the pur-chase documents selected at rande= from the backfit file.

FINDINGS:

The techni~ cal review of these 10 purchase documents was perforced by the Procurement Technien1 Review group with Messrs. D. Banks and T. Parcell perfor=-

ing the lead review role.

The details of their technical review are provided in attachments to this =cmorandue. There are, however, several cc :en problems to all of the precurcnent docunent packages reviewed:

1.

A lack of cc=plete documentation, whether requested or not in the purchase document, attesting that the essential characteristics specified er referenced are met or provided as required.

2.

A lack of apprcpriate QC receipt inspection and a lack of co=plete resolution to observed deficiencies.

3.

A lack of' follow-up and requisite rcsolution of exceptions to purchase document requirements by suppliers.

Additionally, several of the purchase docurents had major deficiencies which are discussed in the' attachments.

Nevertheless, the above three.(3)Ecoc=on prchlems constitute a failure to meet couritcents made in Section 17.2 of the EFSAR and requirements of LP&L's Quality Assurance progra=, specifically QR 4.0 (QP 4.13). -QR 7.0 (QP 7.1 & 7.3), QR S.0 (QP 8.1).

S S'.RY AG CONChUSIONS:

J The type.of progra=:atic deficiency indicated by the failures noted above suggest that the QA program is not being, or at least was not, effectively i=pletented. This requires further investigation outside the scope of Plant Engineering's involvement.

The deficiencies noted in the precurcrent documents reviewed for this treatise strongly suggest that notionly is the revicv/ evaluation and re-qualification of

~

the' identified purchase documents required, but also a co:plete and thorough identification of all ite=s ordered with " Hold" tags placed en any equipment within which the qucstionable iters are installed. Also, stricter centrols must be placed ca the issuance of ite=s frc: the vt.rehouse with a therough revicw/evaluatien of the docuzentation supporting any ite. installed in a safety-reisted syste: ust be previded with such tire as an appropriate confidence

(;.

-I

M. P. Flasch Page 4

'r'3CS2-0257 level in the qualification of warehoused itens can be achieved.

Perhaps a

" Hold" tag or " conditional release" could be used and a nonconformance report prepared to pcrait construction testing to continue unicpeded.

In any case, the present situation cennot be permitted to continue without the real prcspect of significant delays enforced by regulatory review.

Should there be any questions or sheuld any staterents cade herein that require clarification, plase do not hesitate to contact me.

C. L. Larsen CLL/gre cc:

D. B. Lester, J. R. McGaha O

l r~ ~..

'7 rM U,

L Jx/. Vl f.j C U I S l A FJ A

.Gia!.i~=:. P O W E R & Li G H T /Waterford 3 SES/P.O. Eox E/Killona, LA 70066 M.DDLE SOUTH UTILITlis tYSTEM May 31, 1983 W3RS3-0653 Q-3-A35.02.29 Mr. A. S. Dam, Proj ect Manager Eurns'and Roe, Inc.

633 Industrial Avenue Para =us, NJ 07652

Dear Mr. Dam:

St! EJECT: Site Audit FA-W3-RA-53-04 of Eurns and Koe, Inc'.

Waterford SES Unit 3, Killona, LA; Respcase To The Eurns and Eoe response to Site Audit SA-W3-QA-83-04 is unacceptable as currently stated. The following will explain the reasons for not accepting the Burns and Ice response.

ITEM 1: Bussran Fuses - P.O. LO8390-D It is agreed that Burns and Roe did point out the questien of IEEE 323 and 344

. qualificatien, however, no =ention was made that the' electrical equivalency statement ade by Eusscan was not for the' proper fuse. The statement equates the MDM-1 to MDC-1, however, the original fuse was a 1'DC-1A.

Many times a l

l suffix will denote additicnal or different require =ents'in =anufacture.

Because of this, it is felt this discrepancy should have been noted during the review in order to ensure equivalency actually exists.

l ITEM 2: Mercoid Pressure Switch - P.O.'A81024 While 'it may be true that the LP&L response to SCREG 0538 5.ce consulted and

~ the switches had to be replaced, none of this information is reflected in I

the Eurns and Roe analysis.

In addition, the evaluation pointed out proble=s with obtaining an ASPE Section III vendor, however, failed to address the re aining discrepancies in the package as pointed out in the finding.

1 e

I fo/& JY-20 G Sy

Mr. A. S. Dcn, Proj ect: Manager 5 rns and Ece, Inc.

W2nS3-0653 May 31, 1983 Fage 2 ITDi 3: Erergencv Diesel Generator Spare Parts - P.O. L14200 Burns and Roe response to this ites rcferences specification LOU 15C4-260, Section 8.10 but this is a different purp. The pu p being ordered is the circulsting water pump not the engine-driven jacket water pump. FSAR, Sectien 9.5, Table 9.5-3 identifies the pump as ASME section III, Class 3 as docs Cocper Enargy Services. Eurns and Roe needs to re-evaluate the docurentatien requircrents for the circulating watcr purp, i.e.,

performance tests, etc.

It is concluded that your respcase to this audit is unacceptable per the above explanations and a re-respense is requested to address the deficiencies noted. Care should be taken in the respense to assure that satisfactory corrective action is taken, including action to prevent recurrence.

Your ccoperation in this natter is appreciated.

(

(N./k/YdM -

W. M. Morgan [

Operations Quality Assurance Group Supervisor RSI: JUS:SSTG -

cc:

T. F. Cerrets, R. P. Barkhurs t, F., J. Dru= ond, Z, A, Sabri, J. Sieger, Jr.,

A. D. Jcnes, R. Eurski, J. Woods, M. P Tlasch, Central Records, Nuclear Records

P'

~_.

["

es.

!..n.

e '-

I f r~

• m q 1 e rp,10 i n

._ j -

@ w.! t, L' A J s'1 f

E

-.i.F_, P O W E R & L I G H T / INTER-Of:F:lC;E CORR ESROND ENCE mcc.EsouTs uT utis SrSTEM July 5, 1984

.. CD.:.

.O

<.s i

s-r g

.=';,

',.1 W3MS4-0328 c3-v

..s c.

a;r c.

m

\\ ':~,

.E'..

TO:

Distribution W'? 1,i;.L,./*

-j V.

/

FROM:

J.R. McGaha V2 V

SUBJECT:

Control and Tracking of Vendor Infornation A meeting was held en June 26, 1984 to discuss problems associated with control of and adherence tc vender manuals and technical ccrrespcndence.

The following personnel attended the r.eeting:

J.R. McGaha R.F. Burski J.K.

Scmsel R.B. Willis S.A. Alleman W.J.

Baldwin M.A. Triggs I.. F. Storc R.W. Nelson J.R. Kirkland items discussed and action respcnsibility assignments made were as follows:

A.

Vendor Manuals 1.

Deviacions frca fendor manual recernendations c ' + H ~'nts for IE/52 equipment may require specific just.ificaticn for each

eed to con 5clidate all PM Cc=mittee records /decislens.

deviation.

ACTICT.

Fiant Staff (Maintenance). First cut by July 6th.

Some field use of uncontrolled vender dccu.ents has occurred, literature shippped with equipment or chtained informally e.g.,

by the E:'DRAC/ Document Contrcl systet. F3quirements are covered by existing PMF and U':T procedures but not always complied with.

ACTIC:;:

I.etter/ directive to be issued to all manual users by Julv. 2 nd-M. Triggs.

3.

Accuracy a-d ccmprehensiveness of vender =anuals inventory is questionable.

Review vender manu l list and generate validated ccm-a ACTICM:

ptehensive list by July 15th-R. Eur sk:..

ACTIC:::

Based en renults of Al above, revisit certain technical manuals fcr FM adequacy including help frem PM Cc=m.ittee and lubricaticn coordinator.

J. McGaha to formulate program and schedule c; August ist.

-S Ok K/

e d

4 _ ri u*.i c..

a..

4

. n..v e, _0.2.e.;

I2-4

...:....a 4

-o.

.,.he, hro.,~u,..

. 2 e _4 :~ -.. =...,

.4 i s

.e a_ d_ a. ' to c..

o'.

• e a__i-.,

-.e.=..-.,

,-e c.

v..

f and track'ng of vendor informaticn received by various means, including direct ccrrespondence from vendors, CE ADP's, IMPO reports, etc.

This is in respense to NRC Generic Letter 83-23.

ACTION: Develcpment cf procedure en initial receipt and forwarding cf vendor information--M. Triggs (issuance of ';OAP-002 is inminent).

ACTION: Develepment of procedure to cover scoping, screening, inde.xing and tracking through final disposition--ENS: draft cf PMP-504 by July 31st.

I p.

A !4 i

m J.R. McGaha 4 JEM/JEK/eac Distributicn: Attendees, R.P.

Barkhurst, W.E.

Perks, W.M. Morgan, P.V. Prasankumar, H.A. Canavier, T.C. Pay.ne, R.E. Sprcles, O.D. Hayes, D.E. Cobsen, J.R. Kirkland, Ncclear Records W

d