ML20136H149
| ML20136H149 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 08/01/1985 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136H136 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-458-85-19, NUDOCS 8508200200 | |
| Download: ML20136H149 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000311/2005017
Text
_ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
___________ _ ____
_ _ _ _
____
.
APPENDIX A
Gulf States Utilities
Docket:
50-458
River Bend Station
Permit:
CPPR-145
During an NRC inspection conducted on March 11-May 17, 1985, violations of NRC
requirements were identified.
The violations involved, (1) incorporation of
Engineering and Design Coordination Report (E&DCR) information into drawings,
and (2) use of external historical data in evaluation of suppliers.
In
accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC
Enforcement Actions," (10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C) (1985), the violations are
listed below:
1.
Incorporation of E&DCR Information into Drawings
Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 requires that activities
affecting quality be prescribed by and accomplished in accordance with
appropriate instructions, procedures, or drawings.
This equipment is
part of the approved quality assurance plan for Gulf States Utilities.
Paragraph 4.7.1 of Stone and Webster Engineering Assurance (EA) Procedure
EAP 5.4, Revision 3, through Change Notice No. 7, dated September 28, 1983,
" Review and Approval of Project Production Drawings," states, in part,
" Revised drawings shall be reviewed and approved using the same review
and approval cycle (including documentation) that applied to the original
issue . . ." Paragraph 4.5.5 of this procedure requires the responsible
engineer to review drawings to ensure, in part, that correct design
inputs and proper design approach were used and that the drawings are
technically adequate and in accordance with engineering technical
standards, guidelines, and procedures.
Paragraph 4.5.6 similarly requires
review of drawings for technical adequacy by the responsible Lead Engineer.
Contrary to the above, engineering review of EE 340 series drawing
revisions did not ensure the technical adequacy of drawings, as evidenced
by the NRC and Stone and Webster EA identification of drawing errors and
omissions associated with incorporation of information from E&DCR
Nos. C21272, C21800, C22021A and 8, CC22041, C22475, C23020, C232208,
C232918, C23439, and C24785A and B.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement II.D) (458/8519-01).
2.
Use of External Historical Data in Evaluation of Suppliers
Criterion VII of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 states, in part, " Measures
shall be established to ensure that purchased material, equipment, and
services . . . conform to the procurement documents.
These measures shall
include provisions, as appropriate, for source evaluation and selection,
8508200200 850001
ADOCK 05000458
0
'
,
~
-2-
objective evidence of quality furnished by the contractor or subcontractor,
inspection at the contractor or subcontractor source, and examination of
products upon delivery . . . The effectiveness of the control of quality
by contractors and subcontractors shall be assessed by the applicant or
designee at intervals consistent with the importance, complexity, and
quantity of the product or services."
Paragraph 3.9 in Procedure QAI-2.11, Revision 3, states, in part, with
respect to the Qualified Supplier List (QSL), " Suppliers on the QSL will
be classified in one of the following categories . . .
'C' - Conditionally
Approved Supplier:
Suppliers whose quality programs have been evaluated
and found not to meet the specified requirements but are conditionally
approved pending corrective action.
Examples are as follows:
...
b.
Supplier evaluations based on historical data from CASE, AE, other
utilities, NRC Inspection Reports / Bulletins / Notices, etc. in which these
sources have identified problem areas, conditional approval will be
granted providing source inspection is imposed and stipulated in the
Source inspection may not be required, depending on
the nature of the problems identified, and if adequate followup corrective
action is specified and can be verified . . ."
Contrary to the above, suppliers whose evaluations included use of
external historical data showing quality programs did not meet specified
requirements, were not indicated as conditionally approved on the QSL,
e.g., Transamerical Delaval Engine and Compressor Division, Guildline
Instruments.
Accordingly, source inspection or followup corrective actions
were not specified as a procurement requirement.
An example was also noted
of apparent failure to consider this category of external historical data
in evaluation of a supplier;
i.e., Hayward Tyler Pump Company.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement II.D) (458/8519-02).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Gulf States Utilities is hereby
required to submit to this office within 30 days of the date of of the letter
transmitting this Notice, a written statement or explanation in reply,
including for each violation:
(1) the reason for the violations if admitted,
(2) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved,
(3) tha corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations, and
(4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Where good cause is shown
consideration will be given to extending the response time.
Dated at Arlington, Texas,
this 1st
day of Aug ,1985.