ML20204G016
| ML20204G016 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/22/1983 |
| From: | Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8305020342 | |
| Download: ML20204G016 (3) | |
Text
..,.. m.,
.,4 y
.p.M
- V
_.7
~
.i:
TMEMORANDUMjFOR:
James M. Taylor, Director, Division;of_ Quality Assurance, i." y;wi w.
iSafeguards, Land Inspection. Programs, IE g
~
- n
.. w s
?RichardD$angaft,lDirectorhDivision-ofNendor and: * -
o.
+
' U- [
16kfQ q Jechnical;Progpams,JRegi,on)IV j f g,
l'
~
g $y 5
UEROMP i w :4
,-c g -
, _,g
.:(
N : J m;,.
- ye.y'ng;; ;!v y s pFSUBJECTn
- nM ^ 4 3 GENERIC ^QF, z..PROBLEMSIIN;THE:EQUIPMENTsQUALIFICATION M 1/k
- W
- :i',d, m l -Q'a
^ &Mb
%W :is&Q ' &w
- 2. "W NW ~ %> q.
, R; g ;;s" j
'?
~ s ig
- 6 O c n : \\;;. M ; g;.s s t a% n w z
- Q.m NfQ 1
rv :;
- n a
W JgR;p%y}gn
',~
a
.m ex n
Qxl
- Ww*
M;
- s y L _.
f 'N ;N h.
-9 l -f :hf&:ykkf fff:$
A, WInstsrecenty.elehbe;ff;9__ ~ _
.l fN;hf'ef$
ffffh!33 tb conversat{o[betv3eniyousand{MessesQLfRPotapovsyang}gy y
y
- ^ '
g3 f
Vdigfdg hKi$F@hUlipsfoff%0liaff' ntifted byf,$j(staitfW[GMfjfthilfollow % %fcreatl' F
"" kMMm+g dysuregbest W[1 V M ytinhpl prabhg*yd p J[P
.P GQyfpgihg - AQ&g:,, M f*4
- ll
- " ~. f, " gyg}
(g a
f y,n thN *:3 _ y n
u
~ c vm s w)ffhNel ' w( M [
M pl.
M g[h
.5 '
~I s
o w
.a
+
v r[. [. 4g b
I
{pp
\\ y h,, s,g&c 'n
'. V tkx2 g
. d je 4 I..
d 4
e.
e y
h.j, h
y
'-C
-v% 4.k.9 ' y
- g i Q }N
. g, j
8g*;p #
h yTF-Wy c =Kny is'k,,iMi@Q&if 1 M 8 $y } d T(hk{ff:..Q.*,'-tsg$
Q.(.L ly-
@gQ Anw i
7
%D$,
M h
9,c. g t c 4. g e.- a'h r b,s
~
. i J g ' q;' --
..g a
",?
..r,o 1
a.- ",,:,....
',5 g
<. e.. 5 g
(m 4
.g
- ,.gl ; '
's
<\\
f s.
- L.
u-j,
'\\ '
s g.
\\\\-
'\\
/ ~
l'
.a s
e
.(
e 4
C
( 3.
, - 5.
t
,.. s.
e
=
y y
(...
- i, s
s
.e s
?
.g-y :
- g.,.
n.
4
. Qi b-5.
J g
- J..
2-
...a p,.-.' : '. -.
=
.c
,, m
..g
,.,s
, n. -
~.
o-
1 Memo to Taylor and this is considered a serious problem because in some cases no audits by the licensee, contractors, or the NRC may occur because there appears to be no requirement. Also,' testing without knowing the criticality of the equipment being tested would likely cause less caution during testing and little concern relative to deviation or defect reporting in accordance with 10 CFR Part 21.
2.
Approximately 18 percent of the testing facilities inspected failed to establish and implement a QA program.
NOTE: This figure might be higher if testing facilities performing only seistic testing were included. To date facilities performing only seismic testing per IEEE Standara 323 requirements have not been identified anc/or inspected.
(
3.
Approximately 41 percent of the testing facilities had failed to properly implement 10 CFR part 21 relacive to invoking 10 CFR Part 21 requirements
'n procurenent documents, developing procedures, posting 10 CFR Part 21 documents, and/or evaluating or reporting deviations / defects.
1 d.
Appioximately 94 percent of the manufacturing test facilities and testing organizations inspected had QA oregrams that were deficient or noncon-forming. The seriousness of these noncenformances ranged from no QA prograr to less serious nonconformarces such as failing to follow procedures.
The generic oreblems described above have been caused by the test organiza-tion's customers (manufacturer, AE, or licensee). That is, these upline customers have failed to pass on NRC requirements in procurement documents, failed to assure that QA programs were established and properly implemented, and failed to assure that 10 CFR Part 21 requirements were implemented.
It is apparent that the audit process (licensee to lowest subcontract tier) is not working properly. A recent example was identified at BIW where three utilities and five AEs had performed audits of the BIW QA program for manufacturing but had not audited the EQ test program to assure proper establishment / implementation. At NAMCO, Acme Cleveland Development Company, j
and The Georgia Institute of Technology, the failure to establish QA programs L
and the failure of the upline audit systems was also apparent. A great number of manufacturers, AEs, and utilities could be listed or tracked down l
to show their direct and indirect responsibility and failure to assure that I
these problems were identified and repetition precluded. The above statistics dispute industry claims that the present industry efforts are adequate.
~ _. _,,. __ --
B' Memo to Taylor I have received feedback from my staff relative to how areas of the Region IV Equipment Qualification Inspection program may be improved and where emphasis needs to be placed to make this program more effective.
Based on practical experience gained during field inspections and engineering evaluations, we will submit comments and recommendations in a separate memorandum.
If you have technical questions regarding the above information, please contact Mr. H. S. Phillips at FTS 728-8172.
4 Richard L. Bangart, Director i
Division of Vendor and Technical i
Prcgrtms I
cc:
J. 1. Callins, RIV V. S. Nocnan, NRR-EQB W. S. Farmer, RES R. F. Heishman, OIE bec: R. L. Bangart U. Pctapovs H. S. Phillips 4
h I-4 1
l l
i
_. _... _.,. -,. _. _ _, _,, _, _ _... _ _ _ -,. _ _. _. - - _. _.. _.. _ _ _ _.. _... _ _. _. _ _,. - _.. _ _ _. _. _ _..., _,,,.. _. _.. _ _, _ _ _ _ _