ML20214C122
| ML20214C122 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 08/27/1986 |
| From: | Hayes D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Knop R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| OL-I-ROREM-100, NUDOCS 8705200559 | |
| Download: ML20214C122 (2) | |
Text
- W$h /
'0 NUCL L An Hf GUL ATONY COfdf.itM IOf.
( t,7,f
,I r-/1o.4e
-/ o o
,i, n ' o ~...
9 g
19e mOfMtvf4? #0AD g,l-Q7/
S A 7/s q,,P-s m ~au ~ u.~O-a."
o g
&[
SEP 6 1983 d4 Ai $
l D !ss M D;
'87 AFR 22 P7 :16 I
N, Cit t j 5.4 5EE Ea*
ti
,4 s
MEMORANDUM FOR:
' R. C. Knop; Chief, Projects Branch 1 D. W. Hayes, Chief, Projects Section IB 3 h l
FROM:
N*
b i
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS FOR SECOND MEETING WITH CECO ON
)
QA COMMUNICATIONS AND PROBLEMS
-g3 4
h I
1 l!)b General We note a changing attitude on the part of Ceco persennel towards NRC findings. Dan, especially in the corporate office, have become very d_e fen sive. Tither they will not acknowledge that a problem may exist or debate a side issue rather than the real NRC concern. An example is the recent Region III finding relative to welding control by the Braidwood HVAC contractor. Although the region had not at any time vquestioned the qualification of their welders, weld procedures or filler metal, they continued to argue that they had qualified proce-dures, welders and filler metal and thus met all requirements versus the Region Ill finding that no controls, required by Ceco's own QA program, existed to ensure that the welder used the right procedure and filler metal and that the welder was qualified to the procedure used.
A further example is the NRC concern that engineering changes that affect SAR commitments may not be identified. Ceco's answer was that their program had provisions for handling these matters and ignored the fact that these provisions failed to identify that changes to the Byron fuel pool liner classification invalidated SAR commitments.
Ceco claimed that this was an isolated case but have not to date provided a basis for the claim. Also QA involvement in this area appears to be minimal at best.
Another changing attitude we have noted concerns CECO's QA organization.
They have become very territorial. Attitude appears to be that once QA has done their programmed audits, they have done their job.
Even if the audits identify problems, QA appears to feel it's someone else's job to assure eifective and continuing corrective action.
Examples include:
(1) QA evaluation and follow-up on mechanical equipment installation problems at Braidwood, (2) QA's untimely follow-up to verify that the Byron reinspection program was being effectively implemented and (3) QA's failure to assure Byron electrical QC inspectors were being properly certified despite expressed NHC concerns.
8705200559 B60827
' g " * " ",r q
~~
PDR ADOCK 05000456 Q
PDR.
lgyn)ggg: h o w S f)
,Q vLgf
o
- k. C. Knop 2
SEP 6 1983 Ceco appears to have become very sensitized and perhaps over sensitized to their public image and as a result they down, play problems.
Facts are not always fully disclosed.
Their own findings asg ell as responses to NHC findings are frequently slated in such general 4or*4ischaracterized such that it is difficult to appreciate the real problem or even conclude that a real problem exists.
D.W. Hayes,yn Chief Projects Branch lb cc:
W. Forney J. Hinds L. McGregor R. Schulz e.
e A
- ' - -