ML19262C643
| ML19262C643 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/19/1979 |
| From: | Potapovs U NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Barnard J GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19262C644 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900403 NUDOCS 8002150212 | |
| Download: ML19262C643 (2) | |
Text
l Eiff) a UNITED STATES
/e *' %,o, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
REGloN lV
. * *i ' /
o 611 RY AN PLAZA oRIVE.SulTE 100o e
E ARLINGTON, TEX AS 76012 s Mi!@i.,k 3
%, ../ /
./
19 CEC 1979 Docket No.
99900403/79-02 8,
General Electric Company Nuclear Energy Business Group Attn:
Mr. John Barnard Manager Product &
Quality Assurance Operation 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, CA 95125 Centlemen:
Thank you for your letters, dated August 21, 1979, October 3, 1979, and November 21, 1979, in response to our letters dated July 24, 1979, September 12, 1979: and October 31, 1979. We have reviewed the additional information povided in your November 21, 1979 response, and have made the following assessment and conclusions.
The quality requirements imposed on Marvin Engineering Company (MEC) via Purchase Order 205-AL709 are not equivalent to the quality re-quirements that would have resulted through the imposition of QAR-I, Revision 2.
The principal differences are that:
pre-qualification of the supplier is not required; the qualification of NDE, inspection, test, and audit personnel is not addressed; and 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B and A'EI N45.2 is not imposed. However, the intent of QAR-I appears to have been achieved through your review and approval of the MEC QA Manual and the incorporation of the MEC QA Manual No.
7 (plus supplements) in Revision 1 to 205--AL709.
The last paragraph of your November 21, 1979 response does create a problem concerning GE's verification of the implemented QA program at MEC and the quality of the fabricated items. While we have reviewed the documents you identified, and your conclusions appear
[k 8002150
General Electric Company 2
appropriate on the basis stated in this last paragraph, the results of our recent inspection of MEC appear to contradict your conclusion that the items purchased from MEC were fabri-cated in accordance with your imposed quality requirements.
Therefore, during our next GE inspection we will attempt to resolve the differences between your conclusions and our MEC inspection findings, and we will review the MEC QA Manual, in-clading its supplements, to confirm the statements in your November 21, 1979 response.
This inspection will be scheduled as early in January as practicable.
Sincerel
.1 3
N!
.O h Q S 2.-,W Uldis Potapovs, ief Vendor Inspection Branch.
_