ML19269D630
| ML19269D630 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/29/1979 |
| From: | Foster W, Hunnicutt D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19269D623 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900297 99900297-79-1, NUDOCS 7906060101 | |
| Download: ML19269D630 (8) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No. 99900297/79-01 Program No. 51400 Company:
The Foxboro Company Systems Operations 38 Neponset Avenue Foxboro, Massachusetts 02035 Inspection at: 33 Suffolk Road, Mansfield, Massachusetts 02048 Inspection Conducted: January 16-19, 1979.
Inspector: M$
I IIth9 W. E. Foster, Contractor Inspector, Vendor Date Inspection Branch Approved bj:
b wucek
// h 7 7 O. M. Hunnicutt, Chief, ComponentsSection II, Di(te Vendor Inspection Branch Summary:
Inspection on January 16-19,1979(99900297/79-01).
Areas Inspected: Action on five (5) previously identified inspection findings.
Implementation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B criteria, and applicable codes and standards, including manufacturing procsss control; and document control. The inspection involved twenty-six (26) inspector hours on site.
Resul ts :
In the three (3) areas inspected, no apparent unresolved items were identified in two (2) areas; the following deviations and unresolved item were identified:
Deviations: Action on Previous Inspection Findings - Failure to take committed corrective action relative to Deviation No. E.3.a.(2) and preventive measures relative to all deviations identified in Inspection Report No. 77-01 (Enclosure, Item A.).
Manufacturing Process Control - Damaged insulation of preinsulated terminals not consistent with Criterion V of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, and the Panel Operations Workmanship Standards (Enclosu're, Item B.); Spot Welding Equip-ment qualification not consistent with Criterion V of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, and Panel Operations Procedure No.1007 (Enclosure, Item C.).
7 9 0 6 0 6 0 to s
. Document Control - Measures had not been established to control issuance of quality related instructions consistent with Criterion VI of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B (Enclosure, Item D.); corrected drawing not signed and dated consistent with Criterion VI of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, and Panel Operations Procedure No. 3001 (Enclosure, Item E.).
Unresolved Item: Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Details Section, paragraphB.3.T.
1 o
-- DETAILS SECTICN A.
Persons Contacted J. J. Bonoyer, Supervisor - System Checkout R. A. Boudro, Engineering Supervisor - System Packaging Division
- R. Breen, Manager - Nuclear Systems Engineeric,9
- W. Calder, Manager - Corporate Quality Assurance
- J. Dacier, Manager - Systems Quality Assurance
- H. O. Denzer, Manager - U. S. Area Quality Assurance J. Engler, Coordinator - Steel
- R. Foster, Manager - Systems Test & Technical Services J. Keiper, Project Manager - Power Systems A. Kennealy, Coordinator - Quality Control Inspector
- J. Kenney, Manager - Systems Packaging L. Newman, Coordinator - Quality Control R. D. Souza, Supervisor - Quality Control
- D. G. Tower, Jr., Analyst - Systems Quality Assurance A. Vianello, Engineer - Project
- R. A. Webb, Jr., Manager - Systems Support Engineering and Quality Control
- Attended Exit Interview.
B.
Action on Previous Inspection Findings 1.
(0 pen) Deviation (Inspection Report No. 77-01): Quality Control had not established contract files for contracts reviewed. The inspector verified that Quality Control had established contract files for contracts reviewed. However, contrary to the corrective action response letter dated January 25, 1978, audits had not been performed.
(See Enclosure, Item A.).
2.
(0 pen) Deviation (Inspection Report No. 77-01): Quality Control Engineering had not reviewed nuclear work orders for a determination of evaluation and acceptance criteria. The inspector verified that Quality Control Engineering had reviewed nuclear work orders for determination of evaluation and acceptance criteria. However, contrary to the corrective action response letter dated January 25, 1978, audits had not been performed.
(See Enclosure, Item A.).
3.
(0 pen) Deviation (Inspection Report No. 77-01): Quality Control had not stamped and initialed purchase orders identified as
" Nuclear" and had not maintained a file of nuclear purchase orders. The inspector verified that purchase orders identified as " Nuclear" had been initialed and dated by Quality Control
, and maintained in a file. However, contrary to the corrective action response letter dated January 25, 1978, audits had not been performed.
(See Enclosure, Item A.).
During evaluation of the corrective action response letter, it was determined that a conflict exists between Panel Operations Procedures No. 3005, Revision 0, dated January 1978, and No. 1018, Revision II, dated February 1978. The latter document requires Quality Control Stamp and initial while the former requires
" signed approval" of purchase orders reviewed. The contractor needs to align these documents.
4.
(Upen) Deviation (Inspection Report No. 77-01): Wire had been ordered and installed which required a flame resistance test different than that identified in the customer specification.
The inspector found that contrary to the corrective action response letters dated October 28, 1977, and January 25, 1978, this information had not been transmitted to the customer and approval had not been obtained for its use and audits had not been performed.
(See Enclosure, Item A.).
5.
(0 pen) Deviation (Inspection Report No. 77-01): Procurement documents did not contain provisions for invoking quality assurance program requirements on suppliers. The inspector verified Panel Operation Procedure No.1040, Revision 0, dated January 1978, had been written to extend nuclear quality assurance program requirements to suppliers. However, contrary to the corrective action response letter dated January 25, 1978, audits had not been performed.
(See Enclosure, Item A.).
C.
Manufacturing Process Control 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that:
a.
Measures had been established to control manufacturing, inspection and test activities, b.
Performance of manufacturing, inspection and test activities had been accomplished by qualified personnel using qualified procedures.
c.
Manufacturing, inspection and test activities had been accomplished in accordance with documented instructions, procedures and drawings.
M JGs~oe
. d.
Mandatory inspection hold points had been indicated in appropriate documents and honored.
e.
Measures had been established to indicate the status of items being processed.
2.
Method of Accomolishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Review of Combustion Engineering, Inc., Purchase Order No. 9603107, dated November 23, 1976, and Supplements 1, 2, and 3, dated June 30, 1977, May 1, 1978, and November 15, 1978, respectively, and related documents to verify instruc-tions, procedures, and drawings; identification and control of materials, parts, and components; special processes; inspection; test control; and inspection, test, and operating status had been invoked.
b.
Review of System Traveler; Shortage List; Assenbly In-Process Checklist; In-Process Report; Fabrication ftandards Manual; Panel Operations Workmanship Standards No. PUB 448, dated January 1977; and Test Procedures Nos. TI-001, Revision 1, dated February 1977; TI-003, Revision 1, dated February 1977; and TI-005, Revision 0, dated August 14, 1978, to verify objectives a., c., d., and e.
c.
Review of the Welding Procedure Manual, Production Route Sheet, Visual Welding Standards, Panel Operation Procedure No.1007, and Special Process Qualification Records for personnel to verify objective b.
d.
Observation of two (2) racks for Foxboro Sales Order No.
76N 60759.
3.
Findings d.
Deviations From Comitment (1) See Enclosure, Item B.
(2) See Enclosure, Item C.
The customer purchase order invoked instructions, proce-dures, and drawings; identification and control of materials, parts, and components; special processes; inspection; test; and inspection, test, and processing status.
. b.
Mitigating Circumstances The inspector was informed that the damage to the insulation had occurred during reassembly of hardware which was dis-assembled during testing.
The System Traveler required final inspection after testing; however, the primary concern is: no detailed inspection was required after reassembly of hardware disassembled during testing.
(Enclosure, Item B.).
c.
Unresolved Items None.
d.
Other Significant Information A reorganization, integrating Panel Operations into Systems Operations, had occurred.
Panel Operations had become Systems Packaging. The Systems Operations Quality Manual, dated January 1979, had been developed and procedures were being reevaluated and rewritten, as necessary, for incorporation into the Systems Operations Reference Manual.
The inspector detennined the Systems Operations Quality Manual had not been in existence long enough to be implemented.
As a result, the inspection was conducted using the Panel Operations Quality Control Manual dated January 1978.
D.
' Document Control 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that:
a.
Measures had been established to control the issuance of documents; such as instructions, procedures, and drawings, including changes thereto, which prescribed all activities affecting quality, b.
Established measures:
(1) Assured that documents, including changes, are reviewed for adequacy and approved for release by authorized personnel, (2) Assured that documents, including. changes, are distributed to and used at the location where the prescribed activity is performed-
. c.
Changes to documents had been reviewed and approved by the same organization that performed the original review and approval or another designated responsible organization.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a..
Review of Combustion Engineering, Inc., Purchase Order No. 9603107, dated November 23, 1976, and Supplements 1, 2, and 3, dated June 30, 1977, May 1, 1978, and November 15, 1978, respectively, and related documents to verify doc-ument control had been invoked.
b.
Review of the following documents to verify objectives a.,
b., and c.:
(1) Sections III and VI of the Quality Cc7 trol Manual, both were Revision A, dated April 1975.
(2) Production Route Sheets dated: December 13,1978, for Drawing No. D3004FE, Revision A; November 22,1978, for Drawing No. D3002HD, Revision D; December 1,1978, for Drawing No. 00126VA06, Revision F.
(3) Panel Operation Procedures: No. 1010, dated March 1976; No. 3001, dated March 1976; No. 4006, Revision 0, dated July 1977; No. 4007, Revison 0, dated August 1977.
(4) Drawing Nos. : P!l-41, Revision 2, dated September 25, 1978; PW-El, Revision 3, dated November 2, 1978; PW-E3, Revision 2, dated September 8, 1978.
3.
' Findings a.
Deviations From Commitment (1) See Enclosure, Item D.
(2) See Enclosure, Item E.
b.
Unresolved Items None.
c.
'Other Significant Information A reorganization, integrating Panel Operations into Systems Operations, had occurred.
Panel Operations had become 2%s~ #
. Systems Packaging. The Systems Operations Quality Manual, dated January 1979, had been develeped and precedures were being reevaluated and rewritten, as necessary, for incorpora-tion into the Systems Operations Reference Manual.
The inspector determined the Systems Operations Quality Manual had not been in existence long enough to be implemented.
As a result, the inspection was conducted using the Panel Operations Quality Control Manual dated January 1978.
E.
Exit Interview 1.
The inspector met with management representatives denoted in paragraph A. at the conclusion of the inspection on January 19, 1979.
2.
The "ollowing subjects were discussed:
a.
Areas inspected.
b.
Deviations identified.
c.
Unresolved item identified.
d.
Contractor respense to the report.
Management was requested to structure their response under headings of corrective actions, preventive measures, and dates for each deviation.
3.
Management representatives informed the inspector the hardware, related to the deviation on the corrected drawing, was in hold status due to cable entry considerations.
e49
-