ML19269E530
| ML19269E530 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/19/1979 |
| From: | Foster W, Hunnicutt D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19269E516 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900334 99900334-79-1, NUDOCS 7906290236 | |
| Download: ML19269E530 (12) | |
Text
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Raport No.
99900334/79-01 Program No.
51400 Company:
De Laval Turbine Incorporated Engine and Compressor Division 550 85th Avenue Oakland, California 94621 Inspection Conducted: March 5-9, 1979 k
%t$d[-
3//9/77 Inspecto[r' W. E. Foster, Contractor Inspector, Vena6r D6te Inspection Branch Approved by:
h/)
3 /9/7'/
D. M. Hunnicutt, Chief, ComponentsSection II,
' Dhte Vendor Inspection Branch Summary Inspection on March 5-9, 1979 (99900334/79-01).
Areas Inspected:
Implementation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B criteria, and applicable codes and standards, including organizatu n, quality assurance program, and change control.
The initial management meeting was also conducted. The inspection involved thirty-five (35) inspector-hours on site.
Results:
In the three (3) areas inspected, the following deviations and unresolved items were identified.
Deviations: Quality Assurance Program - Practices were not consistent with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B and QA/QC Manual Comitments (Enclosure, Items A.,
B., C., D.,
E., and F.).
Change Control - Practices were not consistent with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, and Division Standard Practices (Enclosure, Item G.).
Unresolved Items:
Organization (Details Section, pare grcph C.3.b.); Quality Assurance Program (Details Section, paragraph D.3.b.).
2146 107 790629o%3 6 Details Section A.
Persons Contacted N. J. Arhontes - Liaison Fngineer R. E. Boyer, Manager - Product Engineering
- D. R. Cady, Manager - Quality Engineering (NDE)
- E. G. Deane, Manager - Quality Control C. McFaddin, Technician - Document Control A. R. Fleischer, Manager - Project Engineering C. Hermann, Purchasing Agent
- D. H. Martini, Vice President and General Manager L. L. Mills, Director - Purchases A. B. Norman, Manager - Manufacturing Engineering C. Ostrander, Inspector
- P. J. Pabers, Manager - General Sales
- W. Rhoades, Manager - Engineering
- L. E. Silvey, Manager - Materials
- E. II. Wilson, Manager - Manufacturing
- Attended exit interview.
B.
Initial Management Meeting An initial management meeting was conducted to acquaint the vendor's management with the NRC responsibility to protect the health and safety of the oublic and to infonn them of certain responsibilities imposed on vendors by the " Energy Reorganization Act of 1974" (Public Law 93-438). Those in attendance were:
D. R. Cady, Manager - Quality Engineering (NDE)
E. G. Deane, Manager - Quality Control E. Dobrec, Manager - Foundry M. Klapperich, Manager - Industrial Relations D. H. Martini, Vice h esident and General Manager C. S. Mathews, Assistant General Manager R. J. Pabers, Manager - General Sales W. Rhoades, Manager - Engineering L. E. Silvey, Manager - Materials E. D. Staub, Controller G. E. Trussell, Manager - Customer Service E. H. Wilson,fOnager - Manufacturing 1.
Objectives The objectives of the Initial Management Meeting were to:
2146 108
. a.
Meet with the vendor's management p'rsonnel and establish channels of communication.
b.
Acquaint them with their responsibilities under Section 206 of Public Law 93-438.
c.
Learn how the company operates and its policies and prac-tices concerning quality assurance and quality control.
d.
Obtain information related to the company's contribution to the nuclear industry.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Explaining the inspection base and how the inspections are conducted.
b.
Describing how inspection results are documented and how proprietary items are handled, including the vendor's opportunity to review the report for the purpose of identifying items considered to be proprietary.
Describing the vendor's responsibility in responding to c.
identified enforcement items relating to:
(1)
Correction of the identified deviation.
(2) Action to be implemented to prevent recurrence.
(3) The dates when corrective.1ctions for both (1) and (2) above will be implemented or completed.
a d.
Explaining that all reports and communications are placed in the Public Document Room (PDR).
e.
Explaining the publication and function of the " White Book."
f.
Requesting the company's management to explain its policies and practices concerning quality assurance.
g.
Listening to management's comments during this session and plant tour.
2146 109 3.
Findings Management indicated that De Laval is the largest supplier of diesel generators destined for use in domestic nuclear generating.
stations.
They estimate that 45 to 50 percent of their pro-duction is dedicated to this market.
The company currently has eight (8) active contracts with Ebasco Services, Inc., Texas Utilities Generating Company, Stone and Webster, Duke Power Company and others.
Among the major suppliers are:
E.P. Portec, Incorporated, IMO Pump Division, RTE n lta e
Corporation, Ingersoll-Rand Company, American Air Filter and Basler Electric Company.
C.
Organization 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that:
a.
Authority and duties of persons and organizations performing activities affecting safety-related functions had been clearly 2stablished and delineated in writing.
b.
Performers of the quality assurance functions had sufficient authority and freedom to:
(1)
Identify quality problems, (2)
Initiate, recommend or provide solutions, and (3) Verify implementation of solutions.
c.
The individuals responsible for assuring effective execution of any portion of the quality assurance program had independence from those directly responsible for performing the specific activity.
2-Methods of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplishe'd by:
a.
Review of the following customer orders and attendant documents to verify that organization requirements had been invoked:
2146 110
. (1) Ebasco Services Incorporated No. NY-435079, dated August 1, 1974.
(2) Texas Utilities Generating Company No. CP-0034, dated April 8, 1976.
(3) Stone and Webster No. RBS-244.700-041, dated January 2, 1975.
b.
Review of the following documents to verify that authority and duties of persons and organizations performing activities affecting safety-related functions had been clearly established and delineated in writing:
(1) Quality Assurance Manual, Section 1, dated June 12, 1975 and January 30, 1978, and Section 2, dated March 1, 1974, November 30, 1976 and January 30, 1978.
(2) Manufacturing Engineering Departmental Procedures Manual, dated April 12, 1976, Sections I and II.
(3)
Inventory Control Department Manual, Undated.
(4) Engineering Operating Procedure No. E0P-1, dated March 17, 1978.
(5) Engineering Department Organization Chart, dated October 20, 1977 and Job Descriptions for: Design Engineer, Controls Engineer, Manager - Controls Engineer, Manager - Design and Development and Senior Design Engineer.
(6) Purchasing Procedure Manual, dated February 7,1978.
(7) Shioping and Receiving Manual, dated July 27, 1976.
(8) Various Job Descriptions of various dates located in the personnel office.
(9) Quality Control Manual No. QC1, Sections 2, 3, and 4, all are dated March 1, 1974 and January 30, 1978.
c.
Review of the following documents to verify that perfomers of the quality assurance functions had sufficient authority and freedom to:
(1) identify quality problems; (2) initiate, reconmend or provide solutions; and (3) verify implementation of solutions:
2146 111 (1) Quality Assurance Manual, Sectic71, dated June'12, 1975 and January 30, 1978; Section 14, dated March 1, 1974 and January 30, 1978; Section 15, dated March 1, 1914 and January 30, 1978.
(2) Quality Control Manual No. QC1, Section 6, d. ied March 1, 1974 and November 5, 1975; No. IP-200, Section 4, dated May 10, 1972; and No. IP-400, Section 4, dated May 10, 1974.
d.
Review of the following documents to verify that individuals responsible for execution of any portion of tlie quality assurance program had independence from those directly responsible for performing the specific activity:
(1) Quality Assurance Manual, Se,cion 1, dated June 12, 1975 and January 30, 1978.
(2) Quality Control Manual No. QC1, Section 2, dated March 1, 1974 and January 30, 1978.
3.
Findings a.
Deviation From Conmitment None.
b.
Unresolved Item The inspector was unable to determine that authority and duties of manufacturing and material control personnel performing activities affecting safety-related functions had been clearly established and delineated in writing because the Job Descriptions maintained in the personnel office are of the Corporate rather than the Division structure.
As such, there are instances where titles, authority and duties did not directly correlate.
In order for the inspector to make the determination the contractor needs 'to exercise some efforts to ensure Job Descriptions accurately reflect titles, authority and duties of employees assigned to the Engine and Compressor Division.
c.
Comments 2146 112 The identified customer orders invoked the requirement for organization.
D.
Quality Assurance program 1.
bjectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that:
a.
The program had been documented by written policies, pro-cedures, or instructions and performance was in accordance with them.
b.
Identification of hardware covered by the program, major organizations participating in the program together with their designated functions had been established.
c.
Controls had been established over activities affecting quality to an extent consistent with importance to safety.
d.
The program provided for:
(1)
Special control, processes, test equipment, tools and skills to attain required quality and inspection and
- tests, (2)
Indoctrination and training of personnel performing activities affecting quality.
e.
Management of other organizations participating in the
~'
quality assurance program regularly reviewed the status and adequacy of' that part of the quality assurance program they were executing.
2.
Methods of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Review of the following customer orders and attendant dccuments to verify that quality assurance program require-ments nid been invoked:
(1)
Ebasco Services Incorporated No. NY-435079, dated August 1, 1974.
2146 113
. (2) Texas Utilities Generating Company No. CP-0034, dated April 8,1976.
(3)
Stone and Webster No. RBS-244.700-041, dated January 2, 1975.
b.
Review of the following documents to verify the program had been documented by written policies, procedures, or instructions:
(1) Quality Assurance Manual, Revision 11, dated July 6, 1978.
(2)
Quality Control Manual No. QC1, Revision 2, No. IP-100, Revision 3, No. IP-200, Revision 3, No. IP-300, Revision 3, No. IP-400, Revision 2, No. IP-700, Revision 1, all are dated January 30, 1978.
(3) Qualified Suppliers List Procedure, dated February 3, 1976.
(4) Qualified Suppliers Lists - Alphabetical and Numerical, both dated August 24, 1978.
(5) Quality Control Procedure No. QCP-2.1, Revision 0, dated May 23, 1978.
(6) Manufacturing Department's Orientation for Apprentice Training Program - Foundry - Assembly - Machine Shop.
c.
Review of hardware covered by the program to verify identification had been established.
d.
Review of Engineering, Manufacturing, Material Control and Quality Control organization charts to verify major organizations participating in the program had been established.
e.
Observat<an of machining, assembling, and testing in-process activities to verify accomplishment in accordance with documented procedures or ins tructions.
3.
Findings a.
Deviations From Commitment (1) See Enclosure, Item A.
2146 1i4
-9 (2) See Enclosure, Item B.
(3) See Enclosure, Item C.
(4) See Enclosure, Item D.
(5) See Enclosure, Item E.
(6) See Enclosure, Item F.
b.
Unresolved Item Docu.'ents (paragraph 4.2.2 of the QA Manual and paragraph 5.3.2 of the QC Manual) do not agree regarding the purchasing representative responsible for review of the procurement package prior to its release to the vendor.
The latter indicates it is the Purchasing Manager while the former indicates it is the Responsible Buyer.
The company needs to align these documents.
c.
Coment The identified customer orders invoked the requirement for quality assurance program.
E.
Change Control 1.
Objectives The objectives of this a.' e of the inspection were to verify that:
a.
Design changes, including field changes, had been approved by the organization that originated the design, or a desig-nated responsible organization.
b.
Measures had been established to control deviations from quality standards which had been specified and made a part of design documents.
c.
Changes to procurement documents had been subjected to the same degree of control utilized in the origination.
d.
Measures had been established to control changes to docu-ments, such as instructions, procedures, and drawings, which prescribe all activities affecting quality and assured that changes are:
2146 115
. (1)
Reviewed for adequacy and approved for release by authorized personnel, (2)
Distributed to and used at the location where the prescribed activity is performed, (3)
Reviewed and approved by the organizations that per-formed the original review and approval, or a designated responsible organization.
e.
Measures had been established to control materials, parts, or components which did not conform to requirements, f.
Established measures had been implemented.
2.
Methods of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Review of the following customer orders and attendant documents to verify that requirements for software and hardware changes had been invoked:
(1)
Ebasco Services Incorporated No. NY-435079, dated August 1, 1974.
(2) Texas Utilities Generating Company No. CP-0034, dated April 8,1976.
(3) Stone and Webster No. RBS-244.700-041, dated January 2, 1975.
b.
Review of the following documents to verify measures had been established to control changes to hardware and software:
(1) Quality Assurance Manual - Section 3, paragraph 3.4, dated January 30, 1978; Section 4, paragraph 4.3, dated March 1,1974; Section 6, paragraph 6.5, dated May 31, 1978; Section 14, dated March 1, 1974 and January 30, 1978.
(2) Quality Control Manual No. QC1, Section 6, dated March 1,1974 and November 5,1975; No. IP-200, Section 4, dated May 10, 1972; and No. IP-400, Section 4, dated May 10, 1974.
2146 116
. (3) Division Standard Practices - No. 4.101, dated September 15, 1969; No. 4.201, dated April 15, 1970; and No. 4.202, dated January 13, 1971.
(4)
Review of Engineering Change Log and file of Requests for Drawing and Parts List Change for 1978, to verify implementation of Division Standard Practices identiftet in b.(3) above.
3.
Findings a.
Deviations From Commitment See Enclosure, Item G.
b.
Unresolved Items None.
c.
Comment The identified customer orders invoked the requirements for design control, procurement document control, document control, and non-conforming material.
Insufficient time precluded completion of this area of the inspection.
F.
Exit Interview
~
1.
The inspector met with management representatives denoted in paragraph A. at the conclusion of the inspection on March 9,1979.
2.
The following subjects were discussed:
a.
Areas inspected.
b.
Deviations identified.
c.
Unresolved items identified.
d.
Contractor response to the report.
The contractor is requested to structure his response under headings of corrective action, preventive measures, and dates for each deviation.
- ~
1
. 3.
Management representatives comments related generally to clarification of, aiad response to, the findings.
2146 118