ML19289C550
| ML19289C550 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/09/1978 |
| From: | Agee J, Hunnicutt D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19289C547 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900329 NUDOCS 7901170317 | |
| Download: ML19289C550 (12) | |
Text
-
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF IllSPECTI0tl AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No.
99900329/78-03 Program No.
4407 Company: Gould, Inc.
Switchgear Operations Division 501 Office Center Road Fort Washington, Pennsylvania 19034 Inspection at: Fort Washington, Pennsylvania Chalfont, Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Horsham, Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted: October 16-20, 1978 Inspectors:
$Y )/
Maei'
///7/7?
W J. R. Agee, Contractor Inspector, Vendor Cate Inspection Branch i
/
s i
Approved by:
A,/8/4-m #
N/9/77 D. M. Hunnicutt, Chief, ComponentsSection II,
'Da t'e Vendor Inspection Branch Summary Inspection on October 16-20, 1978 (Inspection Report No. 99900329/78-03)
Areas Inspected:
Implementation of the Switchgear Operations QA programs including: Management Meeting - Fort Washington; Operation, Production, Engineering Procedures - Fort Washington; Switchgear Production Tests -
Chalfont; Customer Contracts - Circuit Breakers - Philadelphia; Quality Assurance Manual Procedures - Circuit Breakers - Philadelphia; Incoming Inspection - Circuit Breakers - Philadelphia; Test Control /Produc' ion Testing - Circuit Breakers - Philadelphia; Quality Assurance Prog am -
Horsham. The inspection involved thirty-two (32) inspector hours on site.
Resul ts :
In the eight (8) areas inspected no apparent deviations were identified; however, two (2) unresolved items were identified in two (2) of the areas, as described in the following paragraph:
79011705\\1
_2-Unresolved Items: Quality Assurance Manual / Procedures - Circuit Breaker -
Philadelphia - QA procedures have been compiled for review and approval but had not been implemented; Quality Assurance Program - Horsham - QA procedures have been compiled in rough draft for review and approval but have no+ been implemented.
f
. Details Section A.
Persons Contacted 1.
Fort Washington - Switchgear Operations Division Office
- J. T. Bauer - Vice President Marketing R. J. Bonner - Quality Assurance Engineer
- J. W. Collins - Quality Assurance Engineer
- D. D. Duvall - Director, Switchgear Operations Division
- W. C. McKay - Manager Quality Assurance Operations 2.
Chalfont - Switchgear Operations Plant G. W. Lindsay - Switchgear Final Tester A. Wiesinger - Quality Control Manager 3.
Philadelchia - Circuit Breaker Plant J. R. Badey - Quality Control Supervisor, Incoming Materials i
R. A. Magill - Manager, Quality Assurance, Power Circuit Breakers A. Reid - Applications Engineer, Sales Function H. Kiscaden - Quality Control Supervisor, End Product Test 4.
Horsham - Protective Relay Ocerations Plant H. Blume - Manufacturing Engineer R. R. Conrad - Quality Assurance Manager D. Dalasta - General Manager, Protective w. ays P. Harnishfeger - Manufacturing Manager
- Attended exit interview at the Fort Washington office.
- Attended exit interview and the inspection meetings and activities at all four (4) sites.
B.
Management Meeting - Fort Washington 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the meeting were to:
a.
Verify the status of the Switchgear Operations audits of interdivision audit program.
. b.
Verify status of Switchgear Operations Quality Assurance procedures and engineering specifications.
c.
Establish itinerary for NRC inspection of the following Gould facilities:
Chalfont Switchgear Operations, Chalfont; Power Circuit Breaker Operations, Philadelphia; and Protective Relay Operations, Horsham.
2.
Method of Accomolis! 1nt The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Discussions with QA management concerning the implementation of the Switchgear Operations interdivision audit programs j
at the following Gould facilities:
Chalfont, Pennsylvania (Switchgear)
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Power Circuit Breakers) i Horsham, Pennsylvania (Protective Relays)
Tulsa, Oklahoma (Switchgear)
Santa Maria, California (Switchgear)
Sanford, Florida (Switchgear)
Bland, Virginia (Transformers) b.
Preparing an agenda for the NRC inspection of the Chalfont, Philadelphia, and Horsham sites.
3.
Comments The Switchgear Operations, Fort Washington, QA Department has directed the implementation of QA programs at the sites listed above whose QA programs are governed by the Switchgear Division Quality Assurance Manual.
Some of these sites have compiled separate QA manuals applicable t their distinct operation; however, the contents of these manuals comply with the program of the Switchgear Division Quality Asturance Manual. Each site is responsible for implementing its own operating procedures.
Each of the sites have been audited by the QA Operation Group since implementation of the Switchgear Operations OA Prcgram in 1978.
. C.
Operation, Production, Engineering Procedures - Fort Washington 1.
Objectives The' objectives of this area of the inspection was to verify that the Fort Washington and Chalfont QA Procedures of the 3330.XXX and 3331.XXX series, that had been identified in a previous inspection as being obsolete and outdated, had been revised as committed.
2.
Method of Accomolishmen',
The preceding objective was accomplished by reviewing a random selection of twenty (20) procedures in the Switchgear Division Quality Assurance Procedure Manual and the Switchgear Engineering Procedure Manual.
All procedures examined had been revised and were dated June 1978 or later.
3.
Findings Within this area of the inspection, no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
D.
Switchgear Production Tests - Chalfont 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to:
a.
Review documentation, drawings, and procedures pertinent to the final inspection and testing of Class 1E switchgear for nuclear applications.
b.
Witness the final inspection and functional testing of pro-duction switchgear designated as Class 1E equipment for nuclear applications.
2.
Method of Accomolishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Review of the following QA procedures:
(1) QAP 11.1 Production Tests dated June 23, 1978.
_ (2) QAP 11.2 Bus Duct Inspection and Test, June 16, 1978.
(3) QAP 11.3 Circuit Breaker Compartment, Interchange -
ability, 5HK-15HK, June 23, 1978.
(4) QAP 12.1 Control of Mechanical Test Equipment, June 23, 1978.
(5) QAP 14.1 Indication of Inspection Status, June 23, 1978.
(6) QAP 18.2 Internal Quality Assurance Audits, June 23, 1978.
b.
Review of the electrical bill of materials for the production switchgear examined.
c.
Review of Gould correction sheet dated May 1978, for wiring drawing changes.
d.
Review of customer drawing 9779-M-30399 for required drawing changes.
e.
Review of multiple sheets of the following drawings 33-50478-A-54 February 22,1978, and 33-50478-E-52 May 10,1978, which were front, one-line and floor plan views of switchgear typical for the equipment that was being tested.
f.
Discussion of details of the equipment final testing with the final inspector / tester prior to start of the test.
g.
Verifying, by physical inspection witn tester, that all required wiring and component changes had been completed prior to start of the functional checkout and testing.
h.
Examining the functional checkout and testing of meters, switches, and protective relays installed on and in the switchgear.
i.
Verifying that the test equipment including the following had calibration labels attached and that the test equipment was within the required calibration period: voltmeters, ammeters, D.C. power supply truck, phanton load truck, load frequency truck, hi pot truck.
Also verified calibra-tion cards in test and equipment calibration laboratory were in agreement with test equipment labels.
. j.
Verifying the following documentation, plus any additional customer required documentation, is submitted to the customer as the QA package:
(1)
Certified Production Switchgear Test Report.
(2) Quality Control Checklist.
(3) Supervisor's Authorization to ship.
(4) Switchgear Certification of Compliance.
3.
Findings Within this area of the inspectior, no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
E.
Customer Contracts - Circuit Breakers - Philadelphia 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to:
a.
Examint customer purchase orders received by the Gould Circuit Breaker Plant.
b.
Determine the corporate relationship between the Fort Washington and Philadelphia offices.
c.
Examine the quality and technical requirements imposed.
2.
Method of Accomolishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Review of the following customer purchase orders:
(1)
No. 9645-E-0092, June 31, 1974.
(2) No. A-99600, June 21, 1974.
(3) No. 9779-47, March 31, 1976.
(4) No. 5023-302-3, March 19, 1976.
Note: An integral part of each of the above p.0. 's is the electrical bill of materials which is the most pertinent document for imposing QA requirements on the Circuit Breaker Division.
b.
Discussions with Fort Washington and Philadelphia QA manage-ment regarding the corporate relationship between the o (2) offices which revealed that the Philadelphia Power r' it Breaker Plant operates as a supplier to the Fort Wa
.ngton office.
In this relationship the Fort Washington o < ice does not impose applicable IEEE standards for clas-E equip-ment on the circuit breakers since Fort Washington :etains the responsibility for qualifying the switchgear with installed circuit breaker to applicable codes and standards for Class IE equipment for nuclear applications.
c.
Review of Specification No. TD-6916, Engineering Specifications for K-Line Circuit Breakers Up to and Including 2000A.
In conjunction with the technical data of this specification are the required electrical tests to be performed to qualify the circuit breakers to applicable ANSI standards.
3.
Findings Within this area of the inspection, no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
F.
Quality Assurance Manual / Procedures - Circuit Breakers - Philadelchia 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the insrection were to verify that:
a.
The QA program has been documented and implemented to ensure that the completed products are manufactured in compliance with applicable technical requirements that meet prescribed quality standards.
b.
The program contains management's policy statements concerning QA.
c.
The QA organization is structured to achieve appropriate independence from scheduling and costs and freedom to:
(1)
Identify quality problems, (2)
Initiate appropriate resolutions, and (3) Verify corrective actions.
d.
The QA staff has the authority and access to a level of management to ensure effective implementation of the QA program elements.
e.
Detailed written procedure, properly reviewed and approved, are used to control quality activities.
2.
Method of Accomo'.shment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Discussions with the Circuit Breaker Division QA Management.
b.
Identifying the various QA/QC and procedures manuals used for implementing the quality program including:
t' (1) Circuit Breaker Division QA Manual dated February 14, 1978.
i (2)
Incoming Materials QA Procedures.
(3)
In-Process QC Manual Procedures.
(4) End Product QC Manual Procedures.
(5)
Insulation Materials Manual.
(6) LACB (Large Air Circuit Ereakers) Engineering Procedures.
Note: All of the above documents were not reviewed in detail but were examined suffici-ently to verify the adequacy of their functional use.
3.
Findinas a.
Deviat'.ans i
None.
i b.
Unresolved Items Procedures describing the QA department functions had not been compiled until mid 1978.
Those draft procedures are currently under management review for final approval.
Imple-mentation of these QA procedures will be examined in a future inspection.
. G.
Incoming Inspection - Circuit Breakers - Philadelohia 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that:
a.
A program for inspecting incoming materials had been implemented and described by a set of written procedures.
I b.
Products received are examined for compliance to contents g
of related purchase order.
l 2.
Method of Accomplishment I
The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
1 a.
Discussions with receiving inspection mana< ement personnel.
i b.
Comparing the receiving-inspection copy of a random selection of purchase orders with the bills of lade i of products that had been received.
l c.
Verifying that mechanical products are dimensionally checked and physical properties tested in the physical / chemistry laboratory, as required, according to implemented QC procedures.
d.
Verifying that electrical products are functionally tested in the incoming-receiving test laboratory according to j
established Acceptance Quality Level (AQL) tables.
Verifying that test instruments used in the test laboratory e.
were within their required calibration cycles by checking calibration files in measurements and controls laboratory.
3.
Findings Within this area of the inspection, no deviations or unresolved items were identi fied.
H.
Test Control / Production Testing - Circuit Breakers - Philadelphia 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that:
. a.
Production test procedures had been implemented that are consistent with appropriate national standards.
b.
Production activities and end-products are inspected prior to initiation of product final tests.
c.
Test equipment for the end-product final tests was within its established calibration cycle.
2.
Method of Accomolishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Review of the test data document, TD-6916 Engineering spec-ifications for K-Line Circuit Breakers Up to and Including 2000A.
b.
Verifying by a comparative review of the test data document (TD-6916), above, with applicable ANSI standards that the test requirements of TD-6916 are sufficient to verify satisfactory operation of the equipment.
c.
Inspecting random selection of six (6) end-product (circuit breakers) items and verifying that each of the thirty (30) required sequential mechanical inspection checks and the thirty (30) required sequential electrical tests had been made on the end-products, according to the respective produc-tion inspection and test cards entitled, " Circuit Breaker Quality Control End-Product Reliability Objective Evidence Record."
3.
Findings Within this area of the inspection, no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
I.
Quality Assurance Program - Horsham 1.
Objectives The objective of this area of the inspection was to verify that the QA program implemented at the Horsham relay manufacturing plant complied with the quality criteria of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B.
9 2.
Method of Accomolishment The preceding objective was accomplished by:
a.
Meeting with the management of the Horsham plant.
b.
Discussing the facility responsibilities as a supplier of safety related equipment for nuclear applications.
c.
Examining the existing quality assurance manual and related operating procedures.
d.
Completing a brief inspection of the incoming-inspection, stockroom, manufacturing area and the end-products of the plant.
3.
Findings a.
Deviations None.
b.
Unresolved Items The QA Manual is currently being revised to upgrade it to more completely meet the criteria of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B.
QA procedures are being compiled to meet the requirements of the QA Manual.
Status of these documents will be examined in a future inspection.
J.
Exit Interview The inspector met with management representatives (denoted in paragraph A) at the conclusion of the inspection of October 20, 1978. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the separate inspections conducted at the Chalfont, Philadelphia, and Horsham, Pennsylvania facilities. Management acknowledged the statements made by the inspector.