ML20011A045
| ML20011A045 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/30/1981 |
| From: | Mcneill W, Whitesell D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20011A036 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900217 NUDOCS 8110060391 | |
| Download: ML20011A045 (6) | |
Text
,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No. 99900217/81-01 Program No. 51400 Company: Westinghouse Electric Corporation Instrumentation Department 1111 Schilling Road Hunt Valley, Maryland 21031 Inspection Conducted:
June 15-19, 1981 Q.
Ul88 7[3C/8/
Inspector:
W. M. McNeill, Contractor Inspector Date Components Section Vendor Inspection Branch Approved by:
7/70/d/
D. E. Whitesell, Chief Date Components Section Vendor Inspection Branch Summary Inspection on June 15-19, 1981 (Report No. 99900217/81-01).
Areas Inspected:
Implementation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, including-manu-facturing process control; change control; 10 CFR Part 21 inspection and action on previous inspection findings.
The inspection involved 32 inspector hours on site by one NRC inspector.
Results:
In the four areas inspected no apparent nonconformances or unresolved items were identified in two areas.
The following three nonconformances were identified:
Nonconformances:
Change Control - a method of design change verification was used which is not described in Quality System Requirements as required by the Product Assurance Manual, Section 1.0, and Criterion V of Appendix S (Notice cf Nonconformance, Item A.).
Manufacturing Process Contrci - ti,c Inspection Control Tags did not have the latest revision of applicable drawings and initials and/or dates of operators and inspectors as required by the Quality Assurance Procedure, 14.1, and Criterion V of Appendix B (Notice of Noncon-formance, Item B.).
Manufacturing Process Control - a change to a drawing in use was not properly documented as required by Engineering Procedures 1M and 1L and Criterion V of Appendix B (Notice of Nonconformance, Item C.).
8110060391 810806 PDR GA999 ENVWEST 99900217 PDR
2 t
DETAILS SECTION l
i A.
Persons Contracted i
M. L. Atkins, Wire and Assembly Supervisor T. E. Boyle, Contract Administrator D. 0._Cyford, Quality Assurance Engineer W. J. Delcher, Quality Assurance Supervisor G. Drinks, Engineering Services Engineer C. E. Drummond, Quality Assurance Supervisor J. D. Fetrow, Production Systems Engineer R. W. Harper, Quality Assurance Manager K._E. Hart, Operations Planning Manager
- D. D. Holcomb, Instrument Department Manager
- R. W. Lee, Product Assurance Manager W. Patalon, Engineering Manager R. M. Rayme, Quality Assurance Manager W. R. Schuckle, Engineering Services Supervisor
- Denotes those attending the Exit Interview.
i B.
Action on Previous Inspection Findings
- 1.
(Closed) Deviation-(Report No. 79-01):
The Product Assurance Manual did not describe the functions of engineering, manufac-i turing, and purchasing.
It was verified that the Product Assurance Manual has been revised to describe the interface of engineering, manufacturing, and purchasing.
New organization i
charts have been included in the revised manual.
1 2.
(Closed) Deviation (Report No. 79-01):
The Manufacturing Planning Manual's procedure had not been approved and signed by the manufac-turing manager.
A review of~the master. file verified approval and signatures for all procedures after they had been reformatted.-
New procedures were found to have the approval signatureslon the new format which was the preventative action.
C.
. Change Control 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the-inspection were to verify the udequacy of the electric equipment manufacture's control of soft-ware and hardware changes, and to provide' assurance of the adequacy of established practices for Class IE equipment.
i yw a.wd-
=
u+-F. mq,,g-emi-.--,.mnip m. p.,--,y-c w,m-msp-ae. -e g g* 7pr
-t w -,--
pu+
e
=-s e t p-3--w-g,y=& ec g
-y-M 4e,e w.,9 e w y 9g.q e e mm e, w 9
.n-r e Nam * -t r =9 FW*-*'-wT~N wwt' p
ywwsW V-e -
ses
3 2.
Method of Acct..g!ishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Review of the Product Assurance Manual, dated June 12, 1981,
.;ection 4.0, Design Control, and Engineering Procedure, Revision Notice Procedure, IR, Revision E, which established the specific requirements.
b.
Inspection of a contract, 219836, for a Solid State Protection System, and its Change Notices, Engineering Specification 952137, Revision 0; Solid State Protection System Standard, 2.22, Revision 3; Engineered Safegards Test Cabinet Standard, 4.6, Revision 1; and Auxili uy Relay Cabinet Standard, 2.21, Revision 1.
c.
Inspection of the records of four changes to the contract and verification of their implementation.
The changes included software changes such as packaging procedures, minor hardware changes such as socket changes, and subsystem redesign such as the addition of reactor trip logic.
These changes were tracked from the contract to drawing changes, fabrication, testing and inspection changes.
3.
Findings a.
Nonconformances Notice of Nonconformance, Item A.
b.
Unresolved Items None c.
Comments T.e original design of most WID equipment has been a joint effort by Westinghouse Water Reactor Divisions, Research and Development, and the Instrument Department.
Currently design responsibility has been passed on by Change Notice to WID, with the exception of seismic questions for most equipment.
Design activities are limited to the area of design change and design change verification.
ThE dofini-tion of Engineering Extrapolation used for design change verification found in the procedure is a conclusion from known data by an engineer.
4 D.
Manufacturing Process Control 1.
Objactive The objective of this area of the inspection was to verify that the manufacturing process is controlled in accordance with applicable regulatory and other requirements.
2.
Method of Accomplishmant The preceding objective was accomplished by:
a.
Review of the Product Assurance Manual, dated June 12, 1981, Sections 6.0, Instructions, Procedures and Drawings; 11.0, Inspection; 12.0, Test Control; and 15.0, Inspection, Test and Operating Status which established the general requirements.
b.
Review of the following Quality Assurance Procedures and Engineering Procedures which established specific requirements:
Quality Assurance Program Directives Preparation and Control, 1.3, Revision Initial Quality Planning, 2.1, Revision A; Assembly Inspection, 5.1, and Interim Change 1; Feeder Inspection, 5.2, Revi.; ion First Piece Inspection, S.3, Revision Inspection Control Tag - Assembly (Fccm 300520) and Continuation Tag (Form 30798), 14.1, Revision A; e
Review of Engineering Drawings and Test Specifications, IL, Revision E; and Changes by RN or REA, IM, Revision D.
c.
Review of assembly operations at four locations arid inspec-tion at two locations in the shop.
The inspector verified implementation of the above procedures.
The inspector verified the compliance to Inspection Points Program and check lists.
The use of current drawings and Process Specificatior,s was verified.
5 3.
Findings a.
Nonconformances Notice of Nonconformance, Items B and C.
b.
Unresolved Items None.
c.
Comments Manufacturing was found to be controlled by the Inspection Control Tag, and the drawings referenced c.n i t.
Inspection was found to be controlled by the same; plus supplemerits instructions, 5"ch as Process Specifications, Quality Assurance Di' ves, and Inspection Point Programs.
It appears that 4e attention is needed on the tags, and imple-mentaticn of the procedures concerning the use of the tags.
The system as established by WID, requires a particularly effective document control system.
Six work stations and the drawings, also six, found at these stations were inspected.
The document control system does not provide for the use of marked up drawings with out RNs or REAs.
However, the system does not provide for additional flexibility necessary where a prototype is built.
The particulo: equipment found with the marked up drawings was a prototype.
E.
10 CFR Part 21 Inspection 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to ascertain whether organizations and individuals subject to Part 21 regula-tions, have establishad and are implementing procedures and controls, to assure the reporting of defects and noncompliance.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Review of Quality Assurance Procedure, Safety Related Defect Reporting 10 CFR Part 21, 8.5, Revision A, which established the specific requirements.
b.
Inspection of the Safety Review Comm 9e files on three problems that have been identified for Part 22 view, to verify the above procedure to be implemented.
4
,m, y
.,_,--m
...__y
,3
l 6
c.
Inspection of a sample of three purchase orders of other than basic components, to verify the transmission of Part 21 on to subvendors.
d.
Inspection of the Request for Engineering Action (REA) forms for this year, to verify the effectiveness of the above procedure.
e.
Inspection of the posting of Part 21 information on bulletin boards.
3.
Findings a.
Nonconformances None b.
Unresolved Items None c.
Comments i
WID system provides for the documentation of i t 21 on reports REA identified with the heading " Safety Relateu '
The procure-ment documents, passed Part 21 on to subvendors of nonbasic components namely cabinets.
F.
Exit Interview The inspector met with mo..,ement representatives (denoted in paragraph A) at the conclusion of the inspection on June 19, 1981.
The inspector j
summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
The management i
representative had no comment in response to each item discussed by the inspector.
t l
i
(
l
,