ML20023C013
| ML20023C013 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/15/1983 |
| From: | Barner I, Mcneill W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20023C006 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900387 NUDOCS 8305090485 | |
| Download: ML20023C013 (7) | |
Text
ORGANIZATION:
GA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS DIVISION SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
~
REPORI INSPECTION INSPECTION N0.:
99900387/83-01 DATE(S) 2/7-10/83 ON-SITE HOURS:
28 CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS:
GA Technologies, Inc.
ATTN:
Mr. P. E. Bissonnette Vice President Post Office Box 85608 San Diego, California 92138 ORGANIZATIONAL CONTACT:
Mr. R. J. Dederian, PQ Manager TELEPHONE NUMBER:
(619) 457-1269 PRINCIPAL PRODUCT: Radiation monitors.
NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ACTIVITY: Gas or area radiation monitors and liquid or process radiation monitors for approximately 50 reactor sites.
Some of the equipment is Class IE.
ASSIGNED INSPECTOR:
8e a -,r-r7
%-W.M.McNeill,ReactiveandComponentsProgram Date Section (R& CPS)
OTHER INSPECTOR (S):
APPROVED BY:
- 8 m _ _.-.
w-er-+3
(
I. Barnes, Chief, R& CPS Date INSPECTION BASES AND SCOPE:
A.
BASES:
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 8.
B.
SCOPE:
Calibration, audits, and status of previous inspection findings.
PLANT SITE APPLICABILITY:
Not identified.
r;rsIGNATE0 02IGINAL Certified By W
8305090485 830420 PDR GA999 EMVGAT 99900387 PDR
ORGAAIZATION:
GA TECHNOLOGIES, INL.
ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS DIVISION SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.-
99900387/83-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 2 of 6 A.
VIOLATIONS:
None B.
NONCONFORMANCES:
1.
Contrary to the GA letter to the NRC dated March 23, 1982, the referenced discussions did not assure adherence to stipulated test methods and entries as evidenced by the omission of stamps at steps 5.1 and 13.7 on Test Procedure 0365-9305 after completion of the test for area monitor 0365-4501-001, Serial No. 13.
2.
Contrary to the GA letter to the NRC dated March 23, 1982, reassignment of the document issuing function to Product Quality did not prevent recurrence of the problem as evidenced by the NRC inspector's identification of one traveler in a sample of three containing inappropriate document numbers; i.e., a traveler for liquid monitor 0352-2601-001, Serial No. 4, showed an incorrect revision status in regard to Drawing No. 0352-2601, Parts List 0352-2601-01, and Test Procedure No. 0357-0201.
3.
Contrary to the GA letter to the NRC dated March 23, 1982, the series of retraining sessions did not provide clear direction concerning clean-up-sheets (CUSS) as evidenced by the NRC inspector identification of the absence of an applicable CUS No. 10102 on the traveler for area monitor 0365-4401-001, Serial No. 1.
4.
Contrary to the GA letter to the NRC dated March 23, 1982, there was no documented plan addressing the trend analysis or monthly evaluation of discrepancies.
It was also noted that the most recent monthly evaluation showed no test department discrepancies for the l
months of November and December 1982 although such discrepancies had l
occurred.
5.
Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and paragraph 5.2.2. of Section 15 in the Quality Manual, the NRC inspector noted that QE concurrence had not been obtained on CUS No. 9499 for the repair of an offline gamma monitor 0365-2901-001.
6.
Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and paragraph 3.3. of Section 11 in the Quality Manual, the testing for a subassembly RD-8 was completed and the subassembly installed in a l
J
ORGANIZATION:
GA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS DIVISION SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.-
99900387/83-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 3 of 6 top assembly 0365-4401-001 without the subassembly final testing operation (No. 2100) being signed on its traveler.
7.
Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and paragraph 5. of Section 12 in the Quality Manual, no evidence was made available to the NRC inspector to indicate that a documented investigation had been made in regard to determining the quality status of voltmeters (and, if applicable, products inspected by these voltmeters) which had been calibrated with an unacceptable primary standard; i.e., GA was notified in April 1982 by a calibration subvendor (Report No. 72654) that a digital voltmeter used as a primary standard had been found to be outside the required tolerance.
8.
Contrary to Criterion V of Append 1x B to 10 CFR Part 50 and paragraphs 2. and 3. of Section 18 in the Quality Manual:
(a) Audit results were not formally documented (i.e., an audit report was not issued) for an audit performed of Section 15 of the Quality Manual from June 11 to July 10, 1982.
The findings of the audit had not been documented on " Audit Finding Forms" and the NRC inspector was unable to ascertain from existing informal notes the exact number of findings.
(b) Followup actions were not taken in regard to the findings made during an audit performed in 1982 of Section 1 of the Quality Manual.
The designated scheduling of followup resulting from a 1982 audit of Section 3 of the Quality Manual was also not accomplished.
(c) During 1982, only 6 of the 18 Quality Manual sections were audited.
C.
UNRESOLVED ITEMS:
None D.
STATUS OF PREVIOUS INSPECTION FINDINGS:
1.
(Closed) Nonconformance (Item A, 81-02):
Unbracketed operations were not always performed in sequence.
The conversion to computerized travelers has been completed.
A review of shop travelers in process found no further problem in this area.
All operations reviewed were found to have been
.ORGAAIZAT10N:
GA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS DIVISION SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.-
99900387/83-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 4 of 6 performed in the proper sequence.
It was observed that CUSS were not being entered at the appropriate operations.
This problem had been addressed by GA before the inspection.
It was noted in regard to this and the rest of the previously identified nonconformances that documentation of actions taken was minimal, in particular for preventive measures.
2.
(Closed) Nonconformance (Item B, 81-02):
The standard and project Integrated Manufacturing and Quality Plans did not describe the test procedures and standards contained in the applicable contract requirements listed in Service Request 171207.
The Quality Manual has been changed to identify that the Integrated Manufacturing and Quality Plans and other documents (e.g., service request, product structure) do detail the customer and engineering requirements.
3.
(Closed) Nonconformance (Item C, 81-02):
Inspection did not perform the required verification of all testing activities.
A review of test procedures on which as a standard practice test results are documented showed a further instance of failure to adhere to stipulated test method and entry requirements.
This has been identified as a nonconformance (see B.1 above) against preventive action effectiveness.
A sample of four travelers and associated test procedures were reviewed.
In most cases, it was noted that the test supervisor had not signed the front page of the test procedure to indicate his review of the test documentation after the testing was complete.
4.
(Closed) Nonconformance (Item 0, 81-02):
Travelers did not reflect the appropriate document numbers.
A review of the various documents listed on three inprocess travelers found that three entries were incorrect (see B.2 above).
This nonconformance has been written against the effectiveness of preventive actions.
5.
(Closed) Nonconformance (Item E, 81-02):
CUSS generated by the Test l
Department are not entered on travelers.
A revised Operating Procedure No. OP-408 has been issued and the Quality Manual revised to clearly require CUSS generated by the Test Department to be entered on travelers.
A review of five I
(
l J
ORGANIZATION:
GA TECHNOLOGlES, INC.
ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS DIVISION SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.-
99900387/83-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 5 of 6 travelers for inprocess work found a further instance of failure to enter an applicable CUS on a traveler (see B.3 above).
This nonconformance has been written against the effectiveness of preventive actions.
It was additionally noted that CUS No. 10102 (identified in the nonconformance) is in apparent conflict with CUS No. 10154.
Both CUSS pertained to the same problem; however, CUS No. 10102 had been closed and CUS No. 10154 had been left open.
During this inspection, a further nonconformance (see B.5 above) was identified in regard to the failure to obtain required Quality Engineering approval of a CUS repair.
6.
(Closed) Nonconformance (Item F, 81-02):
Material was being released for subsequent assembly with unresolved discrepancies.
During a review of inprocess work, it was found that a subassembly had been used in a subsequent assembly without release (see B.6 above).
It was additionally noted in regard to the subassembly traveler referenced in B.6 above that Operation No. 2200 (Finai Inspection) had not been stamped (signed) off.
7.
(Closed) Nonconformance (Item G, 81-02):
CUS No. 7804 was not signed and dated as required to denote completion of corrective actions.
A review of a' sample of inprocess CUSS found no further problem in this area.
It was also noted that there is no established documented method which addresses the voiding of an issued CUS.
An occasion was identified during this inspection of the need for a defined method for the subject item.
8.
(Closed) Nonconformance (Item H, 81-02):
Those discrepancies l
coded as engineering on CUSS and those identified by the Test Department are not subject to monthly review for corrective action analysis.
The NRC inspector established that committed corrective actions had i
not been implemented in regard to the establishment of a documented l
plan.
It was also noted that Test Department discrepancies were not documented in monthly evaluation for November and December 1982.
Accordingly, a nonconformance was identified (see B.4 above) in regard to management failure to implement committed actions.
l
. ORGA'N!ZATION:
M TECHNOLOGIE5, 'INC-
. ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS DIVISION
~ SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA REP 0hT INSPECTION No 09900297/83-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 6 of 6 9.
(Closed) Ncaconformance (Item I, 81-02):
Personnel performing special processes.were observed to have been either not qualified for the proce$s or their qualificationt were not a matter of recutt Procedure No. QCI-419J1as been issued on personnel qualifications.
A sample of personnel performing inprocess operations found no further problem in this ared.
10.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (81-02):
Calibration of a gas monitor was performed in accordance with a procedure No. ELA281-9001 which was not identiffed on the traveler.
During the previous inspection of the testing associated with in-process work, it was noted that test personnel utilize additional procedures to those referenced on the shop travelers.
Further review of this suoject during this inspect. ion indicated no additional concern and confirmed a need exists for such a practice when performing nonstandard operations such as troubleshooting.
E.
OTHERFkNDINGSORCOMMENTS:
1.
Calibration:
A sample of eight electrical instruments was reviewed.
The tags, calibration cards, procedures, frequencies, and standards were inspected.
In regard to the primary standard used by GA to calibrate its voltmeters, a nonconformance was identified (see B.7 above).
The traceability of primary standards to NBS standards was verified for several primary standards.
The accuracy ratio of instruments was' verified to meet NRC requirements.
2.
Audits:
The internal audit program was reviewed and several problems were identified aad summarized as a nonconformance (see B.8 above).
The audits and schedules for 1982 and 1983 were raviewed.
Audits were performed on projects, vendors, and
. Quality Manual sections.
On occasion, corporate QA Division l
personnel are used to assist in audit activities.
l l
l l
l i
l l
l
PERSONS CONTACTED
$!7-/o/ef Compan$
6.,
Dates
+*
'e Docket / Report No.
969/Jr).3?J k)/
Inspector
[
khYI Page / of f NAME(Please Print)
TIT 1.E(Please Print)
ORGANIZATION (Please Print)
.g-b bERDEG t AM b
$1 Skd d Ad57eBSEL\\
bb ISqq OTC SuPtit utscTL %R=m lisAl J
LEAuoED SARPEOKO lEST hK 72ALK11 dI2.
l dArtL R;eos Meon.# ae6 hs s t
IL
<eaev Q A sbc, C'I Ihs bdee (O F I
l0m M,sra de SoPe20rse I
DV bl M S*
h1JL IS$Oklu ET E hill bomDM 11O.
IPFh i
i l
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I el gimupm eur Accrax I
/
lg
,.9 3.r., p p,
,?..,,_
g.. : g_* yy,
.: m. s,-9,
- !g_ g,_,
~.,
_. y,. ; g A ;y, g_,_,,.
g_
. q y (.,,,. sc -
,.a
~
f j
r1.
l
.. :,,. y ';
- :P - *.-
,e
,,.,.,.h,.
g,.
a.
.'e.,. T f ? k ; e.: y k g
- ; :.,. Ys.,
_ _ K _ W, ~,/ [ 4 '., ' c.: ? ' r. ':;- ' c. '. ;r h
'p.'
vy. '.,; '}7 ', 3:.,. 9.;'C; '.
- 7.'
- .,fi';
a.: -
4
.. ~}, *
- s j - ' ;-
hf q.,
-(. ; t. C '._;=... _.&-, 3, s- =.;
-,..'s [. 's u. \\ - y.;;
,;- ? _,,
, l;
- = -
- g. ~-,-
~
p,p
,z g
-g-
. _-(_-^. p.' Q:._., l _.
,j.
~'s.,
.x;,. _ ;. ;,.
'u :...,.
2
. 3 w.
_. 5w:. -
7 3-
..c
_ /. ;, -z :
.. 3
- . r.m. g e
' yf ; p y}a :lC _f.
.gi_f,.
4
- z. 4
[.(; Q'.f__;,".[, f-(*..-Q. - y v
e I C -T = E s a "=. %,T i ( g gggg I L I EST htt al .I i US$t %L \\ zee-m a n h %ik m.t r ,y M tt jACEE a kau g ( ^ s s C e a g = s s o E k f h I h g% g h y E y.g s g E G ( 4 x u m k h d 2 e e t l a z g a e (_gt q g g w v e s w E C / H, g g ,W c) U D ? C.U 5 y D D y, f { a C T a ? o = = 3 [. h k 5 8
- d o '_
d E 5 2 ~ N a e c 2
- o w a c e 2
w w 3 q a f S s u g Q g y T q U~ g s J a N o i o q Q o w. 2 k M ( k k 4 3 c a l a s 5 u! 1^3 v a 5 < e W a ze o 0 & d Q g (~ V C e s ~ ; E s c e ~ ~ z e .=u M N -~=M g 4 2 g g gb.g ha g a u o m < 2 3 s y o e ~- n = h T U } 0 [ k $ =E"U N A 1 i i ~ a e% g' - s: e. a 52EEe 4 gamue ,o e v T k ( M 7 T l
s 7.. j ,c _= ,+ m t, = u. s 5 e%. eeu R W I s-. E==- g' :::: = .I l c g Si c bU I" I t %a wi = -eo-Nhe O N = =~m m sww= r= g N CCD= G-M Si c; o f EIN~E r e o
m-=
C **** W %= N M T 1 o V. k'- a r g o x o D 4 ( S Jt = S t 5 2 R m =M M N Add 5 d d 2 E
- t o b
8" 3 LL m \\ j ~ 5 4 S e o= <~) b b t 8 C 2 u- =E 2 o =s u k-l'~ M O Eb h .ll:.6 C; b c o thri (P
- s. - s e
==os .a C D d q menc '1 = .s ( o 9 m O @ C.P - L U W C N [- - c,h 2 t A. O C m c; c -2vvz D7 Omh 3 u = a =. d O O u s m-~me CJ G G. Ga + C = W O}}