ML20039F460
| ML20039F460 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/22/1981 |
| From: | Barnes I, Foster W, Parker L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039F455 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900702 NUDOCS 8201130014 | |
| Download: ML20039F460 (18) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ - _ _. - _ _
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0miISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT a
REGION IV Report No.
99900702/81-01 Program No.
51400 Company: Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc.
Power Systems Division 101 Gelo Road Rocky Mount, NC 27801 Inspection at:
101 Gelo Road and 1400 Vance Street Inspection Conducted:
June 1-5, 1981 7
Inspectors:
0). [
7/zz/g/
W. E. Foster, Contractor Inspector Date Reactive Inspection Section Vendor Inspection Branch 7-l S "" B l L. B. Parker, Contractor Inspecter Date Reactive Inspection Section Vendor Inspection Branch Approved by:
"J 7,/.z 2
/
^
E Barnes, Chief Date, -
~
Reactive Inspection Section
~"
Vendor Inspection Branch s
~
m
'I Summary
^
Inspection conducted on June 1-5, 1981 (Report No. 99900702/81-01).
j' Areas Inspected:
Implementation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B criteria anj-
'/ e applicable codes and standards; including follow up on regional requests.
(implementation of 10 CFR Part 21); follow up on unresolved items; follow'up on deviations; procurement document control; and procurement source, selection '% "+.'+
(limited).
The inspection involved 55 inspector-hours on site by twd NRC,.. ; -s N~ '
inspectors.
Results:
In the five areas inspected, the following violation, nonconforiaance, and unresolved item were identified:
N y
(
G
..y s.
w7,-%y;?
i./
.c.
l X'
/*-
B201130014 810729
~
PDR GA999 EECMORRK
+
7 99900702 PDR
- s. -
tem
. g y
',(
c s
l
, i 3
n i
2-
.Violhtion:
Follow up on Regiocal R(quests (Implementation of 10 CFR Part 21) -
Practiciwasnot(consistentwithparagraph21.31of10CFRPart21(SeeNotice ofViolation).
w j
\\
Nonconformance:
Follow up on Deviations - Commitmeats of corrective action i
response letter, dated April 8, 1960, had not been totally honored (See
~
Notice of @ nconformance).-
Unre' solved Item:
Procurement Document Control - Unable to determine that a reqLestor's signature is not required on a Purchase Requisition when the person is also tne authorizer (See DetailsSection II, paragraph B.3.c.).
4
~
1
--s
-l g
4 1
~:
i -
~
p.
h k
i g.
-'a g
4 t'
y 1'+f ss 4
h 1
?%)
s
.. ' i s
d s
A x
if >
p Q
s1 y
s ~g f
=
..s a, '
M*,
t sA.
^*
e
(
A
\\'*
- s. %
/
4 g.
,y g,
,g e
A-
,'A
- ),
- , \\
(
v.", i
%/c
\\*
'?
)[ ' ; * %
+
'O
'e
,y 3
\\
["
4
~ %;'
. Jf.' 's,
.A m,
& w :.
k[K e
p
,pQ7
+
.,,.i, 3
g
,N j.. mp
\\(:cg a
., % ' _.., A s
s
' g.fs.t i
.. m,
a v
~
g~.
- ;;- f, _ A
-V
.()g_Q.
+ f ;; P
' ?. A -
- w.. %.
.ge r,
2 m.
a
+
s
s 3
y DETAILS SECTION I d'
(Frepared by W. E. Foster)
A.
Persons Contacted g
R. E. Baker, Receiving Inspector t
- M. P. Cake, Contract Administrator s
'N
- D. Cone, Manager, Personnel
- H. Falter, Division' Engineer
- W. F. Jones, Vice President
'C
- J. Joyner, Manager, Manufacturing
- P. E. King, Manager, Engineering
- H. Loewe, Manager, Quality Control
- E.3 L. Martin,' 'Jr., Manager, Contracts
- M.,Morley, Manager, Special Projects
- R. E. Pennington, Manager, Division Quality Assurance
- J. G. Rutherford, Mar.ager, Division Business
- J. W. Winstead, Manager,xPurchasing
~*R. L. Witt, Assistant. Manager, Business
- Attended Exit Interview.
B.
Fol_ low up on Regional Requests
===1.
Background===
N a.
The extent of wiring problems in the diesel control switchgear 1(reported by the. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) on February 6, 2
1980), prompted them to investigate wiring in other components in the High* Pressure Core Spray system.
The investigation resulted in identifying wiring discrepancies in the diesel generator air compressor skid assemblies at the Hartsville Nuclear Plant, t
Unit Nos. Al and A2.
On February 8, 1980, TVA notified the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Region II, of the results of the investigation.
On September 2, and 23, 1980, a turbocharger idler gear bolt and b.
a turbocharger thrust bearing' failed, respectively, in the diesel generators located at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station.
As a result, the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Region III 4,
(0IE, RIII) conducted an investigation of the turbocharger failures and 10 CFR Part 21 reporting requirements.
Personnel at OIE, RIII, expressed concern regarding Power Systems Division's mechanisms for evaluating and reporting as required by 10 CFR Part 21.
[
4 4
2.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that:
(1) suppliers of safety-related equipment had established and imple-mented procedures in accordance with 10 CFR Part 21; (2) the turbocharger failures at Davis-Besse and diesel generator air compressor skid assemblies at Hartsville, had been evaluated and reported, as necessary; (3) the manufacturer had:
(a) taken adequate corrective actions and preventive measures; and (b) assessed generic implications.
3.
Methods of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Reviewing the following documents to verify that procedures had been established in accordance with 10 CFR Part 21:
(1) Quality Control Procedure No. N16, Revision 2, dated September 27, 1979 - Corrective Action, and (2) Corporate Quality Control Manual, Section E 14, Revision 0, dated April 5, 1978 - Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance.
b.
Reviewing the following documents to verify that problems are evaluated and reported, as necessary:
(1) General Motors Corporation, Electro-Motive Division's letter dated December 23, 1980; To:
Mr. H. W. Falter, Power Systems, From:
J. G. Hayden,
Subject:
Turbo Drive Gear Failure Toledo Edison Nuclear Plant, (2) Power Systems letter, Serial No. 157C-0-0066, dated January 2,1981; To:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III, Attention: Mr. F. Mavra;
Reference:
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Unit No. 1, Turbo Drive Gear Failure; and attached Report No. 157-80-E, dated December 31, 1980.
(3) General Motors Corporation, Electro-Motive Division's memo, undated; To:
All EMD Contractors; From:
W. E. Becker;
Subject:
Stand by Units.
(4) General Motors Corporation, Electro-Motive Division's letter dated June 12, 1979; To:
Mr. H. Falter, Power Systems Division; From:
E. W. Ralls, (5) Power Systems letter, Serial No. 071C-0-0010, dated July 2,19b, To:
Portland General Electric Company,
5 Attention: Mr. L, E. Hodel;
Reference:
Standby Diesel Generator Sets;
Subject:
Trojan Nuclear Plant; with Enclosure No. PSD 0679-F;
Reference:
Exercise /
Test Fast Starts Operating Manual, (6) Power Systems letter, dated April 7, 1980; To:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II; From:
H. W. Falter;
Reference:
Reportable Deficiency, 10 CFR Part 21, and (7) Memo dated April 3, 1980: Topic:
Reportable Defect, Title 10, Part 21, identified the Chairman and attendees at a meeting conducted _to discuss switchgear problems.
c.
Observing posting at the Administration Building, Engineering Building, and a Fabrication Building to verify that 10 CFR Part 21 had been implemented.
d.
Reviewing the following outgoing Purchase Orders, Purchase Order Changes / Supplements and attendant Purchase Requisitions to verify that 10 CFR Part 21 had been implemented:
(1) 38065-6022, dated January 18, 1979, (2) 38355-6022, dated January 2, 1979, (3) 38078-6022, dated April 9, 1979, and (4) 42590-6036, dated August 12, 1980.
e.
Reviewing the following documents to verify that:
(1) adequate corrective actions and preventive measures had been taken, and (2) generic implications had been assessed:
(1) Power Systems letters, dated -
(a) April 7, 1980; To:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II; From:
H. W. Falter;
Reference:
Reportable Deficiency, 10 CFR Part 21, (b) April 10, 1980; Serial No. 377C-0-0099; To:
General Electric Company; Attention:
Mr. R. F. Pariani; From:
H. W. Falter;
Subject:
P. O. No. 205-AD585/
Grand Gulf, (c) June 25, 1980; To:
International Controls and Switch-gear, Inc., Attention: Mr. V. Cavanaugh; From:
J. W.
- Winstead, (d) September 23, 1980, Serial No. 6004C-0-0120; To: General Electric Co., Attention:
Mr. R. F. Pariani; From:
M. P.
Cake, and
6 (e) October 28, 1980, Serial No. 6004C-0-0121; To: General Electric Company; Attention: Mr. R. F. Pariani; From:
M. P. Cake.
(2) Power Systems memoranda, dated -
(a) March 5, 1980; To:
H. Falter, F. Jones; From:
W.
Batchelor;
Subject:
Visit to... Phipps Bend Nuclear Plant... Units 5 and 6, (b) April 1, 1980; To:
H. Falter; From:
W. Batchelor;
Subject:
Visit to... Hartsville Nuclear Plants, Units 1-4, (c) April 3, 1980; Topic:
Reportable Defect - Title 10, Part 21; identifies a meeting and list of attendees, and (d) June 24, 1980; To:
T. Fryar; From:
R. Carlson;
Subject:
Trip Report for... Grand Gulf Nuclear Station..., attached General Electric Company Field Deviation Disposition Request No. JB1-940, dated May 13, 1980; and enclosed Bechtel Corporation Work Plan and Inspection Record No. Q1E22-5001, Revision 3, dated March 16, 1981.
(3) International Controls and Switchgear, Inc. letters, dated -
(a) September 12, 1980, Serial No. 6004V-I-0068; To:
Power Systems Division; From:
J. B. Ebert;
Reference:
Skagit G. E. Rework, (b) September 29, 1980; Serial No. 6004V-I-0069; To:
Puget Sound Power and Light Warehouse, Attention:
T. Caracioli; From:
M. King;
Subject:
Power Systems Division Job No. 6004, and 4
(c) December 5, 1980, Serial Nos. 6003V-I-0189, 6016V-I-0110; To:
Power Systems Division, Attention:
J.
Winstead; From:
M. King;
Subject:
10 CFR Part 21 Rework.
(4) General Electric Company letters -
(a) Nuclear Energy Engineering Division, Serial No. 6004C-I-0145, dated July 9,1980; To: Morrison-Knudsen Power _ Systems Division, Attention:
M. Cake;_From:
R. F. Pariani;
Subject:
Inspection of Skagit Control
- Panel, m
m._
... = _
4 7
(b) ' Nuclear Energy. Division'Hartsville Nuclear Plant,. dated May 15,.1981; From:
J. L. Day, and.
4 k-
' (c) Nuclear Power Systems' Division, dated May 4,-1981; Toi General Electric-Company; Attention:
H. M. Bankus; From:
L. H.1 Larson;.Subjecti HPCS Diesel
= Generator'Swit;hgear Wiring Discrepancies.
a
-(5) Florida Power and Light Company letter, Serial No.
6002C-I-0322; dated December 5, 1980; To:
Power Systems, E.. Martin; From:
B. J. Escue/R. A. Garramore.
(6) Training Records, dated -
(a) May 23, 1980; Topic:
Nonconformance Control and Dispost-tion. Action, and F
(b) July 2, 1980; Topic:
Electrical Component Workmanship and Acceptance Standards.
(7) Quality Control-Procedures,-Nos. -
(a) 101, Revision 1, dated April 2, 1980 - Receiving Inspection Procedure, and i
b (b) 102, Revision 1, dated June 5, 1980 - Electrical l
Components Workmanship and Acceptance Standards.
(8) Handwritten memoranda addressing thermocouple. lead splicing, termination and junction boxes,-some accompanied with photo-4 graphs of lead splicing.
(9) Drawings, Nos.
(a) 6022D09501, Revision D, dated August 26, 1980 - ' External l
Temperature Thermocouple Wiring,
~
(b) 6022F09002, Revision B, date'd August 29, 1980 - Conduit Layout For ' Pyrometer Wires (Tandem Engines),- and '
(c) 6036D09501, Revision B, dated December 10, 1980 - Diesel Exhaust Monitor and Alarm Schematic.
(10) Bill of Material No. IW0'6036, dated February 3, 1981.
1 (11) Specification No. PSD-ECS-1101, Revision' 3, dated August 1, 1980, Engine - Generator Control Panel.
i i
l
l 8
4.
Findings a.
Comments (1) Section E14 of the Morrison-Khudsen Quality Control Manual is the procedure used by the Power Systems Division to comply with the provisions of 10 CFR Part 21.
(2) The turbocharger idler gear bolt failure in a diesel generator at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station had been evaluated and determined to be nonreportable.
Report of the evaluation identifies possible causes as:
(1) previous turbocharger ~ failures of-this unit, and (2) bolts improperly torqued during production of the idler gear.
To correct the problem, the turbocharger drive gears for both diesels at the site have been modified in accordance with Electro-Motive Division's Power Pointer No. 2P-79, dated February 14, 1979.
The inspector was informed that previous turbocilarger fail-ures are possibly contributory due to apparent inadequate inspection of the spring drive gear assen,bly at Davis-Besse, prior to reinstallation of the turbocharger.
In order to preclude recurrence, Power Systems Division will:
(1) issue a maintenance instruction that requires inspec-tion-for proper bolt torque of the spring-loaded turbo-charger drive gear assemblies whenever the turbocharger is replaced, and (2) recommend modification of the turbo-charger drive gears in accordance with Power Pointer 2P-79.
The preventive measures apply to diesel engines manufactured prior to May 1, 1975. Also, Power Systems Division will recommend replacement of the gear with one recently designed, when they become available.
(3) The turbocharger thrust bearing failure in a diesel generator at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station is under investiga-tion.
(4) The NRC inspector was informed that wiring discrepancies in the diesel generator air compressor skid assemblies had not been discussed with Power Systems Division (PSD).
- However, the review by the NRC inspector of documentation initiated by' PSD personnel at the Hartsville Nuclear Plant, indicated that the wiring discrepancies had been corrected.
b.
Violation See Notice of Violation, u
=- - --
9 Examples:
Purchase Order (P.O.) No. 38355-6022, dated January 2, 1979, indicated that the hardware was nuclear safety-related. The file copy of P.O. No. 38065-6022, dated January 18, 1979,-had a copy of 10 CFR Part 21 attached.
Power Systems Division is subject to 10 CFR Part 21.
c.
Nonconformances
- None, d.
Unresolved Items None.
C.
Follow up on Deviations (Nonconformances) 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that the vendor had taken the corrective actions and preventive measures stated in their correspondence to IE regarding deviations.
2.
Methods of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
Reviewing the following documents to verify that 'the corrective actions and preventive measures identified in the corrective action response letter, had been taken:
a.
In-Plant Receiving Inspection Reports, dated January 8 -
October 2, 1980, b.
Quality Assurance Internal Audit Report No. 3-80, c.
Internal Composite Audit Schedule, dated August 1, 1980, d.
Memo, dated February 3, 1981; To:
See Distribution; From:
Division Quality Assurance Panager;
Subject:
Planned /
Periodic Internal' Audit Schedule - Year 1981, e.
Engineering Procedures, Nos. -
(1) 501, Revision 2, dated March 27, 1980 - Engineering Change-Notice, and
,.,v c
~py
,,m
,-c,
-,,-,,,,m r,.
,.,, =
c.y-..-m
10 (2) 502, Revision 1, dat'ed March 27, 1980 - Engineering Change Proposal.
c f.
Engineering Change Proposals, Nos. - 2893, 2889, 2888, and 2890, g.
Shop Control Procedure No. 103, Revision 3, dated July 18,-1980 -
Shop Traveler Revision Sheet, and h.
Training Records of various dates, addressing the foregoing areas.
3.
Findings a.
(Closed) Deviation (Inspection Report No. 80-01):
The inspector reviewed 12 In-Plant Receiving Reports and verified that the bottom portion of the forms had been signed and dated by the receiving inspector. Also, it was verified that additional training had been given.
b.
(Closed) Deviation (Inspection Report No. 80-01):
The inspector verified that an internal audit, of the complete quality assurance program, had been conducted March 12-14, 1980. The inspector also verified that audits are being performed as indicated in the schedule for 1981.
c.
(Closed) Deviation (Inspection Report No. 80-01):
The inspector verified that Engineering Procedure No. 501 had been revised on March 27, 1980, and that additional training had been given.
d.
(0 pen) Deviation (Inspection Report No. 80-01):
The inspector verified that Engineering Procedure No. 502 had been revised on March 27, 1980, and additional training had been given.
However, the referenced Engineering Change Proposals (ECP) had not "been reviewed and properly executed in accordance with EP 502, 3.1.B" (See Notice of Nonconformance). The inspector reviewed six additional ECPs dated May 12 to August 1, 1980, and determined that they had been completed as required.
e.
(Closed) Deviation (Inspection Report No. 80-01):
The inspector verified that Addendum No.1, dated December 17,-1979, to Component Design Specification No. 6022-304-1 had been signed by the Professional Engineer, and that additional training had been given.
f.
(Closed) Deviation (Inspection Report No. 80-01):
The inspector verified that:
(1) Shop Control Procedure No. 103 had been revised, (2) changes on three Shop Travelers had been documented on Shop Traveler Revision Sheets, and additional training had been given.
11 g.
(Closed) Deviation (Inspection Report No. 80-01): The inspector verified that the temperature of the wald rod holding oven was within the weld rod manufacturers recommended temperature.
h.
Unresolved Items None.
D.
Follow Up on Inspector Identified Problems and Unresolved Items 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that inspector identified problems and unresolved items, during pre-vious inspections, had been corrected and resolved satisfactorily.
2.
Methods of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
Reviewing the following documents to verify that inspector identi-fied problems and unresolved items had been satisfactorily corrected and resolved:
a.
Power Systems letters, dated -
(1) April 7, 1980; To:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II; From:
H. W. Falter;
Reference:
Reportable Deficiency, 10 CFR Part 21,.
(2) April 10, 1980; Serial No. 377C-0-0099; To:
General Electric Company; Attention: Mr. R. F. Pariani; From:
H. W. Falter;
Subject:
P. O. No. 205-A0585/ Grand Gulf, (3) June 25, 1980; To:
International Controls and Switchgear, Inc., Attention:
Mr. V. Cavanaugh; From:
J. W. Winstead, (4) September 23, 1980, Serial No. 6004C-0-0120; To:
General Electric Company, Attention:
Mr. R. F. Pariani; From:
M. P. Cake, and (5) October 28, 1980, Serial No. 6004C-0-0121; To: General Electric Company, Attention:
Mr. R. F. Pariani; From:
M. P. Cake.
l 12 b.
Power Systems memoranda, dated -
(1) March 5, 1980; To:
H. Falter, F. Jones; From:
W. Batchelor;
Subject:
Visit to... Phipps Bend Nuclear Plant...
Units 5 and 6, (2) April 1, 1980; To:
H. Falter, From:
W. Batchelor;
Subject:
Visit to... Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units 1-4, (3) April 3, 1980; Topic:. Reportable Defect - Title 10, Part 21; identifies a meeting and list of attendees, and (4) June 24, 1980; To:
T.-Fryar; From:
R. Carlson;
Subject:
Trip Report for... Grand Gulf Nuclear Station...,
attached General Electric Company Field Deviation Disposi-tion Request No. JB1-940,-dated May 13, 1980; and enclosed Bechtel Corporation Work Plan and Inspection Record, No.
Q1E22-5001, Revision 3, dated March 16,.1981.
c.
International Controls and Switchgear, Inc. letters, dated -
(1) September 12, 1980, Serial No. 6004V-I-0068; To:
Power System Division; From:
J. B. Ebert;
Reference:
Skagit G. E. Rework, (2) September 29, 1980; Serial No. 6004V-I-0069; To:
Puget Sound Power and Light Warehouse, Attention:
T. Caracioli; From:
M. King;
Subject:
Power Systems Division Job No. 6004, and (3) December 5, 1980, Serial Nos. 6003V-I-0189, 6016V-I-0110; To:
Power Systems Division, Attention:
J. Winstead; From:
M. King;
Subject:
10 CFR Part 21 Rework.
d.
General Electric Company letters -
(1) Nuclear Energy Engineering Division, Serial No. 6004C-I-0145, dated July 9, 1980; To: Morrison-Knudsen Power Systems Division, Attention:
M. Cake; From:
R. F.
Pariani;
Subject:
Inspection of Skagit Control Panel, (2) Nuclear Energy Division Hartsville Nuclear Plant, dated May 15,1981; From:
J. L. Day, and (3) Nuclear Power Systems Division, dated May 4, 1981; To:
General Electric Company; Attention:
H. M. Bankus; From:
L. H. Larson;
Subject:
HPCS Diesel - Generator Switchgear Wiring Discrepancies.
13 e.
Florida Power and Light' Company letter, Serial No. 6002C-I-0322; dated December 5, 1980; To:
Power Systems, E. Martin; From:
B. J. Escue/R. A. Garramore.
f.
Training Records, dated -
(1) May 23, 1980; Topic:
Nonconformance Control and Disposition Action, and (2) July 2, 1980; Topic:
Electrical Compecent Workmanship and Acceptance Standards.
l g.
Quality Control Procedures, Nos. -
(1) 101, Revision 1, dated April 2, 1980 - Receiving Inspection i
Procedure, and (2) 102, Revision 1, dated June 5, 1980 - Electrical Components I
Workmanship and Acceptance Standards.
h.
Handwritten memoranda addressing thermocouple lead splicing, termination and junction boxes, some accompanied with photo-graphs of lead splicing.
i.
Drawings, Nos. -
(1) 6022009501, Revision D, dated August 26, 1980 - External Temperature Thermocouple Wiring, l
I (2) 6022F09002, Revision B, dated August 29, 1980 - Conduit Layout For Pyrometer Wires (Tandem Engines), and (3) 6036009501, Revision B, dated December 10, 1980 -. Diesel Exhaust Monitor and Alarm Schematic.
j.
Bill of Material No. IWO6036, dated February 3, 1981.
k.
Specification No. PSD-ECS-1101, Revision 3, dated August 1, 1980, Engine-Generator Control Panel.
3.
Findings a.
(Resolved) Unresolved Item (Inspection Report No. 80-01):
During the inspection of February 4-8, 1980, there were no records to indicate that the switchgear discrepancies had been evaluated, reworked or reinspected. The switchgear was allocated for Hartsville and Phipps Bend Nuclear Plants.
14 During this inspection, the inspector verified that:
(1) an evaluation had been performed, (2) a 10 CFR Part 21 report had been submitted, and (3) letters and trip reports attested to completion of rework and reinspection.
b.
(Resolved) Unresolved Item (Inspection Report No. 80-01):
During the inspection of February 4-8, 1980, it was determined that the Quality Control Manager was required to review completed receiving inspection report forms.
Hcwever, there was no require-ment that the review be documented.
During this inspection, the inspector verified that paragraph 3.4.1 of Quality Control Procedure No. 101, Revision 1, required that the QC Manager or his designee review and sign the receiving reports.
c.
(Corrected) Follow up Item (Inspection Report No. 80-01):
During the inspection of February 4-8, 1980; it was determined that the contractor had not been informed regarding wire terminations and junction box mounting for exhaust temperature elements.
A problem had been identified on the diesel generators at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.
During this inspection, the inspector verified that:
(1) memo-randa and trip reports attested to completion of rework and reinspection, and (2) drawings, bills of material, and pro-cedures had been revised regarding:
(a) mounting of junction boxes, and (b) thermocouple extension wire.
E.
Procurement Source Selection 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that procedures had been prepared, approved, and implemented for source selection, bid evaluation and contract award.
2.
Methods of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Reviewing the following documents to verify that source selec-tion procedures had been prepared, approved and provided for:
(1) integrated action of organizations involved with source selection; (2) evaluation of the supplier's (a) history, (b) current quality documentation,and (c) technical and quality capability; and (3) bid evaluation, resolution of unacceptable conditions, and contract award:
(1) Quality Assurance Manual, Section 1.7, Revision 1, dated May 5, 1980 - Control of Purchased Material, Equipment and Services, L
15 (2) Quality Control Procedures, Nos. -
(a). N7, Revision 5, dated December 11, 1980 - Control of Purchased Materials, Items and Services, and (b) 101, Revision 1, dated April 2, 1980 - Receiving Inspection Procedure.
(3) Procurement Control Procedure No. 401, Revision 0, dated November 16, 1979 - Selection, Qualification and Maintenance of Approved Suppliers and Approved List.
b.
Reviewing the following documents to verify that the procedures for source selection, bid evaluation and contract award had been imple-mented:
(1) Approved Supplier List, Parts 1 and 2, dated March 6, 1981, (2) Supplier Quality Review Checklist for Anaconda Industries, York, PA, dated May 23, 1980, (3) Memoranda, dated -
(a) July 21, 1980; To:
Bob Pennington; From: Jerry Winstead;
Subject:
Vendor Audit, Ralden Control Panel Company, Inc.,
(b) April 23, 1980; To:
Harry Falter; From:
Jerry Winstead;
Subject:
QA Evaluation, Addition of Rochester Gauges, Inc. to the Approved Suppliers List, and (c) November 17, 1980; To:
Bob Pennington; From:
Jerry Winstead;
Subject:
Approved Suppliers List Re-Audit.
3.
Findings a.
Comments Sufficient time was not available to complete this area of the inspection.
b.
Nonconformances None.
c.
Unresolved Items None.
f 16 F.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with management representatives denoted in paragraph
- 3. at the conclusion of the inspection on June 5, 1981.
The follow-ing subjects were discussed:
1.
Areas inspected.
2.
Violation identified.
3.
Nonconformances identified.
4.
Unresolved Items identified.
5.
Contractor response to the report.
The contractor was requested to structure his response under headings of corrective action, preventive measures, and dates for the violation and nonconformance.
Additionally, management representatives were requested to notify the Commission in writing if dates require adjustment or commitments require modification.
Management representatives acknowledged the comments made by the inspectors.
l t
17 DETAILS SECTION II (Prepared by L. 8. Parker)
A.
Persons Contacted
- Helmuth E. Loewe, Quality Control Manager
- Robert A. Pennington, Divisional.QA Manager
- Jerry Winstead, Purchasing Manager
- Attended Exit Interview.
B.
Procurement Document Control 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that procedures had been prepared, approved and implemented for control of procurement documents.
2.
Methods of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Reviewing the following documents to verify that procurement document control procedures had been prepared, approved and provided for:
(1) preparation, review, approval, and revision of procurement documents; and (2) assuring that applicable regulatory requirements, design bases, and other requirements are included or' referenced in procurement documents for items or services:
(1) Quality Control Procedure No. 1.4, Revision 1, Procurement Document Control, dated May 5, 1980.
(2) Quality Control Procedure No. N4, Revision 3, Procurer.:ent Document Control, dated December 11, 1980.
(3) Procurement Control Procedure (PCP) No. 201, Revision 2 Purchase Requisition Preparation and Processing, dated May 5, 1980.
b.
Reviewing the following documents to verify that the procedures had been implemented:
(1) Approved Suppliers List, Revision 12, dated March 6, 1981.
(2) Purchase Orders, Change Orders and Purchase Requisitions for the following:
~
18 P. O. No.
Vendor Date i
t 38355-6022 International Controls 1/2/79 and Switchgear I
42681-6022 Antham Inc.
4/25/80 38078-6022 Delaval IMO 4/9/79 Pump Division 38662-6022 Carborundum Co.
2/16/79 38066-6022 American Standard 1/23/79 i
Heat Transfer Division I
42701-6036 Atlas Industrial Mfg. Co.
6/19/80 (3) Design Specification No. 6036-402, Jacket Water Cooler, dated June 18, 1980.
f 3.
Findings a.
Violations None b.
Nonconformances None c.
Unresolved Item The requestor's signature required by Revision 2 of PCP-201 was not on the Purchase Requisition (PR) for P0 42701-6036.
It was stated that the requestor and the person who authorized the above PR were the same person.
It was also stated that-it was an accepted practice, in the case where a PR was requested and authorized by the same person, to sign-the authorized block only.
However, there was no written procedure covering this practice.
_ - _ - -