Text

Insp Rept 99900387/90-01 on 900820-22.No Violations or Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Vendor Actions Re Part 21 & Other Event Repts
	ML20058F517
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/16/1990
From:	Vandenburgh C, Wilson R; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20058F512	List: ML20058F510; ML20058F517;
References
	REF-QA-99900387 NUDOCS 9011080328
	Download: ML20058F517 (26)
	v • d • e

%w M. p; s f,. i '.

-.},it

.n--

.L.

A i

t

/p h Q"!sQO; h

y' 1-r

. ( 'Y, ; '

'T' pi

f9

>,.; f 3

5,D

>J^

+

a

+.

b

'i m

m-

~

,o ww

,<=,4

+

%%jl% /$ : N 'y -

a 0RGAN!!ATION:1 SORRENTO ELECTRONICS t.

2

@%s 4

o SUBSIDIARY OF GENERAL" ATOMICS

'd W $AN DIEG01 CAI1FoeMA

+&

.a

$ng s

.t 4

WWp m REPORT-n g+

INSPECTION.

1 INSPECT 10N NO.t9990387/90-01s;'

DATE:1 August 20-22; 1990; ON SITE HOURS:

34-j

~

r ]

MP 1

WM,

1 gWW C0RRESPONDENCE' ADDRESS: 'Mr., Dennis C. Nau' 4SorrentoElectronIcl President".

1 ye m

x s

l Ji'

/N

(

LSubsidiary of: General' Atomics, Incorporated i

s 10240 Flanders Court W '.,

j r

San Diego, California.02121?

l

&w M

'.,RGANIZATIONAL: CONTACT: 'Ms. Nancy J.. Porter, Director, Quality Assur3nce and Test 9

W4 TELEPHONE: NUMBER:3

~(619)457-8725

-i Q:p,.3 a,;

ft

,4 t7 33 j

s m.,

a

+

.g l

e k 3.

NUCLEAR,1NDUSTRY ACTIVITY:H Designs and manufactures instrumentation and.

R

'.',W control; equipment for nume.ous commercial nuclear power plants, including:

3 Mr rtdiation monitoring: equipment and engineered. safety featurn actuationa s ]

T WP systemsHSales are divided.about' equally between commercial nuclear and A;<WCp w' w1 defense applicationsc e

. 0 F

f. M,5

. ;u 9' m b

s ap ' -

4

.w1-1 1 s

a o

n.,

mm 1

M,ghp <t W

'd' m

1 m

edi D

ug.

.,..s

,.m y.

a hhhh NSIMEkINSNCTORh N M. _

N ls 7o?

\\I b;,Ay@[n@%.

R.C. Wilson,5eniorReactorEngineer

.n

.,,w ys c

N 32

^@qt ReactivetInspection Section.No.:2 (RIS-2)',

C

cj ]

j$M y w p p 4 Vendor Inspection Branch'(VIB)>

,f%y 1 -

w

~ m p.

fMartJNsJa6obusTseniorMemberofTechnicalStaff, MM{k0$

0THERi!NSPECTOR(S)f;SandisjNationalLaboratories(Consu) ta

"\\

d

'e lk

h yi

~

M m

g hdw APPR0hhbY: N N C M 'I E A

- 10

%R *W*"**"**'***"'"'""

s v

~ - ~.

om.

m'.

=,.

Nh hhh,sp';hk h

4 b,k, &

4 3'

s, s

i ??

INSPECTION: BASES:AND!$ COPE:f 1 '

'?

T' h

4 A g<4 e

maa s.o m am--

o

=>

,x

.[

U c mc.

4

,.a i,.

un e y$iN@3.c m -y,

..s.

s, 3

l A',jg g,A,g}:X10;CFR Partl215and10 CFR Part 60FAppendix?B l

s g

M yu u M$g7 s

.f x

i

~

e JSCOPE:R I. QReview!ve,ndor, actions concerning 10 CFR Part 21 andfother %

R%

jW ?.jp BA.R

@dh;%

M "V AJ.N2hReviesvendotactionsconcerning;twopreviousNRC J

,? event' reports..L

?'

A, 3 '9J h

d i

@lV ' WMM M O' Mins

,.,a w 'T'pectionsn WwW y

o NN:6 W,g, L

f@g M "I

w ki ew n

ah m'

y y,

2% $%p j

'^

c 3

& u:M PLANTTSITEAPPLICABILIN:^Jl Numerous'

'd g~f

,s-9 7

3, k.

'4, s,

r

.j_'

^?

~

3[ ? 3g;g

^ >

pe v,

Y-p y,

3

-l

+

%6'4

~

'W l

.o

p n

' y:

il M}%

9021080328 901031 v

@W,py PDR GA999 ENVSORR R

i jp. 99900307 PNV k

i gt J %y

>?,

o w.n;n w[ y l

a

. n

.2.

(, if_

? N

%. s na

-...U-

~

6 -~E --. A ~+ 0 LN"'**

A ~ ~ ^ ' * " - - ~ ~ * "

'A**5*

[g-v$k.. _ ~

. ;. - -MQ j( y P #TC. Y f

"4

~-~

r'

- ~ n-m

]

g, k m* e y 3, 7..

r W

r g

, n g.

s M al FD lV W 1. J if <,

"0RGANIZATION S SORRENTO ELECTRONICS" "

j' M% @y,,

.p" @ C* '

J SUBSIDIARY OF GENERAL ATOMICS.11NCORPORATED

]

SAN DIEGO.- CAL 40RN11-g@e;;

t n

s s..

i,y' l

.J LINSPECTION i

1 j REPORTA T

@;59 s fl

N0.' t : 199900387/90 J RESULT 5:

'PAGE'2 of 111 lj 4

)

sMM W.-

Or

/A.0MVIOLATIONS:

L9 M%gt

'$None"

+

NMY I 8.: d ONCONORMANCESh l

~

g'GQ f lNbne 3u W

e

)J e.

/ p i-

, v..

_. e-k E

e C. : iUNRESOL'VED' ITEMS:

/

1

&~.&w h;J! /. 7

+' 4 o

None u,

1 m 3

a;

+ - lW;.....'.-

n,"

m:lf.;.

"?

c; WA@%

S" D. ASTATUS OFiPREVIOUS INSPECTION FINDINGS:

P,

~...<o..o a

4n

&p&

V'"l Inspection: Report

.uc w mma

. x EN A

99900387/84-01Lidentified threeLnonconformances.-

M@ p: 4 gInspection Report 99900387/87-01 identified'one Severity Level IV-e, 6

V violation!and two'nonconformances. All were closed during this

'q Mkhc f 1 inspection 1(see1 sections E.L4fand E.5:of(this' report).;

~4 s

g Vmb

.wr ?.'.. A,

+y s

0 J Ty4,JU;EKINSPECTION FINDINGS AND'OTHER COMENTSD ' y m

a t

s.

s b%.i p~, k W

h%, l p c,Q

.., e ' ( L,, O Vb b

r

.,m

(,

IhM Mn h ly LHigh Renne' Radiation ~konitorE "E

f s [h k h shr' rent [EleckroM esI(SE) h a % t,supplierifhighcrange;radiationt. [A If b y N Q monitorsj(HRRMs) which are used in safety-related applicationstin?,. Sph $ faccordance,with Regulatory Guide (RG)f1~.97.% On February 2361987, SE nij MM HMfiled!aL10;CFR.Part"21 notification with the NRC concerning'ans - e "L %} 19 $ W M environmenta1Lqualification,problemLinvolving.the reducedLinsulation-L ph&resistanceofitheldetectorncoaxialsignalcablecin'a: steam-t[ @@y 1 V@ f n environment d The; reduced cable resistance at' elevated' temperatures; e W J atLthe' bottom:offthesinstrument range and reversedzthe normalipositi _, N@ ? $@h$ ,q W yf n %;outputLofftheninstrumentLamplifier.M The problem wasvo L p! y c $W accident-condition: testing;of thefHRRM at Sandia. National,Laborator'es bgp p.1;and1 reported!in1NURES/CR-4728,?Eq pment Qualification-Research Test ' f; j % cf/aiHigh-Ran9e Radiation Monitor,p! dated February 19884.Several f , g %$1 f @d f WM M Jtlicenseescraported the proolem.to the NRC'and'other licensees were $ 'W g L WM WF 10n Maech 28,'1989ESEsubmitteda' progress'reportto'theNRC W: L F, b T S KM ' M @ describinrFtheirJevaluation offorts and the2 corrective actio w J' '? ?k M &v $ they hade dentified..-Although a modif_1ed amplifier.withanlautorero T '1 d 9 9 &p+ +'G L ,' l, l:M -p. v sm [.% ig > a ht i.s' (o 'r. O' "O'; .t .3 ( hy@M f

W w

g, i p[. j kg[ h M y-- i a, g a, , yi[ U ? ~h p{ wM~"y . g 2- -t L .i t ' eq , % j h; ;9 q ~t hg ih< fr.j?';s,l$g[ S .; G } y'v N ys 7 [IN NULM,,'j. W !)U. - ' t Q-- i- - -

= ~ - -- - - '- " ~ ~ " ~ " '

O(4 v. M n

L N~ g m.: x, s k p Wi b '1 3' q q d O i ?? ORGANIZATION:' SORRENTO' ELECTRON!CS' 1 47 + SUBSID?ARY OF GENERAL ATOMICS, INCORPORATED f 4p$w ^ = SAN DIEG0J CALIFORNIA' V@M & REPORTL i i $s$ ? 4 ' INSPECTION y j NO.:: 99900387/90-01

RESULTS:~

'PAGE'3 of 11 4, ). p~, ' circuit did.not resolve the problem, SE' identified three successful t ,,i, t y a 3 9 _ @Mp di;y approaches as:f0110ws: a imc GM

a.

"Use a'. time-lag hsat transfer calculation to demonstrate that the a coaxial signal # cable's maximum temperature will not det,raoe the 1 y 4% W Linsulation resistance. M N@g vg $e P ( ' go" x. a. e b.c',Use n time-lag heat: transfer calculation to determine the

i f

1 amount of-additionalJthermal insulation required to limit the-1 maximum temperature.of the coaxial signalicable.' u g%js a m 4 Mh k l c., y ReplaceMe" coaxial /s'ignallcablewithsilicon-oxide-in'sulated 9 r 8%j lA f eetal-jacketed cable'. ? Test results showed that this ty g of, L

%d W

' cable had:anlinsulation resistance of.more than Isx 10 ohms at. %g$$ 350'degreesFahrenheit(an: acceptable"value)for'a200-foot. J e 7 M; Llength ofccable. ~ l QWy N W' . xm y w ,f b.

mSE.hadErequested'that their customers provide feedback concerning.

d Ap$jh

M whichVsolution was' selected.: Although SE's preferred. solution was to O

ib Q A Jreplace the: cable, pollicensee reported'using that' method. mostr 1 jpsd

/

licensees _ evaluated the cables using the thermal lag' calculations.. yj %m %syWW f ; Although;the inspectors-did_not perform a1deta11ed review for. 1 e y. Me s.- li A BMIE. '7 'plantespecific applicationsi all thrse: approaches appeared to;be. i MM L macceptableL solutions'to; provide the environmental; qualification off.thes p sm W

coaxialfsigna11 cables in;the1HRRN.siIn addition. SE'sftesting.of,the,

W HQ& ' ( fj silicon-oxide-insulated cableWfitted with HN-type coaxial-connectors - %g "g @u and heat-shrink; tubes to bridge the, connectors. appeared to; provide;af w Lbasid J 073 &4 insthe!HRRM 6 The NRC? inspectors concluded that'any'of the"threeU dh OM jriecommendedisolutions: could beisatisfactoryL provided a> plant-specific ' 1, 1 1 d y$ wZ,

evaluation was performedp *..

~.. h I: 1 M V ..i ' ' {kh i M ',J.<11. L 1. '. 4 'E N h 2k L;$eismic; Qualification of ESFAS Relays y d 4 Wi',..jApril'27bw)989,the;NRC1was.notifiedbyiHoustonLigh W gdy .. ae %. os j o A l0n 1 1 3 A 9 for,panyj(HL&P.ithat SE had advised;HL&P:that.the; time delay relays 1 d !Com i'r % L theengineered?safetysfeatureactuationsystemi(ESFAS) circuits-ini, a h pg$ j

VU the South:Texasinuclear power stations 1(Units 1-~and 2) were not ~

P <

seismically: qualified. 1The relays (Potteriand Brumfield Model No.

Y d )ig Qs 1 CRD-38e30120) ' were c u sed ' in the L eontainment L pu rge. moni tor ci rcuits ' W ; supplied;by SEgto provide 'a containment ventilation; system isolation N s (hy [% ifunction.): Based;uponythis;information, the licensee declared the l'f s j j y w w .u q hh -!U?a i; s a ew 7 y G h $ p. '&,. 3 }h fA @W 9 d ,? g;3y %_ym H o

ggnmgen w'TM.O w,H;W %n y 7 n ,re ~ ~ - 3:n m - a + t Wgp W Di g pp s.] ' y > n e p- ' f y-3 g g -l y '39 " g M ' '. ) ;3 ' i {Q::,Qf ;; ;. y u L

W

[ +%. Ds% -g s 0%h(FJORGANIZATION:/S0RRENTOELECTRONICS 3 1 h ? k. - w, SUBSIDIARY (0FJ GENERAL ATOMICS,iINCORPORATED m +(%lg .ummenn w inmu .N

}

~! 'i a.1 a. s $"y$ i _fREPORTt. W~1-INSPECTION $N0.:L 99900387/90-01 ', RESULTSL 'PAGE 4 of 11: Wa ~ %n, 0 ,y ,4 s s purgelmonitorsLinoserable and'closedLthe purge valves until J f 314

f a. qu lification of. tie relays was estab.11shed, P

wg + The?NRC?,insp;ectors, reviewed SE'sicorrective actions with respect.to < . o m g;M M 3 Mf' sthis: concern. :The ESFAS~ equipment was< supplied for South Texas under. yg# ho icontractfrorithe-BechtelPowerCorporation's(Bechtel)officein; 1 s SM D - aHoustonsTe%asNIn:1984; SE'had prepared a draft proposal for seismic

J M;b M hqualificat%ncfithe relaysiincluding:a seismic test procedure.-

lLi T M W LHowev9r,T4echtel advised SE!s: engineering personnel to provide the @dW yd $ t releys vnra,non-seismic basis andLindicated,thatta. request for. m; gR y 9 Tupgwing!the relays to a seismic qualification would come. lateri -In-M g ?, r Are,11:198g, Rafter. reviewing SE's draft seismic qualification report / r @F M i for.the'SouthiTexas;ESFAS! equipment, Bechtel requested SEnto perform a j' j @ ^D@Efailure modes and effects: analysis. c ThisLanalys gk T Othe: relays were" safety-related; therefore ithe, relays were required to' 'N y a $ ;sb d,b @y Rfthat time, the(licensee promptly: initiated corrective action =andi ibajseismically; qualified. 'Since South Texas Unit 1 was operating,att M 6 W M notifiedithe NRC4cfJthe concern.E &g$g $e N .S. 4> 3 3 ,t s,

,an qH, y

m....m ~ A j;

. {i F 4

vSE'sicorrective,,. action; consisted of-performing a'new seismicitest:fo..rJ M@MenveloptheLSouth; Texas:condit$otest..sectradidinotcompletely#

j f Lthelreltys;because the1existin a,h@M

L ns.6 T e NRC inspector raviewed th h '

4 h %f Q[g$ seismic 1tettreportandfound:no.furtherconcerns.$ N] P t lGk f i;M. hJd ,f .y; f4g h $3610 CFRiPart 21i Reporting Responsibility for15 pare Part Orders 1 n. a yy 8hhNkTeNhs'seeM1' ley) AuthNrNyl (TVA))opdered a Jehlacement n ggy 7, % printed' circuit boardLforia; radiation _.monitorJin)the SequoyahL ? M fQp bg' nl?nuclearfpowerT 1antiender~ purchase orderJ(P0).88NLF-84169A. 3 he PO< T WA he F invoked:the fo lowint nuclear-plant related: requirements: (10:CFR Pertt21L port'onslof 10 CFR Part 50; Appendix <B;1American ? y% 4 h# g MS'E NationalLStandards?!nstitutei(ANSI)hstandard N45.2 WM-st 1 $dM f C n r/ Assurance Program l Requirements'for3 Nuclear-Powera P nts;"? seismic: '? M' H %g& fthesoriginaltboard! purchased on: ~Conformanc(e(C00)istatingsthetitheboardwasequalstoorbetter:tha,n' LCategoryl1 and! Class-1EMThe?P0raiso. required a Certificateiofy ( Eg ? n ? mQ $ P0 72061-9259 and would:not nullify 1 gMjX 0 4 Jax.isting: equipment qualifications M The P0(did.not s Y (fuse'of the boardiat Sequoyah,(chanhel or tag [ number)peciff the end; +,' o ( 4 q f e l 3 $E %Qb N ' M[tosaccept thetPO, requirement forl10 CFR' Past 21' A" W J M SE4efuse li ' ,1, . S 4, . 1 a P.$ ' ', y kM W K ropo.rting.Q TVA then! issued:a contract / change stating that; "...the. L 9 !? ' f@6 T t reporting -requirements 50fe10 CFR:Part 211may ap)1y depending'on.thet l E Mend use 'ofothe? item (s)f and that; "TVA Sequoyas will assume ,1 M"@, pg fresponsibil.ity for anyiregulatory reporting requirements." "SE I sg* y , ~e a - (4 J gpg' slg@ ' b ,T< l

l w

y(( g, wm !b< s 3 Ngm i i Asyg$$W L M J; unas m $h ..$2.~E- .b= ~~L = " "?O s

@6c W$ Q f' %,jf n m m i i W 1 g m i $$n,of.lq;%:@u. y',' ,' y;g; 3 j f O i o n;c c kh hN0itNN!ZAT!bNi 50NtENT0 ELECTR0bCSL l % if 9 ' SUBSIDIARY OF GENERAL ATOMICS, INCORPORATED ,i g&p cnu mcw enn ~ n px w y p a 7,r# v ~ y I [$, D h' ': REPORT / INSPECTION ~! L N0M 99900387/90-01: RESULTS:' 'PAGE 5 of 11 i ppm , g gt 7 ~W@t .provided a C0C! stating that the items were manufactured in accordance with SE's. Quality Assurance Manual, Revision l', and that.the replacement f M[ b iitems:were equal to or better.than the original items purchased.on- - i Q . TVA's contract 72061-9259 and would not nullify the existing qualifica- -i $, b;a 1 g 1 tions of the equipment. .{ (( ('h, SE? stated thatLthis practice was' employed with other licensee ~ M .J,/ 'W customers (until mid-1989. Since'then, SE has accepted 10,CFR Part 21' 'j u; ' f V; /requirementsiif the' customer provides anLequipment tag number, so gyhc (that:SE can verify that the original equipment,was _ supplied as hQ P 4 . safety-related:and applicable qualification requirements can.be. j ly,$ ; reviewedL(suchasilocation-specificseismiclevels). U $ Qi

r,

.L':' Y, , 1 1 (:$ 1 L, iSEfexplainsd tolth~.e NRCLinspectors:that all of'their productsDare [d[a y Lconsercial< nuclear power plant equipment subject to-the)10 CFR Part ' [ ~ 3 d% Weither defense' equipment sub.fectLtc military: specifications or f hgW' g * -lA Pendix By Quality Assu_rancelrequirements.' Most of thei a +a P M A+ in 4 commercialanuclear; systems and parts are not safety-related, but al_l' A i.j m Gcommercia1Lparts and assemblies:are: procured'or manufactured under. pny m ,ij Q ph 9pMESE'siAppendixiB_ Quality?AssuranceprogramiSE's.QualityAssurance + 1 Gij % % program washlast-audited by;the' NRC in.1984L Thecprogram waC ,0 f iy M satisfactory with thel exception of the findings that are' discussed',in ' e f

khp

, % Section E{4(of(thisiinspection; report. j y gx e e m n s.,

t. 1, y,

.,, ~, _ 4Th'e~ NRC? inspect.orcconducted;a facilityctour duringLthe present. OMX a ,y, Ninspection! tosselectivelyj verify implementation of SE's Quality, WikpA @W $ Assurance: Program.c Mili.tary and consercialinuclear. power, spare parts: Ekg y1 RM m ere ordered'underf >urchase, orders-coded for one;of, the twoE. w w Yp g % lapplicationsh"distinctlyiJtagged.and ' t ie; parts ; and ; work-in-progress ; w9re, physically; Oj h q (p$g a> t separatedf and-y 4_ a,#y 3 'a m, u[; h b atviolationiofc10 CFRtPart 21 M Asicorrective gwy u l?hh+ 1 }g w 1 j 3;p, T@ Operating: procedure 1(0P):1.4-180,f " Compliance with 10 CFR: 21,".. w l p. g.. .4A J Revision %,t dated: June:1..1987;. and ' subsequently: reissued as Revision A' ~' 'l Mb h R oni DecemberL171980480th revi sions adequately : covered evaluation - V Mand}eportings fc deviations in;accordance with1 10 CFR Part 21.* I e +' 4 hy {fM y[O's 'j o _ ' W ~J% W. m . L... k s V'

Duringtthis2inspe;ctioni SE stated'thatiOP 1.41 80'has been followed, "a

1 1 y %yp, @(i f 4.si.npetoriginally{itsuedO SE:provided'two examples where deviations V ,j g ( :were evaluated and determined to be not'requiredcto be reported to, W MM6 W the NRC2butLwere; reported by: SE'.to all customers that had purchase'd ~, 1 py i.9theLaffectedequipment.1L0ne. example,involvinganoverheating: power l ?' c, 4gE p &y b fRV. I, ; ME G q +, !td sg 1 4 ' Ni ' a , ;f ( ( G s t S f h,s: i N N) 4 e' +

l a

A_ 4 :l. ) ~ e i.e ' = ' '. [ ,,{

1.,

,,.,g_,, 4 , iy% .._,m.,,, A u... ,,,m k h

44. .o ,. o ,c ,,oa p,p m y., 7

?

A f p {ls ? 7.. ,l g, g;4, ; - r t 1 M ' ' ; ' ;,b. o o' L Nl ..Y o.. W W..;0RGANIZAT10NF SORRENTO ELECTRONICS 4 ? 4 : [d & SUBSIDIARY 0F; GENERAL ATOMICS,' INCORPORATED d yk u 'h . tam niran ' ran tmouti WW n o.. -u + NN ' REPORT . INSPECTION I ik% m1N081h9900387/90-01. RESULTS: 'PAGE 6 of 11 .1 t,. g-i w 1 g. t supply' regulator, was reported to customers on February 1,1988. The i tM 'J -other example, an alare relay connection, was. reported to' customers 1 A. ton Apri1E13, 1989; 'SE explained that'their refusal to accept the-j 10 CFR Part 21 reporting requirements in the TVA P0 was based on the ,m y l absence of' application information, which potentially precluded Sr, .] F e from determining whether a deviation could create a substantial safety. J C A , hazard and thus become a' reportable defect. SE's approach in a88 was j Ujt ' i*

to; inform customers that SE rejected contractual. imposition of 10 CFR

a 4 LPart 21:because-5Elcould not ascertain its ability to, perform adequate ' i p@ m +

4 @ A evaluation of deviations, and that the: customer must retain 1

3 k@M.i ~ l;L responsibility:_forl10.CFR Part 21 reporting to4the NRC.; Nevertheless. r s# c,>, MSE,did evaluate deviations and report,to customers under.OP(1.4-180F 3 a kj % i a 4,-- 1, i _ $d@ . tSE attempted to!use 10 CFR 213(a)(4),in this regard, by'regarding l ,o d W i ' + ispare P N basic' parts as' commercial grade itensiwhich do not become part of 'componen 1 4,. 0%j? M M until after dedication.JSince SE; felt they did'not have

J

+ ; application-specif1.c information'necessary forLdedicationLthenithe M;%& m 4f , customer must' assume' dedication'and: reporting responsibility.. d r W, a; Af i. V;m,,,n / Qualification concernssinfluencedithe decision.to adop~j ' f% ' s 4'~ $ requ.irements;in.P0sLwaslimproper.u Thefrequirements_of)10 CFR Part a 4 The NRC: inspector, concluded that SE's rejection.of thet10 CFR'Part 21 j @J W j g lP0araiselfvimposing on suppliers ofl basic componentsc without regard to 4 k f A 4 req; requirements 4 Howevern the! inspector noted that:10;CFR Part 21'.31 e q g@ hy(' uires thatslicensea P0s for< basic components specifytthet-the d ~ prov.isions of;10;CFR Part;21Japplyt Multiple:requirementsEinsthe TVA

J dO f ' J P0:madetitiveryJclear;thati the; procurement was' safety-relatedL !In l

1 p mg s A additions ~SE's'C0Cistated>that;the!part was manufactured in accordance,, 1 J S N withtSE's Appendix'B'QA:Manua1 0 Therefore, underfl0 CFR Part121'.'3-M

1 @$1componentt-Additional concerns related to,quelificatio q

o 1 M n' M(a)(4)jsuch a;parttis clearlyisafetysrelated'andipart of a basic:, d by, wg j s M12 N S N theseLrequirements'- J ,4 M@ M/$nh M .j j% Ji... H iThe'NRCdnspec.toriconcluded that'SE has not violatedr10 CFR-Part-21. [y

, 6 "M Thetspare part;was manufactured 1under an Appendix B quality ~ assu

' l i j wmV WN Xprogram:and was certified as equal to.or better than' theforiginal: J 1

" d parts?by)an' approved'A pendixiBl supplier;to theflicensee M This was' TF gh ',

i sufficient to establiskthat;the part was? adequate for? safety-related; y

m M1 <$g 'ouse"and thatTno deviations! existed at the: time of: shipment." SE had ;aa X R $fy [procedureinLplacecthatrequired;that..they'evaluateandreportdefects ? W! . 6p Lin"accordance with*10 CFR Part 21: provisions. ;5ELonlyaintendedito. d 7F g W ireport to licensee' customersbut the TVA P0,Las cha'nged..-stated that 0 M' .'.,,jTVA wasiresponsiblesfor: regulatory reporting; requirements'.- Furthermore, s cr a a k, m, g; 1 .) ojy,. Q ' h ':0. 3 Wp; ' [' G@ t B l 9 =; s 75 lff 'fW, t N~b $, &f~ mgh -. ~ . MG ' 8 o~ .m

s [ g$ [hhr l[ W@c eg%p%l7(&n./ y } 'j u> y y u py 4, u " g: y +1 gc @ffLM ORGA 50RRENT0' ELECTRONICS' *. lq lV :YJV h h h@ M y,NIZATION6: pi XSUS$1 DIARY 0FJGENERAL ATOMICS, INCORPORATED-a m we s S t k g# @A REPORT h.' y ;c +M r 3R INSPECTION' c 3 '1 s N0.y 99900387/90-01 1 RESULTS:r . PAGE 7'of 11-ma WLF

j. l $p W q{

/SEfidentifisdt$o.e'xamplis'wheredeviationswere~evaluatedandreported 1 r j i 43 M,M.O % to'possibly?affected customers. In effect, SE's rejection of the j djA i 110 CFR Part 21: reporting requirementstaffected the-PO wording, but did-enot. affect their< actual compliance?with the' requirements of-10 CFR 'j W$T>f i Partf 21.L 3 d ,w, n [Q5 d The NRC inspe d orfnoted.that SE's rejection of;PO'i imposition oflthe d 's [g 4 g"Z?stoicomplywith;10CFRPart2131F 110 CFR Part 21 reporting require:nents fr4 [igp^ ..and1that the' licensee activities in ]j M o " "this: regard are' subject to review.: Since SE's current practice with fM vjyrespect to; accepting P0s: invoking,10 CFR Part 21 requirements.is a $2 & dip - - 4; yJ v., adequate,;the<inspectorihas;no further concernsein this area. y ~ < AL. m o 1 Nhh khp[ah l(blosed) Nonc'oAformance A"- Trend Analysis Findings oftNRCE!nspection Report 9990387/84 )) m @[ k N 'I L ~ h hinonconNrmancI1dedifleMa,fblure'toMlement h i U "4p ' W j comitments!ande:infresponse(to a;1983 NRC inspection. i $14 . M W M M A:to Nonconformance Items,D and Fcfrom NRC:IrispectSn'. m. eM c4 N .s 6 W gi g ': @h Tg InTresponse n %j f Report 1999900387/83-01pSEPcomittedtin' a letter dated Mayq18, d %yU k pi M j$ ;1983,1to.the following corrective'. actions:o a 4[g k jg@%R1L, claplement'a 't' rend" analysis. instruction by May: 31 L1983; - y N . A ?, 'd r 1 hh k<M2k(Cmpletsjerson'nekINiningonrea'ssigningtsubassemblies i dfp Q R d., top. level assoublies byLM p 31p 1983 U f ii e w<. m, g. g' - ff wp y i n, ;; y,;, yj v.- r .w- -ir .,1 8 s, 8 $f M @M TheLtrendingdnstruction?was notlimplementedia't:the time ;f,the ...R o y 4 n1984-NRC1 inspection 1and thel training.on :subanembly; reassignment? ' i 'l W g'. D ;LJuly113 =1934 k@% was not icom >1sted. unti1 L Septembe ri 16 1983c <!n'a letter dated , :i ~ + W iSELindicatedthatsthe!ri1nterimtrendingactivi f d q @yky i* M Procedure 21-01', " Statistical-Quality Control,"; Revision G,' dated m ties:hadlbeen superseded?and that;SE was using' Quality-Assurance: j g 4 m uy ?,,, JMayJ31D1990nfor trendinganalysis.1Thel198411etterlalso stated' 7 7.\\ dtj W ? "ithat1the' size 'of the qual' ty. assurance staff was increased to L 1 g 1:p s p assure!adequatectracking:of; corrective' action comnitments. The-f 1,d IM i Q NRC1 inspectors had no;further concerns:in1this area; therefore, >4 9l'y$ W dthistitem;isiclosedi - 4 M 4 ) D 1 ' ? ? ~ n)1Nonconformance;B - Control'of EQ Activities, Ni,. ,~b.. J(Closed n' \\ p; ! y 4 ay w; s : r.- y(M This'non~conformance identified four examples where Qualification l S h A J(Report (QR);E-254-960JdatedMay1,1981,failedtodocument ? $ Jb

, lpertinenttinformationas;requiredbyCriterionVof10CFR50..

i $ Sg e j m ,{ M: n l .A yn. x 'x ' gg f h : [ + g M% %, s f( r y hh$f ^ m, Y l6 .a 1 ,,(r fNfkh[o m fA M y .;, ' i. 2 r 1 I m ' x m. u,2s' t .~ '. a .a ~. = = i '-

.[ ]. p ). y fI 2 c,. k,i 5 g g .:np~. 4' y,m an .w @g.4 NE v ;W 3, .l gg,g mmw + i m, p . 'o43p. WM @ tlC e s 1j W P % g 4 ORGANIZATION:MSORRENTOELECTRONICSJ. wp SUBSIDI ARY, OF GENERAL. ATOMICS, INCORPORATED g,p % w,- can ntren rairenun .j 3$ ll y,o m r WM SREPORTV Jg ?'sN0;:.9990038U90 01i ~ INSPECTION RESULTS:

PAGE 8 of.11'

.l - 72 g; l k ',~ ~ ... ~ :;; y 4 .Lu s' t 1 fpW

Appendix.Bh: Durini xthisLinspection, the NRC inspectors reviewed j

_( hf % + SE',s= corrective action"for all four examples listed below. i +1., . 1)? zIn(the first example, discrepancy record ~ sheets were not $((p > signed off in all cases..LSince the qualification report had e il M C f ;already.been completed, SE could not change the original ,j R$h O'

report. "The entire discrepancy was signed offc by both the W5 g/

", ytest operator and quality control inspector..

_m

'4, 1 m W $g W. [ J,[2), In the second'sexample', two hours of thecloss-of-coolant. Cc .p .f,.- 3,4 i . i. ,4 M@ l(LOCA);accidentLtestwere:deletedinQR:E-254-960..without i WW y' Jany documentedievidence of approval'of the test deletion; j >o pf , :Asscorrective action, SE noted and justified thestwo hour Mj' @ deletionii6 the ' discrepancy: rece4 The NRC inspectors: ,2 e i, %e d ' ,4. d~ verified:that;the; test report from Wyle Laboratoriesu i W6&) V V m ' imonitor was exposed. ;Avlicensee'would Aselthe' actual l data' p

included [thetactual; conditions to which the radiation 4

.9 i MM" 1 E 4forJevaluation of whether;the HRRM was; acceptable for their. lq DN ,, %e +, ny application.nu W' 4 A i n p.

s. - ~. w sn;y x

Qga a., m

6

" >l W %) 4 The; third example 1Was that-Appendix.8Alof the> qualification? W 3 + j s A report!didinctidocumentLthe aging ltemperaturestfor,various y n; @n y , V components.M The subject components werelpart of the;HRRM's; Ay f d,,,J d 'P N :gbe located in1the controltroom.daicroprocessorc and. readout' modules f an 4 MM' 3Although(the qualification" j W W c ' Mreport; sunnary did indicate:that1the equipment"wascaged ato

" G kWS

%~ : JM106fdegreesLCentigrade;thedatasheets:didnotstate.the

g 7

M Rectualcagingitemperaturek During;the ~piesentiinspection, SE. d 1' ' 1 d%C D N couldinotilocate=anyladditional;recordsLwhich could ve 1 e WNp 5( % determine)the; actual: temperature;conditionsO g,. F ppW ~ MMvy g _ ;, b, i f f, 1 f m 54 w-4 $M W t a)E(LThe) final example was that-SE's'a@ roach to test margin ~was-M' D Q% not? clearly definedlin theiriqualification report; data J j QC W t; 2 packages.1i A? licensee;usjngithe qualification report would o t WA af W not: depend'on1SE's traatsent ofteargin',ibut wouldiuse.the j jgpM N, ' M actualttest(data and applysmargins approp N teLtoithe. j c x Mg y W ; application lwhen comparing [with p,lant-specific conditions.t p yy1,y 3MM > [ " $y As 'ckredtiivetacEionifor thiE..nonconfo'rmance,lSEcommittedciha #m j 3 m 1 \\ ge <#y? llettergdatedlulyl13,(1984, to issuelan operating: procedure, to. 6 r s w m, 1 lk ~ ~ . y f V + n w' x-s nr' Gj G G'; p p Sqy. ~ (g t . ;; hN j u w, e. 2 ] h ,i s r 1 [,M $ 1. v 4h. j e [] ; .y t i h h fi}gt < MyW Q < ' ' + + y -g gg. ;%g^ d, ,2 h + 'o + - - i, ,m _,._.a m

g ? e t gw gy

u

+ h %;% 7 k4 %'N * ] VMi e $0RGANIZATION:DSORRENTOELECTRONICS 1 7$% F, ' M, SUBSIDIARY.,OFG,ENERALATOMICS, INCORPORATED 1 u% n1 m -n .u u ' li W { bM' .MREPORT ' INSPECTION l P N N0.t.99900387/90-011 RESULTS: PAM 9 of 11 1 s 1 l'; 3 - ;m [ $"f 'documentLtheirenvironnintal-qualificationprocessbySeptember j s' 28, 1984g and to train affected personnel by October 19. 1984. j 4; y-D fThe NRCjinspectors reviewed' Operating Procedure OP-7.3-110, y . i m,i... c% d g-K y :" Safety-Related Equipment l Qualification," Revision A. ~ dated' M o-

h ir

~ August 26b 19850 which was developed based on this commitment.- lThe procedure. essentially.. covers criteria from the " Guidelines 1 J t w lpm C, lor' Evaluating-Environmental Qualification of. Class'1E Electrical e" 9 H,M[Ti AS e ; y EquipmentLin.0perating' Reactors, November 1979 (DDR Guidelines). N CThe' NRC; inspectors alsoinoted that SE did not have any records of tNC E ,4 personnel, training to'this procedure. n T.. _ % x: , %The~ DORLGuide ines are rendered obsolete.by Paragraph 1 of S; 3 110lCFR1Part 50.49,for new environmental-qualification testing.. 1 $@@D F i :Since SE0 continues to' rely on QR E-254-960' v 't ' finvits use isf of?1ittle conseque:nce.; lack ob Procedure , j. 4 1 W M Lis notEneededLand'not used..and the documented training N

As a' precaution.SE agreed

.i @yM T7 ' % ifuture?use, SEr lsoloffered:to update OP-7;3-110;to' address-J f tolcance Y h a ~ k QE cu 4ent<EQ criteria ?The inspectors,had no furtherLconcerns in s WM A niF arealitherefore tthis; item is closed / 3 i m W& 2 >J J W(Close,d)o Wh 1 .x Q&4

cay Nonconformance C 1 Test Oven Data; j

t B PfM E,F, ;Thelprevious51nspectionHdentifiedithh, con <trary-to CriterioniXI G + + c + i [45 I ? yof'10iCFR Part 50 Appendix 8n thetshelton'taboratories Model' Jl @. - Q]j % .;2040xtest(oven'used for accelerated thermaltaging tests had no W )h & 3provisionsfor documenting temperature lor! time < data. i 3 Q"LWT ,r yv s. . L ,.pl MAf L* ;DuringT.the:$, u.present1tnsp,ection,. the'NRCtinspectors determined that U m h1W M wthe(Thermotron; oven currently;in use had both!a; digital readout $1 @{s 8gy a %yy dand alcircularkstrip chart recorder.u f The inspectors had no d ,J E mfurtherfconcernsiin<this area;;thereforen'this titem is closed.. $hWK f [M% m'

M..

L* ' i 5(NFindingslof J ' O "d %1 NRC Inspection Report 99900387/87 ; (% M a M h( N edNViolat' ion - Evaluation ~off10

m;p a

.w+ g,e 1 s 3 n. . ir ! A@ $}? xsp'h";@$ h @,[ ~.+ y$M[ jh. i g 4 n ~, u: M e c, / The? previous ins'pectiontidentified that SE had not? assured that WP A JpotentiallyJreportablel10 CFR Part 21 deviations were evaluated. qm % y, % rThejinspection cited an'. April:29C1986',' deviation:on'an:ESFAS R% e " W component asjan example. SE?sA10 CFR Part 21 procedure was also ,y yx n.' ^- ~ m:pl. y m m N 'L?? %q- (( TO s' l, s' cR. d. j g R., ); l} s + [. s w t y' yg y> gg m 7 3 n y ] '1 + W lv Pid o.,. + bg? [ ' [V (., @N'. 9' A 5... s y

L r

~ j .gf.,,. ~ ,,44h4 N-

d wo6wge, * %e. ~ ^ ' s, m +j=,&- h- ? 3r n 9 34 9 mg. ,s o {h~\\ k.(g. '[ 4 [. ]- s

.v,

.p' 9 s .? n y:M w,. Q&bQ6 @ ;^' ;. ? ',* l' } p 4v 4 0RGAN!ZAT10N:? S0RRENTO ELECTRONICS E 3 s 1 $y? f ?$gie -%'w>i .)< u m n ir an r o n an u nSUBSIDIARY;0F; GENERAL ATOMICS, INCORPORATED e j ,;7 >s'- W W REPORTL L " INSPECTION = j FM T E N0 @ 99900387/90-Olb RESULTS:. PAGE 10 of 11 1 s 4 c.y .= @ pf qg, g ] s 1 W pk 9

listed as beingisusceptible;to an unintended interpretation that, i

W ~ could discourage workers from reporting; potential deviations.- 0 -1 < a,1 .r i1, g'# gX9 N wDuring3the present~ inspection, the NRC. inspectors? determined that 'j i Vb g ' _ ! the!requirementL of110.CFR Part.21 were properly addressed,in J j " M ' operating Procedure 1'.4-180,; Revision A, dated 1 December l',1988. 4 R# MThefinspectorsalso)notedithata.newrevision'oftheprocedure hyp&p W?g 1(RevisionLB,datedAugust?15,1990)was;in-theprocess;ofbeing b r, t <$~; l1ssued to?incorporatesthe October 31,!1989 revision ofl$.1 CFR A ',JPart 21p tin:additionkthesinspectors verified that th?- 'i r Mjh" d@. Nrequirements ofi10,CFR.Part 21 were properly addressed 1n Quality = R f S AssuranceJProcedureL22-01; dated. March;8, 1987 1 gg s m VW g ix, %g (The NRCCins,pectorsiverified that' Quality. Manual Part ii, Se 'u %m Jg3 e 22;7 prequired-quarterlyfreview of the quality assurance program 3 F fM d " D ifbytthe'QA. Director. This~ review encompassed external'and,a'.. % tiinternal' audit:results,5 trend analysis reports, corrective 1 action fip Nhg hkrequest; status ;and;other: areas?likelyito! Provide a.useful backup q - i $y &i s e;icheck onlthe 410.!CFR:Part 21 procedurest ;In additions Section E.1-d fy%,, $ "of thistins C 9 8 evaluation.pectionJre' port addresseslan~ adequate 10 CFR Part'21: a W zk notices on'if the NRC inspector observed adequate 10 CFR j rF, incl W 4 Q g Part 212 M@, ' .two bulletin; boards. The inspectors-had no. 1 'i 9 N C further concernsjin thisiarea;;therefore, thisiitem:is: closed. g L x, %QA g,- 3,7 o , ;; q w gp M %,, g 2(Closed) Nonconforma'nce A - Subtier Walder Qualifi stions! J r, n x "y). %$[, d-ip rf 4 [,,, f ( .J.. _cj.../1 I ,,.pi,, %@@@ N iSE!.sl0perating Procedure 9-01 roquiredithatIthel welder qualifi-N s WG1 Vcation sheets'be: reviewed and; signed by?a weldinf engineer or [% 4 jiqualified. welding)inspecturnif(thejsupplier'swedingprocedures i g' ~ gworsiverified byz an: auditor'who;was'not a' qualified welding; 'i M cinspector.1The previous:NRCLinspection identified three records: fVhN W,,(y li d which did not' conform to;thisl requirement. M ' e ,' y l W,/ % MgL l m sf3. 3 . p l + 9/M* & L j In'a71stter,Tdated Julyt14,:1987p SE, stated:that a matrix:of: A g ;s ? " l welders:and= qualification data;was initiatediin 'Apr11:1987 and' a Uph g Mhad beentupdated.QAdditionally.c the.NRClinspector was.inforro i y j m Mgh Tff'Jdurinythepresenttinspection>that'alliSOinspectors:were. 4 Mb 3R \\quali< 1ed welding dnspectors. = The NRC?inspectpes had no further! N, + d ML ~ sconcernsiin this area;1therefore vthisTitem.is-closed. qp c a, - .. F,~, ,s h_p t 'd ,Th[ g ',i @ $ Y cj g [4, l ,4 [ ] no, jfi VB .p-N 4 = ll ,t L r 5[E.g a

Q[@.

uM, y 4, s qq b h 1 s. q, JW jh L ' 9(pm cegg > b ;,\\ w. a: cw g,A 3l, m v- .. ua .2 a. . mo

iR. Q.W..y~' _' y _ ~. _ - - -,, ? F) m wey . 4% < ; s

s n

p -- rA.4 4j; e gr4 4 'l ww.... A & Nw n ORGANIZATION,--SORRENTO ELECTRONICS' y % g LSUBSIDIARY,0F GENERAL ATOMICS, INCORPORATED I c 1 Q '; p C AM ATran t' Al f trhaut A' 1

y; ~

,1 d;f E ' d 'c T ' k' '. t (&l% MREPORTt N :.E INSPECTION i f 2' n NO.:J 99900387/90-01 . RESULTS:. PAGE 11 of 11-m.x .. + m w [w, fM c.- "(Close'd)NonconformanceB*Instructionsfor. Assembly- + SW Personnel i hk. $ S., - SE's Quality Assurance' manual, required written procedures for m m. RDP . activities affecting quality.c The previous inspection identified CJ Q, M D.

that: approved written procedure-did,not exist for a cable -

Ly: p 7 to-connectoriassembly. operation ' - a* ;.t v .v,

W aj1etterLdated' July 14. 1987,: SE stated that;an appropriate

'3 u,.~ s. ,a p.tK 1, 1 : y t! k & fprocedure would be:isued on the following day.and.that manu ' i $%pW ' facturing process:speiifications;and workmanship inspection' i y criteria would be>added to theiscope.of QC: inspections and QA l

lfs; x.g. audits, respectively.y During the present inspection,-

l g&t inspectors, observed:that assembly and-QA personnel used detailed - c.i j'g c instructions'which had-beenlap Q'a m ;' \\ r ^ further:concernsL1,n'this; area; proved.'MThe NRC inspectors had no 4 CM -;therefore, this-itemiis closed. L .w ~< ~ i m -a + , 9:39 v Contacted ?p M*q. F. : " ! Persons:.... 'L. and,Testi 1 V %gs g ^ j g y 8 ~ ' y! i W' J ' M ' f*R D.C4 Nau ; President- { m $phe

1+ N;J. Porter, Director,LQuality Assurance..

fM6% f:s' lp::* Industrial' Products 9 !

1+ M.LL Blumeyer, General Manager,f ations;and Engineering '

$ 'f T.A. Moshenrose,. Director, Ope a.11 WW Services

pqMr, j:'

'* W J.J EThornton,LManageri QA Engineering and? Test' o'W yy J t *:+1J.;Guinn, Manaper, Quality'Contro1 R ~ Nf s

+ D.P.' Gieg er,(Senior Engineer,1 Industrial' Products J

n

dh m % N, M R. Rimple, Senior Engineer,;.IndustrialiProductsi

?' N m AM , l ^q co. Newman,. Program Manager, Industria11 Products ( MA s Y ,33 E Weeks. Senior QA Inspector l-A,. 5 a 9 @W S([J!g 1[f+l.R. Gosselin, Component? Engineer 6 Engineer 1 rig Services i l j QF PM F(McCord,-QAEngineerl g ) ](j$ ' y]+y ,M 4 4 j 4 Q, g< .,A y X+. 1 Attended exit; meeting on August 22,;1990. ~

o a

. Attended entrance meeting on August 20. 1990.. J 4 Wg ,sj hh S1, M ;1 I I mz w' g = m \\ ,y w n {l Y . Y,- [ >p-a: ,?g ( Q a aw ! 'i "s s b [@

1.. W s h

p i _ i sm 7.e j o w. %g y m [ }>M ' .- j Ii R '< .M2. 1 m ..s. w w..'

L-( [5 h j, m-: -' i.' 3-q p. q r 'y, y -, '_. i, l p,. t, t { [i k N M M M D%' 01G Document Name:J (f% y i I J.,J S i,-s s? >v 4 g .o . H.. E s 'n r .1" $oJg&@vj.Q?hp gs@..

m.,,, - a,

g f S0RRENTO ELECTRONICS REPORT} p 4 p s., y u,. s f.JRequestor's!!DC TA .) 4" m. .T W BRUNSON A.. f, m m. ns o 1 s I Et [ I r,,; -y 4

2. Wa. : M';

41 igAuthorAs:Name:

') % V>'fy~ m PE., L % 4 W t wils..on;. dick , V,N s . 9 = r; # x v, i Lw, w. a -3 g.9 < A W W DocumenL Comments:. M O. (inspectionreportforidocketno 9900387/90-01 dated 8/20-22 R, v$w. h ' /,II em J' 'l>' - f fb s 1 k(\\ e sA.r 4' W r w-I ll- .s, a. ha, - p. . w. w,, ar :;as ) ,p .I s M'... e ( ',a ' iQ 3.,._')r'., j ? . t,a

s. )

4 {' n);. n . 1, 3 '. g ,,7 y t y_ {M ;:.<au i Ey j t,., V, 4 ~ q. f,g,,p s. k l ' "sI: .i L , g ;; e < R' ;.

1;,

s ,,f r e-p?p/. i4 g v v

e s

Q ", {, "g o 3)T, e-4 f "l;' .... "Q 7 h S [7 r,. [g q[: 4 . @P, . 4 J

. (12 W

j M'((

M ' (

-j h([9,. w,-# 6 L.. ',r f m-i e - a>i- }- ,F s 3 g 'h [' I 4 q Y h,)} f ','r [ 9 j f< _.lm% ; ;. e' o m. v. ! 4 n t 96 ,3,' y 3~ '{ % $h 'd (tf V-[dfd y l .af a [.v , c. 7 u m., s sm?pgQ ' m%. u o .J 9 } , u, 3m. 3 ,.6w . w n m < e ' i 1p p,.. 3

p n4 p j,,f

( 0 i g 1 Q w' N,. ;..,, 'b' I C - , i * ..} 1{

p E

y r w#,, y m, i 8, g ,d ~ ;i y 3.vf yp3 ; 4;, *. } \\ : s j'* -4 ,.. >,* e jp f c.i.- ,,g e q<a t- >st ,1 s > 4 t ,,.q r,v, 9 as-u 4 ,A. -. 3s. = 6,,s. g,. 1, rr e3 3 Rr n., r,j, 4, y i,i g p ri[

f'j i.h(%g',) b k";g"",

' {G. s t 'g f. j ivf 'f g qh, 1 i I= + J '4 Jl% a t, li. 1 7 qq 9 s s Y n ll?l W ' V ' ) ,%%m ; %,7% g4 % 3;, . y g 4.f A mM Mp hit 7,1 ". g' O,at N r:Qfga h kp g. ,9 ,q. , t-: .e 4 i u..

Q.:

t W ;."J, ' yd, s M M. s 4 w,7 A; p ch:c t Au ey, y ;M, L e,'. us m L p y l ~ e - m3 >. n r* s, :1-1e ,<;,'t + A m! - N , i s a n y ;* p,O, s Q)4,. ' %e n trk 2.y.. o g , t f,. .u,#} I 4:w/w'A y) +/1 ';, c M+; g. t k y 9 w --k p@&;7 g v% y &eU 71,o,; yo n. e. pi, t ,t..

b. s,.;3 e

sr

, C. n s, q , l W ', v u e +. 4 r e., a A. %y~,o :.- c, c . t,, n;p%yg jgQWQ);y a. -A.

y, i =

s ( i 3.- v p... e.m., s.. ;:-- g s, s s.c l k, y 4 9 m g m w g,[J, , g.1 2 ! 3 l g J' + j NN,J~ -N [, bh [- m i t li 2; i ! - I i m w w,y => j - ; ff MN.,Y ;9 f ' s i ".k+y; U k.s. ac 'l' . y a3

w. ;e.if p. f n g.

4 )c i s. i' .C., M,;y.M 'M, <Q+Nh. yy.. : jA, l[^,.s. -h,M 43' 45 d ._ f.4 : v m,, ',. 4 v. n, m ,o f'- ,e %- ; s w g@ p,. Nr,l,',, m'w)/ k[2l - i -q f ;Qg; %::* - ii9- - - ' 3 [_ ' m-[ r op'g - 'i -.. I 'g ) ) / w.p%.. e r ohf $.h~ [y'jf" lD9{ g[a { N.s s.. I" a p ,s i s g 't L 5 q,UMhj N!. - ; k" d. p-Iyrce M}}i k:y%-, J ',c' g ' 9,f3 EY '4: I w 4.m. z <a n m = =a .NhNb J 1 g$g j '.1,i ' " il4*,jJ d. 3 [W M[i'4, I 1 $ "f'. + ' J,jl%yQ ' Mt 7 lb '.' ?, dh sldd+U @ M; Ol., ki$, t t s 971N{pe'. c 7 t-i d \\ ;;

i.j S.4' ' [1.

1 1, ; U " ' m' : p 7cS 1 ,t, ) w'bM + 4 t ,I~ .I.... 4 3, .m ~. m s r.% ~ h ' ' z y',. \\ q:0 F@ig y[d.I 3 j e.. y:m%

WW u

,~ v e u w;l p% :p%y w p"; N,W.;i;- -Q: .1 1a. .,6 qipn , %f %Q/, m@n,q;&_.,. ,r -r-t a M ,1 A. n; s -. sq p v, ws. w %x ye, aw m.m .3 a d: ~ w:Q,t!,,p n - 0s 4 i y .t h.. ; e i >7 .4 %+N?kYk h.! .p' gn i i ff N' nkw.a L, * > e w -f- .u,.y g i 4 < pi., e m i + p 4 ( L, f ?)g'Q. f + h, h ih ' ' gh a ,h}kak.k r (;a_ :i'. " ',. '"W, .3 q 41 m yy ,i1,"- w -',k g d Q ; A a n d W h,o-

-r a ~h

,W.,'s , h h1 ) i c, n e U /g - V. pc r,,. i mC m,',((*d @ [];s yL M,y h h'

W { ;r,1,w} *

.-k., '^5 I I N_, .[. j, T '[ ' 4 ,4 4} f Q'p m.s w,1,14 + r a. g s l / ,k-L.,.*.t. N g n..y+ 3.: qQpi-Q_ y, },y 41~ p q ',:.; r'.,%.; 9 i ty t t ,e .t . *.h* J t [Y A (f[ 3 y y 4 n,6 wb.. a'., c Y a ki.. I 1-, j g. G,, tr %'Et S - Q'. fQ_. \\ r g y, I'

fq

Mkh i

, 4. ' S h,M bi c +- .g ] A k'rS 1 ,. UNITED sY TEs .3 $W Q . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i W.. % W WASHINGTON, D. C. 30865 j MA j [o([x rh wi.J., OCT 81'1990 i 7 m w i Docket ~No.N 91kOO38 D90 i I) Ni[M :p'j : n aqun V "sa-3' W M) lMrE Dennis C. Nau, President l % % l JSorrento Electronics B# ? Subsidiary of General Atomics,' Incorporated %* g% 1 3' LSaniDiego, Californist 02121 L10240 Flanders Court 3 l MM ' i S s i $s i 1 h Y f}. gap V This 51stterfaddresises 'the; NRC'-inspection of yourJfacility at. San Diego, "' M: California', on A ustD20;through 22, 1990.. The' inspection was. led by Mr. R. C. %@$c Wilson:ofLthis'opfice,and:the findings were discussed with you and your. staff n C j sti the conclusion'.of theLinspection' on' August 22,;1990;. ,,n +o n. s-e r .. +2 e.

fw

. The9inspectio.x,n!was conductedLto1 review lyour actions concerning.1101CFR Part 21 S * ";m# reportsn ends other' event reports to; the.NRC,f and youriactions concerningith %g%(yhexaminedLduring the; inspection and our finding 4 J ms findingsl'of?-twol previousL NRC" inspections offyo"r, facilities.-; zThe" areas!, ' t p M J QWinspection" reporth (The inspection' consisted ;of an examination. of-procedures " l' k[%M Mand representative records, interviews-withipersonnelp and o h inspectors.: ' Ws

~.

d g L9KW . 4afy y 3 t; f xy< . >>. w g $y$j$l purchasetordersiwhich? imposed the; reporting req ~.. m t TheVinspectioni eteredned:that your pastL practice of rejectings safety-related: itj d c M:tgM impropern As1 described inj Section: E.3: of the1 enclosed. inspection; report,' wel ij s @$W@4@Moncludedithatlthis, previous' practice-did 'not violate; NRCerequiremen W Wthe1proceduresyin f placeLandf yourX implemented actions. weree consistent 1withi ' p x. U % M E 101CFRipart 21 k Although) rejection of the 10 CFR Part 211 requirements <affacted' i @p$$ff J the: wording of theJpurchase orderhthecinspection< verified'thatL A, n f hFdhgJwere ?actually(reported i toithe E customers, and,th c 9 h tsinceF beenkcorrected ContinuedNactionOis necessary3 tonensure Lthat?you eo d MNG' fig rroort1,ng1 requirements (f. ora safety-related Lorders'.. _. t ~ p j'

'A y

e w >m ,t ,. g%y,w ~ ; ,x m m,h 10 CFR. 2;790iofi haI CommiisionY w ~lations, a: copy of this(, b, a n .xn .y J p ilniaccordance wit t regu d 9F 6fM1stterf andienclosed2 inspection ' report Vwill'. be t placed sinitheT NRCtsR Public W,.,i MW / ^Documen.tiRoonD #,mgWW jM' 'M n .g g m u r [eghyh g%g . r s ',f' j$incerel N

< \\

, T f '^ 0 jI q gw gy., ,m + hh ' ', w Y. ^ g u.-, &g h q SQp w' r +% n. u WW4, gFW ^

E; Willian rach,Chihf

,l--u ' g@gjlML Division of Reactor 1nspection Vendor Inspection' Branch m Yf WEE ' cM W $ 4 J and Safeguards-i 4% x, ".

0ffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1

,,;p3 3 ,) i. i ' we,1Eulosuret (I'spection Report 99900387/90-01 4 -/ W. n y& N.&,jij s JQ ,f8 a$ w ~ r%y qQkm s c 4 1 ' '. < /; UN A 'c/Nii $c y5in4Jpd, E r ...,'>d L Y h?t + - --,L ?~. . ~L _. w... -..-.,. -

, ;6 -

%MW"> ' m & _ L. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - ~ _ _ _ _ ~ _ M ?R@hdggkhy)90 1/ 7

0CT) 11990 o'

,t1 4 4 k l ~ 4 kbNdW@ f T 2Neu. c V s.. 4 F.J W M Mr. Dennis C 7,M N 6 5errento;ElectronI; President; 1 cs i @W mdf ' L5ubsidiary of. General Atomics," Incorporated l p. 10240 Flanders: Court! i' o 3 % ; San DiegoE a11fornia iO2121' L C ~ f;.n Q W~ ~ e ?

Dear,

Mr. Nau: 0 L,U !This41etterEaddresses s the t NRCt inspection of your facility at $an Diego, 1 @T s W. ' " California, his officeland, the findings were discussed;with you and your staff on August 20 through 22,.1990.- The inspection'was; led by Mr. R. C. F. " Wilson-ofat M N y' atithe: conclusion of the; inspection on August 22, 1990.- l Nr d h, i m,Th~e (inspection was? conducted.to, review your. actions ~ concerning(10 CFR Part 21? i h6 d reportst andf other event reports ' ton the NRC, f ~ yourf facilities.- g(& % c and your actions concerning the: j ' %% findingst ofa twoiprevious? NRCLinspections o

The: areas =

I L h

examined lduring the; inspection and;our-findings' are discussed inethe enclosed's f Qt4 inspection!reportf Thelinspection7 consisted of anJexamination: of: procedures'

'a i M T%end representative; records Linterviews:with personnel and observations by the - l N h' 6' $)1nspectors.~ 4 wT >l by% W uy j z q p. 17 sa. .w . m,c _y;. ,t.v . L, L. -f M:The':z inspection [ determined;that your: past practice of rejectingssafety.related. '( M / $ $ purchase /ordersiwhichTimposed tha reporting requirements of: 10,CFR'Part 21;wes: W d . (improper.; J Asl describede in' Section: E.3 = of cthe enclosed inspection reporti we=

1 l 1

yp%e i"Yconcluded <that;this! previous; practice _ did not violate-NRC: requirements bec 3 yhp N h' i the1wordin i Ethe recedures1 n2 lace' and1your timplementedi actions ~ were.. consistent with-1 1 10,C R Part 21a> Alt oughtrejection'.of the 10 CFR Part 21irequirements'affectedi d j V ofithe purchase orders the: inspection verifiedithat,the deviationsi 'd k Qh$werelactua lylreportede to & thel customers and thatthis t mproperspractice' hasi i y W@i isincetbeeny correctede Continueddaction 9 s; necessaryi to5 ensure i thateyou?.. 4 1

f

& maintainJyoury current rectices re ardingf acceptanceL of: the 10 CFR, Part-21 ,y $h[pPgn emenu; esafee a#derse m q N h min 3cMdance'with: 10 CFR 2;790'of the Commihion4 regulat'ioni,'afcopy of th14 rQ4W1etter?andVenclosed? inspection; reportt wills bel placed in(the,NRCf $1 Public fj f

@N M"g 4 Document.Roome ',, # '

M m - ' f, t 1 !4 ,s O _i" ,4 d 9. J', Sincerely. f w f M @W @ M@, M W 9 1.. W W 4 ~ ? W'Jr ?j y LE.SWilliam Brach,_Chiefi > " J O a f' @pi% l J P Vendor Inspection Branch 9 ($gW ' %' ', y, ' and Safeguardse,L .j M 9 % h, Division of Reactor Inspection + k i g g M Enclosure ' E C %. pM. L i, Office.ofJNuclear Reactor. Regulation? l A eInspection1 Report'99900387/90-01'. ? N ? K fp g : DISTRIBUTION! J UL,. v "f Q ph W Docket File,999003871,

RIDS Code IE: 09r

.BKGrimes: -BDLiawt wg [$@E @k V18/DRI$1R/F Q 3 Central:Filesv ' < s PDR, 'EWBrach CAVanDenburghi

~

L RWilso'n. MJacobus/ San'dia: gym a c % a gp te, TDo'cused Name E S0RRENTO ELECTRONICS' LETTER: j MW

$ee Previous concurrence' Sheet

-- oo 4, jf.pd'V~'an 4L AS\\. 40/' i fc 70FC 1:C:RI5-?:VIB-

BC:VLB:DRIS

DRIS:NRR i

% S...:.p :RI5-28.VIBc .;:.......e........:...............:..............:.............. .....:............[ $ [NAME F:PRWilsoniq g...a.e p...e...........:............gh:*EWBrach 4k..:............'.'.....i ') Li*CAVanDenbur 4:*BDLiaw .. :.........h.

.........

...........t Q ATE h:10/09/904 c:9/12/90

10/17/90'i

10/19/90

10/ b/90' C e :--

j lg:p aK gy, r .UfflCIAL RECORD COPY g ] + + g; glUpj-jM }.,.k,( u ' "~ f Y W $ y[hh i, . $. < d :'

l. h Ai

... a.l ;;,. 2.- - 2

2. -.

l-L -b

ppg ,y w m + p,, ,,4 a a L'f p ln "u k d%. ?' ~ 'i xl L ' Q. c,,f"j-q. n nn W h Mi,u 0RGANIZAT!0N. D SORRENTO: ELECTRONICS,.. L t @j 4~iP" m# < ! SUBSIDIARY OF GENERAL' ATOMICS-

s py J 2 SAN DIEG0r CALIFORNIA w

x. $ ' y& . ~. y. ~ REPORT!. 1 INSPECTION Mk, m N0.:9990387/90-01: DATE:. August 20-22.'1990-

!NSPECTION'.

e 'CN-SITE HOURS: 34 h,[ ! 4 m,. 74:C CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: Mr. Dennis C. Nau', President. / a, 'Sorrento Electronics. )l% w; Subsidiary of General Atomics, Incorporated w W v kN 10240 Flanders Court San Diego, California 02121' p r y i> Ja s, l pp*s ORGANIZATIt i sbMTACT: 'Ms. Nancy J.' Porter, Director. Quality Assurance and Test ,J,W TELEPHONE NUMBER:n -(619)457-8725-M5 & M ' f",., '.. +< a Yn NUCLEAR INDUSTRY / ACTIVITY: :: Designs and manufactures instrumentation and s. g 4 'fli control' equipment for, numerous commercial nuclear: power plants including gb./ radiation. monitoring equipment:and engineered safety features actuation: Su f#F systemsMSalesJare divided,about' equally between' commercial nuclear' andi pg& f / defense applications.. i 1 .,pp ?s i : ~m ' w m

M.3.4 o-a 9

d kSg kW M;_j;J, sp ,J. o I ,i ?l: k0._ '. .~6,. s t. c M@d((" W e " %&,. t ASSIGNED lINNECTOR:.. % T M,., 18 f( Io

i lg

,m R.C., Wilson 5enior, Reactor Engineer hav C OM V ReactiveInspection;SectionNo.2t(RIS-2F. t 74.W s,, L +v L <F 'Vendorfinspection; Branch (VIB) 3 pn am-s w s %h([/.: 0THER $ INSPECTOR (S): Ma k MJa'cobbs,. SeniorIMemberif Technic 51. Staff, y R-i W g l Sandia National,Laborator,iesn(Consultant)c aM a y A ROVEN BY:h I C E~ 0 10 o~ h L fu %: $ ' Mr-t C LA. VanDenburgh,, chief, RI5-Z, VIB ae S~ m-wu o ,.g 7 1 m s 1 h h. " $iQ < : ib tm.* g\\ i ; -} W \\g% 4 I D ]((1- ' 3' ;. ij t " r /j.c _ a:p j, L $$qWM INSPECTION; BASES;AND) SCOPE:e r r + r 3 4 y g e< m ~ % q.[ A[%A$ESd [10 CFR[Past 217a'nd 10 CFR Part 50[ Append 1hB, d MgN."% 8 W SCOPE T 1UReview v'endor: actions concerning 10 CFR Part,214and cther,' c#.... h s a m% . s tJ h yp < M W's y tireports;... '. 6' T' W.C. ;4 p < "% r.2.j oven y N, 4 Review:vendoractions:concerningitw@pevio.us NRC p dNy<, ! inspections.. : w 9,i ri b%g P i... < g, e:f' t - x x- - m lh}f d .1 s .,' '...m N f PLANT / SITE APPLICABILITY: : Numerous.' W p.g - w ::t >f 'w a y + gg ,m '- <v o u,. p) 1 4. p, 3-. W;a ^;,. L,, s >s y l ( 3 X, :;, l if M. i + f i, U :l ,, x v . l$ k t, 4 .l t l y f: l l. &z ,(, llN. ---~--~. 'n< - ly' * *. m w2 . ~ s - -.

~ q iaa ( .k* %[4,, 97gi/% o a "$W k *,, I h, M p '"e .A ,9 "' g f p J c: 'J V,.

i i

t Jp [ 's %M Mj , " [l ? \\?' h,. 4 1 s ' i. $ ' W 0RGANIZATION:l SORRENTO ELECTRONICS-g 3 6% w~ SUBSIDIARY OF GENERAL ATOMICS,: INCORPORATED-p,y ' SAN' DIE &De CAL 1FnDM1A ~ ge mREPORTD 1. INSPECTION F :- fM0i:0 99900387/90-01: RESULTS: PAGE 2 of 11 o g %sg

o #

o (MVIOLATIONSO KV - p.

A.L

@,. s, . n a n o i. s W We m ' %a1Nonei, an .y. x n pCr , V BI: NONCONFORMANCES:" \\m - n w.. -..;None' l "yr; @"m m," y$u& m + r p, C. V UNRESOLVED" ITEM.S:n, ll jf f '[f -

, i:_?)'A

@ p} M'

None' A.

' 'a A j. ' i > 4 ,,,.Wb' L . 1 o

KMD, UDF.

+w +ySTATUS"0F PREV 100$ilNSPECTION FINDINGS:< 4 nw% n. + ?!MInspection; Report 99900387/84-01 identified,three nonconformances. N ._ m m @M LJ O lnspection' Report 99900387/87-01Ndentifiedione Severity Level IV q@ %c X W ielationjandxtwo nonconformances,e All were closed during this-it' uiM ' M > PinspectionL(seeisections;E.4~and E.5Lof this report).< a M f'

ww%

+r O % min S En LINSPECTION FINDINGS'AND 0THER COMENTSs" i s ' r u m n. w s g, y, W l1".16 Hi$ R5nne" Radiation Monitbr! 9 w T,0 % :w.., & Ql & 'QS isorrento Electronics (SE)s fa' major suppl.ier of highLrange; radiations n. b jis u.J p

monitors!(HRRMs)/which are'used;in safety-related applications in..

QQ@fE F y ,2. accordance?with Regulatory Guidei(RG) l'.97c0n February 23p1987, SE {y ;D filed alla CFR,Part 21Enotification with the'NRCsconcerning ani. m ? '* 1 D @g environmental qualification: problem, involving the reduc us, resistance of the detector coaxial.si Tenvironmentb1Thereducedicableresisknal'cablexinafsteam-MF# anceLat: elevated temperatures WJ W Jallowed'alleakage. current 1that exceeded:the: error allowances'of RG:1.97. m @y%7 % Watithelb'ottomLoff the: instrument'ran9esand reversedtthe normal positive:' h q;;,^ & output of;thelinstrument;4mplifier. JThe' problem'was observed during C J; accident-condition.testin 'ofathe'HRRM at,Sandia National Laboratories kgi ' P d N and! reported 11n NUREG/CR 7280"EquipmentiQualification'ResearchTest:., s t f(of,aLHigh-Ran9eRadiationMonitor, dated February 1988E Several! ; Q@$ $ i l licensees reported the problem to the NRC and other licensees werei G M* O g3 , Effound to be affected during NRC~ inspections of: equipment qualifications.: ,M mw

x.h.

x. ML 50nMarch.28,~:19892SEYs.wubmitted;a' prog.ress: report to1the NRC,. C.'F *a % describinti their evaluation, efforts and.the corrective' actions that'.. ? > MM ' %.e 4they! had:dentified. ; Although:a modified amplifier withren autozero m o h, >p ,ih - y w~ m n.

> ', 3

i

.s .u s D,- s (,! l

> V:,

e A Tb m> M lN }.' sl ; / , ;. ( i 4 ( ), 4 n f. j e? _ m t e j j.Qf ', f Q * 'l:{[ q [w ng? ^ .js f , s %H < ' Q ; ; > l.a J.; N,h ]I.

i.

d.[MjMT*W 'O

hvNh b f$ 1 %n%f h 1'l : i V. ' n. 4 Wq Ju %

?

4 q m y kn[ Qh ' : 4 < " ^ b' ,L b~ & $ 0RGANIZATION:!;SORRENTO ELECTRONICS. yhg@h{ik., # 6 " SUBSIDIARY;0F GENERAL ATOMICS, INCORPORATED by W 4 ' SAN DIEGOT CAL 1FORNIA" m @Y M i LAEPORTO 9 INSPECTION C&

N0.: ;99900387/90 01 4

R L ESULTS: ,PAGE'3 of 11' 7 og; ? circuit'did'notreso1'vetheproblem.-SEidentifiedthreesuccessful g

approaches as;follows:

m nN +

I th ggp(3

' coaxial? signal cable's maximum temperature will'not degrade the SUkaltimelagheattransfercalculation'tddemonstratethatthe s s. k' NQ.6 y? 4, (insulationresistance. %y a b.A [' Lb. UselaYtime-lagheattransfercalculationtodeterminethe a famount'of; additional: thermal insulation required to limit the C W @g h; t maximum temperature of the coaxial; signal cable. ya. . g_ _, NG

c. W Replace)theicoaxial-signal cable with silicon-oxide-insulated,

? _l .$v7 metal-jacketedcableRTestresults.showedthat'thistyg'ohmsLat of. %(%@g9 4cablelhedan;insulationresistanceofmorethen.1x10. g y J N ' H350, degrees; Fahrenheit-(an acceptable value) for.a' 200-foot 11ength ofLcable. m f.1 ,a, y 4 3 a x $ e,% @ h /SiMDeqv' eA,tedLthat"t' heir customers provide feedbkck concerningi o ,m $whichsolutionwasselected..AlthoughSE'spreferredsolutionwasto. L + Md W' ilreplace theicable. 411censee' reportediusing,that method, mostl f A licensees evaluated!the cables using the thermal, lag calculations.s n. e m na g y~ g4 "a]s y] Ah,ho' ugh theSinspehtorsidid 'not perform a dEta'iled: review for (, i QSN "l3 plant-s weific applications, all three approaches appeared to be, o ydbu @? accept'adejsolutions:to provide the-environment 41Lqua11fication of Tthe' gh$ g N coaxial;sitinal cables in the'HRRM.3L!n' addition iSE's testing.of the

'J 94 4 ilsilicon-oxtde-insulated. cable.: fitted with'HN-type coaxial" connectors 1

dh hpyand sheat-shrink tubes;to bridge the connectors, appeared to provide la My%j- , m ma g' g.f9 'basistfor the' environmental qualificationiof;the' cable and connectors a @D f jn,the HRRM. V The NRC ~ inspectors: concluded that any of theithree, 4 >c w 5 ; recommended: solutions' couldLbe satisfactori provided a. plant-specific % N'

5.W fevaluation'was performed.

/ gy n3x y p4 m ' L2W Seismic Q'ualifi6ation ofi FAS:Rilays d i g ES $y X[T O ~ 7 ';On! April 27. 198g, the'NRC was' notified b'y. Houston' Lighting and Power i gp 3 W g.f company 1(HL&P), that;5E had advised HL&P that the time dela p; jfor. the 'en ineered safetytfeature ' actuation syst Mc te% circuits in y Nthe1 South exas' nuclear power stations 1(Units 1: and' 2) were-not' ' i y~ Q% , isaismically q)ualifiedOThe relays,(Potter and'Brumfield Model:No.2 b$ CRD-38-30120 were used:in the containmentfpurge monitor circuits. 4M 'w'S, ', rsupplied by SE to. provide a. containment ventilation system isolation 4 g%Q (function.";, Based upon this!information,: the licensee declared the : ~ &Y <*'n* q <D .AQ 3.. iD ? i c>g. , g flls ~ s .,i f y v L 'a _~ .&& M y'D ' n' D /;U W 0 m . '>l R@ A t

n%, Q l)Q J. L ", ?*l &N % f w w px # m ,l>- g

y.,

kn c. w~ , w ,19 'n t " 'w.. : 2 1 s ... ' 3t o g d., t

i k.p.is'%,-P

( '

N 7 4 g., '4 s p / @1?J W (ORGANIZATION:J SORRENTO ELECTRONICS l 1 SUBSIDIARY.0F GENERAL ATOMICS,-INCORPORATED 1 x t cam ntres rai umu W $ o ~ h; + MV.Q j REPORTE 1 # L. 'v INSPECTION 1 OA NN0k ' 99900387/90-01. RESULTS:. PAGE 4 of 11 W w, 4 a s J t n< e@T 5 ,. + >, ( 'purgeimonitorsfinoperableandclosedthepurge.valvesuntil [ W, w qualification of.the' relays was established.- n .o ,+ e n-a $@Wp%@ _.s'/R contract from the Bechtel Power Corporation's.(Bechtel) office int 1 R The NRC inspectors reviewed SE's: corrective actions with respect to u i -this! concern.;;The ESFAS equipment was supplied for: South Texas.under i Ag/g 4 ' 4~ : Houston',LTexasW lIn 1984, SE'had prepared'a draft proposal for seismic >d 3 4vm 0;Howeve;r.Lovalification.ofithe: relays: including a seismic test procedure. 1 $g ' &; Bechtel advised SE's engineesing: personnel;to: provide'the: (! QM W d relaysion a nondeismic; basis and indicated'that a request for. 1 t yW h y.j ~ upgrading the relays 1to a seismic qualification would come 1ater.,iln > ,1 eg "dlbApr11:1989?after:reviewingSE's; draft'seisticqualificationreport ~d 6 ;' V,,7for;the South? Texas)ESFAS equipment, Bechte1' requested SE to perform a j 3 $ME W, e failure modes;and effects analysis.xThis analysis. demonstrated,that 4 t^ mig Jthe relaysiwere safety-related;?therefore, the' relays were required to - 4* l g ? $ beiseismically qualifiedi isince SouthcTexas, Unit I was operating at ? AA @fZ l i ythetitire,the?1icensee?promptly-initiatedcorrectiveactionand a, N hd v h a otif.ied the NRC?of(the concern.. M db Q%gk a s u,

,J d[ % d E' [, corr'e M yeJa M on e

Pl% > thi relayslbecause the? consisted ofcperforming a new seism Md QM existing test spectra did.not? completely a f d % 4 4 seismic test report _and found-noafurther concerns.: $"j y,, UB ienvelopithejsouth) Texas: conditions., The NRC inspector. reviewed the. @p.y~ i 3 4p;s xy n e /3m 210:CFR Pad;21'ReNrt$g Respons'ibility for Spare Part' Orders 'g df ns x s n< i i. u,. , j ~,i . s -gag n 6 v win 21988/theiTennessee Valley Audor'ity (TVAIordered a' replacement ' 7. d ,,,.m 3 $k N 1 printed _ circuit board lforf a radiation' monitor in thelSequoyahu.. " W; gMy

dgnuclearipower plant under purch,ase' order '(PO); 88WLF-84169A.j The.PO..

gQIWry g g invoked thetfollowing nuclear-plant-related requ kements: 4 W@ , C10 CFR3 Part 21Mportions 'of;10 CFR Part 50, ApWdn B;~ ;American~ r' W: 4 M $ National Standards Institute:(ANSI): Standard N4L 2 M Quality M h M AssurancelProgram Requirementsifor Nuclear Powet Plants;"cSeismic W K'M l M T i # Category 11 Land' Class-1E.5The.PO -also: required aiCertificate of E e ,f d ycy p L d Conformance (C00)sstatingithat!the' board was;equaltto'or;better;than; 7the? original' board purchased on:PO 72061-9259?aredlwould not nullify N J )y y ME ',,gexisting ' equipment;qualificationsE The P00did not'specify;the end g s % s tusecof the boardjat};Sequoyah:(channeror tag number). n W W- /7 ,s - i W E N QW g %L W ~1 f v w Mh S g$ hg@JSEirefussd to scceptithe-PO requirement for 10 C W M M@c f raporting @ TVA thenTissued a contracttchange; stating:that,~"...the M+; Q 'lend'use'of'the item (s)," and that, "TVA Sequoyal will assume-reporting ' requ e!

1, g

g MW 4 responsibility for anytregulatory reporting' requirements."' SE ] %;m ,g ] \\ f w* ~w y' r j, em, i, f?kW g. a; ,y, s 1 4 J,6 ' Q. l'{ f,Y Qh Qb ) 3 [*

..i -

L = - ~ ~ - ^ .D

~;,s

~--v g

hb l., M' E y y

q. pg y,,: x ;

a WH m o,, gMDbORGANIZATIONikSORRENTOELECTRONICSI l gp $ % , WSUBSIDIARY OF: GENERAL ATOMICS, INCORPORATED

)

4,3m m cau meen rii mm L s~w ., l; c ' \\ og# s i Lni N 3 REPORTP . s INSPECTION Q_E _NO.: 99900387/90-01' ' TESULTS: PAGE 5 of 11 [4 yW i ws ,o

provided a C0C stating that.the_ items were manufactureti in accordance J

w: 4 v - (with SE's' Quality Assurance. Manual, Revision ~ 1, and _ that the. replacement J g; 4 @g , items were equal <to or better than-the' original items purchased on J Vw ?TVA's: contract:72061-9259 and would not nullify the existing qualifica-1 C - 'tions ofnthe: equipment.. u- ..m s-kh SEstaNd;that:thispracticewasemployedwithotherlicensee j $y J 4 customers:until mid-1989h Since then, SE has-accepted 10 CFR Part 21 1 y nrequirements;1fJthe: customer provides an equipment tag number,'so J qg n that SE'can'verifylthat:the original equipment was supplied as. 1 Mjj' safety-relatedtand applicable, qualification requirements can be. TK reviewed-(such as3 1ocationgpecificseismic' levels).' gm g l ,a } w(',SEexplaineditoitkNRClinspectors,thEt.alliof'theirproducts'are-1 @$9f v either:defenseTequipment; subject to military specifications or 1 y T V l commercial.' nuclear powerJplantrequipment subject to the 10'CFR Part 50,. 'd; y f & Appendix.BC QualityiAssurance requirements.o Most,ofathe'_ -., WJ S, o commercialinuclearasystems1and parts are not safety-related; but all-T v N commercial:partsiand' assemblies:are procured or manufactured'under J y,

y JSE's AppendixiB Qualitym Assurance program.

SE's Quality l Assurance d A 4 Mprogram wasblastl audited.by the NRC in 19841;The proram was; D Mw satisfactory withithe exception of, the findings that are discussed = in g4 ' F f Section E.4;ofithis;. inspection report, 1 .e y;6' Ny aifThe NRC? inspector. conducted a facility-tour durin'g.the pr$sent M . sh, ,1 v u ' [M ,C, Assurance Program.; Military,and commercial, nuclear powerEspare! parts inspection?to selectively verify implementation?of SE*s Quality: 4 P y 4{were ordered under purchase orders codedtfor?on's of the two ~ 1 y 1 D g'1 wf6 %,iapplications,iandthe: parts:and'workein-progress _werephysically j g; /W separated and distinctly tagged.;

y

,y - 4 2 av x <m @-D. 7 [ S M scu d & Sh tion E.5.a'of the report, SE was: cited in".987 fors ~ k) y g a violation of,10:CFR Part 21.-LAs corrective action, SE-gen'erated? 'q d 'p 4/4 Revision - d dated lune 1,11987, and" subsequently reissued as RevisionLAi u as ' i0peratingProcedureL(OP)1.4a180,;"Compliancewith10CFR21,"t 4 p $ g; $ gon Decembertly 1988.S Both revisions; adequately 2 covered evaluation m7 1j g w%, ' W; ' # and reporting _ofideviationsiin' accordance with 10- CFR Part 21. ~ $-'aH @J W %During thist inspection,' SE. stated that:0P 1'.4-180: bs been followedL < 1 1 ' y' .c m. , q$ ':1 0 3 since originallymissued.1 SE provided two examples;where deviations-1 W

Dwere~ evaluated and determined =toLbe'not required to befreported to

'l i Ww ,<s itheiNRC. but were' reported by SE=to:all customers <that had purchased' C 4@IM Q ,D itheiaffectef equipme,nt N 0ne example,_ involving an overheating power _ N.- m yg n; n. lL fje j + e s n .ll. k,_ I gff 9 Y } k D oS j n 3M-l. 'y ,} t LW, e hj e o )Q ~ [ I'? Y 2{ s

g p@[e[ [ 3 g yj k N ' ' }l Mh m'. g j W:;y y.; OWV% i'. g h N ORGANIZATION D SORRENTO ELECTRONICS 1 i %yd i y$ ? M O UBSIDIARY 0F GENERAL ATOMICS,LINCORPORATED. j S - can niran em trnnuta i p5 $ ) M2 ,.v. REPORT v INSPECTION: I %g 4 NO.: D99900387/90;01-RESULTS: PAGE 6 of 11 $* @d f f %g , v 1supplylregulator, was reported to customers on February 1, 1988. The j 1 m k >\\ icther example :en alarm relay connection, was reported to customers i %q$ 1onsApri1113, 1989. SE explained that their refusal to' accept the4 ] 9 c /10 CFRiPart 21 reporting requirements in-theLTVA P0 was based on;t'e. h th M m cabsence of application 1information,;which potentially precluded SE j "1 g 'l W ' ifrom determining whether a deviation-could create a substantial safety q g$gh @, % ;ito< inform' customers that SEnrejected contractual. imposition of 10 CF hazard:and thus bccome a reportable. defect.' SE's approach in 1988 was. e c p MM GM TPart'21 because SE could not ascertain.its ability to perform adequate JM% Mt evaluation:ofideviations, and that..the. customer must retain o ig7 ! responsibility.for;10 CFRLPart.21'. reporting to the;NRC. : Nevertheless, J gA ', d HSE did evaluate deviations and. report to customers under OP 1.4-180. Wl?l c %.H<> s %W '>, $ $E>Ai$empted to-use 10 CFR 2h 3(a)(4).in this' regard,;by regarding 1 !A W.. Tspare:partsias commercial grade items'which do not become part of j @i$ 9Fs" Xbasic components (and are thus not reportablesunder.10 CFR.Part 21) l ? 1 g7 Juntillafter' dedication.J Since SE felt they did not.havej.. ,j M', L > application-specific;information necessary for dedication, then' the5

f

'Rif - <M.nccustomermust,assumededicationandreportingresponsibility.( Q alif.1 c dj 4 >3 h{ i ww 1 ~. +.7 9 R 4TheNRClinspector.concluNedthatiSE's~reje'ctionof[the10CFRPart21 $$k H M requiremen_ts in.P0s,wastimproper N The requirements ofi10 CFR Part 21

y w@Vare self-imposing'However, theTinspector<noted that l FF on suppliers of basic components.: without regard to 4%

g P0; requirements. J! t ?M r%*G]drequires-that:licenseeP0sforbasiccomponentsspecifythetithec j qwt 4 provisions:iof 10 CFR Part 21 apply'wMultiple! requirements in the TVA' 1 yb $P0fmaderit very31 ear that the/ procurement wasTsafety-related. In. l O WA /M feddition, SE's 100 statedtthatithe part was. manufactured in accordance % y' , ' C '; with SE's Appendic B QA Manual.b Thereforei underi10 CFR.Part 2L 3' , 3l w hN/M " $9(a)(4)l such a part:is clearly.' safety-related and part of ja basic '. $9 J 'e i componentD Additional concerns related to qualification do not' change j hh' Q e ; % these requirements ( f J:, ,] u s pp ..s_ n. J% Ws "V M The NRC11nspector1 concluded that SEchasnot violated 10 CFR'Part 21. j i %M J S The; spare;part was manufactured;under aniAppendix'B quality assurance' VN LP jprogram'and was certified as equalito or better than the-original a 1 N g?

t,ypartsiby;an approved Aipendix B~ supplier-to the licensee. ~ This was..

j ey #4 sufficient to establis tthat:the part'was adequate for safety-related i gjK A Qg M A h use;and;that,no deviationsiexisted2at theitime ofushipments SE had'a i V # (procedure;1njplace;that required that theylevaluate and report defects n M)9 iniaccordance.withl101CFR Part 21 provisionsL SELonly intended toi. M Q% N greport;toilicensee customerstbut thelTVA P0, asEchanged, stated that ~ q 7.TVA;wastresponsible for regulatory. reporting requirements. Furthermore. r[ D., 4 (% j @[ ] A 1 m= qlh;_7 .,?' y M ., t J {l} 'a W v 3 i +.,; a a-m m, ,y , y,, 4 g t p

%[4.... -

~~--m-

y:s y ', q' }[

k1 V gj d I ! j; z., t c. y' i ~ a r l b 'W j >tj > !;':[( ; g'q L ' - ~ s ^, 1 __y ] " !M 'SORRENTO ELECTRONICS' J $c..~f'LORGANIZATION: W 5 l4 1 SUBSIDIARY.OF'6ENERAL ATOMICS, INCORPORATED + 2 Na - " um niren em tranurr s s r er... i l.REPORTc... INSPECTION s '^ NO.:E 99900387/90-01; RESULTS: PAGE 7 of 11;. ( Wg o + Ie JSELidentified two' examples where deviations were evaluated and reported i 4V" itoi possibly< affected customers. In effect, SE's rejection of the M L10 CFR Part;21. reporting. requirements affacted the PO wording, but did + a pyh .M

not: affect their actual comp 11ance witt the requirements of 10 CFRt

~ N; ' . Part 211 'p C Thk'NRC inspector' notedLthat SE's rejectio.n of.P0's imposition of the e 010 CFR Part~21Lreporting requirements frustrated the: licensee efforts 1 l .t 'b < ; 0.7

to comply?withLIO CFR:Part 21231, and that.the. licensee' activities >in.

.j thisfregard are subject'to review k Since SE's current practice with'

respect to accepting P0s invoking 101CFR Part 21 requirements is-m

'1 i n . adequate, theLinspector hasano furtherfconcerns in this' area.. L 7 t t o_. o t kj,(.[nl" 14 n"} Fin' dings of NRC Inspection! Report 9990387/84-01 n'

a.,C (Closed)a<-Nonconformance A - Trend Analysis j

+ y .n ..t- %f u y "gm ]3 'Fhis!nonc6nfohmancelidentifie'dafail'uretoimplement g;! T y commitments.made"lin response to a 1983.NRC inspection.. sa .,i ~ ' L &m . L s , yi ; f w ,HIn response:to Nonconformance items D-ahd F-from'NRC< Inspection 1 d 2 >L.', N '

Report 999900387/83601FSE connitted;in a:, letter dated Mayt18,,

wM f2 NA 9 q9 #. 1983,:to theLfo110 wing corrective' actions:h q l 3f s m ,x, n w(ImplementLa treYd'analysikinstructionlby MayL31,' 198'3.. ]; 7 b,/ v, J1)[ 4w vp L2). 3..n' Complete' personnel, training;onireassiNingsubissembliesto t 3 5. ;. i-( T. 3 '] $ toplieveL1Lassemblies by May. 31, 1983.;', j 3, s >4 fq h[,j htNnNi instruc N N as not imp 1'emen'ed'at the time ofithe. l t M 31984aNRClinspection~andithe trainingion subassembly-reassignment,,' @f' ,m,iwas1not' completed luntil1Septembert16,;1983'.; iIn a letter dated- & ', ilJulyc13, 1984L SEcindicated that theiriinterim trendingfactivi-? i 1 tiesthad;been superseded land'that SE was:using-Quality Assurance-1 pm '1N $fM: sProcedurel21-01 "" Statistical-Quality Control,"; Revision GL dated : .May'31W1990,N f$r! trendingiana' lysis.. J The 1984 mletter also: stated i 4 'l g$12 jg, Jrl that theisize of0the quality assurance staff was increased to.. U s L f assure < adequate tracking'of correctivetactioniconmitments.JThs) g; %

,. NRC: inspectors' had no; further concerns iin this : area;L therefore,I A

sthisiitem is closed Y x y - 8 R ( J. ..,:W-i q%. 4G + + ' -

bi: (Clos'ed)! Noncon'formance 'B' i.... Control'of EQ Activities:

.c~ ywj 'This,nonconformance identified four example's sere Qualification 6 1 H@Z 'ReportL(QR)E-254-960, dated May 1, 1981, failed to document-1 a ^ .. pertinent information;as required by Criterion V of 10 CFR 50, I w gp a s 'V (

' i-[

[. e t l q. y,, sv s .3" + \\g ,e# .y ,n w 1 l c lh f' f. ', ' ' l.. '9 g .-e b. r h ~%

e n

- -w: ~- ~

P @g,, " $ iN l Q, ytyp QSAMi y M P O ORGANIZATION: SORRENTO ELECTRONICS hRf 1 SUBSIDIARY OF GENERAL ATOMICS, INCORPORATED M' RAN nfran eat t rnnut a ~ .,9 Mk V hEPORT INSPECTION yW j N0.:L 99900387/90-01 RESULTS: 'PAGE 8 of 11 [Q h' Appendix B. During this inspection, the NRC inspectors reviewed "E SE's corrective action for all four examples listed below. 1) In the first example, discrepancy record sheets were not W"< signed off in all cases. Since the qualification report had W7 already been completed, SE could not change the original gg report. The entire discrepancy was signed off by both the g(gg; test operator and quality control inspector. ~ ML. j 2) In the second example, two hours of the loss-of-coolant t3 (LOCA).accidenttestweredeletedinQRE-254-960, without VM any documented evidence of approval of the test deletion. As corrective action, SE noted and justified the two hour 7 deletion in the discrepancy record. The NRC inspectors

S' verified that the test report from Wyle Laboratories

! s 4" included the actual conditions to which the radiation W 4 ' monitor was exposed. A licensee would use the actual data gf' for. evaluation of whether the HRRM was acceptable for their 4 application. g((% a 4 4-3) The dird example was that Appendix 8A of the qualification w ',. ' b= report did not document the aging temperatures for various hf components ~ 'ihe subject components were.part of the HRRM's ?! 'microprocesstr and readout modules and were intended to af l be located in the control room. Althoughthequalification @/@#. ' report summary did indicate that the equipment was aged at 105 degrees Centigrade, the data sheets did not state the W@'i: actual aging temperature. During the present inspection, SE 4 could not locate any additional records which could hp p, h, ' determine the actual temperature conditions. - m4 >; w Kb M ~ 4) 'The' final example was that SE's approach to test margin was Mf Z* not clearl - packages. y defined in their qualification report data i g4 A licensee using the qualification raport would

Q not depend on SE's treatment of margin, but would use the

$y actual test data and apply margins appropriate to the ^; 3 ' application when comparing with plant-specific conditions. I e As corrective action for this nonconformance, SE committed, in a m Qh letter, dated July.13, 1984, to issue an operating procedure to my E i

r.

WJ, 4 J.f y ,m1 .] h,

N

% 4..' "& W ;qf _ }. _ _ _

,cm~ m.m.c' *.. - m' , f% 'm bl* ,\\ h\\ jx ; L

-(.

+ ' f% + w~ 'i:, y ; 4, ,1 ,y +' i { em w ro - x n ,i, h- ', Pit 3')! [y g y," i ORGANIZATIONi 'SORRENTO ELECTRONIC b, 'l c. .p SUBSIDIARY OF GENERAL' ATOMICS, INCORPORATED

gjw, um nteen m s mm

) e 'A' ,1 REPORT. ~ iINSPECTION I 9 9., 99900387/90-01'- 'RESULTS: ' PAGE 9 of 11-NO.: s 6 (+ l g '1 ' '[dochmenttheirervironmentalqualificationprocess'bySeptember W E282 19F 'and toftrain affected personnel by October 19, 1984. i '#l[p k' >TheNRCiinspectorsresiewedO'eratingProchdure0P-7.3-110, L" Safety Palated Equipment-Que ification,"l Revision A,' dated y JAugust 2t,,r1985..which was developed based on this commitment.. 'D nThe procedure: essentially covers criteria from the " Guidelines y 1 t s @L ,<, 9 1for Evaluating Environmental Qualification of Class'1E Electrical, iEquipmentiin.0perating-Reactors? November 1979 (DOR; Guidelines). l (g ~ ' g W p The NRCrinspectors;also'.noted that SE did not~have any records of bgsuL personnel training'to'this procedure.,. j 9 "?I v ri 12 9l1 SThe DDR Guidelines:are: rendered obsolete by Paragraph 1.of-1 Nf2 M Wpf" S c10 CFR Parti 50.49 for.new: environmental qualification testing.s 1 i E - Since SEicontinues to rely on QR E-254-960 Procedure OP-7.3-110L M@ tis'notneededandnotfused.;andthe'lackob<documentedtraining ^ 4 @$ b '.T S futureiuseCSE also o"feredito'~ pdate OP-7.3-110 to address. d , y ;iin M ts usefisLofJ11ttle' consequence.1: Asia precaution, SE agreed i W to cancelsthe exis+ W revision of OP-7.3;110..For~possible- ", 9 M@1h4 1 u a Mw m >/JEcurrent:EQ? criteria.4The inspectors hadLno further. concerns;in-0- J fthislarealitherr'orep thistitem Hs closed.? ' ' j, .gg - sy 8 ~ x ,w pf ' # !c.7 '(Closed)!N6nconformance'C -, Test' Oven Data-y lp iS

] e%]~ < hh$hrevioukinspection!idehtNdd thatFcontrary/

. "4 o u ymg 4 kW s Jof;10CFR:Part:50PAppendix.BdtheShelton'LaboratoriesModel 0 5 [wg"y W J2040 test: oven lused\\for accelerated: thermal' aging tests.had no j s ( f provisionjfor documentingitemperaturefor time data.. ' q ,c w, ~r' t ~ M5/, . $ i)ueing Yplresenbinshstion, Ithe NRCL inspe A.orst determindd [that 'l ~ g # 5 and'a1 circular / strip" chart recorder.i aTheLinspeldigitalcreadout> d* 9 s Qa thejThermotron ovenicurrentlygin use ha'd both a <a6 ctors hadino;. N 4d O y Q further concernsfin3thisfarea;dtherefore,3thistitem is: closed. My ?%$ .. l l 36 " ' l ' : + Q '$ g ,I5. C/Findis F of: NRCElnspection, Report 99900387/87-019 y s '~

hd I L / M,.(Closed)' Viol $ tion - Eva'1uab on of 10 CFR Par't'21'Deviat' ionsb i

yy gA : spy M,a g: p?, z <n r nu a MiQThe? pre 0iousl inspect'ionLidentlfiedithat lSE had'nottassured that bd Mk & 5 }(The: inspection: cited an1 April. 29.1986; potentially' reportable 10;CFR: Part 21'. deviations were evaluated, f %r 7 deviation on.an'ESFAS. J; A*

4. 0.<> l component ~ asian examplee SEr t10. CFR Part 21? procedure was also -

s mv ( *' 1 .T Sl%>in ,s' L' + .t I', h ) <(gl%n 4 .l a CW, j h Qk3 ,j &4 L. n 'l , d.gwy> y g ki$g5 y sy Nk b -f:1 .\\ t .9 w & 4 3, b m :k h,rh a w....- . - - ~ x -- %~ I. , L.,1 i 4 y

W%M A f ' # k' 3'W - p' 1 'h __-=----a -- j f & ;, 4 : Qui Y L '": ' X u? 7;f f n M @ %.dyW'%wW ~v,- 4 sy. i ';9 M-. C s W M,LORG N SORRENTO ELECTRONICS". j%ca,%w %,ANIZATION: ( MSUBSIDIARY0FGENERALATOMICS, INCORPORATED. m m niran m tranata ?h g i%f E REPORTL " INSPECTION %i F!N0;::i99900387/90 RESULTS: PAGE 10 of 11 ,:d;w; g W .;11sted as-being= susceptible to an unintended interpretation that M Q MM p 3e W could: discourage workers from reporting potential deviations. m' gy s 'M N 1DuringLthe present.inspectionb the NRC inspectors' determined that p' %

ithe, requirements of?10 CFR Part 21 were properly addressed:in:

en' C O mrating Procedure:1.4-180. Revision A, dated December 1,'1988. S gg@' LTieLinspectors also.notedLthat a.new revision of the~ procedure - N@ h 4 (Revision..BdatedAugust15,1990).was11ntheTprocessofbeing r y*2, M issued 1to incorporate the October 31,Lverified that'the m 1989= revision of 10 CFR NQ

Part:21.q ' In addition,i the: inspectors rh requirements of.10: CfR ' Parti 21 wereLproperly: addressed in' Quality-

'a. -- F.E a .o

Assurance Procedure 22-01gdated March 8.-1987. -

y-my 1 p. m o [~ O @, ~lW~ MTheNRC".. inspectors verifisd!th'ai Quality Manua1LPart ii,'Section R" fgy %2'.7p required l quarterly review)of the quality: assurance program [f. ibylthe;QA' Director.OThis review; encompassed. external: end$ Tinternal au k"P fM@ F,a request l status, and other areasilikely'to! provide a useful backup. ,'.1 %[M$ h6 "M $ [$ ;oflthis' inspection report addresses aniadequate'10 CFR Part 21: check on the:10 AFR^ Part 211 procedures.. In addjtion, Se'ction E.1 = '7 L FS, + evaluation'.> LFinallyL the NRC inspector observed 1 adequate 10:CFR - 'M{ a! e ? \\ Q ;Part 21(; notices ont wo. bulletin boards.' LThe. inspectors:had no, y t ? #m %oys 4 i V sfurther concerns-in this area; therefore,7 thistitem is closed;- y p, m-.., o v 9 R M' QE 1bh T(Closed) Nonconfor' nance A - Subtier: Welder ' Qualifications-1., ..em.. s %W Jf s 4 Lh(B y%* ' s' 3. > h. ?T SE's Operating Procedure 9-01crequiredithatithe welder:qualifim r , cation sheets be reviewed and signediby a' welding engjneer or; % @l-y ed n% qualified welding; inspector;if the~ supplier's welding rocedures' gg gp (Jinspector.T The previous NRC: inspection; identified t y wereiverified;by;an" auditor who was not a-' qualified we$dingt I d4 sg% g,6p T which did not conformito this requirement. .m W x 4 - e,' n 'w'y m 9 3 9 i .,...s .,.4 L.t l,

Dds InLaAletter.,datedJulyi1471987/SE'statsd.thatla=_,a,.,m trix ofE W

ffl@jwelders and qualificationL data wassinitiateddn April:1987 andi., y I eF ahf shad'been updatedW Additionally; the NRC' inspector.was(informed i Ms $ 4 1 uring the presenttinspecti.on.that. all: SE : inspectors:were : a' pi d QM $g',iqualifiedweldinginspectors.1?TheNRClinspectorsLhad!nofurther< W MMC m ' concerns inithis area;itherefore, this'itemf s closed. 6: <R i z ,MW g f" b jf$$ = WEyN Qf& Q l q h$M, Nig ^ w w. ~ fil> i l1 r t m f ( cy

~,

} ' {b %sQ z f&g@g/ o M 4: s M 9 e .mn ,4 Mdn N IN [ "U { u L l

p. el f~ .~. __ _._ _. _. _ - _ _ _-- - _ e r 3, p fM.ib& lhl \\ WE "y* W,. s i yf t fEhM J N. .t T ~ (l g; r k.@imN M + ORGANIZATION: -SORRENTO' ELECTRONICS 1 p.f g y, p * . SUBS! DIARY OFiGENERAL-ATOMICS, INCORPORATED 4 "n< ur nrren em tmostr q y7 x j.:. 4 ggu lREPORTm n INSPECTION a se 'N0;:: 99900387/90-01; RESULTS: PAGE 11 ofill i v e '! M / u, ik T f$

c.

(Closed) N'onconformance B - Instructions for Assembly tML. n. ' [ Personnel o. .o. sm iE ,h i j {ir q[q ,f, L [ 1 g;& y' SE's: Qual.ity Assurance manual' required written" procedures for R "s,E g,' activities affecting-quality. yThe previous inspection identified 1 ghp@l%a ,that; approved written procedure did not exist forJa cable-J J ito-connector assembly operation.' =i wh i 6jQM E, iln'ailetteristed' July!!4'61987,:SE stated that an appropriate. 'l AN'

Procedure would belissued:on:the following: day and that manu-j E We M

(facturing' process specifications'and workmanship inspectionz

i pp dl;4:+qcriteria,would beladded to the scope of QC inspections q

~' Q; hup 1 auditsgrespecti.vely. :During the present inspection, the NRC. ay 9 Winspectors observed that. ass.ablytand QA! personnel used detailed A,. .QM f' V@' mfurther;concernsLin this areat therefore,cthis' item is closed..tinstructio'n eW h J Wom m: % n a M A; g 3 .,, E ! " <. <f QFV

F.o: Persons Contacted,

s. ,( fjh M J* I D.Ci Sa h Presidenti 1L j ~ I ~ %q ;'y W '.;* T N;J6 Porter,; Director.; Quality Assurance and Test v

[+ M.LiBlumeyer," General Manager.11ndustHal Products W

A 4*4 ~T;AF Moshenrose, Director, 0perations and. Engineering; ,y 4 y% W k, f :MServicesw t ,1 ' 4 .,y,,.s y

yJ.JL Thornton,1 Manager, QA Enginee' ring 'and. Test,

'A db, j f*t+4FGuinn,ManagersQuality: Controli. l l s. W 4 F4 6/J %*it D;P.yGieg er,LSenior Engineer;cIndustrial Produc'ts ? o $w. W +'RA Rimples Senior, Engineer,iIndustrialLProducts 'M T$g 'J ';

e *% 7M + H.; Weeks..Seniet QA Inspector; p, ;

W P. Newmanr Program Manager,{ Industrial Products 4 ? %M d p g_ k,J R.mGosselin',ComponentjEngineer,(EngineeringServices-- T 4 Y 4* s, ' d ;('

y f

y y y e M;w e age - ,., a g n *1 yAttended. entrance meeting on August 20,-1990. ' J( ' i k 9 L. 4 1+C LAttended exit 4meetingLon August 22,e1990._ W4 mrv s 4 4 sg g. R.;; U o' ';Utn i ' +, ~, 'i, t 4 s ') ,~ r ,,,b~' O 7,, s j-s QM:b, ' h' [ f @@g i i: Jt c sm y J 3 % ~. h)y ? s x )) h ( r + ;}S 3 i - } pl ., j Y M',,s% ,J 6m u ? M iw !( > i j[, [, ' h "d

;,4

,} g =n, ,a: a .g 3. m; V 5 W'. jb~i,di.,Z, [...,,;L

m. .y'p:n-p- . ::, './, r' nq q p p

9M 5 ' Document Name:T"',-

e , s W y; m4 J L. y $0RRENT0' ELECTRONICS REPORT 0 < m m m l o _.l '( mW , g W/ '{ -' 3 si jg s 4'., -[/. +j i t ( j be { ' g 1 i Requestor's!!D k ' 9 hw BRUNSON: ~ 1 }.xn e 8 y y:Ylk . e h sAuthor's1Name:' a B (* 9. J wilsonJdick oz s ~ { [. lg, 1. x .i + X /6 . Document Comments:i a g inspect,ionLrepo.rt for, docket no 9900387/90-01 dated 8/20-22; M~, a,, 1 l. E y ~~,e l qy..> i,,'. 4 p' f[ ' g g g. L i pe,f, j i, N95-5 +e f h ',' t 3 ,s s.- 5 QQ,9.g. t-i U ? , g.~~

~~,f f~~
~~2 h L )~~
~~1. }[;~~
~~t r 4,,. ( ' 4f l 'l e '-' I (4. ..-) y 3..w >p n ,t. A s. 3~~
~~x! y r)~~
,i - 4 4 i ^b A = ' ') b ',, ,if ..>4 ,4 W - ls - i s' as hyp., - / A e, .qu23 -t_- l o, b[ 7 I q 4 i M e' < f [h -. ) d 5 3 .-y<. n . I '~ i } < .W ,0a s ,",y , e J y6 I h t r g w +g h_f ,? ,'(.' +.,gi k '-. p' j.,.,, y p. h - W g "m -,,. ;- h c , ( -,ja t. 1.,y -+' - y 3.,A ( -\\ ' > iit - 1. 58-f'.. j / ' & T - p g e,,
~~f - ;~~
~~.-ji{ i Q( 4#*4, t= i4A }~~
~~M.,eL gj j~~
j) i.: p 7 3 '1 .[. h >[h k, 4 q';m. 7' {:- N,- p v i - s r y >..p y+ 'hQ-a. k s t 3 s $N[ kG? l< 'tpt' ? l c .4 '(' tb t', ( j w s fhf 7Y .p, 3 ,w w., -a m .. n l tC. i,f'.[ f,'- s m ,W 'M. 3, 'p ; 4.. ,,z e],U
~~i 5'l j.~~
~~_w:,~~
~~j li e~~
r L s -. f,t 4 .r . :j e ( $^ '-8 $s' v 4 gy r+ i a. t 5 1 yi / a q A Ni ) 'I 4 .}' ,5 /. U $ %"MM d< ' W. 0 M e a i ' f ; ;],,i A f.,M,.m. r- ' {W % n.f.I ( + .--g 4 i, ly [ y- - y: cu. .a q' ',h t. 1
5
~~,g q I Y\\ i be j. E 'J L &y ' >? n 4, s a, 3. f i ,.t -., j q, '~ ' - +' n;. u, - - Wpw 4 .~, ,.s g' g 3., s. t by g tr > i s i ? s 9_ 4 + i,,..o 3 b M'[ t~~
~~l[.I/O~~
~~.s' i 5 ie L. s ..'tfA g s. is 'c' b.,., hl wj - [ v ' $b h% #t" p(i 6 ' V' 4 'h,[ 9 '. [ f 't g: 1 .: 5, 's c;i \\.:,; ae~~
p<
~~E D,p,4_ k( \\b N $ 6~~
~
~~e' t-i 4, ?- P g 3 n g /. - q,!. 3 .Qt i9W< h' t ,'1. t n :@w,Ys -.. c. d{. = tf.. .k- -[t~~
~~f v s~~
O, t '3 My j '*
y :t G,%g. d 5 3L. 1 , - - -..~ ) I a .L
.,.e i-.-'

~~.f )7 I,- z i[ (, f\\ h +4 g-- b 3' IJkhE 5 ' $ p fQ' i, hp h i 4+.l g y~~

o#

~~s 1 nc, .- i . A j.. y A l 4,3,., O) ,.i(lf " )' l )'s, Y. s y 4 1~~

~~' I(j,~~

p.M.s[ i;y / Q '2 1 vWe n. -r-. - a t ..o"# $.1 ts%u s: 1l.)." b h 3.s.3'h ,' g j s t [,= k h. Y . : ;j a. g,,g ;{,' y g. g m i ?! ;' i 1. qh ~ c ,, e3 !;?;)g f-s- .c-a 3 f g 'I )y ) { gll ,r O 'i ? y t;. "5,.+. . p'- 1 M,@\\ :dU,NSe d,' ' Y. M. '.1 v> _v; .m i W [ 4.5 ; s +- S ',); r. , h,r. ' l } T 4 I I p+. p s-Z i+ 2 'A g j[g4 s < U a s C-u.s)O ,G ' 9 7, g i + t s.'; U L ".'1-

~~i 6 2~~

~~_4-, s j h,g e I i j t 4 g;.~~

~~k* 1 t'~~

~~.i 6 i. : $:~ s,:)% g g ~ ~ >, I '.,p ' _h l' 'l h, { $._c j,P 6 4 9~~

uv

.i.; .,$I..} [! 3 3 .b,t h g 8 ).Y,, }{l j s s. I .? I ws w. f u ( I.- g y-srypp,: n -7 N_)(O, $1(( I - , + v .y.q ; ~ ? f :$. Y,1,.e I e t y t-@"{fo . k -j + '( ).' h,'. hN I /,,,yS g j Q,w n : M3 ~ij \\ 7 3 .,. V P

~~-].~~

~~h, ; [j'~~

~~.1 ;~~

~~~$ $ 'z 3~~

}}

ML20058F517

Text

Dear,

Navigation menu

Search