ML20135E411

Notice of Violation from Insp on 960909-12. Violation Noted:Documented Test Results Failed to Be Approved by Engineering or Quality Assurance Personnel,Organization Chart Did Not Reflect Current Organizational Status

ML20135E411
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/04/1996
From:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20135E401	List: ML20135E411
References
REF-QA-99901303 99901303-96-01, 99901303-96-1, NUDOCS 9612110252
Download: ML20135E411 (2)

Text

L NOTICE OF NONCONFORMANCE Panalarm Division, AMETEK, Inc. Docket No.: 99901303 Skokie, Illinois Based on the results of an inspection conducted on September 9 through 12, 1996, it appears that certain of your activities were not conducted in accordance with NRC requirements.

Criterion I of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, " Organization," requires, in part, that the quality assurance functions shall verify that activities affecting safety have been correctly performed. The authority of persons performing activities aff--ting safety-related functions shall be clearly established and delineats .a writing. The persons performing quality assurance functions shall have sufficient authority and organizational freedom to identify quality problems.

A. Contrary to the above, Paragraph 12.6 of Section 12, " Test Control," of the "AMETEK, Inc., Panalarm Division Quality Assurance Manual," Document 900181, Revision 10, dated December 8, 1993, specifies that documented test results are approved by engineering and/or quality assurance.

Criterion I does not allow substitution of engineering for quality assurance review of final acceptance test results. (99901303/96-01-02)

B. Contrary to the above, the organization chart on page 3-2 of the "AMETEK, Inc., Panalarm Division Quality Assurance Manual," Document 900181, Revision 10, dated December 8,1993, does not reflect the current organizational status of quality assurance. Furthermore, procedures such as Quality Control Procedure QC-76-47, " Training of Test and Inspection Personnel," dated April 25, 1986, referred to the QC supervisor and QC department, whereas the quality assurance manager stated that reference to his position was ii. tended. (99901303/96-01-03)

C. Contrary to the above, the Panalarm inspector performing the final acceptance testing for safety-related temperature switch modules reported to a production supervisor, so that there was no independent quality assurance verification of the testing. (99901303/96-01-04)

Please provide a wr'tten statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555, with a copy to the thief, Special Inspection Branch, Division of Inspection and Support Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Nonconformance. This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Nonconformance" and should include for each nonconformance: (1) a description of steps that have been or Enclosure 2 9612110252 961204 PDR GA999 ENVAMET 99901303 PDR

., ,o will be taken to correct these items; (2) a description of steps that have been or will be taken to prevent recurrence; and (3) the dates your corrective actions and preventive measures were or will be completed.

l l

l Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 4th day of November, 1996.

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _