ML20211F031
| ML20211F031 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/26/1997 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211E990 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99901320 99901320-97-01, 99901320-97-1, NUDOCS 9709300332 | |
| Download: ML20211F031 (1) | |
Text
.
NOTICE OF NONCONFORMANCE NUS Instruments, Inc.
Docket No. 99901320 Idaho Falls, Idaho Based on the results of an inspection conducted on August 19 through 21,1997, it appears that certain of your activities were not conducted in accordance with NRC requirements.
A.
Criterion XVI, " Corrective Action," of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, requires, in part, that for signincant conditions adverse to quality, measures will be established to assure that the cause of the condition is determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition. The identincation of the signiGcant condition adverse to quality, the cause of the condition, and the corrective action taken shall be documented and reported to appropriate levels of mnnagement.
Section 16 of the NUS Intruments, Inc.,(NUS) Quality Assurance manual, " Corrective Action," Fifth issue, Revision 0, dated September,1994, requires the prompt identincation, documentation, and correction of conditions adverse to quality and, in the case of signi6 cant conditions adverse to quality, documentation of corrective actions to preclude recurrence.
Contrary to the above, (1) NUS did not adequately document the corrective actions taken in response to the identined occurrences ofinadequate soldering on modules manufactured and provided to Public Service Gas & Electric in the July 1995 to July 1996 time period, and (2) NUS did not take prompt corrective action following the identiScation ofless than acceptable work quality in the area of Quality Control inspection in July of 1996, for signi6 cant conditions adverse to quality.
(Nonconformance 99901320/97-01-0l)
Please provide a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, \\"mhington, D.C. 20555, with a copy to the Chief, Quality Assurance, Vendor inspection, and Maintenance Branch, Division of Reactor Controls and liuman Factors, Omce 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 Nonconfornance" and should include for each Nonconformance: (1) the reason for the nonconformance, or if contested, the basis for disputing the nonconformance, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid fudher noncompliances, and (4) the date when your corrective action will be completed. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.
Dated at Rockv! tic, Maryland this 20"- day of $aoMer 1997 Enclosure i 1
9709300332 970926 I
PDR QA999 EPfVe****
f 9'J901320 PDR
[
-