ML20215E984
| ML20215E984 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/11/1978 |
| From: | MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214X072 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8610160042 | |
| Download: ML20215E984 (6) | |
Text
uz.:w::
i
~.
GITIQUE OF THE THIRO AlmuAL MANAGDitNT AUDIT' CONOUCTED FOR THE 8R01m & 2007. INC...
QUALITY A$$URANCE P24AGEMENT REY!EW BCAAD l
.[S
- O
~
JLR.Y 11,1978 Gv 1
vanswamusc: mar iaeausas m umcuama e 8610160042 860922 PDR ADOCK 05000445 PDR 0184598
g.dl fy s.
I s
51 MARY The third annual raSage=nt audit of the Brown & Root Power Division Quality Anurance Program has conducted during a three-week period starti'ng June 5 I
1973. The team was led by Alfred Geister. Orm.n & Root Iicensing. In accordance-with Brewn & Root policy, most of the teas 1 mendaers were Brona &
As a variance to past years tise team was led of a Brown &
Root employees.
,ltoot. eueloyees rather than a consultant. Except for rte. Geisler and Mr. JJ1.
horris Management 441ysis Company, who served as a tra's scriber and advisor.
tne majority of t*e tears =*r.ters had no nuclear quality assurance auditing
[
l e.perience.
Frice to the audit, aft new ' team mort:e'rs had att.ded a t.n-fay training 4jr The tests unsters perfurved !!M a hign level M
p*:7ra::: in auditiai.te:hniq es.
v
~
y
- f co petence and do.3nst-ated incressed girnfictency as ttwy 52:r.e4 vsoer1ce.cc 4
g
- :n credit ruast t2 given tc t*:e seit: tion cf the tear-
,p d -ing the audit.
e ::ers, tMeir tr*tf t't; and instra:ticn and to t e t*:t.idas's ther.selves f:r their ctrpettr.t ;erf 5r ante.
.' em=
' Tie est*ed of usia; T.rv n 4 Root perscanel as t " v t eas a. 3 as team leader jfQ C
nas ierit in provt.Sc.g an effective twus of fs-111 Art:ite) I'r:st & Root ser-ta'.nel with the rewarc'ent: for, and of. the cuality assueae :c ;cograe't 9:sescr. the efft:ita:/ Of t te audit to'sid cess'. *j :.e 1 t'ro.0 !./.t111:ia; ht*; ee cerre-ta e *
- th 4 Miters.:it% rervie 8 1.*St eve:<***:e.
It me.! t 4
t,..
.e. t s
,. :
- s.-.
While tre aatst deficiencies reported.:alJ -:t nect:starily increase f.
- rsarar:.
in validity, the see* pressure of the various r.1.ar's "igit well foece and
)F earedits action to c:rrect tieficiencies. One of trw significart observations
]
rotative to past autits is t%e lack of promet effectise cor*c:tive action on I
The fatture da'iciencies, identified W Scows & Pect internal and %% a#?*.s.
I to triplement corre:*:<* acties way R partly the sesults of catiouwess deselered
'ro= being subjects: to an escessive n.s+er of su tit'.. Wat it a. rears also to
~
te the result of onis nerfunctney efforts to obtains positive. reasingful cor-rective action. In sew instances past audit oeficic <1es were resolved by m ile such teleting a require-e'st cat?:er than chtaining te stia.e uits it.
action my be valid in seine instances. it can also cesatt in the loss of essantial controls.
C' Incs 0184599 I
ll k Y
]
- - =. _
_m.----.____
mv.,n - n..g mx,e p.. s..m,......y..g.,gm.
.Q.;
5.._gg.
- I*
i Based on prior audits, the QAMRS should justify its rejection of any audit
[.
tram's identified deficiencies and should identify and implement alternative
- g' corrective measures. Some of the problems identified in the first and second QANIS manage #ent audits still persist. and should be coi..uid by means acceptable to the QAMRS. 'The lack of correction of identified problems has the effect of indicating to'the auditors that their auditing efforts may
~
be futile. Esplanation of the QAMR8's position in not causing correct'ive action in some cases may help the auditors understand idiy certain corrective.
actions could not or should not have been taken.
Ittpcat The following report is organized in parallel to-the requiresents of A!:31 N45.2.12.1977.
T31 1
9 5-personnel The experience and qualifications of personnel selected for the third annual
[
audit of the QAM*5 =tre excellent. The following suggestions are made to possibly achieve further iserovement.
g Team Leader _
Mr. A. Geisler uds an. effective team leader and has the'ssierience of f
having participated in prior QaMR8 audits. At:51 N45.2.23 has now reached consensus and has been published. It will be desirable in future audits.
to assure that the team leader meets the requirerent of that document relative to a ditino eseerie.te.
Ilhile not intem:ing t: reter tu-leacer quattina'.lons to a nursers gare. it siget be desiratte to trea:
the audits of the Houston office. and the project sites as separate audits.
It will be incertant to continue to recognize in future audits tne need for prior audit}esperience in selecting team leaders.
4 Training
,g i
Team members performed escellently, particularly considering their lack
(
of prior audit esperience and limited training time. leiere team smeers s
i lack prior aadting experience the training program could be espanded
,h i.
to include:
oss4so I
L.
~ -. -
.v.. r -.
. ; e.:... y -
- ;. g ;;., 3...
..,. ;_4 =,
2-;y.
.c
..w n
,,.~c.yme.a:cNs.m.w&e s. : w.~~ r >>u 19 wen:wW m w" m+MA"W 'W%" ".W. Y 3
s i
\\
g i
1
- a. _More fami11arity with requirements documents including ANSI
[,
docuents.
w..
b.
Practice sessions la forming audit qJestions and preparing checklists from requirements docuents.
Practics sessions is preparing audit deficiency reports.,'
c.
including succinct statements of ressirements and observations.
Audit System Objectives The scope of the audit as defined by the team leader was good. It is su,;ested that future audits include more attention to tre results of prior audits.
[
9 attendant corrective action, and the basis for CA9.3 rejection of past audit O
findings or recomended corrective actions. Sacar information would be helpful.
in better fixing the scope of the QAMRB audits and possibly direct more atten.
g-d' tion to either sutstantiating prior findings er sutstantiating that corrective M'
p.
arasures were not required.
Audit planning
- D.,..
The audit plan developed by the team leader was satisfactory for information i.~
~
?'
to the audited organi:ation and for guidance of sne. teen mereers. Within each assignment the tear nueers 11tewise need to develop a plan in order to pace their werk. They need to be monitored for adherence to the overall plan and corrective measures ne:essary to meintain the test of the aadit.
Audit scheduline The QAMRS audit fully satisfies the regoirements of Para. 3.5.2 of #G M5.2.12 h
relitive to scheduling. Neuever it is apparent snat additional internal audits g
should be taplemented relative to carrective actitm on identified audit j
f deficiencies.
b.
.3.~,
_ Audit isolementatioe The plan for the third annual Q25tB audit of the $romm 8.Roct Pomer Division's
)
Quality Assurance was adequate in all respects, tut'three:
s a
f a.
The audit checklist format used by Br:.n 8 anot is too constraining L. i 0184801
?--
.w..
4 M
y i
requirement documeests and a clear statement. of the requiresent,#
j being audited.
.;,.i b.
tait inteniews of audited organizations apparently did not identify l
the meseers of the audited organf ration that the team leader es.
pacted to attend. For example. the Site Quality Assurance Manager
~
of the STP Pro, ject did not attend the site exit interview because he tes attending.a staff meeting in Houston. The 0 Nets audit is of sufficient importance to require his attendience and meeting conflicts i
should have been resolved before the emit interview.
i c.
1.
The site exit intenieu did not resolve misunderstand 1ags.
g instead, same of the audited orga=12ations stated that they g
maald await receipt of the report prior to comenting on
.)
J I~
findings of the audit.
j 5.
g 2.
Tners was insufficient time allotted to the sait interview 4
to provide resolution of the considera 1e verser of ADR's ritten.
a u
s
~
- c..:%
3.
The various team mesters presente: their fia: dings rather than
%Ki the tea = leader..There are advantages. and afsadvantages in tnis, but I believe the better rietest is fc-tne teen leader to present the findings and for t*e tes- =t :tes te provide
- .s.6...e, a:, f,,ing o tati.
f..:.i. ; t o
,:vrt are e;.4.i, aa:st at presenting findings.
d.
Sosa, someers of the audited organizatier did not aspear to recognize the Neudit as a *real" audit. but viewed it e-ly as a preparatory audit for the ASPE Survey Team.
g Repor_ ting 4
The audit report has been partially drafted at tris writing. Adherence to the requirements of the Broen & Root proce&res for natits reVres the preparation of an excessively bulky report. For esample. the trescribed report m quires inclusion of ADRs and checklists in the report.
It is rec runded that a 01848-3
y-...
,...-..,,..,,.. ;..,., y y.,.,, w.,.,,,.,,4.:,., ;.
t 5-4 single set of c%cklists be provided for reference by the QAMR8 and to be f
I sled with the audit report. It should be _ unnecessary for each QAMRS mester 1
to have a separate set of checklists. Further. while the individual ADRs
~
pmvide a convertient means of closing out open reg.tretrants for corrective action, they sno.;1d be used for that purpose only a it not as a redandant reporting method within the Audit Report. The res:M to the QAMR8 should combine evidence af related problems into a relati.aly few number of probles-areas requiring " N attention and corrective acti 9 by the audited organization.
l
.N t i%.
\\u 1
I g
s.
r 1
- ~
P i
l 1
l E
0164603
^
V d
.e*ep
~
my*"*'.
- 'g g,
'-,= -
)
p s
N
_.s.,
,_