ML20215G845
| ML20215G845 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/16/1987 |
| From: | Petrosino J, Stone J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215G807 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900387 NUDOCS 8706230409 | |
| Download: ML20215G845 (8) | |
Text
.
ORGANIZATION: SORRENTO ELECTRONICS SAN DIEG0, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION INSPECTION NO.: 99900387/87-01 DATES: March 16-20. 1987 ON-STTF HnifR9-En CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS:
Sorrento Electronics Division of GA Technologies Incorporated ATTN: Mr. I. Bijarchi President and General fianager P. O. Box 269025 San Diego, California 92116 ORGANIZATIONAL CONTACT: Mr. M. L. Jones - QA Director TELEPHONE NUMBER:
(619) 4E7 RR13 NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ACTIVITY: Sorrento Electronics' current activities are the design, engineering, and manufacturing of radiological monitoring systems.
ASSIGNED INSPECTOR: k 6//MP7 J. J. Fetrosino, Program Development and Reactive Date InspectionSection(PDRIS)
OTHERINSPECTOR(S):
F. Victor, Brookhaven National Laboratory
/G/h APPROVED BY:
Jam 95 C. Stone, Chief. PDRIS, Vendor Inspection Branch Date INSPECTION BASES AND SCOPE:
A.
BASES: Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 21.
B.
SCOPE: This inspection was conducted to: (1) Verify QA program implementation, and (2) review a potentially reportable 10 CFR 21 issue that concerned an engineered safety feature actuation system deviation at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS).
PLANT SITE APPLICABILITY: HopeCreek(50-354);PaloVerde(50-528/529/530);
and South Texas (50-498/499).
i
$$852ggg glggin 99900387 PDR l
bRGANIZATION: SORRENTO ELECTRONICS SAN DIEG0, CALIFORNIA i
REPORT INSPECTION wn.
ooonntn7/97.n1 R FStil TS -
PAGF 2 of A A.
VIOLATIONS:
1 1.
Contrary to Section 21.21, " Notification of Failure to Comply or Existence of a Defect," of 10 CFR Part 21, Sorrento Electronics (SE) i has not adopted procedures that adequately assure that 10 CFR Part 21 potentially reportable deviations are evaluated and dispositioned as required. As a resu??, SE failed to perform its required evaluation of deviations that were discovered on April 29, 1986 in the engineered safety features actuation system (ESFAS) panels that were fabricated by SE aad supplied to the PVNGS facility (87-01-01).
B.
NONCONFORMANCES:
1.
Contrary to Criterion V, " Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings,"
of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, and SE's QA procedure number 9-01, l
" Verification of Special Process Controls," three out of the four I
sub-tier vendor welder qualification records that were reviewed did not indicate that the required SE auditor verification activities l
had been performed as required (87-01-02).
l l
2.
Contrary to Criterion V, " Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings,"
of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, and Section 5 of the SE Quality Assurance Manual (QAM), " Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings,"
SE failed to provide approved instructions to assembly personnel that were preparing coaxial cable ends and installing on the coaxial cable MHV type electrical connectors for use in SE's RD53 radiation monitoring systems detectors (87-01-03).
C.
UNRESOLVED ITEMS:
During the next NRC inspection a review will be performed to evalute SE's determination of the root cause of the issues discussed in Section E.3 and i
l E.6 of this report.
(87-01-04/05)
D.
STATUS OF PREVIOUS INSPECTION FINDINGS:
During this inspection we did not review any SE corrective actions that were implemented in response to the previous NRC inspection report Number 99900387/84-01. The SE corrective action will be reviewed during a future NRC inspection.
I
bRGANIZATION: SORRENTO ELECTRONICS SAN DIEG0, CALIFORNIA 1
REPORT INSPECTION ooonntp7/R7.01 RFSulTS-PAGE 3 cf 8 NA E.
OTHER FINDINGS OR COMMENTS:
1.
10 CFR Part 21 The SE 10 CFR Part 21 procedure was reviewed to determine its adequacy to provide compliance with the 10 CFR Part 21 evaluation and reporting requirements.
In addition, the implementation of the 10 CFR Part 21.6 posting requirements were evaluated by inspecting the manufacturing areas at SE for compliance.
Discussions were conducted to determine how SE assures that potentially reportable deviations are evaluated.
It was determined that SE has complied with its 10 CFR Part 21 posting requirements, and the SE procedure provides adequate reporting and notification clarity. However, two aspects of the SE 10 CFR Part 21 procedure did not assure that the intent of our regulations were implemented.
(a) One violation was identified because SE failed to assure that its potentially reportable deviations are evaluated (see Violation 87-01-01). This was evidenced by one example where SE failed to perform its required evaluation of an April 29, 1986 engineeredsafetyfeaturesactuationsystem(ESFAS) component deviation at PVNGS.
(b) The second area of concern was that the 10 CFR Part 21 procedure adapted by SE was open to an incorrect interpretation by SE cmployees. The procedure could be interpreted such that before an SE employee could report a deviation to. supervision a
" substantial safety-hazard" evaluation would have to be performed.
This potential interpretation could discourage the SE workers from reporting deviations to supervisor for their review. The SE management recognizes that a weakness exists in this area, and has stated it was not the intent of SE to place any such restrictions on its employees.
Sorrento Electronics had previously discussed the possibility of revising their 10 CFR Part 21 procedures.
Since the NRC 1
inspector identified the interpretation and clarity concerns, SE has committed to review and revise their 10 CFR Part 21 procedure and posting notice.
1 2.
QA Program Implementation Several inspections were performed in the SE production floor areas I
to evaluate the QA program implementation.
However, during this l
l
RGANIZATION:
SORRENTO ELECTRONICS SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION wn - oconn197/A7.n1 RESULTS:
PAGE 4 of 8 i
inspection, few SE safety-related work activities were being performed; therefore, it could not be determined how well SE was implementing its QA program at this time.
Currently, SE is establishing a new production manufacturing facility in Mexico.
Nevertheless, the following areas and processes were inspected eventhough the work activity was low.
i (a) Coaxial cable end preparation activities were observed to
)
evaluate if qualitative and quantitative criteria were being adequately controlled during in-process work activities.
Adequate controls were in place and were complied with in this area except for one aspect.
Nonconformance 87-01-03 was identified in regard to not providing approved instructions for installation of an MHV electrical connector.
It was observed that a worker who was preparing coaxial cable ends for electrical connector installations was not using any written instructions or technical sheets for cable end preparation. When asked for the instructions being used for this operation, the worker provided the NRC inspector with a vendor technical paper that indicated it was not to be used for fabrication. Therefore, at this work station, SE had not provided approved instructions.
(b) Audits and Surveys conducted by SE were reviewed. A three year audit schedule has been established and implemented for outside audits. Additionally, the internal audit schedule was reviewed, and found to be in compliance with the SE QAM. However, during this review Nonconformance 87-01-02 was identified.
9-01, paragraph 5.3.1, states, "When supplier audits are performed per contract to assure control of special processes, the auditor shall verify and document that qualified personnel, equipment, and procedures are used." On those occasions when welding procedures are verified by an auditor who is not a j
qualified welding inspector, the welder qualification sheets J
are initially reviewed and signed by a welding engineer or i
qualified welding inspector and then verified and signed by the auditor.
In three of four such records examined there was no documentation (i.e., countersignature) to substantiate that the qualification sheets had been reviewed by a qualified welding inspector, or welding engineer.
(c) Special processes - conformal coating and wave soldering areas.
Conformal coating is applied in accordance with SE Manufacturing Process Specification (MPS) 00007013. Several circuit boards were in the process of being coated and were witnessed by the
'l
ORGANIZATION: S0RRENTO ELECTRONICS SAN DIEG0, CALIFORNIA i
REPORT INSPECTION rn. ooonntn7/A7_n1 RESULTS:
PAGE 5 of 8 NRC inspector.
Procedures were available, and in use in the work place. Acceptance criteria are listed in MPS 00007013 l
and are checked by Quality Control inspectors in accordance s
with Quality Control Instruction 207.
Final inspection results l
are recorded on the final inspection sheets for each circuit board.
In addition to the final inspection, periodic surveillances are conducted by Quality Control Inspectors on a random basis.
Four of the most recent surveillance records were reviewed. Qualification records for one employee who was operating the conformal coating machine, and his supervisor, were examined and found to be current.
Another special process, wave soldering, was also observed.
This operation was conducted by one operator, and assisted by his supervisor. Both the operator and his supervisor had current qualification documentation. The wave soldering was accomplished in accordance with MPS 00007019. Procedures were present in the work place and in use. The operator exhibited an adequate knowledge and understanding of the procedure. No nonconformances were noted in special process operations.
(d) Nonconforming parts, material and components - Nonconfonning material is handled in accordance with Quality Control Instruction 509. When nonconforming material reports (NMR) are filled out they become part of the routing package for each subassembly.
Each NMR is listed on the Master Routing List (traveler) for resolution before a particular point in the manufacturing sequence.
Fabrication of the subassembly cannot proceed until the NMR is satisfactorily dispositioned or a management decision is made to carry the NMR on to the next sequence.
Each action is documented on the traveler.
Nonconforming material is tagged and segregated into locked bins until properly dispositioned. No nonconformances were observed in handling nonconforming material.
(e) Testing - The testing of one ATP-High Range Area Monitor Readout Module was witnessed. The test was conducted in accordance l
with drawing 02181-0445, which outlines the test procedure. No nonconformances were observed during the test.
(f) Qualification and training records were reviewed for eight Sorrento Electronics personnel. No nonconformances were noted and the records were easily retrievable.
l
ORGANIZATION: SORRENTO ELECTRONICS SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION wn - ooonn197/n7_n1 RFstit TS-PAGE 6 of 8 3.
Palo Verde ESFAS Cabinet Problem On April 28, 1986, the PVNGS Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) load sequencer panel failed to initiate a particular sequence of automatic.
actions including EDG start due to deficient internal vendor wiring.
On April 29, 1986, the licensee initiated an inspection of vendor wiring and components in several electrical enclosures.
During the inspection it was discovered that the AMP brand multiple-pin electrical connector assemblies used in the balance-o/-plant (B0P) ESFAS control circuits had inadequate pin engagement. The licensee determined that the inadequate pin engagement could cause an open circuit when the connector assemblies are moved. Further inspection revealed several other vendor workmenship problems.
For a complete understanding of this issue, the NRC inspector contacted PVNGS personnel and AMP representatives in addition to SE representatives.
It appears that an inadequate connector application review by SE during the design phase was probably the cause for the incorrect connector pin length. However, it appears that inadequate control by SE of its fabrication work activities at one point in time was another cause. This perception is based in part on the following deviations that were discovered:
(a) April 10,1986, EDG load sequencer cabinets - A 10 CFR Part 21 report was submitted by SE. The issue involved an improper transistor grounding problem in the cabinets; (b) April 28, 1986, EDG load sequencer cabinets - Problems were discovered with SE installed internal control circuit wiring.
The deviations caused a loss of power initiation when internal wires were " jiggled;" and (c) April 29, 1986, ESFAS cabinets - Inadequate connector assembly multi-pin engagement length, internal vendor wiring inadequacies, and miscellaneous electrical and mechanical workmanship problems.
This is considered an unresolved item pending SE's identification and NRC's review of the root cause of these deficiencies and whether other nuclear power plants may be affected.
4.
Component Subassembly Fabrication During the inspection it was learned that SE purchases and receives certain raw materials and components at its San Diego Facility and then packages the material into manufacturing kits. The kits are then transferred to CIMEX, a sub-division of SE that is located in I
~
ORGANIZATION: SORRENTO ELECTRONICS SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 4
REPORT INSPECTION 0000n997/97 01 RFSulTS:
PAGF 7 of P MO Tijuana, Mexico, for subassembly and component fabrication. After fabrication, the completed product is returned to SE, San Diego, for final inspection and testing.
5.
Prior SE Management Commitments The SE President and General Manager previously committed to the NRC that an improved quality assurance awareness program would be established and carried out.
Sorrento Electronics has established such a program, and it provides company wide periodic briefings to indoctrinate and reiterate the SE quality program to its employees.
6.
Radiation Monitor Coaxial Cable 10 CFR Part 21 Report Recently, SE notified the Comission of an inadequate coaxial cable dielectric insulation value for its design application use with SE's radiological monitoring system ion chambers. Brief discussions were conducted with SE staff and the NRC inspector expressed his concern that the issue appears to be an SE design problem rather than a coaxial cable application problem. The NRC will continue to follow SE actions as the evaluation progresses.
~ '
F.
PERSONS CONTACTED:
Name Organization
- M. L. Jones, QA Director Sorrento Electronics C. Fisher, Project Manager GA Technologies
- N. Porter, QA Manager Sorrento Electronics J. Bakelarski, QAE Sorrento Electronics E. McCoy, QAE Sorrento Electronics
- J. Couris, QC Manager Sorrento Electronics G. L. Logan, Logistics Manager Sorrento Electronics D. Koutahi, Purchasing Manager Sorrento Electronics G. Keeton, Buyer Sorrento Electronics S. Lupan, Engineer Sorrento Electronics
- S. G. Lewis, Logostics Director Sorrento Electronics
- T. A. Moshenrose, Programs Director Sorrento Electronics
- D. C. Nay, Engineering Director Sorrento Electronics
- C. R. Phipps, Operations Director Sorrento Electronics P. Petiford, Resident DCASA US D0D B. Grey, QAE Sorrento Electronics
- Attended exit meeting.
ORGANIZATf0N: SORRENTO ELECTRONICS SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA j
REPORT INSPECTION wn - ocenntn7/97_n1 RESULTS:
PAGE 8 of 8 Name Organization M. Chamberland, Fabricator Sorrento Electronics S. Oliver, Test Sorrento Electronics R. Newton, QA/QC Sorrento Electronics J. Malone, Test Sorrento Electronics F. McCord, QAE Sorrento Electronics R. Treat, Operator Sorrento Electronics J. Carstensen, Auditor Sorrento Electronics
- Attended Exit Meeting.
i 1
)
,