ML20215N566
| ML20215N566 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/16/1986 |
| From: | Merschoff E, Petrosino J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215N560 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900296 NUDOCS 8611060356 | |
| Download: ML20215N566 (17) | |
Text
.
ORGANIZATION: THE AMERACE CORPORATION UNION, NEW JERSEY INSPECTION INSPECTION REPORT NO.: 99900296/86-01 DATES: 8/25-29/86 ON-SITE HOURS: 85 CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: The Amerace Corporation Control Products Division ATTN: Mr. H. Schulte, Vice-President and General Manager 1065 Floral f. venue Union, New Jersey 07083 ORGANIZATIONAL CONTACT: Mr. Joseph Ferguson, QA Manager TELEPHONE NUMBER: (201) 289-8200 1
NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ACTIVITY: The Amerace Corporation manufactures and distributes Agastat E-7000 series timing, magnetic latching and general purpose relays, and Buchanan terminal blocks for the nuclear industry.
l I
A 1 ASSIGNED INSPECTOR: fw , /
Me 4
. Jf f trosirTo, Reactive Inspection Section, (RIS)
OTHER INSPECTOR (S): E. Yachimiak, RIS '
D. King Progra o nation Section APPROVED BY: .
/ofhrc E. W.'Merschoff, Ch RIS, Vendor Program Branch Date INSPECTION BASES AND SCOPE:
A. BASES: Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 21.
B. SCOPE: 1) Verify QA program implementation as a followup of a recent U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) safety system modification inspection at the Dresden nuclear power plant. 2) Followup of a USNRC inspection at Control Products Corporation that identified a potential i 10 CFR Part 21 violation at the Amerace Corporation. l PLANT SITE APPLICABILITY: All nuclear power stations that use Agastat electrical control relay series E-7000, EGP, ETR or EML.
8611060356 861027 00$99 El1VA
s ORGANIZATION: THE AMERACE CORPORATION UNION, NEW JERSEY REPORT INSPECTION RESULTS: PAGE 2 of 14 N0.: 99900296/86-01 A. VIOLATIONS:
Contrary to Section 21.31, " Procurement Documents," of 10 CFR Part 21, the Anerace Corporation Control Products Division (CPD) failed to impose the provisions of 10 CFR Part 21 on the Control Products Corporation of Graf ton, Wisconsin during the period of June 3,1985 until June 29, 1986. The Control Products Corporation manufactures nuclear grade Agastat relay series EGP, ETR, and EML for the Amerace Corporation (86-01-01).
B. NONCONFORMANCES:
- 1. Contrary to Criterion I, " Organization," of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, the CPD ouality assurance (QA) manager and the QA/QC !
l organization lack sufficient authority and organizational freedom to identify quality problems, and are not independent from production l cost and schedule considerations. The QA manager reports to the production facility manager, which does not assure that effective execution of the QA program will be performed as required (86-01-02).
- 2. Contrary to Criterion III, " Design Control," of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, CPD failed to adequately translate several design drawing requirements for its Agastat E-7000 series relays into inspection l characteri: tics to assure that the design parameters were within tolerances. Specifict.11y (86-01-03):
- a. CPD failed to translate screw design torque parameters for the Agastat relay assembly into inspection verification attributes to assure that the minimum torque values are reached and that the maximum torque values are not exceeded.
- b. CPD failed to translate several required dimensional charac-teristics from CPD engineering change notice number 083924 onto CPD quality control (QC) inspection verification documents to assure that the safety-related components complied with the design requirements.
- 3. Contrary to Criterion V, " Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings," of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, and Section 1.3, of the CPD QA Manual, CPD failed to establish quality control inspection procedures or instructions for receipt inspection and in-process inspection activities for the Agastat E-7000 series relays (86-01-04).
s ORGANIZATION: THE AMERACE CORPORATION UNION, NEW JERSEY REPORT INSPECTION RESULTS: PAGE 3 of 14 N0.: 99900296/86-01
- 4. Contrary to Criterion VI, " Document Control," of Appendix B to 10 CFP ,
Part 50, and Section 13, of the CPD OA Manual, as of August 29, 1986 !
(86-01-05): l
- a. CPD failed to assure that the QC inspection department super-visor prepared the material receipt inspection checklists.
- b. CPD QA/QC management failed to review and approve QC material '
receipt inspection checklists that were prepared by the receipt inspection QC inspectors who performed the inspections. I
- 5. Contrary to Criterion VII, " Control of Purchased Material, Equipment, and Services," of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, CPD procured the calibration services of a vendor who was not on its approved vendors list. The unapproved vendor was the Sheffield Measurement Division of the Warner and Swassey Company (SMD). SMD calibrated the CPD's receipt inspection departments Cordax 1000 dimensional measurement machine (86-01-06).
- 6. Contrary to Criterion X, " Inspection," of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, and Sections 5 and 6, " Receiving Inspection" and "In-Process Inspection," of the CPD QA Manual, CPD failed to adequately establish and execute certain quality inspection activities. Specifically (86-01-07):
- a. Two examples were noted where QC receipt inspection personnel verified only a portion of the stated QC inspection lot popu-lation for certain characteristics.
- b. Written QC instructions were not established for the QC receipt inspection and in-process Agastat relay QC it.spection personnel as required.
- c. CPD route sheets (" Travelers") were not established and trans-mitted to the QC in-process' inspection personne! for the Agastat E-7000 series work activities. The CPD route sheets are
" travelers" to record the in-process QC inspectors signature and date of work activity. verifications.
- d. Final QC inspection practices did not assure that the quality records were completed. As an example, the required route sheets were not completed but the nuclear orders were still signed off as being in compliance.
s ORGANIZATION: THE AMERACE CORPORATION UNION, NEW JERSEY REPORT INSPECTION N0.: 99900296/86-01 RESULTS: PAGE 4 of 14
- 7. Contrary to Criterion XII, " Control of Measuring and Test Equipment (M&TE)," of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, CPD failed to adequately' control its measuring and test equipment as evidenced by the NRC inspector finding 17 out of 32 M&TE items that were either not con-trolled or were out of calibration (86-01-08).
- 8. Contrary to Criterion XV, " Nonconforming Materials, Parts, or Components," of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and Section 9, " Control of Nonconforming Materials," of the CPD QA Manual, CPD failed to control 7,800 out of 68,500 defective Agastat E-7000 contact arm assemblies (Part Number 32356-01). Three CPD defective material reports (DMR) were written to control a total of approximately 60,660 contact arm assemblies, but approximately 7,800 of these were not controlled to prevent their inadvertent use. Additionally, the three DMR's were not written until 9/20/85, and the nonconformance was first noted on 1/20/85 (86-01-09).
- 9. Contrary to Criterion XVIII, " Audits," of Appendix B to 10 CFR -
Part 50, CPD has failed to establish a planned system of periodic dudits to verify its QA program implementation and effectiveness (86-01-10).
C. UNRESOLVED ITEMS: J None.
D. STATUS OF PREVIOUS INSPECTION FINDINGS:
This was the first NRC inspection that was performed at this Agastat 7000 series relay facility.
E. OTHER FINDINGS OR COMMENTS:
- 1. 10 CFR Part 21.
The CPD 10 CFR Part 21 procedure was reviewed for its adequacy to provide compliance with 10 CFR Part 21 reporting requirements. In addition, the procedural implementation of the 10 CFR Part 21.6 posting requirements were evlauated by inspecting the manufacturing areas. This review found that CPD has an adequate 10 CFR Part 21 procedure and has posted the required documents.
l l
l
2 ORGANIZATION: THE AMERACE CORPORATION UNION, NEW JERSEY REPORT INSPECTION RESULTS: PAGE 5 of 14 N0.: 99900296/86-01 During a recent NRC inspection at the Control Products Corporation (CPC) in Graf ton, Wisconsin, it was revealed that the Amerace Corporation had not imposed the provisions of 10 CFR Part 21 on CPC for nuclear grade component manufacturing. CPC of Grafton, Wisconsin is the manufacturer for three series of nuclear grade Agastat relays for Amerace. A review of CPD purchase orders determined that CPD had not imposed the requirements of 10 CFR j Part 21 on CPC during a one year period, between June of 1985 and 1 June of 1986. (see Violation 86-01-01)
- 2. Cuality Assurance Organizational Establishment.
Discussions were conducted and a review was performed of the CPD QA Manual Organization Section to verify that adequate QA department
" access to management" had been established, delineated, and executed as required for resolving quality problems.
The review revealed that the QA organization did not have sufficient authority and organizational freedom from the production facility management to identify and resolve quality problems. In addition, discussions with the QA/0C personnel determined that they were not adequately independent of production cost and schedule concerns l (see Nonconformance 86-01-02).
! 3. Design Specifications.
NRC inspectors determined that CPD failed to translate several design specifications into QC inspection verification instructions. The i NRC inspectors querried CPD personnel concerning its fastener instal-lation methods that were observed in the assembly areas regarding Agastat relays. It was noted that each assembly work station where fasteners were used had at least one pneumatic (air) screwdriver that was used for screw fastener installation. There were no obvious torque ranges specified on the air screwdrivers by the tool manu-facturer or by CPD. None of the air screwdrivers were controlled by CPD under their M&TE system. Therefore, CPD was cuestioned as to how they verify or monitor that its typical inch pound screw fastener I torque parameters are not exceeded. The NRC inspector noted that the air screwdrivers being utilized by CPD at the work stations were capable of exceeding the CPD torque values.
I It was also noted that the assembly personnel would use a calibrated torque screwdriver to verify that the fastners had obtained specific
- minimal torque, but 'no measures were performed to verify if the design torques were exceeded. Design specification PS-71, Revision H,
~
ORGANIZATION: THE AMERACE CORPORATION UNION, NEW JERSEY REPORT INSPECTION RESULTS: PAGE 6 of 14 NO.: 99900296/86-01 dated October, 1984 states that blade retainer screws (design drawing
- 32650) shall be within a torque range of 5-9 inch-pounds. However, this design torque parameter had not been translated into a quality verification document. The CPD QC inspectors were checking for minimum torque by using a break-away torque wrench set at 6 inch-pounds. The NRC inspector determined that CPD had no inspection instructions or verification records to assure that the 8 retainer screws had received the required minimum torque, or to assure that they had not been overtorqued. A further review of this area deter-mined that CPD has not translated any of the other Agastat relay assembly screw design torque values into QA/QC inspection verification attributes.
Another aspect within the same design requirement area was reviewed and a second example of inadequate translation of design requirements into inspection verification attributes was revealed. Specifically, CPD failed to translate the dimensional measurement criteria from a CPD engineering change notice number 083924 for an electrical contact strap, (Part Number 7009ti4), into 0A/QC inspection verifi-cation documents (see Nonconformance 86-01-03).
- 4. Instructions, Procedures and Drawings.
Discussions were conducted with CPD QA/QC personnel to determine if their QA/QC instructions contained adequate qualitative and quanti-tative acceptance criteria for determining that important activities had been accomplished. This.was done in the receipt inspection i and in-prccess Agastat inspection areas. Deviations were found in both areas (see Nonconformance 86-01-04). Specifically: !
- a. Material receipt insoection QC personnel were found to be using inspection checklists for all incoming components.
The QA/QC inspection checklists delineated each specific characteristic that was to be inspected. The QC inspectors indicated that items had been inspected by putting a check-mark and their unique inspection stamp adjacent to the check-mark. The NRC inspectors queried the CPD CA/0C inspection personnel regarding the type of instructions that were used, what attributes were required to be on the checklists, and why there were no supervisor approvals or review signatures on the inspection checklists. At this point, it was revealed that: 1) there were no required inspection checklist approvals being performed; 2) only the inspector that made up the checklist and inspected the
- l l
ORGANIZATION: THE AP.ERACE CORPORATION UNION, NEW JERSEY
\
REPORT INSPECTION N0.: 99900296/86-01 RESULTS: PAGE 7 of 14 material reviewed the inspection characteristics for adaquacy; 3) there were no QC receipt inspection procedures or instructions that delineated what the inspector was required to do, and to ensure that the appropriate quali- ,
tative and quantitative acceptance and rejection criteria l were included on the checklists; and 4) the inspection supervisor did not prepare the checklists as required by 1 the QAM. ,
I b) In-process inspection activities were observed in the E-7000 series Agastat relay manufacturing area. The NRC inspector queried the CPD QC inspector as to what documents instructed l her to perform the in-process inspection attributes that were being perforned and what type of document she used to document her inspections.
It was revealed that CPD had also failed to establish proce-dures or instructions in this area. The CPD 0A Manual requires specific forms to be used for the QC instructions and the component " travelers." These deviations are discussed additionally in Section E.7.
- 5. Document Controls. j Discussions were conducted with the QC inspectors and a review was performed to determine if the CPD receipt inspection documents were reviewed for adequacy and approved by authorized personnel. It was found that CPD failed to comply with its QAM requirements in the receipt inspection area regarding the preparation and review of inspection checklists (see Nonconformance 86-01-05).
Six out of six QC receipt inspection checklists that were reviewed (
showed that the QC receipt inspector had established what inspection l characteristics were to be inspected without any review for adequacy of the documents by someone other than the person who prepared it.
Specific component checklists that were reviewed and found to be without review and approval are as follows: l
- a. Block, Terminal Assembly, CPD drawing 32279-00, rev. N.
- b. Coil Assembly, Magnet AC, CPD drawing 32274-00, rev. E.
- c. Core, Magnet AC, CPD drawing 32526-01, Rev. K.
- d. Arm Assembly, contact, CPD drawing 37356-00, Rev. B.
ORGANIZATION: THE AMERACE CORPORATION UNION, NEW JERSEY REPOPT INSPECTION RESULTS: PAGE 8 of 14 NO.: 99900296/86-01
- e. Diaphram Assembly, CPD drawing 32372-00, Rev J. .
l
- f. Binding head screw, CPD drawing 7002730-00, Rev J.
The CPD practice of allowing the same individual. to write the check- 1 list, review the checklist for adequacy, and inspect the hardware l with the checklist is not consistent with Appendix B to 10 CFR j Part 50.
Additionally, as discussed below, CPD takes exception to outside vendors source inspections and surveys based on a satisfactory
! "first piece" inspection and history of acceptable shipments. j However, based on the above, the CPD QA/QC management has not l adequately controlled the implementation of its QAM requirements to assure themselves that they have been receiving " acceptable shipments."
- 6. Control of Purchased Material, Equipment and Services.
A review of the CPD area of purchased material, equipment, and services determined that CPD does not normally perform vendor source inspections or pre-award surveys at the vendor's facility. Instead, the CPD practice is to accept or reject the vendor on the basis of the outcome of the components "first piece" inspection.
During the review of Measuring and Test Equipment, a list of the calibration laboratory service vendors was reviewed to verify that all of the vendors were on the approved vendors list. It was deter- ,
mined that one calibration service vendor was not on the approved !
vendors list. The vendor is Sheffield Measurement Division of the l Warner Swassey Company (SMD). This vendor provided calibration services for CPD's Cordax 1000 measuring machine. The Cordax 1000 is used by CPD as a quality control tool for receipt inspection by measuring the dimensions of purchased components. SMD calibrated this machine initially on April 9,1985 and subsequently recalibrated it on December 3,1985 and on May 17, 1986. At the time of the inspection, the NRC inspector determined that SMD had not been surveyed and was not on CPD's approved vendor's list (see l
l Nonconformance 86-01-06).
l l
The NRC inspectors could not determine if the calibration services I that were provided were adequate, and if the'Cordax 1000 machine was within acceptable tolerances. Since no records existed at CPD regarding vendor surveys, it is not known whether or not SMD 1 has calibration standards that are traceable back to the National Bureau of Standards.
1
- I ORGANIZATION: THE AMERACE CORPORATION UNION, NEW JERSEY I REPORT INSPECTION RESULTS: PAGE 9 of 14 NO.: 99900296/86-01 l
- 7. Receipt and In-process Inspections.
The receipt and Agastat relay in-process inspection areas were selected for inspections and review to determine if the Appendix B 1 QA program was adequately " executed" and to verify CPD's conformance with the documented instructions, procedures, and drawings and if .
appropriate inspections were being performed. It was revealed that CPD has not adequately executed their quality activity verification inspection program (see Nonconformance 86-01-07). Specifically:
- a. Two examples of CPD allowing QC personnel to perform material receipt inspections without instructions or procedures, to approve the inspection checklist characteristics that they established, and to inspect smaller samples or fewer attributes than the QC personnel documented as having been inspected.
Specifically:
(1) A receipt inspection checklist for a magnetic coil assembly (Part #32274-00), was checked as having been tested for dielectric test per TP-TRE-01. No records were available to indicate that this test had been performed at receipt ]
inspection for lots received between 5/29/85 and 8/1/86, but the inspection checklist attributes had been checked and stamped by QC. Discussions determined that the dielectric tests were not performed by OC, but they were performed by manufacturing personnel after the fact.
(2) A receipt inspection checklist for binding head screws ;
(Part #7002730-00), was checked as having the zinc plating 1 thickness verified for all samples in the specified lots l received between 6/20-7/1/86. The inspection supervisor and QC personnel stated that this was not done and that only a small sample of the inspection lots were actually tested for plating thickness. This inspection checklist also indicated that OC verification was performed and had been checked and stamped by QC.
- b. Section 13 of the CPD QA manual requires that detailed written instructions be supplied to all manufacturing areas outlining the steps to be taken to assure conformance to the requirements.
These detailed written instructions were not provided to the in-process QC personnel for the Agastat E-7000 series relay area.
I l
ORGANIZATION: THE AMERACE CORPORATION UNION, NEW JERSEY REPORT INSPECTION N0.: 99900296/86-01 RESULTS: PAGE 10 of 14 In addition, the CPD QA manual also requires on all nuclear orders that a traveler accompany each E-7000 series relay order. The purpose of the traveler is to indicate by QC inspector stamp and date that all the important work activities have been performed. However, no travelers have been established or utilized to control the Agastat E-7000 series relay quality activities. Several in-process nuclear orders were observed to establish if travelers are used as required.
To date no travelers have been used as determined by discussions and observations.
- 8. Measuring and Test Equipment (M&TE) Control.
A review was performed of the M&TE area af ter observations deter-mined that at least six M&TE items were not being controlled regard-ing unique identification and calibration. Further review determined that a total of 17 of 32 M&TE items were not adequately controlled as j required by the QAM (see Nonconformance 86-01-08). -
I addition, a Thallium-204 radioactive source was found by the N... inspector inside of a storage cabinet located in the QC receipt inspection office. The OA/QC management stated that the source was used for a beta back scanner that has since been returned to the manufacturer. The USNRC Region I Nuclear Material Section was informed and will follow-up this matter.
Observations of CPD's M&TE controls at various work stations were performed. The NRC inspector determined that CPD failed to properly assure that MATE are properly identified, controlled, and calibrated at the required intervals. CPD also failed to assure that M&TE computer records correspond to the actual M&TE calibration status of the as found items.
NRC inspectors discovered a .197" core-gap gage in an operating work station that was past due for calibration and was unidentified. This gage had no visible permanent ID number etched on it, no ID # on its calibration sticker, and the sticker indicated that the gage had not been calibrated since August 31, 1985. CPD computer calibration records indicated that three of the .197" gages existed and were all properly calibrated. After looking at all of CPD's core-gap gages; excluding the uncontrolled .197" gage found by the NRC inspector, only two of the .197" gage size could be located. The following day.
the NRC inspector found that three .197" gages were identified and properly calibrated. The NRC inspector determined that the uncali-brated and unmarked gage found by the NRC inspector the day before
1 H
ORGANIZATION: THE AMERACE CORPORATION UNION, NEW JERSEY REPORT INSPECTION N0.: 99900296/86-01 RESULTS: PAGE 11 of 14 was the third of the .197" gages even though the M&TE computer record indicated it was in control. Af ter CPD made that determin-ation, the item was apparently recalibrated and returned to its proper work station.
Specific examples of uncontrolled M&TE items are as follows:
Item Name CPD-ID Problem
- a. Anvil micrometer SN-41 Red nonconformance. tag not used, found out of calibration.
- b. .001" Caliper NO 505-629 Red nonconformance tag not used, out of calibration.
- c. .197" core gap gage None No permanent ID # and 6 calibration records contradicted actual missing and uncal'brated status,
- d. .165"/.187" core gap DP-0317 No permanent ID #.
gage
- e. .183"/.190" core gap DP-0320 No permanent ID !.
gage
- f. .187"/.165" core gap DP-0316 No permanent ID #.
gage
- g. .112"/.124" core gao DP-0311 No permanent ID # and gage has same sticker # as item h.
- h. Core gap gage DP-0311 Same sticker # (DP-0311) as item g and has same permanent # (DP-0889) as i tem i .
- i. Core gap gage DP-0312 Same permanent ID # (DP-0889) as item h sticker ID # is DP0889.
- i. .192" cone gap gage DP-0323 Sticker ID # (DP-0323) doesn't match permanent ID # (DP-0324).
e ORGANIZATION: THE AMERACE CORPORATION UNION, NEW JERSEY REPORT INSPECTION N0.: 99900296/86-01 RESULTS: PAGE 12 of 14 Item Name CPD-ID Problem
- k. .192" cone gap gage DP-0324 Sticker ID # (DP-0324) doesn't match permanent ID #
(DP-032 ).
- 1. Micrometer DP-1029 Found in work station, out of calibration no red tag.
- m. Micrometer None Found with no ID # and not properly calibrated no red tag,
- n. Defective micrometer S/N 37 Red nonconformance tag not used and item was not found in box. j
- o. .583" Plug gage S/N 61639 Obsolete. Gage found in same bin as calibrated thread plug gages.
- p. Torcue screwdriver DP-1093 Calibration records contradicted the uncalibrated status indicated on the sticker.
- q. Torque screwdriver DP-1096 No permanent ID #
- 9. Control of Nonconforming Parts.
A review of the circumstances surrounding a CPD documented problem with an Agastat E-7000 relay sub-component was performed to assess the adequacy of the CPD control of nonconforming parts. The review determined that CPD had not adecuately controlled an entire lot of nonconforming components (see Nonconformance 86-01-09). (
The above component is a contact arm asscmbly (CAA), Part Nunber 32356-01, and was received from one of the two vendors who manut:;-
tured the component for CPD. It was determined by the NRC inspector and CPD that all but 1,500 of the CAA's could be accounted for by a review of records. CPD stated that the 1,500 assemblies were not used in production, but were retained for samples, etc. The failure of CPD to control the parts was established by the CA/QC DMR, and lack of QA records to indicate the final disposition of the CAA components.
=
ORGANIZATION: THE AMERACE CORPORATION UNION, NEW JERSEY REPORT INSPECTION
'NO : 99900296/86-01
. RESULTS: PAGE 13 of 14 The first sample parts were rejected on 1/22/85 and the second sample was conditionally accepted on 1/24/85 even though the parts deviated from the dimensional requirements. The first production parts were accepted on 6/4/85 even though the previous two samples failed the dimensional requirements. CPD inspection records did not have all of the required inspection dimensional attributes. A total of four production lots were received between 6/4/85 and 9/20/85 for an approximate total of 68,500. However:
- a. The first DMR written was on 9/19/85 for 30,400 pieces, the second DMR was written on 9/20/85 for 20,600 pieces, and the third and last DMR also was written on 9/20/85 for 9,600 pieces. This makes a total of 60,600 pieces that QC formally controlled after 9/19/85.
- b. Approximately 7,800 pieces were not controlled as required.
In addition, the first DMR was not written until the last shipment was received on 9/19/85, even thougn defective CAA components were received as early as 1/24/85.
- c. CPD documents state that "the nonforming parts were discovered in the E-7000 series production line and that the terminal block where the defective CAA components were used "did not weigh properly due to damaged and bowed contact arm assemblies."
- d. CPD's corrective action (not a QA DMR documented item) was to remove all known parts from production and replace them with the original vendor's CAA components, return all the deficient CAA's to the other vendor, and not use that vendor again.
- 10. Internal Audits.
A review of the CPD internal audit program was performed. One CPD audit report was in evidence, but no audit plan or schedule had been established (see Nonconformance 86-01-10).
ORGANIZATION: THE AMERACE CORPORATION UNION, NEW JERSEY REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900296/86-01 RESULTS: PAGE 14 of 14 F. PERSONS CONTACTED Name Title Organization
- Joseph Ferguson Quality Assurance Mgr Amerace Corporation
- Kenneth Beckett CC Supervisor Amerace Corporation Don Alexander Customer Service Mgr Amerace Corporation
- Ed Leszczak Product Engr Amerace Corporation
- Albert F. Schulien Plant Manager Amerace Corporation
- William Waddington Chief Engineer Amerace Corporation E. Hill QC Inspector Amerace Corporation A. Perez QC Inspector Amerace Corporation
- Attended exit meeting
\
i t
b l
l
TrJSVGCTO R D K nl\!0 StoPE Doe w.T eJo. l0 ((Yl DOCOME r4TS EX At4 e dE D Rct'ont slo. 8(o -0/
pnGE 1 o f: .I 17J1 Mgen *.I'$"" REV.' DnTE Tt TUI / 508.)acT R .,--_T _.- ~ -
C mrt e c^ wn.1E7Dn_P> L^rs.\tS_KC.. LAG .
n'> @k _ _b1 R _
45_C O 733 /2342 '3q --JT_ fri WrE Buck <;
O QAM Sec. 10 7//95- 4ttBR ABon set Dmd _ . . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . , _ _
.IA. QAm gel \ \ '
7l'IS5 y am c_og_a vse s ry -sunset.R Gg2813__1gc_110s/_ ___ _ ._._. . ___
0hM ~
0A nG OL2.C n 0 N MAIN)ahlG I4]Al\fLJAl I ~ -~ ~
] TNSFECiC'R _T_RAlbLphe6A&_DCCTRLNAT_IC4_rRECORT)$_.
,,,,,s,> c .- d er , w e.* re*- 4 < w. Nels-> .- Sc!A sr L
/7 o<h, n'y > - -
7Avhc po .uin9u -a i,~ /L n,u ls 2x v7_-B.m -A.-/ / scoes ..o .c, m_
/S % 3x50 &~ a . AgA_? _7). . y d'cb As..w AL W sw-/, <44;4 l} Chder /1's -
76y<,c _ri //w.<vp v 7_- E?siv o << 4 , ~c re, L. a></
- ~ ~ - " - - __.
-- - - - -- I -
TYPE O l' DOC *.
w DWG- DRAWeMG L T R - 1. E T T E R.
SPEC- SPEcl8 lC Af tod -
PRO- ProcE Ou e E -
Att - q rs tin *J O A t. -
cD - q c DocuttEWT -
,., , .n. - piis'r unu n onro -
IrlSPEcTo R I y. K, ran oo r.yg_r IJo. T N C O / 9 (c.
StoPE D OC Ot4E tJ TS E X Atil d E D RCroRT rio.1(L_ - Ok IM," Mfgg *gg'df lREV.l Dr\T E PAGE l 0 5: M TtTLG /5UB.)ECT
, 9.T.._ .NNb b Ak__b_QLA_ ~
. O S..b_Vt ~._b1____ __ . _. . __
2 GLAg)_ -
9[78._ __TecA E 6 h p _co3380!._rn AOUA k _ . . _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . __
3 _RArO_ - -
_QA GhBR631co_. roemobs r%nuAL. _sgsrion._T. QPosE__
W NM k.h__ .
4 A\/L - -
cw cent Aogmiea. s/wwes t.; s + - ca.nton iTy<m on M n jc_sa3co __
5 spe.c ps-7; H /dg4 Anusata._psoz6 day 1.pdhdion insm% . im e_
,(,. s>mt._roa as t.2mmes e.-70_cc_d_ _ . - ____ _ ____ _
__h __ 3_3050-00 1 Ji /77 E l( oc / nog u e; go m m,ugc gqoc_g 333g g ggy
] b\dG 3L6SO--00 IlIT5* % 3__J>g m, _kg Twm.co l Sicc.K_Agemk_f._______
_3__ DwG 3&l4 e ?)7s- . m sc. h u>_w.m r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . - . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ _
'1 DLOC 31303- 'f/ zh? E 7 o 22. segic1_ _ Tim m/6 A'aA Y t>>il7{_A (__ Lot _L.__ _.____. . _ _ _
-lo BWG 3297-@ D 7/s0 Ti ming Aeud.l__sp,nd le A_s>a.m W) ..__ _ _ . . . _ . _ .
.lL L ~ ~
8_e. s # 7Mlzu115~ wannaarce.1wa_As av rc M_
i _b M_ W_L \__b. ._bE b TYPE O F O c t '. .
4 DWG- DRAWING t r R - L E T T E R.
SPEC- SPECt 8 IC Af tod -
PRO- P EotE DO R E -
Att - Q i\ ti A H d A L. -
co - q c oocunsor -
, . o . - Pe l s'r it A9 f- nonro
i 9
PAGE 1 0F ,3 REPORT N0. 9990M94/se-o/
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED N0. TYPE D0C. NO. DATE COMMENTS L
p-vrQ
AG AsTA r 2 u e k e w.
n m a o & v te k,v w f o.
7'e w m a . D e k k w f c 3_ c2&" -
,ld8s a14 vJ
- bOPL s P-rge s d a # Oc> oca &> % a cOc0a p Q% 39 0 03-c>a l(f7 ? 2MacISice Screcd, hoYll+>cc0 '
ca. Oma a. S s s S Gits/sc> % c.2 Tcrew w a h w a0 m e.
a gn(2- 38e012 3/i2/% Obc 0m Arsa%
1 Po 39322 6/m/tc .
J-l<m<vJ Gd &r C, 7 9 oma- 34a 9 toks- u w e n.yaD sw o,'as to OtoG 2 2 3sto o o h[ (k>x fasA n -
s220c7 YMsr Enr oce <-
,wm. ahan A r%A I w
j a- -
-f)s c Pe&cleo , (%c . m-&
_LT Spg i),9 7b-A OAb. pr awa caeo jy re-77ae-os_ql/11 apac TP-rac-or 1 9 ctrh k k t/ d fon-F (s- Po 1 w-- - 4a sb i,a r/a h ory G haf sraop (6 Po 2('152 4nls3 (~okad 3 rrm ('na+oko up,'
(3 Og ECn) e3929 , r/sc. Ce&>d s, r-p chasty J Ouc 29 2 27- ~ i2/12 K rm a.& GMA kev"
/7 Ogc Da7y-ce vr/v/yr, 'C J 4crL
% % co 3?5%-oa e/ts,Isr 9xaarto% ca-w 1I OcuG, 39-3% - ' mAh @ Cc;nkf awr As:s'm 2L Ced. -
(D/D' th f chn a2n)2$ctOccusce Eesched-TYPE CODE: DWG - DRAWING SPEC - SPECIFICATION PRO - PROCEDURE QAM - QA MANUAL P.O. - PURCHASE ORDER I.M. - INTERNAL MEMO