Comments from Nanda regarding SLAC QA review of tray-panel assembly documentation:

The comments will be reviewed by INFN tomorrow or the day after as Sandro is

scheduled to go to G&A on Tuesday.

I do have some observations though,

The ISO 9002 automatically assures the intent of point #1 and they are in

practice.

I would recommend that the definitions to be included in an applicable

document that can be referenced by this procedure as it looks like some

thing applicable across the program. It will also be much easier to

implement as an applicable document requirement. I was under the impression

that the MARS document was going to be made applicable but I did not see

anything requiring this. That would be a good place to include the

definitions (if not already included).

There was a requirement in one of our document for the first 10 trays to be

inspected by us. I do not believe we have a requirement to INFN to have an

engineer at the facility. We do have access to all the data and to perform

the inspection in COMPANY OF INFN. Here again I would recommend the MARS as

the applicable document instead of in a procedure only.

There has been considerable progress made in the traveler and database area

where the worker is guided through the process. This was verified during

Jim's visit in October and subsequently. I think we will have to see how it

works for the initial production run and then fine tune it as more practical

approach.

INFN is lagging in the ESPI proc. I have seen the draft version only. I do

not recall a lot size requirement or for that matter the sampling for the

coupon during production other than the ISO 2002. The ISO is their standard

is my understanding.

There is a tray bake-out after INFN takes delivery and is at present

considered outside of the tray production at PLYFORM. INFN-Pisa/Rome is

responsible to issue the traveler. The final acceptance of the tray will be

by INFN-Pisa from INFN-Rome. The tray then goes to G&A for the ladder

assembly.

I am developing a flow for the work here as information and it is attached.

I am including the proc when and where applicable. The -01584 addresses only

the PLYFORM part of the work.

Reply to Nanda from Darren Marsh:

Nanda,

Thanks for your comments.

Quite frankly, I see many holes in the Tracker Tray Panel Assembly Procedure. Hopefully we can converge on LAT QA personnel issues and concerns. I solicit your advice on the best way to discuss and resolve LAT QA comments, but it would appear a telecon would be in order to discuss the document.

With regards to your comments (in parenthesis), the following information is provided.

1. (The ISO 9002 automatically assures the intent of point #1 and they are in practice.) Yes, Plyform has a NCR reporting system. What is unacceptable is Par. 6.3 describing how Plyform NCRs are handled and dispositioned by INFN. Quite simply, an NCR (Plyform NCR) shall be written immediately for any flight hardware nonconformance.

Minor nonconformances which the cause if fully known and for which immediate action can be taken can be closed and submitted immediately to INFN and SLAC.

Major Nonconformances found as a result of test activities, inspection activities, or discrepant product that cannot be used, with or without modification, for its original intent shall also be documented on a Plyform NCR. These NCRs will require MRB approval to proceed with production and disposition product. These NCRs need to be also submitted to INFN and SLAC.

In both cases, production will be stopped. However, by definition, corrective action for minor nonconformance should be immediate and production can commence quickly.

2. (I would recommend that the definitions to be included in an applicable

Document that can be referenced by this procedure as it looks like some

thing applicable across the program. It will also be much easier to

implement as an applicable document requirement.)

I understand the trust of your comment, but a document that is applicable across the program is not possible since we have many quality programs that are being utilized (GSFC, SLAC, NRL, etc). I would really prefer the definitions be included in the Tracker Tray Panel Assembly procedure since based on my experience, another document to reference will be treated as just another piece of paper and will not be looked at.

3. (I was under the impression that the MARS document was going to be made applicable but I did not see anything requiring this. That would be a good place to include the definitions (if not already included).)

Maybe I'm confused by this comment, but the MAR is listed in the document. The MAR is not a LAT document and we cannot revise it (but general definitions are in there).

4. (There was a requirement in one of our document for the first 10 trays to be inspected by us. I do not believe we have a requirement to INFN to have an engineer at the facility. We do have access to all the data and to perform the inspection in COMPANY OF INFN. Here again I would recommend the MARS as the applicable document instead of in a procedure only.)

Nanda, you need to describe your (INFN) independent source inspection plan. My personal plan to periodically review production activities and as a minimum, I want to review the results of the first 10 flight trays. As a minimum, I would expect you (or another INFN QA individual) to perform a source inspection of the End Item Data Package. This package includes:

* Certificate of Compliance

* Inspection and Test Reports.

* Traceability records of parts and tray assemblies.

* Process travelers shall be available for review at Supplier facilities.

* Non-conformance Reports shall be available for review at Supplier

facilities.

* Lot traceability and qualification records.

* MRB reports with disposition.

5. (There has been considerable progress made in the traveler and database area where the worker is guided through the process. This was verified during Jim's visit in October and subsequently. I think we will have to see how it works for the initial production run and then fine tune it as more practical approach.)

I'll state again, the database is not the traveler. Paragraph 6.2 (Database and Traveler) of LAT-PS-01584 is not acceptable. The traveler, drawings, assembly procedure, inspection test reports comprise the documentation that needs to be reviewed and accepted by Quality Assurance. The database does not reflect the QA information necessary to verify compliance with requirements.

6. (INFN is lagging in the ESPI proc. I have seen the draft version only)

Just a heads up that special processes (NDI) has additional controls that needs to be considered.

7. (I do not recall a lot size requirement or for that matter the sampling for the coupon during production other than the ISO 2002. The ISO is their standard is my understanding.)

We need to discuss and review this at Plyform.

8. (There is a tray bake-out after INFN takes delivery and is at present

considered outside of the tray production at PLYFORM. INFN-Pisa/Rome is

responsible to issue the traveler. The final acceptance of the tray will be

by INFN-Pisa from INFN-Rome. The tray then goes to G&A for the ladder

assembly.)

The bake-out is presently referenced in the Procedure. If it's outside the scope of Plyform's activities, then I recommend you take it out of the Procedure (Although there will have to be a traveler and procedure for INFN doing the bake-out).

Darren

Darren S. Marsh

GLAST Large Area Telescope Project

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

2575 Sand Hill Road, M/S 43A

Menlo Park, CA 94025

(650) 926-4577