[Pansophy] Duplicate Open NCRs for HE

Wed Jul 17 10:15:59 EDT 2024

Hi,

RTV sounds like the best option.  Either way, when any part leaves for any reason and comes back, the default status (as far as I am concerned) is "HOLD - INSPECTION PENDING", and should be requalified as a new part.

Mike Dickey
SRF Inventory Technician
Jefferson Lab
12000 Jefferson Ave
Newport News, VA 23606
(757) 269-7755

From: Pansophy <pansophy-bounces at mailman.jlab.org> On Behalf Of Ashley Mitchell via Pansophy
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2024 8:53 AM
To: John Vennekate <hannesv at jlab.org>; Adam Grabowski <adamg at jlab.org>
Cc: Mike Bevins <mbevins at jlab.org>; pansophy at jlab.org; Michelle Oast <weinmann at jlab.org>
Subject: Re: [Pansophy] Duplicate Open NCRs for HE

John,

  1.  If it is against the very same cavity, I can close a newer FE-NCR and refer to the older, existing one. Which disposition is that?
There isn't a good disposition because the NCR system isn't being used correctly.  The NCRs on the rework tests shouldn't be written, the original NCR should be updated.
You could transfer the information in the newly created ones into the original on page 3 as rework and then have the new ones removed.
[cid:image002.png at 01DAD832.50E12DF0]

  1.  NCRs for cavities that we will clean and sent to FNAL for vertical testing can be  closed as "reject" with a corresponding  comment that they will be sent out.
How do we deal with those reject NCRs when the cavities return qualified?
I've decided "Return to Vendor" is the better disposition and they will be treated as new cavities when they return.

Apologies for the confusion, let me know if there are more questions.
- Ashley
________________________________
From: John Vennekate <hannesv at jlab.org<mailto:hannesv at jlab.org>>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2024 1:58 PM
To: Ashley Mitchell <ashleya at jlab.org<mailto:ashleya at jlab.org>>; Adam Grabowski <adamg at jlab.org<mailto:adamg at jlab.org>>
Cc: Mike Bevins <mbevins at jlab.org<mailto:mbevins at jlab.org>>; Michelle Oast <weinmann at jlab.org<mailto:weinmann at jlab.org>>
Subject: RE: Duplicate Open NCRs for HE

Ashley,

Let me repeat back to you what I understood from your email, just to make sure we are on the same page:

  1.  If it is against the very same cavity, I can close a newer FE-NCR and refer to the older, existing one. Which disposition is that?
  2.  NCRs for cavities that we will clean and sent to FNAL for vertical testing can be  closed as "reject" with a corresponding  comment that they will be sent out.
How do we deal with those reject NCRs when the cavities return qualified?

Please confirm/advise.

Cheers,

John V

-7607

From: Ashley Mitchell <ashleya at jlab.org<mailto:ashleya at jlab.org>>
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2024 13:24
To: John Vennekate <hannesv at jlab.org<mailto:hannesv at jlab.org>>; Adam Grabowski <adamg at jlab.org<mailto:adamg at jlab.org>>
Cc: Mike Bevins <mbevins at jlab.org<mailto:mbevins at jlab.org>>; Michelle Oast <weinmann at jlab.org<mailto:weinmann at jlab.org>>
Subject: Re: Duplicate Open NCRs for HE

John,

I understand the need to keep the original one open.  It may need someone who is a dispositioner to close the new NCRs and update the original one if the VTA testers aren't following, or some education on how to document rework.

For the Fermi-tested (an cleaned) cavities, we could do the same thing we're doing for the ones they've sent us and document their test in our traveler system with a note the work was performed at Fermi.

You could reject and put a comment that they are being sent to Fermi for reprocessing.

Does that seem reasonable?

- Ashley

________________________________

From: John Vennekate <hannesv at jlab.org<mailto:hannesv at jlab.org>>
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 2:38 PM
To: Ashley Mitchell <ashleya at jlab.org<mailto:ashleya at jlab.org>>; Adam Grabowski <adamg at jlab.org<mailto:adamg at jlab.org>>
Cc: Mike Bevins <mbevins at jlab.org<mailto:mbevins at jlab.org>>; Michelle Oast <weinmann at jlab.org<mailto:weinmann at jlab.org>>
Subject: RE: Duplicate Open NCRs for HE

I've closed the ones that are/were resolved.

Unfortunately, we will still have multiple NCRs on cavities with FE. Theoretically, those should be captured in one, continued NCR, but not every tester follows this procedure. As long as the corresponding cavity is still limited by FE, we'll have to keep those open.

However, moving forward, we will send most of those cavities to Fermi for testing (and potentially cleaning). Since their testing won't be documented in our system, we could close those NCRs. Do you have some guidance/idea what we should label that case? We don't have a "redirect" option and I'm not sure if "reject" is a good fit.

Best,

John V

From: Ashley Mitchell <ashleya at jlab.org<mailto:ashleya at jlab.org>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 10:46
To: Adam Grabowski <adamg at jlab.org<mailto:adamg at jlab.org>>; John Vennekate <hannesv at jlab.org<mailto:hannesv at jlab.org>>
Cc: Mike Bevins <mbevins at jlab.org<mailto:mbevins at jlab.org>>; Michelle Oast <weinmann at jlab.org<mailto:weinmann at jlab.org>>
Subject: Duplicate Open NCRs for HE

Hi,

AS Michelle mentioned, there are several NCRs on duplicate SNs, please review and see if some could be closed.

Cavities:  -012, -023, -303, -031, -040, -094, and -135.

[cid:image003.png at 01DAD832.50E12DF0]

Ashley Mitchell (She/Her/Hers)

Quality Engineer

SNS-PPU Project Coordinator/CAM

Cell: 757-434-2905
[https://www.jlab.org/div_dept/dir_off/public_affairs/logo/JLabEmailSig.png]
600 Kelvin Dr.
Suite 8, MS 55H
Newport News, VA 23606

www.jlab.org<http://www.jlab.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/pansophy/attachments/20240717/3f9abf9f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 86914 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/pansophy/attachments/20240717/3f9abf9f/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 151173 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/pansophy/attachments/20240717/3f9abf9f/attachment-0003.png>