ML19247B598
| ML19247B598 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 06/04/1979 |
| From: | Harrison J, Knop R, Phillips H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19247B591 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-341-79-13, NUDOCS 7908100234 | |
| Download: ML19247B598 (11) | |
See also: IR 05000341/1979013
Text
.
'
U.S.' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION Ah3 EhTORCEMEh7
REGION III
Report No. 50-341/79-13
Docket No. 50-341
License No. CPPR-87
Licensee:
Detroit Edison Company
2000 Second Avenue
Detroit, MI 48226
Facility Name: Enrico Fermi Unit 2
Inspection At:
Fermi Site, Monroe, Michigan
Inspection Conducted:
May 8-11, 1979
n-
]e
' 7 <- (
' ,['
c-
. ,
,
Inspectors:
h. S. Phillips
.
4
'
\\b
4 . --'
!79
J.J f. Harrison
/
f c ,% .< -
R. C. Knop, Chid]f
d j , ',<',
Approved By:
Projects Section
Inspecticn Summary
Inspectior on May 8-11, 1979 (Report No. 50-341/79-13)
Areas Inspected: Wismer & Becker Contracting Engineers' indoctrination
and trainir.s; of craf t supervisors, engineering, purchasing and
quality pertonnel; qualification of quality contrcl inspectors. The
inspection iavolved 52 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors.
Results:
Two areas were inspected and items of noncompliance were
identified in each area.
(Infractions - failure to follow procedures,
Paragraphs 1 and 4; failure to
assure hTE is accomplished by
qualified personnel, Paragraph 2; failure to control measuring and
test equipment, Paragraph 3.)
L :. I-
f
J
F \\
}
7908100
$
~
DETAILS
Persons Contacted
- T.
A. Alessi, QA Director
- W.
M. Everett , Edison Project Superintendent
- l.
A. Walker, Project QA Engineer
,
- A.
Alexiou, Assistant Project Superintendent
- G.
Carter, Edison QA Engineer
- C.
R. Bacon, Field Project Engineer
Other Personnel
- J. G. Bolt, Project QA Manager, Daniel International (DI)
- J.
T. Blixt, QA Manager, DI
- D.
E. Seifert, Project Manager, DI
- M. R. Majumder, Discipline Engineer, DI
- C. Keller, Project QA Manager, Wismer & Becker (W&B)
- L. Holland, Proj ect Manager, W&B
- R.
Taylor, Project Training Coordinator, W&B
The inspectors also talked with and interviewed several other licensee
and contractor employees, including members of the quality, technical,
and engineering staffs.
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
Functional or Program Areas Inspected
On May 2, 1979, Region III received a telephone call from an Enrico
Fermi 2 worker who stated that Wismer & Becker Contracting Engineers,
the site piping / mechanical contractor, have quality control inspectors
who are not qualified to perform inspections, yet management directs
these inspectors to perform inspections on safety related activities.
As a result, Region III inspectors initiated a special inspection to
evaluate the subject contractors' personnel training and qualification
program.
Although the specific allegation could not be substantiated, other
problems were identified in related areas which did support the
allegation.
1.
Wismer & Becker Indoctrination and Training
The subject contractor's QA manual,Section IV, outlines the
minimum indoctrination / training and qualifications of personnel
who perform inspection, examination and testing and of personnel
-2-
._
7
.
bSJ
b,0 0
'
who perform activities affecting quality.
The Construction
Division Manager, Quality Assurance and Control Manager, Site
Quality Supervisor and Construction Supervisor, Manager of
Engineering and Training coordinator are responsible for the
indoctrination and training.
Indoctrination and Training of Construction Personnel
a.
The RIII inspector and the W&B training coordinator established
a base number of 65 foremen and supervisors who were
currently required to receive training.
Paragraph 4.1.1
cf Seetion IV requires that craft personnel down to the
foreman level receive the following training.
- Personnel
Subject
Trained
- Required
Introduction to Nuclear Construction
65
65
Safety
Contract Specification / Drawings
0
65
Welder Testing
0
65
Electrode Classification Storage and
60+
65
Control
General Fabrication Practices
45
65
Tool and Gauge Control
8**
65
Cleanliness Procedures / Requirements
65
65
Drawing, Specification Control and
54
65
Operation Traveler
- An additional 30 attended a course on related subject matters.
- An additional 9 attended a course on related subject matters.
b.
Indoctrination and Training r.f Engineering and Purchasing
Personnel
The RIII inspector found the following personnel had nv
received training required by Section IV, Paragraph 4.1.2:
- Personnel
Subject
Trained
- haquired
Introduction to Nuclear Code
44
44
Design Requirements
16
30
Stress Analysis Reports
0
30
Design Interface
44
44
Weld Technology
6 to 24***
30
- 3-
(! -
-
Drawing Control /Submittals
19
44
ASME Code Section III
16
44
ASME Code Section II
O
44
ASME Code Section V
0
44
ASME Code Section IX
0
44
- Several different types of training sessions on welding
showed varied attendance.
c.
Indoctrination Training and Qualification of Quality
Personnel
The inspector found the following personnel had not received
the training required by Section IV, Paragrap t . 2.1:
- Personnel
Subject
Trained
- Required
Introduction to Nuclear Inspection
27
27
Contract Specification / Drawings
5
27
Introduction to Welding
4
27
Electrode Qualification
27
27
Introduction to NDE Methods
1
4
Tool and Gauge Control
25
27
Receiving Inspection
17
27
Drawing / Specification Control
14
27
Operation Control
20
27
Records Retention
14
16
d.
quality Control Inspector Qualification
(1) The RIII inspector reviewed Wismer & Becker General
Procedure QA-TM-1, Personnel Qualification Manual to
determine minitum qualifications of inspectors.
Thirty-two inspectors' qualifications were reviewed
and were found to meet the requirements of Paragraph
5.5 except three Level II inspectors did not meet the
experience requirements, that is, high school graduate
plus four year of experience in testing or inspection
(or both) of power plant, nuclear plant, heavy industrial
or other similar equipment or facilities.
(2) The inspector reviewed written examinations administered
to QC inspectors per Wismer & Becker QA&C procedures,
Section IV and QA-TM-1.
The written examinations
demonstrated adequate knowledge of the subject except
as follows:
-4-
"h
A ~
r'
>
6 .
(a) The~ test grade weight factors for examinations
was not consistent with the number of test
questions; examples follow:
Welding Inspector Test - 17 questions,
.
value 7 points
Welding Inspector Test - 20 questions,
.
,
value 5 points
-
.
Welding Inspector Test - 20 questions,
value 2 points
Hydrostatic / Leak Testing Test - 12 questions,
.
value 5 points
Mechanical Test - 10 questions, value 5 points
.
(b) The actual grading of examinations is questionable
because numerous cases of incorrect answers were
not marked as being incorrect.
One individual
(Mr. Fosholt) was given the identical examination
approximately six months apart and missed the
same question on both occasions on the welding
inspection visual examination.
Examples of test
with incorrect answers not identified were for
Messrs. Schick, Fang, Austin, Spencer and LeBar.
The examination and resulting certifications of
the personnel described above is not totally
adequate. Employees should be advised that
answers to welding questions were wrong and the
correct answer should be reviewed and/or
retraining / retesting should occur as necessary.
Management of the Indoctrination, Training and Qualification
e.
Program
The inspector found that training problems have been
experienced during the last two years. That is, two or
three training coordinators have been replaced resulting
in a lack of continuity both in training activities and
records. The present training coordinator appears to be
doing a good job, however, he has not been able to organize
records that will result in effective scheduling /
rescheduling and course development.
-5-
'
$O
g
k,\\<>
The training # program outline in Wismer & Becker QA&C
Manual,Section V, lacks clarity in that the training
required in Paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 are too general.
Additionally, the procedure states that all personnel
shall receive the courses, however, the contractor stated
this was not the intent of the procedure. Daniel
International audits, (August 1977 and May 1978) had
documented similar training shortcomings.
y
The licensee contacted Region III subsequent to the inspec-
tion and states that the subject procedures will be revised;
records will be properly organized and a matrix will be
developed to assure that minimum training requirements are
met.
Additional resources will be committed to assure
that the problem is corrected in a timely manner.
,
The findings in Paragraphs 1.a-e describe several examples
where personnel did not receive indoctrination / training or
were not qualified to perform inspections. This finding
represents a noncompliance t o 10 CFR 50, Appendix B,
Criterion V, and to the applicable licennee and contractor
procedures referenced in previous paragraphs and in
Appendix A, Item 1.
(341/79-13-01)
2.
Nondestructive Examination Personnel Qualifications
The inspector reviewed the following precedures for qualification
of nondestructive personnel for content and compliance. The
text of these procedures and compliance with these requirements
was acceptable except as follows:
a.
Daniel Construction Company NDE personnel qualification
records for five individuals were reviewed for magnetic
particle, liquid penetrant, and radiographic testing
methods. All qualifications were for Level II.
The file
records contained resumes, training records, examinations,
certifications and visual acutiy test.
The records reviewed
appeared to be satisfactory with the exception of certifi-
cation for Messrs. Siefert, Hritz, Kennedy and Blitz for
Level II radiographic testing that failed to meet the
requirements of Section A.4.3 of Daniel procedure 7.1,
Rev. 1, dated February 2,1976. This section states in
part that " Demonstrated proficiency in selecting and
performing examination and evaluating the results
. . ." The practical examination for the
obtained .
perscanel in question was to " evaluate the results
-6-
l
'
.
[
q
l
eo
obtained" only by reviewing the radiographic film and the
certification should have so stated; i.e. " Restricted to
the Review of Radiographic Film Only."
b.
Wismer & Becker (W&B) personnel qualification records were
reviewed for thirty-five examiner / operators for Level I,
II and III. Qualifications were for Ligaid Penetrant,
Magnetic Particle and Radiogranhic Testing methods and
,
qualification performed in act
lance with procedure
QA-TM-2, Rev. 4.
Records folders contained resumes,
training records, log sheets, examinations, certifications,
visual acuity test and other pertinent data. These records
were well organized and appeared to be satisfactory with
the following exceptions:
(1) W&B personnel (Mr. T. Alford) who failed an examina-
tion on October 13, 1978, for Level I Liquid Penetrant,
specife part, was re-examined on October 30, 1978,
without providing additional training. W&B procedure
QA-TM-2, Section 6.3.3, states in part ". . .
a retest
is permissible af*.er a fifteen day waiting period,
provided additional training is furnished
."
.
(2) W&B Les,' III site personnel were certified by personnel
other tha those required. W&B QA/QC manual Section
IX, Paragraph 4.6.4.3 states in part that "the Corporate
Quality Assurance and Control Manager shall certify
the site Level III."
Mr. Benke (Site Level III) was
certified by Mr. Eddy on May 16, 1978, for RT practical
and reviewed by Mr. Kearney (Corporate QA/QC Manager)
on May 16, 1978.
Mr. Benke was also certified for
Level III PT practical by Mr. Crawford on December 26,
1978. The requirement for certification in this case
is for one individual to perform this task. Review
is not acceptable.
(3) W&B personnel were not certified to meet the minimum
test score required by procedrra QA-TM-2, Section
6.3.2.
Mr. K. Timmons was tested o.
April 13, 1979,
for Level I Liquid Penetrant Testing Method.
Specific
examination No. I was administered and consisted of
twenty questions. Six questions were missed resulting
in a score of 70.
The answer given for test question
number twenty was incorrect compared to the master
answer sheet. The examiner failed to mark the answer
incorrect. This individuals score was less than 70,
the minimum test score.
-7-
y qQ
, '
h ,( I
(4) W&B personnel were being tested for qualification by
an examination that did not meet the requirements of
Section 6 of procedure QA-TM-2 for the specific part.
Specific test questions for Level I liquid penetrant
given to Mr. T. Alford on October 13, 1978, were of
the general type questions for SNT-TC/1A supplement
for liquid penetrant.
Specific test questions are
required to pertain to the equipment, operating
2
procedures, and test techniques required by the
employers written practice and also cover the specifi-
cations or codes and acceptance standards used by the
employer in his NDE procedures. The individual in
question failed to pass this examination, however, he
was subsequently retested on the correct type of
specific examination.
(5) Log sheets were not being maintained for some NDE
personnel (example:
Mr. Bruno) to document the hours
worked for the method certified to permit examination
to higher level as required by Section B.I.3.
Nuclear Energy Services (NES) NDE personnel qualification
c.
records were reviewed for thirty-six examiners / operators
for Level I, II, and III for the radiographic testing
method in accordante with NES procedure 99-CNTP-001.
Qualification records included resumes, training records,
certifications, examinations and visual acuity test and
appeared to be satisfactory with the exception of:
Visual acuity test for three individuals, Messrs. Sisson,
Harris and Goans, failed to indicate the results of the
color contrast test as required by Section 6.2 of procedure
99-CNTP-001.
The inspector stated that the corrective action should
address any nondestructive examinations previously performed
by the personnel in question.
The findings described in (a), (b), and (c) above are contrary
to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion IX and Edison QA
Manual QAP 10 and is an item of noncompliance as identified
in Appendix A of the report transmittal letter.
(341/79-13-02)
.. g _
,n
8
-.tg
r
1
5
5'
.
3.
Control of Measuri'ng and Test Equipment
The inspector reviewed calibration procedures for content and
procedure implementation related to nondestructive examination
measuring and test equipment.
Procedures and equipment were
found to be generally acceptable with the following exceptions:
Daniel Construction Company procedure QCP-VI-01, Rev. 1,
a.
,
" Quality Control Procedure for Interpretation of RT Film,"
Section 3.6 requires "a calibrated step wedge film be
utilized to calibrate the densitometer." The film strip
(S/N 1846B) being utilized by Danf 1 to calibrate the
densitometers was certified at purchase on August 1, 1977,
and has not been certified since that date.
Daniel procedure AP-Vll-04, Rev. 4, calibration and control
of measuring and test equipment, failed to address the
certification /recertification of step wedge density film
strips. This lack of control neglects to assure film
strip densities are periodically verified to be correct.
b.
Wismer & Becker (W&B) procedure WB-Q-11B, Rev. 5, Radio-
graphic Examination, Section 6.5.2 requires " calibration
of densitometer by checking with a calibrated step wedge
film."
The film strips (3) being utilized to calibrate
the densitome:ers were not currently calibrated. One film
strip (S/N 107712) was last calibrated at purchase
December 29, 1977. The other two strips were not certified.
W&B procedure WB-E-104, Rev. 2, Calibration, Certification
and Control of Measuring and Test Equipment failed to
address the certification /recertificatian of step wedge
density film strips.
It shoulo also be noted that this
procedure does not contain requirements for calibration
intervals, tolerances or a list of contcolled NDE equipment
or other equipment.
Nuclear Energy Services (NES) is perforting radiography to
c.
the requirement of W&B procedtre WB-Q-110, same require-
ments as noted in (b) above.
NES was utilizing two step
wedge density films to calibrate their densitometers on
which the calibration was not current.
One strip had
never been calibrated while the other (S/N 9001) had not
been calibrated since April 12, 1973.
-9-
,s'
.
A total of srx densitometers were being utilized on site
for film density acceptance and were being calibrated by
six step wedge film strips which were not currently
calibrated.
These densitometers have been used to accept
filn, densities required by the ASME Code. The inspector
stated that the corrective action should address all
dispositioned radiographic film prior to density strip
certification.
,
The items denoted in (a), (b), and (c) above are contrary to
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XII, and Edison QA Manual,
QAP-13, and is an item of noncompliance as identified in
Appendix A, Item 3.
(341/79-13-03)
4.
Control of Special Processes, Nondestructive Examination
The inspector reviewed procedures, facilities and equipment
utilized to perform nondestructive examination, all were noted
to be generally acceptable with exceptions noted below:
a.
Wismer & Becker (W&B) procedure WB-Q-110, Rev. 5, Radio-
graphic Examination used by Nuclear Energy Services (NES)
to perform this testing method and was not being complied
with as follows:
(1) Section 6.4.2 states that " lead identification numbers
be permanently attached to the penet ameters." The
lead numbers for penetrameter No. 1. used by the
first shift radiographers was missing.
(2) Penetrameters and shims are manufactured to meet the
requirements of ASME Code,Section V, Article 22,
Penetrameter design and use requires a plane
surface to project a true quality image on the radio-
graphic film.
Several penetrameters and shims were bent to fit the
radius
f small pipe, thus, distorting the image.
The standard practice for penetrameter placument on
small piping sizes is to place the longitudinal axis
of the penetrameter parallel to the longitudinal axis
of the pipe. W&B procedure WB-Q-110 does not address
this subject.
It should be noted that approximately 10 to 15 percent
of the penetrameters and shims in use were inspected.
The remaining percent were locked in the radiographers
tool boxes.
- 10 -
-
4
a\\
b
s
,
,
,
o
.
b.
Section 12.1 requires ". . . a radiographic shooting
sketch for each technique utilized .
. ." This procedure
further defines each technique by listing several required
attributes: two being wall thickness and source to film
distance. Each change in thickness and pipe size would
require separate shooting sketches.
Radiographs of five
welds separate shooting sketches for two of these welds,
FW-P44-3558-1 WF1 (6" 280" wall) and B21-4416-3W F1 (12"
688" wall) were not prepared.
Shonting sketches for other
"
various standards and special pipe sizes were also not
prepared.
The items denoted in (a), (b) and (c) above are contrary to
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V and Edison QA Manual QAP-9
and is an item of noncompliance is identified in Appendix A,
Item 1.
(341/79-13-04)
Exit Inte rview
The inspectors met with site staff representatives (denoted in the
Persons Contacted paragraph) at the conclusion of the inspection on
M o/ 11, 1979. The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of
the inspection, including the apparent items of noncompliance identi-
fied in the Results paragraph of this report.
The licensee acknow-
ledged the findings.
- 11 -
n
' 'd '
O
.