ML20078A631
| ML20078A631 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1988 |
| From: | GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20078A351 | List:
|
| References | |
| PROC-880316, NUDOCS 9406020266 | |
| Download: ML20078A631 (200) | |
Text
.....
O VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT t
UNIT 2 i
READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM APPENDIX F - INSPECTOR QUALIFICATION f
4
-O 0435A/068-8
.9406020266-940512 I
PDR P
'ADOCK 05000424 PDR
PREFACE O
Georgia Power Company (GPC), in order to gain added assurance of the operational readiness of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), conducted a pilot Readiness Review Program for Unit 1.
The VEGP pilot Readiness Review Program was a systematic, in-depth self-assessment of work processes and verification of compliance with regulatory commitments.
To accomplish the VEGP pilot Readiness Review Program, the work processes and regulatory commitments were divided into manageable segments called modules.
There are 22 modules.
Each module is a predefined scope of VEGP activities.
Each module provides a brief description of the method of complying with project licensing commitments pertaining to the module scope and is not intended to make further commitments or to revise in any way prior commitments.
Activities common to several modules are provided as General Appendixes.
There are seven appendixes.
These appendixes, as appropriate, are referenced in the modules and are augmented in each module with module-scope-specific details as needed.
The VEGP pilot Readiness Review Program was conducted on a schedule to provide added operational readiness assurance to GPC management in support of the VEGP Unit 1 operating license.
()
Conclusions reached regarding programmatic and technical adequacy through review of VEGP Unit 1 are indicative of Unit 2, since both units are being designed and constructed together under a single quality assurance program; with like management controls, procedures, specifications, and criteria.
The Unit 2 Readiness Review Program extends the results of the Unit i review by assessing activities, hardware, and documents within the scope of selected modules and ascertaining compliance with licensing requirements.
In-addition, Module 23, Plant Security, has been added to the Unit 2 program.
The VEGP Unit 2 Reeliness Review Program is being conducted on a schedule to provide added operational readiness assurance to GPC management in support of the VEGP' Unit 2 operating license.
The VEGP Readiness Review Program is not intended to eliminate or to diminish _any authorities or regulatory responsibilities now assigned to or exercised by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or GPC.
Further, the Readiness Review Program is not inter _ded to change the techniques of inspections or assurance of quality program activities.
Rather, the VEGP Readiness Review Program is~an added program initiated by GPC management to assess VEGP quality programs and to provide additional feedback to management so that they may initiate any needed corrective O
actions in an orderly and timely manner.
0434A/074-8 iii
The scope of work processes and regulatory commitment compliance covered by each module will be assessed by, and the module prepared and reviewed by, individuals collectively familiar with the design, construction, and the preoperational processes of nuclear power plants.
It is the collective opinion of the Readiness Review Task Force, Readiness Review Board, and GPC management that, based on their experience, the methodology used in the module process will assess, on a programmatic basis, the adequacy of project commitment implementation.
Readiness Review findings and resulting dispositions are reviewed by the Project Quality Assurance staff and are input into the normal project process for safety significance and potential reportability evaluations in accordance with regulatory requirements.
O O
i 0434A/074-8 iv
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
O This appendix documents a review program to ascertain whether the construction quality control (QC) inspector qualification and certification (IQC) program complies with the licensing commitments and whether compliance is verifiable by using existing project documentation.
The scope of this appendix is the IOC program in use at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP).
The IOC program is administered by Georgia Power Company, which has QC inspectors working in mechanical, electrical, and civil disciplines, and seven site contractors, which have QC inspectors trained and working in appropriate technical areas.
This appendix addresses compliance of the IQC program with the project commitments and examines whether personnel responsible for confirmation of quality by performing inspections and tests are adequately qualified.
Specific inspection activities or specific inspector certification at the time of performing inspection activities are included in the individual modules where work activities are examined.
Discrepancies noted during review activities were issued to the Project as findings.
Following receipt and evaluation of the response, the findings were subjected to categorization as follows to indicate their relative importance:
Level I
- Violation of licensing commitments, project procedures, or engineering requirements with indication of safety concern.
Level II
- Violation of licensing commitments or engineering requirements with no safety concern.
Level III - Violation of project procedures with no safety concern.
The Readiness Review Program evaluation of inspector qualification and certification in VEGP Unit 2 consisted of the following three major activities:
Commitment Implementation Review Readiness Review has maintained the listing of commitments developed during the Unit 1 Readiness Review Program through review of Final Safety Analysis Report amendments and letters to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Project Construction was issued the listing of commitments applicable to this appendix at the beginning of the review period; and the Project provided Readiness Review with
(~
updated implementation information, which is presented in section 3.
i V
0426A/074-8
Unit 1 Findino Followup l
During the assessment of Unit 1, the Project committed to the performance of certain corrective actions. For Unit 2 Readiness Review provided Project Construction with a list of Unit 1 findings and corresponding corrective actions.
Construction evaluated those applicable to Unit 2 activities and informed Readiness Review as to the action taken.
The listing of Unit 1 findings and Unit 2 actions is presented in section 5.
Assessment The Unit 2 assessment of inspector qualification and certification consisted of an evaluation of project procedures, project training programs, and quality control inspector certification records.
During the assessment of project procedures, Readiness Review evaluated conformance of selective contractor procedures to the licensing commitments.
Ten procedures representing six organizations were assessed using detailed checklists prepared from licensing commitments and committed industry standards.
The controls for administering training, including testing of personnel, were reviewed during the evaluation of Project training programs.
This review was conducted using a checklist h
prepared from issues identified as problems from other nuclear construction sites.
Quality control inspector certification records were evaluated for conformance of the inspector certifications to the licensing commitments, procedures, and corrective actions from Unit 1 Readiness Review findings.
During this process, 37 inspectors with 235 certifications were reviewed.
The assessment resulted in six findings, all classified as Level II.
These findings were judged to be instances of inadequate procedure or documentation with no safety concern and did not indicate, either individually or collectively, a programmatic concern.
The review team found that project programs as implemented met licensing commitments, inspector qualifications were acceptable, and records were in good order with the exception of a few record keeping or administrative errors.
9 VI 0426A/074-8
1 Readiness Review Conclusion Based on the results of the review and the implementation of effective corrective actions as committed to by the Project, Readiness Review concludes that adequate programs exist to ensure that the quality of inspector certifications and the licensing commitments within the scope of this appendix have been implemented.
O O
Vii 0426A/070-8
APPENDIX F INSPECTOR QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 Introduction 1.1 Scope 1.2 Project Status Section 2 Organization Section 3 Commitments 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Commitment and Implementation Matrices Section 4 Program Description Section 5 Audits and Inspections 5.1 Introduction
( )
5.2 Project Audits 5.3 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspections 5.4 Unit 1 Finding Followup Section 6 Program Assessment 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Program Description 6.3 Summary and Conclusions 6.4 Assessment Activities and Results 6.5 Unit 2 Findings Section 7 Assessment of Appendix Adequacy Project Quality Assurance Readiness Review Board Section 8 Assessment Plan and Checklists A\\~)
0423A/068-8
APPENDIX F INSPECTOR QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
'd 1
INTRODUCTION 1.1 SCOPE This appendix is one document in a series of reports that provide an evaluation of the design, construction, and preoperational testing of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Unit 2.
It is intended to describe the method of complying with the project commitments found in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and is not intended to make further commitm'ents or revise prior commitments.
If any differences exist between the commitments discussed in this document and the FSAR, those differences are unintentional and the FSAR shall take precedence and shall define the project commitments.
The scope of this appendix is the qualification and certification of inspection personnel who accept safety-related or Category I construction work.
The procedures used for i
certification of personnel, the training programs, and the records of certified inspection personnel are assessed for conformance to project commitments by this appendix.
During the Unit 1 Readiness Review Program, Appendix F assessed
(( )
Project programs and activities for qualification and certification of inspection personnel performing inspection work i
on the Unit 1 and common facilities.
Since VEGP was designed and is being constructed as an integrated facility, construction inspection personnel involved in the inspection of Unit 1 also performed inspections in Unit 2.
Since the Unit 1 Appendix F evaluated these programs and activities through June 1, 1985 and found them acceptable, this Unit 2 appendix uses as its beginning point June 1, 1985.
The effective date of this appendix is November 1, 1987 and the commitments assessed for implementation are current through FSAR Amendment 34.
i e
O 0418A/074-8 l_1
1.2 PROJECT STATUS As of November 1987, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Unit 2 was approximately 74-percent complete.
Fuel load is scheduled for February 28, 1989.
O s
i O
0418A/070-8 1-3
O I
1 i
i t
O O
1 0-I i
2 ORGANIZATION Georgia Power Company (GPC), acting on its own behalf and as agent for the Oglethorpe Power Corporation, the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, is responsible for the design, construction and operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant.
GPC provides construction management and is responsible for inspection of the civil and electrical portions of the plant and for oversight of site contractors who also employ inspection personnel i
The role and responsibilities of GPC and those contractors who employ quality control inspectors are discussed below.
Georcia Power Company is the licensee and is responsible for overall quality assurance functions as described in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
As constructor, GPC, through its Quality Control (QC) Department is responsible for inspection of the civil (concrete, soils, structural steel) and electrical (raceway, cables, terminations, equipment) parts of the plant.
Additionally, GPC QC has responsibility for inspection of mechanical work within the limited scope of the piping systems in the auxiliary feedwater O
system installed under GPC's American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code,Section III. NPT/NA certificate of authorization.
l As a part of GPC's control and oversight of site contractors, GPC QC performs surveillance of those contractors who have their own QC organizations.
Those surveillance activities include review and approval of procedures and reinspection by GPC QC of a sample of work performed by contractors' QC inspectors.
Pullman Power Products (PPP) is responsible for installation and inspection of piping systems.
PPP has a QC Department and holds ASME B&PV Code,Section III, NA and NPT certificates of authorization.
Chicaco Bridae and Iron (CBI) is responsible for field erection and inspection of tanks, containment liner, air locks, and certain piping work associated with containment penetrations.
CBI holds ASME B&PV Code,Section III, certificates of authorization for code-related activities.
Nuclear Installation Services Company (NISCO) is responsible-for installation and inspection of the nuclear steam supply system primary loop components such as the reactor coolant pump, support structures, and miscellaneous components.
NISCO O
0430A/074-8 2-1
'l
performs this work under an ASME B&PV Code,Section III, certificate of authorization.
O Pullman /Kenith-Fortson (P/K-F) is responsible for installation and inspection of the heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning system that includes duct, duct supports, equipment, and instrumentation.
Williams Power Services. Inc. is responsible for field application and inspection of protective coatings used in "N"
areas of VEGP.
VSL Corporation (VSL) is responsible for installation and inspection of the containment post tensioning system.
Soils and Material Engineers, Inc. (SME) supplies civil inspectors who perform inspection activities under GPC direction in the areas of soils and concrete inspection.
O 9
0430A/070-8 2-2
3 COMMITMENTS O
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This section contains, in matrix form, licensing and project commitments and the corresponding implementing documents.
These are presented in two matrices; the commitment matrix and the implementation matrix.
Commitments A commitment is an obligation to comply with the described requirements of an industry standard, Regulatory Guide, Branch Technical Position, or owner plan of specific action.
For the purposes of Readiness Review, commitments are identified from the following sources:
o.
Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), including responses to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) questions.
o Responses to Inspection and Enforcement Bulletins.
o Correspondence to the NRC.
These sources were reviewed and commitments were selected for inclusion in the matrix using the following guidelines:
o Specific design and/or construction requirement.
o Specific standards of acceptance, o
Specific cited technical data used as a design basis and/or unique design methodology.
o Specific codes, standards, or regulatory requirements.
Descriptions, detailed data and/or parameters resulting from design activities, general codes, and regulations are not generally considered licensing commitments.
These include:
o Dimensions.
o System operational concepts or operational descriptions.
o Design calculation details such as strength parameters, flow rates, etc.
o References to general standards such as 10 CFR 50, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, American Concrete Institute, etc. (specific requirements from such bodies, however, are commitments).
O 0431A/070-8 3-1 i
Implementation h
An implementing document is a working level document that imposes the requirements of the commitment to a specific activity.
Imp)ementation of commitments is typically found in the following:
o Design Criteria.
o Material Specifications.
o Construction Specifications.
o Project Reference Manual.
o Field Procedure Manual.
o Startup Manual.
o Drawings.
Additionally, the Project has a commitment to comply with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Quality Assurance Criteria, and industrial standards such as ANSI /ASME N45.2 and N45.2.11.
Although they were not identified as specific commitments in this module, Readiness Review considered the applicable requirements of these types of commitments in preparing and assessing the scope of work presented by this module.
Differences, if any, between the descriptions in this section and the commitments in the FSAR are unintentional and the commitments in the FSAR take precedence.
9 0431A/070-8 3-2
3.2 COMMITMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION MATRICES
()
During the Unit 1 Readiness Review Program, the task force performed a systematic review of licensing documents and identified the project commitments.
Once identified, these commitments were listed in a document called the commitment matrix.
Readiness Review has maintained the matrix current for design and construction through review of Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Amendments and letters to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Additionally, during the Unit 1 Readiness Review, the task force identified project controls that implemented the commitment requirements (i.e.,
design criteria, specifications, construction procedures, etc.) and listed them on a document called the implementation matrix.
For Unit 2, the commitment matrix and implementation matrix were transmitted to the appropriate Project organizations for updating the implementation matrix data to reflect the latest implementing documents.
Upon completion, the updated matrix was returned to Readiness Review, who verified the accuracy, on a selective sampling basis, as described in section 6.
Changes in module commitments from those presented in the Unit 1 module are identified by a vertical row of X's in the left margin of the commitment matrix.
j The commitment and implementation matrices are presented following this section.
The commitments are accurate through
()
Amendment 34 of the FSAR.
i l
O 0431A/070-8 3-3
O O
C' PLANT VOCTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM COMMITMENT MATRIX
================e============x
REF. COMMITMENT COMMITMENT COMMITMENT DOCUMENT /
MOD DES CON FSAR REMARES NUMBER SOURCE SECTION SUBJECT FEATURE ULE IGN ST AMEN
==============================================================================
=2==a=.===;-=:
- =_=s EXPLANATION OF FIELOS REF. NO.
- A reference tamber that correspeeds to the approprIsto lles entry l e,t h e leplenestattee metrlu COMMITMENT SOURCE
- The document costeleleg the comalteest SFSAR, Generic Letter.
l.E.
Belletle Response, etc.)
COMMITMENT SECTION - Identitles the FSAR escties. Ietter eueher, or quentlee somber COMMITMENT SUBJECT - The subject et the FSAR sectles er Generic Letter DOCUMENT / FEATURE
- The decoment d i s c u e s'a d In the FSAR esctles er the pleet festere described Is the FSAR eeetles MOOWLE
- The module for shIch the comettoont le Implemented DESIGN / CONSTRUCTION An X In 84eced under the headlag for the orgselsetles responsible for Ieptementatles of the cemetteemt FSAR AMENOMENT
- FSAR emoedeost member for revised commitments le aere 80) Is placed L thle celess for changes ende prior to Ameedeemt 43 (start of Welt I Reedleets Rowloull NOTE:
Commitment cheogos from these presented le the Welt I module are IdestIfted by a vertical reu of X's la the left mergle.
A Page ( )
1
'd 02/03/88 PLANT V0GTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM COMMITMENT MATRIX - APPENDIX F
==========================
REF. COMMITMENT COMMITMENT COMMITMENT DOCUMENT /
FSAR REMARKS NUMBER SOURCE SECTION SUBJECT FEATURE MODrJ LE DESIGN CONST AMEN s======
===================================================================================================
50H5.00 FSAR 1.
9.
- 58. 2 QUALIFICATION OF NPP REG GUIDE 1.58 (REV. 21F X
23 FSAR CLARIFIES INSPECTION.
1 9/80)
POSITION ON EXAMINATION. AND CONFORMANCE TESTING PERSONNEL 5086.00 FSAR 1.
9.
- 58. 2 QUALIFICATION OF NPP ANSI N45.2.6-1978 21F X
23 FSAR CLARIFIES INSPECTION.
POSITION ON EXAMINATION. AND CONFORMANCE I
TESTING PERSONNEL X 5356.00 FSAR
- 1. 9. 58. 2 QUALIFICATION OF NPP GPC SHALL USE 21F X
16 FSAR CLARIFIES X
INSPECTION.EXAMINATI SNT-TC-1A (1980) FOR POSITION ON X
OM.AND TESTING CERTIFICATION OF NDE CONFORMANCE X
PERSONNEL PERSONNEL X
X 5357.00 FSAR 1.
9.
- 58. 2 QUALIFICATION OF NPP SITE CONTRACTORS 21F X
23 X
INSPECTION.EXAMINATI SHALL USE SMT-TC-1A X
ON.AND TESTING (1975) FOR X
PERSONNEL CERTIFICATION OF NDE X
PERSONNEL 5030.00 FSAR 17.
1.
2 Q.A.
PROGRAM REG. GUIDE 1.58 21F X
18 (REV.
- 1. 9/80) e
-m.
.oc r
- w O-Page No.
- 02/0.1/Mt CONSTRUCTION FSAR COPNITNENTS Ife'LEMENTATION MATRIX APPENDIX F INSPECTOR QUALIFICATION
======================
CONST REF. SOUNCE AND CURRENT CONSTRUCTION NINitLH SECTION SUBJECT DOctNENT/ FEATURE CONTRAC1BR AS OF:
IMPLEMENTATION REMARKS e :-- _ - = :===.===== =--=================================================-=========================================================
====e
EXPLAMATION OF FIELDS REF NO.
- A reference number that corresponds to the appropriate line entry in the comaltment matrix.
SOURCE AND SECTION - The commitment source and section to be implemented.
SUBJECT
- The subject of the commitment paragraph.
DOCUMENT / FEATURE
- The document discussed in the FSAR section or the plant feature described in the FSAR section. (See Commitment Matrix)
CONTRACTOR
- Identifies which contractor the implementation information applies.
CONST CURRENT
- The date that commitment implementation was verified.
AS OF:
CONSTRUCTION
- The Project document (s) that were reviewed to verify commitment IMPLEMENTATION 1mplementation.
m
-.m v
x
O O
O 02/08/88 CONSTRUCTION FSAR CGe4ITMNTS IWLENNTATION MATRIX APPENDIX F INSPECTOR QUALIFICATION
==================_===
CONST REF. SOUNCE Al@
CURRENT CONSTRUCTION NINBER SECTION SUBJECT DOCNENT/ FEATURE CONTRACMR AS OF:
IWLDENTATION RD4 ARKS
===================================================================================================================================-======
5085.00 FSAR QUALIFICATION OF NPP REO OUIDE 1.58 (REV. 1 SEE REMARKS SEE NtNBERS INSPECTION, EXAMINATION, 9/80) 5086,5356 AND 5357 p
- 1. 9. 58. 2 AND TESTING PERSOffNEL FOR IW LEMENTATION 4
5030.00 FSAR Q.A. PROGRAM REG. GUIDE 1.58 (REY. 1 SEE REMAkKS SEE NWWERS 9/80) 5086,5356,AND 5357
- 17. 1.
2 IVR IMPLEMENTATION 50CS.00 FSAR QUALIFICATION OF NPP ANSI N45.2.6-1978 GEORGIA IVNER 09-08-87 GPC PROCEDURES QC-A-01, REV. 5. AND INSPECTION, EXAMINATION, QC-A-02, REV. 5
- 1. 9. 58. 2 AND TESTING PERSONNEL 5356.00 FSAR QUALIFICATION OF W P GFC SHALL USE SNT-10-1A GEORGIA PONER 02-04-88 OPC PROCEDURE QC-A-03, REV. I INSPECTION EXAMINATION.AN (1980) FOR CERTIFICATION
- 1. 9. 58. 2 D TESTING PERSONNEL OF NDE PERSONNEL 5083.00 FSAR QUALIFICATION OF NPP ANSI M45.2.6-lW8 CBI 05-21-87 CBI QAM, REV. 8. AND PROCEDURE INSPECTION, EXAMINATION, TIP-1, REV. 6. SUPPLDENT 4. AND
- 1. 9. 58. 2 AND TESTING PERSONNEL CONTRACT ADDENDlM fl 5-21-84 5357.00 FSAR QUALIFICATION OF NPP SITE CONTRACTORS SHALL CBI 05-21-87 CBI QAM, REY. 8. AND PROCEDURE NDE INSPECTION. EXAMINATION.AN USE SNT-TC-1A (1975) IVR PERSONNEL TRAINING AND
- 1. 9. 58. 2 D TESTING PERSONNEL CERTIFICATION OF NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM, REV. 20 PERSONNEL 50ES.00 FSAR QUALIFICATION OF NPP ANSI N45.2.6-1978 NISCO 09-22-87 NISCO PROCEDURES ES 116-2, REV. I, INSPECTION, EXAMINATION, AND ES 118 REV. C
- 1. 9. 58. 2 AND TESTING PERSOleEEL 5357.00 FSAR QUALIFICATION OF NPP SITE CONTRACTORS SHALL NISCO 09-16-87 NISCO PROCEDURE ES 116-1, REV. L INSPECTIOF. EXAMINATION. AN USE SNT-1U-IA (lW5) FOR
- 1. 9. 58. 2 D TESTING PERSONNEL CERTIFICATION OF NDE PERSONNEL 5086.00 FSAR QUALIFICATION OF NPP ANSI M45.2.6-1978 PULINAN 09-22-87 PPP PROCEDURE II-4, REV. 4 INSPECTION, EXAMINATION,
- 1. 9. 58. 2 AND TESTING PERSONNEL m
Page No.
2 02/08/PH CONSTRUCTION FSAR COPHI19EtNTS IPW'LEMENTATION MATRIX APITNDIX F INSPECTOR QUALIFICATION
========================n.:======_-
CONST REF. SOURCE ANP CURRENT CONSTRUCTION NINBliR SECTION SUBJECT Doct#YNT/ FEATURE CON 11tACTUR AS OF:
IPE'LEPEINTATION REMARKS
==============================================c=============
==================================================================
$357.00 FSAR QUALIFICATION OF NPP SITE CONTRAC1DRS SRALL PhLlMAN 09-29-87 PPP PROCEDURES II-2, REY. B. AND INSPECTION, EXAMINATION,AN USE SNT-1C-1A (IW S) IVR II-3, REV. 8
. ANSI M45.2.6-lW8 SOIIS AND 10-05-87 Spet DESICN PLAN, REV. 7 INSPECTION, EXAMINATION, MAT.ENG.
- 1. 9. 58. 2 AND TESTING PERSONNEL 5357.00 FSAR QUALIFICATION OF NPP SITE CONTRAc10RS SHALL SOILS AND SEE REMARKS SPet SCOPE OF WORK lhSPECTION. EXAMINATION AN USE SNT-TC-lA (1975) IVR MAT.ENG.
DOES NOT INCLUDE NUE
- 1. 9. 58. 2 D TESTING PERSONNEL CERTIFICATION OF NDE PERSONNEL 5086.00 FSAR QUALIFICATION OF NPP ANSI M45.2.6-1978 WILLIAMS 10-08--87 NILLIAMS PROCEDURES WC-050, REV. 1 INSPECTION, EXAMINATION, AND NC-013. REV. I
- 1. 9. 58. 2 AND TESTING PERSON'.'EL r
i 5357.00 FSAR QUALIFICATION OF NPP SITE CONTRACTORS SHALL WILLIAMS SEE REPLARKS NILLIAMS SCOPE OF INSPECTION EXAMINATION,AN USE SNT-1C-IA (1975) IVR NORK DOES NOT I. 9. 58. 2 D TESTING PERSONNEL CERTIFICATION OF NDE INCLUDE NUE i
PERSONNEL 5086.00 FSAR QUALIFICATION OF NPP ANSI N45.2.6-1978 VSL 05-21-87 VSL QAM, 1-19-85. AND PROCEDURE INSPECTION, EXAMINATION, PT-07. REV. O
- l. 9. 58. 2 AND TESTING PERSONNEL 5357.00 FSAR QUALIFICATION OF NPP SITE CONTRACTORS SHALL VSL SEE REMARKS VSL SCOPE OF WORK INSPECTION EXAMINATION.AN USE SNT-TC-1A (1975) FOR DOES NOT INCLUDE NDE
- 1. 9. 58. 2 D TESTING PERSONNEL CERTIFICATION OF NDE PERSONNEL
$086.00 FSAR QUALIFICATION OF NPP ANSI N45.2.6-1978 PKF 09-30-87 PKF PROCEDURES JP-2.2, REv. 100, INSPECTION, EXAMINATION, AND JP-2.3, REV. 44 1
'-- 2 AND TESTING PERSONNEL 5357.00 FSe QUALIFICATION OF NPP SITE CONTRACTORS SilALL PKF SEE REMARKS PEF SCOPE OF NORK INSPECTION, EXAMINATION AM USE SNT-TC-1A (1975) IVR DOES NOT INCLUDE NDE
- 1. 9. 58, 2 D TESTING PERSONNEL CERTIFICATION OF NDE PERSONNEL i
r,-
.-g u-w W
M
= *
-+e-
4 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION This section describes the process used at Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) to qualify and certify personnel who perform inspection of safety-related systems on Category I structures.
As described in section 3, the project is committed to ensure that inspectors conform to Regulatory Guide 1.58, ANSI N45.2.6, and ASNT SNT-TC-1A requirements as stated in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
These require that an inspector qualification and certification program contain the following basic elements:
o Establish minimum educational requirements.
o Establish minimum experience requirements.
o Provide specific training in the tasks which may include both academic and job experience.
o set minimum physical requirements.
o Require documented proof of an individual's qualifications.
o Provide a system to maintain qualification levels.
o Reevaluate qualifications at established periods.
The programs established at VEGP by Georgia Power Company (GPC) and its contractors incorporate these elements into their programs.
Each element, as applied to VEGP, is discussed below.
All inspection personnel are required to have a high school diploma or its equivalency.
Each organization verifies this information by obtaining a copy of the diploma or by contacting the educational institution or agency.
Minimum experience levels are established for each level and/or area of certification.
Experience varies with the amount of formal education and, if obtained with a prior employer, is verified.
For American National Standards Institute (ANSI) areas of certification, the experience recommendations of ANSI N45.2.6 are followed but specific site training can be used to reduce experience requirements with management approval.
Each organization has established a curriculum of study that is used to train employees in the specific job requirements.
For GPC and contractors with large staffs, full-time training personnel are employed on site to provide training.
For contractors with smaller staffs, personnel with prior training 0432A/070-8 4-1
and certifications are utilized or corporate personnel provide this service.
O Physical requirements established for most organizations consist of an eye examination.
When an eye examination is specified, inspectors must meet a near acuity test of Jaegar-1 (eye correction allowed). Certification areas such as nondestructive examination certifications, soils inspection, and coating inspection require that the employee be able to distinguish colors.
Isochromatic plates or a multicolored cable test is used to verify this requirement.
Physical requirements are verified yearly.
Each organization has established a system to maintain qualifications of its inspection personnel.
This system consists of a procedure awareness program to assure the inspector stays aware of procedure changes and a yearly performance update.
The yearly performance update is eithet a written test on his responsibilities and the criteria for inspection or a review of the inspector's work by his supervision.
This yearly update is documented and maintained in the inspector's certification file.
At intervals not exceeding 3 years, each inspector is recertified.
The recertification process consists of performance evaluation by observing the inspectors work, written examination similar to the original certification examination, h
or both.
Table 4-1 identifies those organizations with inspector qualification and certification programs and the procedures used.
O 0432A/070-8 4-2
O U
V O
O TABLE 4-1 (SiiEET 1 OF 2) l PROCEDURES USED FOR QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF INSPECTORS ORGANIZATION TYPE CERTIFICATION PROCEDURE F
Georqia Power Company ANSI QC-A-01, revision 5 l
NDT QC-A-03, revision 1 GEN-12750, revision 3 Chicaqo Bridge and Iron ANSI TIP-1, revision 6, supplement 4, and contract addenda 1 NDT NDE Personnel Training and Certification Program, revision 20 Nuclear Installation Service Company ANSI ES-116-2, revision I NDT ES-Il6-1, revision L i
Pullman /Kenith-Fortson ANSI JP 2.2, revision 10C PulIman Power Products ANSI 11-4, revision 4 NDT II-2, revision 8 (levels I and II)
II-3, revision 8 (level III)
Goils and Material Enqineers ANSI Design Plan, revision 7 0425A/063-8/l
O O
O TABLE 4-1 (SHEET 2 OF 2)
PROCEDURES USED FOR QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF INSPECTORS ORGANIZATION TYPE CERTIFICATION PROCEDURE VSL ANSI PT-07, revision 0 Williams ANSI WC-013, revision 1 k
i 0425A/063 8/2
.... ~.
i 5
AUDITS AND INSPECTIONS O
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This section contains a listing of Quality Assurance (QA) audits and Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspections performed in the area of inspector qualification and certification subsequent to Unit 1 Appendix F.
The audits were conducted by Georgia Power Company in order to provide assurance that construction processes function as required by 10 CPR 50, Appendix B, the project QA program, and commitments defined in the Final Safety Analysis Report.
The resulting findings or violations applicable to this appendix are listed at the end of this section.
These findings were reviewed by the Readiness Review Team and factored into the assessments presented in section 6 of this appendix.
O i
0 0433A/074-8 5-1 i
e 4-
,n 3
_rmw.
a,,-
a K;r, H
s a_a O
O O
0433A/068-8 5-2
i 5.2 PROJECT AUDITS j
()
Project Quality Assurance (QA), consisting of Georgia Power Company (GPC) QA and Bechtel Western Power Company (BWPC) QA, conducts regularly scheduled audits to verify compliance to project requirements.
Any finding from an audit is reported to 1
the management of the audited organization for corrective action.
Table 5-1 at the end of this section lists the audits conducted and findings issued since completion of the Unit 1 appendix.
GPC QA conducted 11 audits within the scope of this appendix since completion of the Unit 1 Readiness Review assessment.
These audits resulted in four findings, which identified discrepancies in documentation requirements or use of a wrong code edition.
None of the findings identified deficiencies in inspector qualifications.
For each finding, the extent and significance of the discrepancy were identified and adequate corrective action was taken to resolve the deficiency and prevent recurrence.
O 0433A/074-8 5-3
0 0
i 1
l O'
O433A/068-8 5-4 I
I
5.3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION INSPECTIONS Readiness Review has identified three Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspections related to this appendix.
No NRC violations were identified.
A summary of these inspections is listed in Table 5-2.
O 1
i O
0433A/068-8 5-5
m
.a s
O i
G 1
i e
i I
)
I b
O 9
0433A/060-8 5-6
5.4 UNIT 1 FINDING FOLLOWUP
)
Unit 1 finding followup consisted of identification of the findings and corresponding corrective actions as a result of Unit 1 Readiness Review or Nuclear Regulatory Commission evaluation of the Unit 1 modules.
For Unit 2, a list of those findings was compiled and transmitted to the Project to evaluate and to determine the following:
o If the finding was an isolated occurrence in Unit 1 and did not require Unit 2 action (or was applicable to Unit 1 only).
o If corrective action taken for Unit 1 remains in place and acceptable, o
If corrective action in place for Unit 2 has changed from that specified in the Unit 1 module, but is still acceptable.
o If corrective action taken for Unit 1 has not been entirely effective in Unit 2 and therefore has been modified.
For each finding that the Project determined was applicable to Unit 2, a response was returned to Readiness Review that stated which documents identified the corrective action required, any O
changes to committed actions, and action taken if corrective action was not effective.
Table 5-3 at the end of this section presents the findings, the type of action taken for Unit 2, and explanations if corrective action was changed or not entirely effective.
Two Unit 1 findings were identified as applicable to Appendix F.
The Project Construction evaluation of these findings concluded that both were properly addressed in the Unit 2 programs.
O 0433A/068-8 5-7
mO O
O PLANT V0GTLE UNIY"2 READINESS REVIE3 PROGRAM QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDITS TABLE 5-1
===============================
EDIT AUDITING AUDIT FINDING NO ORGANIZATION NUMBER NUMBER LEVEL DATE SUBJECT REMARES
===============================================================================================================
198 GPC CPOI-86/41 09/02/86 PULLMAN'S PROGRAMMATIC CONTROLS FOR 57 CERTIFICATION FABRICATION, CONSTRUCTION, AND TESTING OF PACKAGES REVIEktD -
PIPING AS PER 6 FUNCTIONAL AREAS COVERING 17 ALL ACCEPTABLE CRITERIA 0F 10CFR50 APPENDIE B 201 GPC CP01-87/II 03/16/87 AUDIT OF NUCLEAR INSTALLATION SERVICE COMPANY RANDDM REVIEW OF (NISCO)
CERTIFICATION PACKAGES WITH NO FINDINGS 206 GPC CP01/CP23-86/
05/30/86 NISCO'S QA PROGRAM FOR INSTALLATION OF NSSS 6 INSPECTOR FILES 25 AS PER 7 FUNCTIONAL AREAS COVERING 17 REVIEWED - ALL CRITERIA OF 10CFR50, APPENDIE 5 ACCEPTABLE 222 GPC CP04-87/15 04/30/87 AUDIT OF ASME/AWS WELDING PROGRAM WHICH REVIEWED WELD INSP.
INCLUDED A REVIEW OF DESIGN CONTROL, CERTS FOR 10 GPC, 6 PROCUREMENT, PROC'S & DWG'S, TRAINING &
PEF, AND 10 PPP QUALIFICATION, MATERIAL CONTROL, RECEIPT, INSPECTORS - ALL STORAGE & HANDLING, PROCESS PERFORMANCE.
ACCEPTABLE PROCESS RECORDS, DOCUMENT CONTROL & M&TE 223 GPC CP05-85/84 11/27/85 TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION OF GPC AND CERTIFICATION PACKAGES CONTRACTOR INSPECTION PERSONNEL REVIEWED WERE ACCEPTABLE AFR 866 ISSUED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DEFICIENCY 224 GPC CP05-86/31 06/27/86 GPC ASME III QA PROGRAM FOR QC PERSONNEL 21 INSPECTOR FILES INDOCTRINATION, QUALIFICATION, CERTIFICATION, REVIEWED - ALL AND TRAINING ACCEPTABLE 225 GPC CP05-86/46 09/10/86 PROCEDURE AWARENESS PROGRAM AFR 965 ELECTRICAL QC DID NOT HAVE A FORMAL PROGRAM FOR PROCEDURE AWARENESS 226 GPC CP05-87/27 06/30/87 EEAMINATION OF QC INSPECTORS CERTIFICATION & 31 INSPECTOR FILES TRAINING FILES PER GPC PROC. QC-A-01. -02 &
REVIEWED - AFR 1024
-03 ISSUED FOR MISSING ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT ON 5 INSPECTORS B
Page P.
2 01/0 I READIRESS REVIEW PROGRAM PLANT V0GTLE U21%
GUALITT ASSURA%CE AUDITS TABLE 5-1
===============================
EDIT AUDITING AUDIT FINDING MO ORGANIZATION NUMBER NUMBER LEVEL DATE SUBJECT REMARES
===============================================================================================================
261 GPC CP15-86/10 03/27/86 RECEIPT. STORAGE AND INSTALLATION OF TENDONS. 6 INSPECTOR FILES AND QUALIFIC,AT:0NS OF VSL OC PERSONNEL REVIEWED - ALL ACCEPTABLE 282 GPC CP21-86/19 05/15/86 RECEIPT. STORAGE AND INSTALLATION OF 5 INSPECTOR FILES INSTRUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION OF GPC QC REVIEWED - ALL PERSONNEL ACCEPTABLE 295 GPC SP01-86/23 05/20/86 ASSESSMENT OF NDE ACTIVITIES OF PPP. MISCO. & 32-PPP.2-CBI.9-NISCO CBI INSP. CERTS REVIEWED.
PPP & CBI ACCEPTABLE NISCO ISSUED AFR 929 FOR CERTIFYING A INSP.
TO WRONG SNT-TC-IA (1980 INSTEAD OF 1975) 352 GPC AFR 0866 III 11/27/85 RECORD OF LEVEL III ADMINISTRATOR LEVEL III APPOINTMENT APPOINTMENTS NOT ON FILE LETTERS WERE FILED IN ANOTHER LOCATION FILE WAS UPDATED AND AFR WAS CLOSED 4I5 GPC AFR 0929 II 05/20/86 CERTIFICATION OF NISCO LEVEL III NDE TESTING OF LEVEL III TECHNICIAN TO WRONG EDITION OF SNT-TC-1A WAS PERFORMED BY A (1980 INSTEAD OF 1975)
VENDOR - TEST MET ALL REQUIREMENTS OF SNT-TC-IA. 1975 452 GPC AFR 0965 II 02/16/87 TESTING NOT ADMINISTERED TO ELECTRICAL QC ELECTRICAL QC RESPONSE PERSONNEL AFTER TRAINING SESSICN FOR MAJOR 700E EXCEPTION TO REVISIONS TO VEGP FIELD PROCEDURES FINDING AND IDENTIFIED CONTROLS IN PLACE -
AFR WAS CLOSED AFTER FURTHER REVIEW 513 GPC AFR 1024 III 06/30/87 FIVE CIVIL INSPECTORS CERTIFICATION FILES DID ALL FILES WERE NOT CONTAIN THE SUPERVISOR'S REPORT FOR REVIEWED AND BROUGHT CONTINUING SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE OR A UP TO DATE DOCUMENT VERIFYING INSPECTION BT THE INSPECTOR.
I-t
=TO O
O PLANT V0GTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PEOGRAM WRC INSPECTIONS TABLE 5-2
===============================
EDIT INSPECTION FINDING NO ORGANIZATION NUMBER NUMBER LEVEL DATE SUBJECT REMARKS
=-=4
===========================================================================================================
615 NRC 424/86-017 04/25/86 INSPECTION OF NDE PROCEDURES ON PIPING &
425/86-009 VESSELS INCLUDING OUALIFICATION OF PERSONNEL
& CALIBRATIO,N OF TEST EQIUPMENT 621 NRC 424/86-024 10/01/86 REVIEW OF READINESS REVIEW APPENDIX F WITR 2 INSPECTOR FOLLOWUP ITEMS IDENTIFIED & CLOSED 717 NRC 424/86-129 12/29/86 INSPECTION OF PIPING. NVAC. AND QUALIFICATION URI LATER CLOSED AFTER 425/86-059 RECORDS OF INSPECTION PERSONNEL WITH I INFORMATION ON UNRESOLVED ITEM IDENTIFIED (QUALIFICATIONS OF PENSONNEL PROVIDED PERSONNEL ADMINISTERING EYE REAMS) i l
(v J
t>
Page No.
1 03/10/88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM FOLLOW-UP OF UNIT I FINDINGS (RR.lDR,NRC)
TABLE 5-3
================================================
EDIT SOURCE AND DESCRIPTION OF DESCRIPTION OF UNIT I DESCRIPTION OF UNIT 2 NO FINDING DESIGN CONST LEVEL FINDING CORRECTIVE ACTION FOLLOW-UP ACTION
=========:=============================================================================== = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =..======
693 RRF X
11 INSPECTOR QUALIFICATION COMPLETE REVIEW OF GPC &
CORRECTIVE ACTION REMAINS 21F-001 RECORDS INCOMPLETE OR MISSING CONTRACTOR FILES. MISSING IDENTICAL AND ACCEPTABLE DOCUMENTS OBTAINED OR JUSTIFIED.
PROCEDURES AND RESPONSIBILITIES REVISED.
695 RRF X
III MECH. TRAINING COURSE FOR HVAC TRAINING WAS CHG'D. IN 1980 TO CORRECTIVE ACTION REMAINS 21F-003 DID NOT REFERENCE SMACNA.
REF. SMACNA.
STUDT SHOWS IDENTICAL AND ACCEPTABLE CLOSURE OF QA FINDING DID NOT PREVIOUS TRAINING ADEQUATE FOR ADDRESS RETROFIT REQ'MTS.
LIMITED INSP. PRIOR TO CHANGE
6 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
6.1 INTRODUCTION
This section describes the Readiness Review actions performed to ascertain whether the programs for qualification and certification of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Unit 2 quality control inspectors have been adequately maintained and controlled in a manner that conforms to project procedures and licensing commitments.
The Readiness Review Team assembled for Appendix F consisted of three Readiness Review task force members with 33 years of combined nuclear construction experience.
Approximately 900 manhours were expended in performance of the review and assessment activities.
Table 6-1 lists the members of the assessment team.
Discrepancies noted during the assessment were issued to the Project as findings.
Project responses to these findings were required to specifically address the issues identified, the investigative actions taken to determine possible generic implications, and the corrective actions performed.
These Project responses were evaluated and the findings were g
subjected to categorization as follows:
(V o
Level I - Violation of licensing commitments, project procedures, or engineering requirements with indication of safety concern.
o Level II - Violation of licensing commitments or engineering requirements with no safety concerns.
o Level III - Violation of project procedures with no safety concerns.
O 0419A/074-8 6-1
-4.sa e
a a
444, m w.
ae.-.
-m-.--m a
a a
-:n._-
.LA, O
J l
0 a
9 0419A/070-8 o-2
6.2 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The Readiness Review assessment program for evaluating the qualification and certification of Unit 2 quality control inspectors consisted of three major activities.
These activities were the evaluation of the project procedures, the evaluation of project training programs, and the evaluation of quality control inspector certification records.
The Review team used a specific checklist for each assessment activity.
These checklists utilized attributes that were derived from industry issues, project procedures, licensing commitments, and Unit 1 Readiness Review Findings.
The assessment was developed to accomplish the following objectives:
i o
Provide added assurance that project procedures implement licensing commitments.
(Assessment part 1) o Verify that project training programs are addressing current industry issues.
(Assessment part 2) o Provide added assurance that site inspector certification records are complete and conform to requirements.
(Assessment part 3)
Additionally, the corrective actions for Unit 1 Readiness Review findings were evaluated to determine if the actions taken have been effective in preventing recurrence of the Unit 1 problems in Unit 2.
These findings are included in the assessment checklist for commitment implementation and the review of inspector qualification records.
The assessment and results are discussed in the following sections.
O 0419A/070-8 6-3
-.m+eu e..
.r
_h.
4
.h..ma a
..m O
J n
d i
f I
E i
i i
O i
I i
I j
8 O
l l
0419A/070-8 6-4
6.3
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS Appendix F addresses the qualification and certification of the quality control inspectors who are responsible for Unit 2 construction inspection work.
Verification of the adequacy of the procedures, programs, and records that make up the inspector certification programs was accomplished by utilizing the appropriate assessment plan checklist.
Table 6-2 depicts the organizations, project procedures and readiness review activities included in the assessment.
The assessment was performed in three parts:
o Part 1 - Conformance of program procedures to licensing commitments.
o Part 2 - Project handling of concerns resulting from industry issues.
o Part 3 - Conformance of inspector qualifications to established criteria.
i The assessment resulted in six findings, all of which were classified Level II.
These findings were judged to be instances of inadequate procedure or documentation with no safety concern and did not indicate, either individually or collectively, a programmatic concern.
I
\\
Corrective actions taken by the Project to correct the deficiencies identified by the findings will ensure that inspector qualification and certification programs meet the requirements of project procedures and licensing commitments.
The review team found that project programs as implemented meet licensing commitments.
Inspector certifications were acceptable and records were in good order with the exception of a few record keeping or administrative errors.
The individual findings and the Project responses are presented in section 6.5.
The assessment plan and checklist are presented in section 8.
O 0419A/074-8 6-5
I l
1 O
I i
i l
1 i
I i
l 1
1 I
O i
l 0419A/070-8 6-6
6.4 ASSESSMENT
ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS
()
In preparation for the development of the assessment plan, Readiness Review examined the information presented in section 5 of this module [ audits, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) items, etc]. to ensure that areas with a history of deficiency or weakness at Vogtle Electrical Generating Plant (VEGP) were factored into the assessment.
Additionally, the following were evaluated for inclusion in the assessment:
I o
Quality concerns.
o Industry problems.
o Licensee Event Reports from VEGP Unit 1.
Copies of the NRC inspections of Comanche Peak, Browns Ferry, Sequoyah, and Watts Bar for 1985, 1986, and the first half of 1987 were obtained and examined to identify any new areas of industry concern.
Within the scope of this module, no problem areas were identified from these sources that were not already identified.from other sources.
O-6.4.1 PART 1.
CONFORMANCE OF PROGRAM PROCEDURES TO LICENSING COMMITMENTS During Unit 1 Readiness Review, the licensing commitments for inspector qualification were compiled.
The Unit 1 review verified that these commitments were reflected in construction programs and procedures.
The objective of the Unit 2 Readiness Review assessment was to assess whether these programs and procedures have been maintained and conform to these established commitments.
Georgia Power Company (GPC) has committed, with one exception that was reviewed and accepted Sy the NRC, to conform to Regulatory Guide 1.58, revision 1, dated September 1980, i
Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Inspection, Examination and Testing Personnel.
The regulatory guide endorsed conformance to ANSI N45.2.6-1978 and'ASNT Recommended Practice SNT-TC-1A-1975.
GPC's position (exception and clarification) on the regulatory guide is stated in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
The principal exception is the use of the 1980 edition of SNT-TC-1A, instead of the 1975 edition, for training and certification of GPC nondestructive examination (NDE) personnel.
Contractors certify NDE personnel to the 1975 edition.
t The requirements of ANSI N45.2.6 and SNT-TC-1A were included in the development of three' checklists.
These checklists were used
()
in the assessment of GPC Construction and site contractors to b
0419A/075-8 6-7 1
verify conformance of the procedures to licensing commitments.
These checklists have been given the following titles:
O o
ANSI N45.2.6, Inspector Certification Program Review.
o SNT-TC-1A (1975), NDE Certification Program Review.
o SNT-TC-1A (1980), NDE Certification Program Review.
The following examples are typical checklist attributes:
o ANSI N45.2.6-1978 Does the procedure require any inspector who has not performed inspection, examination or testing activities in his qualified area for a period of one year to be reevaluated by a redetermination of required capability?
o ANSI N45.2.6-1978 and SNT-TC-1A 1975 and 1980 Is the candidate a high school graduate or has he earned the General Education Development (GED) equivalent of a high school diploma?
o SNT-TC-1A-1975 Does the training program include sufficient examination to ensure that the training material has been h
comprehended?
o SNT-TC-1A-1980 Has the candidate for certification demonstrated familiarity with and ability to operate the necessary test equipment, and analyze the resultant information to the degree required?
In addition to the sample of typical attributes presented above, the checklists contain specific attributes addressing qualifications, training, education, and experience.
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY The assessment of GPC's procedures for quality control inspector qualification was secomplished by using the assessment checklists which included provisions of ANSI N45.2.6 and the SNT-TC-1A (1980).
The N45.2.6 checklist was used to review Procedure QC-A-01, revision 5, Qualificatf.on and Certification of Technical Inspectors.
The SNT-TC-1A (L980) checklist was used to review Procedure QC-A-03, revisio.1 0 Qualification and Certification of NDT Inspectors and Engineering and Construction Services Procacare GEN-12750, revision 3, Quelification and h
Certification of Nondestructive Testing (NDT) Personnel. Both of 0419A/070-8 6-8
these procedures are used for certifying nondestructive examination (NDE) technicians.
The review of Procedure QC-A-01, which is used for the certification of ANSI N45.2.6 inspectors, did not reveal any procedural deficiencies.
QC-A-03 is the site procedure that specifies the Vogtle-specific requirements and invokes GEN-12750, which provides specific direction for training, test administration, and record control.
The review of Procedure QC-A-03 found no procedural deficiencies; however, the review of Procedure GEN-12750 identified deficiencies which were documented in Readiness Review Finding 2RRF-21F-001.
The first deficiency was the failure of the written procedure to require NDE personnel to have either a high school diploma or GED.
The second deficiency cited several instances where GEN-12750 uses "should" instead of "shall" when stating procedure requirements.
Final Safety Analysis Report, section 1.9.58.2, clarification 1, states that GPC shall supplement the requirements of SNT-TC-1A (1980) by replacing the "shoulds" with "shalls".
The third deficiency refers to GEN-12750, Exhibit 01, which listed the required training for leak testing Level II as 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> whereas the 1980 edition of SNT-TC-1A recommends 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> of training.
Corrective action for this finding consisted of a revision of GEN-12750 to require a high school diploma or GED for inspectors at VEGP, replacement of "shoulds" with "shalls", and correction of the leak testing training to 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br />.
A review of all GPC NDE inspectors confirmed that all had a high school diploma or GED.
The second and third deficiencies were determined to be administrative only.
The Project had been treating "should" as "shall" and the leak test training course was 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> in length.
To preclude recurrence. Procedure QC-A-03 was revised (upgraded) to include the site requirements for training, test administration, and record controls which had previously been defined in GEN-12750.
Future certifications will be checked for compliance to QC-A-03 prior to submittal for record retention in accordance with GEN-12750.
NUCLEAR INSTALLATION SERVICES COMPANY The assessment of the Nuclear Installation Services Company (N7.SCO) construction procedures was accomplished by using the N45.2.6 checklist to review Procedure ES 116-2, revision "I",
f-s Qualification and Certification of Inspection Personnel and the
(_)
SNT-TC-1A (1975) checklist to review Procedure ES 116-1, 0419A/075-8 6-9
revision "L".
Qualification and Certification of Nondestructive Examination Personnel.
The review of Procedure ES 116-2, which is used for the certification of ANSI N45.2.6 inspectors, revealed one procedural deficiency.
The procedure does not require Level II and III inspection, examination, and testing personnel to have a high school diploma or GED. Contract or transferred Level II and III candidates meeting the minimum education and experience requirements could be certified without a diploma or GED.
This deficiency was documented in Readiness Review Finding 2RRF-21F-002.
Review of NISCO inspector certification records showed that all NISCO quality control inspectors who have worked at VEGP have a high school diploma or a GED on file.
The requirement for a high school diploma or a GED has been added to the Level II and III certification requirements in Procedure ES 116-2.
The review of Procedure ES 116-1, which is used for the certification of NDE technicians, identified no procedural deficiencies.
PULLMAN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES /KENITH-FORTSON COMPANY, INC The assessment of the Pullman Construction Industries /Kenith-Fortson Company, Inc. (P/K-F) procedure was accomplished using the ANSI N45.2.6 assessment checklist.
The review of Procedure l
JP-2.2, revision 10c, Qualification of Inspection. Test, and Examination Personnel, was completed and no deficiencies were found.
PULLMAN POWER PRODUCTS The assessment of Pullman Power Products (PPP) construction procedures was accomplished using the ANSI N45.2.6 and the SNT-TC-1A (1975) assessment checklists.
The N45.2.6 checklist was used to review Procedure II-4, revision dated December 5, 1986, Inspection and Testing Personnel Control and Administration of Training. Examination, Qualification and l
Certification.
The SNT-TC-1A (1975) checklist was used to review Procedures II-2, revision dated August 5, 1986, Levels I and II Nondestructive Personnel, Control and Administration of l
Examination. Qualification and Certification, and II-3, revision l
dated August 19, 1981, Level III Nondestructive Personnel, Control, and Administration of Examination, Qualification, and l
Certification.
l l
The review of Procedures II-3 and II-4 found no procedural i
deficiencies.
O 0419A/075-8 6-10
I The review of Procedure II-2 identified one deficiency.
ASNT
('
SNT-TC-1A (1975) requires that test objects be used in the
\\
practical examination of NDE Levels I and II personnel and that at least 90 percent of the known indications be found.
PPP Procedure II-2, revision dated August 15, 1986, does not address the requirement to find at least 90 percent of the known indications.
This deficiency was addressed in Readiness Review Finding 2RRF-21F-003.
Subsequent investigative actions concluded, based on a review of the completed test and interviews with the examiners, that the testing process did require that 90 percent of the known indications be found.
Procedure II-2 has been revised to specifically incorporate the 90-percent requirement.
SOIL AND MATERIAL ENGINEERS. INC.
The Soil and Material Engineers, Inc.,
(SME) design plan for Levels I and II quality control services was assessed using the ANSI N45.2.6 checklist.
No deficiencies were found.
WILLIAMS POWER SERVICES. INC.
The ANSI N45.2.6 checklist was utilized to assess Williams Power Services. Inc. Procedure WC-013, revision 1, Certification of Inspectors.
The review team found no deficiencies.
6.4.2 PART 2, PROJECT HANDLING OF CONCERNS RESULTING FROM INDUSTRY ISSUES During recent years, the nuclear industry has identified weaknesses in the inspector qualification and certification process such as control and reuse of inspector examinations, qualifications of instructors, and verification of education.
During the Unit 2 Readiness Review assessment, the inspector training programs were reviewed using a training program evaluation checklist that addressed nine issues.
Attributes for the checklist were based on broad industry issues that were extracted from the concerns expressed in NRC Construction Assessment Team Inspection Reports from different nuclear facilities under construction.
The following examples are typical attributes used in the training program evaluation checklist:
o Is there a training curriculum established for each area of certification?
o Are guidelines or procedures available to control the test questions?
0419A/074-8 6-11 i
o Does the program require continuing training in technical and administrative subjects to ensure that personnel remain proficient in their jobs and are aware of changes in procedures?
The results of the review for individual organizations identified no deficiencies.
Industry issues were satisfactorily addressed.
6.4.3 PART 3, CONFORMANCE OF INSPECTOR OUALIFICATIONS TO ESTABLISHED CRITERIA The objective of this part of the assessment was to assess conformance of inspector certifications to the licensing requirements and site procedures.
This assessment was limited to inspector certifications that were in effect after June 1985 (completion of Unit 1 Appendix F).
The sample was obtained by reviewing certification packages of inspectors who accepted work assessed in other Unit 2 Readiness Review modules.
If a Unit 2 module assessment had not yet been conducted, the sample selection was chosen at random from the organization's inspector population.
The assessment used an inspector certification checklist that was developed to assess conformance to both licensing g
commitments and procedural requirements.
The following examples W
are typical of attributes found in that checklist:
o Is there proof of a high school diploma or GED?
o Have academic requirements been met?
o Have experience requirements been met?
o Have procedural requirements been met?
o Was the physical (eye) examiner qualified?
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY Fifteen GPC quality control (QC) inspector certification files were reviewed using the inspector certification checklist.
Ten of the inspectors were chosen from those who accepted hardware assessed in Modules 6 and 17/19.
The remaining five inspector certification files were chosen at random.
The 15 inspectors' files contained a total of 123 certifications in effect for the period of time covered by this assessment.
Each certification was properly completed and contained supporting documentation.
0419A/074-8 6-12
l i
During the review of GPC's_ certification files, three areas of concern were noted.
The first concern involved the Supervisor's O
Report of Job Experience.
The form as it existed did not identify which experience is used for the basis of certification 1
in cases where an inspector has broad and various past j
experience.
Although the experience for all inspectors in the sample was verified by Readiness Review and found to be acceptable, determining the specific experience used for each certification was complicated because the specific experience used was not documented in the certification file.
Upon discussion of the issue with GPC QC Management, they concurred with this observation and revised QC-A-01 to require the documentation of apecific experience used for certification.
"he second concern involved the Supervisor's Report of Cn-The-Job Training (OJT) Experience in Additional Areas of Certifications.
Confidence in the quality of training being received and the hours of training being verified were questioned because of the vague information provided on this fo.:m by the inspection supervisor (for example, " Terms -
10 Hours").
Subsequent investigation (discussions with the snpervisor as to what activities were considered OJT) by the l
review team found the experience valid.
QC management has i
directed, by memo, inspection personnel to be specific in the future when completing this form.
j The third Readine'ss Review concern developed during review of Quality Concern 87V3011.
This quality concern alleged that electrical QC inspectors were certified using classroom training hours to achieve the GPC QC-A-01 procedural requirement for 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> of on-the-job field training.
The Review Team assessed the certification files of four of the inspectors involved in the allegation and found that all had completed the academic i
requirements, completed appropriate examinations, and had l
sufficient documented prior experience to qualify for Level II certification.
During the review, it was noted that QC 7
management had included in the file a form that documented a review and acceptance of the certifications in question (as a result of the quality concern).
The form was not dated and did not contain any explanation as to why the form was in the certification record.
QC management has provided an explanation for the forms found in the file and added dates to the forms.
These three concerns are of minor significance and are resolved by the corrective action taken.
In conclusion, all GPC i
inspector certification files assessed had sufficient documentation and met certification requirements, i
i i
0419A/074-8 6-13 l
. ~
NUCLEAR INSTALLATION SERVICES COMPANY One NISCO quality control inspector certification file, h
containing 15 certifications was reviewed using the inspector certification checklist.
During the review, one certification file deficiency was noted.
Training documentation could not be found for the person who administered the physical (eye) examination during one examination period.
This deficiency was reported on Readiness Review Finding 2RRF-21F-006.
~
Response to this finding identified that, subsequent to training the eye examiners, the person conducting the training had failed to document the training.
Investigation of this finding identified other eye examiners trained but without documentation of the training.
When questioned, the supervisor who gave the training was able to verify that the training was performed and subsequently documented the training.
A nrocedure has been established to give direction in the admir istration of eye examinations.
PULLMAN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES /KENITH-FORTSON COMPANY. INC Three P/K-F QC inspector certification files, containing 12 certifications, were reviewed using the inspector certification checklist.
All three of these inspectors were chosen from those who accepted hardware assessed in Module 18A.
No certification file deficiencies were found.
PULLMAN POWER PRODUCTS Thirteen PPP QC inspector certification files, consisting of 58 certifications, were reviewed using the inspector certification checklist.
The inspectors were chosen from those who accepted hardware assessed in Readiness Review Module 4.
No certification file deficiencies were found.
SOIL AND MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC Two SME quality control inspector certification files consisting of 18 certifications were reviewed.
The inspector certification checklist revealed no file deficiencies.
WILLIAMS POWER SERVICES. INC.
The QC inspector certification files of three Williams inspectors, consisting of nine certifications, were reviewed using the inspector certification checklist.
Two Readiness Review Findings were documented.
Finding 2RRF-21F-004 involved the failure of Williams to document the qualification and training of physical (eye) examiners.
None of the eye examiners at Williams had documented evidence of training.
0419A/074-8 6-14
The investigation found that the site quality assurance (QA)/QC manager had supplied the proper equipment and vendor
()
instructions to the QC supervisors who were performing the eye examinations, but he had failed to document his actions.
When questioned by Readiness Review, the current supervisor giving eye examinations was knowledgeable of the requirements.
The Williams procedure was revised to require eye examinations administered by qualified eye examiners with the training documented.
Finding 2RRF-21F-005 involved the failure of the Williams site QA/QC manager to properly complete the WC-013A QA/QC inspector certification form.
The review team noted that in several cases the date of the written test was not recorded as required.
In other cases, section C of the certification form was left blank.
Section C is for documentation of continued satisfactory performance or redetermination of qualification, which is the information that provides the basis for recertification.
Project investigation found that all the information missing from the inspector certification forms was readily retrievable from other documents in the certification file.
Williams has reviewed all the certification files and added the missing information from other sources within the certification file.
O 0419A/074-8 6-15 j
O O
O 0419A/070_g 6-16
6.5 FINDINGS This section presents, in numerical order, the findings issued during the assessment, the Project response including corrective actions taken, and the Readiness Review conclusion for each finding.
~
f F
0419A/070-8 6-17 a
- a
,,--.w w
_e.
m O
1 i
O O
0419A/070-8 6-18
2RRF-21F-001 (Level II)
()
Requirement:
1.
Regulatory Guide 1.58, revision 1/ Regulatory Position C.6, requires that the nuclear power plant inspector will be a high school graduate or have earned a General Education Development (GED) equivalent of a high school diploma.
2.
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), section 1.9.58.2, Clarification 1, states Georgia Power Company (GPC) shall use SNT-TC-1A (1980 Edition) for certification of nondestructive examination (NDE) personnel and shall supplement the requirements by replacing the "shoulds" with "shalls".
Finding:
1.
GPC's Engineering and Construction Services Procedure GEN-12750, revision 3, does not require NDE personnel to have a high school diploma or GED and in several instances GEN-12750 uses "should" instead of "shall" when stating procedure requirements.
2.
Leak testing Level II (GEN-12750, Exhibit 02) requires high school graduates to have 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> of training whereas SNT-TC-1A recommends 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br />.
Project' Response:
The Quality Control Technical Support Group has evaluated Readiness Review Finding 2RRF-21F-001 and Readiness Review correspondence dated November 25, 1987, concerning certification of Quality Control (QC) NDE personnel.
Based on the investigation, the following response is provided:
1.
INVESTIGATIVE ACTION:
Item 1.
Prior to February 1986, GEN-12750 was the procedure used for certification of NDE personnel.
It was a corporate procedure and was used for certification of personnel at sites in addition to Vogtle, where the more stringent Vogtle criteria (high school diploma or GED) did not apply.
For Vogtle personnel, the site Level III inspector verified that the site-specific requirements were met prior to certification approval.
In February 1986, a Vogtle site procedure, QC-A-03, was issued that gave specific criteria for certification of site NDE personnel.
The procedure required a high school diploma or GED and replaced the "should" statements of SNT-TC-1A with mandatory "shalls."
O 0419A/070-8 6-19
QC-A-03 does not give specific direction for the administration of training programs whereas GEN-12750 does.
GEN-12750 was used in this area because the corporate training personnel were used for the training.
GPC QC performed a review of all site certification packages for inspectors performing inspections after June 1, 1985, in May and June of 1987 to verify compliance with the licensing commitments.
This review, which included verifying that each inspector has a high school diploma or GED and conformance of the' SNT-TC-1A use of "shall" versus "should", concluded that all certifications met the technical requirements.
The root cause of this aspect of the finding is considered to be an administrative error.
The site Level III who approved certifications considered his verification of inspector qualifications adequate to supplement the corporate procedure with site specifics.
Item 2.
From conversations with members of the GPC Engineering and Construction Services Division, who are responsible for the administration of the NDE program, and from a historical review of GEN-12750, it was concluded that an error occurred in the preparation of the training requirements matrix of revision 3.
Previous revisions called for the required 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> and the 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> requirement printed in revision 3 is a transposition from an adjacent column in the matrix.
The training course for leak testing was reviewed.
It required 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> training for Level II personnel and was not affected by the procedure error.
II.
REMEDIAL ACTION:
None III. ACTIOM TO PREVENT RECURRENCE:
GEN-12750 has been revised to require a high school diploma or GED for Vogtle personnel, to replace "shoulds" with "shalls", and to correct the number of hours of training for leak testing.
Vogtle Field Procedure QC-A-03 has been revised (upgraded) to include all specific NDE qualification requirements for Vogtle construction personnel.
This procedure revision requires compliance to all qualification criteria of SNT-TC-1A (1980) and the commitments in the FSAR, as well as providing clear administrative interfaces with the corporate program.
0419A/070-8 6-20
Readiness Review
Conclusion:
()
Readiness Review concurs with the response.
A review of the certification files confirmed that the deficiencies were administrative only (procedures were in error) and that the inspectors had high school diplomas or GEDs, the leak testing training was in conformance with SNT-TC-1A, and the "shoulds" were treated as "shalls".
i F
O I
e t
[
k 1
8 0419A/070-8 6-21
2RRF-21F-002 (Level II) lh Requirement:
In the FSAR, GPC commits to conform to Regulatory Guide 1.58, revision 1, Position C.6, which requires that the nuclear power plant inspector be a high school graduate or have earned the GED equivalent of a high school diploma.
Finding:
Nuclear Installation Services Company (NISCO) Procedure ES 116-2, revision I, does not require Level II and III inspection, examination, and testing personnel to have a high school diploma or GED.
Contr&ct or transferred Levels II and III candidates meeting the minimum experience requirements could be certified without a diploma or GED.
Project Response:
I.
INVESTIGATIVE ACTION The root cause of this finding was inattention to detail resulting in the failure to appropriately incorporate in NISCO Procedure ES 116-2 the requirement that QC-certified personnel have a high school diploma or GED equivalent.
This procedure did contain the requirement that a person have a high school diploma or GED prior to certification to Level I and that the person perform satisfactorily as a Level I and have a high school diploma or a GED prior to subsequent higher levels of certification on site.
- However, the potential existed for a " contract" or " transferred" candidate certified at other NISCO projects to be certified to Level II or Level III at Vogtle without a diploma or GED.
GP'C QC performed a review of all NISCO certification files to determine whether the inspectors had a high school diploma or GED.
Each inspector's certification file contained proof of a high school diploma or GED.
It was determined, by interview with the NISCO quality assurance QA/QC manager and as evidenced by the certificati.on file review, that site policy and practice was t h a t
(.. a l QC inspectors have a diploma or GED even though the requirement was not specifically stated in ES 116-2.
Based on investigation results, this finding is considered administrative in nature.
II. REMEDIAL ACTION Not applicable 0
0419A/070-8 6-22
l i
l III.
ACTION TO PREVENT RECURRENCE
()
Revision "J"
to NISCO Procedure ES 116-2 has been published.
It requires Levels I.
II, and III inspection personnel to have a nigh school diploma or GED prior to certification.
Readiness Review
Conclusion:
Readiness review considers the response acceptable.
A review of the NISCO certification files confirmed the project response that the inspectors have a high school diploma or GED.
(O
_/
p O
0419A/070-8 6-23 1
2RRF-21F-003 (Level II)
Requirement:
FSAR section 1.9.58.2, VEGP position clarification 1.
Amendment 23, states that the requirements of the 1975 version of SNT-TC-1A shall be used for qualifying VEGP site contractor personnel.
ASNT-SNT-TC-1A (1975), paragraph 8.6.4, third sentence states "NDT Level I and II:
'"9 s t objects shall be used in the practical examination, and at least 90 percent of the known indications should be found."
Finding:
Pullman Power Products (PPP) Procedure II-2, revision dated August 15, 1986, does not address the requirement to find at least 90 percent of the known indications.
Project Response:
1.
INVESTIGATIVE ACTION The investigation into PPP NDE practical examination methods was performed by conducting a review of the test, test key, a sample of graded tests, and by discussion with examination personnel by GPC QC.
It found that the qualified examiner observes the technique of the candidate being considered for certification during the NDE test operations and/or setup on the test specimen.
During that period in the examination process when the candidate is evaluating the indications he finds on the test specimen, the examiner uses an examination key to determine if 90 percent of the known indications have been found.
The examination key is specific to each specimen and shows all of the known indications.
The candidate, at the same time, follows the instructions on the certification examination and documents only the relevant indications on his examination.
As a result of this investigation, Construction concludes l
that the actual testing method used is in compliance with SNT-TC-1A (1975).
The root cause of this finding is inattention to detail by the procedure writer resulting in a procedure omission.
All other SNT-TC-1A requirements were included in the procedure in adequate detail.
II.
REMEDIAL ACTION Not applicable 0419A/070-8 6-24
III. ACTION TO PREVENT RECURRENCE
(
PPP Procedure II-2 has been revised to incorporate the requirement that at least 90 percent of the known indicatic.4c be found by the applicant.
Readiness Review Conclurion:
Readiness Review concurs with the response.
Additionally, the Readiness Review evaluation of the PPP QA program during the Modules 4 and 11 assessments did not identify missing requirements or any programmatic weakness in PPP procedures.
O e
O 0419A/070-8 6-25
2RRF-21F-004 (Level II)
Requirements:
ANSI N45.2, 1971, Section 2-Quality Assurance Program, requires that the program provide for indoctrination and training of personnel performing activities affecting quality as necessary to assure that suitable proficiency is achieved and maintained.
Finding:
Williams Power Services, Inc. QC inspectors have been administered physical (eye) examinations by individuals on which there is no documentation of qualification, training, or instructions.
Project Response:
GPC Construction QC. in conjunction with Williams Power Services, Inc., has investigated the finding, with the following results:
1.
INVESTIGATIVE ACTION Interviews with Williams management established that their policy was to have the responsible supervisor administer eye examinations, utilizing instructions or written material supplied by the vendor of the eye test materials.
Williams did not require or formally document training of the supervisor to administer eye examinations, which was an administrative oversight.
The root cause is considered to be a lack of procedural requirements.
Since instructions were supplied with the eye test material, the Williams QC manager considered them adequate and did not require training.
Although,the procedure did not address the requirements of eye test examination personnel, the procedure did specify the test method, acceptance criteria, and documentation requirements.
The required documentation is included in the inspector certification files.
II.
REMEDIAL ACTION All current Williams inspectors were retested by a qualified (GPC) examiner.
All results were satisfactory.
Ongoing surveillance of the Williams QC effort by GPC QC, which has been in place since the beginning of construction of Plant Vogtle, indicates satisfactory field performance by their personnel.
Given these two conditions, no evaluation of past employees' visual acuity is considered necessary.
0419A/070-8 6-26
III. ACTION TO PREVENT RECURRENCE m
')
Williams supervision will no longer give eye examinations.
(
Williams Procedure WC-013 has been revised to require that all eye examinations be administered by a GPC-trained examiner, with the training documented.
Any Williams inspectors transferring to the Vogtle site already certified will be retested to site requirements.
Readiness Review
Conclusion:
Readiness Review considers the response acceptable.
Upon identification of this deficiency, Readiness Review questioned one of the three eye examiners on the requirements for eye examinations and found him knowledgeable of those requirements.
Readiness Review also noted that only Williams OC supervisory personnel were administering the examination and in Readiness Review's opinion, the interview demonstrates that the supervisors were knowledgeable of the eye examination criteria.
O 0419A/070-8 6-27
2RRF-21F-005 (Level II)
Requirement:
h ANSI N45.2.6-1978, section 2.3, second sentence, states "Recertification shall be by evidence of continued satisfactory performance or redetermination of capability."
Williams Power Services (WPS) Procedure WC-013-253, revision 1, states:
o 013.5.4.4 Recertification shall be based on job performance, testing and/or demonstrated capabilities.
o 013.6.1.19 Enter test scores for last examinations and date of tests.
o 013.6.1.21 Check appropriate box for basis of recertification.
Enter date and level, if applicable.
Finding:
1.
The date of the last examination is not indicated on numerous WC-013A QA/QC inspector certification forms.
2.
Section C, recertification, has been left blank on many WC-013A forms although the forms were for inspector recertification.
Project Response:
Georgia Power Construction QC, assisted by Williams Power Services. Inc. has investigated this finding, with the following results:
1.
INVESTIGATIVE ACTION All active and inactive inspector certifications from the beginning of the contract were reviewed in the areas of concern raised by this finding.
Numerous additional omissions of the same type as noted in the findings were found.
Documentation in the form of dated tests or evidence of satisfactory performance was found to be available in alternate QC files or locations in all cases.
The root cause of this finding was weak instructions to persons who perform (ed) recertification record keeping.
The errors did not create a condition where personnel not qualified were certified nor did they result in a period where there was a lapse in certification.
GPC QC performs a review of each contractor QC, organization at 6 month intervals to verify that the contractors inspectors are certified and that 0419A/074-8 6-28
qualifications are maintained.
The review of Williams QC inspectors adds assurance that the inspectors are properly
()
certified.
II.
REMEDIAL ACTION All deficient certification records were updated using information available from alternate files.
Dates were transferred from test records and performance updates were added from supervisory evaluation reports.
The corrections were initialed, dated, and explained by a memo to file.
3 III. ACTIONS TO PREVENT RECURRENCE WPS Procedure WC-013 was revised to reflect specific instructions for the completion of certification records.
Individuals responsible for completing certification records have been instructed in proper completion of certification records.
Evidence of this training is on file with WPS as Personnel Awareness Training.
Readiness Review
Conclusion:
Readiness Review concurs with the response.
Additionally, a review of the Williams certification files showed that all the information necessary for certification was available in the inspector's certification package for the Readiness Review O
sample.
Readiness Review concludes the error was caused by inadequate _ procedure guidance and will be corrected by the procedure revision and instruction of personnel.
Readiness Review has reviewed a sample of the corrected files and found all corrections made properly and dated to show modification as recommended by ANSI N45.2.9.
O 0419A/074-8 6-29
2RRF-21F-006 (Level II)
Requirement:
lh ANSI N45.2-1971, section 2 - Quality Assurance Program, requires that the program provide for indoctrination and training of personnel performing activities affecting quality, as necessary, to assure that suitable proficiency is achieved and maintained.
Finding:
Plant Vogtle contractor quality control inspectors have been administered physical (eye) examinations by a GPC Safety Department employee on which there is no documentation as to qualif.ications, training, or instructions received on the administration of inspector eye examinations.
Proiect Response:
The GPC Safety Department has reviewed the finding and performed an investigation, with the following results:
I.
INVESTIGATIVE ACTION It was determined by a review of the Safety Department correspondence file that two individuals within the department were properly trained and documented to h
administer the specified eye examinations.
One of these individuals trained four other Safety Department personnel l
and did not document this training.
Two of the four, and the individual who trained them, have since left the project.
l The individual who performed the training was contacted and questioned.
It was established by discussion with the person performing the training that the training was conducted with appropriate emphasis on lighting, distance to the test specimens or charts, orientation of the l
specimens, interpretation of results, etc.
[
The two Safety personnel remaining at the project whose training was not documented were evaluated by a qualified examiner to determine the extent of their knowledge of the testing methodology.
Each of them demonstrated adequate l
familiarity with the testing method and the interpretation j
of the results, t
The root cause of the finding is that the Safety Department i
did not have a procedure for administering eye examinations.
Although training of eye examiners was not documented, the inspector certification procedures did give specific direction for the method of test, acceptance criteria, and documentation.
h 0419A/070-8 6-30
II.
REMEDIAL ACTION
()
A letter that documents the training of the four safety personnel by a properly qualified and documented individual has been filed with the GPC QC certification records.
t III. ACTION TO PREVENT RECURRENCE Safety personnel have been properly qualified to perform QC eye examinations.
Specific instruction, in the form of a GPC procedure, has been established to assure that only appropriately qualified examiners are to give eye tests to QC personnel.
The QC staff has reemphasized to the GPC Safety Department the need to document their actions when performing a service function in a quality area such as eye examinations.
Readiness Review
Conclusion:
Readiness Review considers the response acceptable.
O I
i i
l 0419A/074-8 6-31 m.
TABLE 6-1 READINESS REVIEW TEAM - APPENDIX F R.
W.
McManus Readiness Review Task Force i
( )
D.
C.
McAffee GPC Vogtle Construction Quality Control
)
(1)
R.
- 11. Powera GPC Skills Development l
5 i
O 1.
During assessment preparation and implementation these personnel were reassigned to Readiness Review.
O 0420A/063-8/l
TABLE 6-2 (SHEET 1 0F 2)
LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS WITH INSPECTOR CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS NUMBER OF UNIT 1 INDUSTRY INSPECTORS INSPECTOR ORGANI-COMPLETION PROCEDURE CURRENT PROCEDURE ISSUES SINCE SAMPLE ZATION OF CONTRACT ASSESSED PROCEDURE ASSESSMENT REVIEW JUNE 1985 SIZE GPC (ANSI)
ONGOING QC-A-01, QC-A-01, YES YES 280 15 R/3 R/5 (NDE)
GEN 12750 QC-A-03, YES R/6-14-84 R/0 GEN 12750 R/3 C81 (ANSI)
JUNE 1986 TIP-1, TIP-1, NO N0 4
0 R/6, R/6, SUPP.-4, SUPP.-4, AND AND CONTRACT CONTRACT ADDENDA ADDENDA NO. 1 NO. 1 l
5-21-84 5-21-84 (NDE)
NDE NDE NO PERSONNEL PERSONNEL TRAINING TRAINING AND AND CERTIFI-CERTIFI-CATION CATION PROGRAM PROGRAM R/20 R/20 I
NISCO (NDE)
ONGOING ES 116-1, ES 116-1, YES YES 10 1
i R/I R/L (ANSI)
ES 116-2, ES 116-2, YES R/H R/I PKF (ANSI)
ONGOING JP 2.2, JP 2.2, YES YES 55 3
R/10A R/10C O
0421A/063-8/l
TABLE 6-2 (SHEEl"2 0F 2)
O NUMBER OF UNIT 1 INDUSTRY INSPECTORS INSPECTOR ORGANI-COMPLETION PROCEDURE CURRENT PROCEDURE ISSUES SINCE SAMPLE ZATION OF CONTRACT ASSESSED PROCEDURE ASSESSMENT REVIEW JUNE 1985 SIZE PPP (ANSI)
ONG0ING 11-4 II-4 YES YES 224 13 (4-85)
(12-86)
(NDE)
II-2 11-2 YES (4-85)
(8-86) 11-3 II-3 YES (8-81)
(8-81)
SME (ANSI)
DECEMBER DESIGN DESIGN YES NO 23 2
1986 PLAN PLAN R/6 R/7 v5L (ANSI)
DECEMBER PT-07, PT-07, NO NO 51 0
WILLIAMS (ANSI)
ONGOING WC-013, WC-013 YES N0 31 2
R/l R/l I
L 5
O 0421A/063-8/2
TABLE 6-3 ASSESSMENT SAMPLE Number of Number of Oroanization Inspectors Certifications (1)
GPC 15 123 NISCO 1
15 PKF 3
12 PPP 13 58 SME 2
18 Williams 3
9 1
l 1.
Includes multiple certification areas and recertifications.
O 0422A/063-8/1
TABLE 6-4
SUMMARY
OF UNIT 2 FINDINGS Number Level Description 2RRF-21F-001 II GPC NDE inspector certification procedure lacked details and contained errors.
2RRF-21F-002 II NISCO inspector certification procedure did not require Level II or III inspectors to have a high school diploma or GED.
2RRF-21F-003 II PPP NDE inspector certification procedure did not require that 90 percent of known indications be identified during practical exam.
2RRF-21F-004 II Training of Williams eye examiners was not documented.
2RRF-21F-005 II Williams recertification documentation was completed improperly.
2RRF-21F-006 II Training of safety inspectors to i
administer eye examinations was not documented.
O 0422A/063-8/2
G orgia Powar Company Project Managernent Post Office Box 282 Waynesboro, Georgta 30830 Telephone 404 724-8114 404 554 9961 (v.
Vogtle Project March 10, 1988 MEMO TO:
R.
W.
McManus
SUBJECT:
Plant Vogtle Unit 2 Readiness Review, Appendix F Nuclear Construction has reviewed Appendix F.
To the best of our knowledge and belief, the appendix is a complete and accurate representation of the Inspector Qualification and Certification program and commitments related thereto.
)
!. st # " '
R.
H. Pinson Vice President Vogtle Construction RWM/RilP/bjd i
4
,O V
Georg.a Pow:r Company Project Management Post Office Box 282 Waynesboro. Georgta 30830 Telephone 404 724 8114 404 554-9961 o
L
'~
Vogtle Project March 10, 1988 MEMO TO:
R.
W.
McManus
SUBJECT:
Plant Vogtle Unit 2 Readiness Review Appendix F Project Quality Assurance has reviewed Appendix F, Inspector Qualification and Certification.
To the best of our knowledge and belief, the appendix is a complete and accurate representation of the site Inspector Qualification and Certification program and commitments related thereto.
37;;;r-Project Quality Assurance Manager RWM/CWEI/ b j d
,m,
'%_,Y
PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW. PROGRAM Inspector Qualification and Certification - Appendix F Readiness Review Board Acceptance Letter i
The Readiness Review Board has been apprised of the scope and content of Appendix F, Inspector Qualification and Certification.
The Board has reviewed the program assessment, as well as corrective actions, both proposed and implemented, by the t
I Vogtle Project.
Based upon this review and based upon the collective experience and professional judgement of the members, the Readiness Review Board is of the opinion that the corrective actions proposed are acceptable, and, upon their implementation, the qualifications of inspectors and the O.
Qualification and Certification program at. Plant Vogtle will comply with commitments set forth in the FSAR.
I w
APPROVED:
(
[
DougDutto%
Chairman, Readiness Review Board
.)
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant t
L F
0427A/040-8 i
i
~. _.,..
V'^\\
PLANT VOGTLE RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PLAN FOR AP PENDIX F INSPECTOR QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION ASSESSMENT PLAN APPROVAL (j/
RR PROGRAM MANAGER:
w DATE: 85 f477'87 RR BOARD SPONSOR:
./
O/f r,/97
-t DATE:
0 0 4 0 3 A/ 2 6 6-7 I
I i
i PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2
?
RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM l
AP PEN DIX F-INSPECTOR QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION ASSESSMENT PLAN 1.0 PURPOSE i
The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate the acceptability of the prog rama for qualification and certification of Unit 2 Quality Cont rol inspectors.
2.0 SCOPE The scope of Appendix F and this assessment plan is Georgia Power Company const ruction and those site cont ractors invo lve d l
in thn construction of Unit 2 af ter June 1985.
Unit 1 Readiness Review Appendix F evaluated the acceptability of the programs and inspector qualifications for Unit 1 and Unit 2 prior to June 1985.
3.0 ASSESSMENT
METHODOLOGY This assessment will consist of the following activities:
()
o Conf orma nc e of prog ram procedures to licensing c ommi tme nt s.
t o
Project handling of concerns resulting f rom industry I
issues.
o Conf orma nce of inspector qualifications to established c rit e ri a.
These th ree areas were decided on as a result of past e xperi enc e in establishment and implementation of inspector qualification and certification programs in addition to the results of the Unit 1 Readiness Review and problems identified at other nuclear i
const ruc tion pro jects.
3.1 CONFORMANCE OF PROGRAM PROCEDURES TO y JJCpSING COMMITMENTS Du ring Unit 1 Readiness Review the licensing coliT.titments f or inspector qualification were established and the programs were che cked f o*: co nf o rma nc e.
For Unit 2, the Project will verify that these procedures have been maintained in conf ormance with the licensing commitments.
I 04 00 A/2 6 6-7 1
I
~.
As a part of this assessment plan, Readiness Review will l
(g evaluate the acceptability of any procedure that has been
(,)
revised since completion of the Unit 1 Appendix F.
3.2 PROJECT HANDLING OF CONCERNS RESULTING FROM INDUSTRY ISSUES t
Du ri ng the past four years, the nuclear industry has found some weaknesses in the inspector qualification and certification process that has resulted in issues such as cont rol and reuse of inspector tests, qualifications of instructors, and verification of education that has resulted in the questioning of program and inspector qualification adequacy.
i This part of the assessment will identify those issues f rom a review of the available literature (Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspection reports, etc.) and assess the method of control on the P roject.
Not all issues may be found in procedure s and thi s eleme nt will rely on interviews with the appropriate program supervisory personnel to describe the approp riate cont rol measures.
3.3 CONFORMANCE OF INSPECTOR QUALIFICATIONS TO ESTABLISHED CRITERIA During Unit 1 Readiness Review, it was focnd initially that many O
of the inspector certifications were incomplete or did not conf orm to established criteria.
As a result, a full evaluation of all site inspector certification packages was conducted and deficiencies cor rected.
In the nuclear industry, cases have been found where minimum qualification requi rements have not been met.
For Unit 2, the Project has initiated an evaluation for all inspector certification records generated since June 1, 1985 (records prior to this date were previously reviewed as a part of the Unit 1 Readiness Feview).
This evaluation is intended to identify and correct ertars in the records.
Readiness Review will sample those records af ter completion of the Projects' actions to evaluate conf ormance of inspector certifications to the minimum requirements and the completeness of certification packages.
The sample will be obt ained by reviewing certification packages of inspectors who accepted work subjected to assessment in other Unit 2 Readiness Review modules.
Where a Unit 2 assessment has not been conducted sample selection will be at random f rom the organization's inspect or population.
04 00 A/ 2 6 6-7 2
4.0 CHECKLIST COMPLETION This section gives direction on completing the assessment checklist.
Additional inst ructions f or perf orming assessment activities are contained in the Vogtle Project Unit 2 Readiness Review Program Procedures Manual.
In particular, personnel performing the assessment activities outlined in this plan should be f amiliar with the requirements of the following 1
p roced u re s :
o 3.2 Commitment Ident ification and Impleme nt at ion.
o 3.3 Unit 1 Fi ndi ng Follow-up,
f o
3.5 Unit 2 Assessme nts.
I 5
o 8.2 Deficiency Reporti ng.
There are five checklists:
o ANSI N4 5.2.6 Cer tification Prog ram Review.
o SNT-TC-1A (1975) NDE Certification P rog ram Review.
o SN T-TC-1 A (1980) NDE Certification Prog ram Review.
i o
Training Program Evaluation.
o Inspector Certification Checklist,
Completion of Certification Prog ram Review Checklist
]
)
The th ree certification program review checklists will be used to assess project programs for certification of ANSI and NDE
)
inspectors.
Those organizations with certification programs that have been revised since Unit 1 Readiness Review will be assessed.
Five site procedures for implementation of ANSI requirements and three procedures for implementation of NDE requirements have been revised and are listed in Table 1.
l The assessment will be performed by comparing the licensing commitments to the implementing procedure to assess whether the p roced u re parag raph(s ) fulfills the specific requ i reme nt s.
Particular attention should be paid to the use of alternate criteria or the bypassing of requi rements by special authority.
If such statements or authority exists, this shall be documented i;. the checklist and discussed with the Readiness Review program i
manager for resolution.
04 00 A/ 25 6-7 3
i For each t eri i r eme nt, the procedure revision and parag raph j
rw number shall be entered under the headi ng results.
Acc epta nc e
\\
or rejection shall be Indicated with "A" or "R".
Al l rejectable conditions will also contain the Readiness Review finding number recorded in the rig ht margin.
Copies of the impl eme nti ng procedures shall be retained and attached to the completed checklist.
Completion of Training Program Evaluation Checklist This checklist will be used to evaluate the organizations training program in areas of administrative and technical details.
Sone of the requirements of this checklist are such that procedural criteria may not exist but requ e st information on how a program is managed.
When a requirement is proceduralized, briefly describe the method of impl eme nt at io n and record the procedure and paragraph numbers in the results column.
For information obtained f rom interviews, record the name and title of the person supplying the information along with a b rief explanation of those cont rols.
Indicate acceptance or rejection of each requi reme n t in the appropriate column and i
enter Readiness Review finding numbers for all rejectable conditions in the right margin.
Completion of Inspector Certification Checklist This checklist will document the results of a sample evaluation O
of inspector certification records chosen by Readiness Review.
Readines's Review will sample based on the percentage of inspectors employed by an organization as compared to all inspectors in the period of interest.
Sample size is listed in Table 1.
Where packages contain multiple certifications, only those certifications in effect on or after June 1985 shall be evaluated.
l l
Acceptance or rejection of each attribute shall be indicated and the Readiness Review finding number for all rejectable items listed in the right margin.
P 1
O 0400A/266-7 4
es s
d U
PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READIliESS REVIEW PROGRAM LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS WITH INSPECTOR CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS (SHEET 1 OF 3)
TABLE 1 NUMBER OF UNIT 1 INDUSTRY INSPECTORS INSPECTOR ORGANI-COMPLETION PROCEDURE CURRENT PROCEDURE ISSUES SINCE SAMPLE ZATION OF CONTRACT ASSESSED PROCEDURE ASSESSMENT REVIEW JUNE 1985 SIZE GPC (ANSI)
ONGOING QC-A-01, QC-A-01, YES YES 280 15 R/3 R/5 (NDE)
GEN 12750 QC-A-03, YES R/6-14-84 R/0 GEN 12750 R/3 CBI (ANSI)
JUNE 1986 TIP-1, TIP-1, NO NO 4
0 R/6, R/6, SUPP.-4, SUPP.-4, AND AND CONTRACT CONTRACT ADDENDA ADDENDA NO. 1 NO. 1 5-21-84 5-21-84 (NDE)
NDE NDE NO PERSONNEL PERSONNEL TRAINING TRAINING AND AND CERTIFI-CERTIFI-CATION CATION PROGRAM PROGRAM R/20 R/20 0492B/259-7/1
PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS WITH INSPECTOR CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS (SHEET 2 OF 3)
TABLE 1 NUMBER OF UNIT 1 INDUSTRY INSPECTORS INSPECTOR ORGANI-COMPLETION PROCEDURE CURRENT PROCEDURE ISSUES SINCE SAMPLE ZATION OF CONTRACT ASSESSED PROCEDURE ASSESSMENT REVIEW JUNE 1985 SIZE NISCO (NDE)
ONGOING ES 116-1, ES 116-1, YES YES 10 1
R/I R/L (ANSI)
ES 116-2, ES 116-2, YES R/H R/I PKF (ANSI)
ONGOING JP 2.2, JP 2.2, YES YES 55 3
R/10A R/10C PPP (ANSI)
ONGOING II-4 II-4 YES YES 224 13 (4-85)
(12-86)
(NDE)
II-2 II-2 YES (4-85)
(8-86)
II-3 II-3 NO (8-81)
(8-81)
SME (ANSI)
DECEMBER DESIGN DESIGN YES NO 23 2
1986 PLAN PLAN R/6 R/7 0492B/259-7/2
O O
O PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS WITH INSPECTOR CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS (SHEET 3 OF 3)
TABLE 1 NUMBER OF UNIT 1 INDUSTRY INSPECTORS INSPECTOR ORGANI-COMPLETION PROCEDURE CURRENT PROCEDURE ISSUES SINCE SAMPLE ZATION OF CONTRACT ASSESSED PROCEDURE ASSESSMENT REVIEW JUNE 1985 SIZE VSL (AUSI)
DECEMBER PT-07, PT-07, NO NO 5+
0 1986 R/0 R/0 WILLIAMS (ANSI)
ONGOING WC-013, WC-013, NO YES 31 2
R/l R/l 0492B/259-7/3
O O
O Page 1 of 18 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADIN ESS REVIE'i - AP PEN DIX F ANSI N45.2.6 INSPECTOR CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEli (As Modified by RG 1.58)
Contractor Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAG R APH REQ UI REMENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R) 2.1.1 Indoctriqption Provisions shall be made for the indoctrination of personnel as to the technical objectives of the project; the codes and standards that are to be used; and the quality assurance elements that are to be employed.
2.1.2 Training A) The need for formal training programs shall be determined, and such training activities shall be conducted as required to qualify personnel who perform inspections, examina-tions, and tests.
l B) On-the-job participa-l tion shall also be l
included in the program, with emphasis on first-hand experience gained 0482B/259-7/1
-;~-,.
~
v e
a
O O
O Page 2 of 18 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F ANSI N45.2.6 INSPECTOR CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by RG 1.58)
Contractor _,
Review by.,,,,,,,,,__,,_, _
Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAG R APH REQ UI REMENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R) 2.1.2 th rough actual per form-(Item B ance of inspections, continued) examinations, a nd tests.
C. Records of training, when used as the basis
.+
for certification, shall be maintained.
2.2 Determination of Initial Capa bi li t y, A) The capabilities of a candidate for certifi-cation shall be initi-ally determined by a suitable evaluation of the candidate's educa-tion, experi enc e, train-ing, test results, or capability demonstra-tion.
B) RG 1.58 Addition Use of the measures out-lined in these sections to establish that an individual has the re-quired qualifications in 0482B/25(3-7/2
O O
O Page 3 of 18 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 PEADINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F ANSI N45.2.6 INSPECTOR CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by RG 1.58)
Contractor Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAG R APH _
R EQ UI RE ME NT,,,,, _
,, _,,,, o f, Reg u,i reme n t )
R,EJ ECT (R) 2.2 lieu of required educ-(Item B ation and experience cont inued) should result in docu-mented objective evi-dence (i.e., procedures and record of written test) demonst rating that the individual indeed does have " comparable" or " equivalent" compe-tence to that which would be gained from having the required education and experience.
i 2.3 Eva l ua t i,on,,of, P,er f o r,ma,ric e A) The job performance of inspection, examination, and testing personnel shall be reevaluated at periodic intervals not to exceed three years.
0482B/259-7/3
b O
O Page 4 of Ig PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F ANSI M45.2.6 INSPECTOR CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEH t
(As Modified by itG 1.58) i Contractor Review by. _ _ _
Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
P.ARAG R APH _
,,,,,,, _ R EQ U_I R,E M E N_T _ _ _
,,,,,,,,,,of, Requirement)
REJECT (R) 2.3 B) Reevaluation shall be by (continued) evidence of continued satisf actory performance or redetermination of capability in accordance with Subsection 2.2.
C) I f, duri ng this evalua-tion or at any other time, it is determined by the responsible organization that the capabilities of an in-dividual are not in accordance with the qualifications specified for the job, that person shall be removed from that activity until such time as the required capability has been d emo nst ra t ed.
0432B/259-7/4
O O
O Page-5 of 18 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F ANST C45.2.6 It1SPECTOR CERTIFICATION PROGRAft REVIEU (As Modified by RG 1.58)
Contractor Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PA RA_G R APH
_,,,,,,R EQ UI,RE ME NT _
,,,,,,,,,,,,, o f, R eq u i r e m e n t )
R,EJ ECT (R) 2.3 D) Any person who has not (continued) perf ormed inspection, examination, or testing activities in his quali-fied area for a period of one year shall be reevaluated by a re-determination of re-quired capability in accordance with Sub-section 2.2 2.4 Written Certification of QY1'a T f f i~ ~a~t'_i_o _^n ~ ^ ' '
c_
The qualification of personnel shall be certi-fied in writing in an appropriate form, including the following information:
i (1) employer's name (2) ident ification of person being certified (3) level of capability (4) activities certified to perform (5) basis used for certifi-cation, including:
0482B/259-7/5
O O
O!
Page 6 of 18 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F ANSI II45.2.6 INSPECTOR CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by RG 1.58)
Contractor Review by,,,,,,,,,,_,,,,, _
Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PA_ RAG R APH REQ,UI,REMENT_ _ _
_,,,, _,,,, o f,,Regu,i,reme n t )
REJECT (R) 2.4 (a) records of educa-(continued) tion, experience, 1
and training (b) test results, where applicable (c) results of capabil-ity demonstration (6) results of periodic evaluations (7) results of physical examinations, when re-quired (8) signature of employer's designed rep rese nt at ive (9) date of certification and date of expiration.
2.5 P,h_ys i c a l A) The responsible organi-zation shall identify any special physical characteristics needed in the performance of each activity.
04828/259-7/6
O O
O Page 7 of 18 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F ANSI N45.2.6 INSPECTOR CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by RG 1. 5 8. )
Contractor ____
Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PA RAG R APH REQ UI REMENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R) 2.5 B) Personnel requiring (continued) these characteristics shall have them verified by examination at inter-vals not to exceed one year.
3.0 qual,i_fi_ cations capabilities for each level of qualification are limited to those activities that are in general, as described below.
A) Level I Personnel Capabilities A level I person shall be capable of performing the inspections, examin-ations, and tests that are required to be per-formed in accordance with documented proce-dures and/or industry practices.
The i ndivid-ual shall be familiar with the tools and eq u ip me nt to be employed 0432B/259-7/7
~
O O
O Page 8 of 18-PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F ANSI N45.2.6 INSPECTOR CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEU (As Modified by RG 1.58)
Contractor Review by,,,,,,,,,,, _,, _ _ _ _
Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAG P?I;;
REQ UI REMENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R) 3.0 and shall have demon-(Item A strated proficiency in colit i nued) their use.
The individ-ual shall also be cap-able of determining that the calibration status of inspection and measuring equipment is current, that the measuring and test eq u ipme nt is in proper condition for use, and that the inspection, examination, and test procedures are approved.
B) Level II Personnel Capabilities A level II person shall have all of the capabil-ities of a Level I person for the inspec-tion, examination or test category or class in question.
Addi-tionally, a Level II person shall have demonstrated capabi-lities in planning 0482B/259-7/8
O O
o Page 9 of 18 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F ANSI N45.2.6 INSPECTOR CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by RG 1.58)
Contractor,,,,
Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAG R APH REQ UI REMENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R) 3.0 inspections, examina-(Item B tions, and tests; in continued) setting up tests includ-ing preparation and set-up of related equipment,
as appropriate; in supervising or maintain-ing surveillance over the inspections, exam-inations, and tests; in supervising and certi-fying lower level person-nel; in reporting in-spection, examination, and test ing results; and in evaluating the validity and accept-ability of inspection, examination, and test results.
C) Level III Personnel Capabilities A Level III person shall have all of the capa-bilities of a Level II personnel for the inspec-tion, examination or test category or class 0482B/259-7/9
O O
O Page 10 of 18 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F ANSI N45.2.6 INSPECTOR CERTIFICATION PROGRAM RSVIEW (As Modified by RG 1.58)
Contractor,,,,,,,,.
Review by _,,,,,,,, _ _
Date
.RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAGRAPH REQUI REMENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R) 3.0 in question.
In addi-(Item C tion, the individual continued) shall also be capable of evaluating the adequacy of specific programs used to train and test inspection, examination, and test personnel whose qualifications are covered by this Standard.
D) RG 1.58 Addition In addition, the indivi-dual should be capable of reviewing and ap-p rovi ng inspection, examination, and testing procedures and of evalu-ating the adequacy of such procedures to accomplish the inspec-tion, examination, a nd test objectives.
0482B/259-7/10
O O
O Page 11 of 18 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F ANSI N45.2.6 INSPECTOR' CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by RG 1.58)
Co nt ra ct or Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PA RAG R APH REQUIREMENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R) 3.5 Educ a t i o n, a rjd,,Exper i e_nc e, A) Education and experience for levels of certifi-cation shall meet the following minimum req ui rements.
Level I (1) tiigh school gradu-ation and six months of related exper-ience in equivalent inspection, examina-tion, or testing ac t iv i t ies, or-(2) Completion of college level work leading to an Associate Degree in a related discipline plus three months of related experience l
in equivalent inspection, exam-ination, or testing activities.
l 1
04823/259-7/11 L
Ow O
Page 12 of 18 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F ANSI N45.2.6 INSPECTOR CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by RG 1.58)
Contractor Review by,,, _,,,,,,,,,,,. _, _
Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PA RAG R APH REQ UIREMENT of Regu_i_rement )
REJECT (R) 3.5 Level II (continued)
(1) One year of satis-factory performance as Level I in the cor re spo nd ing in-spection, exam-ination or test category or class, or (2) High school gradu-ation plus three years of related experience in equiv-alent inspection, examination, or testing activities, or (3) Completion of col-lege level work lead ing to an Associate Deg ree in a related discipline plus one year related experience in equivalent in-spection, exam-0482B/259-7/12
O O
O Page 13 of 18 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F ANSI N45.2.6 INSPECTOR CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by RG 1.58)
Contractor Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAGRAPH REQ UI REMENT o f Reg,u,i,rement )
R EJ _ECT (R) 3.5 ination, or testing (Item 3 activities, or continued)
(4) Four-year college graduation plus six months of related experience in equiv-alent inspection, examination, or testing ac t ivi t ies.
Level III (1) Six years of satis-factory performance as Level II in the corresponding in-spection, exam-ination or test category or class,
.or (2) High school gradu-ation plus ten years of related experi-ence in equivalent inspection, exam-ination, or testing 0432B/259-7/13
O O
O Page 14 of Ig PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F ANSI N45.2.6 INSPECTOR CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by RG 1.58)
Contractor Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
P,A_ RAG R APH
_,,,,,,,,R EQ U_I,RE ME N,T,_
of Requirement)
REJECT (R) 3.5 activities; or high (Item 2 school graduation cont i nued) plus eight years experience in equivalent inspec-tion, examination, or test ing activi-ties, with at least two years as Level II, and with at least two years associated with nuclear facilities-or if not, at least suf ficient t ra ining to be acquainted with the re leva nt assurance quality a nuclear aspects of facility, or (3) Completion of col-lege level work lead ing to an Associate Degree and seven years of related experience in equivalent in-0482B/259-7/14
O O
O Page 15 of 18 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F ANSI N45.2.6 INSPECTOR CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by RG 1.58)
Contractor Review by,,,,,,,,, _ _, _ _
Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
P A!?AG R APH
_ R EQ U I,RE ME NT.
,,,,,,,,,,.,,, o f,,R eg u i r em e n t )
REJECT (R) 3.5 spection, exam-(Item 3 ination, or testing continued) activities, with at least tuo years of this experience associated with nuclear facilities-or if not, at least suf ficient tra ining to be acquainted with the re leva nt quality assurance aspects of a nuclear facility, or (4) Pour-year college graduation plus five years of related experience in equiv-alent inspection, examination, or test ing activi ties, with a least two years of this experience associ-ated with nuclear facilities-or if not, at least 0482B/259-7/15
O O
O Page 16 of 18 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F ANSI N45.2.6 INSPECTOR CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by RG 1.58)
Contractor Review by Date ___
RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PA F^.G R APH
,,,, R EQ U,I RE t,4 E NT of Requirement)
REJECT (R) 3.5 sufficient training (Item 4 to be acquainted cont inu ed) with the re leva nt quality assurance aspects of a nuclear facility.
B) RG 1.58 Addition In addition to the recommendations listed under Section 3.5 for Level I, II a nd III personnel, the_ candidate should be a high school graduate or have earned the General Education Development equivalent of a high school diploma.
C) Exceptions To Minimum Education and Experi-ence Requirements If exception to minimum education (other than high school education) or experience require-ments is allowed, does 048 2n/25'J-7/16
.j O
O O
Page 17 of 18 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F ANSI N45.2.6 INSPECTOR CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (Aa Modified by RG 1.58)
Contractor Review by _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,
Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAGRAPH REQUI REMENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R) 3.5 the. procedure give (Item C direction and state what continued) factors can be con-sidered and require that it be documented.
4.0 Performance A) When a single inspection or test requires imple-mentation by a team or group, personnel not meeting the requirements of this Standard may be used in data-taking assignments or in plant or equipment operation provided they are supervised or overseen by a qualified individu-al participating in the insoection, examination, or test.
B) RG l.58 Addition These personnel should have sufficient training to ensure an acceptable 0482B/259-7/17
O O
O Page 18 of 18 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F AriSI 1145.2.6 INSPECTOR CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by RG 1.58)
Contractor Review by,,,,,. _,,, _ _,,,, _
Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAG RAPH REQUIREMENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R) 4.0 level of competence in (Item B the performance of their cont inued) activities.
5.0 Records A file of records of personnel qualification shall be established and maintained by the employer.
Collection, storage, a nd control of records required by this Standard shall be in accordance with ANSI 134 5. 2. 9.
0482B/259-7/18
O O
O Page 1 of 32 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1A (1975) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977)
Contractor Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PA RAG R APH REQUI RE MENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R)
FSAR VEGP Construction personnel
-1.58.2 (GPC only) and Nuclear Cla ri f i-Operations personnel shall cation 1 use the requirements of the r
19 8 0 ve rsion of SNT-TC-1A.
The 197 5 version of SNT-TC-1A shall be used for qualifying VEGP site cont ractor personnel.
4.0 Levels of Qualification 4.1 There shall be th ree basic levels of qualification.
These levels may be further subdivided by the employer to acknowledge that additional levels of skills and responsi-bility may be necessary for specific NDT applications.
0485B/238-7/1
O O
O Page 2 of 32 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1A (1975) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW
( As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977)
Contractor Review by Date RESULTS
( Includi ng Location ACCEPT (A)/
PA RAG R APH REQUI REMENT of Requi rement)
REJECT (R) 4.2 In the process of being qualified and certified to at least NDT Level I,
an indi-vidual shall be considered a T ra i nee.
A Trainee shall work along with a certified individual and shall not conduct independently any test, interpret any results of a test, or write a report of t est re su lts.
4.3 The th ree basic levels of qualification are as follows:
- a. NDT LEVEL I - An NDT Level I individual shall be qualified to properly perform specific cali-b ra t ion s, specific tests, and specific evaluations according to written in-structions and to record the results.
He shall re-ceive the necessary guidance or super vision f rom a certified NDT t
Level II or III indivi-l dual.
0485B/238-7/2 l
O O
O Page 3 of 32 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW - AP PEN DIX F SNT-TC-1A (1975) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977)
Cont ract or Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
P A RAG R APH REQUI RE MENT o f Requ i reme nt )
REJECT (R) 4.3 b. N DT L EVEL I I - A n NDT (continued)
Level II individual shall be qualified to set up and calibrate equipment and to interpret and evaluate results with respect to t
applicable codes, stand-ards, and specifications.
He shall be thoroughly f amiliar with the scope and limitations of the method and shall exercise assigned responsibility for on-the-job training and guidance of trainees and NDT Level I personnel.
He shall be able to pre-pare written instructions, and to organize and report nondest ructive testing investigations.
t 04 85B/ 238-7 /3
O O
O Pag e 4 of 32 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1A (1975) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM RFYi3W (As Modified by ASME Section III 19 77, Wint er 1977)
Co nt rac t or Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PA RAG R APH REQUI REMENT of Requi rement)
REJECT (R) 4.3
Level III individual shall be capable of and respons-ible for establishing techniques; int erp re t ing code, standards and speci-ficatione; and designating the particular test method and technique to be used.
He shall be responsible for the comp ete NDT oper-ations he is qualified for and assigned to, and shall be capable of evaluating results in terms of exist-ing codes, standards, and specifications.
He shall i
have sufficient practical background in applicable materials, fab rica tio n, and/or product technology to establish techniques and to assist the design engineering in establish-ing acceptance criteria where none are otherwise available.
It is desir-able that he have general 046SB/238-7/4
O O
O Page 5 of 32 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 -
RE ADINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1A (1975) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977)
Co nt ract or Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAG R APH REQ UI RE MENT of Requi rement)
REJECT (R) 4.3 familiarity with other (item c commonly used NDT methods.
cont inued)
He shall be responsible for the training and exam-ination of NDT Level I and Level II personnel for certification.
The actual administration of training and grading of examin-ations may be delegated to a duly selected represent-ative of the Level III individual and so recorded.
6.
Education, Tra i ni ng, and Exper i enc e 6.2 To be considered for certifi-cation, a candidate shall satisfy one of the following criteria for the applicable NDT level.
Documented training and/or experience gained in positions and activities equivalent to those of Level II or Level III prior to establishment of the employer's written practice and a certification 1
l 0485B/238-7/5 i
~ -, - -.. -..,.. - ~ _.
O O
O Page 6 of 32 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADIN ESS REVIEW - AP PEN DI X F SNT-TC-1 A (1975) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977)
Co n t ract or Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAG R APH REQUI RE MENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R) 6.2 program in accordance with (continued) this document shall be considered as satisf ying the criteria of Para. 6.2.1 a nd 6. 3.
6.2.1 NDT Levels I and II Table 6.2.lA lists the recom-mended minimum training and experience f actors to be considered by the employer establishing writ ten practices for qualification of Level I and Level II in-d ividuals.
The experience factor in months is based on a normal 4 0-hour work week (175 hours0.00203 days <br />0.0486 hours <br />2.893519e-4 weeks <br />6.65875e-5 months <br /> per month).
When work is performed in excess of a 40-hour week, credit may be based on total hours.
Records substantiating quali-fication shall be kept on either a monthly or hourly basis.
0485B/238-7/6
O O
(:)
Page 7 of 32 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1A (1975) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW l
(As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Wint e r 1977 )
l j
Contractor Review by Date l
l RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAG R APH REQUI REMENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R)
ASME III The number of hours of IE,NC,ND training f or nondestructive l
5521 examination personnel who (a) (2) perform only one operation of a nondestructive examination method that consists of more than one operation, or perform nondestructive exam-inations of limited scope, may be less than that rec om-mended in Table 6.2.1A on SNT-TC-1A-1975.
Any limi-tations or restrfetions placed on the certification shall be described in the written practice and on the certificate.
6.3 To be considered for certifi-cation as a Level III, the candidate shall satisfy one of the following education and experience c riteria :
0485B/238-7/7 1
e
O O
C:)
Page 8 of 32 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADIN ESS REVIEW - NPPENDIX F SNT-TC-1 A (1975) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW
( As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977)
Contractor Review by Date RESULTS
( Includ ing Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAG R APH REQ UI RE MENT of Requi rement)
REJECT (R) 6.3.1 NDE LEVEL III
- a. Graduate of a four-year acc redited engineering or science college or univer-sity with a deg ree in Engineering or Science plus one year's experience in nondestructive testing in an assignment compar-able to that of an NDT Level II in the applicable e
test method.
Note: If the college or university degree is issued in nondestructive t e s ti ng, the one year's experience requirement may be reduced to six months.
b.
Completion with a passing grade of at least two years of engineering or science study at an accredited university, college, or technical school plus two years '
0485B/238-7/8 l
O O
O Page 9 of 32 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READIN ESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1A (1975) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW
( As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Wint er 1977 )
Contractor Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PA RAG R APH REQUIREMENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R) 6.3.1 experience as a certified (item b NDT Level II in the cont i nu ed) applicable test method.
- c. Four years' experience as a certified NDT Level II in the applicable testing method.
- d. When the individual is qualified by examination, the above requirements may be partially replaced by experience as a certified NDT Level II in other methods listed in Par. 3 of this Recommended-Practice as defined in the employer's written prac t ice.
RG 1.58 Verif y prog ram for certi-fication of NDE personnel requires candidates have a high school diploma or GED.
0485B/238-7/9
O O
O Page 10 of 32 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW - AP PEN DI X F SNT-TC-1A (1975) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977)
Contractor Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PA RAG R APH REQUI REMENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R) 7.
Tra ini ng P rog ra ms 7.1 Personnel being considered for certification shall complete sufficient organized t ra ini ng to become thoroughly f amiliar with the principles and practices of the speci-fied test method related to the level of certification desired and applicable to the practices to be used and the
. products to be tested.
7.3 The training program shall include sufficient exam-l ination to ensure the
' training material has been comp rehe nd ed.
8.
Examinations i
8.2 An NDT Level III ind ividual or his selected represent-ative shall conduct. and grade examinations for all NDT Level I and NDT Level II personnel.
The examination 0485B/238-7/10 l
a wm,
.,..._.4e-m e-s,.
O O
O Page 11 of 32 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - AP PEN DIX F SNT-TC-1 A (1975) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Wint er 1977 )
Review by Date Co nt rac t or RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PA RAG R APH REQUI REMENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R) 8.2 to verify physical and tech-(continued) nical qualifications shall consist of the following:
a.
Physical 1.
An examination shall be I
given to assure natural or corrected near distance acuity in at least one eye such that the applicant is cap-able of reading a minimum of Jaeger
( mod i f ied Number 1 letters at a by ASME distance of not less Section than 12 inches (30.5 cm)
III NB, on a standard Jaeger NC, ND test chart.
The 5521) ability to perceive an Ortho-Rater minimum of 8 or similar test pattern shall also be acceptable.
The exam-ination shall be ad-ministered by qualified personnel on an annual basis.
Examination 0485B/238-?/11
O O
O Page 12 of 32 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW - AP PENDIX F SNT-TC-1A (1975) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW
( As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977)
Cont ract or Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAGRAPH REQUIREMENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R) 8.2 results shall be kept (item a.1 on file for the period cont inued) of certification (see Par. 9.7).
2.
Individuals shall also be capable of dis-tinguishing and dif fer-entiating contrast between colors used in the method for which qualified as demon-strated by the practi-cal examinations or test per f o rma nc e.
- 3. Additional physical requirements should be considered when pre-paring the employer's written practice.
- b. General (W ritten )
- 1. The general examination shall cover the basic test principles rela-tive to the applicable 0485B/238-7/12
~..
O O
O Page 13 of 32 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - AP PENDIX F SNT-TC-1A (1975) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW r
(As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Wint er 1977) i Co nt ract or Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAG R APH REQ UI REMENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R) 8.2 method to the degree (item b.1 required by the cont inued) employer's written practice.
l
- 2. In preparing the exam-ination, the employer shall select or devise appropriate questions covering the applicable method to the deg ree required by the employer's written prac t ice.
c.
Specific (Written)
- 1. The specific examin-ation shall cover the equ ipme nt, ope ra ting p roced u re s, and test techniques that the applicant may encounter in his specific assign-ment to the deg ree required by the employer's written prac t ice.
0485B/238-7/13
O O
O Page 14 of 32 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1A (1975) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW
( As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977)
Contractor Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
P ARAG R APH
,,,,,,,,, R EQ U I,RE M E N T_, _ __
_,,,,,,,,,,, o f_R eg u i r eme n t )
REJECT (R) 8.2
- 2. The specific exam-(item c ination shall also cont inued) cover the specifi-cations or codes and acceptance criteria used by the employer in his nondestructive testing procedures.
1
- d. P_ractical 1
- 1. The person considered l
for certification shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the examiner that he is familiar with and can operate the necessary test equipment and analyze the re sult ant information to the degree required.
- 2. At least one selected specimen shall be tested, and the results of the test shall be analyzed by the person considered for certifi-cation.
048SB/233-7/14
O O
O Page 15 of 32 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - AP PEN DIX F SNT-TC-1 A (1975) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977)
Co nt ractor Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAGRAPH REQUI RE MENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R)
A.2
- 3. The desc ription of the (item d specimen, the test cont inued) procedure, i ncluding check points, and the results of the examin-ation shall be docu-mented.
8.5 The following desc ribes the recommended examinations for each NDT level for the various nondestructive testing methods.
The written examinations shall be ad-ministered without access to reference material (closed book) except that necessary data, such as graphs and tables, may be provided.
8.5.1 NDT LEVEL I
- a. General Examination -
The designed number of Level I questions approved by the NDT Level III examiner are to be answered.
0485B/238-7/15
O O
O Page 16 of 32 e
PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADIN ESS REVIEW - AP PEN DI X F SNT-TC-1 A (1975) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW
( As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977)
Contractor Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAGRAPH REQ UI RE MENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R) 8.5.1 Number of (item a Test Method Questions continued)
Radiographic Test ing 40 Magnetic Particle 30 Te st ing Ultrasonic Testing 40 Liquid Penetrant 30 Test ing Eddy Cur rent Test ing 30 Neu t ron Radiog raphic 40 Test ing Leak Testing 15 b.
Specific Examination -
The designated number of questions approved by the Level II examiner are to be answered.
Number of Test Me th od Questions Radiog raphi c Test ing 20 Magnetic Particle 20 Test ing Ultrasonic Testing 15 Liquid Penetrant 20 Test ing Eddy Cur rent Test ing 15 0485B/238-7/Y8BtfRf Radiog raphic 15
L O
O O
I Page 17 of 32 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW - AP PEN DI X F SNT-TC-1A (1975) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW l
(As flodified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977 )
Cont ract or Review by Date PESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PA RAG R APH REQ UI REMENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R) 8.5.1 Leak Test ing :
(item b
- 1. Bubble Test 10 cont inued)
- 2. Absolute Pressure 15 Leak Test (Pressure Change) 3.
Halogen Diode 15 Leak Test
- 4. Mass Spectrometer 35 Leak Test
- c. Practical Examination -
Proficiency shall be demonstrated in performing the applicable non-destructive tests and limited evaluations of the results obtained on one or more samples approved by the NDT Level III examiner.
At least ten dif f erent che ck poi nt s requiring an understanding of test variables and the employer's p rocedural requirements should be included in this practical examination.
0485B/238-7/17
O O
O Page 18 of 32 1
PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1A (1975) NDE CERTIFI CATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Wint er 1977 )
Cont ra c t or Review by Date RE SULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PA RAGR APH REQUIREMENT o f R equ i r eme nt )
REJ E CT (R) 8.5.2 N UT L EVEL I I
- a. General Examination - The designated number of Level II questions approved by the NDT Level III examiner are to be answered.
Number of Test Me thod Questions Rad iog rap hi c Test i ng -
40 Magnetic Particle 30 Te st i ng Ultrasonic Test ing 40 Liquid Penetrant 30 Test ing Eddy Cur rent Testing 30 Neut ron Radiog raphic 40 Testing Leak Testing 15 b.
Specific Examination -
The designated number of questions approved by the Level II examiner are to be answered.
i 04 85B/ 2 38-7/18
O O
O Page 19 of 32 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1 A (1975) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW
( As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977)
Co nt ract or Re view by Date RESULTS (Including Locat ion ACCEPT (A)/
i PA RAG R APH REQ UI RE MENT of Requi rement)
REJECT (R) 8.5.2 Number of (item b Test Me thod Questions co nt inued)
Radiographic Testing 20 Magnetic Pa rticle 15 Te st ing Ultrasonic Testing 20 Liquid Penetrant 15 Test ing Eddy Cur rent Testing 15 Neut ron Radiog raphic 15 Te st ing Number of Test Method Questions Leak Test ing :
- 1. Bubble Test 10 2.
Absolute P ressure 15 Leak Test (Pressure Change)
- 3. Halogen Diode 15 Leak Test
- 4. Mass Spec trome ter ' 50 Leak Test
- c.. Pract ical Examination -
Proficiency shall be demonstrated in selecting and perf orming the appli-0485B/238-7/19
O O
O-Page 20 of 32 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW - AP PEN DI X F SNT-TC-1 A (1975) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW i
(As Modified by ASME Section III 197 7, Wi nt e r 197 7 )
Contractor Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PA RAG R APH REQ UI REMENT o f R equ i r eme nt )
REJECT (R) i 8.5.2 cable nondest ructive te-ts (item c and evaluation the results cont inued) obtained on one or more samples approved by the NUT Level III examiner.
At least ten dif ferent checkpoints requiring an understanding of test variables and the employer's p rocedural requirements should be included in this practical exa mi nation.
8.5.2 NDT LEVEL III a.
General Examination -
Thirty questions devised l
by-the examiner for the app rop riat e me thod, plus 30 quest ions f rom the NDT Level II questions for other applicable NDT methods are to be answered.
l 0485B/238-7/20
O O
O.
Page 21 of 32 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1 A (1975) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977)
Co nt ract or Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAGRAPH REQUI RE MENT of Requi rement)
REJECT (R) 8.5.2 b.
S pecific Examinat ion -
(item a Appropriate questions co nt inued) shall be chosen to demonst rate a knowledge of test variables and the employer's p rocedural requ ire me nt s.
c.
Practical Examination -
Proficiency shall be demonstrated in selecting specifying, and writing specifications and/or procedures for the per-formance of the applicable nondestructive tests using approp riate refe rence material.
8.5.4 SNT-TC - I A, Para. 8.5.4 allows (modified the employer to waive exam-by ASME ination of Level III person-Section nel.
ASME III NB 5521 (a)(1):
III NB, Certification oif Level III NC, ND -
nondest ructive examination 5521) personnel by examinatior for technical competence is required.
04 85B/ 2 38-7 /21
O O
O Page 22 of 32 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1 A (1975) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW
( As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Wi nt e r 197 7 )
Co nt rac t or Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PA RAG R APH REQ UI REMENT of Requi rement )
REJECT (R) 8.6 Gradirs 8.6.1 An NDT Level III rep re s e n-tative of-the employer shall be responsible for the conducting and g rading of examinations of all NDT Level I and Level II pe r s onnel.
The actual administ ration and g rading of examinations may be delegated to the duly selected represen-tative of the Level III individual and so reco rd e d.
8.6.2 Recommended satisf actory percentile grades for Levels I,
II, and III are detailed in 8.6.4.
These g rades shall be a composite grade based upon the general, specific, and practical tests as weighted in 8.6.3.
048SB/238-7/22
O O
O Page 23 of 32 PLANT. VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1 A (1975) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW
( As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winte r 1977 )
Co nt r ac t or Review by Date RE SU LTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PA RAG R AP H REQ UI REMENT of Requi rement )
REJECT (R) 8.6.3 A percentile weight factor should be applied to the percentage grades of the various examinations. The percentile weight assigned any particular examination should be within the ra ng e s listed below and should be est ablished in accordanc e with the principles outlined in Par.
1.4.
The total of the three percentile weights shall equal 1.0.
a.
NDT Level I Examination Grades
- 1. General
- 0.2 to 0.6
- 2. Specif ic
- 0.1 to 0.5 3.
Practical - 0.3 to 0.7 b.
NDT-Level II Examination Grades l
- 1. General
- 0.3 to 0.7 l
- 2. Specific
- 0.2 to 0.6 l
3.
Prac tical - 0.1 to 0.5 l
0485B/238-7/23 l
l
O O
O Page 24 of 32 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE AD INES S REVIEW - AP PENDI X F SNT-TC-1 A (1975) NDE CERTIFI CATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977)
Co nt ract or Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PA RAGR APli REQUI REMENT of Requ i rement )
REJECT (R) 8.6.3
- c. NDT Level III Examination (continued)
G rade s
- 1. General
- 0.4 to 0.6
- 2. Specific-P ra c tica l 0.4 to 0.6 d.
The composite g rade (Gc) is determined as follows:
GC = (G9 x Wg) + (Gs X Ws)
+ (Gp x Wp)
Where Gc = Composite grade.
Gg = Actual grade from general examination in i
pe r ce nt.
Wg = Percentile weight of general exam-ination.
Gs = Actual g rade from specific examination in pe r ce nt.
Ws = Percentile weight of specific exam-ination.
04 8 5B/ 2 38-7/ 24
O O
O Page 25 of 32 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1 A (1975) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winte r 1977)
Co nt ract or Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PA RAG R APH R EQ UI REMENT of Requi rement )
REJECT (R) 8.6.3 Gp = Actual grade (item d f rom practical continued) examination in percent.
Wp = Percentile weight of prac tica l examination.
8.6.4 When an examination is admin-istered for NDT Level I or Level II qualification, a i
composite grade of 80% or g reat e r i s r equi red f or qualification.
In addition, each grade for the general, specific, ' and prac tical examinations shall be 70% or g re ater.
Test objectives shall be used in the prac tical examination, and at least 90% of the known indi-cations should be found.
For NDT Level III, a composite grade of 90% is required, and no g rade shall be less than 80%.
0485B/238-7/25 C
O O
O Page 26 of 32 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1 A (1975) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Wi nt e r 1977)
Co nt ract or Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PA RAG R APH REQ UI REMENT o f R equ i r eme nt )
REJECT (R) 8.7 Re-examination
- a. Those failing to attain the required grades must wait at least 30 days or show evidence of having received suitable ad-ditional training as determined by the employer before re-examination.
9.
Certification 9.1 Cer tification of all levels of NDT personnel is the re-sponsibility of the employer.
9.2 Each employer shall establish written practices covering all phases of certification including training as specified in Par. 5 9.3 Certification of NDT personnel shall be based on demonstration of satisc uctory qualification as determined by procedures outlined in 04 85B/ 2 38-7/ 2 6
O O
O Page 27 of 32 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - AP PENDIX F SNT-TC-1 A (1975) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 197 7, Wi nt e r 197 7 )
Contractor Review by Date RE SULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAGR APil R EQ UI REMENT o f R equ i r eme nt )
REJECT (R) 9.3 Par. 6, 7, and 8 as modified (continued) by the employer's written prac t ices.
9.4 At the option of the employer, an outside agency may be engaged to provide NDT Level III services.
In such in st a nce s, the re s ponsibility of certification must be re-tained by the employer utilizing outside services.
9.5 The purchaser of outside cer tification services is responsible for auditing the agency providing such services to assure that training, examination, and certification are in accord-ance with this document.
He must maintain a written record of his audit.
0 4 8 5B/ 2 3 8-7/ 2 7
O O
O
^
Page 28 of 32 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1A (1975) NDE CERTIFI CATION PROGRAM REVIEW
( As Modified by ASME Section III 197 7, Wi nt e r 197 7 )
I Contractor Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PA RAG R APH REQ UI REMENT o f R equ i r eme n t )
REJ ECT (R) 9.6 Certificatior. records shall be maintained on file by the employer and should contain personnel records of the certified individuals and copies of written practices as required by Par.
5.
t 9.6.1 The personnel records of the cer tified individuals should include as a minimum the fo l lowing :
- a. Name of certified individual.
b.
Level of certification and test method.
c.
Educational background and experience of certified i nd ivi duals.
d.
Statement indicating satisf actory c 3mpletion of I
training in accordance with the emuloyer 's written procedure.
0485B/238-7/28 s
_~
.im
,_m.
O O
O Page 29 of 32 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - NPPENDIX F SNT-TC-1 A (1975) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW
( As Modified by ASME Secti-on III 1977, Winter 1977)
Co nt ract or -
Review by Date RESULTS (Including Locat ion ACCEPT (A)/
PARAG R APH REQ UI RE MENT of Requi rement)
REJ ECT (R) 9.6.1
- e. Results of the physical (continued) examination prescribed in Par.
8.2.a.
- f. Copies of cur rent exam-i.4ations and of grades for all previous examinations and desc rip tions of i
practical test objectives.
g.
Percentile weights assigned to each exam-ination if examinations were employed f or qualifi-cation.
h.
Composite grade if exam-inations were employed.
- i. Date of certification and/
or re-certification and the dates of hire or assi g nme nt to N DT.
- j. Signature of certif ying agency rep rese nta t ive.
0485B/238-7/29
O O
O Page 30 of 32 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F r
SNT-TC-1A (1975) NDE CERTIFI CATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977 )
Contractor Review by Date RESULTS (Including Locat ion ACCEPT (A)/
PA RAG R APH REQ UI REMENT of Requi rement)
REJECT (R) 9.7 Re-Certification 9.7'.1 All levels of NDT personnel should be re-certified at least once every three years in accordance with one of the following criteria as de-termined by the employer :
a.
Evidence of continuing sat isf ac tory per forma nce.
- h. Re-examination in accord-ance with Par. 8 and 9.
9.7.2 NDT personnel may be re-e x ami n ed a ny t ime a t t he discretion of the employer and have their certification extended or revoked.
9.7.3 The employer shall in his written practice establish rules covering the duration of inter rupted ser vices which will require re-examination and re-certification.
04 85B/2 38-7/ 30
O O
O Page 31 of 32 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW - AP PENDIX F SNT-TC-1 A (1975) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW
( As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Wint er 1977 )
Contractor Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PA RAGR APH REQUIREMENT of Requ irement)
REJECT (R) 10.
Termination 10.1 All certifications shall be automatically terminated when an employee leaves the employer where he had been certified.
10.2 A Terminated Level I or II employee may be re-certified to his former NDT level by a new employer based on exam-ination as described in Par.
8.2 provided all of the following conditions are met to the new employer's satis-f ac tion:
- a. The employee has proof of prior certification,
- b. The employee was wor king in the capacity to which he had been certified within six months of his termination.
D 0485B/238-7/31
O O
O Page 32 of 32 PLAllT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS Et: VIEW - AP PENDIX F SNT-TC-1 A (1975) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 197 7, Wi nt e r 1977 )
Co nt rac t or Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/.
P ARAG R APH REQUI REMENT of Requi rement)
REJECT (R) 10.2
- c. The ernployee is being re-( co nt inu ed) certified within six months of his termination.
4 I
0485B/238-7/32
O O
O I
TABLE 6.2.1 A RECOMMENDED TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE MINIMUM LEVELS TRAINING (HOURS)
RT MT UT PT ET NRT Level I level Il leveli level 11 Level I Level il Level i Level Il level I level ll Level I level il e Compieison wi.h a possing grod.
of os least 2 years of enginewing or sdence study at univweity, a
college, or sechnical adool 12 40 8
4 24 40 4
4 8
8 12 40
- High school graduosion, diploma or its equivalene 20 40 12 8
40 40 4
8 12 8
20 40
- Grammar school graduation, demonstrated proficiency, or or additional training 80 100 24 16 40 80 12 16 48 24 NA NA WORK TLME EXPERIENCE (MONTHS) 7 All educational levels as listed above 3 Mo.
9 1
3 3
9 1
2 1
9 6
24 NA - Not applicable.
Heeems Training shall be os ovetned in tw employw's written practice.
For level li cweincotion, h emperience shall consist of time at level L If a person is being quotfied directly to Level 11 with no time at level I, h required experience shall consist of h som of b times required for Level I and level 11 as a trainee and h hows of training required for level I and Level 11 in total shall apply.
Credit for empwience may be gained simultaneoudy in two or more diedplines. The condidate must spend at least 25% of his work time on each discipline for which espesience is being claimed.
t E ---
^
m-
w
O O
O TABLE 6.2.l A (Cont'd)
RECOMMENDED TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE MINIMUM LEVELS TRAINING (HOURS)
LEAX TESTING LEVEL I LEVEL !!
BT PCMT HDLT MSLT BT PCMT HDLT MSLT
- Completion with a passing grade of at least 2 years of engineering or science study at a university, college, or technical school 2
16 8
28 2
12 6
16
- High school graduation, diploma or its equivalent 2
24 12 40 4
16 8
24
"* Grammar school graduation, or demonstrated proficiency, or additional training 2
96 48 NA 4
80 40 NA WORK TIME EXPERIENCE (MONTH 5)
All educational levels
- M o.
1%
1%
4 4
4 6
os listed above 2 Hr NA = Not appliccble.
BT
= Bubble Test PCMT = Pressure Change / Measurement Test HOLT = Halogen Diode Look Test MTCT = Mais Spectrometer Leak Test Asterisks refer to the Recommended Training Course Tables.
NOTE: Credit for experience may be gained simultaneously in two or mero disciplines. The condidate must spend at least 25% of his work time on each discipline for which experience is being claimed.
O:
O O
Page 1 of 31 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1A (1980) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW
( As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977 a nd FS AR 1.58.2)
Cont rac t or Review by Date r
.RE SU LTS (Including Location ACCE PT (A)/
PARAGRAPH REQUI REMENT of Requirement)
REJ ECT (R)
FSAR' VEGP Const ruction personnel 1.58.2 (GPC only) and Nuclear Clarifi-Operations personnel shall cation 1 use the requirements of the 19 80 version of SNT-TC-1A.
The 1975 version of SNT-TC-1A shall be used for qualifying VEGP site cont ractor personnel.
4.0 Levels of Qualification i
4.1 There shall be th ree basic levels of qualification.
These levels may be further subdivided by the employer to acknowledge that additional levels of skills and responsi-bility may be necessary for 2
specific NDT appl ica t ions.
1 04 8 7B/2 38-7 w,n vr-
O O
O Page 2 of 31 PLANT VOGTLE UtiIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1A (1980) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAtl REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977 and FSAR 1.58.2)
Contractor Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAGRAPH REQUIREMENT
_ of, Requirement)
REJECT (R) 4.2 In the process of being i
qualified and certified to at least N DT Level I, an indi-vidual shall be considered a Trainee.
A Trainee shall work along with a certified individual and shall not conduct independently any test, interpret any results of a test, or write a report of test results.
4.3 The three basic levels of qualification are as follows:
(1) NDT LEVEL I - An NDT Level I individual shall be qualified to properly perform specific cali-brations, specific tests, and specific evaluations for acceptance or re-jection determinations according to written in-structions and to record the results.
He shall re-ceive the necessary 0487B/259-7
O O
O Page 3 of 31 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW --APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1A (1980) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW
' (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977 and FSAR 1.58.2)
Contractor Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAG R APH REQUI REMENT of ' Requ i reme nt )
REJECT (R) 4.3 instructions or super-(Item 1 vision f rom a certified cont i nued)
N DT Level II or III individual.
(2) N DT L EVEL I I - An NDT Level II individual shal]
be qualified to set up and calibrate equipment and to interpret and evaluate results with respect to applicable codes, st a nd-ards, and specifications.
He shall be thoroughly familiar with the scope a nd limitations of the method and shall exercise assigned responsibility for on-the-job training and guidance of trainees and NDT Level I personnel.
He shall be able to pre-pare written instructions, and to organize and report nondestructive testing i nve st iga t ions.
0487B/259-7 w
--=e W
-r-
L O
O O
~
Page 4 of 31 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1A (1980) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977 and FSAF 1.58.2)
Contractor Review by Date RESULTS
( Incl uding Loca' tion ACCEPT (A)/
PA RAG R APH REQ UI REMENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R) 4.3 (3) NDT LEVEL III - An NDT (continued)
Level III individual shall be capable of a nd respons-ible for establishing techniques; interpreting code, standards and speci-fications; and designating the particular test method and technique to be used.
He shall be responsible for the complete NDT oper-ations he is qualified for and assigned to. and shall be capable of evaluating results in terms of exist-ing codes, standards, and specifications.
He shall have sufficient practical background in applicable materials, fab ri cation, and/or product technology to establish techniques a nd to assist the design engineering in establish-ing acceptance criteria where none are otherwise available.
It is desir-able that he have general 0487B/259-7
O O
O Page 5 of 31 PLANT VOGTLE INIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1A (1980) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977 and FSAR 1.58.2)
Contractor Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PA RAG R APH REQ UI REMENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R),
4.3 familiarity with other (item 3 commonly used NDT methods.
o cont inued)
He shall be responsible for the training and exam-ination of NDT Level I a nd Level II personnel for certification.
The actual administration of training and grading of examin-ations may be delegated to a duly selected represent-ative of the Level III individual and so recorded.
6.
Education, Training, and Expe r i e nc e 6.2 Documented t raining and/or experience gained in positions and activities eq u iva lent to those of Level I,
II or Level III prior to est ablis hme nt of the employer's written practice a nd a certification program in accordance with this d ocu me nt shall be considered as satisfying the criteria of Para.
6.3.
0487B/259-7
5 0
O O
Page 6 of 31 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1A (1980) NDE CERTIFI CATION PROG RAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Wi nt e r 19 77 and FSAR 1.58.2)
Co nt ract or Review by Date RE SULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PA RAG R APH REQ UI REMENT of Requi rement )
REJ ECT (R) 6.3 To be considered for certifi-cation, a candidate shall satisf y one of the following c rite ria for the applicable UDT level.
6.3.1 UDT Levels I and II Table 6.3.1 lists the recom-mended minimum training and experience factors to be considered by the employer est ablishing written practices for qualification of Level I and Level II in-d i vi d u a l s.
ASME II I The nunber of hours of NB,NC,UD t raining f or nondest ructive 5521 examination personnel who (a) (2) perform only one operation of a nondest ruct ive examination method that consists of more than one operation, or perform nondestructive exam-inations of limited scope, may be less than that re c om-me nd ed i n Table 6. 3.1 o n SNT-TC-1A.
Any limitations 04870/238-7
O O
O Page 7 of 31 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1A (1980) NDE CERTIFICATION PROG RAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Wi nt e r 19 77 and FS AR 1.58.2)
Cont ract or Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PA RAG R APH REQUI REMENT of Requ i reme nt)
REJ ECT (R) 6.3.1, or restrictions placed on ASME III the certification shall be (co nt i nued ) described in the written practice and on the certificate.
6.3.2 NDE LEVEL III (1) Graduate of a four-year acc redited engineering or science college or univer-sity with a degree in Engineering or Science plus one year's experi-ence in nondestructive testing in an assignment comparable to that of an NDT Level II i n t he ap-plicable test method, or,
(2) Completion with a passing grade of at le ast two years of engineering or science study at an university, college, or technical school plus two years' experience in assignments as least 0487B/238-7
O O
O Page 8 of 31 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1A (1980) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEU
( As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977 and FSAR 1.58.2)
Cont rac t or ___ _
Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
RAHAG R APil
,,, _,,,,13 EQ,UI,RE ME NT of Requi rement)
REJ ECT (R) 6.3.2 compatible to that of (item 2 NDT Level II in the cont inued) applicable test nethod, or, I
(3) Four years' experience in an assignment at least compatible to that of an HDT Level'II in the applicable testing method.
1 When the individual is qualified by examination, the above requirements may be partially replaced by experience as a certified NDT Level II, or in assign-ments at least compatible to NDT Level II, in other methods listed in Par. 3 of this Recommended Practice as defined in the emoloyer's written practice.
0487B/238-7
O O
O Page 9 of'31 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC--l A (1980) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Wi nt e r 1977 and FSAR 1.58.2)
Cont ract or Review by Date RESULTS (Including Locat ion ACCEPT (A)/
P ARAG R APH REQUIREMENT of Requi rement)
REJ ECT (R)
L RG 1.58 Verif y program for certi-fication of NDE personnel requires candidates have a high school diploma or GED.
7.
Trai ning Programs 7.1 Personnel being considered for certification shall complet e suf ficient organized training to become thoroughly f amiliar with the principles and practices of the speci-fied test method related to the level of cer tification desired and applicable to the pract ices to be used and the products to be tested.
7.3 The t raining prog ram shall include suf ficient exam-ination to ensure the t raining mate rial has been comp rehe nd ed.
I 0487B/238-7
,-s n
O O
O Page 10 of 31 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F q
SNT-TC-1 A (1980) NDE CERTIFI CATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977 and FSAR 1.58.2)
Contractor Review by Date RESU LTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PA RAG R APH REQUIREMENT o f R equ i r eme nt )
REJ ECT (R) 8.
Examinations 8.1 An HDT Level III ind ividual or his designated represent-ative shall administer and grade examinations.
The examination to verify physical and t echnical qualifications shall consist of the following:
8.1.1 Physical (1) An examination shall be given to assure natural or corrected near distance acuity in at least one eye such that-the applicant is cap-able of reading a minimum of Jaeger (modified Number 1 letters at a by ASME distance of not less Section than 12 inche s (30.5 cm)
III NB, on a standard Jaeger NC, ND -
test chart.
The 5521) ability to perceive an Ortho-Rater minimum of 04 0 7B/2 38-7
--e..
n- -.,
e m
w, e
.e
,w
-m--
<.~<.r-w,,,-
O O
O Pag e 11 of 31 -
PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE A DIN ES S REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1A (1980) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As-Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977 and FSAR 1.58.2)
Co n t ract or Review by D at e
-RESULTS
( Inc lu d ing Location ACCEPT (A)/
PA RAG R APH REQ UI RE MENT o f Requ i rement )
REJECT (R) 8.1.1 8 or similar test (item 1 pattern is also accept-continued) able.
(2) The examination shall demonstrate the capa-bility of distinguishing and dif f erentiating contrast between colors used in the method.
(3) The examination shall demonstrate additional physical capabilities as required by the employer.
(4 ) The examination shall. be administered on an annual basis.
(5) Examination results are to be kept on file for the period of certifi-cation (see 9.7) 0487B/238-7
O O
O Page 12 of-31 i
PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F t
SNT-TC-1A (1980) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW '
(As Modified by ASME Section III l'9 7 7, Wi nt e r 1977 and FSAR 1.58.2) i Contractor Review by Dat e RESULTS
( Inclu d ing Location ACCEPT (A)/
P A RAG R APH REQUI RE ME NT of Requi rement )
REJ ECT (R) 8.1.2 General (Wri t ten) (For NDE Level I and II)
(1) The general examination shall address the basic test principles rela-tive to the applicable me t ho d.
(2) In preparing the exam-ination, the employer shall select or devise appropriate questions covering the applicable method to the deg ree required by the employer's written prac t ice.
8.1.3 Specific (W rit ten ) (For NDT Levels I and II) i (1) The specific examin-ation shall address the equ ipme nt, ope rati ng procedures, and test techniques that the appl ica nt may encounter 0487B/238-7
.O O
O Page 13 of 31 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADIN ESS REVIEW - AP PENDIX F SNT-TC-1A (1980) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW l
(As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977 and FSAR 1.58.2)
Co nt ract or Review by Date i
RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
P_3R_AG R APH
,,,,,, _, R Eg_UI_RE ME N T _
_, _,,,,,, ; o_f Requ i r eme n t )
REJECT (R) 8.1.3 in his specific assign-l (item 1 ment to the deg ree '
cont inu ed )
required by the employer's written p ra c t ice.
(2) The specific exam-ination shall also L
cover the specifi-
[
cations or codes and acceptance c riteria used by the employer in his nondestructive testing procedures.
8.1.4 P ract ic al (For NDT Levels I and II) i (1) The candidate shall demonstrate f amiliarity j
with and the ability to operate the necessary test equipment, rec o rd,
and analyze the resultant inf ormation to the deg ree requ i re d.
04870/238-7
O
. O O
Page 14 of 31 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS-REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1A (1980) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW
( As !!odified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977 and FSAR 1.58.2)
Co nt rac t or Review by Date RESULTS (Including-Location ACCEPT (A)/
PA RAG R APH REQUIREMENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R)
(
8.1.4 (2) At least one selected (continued) specimen shall be tested and the re su lts of the test shall be analyzed by the candidate.
(3) The description of the specimen, the t e st procedure, including check points, and the results of the examin-ation shall be docu-mented.
8.3 The following describes the recommended examinations.for i
each NDT level for the various nondestructive test ing methods.
The written examinations shall be ad-ministered without access to reference material (closed book) except that necessary data, such as g raphs and.
tables, may be provided.
04878/238-7
~.,.,.
,.v,
.,,.,w-,
,._m.
,,m-
O O
O 1
Page 15 of 31 i
PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 i
READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1A (.1980) NDE ' CERTIFI CATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977 and FSAR 1.58.2)
Co nt ract or Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PA RAG R AP" REQ UI REMENT of Requirement)
REJ ECT (R) 8.3 All questions used for Level (continued) I and Level II examinations shall be approved by the re sponsible Level III.
i 8.3.1 NDT LEVEL I (1) General Examination -
The recommended number of Level I questions which shall be given are:
Number of Test Method Questions Radiog raphic Testing 40 Magnetic Particle 30 Test i ng Ultrasonic Testing 40 Liquid Penetrant 30 Test i ng Eddy Cur rent Testing 30 Neut ron Radiographic 40 Test i ng Lea k Testing 20 Acoust$0 Emission 40 0487B/238-7 e-4-&,9
+
w-w
--rv'
O O
O Page 16 of 31 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDI X F SNT-TC-1 A (1980) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW i
(As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977 and FSAR 1.58.7)
[
Contractor Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PA RAG R APH REQUI REMENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R) 8.3.1 (2) Specific Examination -
( cont i r. led )
The recommended. number of questions which shall be given are:
l t
l Number of Test Method Questions Rad iographic Testing 20 Magnetic Particle 20 Te st ing Ultrasonic Testing 20 Liquid Penetrant 20 i
Test i ng Eddy Cur rent Testing 15 Neut ron Radiog raphic 15 Testing Leak Testing:
- 1. Bubble Test 15 2.
Absolute Pressure 15 Leak Test (Pressure Change) 3.: Halogen Diode 15 Leak Test
- 4. Mass Spectrometer 20 Leak Test Acoustic Emission 20 0487B/238-7 4
~,.-
O O
O Page 17 of 31 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADIN ESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1 A (1980) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Wi nt e r 197 7 a nd FS AR 1.58.2)
Contractor Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PA RAG R APH REQUI REMENT of Reauirement)
REJECT (R) 8.3.1 (3) Practical Examination -
(continued)
Proficiency shall be demonstrated in performing the applicable non-4 destructive tests on one or more samples approved by the NUT Level III examiner.
At least ten dif ferent checkpoints requiring an understanding of test variables and the employer's procedural requirements shall be included in this practical examination.
8.3.2 NDT LEVEL II (1) General Examination - The recommended number of Leve l II questions to be given are:
i i
04 8 7 B/2 38-7
O O
O Page 18 of 31 1
PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1 A (1980) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Wi nt e r 1977 and FSAR 1.58.2) 4 Cont rac t or Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAGRAPH REQUI REMENT of Requi rement )
REJ ECT (R) 8.3.2 Number of (item 1 Test Method Questions co nt i nued )
Radiographic Test ing 40 Magnetic Particle 30 Test ing Ultrasonic Testing 40 Liquid Penetrant 30 Test ing Eddy Cur rent Test ing 30 lleut ron Radiog raphic 40 Test ing Lea k Testing 20 Acoustic Emission 40 (2) specific Examination -
The recommended minimum number of questions to be given are:
t 0487B/238-7 i
F o
o o
Page 19 of 31 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2
+
READINESS REVIEW - ' AP PENDIX F SNT-TC-1A (1980) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977 and FSAR 1.58.2)
Contractor Review by _,___,,,
Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAGRAPH REQUI REMENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R) 8.3.2 Number of (item'2 Tent Method Questions continued)
Radiographic Test ing 20 Magnetic Particle 15 Teat i ng Ultrasonic Test ing 20 Liquid Penet rant 15 Test ing Eddy Cur rent Test ing 15 lieut ron Radiographic 15 Te st ing Leak Testing:
1.
Bubble Test 15
- 2. Absolute Pressure 15 Leak Test (Pressure Change) 3.
Halogen Diode 15 Leak Test
- 4. Ma ss Spectrome ter 40 Leak Test Acoustic Emission 20 (3) Practical Examination -
I Prof iciency shall be demonstrated in selecting and per forming the appli-0487B/238-7
O O
O Page 20 of 31 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW - AP PE NDI X F SNT-TC-1 A (1980) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977 and FSAR 1.58.2)
Contractor Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAGRAPH REQUI REMENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R) 8.3.2 cable nondest ruct ive tests (item 3 and interpreting and cont inu ed) evaluation the results obtained on one or more samples approved by the NDT Level III.
At least ten dif ferent checkpoints requiring an under-standing of test vari-ables and the employer's procedural requireinents shall be included in this practical examination.
8.3.3 NDT LEVEL III I
(1) Basic Examination (Required only once when more than one method of examination is taken).
(a) Twenty questions relating t o under-st a nd i ng the SNT-TC-1 A l
document.
04 8 7 B/2 3 8-7 4
.-u
~ - - -
a.e.,m,e w-m e
,w.-e, e
e--
m-n
,m~w-
O O
O Page 21 of 31 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 i
RE ADIN ES S REVIEW -- APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1 A (1980) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW
( As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977 and FSAR 1.58.2)
I Contractor Review by Date i
RESULTS
( Incl u ding Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAG R APH REQUI REMENT of Requirement)
REJ ECT (R) 1 8.3.3 (b)
Fif teen questions re-(item 1 lative to applicable cont inued) materials, f a bric-ation, and p roduct technology.
( c)
Fifteen questions which are selected from or are similar to published Level II questions for other appropriate NDT methods.
(2) Method Examination (for each method)
(a)
Thirty questions relating to funda-mentals and princi-ples, which are selected f rom or are i
similar to published ASNT Level III questions f or each me thod, and 04 8 7 B/2 38-7
' s" A *c, 1
o.
IMAGE EVALU ATION
,9 ' *s
\\),g///,/
/
Ol,9 (p 9h@
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
'5 Y
NN ///77
\\\\\\\\\\////
.+
f" l.0 ll U' l,l ida l l.8 lana 1.25 1.4 u,
=
4 150mm 4-
_________.---6" Ths Sh ?
4
%h7,,f h
w s$,
.e A, e
a%e w'
6 1
4
.,e (9 l~Q 0
r(&
4 0
EE 3~.
IMAGE EVALUATION O
\\//
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
/
s Ny,,
k?f lllll4
?
+
<c l.0 g22 l,l Stg 2
ll!it 1.25 lll 1.4 ll 1.6 l.
j,==
w 15 0 m m 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
&y,,
pgg?
////4
?
&,/,
en fp
,n O
gz,.
- s+
- s
- afA
A 1
e.
w IMAGE EVALUATION O
/j/
~ g#
TEST TARGET (MT-3) 46
,N
} @'
jS (j'
l.0 a22 l.1
@!M U?2 1.25 1.4 ll 1.6 h===
150mm 4
6" l
1 1
1 g
<l l
$5';g h /'%
4 85 g.'/4 o},,,,
p3, r
,..,_s
,y.
q'9 3h,
/,
c;,,
(,
IMAGE EVALUATION x \\//o/
qY TEST TARGET (MT-3)
M
, < ' f's N@
O N
y.
l.0 d22 l,l u{lI.2?
-=
M91 1.25 l.4 l
i 1.6l-4
- _.- - - 150mm 4
6" h,-
m 3,,
o,w A
.g
- y e..
- a
=
n; q
rg V
V
(,h Page 22 of 31l
- PLANT VOGTLE_ UNIT 2 READINESS-REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1A.(1980) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified _by ASME Section III_1977, Winter 1977 and FSAR 1.58.2)
Contractor Review by Date RESULTS (Including - Loca tion ACCEPT (A)/
PARAGR APH -
REQUIREMENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R) 8.3.3 (b)
Fif teen questions (item 2 relating to applic-
~
cont inued) ation and establish-ment of techniques and procedures which are selected _from or are similar to the published ASNT Level III questions for each method, and (c)
Twenty questions
. relating to capa-bility for inter-
.preti ng codes, st and ar ds, a nd specifications relating to the ine thod.
(3) Specific Examination (for each method)
(a)
Twenty questions relating to specifi-cations, equipment, techniques, and procedures applicable 0487B/259-7
~
~
Page 23 of 31 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1 A (1980) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977 and FSAR 1.58.2)
Contractor Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAG R APH REQUI REMENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R) 8.3.3 to the employer's (item 3.a p roduct ( s ) and cont inued) methods employed, and to the admin-istration of the employer 's written prac t ice.
8.3.4 SNT-TC-1A, Para. 8.3.4 allows (mo d if i ed the employer to waive exam-by ASME ination of Level III person-Section nel.
ASME III NB 5521 (a)(1):
III NB, Certification of Level III NC, ND -
nondestruct ive examination 5521) personnel by examination for technical competence is required.
8.4 G radi ng 8.4.1 An NDT Level III shall be responsible for the adminis-tration and grading of exam-inations for NDT Level I and II personnel.
The adminis-tration and grading of exam-inations may be delegated to a designed representative of 0487B/238-7
O O
O Page 24 of 31 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1 A (1980) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977 and FSAR 1.58.2)
Contractor Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAG R APil REQUI REMENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R) 8.4.1 the NDT Level III and so (continued) rec o rd ed.
The employer shall be responsible for adminis-t ration and g rading of exam-inations for Level III personnel.
The actual administration and grading of Level III examinations r.. ;'
be performed by a designated representative of the employer.
8.4.3 A composite grade based on i
(as the simple average of the modified examinations shall be used.
by FSAR 1.58.2) 0487B/238-7
O O
O-Page 25 of 31 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1 A (1980) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977 and FSAR 1.58.2)
Contractor Review by Dat e RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAGRAPH REQUI REMENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R) 8.4.4 When an examination is admin-istered for qualification, a composite g rade of 80% or greater is recommende d.
In addition, each grade for the general, specific, and pract ical or the basic, method, and specific examination is recommended to be 70% or g reater.
Test objectives shall be used in the practical examination, when appropriate.
[
t 8.4.5 When examination is adminis-tered and graded for the employer by an outside agency, and the outside agency issues grades of Pass or Fail only, on a certified report, then the employer may accept the Pass grade as 80% for that particular examination.
i l
l 0487B/238-7 t
O O
O Page 26 of 31 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADIN ESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1A (1980) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977 and FSAR 1.58.2)
Co nt rac t or Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAGRAPH REQUIREMENT of Requirement)
REJ ECT (R) 8.5 Re-examination Those failing to attain the required grades must wait at least 30 days or show evidence of having received suitable additional training as deter-mined by the employer before re-examination.
9.
Certification 9.1 Certification of all levels of NDT personnel is the re-sponsibility of the employer.
9.2 Each employer shall establish writ ten practices covering all phases of certification incl uding training as specified in Par. 5 9.3 Certification of NDT personnel shall be based on demonstration of satisf actory qualification as determined by procedures outlined in 0487B/238-7
. =
O O
O Page 27 of 31 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW - APPENDIX F SNT-TC-1A (1980) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977 and FSAR 1.58.2)
Contractor Review by-Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAG R APH REQUI REMENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R) 9.3 Par.
6, 7, and 8 as modified (continued) by the employer's written practices.
9.4 At the option of the employer, an outside agency may be engaged to provide NDT Level III services.
In such i n st a nce s, the responsibility of certification must be re-tained by the employer.
9.5 The employer who purchases outside services is responsi-ble for assuring the training and examination services are in accordance with the employer's written practices.
9.6 Personnel certifications and copies of the employer's written practices shall be maintained on file by the employer.
0487B/259-7
O O
O Page 28 of 31 PLANT VGGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW - AP PENDI X F SNT-TC-1 A (1980) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977 and FSAR 1.58.2)
Contractor Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAGRAPH REQ UI REMENT of Requirement)
REJ ECT (R) 9.6.1 The qualification records of the certified ind ividuals shall include the f ollowing :
(1) Name of certified individual.
(2) Level of certification and test method.
(3) Educational backg round and experience of certi-fied individuals.
(4) St a teme nt ind icat ing satisf actory completion of training in accordance with the employer's writ ten procedure.
(5) Results of the physical examination prescribed in Par.
8.1.1.
0487B/238-7 w
vv w
-e i
vw
--w T
2
O O
O Page 29 of 31 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT RE ADINESS REVIEW - AP PEW DIX F SNT-TC-1A (1980) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977 and FSAR 1.58.2)
Co n t rac t or Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAG R APH
_,,,,,,,,R EQ U,I,RE M E N T of Reguirement)
REJ ECT (R) 9.6.1 (6)
Cur re nt examination (continued) copy (s) or evidence of successf ul completion of the examinations.
(7)
Other suitable evidence of satisf actory quali-fications when such qualifications are used in lieu of examinations.
(8)- Composite grade (s) or suitable evidence of grades.
(9)
Dates of certificat' n i
and/or recertification and the dates of assign-me n t to N DT.
(10) Signature of employer 's designed representative.
9.7 Re-C,ertification 9.7.1 All levels of NDT personnel shall be re-certified at least once every three years 4
0487B/238-7
O O
O
-Page 30 of-31 PLANT. VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINES S REVIEW - AP PEN DIX F SNT-TC-1 A (1980) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977 and FSAR 1.58.2)
Contractor Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAG R APH REQ UI REMENT of Requirement)
REJECT (R) 9.7.1 in accordance with one of the (continued) following criteria:
(1) Evidence of continuing sati sf actory per f ormance.
(2) Re-examination in those portions of the examin-ations in Par. 8.3 deemed necessary by the employer 's NDT Level III.
9.7.2 NDT personnel may be re-examined any time at the discretion of the employer and have their certification extended or revoked.
9.7.3 The employer's written practice shall include rules covering the duration of interrupted services which will require re-examination and re-certification.
04 8 7B/2 38-7
O-O Page 31 of 31 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW - AP PEN DI X F SNT-TC-1A (1980) NDE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW
( As Modified by ASME Section III 1977, Winter 1977 and FSAR 1.58.2)
Co nt rac t or Review by Date RESULTS (Including Location ACCEPT (A)/
PARAGRAPH
, REQUIREMENT of Requirement)
REJ ECT (R) 10.
Ter mi. na t i on 10.1 The employer's certifications shall be deemed revoked when employme n t is terminated.
10.2 A Level I,
Level II, or Level III whose certification has been terminated may be re-certified to his former NDT level by a new employer based on examination as described in Par. 8 provided all of the following conditions are met to the new employer 's satisfaction:
(1) The employee has proof of prior certification.
(2) The employee was working in the capacity to which he certified within six months of termination.
(3) The employee is being recertified within six months of his termination.
04 8 7B/ 23 8-7
~
N
/~'%
V
[V U
g TADLE 6.3.1 RECOMMENDED INITIAL TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE LEVELS TRAINING (HOURS) l PT Esaminnelon Method RT MT UT ET NRT AE LT tevel I
il I
il I
il i i 18 9
15 1
18 1
11 I
18 Technique BT PCMT llDLT MSLT BT PCMi HDLT MSt i t 'ong4ctum with a pawing grade of
.it Ic.eu 2 ) cars of engincesing or w ecote umly m a univeruty, college.
os sethnital stiumi 12 40 8 4 24 40 4 4 8 8 12 40 40 30 2
16 8
28 2
12 6
16 Ihph stliool graduation or cquivalens 20 40 12 8 40 40 4 8 12 8 20 40 60 60 2
24 12 40 4
16 8
24 Gr ammar school gr adu.at ion, or elenninstratiori profitiency, or adds-tamal traemng 80 80 24 16 40 RO 12 16 48 24 80 80 80 80 2
f4 24 60 4
NO 20 80 WORK TIME liXi'l RIENCI: (MON 1185)
%ll edmanonallevels as hued almve 3 9 5 3 3 9 1 2 1 9 6 24 6 18 1%
8%
4 4
4 6
11 1 llubble Test e
l't Mi = l'reuure Change / Measurement Test Illit 1 -- llalogen Diode I cak less Mass Spettrometer I cak Test MNI I e
2 llours
=
NOILS:
(1), for i esel il certification. the emperience should consit of time at 1.evel I or (2)
Initial experience may be gained simuhaneously in two or more metimds if:
repm alens.11 a person is being qualified directly so I.evcl 11 with no time at I evel 1 the rcquncd espesience should comiu of the sum of the times required for I evel I la) ~lhe candidate spends a minimum of 23re of liis moe k tune on cath meth
- n
O O
O Page 1 of 2 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROG RA M AP PEN DIX F-INS PECTOR QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION T RA INING PROG RAM EVALUATIO!!
Cont r ac tor RR Review by Date RESULTS ACCE PT ( A) /
ISSUES (Including Location of Requi rement)
REJECT (R) i 1.
Is there a training curricu-lum established for each a rea of cer t if icat ion?
2.
Does the traini ng program require indoctrination of personnel in the technical and.idmi nist rat ive policies I
and objectives of the Pro jec t?
3.
Is the minimum qualifications of instructors established and is there evidence that in-structors meet those qualifi-cations?
4.
Does the program require continuing t raining in tech-nical and administ rative subjects to ensure personnel remain prof icient in their jobs and are awa re of cha nges in p rocediire s?
0488B/279-7
~..
O O
O Page 2 of 2 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADIN ES S REVIEW PROG RAM AP P8tl ul 4 F-INS PECTOR QU ALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATIOtl T RAINING PROGRAM EVALUATION Cont ra c t or RR Review by Date RESULTS ACCE PP (A)/
ISSUES (I ncludi ng, _ Location of Requ i rement )
R_EJ ECT (R) 5.
Are guidelines provided for use of waivers for on-the-job tra ining or required experi-ence?
6.
Is the exemption provision in ANSI N4 5.2.6 the normal method f or qualif ying person-nel ra the r than the exception me thod?
7.
Is there a t ime limit between a failed certification exam-ination and re-test?
8.
Are guidelines or procedures ava i lable to cont rol the test questions?
l 9.
Are there controls withi n the testing program to assure the same test would not be i
g ive n t o a n individual who had previously f ailed that i
test?
l
{
0488B/279-7 L
J
O O
O Page 1 of _
PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADIN ES S REVIEW PROGRAM AP PEN DIX F-INS PECTOR QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION INSPECTOR CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST I NS PECTOR RR REVIEW BY BM PLOYER DATE ACCE PP (A)/
._.--REQUI RE M,EN T, _
RESULTS / COMMENTS REJECT (R)
I.
Resume in file?
yes no (Is i t c ur ren t through last certification date?)
yes no II.
Proof of high school diploma or GED?
yes no (List high school and date graduated)
III. EYE EXAMINATION (for period June 1985 to present)
Period Was Examiner Accept (A)/
Exam Date E rom - To)
Ne_ar Vision Far Vision Color Qualified Reject (R)
IV.
Are there any periods in eye exam yes no history that have not been rect. ified by a later acceptable eye exam?
r 0 49 0B /2 7 9-7 b
m
.e.
.w
~..
m.-.+
.-y.
.w
-m vo
Pag e of RANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADIN ESS REVIEW PROGRAM AP P8tI DI X F-IIIS PECTOR QUALIFICATIOli AND CERTIFI CATIO!1 INS PECTOR CERTIFI CATION CilECKLIST I t1S PECTOR RR REVIEW BY El4 PLOY ER DATE V.
CERTIFICATIONS (in ef fect June 1985 to p resent )
Certification Per i od Academic Experi e nc e Annual Accep t (A)/
Area (From - To)
Requirements Requirements Performance Reject (R)
Met (verify Met (if waivers - Report For against is it justified; Each Year curriculum) if prior experi-Cert. is in ence, how was it
- effect, verified) located in package?