ML20235L835

Insp Rept 99901097/87-01 on 870803-06.Violations & Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Implementation of QA Program in Areas of Training/Qualifications,Control of Purchased Svcs & Control of Measuring & Testing Equipment

ML20235L835
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/01/1987
From:	Conway J, Stone J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20235L758	List: ML20235L757 ML20235L784 ML20235L798 ML20235L835
References
REF-QA-99901097 99901097-87-01, 99901097-87-1, NUDOCS 8710050616
Download: ML20235L835 (13)

Text

1 I

1 ORGANIZATION: SOUTHWESTERN LABORATORIES HOUSTON, TEXAS REPORT INSPECTION INSPECTION NO.: 99901097/87-01 DATE: 08/03-06/87 ON-SITE HOURS: 28 CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: Southwestern Laboratories ATTN: Mr. Joseph Jeanes Chief Executive Officer P22 Cavalcace Street ,

Houston, Texas 77009 lI ORGANIZATIONAL CONTACT: Daniel N. Hanna, Jr., QA Manager TELEPHONE NUMBER: (713)692-9151 NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ACTIVITY: Analytical services, metals testing, and nondestructive examination.

ASSIGNED INSPECTOR: Mk Development and Reactive !OM8} Date Ud.T.Conway,Proga Inspection Secti PDRIS)

OTHERINSPECTOR(S): Terry Tinkle (consultant)

APPROVED BY: bI Cb J. C. Stone, Chief, PDRIS, Yendor Inspection Branch Date M

~

1 l

INSPECTION BASES AND SCOPE:

l A. BASES: 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B and 10 CFR Part 21.

B. SCOPE: The purpose of the inspection was to conduct a programmatic evaluation of the implementation of the QA program in the areas of training / qualifications, control of purchased services, control of measuring and test equipment, audits (internal / external), and reporting of defects.

PLANT SITE APPLICABILITY: Fort St. Vrain (50-267) and Comanche Peak 1/2 1 (50-445/446).

l ffj00hh 87100 EE y 99901097 PDR

_ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - - - _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ - - _ - - - _ - . . _ _ - _ --- - _ _ _ . _ _ -a

~

l l s

ORGANIZATION: SOUTHWESTERN LABORATORIES HOUSTON, TEXAS 1

REPORT INSPECTION .

j N0.: 99901097/87-01 RESULTS: PAGE 2 of 13 j l

A. VIOLATIONS:

l 1. Contrary to Section 21.6 of 10 CFR Part 21, a copy of Section 206 was not posted in three areas where Part 21 and a procedure were posted.

(87-01-01) .c

2. Contrary to Section 21.31 of 10 CFR Part 21, a review of purchase orders (P0) to service vendors revealed that while 10 CFR Part 21 was imposed upon SWL,-SWL did not impose 10 CFP Part 21 requirements on P0s 5150 (December 23, 1986), 1810 (July 21, 1987), and 1308 (November 21,1986) to Coffer Laboratories, and 5542 (March 5,1987) to Page-Wilson and 6183 (June 11, 1987) and 440 (January 23, 1985) to Gulf States Balance. (87-01-02)

3. Contrary to Section 21.21 of 10 CFR Part 21, SWL's 10 CFR Part 21 l Procedure No. 9700-108-87 does not ensure that a responsible officer shall be notified in all cases when a defect is found in a safety- y related basic component. (87-01-03)  !

1 B. NONCONFORMANCES: l

1. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part.50, Section 6 I of ANSI N45.2 and Section S.3 of the QAM, instructions and/or proce-dures did not exist for the following activities: (87-01-04) a) Establishment of criteria for the qualification of auditors, b) Control (e.g., origination, review, approval) of procurement documents.

, 1 l c) Overall individual / group responsibilities from the receipt l l

of an item to the origination, review, and approval of the final report.

1 d) Generation and use of the Approved Vendors List (AVL).

2. Contrary to Criterion VII of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, Section 8 of ANSI N40.2, and Section 7.3 of the QAM, there was no documented evidence that a survey or audit had been undertaken on three vendors .

who performed services for SWL. The vendors include Coffer Labora-tories (December 1986 and July 1987), Page-Wilson (March 1987), and Technology & Calibration (March 1986). (87-01-05) ,

1

1 ORGANIZATION: SOUTHWESTERN LABORATORIES I HOUSTON, TEXAS REPORT INSPECTION -

NO.: 99901097/87-01 RESULTS: PAGE 3 of'13-l

, 3. Contrary to Criterion IV of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, Section 5 ~l of ANSI N45.2, and Section 7.4 of the QAM, the requirement to have l an acceptable QA program was not included or referenced in P0s to I Coffer Laboratories (Nos. 5150, 1308..and 1810), Page-Wilson (No..  !

5542), and Gulf States Balance (Nos. 6183 and 0440).. (87-01-06) I l

4. Contrary to Criterion XVIII of Appendix B to 10 CFR part 50, Section 19 of ANSI N45.2, and Sections 18.11 and 18.3.6 of. the OAM, there was no documented evidence of written procedures, checklists, or a report for an audit performed of Grady Cook Sales in May 1985.

(87-01-07)

5. Contrary to Criterion II of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, Section II l of ANSI N45.2, Section 1.4.1 of the QAM, and Sections 3.2 and 6.0 of 1 Procedure No. 9700-105-82, a review of training records revealed the I following: (87-01-08) ,

a) Tests and certifications to ANSI N45.2.6 were missing for..'

F. Plummer and A. Norwood. both from the Metals Testing and ')

Metallurgy (MTM) department. I b) Documented evidence did not exist to show that J. O'Neal from I the Analytical Services'(AS) department and M. Peterson and l

C. Albritton from the MTM departmert had been trained or indoctrinated in the QA program.

c) Indoctrination and QA orientation were not documented on form SWL-105-2 for approximately 31 individuals (11-NDE 4-AS, and 9-MTM). .

6. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and Section 5.4.4 of the QAM, the QA Manager failed to sign: ,(a) Report of Analysis and Tests No. 42711-9 (April 18, 3C86) to Bechtel and Nos.947(June 18,1986),830-842and744-842(June 11,1986),

6938-6939(December 3,1985),5958-5962(October 22,1985)and 3671-3683 (June 28, 1985).to Texas Utilities Generating Company; and (b) approximately 55 NDE reports (7 to Gulfallo.y in 1982 and 1983, 7 to WFI in 1986, 41 to Ladish in 1984 and 1985). '(87-01-09) ,

l

7. Contrary to Criterion I of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and Section 3 of ANSI N45.2, there was no documented evidence of the authority and responsibility of all the persons and organizations ~

which are a part of the QA department. (87-01-10) i

_ _ ___ __.___________Q

ORGANIZATION: SOUTHWESTERN LABORATORIES HOUSTON, TEXAS REPORT INSPECTION .

NO.: .9990).097/87-01 RESULTS: PAGE 4 of 13

8. Contrary to Criterion IV of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and Section 5 of ANSI N45.2, there was no documented evidence that )

l adequate. measures were established for the issuance, review, and 1 l approval of P0s including changes to the P0.- (87-01-11) l 9. Con'trary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and <

Section 11.4.4 of the QAM the identity of the person conducting l

l testing was not documented on some test documentation.- (87-01-12)

10. Contrary to Criterion XII of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and Section 5.2.1 of the QAM, soma measuring and test equipment (M&TE)_

were not calibrated at the specified frequency. (87-01-13)

11. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and Section 5.7 of Procedure No. 9700-102-75, calibration vendors have not always supplied the proper traceability on certification documentation. (87-01-14) 1

12. Contrary to Criterion XVIII of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, Section 18.4 of the QAM, and Section 4.3.2 of Procedure No. 9700-104-82, it was noted that internal audits of some departments were not conducted at least once every 12 months,'and a checklist was missing for one internal audit. (87-01-15)

C. STATUS OF PREVIOUS INSPECTION FINDINGS:

None. This was the first inspection at this facility.

D. OTHER FINDi.;GS AND COMMENTS:

1. Southwestern Laboratories (SWL)

The headquarters office of SWL is located in Houston, Texas, and the <:ompany has 13 branch offices throughout Texas and Louisiana.

SWL provides test and inspection services-for the following areas:

- Geotechnical Engineering ,

l - Construction Material Engineering

- Wood Product Inspection and Testino Nondestructive Examination

- Metallurgical Engineering Pkchanical Testina ~

- Environmental Serkices

- Analytical Services l

___m_______m_--_.-m..___.__

4 ORGANIZATION: SOUTHWESTERN LABORATORIES HOUSTON, TEXAS REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99901097/87-01 RESULTS: PAGE 5 of 13 According to the Director of Metals Testing approximately 10 years ago, SWL adopted a single QA program for all their work. According to statements in Section 1 of the QAM, Revision 4, dated July 15, 1983, the SWL quality program meets the intent of ANSI N45.2 and complies with the requirements of the ASME Code. The QAM further states the SWL quality program covers the fu1Lscope of 10 CFR <

Part 50, Appendix B.

2. Control of Purchased Services The inspector reviewed Section 7.0 of the QAM, the AVL and external audits to assure that qualified vendors were being used by SWL. The AVL dated August 8, 1985 was signed by the QA Manager, and it listed eight companies as calibration service vendors. It was noted that the issuance and control of the AVL was not documented in the QAM, procedures, or instructions (See Nonconformance 87-01-04).

I The external audit report contained a check list for 11 categories:

Organization; QC Program; Industries and Procedures; Identification and Control of Materials; Control of Special Processes; Control of Inspection, Examination and Testing; Centrol of M&TE; Process Routing Sheet; Nonconforming Materials and Equipment; Records; and Auoits.

The check lists for the four audits in 1985 and the four audits in 1986 did not contain a discussion statement for any item, but only a check mark in a "Yes, No, or N/A" category. The audits were performed by the former QA Manager, but there was no documented evidence to show that the individual was qualified to performed audits. In addition, SWL had not established any criteria to qualify individuals for the performance of audits (See Noncon-formance 87-01-04).

For the May 1985 audit conducted of Grady M. Cook, who calibrated the optical comparator (S/N 7018), the only documentation was a statement signed by the QA Manager that the vendor would be retained on the AVL for another year (See Nonconformance 87-01-07).

Of the eight calibration service vendors on the AVL, SWL had the QA Manual for only Southern Calibration and Services (SCS). Four of the companies were audited on an annual basis, and the remaining four were audited every two years. Audits were overdue on SCS, Gulf Stetes Balance (GSB), Grady Cook Sales, Gulf Coast Calibrating, and Hildebrandt Engineering. It was also noted that SWL did not conduct audits / surveys of the service vendors-Coffer Laboratories, Pagq-Wilson and Technology.& Calibration.

l l

1 l

l w-___-___-_______

. l

)'

-ORGANIZATION: SOUTHWESTERN LABORATORIES HOUSTON, TEXAS 1 REPORT INSPECTION ~ .

NO.: 99901097/87-01 RESULTS: PAGE 6 of 13

~!

Selected 3WL P0s to vendors for M&TE calibration services were )

E viewed. P0s 6183 (June 11',1987) and 440-(January 23,1985).to; j l 1

GSB and P0 5542 (March 5, 1987) to'Page Wilson did not invoke quality requirements nor 10 CFR Part 21. (SeeViolation 89-01-02 and Nonconformance 87-01-06) d SWL P0 1308 dated November. 21, 1986 to Coffer Laboratories requested l a chemical analysis for eight samples per ASTM B61.-cThe PO was signed by SWL purchasing, but there was no documented evidence that the PO was reviewed by quality assurance. Although a Coffer lab report identified the work as nuclear, the SWL-P0 did not document the work as' nuclear, and the requirements of 10 CFR Part 21

~

were not invoked (See Violation 87-01-02).

3. Control of M&TE The inspector reviewed Section 12.0 of the QAM, Procedure No.  ;

9700-102-15 " Control of M&TE," and' control cards to assure that i M&TE is calibrated at regular scheduled intervals. The results j of this review are summarized below. (SeeNonconformance 87-01-13) i MTE CALIBRATED NO. DESCRIPTION BY i l 2054K001 Gas Chromatograph . Gulf Nuclear 2054K002 Elec. Cap. Detector Gulf Nuclear 2054K020 Hitachi Spectrophotometer SWL 2054K029 Meter Box No. 1 SWL 2054K030 Meter Box No. 2 SWL 2054K031 Meter Box No. 3 SWL 2054B002 Mettler Bal (AE160) GSB 2054B003 Mettler Bal GSB l 2054B004 Torbal Bal'(EA-IAP)- GSB 2008B001 Leco Elec Bal GSB 2008P001 Sate Univ Tester SCS-2008P008 Instron Tester SCS 2008P017 Furnace Temp Indic. Thermo-temp 2008P019 Tinius Olsen Tester Army Res. Ctr 2008P030 Furnace Temp Rec. Thermo-temp 2008P031 Wilson Hardness Tester SCS~

2009P089 Rockwell Tester' SCS 2008L001 Tucon Microhardness Tester'Page Wilson . q r

ORGANIZATION: SOUTHWESTERN LABORATORIES HOUSTON, TEXAS REPORT INSPECTION N0.: 99901097/87-01 RESULTS: PAGE 7 of 13 The control card for No. 205dK030 does not show an annual calibration entry for the July 1987 cate indicating it is currently out of calibration. The control card for No. 2054B002 does not show the required six month calibration entries for October 1984 and January 1986 indicating the item was out of calibration from t October 1984 to January 1985 and January 1986 to July 1986. The control card for No. 2054B003 is missing a six month calibration entry for July 1984 indicating the item was out of calibration from July 1984 to Augus t 1984. The control card for No. 20548004 is intssing the sh month calibration entry for January 1986 indicating the item was out of calibration from January 1986 to July 1986.

For the remaining M&TE, the control card indicates calibration of the item is current. A spot check of recent calibration history on the card indicates the item had been calibrated as required. The control card for No. 2054K020 indicates the item is calibrated prior to each use. The certification documents (e.g., document dated June 11, 1987 from GSB for the calibration of the Mettler AE160 balance) provided by SWL calibration vendors do not contain certification statements. (See Nonconformance 87-01-14).

4. 10 CFR Part 21 SWL Procedure No. 9700-108-87, " Notification Procedure 10 CFR 21" dated January 28, 1987, was reviewed and found to be inadequate in that it does not ensure that a responsible officer with executive authority will be notified in all cases when a defect is found in a safety-related basic component (see Violation 87-01-03). During an inspection of the facilities, it was noted that the procedure was posted along with the regulation in three locations, but Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act was not posted (See Violation 87-01-01).

5. Audits The inspector reviewed Section 18.0 of the QAM and Procedure No. 9700-104-82 " Auditing of QA Program" pertaining to internal audits. Selected annual audits in 1985, 1986, and 1987 by a SWL vice president of the QA department were reviewed. The results of a review of internal audits conducted by the QA Manager are as follows:

~ ' '

', ORGANIZATION: SOUTHWESTERN LABORATORIES HOUSTON, TEXAS l REPORT INSPECTION'  !

NO.: 99901097/87-01 RESULTS: PAGE 8 of 13 ,

1 AUDIT AUDITED AUDIT DATE DEPARTMENT FINDINGS I 01/24/86 Analytical.(20-01 Four 01/24/85 Analytical (20-01 Five 06/03/86 Mechanical (20-08 Eight ( '

i 09/18/87 NDE(20-09 One l 09/19/85 NDE (20-09 Seven A checklist could not be found for the audit performed in January l 1986. The audit checklist did not identify the auditor for the June 1986 and September 1987 audits, and the audit checklist for the June 1986 audit was not dated. Corrective action was complete for i all five audits.

The QA Manager indicated internal audits had not been performed during 1987. As a result, a number of SWL departments have not been audited within 12 months of the previous audit (See Nonconformance 87-01-15). The file of annual QA reports to'the SWL President was scanned for the past few years, and a report was found for each year. y

6. Documentation Packaoes (DP) i SWL was asked to provide a list-of customers using SWL services for commercial nuclear work. In response, the QA Manager provided a list of customers who require quality statements on reports and other test documentation. He stated that SWL may have performed nuclear related work for the following companies:

l Lone Star Screw Gulf States Utilities NPS Industries Taylor Forge Engineered Systems (TFES)

Anderson Greenwood Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO)

Stainless Products B&B Insulation WFI Nuclear Products Bechtel Power Corporation Ladish Dresser Industrial Capitol Manufacturing Southern Bolt & Fastener Public Service Company of Colorado (PSC)

____-----_.-.-a

ORGANIZATION: SOUTHWESTERN LABORATORIES i HOUSTON, TEXAS REPORT INSPECTION- J NO.: 99901097/87-01 RESULTS: PAGE 9 of 13 ,

l

-It was noted that the SWL contract files are organized by customer name, and both nuclear and non-nuclear documentation were located in the same file. A preliminary review of DPs indicated SWL performs work on blanket P0s as well as individual P0s. ,

A DP consisted of the customer's P0, SWL's Report of Analysis and 9 Tests,_ billing summary, and invoice.. The report was initialed by' ' 1 '

the department manager or supervisor and was signed by the QA Manager if it contained a quality statement. - Approximately 110 DPs were reviewed. Fifty-five of the DPs addressed NDE activities and the remaining 55 were for chemical analysis, mechanical testing, or metallurgical evaluation. The NDE work was performed for Gulfalloy i (seven reports), Ladish (41 reports), and WFI-(seven reports). A summary of the activities performed for nuclear customers is as follows:

Eight P0s from Anderson Greenwood and Company for mechanical testing referenced Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR Part 21 and ANSI N45.2. The eight test reports from SWL contained a quality state-ment and indicated that 10 CFR Part 21 applied.

A blanket P0 N1566 dated January 5, 1987-from WFI was to perform I chemical analysis, mechanical testing, metallurgical testing, corrosion evaluation, and NDE for the calendar year 1987'in accordance with SWL's Quality Program, and 10 CFR Part 21 is applicable. Eighteen reports from SWL contained a quality statement and that Part 21 applied.

Bechtel's P0 14926-BA-6612 dated January 15, 1986 and succeeding revisions through Revision 7 dated February 17, 1987 was to provide 1 metallurgical and chemical testing, and Part 21 and applicable I portions of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 applied. The 12 SWL l reports were for testing items for the South Texas Project Electric  !

Generating Station. All the reports contained a quality statement and were signed by the QA Manager with the exception of one. report (seeNonconformance 87-01-09).

m '

P0 CPF-10881-S dated June 17, 1983 from TUGC0 and numerous supple-ments dated through June 1986 for chemical analy. h. referenced ANSI.

N45.2, Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, Section III u; the ASME Code and imposed Part 21. P0 CPF-13174-S dated January 31, 1986 also referenced the same documents. Eight SWL reports which documented results of work in 1985 and 1986 for these two P0s were reviewed.

Six of the reports did not contain a quality statement and were not signed by the QA Manager (see Nonconformance 87-01-09).

i

ORGANIZATION: SOUTHWESTERN LABORATORIES HOUSTON, TEXAS I

REPORT INSPECTION ,

NO.: 99901097/87-01 RESULTS: PAGE 10 of 13 SWL Reports 19874-1, -2 dated April 10, 1987, document results of chemical analysis of stainless steel specimens on P0 2699 from TFES. The report contains the following quality statement: " Tests have been performed per Quality Assurance Program, Revision 4, dated July 15, 1983 as approved by Taylor Forge Engineered Systems, October 10, 1984. 10 CFR 21 applies." The report was initialed by i a reviewer and signed by the Department Manager and the QA Manager.

P0 No. N7622 from PSC dated December 19, 1986 required a certificate of conformance for. chemical analysis of specimens in accordance with ASTM standards D808, D1662, and 01179. The P0 identified that the work would be related to a nuclear safety application, and 10 CFR Port 21 was invoked. SWL Report 2035 dated January 21, 1987 docu-mented the chemical analysis results. The report was signed by the Analytical Lab Supervisor and the QA Manager and contained the following quality statement: " Services were furnished in accordance with Quality Program, Revision 4, dated July 15, 1983, approved on March 19, 1986. Public Service shall be advised of any changes in the program." Analyses Data Sheet documented the test results, time, date and contained the initials of the person performing the tests. The equipment used for the test was not-identified. ,

PSC P0 N7043 R-04 dated August 23, 1986 requested ASME weld qualifica-tion for seven hardfaced samples. The P0 identified technical requirements for heat treatment, including a limitation of 600'F/hr over 600*F for heatup and cooldown, but it did not identify whether ,

the work was nuclear or non-nuclear, and it did not invoke 10 CFR 21.

SWL Report 86610-3 dated September 26, 1986 for this work contains a quality statement. A review of the heat treat oven temperature chart for 5HF21-2 (specimen No. 3) indicated the heatup rate limita-tion of 600*F/hr over 600 F was exceeded. Analysis Data Sheet documented the results for the Rockwell "C" hardness tests, but the following information was not provided: date of test, name of tester, equipment and procedure used for test.

PSC P0 7043 R-08 dated November 19, 1986 requested chemical analysis of eight samples to ASTM B61. The P0 identified the work as nuclear, but it did not invoke 10 CFR Part 21. SWL Report 19295 dated December 2,1986 identified the date, tester, test procedures, specification and equipment; and it contained a quality statement.

The report was signed by the Department Manager and the QA Manager.

____m___._..--__.._m m_-

(.-

1 ORGANIZATION: SOUTHWESTERN LA8 ORATORIES HOUSTON, TEXAS REPORT INSPECTION N0.: 99901097/87-01 RESULTS: PAGE 11 of 13 i

PSC P0 N7340 dated September 22, 1986, requested laboratory services l for halide testing. The P0 invokes 10 CFR 50, Appendix B and 10 CFR

21. SWL Report 1805 dated November 5, 1986 contains a quality statement and was signed by the Analytical Lab Supervisor and the QA Manager. Analysis Data Sheets document results of the chemical .

testing, but there was no information to identify the tester and the E equipment used.

PSC P0 N7043 R-05 dated September 16, 1986 requests analysis of  :

l eleven different specimens. Specimens No. 9 and 10 were identified l as nuclear. SWL Reports 86696-1 through 86696-11 dated October 27, 1986 document results of the work. The QA Manager signed ten of the eleven reports.

PSC P0 N7043 R-04, dated July 31, 1986 requested chloride analysis of samples and was identified as nuclear. SWL Report 1308-1 dated August 13, 1986 contained a quality statement and was signed by the Analytical Lab Supervisor and the QA Manager. Analysis Data Sheet documented the analysis results, but there is no information identifying the tester or the equipment used.

l NUS P0 AUS-7674 dated December 3, 1986 requests an evaluation of a weldment. The P0 invokes SWL QA Program Revision 4, dated July 15, ,

1983 as well as 10 CFR Part 21. SWL Report No. 44592 dated l January 23, 1987 was signed by the Department Manager and the QA  ;

Manager and contains a quality statements.

7. Examination and Testing The inspector reviewed Sections 10 and 11 of the QAM relating to inspection, examination, and testing. Seven NDE procedyres for ultrasonic, magnetic particle, radiographic, and liquid penetrant testing to the requirements of Section V of the ASME Code were also reviewed. The procedures were UT-109-84, MT-203-84, MT-204-85, LP-2-84, LP-101-84, LP-202-86, and RT-201-84.

Approximately 55 NDE reports to Gulfalloy (seven), WFI (seven),

and Ladish (41) were reviewed. Three reports to WFI in 1986, seven reports to Gulfalloy in 1982 and 1983, and six reports to Ladish in 1984 and 1985 did not contain a quality statement. In addition, a number of NDE reports for testing to Section III of the ASME Code were not signed by the QA Manager (See Nonconformance 87-01-09),.

.~ ,

ORGANIZATION: SOUTHWESTERN LABORATORIES HOUSTON, TEXAS REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99901097/87-01 RESULTS: PAGE 12 of 13 Some of the test documentation did not include all the information required by the QAM. Complete traceability for testing was not

-provided because equipment used for the testing was not recorded:

Analysis Data Sheet No. 2035 dated January'21,.1987; Analysis Data Sheet No.1805 dned November 5,1986; and Analysis Data Sheet (

No. 1308-1 dated August 13, 1986. - The name of the individual 1 performing the test was not recorded for Analysis Data Sheet No.1805 dated November 5,1986; and Analysis Data Sheet No.1308-1 dated August 13, 1986. (See Nonconformance 87-01-12.)

It was noted that test report Nos. 2035 (January 21,1987),1805 (November 5,1986),and1308-1(March 13,1986) issued by the Analytical Laboratory were reviewed and signed by the Analytical Lab Supervisor.rather than the Department Manager.

8. Training The inspector reviewed Section 1 of the QAM and Procedure No. 9700-105-82, " Indoctrination of Personnel in Company Policies and Quality Assurance Procedures." It was noted that all personnel engaged in testing and inspection activities are required.to participate in QA policy and procedure review sessions on an annual basis. The training and certification records for selected personnel in the AS, MTM, and NDE departments were reviewed.

Records for six personnel from AS, 11 from MTM, and 11 from NDE indicated that one individual from AS and two individuals from MTM were not trained or indoctrinated in the QA Program. Certifications and tests to the requirements of ANSI N45.2.6 were missing for two individuals from MTM. It was also noted that form SWL-105-2 was not used to document the indoctrination and QA training of 11 individuals for NDE, four from AS, and nine from MTM. (SeeNonconformance 87-01-08.)

The qualification records for the 11 NDE personnel indicated that each individual was certified to the requirements of SNT-TC-1A. In addition, four examiners who were certified to perform radiography had received radiation safety training. Each file contained a radiation safety examination, a certificate signed by the Radiation Protection Officer, and a letter from the Texas Department of Health indicating that the individual had passed the industrial radiography examination required by the Texas Regulations for Control of P11a-tion.

~

[. . . . .. )

4.

ORGANIZATION: SOUTHWESTERN LABORATORIES  !

i HOUSTON, TEXAS REPORT .

INSPECTION NO.: 99901097/87-01 RESULTS: PAGE 13 of 13 1

1 The Radiation Protection Officer, who is also the NDE QC Manager, i had conducted NDE and Radiation Safety Audits on an annual basis 3 from 1983 of the four SWC field offices located in Austin, Beaumont,  !

Dallas, and Texas City. 1 E. PERSONNEL CONTACTED:

l

• J. Jeanes, Chief Executive Officer l

• D. Childers, NDE QC Manager I i

• D. Hanna, QA Manager

• R. Richter, Director of Metals Testing I M. Tipton, Supervisor, Analytical Laboratory ]

L. Lilly, QA Manager (prior to March 1987) l l

• Attended exit meeting.

i l

i i

l 1

1 l

l I

i

\

l

- - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. - _a