IR 05000461/1979006
| ML19208B421 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 07/17/1979 |
| From: | Knop R, Naidu K, Wescott H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19208B418 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-461-79-06, 50-461-79-6, NUDOCS 7909200249 | |
| Download: ML19208B421 (14) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-461/79-06 Docket No. 50-461 License No. CPPR-137 Licensee:
Illinois Power Company 500 South 27th Street Decatur, IL 62525 Facility Name:
Clinton Power Station, Unit 1 Inspection At:
Clinton, Illinois Inspection Conducted:
June 4-7, 1979
$
9ft '7f7f Inspectors:
H. M. Wescott K. Naidu Ic 7 // 7 /7'f I 7/lll
'
F.
ti s w47 y/7e Approved By:
R. C. Knop, Chief Projects Section 1 Inspection Summary Inspection on June 4-7, 1979 (Report No. 50-461/79-06)
Areas Inspected: Observation of storage of safety related structural components; observation of welding activities; review of quality records; review of heating, ventillation and air conditioning activities; observation of concrete work activities and quality assurance records; followup of allegations; reactor coolant loop piping heat treatment; review of storage and maintenance of components and materials.
The inspection involved 56 inspector hours by three NRC inspectors.
Results:
Of the eight areas inspected, three noncompliances were identified in two areas.
(Infractions - unnacceptable structural compon~ents stored with acceptable components; WPS qualified to wrong part of AWS Section 5; non-shrink grout not certified.)
.
\\b va
.
L 79092001
.
.
DETAILS Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees
- E. P. Barganier, Supervisor C/S
- G. M..Brashear, Site Manager
- E. E. Connon, Assistant Director of Construction
- M. E. D' Haem, Quality Assurance
- R. W. Folek, C/S Quality Assurance
- J. F. Hampton, Supervisor of Construction Quality Assurance
- D. E. Korneman, Mechanical Construction Supervisor
- J. O. McHood, Vice President
- S. W. Swan, Jr., Engineer
- R. S. Unks, Director, Quality Assurance Baldwin Associates B. Browne, Senior Civil / Structural Engineer M. Cook, Quality Control Receiving Supervisor
- M. E. Daniel, Senior Heat Treatt at Supervisor
- W. J. Harrington, Project Managet
- R. K. Hartely, Sr., Senior Quality Assurance Engineer D. Heckenberger, Batch Plant Supervisor
- J. Linehan, Quality Control Manager
- T. Selva, Manager of Quality and Technical Services J. Smart, Senior Quality Assurance Engineer
- D. Smith, Assistant Manager D. Threatt, Quality Control Civil Inspector
- T. Walker, Senior Quality Control Engir.eer
- C. E. Winfrey, Senior Civil Structural Engineer
- W. Woolery, Welding Engineer, Technical Services C. Zalewski, Quality Control Civil Inspector Ge_neral Electric Company
- S. G. Hall, Site Quality Control United States Testing J. Booth, Quality Control Inspector Hartford Steam Boiler Insurance Company
,
- M. J. King, Authorized Nuclear Inspector
- Denotes those who attended the exit interview.
-2-
< l f,
)5 f
.
.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Items
.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (461/78-07-02): A documented program was not available to control the welding machines.
" Technical Services Instruction No. 002 for Welding Parameter" dated April 12, 1979, has been established to monitor and record welding parameters such as Volts, Amperes and Travel speed. A schedule has been established to perform the monitoring in designated areas; currently each area in the facility where welding is being performed is covered in a 3 week cycle.
(Closed) Open Item (461/79-03-02):
Protective coating procedures did not include inspection fre quency for concrete wet film thickness. The inspector reviewed FCR No. 2227 to Sargent and Lundy Specification K-2895 Amendment 1, which adds the following statement to that specification.
" Frequency for testing WRT film thickness for coating application on concrete shall be five readings every 1000 square feet."
This item is closed.
.
e
.
-3-
~
\\ fk-c O I ;,
.
Section I Prepared by K. R. Naidu Reviewed by D. W. Hayes, Chief Engineering Support Section 1 1.
Observation of Storage of Safety Related Structural Components The inspector observed safety related structural components which were stored at various designated areas and determined the following:
a.
Liner Plates for Spent Fuel Storage Facilities The inspector observed the various components for the Spent Fuel Storage Pool (SFSP) which had been manufactured and supplied by Bristol Steel & Iron Works (BSIW). These components were received by BSIW site personnel for field erection and installation.
Standard Operating Procedure No. S0P 12.10 titled " Receiving Inspection Procedures for Materials Shipped to Site" was used to receipt inspect the components. This procedure requires inspecting for shipping damage only and does not reflect the requirements of ANSI 45.2 to verify damage due to fire, excessive exposure environmental damages and tiedown damage. The BSIW site QC manager stated that the structural components are inspected for these criteria even though these attributes 're tst expressly indicated in the checklist.
Preliminary examination of shop welds on the following components did not appear to be in accordance with the design drawings:
(1)
3" long, 12" apart, 1/8" and 3/16" size welds on the top and bottom of a backing bar attached to piece Division 7-17AJ were specified on BSIW drawing Sheet 7-30, detail section X-X.
Some of the 3/16" welds appeared to be inadequate in size and length.
There were other similar pieces in design which were not accessible for inspection in the storage area; a few had already been installed. The licensee agreed to initiate a joint QC inspection by BA and BSIW personnel to reexamine the shop welds.
.
(2) Detail Section K-K of BSIW Sheet 7-8 drawing shows the vent ducts welded to the top of the SFSP liner plate for piece Division 7-31Pl.
In two areas, the leg sizes of the welds appeared to be questionable.
-4-s 'l 'd
'
-:1 b\\
.
(3) An aluminium fixture for handling components in the SFSP
.
had questionable weld concavity. The relevant shop drawings were not readily available.
The licensee agreed to reinspect these welds to the relevant drawings. Pending review of the results of the inspection, this item is considered unrecolved.
(50-461/79-06-01)
b '.
Structural Components for Containment Building and Other Safety Related Structures BSIW supplied structural components such as beams and columns for containment building and other safety.related structures.
These ite s were receipt inspected by Baldwin Associates personnel utilizing instruction RI No. C-14583. This instruction reflects the requirements of ASNI 45.2.
The inspector observed several beams with bent clip -ugles, which were apparently damaged during transit. These components were not tagged to identify that they were damaged. Subsequently, the inspector reviewed the relevant Receipt Inspection Report No. RIR 5206 dated January 5, 1979, which documents the receipt inspection performed on a consignment of structural members. This document identified no adverse findings on beams 16G2 and 2-2B2-4 even though they had distorted clip-angles. Nonconformance Report (NCR) No.
1888 dated March 15, 1979, documents shipping damage only on five pieces; there were several other items including 16G2 and 2-2B2-4 which were not included in the NCR. Paragraph 3.5 of BA Receiving and Issauance procedure 2.3 requires unacceptable items to be identified with a " Hold Tag Form JV-177" and the material to be moved to an established control area pending resolution of a Nonconformance Report. The cognizant personnel acknowledged that contrary to the above, several safety related components with apparent shipping damage were not identified and segregated.
The inspector informed the licensee that failure to follow procedure BAP 2.3 was an item of noncompliance (infraction) contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V.
(50-461/79-06-02)
2.
Observation of Welding Activities The inspector observed the completed field welds at approximate a.
elevation 755'4" on the SFSP including those attaching the vent ducts to the liner plates, the curb plate and floor liner welds.
The fitup on vertical seam weld No. 263 in the gats area of the
'
Transfer Tube Liner had been completed but not inspected.
Drawing E-S28-1906 shows the general arrangement of joining the liner plates with a backing bar; detail drawing E-S28-1905 specifies a groove weld with 1/4" wide gap.
,
Q S-5-yS
s
.
In some areas along the vertical seam, the gap between the liner plates and the backing bar exceeded the specified 1/4" opening. The BSIW QC manager ackncwledged the excessive openings and stated that this instance will be documented in a Corrective Action Request (CAR) after the inspection and welded in accordance with procedure SWP-0267-13 dated June 13, 1978. This procedure specifies the method for welding root openings in excess of 3/8" up to a maximum of 11/16". Welding Procedure Specifications (WPS) SM81-1, FC81-3 and SM81-4 are used in conjunction with the procedures. The inspector reviewed the action taken to correct a similar situation.
CAR No. F-42 dated June 26, 1978, documents weld seam 175 identified on drawing E-S28-1904 had a root opening in excess of 3/8".
The corrective action recommended was to complete weld utilizing procedure SWP-0267-13.
Implementa-tion of corrective action was verified and signed off by the QC manager on December 4, 1978. The inspector has no further questions in this regard.
b.
Liquid Penetrant examination had been performed on the floor liner seam weld.
It was reported that procedure PT-0267-1 was used. Dubl-check penetrant and developer types DP-50 and D-100 respectively, were used.
Stickers on these cans indicate that the material was adequately controlled. Unacceptable penetrant indications were in the process of being identified.
Ultrasonic examination was in progress on other welds on floor c.
liner. The qualification records of the examiner were subsequently reviewed and determined to be acceptable.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Review of Quality Records The inspector reviewed the inspection records relative to seam welds 137, 139 and 175 on the south wall of the fuel cask storage liner identified on drawings E-S28-1901 and 1904.
a.
Field QC/NDE Status Record No. 1-S1 indicates that the following were checked:
(1) Tacker Identification (2) Visual Test of Fitup (3) Welder Identification (4) Visual Test Backgouge (5) Visual Test Final Weld (6) Radiographic Examination
'.
(7) Ferrite Measurement (8) Liquid Penetrant Examination (9) Leak Test
\\Ehb-6-
,;lQ-
\\
s s
.
b.
Cars No. F-41, F-46, F-47, F-48, F-49, F-52, F-54, F-74, F-75,
.
F-76, and F-81 document the rejects on RT reports No. 053, 056, 057, 058, 060, 069, 124, 128, 129, and 133 respectively. The rejected areas were subsequently repaired reexamined and determined acceptable.
Vacuum Box Test Report No. LE 004 dated October 11, 1978, c.
indicates that weld seams 127, 129 and 175 were subjected to leak test utilizing procedure LT0267-1. All intersection seams were checked for a distance of two inches overlap. Solution manufactured by American Gas & Chem Company, batch No. 86004 and cleaner type Dubl-check, batch No. 4J530 were used.
No indications were identified.
d.
Radiographic Reports No. RE 057 pages 1 and 2 dated September 28, 1978, indicate that the results of radiography performed on Seam 175.
The rejected welds were repaired and reexamined until satisfactory. Procedure RT-0261, Revision 1, was utilized with 70 curies Iridium 192 source.
Liquid Penetrant reports No. PE 029, 030, and 043 indicate that e.
weld seam 175 was examined to procedure PT-0267, Revision 1.
Rejectable indications were detected during subsequent Radiograph Examinations. Records indicate that portions of weld 175 were reexamined af ter repairs and determined acceptable.
f.
Ferrite content was measured to be 10-12.5% by a Severn gauge and documented on an attached sketch.
g.
The qualifications of two NDE inspectors were reviewed and determined acceptable.
h.
The qualifications of welders identified as 8, 11 and 13 who performed the welding were reviewed and determined acceptable.
i.
Seam 175 joins plates 1-2P4 and 1-2P3.
BSIW shipping list dated July 17, 1978, indicates that the plate assemblies were released for shipment at Bristol and was signed by an authorized QA/QC representative. Site Receiving Inspection Report dated July 24, 1978, identifies no adverse findings in the following areas:
(1) All Bill of Materials (BOM) were stamped " Authorized to Shipment."
(2) All components identified on B0M were received.
(3) No damage during shipment.
'.
(4) Legibility and completeness of BSIW markings were acceptable.
The BSIW records were legible and retrievable.
e.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
-7-
,, L.
- (gh
'
!
.
.
4.
Review of Heating Ventillation and Air Conditioning Activities
,
Zack Incorporated (Zack) fabricates and installs the Heating a.
Ventillation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) ductwork in accordance with Sargent & Lundy Specification K2910.
Zack, who commenced installation work in the control room area, had to suspend their work till BA reevaluated their procedures. The RIII inspector discussed the contents of Zack's QA manual, and selected procedures with the licensee and BA personnel which needed additional clarifications. The inspector plans to conduct an additional review during a subsequent inspection.
b.
The inspector determined that Section 304 of Specification K2910 does not adequately address the environmental require-ments that the sealants, gaskets and flexible connections used in the ductwork should meet.
Additional information is needed to determine whether the specification is contrary to the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III. This is considered an unresolved item.
(50-461/79-06-03)
The inspector reviewed Zack Welding Procedure Specification c.
(WPS) C-B-QCP22, Revision 2, dated July 6, 1978, which is a prequalified procedure to AWS D1.1-1977.
Even though Paragraph 13.1 of this procedure erroneously states that the procedure is qualified to Section 5, Part B (which is for WPS qualified by test), instead of Section 5, Part A, the WPS was reviewed and approved by Sargent & Lundy and BA personnel. The inspector stated that this matter was an item of noncompliance (deficiency)
and contrary to the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion IX.
(50-461/79-06-04)
.
e-8-
\\ kb -
o i. 7:
,
.
.
Section II
.
Prepared by F. C. Hawkins Reviewed by D. W. Hayes, Chief Engineering Support Section I Observation of Concrete Work Activities and Related Quality Records (Unit 1)
On June 5, 1979, the inspector observed the Baldwin Associates (BA) QC and production personnel work activities for concrete placements C-1-W-7-1-726 and C-1-W-8-1-727.
These two placements are adjoining Control Building internal walls, each containing approximately 65 cubic yards of 3500 psi design strength concrete. The following specific observations were made:
1.
Pre-Placement Inspection - (C-1-W-7-1-726 and C-1-W-8-1-727)
Horizontal and vertical construction joints were observed to be a.
properly prepared for concrete placement.
b.
Reinforcing steel and embedments were observed to be free of excessive rust, mill scale, concrete, or other contaminants.
Formwork was observed to be properly cleaned and prepared for c.
concrete placement.
d.
Review of the Concrete Pour Traveler confirmed that all applicable check points had been met and signed off by the responsible BA production, engineering and QC personnel prior to commencement of the placement.
2.
Placement Inspection - (C-1-W-7-1-726 and C-1-W-8-1-727)
a.
In-Process Concrete Testing (1) The inspector observed United States Testing (UST) field QC personnel perform slump, temperature, and percent entrained air test for concrete delivery ticket No. 41946.
The test results were within the allowed limits and performed at the frequencies specified.
,
'
(2) Concrete test equipment was observed to be calibrated and properly marked to indicate calibration status.
,n-9-jf')
i_
.
b.
Delivery and Placement
,
(1) Concrete was pumped to the placement area and then deposited via concrete drop chutes which adequately confined the concrete with a maximum five foot free fall.
(2) Concrete was observed to be properly consolidated using internal concrete vibrators which had been checked to verify the minimum 8000 vpm frequency required by Specification K-2944.
3.
Post-Placement Inspection Curing - The inspector observed, over a two day period, a.
approximately fifteen concrete pours which were still in their seven day cure period. Each was verified to be properly cured in accordance with BAP 3.1.1.
b.
Defective Concrete - The system for form removal inspection and identification of defective concrete areas was reviewed. The inspector identified two defective concrete area: in the Auxiliary Building on the east and west faces of the 114 and 110 line walls at elevation 724'.
Subsequent review of applicable documentation confirmed that both areas had been properly identified, NCR No. 2006 issued, and corrective action specified to properly repair the defective areas in accordance with BAP 3.1.1.
4.
Review of Concrete Material Quality Records The inspector reviewed manufacturer certified material test reports (CMTR) and in-process test reports for selected concrete constituents.
In conjunction with this quality record review, the inspector reviewed the indoctrination and training records of three BA QC receiving inspectors and found each to meet the requirements of ANSI N45.2.6.
Cement (Type I) - The inspector reviewed the Lehigh Portland a.
Cement Company CMTR received June 6,1979, for Trailer No. 636, RIR-N6586, and found the test results to conform to the standard chemical and physical tests required by ASTM C150-70.
b.
Aggregate (1) Receipt test results for material finer than No. 200 sieve (ASTM C117) and sieve analysis (ASTM C136) of fine and coarse (3/4") aggregate, performed twice daily by UST, were reviewed and found to conform to the job ' specification.
(2) Daily in-process fine and coarse (3/4") aggregate test results (samples No. 4936 and 4937, respectively) for
\\b O{73
,
- 10 -
.
.
moisture content (ASTM C566), sieve analysis (ASTM C136),
-
and material finer than No. 200 sieve (AdTM C117) were reviewed and found to conform to the job specification parameters.
(3) The weekly test (sample No. 4929) for organic impurities in sands (ASTM C40-73) was reviewed and found to not contain injurious organic compounds as defined in ASTM C40-73.
5.
Procurement of Safety Related Grout Material To date, approximately 700 fifty-five pound bags of Masterflow 713 non-shrink grout have been received at the Clinton site and issued for use in both safety and non-safety areas. This non-shrink grout is used to repair defective concrete, grout equipment foundations and column base plates, and in other miscellaneous work.
The licensee stated that the non-shrink grout pruchase orders are classified as non-safety and that no purchase specification exists to specify what quality procurement requirements apply to its purchase.
Subsequently, no certificates of conformance is specified or received with each shipment or lot of nan-shrink grout.
The licensee was advised that the failure to provide objective evidence of quality for purchased non-shrink grout material furnished by the contractor or subcontractor, prior to installation or use of the material is considered an item of noncompliance (infraction)
with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion VII.
(461/79-06-05)
.
e
- 11 -
,
-L
.
.
Section III Prepared by H. M. Wescott Reviewed by R. C. Knop, Chief Projects Section 1 1.
Interview of Alleger The inspector interviewed a former employee of Technical Services (Baldwin Associates) who made allegations against Technical Services per telecon with the inspector on April 24, 1979.
The inspector interviewed the alleger at the alleger's residence a.
in an attempt to obtain more specific information as to the allegations pertaining to weld material control at the Clinton Unit I site.
b.
The alleger stated that at one time (could not remember approxi-mately when) there were five (5) weld material issue slips signed by a weld foreman but did not have a welder's name or stamp on them and the alleger's boss told the alleger to destroy them. The alleger also stated that at one time he had found a can of weld rod with a slit in it and his boss told him to put the rod into a hold oven.
The inspector interviewed the alleger's former supervisor.
The supervisor could not recall the incident of telling the alleger to destroy the weld material issue slips. The supervisor could not recall any specific incident of telling the alleger to place weld electrodes in the hold oven but stated that it was common practice to place weld electrodes into a hold oven if he saw a can being damaged as long as the electrodes were not damaged.
b.
The alleger also stated that a coworker was present at the time he was told to destroy the five (5) weld material issue slips.
The inspector interviewed the coworker. The coworker could not recall being present during this incident.
The inspector could not substantiate any of the allegations.
2.
Reactor Coolant Loop Piping - Weld Heat Treatment
.
The inspector reviewed records and documents to determine that heat treatment of reactor coolant pressure boundary piping is specified and performed in accordance with NRC requirements and SAR commitments, including applicable ASEM code requirements as follows:
- 12 -
\\ a g" YJ-C
'
o i ;s
.
-
Review of Specification 21A2005 for the Reactor Recirculation
a.
Loop Piping.
b.
Review of records for the following spool pieces:
768 E 444-G013-A-013(60 )-1(F-15)
768 E 444-G013-A-013(30 )-1(F-14)
768 E 444-G012-A-012-1 (F-13)
768 E 444-G003-A-003-1 (F-2)
768 E 444-G010-A-010-1-2 (F-8)
768 E 444-G010-A-010-1-1 (F-10)
768 E 444-G008-A-008-1 (F-7)
768 E 444-G007-A-007-1 (F-5)
The records for the above spool pieces included General Electric Product Quality Certification (PQCs), Certificates of Compliance for Radiograph Inspection Report, Liquid Penetrant Report, Ultrasonic Flaw Detection Report, and that all material, welding and NDE was performed by qualified personnel according to qualified procedures.
There were no records to enable verification that piping that had been through a hot bending process had met the ASME Code ovality requirements of NB-4223.2.
The licensee stated that these records would be retrieved if available, or measurements would be taken to meet the requirement. This item is considered to be unresolved.
(461/79-06-06)
There were no heat treatment furnace strip charts available at the site to verify time at temperature for solution annealing of the reactor recirculating loop piping. The licensee stated that these records would be retrieved. This item is considered to be unresolved pending the retrieval of the records.
(461/79-06-05)
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Review of Storage and Maintenance of Components and Material The inspector reviewed records and made observations of components and material in storage.
The inspector reviewed "Clinton Site Activities Procedure" as a.
follows:
(1) G-15 " Operation of Illinois Power Company Permanent Warehouse,"
Revision 0, dated October 19, 1978.
(2) C-16 " Approval of Storage and Maintenance Instructions,"
/evision 2, dated April 4, 1979.
- 13 -
o g.
-
(3) BAP 1.5 " Material Identification," Revision 0, dated
January 15, 1979.
(4) BAP 2.3 " Receiving and Issuance," Revision 6, dated July 25, 1979.
(5) BAP 2.4 " Storage and Maintenance" Revision 4, dated April 20, 1979.
b.
Review of the Quality Control Conditional Accept Log."
Review of Quality Control Receiving Hold Log," dated June 4, c.
1979.
d.
Made observations of equipment and components stored in warehouses.
Reviewed maintenance of equipment and components.
e.
f.
Reviewed six (6) Receiving Inspection Reports and traced them to equipment located in the laydown storage area.
The above was in order and procedures were being adhered to.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviations. Unresolved items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in Section I, Paragraphs 1.a(3), 4.b, and Section III, Paragraph 2.b.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with site staff representatives (denoted in.the persons contacted paragraph) at the conclusion of the inspection on June 7, 1979.
The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The licensee acknowledged the findings.
.
.
\\@
- 14 -
e B