IR 05000461/1980027
| ML19351F738 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 01/08/1981 |
| From: | Knop R, Livermore H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19351F736 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-461-80-27, NUDOCS 8102200020 | |
| Download: ML19351F738 (11) | |
Text
-
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENMRCDENT
,
,
.
RHIION III Report No. 50-461/80-27 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 Site, Clinton, IL Inspection Conducted: December 1-19, 1980 and January 5,1981, hp'
l-3 - Sl Inspector:
H. H. Livemore B C W~\\
l - 2.51 Approved By:
R. G. Knop, Chief Projects Section 1 Inspection Summary Inscection on December 1-19. 1980 and January 5. 1981 (Report No. 50-461/80-27)
Areas Inscected: Routine inspection by the IE Ragional Resident Inspector (SRI)
of safety-related construction activities including material laydown and storage areas, fire prevention / protection, concrete placement, protection of equipment, radwaste piping installations, and timely inspection of electrical end piping hangers. This inspection involved 57 inspector hours by one NRC resident inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviation were identified.
C10 220 D#
,
a
DETAIIS
.
Persons Contacted
.
Princioal Licensee Employees
- G.M. Brashear, Site Manager, Clinton
- R.J. Canfield, Director-Construction
- A.J. Budnick, DLrecto&QA
-
- E.E. Connon, Assistant Di.recton-Construction
- L.W. Dozier, Assistant Directo& Construction
- D.E. Korneman, Construction
- J.F. Hampton, Supervison-QA R.W. Folck, QA Specialist J.S. Spencer, Di.recton-Engineering R. Backen, QA Specialist R. Weber, QA Engineer R. Becker, QA Consultant
- J. McHood, Vice President J. Geier, Manage > General Engineering W.L. Calhoun-Electrical Construction R. Campbell-QA Consultant B. Spicer, QA Consultant
- M.C. Hollon, Supervisor-QA T.F. Plunkett, Plant Manager
- r.L. Stromberski, Construction Engi.neer R. Morgenstern, QA Engineer J. Karr, QA Engi.neer Baldwin Associates
- J.W. Smart, QA Manager
- f. Selva, Manager, Quality and Technical Services
- W.H. Harrington, Project Manager
- J.E. Findley, Project Engineer
- R.D. Bennett, Manager, Technical Services G. Lane, Electrical QC
- H.R. Swift, Assistant Project Engineer
- L.A. Gelbert, QC Manager D.F. Stephens, Sr. Electrical Engi.neer G.B. Browne, Manager, Subcontracts B. Curby, Asst. Project Manager ANI M.J. King U.S. Testinc Co.
- J.A. Grimm, Site Project Supervisor Other staff and personnel were contacted during the reporting period.
Denotes those attending at least one of the exit meetings.
.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Items
.
(Closed) Infraction 461/80-16-04 Cadweld Splices in Contcinment. Rebar
-
cadweld sleeves were being installed in an incorrect manner and orientation.
The inspector reviewed the following:
1) Illinois Power Co. response letter U-01"~ dated September 19, 1980.
2) Nonconformance Report 3516 Cadweld Sleevet attached U.S. Testing
,
records of sister and production test sampleu.
3) Baldwin Associates Inspection Report 2810 of 8/14/80 on reinspection of selected cadwelds in containment.
4) Baldwin Interoffice Memos of 8/15/80 and 7/30/80 in regards to reinstruction in use of cadweld sleeves and associated inspection.
5) PCR 131-80 to Baldwin Procedure 3 1 5 para 5.11.1 note concerning probing of cadweld voids.
Sample testing and reinspection was perfomed on the subject cadwelds.
Personnel were reinstructed and procedures revised to insure future quality.
This item is considered closed.
Functional or Program Areas Inspected 1.
Site Tours At periodic intervals during the report period, tours of areas of the site were perfomed. These tours were intended to assess the cleanli-ness of the site; storage conditions of equipnent and piping being used in site construction; the potential for fire or other hazards which might have a deleterious effect on personnel and equipment, and to witness construction
~
activities in progress.
Jo items of noncompliance or deviation were identified.
2.
Insuection of Material /Comconent Storage Areas The resident inspector toured storage areas in the outside laydown yard and within the power block several times during the month. The areas were randomly selected. The inspection was in relation to the requirements of ANSI N45 2.2, material protected and stored off the ground, caps on pipe ends, and segregation of safety and non-safety material.
Eight particular concerns in the areas of pipe, strtetural steel, embeds, and material segregation were presented to the Iicensee for action. One concern of equipment protection was also presented. A fluorescent light fixture had fallen on a rack of batteries in the 782' level west battery room of the Control m W h g.
Both battery room doors had been left open (nomally locked) and had thereby obscured the personnel danger signs. The inspector notes that the Iicensee took immediate satisfactory corrective action. The inspector also notes that the subject items represent a very small percentage of the total storage items inspected and found satisfactory.
No itecs of noncompliance or deviation were identifie.
- 3 Imr
" ~ s ss fete-Eelated Ite-s In A 'ird. Nr.er Documentation i%rmation indicates that apprcxicately 5,033 electrical
,
hangers, 2i,033 feet cf electrical cable tray, L,CO3 la ge-bore pipe nangers and an unknown number of small-bore pipe hangers (all safety-related) have been corpleted by constraction, but have not been completely inspected bv Qaality Control. Weld inspections appear to be approximately complete.
Inspection lacking is that of fabrication and installation, such as:
dinerr-sions, location, orientation, alignment, bolting / fastenings, settings, etc.
10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Criteria 2 and 10 require a timely inspection of all safety-related equipment in order to control the quality of the material or component to predeterzined requirements. The lack of timely inspection, as indicated by the large number of outstanding items to be inspected, raises serious concerns as to the control of quality. Continuation in this mode of construction could lead to detedoration of the inspection process.
General quality concerns such as those listed on the Preliranarf Inspection Findings Sheet of 12/15-19, Numbers 1-5 (attached) could very well become realistic if construction without timely inspection were to continue.
The resident inspector requests the licensee to review the aforementioned infon:ation, addressing the quality assurance concerns noted, and demonstrate that the quality of the subject installed safety-related equipment, through inspection, will not be compro=ised. The following should be included:
scope of proble=, plan of action to recover, manpower effect on recoverf, and ary s
other systems or situations that are known to be behind on tinely inspections.
The resident inspector notes that the Licensee and Contractor were partially aware of the subject problem and had instigated some corrective action in the electrical area. After the resident inspector presented the PreHH narf Inspection Findings on 12/19/80 (see attached) the Iicensee and the Contractor took immediate corrective action to scope the problem and embark on t. plan of action of recover /.
Tnis is consicared as Unresolved Ite: 461/80-27-01 4.
Radiocrarhic Su veillance November report 80-26 paragraph 5 discussed a surveillance of U.S. Testing radio 6raphing in containment. Six workmen and a secudty guard were inside the restdeted area dudng radiograph exposure on November 24.
On December 12, NRC Materials Eranch Inspectors, C. Oberg and R. Douglas performed an investigation of the subject incident and of U.S. Testing Laboratorf on site.
Their resultant report will disposition all action of the incident and U.S.
Testing. The senior resident inspector notes that the licensee and Contractor Baldwin Associates have issued memos and held a supervisory personnel meeting to insure better planning and coordination in notifying people of forthcoring radiography.
This item is considered closed.
5.
Concrete Placement The resident inspector performed a surveillance of a safety-related concrete pour of a topping floor of the 702' level of the Radwaste Building. This pour was covered by Traveler No.1442, Rev.1, Room R-1-10 and R 1-18-1, 84 yards on 12/9/80. The follcdng conditions were noted:
i
~
'
a) Preplacement and placement pour checklists as well as the pour drawing checklist were completed and signed by Qua.lity Control.
.
t) Concrete test results (clump) were within specification limits.
c) Roving surveillance by Qaality Control was adequate and satis-factory.
d) Placement area was clean of debris. Rebar tie fastenings were secure.
e) Placement crew numbers were satisfactory.
Concrete delivery and. placement was satisfactory.
Consolidation technique was satisfactory.. Quality Control checked and reconied the vibrator frequency (vpm).
f) Tne inspector noted one unsatisfactory concrete placement practice. A workman was shoveling concrete into an isolated corner of the pour area. The inspector notes that Quality
-
Control took immediate corrective action.
No items of noncompliance or deviation were identified.
6.
Nonsafetv Work Procram While perfoming a surveillance tour of the 702' level of the Radwaste Building, the resident inspector noted an example.of a poor construction practice performed during the installation of nonsafety-related Augmented D (WE System) instrumentation lines. Hangers were installed on the wal] s using Hilti expansion anchors cut to fit. Whenever the workmen could not get correct depth insertion of the anchor (due to hitting rebar) they would cut off the end and rethread to fit the nut. At least einht examples were noted in the one installation in Room 1-6 location 124 and I 19 line.
Tne inspector also noted some examples of poor welding in the subject hangers.
Tne inspector contact'ed Quality Control and the Licensee and presented the subject findings.
The Licensee and Contractor took immediate action to insure this practice would not propagate to tht. safety-related area.
The expansion anchors were replaced, and area foremen were reinstructed on good construction practices. A superintendent inspection indicated that the subject practice was localized to one foreman's area and not widespread in the nonsafety area.
Since this is a nonsafety-related installation and immediate corrective action was taken, the resident inspector has no further concerns with this item.
No items of noncompliance or deviation were identified.
.
Radwaste Quality Assurance The Clinton FSAR Sec.1.8-152 and Sec.11.2.13 commits to NRC Regulatory Guide.1.143, July, 1978. This Reg. Guide provides design guidance for the Radioactive Waste Management System. (Radwaste) to insure construction at a level that insures protection of public health and safety. The Architect Engineer has classified these systems as Augmented D (OG, WE, WF, WX, WY,
& W").
Reg. Guide 1.143 requires a Quality Assurance program of quality
.
___
_-
_
_
_ _
..-.
.
-
_.
.- -
.
- - -
-
_.....
e e
control, control of purchased material, inspection, and maintenance of
-
records of implementation.
Tne Reg. Guide denotes in Sect. E that instru-
,
mentation lines are included in the requirements of the Radwaste System.
The Reg. Guide, Table 1, states that piping inspection shall comply with Code ANSI E31.1.
Tnis document requires visual inspection and also notes
,
in Section 100.1 that hangers are included within the piping system.
,
Documentation infomation appears to indicate that travelers-(records of
,
,
installation and inspection) have not been used for Augmented D pipe hanger l
installation / inspection since May,1980. Pipe hangers appear to have been installed under the nonsafety work program (without travelers and only a random Technical Services weld inspection). Radwaste instrumentation lines appear to be installed by field routing, without travelers, and with hangers designed by foremen (without drawings).
Inspection consists of only a random Technical Services weld inspection.
The inspector notes that Illinois Power Quality Assurance has instigated an Audit of this area of concern.
}
This is considered as Unresolved Item (461/80-27-02).
I
'
Exit Meetines The resident inspector attended an exit meeting conducted by NRC Region III Materials Branch inspectors C. Oberg and R. Douglas on December 12, 1980.
!
The resident inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted under
!
Persons Contacted) on December 8, 12, and 19, 1980. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspections perfomed.
!
,
s
)
l e
0
..._,w,
,.m
,.,
.,-,....-.,,,._,,,,.,,,,..,,,,,,.-,.,.,.,w.,,m.,
,,...., _,.,,.,, -.. _ _.,.. -., -.., _,,...,,,,.,.,..,...,
..c.,
,,,.,
..
-
-
-.
.
.
I F E '_ ' '.. ' a. T '. 2 S T I C : . T :' :';:S I
KEC30';AL OFF]CE
-
3.
L2CENctr 7//
~J un
-
'
7'
3.
DOCKET NLY.EERS
LICENSE h1MEERS 5.
DATE OF INSPECTION SWYG/
/L/t - f/s c?
'
r
,
6.
k'ithin the scope of the inspection, no itecs of nonco=pliance or deviation
'
were found.
fol3oving matters are preliminary inspection findings:
7.
The
l l
l l
l l
l
.
These preliminary inspection findings vill be reviewed by NRC Supervision /
-
8.
the Region 111 Of fice and they vill correr nd with you Management at
~
l
!
concerning any enf orcement action.
MM k Iiuclear Regulatory Co::r.ission Inspec t
/5 f O
-
-.
--
-
.-. _
.-.
_
. -.
.
-..
-
..
.
.
_ -.
-. -..
.
... -. ~....
, r r -.-:
.-x
..:.:..
,
-..:._..
,
s
. +-
-..-
.
.,. _,,
,
.
.
,.
TF.ELI?:1?;AFY I!!5FECTIO?; F2 7.~DI!;OS t
l l
2.
REC 10NAL OFFICE
-
1.
L3CENSEE
,
.i
"
f
- /
j,'
/-/
.
/
/ (1t L l
--/
<
//
l
'
'
/
>
. i j 6 u n',..
f ~
<
.
1 i
3.
DOCFIT NUMEERS 4.
LICENSE NUMBERS 5.
DATE OF INSPECTION
b L' - Y G /
/.x/cr - p l S..(
-
k'ithin the scope of the inspection, no itens of noncompliance or deviation
.,
s ___
.
N, 6.
,
,A were found.
'
!
7.
The following matters are preliminary inspection findings:
i
.
l l
.,
!
i j
i i
.
i.
i
l
. -
-
These preliminary inspection findings will be reviewed by NRC Supervision /
8.
'
the Region III Office and they will correspond with you Management at
-
concerning any enforcement action.
,-
.-L}~ 1
. _.
v., a e.
./
.-
.
"
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspect I
!
lE*' /T
[*
~ ~. _, _ _. - _ _ -.
-._-.,._._.--__,.__,....__~._....m_._.._.~._...
OFFICE DI. ;H E C~ 2 M; A'..;
E';7 J - CI"I
'
.
.
PRELIMINARY IN5FECT10N FINDINGS
.
I
-
1.
LICENSEE 2.
REGIONAL OFFICE III SR. RESIDE.'T ILIlNOIS POWER 3.
DOCKET NUMBERS 4.
LICENSE NUMBERS 5.
DATE OF INSPECTION 12/15 - 19/80 50-461
-
6.
k'ithin the scope of the inspection, no items of noncompliance or deviation
~
-
were found.
7.
The following matters are preliminary inspection findings:
1. Insnection of Safety Related Items in a Timelv Manner The following is an unresolved item:
Documentation infonnation indicates that approximately
- 5,000 electrical hangers
- 24,000 feet of electrical cable tray
- 4,000 large-bore pipe hangers
- unknown number of small-bore pipe hangers (all safety-related) have been completed by construction, but have not been inspected and finalized by Quality Control.
10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criteria 2 and 10 require a timely inspection of all safety-related equipment in order to control the quality of the material or component to predeten:d.ned requirements.
,
l The lack of timely inspection, as indicated by the large nurrber of outstanding items to be inspected, raises serious concerns as to the control of quality. Efforts to
" catch up" on inspection raise the following concerns:
1) It is possible that the capability to inspect the subject items may be lost due to manpower, parallel scheduling of manpower, or just plain
!
"run out of schedule time".
fcontinue l
B.
These preliminary inspection findings will be reviewea by ritu super visivus Management at the Region III Office and they will correspond with you
-
concerning any enforcement action.
.y/t/-awaaam Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspect l 'W 3
.
.
. -
-
_ _ _ - - -
.
.
_
l-2-
.
-
2) The ability or capability to " inspect" may be lost due to continued construction. The subject items tay in time become buried or hidden under the sheer total of items installed in that particular area, thus,
presenting only the minimal opportunity or space envelope for inspection.
The sheer numbers of the subject items and the associated inspection work load leans toward the possibility of quickie, pencil-type shortcut inspections. Catch-up inspections will always present the possibility
'
of hurried, cursory work by harried inspectors under constant forced pressure to catch up.
~
3) Traceability of the items may not be possible. The longer the documenta-tion waits, the more apt it is for records, sign-offs, etc. to be lost.
L) It is possible to lose or diminish a quality rework / repair capability.
The catch-up work loads and schedule demands produce a tendency toward borderline rework / repair dispositions. Cost and time have a tendency to override or outweigh quality considerations when schedules become tight.
5) The question arises of whether there is presently a high incidence of rejected work in this area of concern.
Catch-up inspection would tend to become impossible or "neverending" with a high rejection rate.
'
The inspector requests the Licensee to review the aforementioned infomation, addressing the specific quality assurance concerns noted, and demonstrate that the quality of the subject installed safety-related equipment will not be compromised.
The following should be included:
- Scope of Problem
- Plan of Action to Recover l
- Manpower
- Any other systems that are known to be behind on timely inspections.
This is considered as Unresolved Item 461/80-27--01.
i 2.
Radwaste Quality Assurance
The Clinton FSAR Sec.1.8-152 and Sec.11.2.13 commits to NRC Regulatory Guide 1.143, July, 1978. This Reg. Guide provides design guidance for the Radioactive Waste Manage-
ment System (Radwaste) to insure construction at a level that insures protection of public health and safety. The Architect Engi.neer has classified these systems as l
Aupentad D (OG, WE, WF, WX, WY, & WZ). Reg. Guide 1.143 requires a Quality Assurance l
program of quality control, control of purchased material, inspection, and maintenance of records of implementation. The Reg. Guide denotes in Sect. B that instrumentation lines art included in the requirements of the Radwaste System. The Reg. Guide, Table 1, states that piping inspection shall comply with Code ANSI B31.1. This document requires visual inspection and also notes in Section 100.1 that hangers are included within the piping system.
Documentation infomation appears to indicate that travelers (records of installation and inspection) have not been used for Aupented D pipe hanger installation / inspection
,
l
& ce May, 1980. Pipe hangers appear to have been installed under the non-safety work
- - - -. -. -. - -, -
. - - - - - - -. - - - -
.
~
-3-
,
,
.
prograr (without travelers and only a random Technical Services : eld inspection).
Radwaste instrumentation lines appear to be installed by field routing, without traielers, and with hangers designed by foremen (without drawings).
Inspection consists of only a random Technical Services weld inspection.
The inspector notes that T114ncis Power Quality Assurance has instigated an Audit of this area of concern.
Tnis is considered as Unresol, ed Item (461/80-27-02).
l