IR 05000461/1985046

Insp Rept 50-461/85-46 on 850828-1010.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Action on IE Circular,Fan Housing Missile shield,10CFR50.55(e) Items & Allegation Followup

ML20138N913
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	12/06/1985
From:	Danielson D, Jeffrey Jacobson, David Jones NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20138N885	List: IR 05000461/1985046 ML20138N882
References
50-461-85-46, NUDOCS 8512240206
Download: ML20138N913 (11)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:% -- r . - .. g-M , . v- . .1i * U.S'-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM11SSION < . ~ REGION III-Report No. 50-461/85046(DRS)- tDocket No. 50-461 License No. CPPR-137 Licenseei--: Illinois Power Company: '500 South 27th-Street- ' Decatur, IL 62525-Facility Name:1:Clinton Power Station,. Unit 1 , "InspectioriAt: 'Clinton-Site,' Clinton, It' , Inspection Conducted: TAugust 28,.29, September 4, 5, 10-12,- and October 9 and - 10,,1985: . - G Qg. _ I-Inspectors:'~ D. E.' Jones - - ~ Date.

JT ; ' obsoD-17b8I ' Date

Approved'By:

anielson, Chief.

db/9I- . - ~

Materials and ProcessesL Date

~' Section- ' Inspection Sumary - -- . Inspection on~ August 28, 29, Seatember 4, 5, 10,-12, and October 9, 10,

1985 (Report No.- 50-461/85046(D15))

~ . Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced' inspection of licensee action on an IE --Circular; an_ Open; Item; 10.CFR 50.55(e) Items;-and followup ~on allegations.

--This; inspection. involved.altotal of 79 inspector-hours-onsite.by two NRC . finspectors.

..... ~

Results: ~No-violation or deviations were identified.

' ' - "1 , _ 4-851224'0206 851218 PDR ADOCK 05000461 ' -g- ,PDR , . ' f e.

+ m ,N - .

p - , - -. - - . _ k ; ' ch E$ , N..' 3-q t

,7

.s- ~ ' r x-e DETAILS o - , , , 41.

' Persons' Contacted ~ - ' Illinois-Power' Company (IP)- . "*DTP.[ Hall,'[VicePresident.

'

• J.:E. Loomis, Construction Manager-s.

i i*H.s RL Lane,. Director Design. Engineering . 1*D.x W. Wilson,. Supervisor-licensing Administration -:*J. W." Wilson,~ Power Plant Manager : - 1*J. H.7Greene, Startup Manager: , 1*R. - E. '. Campbell, ; Di rector-QS&A ' J *R.. W. Greer, Manager Q&TS . - '***K.-A? Baker, Project Engineer-Licensing ^ ~ . . F.

C.' Edler,1 Supervisor, Construction Startup Engineering (" - ~

• • R. Weber,L Supervisor, Quality; Systems

" ~

A fB'aldwin Associates (BA) ~ 1R. Neeb, Seriiorl Piping: Engineer . - o ~ tJ. Doolin,.QC' Training Supervisor

Sargentand'Lundy:Enginee'rs-(S&L)

_ ~ -

D..; K. 4Schopfer, SiteJProject Manager

. . ._ _ , . ^ pThe inspector also contacted land interviewed other licensee and contractor s Lemployees.. ' . J - - . _.

. .. . . . .. 3* Denotes (those-present.at the: exit meeting on September:12, 1985.- ' ~ 2 ** Denotes those present,at the post exit briefing.on' October.10,1985.

_ - '.' *** Denotes 1those present^at"both meetings.. ' k 52;.ficenseeActionO'nIECircularsandOpenItems- ' ~ . - s(Closhd)lIE Circular -(461/79'-04-CC): Loose Locking. Nut On Limitorquei ~ ~ . . ~Valye.0perator.

II111nois Power Company (IPC) initiated Condition Report No.;1-34-06-017 ito address the item'of. concern expressed in the IE Circular. A listing ~ ~ ~of:allimotor operated valves by. building, identity, and-location was ~ - ~ generated..mValve ' operators requiring examination were linspected and ; + ~ / action taken toisecure-theElocking nut.. Maintenance procedures ~were- , ~_ ' ' revised to include a procedure for. securing the locking nut. Asia.

"

/w

result of the:NRC review of!IP actions and documentation, this item is , 1 considered! closed., ^ , ,, ' - - ,f(Closed): 20 pen ~ Item'(461/85005-34): Missile shields'on fan housings.

1A total of 14 fan-housings'were11n question, as to the adequacy of

- '~ f ~ * jprote.ction afforded by.the far, housings-from internal missiles, the y _ 11icensee determined that_10 fans required modifications..sThe- ~ f , k "' t ' ~ _ 'N _ ' . _ - - ^

c ' - d . .- , , . &- (

( . .y hi, r

x :

' ' ' shields?on those:10 fans were modified-such, that adequate protection.of- ^ - . nearby safety related _ equipment would be acconnodated. The NRC inspector ' reviewed the documentation associated with the modifications and found , _ ituto be. complete and ~ acceptable.. License'e Action on 10 CFR 50.55(e) Items T - 3; (CloseN).50.55(e) LItem ('461/82-04-EE):Improperly Tightened Jam' Nuts.

'

-The: inspector, reviewed theilicensee's final report dated September 17, . '.1982, and.related documents.' , . I The!origina1ldesignjintent of the Architect' Engineer, Sargent 8' Lundy, ~ ~

was notf achieved ir. the initial field assembly of safety related

. - ," _. ~ . sistructuraltsteel ' slip joint connections, in that, jam nuts-were installed . ' - r. finger tightLinL11eu of torqued snug tight:against the high strength nutsi - /' tin.;the. bolted connection., The identification of;the inadequacies in the- _

-

specification of

the installation requirement for jam nuts for slip joint

' ~ t connection resulted in atreview into simG ar. areas for potential . ! deficiencies. (The review of the design drawings for~ electrical, mechanical, and HVAC applications-found that jam nut information.was unclear on some.

(of the! drawings.. Corrective actions included drawing. revisions clarifyingr t zthe installation, QC-instructions revisions clarifyingithe; inspection of' , c -

jam: nut. tightness, repa'ir/reworkland reinspection of connections and

- k training.in-thefcorrect wayyto specify jam nutcinsta11ation. The NRC inspector reviewed.the' corrective actions and associated documentation: . ..* ~ , .~and,found them to be~ acceptable.

s ~ (Closed)i50.55(e)' Item;(461/84-12-EE): Concrete Expansion Anchors do not Penetrate Structural Slabs. 'Anl initial NRC inspection was previously

conducted, as' documented in:NRC Inspection Report;No..50-461/84-18(DRS) - , - 1 dated August 16,- 1984. The inspector: reviewed the licensee?s final report '. _ . dated April 118(1985, and related documents.= ' .IP informed Region III-that they were. withdrawing the subject potential- - , 110'CFR 50.55(e). based onithefresults'of their investigation.

IP did not aidentify_a condition with. adverse, significance:to the safe operation of CPS. ;0fsthe 129. supports to be attached to finishingsslabs, 58 were- - found toibetinstalled.1 Of.these 58,-four were evaluated as_inadequ' ate ' '(due to ineffective concrete' expansion anchor embedment. The four supports

- F - twere1 subsequently rewor_ked and-brought-into conformance with the -design.

(Corrective actions to prevent' recurrence included marking;of finishing.. r< - slabsiin the' plant, and the revision of installation procedures and.

g

drawings. The inspector ~ concurs with the' withdrawal of this' item, and

, ' Jconsiders this. item closed, l(Closed)'50.55(e)l item-(461/84-19-EE): Nelson' Stud Failure on Embed s x iPlates' iTheLinspector reviewed the licensee's final report' dated . - , _ f April;30,1985, and;related documents.

b - ) Failure _of the Nelson studs located at the edge of the embed plates on ' ~ > the drywell -outer wall' ~at-locations AZ 128 and 140 was caused by thermal distortion due to welding. The NRC previously reviewed the ' m ', failure' analysis as documented in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-461/84036.

.. ,, .

- " .-. w- . . s ).-. b c..i.-. ..-...J.,. ...- .-.J.

.... .. -. .. , -..,,,,,... - -, .,,-_..,--_.-%,- -- ' ' -

%

. ;.; xl ' <.s k4; L }During! thelnspection',theNRC'inspectorreviewedtherepairsthatwere- ~ ' J made;to' correct ~ the-failures. ; Forothe repair at AZ 140*,~ a plate.was < welded toi.the embedment attaching 11t to an adjacent-embed.: At AZc128',< plates were welded to the:topLand; bottom of: the~ embed and secured-to the. ~ '

E rywell wallLusing.Drillco Maxi' Bolts.._These repairs-were made to-restore ^ d % theEfullfdesign' load capacity, i.e.,-the total Design Basis Accident. The ' '

NRCJinspector examined the. repair areas and reviewed the associated

, u - " documentation:andithef engineering basis and found-all to be acceptable.

. ~- k Followup On Allega_tions ~ ' a _ ! .(Closed)'AllegationRIII-85d'-0041(120): On February 22,_1985, an

a.-

y' iallege.r: contacted.the Region III'_ resident inspector'at the C1.inton Site with 'various concerns. One of the' concerns was covered 'in . ' '

InspectionReportNo.'50-461/85022(DRS). The remaining. concerns are

-

discussed-in the following paragraphs

' - . .. . f Con'cern: 1: ' - ' 1The quality of ~ inspections perfomed by second shift electrical QC % ^

inspectors are being impacted by supervisory requirements for -

~ Lproductivity. <The alleger was concerned that the use of the; Quality x - 1 Controlj Daily Report-(QCDR) places ~ undue pressure' on the inspectors ' to perform larger quantities;of work to meet production 1 schedules,- , . -thereby decreasing the. time spent performing each inspection-and - ' 'ithus-decreasing the quality,of the inspection performed.o ' .

NRC ReYiew

' The~ NRC1 inspector interviewed >14'second shift electrical QC' inspectors F(approximately 50%).:concerning the:use of the--QCDR,- quality ofjtheir'

, g work being compromised by real(or perceived production-quotas,'and if. , supervision had set inspection quotas. - Thetinspector also interv.iewed 'the BA Mana'er of Quality and Technical Services.1 ' g ' ' > The interviews revealed th'at the QCDR is'used_for;two purposes: to- ~ ~ document? inspections in:the event of a'need to investigate the work- ~ =of an ' inspector and as ~a' monthly man-power report.. Interviews with u- - f a .the inspectors:revealedithat' they did-not feel. any pressure, from

the use ;of the QCDR, to increase the number. of inspections the~y?

'" - performed..TheEinspectors also statedithat supervision had not set ~ - - production quotas -for them and _ that they1did not fee 11that the ; ' squality of their inspection' activities-had suffered from the numberz ' .

Lof_ inspections they wer_e performing.

g . zThe NRC inspector reviewed the unit rates (man-hours expended per ~ ,' ,. ,' inspection) for the' electrical QC inspectors from December 1983,. through. August 1985,'and _ determined that the unit rate for this - a z xperiod averaged 15.7 man-hours per inspection, this is approximately - -7

l.4 inspections? per eight hour day.

. T'-

4 , . .

hEff ^ ? ~ ' ' ~ ' ' c ~ . x r ~ W' , } - .;. , ^ , ( -<'. "" +- . L.Conclusioni

, ., @* g

, -1 ,. , .. g' . 1The concern:.was unsubstantiated.11n that;the' electrical QC' inspectors- -

V

- that:were, interviewed'did not feel that'the quality of-their: ", 11nspections had been compromised or had deteriorated from the quantity ' c Eof 31nspections;they were_ performing, and that'the; unit.. rate. failed to : ,. ijustify:any decrease,inJinspection time = spent on _ inspections.. thereby.; ' ,

decreasing;the quality l of.thefinspections ; performed.

m1x ~ M2: Concern 22 , 7' ' ~ ' ~ Thelau iting1of placement;of[QC " hold tags" by.QC inspectors ; _ idetracts from; time theEinspector has: to perform. inspections-. The

. talleger was. con _cerned-that the QC inspectors:may be reluctant to l ~ > ; write NCRs with the knowledge that they would beLrequired to place: - y o l, y. thes" hold: tag",and then~ monitor it on.a regular basis.. - i e - 2.- . y>. -, NRC Review C ~ (The NRC inspector-interviewed '14 secondishift electrical QC l inspectors , #

(approximately 50%), concernin'g the reluctance'to write NCRs, and the-

, +*.BA> Manager. of-Quality and Technical Services.- ~

The' process: of: monitoring the condition lofithe " hold tags"' by_ the.

~ . , ' ~ {QC= inspectors.has'been eliminated, since'the initiation of the.

, fallegation,-by BALprocedure 3.5.12.which created a; separate tag: , T l verification - group whose :dutiestinclude' monitoring ;of sthe : " hold. tag" ~ ' ' - ' Hi ' ; - ' ' , status. (TheTinterviews revealed that the QC inspectors had no- -J . ireluctance, win the!past,1to write lan NCR.with ::the' knowledge. that.

. , , Lth'ey1would;be required to hang and moni. tor then" hold: tags".

~~ N* - ? Conclusion 1 - -._ - - -{The! con ~cernwas?unsubstantiateifinthatithe:QCiinspectors,tha%we're - -

'_ - '; i interviewed,-'did not;expressi any. reluctance to write.NCRs and that - 'J'- -theTprocedure'hasisince been revised to; eliminate the.monitoringiof.

_ Lthe " hold; tags" by-QC inspectors.

r - - _ m, ,- - LConcern 3 ' . ., , E 1 Changes;to procedures,are rapid and frequent.

' ( l .

NRC Review m

- x.

... . . . . . -:Similariconcerns were previously addressed in~.NRC Inspection Report Rv s.- ,. Not 50-461/85022(DRS), Paragraph;j(1).

> e s 'n4 mm JConclusion.

- , ... e a r -" ' , ~

With respect

tolthe-large number of. procedure changes,Lthis concern

' was substantiated..:Hcwever, procedure. revisions were required'so , , ~ sito meetEths changing requirements of BA quality program.. y; 'a s , . .

' ~5 m u . ~ , ' Wk

• A

/

y - .,, m y,g - y .. v @' ' ' r -,

y~yy

ib.- [(Closed)-Allegation'RI'II 85.N-0064(132)U On March;12,'1985,~an _ffs V ~

' alleger contacted ;the RegionTIII resident inspector at-the Clinton e.

MV

Site withLvarious concerns, which are discussed in the following

, _ . / paragraphs:1 - [ _ kConcern 1 ~ <; - , , . ~.. .- ~ ~ +/The.fpushlfor' productivity,:byQC: Supervision,.hasadetrimental m - - .effect on the quality of: inspections perfomed;by the second shift ~ > y ,'Igiping/ mechanical-QCinspectors.fnspectorsareexpectedtomake I . engineering 2judgements"'outside'the scope _of their_ inspection W w activities, in order to expedite inspections.; ' - _ , ~ $The s11eger was concerned that the QC: Supervision is more interested } in production:than;in.the. quality.of the inspections performed..- ^ ' ~; , 1RC Reviewi iThe NRC;inspectorninterviewed six.of the second shift piping / mechanical -:QCLinspectors-(approximately.50%),itheinterviewsrevealedthatthe - , {QC inspectors had noLknowledge of;a:" push for. productivity'_by QC ,

supervision,.nor did they(feel that'they._had to make'" engineering

> . _ s ~ ijudgements":outside;the scope'of their inspection.activitiesJiny m.

,, ,

order to expedite inspections. _- Most of the inspectors ' mentioned

- ithat they would use Form JV808, T" Traveler-l Return Checklist", to os

f ' resolve problems with the inspection through engineering. <The.QC

inspectors also stated that they felt no abnormal. pressure forf

' > .

_ Jproductionithat would affect the; quality of theiriinspections.- '

• Conclusion >

'5,* !Th'is"concernco'uldnot:besubstantiated,'inthatfthsQCinspectors,. a - that were interviewe'd, did not feel? that the quality _of ?the 1J ~ - - Linspsctionsithey.perfomed were compromised by any perceived or real

}" push for productivity", and that <they 'did not: feel:that they had.to - ' - -make: engineering judgements outside the' scope of their. inspection . ' Lactivities" iniorder to?expediteJinspections.

, . _..,

- ! Concern'2 . ^ , '" Quality Control Daily Ieport"'(QCDR) misused by second shift 1 supervision, the alleger:was concerned that the QCDR is used to . _.. _. , P _ n ;pushiinspectors.-to meet minimum inspection quotas.

- l Cy y 'NRC:Resiew.

' t l L-The' NRCTins ector11riterviewed six;of the second shift piping / mechanical , Linspectors approximately.50%),concerningthe~use~oftheQCDR,and.

thefquality of their work being compromised by real'or perceived- ', . +

production quotas. The inspector also interviewed the'BA Manager of A W

' - .

Qu'ality' and c.Techn.ical Services.

, s % - ' : ' , , ,+ :: _ ' .

y

{

,

a y w.

< ~ ' ' ' ( "'h . ~ s ' ' ~ ' ' ' ' Y~ [ '> , x , , ' ' * ' - wm .

. _ _ . y 3;; v '- (?,[ll ~ "Y ' l ' ~ ' lj f~'W bThe: interviews revealed 7thA10the inspectors.had~no Laowledge of ~ - produ'ction.) quotas issued by-management.i TheLQCDR served as a 7[g' ; fmenthly manpower report andLto _documenthinspections;in the' event of- + - , Ja need to investigate the ~ work of. an inspector.. The NRCfinspector-f - , ' ^ - salsoireviewed the unit; rates.(man-hours expended per: inspection) for '~g .. athe(QC. piping /mechanicalfinspections'from December 1984 through

• ,

-' i 1 August:11985, and determined thatLtheLunitu rate forqthis period ' - ' !averagedr10.4 man-hours per inspection this is"approximately 3/4 of- ' _ T - an inspection;per eight hour day.'. , '# ~ ' } . _ 5 Conc 1usion ' - i . ... ' i : J,

• iThis concern could not be~ substantiated -in that, the.

- ' " -

A piping / mechanical;QC? inspectors ~that were' interviewed had no gM

_ aknowl. edge.of; inspection 1 quotas beings. imposed on:.them and that the , ' - ~ . unit rate fai.1.ed to justify any-type of formal or informal quota s e T csystem.;'Also,see;the:reviewof-aisimilarallegation-(RIII85-A-0041),1 ~( , previ.ously documented in thisfreport.

- , ' ' L oncern 3' C a W - , . .. - "' , n 4 The: current!matepialcrequisition program is^ susceptible tosimproper' ' - - " (changesfof,.the _ material requisition documentation. LThe alle~ger is-E' - ;concernedithat: copies of piping material requisitionLform (JV_490) ' - couldj possibly;be altered and; recopied to ~ appear to be: the " original' - ., L copy"4 and r,einserted -into the traveler package.~ 1' s; . ' Q-

~ ? NRCL Review! '

- The' NRC^ Inspector interviewed: the1BA Senior; Piping Engineer and'the - ' ' ' >

~ '77 BA Assistant Resident Piping / Mechanical' Engineer; =The? interviews ..' < ' Cfre'vealed that: the'pipin'g material requisition fom;(JV490) is used ~T,

- lasta(means;to obtain-piping material from theiwarehouse~ and.as -an - b' - -s ". E i Jinternal!1nventory control devicee When partial releases are made,

q

LcopiesLofithe;. original. material ? requisition are made. and inserted? - -

into Lthe' traveler.* QCLverifies tthe infomation contained.in~ the

.. - s4 - M Ematerialcrequisition1before the material istissued from thei ? - . warehouse. iAt.the point of use,1QC; verifies the' heat code contained iif ? vo'nftherequisitionformL(JV490);withthe:stampedheatcodeon-the.~ ~ ihardware.and-then transfers theiheat. codeito the traveler.

< < '. < - -y- ~,' . 1 Conclusion" ..f (Thisconcern.wassubstantiiated,inthatcthecopyofthematerial_ ' . ?"- , requisition ^ form could =be" altered, copied and _ reinserted into th_e! " i traveler.Jh'owever,:no purpose:would be served bytperforming.suchla'n

~ + w > alteration, since the purpose of the: material requisition.would have . ~ i been servedipriori to placing;the copy into the' traveler. A separate '

- ' Q 'S C ' , ? quality: record mechanism:is,used to assure material traceability;- d this: practice wastfound to be acceptable by the.NRC. A similar W1 ~"E ? allegation was reviewed and documented in NRC Inspection Report , ( ~~ ~

Noe50-461/85026 as being' substantiated, neither allegation had an

- impact on.qualityg ..

- _ , MD - " 7: ..-p,_ ' - w , ' ~ . LM: Q% ~ g ,

A , le s n e i-ar.

e d o se-n -, - ~w 6-,4-n.

---n .e ,,.m, q,- w -+- rs -, g- - y w - ,2s t ,,.

. , Wo ., ; ,, c; s, - - . ' ' * " ~

• .c

,+n M; w, p ? - y x 2, - wn . , . ' J --,'

M M g M s", ', &, ' % l ' ' " ,1 ' s - , -

y w'On V '~ ~ ' ' 1, _m - {Cdncern'41 ,

~ . ' y.

, .. ,

The qualifications;6fftwoiQC SupersisorsEmay'not-be adequate.

@

.

• ,

L .

.

s - + ' -NRC Reviewz - , %; ~

i' ~ M TheENRC inspector; reviewed ltheiqualification/ records of.thi two;QC; f 45upervisorsrandLfound'thatithey had adequate education, experience-- ' M

c + - ' - , tand training'to'qualifysfor certification in a'ccordance with,the BA

, s z

" Quality /ControlsTraining and Certification Manual," sin effect at

- - 'M ' % lthe timetof certificatione @ [ ^ hgg,, - y . . . . L: '. ?Theiconcern was' unsubstantiated, tin that,;the qualificationHreview, . i y,the:NRC;inspe'ctor, revealed that the" qualifications ofEtheltwo QC b

P. < ^ -

. ,(supervisors;wereradequate_ for their certifications.

RV y :

-

.b._ ...... m

^ _ ' s C.~ l(Closed)l Allegation RegionTI_II 85-A-0083(143): 10n, April 22,'1985,

% :i < A ~ an' alleger telephoned: Region IIIuwithLvarious concerns ~which are s' " - _ ~, '; discussed in.the following~paragraphsf , > - , l _ i gg iConcern11: _ ' ' , , %,g,. n'~ (NCkNd[23306 disposition ~ probably changed;fromireweld and- > 2; ] ' ? f reradiograph to something less, possibly "use as-is." :The alleger - X - ~was concerned:that'the' disposition-to NCR'No.V23306 would be-m" %,

?cha(ged in order to not hold up the fuel load ~date; - , , w a.

. '. - n y ,- w , .

,#

..~ _ [NRC Rediew: < . 9i i 3ThetNRC,inspedtorreviewed:NCR-No.i233d6and;interviewedthe'IP u n yQ T ~ ~ icon'struction Startup Engineering Supervisor.1 The review and, W minterview revealed!that NCR NoL23306 was initiated on October' 31, i l1984,iandjthatyit identifiedifour' conditions 4 concerningiunqualified ,a?, I4. - f ~ ; welders, missing NDE1 reports,~ missinglfinal -acceptance: NDE reports 3.; N W f~and missing originalJNDE. reports a. Each; condition was' dispositioned

l~' 1" ^...on Marchi6,i19851 M'. , 082 ^ _ .. '. .. ' . ~ H Condition:1,'concerning unqualified welders was' changed on March 22,- we <1985; from;the: original: disp'osition of "use as-is Type -B" ~(no hardware O.

. _ . problem) to;" rework:."iThe~ rework" specified ultrasonic. testing to 2w - E.

• ~

~ [ qualify (the.weldsJin' lieu;of. qualifying the welders. (The.. idispositionjwas again changed-on August,13, 1985, to "nonhardware," ? mt _ s l(no hardwarejproblem-procedural ' problem exists).. The welders :in , * g . F 'i question:.were! qualified to AWS standards ~, but not' to the ASME Code _ 1 requirements?However, since the welding' application' was of a1 @J' _ _. structural 2 type'and.the welding: parameters we're'similar, met;the S&L F _ W

-

-

E: , specification :andithe FSAR, and were supported ~by quality records:andi u nondestructive. testing results, the final; disposition.was acceptable.

' g - - ' ~)Theiothersthree: condition dispositions were unchanged.and the f y - 3M

corrective: actions.were_ adequately completed in that some missing

% Lrecordsiwere. located and for the remaining missing records the NDE i+~~

test'ing was-redone.

, 7, m ,, W.- ^ - l q

, e n a j s ::;-- [i; - ' ' ,

> m y % , ' ?? }l- ,.G > - ,l & - " ' > , qz , . - > , - ' ,... , D's "C'onElusion' ' ' a - L .;. ,r^ . -. . , ' m - , LThe concern.waszpartiallyf substantiated, in that,"the original' i

disposition was changed,thowe'ver.Tthe final ~ disposition. addressed.

.. ,d: 7 ,

, !th'e condition-ofLthe unqualified welders.: ~The time'. period,of-

approximately six months (March 22, 1985_through' August 13,:1985),-

, u ^ - - . -

- , 5during which;the changes were;made does not suggest a rush.toipush "

" the.NCR throughHthe system in1 order to make the fuel load date.. A - fdispositionlof " reweld and:reradiograph"-was.not found by the NRC- - ' iinspector onlany ofLtheLNCR'Noh 23306 Documentation. The. basis for > .' - (theffinalidisposition. and closure' was acceptable to the NRC.1 . g , .. - i Concerri = 2 ' ... 4 - - . - ' " ,iThe) Architect-Engine'er_-(AE) did.not: perform a :" Technical Investigation" ,, on many of: the= NCRs:concerning anchor-bolts processed by the alleger %g ? i . _s ~ m+ -during a one month period.

. _ -..." ^ x - ^NRC Review- ' ,? " c.The;NRCi nspector reviewed the' disposition: log from March 5, 1985, - u . through April -5,.1985,..(da'tes covering :all the.iispositionsi made . - duringlthe alleger's employme_nt) and interviewrAthe' IP.~ Construction _ - sStartup Engineering _S_upervisor. The reviewfof the-disposition.-log; f,b " ~$r'evealed a total number _'.ofi108 NCR items _-were; processed bycthe:. ,

- ',, ea ~

al1_egeriand four;of the"NLR. items' processed _ concerned Anchor Bolts.

' _ _ ' . ';a.. _.. ...

-.

_ 1The.ClintonL Site NCR dispositioning:programLpermits NCRs Lfor-which. - - & 4Sargent & Lundy (S&L),,the Architect Engineer;(AE),Lis:the original F - Jdesign organization'to be;dispositioned on'aipreliminary basis-by - " - ' Illinois 'PoweruCompany-Nuclear. Statico f/igineering Department -, - . . (IPC-NSED). This allows work to p%d in the field.. All-NCRs J . ' , , f n ' ' (preliminar11y dispositioned by NSED are' torwarded to S&Lifor-final ireview,; processing and approval.. Should 'S&L's:: review. find a'.. W , - l E discrepancy (inLthe(dispositior, ofe an NCR, they (S&L) are procedurally- ' , Erequired-to~ supplement the NCR with a controlled change l document (ECN.

- ?orFECN).~0fthe:fourNCRsdispositionedby-theal. leger,:twohad c ~ ' ibeen reviewed by the AE:and-two are scheduled for review.

- N Conclusion ^ ~This' concern was~ unsubstantiated, in'that,ithe.AE. technical ^ review J - X' ~ Lcould.be: performed either!at the'timeLof-the disposition or during ' ~ W jfinalcreview by the=AE. The NCRs in question'do receive a final- - ' ~ ',. Edesign review by S8L.

-

[} Concern'3i e W -

ThelallegerLfelt " pressured" to sign six-NCRs (Nos. 69620,;28422,

'

' ~ ' l29510, 28450, 28476,'and 29030) processed on, April 4, 1985. One of'the NCRs' concerned poor quality welds which the alleger had v-

dispositioned for rework.. Because of.these NCRs, he.was no longer

.

permitted lto. sign:NCRs because he was making too many mistakes.

~ ' , , . , q.

%

• .

g3; ~ '

~ ,

1. '4 %

,i .., ,ma,.u.

-_. _ _.._,.._ ws ;_,

a _., _ __ ._ ,, _. _, .

i{, . M n ~ NitC ' Review Th'e NRC inspector reviewed the six NCRs identified by the alleger - ~ 1and: interviewed 'IP-Nuclear Station Engineering Department (NSED) personnel. - The:NCR review revealed the following: - c . n NCR.No. 69620,iconcerning Thread Fngagement_of a Sway Strut Bolt, ~ iwas dispositioned."use-as-is Type B" by the Alleger on April'4, , 1985.? It was changed by the Alleger on April 5,1985, to - - - "no'nhardware concur with BA disposition," this was redispositioned - by another NSED engineer.on April' 5, '1985, to "use-as-is (Type B)."

lNCR No. 28422,:concerning Pipe Hanger Clearances, was dispositioned > by the AE on~ April _4, 1985. The alleger performed a disposition-review on April.4, 1985, which-was co-signed by another NSED engin_eer.

-NCR No'. 29510, concerning a Hanger Material Defect, was dispositioned by,the AE on April-29,11985, and a disposition review was performed by an NSED engineer ~(not by the alleger) on May 3,

1985.

'NCR No.-28450, concerning~ Hanger Clearance, was dispositioned by the AE on April 4,1985, and the alleger also performed a disposition review on April:4,.1985.

NCR'No. 28476, concerning Spool Slope, was d'sposition'ed by the AE on: April 4,11985, and the alleger also' performed a disposition review on April _4,=1985.

NCR No. 2903, concerning Weld Defects, was dispositioned by the

alleger on April 4, 1985, however,'the NCR should_have'been sent to L,

'the AE for disposition. The alleger's' disposition was voided on

April 5.1985, and the AE. supplied _ a ~ disposition, which was reviewed

_by NSED. ;The AE's disposition was essentially the same as the - T ' alleger's', which was to rework the deficient welds.

.-Twelve _IP NSED personnel responsible for NCR disposition / disposition- - 1 review were interviewed (approximately 30%) concerning pressure to sign' NCRs..The' interviews revealed that, other than the r.ormai - working pressure associated with a construction project, there was s ~

no pressure to sign or rush through" NCRs. On the contrary. the

~ personnel-stated that quality was their number one priority and that - .- 'they felt that.they had the support of management to perform their ^ work. correctly. The NRC reviewed the NCR dispositions and found them "to~be adequate.

In addition, the Department of Labor determined that the! alleger's-termination was justified due to his. " unacceptable low > quality of work."

Conclusion- -This concern was unsubstantiated, in that, the NCR reviews and IP

NSED personnel' interviews revealed no indication of forced or pressured signing of NCRs.

-.

(. - ;.

I _ .

5.. -Items:of Co_n_gern Identified During-Interviews

' .!w LDuring the-interviews. conducted-by the NRC inspector to investigate the ~ allegations covered in this report, two additional concerns were " identified..The subject of the first' concern _was the-improper certification.of Baldwin Associates QC Electrical Inspectors and the-second concern.was the. alleged incompetence of a survey crew. These ~ concerns will be treated as. separate allegations and will be pursued ~separatelyLat a-later:date.

6.. Exit Interview ..The.NRCl inspector net with the licensee representatives (denoted in ~ Paragraph.1)~ at the conclusion of the inspection on September 12, 1985, and subsequently on October 10. 1985, the. inspector sunmarized the purpose and findings of the inspection. The. licensee representatives acknowledged this information.,The inspector also discussed the likely

informational content.of_the inspection report with regard.to documents or processes reviewed during the inspection..The licensee representatives

did not identify any such' documents / processes as prcprietary.

.

1 $

11 am }}