. .

*

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONOFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

REGION III

Report No. 50-461/79-06

Docket No. 50-461 License No. CPPR-137

Licensee: Illinois Power Company500 South 27th StreetDecatur, IL 62525

Facility Name: Clinton Power Station, Unit 1

Inspection At: Clinton, Illinois

Inspection Conducted: June 4-7, 1979

$ 9ft '7f7fInspectors: H. M. Wescott

K. Naidu Ic 7 // 7 /7'f

I 7/l||'

F. ti s

w47 y/7eApproved By: R. C. Knop, ChiefProjects Section 1

Inspection Summary

Inspection on June 4-7, 1979 (Report No. 50-461/79-06)Areas Inspected: Observation of storage of safety related structuralcomponents; observation of welding activities; review of quality records;review of heating, ventillation and air conditioning activities; observationof concrete work activities and quality assurance records; followup ofallegations; reactor coolant loop piping heat treatment; review of storageand maintenance of components and materials. The inspection involved 56inspector hours by three NRC inspectors.Results: Of the eight areas inspected, three noncompliances were identifiedin two areas. (Infractions - unnacceptable structural compon~ents storedwith acceptable components; WPS qualified to wrong part of AWS Section 5;non-shrink grout not certified.)

.\bva.

L79092001

. .

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 EngineerM. 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 EngineerD. Heckenberger, Batch Plant Supervisor

*J. Linehan, Quality Control Manager*T. Selva, Manager of Quality and Technical ServicesJ. Smart, Senior Quality Assurance Engineer

*D. Smith, Assistant ManagerD. Threatt, Quality Control Civil Inspector

*T. Walker, Senior Quality Control Engir.eer*C. E. Winfrey, Senior Civil Structural Engineer*W. Woolery, Welding Engineer, Technical ServicesC. 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-

< | f, )5f *

. .

Licensee Action on Previously Identified Items.

(Closed) Unresolved Item (461/78-07-02): A documented program was notavailable to control the welding machines. " Technical Services InstructionNo. 002 for Welding Parameter" dated April 12, 1979, has been establishedto monitor and record welding parameters such as Volts, Amperes andTravel speed. A schedule has been established to perform the monitoringin designated areas; currently each area in the facility where welding isbeing performed is covered in a 3 week cycle.

(Closed) Open Item (461/79-03-02): Protective coating procedures did notinclude inspection fre quency for concrete wet film thickness. The inspectorreviewed FCR No. 2227 to Sargent and Lundy Specification K-2895 Amendment 1,which adds the following statement to that specification. " Frequency fortesting WRT film thickness for coating application on concrete shall befive readings every 1000 square feet."

This item is closed.

.

e

.

-3-~

\ fk-cO I ;,

.

Section I

Prepared by K. R. Naidu

Reviewed by D. W. Hayes, ChiefEngineering Support

Section 1

1. Observation of Storage of Safety Related Structural Components

The inspector observed safety related structural components whichwere 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 SpentFuel Storage Pool (SFSP) which had been manufactured and suppliedby Bristol Steel & Iron Works (BSIW). These components werereceived by BSIW site personnel for field erection and installation.Standard Operating Procedure No. S0P 12.10 titled " ReceivingInspection Procedures for Materials Shipped to Site" was usedto receipt inspect the components. This procedure requiresinspecting for shipping damage only and does not reflect therequirements of ANSI 45.2 to verify damage due to fire, excessiveexposure environmental damages and tiedown damage. The BSIWsite QC manager stated that the structural components areinspected for these criteria even though these attributes 'retst expressly indicated in the checklist.

Preliminary examination of shop welds on the following componentsdid not appear to be in accordance with the design drawings:

(1) 3" long, 12" apart, 1/8" and 3/16" size welds on the topand bottom of a backing bar attached to piece Division7-17AJ were specified on BSIW drawing Sheet 7-30, detailsection X-X. Some of the 3/16" welds appeared to beinadequate in size and length.

There were other similar pieces in design which were notaccessible for inspection in the storage area; a few hadalready been installed. The licensee agreed to initiate ajoint QC inspection by BA and BSIW personnel to reexaminethe shop welds.

.

(2) Detail Section K-K of BSIW Sheet 7-8 drawing shows thevent ducts welded to the top of the SFSP liner plate forpiece Division 7-31Pl. In two areas, the leg sizes of thewelds 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 drawingswere not readily available.

The licensee agreed to reinspect these welds to the relevantdrawings. 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 OtherSafety Related Structures

BSIW supplied structural components such as beams and columnsfor containment building and other safety.related structures.These ite s were receipt inspected by Baldwin Associates personnelutilizing instruction RI No. C-14583. This instruction reflectsthe requirements of ASNI 45.2. The inspector observed severalbeams with bent clip -ugles, which were apparently damagedduring transit. These components were not tagged to identifythat they were damaged. Subsequently, the inspector reviewedthe relevant Receipt Inspection Report No. RIR 5206 datedJanuary 5, 1979, which documents the receipt inspection performedon a consignment of structural members. This document identifiedno adverse findings on beams 16G2 and 2-2B2-4 even though theyhad distorted clip-angles. Nonconformance Report (NCR) No.1888 dated March 15, 1979, documents shipping damage only onfive pieces; there were several other items including 16G2 and2-2B2-4 which were not included in the NCR. Paragraph 3.5 ofBA Receiving and Issauance procedure 2.3 requires unacceptableitems to be identified with a " Hold Tag Form JV-177" and thematerial to be moved to an established control area pendingresolution of a Nonconformance Report. The cognizant personnelacknowledged that contrary to the above, several safety relatedcomponents with apparent shipping damage were not identifiedand segregated. The inspector informed the licensee thatfailure 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 approximatea.

elevation 755'4" on the SFSP including those attaching the ventducts to the liner plates, the curb plate and floor linerwelds.

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 theliner plates with a backing bar; detail drawing E-S28-1905specifies a groove weld with 1/4" wide gap.

, Q S-5-

yS

s .

In some areas along the vertical seam, the gap between theliner plates and the backing bar exceeded the specified 1/4"opening. The BSIW QC manager ackncwledged the excessive openingsand stated that this instance will be documented in a CorrectiveAction Request (CAR) after the inspection and welded in accordancewith procedure SWP-0267-13 dated June 13, 1978. This procedurespecifies the method for welding root openings in excess of3/8" up to a maximum of 11/16". Welding Procedure Specifications(WPS) SM81-1, FC81-3 and SM81-4 are used in conjunction withthe procedures. The inspector reviewed the action taken tocorrect a similar situation. CAR No. F-42 dated June 26, 1978,documents weld seam 175 identified on drawing E-S28-1904 had aroot opening in excess of 3/8". The corrective action recommendedwas to complete weld utilizing procedure SWP-0267-13. Implementa-tion of corrective action was verified and signed off by the QCmanager on December 4, 1978. The inspector has no furtherquestions in this regard.

b. Liquid Penetrant examination had been performed on the floorliner seam weld. It was reported that procedure PT-0267-1 wasused. Dubl-check penetrant and developer types DP-50 and D-100respectively, were used. Stickers on these cans indicate thatthe material was adequately controlled. Unacceptable penetrantindications were in the process of being identified.

Ultrasonic examination was in progress on other welds on floorc.liner. The qualification records of the examiner were subsequentlyreviewed 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 welds137, 139 and 175 on the south wall of the fuel cask storage lineridentified on drawings E-S28-1901 and 1904.

a. Field QC/NDE Status Record No. 1-S1 indicates that the followingwere 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- ,;|Q- \

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. Therejected areas were subsequently repaired reexamined and determinedacceptable.

Vacuum Box Test Report No. LE 004 dated October 11, 1978,c.indicates that weld seams 127, 129 and 175 were subjected toleak test utilizing procedure LT0267-1. All intersection seamswere checked for a distance of two inches overlap. Solutionmanufactured by American Gas & Chem Company, batch No. 86004and cleaner type Dubl-check, batch No. 4J530 were used. Noindications were identified.

d. Radiographic Reports No. RE 057 pages 1 and 2 dated September 28,1978, indicate that the results of radiography performed onSeam 175. The rejected welds were repaired and reexamineduntil satisfactory. Procedure RT-0261, Revision 1, was utilizedwith 70 curies Iridium 192 source.

Liquid Penetrant reports No. PE 029, 030, and 043 indicate thate.

weld seam 175 was examined to procedure PT-0267, Revision 1.Rejectable indications were detected during subsequent RadiographExaminations. Records indicate that portions of weld 175 werereexamined af ter repairs and determined acceptable.

f. Ferrite content was measured to be 10-12.5% by a Severn gaugeand documented on an attached sketch.

g. The qualifications of two NDE inspectors were reviewed anddetermined acceptable.

h. The qualifications of welders identified as 8, 11 and 13 whoperformed the welding were reviewed and determined acceptable.

i. Seam 175 joins plates 1-2P4 and 1-2P3. BSIW shipping listdated July 17, 1978, indicates that the plate assemblies werereleased for shipment at Bristol and was signed by an authorizedQA/QC representative. Site Receiving Inspection Report datedJuly 24, 1978, identifies no adverse findings in the followingareas:

(1) All Bill of Materials (BOM) were stamped " Authorized toShipment."

(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 Heatinga.Ventillation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) ductwork in accordancewith Sargent & Lundy Specification K2910. Zack, who commencedinstallation work in the control room area, had to suspendtheir work till BA reevaluated their procedures. The RIIIinspector discussed the contents of Zack's QA manual, andselected procedures with the licensee and BA personnel whichneeded additional clarifications. The inspector plans toconduct an additional review during a subsequent inspection.

b. The inspector determined that Section 304 of SpecificationK2910 does not adequately address the environmental require-ments that the sealants, gaskets and flexible connections usedin the ductwork should meet. Additional information is neededto determine whether the specification is contrary to therequirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III. This isconsidered an unresolved item. (50-461/79-06-03)

The inspector reviewed Zack Welding Procedure Specificationc.

(WPS) C-B-QCP22, Revision 2, dated July 6, 1978, which is aprequalified procedure to AWS D1.1-1977. Even though Paragraph13.1 of this procedure erroneously states that the procedure isqualified to Section 5, Part B (which is for WPS qualified bytest), instead of Section 5, Part A, the WPS was reviewed andapproved by Sargent & Lundy and BA personnel. The inspectorstated 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, ChiefEngineering 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) QCand 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 ControlBuilding internal walls, each containing approximately 65 cubic yards of3500 psi design strength concrete. The following specific observationswere 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 bea.properly prepared for concrete placement.

b. Reinforcing steel and embedments were observed to be free ofexcessive rust, mill scale, concrete, or other contaminants.

Formwork was observed to be properly cleaned and prepared forc.concrete placement.

d. Review of the Concrete Pour Traveler confirmed that all applicablecheck points had been met and signed off by the responsible BAproduction, engineering and QC personnel prior to commencementof 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) fieldQC personnel perform slump, temperature, and percententrained air test for concrete delivery ticket No. 41946.The test results were within the allowed limits and performedat the frequencies specified.

,

'

(2) Concrete test equipment was observed to be calibrated andproperly marked to indicate calibration status.

,n-9- jf')

i_

.

b. Delivery and Placement,

(1) Concrete was pumped to the placement area and then depositedvia concrete drop chutes which adequately confined theconcrete with a maximum five foot free fall.

(2) Concrete was observed to be properly consolidated usinginternal concrete vibrators which had been checked toverify the minimum 8000 vpm frequency required bySpecification K-2944.

3. Post-Placement Inspection

Curing - The inspector observed, over a two day period,a.

approximately fifteen concrete pours which were still in theirseven day cure period. Each was verified to be properly curedin accordance with BAP 3.1.1.

b. Defective Concrete - The system for form removal inspection andidentification of defective concrete areas was reviewed. Theinspector identified two defective concrete area: in the AuxiliaryBuilding on the east and west faces of the 114 and 110 linewalls at elevation 724'. Subsequent review of applicabledocumentation confirmed that both areas had been properlyidentified, NCR No. 2006 issued, and corrective action specifiedto properly repair the defective areas in accordance with BAP3.1.1.

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 reviewedthe indoctrination and training records of three BA QC receivinginspectors and found each to meet the requirements of ANSI N45.2.6.

Cement (Type I) - The inspector reviewed the Lehigh Portlanda.Cement Company CMTR received June 6,1979, for Trailer No. 636,RIR-N6586, and found the test results to conform to the standardchemical 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 andcoarse (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 testresults (samples No. 4936 and 4937, respectively) for

\bO{73

,

- 10 -

. .

moisture content (ASTM C566), sieve analysis (ASTM C136),-

and material finer than No. 200 sieve (AdTM C117) werereviewed and found to conform to the job specificationparameters.

(3) The weekly test (sample No. 4929) for organic impuritiesin sands (ASTM C40-73) was reviewed and found to notcontain injurious organic compounds as defined in ASTMC40-73.

5. Procurement of Safety Related Grout Material

To date, approximately 700 fifty-five pound bags of Masterflow 713non-shrink grout have been received at the Clinton site and issuedfor use in both safety and non-safety areas. This non-shrink groutis used to repair defective concrete, grout equipment foundationsand column base plates, and in other miscellaneous work. The licenseestated that the non-shrink grout pruchase orders are classified asnon-safety and that no purchase specification exists to specify whatquality procurement requirements apply to its purchase. Subsequently,no certificates of conformance is specified or received with eachshipment or lot of nan-shrink grout.

The licensee was advised that the failure to provide objectiveevidence of quality for purchased non-shrink grout material furnishedby the contractor or subcontractor, prior to installation or use ofthe 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, ChiefProjects Section 1

1. Interview of Alleger

The inspector interviewed a former employee of Technical Services(Baldwin Associates) who made allegations against Technical Servicesper telecon with the inspector on April 24, 1979.

The inspector interviewed the alleger at the alleger's residencea.in an attempt to obtain more specific information as to theallegations pertaining to weld material control at the ClintonUnit I site.

b. The alleger stated that at one time (could not remember approxi-mately when) there were five (5) weld material issue slipssigned 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 destroythem. The alleger also stated that at one time he had found acan of weld rod with a slit in it and his boss told him to putthe rod into a hold oven.

The inspector interviewed the alleger's former supervisor. Thesupervisor could not recall the incident of telling the allegerto destroy the weld material issue slips. The supervisor couldnot recall any specific incident of telling the alleger toplace weld electrodes in the hold oven but stated that it wascommon practice to place weld electrodes into a hold oven if hesaw a can being damaged as long as the electrodes were notdamaged.

b. The alleger also stated that a coworker was present at the timehe was told to destroy the five (5) weld material issue slips.The inspector interviewed the coworker. The coworker could notrecall 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 heattreatment of reactor coolant pressure boundary piping is specifiedand 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 ElectricProduct Quality Certification (PQCs), Certificates of Compliancefor Radiograph Inspection Report, Liquid Penetrant Report,Ultrasonic Flaw Detection Report, and that all material, weldingand NDE was performed by qualified personnel according toqualified procedures.

There were no records to enable verification that piping thathad been through a hot bending process had met the ASME Codeovality requirements of NB-4223.2. The licensee stated thatthese records would be retrieved if available, or measurementswould be taken to meet the requirement. This item is consideredto be unresolved. (461/79-06-06)

There were no heat treatment furnace strip charts available atthe site to verify time at temperature for solution annealingof the reactor recirculating loop piping. The licensee statedthat these records would be retrieved. This item is consideredto 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 componentsand material in storage.

The inspector reviewed "Clinton Site Activities Procedure" asa.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 F.

. -

(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 themto 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 inorder to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance,or deviations. Unresolved items disclosed during the inspection arediscussed 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 personscontacted paragraph) at the conclusion of the inspection on June 7, 1979.The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. Thelicensee acknowledged the findings.

.

.

\@- 14 -

eB