.~

/m

.'.''

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONOFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

REGION III

Report No. 50-461/80-08

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 Site, Clinton, IL

Inspection Conducted: April 14-30, 1980~

5-/3 foInspector: H. H. Live ore

Rc1Approved By: R. C. Knop, Chief b- /Nb

Projects Section 1

Inspection Summary

Inspection on April 14-30, 1980 (Report No. 50-461/80-08)Areas Inspected: Routine inspection by the IE Regional Resident Inspector(SRI) of safety related construction activities including concrete place-ment; material laydown and storage areas; and HVAC activities of the sub-contractor Zack Co. This inspection involved 96 inspector-hours by oneNRC inspector.Results: Of the areas inspected, two items of noncompliance were identi-fied: (1) inadequate control of welding processes; (2) inadequate controlof nonconforming material.

..

80 06280 O(,j

_ . ..

*.

.

.

DETAILS

Persons Contacted

Principal Licensee Employees

*J. O. McHood, Vice President*G. M. Brashear, Site Manager, ClintenR. J. Canfield, Director-ConstructionA. J.-Budnick, Director-QA

'*E. E. Connon, Assistant Director-ConstructionL. W. Dozier, Assistant Director-ConstructionD. E. Korneman, Supervisor-Construction

*J. F. 'Hampton, Supervisor-QA*R. W. Folck, QA Specialist*J. S. Spencer, Director-DES EngineeringR. Backen, QA SpecialistR. Weber, QA EngineerR. Becker, QA Consultant

Baldwin Associates

J. R. Holding, QA ManagerR. Selva, Manager Quality and Technical Services

*J. Linehan, QC M;aagerW. H. Harrington, Project ManagerJ. E. Findley, Project EngineerM. Merritt, Quality ControlT. F. Walker, Senior Quality Control

*R. D. Bennett, Manager, Technical ServicesR. Merritt, Quality Control

General Electric Company

S. G.~ Hall, Q- .ity Control

Zack Company

D. Burn, Project ManagerC. Nichols, Site Superintendent

*M. Franchuk, Jr. , QC SupervisorV. Pemberton, General ForemanF. Barnes,-ForemanJ. Nuehoff, General Foreman

Other staff and personnel were contacted during the reporting period.*Deno,tes those attending at least one of the exit meetings.

-2-

.

*.

,--

(Functional or Program Areas Inspected

1. Plant Tours

One or more plant areas were toured several times ach week duringthe reporting period to observe general construction practices, areacleanliness, and storage / maintenance of material and equipment.

Items of noncompliance are discussed in paragraphs 4 and 5.

2. Concrete Placement

The inspector performed a surveillance of the concrete placement ofthe fuel loading 755' level floor. The following conditions werenoted:

(1) The forms were secure and leak tight prior to the placement..

(2) The preplacement inspection had been completed and was in order.

(3) _ Quality Control inspectors were assigned to perform periodicconcrete testing. Numbers were adequate.

(4) Concrete testing was performed at the required frequencies.

(5) Adequato numbers of crews and personnel were assigned to makethe placement.

(6) Surrounding equipment was protected from any concrete spillduring placement.

(7) Delivery and placement was satisfactory. Concrete was pumpedto the placement area and deposited via a flexible boot whichadequately confined the concrete to a minimum fall to preventsegregation.

(8) Concrete was observed to be properly consolidated using internal-concrete vibrators. The vibrators were randomly checked whileoperating in the concrete. The inspector checked that the testmeter was in calibration. Vibrator technique was satisfactory,

with one exception. One operator's technique was observed to berather lackadaisical: inattention, not vertical when possible,and below minimum time in one spot. Immediate action was takento corrt,st the situation. Further surveillance indicated thisto be an isolated singular case. .

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

-3-

. . . __ _ . - .. -.

_ ,

. _-__

,

.*

~

..

*

3. Inspection of Material / Component Laydown Areas

:The resident inspector performed a surveillance of pipe, electrical,cand rebar laydown outside storage areas. The. areas were randomlyselected. The' inspection was in relation to the requirements of.

ANSI N45.2.2: material protected and stored off the ground, capson pipe ends, and segregation of safety and non-safety material.

_In general, considering the massive amount of material, storageand maintenance was adequate. The inspector noted that storagelooked excellent as one drove up and down the access roads, but adifferent picture as.one walked within the confines of each area.

The inspector noted some random examples of pipe end caps missingor damaged; one example of safety 'and non-safety rebar materialmixed together;.and some safety related. cable trays on the groundin the electrical laydown area. The licensee was shown these ex-amples and. initiated prompt corrective action to insure the situa-, tion does not degenerate. The inspector will make these areas thesubject of a followup inspection.

|No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

4.,

HVAC Welding Activitiese

The inspector performed a surveillance of the Zack Co. welding ac-,.

'L tivity on the 800' level of the Control Building. Weld rod storageand use was adequate. Weld method was SMAW of HVAC hangers, gussets,and imbeds. The inspector questioned five working welders in regardto their applicable weld procedure. Four of the five could notidentify the procedure by number or title, did not know where their

'

procedure was located, and were not aware of its basic contents.The inspector notes that there was only one procedure involved(Zack QCP 24), and that it was also noted on the weld rod tickets.

This item is considerd in noncompliance with the requirements of-

Criterion XI of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B. (461/80-08-01)r

5. HVAC Nonconforming Material Control

During a tour of the Zack HVAC safety related material laydown,

area, the~ inspector noted duct piece 5 of load 58 (with rejecttag 46) located with acceptable parts. This item was supposed tohave been moved to the Zack hold / reject enclosure some eleven days

'

prior. _The inspector also noted safety related duct piece 122 lay-.ing in the dirt behind the Zack trailer. There was no status tagor' paper attached to the part. Investigation of records revealed I,

it was:a rejected part and should have been in the hold / reject en- i

closure for return to Chicago plant. The inspector found the safety !

- related hold / reject area' in disarray, the enclosure dismantled - on'the' ground,'and unauthorized scrap plates within its bounds. A re-view of the records control system found that location of nonconform-ing material has not been recorded. QCP 8' paragraph 6.3 requires

-4-

- ._ , __ _ _ _ _ _ . - . . _ _ _ - .

._

_ -___

*

e

.

' storage location on nonconformar.ce reports (NCR). The Zack rejec-tion tag system only records the final intended location of the part.

In review, control of nonconforming material has not been demon-strated adequately. This is an item of noncompliance with 10 CFR 50,Appendix.B, Criterion XV. (461/80-08-02)

6. Traceability of HVAC Welding Electrodes

The resident inspector performed a traceability check of weldingelectrode used for safety related HVAC installation. Atom Arc 1/8"7018 electrode, heat #421 and 9781, was chosen as it was in use andalso stored in the warming oven. The heat number was traceable tothe Certification number and to the Purchase Order number.

The Certification of Analysis produced by QC included the requiredyield, tensile, chemical, and Charpy information. The certificationwas notarized, reviewed by QA, and appeared complete with the excep-tion of listing the title and date of the person signing the docu-ment. This information is required by Zack QCP procedure 6 paragraph4.2.1c. The inspector was not able to completely trace the materialto the Purchase Order #C4086. The present practice is that theChicago office performs this comparison function and retains thePurchase Order. Zack ACP6 paragraph 4.2.1 states in part that thesite QC shall insure material received complies with the purchaseorder. The inspector stated that this matter is considered unre-solved pending a review of present practice and control.(461/80-08-03)

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

7. Lifting and Rigging Program Control

The resident inspector reviewed the inspection program forms andprocedures that insure lifting and rigging of safety related HVACitems are in conformance to requirements of ANSI N45.2.2, paragraphs7.3'and 7.4. Records and forms appeared to be in order with oneexception. The inspection. check sheet (QCP 14) noted only that theinspection of slings and straps was acceptable or not acceptable.No notation is made of any of the parameters required Ly ANSIN45.2.2 such as: wear, cleanliness, contaminants, and maximum in-dicated load. The Zack QC Supervisor noted that individual slingswere not identified, but that complete inspection was possible dueto the small number of Zack slings and straps on site. The afore-mentioned concerns were stated by the resident inspector and willbe explored in a future inspection.

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.i

~

!

!

-5-|

*e

.

m

Unresolved Matters

- Unresolved matters are items about which more infonmation 'is required inorder.to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncom-pliance, or deviations. Unresolved items disclosed during the inspectionare discussed in paragraph 6.

Exit Meetings

The resident inspector attended exit meetings conducted by the RIII QAAudit Team on April 18, 1980, and by Mr. E. Lee, RIII on April 24, 1980.-The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted under PersonsContacted) on April 25, and May 1, 1980. The inspector summarized thescope and findings of the inspections performed. The licensee representa-tives acknowledged the findings reported in previous paragraphs.

Attachments: PreliminaryInspection Findings

Il

|

1

|1

.

t

'

-6-

. .

_ _ _ - - _ _ _ -__

N-

0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

, .1 -

'.1*

, PRELIMINARY INSPECTION FINDINGS

.

1. LICENSEE 2. REGIONAL OFFICE

O l l.v Q P AJ Il.C. j'Im ,

O s &f 11

1

3. DOCKET NUMBERS 4. LICENSE NUMBERS 5. DATE OF INSPECTION

fo '/Gf c/rd-/3 7 4 /i t - W/ W~

6. Within the scope of the inspection, no items of noncompliance or deviationI- were found. |

7. The following matters are preliminary inspection findings:

(D O m 2 .l. O p / ~ WAG-(S~/d/O ) ~u na Ac 1* * ' - M

L Lo- A }% Qm

'

m ~p

S " :_ V b $ $ % 4.4 - M sve.~ra- ~& & ML MA

72. - eA- n- | c~MW .Ca ) rL

(g ) * W~ ~ L w m uMa s&cex)~ ,-A.

.

-

a y A 4 A 4- a .s-_

_

8. These preliminary inspection indings will be reviewed by NRC Supervision /- Management at the Region III Office and they will correspond with you

concerning any enforcement action.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspector/y/N &

_ _ _ ..

.

.,_ _ _ .

' 3. . LV~'

- . OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENTORCD:ENT

g.*

.

PRELIMINARY INSPECTION FINDINGS

1. LICENSEE 2. REGIONAL OFFICE,

/ff &'t

uwe m [

3. DOCKET NUMBERS 4. LICENSE NUMBERS 5. DATE OF INSPECTION

b$"f&/ Yk~/bf fhY~b"

/, 6. Within the scope of the inspection, no items of noncompliance or deviation

were found.

7. The following matters are preliminary inspection findings:

-

.

8. These preliminary inspection findings will be reviewed by NRC Supervision /_.

Management at the Region III Office and they will correspond ith you-

concerning any enforcement action.

/!- SDbdAl[N Ysuelear Regulatory Commission Inspector