IR 05000354/1979009
| ML19309D253 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 01/11/1980 |
| From: | Bateman W, Mcgaughy R, Varela A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309D243 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-354-79-09, 50-354-79-9, 50-355-79-08, 50-355-79-8, NUDOCS 8004100168 | |
| Download: ML19309D253 (10) | |
Text
.. _
_
_______
(~)
U U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT 9 "
50-354/79-09 Report No. 50-355/79-08 50-354 Docket No. 50-355 CPPR-120 License No.CPPR-121 Priority Category A
--
Licensee: Public Service Electric & Gas Company 80 Park Place Newark, New Jersey 07101 Facility Name:
Hope Creek Generating Station, Units 1 & 2 Inspection at:
Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey Inspection conducted: Novemb r 26-30, 1979
/!7!$O Inspectors:
)
L
.
,-
a e signed W. H. Bateman, Reactor Inspector n /^ m -
i/4/w
-
Lp. A.]arela, Reactor Inspector
'V " "' c \\ b I date signed date signed Approved by: [/4M
/
/ //
M R. W. McGaughy, kh, Projects Section a e signed I
'
Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on November 26-30,1979 (Combined Reports Nos. 50-354/79-09;
$0-355/79-08)
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection by regional based inspectors of work in progress for concrete placement of the diesel generator walls, concrete placement records, Schneider, Inc. 's QA program and implementation of same, and storage and storage records of reactor vessels and internals.
The inspection involved 61 hours7.060185e-4 days <br />0.0169 hours <br />1.008598e-4 weeks <br />2.32105e-5 months <br /> on site by two NRC regional based inspectors.
Resul ts: Of the four areas inspected one item of noncompliance was identified in one area (infraction - failure of field engineering to issue a supplementary concrete pour card after signing off the concrete placement checklist on a pour that had deficient areas' remaining to be repaired).
(Paragraph 3)
!
!
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
80041 00
!
.
..
.
. _.
-
-
- ,.
,
,
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
-
Public Service Electric and Gas Company
- A. Barnabei, Site QA Engineer
- A. E. Giardino, Project QA Engineer
- M. Lavecchia, QA Coordinator
- P. T. Liu, Si te QA Engineer
- A. C. Smith, Project Construction Manager a
Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel)
<
- R. L. Hanks, Project QC Engineer
>
- W. Hindle, Project Field Engineer M. Hopfenspirger, QC Engineer
- C. Kasch, Assistant QC Supervisor
'
D. Long, Project Superintendent
.
T. Malpass, QC Engineer R. McCoy, Lead Maintenance Engineer K. Mills, QC Engineer
-
G. Rafferty, Area Engineer
- L. Rosetta, Field Construction Manager D. Sakers, Lead Civil QC Engineer P. Walker, Civil QC Engineer
M. White, Supervisor Contract Surveillance H. Woodworth, QC Engineer Liberty - Westcon R. Ayers, V. P. Technical Services R. Johnson, QA Manager E. Jones, QC Engineer
R. Roof, Project Manager
,
J
-,
-
,,e.
- --
.
_
__
'
~
.
.
.
Peabody Testing Services H. Dody, Concrete Technician R. T. Erdman, Project Manager G. Hales, Concrete Technician, Batch Plant Surveillance Schneider, Inc. (Schneider)
W. Goebel, QA Manager Pittsburgh - Des Moines Steel Company (PDM)
M. Steiger, QA Manager
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Plant Tour (Units 1 and 2)
A tour of the site was made to observe the status of work and construction activities in progress.
The inspectors noted the presence of and interviewed QC personnel and construction personnel.
Work items were examined for obvious defects or noncompliances with regulatory requirements or license conditions. Areas observed included:
Concrete placement preparations for radwaste center-floor slab and diesel generator walls; storage of cement, flyash and aggregates; batch plant maintenance and preparedness; preliminary excavation for Service Water Intake Structure; maintenance activities on installed equipment; and sandblasting and painting activities on Unit 1 containment.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Review of Quality Records - Concrete Placements of Reactor Drywell Shield Walls The inspector reviewed pertinent work and quality records associated with concrete placements of the reactor drywell shield wall for
,
Units 1 and 2.
He observed the records for pour numbers 1-CX-W001
~
and 2-CX-W001 placed June 9,1978 and May 31, 1979, respectively.
The records were not complete in the final documentation files due to incomplete concrete repairs.
Post placement inspection reports, identified as IR's #C-1.40,1-CX-W001, and 2-CX-W001 were retained by QC as open inspection reports as required by QC procedures when repairs are delayed.
In the case of Unit 2 concrete repairs, the inspector noted on IR C-1.40, item 2.3, that concrete imperfections had been inspected on October 5,1979 after chipping was completed.
,
._
_
-.
.
.
f
<
Special Work Plan / Procedure C-1, revision 8 states in section 16.0, Concrete Repairs:
"As soon as practical after concrete is placed and/or forms are removed, the concrete shall be inspected by the
,
Responsible Field Engineer for defects requiring repair." Section
'
16.3, Disposition of Repair, states:
" Repairs extending beyond the depth of the first curtain of reinforcing, but not exposing material other than the first layer of rebar and concrete, may proceed as directed by the Lead Area Civil Engineer, or designee, according to appropriate sections of Specification C-103. A field Engineer's Report shall be written by the Responsible Field Engineer describing the repair, including sketches made to supplement the repair... A copy of the report shall be sent to the Project Engineer for information.
Signing of the concrete placement checklist will indicate that all repairs have been completed.
"When repairs are expected to be delayed beyond 8 to 12 week period,
the original pour card (concrete placement checklist) may be closed out and filed by referencing a new pour card established to document
the repair work.
Each of the cards shall reference the other to assure traceability.' The Lead Civil Engineer shall develop and implement a filing system which maintains the current status of all concrete repairs."
The inspector observed that a void existed in the shield walls of Units 1 and 2, extending beyond the first curtain of rebar.
Therefore, he requested the Responsible Field Engineer's reports describing the repairs to each shield wall.
The response was that no reports had yet been submitted.
The inspector also requested to see the original or new pour cards (checklists) for these repairs.
These significant items were observed:
a.
Unit 2 shield wall - field engineer report (on area that QC IR 1.40 reported inspected after completion of chipping October 5, 1979) was dated November 27, 1979, following the inspector's request for it.
b.
Unit 1 shield wall - no field engineer report was available.
c.
Unit 1 shield wall original pour card was closed out on May 5, 1979 by field engineering certifying performance of concrete repairs, however, no repairs had been made nor had a new pour card been issued.
,
4
.
.
d.
The Lead Civil Engineer's Filing system on the current status of outstanding concrete repairs did not agree with QC's open inspection reports (irs #C-1.40).
Failure of Field Engineering to implement an effective filing system which maintains the current status of all concrete repairs (required by SWP/P-C-1), and failure of Field Engineering to issue a supplementary pour card on delayed repairs where concrete voids extend beyond the depth of the first layer of reinforcing is an item of noncompliance relative to Criterion V of Appendix B of 10 CFR 50.
(354/79-09-01; 355/79-08-01).
4.
Review of Bechtel and Licensee Audits Addressing Concrete Repairs
.
.
Bechtel audit 18-3-3, QAF #1 of May 5,1978 and licensee audit of November 16, 1978 relate to Special Work Plan / Procedure C-1.
The
former related to lack of coordination between QC and Field engineering
'
which resulted in premature closing of concrete placement pour cards by Field Engineering when concrete repairs were delayed.
The latter requested a revision to SWP/P-C-1 section 16.3 to require written field engineer reports (where repairs or voids exist beyond first layer of rebar) prior to effecting repair.
The corrective action taken on the Bechtel audit finding, identified as revision 8 to SWP/P-C-1, appears to the inspector to have been ineffective as identified in Paragraph 3.
The licensee's request to revise SWP/P-C-1 to require a prompt field engineer report prior to repair was not incorporated. As a result of the conditions identified in Paragraph 3 which led to the item of noncompliance, the inspector stated in telecon with licensee December 14, 1979, that a revision to SWP/P-C-1 to incorporate their aforementioned audit finding appears necessary.
This item is unresolved pending licensee action to require prompt investigation of areas requiring concrete repairs, written field engineering reports of each repair prior to filling voids that go beyond the first layer of rebar, and accurate coordination between QC and Field Engineering to maintain the list of repairs that are
-
delayed over two months.
(354/79-09-02; 355/79-08-02)
i
.
.
5.
_ Storage and Maintenance Program The storage and maintenance program is a computerized type program that issues maintenance action cards (MAC) at a pre-determined time interval.
Issuance of a MAC is the directive required to perform one or more preventive maintenance activities on the piece of equipment against which the MAC is ' issued.
The MAC specifies the particular maintenance activities required as well as a schedule date and due date for completion of the activities.
During the review of storage and maintenance records, the inspector noted that several monthly maintenance activities had not been performed over a one year period of time on two pieces of equipment.
The reasons for this were determined to involve time constraints built into the computer program and the tendency to perform the scheduled maintenance on the due date rather than the scheduled date (the due date is two weeks later than the scheduled date).
The time constraints built into the computer program are such that, if the completed maintenance record is not in the computer by the due date,then the equipment in question is printed out in a maintenance action required punchlist.
When an item appears on this punchlist, no more routine MAC's are issued until the problem is resolved.
Problem identification and resolution take. enough time so that, for equipment items requiring maintenance at one month intervals, the ensuing month's MAC is not issued and the maintenance activities do not get performed.
The problem discussed above constitutes an unresolved item pending licensee action to revise tne storage and maintenance program so that routine maintenance activities are not inadvertently missed.
(354/79-09-03; 355/79-08-03)
6.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item (354/79-05-01; 355/79-05-01): Weld direction constraints of attachment welds to structural steel.
Paragraph A.7.1 of Bechtel Specification P-408 (Q) was reworded to limit the weld direction' constraints of structural steel beams and columns to'
<
the flange area onl __
_
_
. _ _.
.
.
7.
Observation of Unit 1 and 2 Concrete Placement for Diesel Generator Building Walls The inspector observed preparations and work in progress for a structural concrete pour for the diesel generator walls.
A composite placement of pours, numbers 9F-DW-008,10,12, 20 and 024 involved a total of 745 cubic yards of 4,000 psi (90 day) concrete from floor elevation of 77' to 101'. The pour started on the afternoon of December 29, 1979.
By direct observation and independent evaluation of work performances, work in progress, and completed work, the inspector detennined that the required work and inspection activities were accomplished in accordance with applicable specifications, codes, standards, NRC requirements and SAR commitments.
This detennination was based on examination of the following criteria:
Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station PSAR Section 5 and its
--
referenced codes and standards Specification C-103, Revision 3, February 1978, Forming,
--
Placing, Finishing, and Curing Concrete Specification C-102, Revision 3, February 1978, Identification
--
of Concrete Mix Designs Specification C-191, Revision 4, February 1978, Material
--
Testing Services Bechtel Quality Control Instructions and Inspection Reports,
--
Constructon Quality Control Manual Specific Work Plan Procedure SWP/P-C-1. Concrete Operations
--
The inspector observed field engineers and quality control personnel inspecting concrete and verified these activities:
Concrete Planning:
Orientation and preplanning meeting,
--
posting of incomplete items and/or items to be corrected, preparation for rain, back-up equipment, and craft personnel
..
.
Preplacement Preparation:
Check-out card signed off by craft
--
supervisors and release of pour by area engineer and QC; construction joints adequately prepared Delivery and Placement:
Proper mix specified, batched and
--
transported by truck to two pumpline stations and one bucket station; testing at batch plant and correlation tests at pump discharge for acceptance criteria by qualified personnel using calibrated equipment; adequate crew and equipment.
--
Batch Plant Operation: Accuracy of material and temperature control; generation and control of batch records / truck tickets; QC inspection for frequency and scope, using qualified inspection and QC personnel Aggregate, Cement and Fly Ash Storage:
Cement and fly ash
--
were certified, user tested and approved for use; cement was observed arriving by tank barge checked for temperature and pumped to silo storage adequately protected from moisture, fly ash by truck adequately protected; aggregate from barge to storage bins to conveyors without segregation; aggregate inspection qualified its use and verified conformance to ASTM C-33 as to gradation of sample taken from conveyor belt, and tested for moisture Construction Joint Preparation, Finish, Curing and Protection
--
from Rain: Adequately prepared and QC inspected / documented.
,
No items of noncompliance were identified.
,
8.
Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) and Reactor Internals Units 1 and 2 a.
Inspection of Storage Area The inspector made a visual inspection of the storage areas for the RPV's, RPV Closure Heads, and Reactor Internals to verify that the equipment was stored in accordance with applicable a
requirement *
.
.
The inspector found that the reactor vessels were enclosed in a wood and polyetheylene structure to afford protection for sandblasting and painting activities which were in progress.
Each vessel was resting horizontally on dunnage supported by a concrete slab. All vessel openings were covered and sealed.
The RPV closure heads were stored outside on dunnage supported by concrete pads.
The outer surfaces were protected by a coating of paint which showed evidence of periodic maintenance.
The reactor internals were stored in individual locked metal silos which were standing on concrete pads.
The periphery of each silo, where it rested on the concrete, was caulked to minimize the entry of water. -The components were stored on wooden cribbing and protected by wood, polyethylene, or canvas.
The storage areas showed evidence of goed housekeeping practice and the protective covers were found to be in good condition.
b.
Record Review
The inspector reviewed maintenance records for 1979 to verify that maintenance activities were being performed according to established requirements.
Maintenance records for the following items were examined:
Steam Dryer Assembly - Unit 1
--
Shroud Head and Separator - Unit 1
--
Shroud Unit 1
--
Core Support - Unit 1
--
Top Guide - Unit 1
--
Jet Pump Inlet Mixers - Units 1 and 2
--
RPV - Units 1 and 2
--
No items of noncompliance were identified.
,
i
-
e
-
.
9.
QA Manual Review (Schneider, Inc.)
,
The inspector examined Schneider, Inc.'s " Nuclear Site Quality
.
Assurance Manual", Rev. 7.
Schneider is a subcontractor to Pittsburgh -
Des Moines Steel Corp. (PDM) and is responsible for installing.
containment piping (upper and lower spray headers, suppression chamber spray header, and safety relief valve piping) and some penetrations in the drywell and suppression chamber for both Units 1 and 2.
The QA Manual is generic in nature and has been approved for use at othar nuclear sites.
It is modified by four addenda that reflect the specific responsibilities and requirements of the Hope Creek project.
The QA Manual consists of 18 individual chapters that address in detail the QA requirements stated in 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, and Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. The QA Manual was approved by PDM and Bechtel.
The inspector reviewed the QA manual, the four addenda, and other referenced documents to determine that adequate QA plans and procedures, including inspection procedures, were established and that the 18 Criteria of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 were adequately addressed and incorporated into these plans and procedures.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
10.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about wnich more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items or. items of noncompl iance.
Unresolved items identified during the inspection are discussed in paragraphs 4 and 5.
11.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee and contractor personnel (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on November 30, 1979. At this time the inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the irdcaction.
.