IR 05000354/1980003
| ML19320C489 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 05/28/1980 |
| From: | Bateman W, Mcgaughy R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19320C487 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-354-80-03, 50-354-80-3, 50-355-80-03, 50-355-80-3, NUDOCS 8007170274 | |
| Download: ML19320C489 (8) | |
Text
<
.
.
b.S.NUCLEARREGULATORYCOMMISSION (]
0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I 50-354/80-03 Report No. 50-355/80-03 50-354 Docket No.
50-355 CPPR-120 License No.
CPPR-121 Priority Category A
--
Licensee:
Public Service Electric and Gas Company
80 Park Place Newark, New Jersev 07101 Facility Name:
Hooe creek Generating 9tatinn-finits 1 and 2 Inspection at:
Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey Inspection conducted: March 3-28, 1980 Inspectors: kN.
,h %.
6!/G //50 W. H. Bateman, Resident Reactor Inspector date' signed date signed date signed '
Approved by:
/ ///4 f27!Pt 9e R'. W. McGaughy,400fef, Projects Section
/ date signed Inspection Summary:
Unit i Inspection on March 3-28, 1980 (Report No. 50-354/80-03)
Areas Inspected:
Routine announced inspection by resident inspector of weld rod control, maintenance of equipment stored in construction areas, structural steel welding, structural steel bolting, reactor pressure vessel (RPV) nozzle modification, j
pipe welding, and status of electrical work. The resident inspector also performed site tours on a regular basis.
The inspection involved 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> on site by the resident inspector three of which were spent offshif t.
j Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.
Unit 2 Inspection on March 3-28,1980 (Report No. 50-355/80-03)
Areas Inspected:
Routine announced inspection by resident inspector of weld rod control, maintenance oFequipment stored in construction areas, containment erection, and
-
RPV nozzle modification.
The resident inspector also perfonned site tours on a regular basis.
The inspection involved 17 hours1.967593e-4 days <br />0.00472 hours <br />2.810847e-5 weeks <br />6.4685e-6 months <br /> onsite by the resident inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
800717OS N
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Public Service Electric and Gas Company A. Barnabei, Site QA Engineer
- P. Kudless, Principal Construction Engineer R. Robinson, Site QA Engineer
'
Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel)
B. Bain, Lead Field Welding Engineer C. Brownwell, Process Piping Area Supervisor A. J. Bryan, Assistant Project Construction QC Engineer W. Dobbins, Welding QC Inspector J. Duddy, Assistant Lead Electrical Engineer G. Ellison, Receiving Inspection
- C. Kasch, Assistant Project QC Engineer T. Malpass, Civil QC Engineer R. McCoy, Lead Mechanical QC Engineer K. Mills, QA Engineer D. Sakers, Lead Civil QC Engineer J. Uritis, Construction Engineer S. Vezendy, Lead Welding QC Engineer W. Woodworth, QC Engineer N. Wypych, Lead Piping QC Engineer General Electric Installation and Service Engineering Division (GE I&SE)
R. Burk, Site Supervisor J. Campbell, QC Supervisor C. Clark, Field Engineer F. Eaton, QA Manager F. Forsythe, Service Manager, Technical Support D. George, Field Welding Engineer Riggs - Distler D. Dunlevy, Site Superintendent The inspector also talked with other site personnel.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
.
.
2.
Site Tour Routine tours of the site were made to observe the status of work and construction activities in progress.
The inspector noted the presence of and interviewed QC and construction personnel.
Work items were examined for obvious defects or noncompliances with regulatory requirements or license conditions.
Areas observed included:
Unit 1 Form erection and removal, concrete curing activities, concrete placement activities, structural and pipe welding, hanger installation, and equipment installation.
Unit 2 Form erection and removal, concrete placement and curing activities, containment welding.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Safety Related Structures - Observation of Work and Work Activities
- Unit 1 The inspector observed completed work and work in progress on the unit cooler structural supports located on elevation 54' in the reactor building.
The particular areas examined included bolted and welded connections, methods of anchoring the supports, and conformance to approved drawings, site work procedures, construction specifications, and inspection procedures.
Documents reviewed included:
AISi Manual of Steel Construction, 6th Edition;
--
Bechtel Construction Perfonnance Standard CPS-C-30, Erection of
--
Structural Steel and Miscellaneous Metal, Rev. 1; Bechtel Specific Work Plan / Procedure SWP/P-C-111 Erection of
--
Structural Steel and Miscellaneous Metal, Rev. 3; Bechtel SWP/P-C-110, Fabrication and Assembly of Structural
--
Steel, Embeds, and Miscellaneous Steel Embedment'
+.. 2; Bechtel Specification C-126(Q), Erection of Strt. w
' teel for
--
Category I Structures, Rev. 6; Bechtel Specification C-130(0), Structural Field Welding Procedures,
--
Rev. 4; Bechtel Specification C-131(Q), Purchase of Miscellaneous Metal
--
for Category I Structures, Rev.12;
,
Bechtel Specification C-133(Q), Purchase of Miscellaneous Metal
--
for ASME Component Supports, Rev. 3; QCl-C-2.10, Structural Steel Erection, Rev. 6;
--
AWS Dl.1, ructural Welding Code, Rev. 2-77.
--
Drawing Change Notice (DCN) No. 4, Rev. 2;
--
Bechtel Drawing, C-0845-0 Sht.1, Rev. 2 and Sht. 7, Rev. 3;
--
QCIR C-0845-4-C-2.10;
--
Nonconformance Report (NCR) #664 issued 3/11/80, Column Support
--
for Unit Cooler 1AVH 210.
The inspector verified that the drawing revisions being used were current, the structures were dimensionally consistent with drawing requirements, bolting and welding activities were in accordance with site procedures, and QC was perfonning required inspections.
One aspect of the inspection revealed, however, that Bechtel Field Engineering was not fabricating and installing in accordance with approved site drawings.
Site requirements dictate that all u rk be perfonned in accordance with approved drawings.
The particular example in this case involved a column support for unit cooler lAVH210.
Each of the 4 column support base plates were required by site drawings to be connected to the floor by the use of 4 expansion type anchor bolts.
This was not possible in one case, however, because of an interference with an embedded steel plate.
DCN-4 was issued by Bechtel Project Engineering to instruct Field Engineering how to make the attachment to the floor. The insp(.or compared the actual attachment method to that specified in DCN-4 and discovered several discrepancies including use of an unqualified weld procedure.
Further investigation showed that the QC inspector responsible for perfonning the final acceptance inspection of this cooler support had identified the lack of agreement between DCN-4 and the as-built condition on his inspection punchlist.
He did not issue a NCR because Field Engineering claimed the work was still in progress.
Upon identification of this problem by the NRC inerector, Field Engineering issued NCR
- 664.
NRC #664 is unresolved pending a dispostion that resolves all of the discrepancies between the as-built condition and DCN-4.
(354/80-03-01)
.
.
4.
Nozzle Modification to Reactor Pressure Vessels - Units 1 and 2
_
The inspector observed the work in progress and completed work of the RPV nozzle modification.
This work is being coordinated by GE I&SE with Riggs - Distler Supplying the required trades.
The inspector also reviewed the following documents:
GE I&SE Nuclear Quality Ansurance Program of Northeast Mechanical
--
and. Nuclear Service Region for Hope Creek Generating Station, Rev. 0;
.
GE I&SE Traveler No. HCSE-79-1AT, Joint N2-D-120, Recirculation
--
Nozzle Layout, Cutoff and Weld Prep, and Install New Safe End; GE I&SE Procedure No. HCSE-79-1-1A, Hope Creek Reactor Pressure
--
Vessel Nozzel Safe End Modification, Rev. 2, Recirculation Inlet Nozzle Safe End Replacement Procedure; GE I&SE Procedure No. 18XA9407, Liquid Penetrant Examination
--
" Color Contrast - Solvent Removable", Rev. 0; GE I&SE Procedure No. 160A71207, Etching Procedure, Rev. 1.
--
The work in progress involved removing the original 19 safe ends from the Unit 1 RPV. The inspector observed a nozzle with the safe end removed and also observed the cutting machine in operation during safe end removal.
The work was being performed in accordance with site procedures.
Precautions were being taken to preserve the cleanliness of the inside of the RPV during the cutting operation by controlling RPV access and by the use of protective barriers on botn the inside and outside of the nozzle penetration.
More than ample nozzle material ramained after the safe end removal operation to ensure that the nozzle weld end prep machining operation could be performed.
The procedure review indicated that the site QC program was just getting underway: Only one NCR had been issued, just two welders were qualified and no welds had been made, there was only one QC man onsite for GE I&SE, and no fonnal as-built program had been established.
The inspector reviewed the weld procedure qualification tests, welder qualification tests, NDE personnel qualification records, the calibration program, receiving inspection records, and site personnel training records. All of the above were satisfactory.
Also reviewed were the actual nozzle modification procedures and the associated travelers.
The inspector had several comments _on the procedures which were satisfactorily resolved.
Each traveler contained signoff blocks corresponding to the steps in the associated procedure.
Signoff blocks were available for construction, QC, Authorized Inspector (AI), and Bechtel QC. Several
.
travelers were reviewed for nozzles that had already had their safe end removed to ensure signoffs were being performed.
The inspector found this portion of the review to be satisfactor.
In reviewing the Nuclear Quality Assurance Program (NQAP), the inspector felt that Criterion XVI of Appendix B of 10 CFR 50 was not adequately addressed.
Specifically, there was no requirement for prompt identification and correction of conditions adverse to quality.
The lat.k of a specific requirement for promptness is unresolved pending incorporation of a requirement into the NQAP.
(354/80-03-02; 355/80-03-01)
5.
Safety Related Pipe Welding - Observation of Work and Work Activities
- Un1t 1 The inspector observed work in progress and completed work of safety
,
related pipe wdd:.
The particular attributes checked were proper fitup, use of qualified welders for tacking and welding, any obvious weld defects such as undercut, overgrind, excessive reinforcement, and arc strikes; existence of an approved QCIR adjacent to the joint being welded; sequential signoff of QCIR as work completed; and presence of QC personnel in the work areas.
It was also verified that the requirements stated on the QCIR's such as type of ff ?ler material, weld procedure, and NDE were being adhered to.
The inspector questioned a QC signoff for technique on QCIR l-P-BJ-01-7-P-1.10 Weld No. FW-14 on line 001-HBB-16".
This s,1noff was questioned because the joint had only been tack welded.
It was the inspector's interpretation of QCI W-1.00 that the welding operation (afte completion of tacking) must be in progress when technique is verified by the QC inspector.
A discussion involving licensee QA personnel, Bechtel QC personnel, and the inspector ensued to resolve the concern.
After this discussion the inspector felt that QC personnel were not clear on the requirements for this signoff as the QCI was somewhat ambiguous.
As a resultQCI W-1.00 was revised to clarify the intent of the technique signoff and all affected QC personnel were briefed on the signoff requi rements. The inspector had no further questions on this issue.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Safety Related Piping - Observation of Work and Work Activities -
Unit 1 The inspector observed piping activities including handling, protection, and installation of pipe spools and fittings of HPCI and RHR piping.
In general, these activities were conducted in accordance with applicable procedures.
ihe inspector did identify several questions on protection of the HPCI piping in the HPCl pump area at elevation 54'.
The items were minor in nature and were corrected shortly after identification by the inspecto.
.
7.
Containment Structural Steel Welding - Observation of Work and Work Activities - Units 1 and 2
'
The inspector observed field welding activities of PDM and Schneider, Inc. Specifically, Schneider, Inc's welding material issue station was inspected for conformance to their procedure requirements for identification, segregation, cleanliness, and container integrity of weld filler material; temperature control and associated records of storage ovens; issue records of welding material; and handling of returned materials.
i PDM's welding activities on Unit 2 containment were observed to ensure that welder identification appeared adjacent to welds, joint preparation and alignment were in accordance with procedures and drawings, specified weld material and preheat were used, final weld size and surface were
,
in conformance to code requirements, use of filler material was controlled, and inspection personnel were available in the work area.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
8.
Attachment Welds to Safe'ty Related Structures - Units 1 and 2 The inspector observed attachment of pipe hangers, cable tray supports, and other temporary attachments to safety related structural steel.
There are no specific constraints regarding attachment welds in the AWS D1.1 Structural Welding Code nor in the AISC Manual of Steel Construction. As regards constraints specified in site specific documents, however, Bechtel Specification P-408(Q) in paragraph 4.7.1 limits the size of pipe hanger attachment welds as a function of location on the steel and size of attachment versus size of structural steel flange, but Bechtel Dwg. E-1406 Sheet 20a does not impose similar constraints for electrical raceway supports.
The inspector questioned Bechtel personnel as to why there were constraints for pipe hanger attachments to structural steel and none for raceway support attachments.
Bechtel's response was that based on the maximum thickness of raceway support materials and minimum thickness of beam and column flanges, that in no case will the thickness of the attachment piece versus the thickness of the flange result in exceeding the constraint specified for pipe hangers.
Observations to date by the inspector have verified this to be true for raceway attachments.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
9.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required l
to ascertain whether they ce acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviations.
Unresolvr7 items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in paragraphs a and 4.
,
_
_
.-
-.
.
.
.
10.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee and contractor personnel (denoted by an asterisk in paragraph 1) on each Friday of this inspection report
-
period.
At these times the inspector sumarized the scope and findings
,
of that week's inspection activities.
.
.
., -
t
. -..
.
,
,-
.-
, -, -, - -