IR 05000354/1980004
| ML19332A984 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 06/17/1980 |
| From: | Bateman W, Mcgaughy R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19332A978 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-354-80-04, 50-354-80-4, 50-355-80-04, 50-355-80-4, NUDOCS 8009190223 | |
| Download: ML19332A984 (13) | |
Text
m.
j;
--
-
-
.-
.
.
.
.u
- g U.S... NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I
..
50-354/80-04:
'
Report No.- 50-355/80-04-50-354 Docket No. 50-355-CPPR-lZO Category A
License No.CPPR-121 -
Priority
--
Licensee:
Public' Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Place
,
Newark, New Jersey.07101 Facility Name:
Hope Creek Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection at:
Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey Inspection conducted: Ma ch 31-April 30, 1980
[o //L /GO Inspectors:
w
-
.
i w. H. Bateman, Resident inspector date signed date signed date signed
' Approved by:
[/bk I//) [4 R. i. McGa'u'ghy,4f/f, Projects' Section
' date signed Inspection Summary:
Unit 1 Inspection on March 31-April 30,1980 (Report No. 50-354/80-04):
,
Areas-Inspected:
Routine announced inspection by resident inspector of work
'
In progress including nozzle modifications to the reactor pressure vessel (RPV), _
pipe welding, unit cooler support installation, hanger and restraint installation,
- structural steel-bolting PDM vent line bellows repair, maintenance of equipment I
- stored in plact, bend testing Nelson: studs, paint adhesion testing, concrete
'I placement and curing,:and cadwelding.. The inspector also reviewed piping speci-
~
fications,~ procedure qualification records, RPV' records, and procedural require-
- ments for supporting pipe during construction.. Site tours were performed on a
~
. regular basis and a painting allegation.was investigated.
The inspection involved
-
- 78 hours'on site by the resident inspector, 2 of which were spent offshift.
- Results: 10f the fifteen areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identified in fourteen areas and one-. item of.. noncompliance was identified in one area.
8009190 2.2y Region I 4orm 12;
_ _(Rev.iAprilL77)
"
'
,
..:
-
.
.
.
.
J Inspection Summary [
'
(Infraction -Lfailure to follow procedures designed to prevent segregation of concrete' during placement and failure of QC to take corrective action to stop concrete placement activities 'not.in accordance with procedures as discussed in
'
paragraph.,3.)
Unit'2 ' Inspection on March 31-April 30,1980 (Report No. 50-355/80-04):-
Areas Inspected: Routine announced inspection' by r'sident inspector of work in e
progress including concrete preplacement activitier, drywell and torus welding, RPV nozzle modification, maintenance of equipment stored-in place, structural steel welding, bend testing Nelson studs, and cadwelding. - The inspector also performed site tours on a regular basis. The inspection involved 39 hours4.513889e-4 days <br />0.0108 hours <br />6.448413e-5 weeks <br />1.48395e-5 months <br /> on site-by the: resident inspector,1 of which was spano offshift.
Results: No. items of noncompliance were identifiei.
4.
I'
a v
a q
(
,
w.
m-
,-pr.
py.
w--
-, - -7 7.-
.
.
.
.
d'
pETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Public~ Service Electric and Gas Company
'
A. Barnabei, Site QA Engineer-
~
J. Boettger, Project Manager
- A. E. Giardino, Project QA Engineer
.P. T. Liu, Site.QA Engineer
- P. Kudless, Principal Construction Engineer
- D. Skibinski, Site QA E.gineer
- A. C. Smith, Project Construction Manager Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel)
- B. Bain, Lead Field Welding Engineer S. Bhattacharya, Civil Field Engineer
- A..J. Bryan, QC Engineer
- T. Cameron, Contract Administration
- W. Hindle, Project Field Engineer
- R. Hanks, Project QC Engineer
- P. Hudson, QA Engineer D. Karthauser, Civil Field Supervisor
- C. Kasch, Assistant' Project QC Engineer
- D. Long, Project Superintendent R. Mackey, Project Mechanical Engineer
- M. Macondray, Assistant Project Field Engineer T. Malpass, Civil 0C Engineer
- R.:McKinnon, Assistant Project Field Engineer D. Reel, QC Engineer D. Sakers,-Lead Civil QC Engineer D. Schell, Welding QC Engineer
.
P.~Schuetz, Lead Civil Field Engineer J. Starzinski, Civil QC Engineer
- D. Stover, Project Superintendent of Services S. Vezendy, Lead Welding QC Engineer L. Vincent, M and QS Engineer W. Woodworth, QA Engin~eer
.
'
m
,
.me
,
w
-
.
...
..
.
'
.-
-
.c
.
.
.
2-
-
Pittsburgh-Des-Moines Steel Company (PDM)
.
J. Benedetti. QC Engineer F. Hatmaker, QC Engineer K. Hazelbaker, Project Manager
M. Stiger,'QA Manager
'Schneider,'Inc.
.
W. Goebel, Site QA Manager Metalweld,- Inc.
f J. Smith, QC Supervisor
W. Wells, Corporate QA' Manager
.
General Electric Installation and Services Engineering D. Burke, Project Manager
.
J. Campbell, Site QC Supervisor C. Clark, Field Engineer-F. Eaton, QA Manager D. George "' ",g Engineer.
O, V. Kennt
. qd Supervisor
,
Genera 1' Electric Nuclear Engineering Division C. Brinson, Site QC Supervisor
.
Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Co.
e
,
W. Comegys, Inspector The inspector also' talked with other site personnel.
.
- Denotes those present at at least one of the weekly exit interviews.
+
_l
.
s
j
.
,
!
-
u
,
.
e
'
'
'
-
t
.
.
.
.
.
2.
Site Tour Daily. tours of the site were made to observe the status of work and construction activities in progress.
The inspector noted the p'resence 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: Work on RPV pedestal, vent ifne bellows repair, form ork l
. installation and removal, cadwelding, concrete batch plant and test lab operations, structural steel bolting; storage of rebar structural steel, conduit, bolting materials, and installed equipment; cable tray installation; and hanger support steel welding.
Unit 2:
Formwork installation and removal, rebar fabrication, drywell l
and torus fabrication, concrete activities, cadwelding, and storage of rebar, bolting materials, structural steel, and installed equipment.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Structural Concrete - Observation of Work and Work Activities - Unit 1:
The inspector observed placement activities of pour 18 F/G-W-903.
This placement completed the reactor building cylindrical wall from l
elevation 102' to_ elevation 132'. The concrete was placed using l
pumped concrete into the top of the formwork and crane and bucket i
delivery through side winbs in the formwork.
The side window placement l
was to facilitate placement. of concrete in spaces containing closely i
spaced rebar. The inspector observed the presence of QC personnel and vibration activities. The inspector noted during his observation of
'
the pour that flexible rubber chutes, comonly called elephant trunks,
!
were being used to direct the flow of concrete from the hopper, through
!
.
dense rebar, to the point of placement.
The purpose of the elephant l
trunk as used above is to prevent segregation of concrete during i
placement operations.
This is stated quite clearly in paragraph 9.5 l
of Bechtel Specification C-103 (Q), Rev. 6, " Technical Specification j
for Forming, Placing, finishing, and Curing of Concrete":
,
<
C
,
_.
_
__
_ _
_ _ _ _
.
1.-
j
.
,
.. -
.
I
l 9.5 Segregation-
!
'
9.5.1 Concrete shall not be dropped through dense reinforcing steel which might cause segregation of the course -
-
aggregate.
In such. cases spouts, flexible drop chutes, r
or other suitable means as determined by the Proja:t Field Engineer shall be used._ In any event, concrete shall not be dropped free through a height of more'than
.6' unless otherwise approved by the responsible field engineer.
Had this pour continued'using the setup originally observed by the inspector, the placement would have been considered satisfactory.
Such was not the case, however.as a piece of elephant trunk was prematurely removed from a hopper because concrete was backing up in the elephant trunk due to the close rebar spacing around the elephant trunk. -Once the concrete backed up in that particular hopper, no more
.
concrete could be placed in that section of the formwork. To alleviate this problem the Bechtel superintendent directed workmen to remove the elephant trunk from the hopper..Once this was accomplished, the concrete no longer backed up.but it then proceeded to drop'through the dense rebar without direction, thus increasing the probability of segregation. Additionally, the free drop of this concrete was approximately 7' at the time the elephant trunk was removed, thus again increasing the probability of segregation. The situation that existed.at this point was in violation of the requirements of Bechtel Specification C-
.103 (Q) as stated above. The NRC inspector )ointed this situation out to the Bechtel QC inspector and asked him w1at he was doing about it.
He in turn questioned the. superintendent who told him that removal of the elephant trunk was the only thing he could do to keep the concrete flowing.. The Bechtel inspector informed the NRC inspector of this answer and took -no. action to have the unsatisfactory conditions corrected.
Tile NRC inspector later questioned the civil field engineer responsible for the pour to see.if he had been consulted and had given approval.to increase the free drop distance to greater than 6' as required per SpecificationC-103(Q).
He stated he was unaware of any of the activity leading to premature removal of the elephant trunk and had not given authorization to increase the free drop distance.
The failure of the Bechtel field superintendent to follow procedures designed to prevent segregation and the failure of-the Bechtel QC inspector' to take' action.to correct conditions adverse to quality is an item of noncompliance relative to Criterion.X of Appendix B of 10 CFR50.~(354/80-04-01)
.
.
..
L_,_'
, j3
[
"
,
.
.
.
4.
Containment - Observation of Work and Work Activities - Unit 1:
PDM is in the process of replacing sections of seven of the eight vent line bellows. The inspector reviewed the following PDM documents as part of the overall inspection effort for this activity:
Repair Procedure RP-20, " Replacement of Damaged Bellows Assemblies,"
--
Rev. A.
.
ECAR #F-122. Engineering Corrective Action Request identifying bellows
--
damage.
BCP-1, " Bellows Compression Procedure," Rev. O.
--
Weld Procedure Specification, WPS 76-84, " Shielded Metal-Arc Process
--
McKay E309L-16 ASME Section III, Div. 1," Rev. O. P #8 Gp 1 to P #1 Gp 2.
WPS 76-23. " Shielded Metal-Arc Process McKay E309L-16 ASME Section
--
III, Div. 1," Rev. O, P #8 Gp i to P #8 Gp 1 Welding Specification, WS-3, latest revision dated 4/24/79.
--
During review of RP-20, the inspector questioned the NDE requirements of the weld to be used to join the replacement-bellows section to.the original undamaged bellows section.
The NDE requirement specified was a dye penetrant examination of the surface of the final weld.
The inspector asked why a volumetric NDE examination of the weld was not required.
The engineering response was that the joint was classified as a corner joint in accordance with Figure NE-4243-1 (e) of Subsection NE of the ASME Section III, Div.1 Code and that it was a Category C joint thus not requiring volumetric examination. The inspector determined that the dimensions of the joint were not in accordance with the requirements of section NE 3300 for corner joints. The inspector then questieied the validity of the corner joint design. The engineering response was that NE-3200 of Subsection NE was used for the design of the bellows and the requirements of NE-3300 do not apply at all in this cas r_
-
.
.
-
.
.
'
This mattar'is unresolved pending review of the licensee's justification for. design and classification of the joint in question, and the NDE require-ments for the joint.
(354/80-04-02)
5.
Control' Rod Drive (CRD) Stub Tube Grindouts - Unit 1 Reactor Pressure Vessel The inspector observed ground out areas in several CRD stub tubes of the Unit 1 RPV. These ground out areas appeared.to be at the ' joint between the i
stub tube and the vessel shell and were on the inside diameter. The inspector requested to see the engineering documentation that evaluated and approved these grindouts. The following documentation was reviewed:
.
l Record No. PT-SI-831-1-7, 7 pages of Liquid Penetrant Examination
--
records, Kure Works, Babcock-Hitachi, CR0 Stub Weld Joint found in i
Volume 18 of 36 of Bechtel NSSS-QAD-8416 or otherwise known as GE-APED j
205 AC/124 New Bold-1 RPV Welding and Examination Record.
l This documentation presented the results of a detailed nondestructive examination of the grindouts using liquid penetrant test methods.
It
'
appears from this evaluation that liquid penetrant examination revealed indications in the weld metal joining the stub tube to the vessel shell and also at the boundary between the stainless steel cladding and the vessel base metal. The largest indication recorded measured 20 m long x 11.5 m
,
wide x 3.5 m deep.
Deviation Dispostion Request (DDR) 4868 was referenced
!
on the liquid penetrant examination records, heiiver, this record was not available for review.
The CRD stub tube grindouts are unresolved pending review of documentation that indicates engineering review and appro wl of the grindouts as they presently exist.
(354/80-04-03)
l L
.-
L
i
.
.
,
.
.
e 6.
Testing Requirements for Automatically Welded Studs - Units 1 and 2:
The inspector raised the question as to why the automatically welded studs (Nelson studs) on embedded channels were not bend tested at the production facility to meet the requirements of paragraph 4.29.1, Shear Connectors, of AWS D1.1. The licensee's response was that the studs were not considered to be shear connectors but were concrete anchors and, therefcre, the testing requirements sf paragraph 4.29.2, For Applications Other Than Shear Connectors, apply. The testing requirement specified in the Bechtel purchase specification C-131 (0)., Rev.12. " Purchase of Miscellaneous Metal for. Category 1 Structures" in paragraph 13 appears to substantiate this response because it-specifically excludes shear connectors when it states, " Testing welded studs other than shear connectors shall be in accordance with AWS DI.1 paragraphs 4.29 and 4.30." The inspector stated that there was a shear component in the total loading consideration of many of these embeds.
The response was that this shear loading was taken into account in the design and that the studs were analyzed in pure tension.
The AWS D1.1 code, in paragraph 4.26.1 and Figure 4.26.1 appears to use size as the basis for designating studs as shear connectors or as concrete anchors. The size of the studs being production welded to the channel used at Hope Creek would classify them as shear connectors, if size is the criterion to be u::ed for this definition. The test requirements of the AWS 01.1 code for shear connectors are not being followed.
.
The inspector noted cases of "piggybacking" of studs, i.e., welding one stud onto the head of a stud already welded to the base material.
He
'
questioned whether the bend testing requirements of the AWS D1.1 code apply to the piggybacked stud.
Bend testing the piggybacked stud has not been performed in the past.
The above two issues are unresolved pending documen,ation of the licensee's position and review by NRC-(354/80-04-04; 355/80 04-01)
7.
Safety Related Piping - Review of Procedures - Units 1 and 2 The following documents were reviewed by the inspector.to ensure that ASME Section III Code requirements are incorporated into the piping program:
e I
, -.
.
. -
-
... --
.-
.
.
..
.
. -
.
-
.
.
4.,
.
,
.. -
.
Bechtel Drawing No. ' P-0500, Rev.11, Piping Class Sheet.
---
Bechtel Drawing.No. P-0570, Rev. 3, Field Welding and Nondestructive
--
- Examination Requirements.
Bechtel Technical Specification for Shop Fabricated Piping for Nuclear
--
-
Service, P-201 (Q), Rev. _3.
Bechtel Technical Specification for Field Fabrication and Installation t
-
--
of Piping for Nuclear Service,'P-202 (Q), Rev. 3.
!
Bechtel Technical Specification for Piping System Erection Fit-Up
'
--
j~
Control,'P-205(Q);;Rev.3.-
The inspector felt the documents reviewed adequately address ASME Code
. requirements except in.one' area:
P-0570 does not address.the NDE require-ments for Class 1 and Class:2 butt welds in pipe 2" or less in diameter. As no welds of this. nature have been made to date this item is considered
-
unresolved pending incorporation of the appropriate NDE requirements into P-0570.
(354/80-04-05; 355/80-04 02)
8.
Painting A11haation - Unit 1
~
The inspector received an allegation from an individual alleging the following:
a.
No QC or QA is involved with J. I. Haas painting activities in the
.
reactor building.
b.
Bechtel foreman has instructed the J. I. Haas personnel to hand tool-
- clean-. surfaces that require sandblasting per specification requirements.
c.
'
Bechtel. foreman has stated that inaccessible penetrations are not a concern as regards clear.ing and painting because they will be filled with a sealing compound.at a later time.
The alleger states that
,
- -
similar penetrations;that are accessible are being sandblasted or hand tool cleaned and_ coated in accordance with specification requirements.
- The inspector investigated the scope _ of work involved with the J. I. Haas contract a'nd' ascertained that the scope of work involves touchup and other minor _ work 'as directed by Bechtel personnel.
It does not involve any safety-related work. -The inspector informed the licensee of the allegation
.and the licensee: stated that they.would investigate it and take any corrective
.
action required. :The inspector infornea the alleger that further' action by,
= NRC was not appropriate because the work involved was not safety-related,
'
-but that the licensee would investigate on alleged points of concern.
'
'
.No' items = of noncompliance were identified.
.
d
-
['
.
"
4-s'
(-
k j
.
.
.
.
9.
Safety Related Pipint - Observation of Work and Work Activitie Including Welding - lnit 1 The inspector observed work in progress on the following pipe field welds:
FW7 on 1so 1-P-EG-020, QCIR 1-P-EG-13-12-P-1.10
--
.FW4 on 1so 1-P-BE-004, QCIR 1-P-BE-015-P-1.10
--
FW14 on 1so 1-P-BC-018. QCIR 1-P-BC-03-22-P-1.10
--
The particular areas examined included signoff status of QCIR versus status of work, correctness of " Filler Metal Withdrawal Authorization" forms, welder qualification, procedure qualification, weld material control, welder identification markings stamped adjacent to weld, pipe fitup, and availability of QC personnel.
Additionally, the inspector observed handling and protection of pipe spools being erected in the field. The question was raised as to what the requirements are regarding supporting of pipe during construction prior to installation of permanent hangers and restraints.
Bechtel referred to paragraph 6.2.3 of Bechtel Specification P-205 (Q',, Rev. 3, " Piping System Erection Fit-Up Control Requirements in Power Plants" which states:
Whenever advantageous, the permanent pipe supports should be attached to the supporting structure prior to spool erection.
Temporary supports may be required to ensure that bowing, or overhang deflections or other unbalanced displacements are minimal in the system during fit-up.
.
The inspector observed two runs of installed piping which, although satis-factory, were only marginally satisfactory with regard to temporary supports.
The licensee was informed of these observations, and stated that efforts will be made to support piping adequately during erection operat' ions.
No items of nuncanpliance were identified.
.
v
-
,
.
.
.
.
10. Containment (Structural Concrete) - Observation of Work and Work Activities - Units 1 and 2 The inspector observed' activities relating to structural concrete for both Units-1 and 2.
The particular activities were placement and removalsof forms, rebar splicing by cadwelding and lapping, preplacement, placement and post-placement inspections; availability of qualified QC personnel; rebar spacing and cleanliness; batch plant operations including temperature control, generation and control of batch records, aggregate handling, equipment performance and aggregate storage; testing of concrete cylinders; curing of concrete cylinders; calibration of testing equipment; and curing operations. No items of noncompliance were identified.
11.
Structural Steel and Supports - Observation of Work and Work Activities Including Welding - Units 1 and 2 The inspector examined fabrication and erection activities related to Unit 1 unit cooler supports 1AVH 208, IBVH 208,1AVH 210, and 1AVH 211; control equipment room structural steel; and reactor building structural steel.
Bolting materials were examined for conformance to material requirements and the 3olting operation was examined for correct placement of the load indicating washers and final torquing.
Structural steel welds were examined for correct weld size and welding defects such as undercut and lack.of penetration.
Modifications to the structural steel made to avoid interferences or to accommodate other as-built conditions were verified to have been authorized by either a Field Change Notice or a Drawing Change Notice.
Conformance to jobsite requirements and AISC rules as regards elong&ted bolt holes was investigated.
.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
12.. Reactor Pressure Vessel Nozzle Modification - Units 1 and 2 The inspector observed various stages of the RPV nozzle modification work.
In narticular safe end removal and nozzle weld prep operations were coserved for conformance to approved procedures.
Preliminary steps _ leading toward weld procedure and welder qualification for welding new safe ends into place were also observed for conformance to ASME Section III requirements. The inspector also observed RPV lifting operations to relocate support dunnage to facilitate removal of safe ends adjacent-to dunnage.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
.
'e.
-'
l m
,_,
-.
-
y
..
.
.
.
.
13. Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in' order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items or items of noncompliance. Unresolved items identified during the inspection are discussed in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, and 7.-
-
14.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee and contractor personnel (denoted by an asterisk in paragarph 1) on each Friday of this inspection report period. At these times the inspector summarized the scope and findings
of that week's inspection activities.
.
I f
4