IR 05000354/1981009
| ML20009G562 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 07/16/1981 |
| From: | Bateman W, Greenman E, Varela A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20009G556 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-354-81-09, 50-354-81-9, 50-355-81-09, 50-355-81-9, NUDOCS 8108040426 | |
| Download: ML20009G562 (9) | |
Text
i l
'
'
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
,
Region I 50-354/81-09 l
Re' port No. 50-355/81-09 50-354 Docket No. 50-355 CPPR-120 License No. CPPR-121 Priority
'
Category A
--
Licensee:
Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park P1aza - 17C Newark, New Jersey 07101 Facility Name:
Hope Creek Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 fnspection at:
Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Inspection conducted: Ju 1 - July 5,1981 7/D)b/
~
Inspectors:
/ EM
.
.
W H. Bat m~an, Senior Resident Inspector 8 date higned
' bh Y/hf
A<
'. A. Vardl/a, Reactor Inspector
/ date signed
/
date signed Approved by:
8. 8. k W h. i h
'7 l li,lPl
'
~
E. G. Greenman, Chief, Reactor Projects date signed Section 2A Inspection Summary:
Unit __1 Inspection of June 1 - July 5,1981 (Report No. 50-354/_81-091:
Areas _ Inspected _:
Routine announced inspection by the resident inspector (51 hours5.902778e-4 days <br />0.0142 hours <br />8.43254e-5 weeks <br />1.94055e-5 months <br />)
and one regionally based specialist inspector (12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />) of work in progress including upper bioshield in process welding, structural steel erection, concrete preplacement and placement activities, Cadweld program, hanger installation, batch plant material storage, backfill program and activities, cable tray and conduit installation, and pipe fitup, handling, welding, and inspection.
The inspectors also made tours of the site, reviewed licensee action on previous inspection findings, observed licensee actions pertaining to construction deficiency reports, and followed up on previously expressed concerns in the area of QC personnel qualification.
Resul t_s:
Noncompliances - none.
e108040426 810717 PDR ADOCK 05000354 o
PDR Reglon I Fonn 12 (Rev. April 77)
..
_
.-.
.
.
.
'
Inpsection Sumary
.
(Jnit 2 I_nspection of_ June 1 __ July 5,1931 (Report _ No_. _5_0-3_55/81-09):
__
__
Areas Inspected:
Routine announced inspection by the resident inspector (39 hours4.513889e-4 days <br />0.0108 hours <br />6.448413e-5 weeks <br />1.48395e-5 months <br />) and one regionally based specialist inspector (16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br />) of work in progress including containment erection, Cadweld program, cor. crete pre-placement and placement, halide testing of weld seams resulting from repair of drywell bulge, batch plant material storage, and backfill program and activities. The inspectors also made tours of the site and observed licensee actions pertaining to construction deficiency reports and followed up on previously expressed concerns in the area of QC personnel qualification.
Results:
Noncompliances - none.
I I
i
[
IP
..
....
...
.
.
--.__._ -- -
.-.
.
-
._
.
.
l l
.
DETAILS i
1.
Persons Contacted P_ublicServiceElectricandGa:;Comoany(PSE&G1 A. Barnabei, Site QA Enginaer A. E. Giardinc, Project QA Engineer P. Kudless, Project Construction Manager G. Owen, Principal Construction Engineer Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtell A. J. Bryan, Assistant Project QC Engineer M. A. Drucker, Lead QA Engineer R. Hanks, Project QC Engineer M. Henry, Project Field Engineer D. Long, Project Superintendent G. Moulton, Project QA Engineer P. Patil, Resident Engineer J. Serafin, Assistant Project Field Engineer Pittsburgh_- Des Moines_ Steel _Co_mpany (PDML l
l M. Stiger, Site QA Manager Ge_neral Electric Installation and Services Engineering (GEI&SE)
_
{
G. Barberi, Site QC Supervisor D. Burke, Site Project Manager D. George, Welding Supervisor General _ Electric Nuclear Ene_rgy D_ivision_ (GENEL C. Brinson, Site QA Manger USNRC_
l V. L. Ortin G., Mexican National Nuclear Inspector Engineer
!
l
.
.. _,
._
_
..
.
.
.
2.
Site Tour Routine tours of the site were made to observa the status of work and con-struction activities in progress.
The inspector noted the presence of and interviewed QC and construction personnel. Work items were examined for obvious defects or noncompliance with regulatory requirements or license conditions.
Areas observed included:
Unit 1:
Pipe support installation, upper biological shield welding, batch plant material storage, structural steel erection, and cable tray and conduit installation.
Unit 2:
Containment erection, batch plant material storage, structural steel erection, and material storage.
No items of noncompliante were identified.
Co_ tainment (Structural Concrete) - Observation ___of Work and Work Activities -
3.
n Units 1 and 2
_
The inspector reviewed the licensee's rebar mechanical splicing program to ensure that the program was in accordance with regulatory requirements and licensee commitments and that the program was being effectively implemented.
The following documents were reviewed as part of this inspection:
USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.10, Rev.1, Mechanical (Cadweld) Splices
--
in Reinforcing Bars of Category 1 Concrete Structures Chapter 15 of the Hope Creek PSAR, Station Design Criteria
--
Bechtel Technical Specification for Mechanical Splicing or Rein-
--
forcii.g Bars, C-115(Q), Rev. 3 Bechtel Project QC Instruction C-6.00, Rev.1, Mechanical Splicing
-
.
of Reinforcing Bars QCIR 1-C-X-W-004-C-6.00, Inspect-:
Record for Mechanical Splicing
--
of Rebar Sample of Bechtel daily Cadweld Inspection Reports
--
Sample of Bechtel Cadweld Location Drawings
--
Bechtel Cadwe!d Moving Average Report
--
Bechtel Cadweld Splice Operator Qualification Reports for approxi-
--
mately 8 qualified Cadwelding crews Sample of Bechtel Cadweld Production Worksheets
--
._.
--
. _.
-
_
- _ _ -
-
- -
.
.
-
The results of this inspection illustrated that accurate records are being maintained to track Cadwelder qualification status, splice testing frequency and status, and as-built location of each splice.
The program was detennined to be in compliance with regulatory requirements and li-censee conimitments in all but one area. USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.10 in paragraph 4, discusses splice tensile test frequency and states that:
%eparate test cycles should be established for mechanical splices in norizontal, vertical, and diagonal bars, for each bar size, and for each splicing crew..."
This review of the licensee's program determined that a separate test cycle was not established for each splicing crew. The li-censee's basis for not complying with this requirement is based on the deletion of this requirement from the 1978 revision to ANSI Standard N45.2.5,
" Supplemental Quality Assurance of Structural Concrete and Steel During Con-struction" as endorsed by USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.94. The licensee submitted PSAR Amendment No.194 amending their position on Regulatory Guide 1.10 to delete the crew test requirement. This apperent conflict between the two regulatory documents was discussed by the inspector with USNRC Office of Standards Development / Division of Engineering Standards and determined by them to be an oversite. The NRC position is that a separate test cycle should be established for each splicing crew as stated in Regulatory Guide 1.10..
The lack of a separate test cycle for each splicing crew is an unresolved item pending written clarification of the NRC position and implementation of this position by the licensee on the Hope Creek project.
(354/81-09-01; 355/81-09-01)
4.
Review of Nonroutine_ Events Reported by the Licensee
_
By letter dated April 6,1981, the licensee reported a significant deficiency in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(e) in-volving distortion of a portion of the Unit 2 drywell that occurred as the result of a concrete placement underneath the drywell.
Information regarding this problem is discussed in NRC Inspection Reports 81-04 and 81-05.
During this inspection report period the final cut of the bulged area was made and all the gussets associated with the boundaries of ~,he cut were removed.
(This includes both the upper and lower gussets.) A replacement section of 1" thick plate was welded into the drywell to replace the 7/8" thick removed section.
Subsequent radiography and halide testing of the weld seams were performed as part of the ASME III NE Code required NDE. The inspector witnessed the halide testing of the weld seams performed in accordance with PDM procedure CHLT-01, Rev. A, " Halide Leak Detection Test." The proceduta required that one side of the weld seam be pressurized to 9 psig with Freon 12 and the other side of the weld be scanned with a halogen leak detector.
A GE Type H-25 halogen leak detector was used and was calibrated to a GE Type LS-20 halogen leakage standard.
The
.
_-
-
.
.
.
l sensitivity, reliability and operation of the detector was set up such that j
any leak equal to or greater than 5 x 10-6 std. cc/sec would be detected. The
'
capillary leak standaro ct a rate of travel such that a 5 x 10 ffice of the scanning rate was det?rmined by passing the probe across the or std. cc/sec flow rate from the stancard was picked up by the detector.
The probe tip was maintained 1/8" from the test surface. The inspector verified that the pressure gage, leak detector, and leak standard were calibrated in accordance with the established PDM calibration prJgram. The scanning operation re-vealed no leaks.
Subsequent to the testing the gussets were reinstalled and the repair to the drywell considered complete. Activity remaining includes restoration of the outer support skirt and replacement of removed concrete underneath the affected l
area.
(355/81-00-01)
5.
Str_uctural Concrete - Observation of Work and Work Activities - Units 1 and 2 The inspector witnessed various aspects of concreting to determine that work, inspection, and testing activities were being accomplished in accordance with applicable specifications, codes, standards, drawings, and procedures. The following particular attributes were inspected:
(1) Form installation was verified to have been properly placed, secured, leak tight, and clean; (2)
Embedment installations were verified to have been secure, free of concrete and excessive rust, and the specified distance from the formwork. Additionally, Bechtel perfomed surveillance inspections of all embed types to verify that no weld defect problems existed; (3)
Reinforcing steel was verified to have been correctly spliced by qualified splicing personnel, free of concrete and excessive rust, l
and bent in accordance with standard requirements for bending radius and preheat; (4)
Batch plant material storage was observed to have been correctly segregated by aggregate size and correctly handled to prevent segregation, i
Preplacement and placement activities associated with pour 1-C-X-WOO 4 were
'
closely observed by the inspector. This pour was the placement of the drywell shield wall from elevation 99' to 107' and involved approximately 500 ydd of l
concrete placed by pump and crane and bucket.
The preplacement inspection records were reviewed by the inspector who also visually inspected rebar
!
placement, form erection, and construction joint preparation just prior to concrete placement.
Placement activities observed included consolidation (especially in congested areas), adequate coverage of placement by QC personnel, I
t
_ __ ___ __ _ ___
.
.
'
testing for slump, air content, and temperature; adherence to free fall limits; and availability of backup equipment.
This particular shield wall placement was observed closely, in part, because of a ecently settled carpenters strike of seven weeks duration during which time very little concrete was placed. Observations of the organization of the placement and the in process activities demonstrated that placement activities resumed in a satisfactory manner.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Safety Relate _d Piping _- 0_bservation of Work and Work Ac_tiviti_es - Units 1_ and 2
_
The inspector observed storage, handling, fitup, welding, and repair welding of ASME III Class 1, 2, and 3 pipe. The performance of these attributes were inspected for conformance to the requirements of applicable codes, standards, drawings, and site procedures. QCIR's were verified to be in the work area of each in precess joint inspected. The QCIR's were reviewed for applicability to the work in progress, inspection sign off status compared to the stage of completed work, assignment of qualified welders, and proper control of filler material.
Individual welder qualification was verified by review of welder qualification records.
One question arose regarding inspection requirements for ASME III Class 3 pipe t
joints. The question regarded the type of feedback mechanism employed by QC to inform management of unacceptable conditions found during surveillance in-spection.
Discussions between th2 inspector and appropriate Bechtel QC per-sonnel indicated that infomal methods existed for feedback but no formal re-quirements for feedback to management from a surveillance / sampling inspection program existed.
The inspector expressed his concern that formal feedback to management of problems identified during surveillance inspections is re-quired to alert management to identified problems thus affording management the opportunity to take corrective action. Bechtel QC and licensee personnel agreed to this concept and have instituted a program whereby unacceptable results identified during surveillance inspections will be noted in the " Remarks" column of the QCIR. All QCIR's will subsequently be reviewed by management personnel to determine if problems exist. A review of the work done to date revealed that approximately 50% of all Class 3 joints had been inspected by establishing a mandatory hold point at the point of fitup. This relatively high percentage of inspections for a surveillance program were considered necessary to help establish confidence that Class 3 pipe could be satisfactorily installed using a surveillance inspection program as the basis for determining and ensuring acceptable quality work. This program differs from that used for Class 1 and 2 piping which requires 100% inspection of the fitup. The percentage
.
.
-
of Class 3 joints inspected will decrease as confidence is established based on acceptable surveillance inspections. The informal surveillance feedback loop in use prior to establishment of the fonnal loop identified no serious problems.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Struc_tur_al Backfill and Compaction __- Units 1 and _2 The inspector reviewed the following particular aspects of the Service Water pipes Zone A backfill:
adequacy of drawings, specifications, and QC inspection procedures
--
observed backfill placement compaction, and in-place moisture / density
-
soil testing observed QC activities involving daily / shift advance in placement,
--
spreading compaction, and soil testing observed and verified soils testing in the laboratory and compu-
--
tations/ test results reviewed test equipment calibrations
--
reviewed Bechtel surveillance activities
-
reviewed and discussed personnel qualifications and adequacy of
--
,
'
reports reviewed status of test laboratory and Peabody organization on ful-
--
filling requirements of ASTM E 329 (CCRL/ Bureau Star.dards) inspection No items of noncompliance were identified.
S.
Qualification of QC 'nspection Perso_nnel In NRC Inspection Report 80-20 a NRC inspector identified an item of noncom-pliance involving a Bechtel inspector performing inspection activities he was i'
not qualified to perfonn on the Hope Creek project. Additional investigation of QC personnel training and experience records combined with a review of
'
Hope Creek enforcement activity for the twelve months prior to the 80-20 inspec-l t:on, led the inspector to conclude that qualification of inspection personnel l
was a weak area of the licensee's quality assurance program. As a result of the NRC position, the licensee requested a meeting with the NRC.
This meeting
.,.
-
-
.
.
.
.
.
~
was held on February 24, 1981, at the Hope Creek site. At this meeting the NRC expressed concern over the apparent "itretching" by the licensee of the tems "related" and " equivalent" as pertains to experience and as applied to what was considered by the licensee to be acceptable for Level I qualification.
The NRC stated they felt a dilution of the overall capability of the QC depart-ment could result because of this " stretching" of the experier ce requirement combined with the sizeable recent and ongoing augmentation in )C department.
personnel. At the conclusion of the meeting the licensee steted their feelings that their QC program was effectively implemented by qualifier personnel and no programmatic problems existed. The NRC reiterated their concerns and stated that the que.lification of QC personnel would receive close attention during subsequent inspections.
During this inspection the inspector reviewed the training / qualification files for eleven of thirty-four newly hired QC personnel.
Individuals were selected at random from each of the major QC technical disciplines. This review indicated that a substantial and successful effort wu underway to upgrade the amount of training a new hire receives prior to pemitting the individual to perform inspections on their own. This training, to a large extent, was in-of these eleven people, the requirements for previously "g the cualifi,cationrelated" o dependent of the individual's prior experience. Regardin experience as required by applicable ANSI standards and site procedures was exceeded in every case reviewed. The combination of a substantial amount of previously related experience and intensive training in both jobsite practices and technical discipline illustrates that the QC qualification program is technically in compliance with regulatory requirements. Continued implemen-tation of this hiring, training, and qualification program should result in strengthening of the quality program.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
9.
Unresolved Items _
i Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items or items of noncompliance.
An unresolved item identified during the inspection is discussed in paragraph 3.
10.
Exit Interview.
The inspectcr met with licensee and contractor personnel on each Friday of this inspection report period. At these times the inspector summarized the scope and findings of that week's inspection activities.
,
l
--
-