IR 05000354/1981010
| ML20010B383 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 07/27/1981 |
| From: | Chaudhary S, Mcbrearty R, Lester Tripp NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010B371 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-354-81-10, 50-355-81-10, NUDOCS 8108140425 | |
| Download: ML20010B383 (8) | |
Text
.
.
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I 50-354,'81-10 Report Nos. 50-355/81-10 50-354 Docket Nos. 50-355 CPPR-120 License Nos. CPPR-121 Priority Category A
--
Licensee:
Public Service E:ectric & Gas Company
.
80 Park Plaza - 17C Newark, New Jersey 07101 Facility Name:
Hope Creek, Units 1 & 2 I'nspection At:
Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey Inspection Conducted:
June 18, 19, 22-26, 1981
/. b.,uh8 7 78l Inspectors:
7yt.K. C' uldhary, Reactor Inspector datie signed h f. kdo 1/nhl R. A. McElr'ea -ty, Reactor Inspector d&te' signed date signed Approved by:
- N@
7k7f/
t.E. Tripp, Chief, Materials and Processes date' signed Section, EIB Inspection Summary:
Units 1 & 2, (Combined Inspection Report Nos. 50-354/81-10, 50-355/81-10)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of licensee activities associated with structural steel erection, installation and documentation; safety related components maintenance and storage; and reactor pressure vessel installation including storage and review of quality records. The in-spection involved 70 inspector hours onsite by two regional based NRC inspectors and one' supervisor.
Results: Of the six areas inspected, no items.of noncompliance'were identified in five areas and one item of noncompliance was identified in one area. -(Failure to document maintenance inspection as discussed in Paragraph 5b.)
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April-77)
-
8108140425 810
PDR ADOCK 0500
G
.. DR
-
_.
.
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Public Service Electric and Gas Company
,
- F. Barnabei, QA Engineer
- R. Bravo, Principle Construction Engineer R. Donges, QA Engineer
- A.E. Giardino, Project QA Engineer
- G.O. Owen, Acting Project Construction Manager
- R. Hanks, Project Construction QC Engineer
- G. Moulton, Project QA Engineer
- P.A. Patil, Resident Project Engineer C. Rogers, Lead Mechanical Engineer
- J. Serafin, Assistant Project-Field Engineer R. Seraiva, Boilermaker Superintendent J. Throndson, Area Superintendent R. Tringale, Lead Civil Engineer General Electric Company C. Brinson, QA Engineer J. Cockroft, Site Engineer K.'Noonan, Field Engineer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- W.H. Bateman, Senior Resident Inspector
- L.E. Tripp, Chief, Materials and Processes Section
- Denotes those present at the exit interview on June 23, 1981.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview on June 26, 1981.
.
.e d
,-m'*+-
w a
p
-
,
e
--r
--
-
.
.
.
.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview on June 23 and 26, 1981.
2.
Plant Tour The inspector conducted a walk-through plant tour to assess the general conformance to good practice in installation / erection of structural steel, and workmanship in the completed work. The in-
_
l spector inspected some steel / concrete interface connections and associated embedded steel items in concrete. The inspector observed that, at elevation +132', there was a general mismatch of-fabricated steel members with support embeds in walls. Also, there.were cross members-in the main beams with mismatched bolt holes.
The inspector was informed that all those conditions have been documented on NCRs. The inspector verified that the NCR held tags were attached and prominently displayed near the misaligned embeds. The Resident Inspector and a licensee QA Engineer accompanied the inspector on this tour.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Misalignment of Structural Steel The inspector pursued further the cause'of misalignment in the steel members by review of record and discussions with cognizant licensne and constructor personnel. The following documents were reviewed:
-
Nonconformance Reports:
Nos. -
764, 790, 863, 1173, 1174, 1157, 1121, 1142, 1141, 1090, 1050, 1048,-1045, 505, 511, 509, 597, 605, 611, 652, 666, 675, 364, 343
-
Resident Engineer's Memoranda:
C-1604, C-1484, C-1317, C-1302;
-
FME-3351, dated 6/17/80;
-
FERs - 1-B-CW-001, -1202, 1206, 1210, 1213.
-
Drawings:
C-0803-1, Rev. 16; C-0805-1, Rev. 12; C-0849, Rev. 15.
During the course of discussions with cognizant licensee and constructor
!
personnel, the inspector-was informed that the misalignment of structural
!
.
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
-
.
.
.
beams with the embeds was due to the nonconforming condition in the cylinder wall. The as-built conditiin of the cylinder wall did not meet the design requirements of plumbness of the wall and roundness of the cylinder at approximately elevation 132'. This condition was identified, reported on an NCR, and the NCR has been dispositioned.
The disposition basically provided to accept as-is the as-built condition of the wall at elevation 132', and required that the wall be brought back to its design configuration within construction tolerances at the
.next higher lift of construction. The inspector inquired as to the cause of this nonconformanc. in the wall construction, and was informed that the movement of formwork during the actual placement was the most probable cause. The construction was using a system of guy wires to hold the form in place, but apparently the guy wires were disturbed
,
and were tampered with during placement activities.
The hold down f
system for the formwork has since been modified to provide for rigid supports.
The inspector was further informed that the misalignment was also due to the incompatibility in construction and fabrication tolerances in concrete and steel construction. However, the inspector pointed out that the tolerances specified in codes and standards are for a construction of concrete or steel structures respectively. Whenever a structure is designed to use different construction materials in the different-portions of the structure, it is the engineer / designer's responsibility to resolve the incompatibility in the construction tolerances for different materials at the interface in a composite construction. The items constructed of different materials may be acceptable within their own allowable tolerances, however, a composite of individual items, after putting them together, may make the structure nonconforming and unacceptable.
It, therefore, was the licensee's responsiblity to review, identify, and resolve this problem to assure an acceptable as-built condition of the structure, and prevent nonconformance.
The inspector also inquired as to how the licensee determined if the problem of plumbness and roundness was only at elevation 132' and not below. The licensee informed the inspector that they did not encounter any steel erection, and misalignment problems in the lower elevations.
Further investigation in this area is required to determine the as-built conditions of the cylinaer wall in Unit-1 therefore, this item remains unresolved (50-354/81-10-01)
4.
Review of Material Certification The inspector reviewed the material certification for some structural steel members to determine the acceptability of item, conformance to the specifications, and retrievability of such records. The:following documents were reviewed.
-
Material Certifications
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
.
-
.
.
.
.
5-Beam Number HB-218, HB-219, HB-141,'HB-140, HB-273, HB-166, HB-61.
Based on the above review the inspector determined that'the material delivered at site was proper, acceptable and as required by the purchase order. The records could be retrieved easily and expeditously.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Safety Related Components - Storage and-Maintenance Units 1 and 2 The-inspector reviewed _ procedures and specifications, observed the storage condition and examined selected records of activities associated with storage and maintenance of the following components:
Unit 1 RHR heat exchangers number 1AE205 and 1BE205;
.
Core' spray pump shells number IBP206 and IDP206;
.
Main steam isolation valves (MSIV), serial number 2-685, 3-685,
.
4-685, 6-685 and 7-685.
Unit 2 RHR heat exchangers' number 2AE205 and 2BE205;
.
Recirculation system pump motors, serial number 8385328 and
.
8385420.
The above items were considered with regard to criteria delineated in the following:
General Electric Company specification number 22A2724, Revision
.
3; General Electric Company BWR Handbook, document number. 408HA117,
.
Revision 2, sheet 3; Anchor / Darling Valve Company Operating and Service Manual A/DV
.
73-1; Maintenance Action Cards related to selected components;
.
Quality Control Instruction S-1-00;
.
i Field Material Requisition number M-497 dated 4/17/80;
.
i
.
.
.
.
a.
Observations The inspector visually examined the storage areas in Units 1 and 2 for the components listed above.
Removal of an end cover on each of the following valves, MSIV 2-685, 3-685, 4-685 and 6-685 revealed a powdery, white substance streaking the interior surface of each_ of the valves.
The inspector found that the observed residue resulted from coating the interior surface of each valve with "Immunal G.E.,"
a water soluble material intended for protection of the surface against rust and corrosion. This use of the material is specified by document number 408HA117 of the General Electric BWR handbook.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
b.
Record Review The inspector examined records associated with maintenance inspection-of selected safety related components to ascertain inspections were properly conducted and documented.
- The following were included in the inspector's review:
Maintenance Insoection Punch 11st:
-
Maintenance System Bulk Listing;
.
Maintenance action card for 18 inch.qtts valve number 1-BC-
.
HV-F0478-E11, serial number E6161-9-2; Maintenance action card for Safety and Turbine Auxiliary
.
Cooling System heat exchanger nember 2A2E20; Maintenance action cards for MSIV S/N 3-685 and S/N 6-685.
.
The Instorage Maintenace System Bulk Listing indicated an inspection
.ead time ranging from 183 days to 913 days for performance of valve stem and packing maintenance inspection of various valves.
The inspector was informed that information appearing in the listing was placed there in 1979. He was additionally informed that the listing was_ under review and that necessary corrections were being made.
The inspector stated that the item was considered unresolved pending further review of the records-and a determination of the required inspection frequency.
(354/81-10-02 and 355/81-10-01)
-
-
-
.
.
.
7 t
The Bechtel Specific Work Plan / Procedure SWP/P-14, revision 4 requires that project field engineering will perform verification of periodic maintenance for "Q" items. Maintenance verification is documented by a signed haintenance Action Card.
Maintenance Action Card, sequence number 206900601, issued on March 5, 1981, for the visual examination of the SACS heat exchanger number 2A2E201 and Maintenance Action Card, sequence number 50C013302, issued on March 30, 1981, for the visual examination of the 18 inch gate valve, serial number E6161-9-2 were not signed as of June 25, 1981.
The specified examinations were required to be completed by March 19, 1981 and April 13, 1981 respectively.
The inspector requested to see documentation which would indicate that the specified maintenance inspections were performed. The licensee representative stated that the inspections wer9 performed but no documented verification was available. He further stated that a signed maintenance action card is the specified inspection documentation method, but that the cards are not signed when a component for which they are issued is on the Mainteriance In-spection Punchlist.
This is considered an item of noncompliance.
(354/81-10-03 and 355/81-10-02)
6.
Reactor Pressure Vessel.- Observations The inspector ey
- he storage area for the Unit 2 reactor vessel and performed a v. -ai inspection inside the Unit 1 vessel to ascertain compliance with regul;+.ory requirements and licensee commitments.
The inspection of the Unit 1 vessel, in the reactor building, showed that cleanliness requirements were met, a special access room was established to maintain cleanliness inside the vessel and vessel openings were sealed to prevent the intrusion of foreign materials.
The Unit 2 vessel is stored outside on cribbing awaiting placement in the Unit 2 reactor building.
The inspector found that precautions were taken to protect the vessel exterior and openings.
Inspection of the cribbing on which the vessel is supported revealed evidence of decay and deterioration at each end of the vessel.
The inspector reviewed a Bechtel interoffice memorandum dated August 14, 1980 and a Bechtel speed letter dated September 2,1980 which discuss survey monitoring of the Unit 2 vessel support cradle. The memo indicates that the monitoring will be continued on a periodic
..
.
-
.
basis. The inspector additionally reviewed the QC Inspection Record S-S-26-81-S-100 dated June b, 1981 covering inspection of the Unit 2 vessel. The report indicated that no cribbing deterioratio',was noted at that time.
.
The inspector requested to see a copy of the results of the most recent survey monitoring done prior to the inspector's arrival onsite.
He was advised that the requested information wa; sent for review to the Bechtel home office in San Francisco, California and was unavailable at the site.
Subsequent to identification of the item by the inspector, a survey by Bechtel personnel indicated that the East end of the vessel is 1 1/8 inch lower than the opposite end, and Bechtel wili determine the acceptability of this storage position.
The inspector stated that this mat;or is unresolved pending availability of documentation to verify that survey monitoring has been done period-ically and that the storage candition of the Unit 2 vessel is acceptable.
(355/81-10-03)
No items of noncomoliance were identified.
7.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more informat).n is required to ascertain whather they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviations. Unresolved items disclosed during this inspection are discussed in Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of this report.
8.
Exit Intervi_ew The irspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) on June 23, 1981 and at the conclusion of the inspection on June 26, 1981. The inspectors summarized the purpose and the scope of the inspection and the findings.
,
.