IR 05000354/1981011
| ML20030B994 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 08/12/1981 |
| From: | Bateman W, Finkel A, Greenman E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20030B986 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-354-81-11, 50-355-81-11, NUDOCS 8108250294 | |
| Download: ML20030B994 (11) | |
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I 50-354/81-11 Report No. _50-355/81-11 50-354 Docket No. 50-355 CPPR-120 Category A
License No. CPPR-121 Priority
--
Licensee: Public Service Electric and Gas Company
80 Park Plaza - 17C Newark, New Jersey 07101 Facility Name: Hooe Creek Generatina Station. Units 1 and 2 Inspection at: Hancock s Bridge, New Jersey Inspection conducted: July 6 - August 2, 1981 Inspectors:
S
/b/
,
.
W. H Bat'eman, Senior Resident Inspector date si'gned L
d'$
S////dif 3 A. E. Finkel, Reactor Inspector
'date siigned
,
date signed Approved by: !d
//
e-E. G. Gfeenman, Chief, Reactor Projects
'date signed
~
Section 2A I
l Inspection Summary:
Unit 1 Inspection of July 6 - August 2,1981 (Report N_o. 50-354L81_-111:
Areas Inspec_ted_: Routine unannounced inspection by the resident inspector (64 hours7.407407e-4 days <br />0.0178 hours <br />1.058201e-4 weeks <br />2.4352e-5 months <br />)
and one regionally based specialist inspector (57 hours6.597222e-4 days <br />0.0158 hours <br />9.424603e-5 weeks <br />2.16885e-5 months <br />) of work in progress including hydrostatic testing of embedded piping, hydrostatic test program, piping installation including fitup and welding, upper bioshield weldout, structural steel installation and modification, rebar installation, backfill activities, hanger installation, concrete placement and post placement activities, material and equipment storage, installation of reactor pressure vessel (RPV) internals, safety related raceway and motor control center installation, diesel generator system design, and batchplant material storage and oper-ation. The inspectors also made tours of the site, reviewed licensee action on previous inspection findings, and observed licensee actions pertaining to construction deficiency
' reports.
Results: Noncompliances - none.
_
Region I Form 12
_
(Rev. April 77)
8108250294 810813 PDR ADOCK 05000354 l
Q PDR
.
_ - _ -
. _ _.
-
_ -
-.__.
i
.!
'
Inspect _ ion Summary
i Unit 2 Inspection of July 6 - August 2,1981 (Repo_r_t No. 50-355/81-11):
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection by the resident inspector l
(39 hours4.513889e-4 days <br />0.0108 hours <br />6.448413e-5 weeks <br />1.48395e-5 months <br />) of work in progress including containment erection, structural steel installation, rebar installation, backfill activities, concrete placement, material and equipment storage, batchplant material storage and operation, and hydrostatic testing of embedded piping. The inspector also made tours of the site and observed licensee actions pertaining to construc-tion deficiency reports and reviewed licensee action on previous inspection
findings.
Resul ts,: Noncompliances - none.
6
i
4 i
,
!
,
.,,--,,---,,n.,,..-n-_,---,~,.---,,.
.ra,.
-,-,,,,
,,-n......,
..
-:.n~
-._ -,.,,..
. --, n
...
.
DETfdLS 1.
Persons Contacted
_
Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G)
A. Barnabei, Site QA Engineer A. E. Giardino, Projet' QA Engineer P. Kudless, Project Construction Manager G. Owen, Principal Construction Engineer Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel)
.
A. J. Bryan, Assistant Project QC Engineer M. A. Drucker, Lead QA Engineer J. Duddy, Electrical Engineer S. Evans, Lead Electrical QC Engineer R. Hanks, Project QC Engineer M. Henry, Project Field Engineer D. Long, Project Superintendent
!
R. Mackey, Resident Civil Engineer G. Moulton, Project QA Engineer P. Patil, Resident Engineer C. Radonty, Engineer Supervisor - Electrical L. E. Rosetta, Field Construction Manager J. Serafin, Assistant Project Field Engineer D. Stover, Project Superintendent - Contract Administration R. Tringale, Lead Civil Field Engineer i
S. Vezendy, Lead Welding QC Engineer Pj_ttsburgh - Des Moines Steel Company (PDM)
,
M. Stiger, Site QA Manager General Electric Installation and Services Encineerina (GEI&SE)
G. Barberi, Site QC Supervisor D. Burke, Site Project Manager General Electric Nuclear Enerav Division (GEf a)___
C. Brinson, Site QA Manager J. Cockroft, Site Engineer Schneider, Inc.
G. Davidson, Ccnstruction Superintendent
'
!
l
l l
i l
l
--
,,.
. - -
- -,.
_
_
-
2.
Site Tour
!
Routine tours of the site were made to observe 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: Piping installation including fitup an.- welding, upper bioshield weldout, structural steel installation and modification, backfill around service water pipes, pipe hanger installaticr., concrete placement and post placement activities, material and equipment storage, batchplant material storage and operation, and weld quality of electrical hardware.
Unit 2: Structural steel installation, backfill around service water pipes, concrete placement and post placement activities, material and equipment storage, and batchplant material storage and operation.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Safety Related Piping - Observation of Work and Work Activities - Units 1 and 2
-
The inspector reviewed implementation of the hydrostatic test program as related to pressure testing of embedded piping prior to embedment in concrete.
The following documents were reviewed to establish the program requirements:
Bechtel Technical Specification P-201(Q), Rev. 5, " Shop Fabricated
--
Piping for Nuclear Service" Bechtel Technical Specification P-590(Q), " Hydrostatic Testing of
--
ASME Section III and ANSI B31.1 Piping Systems" PQCI T-1.00, Rev. 3. "Hydmstatic and Pneumatic Leak Testing"
--
PQCI P-1.00, Rev. 0, " Piping Completed Line Installation"
--
ASME III NX6000, 1974 Edition through Winter of 1974 Addenda
--
Bechtel Work Plan / Procedure Record SWP/P-P-4 Attachment No. 1, " Leak
--
Testing of Piping Systems Test Procedure and Report" Subsequent to this documentation review, the Inspector reviewed the hydro-static test records as documented on the following QCIR's for the listed pipe spools:
l
.
r
-,
.
QCIR P. LT-1-P-JE-01-03 for spools 1-JE-037-S01,1-JE-041-S01, and
--
1-J.42-501 QCIR No. LT-1-P-JE-01-2 for spools 1-JE-037-503,1-JE-038-S01,
--
1-JE-039-S01, and 1-JE-040-S01 QCIR No. LT-1-P-JE-01-1 for spools 1-JE-002-S01 and 1-JE-008-S01
--
Additionally, the following supplementary records were reviewed:
Certificate of Analysis for Water Quality
-
Field Engineer Reports for pH Control
--
Review of these records in conjunction with discussions of hydrostatic testing and inspection techniaues with QC personnel substartiated effective implemen-tation of the hydrostatic testing progrcm for embeddad piping.
However, two areas of concern arose as a result of the program review and discussions with QC and engineering personnel. The first of these concerns related to the treatment of mechanical joints that leak during hydrostatic testing. The inspector could not determine from a review of the aforementioned program documentation what the requirements were regarding the pressure at which mechanical joints must not leak. The ASME Code states that the design specification should specify the requirements. The applicable design specification, ions with site personnel, it was established that in this case, does not state the requirements.
In subsequent discuss mechanical joint leaks identified during hydrostatic testing will be reworked during the test if practical, or will be noted on a punch list for rework and repair. The specific pressure at which the joints must not leak was stated to be system operational pressure. The overall program intent, which involves a turnover from the Bechtel construction test group to the licensee's test group, is to have repaired all the leaks prior to startup testing. The establishment of this program policy allayed the inspectods concern in this area.
The second concern related to effective and thorough system inspection during hydrostatic testing. This concern arose from the facts that some of the pipe was not hydro tested by the pipe material manufacturer and none of the shcp welds were hydro tested by the pipe fabricator. This particular combir; tion of circumstances makes it critical that all of the pipe longitudinal seam welds and circumferential shop and field welds be exposed for inspection during hydro testing. The inspe:: tor pointed out to the licensee that he had observed shop welds that were covered by pip hanger clamps thus rendering that joint inaccessible for inspection. Additionally, the inspector expressed
concern for meaningful inspections of welds that pass through floor and wall penetrations and the possibility of missing shop welds obscured by flat top grinding and application of shop paint to the piping. Discussions with site personnel indicated that the standard Bechtel hydmstatic test program involves a complete walkdown inspection of all piping included within the test boundaries and, therefore, even obscured shop welds would be inspected. Additionally, it was stated that the portion of a longitudinal seam weld obstructed by a hanger clamp was not considered an inspection problem. The discussions did not en-tirely allay the inspector's concern in this area.
This area is unresolve'd
,
pending incorporation of a control system into the hydrostatic test program that assures all welds will be exposed for inspection during hydrostatic testing and review of program effectiveness.
(354/81-11-01; 355/81-11-01)
4.
Licensee Actio_n on Previ_ous Inspection Findings
_
(Closed) Unresolved Item (354/80-15-02):
Connections of cable trays to supports shall be torqued to a minimum requirement of 50 ft-lbs. The licensee issued Field Change Request E-702 dated May 12, 1981 which re-vised paragraphs 3.31 and 3.38.2 of E1406 and added the torquing require-ment. Subsequent review of the quality control verification inspection program of the installed trays and the procedures by the inspector verified thr.t the above problems have been identified and corrected.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (354/80-15-03): Hinned cable tray installation not addressed in cable tray qualification test report. Qualification analysis data supporting the use of P & W Industries elbow tray configuration was evaluated and documented by the licensee in letters EMF-4602 dated July 13, 1981 and FME-3933 dated June 19, 1981. The inspector had no further questions on this item.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (354/80-05-04):
Procedural requirements for docu-ment c on of out of specification weld joints. A Field Change Order (FCO)
was initiated by Bechtel to identify and correct the ID mismatch between the valve end and the connecting pipe spool. This is the standard method used to resolve ID mismatch problems.
The FC0 required counterboring of the heavy wall piece to the same ID of the thinner wall piece and verification that the resultant wall thickness of the counterbored piece did not violate
'
l ASME III Code requirements. The inspector had no further questions on this l
item.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (354/80-14-09):
Establishment of a specific list of items required to be performed, checked, and surveyed while performing weld repairs. The inspector reviewed SICP 8.2, Rev. O, " Control of Welding, Heat Treatment and Piping Installation" and SI Inspection Plan 8.5, Rev. 0,
"ASME Weld Data Sheets" and determined that mandatory hold points were de-fined for weld repairs along with defined surveillance inspections. The docu-ments require the same mandatory hold points and surveillance inspections for Teir welding as for the original weld. Additionally, the procedures define repair, rework buttering repair, and cosmetic dressing to eliminate confusion regarding the definition of a repair. The inspector had no further questions on this item, i
-
-
_ __.
- _
_
..
. - - _
. _.
-
-
.
.
_.
(Closed) Noncompliance (354/80-21-01):
Failure to maintain piping internal cleanliness of safety related piping.
The licensee removed the foreign material from the pipe line and performed cleanliness inspections of similar pipe lines. An increased surveillance inspection program was implemented by the licensee to ensure that no additional cleanliness problems would arise. The effectiveness of the corrective action was verified by the in-spector through continued observation of the frequent surveillance activities and the continued internal cleanliness of the piping installed by SI.
,
,
5.
Electrical (Components / Systems) Implementing Procedure Re_v_iew - Unit _1_
_
i The inspector reviewed selected portions of the following documents:
Technical Specification for Cable Tray for the Hope Creek Generating
--
Station,StationNos.Iand2 Units,E-034(Q), Revision 5, dated October 21, 1980 Technical Specification for Motor Control Centers for the Hope Creek
--
Generating Station, Nos. I and 2 Units, E-118(Q), Revision 4, dated
'
June 18, 1981 Raceway Notes, Symbols and Details, E-1406
--
Quality Control Instructions S-2.00 Maintenance Inspection Activities
--
Technical Specification for Conduits and fittings for the Hope Creek
-
Generating Station Nos. 1 and 2 Units, E-036(Q), Revision 9, dated t
May 19, 1980
Technical Specification for Conduit and Tray Support Materials for the
--
Hope Creek Nos.1 and 2 Units, E-037(Q), Revision 6, dated October 25, 1979 Technical Specification for Direct Current Distribution Panels for
--
the Hope Creek Generating Station Nos. I and 2 Units, E-120(Q),
Revision 5, dated May 5, 1981 Installation of Class IE Raceway, Supports and Bracing, E-2.0,
-
Revision 9, dated March 4, 1981 The inspector verified that the requirements of the above documents were defined in the Quality Control Inspection Requirement (QCIR) and inspection points were established.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
.
!
J r-
_ - _ _
-.,.3,-_
,,.,_,. -
,
. _, _. _, - -. _,.. _ _ _, - -.. _
_,_.-,...,_y
,.,-
--
-- -
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
6.
Electrical (Components / Systems) Work.0bservations -_l' nit _1 The inspector examined work performance, partially completed work, and completed work pertaining to safety related cable trays, motor control centers, and the diesel room area to determine whether the requirements of applicable specifications, work procedures, drawings and instructions have been met.
For this determination the inspector examined the following installations:
Cable tray installation in the Cable Spreading Room, Core Spray Room
--
4104, 4108, Conduit installation in the containment and diesel generator area
--
elevation 102'
Motor Control Centers, containment area Room 4303, SACS Heater Room
--
4309 Cable Tray Load / Deflection Test Report No. PWE-1015, and Engineering
--
report FME-3933, dated June 1,1981 and Report EMF-4E02, dated July 14, 1981 Drawing Nos. E-1531-1, revision 7, Sheet 1 and 2, E-1631-1 revision 6
-
Sheets 1 and 2, E-1662-1, revision 8, sheet 1 and 2, P & ID No. C-1405-0 Revision 13, M-97-0 Sheet 2 Revision 2,
--
Static Test Results of Cable Trays Report No. PWE-1010.
--
a.
The inspector observed that trays numbered 12BTLP26, 12BTLQ26, 12TBFB26, and 12BTPQ26 are not continuous tray sections. These trays and other similar trays encircling thi. containment have been modified to in-corporate a P & W Industries standard hardware hinge joining two tray sections on the inside rail of the cable tray and a flat sheet fastened to the two outside rail sections to accommodate the containment radius.
The adjustable flat elbow is identified as part No. 06-4531-0401-24.
The cable tray qualification data for this part has been identified by the licensee as meeting the site requirement and is part of the test engineering data at Bechtel's er.gineering office, San Francisco, Ca.
b.
The inspector observed that the Motor Control Centers (MCC) in room 4309, North SACS Heater Room and room 4303 South MCC area, were covered and had heat applied to maintain the units in clean and dry status. The NCR's 1034 accepted the equip;nent but the qJalification data for the MCC is an outstanding item. This data is to be delivered at a later date.
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _. - __. _
__ -- ____ - --_
__
c.
The inspector observed the installation of conduit in the containment area in accordance with P & ID drawings.
The installation of this conduit was not inspected by QC at the time of this inspection.
d.
The inspector observed the installation of conduit and drains in the four diesel bays at elevation 102' Diesel Generator Area.
It was observed on the installation drawings of the floor drains that for each room, the floor drain pipes go to a valve and then to a common header at the sump level 54' elevation.
This common header principle is used for each room in the diesel generator area.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Containment (Structural Concrete) - Observation of Work and Work Activities -
Units 1 and 2
_
The inspector observed rebar installation activities in the drywell shield wall for confomance to the requirements of the following jobsite documents:
Bechtel Technical Specification C-111(Q), Rev. 3, " Purchase of Rein-
--
forcing Steel" Bechtel Technical Specification C-112(Q), Rev. 5, " Placing Reinforcing
--
Steel" Bechtel PQCI C-6.00, Rev.1, " Mechanical Splicing of Reinforcing Bar"
--
Bechtel Drawing C-0301-0, Rev.19, " Project Civil Standards Typical
--
Concrete and Reinforcement Details" The inspector verified that sufficient overlap existed where lap splices were used, rebar was free of loose mortar, dirt, mud, oil, and excessive rust; rebar was the proper distance from formwork and penetrations, rebar clearances were consistent with aggregate size, arc strikes were not in evidence on rebar, and rebar spacing was consistent with drawing requirements.
The inspector also observed concrete placement activities associated with various wall pours in Units 1 and 2.
In particular the inspector observed that formwork integrity was satisfactory, adequate QC personnel were in-l specting the placement, sampling of concrete was performed as required, vi-
'
bration to consolidate the concrete around dense rebar was within specifica-tion requirements, free fall of concrete during placement was controlled, and curing was initiated upon completion of the placement Additionally, the inspector observed batch plant material storage and operation.
In particular the inspector verified that sand and aggregate storage were in accordance with jobsite requirements for separation and prevention of segregation. Batch plant operations were observed to en-sure responsible personnel were present to perfom and monitor plant operations.
Lastly, concrete test laboratory test gear was inspected to ensure that equipment being used in test activities observed by the inspector was calibrated.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
8.
Containment Erection - Observatio_n of Wor _k and Work _ Activities - U_ nit 2
_
The inspector observed various activities associated with erection of the drywell, torus, vent lines, vent header, and safety relief valve discharge lines. The quality of shop welds and field welds as judged by a visual in-spection were in accordance with ASME Code Requirements. Preheat require-ments were implemented as required as verified by the use of temperature in-dicating crayons. The installation of the safety relief valve discharge lines, which resulted in a cold pull problem in Unit 1, was in accordance with drawing requirements. Control of weld filler material was observed to be satisfactory.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
9.
R_eactor Vessel Internals -__ Observation _o_f _ Work and Work _ Activities _ - Unit 1 Various inspections of vessel internals installation were conducted during this inspection report period. The specific work observed included measure-ment of thermal sleeves prior to cutting for final fitup and welding. Also observed was welder perfonnance qualification using the automatic welding machine that will be used to make the welds joining the thermal sleeves to the RPV nozzles. Access control into the RPV along with maintenance of vessel cleanliness was also observed.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
l l
I L
10.
Unr_esolved Items
_
Unresolved items are matters about which more infomation 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.
11.
Exit Interview
_
The inspector 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.
-
r
!
I
,
l f
l I
i
- -,.
.,---na-e
, -,,,, -,
,-,_.---,c.
.._, -,,,,,,,,,,, - -
,--e
- -,. -. - -
, -,, - - -, - - -
,-,,--r--..--
- - --
,