ML20140B974

Insp Rept 50-354/85-63 on 851216-19 & 23.No Violation Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Actions in Response to IE Bulletin 79-02 & Previous Inspector Unresolved Items Re HVAC Duct Work & Supports

ML20140B974
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	01/17/1986
From:	Kamal Manoly, Varela A, Wiggins J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20140B963	List: ML20140B961 ML20140B974
References
50-354-85-63, IEB-79-02, IEB-79-2, NUDOCS 8601270197
Download: ML20140B974 (6)

See also: IR 05000354/1985063

Text

. .- _ = . - _ - - . . . - ___ - _ - . --. . . - . . - - - _ _ - - _ . _ _ - -

..

l .-

I

,

h

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

j REGION I

,

Report No. 50-354/85-63

. 1

Docket No. 50-354 i

License No. CPPR-120 Priority -

Category A i

i

,

Licensee: Public Service Electric and Gas Company j

4

'

P. O. Box 236

, Hancock's Bridae, New Jersey 08038

>

i

.s E

Facility Name:

'

Hope Creek Generation Station

Inspection At: Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey and NRC Regional Office

] Inspection Conducted: December 16-19 and December 23, 1985

i i

Inspectors: *d '

A. A. Varela, Lead Reactor Engineer

1. '" @ [d / /

date I

/da /A</

K. A. Manoly, Lead Reactcir Engineer

,/tv/s c

date 1

Approved by:

1A Chief, Materials and

I !/7!85

l ' date

J/.T.Wi'gg[n,

U)rocess s ion,EB,DRS

4

Inspection Summary:

l Inspection Report No. 50-354/85-63 on December 16-19 and 23,1985

, .

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection by two regional-based

i

inspectors of licensee actions in response to NRC/IE Bulletin 79-02, Pipe

! Support Base Plate Designs Using Concrete Expansion Anchors and licensee

response to previous inspector unresolved items relating to'HVAC duct work.

i and supports, and the Hope Creek Heave / Settlement Measurement Program. The

inspection involved 26 inspector hours on site and 8 inspector hours of ,

in-office inspection.

Results: No violations were identified.

8601270197Ogjg

ADOCK O

i PDR PDR

, O )

, '

! *\

i l

~

f -

l

, j

i J

..

-

.

DETAILS

1. Persons Contacted

Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSEG)

• A. D. Barnabie, Quality Assurance, Group Head

• N. P. Dyck, Principal Engineer

• A. E. Giardino, Quality Assurance Manager

• R. T. Griffith, Principal Quality Assurance Engineer

• C. Jaffee, Senior Engineer - Startup

• C. W. Lamoert, Site Engineer

• M. P. Maradeo, Lead Quality Assurance Engineer

"M. F. Metcalf, Quality Assurance Startup Engineer

R. Donges, Lead Quality Assurance Engineer

M. C. Reeser, Site Engineer, Group Head

D. Shoemaker, Site Engineer

Bechtel Power Corporation (BPC)

• W. R. Cole, Lead Site Quality Assurance Engineer

"W. Goebel, Quality Assurance Engineer

• N. D. Griffin, Project Field Ergineer

• D. L. Long, Construction Manager

• B. Mukherjeo, Resident Project Engineer

A. Matyas, Civil Structural Design Engineer

G. Moulton, Project Quality Assurance Engineer

P. Magboll, Quality Control Engineer

NRC

• J. J. Lyash, Resident Inspector

• Attendees at exit interview.

2. Licensee Actions in Response to NRC Bulletin' 79-02

2.1 Inspection Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this inspection was to review, with cognizant and

>

' responsible licensee and architect engineer representatives and'

construction and quality control engineers at the plant, the complete-

ness of responses to NRC/IE Bulletin 79-02, " Pipe Support. Base Plate

Designs Using Concrete Expansion Anchor Bolts." The scope of the

inspection included a review of PSEG's formal responses, BPC's engi-

) neer designs, engineering specifications, and quality assurance and

! control documentation of inspection and testing._ Additionally,-site

l specific test reports to qualify proprietary, anchors in the concrete

i used at the site for correlation between torque and tension tests

I were reviewed. A walkdown inspection was also undertaken to verify

l typical support work packages and QC documentation.

!.

<

m

'

. _ - . -- _ _ - _ - - . . . . - - _ - . . . .- - . - - -

.

..

.~

3

.

2.2 General Site Considerations Relative to the Bulletin and Status of

Pipe Support Construction When BU 79-02 Was Issued

BPC's initial Hope Creek design of large bora pipe supports and

hangers attached to reinforced concrete was based mostly on concrete

embedment plates to which the supports were to be welded. When the

i 79-02 Bulletin was issued, no concrete expansion anchors had yet been

! installed for large bore pipe supports. BPC's final stress analysis ,

affected the final location of some hangers. This resulted in the

need for additional base plates in which concrete expansion anchors

were used.

3 PSEG, as a member of the utility Owners Group, considered the results

j of the NRC approved technical studies conducted by Teledyne Engineer-

ing Services. The report entitled " Generic Response to USNRC IE

Bulletin 79-02" was observed to have been incorporated into BPC's i

anchor bolt specifications and QC procedures.

The inspector's review encompassed engineering design and contrac-

tor's work packages. QC documentation was sampled, and quality

assurance surveillance and audits were included in the NRC

inspector's review in evaluating the completeness and adequacy of

PSEG/BPC responses to IE BU 79-02.

!

2.3 Review of Licensee /AE Contractor Interface Activities and

Administrative Controls

! In determining the adequacy of administrative controls for assuring

quality work, the inspector examined records of PSEG/BPC surveillance

'

and audit activities relating to construction of pipe supports using

concrete expansion anchors. The inspector also verified the avail-

ability and retrievability of pertinent documents, and reviewed

procedures that established anchor bolt requirements. Based on this  !

examination and review, the inspector ascertained _that the adminis-

'

trative controls were adequate and effective to assure quality.

Sufficient licensee surveillances and AE audits were performed to ,

assure conformance of the contractor's work to established require-

ments, specifications and drawings. Where QC and/or construction-

deficiencies were observed, appropriate corrective actions and train-

, ing were implemented. Corrective actions were observed to be for-

mally accepted by QA.

,

1

l 2.4 Hardware Verification

7

I

A walkdown inspection was undertaken to verify installed pipe support

and hanger hardware. Construction work packages and QC inspection I

and anchor bolt torque tests were reviewed and discussed with respon-

.

sible contractor construction and QC personnel.at these locations.

_

>

.

I

)

i

..

.-

4

i

.

-

Diesel Generator Building, elevation 178', Line 1-P-GJ-115, ,

Hanger #2  !

-

Diesel Generator Building, elevation 178' Line 1-P-GJ-114, H #47 #

-

Containment Building, elevation 156', Line 1-P-BB-236-H #3

-

Diesel Fuel Storage, elevation 54', Line 1-P-JE-01-H #18

-

Diesel Fuel Storage, elevation 54', Line 1-P-JE-037-H #01

The above provide confidence that design requirements, construction

and QC documentation comply with the purpose of Bulletin 79-02 to

assure operability of Seismic Category 1 piping systems in the event

of a seismic event.

2.5 Summary

Based on the information examine'd during this inspection and the

verification in the hardware inspected, the inspector concludes that

NRC/IE Bulletin 79-02 is closed.

3. Followup on Previous Inspector Identified Items 4

(Closed) Unresolved Item No. 85-15-02: HVAC Ductwork and Supports. This

item is related to installation tolerance identified in the HVAC duct

support standard (Dwg. No. C-0388-01) which permits up to 1/8" gap between

the duct wall and the support steel when Huck-Bolt fasteners are used in

the connection. The inspector reviewed the. licensee's response documented-

in BPC's Calculation No. 625-187(Q). The calculation investigated the

deformation to the duct wall as a result of the pulling load applied by

the bolts in addition to the operating internal pressure load. The maxi-

mum strain and ductility ratios were computed for various duct sizes and  ;

gauges. The safety factor was established as the ratio of the actual to

the maximum ductility.

A minimum factor of safety of .three (3) was calculated for ducts 48" x 48" I

in cross-section and a wall thickness gauge of 10. The licensee response

was determined to be adequate to address the identified concern. A second '

concern related to the tolerance limitation on perpendicularity between

HVAC support frames and ductwork centerlines was indirectly addressed in

the standard by limiting the gap between ductwork and support frames to '

1/8" maximum. The impact of this tolerance is already addressed in the

preceding write-up. Based on the above evaluation, this unresolved item

is closed.

. - _ . . .- .- -. . -. - . - - - _ . . _ _ _ _

. .

'

,

, -

i

5

I

i

(Closed) Unresolved Item No. 85-15-04: HVAC Ductwork Baseplates. This

item is related to the lack of specific check for gap sizes between HVAC

support baseplates and concrete walls at the center of plate in the duct

4 support standard (Dwg. No. C-0388-0). The concern was related to base-

j plates subject to bending in addition to normal axial loads. The in-

'

spector reviewed the licensee's evaluation of baseplates subject to bend-

ing moments for HVAC support configuration Type "C" identified in the duct

support standard. Type "C" was determined to be the only configuration

j for which the baseplate would be subject to bending since the frame con-

figuration is not braced. The evaluation was performed for the 200" per-

imeter ductwork supported at 8'-0" intervals and subject to the maximum

j response spectra accelerations in both the operating and safe shutdown

earthquakes (OBE & SSE), along with the dead weight (DW) loads. The eval-

! uation also considered the additional moments from eccentricity of struc-

tural attachments to the center of baseplates,

<

f

,

i In both of the loading conditions evaluated, (i.e., OBE + DW and SSE +

,

DW), anchor bolt loads were found to be within allowable limits. Baseplate i

'{ stresses in the (OBE + DW) condition were found to be equal to the maximum

allowable of (0.75) Fy. In the (SSE + DW) condition, however, the plate r

. stresses were slightly higher than the allowable of (0.9) Fy. This slight

increase was considered acceptable because of the conservatism used in the

, analytical approach and in the maximum spectra acceleration applied in the

evaluation. Further, the licensee performed a walkdown inspection to

,

insure that this type of HVAC support configuration (Type "C") was limited

to ductwork not larger than 200" perimeter. Based on the above evalua-

. ion, this unresolved item is closed.

1

(Closed) Unresolved Item No. 85-31-01

Settlement Monitoring. The

j licensee provided settlement monitoring records and plots through _  ;

October 1985 in response to this item. The NRC inspector reviewed the

! field records and plots contained in BPC transmission to PSEG of

October 28,1985 (#BLP-53,373). PSEG's response to this concern is con-

! tained in their December 10, 1985 memorandum to file 601.3 which evaluates

the Hope Creek structure settlements provided by BPC. The inspector

considers the following conclusions acceptable:

{

-

maximum settlements for the power-block foundation are within the

i

predicted values, and no significant further settlement is antici -

pated.

,

-

differential settlement between the power block and the service water

piping is within the allowable limit, and is acceptable. This is

i based on the service water pipeline measured settlement, calculated '

settlement and predicted future settlements presented in response to

question number A.4 of NRC/NRR geotechnical meeting with PSEG dated

January 11, 1984, contained in PSEG transmission dated Feburary 17,

1984.

.

.*

i

.-

6

PSEG has committed to centinue monitoring settlement of the power block

foundation at least until commercial operation of the plant. This

additional data will be evaluated by PSEG to support the conclusions made

above. The evaluation satisfies Item 2.5.4.3.1 of NRC's Safety Evaluation

Report on Static Stability that power block settlements will be monitored

periodically during operation until the settlements are stabilized. The

unresolved item is therefore closed.

4. Exit Interview

An exit interview was held December 19, 1985 at the Hope Creek plant

with members of licensee's staff and contractor personnel identified in

paragraph 1. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of this

inspection. The licensee acknowledged the inspector's comments. Addi-

tional information was presented by licensee and AE representatives at

the Region I office on December 23, 1985. No written information was

given to the licensee during the course of the inspection.

.

.

f

%