ML20197E295

Insp Rept 50-354/88-11 on 880321-25.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Review of Licensee Action in Response to Mark I Containment Mod Requirements of NUREG-0661

ML20197E295
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	05/19/1988
From:	Chaudhary S, Romney N, Strosnider J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20197E292	List: ML20197E288 ML20197E295
References
RTR-NUREG-0661, RTR-NUREG-661 50-354-88-11, NUDOCS 8806080245
Download: ML20197E295 (12)

See also: IR 05000354/1988011

Text

.

.. .

.

,

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report No. 50-354/88-11

Dccket No. 50-354

License No. NPF-57

Licensee: Public Service Electric & Gas Company

Post Office Box 236

Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038

Facility Name: Hope Creek Generating Station

Inspection At: Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey

Inspection Conducted: March 21-25, 1988

Inspectors: ocu[/dely 6[/8[$ 8

S. K. Chaudhary, Senior Reactor Engineer ' da'te

MPS, EB, DRS

Cb eaSWa% 0E

< N. D. Ro W Civil Engineer date

Structural Engineering Branch, NRR

Approved by: .K- JA ;

. R. Strosnider,[ Chief

If/ Y I

' date

PS, EB, DRS

Inspection Sun. mary: Inspection on March 21-25, 1988 (Inspection Report No.

50-354/88-11)

Areas inspected: A special announced inspection by one region based

inspector and one NRR civil engineer was conducted at the Hope Creek

Gen'erating Station Engineering offices. The inspection covered review of

licensee action in response to Mark I containment modification requirements of

NUREG-0661. The inspection included review of design analyses, Plant Unique

Analysis Reports, modifications to the torus and torus attached piping, and

associated quality records.

Results: No violations or deviations were identified. The modification to

the torus met the acceptance criteria of NUREG-0661, and licensee commitments

in the Plant Unique Analysis Report (PUAR).

8806080245 880524

PDR ADOCK 05000354

O DCD

_ _______

_ _ _ - .

,

. -

s .~ .

,

.

Details ,

,

1.0 Persons Contacted

Public Service ~ Electric & Gas Company

C. Atkinson, I&C Engineer

. . M. Coleman, Pipe' Support Engineer-Bechtel

• R. Doges, Licensing Engineer

~

• R. Drewnowski, Manager, Nuclear ME

• A. Giardino, Manager, Station QA

• R. Griffiths, Sr. Principal QA Engineer, HC

M. Idell, Lead Mechanical Engineer

H. Jolly, Senior Staff Engineer

• A. Kao, Supervisor Civil Engineering

J. Kowalewski, QA Engineer-

• J. Lawrence, Licensing Engineer

• B. Preston, Manager, Licensing & Regulation

• M. Reeser, Senior Staff Engineer

B. Schuster, Hope Creek Systems Engineer

F. Thomson, Principal Engineer, Licensing

NUTECH

'

R'. A. Lenhart, Manager, System and Nuclear Engineering

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

G. Meyer~, Senior Resident Inspector

D. Allsopp, Resident Inspector

,

In addition, the inspectors contacted other engineers ar.d management

'

personnel (as their work interfaced with_ the scope of this inspection).

Personnel marked with (*) attended exit meeting at the conclusion of the

inspection.

( 2.0 Inspection Purpose and Scope

! 'The purpose of the inspection was to determine if the licensee had

i. modified the Hope Creek Generating Station containment consistent with

l commitments to NRC concerning Unresolved Safety Issue (USI) A-7, and that

these modifications had been performed using appropriate procedures and

with an acceptable level of quality. The scope of this inspection was

defined by the instructions contained in the NRC Temporary Instruction

!- (TI) 2515/85.

!

l

l

L

.

~- w .

.

.

3

Technical issues in USI A-7 involved suppression pool hydrodynamic loads

on the Mark-I containments. These hydrodynamic loads were not considered

in the original design of the containment. The newly identified loads

affected the torus shell, support structures, internal structures, and-

piping attached to torus (torus attached piping, TAP). -The issue was

addressed by a two phased approach consistir.g of a Short Term, and a Long

Term program. Licensees with plants having Mark I containment were re-

quired to submit to the NRC a Plant Unique Analysis Report (PUAR) to

provide a basis for the plant specific modifications. For Hope Creek

Generating Station, the NRC staff reviewed the PUAR against acceptance

criteria contained in NUREG-0661, and issued a supplemental safety

evaluation report (SSER) in 1985.

Because, the Hope Creek plant design was still under development during

the USI A-7 resolution phase, most of the additional loading identified

by the hydrodynamic phenomenon was taken into account during the final

design. For example, instead of providing saddle support and stiffener

rings, the torus was designed with 1 inch (1") thick steel plate. Also,

the anchor bolts for support columns were designed to accommodate tne

~

newly identified uplift forces. The inspector determined that the

licensee had submitted the general description of the design changes

and they were included in the Final Safety Analysis (FSAR) of the plant.

,

The PUAR developed by the licensee's contractor, NUTECH, gave detailed

descriptions and analyses of the changes in design basis and resulting

modifications. The major design changes and modifications are listed

below.

• Increase in Torus shell plate thickness

• Torus support column anchors

• T-Quencher supports

Stiffening of Torus piping penetrations

Downcomer bracing

3.0 Review Criteria

! Temporary Instruction (TI) 2515/85 was primarily used to define

inspection requirements. The NRC staff SER, licensee PUAR, applicable

sections of the final safety analysis report for Hope Creek, and

applicable sections of Code of Federal Regulations were also used to

I define additional inspection requirements and licensee commitments.

'

4,0 Documentation Review

Prior to the inspection, the inspectors reviewed the docket files

(50-354) for pertinent technical information and related licensing

correspondence. The PVAR was reviewed to summarize the licensee

commitments. Inspectors also reviewed FSAR, NRC staff SER's, previous

inspection reports, NUREG-0408, and NUREG-0661. The above docket search

l

l

. . .

>

.

- - .

,

.

4

identified information addressing the methodology, acceptance criteria, ,

procedures, specifications, schedules and other programatic-details

related to the licensee's approach to resolution of this issue, and

responses to the NRC initiatives.

During the inspection at the licensee's engineering offices at the plant

site, the inspectors reviewed modification design calculations, design

and installation / fabrication drawings and procedures, engineering specifi-

cations, quality assurance and quality control records, and additional

correspondences. (Calculations and other record reviewed for this effort

are listed in attachment 1 to this report.) ,

'

The inspector also reviewed photographs of the progress of the modifica-

tion of the torus. Although the photographs were not apart of quality

assurance record and/or controlled document, they did provide evidence of

the modification and the construction process. The photographs indicated

acceptable workmanship in installations, and conformance to as-built

drawings. Previous NRC inspection reports were reviewed to determine the

extent of the NRC inspection in this area and any significant observation

and./or findings. The reports are tabulated in Table 4.1. Other documents

reviewed are listed in attachment 1 to this report. ,

Table 4.1

NRC IR NO. AREAS COVERED REMARKS

83-12 "As-built" reconciliation of Torus Acceptable

spray header support arms. (NUTECH

stress reports.)

f

83-17 QA/QC activities; ASME Code Acceptable

welding; CMTRs; Welder qualification;

of completed work, downcomer pipe,

4

T quencher arms, pipe welding,

and attachment to Torus.

1

83-18 ASME,Section XI pneumatic Acceptable

! retest of Torus for meeting

10 CFR 50. Appendix J requirements.

84-02 Observation of work in progress 4 concerns

! - welding, QC inspection, weld rod 1. drawing approval

control, fit-up and fabrication of 2. arc strikes

steel members. 3. housekeeping

,

4. temporary welded

!

attachment

j Above concerns were

I acceptably r.esolved

l

84-05 Connection of SRV vent lines Acceptable

to T quenchers

, .

,y m .

.

F .

,

. ,

/ \ p'i

^; ,/ /

'

5-

/

5.0 Review Licensee Administrative Contr k Quality Assurance, and Quality

-Control. < * *

('

The inspector reviewegi documentation,qnd held discussions with licensee

engineers and management personnel to evaluate the licensee's effort in

-assuring quality during-construction /erectio'n phase of 'the suppression

chamber.

By review of records (including previous NRC inspection reports), the

inspector determined the following:

1. The licensee's overall construction QA program was applicable to the

portions of work performed by the constructor, Bechtel spoyer

Corporation.

2. Additional specific modifications which were performed by Chicago

Bridge and Iron company (CBI) were covered by an approved quality

assurance program of CBI.

3. CBI work was generally limted to the modification of Torus .

internals, e.g., T quenchers, SRV lines and supports, and #

reinforcement of 962zle penetrations.

The inspector reviewed the licensee and CBI QA records to determine the

adequacy of scope, and technical and administrative controls exercised

over the work. The rev

procedure and results; nonconformance

/ew covered the areas of' welding

control; procedures;

qualification NDE

and certifi- gf e '

cation of welding, NDE and inspection personnel; certified material test , '

,

reports; and surveillance reports by licensee and Bechtel QA Personnel. - - -

The licensee's audit of. the CBI quality assurance program was also re-

~

.

viewed for scope, depth, and any significant findings. The documents

'

reviewed for this purpose are listed in Attachment 1 to this report. '[

, 4' .

'

Based on the abov6 review and discussion withilicen'iee dersonr.el, the

inspector determined that the administrative controls exercised by the

licensee, constructor, and the contractor (CBI) was sufficient to assure

proper implementation of the quality assurt.nce program for this effort. rf

The contractor held an ASME "N" stamp with an approved QA manual; used ,

qualified welding and if0E Procedures; had an adequate staff of qualified '

craftsmen and inspection personnel; and the licensee's and Bechtels audits ,

and surveillances verified that the contractor's QA program was

effectively implemented.

'

The records were readily retrievable. ,0uring the inspection, the records

i were still available in hard co h form, although the licensee had

converted the records to microfilm. The<' inspector also verified that

Nutech's QA program was approved by the' licensee. The design analyses

and calculations had been independently checked and verified by

/ I

l

l

-- .- --------,,,,------,.---a.

, ,

-

. .

,

.

'(/

O.s! ~

6 . '1/ '

i( '

.

'

.

,(-

o individuals other than the preparer and ef rective interface control was

maintained. Design calculations and other pertinent-documents were

readily retrievable, and the licensee had maintained these documents on,

site in his controlled records management system.

.No violation or deviation was identified. ,

6.0 Design Review

The engineering services for plant unique analysis for hydrodynamic loads

and th.e resulting design changes and modifications were performed by

.,. Nutec'n Engineers of Ssn Jose, California.

The inspectors reviewed selected design specitications, design

' calculations, design drawings, and fabrication and installation drawings

.

of modification to the torus and associated piping and supports. The

specific design documents reviewed are listed in Attachment 2 to this

repo.rt.

analysis,Jbe ~ design reviewcontrol was performed

measures to determine

established by thethe technical

licensee and adequacy

the of

- Eantractor, and compliance of analyses and prsign to the requirements of

NUREG-0061. The detatis of the review are as follows:

'

Th2 inspector reviewed the Nutech calculations for the suppression-chamber

,

and T-Quencher supports. These calculations determined, in part, the

h critical load cases'on these structures for various modes of plant opera-

tion and postulated ac:ident conditions. The load cases considered were  ;-

', in accordance with the requirements of NUREG 0661.

The design of the modifications to the torus, torus support columns, vent

headers, downcomers and SRV T-Quencher supports were reviewed. This

review included a comparison of the location and magnitude of the maximum

l computed stresses in key structural elements with the appropriate allow-

able stresses as defined in Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure

Vessel Code. This comparison indici ted an appropriate use of code

"

I: allowables. The design of critical welds was also examined and was found

to be acceptable. (

I

i

l The vent header calculation which coacluded that a vent header deflector

shield was.not required for Hope Cre<:k was reviewed. This review included

l an assessment of the correlation that was made between the pool swell

loads used in the vent header analysis and those determined by the plant

specific GE 1/4 Scale and 1/12 Scale model tests. There was an accep;able

correlation between the model tests and those loads used in the calcula-

tions. The pool swell loads, when appropriately combined with other

loads, produced stresses in the vent header structural elements that were

within allowable limits without the addition of a deflector shield.

Calculations were reviewed for consideration of loads resulting from the

i relative displacements between the point where the SRV piping penetrates

l the vents and the point of structural support at the torus ring beams also

were found acceptable,

i

l

l \

!

.

,---,e e.- e-.-=4-wy---9-e-wt~ ~g3g -4-=v-+ ew+y , - .avwy .-yme

.. _. .-

.

• .

.

.

'

.

. ,

,

7

',

b# , The design' drawings prepaad by Nutech incorporating the suppression

chamber modifications were reviewed for agreement with the' design

. calculations and were found acceptable. .The fabrication and erection

~

drawings prepared by Chicago Bridge & Iron Company'(CB&I) were compared

with-the Nutech design drawings. This comparison indicated an acceptable

aoreement between the design drawings and the faLrication drawings.

Comparison between the fabrication draw 0.tgi and the "as-built" condition

was determined from construction photographsp A walkdown of the

suppression chamber was not possible b.5 f use of a recent spill of

contaminated water and resulting high ydiatica levels.

'

In addition, the inspector determined fron<the CB&I drawings that: a

supprese poc1 temperature monitorir.3 system was installed; suppression

ch r.mbe- ,,fr. penetrations were duffened; and downcomer bracing was

instal.. .

No deficiencies or violation were identified.

7i0 Operability, and Conformance to Technical Specification (TS) of the e

, Temperature Monitc, ring System Ir

,

The inspector reviewed the modifications to suppression pool temperature I' .

monitoring system including the technical specifications to confirm the /

following:

• The placement and number of temperature monitoring devices were,in

acccrdance with the PUAR commitments.

• iuppression pool temperatures were indicated in the control room.

• Inst.rumentafion alarm setpoints had been established consistent with TS

rpol tempdature limits.

• Control room instrumentation was adequate to assure that requirements

could be 'tgt;

Based on the above review and visual examinations of the control room

,

instrumentation panel, the inspector determined the following:

!

• The controlled drawings indicated that two independent jhannels

powered by class 1E vital power buses have been installed.

• The supp b pssion pool temperature was indicated in the control room

by strio chart indications.

l

l

I

,

,

Q,,, - _ . . _ _ _ .

. - _ - _ .

_

.. -

.

~..

,

. ,

'

.

. {I

8

• The alarm setpoints were 95 F,105 F,110 F for different modes of

operations. For modes 1 and 3 the limit ofiaverage temperature was

95*F. The maximum temperature alarm was set to 120 F with MSIVs

closed following a scram.

• The above instrumentation and setpoints were consistent with PUAR

commitments and TS requirements. .

The inspector determined that the design and installation of the

temperature monitoring system had been accomplished in accordance with

. licensee commitments and TS requirements.

- No violations' or deviations were identified.

8.0 Exit Interview

, .

- An exit meeting was conducted on-March 25, 1988 at the engineering

offices'at. site by the inspectors. . Attendees at the meeting are listed

in paragraph 1 of this report. The inspectors summarized the purpose,

scope, and findings of the inspection. No written material was provided

to the licensee during-this inspection. The-licensee representative did

not indicate that this inspection involved any proprietary information.

<

, t* i

i

v

I

r

i

k

P

y 9 , s we,,,n+ -n,,..------g,, ,,,v-,,-, ,,,g ~r,- , . , , , , - , - ,ww,n,,m,, ,n,,.,-,, - - . , , , , w,y, -cm-,---c-ex-~v--w-eme e- t- oc r' ,,vwv--m,--*

.s

- -

. ,

.

.r.. ,c ,' .

_

!? '

. -

ATTACHMENT 1

. Records Reviewed:

~ 1. Hope Creek Plant Unique Analysis Report (PUAR)

2. NRC-Request For Additional Information (RAI) dated 11/16/84

"

3. CBI Nuclear QA Manual-Div. 1,_ Issue #2, 7/7/83

'4. CBI Welding Procedure Specifications (WPS)

Standard - GWPS-GTAW, Rev. 13 -

3/3/83

E8018C1/31645 GWPS-SMAW, Rev., 0 - '

6/27/83

E309/31645 GWPS-SMAW, Rev1 ,0 -

6/24/83

ER309/E309/3165 _GWPS-SMAW, Rev.,.0 -

6/24/83

E308L/31645 GWPS-SMAW, Rev., 0 6/27/83

ER308L/E308L/31645 GWPS-GTAW, Rev., 0 6/27/83

y ER308L/31645 GWPS-GTAW, Rev., 0- 6/27/83

Standard - GWPS-SMAW, Rev., 14 2/8/83

ER705-2/31645 - GWPS-SMAW, Rev., 0 6/17/83

E7018/31645 -

GWPS-SMAW, Rev., 0 7/26/83

ER70S-2/E7018/31645 SMAW/GTAW, Rev., 0 6/27/83

5. Bechtel QC Surveillance Reports of CBI work, 1983-1985

6. PSE&G QA Surveillance Reports, Nov-Dec. 1983

7. Specification BPC-02-101, Rev 0: "Design Specs for SRV Discharge

T-Quencher Supports."

8. Specification BPC-02-102, Rev. O, "Design Specification for Suppression

Chamber Modifications."

9. Specification BPC-01-321, Rev. O, "Design Specifications for

Suppression Chamber Piping Penetrations Reinforcement."

_ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

"

.

3 ,

..

2

10. CBI Audit Findings. F-1/31645, Jan 5/1985 (Folder #3~.0)

11. CBI Magnetic Particle Examination Reports (Folder #7.4)

12. CBI Material . Verification Summary Sheet (Folder #5.1)

13. CBI Repair Check Lists (Folder #8.6.1)

14. CBI Noncomformance Control List (Folder #8.6.2)

15. CBI Nondestructive Examination Personnel Qualifications (Folder #8.12)

Restraint Number-431; 262; 132; 64; 611; 1199.

16. PSE&G Audit Report #H-326; dated 6/15/84.

17. Letter G. Moulton, BCI to A. Giardino, PSE&G, dated 6/21/84

18. Bechtel Construction QC Manual, Copy 081 Vol. 19-20.

19. PSE&G Quality Assurance Manual, Vol-4, Book 1-4.

-QA Proc. 2-1, HC QA Program, Rev. 8, 10/17/83, and 9, dated 2/1/85

-QA Proc. 2-7, Qualification and Ceritification of Personnel,

Rev. 12-6/24/85

-QA Proc. 7-11, Suppliers Quality Manual Review, Rev. 1,

-QA Proc. 8-1, Material Identification and Control, Rev. 1

20. CBI Welding Procedure Qualification (PQR) Reports:

PQR # 2012, SMAW for SA537-2

PQR # 2411, SMAW for SA537-CL-2

1. 2525, SMAW for A240-304

1. 2533, GTAW for SA333GR-6

1. 2650, GTAW/SMAW for SA240-304

1. 2925, SMAW for SA516-70

1. .3185, GTAW for SA312-304

1. 3250, SMAW for SA516-6270/70

CBI Contract QA Manual, Set No. 3

.

-

- .

,

'

, ATTACHMENT 2 PAGE 1

.

.

INSPECTION DOCUMENT 000. DOCUMENT DOCUMENT

DATE AUTHOR CATA6. IDENT I PRETARED DESCRIPi!0N

8313 333 3 3333333333333333333333333F3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 333F 4333333333333 3333 3

21-Mar-88 Bechtel Spec C-]2 Technical Specification for Prisary Containeent

21-Mar-88 htech Spec IPC-02-102 01-Oct-82 Des. Spec, for Suppression Chaeber Modifications

21-Mar-88 Ilutech Spec BPC-02-101 01-Oct-82 Des. Spec. for SRV Discharge T-9uencher Supports

22-Mar-88 htech Calc 11.2201.1103 10-Sep-83 Stress Anal. of Torus 6 Supports; Des. of Nelds

22-Mar-08 htech Cale 11.2201.1211 17-Jan-84 1/32 Supp. Chaeber Modeling Calc & Motion Sener.

22-Mar-88 hoch Calc 11.2201.1101 15-Sep-82 Modeling of Mod. Parts of 1/32 Hope Creet Model

22-Mar-88 Nutech Dwg BPC-02-202 28-Jan-86 Suppression Chaeber Modification, Sheets 1-4

22-Mar-88 Nutech Dwg BPC-02-201 18-Jan-84 SRV T-Ouencher Supports, Sheets 1-4

22-Mar-88 Nutech Calc 11.2201.1415 03-Feb-83 SRV/f-Quencher Lead Coebination 6 Analysis

23-Mar-88 tatech Dwg 8?C-01-0205 30-Mar-84 Suppression Chaeter Penetration Modifications

23-Mar-8S Nutech Calc 11.2201.1111 24-Jan-84 Suppression Chaeber Mor.arail cales.

23-Mar-88 Nutech Calc 11.2201.1311 09-Jan-84 1/32 Vent systes F.E.M Analysis Calculations

23-Mar-88 C641 C'1 8 to 25 01-Aug-83 Sup. Chaeber Mod. Det for Ring Girders & Coluons

23-Mar-88 Nutech Calc 11.2201.1214 17-Jan-84 1/32 Suppression Chaeber Load Cosb. I Fatigue Eval

23-Mar-88 C841 Dog 75 02-Nov 83 Theronovells

23-Mar-88 htech Calc 11.2201.1121 11-May-84 Catsalk Analysis Calculations

24 Mar-88 CB41 Dog 30 to 38  ???? Ring 61rder Stif fner Beae Details

24-Mar-88 Bechtel Dog C-0485  ???? Foundation Mat Reinforcing Details, Sht. 5

24-Mar-88 Bechtel Dog C-0452  ???? Foundation Rat Plan - Area 14

25-Mar-88 Bechtel Calc C 621-30 (0) 02-Jul-85 Base Mat forus Uplif t Chect

.

- _ _ - . - .-

e .

d

u ga s

...

o PAGE 2

1

'

I

- _ .

Sche'dule of Penetrations Reviewed During Inspection #88-11

March 21 thru 25, 1988

PENET PENET PENETRATION

NUMBER DIAMETER DESCRIPTION

a=================================================

P203 6 in. Reinforced No::le with plates

P212A 18 in. Reinforced nozzle with gusset plates-

P2128. 18 in. Reinforced no::le with gusset plates

' P213A 10 in. Reinforced Nozzle with plates

P213B 10 in. Reinforced No::lo with plates

P217A 10 in. Reinforced No: le with plates

P217B 10 in. Reinforced No::le with plates

P222 8 in. Reinforced no::le with plates

P210 4 in. Reinforced no::le with sleeve

J207 1 in. Reinforced nozzle with sleeve

.

i

!

I

i

i