IR 05000321/1979007
| ML19225A389 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 04/02/1979 |
| From: | Bryant J, Compton R, Modenos L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19225A360 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-321-79-07, 50-321-79-7, 50-366-79-08, 50-366-79-8, NUDOCS 7907190121 | |
| Download: ML19225A389 (4) | |
Text
-
.
UNITED ST ATES
/st>* RE Guq'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- ,a s, *
REGION n
{
\\,-.,
g 101 M ARIETT A ST FsEET.N.W.
"
r 7 f-f ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30303 o.
g
%o *'
s
...*
.
r i
Report Nos.
50-321/79-7 and 50-3t>6/79-8 Licersee-Georgia Power Company 270 Peachtree Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 10303 Facility Name Hatch Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos.
50-321 and 50-3t>6 License Nos.
DPR-57 and NPF-5 Inspection at Hatch site near Baxley, Georgia
/
-
-
s
</7, inspectors: _(, {
e 3N
__
ate 51 gn e.1
R. M. Compton L 29
_[DateSigned -
l h ' ' ' 'Q-
-
_-
,_~Modenos n.
/_ g '_
['
gg7f Approved by:,'
ts yan Sectian Chlef, 8LESl; Date Signei
,
Sl'.T1ARY Inspe(tion on February 20-22 an.1 February n - Maren 2, l 's 7 4 Areas Inspected This special unannounced inspection involved t>0 inspector-hours onsite.:
the area of concrete expansion anchc.r installation.
hesults Two apparent items of noncompliance were found.
(intraction - Failuir ti take adequite correttive action on nonconforming (oncrete expansion anchors - paragraph 5 and Infraction - f ailure to report a s i gn i ! 1 c.in t construction deficien(y on cont rete exp, :1s ' en atu ho rs per 10 (fR 50.%'c' -
para,,raph 5).
d 7 zb l 737 i
<
d( W*,qdu a
Jsi n
.
.
.
DETAIL"
'l.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- M. Manry, Plant Manager kH C. Nix, Assistaat Plant Manager 2C. R. Miles, Jr., QA Field Supervisor FC. E. Belflower, QA Site Supervisor
- T.
V. Greene, Plant Services Engineering Superintendent
- W.
F. Barrett, QA Field Representative icW. R. Glisson, Associate Engineer 2G. E. Spell, Jr., Senior QA Field Representative Other licensee employees conta:ted included construction craf tsmen, QC 1 r.
ectors and QA personnel,
.r Organizations t
M. Desai, Mechanical Supervisor, Bechtel A. J. Ciccone, Plant Design Supervisor, Bechtel V. J. Papproth, Bechtel NRC Jesident Inspector
- R.
F.
Rogers cAttended exit interview.
2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were sum 1:urized on March 2 1974 with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above The licensee acknowledged the noncompliances discussed in paragraph 5.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolv"d 'tems Unresclved items are matters about which more.nformation is required to determine whether they are atceptable or may involve noncompliance Or deviations New un'isohed i t en:s identified during this inspection are discussed in paragraph 5.
347 338
.
-2-5.
Concrete Expansion Anchors (Units 1 and 2)
During a Unit 2 MSIV trip test at 100% power a number of. hangers were damaged in a non-safety-related portion of the feedwaterIsystem.
The
'
purpose of this inspection was to examine the failed hangers and the licensee's evaluation for potential problems in safety related areas of the plant.
The licensee is performing an inspection and analysis of affected feedwater piping, an inspection of related systems' pipe supports and redesigning and replacing dam:gea supports.
The inspectors examined the damaged pipe supports and the concrete surfaces whera they had been attached.
hany of the self drilling (shell) type concrete expansion anchors used to anchor the pipe supports to the structure had been pulled (slipped) from the structure due to unknown system transient loadings.
The absence of concrett, anchor or moenting bolt failures and evidence of minimal end expansion of the slipped anchors indica:ed that there anchors had not been properly installed.
To resolve the cu-stion concerning expanston anchor lastalla-tion the licensee is performag a detailed inspection program.
A survey of Unit 2 safety-related supports indicated that there were approximately 4013 wedge or sleeve type anchors installed affecting 569 supports and 2470 self drilling type anchors installed affectinn 390 suppcrts.
The inspection of wedge tupe anchors to.:ists of verifying proper diameter, embedment depth (employing ultrasonic testing) and preload (by torquing) on a random sample of anchors.
Self drilling type anchors are being inspected for evidence of alteraticns, proper diameter, nounting bolt thread engagement and by load testing.
The inspectors reviewed the inspect ion and test i:.g proceuure, HNP-J-11003, Revision 2, and observed inspection and testing of anchors in the Southeast Diagonal.
The inspectors examined hanger and anchor bolt installattons (prior to the GPC inspect ion - in the HPCl room and the RCIC and Southeast Diagonals.
Several discrepant conditions egarding anchors were noted and reported to GPC personnel.
It was noted in the Southeast Diagonal that concrete had been chamfered around many penetration sleeves through the containment wall to facilitate installation of " boots" over the pipe to sleeve joints.
In several cases the concrete had been removed frem the ' stress cone" area of concrete expansion anchors on ad.jacent piping and cable tray supports Tt question of whether any concrete expansion anct.or installations on sarety related supports have been affccted t" this concrete removal ts identified as Unresolved item 321/79-07 c.,
3/ 9 77-08-01.
s-3 C/
339
.
.
.
-3-The inspectors witnessed the inspection and testing of several installa-tions in the Southeast Diagonal.
The f ollowing procedures pertaining; to expansion anchor installations were reviewed:
j M. W. Kelion Procedure ES-278, " Installation and Inspection of Concrete Expansion Anchors and Wedge Anchors", thrt ogh Revision 2 GPC Generating Plant Const ruct ion Procedu re Gi)-T-10,
" Installation and Inspection of Concrete Expansion Anchors", through Revision 1 11NP Procedure 6942, Revis ton 0, "Installat ion and Inspect i on of Concrete Anchors Used on Class I and II Seismic Clat Sys t ems'
The first twa procedures were used during Unit 2 construction and the third procedure is the operating plant procedur" These procedures allow installation of wedge, sleeve and stud pe anchors only.
The licensee indicated that prior to June 1,
1977, there were no license.
cr mechanical contractor (M.W. Kellog Company) procedures for installa-tion or inspection of expansion anchors.
Therefore, there were apparently no installation or inspection procedur"s for the sel: drilling anchors that have been installed.
Two construction procedures listed above were issued as a result of Construction QA Audit MDOi 77/12 performed in March 1977.
This audit, in addition to citing a lack of installation procedures, identified 21 cases of improper installation, 23 anchors with improper length and/or diameter and 27 loose bolts in a sample of 90 anchors.
A number of additional deticiencies noted on the audit ts such as inadequate thread engagement and cut sleeves were not in:.aed in the audit results.
The only open i' ms identified by the audit were the 27 loose bolts, 8 short bolts in one support and the lack of procedures To correct the Icose bolt condit ion all previou:,1y installed Unit 2 anchors or mounting i)ol t s were torqued per the wedge bolt installation torques listed in Proceoure ES 278.
However, th;re is no evidence that some specific cases of improper or questionable installations were evaluated or correrted.
For exarapl e, Meclianical Department Mistellaneous Daily Report 3159 for hanger 2r.4'-HPCI-HR4 indicates that bergen-Patterson, the suppoit designer, had approved shallow embedment for two anchors provided an additianal brace was installed.
When this hanger was examined by lE on March 1, 1979 no brace had been ins' Iled.
Bolt thread engagement that would not meet current requ rements was not evaluated or corrected on supports 2 Ell-RHR-HRlt>t> and 2E ll-RliR-HR171.
In addit ion, no evaluation or inspection of possible improper installa-bkf l ll !'
,
.
-4-tion was performed on the remaining Unit 2 anchor installation and the possibility of problems in Unit I was not addressed.
,
s
'
This lack of adequate corrective action is in apparent noncompliance with Criterion 16 of Id CFR 50 Appendix B and is ident i f i c"i a s an infraction, 366/79-08-02.
This significant construction deficiency was r.o t reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commis:. ion as required by 10 CFR Su.55(e).
This apparent noncompliance with the report ing requi remer.ts of 10 CFR 50.55(e) is identified as an infraction, 366/79-08-03.
The general question of the adequacy of installed concrete expansion anchors is identified as Unresolved Item 321/79/07-02; 366/79-08-04.
The licensce's inspection program, evaiuat ions ant' corrective <tions will be examined during future inspections.
J'i l} N <i
]!
e
?
,