IR 05000321/1979031
| ML19308C722 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 11/14/1979 |
| From: | Compton R, Herdt A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19308C708 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-321-79-31, 50-366-79-35, NUDOCS 8002010197 | |
| Download: ML19308C722 (5) | |
Text
-
- ga 8849'o
,
,
UNITED STATES OF sucLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-
y a
ae REGION 11 o,
f 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SulTE 3100 k*****d'
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 NOV 2 01979 Report Nos. 50-321/79-31 and 50-366/79-35
'
Licensee: Georgia Power Company 270 Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303
'
Facility Name:
Hatch Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5 In :pection at il c S te near Baxley, Georgia Inspect f:
ff/(
// *h' W c
3 R. M.
to Date Signed Approved by:
'
k
//YV-7[
A. H. Herdt, Section Chief, RCES Branch Date Signed Summary Inspection on October 15-17, 1979 Areas Inspected This routine, announced inspection involved 15 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of IE Bulletin 79-14, " Seismic Analysis for As-Built S.ifety Related Piping Systems," IE Bulletin 79-02, " Pipe Support Base Plate Designs Using Concrete Expansion Anchor Bolts" and licensee action on previous inspection findings.
Results of the two areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identi-fled in one area; one item of noncompliance was found in one area (Infraction-Failure to follow piping surveillance procedure-Paragraph 5).
.
800201019 7
.
r
..
.
V DETAILS 1.
Persons contacted Licensee Employees
- H. Manry, Plant Manager C. R. Miles, Jr., QA Field Supervisor
- C. E. Belflower, QA Site Supervisor
- W. B. Thigpen, QA Field Representative
- J. T. Yaun, QC Specialist
- R. E. Dixson, Engineer
- J. W. Richardson, Engineer, Construction
- F. M. Landrum, Engineering Associate NRC Resident Inspector
- R. F. Rogers
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on October 17, 1979 with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Open) Unresolved I -m 321/79-07-01 and 366/79-08-01 Concrete removed from expansion anchor stress cones. Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP) procedures HNP-1-11005, Revision 3 and HNP-2-11009, Revision 1 provide for an inspection of concrete integrity around each installed anchor. The inspector observed that concrete had been removed from what appeared to be the stress cone of expansion anchors in Unit 1 pipe support E11-H306. The completed concrete integrity inspection data sheet for this support did not indicate the chae f ered concrete. The licensee was asked to review and evaluate this apparent discrepancy. This item remains open.
(Closed) Infraction 366/79-08-02, Inadequate corrective action concerning concrete expansion anchor installation deficiencies.
GPC's response to this noncompliance in a letter dated April 25, 1979 was reviewed. The QA audit process was discussed with the site QA Staff. This specific noncom-pliance has been discussed at regular QA staff meetings. The following present site procedures for controlling, implementing corrective action on and closing audit findings were examined:
HNP - 835, Revision 4, " Audit Findings, Responses and Notifications"
.
.
.
t-2-Hatch QA Procedure QA-05-06, Revision 4, "Preoperational, Startup and
.
Operational Audits" The inspector considers that adequate corrective steps have been taken to avoid further noncompliance in this area. This item is closed.
(Closed) Unresolved Item 321/79-07-02 and 366/79-08-04, Adequacy of
.
Installed Concrete Expansion Anchors. Clearance of field activity con-cerning IEB 79-02 as related in paragraph 6 of this report also clears this unresolved item. This item is closed.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
S.
(0 pen) IE Bulletin Number 79-14, " Seismic Analysis for As-Built Safety-Related Piping Systems", (Units 1 and 2).
GPC did not perform any new inspections of Unit 2 piping because of the relatively recent completion of Unit 2 and the better control and documen-tation of piping installation and design changes. Generating Plant Construction Procedure MD-T-02, " Field Pipe Support Surveillance", which accomplished the inspection elements specified in IEB 79-14, was completed for Unit 2 in July 1978. The results of this surveillance are being eval-uated by Bechtel and General Electric Company (for the systems they had original design responsibility for). The above procedure and supplementary procedure MI-T-02, " Guide to Support Devices Inspection" were reviewed.
The construction surveillance package for stress problem 136 on isometric 2B21-101, Revision E, was examined for completeness and the extent and types of deviations identified.
The Unit I field verification effort for IEB 79-14 is being accomplished in accordance with site procedure HNP-1-1-124, Revision 1, " Surveillance Procedure for Safety Related Seismic Class 1 Systems". The inspector noted that this procedure did not contain measurement tolerances for the pipe geometry or support details verification. Although some tolerances were specified in a separate memorandum and were outlined in GPC's 30 day response to IEB 79-14, it was pointed out to the licensee that the proper place to specify these tolerances is in the work procedure.
Surveillance personnel certification of qualification record forms were examined.
A copy of the surveillance work package for 1sometric B21-100 including a Hanger Surveillance Checklist, Pipe Run Geometry Signoff Sheet, Valve Surveillance Sheet and the marked up isometric was examined for complete-ness and the extent and type of deviations note _
.
.
g-3-The inspector selected three piping runs and compared the as-built piping and support configurations with the marked up drawings completed by the GPC surveillance teams. The piping runs and supports examined and the discre-pancies noted between the as-built condition and the marked up drawings are as follows:
Isometric C41-101, Revision C, " Stand by Liquid Control System Pump a.
Suction" Two supports.
No discrepancies.
b.
Portions of Isometric E41-102, Revision E, "IIPCI System Turbin Exhaust to Torus" Supports 119, H10, H14,1115 and H89
,
Discrepancy - 18 feet 11 inch dimension between data point 105 and the tee next to valve F049 is approximately 15 feet 11 inches as-built.
Discrepancy - Hanger H9 shown as 5 feet 8 inches from data point 70 and on the far side of an expansion joint is actually approximately 3 feet from data point 70 and on the near side of the expansion joint.
Portions of Isometric E51-103, Revision C, "RCIC System 10 inch Steam c.
Exhaust to Torus" Supports ll4A,115, ll5A,1121, II22 and !!23 Discrepancy - Snubber H23 shown on the isometric as attached to an 8 inch tee is actually attached to a spoolpiece approximately 1 fc,t from the tee.
Discrepancy - An existing small diameter branch line between data points 20 and 30 was not whown on the original isometric. The loca-tion marked up on the drawing by the surveillance team is approxi-mately 4 feet from the actual location.
The failure to properly mark up these drawings as required by HNP-1-1-124 appears to be in noncompliance with Criterion V of Appendix B to 10CFR50 and is identified as an infraction, 321/79-31-01.
The inspector noted that no QA audits had been performed in relation to this work effort. The QA Field Supervisor and the QA Site Supervisor were informed that a project of the scope and importance of IEB 79-14 warrants a deeper involvement by the QA departmen r o
a
.
-4-a 6.
(0 pen) IE Bulletin Number 79-02, " Pipe Support Base Plate Designs Using Concrete Expansion Anchor Bolts" In IE Report 50-321/79-27 and 50-366/79-31, the NRC requested GPC to provide supplemental information concerning the response to IE Bulletin 79-02 for Unit 1.
This information dated September 14, 1979 was received and has been reviewed by the NRC. This additional response to IEB 79-02 is considered adequate. This bulletin remains open pending the completion of design review of the base plate flexibility analysis by NRR. This inspection will
,
clear the site work and QA/QC procedures as fulfilling the intent of IEB 79-02.
!