IR 05000321/1981002
| ML19345G982 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 03/06/1981 |
| From: | Conlon T, Lenahan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345G976 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-321-81-02, 50-321-81-2, 50-366-81-02, 50-366-81-2, NUDOCS 8104220960 | |
| Download: ML19345G982 (6) | |
Text
,q
,
'b UNITED STATES
. f ',
~,,g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
a REG 10N il e"[
101 MARIETTA sT N.W SUITE 3100 g
%,
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303
....+
MAR 0 31981 Report Nos. 50-321/81-02 and 50-366/81-02 Licensee: Georgia Power Company 270 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30303 Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 Facility Name: Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5 Inspection at Hatch site near Saxley, Georgia h
w[,
3/flf/
Inspector:
J. J. Lenahan // v Date Signed Approved by:
M
.3 - 6 - f l T. E. Conlon, Section Chief, RC&ES Branen Date Signed SUMMARY Dates of Inspection: January 27-30, 1981 Areas Inspected This special announced inspection involved 27 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of followup on IE Bulletin 80-11 and procedures, work activities and quality records pertaining to-the replacement of the backfill supporting the. RHR and service water piping at the intake structure.
Results Of the two areas inspected, no violations or deviations were iaentified in one area: one violation was found in one area (Failure to establish procedures for control and calibration of testing equipment used to perform tests on K-Krete -
paragraph 6).
,
'
s
!
!
I
l l
-
.,,
.c 810422096Qs i
.
-
..
--
-- -
.
_,
-
-
.
- .
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees J. T. Beckham, Jr., Manager of Nuclear Generation
- M. Manry, Plant Manager
- C. E. Belflower, QA Site Supervisor C. R. Miles, QA Field Supervisor D. A. McCusker, QC Supervisor R. M. Herrington, Senior QC Specialist
- J. Rearden, Junior Engineer
- M. Brey, Senior QA Field Representative
- R. Perkins, Construction Proejet Coordinator K. Wells, Junior Engineer J. M. Watson, Senior QA Field Representative Other Organizations L. Young, Geotechnical Engineer, Law Engineering E. Beall, Geotechnical Engineer, Law Engineering R. Vines, Electrical Engineer, Southern Company Services W. C. Orr, Civil Engineer, Southern Company Services T. Barr, Mechanical Engineer, Southern Company Services NRC Resident Inspector
- R. Rogers
,
.
" Attended exit interview
.
.
2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized by the NRC Resident
"
Inspector on January 30, 1981, with those persons indicated in para-graph 1 above. The violation described in paragraph 6 was discussed.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve noncompliance or deviations.
New unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in paragraph 6.
-
.
.
.>-
.,
-
_
.
,
...,
.
.-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ -
_ _ _
.__ _
_.
_ _ - _ _ _
.
.
,
5.
(0 pen) IE Bulletfo 80-11, Masonry Wall Design - Units 1 and 2
'
a.
Summary of Licensee's Response to IE Bulletin 80-11 Georgia Power Company submitted its 60 day IE Bulletin 80-11 response to NRC Region II for Hatch Units 1 and 2 on July 3,1980. The response summarized the methods used to identify masonry walls in the proximity
'
of safety-related equipment, briefly described the criteria and methods to be used in the design re-evaluation, and listed a schedule for
'
completion of the re evaluation. Region II was notified of a change in the schedule for completion of the design re-evaluation in a letter from Georgia Power dated September 16, 1980.
i Georgia Power submitted its 180 day IE Bulletin 80-11 response to NRC Region II for Hatch Units 1 and 2 on November 4,1980. The 180 day response summarized the approach used in design re-evaluation of the masonry walls, described the function and configuration of the walls, discussed the construction practices and materials used in erecting the masonry walls, and presented the results of the design re-evaluation.
As a result of the design re-evaluation, 9 walls were found to be overstressed upon application of seismic loads. This.was reported to NRC Region II as Licensee Event Report (LER) number 50-321/1980-115 on November 1,1980. This LER is discussed in paragraph 6 of this inspection report. With the exception of 3 walls in the main stack, i
the licensee's.180 day response states that identification and design re-evaluation of masonry walls in the proximity of safety related equipment has been completed. The walls in the main stack will be surveyed and re-evaluated, if required, during the next refueling outage.
b.
Review of Procedure ~for Accomplishment of IE Bulletin 80-11 Require-ments The inspector ex. mined Southern Services Company procedure " Surveil-lance Procedure for Concrete Masonry Walls for Georgia Power Company for E. I. Hatch Nuclear Plant - Units 1 and 2".
This procedure addresses the field surveillance requirements to identify masonry walls in the proximity of safety-related equipment and preparation and checking of the masonry wall as-built drawings.
c.
Field Walkdown in Safety-Related Areas to Identify Masonry Walls The inspector, accompanied by licnesee and Southern Services Company engineers, walked down the following areas to verify that all masonry walls in the proximity of safety-related equipment had been identified in accordance with IEB 80-11 requirements and the licensee's responses:
(1) Control Building Floor Elevations 112, 130, 147, 164, and 180 (2) Diesel Generator Building (3)
Intake Structure (4). Portions of the Units 1 and 2 Reactor Building
.:u.
,-
x.
.,,
_
.
..,
...
-
..
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _.
.
.
,
.
,v
No additional masonry walls were identified by the inspector during the walkdown. The field survey performed by Southern Company engineers appears to have been adequate to identify all masonry walls in the proximity of safety-related equipment.
d.
Review of Quality Records Related to IE Bulletin 80-11 The inspector examined the following quality records relating to IEB 80-11:
(1) Masonry Wall Surveillance Data sheets 1 and 2 (2) As-built drawings for the walls listed in the table below. These drawings were reviewed during the walkdown inspection discussed in paragraph Sc to verify that the drawings were accurate.
TABLE Location Wall Number Control Building Elevation 112 60, 11A, 11B, 12A, 23A, 23B, 27A, and 27B Control Building Elevation 130 1A, 18, 2A, 2B, 7A, 78, 14A, 148, 50A, 508, 51A, and SIB LNo violations 'or deviations were identified.
6.
Licensee Identified Items (LERs)
a.
Settling of Fill Under Plant Service Water and RHR Service Water Piping
'
The inspector examined procedures, quality records, and the work completed as of the inspection date associated with repair of backfill supporting the RHR and service water piping adjacent to the intake structure. The repair work is being accomplished under Design Change Request number DCR 80-279. The details of the inspection are stated in the following paragraphs:
(1) Review of Drawings and Procedures for Accomplishment of Intake'
Repair Work The inspector examined the following documents which control the backfill repair (replacement) activities:
(a)
Law Engineering " Procedure for Field Quality Control for Construction and Backffiling of a Braced Excavation for the Intake Structure Service Water Piping and Utilities for E. I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2"
-
m
- e..,.
,
.,.
,
.
.
.-
.%
,
.
..
.
,
.
L-
(b) Bechtel " Technical Specification for Design, Construction and Backfilling of a Braced Excavation for the Intake Structure Service Water Piping and Utilities for E. I. Hatch Power Plant Units 1 and 2" (c) Spencer-White and Prentis " Procedure for Installing Deep Wells and a Wellpoint Dewatering System"
,
(d) Spencer-White & Prentis drawing numbers 2654-1 through 2654-6, " Intake Structure - litility Underpinning" Review of the above procedures disclosed the following Unresolved Item:
The procedure for installation of the dewatering system addresses the method of installation of the wellpoints and deepwells only. The procedure does not address the layout of the system, the wellpoint size (diameter), size and type pumping equipment, requirements for emergency standby equip-ment, the required system performance, and the need for instrumentation (monitoring well) to verify system is per-forming properly.
Review of the contractor's drawings indicate that these requirements may be shown on dewatering subcontractor's drawings.
The apparent lack of adequate procedures for installation of the dewatering system was identified to the licensee as Unresolved Item 321/81-02-01 and 366/81-02-01, " Deep Excavation Dewatering Procedures" pending further review by NRC of the dewatering subcon-tractor's drawings.
(2) Obs'ervation of Intake Backfill Repair-The inspector witnessed partial placement of K-Krete pour number-
.
32. Placement and inspection of the pour was in accordance with project procedures. The inspector examined the work completed as of the inspection date.
i l
The loose backfill under the RHR and service water lines has been excavated and replaced with K-Krete under approximately 50 feet of the 80 foot shallow excavation section. Placement of structural
~
steel beams for temporary suppert of pipe lines in the deep I
excavation was in progress.
(3) Review of Quality Records Related to the Intake Backfill Repair l
The inspector reviewed the following records relating to the
'
intake backfill repair:
l i
'/,*...
,*
.
,
,
,
_
_
..
.
,
..
.
(a)
Subgrade Inspection Sign-off Sheet (b) Unconfined compressive strength and bulk unit weight data for 3X6 inch K-Krete cylinders from pour numbers 15 through 26 (c) Pile driving records for pile numbers 1 through 10 and 13
'
through 18.
(d) Results of protective coating tests and inspections performed on pipe numbers 2E-11, 2P-41, E-11, and P-41 from coordinates 6247 through 6308.
(e) Nonconformance Report Numbers80-177 through 80-180,80-183 and 80-185.
(f) Calibration data for Karol-Warner Model 1000 RP Lead Ring Review of the calibration data for the load ring and discussions with licensee personnel disclosed the following violation:
'
The calibration data for the load ring was a plot of load versus dial reading and an undated letter from an independent testing laboratory certifying that the plot was accurate and traceable to i
NBS. The date of calibration and the required recalibration date i
'
were not indicated in the letter.
Discussions with licensee QA and QC personnel disclosed that a procedure had not been estab-lished for control.of this testing equipment as required by 10 CFR -
t l
50, Appendix B, Criterion XII.
This was identified to the l
licensee as Violation Item 321/81-02-02 and 366/81-02-02, " Failure to Establish Procedures for Control and Calibration of Testing l
Equipment Used to Perform Test on K-Krete".
No de"* =+. ions were identified.
'
-
b.
Overstressed Masonry Walls As discussed in paragraph 5.a, performance of the masonry wall design re-evaluation required by IE Bulletin 80-11 disclosed that 9 walls had local stresses above the code allowable upon application of seismic loads. The inspector discussed the modifications to these walls which will reduce these stresses to within design allowables with Southern Services Company engineers. The inspector reviewed Southern Services Company proposed design change request numbers PSOC 80-001 through
!
PSOC 80-009 which detail the required wall modifications. The licensee has prepared a Design Change Request to perform the work.
No violations or deviations were identified.
l l
, ~..
f.
.
>
Q.
'
-
.~
<
..
.
,
,
,
,
<