IR 05000321/1982023
| ML20027B139 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 08/17/1982 |
| From: | Crowley B, Economos N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027B132 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-321-82-23, 50-366-82-21, NUDOCS 8209160470 | |
| Download: ML20027B139 (7) | |
Text
_.
.._..
.
__
__
_ _ -
_. - _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-.
.
sa '800 UNITED STATES
- gs 9'o,*
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8"
REGION 11 o
- E 101 MARIETTA St N.W, SUITE 3100
Ait.ANTA. GEORGIA 30303
\\..,*/
Report Nos. 50-321/82-23 and 50-366/82-21 Licensee: Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30303
'
Facility Name:
Hatch j
Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 i
License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5 i
Inspection at Hatch site near Baxley, GA Inspector:
L, I
bd
.
i
_B. R. Cr ley I
ate ' Signed Approved by:
//
V N.'Ec
- Acting Section Chief
/Dat Signed l
Engineering Inspection Branch
'
Division of Engineering and Technical Programs SUMMARY Inspection on July 21-23, 1982 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 23 inspector-hours on site in the areas of inservice inspection (Unit 2), inservice testing of pumps and valves (Units 1 and 2), and previous inspection findings (Unit 2).
!
Results No violations or deviations were identified.
8209160470 820818
PDR ADOCK 05000321 G
-
.
- - - ~ _ _.._,
.._.-_.-__. _ _ _ _.-.-.,_
- -___ ____._ _ _.... _ _ _.
._ - - _ _ _ - _... - -. _ _ _
.
'
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- T. V. Green, Assistant Plant Manager
- C. E. Belflower, QA Site Supervisor
- D. A. McCusker, QA Supervisor
- J. M. Watson, Senior QA Field Representative H. L. Sumner, Su, erintendent of Plant Engineering Services T. L. Elton, Supervisor Regulatory Compliance J. A. Edwards, Senior Regulatory Specialist
- E. M. Burkett, ISI Pump and Valve Engineer
,
Other licensee employees contacted included QC and QA personnel.
Other Organizations T. N. Epps, ISI Group Supervisor, Southern Company Services (SCS)
- J. J. Glass, ISI Site Engineer, SCS J. M. Agold, Lead NDE Inspector, SCS J. A. Thompson, NOT Test Group Lead Engineer (Level III), SCS
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on July 23, 1982, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings listed below.
(0 pen) Inspector Followup Item (IFI) 321/82-23-01 and 366/82-21-01, Controls for Issue and Update of Pump and Valve Inspection Plans paragraph 5.a.(3).
(0 pen) IFI 366/82-21-02, Clarification of ISI Indication Dispositions -
paragraph 6.d.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters (Closed) V'olation 366/82-08-09, Failure to Follow Procedures for Fitup Inspection of Welds.
Georgia Power Company's letters of response dated May 12 and June 9,1982, have been reviewed and determined to be acceptable by Region II.
Based on discussions held with licensee personnel and examination of corrective actions stated in the letters of response, the inspector concluded that Georgia Power had determined the full extent of the subject violation, performed the necessary survey and followup actions
. - ---_.
. -
.
..- - _
_- _ - -.
.
.
-- __ _.
-_
- i
to correct the present conditions, and developed the necessary corrective actions to preclude recurrence of similar circumstance.
Examination of corrective action included review of Chicago Bridge & Iron (CB&I) QA Program
Audit 1981-1 dated March 11-12 and April 1-2, 1982, review of CB&I Special
.
Instruction S.I. #4, "Re working of Weld Joints", and review of Georgia Power QA Audit 82-0A-1 dated April 29, 1982.
The corrective actions
,
identified in the letter of response have been implemented.
i
'
4.
Unresolved Items
,
Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
!
5.
Inservice Testing Program (IST) (Units 1 and 2)
i
The inspector reviewed the inservice testing program for pumps and valves as
'
described below. The applicable code is the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI,1974 Edition with Addenda through the Summer of 1975 as required by 10 CFR 50.55a(g).
,
l a.
The following documents detail the requirements of the IST program:
j
"Long Term Inservice Inspection Pump and Valve Test Plan -
l
-
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 1" a
"Long - Term Inservice Inspection Pump and Test Plan - Edwin I. Hatch
'
Nuclear Plant, Unit 2" i
i HNP-908, revision 1, " Inservice Inspection Pump and Valve Surveillance Program"
,
j The test plans provide detailed requirements for testing, providing testing procedures, schedules, acceptance criteria, and details of relief request.
These documents have been submitted to NRR for approval.
Procedure HNP-908 is the implementing administrative site procedure and provides reference to individual testing procedures for
,
all pumps and valves under the programs.
,
!
During review of the above documents, the inspector noted that the test plans, being used at the site, do not appear to be controlled documents
and do not agree with individual test procedures in some cases.
Discussion of this matter with the licensee revealed the following:
!
l (1) The major differences between the test plans and the test proce-
'
dures are in the area of pump testing and pertain to test fre-quency, differential pressure and flow rate acceptance criteria.
The changes to the test plans made by the test procedures have been verbally dicussed with and verbally agreed to by the NRR project manager for Hatch.
In addition, updated test plans incorporating the changes have been submitted to NRR for approval.
i f
, - - -
m,p_.--,,,-,
.,-,,.,yy.
-,, -.. + - - - -.. -,.
r - - -
-,
- - - - -
- - -
w
+r a.-
1---- - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - = * - - - " ^ * * ~ " - - ' ' ~ - ' *
..- -
- -.
_. _-
.
.-
.
- -
- - -
- _-
.
__
_-
_.
.
i
.
.
!
!
i i
i The submittal for Unit I was amendment 2 to the test. plan and was
submitted on January 27, 1981.
For Unit 2, the submf ttal was amendment 47 to the FSAR which is dated 6/79.
These updated
,
plans have not yet been approved.
The current test procedures, which tests are being conducted in accordance with, agree with
.
these updated test plans.
However, the old test plans without j
the updated changes are in use for reference at the site.
l (2) The above problems have been identified by the licensee as
,
follows:
(a) Hatch QA audit 82-MT-1, dated February 17, 1982, finding 82-MT-1/4, identified a problem of uncontrolled manuals.
The licensee is in the process of surveying the site for
,
j all uncontrolled manuals, identifying the manuals with a t
unique number and implementing controls.
!
(b) "QA Procedure Review Comments"82-263, July 1,1982, relative
_
to precedure HNP-2-3160, identified the problem relative to
the test procedures deviating from the ASME Section XI or i
i the inspection plans, y,hich are written to comply with Section XI.
i
!
(3) The licensee agreed to establish controls over the site pump and '
'
valve test plans including approval and issue of the plans, I
changes necessary to update the plans to the current requirements, and issue of subsequent changes necessary to keep the site inspec-I tion plans current. As noted above, the problems with the plans i
had been identified by QA.
Therefore, in order to verify that
!
controls for issue and update of inspection plans are established,
!
this matter is identified as IFI No. 321/82-23-01, 366/82-21-01, Controls for Issue and Update of Pump and Valve Inspection Plans.
'
b.
The inspector reviewed the foi;owing Unit 1 pump and valve test data:
,
(1) Standby Liquid Control Pump C41-C001A (Procedure HNp-1-3702-0,
Rev. 11)
!
-
ISI Pump Serveillance Log for 1981 and 1982
-
Data Package HNP-1-3702-3 dated July 19, 1982 (2) RHR Pump Ell-C002D (Procedure HNP-1-3160-0, Rev.10)
i
-
ISI Pump Surveillance Log for 1981 and 1982 I
-
(3) Core Spray Valve E21-F001A (Procedure HNP-1-32030, Rev. 7)
'
-
ISI Valve Surveillance Log for 1981 and 1982
!
>
..
- -..
.
. - -.,
.-.
.. -. - _ _., _ - _ -,.,, - - - -. -
-
-
...
.. - - -. -
.. -,.
-
-
-
-
Data Packager HNP-1-3302-2 dated 5/11/82, 6/4/82, and 6/18/82 (4) HPCI Valve E41-F001 (Procedure HNP-1-3302-0, Rev.10)
-
ISI Value Surveillance Log for 1981 and 1982
-
Data Packages HNP-1-3302-2 dated 5/9/82 and 6/21/82 Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Inservice Inspection - Data Review and Evaluation (73755) (Unit 2)
The inspector reviewed the ISI NDE records described below for the second and third outages of the first 40 month period. The second outage occurred in the fall of 1980. The third outage occurred in the first quarter of 1982 and completed the inspections required for the first 40 month period. The applicable code for the ISI is the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI,1974 Edition with Addenda through S75.
a.
Records for the examination areas listed below for the second outage (Fall - 1980) were reviewed to ascertain whether the records contained or provided reference to: examination results and data sheets; equip-ment data; calibration data sheets; evaluation data; records on extent of examination; records relative to deviations from program; disposi-tion of findings; re-examination af ter repair; and identification of NDE materials.
(1) Nozzle to Vessel Welds - Item Bl.4, Category B-D (2) Class 1 Pipe Welds - Item B4.5, Category B-J (3) Class 2 Pipe Welds - Item C2.1, Category C-F (4) Class 1 Pipe Supports - Item B4.9, Category B-K-1 l
b.
NDE records for the following reactor pressure vessel welds were l
reviewed:
l Weld Outage l
Nozzle to Vessel Weld 2N1A Second i
Thermal Sleeve Attachment Weld to Nozzle N2-J Third l
Vessel to Flange Weld 2C-1 Third The records were reviewed in the areas of:
(1) Method, extent, and technique comply with ISI program l
l
-.
(2) Examination data are within acceptance criteria (3) Recording, evaluation and disposition of findings are in accord-ance with applicable procedures c.
The inspector reviewed NDE records for the following pipe welds:
Weld Outage 2E11-1RHR-4-HS-2 Second 2E11-1RHR-98-HS-1 Second 2E21-1CS-108-20 Second 2E21-1CS-108-14 Second 2N11-2MSA-10C-SSR-1 Second 2N11-2MSA-24A-15 Second 2E11-1RHR-4-HS-15 Third 2E11-1RHR-20-RS-2 Third 2E-1-1CS-10A-I-1 Third 2E51-1RCIC-4-A-6 Third 2E41-2HPCI-6-R-1 Third 2E41-2HPCI-12-PC-1 Third The records were reviewed in the following areas:
(1) Calibration data sheets (2) Proper recording of recordable indications (3) Evaluation of examination data by a level II or level III examiner (4) Evaluation of data complies with applicable procedure (5) Evaluation of indications comply with applicable procedures d.
During review of the above data, the inspector reviewed the " Customer Notification Forms" (CNF's) for the second outage.
These forms are used to document resolution of recordable indications. The following two problems were noted:
J
.-
,
(1) CNF's 800202 and 800211 reported incomplete fusion indications in pipe lug welds identified by ultrasonic examination.
The dis-position stated that the indications were acceptable since the applicable code, ASME Section III, only - required a surface inspection and therefore, there were no acceptance standards for the volumetric inspection performed.
Upon questioning this disposition, the licensee's contractor (Southern Company Services)
stated that the disposition was worded incorrectly. Actually, the indications had been evaluated technically by Engineering.
(2) CNF's 800205, 800206, 800207 and 800208 reported linear indica-tions found by magnetic particle inspection on reactor pressure vessel studs and nuts. The disposition on all four of these CNF's stated that the parts were surface inspected and found to be acceptable. There was no information relative to the nature of the discontinuities causing the indications. Discussion with the licensee revealed that the indications were caused by surface marks and scratches.. The inspector pointed out that for clari-fication, the CNF's should identify the nature of the discontinu-ities causing the indications.
The licensee agreed to clarify the disposition of indications. for the CNF's noted in 1 and 2 above.
For purps. ses of review of the final wording of the dispositions, this matter is identified as IFI No. 366/
82-21-02, Clarification of ISI Indication Dispositions.
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
!
-
,
-
-
--
.a