IR 05000321/1987015
| ML20236M231 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1987 |
| From: | Blake J, Chou R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236M213 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-321-87-15, 50-366-87-15, IEB-79-14, NUDOCS 8708100515 | |
| Download: ML20236M231 (9) | |
Text
/g* "80 (o,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
%
UNITED STATES
,
o FEGION il
g 101 MARIETT A STREET, N.W., SUITE 2900
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323
\\...../
Report Nos.:
50-321/87-15 and 50-366/87-15 Licensee:
Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302 o
Docket Nos.: 50-321 and 50-366 License Nos.: DPR-57 and NPF-5 Facility Name:
Hatch 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted: June 22-26,1987 Inspector:
[,
As?
M.
7/fd
R. C. Chou f
Date Signed
"
Approved by:
8, [
[A trz
~/ 3 0 v
J. J. Blake, Section Ch/ef Date Signed Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection was in the areas of previous open items and seismic analysis for as built safety-related piping systems.
Results: One violation was identified: As built drawing discrepancies in weld symbol and base plate thickness for pipe supports, paragraph 5.
.
9708100515ByBh21 PDR ADOCK O PDR O
-
i a.&'
_ _ _ - - - - - - - _ _ - _. - - - - - - _ - -, - _. - - _ _ - - - - - - - - -, - -
.. - - - - - -.. - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ - -. -. _ _ - -, - - _ - - - -. _ _ -. - _ _ _ - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - - _ _ - - - - _ _ - _ - - - - - -., - - - _ - - _ - - - - -
-_
_A
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ -_-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ -
. _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _
I
-
..
REPORT DETAILS
)
l
!
1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- H. C. Nix, Plant Manager
- C. L. foggin, General Support Manager
- R. F. Chandler, Superintendent of Planning and Control
- R. L. Hayes, Deputy Operations Manager
- S. J. Bethay, Acting Nuclear Safety and Compliance Manager
- W. B. Thigpen, Acting Site QA Manager
- E.- Z. Wahab, Acting Engineering' Support Manager
- B. Keck, Reactor System Engineering Supervisor
- W. R Glisson, Maintenance Engineering Supervisor
.
- J. Hadden, Acting QC Supervisor
- J. Branum, Senior Nuclear Engineer - Atlanta j
'*G. M. Crieghton, Procedure Specialist
- D. Pittman, Senior QC Specialist G. Goode, General Engineering Superintendent S. Koski, Senior Engineer -SCS su Other ; licensee employees contacted included engineers, technicians, mechanics, and office personnel.
NRC Resident Inspectors P. Holmes-Ray, Senior Resident Inspector
- J. Menning, Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview
,2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on June 26, 1987, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the.
areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings.
No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
The following new items were identified during this inspection.
Violation 321, 366/87-15-01, As-Built Drawing Discrepancies in Weld Symbol and Base Plate Thickness for Pipe Supports j
Unresolved Item (UNR) 321,366/87-15-02, Pipe Support Component Maintenance
,
Inspector Followup Item (IFI) 321, 366/87-15-03, Documentation Availability for Inspection Review at Site Within Inspection Time Period
!
- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
__
.
IFI 321, 366/87-15-04, Process and Control of Installation and QC Inspec-tion Records for Pipe Supports The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspection.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters (Closed) UNR 321, 366/82-03-01, IEB 79-14 Discrepancies with Respect to LER 321/81-107, 366/81-103, and 366/81-104 Th'is unresolved item identified the NRC inspector's concern that the licensee's resolutions on the Licensee Event Report (LER) did not provide the adequate procedures or information to prevent recurrence and did not comply with IEB 79-14 requirements.
The three LERs with their corrective actions as stated above were inspected to see if they were in compliance with requirements and solved the generic problems.
a.
Unit 1 LER 81-107 reported that on October 28, 1981 concrete surrounding embedded plates for recirculation suction line snubbers 1B31-SSA7, SSA8, SSB7, and SSB8 showed visible spalling and surface cracks.
The failure was attributed to the snubbers being installed improperly with as much as a 24 deviation from designed locations.
These supports were fixed later thru modifications.
The support problems were identified by the licensee during IES 79-14 inspections in April of 1981.
The supports were part of the recirculation and main steam systems which were required to have system operability analysis by IEB 79-14.
The inspector reviewed letter G-GPC-2-023 sent to the licensee from General Electric Company (GE) dated February 2,1982 on the subject of I. E.Bulletin 79-14 - Evaluation of Recirculation system and Main Steam Lines for E. I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Unit 1.
GE performed the evaluation which used the as-built data provided by Bechtel Power Corporation (BPC). The evaluation concluded that both systems met the short term and long term design requirements except snubber SB-1 which met the short term requirements and was required to be replaced with a snubber of 50 kips nominal rating to meet the long term requirements.
The system operability analysis itself and snubber calculation SB-1 were not available for review during this inspection.
The inspector was informed near time for the exit interview by the licensee's engineer that the system operability analysis was found at the job site and was available for review.
The snubber calculation SB-1 was in Bechtel's Gaithersburg Office, MD. The calculation will be reviewed as part of IFI 321, 366/87-15-03, Documentation Availability for Inspection Review at Site within the Inspection Time Period, see paragraph 5.
b.
Unit 2 LER 81-103 reported that on November 5,1981, Residual Heat Removal (RHR) service water support No. 2E11-RSW-R26 had four defec-tive welds.
The failure was attributed to the tight installation of
.
the support U-bolt on the pipe resulting in axial loads on the support.
The support was not designed to take the axial load and its U-bolt clearance was not called out in the detail drawing. The licensee was requested to determine the generic implications of U-bult clearance problems.
The inspector reviewed the letter, File: A29.3/A57.75/A57.75/0406/
B-GP-10641, sent to the licensee from BPC dated May 27, 1983.
The letter indicated that 56 supports in Unit 1 and 21 supports in Unit 2 had been modified or would be modified to correct and allow U-bolt clearances in the field in accordance with the revised drawings per the Proposed Design Change Requests (PDCRs) No. B2M-187, B2M-195, B2M-196, B2M-280, B2M-207, B2M-209, and B2M-281.
The inspector randomly selected and reviewed 20 support drawings to confirm that the drawings had been revised to show the correct U-bolt clearances.
To confirm U-bolt clearance modifications in the field, three supports were selected and reinspected with the assistance of the licensee's QC inspector and responsible engineer.
Field Support No.
Unit No.
DWG. Reviewed Reinspected P41-F7-H803
!
PS2-RBIH-59
!
B21-F5-H026
!
B21-F5-H024
!
B21-F5-H001
!
B21-X29-IF19-H802
!
P41-SWH-212
!
B21-F5-H006
!
PS2-F183H-801
!
!
PS2-F183H-804
!
!
P52-RB1H-60
!
!
!
!
!
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
..!
-
..
Field Support No.
Unit No.
DWG. Reviewed Reinspected 2P41-SS-H806
1 2011-CRD-H84
!
All 20 drawings were revised to show U-bolt clearances.
The three supports reinspected in the field had U-bolt clearances as indicated on drawings. No discrepancies were found. The drawings presented were to show that the licensee had evaluated U-bolt clearance problems and corrected them.
The inspector concluded that the ' licensee tad implemented the generic review and evaluation to solve U-bolt clear-ance problems.
c.
LER 81-104 reported.that on October 28, 1981, a broken threaded rod for HPCI system R161D Restraint No. 2E41-HPCI-R51 was observed.
On November 12, 1981 HPCI. Pipe Hanger. No. 2E41-HPCI-H30, located immediately downstream of Restraint No. 2E41-HPCI-R51, was observed to be bent 3* to 5 at the pipe clamp..The licensee stated that the dynamic loads associated with a water hammer could have contributed to the failure. But the real cause was unknown.
The. inspector held discussions with the licensee's responsible engineer and reviewed the information provided. The engineer stated that the real cause of failure for the above supports was determined to be due to the water hammer.
After carefully evaluating the problem, Procedure Number HNP-2-3303-0 "HPCI Pump Operability was revised '(Rev.11) t'o include the listening for and recording of unusual noises on Section G 14 and the walkdown and inspecting of the HPCI pump discharge pipe supports for damage on Section G.26 to prevent the repetition of damage due to the water hammer problems.
The licensee also reinforced.the implementation of Section G.7 on opening high point vent valves and confirming water flow to prevent
,
water hammer. The Procedure No. HNP-2-3303-0 was revised and changed L
to the current document No. 34SV-E41-002-2S, Surveillance Procedure i
for HPCI Pump Operability.
Since the licensee has performed HPCI Pump Operability Test based on the above revised procedure, no support damages has been found.
_
- - - - - - _ - -
_
-_
_-
- _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ ___
L
-
..
l l
Based on the licensee's evaluations and corrective actions reviewed by the inspector, this unresolved item is considered closed except as stated under item a above.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters which more informatoin is required to deter-mine-whether they are acceptable or may involve violations or deviations.
One unresolved items was identified during this inspection is discussed in paragraph 6.
5-(0 pen) ~ Seismic Analysis for As-Built Safety-Related Piping Systems (IEB 79-14)
NRC expected the Plant Hatch to have completed IEB 79-14 requirements for Units 1 and 2 in 1983. The inspector was told during the entrance meeting that plant Hatch completed Unit 2 in 1986 and would complete Unit 1 by 1990 to be in full compliance with IEB 79-14 requirements. After discus-sion with the responsible plant engineer and corporate engineer from -
Atlanta, the current status for IEB 79-14 is summarized as followings, a.
Immediate operability deviations resolved - 140 modifications com-pleted by 1981 b.
Stress and supports calculations performed, checked and approved -
1981 through 1984
?
Unit 1
-
2127 Supports for 18 systems 201 Stress problems 600 Support modifications required Unit 2
-
1040 Supports for 15 systems 62 Stress problems 250 Support modifications required c.
Torus Attached Piping Implementation for Units 1 & 2 - 498 Modifica-tions completed by 1984 (40% of modifications associated with IEB 79-14 supports)
d.
Unit 1 Modifications 100 Support modifications completed by 1987 refueling outage
-
522 Support modifications to be completed
-
153. Inaccessible support modifications to be completed during
-
the next two refueling outages in Fall 1988 and winter 1980.
216 Accessible support modifications to be completed in 1989 and
'
-
1990
_
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
_
_
. _. _ _
_ _ _ _
_ _. _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
(
..
6
'
e.-
Unit 2 modifications - completed by 1986; 250 Support modifications completed by 1984
-
All ABN's completad by.1986 '
-
To review the licensee's activities on IEB 79-14 during the past two years, the inspector randomly selected the following nine restraints in the area of dynamic pipe supports and component support structures that had'been QC final inspected to see if they complied with IE8 79-14. The restraints were reinspected with the assistance of the licensee's QC inspector and engineer. All of the following supports are in Unit 1.
Table 1 I
Walkdown QC Document Calc. Review Support No.
Rev. No.
Comments Review Comments Comments P41-1SH-75 A-Note 1 & 2 None None P41-ISH-78
'A None Ncne None E11-ISH-H84
Note 3 None Note 6 P41-ISH-80 A
None None Note 6
'
E11-1SH-705 0C None None None
.
E11-ISH-706 0C None None None
,
P41-SDGH-800 A
hone Note 5 Note 6 P41-SDG-H702 A
None Note 5 Note 6 P41-SDGH-49 A
None Note 5 Note 6 P41-SDG-H703 A
Note 4 Note 5 Note 6 Note:
(1) Two extra welds in field between the underneath of the spring can and the sides of the wide flange beam.
(2)
Painted over spring loads setting indication plate.
(3)
1/8" gap between base plate and concrete.
Acceptable per Section 7.1.12, Installation and Inspection of Concrete Expan-sion Anchors, Document No. 42EN-ECV-001-0S.
(4) 3/4" base plate thickness existing in field instead of 1" called out in the detail drawing.
4:
_ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _
.;.
(5) QC: inspection and installation records could not be located and were not available for review.
(6) Support calculations were not available for review during inspection since they were in Bechtel's Gaithersburg Office.
The above restraints were partially reinspected against their detail drawings for configuration, identification, fastener / anchor installation, member size, welds, rust, maintenance, and damage / protection. QC Inspec-tions -and. Installation Records for six supports were also reviewed.
Design calculations for four supports were reviewed and evaluated for thoroughness, clarity, consistency and accuracy.
In. general, the restraints were installed in accordance with design documents with the exception of two restraints identified as Note 1, 2, & 3, Table 1.
The design calculations were of good quality.
Based on the findings and notes shown on Table 1, plus the unavailable documents or calculations for a previous open item, the inspector identified the following items:
(0 pen) Violation 321,366/87-15-01, As-Built Drawing Discrepancies in
-
Weld Symbols and Base Plate Thickness for Pipe Supports.
E. I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Inspection Plan, Plan No. A-MD-01, Rev. 3 requires that (a) all supports and/or hangers covered by this inspection plan shall
,
l be inspected and documented 100%, and (b) individual support com-f ponents should be checked during fabrication, to insure conformance to drawing requirements (generally, length dimensions may vary 11/4 of an inch, and thickness by 1/16 of an inch).
Discrepancies identified on Support No. P41-1SH-75 (two extra welds not shown on the detail orawing) and Support No. P41-SDG-H703 (3/4" base plate thickness instead of 1" called out on the detail drawing) indicated c
that portions of the supports were not installed and verified in accordance with the design drawings.
This is a violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion X and is identified as a Violation 321, 366/87-15-01.
(0 pen) UNR 321,366/87-15-02, Pipe Support Component Maintenance.
-
Spring load setting indication plate and spring type marking plate were painted over.
The licensee stated that plates were rusty due to being in a humid open area. The licensee should develop maintenance procedures to prevent painting over indicator plates; restore or install new plates, and examine other areas with similar problems.
Pending licensee resolution, this problem is identified as unresolved i
item 321, 366/87-15-02.
(0 pen) IFI 321, 366/87-15-03, Documentation Availability for
-
Inspection Review at Site within Inspection Time Period. The system operability analysis for the recirculation and main steam systems and l
l snubber calculation SB-1 discussed in Faragraph 3.(a) and Suppo" Y_ _.
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
- - _ _ - _ _
_
__-
- _ _
__
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - __ -_-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
__ _ _,
.
.
Calculations No. E11-ISH-h84, P41-ISH-80, P41-SDGH-800, P41-SDG-H702, P41-SDGH-49. P41-SDG-H703 were not available for review at the site within the inspection time period. The licensee's engineer stated that Bechtel needs more than four weeks to assemble and review the requested calculations before they are sent to the site for NRC inspector's review.
The NRC position is that once a set of calcula-tions has been received by a liceasee - that is, the job is complete and accepted - there is no need for an additional four week review by the A/E prior to inspection by NRC. Once a set of calculations has been identified for inspection, every effort should be made to make the calculations available.
The fact that the calculations are retained at the A/E's facility rather than the site is the licensee's choice.
But with the express transportation or communications existing in our society, it is possible to ship a small quantity of documents or calculations from one place to another place within the inspection time period.
Pending the licensee's resolution, this problem is identified as IFI 321, 366/87-15-03.
-
(0 pen) IFI 321, 366/87-15-04, Process and Control of Installation and QC Inspection Records for Pipe Supports. The installation and QC inspection records for Support No. P41-SDGH-800 P41-SDG-H702, P41-SDGH-49, and P41-SDG-H703 could not be located and were not available for review. The licensee vas requested to review pro-cedures on the control and process of QC documents, end to find out how many other packages may be missing.
Pending the licensee resolution, this problem is identified as IFI 321,366/87-15-04.
The licensee schedules call for completion IEB 79-14 work for Unit 1 by 1990.
This schedule is far beyond the original connitment which the licensee submitted to NRC. Therefore, the licensee should provide u revised commitment to the NRC which will document, for the record, the commitment to complete Unit 1 by 1990.
Since the modifications on Unit 2 for IED 79-14 were completed in 1986, the licensee should submit a separate final summary report for Unit 2 to NRC.
Within the areas inspected, one violation, as identified above was identified. No deviations were identified.
.
$
a