IR 05000366/1978032

IE Inspec Repts 50-366/78-32 on 780703-07 During Which No Items of Noncompliance Were Noted.Major Areas Inspected Included:Startup Testing Including Initial Criticality,Progs Re safety-related Piping & Restraint Sys

ML20147C567
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	09/07/1978
From:	Martin R, Vogtlowell R, Whitener H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20147C534	List: IR 05000366/1978032 ML20147C530 ML20147C551
References
50-366-78-32, NUDOCS 7810130051
Download: ML20147C567 (7)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:__

. .o . .

UNITEo STATES s'- pa R80u9(o, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

$'    REGloNll 5 g , ,. ( y'
 '
  / c  230 PE ACHTREE STR EET. N. W. SUITE 1217
#

ATLANT A, GEORGI A 30303 o [

 \; ,. . j
 ....*

Report No.: 50-366/78-32 Docket No.: 50-366 License No.: hTF-5 Licensee: Georgia Power Company 270 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Facility Na:ac: E. I. Hatch Unit 2 Inspection at: Plant Eatch Site, Baxley, Georgia i Inspection conducted: July 3-7, 1978 Inspec to rs : R. J. Vogt-Lowell H. L. Whitener g C. Julian Accoc:panying Personnel: None Approved by: '7'ftt 7!Z[ R. D. Martin, Chief Date' Nuclear Support Section No. 1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Inspec tion Su-ury Insoection on July 3_7, 1978: (Report No. 50-366/78-32) Areas Inspected: Unannounced inspection of startup testing activities _ including witnessing of initial criticality. Also included were a review of the licensee's programs and procedures pertaining to the examination j of saf ety related piping supports and res traint systems . The inspection i involved 52 inspector-hours onsite by three NRC inspector i Results: Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations l were identified.

l l

{

'
'7 & / 0 ) b 6 0 C)
. ., .-  - .-

.

RII Rpt. No . 50-366/ 78-32 I-1 DETAILS I Prepared by: / ,/ 7/#*#!7f' R. 3. Vogt-Lowell, Reactor Inspector Date Nuclear Support Section No. 1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Dates of Inspection? July 3-6, 1978 Approved by: ~

   [[%  / /[

R. D. Martin, Chief Date ~ Nuclear Support Section No. 1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support 3 ranch 1 Persons Contacted Georgia Power Company I

*M. Manry, Plant Manager     l
*H. Nix , Assis tant Plant Manager
*T. Greene, Superintendent Plant Engineering Services
* E. Spell, Senior QA Field Representative   1 C. Coggin, Plant Engineer    I
      '
    *

S. Curtis, Plant Nuclear Engineer R. Bellamy, Test Group Leader General Electric Cocoany R. M. Wyatt, Startup Engineer

* Denotes presence at exit interview. Licensee _ Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not applicable to this inspection report period. Unresolved Items Not applicable to this inspection report period.

4 Exit In t e rview The inspec tor met with M. Manry , Plant Manager, and members of his staf f as denoted in paragraph 1 on July 6,1978. The inspector sucmarized the scope and findings of the inspection.

5, Initial Criticality Hatch Unit 2 reached initial criticality at 1411 ho ur s ( ES T) , on J ul y 4 , 1978. Test proc edure HNP-2-10204, " Full Core Shutdown Margin" was being followed during the approach to critical. Criticality occurred on notch 16 of control rod 30-31. Initial criticality was predicted to occur on notch 12 of control rod 30-3 .. . .,. _ _ _ _ _ . __- - .-_ _ . _ . . . _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ . _._ .

 -
  >
 .
,

' RII Rpt. No. 50-366/78-32 I-2

, . 2 The results of the test were in agreement with the acceptance criteri There were no discrepancies identified by the inspector during the l approach to initial criticalit l f

        !

Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie l i l l l l l

        ,
        ,
        -

i l

-- . __- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _

__.__,._.___.._,..,....,..._,_,__,_,_,.,,j _

i _

.
.

Report No. 50-366/78-32 II-1 l DETAILS II Prepared by: <b fA t H. L. Whitener, Reactor / Inspector c//7/17

     /Date -

Nuclear Support Section No. 1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch C A WA C. A. Julian', Reactor Inspector 9N,r Date Nuclear Support Section No. 1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support ) Branch  ! Dates of Inspection: July 5-7, 1978 j Reviewed by: / YA A k[7/g

R. D./MTtin, Chief /Date ' Nuclear Support Section No. 1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Persons Contacted s Georgia Power Cocmany

*M. Manry, Plant Manager
*H. Nix, Assistant Plant Manager C. Coggin, Nuclear Engineer
*H. G. Anderson, Engineer (Co norate)
*B. T. Trice, Associate Engineer
*G. E. Spell, Jr., Senior QA Field Representative
*V. B. Thigpen, QA Field Representative
*V. S. Nettleton, GPC, Construction G. R. Perry, GPC, Construction
*M. P. Upchurch, Junior QA Field Representative
*M. Webb, GPC, Construction l General Electric Company i

! M. Wyatt, Piping Representative

* Denotes those present at the exit interview.

l Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings None reviewed.

l

 ._. .-. -. __
    . . . . - . .

-

. Report No. 50-366/78-32 II-2 Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviations. Three unresolved items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in paragraph 5 of this repor . Exit Interview Areas inspected and the inspection findings were reviewed with Mr. Manry and members of his staf f on July 7,1978. These inspection findings are discussed in this report detai Attendees at this interview are denoted in paragraph 1 of this repor I 1 Hot Functional Testing l l l Program Requirements and Procedures for Heatup ' The inspectors reviewed the licensee's program for initial system heatup and piping vibration testing to ascertain that the licensee l has established, reviewed and approved adequate procedures which I implement the following: s  ! l l

(1) Examination of piping support systems at various tempera- i tures during the initial system heatup to identify piping !

interferences or abnormal behavio (2) Setting and calibration of adjustable restraints and support (3) Examination of piping support and restraint systems for excessive vibrations during anticipated plant transient (4) Conduct of vibration testin (5) Displacement measurements at ambient and operating condition Licensee commitments relating to system expansion and vibration testing are specified in documents as follows: FSAR Section 14 Program and test description for initial testing and operation FSAR Section 1 Startup test description relative to the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1,68 FSAR Section 3. Piping vibration program

 . - . . . .- . .- - .

     .-
-

. Report No. 50-366/78-32 II-3 FSAR Supplements Licensee's response to questions from NRR for Questions 110.4, 110.5, 110.48, 413.17 and 413.18 Procedures and documents developed to implement the commitments for the heatup phase were reviewed, in part or totally, during this inspection and included the following: 10001 (Revision 2, 4/28/78) Administration of Startup Test Procedures 10217 (Revision 2, 6/7/78) Displacement Transducer Checkout 10300 (Revision 0, 1/17/78) Initial Heatup to Rated Temperature and Pressure 10317 (Revision 0, 12/20/77) System Erpansion - Heatup 10333 (Revision 1, 6/78) Piping Vibration - Heatup Startup Manual, Revision 3 s The inspector concluded that with exceptions as discussed in the following subsections of this paragraph, the licensee has deve-loped, reviewed and approved adequate procedures to meet the program conmitments for system expansion and vibration testing during initial system heatu Shock Suppressor Installation Accompanied by licensee personnel, the inspectors toured the drywell and examined installed piping system mechanical and hydraulic shock suppressors, adjustable and fixed supports, and support structures. Hangers, supports and restraints were generally examined for deformation, deterioration, corrosion, loose fittings, fluid leaks and cold setting The inspector noted that the operating range of adjustable piping supports was marked and the general condition of the hardware appeared good. Shock suppressors were found to be cold set at about midrange of the full piston stroke. Acceptance criteria in FSAR Section 14.B.15a and Startup Test Specification (Test No. 17) specify that shock suppressor pistons must be centered about the midpoint of the total travel range at operating temperature. This matter was identified as unresolve Unresolved Item: The licensee must evaluate the shock suppressor piston settings and the basis of the current acceptance criteria to determine that the current settings (midrange at cold condi-tion) are acceptable or take appropriate corrective actions (366/78-32-01).

. ._ _ . - ..- -- .

  -
.   . . _ _ -  .

i l

.
~
.

" l ' Report No. 50-366/78-32 II-4

.

Construction records were reviewed for a selected sample of shock  ! suppressor restraints. The data packages indicated that the installed dimensions were recorded on field drawings and have been audited by Q Procedure Review The procedure for system heatup (ENP-2-10317) statesthatadjustable spring hangers and supports will be visually inspected a 250 F and at rated hot condition to verify that they are in the predicted operating rang Shock suppressors will be inspected visually to verify adequate operating stroke but at this time there is no plan to record the hot and cold piston settings. During the visual inspection of piping systems at rated condition, fixed restraints and supports and sliding supports will be generally inspected for gross damage but a detailed inspection for weld cracks or d.eformed support plates will not be per formed in the hard-to-get-to areas. The basis of this position is comparison

!

of measured pipe movement, obtained from the remote readout of

displacement transducers, with design calculation at each tempera- ' ture plateau. Any abnormal behavior of the piping systems detected either visually or through analysis of measured expansion data will be evaluated prior to continued heatup. The licensee's position was reviewed in the Region II office and the inspector had no further questions, Acceptance Criteria and Measurement Technique r"-2-10317 (Heatup)

    ~

Level 1 acceptance criteria -' appeared to be inadequa cifies that the suppressor pistons must no' anded or retracted condition for either hot or

    '

is not identify the operational limit of p' r was discussed with licensee management w' -kle limits of piston travel and doc 4 the file This item was id I l Unresolved Item: Determine in travel for l mechanical and hydraulic cupp nasis of this limit and establirb adequate suppressor inspection at ratei,c6adition (36., j

The inspector discuised with the licensee representatives the l techniques to be used id determining actua.' piston position The intent is to read.r heale; attached to the suppressor to verify actual piston position and' determine that adequate stroke is available at hot condit;.on This technique appears satisfactory for mechanical suppressors which have a scale marked on the pisten ro E - System hydraulic suppressors had marked

      -

!

      . . - - - , . - .

- -
. .

_ L Report No. 50-366/78-32 II-5

 "L" shaped scales mounted externally at the end of the piston rods. At this time the licensee could not confirm whether these mounted scales indicated relative movement or were mounted to indicate absolute movement relative to the fully retracted or fully extended piston position. Bergen Patterson hydraulic suppressors have not been provided with scales and the method of determining actual piston position was not fir One method
 ,

under consideration was to attempt to relate the fluid level indication to piston positio Relative piston movement can be determined in this matter, however, to define an absolute piston position would require calibration of plunger position with piston position and assurance that no fluid losses occurred m bsequent to the calibration. Thermal < ,ansion of fluid may also need to be considered. This matter is identified as unre-solve Unresolved Item: Verify that scale reading on E - System hydraulic shock suppressors dadicates actual piston position and provide assurance that these external scales have not been inadvertently moved. Resolve a method to determine Bergen Patterson piston position (366/78-32-03). s Drywell Head Installation Inspectors had previously discussed revision of the. drywell head installation procedure (HNP-2-6705) with licensee personnel (LE Report Item No. 366/78-24-01). The inspector determined that the revised procedure specifies bolt torque values and guidelines for feeler gage measurements between the head and drywell flange. The inspector had no further questions regarding this procedure.

l l i l I l }}