ML20004B120
| ML20004B120 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 05/07/1981 |
| From: | Conlon T, Lenahan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20004B114 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-321-81-11, 50-366-81-11, NUDOCS 8105270261 | |
| Download: ML20004B120 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000321/1981011
Text
.
O/
%
UNITED STATES
h{!
~,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
n
i
REGION 11
o - '~
101 MARlETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
.....
Report Nos. 50-321/81-11 and 50-366/81-11
Licensee: Georgia Power Company
270 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
Facility Name: Hatch Nuclear Plant
Docket Nos.30-321 and 50-366
Inspection at Hatch Site near Baxley, Georgia
Inspector:
Nbt
- cy
8/ 7/8/
J.f.Lenahan
Oate Signed
~
Approved by:W
W
f- 7 - f /
T. E. Conlon, St. : tion Chief
Date Signed
Engineering Inspection Branch
Engineering and Technical Inspection Division
-
l
SUMMARY
Inspected on April 20-22, 1981
Areas Inspected
This special, announced inspection involved 16 inspector-hours on site in the
areas of licensee action on previous inspection findings, licensee identified
items, and nonconformance control .
Results
'
Of the three areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified in two
areas; one violation was found in one area (Inadequate nonconformance procedure -
paragraph 5.b.)
!
I
i
8105270 M
i
l
.
_ . - -
-.
__
.
,__
_ _ _ _
.
_ _
_
.
.
REPORT DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Licensee Employees
- C. E. Belflower, QA Site Supervisor
- J. M. Watson, Senior QA Field Representative
,
C. R. Miles, QA Field Supervisor
- M. Manry, Plant Manager
- 0. A. McCusker, QC Supervisor
- R. M. Herrington, Senior QC Specialist
- J. Rearden, Junior Engineer
- R. Houston, QA Field Representative
R. Baker, Licensing Engineer (Telephone Conversation)
Other Organizations
- L. G. Byrnes, Gectechnical Engineer, Law Engineering
E. Beall, Geotechnical Engineer, Law Engineering
W. C. Orr, Civil Engineer, Southern Company Services (Telephone
Conversation)
.
~
NRC Resident Inspector
R. Rogers
- Attended exit interview
2.
Exit Interview
i
The inspection scope and findings were summari:ed on April 22, 1981 with
those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The violation described in
paragraph 5. was discussed.
l
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
i
a.
(0 pen) Violation Item 321/80-48-02 and 50-366/80-48-C2:
Failure to
Initiate a Nonconformance Report and Failure to Obtair Approval Prior
to Implementing a Change to a DCR.
(1) Failure to Initiate a Nonconformance Report - The inspector
reviewed nonconformance report (NCR) numbers80-177 and 80-179
which document the nonconforming conditions concerning the camaged
protective coating on the service water lines and the welding of
angle iron supports onto one of the 18" diameter RHR lines.
The
inspector reviewed the hCR log listing NCRs written against the
.
.
.
I
2
backfill repair program.
Based on review of the above NCRs and
the NCR log, the inspector concluded that procedure HNp-801,
"Nonconformances" is being implemented by personnel ir 71ved with
the intake backfill repair.
(2)
Failure to Obtain Approval Prior to Implementing a Change to a
DCR - The inspector reviewed Revision 8 to procedure number
HNP-809 " Plant Modifications - Approved and Implementation" which
was written as part of the corrective action involving failure to
follow procedures in implementing a change to a design change
request (DCR) prior to its approval by the plant review board
(PRB). The revised procedure does not require approval by the PRB
of changes to DCRs which do not alter the scope of the OCR or
invalidate the approved safety evaluation of a DCR.
Based on a
review of HNP-809 (Revision 8) and discussions with site
personnel, the inspector concluded that the licensee's corrective
actions stated in their letter dated March 9,
1981 to NRC
Region II were not clear.
Subsequent to the inspection, on
April 29,1981, the inspector dist issed this problem with licensee -
personnel and requested a supplem:ntal response to clarify their
corrective actions. This item ret ains open pending receipt of the
licensee's supplemental response and further review by NRC
Region II.
.
b.
(Closed) Unresolvec Item 321/80-48-04 and 366/jS0-48-04:
K-Krete QC
Requirements. The inspector examined revisions to the Bechtel "Techni-
cal Soecification 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" transmitted to the site by
Bechtel letter dated March 31, 1981. These revisions specify the
acceptance criteria for K-Krete to be a minimum unit weight of 120 pcf
and a minimum 7-day unconfined compressive strength of 10 psi. All
K-Krete placed to date meets these requirements. The revisions also
added requirements to specify the maximum elapsed time between batching
and placing of the K-Krete to be one and one-half hours, which is the
same as for concrete.
This maximum batch criteria is what has been
used for the project since placement of K-Krete was started. This item
is closed.
c.
(Closed) Unresolved Item 321/81-02-01 and 366/81-02-01: Deep Excava-
tion Dewatering Procedure. The inspector examined Wellpoint Dewatering
Corporation Drawing No. 0-81-15 " Proposed Deepwell Dewatering System"
and Wellpoint Dewatering Corporation Procedure " Dewatering-Intake
Structure - Hatch Nuclear Plant".
The drawing and procedure address
the layout of the dewatering system, well size (diameter) and depth,
size and type pumping equipment, requirements for emergency pumoing
eouipment (standby electrical system), the required system performance,
and the requirements for well discharge monitoring. Three observation
..
.
3
wells have been installed to monitor the performance of the dewaterirg
system. Water level readings will be taken on these three wells, 2nd
on piezometers which was previously installed, on a caily basis by Law
Engineering personnel. This item is closed.
d.
(Closed) Violation Item 321/81-02-02 and 366/81-02-02:
Failure to
Establish Procedures for Control and Calibration of Testing Equipment
Used to Perform Tests on K-Krete. The inspector reviewed the procedure
for calibration of the Karol-Warner Model 1000 RP load ring used in
testing of the K-Krete.
The inspector also examined the current
calibration curve for the load ring. A calibration sticker has been
attached to the load ring to indicate that cslibration is current and
the date when recalibration of the load ring is required. This item is
closed.
4.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Independent Inspection Effort
a.
The inspector examined Procedure No. HNP-1-10947, " Repair of Backf'11 -
East Side of Unit 1 Reactor Building". This procedure covers repair of
backfill on the east side of the Unit I reactor building which was
-
washed out when an 8-inch fire main broke. The problem is documented
on Nonconformance Report No.81-209. The inspector examined work in
progress to replace the eroded backfill. The-area affected is approx-
imately five feet wide by 100 feet long, with a maxf;num depth of six
feet. The procedure specifies that K-Krete is to be used to replace
the eroded backfill .
b.
The inspector examined Procedure No. HNP-801, "Nonconformance".
Examination of this procedure disclosed the following violation;
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI requires in part that measures be
established to promptly identify and correct nonconformances, anc in
the case of significant conditions adverse to quality, that the cause
of the nonconformance be determined. Criterion XVI also requires that
the cause of significant nonconformances be documented and reported to
appropriate levels of management.
Contrary to these Criterion XVI
requirements, after review of Procedure HNP-801, and several noncon-
formances, and during discussions with quality control and quality
assurance personnel, the inspector notec that procedure HNP-801 does
not require the cause of significant conditions (nonconformances)
adverse to quality to be determined, and tnat the causes of significant
conditions (nonconformances) adverse to quality are not being docu-
mented.
This was identified to the licensee as violation item 321/
81-11-01 and 366/81-11-01, " Inadequate nonconformance procedure".
No ceviations were identified.
,.-
.
4
6.
Licensee Identified Items
a.
Settling of Fill Under Plant Service Water and RHR Service Water Piping
(LER 50-321/1980-062) - The inspector examined the deep excavation
adjacent to the intake structure and installation of deep wells for
dewatering the excavation. The loose backfill material under the plant
service water and RHR service water piping adjacent to the intske
structure has been excavated to a depth of approximately elevation 62.
An additional 10 feet of material is to be removed prior to reaching
firm foundation materials on which the K-Krete backfill is to be
placed.
The removal of this material will be delayed until instal-
lation of the dewatering system is completed and operating.
The
inspector noted that the excavation, bracing of the excavation,
temporary support of the RHR and service water piping, and deep well
installation is in accordance with the project drawings and specifi-
cations.
Excavation of the loose backfill under the RHR and service
water lines and replacement of the backfill with K-Krete has been
completed in the shallow excavation section of the intake backfill
repair. The shallow sectfon was approximately 80 feet long. The deep
excavation section is approximately 20 feet long.
The inspector
examined the following quality records relating to the intake backfill
repair:
(1) Second shift QC inspection reports for February P.8 through
-
March 16, 1981, and for April 9 through April 16, 1981
(2) Records' of settlement monitoring program performed on RHR and
service water piping and on conduit ducts for period of March 6
through April 20, 1981
(3) Nonconformance Report No.81-205, 81-211,81-245 and 81-252
(4) Records of water level readings in observation wells for period of
March 20 through April 6,1981
b.
Overstressed Mascning Walls (LER 50-321/1980-115) - Performance of the
masonry wall design re-evaluation required by IE Bulletin 80-11
disclosed that nine walls had local stresses above the code allowable
upon acclication of seismic loads.
The inspector reviewed Design
l
Change Request (DCR) No. 81-10 which has been written to accomplish the
modifications to the nine walls. The design drawings showing details
of the wall modifications have been completed. The materials required
to complete the modifications have been purchased and have been
received on site.
l
l
c.
Nonconservative Comouter Program Used in Design Re-evaluation of
Masenry Walls (LER 50-321/1981-031) - The licensee notified Region II
on April 16, 1981 tnat an accitional masonry wall requires modification
l
l
t
l
_
,o
. ,
5
in order to meet seismic design requirement due to a lack of conserva-
tism in the computer program used to perform the original IE Bulletin 80-11 masonry wall design re-evaluation. The IE Bulletin 80-11 cesign
re-evaluation was performed for the licensee by Southern Services
Company. The computer program used by Southern Services Company in the
design re-evaluation was furnished by Bechtel. A recent review of the
'
computer program disclosed that it contained an unconservative assump-
tion in computation of seismic loads acting on the walls. The program
was modified and the masonry walls were reanalyzed using the revised
version of the program. This design re-analysis disclosed that one
wall, in addition to the nine reported under LER 50-321/1980-115 (see
paragraph 6.b., above), had local stresses above the code allowable
upon application of seismic stresses. This wall will be modified under
DCR 81-10. The design drawings showing details of the wall modifica-
tions have been completed.
No deviations or Violations were identified.
-
l
.
L '-
_ _
- - - - - - - -