ML20064G097

Forwards Documentation of 821207,13 & 14 Telcons Re Inservice Insp Findings & Resultant Repair Activities Conducted During Maint/Refueling Outage Presently in Progress

ML20064G097
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	01/06/1983
From:	Gucwa L GEORGIA POWER CO.
To:	Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
TAC-49156, NUDOCS 8301110301
Download: ML20064G097 (6)

Text

<

^

Georg a Power Company 333 Pet-rt Avenue

' = At#ta Georg.a 30308 TW.je6 4U4 34 6M6 t

f/ ann JMfwess y

, Post Of t e Bu.i 4Wl, s

. Av fa Gmrva 30302 Georgia Power Power Generation Department January 6, 1983

_~_

, Director of Nuclear. Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. Jorin Stolz, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C. 20555 NRC DOCKET 50-321 OPERATING LICENSE DPR-57 EIMIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PIANT UNIT 1 1982 INSERVICE INSPECTICE AND RESULTANT REPAIR ACTIVITIES Gentlemen:

Georgia Power Company (GPC) hereby documents several telephone conversations with NBC personnel in regard to the Hatch Unit 1 inservice inspection findings and resultant repair activities conducted during the maintenance / refueling outage currently in progress. Enclosed as Attachments l', 2, and 3 are documentation of the relevant parts of the telephone discussions conducted on December 7, 13, and 14, 1982 with NRC personnel.

Please inform us if your urxlerstanding of the telephone conversations is different from that stated in the enclosed.

Sincerely yours,

/T W L. T. Gucwa Chief Nuclear Engineer JAF/blm Attachments xc: J. T. Beckham, Jr.

H. C. Nix, Jr.

Senior Resident Inspector y J. P. O'Reilly (NBC Region II) O,r 8301110301 pDR ADOCK [ PDR hi G

g

. .n ATTACIDENT 1i [ ,. *g mj DOCUMENTATION OF DECEMBER 7,'1982 TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH NRC '

REGARDIN3 PIANT HA'ICH - UNIT 1 PIIBFLAW INDICATIONS 4

PARTICIPANTS

6 Licensee: R. D. Baker, J. A. Edwards, L. T. Gucwa NRC: W. S. Hazelton, G. Rivenbark '

Other: T. M. Milton (Southern Company Services) ,

DISCUSSION -

NBC personnel (NRR and Region II I&E) had been briefed previously with regard to those Recirculation (Recirc) ariRHR system welds observed to have reportable indications during the current maintenance / refueling outage. The affected welds included the four end caps % the 22" Recirc manifolds, one branch connection on the 22" Recirc "A"' manifold, and one 20" RHR elbow-to-pipe weld. Since the telephone conversation of December 7, it has been confirmed there are reportable indications in one 24" RHR pipe-to-pipd weld.

Because of scheduling, it was GPC's desire to start , repair of thie Q ,

affected welds by means of weld overlay. The weld overlay process had been  ;

used previously to repair stainless steel piping at other - utilities and approved by NRC. The telephone call placed to NRC was 1.Urythe expressed purpose of requesting permission from NRC to connence weld 'ropair. Verbal permission was granted by W. S. Hazelton thus allodngsstart of weld repairs "

at Hatch Unit 1. GPC indicated that the end caps would probably be repaired first and then the 20" RHR weld repaired. 4'

% e Hazelton expressed concern with 'the'stnickness Kof the weld overlay, particularly for the 20" RHR pipe-to-i'ipef weld, and indicated that the thickness should be a function of the crack depth (anong other things) . GPC personnel indicated that it appeared that 1/4 T would be acceptable for all welds with the exception of the 20", RHR welDirhich was expected to require 1/2 T overlay. The actual overlay require (ait resultant impact would be shown by analysis. '

~

GPC indicated that one weld, a 28" irc eSbow-to-pipe weld, reported earlier to NBC Region II as having, reportable indications had been a miscall by the examination agency which performed the examination of the subject weld. Re-evaluation by others revealed the indications to be due to counterbore. Hazelton expressed concern with this and stated that an

. explanation was in order. Please refer s to Attachment 3 to GPC's response dated December 15, 1982 to NRC I&E Bulletin 82-03 for discussion on this particular weld.

N Pagehl i

n i

e q

i

~

l

, - i j l

. 1 ._ J

, n. . . , - - . .

c

. ,. l W' mj

^

ATDOBENT 1 (Continued) .

DOCWENTATION OF DECEMBER 7,1982 TEIEPHONE CONVERSATION WI'IH NRC REGARDIM3 PIANT HA'ICH - UtET 1 PIPE FLAW INDICATIONS -

In. addition, GPC' discussed the scope cf examinations conducted during.

the inservice inspection. As a result of relevant indications observed in the original scope of examinations, additional welds were examined in accordance with the philosophy of the ASE Section XI code and revealed no 4

reportable -indications. Eleven additional welds in' excess of code requirements 'were also examined and revealed no reportable indications. 4 Only circumferential welds were examined as the second and third examination sanples.' Sanplingi per. code requirements for the second examination sanple and examination of circumferential welds only in the additional sanpling had been discussed with NRC Region II personnel on November 19, 1982, and found acceptable. Concarrence by NRC personnel regarding adequacy of examinations .

sanpling was requested by GPC during'. the December 7. telephone conversation. .

Hazelton indicated ' that the sanple examined .at Hatch Unit 1 was . acceptable and that the intent of the ' aforementioned I&E Bulletin was met. In addition, concurrence by NRR was given for performing examinations on the circumferential welds only in the additional sanpling.

A h}

^

s i r I ' \

t 3-i S. ,

R, f

k 1 ^  %

4 ' , s

\ 6 s - - ,

+ 1 j ,

.,,'s Page 2 s

\

y .

\

\. \

L i

, ---..,-y = . - - -,,w, , . , . - .~,y ,.c ., . . ~ , - - , -.---..,.,.._--,-,-.e- , - - - . .

L ATmCIhENT 2 1

, 1. DOCLBENSTION OF DSCEMBER 13,' 1982~

. sumxmm coNvERsnTION wIm NnC- ,

s REGARDIM3 PIANT HA'IQI - UNIT 1 PIPE FIAN INDICATIONS 1

- PARPICIPANTS '

Licensee: J. A. Edwards NRC: .W. S. Hazelton i Other: M. Belford, J. M. Davis, T. N. Epps, III (all-Southern Campany Services); J. Charnley, P. C. Riccardella

, (all-NUTICH)

DISCUSSICN Because of Hazelton's concerns regarding the overlay of the 20" RHR elbow-to-pipe weld, a conference call was placed to him by GPC as Hatch Unit

! I was preparing to start repairs. This particular weld as discussed during the December 7 telephone conversation was to have been repaired after ithe Recirc end caps. Since the RHR weld was a " worst case" weld (due to the circumferential orientation of the flaw indications) and GPC desired that it be repaired first, NIC was contacted for permission to begin repair on this weld first.

Hazelton indicated ' that repair on the 20" RHR weld first would be acceptable but again expressed concern about the overlay thickness for that particular weld. He also inquired about the depth of the circumferential indications observed in this weld. NUTECH personnel indicated that the overlay for the 20" RHR weld would approach 1/2 T and that for the Recirc end caps would be 1/4 T. Overlay thickness. would be subject to revision based on the analysis. Since the telephone conversation of December 13, 4

through wall determination for the circumferential indications was determined to be 33% (max.)- through wall.

GPC discussed the results of the ultrasonic through-wall determination for the affected welds at Hatch Unit 1. Through-wall maximum depth for the axial indications for the affected welds was as follows:

WELD NO. MAX. DEPTH

, RHR-20 B-D-3 94%

(elbow-to-pipe)

RHR-24 B-R-13 47%

4 (Pi Pe-to-pipe)

RC-22 AM-1 63%

(manifold end cap)

RC-22 AM-4 72%

(manifold end cap)

, BC-22 BM-1 64%

l (manifold end cap) '

RC-22 BM-4 67%

(manifold end cap)

BC-22 AM-1BC-1 12%

(manifold branch connection)

! Pge l l

l l

l I:

3,_ ..

I

. ,. .i.

ATTACIMNr 2. (Continued)

DOCLMNRTION OF DBCDEER 13, 1982 TELEPHONE C0tWERSATION Wrili NRC REGARDING PIANr HMCH - UNIT 1 PIPE FIAW INDICATIONS

- GPC indicated to NRC that' a mockup would not be constructed for Hatch Unit 1 since welding procedures, etc. are similar to those that were used previously at another utility - for weld overlay. Hazelton concurred with

- this and indicated that the mockup would not be necessary.

Hazelton indicated that he needs additional information pertaining to .

the affected welds. GPC stated that a copy of the response to NRC IEE Bulletin 82-03 would be provided to NRR. The NRR Licensing Project Manager for Plant Hatch has been provided with a copy of the bulletin resporse.

7

'{

Page 2 i

s , v.. + , . . , , , .. - . , - - , . , . , - , - . - , , . , , . , . - - - . , . . , , . , , - . - . . - , .

e

, o I

ATDOBENr 3 DOCLBENRTION OF DECBEER 14, 1982

'IEI2lPiplE OC3lVERSATION WITH NRC REGARDDG PIANP HMCH - UNIT 1 PIPE FIAW INDICATIONS PARrICIPANIS Licensee: J. A. Edwards NIC: J. Blake, V. Brownlee, J. Rogge (all-Region II IEE);

W. S. Hazelton, G. Rivenbark DISCUSSICBI NRC contacted GPC personnel to discuss repair of the affected Recirc and

-RHR system welds at Hatch Unit 1.

Hazelton expressed concern about axial shrinkage in the piping system as a result of the weld overlay. He stated that piping dimensions should be checked _ prior. to and after application of the weld overlay. GPC personnel j_ acknowledged his conunents and later notified NUTECH personnel at the plant ,,

i site of Hazelton's concerns. The weld repair procedure employed at Hatch '

Unit 1 requires' checking of dimensions prior to and after application of the weld overlay.

Before exceeding 1/4 T on the weld overlay of the 20" RHR weld,

{ Hazelton requested to talk with NUPECH personnel concerning the overlay  ;

thickness. Hazelton was concerned that an excessive overlay would be detrimental to other welds in the RHR piping system. This particular weld

~

originally was to have an overlay of 1/2 T but actual overlay thickness would be based on the analysis. Since the telephone conversation of

-December 14, it is GPC's understanding that NUTECH personnel have discussed

, the overlay of this weld with Hazelton and that an overlay of 0.4" was i acceptable to him.

NRC personnel indicated that certain items should be addressed with regard to the repair of the affected welds at Hatch Unit 1. Similar items i to those referenced in the Monticello Confirmatory Action Letter should be addressed by GPC. GPC does have a copy of the subject confirmatory action letter. Hazelton emphasized that a great deal of detail should be placed on

discussion of the ultrasonic examinations and the reportable indications 3 observed. In ' addition, he requested that raw data be provided. A copy of the raw ' data for the affected welds has been provided to the NRR Hatch Project Manager.

j 4

1 1

r i

i i

_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ - . _ ~ _ _ , - _ - _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . - . _ . . _ . _ _ , _ . - _ , . _ - _ _ . _ , _ _ _ - , - - . . . . . - .