ML20078H622

Provides Schedule for Plant Outages & Activities Associated W/Recirculation Piping Insp Required by IE Bulletins 82-03 & 83-02,as Discussed at 830928 Meeting W/Nrc.Replacement of Piping Planned for Unit 2.Viewgraphs Encl

ML20078H622
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	10/05/1983
From:	Nix H GEORGIA POWER CO.
To:	Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
IEB-82-03, IEB-82-3, IEB-83-02, IEB-83-2, NED-83-499, TAC-52483, NUDOCS 8310140241
Download: ML20078H622 (23)

Text

r

- a Georqa Pom*r Comp #y

. 333 Qedmorit Arnua-Alun'a. Georgia 30308 Tetephor.c 404 526 6SPG Mamng Addre<;s Past Ottco Box 4545 At:anta. Geou;a 30302 b Georgia Power

1. #* " * '" W" "

Powe, Generation Department NED-83-499 October 5, 1983 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. John F. Stolz, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 4 Division of Licensirg U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C. 20555 NRC DOCKETS 50-321, 50-366 OPERATING LICENSES DPR-57, NPF-5 EDWIN I. HA'ICH NUCLEAR PINTf UNITS 1, 2 PIANT HA'ICH OUTAGE SCHEDULES Gentimen:

In recent weeks Georgia Power Cmpany (GPC) has been developing a schedule and work plan for Plant Hatch Units 1 and 2. On September 28, 1983, GPC managment presented this schedule to the NRC. The purpose of this letter is to docment GPC's schedule for major activities and outages as presented at the Septaber 28th meeting. A copy of each slide that was shown is included as an attachtent.

Due to our experiences with intergranular stress corrosion cracking (IGSOC), and the industry's experience, we have taken a hard look at developing a more permanent, long-term solution. This exmination included consideration of the current state of technology in the application of weld overlays and in Ultr a nic Testing of pipe flaws, the econonics of replacment versus increased inspections and repairs, the availability of material and craft personnel, etc. We have concluded that in the case of Plant Hatch Unit 2, although ciremferential cracking was extensively

! indicated, there was no safety implication for intermediate term continued i

operation. However, it appears that pipe change out is a foregone conclusion. The decision then was not whether to replace the pipe, but a question of when to replace.

l In the case of Hatch Unit 2, we believe that pipe replacment:

(1) Provides the most positive solution for the IGSCC problem-with significant improvm ents in materials and design; (2) Enables better operations management by avoiding future schedular concerns regarding subsequent inspections; and (3) Although it puts us early on the learning curve, it enables us to achieve our objective of minimizing impact on GPC.

8310140241 831005 hdokl PDR ADOCK 05000321 \

P PDH

m Georgia Powerd Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. John F. Stolz, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 4 October 5, 1983 Page 'No We made this decision even though we had taken appropriate mitigating steps. We continue to trust the weld overlay process, and believe that its application is good for at least five years. The issues are questions of economics and operational flexibility. We conclude that timely action is warranted to reduce overall impact. Consequently, our plan is to change out the Plant Hatch Unit 2 recirculation piping as soon as possible.

With this understanding, we had been developing a schedule and work plan, and had made a presentation to our senior managenent at the end of August. A nunber of considerations went into planning such a major outage.

A primary consideration was to not plan concurrent outages of both Hatch units. With this in mind we looked for a way to keep Hatch 1 available during the long change out period when Hatch 2 would be out of service. %e option given the most consideration was to derate Hatch 1 to enable it to operate until Hatch 2 was returned to service, avoid a sunner , 1984, scheduled outage, and to provide our plant people a much need breather between major outages. Our plan was, therefore, to shut down Hatch 2 for piping replacenent and have it return to service by stener,1984, and then renove Hatch 1 fran service for refueling after the sunner of 1984.

Wis plan was in the process of being evaluated in greater detail when Hatch I experienced an increase in offgas levels over the Labor Day weekend. he unit has since been held to 70% power and offgas levels have been reduced to pre-Labor Day values. The unit could be operated in this mode and still meet the planned goals mentioned above. We believe, however, that this would only make future plant modifications and plant operation more difficult. We think it is more prudent to replace the leaking fuel as soon as possible, as we did in October,1981.

With this in mind, the plan which was presented to the NRC on Septenber 28, 1983, addressed the replacenent of recirculation piping, the replacenent of leaking fuel assenblies, and the associated outage schedule for the two j Hatch units over the next twelve to eighteen months.

(

As can be seen fran the attached copies of the slides which were presented, we are proposing schedules for three outages between now and fall, 1984. We propose a core reconstitution outage for Unit 1, similar to that performed in October,1981, to begin the first week of Novenber,1983.

%at outage is expected to last five weeks. Following the year end holiday season, a Unit 2 refuel / pipe replacenent outage would be scheduled to begin in January,1984, and last approximately six months. A Unit 1 refuel / plant modifications outage would then be scheduled for fall, 1984.

I 700775

P Georgia Power A Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. John F. Stolz, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 4 October 5, 1983 Page %ree ne primary reason for the Unit 1 core reconstitution outage in 1983 would be to replace leaking fuel. A scram discharge voltme modification will also be cmpleted in empliance with an earlier NRC order.

We Unit 2 refuel / pipe replacement / plant modification outage scheduled to begin January,1984, would include the following major activities:

(1) Refuel (2) Recirculation Pipe Replacenent (3) Scra Discharge Volume Modification (4) Pipe Whip Restraint Additions (5) Fire Protection (10 CFR 50, Appendix R) [begin work]

(6) M uipnent Qualification (7) Safety Parmeter Display Systen/Bnergency Operating Facility

[begin work]

Wis Unit 2 outage is expected to last approximately six months.

ne Unit 1 refuel / plant modification outage is currently scheduled to begin mid-Septenber,1984. His outage would include the following major activities:

(1) Refuel (2) Recirculation Pipe Inspection (3) Torus Attached Piping (4) Fire Protection (10 CFR 50, Appendix R) (begin work)

(5) M uipnent Qualification (6) Safety Parmeter Display Systen/Bnergency Operating Facility

[begin work]

%is Unit 1 outage is currently schelduled as a naninal two-month outage.

In order to. support the Unit 2,1984 outage, GPC requests relief fran the order requiring a recirculation pipe inspection in 1983. Instead, GPC proposes to replace the recirculation piping during the outage beginning in January, 1984. GPC also rquests an extension of the orders requiring scrm discharge volune modifications and pipe whip restraint installation by Decenber 31, 1983. These modifications would then be canpleted during the Unit 2 outage.

700775

F s *

• _g_

GeorgiaPower A Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. John F. Stolz, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 4 October 5, 1983 Page Four To support the Unit 1 1983 core reconstitution outage, GPC requests timely NRC review of its Technical Specifications subnittal resulting frm a change in the core configuration. During this very short outage, which is primarily for the purpose of replacing leaking fuel, GPC does not plan to perform an inspection of the recirculation piping. Sme of the reasons for not performing an inspection at that time are:

1.- The I&E Bulletin 82-03 inspection as performed at Hatch Unit 1 in October-Deceber 1982 met the intent of I&E Bulletin 83-02 because:

a. qualifications of personnel were performed at Battelle;

b. the scope of exams exceeded the requirments of I&E Bulletin 83-02 whereas:

1. Bulletin 83-02 required a minimm of ten w< ids to be inspected on pipes 20" dimeter (twenty-three Recirculation & Residual Heat Removal welds were exmined on Unit 1);

2. Bulletin 83-02 required a minimm of ten riser welds to be exmined (twenty-one welds were examined on Unit 1);

and

3. Bulletin 83-02 required that two sweepolet welds nearest the end caps be exmined (four welds were exmined on Unit 1) .

c. examination techniques and procedures were essentially the sme;

d. many of the personnel performing exminations at Hatch Unit 2 were the see as those who performed exminations at Hatch Unit 1 (particularly the lead Level II and Level III individuals responsible for evaluation of indications).

Experienced exmination personnel might be unavailable due to the 1

2.

amount of cracking observed throughout the industry and the anticipated radiation exposure obtained through augmented inspections during the last quarter of the year at other BWRs.

3. Examinations would be restricted due to fuel movment during the brief outage.

4. Reactor Coolant Systen (RCS) leakage detection has been augmented and no probl e has been observed.

70077f.

., o .

Georgia Powerd Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. John F. Stolz,-Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 4 October 5, 1983 Page Five Consequently, based on the above, GPC concludes that adequate inspections have been performed and no further inspections should be ratuired at this time.

GPC plans to proceed with this proposed schedule. We request that the NRC provide a timely response if it is unable to support this schedule in part or in full.

Very truly youra, f l

, H. C. Nix

/ General Manager and Acting Vice President DLT/nb Enclosure xc: H. C. Nix, Jr.

Senior Resident Inspector J. P. O'Reilly, (NBC-Region II) 700775

l;  : .

i r

1 i-

) '.

l i

1. l.

1

l. Integrated S6hs:: dule for. Plant Hatch l Recirculation Piping .and Leaking l Fuel Replacement ^' "

l l > ;b - ' ::;.Y:

t i . . . .

Georgia Power E.1. Hatch Nuclear Plant I

I i

i

!  %~ PLANT clATCH

\

l Agenda i.

I i

1. Introduction & Purpose ,

l 11. Outage Schedules -

l .

i Ill. Major Activities i ' '

A.1983 Hatch-1 Core Reconstitution i

B.1984 Hatch-2 Refuel / Pipe Replacement /

Plant Modifications j G.1984 Hatch-1 Refuel / Plant. Modifications 3

) .

IV. Summary Discussion ,

i i

1

1 *g 1

. - _ - . . .. , n. ..-, ...m.. - -em . o.--. -.-n.--- -.m me n n.----. ,, .

M PLANT HATCH

. ~ ...

Planned Plant Hatch Outage Schedules O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D

. ~ , .

ll "

! 5 Wks 6 Months -

f. - 2M66t h' phit' Unit 1 Unit 2 -

l Core Refuel / Pipe Replacement / IReftiel/P .

Reconstitution Plant Modification f Modifica .f j p.I d  ! ,

EI bk 5 ..m ,

!.. m hN 1 . ,

1983 1984 4

I

w- ,

M HERREERMElBiEEl Core Reconstitution Outage .

O N D A S

..w: ,qs g n. y m.q,ryje g . m,.g 3 yrpy y .pyg)

-.2..

85 E8l!.I. l.IYdhl$m,4NN h2,an,J

'T!EG 9 K % .;YNRC -

W M.

.. 5B Ucensing QM ypj$pj M .: .; . 4 .

i Mgs g

f '

e' b.. id ..g4 License Amendmenti%$* VSubmit1al Review.W Submitted  : ..

y 3f.4@f/3 r d.g$:4..e.y., n%

. . .-- %a -. ~ b, , >, JI6digAlT

.,J,a.ig' s Core Designa and Arialy.sesf M A, syNN?/g%% 3  :

'. ;.'i diT!M vqg ggg.;1'

.pG E,*'g.:gh..SWMMMN-

.:,, c.. 03 winwsM 4 p: .py". - .. ... g. .m .

n, t gf m.c b*t j[*yf4.f.-)

.$......,--?-'. . l., j. . o~. , ' L - F*'

g..-_.

.. n-n s , , , , an gigg

. @6 ,

%a}. fty.gep,'Ep;3; 5?; sFuel[nspe,6 tion @

f; 73 n.s. ',>.,&

0Ef fdh 4 ?f;d% ${endCore'i$ g?g!R 4 p-s e e m m g, ., .,e !NReconstitutiont fpf e- .

Outage (5 Weeks) t}y %)

'. , J.~ Reconstitution'  %

K

• knih@dif w m D

~~

.; 9:01 H2R1 Bundlesi' .$..rehide:.A:lew$$f6 Shut Down Start Up 1983

/

- ~n $ maywnnk  ? ,7 .mu,wn IY'dEI ShD e.d

- =-e w w w m1ATCfflJNiffi

'!'(PilANTlif$1%$$N e w w r w$ m w@ m$yst m$

29GtyM9?5S4jM i[D "*A (NE 5e *% F," 8~I'hi>5 s

d li M n w.di%:3

$+kiPOd W 1.q .'W Ir.R+hqpqgpufv

n. cy iSih&$E a4 9Wb@sfLJ@9%&sMihin4%07Cl; 4 yd*x sta e -

e &%Ble dgg g g g g3j Refuel / Pipe Replacement / Plant Modification Outage S O N D J F M A M J J A i

!%--, R$lll@$g Recirculation Pipir'ghis? - '3

, Procurement. Designjhg 8 [j. if. ;e Engineering, & Manpowefd W. -

NiNb Ilt{fiUIQQ I l  ; yg ' $, I If$' IAEtMhdfl6h{ih ,. NM~

El E gb mw c- +  ;

..f-k,.ts . .[O a -:m $;-

i

.s .. 3. %g Ore;: j,$pgg

[ '

gg,

].

l r- *'" 5%$NF I., T  ; i S@$$}{I{f3.

l 1983 Shut Down 1984 Start Up i

l

PLANT HATCH Suction Nozzle Dgcharge Nozzieg Recirculation System f Typical of One Loop '

Two Loops in Plant *k RHR Tee RHR Tee g PJ25 i -

luJ- >4 E

'k .

PLANT HATCH Model for IGSCC s8. 4.. . .

Sensitized SN_ If$ .

Microstructur Tensile Stress

l j

i

\ PLANT HATCH

-~ .

i

! Microstructure / Sensitization

)' Related Remedies

• Material ..

! -316 SS Nuclear l

• Solution Heat Treatment I

e ,-

i I

J

l i

l

)

\ PLANT HATCH

-s

Stress improvement Remedies j

• Induction Heating Stress improvement (IHSI) i ..

!

• Last Pass Heat Sink Welding (LPHSW?

l l

• Heat Sink Welding (H8W) i i

i l

l i

1 i

l

) t PLANT HATCH UNIT 2 i s.

I 1

{ Pipe Replacement Scope i l Six Months Outage to Begin January 1984 -

8 l  % ,

1 I

i l

0 PLANT HATCH

\ Recirculation Piping Replacement Project l

Project

• Manager Asst. to l Proj. Mgr.

1 Engineering / Licensing Support Deputy Project Mgr.

I I I I Il Coord.

l Field Health Purcitasing Field Planning Quality Engineer Physics Supv. and Cost Control i

i

\

\ PLANT HATCH UNIT 2

, -s Capital Budget (Dollars in Millions)

, S60 l

$45.3

g;

us:. ..

. 40  ??;;9 45 ',

gg;.h,h 4,4;Q,..

1 20

@.x e

$ 12.2 a

0

~

1 1983 1984 Total Hatch-2 Budget: $57.5M

1  :

i  :

i l

t j . . _ . . . _ . . _ . _ _ . . . _ . _ _ _ . . . . . .___ ._ _.. . . . ,

?

( PLANT HATCH UNIT t '

Refuel / Plant Modifications Outage ,

l .

l J A S O N D

?:n M ^;;~" -

- e 3g

"' ~'

Core Design l w.

! M$

r e n ~k h I r.

Xp s

l63 ...

Licensing Submittal yyg -

' j@tP ,

i

. jf

.3

! Plant Modifications jjpjjyy..,,_

y s % !e n %ppj fki M ,

l 1984 Shut Down Start Up ,

& l k> IMAGE EVALUATION

[//// / ((+#d'+ # ,

gy>f e @/ TEST TARGET (MT-3)

N 4 9 /4,,,

1.0 'd a M

' Se DE m

l,l

• b$b I.8 I.25 1.4 1.6 4 150mm >

4 6" >

+['%

• ? A/ h ,

/A + a4 v o

// <>>% #

<9 6

3 1

1 I .

l

! \ PLANT HATCH UNIT t

-r j,

t Core Reconstitution [1983) 1 .

~

! 1. Core Reconstitt! Mon'?. -

i l 2. SCRAM Discharge Volume Modification l

l . ai o

.1 i ,

l

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

i j

PLANT HATCH UNIT 2.

\ s i Refuel / Pipe Replacement /

! Plant Modifications (1984)

) 1. Refuel ,

4

2. Pipe Replacement *(No 1983 Inspection)

3. SCRAM Discharge Vo!ume Modification *(May Need Extension) l 4. Pipe Whip Restraints *(May Need Extension) .

5. Fire Protection (10 CFR 50, Appendix R) i

6. Equipment Qualification

! 7. Safety Parameter Display System / Emergency Operating Facility .:

! *NRC Concurrence Requested 4

l .

)

i

• l 1

l

) PLANT HATCH UNIT 1

~'

i Refuel /Piant Modifications L 1984)

J l 1. Refuel

2. Pipe inspection .

i

3. Torus Attached Piping i

l 4. Fire Protection (10 CFR 50, Appendix R) i

5. Equipment Qualification j 6. Safety Parameter Display System / Emergency i '

Operating Facility .

l f

e a

i i

l .

l l

l

5. PLANT HATCH

-r Summary of NRC Concurrence item's Unit 1:

• 1983 Core Reconstitution Outage

• NRC Licensing Support -

Unit 2:

• No 1983 Inspection -

,

• Short Extensions if Needed SCRAM Discharge Volume Modifications Pipe Whip Restraints

• NRC Licensing Support

• i, . PLANT HATCH UNIT 1 Reason for Not inspecting During

,' Hatch-1 Core Reconstitution

• Plant Hatch 1 IEB 82-03 Inspection Meets Intent of IEB 83-02 ,

• Potential Unavailability of Experienced Examination Personnel

~

.

• Some Examinations Restricted Due to .

Fuel Movements a Reactor Coolant System Leakage Detection Has Been Augmented