ML20100N140

Confirms That Surface Exam of Two Feedwater Nozzles Scheduled During Upcoming Maint/Refueling Outage,Per NUREG-0619.Justification for Reducing Number of Feedwater Nozzles Based on Sparger Configuration

ML20100N140
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	04/04/1985
From:	Gucwa L GEORGIA POWER CO.
To:	Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
RTR-NUREG-0619, RTR-NUREG-619 1528N, NED-85-177, NUDOCS 8504180373
Download: ML20100N140 (4)

Text

'

\ f, ' l

, .p Georgta Power Ccmpany 333 Piedment Ann;e :

^" *=

Atlanta Georgia 30308 TWephone 404 52665?6 Ma: ling Address:

• > Post Offce Box 4545 Atunta. Georgia 30302 Georgia Power L T. Qucwa . the southern w<tnc system Manager Nuclear Enginee#ing and Chief Nuclear Engineer NED-85-177 1528N April 4, 1985 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. John F. Stolz, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 4

. Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Washington, D. C. 20555 NRC DOCKET 50-366 OPERATING LICENSE-NPF-5 EDWIN'I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2 SLRFACE EXAMINATION OF FEEDWATER N0ZZLES Gentlemen:

Georgia Power Company (GPC) has scheduled the! surface examination of the Plant' Hatch Unit 2- feedwater nozzles during. the upcoming maintenance / refueling - outage pursuant -to the requirements of NUREG-0619.

Section 4.3.2.3 of the subject NUREG requires that Lall four feedwater nozzles be examined for those- plants having single-sleeve forged-tee spargers. In addition, .the NUREG requires that if' cracks result in grindouts exceeding the ' NUREG-specified grindout length and . depth, all.

spargers . be removed, nozzles cleaned, - and repairs made. Due to concerns regarding these examinations and potential remedial actions, GPC initiated discussions with NRC NRR, MTEB, and ' Region -II personnel. The purpose of

- this'; letter is to document the' -telephona conversations with the aforementioned PEC. personnel and their'. verbal. concurrence with. GPC's proposal for: feedwater nozzle examination.

- On March L13, 1985, . GPC and. _ Southern Company Services,- Inc. (SCSI) personnel contacted thel Hatch NRC . Licensing Project Manager, Mr.

G. Rivenbark, to' propose , reducing the number of - feedwater nozzles from that

- required ' byi NUREG-0619-..to be' examined during the 1985 outage at Hatch

. Unit _2. - Several NRC staff personnel from NRC MTEB also participated in the 8504180373 850404 0 PDR ADOCK.05000366 k P PDR ; - \

3 m s y

r . . . ~ . ._ . . _. ___ . _ . _ _ . _ _ , . . . .

1

~.

im : .;  :. ,

~

t 1 _

(Georgia Pbwerk .

l Director lofNuclearReactorRegulation

^

Attention:1 -Mr.1 John F. Stolz, Chief

- 0perating Reactors Branch No. 4

( w: April:4, 1985-

. Page2Two

,

+

! telephone Lconversation :and Lincluded Messrs. W. Hazelton, R. Klecker, and n.

-  : K. Wichman.. GPC proposed that just two - feedwater nozzles be examined in flieu -u of s all four.efeedwater nozzlesi: required' by the. subject NUREG.

' Justification' for1 reducing the number of feedwater nozzles to be examined.

/ included the1following:

i l.. 'should.~not The ' Hatch Unit 2. sparger configuration (i.e., welded-in 'spargers) allow any by-pass leakage; as .a result, cracking is not

' expected in-the feedwater nozzles; The feedwater nozzles on. Unit 2 are not clad;-

2.

3.- 1The single-sleeve = forged-tee spargers ~ provide better access for-examination;

4. . The: surface examination serves only as a confirmatory examination ini addition ' to J the ultrasonic examinations conducted every other maintenance / refueling 1 ' outage- pursuant ~ to the inspection frequirements'cof - NUREG-0619. . The ultrasonic examinations of the feedwater . nozzles- were ~ last. . conducted' acceptable during ~ the 1984

' ~

maintenance / refueling , outage 'and yielded -results, r although, a fabrication-related indication was observed in the 2N4A.

' -nozzle area; and,-

1

5. Discussion :.with another utility having- a. similar sparger configuration-as Hatch Unit 2 (except' that their feedwater nozzles

[

'are clad)~ indicated that they had no relevant surface examination Lindications^after approximately nine years of operation.

b

- When?questionedc by; NRCJ as' to which two nozzlesi would be. examined, GPC cindicated that-one nozz1e from each feedwater loopi(i~.'e., "A" and "B" loops)

. would_ beiexamined. '1The' 2NAA nozzle, located on the' ."A" loop, was observed to;have a . fabrication-related indication during the last outage and would be i,

b >

~

examined. JThelsecond : nozzle, 2N40, is located on :the "B", loop and is

[ .: adjacent-~ to cthe: 2N4A nozzle. ..:Should relevant; indications be observed in J

' ,thosed feedwater ' nozzles, the' remaining ~ feedwater t nozzles ' ~(i.e. , . 2N48 ' and -

1 J2NAC):would'also;be: examined.- It'was further' indicated to the-NRC personnel that' GPCf personnel had ; discussed its - examination proposal- with 1an : outside '

consultantXconsideredl tofbe? aniexpert in . thel area ' of' ' feedwater ' nozzle  !

cracking?and_ that_'the consultant'; considered GPC's Lproposal' to be ia reasonable ; approach. - - After ^ caucusing, : NRC NRR : and MTES : personnel indicated  :

. . ~ ,

'[ ^

s

~

^

c

• a &

• f ,= -

m , ,

~:[

- ,yc m ,L

. u. u.. _ _ .- u 2. . m _.-,s , _ , , - _ __

___ _ _ _ - ~ .- _ _ _ .

N yv

, c.: y

'dcorgiaPower b .

i

~D irector of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

~

LAttention: Mr. John F. Stolz, Chief

~0perating Reactors Branch No. 4

April

4,-1985 iPage Three-fthat GPC's examination proposal was acceptable; however, they also indicated

that~ the. proposal should be discussed with MC Region II personnel and any

- requirements theti the Region-had were to be factored into the examinations.

Their comments were acknowledged by the GPC personnel.

+

- 4 1.

.GPC Lalso expressed _ concern with the NUREG requirement of having to remove. al1~ single-sleeve- forged-tee spargers if, during corrective action of removinga relevant surface indications by grinding, any grindouts exceed a ~

. depth 'of- 0.06-inch by 0.25-inch in : length. This would cause extreme P  ; hardship for 4 GPC - since the ' sparge:s ' at. Hatch Unit ' 2 are -of the welded-in

. type. - Mr. Hazelton indicated that this was not the intent of the NUREG for i . the.' Hatch (Unit '2l sparger; configuration; and. that EC would work with GPC should relevant indications be observed requiring corrective actions.

Mr. Rivenbark requested tlat the telephone conversation be documented by

~

f -letter. 1 A1 GPC representative acknowledged and indicated that a formal submittal- documenting the , conversation -would ~ be made following~ discussion of the: . examination proposal with NRC Region II personnel.' Mr. Rivenbark

' indicated:that he would notify Mr. V. Panciera of NRC Region II that GPC

~

would ^ be1 contacting him to . discuss .- GPC's ' examination proposal with - the

-appropriate'NRC Region II personnel.

GPC personnel contacted Mr. Panciera'of WC Region II on March 14, 1985 to'make arrangements for a conference call for discussion of the feedwater

, nozzle examination ' proposal. with _.the appropriate ~NRC Region II personnel.

The feedwater nozzle . examination _ proposal ~was subsequently discussed with

'Mr.#J. Blake of 2C Region II by GPC and SCSI personnel. - The presentation to Mr. _Blake by GPC personnel was similar in nature to that made to NRC mR and MTEB-personnel during the telephone: conversation;on March 13, 1985. Mr.

Blake~ indicated that GPC's proposal to~ reduce the number of feedwater nozzle surface examinations, from- that required by NUREG-0619. was acceptable to WC Region' II - and further indicated - that he had discussed the ' matter with Mr.

Hazelton::of' MTEB. 'While EC' Region II did not~ place any conditions on the

. surface ~ examinations of the - two nozzlesi:.(i.e., 2NAA and 2N40) during the 1985 outage, Mr. Blake did Indicate' that . consideration should be given to examining the remaining twoLnozzles (i.e;, 2N48 and' 2N4C) the next time the

' surface" examinations.are required by the: subject- NUREG to be-performed. It Lwas .' indicated' toMr. Blake- that :GPC would. document'.the telephone..

~

1

-: conversation with himiin) the11etter to NRC 2R and would provide a copy Lto

~

NRC RegionIII in accordance with our; normal NRC~ correspondence distribution.

5 .

p hi _

..s.'.'.-  ; _ _ _ . , . ,,,4.. , ', . , , _ ..f. , _yg _iee .~ +F*eP"e e

GeorgialbwerA .

Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

- Attention: Mr. John F. Stolz, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 4 April 4, 1985 Page Four As a result of our conversations with NRC mR, MTEB, and Region II personnel, it is our . understanding that GPC's proposal to examine two feedwater nozzles in~1ieu of all four required by NUREG-0619 is acceptable and will be pursued accordingly by GPC during the upcoming- Hatch Unit 2

- outage. Should relevant surface examination indications be observed in

- either- of ^ the 2N4A and 2N40 feedwater nozzles, the remaining nozzles (i.e.,

2N48 and 2N4C) will be examined. 'Further, it is our understanding, based on the conversation with mR and MTEB personnel, that :it is not the intent of NLREG-0619 that the Hatch Unit 2. single-sleeve' forged-tee feedwater spargers be removed should grindouts of releven.t surface indications exceed a depth of'O.06-inch and length of 0.25-inch as specified in the subject NUREG since the spargers are of -the welded-in type. Results of the surface examination of the feedwater nozzles will be _ reported to WC Region II pursuant to the

- requirements of NUREG-0619.

Should NRR,'MTEB, or Region II's understanding of the discussions differ from that' documented herein, please contact this office at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely yours,

/- E-QL w L.-T. Gucwa

'JAE/mb xc: J. T.'Beckham, Jr.

H. C.-N1x, Jr.

J. N. Grace (WC- Region II)

. Senior Resident Inspector l

700775 F T g - -