ML20065B814

Advises of Exam Areas Not Receiving Full Code Exam During Inservice Insp Activities Conducted During Maint/Refueling Outage & Forwards Lists of Exam Limitations.Welds Receiving Limited Coverage Listed

ML20065B814
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	09/15/1982
From:	Gucwa L GEORGIA POWER CO.
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
TAC-07811, TAC-08019, TAC-7811, TAC-8019, NUDOCS 8209230025
Download: ML20065B814 (8)

Text

. _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _

v .. u n ,, os .g . . .

M ) Ifc9 u.el A,eryg.

AsoG.! .,pm

' ,6 , a y M Q6 w[6 f., N y ,,y

. w a n, ti . v GeorgiaPower Power Generatk,n Department 4

Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 NRC DOCKET 50-366 .

OPERATING LICENSE NPF-5 EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2 EXAMINATION LIMITATIONS DURING 1982 INSERVICE INSPECTION Ger.tlemen:

Georgia Power Company (GPC) hereby advises you of examination areas not receiving a full-code examination during inservice inspection activities conducted during the Hatch Unit 2 1982 maintenance / refueling outage.

3 Enclosed as Attachments 1 and 2 are lists of examination limitations encountered by Southern Company Services and Southwest Research Institute examination personnel, respectively. The lists include the examination area (weld number), the type of examination performed, the approximate percentage of the examination performed, and the limitation (s) as described on the applicable examination data sheets. Attachment 3 discusses the requirements of the various examination procedures to clearly identify and explain the limitations.

In addition, several welds examined by Southern Company Services received very limited coverage. Therefore, the following welds will be replaced by equivalent ASME category welds during future inservice inspections:

2E21-2CS-12A-5PL-7A and 8A 2E41-2HPCI-14-R-14PS-1 and 2 2E51-2RCIC-8-TD-1 2G51-2TDP-8-D-1.

i Should you have any questions or comments in this regard, please contact this office.

Sincerely yours,

.I p.z a.-

8209230025 820915 L. T. Gucwa PDR ADOCK 05000366 G PDR Chief Nuclear Engineer JAE/mb Attachments xc: H. C. Nix, Jr.

h R. F. Rogers, III J. P. O'Reilly (NRC-Region II)

ATTACHMENT 1 Southern Company Services Scope of Work Examination Areas Not Receiving A Full-Code Examination Weld No./ NDE* Percent Examination Method Examined- Limitations 3

2E21-1CS-10A-1 UT 75% No examination from tne up-Valve to Pipe stream side due to valve con-figuration. 0* weld and 45' transverse scans were con-ducted as a best effort due to weld crown finish. All

, other scans were performed as required.

3 2E41-2HPCI-10-D-33 UT 95% 45' transverse scan limited to Pipe to Cap .

approximately 84% due to a permanent obstruction. All other scans were performed as required.

3 2C11-2CRD-2FW-1611 UT 75% No examination from the down-Pipe to Reducer stream side due to the reducer configuration. The 0" weld scan was inadvertenly not per-formed by the examination crew.

This weld is an exempt Class 2 piping weld and was examined to meet the requirements of NUREG-0619. It is not as

. critical a weld as others examined under NUREG-0619 i because the cold water mixing occurs further downstream. This weld received a complete UT

! baseline examination in February 1981 with no reportable in-dications found. The UT exami-nation during this outage again resulted in no reportable in-dications found. In addition, it should be noted that the 0* weld scan is used to locate fr>rication flaws and is not norna11y able to detect service-induced flaws.

l t

o See Attachment 3

, ATTACHMENT 1 Sheet 2 Southern Company Services Scope of Work Examination Areas Not Receiving A Full-Code Examination Weld No./ NDE* Percent Examination Method Exam'ined Limitations 6

2E11-2RHR-24B-TS-D-15PS MT 84%

Pipe Support MT examination limited to approximately 84% due to the proximity of the penetration seal, o

s l

l I

l l

l l

1 j

• See Attachment 3 l

l l

l

• . ATTACHMENT 2 Southwest Research Intitute Scope of Work Examination Areas Not Receiving A Full-Code Examination Weld No./ NDE* Percent Examination Method Examined Limitations I

2N2E UT 60%

• No 45*T or 60*T scans due to Nozzle to Vessel Weld the nozzle joint configuration.

2 2N4A UT 86% Limited examination due to the Nozzle Inside Radius proximity of 2N12A.

Section 2

2N4C UT 86% Limited examination due to the '

Nozzle Inside Radius proximity of 2N12B.

Section 3 ~

2821-1MS-24B-14 UT 40% No examination from the down-Elbow to Pipe stream side due to the permanent pipe support. No 0*W or 45*T scans on the weld due to the permanent pipe support.

4 2B31-1RC-4AA UT 25% No ultrasonic examination from Branch Connection to Cap the upstream side due to the branch connection configuration.

No ultrasonic examination from the downstream side due to the cap configuration.

4 l 2831-1RC-4AB UT 25% Limitation identical to Branch Connection to Cap 2B31-1RC-4AA.

4 2B31-1RC-4BC UT 25% Limitation identical to Branch Connection to Cap 2B31-1RC-4AA.

4 2B31-1RC-4BD UT 25% Limitation identical to Branch Connection to Cap 2B31-1RC-4AA.

S 2E11-1RHR-24A-R-11LU-I UT 85% No 45* or 45*T scans from L=0" Longitudinal Weld to L=3" due to the proximity of the permanent support structure.

l l

c'See Attachment 3

ATTACHMENT 2 Sheet 2 Southwest Research Institute Scope of Work Examination Areas Not Receiving A Full-Code Examination Weld No./ NDE* Percent Examination Method Examined Limitations 3

2E11-1RHR-24A-R-11 UT 77% Limited examination from the Elbow to Pipe upstream and downstredm sides and on the weld due to the proximity of two permanent support structures.

5

. 2E11-1RHR-24A-R-11LD UT 0% No examination possible due to Longitudinal Weld the proximity of the permanent support structure (NUREG 0313, Rev1).

.~

• See Attachment 3

o ATTACHMENT 3 NDE Methods (from Previous Tables)

(1) Mechanized U1trasonic Examination of Nozzle to Vessel Weld The ultrasonic (UT) examination of the nozzle to vessel weld was to be perfonned as follows:

(a) 0 , 45 , and 60-degree scans were to be conducted from the vessel side of the weld with the angle beams directed toward the weld using a nozzle-to-shell remote examination device.

(b) 0 , 45 , and 60-degree scans were to be conducted through the nozzle blend radius and onto the nozzle boss with the angle beams directed '

toward the weld and away from the weld using an inner radi~us examination device.

(c) 45- and 60-degree trar,sverse scans were to be conducted on the weld and from the vessel side of the weld with the angle beams directed into and parallel with the weld.

As noted in the tables, the 45- and 60-degree transverse scans could not be performed on 2N2E due to the nozzle joint configuration.

(2) Mechanized Ultrasonic Examination of Nozzle Inside Radius Sections The UT examination of the nozzle inside radius section was to be performed as follows:

Scans were to be performed from the blend radius using a refracted longitudinal beam that strikes the inside radius surfact ?t a 45-degree 10-degree angle with the beam directed tange,t 41 to the inside surface in the clockwise and counterclockwi' e9rections using an inner radius examination device.

For the 2N4A and 2N4C nozzles, the adjacent 2N12 nozzles limited the examination for eight inches out of a possible 58 inches. These limitations are outlined in Figure 1.

(3) Ultrasonic Examination of Circumferential Piping Welds With a Nominal Wall Thickness Greater Than 0.4 Inches For the UT examination of circumferential piping welds with a nominal wall thickness greater than 0.4 inches, the following scans were to be performed:

ATTACHMENT 3 Sheet 2 l.

(a) Base Metal (Main Run of Pipe) 0-degree lamination scan 45-degree scan 60-degree scan (b) On the Weld 0-degree weld scan (as needed) .

45-degree transverse scan If possible, these scans on the base metal were to be perfonned from both sides of the weld. If this was not possible, a 0-degree scan was to be performed on the weld for those areas where an examination was not possible from both sides. As noted in the tables, full-Code coverage was not possible on five circumferential piping welds. ,

(4) Ultrasonic Examination of Circumferential Piping Welds With a Nominal Wall Thickness Less Than 0.4 Inches -

For the UT examination of circumferential piping welds with a nominal wall thickness less than 0.4 inches, the following scans were to be perfonned:

(a) Base Metal (Main Run of Pipe) 0-degree lamination scan 45-degree scan 45-degree transverse scan (for a distance ef 1 inch from each side' of fusion line)

(b) On the Weld 45-degree transverse scan If possible, these examinations on the base metal were to be performed from both sides of the weld. As noted in the tables, full-Code coverage was not possible on four circumferential piping welds.

(5) Ultrasonic Examination of Longitudinal Piping Welds For the UT examination of longitudinal piping welds, the following scans were to be performed:

(a) Base Metal (Main Run of Pipe) 0-degree lamination scan 45-degree scan

. .u . -

i i ATTACHMENT 3 Sheet 3 (b) On the Weld 0-degree weld scan (as needed) 45-degree transverse scan If possible, these examinations on the base metal were to be performed from both side of the longitudinal weld. If this was not possible, a 0-degree scan was to be performed on the weld for those areas where an examination was not possible from both sides. As noted in the tables, full-Code coverage was not possible on two longitudinal piping welds.

(6) Magnetic Particle Examination of Pipe Support Welds For the magnetic particle (MT) examination of pipe support welds, the weld and adjacent base material were to be examined such that the lines of magnetic flux were to be approximately parallel and perpendicualr to the axis of the wel d. As noted in the tables, full-Code coverage was not possible on one weld.

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