IR 05000324/1978024

IE Inspec Repts 50-324/78-24 & 50-325/78-24 on 780918,20-22,26-28 During Which No Items of Noncompliance Were Noted.Major Areas Inspected included:Non-Destructive Examination of Jet-Pump Riser Safe-Ends

ML20062D124
Person / Time
Site:	Brunswick
Issue date:	10/11/1978
From:	Blake J, Conlon T, Williams C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20062D123	List: IR 05000324/1978024 ML20062D120
References
50-324-78-24, 50-325-78-24, NUDOCS 7811200034
Download: ML20062D124 (5)

Text

l

.. j l

'

• • "E cg UNITED sT ATEs f 'o, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

^

[\ , . , n R EGloN il 5-

• - $ 101 M ARIETT A sTR E ET, o f ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303

% . .w..: J Report No /78-24 and 50-325/78-24 Docket No and 50-325 License No DPR-62 and DPR-71 Categories: C and C Licensee: Carolina Power and Light Company 336 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Facility Name: Brunswick 1 and 2 Inspection at: Southport, North Carolina Inspection conducted: September 18, 20-22 and 26-28, 1978 Inspectors: J. J. Blake C. C. Williams (September 18)

T. E. Conlon (September 18, 20-22)

A. R. Herdt (September 20-22)

Reviewed by er[ M T. E. Conlon, Chief N!" 7[

/ Date Engineering Support Section No. 2 Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch Inspection Summary Inspection on September 18, 20-22 and 26-28, 1978 (Report Nos. 50-324/78-24 and 50-325/78-24)

Areas Inspected: Special announced inspection of activities described in Immediate Action Letter of September 14, 1978 (i.e. Non-Destructive Examina-tion of Jet-Pump Riser Safe-Ends). The inspection consisted of a meeting with the licensee and consultants on September 18; NDE Exmaination on Unit 2 during September 20-22; and NDE Examination of Unit I during September 26-28, 1978. The inspection involved 92 inspector-hours on site by four NRC inspector Results: There were no items of noncompliance or deviation identified.

l l

l 7811200o39 Q

,

-Y

, ..

RII Report Nos. 50-324/78-24 and 50-325/78-24 I-1

!

DETAILS I Prepared by: . _

je_ /oI/j c-J./J. Kake, tTefallurgical Engineer Da't e F/igineering Support Section No. 2 l

Reactor Construction and Engineering l Support Branch Dates of Inspection: September 18, 20-22, 26-28, 1978 Reviewed b h _ Im // / 77 T. E. Conlon,' Chief / Uate Engineering Support Section No. 2 Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch Persons Contacted l Carolina Power and Light (CP&L)

H. Banks, Manager Nuclear Generation A. C. Tollison, Jr. , BSEP Plant Manager A. Bishop, Engineer, BSEP J. Waldorf, Engineer, BSEP j C. R. Osman, QA, NDE

! E. L. Betz, QA NDE, Construction J. Winslow, Engineer, Generation Service Section W. Tucker, Superintendent Technical and Administration J. Cribb, QA Specialist BSEP F. R. Coburn, Principal QA Specialist, BSEP, Construction J. Johanson, QA Technician I L. Hancock, Inservice Coordinator l

W. Pearce, Project Coordinator N. J. Chiangi, Construction QA Manager Consultants T. Lambert, Lambert, MacGill, Thomas, Inc. (LMT)

S. Wenk, Southwest Research Inc. (SwRI)

W. Clayton, SwRI l

J. Statham, Nuclear Energy Service, Inc. (NES)

l J. Cope, Newport News Industrial Corporation

, A. Williams, General Electric l J. Clark, General Electric l

D. J. Kemppainen, GE BWR Operations Engineer, Brunswick

_ _ -

. . ,

RII Report Nos. 50-324/78-24 and 50-325/78-24 I-2 Licensee Actions on Previous Inspection Findings There were no previous inspection findings reviewed during this inspection.

, Unresolved Items There were no unresolved items identified as a result of this inspectio . General This inspection involved a meeting with licensee representatives on September 18, 1978; observations of Unit 2 inspections on September 20-22, 1978; and observations of Unit 1 inspections on September 26-28, 197 . Meeting September 18, 1978 The inspectors met with the licensee personnel and consultants listed in paragraph I to discuss methodology for meaningful volumetric nondes-tructive examination of reactor vessel recirculation system inlet nozzle safe-end The discussion included the problems associated with the nondestructive examination of the safe-ends; (i.e. geometry, temperature, material, radiation levels, accessibility); ultrasonic methods (i.e. Standard 2.25 MHz pulse-echo vs lower frequency pitch-catch); limitations of radiography (i.e. material thickness, geometry, water in pipe, etc.) and the preliminary results of untrasonic inspections done by LMT on the safe ends on Unit The inspection program ultimately presented by the licensee included the ultrasonic examination of the safe ends using a 1.5 MHz pitch-catch transducer and the LMT ultrasonic inspection recording system. Prefer-entially oriented radiography was to be used in an attempt to verify any UT indications which required further inspection to determine acceptabilit . Unit 2 Inspection The inspectors met with licensee representatives on September 20, 1978 to review the results of the ultrasonic inspection of the Unit 2 safe ends, and to discuss the need for additional test The results of the UT inspections indicated that 9 of the 10 nozzles contained ultrasonic reflectors at the toe of the root of the veld attaching the thermal sleeve to safe end. The response from these reflectors was approximately 10% to 15% of the DAC, which was based on the response from a machined 10% notch in a one-inch thick standar . . . .

.

RII Report Nos. 50-324/78-24 and 50-325/78-24 I-3 After a review of the results the licensee conducted some additional tests as follows: Longitudinal Wave Ultrasonic Scan of the safe end material and wel Comparison tests between 2.25 MHz pitch-catch UT to verify that the testing which had been accomplished was the most sensitive for the materials involve Perform contour measurements of the outside surface of the safe-ends to verify that the outside geometry was consistent with Plan 2 Dimension (This was done to aid in plotting of UT indications.) Perform tests using RT film to determine the effect of background radiation from the I.D. of the safe-en The L Wave UT and contour measurements provided the assurance that the safe-end configuration was in accordance with plan requirements dimen-sionall The 2.25 MHz tests showed that the 1.5 MHz inspection method was better suited to the inspection requirements.

~

The RT film tests showed that the fogging to be expected during RT of these nozzles would probably preclude interpretation of radiographs of the bottom of the pipe, but the background contribution to film exposure for the upper 270 of the safe-end would be minima . Unit 1 Inspection

'

The inspector observed ultrasonic inspection of the Unit I safe-ends by LMT. Using the 1.5 MHz pitch-catch system. This inspection showed that all 10 of the nozzles contained the 10% to 15% of DAC response in the area of interest noted during the Unit 2 inspection; in addition, 3 nozzles exhibited isolated areas where the response was approximately 30-40% of DAC, and one exhibited responses of 75% to 80% of DAC through one 90 quadran The licensee determined that the nozzle with the large signal would be radiographed using a high strength cobalt sourc Radiography showed two slag indications in the internal weld but did not distinguish what was causing the reflection of the UT signa .

. . . , ,

.

RII Report Nos. 50-324/78-24 and 50-325/78-24 I-4 Exit Interviews The inspectors met with the licensee's representative Mr. Banks on September 22, 1978 to discuss the results of the Unit 2 inspec-tion and the plans for the Unit 1 inspection. The licensee confirmed that additional inspections on Unit 2 would be conducteo at the scheduled refueling outage in January or February of next yea The inspector met with the licensee's representative Mr. Tollison on September 28, 1978 to discuss the results of the Unit 1 inspectio Mr. To11ison confirmed that the unit would remain shut down until

! an agreement was reached between CP&L and NRC as to the future course of actio . Follow-up On September 29, 1978 NRC and CP&L agreed on a course of action for Brunswick 1 during a telephone conversation between Mr. Dudley Thompson of NRC, RIl and MR. Edward E. Utley of CP&L. This agreement was documented by an Immediate Action Letter issued by RII on October 2, 197 i (

F

I l

, __ _ _ _ . - -