IR 05000324/1982017
| ML20058C560 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1982 |
| From: | Blake J, Economos N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058C519 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-324-82-17, 50-325-82-17, IEB-80-13, NUDOCS 8207260382 | |
| Download: ML20058C560 (4) | |
Text
...
-
.
- "%q UNITED STATES
g,.
jo NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
u o
REGION il (,
- E 101 MARIETTA sT., N.W., SUITE 3100 o,
.[
ATLANTA, G EoRGIA 30303
%
,o'
9 *****
JUN 281992 Report Nos. 50-324/82-17 and 50-325/82-17
Licensee:
Carolina Power and Light Company 411 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, NC 27602 Facility Name:
Brunswick i
Docket Nos. 50-324 and 50-325 License Nos. DPR-62 and DPR-71 Inspection at wic ite near Southport, NC Inspector:
J.
ali Date Signed Q
v
>
-
Approved by:
T AhfM 4 @
r V l
N. Economos, ing Section Chief
/Date/igned Engineering Inspection Branch Division of Engineering and Technical Programs I
SUMMARY Inspection on May 25-28, 1982 Areas Inspected l
This routine, unannounced inspection involved 26 inspector-hours on site in the
!
areas of Core Spray sparger inspection (IEB 80-13); Recirculation system inlet-nozzle safe-end inspection; Inservice inspection-observation of work and work activities; inservice inspection and testing - review of program.
Results No violations or deviations were identified.
!
l l
I
8207260382 820628 t
'
PDR ADOCK 05000324 G
.- -
-..
-. - -
- - - _ - _ _ _ _ _
.
-
-
-
.
..
.,
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted I
Licensee Employees
- R. E. Morgan, Plant Operations Manager
- R. Coburn, Director QA/QC
- S. A. Bishop, Engineering Supervisor
- G. A. Thompson, Project Engineer
- B. Lowry, Auditor CQAD
- W. Dorman, QA Supervisor
- R. M. Poulk, Jr., Regulatory Specialist J. Titrington, System Engineer, NSSS Other Organizations E. Feige - Inspection Eng., SwRI A. Egap - ISI Coordinator, UE & C NRC Resident Inspectors D. Myers L. Garner
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on May 28,1982, with those persons indicated in paragraph I above.
The licensee acknowledged the inspector follow-up items discussad in paragraphs 7 and 8.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved items Unresolved items were not identified dur 'ng this inspection.
5.
Core Spray Sparger Inspection (IEB 80-13) Unit 2.
The licensee had completed the visual inspection of the core spray sparger required by IE Bulletin 80-13. During this inspection a crack approximately 3-inches long was found in the core spray header piping at the connection between the 180 T-Box and the south piping arm.
-__.__
..
.
The inspector reviewed the video tapes of the sparger inspection and dis-cussed the inspection findings with the licensee. The licensee was waiting for GE to complete the analysis of the findings and provide corrective action recommendations.
The licensee stated that the written report required by IEB 80-13 would be submitted as soon as the GE recommendations were reviewed and accepted by l
CP&L.
l There were no deviations or violations discovered during this phase of the inspection.
6.
Recirculation System Inlet Nozzle Safe-end Inspection (Unit 2)
The Recirculation System Inlet Nozzle Safe-end is inconel and contains an internal weld connection attaching the jet pump piping to the safe-end; at about the mid point of the safe-end.
The safe-end was ultrasonically inspected by Lambert-McGill-Thomas, Inc.,
(LMT) at the beginning of this refueling outage.
The area inspected included the welds at either end of the safe-end and the pressure boundary base material in the area of the internal attachment weld.
The inspector reviewed the LMT data reports for these inspections and compared the results with the results of previous inspections. There did not appear to be an appreciable differences between these inspection results and those recorded in earlier inspections.
There were no deviations or violations during this part of the inspection.
7.
Inservice Inspection (ISI) - Observation of Work and Work Activities (Unit 2)
The ISI Volumetric Examination Activities were being performed by Southwest Research Institute (SwRI).
During preparations for ultrasonic examination (UT) of welds in the reactor water clean-up system (RWCU), the SwRI inspection personnel noted an apparent ARC strike adjacent to weld No. 5 of line No. G31-RWCU-6. (The ARC strike was wet and the moisture reappeared immediately af ter the area was wiped dry -- leading to the conclusion that the pipe wall was penetrated.)
The weld and adjacent base material were UT inspected using the SwRI ISI procedure with no recordable indications being noted in the area of the ARC strike.
The inspec;.or accompanied the SwRI inspection personnel while additional l
UT inspections were performed on the weld in question. The SwRI Level II examiner scanned the weld and base material adjacent to the ARC strike using
and 60 shear with all the do possible, for the conditions.
During these scans there were no UT reflectors noted from the area in question.
t
_.
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _
..
.
Based on the results of the UT work witnessed by this inspector. SwRI concluded that there was no evidence of a significant amount of inter-granluar stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC) in the area of the weld.
The licensee reported the inspection results to the Regional Of fice and agreed to pursue the question of IGSCC by destructive testing to ensure that the remainder of the RWCU system was safe to operate.
Plans for the additional work were still being formulated as of the conclusion of the inspection, so the inspector informed the licensee that the resolution of the cause of the piping leak would be inspector follow-up item No. 50-324/80-17-02. Subsequent to the inspection the licensee removed a section of piping including the ark strike and the adjacent weld and sent the sample to the CP&L Energy Center Laboratory near Raleigh for analysis.
The analysis of the sample showed that the leak was caused by localized stress corrosion initiating from the outside wall of the pipe, in the ARC strike area and, penetrating the pipe wall thickness. The examination of the weld inside surface of the piping sample did not show significant evidence of stress corrosion.
These results were received during a telephone discussion with the licensee and were preliminary in nature in that the laboratory written report had not been completed. Therefore the inspector follow-up item discussed above will remain open pending review of the final report.
There were no violations or deviations in this area of inspection.
8.
Inservice Inspecton And Testing - Review Of Programs The inspector reviewed the licensees programs for the inservice inspection (ISI) of pumps and valves.
During the review of the 151 program the inspector was informed that the pumps and valves were tested using the plant's Periodic Test Program. When a correlation between the ISI listing of pumps and valves and required tests and the periodic test procedures was requested, the inspector was informed that a written cross reference was not available.
The licensee's ISI coordinator informed the inspector that a cross reference was being developed.
This was identified as an inspector follow-up item No. 50-324, 325/82-17-01.
There were no violations or deviations discovered during this phase of the inspection.