ML19323D481
| ML19323D481 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1980 |
| From: | Richard Bright FLORIDA POWER CORP. |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| References | |
| IEB-79-17, NUDOCS 8005210596 | |
| Download: ML19323D481 (3) | |
Text
_.
f(
so -son Florida Power COMPONATiON April 30, 1980 N
File:
3-0 a-4 S
Mr. J. P. O'Reilly Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 3100 101 Marietta Street Atlanta, GA 30303
Subject:
Crystal River Unit 3 Docket No. 50-302 Operating License No. DPR-72 IE Bulletin 79-17, Revision 1 Pipe Cracks in Stagnant Borated Water Systems
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
)
Enclosed is our response to Item 2(b) of the subject Bulletin.
This completes our response to this Bulletin.
i Should you require any additional discussion concerning this subject, please contact this office.
t Sincerely, FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION
?
?
l Ronald M. Bri ht Acting Manager Nuclear Support Services 3
EETekcT01(D1) h Attachment
't cc: Director
]
Division of Operating Reactors j
Office of Inspection & Enforcement 8006210596 1
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 General Office 3201 Tnirtetourtn street soutn. P O Box 14042. St Petersbu g Flor:da 33733 e 813-86
RESPONSE TO IE BULLETIN 79-17, REVISION 1, ITEM 2(b)
ITEM 2.
All operating PWR facilities shall complete the following inspection on the stagnant piping systems identified in Item-1-at-the -earliest-practical date_but_not later than twelve months from the date of this bulletin revision.
Facilities which have been inspected in accordance with the original Bulletin, Sections 2(a) and 2(b) satisfy the requirements of this Revision.
(b) An ultrasonic examination shall be performed on a representative sample of circumferential welds in normally accessible portions of systems identified by 1 above.
It is intended that the sample number of welds selected for examination include all pipe diameters within the 2 - 1/2-inch to 24-inch range with no less than a 10 percent sampling being tak-en.
The approach to selection of the sample shall be based on the following criteria:
(1) Pipe Material Chemistry - As a first considera-tion, those welds in austenitic stainless steel piping (Types 304 and 316 ss) having 0.05 to 0.08 wt. % carbon content based on available material certification reports.
(2) Pipe size and Thickness - An unbiased mixture of pipe diameters and actual wall thickness distributed among both horizontal and vertical piping runs shall be included in the sample.
(3) System Importance - The sample welds shall fo-cus the examination primarily on those systems required to function in the emergency core cooling mode and secondly, on the containment spray system.
The U.T. examination sample may be focused on nonin-sulated piping runs. The evaluation shall cover the weld root fusion zone and a minimum of 1/2 inch on the pipe I.D. (counterbore area) on each side of the weld.
The procedure (s) for this examination shall be essentially in accordance with ASME Code Sec-tion XI, Appendix III and Supplements of the 1975 Winter Addenda, except all signal responses shall be evaluated as to the nature of the reflectors.
Other alternative examination methods, combination of methods, or newly developed techniques may be used provided the procedure (s) have a proven capability of detecting stress corrosion cracking in austenitic stainless steel piping.
a f
ITEM 2(b) (Continued)
For welds of systems included in the sample having pipe wall thickness of 0.250 inches and below, visu-al and liquid penetrant surface examination may be used in lieu of ultrasonic examination.
RESPONSE
Three systems at Crystal River Unit 3 contain piping which falls within the scope of IE Bulletin 79-17.
They are as fol-lows:
make-up, decay heat removal, and reactor building spray.
Examinations were performed on 10% of the welds in the portions of the affected piping which were located outside containment for a total of 73 examinations.
Eleven of these were in piping with a nominal wall thickness of less than
.250 inches. These welds were visually examined. The remain-ing 62 welds were ultrasonically examined.
Examinations were completed on April 7, 1980.
None of the visual examinations showed any evidence of cracking.
Ultra-sonic examinations revealed indications in two welds.
These indications were evaluated further and determined to be geo-metric. No evidence of cracking was found.
Individual welds were chosen based on the criteria specified in the bulletin.
Examination procedures used were consistent with the specifications set forth in the bulletin. A complete i
report detailing which welds were examined and the specific results of the examinations will be available at Crystal River Unit 3.
t
)
)
l l
EETekcT01(D1)
-,