ML20028A298
| ML20028A298 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1982 |
| From: | Fiedler P GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8211180192 | |
| Download: ML20028A298 (3) | |
Text
. _
e GPU Nuclear g
gf P.O. Box 388 Forked Ri/er, New Jersey 08731 609-693-6000 Writer's Direct Dial Number:
November 5, 1982 Mr. Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 5 Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Crutchfield:
Subject:
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Docket No. 50-219 Core Spray Sparger Inspection Since the time the inspection was performed on the core spray spargers during the 1980 refueling outage, CPU Nuclear has conducted further evaluations on the video inspection tapes.
One method that has been utilized to improve our evaluation has been the use of image enhancement. An inspection service has been contracted to computer enhance inspection tapes to better define indications. Using the enhanced tape, a comparison between the enhanced and unenhanced images was performed. When the comparison was performed, the tape was viewed and interpretations were independently recorded by each member of a team of three (3) NDE qualified inspectors. The following classifications were used which are consistent with those used during the 1980 inspection:
1.
Indication 2.
Possible Indication 3.
Not an Indication Af ter independent results were recorded, they were discussed and the tape was reviewed again. Attachment 1 shows the final interpretation by the team, concurred in by each member.
The video enhancement technique was performed utilizing the inspection service firm's equipment. Some of the enhancement features were video filtering, logarithmic input transfer which increases gain in dark areas to bring out shadow details, and dynamic range compression which aids the human eye in detecting low contrast, fiac details.
lobl
. 8211180192 821105 i PDR ADOCK 05000219 0
]
GPU Nuclear is a part of the General Pubhc Utihties System
a Mr. Dennis M. Crutchfield Page 2 November 5, 1982 Video enhancement will be employed to aid in interpreting visual examinations of the core spray spargers during the 1983 refueling outage.
Based on this advanced inspection process, it is our considered opinion that the System I sparger which originally seemed to have five (5) indications now has no relevant indications. The System II sparger has three (3) relevant indications compared to the thirteen (13) initially interpreted. It is readily determinable from these results that the safety evaluation for the 1980 inspection was very conservative.
The purpose of providing this submittal is to keep you informed on developments concerning the installed core spray spargers at Oyster Creek. In the event that any comments or questions arise, please contact Mr. J. Knubel at (201) 299-2264.
Very truly yours,
)
b
^
Peter'B. Fiedler Vice President and Director Oyster Creek PBF:DH:1se At tachment cc:
Mr. Ronald C. Haynes, Administrator Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 NRC Resident Inspector Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Forked River, NJ 08731 y
-m
-.-,7
-r
ATTACHMENT I 1982 1980 VISUAL VISUAL SYSTEM AZIMUTH CLASSIFICATION Y/N I
1480 3
Yes I
1510 3
Yes I
1560 3
Yes I
2510-2550 3
Yes I
3280 3
Yes II 1950 2
Yes II 1850 2
Yes II 1830 1
Yes II 1650 3
Yes II 1550 3
Yes II 1520 1
Yes II 1480 3
Yes II 1460 3
Yes II 1130 3
Yes II 50 Yes (See Note A)
II 3310 3
Yes II 3280 3
Yes II 2690 1
Yes NUTES:
A.
Picture was not clear.
B.
An enhanced examination of the 1978 inspection tape disclosing an indication at 2080 in the System II sparger has confirmed it as a relevant indication.
C.
As described in the cover letter, the classifications for the 1982 visual inspection are consistent with those used during the 1980 inspection. They are:
1.
Indication 2.
Possible Indication 3.
Not an Indication
....