ML20247G063

Forwards Rev 1 to Justification for Continued Operation of CP&L Re Reactor Recirculation Sys Piping.Results of Assessment,Including Plans for Upcoming Refueling Outage Listed

ML20247G063
Person / Time
Site:	Brunswick
Issue date:	03/13/1989
From:	Mcduffie M CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20247G066	List: ML20247G063 ML20247G091
References
NLS-89-066, NLS-89-66, NUDOCS 8904040113
Download: ML20247G063 (8)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _

Carolina Power & Ught Company F O. Box 1551

• Raleigh, N. C. 27602 MAR 131989 M. A. McDUFFIE Sen6or Vlce President Nuclear Generation SERIAL: NLS -i39 - 066 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTENTION: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 BRUNSWICK STEAM ELE "RIC PLANT, UNIT No. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-324/LI66NSE NO. DPR-62 REACTOR RECIRCULATION SY5 TEM PIPING JUSTIFICATION FOR CONTINUED OPERATION Gentlemen:

On February 8, 1989, technical representatives from Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) and the NRC Staff held a telephone conference to discuss the results of recent ultrasonic testing examinations of the recirculation system safe ends for the Brunswick Plant, Unit 1. Based on the potential applicability of the Unit 1 inspection results, the Company had previously prepared a justification for continued operation of Unit 2. Subsequently, this justification for continued operation, along with the Company's commitment to provide further details on our contingency plans for permanent repairs of Unit 2, if necessary, was forwarded to the NRC Staff by letter dated February 13, 1989.

On February 22, 1989, a meeting was held with the NPC Staff to review the ultrasonic testing results and overlay repairs prepared for Unit 1, as well as the justification for continued operation of Unit 2. During this meeting, the Company was requested to provide further information on the crack growth analysis prepared by Structural Integrity Associates (SIA) and used in the Unit 2 justification for continued operation. Enclosure 1 contains a copy of the revised justification for continued operation of Unit 2 which incorporates the additional information requested by the NRC Staff during the February 22, 1989 meeting. The Structural Integrity Report (SIR-89-008), which is part of the revised justification for continued operation, includes proprietary GE information which should be withheld from public disclosure. Enclosure 2 provides the General Electric (CE) affidavit releasing data used in the SIA information incorporated into the justification for continued information. l Q*

SM4 P

365! SESh$4 l

Document Control Desk NLS-89-066 / Page 2 The Company has completed its assessment of the potential impact of the BSEP Unit 1 inspection results on Unit 2. The results of that assessment, including plans for the upcoming Unit 2 refueling outage, are as follows:

(1) The Company will proceed with the normal IGSCC inspections upon shutdown of Unit 2, which is currently scheduled for September 9, 1989. Details of the inspection plans will be submitted to the NRC 90 days prior to shutdown.

(2) Based on the results of the normal inspections, CP&L will repair, or replace, the affected piping as deemed necessary by CP&L management.

The Company plans to prepare for the upcoming outage by preparing two plant modifications; one for performance of overlays and one to replace the 12-inch risers and safe ends.

Please refer any questions regarding this submittal to Mr. Stephen D. Floyd at (919) 546-6901.

Yours very truly,

} } }l e M. A. McDuffie WRM/wrm (\cor\igscc-u2)

Enclosure cc: Mr. S. D. Ebneter Mr. W. H. Ruland Mr. E. G. Tourigny l

l

ENCLOSURE 1 JUSTIFICATION FOR CONTINUED OPERATION (Revised)

BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT UNIT 2

_ - - - - - - - -_---.--------_-_.__.---------_-----.------_---..----,---u- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - , , - - - - _ -

f i , .

FORM 1 I

EER No. 88).6o55 ENGINEERING EVALUATION R'v. No. t .

REPORT  ;' age No. 1 3

1. Reference Document N A File sfo. 1 00 5 l

2. Brfef descri tion of Lin it 2 blk t-ha .

m/ activity ndfichm Fon Ad.k.. >

+ M Poe. cAarvs ic g Q-list oouNi68 I

%C~Etctrcul2b L M Y oq4lC

~

dU

<arr E4 0 FP-Q

3. Disposition g O a. Use/ acceptable as is O b. Permanent repair / rework O c Temporar repair; Expiration date E d. Other dO

4. Final Resolution D a. Meets original design, drawing, code, and quality requirements.

5 b. Acceptable deviation from original design, drawing, code, or quality requirements. Safety evaluation (RCI-03.1) required.

5. Surveillance Activities O Yes, responsible group (s)

E No

6. Action items required?

O Yes, responsible group (s)

E No

7. Review / Approval ()

Respons'.ble Engineer

• y. 00ea Date 3.so.ec)

E Yes 0 No Technical Review

• Nd/ , Da te 3-t'a ff Project Engineer 2.-/p :. [ Date slolgi O Yes E No EQ Review ,, , Date E Yes 0 No QA Review .MM Date 3/jo/69 0 Yes E No ONS/CNS Review (( Date O Yes E No PNSC Review Date

8. Distribution:

Approved b d [/J&h_. Date S-fo-9{

BSEP-Document Control (EER File) Other: A .R ebb (QAh Engineering Supervisor - Systems "

Manager - Maintenance b 1L Project Engineer - ISI b

• hr 3

• Nuclear Safety Reviewer g3 Responsible Engineer EQ Coordinator - Technical Support if Q-list and box 4b Q-List /EDBS Coordinator - Technical Support checked 7 , $ pg Operations Principal Engineer Nuclear Engineering Department (NED-Raleigh)

BSEP/Vol. XX/ENP-12 14 Rev. 21

r____-. __ ..

t a EER No. N-99N Rev No. _ _ _ h, _. . __

Page No. __fr____

List Of Effective Pages 1 Page No. I Revision 1 Page No. I Revisioni l________ _____1___________.___1_____________ I____________i l ____t___s__s..___ l _______L_.______ l ______________. l __ _________ l i i l i _____b__b______lI_______O_______1 i______________i____________i l .I . . I I I I________ _____I_________..____I_____________ i,___________1 l l l l l 1______________1______________1______________1____________i l i I I I I______________I______________I__________ ___I____________l l I I I I I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ _ .._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i l I i l l l______________1__ ___________1_____.________I____________I l i I l i I______________I______________I_____.________I____________i

~

l I I I l i______________l______________I______________l____________i l l 1 1 I i______________l__ __,________I______________I____________i l i i l I

-i l ______________

l ______________1_____.._______I________.__ _1 l i l i I i.._____________i______________l_____..._______i_____ ______II 1 i i I i______________i______ _______i_____. _______l___..._______ii l i I I l______________i_____.________I______________i__________ _i 1 1 I I I I______________I_______ ______I_____.._______I______ _____I l 1 1 I i l______________i______________i______--______l____________1 i l i l i i______________.l____._________i____ _________l____ .. _____I i l i i i

l______________i______________J______________l____________iI l I I I I_ ____________l______________l______________l____________1 BSEP/Vol. XX/Enp-12 Rev. __

FORM 2 ENGINEERING EVALUATION EER No. 89 0o55 Rev. No. I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. sq Sections Traveler (Form 1) 1 List of Effective Pages 2-Table of Contents (Form 2 or equivalpnt) (optional) 35 Problem Evaluation (Form 3 or equivalent) C~

Problem Description 55 Evaluation / Disposition fb Corrective Actiong* fb Acceptance Testing

• N sb EER Action Item Notifications (Form 4)* N A I EER Surveillance Notifications (Form 6)* M Gr l

. I Safety Evaluation (per RCI-03.1)* - d5(2 .

1 EQ Impact Evaluation (per ENP-34.1, Form 3)* EIf3 i

Attachments (list)*

l

• As applicable l

l l

l 1

BSEP/Vol. XX/ENP-12 15 Rev. 21

EER No. 89-0055 Revision 1 Page 4-l The purpose of this revision is to include the finalized report from Structural Integrity Associates.

b

EER No. 89-0055 Rev. 1 Page f5 Problem

Description:

A concern has been raised regarding the technical adequacy of previous ultrasonic examinations on the Unit 2 Recirculation inlet thermal sleeves. The problem was first identified during a post-overzay examination of weld 1B32-RR-12"-C6. This particular examination was performed utilizing the automated GE SMART System with a 45RL transducer. The examination identified suspicious indications in the area of the thermal sleeve (note:

the thermal sleeve area was not part of the overlay examination and is normally gated out. Subsequent inspections with other RL transducers confirmed the flaw; however, the flaw could not be verified with the 45 degree shear wave which is the normal inspection procedure for the thermal sleeves. The lack of detection was initially attributed to the orientation of the flaw and that a shear wave examination was not possible from the nozzle side due to the overlay. l Following detection of the flaws in the "D" thermal sleeves, it was decided to examine all overlayed thermal sleeves and one unoverlayed thermal sleeve (ie., "F" riser) . The examination on the "F" thermal sleeve was performed initially utilizing RL techniques. Significant cracking was detected and verified with other RL transducers. A requested re-examination was then performed utilizing the standard shear wave techniques. This examination could not confirm the presence of cracking. In addition, a boat sample taken from the thermal sleeve area on "D" riser resulted in leakage from the system following sample removal thus confirming the flaws.

EVALUATION / DISPOSITION:

Based on the attached justification for continued operation from Structural Integrity Associates, Unit 2 can be operated for the balance of the current fuel cycle (approx 6 months).

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS:

Corrective actions will be based upon the results of the ultrasonic testing to be performed on the Unit 2 thermal sleeve welds during the nsxt refueling outage.

ACCEPTANCE TESTIN':

None.

w________-__________________.

_ __