IR 05000261/1980023: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
{{Adams
| number = ML19339A585
| number = ML14175B194
| issue date = 09/22/1980
| issue date = 09/26/1980
| title = IE Insp Rept 50-261/80-23 on 800903-05.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Inservice Insp Program, Procedures,Records & IE Bulletin 79-13
| title = Forwards IE Insp Rept 50-261/80-23 on 800903-05.No Noncompliance Noted
| author name = Blake J, Herdt A
| author name = Murphy C
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
| addressee name =  
| addressee name = Jones J
| addressee affiliation =  
| addressee affiliation = CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
| docket = 05000261
| docket = 05000261
| license number =  
| license number =  
| contact person =  
| contact person =  
| document report number = 50-261-80-23, IEB-79-13, NUDOCS 8011040357
| document report number = NUDOCS 8011040352
| package number = ML14175B196
| package number = ML14175B196
| document type = INSPECTION REPORT, NRC-GENERATED, INSPECTION REPORT, UTILITY, TEXT-INSPECTION & AUDIT & I&E CIRCULARS
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, NRC TO UTILITY, OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE
| page count = 4
| page count = 2
}}
}}


Line 19: Line 19:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:*
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
>n ne4 9'o UNITED STATES


NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
==REGION II==
/
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 SEP 2 6 1980 Reply Refer To:
$
Carolina Power and Light Company ATTN:
;[E REGION 11 o,
J. A. Jones Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer 411 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, NC 27602 Gentlemen:
101 MARIETTA ST N.W.. SUITE 3100 g
This refers to the inspection conducted by J. J. Blake of this office on September 3-5, 1980, of activities authorized by NRC Operating License N DPR-23 for the H. B. Robinson facility, and to the discussion of our findings held with R. B. Starkey, Jr. at the conclusion of the inspectio Areas examined during the inspection and our findings are discussed in the enclosed inspection repor Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspecto.
e ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 c..... o Report No. 50-261/80-23 Licensee: Carolina Power and Light Company 411 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, NC 27602 Facility Name:
Within the scope of this inspection, no items of noncompliance were disclose We have examined actions you have taken with regard to previously reported unresolved item The status of these items is discussed in the enclosed repor In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice", Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Roo If this report contains any information that you (or your contractor) believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you make a written application within 20 days to this office to withhold such information from public disclosur Any such application must include a full statement of the reasons on the basis of which it is claimed that the information is proprietary, and should be prepared so that proprietary information identified in the application is contained in a separate part of the document. If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified period, the report will be placed in the Public Document Roo Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be glad to discuss them with yo
H. B. Robinson Docket No. 50-261 License No. DPR-23 Inspection at H. B. Robinson site near Hartsville, S.C.


Inspector:
Sincerely, Ehy, Chif Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch Enclosure:  
(See Page 2)
o1104o36'2q


2 Su J.
Carolina Power and Light Company-2-26 )
 
Enclosure:
Da'te Signed Approved by:
Inspection Report No. 50-261/80-23 cc w/encl:
)
R. B. Starkey, Jr., Plant Manager
et A. R. Herdt, Section Chief, RCES Branch Nate' Signed SUMMARY Inspection on September 3 through 5,1980 Areas Inspected
.
This routine announced inspection involved 24 inspector-hours on site in the areas of Inservice Inspection Program, Procedures and Records, IE Bulletin 79-13 Followup Inspection, CRD Canopy Repair Work, Previously identified Inspection Findings.
 
.
Lesults Of the four areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
 
8011040
_
_
 
.
W DETAILS 1.
 
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
*R. B. Starkey, Sr., Site Manager
*J. M. Curly, Engineering Supervisor
*H. S. Zimmerman, Technical and Administrative Manager M. F. Page, Engineer B. W. Garrison, QA Superviso'r D. H. Bauer, QA Specialist C. Hardee, Engineer T. Hudson, Associate Engineer Other licensee employees contacted included several technicians, security force meubers and office personnel.
 
NRC Resident Inspector
*S. Weise
* Attended exit interview
 
2.
 
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on September 5, 1980 with those persons indicated in Paragraph I above.
 
The inspector expressed concern over the repetitive nature of the CRDM carfoy leak problem.
 
,
3.
 
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
 
'
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-261/79-23-01) " Documentation of Inspection
,
Coverage".
 
The final report for the 1979 outage inservice isnpection
 
provided an explanation of the notation " PAR" which appeared on the inspec-
'
tion data report. In addition, during the 1980 outage inspections the data was being supplemented with descriptions or sketches.
 
4.
 
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
 
5.
 
Inservice Inspection (ISI)
a.
 
Program
 
'
The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for the control and l
conduct of.the inservice inspection of Class 1, 2, and 3 systems. The licensee's inservice inspection responsibilities and reporting require-
.
-
...
 
"
; _ _.._
._ ~ _. _ _ _ _ _..
-__._
.
Y-2-ments, as described in the current administrative procedures are not up to date with the requirements of ASME Section XI, 74 and 75 which is the plant commitment. During discussion of this matter with the licensee's engineering personnel, the inspector was shown a draft diange to sections 4 and 12 of the Administrative Procedures manual which describes the areas of responsibility and the reporting require-ments afor the Class 1, 2, and 3 inservice inspection. The inspector informed the licensee that the change to the procedure would be the subject of an inspector follow-up item, 50-261/80-23-01, Administrative Procedure - Inservice Inspection - Functional and Reporting Requirements.
 
b.
 
Data Review - 1979 Outage
.
-
The report for the results of the inservice inspection'during the 1979 refueling outage were reported by the licensees letter Serial: RSEP/
80-410 (undated), received by Region II on April 9,1980.
 
This report was reviewed in detail in the Region II office and at this time the inspector has no questions concerning the content of the report.
 
c.
 
Inservice Inspection - 1980 Outage At the time of the inspection the inservice inspection work activities had been essentially compl:ted and the data was being reviewed for preparation of the final report.
 
The licensee stated that the ISI contractor, Westinghouse Nuclear Service' Division, was in the process of reviewing previous inspection records and fabrication radiographs in an effort to resolve an indication recorded during the ultrasonic inspection of a weld in the regenerative heat exchanger.
 
The inspector made a general review of the inspection generated during this outage. The detail review of the data records will be conducted after the licensee accepts the results presented by his contractor and forwards the report to the NRC.
 
These were no items of noncompliance or deviations in this area of the inspection.
 
16.
IE Bulletin 79-13 Followup Inspection The licensee had completed the re-inspection of the steam generator feedwater line welds and base material areas required by the IEB 79-13. This re-inspec-tion was required because of the repairs required during the last outag i
,
-3-The inspector reviewed the radiographs fc-the following welds:
16-FW-9-25-FW12 16-FW-9-25-W2 16-FW-10-37-FW21 16-FW-10-37-W2 16-FW-10-37-W1 16-FW-10-FW20 16-FW-11-51-FW33 16-FW-11-51-W2 16-FW-11-51-W1
'
16-FW-11-FW32 16-FW-11-FW27 The inspector also reviewed the radiographs for the feedwater base material adjacent to the auxiliary feedwater connection.
 
These were no items of noncompliance or deviations in this area of the inspection.
 
7.
 
CRDM Seal Canopy Repairs During inspection of the canopy seal welds, the inspector found indications of leakage through three of the canopies. The indications noted were as follows:
Mechanism D-4 Four Pinholes Mechanism K06 Two Linears Mechanism L-5 Three Pinholes At the time of this inspection the repair welding operations had been i
completed by Westinghouse Nuclear Service Division using procedure No.
 
RAN-51233-1 Rev.
 
3.
 
The inspector reviewed the LER file for similar problems and noted that weld repairs were made to crdm canopies during the 1976, 78, 79 and 80 outages.
 
(There was no outage in 1977). The mechanisms repaired were as follows:
1976 C-9; D-4; L-13 1978 D-4; G-7 1979 K-6; L-5; M-6; N-7 1980 D-4, K-6, L-5 This showed that all three mechanism positions repaired during this outage were repeats. This was discussed with the licensee as an area of concern.
 
The licensee indicated that the repetitive nature of the problem was under review with consideration being given to additional work being done during the 1981 outage which is scheduled to be a major outage as it is the final i
outage interval.
 
There were no items of noncompliance or deviations noted in this area of the inspection.
 
.
.. -, -
-
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 20:03, 10 January 2025

Forwards IE Insp Rept 50-261/80-23 on 800903-05.No Noncompliance Noted
ML14175B194
Person / Time
Site: Robinson Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 09/26/1980
From: Murphy C
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To: Jackie Jones
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
Shared Package
ML14175B196 List:
References
NUDOCS 8011040352
Download: ML14175B194 (2)


Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION II

101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 SEP 2 6 1980 Reply Refer To:

Carolina Power and Light Company ATTN:

J. A. Jones Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer 411 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, NC 27602 Gentlemen:

This refers to the inspection conducted by J. J. Blake of this office on September 3-5, 1980, of activities authorized by NRC Operating License N DPR-23 for the H. B. Robinson facility, and to the discussion of our findings held with R. B. Starkey, Jr. at the conclusion of the inspectio Areas examined during the inspection and our findings are discussed in the enclosed inspection repor Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspecto.

Within the scope of this inspection, no items of noncompliance were disclose We have examined actions you have taken with regard to previously reported unresolved item The status of these items is discussed in the enclosed repor In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice", Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Roo If this report contains any information that you (or your contractor) believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you make a written application within 20 days to this office to withhold such information from public disclosur Any such application must include a full statement of the reasons on the basis of which it is claimed that the information is proprietary, and should be prepared so that proprietary information identified in the application is contained in a separate part of the document. If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified period, the report will be placed in the Public Document Roo Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be glad to discuss them with yo

Sincerely, Ehy, Chif Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch Enclosure:

(See Page 2)

o1104o36'2q

Carolina Power and Light Company-2-26 )

Enclosure:

Inspection Report No. 50-261/80-23 cc w/encl:

R. B. Starkey, Jr., Plant Manager