IR 05000219/1966001
| ML063120489 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1966 |
| From: | Robert Carlson US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) |
| To: | Jersey Central Power & Light Co, US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) |
| Ashley D | |
| References | |
| %dam200612 IR-66-001, NUDOCS 9508030280 | |
| Download: ML063120489 (11) | |
Text
U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION REGION I DIVISION OF COMPLIANCE April 15, 1966 Co REPORT No. 219/66-1 Title: JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY LICENSE NO. CPPR-15 ,Dates of Vi it: March 22 and 23, 1966 By C~rso, &ýto Inapector I SUMMARY The status of construction activities is discussed in the report. Overall construction is estimated to be 38% com-plete, based on money expended.The installation, overload and initial leak rate tests of thei dry well and torroidal chamber were completed satisfactorily.
A problem with an expansion joint located in one cf the vent headers that joins the dry well and torroidal chamber, that resulted in both the replacement of the joint and a repeti-tion of the overload test on the dry well, is discussed in the report.Adequate qualityl control measures appear to be in effrct for reinforced concrete.A 400' meteorological tower has been installed and data are being accumulated.
A fatality, the first at this site, resulted from injuries received by a construction worker in a fall.(continued)
95080302B0 950227 PDR FOIA DEKOK95-36 PDR-2-DETAILS I. Scope of Visit Mr. R. T. Carlson, Reactor Inspector, Region I, Division of Compliance, visited the construction site of the Jersey Central Power & Light Company's reactor facility at Oyster Creek, New Jersey, on March 22 and 23, 1966. The visit included the following:
A. A review, of the construction organization.
B. A review' of the status of the containment system.C. A review of the quality control measures in effect for reinforced concrete.D. A review of the status of construction and the timetabl~e of significant events.E. A tour of the construction site.The principal persons contacted were as follows: Jersey Central Power & Light Company (Jersey Central)Mr. Ivan Fin!frock, Nuclear Project Engineer Mr. Noru1an Mý. Nelson, Plant Maintenance Supervisor, Designeei General Electric Company (GE)Mr. Willard C. Royce, Resident Manager Mr. Abel B. Dunning, Construction Engineer, Mechanical Mr. Glen C. !Brockmeir, Construction Engineer, Civil (continued)
.~0-3-II. Results of Visit A. Organization 1. Jersey Central Jersey Central currently has two people at the site on a full-time basis -Mr. Nelson, the designated Plant Maintenance Supervisor, and Mr. Fred Kossatz, the designated Plant Mechanical Maintenance Foreman under Mr. Nelson. Both are present for on-the-job training relating to plant construction and operation.
Mr. Finfrock, the Nuclear Project Engineer, operates out of the Company Office in Morristown, New Jersey, and spends much of his time at the site, 3 to 4 days per week. His principal con-cern at this time relates to site meteorology.
Both Messrs. Nelson and Finfrock report to Mr. Donald Rees, the Project Engineer, who is located in the Company Office in Morristown.
2. General Electric GE, the prime contractor for the Oyster Creek Project, currently has six people at the site.These personnel are: Mr. Royce; Messrs. Dunning and Brockmeir-the men most actively engaged in construction; Mr. Stibers, Office Engineer; Mr. Ryan, Site Auditor; and a clerical worker. According to Mr. Royce, the staff will be increased to eight in the near future.Mr. Royce reports to Mr. R. A. Huggins, Project Engineer, Atomic Power Equipment Department (APED), San Jose, California.(continued)
a --10 0)Results of Visit (continued)
I 3. Burns and Roe, Inc. (B&R)B&R is the Architect-Engineer and the direct Supervisor of Construction for this project.The senior site representative for B&R is Mr. Giles Willis, wl'o reports to Mr. David Kregg, the Project Manager. The principal channel of conmnunication between GE and B&P is through Messrs. Huggins and Kregg.4. Other Principal Contractors Other principal contractors associated with this project, and their responsibilities, are listed below: Contractor PResponsibili American Bridge Structural stee ty 1 on American Dewatering Corp.Chicago Bridge & Iron Co.Eastern Transit Mix Co.Hatzel ,i Buehler, Inc.McBride Plumbing Co.Poirier & McLane Corp.Turbine Building, and on bridge crane Site dewatering Containment system Concrete Miscellaneous electrical work Miscellaneous piping Superstructure (continued)
- 0 0-5-Results Of Visit (continued)
)Contractor United Roofing &Waterproofing U. S. Testing Laboratory Responsibility Concrete waterproofing Construction related testing White Construction Co. Reactor Building Worthington Corp. Turbine condensers B. Construction Status Overall construction was estimated by Mr. Dunning to be 38% complete, based on expenditures, as of March 1, 1966.A picture reflecting the construction status as of early February is shown in Figure 1 of this report. The reported status of the major subdivisions of the facility, as of March 1, 1966, is provided below: Subdivision Percent Complete Containment system 100%Reactor Building, structural portion 35%Turbine Building, structural portion 60%Intake and discharge structures, structural portions 98%Intake and discharge canals, excavation 5%Waste Disposal Building, excavation 90%it.(continued)
'" " .'V ý"- RM-6:-Results of Visit (continued)
Construction activities at the site are estimated by GE to be 2 to 3 months behind schedul The principal delay being the result of labor jurisdictional disputes.Mr. Royce told the inspector that this was not a current icause for delay; however, it was still a sensitive subject area and could result in further delays in the future.C. Containment System The installation, overload and initial leak rate tests of the containment system, the dry well and torroidal pressure suppression chamber, by CB&I have been completed.
Significant aspects of these operations were reviewed by the inspector and are discussed in the following paragraphs:
1. General The installation and testing of the system was completed several months behind schedul Mr.Dunning told the inspector that a major con-tributing factor, in addition to the problem of labor jurisdictional disputes, was the upset in material delivery schedules caused by the then impending strike in the steel industry.Late deliveries of large quantities of material necessitated the hiring of additional welders, a shortage of which resulted in the acceptance of some welders that would not have been hired otherwis As a result, the percentage of welds requiring repair increased from 0.5% to 50 -75%.When asked by the inspector what assurance he had that all faulty welds were repaired, Mr. Dunning stated that this assurance was pro'i4ed by the fact that all welds on the containment system were 100% X-rayed, and that the results were reviewed by qualified representatives of the following or-ganizations:
CB&I, B&R, The Hartford Steel Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company, and GE.(continued)
-7-Results of Visit (continued)
2. Expansion Joint Problem The expansion joint in one of the ten vent lines that join the dry well to the torroidal chamber, the fourth going clockwise from the personnel airlock, was found to be distorted when a temporary protective cover was removed from the Joint during the initial phase of post-installa-tion testing*, i.e., a low pressure soap bubble test immediately preceding the pneumatic overload test on the dry well. The faulty joint was sub-sequently replaced.According to Mr. Dunning, the distortion in the joint, the last to be installed, was the result of torsional and radial stresses imposed during installation when compensating for misalignment between the vent line and the torroidal chamber.He .aid that the distortion was inadvertently overlooked by construction supervision at the time of installation and that its discovery was delayed because of the presence of the protective cover. Mr. Dunning told the in-spector that the original misalignment problem was corrected by proper mitering during replace-ment of the joint. He said that the remaining joints' were subsequently inspected and found to be satisfactory.
The decision to replace the joint was made sub-sequent to the completion of the pneumatic over-load and leak rate tests on both the dry well and the torroidal chamber. Post-replacement pressure testing included a repeat of the pneumatic overload test on the dry well, and the performance of hydro-pneumatic overload and leak rate tests on the tor-roidal chamber as originally planned.(continued)
- Containment testing, including results, discussed further in paragraph II. )-8-8 Results of Visit (continued)
Mr. Dunning told the inspector that a report of the expansion joint problem was being pre-pared by him and would be submitted to Jersey Central.The inspector's review of the expansion joint problem indicated that the corrective measures taken were adequate and in accordance with good engineering practice.3. Overload and Leak Rate Test Proqram The inspector discussed with Mr. Dunning the scope land results of the overload and leak rate test program The sequence of significant tests conducted, as told to the inspector, was as follows: a. Pneumatic overload test of dry well and vent system at 71.3 psig, 1.15 times the design pressure of 62 psig*.b. Pneumatic leak rate test of dry well and vent system at design pressure.c. Pneumatic overload test of torroidal chamber at 40.25 psig, 1.15 times the design pressure of 35 psig.d. Pneumatic leak rate test of torroidal chamber at design pressure.e. Repeat of the test described in paragraph 3.a.because of the replacement of the faulty ex-pansion joint.(continued)
',itnessed performance and results discussed in CO REPORT NO.219/65-3, paragraph I Results of Visit (continued)
f. Hydro-pneumatic overload test of torroidal Ichamber at 40.25 psig. The chamber contained 91,000 cubic feet of water to simulate operating conditions.
g. Hydro-pneumatic leak rate test of torroidal chamber at design pressure, with the same water present as described in paragraph 3.f.The preliminary results of the leak rate tests were stated by Mr. Dunning to be as follows: Test Leak Rate, % Per Day Dry !well and vent system at 62 psig 0.064 Torroidal chamber at 35 psig, dry 0.078 Torroidal chamber at 35 psig, wet Ad0.I (computations incomplete)
According to Mr. Dunning, Jersey Central repre-sentatives were present throughout the significant phases of containment tenting and will be provided with a report of the test results from CB&I, the group responsible for the performance of the tests, through GE.D. Reinforced Concrete -Quality Control Program The inspector reviewed the quality control program for reinforced concret Included in the review were the following:
An examination, on a selective basis, of pertinent (continued)
a..4 0 10-10 -Results of Visitý (continued)
records including contracts and specifications, testing programs and results; a visual examination of construction field activitiesl; and discussions with cognizant site per-sonnel. It appears to the inspector, as a result, of the review, that adequate measures are in effect to assure that the reinforced concrete will meet the minimum requirements of applicable American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and American Concrete Institute (ACI) codes.E. Site Meteorology A 400' meteorological tower has been erected about 1500' southwest of the facility stack. Mr. Finfrock is over-seeing this aspect of the Oyster Creek Project. According to Mr. Finfrock,ý the accumulation of data was started on February 14, 1966, and includes the following:
1. Wind velocity and direction at 75' and 400'.2. Ambient temperature at 10'.3. Thermal stability data as reflected by the differences between the temperature at 10'and at 75', 200' and 400'.4. Rainfall.Mr. Finfrock said that the tower installation was completed ten months behind schedule because of delays encountered in his dealings with State officals, FAA officials, and the contracto He said that as a result, the submission to DRL of the desired one year's accumulation of data from the' site will be made subsequent to the sub-mission of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), tentatively scheduled for July 1966.(continued)
0 )! ~- 11 -Results of Visit (continued)
F. Miscellaneous 1. Expansion Gap, Dry Well -Bioloqical Shield The inspector reviewed a letter from Mr. Kregg to Mr. Huggins, dated October 26, 1965,.in which ia method of attaining the desired ex-pansion gap between the dry well and its sur-rounding biological shield was discusse The method discussed proposed the application to the exterior of the dry well, prior to the pouring of the biological shield, of a layer of an inelastic, compressible, asbestos-magnesite cement product. A layer of polyethylene sheeting would then be installed as a bond breaker at the concrete interface, and the concrete pours made.The letter stated that the material would com-press about 0.150" during the pouring and curing of the concret Subsequently, the dry well would filled with steam and heated to 280 0 F.The resultant pressures from the expansion of the dry well would be sufficient to compress the heated cement product an additional amount enough to attain the desired gap, 3/8".This subject area will be reviewed further during future inspection visits.2. Proqress Reports The inspector reviewed monthly progress reports from GE to iJersey Central for the period since September 1965. One item of interest noted, as extracted from the report for January 1966, is as follows: (continued)