ML19308D587
| ML19308D587 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 04/12/1971 |
| From: | Rodgers J FLORIDA POWER CORP. |
| To: | Jennifer Davis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19308D584 | List: |
| References | |
| 321-B4.2, NUDOCS 8003040989 | |
| Download: ML19308D587 (3) | |
Text
_
h
,m 1
p\\
/..
J 0
'y ~
FI.S RG A P T.9 E Eh 302? E.tT:3J.
o: jf gy -,,
a,,w-u 3 ann
\\
v April 12, 1971 Mr. John G. Davis, Director Division of Compliance i
U. S. A;omic Energy Commission 230 Peachtree Street N.W.
1 Atlanta, Georgia l
Subject:
Crystal River Unit #3 Reactor Building Liner Construction Deviation FPC File: 321-B4.2 i
Dear Mr. Davis :
In response to your latter of March 16, 1971, we wish to offer the following comments and presant the current condition of and future changes in our (d.
Quality Program which will minimize the possibility of re-occurrence of the subject problem.
Regarding the actual deficiency, we wish to clarify that the responsibility for analysis of the liner was not that of Chicago Bridge and Iron, but that of Gilbert Associates as the Engineer. This is not offered as an excuse, brt only to relieve Chicago Bridge and Iron of undue criticism in this matter. The following lists in chronological order the events leading up to and including the final disposition of the ite=s.
1.
On January 7, Chicago Bridge and Iron Quality Control reported a problem with the elevation of the toroconical section of the liner.
,~
2.
On January 16, Ring Nu=ber 1 erection was started with correction of the elevation of the toroconical section to await completion of this ring.
3.
On January 22, Chicago Bridge and Iron proposed a 6 inch filler section to repair the deviation in elevation of the toroconical section.
4.
On January 29, Chicago Bridge and Iron prepared SRP-lL repair procedure designed to correct this deviation.
5.
On February 4, Chicago Bridge and Iron transmitted SRP-lL to Florida hg Power Corporation, Power Construction.
U 1
8003040f[p n
.q'
)
m I
i
\\
f
=
A Mr. John G. Davis April 12, 1971 6.
On February 9, Florida Power Corporation, Power Engineering, transmitted SRP-lL to Gilbert Associates' Quality Assurance Depart-ment for approval.
7.
On February 12, Gilbert Associates' Quality Assurance Department confir=ed their and Gilbert Associates' Engineering acceptance of SRP-lL procedure to Florida Power Corporation, Power Engineering and same was transmitted to Florida Power Corporation, Construction Depart =ent.
~
8.
On February 16, Florida Power Corporation, Power Construction Depart-cent, authorized the implementation of SRP-lL and work proceeded on the repair.
9.
On March 3, Florida Power Corporation, Power Engineering, transmittec the knuckle "as-built" di=ensions to Gilbert Associates ' Engineering Department.
10.
On March 16. Florida Power Corporation's Nuclear Project Managar requested Gilbert Associates' Engineering to cake an analysis of the final "as-built" condition, j
(
)
11.
On March 19, Florida Power Corporation's Nuclear Project Manager U
received the Atomic Energy Commission letter regarding the apparent deviation.
12.
On March 19, Gilbert Associates' Engineering released concrete in the area of the knuckle with due consideration for the knuckle plate problem.
13.
On March 22, Gilbert Associates' Engineering reported the results of their anslysis. Their conclusions of this analysis are as follows :
"1.
The stresses in the knuckle plate, under all conditions of loading as described in the FSAR, are well within allowable limits. The change in geometry did not signi-ficantly influence the stress level in the liner.
2.
You strassed concern in Item 2 of your Inter Office
^;
letter about knuckle plate deflection due to weight of the shell. We analyzed this condition, assuming 100 feet of shell height and found the deflection to be insignificant (0.0135").
In general we feel that improper fabrication and eceew.
is the cause of di=ensional differences in the knuck.' pH and based on our analysis we recoc=end that no correutua h) action is required in the 'as-built' knw'cle plate."
\\
Fron our review of these events, it appears that the area whert :ur system needed correction was at Steps 6 and 7.
All persons originally.oncerned with
..-.x a
4 i
\\Q)
~
Mr. John G. Davis April-12, 1971 this item were not aware of the Procedure that only the Power Engineering Department of Florida Power Corporation could initiate an Engineering Analysis -
from Gilbert Associates' Engineering. These persons therefore accepted the approval of SRP-lL repair procedure by Gilbert Associates' Engineering trans-mitted through Gilbert Associates' Quality Assurance as the required approval of the "as-built" condition. We have taken the following steps to try to correct this problem.
1.
Verbally, all Florida f wer Corporation, Power Engineering Depart-ment Senior Power Engineers were reapprised of their responsibility to initiate Gilbert Associates' Engineering approval for all design changes or "as built" deviations which might affect design criteria.
As an added precaution, all Florida Power Corporation Construction Department supervisors were so advised as were Florida Power Corp-oration Quality Program Site personnel.
2.
A block diagram has been issued reemphasizing responsibility for action regarding all deviations noted by the field.
3.
On January 29, 1971, a contract was constcmated with General Electric h
Space Division Apollo Systems. Within the framework of this contract,
(
General Electric is providing manpower and technical assiscance in the preparation of Quality Program Procedures that are com=ensurate with the requirements of AEC 10CFR50, Appendix B.
These procedures are well along and approximately 24 are ready for approval. These will be issued for comment and approval by our Quality Programs Department.
Procedures to delineate responsibilities in the subject area are included among those ready for approval. The subject block diagram w111 be included as a part of one of these procedures.
All of the data associated with this matter are on file at this office, and are available for your referral if you should so desire.
We hope that these steps will help to correct the apparent weakness in our Quality Program that led up to this deviation in our planned Procedure of Operation.
We also hope that because of our awarenesss and increased vigilance in this area, that this type of problem will not reoccur on the Crystal River Project.
Very truly yours,
. T. Rodgers Assistant Vice President &
Nuclear Project Manager JTR/cfb 1
k.'