ML19319A728
| ML19319A728 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 10/08/1970 |
| From: | Seidle W US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | James O'Reilly US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19319A724 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911280640 | |
| Download: ML19319A728 (1) | |
Text
l-:
G*
/'[
I
.f0'
?
~q,;
so s t
~[ ;' 'f i
[i ' $ j 'f[/]'
U NI(F:D GTATt:G i
ATOf.11C ENEliGY COMMISS!ON
- j k;' J *.
DIVIStot! OF CO f.:i'!.t Af;( i g f' k.- '\\ g--( g j-!
I,
(
y
-' }
FIE G I O t t 11 - Sijt t t lj 1 rj N ;ff g
+
g-230 PC ACl4 Tf 4 CC STiti:f T, f J C;.l T i ni E S T A--
A T t. A f 4 T A, G r eii G t A 20333
~
C'e t.cl e r 8, 19'(0 1
I J. P. O'Feilly, Chief, Fenetor Inr:ruction uld Enf arcer:ent Brrich Division of C0: plinnce, Headquarters LLG FO' nit CU!?~ JsY (OCCUEE 1), LICEN3E I:0. CPPR-3 3, DMET 30. 'j 0-2G9 A copy of the subject licensee' ; respon,e to our Conj Lruction Ec:ficiency,;oti fication (C121) of repf c r.ber H,19 70, ia forvirded for
)
in form.ti on.
'le conside r the i h en;ee's resno:ue to this Cll:1 to be i
a<le quat e.
/
/-
] r... - _., t,o y/
.e-m
__. -. ~
W.
C. Seidl
(
\\
CO:II:CEM 3enior ' metor I? apcelor 1
Encic:;ure :
i Lt r, 'i"n i e s t o tvis 4td 10/2/'(0 '3) t i
i e
i 1
kJ h
7911280hfO
m l
f'.. o
.Tir. Ahn G. Davis Octo! r 2, 1D70 U.'s. Atomic Energy Commission 2]
The gages were installed in accordance with Specification OS-307-B, "Spccification for Reactor 13uilding Instrumentation Installatica", dMed November 30, 1967, and revised April 8, 196 fl.
h.ddition, the supplier's representative held a conference with Duke i
Engineer og and Steam Production Department personnel to review the installati. i specification and mcthods of gage im tallc tion. Pciar to instc"ind the gal;es, the supplier held a training sewien with field personnel on the proper methods and procedures for gage installation.
I 3]
The gages performed atisf.rtory through \\pril 1970, with only minor j
losses that were expected. In May 1970, a significant number of gage fai: ces began to occur. Itowever, the failures occurred four moms a fter the origi:nl q
scheduled date for performing the proof test as :tated in the purchase specification.
11 4]
The gage faihires have been investigated by Duke and Ecchtel. In addition, the failures have been reviewed by the supplier and other manufacturers of strain gages. The exact cause of failure has not been determined at this tilne. However, the history of strain gry performanca is i
such that losses can be expected to occur aui these losses incre,se with mmo.
s 5]
Section 5. 6.1. 2. 2 of the FS AR was revised to document the ;<e fail ;ro,,
(
the addition of instemnentation on Unit 3 Reactor Building around the equb >nent hatch, the replacement of accessible gages and the effect of failed gages, a the overall program.
i Q]
We conclude that there is no deficiency in the quality assurance pre; ram the contributed to gage failures. The gages for Unit 311eactor nuilding were purchased from the same supplier that furnished instrumentation for the Palisades Project where satisfactory results ucr.e obtained. The time interval from gage manufacture to proof test was 3G months for the Palisades Project. The maximum expected time interval from gage manufacture to proof test is 2G months for Unit 3 Reactor Building.
If there is any further information which we can supply in this connection, please advise.
Sincerely, s, QTW-(e.g. y L ~ wq A. C. Thies ACT/hr cc: I.Ir. W. S. Lcc IJr. E.D. Powell I.!r. C. M. Watkina b
c