ML20087A095

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 680226 Meeting W/Util at Site Re QC Program for Const of Facility,Specifically,Results of Insp Efforts. Attendance List & Summary of Items Discussed Encl
ML20087A095
Person / Time
Site: Oyster Creek
Issue date: 02/06/1968
From: Robert Carlson
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To: Moseley N
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML20086U000 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-95-36 NUDOCS 9508040168
Download: ML20087A095 (9)
v • d • e


Text

.

~~

~

., f[

~ - - -

m.

1 y'

7

-()m j)(

[

~~.

=.

i UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT j

7 i

Memorandum -

To FILE DATE: February 6, 1968 i

4y THRU N. C. Moseley, Sr. Reactor Inspector pivision of C liance A

R.gion I,lp6n, Re d

Division of Compliance ]%{*g'h g{e Reactor n pector

, /,

T. Car i

<yaou :

]

Region I,

susJacr

MINUTZS OF DRL - COMPLIANCE - JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT -

]

COMPANY MEETING,' JANUARY 36, 1968, OYSTER CREEK UNIT NO..1, v

A DOCKET NO. 50-219 T

\\

I A joint meeting, DRL and 00, was held with representatives of Jersey Central Power & Light Company, General Electric j

Company and Burns & Roe on January 26, 1968, at the site of Oyster Creek Unit No. 1.

A list of attendees. is provided; in Attachment A.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss i

the qualit:y control program for the construction of this facility, including, specifically, the results of CO's inspection efforts in this area.

i The first and last portions of the meeting were devoted to 1

.1 -

general discussions between DRL and the licensee relating

'o

\\

to Amendment No. 27, Plant Quality Assurance Report.

DRL's main interest centered on obtaining a better smderstanding -

of the organizational structures, responsibilities and l

interrelationships between JC, GE, Burns & Roe and their

'l subcontractors and vendors, utilized in the quality control m t

e program for the design and construction of this facility.

i Little new information was obtained as a result of these discussions.

DRL will seek additional details via~ the S

/

formal correspondence route.

j x,. 3

?

j f

CO's portion of the meeting was devoted to a discussion of y7 I

specific deficiencies and other areas of concern identified ?

{

as a result of inspections performed by the special task.

,f{,

force on quality control and by other members of the Co inspection team assigned to this facility.

A summary of the principal items discussed and the related results. is Q.

provided in Attachment B.

As is indicated, some degree of t resolution was accomplished in some instances.

Additional 2 '+ : l follow-up will be required by CO and in some instances by DRL.

All of the items, including their ultimate resolution,. "

will be discussed in future inspection reports.

]

9508040168 950227 t.[j POR FOIA l

DEKOK95-36 PDR

~

,. l, i

h~

Bay U.S. Sating Bendt Kqstasy on de P& Seveny flas.

}

}"

. ~...

. ~ -.

4.

.~ x -

1, f e.ps

a.-

j.9 CD 3

v p

i

, ;:)

\\

~

2-j

<4 l

s 1

i h,

At ~ the time of-the meeting; however, special emphasis was J,

placed'on the fact that"this list of items,.which 00, j

4 characterizes as being reflective of apparent significant shortcomings.in the licensee's overall. quality control' j~'

program, was developed as the result of what, by necessity, i

+

s+.

'was only a sampling inspection effort.

It was stated that,.

"i I.-

in 11ght'of these resu'lts,..unless.further assurances of a' A

quality product were provided, CO would have difficulty in~

i 1

arriving at a finding that the facility was built in' accord '

'" ~

'ance~with the application, and that.it could be: operated safely.

The discussions on this subject were closed with a discussion of two possible courses of action by which the

' additional assurances might.be establishedy by a detailed inspection of the entire facility by Compliance, (discouraged -

i by definition, an almost impossible task); or further quality.

control audit and documentation by the licensee and their.

consultants with spotchecking by Co.

No firm commitauents -

i were made in this matter by the licensee.-

I During subsequent informal discussions with senior'JC and _

I GE representatives present, the latter volunteered that the items presented by CO did point up significant shortcomings in'their quality control program and indicated that corrective j

measures.would be. instituted here and on future projects.

A brief portion of the meeting was devoted to a discussion' of the current status-of the problems with the control and 1too

. drive housing stub tubes and the in-core instrumentation-thimble field welds.

JC and GE (Messrs. Ritter and Willett) provided a brief description of the corrective actions decided j'

.upon, the highlight being that weld overlay will be appli'ed..

to the stub tubes.

A forthcoming report by JC-GE is to provide-j all the nu:essary details related to these subject: areas.

j

(-

i 1

1

-,*~--w

-+..,&v

=~

~~ = - - -

,.v

,-g..

/.

, y- *;-

9--

7 w.3

~

u 2

f T }

i a3-I

\\

R e-ATTACHMENT A Attendees

'E s.~

MEETING WITH JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO.

.t i

January 26, 1968 AEC JCP&L' L t, R.

S. Boyd, DRL G. H. Ritter i

R. L. Tedesco, DRL D. R. Rees..

V. Stallo, Jr., DRL T. J. McCluskey

{

j I. R. Finfrock R. A. Birkel, DRL D. E. Hedrick L. Porse, DRL F. J. Liedelbach, DRL N. M. Nelson J. P. O'Reilly, CO HQ F. J. Nolan, CO;HQ MPR Associates

![

G. W.-Reinmuth, CO:HQ (JCP&L Consultant 4)

J. G. Keppler, CO:HQ W. R. Schmidt f

N. C. Moseley, CO:I R. T. Carlson, CO I Burns & Roe GE I

J. C. Archer G. A. Iar)(i i

L. C. Koke D. K. Willett E. Nobile J. Barnard

'J. Fox s

D. E. Packett fxhs' C. L. Buckner

.3, J. Btand t

l p

e l

4 I

e

~~e mew-.~

,s

l 4-g

..~w

3. E ' '

r-

.r:

'y:

!i

_:4 -

,,j-y.

i.

ATTACHMENT B'

. i

'i 2

[4 SPECIFIC DEFICIENCIES AND OTHER AREAS OF CONCERN R

COMPLIANCE QUALITY CONTROL INSPECTION PROGRAM

. i MEETING WITH JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO.

Jamnary 26, 1968 3; b-

- g

-1. - Arc Strikes on Reactor vessel Recirculation System i

Nozzles

.r-Repair of specific instances noted not started'due to i

an apparent administrative mix-up within GE'regarding

[

the issuance of repair instructions.

Co questioned the possible existence of this condition elseWhere on critical equipment and piping.

GE's position was that there.are 31vays arc strikes-experienced.in work of this type.

They indicated that some further inspection would be conducted.

CO will follow-up on the repair of-t originally noted condition;and the results of any further inspections by GE.

i 2.

Stud ~ Pin Welding to-Recirculation System Pump Casings GE said that the pins have been removed.

An investiga-

. tion will'be made concerning the need to grind away the weld spot on the pump casings.

CO will follow-up.

?

1 3.

Lack of Proper Certification of Main Steam Piping i

l

-& p g.

Several areas related to certifications that subject, j

g piping meets the specified ASTM Code are still 4

' ~

l

~ '

questionable.

GE still researching. records.

CO l

to follow-Qp to satisfactory resolution.

,,yg l

4.

Restraints on Main Steam Line Bellows Not Installed i

'i System Represented as Being Complete CO Inspector noted during visual inspection of subject l

equipment that the specified restraints were missing. - *f GE now claims that restraints were present all along.

CO and GE will follow-up and resolve discrepancy.

Assuming the original report to be correct, CO questioned ~

f the assurances to be provided that no other'similar -

W.,.

~

Y a -e

m. g.,-...;.

.m,

_m.we.. we...

,.-g.,

,.ms.

,.-w.

o

,h a

str8ed Wrf...

M-se

.. -.. -e6 4

.p.,

n.

..ie.4 Wi:

+

y4;p(;,,n c

a 1

s

+

f!

W

- +

[

1 lo situation would go undetected.

GE. stated that they. felt 1

a.. gi confident that their system of checks would detect any

][ '~

omissions of this type.:

m.

}

5.

Main Steam Line Penetrations Bellows Certified as Being l

Class "C" (ASME) - Should be Class "B" c

h,k I

GE said that they had since determined that'the subject T.

J equipment was, in effect, built to Class'B requirements J

y iand stated that the records would be modified as necessary u 9

[

'to reflect this fact.. CO questioned the possibility of,

similar situations with other critical' equipment.

GE indicated that all other penetrations would be reviewed.

f in that regard.

C0 will. follow-up on'the resolution of' the specific instance cited, and will review the results of any additional reviews by GE.

[

6.

Main Steam Line Flow'Restrictors Not Calibrated'-

[

Architect-Engineer (Burns & Roe) Specs Required.

j Calibration Prior to Installation I

GE stated that their (GE) specs did not call for calibration.

Also, that the Burns & Roe requirement was deleted by a subsequent. revision to the original 4

j specs.

CD stated that it appears that some assurance

' I should be provided to show that.the flow restfictors

?

will perform per design requirements.. CO to discuss with advisors and to follow-up as'necessary, to satisfactory' resolution.

h

,x, p.

7.

Questionable' Wall Thickness on Steam Piping 9

Discussion centere'd around observed pits in subject piping and thei'r relationship'to' design thickness.'

Documentation' reflecting specific approval to use Pipe following consideration of defects (including y

corrosion aspeicts) was not 'available to 'C0 at -time w.

j of inspection.

GE indicates that_any necessary documentation *Will be made available for future-i review..

  • C0 to
  • follow-up to antisfactory' resolutiion.

r 8,.

I' 8 4 i

i-i i

e 4 8 4

e

-..... ~.,

1 n

g

-e-r-e r-r e

e--

,g

.~

9p

'iL, i.

.~

g 3

s u.

q.

^*

+

,y y

L 6'-

3 l

S.

Excessive Stress Relief Temperature on Main Steam Line'

(

to Pressure vessel Nossle Weld t-

?

V&

Co-noted that temperatures in excess of that specified, and close t$o the threshold of material transformation, were experienced during stress relief of the subject-

~ weld,.. GE stated that a preliminary review of this situation showed no problem.with respect to Code re-

-i quirements.

Both CO and DE stated' that a thorough,

-l documented review was in order.

When questioned by CO,.

i GE stated that they would review the results of all other f

stress relief work in light of this experience.

CO will review the results of the specific and additional reviews i

by GE.

DRL indicated that they may request a formal-report on the subject from the licensee.

9.

Main steam system - Poor Radiography and Welds on Pipe Supplied by Vendor Inadequate quality control measur'es at the vendor shop, apparently requiring considerable re-examination by GE -

l up to and' including post installation radiography and repair - was experienced with the piping obtained from a particular vendor.

00's stated position was that this instance reflected unfavorably on the. quality control program as originally conceived and therefore opened to question the adequacy of the quality control,in all similar instances.

GE maintained that their ultimate-detection of the specific problem reflected faborablyton 1

t their overall program.

However, they did acknowledge 1I %j -

that the condition should have been detected earlier.

i o

}.

They stated that no further purchases would be made from the particular vendor involved.

They also' indicated that-the vendor quality control for other critical equipment for this project was being reviewed.

They further stated that steps were being taken to tighten.'up their company

~

l wide vendor quality control program as a result of this and other similar experiences.

CO will. follow-up on the several areas highlighted above.

u.

J m

- ~, -,, -~

p

~

7.n._d E_

_t

m_.

l7]:{ :.:

~ *L C

J

,=

4. '

x

+

.+ ; g.

}

~~

g

- i s,

)

g, J r.

Acrurru 10.

Main steam Line Isolation valve solenoid Aout,rons Reported to Have Not Been Specifically Protected g

from Accident Environment t

4 4

t CO reviewIshowed that purchase order for solenoid valves i

that operate the auto-depressurization valves included M.gN specific requirements relating to the operation of valves

}Q in accident environment.

However, in contrast, the re-i f

view showed that this apparently was not the case with the subject solenoid valves (review indicated that valves might still be equipped to function properly in an accident, environment).

Based on this observation - lack of specific l

instruction regarding accident environment in purchase

. specifications for Main Steam Isolation Valve Solenoids -

CO questioned whether all other critical electrical equip-ment susceptible to the accident environment had been-

- designed and fabricated accordingly.

GE did not provide 4

an answer at the time of the meeting but-indicated that

-l the subject would be looked into.

CO will follow-up.DRL 7

may broach subject, formally or informally, during future r.

exchanges with licensee.

l 11.

Design Conditions for Exhaust Piping for Auto-Depressuriza-l tion valves in Apparent Noncompliance with Governing Code t

I (In retrospect, actual installation appears to meet code i

. requirements regarding minimum wall thickness.)

i i

GE stat.ed that a documented engineering disposition of

)

e this situation would be provided.

CO to follow-up to.

.l satisfactory resolution.

j y%g; t

r 12.

Feedwater System Manual Block valves (v-2-35 and 36)

)

Not Rated for System Design Requirements l

l

=

Manufacturer's rating for subject valves is 1400 psig at -

0 4

214 F.

Design specifications call for rating of 1440 psig-0 at 325 F.

GE indicated that they were currently reviewing W l

this specific situation with respect to. applicable code.c They stated that in any case, the results of the review will be fully documented.

When questioned about the possibility of this example being representative of a j

4 a

4

~sm sr

..s,---,..,..i.

m

=

.a a? : 1.~,

x m..

,. +

r i t.

_\\

f

.1.

1 more. general situation,' GE had no comment other-than -

4 i

'f 1:

that--they were of the opinion.that this was not the case.

'po will review results of GE's review of spec-

]

p ific problems and-will-follow-up on possible general' l

applicability as is appropriate.

l i

N 13.-

Field Radiography - Lack of Penetrameters on Some Individual Films

~

4 r"

GE maintains that specific instances-cited by CO were in accordance with the applicable code requirements (Section VIII).

CO agreed to accept the situation at Oyster Creek.

The discussion then centered on What i

CO will expect in future projects.

Subsequent to the meeting, GE was told that in th a future, CO will ex-pect penetrameter -indication or, each film.

i 14." Improper Blending of Radii on Fittings to Pipes' A design change order has been. written by GE as a L

result of the specific findings by Co.

When questioned about the possible existence of the situation on systems other than those reviewed by CO, GE stated that all systems would be reviowed.

They said that all high

'i pressure systems were covered by the referenced order, and that the other systems would be covered by another j

design change order.

CO will follow-up on the corrective measures taken by GB.

i

~

Weld Defects in shop Fabricated Pressure Vessel Internals 15.

MN Preliminary information

  • indicates a possible general' problem reflecting unfavorably on the quality control measures at the vendor shop.

CO cited this at. another,.

specific example pointing to the questionable adequacyf ""

of the licensee's overall quality control program l-y

~

an example supporting the subsequently stated need for_ -

)

additional assurances of a quality product (overall-i s,

facility).

The pressure vessel internals problem.will be reviewed further by Co.

ii

  • Discussed in Inquiry Memorandum, Jersey Central Power &

[h Light Co., No. 219/68-A, N. C. Moseley to J. P. O'Reilly, @ ye

~

2,3]',

dated January 24,.1968

-+

.-_.--,....-.~ -.,

._,..,,m.

n.,...

,...~..,-.r.--,-,.,

,--,n..r-.

--,.s

.~

. r..

i..

....:,."P~~~^^

...G y s;.~

f'

.e y-r

. f

' ".y4'

}

t

-16.

Cracks in Control Rod Drive Housing Stub Tubes, Defective E,

Stub TukField Welds and Defective In-Core Instrumentation M- $:

Thimble Field Welds *

,yf F

Y Subject problems also cited as further examples in support -

of the position stated.in Item 15.

In discussing this 1

I subject area, CO reiterated the position of DRL in their

.' ~d recent letter to the licensee ** to the effect that further~

i assurances must be provided that similar conditions or-effects did.not occur in other locations of the pressure j

vessel or in other parts of the primary system and safety.

related fluid systems.

Each of the above subject areas will be reviewed further by Co.

17.

Containment Spray System - Heat Exchanger Improperly Labeled and Improperly Code Stamped or Wrong Piece of I

Equipment Installed i

Condition detected by CO during inspection of principal

.j pieces of equipment for-comparison with commitments in FDSAR.

GE stated that subsequent review shows that j

wrong name plate had been attached and that it would be replaced with the correct plate.

j F

E 18.

Isolation Condenser System - Shells of Condensers not I

Code Stamped as Specified in FDSAR Condition also detected by CO during inspection of 1

principal pieces of equipment.

GE stated that this situation was currently being reviewed.

CO will review results of review by GE.

s l

Reactor Shutdown Cooling System - Heat Exchanger Shull j

19.

Code Stamp Not Visible for Examination Item also detected during 00 review of principal pieces 9

of equipment.

GE stated that it'had been inadvertently covered by insulation and that it was now visible.

CO-will review during future visit.

  • New information discussed in Inquiry Memorandum, NO. 219/68-A l
    • P. A. Morris to J. E., Logan, Item 4, dtd January 9, 1968 6

r ccs R. T. Carlson 1

a, i

M. S. Hildreth

~

J. P. 0'Reilly 4

i w

--r-cw.

ww

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20087A095&oldid=4346444"