ML20087A206
Text
em.a y..
ll L L-
- =
. -..... ~.,
. xn
~j. y 2. __
.O 3
s i 4
i U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION REGION I DIVISION OF COMPLIANCE Report of Inspection I
CO Report No. 219/68-6 3
Licensee:
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
~(Oyster Creek 1) l 1
Construction Permit No. CPPR-15 i
Category B
'I I
Dates of Inspections:
April 17 and 26, 1968 May 7, 8, 9, 14, 15 and 24, 1968 June 13, 14 and 24, 1968 July 9, 24, 29 and 30,~1968 August 8 and 28, 1968 j
September 19 and 20, 1968 Date of Previous Inspection: March 28, 1968 A /*
- M Inspected By:
R. T. Carlson, Senior Reactor Inspector Date Reviewed By:
4 A M A-
]r_-
J. F. O'Reillf, Chief, Reactor Inspection Date I
& Enforcement Branch, CO:HQ Proprietary Information:
None
SUMMARY
Several previously identified deficiencies in the area of quality
{
control have been adequately resolved.
The resolution of other items remains outstanding.
The isolation condenser system and related operating procedures were reviewed-in light of problems experienced at other operating BWR facilities.
No, problems, potential or actual, were identified.
The corrosion and cathodic protection employed at' this' facility is discussed.
9500040223 950227 PDR FOIA DE,KOK95-36, PDR
[..~_
O 3
/
e 1 -
1 Mr. L. C. Koke, former Resident Manager (Construction) and Project Manager - GE, has been reassigned.
Mr. D. K. Willett, former Test and Start-up Engineer - GE, has been promoted to Project Manager,
(
and Mr. N. O. Strand, former Construction Supervisor - GE, has been promoted to Site Manager.
l Other results of the inspections covered by this report are documented in CO Report Nos. 219/68-5 and 219/68-7.
DETAILS I.
Scope of Visits Announced visits were made to the Oyster Creek Unit No. 1 facility as follows:
By Mr. R. T. Carlson, Senior Reactor Inspector, Region I, on May 7 - 9, 14 and 15, 1968, June 13 and 14, 1968, July 29 and 30, 1968, and September 19 and 20, 1968; and by Mr. G. W. Reinmuth, Reactor Inspector (Program Standards),
Headquarters, on April 17 and 26, 1968, May 8 and 24, 1968, June 24, 1968, July 9 and 24, 1968, and August 8 and 28, 1968.
Mr. Carlson was accompanied by Messrs. Keppler and Nolan, Senior Reactor Inspection Specialists, Headquarters, during the May 14 and 15, 1968 visit, by Mr. Faulkenberry, Reactor Inspector, Region I, during the July 29 and 30, 1968 visit, and by Mr. Keppler during the September 19 and 20, 1968 visit.
Mr. Reinmuth was
, accompanied by Mr. W. J. Collins, Metallurgical Engineer, Headquarters, during the April 17, July 9 and September 13, 1968 visits, and by Mr. R. E. Beamer, Inspection Specialist, Division of Inspection, 1
during the May 8, 1968 visit.
The above visits represented a continuation of the construction-phase inspection program and included tours of the facility, observation of construction activities, reviews of pertinent records, and discussions with cognizant licensee and contractor personnel.
This report covers part of the list of subject areas reviewed during the course of these visits.
Other pertinent information developed during the course of these visits is discussed in CO Report Nos. 219/68-5 and 219/68-7.
Principal persons contacted during the visits included the following:
l
o.
O 1
i/;
T '
4
[-
Jersey Central Power Light Company (JC) i Mr. G. H. Ritter, Vice President (Parsippany)
Mr. T. J. McCluskey, Plant Superintendent Mr.
I. R. Finfrock, Jr., Technical Supervisor Mr. D. E. Hetrick, Operations Supervisor A
Mr. N. M. Nelson, Maintenance Supervisor Mr. D. E. Kaulback, Radiation Protection Supervisor General' Electric Company (dE)
Mr. D. K. Willett, Project Manager (San Jose)
Mr. N. O. Strand, Site Manager Mr. L. M. Loeb, Responsible Quality Control Coordinator Mr. W. C. Royce, Construction Test Director Mr. K. W. Hess, Operations Manager Mr. R. C. Haynes, Operations Superintendent j
Mr.
E._A. Lees, Responsible Engineer - Reactor Vessel Repairs Mr. R. Robertshaw, Construction Engineer i
Mr. R. Holt, Engineer - Non-Destructive Testing (San Jose)'
Burns & Roe, Inc. (B&R)
Mr. J. C. Archer, Lead Supervisor Engineer (Oradell)
- ]
Mr. G. A. Lari, Project Engineer (Oradell)
II. Results of Visits A.
Organization -~GE 4
Mr. L. C. Koke, former Resident Manager (Construction) and Project Manager (Oyster' Creek Unit 1) was transferred to a new assignment with GE - San Jose effective April 1, 1968.
Mr. Willett, former Test and Start-up Engineer,
}
was promoted to Project Manager and Mr. N. O. Strand, former Construction Supervisor - Mechanical (Reactor),
was promoted to Site Manager.
In his new capacity Mr. Willett normally spends two to three days each week at the construction site and the remainder of the time in San Jose.
,a u.
- =
?.
c.
3 P
a
?
j; 4-c r
Mr. L. M. Loeb, Staff Member, Head - GE Domestic Turnkey
, Projects (San Jose), hasLbeen given the specific assignment of Responsible Quality Control Coordinator for this facility.
In this capacity, Mr. Loeb is responsible for coordinating' GE's efforts in the resolution of deficiencies identified
?.
in the quality control area, and for the development of future related programs for GE.
Mr. Loeb serves as' liaison j
with CO on these subjects as they relate to. this facility.
B.
Quality Control - Miscellaneous Items of Deficiency
- 1.
Containment Spray System - Heat Exchanger Improperly I
Labeled **
Discussions.with Mr. Strand during the September.19 and 20, 1968 visit indicate that GE has confirmed that' the' subject piece of equipment is in fact correct, but that the wrong nameplate is attached.
A correct nameplate was obtained from the vendor but apparently
]
has since been misplaced.
Mr. Strand assured the inspector that a correct plate will.be installed and the necessary documentation reflecting proper codifica-tion will be made. available for the inspector's review.
This matter remains unresolved pending satisfactory I
completion of the above described action.
2.
Reactor Shutdown Cooling System Heat Exchangers -
Coding of Shells ***
The facility records now include the ASME Forms U-l j
certifying that the shells for the subjectinat i
exchangers were built in accordance with ASME Code,Section VIII, as described in the FDSAR, Volume I, i
Section X, Paragraph 2.2.
It was also noted that the
- )
code stamps on the heat exchanger shells, previously covered with insulation, are now visible.
This item is considered to be adequately resolved.
- Status of quality control deficiencies identified by the CO task force in-depth review discussed in CO Report No. 219/68-5.
- CO Report No. 219/68-1, Paragrqph IV.B.3 and Addendum I, Paragraph 17.
- CO Report No. 219/68-1, Paragraph IV.B.7 and Addendum I, Paragraph 19.
,7%
e J
m
g j;?,(
E
- 7.,
y'=-
- a aw.
._;q.w.u L mg v.;
l jf,jJ
$l
- u. -
y i
2 Q{
J{
3.
Isolation cond'enser System - Shells of Condenser jf
.Not Code Stamped As Specified in FDSAR* '
44- '
o Mr. McCluskey stated'that their review has sh wn that' s1 the previously questioned statements.in the FDSAR, e
' Volume I,Section IV, Table IV-1-1 relating to design d
codes for the shells of the isolation condensers. are in Md error-, and that'this would be corrected in a. forthcoming.
h*
amendment.
This action had not been taken as of the~-
y September 19 - 20, 1968 visit.
This issue is consideredi unresolved pending satisfactory completion of such action.
4.
Containment Vessel - Arc Strikes and Unauthorized welded Attachments t
During a. tour ' of the dry well' at the time" of the May ' 7 -
9, 1968 visit, the inspector visually o.bserved several_
)
instances of arc strikes on the inside surfaces of the dry well.
Also, instances of, unauthorized' welding of 7
z galvanized. ventilation duct work supports to the= dry well were noted.
These observations were discussed J'i with GE 'and JC.
_j
?
6 j
The inspector determined that'GE subsequently. conducted 1
an inspection and mapping of the entire. dry well-.and.
}
torus.
Appropriate repair. procedures'were-then issued,-
]
l based on their evaluation of the inspection resultis.
I Actual repairs consisted of : removal' of-the' unauthorized '
]
j
+
j welds, and grinding' of the residual weld spots-and the.
arc strikes.
Dye. penetrant. tests and' dimensional checks.
were made following'the repairs.
A review of.the j
y related records and discussions 'with 'Mr. Strand revealed j
l.
that in excess of 60 places required grinding.
The maximum depth of grinding required was.015", the maximum;
-i L!
authorized ~by the repair procedure.
According to.
Mr. Strand,'an engineering review showed thatLas a l
minimum,.015" could be removed and still be within '
{
design requirement;s.
A visual examination of the subject equipment by the inspector during the July 29 -
o 30, 1968 visit showed all of the previously noted defects j
to have been corrected.
This item is considered to be~
.l adequately resolved.
J
-l l
- CO Report No. 219/68-1, Paragraph IV.B.4. and Addendum I, Paragraph 18.
y
~.. _ _, _ -. _.. _ _. _ _... _ _.. _
m.
i
/ )( ],).
7
' ' ' " ~ ~ ~
~~
~
~~ ~ " ~ -~ ~ ~~;;;~~
- ' ' 7~
~ ~~-'
^
~
~:
q
%ggpq
.gy
'g'
~.
j, Q-.
2 g-7 y
_ g
-6'.
- t:
.f, 4
~
i d
.. M*
..C..
Reactor' Pressure Vessel Repair Program 6
The subject repair program
- continues to be followed :for CO atLth. site principally.by Mr. Reinmuth.- Observations J
e
~h made by,him.are being documented-in. periodic; status: reports-
.j which are referenced here for. purposes of. continuity.**'
19
'20, 1968 visit,.the re-hydro of j
jh As of the September 1
^J 7 the pressure vessel was scheduled for early October,1968.
.i y, v-
)
!~
D.
Containment Penetrations Inserts-to-Shell Field Welds ***
The inspector visually examined a selective sampling of the subject welds, from the inside of containment, during the
.j May.5 - 7, 1968 visit.
The penetrations 4xamined included' i
main steam, feedwater, control rod drive hydraulic. system,.
. personnel and ' equipment hatch, and several dry well vents to the torus.
No defects or other evidence of cracking'
[
.were noted.
j E.
Isolation Condensers j
The isolation condenser syistem was reviewed in light of l
lI system failures experienced at Pathfinder and EVESR as j
requested by CO:HQ****.
The review consisted.of-aniexamina--
l
' tion of drawings, pocedurosanOguipment andidiscuissionsIwith -
]
i cognizant UC personnel. The : pertinent items poted were as l
1 i
follows:
1.
1.
The tube sides (primary system steam) of the condensers' l'
are vented continuously to the main steam lines,i down-l stream of the main steam ~ isolation valves.
Throttle l
i values in the vent lines close-automatically when ~ the -
system is put into service and when 'conta'inment is isolated.
3 l
ta
- Correction of problems related to cracks in stub tubes,--faulty
)
stub tube and in-core instrumentation field welds, cracks in shroud support ring, and cracks in nozzle safe ends.
j
- Memoranda, Reinmuth to Kornblith, " Oyster Creek Pressure Vessel'-
Repair - Status Report", dated April 19, May 14,'May:31 and August 29, 1968, with forwarding memoranda from O'Reilly to Boyd..
- CO Report No. 219/68-2, Paragraph II.E.
- Memorandum, O'Reilly to Moseley, " Emergency Condenser Failures -
Applicability to Other BWR Systems, a dated April 29, 1968.
u l
I g
1
~ _.. ;
i
.~.,v....
...-~_,a1.,.,
~..
+_
1 o
a e
/
l l
t-t I
l Q !r-1 4
2.
The shell sides of the condensers are vented continuously. -
~
system instrumentation (all in control room) includes j
3.
the following:
j a.
Position indication and alarms for the two inlet
,, y and two outlet valves in lines associated with each -
condenser.
l i
i b.
AP switch arrangements at each of the four elbws in the inlet and outlet lines provide high flow alarms.
c.
Temperatures of steam inlet lines and condenser shells are both recorded and alarmed.
i d.
Water levels on the shel,1 sides are indicated and alarmed.
e.
Pressures on the tube sides are indicated.
'4.
Present plans for testing of.the system are as follows:
~ ' ~
y a.
Initial post-loading total system tests.
b.
Cycling of values during operation - once/ month.
i c.
Initiation of total system function, with use i
of dummy signals,during each refueling outage.
5.
System procedures available or planned include the j
following:
a.
Routine operating procedures (station system j
- l
- procedures) which include checks of valve positions, availability and servicability of instrumentation, and proper functioning of vents.
These procedures will be completed at each startup following re-fueling.
b.
operating procedures related to system process radiation monitors.
c.
Log sheets.
_.-__m._____
sA 1
_ _-__2.a a _a_,2.
j
' b;gf
, 3 E !* '
.p g '...
.o..
o c
4
- x,,_...-
4,
{
.i 8-5.,
d.
Emergency procedures (not available at time,of.
visit). which, 'according to Mr. Hetricli, will.
q cover all types of ruptures within the system..
g other instructions are - or will be ' provided to j
y outline action in. response to system alarms.
I w 3, j
Based'on the abov'e, the' system design.and related operating procedures for the isolation condenser system y!
at this facility appear.such as to minimize the 1
- - possibility of the type problems referenced.
l ll F.
Corrosion and Cathodic Protection t
The corrosica.and cathodic protection employed' at this j
facility was reviewed in part by the inspector.
Included
.i was an examination of pertinent records and prints, visual
.j e'!
observation of accessible equipment-(including ~some under-l
[
ground lines prior to being covered), and discussions with
.j i
cognizant GE field engineers.
The corrosion and cathodiq protection was noted' to be in accordance with the applica-
.{
tion, Amendment 28, Section III-C,.for the following equip-
.l f
ment
~
i
.L 1.
Circulating water piping.
l t
2.
Emergency service water system piping.
.j n
b I
3.
Service water system piping.
l 4.
Fire protection system piping.
j ll 5.
Off-gas piping system.
l 1
6.
Overboard discharge piping.
l Additional checks will be made, as is appropriate, regarding
)
other items identified in the referenced amendment during the next inspection visit.
G.
Exit Interviews Exit interviews were held with pertinent JC and GE l
representatives at the conclusions of some of the visits i
y ti e
.s...
~ ~.
,,y..-.9
+-.uv.
eg..,,.-ee-,.,m.
.,m.ve......, -
- - s
-4.e 4.-.
- : s;.__
--.-..----.--i 2 ;o, *
.z.
g-o o
r.
i' 3
k t &.
4
- i-discussed in this report.- In other. instances,--exit inter-views were not required due to the nature of the visit or j
+
because the persons involved were in the company of the l
inspector (s) for most or. all of the visit.
In all cases, _
i the pertinent items discussed and the significant comments
~
made-by those interviewed are contained within the body of l
c:
the report.
e l
I e
a
{
5 h
r f
y h
O P 1
i i
l 5
s y
i I
s W
l 1
1 J
)
J
.