ML20114E794
Text
.
. m.. m,.
w w....a >
r.m w.,
L ETED STATES GOVCRE41.N'.'
~ - J i t e s/ y n ~~ <, wn p-q r
- *J i
4 as n' e ve -s e Tc
- J. ?. O ' RaCly, Ch' af, Reacter Inspection DA t:
- Inferec Ont Branch, Divis
- .on of Compliance, 30 ncu
- 5. C.Xcscicy, Senior Reactor Inspector Ecgicn I, Civision of Compliance st:sJrcT:N;AGARA XOEMfK POWER CORPORATION, DOCKET No. 50-220 OIFECTIVE WELDS, COSTROL. RCD DRIVE HYDRAULIC SYSTEM FINETRATIONS AND R~.'. ACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL INTEA'ELS Probicms relating to the cuality control of us1 ding, defective
- 1ds, have bcon e:<perienced at the subj ect facility-in the
_;ntrol rod drive hydraulic system p:netratiens through the f.ry well and in sema reactor pressure vessel internals.
In etch instance, the defective work was done in vendor shops.
The prchiens relating to tha drive penetratiens were first lcarned of during a phone ccm:aunication with Mr. P. A.
- Burt, Statica Superintendent, en January 12, 1968.
The problems
'::.:h the pressure vessel internals were learned,of during a icilcwup visit to the sita on January 15 - ;7, 1968.
Pertinent inforniation relating to both conditions, obtained during the visit, is discussed below:
A.
Centrcl Rod Drive Hvdraulic System Penetritions-The hyd:dulic lines for the centrol rod drives, consisting-of 262 one inch schedulo 80, TP304, stainless steel pipe, penetrate the dry well in three groupingu.
Each of the latter, which were. pref abricated at the Chicago. Bridge &
Iron shops in Greenville, Pennsylvania, censists of a number of short lengths of the pipe, with socket-welded couplings an'each end, that are welded directly to.a-section of dry well plate.
?cor workmanship has been ~ detected in the shop welds, both at the couplings and-at the points of penetration.
In each-instance, the conditice was evidenced by leaks during
. field hydro testing of completed lines.
The defects in 9210120274 920520-PDR ORG-NRCHIST PDR a
41) k.)flik
.e c.
31
..e C ne a m 1 A -ou x.wn s ; nap w.
. the couplings included gouges in the weld surfaces, excessive porosity and insufficicnt filist welds.
In the penetrations, areas of undercutting have been detected at tha_ rene between the fillet weld and the pipe in at lenz: 24 instances, with undercutting of as much as 50%
of the. wall thickness having boon noted.
Also, borescopic-exacanation of the interior surf aces of still-to-be-con.ucted lines in the area of -the penetration welds has rc"caled dark discoloration in many instances and cratering least ~ ene inctance. (See licensee-sketch, Figure 1, A.
w.
attached).
Work on the control rod drive hydraulic y/ stem penetrations has been discontinued by the licenseo panding a complete investigat$ tn of the condition and formulation of a repair A task force consisting of representatives of pregrcr.
MMPO, GI, Durns & Rot, and Chicago Brid;& & Iron, has been formed for-this purpose.
Cne practical problem is _ the accessibility for inspectica and any'ne:essary_ repair of the penetration welds at the exterior _ side of the dry well.
Here the lines pass through a box of _ support sleeves: into a matal framework that is parmanently installed within the concrete biological shield.
(see licensee sketch, Figure 2,- atta ched).
3.
Reseter Pressura Vessel Internals 9
Prefabrication of this equipment was, to.a_ great extent, done by the P. 7. Avery Company in; their shops ' in _ Billerica, Massachusetts.
Poor ' quality workmanship -in the. shop _ welds has:
-been detected in at least three instancas subsequent:to placament cf the equipment inLthe vessel.
The initial iniication of this problem-was detected by1our inspector during routine review of GE's. weekly construction status reparts to San Jose.
The existence of-a more. general' condition, as indicated by the number of-instances noted,
3 was determined through aubsequent dis ;3siens with Mr. _ H.
C. Mar.tecon, site Construction Manager, GE.
The information obtained during this visit is summari: d below:
1.
Core Sor2" Line to Shroud Walds ("Nere Lines Penetrato ShrquQ_
visual examination of these welds by field personnel incicated workmanship Lof Lquestiontile quality.. Subsequent-dye. netrant checks revealed cracks and slag inclusions.
The defects were then ground out, completely to the root weld in scme areas.
In at least one instance, heavy deposits of dirt were found at the root of the weld.
2.
Cora Sora" Eaider To Brackets Weldr Visu:1 cxamination by field parsennel revealed the i
presance of surface slag.
This has opened to. question the adequacy of any shop dye pene: rant checks.
The weli surf aces P.re presently being cleaned and checked with dyc penetrant.
3.
Licuid Poison Svsten searcar-To Shroud-Mounted Succort Clio3 Welds 1 Spacified welds not made.
On nnFwer to a specific question by cur inspector, Mr.
Mattsson1said th:
a G2 inspe'ctor was amployed full time at the vendor shops during the subject work.- He said that he could no: account =for these conditions going unobserved-and d" + * ' ad that they were of' some' ambarrassment to GE.
Wacn '.:% d he.w they were first detected. in the field, ha Lsaidsch:: they initi ally ccme to ligh when' a _ field welder questioned the tight quality controi :n the field welds as comparedL to that apparent in 'some shop welds.
Mr.
Matteson stated that as: a result of- :hase findings, they have: instituted a recheck of all accessible shop welds.
He-said that Avery representatives have.been brought toi the field cn several occasions in con; unction with these
.probices.
9
- MPC is cuara of our ecncern regarding both these sabject areas.
Close follo,4up, including additional visits to the site, with the assistance of consultants sa necessary, will to provided by the Regionr1 office.
These cubjects will be discussed in more detail in future inspection reports for this f acility.
':ha chsenations discussed ch:ve open to question the quality of
- _1 the werk - p
- st, present and future - :.: the subj ect vendor e
shops.
3cc use of its possible f ar-rez.ching implications,
it warr nts i=.ediata ct:ention by Ccaplitn:c.
In thrt regard, we have ini:1? tad :. rov;;w of its c. ossible inc. lientican to the Jercej Car.tr::.1 Pow er & Light Cort.pany proj c :, Dcchet No. 50-219.
Early reports confirm simil.
experiences with the pressure vessel intern:.ls, the prefabrication of which was performed at the sama vendor chops as in the case of NMPO.
Tae results of the lantar review will be discussed in ore detail in a cap;rs c nercrandum.
1.
- 1ch: Eat:
.v.a -, v g ~, A *>
w.
P
.*a-.A 5 am, W J vM..e54M.AM4--**-eM.p-
---J*w>M---A4LLJ45=E d-*hs---e44-.+M4--
- hA 4
h---4M 4 h' OJd'64.-.-
bM==
-46+
wJ84 m#C6+-.4-4J-e & E-5-e M A4s448anWX s
4 4
i l:
4-t i
e-4
,I d
i <
4' a
=
r h
e
+
4 I
E 4
, l e
l i
i
->=
r 6
l 4
J
' }
j A
a I
4 i,
l e
s t
h I
tO Ger Y
d-1 --
4.
s, m
s,
/
y
=
, '.%, y F
/
. y
)
7 I, h*'
(S I I
i-s,,
g
~m
' /
\\
3
+'
e y.
}-
[.
0, i
N.
2
+
O s
~
\\
k h
42 f*
}
/
c g,
.a,,.
. e-g
,.4 4,
,,k i
[
4
.2
- e. m h
s t
a 7%,
4 n
s.
a
, ?.,\\
~.
H 4_
w r
1 me go 4
I g
'i S
9 e
E y
$O i
i W
W d
1 J.
J E
i s
4' f
4 4
1 j@
W-si s; l eem>gue e op 7
('
qym-
.e, i
s e
i 9
e l
?.-
d '.
1 j.
4 1-(
r
- 4 ar v-
- vs e-ev'e t v Fr n -
-e e.
,we.-grye ge,.,
ip y
9-h-.#-
jy,*,r s,,-4.v9 m
j
.g,q.y 9,-
.q c<:
- y. 9+y g r yqm.-o-4 p y - ty w
s 0 7.. "#5.*
- 4 cm...<.
UNITED STATES COVERNMENT H.?cmorandum
- oger S. 3cyd, Assistant Director TO for Reactor Projects DATE
February 5, 1965
- ivision of Reactor Licensing
.T. E. Engelken, Assistant Director forInspectionandEnforcemenggq,5 g#
Division of Co=pliance g,.&
stBJECT:
Gl.LITY CONTROL DEFICIENCIES -
(
.ERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CCEPANY (JC),QOCKET NO. 50-219 SIAGAPA MCHAWK POWER CORPORATION (!MP), DOCKET NO 50-22F-Similar and serious quality control problems have recently been observed the Jersey Central and the Niagara Mohauk Power reactor construction at sites.
Our Region 1 Office two preliminary reports.
(New lork) has documented these problems in attachtants 1 and 2 These reports are forvarded for information as Nr preliminary evaluation is that these problems could have broad impli-cations and that direct observations by technical specialista are required.
Our inspector, in conjunction with our metallurgical consultant, will visit the K4P site to review these )robicms in detail on February 5 and 6, 1968 Puture actions and recow.endations will be based not only on the results of this inspection, but also en the results of inspections con-ducted during Compliance's special Quality Assurance Review Program for t'c.e Jersey Central project.
A dif ferent type of problem of some concern is discussed on the t op of page 4 of attachment 1.
Wo consider this occurren<a to be a temporary 1 apse in an otherwise satisfactory relationship with the General Electric representatives at the Oyster Creek site.
matter further at this time.
We do not, plan to pursue the However, any additional breakdown in com-l munications of the type described would be pron:ptly brougt.t to the attantion of General Electric manage =ent.
Attachments:
1.
Memo dtd 1/24/68, CO:I to CO:EQ re (JC) 2.
Memo Jtd 1/23/68, CO:I to CO:HQ re (NMP) cc:
(w/atts)
M. M. Mann, REG L. D. Low, CO h
P. A. Morris, DRL
/
E. G. Case, DRS S. Levine, DRL D. J. Skovholt, DRL
/
L. Kornblich, Jr., CO R. W. Kirkman, CO:1, w/o
/
o q c y C (L 2-Ac_w gs yS I f, y& b, d
L:L Bu.y UJ. Saving Bonds Raularly on the Payroll Savinns Pim o.
. C O..E.,*1 *
- UNITEL STATES GOVERNME.VT Memorandum
~ r DATr: January 24, 1968 To J.
P. O'Reilly, Chief, Reactor Inspection
& Enforcement 3 ranch, Division of Compliance, HQ
~'N.
C. P.oseley, Senior Reactor Inspector TRoM Regica I, Division of Compliance sunjEcT: INQUIRY MEMORANDUM JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT. COMPANY, 219/68-A NEN INFORMATION ON CON 2ROL ROD DRIVE HOUSING STUB TUBE CRACKS AND IN-CORE INSTRUMENTATION THIMBLE FIELD WELD DEFECTS: DEFECTIVE WELDS, REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL INTERNALS The following information relating to the indicated subject-areas was obtained by phone communication with senior GE site representatives at CC - Mr. D. K. Willett, Test and Startup Manager, and Mr. G. Lees, Responsible Engineer -
Pressure Vessel Repairs, - on January 22 and 23, 1968.
The inquiry regarding the stub tubes and the in-core instrumenta-tion thimbles was prompted by information obtained infomally by representatives of DRL during the January ACRS meeting.
The inquiry regarding the reactor pressure vessel internals was the result of similar conditions which have been detected the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation facility, Docket No.
at 50-220*.
A.
c2ntrol Rod Drive Housina stub Tube Cracks and In-cor._e_
Instrumentation Thimble Field Weld Def ects The cracks in the stub tubes are more extensive than was originally reported.
The pertinent information follows:
1.
At least seven stub tubes had crack " chains" (not continuous cracks) that went completely around the tube.
- Xemorandum, N. C. Moseley to J. P. O'Reilly, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Docket No. 50-220, " Defective Welds, Control Rod Drive Hydrsulic System Penetrations and Reactor Pressure vessel Internals", dated January 23, 1968.
Q
$,t
% W e'S0l W h of.
r
' {'f
"\\
htRgall Sainy Plan
__._ _)
_2-2.
At least an additional 16 had crack " chains" that exceeded 15" in length.
The lengths of the cracks in many other tubes were in 3.
excess of the figures originally reported.
" ' was noted.
4.
A crack depth of as much as The cracks were described as being of the same kind 5.
and cause as previously reported.
6.
All of 'the cracks have been ground out except:
The two stub tubes left completely untouched.
a.
An additional five tubes left with only the b.
original grinding *done.
13va conditions described above were defined as not 7.
i being new cracking but rather the result of a more '
sensitive application of the dye penetrant technique.
Some weld addition will be required.in -repair.
8.
The new status of the atub. tub'e cracks has been known 9.
to GE for at least several ueeks' The field welds mating the in-core instrumentation-thimbles to the reactor vessel are. defective.
This is contrary to previous reports..The pertinent information follows:
. (
Ten of - the subj ect welds. were dye - penetrant-checked l.
at the time of the original go-round of' checks (subsequent to quality control ~ checks during' weld application).
l
' t i
Fm..-.v.,
e
-..e,,
r.
7
.. -.,,,, ~..
.. -,,,, ~
o,,,#,
.y.w.,
m,, -,a.p%,,..,,,
9,9,--e.-w_
y
.r eep
.n,-
9 p
b i
a 1-1 '
2 l
i -
1 j
2.
All 10 gave indications of wcld defects.
The defects were described as including porosity and lack of i
bond between the weld and the thin 61e.
No permanent j
,I record was made.of these results.
1 All 10 were subsequently. ground per an approved 3.
l-procedure (GE and CE approved) which calls for '
f grinding down along the thimble to a maximum depth of h" (belcu projected vessel-clad 3,ine) _ and out l
radially to a -maximum.
Nine of _ the 10' still have -
i indications, lack of bond, following grinding.
}
4.
GE field personnel are currently in the process of dye penetrant: checking the remaining positions using the_more sensitive technique._ Sixteen have been com-l-
pleted to date.
At least 13, and possibly_ all 16, gave indications similar to those found in the original l
Ali have been ground per - the described procedure.
10.
L.
f 5.
Of the total 26 posotions exumined, 23 still have indications of lack of bond after-grinding.'
4 i
i 6.
The program is.to continue mapping and grinding to
" out).
the apecified shape 'and dimension -( " down -
Any defects remaining following _ grinding will be lef t as is and the _ ground out area' will be refilled with i
weld metal. 'As previously-noted, this procedure has been agreed to by GE and CE.
l-7.
GE, Mr. W311ett, characterizes this field weld' problem -
- aa being similar to that with - the control rod drive 1
. housing field welds - poor workmanship and poors quality control.
l 5
I i'_
x
i I
3 l
i i
i a,
i During the discussions with Messrs. Willett and Lees, our inspector pointed out-that the above described facts con-1 stituted new information as far cs the Commission was
- concerned and. that the first indication of any new developments was first lenrned of informally at the ACRS. meeting Jat.uary 12,.1968.
Both Messrs..Willett and.
Lees were reminded that on. January 11, 1968, during a the site betwe a them and cur inspector -
meeting at l
called by the inspector specifically for the purpose of I
getting. " updated" on the status of the pressure vessel Both*
problams, no mention was made of these.new facts.
Messrs Willett and Lees were told that this situation, roflect favorably on GE.
poor communications, did not Mr. Willett recponded by saying that there was no purposeful intention to withhold any information.
Mr. Lees stated that the information was old as far as he was concerned (reported to site about mid-December) and that he had assumed that it was already kr.own to the 3cth persons indicated that ' attempts. will be made A2C.
to improve communications in the future.
B.
Def ective Welds, Reactor Pressu re Vessel Internalf; Defective welds have been detected -in some 'of the ' reactor pressure vessel internals.
The effected equipment was j
prefabricated by the P..F. Avery Company in their shops in Billerica, Maasachusetts. - This vendor-also did similar work for NM?C where similar problems have.been experienced, l
(See referenced memorandum).-
The equipment known to be l
i offected at JC was identified as fol10.!s:
3.
5:eam Dr,yer In-A number of welds aie. said to require reworking.
formation as to the specific condition was not available GE reported!that it was net a strength at this time.
problem but one of weld quality.
i 1
r e-
~w
_ee-
-,m,+.,.-y w
$ 4 iw. -, -
sv
--,.,mm+w-,em,.-ev.eu..cw.www..,e+,,,,,ges,rg,my,+-,.,,,-,mgy ge w + v-m-g s----p.y.% =--w w-ag y -w-
,-w ay.
, y e www, vew,~y er-
- 1, i
s
-i 6
3 1
j r
l 5-i I
l-2.
steam Seoarator.
A: icast ene wold was said to require some reworking.
Information as to the specific condition was not available at this time.
1 3.
Lirrid ?:isen Searcer To-Shroud-Mounted Sucocr:-
4 c :. _ :s Me*_ d s.
J 5;2:.:. fief welds not made. (Similar condition n :ed at 4
NX.'0 ).
I It is Our understanding that both the shroud and the 1
core spray system were checked and found to be free of I
defects.
i Mr. W:J.lett told our inspector that the possibility of
[
problems with the pressure vessel internals.was first brought to their attention by the GE representative at NMPO.
Ho I
stated that as a result, a representative from the GE Quality Control Groap in San Jose was summoned for a-l review of the situation.
GE informs us that Avery. people j
will perform any necessary repair work at JC, 1
l It was also determi'.ed at the-time oZ these. communications I
- hat both JC and GE were uare of the control rod drive hydraulic system penetration problems at NMPC.
(See -
a;'
[
referenced memorandum).
The subject equipment was said to
~;
have been supplied bythe sans vendor as in the casa of NMPO.
It. is' our understanding that the equ.tpment was inspected at.
i JC, subsequent to learning of-the conditions ac NMPO, and 3
- that no defects were detected.
i-e 1
s
?
t i:
,-.,,m,.
r-..
~,
......,..-......m_.m._.-..,.,--..,,.,
, -. -, -,,,. - ~... - -. -
.. Our inspect r discussed each of the above subjects with Mr. T. C X:Oluskey, Plant Superintender.t.
Special emphasis-was placed en the problem of poor communications discussed in paragraph A.
His response to_ the latter implied that -
this was prchably a case where GE wanted to assemble all of the facts prior to presenting the story.
Our inspector told Mr. McClus%cy'that this philosophy did not apply here because of 1:3 special significance.
Mr.-McCluskey indicated that he would take the inspector 's comments - into consideration.
These prcbla. areas will be reviewed further at-the time of the DRL-CO-JC-GE mea:ing at the cite, J1 auary 26,1968.
These subjects will also be discussed in more detail in future inspection reports for this facility.
d e
1 l
i
!(
r i
l 7
Y l
"f)
Av 30 RAa : : m3 Dockst No. W219 Jersey Central Feuer and Light capany Madison Avennae at Pumah Bewt need 1
Morriscoun New Jersey 07960 Attention:
Mr. John L Logan Vies President Gentleman tha,s refers to your letter, dated Febemory 9,1968, and en suetooed letter from the General Elastzis Company, dated Fabamary 2,1968.
The letter from Somaral Elantric siennarises the current states of the Oyster Creek, reactor i
vesset program.
The infonnation pzweided in the:e letters is brief ad preliminary as to the nature of the atub tube cracks and the defective field welds.
It does, houaver, indicate that repair estion constating of. removing the l
field welds has been initiated by the General Elastric Cog any with the causant of the Jersey Centsal Feuer and Light campany.
i We beve follouwd the progress of your y en the preneure veneet einee'first teenaies of zoeks and weld defeats in eetshar 1967.
We tade ned you by Letter dated Nove d er 7, 190F, that a eemy1ste a d comprobsesive report centsiains the rosmite of year investigettaa ese-earning the nature of the cracks ed welds une reapaired for our review.
In addities, we infossied you by letter dated Jasanary 9,1968, that en evaluation of the safety iglications of creeks in the stub teos and the quality of the field welds ses necessery.
We stated that all the information, inch w as the fore-going, would3* necessary before our review of the Dyeter Creek project in regard to e provisional operating license W3DH u $ O c?'9"D-5(# f Omct >
\\
..............D suRxAut >
om >
a.- - n oww w
!r Jersey Central power &
Light co. l could be ecupleted.
The Acas alas has indicated that it j
weaW segnies secta infa-eia= besses sempleting its j
- revies, In your Febausry 9,1960 Retter, you stated that a repair i
psegram has been initiated shish fiset imselves artading l
out the field welds between the stab tadsee and the esmerol l
red drive housings.
Orteding operetteen nomid aise be i
perfeemed on the semb tebes med the ehey wando shiek I
j comment the atub tubes to the seester pressure vesse1.
l The paupese of tMs motles wonid be as imptme the j
distrih=*ia= et stresees in We see tese chiah arise i
from sendias apesatiasc.
The repair preguem alas imelades j
e wand eserlay of the ate tee eastsees with 300L wold metal and wand supeir of eastehs imatuamens ehdabime.
This som1A be inLleend by field weldLsg the stab teos and contzel red driva homeings.
i
-e underecand that grinding operations are meering com-i pLetion and that you will them be ready to begin welding l
operatiano to effect repaire.
We fccher enderstand that you intend first to preeeed with the preywed weld everley i
j and that this eerk will take three-er four weeks.
i As disemesed h Mr. Besold L. Pride, Direeter of Regniation, and Mr. Imuis Reddis em Masah 15, and usein i
with Mr. Reddis med representatives of Someral Electrie am Masch 30, un surrently home 11ttia indoematies withc.
l eich to see ma evainsties.
We else understand that it i
is year intention to estesit the detailed report containing l
your evaluaties of the problem and your techstical jue_tifi-cetion for the proposed repair program in the meer future,
)
1.e., about Man:h 25.
i 4
l During discussion concerning sutesission of the report and l
its timiing, you inquired whether detailed procedures for i
\\
wa>
1
(
$URNAMEb 1.
~ ' " ~ ~
i l
yny n,m-.u. a.,.
^ - " "
- Fl m -,,
-,,.4.
j
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _.. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -u - m,,- =.w m q 9 1,.4
~ - - -
_ _ _ _.. ~. _. _ _. _ _ _.
i i
v i
i 4
1 l
}
Jersey Central Power and Lisht Co. :
i the repair work should ales be sm%mitted.
In view of l
the special nature and igertence of this case we ask j
that you de eehalt these precedures, i
You have been masre deer sometime of the importasse of j
your report em the proposed repair program.
W regret that year report has not besa eveiLabLe for our eon-4 j
sideration prior es the start of your repair progren.
It should be recognised that either durias or upam completism of our review and detailed evaluaties, your proposed repair progree may be found unacceptable.
Furthammere, suspemeias of work La progress may boeene 1
l nesseeery uteile these massere are under revise.
We therefore wish to make it clear that any of this repair work is performed at your eum riek.
j Sincerely years, 4
A (Signed) !!arua L !! ann 5'
l Feter A. Morris, Director i
Division of Rasctor Licensing Dis tribution:
l AEC Docu:nent Rm.
Formal Suppl.
l PIG rdg.
DRL rdg.
?
RPB-2 rdg.
M. M. Mann R. S. Boyd l
CO -2 H. Steele V. Stello bcct J. R. Buchanan, ORNL G. F. Trowbridge, Wash., D. C.
M Dh
.rca c L o-14 ko-d.dw omct >
..D.RE..........
REG
..../..G e... Co,un...
.... f/Aj'...
nw p
sum.
ann 1aw H.. ice
..$...... A.
morris om, 31...].6.8..
3/.2 2L6.6._..._. 312>L68.
. 31/1.6.8....
w oc-m m...m o.,_.,,,omm,-,. o l -
. ~. - -..., - -,,, _. -
k Logb 1A.
y w.eu e.enan f
.m
....a e UNI'IED STATES GOVERNMENT DIemorandum To Reger S. Boyd, Assistant Director DATE: January 31, 1968 for Rea c t or Proj ec ti., DRL (THRU) Robert L. Tedesco, Chief, RPB-2, DEL
/
FROM V. Stello, Jr.
y gdp Reactor Project Bran [ch 2, DPL I
st;sJu.T:
MINUTES OF MEETING ON QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR OYSTER CPIEK DOCKET No. 50-219 Gummary As a result of this meeting some progress vos made tcvsrd understanding the quality assurance program followed during the design, fuorication, and construction of the Oyster Creek plant.
The procedure to be used to repair the cracks on the control rod drive stub tubes was explained. A clad overlay on the 3o4 SS stub tubes vill be pro-posed. All of the f3 eld welds are to be ground out and several housings may be removed in order to gain access to the stub tubes. The extent of cracking on the instrument thirables was not yet known. A schedule for the repair progrem has not been established; however, it is expected that a report vill be made available to us in the near future.
Discussion A meeting was held on January 26, 1968 at the oyster C: 2ek site to discuss the quality control and assursnee program. A list of attendees ic attached.
An egenda for the meeting was transmitted to th applicant one week prior to the meeting.
G. Ritter explained that Jersey Central relied on GE and its subcontractors to establish and follow an adequate quality assurance
- program. GE described the orgsnistion, at San Jose and in the field, responsible for"following the systems ar.d equipment manufactured or directly procurred by GE.
This quality contro1* organization provides input in the design, establishing criteria and preparation of detailed specifications as well as follow up during the design and construction of Oyster Creek. It chout:*. be nott d,
however, that c",rtain important cystems vere designed, manufactu: ed and installed under the supervision of Burns & Roa, tne A/E for the Oyster Creek plant.
It was r at poesible to acquire an understanding of the quality control p"ogram followed by Burns & Boe or iro subconcractors. Much of the
- Quality control and quality assurance are used interchangeably whereas " control" is normally applied to the features incorporated into the design via specifica-tions, analysis, codes, etc., and" assurance" to that aspect associated with follow up of these areas.
T S O M % G S ( ('
B ty U.S. Savings Bonds Regularly on the Pavwll Satinn Plan
r
~
f Roger S. Boyd J6nuary 31, 1968 systems for which Burns & Roe and its subcontractors were responsible for were required to meet certain codes ( ASME, ASA piping, etc.), These codes require that certain records be kept which were, in certain cases, reviewed by GE i
and Burns & Roe. Amendment No. 27 indicated that Burna & Roe had the responsi-bility for a number of major plant systems; however, a list of these systems van not available, although it was specifically requested on the agenda.
Apparently, some complex relationship exists between GE, Burns & Roe and the various subcontractors.
CO related a number of problem areas (to be docussed in detail in a forthcoming CO report), uncovered to date as part of their task force review of the quality control program. All of the problems identified are not yet resolved but it is anticipated that they vill be in the immediate future. A concern was raised about whether or not the number of problems found was symptomatic of an inadequate quality control program. The problems uncovered vere found as a result of a sampling program on six plant systems. CO indicated that their review might have to be expanded to include all plant systems before that could make a finding that the plant was constructed in accordance vffh the applica-tion. A statement as to the possibility of the applicant conducting such a program was also made.
The status of the crack repair pro 6 ram was discussed. A decision bis been made by GE and JC tn use a clad everlay technique to repair the stub tubes and to replace all of the field velds.
The anchine tc remove the field velds nas been installed and is reaoy for operatior..
a s.rikt at the site has temporarily curtailed operations. A number of control rod housings may have to be removed in order to gain access to the guide tubes. Recently reported crack indications on the instrument thimbles are still being reviewed l
by GE.
A report covering the details of the analyses and testing to support the stub tube r-Lair program vill be made tvailable. A schedule for this i
report as well as the repair program has not been finalized.
We informed the applicant that additional information vould be requested from them.
The information request vould be directed at the overall quality control t
i prognm as well as a request for data with regard to certain of the problem areas se related by CO.
l l
DistributioniM.,
l Suppl..A; '
DRL Reading i
RPB-2 Readine Orig
'I. Stello Arenen Chiefs, DRL R. L. Cedesco l
L. Po2se F. Liederbach R. A. Birkel i
I J. O'Reilly, CO (2)
R. Carlson
5 D
9 JERSEY CENTRAL (CYSTER CREEK) 't!ALITY CONTROL MEETING JANt!ARY 26,1968 V. Stello DE R. Tedesco DRL L. Forse DRL R. S. Boyd DRL F. Liederbach DE R. A. Birkel DRL
- 0. Ritter Jersey Central Power & Light T. J. McCluskey Jersey Central Power & Light G. A. Lari.
Burns & Roe E. Nobile, Jr.
Burns & Roe J. Barnard Burns & Roe J. Archer Burns & Roe W. Schmidt MPR Associates J. Barnard General Electric J. Fox General Electrie N. C. Moseley AEC - CO R. T. Carlson AEC - CO G. W. Raineuth AEC - CO J. P. O'Reilly AEC - CO J. G. Keppler AEC - CO F. Nolan AEC - CO
- _ _ - - _ _ _ - - - - _ _ - _