ML20198L590
| ML20198L590 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/24/1997 |
| From: | Compton E NRC |
| To: | Cruz J NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198L519 | List: |
| References | |
| SSD, NUDOCS 9710270088 | |
| Download: ML20198L590 (3) | |
Text
--_ _- _ - - - _ - _ _____ _ -
TO: Jeffrey Cruz FROM:Eric Compton, Engineering Aide Sealed Source Safety Section
SUBJECT:
Tucker Summary DATE: July 24,1997 It seems evident after the visit (7/15/97) to Tucker Technologies in Tulsa, Ok., that no major violations were of note. We were initially concerned whether the source plug had been used in a harsh or abusive environment. However, it would seem that this was not the case and that the source plug was probably subjected to less severe conditions than if it were used in typical well-logging applications. The source was used in wells, at wort,t, somewhere between 2000 to 8000 feet in depth at pressures in the range of 1000 to 4000 psi and temperatures from 100 to 160 degrees F. The source plug was not used on a regular basis. Tucker had three other source plugs identical to the one in question and had never experienced a problem with any of these. It would seem that the leak test failure was an isolated incident and by no means a generic failure.
We were concemed whether Tucker would knowingly allow the o rings to be left out of the loading process. Tucker's engineering support felt confident that the o rings were essential for j data integrity assuring us that they would not allow that to happen. In addition, we were concemed what procedures Tucker took regarding the exclusion of the tack welds on the outside of the source plug. While there were no written procedures, Tucker claimed that when they installed the plug into the tool they would be able to visually tell whether the plug was coming unscrewed. Tucker, however, never performed any routine checking to see that the plug had not become unscrewed. They stated though that the plug had never come unscrewed.
The source plug design has been used for many years and has proved to be reliable in the well-logging field.
Tucker has been using the design for several years without any major alterations. However, whether in regards to this particular incident or other factors, Tucker is currently reviewing the design of the source plug and may possibly be making major changes to the plug design. After the visit, we feel that Tucker has a weak Quality Control and Assurance program which brings up the question of record keeping and whether certain problems are capable of" slipping through the cracks." During the reorganization of Tucker many of the records associated with the use and transfer of the source plugs had been lost. While we were there, Tucker could not find its records for use of the source at Victoria TX.
9 9102h# *71023 POR PR sD q'
9 45 ' (13.7m) 2 .
TEST WELL FACluTY 2' Groug tow y
SURFACE CASING s OD = 8 5/8 " (219mm)
WT. = 28 lbs/ft
- Nom. ID = 8.016' (204mm)
Drift ID = 7.892" z_ s 327' en.cu,, ao.ro um.
^
EME @SM l
! sm- CD = 7 " (213mm)
WT. = 24 lbs/ft Bit = 7 7/8" (240mm) Nom. ID = 6.336" Drift ID = 6.241' Boocn sono e6 1 1158' 1164'
{li . C A U T I O N:
e PSTD @ 1310' unen v.ney 1332*
sa sippian 1696 ' TD Fresh Well Profile (nearest to Engineering Building) nae ==
1
, 45 ' (13.7m)
TESTWELL FACIUTY
~
2' oo t-SURFACE CASING OD = 8 5/8 * (219mm) 1 WT = 28 lbs/ft i Nom. ID = 8.018' (204mm) lr Drift ID = 7.892'
[,
z t'; s 327' h
Checker Board Ume [
saa' l
m a
d rt Booch Sand ++
33g.
~'
%f di unen vanev 1332' %; Bit = 7 7/8' (240mm)
Mississippian 7 1451*
g 1740 ' TD Salt Well Profile (farthest from Engineering Building) , _ _ ,
_ ______.___.__J