ML19330A726

Forwards Summary of Results of Leakage Reduction Program Conducted During Spring 1980 Outage,In Response to NUREG- 0578,Section 2.1.6a

ML19330A726
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	07/21/1980
From:	Finfrock I JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
RTR-NUREG-0578, RTR-NUREG-578 NUDOCS 8007290184
Download: ML19330A726 (6)

Text

.

i Jersey Central Power & Light Company h

Madison Avenue at Punch Bowl Road Morristown, New Jersey 07960 (201)455-8200 July 21, 1980 Mr. Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

SUBJECT:

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Docket No. 50-219 Leak Reduction Program (NUREG 0578, 2.1.6a) in accordance with our letter of Joae 10, 1980, JCPSL is hereby submitting a report which summarizes the results of the Leakao s Reduction Program conducted during the spring 1980 outage.

In submittint this eport, JCP&L feels it has fully met the intent of NUREG 0578, 1.6a in that all systems which could contain highly radioactive riuid, post-accident have been leak checked and all reasonably practical repairs have been made. The on going leakage reduction program which was in effect upon startup will ensure that leakage from components covered by this program will remain as low as practical.

Very truly yours, N

Ivan R. Fin ock Jr.

Vice Presi ent-eneration ck Enclosures i

i t ob7296 p&{ h C

{ubhc Utikties System Jersey Central wer gt ompany is a Member of the General

( '

4

(

ATTACHMENT July 21, 1980 i

i l

i i

I a

l 2

i

SUMMARY

REPORT

].

j OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION'S t-t LEAK REDUCTION PROGRAM j

SPRING 1980 i

IN RESPONSE TO NUREG-0578, SECTION 2.1.6.a i

x 1

1-i a

(

1

4 l.:

SUMMARY

Jersey Central Power & Light committed to a leakage reduction program in its response to NUREG 0578, Section 2.1.6.a to the Nuclear Ragulatory.Commis-sion. Jersey Central Power & Light committed to perform a detailed in-depth inspection of 12 systems' with' the objective of minimizing system component external and through leakage

• A total ~ of 1642 - individual components were Iden--

tified to be leak tested, however, since many components had to be tested for both external and through. leakage, the total number of required inspections was 1925.

It should be noted that the actual number of inspections was significantly greater because some components, e.g., a rack mounted flow transmitter, although counted as one component, actually required the inspection of the diaphragm, three instrument root valves, calibration fittings, and sensing chamber vent and drain valves.- Table I summarizes the results of the leak reduction program con-ducted during the spring 1980 outage. Detailed inspection results are contained in Leakage Reduction Report and procedures which are on flie at the Oyster Creek Station. Repairs made to-various components are documented on work orders which are'also on file at the Station. Of the 1925 required inspections, 1807 direct inspections were actually performed. The reasons for not performing a direct inspection of the' remaining 118 are provided below:

a) ' To _ minimize personne1' radiation exposure, 31 of the 118 inspections were Indirectly made by inspecting all floor areas and eaulpment drain cups for. wetting which would have occurred if any of these 31 components. exhibited leakage.

• External!1eakage'is defined as leakage directly to the building. environs, whereas through leakage is defined as leakage through the component-to another system or to the building environs through vent and drain valves.

Page 2 j

b) 11 of the 118 Inspections were indirectly inspected in that leakage from these components would cause an overflow elsewhere whica was not observed.

c) 19 of the 118 inspections were not made because the component being inspected could not be subjected to the required inspection test -

pressure (i.e. pump out of service).

d) 16 of the 118 inspections could not be made as there was no provision for testing the component. The procedure recommended the use of a stethoscope which did not prove to be a satisfactory test method.

e) 41 of the 118 inspections were not made as the component to be inspected was inaccessible or not located.

The total leakage rate, before repairs, was 6364 gallons per day (4.4 GPM).

Most of the leakage (>90%), however, was through-valve leakage from the CRD system into the Reactor Building Equipment drain system and would not have resulted in a release to the Reactor Building environs.

Furthermore, the leaks in the CRD system (scram dump portion) would only occur during a short period of time (<5 min.) following a scram when the discharge portion of the system is pressurized.

~ During the conduct of the program, a total of 118 leaks (air and water) were identified.

Fifty-four (54) leaks were fixed on the spot and 64 were iden-tified'for correction later by the issuance of job orders. All leaks except 10 have been corrected: these leaks, which only account for 44.45 GPD (.031 GPM) have not been repaired either because of a lack of the necessary spare parts or because the leak rates are so low that it was considered impractical from an ALARA standpoint to correct them.

The source (s) of the 314 GPD (.22 GPM) leakage which still remains in the CRD system has not been located.

it is through-valve leakage which is contained

. in the drain system and would only occur when a scram signal is present.

For a

o Paga 3 typical scram, this leak would yield 1-2 gallons of relatively clean water in addition 'to approximately 227 gallons normally dumped in the process of scramming.

All outstanding leaks have been reviewed by the PORC in light of their potential post-accident affect on plant operatfor.s, and it has been concurred 1

that the consequences are insignificant. The outstanding leaks will be monitored closely during the on going leakage reduction program, and corrective action will be taken if leakage becomes excessive.

l i

4 a

TABLE 1 -

SUMMARY

OF LEAK REDUCTION PROGRAM RLSULTS 4

Total Inspections Total No.

Leaks Fixed Leaks Fixed Leaks System inspections Performed of Leaks On The Spot Via Work Order Remaining Before After (1)

Isolation Condenser 63 63 11 5

2 4

32.2 7.58 CRD (Scram Dump Portion; 725 725 3

1 2

0 5800 314 (2)

RWCU 269 186 12 2

8 2

141.6 1.07 Shutdown Cooling 200 197 21 0

19 2

294.1 31.5 Core Spray 304 304 13 0

11 2

58.6 4.3 4

Containment Spray 127 116 4

0 4

0 8.2 0

RBEDT DWEDT 16 15 0

0 0

0 0

0 RBFD DWFD 17 14 3

0 3

0 18.0 0

Reactor Coolant Sample 26 26 3

3 0

0 7.7 0

SBGTS 7

7 5

0 5

0 Not 0

Heasured Recirculation 55 43 13 13 0

0 1.78 0

Instrumentation RPV Instrumentation 116 111 30 30 0

0 1.58 0

Totals 1925 1807 118 54 54 10 6364 358.45 Notes:

(1) Leakage from a repaired component is assumed zero for "after" leakage unless it was specifically retested with evidence to the contrary. Leakage from components on outstanding work orders is included in "af ter" leakage.

(2) Unidentified through valve leakage which is contained by the drain system and would only occur when a scram signal is present.

--