IR 05000219/1973010

From kanterella
(Redirected from ML20107A894)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discusses Insp Rept 50-219/73-10 on 730511.No Violations Noted
ML20107A894
Person / Time
Site: Oyster Creek
Issue date: 06/08/1973
From: Robert Carlson
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To: Finfrock I
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO.
Shared Package
ML18039A986 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-95-258 NUDOCS 9604150186
Download: ML20107A894 (2)
v • d • e


Text

._

..

-.

...

_

..

- - -

..

.

A

o

,

.

.

,

.

a

,

i

!

JR 8O

-.

j Jersey Central Power & light Co.

Docket NO. 50-219 l

Attention: Mr. I. R. Finfrock Vice President of Power Generation Madison Avenue at Punch Bowl Reed Norristown, New Jersey 07960

Gentlemsas

l This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. Centre 11 of this office l

en May 11, 1973 at Oyster Creek, Forked River, New Jersey, of activities

,

authorised by AEC License No. DPR-16, and to the discussions of cur i

findings held by Mr. Centre 11 with Mr. Carroll at the conclusion of the

inspection.

,

Areas examined during this inspection included the April - May, 1973 re-

'

'

fueling operations, the failure of the B-isolation condenser drain valve on April 14, 1973, and the control rod that was stuck in position 18 - 15 i

l during the reactor startup January 10, 1973. Within these areas, the

,

inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures, and repre-

,

i sentative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the

i inspector.

i

!

I Within the scope of this inspection, no violations or safety items were i

observed.

!

'

In accordance with Section 2.790 of the AEC's " Rules of Practice", Part 2

'

Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the

,

'

enclosed inspection report will be placed in the AEC's Public Document

'

'

Room.

If this report contains any information that you (or your contractor)

believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you make a written appli-i l

cation within 20 days to this office to withhold such information froin

'

l public disclosure. Any such application must include a full statement of the reasons on the basis of which it is claimed that the information is

'

t 4 -

}

proprietary, and should be prepared so that proprietary information identified in the application is contained in a separate part of the

,

,

!

I document.

If we do not bear from you in this regard within the specified i

Pariod, the report will be placed in the Public Document Boom.

!

l

%

.

.

i

-,m,

..a 3.u...

....g..

......

.

.......

.

.

.....

.. C - 1 es.n.... 8%.y

pe tre1wa..X

'

!

._,$

6-7-73 I

b-

-

ikt/ t --

..

....

sm,

=-

-

- - - - -

x

,

a c.,,. a...,, a....

9604150186 960213 POR FOIA DEKOK95-258 PDR

,

-

-

-.-

--

,

.

.

_

.

-

_..

..

. - -....

. - -

_

~

.

o

.*

,

-

-2-Should you have any questions concerninz -lIs inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.

Sincerely,

,

i l

Robert T. Carlson, Chief.

Facility Operations Branch Enclosures RO Inspection Report 50-219/7F10

!!r. J. T. Carroll, Plant Superintendent cc:

R0 Chief, Field Support & Enforcement Branch, HQ bec:

RO: liq (4)

Directorate of Licensing (4)

DR Central Files PDR Local PDR NSIC

-

DTIE State of New Jersey,

.

_

h V~

L)

r&'%-

l b

+

,

..

e x.

,

.. :, ;,

-

-

Jersey Central Power]& Light Company r

. ;.-; '

M ADI5oN AVENUE AT PUNCH BOWL Ro Ao e MoRRISToWN. N.J. 07960 e 539 6111 June 5, 1973

..rs s

.q>..

.

S

'

Mr.,

g

,,0 Deputy Director for Reactor Projects

$ h./

%3Ny

,

Directorate of Licensing

-

il NgT)

United States Atomic Energy Commission

-

'

'

'

Washington, D. C. 20545

'

@

Dear Mr. Giambusso:

S.J GV

.

s N

Subject: Oyster Creek Station Docket No. 50-219 Main Steam Isolation Valve The purpose of this letter is to report a failure of the main steam isolation valve NS03B to meet acceptable leakage as specified in Technical Specifications 4.5.F.1.D.

This event is considered to be an abnormal occurrer.cc as defined in the Technical Specifications, Paragraph 1.15.E.

Notification of this event as required by the Tech-nical Specifications, Paragraph 6.6.B, was mede to AFC Region I, Direc-torate of Regulatory Operations, on Tuesday, May 22, 1973.

While attempting to test NSO4B for leakage as required by Technical Specification 4.5.E.4, the volume between NS03B and NSO4B could not be drained of water, indicating that NS03B was leaking.

NS03B was tested for leakage and the leakage was measured to be approximately 85 SCFH.

Cycling of the valve did not decrease the leakage.

Mechanical maintenance will disassemble NS03B, inspect the valve, replace the valve stem and perform any other required maintenance.

'lhen the valve will be retested for leakage to assure that it meets the Technical Specification limit of 5% L 20.

Additional information will be forwarded to your office when the results of our inspection are available.

Very truly yours,

[/

,

Donald A. Ross Manager, Nuc1 car Generating Static s

-

DAR:cs Enclosures (40)

.

cc: Mr. J. P. O'Reilly, Director Directorate of Regulatory Operations, Region 1 36EP g 150~5T8trt7r

.

.

-

-

-

-

..

.

-

.-

-

.

.-

~

..

.

,

M M (T

)

'

b L ".' [

'

Jersey Central Power;& Light Company U'Vj

'

s=

M ADISoN AVENUE AT PUNCH BOWL Ro AD 9 MoRRISToWN, N.J. c7960 e 539 6111 June 5, 1973

.

Mr. Frank E. Kruesi, Director Directorate of Regulatory Operations

i United States Atomic Energy Commission

'

Washington, D. C. 20545

Dear Mr. Krucsi:

Subject: Oyster, Creek Station

?

Docket No. 50-219

~

. Personnel Exposurc

'Ihe purpose of this letter is to advise you that during the performance of control rod drive modification and replacement, an individual, under the employ-of an outside contractor, received a whole body exposure in excess of 3.0 rems.

This exposure is in excess of the applicabic limits as set forth in 10C/Jt20.101.B.1 and, as such, is being reported per 10CFR20.405.

.

.

The individual of concern was assigned to a wcrk crew performing the

.nodification and replaccment w the control rod drives, and received the ir.crement of excessive exposure, while engaged in the removal of a drive under the reactor vessel.

In the perfornance of this specific job, the man was exposed to Icvols of radiation which ranged from 60 mr/hr to 800 mr/hr.

hte following controls were in effect at the time of the incident:

The area was restricted, a Radiation Work Permit (RWP) had been issued and the job was being supervised.

.

.-

In retracing the incident to determine the cause of the exposure, the following information was determined:

.

1.

The individual, employed by the contractor, arrived at Oyster Creek on Friday, April 27, 1973, was issued a film badge and attended an orientation course in Radiation Protection.

2.

He was assigned to a crew scheduled to perform work within the scope of the control rod drive modification and replacement program.

The work was conducted under.the supervision of contractor personnel.

3.

Ilis total accumulated exposure through May 5, 1973 was 1210 nr as determined from film badge results.

At this time, after re-viewing his exposure, the. individual was given permission to accumulate additional exposure to a 1cvel of*1700 mr, which wa g

'

according to established guidelines.

N3TTS 150 W

.3 f.

f

-

-

.

.

-

.

.

-

O

)

.

'

Mr. Kruesi-2-June 5, 1973

-

4.

His total exposure on May 7,1973 was 1615 mr (1210 mr film badge and 405 mr scif-reading dosincter) as recorded on tbc daily log sheet.

At this time, the individual was assigned to a work crew scheduled to remove a control rod drive.

The area in which the work was performed was adequately surveyed and the crew was under contractor supervision.

~

5.

Aftcr performing the necessary drive work, the individual discovered that his self-reading dosimeters (200 nr, 500 mr and IR) had all pegged upscale indicating an exposure in excess of I rem. The job had been perforced in a high radiation area located under the reactor vessel.

  • 6.

His film badge was immediately processed and the results indicated 1810 mr for the period May 6 through May 8,1973 inclusive, indica-ting the individual received approximately 1400 r while performing the work.

After evaluation of the above information, the conclusion was reached that the cause of the overexposure was twofold; firstly, the failure of the individual of concern to periodically check his self-reading dosimeters to determine the amount of exposure he was receiving and, secondly, the failure of the contractor supervisor to, (being aware of the allowable exposure limits) periodically check the individual's exposure and to use more care in the assignment of work considering the man's previous accumulated exposure.

Immediately upon discovering that the overexposure nad occurred, a vecting was conducted between the contractor end Jersey Central Power G Light Company's staff to deteraine corrective action needed and t o initiate measures of ccntrol to prevent recurrence of similar incidents.

Corrective action taken involved the use of health physics personnel to more closely observe exposure of individuals engaged in work in Radiation Nork Permit (RWP) areas.

This was accomplished by having the health physics personnel perform the following:

1.

be aware of exposure limits for all contractor personnel request-ing entrance to RWP areas prior to admittance.

2.

Assure that all contractor personnel are informed as to the RWP requirements, are properly clothed, protected, monitored and record allowabic exposure.

3.

Monitor and record exposures of contractor personnel at least hourly, more frequently if required, and remove any individual from the area wl.c reaches his allowable limit.

In addition, more stringent administrntive requirements have been imposed on all contractor personnel to preclude the recurrence of this event.

These requirements include daily meetings to discuss work to be performed in light of necessary radiation protection, the restriction from work in high radiation areas of all contractor personnel who receive an accumulated exposure of 2.0 rems,

uid the processing of film badges daily for all contractor personnel 6

,are

,

.

. -. _...

..

. _. _

_

_

. _.

...

.

. _. _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ -.. _ _ _ _ _

te

.

!.f g

J.

.Mr._Krucsi

'

June 5, 1973

.

4 i.

.

cnBaged 'in work in high radiation arcas..It is felt that the above actions will.

assurc Jersey Central Power 6 Light Company's management that a recurrence will

.

not be experienced.

!

~ Jersey Central. Power G Light Company had prepared and impicmented radiological control of personnel ongaged in work during the outage, through the i

establishment of administrative' guidelines, the maintaining and reporting of all personnel exposure on a daily-basis, and the orientation of all personnel in radiation protection.

In addition, a supplemental system of memorandum writing l

was. instituted to alert the contractor supervisors of personnel who were approach-ing pre-established-limits.

It is the feeling that Jersey Central Power 6, Light Company had' maintained proper administrative control to prevent an occurrence of this nature.and the reason for the incident was the failure of the contractor personnel involved to observe the rules and follow the 13 roper safety practices.

'

We arc enclosing forty (40) copies of this Ictter.

s.

..

"

Very truly yours, m

~Oll/b

'

j

Donald A. Ross F

Manager, Nuclear Generating Stations

,

!

DARics Attachment

'

.

/

cc:

Mr. J. P. O'Reilly, Director P

,

Directorate of Regulatory Operations, Region I

,

,

i

,

i

,.

t a

d

-

.

.

J 4'

=

.%

,

,--.

.

.n.

.,,.

_-

.

..

..

-

.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=IR_05000219/1973010&oldid=4299859"