ML20107A924
Text
..
?
t
. y
'.1
' Jersey Central POWk &. Light Company
,.. +
L rp *' "
M A otSoN A V EN U E - A T.. PUN C H BOWL Ro Ao e Mo R Ris T oWN,.N. J. 07960 8 $39 6111 i
May 22, 1975
{-
Mr. James P. 0'Reilly, Director l
- Directorate of. Regulatory Operations, Region 1 i
United States Atomic Energy Commission
'970 Broad Street' Newark, New Jersey.07102 4
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
Th'is letter is in reply to'your letter of April 26, 1973 to
~ Mr.1.~ R. Finfrock 'regarding' the inspection and audit conducted by Dr. Gallina of your office on February 28 through March 2, March 6 and March 7,1973.
The concerns identified in your letter were mainly in regard to our failure to maintain the proper sampling frequency as presently stated in the i
Oyster Creek Technical Specifications and the omission at times of the specific analyses incittent to particular samples.. This section of the Oyster Creek Technical Specifications. relating to the environment was incorporated on November i
1971 and contains the statement that the program will be conducted "as closely
~
-as conditions permit".
It must be noted that of the thirteen items listed in the enclosure to your letter, seven occurred prior to the introduction of.tl:e Environmental Program as identified in Table B-II-1 to the Oyster Creek Technical Specifications d
items 12 and 13 noted in' your enclosure were corrected by hiring an outside contractor.to obtain those samples obtained from bay locations. This action.was taken in December,1969, and since 'that date, surface water, silt and clam samples
-have been collected from the bay and analyzed as prescribed by Table B-II-1 of the 1
-Technical Specifications.
?
Corrective action to prevent reoccurrence of the remaining items listed in your enclosure has already been initiated by employing and impicmenting a more positive action towards the procuring of samples and subsequent follow up of.outside contractor analyses. The staff at the plant who have the responsibilit for the performance and conduct of the Environmental Program have instituted a
-control system whereby the proper surveillance and attention is directed towards this: area. The plant-personnel involved in the sample collecting and preparation f
have been instructed in.the'need for alerting their supervisor in those instance.s
.where samples'cannot be collected so appropriate action can be'taken.
Specific corrective action is needed in two main problem areas, air
)
. particulate monitoring' and'well water sampling.
We propose to improve the well l
\\
~
[
DEKOK95-258 PDR j
j
l*
- O' 4'
s-
+
e
~
Mr. James /P. O'Reilly
-2 May 22, 1973.
l water sample collection by obtaining substitute samples where. practical (i.e.
. if designated well sample is unobtainable, attempts to secure sample in the immediate area-will be pursued).
In the. case of air samples where the majority
. f' the sampling problems' are caused by ]>tnp failure, we are investigating a l-
. preventive maintenance program whereby pumps will e replaced on a set frequency.
b Preventive maintenance will then be performed on the replacement pumps so they
.are; ready to'be substituted in the air sampling stations on approximately. six-month intervals. This program-hopefully will reduce the. number of instances of-l pump failure in the field.. By' virtue of communication between the key personnel involved in this : Environmental Program, we will have taken the necessary corrective I
action to avoid further violations.
i j
The control system mentioned previously, along with proposed solutions to specific problems, should be fully implemented within thirty days.
p The Environmental Report discusses in -general terms many programs 'which are being conducted at Oyster Creek Station to evaluate various environmental
~ parameters, llowever, it-is not a commitment to continue these programs indefinite)-
4 nor is it a commitment to rigidly acomply with any of the details of analyses' or j
schedules mentioned in the report.
j sith respect to the specific program referred to in your letter as the j
Water Quality Monitoring Program (reference Oyster Creek Station Environmental
~
Report, Section 5.5.2.3), the three times a year sampling of Jntake and discharge j
L water is continuing. Those months parenthetically included in the Environmental Report were originally based upon the GPU Service Company Chemical Laboratory j.
availability. The schedule is considered flexible and samples are presently i
taken in order to accommodate the laboratory schedule.
Such a sampling schedule has no affect on the design of the monitoring program.
4!~
Very truly yours, 5
Z.--
Donald A. Ross Manager, Nuclear Generating Stations i
DAR:cs 1
(
e i
i 1
i 1
~. - +, - -
k W[P. l A
r 7:
/.
p ^:
, r,'
.-Jersey Central Power & Light Compa'ny q b '.yj MAol$oN AVENUE AT PUNCH BOWL. Ro Ao e MoRRIL'oWN, N.
77960 e 539 6111 June 5, 1973 A.
A Mr. A. Giambusso Deputy Director for Reactor Projects d[/g0 g
Directorate of Licensing 4.t c%re b2 J
7 United States Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 g
r[f4q, g
Dear Mr. Giambusso:
/,,
N g
Subject:
Oyster Creek Station Docket No. 50-219 Drywell Head Manhole Cover The purpEse of this letter is to report a failure of the drywell head manhole cover double gasket seal to meet acceptable leakage as specified in Technical Specifications 4.5.F.1.D.
This event is considered to be an abnormal occurrence 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 made to AEC Region I, Direc-torate of Regulatory Operations, on May 27, 1973.
While attempting to pressurize the double gasket seal on the dry-well head manhole cover, significant pressure decay was observed between the gaskets.
A check of the manhole cover plate with Icak teck showed that there was a significant amount of leakage through the outer gasket.
No attempt was made to determine whether the inside gasket was leak tight.
The allowable Icakage for a penetration is 10'6 of L (20) or 19.9 SCFH.
t Visual inspection of the gaskets showed that the outer gasket was brittle and would crack when pulled, but the inner gasket was less brittle and still had some resilience left when it was pulled.
Both gaskets on the manhole cover were replaced.
The test showed the outer gasket was leaking and the visual inspection indicate! that the i r.ner f ra!.c t c s cct".!
, e L ce been ler' t i r,M.
(Note this point wcs not verified by any measurement.)
If the inner gasket e: e t i,.t r ep...,.
- i...., n.n q c. g n. safet-eiM<icn-c.vcont the inck <f n ici.ad. a p.. i
.,e l.
D The failure of both gaskets could result in prir.try containnent Icakage (into secondary containment) in execrs of technical specification 3-o5-t8 ot5-7
.zh -
/
.j
..o
~
Mr. Giambusso;
(,
IJune 5, 1973
~.
limits and in excess of the-leakage assumed for of f-site dose calcula-tions' described in the basis for Technical Specification 4.5.
- Ilowever, there is a' possibility that the inside gasket was tight and that primary containment leakage would be-less than allo able.
To prevent recurrence of this type failure, a schedule' for-gasket replacement needs to be developed.
This particular gasket is estimated to have been in service 4 or 5 years.
In the future, it will be replaced every -3 years since it is located in a higher tecperature region of the containment.
As future experience dictates the need for gasket replace-ment in other areas of the containment, it will be factored into our replacement schedule.
Very truly yours, S -
Donald A. Ross Manager, Nuclear Generating Stations i
DAR:cs Enclosures (40) cc:
Mr.'J. P. O'Reilly, Director Directorate of Regulatory Operations, Region I' 1
9 ks a
i 4
I
,