ML20107B247
Text
,_. __ _ _ _
j! t l
\\
l t
NAR I 61973 i
Charles Gallina, Radiation Specialist, RO:I INPUT TO YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL INSFECTION REPORT OF THE OTSTER CREEK FACILITY The following areas were reviewed by me'during the inspection
- 1.
Film bedae data Environmental film badga data for the period December 24, 1970 to November 22, 1972 was reviewed. The data consisted of film reports
}
for 20 stations on-site and off-site. Data was reported as above background and were seros for the most part, painting out a basic problem in sensitivity. Data for the monthly period October 1, 1971 er October 31, 1971 was missing for all stations. The period
.!uly 31, 1972 to August 28, 1972 were noted to be conspicuously higher I
than all other periods. The reason was not established and was not investigated further due to the low levels involved.
i 2.
Data from air, surface water, well water, silt and clam analyses were also reviewed but since you reviewed also, I will not comment speci-
}
fically. A general observation was that they are doing unnecessary
{
analyses for K-40, Uranium, Radium-226, 228. Levels of these nuclides j
have been pretty well established, and requirements to continue these analyses should be changed.
I i
I l
l 3.
A review was made of the methods of sampling and analysis used by the licensee. The description provided by the licensee was very genersi l
and not given in sufficient detail for me to make an evaluation. Perhaps j
j a comparison of analytical results is the best evaluation.
In' comparing results on various environmental media between the State lab and the 4
licensee'scontractor,[elodyne,Ifindthatthelicenseeresultsfor
~
Co-p in class was notably low and the results for Cs-137 and Sr-90 in j
clams is notably high.
(Exact values upon request).
l 4.
Inspection of Station One i
l
[
Station one is a external radiation (Radiogas), sir, and meteorology 4-monitoring station. Station one is the only station on-site. At my visit the air sampler was inoperative due to a recent motor failure.
[
orrme >
..CR,ES
,,g,,
Eve /
a_ -
r t: pac i-suamisc >
L 3/13/73 3
our>
+
Forum Alt-Ste tRev. 9-53) AfCM 0240 96041601'50'960213 PDR FOIA
e
- The film badges (2) were taped to the north side of a metal building at a height of approximately 5 feet. Stat ion one has net shown any values above background for external en:posure, however, a direct survey, using a pressurised con chamber revealed levels of 125 mrem / year above background at a distance of approximately 300 feet south of the turbine The film badge was unable, apparently, to detect a radiation building.
level approximately twice natural background.
A considerable portion of my time was spent in discussing and evaluating 5.
the licensee analytical results of spiked filtere sent to hie as well The licensee's as effluent samples that were split in November, 1972.
efforts leaves much to be desired.
I would reconnend that you not mention these problems at the present time in your inspection report, however, Dyster Creek Management should be appraised of these problems so that solutions can be generated as soon as possible. Rather than rentior specific results, I would mention their basic problems, as I see it.
The location Inadequate facility in terms of location and space.
a.
near the reactor creates a hir.h and variabic backrround, makinr The lab space the licensee results subject to considerable error.
is inadequate for the types and number of analyses to be performed.
It The number and skill of the support personnel is queetioned.
b.
appears that they must select from a bedding process throughout the Jersey Power and Light Company, rather than to hire skilled personnel from the outside. The counting equiprent appears adequatc, but no computer hook-up to resolve ganr.a spectra so it must be handled by hand.
In addition to vide descrepancies in their analytical results, they hevc not performed all the analyses required in order to correlate data with the State and IHSL. Here again, personnel do not have tire to do much I don't see much point in doint, anyrore sanple beyond their present load.
splitting until some improvements are made along the lines mentioned above.
Finally, I would comment on the Operational Environmental Program in 6.
genersi. The program is pretty much the same as the Pre-op Program as evidenced Ig, the number and locations of stations being the same ano the conMEidof certain nuclide analyses that are typically done only Based upon these points, I would say that they hrve in Pre-op programa.
not evaluated the results of the Pre-op Program in a manner sufficient to make intelligent decisions on their operational program.
R. J. Everett Radiation Specialist ec:
P. Stohr
s
.L y,
R Jersey Central Po_
,rf& Light Company
- s..
- . u;
.s
..qg, '
M ADisoN AVENUE AT PUNCH BOWL Ro AD e MoRRISToWN. N.J. 07960 e 539-6111 hfarch' 16, 1973 b!r. ' James ' P. O'Reilly, ' Director Directorate of Regulatory Operations, Region 1 United States Atomic Energy Commission 970 Broad Street Newark, New Jersey 07102
Dear >!r. O'Reilly:
Subject:
Oyster Creek Station Docket No. 50-219
.Your February 23, 1973 Letter to R. H. Sims In accordance with the-subject letter, we have checked our I
facility and have determined that there are no Westinghouse circuit breakers with model numbers DB-25, DB-50, or DB-75 used in any of the engineered safeguards systems.
i 1
Very truly yours,
& n s W / / %)-
a Donald A. Ross blanager, Nuclear Generating Stations Pk 5.l $0 & L T ^
f-
1
- l 4
MAR 151973 c !
l J. G. Keppler, Chief, Reactor Testing & Operations Branch Directorate of Regulatory Operations,llQ RO INQUIRY REPORT NO. 50-219/73-04Q JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY OYSTER CREEK - BWR The subject inquiry report is forwarded for your action. It is recounsended that this event be publicized to demonstrate the problemis that can develop by the failure to use and/or follow written procedures and the specific trap associated with the cleanup system. The tempera-ture change in the idle loop caused by continued operation of the clean-up system was not recognized by the procedures; however, if the tempera-ture differential specified as a prerequisite for starting the idle pump had been determined, the violation would not have occurred.
We have requested the licensee to provide us the results of his strain / stress analysis by March 15, 1973. We will keep you advised as information develops.
As you know from inspection reports 50-219/72-05 and 50-219/73-02, we have concerns about the management controls employed by this licensee. We plan to follow up on this matter as part of our total 4
concern.
D. L. Caphton Senior Reactor Inspector Facility Operations Branch
Enclosure:
Subject Inquiry Report (21 copies) ces RO:HQ (5)
PDR, report only Local PDR, report only l
NSIC, report only DTIE, report only State of N. J., report only gmm rs-J,o.
r omct >
3..
.....y.
W
. '".P.J to n.: smg.
j sumuc >
3../.14./. 7 3 I.
. =. =........ =..
=..
un, Foem AEC-Ste (Rev.9 $3) AECM 0240
/
UNITE 3 STATE 0 3
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION DIRECTOR ATE Clr REGUI.ATORY OPER ATIONS REGION 9 970 SROAD STREET NEWARK. NEW JERSEY 07102 RO INQUIRY REPORT NO. 50-219 /73-04Q
Subject:
Jersey Central Power & Light Co.
Madison Avenue at Punchbowl Road Morristown, New Jersey License No. :
DPR-16 Facility:
Oyster Creek Forked River, New Jersey
Title:
Technical Specification Violation -
Restarting Recirculation Pump with Greater Than 50 F Temperature Differential Prepared by:
W )3
/ Date F. S. Cantrell, R,d'a,ctot Inspector A.
Date and Manner AEC was Informed:
By telephone call from a licensee representative on March 12, 1973 and during a special inspection at the site on March 13, 1973 to review the circumstances relating to this event.
B.
Description of Particular Event or Circumstance:
The B recirculation loop was returned to service on March 10, 1973 by opening the discharge valve and restarting the B recir-culation pump. At the time of this action there existed a differential temperature of 1170F between the temperature of the reactor water and the loop water. Technical Specification paragraph 3.3 prohibits restarting an idle loop unless the temperature of the coolant within the idle recirculation loop is within 500F of the reactor coolant temperature.
Other pertinent facts:
t 3y.
)
(
ia
- 1 The B recirculation loop had been removed from service to replace brushes on the MG set at 12
- 30 AM on March 10, 1973, by closing the, j'
pump discharge valve, opening the bypass valvo around the discharge 2'
valve, and de-energizing the MG-set.
Opening the bypass valve
[',
permits back flow through the recirculation loop and normally j
maintains the coolant temperature 1n the loop within approximately
~
10 F of the reactor coolant temperature, however, operating per-sonnel did not consider the effect of continued operation of the
. clean up system on idle loop temperatures. T'ne clean up system is 1~
fed from the D loop, upstream of the~ suction valve, and discharges 1
to the B loop, downstream of the discharge valve. With the loop j
discharge valve closed and the bypass valve open, the colder water from~ the clean up system back ' flowed through the bypass valve
~ gradually lowering the temperature of the water in.the recirculation pump and the temperature of the feedwater to the clean up system.
i The recorder for the recirculation loop temperature showed that
]
the B loop temperature dropped approximately 1170F while the j
loop was isolated and increased the same ammount when the pump was restarted approximately two hours later. The APRM recorders in the same reactor quadrant as the B recirculation loop showed that j
the flux increased approximately 17% when the pump was restarted.
This flux increase is attributed -to the associated increase in L
recirculation flow and a negative moderator temperature coefficient.
j Rod block alarms were received when the pump was restarted, but l.
the flux increase was less than required to initiate a high flux i
The narrow range reactor pressure recorder showed approximately 4WP scram.
4 - 5 psig pressure surge at the same time.
Subsequent to the above, the D loop was isolated and returned to a'
service without the above ef fects (af ter ' replacing the brushes on'its MG set).
The above event was analyzed for a 375 F_ differential in the FDSAR with respect to the resulting nuclear transient, but not with respect to the thermal ef f ect on the recirculation nuezies.*
C.
Action by Licensee:
1.
The prime cause of the above violation was the f ailure to check f
the loop temperature prior to restoring the loop to service, l
1 -
even though Technical Specifications and the operating pro-cedures (No. 301) stipulate 50 F as the maximum allowable temperature differential. The licensee is revising the operating procedure to provide more definative instruction in this area.
- The application for an increase in power level dated December 31, 1970 states on page B -IV-10 that the startup of a cold recircul,ation loop "....is. essentially prevented by procedure and intgriocks, and is not reanalyzed".
t.
O 2.
At present the licensee does not require the use of a check list when isolating or restoring a recirculation loop. The
,/;
licensee is examining the need for such a check list as a part
'p.,
of his investigation.
3.
The licensee is making an evaluation of the strain / stress in the recirculation nozzle that resulted from restarting the B recirculation loop with a temperature differential of 117 F.
4.
The licensee plans to submit a 10 day written report to Licensing as required by Technical Specification paragraph 6.6.
M
,