ML20107B854
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. .. _ ~. - - 3 , j *- -~ ,; = A A x 0 3-o6 4 x t DISTRIBUTION d Docket File (ENVIRON) R0(3). AEC PDR J. r:ok Local PDR John F. O'. Leary DR Reading S. D. Reed, EP-4 APR 3g Docket No. 50-219 L Rea' ding -G. Ertter (DR-67 EP-4 Reading M. Groff } R. Bevan, EP-4 Mr. Russell A. Cookingham, Director W. Regan, EP-4 I-i Division of Fish, Cama & Shell Fisheries D. Muller, EP [P.O. Box 1809 partment of Environmental Protection G. Knighton, EP-1 G. Dicker, EP-2 B. Youngblood, EP-3 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 A. Giambusso, RP Dear Mr. Cookinghams E. Hughes, RP, This is in response to your letter to Mr. Huntzing of February 19, 1974, regarding the licensing of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in Ocean County, New Jersey. The Commission is aware of the problems you cite that are associated with operation of the Oyster Creek Station. These were identified and addressed in the Draft Environmental Statement on Oyster Creek, issued in July 1973, and are presently being considered in the preparation of the Final Er.vironmental Statement scheduled to be issued in April 1974. The problems associated with operation of the Oyster Creek plant that you mention arise largely from the estuarine nature of the-site. In the intervening ten years since the siting decision was made for this plant, the need to weigh more carefully the commitment of ecologically valuable estuarine resources to power production has become much more evident. The Commission has responsibility, under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, to identify significant environmental effects of plant operation at the site, and to evaluate, on a cost-benefit basis, the alternatives, including closed-cycle cooling, that can l be directed toward mitigating the undesirable consequences of [ plant operation. The staff's final reca==andation for an appropriate course of action will be reflected in the Final Environmental 4 Statement. We recognize the concerns expressed in your letter, and appreciate your connunicating to us your positiors on the matter. 4 p] W j Sincerely, Original signed by: Roger S. Boyd W 9604170115 960213 OK 58 PDR A. Giambusso, Deputy Director y fnr Ramrtne Praiacte ,,L,: EPr/e. L:EP:An __,_,, ' _ " * " ',I ., _ M P T *DD T , ornece RBB N :pc W d h i ...kher AGiambusst sun - ce / /74 --{/ j /74 3/29/74 f///74 - g g m **"*
y;f J. i r;w d, 'yI S Jersey Centra Power & Light Company if1 Q./ MAD; SON AVENUE AT PUNCH BOWL ROAD
- MORRISTOWN.N.J.0MO e 201-CM111 WR WSMA Of TNG General pud'ic Utiit:es Corporat;on._
i SM *4 W April 2, 1974 Mr. A. Giambusso Deputy Director for Reactor Projects ' Directorate of Licensing United States Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 i
Dear Mr. Giambusso:
Subjecti Oyster Creek Station Docket No. 50-219 Hydraulic Shock and Sway Arrester Inspection - January 1974 The purpose of this letter is to forward to ycc supplementary in-foniation regarding the seals of five " failed" hydraulic shock and swey arrestors (snubbers) found in the drywell during the plant shutdo,In which began on January 12, 1974. The initial report on the January inspection a# the snubbers in the drywell was forwarded by letter dated February 19,10~4. A visual inspection of the seals removed from the five failed snubbers indicated that several types of material were used in each uni;. To determine which of the materials had failed, the seals vere sent to the GPU System Laboratory for material identification analyses u ing infrared scans and microscopic examinations. The results of the uttria. -.-.f.,o be summarized as follous: 1 1. Only three seals in each snubber were of the recommended polyethylene-propylene (PEP) material. 2. None of the PEP seals showed any sign of failare.
- 3. ~ Two types of polyurethane wera used in the failed snubbors.
These were the millable gum nd the cast polyurethene. 4. One fiber seal was also discovered in two of the snubbers. Both of these units were of an old series which could not be rebuilt cenpletaly. The fiber seals hed proochly nczer hun changed out at the tine the snubbers were rebuilt or they g J h)g/ were cut from new unidaatified gasket traterial. nu a is w 1 U W "'Y W "" e n
C l 'Mr. Giambusso April 2, 1974 5. One other seal used in the~two old series snubbers could not be identified. The materini is believed to be teflon. 6. The seals which, because of their physical characteristics, had visually appeared to be failed before the laboratory analysis are now identified to be millable gum polyurethane. We believe the results of the laboratory analyses provide further . evidence that ethylene-propylene is the material best suited for replacement seals inLthe hydraulic snubbers located in the drywell and in the reactor building. Enclosed are forty ceptes of this submittal. Very truly yours, j.hnish., (,.flw' .y Donald A. Ross Manager, Nuclear Generating Stations Cs Enclosures Mr. J. P. O'Reilly, Director '/. cc: Directorate of Regulatory Operations, Region I 8 r ,,}}