ML20107C136
Text
.
i 50-2I9 V) Or l
SEP 121974 I
j E. J. Brunner, Chief, Reactor Operations Branch i
OYSTER CREEK VACUUM anuArman AND ENPORCEMENT i
A DL meeting held with JCP&L on 9/6/74 will result in new Technical Specifications for the O.C. vacuum breakers and installed alarm system.
1 j
This T.S. will provide for continuation of operations, with up to four of the fourteen suppression chamber to dry well vacuum breakers i
l inoperable. This requirement is similar to requirements specified in I
j a Skovbolt letter to JCP&L dated January 30, 1974.
j j
Skovbolt's letter in section B.5 stated that reactor operation could 1
continne provided not more than 25% of the breakers were inoperable.
A review of AO's indiaates that JCP&L has followed the requirements of the January 30, 1974 letter, which is less restrictive regarding the refer = mead operability requirement, then the T.S.
It is noted that the DL latter is not a " temporary" T.S. nor a T.S. change.
l Additionally, by letter to DL dated February 14, 1974, JCP&L stated 1
that concerning vacoun breaker valves, surveillance would be con-ducted and limitations imposed as specified in the DL letter, with the exception of requirement B.5 as referensed above. JCP&L on three
- g" 1 l
occasions has not complied with their stated intent.
t The following AD's relate:
1 (1) 50-219/74-11 on 2-15 four inoperable breakers.
(2) 50-219/74-14 on 2-22 two inoperable breakers.
(3) 50-219/74-15 on 2-28 one inoperable breaker.
l (4) 50-219/74-16 on 3-7 four inoperable breakers.
l (5) 50-219/74-46 on 8-26 one inoperabia breaker.
We have inspected the first four A0's (R0 Inspection 50/219-74-5) on 1
March 27-28, 1974 and also issued a citation regarding A0 No. 11 and 16.
For the former, reactor operation continued when one of the four breakers I
was made insediately operable, thus providing less than 25% inoperable and for the latter, resetor shutdown commenced. The citation referenced skovbolt's letter as a basis.
L 4 e G e
- ny 9/12/74 g
^
9604170240 960213 PDR FOIA DEKOK95-258 PDR
~
i l-2-
o Hy view is as follows:
- 1) A0 74-11, 14, and 16 are violations of the existing T.S.
j
- 2) A0 74-11 and 16 have already been covered via inspection and enforcement letter.
We could retrofit these two violations, (already issued) however, I' fail to see any necessity.
- 3) A citation could be issued concerning AD 74-14; however, this l
would negate the effectiveness of Skovholt's latter.
i JCP&L as of today, has an inoperable breaker which is permissible under the T.S.
i i
l I reca====d that we closely follow DL action regarding issuance of the T.S.
If the T.S. is not issued by 8/25/74 and prior to conduct of the i
i next surveillance, I think JCP&L should be held to their February 14th letter. 30 should not be in a position where the. licensee can select I
from conf 11 sting requirementa and flip flop to suit his purposes, even W
i though we recognise the technical validity of the 25% operability nember. The licensee has been apprised that I consider the February 14 1974 letter to DL, which references their ecossituent, to be in effect.
The above has also been discussed with DL.
1 9
1 e
i i
5 E. C. Crema=an I
Raaetor Inspector ec: Caphton McCabe I
0'Reilly i
l 4
i j
i i
i
-t-<'e-
,_, ___