ML20107C252
Text
-
. l y
];
1
/
e-
.erSey Centra Power & Light Company v MADISON AVENUE AT PUNCH BOWL ROAD
- MORRISTOWN, N.J. 07960
- 201539-6111 au un w ruu h','"jj]*, Pubiic Utilities Corporation..--
Generai SYSTim March 18, 1974 7
l Mr. A. Giairbusso Deputy Director.for Reactor Projects Directorate of Licensing United States Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D, C. 20545
Dear Mr. Giambusso:
Subject:
Oyster Creek Station-Docket No. 50-219 Abnornial Occurrence Report No. 50-219/74/20 The purpose of this 1ctter is to forward to you the attached i
Abnormal Occurrence Report in compliance with paragraph 6.6.2.a cf the j
Technical Specifications.
Enclosed are forty copies of this submittal.
Very truly yours, Qrjub{L6'y;fw}'U-
/
Donald A. Ross Manager, Nuclear Generating Stations cs Enclosures cc: Mr. J. P. O'Reilly, Director Directorate of Regulatory Operations, Region I c6
.fb (T ri i 9604170289 960213 4 O OI3 PDR FOIA DEKOK95-258 PDR
l y
yr
~
~
OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION FORKED RIVER, NEW JERSEY 08731 l
Abnormal Occurrence Report No. 50-219/74/20 Report Date March 18, 19'74 j
Occurrence Date March 10,1974
~ Identificatic n of Occurrence Violation of the Techni cal Specifications, paragraph 4.3.F.1.d, failure of-main steam isclation valves NSO4A and NSO4B to meet the allowable leakage re-quirements.
This event is considered to be an abnormal occurrence as defined in the Technical Specifications, paragraph 1.15D and E.
Conditions Prior to Occurrence The plant was shut down with reactor coolant at <212*F.
Description of Occurrence The main steam isolation valves were leak rate tested in the "as found" condhion.
Leakage rates of main steam isolation valves NSO4A and NSO4B were 64.7 SCFH and 12.2 SCFH, corrected to 20 psi. The _ maximum allowabic Icakage rate is 9.945 SCFH, as required by the Technical Specificatious, paragraph 4.5.F.1.d.
Apparent Cause of Occurrence
-j The cause of this occurrence is attributed to component failure.
After checking the test assembly and the components of the main steam isolation valves, it was determined that the lower packing rings around the valve shaft was the cause of the excessive leak rate. The Icakage was out of the leakoff line between the upper and lower sets of packing.
Analysis of Occurrence
['Ihe safety significance of the [ailure of NSO4A and NSO4B to pass the leakage rete test was a loss _ of redundancy in an engineered safety feature designed to minimize the release of fission products under design bases accident conditions.
It should be noted that any leakage through the lower set of packing would be into the reactor building equipment drain tank and would be released through the J
plant stack via the standby gas treatment system.
It should also be noted that e
V O.
e
I.,
()
)
d 4
Abnormal Occurrence No. 50-219/74/20 Page 2
~
the inside main steam isolation valves had no detectable leakage and, therefore, there would have been no leakage out of the primary containment during an-accident condition.
Corrective Action The main steam isolation valve shaft packing leakoff valve (between upper and lower sets of packing) were closed and the rain steam isolation valves were retested. successfully. These valves will remain in the closed position until the 1974 refueling outage. At this time, main steam isolation valve NSO4A will receive complete preventive maintenance and NSO4B' will be inspected and completely repacked.
- The leak rate tests for NS03A and NS03B assume that NSO4A and NSO4B have negligible leakage.
Therefore, NS03A and NS03B were retested after the packing leakoff valves of NSO4A and NSO4B had been closed.
Valves NS03A and NS03B were found to have acceptable leakage rates.
Failure Data The valve stem packing on NS.04A failed on September 27, 1973 and again en January 16, 1974.
Each time, the valve was repacked and subsequently passed its leak rate test. The valve stem packing on NSO4B failed on September 27, 1973 and was subsequently repacked and retested successfully.
The above occurrences were reported by letter, Mr. A. Giambusso from D. A. Ross dated October 12, 1973 and by Abnormal Occurrence Report No. 50-219/74/5.
c i
4 e
.-.m.
5 lersey Central Power & Light Company MADISON AVENUE AT PUNCH BOWL ROAD
- MORRISTOWN, N. J. 07960
- 201-539-6111 unsus or rus General Public Utilities corporation March 13, 1974 Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Director Directorate of Regulatory Operations, Region I United States Atomic Energy Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
This letter is in reply to your letter of February 11, 1974 to Mr. Ivan R. Finfrock regarding an inspection conducted at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station by Mr. Mann on December 27 and 28,1973.
The enclosure to your letter describes an apparent violation of a Radioactive Work Permit (RWP) Procedure.
It is further noted in your letter that the violation was corrected immediately in an effective manner once it was discovered.
During the past several months, much effort has been expended in upgrading the quality and efficiency of radiation protection activities at the m ster Creek plant.
We believe that this effort has resulted in much improved radiological safety conditions. We also believe that with continued strict administrative control and programs aimed at increasing employee aware-ness of radiological procedures and radiation safety, violations of the nature cited will be eliminated.
Several items in the R0 Inspection Report No. 50-219/73-23 attached to your letter need clarification.
In the Summary of Findings section, Item A, Current Findings, under the heading Other Significant Findings, the off gas rate should be stack gas rate and 24 pCi/sec should be 24,000 pCi/sec.
If, however, the off gas rate is desired, the number should be 94,000 pCi/sec.
In regard to particular subjects under the heading Management Interview, we have i
the following comments:
)
Item 2 Discussion regarding assignment of health physic technicians on a rotating shift schedule has been initiated. This effort is proceeding accord-ing to the Jersey Central Power 6 Light Company's labor management agreement.
'It is presently anticipated such assignments will begin this summer.
G
.O 1
- l@ mooiq d s
o
-()
, )-
,c.
Mr. O'Reill'y March 13, 1974 Item 3 I'n regard to the station's disciplinary program, it was not stated that the formal program would go into effect the week of January 7,1974.
It was indicated 'that we should know the status of this matter by January 4,1974.
A program has been formulated and approved by company management.
Bargaining unit and supervisory personnel at the Oyster Creek Station are being advised of the disciplinary program this week.
Copies of the station's pocket size Radiation Safety Manual are also being distributed to all employees at this time.
Item 4 It was not stated that a change to the Technical Specifications to include the Radiation Protection Supervisor as a member of the Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC) would be submitted by March 15; rather a proposed change would be drafted by that date.
Appropriate safety committee reviews are re-quired prior to submittal for AEC approval. The draft preparation is on schedule at this time and as stated in Mr. Mann's report, the Radiation Protection Supervisor continues to attend PORC meetings in the meantime.
In reference to the statement in Section 6, paragraph 1, "that at the present time, the only waste discharged to the canal is from the laundry drain tank" is not complete.
It was stated that "the bulk of the waste presently discharged to the canal is from the laundry drain tank but there are occasions when some water from the waste sample system must be discharged due
= to either lack of space back in the system to receive-the water or the water fails to moet all the chemical requirements for reuse."
In addition, the last statement on page 9 should have stated that we would hope eventually to reduce the overboard release to even more than we have in the past with the pending modification to ti.e radwaste system.
It was not stated we would reach the position when all water would be recycled.
Should you have any questions concerning the above points of clari-fication, we would be pleased to discuss them with you.
Very truly yours,
~
/
Donald A. Ross Manager, Nuclear Generating Stations es l
P d
1 s