ML20107J256
Text
.
Memo to File APR 1 !1974 Re: Jersey Central Power & Ligt.t Co. Reply of 3/13/74 to Inspection at Oyster Creek on 12/27-28/73.
I called Don Ross on 3/15/74 to clarify his objections to my report:
Item 1: "St4ck gas rate" was incorrectly described as "off-gas rate".
24uci/see should have been 24 mci /sec.
Item 2: H. P. Tech shift assignments have been discussed with the union. One tech will be assigned to each of the two off-shifts.
Item 3: I quoted my written notes on my phone conversation with Ross on 1/3/74 in which he stated "three-page policy statement will be issued next week".
He agreed that he had said this and therefore understood my statement that "the program would go into effect the week of January 7."
This was not his' intent, however. The program was put into effect on 3/15/74.
I told him I would delete the date from my report.
Item 4: My word " submitted" was incorrect.
It should have been
" drafted".
I had understood Don Reeves to say " submitted" at the close-out meeting and my notes so reflect.
I agreed to change my report.
Section 6, paragraph 1, and last statement on page 9:
I had quoted from my notes from a conversation with Jin Maloney, Operations Supervisor.
Ross stated that Maloney had perhaps been somewhat inaccurate in his statement to me and that Ross would speak to him. Their goal is zero release after the new Radwaste facility is completed. They intend to comply with 10 CFR 50, Appendix I.
My statement about the laundry tank being the only source of water discharged should have added " released in many weeks".
In fact, some additional water has been released recently.
f., k (EM~
ohn Mann Radiation Specialist 9604250020 960213 PDR FOIA r
DEKOK95-250 PDR
.-...- - = -.
)i 0;
.; g
/
To:
James P. O'Reilly Directorate of Regulatory Operatievts 4 1 i
Region !
J 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 ij
' b t.
k From:
Jersey Central Power 4 Light Company
!l Oyster Creek Huclear Generating Station Docket #50-219 Forked River, New Jersey 08731 i
i
)
7 l'
Subject:
Abnormal Occurrence Report No. 50 219/74/ 1 i..
The following is a preliminary report being submitted in compliance with the Technical Specifications paragraph 6.6.2.
Preliminary Approval:
I e
s
.e t-
. >.f o.
,,.o
..i f
- .' ' 4 s..6,..:'.-. 1.'
q'. ~,; *
.. L i ).l.
(
TV t'.GtWA!N
.Qdp.y@ # 4.V@%#-Q.y O.t h.ylfM f 0.*.5. N:pNi @
1-
[T. Carroll,Jr.V Date t
i f
ec: Nr. A. Gianbusso
.I 4
4 8
4 g
e gs a
f r
@*:? sh / i iL11//A..L&
~y < ri 77 > r -
q{b e
4
.. ~ - -
- ~
4, M i
~ _ - - - -. -
M.
h-e4 6. e. e q$ w a e gm++k J',
O Initial Telephone Date of l
Report Date:
4/9/74 Occurrence:
4/9/74 Initial Written Time of Report Date:
4/10/74 0ccurrence:
1040 0YSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION FORKED RIVER, NEW JEASEY 08731 Abnormal Occurrence
. Report No. 50-219/74/25 IDEffrIFICATION OF OCCURRENCE:
Violation of the Technical Specifications, paragraph 3.5. A.1, f
loss of primary containment integrity with the reactor criti-cal and the reactor water temperature greater than 2120F.
This eYent is considered to be _an abnormal occurrence as de-fined in the Technical Specifications, paragraph 1,158.
CONDITIONS PRIOR
'It) OCCURRENCE:
X Steady State Power Routine Shutdown Hot Standby Operation Cold Shutdown Load Changes.During
~ Refueling Shutdown
~ Routine Powers 0peration
~ Routine Startup Other (Specify)
Operation The major plant parameters at the ti.no of the event were as follows:
Power:
Reactor,1849 Mt Electrical, 642 We 6 lbs/hr Flow:
'. Reciri:., 61 x 10 6 lba/hr
'FeedWater 6 9 x 10 Stack Gas: 34,895 pC1/sec l
DESCRIPTION a-At 1040 on' April 9,a1974/.a local leak rate test on the OP OCCURRENCE:
reactor building to torus vacuum breakers was cossenced and it was discovered that pressure could not be placed between A
V-26-15 and 16, the check and butterfly isolation valves.
check of leakage of drywell atmosphere to the reactor building
$..v.= wu indicated when a plastic bag was u-
i' Abn2rmal Occurrones
[)
Report No.- 50 219/74/25 Pego 2
- },
i'
- Ji l
the bag filled with air indicating that the outside (chsek) i valve was leaking. The check valve was cycled several times and then-forced to seat. Air was again admitted between the l
l valves and no leakage was detected through the check valve, but the pressure would not exceed 17.$ psig. 1his indicated that the butterfly valve, V-26-16, was leaking. Upon inspec-tion of V-26-16, it was found that the valve had not been in the fully ' closed position. The valve was fully closed manually and a successful leak test was performed.
j l
The butterfly valve, V-26-16, was' made. inoperable, as permitted i
by Technical Specification 3.5. A.S.
APPARENT CAUSE l
OF OCCURRENCE:
Design Procedure 14anufacture Unusual Service Condition Installation /
Inc. Environmental Construction X_ _ _ Component Failure Operator Other (Specify)
The cause for valves V 26-15 and V-26-16 not to seal properly j
is not known at this time.
ANALYSIS OP OCCURRENCE:
An initial analysis of the data indicates that under accident conditions in the drywell (35 psig) the. leakage rate through V-26-15 and V-26-16 would have been approximately 20% to 40%
of the allowable leakage rate fron.the primary containment.
i Additional investigation is continuing.
1
(
9 Li
-- :-= =.
nusum uun v a ussmen
(
, Rep 3rt No. 50-219/74/25
()
,Page 3 9
7
[
CORRECTIVE 3
ALTION:
At 1408, a reactor shutdown was commenced. Both valves were
)
subsequently properly seated,'successfully leak tested, and f
made inoperable. At 1443, the reactor shutdown was teminated
{
and power was increased to the initial value.
l FAILURE DATA:
Hist' / of torus to reactor building vacuum breakers:
11/23/70 - V-26-18 failed to open during operability surv6illance 12/18/70 - V-2616 and V-26-18 failed to open during operability surveillance 1/12/71. - V-26-18 failed leakage rate test 1/13/71 - V-26-18 linkage tightened one turn, passed leakage. test but valve. would not open 1/14/71 - V-26-18 adjusted controller, passed leakage test and passed operability test 2/17/71
- V-26-16 and V-26-18 changed seats and both passed leakage tests 5/3/73
- V-26-18 failed leakage test. Linkage ad-
,1 justed an[ valve passed leakage and oper-f ability tests, m
!d p
1 i e
}.
1 e
.i f
[
> -e Date:
4/10/ 74 Prepared by:
A i
r
~
4" reentidu I,
I 9
s'
)
q,Y To:
James P. O'Reilly Directorate of Regulatory Operations Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406
\\
Prom:
Jersey Central Powe'r 4 Light Company Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating station Docket #$0-219 Porked River, New Jersey 08731
Subject:
Abnormal Occurrence Report No. 50-219/74/ 24 4
~
'Ihe following is a preliminary report being submitted in compliance with the Technical Specifications paragraph 6.6.2.
Preliminaiy Approval:
i i 6..-
.;,.j
.. n : :\\,,.c
- .t. -
psn
- f i 9,h &{p r,N,'NAi%th;P, -.ipp..'it.g.ykh RM'd.Q5p >ks
',+,',C.;'.,;; fit: <w.. k isyS. Q.g.;,{,5 )
y 1 n a A 0 ba/10/14 0$'
b f
dT.Cabo'll,3r. [
Date cc: Mr. A. Gianbusso i
s a
'.B 433
>6
- w.,
. ~
-r u.v w -
1
% gh f
.~.. -... _
[ Meport paso:
e/w/s vwus :euw 4
,m, l
Initial Written h
Time cf Report Date:
4/10/74 Occurtzncs:
1000 OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION l.
PORKED RIVER, NEW JERSEY 08731 Abnossal Occurrence Report No. 50-219/74/24 i
IDENTIFICATION OF OCCURREN G:
Violation of the Technical Specifications, paragraph 4.6.B.I.g, in that the stack gas particulate filter in service from Narch 28,1974 to March 31, 1974 was not analyzed for gross 8, gross a, and gross y.
This event is considered to be an abnomal occurrence as de-fined in the Technical Specifications, paragraph 1.15G.
CONDITI(NS PRIOR TO OCCURRENCE:
X Steady State Power Routine Shutdown Hot Standby Operation Cold Shutdown Load Changes During y
Refueling Shutdown Routine Power Operation y
Routine Startup Other (Specify) jj operation The major plant parameters at the time of the event were as l
follows:
Power Reactor,.1806 Wt Electric 41, 632 We 6 lb/hr Flow:
Recirc., 57.2 x 10 6 lb/hr Peedwater, 6.735 x 10 Stack Gas:
35,060 vCi/sec 4
DESCRIPTION V
0F OCCURRENCB:
A stack gas particulate filter, installed at 0847 on March 28, 1974 and removed at 0854 ion. March 31, 1974, was not counted for gross a, gross S, and' gross y With$n one week of removal.
~
Abnormal Occurrenco
( 3 Pcge 2 Report No. 50-219/74/24 i
1 l
APPARENT CAUSB i
)6(
OP OCCURREN2:
__ Design Procedure j (t Manufacture unusual Service Condition l '!
Installation /
Inc. Environmental Component Failure Construction Other (Specify)
Operator Counting,of the filter 48 houri after removal was not perfomed
~
by the technician as required.
Investigation.into the cause is j
continuing.
1 ANALYS!$ OF OCCURREN G :
ne safety significance connected with this occurrence is that any unusually large release of particulate activity during this l
period might not have been recognized smtil the monthly compo-l site analyses were complete. his is not a likely possibility t
l as a spectrum analysis was performed to measure releases of
{
j short-lived isotopes and if unusually large amounts of activity were present, it would have been readily apparent.
In addition,
[
a spectrum analysis of the charcoal filter had also been per-fomed and normal quantities of Iodine were found.
CORRECTIVE ACTION:
The particulate filter was counted nine days after filter re-moval upon discovery of the abnormal occurrence. 'Ihe gross a, gross 5, and gross y values were comparable to samples removed before and after this filter. This would indicate that there l
h was little or no change in plant gaseous effluents and that the plant was operating with releases less than 8 of the Technical t
i 688888 J.
l ' Abnormal Occurrenco Report Ns. 50-219/74/24 Page 3 Specification limit of.4 pC1/soe of Icene and particulates having half-lives >8 day's.
h e
a f
i Prepared by: /
V m I-a Date:
4/10/74 4
1
?
e 2.4 4
4 f
}
.