ML20084B084: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:178 N STREET Nontgwggy g **sai~aro~. o. c. acos.
{{#Wiki_filter:178 N STREET Nontgwggy sh M'-L
sh M'-L O
-g g **sai~aro~. o. c. acos.
                                                                                                      -g w 3. R oi . , ~         nectivEo                                                         -
O
                                                                                                      ,,,, co o , ,0, 8 NESS tm                                                                               (*'        PHON E .3 3.g070 ca="o ~                                                       -
,,,, co o,,0, w 3. R oi., ~
                                                                              % c, c,' "e"                                                  .c
nectivEo
  . .nauoan 9 3 g ,, 3 K.I II 2 9 u.sturs' "8 May 25, 1973                 N D, USAEC CGC SETHESDA hbb yd>
% c, c,' " "
j                                        }
(*'
James P. O'Reilly, Director                                                                                                       '
8 NESS tm PHON E.3 3.g070 e
Regulatory Operations, Region I U.
.c ca="o ~
S. Atomic Eacrgy. Commission                                                                     E
9 3 g,, 3 K.I II 2 9
..nauoan N D, u.sturs' "8
May 25, 1973 USAEC hbb CGC SETHESDA yd>
}
j James P. O'Reilly, Director Regulatory Operations, Region I U. S. Atomic Eacrgy. Commission E
I 970 Broad Street
(
(
                                                                                  .                                                  I                    '
Newark, New Jersey 07102 j
970 Broad Street                                            ,
Re:
Newark, New Jersey             07102                                                                                             '_ -    -
Consolidated Edison Company f
j                                                                       -
e New York (Indian Point, Unit No. 2) j Docket No. 50-247 g
Re:     Consolidated Edison Company                                                                 e f
j New York (Indian Point, Unit No. 2)                                               ,
Docket No. 50-247                           g                                         -


==Dear Mr. O'Reilly:==
==Dear Mr. O'Reilly:==
_g-                     "46             P 4 'fy By letter dated May 23, to us a letter dated May 14, 1973,                   Applicant's counsel tr 1973 with respect to an abnormal                             4 D~3'                                  -
_g-
occurrence.                                                                                                                                  ~
"46 P 4 'fy By letter dated May 23, to us a {{letter dated|date=May 14, 1973|text=letter dated May 14, 1973}}, Applicant's counsel tr occurrence.
s was discovered to be defective and must be replaced.The abnormality                                                     A
1973 with respect to an abnormal 4
* invo cantly this same valve not only was subject to and passed all*/ Signifi-                                                                             -
3' D~
normal quality assurance procedures set up by the Applicant, Westinghc,use and the manufacturer, but also was subject to the                                                                 ~
~
allegedly thorough examination associated with verification that
was discovered to be defective and must be replaced.The abnormality invo s
- there were no tnin-walled valves. Nonetheless, the defect was                                                                 '
A cantly this same valve not only was subject to and passed all*/ Signifi-normal quality assurance procedures set up by the Applicant, Westinghc,use and the manufacturer, but also was subject to the allegedly thorough examination associated with verification that
discovered after operation had commenced pursuant to an operating license although
~
::riticali      ty.        prior to certain hydrostatic leak tests and                                                       i l
there were no tnin-walled valves.
j By letter dated May 21, 1973                                                                                       i and received by us on May 24 , 1973,                                     ;
Nonetheless, the defect was discovered after operation had commenced pursuant to an operating license although prior to certain hydrostatic leak tests and i
  \pplicant.
::riticali ty.
eplacement. reported another valve malfunction and subsequent valve                                                                           -
l j
The intermediate cause of the failure was that                                                        i
By {{letter dated|date=May 21, 1973|text=letter dated May 21, 1973}} and received by us on May 24, 1973, i
  'several key operations personnel" assumed that a valve was                                       open ind closed.
\\pplicant. reported another valve malfunction and subsequent valve eplacement.
ras        did not actually verify that the valve was open. In fact,                                 it i
The intermediate cause of the failure was i
t                        R
'several key operations personnel" assumed that a valve was that ind did not actually verify that the valve was open.
  ./       By letter datcd Mav 21         A     1 all FSAR requireneilts'                                i the neu valve meets 01 i         'Y thicknesses verified                    -r        t shou     1G niso have wall letter. This should b          d        ,
open i
                                                            -n     he Staff's June 22, 197'                                                         ~.
ras closed.
testing problems,                               e Installation to avoid any                                                           "
In fact, it t
A 8304060104 73052S PDR ADucK 05000247  PDR
R
                                                                                      / g Jq' lj, .                     ,
./
                                                                                                                                                      =.
By letter datcd Mav 21 A
S v                         -
1 i
E' .
the neu valve meets all FSAR requireneilts' 01 i
'Y t shou 1G niso have wall thicknesses verified
- r
- n he Staff's June 22, 197'
~.
letter.
This should b d
testing problems, e Installation to avoid any A
8304060104 73052S
/ g Jq' lj,.
=.
PDR ADucK 05000247 PDR S
v E'


Mr. James P. O'Reill May 25, 1973 Page two                                     '
Mr. James P.
Both of these " abnormal occurrences" clearly raise serious questions about the adequacy of Applicant's quality assurance program. The normal practice of disregarding the real under-
O'Reill May 25, 1973 Page two Both of these " abnormal occurrences" clearly raise serious questions about the adequacy of Applicant's quality assurance program.
      . lying cause of abnormal occurrences and focusing instead only on the narrow question of whether the defect itself has been repaired must not be followed here where the quality assurance l         program has already been shown to have substantial defects.
The normal practice of disregarding the real under-lying cause of abnormal occurrences and focusing instead only on the narrow question of whether the defect itself has been repaired must not be followed here where the quality assurance l
l             The significance of the quality assurance program is under-l lined in the recent Appeal Board decisions in Consumers Power Company (Midland) (ALAD-10 G ) and Vermont Yankec (ALAB-12 4 ) .
program has already been shown to have substantial defects.
l The significance of the quality assurance program is under-l lined in the recent Appeal Board decisions in Consumers Power Company (Midland) (ALAD-10 G ) and Vermont Yankec (ALAB-12 4 ).
We urge you to require the Applicant to prepare a thorough l
We urge you to require the Applicant to prepare a thorough l
written report disclosing what deficiencies in the quality assurance program allowed the defective valve to be installed and operated gt Indian Point No. 2 and allowed several key personnel to make a serious and erroneous assumption without actual verification. Applicant should also propose specific corrective steps to eliminate the quality assurance defect and to recheck all other equipment which could have been insufficiently examined as a result of the same underlying quality assurance defect.
written report disclosing what deficiencies in the quality assurance program allowed the defective valve to be installed and operated gt Indian Point No. 2 and allowed several key personnel to make a serious and erroneous assumption without actual verification.
Until this matter has been resolved no further operation of Indian Point No. 2 should be al] owed.       The 50"4 testing license should be suspended pursuant to 10 CFR Part 2, Section 2.202.
Applicant should also propose specific corrective steps to eliminate the quality assurance defect and to recheck all other equipment which could have been insufficiently examined as a result of the same underlying quality assurance defect.
Until this matter has been resolved no further operation of Indian Point No. 2 should be al] owed.
The 50"4 testing license should be suspended pursuant to 10 CFR Part 2, Section 2.202.
We hereby specifically request such a suspension on an emergency basis without prior hearing.
We hereby specifically request such a suspension on an emergency basis without prior hearing.
The fact that " abnormal occurrences" were at a time and place where no serious safety consequences resulted is fortuitous at best. They are clearly danger signals that there are significant defects in Applicant's quality assurance program and implementation of the progr.,m.     It u,uld be irresponsible to allow any operation of Indian Point No. 2 with the reactor critical until the problems are resolved. In ALAB-124 (Vermont Yankee) the Board stated (p. 15):
The fact that " abnormal occurrences" were at a time and place where no serious safety consequences resulted is fortuitous at best.
if it... appeared that an adequate program were lacking, we would likely be conpelled now to reverse the decision authorizing issuance of the permanent operating license
They are clearly danger signals that there are significant defects in Applicant's quality assurance program and implementation of the progr.,m.
  ,                  and thus to require immediate cessation of plant operation until the quality assurance               ,
It u,uld be irresponsible to allow any operation of Indian Point No. 2 with the reactor critical until the problems are resolved.
matter was resolved.
In ALAB-124 (Vermont Yankee) the Board stated (p. 15):
if it... appeared that an adequate program were lacking, we would likely be conpelled now to reverse the decision authorizing issuance of the permanent operating license and thus to require immediate cessation of plant operation until the quality assurance matter was resolved.
O e
O e


        .      1 Mr. James P. O'Reilly O                                                                    o May 25, 1973 Page three                                                                           .
O o
In this case the two recently reported abnormal occurrences are abundant evidence that the quality assurance program is in-adequate. There is no alternative but to suspend the license immediately, prior to criticality.
1 Mr. James P.
O'Reilly May 25, 1973 Page three In this case the two recently reported abnormal occurrences are abundant evidence that the quality assurance program is in-adequate.
There is no alternative but to suspend the license immediately, prior to criticality.
Sincerely,
Sincerely,
                                                                                    ,$ , .A       gs i[ Q $ ' < <t 2j ,. l 6%WL
,$,.A gs l 6%WL i[ Q $ ' < <t 2j,.
                                      '-                                Anthony Z. Roisman Counsel for Citizens Committee s                                                         for Protection of the Environment V'
Anthony Z.
AZR/pq                                                                                             g/dcFc cc:   All parties of record.
Roisman Counsel for Citizens Committee s
                                                                                                                ~
for Protection of the Environment V'
AZR/pq g/dcFc cc:
All parties of record.
~
O e
O e
4
4


    .        ,    w ni. m L CaMvg XJs.                                 p
w ni. m L CaMvg XJs.
(                                   (   i
p
                                      %__,J r .     ?                                                                                                           ,.
(
                                                                                                                ,.n
(
                                                                                                          .i
i
                                                                                                            ~.
%__,J r.
                                                                                                                          . , C.p.}\,
?
                                      .c,,
, p.}\\,
c
,.n
.i C.
~.
l./,Q q c
.c,,
r# L.
...m i 04fpo7 4
: i,
: i,
                                        ,...yv
,...yv a.
                                              .,': r# L.
: 1.. e
                                                                                        #'' l./,Q 04fpo7 q
.m s/
4
C) i
: 1. . e     .m      .. .m i
/
: a.    - >
; m-2' f'.ny 21, 1973 02 Re Indian Point Unit I!o. 2 AEC Dochet I!o. 50-2h7 Facility Operating License DPR-26 I'r. John F. O ' Leary, Di rector Directorate of Licencing U. 3. Atc~.ic Energy Com aiccion
s/
''ach in;to n, D. C.
C)               _
20515 4
i
Nar "r.
                                                                                                                                  /
O ' Leary In accordance with the require.nents of Technical Specification 6.6.1.E.
                                                                                                        ; m-           ,.
we wich to inform you of an abnormal occurrence which was identified on '*.ay 11,1973 at 2230 hours.
f'.ny 21, 1973 02                       2' Re Indian Point Unit I!o. 2 AEC Dochet I!o. 50-2h7 Facility Operating License DPR-26 I'r. John F. O ' Leary, Di rector Directorate of Licencing U. 3. Atc~.ic Energy Com aiccion
During preccurization of the reactor coolant cycte~ preparatory to starting reactor coolant pumps for the performance of a hydroctatic leak test of the Reactor Ccolant System, prior to initial criticality, a leak was observed in valve number 2Cl;B which ic located in the charging line to Loop 21.
    ''ach in;to n , D. C.
Subsequent investigation in:ilcated that the leakage var apparently due to a defect in the area of the ctu! holes permitting reactor ecolant makeup to coep into tuo of the ctud holes ani from there into the containment atmosphere.
20515 4 Nar     "r.     O ' Leary In accordance with the require.nents of Technical Specification 6.6.1.E.
Valve !!o. 20hD has been replaced.
we wich to inform you of an abnormal occurrence which was identified on '*.ay 11,1973 at 2230 hours.               During preccurization of the reactor coolant cycte~ preparatory to starting reactor coolant pumps for the performance of a hydroctatic leak test of the Reactor Ccolant System, prior to initial criticality, a leak was observed in valve number 2Cl;B                                           .
The replacement valve meets the require-menta of codes and standards applicable to the desi6n and procurenent of equipment ac outlined in the Indian Point Unit I!o. 2 FSAR.
which ic located in the charging line to Loop 21.                 Subsequent investigation in:ilcated that the leakage var apparently due to a defect in the area of the ctu! holes permitting reactor ecolant makeup to coep into tuo of the ctud holes ani from there into the containment atmosphere.
A hydrostatic tect of the reactor coolant cyr. tem was performed to insure the integrity of the new valve and accociated welds.
Valve !!o. 20hD has been replaced. The replacement valve meets the require-menta of codes and standards applicable to the desi6n and procurenent of equipment ac outlined in the Indian Point Unit I!o. 2 FSAR. A hydrostatic tect of the reactor coolant cyr. tem was performed to insure the integrity of the new valve and accociated welds.
I'r, A. Facano of the Region I Regulatory Operations office of the U.
I'r, A. Facano of the Region I Regulatory Operations office of the U.                       3.
3.
Atemic Energy Conmission was notified by telephone on May 12, 1973 cf the occurrence.             In addition, a letter was telecopied to the Director of the He,; ion I Office, I'r. J. P. O'Reilly, on :ay ll i , 1973 The valve that experienced the leakage will be subjected to analycis at the h'octin.; house Reccarch Lab. to identify the specific cause and nature of the defect.               This invectication will include:
Atemic Energy Conmission was notified by telephone on May 12, 1973 cf the occurrence.
In addition, a letter was telecopied to the Director of the He,; ion I Office, I'r. J. P. O'Reilly, on :ay ll, 1973 i
The valve that experienced the leakage will be subjected to analycis at the h'octin.; house Reccarch Lab. to identify the specific cause and nature of the defect.
This invectication will include:
(a) Compilation of a hictory of the valve after its installation in Unit !!c. 2.
(a) Compilation of a hictory of the valve after its installation in Unit !!c. 2.
(b) Photographs and physical neacurements of the valve.                                       /~
(b) Photographs and physical neacurements of the valve.
7 (c) Radiographa of the valve body.                                         b . d'      7 ,v$
/~
L/*             '
b. d' 7
    )qWW/0                           N 3390 COPY SENT REGION _       ]
(c) Radiographa of the valve body.
,v$
7 L/*
)qWW/0 N
3390 COPY SENT REGION _
]


b!
a b!
a R
R e
        ,      e s .    .
s.
n     .
n Mr. John F. O'lcary l'ay 21,1973 He Indian Point Unit Ilo. 2 AEC Docket !io. 50-2h7 Facility Operating Licence DPR-2fs (d)
Mr. John F. O'lcary                                           l'ay 21,1973 He Indian Point Unit Ilo. 2 AEC Docket !io. 50-2h7 Facility Operating Licence DPR-2fs (d)   IFye pen"trant incpection.
IFye pen"trant incpection.
(e) l'racto :raphy on specimenc in the area where leaks.3e occured.
(e) l'racto :raphy on specimenc in the area where leaks.3e occured.
(f) A chenical analycic of the valve body material.
(f) A chenical analycic of the valve body material.
Fol.lowin3 the completing of thic program, resultc of the investigation will be made available at the cite for revieu by the Regulatory Operations incpector.
Fol.lowin3 the completing of thic program, resultc of the investigation will be made available at the cite for revieu by the Regulatory Operations incpector.
For a namber of reaconc, the cafety implications of the occurrence are con ni .iored clL;ht. The firct of these conciderations in that the leak was of a very minor rate and wac well within the take-up capability of the Chemical and Volume Control Cyctem.           SeconJ1y, a check valve is located downcteeam of valve 20hD and thic would prevent leaka;e directly out of the Reactor Coolant Cycten had the valve leakage in come way be-come exceccive. A further concideration with regard to the safety im-p1icatienc ic that the leaWe, had it been radioactive, which it was nat, vac into the containment atmosphere and therefore would not have recultel in any dan:er to the health and cafety of the public.               Further-more, the 1eaha.;e would have been detected and identified by one of the four neth11: for monitoring leakage in containment ac specified in Technical Specification 3 1.F had the plant been in operation. Finally, the plant was in a cold chutdown condition with the cystem preccure belo;. 500 pcic at the time of the occurrence. Consequently, the occurr-ence does not reprecent a cignificant hacards concideration.
For a namber of reaconc, the cafety implications of the occurrence are con ni.iored clL;ht.
The firct of these conciderations in that the leak was of a very minor rate and wac well within the take-up capability of the Chemical and Volume Control Cyctem.
SeconJ1y, a check valve is located downcteeam of valve 20hD and thic would prevent leaka;e directly out of the Reactor Coolant Cycten had the valve leakage in come way be-come exceccive.
A further concideration with regard to the safety im-p1icatienc ic that the leaWe, had it been radioactive, which it was nat, vac into the containment atmosphere and therefore would not have recultel in any dan:er to the health and cafety of the public.
Further-more, the 1eaha.;e would have been detected and identified by one of the four neth11: for monitoring leakage in containment ac specified in Technical Specification 3 1.F had the plant been in operation.
: Finally, the plant was in a cold chutdown condition with the cystem preccure belo;. 500 pcic at the time of the occurrence.
Consequently, the occurr-ence does not reprecent a cignificant hacards concideration.
Our I ualear Facilities Safety Committee has reviewed the circumstances of thic cecurrence and coneurs that it does not reprecent a cignificant hacards concideration.
Our I ualear Facilities Safety Committee has reviewed the circumstances of thic cecurrence and coneurs that it does not reprecent a cignificant hacards concideration.
l                                               Very truly yours e'-
l Very truly yours e'-
                                                                  ,'/*.
,'/*.
                                                                                /
/
                                                    ,~ a ,-
L-l
1: !.~ L-  '
,~ a,-
l                                            .
1:
                                          , o ' William E. Caldwell, Jr.
!.~
du                                         Vice President Copy to Janec p. O'Reilly (AEC) l l}}
, o ' William E. Caldwell, Jr.
du Vice President Copy to Janec p. O'Reilly (AEC)}}

Latest revision as of 05:00, 14 December 2024

Discusses Adequacy of Applicant QA Program in Light of Recent AOs Re Valves Discovered Defective After Operation Began.No Further Operation of Plant Should Be Allowed Until QA Problem Resolved
ML20084B084
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 05/25/1973
From: Roisman A
CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
To: James O'Reilly
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
Shared Package
ML20084B088 List:
References
NUDOCS 8304060104
Download: ML20084B084 (3)
v • d • e


Text

178 N STREET Nontgwggy sh M'-L

-g g **sai~aro~. o. c. acos.

O

,,,, co o,,0, w 3. R oi., ~

nectivEo

% c, c,' " "

(*'

8 NESS tm PHON E.3 3.g070 e

.c ca="o ~

9 3 g,, 3 K.I II 2 9

..nauoan N D, u.sturs' "8

May 25, 1973 USAEC hbb CGC SETHESDA yd>

}

j James P. O'Reilly, Director Regulatory Operations, Region I U. S. Atomic Eacrgy. Commission E

I 970 Broad Street

(

Newark, New Jersey 07102 j

Re:

Consolidated Edison Company f

e New York (Indian Point, Unit No. 2) j Docket No. 50-247 g

Dear Mr. O'Reilly:

_g-

"46 P 4 'fy By letter dated May 23, to us a letter dated May 14, 1973, Applicant's counsel tr occurrence.

1973 with respect to an abnormal 4

3' D~

~

was discovered to be defective and must be replaced.The abnormality invo s

A cantly this same valve not only was subject to and passed all*/ Signifi-normal quality assurance procedures set up by the Applicant, Westinghc,use and the manufacturer, but also was subject to the allegedly thorough examination associated with verification that

~

there were no tnin-walled valves.

Nonetheless, the defect was discovered after operation had commenced pursuant to an operating license although prior to certain hydrostatic leak tests and i

riticali ty.

l j

By letter dated May 21, 1973 and received by us on May 24, 1973, i

\\pplicant. reported another valve malfunction and subsequent valve eplacement.

The intermediate cause of the failure was i

'several key operations personnel" assumed that a valve was that ind did not actually verify that the valve was open.

open i

ras closed.

In fact, it t

R

./

By letter datcd Mav 21 A

1 i

the neu valve meets all FSAR requireneilts' 01 i

'Y t shou 1G niso have wall thicknesses verified

- r

- n he Staff's June 22, 197'

~.

letter.

This should b d

testing problems, e Installation to avoid any A

8304060104 73052S

/ g Jq' lj,.

=.

PDR ADucK 05000247 PDR S

v E'

Mr. James P.

O'Reill May 25, 1973 Page two Both of these " abnormal occurrences" clearly raise serious questions about the adequacy of Applicant's quality assurance program.

The normal practice of disregarding the real under-lying cause of abnormal occurrences and focusing instead only on the narrow question of whether the defect itself has been repaired must not be followed here where the quality assurance l

program has already been shown to have substantial defects.

l The significance of the quality assurance program is under-l lined in the recent Appeal Board decisions in Consumers Power Company (Midland) (ALAD-10 G ) and Vermont Yankec (ALAB-12 4 ).

We urge you to require the Applicant to prepare a thorough l

written report disclosing what deficiencies in the quality assurance program allowed the defective valve to be installed and operated gt Indian Point No. 2 and allowed several key personnel to make a serious and erroneous assumption without actual verification.

Applicant should also propose specific corrective steps to eliminate the quality assurance defect and to recheck all other equipment which could have been insufficiently examined as a result of the same underlying quality assurance defect.

Until this matter has been resolved no further operation of Indian Point No. 2 should be al] owed.

The 50"4 testing license should be suspended pursuant to 10 CFR Part 2, Section 2.202.

We hereby specifically request such a suspension on an emergency basis without prior hearing.

The fact that " abnormal occurrences" were at a time and place where no serious safety consequences resulted is fortuitous at best.

They are clearly danger signals that there are significant defects in Applicant's quality assurance program and implementation of the progr.,m.

It u,uld be irresponsible to allow any operation of Indian Point No. 2 with the reactor critical until the problems are resolved.

In ALAB-124 (Vermont Yankee) the Board stated (p. 15):

if it... appeared that an adequate program were lacking, we would likely be conpelled now to reverse the decision authorizing issuance of the permanent operating license and thus to require immediate cessation of plant operation until the quality assurance matter was resolved.

O e

O o

1 Mr. James P.

O'Reilly May 25, 1973 Page three In this case the two recently reported abnormal occurrences are abundant evidence that the quality assurance program is in-adequate.

There is no alternative but to suspend the license immediately, prior to criticality.

Sincerely,

,$,.A gs l 6%WL i[ Q $ ' < <t 2j,.

Anthony Z.

Roisman Counsel for Citizens Committee s

for Protection of the Environment V'

AZR/pq g/dcFc cc:

All parties of record.

~

O e

4

w ni. m L CaMvg XJs.

p

(

(

i

%__,J r.

?

, p.}\\,

,.n

.i C.

~.

l./,Q q c

.c,,

r# L.

...m i 04fpo7 4

i,

,...yv a.

1.. e

.m s/

C) i

/

m-2' f'.ny 21, 1973 02 Re Indian Point Unit I!o. 2 AEC Dochet I!o. 50-2h7 Facility Operating License DPR-26 I'r. John F. O ' Leary, Di rector Directorate of Licencing U. 3. Atc~.ic Energy Com aiccion

ach in;to n, D. C.

20515 4

Nar "r.

O ' Leary In accordance with the require.nents of Technical Specification 6.6.1.E.

we wich to inform you of an abnormal occurrence which was identified on '*.ay 11,1973 at 2230 hours0.0258 days <br />0.619 hours <br />0.00369 weeks <br />8.48515e-4 months <br />.

During preccurization of the reactor coolant cycte~ preparatory to starting reactor coolant pumps for the performance of a hydroctatic leak test of the Reactor Ccolant System, prior to initial criticality, a leak was observed in valve number 2Cl;B which ic located in the charging line to Loop 21.

Subsequent investigation in:ilcated that the leakage var apparently due to a defect in the area of the ctu! holes permitting reactor ecolant makeup to coep into tuo of the ctud holes ani from there into the containment atmosphere.

Valve !!o. 20hD has been replaced.

The replacement valve meets the require-menta of codes and standards applicable to the desi6n and procurenent of equipment ac outlined in the Indian Point Unit I!o. 2 FSAR.

A hydrostatic tect of the reactor coolant cyr. tem was performed to insure the integrity of the new valve and accociated welds.

I'r, A. Facano of the Region I Regulatory Operations office of the U.

3.

Atemic Energy Conmission was notified by telephone on May 12, 1973 cf the occurrence.

In addition, a letter was telecopied to the Director of the He,; ion I Office, I'r. J. P. O'Reilly, on :ay ll, 1973 i

The valve that experienced the leakage will be subjected to analycis at the h'octin.; house Reccarch Lab. to identify the specific cause and nature of the defect.

This invectication will include:

(a) Compilation of a hictory of the valve after its installation in Unit !!c. 2.

(b) Photographs and physical neacurements of the valve.

/~

b. d' 7

(c) Radiographa of the valve body.

,v$

7 L/*

)qWW/0 N

3390 COPY SENT REGION _

]

a b!

R e

s.

n Mr. John F. O'lcary l'ay 21,1973 He Indian Point Unit Ilo. 2 AEC Docket !io. 50-2h7 Facility Operating Licence DPR-2fs (d)

IFye pen"trant incpection.

(e) l'racto :raphy on specimenc in the area where leaks.3e occured.

(f) A chenical analycic of the valve body material.

Fol.lowin3 the completing of thic program, resultc of the investigation will be made available at the cite for revieu by the Regulatory Operations incpector.

For a namber of reaconc, the cafety implications of the occurrence are con ni.iored clL;ht.

The firct of these conciderations in that the leak was of a very minor rate and wac well within the take-up capability of the Chemical and Volume Control Cyctem.

SeconJ1y, a check valve is located downcteeam of valve 20hD and thic would prevent leaka;e directly out of the Reactor Coolant Cycten had the valve leakage in come way be-come exceccive.

A further concideration with regard to the safety im-p1icatienc ic that the leaWe, had it been radioactive, which it was nat, vac into the containment atmosphere and therefore would not have recultel in any dan:er to the health and cafety of the public.

Further-more, the 1eaha.;e would have been detected and identified by one of the four neth11: for monitoring leakage in containment ac specified in Technical Specification 3 1.F had the plant been in operation.

Finally, the plant was in a cold chutdown condition with the cystem preccure belo;. 500 pcic at the time of the occurrence.

Consequently, the occurr-ence does not reprecent a cignificant hacards concideration.

Our I ualear Facilities Safety Committee has reviewed the circumstances of thic cecurrence and coneurs that it does not reprecent a cignificant hacards concideration.

l Very truly yours e'-

,'/*.

/

L-l

,~ a,-

1:

!.~

, o ' William E. Caldwell, Jr.

du Vice President Copy to Janec p. O'Reilly (AEC)

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20084B084&oldid=4362471"