ML19308B846
| ML19308B846 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1979 |
| From: | William Ward NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001170434 | |
| Download: ML19308B846 (4) | |
Text
.
o d IC,Me,LS0r0 0
RESULTSOFIINTERVIEWWIT[CRLYLEi(NMN)MICHELSONSASRECORDEDBY.,IriVESTIGATOR WILLIAM J WARD, US NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION!0N MAY 21,19793
+*
Michelson, employed as an engineer with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
~
was interviewed by the undersigned in the office of the Chairman, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C.,
commencing at 1620 hours0.0188 days <br />0.45 hours <br />0.00268 weeks <br />6.1641e-4 months <br />, May 21, 1979.
Michelson was advised that the purpose of the interview was to gather back-ground data concerning a January, 1978 draft report prepared by him regarding the vulnerability of certain reactors manufactured by the Babcock and Hilcox Company (B&W) to small pipe break loss of coolant accidents (LOCA) and the attendant consequences of such LOCAs upon the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS). Michelson indicated that he understood thepurpose of the interview and gave his permission for the tape recording of the interview. No other persons were present during the interview.
Michelson, referring to several pages of notes that he had recorded in a stenographer's notebook, then provided the following infomation in substance:
He first became interested in the general topic of small pipe break LOCAs in about 1974 while still employed at TVA but prior to his association wit + the ACRS in any capacity. He stated that it seemed a logical trail to explore in that, historically speaking, most pipe breaks (or cracks) have involved small pipes for a variety of reasons, one of which is their susceptibility to vibration.
It seemed logical then to examine the impact of such breaks in view of their relative frequency in comparicon to larger pipe breaks. He found that'in examining applicable standards that the lower limit for sizes of
, pipe breaks was the largest break that he had.under. consideration.
. In-May,1975, an engineer who worked for him, Ronald Sabin raised.
this question ~(the oneicov'ered in his January,11978 Rep rt)'in
~
relation,to reactors manufactured l by Combustion Enginee; ring (C-E).
s t andcproduced a report.concerningEthis. problem.- A(copy _of this; report was_provided_Darvell Eisenhut. Deputy ~ Director, Division of Operating Reactors, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,,USNRC in-April,,.1979)alon;; with other documents _ described, _ infra. f Michelson, isubsequently wrote _a report of.his own regardi.ng ;ombustion Engineeringi iin May, 1977.' A copy of this handwritten report was provided Eisenhut at the same time as Sabin's report in April 1979.
At about this time, Michelson began to suspect that B&W reactors may be more susceptible to these problems than C-E.
Hedrafted7reportdocumentingthemin September, 1977. He discussed these concerns with Mr. Jesse Ebersole, a member of the ACRS, who was his former supervisor at TVA. He also provided Ebersole a copy of his handwritten draft sometime during the Fall of 1977.
~
\\
8001170 6 I T}T O.
\\
e d Ebersole suggested that he " harden up" the report in that it ap He subsequently redrafted it and the typed 1978.
draft was entered in the TVA Word One computer file in January, to be too speculative.
He had the assistance of another TVA engineer, Bruce StefkenHe (615/632-3354) during this redraft. Michelson stated that he did not h t it ment with several other coworkers.know what distribution Mr. E was apparently relied upon dur.ing.the hearings regarlled that of the 23 que f 1977,
, Springs Nuclear Power Plant. ; He reca Lasked of Portland Gas and Electric by the ACRS in the Fal
~
on-tat.least one of them QuestionMichelson stated that with'the ex ding his concerns tact with the NRC, either fonnal or infonnal regar during this period.
27, 1978 he had several During the period between January 1978 and A h best ith d ~ Nuclear Engineering.
course of action regarding.it.
,whom he. discussed it was Mr. E. G. Beasley, Hea,
his immediate supervisor. 'He did not know whether
~
it was discussed at higher levels of management, but ass
)
tGroup (615/632-2434,
he drafted l t must have reached the Branch level inasmuch as.the. e these. concerns was signed byihis Branch Chief,'
A
~ 0. R. Patterson, Chief of the Mechanical Engineer _in'g' B y to B&W addressing He did not know if Patt'erson discussed'it with any April 27,'1978.
higher official within TVA.
l attempts During the perioc between April, 1978 and January, 1979, seve h
were made to goad B&W into providing a reply to t eH B&W Although no on at least a half dozen occasions during this interval.
1978.
d George formal records wera made of these contacts, Mr. Lep Chin an i
riod.
Dillworth of TVA contracts recall having contacted B&W du tiate Michelson believes that telephone logs for this per d the <
either B&W did not understand the issues.or_they had failed these contacts.
statement that,wasi
. Consequently, he prepared a.one _page sunnary Copies of the 10, 1978.
ilable for inspection i transmitted to _B&W via telefax _on_ December _
nietter.
transmitted docuc.2nt and his handwritten draft are avaB dh 23,1979,.they provided a written _ reply that in part see in TVA files.
_ on,'sub'stantiate some of his concerns but disagreed wit
~
~
~
Mr. Patterson January c
~ As ~a' result,~ he' authored a letter back t2B&W that wa to '
ition and to supra.onJebruary_8,1979.,that. asked.B&W _to reconfir t to respond to 15, 1979.i B&W has ye (provide a. written response by: March
~ ~ '
7 that sicoild ~1etterr "
~
t
3-Michelson was summoned to Bethesda to assist with the Three Mile Island incident. He arrived on April 1, 1979, and at some point subsequent to that provided copies of his report and related material to Darrell Eisenhut. That was the first contact that he had with the NRC regarding this material or this issue other than with Ebersole, supra.
Michelson explained that his original interest in this problem grew out of a personal uneasiness about small pipe break phenomena and that the concern bore no direct relationship with his status as a consultant with ACRS. He stated that the concern,predatad that. relationship which began 7
some time in 1976 when heiconsulted'on.. security matters to ACRS.'.He,
m
. emphasized that these concerns were ; independent of his~ consultant; status;
[wi th. _ACRS., The issue was something that " gnawed away" at him over a~
long period of time. He was a little intimifdated by the fact that this topical area was one that had been reviewed time and again to the satisfaction of the entire industry. This fact led him to move quite cautiously. As time went on, he became more confident, but could not be positive. Thus his primary concern was and still is to focus attention upon the issue so that it can be adequately resolved. He added that he still is not sure that his assumptions are correct, and that it is quite possible that more sophisticated computations and analysis may prove him wrong. The major point is that such an analysis should be taken and as of this point, he has not seen that it has been.
He stated that the slow progress regarding the_ ventilation of..his ideas _
was mostly attributable to the fact.that' he wanted to,pedceed c'autiouslyi (intheface;ofLwhatLhe;perceivedto;be_a;genericsafetyiis' sue.'(Hisjsensd y
1 of immediate concern was alleviated by theifact that_thelBellefonteiPlant,
[TVA!s only. plant _using a B&W reactor, was;not, scheduled -for' operati another. two years (which he felt gave him adequate time'~tolursuei.thisi matter in thelfasliion,that hemdid. Heindicatedthathewas(awarethati
$this issue may have.10 CFR 21dimplications and..for that.reasonidissuhed;
'ithisfaspect;with;Mr.J. JJWalker;ofithe TVA; licensing; unit.;
~ ~
,.-._n-n--~..-
It was TVAf s impressionithat Part.21, applied.primarily,' if not exclusively, r
,to vendors rather;than utilities.
In any event, they felt that B&W would (ha've to evaluate Michelson's information before it would be appropriate to undertake any actions under Part 21. He added that he did not see where preliminary ideas such as his are appropriately referred to NRC until some v
further, analysis of their validity -could.be done. = He-added that ;TVAL Mconsidered. that;the analog (regulationLto :10.CFR 21_which appliedfto v
Esituation;wasL10;CFR;50.55 e). He said thatthe evaluation criterii "
stemming from this regulation when applied to this situation indicated that his concerns need not be reported to NRC.
Michelson_ advanced _the. opinion that in contrast. fit aereared.that:B&Ws Tdid;havelsome responsibilities inf accordance1with PartT21dnd stated _,
'that heifelt.that the period,ofJimeLthat:B&W had;and;has takenito iesp'ondj s
z~
- ~-
'(
hoihisjoncernsisiexcessivel m
i i
i 4
e The interview was concluded at 1743 hours0.0202 days <br />0.484 hours <br />0.00288 weeks <br />6.632115e-4 months <br />, May 21, 1979, with Michelson offering to provide any additional assistance or infonnation as may be
]
needed by the NRC in this matter.
illiam. Ward i
Investigator l
Office of Inspection and Enforcement 4
l I
l l
a 1
i
)
-l 1
i I
f e
--n--
s e
e..,,
,--- ~
~ + -,
+ - -
--rn-e