ML20087A802
| ML20087A802 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 05/01/1970 |
| From: | Caphton D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Robert Carlson US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20086U000 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-95-36 NUDOCS 9508070176 | |
| Download: ML20087A802 (9) | |
Text
,
>m-
'7
, ag,.
[
3..
,7~
\\
- c., n
- :',f
.s.,
e
- m 9
t y.,
May'1, 1970 I
c R. T. Carlson, Senior Reactor Inspecter i
Region I, Division of Complitace
'~
HINUTES OF MEETING, CCHMISSI'ONER THOMPSON AND REGULATORY REPRESENTATIVES WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF JERSEY CENTRAL FoliER di LIGHT CEPANY (0YSTER CREEK 1f f
ON HARCH 25, 1970 j
j Attendees i
AEC Dr. T. J. Thompson, AEC Cociaissioner
.^(*
Dr. H. H. Hann, Assistant Director of Regulation for Reactors
..i t..
R. H. Engelken, Assistant Director for Inspection and Enforcement,.CO' M (c D. J. Skovholt, Assistant Director for Reactor Operations, DRL R. T. Carlson, Senior Reactor Inspector, CO IA-j,..} 3 D. L. Caphton, Reactor Inspector, C0:1 g
R. T. Dodds, Reactor Inspector, CO V v, f; "
~ Jersey Central Power and LiRht Company UC) qj l R. F. Bovier, President i
. < ), '- i T. J. McCluskey, Station Superintendant, Oyster Creek 1
-' {
F. Trowbridge, Attorney Time end Location The meeting was started at 10:00 a.m. on March 25, 1970, in the Connaissioner'sl ~
~
conference room at 1717 E Street, Washington, D. C.
The meeting was ad,journed s'
at ~ 11:20 a.m.
Purpose
W' To air Regulatory concerns with JC's top managemont regarding management
~
support to and the conduct of the operacion of the JC Oyster Creek 1 (OC-1) y '. '
nuclear power station, including discerned weaknesses in the JC management p.
system for 00-1.
V Discussion
\\
Dr. Thompson opened the meeting by relating some of his own experiences with '
the AEC Regulatory Division of Compliance as a licensee. He emphasized his
- y keen interest in reactor safety. Specific accidents which were attributable x
\\
to management decisions and misdirection were discussed. These included
~
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO.
\\
I CO Report No. 219/70,-5 9500070176 950227 Addendum 1 PDR FOIA DEKOK95-36 PDR
- - ~ ~.
s.
g 3
2 accidents at the SRE and SL-1 facilities.
(Dr. Thompson referred to chapter 11 of a book ha edited, " Technology of Nucicar Reactor Safety" regarding this subject). The importanco of top management having adequata involvement to incure their understanding of the true safety significance of management decisions, particularly the potential effect on reactor safety of their
~
decisions, was discussed. Dr. Thompson talked about the need for strong 1,
and competent personnot for nuclear reactors. 11a stated tint it was also a necessity to provide adequate compensation for such personnel in this i
business particularly at a time den good people are in demand and dere competition is very keen.
Dr. Thocrpson stated that the nuclear power industry can't afford an accident and particularly with an early plant it is very important to be sure. Dr. Thompson stated that he was a baliever in the virtues of nuclear power and believed in the industry's future.
Dr. Ihnn stated that in this meeting it was not intended to practice lav sinco such an approach wou,1d not be of real benefit to either the AEC or JC.
Ile stated that the details of the past JC history at OC-1 vore not the important iscues at this meeting, however focusing on Regulatory overall concerns would be the real' objective.
Dr. Ibun reviewed arena of concern:
lack of managerial attention; organiza-tional weaknesses, particularly of technical personnel; loss of key personnal both at site and at the offico corporate levol; and the abnormal,timo required for replacement of the personnel. The fact that these problems havs occurred on a mmber of occasions was stated to be of prime importance in this discussion. Another example cited as'a basis for concern was the fact.
ft.
r that several significant problems were uncovered by CO which, as far as va can determine, vero apparently unknown to JC and/or CE. This has led us to the obcorvation that JC management did not understand or had a lack of' interest D
in what was transpiring at OC-1.
.(.
Dr. !! ann than spoke of the difficulty experienced in obtaining a report from N
JC concerning the crud prob 1cm in the control rod drives, which included his l.
own personal involvement, and stated the matter took entirely too long to get the company on board regarding submission of the report. 11o stated that '
such information and other comparable matters were of great importanca to AEC to accomplish its objectives for protection of the public. Dr. Mann stated that reporting has been a continuing problem with JC.
CO aven visited
( the arca of the many noncompliences.the vice president to express Regulatory concern g
!!o stated that it was questionable in
\\his mind whether the vico president.undarstood what he has to manage.
\\
Dr.1: ann stated that the license conditions provide the safety envelope th%ich the plant can be operated. The plant was safe for the public and safe and economic for JC when operated within the envelope. When conditions ar*
' violated and found to be ao repeatedly, including the finding of the same c
Problem on successive visits, Regulatory's only recourse is to go back to management.
r-
\\
CO REPORT N0', 219/70-5
~,.
{
Addendum.1 i
s o
\\
Page 2 of 5 pages.
i L
~.
.~
- =
~
fs o
1 s
x..
y
3
Dr. Mann stated that' the principal purpose'of this meeting was to enlist thorough going, and responsible corporate level management in understanding those matters. Wu soticit their knewledgeable response and understanding 4
to their responsibilities. We desire that:the plant superintendent have i
[.
the necessary managa==at tooJs and ri w t.to accomplish his' job and to do_
1 i
a good job.-
b.
r; j
Mr. Bovier stated that they (JC) recognise that they have made some mistakasi a
they know this. He stated that he personally was getting involved, and f
wanted to cooperate, f'.(
a Dr. Hann stated that we know th'at JC has been votking on these matters but ',
j ve have not observed a significant change.even after bringing the matters to the attention of the vice president.
3
)
Dr. Thompson stated that,we want to understand your (JC's) problems. He stated that the utility has the ultimate responsibility, not the fabricator, and once this fact is recognized the utility will be better off.
Mr. Bovier stated that he realized that the ultimate responsibility came back
-3 to him, and with regard to the problems at Oyster Creek he pleaded guilty.
Dr. Thompson stated that JC had a tough start so has CE. Our concerns were not intended as a personal criticism of any JC person regarding the way the j~
organization was going. Dr. Thompson stated that it could be falso economy 3
saving money on staffing.
If JC's technical people cotid save only 1% of the a;
core life through good management it could save JC, for example, 17. of
~ $30,000,000. JC could well afford to spend money on staffing relative to 4
the dollar numbers involved.
2 I
Dr. Hann reiterated that we were not being critical of any individual as such.
]"
He then made reference to the administration section of technical specifications, 1
specifically to the area of review and audit. He stated that what we were l' ~
i looking for here is a management system wherein a thorough going review and L. !,
. l.j audit function exists and is functioning. He stated that AEC had no I
lb proforence regarding what system is used, only that there is an effective i
system. Dr. Hann discussed the fact that General Office Review Board-(GORB)
/b b
members were not attending Plant Operating Review Committaa (PORC) meetings Q
and that this suggestod a lack of management intere'ot and responsibility. He,
- j stated further that to date it appeared that CORB audit and review of plant operations and problems has been mintam1 at best, and that he was concerned ;.W:
.{.
i regarding manacement's interest and knowledge of things going on. Dr. Mann stated that we wanted to know if we are off base in our facts.
m 3
+
- i Dr. Thompson stated that, in the final analysis, welwere interested in making ;
sure that the reactor was esfa and not necessarily the legal, aspects. 7{,
s
/ *.
.... l x
' /
O,.
.^
CO REPORT No.~219/70-5 3
'A E
- j.
Addendum'l:,
'.:y7 $, '. k 7! #
a.
[,
, Sage 31of 5 pages..
V-
.i f'
(,
}
L j,
t, q
~
I 4
+
- q*,
- g, 3,.,
7
+.
J
. ~
?
1-i w4=
a i
Mr. govier stated that he had no excuse, that he appreciated the a====es made, and that he was going to get into it as soon as he got back. Ma stated
~
some of these things he knew.
l t
- Mr. McCluskoy stated'that JC, had already turned around. C0 does not appear i
t to recognise this.
I
[
Dr. Hann stated that we are concerned with,the system.
y Mr. Engelken stated that CO has observed some i.y...
,ts in the surveillance area.
i Dr. Thompson emphasized theijmportance of developing a strong managonant
~
policy. Regarding audits, he recommended that JC may desire to study the SRP audit systemi which he considered one of the best. He urged that JC go out and.look at other companies for their systems of management controlsand e.
audits. Hr. Davier stated "I think we lmt the picture".
Dr. Hann stated that, as an outgrowth of the last few inspections, a letter 4,s..
[
vould be sont to JC addressing to C0 concerns sad noncompliances f
Dr.,n /
z.
ompson re-emphasised that he believed in nuclear power, its safety and potentially strong place in our future.
J Mr. T$rowbridge stated that the specifics were avoided.. He asked if the specifics would be in the letter, Dr. Hann stated that_ the specifies have previously been given to JC; the specif--
icskereonlyasymptomaticoftheprobism.j g
\\
'..et Dr. Thompson stated that the protection of the public was mandatory. He d..
further added that he did not recall getting a pat on the back from CO when..:
things were going right, and he always noted a lack of C0 comments during
,c, such timos, and the converse if otherwise, Dr. Thompson again referred to
.. i ',
the SLI incident and then stated that at 0C-1 it's not the individual items 7'
'NJ that are of concern to us, it's the overall conearn, the larger picture.
Dr. Thompson than stated that he had other commitatants and excused himself.(.QJ from the meeting.
j Mr. T$rowbridge questioned the ma=MaF of abnormal occurrence in the context '.. ~
of reporting when appropriate.
i
' ~ br. Mann referred to the control rod drive problem where the drive ins y
timo increased due to pluggage of the drive inner filters and stated that such safety significant problems certainly were appropriate for reporting no T
..h matter what th'e. license words said. He stated, for example, that in the i
event of a generator trip, while operating at full power and a scram delay yy's m,4.,.
e, CO REPORT No. 219/70-S'
.sm,. u,,7.#r a,..,
.R
/
Addendum'11
[
.l
(..
{. ".
g'.
- Page1 4,of. 5}.., ages.,
- .f;
(
l,,.
4_.J
,h i 3
)
~
s
' t
\\
5-occurred, this could be a serious probica safety-wise with the core involving both JC money and public safety. Ha emphasised that ABC wanted a report in all such matters.
[
Hr. McCluskey stated that he wanted an understanding relative to what is intended regarding reporting, j
)
1
- l Mr. Ekovholt stated the AEC vants to be informed about unusual events. He -
I,*
stat' d that the licenso word's could be changed to make this more clear. He e
i-k-
s'tated that reporting sust be responsives too much reporting would be better s
than too little. He stated that anytime JC.has a question or doubt regarding whether or not a matter is reportable, call C0 for guidance and resolution.
Dr. Hann stated that we can improve the words in the license.
Mr. T!)rowbridge stated.that he was now understanding the intent regarding
\\
reporting.
Dr. Hann stated that we don't ask for reports just because we ara regulators.
Reports focus the responsive attention of AEC on problems, help to short stop potential problems and permit appraisal by AEC regarding applicability to other facilities.
j Mr. Skaholt stated that JC has not been' responsive to reporting, even the
~.
normal semian= al report was overdue. This report has not been submitted
,. x by JC as is clearly required by the license.
Hr. McCluskey stated that they have had a problem in the area of their l '.
technical organir.ation.
~
Dr. Hann.ststed that the technical organization weakness has boon a problem
?
for years..He stated that,he did not understand this, for both safety and 5
economy, JC'noeds a strong technical organisation at both the site and at CPU. Dr. Hann asked Mr. Bovier if JC was going ahead with the second Oyster 7
Creek. Hr. Bovier replied "Yes".
? p',.
3 z
y.
Dr. Hann stated that he would hate to have these some probidas-in-the future.5 '
~
,-;ci-Dr. Hann asked if there were any additional matters to be discussed. - None ware / indicated.
'~
/.
.,, r if jU She nesting adjourned at 9 11:20 a.m...
.r' c
r
.,. ~.
3 i
"' ' *)?,
D. L. Cephton l
+",e
.?
lx Reacter Inspector.
,l l
f 3
,(
- g.,.-
.i :
".4,'
(
-T CO REPORT'.NO.! 219/70-5 i
[
Addendum.1 -,
\\
-Page
- 5. of 3 pages.
..., 1 f
/
('
')
S*
i w
/
May 20, 1970 - Letter from Dr. P. A. Morris, Director, DRL to Mr. R. H.
Sims,
Vice President, JC outlining additional surveillance requirements for the control rod drives and future r ep orting requirements of the AEC when and if operational difficulties are experienced with control rod drives.
June 2. 1970 - Letter from Mr. Ivan R. Finfrock, Jr., Manager, Nuclear Generating Stations to Dr. Peter A. Morris, Director, DRL, provided a tabulation of scram times for all rod drives under both the ambient and ope rating pressure conditions. These scram times were conducted on May 15,1970 (ambient)and on
[
May 22, 1970 (1000 psig). The stall flows for all drives were also provided.
I B.
Main Steam Isolation Valves (MSIV's)
March 20, 1970 - Letter from Mr. George Kelcec, Manager, Generating Stations to Dr. Peter A. Morris, Director, DRL, describing main steam isolation valve leakage test results conducted on February 1, 1970. Three of the four main steam isolation valves were reported to have leaked in excess of the technical specifications requirements. The letter also reported that all four main steam isolation valves were repaired and met all Icakage requirements prior to the resumption of plant operations on February 12, 1970 This main steam isolation valve testing was a followup to the December 24, 1969, Ritter to Morris letter committing JC to retesting of the MSIV's prior to February 1, 1970.
June 3, 1970 - Letter from Mr. Ivan R. Finfrock, Jr., Manager, Nuclear Generating Stations JC to Dr. Peter A. Morris, Director, DRL, describing MSIV leakage test i
o results from tests conducted between April 21,1970 and May 14, 1970 The letter
\\
disclosed the failure of two of the four MSIV's to meet the technical specification
\\
leakage requirements. Valves were repaired and retested and all valves met j
\\
the specified Icakage rate prior to resumption of operation.
5 Organization C
March 25, 1970 - A meeting was held between Commissioner Thompson, Regulatory representatives,and representatives of JC, to discuss regulatory concerns in the area of technical staffing at OC-1 and Corporate Management involvement in the plant's operation.
April 3, 1970 - Letter from Mr. George Kelece, Manager, Generating Stations, JC to Dr. Peter A. Morris, Director, DRL, answering Dr. Morris' letter of Feb-ruary 12, 1970 requesting JC plans for operator retraining.
\\
D.
Core Spray and Reactor Nozzle Inspections
\\
May 14, 1970 - Meeting in Headquarters with DRL, JC and GE staff to discuss res,ults of metallurgical investigation of " boat" sample removed from north core spray nozzle safe end overlay cladding.
\\
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHI COMPANY
\\
(
Addendum 2 Page 2 of 4_
pages.
L
g
._.a s
f\\. ;)
)'
e June 16, 1970 - Letter from Mr. Ivan R. Finfrock, Jr., Manager, Nuclear Generating Stations, JC to Dr. Peter A. Morris, Director, DRL describing the results of the nozzle PT inspections JC conducted at OC-1 following a core spray nozzle cracking problem experienced at Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station.
The letter stated that the safe end cladding on the North and South core spray nozzles, control rod drive hydraulic return line nozzle, a'nd the two isolation condenser nozzles had been PT inspected. The letter discussed the nature of observed linear defects detected in the overlay cladding on the north core spray nozzle.
E.
Instrunent Line Excess Flow Check Valves April 3,1970 - Letter from Mr. George Kelccc, Manager, Generating Stations, JC to Dr. Peter A. Morris, Director, DRL reporting that a leaking instrument line had resulted in the closure in an excess flow check valve. This letter also disclosed what instrumentation sensors were involved and stated that JC review of the event disclosed that both isolation condensers would not have been automatically placed in service upon receipt of a high reactor pressure during the period the excess flow check valve was closed. This loss of automatic protection was reported to be due to a design deficiency.
JC was currently reviewing the required circuitry changes with GE to make the necessary corrections.
F.
Amendments to the Application May 5, 1970 (Amendment No. 54) - The amendment pertains to the reactor vessel internals vibration measurements program discussed during the DRL - JC staff meeting conducted Oct o ber 31, 1968, discussed in amendment No. 48 which was filed on November 8,1968, and also discussed in the letter from Dr. Peter A. Morris to Mr. George Ritter dated October 27, 1969. Amendment No. 54 outlined the re-sults of the cold upon vessel vibration measurements testing that had been con-ducted at OC-1 and stated that all measurements were within the expected range.
Based on these test results, the satisfactory vibration measurements conducted at full power and pressure at the KRB reactor in Germany, operational experience to date, and the results of design calculations, GE and JC believe that any vibration of the reactor vessel internal structures during hot operation are well within acceptable limits. JC also stated that this belief will be fully
\\
confirmed by hot vibrational testing at other reactors which were scheduled for testing later this year. Due to these tests and other planned tests which will confirm the hot vibrational adequacy of the OC-1 reactor internals, no vibration
\\
testing of the OC reactor vessesl was planned.
\\
May 5, 1970 (Amendment No. 55) - The amendment contains information to support the operation of the OC-1 facility at a reactor power of 1690 Mwt and a request for a change to the provisional operating license to allow operation at this power.
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPAhY Addendum 2 Page 3 of 4 pages.
\\
C
s 0
)
/
May 21,1970 (Amendment No. 56) - The amendment pertains to the JC study of the primary system Icak detection equipment at OC-1 which was in response to the ACRS Ictter to JC dated December 12, 1968.
JC concluded from their study that from the operational experience to date, more sensitive leak detection equipment would not appear to be warranted or would offer significant improvements.
.i June 2, 1970 (Amendment No. 57) - The amendment provides errata, changes and additions to amendment No. 55 and also contained evidence that a copy of' amendment No. 55 (requesting an increase for power) had been served on the j
chief executive of the municipality or the county in which the OC-1 facility is.
located, in accordance with Section 2.101(b) of the AEC Rules of Practice I
This latter inclusion was made in response to Dr. Peter A. Morris' letter to JC dated May 13, 1970 concerning this subject.
G.
License Change Request June 24, 1970 - Letter from Dr. Peter A. Morris, Director, DRL to Mr. R. H. Sims, :
VP, JC requesting a schematic diagram of the proposed modification (change request No 2 dated November 25, 1969) which would allow the intermediate range monitoring system to perform part of control rod withdrawal prohibit function of the source range monitoring system.
H.
Miscellaneous April 2,1970 - Semi-annual report submitted for period from May 3,1969 to December 31, 1969.
)
April 16, 1970 - Letter from Mr. D. R. Rees, OC-1 Project Manager, GPU to Mr. D. J. Skovholt, Assistant Director, DRL, transmitting "A Determination of MPH Flood Height for Oyster Creek Units 1 and 2".
This report was submitted in accordance with a DRL ' telephone request.
1 i
i JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPAhT i
Addendum 2 l
i Page 4 of 4 pages.
L
v.-
t p Alley Stool Nozzlo
.~
s' y
- g-.
. '. ~.
,g
.cq,4 :,( '
^
St inidss Staal Field Wold s
m Inconel Shop Weld I
, f ' '.. '
[r
.\\
..o, r Inconel Cladding N
n 1-New Non-Sensitized Type
- Rernainder o'f 304 Safe End 6
Sensitized Safe End t,.
6 i
l' Stainless Steel
~
~
t Field Weld
+
v t
~5 V.
,V j,, L x
4 h
(
y g-tw. v o-M
)
.s
.^'y
/
\\
s t
\\
')
s I / / /1. N N
n m.xuu w &'
h o/
gA usu,-mA
,.''j
(
I
'l
.g
~
,_ Type 3084 Stainless.
Stainless
)
Steel Pipe
.]
Steel Cladding s.
j V-?,. -
i-In:onel Tie-In Cladding f
Thermt1 Sleeve
s Shop Deposited, Stainless
?
Steel Cladding I '
~
Figure 3
. Safe End Cladding Typical of Core Spray and CRD Return Nozzles 7
~
(*..
3, 6'
CO
- REPORT No. 219/70-5
N
- i' j 4 dendum 31'.,,
C
. -. -