ML20107B330
Text
. -
j
' UNITED ST ATEs
. Nb
' ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
. \\ i }
f, Of RE CTO R A TE Off REGULATORY OPER ATIONS
. D;~9 1 REGION t.
l 970 BRO AD STREET --
j (f
NEW ARK, NEW JERSEY 07102
]
April 23, 1973 I ames P. 0'Reilly, Director J
. Region.I, Directorate of. Regulatory Operations MANAGEMENT ' MEETING PLAN h'ITH JCP&L 05 APRIL 24,1973 Organization JCP&L is owned by GPU, a holding. company which also owns the Metropolitan l
Edison Company. JCPWL has corporate offices in Morristown, New Jersey; however,-'the offices of the Generating, Department are located in Parsippany, New Jersey.
Dr. S. Bartnoff is the President; Mr. R. H. Sims is Vice..
President and signs requests for-license changes.
Mr. I. R. Finfrock is Vice President of Generation (do not know relationship between Mr. Sims
-and Mr.'Finfrock)~.
Mr. D. A. Ross is Manager, Nuclear Generation and reports to Mr. Finfrock.. Mr. J. T. Carroll is Station Superintendent and raports to Mr. Ross.
Attending for JCP&L Dr. S.-Bartnoff, President Ivan R. Tinfrock, Vice President, Generation Don A. Ross, Manager, Nuclear Generation T:: J. McCim.kg, Otnie.. Cg:r'"St Region I J. P. O'Reilly i
R. T. Carlson F. S. Cantrell
%-Gr-0311ftra s
- 3 r c,...
Purpose To discuss results of the R0 inspection of the Oyster Creek Environmental Monitoring Program on February 28 - March 7, 1973, and the apparent break-down in management controls.
(Dr. Bartnoff was personally responsible for
' initially setting up Oyster Creek's Environmental Monitoring Program).
Meeting Agenda On April 13,.1973, JCP&L management was requested to meet with RO:I to discuss the above findings. Ygu,are scheduled to meet with Dr. Bartnoff to' discuss our overall concerns Siith JCP&L's management of Oyster Creek. Following your meeting, we willl discuss the results of the February 28 - March 7,1973 environmental inspection.
9604160225.960213 PDR FOIA DEKOK95-258 PDR es w w
Background Information See attached Enforecment History.
When Schlesinger became Chairman of the Commission we were asked to briefly evaluate the operating plants.
I~
We stated that we had had initially serious concerns about Oyster Creek because of minimum operating experience and staffing; however, following the meeting with the late Commissioner Thompson, JCP&L had reorganized and increased their staff both at the plant and the engineering office.
You were plagued with equipment problems, but we felt you had the staff to evaluate the problem, and establish a program to prevent recurrence.
We felt that you had an adequate radiation protection and waste management program.
The JC staff was informed of our assessment and I think you made it a good evaluation, however, we have had:
1.
Concerns about number of abnormal occurrences at the plant during thepastyear(30f).
2.
Concern about the number of repeats (i.e., isolation condenser failure, exceed curie limit outside storage tank, common mode failure on standby gas treatment system and liquid poison system, etc.).
3.
Concern about depth of investigation of these A0 and quality of reports (i.e., containment spray pump, MSIV close switch).
4 In discussions of these individual problems, you appeared responsive and the creation of a new position of Assistant Superintendent relieved some of our concern in that he would be in a position to provide additional coordination and followup of efforts.
5.
This position became vacant about as soon as it began to function.
i 6.
A number of items in the November - December inspection indicated lack of management control (i.e., frequency of surveys, changes without proper evaluation (fork truck); tank 1cvel alarm not set as stated by your letter reporting another violation).
A special inspection of radiological conditions was conducted at Oyster Creek February 13-16, 1973, as a result of allegations received concerning radiological condicions at the site. Ten categories of violations and two categories of safety items were identified. A meeting was held in the RO:I i
of fice on March 3,1973 with Messrs. Finfrock, Ross, McCluskey and Sullivan to discuss the apparent loss of management control. An enforcement letter was issued March 7, 1973 and an acceptabic reply was submitted March 27, 1973.
j
. ~.-..-
_.m s
,o r
3-J
)
Corrective action on all items was verified as having been completed or
'l initiated during a special inspection April 18-20, 1973. Licensee is recruiting to build up the health physics staff, is disposing of solid waste, has made tremendous strides in decontaminating and cicaning up rad waste. ' Design of modifications to'the rad waste faci'.:y is in pro,gress
.as previously reported. Changes were effected April 1, 1973 in sensor j
station management' involving the station superintendent, and the Operations Supervisor, however, the station still does not have an assistant superintendent.
It.-is my opinion that Oyster Creek will continue to have "The s e 4*we-type' Problems until the superintendent gets help at his level. No items of noncompliance were identified, however, the licensee reported two overexposures (>3 Rem) during the first quarter 1973.
1
.s The licensee has applied for a full-term license, a hearing board has been appointed, however, no date has been set for a hearing (two intervenors). The licensee has also applied for construction permit for Forked River 1.
The hearing has been held, but a decision has not been rendered.
-/-
9,< r d.ff.-
Floyd S. Cantrell Reactor Inspector 4
Facility Operations Branch 1
4 4
s i
H
)
1 1
e 4
,,,n--
--n.
n, w