ML20107B811
Text
__
I i
3942
- f. : {: ;
- 1 J. 3. Neederson, Chief, Reactor coastasetion Bramsh. Divisies of Compliamee, EQ
~
JERSEY GErfRAL 70mm AND Lim CtBEpANf, FORRID RIVIE 1 DotMET Wo. 50-363 The attached report of the managesset interview with Jersey Central Power sad Liabt conspeay concerning the initial quality assersace in-spection of'the Forted River 1 project, held on January 4,1971, by H. M. Howard and R. F. Heishusen is forwarded for action.
'Ihe applicant was receptive and indicated that corrective action uns coinpiste in all but a few areas and wea rapidly approaching coopic-l tion in all areas.
J An early inspection in planned to dotemine if the completed program meets the intent of Appendix B.
4 E. H. Haward Senior luiactor Inspector Enclosuret CO Report No. 363/71-1 by R.11aishman, dated /^/71 i
1 l
h
\\
omes >
co.; _
su===d... war 4g,4
,,f,.,.2/2/71..............
- Form Atc.no (a.v.ss) Ascx 024o a v...........,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,
j 9604170085 960213
~-~~-~m
~~~ -
~
p-'
s
, L,'.
g /.
Gy,a L Q.,. a-n c o._t.
,,,,# +,;
UNITED -STATES
/g\\pg ATOMIC ERERGY COMMISSION g 7.)p VASHINGTON. D.C. 20545 c-s e/
om JAN z a iun -
T'
.}q J. P. O'Reilly, Chief, Reactor Testing and Operations Branch, CO
-JERSEY CDURAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (0YSTER CREEK) - DOCKET NO.50-21p Enclosed is-the re k t5of our speciaf h etion of man M isystems-employed by the subject licensee 'to assure the safe operation of their Oyster Creek facility and to assure compli,ance with their operating license. Tne inspection was conducted on October 13-16, 28 and 29,
~g' and November 5 and 6, 1970.
In~our view this was.an important inspection - one which was' unique in our program with regard to ccope and thrust. Furthermore, this inspection was sufficiently revealing to permit an overview of this -
licensee to a degree heretofor unavailable. It was also exciting to conduct.
WhatwaslearnedofJerseyCentral(JC)andtheiroperationofOyster Creek follows: -
1.
There has been a basic charige for the better in management's attitude;,
'2.
'. jnizational changes have been implemented that are reflective of their current thinking and are responsive to Compliance's previously identified concerns; 3
As a result of.the above., management is nov more actively involved and is in a position to act from a knowledgeable base;
'4.
They are genuinely interested in improving their image with regulatory and are desirous of being responsive to Compliance's concerns.
In summary, JC has come a long vay since the early days and, although there are still shortcomings evident, they have definitely turned the r-corner with regard to attitude and performanca. Of course, only time vill tell of the lasting effectiveness. The principal shortcomings identified were:
1 p
o
,l s
.;g s
~
a
..s.
J. P. O'Reilly ggy, 9 37; Performance oflGORB, including specifically the audit function;
' l '.
..s 2.
Performance of PORC; l
3 Administration of the surveillance testing program; 4.
Administration of the maintenance group operation; 5
JC's program for benefiting from experiences at other facilities;
~
/
- 6.
- The current limited involvem'ent of GPU (technical support).
At the time of this inspection, vc had the impression that definite improvements vill be seen with regard to items 1, 2, 3, and 5 Item'4 may require additional special attention on our part. Item 6 is influenced in part by the current GE involvement. It remains to be seen what vill happen when they are out of the picture. In any case, a followup on all of these matters vill be provided' by the assigned.
inspector.
With regard to our evaluation of individuals, the Sims and Finfrock moves definitely strengthened the organization - both persons impressed us as being intent on and capable of doing a good job (speaking from Compliance'spointofview). Hirst cameout looking the vorst. With regard to his role as Chairman of GOR 3, he ca=r across as being mostly "BS" and an amateur at that. The assignment of Hetrick as Vice-Chairman of 00RB partially compensates. Verrochi left us a little cold. At the site, Ross and Carroll are the main strengths. Each.left us with the impression of having a genuine interest in operating the plant safely and within regulatory requirements. McCluskey is involved more in the operation of the plant than before, but is still heavily reliant uponhisstaff(Rossprimarily)fortechnicalguidance. Riggle is just not on top of his job and is in need of assistance, at least until he can get organized.
j A general observation regarding the plant organization - they have had a turnover of personnel in all key positions except that of station superintendent. Those on the present staff for the most part have their sights set on the right objectives. What they need most now is a period of stability in personnel so as to be able to realize the benefits of continuity of coverage.
With regard to the incorporation of this type of inspection in our overall program, it is our recommendation that this be done. Further-more, it may be appropriate to consider strengthening or elaborating e
a e
me y
?-
- =w=.e=*,we+-es
,,,,,me,-.wasm..
-w we=
.7__
-. ?(..
o.4 i
- ^$
~
J.:P.E0'Reilly i :
^
L 2
' the' current regulatory requirements relating to contents of FSAR's U
-[10 CFR 50 34(b)(6)(i.i.)'. The details as to the timing and frequency,,...
j' l
ofinspection,51nconjunctionwithanyparticularutility(oneormore' ~
^
r nuclear plants'at one or more sites), need to be worked out;-however, consideration should be given the following.
-Once prior to the issuance of the. initial, operating;1icense;-
. l.
2...Again at a point about one yea.r into plant opera' tion; L
- 3. ' Periodically thereafter at 3 to 5 year intervals; v
j-4.
Anytime there is a major reor6anization within the utility.
It is important to recognize that there are'some "must"' ingredients
[
. that go into the planning and conduct of.an inspection of this type.
q.
One can very easily get a false picture without them. Tney include the following:
{
l.
Utilization of experienced inspectors who are knowledgeable,of L
.the performance history of the organization being inspected, i.
including the individuals therein.
Prop'r preparation both.of individuals and the. team. This means 2.
e j
more than that which can be^ accomplished on the plane.en route.
As a minimum, this suggests several full days of preparation for individuals and one day for a team get-together.
i I
3 Maintaining sight of the inspection objectives throughout the conduct of the inspection; r
4.
Probing of each area being inspected from all conceivable angles.
WorkinS in pairs in certain areas can be quite helpful; 5
Asking the same questions relating 'to any one subject of as many i
persons as possible having involve =ent with that subject; 6.
Listening very carefully to what is being said and understanding what you are hearing. Oftentimes it is the composite view that
,.i..
tells the story; 7.-
_Being prepared with and using specific excmples to test the various i
systems bei'ng inspected. The more this can be employed, the'better the results; 8.
Recognizing at the outset that many of the areas to be inspected i<,
'are subjective in nature and that there vill be a need to maintain perspective with regard to the observations made;
,3 E
5
?
4-j;"
~-
J. P. O'Reilly
- . 9.. The allottent of sufficient time in which to conduct the inspec-tion and allowance for the'possible nee,d for additional. time.
i We are prepared and would be pleased to-discuss the above in more detail should you desire.
]
i T.
'Senioi Reactor Inspector Division of Compliance, Region I
- d. G. Keppler Senior Renctor Inspection Specialist Division of Compliance, Headquarters
Enclosure:
CoEpt219/70-8 ccv/ enclosure:
A. Gicabusso, CO L. Kornblith, Jr., CO R. M. Enge1 ken, CO e
g 9
0 4
-~~. '5h m
b W
i'- -
_m.,_
g
4
.s
- -~ **
.g.
}
.,e C0 Report No. 219/70-8 January 13, 1971 DIVISION 0F COMPLIANCE
-i INSPECTION OF MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS I
v r
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (0YSTER CREEK)
Docket No. 50-219 Inspection Conducted:
October 13-16, 1970 October 28-29, 1970 November 5-6, 1970 l
l I
l i
_ lJGovijoO W 3/PP
~ l
4-t-
k
,t TABLE OP CONTENTS i
A.
B a c k g r o un d...................................................
1 4
g B.
Ob j ec t i ve s...................................................
1 C.
Plannin g and Or ganisa tion....................................
1 D.
Utilisation of Manpouer......................................
2 E.
Principal Persons Contacted..................................
2 F.
C on c l us io ns..................................................
3 G.
Ins p ec t io n Res ul ts...........................................
3-24 1.
Inspection at S1te.......................................
3-15 s
a.
Problem Identification In Review of Plant 3
Operation and Testing................................
b.
Eeview and Evaluation of Identified Probleme Including Follow-up Action...........................
5 c.
Availability and Utilization of Technical Support P e r so r.n e 1............................................
6 d.
Perfornance of the Plant Operating Review Comaittes (P0RC).....................................
6 e.
Performanes of the General Office Review Bosrd (0023)
As Viewed from Site Inspection..............
8 f.
Licensee's Review and Evaluation of Probleme-st Other Raactors, Including Follow-up Action...........
8 g.
Present Status, Plans, and Criteria R31sted to Plant Staffing.......................................
9 1
/
h.
Implementation of Operator Retreining Progree........
10 1.
Reviav and Approval of Facility Changas in.iceordrnce with AEC 3agulatione (10 CFR 50.59).................
10
- j. Systets for Assurin3 Adequa:y of Facility Procedures and for the Trcining of Peroonnel in thes e P ro cedar 1a.................................. 11
. ~....- -
~
4 S*
- 1..
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
~ '
- f. age, k.
System for Assuring Implementation of Required
]
Surycillance Test Program............................
12 1.
Adminiatretive Con:rols Relating to Plant FasintananC3..........................................
13 m.
Managensat Direction and Support - As Viewed from Sita Inspsetion.................................
13 n.
Darcary Fasting with Site Management.................
14 2.
Inspection r.t Hansgement Offices.........................
15-21 l
a.
Managensa: P.eview of Plant 0psration.................
15 b '. Technical Support of Picat Operation by C?U..........
17 c.
Pe rfo r=anc e o f th e Gor 3..............................
19 d.
- .icensea'a Ravier and Evtluction of' Pro'olems a0
?thar Raactors, Including Follow-up Action...........
21 innage:nent Diroccion nd Support Kelating to i
e.
Pinnt C.oratior.......................................
- 11 3.
Sur.x.ry 1:seting with Compac.; P:ssident...................
32
'!. Summary Lis ting o f linje r Cash:.2ccca..........................
25 4
1 I
1 e
+
w
/J.
^U y_
.sg
_1 i'
/.. techaround The Division of Compliance conducted a 'special inspection of the manage-ment'o'ysteas employed by the Jersey Central Power and Light Company (JC) 1 to obtain information on the adequacy of these systeam to assure the safe operation of their Oyster Creek ~ boiling water reactor facility.
The inspection, which is in addition to the Division of Compliance's normal inspection program, was conducted because of recent problean j
esperienced at oparating reactors that can be attributed to lack of management attention. This licenses was selected for the first inspec-tion of this type because of their past performance record and to assess l-the action taken by JC managensat in response to Complianco's enforce-ment letter dated September 9,1970..
Similar inopections of this type are planned for other operating po:fer j
reactor facilities.
~
i B.
Objectivas i
The primary objective of the inspection was to obtain information regarding the implementation and etfactiveness of the u.anageanent systsac acployed by JC for their Oyster Creek facility to assurs j
co=pliance trich their license and for auditing and evaluating the eefety of operations.
A secondary objective trac to determine the need for broedening the l
scope of ths Compliance inspection program at other operatinC power reactor facilities.
C.
Plc.nning tni Crganize.tica The incpection team was composed of three senior Compliance inspectora:
1 I
Mr. R. T. Carlson, Senior Reactor Inspector, C0:I
{
Mr. J. C. Keppler, Senior Reactor Inspectica Specialict, CD:HQ Mr. F. J. Nolcn, Senior Reactor Inspection Specialist, C0:HQ The major features of the inspection were as follows:
1.
The inepection keyed on tr.nagensat systa as relatins to nuclecr 4
j safety.
2.
The inspection recognised that some of the areas inspected had been reviewad, st least in part, during the coureo of the norcel CO-inspection progrca.
1 I
I
.l
9
..e*
q 2-l 4
1 3.
The inspection effort recognised that absolute standards do not exist at this time for evaluating annagement's performance.
4.
The-inspection findings were based on extensive interviews with j
cognisant representatives of JC and General Public Utilitiac (GPU),
j supplemented by a review-of pertinent documentation. As a.further cheek, specific examples were selected ~ and " walked through" in order to test the' effectiveness of thase management cyste:na.
j '
i Intervious conducted within the operating organizatica ar.ccapassed j
all levels of responsibility from the equipment opstr.tcr to ths Company President..
l 5.
The pertinent inspection findings. have toen discussed trith licensee uanagement representatives.
)
C.
Utilisation of Manpower The inspection team spent 11 man-dcyc on-site and five enn-dsys at tha acna::ssant/angineering offices in Parsippany, New Jersey. Folloeir.;
the inspection, a summary mesting was held with Mr. R. 7. Bovior, j
Presideat. JC, at his office in Morristown, New Jersey. L e inepac-tion uen conducted between October 13 and November 6, 1971.--
i E.
Princioal Persons Contacted l.-
Jersey Central Power and Limht Company i
i Mr. R. 7. Bovier, President Mr. n. H. Sims, Vice President, Production Depart:2ent
,11r. I. L. Finfrock, Jr., Manager, Nuclear Generating Stationr Mr. T. J. McCluskey, Station Superintendent l
Mr. D. A. Ross, Technical Supervisor Mr. J. T. Carroll, Operations Supervisor Mr. E. Riggle, Maintenance Supervisor Mr. J. T. Sullivan, Assis tant Technical Engineer Mr. D. E. Kaulback, Radiation Protection Supervisor i
Mr. R. Pelrine, Chemical Supervisor Mr. R. McKeon, Shif t Poreman i
Mr. N. W. Cole, Shif t Foreman I
l General Public Utilities Corporation l
Mr. W. Verrochi, Vics President, Design and Construction Division Mr. W. H. Hirst, Manager of Projects and Chairman of CL3 Mr. B.- G. Avers, Quality Assurance Manager J
4 e
P!
1 v
+
u-wm g
- 3-p-y
_p'
.~
s,
,s General Public Utilities Corporation (cont'd)
Mr. D. 3. Hetrick, Manager, Plant,0perations and Testing, and Vice Chairman of GORB j
Mr. J. Thorpe, Manager, Safety and Licensing F.
Conclusions The results of this inspection of management systems indicate to the i
Division of Compliance that:
1 i
1.
The management reorganization,with JC, which took effect in
. April 1970, has resulted in active and knowledgeable participation in plant problems by licensee management.
J 2.
Whereas increased management attention was being devoted at Oyster Creek to improve the safety of operations and the noncompliance record for this facility, additional efforts are needed by JC to stabilise and thereby strengthen the onsite operating organiza-j ti u and to improve observed weaknesses in the performance of the j
reactor safety committees.
I i
3.
The recognized need for a change in Compliance's inspection effort and increased emphasis in the areas of management systems as they relate to the safety of operations was demonstrated.-
G.
Inspection Results i
The significant findings obtained from this inspection of management l
systems are given below. Organization charts depicting the Oyster j
Creek plant organization and the management organisction as it i
functionally relates to the Oyster Creek facility are provided as l
enclosures 1 and 2 to this report.
l 1.
Inspection at Site l
a.
Problem Identification in Review of Plant Operatton and Tes tina i
(1)
Interviews with Messrs. McCluskey, Carroll, Roos, and l
Riggle indicated there was close coordination of their activitisa in the day-to-day operation of the facility; l
however..the absence of documentation concerning the handlinE of specific problems traced by the inspection team was considered as being reflective of a high degree of informality, i
' " SUN
. /.;
J 7
,1 >
4-I (2) Thars was evidence to show that c working systas anisted in the dcy-to-day oparctions at Cyster C:sek for the identification of problems in the Opsrations Supervisor's areas of rsoponsibility. Extensive records wars being maintained and revie' red. Thses raccrds este noted to receive at least two layers of review. Although the systen for identification of problem ves forud to be effoetive in creas tsotod, at least one icportant instance was oboorved t;hers the comunicatics of problems to tha cp;ropricts levels of acnagement above the operation: Cupcrvioor usa inadaquata (i.e., s. pEtblegith hi n cor. tant 71n g
the drywc11).
Wstre -
1 h
a (3) Similar observation:: warc cads concerning probism identifi-cation with raepect to the Tschnical Supervisor *a cresa of
=caponcibility (core physicc, cociant cher.ictry, radiclogi-cal cafsty); howaver, dcily logs ucre not reutinely rsvieued by the Technical Suparvisor. First line supervicors usre hold responsibis for inforning ths Technical Supervisor of detected problacs. Ons not=rsethy and favorable observation tics that the T3chnical Supervisor tras parecnslly csintainins and raccrding dets on savsral cafsty related p6rccators to j
nonitor for tronde and long esm offects.
j l
i
.(4) /. discernible inch of edzticietectiva crgenisatien
- a:
i observad in the Maintenanca Sup3rvisor'r area: of re:pon-I cibility. The inepaction tsam foued no evidence of c
/
working nyetem : sitting to ths ravis,t of maintaatnce cetivitisc,and equipment perfortcnca, thersby rcisin3 e.matione ac to che cimaly idautificction of problems in i
thsaa arcac.
O) Mr. McCluck:y, Etction Cuperintondsnt, was in Wuhingten, D.C. ou cocpcref beoinese for the acjority of the eito inspection. B:ssa on intervisws wit'a the canior staff, the innpsetors concludad thct the Station Suparintendent maintsined servsillancs of ths dcy-to-day operationa primarily by meanc of vsrbel briefings from the senior staff.
He, in turn, ic reoponsible for the further revimi of thsas probless and coraunicctions of sama, as appro-printe, to higher management.
ts
~h p
~ ~ -
}
r
,., ?
'l b.
Revie:1 and Eve.luction of Identified Probismo Including Follow-tm Action (1) Dapending on the natur's of the prchis2 idsntiffsde ths inspectors found that prob 13:s pcar through one or core stagne of informal revic:t enrouts to recairing pcecible formal cencidaration. The licanesa ackacwledgsd chat filterin: action was inharsnt in thic procces.
(2) The dsteraination of the need for outsida tschrical aseistance in the resolution of identified problama ic nada by the Station' Superintendent cad /or seaccr: of his i
senicr staff.
Inspection findings noted that tha utiliza-tion of outside aseistance ucy or =sy not be handisd through written corroepondence.
(3)
The revie.1 end evaluation of probismo broug.: to the ct:entien of the senior staff for considsrctien Ars not doctnanted. Mr. McCluskey decida: thsthsr the r retica warrants fornci concidsrction by ths 73EC. Our inepc: tion findinsa indicated a potantici exista fer catterc to racaivt only informal considsra. tic in instencte tihsro for=al concidarction by ths F020, p:r ca, es; La in ordar.
Tha inepactore noted sevsral itestaccas unara, in thair judgnant, chis ecs the casa (a.g., tha d: cision :o con-tinus operation nithout ths TIP syctau: prob 12a? ancout-terad with the dryttell oxygen enclysse).
(4) The more ci;nificent ;.robicas rara feend to hevs reesivad review sa ; avslar. tis by th: P2', ths G',22, and the LEE ac cppropric:e3 in cccordanca uith the requirs:snte of the Technisci ipscific tionc.
(5) ca t;. ors pro'oix.o t hars folloi-up action una racotnended, ties follaring um noted:
(s) 7er choca prialar: that raro not docesantad, v:rifi-cetion of follow-up cetion slao nas not dccumented.
(t) The faileu-up cceion on tho e n:: tare raviewed forac117 by ths PCR0 has genercily b:,an varified inforac11y; however, etops have racontly bosn initistad by the Station Superint:ndsnt to for-mcliss this verification procsac.
4.Ap.
- - - - --~.
e, -
-w.
J
,.t o
4 (c) The follow-up action on matters reviewed formally F
by the 00RE, although more formal than that implied in G.1.b.(5)(b) above, has not been consistent.
Here, also, steps have recently been taken by the GORB to tighten up in this area.
c.
Availability and Utilisation of Technical Support Personnel i
(1) Interviews with the Station Superintendent and his senior s
i staff indicated that authority has been delegated to these people by upper management for the unlimited utilisation of consultants in support of plant operation.
(2)
It was noted that there continues to be considerable reliance placed upon GE primarily' outstanding contrac-tural matters; however, consultants have been and are being utilised in a number of areas related to the safety of plant operation.
l (3) Based 'on discussions with senior plant personnel, it was i
concluded that the role of GPU in the technical support of the Oyster Creek facility is limited. The indications -
were that the major problem is that, with few exceptions, the people within the GPU support group lack familiarity with the plant and are. therefore not in a position to contribute effectively. To the extent this subject could i
be reviewed at the site, the observations made in this area were in contrast to the statements made in Amend-ment 52, page 16, to the Facility Description and Safety Analysia Report. This reference states in part that:
"This group gives direct technical assistance and guidance to the operating staf fs once the stations go into operation."
d.
Performance of the PORC (1) The membership of the PORC is as follows:
Mr. T. J. McCluskey, Station Superintendent (Chairman)
Mr. D. A. Ross, Technical Supervisor Mr. J. Carroll, Operations Supervisor 1
Mr. E. Riggle, Maintenance Supervisor Mr. D. E. Hetrick, Hansgar of Plant Operations and 4
Testing, GPU, (GORE Member)
Mr. D. Rees, Oyster Creek Project Manager, GPU (00RB Member) e
~~**f
?..
.T
- 6 7
4 i
4 (2) Facility records indicate that there had been 66 PORC meetings as of the time of the inspection.
Twenty-two y
j of the meetings were held during calender year 1970.
(3) The inspection findings indicate that the more signifi-cant problems have received formal review by the PORC; i
however, a check by the inspectors of some 10 items j
designated as requiring follow-up action indicated that there was no formal system to assure follow-up of these items. Although the majority of the items were found to l'
have been given proper attention, two of them, both of i
which required action on the part of the Maintenance Supervisor, had not been completed satisfactorily. As previously stated, action has since been teken by the PORC to formalize verification of matters identified for follow-up.
I (4) One responsibility of the PORC, as defined in the Technical Specifications, is to " review plant operations i
to detect potential safety hasards." This requirement l
1s quite general and while the inspections found the PORC to be reviewing the more significant problems, there have been some instancas noted where, in the judgment of the inspectors, these matters did not receive formal review by the PORC (e.g., operation of the reactor with-out the TIP system; test failures with the diesel generator and 125 V d-c batteries).- This matter had been pursued j.
previously by CO with the licensee with some improvements j
noted.
(5) Sixteen PORC meetings have been held between the time of the previous site inspection and this special inspection.
One or both 00RB members were in attendance at only four of the 16 meetings (at a fifth meeting, one member was
/
contacted by telephone).
It should be noted that poor
/
attendance at the PORC meetings by the 00RB representa-l tives has been a recurring problem.
j (6) A review of the PORC meeting minutes showed them to be consistently lacking in sufficient detail to permit the GORB to determine whether matters reviewed by the PORC involved unreviewed safety questions.
In addition, the inspectors had some reservations as to whether all matters reviewed by the PORC were identified in the meeting' ainutes.
1 s
e i
w W
..u a__
""*W
.v..
~ _
y-,..
/,
e
- 4 o
,i (7) One area was identified wheroin it tres not clear that the licensee was meeting fully the intent of the Tech-nical Specifications, i.e., with regard to the respon-sibility of the PORC to investigate all reported instances of violations of the Technical Specifications.
Review in this area was not completed during this inspection. This matter has been identifiad for follow-up by the assigned inspector.
j Pe.formanca of the GORE - as Viewed from Site Inascetion 1
~
(1)
It was recognised at the outset of this inspection that the primary review of the 00RB performance would be made s.t the management offices. However, one important observation made at the site 10 a concern that the OCRO may not be setting the complets picture on the ocfety of operations for their concidsration due to the incomplate-ness of the PORC doctamentation. This concern was emeli-fled by the poor attendanco record of the assigned GORB members at the PORC meetings.
f.
Licensee'o Review and Evaluation of Problems at Othse Raattorc e Including Follow-up Action (1) There was no effective systen svident for incorporatina 1essons learned from experiences at other reactor facilicios I
into the operations at Oyster Cronh.
In thin regar$
questions were asked of a number of personnel at all lerals within the site organization regerding the recant ec:tr.-
rences at Dresden 2, Humboldt Eay and LACBWR.* All
{
personnel intervisued were awars of the Drasden ; eccur-rence. This particular incident did receive specia.?.
attention by management with respect to its applicc-bility to oyster Creek.
In contrast, not all of checa people were cognizant of the experience et Humboldt Eny and no one was evara of the occurrancs at LACBWR.
Furthermore, se'veral recent failures experienced with 4
engineered safety features at Dresden 2 were generally unknotm.
ecracJon 2 - Capressurisction Incident, J na 5,197C e
ihmbcidt hy - Loss of Offaits Power, July 17, 1970 LACBUa - D2 pressurization Incident, May ~ 15,1970 l
-w s
. -.-., a a..
", e q
s
-9 1
l i
\\
(2) Discussions with members of the senior staff indicated that a number of mechanissa are utilized to learn of j
pertinent experiences at other. facilities. These i
include Mr. Rees, and his various channels of communication with other facilities and attendanco ut pertinent professions 1 meetings (IEEE, EEI, occ.);
Atomic Energy. Clearing House publications; tenthly reports that are exchanged with some of the other utilities; matters brought to JC's attention through i
G2 or JC's consultants; information provided by
)
Compliance; and Reactor Operating Experience reporte (11r. McCluskey stated that, in his view, the latter would be of greater benefit if they were issued more j
timely). While a number of cources of information have osaa utilised, the offorto being expanded in this i
regard wars considered by the inspectors to be ineffec,
j tiva for the most part (based on item G.1.f.(1) above) j in that they were uncoordinated and with no organized approech uith respect to translation of follow-up a
actions applicable to the Oyster Creek operation.
3 Present Status, Plans and Criteria P. minted to Plant Stsffing (1) Discussions uith the Station Superintendent and his senior staff indicated that there has been a change in ths think-ing of upper management with regard to their understanding of the staffing needs peculiar to a nuclear power facility
- vs a conventional power plant. In tha judgment of the l.
inspectors, this change in thinking has been motivated at least in part by the discussions held at the March 25, 1970 j
meeting between JC and the AEC.
i (2)
In regard to ita= (1), changas made to dato include the
+
followings f
(a) The addition of 2 associate ongineers and 1 staff enginaer to the Tochnical Supervisor's staff.
t Rowever, it is noted that the position of Technicci Engineer is otill vacant.
(b) The addition of 1 staff engicssr to tha Cperations Supervisor's staff for the purpoca of ovor.:oairs the.overall surveillanco testing progrec.
(c) The addition of two Assistant T.chniciars to cort.4 both the Radiation Pratsetion Suporvicar cad tha 7l i
, ;,p _._ _, _ _.
_m e
. a chemical Supervisor. Alco one Instrument and Control Technician has been added.
j (d) An increase in~the numbers of peoplo in the operating organisation to a110:7 reorganising from
)
4 to 5 shift coverage following training and operator licensing as appropriato. This movs is expected to be completed prior to the end of 1970.
j (3) The discussions also revealed plans to further augment the plant staff. This, at least in part, in to serve 4
thm. future staffing needs at Forhed niver Unit 1.
Ths 11cansee emphasised the intent to avoid ths'problemo exparianced in the staffing of Oyster Creek.
i (4) Hertofore, the actual assignmut of racponsibilities to the senior members of the plant staff did act coincide j
voll with the job descriptions provided in the licanas application. This has been compounded by ths na'ce of a
personnsi changes made in theco positions cince tho issuance of the operating licanas. The inspectora noted that improvement has been made in this rsgard, i.o., $c individual staff job descriptions havs becoms more j
definitive; however, further improvonant vaa fot:2d t be in order.
h.
Implementation of Operator Retreining Proarea (1) A formalisad perconnsi competenes cad rstrcinics program had not boon implemented at the tice of tho inspsetion.*
A retraining progran plan had been dreftsd and tics trader review by licensee management.
Itpla-.satetion of tho i
retraining program use ocheduled to ctart bsforo chs and of the year, concurrent with the o. pancion of tho opsrc -
i ting staff to five shifte. The assignad racetor tropector (
l will follow-up on thic catter.
1.
Devicrf and Approval of Facility Channes in Accordrnca tid A3C Rsaulations (10 CF" 50.59) l (1)
Relatively few facility codificatior.: hed baan ent.a to data which involved c chcngs to the fccility fron t*2ct
- The licensee's letter to D3L on this oubject, datsd April 3, 370, estimated this program will begin in 1970.
i
[
I
f'.
'a
't -
9
. 4
)
described in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
Most of the changes that had been made were initiated by CE.
(2)
It was found that substantive changes to plant systems i
were being reviewed by the 00RB in accordance with Technical Specification requirements.
(3) Although an improved awareness had been exhibited by the licenses to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59, the documentation relating to the safety evaluation of j
these chanr s, in some cases, was found by the inspectors to be marginally acceptable.
1 Systems for Assuring the Adequacy of Facility Procedures _ and j.
for the Training of Personnel in these Procedures (1) The inspectors found that the licensee has a system which, when fully implemented, should assure the adequacy of the facility procedures on a continuing basis. The system includes the assignment of responsibilities to individual senior members of the plant staff. The shortcomings noted in this program at the time of the inspection were an follows:
(a) Each senior staff member assigns priority to his responsibilities in this area depending on how well L
he is "on top of hia job," e.g., essentially no action has been taken with regard to procedures assigned the Maintenance Supervisor.
(b) The PORC has been reviewing and approving procedures as required; however, they were currently backlogt;cd with a considerable nusbar of proposed procedure j
changes that had been processed to the peint requir-
+
ing their review and approval.
~
i (c) A time interval for periodic review of procedures had not been established.
(d) Not a11' procedures have been tested, including many in the maintenance area. Many of these procedures will be tested during the initial refueling outage.
l
- =w p g a
r-
- ,. A
' '. - f l
(2) The requalification of personnel relating to approved chansas in facility procedures consists primarily in.
the routing of the procedure to the pertinent personnol' for their review. A special form has been provided for this purpose which the individual initials to signify i
having read the revised procedure. This system does not assure complete understanding of the change or its basis, nor does it assure that the individual has in fact even read the procedure. The. inspectors acknowl-l odged that there are inherent difficulties in the periodic assembling of operating personnel from all 1
-four shifts for group discussions on recent procodurn ravisions; howevor, the need to develop a more offective means of requalifying personnel was apparent.
j k.
Systes for Assuring Implementation of Required Survoi.11anco i
Ts t Program (1) At the ctart of tha inspection, Mr. McCluskey revierod eith ths. inspectors the corrective actions that had been taken by JC to improva choir performance record at Oyster Creek. Mr. McCluskey noted at this time that tho one area where corrective measures had not been imple-l
]
me.nted fully was the area of surveillance testinc. Yna f
C0 inspection confirmed the presence of continuing f
i deficiencies in this area (discussed in CO Report No. 219/ 70-7).
I (2) The responsibility for nseuring adequate implementation l
of the survaillance testing program had been divided between operations, engineering and maintenance.
Mr. McCluskey stated that, in his view, this divided responsibility had contributed significantly to the previously identified inadequaciec in their prograN l
and that responsibility for surveillance testing was to be delegated solely to operations in November 1970.
Furthermore, Mr. McCluskey stated that a staff engineer position had been created within the operations group, and that this individual was to be assigned full time in the area of surveillance testing and would have the responsibility for carrying out the required progreu.
if Scveral items of noncompliance with Technical Specifications require -
ments in this area had been detected during previous CO inspections.
- w....,.-....
- f s....-
6
,. J t
-13 '
(3) Surveillance test results are reviewed.at the Instrument Foreman and Shift Foreman level, and are not routinely reviewed by the senior staff. Furthermore, it was noted that the system for maintaining and reviewing surveillance test results does not permit easy evaluation of changes or
~
trends.
l 1.
Administrative Controls Relatiina to Plant Maintenance (1) The principal means employed by the licensee to control plant maintenance work is a job order permit. These permits may be initiated by almost anyone within the plant organisation but all ' job orders are processed through the operating organisation and require formal approval by the Operations Supervisor.
It was noted that the permit requires a determination of whether the work will affect Limiting Conditions for Operation.
(2) The inspectors' revie's indicated that all important tmrk was being handled by this mechanism. Houover, it was noted that a potencial existed for some t*ork of a minor ncture to be parformed stithout the use of a tsork permit.
(3) An audit of the job order file and other mainten sce records by the inspectors revealed the following weaknasaes (a) Not all completed job orders had been signed by all l
responsible individuals as required.
l (b) The synten for maintaining and reviewing maintenr.r.ca j
test records fails to allow a determination of loar-term trende regarding equipment performance.
a.
Manage:sent Direction and Support - as Viewed from S4.te l
Inspection j
(1). In response to a dirset question, the inspectors t?cra informed by Mr. McCluakey that ~ management directivec relating to the operatioa of Oyster Creek are princrily verbal.
f (2) lir.1:cCluckey noted that he is in daily connunicatioa nith Mr. Finfrock and othars ca x::cra relating to the operc~
tion of the plant.
4 erke g v.--
o
+-
1 s
=
}.1._.. '...._ _
2
+
14-f (3) 11 hen questLened regarding what specific direction he i
received as a result of the March 25, 1970 meeting between JC and the ABC, Mr. McCluskey. stated that-
< subsequently Mr. Bovier held a meeting of pertinent management personnel at which Mr. McCluskey was present.
Mr. McCluskey stated that at this meeting he was instructed to (a) improve'the company image with the AEC and to (b) add depth and operating experience to the plant staff.
1 n.
Summary Heatina with Site Manasement A summary mooting was held by Messrs. Carlson and Keppler with Messrs. McCluskey, Ross, Carroll and Riggle at the conclusion of the site inspection on October 16, 1970. The objectives of the inspection including the related planning and organisa-tion, as discussed in Sections B and C of this report, were reiterated.
The major findings and observations reported in Sections G.1.s.
through m. tiere reviewed.
In addition, the following generci.
observations tiere made by the inspectors (1) The plant had been in operation for 18 months; however, JC was still organising their staff and systems which should have been fully in effect prior to plant startup.
The surveillance testing program and maintenance program were cited as specific examples of the latter.
Mr. McCluskey acknowledged this but pointed out that the problen taas not a result of inadequate efforts by JC to augment the staff or to upgrade their programs at Oyster Creek. He stated that significant efforts were being expended by JC management to complete the staff at the facility.
(2) Although evidence was noted of positive steps taken by JC to improve their performence at Oyster Creek, the inspectors stated that they questioned whether what JC
.has done is'sufficiently adequate and timely when con-sidered in light of recent experiences at operating BWR
- facilities., Mr. McCluskey stated that he heard the comments but.had no specific response. He indicated that the comments made by the inspectors would be taken under consideration.
l
-g' g
y-v +-
y-
+
1
-w,
.wi,-
y-
,s a i J (3) Contributing to the concerns stated above is a relatively high degree of informality or looseness sensed in the operating organisation. Mr. McCluskey stated that JC considered a certain amount of informality desirable and that they were opposed to operation by committee. He added that he did not feel the degree of informality was excessive; however, in view of the inspectors' comments and certain examples cited in this regard, Mr. McCluskey indicated that further consideration would be given to
, this concern.
2.
Inspection at Management Offices a.
Manamsment geview of Plant Operation (1) on March 25, 1970, a aseting was held by senior representa-tives of the AEC with the President of JC to review regulatory's concerns regarding the conduct of operations at Oyster Creek. Subsequent to this meeting, several important organizational changes were effected. These are as follows:
(a) Mr. J. Logan, Vice President, chose the option of early retirement.
(b) On April 28, 1970, Mr. R. H. Sims, Vice President, assumed the responsibility for operation of the i
l Company's Production Department.
In this position l
Mr. Sims has overall responsibility for JC's opera-ting power plants.
(c)
Mr. G. M. Ritter, Vice President and former Director of the GPU Nuclear Power Activities Group, has been assigned new responsibilities unrelated to the i.
Company's operating nuclear activities.
(d) Previously Mr. G. Kalcoc, as Manager of Generating Stations, had responsibility for both nuclear.and conventional plants. On April 28, 1970, Mr..I. R.
Pinfrock was named Manager of Nuclair Generating Stations, and Mr. Kalcoc was named Manager of Conventional Generating Stations.
l (e) A number of additions to the plant staff were made.
(See Section F.13).
j
{
'4 l
._v,---
~. -,.
g.,...
s
- q.
/
1,i (2) Mr. Finfrock is intended to be the focal point within JC management for handling important matters related to 1
Oyster Creek. He told the inspectors that when Mr. Bovier -
appointed him to this position he was verbally instructed i
te give priority to strengthening the Oyster Creek opera-ting and support function organisations and to improve JC's image with the ABC.
I (3) Discussions with Mr. Finfrock indicated that he is in daily telephone communications with Mr. McCluskey con-carning the status of the plant and current problems, and that he has been spending one day each week at the j
plant. In addition, it was learned that he has routine i
documented ca==unications from the site that include a i
daily plant operations summary, a monthly operations l
statistical raport, abnormal occurrence reports, minutes j
of telecons with the ABC, and PORC meeting minutes.
l Furthermore, Mr. Finfrock has instructed plant management j
to inform him of any problem related to the facility i
l license or any problem affecting plant capability.
Kr. Finfrock estimated that presently over 90 percent of' i
l his time was bein;; applied in support of the Oyster Creek facility and that within the next year he expected to add j
an assistant and four staff anaineers.
Basad on discus-samaa of-several actual and potential problems at Oyster l
Casek, ths.imapactora sancluded that Mr. Finfroch had estab11ahad offactive administrative controls for main-taining close surveillance of the operating program.
(
Notwithstanding. the inspectors noted one instance where l
Mr. Finfrock was not aware of a significant safety l
related problem; i.e., one of several occasions where high oxygen concentrations within the drywell vers experienced during operation.
i (4) Mr. Sims does not have a nuclear background or previous nuclear experience; however, he appeared to have an -
{
active interest in the Oyster Creek facility and is kept informed of significant developments daily through Mr. Finfrock.
In addition, Mr. Sims stated that he visits the site on a monthly basis to get first-hand knowledge with respect to reactor operations and signi-
~ficant problems being encountered.
i e
L h
l.
l
?
l.+-
9
)
4 (5) Mr. 81ss stated that Mr. Dovior is keenly interestod in significant developments at Oyster Creek and that he had been requested, follouing the March 25 meeting with the AgC, to ha kept inforned on important matters.
2 (6) _ Discusofons tiith.Hessra. Sins and Finfrock and.a review
' of specific documentation revealed that memoranda are preparod by plant personnel and distributed to management.
susmarising partiment information' relating to all Compli-anco impeccions and telephone inquiries.
In response to questiona concerr.ing what feedback JC management had received relating to the sito portion of this inspection.
{
Mr. Finfroch stated that two namoranda had been written 4
ainsaari= ins partinent' questions and observations made by the inspector: and that these tsare distributed to all 4
senior tent.uscant esprocentatives including Mr. Kuhns, President of GPU, at his requect. The inspectors revicticd thero mooranda trith Mr. Finfrock and found then to be ceprehensivo and reasonably accurate.
i p
b.
Technient Support of Pitne opinration by GPU j'
(1) gased on information provided in Amendment 52 to ths FDSAR plus ths imprescion communicated to regulatory reprecontativec during vcrious pro-licensing meetings t
(sttended by the inspectors) tho inspectors wara of the via*: chat GPU trotid be participating " heavily" in support of the day-to-day oporations at Oyster Creek.
(2) In vie:s of the abovo, the inepsetors discussed trith Mr. Finfrock the inage thay had received from senier sita porconnel to the effect that the role that GPU trac
. playing in support of Cyotor Creek ues limited.
i Mr. Finfrock a:: pranced sone surprise in this rosard and indicated that GPU was and had been involved in a number
,of important espects of plant operation (e.g., fual management, control rod drive modification, evaluation of Laolation condensor trip point setting). Although Mr. Finfroch's remarks indicated that GFU team involva?
to a greater oxtent than' the inspectors had thought,.
based on the site incraction, this involvament temo otill short of what the inspectors had expocted to ses.
4.
-e.
,i
's ? '
j (3) Interviews with Messrs. 'Varrochi and Finfrock indicated that the functions and personnel of the former GPU Nuclear Power Activities Group have been absorbed within the newly-formed GPU Service Company. ' his technical j
- support function is assigned within the Design and j
Construction Division under Mr. Verrochi. Mr. Verrochi j
conveyed to the inspectors the impression-that only a i
small portion of the Division's effort had been placed on techsical support to date and most of this had been in the areas of design and construction; however, he added that personnel wars available for technical support of the Oyster Creek facility, when needed, and that he had instructed his Division managers to provide assistance to Mr. Finfrock in any way they could. Mr. Verrochi also
' pointed out that, in recognition of GPU's current commit-ments in the nuclear field, an operations planning unit had been established within his Division. This unit, f'. N'd l which is headed by Mr. Retrick, will also have responsi-m' g bility within GPU for following reactor operations at Oyster Creek on a routine basis.
(4) The inspectors met with Mr. Avers to discuss the role that he, an Manager of Quality Assurance, has with respect to maintenance or planned modifications at Oyster Creek including specifically the applicability l
of the AgC's 10 Quality Assurance Criteria (10 CFR 50, t.ppendix B). Mr. t.vsrc stated that his group would be l'
involved in the in-service inspection program scheduled to be performed during the first refueling outage, but l
that he had no responsibility for quality assurance as j
it pertains to plant modifications or routine maintenance at Oyster Creek. The inspectora notod that the Quality l
Assurance group was not involved in the proposed modifi-
{
cations to the scram reset circuitry. In response te j
questions from the inspectors, Mr. Avero niso stated that his group has no responsibility for updating plant ei/ stem drawings. This indicated lack of automatic involvement at Oyster Creek on the part of the Quality Accurance group was discussed uith MR. Finfrock. Mr. Finfrock appeared surprised and said that he clearly understood that the
. Quality Aesurance group would be actively involvod at Oyster Croch.. Es ctated thct ha vould discuso the cattar
/
uith Mr. Avers to cloar cny ninunderetandinan.
[
t i-9 4
R
-e-_-,e w
y
e_-
l, s
i
, 5 3
c.
Performance of the GORB (1) The membership of the 00RB is as follows Mr. W. H. Hirst,' Manager of Projects, GPU (Chairman)
]
Mr. D. E. Hatrick, Manager of Plant Operations and Testing, GPU (Vice-Chairman)
{
Dr. T. M. Snyder, General Electric Company Dr. W. A. Sutherland, General Electric Company
}
Mr. W. W. Lowe, Pickard, Love and Associates Mr. D. R. Rees, Project Manager - Oyster Creek, GPU Mr. I. R. Pinfrock, Manager, Nuclear Generating 4
i Stations, JC (non-voting member)
Mr. J. Thorpe, Safety and Licensing, GPU (2) Pacility records indicate that there had been 19 GORB asetings as of the time of the inspection,16 of which l
were held subsequent to the issuance of the operating license on April 9, 1969. All members have had a good l
attendance record at meetings. A review of the more j
recent meeting minutes by the inspectors indicated that j
matters scheduled for review at meetings were receiving 1
adequate attention by the 00RB.
(3) Mr. Hirst told the inspectors that although Abnormal Occurrence Reports and Scram Reports are supplied to him.,
i not all are routinely distributed to all GORB members; however, he indicated that he saw to it that the impor-l tant ones were forwarded to each member.
i I
(4)
In view of the lack of detail provided in the PORC meeting minutes and the poor attendance record of the two assigned 4
GORB members at the PORC meetings, the inspectors inquired L
as to other means being utilised by the GORB to learn of important events relatin; to Oyster Creek. Mr. Finfrock i
stated that he has daily communications with Hesero. Hatrick Thorpe, and Rees concerning plant opera-tions. Also, Mr. Hatrick indicated that he has frequent telephone contacts with site personnel to supplement his knowledge.
It was learned that this supplementary info::-
astion is not provided routinely to the "outside" memb2rs of the GORB. The inspectore questioned that thin approach would appear to constitute en informal review of safety related matters by a partial committee as compared to the intended more formal revieu by the full ecamittee.
t
- SPs4 g
4 i
-20 i
i i
Messrs Finfrock and Katrick acknowledged that a certain amount of filtering is inherent in this approach but that they felt that.all important matters were ing brought to the attention of the full committee 4
(5) The initial revies of 00RB related correspondence revealed some missing meeting minutes. Furthermore, there appeared t
l to be a lack of written reports to the Company President of reported instances of violations of the Technical Specifications, as required by the Technical Specifications.
j-During this initial review, Mr. Hirst was out of town. The 4
inspectors met with Mr. Hirst on November 6 and asked to see the GORB files. Mr. Hirst, af ter considerable effort, l
was unable to produce.the desired documents. This matter i
has been identified for follow-up by the assigned inspector.
(6) The inspectors interviewed Mr. Eirst for approximately one hour. It wasn't long into this interview before it became readily apparent to the inspectors that Mr. Hirst's involve-ment, as Chairman of 00RB, was superficial. Furthermore, Mr. Hirst's understanding of his role as Chairman of GORB-and ths role of GOR 3, por se, appeared to fall short.of that intended by the Technical Specifications. 'Ibssa f
astters have also been identified for follow-up by the 3
escissed inspector.
f 3
(7) The quarterly audits of plant operations required by tho Tcchnical Specifications have not been performed by GORB, but rather have been performed by the GPU Quality Assurance-group. The GORB members sa7act the areas to be audited and
[
at least one of the GORD maabers 'ia assigned to the audit j
team. The 00RB also has requested rocently the.GPU - QA 3
audit group to verify completion of matters identified by the 00RB for folle:f-up, in an attempt to formalise verification of thess matters. An internal audit report is written following each audit which provides pertinent findings and recommendations for corrective actions ro,uired, s, record of action taken, and final signsff by a
the QA engineer. A revietr of the audit records by tho inspectors indicated that the scope of the audits tsas 1
quito narrow (e.g., one audit covsrsd a revier of cur -
veillance records for Limiting Safety System Setpoints; another covered logged operating data partsining to Limiting Conditions of Operatioc) and that ths audits generally covered one day.-
l l
.. ~. _,
- f*. u,_ ~ _*
t
.lN '
.{
f
- r i
j d.' Licensee's Review and Evaluation of Problems at Other Reactors.
Including Follow-up Action 3
l (1) In view of the information learned at the' site and reported in paragraph 6.1.g. of this report, the inspectors questioned management representatives whether any organised approach had been developed.on their part for learning of problems at other facilities and revienring their applicability to Oyster Creek.' Messrs. Finfrock and Metrick indicated that they and Mr. Rees have all tried to provide assistance in this regard but acknowledged that there was no focal point for assuring the adequate attention and related action regarding problems.
In subsequent discussions Messrs. Sims and Finfrock stated l
that JC would initiate action to utilize more fully the mechanisms available to them in this regard.
i e.
Mananament Direction and Support Balating to Plant Operations, j
h (1)
It was apparent to the inspectors that upper management i
became more involved with respect to activities at Oyster l
Creek following the March' 25, 1970, meeting between the AEC and Mr. Bovier. The evidence of this involvement is j.
reflected in the followings (a) The already accomp1hhed augmentation of the plant staff and the further changes (Paragraph G.1.g.).
r (b)
Creation of the position of Manager, Nuclear Genera-ting Stations and filling the position with an individual (Mr. Finfrock) who had considerable knowledge of Oyster Creek (Paragraph G.2.a.).
l (c) Assigning an individual (Mr. Hetrick) with consider-able knowledge of Oyrter Creek as Vice Chairman of GORB (Paragraph G.2.c.).
(d)- Daily briefings on Oyster Creek at the Vice President level (Paragraph G.2.a.).
(e) Notification of the Company President of important matters relating to operations at Oyster Creek (Parahraph G.2.a.).
I i
" Sb
- _. ~ - -
g.->
=
- r. -
%j t'
e l'
i
(
3 4
22-i 3.
gummary Mee* ins with Company President
{
A susmary meeting was held by Messrs. Carlson and Keppler with
. Mr. Sovier at the conclusion of the inspection on November 6,1970.
Messrs. Sims and Finfrock also participated in the meeting. The objectives of the inspection, including the related planning and organisation, as discussed in Sections B and C of this report.
were reiterated. The following additional introductory remarks were made by the inspectoret i
l
- a. - Oyster Creek had not been singled out for this inspection and 1
similar audits were being planned of other licensees.
I b.
his meeting was being held with Mr. Bovier because the inspectors had noted his personal involvement with Oyster Creek and thought that he would be interested in the inspec-a tors findings.
c.
The areas of ' inspection were subjective with no standard of j
i comparison. In this regard, the essessment was said to be j
i incomplete; i.e., it would be continuing as it encompassed other licensees.
d.
The inspectors commented on Compliance's favorable reaction to l
JC's response to the enforcement letter of September 9,1970.
I Mr. Bovier expressed pleasure at hearing this and stated that JC had made a particular effort to be responsive to the concerns of Compliance.
i i
The inspectors then proceeded to discuss the significant inspection observations in a chronological sequence. These are as follows:
a a.
The inspectors told Mr. Bovier that they were aware of the existence and content of minutes that had been prepared by Hessrs. McCluskey and Ross following the site inspection and which had been distributed to management, including himself.
he inspectors acknowledged that these minutes were compre-hensive and reasonably accurate and, therefore, they would defer further discussions on the site-related findings unless Mr. Bovier desired further clarification. Mr. Bovier stated i
he felt that he had a clear understanding of Coupliance's findings and observations from the site and that he did not require additional clarification of these matters.
]
1 M '
e esei e-+
.-o
._ f A
l
{
i-a b.
With respect to the inspection at JC's management offices, i
the observations made were presented in summary form as j
follows:
j (1) The inspectors stated they had a favorable reaction l
regarding the current organisation, particularly the performance of those responsible for the operations
' functions within management. h e inspectors added that this, in their judgement, represented a measurable improvement over previous observations made'in' connec-tion with Oyster Creek; however, it was pointed out that the changes made were relatively recent and that observations over a longer period of time would be necessary to determine the true effectiveness of these changes.
Mr. Bovier stated that he believed Jersey Central was now on top of their responsibilities and that they had 4
l no intentions of. relaxing asnagement's involvement at Oyster Creek. He indicated that he would continue to j
look forward to Compliance's consents on their performance j
with the passing of time.
l (2) The observed contrast between the technical support actually being provided by GPU and the role that the j
inspectors understood would be served by GPU was identified.
The inspectors pointed out that they did not know how to handle this matter at this time.
i Hr. Bovier offered no position regarding the observa-tions made by the inspectors.
1 (3) ne inspectors discussed their views on the performance
[
of the GOR 3.
The inspectors pointed out that the off-'
site safety committee was considered by the AEC to be an important management tool and, based on observations made during the inspection, that JC management was not deriving fully all the benefits that they could from the j
00RB. Specific concerns discussed included the followingt (a) he shallowness of the audits - the inspectors 4
emphasised.their personal experiences in this regard.
j
(
o l
fs-
, e e
> (b) The observed shortcomings with respect to the channels of communication available to the 00RB; i.e., PORC meeting minutes; GORB member participa-tion in PORC meetings; the potential for the.GORB to be an "in-house" committee.
(c) The lack of objective evidence regarding the required.
fomal communications between the GORE chairman and Mr. Bovier.
The inspectors informed Mr. Bovier that follow-up inspections of the GORB performance would be made by the assigned in-spector.
Mr. Bovier stated that prompt action would be taken to improve the PORC minutes and the participation by GORB members at schaduled PORC meetings. He also stated that steps would be taken to strengthen the audits perfomed at Oyster Creek.
While Mr. Bovier made no specific commitments concerning the inspectors negative observations relating to the overall performance of the GORB, he indicated his intentions to look into the operations of the GORB.
1 i
(4) The inspectors noted that many problems were being experienced at operating power reactors that could have applicability to Oyster Creek.
In this regard, the i
inspectors summarized their negative findings, both at the site and within management, and stressed the importance of having an-organized approach for evalu-ating and following-up problems at other facilities.
J Mr. Bovier indicated that JC would reexamine their past
{
practices and take the necessary steps to assure that lessons learned at other reactors are properly incor-
]
)
porated at Oyster Creek.
f c.
The inspectors stated that although, based on this inspec-tion, they had concluded that JC had initiated 'ositive p
corrective measures to improve their performance at Oyster Creek and that while measurable progress had been realized, continued close attention by management appeared warranted, l
Mr. Bovier thanked the inspectors for their frank appraisal i
and stated that efforts would not be relaxed in their endeavor to improve their performance.
-.y i
c..
. -./
r}
~
=
4, 4c:
s I
u 4
i 1.5-i H.
Suunary Listina of Major Weaknesses 1.
Weaknesses existed in the administration of the maintenance group i
operation (Paragraphs G.1.a. G.1.j, and G.1.1)
I 2.
The role of the CPU support group at.0yster Creek was limited
~
(Paragraphe G.1.c and G.2.b).
3.
Weaknesses existed in thi performance of the FORC (Paragraph G.1.d).
- 4. - Weaknesses existed in the performance of the GORB (including specifically the audit function)(Paragraphs G.1.e. and G.2.c).
)
)
5.
No effective system existed for incorporating lessons learned from i
experiences at other. reactors (Paragraphs G.1.f. and G.2.d).
6.
Corrective measures in the area of surveillance testing had still not been fully implemented (Paragraph G.1.k.).
f
Enclosures:
1.
Oyster Creek Plant Organization 2.
Oyster Creek Management Organization d
l l
l 4
I
)
2 i.
f d
i n
4 A
k y
- ww y
+
- =,
- ~
-o w
v4 j !!i 4
i, JIs
. y-o o*
Co O
n p
E t
e
(
q
(
r r
(
S J.
a 2
u 2
o i
l 1
h t
p p
p i
i e
m e
R p
f T.
o r
e r
o e
t n
n o
r s
s t
s m
F C
h h
s o
A S
i O
i O
h r
R u
f p
f p
i e
R p
t e
t e
f m
G e
)
r t
a r
n a
)
n L
v
)
t t
i o
o s
r r
o s
s r
Rad Si ua O
pt Y
ei S
ro T
i i
E vn R
s&
T P
o e
l C
rC c
T a
R sh h
n E
e n
t E
E J.
K n
m D
i S
c i
c c
a u
P l
a A.
l M
p L
o c
e A
s l
S C
r N
u R
u L
i T
r O p U
n e
S e
S t
O S
r K
e R
1 v
E n
G i
Y d
A s
e N
o n
I r
t Z
A T
T I
e O
N r-h a
i cal F
n a
ineers Ma intena E
n ce R
I S
G u
f G
p L
e E
rvisor
!6
,l ii1 4
b.
i, t
i OYSTER CREEK MANAGiDENT ORGANIZATION President
-(Serhice Agnement) 4 R. F. BOVIER GORB L
I W. H. HIRST, CHAIIBEN Vice Pmaident
,Productica
____i t
R. H. SIMS 8
i
~
s t
i GRJ W,R - Nuclear Generating Stations I. R. FINFROCK e
s a
.g 8
Oyster Cnek Station Superintendent T. J. McCLtJSEEY l
k l
o O
- w
...a-m
.?
m....,..
_. u.,
.,.