ML19269F598
| ML19269F598 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1979 |
| From: | Rogovin M NRC - NRC THREE MILE ISLAND TASK FORCE |
| To: | Livingston M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001210443 | |
| Download: ML19269F598 (4) | |
Text
.
T y [.
-./
.3 JISTRIBUTI0fl V TERA MRogovin 6
Gr-rpter-July 30, 1979 O ocII-In reply refer to:
RDeYoung NTFTM 790730-05
.N;errY WParler DEvans J
d Dr. M. Stanley Livingston 3
1005 Calle Largo Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
Dear Dr. Livingston:
One of the tasks of the NRC/Tf11 Special Inquiry Group is to assess the effectiveness of the NRC t licensing and review process in connection with the licensing of TMI-2.
You~ can greatly assist us in this effort by your willingness to respond to the attached questionnaire, which is being sent to key individuals in the NRC licensing process, including licensing and appeal board ment)ers, and selected staff.
In order to minimize the inconvenience of this request2 we have tried to limit the questions to the absolute mininum necesary to obtain what we believe will be useful information, and we are therefore hoping for a nearly 100 percent response.
If you have any questions regarding the request, please contact Special In' uiry Group me::t)er David Evans at 492-8947. Conpleted questionnaires q
g should be returned to him at mailstop AR-400 as soon as practicably possible.
i j
I appreciate your cooperation.
Sincerely, 2373 3
2 i
Mitchell Rogovin, Director
{
NRC/TMI Special Inquiry Group
Enclosure:
Questionnaire
[
i RC Ti i
8 001210 W 3 t
g6 hr j
\\
79 nf,;}
'dC1.ni
..Nac h 1..
. ' uC/.TgL 2.Tr.t!
!$ahh.~.h.
RC./.n1
...RD [
QEy.ans.;.t
. Pfle e.l.l.,
..Er ton..
..taogov.in..
,.1191.9..J..
..m..
.11. d19..
J...Jh..
. i.... i
..]da29..
=c== n. w.m =cu
p f1RC/TMI Special Inquiry Please answer the following questions to the best of your current recollection:
A.
PERS0tJAL B ACKGROUND 1.
Your name, of ficial title, office address and office phone number.
2.
Mcw long have you been in your present position? What prior posi-tions have you held which involved nuclear licensing?
B.
INVOLVEMEllT WITH LICENSI!JG OF B&W PLANTS 1.
In what proceedings have you been involved in which a Babcock & Wilcox design was at issue?
(Oconee 1, 2, and 3; Three Mile Island 1 and 2; Midland 1 and 2; Bellefonte 1 and 2; North Anna 3 and 4; WPPSS 1 and 4; Davis Besse 2 and 3; Greenwood 2 and 3; Pebble Springs 1 and 2; Erie 1 and 2.)
2.
At what level (Staff, licensing Board, Appeal Board, Commission) and stage (Staff review, CP, OL, post-OL) were you involved in B &W pro-ceedings?
3.
What are the significant issues you recall having been raised in these proceedings?
4 Who raised these issues, what were the positions and responses of the other parties, and how were tha issues resolved?
5.
Do you recall any proceeding at which B &W presented testicony or was present for questioning? Please describe the circumstances.
6.
Based upon your experience with B&W issues, have any issues been raised more of ten than others? Which one(s)?
C.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 1.
How would you rate the performance of the Staff in the licensing process? Specifically, how do you assess:
a.
The role of the staff outside of the adjudicatory process, e.g.,
in review of designs and plans, and in contacts with the utility and vendors; b.
The staff t role in adjudication; 23/3 313 c.
Staf f docunantation of its positions; d.
Post-licensing staff action and its impact on the process.
QUESTIONNAIRE Page 2 2.
How would you rate the licensing and review process in general?
Do you have any views on that process with respect to:
a.
Its consistency?
b.
Its effectiveness in iglenenting the statutory standards?
c.
Its control over vendors, architect-engineers, and constructors?
d.
Its effectiveness in ensuring safe design and operation of plants?
3.
Do you believe the regulatory system needs reform?
If so, what major step or steps need to be taken?
4.
Do you believe the current system ir libits innovation on the part of applicants and vendors? If so, ow could that be changed?
5.
Please provide any comment you may have on the following specific matters:
a.
Technical qualifications of licensees b.
Quality assurance c.
Backfitting and "ratcheting" e.
The concept of the " design basis accident" f.
" Safety-grade" vs. "nonsafety-grade" equipment g.
Residual risk D.
ISSUES FOR FURTHER SCRUTINY 1.
Are there special areas of irportance which you believe this Inquiry should examine with regard to TM1-2, B&W units or the regulatory system, in general?
2.
Please explain any contact you have had with " precursor events" in
- PWRs, i.e., with an issue or incident that was a corponent of the accident at TMI-2 on March 28, 1979. An example would be the Pilot Operated Relief Valve (PORV) which stuck open at TMI-2.
3.
Are there particular people with information or knowledge, in the above areas that you believe the Special Inquiry Group should contact?
Please list.
(Name, organization, and address) 2373 314
QUESTIONt1 AIRE Page 3 E.
C0teiENTS 1.
Do you have any additional comments you believe would assist the Inquiry in assessing the accident and its implications for the regulatory ',ystem?
N 2J/3 3'13 79 O