ML19269F611
| ML19269F611 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1979 |
| From: | Rogovin M NRC - NRC THREE MILE ISLAND TASK FORCE |
| To: | Williams C AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001210469 | |
| Download: ML19269F611 (4) | |
Text
.
u t
I i
DISTRIBUTION g
July 30, 1979 MRogovin In reply refer to:
l 4". m g wd NTFTM 790730-03 i
M I
RDeYoung I
Pil9tly-WParler DEvangr. Clarke Williams 200 South Country Road Bellport, Long Island,- N.Y.
11713
Dear Mr. Williams:
One of the tasks of the NRC/TMI Special Inquiry Group is to assess the effectiveness of the NRC t licensing and review process in connection with the licensing of THI-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 merrters, and selected staff.
In order to minimize the inconvenience of this request, we have tried to limit the questions to the absolute minimum 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 Inquiry Group menber David Evans at 492-8947. Completed questionnaires should be returned to him at mailstop AR-400 as soon as practicably possible.
I appreciate your cooperation.
l Sincerely, i
s/
Mitchell Rogovin, Director i
NRC/TMI Special Inquiry Group
Enclosure:
Questionnaire i
237:
343 i
80012,10 % f l
776 //19 t
.me. *
.T.
TM AI-i
/TFr
. i C/T!+
+Ir -
../
i i
.u,,,... w
..\\
I J,EvaQ.n.mc: kr.,!
ry UD,e' P
K ell am to ung -
, y g7 -
- p;yy HRogovin
.m >
,c
..m......
- y;yy
, a m n,,,.m m aue
- =---=~~~--<u
"-~*-"
NRC/TMI Special Inquiry Please answer the following questions to the best of your current recollection:
A.
PERSONAL B ACKGROUND 1.
Your name, official title, of fice address and of fice phone number.
2.
How long have you been in your present position? What prior posi-tions have you held which involved nuclear licensing?
B.
INVOLVEMENT WITH LICENSING 0F 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 Bcard, 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 the 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 SW issues, have any issues been raised more of ten than others? Which one(s)?
C.
GENERAL 03SERVATIONS 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;7} }/4 4 c. Staff jocumentation 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 implementing 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 inhibits innovation on the part of applicants and vendors? If so, how could that be changed? 5. Please provide any comment you nay have on the following specific catters: a. Technical qualifications of licensees b. Quality assurance c. Emergency plans d. Backfitting and "ratcheting" e. The concept of the " design basis accident" f. " Safety-grade" vs. "nonsafety-grade" eouipment g. Residual risk D. ISSUES FOR FURTHER SCRUTINY 1. Are there special areas of importance which you believe this Inquiry should examine with regard to TMI-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 acci ent at TMI-2 on March 28, 1979. An exampie 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. (Nace, organization, an1 address) 9 2j/3 545
QUESTIONNAIRE Page 3 E. C0!G1ENTS 1. Do you have any additional comments you believe would assist the Inquiry in assessing the accident and its implications for the regulatory system? 2373 346 O}}