ML19269F614
| ML19269F614 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1979 |
| From: | Rogovin M NRC - NRC THREE MILE ISLAND TASK FORCE |
| To: | Bond J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001210475 | |
| Download: ML19269F614 (4) | |
Text
.
l g
a DJSTRIBUTION l
MERA July 30, 1979 j
MRogovin' s r,. m g In reply refer to:
l ggj NTFTM 790730-02 RDeYoung
'JParler i
DEvanRr. J. D. Bond 18700 Woodway Drive Derwood, Maryland 20855
Dear fir. Bond:
One of the tasks of the NRC/TMI Special Inquiry Group is to assess the effectiveness of the NRC % 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 metroers, j
and selected staff.
In order to minimize the inconvenience of this request, we have tried to limit the questions to the absolute mininum necesary t
l to obtain what we believe will tie useful inform & tion, and we are therefore hoping for a nearly 100 percent response.
If you have any questions regarding the request, please contact Special Inquiry Group mecter David Evans at 492-8947. Conpleted questionnaires l
should be returned to him at mailstop AR-400 as soon as practicably possible.
I I
I appreciate your cooperation.
~
{
Si'ncerely, b
Mitchell Rogovin, Director NRC/.TMI Special Inquiry Group
Enclosure:
f Questionnaire 2373.353 v
g
}
s
\\\\. '.7 i
I
,/ 9 Rn01 e 1 A_
//
' mie= >
...NR Tit'I.
. 5 /.Tl1
..NR I.....
/THN..
/.TM 4I..-
.IS. N}
.. = >
t
...y..
Evans:r kr rry
- De ou..n.g
. KCar..nel.l.--
-G F.<..p.t.,o..
lM,Rogo in oars >
,7
.,.f.,...f., g.....
.. 7.f.
fy f
f
.~.
3ec POEM 318 (9 76) NECM 0243
- w.m. ;- -
mesme emes s ere - see ves
NRC/TMI Special Inquiry Please answer the following questions to the be.st of your current recollection:
A.
PERSONAL B ACKGROUND 1.
Your nane, official title, office address and office 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 OF B&W PLANTS 1.
In what proceedings have you been involved in which a Babcock & Wilcox design was at issue?
(0conee 1, 2, and 3; Three Mile Island I 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.
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.
khat are the significant issues you recall naving been raised in these proceedings?
4.
Wha raised these issues, what were the positions and responses of the other parties, and how were the issues resolved?
3.
Do you recall any proceeding at which B&W presented testimony or was present for questioning? Please describe the circumstances.
Based upon your experience with B &W issues, have ar. issues been raised more of ten than others? Which one(s)?
C.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 1.
Hsw 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; c.
Staff documentation of its positions; d.
Post-licensing staff action and its impact on the process.
2373 354
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 needt reform?
If so, what major step or stepr 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 ma tters:
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 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 accident at IMI-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 355
QUESTI0?l!JAIRE Page 3 E.
COMMErlTS 1.
Do you have any additional comments you believe would assist the Inquiry in assessing the accident and its implications for thra regulatory system?
l 2373 356