ML19290A029
| ML19290A029 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/25/1979 |
| From: | Kane K, Skovholt D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ACCIDENT AT THREE MILE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 7908290076 | |
| Download: ML19290A029 (137) | |
Text
,
3<
1 t
O
x PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ACCIDENT AT THREE MILE ISLAND
__________________________.______________________x e
DEPOSITION of the NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION by DONALD J. SKOVHOLT, held at the offices of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Old Phillips Building, Bethesda, Maryland, on the 25th day of July, 1979, commencing at 2:30 p.m., before Irwin H. Benjamin, a Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public of the State of New York.
1893 022 UENJA.TIIN REl'ORTING SERVICE CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS F1Y10 DEERM AN STitE17I' 7908290o79 NEw YortK. suw voitK 10038
[212] 374-1138
('.
... e-S?ICLE RI?CR"' CCNC51 TING
"" T N -2 ICCS ACTUCION OF KC'QGER 7,1978
/
1893 023
e
- N s
.. -O o
- e. r
,a, o.. m :.
iw-c> c, Q
_s _.e ~..--.. _=, __ '..-._,
.e.
- 9 i.,
f 2...,.~ _d _...
A_
g gg (
_L c. c 2.~.~~_~k..-
4, a.
. u.a,
o._
> <.,s.,_..;_.u.',...
-^*
i ce.'.~.=....s
-. =. ~,J-,,
o-e..o.2 0 0 / C 5, '.'. =. z.~.~. '.~. '.'.,,
.. _2
. c _.u..
.4.,,
.. g. 4_- _
>4 A13, e-.-. ' d..s-ar..
a.*..-. s v a.-. c. a '..x f
"....4C ~.%_ve.+ ' c*.
ressr e-
.,gs 4.
e. 33.
had heen elevatei to 588C (6*7 above :cr-a ) fcr te=;erature coefficie :
f s.
a'. 0 5,2 s* *. 37, a '...'..- dra ' " '. ' " < '.c ". '_ v a_' e.l' va.s e.._#v.
- ' s a".'..ca'.'. ' ' 7 a
._=f s",,.~~; a,:
.. ',, e.'. c
- a. - = '. '..- T a. a.'.
"a -'__'..
4.s
". A. aa d 13
".b _d.k
~
.as... -,_,s.
._.a._3.f w c#....
e.. e. a..a_ e,. e_ v
'..a '. " e s _,...' c '. c '.
',.S..==~_._.',_-~.-=.v=..,",.-^...sa.e
-ce
, a. _ _ e
_.-, g.. 4_.; _-
4.~_..asa..' '.==.> m-
=.ces.e
. _-',. C^*.2" '..3_,,e
'_ v s ss"-..
"...d..-
=..... _.. _ ' - + _ - ', '.. _i,. s..
. c..
d 2
?sedvz.ter :=;.TA_3.
T
._. v..gra.,e.
,,_.,, e.fs.._., ( _c.5 )
.,.e 3,_
a,c-e
_.,a,..,,
e,-< _,_ s_.
._z,
. p __..
a,,
the less of c:e feedvate ;cy.
evever, c.ne to che elevatei pover ta. sed c
.ss, te,,..
C.~..._..
e.,.,.s.
(-re).e_.,.
4_a.
s._4 -
,.3
...s..
e ch-
-'..' s ',.. '_p c c. _. u. ~,. _' C -
..a c ~._-,'_ *. d. : o'
.-.~
m e. a,..,,.,. 4_.,,
e -.,,
,, c., _
.s c... _.- (=.2.5) u,___._,s
._ay a_ _
._. _ e.>.,
.._.4.,..
._u,,.,., es g3.. -._.
a variable ta=;erature pressure tri; signa.l.
At this point, the c;erater seen ei
,...,cy.
the letic': flev (cicsed v.sheu; laive M.IV376).
A secc:d =aheu ;u=; vas the:
s,.a _ s
- .,4_.,
. c
- s. s a_...
4
,4,.,.
4_ ~,
u
.; _... ~.
3
. s a. ~-...s' ' 7 '_.__' ". _ a'. e,.
.'.4_-" 4_.c dec. as e -- d s e.f a."./ # *....# ~-
_a 2.CS,.asa- -.
at 16kC ;s's thus li=iting the press =e decrease to 1550 psis at 23 secc ds after che reac:cr trip.
"he decreased "0S v-l=e due to the cecidev and depress =hatics 3.d._e _e.a '. y._' '.. af,.. c..3 -
.- *.s en' '.'.-,..s s ~ *. e. vo' _e '., d a...-. as e e_' ~..-
e.'~.a.
k Rvever, calculaticus shev that the presscher va.s ct e=;;ied
_ste17 30 seccads.
u, 4_, _..._,-3.4.
a,,..x 3 e37 c1 4 -m.,.
s a.^ e. ".. -. a. c.. '_,,
S.S,..s u.-.
e-2 increased abcve 1600 psig.
- iene of the events abcve.ere re;crtable a.s a result of the 'icve:ber 7,1978, reacter 4
.4.,,
. 1 s _ e.
\\
.\\
/
m_. s \\
s f
s..
p -
gs ru.J d
\\ %
i '\\ y\\ y sb D C\\\\ \\G 9
V e
1893 024
s 2
1 2
A P P E A R A N C E S:
3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION:
4
("-
MARIAN E. M0E, ESQ.
5 Attorney, Office of General Counsel United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6
1717 H
Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20055 7
8 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THREE MILE ISLAND 9
KEVIN P. KANE, ESQ.
10 Deputy Chief Counsel 11 12 ALSO PRESENT:
13 DWIGHT H. REILLY 14 15 00o 16 D0NALD J.
- SK0VH0LT, having been 17 first duly sworn by the Notary.Public, was 18 examined and testified as follows:
19 DIRECT EXAMINATION 02 5 20 BY MR. KANE:
21 Q
State your full name for the record.
k 22 A
Donald J. Skovholt.
23 Q
Have you ever had your deposition taken 24 before, Mr. Skovholt7 25 A
I have given depositions in connection with Atomic BENJAMIN R EPO RTING S E RVICE
1 Skovholt 3
2 land [ Safety'LicensingBoardproceedings.
3 Q
Let me just briefly remind you what the 4
situation is here today.
You have been sworn, and although we are sitting here in the relative informality 5
6 of your office, you should be aware that the testimony 7
you will give here has the same force and effect that 8
it would if you were testifying in a court of law.
9 My questions and your answers are being 10 taken down by the court reporter here, and they will 11 be reduced later on to a booklet form.
You will be given an opportunity to look over that booklet and to 12 13 make changes that you deem necessary.
However, it is 14 very important to avoid the necessity for changes as 15 much as possible, and for that reason, it is imperative 16 that we haveca situation here now where if you don't 17 understand the question, if you feel that the question 18 needs some clarification, or if you feel that an answer 19 that you gave needs some expansion or explanation, please feel free at any time to stop and to ask that 20 21 the question be explained or to request permission to
(
further make a statement on the record and whatever kind 22 23 of clarification you feel is necessary.
1 24 A
All right.
25 Q
Also, there are just one or two ground rules BENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVICE
1 Skovholt 5
2 Q
Does this document fully reflect your 3
education and employnent background, Mr. Skovholt?
4 A
Yes, during the period it covers.
C
\\
5 Q
And is there some further updating that 6
should be added to this to bring it current?
7 A
Yes.
May I take a look at it?
8 Q
Surely.
9 A Subsequent to the period covered by this resume, 10 I assumed my present position of assistant director of
==
=
11 Quality Assurance and Operations, and that's not reflected 12 in the resume.
13 Q
When did you assume that position of 14 assistant director?
15 A 1974.
16 Q
And you are still in that position today?
17 A That's correct.
18 Q
Would you general?y describe your duties 19 as an assistant director for Quality Assurance and 20 Operations.
21 A Yes.
The duties consist of the management of
(
22 three functional groups within the Division of Project 23 Management that conduct portions of the review process 21 for facility licensing and also the licensing of 25 individual operators.
}893 027 BENJAMIN R EPO RTIN G SERVICE
Skovholt 7
1 2
time frame in which they will be needed.
In the case of a nuclear power plant, which 3
4 involves many hundreds of millions of dollars needed 5
over a period of several years, the utility or combina-6 tion of utilities provides to us a plan under which 7
they expect to raise funds needed.
8 Our analysts review this plan to determine that 9
whether or not it is 'I reasonable way to achieve thit 10 thing in light of the current market conditions, 11 economic picture, and related aspects which are germane 12 to the financial analysis discipline.
13 Q
How many people do you have working in 14 the --
15 A
Three professionals.
16 Q
And what is their educational background?
17 A
They all are trained in financial aspects, 18 economics, accounting, financial analysis.
19 One of them is also an attorney.
20 Q
One of the three is an attorney?
21 A
Yes.
(
22 Q
Are any of the others Certified Public 23 Accountants?
1893 028 24 A No.
25 Q
Do either of the two others have a degree BENJAMIN R EPO RTIN G SERVICE
1 Skovholt 8
2 in economics?
3 A
According to my printouts of personnel records, 4
one of the analysts has a baccalaureate degree in 5
Management and Administration; one has a baccalaureate 6
degree in operations research and mathematics in addi-7 tion to a law degree, and the third individual -- I am 8
a.Eraid that entry is missing from this record as far 9
as educational achievements.
10 Q
Do you recall who that third individual is?
e.
11 A
It is Mr. Petersyn, and he is an economist; in 12 fact, he is the most experienced member of the group, 13 and he is the senior analyst.
14 Q
He is an economist?
15 A
Yes.
16 Q
Do you know if he has an advanced degree 17 like a PhD.?
18 A
He does not have a PhD.
He has undergone advanced 19 studies even while he has been employed with us, but I 20 do not believe he has any advanced degree.
21 Q
Do either of the first two individuals you L
22 described have advanced degrees in economics of any 23 kind?
1893 029
,4 A
Not to my knowledge.
25 Q
Do any of these individr.als havs prior BENJAMIN R EPO RTIN G S ERVICE
1 Skovholt 9
2 experience in connection with accounting or --
3 A
Yes.
Mr. Peterstn served in the Division of 4
Accounting in the Atomic Energy Commission for quite 5
a few years before he came to the regulatory staff.
6 He then left roughly three years ago and went 7
to the Department of Energy and rejoined us about a 8
year ago.
9 Q
How about the attorney, the one with the 10 law degree?
o e
11 A
That's Mr. Karikwitz, who served as an economist 12 for a period of slightly over three years with a state 13 public utility commission.
The state isn't identified 14 here.
15 Prior to that, he was some five years a financial 16 analyst with the Public Service Electric 6 Gas Company.
17 Q
How about the last individeal, the one with 18 the BA in management and administration?
19 A
Again, referring to this document, prior to 20 joining our staff in December of 1977, he had served 21 as a financial analyst in a loan guarantee program of
(
22 the U.S. government.
i893 030 23 Prior to that he was a controller for Margate 24 Utilities, which is an electric utility cooperative; 25 and prior to that he owned his own business.
BENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVICE
1 Skovholt 10 g
Q How many financial plans or financial 3
arrangements and schemes do these three individuals 4
review in a year in connection with the financial 5
analysis branch?
6 A
Well, it equates exactly to the number of appli-7 cations that are processed.
8 Every construction permit application must show 9
that the funds to perform this design and construction 10 can be achieved.
11 Q
If a single utility is 100 percent owner 12 of the proposed facility, there will be one planto l
13 review.
14 On the other hand, sometimes minority 15 interest 5in a facility are such that there may be 20 16 or 25 part owners of a facility, in which case, there 17 are that number of plans to review, and the same 18 principle is true with the operating license stage, 19 although the nature of the review is more simple.
20 Offhand, I couldn't say how many CP's and 21 OL applications we process a year, but that's a matter l093 22 of record.
23 Q
Sure.
Well, your best estimate based on 24 your own experience in this regard would be, I think, 25 sufficient for our purposes here.
Is it dozens, BENJAMIN R EPO RTI N G S ERVICE
T-2 1
Skovholt 11
-1 2
Q Is there a financial analysis done at 3
cach CP stage and the OL stage?
4 A
That's correct.
(
5 Q
And what is done in connection with the 6
financial analyses, is there an audit of the figures 7
that are presented, is there a checking out of the 8
financial sources that are cited by the applicant, 9
or is there a kind of a check list that is used eter-10 nally in the department?
11 A
There is the standard request for. in formation,
12 which we advise the applicants to provide us.
This 13 indicates the mechanisms that they expect to employ 14 to raise the funds that will be needed.
15 The funds will be raised partially by cash 16 generated internally, but the maj ority of it will be 17 external financing either by the sale of equity or by 18 the sale of debentures of these organizations.
19 Prudent financial arrangements indicates 20 that the balance between internal and external financ-21 ing were to be within a certain range, just like the
(
22 balance between equity and debt financing ought to 23 be within a certain range.
1893 032 24 This is one of the aspects that an analyst 25 looks for.
BENJAMIN R EPO RTIN G S ERVICE
2 1
Skovholt 12 2
Secondly, the applicant must in dicate 3
whether he -- must indicate the approximate amount of 4
interest that he will have to take for the debt 5
financing that he envisions, and our analysts deter-6 mine whether or not it is reasonable that he be able 7
to acquire that money under those terms, in light of 8
the financial history of his company, and the recent
[j f *I. T. 's L'i.,,.>.o
., m 9
rate making decision of the State Public Reintinns 10 and other related factors.
11 We have accest to a ' of the financial 19 periodicals, Moody's, we have Standard 6 Poor's and
~
13 others.
14 We receive the bond ratings from the 15 rating agencies.
16 Otir analyst keeps abreast on a daily basis II with new developments through Wall Street Journal and 18 Barrons, and in a sense they exercise their analytical 19 judgment as to whether or not the proposed approach
~o o
appears to be reasonable.
91 Q
Mr. Skovholt, do you require evidence that
~
fk n,
the plan for external financing through equity or
~~
93 debenture is legally qualified in the state where it is
~
91 to be conducted?
1893 033
~
o5 A
We look a whether or not there are any restric-B ENJAMIN R EPO RTI N G SERVICE
3 1
Skovholt 13 2
tions which would prevent an applicant from carrying 3
out part of his plan.
4 For example, in some issues of debentures,
(
5 it is provided as a condition of the issue, that unless 6
the cove:1ge of the interest on that issue is maintained 7
at a certain level, no further issues can be issued 8
by that company, and our analysts do look at whether 9
or not the coverage is sufficiently high to meet those 10 conditions as far as to be financially prudent.
11 Q
Do your analysts require that the plan 12 or that type of issuance of debenture or equity shares 13 of some kind or another be qualified under the laws of 14 the state where it is to occur before it is approved 15 by your office --
16 A
Well --
17 Q
In other words, usually there are steps 18 that have to'be gone through in many states relating 19 to its own securities laws to qualify, to offer stocks,
20 bonds, securities whatever?
21 A
Yes, sir, those steps are very short term, b
22 though.
The company must file a prospectus with the 23 Securities 6 Exchange Commission in connection with any of these offerings.
}893 ON 24 25 This filing is usually done only a few B ENJ AMIN R EPO RTIN G SERVICE
1 Skovholt 14 2
months before the proposed offering.
3 What we are asking the applicant to do 4
is to give us a plan over which these funds will be
(
5 raised over the period needed, which generally is on 6
the order of six to ten years, so at the time we look I
at his plan, the filing you mentioned has not yet 8
been made.
9 Q
It simply couldn't be done under those 10 circumstances?
11 A
It could not be done.
12 Q
Has it ever occurred that a financial 13 plan has been approved for an applicant, and then it 14 hasn't worked out?
15 A
I must take issue with the word " approved."
We 16 do not approve his plan.
We try to determine whether 17 or not this is in our judgment a reasonable way of 18 jgC3'035 raising the money.
/
19 Neither the applicant nor we expect that 90 this will be precisely the way the funds will be raised.
ol Things will change over the six to ten year period.
90 Q
Iet me see if I can rephrase it.
Has it
~~
~3 9
occurred in your experience that a plan:which appeared o4 to be adequate from the point of view of your review
~
'5 o
conducted by your office thereafter turn out not to BENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVIC E
1 Skovholt 15 2
be adequate for the purposes it was devised?
3 A
There have been instances in which the means 4
of financing the plant has changed really for two C
5 reasons, one of which is the one you suggest, that 6
the financial fortunes of the company did not turn 7
out to progress the way it had been anticipated; 8
perhaps earnings turned down, perhaps cos t overruns 9
occurred, but for whatever reason, the funds were 10 not available on the type of conditions that had been 11 originally anticipated.
12 Another reason for a financing chcage 13 is because the desired schedule for the plant sche-14 dules, the need for power changes, the utility decides 15 they don ' t want to build this plant for service in 16 1980, they don't need it until 1983.
So they will 17 stretch out its construction or perhaps even defer 18 and resume, and any change of schedule is going to involve a change of financing.
1893' 036 19 20 Q
Is there any assessment done by your office 21 as to the tax considerations for the applicant in
(
22 implementing its financial plan at any given point, 23 and how that might impact the cons truction p rocess,
24 fastly, slowly, totally impossible?
.o.5 A
No.
Only in the sense that to some extent tax BENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVICE
1 Skovholt 16 2
considerations are reflected in the applicant's P an in that he gets certa!.n tax credits, allowance l
3 4
for funds during construction might be an integral C%
of his plan, depending upon the rules of the 5
part 6
State Commission.
7 Q
Mr. Skovholt, has it come to your attention 8
at any time that there were difficulties in the financial 9
capabilities of Met Ed to operate TMI 2?
10 A
The answer to the question as you put it is no.
C5c 7A in' V 11 Now, it -totsily has come to my intention 12 that the entire electric utility industry does not 13 enjoy the financial health in the 1970's that it did 14 in prior decades, and Met Edison is, I think, somewhat 15 typical of that statement, but I have never heard it 16 alleged nor do I know it to be true that Met Ed has 17 not been financially capable of running TMI 2 in the 18 proper manner.
19 Q
Has it come to your attention at any time 20 that Met Ed after the time it obtained an OL for 21 TMI 2 significantly cut back its maintenance person-(
jggg Q37 22 nel?
23 A
I have not heard that.
24 Q
Have you heard it suggested at any time 25 that Met Edison rushed into the commercial operations BENJAMIN R EPO RTIN G S ERVICE
1 Skovholt 17 2
of TMI 2 during 1978 in order to realize certain tax 3
benefits?
crr:.7 4
A I F ave read speculation to thatgin the press, but r.
5 tFat's t'.
only source of that.
6 Q
That situation hasn't been addressed'in 7
any fashion by your office?
8 A
No, sir.
9 Q
One of the other areas that you mentioned 10 also is Quality Assurance Branch?
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
I would like to get into this whole question 13 of quality assurance.
What specifically are the 14 quality assurance functions in connection with the 15 nuclear power plant?
1893 U38 16 A
All right.
17 The responsibility for exercising proper 18 quality assurance in connection with initially the 1.9 design and construction of the plant, and subsequently 20 the operations of the plant is the responsibiilty of 21 the licensee, and he must assure that through his own
(.
22 efforts and the efforts of his contractors and suppliers, 23 that proper quality assurance measures are taken.
24 He de.nonstrates that this responsibility 25 will b e carried out to the NRC through the mechanism B ENJ AMIN REPORTING S ERVIC E
I Skovholt 17-a 2
of his safety analyses report, in which Chapter 17 3
of the SAR is a quality assurance program description.
4 (Continued on the following page.)
(._.
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
(
22 23 24 25 BENJAMIN R EPO RTIN G S ERVIC E
18
/pw 1
Skovholt
.1 2
A This program description is reviewed by the NRC 3
staff in light of the prescribed requirements for 4
quality assurance programs.
These requirements are
(
5 principally addressed by the IS criteria in Appendix B 6
10-CFR Part 50.
These are the governing criteria.
7 A standard review plan has been issued by the 8
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, and that plan 9
governs the review of safety analysis reports.
In 10 particalar, the standard review plan for the review of 11 Chapter 17 governs the review of the quality assurance 12 prograa descriptions.
The standard review plan 13 amplifies the requirements and guidance prescribed in 14 the 18 basic criteria, further reflecting a number of 15 regulatory guides that should be adhered to and other 16 acceptance criteria that should be reflected in the 17 program description.
The reviewers on my staff 18 review the submitted program descriptions in light of 19 the standard review plan requirements and reach a 20 judgment as to whether or not our requirements have been 1893 040 ei satisfactorily met.
(
22 Q
Coming back to Chapter 17 of the SAR, 23 you say that is a description of the quality assurance 24 program.
That would suggest to me it is a very general 25 broad sort of presentation as to how they propose to B ENJ AMIN R EPO RTIN G S ERVIC E
A.2 1
Skovholt 19 2
implement quality asse..c.ce, rather than a very detailed 3
listing of exactly what items, what pieces of hardware 4
in the power plants they regard as covered by the C
5 program.
Would that be right?
6 A
Partially.
The program description is a broad 7
description of what is to be done.
To some extent, 8
the program description addresses how the 18 criteria 9
will be met.
But you are correct in that it does not 10 go into the infinite detail of how to carry out these 11 things.
12 One portion of the program description is..the 13 requirement that implementing procedures be provided 14 to prescribe the degree of detail that you are interested 15 in.
These procedures are not a part of a program descriptionthatwereceivehereathC headquarters, 16 C
- e 17 but they are reviewed by the NCR,!inspectio1. personnel 18 in the field'to ascertain that they do indeed carry out 19 the provisions of the program description.
20 Q
So your office really does not
' view the 21 implementing procedures themselves.
That is left to
(
22 ISE?
1893 U41 23 A
That is correct.
24 Q
So at the time that your office would pass 25 or approve a quality assurance program description, you BENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVIC E
A.3 1
Skovholt 20 2
really have no knowledge, no direct knowledge, as to 3
how that program will be implemented?
4 A
No, I didn't say no knowledge.
I said, to some C
5 extent, the program description describes how the 6
criteria will be met, but not in extreme detail.
7 Part of the program description does include a definition 8
on the part of the applicant of which systems, structures, 9
and components of the facility will be subj ected to the 10 quality assurance program.
11 Q
That description is based upon the 18 12 criteria that appear in Appendix B?
13 A
The overall program description has the major 14 objective of demonstrating that the 18 criteria are 15 satisfied.
There is quite a bit of suppleseentary 16 guidance that the NCR has provided to aid in this 17 effort.
18 Q
Appendix B addresses safety-related equip-19 ment, does it not?
20 A
Literally, it does not, although many people tend 21 to use that terminology, and I think, understandably.
22 Appendix B addresses safety-related functions of 23 equipment.
It does not address safety-related 24 equipment.
g g p'}
25 Q
That is what I wanted to come to.
h' hen I B ENJAMIN R EPO RTIN G SERVICE
.4 1
Skovholt 21 2
first was informed that Appendix B covered safety-related 3
equipment, I thought I could go there and find a list 4
of specific pieces of hardware that are considered C
safety-related.
I found out that is not so.
5 6
Does Appendix B define which are reg ~arded as 7
safety-related functions of equipment or what kind of 8
equipment is going to fall under the control of 9
Appendix B?
10 A
The definition in Appendix B of what it should be 11 applied to is that all systems, structures, and components 12 that prevent or mitigate the consequences of accidents 13 are subject to the quality assurance previsions of 14 Appendix B.
That is a definition of sorts, although 15 certainly one that is open to further interpretation.
16 Q
Does Appendix B also refer to those items which are necessary in order to achieve a cold shutdow83 17 i893 0 18 or cooldown of the reactor?
19 A
In a sense, it does, and I would like to explain 20 that.
The definition in Appendix B which I just 21 quoted, that it applies to all systems, structures and x
22 components which prevent accidents or mitigate the 23 consequences of accidents, is sufficiently broad that 24 one could argue that systems which attain and maintain 25 a safe shutdown of the reactor fall within that broad BENJAMIN R EPO RTIN G S ERVIC E
A.5 1
Skovholt 22 3
definition.
I think, more specifically, or more 3
clearly, though, one of the supplemental guides issued M nr 4
by the NGR regulatory guide,1.29, which addresses the 5
seismic design requirements, does list a specific number 6
of categories of systems that should be seismically 7
designed, and further specifies that the Appendix B 8
quality assurance program should be applied to these 9
systems.
In that guide, there is a very clear reference 10 to systems that shut down and maintain a safe shutdown 11 of the reactor.
12 Q
That guide clearly places those systems 13 under the control of Appendix B.
14 A Yes.
Anyone who is conforming to that guide 15 has made the commitment that those systems will be 16 subject to the Appendix B quality assurance program.
17 Q
Is there an also an Appendix A to 10-CFR 18 I'ar t 50?
19 A
Yes, that is entitled " General Design Criteria."
20 Q
That would relate to all items not covered 21 by Appendix B?
}893 Okk
(
22 A
No, actually, it relates to, as the title implies, 23 general design criteria for the entire plant.
Whereas 24 Appendix B is specifically quality assurance requirements, 25 Appendix A is design criteria.
However, Criterion 1 BENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE
1 Skovholt 23 2
of Appendix A does state thee. any system important to 3
safety should have quality assurance applied to it in 4
a manner coraensurate with its importance, so quality
(
assurance comes into Appendix A through that vehicle.
5 6
Q Would there be quality assurance which might 7
or might not be required in accordance with Appendix B7 8 A Certainly.
If the Appendix B requirements apply 9
to whatever systems, structures, or components you-are 10 thinking of, that prevails.
That prescribes the 11 entire program.
For systems, structures, and components 12 that do not automatically fall under the Appendix B 13 umbrella, Appendix A provides they should have quality 14 assurance applied to the extent of their safety 15 importance.
16 Q
There seems to be some recognition in the 17 appendices that we have been talkingsabout of the fact 18 that certain items may not be covered by Appendix B and
~
19 may yet have safety significance.
b93 20 A Yes.
21 Q
Appendix B, as I said, much to my surprise,
(
2
is a very general sort of thing and does not really 23 specify the specific hardware.
What is the next step 24 in' terms of the licenring process in reaching the point 25 of specifying the specific items that are going to be B ENJ AMIN R EPO RTIN G S ERVICE
1 Skovholt 24 2
covered by Appendix B that are going to be recognized 3
as safety-related equipment?
4 A
As part of the program description in Chapter 17,
(
5 the applicant is obliged to prescribe which systems, 6
structures, and components he intends to put under the 7
Appendix B umbrella.
8 Q
That is Chapter 17 of the SAR?
9 A
Yes.
10 Q
At that point, specific hardware is listed?
11 A
Specific hardware, in the sanse of systems, 12 structures, and components.
It is not specific in the 13 sense of a valve handle versus a cotter pin versus a 14 bearing.
The reviewers judge whether or not that 15 list is sufficiently comprehensive to meet the require-16 ments of the NRC and that the Appendix B program is 17 being properly applied.
This list provided by the 18 applicant has usually been referred to as a Q
list.
19 It might be in the form of a list, it might actually 20 be a table, but in some manner it describes those 21 items that will be subject to the Appendix B quality
's 22 assurance requirements.
So this Q list.is reviewed ib 23 by the staff.
24 The quality assurance reviewers do not have the 25 detailed engineering and technical knowledge of every B ENJ AMIN R EPO RTI N G SERVICE
9 1
Skovholt 25 2
part of the pland', so they must consult with their 3
technical reviewers in the Division of Systems Safety 4
and the Division of Site Safety to assist them in making 5
the determinations.
However, the published guidance 6
in the form of regulatory guides do go to some extent 7
in helping to define this problem.
~
8 Q
The regulatory guides, what function do they 9
supply in this process of designating what has to be 10 safety related and covered by Appendix B?
11 A
A regulatory guide is a non-mandatory document 12 which demonstrates a method that the staff has deter-13 mined to be satisfactory to meet one of the established 14 requirements.
Therefore, an applicant knows that if 15 he does elect to take the position espoused by the 16 regulatory guide, the staff will find his submittal 17 satisfactory.
The applicant has the legal option to 18 refuse to take that position and to take a different 19 one, but he then has the burden of satisfying the staff 20 that the position he elects to take is also a satis-21 factory one.
Consequently, many applicants elect to
(
22 take the established positions in the regulatory guides 23 and save the time that this process permits.
1893 047 24 Q
Do regulatory guides apply to items which 25 are not designated under Appendix B in connection with B ENJ AMIN REPORTING SERVICE
1 Skovholt 26 2
Chapter 17 of the SAR?
3 A
Yes, regulatory guides are not limited to quality 4
assurance requirements.
They are not limited to 5
Appendix B considerations.
They can reflect an accept-NRc 6
able way of meeting any NGR-requirement, whether it be 7
relevant to quality assurance or not.
8 In some cases, the staff has defined an appropriate 9
level of quality assurance for systems that are not 10 subject to the Appendix B requirements but do have some 11 relevance to safety, and has set these requirements out 12 in other documents.
Two examples come to mind where 13 this has very explicitly been addressed.
One is in 14 connection with waste disposal systems.
The second is 15 plant fire protection systems.
Now, neither of these 16 two categories of systems falls autom tically under the a
17 Appendix B umbrella, but the staff has decided what it 18 considers to be an acceptable level of quality assurance 19 for these two systems.
20 Q
In that regard, I have a note here that one 21 of the staff who previously interviewed you c't into a
(
22 discussion of the Q list with you and requested that 23 you provide a memorandum regarding review of items on 24 the Q list.
i893 u48 25 A Yes.
BENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE
1 Skovholt 27 2
Q Also a Q list for TMI 2 and any specific 3
regulatory guides that have come up in connection with 4
that.
Have you had a chance to assemble those docu-5 ments for us?
6 A I promised to provide a number of documents, some 7
of which I have assembled here, bi2t I was not planning 8
to hand them to you at this meeting.
I would like to 9
go through them first and attach appropriate notes as 10 to just what each document is.
11 Q
All right.
The memorandum regarding review 12 of items on the Q list, is that something which prescribes 13 the procedures to be followed in review of the items 14 on the Q list?
15 A Yes, that reflects a revised procedure which was 16 instituted early this year.
Until this particular 17 revision in the procedure, the consultation with 18 technical specialists had been on a somewhat informal 19 basis, where the quality assurance engineer reviewing 20 the Q list could consult with the various technical 21 specialists and systems specialists in each case and
(
22 get the informed view of whether or not some particular 23 equipment should be on the Q list.
1893 049 24 Early this year, I proposed a somewhat modified 25 procedure which essentially formalized that process, BENJAMIN R EPO RTIN G S ERVICE
1 Skovholt 28 2
but made it the automatic responsibility of each of the 3
technical reviewers to look at the Q list within his 4
areas of system expertise.
And that new procedure was 5
Put into effect earlier this year.
6 Q
Was that in January?
7 A
The memorandum in which I proposed this new 8
procedure to the relevant division directors is dated 9
February 8, 1979.
10 Q
If I understood you correctly, that proposal 11 is for a more formal process for technical consulting 12 for reviewers of items on the Q list?
13 A
That's correct.
After this proposal was considered, 14 by a group we have called " Licensing Schedule Review 15 Committee" and by the division directors to Vaom it 16 was addressed, it was approved, and the first time this 17 pew procedure wa= put into effect on a given case was 18 the Midland case, oy memorandum of March 16, 1979, from 19 the quality assurance branch chief and the Midland
=
=
=
=
20 project manager.
a
=
21
(
(Continued on Page 29.)
23 i893 050 2,
25 BENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE
a I
T-B Skovholt 29 2
l Q
That procedure is now in effect?
d 3
A Yes, sir.
4 Q
Does that establish formal procedures for 5
the reviewers of items on the Q list to consult with 6
members of the Division of Project Management?
7 A
Yes, that is correct.
It provides that the 8
assigned technical reviewers would look at the pro-9 posed Q list within the area of their expertise, com-10 pare the proposed Q list to the relevant es tablishe d 11 criteria, and advise the quality assurance reviewer by g ~o
,q w i rs memorandum of the effe-r4s of their review, so that the 13 quality assurance reviewer will then coordinate the 14 results of these people and come up with a final Q 15 list.
16 Q
How many quality assurance reviewers do 17 you have?
18 A
There are presently five professional quality 19 assurance reviewers in the branch, in addition to 20 the branch chief and other specialists that perform 21 other functions.
But basically, five people that do
{
the kind of function we are discussing.
23 Q
When you say " professional quality assurance,"
24 is there someone else involved as well?
1893 051 25 A
Yes.
As I mentioned earlier, part of the functions BENJAMIN F cFORTING SERVICE
2 1
Skovholt 30 2
at the branch include the review of initial test pro-3 grams for facilities and review of the conduct of 4
Operations Section, which is the organi::ation of C
5 structure qualifications of individuals and so on, 6
and that is not part of the Chapter 17 material.
It I
is performed by other people w'.th different backgrounds 8
but still within the same branch.
9 Q
Are any of these five individuals nuclear 10 en gine,e rs ?
11 A
No.
All of these five individuals have had 12 extensive background in quality engineering.
Most 13 of them have been with the NRC and the AEC for quite 14 some time and with National Laboratories even before 15 that, but they are not nuclear engineers by training.
16 Q
Is there any specific educational require-17 ment for these people?
18 A
These individuals must be professionally trained 19 in the field of engineering or science at the 20 baccalaurate level or higher, but beyond that, I ol couldn't be more specific without going back to posi-(
tion descriptions and seeing the way the requirements
'3 are phrased.
The extent of their background af quality 24 1893 052 engineering functions is very important to us.
25 Q
Is the extent of their quality engineering 8 ENJ AMIN R EPO RTING SERVICE
3 1
Skovholt 31 2
background in nuclear reactors or just generally across 3
the board in various types of pover-facilities?
4 A
Well, it's both, although as I indicated, several C
5 of these people came to us from more than ten years 6
of National Laboratories, formerly the AEC and now the 7
Department of Energy, so it is certainly nuclear related 8
to those cases.
9 Q
Do any of these individuals have any ex-10 perience in nuclear power plant ope rations ?
11 A
They have had internal training concerning nuclear 12 power plant operations, as well as design and operating 13 characteristics of nuclear power plants.
They do not 14 have personal experience in actually operating a plant.
15 Q
hhat internal training have they had?
Is 16 there a formal program they have to go through?
17 A
Yes, we have quite a number of training programs 18 available to us of various types, technical, adminis-19 trative, management.
There are documents available 20 that indicate the training availabic.
The kind of 21 training that you are inquiring about now is primarily
(
22 provided internally, through the Career Management 23 Branch of the Office of Inspection 5 Enforcement, which conducts courses in the "g M a
24 r and PRW power plant design 25 and operation over at the training center.
jggg Q BENJAMIN R EPO RTIN G SERVICE
1 Skovholt 32 2 Q Is that the same training that I6E offers 3 to its own inspectors or requires of them? 4 A It's the same training center, but ISE has ( 5 a number of programs, some of which are designed more 6 for inspectors, some for project management type people, so there are not many training programs where you will 8 have both inspectors and NRR people in the same course. 9 Q How long is the training that is required 10 for these five individuals we are talking about who do 11 the quality assurance? A Training is a continuing thing. Each year, the 13 appraisal of each individual is conducted through our 14 agency appraisal system. At that time, the supervisor 15 considers the performance of each person and where the 16 strengths are and the weaknesses and what type of 17 training ought to be provided within the forthcoming 18 year to both rectify any deficiencies that may exist 19 and provide the broadening of potential for improvement. 20 The training plan is proposed by the sapervisor for me 21 { to consider, and each individual is handled on a case- ~~ by-case basis. Most of the training courses that I 23 am talking about are on the order of one to two weeks 24 y/E GO each, but an individual might undertake more than, those ^ 25 within any given year. 1893 054 B ENJ AMIN REPORTING S ERVIC E
1 Skovholt 33 2 Q Is there any additional training that is 3 required when they first come on the job? 4 A Nothing of a formal nature, other than the C 5 agency indoctrination thing. Nhen they first come on 6 the job, they function under the direct day-to-day 7 control not only of their supervisor, but there is 8 a group leader within the branch for quality assurance, 9 and this is the most experienced person in' the branch, 10 and he certainly guides very closely and reviews their 11 work until they demonstrate mastery of our requirements. 12 Q When they come on the j ob, they get a general 13 agency orientation and then a supervisor kind of analyzes 14 them te see how they do, and based on this, he will 15 make recommendations to you for further training for 16 those people on an ongoing basis periodically? 17 A That is correct, and even further than that, 18 as these individuals are doing their assigned reviews, 19 the group leader and: the supervisor are both working 20 with them closely. Both individuals are reviewing the 21 products, signing off of the documents, which then come ( 22 to me for ny approval. So there is assurance being_ 23 obtained that the work output of these people is of a satisfactory level. 1893 055 24 25 Q Again, the number of reviews that these B ENJ AMIN R EPO RTIN G SERVICE
1 Skovholt 34 2 people would be doing, is that also a function of 3 the number of CP and OL applications that you have 4 pending? 5 A Yes. 6 Q So the same numbers would apply as before, 7 maybe a dozen or so, as many as 15 during a given year? 8 A That's correct. In this case, there is also a 9 topical report program in the quality assurance area 10 where some companies who are quite active in the nuclear 11 power industry have submitted their quality assurance 12 program description to us in the topical report form 13 which is outside of any given SAR, and they submit this 14 to us and we review and approve it, and; they occasionally 15 propose to amend it and we must review and appr:: ta 16 their requests for amendment, so there is an ongoing 17 effort with that kind of thing. 18 The benefit of the Topicni Report Program 19 to the industry and to us is, when that company comes 20 in with an SAR, the Chapter 17 portion of it has already 21 been established as acceptable. (' 22 Q So that report is kind of an advanced sys cem 23 they might use to get things nnving? 1893 056 ,4 A That 's correct. 25 Q If I understand what you have said, what BENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVIC E
1 Skovholt 35 2 these reviewers are doing is, they are taking the 3 Chapter 17 of the SAR or the topical reports, if they 4 have those first, and they are reviewing them in light ( G t' I 3 of Appendix B to 10-& Part 50, and in light of the 6 SRP? 7 8 A Primarily, the SRP, which specifies Appendix B, 9 must be met, as well as the other acceptance criteria. 10 Q Let's go off the record for a minute. 11 (Discussion off the record.) 12 Q I was about to ask you about the r.ctivities 13 of the reviewers in actually doing the quality assurance I4 reviews, and I think you did indicate that essentially 15 what the reviewers are doing is working with the SAR 16 submitted by.the applicant, or possibly topical reports 17 prior to the SAR being submittedi and they are revieving 18 that in light of the requirements of the SRP, and I 19 guess, in light of the criteria that is set out in 20 Appendix B. 'l A That's correct. 1893 057 Q If I understand what you have described, 93 the SAR is generated by the licensee itself, right? 4 O A That is correct, with t he assistance of his contractors, but as far,as we are concerned, it comes BENJAMIN R E PO RTIN G S ERVIC E
1 Skovholt 36 2 from him. 3 Q Since the beginning of this year, you 4 now have a formal process whereby the reviewers do ( 5 take advantage of the technical expertise that they 6 can obtain from such places as the Division of Project Management, is that right? 8 A Yes. I would rather say it is a more formalized 9 process, because we actually did this in previous years, 10 too, but it wasn't quite as clearly set down in writing. II Q How does it work? Is it a situation where I the reviewers simply know that somebody in Project 13 Management knows something about this, and therefore, 14 he gives the fellow a call and says, "What about this, 15 that and the other thing," or is there a detailed. 16 process? 17 A There is a detailed process which works in the 18 manner the memorandum describes that I re fer to. Each 19 case that is followed with the agency gets controlled a0 ~ under our management system, which involves using ~l the bluebook. In the bluebook, a matrix is developed ( for the schedule for review of every application for construction permit or operating license. Every in-94 ~ volved branch is identified and every reviewer is 95 ~ identified. The memorandum that is dispatched, in this BENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE
1 Skovholt 37 9 case, j ointly by the ghief of the Quality Assurance 2 3 Branch and the project panager, goes to each assigned 4 reviewer of that case, and the reviewer is thereby ( 5 instructed to looked at the proposed Q list in his 6 area of responsibility and to submit his findings by 7 memorandun to the quality assurance reviewer. So there 8 is a written record of these findings. 9 Q How lengthy are these Q lists normally? 10 A Several pages is about as specific as I could 11 be off the top of my head. 12 Q Again, as specific as you can be, how many 13 items usually appear on a Q list? 14 A Several dozen. 15 Q Doer each of those several dozen items 16 require a further examination of specific systems or 17 pieces of hardware, whatever would fall underneath those 18 items? i893 059 19 A The items on the Q list usually are phrased in 20 an entire system of a certain name, such as the high 21 pressure injection system or an emergency power system 22 or a control rod drive system. If it's put into 23 the Q list in that form, then every safety related 24 function of that system is automatically covered. 25 Q At what point do the reviewers get to t he B ENJAMIN R EPO RTING S ERVICE
1 Skovholt 38 2 further breakdown of the specific items that fall into 3 and make up the systems that are described? 4 A Only to the extent that the technical reviewers ( 5 might advise us that the Q list should be further sub-6 divided. 7 Q .In other words, that would not be done other-8 wise? 9 A That's correct. 10 Q When we get down to the nuts, the bolts, 11 the pins, the valves, that is not covered by the 12 quality assurance review? 1M3 060 13 A That is correct. 14 Q What is the significance of having a piece 15 of equipment designated as safety related or subject 16 to quality assurance as opposed to not having it subject 17 to quality assurance? What does it mean in terms 18 of the way iti is examined and looked at and maintained? 19 A Well, for those systems and components that are 20 designated as being subject to the Appendix B Quality 91 Assurance Program, all of the criteria must be ( no applied. This includes a number of aspects, such as 3 design verification, traceability of materials, certain '4 tests and inspections and quite a few other things. 25 We could read each criterion if you like,but if something B ENJ AMIN R EPO RTING SERVICE
1 Skovholt 39 2 is not designated as falling under this umbrella, 3 there is no assurance, unless other specific measures 4 are taken, that these criteria will be applied to it. 5 Q What about maintenance requirements? Are 6 there specific maintenance requirements for those 7 systems which are designated under Quality Assurance? 8 A The QA program does not specify which maintenance 9 should be applied to any given type of material. It 10 does recognize that maintenance shall be provided to 11 keep the systems, structures or components in a con-dition to perform its intended function, and that in 13 performing said maintenance, certain controls should 14 be adherred to, such as controls on cleanliness, test ~ conditions, ihYu ri ~'re-gi-strat< ion-cE services and that type of 15 16 thing. 1893 061 17 Q If I understand what you said before, 18 those systems and items which are not de s ignated 19 subject to the Quality Assurance, the Appendix B 'O ~ program, would not be covered by these requirements, ~l then? b A Not automatically, unless they had been so ~3 specified as falling under the criterion 1 for 6~4 Appendix A which provides that suitable quality 95 ~ assurance will be provided, aul if they are somehow BENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVICE
1 Skovholt 39-a 2 written up in that manner, they would not receive this 3 type of control, but they would not receive it auto-4 matically through the Appendix B umbrella. 5 (Continued on the following page.) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1893 062 20 21 22 23 24 25 BENJAMIN R EPO RTIN G S ERVICE
.1 1 Skovholt 40 L/ w 2 MS. MOE: Is there some level of control 3 criteria or control design? 4 THE WITNESS: One of the 18 criteria is 5 on design control. 6 MS. MOE: What I mean is, there is another 7 level of assurance in terms of the quality of 8 the design of the equipment if it is not safety 9 related? 10 THE WITNESS: Yes, there is. It's covered by referred to earlier in the discussion of 11 what we 12 General Design Criterion 1, which is part of 13 Appendix A, and it states that for everything 14 in the plant there should be suitable quality 15 assurance applied commensurate with the safety 16 und importance of the item. So that is a general 17 rule which applies to the plant as a whole. But 18 the urab'rella of Appendix B requirements only 19 automatically falls upon the safety-related 20 designation. 1893 063 21 Q Those items you just referred to that do ( 22 not fall under Appendix B but that do come under the 23 requirements of General Design Criterion 1, they are not subject to review by your quality assurance people, 24 25 are they? BENJAMIN R EPO RTI N G SERVICE
1 Skovholt 41 2 A They are in the cases where we have prescribed 3 quality assurance requirements that should be provided. 4 For example, in the fire protection program, which is 5 reflected in Standard Review Plan 9.5.1, which is the 6 overall document governing the fire protection p~rogram, 7 there are specifically called out 10 quality assurance 8 criteria which should be applied to fire protection 9 programs. When we have an explicit callout like that, 10 we can verify in our review that it is being accommodated. 11 Similarly, there is the liquid waste management systems 12 standard review plan, which provides six quality 13 assurance criteria which should be applied in that case. 14 But unless there is a specific provision such as this, 15 we would not normally include it in our review. 16 Q Has there been any such specific provision 17 in the past for the feedwater system on the secondary 18 side of the p-lant? 19 A The feedwater system -- excuse me a moment. The 20 feedwater system, as you indicated, is on the secondary 21 side of the plant. However, it is regarded by some 22 people as falling within the general scope of preventing 23 or mitigating consequences of accidents. That is a 24 somewhat difficult determination to make, or at least 25 it is subject to judgment. 1893 064 B ENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVIC E
.3 1 Skovholt 42 2 However, more specifically, in Regulatory Guide 3 1.29, the staff has taken the position that a certain 4 specified group of systems, structures, and components (^ should be designed to seismic Catagory 1 requirements, 5 6 and further, should be subject to the quality assurance 7 requirements of Appendix B. One of the categories 8 within this staff position is those portions of the 9 steam and feedwater systems of pressurized water 10 reactors extending from and including the secondary 11 side of steam generators up to and including the outer-12 most containment isolation valves. So the regulatory 13 Position as reflected in this guide does prescribe 14 that that part of the feedwater system is subject to 15 Appendix B. 16 Q However, yomrquality essurance reviewers 17 do not at the present time, in fact, review those 18 portions of the feedwater system pursuant to their 19 quality assurance review conducted in connection with 20 the SAR, do they? 1893 065 21 A We would expect the feedwater system, or at (- 22 least this portion of it, to be reflected on the Q list 23 and, again, we would rely primarily upon the technical 24 reviewer to so advise us. However, it has, to my 25 knowledge, generally been the practice, as it was in B ENJ AMIN R EPO RTIN G SERVICE
t .4 1 Skovholt 43 2 TMI. 9 3 Q It would generally be the practice to -- 4 A To include it. (~. k 5 Q In the SAR? 6 A That is really an impression. It is not based 7 on a survey of any large number of SAR's. 8 Q It is your understanding that the feedwater 9 system was included in the SAR for TMI? 10 A That is my understanding. 11 Q Does it ever come up that your reviewers 12 and the licensee disagree about what should or should 13 not be subject to quality assurance review? 14 A It has happened. ~ Disagreements are not unknown. 15 Q How have these disagreements been resolved? 1893 06-6 16 What do you do? 17 A Well, the general process for resolving disagree-18 ments is for'the reviewers and their immediate super-19 visor, the branch chief, to meet with the licensee or 20 the applicant to hear the arguments that the applicant 21 provides as to why his position should prevail. We ( 22 avail ourselves of any other staff members we need to 23 help us understand the situation, such as technical 24 reviewers, and then we reach a judgment. We either are 25 convinced by the applicant's position or we are not. BENJAMIN R EPO RTIN G SERVICE
.5 1 Skovholt 44 2 If we are not, then we decide to do it our way. 3 Q Is the ultimate guideline for you and for 4 the reviewer the general requirements set forth in 5 Appendix B to 10-CFRg Part 50? 6 A Yes, these requirements must be met. If the 7 applicant, having had his day in court at the branch 8 level, is still not satisfied with this resolution, 9 he has an appeal process. lie can appeal to the 10 assistant director and division director. 11 Q But the bottom line, what the applicant 12 is arguing about, is the system that relates to accident 13 mitigation and prevention? 14 A That could be one of the things to argue about. 15 Q If the applicant was taking the position 16 that the system does not belong under quality assurance 17 review, it would be his ultimate argument, wouldn't it, 18 that it is not an Appendix B item? }gg} 067 19 A That could be his position, in which case we, 20 with the assistance of the technical review organization, 21 would either agree or not with him. ,( 22 Q Prior to March 28, 1979, was the pilot 23 operating relief valve subject to Appendix B review? 24 A I do not know. 25 Q Prior to March 28, 1979, was the auxiliary BENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVIC E
C.6 1 Skovholt 45 2 feedwater system subj ect to quality assurance review? 3 A Well, as I said earlier, it was my impression 4 that the auxiliary feedwater system, at least the 5 Portion of it that is prescribed in this guide 6QU9, 6 should have been and was part of the Q list and subj ect 7 to quality assurance review. 8 Q Other than that, other than the part 9 specified in that regulatory guide, to your knowledge, 10 was the auxiliary feedwater system, or part of it, 11 subject to Appendix B review? 12 A I do not have further knowledge other than what 13 is reflected in the regulatory position of the reg 14 guide. 15 Q What about the steam generators? Are 16 they subject to Appendix B review? 1893 068 17 A Yes, they fall under the same provision in this 18 regulatory guide that I quoted earlier, which reads, 19 "These portions of the steam and feedwater systems of 20 pressurized water reactors, extending from and including 21 the secondary side of steam generators, up to and ( 22 including the outermost containment of isolation valves," 23 et cetera. At least in part, they are included in 24 the requirement for Appendix B treatment. 25 Q Can you explain what that language means? BENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE
C.7 1 Skovholt 46 2 That is the second time you have read it, and I am not 3 sure I understand it. It is a portion of the feedwater 4 system and a portion of the steam generator system, is C 5 that right? 6 A Yes. Basically, it is the portion which is not 7 isolatable. There are isolation valves, and for 8 a systera which can be readily isolated, the ability 9 to isolate helps prevent or mitigate consequences of 10 accidents in case there should be a failure in that 11 isolatable portion, whereas if a failure should occur 12 in a non-isolatable portion, a higher degree of quality 13 would be appropriate in the design and construction of 14 that. 15 Q So is the non-isolatable portion covered? 16 A Yes, that's the end of the sentence, the outer-17 most containment of isolation valves. The isolation is 18 the important point. 1893 069 19 Q Do you know what portion of'the steam 20 generator at TMI 2 would be subject to that language? 21 A I am not familiar with the detailed design of the ( 22 steam generator system at TMI 2. 23 Q Would the sump pumps in the containment 24 building be subject to quality assurance review of 25 safety-related equipment? B ENJAMIN R EPO RTING SERVICE
C.8 1 Skovholt 47 2 A Offhand, I cannot think of any regulatory position 3 which would put them in that category. However, I 4 might just be unfamiliar with one. C 5 Q Ordinarily, if something is not covered in 6 the SAR and not in the topical report that you mentioned, 7 it would not be subject to quality assurance review, 8 is that fair to say? 9 A It would not automatically be subject to it, that 10 is correct. Now, there is still the possibility that 11 our inspection personnel, in the course of performing 12 their inspections, would find activities goingson or 13 not going on which they feel merit remedial action, and if 14 it is the clear requirement that the licensee should be 15 doing something in a certain way, they could use their 16 enforcement machinery to get it done. However, if it i>.2,.<o-17 is not a clear requirement, they.14 ave it to NRR to 18 establish that clear requirement. 1893 070 19 Q Would that be the usual way in which the 20 quality assurance people would work to deal with these 21 kinds of questions? ( 22 A With I6E. 23 Q I thought you said the quality assurance 24 people would refer it back to the division of operating 25 reactors. BENJAMIN R EPO RTIN G SERVICE
.9 1 Skovholt 48 2 A No, to NRR, Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 3 Q For the. technical expertise necessary, which 4 division within NRR would they turn to for that? 5 A If it was the plant that was already in operation, 6 the initial inquiry would go to DOR. However, D0R has 7 been in the habit of asking us to provide them support 8 in this area,'so we effectively are their consultants. 9 Q I am a little unclear as to the role the 10 regulatory guides play. Are they a way of indicating 11 to the licensee how he is going to have to, or how he 12 can successfully comply with the quality assurance 13 requirements? 14 A The regulatory guide program is broader than that. 15 It's a way of indicating to a licensee or applicant how 16 he can successfully meet a variety of NRC requirements, 17 whether they be quality assurance or other kinds. 18 For example, the 18 criteria of Appendix B are 19 somewhat broadly worded. The Appendix B required the 20 applicant to conform to these criteria and to indicate 21 in his program description how he will conform to the '\\ 22 criteria. An easy way for him to indicate that, should 23 he elect to adopt it, is to say that he will meet the 24 regulatory position in the relevant regulatory guides 25 associated with these criteria. 1893 071 BENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVIC E
.15 1 Skovholt 49 2 Q That would be in connection with a review 3 as well as non-quality assurance? 4 A That's correct. C 5 Q If a licensee wants to nake a change in 6 the plans after the plans have been approved and he is 7 moving down the road and that change involves quality 8 assurance inspection-type equipment, must there be 9 another quality assurance review? 10 A If his change will change the quality assurance 11 program as described in the SAR or topical report, 12 then he would have to file an amendment request and we 13 would conduct a review. However, within the broad 14 confines of the program description, it is possible 15 for him to change some details of his implementing 16 procedures. So if the basic program is not changed, 17 he could conduct that procedural change without coming 18 back to headquarters. It's still subject to review 19 by our inspectors, though. 20 Q You said before that how the implementing 21 procedures are actually being carried out is not a func-( 22 tion of the quality assurance review; it's an I6E function? 23 A That's correct. 24 Q Are controls and indicators in the control room 25 Appendix B items? [ERVICE893 072 EENJAMIN R E PO RTIN G
.11 1 Skovholt 50 2 A My understanding is, in general, yes. If the 3 system, structure, or component that the control is 4 indicating the status of is something subj ect to 5 Appendix B, then the associated instrumentation would 6 also be subject to Appendix B. 7 Q For example, in-core thermocouples and 8 readouts from them as to temperature readings, would 9 that be a quality assurance inspection-type of thing? 10 A I believe it would be. 11 Q Engaging in that quality assurance review, 12 do these people make any determination as to whether 11 or not the way in which, for example, the temperature 14 readouts are calibrated is sufficient for safety 15 pu rpo.e e s ? 16 A Not specifically with respect to a given item such 17 as in-core thermocouple temperatures. There are 18 provisions in the 18 criteria and the program description 19 regarding calibration requirements in general, but there 20 is nothing explicit for in-core thermocouples. 21 Q It has come out at several times in the l 22 course of this investigation that at TMI 2 on March 28, 23 they had a lot of difficulty getting temperature in-core 24 readings because the computer system ~had been set up in 25 a fashion that it could only read up to 700 degrees. ( see w i893 073 ~ BENJAMIN R EPO RTiN J SERVICE
97 I 10 Skovholt 2 temperature and pressure through the primary loop? 3 A I would have expected that. I am now reexamin-4 ing the basi-s for my expectation and I may very well 5 de cide. that improvements ought to be instituted. 6 Q Prior to March 28, 1979, was there ever a question in your mind about the ability of operators 8 to understand these matters? 9 A No, I was fairly confident that this type of 10 thing was generally understood. II Q h'h at led you to be confident of that? I A It was being stressed in the trainin g. It is 13 a very important and fundamental consideration, which 14 would be stressed. 15 Q If you had known all of the facts relating 16 to the September 24, 1977 transient at Davis-Besse 17 prior to March 28, 1979, would you have felt still that 18 the training was adequate in these regards? 19 A I think that's too hypothetical for me to specu- "O 1 ate on. If I had known some other things in 1977, ~ ol ~ how would I now in 1979 feel about it? 22 Q I want to separate the knowledge you 03 have of the events that occurred on March 28, 1979, ~ 0~4 and the knowledge you otherwise had. Obviously, everyone can look back at March 28, 1979, and say they BENJAMIN R EPO RTIN G SERVICE i893 074
1 1 Skovholt 2 really did not understand. What I want to get to, 3 before March 28, 1979, you said you really did not 4 know all the facts or even most of the facts relating ( 5 to the September 24, 1977, transient. You do seem 6 to be aware of the salient facts of that transient? 7 A I believe so. 8 Q If you had that knowledge prior to March 28, 1979, 9 Would that have indicated to you that the operators 10 did not understand these matters relating to two phase 11 flow? 12 A It would have led me to look at the matter more 13 fully than I otherwise did. Certainly there were three 14 or four people in the TMI 2 control room that did not 15 evidence this appreciation to the degree they should 16 have. There were probably an equal number in the II Davis-Besse control room. It's also true that in any 18 given 24 hour's a day, there are several hundred reactor 19 ope:cators on duty that are not having serious accidents a0 and, before I chastise them as a group, I want t'o be 'l sure what is the norm and what is the exception. 3 075 oo Q Were there suggestions for improvements in '3 training within the NRC, that is, being made within 24 the NRC prior to March 28, 1979? I do not mean a o5 little thing here and there; I mean across the board, BENJAMIN R EPO RTI N G S ERVICE
4 1 Skovholt 99 2 signific ant improvements? 3 A It's a subject which is never devoid of dis-4 cussion. Whether or not the training for operators ( 5 and senior eparators ought to be changed or whether 6 or not training for other categories of personnel ought 7 to be formalized is constantly under discussion. 8 I would say that one year there might be an incident 9 where a waste disposal tank is al'.ow to overflow 10 because a' valve was not closed in time,.and some 11 people clenr that waste disposal equipment ope rat ors 12 ought to be examined and licensed. The next year an 13 instrument technician leaves a jumper in a cabinet, 14 so there is a clamor for training and licensing of 15 instrument te chnici an s. It's a subject which is con-16 tinually alive. 17 Q Let me ask you, is it true that persons 18 that operate portions of the secondary system in 19 nuclear plants, such as the waste disposal system 20 or the auxiliary feed system, do not need to have 21 a license from the NRC? ( 1893 076 22 A What you stated is not correct in the waf you 23 stated it. The true facts are that our regulations 24 require that anyone that manipulates a control as 25 our rules define them must have a license. A control BENJAMIN R EPO RTIN G S ERVIC E
1 Skovholt 100 2 is defined as an aparatus or mechanism the manipulation 3 of which may directly affect the power level of the 4 reactor, so anyone who touches one of those controls 5 by that definition must have an operatorb or senior 6 operatorb license. There are many valve pumps and 7 switches in the plant which do not fall under the 8 definition of controls, and people that manipulate those 9 would not have to have a license. 10 Q Is there anything about the auxiliary 11 feed system which would in fact, in terms of control 12 impact, reactivate the core or the power level? 13 A Yes, I believe it could be. As we indicated in 14 our earlier discussion, under regulation 1.29, the 15 auxiliary feed water system, or all feed water systems 16 or portions thereof, are subject to Appendix B require-17 ments and, th e re f ore, the importance to safety is 18 clearly recognized as a matter of agency policy. 19 Q In that regard, is it your understanding 20 that the steam generators utilized by B5W around 21 k-the country have been subjected to quality assurance 22 review? 1893 077 23 A Well, I have commented to you on my understanding 24 of our requirements. What has actually been done out 25 in the field, I h' ave to defer to the inspectors to B ENJ AMIN R EPO RTIN G S ERVICE
1 Skovholt 101 2 address. 3 Q And you do not know whether or not the 4 inspectors have in fact been requesting a quality ( 5 assurance review as to once-through steam generators 6 at B5W plants? 7 A I do not know that specifically. I do know that 8 this type of inspection is within the purvue of 9 responsibility of our inspection force, but as to 10 exactly which inspector has looked at what, I would 11 not necessarily be knowledgeable. l~a Q What about your quality assurance reviewers? 13 Do they look at the once-through steam generators as 14 they come throughi the licensing process? 15 A If that item belongs on the Q list. 16 Q Your understanding is, it does belong II on that list? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Then it must have been looked at by your oo quality assurance reviewers. ~ 21 A Yes. 1893 078 ~~ Q Was there any consideration in connection '3 ~ with that review by your quality assurance reviewers 0~4 of the promptness of the once-through steam generators .o5 as opposed to any other design? BENJAMIN R EPO RTIN G SERVICE
1 Skovholt 102 2 A No. 3 Q Is there any information about what kind 4 of review of that design was performed by DSS 7 ( 5 A Not in my head. I have copics of all the staff 6 safety evaluations that were prepared. I can read them as well as anybody, but I don't know the specifics. 8 Q Is there any reason why a once-through 9 steam generator would be preferred by B5W or approved 10 by the NRC as opposed to a recirculation steam gener-11 ator or some other design? A I have no personal knowledge of the relative 13 pros and cons of these. 14 Q Have you heard anything about that? 15 A Have I heard anything about that? If one were 16 to spend a half day sitting in something like an ACRS 17 meeting, one hears something about almost anything, 18 so I guess I will have to say, yes. Q Can you specifically recall anything? "O ~ A No, I do not. 91 { Q Are you aware that the design of the once-through steam generator is such that it does 23 make much greater demands upon the response time 24 9 available to operators under certain types of 1893 079 25 transients? B ENJ AMIN REPORTING S ERVICE
1 Skovholt 103 2 A Yes. 3 Q Where have you learned that? 4 A Well, I guess I was aware of it prior to TMI, ( 5 but the extent of the difference, I did not appreciate 6 until after TMI 2, when I read things on it. Q Are you aware that as a result of the 8 design of the once-through steam generator, the 9 incidence of challenge to the PORV in BEN plants is 10 significantly higher than it is at other types of II plants? 12 A I have heard that the PORV have been exercised 13 much more frequently at the B6W plants. 14 Q When did you hear that? 15 A In the Tedesco report, I guess, was the first 16 time. 1893 080 17 Q Does that suggest to you that there are 18 si gnificant safety problems involved in terms of 19 operators who are handling the controls at B6W "O ~ plants under certain types of transients? ~l o A It suggests to me that the time available for ( response is less at a plant that has this particular 93 ~ steam generator design, but that by itself, I would 9~4 not say alarms me without knowing more about the o ~ transients that are involved and what will have to be BENJAMIN R EPO RTIN G S ERVIC E
s 1 Skovholt 104 2 done. 3 Q If you know that you are dealing with 4 differences of the magnitude of two to five minutes ( 5 as opposed to 14 to 30 minutes before you boil out, 6 which I am told is the comparison between a once-I through steam generator and the recirculation steam 8 generator, doesn't that indicate to.you that the 9 training of the operators at B6W plants would have 10 to be significantly better to keep them right on 11 top of it during the transient, when they have less 1~9 time? 13 A They have less time, but they have enough time 14 to do what has to be done. If the operator realizes 15 the PORV is open, he can close the valve rather quickly, 16 even within the two to five minutes. i893 081 17 Q On the other hand, if he has a small 18 break LOCA rather than simply something from which 19 he has a break valve available, he will not be 2ble 'O ~ to stop it that quickly. 91 ~ A Prob ably not, but I will have to see the analysis no ~~ of this. '~3 (Continued on the following page.) 24 25 BENJAMIN R EPO RTIN G S ERVICE
T-11 1 Skovholt 105 -1 2 Q Is it fair to say that those above the 3 senior operators level, that is those in management 4 at utilities are not required to have a license from ( 5 the NRC of any kind? 6 A That's not entirely accurate. They are not re-I quired by Part 55 to hold a license, since the require-8 ment for the senior operator license is for an indivi-9 dual that directs the activities of licensed operators, 10 and therefore, this requirement would apply only to 11 the first level of supervision. 12 Flowever, the NRC has also required by an-13 other means that some other positions in the plant 14 management hold senior operator licenses as a demon-15 stration of competence, and the position is that we 16 would normally expect to hold a senior operator license 17 to demonstrate their competence is reflected in the 18 Standard Teclinical Specifications which we have. revised 19 and which are used as a basis for establishing a technical specification for each license. i893 082 20 91 Q Are all plants subject to Standard Technical [s Spe ci fications ? 03 A All current plants are subject to Standard 94 Technical Specifications, but like most things, 25 tecimical specifications have evolved over the years, B ENJAMIN R EPO RTIN G S ERVICE
1 Skovholt 106 2 and not every new requirement has been backfitted to 3 every old plant. 4 Q My understanding is that TMI 2 is not 5 subject to Standard Technical Specifications, is that 6 true? 7 A I do not know. 8 Q It is possible that they would not be, 9 is that right? 10 A It is possible, because the Standard Tech Specs 11 have betn evolved over the last six to eight years. 12 They have been refined as time went on for a B6W plant. 13 I just don't know whether the BSW version of Standard 14 Tech Specs was in existence at the time that the TMI 2 15 operating license application was processed or not. 16 Q I am a little embarrassed. I am advised 17 by my technical adviser, Mr. Reilly, that it is the 18 other way around, TMI 1 is not subject to Standard 19 Technical Specifications, and in f act has tailored 20 its Tech Specs. TMI 2 is subject to Standard Tech Specs. 1893 083 21 o, Do you recall whether the Standard Tech ~~ '3 Spe cs became applicable to ongoing licensees or to ~ '~4 new plants? o5 A I do not recall and I doubt if there is a single BENJAMIN REPORTING SER%CE
1 Skovhol? 107 2 point in time which is a full and complete answer 3 to your question. 4 I know the creation of Standard Technical ( 5 Specifications within the staff was initiated in the 6 60's, and the first version spills that were worked upon 7 were the Westinghouse version and the GE version, 8 because there we en't many or possibly any B6W and 9 Combustion plants in operation in that time frame. 10 And then, over the yeato, the staff effort 11 proceeded and the Standard Tech Specs did get finalized, 12 but this was not under my direction. 13 Q How did it come about, for example, P at 14 TMI 1 weald not be subject to Tech Specs, and TMI 2 15 wculd, is that the age of the plant? 16 A The time of the review of the application for II operating license. Presumably, the application for 18 an operating ' license for TMI 1 was probably received 19 a year or two in advance of the application for the 60 operating license for TMI 2. I am speculating, but 'l that would be a logical answer to the question you ( 1893 084 e, raised. ~~ '3 Q My recollection is that the OL was issued 94 for TMI 1 in perhaps 1973, several years before the 9 .o5 1978 OL issue for TMI 2. BENJAM;N R EPO RTIN G S ERVICE
1 Skovholt 108 2 A Fine. 3 Q That would explain the difference. 4 A It would imply that the B6W version of Standard ( 5 Tech Specs came into being somewheres between those 6 two dates. 7 Q From the time that the Standard Tech Specs 8 became applicable, were they applied across the board 9 to all further OL'.s that were coming up for issuance 10 thereafter? 11 A It's my understanding that has been the practice, 12 yes. 13 Q Would that be true even though the plant 14 might have already received its construction permit 15 many years before and gone a long way down the road 16 under prior regulatory requirements? 17 A It would be true, because the Tech Specs 18 govern the operation of a plant, not the design and 19 construction of it. 20 Q So it wouldn't be a situation where a maj or 21 ~ change would have to be made? 1893 085 22 A Not major changes. There may very well be some-23 thing in a Standard Tech Spec that re flects a current 24 subsystem, and a particular NSSS design, and a plant 25 that was designed five years ago has a little different B ENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVIC E
1 Skovholt 109 2 design feature, and there would be some small tailoring 3 involved, but there should not be any maj or differences. 4 Q I am not certain if I asked you this be-( 5 fore, and I would like to be sure this is reflected in 6 the record. Is it true that the examiners for the 7 training programs the ones that work out of your office, 8 the nine individuals that you talked about, are not 9 required to have an operator's license of any kind 10 and need not have been licensed in the past at any time 11 by the NRC7 12 A I would say true, but misleading statement. 13 Q Okay. 14 A It is required that all of our examining person-15 nel not only be technically and professionally trained, 16 but also highly experienced in reactor operations, 17 and in supervision of reactor operations. They all 18 have that badkground. 19 Many of them also have been training super-1893 086 ,0 visors or training coordinators in the past. 21 Now, the NRC does not issue them a license, 22 because they do not satisfy our criteria of need for 23 a license. We don't operate plants at the NRC and 2I we don't issue a license to people to operate plants 25 that don' t need it. B ENJ AMIN R EPO RTIN G S ERVIC E
1 Skovholt 110 2 The NRC does not regulate the military 3 services, either. We don't issue a license to operators 4 on nuclear submarines. Many of our examiners came 5 from that environment and they certainly possess what 6 is a naval reactor's equivalent of that, but they 7 don't have that license. 8 Similarly, we don't regulate the National 9 Laboratories of the Department of Energy which again, 10 many of our people have come from, and they would 11 have met under the regime in which they worked, the 12 equivalent of the NRC license, but they do not, as 13 I say, actually possess the NRC license in some cases. 14 Q Is the reason why it has not been required that these examiners at least take the NRC exam for 16 purposes of obtaining a license, is the reason that 17 simply it is recognized that that would be a futile 18 gesture, they alredy know enough without that? 19 A That is part of the reason. '0 o The second reason, there is no such thing ol as the NRC exam. Every exam has to be tailored for the facility under application. Which one would ou 18 3 087 ~3 choose them to take? 04 Q I guess that me ans what, some 72 different 9 25 exams? B ENJAMIN R EPO RTIN G S ERVIC E
1 Skovholt 111 2 A That's what it would mean. 3 Q The whole question of differences between 4 plants is something that has come up again and again. ( 5 We were talking with Mr. Mo.<eley this morning about 6 the lack of standardization n plants. Is it your I feeling that if the plants were more standardized, 8 it would make your function in connection with training 9 much easier? 10 A Yes. I believe that if there were more standardi-11
- ation among plants, it would make the functions of l'
both the trainers and the examiners easier. 13 Q As a matter of fact, didn' t you tell me 14 that the nine examiners you have are broken down 15 according to type of plant? 16 A Yes. We have three groups within the branch. II Q That would be GE plants? 18 A GE plants, Westinghouse and Combustion plants 19 together and B5W plants, and then in each of the 20 groups are some non-power rer.ctors as well, but "1 Q So you have got three people per team full ( time? ~~ '3 ^ ~ 1893 08EL '4 Q And those three people, for example, for ~ '5 the Westinghouse and GE plants, would cover the whole ~ BENJAMIN REPORTING S E RVIC E
1 Skovholt 112 2 country? 9 3 A We have 20 part time examiners too, and they're 4 all broken down into groups too, in order to facilitate 5 training and quality control of their work, but they 6 would cover the entire country. 7 Q I had a talk with Paul Collins about the 8 nine, and then the other 20 part time people. My 9 recollection is that he told me that the 20 part time 10 people are used principally to administer exams, is 11 th at right? 12 A Yes. We -- that's a true statement. What we 13 would like to do is accommodate the work load expedi-14 tiously, and we try to staff up with permanent staff 15 to be able to handle about roughly 80 percent of the 16 normal long term work load, and then by use of these 17 part timers we can fill in the gaps. 18 If it works up to 100 percent of normal, 19 we use the part tiners for that fraction. If we 20 got a big demand, a couple of new plants coming on 21 line, with large groups of candidates, we use the (~ 22 part timers even more. 1893 089 23 If we are in a slack period, we just use 24 our permanent people. 25 So the part timers' use increases and B ENJ AMIN R EPO RTIN G S ERVICE
1 Skovholt 113 2 decreases with work load, but we do like to have as 3 much of the work as possible with our permanent staff. 4 (Continued on the following page.) (^ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1893 090 25 BENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVIC E
.1 1 Skovholt 113 HB;pw 2 Q And that's those nine people broken into 3 three teams of three? 4 A Not exactly. That's approximately correct, 5 but we have had in existence for slightly over a year a 6 trial program which the Commission requested be 7 instituted where we have had one examiner working out 8 of the Region II office of the NRC, and -- 9 Q That's the one in Atlanta? 10 A Yes. So he has been in a trial regionali:ation 11 program. 12 Q So you have got one down there and eight 13 up here? 14 A That's correct. 15 Q Is it true that you have 500 to 600 new 16 applications for licenses each year? 17 A I believe that's about the right number, but Paul 18 Collins would have a more accurate number at his finger-19 tips. I could get one from the files if you need it, 20 but that would be my recollection. 21 Q Is it also true you have also about 1200 ( 22 renewal applications a year? i893 091 23 A That's approximately correct, yes. 24 Q My fellow staff members inform me that they 25 did have a conversation with you about conditional BENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE
I.'2 1 Skovholt 114 2 Operators' licenses. 3 A Yes. 4 Q Is it correct to say that those are normally C. 5 not issued as to testing or for licensees, but they are 6 as to medical qualifications? 7 A Correct. 8 Q Nhat are some of the qualifications that 9 are put on licensees,that is, operator licensees, as 10 to physical qualifications? 11 A All right. 12 As part of the application for an operator 13 license, a certificate of medical examination must be 14 filed. 15 On the certificate, which is an NRC form, the 16 applicant fills out one side concerning his prior 17 medical history, and the physician 1that examines him 18 fills out the other side as to the results of the 19 current examination. 20 There are physicians employed by our staff here. 21 to review these medical examination forms on. behalf of 22 the NRC, and evaluate them. 18 3 092 23 Basically, what we look for is reasonably good 24 visual acuity, and reasonably good audio acuity, 25 mobility, and the absence of 2 actors which have a high B ENJ AMIN R EPO RTI N G S ERVIC E
.3 1 Skovholt 115 2 Probability of sudden incapacitation. 9 3 When a medical condition is found, which is not 4 satisfactory, we can either deny the request for a (- 5 license on those grounds, or if possible, a condition 6 can be inserted into the license to make the medical 7 condition acceptable. 8 Far and away the most common use of this condition 9 is the individual whose visual acuity is not up to our 10 standards, but with eyeglasses, it is. So the condition 11 in his license is that he wear his eyeglasses. And I 12 would say that's the vast majority of the conditional 13 licensing of that type. 14 Q Suppose the individual has a coronary 15 disease, for example? 16 A Cardiac history is the kind of condition which 17 shows a higher than usual probability of sudden incapaci-18 tation, and the individual with the cardiac history does 19 not have his normal activities impaired at all, it is 20 just he may keel over. A condition which can be 21 inserted in his license to accommodate that is that 22 he only perform licensed activities in the presence of 23 a second operator. } 893 09J' 24 Q What about an individual who has epilepsy? 25 A I don't recall an instance of an applicant with B ENJ AMIN REPORTING SERVluE
I. 4' 1 Skovholt 116 that condition, and what I would have to do in that 3 case is seek the advice of our consultant physician 4 and see what he recommends and what his basis is. 5 Q Is there any psychological evaluation that 6 is done of operators? 7 A There is no direct explicit psychological evalua-8 tion. There are some questions on the medical history 9 form which may lead the physician to wonder about this 10 area, and the physician may use his medical judgment to 11 further explore this area. However, there are no 12 comprehensive psychological examinations normally 13 required. 14 Q Is there any attempt made to check out the 15 background of an individual who is applying for an 16 operator's license, specifically I mean things like 17 criminal record? 18 A Not in connection with the operator licensing 19 program. But in connection with the safeguards 20 requirements in Part 73 of our regulations, there are 2! requirements that all employees shall be subj ect to a (. 22 background investigation, not just the licensed operators. 23 Q All employees of the plant? 21 A Yes. j893 094 25 Q h'ho conducts that background investigation? BENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE
.5' 1 Skovholt 117 2 A The applicant the licensee. 3 Q How do they go about that? 4 A Well, I can only give you my understanding of 5 it, since it is not within my area of responsibility, 6 but there is a possibility or a -- not a possibility, 7 but to a certain extent they look at things; they check 8 with prior employers, they check with the landlord, 9 and things like that. 10 Now, for the criminal history they have to work 11 with local law enforcement agencies, and I am aware 12 that that has been a problem in recent years ever since 13 the Privacy oct considerations entered the picture that 14 some local law enforcement agencies have viewed them 15 different than others, and the degree of cooperation is, 16 to my understanding, a variable, but I can't be more 17 explicit than that. 18 Q There is no formal NRC program then, for 19 investigating the criminal history or background of 20 operator license applicants? 21 A There is not in existence. There has been a 22 proposed regulation which would involve-issuance of 23 actual clearances to operating staff members, including 24 appropriate investigations under consideration for some 25 time, but it is not an NRC requirement at the present. 1893 095 B ENJ AMIN R E PO RTIN G S ERVICE
I Skovholt 118 I.6 2 Q After the accident on March 28, 1979, as 3 I recall, all B6W plants were temporarily shut down 4 in the country, is that correct? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And before start-up3 as I recall, also, 7 there was a. requirement that the operators be re-examined 8 in some fashion? 9 A Yes. 10 Q What did that involve, that re-examination 11 process? 12 A Well, firstly, all of the operators were recycled 13 through the B6W training center at which the simulator 14 had been reprogramed to exhibit the TMI kind of event, 15 and the operators were returned to their home bases, 16 Oconee, Arkansas, et cetera. 17 The first stage of examination was given by the 18 facility licensee himself in determining that in his 19 judgment the operators had been sufficiently requalified. 20 There was also a team consisting of one or two 21 NRC examiners, plus ISE inspectors that went there and i 22 qui::ed, orally qui: zed a certain number of these 23 individuals to form a basis for determining whether or 24 not the licensee's judgment was indeed well founded. 25 Q So they went through the simulator program BENJAMIN R EPO RTIN G S ERVICE
I.1 1 Skovholt 119 3 again, that's one week? 3 A I believe it was 7ne week. 4 Q And then they had an oral re-examination? ( 5 A Yes. 6 Q You say that was done on a selected basis? 7 A Well, the facility licensee was obligea to do 3 everyone. The NRC people that were there did not oc 9 a hundred percent. The examiners were from the 10 operator licensing program branch, the inspectors were 11 from the regional offices and they both participated. 12 Q Were the operators then given full licenses 13 back again? 14 A There had never been any formal legal action ta 15 suspend or revoke their licenses, so there was no need 16 to take a legal action to reinstate them. However, it 17 was made quite clear to the facility licensee that 18 unless we were satisfied with the performance of these 19 operators, they should not operate, and that was quite 20 well understood. 21 Q Were the operators given conditional licenses ( 22 by the NRC? 23 A No. 21 Q So there were no specific conditions placed 25 on their licenses? }ggg,Qg/ BENJAMIN R EPO RTIN G SERVICE
I.8 1 Skovholt 120 2 A That's right. 3 Q I would like to get some idea of what kind 4 of interface exists between your office and Inspection 4 ( 5 Enfo rc ement. 6 We have been talking around that issue, 7 b-I don't think we really have taken a quick look 8 at it. 9 What efforts are made by your office in 10 connection with I6E to insure that you are getting a 11 rigorous or systematic review of Licensee Event Reports? 12 A Well, the review of these reports for our 13 operator licensing purposes is our responsibility. 14 As we see these monthly summary printouts, this 15 flags events to our attention, and causes us to look 16 into the ones further that seem to have some training 17 or examination value. 18 Q Let me interrupt you. Monthly summary 19 printouts. I have seen a document out of TMI which 20 looks like a ccmputer printout. 21 A Yes. s 22 Q And it has a title and maybe two or three 23 line summary -- g 24 A Yes. 25 g of the subj ect matter of the LER, and B ENJ AMIN R EPO RTING S ERV:CE
J.9 1 Skovholt 121 2 references across the page to numbers, dates, et cetera, 3 relating to that LER. Is that what you are talking 4 about? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Have you found that that brief description 7 of the LER is sufficient to -- 8 A As I was about to say. 9 Q I am sorry. 10 A When one of those events appears to be of interest 11 to us, we follow up by a number of different means which 12 are available. 13 First of all, we can ask for the entire LER as 14 submitted by the licensee to be provided to us. 15 Secondly, we can contact the assigned inspector, 16 who by that point in time is already well versed in the 17 problem, and probably the resolution of it at that plant. 18 Thirdly, we have the NRR project manager to touch 19 base with, and of course, he is right here in the same 20 building with us, so by one or a combination of those 21 mechanisms we pursue the ones that seem to be of 22 interest. 1893 099 23 The three-line summary is adequate to tell us 24 whether or not we want to look at it more. 25 Q You have found that you have been able to B ENJ AMIN R E PO RTI N G SERVICE
.10 1 Skovholt 122 2 clue into the things that are of significance to you 3 simply from that three-line summary? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q Has it ever occurred that after the
- t 6
you found that you missed one simply because you looked 7 at it, but you didn't really appreciate from the three 8 line summary what it was really about? 9 A I don't recall that happening, but it certainly 10 was possible, when you consider the hundreds of events 11 that are reported each year. 12 Q How thick is that monthly summary that you 13 get? 14 A A quarter, three-eighths. This happens to be 15 the monthly report that was issued in June, and it is 16 three-eighths of an inch thick or so. 17 'Q Does it number the LER's reported? 18 A It has 92 pages of LER's reported. 19 Q And those are all just summaries? 20 A These are all summaries. 21 Q It looks -- 1893 100 ( 22 A It appears to be approximately four to five to a 23 page. 24 Q So we are talking about something like 25 450 LER's or something? BENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVIC E
11 1 Skovholt 123 9 2 A Yes. 3 Q Each month? 4 A Yes, that's a typical monthly report, f 5 Q Does your office make any attempt to deter-6 mine whether or not proper items are being reported and 7 classified in those LER's? 8 A No. That's an inspection function. 9 Q Sure, that's what I kind of thought. 10 Would it also be an ISE function and not a 11 function of your office to see to it that the events 12 are being reported in a timely manner? 13 A Yes, because the requirements in the tech specs 14 that governs the reporting of LER's includes the time 15 frame in which it must be reported. 16 Q Would it in any sense be a function of your 17 )ffice to determine whethcr or not the items being 18 raised in LER~'s are being properly resolved? 19 A 'That is not primarily our function. Within NRR, 20 the assigned project manager would be the individual 21 most concerned with that aspect. j g93 ')Q] 22 Q Would you have any involvement in the 23 process of properly or timely broadcasting to operators 24 or to licensees the implications of events that are 25 reported in individual LER's? BENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE
.12 1 Skovholt 124 2 A Yes. We have an interest in that, and I thinl: 3 it was exemplified by the bulletins that were issued 4 after TMI as an example of putting timely notification C 5 on the street of the event that it happened, and the 6 changes that clearly should be made. 7 Q On the other hand, my impression, and I 8 gather it is the impression of the NRC, is that the 9 TMI situation is really unique, it is simply not the 10 kind of thing for which there has been prior precedent, 11 so prior to TMI, did your office have much of a role 12 to play in broadcasting or notifying licensees of the 13 implications of events reported in LER's? 14 A No. We don't have much of a role in that in my 15 office. 16 If we come across something which we feel ought 17 to be broadcast, we can certainly set the steps in 18 motion to make it happen. But normally, the MPS 19 office has the function of compiling and setting this 20 information, and issuing periodic broadcasts of the 21 type you describe. g}g 22 Q Do any other divisions of the NRC play a 23 significant function in interfacing with your office 24 in establishing quality assurance requirements and 25 programs? BENJAMIN R EPO RTIN G S ER VICE
125 .13 1 Skovholt 2 A Well, yes. 3 Certainly, the Office of Standards Development 4 has a very key role in the establishment of any require-5 ment, through the rule-making, and regulatory guides. 6 Responsibility for processing both those docu-7 ments are in Standards Development, and the guides we 8 referred to here were generated within Standards. 9 Secondly, the Inspection G Enforcement people 10 do also provide suggestions along the lines of what 11 new requirements ought to be imposed or improvement 12 or clarification of existing requirements are to be 13 imposed. 14 Thirdly, to put it in the other direction, we 15 provide a great deal of support to the Division of 16 Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards in doing~ quality 17 assurance program reviews for them, because they don't 1893 103 18 have a great capability. 19 Q Does DOR have any role to play in that? 20 A D0R has two persons that were formerly in Quality 21 Assurance Branch, and these people have been pretty i 22 well tied up in other DOR activities, so the practice 23 has been that DOR would forward any requests for quality 24 assurance reviews to us to perform for them. 25 Q Does any other agency or division of the NRC BENJAMIN R E PO RTIN G S EPVICE
.14 1 Skovholt 126 2 have any role to play along with your office in assuring 3 that the quality assurance program at the licensees' 4 facilities are ready and prepared to support quality (^ 5 assurance efforts? I would assume that certainly ISE 6 has a function in that regard, do they not? 7 A Yes. ISE has a function in two ways. Certainly 8 the regional offices of IGE have inspectors that go to 9 each of the licensed facilities for that purpose. 10 In addition, there is a centralized ISE QA 11 function that operates out of the Region IV office in o. ra. : ~ - 12 Dallas, which is called the Licensee Vendor Const-r4 actor 13 Inspection Program. 14 Inspectors from this office of ISE go to places 15 that make important safety components, and actually 16 visit the shops and the fabricating facilities of these 17 suppliers. 18 Q In terms of the implementation of quality 19 assurance programs as an initial matter, where is that 20 implementation carried out? 21 A All implementation must stemfrom,kh3hekh4 ( 22 accordance with the Quality Assurance Program description 23 that was in Chapter 17 of the SAR, and which we have 24 approved. 25 Q That's dever ped by the licensee? B ENJ AMIN R E PO RTIN G S ERVICE
15 1 Skovholt 127 2 A That's developed by the licensee. 3 Q It is then, of course, incumbent upon the 4 licensee to implement that? (~ 5 A Yes, that's right. 6 Q And the licensee sets up their own programs 7 on site in order to accomplish that? 8 A That's right, and they very likely, though, 9 particularly at the designer construction stage, will 10 rely heavily on the NSSS and the architect engineer 11 organization, but it is the licensee's responsibility 12 to assure that everything is being done in accordance 13 with the program that we have approved. 14 Now, frequently, the architect engineer will 15 ride herd on behalf of the licensee on the subcontractors 16 and suppliers. 17 Q Once the initial work has been accomplished, 18 once the plant goes on line into commercial operation, 19 quality assurance at that point becomes a function of 20 in-house operations of the licensee itself, is that 21 right? 22 A Yes. 23 Again, he is permitted to seek any help he wants 24 through contract or other means, but it is his responsi-25 bility. BENJAMIN R EPO RTIN G S E RVIC E
16 1 Skovholt 128 2 Q Is it usually the situation that the licensee 3 does seek that help from the contractor or is it handled 4 in-house? 5 A It is handled in-house. 6 Q By and large? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And in terms of the NRC interface with that, 9 that would be through ISE inspections, is that right? 10 A That's right. 11 Q When and I6E inspectcr is at the licensee, 12 what do they usually do, do they look over records? 13 A That's part of it. The I6E inspection program 14 has been separated into inspection modules. Each 15 module encompasses a certain area of inspection, and 16 the I6E inspectors prior to going out are apprised of 17 which modules of inspection they should accomplish 18 during a given visit, and my understanding, and again, 19 I am not part of the inspection effort, on some inspec-20 tions they might emphasize a design verification; others 21 might look into traceability of materials. You might i 22 look into receipt and storage inspections. They might 23 look into cleanliness. All of these things are 24 reflected in the 18 criteria, and therefore, any and 25 all ef them are subject to inspection at one point in 1893 106 BENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVICE
- .17 1
Skovholt 129 2 time or another. 3 Q When you said " inspection modules," what 4 is an inspection module? C 5 A That's an internal I6E procedure, and I don't 6 even have a copy cf it here. It is just the ISE 7 procedures manual for how they go about doing their 8 business. 9 Q How often does I6E review quality assurance 10 Programs at licensed facilities? 11 A I can't say offhand. I would d2fer that to 12 Mr. Moseley. 13 Q We were informed that this is now carried 14 out on a three-year cycle, dces that sound about r.ight 15 to you? i893 07 16 A I honestly don't know. All these are subject to 17 change from one time to another. They are also a 18 function of the stage of life of the plant. Something 19 might be done with a certain frequency during the first 20 two years of construction, and then it is during the 21 next three years of construction, and the first two years ( 22 of operation might be something different yet, and I just 23 do not have all those numbers available to me. 24 Q If I am correct in thinking that it is done 25 on a three-year cycle, as a quality assurance person, B ENJ AMIN R EPO RTIN G S ERVIC E
e .18 1 Skovholt 130 2 with primary responsibility in that area, do you think 3 that's in way of inspection? 4 A What stage of the plant? (~ 5 Q In operation. 6 A A plant that has been in operation for some time, 7 it's gotten past the shakedown stage? 8 Q Right. 9 A I would think that a three-year interval between 10 QA inspections is excessive, but if it is provided that 11 bits and pieces are done at various times during these 12 three years, and it takes three years to complete the 13 entire cycle of inspection, that may very well then be 14 adequate, depending on what is found out during these 15 interim periods. ]ggg }Q8 16 I personally believe that the inspection frequency 17 should be a function of what is found out, and as you 18 get a higher' degree of confidence on the way things are 19 being done, that they are being done right, you might 20 reduce your frequency and concentrate your efforts on 21 bigger problem areas. 22 Q When a deficiency is found in a quality 23 assurance area, how is that handled? 21 A If it is a deficiency in implementation, whereby 25 the program provided that it should be done and the BENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE
s
- .19 1
Skovholt 131 2 licensee wasn't doing it, IGE has full enforcement 3 authority to get it done, including the imposition of 4 sanctions, civil penalties, or what it takes. ( 5 If it is a deficiency in the program that we 6 approved, whereby we did not see that a particular 7 requirement was plugged in as it should have been, 8 then IGE advises us of this, and we see that the licensee 9 gets it plugged in, either by him submitting a rec.uest 10 for amendment of his program to us, or failing that, 11 we can just issue an order to him to do it. 12 Q Has it been your experience that the licensee 13 usually responds in :. very rapid fashion when these 14 deficiencies are noted? 15 A Yes, that's been my experience. 16 Q Has it also been your experience that that 17 teaches them a lesson, and they don't make the same 18 mistakes repeatedly? ]gg} }Qg 19 A (No response.) 20 Q I am trying to get a feel of how well this 21 enforcement works. Do the same problems keep coming ( 22 up time and time again? 23 A By and large, these are prcblems of implementation. 24 Time and time again when I look into these, I find that 5 the program as committed to by the licensee provides B ENJ AMIN R EPO RTI N G S ERVICE
a '. 20 1 Skovholt 132 2 that certain action should be done, and they weren't 3 doing it. It is an implementation question. 4 There are instances of repeated violations of 5 the same type, but of course, the enforcement machinery 6 provides for that by more and more severe penalties as 7 time goes on. 8 Q Based on your experience, do you find that 9 these same problems keep cropping up in implementation 10 or is it your experience that this current scheme is 11 working? 12 A I don't look at the details of each infraction tc 13 the extent that I can have an informed opinion on that 14 point. 15 I have no reason to seriously doubt that the 16 current scheme is working. 1893' 110 ld Q Even in light of TMI 27 18 A Yes. One instance, however important it may be, 19 is still one instance. 20 MR. KANE: I have no further questions. 21 MS. M0E: No questions. ( 22 MR. KANE: Let me just say, Mr. Skovholt, 23 that I appreciate your making this time available 24 to us. We are in the midst of an ongoing investi-25 gation, and for that reason, it may be necessary BENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE
5,
- .21 1
Skovholt 2 to bring you back at some point in the future, 3 depending on what further facts may come to 4 light. We will endeavor to avoid having to 5 do that, of course. 6 Lastly, let me state on the record, there 7 are a number of items that we are hoping that 8 you will be able to provide to us. One is a 9 memorandum regarding a review of items on the 10 Q list. 11 Second is a Q list for TMI 2, and any 12 regulatory guides that bear on that. 13 THE WITNESS: The regulatory guides were 14 addressing items not on the Q list. 15 MR. KANE: Yes. 16 THE WITNESS: Regulatory guides regarding 17 things that do not fall under the Appendix B 18 umbrella ~. }y3 }}} 19 MR. KANE: I am also informed that you are 20 in the process of preparing or gathering in some 21 fashion recommendations regarding licensing. ( 22 THE WITNESS: Yes. 23 MR. KANE: You indicated that you wanted to 21 speak to Mr. Denton of that situation before making 25 them available to us? BENJAMIN R E PO RTIN G SERVICE
W =,
- .22 1
Skovholt 134 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. 3 MR. KANE: If you will just follow up 4 on that. C 5 THE WITNESS: I have done that. I have 6 spoken to Mr. Case, sinc? Mr. Denton is away 7 this wer', and Mr. Case has returned the paper 8 to me for revisions and has indicated that until 9 these revisions are made, we would not feel free 10 to release it, but I believe that after that is 11 done, he will. 12 But again, I am going to follow his instruc-13 tions on the matter. 14 MR. KANE: Do you know what kind of a 15 deadline you have on those revisions? 16 THE WITNESS: Yesterday. 17 MR. KANE: As with everything else. 18 Okay. Lastly, there was a question 19 concerning the name of the inspector who you 20 recalled as having found the '77 Davis-Besse 21 transient to be significant. 0 22 Is there any way you can refresh your 23 recollection on that, we would like that infor- '893 112 24 mation. I 25 THE WITNESS: I am going to try. BENJAMIN R EPO RTING S ERVIC E
1 Skovholt 135 2 As I indicated, I thougnt there was a memo 3 that came in and went out, and I am going to 4 search my files to see if I have it. It is not ( 5 something I necessarily would have kept, but I am 6 going to make an effort to find it. 7 You mentioned in our interview today the 8 name of Creswell. That's a familiar name, but 9 I couldn't say offhand if that's the individual. 10 MR. KANE: Okay. If you could look into 11 that, we would appreciate that, too, and pending 12 that, this deposition is adjourned. 13 (Whereupon, at 6:00 p.m. the deposition 14 was adjourned.) 15 16 DONALD J. SKOVHOLT 17 Subscribed and sworn to 18 before me this day 19 of 1979. 20 21 Notary Public i 22 000 23 24 1893 113 25 BENJAMIN R EPO RTIN G S ERVICE
I 135-a P 2 INDEX 3 WITNESS DIRECT 4 Donald J. Skovholt 2 ( .D 6 7 EXHIBITS 8 SKOVHOLT FOR IDENTIFICATION PAGE 9 1 Resume of Donald J. Skovholt 4 10 11 12 000 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 i 22 23 24 1893 114 25 BENJAMIN R EPO RTIN G S ERVICE
R pw 1 136 2 STATE OF NEW YORK ) 4 ) ss: 3 COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) 4 We, ( IRWIN H. BENJAMIN, CSR, and TERRY LOUIS, 5 Notaries Public of the State of New York, do 6 hereby certify that the foregoing deposition of 7 DONALD J. SKOVHOLT, was taken before us on the 8 25th day of July,1979. 9 The said witness was duly sworn before the 10 commencement of his testimony; that the said 11 testimony was taken stenographically by ourselves 12 and then transcribed. 13 The within transcript is a true record of 14 the said deposition. 15 We are not related by blood or marriage to 16 any of the said parties, nor interested directly 17 or indirectly in the matter in controversy, nor 18 are we in the employ of any of the counsel. 19 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set 20 our names this 7e day of July,1979. p I ( 1 % + IRWIN H.\\{ BENJAMIN, CSR 23 / . 't, t ut b< t c.) TERRY LOUIS 25 1898 115 BENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVIC E
t CERTIFICATE I certify that I have read this transcript and corrected any errors in the transcription that I have been able to identify, except for unimportant punctuation errors. f 'l Date: J.,, / o *' /?"^ s'. ' - /~ Donaid J.-Skovholt ~1893 116}}