ML19308C438
| ML19308C438 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 08/27/1979 |
| From: | Cox T, Reid R NRC - NRC THREE MILE ISLAND TASK FORCE, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001240588 | |
| Download: ML19308C438 (57) | |
Text
_
<A T
i
!O NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION i!O t
i i
j j
IN THE MATTER OF:
l j
INTERVIEW:OF j
seees, seIm 1
+
3 P00R' ORIGINAL
!O I
i
)
1
)
{
Place -
Bethesda, Maryland i
j Date -
Monday, August 27, 1979 Pcge: 1 - 57 4
li i
4 I.
.i r.4.cnon.:
{
(202)347-3700 i
ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j Official Reporters j
t 11 nom 1 Cc :itol Street l
l WcsingPen, O C. 20001 I
O l ~4O' i
NATIONW1DI COVFRAGE DAILY a
?
8 0 s/
i i
CR 6635 1-
.AR 1
. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
'----------'--1 4
Interview of:
'5
' ROBERT REID.
6
'--------~X 7
8 6935 Arlington Road Room 426 9
Bethesda, Maryland 10 Monday, August 27, 1979
.11 12 The interview commenced at 1:40 p.m.
Present:
O i3 rom cox, rred ro1 o e=d Rodere Reid.
14 15
.16
{
17 18
'19 m
h 20
- 7)
- O.
22 23 LOi
- 2<
. Aco Federal Reporters, Inc.
.l 25 i
g t.
2 1
. g g N_, 1 E,,, E 1-@,
~
2 Witness:
Examination hy:
Page:
f I
3
)
4 ROBERT REID Mr. Cox 3
r 1
t'
-5 l.:
6 7
8 i
~
9 10 1
11 l
J i
- 12 6.!h 13 14 Mr. Reid's Professional Qualifications l:
and Resume. appear at Page.4 of this 15
' Transcript.
j 16 4
-17 4
s
}
18
{.
- j..
19 I'
i
- 20 p-j-
21 1
i 1~
23 1-
!I h-.
24 i Ace-Petteral floporters, Inc.
l-
'25 6-V V
p g.
s d
=,..e4e
.. +,. -
3 I
P E E E E E E I._ E E E A;
-(_f 2
Whereupon, 3
ROBERT REID rv()
4 was called as a witness by the Nuclear. Regulatory Co.' mission 5
.and, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified I
6 as follows:
i 7
EXAMINATION 8
BY MR. COX:
9 0
Bob, have you read and do understand the witness 10 notification form I have just given to you?
II
[ Handing document to witness.]
'12 A
Yes.
13 O
Do you have any cuestions or comments on it?
Id A
Not at this time.
15 0
All right.
Thank you.
16 Did you bring a resume?
17 A
I brought a resume which ends in 1971, and then a 18 copy of professional' qualifications which was put together I9-about a year-ago, which the two of them, I think, might 20 suffice.
21 g
-Q Fine.
Thaak you.
I'll.take a look.
22
. [ Handing do :uments to. counsel. ]
23 A.
Now those, if I.could get a' copy back, I would
("h
'/
24 appreciate it.
co Federot Reporters, Inc.
25
.Q
-All right.
I'm sure we can'do that.
4 i
II MR. FOLSOM:
We can do that before you leave.
wl 2
BY MR. COX:
i 3
Q All right.
Let me just ask you a couple of questions
'k -
4 that may formally update that resume for us.
5 What was your rssition with the Nuclear Regulatory 6
Commission from February 1978 to the present?
7 A
Branch Chief of Operating Branch No.
4.
8 Q
And I believe the resume indicates that you were 9
designated Chief, Operating Branch No. 4 in August 1975?
And 10 that has essentially been continuous since then?
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
Okay.
Approximately how many people report to you?
()
13 A
At the current time, 11.
I#
MR. COX:
At this point we'd like to have the 15 professional qualifications and resume of Mr. Reid bound into 16 the record.
17
[The documents follow:]
18 19 20 21
(~;
22
~j 23 i Ace 9ederd Reporten, Inc.
24 25
ROBERT W. REID
,(
d PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS DIVISION OF OPERATING REACTORS T
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (O
11y name is Robert W. Reid.
I am Chief, Operating Reactors.
Branch No. 4, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
My duties include-the review and the supervision of the reviews of all reactor safety and environmental considerations for tha reactoqs assigned to the Branch which I supervise.
I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering from Oregon State University in 1950.
After graduation, I worked for the General Electric Company, and Douglas United Nuclear Company for 21 years a,s an engineer and manager b
performing technical support activities in support of the operation of the Atomic Energy Commission'.s pluton'ium' production reactors.
I was responsible for performing reactor safety analyses, preparation of operating restrictions, incident reviews, ' performance analysis and. ~
modification reviews as an individual contributor and as manager.. A;an.7,y.
..,, u
. nm:.;y:,
In 1971 I joined the Regulatory staff of the Atomic Energy--
y ; p,q,
TMjp_p % ]
Comission.(now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) as a project Manager.c-', ' 'f
'?TGd. -f ?!
with the responsibility of all regulatory matters for the reactorsl A,;,lfy,.3
.:4:.;..n--
..:~ y assigned to me.
In August 1975,.I was designated as Chief,'Oper'ating; I
_1
. cs <. -
,7 Reactors Branch #4.
In this capacity I am responsible for the review js
.y"y y
. s.
and thel supervision of the review of all regulatory matters, including
_ reactor safety.and environmental for the reactors assigned.
- p}
F
/',
l
- /
's 79.
C"_
_.,L^
- h. '? - : -: r
. - sh *
- ~.
3,
. _ - " ' ' ~
?,
"WP -
l
1-29-71' p.
O RESUME' O
Name:
Robert N. Reid
-()
Address:
728 if. 22nd, Kennewick, Washington 99336 Telephone:
582-8537 (home); 942-1111, ext. 2-5578 (work)
Birthplace and Date:
Portland, Oregon; April 16, 1924 Marital Status:
Married Height:
6'0" ifeight:
190 Health:
Excellent Education:
College Dates Attended Degree Year Course or Major Oregon State 1946-1950 BS 1950 ChE.
University p
G Center for 1952-1953 Nuclear Physics,
Graduate Study 1953-1954 Diff. Equations 1964-1965 Adv. Calculus 1965-1966 Matrix Algebra s
Special Courses and Programs
+,' 3,,5..(>
y 2 N,; $'".'. '
Year _.
Course 4
w,;
... cp v
.. s._
. :.. n;.;,, -
p
~
Professional Business Management. <;,., A u, ;.,
1958
+ ' "
1961.
Business in Our Changing Envirohs.ent' i
'1969 Sales Analysis Instituto. - % 'M - -
.[C,'
.[*-
- ~.:
,, y,y.
9 7;ftQ?f..
e
- C Professional Memberships 3[
,l
, _ -j ' - u; $..
'3
-;,..i ' I Y
.l
'M e
American Institute of Chemical Engineers u-
'. ', ~..
. J./. i Q )'/',% 3 5 !
4:
7-( J.
American Nuclear Society
'i ' (;.. ? '
- y. p. /G.*;.@o. l.:f %. ;._
.,;. au
.. ~
, r.
,y,y,
7s 1lff ?!..Q:?f t-Work History
~
- ll. f..';L;gh
< *}, 3
'~
.3 11/65 to Present,- Douglas United Nuclear, Inc.', Richland, Washington 99352 w
l 1/70 to Present - Manager, Process Section, Technical Division,'
l [J
- .; d
.:f.c;
(
Duties:
Responsible for nanagin'g a section providing direct pro' cess l_
assistance, nuclear safety l administration, 'and reactor, -
materials development in support of the Hanford-production.
'T ( J '
and dual-purpose reactors.
a
1-29-71
( 7/68 to 12/69 - Manager, Process Evaluation Subsection, Process and pd Programs Section (Technology Section on 8/1/69),
Technical Division.
Duties:. Responsible for managing a subsection providing direct process engineering and physics assistance to the Itanford production and dual-purpose reactors and issuing process standards specifying process limits to ensure reactor safety and life, 1/66 to 7/68 - Acting Manager, Process and Reactor Development, and Manager, Reactor Engineering, Rerearch and Engineering Section, Technical Division.
Duties:
Responsible for managing a subsection providing research
~
and development, nuclear safety analysis, and special studies in support of the operation and diversification of the llanford production reactors.
11/65 to 1/66'- llanager, Process' Technology, Research and Engineering Section, Technical Division Duties:
Responsible for managing a subsection providing direct process engineering and physics assistance to the !!anford production reactors and issuing process standards specifying
~
process limits to ensure reactor _ safety and life.
Process assistance involves technical support to improve the produc-tive capacity and economic performance of the reactors as 2.7;,
well as support in analyzing and correcting problems related A :.9.
~
to reactor safety and life.
,> S w y;< Q % s ?:
'h:A A7,,
L[ hlL :j D
l '
6/50 to 11/65 - General Electric Company, Richland, Washington' 99352.; 5'; M LO^A M m:.-x.g.#,,N.bu.%+ m:p 1:44
,c
~
3/60 to 11/65 - Manager, Process Technology, Research and Engin;ee s
- .n T
' M
.., d..,:w'.
- ds ;+~. n?ip; M
m.
- ~
w
- 3-.
>y;s,-
4g Duties:
Responsibh for managing a subsection (approximately 2S *CU,SC.y4 technical and engineering personnel) providin[directMU'W.3NJ process assistance to the Hanfore 'productioii'riadors35DbMRE@
and issuing process standards specifying~prdsss'[ limits [fNig'h-.5't to ensure reactor safety and life., Process assistance:, r
- O ^C -
J involved technical cupport to improve, the p(odu'ctive; 'if l^
~
O
~
.- t U
capacity and economic performance of the reactorsas, sell. " '
as support in analyzing and correcting problems.related to reactor safety and life.
' ~ + ~~
m.
p
~
,y,. gy -
^
N.s
_~:f.
/sa ' ::l!.
~
l.*L Q.:,. W y
~
aa
+
9' 9
t e
G
. O 9/56 to 3/60 - Supervisor, Process Engineering, Research and g
Engineering Section, Irradiction Processing Department 1')
Duties:
Responsible for supervising a unit providing direct process assistance to the !!anford production reactors in overcoming process difficulties and achieving optimum plant performance. This assistance involved day-by-day prcblem solving, and in applying process standards, monitoring conformance to standards and initiating action necessary to assure conformance, analyses, and reco=endation for improving efficiency.
12/51 to 9/56 - Pile Engineer, Pile Technology Subsection, Technica?
Section
~
Duties:
Responsible for providing direct process assistance to a llanford production reactor through analysis of operating problems and recommendations for improvements for reactor i safety and efficiency.
6/50 to 12/51 - Engineer, Pile Technology Subsection, Technical Section O
outies:
Perform grecess end esei ment deve1ermeet studies en a -
P unique gas recovery system utili::ing high vacuum techniques. -
.9/46 to 6/50 - Student, Oregon State University 12/45 to 9/46 - Laborer, Sawmill, Corvallis, Oregon
' '). '
};4 -hy.
12/42 to 12/45 - Naval Aviatorf U. S. Navy
'fS;b.
.. -:P (Uj$9 i;@DS$
Msf
-a e Significant Achievements
'N' O ^^
.J S,T}.DM)pQn,.]
E S
, ;,.g..:p-. [
?l.q Scouters Key - Boy Scouts of America' O/ - c.
.3+
',;hcFJ1:e t Silver Beaver Award - Boy Scouts of America l
Life Membership Award - PTA c;' t L-
,.H.yjD,I%d t;j;24;:7:W. r Section Chairman - AIGE c,,yf.l <_gf /
- ]" u
- P -'g.'({y; 0
,g L..:, '
u.
M: c:c:%5. : ' ~ ~ U =- Q. Y % i
- l
. ~.L;2-M.'.U,. M:;y y ;-%
? ;.W:
A
'~ (g:
~
Civic Activities
~
~;_y..
/I-
- e : ',
p)
Boy Scouts of. America - Cubmaster, Committeeman, Kennewick Chai'rman for x
s Annual Fund Drive PTA - President, Kennewick Council l
p Kennewick Swim Club - President-
,,;, g,
'V Toastmasters - President
'.~
- 'Y
, [/
l A
. 29-71
~
.fa 4
5 1
BY MR. COX:
(i
(,j -
2
.Q To whom do you report, or did you report in the 3
period from February 1978 to the present?
f5 4
A
.There have been various people I reported to.
~
5 Probably starting in 1978 it was Carl Goller, and I don't 6
remember the exact date, but then when he left, Brian Grimes 7
was the assistant director, and then recently during the 8
redesignation of organization within DOR, that's Bill Gammill.
9 Q.
Okay.
In the period following the TMI 2 operating 10 license issuance in February 1978, what were your responsibilities:
11 with regard to the TMI 2 project?
12 A
I had no responsibilities for the TMI 2 project,
()
13 in the sense of it beine assigned to me.
The only assignment 14 was to start getting ready to have TMI 2 transferred to 15 Operating Reactor Branch 4.
16 MR. FOLSOM:
May I interrupt?
17
.BY.MR. FOLSOM:
18 0
Who was responsible?
19 A
Division of Project Management.
20 Q
And do you know who the project manager was?
21 A
Harvey Silver.. I'm not sure whether he was the
( ):
22 project manager during that entire time, but at least starting 23 in August or September, during that phase, he was the contact (n) 24 we had.with that; so I'm not sure when he starte..
. Ace Federsi 8tegorters, Inc.
25 Y
4 6
6
-1 BY MR. COX:
/(,M.
_)
2 0-Would that be August or September of when?
3 A
'78.
~('~
~4 0
What was your responsibility regarding amendments 5
submitted to the TMI 2 FSAR during this period?
6 A
None.
7 Q
Are you familiar with Amendment No. 65 to the TMI 2 FSAR that was submitted to the NRC by Met Ed on 11 May 1978?
8 9
A I'am familiar with that, yes.
10 0
Bob, I want to show you here a copy of several 4
11 pages of that amendment, and a copy of this, these ceveral 12 pages, is already marked Exhibit No. 6 in the Varga deposition
'(
)
13 of Thursday, 16 August 1979.
14 That's the document you mentioned recalling or you 15 are familiar with?
16
.A When I say familiar with, I am familiar that it 17 exists.
I have never read it.
18 Q
Can you recollect when or if you first saw it?
'19 A'
This is the ~ first time I have seen it.
20 0
.Okay.
21' A
My familiarity stems from the letter transmittal-
)
22
' that I got, but it did not involve going back and looking at 23 that' submittal.
-If you recognize -- see, this was not -- this I,') ?
-24 cwas submitted'to Mr. Varga in Division of Project Management
~
,: Am Fede,si Reporters, Inc.
25 on that docket.
E
7 1
Q This Amendment No. 65 contained a revised TMI
~
(h ly-$
^'l 2'
' site emergency plan, Appendix,&-h.
Do.you know if this change 3
was. requested by NRC7 es
%J
'4 A
Not to my knowledge.
5 Q
Did you take some action on this submittal by i
6 Metropolitan Edison?
7 A
No, I did not.
At the time it was submitted, we 8
might expand -- the first time I became aware that there was 9
- such an amendment was at the time of the transmittal I got 10 from Mr. Knighton, you know, November 1st, which addressed the 11 fact that this had been submitted.
12 0
I see.
J
)
13 Then in your capacity as a branch chief of an 14 operating branch, you or your people did not request Mr.
15 Knighton to do any review?
16 A
No, not to my knowledge.
2 17 BY MR. FOLSOM:
18 Q
What is the communication fnxa Mr. Knighton that C
-19 you speak of?
20 A
A letter dated November 1st, 1978.
21 MR. COX:
Can we go off-the record a minute?
i
. l,s -
- s!
22 i
[ Discussion off the record.]
L
.23 BY MR. COX:
l rm.
k-)
- 24 Q
Bob, you just mentioned. that you did not request l As-FWwel Ramne,s. Inc
.l 25 20. Knighton to evaluate Amendment 65 cn: any part of it, and.
p N
8 l
1 I'm interested in the emergency plan revision in that amendment.
- 2 Was there any request that you know of by anybody or any 3
organization,-a request of Mr. Knighton to review this revised
(.-
4 emergency plan?.
5 A
Well, with respect to my organization, my branch, 6
I'm not aware of any request.
It's my understanding, which 4
7 I think has to be couched in those terms, that Mr. Knighton 8
noted the incoming, and since he has the responsibility related 9
to emergency plans, that.he determined that he should review it, s
10 But whether he received any request from DPM or any other source, II I'm not, you know, intimately aware of that.
12 Q
The TMI 2 emergency plan is in fact a site emergency
~
'13 plan, isn't it?
I4 A
Correct.
15 O
In this regard, would it cover the TMI 1 emergency 16 response also, or be the plan for response at that unit also?
17 A
I would presume that that would be the intent 18 because obviously it doesn't make sense to have twd plans for 19 one site, when one action is going ' to be taken.
That would 20
' indicate that the first error that occurred here was the 21 submittal'by Met Ed which was only qn one docket, should have j
22 been-submitted on both dockets and was not.
23 Q
Is the TMI, or was'the TMI 1 project your p/'
24 responsibility at this time?
s_
Ace Feder9 Reporters, Inc.
25 A
TMI l project was my responsibility.
9 q_
Could you help us '
establishing the timeframe 1
Q 2
here as to_when the TMI 1 project became your responsibility?
r^s.
3 A
Let's see.
There was two actions after I became Q
4 branch chief, and at one stage all of the B&W and all of the 5
CE reactors were put into my branch.
That occurred in early 6
'78.
7 However, Three Mile Island was in my branch at that
~
8 time, so it was in ever since I was the branch chief of that 9
branch.
10 0
I believe 'that went back to 19757 11 A
Yeah, yeah, whenever it was transferred.
I can't 12 remember the exact date.
f%
k /'
13 Q
But before February 19787 14 A
But before February 1978.
5
~Q And in the period we are talking about now, TMI 1 1
16 was in your branch'.
17 A
Right; right.
18 Q
Let's go directly to that document by Mr. Knighton 19 to yourself.
20 (Handing document to witness.]
21 I want.go show you now a copy of a memo from G.
22 Knighton to R.
Reid, dated 1 November 1978, subject Three Mile 23
. Island _ revised' emergency plan. 'And this memo has attached a
-,. n
' '\\ ']
24
.four-page' enclosure l'which is-entitled "Three Mile Island
" Ace-Federet Reporters, Inc.
-25 Site = Emergency Plan," andL the document is already marked
10 I
Exhibit No. 741n the Varga deposition of 16 August 1979.
, -. +
2 Could you tell us any more that you know about 3
the circumstances in this particular evaluation?
,qV 4
A Well, first, looking at the document, it says 5
Three Mile Island site revised emergency plan, but the plant 6
name is Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2.
7 The project manager's name here is Charles 8
Zwetzig.
He was not at that time the project manager for 9
Three Mile Island, Unit 2.
-10 Those are observations.
The TAC number 10082 --
II okay, I'm not familiar with it, I haven't personally checked I2 to see who originated that particular TAC number.
That's 13 T-A-C, ' technical activity control form that is used within DOR to record and track work.
15 Q
Would that form indicate who asked that this work 16 be done?
I7 A
'No, it's not generally signed by anybody as a request 18 form..It would indicate -- it would indicate people on it I9 who were assigned.
There's no bottom line signature that 20 says, okay, this was requested by so-and-so.
21 It would indicate -- let's see -- no, I stand rm 22
' (,)
corrected.
There is a place on-the form for the name of the 23 requester.
It's not signed, but there is a name blank for it.
J na mdde Gh hamn, M e h
.F
.,a n.corWrs, i 25 time I discussed it with the project manager, Mr. Zwetzig, and
11 I
we recognized.atithis time that it was for Three Mile Island, 1,
I\\-<)
2 Unit.2; that we didn't have that reactor and nor did we have 3
'the submittal.
.q
-V 4
Here the recollection gets a little bit unclear, 5
but in discussing tMis subsecuently with him af ter this memo 6
came to light and after Three Mile Island 2, it's his recollec-7 tion and mine that we discussed this with Mr. Knighton,. and 8
he indicated that he would get back with Three Mile Island 2 9
project manager on this point.
10 Now, at the same time, we were in the process of 11 reviewing Three Mile Island 2 with respect to the transfer 12 of Three Mile Island 2.
So exactly how this was going to be
(-
(_/
13 handled.and who was going to handle it needed to be integrated 14 with the transfer of Three Mile Island 2.
15 So that's -- you know, the two are related in that 16 sense.
17 Q_
What implications did this review have relative 18 to TMI l?
19 A
That was one of the things that would have to be 20 determined, in other words, if this was submitted with respect 21 to ths Three Mile Island 2_ docket, what was the implication.
p-
['T w.-
22
.with respect to Three Mile Island 1.
23 LQ.
~ Was there some doubt in your mind at this time that fy(s/
24
.Ehis emergency plan'and/or its revision applied to both 1 and 2 ACG-f9dGCJ M9por19fs, if1C.
25 as a' site' emergency _ plan?
1
12 1
A Well, in the legal sense, yes.
There was as far 2
as Three Mile Island 1 was concerned, legally they were still 3
bound by the emergency plan that they had of record.
4 And let's go back one other way.
If we were going 5
to make a communication to Three Mile or Met Ed with mspect 6
to their submittal and only their submittal on the TMI 2 7
docket, it would then need to have been transmitted by the 8
project organization responsible for Three Mile Island 2, 9
which would have been the Division of Project Management, but 10 the -- obviously having this memo in this form with this 11 addressee and submitted only on one docket created quite a bit 12 of confusion with respect to 'he -- you know, how it should be c
13 resolved.
14 0
- lou didn't feel that Met Ed at this point needed 15 to be contacted via your branch authority to deal with het Ed 16 concerning TMI l?
17 A
No, I'm not saying that.
I figure it needed to be 18 resolved as to who was going to be doing the contacting and 19 how the contact was going to be going, and what we were going 20 to contact.
21 The fact that the memo said what it does with 22 respect to the plan not meeting Reg Guide 1.101, Revision 1, 23 and that they should revert back to the old plan, also needed 24 to be looked at before we'd want to communicate with Met Ed.
Ace. ederst Reporters. inc.
25 For example, Appendix E, 10 CFR 50 only requires 1
. _ ~
13 i
i that they have a plan.
The licensee is free to change his (j.
2 P an as long as it' meets -- if 10 CFR 50.51, Part B, which l
3 says if the -- if he concludes that changing the plan does not l
(')'
i 4
involve an unreviewed safety question, he can go ahead and make 5
that change, and it doesn't require our review.
6 So in order to tell him to go back and revert to his 7
old plan, we would have first determined that it did not, or 8
that it did involve an unreviewed safety question.
9 BY MR. FOLSOM:
10 Q
And before that, you'd have to resolve it was your 11 business to say this?
12 A
Right.
Correct.
O is o
so ta * --
14 BY MR. COX:
15 Q
Let me repeat that in order for him to be told --
16 him being Met Ed -- to go back to his original plan, he 17 would have to determine that there was or was not an unresolved 18 safety issue?
19 A
Well, that the change did involve an unreviewed i '
20 safety question.
21 Q
In which event --
(( )
22 A
In which event, then, we would have to review it 23 before the change could be accomplished or in effect.
.,m
(,)
24 Q
Then if you would just tell me again what is it i Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 you did to pursue this in-house resolution of who was going I
14 1
to --
p
\\--
2 A
The only thing I did specifically was discuss it 3
with my project manager, Jerry Zwetzig, and then he indicated 4
that he would carry it from there, and the discussions with 5
Mr. Knighton, and further discussions were carried on by Mr.
6 Zwetzig, who was the project manager for "MI 1, and was also --
7 would have been taking over Three Mile Island, Unit 2.
8 Q
Did Mr. Zwetzig conclude some arrangements with 9
lir. Knighton?
10 A
It's his recollection as he stated to me that he 11 discussed it with Mr. Knighton, and that Mr. Knighton said
' PPA 4 12 that he would discuss it with JPM.
Now that may -- you know,
()
13 that was some time ago, and.so you'll have to check with him, 14 the degree to which that is an accurate recall.
15 But let me point out that at that time, if you look 16 at the date of this memo, November 1st, 1978, I do recall that 17 Mr. Zwetzig was gone for, I think, three weeks right around 18 Chris tmas time, for we're also entering into the holiday period.
19 This was also the time when DOR was actively establishing 20 their accounting system for action items, so there was a lot 21 of activity in the project managers at that time, and then
\\_/
22 right after the first of the year, he was involved with a 23 refueling review for Three Mile Island, Unit 1, so he was
[')
l v
24 busy'at that time.
A F e es n oorwes. =.
25 go I think this also has to be looked at in the.
l t
1
. - =. - -
15 tt 1
. perspective of the total backlog of DOR, and where does this c
- j. '
2 fit in DOR's scheme of priorities.
We do have a backlog of
.h 3
approximately 2400. action items.
This is not included in that D
4 backlog.
5 0
You mentioned the importance of making a determina-i 6
tion 'about unresolved or unreviewed safety cuestions in 7
accordance with this 10 CFR 50.59.
'8 In this time period, did you, other than what you 9
have already told us, did you initiate any attempt to determine i
10 whether this Amendment No. 65, in particular, this emergency plan, involved such an unreviewed safety question?'
II i
4 12 A
No.
That would be done after we determined who is
.13 going to handle it.
14 0
If a licensee submits a change to the FSAR without 15 any declaration about whether the change is or isn't an 16 unr iewed safety question, what is your responsibility
~
i
[
17 relative to this, as'far as pursuing the determination of 18 whether something is.or is not?
i I
l9 A-Well, the primary audit of the determination of 20 an unreviewed safety question'for any changes that the licensee
'21 makes with respect to 50.59 is I&E's..
They review the.
22 submittals.that are made, the reviews.that are made,:the
~
~23 fact that' a review.for whether 50.59(b) question is involved, HO 24 I&E'does that review.
It's a primary part of their inspec-Asefseer:2 Reporwes }25 nc.
~ idn. :
l t
l.
L
(
~,--
e 16 1
Our role in that is to back up I&E's reviews of fh. _
Ss,) -
- 2 those, if we think that the -- something has slipped through, 3
or if the determination has not been properly made, we will
' (-)-
'~'
4 attempt to try to backstop the I&E determination.
5 But the primary responsibility is an I&E responsi-6 bility.
Now the importance here with respect to whether or not J
50.59 auestion is involved is indeed if there was no unresolved 7
8 or unreviewed safety cuestion, then we would have no legal 9
basis tcr going back to the licensee and saying, "He cannot 10 make this change."
11 So that's the important part.
12 I think another thing along this line that should
()
13 be noted, the deficiencies stated in this letter are 14 deficiencies in some way related also to Reg Guide 1.101, 15 Revision 1, okay?.
16 It's not clear whether the deficiencies that are 17 pointed out are deficiencies related to Appendix E of 10 CFR 50 18 or merely to Reg Guide 1.101.
19
-That would also have to be determined with respect 20 to the need to and the priority for upgrading the emergency 21 plan, and however_ the statement that they should revert back
()
22 to the plan that was previously. approved suggests that' the 23 plan that they. submitted was less than the plan that was 74 (j
2i approved.
Ae.4.d.re n conen anc.
.25 But these specific deficiencies I haven't reviewed t
17 1
to determine whether those are solely related to Reg Guide 1.101,
(~)
\\/
- 2 Revision 1, or not.
3 Q
Are you aware of the' Regulatory Requirements Review gs V
4 Committee and its role in evaluating new requirements in this 5
case, as well as reviewing and approving Reg Guide 1.101?
6 A
Yes,-and Revision 1.
-7 Q
Yeah.
8 A
Not explicitly, but generally, yes.
9 Q
I understand they categorize requirements as to 10 their necessity for backfitting or not backfitting.
II A
Right.
I2 Q
And are you aware of the way that the RRRC O
\\m/
13 categorized this particular guide?
I4 MR. FOLSOM:
Off the record for a moment.
15
[ Discussion off the record.J 16 BY MR. COX:
17 Q
I believe the RRRC categorized this regulatory 18 guide prior to the time that the Knighton-to-Reid memo came 19 out on 1 November-1978, saying that there were some deficiencies 20 relative to that guide.
21 A
Correct.
That's my understanding.
/~
(_T/
22 0
How did the RRRC's determination which is, I 23 understand, the final determination as to whether or n-t some-A
'. A:-)
24' thing is backfitted or not by the Staff, how did that fit into 4 Ace-Federut Reporters, tric.
25 your thinking?
f s
18
-l A
Okay, it's my understanding that the RRRC determina-
'N.
A/
2 tion with respect to this reg guide was that it should be 3
backfitted in all operating reactors, and that, I don't recall 7-()
4 the exact date of that determination, but it was as early as 5
1977, but' that's -- I'm not positive on that date.
6 However, particularly in the case of Three Mile 7
Island 2 at the time -- and that was before the operating 8
license was issued for Three Mile Island 2, the backfit of this 9
reg guide to Three Mile Island 2 was determined not to be 10 necessary.
It was signed by Ben Rusche who was then Director II of NRR.
Are you familiar with that?
12 O
I think -- are you referring to this office letter
,o
(,)
13 concerning the implementation of the standard review plan?
I4 A
Correct.
Correct.
Okay.
Which would say then 15 at-least at that level it was determined that at the time of 16 the issuance of the operating license, that there was not a 17 need to backfit that reg guide for Three Mile Island 2.
18 Now there was also a program to implement Reg i
19 Guide 1.101', Revision 1 on all operating reactors.
- However, 20 the program priority was such that only those cases which were 21
~ selected as being -- needing_ upgrading were in the program.
' I )-
22 Ia other words-it's not a high priority ef fort.
23
-Q For TMI'2?,
O A_)
24
'A For any operating reactor.
The -- as I understand
-Acefederd Reporters, Inc.
25 it,; there are only about five operating reactors which meet
19 4
'I the requirements.of Reg Guide 1.101, Revision 1, out of 70 some
- l't 2
odd.
3 0
I thought you had said'that there were certain
- f. 3 4
selected reactors for which it was given priority.
5 A
Was given priority,'but that doesn' t mean it 6
had been fulla implemented.
7 In other words, first you have to d2 cide to 8
implement the requirement on a given reactor, and then it takes 9
time to get it implemented, which I think is perhaps in the 10 realm of opinion, but for example had we started to implement II Reg Guide 1.101, Revision 1, on TMI 2 and 1 at the time of 12 this memo, it's certainly questionable as to whether it would
)
13 have been implemented by the time of the accident.
I4 And I think one way to determine that would be to 15 look at the other plants for which the backfit implementation 16 was being worked on, when those started, and what the progress 17 on those are.
18 0
After receipt of the November 1st memo from Mr.
I9 Knighton, was Met Ed informed of these results of our review?
20 No, not by me.
A 21 Q
..Or by anyone else, to your knowledge?
f-22 A
Not to my knowledge.
23 0
-Why not?
I Lj 24
-Well, as I say, to inform them of the results of g.
iAm Pederd Reporte,s, Inc.
25 the review,'first we would have to determine, okay, based on
7 N
'20
-1
-these recults, what action was~ required of Met Ed, and before 2
we could do that, all these things I was discuss'ing would have 3
to be' resolved, would need to'be resolved, and those were not
.g}
M 4
1 resolved, at least on my part, and I am speculating on the 5
part of the project manager, because of the priori ~ty. of other 6
work relative to this.
7 Q-Does this hold-true even for an informal kind of 8
notification that the project manager might do, say, by phone?
9 You feel it would have been out of order for him to have
~
10 said to his contact there that --
II' A.
It wouldn't have been out of order for him to 12 contact him, but then he would have been immediately if he O's' 13 did -- and he might have, you'd have to check that with him --
14 the immediate question would have been, okay, where do we go 15 from here.
16 But I think again if he was going' to talk to Three 17
-Mile Island 2, he would have had to have integrated with the 18 other project manager for Three Mile Island 2.
19 Q'
I think that's one of the things we are trying to 20 examine here, Bob, is the apparent lack of cross-talk, if you l
21 will, between this work that's being done in the projpct f).
'w/
'22
- management. organization that had responsibility for TMI 2 23 at1 that - time, had the nominal responsibility, anyway.
\\
i8-1.
-\\>
24 A
-You mean this particular --
1 j
' Ace FWwd Roo,w,s, lx.
c 2-5 Q-The review of this emergency plan-change. ;See, we w
9
21 are examiningf the system and the process, and how it works.
f'%
\\_)
'A Fell, let me step back one.
2 3'
For example, ' there are two groups that implement, f
('
4 for example, the emergency planning reviews.
One is in DOR, 5
one is in DSS.
At that time it was under Scovall.
I'm not sure whether he was in DPM at that time.
-6 7
Okay, if we were going to go back and handle this on the TMI 2 docket, then there is even a question whether 8
Knighton's group would have been involved, because the review 9
10 of the original plan, the reviews for DPM, are not done by 11 DOR.
12 So, in other words, to go back and to restart this
()
13 thing, you'd have to get both the reviewing parties and the ja project parties together at that time.
15 Logically, when this came in, it would have been 16 reviewed on the docket that it came in on, determining whether 17 these -- the questions that you raise with respect to should 18 it have been reviewed and, if so, initiated the review, it 19 should have been done on the Three Mile Island 2 docket.
20 Q
But the operating license is already issued, right?
21 We're talking about the period where the operating license
.ra a
f 22 has been issued already after February 1978.
v 23 A
Well, the operating license, I don't think, has fm) 24 any significance.
It's.the date of transfer from one is
- Ace Fede,st Reporters, Inc.
25 organizationLto the other that has significance.
L_
22 4
For example, Fort St. Vrain has had an operating
(~)/
. three -- two, three years ago?
It's-2 license issued, what,
\\_
L 3
still the responsibility of the Division of Project Management f-s v
4 e ntirely.
5 0
And yet in this case the Division of Project
. Management emergency plan review organization was not working 6
on this after February '78, but Mr. Knighton's group was; 7
correct?
8 A
Apparently, yes.
9 10 Q
And I guess what we have not established here is 11 exactly why.
12 A'
Correct.
Yeah.-
And I don' t have the answer to that.
13 O
Could you shed any light on what version of this ja site emergency plan was in effect. as of the time of the 15 accident on March 28, 1979?
-16 A
I don't think I can.
As I understand that which is in effect is the emergency procedures and the plan is -only 17 18 that which is a description of the procedures. That which is 19 implemented would be the procedures themselves, and so what 20 you'd have to look at is as a result of submittal of this change in the emergency plan, was there any change in the 21 h
emergency procedures.
22 But the direct answer to your question, I don't 23 f._
(.,/ -
24 know.
~Am-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 Let me expand' that a little bit.
Legally.I would
23
~l say that it would be confused, that the' plan of record for
- /_se
\\ )~
2 TMI 1 would-be the original plan, and therefore if there
- 3 was any citable deficiencies with respect to any action, the
~
4 plan of record with respect to TMI 1 would obtain, because of 5
Met Ed's. error in not submitting it on both dockets.
6 So, in ef fect, - they - had two plans, and I guess 7
legally are bound to the most conservative of both of them.
8 Q'
If they had submitted -- if I can ask a hypothetical 9
question that I think might shed some light:
i 10 Suppose that Met Ed had submitted Amerament 65, or Il some other amendment number, but this emergency plan change 12 o n the TMI 1 docket, what would your actions have been in that
-]v 13 regard?
14 A
The action would have been to issue a Technical
-15 Assistance Control form to recuest the review and concurrence 16 with respect to that change in plan.
17
- BY MR. FOLSOM:
18 Q
And it was not done in this instance?
]
~
I9 A
Not by DPM -- I mean'not by DOR.
20 Q
Do you know whether it was done by anybody?
2I A
It's my understanding it was not.
4
/~T' s_/
22 Q
That was because of the confusion about where 4
23 responsibility lay?.
24 A
I guess it was not confusion on my part, but
- Ace Federst Reporters, Inc.
25
. confusion with respect to, I would.say, the nonassumption of
24 I
responsibility, yes.
And, yeah, let's say confusion with 2
respect to the fact that. we are in a transfer status, 3
fS BY MR. COX:
()
4 Q
How would you -
let me start again.
5 How was the licensee to know what version'of the 6
emergency plan-is in effect?
7 A
Well, again, you'd have to determine that from 8
the. licensee, if he went by the plan of record, that's the 9
only way'that I can see that he would know.
But I haven't 10 asked the licensee which plan he considered applicable to TMI 1.
- I That would be the only way I would find out -- know to find L '
12 out, and I doubt that the answer today would necessarily be 13 an answer that would be the same as you would have gotten Id before the TMI 2 accident.
Q Or when the licensee submits an amendment to 16 change the plan back to the hypothetical case of a moment 17 ago --
18 A
Let me -- I'd like to correct a statement there.
The licensee submitted a changed plan.
He didn't submit an 20 amendment or any request to change the plan.
~2I In oth'er words, he submitted an amendment to the O
22 V
FSAR..
That's different than submitting a request for an 23
-amendment to the license, so he didn't submit an amendment (n)-
24
' bd Reponen, Inc.
to Change.
He apparently submitted a change.
- A F
25 O'
And in the absence of response from the NRC, his
/
...... ~..
25 1
having filed this change to the FSAR, how do you view 2
the applicant's position with regard to using a particular a
3 plan?- Which plan do you feel he is authorized or permitted V
4 to use?
5 A
At least in the TMI 2 docket, he would be authorized 6
' or' permitted to use the revised plan that he submitted.
How 7
he interpreted it for TMI 1, again, I don't know.
8 Q
Even in the absence of a response by DOR project 9
organizations, with an approval or disapproval, he could go 10 ahead and use the plan that he just put in here and docketed?
11 A
Yes.
If you go strictly by what the rules require.
12 Q
Even in the Mbsence of a declaration by the (O
13 applicant one way or the other as to whether this was an
_j 14 unreviewed safety issue or not?
15 A
He doesn't have to submit to us that they are a 16 declaration that there was or -- you know, with respect to 17 an unreviewed safety question.
18 However, he should have in his files and in his 19 committee meetings, there should be a determination with 20 respect to an unreviewed safety question.
21 In other;words -- and, in fact, he would not
()
22 necessarily be obligated to file a revised plan.
That's 23
.only requirement for an application for a license, not a mk,)
24 requirement for continuation of a license.
Ace Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 0
Well, if this revised' emergency plan contains an e
~ - -, - -,
y vrm-,
e-
,a--
,v r
--n
26 1
item whi'ch.had high potential for being an unreviewed safety Tn ),
's 2
issue, how would we pick this up?
3 A
.Through, as I mentioned, the primary means would be
,3 3
\\_/-
4 through the I&E inspection.
The licensee makes numerous 5
changes in his procedures, his equipment, and his operation, 6
which he's authorized to make, but he nakes those ---makes 7
a determination on his own that it either does or does not 8
involve an unreviewed safety question, and he need not make 9
any submittal to us, unless he determines that it does involve 10 an unreviewed safety question.
And that involves changes to II things which are stated in the FSAR.
12 But, in other words, that's a basic part of the O-U 13 regulation.
14 Now,.the review of thcde determinations is an I&E 15
-function, and they do report those determinations, changes 16 to procedures test, modifications, in their what used to be 17 annual report:.now their monthly report.
18 O
But if the applicant comes in right up front with a 19 change to the FSAR which we have reviewed and which was one of 20
.the bases for the issuance of a license, isn't that -- what's 21 the status of that kin'd of a change?
w.
-f 3 (f
22 A
That's an information -- you mean just an informa-23 tion submittal?
\\A 24 Q
'Well,'I would think a change of the entire emergency Ace Federd Reporters, Iric.
25 plan, at least prior to our looking at it, would be more than
27 I
just information.
There might be some really technical substance
,,,N
-q
'2 there.
e -
3 A
Well, no, I wasn't looking, I wasn't talking about k_')., '
4 an emergency plan.
I thought you were generalizing.
5 O
Well, in this case we are talking about a change 6
to the FSAR that was a change in the emergency plan that had 7
been.previously approved as a part of the FSAR.
8 A
Well, first of all, let me say I don't have any 9
question but what, yeah, this should have been reviewed.
I 10 mean I'm not making the statement that it should not have been Il reviewed, since it was submitted, and I think the practice is 12 that everything is reviewed or everything that's submitted
' O( /
13 we will.take a look at, and make an independent -- at least 14 check to see whether it's within the bounds of the proper 15 determination of an unreviewed safety question, or safety 16 irrespective of that.
17 So, yes.
But if you look at the submittal, the 18 submittal came in in May, and that's where it has to be lef t 19 to the responsibility _ of those who have that docket to resolve 20 it because, in other words, until you showed it to me, I'd 21 never seen the submittal, although I obviously could have m
s2 22 looked at it in November.
But the -- it's not -- the submittal 23 doesn't go to, you know,- all over the NRC.
.{'j, 24 i
.Q If I could just ask'you one more in this area.
Ace Fedted Reporters, Inc.
25 We talked a minute ago about what you would have done had this
28 1
been submitted in the TMI 1 docket.
m i
2 Again, assuming that instance, and this change 3
had been submitted on the TMI 1 docket, would you have waited 4
for or needed an I&E report that this is something that 5
ought to be looked at before you had started that review?
6 A
Well, no, recognizing that we were in the process 7
of upgrading all emergency plans eventually to Reg Guide 1.101, 8
Revision 1, and that the trigger on that, generally speaking, 9
was a submittal of a change to an emergency plan.
I think 10 that would have been the basis for me to initiate the review, 11 because I would have assumed that since they had submitted a 12 change that we would now want to upgrade them to Reg Guide
[ ')
13 1.101,
, Revision 1.
14 So I think there's two actions, two separate 15 determinations that have to be made here.
One is with 16 respect to the inadequacy of the plan that they submitted.
17 The other one with respect to are we going to upgrade to 18 Reg Guide 1.101, Revision 1, and those are two separate things.
19 Q
Why, in your opinion, did it take so long after 20 the February 1978 oral issuance to effect the transf er 21 responsibility for TMI 2 from DPM to your branch in DOR?
's 22 A
That's, I think, largely a function of transfer 23 policy.
In other words, when is it the policy to transfer a lll 24 reactor?
There are general guidelines with respect to those Ace federd Reporters, Inc.
25 transfers, but in the past it's been that normally DPM will
29 1
retain the responsibility for the reactor until it gets up
/~'T
. UJ 2
to some power, say near 100 percent power, and then there's 3
the matter of putting together the transfer document which
-,-si
,N,!
4 also takes time to put together, and to evolve to satisfaction, 7
5 so that it adequately describes the status of the reactor
^6
- that's.been transferred.
7 0
You mentioned one thing, the power level, and then
.8
~just now you said something about the transfer memo evolving
'9 to the satisfaction of some or all the parties.
10 Could you clarify any further the kind of criteria 11 we are talking about that would be required to be met for 12 the transfer to'take place?
O) x_
13 A
Well, there are no absolutes.
If there are major 14 hearing actions, for example, which are continuing beyond 15 the issuance of the operating license, and after the reactor 16 gets up to some power, that will have a bearing on whether or 17 not the reactor is transferred, because _the project manager 18 or project organization that's been directly involved in those 19 hearings need to continue their part in the role with respect 20 to those hearings.
21
-The transfer also would be dependent upon the
(~)~
l!2 problems that occur at this facility.
In other words, if Am,-
l!3 they issue an _cperating license and then for one reason or 24 another the ' f acility had some major difficulty and, in fact,
- i. Ace-r.d.r.i n. porters, inc.
25
- has to go to substantial activity, that may also delay the 1
30 1
transfer.
s.
(A ^)
2 We could also ask the same question, I guess, with 3
,3 respect to the transfer of TMI 2 af ter the accident.
That
%j 4
occurred. March 28th, and the transfer occurred last Thursday, a
5 Q
You mentioned the hearing issues outstanding and 6
. technical problems occurring during the early OL phases.
7 Any others?
8 A
I think those are the main -- there's also a 9-matter of relative staffing capabilities to handle the reactor 10 on the DPM side versus the DOR side that may be controlling II in particular cases at particular times.
12 Q
Are you talking about staffing outside the immediate t'M
(_)
13 project management area, project managers or review people?
I4 A
Both, but I'm thinking primarily of the project 15 management types of individuals.
It's also, I think, reviewers, 16 tc..
I know -- well, okay, you asked --
17 Q
The reason I asked --
18 A
You were asking additional factors and one of I9 the factors is how much workload is, for example, is it going
.20 to mean for DOR to take on such a facility.
I know that and 21 resolution of that has delayed some transfers.
(~)t 22 O
You're saying this latter problem, potential
\\
23 problem, staffing in DOR, was one of the reasons -- is that 4
%)
24 one of the reasons?
Ace-Feder:A Reporters, Inc.
25 A
In TMI'2?
No, I was generalizing there.
No, I had e
31 I
at.least a project manager assigned, Mr. Zwetzig.
He had p
-t h-2 two other reactors at the time, but at least 'I had.no particular 3
problem with the timing of the transfer.
But I think-the
/~.
- V 4
delays there'were primarily getting the transfer papers put 5
together in a definitive form.
6 Now, whether when we got those fully -- all the
.7 outstanding action ~ items fully described, whether that would 8
have resulted in a problem with respect to DOR observing 9
TMI 2 from the reviewer part of the DOR division, I don't know.
10 We didn't get that far.
11 Q
It took the better par' of -- well, I guess it 12 was more than a year to describe the technical issues outstand-
^s
,()
13 ing, to lay them out in a written document?
14 A
Well, TMI 2 got its operating license in -- when, 15 February of '78?
Okay, the first draft transfer memo was in 16 September of
'78.
I don' t know whether you have a copy of that 17 or not.
If~not,.I'brougnt~a cop along'with me.
18 Now, that partially described the outstanding 19 issues and description of resolved issues.
The action from l
l 20 there on, I think, was primarily related to the priority of 21 DPM to finish putting together the transfer memo.
()
22 In other words, they have quite a bit of work to do 23 to dig up the. history on various -itens which we ne.ed to know
,A k
24 in order to take on a facility, to know what actions are Ace Federal Reporters, tric.
25 outstanding.
32 I
jQ' The first thing you mentioned was hearing, out-
.; p.
2 standing hearing issues.
Were there any of those kinds of 3
things that you know of?
<s
-(v) 4
.A No, there was a hearing, an outstanding ' hearing 5
issue with respect to-Three Mile Island.2, but it was not one 6
that would affect the transfer.
7 0
So I think you've narrowed it down, then, really
.8 to the development of this transfer memo and any administrative 9
problems associated with writing out these issues and 10 scheduling their work?
II A
Yeah, and I don't know what -- what other activities 12
'are going on with respect to absorbing the priority attention (G/
13 of DPM, in getting the transfer memo put together.
I don't 14 think they were working.100 percent _of the time from 15 September to March just preparing the transfer memo.
16
'Q-How does your branch participate in the participa-17
- tion of-this memo?
- 18 A
We primarily review it to see whether they 19 adequately addressed current items of interest to DOR.
For 20 example, we have a list of 80 generic items which we are
. 21 applying across the board to all operating ~ reactors, nc ell
<5
~
~
, -(,/
22 of which are applicable to B&W reactors.
I don't know right 23
. offhand how many are applicable ts B&W reactors.-
But we want f-1'
~ 2d to. be sure that we know wnat the status of the reactor is
'- Am Federal Reporte,s, Inc.
25
~ with respect.to each of~those items that are applicable to f
V
~
L 33 I-B&W-reactors.
- kut 2
And~then I think the other major part is that, 3
~q.
okay,.for those items and for all of the open items which are 4
identified by DPM and by the license, that we want to be sure 5
that the responsibility is designated as to who is going to r
6 finish those up, and whether it be -- if there is technical 7
work, review work to be done, which technical organization is 8
going to finish the reviews.
9 BY MR. FOLSOM:
10 Q
Before we leave this, may I ask some questions as a II
. apnan here?
12 A
Okay.
13 Q
The transfer package would also include outstanding I4 problems that the licensee has to fulfill, doesn't it?
15 g.
Yes.
Certainly recently every license that issues 16 has'some number of requirements that are not yet closed out.
'I7 TMI 2 was certainly no exception, and those are obligations 18 on-the licensee, direct obligations of the license.
And many a
of these things which say, all right, so-and-so is going to have 20
- to be completed by the first refueling outage.
21
. So those are specifica}ly identified in-the license.
. 22 There are,other things which have come up since issuance of 23
.the. operating license, either due to operating experience or f
24 other sources, which would also add to.that, plus the items F Ace-Feder-J Reporters, Inc.
25
.th'at.we.have that we are working on, which hopefully we've j.
s e
g,
,-3 y
e es
+
= *,
\\
34 I
communicated all those previously to DPM, but we want to be 2
sure that they are specifically addressed on the transfer.
3 This may involve -- you know, anywhere from 35 to 50 4
items.
5 BY MR. COX:
6 Q
There's been some discussion in our inquiry of the 7
applicants or the licensees' move toward commercial operation, 8
which I believe was attained somewhere around the end of 1978.
9 Does the licensee's declaration of commercial status have 10 anything to do with criteria in transferring a project from II DPM to DOR?
12 A
Not specifically, except it generally signifies I
13 that he's at 100 percent power, which has been one of the I4 criteria from time to time that would trigger a transfer.
15 So in that sense it's related, but it's broadly 16 related, but not specifically related.
I7 Q
When you say trigger a transfer, how do you mean 18 that?
By itself?
I9 A
No, when I said that the ground rules were not firm 20 for transfer and they have changed from time to time, depending 21
-- but they' re not written down, as far as I know, as to when
(
22 a transfer would occur.
23 But at times there has been agreement between DPM and DOR that when you get to 100 percent power, that's the Ace-Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 time to make the transfer.
35 11 One reason for'that is that there are various
. p'.
~ \\s' 2
license conditions ~which are put into ef fect at the time of
'3 es; the issuance of an OL.
Some of those require-changing I.
'..%s 4
. before they can get to 100 percent power, so that it's felt 5
that the peorle who have the background that establish those 6
particular licensing conditions, it would be better if they 7
handled the changes related to those license conditions.
8 For example, I'm thinking of Arkansas 2, which 9
had certain licenseL conditions related to a core protection 10 calculator, which is a new device on CE reactors, and there II were certain requirements with respect to those devices which, 12 if needed to be met before the power could be increased beyond f's 13 certain levels, it would appear logical then that those are
(,/
14 directly involved in the review of that and establishing those 15
-conditions should be the ones to review and relax those 16 conditions.
And that's why 100 percent power is certainly 17
-one break point for making the transfer.
18 It's hard to determine.what is the optimum time 19 for making a transfer.
You could say, well, the day they is cle 20 the OL. - That could be a.
time.
21
.Q What f u you see as the definition of commercial
(
22
- operation of a reactor plant?
23 A
, Definition of commercial. operation is strictly a 24
-licencee determination, and it has strictly commercial
.. Ace-Fede,el Reporters, Inc.
25 and Ltar purposes definition, but' it.does have one ' direct e
1
+
7-~t 4 9 u
4 36 1
implication with respect to us, in that the code requirements
.q
'ss' 2
for a reactor are triggered and tied to the date of commercial 3
.,-,1 operation.. rhat's the only direct regulatory implication.
,V 4
Q You mean the ASME code?
5 A
Right.
6 0
Do you see any specific problems with a split in 7
the responsibility between DPM and DOR'regarding this operating 8
plant for which licensee matters are still managed by DPM?
9 A
Well, I see no -- I see no fundamental difficulty 10 if DPM fully exercises, you know, their responsibility with II respect to the licensing role for an operating facility, then 12 the main problem, assuming that, then the main -- the main 13 dif ficulty would be to be, sure that there is communication then 14 during the transfer phase as to what's the background and 15 what's been-transferred, you know, and make sure that that 16 flows.
1 I7 The more overlap you can have between individuals I8 and the more free time that they have at the transfer phase, I9
. the better transfer of information you will get.
And I think 20 there are probably more optimum. ways of doing it, but I think 21 they are broader than just the simple transfer problem.
r
(.
- 22 Q
More optimum ways of-doing what?
23 A
More optimum ways of handling th'at phase from start-p) 24 up to, you might'say,. normal operation and exercising the
^-
Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 regulatory role during that phase.
.It's a little broader than
37 1
'just the transfer' problem.
I think the transfer from DPM to
/~N 1r 2
DOR is just a subset of that difficult phase for any reactor.
3 Q
I'm sure the inquiry in general will be very j3 V-4 interet.ad in hearing your views _in that area, and you could 5
either--'I mean if you feel like expanding on that at this 6
point, feel free, or if you'd like to write it down for us, if
~
7 you feel that it's too involved at this point, but in whatever 8
form, ve would certainly be pleased to take your views on that.
9 A
Okay.
I just recently prepared a writeup on that 10 subject, and how do you want -- I think I would like to enter II it.
12 Q-That would be all right.
13 BY MR. FOLSOM:
I4 Q
All right, submit it, then, if you would.
Give us a 15 copy when you get back to the office.
I6
~ A Okay.
1 17 O
Fine.
18 BY MR. COX:
19 Q
This writeup you just mentioned, now, is that a memo 20 to somebody, or-paper?
2I A
No, it's a writeup that I just made and I recently s,i 22
- gave a copy to Denny Ross-for his consideration.
I haven't 23 written it as a memo to_anybody else.
24 Q
In connection with one of the task force operations?
Am Feder*J Reporte,s, Inc.
25 A
No, no, just based on the experiences I observed.
E
38 I
Q Were you aware of any management discussions, formal 2
or informal, on this general topic?
Now, of course, I 3
mean excluding the one you just told us about.
Maybe your 4
discussion with Denny or any other --
5 A
On the transfer?
6 Q
On the general problems that you or others might 7
perceive regarding this long transfer period between OL issuance 8
on the one hand, and full acceptance of responsibility by DOR 9
on the other hand.
10 A
Well, I haven't participated in any other than just this one I mentioned with Denny Ross, but it's a little different i
12 subject, so the only thing I guess I'm kind of aware of is
/ ')
13 that there obviously is a desire, a pressure, if you will, to Id get a reactor transferred to DOR as soon as possible, which 15 undoubtedly then is a result of some sort of management discus-0 sion that's -- but I'm not sure what those management discussions I7 were, or the total reason.
18 BY MR. FOLSOM:
19 Q
Now when you speak of management discussion, do you 20 mean management of the utility or management with the NRC?
21 A
Management with the NRC.
' ^ ',
22 Q
I see.
23 Is there pressure from the utility to get the 24 transfer accomplished?
Ace-erd Reporters, Inc.
25 A
I haven't -- I have never seen any, and I have had
39 1
two cases, anyway, where I had reactors -- well, Met Ed 7,)
(-
2 certainly was one case, and I have another case, Arkansas 3
Power & Light, which is Arkansas Unit 2 and Unit 1, one which
(/
4 is still in DPM, the other one is in DOR, which, you know. if 5
there was any pressure on the part of the utility, you're 6
talking to them, so you would hear it, and I haven't heard any 7
pressure on those lines.
8 Q
You don't sense any commercial advantage to the 9
shift from DPM to DOR?
10 A
No, I don't sense any commercial advantage.
I II don' t know what the utility says with respect to whether they 12 would rather be under the jurisdiction of DOR or DPM.
I have A
13
(_)
heard nothing from the utilities on that.
I4 BY MR. COX:
15 Q
Bob, in your several years now as branch chief 16 here of Operating Reactor Branch, are you aware of any change 17 or exchange of correspondence that has taken place between 18 DSS or DPM and DOR, making the point that it was hazardous 19 not to transfer an operating project from DPM to DOR af ter 20
-the reactor reached a significant power level?
21 A
Not in correspondence.
I,wouldn' t say it was fw) 22 hazardous.
(
23 Q
Well, maybe hazardous is a strong word.
Any formal r(,)/
24
-- has there been any document or management discussions of Ace Federet Reporters. Inc.
25 the kind we were just talking about a minute ago?
You
40 1
mentioned pressures to get this in hand.
b No, the only '. documentation I was trying to recall, s_/
2 Q
3 the last documentation I can recall, I think, goes back to 4
Giambusso, which would be some time ago, before DOR.
But we 5
still had the same operating branches and the -- you know, 6
the CPOL branches, so the same things with respect to transfer 7
existed then as they do now.
I don' t think the formation of DOR has had any 8
9 marked effect with respect to that.
I would have to look at the 10 guidance.
We do have an operating or project manager's hand-11 book, and whether that has specific guidance in it with 12 respect to the transfer, I think it does, but I can't recall
()
13 for sure.
14 But with respect to memos, at least in the last 15 few years related to -- anything related to safety in the 16 transfer, I don't recall any.
I don't remember seeing any.
17 Q
Maybe I'm leading you down the wrong kind of 18 thinking path here.
I'm interested in any documentation 19 that would indicate that our management at, say, the AD 20 level or higher, is discussing the problems inherent in our 21 Process because of this long transfer period.
Are they
()
EXP oring ways to shorten it?
Have there been discussions l
22 23 at_ the management level including, of course, your own level,
,~(,j 24 to talk about how to smooth this out. and how to make it Ace Federd Reporters. Inc.
25 happen better?
41 l
1 A
I'm not aware of anything explicit.
I do know that
^3' t'x_/
2 on'the two cases which are actively up for transfer which 3
I'm involved -- one is Three Mile Island 2, the other one is
.,-s
.i I
v 4
Arkansas 2 -- that we were given -- I was given explicit 5
direction by my boss, who indicated that -- Ed Case indicated 6
that he wanted them transferred right away.
7 Now that's Maout the extent of my knowledge.
8 Obviously there's been some discussion, but --
9 0
Okay, when did that take place?
10 A
About three weeks ago, approximately.
11 BY MR. FOLSOM:
12 O
Were you privy to the discussions in any regard?
A (m) -
13
-A No.
14 Q
You don' t know what prompted this urgency?
15 A
I don't know what -- no.
'16 Well, the two are not -- the two are two separate 17 cases.
One, Three Mile Island 2, is certainly not an operating i
18 case.-
The other one is Arkansas 2.
It is an operating reactor 19 case, but they were both put in the same hopper, so that the --
20 whether the reasons were administrative or something else, I 21 can't even speculate.
(3
(,)
22 MR ~. FOLSOM:
Should we take a break at this point 23 and stretch our bones?
I)
(-
'24 MR. COX:
Well, let's go off the record a minute.
Ace Fede,el Reporters, Inc.
25 Maybe we'could if you wanted to.
i
42 1
(Discussion of f the record.]
- 1")
s-2 BY MR. COX:
3-Q Let me ask you a more general cuestion now, Bob,
.f 3
'O 4
relative to the management of the licensing process which 5
regards operating plants, how do you perceive the relative 6
roles of the Division of Operating Reactors versus the 7
Division of Systems Safety?
8 A
Repeat the first part of the question.
9 0
We've been talking about interface between DPM 10 and DOR a fair amount.
11 A
Yeah.
12 Q
How do you see the roles of DOR'versus or opposite
)'
I 13 from DSS?
14 A
Well, I view DSS sinilar to the review functions 15 that we have within DOR, as far as their role is concerned, 16 except for the -- you know, the additional role that they 17 have in setting some of the fundamental acceptance criteria 18 for new reactors and then -- but now our interface with DSS 17 people comes about to transfer a reactor.
They will retain 20 some responsibility for completing some actions and so in that 7;
21 sense we try to make sur,e that the responsibility is clear.
()
22 In fact, we try to get the individuals who are going to 23 complete that identified by branch, by reviewer, and by date.
p).
(
24 The -- in that -- that's whether it's within DSS or within DOR.
Ace-Feder:3 Reporters, Inc.
25
. Mow 1the interface with DSS is,a little more
43 1
cumbersome than it is with the reviewers in DOR because
-( )
2 basically you're crossing a division line and the communication 3
is not as frequent, so it's just not quite as easy to know V
4 who to communicate with, and who is the best one to answer 5
the resolution of a problem, and if the reviewers change, it's 6
a little cumbersome to get it fixed up.
7 Now I'm not sure whether that is getting at what 8
you are after, though, because, in other words, we have no 9
direct interface as it relates to our facilities which would 10 be, I would say, initiated by them.
We request of DSS at Il various times work from them, but if it's not something that's 12 been relegated from the transfer, it's usually something which 13 has been decided that, okay, DOR needs DSS' assistance, and 14 that's handled normally by our review branch as requesting 15 that assistance from their DSS counterparts.
I6 Am I touching on what you are interested in?
17 Q
I think so.
When you mentioned your review branch 18 is going directly to DSS, would they do this without necessarily l9 coordinating with the OR project manager?
20 A
No, not necessarilv.
In fact, usually the OR 21 project manager would be involved -- I can't say -- there are
(~)'
22
- many kinds of _ things that go on, some of them are, say, generic.
v 23 We make'~it a topical report which is primarily oriented to
(
-~24
.JOR facilities from one of the vendors, which is going to be --
^ Aceb-jJ Reporters, Inc.
-25 the. review ~may be going to be managed primarily by DOR, but we
44 1
need DSS assistance;in that case project managers may or may not a3 2
get directly involved in that.
But if a particular problem on eS a particular facility was requested to be done by our reviewers 3
kJ 4
and then is transferred to DSS reviewers, the project manager, 5
I.think, in 99 percent of the cases, will know that.
6 There's also an interface with DSE, in addition, 7
which is similar.
8 0
Which division would have the responsibility for 9
bringing to the OR project manager's attention safety issues, 10 new issues?
II A
Well, new issues generated out of reviews or 12 new issues generated on operating experience?
I think new
(/
13 issues generated out of operating experience, I think it's s-14 basically DOR's responsibility,. you know, to recognize that, 15 together with I&E they are a joint thing and, in f act, it's 16 our responsibility to communicate those to DSS-DPM.
17 Safety problems arising out of reviews, obviously 18 it has to be those who are doing the reviews responsibility 19 to notify the others.
20 Q
To what extent are you informed about significant 21 transients-that occur in operating reactors?
p.
( )r 22 A
Well, I see-all the LERs on all the f acilities l
23 for'which I'm responsible.
The -- you know', with respect to --
em.
s.)
24 well, I don' t see the ' results of the experience unless it's
. Ace-Fas.co amru,3, w.
'25 been highlighted in some way or another.
For other reactors,
45 I
say, for example, the Westinghouse reactors or the reactors 2
that are in this systematic evaluation program,are the BWRs, 3
so I will only the LERs for my plants and, as I say, I have all
-O 4
the B&W plants and all the CE plants except one, but that's 5
only existed since about a year ago last March that I've had 6
all those.
Before that, I had a mixture of Westinghouse, GE, 7
B&W and CE so that, okay, there again I'm seeing the experience 8
on those plants that I have, but not all the plants.
9 In other words, then I wasn't seeing even all the 10 B&W experience.
So you would only see that experience which II was highlighted for one reason or another.
12 Q
So you've had all the B&W operating reactors since 13 about March of '787 Id A
Yeah, all except those which have been transferred 15 subsequently, which include Davis-Besse.
16 0
Yeah.
17 BY MR. FOLSOM:
18 Q
How do you learn of transients?
What's the 19
' mechanism, the LERs?
20 A
Well, LERs, plus the project manager's contact i
21 with the licensee.
If the trangient causes a shutdown, oQ
.22 probably we would probably know about it, and A
- ld 23 probably inquire into it, and there is a monthly report, j%
(j 24 for. example, which ue get from every licensee which will
- Ace Federd Reporters, Inc.
25
-describe his experience over and above the licensee event m.
46 1
report including, you know, when he's been down, if -- so you
\\>
2 may see it there.
Of course, the sensitivity to transient 3
experience, I'm sure, you know, will vary from project manager 7-b 4
to' project manager and from -- throughout the whole NRC.
5 Obviously people are more sensitive to transients 6
now than they were before TMI 2.
7 BY RR. COX:
8 Q
Prior to March 28th,1979, were you aware of the 9
Davis-Besse event of September 24th, 1977?
10 A
Yep, I became aware of the Davis-Besse event in 11 about October or so of,'78.
This was about the same time that 12 Davis-Besse was being transferred, but in the nature of the
()
13 awareness was primarily related to the amendment and the 14 procedural change that they had made with respect to accommodating 15 that event, not the event itself.
It was an accommodation of 16 the event.
In terms of the -- they had made a procedural 17 change with respect to the control of the steam generator 18
. water level following a LOCA, and that change was detected by 19 I&E.
20 The question was raised whether that involved an 21 unreviewed safety question, and I think it was finally a
/D
. determined it did not involve an unreviewed safety question,
(_)
'22 23 but,it was determined subsequently that it should be -- the level' control should not-be a procedural control, it should l
24
, Aw Federal Reporte,s, Inc.
25 be automated.
47 1
So that's the area we were looking at, was the 7
l (/
2
' control of the steam generater water icvel.
That question 3
arose apparently out of the -- in part the 1977 -- September 73 LI 4
1977 transient.
l 5
And so again my involvement was to look -- looking l
6 primarily at this water level control in the steam generator 7
and its acceptability and where do we go from there.
It was l
8 at our request.
9 In other words, we did request some further analysis 10 and there was some question raised about the voiding in the 11 primary system, the effect of the water level control in the 12 steam generator in the voiding of the primary system, which
(~s l (,)
13 was there a document, I think, submitted in December of '78, 14 and then a document submitted in February of '79, to put in 15 an automatic change, and it was, you know -- that area was 16 under review at that time.
But that's about where it was l
17 when TMI 2ihappened.
l l
18 0
Where did the questions that you mentioned being 19 asked 'of the applicant or licensee come from, those questions l-20 that you mentioned you had asked?
Where did they originate l
21 in our organization?
l
.n)
(_
22 A
Well, the first question was with respect to the i.
23 acceptability of this water level control point, and that was 24 raised by I&E.
Ace-Pederal Reporters, Inc.
25 In ott r words, they raised that ques tion to 'NRR.
W r
48 1
In other words, was that a proper course of action 2
for the licensee, and that was -- mos t of that was -- the 3
initial point was discussions between our project manager, 4
the inspector, and the licensee.
5 And as a result of that, it was decided that they 6
would make these submittals that would analyze both the 7
two cases of not controlling the water level to, I think, 35 8
inches and 110 inches are the two numbers.
In other words, 9
having transients under those two different conditions.
10 And those cuestions were between -- raised by my II project manager and one of our reviewers -- I think it was 12 Sy Weiss there, I'm not too clear, but I think it was Sy Feiss I
)
13 that was involved in those questions.
I4 BY MR. FOLSdM:
15 Q
Who was the reviewer?
16 A
Yeah, he was section leader.
17 Q
Who was it, do you remember the project manager?
18 Excuse me.
19 A
Oh, project manager was Guy Vissing.
20 BY MR. COX:
21 Q
I thought the question was concerning the void 22 formation in the NRC system.
Where did they originate within 23 the organization?
24 A
Well, they came u.o in the submittal that Davis-Besse Ace-erst Reporters, Inc.
25 made, where they looked at the two cases with and without, and
49 I
that was a submittal, I believe, that was made in December.
b 2
0
'78?
3 A
Yeah, December '78, in which they mentioned void 4
formation without the steam generator level being controlled 5
to the lower level, as I recall, and that was in support of 6
the acceptability of this procedural control that they had 7
in effect and also led to this requirement that they submit 8
an automatic system for doing that.
9 Now there was a final decision and discussion in a 10 letter written to Detroit Edison near Christmas and -- however, 11 I wasn't involved in those, I was on vacation at the time, but 12 Brian Grimes and I believe Sy Weiss were the ones involved
(
13 in those discussions with the licensee and finally obtained 14 the commitment to put in the automatic installation.
15 I don' t know the details of that discussion.
16 0
Then you feel that our questions regarding void 7
formation were in response to a Davis-Besse submittal that 18 had already brought up that matter of void formation?
19 A
These questions you are thinking about, some that 0
went out later?
21 Q
Did we ask any questions in relation to the 22 applicant's submittal?
23 A
No, we were also getting their submittal on the Ace r3 Reporters,1.
25 late December, waiting for the submittal on the automatic
50 I.
system.
The whole thing was being reviewed. in one package.
~
2 I don't think any questions went out with respect to that 3
December. submittal, if I recall. In fact, none went out on 4
the automatic system, because at about that t'ime we're getting 5
.there, TMI 2 happened.
So we still have not approved the 6
final design of the automatic system.
7 Q
You had not at that time?
8 A
We did not at that time, and have not yet to date.
9 It's being reviewed currently by Denny Ross' task force group 10 as part of the overall review of the items in response to II the order to shut them down and allow them to restart.
I2 O
At-that time, December
'78, was the reactors 13 systems branch and DSS, involved at all _ in coping with this I4 evaluation?
15 A
No, not to my knowledge,.unless DOR, you know, 16 informally discussed it with them at the reviewer level.
There I7 was no formal involvement that I'm aware of.
18 Q
Were you aware prior to March 1979, were'you aware I9 of the Michaelson report of January 1978?
20 A
No, no.
21
~ Q Were you aware at all of the Novak memorandum of (D
%f
~22 January 10th, 1978, sometimes called'the Israel memo?
- 23
.A No.
p V
24 Well, I'm : wondering, when you say Novak, there are Aa.4.o.,a n. pori.,,, inc.
25 two: Novak s.
One works for Detroit' Edison, one works for'--
1
51 1
MR. FOLSOM:
Eugene Novak?
fN
- O
'2 BY MR. COX:
3 0
.I mean Tom Novak.
-~\\
]
4 A
No, I wasn't aware of it.
5 MR. COX:
Could we go off the record a moment?
.6
[ Discussion off the record.]
7 BY MR. COX:
8 Q
Bob, are you fairly satisfied that you've under-9 stood and answered all of our questions to the best of your 10 recollection?
II A
Yes.
Of course, I would like to see the transcript 12 and see how it came out.
13 Q
You will see-the transcript.
t 14 MR. FOLSOM:
Yes.
15 THE WITNESS:
Do I have an opportunity to make I
16 corrections if it looks like there is mis--
I7 BY MR. COX:
18 Q
Absolutely.
You will receive a copy to mark up.
I9 A
Good.
20 0
Do you believe on the basis of your knowledge 21 today that any additional. questions should have been asked to rh.
()
22
- elicit: information on the subjects that we've covered so f ar 23 lin this interview?-
I - k. )l -
"/m 24 A
Not that I can think of,.but, you know, that
- Ace Feder;1 Reporters, Inc.
25 depends a _little bit on what you're trying to show, but I g '"'
I S2 1
_think with. respect to the emergency plan, that's covered e
7(_
2 pretty adequately.
With respect to we talked about the 3
Davis-Besse event, you know, there's certainly a broader
.,_y 1(_)
4 realm there to talk about. ' My-involvement has been fairly 5
narrow, so within that scope, I don't think other than pure 6
speculation that I have anything to add there.
~7 Q
Do you have any additional comments or statements 8
that you'd like to make with regard to the licensing and/or 9
regulatory process?
IC A
That's a very broad topic.
11 Q
I know it.
12 BY MR. FOLSOM:
7.-.s
(,)_
13 Q
In other words, at the moment you haven' t written 14 any memoranda such as you have with respect to -- well, you 15 spoke of a memorandum that you have and that you promised 16
~to give us a copy of.
17 A
Yeah.
18 Q
And you haven't done any'more general memoranda 19 than that?
'20 A
No..
With the -- with the, I guess, exception of
~ 21 I've had an oppoqApnity to comment on the Lessons Learned.
.(m) 22 report-soLthere are, you know,. handwritten comments on draf ts J23 and that sort of' thing which -- so when you say comments
("a
(,)
24 with. respect to the broad picture, it doesn' t, I don't'think --
. A
.s.o.,3 n.,o,ws. Inc.
25 there is so many comments to make, but most of those havo
53 I
already been made and are being implemented that there's not 2
much sense in regurgitating everything that's already being 3
done.
Like this operating experience, for example, obviously 4
there's a great need to do a more systematic review of 5
operating experience and feeding that back into the system, 6
but that's, as far as I know, being done.
7 BY MR. COX:
8 Q
Maybe another way to say it is are there any parts 9
of the regulatory process that you feel strongly about that 10 haven't been implemented yet, or you don't see being done?
II Do you feel there's something that ought to be considered 12 and ought to be evaluated?
Maybe it's in your mind very worth-13 f )
while.
We're certainly trying to get that, too.
I#
A Nothing that I don't think is being considered 15 and/or being implemented, although there could ce many slips 16 between here and implementation.
I7 Q
Well, if there's something dear to your heart 18 that you want to reiterate simply for emphasis, feel free to.
I9 A
Well, I don't think so at this point.
20 0
Okay.
If something else does occur to you 21 concerning that that we've talked about or any other matter 22
(
)
that you feel is important as you reflect on our interview, l
s-23 perhaps when we're finished here, and you think it's important, 24 would you please contact me?
Ace-erij Reporters, Inc.
25 A
Okay.
Yeah.
Let me think.
There is one item
54 that.I think I would like to mention, and that is that the --
~
3 of course, the heavy reliance on reactor safety has to be
()
2
~.4
-3 placed in that area, it is in the hands of the licensee, and A*')
the NRC can at most only see a small part of what goes on in 4
5 a f acility and therefore we have to rely on the licensee to 6
operate his facility in a safe manner, irrespective of how much inspection we're going to do, whether it even gets down 7
8 to -- you know, there are a lot of small things that can make 9
things go wrong.
10 Therefore, I think what we need to explore are 11 better methods for emphasizing the safety responsibility is 12 in_the hands of the licensee and that he is exercising that 13 responsibility, not for us to always try to exercise and take
( ')
14 that responsibility ar.d implement, but to have him take the 15 responsibility anc implement and challenge his decision process 16 with respect to this.
17 In other words, find a system for doing that rather 18 than for us making the decisions.
I think we are tending to 19 do more of that, which is fine for those things which we know 20 about, but there are many,. many more decisions that go on
.which we do not participate in, which have probably an equal 21 b-22 importance.
-wJ.
So I think there is an area where I am not sure 23
.(
h 24 whether -it's ~ going to come out of anybody's studies or Am FWed nman.n, ine.
25 recommendations, and'it's very difficult.
I'm not. clear yet k_
55 1
how you would implement it.
I think what it would mean is 2
that periodically you would have to find and have a group of 3
people who would meet with, for example, the safety committees
_,_/ T 4
of the licensee, and if you think they made a decision which 5
was not' safe, explore with them how they reached their decision 6
and the basis for it, why they made it the way they did, and 7
try to get the safety committees tuned in to what we think 8
would be a better decision-making process.
If that doesn't 9
work. you know, there may be other approaches, but that 10 kind of approach, I think, to me, is something that needs 11 some sort of a program to see what can be implemented.
12 Q
Do you feel that any closer contact with the h--
13 operating utilities is needed or would be beneficial between 14 those utilities and NRR, or is it happening well enough with 15 I&E and the path nownthat comes from I&E to NRR is okay or 16 acceptable?
17 A
No, I think in terms of, you know, the things 18 that I&E sees and things that we see, you know, as a sampling, 19 you can get a sense of the problem and I&E or ourselves, I 20 think generally speaking, takes the action with respect to 21 thosplitems'that they see, but certainly in the past, anyway, o
im 22 I don't know what the current number is, but I&E would f
(j' 23 indicate-that they only see and inspect-about 1 percent of
_,s()
24
- the activities that go on in the facilities.
It's probably l
AceJeds,af Reporters, lnc.
-25
. higher-than that now, but if.you only take an action on the 1
56 1
deficiencies that you find looking et the 1 percent as if it i
_j 2
were just a deficiency not representative of a symptom, then 3
in trying to get back and cure what cau.= -d that deficiency in
(
)
4 the first place, then we are not properly perhaps doing --
5 exercising the fact that we are only doing a sampling.
6 And, as I say, I think that's why you need to get 7
back and explore the corrective actions, if they are inadequate 8
or what-have-you, with the people at the utility that should 9
be reviewing the broad picture with respect to safety, which 10 I think should be, at least in the present scheme of things, Il the safety committees, and try to beef them up.
12 And, for example, one of the thing that occurs, 7
(_)
13 for example, is that, okay, we have an event at a reactor, 14 an operating reactor.
If the ACRS is interested, then a 15 representative of I&E or the Staff will go down to the ACRS 16 and make a presentation of what was done and why it's okay, 17 and that is the end of it.
18 Maybe it would be better to have the safcty I9 committee from the utility come in and make that presentation 20 to the ACRS and get them involved in the decision process 21 and making their deliberations public a little more.
ACRS a
(
22 would only be a small part of it, but I think it would lend 23 them both the sense perhaps if there is any problem with llh 24 respect to their authority, within their own: organization, Ace Fede,d Reporters, Inc.
25 this would help bring that out, or at least give them more
57 I
authority, because they'd have to be able to make statements,
\\s 2
but it also would give then., I think, a!better tuning-in, if 3
you will, to at least where is this magic level of safety
< [s-
- }
s_-
4 that everybody wants and thinks is appropriate.
5 So I'm not sure the safety committee is ultimately 6
the right way to do it, but that would seem to be the first 7
approach, would be to try to interact more with that group.
8 We interact primarily with -the individual usually who's 9
designat7d as a licensing contact, or directly with the licensee's management, but not with the safety committee.
10 Il MR. COX:
All right.
12 MR. FOLSOM:
I have no further questions.
(~M x_)
13 MP. COX:
Thank you very much, Bob, for coming 14 down here, and your cooperation with the inquiry, and since 15 we have no further questions, at this time the deposition is 16 recessed.
17 MR. FOLSOM:
We are recessing as opposed to 18 adjourning in~ the possible, but not necessarily probable, 19 event that you might be called back, and you will remain 20
.under oath on your return, so we_ don't have to go through too 21
.many formalities again.
.rm
~lx_)
22 Tnank you very much.
23
[Whereupon, at 3 :25 p.m., the interview was
.gq V
- 24 adjourned.]
Ace-Feder-J Repo,ters, Inc.
25