ML19308C451
| ML19308C451 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/05/1979 |
| From: | Parler W, Vassallo D NRC - NRC THREE MILE ISLAND TASK FORCE, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001240608 | |
| Download: ML19308C451 (89) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
p,,
O NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION
- o
^
IN THE MATTER OF:
TIIREE MILE ISLAND SPECIAL INTERVIEWS I
INTERVIEW OF DOMENIC B.
VASSALLO i
l0 FDDIFORSNAL l
l Placa - Bethesda, Maryland Date -
Wednesday, 5 Septembe r 19 79 Pages1 - 88
(
Telephone:
(202)347-3700 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, O
OfficialReporters 4
444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 g Q Ql 240 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE DAILY T
u
1 I
^
^
^
CR6776
(_)
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
-/m 4
In the Matter of:
5 TIIREE MILE ISLAND SPECIAL INTERVIEWS 6
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 7
8 INTERVIEW OF DOMENIC B.
VASSALLO 9
10 Room 6211 7735 Old Georgetown Road 11 Bethesda, Maryland 12 Wednesday, 5 September 1979 9:00 a.m.
~'(d 13 i
BEFORE:
14 WILLIAM PARLER 15 TIIOMAS COX 16 17 18 19 20 21 (a~'\\
22 23 24 Ac.
rol Rsponers, Inc.
25
2 i
CR6776 1
C _O N_ T _E N_ _T _S 2
WITNESS:
EXAMINATION 1
3 Domenic B. Vassallo 3
O 4
5
_E _X _H _I _B _I T _S NUMBER
. IDENTIFIED 7
1008 4
8 1009 12 9
1010 13 10 1011 19 11 1012 & 1013 20 i
12 1014 & 1015 21 i
1016 24 14 1017 33 15 1018 65 16 1019 67 17 1020 68 18 1021 70 i
19 1022 73 1
20 1023 75 l
21 1024 & 1025 79 1
22 1026 & 1027 82 23 24 iAca d Reporters, Inc.
25 i
2
CR 6776 IIEER 3
t-1 mto 1 1
PROCEEDI '4 G S
/ 1
()
2 (9:C-a.m. )
3 MR. PARLEE:
Would you raise your right hi a, please.
)
4 Do you swear or affirm the testimony ye'a are about s-5 to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 6
the truth, so help you God?
7 MR. VASSALLO:
I do.
8 Whereupon, 9
DOMENIC B.
VASSALLO 10 was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn, 11 was examined and testified as follows:
12 EXAMINATION
~
13 BY MR. PARLER:
/ )',
14 0
You have received Mr. Rogovin's letter of 15 August the 29th, 1979, concerning this proceeding and the 16 witness notification that was also provided; is that correct, 17 sir?
18 A
Yes.
19 0
Do you have any questions about any of that?
20 A
No.
21 G
The letter also said that, if you have in your
(~';
22 possession or control any documents regarding TMI-2, the v
23 accident or precursor events, that you have reason to believe 24 may not be in official NRC files, including any diary or At eral Reporters, Inc, 25 Personal working files, to please bring those with you.
Do I
mts 2~
4 1
You have any such documents that deal with significant matters?
2 A
No, only th'e ones that I think are already in the 3
files.
r I do have some copies of those, if you don't have Ob 4
them.
But I don't have anything other than what I believe to
~ 5 be already in vurious files.
6 G
Has your deposition been taken before?
7 A.
No.
8 g
You have appeared as a witness under oath in 9
licensing board proceedings, is that correct?
10 A.
Yes,'many of them.
II G
So you are well aware of the nature of this 12 proceeding and the meaning of a proceeding in which testimony 13 is given under oath, is that correct?
14 A.
Yes.
15 g
Did you bring a copy of a resume with you?
16 A.
I did.
It is one that was prepared in my position
+
17 as an assistant director.
I don't have one for my current 18 position as acting director, t
19 MR. PARLER:
I will mark this for identification l
20 as Exhibit 1008.
l 21 (Exhibit No. 1008 identified.)
22 BY MR. PARLER:
23 0
This is complete, as I understand it, up through 24
, Act-n March 28, 1979?
taf Reporters, Inc.
V 25 A.
Yes.
t m t'] 3 5
I G
And then since that date --
( -
I-2 A
Well, since June, since mid-June, then, I was 3
appointed as Acting Director of the Division of Project bI 4
Management.
5 O
Now,' prior to March 28th, 1979, I gather that you 6
served from 1972 to August 1976 as Branch Chief in Light 7
Water Reactors within the Division of Project Management; and 8
1 14 that capacity were you involved in that supervisory position 9
in the TMI-2 review?
10 g
- yes, II G
And af ter August 1976, you assumed what position?
12 A
Then I assumed the position of Assistant Director; I) 13 and I was still involved with TMI-2 in that capacity.
8s 14 G
Your educational background, according to the 15 resume, you have a master of science degree in nuclear I0 engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 17 and also a bachelor of science degree in chemistry from 18 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; is that correct?
I9 A
That's correct.
20 0
Prior to beginning your employment with the NRC, 21 what was the position that you held immediately?
-~
(
')
22 A
Prior to that time?
x.
l 23 g
prior to that time, yes.
24 A
l ActGraf Reporters, Inc.
Well, prior to that time I was with the Pratt &
25 Whitney Aircraft Corporation in East Hartford, Connecticut, I
mta 4 6
I working in their nuclear division.
And that was an AEC-2 sponsored program concerning, at that particular time, space 3
nuclear reactors.
I was primarily involved with a lot of the
/
)
4 safety aspects of that program.
It is -- there is more 5
detail expresse'd in my resume.
6 G
Now, the Division of Project Management, with 7
regard to how it is organized to carry out its functions --
8 would you comment briefly on that, so that we can have the 9
context in the record of some of the questions that I am 10 about to ask you?
II A
Well, the Division of Project Management -- you 12 are talking about TMI time frame, I presume?
()
13 g
I'm talking about -- yes, prior to March the 28th, 14 1979.
15 A
Okay.
Well, the Division was organized with an j
16 assistant director in light water reactors, of which I was 17 the assistant director.
It had -- it was divided into four 18 branches.
And the charter for light water reactors was to 19 be responsible for the management of the safety reviews of 20 all construction permit and operating license applications; 21 and, somewhat prior to that time, also responsible for the
( })
22 review of standard plants.
But I can't remember the time 23 when we had the standardization, when a group responsible 24 for standardization was chartered.
I think it was probably AceGcral Reporters, Inc.
25 some time in 1977.
I'm not sure.
I
mto 5 7
I But in any case, the Division of Project Management also 2
had an assistant director for standardization and advanced 3
reactors, and they were responsibic for reviewing standard
/'_'N
/
4 plant applications and also other special applications, such 5
as the fast fluk test facility, gas-cooled reactors, and other 6
specialty reactors.
7 The Division also had an AD, or has an AD, for quality 8
assurance.
That group was responsible for reviewing quality 9
assurance, the quality assurance program for operator licensing 10 and training, and for financial review.
II G
Now, this Division was created subsequent to the 12 creation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in January 1975,
.C is that correct?
13 Id A.
Yes.
I believe it was really created about 15 December of
'75, and it was kind of implemented in the 16 beginning of '76.
I7 G
Prior to the creation of the Nuclear Regulatory 18 Commission, how was the review function that prior to March 28tn, 1979, was performed by the Division of Project 20 Management, how was that review function carried out?
21 A-Do you mean before the creation of this particular
(
22 organization?
j w
23 G
Before the creation of this particular organization 24 Act6r;l Fleporters, Inc. in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
25 A.
Well, to the best of my recollection, the Division I
mta 6 8
I of Project Management was larger.
One of the functions was j
2 very similar to or the same as we have now, and that is the 3
review cf applications for construction permits, operating 7
s,
'd 4
licenses, and amendments thereto.
IIowever, at that time the 5
operating reactor function was also within the Division of 6
Project Management, and there was financial review, there was 7
the advanced reactors program.
And at that time the fast 8
breeder reactor program was included within that Division.
9 I guess the principal point was that the operating 10 reactor review function and responsibility for monitoring the 11 operating reactors was within that Division.
Further, the 12 light water reactors area was much larger, because there had 13 been many more applications.
So I believe at one point 14 there were six branches, or even at one time maybe eight 15 branches.
16 0
But under the organization thr.t you have been 17 describing prior to the creation of the Nuclear Regulatory 18 Commission, there were separate divisions that dealt with 19 the licensing review, similar to the Division of Project 20 Management, and the technical review, similar to the present 21 Division of Safety Systems; is that correct?
/
22 A.
That is correct.
23 G
Is my understanding correct that each of those 24 divisions, as well as what is now Inspection & Enforcement A
eral Reporters, Inc.
25 and what is now Standards, that each of those divisions
mt3 7 9
I reported to one director of regulation; is that correct?
C)
V 2
A.
Yes.
3 G
Now, I'm going to ask you some questions dealing O
4 with how the licensing system functions subsequent to the creation of the' Nuclear Regulatory Commission and prior to 5
6 March 28, 1979.
It is important that you understand the 7
questions that I'm going to ask, and if you don't, be sure 8
that you ask me, so that the record that is made here will be 9
as accurate and as useful as it can be.
10 Also, if a qu'estion requires you to consult some II of the files that you have brought with you, don't hesitate 12 to consult those files.
And take your time.
It is important 13 that the record reflect as accurately as is possible your I4 views on the questions that I'm going to ask you.
15 Do you know whether there is any official document 16 which states the various responsibilities of the Nuclear 17 Regulatory Commission as a regulatory agency, the utility, 18 the vendor, the architect-engineer, and the constructer?
I9 A.
Let me see if I understand the question.
Are there 20 any documents which, in other words, lay out the responsibi-21 lities of these various groups that you just mentioned?
22 G
Yes, any NRC documents, any. official documents 23 of the regulatory agency oth'r than what is in the regulations e
24 O
in 10 CFR?
,, Acev el Reporters, Inc.
25 A.
Well, let's start with the utility.
We have the
i mtn 8 10 l
j regulations, of course, and that specifies what is required k_,)
to submit a constructi'on permit application or operating 2
3 license application, t
i 1/
Further, there is a document which is well-known 4
5 as the standard' format and content guide, which expresses 6
what is required in an application, more specifically, in 7
a safety analysis report.
That is the responsil:.lity for the 8
applicant to perform.
9 0
I suppose that the question should be refined to 10 the extent to point out responsibility -- is focused on 11 responsibility for safety, to assure safety.
In other words, 12 that the regulatory role in that regard and the. role of the
-( )
13 various other participants in the nuclear industry.
ja For example, some have~ stated, as far as I am 15 aware correctly, that the regulatory agency's review focuses 16 on the nuclear steam supply system, very little on the remainder 17 of the plant or not on the overall plant, on the other hand, 18 there are others that are responsible for the design of the 19 overall plant.
That is the kind of thing that I'm trying to 20
. get to with the question.
21 A
Well, I guess I have to say that I don't know of any 22 one piece of paper.
I guess over the years there has been 23 perhaps internal documents or memoranda explaining what our 24 interests were in a review, what the responsibilities were of Ace 4crat Reporters, Inc.
25 the utility and so forth.
I can't put my finger on any one i
mta 9 11 1
document, or I can't even recall any of the others.
I just
(
+
/
2 know that information was g enerated by management to further 3
articulate, over the years, what the principle elements of
)
4 the review was to be.
And this developed over a course of 5
time.
6 So I guess it wasn't any one place that I remember 7
anything being addressed.
8 0
Do you know of any official NRC document which 9
explains the regulatory philosophy of the audit review that 10 the NRC conducts?
11 A.
No, I'm not aware of any document of that nature.
12 g
What is the document that the Nuclear Regulatory 13 Commission's licensing staff follows in its review which best
( j)
~
14 explains how the overall staff review is conducted?
15 A
Well, that is the Standard Review Plan, which was 16 established officially, I guess, in September of
'75, I
17 believe was the time.
And that, if you will, codified what 18 had been in many cases review practice prior to the development l9 of the Standard Review Plan.
20 G
The Three Mile Island No. 2 plant, as I understand 21 it, was exempted from review under the Standard Review Plan;
()
22 is that correct?
23 A
My recollection is that it was, under office 24 Letter No. 9 or, more appropriately, I guess, Revision No. 1 Act4x1 Reporters, Inc.
25 of the Office Letter No. 9.
I
mt:3 10 12 1
I would like t.c consult my document of Office 2
Letter No. 9, just to be sure.
l l
3 G
I have some copies here, which I will hand you, 7
(
4 which might assist you, af ter you finish examining your i
5 material.
I 6
(Pause.)
7 A.
Yes, I was correct.
It is included in Office 8
Letter No. 9 as being an exempt plant.
But you must remember 9
that the application for Three, Mile Island came in prior to 10 the development of Office Letter No. 9, and also was in, you might say, the latter stages of review, when Office Letter 12 No. 9 was implemented.
13
()
G This Office Letter No. 9 that you're talking about 14 is a document dated January the 31st, 1977, from Ben C.
- Rusche, 15 the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactcr Regulation, 16 subject:
revised procedure for documentation of deviations 17 from the Standard Review Plan; is that correct?
18 A.
Yes.
I9 MR. PARLER:
I would like to mark that document 20 for identification as Exhibit No. 1009.
21 (Exhibit No. 1009 identified.)
i
(
22 BY MR. PARLER:
23 O
Now that letter, as I understand it, was preceded 24 by an NRR Office Letter No. 9 dated June the 18th, 1976, a j
A-eral Reporters, Inc.
25 document signed by Mr. Rusche -- that's R-u-s-c-h-e -- the i
mto 11 13 I
subject, documentation of departures from Standard Review 2
Plan.
~
3 Do you have that letter?
4 A.
Yes, I do.
5 MR. PARLER:
I would like to mark that document for 6
identification as Exhibit 1010.
7 (Exhibit No. 1010 identified.)
8 BY MR. PARLER:
9 G
Now, I gather that some time between June the 18th, 10 1976,,.the date of the basic Office Letter No.
9, and II January the 31st, 1977, the date of the revision to that 12 Office Letter, that the Director of the Office of Nuclear 13 7 ]
Reactor Regulation at that time decided that some of the Id plants, including Three Mile Island 2 and the others that are 15 lie'ed in an attachment to the January 31st, 1977, letter, c
16 were exempt from review under the Standard Review Plan.
Is I7 that correct?
18 A
That is correct.
I9 Q
Do you happen to be aware of the circtu. stances 20 which led to the position that was stated in the January 31st, 21 1977, letter?
(i 22 A.
I do remember some things about it.
However, I v
23 wasn't directly involved in the preparation of this Office 24 Letter No. 9.
My recollection is that there was some diffi-Ac ral Reponen, Inc.
25 culty in trying to implement this type of consideration in
mta 12 14 I
the review.
I believe the problem arose because most of the i
\\_/
2 plants that were in the operating license review stage at 3
the time this Office Letter was being prepared and considered
(~'l
\\
4 had not been reviewed at the construction permit stage under 5
any such Standard Review Plan, not a formalized Standard 6
Review Plan.
And because of that, it appeared to be difficult 7
'to go back at a late stage in the review process to follow 8
the Standard Review Plan.
9 And to the best of my knowledge, the whole intent 10 of this Office Letter No. 9 was a question of appropriate II documentation, even if there were deviations or alternative 12 approaches to achieving acceptable decisions.
The idea behind
{';
all of this as best as I can remember, was to have this 13 14 documentation available so that subsequent to issuance of a 15 license, everyone would know what the basis for that decision 16 was.
17 And because that seemed to be the main thrust of 18 this, I believe consideration was given to eliminate some of i
l9 these operating license reviews from following the office 20 Letter No. 9, because it was also believed at that time that 21
-the systematic evaluation program would at some future time
(").
22 then pick up on those which had not been covered by office v
e-1 23 Letter No. 9.
24 O
- Aor al Reporters, Inc.
25 1
15 6776 02 01
,f"{ HEE I
O To the best of your recollection and involvement, e
V 2
do you know whether the director of the Office of Nuclear 3
Reactor Regulation, in the development of the basic office s
4 letter No. 9, consulted in. advance with his staff or with 5
the inoustry in how the Standard Review Plan should be o
implemen ted?
7 I t would a ppear here, f rom the June 18, '76 8
le tter and the revision to that le tter, dated January 31, 9
1977, that some practical problems of implementing the 10 Standard Review Plan were brought to the office director's
.l l attention and, for that reason, i t would a ppear f rom reading 12 these documents, he had to get into details regarding the 13 implementation of that plan and those details were gotten 14 into in his January 31, '77 let ter.
{~}
IS Now, do you have any more background on how the 16 thing evolved?
17 A
Well, I think you asked one question.
I think 18 that he did consult with his division directors in the 19 preparation of this.
I can't answer as to whether he or one 20 of his representatives consulted with industry about it.
21 I do recall, though, that once this was 22 established, or at least the June 18 document was published, 23 some applicants did come in to discuss the difficulties that 24 would be involved in using this for their plants,
(-
M}
25 particularly those that were in the late stage of review at
/~T V
16 B776 02 02 m HEE I
that time.
)
2 0
I suppose the impression that one could have af ter 3
reading the January 31, 1977 le tter -- that is, the revision gs O,
4 to the basic office letter No. 9 -- is that the plants such 5
as TMI-2 that were exempted f rom review under the Standard 6
Review Plan were reviewed at some lesser level of detail or 7
. comprehensiveness than a plant that would have been reviewed 8
under the Standard Review Plan.
9 Is that a proper conclusion that should be 10 reac hed, or is what involved more basically a question of 11 documenting deviations f rom the Standard Review Plan?
12 A
Well, I think, to answer your first question, I 13 suppose, without knowing too much about it, one can receive
.()
- 14 that impression, that a review that was conducted outside of 15 the use of the Standard Review Plan, was of lesser detail.
16 However, I am not sure that that is a totally 17 correct conclusion, because, as I just indicated a while 18 ago, the Standard Review Plan was based on codification, in 19 large measure, of. the practices that had been followed in 4
20 the reviews prior to the development of the Standard Review 21 Plan.
22 However, the Standard Review Plan not only 23 codified previous practice, but also, in certain areas, went 24 beyond what had previously been done and established new 25 acceptance criteria and other requirements.
O
17 G776 02 03
~(V~; HEE I
So, if you look at it from that sense and in 2
specific areas, it might be true that the review did not 3
consider -- I am sorry -- tha t if the review that was 4
conducted following a Standard Review Plan in certain areas 5
probably would be in le sser detail and, in some cases, to 6
diff erent requirements than those imposed by the Standard 7
Review Plan.
6 0
One of the design f eatures of TMI that has been Y
referred to as " existing at the time of the accident," only 10 because TMI-2 was exempted from the Standard Review Plan, is
.i l the containment isolation sys tem.
And presumably, as I 12 understand it, its activation by -- what -- some 400 pounds 13 per square inch pre ssure.
(]}
14 Now, assuming that that diff erence is correct, are IS you aware of whether anyone on the staff has prepared a list 16 or identified other major departures or the major departures 17 f rom TMI-2, because it was not reviewed under the Standard 18 Review Plan -- in other words, f eatures of TMI-2 that would 19 have been diff erent had it been reviewed under the Standard 20 Review Plan?
21 A
If you are asking me for TMI was there a list 22 prepared, I am not aware of one.
23 0
Well, how does the staf f keep up with major
{'}
dif ferences which, presumably, sometime in the future of the 24 25 plant, will have to be looked a t, f or purposes of O
18 6776 02 04
(]) HEE I
backfitting, for example?
2 A
Well, as I mentioned, I think this was the intent 3
of office letter 9, was to do that very thing, was to 4
document just what the basis was of the review, measured 5
against the Sta'ndard Review Plan.
6 0
In other words, f or a plant that was exempted f rom 7
'the Standard Review Plan under the Rusche le tter of January b
31, 1977, there was no need to worry about departures at Y
all, and, I guess, at anytime in the f u ture, from the 10 Standard Review Plan.
Is my understanding correct?
.11 A
That is probably technically correct.
We didn't 12 have to follow that.
13 However, I don't think it is quite that clear,
()
14 because, while there may have been an official document that 15 says you don't have to identify all of the deviations from 16 the Standard Review Plan, to my knowledge there were many 6
17 review groups that were indeed using the Standard Review 18 Plan for their review.
They were using this for guidance.
19 0
Do you recall whether the reviewers of TMI-2 20 applications used the plan for guidance?
21 A
No, I can't specifically say that one.
I would 22 have to check with the project manager of that review.
He-23 would have the better knowledge of that.
()
24 But my overall knowleuge in that time f rame was 25 that many review branches were indeed using the Standard I) s-l-
19 3776 02 05 HEE I
Review Plan, as I say, for guidance.
2 Now, I can't answer specifically for Three Mile 3
Island, because I just don't know.
,s 4
0 To the best of your recollection, do you recall 5
whether the Commi ssioners were involved in any decision 6
regarding the applicability of the Standard Review Plan to 7
existing applications such as TMI-27 8
A No, I don't have any knowledge or recollection as 9
to whether or how the Commissioners may have been informed 10 about this office letter.
.11 BY MR. PARLER A document which I handed to you 12 earlier is an NRC pre ss release, No.75-289, dated December i3 22, 1979.
The subject is:
"NRC Publishes Standard Review
[]';
14 P l a n.
This pre ss release I will mark for identification as 15 Exhibit 1011.
16 (Exhibit 1011 identified.)
17 BY MR. PARLER:
18 0
As f ar as you are aware, was any press release or 19 public announcement made at the time of the revision to the 20 office letter No. 9, the revision dated January 31, 1977?
21 A
I don't recall any press release of that 22 particular -- or, at that particular time.
23 However,- following release of the January 31, 1977
(~}
24 document on the revised office letter No. 9, we did -- that s_-
25 i s, the. light water reactor group -- did prepare le tters t
20 6776 02 06 f^v HEE l'
enclosing the office letter and the implementation program,
(_)
2 which we did send to all utilities.
3 0
Do you have an extra copy of one of the sample O
4 letters, or is that your official file copy?
5 A
I believe I do.
Ac tually, there are several 6
here.
Two dealing with utilities, and one involving a 7
standardized plant application.
8 0
These are extra copies?
9 A
Yes.
10 MR. PARLER:
For purposes of identification, for
.I l the record, I would like to mark these a>cuments.
The first 12 one will be marked as Exhibit 1012, which is a le tter signed 13 by Steven A. Varger, chief, light water reactors, Branch
(]}
I4 No. 4, to Gibbs & Hill.
The documen t -- I am sorry -- the 15 letter is dated March 14, 1977.
Io
( Ex hibi t 1012 identified.)
17 MR. PARLER:
Another le tter that I will mark for 18 identification is Exhibit 1013, is a letter signed by 19 Olan D. Parr, chief,. light wa ter reactors, Branch No. 3, to 20 Northeast Nuclear Engineering Company.
And that letter is 21 dated July 21, 1977.
22 (Exhibi t 1013 identified. )
23 MR. PARLER:
And the third le tter I will mark for 24 identifica tion as Exhibi t 'l 014, is a letter _ signed by 25 Carl Kn e l l -- K-n-e-1-1 -- c hi e f, light water reactors, h
u
21 bi to.LMt 07
/' HEE I
Branch No. 2, to Florida Power & Light Company, dated July
(
2 26, 19.77.-
3 (Exhibit 1014 identified.)
O~
4 BY MR. PARLER:
5 0
I aise understand that there was an earlier Office 6
of Nuclear Reactors Regulation of fice letter No. 2, dated 7
August 12, 1975, subj ec t:
" Standard Review Plans for Saf ety 8
Evaluations."
Are you f amiliar with that le tter?
9 A
I do recall this letter, yes.
10 MR. PARLER:
I would like to mark that letter
.11 which I just described, for identification as Exhibit 1015.
~
12 (Exhibit 1015 identified. )
13 BY MR. PARLER:
,{}
14 0
Along with the office letter No. 9 and the 15 revision thereto, this office letter No. 2 would appear to 16 be of some importance s would it not?
Is this the letter 17 which, in eff ect, published the Standard Review Plan?
18 A
My recollection is that the office letter No. 2 19-was the implementation of the Standard Review Plan, and, as 20 you see bere, it is a very brief memo or office le tter and 21 in effet cells all of the staff to use the Standard Review 22 Plan.
23 0
-So, what we have here would be a letter dated 24 August 12, 1975, which states in sev3ral paragraphs the 25 importance of the. Standard Review Plan, the need for its
(~'t
%)
I I
22 6776 02 08 U; HEE r"
I
. content to remain fixed except for clarification or 2
correction of error, and this August 12, '75 letter says 3
"The proposals to modif y the plans will be considered only O
4 for matters of major safe ty significance," et cetera.
On 5
the other hand,* we have the revision I to office letter o
No. 9, dated January 31, 1977, which in ef f ect reverses 7
most, if not all, of what was said in the August.12, 1975 8
letter for a large number of plan ts, including TMI-2.
Y Do you have any comment on that?
10 Le t's go of f the record for a second.
.11 (Discussion of f the record.)
12 MR. PARLER:
Back on the record.
13 THE WITNESS:
Of course, I wasn't directly 1
(])
14 involved at my level with the developnent of of fice letter 15 No. 2 ' or of fice le tter No. 9 My recollection, however, is 16 that the office le tter No. 2 was a rathe simplistic 17 s ta temen t, if you will, of implementing something without 18 giving any direction or guidance to how to implement it.
19 And I believe that this generated the need for office 20 le tter No. 9.
21 In other words,
- nen you have a large group of 22 people and review staff -- or in the review group -- who is 23 doing business one way, and then you come out with a memo 24 stating as of this time you shall use this new way of doing 25 business, there are complica tions, there are complications,
23 b776.02 09 HEE I
because the whole ma tter of a review of a nuclear power 2
. plant is a very complex matter.
And so, I don't think it 3
was a simple ma tter to change gears, so to speak, in 6
4 midstream.
5 1
p 6
7 8
9-10
.l l-12 13
.Q 14 15 16 17 18 19 4
20 21 22
'23.
'24
.25 L
l L,..
24 Cr. 6776 1
I think that was the genesis of Office Letter No. 9 k
2 and then the revision to it.
3 0
As far as the evolution of the Standard Review
/
4 Plan itself is concerned, our review of the files, we've 5
located a document signed by T.
R. Wilson to Dr.
P. A. Morris 6
who at the time was Director of the Division of Reactor 7
Licensing in the Atomic Energy Commission.
This letter is 8
dated December the 19th, 1969.
The subject, Plan for 9
Appropriation of a Standardized Review Plan.
10 MR. PARLER:
That document I will mark for 11 identification as Exhibit 1016.
XXX 12 (Exhibit No. 1016 identified.)
f~)
13 BY MR. PARLER:
v 14 Q
With regard to the evolution of the Standard Review 15 Plan, of any additional information on its evolution that can 16 contribute to the record other than what we talked about7 17 A
Well, the question of how to best review an 18 application I think was one of prime consideration ever since 19 I joined the Commission back in September of 1966.
The 20 question of consistency of review, completeness of review, 21 systematic implementation the requirements were goals that
( })
22 were certainly discussed quite some time ago, and recognized 23 as being some problem.
Over the years sinc e back in 1969 24 and this letter that you just referred to from T.
R. Wilson, Au8raf Reporters, inc.
j 25 management and others were trying to consider ways to best i
l 1
25 c1c-2 conduct the review or stabilize the review process.
I believe y
(
there were many attempts to try to do this.
2 Q
Has there been any application, to your knowledge, 3
that has been reviewed under the Standard Review Plan to date?
4 A
Y s.
The Eric 1 and 2 application came under the 5
Standard Review Plan in that it was submitted or the 6
application was docketed after.
Well, I can't remember.
7 Q
It was not within the exemption of the Rusche letter?-
8 A
That's right.
The PSAR identified the deviation 9
10 that it was required to do or ultimate approaches which is also 11 Part of the Office Letter No. 9, and indicated where in the PSAR these were discussed.
And then the project manager in that; 12 I
reminded the revieuers that this was one of the plants that did '
(^:
13
,v fall under Office Letter No. 9 To the best of my knowledge ja 15 it was conducted under the Standard Review Plan and in the SER 16 for Erie in Section 1.0 of that SER, we did address that fact j7 and state that it was reviewed under the Standard Review Plan 18 and I believe noted that there were no deviations or that it
+
19 was acceptable, because there were acceptable alternatives 20 conforming with the acceptance criteria.
j l
21 Q
Is the Erie application still under active review?
i
('l 22 A
It is in a hiatus at this point because the utility
{
v 23 has under consideration whether it wishes to continue with it.
24 But the review was complete last year and itwas prepared to go A
ni neponm, inc.
l 25 to a hearing, j
i
26 cle-3 Q
So, you do have the basis or a basis for comparing j
()
2 say, for example, the questions that the staff may have asked 3
to the applicant in Erie, a plant that was reviewed under the k
Standard Review Plan compared to the number, the type, the 4
depth of questions that the staff would have asked some earlier 5
6 applicant whose application was not reviewed under the Standard 7
Review Plan; is that correct?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
Is there any noticeable difference in the degree in 10 the depth of review under the Standard Review Plan or is there 11 an insufficient data base to make such a judgment at this 12 time?
fx 13 A
I guess I would have to say there is an insuf.ficient V
14 data base.
I think it could be done, but I am not sure that 15 I personally know the difference between them.
16 Q
Has anybody on the staff done that to the best of 17 your knowledge?
18 A
I can't recall.
19 Q
Are you aware of any efforts that are underway to 20 examine the Standard Review Plan and perhaps improve it or 21 upgrade it.
For example, I have heard that someone in the
,r x 22 Nuclear Regulatory Commission i.ar a f,ontract with the Sandia 23 Corporation to study the $1 m.ad.
Review Plan.
Also, I suppose, 24 if my recollection is ccrrect, one of the recommendations of Aagro neponen, inc.
25 the Denton study in 1977 was to examine the Standard Review
27 cla-4 Plan and make improvements as needed.
Are you aware of any j
n(,)
such ou7oing studies?
2 A
I'believe there has been some and, of course, there 3
,a
(_)
have been some changes made to the review plan which have 4
5 been approved by the Regulatory Requirements Review Committee.
6 I am not too intimately familiar with the Sandia contract or 7
what that was intended to review.
8 0
Are you aware of any major concerns from the NRC 9
staff with say deficiencies in the Standard Review Plan?
10 A
I believe there are probably deficiencies in it and 11 they probably could be in two ways some where there should be 12 additions to it and some where there probably needs revision
(^).
13 to better define what the requirements are, because there have v.
14 been difficulties with interpretation of a number of the areas.
15 Q
Do you think that the Standard Review Plan encourages 16 what some have referred to as the compartmentalization of a 17 technical review, or does it, in your judgment, again to the 18 best of your recollection and involvement, does it encourage or 19 assist in what some people refer to as systems interaction or 20 systems-wide review?
In other words, overall review of the 21 Plant?
(')
22 A
Well, I think in part it contributes to what you v
23 stated as compartmentalization of the review, but I'm not sure A4er-l Fleporters, Inc.that the compartmentalization of the review is totally the 24 25 result of the Standard Review Plan.
I think there are
28 01c-5 1
organizational reasons for some of that as well.
I think the
(_/
2 Standard Review Plan does at least attempt to go across 3
boundaries and they do indicate secondary review groups and
/<
4 tertiary review groups and it recognizes tha-one review area 5
in many cases does impact on other areas.
But, I guess I 6
would have to say that in part it perhaps does contribute to 7
some compartmentalization of the review.
8 0
Do you have any other views or comments on the 9
Standard Review Plan, its origin or its implementation?
I tried 10 to cover that background with the questions, but in the event II the questions were not complete or not adequate, do you have 12 anything'else to add before we move on to another topic?
(~~}
13 A
Well, I guess one difficulty is that the Standard v
I4 Review Plan, to the best of my knowledge, is supposed to be 15 guidance.
In other words, and that can be interpreted, perhaps 16 in many different ways.
What I am trying to get at is it is not 17 a regulation and yet by many bodies both within NRC and outside 18
~C, assume that to be regulations or at least take it to be a v.
I9 regulation.
And I believe this creates a certain amount of 20 difficulty.
21 I think the other difficulty with use of the
(}
22 Standard Review Plan is this so-called audit review can lead to
~/
\\
23 perhaps not considering all elements of the Standard Review l
24 Plan. In other words, what I am trying to say is that it is not.
Ac4rd Reporters, inc.
]
25 i
totally a checklist type of review that is conducted under the
)
l I
l
29 Ole-6 Standard Review Plan, to the best of my knowledge.
j T J 2
0 The Standard Review Plan you're saying even if 3
foll wed to the letter would still result in an audit type C,
review?
4 5
No, what I was trying to say is that I don't believe i
that the reviewers use it.
Let me see the word I am looking 6
7 f r -- all encompassing way.
In other words, they use parts of 8
it for the areas which they feel have to be stressed in their review.
9 10 BY MR. COX:
11 Q
Given a section of the Standard Review Plan that 12 does have acceptance criteria in it, and I believe they all do,
[])
13 if the reviewing staff reviews an application against those 14 acceptance criteria in that specific part of the Standard 15 Review Plan, does the staff accept that, assuming that the 16 applicant meets those acceptance criteria, meets that Standard 17 Review Plan,to the letter, does our staff accept that as 18 demonstration that the application in that respect meets the 19 general design criteria?
20 A
Well, I don't think there is a clear answer to that.
21 I think probably many reviewers believe that, but when you try
)
(^)'
22 to go down the Standard Review Plan and associate it with each s
23 of the general design criteria, it gets very difficult to have 24 a one for one correlation, and the reason for that is that the j
A
.utl Remrters, ltw.
l 25 general design criteria or just as the name says, are more
30 ula-7 i
general and not specific, and they cover many areas.
And so,
,o
()
2 therefore, to know specifically what part of that general 3
design criteria is covered by what part of the Standard Review
,()
4 Plan creates, in my opinion, some difficulty.
5 But I think the intent of the Standard Review Plan 6
in all of our review is to implement the general design 7
criteria.
8 0
Would you say then that that being the intent, do 9
you think the Standard Review Plan should perhaps be improved 10 so that there is a one-to-one or as nearly as possible a one-11 to one correspondence so that acceptance criteria could be 12 drawn '.o demonstrate compliance with the general design
()
13 criteria?
L:
14 A
Well, that could be done, but you might start out 15 in tiaciiher end and say whether the general design criteria are 16 the rights ones in the first place and should they be corrected 17 so that you have a better base to develop a review plan.
Call 18 it the Standard Review Plan, or whatever.
One of the difficul-19 ties, as with all kinds of regulations and guidance and so 20 forth, is one of interpretation.
And this constant struggle as 21 to whether you legally meet the requirements of general
(^)
22 design criteria, and it is not an easy matter to know that in V
23 overy respect.
'If you look at the words in a legalistic 24 sense, that in every respect the general design criteria are 3
n
..t aeporten, ine.
l 25 absolutely met or what -- and it is frowned upon to use words
31 cl=-8_
j like it meets the objectives of the criteria because apparently (a
2 our legal staf f and others believe that that is not an 3
appropriate basis.
So, there are difficulties.
5J 4
BY MR. PARLER:
5 0
Incidentally, in regard to the topic you were just 6
discussing which you suggested at least to me that there may be 7
questions on the interpretation of the general design criteria 8
and there may be other regulations in which maybe on when over-9 legalistic position is taken -- did I draw the correct 10 inference from your remark?
11 A
Yes.
I think you did, and I don't mean to suggest 12 they don't necessarily have to have rules and regulations, I
(~')
13 am talking about the interpretation of those re'uirements of v
14 how you meet them.
And there seems to be at least a lack of 15 appreciation that reasoned judgment -- By reasoned, I mean there:
16 is abasis for that.
It is an acceptable way to go in a very 17 highly technological area.
18 Q
Do you have anything else to add about the Standard 19 Review Plan other than what you've already said?
Incidentally, l
20 I understand your remarks a few minutes ago to mean that although 21 the Standard Review Plan is a useful document for staff review
(])
~
22 purposes and perhaps also for the applicants that by no means 23 should one conclude that because there is such a plan,Tthatiitils 24 a panacea,that all difficulties have been taken care of.
Is my AcSerst fleporters, Inc.
25 understanding correct?
32 alo-9 A
Yes, it is.
3
,,(,)
0 Now, let's move to a different area and that is 2
3 the responsibility of the Division of Project Management, o
(j 4
the duration of the responsibility and how that responsibility 5
is terminated by the transfer of a plant from that division 6
to the Division of Operating Reactors.
1 7
It is my understanding in that regard that although 8
the operating license for TMI-2 was issued, I believe on 9
February the 8th, 1978, that the Division of Project Management 10 retained the responsibility for that plant certainly through 11 March the 28th, 1979.
Is my und'rstanding in that regard e
12 correct?
[)
13 A
Yes.
w/
14 Q
I also understand, just as another example, that 15 although the operating license for the Davis-Besse-1 plant 16 was issued on April the 22nd, 1977, that the responsibility for 17 that plant was not transferred from the Division of Project 18 Management to the Division of Operating Reactors until October, 19 1978; is that approximately correct?
20 A
Yes.
21 0
Now, I also understand from a document that was
(~)' ;
22 issued in December, 1975, with regard to organizational changes 23 in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations, that one of the 24 functions of the new Division of Operating Reactors that was A'4Prel flepOfters, lfic.
25 created at that time was to review the design and operational
33 cle-10'
-1 changes and operating reactors and analyze and respond to y~)
2 Operating experiences as they developed, and assure that the
-t 3
current experience is factored into new licensing actions, pA) 4 The-statement I just made of the functions of the Division of 5
Operating Reactqrs is substantially correct as you understand 6
it?
1
-7 A
I believe so, yes, 8
MR. PARLER:
The document that I was referring to was 9
a press release, a Commission's press release, No.75-284, 10 dated December the 8th, 1975, subject: Organizational Changes 11 Announced in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations.
I 1
12 would.like to mark this document for identification as Exhibit i
p, 13 1017.
%)
XXX 14 (Exhibit No. 1017 identified.)
i 15 BY MR. PARLER:
.16 Q
Now, is there any official document that you have l
17 or-that you know about that deals with the transfer of the 18 responsibility for plants from the Division of Project Manage-19 ment to the Division of Operating Reactors?
.J A
.I think there were some, but I could not find any in 21 n.f files.
And the latest one that I recollect was one from I 22 believe Boyd to Mr. Stello, then the Director of DOR, concerning 23 the t ransfer of a number of plants that were in the Division j
24
- g,y of Project Management.
I could not find that document.
.LAK
,rel Regmrters, lrc.
]
25 Q
Which document now?
The Boyd to Stello document?
34 01r-11 A
Yes.
But my recollection was that it wasn't much j
(,,)
other than to explain that our design in the Division of 2
3 Project Management to transfer the plants that we had as
(
quickly as possible, and to work out whatever arrangements were 4
5 necessary to exp,edite that transfer.
6 Q
Is it also your recollection that the transfer of responsibility should not extend much, if at all, beyond the 7
time that the operating reactor has achieved some substantial 8
9 power level?
10 11 12
/~'T 13
(_/
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
(^)
22
.v 23 24 Ac ti Reponers, Inc.
25 i
w-35 cc. 6776 1
A It is my opinion that once the reactors to achieve
- t.f]
ula 2 2
essentially power operation, that they should be transferred to 3
the Division of Operating Reactors.
4 Q
Are there any criteria that you are aware of that 5
apply to the decisions as to whether there should be a transfer 6
or not?
7 A
Yes, I believe there were, and again I can't find 8
any documentation in my own personal files of this.
I believe 9
there were criteria established between the Division of 10 Project Management and DOR at some point, which required that II we essentially draw up a contract between the two organizations 12 to really document what was done in the review, to list and 13
-(
)
discuss areas that were still outstanding in the sense that I4 they may be conditions on the license and require future actions, 15 sometimes going 18 months or so beyond the issuance of the 16 license.
17 The idea here was to establish who is going to be 18 responsible for following up on these areas once the 19 responsibility was transferred to DOR.
What happened is that 20-these got very involved in some cases, particularly Davis-Besse 21 was one in which the license was a very complicated license.
[ ')
22 There were to my recollection a large number of conditions in v
23 the license, and based upon the requirement to have responsi-24
/^N bility established for follow-up on these matters, it took a
/ % jest Reporters, Inc.
25 considerable amount of time to develop the transfer package l
36 sis-2 because in some areas it was required or DOR required that the
(
,)
Division of Systems Safety, for example, be responsible for 2
doing the technical review of some of these areas.
3
(_/
And what happened is that a document was prepared 4
which required the concurrence of all of the.ce groups.
And 5
even the name of the reviewer had to be listed.
And there 6
was something like, in some cases, 20 or 22 different concur-7 rences that you had to get.
And because of schedule 8
difficulties, each group was not prepared always to tell you 9
10 whom they would designate for the assignment review or whether 11 they would be able to do it within that time frame.
And so, 12 it entailed a lot of coordination and the result is that
[~}
13 time passed and the Division of Operating Reactors made it a 14 point of not accepting the transfer unless this package was 15 completely concurred in by all of the responsible groups and 16 that all of the matters had been articulated and that all of 17 the people that were going to conduct the following reviews 18 had been identified.
19 0
Whatistheunderlyingcontributorstothesituationl t
20 which you have just outlined?
Is it basically a resources 21 problem or is it more related to not wanting responsibility
("T 22 transferred if there are any outstanding significant issues?
LJ 23 A
Well, I believe it probably was mostly resource 24 problems.
I certainly subscribe to the idea that you should n4ess neponen. sne.
l 25 have a package which details just what's left to be done and
37 r?.e-3 1
what had been done.
I think that is an appropr.iate exercise to
<~s
(_)
2 do when you transfer from one group to another.
3 So, in my opinion I guess it was mainly a type of p
!J 4
resource problem.
5 Q
Prior to the establishment of NRC, and with the 6
Division of Project Management and the Division of Operating 7
Reactors, how was the situation that we have been discussing 8
handled?
In other words, was there a need to tran1fer the 9
responsibility from one division to another after the plant was -
10 placed in operation?
11 A
Yes, there was.
And if you go back to the 12 organization prior to December, 1975, in other words, prior to
(~)
13 the reorganization, if you recall I indicated that operating v
l 14 reactors and the Division of Project -- or the area of Project 15 Management, was all within the Director of I guess it was 16 called Director of Reactor Licensing at that time.
And my 17 recollection is how that was handled was that at one point the 18 project managers that were in the area of operating reactors 19 were identified in the late stages of the review of the 20 operating license, and indeed tried to follow the conclusion of,
i' 21 the operating license review, and also assisted with development (a')
22 of the technical specifications.
So, that whe:'
t's license 23 was granted and after that time when the plant ha?. essentially I
24 Ateeral Reporters. Inc.achieved 100 percent of power and was operating in that mode,
[
I 25 it was considered an appropriate time to transfer to operating i
1 0
i.
~
38
,'clo-4 j
reactors.
')
Of course,.at that time I think you would have to
(
2 3
_ recognize that we were less systematized in many respects.
/^)%
I think the operating licenses were much less complicated and 4,
4 5
did not have a lot of conditions on them, and they were 6
essentially clean operating licenses.
And so, therefore, it made the transfer much easier.
7 BY MR. COX:
8 9
Q Dom, you mentioned that the transfer package and the 10 conclusion of it as you described it as a contract, I think, 11 between DPM and DOR, essentially?
12 A
Yes.
13 Q
The conclusion, the successful conclusion of that 14 contract, if you will, seems to depend in your estimate pretty 15 much on establishing through and when as to the review of these
.16 outstanding issues, that is the assignment resources to get 17 the job done.
18 Were these resources mostly in DSS or in DPM or in 19 DLR7 20 A
It varied.
For the actual technical matters many 21 times they were in the DSS.
Many areas involving project
(~3 22 management functions still remained with the Division of
\\_/
23 Project Management.
And to the extent that they were applicable, 24 areas in the DSE were also included there.
I guess the point
.g y AG, t;t Reprters. Inc.
1
)
25 was to-recognize that for example if there was still e-if the l
39 c10-5 case was still before some Appeal Board or something of that 3
[]
2 nature, that it made more sense for the project manager and::the v
3 Division of Project Management to follow to its conclusion that e
(x) 4 aspect of it.
And, that was part of the contract.
5 Q
Where did the most difficulty lie, though, in 6
establishing what resources would be tapped?
Was it in working 7
out the details of project management assignments or DOR 8
assignments, or was it establishing the resource availability 9
and getting them out of DSS or DSE?
10 A
Well, I think it was a combination, mostly getting 11 the resources out of DSS, but also many times we in DPM 12 indicated that the project management function should be taken
,eN 13 over by the DOR project manager, and DOR would not agree to
()
14 that.
And so, it was a combination of things, but I guess 15 primarily the difficult areas were in getting agreement with 16 DSS on their responsibility.
17 Q
And DSS was a resource that was essentially outside 18 of either yourself as DPM or Mr. Stello as DOR?
19 A
That's right.
20 Q
So, the difficulty of solving that problem would 21 essentially be equivalent for either yourself or the DOR side?
22 A
That's right.
That is why I think Mr. Stello required
()
l 23 that we have identified not only the group, but the name of the 24 individual and so forth, that or a just didn't say "Yes, DSS, we
- A rd Reporms, Inc.
25 will take care of it,"but that they agreed to take care of it.
40 ala-6 j
And that was the reason for having so many concur-p)
\\_
2 rences on this package.
3 Q
But essentially you would not perceive, or would you 4
perceive that your problems.in getting DSS resources would be 5
any more or less than his problems in getting DSS resources?
6 A
- 7. think that's right.
There wouldn't be much 7
difference between DOR trying to get the resources or us 8
getting the resources.
9 BY MR. PARLER:
10 Q
Except that the DOR has many counterparts in the 11 technical disciplines to DSS, as I understand it, so it may be 12 less of a problem from his standpoint because he may not have
({}
13 as great a need to get the resources?
14 A
Well, the other thing was also continuity, and 15 since some of the matters originated because of the requirements 16 imposed by DSS, it made certainly a lot more sense that they 17 complete that aspect of it before turning it over to DOR 18 which indeed did have technical people themselves, but that 19 wasn't a very efficient way of doing it.
20 BY MR. COX:
21 Q
You mentioned just a few minutes ago -- I want to (N) 22 ask about the importance of establishing this detail in this
/
23 package that you thought it was important to delineate 24 Ace 6r;l Reporters, Inc.precisely the items that had to be handled and who was going to 25 be responsible.
And I am not sure whether you meant from the
41 c1c-7 i
management of them or from the actual working of them.
(...
(_/
2 A
All I was trying to indicate for getting manpower 3
resources or anything, all I was trying to indicate was that
(_)
4 I did believe that you needed a document to say where to 3
denote the status of this operating license.
In other words, 6
if it was totally clean, that there were no conditions on the 7
license, then that should be stated.
And that you had an SER, 8
that you handled these items, or whatever the requirements were.
9 In other words, that there be some documentation as 10 tc just what this review consisted of, and what further things 11 had to be done.
And that is exclusive of who was to do it.
12 I was only speaking in that sense.
I think that you need -- I
/~N, 13 am not against having such a document.
V 14 Q
And that is precisely or at least that leads to my 15 next question.
In view of the importance of what you just 16 mentioned and the necessity for having clear centers of 17 management once a plant is operating, management at the NRC 18 that is, do you think that a delay of months in the transfer 19 package is
-- or offecting the conclusion of the transfer 20 package is justified on the basis of meeting clear statements 21 on paper of who is going to do a particular review and on what
(~)
22 schedule?
w./
23 A
Could you repeat that?
I didn't get the exact 24 essence of the question.
AcGertl fleporters, Inc.
25 Q
Do you feel that if the transfer package could be
'42 cle-8 i
completed and the transfer effected in a much shorter time, if
()
2 precise reviewers and precise schedules weren't demanded, but
~
3 ratiter only clear delineation of responsibility of those 1(])
4 issues at the project management level, do you feel it would 5
be worthwhile to do without clear statements of who was going 6
to do the review, and on what schedule?
7 A
Well, that is my feeling that that is what should 8
be done.
9 BY MR. PARLER:
10 Q
I understood what you have said earlier to mean 11 that you are in_ favor of a document which clearly spells out 12 what the issues are.
In other words, what the status is,
-s 13 so that when the baton is passed or when the watch is changed,
, b 14 those that receive the new responsibilities know exactly what 15 the status is.
It has been reduced to writing.
16 Now, that I understand you endorse, you are in 17 favor of; is that right?
18 A
-Yes.
19 Q
Now, what Tom is asking is do you also think there 20 is a need for this transfer document?
To go much beyond that 21 and to deal not only with the issues and the status of their 22 g3 resolution, but also to enumerate all of th'e people in the
(/
23 schedules for resolving those things?
Would you also endorse 24 t
that part of the document as being very essential?
i Ac/\\~) t4 Hemrters, lnc.
Ir 25 A
Well, I guess I would have to say yes.
In the
(..._
g
43 21c-9 1
face of practical knowledge that we don't have an infinite n
2 manpower reservoir, that many of the matters in that document 1
3 are time dependent.
In other words, the license says such and q
V 4
such nas to be resolved prior to such a mode of peration or 5
prior to the next refueling or within six months or whatever.
6 And if you just prepared a document to say well, here is all of 7
the matters.
I have articulated all of these, and now you go 8
handle them.
I don't know, it is a difficult situation, and I 9
think the main problem one of the resources available.
I 10 agree that it should be transferred sooner, mainly from the 11 standpoint of efficiency because I think we have developed 12 proceduros whereby whatever is being done on operating reactors 13 in. terms of bulletins or generia letters and so on, is also I4 done by the Division of Project.ianagement for those operating i
15 licenses which are under their purview.
16 I guess the thing that is missing is the higher 17 Division of Operating Reactors is more attuned to perhaps the 18 type of problems that occur with operating reactors, and is more attuned to handling these matters.
20 So, I want to make clear, though, that when there are-21 difficulties that arise with a particular application or
^
22
( )
operating license, that is within DPM, that DOR is consulted 23 and their advice sought on how to handle the situation.
24 AceStal Reporters, Inc.
0 Well, when a plant remains the responsibility of l
25 the Division af Project Management, who has the responsibility I
44 elc-10 1
to evaluate on a systematic basis the what I call and others
(_)
2 call the operational f6edback information.
When the plant is 3
in project management, who has that responsibility, project (o_.)
4 management or DOR, or is it unclear who has it?
5 A
Well 7 perhaps it is unclear, but I think what we 6
try to do is depend on the Division of Operating Reactors for 7
that kind of feedback.
It is clear as to the handling of 8
amendments, and that sort of thing, when the operating license 9
is still within DPM we have an operating procedure which 10 establishes who can issue amendments, who can act on emergency 11 amendments and so forth within DPM.
12 MR. PARLER:
Let's have a brief recess now.
(~)
13 (Recess taken.)
w.
End t-4 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
(~^;
22 w./
23 A
er:1 Reporters, Inc.
25
2776.05.1 45 gsh 1
MR. PARLER: Back on the record.
(l)EE 2
BY MR. PARLER:
3 0
With regard to the exchange of operational f eedback 4
information, and the responsibility therefore, before the 5
recess, I understood you to have said that even though there 6
may not be any ' formal documents dealing with the procedures
)
7 that the process works, I gather reasonably well.
8 Is my understanding correct?
1 9
A I think that is a fair statement.
1 10 0
Does the Division of Operating Reac tors put out 11 operational f eedback information in the form of bulletins and 12 office memoranda, or things such as that?
13 A
Yes.
They put out operating memoranda, I guess 14 they call it, and then another document as well.
And DPM
,3
()
15 and myself have been recipients of those documents.
16 So that we are aware of them and take whatever 17 action is required by those memoranda.
18 0
Is there as far as you are aware a specific group 19 within the Division of Operating Reac tors that is responsible 20 for evaluating operational f eedback information, or do you 21 know?
22 A
I don't know, and I don't think there is.
23-MR. PARLER: Could we go off the record a second?
24 (Discussion off the record.)
([]
25
<8 L
~6776.05.2 46 gsh i
BY MR. PARLER:
. ("#!EE 2
0 The communication between the project managers in
\\_)
3 DPM is generally with what -- their counterparts in DDR or 4
the people in DDR that have the technical background that is 5
particularly associated with various operational events?
6 A
I think it varies.
It depends on the event or 7
a situation.
For example, some matters that come to DOR's 8
attention are recognized as generic matters.
They will handle 9
them through their technical group and also in association 10 with DSS in many situations like that.
'l And we try to keep in touch with what that particular 12 group or those people in that area are doing, so that we can 13 apply or be cognizant of what action is going to be taken.
14 Other times, our DPM project managers will speak
(])
15 with DDR pro ject managers or when we have a particular problem, 16 we would escalate it to the director of DDR for guidance.
17 So I don't think that there is any one place that 18 one goes and then the flow of information from DOR on paper 19 involving events or matters of generic importance and so 20 forth, were sent to DPM.
21 0
In addition to the interfaces that you have with 22 DDR which you just alluded to, I would understand that there 23 would also be interfaces to acquire operational feedback 24-information from the division of safety systems and also from b)
25 inspection and enforcement headquarters, and perhaps O
l
6776.05.3' 47 gsh I
occasionally, perhaps directly from inspection and enforcement
(',iEE :
_2 in the regional offices.
3 Is all of what I said correct or substantially 4
4 correct?
)
5 A
I think that that is probably substantially correct.
6 The thing that 1 want to get on the record is that any 7
formal actions.taken by DDR with licensees under their 8
jurisdiction or also-taken by DPM for those licensees or 9
operating licenses under our jurisdiction -- in other words, 10 when there was a survey to be conducted because of some 11 reported event or whatever, the technical coordinator of 12 assistant director of DPM and the technical coordinator of 13 DDR work closely together so that the same letter went out, 14 for example, to the licensees under the jurisdiction of C
i5 DeM.
16 0
As far as you are aware, that part of the process i -
17 works well?
18 A
That part of the process worked, as far as I am 19 aware, worked well.
20 0
So what you're saying is, as I understand it, that 21 DPM is in lock-step with DDR as far as any directives or 22 what-have you that the DDR puts out to their reactors that 23 are under its responsibility.
24 And to the extent p'rtinent that DPM does the same
(])
25 thing for the reactors that are under its responsibility.
(((
9-
'6776.05.4 48 gsh' 1
A That is correct.
-9EE 2
BY MR. COX:
(J.
3 0
Taking a look at it from the other direction, we 4
just talked about informations generated within the NRC, 7sg-5 essentially, and put out.
Letters go out and those letters 6
come to DPM fon issuance to utilities under DPM's jurisdiction.
7 In the case of, for instance, just as an example, 8
an operating B&W reactor like Oconee, some operational 9
irformation that comes into DOR from that reactor, it might 10 be of value to B&W plants, perhaps still in the licensing 11 process within DPM.
12 How would that information be fed back to DPM so 13 that it could be incorporated into the licensing process if 14 that were appropriate and necessary?
(s'-)-
15 A
Well, I guess we depended on DOR.
If they felt that 16 that was an issue of importance, they would contact us about 17 it, or they would try to work with their counterparts in 18 DSS.
'?
So that for those operating licenses that still 20 remained within DPM and DSS, those matters would hopefully
-21 get taken care of.
22 But if you are asking me, is there a we ll-defined 23 procedure.for doing that, I'm not aware of one.
-24 BY MR. PARLER:
'{ )
25 0
A question to be asked in the context of the exchange (2) j
56776.05.5 49 gsh 1
that you just had with Mr. Cox is the extent to which certain
~
'()MEE 2
events which have been referred to by some as precursor 3-events to the TMI 2 accident were identified and evaluated (G'
4 as such prior to March the 29th of 1979.
s_/
5 Now I can represent to you, and I will represent 6
to you, that in our questioning of others, it would appear 7
that although there was knowledge of a number _of these 8
events -- in particular, the Davis-Besse transient of 9
September the 24th, 1977 -- that apparently, it was not until 10 after March the 29th, 1979 that the significance of that 11 particular event -- that is, the Davis-Besse, September the 12 24th, 1977 event -- was understood.
13 Now there are, in addition to that event -- that 14 is the Davis-Besse event of September the 24th, 19 77 -- there O(_/
15 are a number of other precursors that have been mentioned, 16 including _ things such as the Michelson report of January, 17 1.978, the Nowak-Israel memorandum of November the 10th, '78, 18 the Creswell memorandum of January the 8th, 1979.
19 There is also an event that occurred in 1974 in 20 a foreign reactor that has received some considerable 21 attention.
22 Now without going through the entire list, my 23 question to you ist Again, to the best of your recollection, 24 were'any of these events recognized prior to March 29th,
()
25 1979 as being significanc from the standpoint of, for example, O
'I
B776.05.6 50 gsh I
the series of events that occurred at TMI 2 on I.tarch the gggEE 2
29th, 1979?
3 Or to put it simply, were any of these things 4
evaluated and understood to have safety significance that y
5 should receive attention?
6 A
Well,'the one that I remember most directly, or 7
most specifically, is the Davis-Besse event because Davis-Besse 8
was still under the jurisdiction of DPM at the time of that 9
event.
10 I recall that when we first heard of that, that 11 we immediately tried to understand the significance of that.
12 In fact, I think within a day that we heard about it, we had 13 a meeting with a f airly large number of DSS technical people.
14 I believe that there may have been a DDR representative there, n
' 15 but I'm not sure.
i
-( ~
16 And also, with some membes of I&E headquarters.
17 I remember that it was perceived as an important 18 or significant event that occurred, and that we, indeed, 19 tried to understand that.
20 My recollection is that because of the, I guess, 21 memos of understanding that we have between -- or had, and 22 maybe still have between the office of I&E and flRR, that at 23 that point in time, it was still within the jurisdiction of 24 I&E.
^)
25 And I recall inquiring about that particular p
L
6776.05.7 51 gsh 1
investigation of that event.
(~'/11EE 2
I do know that DSS people were concerned with it.
x-3 I knew that DDR had gotten involved in it in some manner.
But r'
4
'I guess after a period of time I lost track of what the --
L}
5 personally lost track of how that was being handled across 6
all of the offices of NRC.
7 The thing I can remember is that I think it was 8
perceived as being, as I said, a serious event. My own 9
recollection is I'm not sure that at that time one perceived 10 it as a basic flaw in the design of that particular reactor, 11 but that it was an event.
12 O
I understand that Mr. Engle, who was the project 13 manager for Davis-Besse I, visited the Davis-Besse site on 14 the weekend after the September 24th, 1977 event, or
()
15 shortly after that event.
16 And that on the weekend after his visit, he 17 prepared a graph from the various data which he had collected 18 or which was made available to him during his site visit, 19 and that this graph was brought, I suppose, to a meeting the 20 following Monday morning, perhaps a meeting that you referred 21 to, and a number of senior officials attended.
22 Now my question is this:
Did Mr. Engle discuss with 23 you any conclusions that he had. reached regarding the event s 24 that is, did such discussion take place prior to March the
.)
25 28th, 1979?
nO
it / /6.05.8 52 gs h' I
A I remember some discussions, but I can't honestly
[
( )!EE 2-remember the actions that were taken as a result of that.
3 I do recall trying to keep abreast of what was
()
4 going on with that for a while.
But I just don't --
5 0
Specifically, the graph that he prepared, did he 6
discuss that with you?
~7 A
I don't know which graph you are referring to.
8 0
I don't have it with me. It is something that Mr.
9 Engle alluded to in his deposition before the special inquiry 10 group.
And also, before the President's commission.
11 It is a graph which, as I've already said, from the 12 basis of data which he collected which indicated the series 13 of events that occurred at the Davis-Besse plant on 14 September the 24th.
f' 15 A
I remember the graph where he went throug' the 16 series of-the various responses to the pressure, and various 17 things like that.
18 I have a vague recollection of that.
19 0
All that I'm trying to ask you is simply this 20 Apparently, everyone after March 28th, 1979, would place much 21 greater significance on that graph, for example, as well as 22
'other data than they would have prior to that date.
23 Are you aware of any greater significance than you 24 have.already explained being attached by anyone prior to
)
25 March the 28th, 1979 to the Davis-Besse event of September the C.)
6776.05.9 53 gsh 1
24th, 1977?
.( ]}{EE 2
A The only way. that I was aware of it was that it 3
resurfaced again with the interchange of memoranda from I&E (v~')
to myself in connection with the board notifications.
And 4
5 that was the Creswell memo.
6 But l'f I can interject, of course, in retrospect, 7
like-many things, you would see now that maybe that had some 8
merit in looking at that, maybe, and following up in more 9
detail.
10 But my experience has been that when these things 11 occur, that one generally looks at them as an event that 12 occurred for that plant.
And you do look at them for 13 applicability to other plants.
But I don't know.
It th;.c s 14 a great deal of systematic review and thought to look at each
()
15 one of these and ascertain the importance of it, and whether 16 there is a basic flaw in the des'ign or in the operation and 17 so forth.
18 0
Prior to March the 28th, 1979, did anybody discuss 19
.with you the so-called Michelson Report of January, '78?
20 A
No.
The only way that I knew of the Michelson 21 Report was through various ACRS meetings that we had that were 22 held in conjunction with licensing applications which we had 23
.taken to the ACRS for their review.
24 And a number of those, or a number of the matters 1(])
25 mentioned by Michelson were brought up during the course of g
'6776.05.10 54
.gsh I
those-meetings with the ACRS.
([])EE 2
0
~This was prior to March 28th, 19797 3
A I believe so, yes.
~T 4
0 Are you familiar with the report that I'm talking
. (%.).
5 abou t?
6 A
I hav'e not seen it, I don't believe.
I really 7
can't remember seeing that particular report.
8 0
It is a report, generally speaking, which suggests 9
that the small break LOCA analysis for certain B&W designs 10 may not be adequate, and also suggests that the end -- that 11 under certain circumstances, the indication of pressurizer 12 level may not correctly reflect the amount of water that 13 is in the core.
14 Of course, Mr. Michelson, as a consultant to the
('
\\
15 ACRS, raises any number of questions at ACRS meetings.
This 16 report of his that was issued either in January or April of 17 1978, is one that has receive:' quite a bit of attention 18 subsequent ta the TMI 2 accident in March of 1979.
19 As far as you are aware now, you haven't read and 20 studied the Michelson Report that I have tried to describe 21 to you?
22 A.
No, I did not study it.
I think I saw some 23 references to it in papers coming from the.ACRS.
And I was 24' aware of-it, as I mentioned, through questions that were
()
25 askedL by ACRS members mentioning those very matters about O
!6776.05.11 55 gsh I
small. bteak LOCA analysis, by Mr. Ebe rsole, in particular,
(]' EE
)
2 who pursued a number of what I believe were concerns raised 3
by Mr. Michelson.
r' 4
0 And your recollection goes to prior to the Three D) 5 Mile Island 2 accident?
6 A
Oh, y'es, it was prior to.
And I don't think that 7
it was only on one occasion.
8 0
Did you participate in the ACRS discussions on the 9
Pebble Springs application?
10 A
.Yes.
11 0
Your recollection could have been, I suppose, in 12 regard to the discussions there.
13 A
I think so.
And it may have been on the Erie 14 discussion as well.
()
'l5 There are so many ACRS meetings, I can't place them 16 all. But my recollection is that some of those matters -- I 17 can't say all of the matters that Michelson put in his
!8 report -- but I believe some of those certainly were pursued 19 with the applicant and the staff at a number of ACRS meetings.
1 20 0
One final question, though, on precursors.
Prior.
21 to March 28th, 1979, were you aware, to the best of your 22 recollection, of a Nowak-Israel memorandum of January the loth, 23
.1978?
The subject matter, I think, is pressurizer loop seals.
24' That memorandum, like'the Michelson memorandum, has received
((}
25
.quite a bit of attention subsequent to March 28th, '79.
lO l
l-L
~
l l
l~
6776.05.12 56 gsh 1
A No, I was not aware of Nowak's memo to his staff.
EE 2
I didn't find out about that until the events subsequent to 3
the TMI event.
4 BY MR. COX:
5 0
Don, if I could back up for a minute to the 6
Davis-Desse event again of September 24th, 1977, in that 7
general timeframe when the project, that project was still 8
within DPM, what organization, in your view, what organization 9
should have-taken the responsibility for making a determination 10-as to whether that. event represented a non-resolved safety 11 issue in the context of 10 CFR 50.59?
12 A
Well, I suppose under those circumstances, it 13 probably should have been between DSS and DPM, and probably 14 I&E.
.({}
15 0
Well, of those three, would anyone be looked to as 16 having lead responsibility?
17 A
I'm not aware of how you define that because when IR you have an abnormal occurrence, someone has to judge whether 19
-that is of significance to recall, for example, in the 20 first place, an abnormal occurrence? There are criteria that
-21 the commission have established for that.
22 I am not aware of who specifically is supposed to 23 make those judgments about abnormal occurrences.
I took them 24 to be mainly DOR because they are responsible for handling
(")
25 the operating reactors.
And between DDR and I&E, I would v
6776.05.13 57 gsh I
imagine that they can determine whether that should be Oise 2
considered an abnormal occurrence.
3 O
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 O
i5 16 17 18 l
19 20 21 22 23 l
24 O
25 o
58
$776 06 01 ricHEE I
O This question is also about or concerns the period 2
between the OL issuance and the formal transf er of a project 3
to 00R.-
In that time again, what are DPM regarding a change
(_l N-4 to the FSAR submitted by a. licensee, particularly if the S
change is in no.way linked to any outstanding license 6
condition or information requirement and the licensee, in 7
submi tting the change, makes no statement concerning whether 8
or not the submitted change involves an unresolved safety 9
question?
Again, the phrase " unresolved safety question" 10 means in the context of 10 CFR 50.59.
11 A
Well, I'm not familiar with submittal of FSAR
~
12 documents just being submi tted by licensees following the 13 issuance of the license without any explanation.
Now there 14 may have been some, but I am not aware that the licensees 15 just submitted changes in FSARs without any explanation of 16 them.
I don' t know what to answer.
I have just never 17 been -- at least that matter has never been brought to my 18 a ttention by any project managers or that it was a problem.
19 Either there were amendments or there was a letter stating 20 that something had been reviewed by the Station Review 21 Commi ttee or something of that nature.
I am just not aware 22 personally of the submi ttal of FSAR changes without any 23 explanation.
24 0
I understand that, and that is why I do not, in O
25 fact, show you today a copy of Amendment Number 65 to the
(<-.
t.
4
59 6776 06 02
{};cHEE I
TMI-2 FSAR.
But, in f,act, that amendment as submitted did 2
ccotain changes, specifically change.s to Section 13A, which
{
is the emergency plan, which were not solicited by us, the 3
4 NRC, in any way.
They just submi tted it.
5 But, as you hoint out, you haven't seen that.
I think I 6
asked the question in a general way.
I think it is possible 7
that suc' a change could be submi tted and if, in fact, such 8
change v.as. submitted wi thout any statement, just a 9
transmi tal le tter that says in effect, "Here it i s," wha t 10 isa DPM's responsibility in that situation?
.11 A
The responsibility is for the project manager to 12 look at that and determine what his next course of action 13 should be.
And you picked on that one about the emergency
-()
' 14
- plan, and I think that is one that is probably prone to 15 being changed and to keep us informed about it.
And yet I 16 don't know that there were any regula tions or requirements 17 about their c hanges in emergency plans.
18 I'm not sure, if any, there are a lot ' dealing actually 19 with design changes or anything else like that that are just 20 submi tted tha t way.
21 BY MR. PARLER:
22 0
There's no requirement that the FSAR be kept 23 u pda ted, is there?
I recall there is a pending regulation
({}
24 that has been pending f or some years, but that is still 25 pending.
Right?
(
60 6776 06 03 f",cHEE I
A That's right.
And the admonishment by the. staff
.b 2
has been to maintain the FSAR up to date, but the re,wa sn' t 3
any requirement, to my knowledge, that they had to submit
\\l 4
it.
And f urther, the responsiblity under 10 CFR 50.59 of 5
the regulations was that any change of either design or 6
procedures that had a saf ety impact or potential safety 7
impact had to be reviewed by their Saf ety Review Board or 8
Commi ttee and that I&E audited those entries in the station Y
logs and so on as to those meetings and what decisions were 10 made.
.11 Now, to my knowledge, they don't look at each one, but 12 apparently they do audit to see that those matters are 13 considered as to whether they are of safety significance or 14.
whether it is an unreviewed saf ety matter and so forth.
15 0
Suppose, though, that an applicant or licensee 16 should think that something of safety significance and 17 would, I guess, under the Section 50.59 procedures would 18 submit an amendment to the NRC.
And let's f urther assume 19 t ha t the NRC reviewers would conclude that this is something 20 does not require an amendment because there is no unreviewed 21 safety question, that what is involved in the example that 22 we are talking about was simply an updating of the emergency 23 plan.
(V
. 24 Now assuming that what I have stated is correct, my g
- 25 question is that there would appear to.be an area in which www~<
q
61 6776 06 04
,"ScHEE-I there would be some uncertainty as to how the particular
,V 2
i ssue should be resolved, and wha t, under those 3
circumstances, does the staff do?
Does it always as a
' (_.)
4 matter of course advise the licensee as to what the staff is 5
doing with the omendment?
Or is there some prolonged period 6
of uncertainty during which the licensee may not know what I
7 the status' of its amendment is?
8 In the particular example we are talking about, the 9
document which could be aff ec ted would be the emergency I
10 plan.
Does the applicant f ollow the old emergency plan or 11 the emergency plan as it would be changed in the amendment?
12 Now I have rambled around here giving the background.
I 13 am trying to ask a quesiton at the same time.
But the
{}
I4 specific question is, there would appear to be a chance that 15 there could be, a t least in the area of emergency plans and 16 similar areas, the possibility for some uncertainty on the
~
17 part of licensees as to what they have to follow and what 18 they don't have to follow.
I don't know.
Is my question 19 clear?
20 A
Well, my general experience is that any amendment 21 that comes in for which they are requesting a change and in 22
~ which they submit something is handled f airly expeditiously 23
- because it. generally-af fects the operation of the plant.
24 0
.Yes, but suppose you have a situation in which you 25 have more than one plant on a station such as at the Three
62 3776 06 05 7-~cHEE I
Mile Island nuclear sta tion.
You have TMI-l -- tha t the O
2 responsibility for it is one place, namely the Division of 3
Opera ting Reactors and TMI-2 -- the responsibility f or it 7,:
4 is in the Division of Project Management.
5 Now that wouid seem to increase, certainly when you're 6
dealing with things that would have station-wide 7
applicablity such as emergency plans, that would seem to 8
increase the likelihood that there may not be timely action 9
on such an amendment.
10 A
Well, I guess I would have to define an 11 amendment.
I don't know how that document you are ref erring 12 to was submi tted, because without any letter accompanying 13 it, it is not a request for an amendment change.
To my
.({}
14 knowledge, generally the licensee requests an amendment 15 change which is handled most time, to my knowledge, rather 16 expeditiously.
And if something is just sent in, I guess 17 tha t is a li ttle somewhat unusual -- that this is an 18 amenament to the FSAR; it is not asking for an amendment to 19 the license.
There is no request.
I guess I just don't 20 know about that particular document and that the criteria 21-that had been established as to whether there is a change 22 to, whether an amendment is an unreviewed saf ety matter or 23 thare is a change in - the level of saf ety and so on.
24 There again are some -- both DDR and DPM operating
()
25 procedures which tell you how to judge whether those could
63 G776 06 06 eqcHEE I
be unreviewed 'saf ety ma tters or significant changes in f~V 2
margins as to whether you lave to prenotice or postnotice 3
and all of those matters.
And I guecs I am a little bit O
4 uncertain as to the status of this document that you talked 5
about on emergency plans which is just a submittal of some 6
page changes in an FSAR.
7 0
I don't want to belabor the point, but another 8
questions is What is your understanding of an emergency 9
plan?
Is that a part of the license, a condi tion in the 10 license, or is it a part of the a pplication, or do you know?
.11 A
I guess I was never asked that question.
I am not 12 aware that in the licenses that we have issued that there is 13 any specific mention of the emergency plan.
And, therefore, t)
14 in the actual license, I'm not aware that the emergency plan
'J
,15 is called out in any specific way.
16 BY MR. COX :
17 0
Are you bware of the FSAR being called out in any 16 specific way in the license?
19 A
11 0, other than the statement in the license which 20 says -- I believe it says it is in accordance with the 21 application and the hearing record and all of those other 22-matters that if there was a hearing to deal with that.
But
~23 in that vague sense, it is in there.
24 BY MR. PARLER:
25 0
Bef ore moving f rom the area we have been
(~)-
v
64 G776 Oo.07 r7c I
discussing for some tima, namely the relationships between O' HEE 2
the Division of Project Management and other divisions, I 3
want to make sure that my understanding is correct on a
\\
4 couple of points.
S First of all, you said in your earlier testimony in this 6
area that maybe there was something like a contract or 7
memorandum of understanding between DPM and the Division of 8
Operating Reactors, but you haven't been able to locate such 9
a document.
Is my understanding correct?
10 A
Yes.
I haven't been able to locate the memo which
' 11 sets forth the specifics of the memorandum of understanding, 12 if you want to call it that.
But I do have a document of 13 the transfer package of Davis-Besse which spells out all of 14 the details of-the transf er and shows all of the q
)
15 concurrences.
16 0
Is that an extra copy that you have?
17 A
That is an extra copy that I have.
But to answer 18 your specific questions, I cannot locate in my files the 19 memo which established the procedure.
20 0
But this document that you have handed me, the 21 transf er document f or Davis-Be sse, does, to the best of your 22 recollection, reflect the understandings between DPM and DOR 23 as to ithat criteria have to be met for the transf er of a 24 plant f rom DPM to DOR?
Is that correct?
gg V
25 A
Tha t-i s correct, i
L L
~._...
65
$776 06 08
. r'7cHEE I
MR. PARLER:
I would like to mark the document U
2 th7t was just handed to me for identification as Exhibit 3
1018.
This document is a memorandum from Roger S. Boyd, 4
Director, Division of Project Management, to Victor Stello, 5
Director, Division of Opera ting Reactors.
And it is dated 6
October 30, 1978,
Subject:
Transfer of Davis-Besse Unit One 7
f rom Division of Project Management, Light Water Reactors
.8 Branch Number One to Division of Operating Reactors, Branch 9
Number Four.
10 (Exhibit 1018 was marked for 11 iden ti f ica tion. )
12 BY MR. PARLER:
13 0
Another question I would like to ask you, again,
.((])
' 14 in the interest of clarification, it is my understanding 15 that you are not aware of any official documents which 16 describe the relationships, the allocations of 17 responsibilities, particularly with regard to the handling 18 of operational f eedback information, between the DPM, the 19 DOR, or any other division.
Is that correct?
20 A
I believe that is correct.
I don't think I have a 21 personal knowledge of that.
22 0
That is all I'm talking about.
23 Now moving on to another area.
I t is my understanding 24 t hat there is in eff ect a formal document between the Of fice 25 of Nuclear Reactor Regula tion and the office of Inspection J
l l
66
..ilo 06 09 rucHEE I
and Enforcement regatu.og the NRR/I&E interface and division f
2 of responsibilities.
Are you generally f amiliar with such a 3
document?
(h
\\
4 A
Yes.
5 0
This agreement, again to the best of your 6
recollection, is needed to serve what purpose ?
This 7
agreement between NRR and I&E, is it basically because of 8
the fact that the information source for NRR is primarily 9
f rom the regional inspectors and that that information is 10 provided by the regional inspectors usually through I&E
.11 Headquarters?
12 A
I believe that is the case.
But I think the real 13 crux of the ma tter is -- or that the genesis of these r's 14 documents relates to the nature of the reporting event.
And V
4 15 by tha t I mean between the two groups: that is between NRR 16 and I&E, tha t there should be some clear agreement about 17 when either party gets involved in the event.
For example, 16 to the best of my understanding, the question is this.
If 19 I&E reports some ma tter, and it is clearly related to a 20 deficiency in implementing a design or meeting a requirement 21 t ha t has been approved as part of the license, part of the 22 FSAR, or what have yot, and that it does not call into 23 question the acceptance criteria or other requirements which 24 have been previously approved, then it is a ma tter for I&E 25 to follow because they are be tter able as an organization
]
67
- a. 00 10 a ctlEE I
to do this.
In other words, that it is not a matter for the
\\
2 licensing group such as NRR to get involved because it 3'
doesn't involve a question of acceptablity but rather one of
[b t.
r 4
implementation to meet that.
5 And I think. to the best that I know, this agreement was 1
6 drawn up to make those points as clear as possible so that 7
there would be less conf usion, and that in the even t I&E 8
f elt it went beyond that point, in other words, now the'e
/
9 had to be some interpre ta tion as to whe ther the issue 10 impac ted on the a cceptance cri teria, t ha t then they would
.I l seek NRR's advice.
12 MR. PARLER:
I will mark for identification as 13 Exhibit 1019 a memorandum for Lee V. Gossick f rom Ben 14 C. Rusche, Direc tor, Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 15 and Ernst, that's E-R-N-S-T, Volganau, V-0-L-G-A-N-A-U, the 16 Director of the Of fice of Inspection and Enforcement, 17
Subject:
Agreement on NRR/I&E Interf ace -- Division of 18 R e sponsibil i ty.
This is dated march 21, 1977.
19 (Exhibit 1019 was marked for 20 iden tifi ca tion. )
21 sMR. PARLER:
Also in regard to the document I just 22 mentioned, there is another document f rom Harold R. Denton, 23 a memorandum f or the NRR staf f, Subjec ts Staff Procedures 24 f or Review of Licensee Submittals under 10 CFR 50.59, dated 25 June 29,1979.
I will mark tha t document for identifica tion O
I,
68 6776 06 11 "ecHEE I
as Exhibit 1020.
2 (Exhibit 1020 was marked for 3
identi f i cation. )
~O 4
BY MR. PARLER:
5 0
Now the document so marked as 1020 in the opening
[
6 paragraph says that it has become apparent that a degree of 7
confusion exists regarding responsibility of NRR in the 6
review of licensee reports submitted in accordance,ilth
- 9 CFR 50.59.
This memorandum reemphasizes the NRR 10 responsiblity in this regard.
Do you know anything about
.11 the circumstances that led to the June 29, 1979 memorandum?
12 A
No.
I'm afraid I don't really know.
13 0
I am handing you a document having to do with the
.(}
14 transf ers of lead responsibility between Inspection and 15 Enforcement and NRR.
This appears to be a computer printout 16 prepared by the responsible division which lists all such 17 items, certainly from early in 1975.
Is my understanding 18 correct that this document which concerns who has 19 responsibility, whe ther it is I&E or DPM, is one of the 20 products of the agreement between NRR and I&E about 21 interf ace and division of responsibilities?
22 A
It is a product of the May or March 21, 1977 memo 23 which you have just referred to.
i es 24 0
And _I believe earlier you described, at least in
{
(_)
i 25 summary f ashion, the criteria or the guidelines that are
(
l l
~69
- 6776 06 12
( ];cilEE l ~
generally followed as to whether I&E has lead responsiblity 2
or whether the lead responsibility is transf erred.
I s my 3
understanding correct?
(w9 4
A That's right.
Again, t hough, this is essentially 5
a contract arra'ngement as well in that when -- I'm sorry, 6
may I start again?
When I&E believes that a matter has 7
a ri se r. which should be transf erred to NRR, it draws up this 8
memorandum.for a joint signature between the appropriate 9
officials in I&E and the Assistant Director for Light Water 10 Reac tors finn DPM, and, therefore-it requires both 11 signatures.
And if the Assistant Director in Light Water 12 Reactors f eels that there is some ouestion about the merits 13 of that issue falling within the responsibility of DPM and
()
14 DSS, he will try to straighten that out and will not sign 15 i t.
16 0
But the Assistant Directo3 for DPM is the NRR 17 contact and responsible official f or all of the decisions 16 regarding what lead responsibilities for the entire office 19 of NRR.
Is that right?
Or for transferring 20 responsibili ti es?
21 A
Well, transferring responsibility f or those 22 matters which are within the jurisdiction of DPM.
That is, 23 construction permits and' operating licenses which still are
(}
24 retained we thin DPM.
So it is not an office-wide 25 responsibility by the AD for. Light Water Reactors, only for O
70 6776.'06 13' liEE '
.I the matters.or for the cases which are under his 2
jurisdiction.
And I guess in DOR, there is a similar 3
si tua tion.
O 4~
MR. PARLER:
I will mark this docuraent for 5
identification us Exhibit 1021.
6 (Exhibit 1021 was marked for 7
identification.)-
8
'l
~ 10
.I i 12 i
l3 1
I4 15-16 17 l8
'19 4
3 i
20 j
21 22 23 i
24 j.
25' 4
l l
b..
71 6776 07 01 U;vHEE I
BY MR. PARLER:
2 0
At the beginning of this discussion, in responding 3
to one of my questions, you gave a breakdown of some of the O
4 broad functions of the Division of Project Management.
My 5
understanding from your response as well as from an o
organizational chart is that there is within the Division of 7
Project Management an assistant director for quality 6
assurance and under that assistant director there is a Y
quality a ssurance branch.
10 It is my further understanding that a part of the
.11 quality assurance branch functions is to r eview the 12 technical qualifica tions of an applicant.
13 Is my understanding correct?
i
('T 14 A
I think basically it is correct.
But I am not V
15 sure that it is totally clear whether it is solely within 16 tha t branch.
17 0
Well, I give the background to elicit f rom you 18 discussion in that regard.
Where does the responsibility IV lie for the review of an applicant's technical 20 qualif ica tion s?
Is it the project manager's in the quality 21 assurance branch, or is i t someplace else?
I would like for 22 you to commen t on that.
23 A
Okay.
I guess it is a little ambiguous as to who 24 has responsibility.
And in recent years, we have -- or at g3
-V 25 least I have taken steps to better define whose O,
72 B776 ' 07 02
(_) HEE c'
I responsibility it was to do that.
2 In what i t evol ved to, there was an evolutionary 3
process, and what it evolved to was that we would receive
(_/1 4
input f rom the quality assurance branch as to the 5
organizational structure, per se, as to whether it met the 6
requirements of Appendix B, that we would receive input f rom 7
the Office of I&E concerning its experience with the 8
applicant, and that the project manager in the Division of 9
Project Management would assimilate those inputs, along with 10 his own impre ssions tha t he receives through his
.11 interactions with an applican t, to come to a conclusion 12 about the technical qualifications of an applicant.
13 I think it goes back to the early '70s or late 14
)
'60s, when the saf ety evaluation reports usually had a 15 section dealing with the technical qualifications of an 16 applicant.
But I think, if you looked at those, they were 17 more recitations of the experience of the nuclear vendor and 18 architect engineer, rather than a true evaluation.
19 So, as a result of these ma tters coming before the 20 Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards in recent years, through 3
21 our efforts in DPM, we tried to develop a more systematic 22 approach to looking at the technical qualifications of an 23 a ppl ican t.
Of course, we recognize tha t there is no 24 guidance in the regulations as to how to evaluate this 25 i ssue.
1 u__
75 B776 07 05' HEE I
No. 2, Docke t No. 50-471.
And the testimony was given 2
approximately -- when?
In what year?
Do you have any idea?
3 THE WITNESS:
I believe it was given in March of O-4'
'76.
5 (Exhibi t 1023 identified.)
6 BY MR. PARLER:
7 0
In any event, this testimony was given.before the 8
upgrading ef fort that you referred to?
And the word 9
" upgrading" is my word.
10 A
Yes.
That document precipi tated that, trying to 11 upgrade the level of review, recognizing that it is a 12 dif ficult area because there are no clear criteria.
13 What we attempted to do in that testimony was to
{}
I4 so state it, but to articulate some of the elements which go
- 15 into making a judgmental decision, and that indeed is wha t 16 it ist it is a judgmental decision.
17 I think it was probably one of the first times 18 that we tried to articula te, in a rather cohesive fashion, 19 what those elements are, even though it did amount to a 20 judgment call, in the end.
21 0
Does the Division of Project Management get into 22 the. sview of an applicant's operating procedures, plant 23 opera cing procedures, so f ar as you are aware?
24 A
Not specifically.
Most of the times, not.
On 25 perhaps rare occasions.
I nn, --
,,a w,,,
76 6776 07 06 evHEE I
O Are you awa.e of whe ther, during the 2
preoperational tests for a reactor, if anyone f rom NRR -- in 3
particular, the Division of Project Management --
i 4
accompanies the inspec tors at the site, who witness these 5
tests?
In o ther words, is an NRC team approach used during 6
the on-site presence for the preoperational tests?
7 A
I am not aware of any.
8 0
Your recollection is it is just inspectors?
9 A
My recollection is it is just inspectors.
But on 10 the other hand, I haven't been totally involved in that 11 area.
12 Wiat I do know is that within the OA branch there 13 is a group who is responsible for reviewing preoperational 14 testing requirements.
(' ',
J 15 0
Wha t I was ge tting at is whether anybody from tha t 16 branch -- I suppose, in particular -- or anybody else you 17 are aware of -- f rom the Division of Project Management, as 18 a matter of routine, are asked to accompany the inspectors 19 to wi tne ss the actual preoperational tests?
20 A
I guess the key word that you said was " routine."
21 To my knowledge, t he re is no routine participation by DPM in 22 carrying out that inspection.
23 0
Do you have anything else to say in the technical 24 qualifications area, for the record, other than what you've 7
25 already said?
v
74 6776 07 04
/ "1 HEE' I
to earlier, so that there could be a more systematic O
2-evaluation of technical qualifications, has that effort been 3
completed, or is that still an ongoing effort.
. ~
'~#
4 A
I believe it is still an ongoing effort.
5 0
Was ahy of the f ruits of that effort available for o
a pplication in the review of the TMI-2 application, as f ar 7
as you are aware?
8 A
I believe not.
V O
You have -- it ha s been represented to me -
given 10 testimony in at least one proceeding before the Atomic 11 Safety and Licensing Board, on technical qualifications. - Is 12 my understanding correc t?
13
.A That is correct.
{}
14 0
Do you happen to have a copy of your testimony 15 wit! you, the testimony tha t you gave in the proceeding to 16 which I referred?
17 A
Yes, I believe so.
18 Q
If you have an extra copy, I would appreciate 19 receiving it.
20 MR. PARLER:
I would like to mark for 21 identification as Exhibit 1023 a document entitled "NRC 22 Staff Supplemental Testimony over Commonwealth Contention 23 10, by Domenic B. Va ssallo and Michael B. Aycock" -- that's 24 A-y-c-o-c-k.
This is testimony in the matter of Boston k')'
25 Edison Company, Pilgrim Nucicar Generating Station Unit O
73 3776 07 03 I
O Is there guidance in the Standard Review Plan?
o(~r HEE 2
A I believe, in the original Standard Review Plan 3
there was not total guidance.
It only involved what the 4
quality assurance branch had to do.
I believe we were in 5
the process of trying to revise the Standard Review Plan to 6
incorporate the various parts of that review into a more 7
coherent f ashion, as I just mentioned.
I am not sure that 8
that was actually implemented.
9 0
In any event, as far as you are aware, there were 10 no criteria in the regulations which would assist one in il evaluting the adequacy of an applicant's technical 12 qualifications, either for routine operations or for 13 emergency operationst is that correct?
.({])
- 14 A
I believe that is correct.
15 0
And there is some guidance, I gather -- not 16 necessarily criteria, but at least some general discussion 17 of review responsibilities -- in section 13 of the Standard 18
. Review Plans is that correct?
19 A
That is correct.
20 MR. PARLER:
Excerpts from the section 13 of the 21 Commission's Standard Review Plan, I would mark for 22 identification as Exhibit 1022.
23 (Exhibit 1022 identified. )
24 BY.MR. PARLER:
[}.
25 0
Now, this upgrading in this area that you ref erred
77 6776HO7 07 cv HEE I
A Well, I just would like to add that it is 2
a terribly complicated matter, and I am not sure that it is 3
clearly thought out in the regulations as to what is to be 4
accomplished by making such a finding.
The regulation, to S
my knowledge, simply states that the applicant must be found 6
" technically qualified."
That is a very broad term, and 7
w hat that means is difficult.
8 What I do know is that over the years I have spent 9
in project management, that it was easier to spot where 10 there were gross deficiencies in the organization and that 11 we did take measures to ' improve those organizations, or 12 require that those organizations be improved.
13 In other words, what I am trying to say is that if
(
14 it is a gross deficiency, it becomes apparent, but when you 15 have large organizations it is hard to make a judgment on 16 the acceptability or nonacceptability of technical 17 qualifications.
What I was ref erring to about the earlier 18 ones is that some applicants in the early '70s, tha t came in 19 for the first time with a nuclear application, had a very 20 small staff.
In the NRC's judgment at that time, it was 21 felt that there should be improvements in that, and those 22 were communicated to those particular utilities, and, 23 indeed, in several of the se cases, they enlarged their 24 staf f s with a ppropriate people, which later turned out to be
'~#
25 rather, in the opinion of many people, a very good staff.
79 3776 07 09
^7 HEE I
O Are you aware of a management survey that was
{d 2
conducted for NRR in 1976 and 1977 by a J. W. Procock --
3 P-r-o-c-o -c-k ?
It has been handed to you, documents which I gS s.J 4
have been advised are the results of a certain management 5
study by Mr. Procock One dated March 28, 1977, is a review 6
of the licensing project management function.
7 MR. PARLER:
I would like to mark that document 8
for identification as Exhibit 1024.
9 (Exhibit 1024 identified.)
10 MR. PARLER:
There is another document, dated July
.l i 21, 1976, entitled "O f fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulations A
12 Review of Management Practice."
I would like to mark this 13 document for identification as Exhibit 1025.
.( )
14 (Exhibit 1025 identified.)
15 BY MR. PARLER:
16 0
Now, with regard to the first one -- that is, 17 1024, the Procock report or the review of licensing project 18 management function -- do you have any recollection about 19 that as to any of the highlights or significant f eatures of 20 i t, without getting into any great detail, that you could 21 connent on?
22 A
Yes, I remember i t quite well.
I guess the major 23 highlight of that was --- well, two things the recognition 24 of the difficulty in managing a review with the type of
[}
25 organization that was in existence in NRR, which, I guess, AL-)
80 G776 07 t o r^7 HEE I
could be closely allied to what is considered to be a matrix d
2 management function.
And the report tried to delineate 3
7\\
steps that could be taken to improve that process by G
4 improving the project manager's responsibilities and his 5
perceptions -- 1 am sorry -- and' the perceptions by others 6
in the organization to carry out these management 7
f unc tion s.
8 0
The major areas in which there are opportunities 9
for improvement that Mr. Procock mentioned in his report, 10 have these opportunities, or are these opportunities still present, or have the major problems been resolved?
Would 12 you care to comment on that?
13 A
I think the major one, of his recommendation for
(]}
14 restructuring the branches in the light water reactors 15 group, have not been ameliorated since the time that he 16 wrote the report, in that, I believe, that the same 17 perceived difficulties still exist.
18 O
Moving onto a different area, I gather that, with 19 regard to a board notification, dated March 29, 1979, on the 20 subject of a reactor inspector's concerns regarding B&W 21 plants, that you as assistant director for light water 22 reactors, on March 6, 1979, forwarded the pertinent 23 documents that you had received f rom Inspection and 24 Enforcement to Edward S. Chri stenbury --
(
25 C-h-r-i-s-t-e-n-b-u-r-y -- who is the chief hearing counsel
81 6776 07 11 HEE I
in the of fice of the executive legal directors and that you 2
also, on Marc h 1, 1979, received these documents f rom 3
Dudicy Thompson, the executive officer for operations
(
'~'
4 su ppor t a t Inspec tion and Enforcement.
5 Now, the record elsewhere does reflect that the 6
board's concerns were indeed notified by an a ttorney, 7
Mr. Scinto, from the office of the executive legal directm 8
on March 29, 1979.
9 Now, my question is this:
The documents that were 10 addressed to you and the DPM's role in this particular
.11 notification, is there anything of particular significance 12 that you recollect or that you would like to comment on, for 13 the record?
In other words, was this transfer -- or this
(')
14 notification, I should say -- a routine thing, or were there v
15 special circumstances involved?
16 A
Well, I think there were special circumstances in 17 thi s case, in that, to my recollec tion, they arose because 18 apparently I&E was having discussions with the inspector who 19 initiated this, and then, following the overall NRR 20 procedures that were established for notifying boards, it 21 was determined to be one which fell into the category where 22 an individual disagrees with his management or superior, 23 and, in his own nind, believes that i t is a ma tter which 24 should be sent to the boa rd.
25 And so, I think, tha t f rom that standpoint, it was
82 3776 07 12 T? HEE I
not routines and therefore, without judging the merits of
(
)
2 the contents of the memo tha t was sent over f rom I&E, I took 3
the action to follow our own procedures and immediately send 4
it over, or as f ast as we could, over to OELD for dispatch.
5 MR. PARLER:
The package of materials that include 6
the two memoranda that I have previously referred to, under 7
cover of a Board Notifica tion Memorandum f rom 8
Mr. Joseph F. Scinto, deputy director, Hearing Division, to 9
various licensing boards, I will mark for identification as 10 Exhibit 1026.
.11
( Exhibi t 1026 identified.)
12 MR. PARLER:
I would diso, as background on the 13 question of the evolution of board notification procedures, 14 mark an exchange of documents between the chairman of the 15 Nuclear Regulatory Commission an.d the 16 Honorable John Dingell, chairman of the Subcommittee on 17 Energy and Power, Committee on Interstate and Foreign 18 Commerce, Uni ted States House of Representatives, for 19 identification as Exhibit 1027.
20 (Exhibit 1027 identified.)
21 MR. PARLFR This Exhibi t 1027 consists of 22 le tters f rom Chairman Hendrie to Congressman Dingell,- dated 23 March 15, 1978, February 5, 1978; and letters from 24 Congressman Dingell to Chairman Hendrie, dated January 18,
-)
G 25 1978, January 24, 1978' and also a memorandum from rm U
. ~...
d 83 l 6776 07.? I 3:
] HEE I
Allen S. Rosenthal, chairman, Atomic Saf ety and Licensing 2'
Appeal Board to -the Commissioners, dated February 8, 1978:
3 and f rom Mr. James R. Yore, c hairman of the Atomic Saf e ty i
,4 Licensing Board panel to the Commissioners, dated February -
h
-5 7,11978.
'~
4
.6 7
i 8
1 i
1
.10 11 12 1
.13 s
l 14' j>
15 16 17 l
18 4
19 20 a
i 22
^
- 23 i
24
[
25 i
i i
l l
-... - - -. - - - - - ~. -, - - -.
78
.6776 07 08 pv HEE I
So, there was a recognition, where there were 2
gross deficiencies, that we should do some thing about it.
3 0
Are you aware whether an applicant's prior
(l
(_/
4 performance in the nuclear area is taken into account in 5
evaluating that, applicant's technical qualifica tions for, 6
say, an additional license or a new license?
7 A
Well, that is one of the areas of this new 8
procedure tha t I was talking about, and in the testimony 9
that we gave on Pilgrim 2, that was a matter that was 10 brought up.
And in addition to my own testimony, there was 11 t ha t of the I&E inspectors, who gave their impressions of 12 the previous experience with the licensee.
13 Again, though, in my mind, that raises another 14 7~
question which is dif ficult to answer, which is that,
(
15 knowing some of the pa st practices of a particular utility 16 or some of its deficiencies, if you want to call it that, 17 doesn't nece ssarily sta te that the same events will occur in 18 the future.
19 In other words, a great deal is made by some 20 people about the number of Licensee Event Reports that came 21 out f rom a particular station, and to try to associate that 22 with poor management practices and so on, and while, indeed, 23 there may be a connec tion, just numbers of events and so on 24 aren't necessarily an indication of, in my opinion, of the
(
)
s 25 technical qualifications of a licensee or an applicant.
O Are you aware of a management survey that was I
r~s l
\\
u-J
1 84 4776 08 01
/^^.pH EE 1
0 ~
The Board notification procedures is a subject, as V
2 I. understand it, that has received particular attention in 3
recent years, is that correct?
l 4
A That is correct.
-5 0
The prior history of the Licensing Boards which 6
have been around since 1962, again from the standpoint of 7
your involvement and recollection, would not have appeared 8
to be too many.or mar.y questions raised concerning the 9
procedures for Board notifica tion, correct?
It is a 10 comparatively recent concern and problem?
11 A
It is a com para tively recent one.
It developed 12 on the Maguire case, I believe back in 1974.
I want to shif t over to the area of commercial 13 0
AJ N
14 operation for a moment.
From the regulatory standpoint, 15 certainly the part that you are involved in, are you aware 16 of any regulatory involvement in the decision or associated 17 with placing a nuclear plant in commmercial operation?
I 18 realize, of course, that the license has to be issued to 19-operate the pl an t, that the license conditions have to be 20 satisfied and so on, but beyond that, what, in your 21 ex pe rienc e, is the regulatory involvement, if any, in the 22 decision by an applicant and other regulatory bodies to 23-declare. that a nuclear power plant has been placed in r~%
24 commercial operation?
U 25 A
My recollection is there aren't an/ requirements (1
<_1
85
-6776 Od 02 r^7pH EE I
by NRC to indicate or approve-commercial operations.
It is V
2 a term wh'ich. is vague to the new organization and in my 3
experience has been mainly one in which solely within the O-4 purview of the utility to declare it, providing only that 5
all of our requirements f or an OL have been satisfied and 6
t ha t there is no problem.vith the OL.
7 0
Does NRR, and in particular DPM follow the 8
licensee's adherence to the test schedule for 9
pre-operational tests that are listed either in the FSAR or 10 the application -- I'm sorry, or the license -- or is this 11 something which is lef t largely in the hands of the regional 12 inspec tor s?
13 A
No, that is mostly done with the regional
/)
14 inspectors.
L 15 0
Do you have any other -general observations or 16 comments on the commercial operation question?
~
17 0
The only other observation is that f rom time to 18 time -if there is a license condition which has to be 19 resolved or an amendment to be produced, before f ull 20 operation or 100 percent operation can be implemented we 21 have been requested to see if we can process tha-so that 22 they might declare it in commercial operation.
23 0
Do you know of any instance in which you or people 24 O-that' work with you have claimed to be unreasonably or unduly
%/
25 pressured to meet such a request, to the point of r'T t
y,
86 G776 OS 03 pHEE I
sacrificing the quality of their review?
2 A'
I don't recall any situation in which we've been 3
pressured into sacrificing any quality of the review.
I do
'l u'
4 recall some situations in which we were asked to review as 5
quickly as possible those matters which might permit the 6
utility to do t ha t, but not without meeting our 7
requirements.
8 0
Was that the TMI-2 or some other a pplication, or 9
do you recall?
10 A
Well, I was ref erring to probably some other 11 a ppl ica tion.
I don't recall that situation with TMI but 12 there have been some others.
13 0
Do you have any other general comments that you 14 gg would like to make abou t any subject that we have discu ssed, 15 or perhaps have not asked a question about this morning?
Do 16 you have any additional information that you believe might 17 be relevant to the Special Inquiry Group's inquiry into the 18 ovents surrounding the accident at TMI?
In other words, do 19 you have any closing observations that you would like to 20 make and leave us with?
21 A
Well, only one that I can think of right now and 22 t ha t i s t ha t the question of notifying Boards has received a 23 great deal of attention and I believe, in my own opinion, 24 t ha t too much emphasis is placed on that, in tha t it appears
, ~.
i; 25 to be perceived tha t if any event occurs which is thought to
(
i
87 6776 06 04 pHEE I
be pertinent to a review, no matter what it is, as long as 2
one gives it to the Licensing Board they will know what to 3
do with i t.
\\
4 And I think too much emphasis is placed on that S
and it is perceJved just by some of the line of questioning 6
and so on, that this documentation of the so-called Creswell 7
report had only been surf aced to Boards, that maybe through 8
this medium this would have surf aced and been recognized as 9
a serious ma tter.
10 0
Have you ever heard anyone explain why or how they 11 could reach that particular result?
12 In other words, why even though all the divisions 13 in NRR have not been able to evaluate the significance of I4 the particular material that nevertheless an Atomic Saf tey g
15 and Licensing Board would, have you ever seen an analysis of 16 that that would support the conclusion which you have 17 suggested some people have?
18 A
No.
That is just my own perception.
19 0
Do you have any other comments?
20 A
Well, I guess not, really.
I mean, one can 21 philosophi ze abou t a grea t many things, but I'm not sure 22 that that would materially add to this particular 23 de po si t ion.
24 0
Well, you never know, of course, unless you try, 26 but in any event if something does occur to you, some thing q
88 il76 08 05
(~])pHEE 1
that upon reflection -- that you think is of major bs 2
significance, I would hope that when you are given the 3
transcript and have an opportunity to correct it, that you g-)
~
4 would also, if you wish, inform us of any such new item that S
you wish to combent on.
6 If the re is nothing f urther, on behalf of the 7
S pec ial Inquiry Group I would like to thank you, 8
Mr. Va ssallo, very much for your time and for your 9
cooperation and for your testimony.
10 Thank you, 11 A
Thank you.
12 (Whereupon, at 12 :30 p.m., the hearing was 13 adjourned.)
Mkf 14 15 10 17 18 IV 20 21 22 23 J
24 25
(~3 kJ