ML19308C453
| ML19308C453 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/05/1979 |
| From: | Cox T, Washburn B NRC - NRC THREE MILE ISLAND TASK FORCE, NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001240611 | |
| Download: ML19308C453 (51) | |
Text
3 L 2 t, f.
- O()
N U C !. E.A R . C C-U i. A T O R 'I C O.M M i 3 5 i O N (O
s IN THE MATTER OF:
i l
THREE MILE ISLAND:
SPECIAL INTERVIEWS INTERVIEW OF BEVERLY W.
WASHBURN i
I i
?00L01BE.
l Ploco -
Bethesda, Maryland Date -
Wednesday, September 5, 1979 Pages 1 - 51 l
I Telephone:
(202)347 3700 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.
m(J OfficialReporters
\\
8001240
.144 North Capitol Street l
Washington, D.C. 20001 1
NATIONWl0E COVERAGE DA!LY
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 3
In the Matter of:
O 4
THREE MILE ISLAND:
5 SPECIAL INTERVIEWS 6
- - - - - - - - - - - - -X 7
8 INTERVIEW OF BEVERLY W.
WASHBURN 9
Room 426 Arlington Road Building 10 6935 Arlington Road Bethesda, Maryland Wednesday, September 5,1979 12 1:35 p.m.
13 APPEARANCES:
Id THOMAS COX, NRC l
15 WILLIAM PARLER, NRC 16 17 18 19 20 21 2'
(2) 23 24
- Act est Reporters, Inc.
25
2 j
_S CONTENT 3
WITNESS:
EXAMINATION
- O l
Beverly W. Washburn 3
l i
3 i
O 4
I 4
EXHIBITS 6
4 l
EXHIBIT NUMBER:
IDENTIFIED 7
i 1030 27 8
1 l
9 10 11 12 O
14 15 16 17 18 i
i 19 9
l 20 l
t l
21
\\
O 23 I
l 24 Ace rol Reporters, Inc.
25 I
i
1778.01.1 3
gsh i
MR. COX: Would you raise your right hand, please?
"5E 2
Do you solemnly swet-or affirm to tell the truth, the whole
.{d 3
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
4 MR. WASHBURN I do.
O 5
EXAMINATION o
Whereupon.
/
BEVERLY W. WASHB URN 8
was called as a witness and, having first been duly sworn, 9
was examined and testified as follows:
10 Bf MR. COX:
11 2
Mr. Washburn, have you received a witness 12 notification letter that we sent you, dated August 22nd, 19797 1.
A Yes, sir.
I have a letter with me.
I can't verify i
14 the date f rom memory.
()
15 0
Tnat's all right.
You read this letter and you la are reasonaoly f amiliar with it?
Ie A
Inat is correct.
Id J
Did you bring any documents with you?
19 A
I crought a resume, as requested.
23 0
I am looking at tne resume of Beverly Mashourn 21 stating sou:ation and experience from 1949 through to the 22 present.
2J I see f rom this tnat you nave been in reactor saf e ty 2;
research from 1975 to the present.
Does that include both 20 your NRO experience and your current position?
[}
1
(
4 778.01.2 gsh i
A Tnat experience has bssn at Los Alamos.
It does u cE 2
not include the period while I was on loan to regulatory of G
3 the NRC.
4 0
I see here it says 1959 to the present, sta ff memoer
(
'J of Los Alamos scientific laboratory.
o Could you maybe just take a minute or two and
/
explain in a little more detail what that experience has 3
entailed to oring out the fact that you have worked at the WRC for sometime and you are now working at the Department of IJ dnergy also?
11 A
fnat is correct.
I wish to make the record clear 12 at this point that I am not employed by the Department of 13 Energy. I am a contractor e.nployee employed oy the University 14 of California.
(~)
16 And the University of Calif ornia operates the Los Lj 13 Alamos scientific lao under contract with the Department of 1/
Ene rgy.
13 M/ management and work assignments come to me f rom is the Los Alamos scientific lacoratory management.
2]
Q I see. And what period of time were you e contract 21 emoloyee working at the Juclear Regulatory Commission?
22 A
1973, June to Jul/, 1975.
23 M.4. COX: Could we go off tne record a minute?
24 (viscussion off tne record. )
r3 20 Md. COX: I'm goina to mark this resume of Beverly ?l.
L,)
x, x._/
5 778.01.3 gsh i
Moshourn as Exhibit No. 1028.
ucE 2
(Exhibit No. 1028 identified.)
3 Bf MR. COX:
4 0
Has your deposition been taken before?
(~x
\\)
6 A
Yes, it has.
6 0
You're generally familiar with the process of giving testimony under oath and all that entails, or whatever i
3 that entails?
9 A
Yes.
10 0
And I'm sure that you have prooably testified at li perhaps hearings oefore for the NRC.
12 A
I did not testify while I was at licensing.
13 0
And you have not orought any documents other tnan the 14 resume that we have just seen relative to your work at tne
(~'S la NRC in conn 3ction with the fMI 2 pro ject?
%.)
la 4,
Tnat is correct.
1/
Q You mentioned that you started work for tne NRJ, 13 I tnink, in June of 1973.
Could you briefly descrios the 1/
nature of your duties at that time?
2)
A Y3s. During the period from June of 1973 to July, 21 19t5, I was on a loan assignment f rom Los Alamos to AEC 22 r eg ul a tory, and suosequently, NRC as a licensing araject 23 manager for the TMI 2 plant.
24 M/ wor % on the TMI 2 application started tith th?
25 applicant's reouest, Oc tober 25th, 1973 f or an extension of 7,
L) ps,
'm
7/8.01.4 6
gsh I
the construc tion p rmit and continued until I returned to HEE 2
Los Alamos in early 1975.
I' >s 3
0 Wnen you assumed the responsioility of project 4
manager for TMI 2 in October, 1973, who did you relieve as
,n
(_)
5 project manager?
Was there a prior project manager?
5 A
Ye s, there was.
I am not certain of this.
I e
believe it was Hans Scherling.
e Q
Wnat did you do at this point, at the point of
/
taking over the project manager's job from, let's say it 13 was Hans Scherling?
11 You celieve it was Hans Scherling.
What was done 12 at that point, or was anything done at that point to assure 13 the continuity of this project management function?
14 Wnat kind of interfacting did you do with the prior so proj3ct manager?
la A
I received a few copies of correspondence. Mayoe 1e some documentation that was in my judgmant rather minimal.
ic And did you ask wnat old I do then?
Id 0
Right.
Inat is wast I am asking.
2J A
I went down to the docket room and spent several 21 days reviewing the docket file to g3t the background on the 22 fMI 2 application from the construction permit request till 23 that time when I took it ov3r.
24 0
/,'as the pro ject manager f rom whom you took over the 2a proj3ct in tne same branch tnat you were working?
73, u,l
/m x_/
k 7 /8.01.5 7
gsh i
A I bs11evo that is correct.
EE 2
0 Did you talk to the branch chief aoout the project?
3 A
I believe the branch chief is the one who told me tnat that was my assignment.
4
's J 5
0 Do you remember who the branch chief was?
6 A
Carl Neal.
s 0
I believe you just told me that you reported to 8
Carl Neal at that time.
Did he remain your branch chief or 9
i mmedia te supervisor during the time that you were working 10 on that project?
11 A
Tnat is correct, yes.
la 0
Wnat generally expressed were your duties as tne 13 project manager?
14 A
To coordinata the review and schedule and review r~'s 15 questions suomitted by the oranches f or transmittal to tne
'w) 16 applicant transmi tted, wrote the transmittal letters for tha Ie oranch chief for AD's signature to send the questions to the lo applicants.
19 0
You mentioned questions.
>1here did these cuescions 2J come from?
21 A
Ine questions that were suomitted came from tne 22 technical review cranches and specifically, the reviewers 2J that had De3n assigned by tneir respective branches to review 24 the information submitted in the FSAR.
2a 0
00 you remember any of your principal contacts in 7yV
,r7 V
378.01.6 8
gsh I
the technical review side?
E 2
A Perhaps a few.
3 0
Which comes to your mind, any particular people?
4 A
Well, Watt in reactor systems, Phil Stoddard in
!'J 5
ETSB, Loessler in radiological assessment, Dave Shum in containment systems, somebody by the name of Miller in the o
I mechanical oranch.
I can't think of his first name.
I 3
think it was Miller.
That may be a wrong name.
9 Inere were others -- Jerry Hulman, I recall. Site 13 analysis, I celieve it was called at that time.
11 0
Did you find that the reviewers were able to spend 12 what you considered an adequate amount of time on your 13 project?
Did you have any trouble ge tting their attention at 14 particular times when you wanted to talk to them aoout the r~
16 TMI 2 project?
\\_)3 There may have been an exceptic,nal 16 A
In oeneral, no.
ie case or an exceptional time.
le u
Generally, you did not sense that the reviewing 1/
staff was at tnat time overloaded and unable to participete 2]
udequately in your project.
21 A
asil, I taink at times, again, there were situations 22 that came u,a whera tnese re/iewers were trying to meet a 2a numoer of d3adlines.
And I'm sure that there were cases 24 where attention to f:.'I 2 was def erred until the thin 7s on
(,
22 other plants of higher priority in terms of time were daalt V
(,
()
l
9 778.01.7 gsh I
with.
"EE d
Q Mr. Washburn, I would like to show you now a 7
\\
~)
3 memorandum dated February 14th, 1974 from yourself as
[\\_
4 project manager to four assistant directors and three branch
\\/
a chiefs.
And the suoject is the acceptance review of FSAR 6
for Three Mile Island Unit 2.
And it concerns the conduct I
of the acceotance review.
8 MR. COX: I would like to mark this Exhibit No.
9 1029.
10 (Exhioit No. 1029 identified.)
11 Bf MR. COX:
12 0
If you'll notice down there toward the end of the 13 fourth paragraph and I hava to apologize for the quality 14 of tne material there as f ar as visioility or legioility. But la the last sentence at the end of the fourth paragrapn says gggg la "We will clso provide additional review guidance based uaon 1/
op3n items and specific concerns of the ACR3 from the 13 construction permit review findings during regulatory 1/
opera tions inspections, testimony at hearings, and potential 23 cackf itting considera tions.
21 Inis essentially, this memorandum was essentially 22 the notice of a meeting apparently to be held on Feoruary 23 20tn, 19i4.
And I celieve you were telling the people some 24 of the topic s that woula ce discuss 2d at the meeting.
Jid 2a this meetin take place, to the bast of your recollection?
<w L-]
f i
Lj
.j
778.01.8 10 gsh i
A Yes, it did.
E 2
O Were you able to provide that additional review 3
guidance indicated in that sentence?
4 A
I believe I was.
That was one reason for having
()
reviewed the docket file to find out what went on at the
)
a hearings, what had oeen considered at the construction stage, o
e and the letter from the ACR5.
d And that information there came from that review of 9
the docket file.
10 And as I recall, it was districuted to the 11 revie wers in writing, those items which I had identified from 12 my search of the docket.
13 J
Tnese meetings are usually summarized in writing 14 after the meeting oy the project manager, right?
Is that
(~')
la correct?
\\)
la A
Tnis is generally true for meetings with the 1/
aoplicants and outsiders, yes.
13 0
do you hapoen to rememoer whether summary was 1/
orepared of tnis meeting or not?
23 A
I do not recall.
21 0
I've not oeen able to find it in the docket file.
22 A
fna t is likely.
And let me add, that meating N3s 23 very poorly attended and I had to contact the reviewers, for 24 the most part individually, to get that message across.
23 And so it would not have oeen a nood report.
(-)
LJ
,\\'J
5778.01.9 11 gsh i
0 How meny of the reviewars attended?
Do you recall "CE 2
how poor that attendance was?
E 3
A There might have been as many as f our or five.
But 4
it wasn't a good showing.
t 3
BY MR. PARLER:
6 0
I have a context -- I would like to ask you in the i
context of the discussion, if I may, Mr. Washburn, I have d
wonde red myself of ten how in view of the two-step licensing 9
proce ss and the various elements that are involved in that 10 process such as the Atomic 3af ety and Licensing Board and the 11 Advisory Commi ttee on Reac tor Saf eguards, how the 12 organization -- that is, NRC and its predece ssor, the AEC --
13 pulls togetner the various views and recommendations that are 14 expressed, now, for example, a licensing board's
(')
la recommendations or the ACRS recommendations at the construction v
lo permit stsge are followed up on suosequently during the 1/
opera ting, or at the operating license stage.
13 dow I gatner from the discussion here that you as 19 a pro ject manager undertook that joo, and I gather without 2J any manaoement instructions or dir9ctives, proceeded to go 21 down to the docket files, probably in the basement of tne 24 Phillips Building, or some place, to review all of that 23 material and then proceeded to try to have s meetina wita 24 the technical reviewers to bring all of the stuff together, 23 M/ ouestion is, there wasn't any directions tnat you gm O
V
778.01.10 12 gsh I
can recall from management that tried to bring all of this E
2 material together to say, for example, who in the staff has 3
responsibility for making sure that an Atomic Safety and 4
Licensing Board or an ACRS recommendation at the construction 5
permit stage is f ollowed up on at the operating license stage?
6 A
As best I can recall, I could not tell you that there was a specific document with this in there, or whether t
S during the course of orientations which were held for the 9
temporary loan type help, whether those points were made or la not.
11 I don't know.
1 12 But whether it was or not, it seems like the only 13 way I could get in and understand tne situation and give it 14 continuity.
15 0
So you took the initiative yourself and exercised
{}
la your judgment to proceed on the course that you thought i4 should have Deen taken to deal with the situation, without 16 any clear guidance f rom management or anybody else?
19 A
It is likely, out I would not state that there was 23 no olece of paper that didn't tell one to do it.
21 I just don't remember that detail.
2d 0
In any event, you don't recall anyoody specifically 23 telling you something such as the following:
Now, Jr.
24 Flashourn, tnat you nave oeen designated the project manager 2;
for f!.il 27 CE)
b778.01.Il 13 gsh i
Now it is very important that you go back to see EE 2
what the licensing ocard said in its construction parmit 3
initial decision that it is very important for you to ao 4
back to see what the ACRS said.
And it is very important for 3
you to be aware of operati'onal f eedback information f rom 6
FMI 1 and from Oconee 1 and 2, things such as that.
/
If there were any specific directions or 3
instructions from management like that to you personally, I 9
would assume that you might ce aware of them.
la A
I recall no specific thing where I was called and 11 said, here's what you do.
Here's now you go about it.
But 12 there were these orientation periods in which the process, 13 I believe, was discussed and the importance of the 14 reaulations and things like this.
16 But this is, I believe, the details of the mecnanics
(~}
s-16 of now you go aoout getting your joo done, is meyoe mors of Ie a personal, individual matter with people than a matter of 16 written procedure.
IJ k
20 G'
ai 21 23 21 23 N]
(~b Li
14 6.778 02 01 pv HEE I
BY MR. COX:
(~
k-)/
2 0
Do you remember if at that time you were 3
introduced to a document, in a three-ring binder, I believe,
()
4 called "The Licensing Project Manager's Handbook?
5 A
If I recall correctly, that Handbook came out 6
after I started this review.
I can't say when, but I did 7
have, I remember, the manual, and I had a copy.
8 0
Okay, well, as I have already mentioned, I was v
unable to find any more record of this meeting than what we 10 have here entered as an exhibit.
Would you by any chance 11 have in your files any of this information that you 12 mentioned you gave to the reviewers in paper copies?
13 A
When I left the NRC, I took not one piece of paper 14 about anything.
I even turned back the Project Manager's g-)
15 Manual.
I would hasten to add that, in my review of the
~
16 docket, there are other things that I cannot find, either, 17 wnich I believe were issued.
But I cannot help you, lo BY MR. PARLER:
19 0
Do you mean in your review of the docket in recent 20 months or back in the '73 '75 time f rame, or both?
21 A
In recent time.
22 0
Recent time?
23 A
Yes.
That doesn't mean it is not there.
I t may 24 be misfiled or -titled.
k 25 0
But you don't recall anything of particular
)
l l
l
15 4778 02 02 pv HEE I
significance that might be missing, do you, that you 2
remember seeing?
3 A
I was looking for a meeting on ATWS.
I believe
()
4 that is the one that I was not able to locate, specifically, 5
and I think there is another one.
6 BY MR. COX:
7 0
It is obvious that you made some effort to look 6
into the prior review that was done on TMI-2 in the 9
construction review period, and apparently some other 10 information available f rom the ACRS and the regulatory 11 operations inspec tions.
Were you able to, and did you, 12 bring up any TMI-I operating experience or Oconee operating 13 experience into the review of the TMI-2 project at the 14 operating license stage?
O 15 A
There was an event at Oconee.
The unit I don't to recall.
But it was a B&W plant which I looked at and I was 17 aware of because of conversations with the operating 16 reac tors project manager on that plant, that I did pursue.
19 0
You had discussions with the operating reactor 20 project manager for oconee?
21 A
Yes.
22 0
Who was tha t?
23 A
Leo McDonough.
But that was, as I recall, a pump 24 seal f ailure at Oconee, and af ter some checking the pumps --
25 these are the reactor coolant pumps -- pumps at the Three l
(2)
16 778 02 03 pv HEE I
Mile Unit 2 were of a different design and manuf acture.
(
2 So, it was a potentially diff erent problem, if at all.
3 0
Was aconee and TMI-l the only other B&W operating
()
4 plants at that time?
5 A
I believe that is right.
With Oconee going into o
opera tion prior to TMI-1.
TMI-l was in the OL phase at the 7
time I was working on Unit 2.
I don't recall exactly when 8
Unit I started at TMI, but I believe it was before I lef t 9
NRC.
10 BY MR. PARLER:
11 0
I have some inf orma tion here before me which was 12 prepared earlier, which indicates that TMI-l achieved full 13 power on June 24, 1974.
TMI-2, of course, was licensed to 14 operate on February 8, 1978.
Oconee I was licensed to 15 operate on February 6, 1973.
Oconee 2 was licensed to 16 operate on October 6,
'73.
And Oconee 3 was licensed to 17 operate on July 19, 1974.
10 I just point out those dates for the completeness 19 of the record on this particular point.
20 BY MR. COX:
21 0
Again, since you were somewhat f amiliar with the 22 construction permit review, results at least, having 23 reviewed the docket and realizing that some four years had 24 elapsed f rom the award of the construction permit to the O
25 beginning of the operating license review on TMI-2, did you O
17
-).778 02 04 r HEE I
recognize any increase or decrease in the requirements that 2
the staff was now beginning to impose on the TMI-2 3
a ppli can t, any evolution of staff requirements over that s-)
4 period of time that were now becoming evident at the start 5
of the operating license review?
o A
As I recall, there was one or more generic issues 7
tnat had been addre ssed by the staff following the issuance 8
of the construction permit and the construction review, and Y
the time at which the OL came in.
If I recall correctly, 10 these are high-energy line breaks, to which some changes had 11 been made in the f acility prior to the FSAR and subsequent 12 to the construction permi t, to be responsive to these 13 licensing concerns.
14 There may have been other things, but I don't 15 recall them of f hand.
16 O
As you started into this operating license review 17 as its manager, to what extent did you f amiliarize yourself to with Tr.I-I ma tters?
19 A
One, I talked occasionally to Bob Bernero, who was 20 licensing manager f or Uni t 1; and I made a trip to the site 21 with Bernero while he was addre ssing emergency f eedwater 22 system in Uni t I, as I recall.
And at that time, I went 23 through Unit I with him, and I believe that we also went 24 through Unit 2.
25 0
To what extent cid you f amiliarize yourself with ob
18 t778 02 05 pv HEE I
the Oconee projects?
I realize you mentioned already you l
2 talked to the reactor operating project manager for oconee.
3 But do you want to comment further?
()
4 A
Well, I did not review the Oconee docket file, for 5
example.
But there were some documents around with summary 6
descriptions of these f acilities, and I recall reviewing 7
those and copying some pages out of them and looking for 8
similarities and dissimilarities.
But I retained in my 9
working folders that sort of information f or reference, and 10 questions arose that possibly have a common interest with 11 these other units.
12 I recall, I think, also Arkansas I, Rancho Seco 13 and Pistol River that were in various stages of licensing at 14 that time.
f 15 0
Oconee and these other plants you just mentioned 10 had essentially the same nuclear steam system design as 17 TMI-2, I believet is that correct?
Id A
I t depends upon what you mean by " essentially."
IV There were differences, as I recall.
Unit I is not 20 identical in the steam supply system to Unit I, if I 21 remember correctly, at Thr ee Mile Island.
22 0
Do you remember any particular concerns arising 23 f rom the other reviews of operating plants relative to the 24 nuclear steam system, B&W's nuclear steam system, for 25 instance, any steam generator concerns coming up, any other O
19
$778 02 06 pv HEE I
aspects of the reactor coolant system, anything associated
/ T 2
2 with B&W that would have been brought to your attention as a 3
concern to be considered in the TMI-2 review?
n(-)
4 A
Well, there were, of course, questions submitted 5
by the reactor systems branch, and I think we should expand 6
upon that a little bit and see if this is the kind of thing 7
you are interested in.
6 0
Excuse me f or interrupting, but at this point 9
really all I was interested in was whether you had gotten 10 something f rom sources other than our own staff at the 11 beginning of the raview, concerns that you became aware of 12 prior to the time that the staff put its first load of 13 questions out for you.
14 A
Okay.
I didn't interpret it as being this.
You 15 mean that through outside conntacts in the industry or some lo other vendor?
Did I receive any information pertaining to 17 B&W plants?
Io O
Well, not necessarily outside, but from sources 19 other than the technical reviewing staff.
It might have 20 been operating reac tors; it might have been perhaps l
21 inspectors you knew in the field, literature, reactor 22 regulations.
We have asked the question generally before, 23 and now I was just trying to be more specific.
24 A
Yes, I didn't know quite at first what you were
-s(j i
25 really ge tting at.
A
20
)778 02 07 pv HEE I
I don't recall any specific instances that would 2
come to mind that would lead me to believe that I had 3
received information from those sources about the B&W plant O)
(_
4 s pe cifica lly.
5 0
As the review progressed and the reviewing staff 6
began to develop questions which were ultimately submitted 7
to you for issuance to the applicants, I am sure you 8
discussed a number of technical issues with a number of 9
reviewers.
I would just like to talk about some of those, 10 and I will bring up a f ew, but if you think of some that 11 come up that I haven't mentioned that you want to bring up, 12 please f eel f ree to do that.
13 In general, obviously, we're interested in 14 TMI-2-related or issues that might have at some later time 7sD 15 had some relevance to what happened at TMI-2 in March 1979.
10 What is your understanding of the way that the technical 17 qualifications of the applicant were to be evaluated and 16 documented during the review?
IV A
Well, at the moment, I can't put my finger on 20 anything that would identif y or illustrate that that was 21 specifically addressed in the process.
There are many, many 22 facets of the review that touch on that subject or are 23 rela ted to tha t subject.
24 As f or as addre ssing that as a specific topic, it O
25 does not bring anything to mind.
}
i
h
$778 02 08 pv HEE 1
0 Did the quality a ssurance branch come at all close b 'l f
2 to working on that aspect of technical requirements at that s-3 time?
I believe they were concerned with the organization
()
4 of the applicants; that is, thc a pplicants organization.
j 5
But how about the a pplicant's actual qualifications to l
6 construct and operate the plant?
7 A
I couldn't say that that part of the review or 8
that area really addressed what might be concerns, as f ar as 9
the qualification of the a pplicant.
If I understand your 10 comment correctly.
11 I agree that the big thrust of the OA review was 12 to make sure that the organization boxes were all there and 13 the lines went to the right places and that peo pl e ha d, from 14 that standpoint, suf ficient authority to carry out the OA 15 function in the organization.
16 But I would not construe that to indicate 17 anything abcut the quality or the qualifications of the lo people involved.
IV O
How did the staff review control room design?
20 A
I have no recollection that that area was 21 specifically addressed.
I would believe that the review 22 ended in tha t area, in looking to see what indications were 23 perhaps available to the operator and what recording was 24 done, a s opposed to the detail of the control room layout 25 and arrangement and so forth, i quess -- well, with respect O)
1 22
$778 02 09 pv HEE I
to arrangement, there may have been some consideration given
(~/
's
\\_
2 as to the relative locations of the o perator and the senior 3
operator and the operator on duty and all of these things, fs i, )
4 where they would remain.
And that is my impression of the 5
extent of the control room review.
j 6
0 Do you recall any discussions concerned with the 7
similarity of the TMI-2 control room to the TMI-I control H
8 room?
9 A
I have no recollection as to whether it was or was 10 not adoretaed.
11 0
Do you remember anything about small-break 12 analyses tha t were brought up during your period as project 13 manager?
14 A
Nothing specific in that area that comes to mind.
INlh i
15 0
Concerning the auxiliary f eedwater system, I have 16 a document here that is of some interest.
This is dated 17 August 1974.
It is addressed to V. A. Moore, a ssi stan t 16 director for LWRs group 2.
It is f rom Victor Stello, Jr.,
19 a ssi stant director f or reactor saf e ty.
20 The subject is:
"Metropoli tan Edison com pany, 21 Jersey Central Power & Light Company, and Pennsylvania 22 Electric Company, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2, j
23 First-round questions."
And the document essentially lists 24 first-round questions.
25 And among those questions is one numbered "22.15,"
n uj l
23
>7 70 02 10 pv HEE I
which, I believe, shows up at the bottom of the.last page 2
that you have there.
And the essence of this -- and I 3
should point out that after the number designation is a
(
4 parenthetical, "RSP," which, I believe, indicates that it is 5
not a question, but it is a position that the staf f had 6
taken at that fairly early time during the review.
7 The essence of this statement is that they have 8
concluded that the auxiliary feedwater system must be 9
capable of satisfying its f unctional requirement af ter 10 sustaining a break in its piping inside containment and a 11 single electrical failure.
12 My question i st Did that seem to you at that time 13 to be an increase in the requirements on the auxiliary 14 f eedwater system over what you knew to be the requirements 15 on that system before you received this position from the 16 staff?
17 A
Well, I can't put these things in precise time lo frame.
But I had had discussion with Peter Hearn, in 19 auxiliary power and conversion systems, who looks a t the 20 piping arrangements.
I had had discussions with Bernero on 21 Unit 1, and I had had discussions with people in the reactor 22 systems branch, possibly Watt.
23 And we were aware that the auxiliary feedwater 1
24 system had to be changed, and I think that the applicant 1
()
25 also had awareness of this, perhaps prior to this time.
24 6778 02 11 pv HEE I
In addition to these questions, I believe -- let 2
me back up -- tha t this i s -- what -- August '74.
There was 3
a set of questions that went out at the acceptance review.
()
4 in which I think there may have been a question or two 5
directed at the auxiliary f eedwater system.
We were, of 6
course, at that point in time, not ready to announce 7
asitions until we had looked at the entire design.
8 But I seem to recall a general awareness when the 9
a pplication first came in, because it did not reflect any of 10 t he c hanges t ha t had gone into Unit i prior to that time in 11 the licensing process as a result.
And you need to put all 12 t ha t in perspective, and I can't put it into perspective 13 f rom memory, but I think, a s I indicated earlier, I had gone 14 up to Unit I with Bernero, and that may have even been O
15 before this FSAR came in, to look at that very f eature in 16 Unit 1.
So, it was not, I believe, at this time, t!a s was 17 not a new concern.
Id I had many conversations with the applicant over a IV period of time, saying, "That is a very essential system, 20 and we need to have more confidence.
We need it upgraded 21 you will have to addre ss i t."
And so this position came out 22 early, but you will find other questions in the docket prior 23 to this position being taken, which really we are asking for 24 more information.
But the position could have been taken O
\\>
25 earlier, maybe with a little less confidence, or reservation l
l l
25 6778 02 12 pv HEE I
on the part of some of the reviewers involved, but this 2
involved several branches.
3 The instrumentation control systems branch took 4
the lead in stating that.
That was not a position in the 5
sense f rom this single question or that single branch.
That I
i 6
came from other areas.
This is an important concern.
7 6
9 10 11 l
12
/
13 I#
15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 0
2a-
! O 9
,c.
,,c y
_r,
,y-.-
.,m.,
CR 6778 HEER 26 t-3 mte 1 1
O I'm not really trying to establish whether this 2
occurred at this time or three months earlier or two months
(}
3 later, but whether we see here a requirement that is an
()
4 increase in requirements over that that had been established 5
at the construction permit stage; you see?
6 A
That is correct.
But there were a number of these 7
situations that made the review difficult, because of the 8
changing regulatory requirements over the period of time.
9 G
Do you recall any others that you would want to 10 talk about?
11 A
Well, vessel materials questions I believe was one.
12 There is one of the appendices that was adopted to 10 CFR, 13 and I won't guess at which one.
O 14 MR. PARLER:
It is probably the one that deals 15 with fracture toughness.
16 THE WITNESS :
Yes, that is correct.
That was a 17 new requirement.
This caused quite a bit of dialogue and is several meetings and discuss;ons with the applicaint to get 19 i them to provide sufficient inforention so that that vessel 2C could be reviewed against the requirements of that appendix.
i l
21 So, yes, that is one example.
I think there were 22 maybe others.
23 BY MR. COX:
24 G
Perhaps we will bring up some of those others as l Ac act Reponers, Inc.
25 we go through some of these subject areas.
i e
mte 2 27 I
Before I forget it -- and I almost have -- let me 2
mark this memo from Victor Stello to V.A. Moore, Exhibit 3
No. 1030.
O 4
(zxa181e no. 1o2o ide=tified >
5 BY MR. PARLER:
6 (L
I have a question that I think should be asked in 7
the context of the discussion.
When new requirements such 8
as the ones that you have mentioned came up, do you recall --
9 how do you recall that the decisionmaking process at the 10 staff level worked as to whether these new requirements should II be imposed?
12 Elaborating a little further, for some years we 13 have had an internal staff review committee that is known as w.)
Id the Regulatory Requirements Review Committee.
I think that 15 that committee may have started around 1974.
Was there some 16 committee such as that during your tour as p: oject manager, 17 that made the decisions regarding the imposition of new 18 requirements; or was it done at some other level?
19 A.
Well, I have knowledge of the R-cubed, as it's 2C called, Committee.
But again, whether I can put that into 21 the time frame when I was there or not -- there was maybe a 22 little different process, of which I only recall pieces.
23 These were difficult issues for the staff to determine, if 24 what the applicant had done in the design or testing or so n
Acgroi Reporters. inc.
25 forth met the intent of the regulations. And the details, you t
mta 3 28 1
see, of what went on in the reviewers' minds and in the O
2 branches to arrive at these decisions, I was largely not a 3
party to.
(~h 4
q,)
We took a firm position on several of these things.
5 The vessel was one interesting area.
And there I believe, if 6
I recall correctly, there was a way to deal with not meeting 7
this appendix adequately, and that is that you put pressure 8
and temperature limits on that plant that are conservative, 9
and the plant is penalized for its entire life, perhaps, as 10 to the amount of power that it will generate.
And if people II do not wish to respond adequately to those concerns, then, for 12 example, there were alternatives that they had to assess which 13 route they wanted to go.
V 14 If the staff position could not be adequately 15 resolved in a matter such as that, the applicants, as I recall, 16 were advised that there was an informal appeal process and I7 that they could take that.
And I believe you will find that IE in the letter accepting the FSAR.
19 BY MR. COX:
2C 0
During your tenure as project manager, were there 21 any technical issues raised that were disagreed on by the 22 applicant and the staff?
23 A.
I believe there were.
But they never reached the 24
' Ac(p process where the positions we had taken were appealed or
, trol Reporters, Inc.
25 discussed with the upper management at NRC, that is, at the I
mte 4 29 1
time I was there, as I recall.
I suppose I would remember 2
such an occurrence.
(}
3 BY MR. PARLER:
()
4 G
Had definite conclusions been reached at the time 5
of your departure on the high-energy line break issue?
6 A
Oh, no, sir.
That and the related things in the 7
containment of overpressure and analyses were a long way from 8
a meeting of the minds.
We spent a lot of time, I might add, 9
in review while I was there, dth those questions, with 10 meetings with the applicants, discussions with the technical 11 review staff and the applicants and their contractors in that 12 area.
)
13 BY MR. COX:
14 G
Do you remember who the electrical reviewer was?
15 A
In the EICS branch?
16 G
Right.
17 A
I believe that was Frank Ash.
18 G
Do you recall any discussion -- now, again I would 19 i like to target the auxiliary feedwater system and its perfor-20 mance again -- <fo you recall any discussion coming up concern-21 ing other safety standards than those that we just saw in l
22 Exhibit 1030?
And among those were a single failure criteria, 23 piping break inside containment, and IEEE Standard 279.
24,
A Regarding the aux feedwater system, yes.
There 7,,
' Acd ret Reporters, Inc.
25 was another question that came from the Reactor Systems Branch l
I
mte 5 30 1
that had an interesting response, that I'm sure you've looked 2
at.
[}
3 0
What was it?
()
4 A
Well, I would just refer you to the docket. I 5
can't quite the question, but it pertained to the loss of 6
off-site power and one other failure from among a list of 7
five.
In other words, you took these -- the loss of off-site 8
power was an initiating event, and then you took from this 9
list, five whatever, single failures -- electrical pipe break, 10 valve failure, whatever it is.
11 Yeah, I remember that one.
12 G
At the time that this came up, was it clear that 13 the applicant had not considered this b'efore and that this O
14 was something new that you wanted him to consider?
15 A
Well, to my knowledge, that particular initiating 16 event and the possible combinations of failure had not been 17 considered and submitted in the docket.
So I can't say what 16 went on with the applicant.
It wasn't in the information, as 19 I recall, that had been submitted for our review.
20 G
Was there ever any discussion -- and I'm back on 21 the auxiliary feedwater system now, as opposed to the main 22 feedwater system -- any discussion about the interplay of 23 what B&W called their integrated control system and its 24 control functions on the auxiliary feedwater system?
Did Acx
- rcl Reporters. Inc.
25 that ever come up?
4 i
mts 6 31 1
A There may have been dialogue of this nature between
()
2 B&W and Reactor Systems, and it may have come up in the course 3
of meetings with the applicant and B&W in the specific plant.
()
4 But I can't say one way or the other here on it.
5 Let me add there that, if I recall the processes 6
here in licensing, there were two things that, in two review 7
Paths or two ways of handling things involving a given nuclear 8
steam supply.
One part or one type of review was conducted 9
by the Reactor Systems Branch, dealing, I believe, directly 10 with the nuclear steam supply vendor.
This dealt with the 11 nuclear steam supply as a system, without concern for detail 12 with the balance of the plant.
These things addressed the 13 reactor and behavior, accident analysis and so forth.
All 14 right?
15 Then, in a specific docket, Reactor Systems Branch 16 again looked at that reactor in that specific design of a 17 plant, and the questions that were supposed to be directed at 16 the nuclear steam supply in the case of an application for 19 a license by a utility, those questions were to be directed 20 at that reactor in that plant configuration, in the context 21 of that plant.
Okay?
This is my understanding of what went 22 on.
So there are two reactor systems people, had two sources 23 of information in which they should be, let me say, fully 24 aware of what they are doing with a given reactor.
gg Aa g jtI Rem nen,Inc.
25 And the licensing project manager in a given plant i
mto 7 32 I
not necessarily is involved in every detail of the Reactor 2
Systems Branch review of a given nuclear steam supply system.
3 as such.
O 4
8v sa r^atsa=
5 G
A general question, again in the context of the 6
discussion, may go to the awareress, prior to March the 29th, 7
1979, of what some since that date have alluded to as sensitive 8
features of the Babcock & Wilcox design that was used at 9
Three Mile Island 2 and in a number of other reactors.
As I 10 understand it as a layman, the integrated control system of I'
that particular design was designed to keep the reactor 12 operating in the case of anticipated events, such as a turbine 13 trip or a loss of main feedwater supply.
And it would appear, O
Id again to me as a layman, that that might have been something 15 which should have attracted attention at either one or perhaps 16 both of the reviews that you have mentioned by the Reactor II Systems Branch.
16 Now, the question:
The sensitive features of I9 B&W plants that have come out during the retrospective examina-2C tions of that design subsequent to March the 29th, 1979, do you recall any discussions of those features during your tour 21
\\
22 as project manager?
O 23 A.
There could have been.
24 G
Any that particularly stand out in your mind?
3 ac.Ow neporters, inc.
V 25 A.
No.
I suppose the things that stand out in my 1
mte 8 33 1
mind are things that caused problems and extended dialogue
()
2 and explanations.
3 Well, for example, as I understand it, again as a (O
_/
4 layman, one of the features of the integrated control system 5
which avoided the anticipatory trips and kept the reactor in 6
operation under a large number of circumstances would have 7
involved a PORV valve which would be expected to lift from 8
time to time.
And I suppose that the engineering experience 9
generally in the nuclear field, as well as other fields, is 10 that these relief and safety valves sometimes do not have a 11 very high reliability in reseating.
12 Nevertheless, presumably, the system passed muster, 13 obviously, with the vendor and with the regulatory agency.
14 The point is -- again, I'm repeating myself.
But were things 15 such as that discussed, to your recollection?
16 A
Yes.
Let's go back to the ICS and runback feature.
17 I believe runback was discussed in some way or to my knowledge.
la Whether it appears as a question or anything related to I9 runback -- but my recollection from that time -- and I i
20 '
remember this, because I have made this statement several 21 times before -- or since my experience there -- was that, aha, 22 we understand runback, because of the Oconee experience 23 which, you said, did I follow things well; I followed some 24 gg things, and maybe I didn't recognize everything.. But my
,As fd Remners, inc.
j 25 recollection was and has been that runback didn't work.
i
mte 9 34 1
They got trips in those days, for example, out of
(])
2 Oconee when they were really thinking in terms of runback.
3 That is item one.
()
4 Item two:
Again, you would have to check the 5
docket, but I believe that the analyses in Chapter 15 with 6
regard to, say, a couple of these anticipated transients may 7
have made some reference to runback, except the analyses were 8
dome with the:: reactor tripped.
That is an important point.
9 So, yes, a runback, whether it was caused by the 10 ICS or whatever, was not -- how do I want to say -- was not Il something that hadn't been mentioned or hadn't come out.
So 12 that is how I remember it.
I don't remember the details.
13 BY MR. COX:
14 G
Do you remember anything concerning natural 15 circulation tests or analyses, tests to confirm the ability 16 of the system to go to natural circulation?
17 A
I don't remember anything about that in this plant 16 specifically.
But I remember very well having been startled 19 by a statement that came up, i.nd I was worrying about 20 something and I was told that, you can just stop those pumps.
21 And I said, gee, natural circulation.
22 To my knowledge, this was a broad statement that
,O 23 applied to all light water reactors.
I may have even been 24 talking about a Westinghouse plant that day.
I don't know.
- Aw(7 3ja Remn n, ine.
j 25 But the response came back.
And I guess my mouth hangs open t
I l
i
mt2 10 35 I
when I think of that today.
It did at the time I was told.
O 2
aut we
=ot referrea to e=v groot or tui -
^=a eta, see, 3
incredible.
But that was a belief, and there was no qualify-C,\\
4 ing conditions put on it, like you had to have a certain 5
pressure or a certain temperature.
6 So I don't recall the detail that I was worrying 7
about.
But indeed, I was told that.
8 G
But during the time you were project manager, you 9
didn't hear about any confirmatory test?
10 A.
I don't recall anything.
I do recall very well I
that statement made to the question or the concern I had about 12 something happening.
13 G
As another issue to consider, what about environ-I#
mental qualification of electrical equipment and instrumenta-15 tion?
Did that give rise to any particular dialogue during 16 your time?
II A.
It was a concern addressed by the instrumentation U
control systems branch, as I recall.
But I don't recall any differences of opinion or problems that we had in my time as i
20 a result of that.
That doesn't mean that there weren't any.
2I But I don't recall that as well as some of these other 22 exciting things that happened.
23 G
Does anything particularly exciting come to your 24 mind?
l bce AQt Reporters, Inc.
j A.
Well, we've already touched on two, aux feedwater,
}
mto 11 36 1
pipe breaks.
I try not to think of these things.
(}
2 G
What about containment isolation?
3 A
oh, yes, that was another biggie.
That was my first
()
4 one.
5 g
Well, tell us anything you would like to tell us 6
about containment isolation?
7 A
It is all on the record, to my knowledge.
But I 8
will try and summarize what I recall, okay?
9 The FSAR came in and they had omitted what was, I 10 believe, called at that time a fluid block feature.
It had 11 been called that at the construction permit stage, all right.
12 And they -- I recall in the meeting we discussed the FSAR and 13 the questions.
They pointed it out to us and we thanked them O
14 for being so straightforward and not having just left it out 15 and we didn't find it sort of thing.
16 And so, again, this sent me on a more detailed and 17 specific search of the docket file for the hearing record, 16 '
the ACRS letter and so forth, to see how this fluid block e-3 19 !
had been treated in this plant at Three Mile Island.
2C l4 i
21 22 i
23 l
24 j
a( )41 Reprters, inc.
f 25 l
l
CRG78. 04 37 HEE
~
rmg 1 1
I believe then, after discussion with Brian Grimes 2
and the branch chief and so.forth, that we concluded that that 3
feature or something that accomplished the same thing was 4
required in Unit 2.
[}
5 So this went on, and we so advised the applicant by 6
letter as I recall, and said if you wish to discuss this, P ease come in.
So, as I recall, we never had any disagreementm l
7 8
But it took quite a bit of conversation and urging 9
to get them to retain that feature in the design, which they did 10 propose alternatives to it.
And I recall that we had a meeting 11 with the people from Accident 7.nalysis and Brian Grimes' group 12 and perhaps also someone from Containment Systems, where the 13 applicant presents their approach.
It was different from O
14 the construction permit stage.
15 Pnd I don't know how it was finally resolved, because 16 any resolution or further final action would have occurred 17 after that time.
It was not in P7SR; it was a verbal presen-18 tation of what they were considering to do.
19 Does that sort of trace it up very quickly?
20 0
That is fine.
For the fluid block system, do you 21 recall anything concerning the matter of the signals on which 22 containment isolation would be effective?
Did any staff memberj O
23 ever let it be known to you that he would like to see more than 24 just containment pressure be used to initiate containment f
I pac'>d Remum, Inc.
kJ 25 isolation?
f l
l
38 rmg 2 1
A Again, I couldn't say yes.
That does not relate to 2
anything that I recall.
3 G
It is my understanding that the containment isolation 4
was then and up till even through this March event, up until 5
1979 that containment insolation was initiated only by a 6
containment pressure of 4 psig, that there was no other signal 7
initiating containment isolation.
8 A
I would add that I believe that that it was at one 9
time the case in other plants also.
It is not unique.
10 g
It is not unique to TMI-2.
Were there any concerns 11 as to the organization of the applicant and the ability of 12 that organization to carry out the conduct of operations?
13 A
Well, I think there was some review done in that area, 14 but I am not familiar with the details of that.
Again, this 15 is more of getting the right boxes, getting the right labels 16 on them and drawing the wires in the right places.
17 Some attention, I guess, was given to job descriptions or 18 experience required of certain people in these boxes, some 19 personnel qualifications.
20 g
How about the instrumentation, particularly instru-21 mentation to follow the course of an accident?
22 A
If I recall, that may have been a generic concern 23 of the ACRS from back in the licensing days, where it was u i
24 current concern of the ACRS at the time this review was going on.
Act rel Reporters, Inc.
25 And I believe there was at least one question asked of the
39 rmg 3 1
applicants on that matter.
2 g
To your recollection, was that question answered
{)
3 satisfactorily, at least measured by the criteria of that time?
()
4 A
I don't remember enough of the details that say one 5
way or the other about that specific question.
6 g
How about procedures to prevent disabling of certain 7
needed safety-related systems or components?
I think this has 8'
to do -- I think the phrase may be bypassing of inoperable 9
components.
10 A
There was a question, if I recall correctly, 11 addressed to TMI-2 in this area.
Again, I think that is the 12 case.
Of course, we are dealing with things that are on the 13
- record, C) 14 0
I think you have mentined that to your knowledge l
15 no concerns arose regarding the failure record of pilot operated 16 relief valve?
17 A
You know, here again, these things are like I said 18 before, there were some things that were kind of biggies.
Some 19 events related to, surrounded and associated with that.
I 20 have some recollection of it.
They may not be entirely accurate.
21 g
Are there any biggies that we have not covered yet?
22 A
I don't recall that.
No.,
I think we have touched O
23 on a number of important areas here.
I 24 g
Do you recall any instances where Staff members I Ae+-\\_)d Reporters, Inc.
e 25 raised issues, either informally or formally, and felt that l
i
40 rmg 4 1
their concerns were not being addressed adequately?
I guess 2
you might say that might be the initial stages of dissent, 3
but I am looking for even prior to the time that it became a 4
formal dissent.
Would there have been Staff concerns that 5
you recognized were not being addressed?
6 A.
Do you mean Staff concerns with respect to this 7
application?
8 G
Oh, yes.
9 A.
Or Staff returns maybe to generic problems?
10 BY MR PARLER:
II G
This application, I would say.
The B&W designs that 12 are involved, or any generic problem that would be relevant 13 to tlie application that you served as the project manager on.
Id I think that is the intent of the question.
15 G
Well, if I understand or interpret correctly, that 16 some, say, second-round question, follow-up questions, and they I7 may have been second round, and they may have gone to the third l
l 18 round, for all I know, reflected in part inadequacy of response, i
l9 maybe by the applicant, 20 And why the response was inadequate, I can't judge.
But in 21 this respect. there is an element here and a possibility of a 1
22 difference between the reviewer and the applicant.
Is this the
)
23 kind of thing you are referring to?
24 BY MP..
COX:
ace-rst Reporters. inc.
G Well, let me try to put it a different way, and this I 25
41 rag 5 1
may change the question slightly.
2 You were the project manager from October '73 until sometime 3
during 1975, over at least one set of questions called Round 4
One questions.
That was a very large set; that was asked 5
sometime in '74 -- there may have been other partial sets of 6
questions asked to which the applicant responded in due course, 7
having a reasonable time to work on these things.
8 From your personal observation standpoint, did you ever 9
get the feeling, did you ever have the feeling, that with 10 regard to specific issues which you might be able to identify now, that the applicant was dragging its feet in responding in 11 12 a way that you felt was inadequate?
13 A.
This is a subjective judgment, and this is just an O
14 opinion.
But yes, I at times wondered about some of these e,
15 things, but could not fully assess and maybe appreciate his 16 problems in getting his organization together and deciding 17 who was going to respond to some of these questions for them, 18 you see, whether it u uld be B&W or Burns & Rowe or others.
19 Some they may have responded to in-house.
20 So, some of these elements that you are not a party to and 21 you can't fully appreciate that affect these things.
But yes, 22 as I said, the vessel material testing and the properties of O
23 that material, there were questions on that.
24 This was an area where it took a lot of urging.
There were AceOrtl Reporters, Inc.
U 25 several meetings, there were phone calls.
And the Staff tried
42 rmg 6 1
to be helpful in order to get a response and that took quite 2
a ghile, and that involved B&W.
And there were apsects of that 3
that it just wasn't, for example, clear whether peop'le were O
4 vroceedime im e eerio=
determined feshio=, er were ther suet 5
figuring they had more time.
6 I think -- well, in part, some of those questions may have 7
required more time and effort to respond to than I judged was 8
required.
As a matter of fact, they gave a lot more detailed 9
answers to some questions, for example, than I would have givenm 10 I would have treated the question in the context of the 11 importance of safety.
And so I would say they addressed these.
12 BY MP.. PARLER:
13 Q.
At the time of your tour as project manager, O
14 Mr. Washburn, did the AEC and then the NF.C Regulatory Staff 15 have a group, the purpose of which was to conduct a systemswide 16 review, or so-called systems group?
17 You have mentioned in your responses earlier that some 18 phases of the review we had the vendor dealing with -he Reactor 19 Systems Branch, perhaps separately.
Imd in your response, more 20 recent response, you referred to the vendors as well as to the 21 architects and engineeers.
22 Now, there are some who believe that the Staff's review is 23 highly compartmentalized, that the Staff is populated by too 24 many or too much by narrow technical review specialists, and not g;ct Reporters, Inc.
Ace 25 enough by, I guess, systems people, or people who look at
\\
l
43 rmg 7 1
reactor safety in the overall perspective.
()
2 I don't know whether the context is appropriate or not, but 3
my question is, do you have any comments in that regard?
The
()
4 specific question is:
In your experience, do you believe or 5
did you believe that there was a group on the Regulatory Staff 6
having the responsibility and the competence to conduct an 7
overall plant-type review?
8 A
I think that at the time I was there, that there was 9
no one with a specific assigned responsibility in the technical 10 review area.
For example, to look at the entire plant as a 11 system with its associated codes and standards and QA and 12 operations and this sort of thing, that that is a fairly large 13 problem.
14 Now I think that, to some degree perhaps, that there was 15 present, though its presence may not have been directly felt 16 as a specific box, that indeed, some people were taking a 17 broader view on a generic basis, maybe for the three PWRs and 18 the P.WR.
19 And this information, and their concerns would be fed to the
!0 individual areas of the Staff.
21 So the fact that I believe there was not a box there, there 22 was some presence of that element in the system.
~j 23 BY 11R COX:
24 C
Did you generally feel that B&M was supporting the 7g Ace kat Reporters, Inc.
25 application by Metropolitan Edison in a pretty competent way?
44 rmg 9 1
A Well, again, this is a judgment and a subjective f')
2 thing.
I would just like to say in that regard, that I believe v
3 myself, I am a pretty hard taskmaster, and I worry about detail,
/~s
()
4 and I pursue details.
When I pursue these details, some turn 5
out to be benign, and some turn out to be significant problems.
6 So you can't say that everybody, I guess, should operate 7
this way.
It is my approach.
And when I see how other people 8
operate and respond in the concern they give to things, based 9
on my own criteria, I do have reservations.
10 So I had reservations at times there, and in part, based 11 upon my own approach to things.
(2) I had experience only 12 with one vendor, and the one application.
So there is no basis 13 for making some of these judgments.
~s t
)
(./
14 But I would say that I had ihdications from members of the v.
15 Technical Review Staff that seemed to me to express their l
i 16 concerns, which I would regard as being founded on a much better 17 base than my opinions.
18 And that in this area I mentioned before how reactor systems 19 refuse a specific NSSS design. And then they also turn around 20 and review that desiga in the context of the application.
21 I recall that the early questions I received from the 22 reactor systems people, when I looked at these as a group or 73
()
l 23 as individual questions, they didn't fit this understood review I
I 24 approach -- that is, that they shojld be addressing concerns l
iA d Reponen, Inc.
25 about that nuclear steam supply system in thet TMI-2 design in
45 rmg 10 1
that plant at this time, in this TMI-2 docket.
( ))
2 G
Excuse me.
Did you feel they should be or should not 3
be --
()
4 A
Well, do you get the picture?
I'm saying what the 5
policy was, that there wss these two routes, and that the 6
reactor systems people should address that plant on a given 7
docket like TMI-2, that steam supply system and that plant in 8
the context of that plant, and not go off asking questions that 9
just pertain to the reactor and not relating it to the plant.
10 So I got these questions and I went up there and got people's 11 attention and said, "IIey, I see the questions.
I don't under-12 stand how this relates to the plant."
13 So, pressing on them for a little bit, I got the indications 14 that they had some concerns about the design of the reactor, i
15 and that they had not been completely satisfied in their 16 questioning by the other route which I mentioned, and they were 17 pursuing it through this appliaction, and I believe that is 18 obvious if you look at the questions that they submitted.
19 So, to my knowledge, they did not explain the details of end (l 20 these concerns that remained about the steam supply system.
21 BY MR. PARLER:
22 G
I think~it would be particularly helpful for this 23 record, and indeed for the inquiry, if you could recall some 24 of the names in the Reactor Systems Branch -- and I realize it ho( jd Remners. inc 25 may be speculation on your part, and also some years ago, and I
46
-rmg 11 1
you may have some difficulty recollecting, but the people that
(])
2 you believe night have had some difficulties with the B&W 3
design, and who were having also, I gather, some additional
()
4 difficulty getting answers to what they were trying to get 5
information on from the vendor during the initial approach 6
that is taken, that is, the approach to review the nuclear 7
steam supply system separately.
8 Do you have any names, or can you be specific?
9 A
As best I remember, this was Watt and Warren Minners 10 that I had had with conversation with.
But I remember the 11 conversation, because I had challenged the questions on the 12 basis of the ground rules for the review.
13 And I remember the general concerns, and I said, " Fine, g
14 we won't make an issue of it; we will ask the questions."
15 C.
Incidentally, for my own education as well as for 16 the benefit of the record, the generic review that you are j
17 talking about was on the basis of what, the review of topical 18 reports, or was that the earlier stages of the standardization 19 effort?
I am kind of confused on that point.
20 A
It was, to my recollection, before the standardization l
21 effort, and then standardization is never an issue, because l
l r
22 TMI-2 is not a standard plant design, as I remember it.
0 23 My recollection is that this involred review of the topical l 24 7-reports.
Ace 4
,cl Reporters, Inc.
25 l
4
47 rmg 12 1
BY MR. COX:
O
~
99 =e i=to eni-1 2
e-aue the outoo e, de11 eve or vo=r a1 3
generic versys specific philosophy, was that the questions that 4
had been formulated by the React;or Systems Branch were asked 5
on the docket.
6 A
They were asked on the TMI-2 docket.
I was not 7
questioning what they were questioning, AsKI indicated before 8
I was not a participant in that process.
9 G
Let me ask you this:
Some of topical reports 10 probably were referenced by Metropolitan Edison on the TMI-2 11 docket; is that correct?
12 A
That is correct, yes.
13 G
Can you say anything about the completion of review 14 of these topicals during the TMI-2 review with which you are 15 familiar?
Were some of these topical reports completed and 16 approved or accepted?
17 A
Yes, I feel certain that they were, because those 18 that were referenced, I checked the status of the review of 19 those reports, and I am sure that the reviewers in individual 20 areas also were aware in their branches of the status of the 21 topical reports.
22 So, based on that, some were completed, some were accepted, 23 some were not accepted, as I recall.
24 G
Well, what was the prevailing project management kgj o nepon m inc.
25 philosophy at that time as regards the necessity for completion l
48 rmg 13 1
of the topical reports review by the time that a particular
()
2 docket to review was completed?
3 A
I can't say for sure.
But my recollection is that
()
4 many of the', reviewers like to see the topical reports reviewed 5
and completed and accepted and referenced in the application, 6
rather than having to review the specific area in detail for 7
each application.
8 This was a useful application of the topical report to them.
9 0
Had you carried this job to completion, that is, 10 the writing and issuance of a'tsafety evaluation report, was 11 it your understanding that you would need to have the topical 12 reports referenced by the applicant on this docket completed 13 by the time you wrote an SER or not?
r~)
\\)
14 A
Well, let me say what I think my understanding was 15 at the time I left there.
16 That if those topicals were reviews and completed, they 17 could be referenced.
If they were not reviewed and accepted --
18 I should say, if they were not reviewed and accepted, then in 19 order to complete the safety evaluation you had to review that 20 area specifically, independent of the topical report.
21 So there had to be enough information in the docket, the m
22 applicant had to now submit essentially what was in the topical
(%)
23 report in the application for review as a part of the applica-24 tion in lieu of that.
Ace rcl Reporters, Inc.
25 So, you see this was the other route, as I understand the I
49 rmg 14 1
process, or understood it. or think I understand it, or all 2
of the above.
3 CL Are you aware of any Staff review information on O
d T"I-2 or on any asw design that raises significant technical 5
issues and which information is not in the public domain?
6 A
No.
I think everything was addressed through 7
questions in that time that I was there, and the responses.
8 There were a number of discussions and meetings, and if I recal:.,
9 important phone calls.
10 There was a record made of those, but that is a part of the 11 in. formation that is not a part of the application.
It is a 12 part of the information and the docket.
13 So,:to my knowledge, e-;'rything that was addressed in the 14 review was made a part of the docket.
15 MR. COX:
Let's go off the record a minute.
16 (Discussion off the record.)
~
17 MR. COX:
Let's go on the record.
18 Do you have any additional comments that you believe would 19 assist us in assessing the TMI-2 accident'and its implications?
20 I might add, you could comment on regulatory process in that 21 vein, too.
22 TIIE WITNESS:
Well, thank you for the opportunity 23 to comment, but I think that you have touched upon the areas 24 that were of some concern to myself at the time I was here, Ace il Reporters, Inc.
25 and that are relevant, and that there were some problems with.
50 rmg 15 1
I thought they had been satisfactorily resolvad, and I can't 2
begin to tell you how I felt about the valves being closed in 3
that fee ( mter system after what I had done and the discussions 4
held and everything to get that system upgraded.
{}
5 My reaction is unprintable.
6 That meant, beca1se of my involvement, that was a significant 7
to me.
Had that feedwater system not been so thoroughly c
addressed on the docket and in the conversations, then I might 9
feel differently.
But I know there were many other things 10 that went on.
11 I just can't tell you how I felt when I sat in the 12 Commission meeting room and heard that, I believe, for the 13 first time.
O 14 While we are still on the record, I requested you provide 15 me with a copy of the transcript of this proceeding.
And when 16 may I expect it?
17 MR. PARLER:
As soon as we receive a copy of the 18 transcript from the reporter, which is usually within two or 19 three days, a copy will be sent to you with a form covering 20 letter than we have giving you the opportunity to make 21 clarifying corrections to the transcript.
22 I would think, sir, that you would certainly receive the r)
(_
23 transcript within a week from today unless there is something 24 unforeseen that occurs which has not occurred in any of the ca& r:.ponm, inc.
El 25 other depositions that we have conducted.
That is not to say l
l
51 rmg 16 1
that it won't.
2 But if there is a delay beyond several days or a week, Con 3
and I will be in touch with you and tell you what is happening.
(])
4 In any event, we will send you a copy of the transcript 5
at the earliest opportunity, and you will be given tte oppor-6 tunity to submit corrections to the transcript.
The transcript 7
and your corrections will be filed in the master witness file n
of the inquiry.
'/
THE WITNESS:
Thank you.
10 MR. COX:
If there aren't any comments from anyone 11 e.ls e, I would like to thank you both for your participation 12 and attention in coming down here today.
13 (Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m.,
the taking of the deposition O
14 was concluded.)
15 j
16 17 18 19 20 1
21 22 23 24 Am( )d Regners, l.
1
.