ML19322C800
| ML19322C800 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/17/1979 |
| From: | Gilray J, Parler W NRC - NRC THREE MILE ISLAND TASK FORCE, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001240564 | |
| Download: ML19322C800 (161) | |
Text
- _- _
6/6
,',b6I N U C L E A R R E G U L A T O R 'l C O M M I S S I O N
(')
V i
IN THE MATTER OF:
THREE MILE ISLAND SPECIAL INQUIRY INTERVIEW l
l l
i I
IN'"ERVIEW OF JOHN GILRAY (U3 I
i i
P00R BRDL Place -
Bethesda, Maryland Date -
Pages 1 - 96 Monday, September 17, 1979
('~)
7.r.cnon.:
(.c21347-3700 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.
OfficialReponen 441 Noch C ::itol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE DALLY b O O 1 '? d O
'CR 7091 1
4 i
A -pps..1 40 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
)ud fis.
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3I l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x Interview of-l I
5;'
JOHN GILRAY 6
- - - - - - - - - - - -x i
7 8
NRC/TMI SPECIAL INQUIRY 9
1 I
i 10 i
Room 6117 11 I Maryland National Bank Building I
Bethesda, Maryland l
12 '
Monday, September 17, 1979 14 The interview commenced at 1:40 p.m.,
pursuant to 15 notice.
16 Present:
John Gilray, William Parler, Wayne 17 Lanning, Bill Belke, and James Tourtellotte.
18 19 20 21 l O-22 i
I i
23 24 Ace Feder:t Repo,ters, Inc.
25 l
l I
f 2
1 CONTENTS 2
Witness:
Examination by:
Page:
3 4
John Gilray Mr. Lanning 3
f 5i j
t 6
l 71 i
i 8
i 9
1 I
10 I EXHIBITS:
Identified':
l ll i Exhibit 1079 - Letter dated August 30, l
j 1979 from Mr. Rogovin 12 l to Mr. Gilray 3
I
()
13 Exhibit 1080 - One-page resume of Mr.
Gilray 5
14 Exhibit 1081 - Memo from Mr. Varga to Mr.
15 Haass dated July 13, 1978 6
16 Exhibit 1082 - Letter to Metropolitan Edison, attention Mr. Arnold from 17 Mr. Reed, dated 12-14-76 17 Exhibit 1083 - Draf t document, " Guidance for ug submittal of Quality Assurance 19 Program Description, Section 17 of PSAR," dated Oct. 3, 1973 36 20 Exhibit 1084 page handwritten list of 21 questions 38
_ ('- )
22 Exhibit 1085 - Letter dated May 19, 1976, from Chairman Moeller, ACRS, to Mr. Rowden 81 23 24 Ace Feder"J Reporters, Inc.
25 e
I
'I 3
1
{RQQEEQLNQ1 2
Whereupon, 3
JOHN GILRAY 2
~C/
4 was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn, I
5 was examined and testified as follows.
I
~
6!
EXAMINATION 1
7 BY MR. LANNING:
i I
8 Q
Would you please state your full name?
f
~
i i
1 9
A John William Gilray.
i 10 !
Q Of f the record.
1 j
l Il l
[ Discussion off the record.]
12 MR. LANNING:
I'd like to mark as Exhibit 1079 a
(^\\
(,)
13 letter from Mr. Mitchell Rogovin to Mr. John Gilray, dated 14 August the 30th, 1979.
15 (The document ref erred to was 16 marked Exhibit 1079 for 17 identification.)
18 BY MR. LANNING:
19 Q
Mr. Gilray, I show you what has been marked as l
20 Exhibit 1079.
Is this a photocopy of a letter sent to you 21 by the NRC/TMI Special Inquiry Group for your deposition?
O
(/
22 A
Yes.
23 O
Have you read this document in full?
24 A
- yes,
[ Ace Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 Q
Do you understand the information set forth in this I
4 i;
I letter, including the general nature of the NRC/TMI Special 2
Inquiry, your right to have an attorney present here today 3'
as your representative, and the fact that the information O
LJ 4
you provide here may eventually become public?
I 5!
A Yes.
6 Q
Is counsel representing you personally here today?
I 7
A No.
8 Q
I'd like to note for the record that the witness 9
is not represented by counsel here today.
10 Mr. Gilray, if at any time during the course of
~
II this interview you feel you would like to be represented by 12 counsel and have counsel present, please advise us and we I
()j 13 will adjourn these proceedings to afford you the opporte ity n
14 to make the necessary arrangements.
15 Is this procedure agreeable to you?
16 A
Yes.
17 Q
Mr. Gilray, you should be aware that the testimony 18 that you give has the same force and effect as if you were I9 testifying in a court of law.
20 My questions and Mr. Parler's questions and your 21 responses are being taken down, and will later be transcribed.
22 You will be given the opportunity to look at that transcript 23 and make changes that you deem necessary.
24 However, to the extent that your subsequent Ace-Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 changes are significant, those changes may be viewed as I
L
I 5
1
.affecting your credibility, so please be as complete and 2
as accurate as you can in responding to our questions.
l i
3 Did you bring a copy of your resume with you?
,')
I
(_/
4 A
Yes.
5 MR. LANNING:
I'd like to mark as Exhibit 1080 I
I-I 6l a one-page resume of Mr. John William Gilray, j
I 7
[The document referred to was 8
marked Exhibit 1080 for 9
identification.]
l l
10 BY MR. LANNING:
Il Q
Mr. Gilray, what is your current position with the 12 !
NRC?
O is A
Senior nuc1eer eneineer.
14 0
In what branch?
15 A
Quality Assurance Branch.
16 Q
What are your primary responsibilities in that 17 branch?
18 A
Primary responsibilities are to review the quality 19 assurance programs for defining construction and operations 20 that are contained in the SAR, generate questions in regards 21 to the review and evaluation of that QA program, and to s) 22 interface as necessary with project management in the 23 utility, to get an adequate QA program description which 24 meets Appendix 10 CFR 50.
l Ace Feded Reporters, Inc.
25 Q
Are you also a section leader in that branch?
I
l 6
1 A
Correct.
2 Q
How many NRC employees report to you?
3 A
Four.
4{
O And how long have you been in this position?
f l
A Since --
l 1
6 MR. PARLER:
Approximately is all right.
i l
7 THE WITNESS:
'74, 1974.
June 1974.
f 8
BY MR. LANNING:
l 9l Q
Is that the time you joined the NRC?
I I
l 10 A
No, that's when I've been in the present position 11 whereby I had people working for me.
I joined the agency in --
I let's see here, June of 1972 as a nuclear engineer in the 12 O
ia cua1iev Assurence arench.
14 MR. LANNING:
I'd like to mark as Exhibit 1081 a 15 memorandum from S. A. Varga to Walter Haass.
The subject is 16 review of Metropolitan Edison Company's request to extend 17 the compliance date for ANSI N.45.2.9 for Three Mile Island, 18 Unit No. 2.
That's dated July the 13th, 1 78.
19
[The doc'.
.at referred to was 20 marked Exhibit 1081 for 21 identification.]
)
22 BY MR. LANNING:
23 0
Would you review that memorandum and affirm that 24 you concurred in that memorandum?
Am Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 A
Right.
I have reviewed this memorandum.
l I
7 1
Q Met Ed evidently informed the NRC on January the 2
25th, 1978 that Three Mile Island Unit 2 could not satisfy 3
(~}
this ANSI standard which is the subject of that memorandum i
x_-
for maintaining records until June the 1st, 1979.
S i
Do you recall what specific requirements the 6i I
licensee could not meet?
i 7
i A
No.
No, I don't.
l i
l 8!
l MR. PARLER:
He has some records there.
Do you 9
want to look through those to refresh yourself or what?
10 THE WITNESS:
I could look through this.
It 11 would take some time.
12 BY MR. LANNING:
13 Q
Okay.
Well, I don't know that that's viable la information.
15 A
Yeah, I know the information of the standard and 16 recordkeeping is such that we have allowed utilities to store 17 records that were not protected against fire and flood, we la have allowed an extension of one or two years to properly 19 construct a building to retain the records in a safe manner.
20 That being they are protected properly from flood and fire.
21 Q
Has this normally been onsite or offsite?
()
22 A
Both.
23 0
What are the= requirements for maintaining duplicate l
24 sets of records?
Am.Feder;J Reporters, Inc.
l 25 A
Do you want to repeat that, please?
l l
8 i
I Q
What are the NRC requirements concerning licensees 2
keeping duplicate copies of records?
I i
3 A
Okay.
The utility has a choice of keeping singular
,s
\\]
4 copy records in a storage facility which is constructed so i
5 that it's protected against tornadoes, floods and fire.
The i
6!
fire being a two-hour fire rating.
If they choose not to l
l 7l construct a building like this, they can duplicate the records 8
and storage one set of records at one place and another at 9
another place at a reasonable distance, such that there is i
I 10 1 adequate assurance that the destruction of one would not II destruct the other set.
Usually in different-buildings.
I2 Q
Are these what I would term exceptions criteria
)
13 delinated some place?
Where are these requirements for Id these positions set forth?
15 A
It's in 45.2.9.
16 Q
45 is'an ANSI standard?
I7 A
Right.
Which is endorsed by a reg guide, and 18 you.will want that reg guide, probably.
I9 O
I think not.
20 MR. PARLER:
I think that the record should reflect if you are going to refer to an A1:3I standard, you should 21 22 make the connection as to how that ANSI standard is : incorporated l
23 or reflected in our regulatory requirements.
24 BY MR. LANNING:
Ace.Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 0
All right.
9 1
A ANSI N-45.2.9 is endorsed by Regulatory Guide 1.88, 2l and we get' a commitment to this in the OA program description I
i 3i of which TMI 2 has committed to.
(~1 I
'~'
4 0
In other words, it's not part of the review plan?
l I
5-A It's part of our standard review plan, yes.
It's I
i 6,
reflected in there also.
i 7'
O Referring back to Exhibit 1081, since this was j
a an outstanding item at the time that the operating license was i
9 issued, and it wasn' t noted as an outstanding issue in the l
10 license, do you recall any discussions relating to why it 11 should be or it should not be, or why it was not included I
12 in the license?
()
13 A
No.
Our standard review -- let's say our safety 14 evalnation report on TMI 2 was issued in June of '75, which 15 we found the QA program acceptable.
Our ground rules today 16 are such that if they don't meet all the standard review 17 plan requirements, then we should reflect such in the SER, 18 so the timing here is such that I wouldn't consider it 19 necessary to reflect this in the -- did you say licensing?
20 Q
Operating license issue.
21 A
Yeah.
But that matter would -- that decision
/~( j\\
22 would come from the project manager, not from me.
Essentially 23
.my work was done.
24 MR. PARLER:
Wait.
I'd like to follow up on that, Ace Federj Reporters, Inc.
25 please.
I
10 l
I BY MR. PARLER:
2 0
You mean that once you as a member of the Quality 3'
Assurance Branch provide your branch's input to the Safety i
O^'
i Evaluation Report, that is it, that your work is done?
f 4
5 A
In regards to the SER, with the following I
6 qualifications:
7 That any changes to the application we look at.
8 This is concerning quality assurance.
And write a letter as
~
9 to the results of our evaluation of those changes.
10 We would document that to the project manager.
II Q
I gather that this particular open item that 12 l Mr. Lanning asked you about was not an item that the quality I3 assurance branch addressed itself to in its input in the Id Safety Evaluation Report; is that right?
15 A
Correct.
I0 Q
Now why was that?
Was it because this plant, the 17 TMI 2 plant, was not subject to the requirement in Mr.
18 Rusche's letter, No. 9, as revised to deviate -- I'm sorry, I9 to document deviations from the standard review plan?
Or was 20 it because of some other reason?
21 A
I'm not sure.
I would -- No.
1, our basis for 22 acceptance of the quality assurance program was not done to 23 the 1975 standard review plan, and I think Ben Rusche's letter 24 was in regard to that standard review plan dated 1975.
Ace 4ederd Reporters, Inc.
25 So, therefore, I don't think we were obligated to I
11 l
I meet that request of his that we reflect any changes or any 2
omissions in the QA program.
I O
What I'm trying to get to for purposes of the record!
3' 4
is that the requirement that Mr. Lanning has asked you about, 3'
that was not satisfied, comes from this regulatory guide that 6
you mentioned, that endorses the particular ANSI that was 7I also referred to a couple of minutes ago, or does it come 1
8 from some other source?
9 A
No, it comes from the regulatory guide and ANSI l
10 standard.
What I think probably happened is that TMI thought l
II that they could meet that requirement in the ANSI standard, 12 and when they went in and went line by line item, they saw I3 that, hey, we don't have a storage facility to properly Id s tore records in accordance with 2.9.
Let's go and ask the 15 government if we can get an entension, so we can start to 16 build a facility to meet 2.9.
17 So they're coming in actually, I think, with 18 an exception and asking for an extension.
Q Well, what I'm trying to get clarified in my own 20 mind, and perhaps for the record is what does the standard 21 review plan have to do with what you and Mr. Lanning have (h
' \\..)
22 been talking about?
It's not clear to me why the requirement 23 not to document deviations from the standard review plan l
24 was not applicable to TMI 2 review has anything to do with Ace Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 what you're talking about.
1 k
12 1
A Mall, no, I'm confused.
)
2 MR. PARLER:
Well, of f the record.
l 3
(Discussion off the record.]
f 7
4 r
)
f
~
4 BY MR. LANNING:
5 Q
Let's go back on the record, Mr. Gilray, and attempt t
i 6
to clarify the discussion that we had regarding the standard 7
review plan.
8 It is my understanding that what you've said is 9j that the guidance for the storage requirements of these records i
10 l is contained in ANSI standard which was referenced, or is i
11 !
referenced by Regulatory Guide 1.88.
12 In addition, the present standard review plan also
()
13 references those requirements, but at the time this QA program Id review was conducted with Three Mile Island Unit 2, the 15 standard review plan was not used in that review; is that 16 correct?
17 A
That's correct.
18 Q
Okay.
19 BY MR. PARLER:
20 Q
Well, was the regulatory guide 1.88 applicable 21 for guidance at the time of the TMI 2 review by the Staff ?
(O
\\/
22 A
Regulatory Guide 1.88 was used in the review of 23 TMI 2.
24 0
- And this requirement that you and Mr. Lanning i Ace Feded Reporters, Inc.
25
.have been talking Maout stems from the Regulatory Guide 1.887
i 13 i.
l 1
A
-Yes.
l 2
.Q The question that I would ask is why was that 3
guidance in the Regulatory Guide 1.88 and the ability of the
(
4 Applicant to comply with that guidance not an apparent f actor i
5 in the Staff's review?
6 A
Well, I completed my review of the TMI 2 in and around I
i 7
'75.
At that time they said that they would meet the i
8 requirements of that ANSI standard, reg guide.
I 9l Since then they have introduced an exception to that,
\\
10 l and that's where this letter stems from.
I 11 !
BY MR. LANNING:
i 12 Q
Now what is the mechanism for tracking changes or
( )'
13 exceptions after you have provided your SER input?
14 A
When a change comes in after we reviewed and 15 found a QA program acceptable, we evaluate that change against 16 what we have reviewed and found acceptable and make a determina-17 tion that the QA' program has not been degraded to the extent 18 that we would find it unacceptable.
19 If we found that it was degraded, then we would 20 indicate such to the utility.
21 Q
What kind of documentation constitutes a change?
O 22 A
SAR amendment.
(_,r 23 Q
SAR amendment.
24 How are letters handled, for example, if the Am-Pede,5 Repo,ters, Inc.
25 licenseo submits a letter saying they cannot comply with i
14 I
certain requirements regarding the QA program?
How is that 2
tracked for recordkeeping purposes, or for resolution?
I 3l A
Well, if a letter comes in indicating a certain j
(
4 noncompliance to a QA program that we have previously found j
5 acceptable, the project manager would send that over to the 6
QA branch for our assessment, and we would send a letter l
7 back to him indicating the results of our review and evalua-l 8
tion, and so the SAR -- changes can be made to the SAR, I 91 guess either by an amendment to the SAR or to letters.
l 10 '
It's normally through an amendment.
11 BY MR. PARLER:
12 O
Normally through an amendment to what?
()
13 A
To the SAR.
14 Q
To the FSAR, you mean?
15 A
Uh-huh.
16 Q
But there 's no requirement that the FSAR be kept 17 current, is there?
18 A
That's correct.
19 Q
So where does that leave the situation now?
Are 20 we talking about the operating license is issued?
Is that 21 right?
And if you have a -e or if a licensee has a change
()
22 to the FSAR, but not a change which requires an amendment to 23 the operating license, what is the procedure there for keeping 24 current with what's going on in the area ^ that might have some Ace-Federil Reporters, Inc.
25 bearing on the past quality assurance program that has been 1
--.w
i 15 i
j reviewed and approved by the NRC?
2 A
Well, one, there is no requirement that the utility.
.i 3i has to tell us of changes to the QA program description.
l')
I I
k/
Normally it is the case that if he wants to change that QA 4
5l program description, he will come in with an amendment to the 6
application, that is the FSAR, or he might choose to generate 7
a letter into the docket indicating a change, and we would 8
respond to that, to the project manager.
gi BY MR. LANNING:
i 10 Q
You say there is no requirement for a licensee --
11 did you say there was no requirement for licensees notifying I
12 NRC of changes in a QA program as approved?
()
13 A
That's correct.
14 Q
And have there been examples in the past where 15 the QA program has been changed by the licensee and there 16 were some questions raised as to whether or not it was a 17 change that was important enough that it should be reported 18 that an issue has been raised by an I&E inspector, for example?
19 MR. PARLER:
What are you talking about?
Across 20 the board, or TMI?
21 BY MR. LANNING:
(o) 22 Q
Across the board.
23 MR. PARLER:
In any event, to the best of his 24 recollection, right?
' A*Federet Reporters, Inc.
~25 THE WITNESS:
There's been several cases where therg l
!. I
i 16 i
I has been a significant change whereby the utility has not 2
informed us and I&E has indicated such to us, and we've gotten j I
3j with the utility to get that change.
4 BY MR. LANNING :
I 5l Q
Did this result in any kind of I&E citation that i
6l you remember?
i 7!
A Yes, in a couple of cases it has.
8 Now I've got to make a correction here.
I say 9
there's no requirement for the utility to notify us of 10 changes to the QA program description.
That's a generalized II statement.
There are specific cases if it involves a safety 12 issue or an unresolved issue -- unresolved issue, that it 13 would come in for review.
I think that 50.54 --
Id MR. PARLER:
I think you're talking about 50.59, 15 the change procedure, I believe.
16 THE WITNESS:
Yeah.
17 MR. PARLER:
I'll find it for you.
18 THE WITNESS:
In that case, that's where they are 19 required, but it doesn't happen very often.
20 MR. PARLER:
Off the record.
21 (Discussion off the record.]
n 22 MR. PARLER:
Back on the
,;ord.
23 BY MR. LANNING:
24 Q
Are you aware of the Applicant 's, Met Ed, Am Federd Reporters. Inc.
'25 specificclly limited storage capability onsite?
I
17 i
i 1
A No.
j 2l Q
Okay.
I' 3l MR. PARLER:
What was that question?
Whether he was' rw l
i
(_)
I 4
aware that Met Ed limits its storage capability?
J S
MR. LANNING:
Had limited storage capability.
i l
l 6!
'iR.
PARLER:
Oh, has limited storage capability.
7 MR. LANNING:
I'm going to mark as Exhibit 1082 a 8
letter to Metropolitan Edison Company, attention Mr. R. C.
9l Arnold, f rom Robert W. Reed, Chief of the Operating Reactors I
10 j Branch No. 4, and that's dated 12-14-76.
l i
l II f
[Thb document referred to was 12 marked Exhibit 1082 for
(~x
(,)
13 identification. ]
14 BY MR. LANNING:
15 Q
Mr. Gilray, do you remember the thrust of that 16 letter?
Do you recall the reason that Three Mile Island 1 T.2 17 quality assurance program changed to the same as that that 18 was approved for TMI Unit 2?
19 A
Yes.
20 0
What were those reasons?
21 A
Back in 1973, we generated some WASH documents.
()
22 Those WASH documents contained ANSI standards, regulatory 23 guides, which we felt were necessary documents to be complied 24 with by the utility to meet 10 CFR 50 Appendix B.
We had Ace Federal Reporte,s, Inc.
25 regional conference meetings throughout the country, and met I
18 l
I with utilities and principal contractors, indoctrinating them 2
with these WASH documents, and then Manning Muntzing came I
3l through with a dictate around 1974 asking for a review of I
('i
\\-
4 existing operating plants that have had licenses to operate, I
l 5j and just to evaluate those QA programs, to see whether they I
6l meet these WASH documents.
7' So we went back to TMI 1 and we found that they were; a
deficient in meeting these WASH documents, and we generated a 9
letter to them requesting that they update their QA program j
l I
10 to meet the WASH documents.
11 l In lieu of that, they could choose to commit to I
12 comply with TMI Unit 2 QA program for TMI 1.
So essentially (j
13 that's the rationale used to upgrade TMI 1 QA program.
14 Q
Now wasn't the Unit 2 QA program reviewed against 15 these same WASH documents, or those, to clarify the record, 16 do the numbers WASH-1283, 1284, and 1309 correspond to the WASH 17 documents you're referring to?
18 BY MR. PARLER:
19 Q
Are those the WASH documents that you're referring to?
20 A
Go through those again.
21 BY MR. LANNING:
p(,)
22 Q
1283, 1284, and 1309.
23 A
Yes, right.
24 Q
Those are guidance for implementing QA programs Ace Feder3 Reporte,s, Inc.
25 for ohat, construction?
I
f 19 f
1 A
Yes.
2 Q
What are the three documents for?
l t
3 A
Let me give you the titles of those.
i
(_)
4 WASH 1284 is " Guidance and Quality Assurance 1
5l Requirements During the Operation Phase of Nuclear Power l
6 plants."
I 7l WASH Document 1309 is " Guidance and Quality l
8 Assurance Requirements During the Construction Phase of 9l Nuclear Power Plants."
10 And WASH Document 1283 is " Guidance and Quality i
II Assurance Requirements During Design and Procurement Phase 12 of Nuclear Power Plants."
()
13 Q
Now are those the same documents that were used 14 to judge the acceptability of the Unit 2 program?
15 A
Correct.
Yes.
16 O
Okay.
So, in effect, Unit 1 was really committing 17 to those documents by committing to Unit 2 QA program?
18 A
Right.
19 Q
Were there any differences in Unit 2 program 20 based on the requirements of those documents that come to 21 your recollection?
(~%
i, _)
22 A
No, they just committed to those WASH documents 23 f or TMI 2.
24 Q
Do you recall when that commitment took place?
Ace FederJ Reporters, Inc.
25 A
Yeah.
Well, wait a minute.
You're asking for I
L'
l 20 l
l I
when TMI 2 application committed to the WASH documents?
I 2l Q
No, when Unit 1 committed to the Unit 2 QA program.
I 3i A
I think I do.
December 23, 1976.
,r's i
s s
l
'~#
BY MR. PARLER:
4j 1
51 Q
How about the question that you thought Mr. Lanning !
I 6!
had asked?
When did TMI 2 commit itself to the WASH documents?,
7 A
Okay, in 8-74, we generated a request to TMI 2 8
requesting that they commit to these WASH documents, and the i
9]
latter part of '7 4 they committed to these WASH documents.
i 10 Q
Do you happen to recall the status of the 11 construction of the plant at the time, at that time?
t 12 That is in 1974 when Met Ed, GPU committed themselves to these hN 13 WASH documents?
14 A
No, they were -- the design and construction was 15 going on, but our review was just purely on the operation 16 phase, the FSAR.
17 Q
Who reviews the adequacy of a utility's quality 18 assurance progran during the construction phase?
19 A
Okay, during the PSAR stage, we look at the QA 20 program for design and construction, and when they get the 21 license to design and construct, then it's up to I&E to assure n) 22 that those commitments that they have given at the QA program
(,,
23 are properly carried out.
24 0
None of these three documents that were mentioned Am FWwW Reorwes, lm.
25 earlier, the three WASH documents, have to do with the 1
i 21 1
I quality assurance program at the construction stage?
i 2
A They do.
\\
3!
O They do?
h l
4l A
Yeah.
i 5l Q
What I'm trying to find out, and what I'm asking i
i 6!
you is what requirements were imposed on the Applicant and 7
the construction permitee when the Three Mile Island 2 plant 8
was being constructed?
9 A
We did not go back and update the design and 10 construction of a QA program to meet these WASH documents.
II Q
What was the status of the construction of the 12 plant at the time that these three WASH documents were 13 imposed for, I guess, operational QA purposes?
Id A
I don't know.
15 Q
Do you have any idea, approximately?
16 A
No.
17 BY MR. LANNING:
18 Q
Can you briefly summarize some of the differences I9 between the requirements contained in the standard review 20 plan -- let's address operation only -- which is standard 21 review plan 17.2?
Would you discuss the, or compare the
(
22 requirements of standard review plan 17.2 and the WASH 23 document addressing operation?
l 24 In other words, I'd like to get some feel for
' AcoJederal Reporters, Inc.
25 the differences in requirements or how they increase or 1
i i
22 I
I maintain the same or some of the specifics between these two 2
sets of requirements.
3 A
Well, the standard review plan requires a commitmentj
([')
I i
4 to follow the WASH documents, so the WASH document is like a i
t 5;
subset to the standard review plan.
l l
6l Q
Did I understand that Unit 2 QA program was back-i 7'
fitted to the WASH documents!
8 A
No, it wasn't backfitted.
See, we were still in 9
the review process of TMI 2, so we had the opportunity to l
10 update them to the WASH documents.
f II O
For Unit 2?
12 A
Yes.
)
13 Q
So some of the requirements set forth in the WASH 14 documents were imposed on Unit 27 15 A
Right.
16 Q
Okay.
17 BY.MR. PARLER:
18 Q
That's just for operational purposes?
19 A
For operational phase only.
20 BY MR. LANNING:
21 Q
And now when you upgraded Unit 1 QA program,
' ',Q
(_/
22 why wasn't it done to the standard review plan?
You may have 23 already answered that.
l 24 A
When we got to the TMI QA program for TMI 1, we l Ace Feded Reporters, Inc.
25 thought it was adequate with the exception of the WASH t
23 1
documents.
If we got a commitment to those WASH documents, i
2 we felt that that was sufficient.
l 3
0 Were there other requirements in the standard k_)
I 4
review plan in excess or beyond what's in WASH documents?
5 A
Yes.
6 Q
For example?
l 7
BY MR. PARLER:
8 Q
Some of the major ones that occur to you.
You 4
9 don't necessarily have to cover all of them.
10 A
Well, there's one calibration, we asked for II calibration accuracy of 1 to 4 in our standard review plan, 12 and the WASH documents are silent in that area.
()
13 In regards to the organizational arrangements, we 14 we have certain requirements on organization which are not 15 in the WASH document.
16 0
Are you just talking about organization for quality 17 assurance purposes?
18 A
For QA right, quality assurance purposes.
19 BY MR. LANNING:
-20 Q
And calibration with respect to what?
21 A
Calibration and measuring of test equipment.
l 22 Q
Do you recall any others?
23 A
No, not offhand.
24 q
Portaining to the review of the organization for
, Ace reneo namn. Inc.
25 quality assurance, did you recall if Metropolitan Edison i
24 I
l 1
required all contractors to perform quality assurance 2
functions?
i 3
A Well, to a certain extent, if you're talking I
4l about the operation phase, to a certain extent, yes.
But i
5I the majority of the QA functions were performed by the Met Ed 6l
- people, i
I 7
Q Is it normal practice for licensees to engage 8
services of contractors to perform QA functions?
9 A
Yes, especially in the area of nondestructive 10 testing.
II Q
Are there other areas in which he solicits expertise?
12 l A
Auditing.
Auditing.
13 Q
The independent auditing of the QA program?
Id A
Uh-huh.
15 Q
Do you recall to what extent Metropolitan Edison I6 relied on GPU for OA support?
I7 MR. PARLER:
Are you talking about now during I8 the construction stage?
I9 BY MR. LANNING:
20 Q
During the operation.
21 A
I don't think they relied on them very much in b) 22 regards to the QA functions during the operatior. phase.
It s
23 was mainly done by Met Ed.
24 Q
And so all the QA organization was within the Ace-Federd Reporters, tric.
25 Metropolitan Edison Company?
I a
25 1
A Correct.
2 Q
So you really had no reason to review the quality 3
assurance programs of GPU?
4 A
No.
5 0
Does the quality assurance branch review the 6
proposed preoperational and start-up tests?
f l
7 A
The quality assurance branch does.
It's done 8l under a different group.
9 Q
The last one in your group?
I 10 A
Right.
11 Q
You're not responsible for that review?
12 A
Preoperational start-up and test is not under my --
r8 t,)
13 it's under another group in the GA branch.
We address to a 14 certain extent the very limited in regards to quality 15 assurance of that activity.
16 To expand on that, you have an ANSI standard 18'.'7, 17 vintage 1972, which we get a commitment, which TMI 2 has 18 committed to, and there, there is a section on preop start-up 19 and test which the GA program applies to that, but we don't 20 ask or review a separate OA program for that.
21 Q
Therefore, a reviewer would not necessarily p)
(_
22 review the entire GA program as submitted by licensee?
23 For example, evidently the test programs and 24 preoperational test programs are done by people in another Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 section, whereas evidently you must review organization I
26 i
requirements, et cetera.
l 21 A
Well, the other section looks at preop start-up and I
i I
3l test, the types of test and such.
That other group does not j
(
look at the QA program that governs that.
In our area, 4
5!
that is in my group, we do not have a special QA program for i
i preop start-up and test.
We just get a normal or a general 6l l
5 commitment that the existing QA program that we look at 7
will cover pre-op start-up and test.
8 We look at the programmatic aspects, and see we've
}
I; 9
10 i got an organization and such that looks over pre-op start-up I
11 tests.
12 Q
So you're really not in the position to make
()
13 comment upon how the review of the pre-operational tests are conducted, or which ones need to be completed by any certain 14 15 period of time?
16 A
No, that's right.
17 Q
Did the same reviewer review both units of TMI --
Three Mile Island units?
18 19 A
No.
20 0
There were different reviewers for Unit 1 and Unit 2?
21 A
Right.
No different reviewers for TMI 2.
It started off under a review by Sam Gummins back in 1974.
He
()
22 23 left, and then I reviewed it for a while, and then I turned 24 it over to Bill Belke back in 1976.
l AMederd Reporters, Inc.
25 0
Now which of those people reviewed Unit l?
-l 1
27 1
A I'm not sure.
I don't know if anyone did.
2 Q
None of those that you mentioned reviewed Unit l?
l
\\
3 A
I don't think s' 4
BY MR.PARLER.
5 Q
You mean you are not sure whether either of those 6,
gentlemen reviewed TMI 2;the way that you stated the response i
7 perhaps inadvertently was that maybe no one reviewed TMI 1 8l f or QA.
9l A
That's right.
I don't know the vintage of that, i
f i
10 l when they got the l 'mense.
'67?
i l
l 11 Q
I can help you a little bit.
The TMI 1 application 12 was docketed on May the 3rd, 1967.
This construction permit
-()
13 for TMI 1 was issued on May the 18th, 1968.
The FSAR 14 docket for TMI 1 was filed on March the 2nd, 1970, and the 15 operating license for TMI 1 was issued on June the 24th, 1974.
16 I don't know whether that helps any.
17 A
Well, I'm confident that the people that looked at 18 TMI 2 QA program for operations did noc look at the TMI 1.
19 BY MR. LANNING:
20 Q
Has there ever been a comparison made between 21 the approved QA program of Unit 2 to what is presently required fh i/
22 by the standard review plan?
s 23 A
Yes.
24 Q
Is that documented some place?
Am Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 A
In rough notes it is.
'l I
i 28 1;
O Have you completed such a review?
i 2j A
No.
Belke did, after we wrote the SAR in 1975, 3
they submitted an amendment to the QA program.
At that time
)
I i
4l I turned it over to Bill Belke, and I said to look at it, to i
Sl appraise the standard review plan, identify the deltas, and 6,
let me look at it.
l 7
In that case we did, and I s tated that the QA 8
program as docketed was acceptable, and that there was no i
I 9l need to go back and update them to that later standard review i
10 plan.
Il f Q
Does that mean it met requirements of the standard 12 review plan of 17.2?
()
13 A
In 1975, no, it didn't.
14 BY MR. PARLER:
l 15 Q
Well, when you found that it uas acceptable, what 16 did that mean?
17 A
That the criteria that we used back in 1975, the 18 criteria,that we used back in '75 was the basis for finding 19 thp. program acceptable.
20 Q
I mean what were those criteria?
Is this regulatory!
21 guide that we were talking about a half an hour or so ago?
()
22 Or scme other criteria?
l 23 A
No, it was a guidance document, a draft guidance l.
l 24 document.
i Ace-Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 0
A draf t safety guide?
I
i 29 i
I A
It's like a draft safety standard review plan.
I 2
Q Is one of those documents around anywhere now?
t i
3 A
Yes.
Right.
(~)
l
\\#
4 But the review back in those days was done based j
5 on the experience of the reviewer and his judgment.
6 BY MR. LANNING:
7 0
I want to go back to comparing the standard review 8
plan against the requirements of the program which is approved 9
for Unit 2.
Why was such a comparison completed?
10 A
I wanted to get an apareciation of the differences.
11 We've done this on other plants also.
And what we did, l
12 l through the persistence of Bill Belke, is went back to the
()
13 utility to try to encourage him to update that QA program to 14 our present standard review plan.
There was no regulatory 15 requirement to do such.
We went back and tried to encourage 16 him to do such, and he chose not to.
17 BY MR. PARLER:
18 Q
How did you encourage him to do such?
Is that 19 written?
i 20 A
No, through telephone conversations and meetings 21 with I&E, and the utility.
()
22 O
Do you have any documentation in that regard, 23 notes, or what?
24 A
Rough notes, yes.
Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 O
Do you recall the areas in which you or the NRC, 1
)
I
.1
t 30 l
1 your branch, urged the licensee to -- that is Metropolitan 2
Edison, to upgrade its quality assurance program?
I i
3' A
Yeah, we had specific items which we identified.
(~/
T
(_
4 O
Do you recall them now, so that you could, after I
5 refreshing your recollection in your notes, provide them for j
l 6l the purposes of this record?
7 A
Yes.
8 (Discussion off the record.]
9 BY MRt. PARLER:
l 10 Q
Back on the record.
II
'Al*right, you found the areas in which the staf f 12 urged Metropolitan Edison to upgrade its quality assurance
()
program.
Would you review some of those, please, sir, and 13 Id comment on them.
15 A
Yes.
16 To begin with, the items that we asked them to, 17 or tried to encourage them to update to, I felt not significant 18 enough to merit a change in the QA program.
But here were 19 some of the items --
20 BY MR. LANNING:
21 Q
Excuse me a minute.
When you say not significant
,()
22 enough to merit a change, evidently you thought they were 23 significant enough by requesting them to upgrade their QA 24 program.
Am FWwd Reor ers lm.
A Well, were not significant enough to require them 25 ii
31 l
I to update the QA program, but were of a nature that we thought 2
it was f ruitful to encourage them to update it.
f i
I 3
BY MR. PARLER:
7s
\\
%./
4 0
Well, the boundary between fruitful enough to i
5; encourage and not significant enough to require is one that i
6!
I gather is not clear, not only in the quality assurance j
7 area, but in a lot of other areas.
Would you care to comment 8
before you proceed with some of the list on what or where in 9
your judgment the dividing lines are in the quality assurance 10 area, but between things which are important enough to II encourage an applicant to comply with, but not important 12 enough from the safety standpoint to require an applicant 13 or a licensee to comply with?
Id A
Uh-huh.
Well, in our standard review plan, we 15 have specific line items that we get a commitment to.
Some 16 of those line items are contained in ANSI standards and I7 reg guides which we get a commitment to.
But the reason why 18 we had those line items expressed in the standard review I9 plan was to emphasize the importance and to get a greater 20 confidence that the utility recognized those particular line 21 items.
f';
22 So I felt that as long as those line items were y
23 expressed somewhere in ANSI standards or reg guides, it 24 wasn't necessary to require them to express it in the QA i Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
l 25 program by line items.
I
32 j
j Q
Well, I'm getting kind of confused here now as to P
i 2 l what you mean by line items, especially in the context that 3
if something is a line item, either in the standard review i
plan or regulatory guide or an ANSI document which is relevant 4
5 for quality assurance p'rposes, that if any of those things I
are present then there is no need to worry about or be 6
i concerned about from the regulatory standpoint of imposing I
7 regulatory requirements on the licensee.
8 9
Is my understanding of what you said correct?
10 A
I'm not sure.
Would you repeat that again, sir?
l I
11 MR. PARLER:
Let's go off the record.
12
[ Discussion off the record.]
13 MR. PARLER:
Go back on the record.
14
[ Discussion off the record.]
15 MR. PARLER:
Back on the record.
16 BY MR. PARLER:
17 Q
I don't understand what you mean by lead items.
18 That's my first question.
19 A
By line items?
20 Q
Line items.
21 A
Okay.
In the standard review plan, they'll have line items such as'the following:
procurement, documents, 22 23 identify those records to be retained, controlled and 24 maintained by the supplier and as delivered to the purchaser
- Ace Feder:J Reporters. Inc.
25 Prior to user installation of the hardware.
i
^
33 l
1 O
All right.
That's what you mean by a line item.
2 Now my next question is whether if something is a 3
line item you are apparently most concerned about having 4
something which is a line item imposed directly as a require-t 5
ment on a licensee.
6l Is my understanding correct?
I 7
A Correct.
I 8
Q Why is that?
What is there that is unique about a 9,
line item so that in your judgment there is less concern I
10 about a need to impose the subject matter of that line item II on a licensee as a requirement?
12 A
That particular line item is expressed in an ANSI
(^)s.
13 standard which they commit to.
s_
14 Q
Well, there is a difference, is there not?
15 Well, is there a dif ference in your judgment 16 between a commitment and a requirement?
17 I realize that that question may have legal 18 implications to which I'm not asking yourself to address, 19 but there is no difference from your standpoint in a commit-20 nent and a regulatory requirement that is imposed on a 21
_scensee?
22 A
Well, when you say regulatory requirement, the 23 standard review plan in itself is not a regulatory requirement, t
24 and the line items that are contained therein are not l Am-Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 regulatory requirements.
i J
34 I
j Q
I understand that, sir.
That's why I'm trying 2
to pursue these questions to try to understand where --
l 3
where my understanding of what you have said earlier, where
/^'s i
(-)
it leads to.
i 4
i 5
A Well, the line items that I was talking about l
t are requirements or criteria that are existing in the 6
i standard review plan.
1; these particular items are not 7
addressed, and if I can provide rationale that they do, or 8
evidence that they do exist in the standard review plans --
9 not in standard review plans, but in an ANSI standard, then 10 11 I can make a judgment to say, hey, there's no sense of going back and upgrading this particular utility in this area, it's 12 13 already covered in an ANSI standard.
()
ja Q
Well, I assume from what you're saying that if 15 anything is covered in an ANSI standard, that in your evaluation 16 and your judgment, you are willing to conclude that that is 17 good enough, and there is no need to go any further from a 18 regulatory standpoint?
i 19 A
For the particular. application under review, TMI 2, that's correct.
20 21 Q
Why?
Why is that correct for the particular
()
22 application, TMI 2?
A Because our basis for exceptions back in 1974 and T.3 23 24
'75 were not structured to the standard review plan in 1975.
AeFWwd Rampm Inc 25 Our acceptance, basis of acceptance, ground rules for t
J
35 k
t I
acceptance was different.
t 2
Q What were those ground rules?
Maybe you've already i
3 covered what I'm asking, but it isn't clear to me.
\\'
4 A
The ground rules was based on the expertise and Si judgment.of the people reviewing that application.
I i
6!
O So what you're saying is that for a plant such as I
7!
TMI 2, which was not reviewed under the standard review 8
plan, that thereafter even until the present day, that it is
+
9 up to in the final analysis the reviewer's judgment as to 10 whether or not a particular item in the quality assurance 11 area is covered adequately.
Is that what you are saying?
l 12 A
I believe so.
()
13 MR. PARLER:
Go off the record.
14 (Discussion off the record.]
15 BY MR. LANNING:
16 Q
Back on the record.
17 Mr. Gilray, I'm trying to clarify the basis for 18 review and approval of TMI Unit 2.
It is my understanding 19 of what you said is that the quality assurance program for 20 Unit 2 is approved on the basis of the reviewer's expertise 21 and knowledge and experience of quality assurance programs,
()
22 and that it's based on his judgment alone, that approves 23 the QA program without any specific acceptance criteria, if 24 you will.
Is that correct?
Ace Federd Reporters, Inc.
.25 A
That's correct, with the additional clarification
36 i
I i
that I review it also, and there is a draft guidance 2
document that existed at that time that we used as guidance, I
3 like a check list.
()
4 Q
Do you have a copy of that with you?
Do you have 5
a copy of that?
f 6!
A Yes.
l l
7' Q
With you?
I 8
A Yes.
9 Q
Could you provide us with it, so we could take a 10 look?
11 A
Yes.
l 12 Do you want that now?
()
13 0
Yes.
14
[ Handing document to counsel.]
15 MR. LANNING:
Mark as Exhibit 1083 a draft document 16 subject of which is " Guidance for Submittal of Quality 17 Assurance Program Description, Section 17 of PSAR," dated 18 October the 3rd, 1973.
19 (The document referred to was 20 marked Exhibit 1083 for 21 identification.]
()
22 BY MR. LANNING:
23 Q
Now it's my understanding, Mr. Gilray, that this,
-24 along with the knowledge -- or knowledge of the reviewer, Ace Feo.ee n.comes, inc.
25 was.:used to determine the acceptability of the Unit 2 QA i
i 37 l
l 1
program?
i 2
A Right.
l 3
0 Is that correct?
i 3
4l A
Right.
I 5l Q
Now this says for a Preliminary Safety Analysis i
6' Report.
Did you use the same document for Final Safety I
7 Analysis Report also?
8 A
Right.
9' Q
Now is it by coincidence that this documen) 10 happened to address the operational phases of the QA program?
II A
No, their controls, programmatic controls are 12 quite similar, cuite the same.
()
13 Q
But there would be nothing in here that would 14 address the operational procedures, such things as 15 manual surveillance testing?
16 A
No.
No.
That -- well, let me see that.
17 That's correct.
It does not address the 18 operational procedures as such.
19 Q
All right.
I want to ga on and clarify your 20 discussion abou+. a cc.nparison of the existing or approved 2I Unit 2 QA program to the standard review plan after
-,N Q
22
'74.
i l
l 23 A
Uh-huh.
1 24 0
Now you indicated'that you had done a comparison
- AceJederd Reporters, Inc.
25 between the existing program and the standard review plan I
i 38 i
1 which originated this handwritten list of items which you 2
had communicated to the licensee to upgrade his program.
t i
3; A
Right.
4 MR. LANNING:
We will mark this 10-page, handwritten.
i S
list of questions as Exhibit 1084.
j l
6,
[The document referred to was l,
7 marked Exhibit 1094 for 8
identification.]
3 9,
BY MR. LANNING:
O And as I understand it now, these were communicated 10 t
11 to the licensee informally?
They were never transmitted 12 officially with a cover letter, saying answer these questions
()
13 and provide additional information?
14 A
That's correct.
15 0
Okay.
And it's this list which essentially 1
16 documents the differences between what's required in 17 standard review plan 17.2 and what was approved as the 18 original QA program for Unit 2?
19 A
As determined by the reviewer.
20 Q
As determined by the reviewer.
21 Okay.
()
22 A
And some of these areas were resolved through 23 clarification and discussion with the utility.
24 O
And you have also indicated that you do not think Ace Federd Repo,1ers, loc.
25 that these additional clarifications or additional I
I 39 l
1 commitments were of enough substance to really require i
2l the change officially.
Is that --
i i
3I A
That's correct.
It is my firm belief that the l
4 existing QA program for TMI 2 that's contained in the docket 5
is one of the better QA programs we have for the operation 6
phase, including those that we're reviewing today.
i 7
I'll point out one area where I find it deficient, 8l but we have allowed this in the past, and that is the l
9l' calibration of the 1 to 4 accuracy.
We did not get that l
10 from TMI 2, and we have other utilities that did not commit II to that.
12 Q
Now these are calibration of instrumentation to O)
(_
13 calibrate operating equipment or calibrate torque wrenches Id or for what purposes?
15 A
They should be calibrated against an instrument 16 that is four times better than the instrument being calibrated.
17 This is where we kind of deviate in our review process.
18 Normally we stick to programmatic requirements.
Here a 19 specific like QC requirement, 4 to 1 requirement, and it's a 20 learning curve we're going through.
21 BY MR. PARLER:
<m.
(_).
22 O
You referred to programmatic requirements a couple i
23 of times this af ternoon.
Again in the interest of a clear
\\
24 understanding of what you're talking about, would you say for Ace Pederal Resorters, Inc.
25 the record what yJu mean by programmatic requirements in the i
.=
40 F
1 quality assurance area?
1 2
A Yeah.
Programmatic requirements are administrative l s
3 controls.
- hey are program controls in order to meet the 18 O
I d
4 criteria of Appendix B.
j i
5 They are not specific quality control controls, 6
which tells you what to inspect and how to inspect, and to 7
what accuracy.
8 MR. PARLER:
Let's take a recess, if you don't 9
mind.
l 10 THE WITNESS:
No.
II
( Rece s s. ]-
'nd AR 12 ud 41ws.
U
'a 14 4
15 16 17 la 19 j
i i
~
20 l
21
- O 22 23 24 Ase Pa w es meseriore,ine.
25 1
41 l
i rmg 1 1
BY MR. LANNING:
1 2
G I want to go back to Exhibit 1084.
Was a program j
3l for safety regulations included, do you recall?
()
a A
Let me see.
I 5
(Pause.)
l 6
Page 45 of the QA Program description of Section 17 I
7' has a summary of a partial list of safety instructions and l
8 components covered by the QA Program.
9 G
What criteria determine whether equipment or 10 systems are included on this list?
11 l A.
Well, to begin with, the Quality Assurance branch I
4 12 !
is not responsible for determining the acceptability of that 13 list.
We rely on DDS to evaluate that list and determine
(}
14 its acceptability.
15 G
You rely on whom?
16 A
The DDS organization -- that would be Division of 17 Systems Safety.
t 18 G
It's my understanding that this list which the 19 entire QA program applies, or not applies, as the case may be --
20 And it is also my understanding that it is this list in your 21 write of Sections ' 17.2 of the SER, which I believe the 22 Quality Assurance branch writes, in essence references the
()
23 Q list, and essentially approves it.
24 Is that correct?
! 4ee Peews Hoenen, Inc.
25 A
We don't approve the Q list.
We don't have the L
i 42 rmg 2 1
technical competence to do that.
That's a technical decision i
2[
by people outside of our branch.
Again, DDS has that j
t 3
expertise.
t')
l
(_/
4 MR. PARLER:
That's DSS you are talking about?
5, THE WITNESS:
Excuse me, DSS.
They have the i
6l expertise in determining how those systems function, the 1
l 7'
uniqueness of such, and they are the ones that should determine 8
the acceptability of that list.
9 BY MR. LANNING:
i 10 0
But does the Quality Assurance branch serve as a 11 focal point for approving the Q list, or how is it done?
12 A
Todays way of doing business, we are the focal
(~')
13 point.
We make sure now that the people in DSS review this, V
14 make sure that they evaluate it according, against certain 15 criteria.
16 G
How do you ensure that?
17 A
Today we write, we write a letter to the project 18 manager.
Well, let's see, that letter is signed off by the 19 project manager and also by the QA branch chief, Walter Haas, 20 going to the principal reviewers.
21 And 'the request is that they review that Q list to determine (a~ t 22 its adequacy.
.23 0
You said today, the word today a couple of times.
24 In comparison to -- when was yesterday?
m nesenm,inc.
25 MR. PARLER:
When was the present way of doing
43 i
l rmg 3 1
business implemented?
After March 28, 1979?
I 2:
THE WITNESS:
I'm not sure.
Some time this year.
i I
i 3i BY 2m. LANNING:
I
(' '
\\
\\
4 G
Do you know the mechanism, or how this list was f
5l approved in the past?
I i
6l A
No.
i 7
G Was there ever any documentation that stated the l
reviewers within DSS were making that determination and not 9
9 the Quality Assurance branch?
10 A
No.
11 G
Do you think it was adequately -- do you think it 12 was reviewed at all?
13 A
I don't know.
()
14 BY MR. PARLER:
15 G
Well, where did the list originate from under the 16 prior approach?
From DSS -- the Q list?
17 A
The list originated by the utility --
18 G
I see.
.19 A
-- in the form of this table that's a QA program 20 description, and also was contained in Section 3.2 of the 21 application.
[D 22 BY MR. LANNING:
\\J 23 G
Okay.
Are the QA program requirements so broad 4
24 that they can apply uniformly to all systems in the reactor Ace FederIA Reporters, tric.
25 power plant without looking at the specific applications of 1
P 44
+
rmg 4 1
the QA program requirements?
I 2
A No.
You would have to look at the specific 3
applications.
,)
(-
4 G
Well, how do you do that?
If you don't approve f
I 5
the Q list, but yet you approve the quality assurance programs, 6
how do you know that what you are approving in the way of l
7 quality assurance requirements are applicable for the systems I
8 that appear on the Q list?
9 A
I don't.
We rely on DSS to determine the 10 adequacy of that Q list.
11 G
But what I am getting at is, is the applicability 12 of the QA requirements to the systems identified on the list.
13 A
Are you asking for criteria which DSS uses to
(~)
14 determine is an item is Q listed or not?
15 A
No, I am looking for criteria for determining how 16 the Quality Assurance branch determines if the QA programmatic 17 requirements are appropriate for those systems.
18 A
We don't look at it.
f 19 BY MR. PARLER:
20 G
Well, then should one conclude that, from the QA 21 Program standpoint, that the, an understanding of and 22 familiarity with the technical areas that are involved are
(")T -
23 irrelevant?
24 A
No, not irrelevant.
. Ace-Federd Reporters, Inc.
-25 G
Well, I believe that's what you are trying to get to.
I
45 rmg 5 i
Isn' t that ri. :c, Wayne?
2 BY MR. LANNING:
i 3
G I fail to understand how you can approve the
\\
t-I
(-
4'
' quality assurance program without applying it to specific 5
systems or equipment or procedures related to the operations 6
of those equipment systems.
1 A
We have a Q list.
The QA program applies to that 7
Q list.
8 9i G
Uniformly?
10 A
Right.
11 G
Okay.
12 A
Wait.
You say uniformly -- to the extent commensurate
(~N g
with the importance of that item or activity.
%-]
14 G
What do you mean?
15 A.
Well, the Q list applies to a Q list item, like a 16 pressure vessel.
17 G
A Q list is a safety related item, as I understand 18 it.
19 A
Right.
Now, the extent to which that QA program 20 applies to that pressure vessel, some items will, some items 21 will not apply to that pressure vessel.
22 G
How do you determine the applicability --
()
23 A
That's -- we don't get into that.
It'is up to the 24 utility to determine how and to what extent the QA program
- AcoJederal Reporters, Inc, 25 applies to that safety related item.
1 l
)
J
i 46 i
i rmg.6 1
Q.
In other words, you don't review any of the l
l 2
implementing procedures associated with the QA program, or do i
3 you review what criteria contained in Appendix B are applied
(~1 4
toward that particular component or system?
i
???
5 A
No.
See, that's getting into the QC ampither 6l G
There are separate reviewers for the quality I
7' control?
8 A
No.
We just don't get into it.
We leave that up 9
to the utility to determine the extent of which they apply 1
10 Appendix B to a safety related item.
You get down to a i
11 l pressure vessel, the extent of which you provide source 12 inspection on your material supplier, the extent to which
(])
13 you dimensionally inspect your fabrication process.
14 In regards to your nondestructive testing, that's covered 15 better because of the ASME code, where you have requirements 16 for nondestructive testing and such.,
17 But for specific applications of Appendix B and the extent 18 to which that applies to specific safety related items, it is 19 indeed left up to the applicant.
20 0
I'm left with the impression that during a review, 21 all you are looking for is a regurgitation of the criteria l [)
obtained in Appendix B wit'out really going into determining h
22
\\
23 how the QA program is implemented.
24 A
There is a certain amount of regurgitation, but it
! Aa Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 goes further than that.
We get a certain amount of how that
47 rmg 7 1
QA program is going to apply, that is, the Appendix B.
A lot 2
of those hows are contained in the ANSI standards in the reg 3
guide.
/~T
- (_/
4 BY MR. PARLER:
5 G
Is that so we handle that how generically by relying 6
on the reg guides and the ANSI standards, or what?
i i
7 A
Yes, coupled with the standard review plan, the 8
criteria for the standard review plan.
9 0
Well, what -- if an applicant asserts in so many i
10 words that it will comply with the quality assurance principles 11 in Appendix B to Part 50, and it further asserts that it will 12 comply with the applicable regulatory guides and the ANSI
(~T 13 requirements -- is that pretty much the end of the NRC's LJ 14 regulatory review of quality assurance?
15 A
You are about 85 percent or 95 percent normal.
16 4
Well, what's the rest of it?
17 A.
That's the other items that are in the standard 18 review plan.
19 BY MR. LANNING:
i 20 0
In other words, commitments to regulatory guides 21 and industry standards?
(~')
22 A
No, he's already covered them.
No, it is those
~23 other items.-
You take your organizational arrangement, we i
24 look'into that, to be sure there is proper independence, Am.Feo.res n. porters, inc.
25 authority and such, and there is enough qualifications and p
i 48 rmg 8 1
assignment of responsibilities to the QA staff.
j BY MR. PARLER:
2; 3
G What about prior performance?
Either during the i
,e ~
\\>
4
. construction phase of a nuclear power plant, or during the l
S.
operational phase of a nuclear power plant, or both?
Is that l
1 6
taken into consideration in the quality assurance review?
7 A
Yes.
8 G
How?
9 A
To the extent that we look at inspection reports 10 that have been issued on that plant or sister plants.
We also 11 interface with I&E.
We call them up on the phone and say, 12 how is this utility responding to QA?
Do they appear that they 13 really have the technical qualifications and are implementing
(}
14 the QA program as it should be?
So we get feedback in that 15 area.
16 G
Are there any instances that you can recall where 17 the quality of past performance made a difference in the 18 quality assurance review, one way or the other?
19 A
Yes, to a certain degree, we have interfaced with 20 the utility and said, because of this and this and this in the
-21
.past, we have some reservations with regard to your ability
(~~j) 22 to perform.
23 G
Anything like that involved in the review of TMI II, 24
-that is, any past performance with regard to TMI I or other
. Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
???
25 nuclear power plants that GPU services was involved in -- did i
o
49 rmg 9 1
prior performance enter into the staff's review of TMI II?
2 A
No.
We contacted I&E several times on TMI II --
1 3l 1
G Was this -- go ahead.
(n_)
4 A.
They have expressed some problems with the design i
1 5
and construction of the quality assurance program, but they said i
6, that this is not abnormal.
And it wasn't significant enough 7'
to require us to get the utility to upgrade their QA program.
8 G
The design and construction program where?
9 A
TMI II.
10 G
And you were called by who?
11 A
We called the I&E inspectors.
12 BY MR. LANNING:
13 G
And what was the purpose of calling these inspectors,
(}
14 the subject matter?
15 A
To get an appreciation of the quality assurance 16 program for design and construction of their ability to imple-17 ment that QA program.
18 G
And they were in a position to do that evaluation 19 because --
20 A
Yes, they are on a routine inspection for TMI II, 21 design and construction phase.
(~)-
22 G
Why did you contact them concerning Unit II?
Any x_
23 specific reasons?
24 A
It was a question of -- as I stated earlier, Ace Feder:,1 Reporters, Inc.
25 we look at past performance of utilities to get some confidence
50
.rmg 10 1
in yes, indeed, they have demonstrated acceptable QA performance.
i So that's what we do.
2 3
J So it was an information gathering-type telephone
' (;
N' 4
call.
4 l
5 A
Yes.
And again, we look at I&E' inspection reports. i i
i G
Did you ever visit the site?
6 7
A Yes.
8 G
During construction?
9 A
We had a meeting there once back in '76 to discuss 10 these issues of areas that we were trying to encourage the 11 utilities to update.
12 G
And once they were licensed, did;you visit the
(~)
13 site any time subsequent to that?
v 14 A
After the TMI incident, I spent a couple of weeks 15 up there on the modification end of it.
16 BY MR. PARLER:
17 G
How about during the preoperational test phase for 18 TMI II, were you or any representative of the Quality Assurance 19 branch at the site along with the Inspection and Enforcement l
20 peoP e?
21 A
No.
/~
22 O
Normally, that is not done, or --
. (>T -
23 A
It is not done.
24 G
So during the preoperational testing phase the NhC Ace Fw.cs secon.n, inc.
,25 relies for its observations and evaluations, et cetera, I
51 rmg 11 1
primarily, if'not exclusively, on the inspectors from its 2
regional offices; is that your understanding?
3 A
Yes.
/m 4
G If one were'to have a check of the fruits, the I
i 5
benefits of a quality assurance program, at least the l
I 6
operational quality assurance program, when would be a very 7
good time to start looking hard for the benefits of such a 8
program?
9 Is my question clear to you, sir?
10 A
Yes.
If the operational organization is. involved 11 during the preop startup and test phase, that would be an 4
12 excellent time.
()
13 BY MR. LANNING:
14 0
I want to go back to the Q list for a second.
15 Once a -- when a system is identified on a Q list, does 16 this, do you have an understanding as to the range to which 17
~the QA list is applied?
4 18 For example, if you identify the reactor coolant system 19 as being on the Q list.
Now, does that also include all 20 equipment or hardware attached to the reactor coolant system 21 as being safety related?
)
22 A
I would think not.
23 4
Is there any criteria for distinguishing the 24 interface between what is safety and what is nonsafety?
Ace Federd Reporte,s, Inc.
r 25 A
Only the criteria that is expressed in Appendix B l
l i
52 rmg 12 1
coupled.with Appendix A coupled with Reg Guide 1.29 and 1.26.
I 2
G Ilow does Appendix B distinguish between safety i
I 3
grade and nonsafety grade equipment?
I\\>
4 A
By the definition of Appendix B.
That is --
I I
5 BY tiR. PARLER:
i6' G
You are' talking about Appendix A and Appendix B 7
to 10 C.F.R.,
Part 50, for purposes of record; isn't that 8
right, sir?
9 A~
Right.
10 (Pause.)
11 Okay, it's those -- Appendix B states it's those structures, l
12 !
systems, and components that prevent or mitigate the con-(~)
13 sequences of postulated accidents that could cause undue risk
%j 14 to the health and safety of the public.
15 That's Appendix B.
16 BY MR. LANNING:
17 0
What is that a definition of?
.18 A
Excuse me?
19 G
What is that a definition of?
20 A
Whatever the Appendix B applies to.
7 i
21 BY'MR..PARLER:
f')
22 G
What you just read,.what is that a definition of, xj 23 is I think the question he asked.
24 A
I thought it was of what is safety related.
Let Ace Pederd Reporters, Inc.
25 me go through it again, i
53 8
cmg 13 1
(Pause.1 2
BY MR. LANNING:
I 3:
O It is my understanding, and it has been the testimony
)
of other NRC employees, that there does not exist a definition 4
i 1
5 of safety related, safety grade, or important to safety j
6?
equipment.
7 A
Well, to begin with, there is confusion.
There g
is no doubt it, within the agency and what is safety related, 9
what is important to safety, and what Appendix B applies to.
l l
10 '
There has been a history of this confusion, and the basis --
11 A good share, let's say 85 percent of 95 percent of the i
12 criteria lies within Reg Guide 1.29 stating what Appendix B
(~T 13 applies to.
And -- do you want me to go through it?
s._)
14 0
Well, in essence it just says all that equipment 15 which is seismic, Category I equipment, shall be, meets the 16 requirements of Appendix B, doesn't it?
17 A
It's more than that.
18 G
I guess the point is, it is not totally inclusive.
19 There are a number of safety equipment which do not meet 20 Reg Guide 1,29 21 A
There are items that are safety related that do
/~')
22 not-fall under Reg Guide 1.20; that is correct.
V 23 g
There are equipment that mitigate transients and 24 accidents that don' t fall in Reg Guide 1.29.
, Ace Federij Reporters, Inc.
25 A
.That's correct.
l
t 54 i
rmg 14 1
BY 18. PARLER:
i 2
g What kind of equipment?
Safety or nonsafety related 3
equipment or both?
That's your answer, too?
/"T l
4 A
That's correct.
I i
5 BY MR. LANNING:
l 6
G Do all the applications in general, includeaQlistf I
7 that you review?
8 A
-Well, I don't review them.
And the answer to that 9
question is yes, that you get it in Section 3.2 of the 10 application.
11 G
Are you familiar with whether or not the number of 12 systems or equipment contained on that list can be changed by
()
13 that applicant?
14 A
Sure.
15 G
Does he have to get NRC approval?
16
-A No.
17 g
So there is nothing really to prohibit an applicant 18 to reducing his QA program in his application to minimal.
19 A
Correct.
20 g
Is'that correct?
21 A
Correct.
Other than those boundaries that are
()
22 contained in 50,5R; you know.
23 BY MR. PARLER:
24 G
You mean, unless there is an unreviewed safety Ace 4ederd Reporters, Inc.
25 question; those are the boundaries you are talking about?
i l
55 l
i
- rmg 15-1 A
Yes.
2 Q
Has there been any experience that you are aware of 3
and that your office has been involved in where a change in the C^)
4 quality assurance area, such as a change to a Q list, has been j 5
submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as an unreviewed 6
safety question under Section 54.59?
7 A
I am not aware of any.
8 G
I am left with the impression that as far as the 9
depth of regulatory involvement of the NRC in the quality 10 '
assurance area is concerned, the regulatory involvement might 11 not be too deep; is that what you are saying, in effect?
4 12 A
That's centered around the Q list?
13 G
It's centered around the Q list, coupled with the I4 earlier testimony, at least as I understood it, that if an 15 applicant or a licensee submits information which says that 16 the applicant is going to comply with the principles in the 17 Appendix B to the Part 50, and will comply with the regulatory 18 guides and will comply with the ANSI, that is, ANSI requirements, 19 then that's it.
20 How the applicant or the licensee goes about complying is 21 a detail that the rugulatory agency does not get into.
So it
~
'G
\\_/
22 Lis the'two things that leave me with the impression that i
23 although our QA involvement may not on the one hand be 24 superficial, on the other hand it is not a very deep and Am Federet Reporters, Inc.
25 probing involvement.
i l
56 l
l i
?rmg 16 1
Do you have any comment on what I just said?
2 A.
That assessment, I would say, is correct.
3 Recognizing that when you state we get a commitment to the
{
(')
4 ANSI standards, regulatory guides, and you get -- 85 percent ofli 5
is there.
But there is that 15 percent that we use the 6l
' standard review plan to get a better, greater expression of l
7' how they are going to implement that QA program.
8 But again, these are programmatic controls.
We do not 9
get down into the quality control aspects of it.
10 g
So we are relying very largely on the licensee's 11 commitment to quality assurance.
And I suppose one might say 12 there is nothing wrong with that.
D) 13
.But on the other hand, what leverage do we have as a
(_
14 regulatory agency to impose requirements?
That isn't entirely 15 clear to me.
16 A
Those additional items that are in the standard 17 review plan, that we asked for?
18 g
Well, no, not necessarily.
I suppose if a Q list 19 is changed, for example, and an applicant decides there is no 20 unreviewed safety question, a question that I would have, in 21 practical terms is that the end of it, as far as the Nuclear
( ).
22 Regulatory Commission is concerned?
-23 A
Well, the checks and balances there when I&E goes 24
.n and inspects.
They inspect, they are supposed to inspect Ace Federd Reporters, Inc.
???
25 to the docketed QA program description.
If they change that, 1
57 i
rmg 17 1
then the I&E discusses it with the utility and writes them up 2
if there is an infraction or such.
3' But that's the checks and balances.
They can change the
('
h
'~
4 QA program, change the Q list, and it is done a lot.
i 5
G In your experience, in your branch, and to the 6,
best of your recollection, are you aware of any instances j
[
7 in which our inspectors have found departures from an approved ;
8 quality assurance program which are significant?
A Yes.
But not of a nature that is reportable under 9j 10 50.59.
11 BY MR, LANNING:
12 G
In other'words, a change, a reduction in the list,
()
13 the Q list, doesn't constitute a change that is required under 14 5Q.50?
15 A
I don't know for sure.
That's somebody in another 16 area that would have to answer that; I'm not that expert to 17 determine, 18 G
WslIT..d6'YoG7 personally think that the QA program 19 review should be expanded to encompass implementation of the 20 QC as it has been referred?
21 A
Are you asking my personal opinion?
()
22 Yes, your personal opinion.
23 A
.Yes.
24 4
Do you feel that it would be necessary to review Ace-Federsi Reporters, Inc.
25 the implementing procedures to assure an effective quality i
58 rmg 18 1
assurance program?
2 A
My personal feeling is yes.
Keep in mind that there i
3 are dangers involved there, because when you get that into the 4
docket and you require that they submit any changes to that, 5
you are going to up the paperwork considerably.
l 6
What we have done in the past, we have looked in the 7
licensing area here.
We have looked at the programmatic aspects of the program and found that -- once we find it acceptable, 8
9 that the utility, the principal contractors generate a volume i
10 a heavy volume of detailed inform.stion; that is normally looked' 11 at by I&E inspectors.
12 And that is a judgment factor on their part as to whether j3 that is acceptable or not.
(}
A ja G
It is my understanding that I&E would only review 15 that document to ascertain the existence of certain procedures, 16 not necessarily to review their procedures to determine whether 17 or not they are adequate for the purpose of accomplishing or 18 meeting the requirements to some criteria in Appendix B.
19 A
I don't know.
I would hope that they would look at l
20 it to determine the adequacy of the procedures.
i 21 BY MR. PARLER:
()
22 Q
But that would be done by an inspector who has skills 23 in the quality assurance area?
24 A
Yes.
Ace Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 g
As far as you are aware, are there such inspectors
I i
59
(
rmg 19 1
in each of the regional offices, or do you know?
I 2
A I'm not aware of any.
I imagine -- let's see, I l
3 know for a fact they are in Region I and Region II.
("A t
t 4
G Are you generally familiar with the Commission's j
l 5
defense in depth regulatory philosophy?
i l
6' A
Yes.
7' G
Does quality assurance play a role in that philo-8 sophy as it has been stated by the Commission and their 9
representatives over the years?
10 A
Yes.
11 G
In your opinion.and personal judgment, is what the 12 Commission actually does in the quality assurance area,
()
13 commensurate with the importance that area has as a part of 14 the defense in depth philosophy?
In other words,iis quality 15 assurance given the attention and the consideration that it
'16 deserves since it has been advertised, I believe, as an 17 important factor in the defense in depth philosophy?
18 A
From a personal standpoint, I think not.
- However, 19 there is management and personnel higher and above me that 20 has infinite and more wisdom than I do.
21 g
We are just asking you from your own personal rn
(,)
22 experience, background, and perspective.
23 A
No, it doesn't.
And the reason why, just take a 24 look at the organization, where QA fits in the organization.
Ace. Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 It is at a very low level.
It does not sit high up in there I
t
60 rmg 20 I
where we get adequate attention.
I 2l And this safety Q list is an example where we have had a lot 3l i
of pains in the past in getting adequate attention in that i
j 4
area.
I 5
BY MR. LANNING:
6 G
What factor does the QA program contribute to the i
7 defense in depth concept?
8 A
Well, it sets forth the administrative and program-9 matic controls which gives a disciplined approach to your 10 'l design, construction, and operation phase.
You set up an 4
11 !
independent QA organization, you have independent review and 12 assessment of documents and inspection, verification of
()
13 activities, and audits and things of this nature which give 14 you greater confidence that the quality is indeed there.
15 G
Well, you don't -- do you review the administrative 16 procedures at all?
17 A
No, 18 BY MR. PARLER:
19 G
To the best of your knowledge, has the Quality 20 Assurance branch received, say, since January '75 any policy 21 directions or guides from the Commission regarding the
(_%
! )
22 performance of the NRC in the quality assurance area?
23 A
Specific guides on how we do our-business?
24 G
No, not necessarily that, but specific guidance on
- Ace-Feder:A Reporters, Inc.
25 the need for, say, more attention to be focused on the importance i
T 61 rmg 21' I
of the quality assurance program and to -- for example, to try i
2f to instill in utilities, especially those that are new in the
~
f i
3 commercial nuclear power business, the importance of quality I
4 assurance and quality control?
That's just an example.
~
i 5
Or has there been any policy directions from the Commission i i
6, that relate to the performance of the regulatory function in l
i 7'
the quality assurance' area to any degree, as far as you are aware?
8 A
I am not aware of any.
i 9
G How about are you aware of any general briefings i
10 '
by the staff of the Commission regarding the role that the Il regulatory staff plays in the quality assurance area?
12 A
No, I'm not aware of any.
(O 13 G
Are vo" aware, again, to the extent of your
_)
Id involvement, of any exchanges between the staff of the 15 Commission and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 16 which specifically deal with the subject of quality assurance?
17 I realize that there may be a letter on an individual 18 application in which quality assurance may be mentioned, but 19 I am talking abant exchanges with the Advisory Committee on 20 Reactor Safeguards which for the most part focus on quality 21 assurance?
22 A
No, I'm not aware of any, other than during the 23 Browns Ferry incident there was several tasks generated where 24 they, those tasks expressed QA philosophies in the way of doing Am FWwW Reorurs, lM.
1 25 business with the ACRS.
1 1
62 I
l rmg 22 1
BY MR. LANNING:
2 Q.
Besides the location of the Quality Assurance t
3 branch in the management structure, are there other reasons yout
(
4 feel that the quality assurance has not received the attention !
5 it merits?
6 (Pause.)
7 A
Ask that again, would you, please?
8 G
You have previously indicated that you felt that I
9 because of where the Quality Assurance branch was placed in l
I l
10 the organizational structure within the NRC, it was not 11 receiving the attention placed on quality assurance programs 12 that they should.
()
13 Besides the management and the location of the organization, 14 are there other reasons why the quality assurance requirements 15 have not received more prominent attention?
16 A
Well, keep in mind this is just my personal beliefs 17 as a quality engineer.
18 G
That is what all of this is, just for the record.
19 So that that will be absolutely clear.
That is understood.
20 A
Yes.
It looks at the big picture, and I'm just 21 a little key down here.
()
22 One, I have been brought up in QA in the classical quality 23 sense, that is to say, that you establish a QA organization 24
.that is responsible for all quality assurance and quality Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 control.
I
63 l
rmg 23 1
Now, this is in the area of like a utility or aerospace 2
industrier, nuclear Navy.
l 3
These concepts are not followed within NRC.
We allow the i
4 flexibility of utilities to create a QA organization whereby i
i 5!
QA can be delegated out into several different organizational i
6l elements with the utility or principal contractor.
l l
7 You can have the inspection QC activity performed and an j
8 organization that is also responsible for doing the work.
9 G
What is the solution?
Are there changes required 10 j to our Appendix B, or is it just implementation of the Appendix 11 B criteria?
l 12 A
To me it's a change in Appendix B.
/s(_)
13 4
In other words, you think the regulation needs 4
14 some modifications.
15 A
Right.
You take a look at your aerospace industry, 16 your Navy nuclear industry and the way they structure their 17 QA, QC.
And it's much more disciplined, much more structured 18 than what we allow as a regulatory body.
19 Also, I might add, the way QA is handled within the agency, 20 what determines what QA is applied is determined by people 21 that are fragmented out into different organizations.
!( )
22 For example, you have got your standards; you have got your 23 QA branch; you have got DOR; you have got I&E inspections; 24 you have got your.research, development.
And there is no Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 nucleus that is bringing qualified expertise people together
(
64 rmg 24 1
and professionally generating a QA posture of policy that's 1
2 at least equivalent what is in aerospace.
3 BY MR. PARLER:
(N 4
G Do you all, that is, the people you just mentioned I
5 that are in the various offices and divisions and that have i
6!
responsibility, different responsibilities in the quality l
l l
7' ssurance area, do you ever get together and chat about these l
f 8
things?
I A
Not in a real sense.
Back when, duringtheManning-l 9j l
??
10 Munson era, there was a QA task force that was generated 11 whereby you brought the standards, DOR, and the I&E and the l
12 QA branch together, but not much was accomplished during that.
(~J) 13 In fact, at that meeting, the safety Q list was brought out.
u 14 0
What was the purpose of that task force, do you 15 recall?
Was;it one that was concerned with some clarification 16 of Appendix B, perhaps because of an appeal board decision, 17 of something else?
??
18 A
No.
What precipitated this -- out of Manning-Munson's 19 edge -- and the purpose was to identify significant QA problems 20 that are generic in nature and to try to resolve those problems..
21 BY MR. LANNING:
f')T 22 g
Was one of those problems the lack of a tool for x
23 implementing Appendix B?
For example, a regulatory guide?
24 which provides guidance as to how to implement Appendix B?
Ace Feder3 Reporters, Inc.
25 A
No.
Because they didn't think it was necessary i
i
'65 rmg 25 1
at the time, because all your ANSI standards regulatory guides f
2 which are 17 or 18 in nunber, which we get a commitment to, 3
they felt that that was sufficient to gain a lot of the hows I) k
1 4
on how the Appendix B is going to be implemented.
5!.
G Have you been involved in a standards effort to 6j develop such guides?
I 7l A
No.
Again, I don't know if that has ever been i
8 identified, a need for such.
l l
l 9
G If an I&E inspector called you up to say, I have 10 identified an item which I think should be on a Q list --
??
11 for discussion purposes, say it's consumables.
12 How do you resolve to determine whether or not it should
(~j) 13 be on the applicant's Q list, the licensee's Q list?
~
14 MR. PARLER:
Off the record for a second.
15 (Pause.)
16 MR. PARLER:
Back on.
17 THE biTNESS :
Okay, No. 1, when I&E calls up the 18 region, they say, hey, keep in mind you guys should be calling 19 the.Bethesda office.
And then they will ca.
me.
20 And then secondly, I recognize your concern there about a 21 Q list item.
And the thing that I would recommend, that a
()
22 meeting be held with the project manager, with'the utilities 23 with the I&E inspector and the technical expertise in a l
24 meeting, to determine if that item should or should not be Ace Feder!.1 Reporters, Inc, 25 on a Q list.
I
i 66 rmg 26 1
Now, a particular case in point was Baltimore Gas & Electric, 2
Calvert Cliffs.
The consumable happens to be diesel fuel oil.
3 They thought it should be on a
Q list; there are certain i
,s i
t i
l J'
people here who did not think it was.
So we got a meeting I
5, together, and it was resolved that it should be on a Q list 1
I I
6l and the utility then put it on the Q list.
i 7
BY MR. PARLER:
l 8i G
The Bethesda office that you mentioned earlier 9l you were talking about the Inspection and Enforcement head-j l
10 quarters, the office here in Bethesda of the Nuclear Regulatoryl 11 Commission that normally I&E people in the regional offices 12 deal with; is that right?
b 13 A.
Right.
v 14 BY MR. LANNING:
15 G
So as a section leader you don't really encourage 16 I&E inspectors to contact NRR personnel directly?
17 A
No. Personally, I encourage it.
When I talk to 18 the I&E inspectors out there, I say call me anytime, and they 19 send me correspondence in parallel.
20 But, yes, I definitely encourage it.
Those are our eyes 21 and ears out there.
Those are the guys are the ones that give (m
t
)
22 adequate feedback.
And these are the guys that should be 23 meeting periodically with the QA branch 2 or 3 times a year in 24 a conference to identify the needs, the better needs of QA
+ Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 and where the weaknesses and strengths are.
1
67 rmg 27 1
Well, have you had management directives to refer 21 those inquiries to I&E headquarters?
Has there been set forth 3i a formal communication route?
O 4
A Any concern that an I&E region person has is required I
5 to document, send it to the home office, I&E home office.
And i
6 they determine whether it is of a significant nature to bring i
7 it over to NRR.
8 A lot of them are screened and not tossed to us over here.
9 And I get calls from the region saying, hey, this didn't get i
j 10 i through; can you help me another way?
And we can work other 11 1 ways on it.
12 (Pause.)
(
13 BY MR. PARLER:
14 G
I think that the relationship between the inspectors 15 in the field and MRC headquarters is, in the quality assurance 16 area, is one of the items that is set forth in a memorandum 17 from Mr. Rusche, R-u-s-c-h-e, and Mr. Volgenau, V-o-1-g-e-n-a-u, 18 to Mr. Gossick on the subject of agreement on NRR/I&E interface 19 and division of responsibility.
20 That memorandum is dated March 21, 1977, and it has been 21 previously identified as an exhibit in an earlier deposition.
(m) 22 This memorandum in part under the topic of quality e
23 assurance provides that in order to assure proper coordination 24 on QA matters, I&E and NRR agree to participate jointly in
- Ace Feder:J Reporters, Inc.
25 predocket conferences with new utility applicants, and
i 68 rmg 28 1
coordinate prior to completing action on docketing of safety 2
analysis reports, acceptance of QA topicals as preparation of 3{
safety evaluation reports, to provide joint tastimony to
'\\~)
(~
4' hearing boards when issues involving the adequacy of quality I
i 5
assurance programs are raised, and inform each other regarding l 6
matters having significant quality assurance implications, l
l 7
and request comment on interfucing programs and activities.
8, So that is the very general guidance that presumably now 9j exists with regard to trying to coordinate the activities in l
10 l the quality assurance area of regional inspectors with the 11 NRC at headquarters.
12 '
Wayne.
13 BY MR. LANNING:
14 G
Are you familiar with the method that I&E used to 15 screen these regional. what I call problems?
16 BY MR. PARLER:
+ >,
17 G
In the quality assurance area.
18 A
Not the details.
19 G
In general.
L 20 A
I recognize the concern is documented by the region 21 and sent into the I&E home office and they review it and screen
()
22 it and determine whether it comes over here or not.
Sometimes 23 it does and sometimes it doesn't.
24 BY MR. LANNING:
. Ace Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 G
Do you have any feel for the number that successfully i
69 i
rmg 22 1
passes through the filtering concept?
I i
2 A
No.
3!
G Have there been examples where I&E inspectors have j
(~~')
4 4
called you directly on an issue which was filtered by I&E l
S headquarters which was indeed important to safety or was indeed.!
l l
6; important to quality assurance programs which require NRR i
i 7
review or approval?
8I A
No, I know of none of a specific nature o f ithat i
I 9:
caliber, that is significant.
I has, had calls where the I&E I
i i
10 j person thought it wr.s significant and said, hey, they chose i
11 l not to send it through, and asked if I could do something about 12 it.
And I said, well, maybe I can talk to the project manager !
()
13 and maybe get it changed, 14 But I have no knowledge of how many filtering --
15 0
negarding the --
16 BY MR. PARLER:
17 G
Excuse me.
But on the other hand, do you have some 18 knowledge on those issues which do not get screened and which 19 are referred to NRR?
20 A
Oh, yes.
21 O
Are there many of those?
Are there more than a few
()
22 a year, for example?
23 A
Yes.
We get maybe, see 2 a month.
24 g
And when you say they are referred to NRR, that Am Federal Reporters. Inc.
25 doesn't necessarily mean that the lead responsibility has been I
70 l
rmg 30 1
transferred to NRR, or does it?
2l A
Some are.
Not very many.
They have had a request i
3l for NRR to review it, and to provide a position on it.
And we i 4
translate that back to the I&E home office, and they do what i
5 they like --
l 6i G
For those several a month of quality assurance g
l I
7 items that are referred to NRR that you are aware of, do you 8
have any knowledge of how those issues are ultimately resolved?
9 I gather for those things that are referred to NRR, that NRR l
10 would inform I&E headquarters of its, of NRR's position?
j Il l A
Yes.
We resolve them.
I 12 Q.
What?
13 A
We just resolve them.
If there is a request that
(}
la comes in and says clarification is needed in this area, can you 15 provide position, we provide a position if it comes to us.
16 G
And that position is the resolution of the matter, 17 as far as you are aware?
18 A
Usually it is.
19 Q.
What I am trying to get at is to see whether there 20 is a filtering process that works in reverse.
21 A
Not normally.
They usually will respect the positions
()
22 coming out of NRR.
l 23 I have got to citrify that 2 a month.
There is not that 24 many.
There might be maybe 10 a year, 10 a year.
! Ace Federd Reporters. Inc.
25 4
That's approximately, in any event.
I w-
71 i
i i
rmg 31 1
A Yes.
2 4
Go ahead.
j i
3:
BY MR. LANNING:
)
4 0
Criterion 10 of Appendix B entitled Inspections l
5, it states that a program for inspection activities af fecting j
i i
6' quality shall be established and executed by or for the i
???-
7' organization supporting the activities.
8 A
Uh-huh.
9 G
What activities are they, does that refer to?
What 10 activities require inspections?
II A
It's those activities that are determined by a i
12' review of design specifications procedures, quality assurance,
()
13 should jointly wit? ce.eign expertise types evaluate those 14 activities, identify those that are important that merit 15 ingtruction, and identify them.
16 g
Is there a list contained in the SAR?
17 A
No.
Ho.
See, again, just pure programmatic.
We 18 make it a requirement that, hey, you analyze the designs and 19 procedures and such,: and you determine, the utility determine 20 the need to perform inspections.
It is left up to the utility.
21 0
Are chere qualification requirements for people who p)
(.
22 perform the inspections?
23 A
Yes.
24 G
Where are they delineated?
Ace #t$eral Reporters, Inc.
25 A
In ANSI standard 45.2.6.
i
l l
72 l
rmg 32 1
0 Do you review those criteria?
Or again, do you i
2 just review the commitment to that ANSI?
3 A
Right, we just get a commitment to it.
fs i
k-}
4 G
What criterion of Appendix B addresses maintenance, l i
l 5
either preventive or forced, in Appendix B?
Is there a l
6 requirement in Appendix B for maintenance or addresses j
7!
maintenance?
3 BY MR. PARLER:
I 9
G Take time to look at the Appendix B if you need I
t 10 !
to refresh your recollection.
l 11 (Pause.)
i 12 A
No, I don't think it is specifically stated in 13 1ppendix B.
But you have the ASME codes reflected in the
(])
14 regulations, and you have the ANSI standard 18.7 which we get 15 a commitment to which talks about maintenance.
16 BY MR. LANNING:
17 G
But the AS:iE code only applies to those components 18 which are ASME qualified.
19 A
That's correct.
And that, when I say ASME code, 20 I'm talking about in-service inspection, and there is, could 21 be a semantics hangup there whether in-service inspection
'22 constitutes maintenance or not.
23 However --
24 I guess, if I was to, pick one particular source, i Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc, 25
'it would 18.7 that talks about maintenance.
i
73 i
I rmg 33 1
G Well,sincethereisnorequirementsformaintenancel 1
2 in-Appendix B, there is generally no requirements for quali-i I
3' fications of people to perform the maintenance.
O 4
A.
Wait a minute.
Okay.
5 There is a general statement in there that people performing' 6
safety related activities should be indeed qualified, but there i
I 7'
is no specifics as to what those qualifications are for 8
maintenance.
9 The inspection of maintenance certainly is.
They should 10 fall under 45.2.6, the ANSI standard.
II l 0
So there is really no definition of safety rele.ted I2 activities?
13 BY MR. PARLER:
14 G
So far as you are aware at this time.
15 A.
Well, if you are looking for, your definition for 0
it, I guess not.
Of course, the general statements about 17 preventing postulated accidents --
18 BY MR. LANNINGi
'9 G
For example, changing the lubrication oil in 20 a pump, 21
- A.
Uh-huh.
22 O
- Now, are there requirements governing the, how 23 that' function is performed, and who would perform it?
24 A.
No.
I ua not aware of any.
It might be hidden-Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 in some otheriregulatory guide technical that that's outside i
74 r=g 34 1
QA.
2 C
Are the QA programmatic requirements included in 3;
technical specification of operating licenses, in general?
/~
I
(-);
4 A
Are the QA -- let's say more, there's QC, i
5 0
How can it be QC when you don't even review QC?
i A
I don't review it, but tech specs, the tech specs, l
6l i
7j they talk about the surveillance inspection and such of instru,
8 ments and such.
Those are technical and QC requirements and 9
are out of our jurisdiction.
10 0
But do you recall of a requirement then put in the
???
11 technical specifications requiring the latt cee to have a 1
12 quality assurance program, in effect?
/
13 A.
No.
We require it.
We require it to the QA program
(>l 14 for safety related activities.
15 G
But it is my understanding the operating licenses 16 do not include a reference to any quality assurance program.
17 A
I dontt understand what you are saying.
18 G
Well -- my point was[--
19 I was getting to the point was, one reason that you don't 20 get formal changes to an approved quality assurance program 21 is because it is not part of -the technical specifications,
[G'T 22 and therefore it doesn't require a licensing amendment to change 23 the quality assurance program.
24 A
Correct.
Okay.
' Ace Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 4
Whereas, if the quality assurance program had been I
75 i
rmg 35 1
included in technical specifications for license, it could not I
l 2
be changed arbitrarily by the licensee.
I 3I A
Yes.
Good point.
Back when we fought to try to
)
4 get the QA program a condition of the license, and we were j
l 5
shot down t
6 BY MR. PARLER:
i 7
G Now, how about elaborating on that.
When did you f
a have that effort, first of all?
9l A
When?
i 10 4
Approximately.
11 A
It was back in 1974,
'75.
12 G
Is that anything to do with the task force on QA
()
13 that you referred to about 35 minutes ago?
14 A
They might have been involved in that.
But I 15 remember working -- see, Technical Specifications used to be 16 under the QA branch.
17 G
Under Mr. Scovalt?
18 A
It might have been Tedesco at that time.
But it 19 was under Dick Vollmar at time.
20 0
I see, i
21 A
And I remember working with Dick and also the t( )
22 Technical Specification guys to make the QA program.
23 0
Were the Technical Specifications people under that 24 same --
Aes Fetter) Reporters, Inc.
25 A
They were working for Vollmar at that time.
I
76 rmg 36 1
g Okay.
2[
A And we didn't get it.
And then even when Jack i
i i~
i Helkimust took over Bob McDermott was able to ingeniously get 3l k_
l I
4 the preoperational startup and test the condition of the l
5 license.
And at that time we tried to get QA also.
We just 6l weren't successful enough.
I think it went all the way up to i
7 Ben Rusche at that time.
l I
8 G
All right, is there anyplace where these arguments l
i 9l pro and con have been set forth, that you know of?
I, 10 A
You mean documents?
11 G
Yes.
~
12 l A
I'm not sure.
There might be, t
()
13 0
What is the area in which this effort has been 14 waged? ' Between branches, or within a branch, or under an 15 assistant director, or where?
16 A
No.
The latest one was with Jack Helkimuss, tried 17 to get it through -- I think he was working through Ben Rusche's 18 organization.
19 0
What is the main argument for including QA as a 20 li. cense condition?
I realize it is probably repetitive, but 21 a
this point in the record would you answer thac question?
()
22 A
The OA program sets forth the foundation of the 23 disciplined approach, the programmatic approach that you are 24 going to apply to safety related structures, systems, and Ac.c.o re R.omm inc.
25 components.
8
. =. -
77-rmg 37 I
If indeed you spend the time and the effort to get an l
l t
j 2
acceptable QA program, it seems logical that you should get i
3 !
that as a condition of the license.
Otherwise that program j
ks)
I dj can be changed, and you can compromise the quality efforts.
j l
O Now, on the other hand, what is your understanding I
l 6!
of the argument advanced by others that the QA program should l
7l l
not be included as a condition in the license?
I realize that {
8 others that have that position are the ones that are best 9
qualified to answer the question, but my question what is your.
10 understanding of their position?
I 11 l A
I don't remember; I honestly don't.
12 l O
But, in any event, this is an issue that apparently
()
13 has surfaced from time to time, at least as early as 1974, 14 and the advocates who believe that for the reasons that you 15 just stated, that QA should be a condition of a411 cense, that 16 those advocating that position have not successful; is that 17 right?
18 A
Right.
19 0
As far as you are aware, that issue has never been 20 se.t to the Commissioners; is that right?
21 A
Right.
I don't think it has; right.
)
22 I should mention this:
By the fact that we didn't get it a i
23 condition of the license, when we went through the revision 24 of the standard review plan, we put in there a requirement
. Ams.ows n. pomes, inc.
25 that the utility, any changes to the QA program should be i
i 78 l
rmg 38 1
submitted to the agency here for review and concurrence prior 2'
to implementation.
i 3!
G This is probably a legal-type question, but -- so
/T I
4 don't answer it from standpoint -- but what is your under-I l
Si standing of the requirement or the provision in the standard I
i i
6l review plan that you just described with the provisdon in the i
l 7j regulation 54.59 that talks about the submission of changes?
I l
8 Just offhand, it would appear to be an inconsistency in 9
the two.
10 A
Yes.
I agree.
11 G
But, in practice, has that inconsistency, at least 12 in recent years, created any problems for the reviewers?
Has
(])
13 what is theoretically a troublesome, a potentially troublesome 14 issue because of the inconsistency or possible inconsistency 15 that I alluded to as a problem, materialized in that area yet, 16 as far as you are aware?
17 A
No.
I an not aware of any.
18 Well, let me clarify that.
19 G
Go ahead.
20 A
We stress ' the point when we interface with the
???
21 utility and the PSAR and FSAR review state that, hey, we recognizG
. n)
(
22 that the QA program is not a condition of the license.
But 23 we.try to make it crystal clear to him that the basis of 24 inspection of I&E-is the QA description in the SAR.
And that
. Ace-Federsi Reporters, Inc.
25
_if you change it, you are going to be cited probably by I&E I
79 rmg 39 1
by the fact that you are not working or implementing your 2
program consistent with the docketed QA program.
I i
3i G
So that is your understanding of really the basis t
<3-)
4 for the, or the inspection of QA; right?
5!
A Right.
It doesn't work all the time, I don't think, 6
though.
I 7 i G
I was a -- what the basis for the inspection in 8
QA was, was a question that I was going to ask you.
I have.
aletterhere,whichIdon'tknowwhetheryouhaveseenornot,l 9-10 from the Advisory Committee on Reactor safeguards from Dade 11 W. Moeller, M-o-e-1-1-e-r -- his first name is Dade, D-a d-e, 12 who at the time of the letter was the chairman of the ACRS.
13 It is a letter dated May 19, 1976, from Chairman Moeller
()
14 to Marcus A.
- Rowden, R-o-w-d'2-n, who at that time was the 15 chairman of the Nuclear Res;.1 tory Commission.
16 The subject is:
Report on Nuclear Reactor Inspection.
This 17 letter covers a number of things, but it part it addresses 18 itself to quality assurance.
19 And the letter says in that regard that a well-defined 20 quality assurance program developed by all responsible parties 21 for design, construction, and operation, is essential if there
()
22 is to be a coordinated and meaningful inspection program by 23 the third party, that is, authorized inspector, and the fourth 24 party, NRC I&E.
Ace Federd Repo,ters, Inc.
25 It says:
Such a program provides criteria for the evaluation i
i
i 80 l
I l
rmg 40 1
of the relevant components or systems.
An inevitable result i
2j of a good CA program is the identification of some inadequate I
3l quality or erroneous work by an effective inspection and I
rw l
(_)
4 enforcement, since lack of perfection is implictly indicated f
5 by the need for inspection.
f 6l I don't know whether you have ever seen that letter or not, 7
but you may find that of interest.
8 As I have already said, for the most part it deals with 9
other subjects in the inspection area.
10 MR. IJRNING :
Are you entering that into the record?
11 MR. PARLER:
Why don't we go off the record for a i
12 minute, and you can examine the paragraph in detail, and if TN 13 in your judgment the both of you, it contributes anything to V,
14 the discussion, you should put it in.
Off target, you should 15 not.
Simple as that.
16 (Pause.)
17 MR. PARLER:
Back on the record.
18 BY MR. LANNING:
19 G
Evidentally the ACRS was addressing the need for 20 inspection programs, QA activities.
In other words, Criterion 21 10 of Appendix B is the way I read this paragraph.
/~'
22 Is it my understanding that previously you said that there
% >)
was no list of activities which Criterion 10 of Appendix B 23 24 applies to?
' Ace-Federd Repo,ters, Inc.
25 In other words, there is no effort by NRC to review I
i 81 rmg 41 1
specifically activities which require QA inspection -- for i
l 2'
example, maintenance, surveillance testing, modifications, l
3i in-service inspection, or whatever?
/'5 i
\\ ')
4 A
That's correct.
5 G
Okay.
Well, evidently the ACRS in 1976 strongly 6l endorsed having inspections as part of a well-defined quality 7
assurance program.
8 MR. PARLER:
I think we will enter that -- that that 9
will;be Exhibit 1085 for identification, the document that is
}
10 Exhibit 1085 I have previously described, is the letter 11 dated May 19, 1976, from Chairman Moeller of the Advisory 12 Committee on Reactor Safeguards, to Mr. Rowden, who was then
()
13 the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission.
14 (Exhibit 1085 identified.)
15 BY MR. LANNING:
16 G
Do you have any personal knowledge of the I&E 17 vendor inspection program?
18 A
Yes.
19 G
Do you consider that a necessary part of a quality 20 assurance program as approved by NRC?
21 (Pause. )
(
22 BY MR; PARLER:
23 G
Do you understand the question?
24 A
I wish you would say it again.
Ace Federes Reporters, Inc.
25 i
t 82 j
i rmg'42 1
BY MR. LANNING:
2 i 0
In other words, should the NRC require vendors or 3}
licensees / vendors quality assurance programs to be part of f
('_')T the applicant's submitted QA program?
l 4
5 A
Boy.
I would say no.
6; G
Insomuch as the majority of the equipment and l
7 systems that goes into the construction of a nuclear power i
8 plant is constructed offsite, why not?
9l A
Well, we should get a sufficient description by the i
i 10 applicant and principal contractors of the QA program 11 programmatic controls such that we have adequate confidence 12 that these will be translated down to the subtier vendors.
13 BY MR. PARLER:
}
la G
I guess I'm slightly confused here.
It has been 15 my impression in the past that the Appendix B to Part 50 16 quality assurance principles are imposed through the NRC's 17 licensees on the licensees' vendors.
Is my understanding 18 in error?
19 A
That's correct.
They are obligated to translate 20 the applicable portions of Appendix B down to the subtier 21 suppliers.
22 G
So my understanding of the requirements of Appendix (v~}
23 B to Part 50 being imposed on vendors through the NRC's 24 licensees is correct.
- Ace Federet Reporters, Inc.
25 A
Yes, sir.
t
83 l
rmg 43 1
G Now, what I don't understand then is -- what was I
i 2 i your question?
l i
3l BY MR. LANNING:
I l
('^/
s s-4 G
But the vendors QA program is never included for 5l review by the NRC.
61 A
That's correct.
I 7
G And when I&E inspects the vendor's quality assurance 8
Program, it is my understanding that since it is not part 3
9 of the application, and since we do not licente the applicant's-f 10 ;
vendors, there is really no enforceable citation that can be 11 issued to the vendor.
12 But I am more interested in che importance of the licensee --
'~'T 13 the vendor's QA program as it relates to the overall applicant's 14 Program, and why, since so much of the equipment and systems 15 are manufactured, designed, tested away from the site, I don't 16 see why it shouldn't be as equally important as any QA program 17 the licensee has implemented onsite.
18 A
From that standpoint, we do get the QA programs of 19 the principal contractors.
20 Q
You do review?
21 A
Architect engineer, and the NSSS supplier.
But
()
22 we don't of the -- they are vendors, they are subtier vendors.
23 You mean, you, NRR reviews the QA programs for the 24 NSSS supplier and the architect engineer?
. Ace Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 A
Right.
I misled you there in my response last time, i
L.
84 i
I i
rmg 44 1
because I thought you were talking about subtier vendors outside l
2
'of the realm of the principal contractors, I&E and NSSS j
.i i
3l suppliers, O
4 BY MR. PARLER:
S O
How about taking some examples which may help my g
6l understanding and also contribute to the clarity of the record?
I i
7j The supplier of the pressure vessels, presumably that i
8 supplier's QA program is reviewed by the NRC; is that correct?
9 He's the -- in my understanding, the pressure vessel 10 is supplied by the NSSS.
11 A
Yes, but he probably goes to a subtier contractor i
12 l outside of the organization, like Westinghouse or GE, they go 13 down to some other subtier supplier and buys a pressure vessel
()
l 14 from him.
15 BY MR. LANNING:
16 G
So there would be no NRC review of the QA program 17 for that subtier contractor who is fabricating the reactor 18 vessel?
19 A
Other than I&E going in there.
20 BY MR. PARLER:
21 G
Well, if I&E goes in there, what do they review
( })
22 agains t?
23 A
Appbndix B and the ANSI standard and reg guides.
24 G
So the theory, as you understand it, is that short Ace-Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 of our' reviewing.the quality assurance program of such vendors, i
85 i
I rmg 43 1
at least as a minimum, that program has to satisfy the f
-2 requirements of Appendix B to Part 50?
3 A
Yes.
And there is also another check and balance, i
I and that is that these types of vendors are code shops, an 4
5 ASME code.
And you have the authorized inspector of the 6
ASME going in there a;_;.and inspecting to the code.
7 G
So your judgment, there is adequate QA consideration 8
via the regulatory agency of the suppliers of the hardware?
9 A
Adequate?
p)
G Well, would your reservations or comments that you 11 mada earlier in this interview apply equally to the suppliers 12 of the hardware as it does, for example, to operational 13 quality assurance?
-wU 14 A
Yes.
Let me --
15 0
Yes.
Which area would you think is of greater 16 importance or are both of equal importance from a quality 17 assurance standpoint?
18 A
It tiers down.
You start off with your QA program 19 with the utility, and then of your principal contractors, 20 and they have to translate those quality assurance controls 21 down to your subtier contractors.
/~N 22 If you have an adequate QA program and an adequate staff, V
23 you have some assurance that yes, they are going to translate 24 that down into the lower subtier contractors.
Ace Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 And then coupled with that you have the check and balance I
i 86 l
l rmg 46 1
of the ASME code, you have to have a coded shop, and then 2
staffed.
I I
3I You don't have to have M stamp, but all of them do.
i f
(^')
4l
(~
G Was that M Staff, you said?
I 5
A Yes.
i i
6l G
M Staff?
I 7'
A Yes.
And then you have the I&E -- not the I&E, 8
but the authorizing inspector going in there inspecting --
9 But getting to your point in regards to the QA program l
10 description being submitted in here by some subtier contractors',
11 we don't require it.
But at one time, we encouraged this by 12 l the fact that we have the topical program approach.
13 You send in the topical QA program, we find it acceptable,
(}
14 and then you can just reference that in future applications.
15 We encourage participation in this topical report program 16 by subtier suppliers.
One did participate, and that was 17 Anaconda.. Others wanted to participate, but a decision was
'a made by higher management to cut that off.
19 We don't normally review QA program descriptions of subtier 20 contracts, so therefore we shouldn't be looking at the QA 21 Program topicals.
()
-22 But it would be a healthy exercise to have -- I'll use 23 major subtier contractors to supply their topicals.
They 24 indeed would like to, becaus.e they are continually inundated
- Aco-Fedwd Reporters, Inc.
.25 with different. utilities, different principal contractors
87 i
rmg 47 1
with different concepts as how to apply QA and QC.
So they l
l 2
might have four or five different QA programs floating around l
3 to satisfy different utilities.
(^r l
(_/
l 4
0 Are you aware of any effort in the quality assurance l 5!
areathatwouldapplytotheCommission'sownregulatoryreviewf 6
and regulatory process?
I 7
In other words, in Appendix B to the Part 50, we, the NRC 8
has taken the position that quality assurance is an important 9
area which should receive the attention of the utility and I
I 10 others that are involved in the construction and the operation 11 of nuclear power reactors.
12 And the question which I will restate, is are you aware
()
13 of any effort that has been implement to subject the Nuclear 14 Regulatory Commission's own regulatory review process to 15 quality assurance-type scrutiny, as far as you are aware?
16 A
I am not aware of it, other than that I do know 17 that Standards now recognizes the importance of clarifying 18 the terms safety related, important to safety.
And they think 19 that now there is a need to change the regulations to make 20 that clear.
21 g
Well, maybe on an item-by-item basis such as the
(~8
(_)
22 example, but there is no organizational function that you are 23 aware of that is responsible primarily for evaluating, say, 24 in a' quality assurance fashion, the quality of the Staff's Ace Feder3 Reporters, Inc.
25
. regulatory process, r
88 i
rmg 48 1
A No.
Lessons Learned might be doing that.
2l G-Well, in any event, my question was prior to I
I 3i March 28, 1979, which I should state now, if I didn't state in ;
I i
(l e
4 the question.
l 5
A There was a Sandia study that was performed.
6 G
What, on the standard review plan?
That (ort of 7
thing?
8 A
The Sandia investigation was to evaluate the 9
overall QA licensing review process in determining strengths 10 and weaknesses.
11 G
Of just from the QA standards?
12 A
Right.
Right.
They issued the report, and there
(')
13 has been areas that are still outstanding in that.
That Sandia 14 study was precipitated under the request of Don Scovalt.
15 and that was the only effort that I am aware of.
16 G
When did this study take place, approximately?
17 Do you have any idea?
18 A.
About 1976.
19 G
Was this a study that --
20 1
There is a report out on it.
21 G
You don't happen to recall the date, or what the
(')
22 title is, do you?
f 23 A
No.
24 G
If you can get a reference to that, I would l Ace Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 appreciate it.
If you would call Mr. Lanning or myself or I
1 89 l
rmg 49 1
when you get the transcript and you have an opportunity to 2
correct it, maybe you could give the reference to that report.l 3
It would be very much appreciated.
f.
k_
l 4
A I will bring you a copy down, if you want.
5 0
That would be even better.
That would be very much !
4 6
appreciated.
7 Operational feedback information, either in the form of 8
licensee event reports or similar reports, do you get involved 9
in that very much?
10 A
Yes.
We review those and make a determination 11 whether they are of a nature where we should update or revise 12 our QA programs.
{)
13 MR. LANNING:
f 14 G
Has --
15 A
Update and revise the standard review plan.
16 g
You review all LERs on all the operating plants?
17 A
I believe so.
We also get a summary, a monthly 18 summary of all the reports, too.
19 BY MR. PARLER:
20 g
Are you aware of whether as a result of the reviews 21 that you refer to, whether there has been a compilation or a
()
22 cataloging of the, say, the quality assurance lessons learned-1 23 from licensee event reports?
24 A
No.
Aos-Federal Repo, tors. Inc.
.25 g
There hasn't been any such document, so far as you
=.
90 l
1 rmg 50 1
are aware.
I 2
A No.
i l
3{
G If you find in the review one of these reports, i
/")
\\>
4 an area in which there is a quality assurance lesson or however 5
you would describe what you find, what do you with that 6
conclusion, or such a conclusion?
7 A
We try to make the determination whether it is of 8
a programmatic deficiency of our existing requirements.
And 9
if it is not, and they are normally not -- we haven't found 10 any yet -- that that would require either a change either to 11 Appendix B or to our standard review plan.
12 g
So the deficiencies that you have found thus far
('T 13 are of some other type; is that right?
s/
14 A
Yes.
15 g
Such as what, generally speaking?
They are not 16 programmatic which require a change in the standard review 17 plan or to Appendix B.
Have you found any other deficiencies?
18 A
Other deficiencies, yes.
19 G
Such as what?
20 A
Let's see if I have got this right:
21 Example:
Take a look at an LER that has,a company has
[^)
22 selected the wrong materials to make a particular valve.
So v
23 from that standpoint, all valves in-this particular lot are 24 rejectable or questionable.
Ae4Med Roornn, tu.
25 g
And the same sort of thing, I suppose, in the other
91 I
rmg 51 1
materials such as concrete and things such as that?
2 A
Correct.
j i
3i G
In the area of operator licensing, that is, the
()
4 individuals who are licensed as individuals who manipulate 5
the controls on a nuclear power reactor, what is the quality I
6!
assurance role there, or is there any role?
7j A
The quality assurance role is, one, he has got to 8
follow the QA program from an administrative standpoint.
When 9
he is involved in generating procedures, he has got to assure 10 ;
that those are reviewed and approved by the necassary expertise.
f 11 G
In your review of an application from the quality 12 assurance standpoint, to what extent does that review get into 13 the area of training programs or people who are licensed as 14 operators, as well as others who conduct important activities 15 in the operation of a plant?
16 A
We don't get involved in that.
That is handled 17 by Section 13 --
18 G
By another branch, is that right?
???
19 A
Well, Fred Allenspach gets involved in that, who 20 reports within the QA branch.
21 g
I suppose I am trying to ask the same question that
/^
22 was asked some time ago, that although other branches get b'
23 involved in the details, what is the interface with, say, the 24 training area, strictly from the quality assurance perspective; Ace Federd Repo,ters, Inc.
25 that's what I am trying to ask.
I
92 rmg 52 1
A Nall, I don't know if I understand it fight, but, one, i
2 the operating staff, the licensing and operating staff, has I
i i
3 to be trained and indoctrinated in regard to the QA program.
3 4
And he must comply with that program.
i 5
And his activities and generating procedures, to the review '
6 and concurrence of those procedures and the implementation of I
7 procedures, whether there is check lists involved in completion 8
of those check lists and verification of them, the documentation 9
and testing and the completion of those, and the filing of 10 those documents --
11 All these aspects, he should be properly trained.
12 G
How many people are involved in the Quality
(])
13, Assurance branch in the review and approval of applicants 14 for a license for a nuclear power plant?
What are the 15 resources that you have?
16 A
Well, I have four people, myself.
I'7 G
Are those resources deemed to be adequate to do 18 the job under normal conditions?
19 A
Yes.
20 S
Do you have anything else to add in the quality 21 assurance area, either because a question has not been asked
( ).
22 or because questions which were asked were in your opinion 23 not properly worded or framed to elicit from you information 24 which you think should be provided for the record?
Ace Fede,el Reporters, Inc.
25 We are talking primarily about quality assurance, but not I
93 l
t rmg 53 1
exclusively.
Do you have any comment on any aspect of the i
2 licensing and regulatory program --othat you are welcome to i
3 make such a comment.
i 4
A Well, from a personal standpoint, as I indicated, S.
there are strengths and weaknesses in our review processes I
6 in the quality assurance.
And I personally feel that there are 7
areas in which it could be strengthened.
We have circled around now one of the areas that -- the g
9l depths, the frequency of inspection, the depths and frequency 10 of verification, the depth in which procedures should be 11 delineated during the operation phase.
12 !
And the criterion here is very weak.
And it is possible D
13 of generating criteria to better set forth a more competent
./
14 picture in regards to the inspection effort, verification, 15 methods of documentation, the depths of which, the details 16 of which procedures should be conveyed.
17 O
Do you have any other comments?
18 A
No.
Go ahead.
20 BY MR. LANNING; 21 g
What is the relationship between quality assurance
(~)S 22 and fulfillment reliability?
23 A
Well, the re'iability part of it is the predic-24 tability that it is going to function on an as needed basis.
Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 And-the quality assurance end of it is that indeed that it has i
94 rmg 54 1
been built to the specifications and requirements that you 2
wanted.
l 3
g Well, in other words, the quality assurance program l I
(
t
%-)
4 tends to ensure reliability of equipment, then; is that what 5
you said?
6, A
No.
From where I sit -- the quality assurance is 7
that you design the part and will assure you that it is 8
designed and built according to the way you wanted it and will 9
function to its end use requirements, that it will not l
l 10 affect the health and safety of the public.
11 If it --
12 (Pause.)
()
13 No.
I take that back.
It's just that it is designed, 14 fabricated in accordance with design and specification 15 requirements.
16 Now, as far as its predictability to function on as need 17 basis, particularly your reliability comes in.
18 G
For those parts of the quality assurance program 19 which address special functions such as surveillance testing, 20 maintenance, modifications, whereas there are inspections 21 required, there are qualifications of people required, there O
L,,,j 22 are procedures to be followed in the performance or in function
-c 23 Now, does that contribute to reliability of that system, 24 or component, to perform in a safety function?
. A=.Fews noorwr. =.
25 A
I would think so.
But see, in the early stages of j
t l
95 j
rmg 55 1
design, if you want to introduce reliability, you then conduct 2
a fault tree analysis or remove-the-date analysis to hit each l
3 particular component, item of a component, or such, you go right I
A-4 down to the nuts and bolts.
And you determine where your 5
weakest areas are and significance if that item should fail.
6 And if it should fail, then you improve your design or provide 7
redundancy to assure that that item is indeed reliable.
8 G
So are you aware of any effort to try to apply the 9
quality assurance programmatic requirements to increasing 10 reliability?
II A
No.
See, reliability is specifically left out in 12 the NRC.
Add it is in the aerospace, by the way, that you use 13 reliability.
()
14 MR. LANNING:
Do you have anytyhing?
15 MR. PARLER:
I have no further questions.
16 MR. LANNING:
Well, in conclusion, let me say 17 that this is an ongoing investigation, and that although we 18 have completed the questions we have for you today, we will 19 however, we may need to bring you back for further deposition.
20 We will, however, make every effort to avoid having to do 21 so.
We will now recess this deposition, rather than to r~s 22 terminate it.
')
(
23 We wish to thank you for your time in being here with us 24 today._
l Ace Feo.<a mm,w,.. anc.
25 MR. PARLER:
Thank you so much again.
I
l 96 I
i rmg 56 1l (Whereupon, at 5:05 p.m.,
the taking of the i
2!
deposition was recessed for the day.)
3e i
O
.i 5'
6!
f 1
7; i
8 I
9i, 10 !
l' l
11 !
12 i l
O 14 15 16 17 18 19
(;
20 21 e
[]
22 23 24 Ace-Feder'J Reporters, Inc.
25 1
i I