ML20008G023
| ML20008G023 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/24/1981 |
| From: | Felton J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Sholly S UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20008G024 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-81-149 NUDOCS 8105120604 | |
| Download: ML20008G023 (1) | |
Text
.
' p Pic,
o
'h UNITED STATES
/
Y C
E Mch _il
,'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{,k' d '
E wasmucum. o. c. 2o5ss s {: Q 5
<s s 1 D g, N j#
eg April 24, 1981 T %
IS81r !.g k%..[
\\
$9 A
Mr. Steven C. Sholly p
~
1725 I Street, N.W.
Suite 601 IN RESPONSE REFER Washington, DC 20006 TO F01A-81-149
Dear Mr. Sholly:
This is in response to your letter dated April 13, 1981, in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, a draft report prepared by the Instrume'tation and Controls Division of Oak Ridge National Laboratory concer.'ia'i a review of BAW-1564, a Babcock and Wilcox Company report entitleu " Reliability Analysis of the Integrated Control System."
The enclosed document is from the working files of Dale F. Thatcher and, to the best of our knowledge, is the document which you are seeking.
If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,7 6 ',
/.W/ *
,, h' y
s-
/
A il M. Felton, Director
/
Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration
Enclosure:
As stated 810512 0 (,0 y
e Unimf CELUCELMED 13 April 1981
@CEELET[ETS Mr. Joseph M.
Felton gg. y g
Director, Division of Rules and Records office of Administration ACT REQUEST
[O [ A-8/-/
@Y U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
$wel 4-/44/
RE:
FOIA REQUEST
Dear Mr. Felton:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, I am requesting the following document:
A draft report prepared by the Instrumentation and Controls Division of Oak Ridge National Laboratory concerning a review of BAW-1564, a Babcock and Wilcox Company report entitled Reliability Analysis of,the Integrated Control System _.
According to the testimony of NRC Staff witness Dale F. Thatcher in the TMI-l Restart proceeding (Docket No. 50-289 RESTART), the draft document was produced by ORNL in December 1979 (Transcript pages attached).
The draft report is believed to be located in the files of Mr Thatcher, or in the files of his branch chief which used to be Mr. Rodney M. Satterfield, who has since left the Ccmnission.
Your cooperation in this matter will be appreciated.
Sincerely, AC Steven C.
Sholly
/
8165329(,0.g 1a ; ', -
- u "; ;..e N :
Ca"r a;e P.N :Wr e" C..
h : "c" if 17) i ~7 ECS2
- i E-E..
t.
! c c'en DC.
- 1.
t z ) 196 - 10
\\
1 s.
e' e
7260 1
At thst time I knsv that the guestions were 1
2 some what beyond a "FEEA," but the staff was trying to elicit 3 from the o k Ridge expertise what could be done with regard a
4 to rontrol systems and what maybe should be doae in the 5 future with regard to contrel systems.
Fo based on that, I 6 felt we should ask all the auestions and see what BCW had to j
7 say about them.and see what conclusions we couild draw from 8 th a t.
9 So, in the same.timeframe that this was going on 10 -- I referenced in my t?stimony a November 7 letter to all 11 licensees of 3CW plants asking them to address the 12 recomuendations of the 3CW report 1564 Now, that was done 13 prior to Oak Ridge roming up with their conclusions, and 14 really the basis f or that was on the discussions between Oak 15 Fidge and the staff, myself, my branch chief, the discussions en the merits of those recommendations.
16 Again the staff decided tha t we do not need to 37 18 vait for Oak Ridge's conclusions.
Those recommendati ns out
- 19 of that report a re important enough to get on with 20 sddressing them, you kncv, prier to waiting for the Oak 21 Ridge report.
Somewhere in early December, I believe, k Fidge a
22 23 prof uced a draft of the report, and I believe that is what was referred to in the cover letter that was read bef ors.
24
~)
25 cannot re: ember clearly my ronnenting o r.
that draft.
AL:ER$0N REPCRTING CCMPANY. INC, revicrannarqu1QHNWFCl @@fg$4 CM QEDMO
(
\\
e
.o 4
7;6u 1 of perfCr:ing tne emergency feedvater f unction.. In my 2 opinion, this particular sspect of the restart of TMI-1 was 3 sufficient to address that concern.
4 I do not know if I discussed enough about the Oak 5 Ridge report.
I got off on a specific there and naybe you 6 vant to hear more specifics.
7 CHAIEMAN SMITHS
- ie ll, your specific understanding 8 of the findings of the authors vill be developed by Mr.
9 Sholly, I would imagine, on further cross examination.
to THE '4ITMESS:
I think so, too, yes.
DS. LIITLE:
I have some general questions which 11 12 actually relate to the transmittal letter on the ORNL 13 report.
First of all, it indicates that the final reviev 34 incorporates revisions and recommendations made by your 15 staf f, and this is addressed to Mr. Eatterfield.
- ere these 16 revisions and rerossendations extensive or minor?
~4ere they 17 editing or substantive?
~
~
[
18 THE WITNESS:
That is the one thing I cannot gg recall.
'4 h a t ! really should do is go back and cet the copy 20 of the draf t.
! vould imagine that I have it sonevhere j/
k 21 a r ou n?. in my offira. [Than I should be able to tell whether
~
22 they were editorial or substantive. I tend to think that 23 they say have been more along the edit: rial line.
- 35. L !!LEs Do you recall vnether or not th e 055'.
24 25 pe:ple arcepted :ne r? visions readily or whether there wa s ALOER$CN REPCRTING COMP ANY. INC.
400 viAG:NIA AVE. S.W. WASHINGTCN. D.C. 200:4 (2001 554 2345