ML20024B160
| ML20024B160 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/06/1979 |
| From: | Taylor J BABCOCK & WILCOX CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-*, TASK-GB GPU-6045, NUDOCS 8307070157 | |
| Download: ML20024B160 (30) | |
Text
,_
k hQ k
Designations from the. President's Commission Deposition of James H. Taylor,' dated July 6, 1979:
37:13 - 47:9 52:3 - 52:19 55:5 - 56:6 63:24 - 64:5 67:22 - 68:25 70:18 - 72:20 80:12 - 80:19 82:24 - 83:12 102:6 - 104:20 f
l'13:3 - 113:20 f
4, I
T
==
y._ _.. _. -
-- -- =w
~~-
QP4 bo$
2 Taylor 37 3
the reactor coolant pumps all tripped at Time zero for the LOCA.
Our analysis had also been completed to 4
show the validity of the analysis, if the pumps ra 3
all the way through the transient, and this was a 6
concern raised as to whether or not there would be 7
worse results from a calculation where the pumps ran 8
part way through LOCA transient, they didn't trip at 9
Time Zero, and didn't run all the way through as they I
10 did in the case of TMI 2, but rather tripped at some-11 time in the middle, and a PSC was filed to call for I
12' an evaluati n or to document that concern.
f Q
What is your understanding of the kind of g
concerns that must be reported under Part 217 14 A
They are the kin,d of concerns which are dis-15 covered outside-the agraal systems e checks and q
16 l
balances that you have in an engineering organi=ation.
I 17 To explain that a little bit further, if a 18 calculation had been completed and the results were l
19 submitted to the rac in a topical report, and the f
20 information had gone through the normal Q.A.
checks and than for some reason after the fact it was 21 discovered that there was an error that had been missed by the Q.A.
system, that kind of concern would be 23 documented as a 10CFR21 potential reportable item.
24 Similar'ly, in the manufacturing process, if a 25 BENJAMIN R EPORTING SERvict
=
_w.-
._a4M' b e^3.d wm
- I_[
l 1
2 Taylor 38 3
piece f equipment has been delivered, it had gone through the normal x-ray, ultrasonic, non-destruc-4 tive testing, what have you, and it had been accepted, and inadvertently in going back through some ordinary 6
request an auditor might have discovered that the=a 7
was an indication on an x-ray film that had been b
missed before, that would be the subject of a 10CTR11 9
issues, which would signify the potential for a 10 breakdown in the Q.A.
system.
11 But the spirit of 10CFR21 is to try to give 12 visibility to and provide records for things that could potentially lead to' substantial hazards had'they npt been detected and to provide a system for keeping 14 things from dropping in the crack, to help catch things 15 on paper before they would become a real problem.
2 16 The purpose -- let me expand a little further --
17 the purpose of CRF21 is to provide visibility.
18 Q
Would the creation of a PSC be the first 19 step on the road potentially to a Part 21 report?
^
' =-
20 Q
And who would make the final determination as to whether an PSC should or should not ultimately 22 5
lead to a Part 21 report?
l 23 l
A That final determination is rer.ly mine.
l 24 l
l Q
And you generally will review all PSC's t
i 1
,A A
-i i
fW wi B ENJAMIN R EPORTING SERvict s
' * * =.
qw
. s= We
1 1
n Taylor 39 3
or your delegate will review all PsC's to make that 4
determination?
i
^
5 Y""'
h"* th"* 18 " * "8""117* 'i"71*h""d*d *hi"7 i
that Licensing does.
Q But you would be involved in the review?
A Yes.
The Licensing Section requires a lot of
)
8 help to evaluate PSC's.
9 Q
Is the PSC by its ve y. format addressed 10 to your department?
f 11 A
Yes.
The procedure calls for that, my section.
12 Q
Yes, you are right.
A You give me too much hon or.
g Q
Where does the PSC first come in your section?
15 t
A It comes to me.'-
16 Q
It physically arrives on your desk?
17 A
Yes.
18 Q
And you take a look at it and then route it?
19 A
Yes.
20 Q
What procedure do you use in determining 21 where a particular PSC will go?
A Well, the distribution really -- you mean internally in Licensing?
Q Let me back up and restate the question.
24 It comes to you in the first instanca?
25 l
AM S ENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICC y
i
\\
{
"'~
- ~T T.. _
l
1 1
2 Taylor 39-a
^
Y'"*
3 Q
You are ultimately going to make a deter-4 mination as to whether it is a Part 21 reportable 3
item, is that correct?
6 (continued on following page.)
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 2
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
.p g 25 T tar ^-
rg y ' %
j BENJAMIN REPORTING SERvict egg sung..
N "**"]
_,,.....c.
A
1 Taylor 40 o
Q In the meantime, you are going to want to 3
ask some advice presu= ably about the technical issue l4 raised.
Would that normally be the case?
^
Y""*
5 Q
What process do you use in deciding where to send it in order to accomplish that purpose?
8 A
It is a decision based primarily on those 9
people that we feel can contribute,toward the technical 10 resolution of the issue, and so there is -- the 11 recipient is always on the distribution list.
We 12 have a prescribed procedure that covers the processing of the forms.
g3 Q
Maybe we should start there.
Would that l
k be helpful to start with that procedure?
A Well, we could if you want to.
?
16 MR. EDGAR:
Off the record.
17 (There was discussion off the record.)
18 THE WITNISS:
The first thing that happens to it is that I give it to the man who is the 20 manager of my Operating Plant Licensing Unit.
He is the one, That is Mr. Kane.
He is the 99 one that I have designated to maintain the 23 records on the PSC's, to handle distribution.
24 on IL, to follow up on their evaluations to 25 f/iAA r
w, a I
SEN ! AMIN REPORTING SERVICE
.. ~ -
G,Je% -.
,-.m.4
_._m_
I k2 Taylor 41 3
participate in the evaluation, to nake sure 4
that the procedures are followed, to make sure that the records are kept as they are
.a required by the 10 CFR 21, and ultimately to make a recommendation as to whether or not 7
the issue is reportable.
8 Now, depending upon the complexity of 9
the issues, I may be involved one or two times 10 i
in that process, in attending meetings and so on.
I 11 Q
Before it goes to Kane, I understand it 13 comes to you?
l 1,
..s.
Q You then send it down to Kane with possibly some suggestions as to how he might consider 15 handling it?
i 16 A
Very seldom would I pass on suggestions to 17 him.
For the most part, the PSC's are pretty 18 obvious.
On occasions we will talk about it'before 19 I hand-carry it to him.
His office is 10 feet away 20 from mine.
We will talk about it.
But I would not document a letter to him on the PSC.
g j
s Q
so am I correct, then, that you read
}
I it primarily for information purposes when it 23 first comes in?
24 l
A
- Well, I* read it.
We handle PSC's with j
25 I
S ENJAMIN REPORTING SERvtCE j
-~
. = ~ ~..
\\
g j
r i
2 Taylor 42 l
t 3
some degree of judgment.
For example, a PSC and that is the way we try to decide whether it is 4
something that needs my attention or something that a
can be treated in a little bit leisurely pace 6
as an example, we recently had a PSC which related 7
to some valves that had been de"ivered on our 205 8
plant, one of our 205 plants.
9 These valves -- it had been discovered that 10 there was a design error in the valve.
That is a 11 PSC which is a significant one, but it doesn't have gj a sense of urgency that would be associated with n*
ea ng w t an parating plant.
So if we 13 have a choice of working on a PSC or pushing a PSC 14 that deals with an operating plant's problem, we 15 would do that.
t 16 So my judgment is that I try, first of all, 17 to be familiar with all the PSC's that are received, 18 and if I see something that is of immediate concers, 19 I will try to precipitate immediate action.
l 00 Q
So you may, in passing it it down to Kane, who is the next step in the process, make g
specific suggestions as to how it may be handled 2 22 l
A Yes, sir.
23 l
Q Or in a case where you don't make 24 specific suggestions, you know that it is going to s 25 A n
- {
B ENJAMIN R EPORTING S ERVICE Sqq e p-
_ we E
-A
--e
_m._
M
m 1
2 Taylor 43 3
be plugged into a process or a procedure which is 4
relatively predictabic?
5 A
Yes, str-6 Q
And you indicated earlier that you did not make suggestions on that many; most of them wocli
.t be handled routinely simply by passing along to Kane, 8
but you would have seen it and known of its existence 9
i by the fact that it crossed your desk?
l 10 A
Yes, and I will periodically on those which I 11 consider to be of importance, I will periodically 12 follow up on them to see where they stand.
13 Q
I have no idea how many PSC's may ulti-g4 mately end up as Part 21 reports or under Part 21.
Can you give me any feel for tha t?
13 A
I can't give you.a feel fur hea many would be
(
16 l
reportable directly under 10 CFR 21.
Approximately I
17 l
tnose that would be reported under either 21 or 18 10 CFR 5055e would be, I would say, 20 to 25 percent i
19 of them.
20 Q
The rest of them are determined not to 21 fall within the requirement?
A That is correct.
22 Q
And again, tell me what the distinguishing characteristics, in your understanding, of those requirements 'are which trigger the obligation to 25 j
B ENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE
....a _ _ __~
n- -
n
=
/e 1
2 T.aylor 44 3
report.
I am referring now to 10 CFR Part 21 and 10 CFR Part 5055e.
4 MR. EDGAR:
Wait a minute.
You are, asking him for a legal opinion on a fairly 6
complex set of regulations.
7 Q
Mr. Taylor, as a foundation, I understand 8
that you do make the judgment as to whether a par-9 ticular PSC should be reported under Part 21.
10 A
res.
11 o
I an asking you for the factors which 12 y u take into account in exercising that judgment.
(
I am not asking you for a legal opinion.
g h.The overall criteria, which is one spelled out 14 l
in 10 CFR 21 itself, and I believe I don't have l
15 I
the 10 CFR 5055e words in my mind, but I believe 16 they are similar -- is that were a particular condition l
l 17 to go undetected it could lead to a substantial l
18 reduction in the protection of the health and safety 19 of the general public.
These can be mechanical 20 p= blems, or they can be things that wquid_inxmlidare a previous analysis which showed a situation to be y
acceptable.
If an error were discovered in an
{
~~
q analysis which had previously been accepted, and the 23 significance of that error were such that it could 24 change the conclusions, then that would be reportable.
25 nA,
/Fr -
B ENJAMIN R EPORTING SERVTCE
- - ~
I T 1
n
~
1 Taylor 45 3
But a substantial reduction in the safety and health 4
of the general public is the overall criterion.
b Q
Again I am asking you for how you make 6
these judgnents.
would the substantial reduction 7
or i=pairnent of the health and safety of the general 8
Public be likely to be the operative criteria in making a fair number of these judgments in the sense 9
that the reports of preliminary safety concern may 10 come to you, which although valid, a te not of great 11 magnitude in the sense of the consequences that might l~'
arise from them?
13 A
I am not sure I follow you.
14 (Continued on Page 46.)
15 l
16 2
17 18 19 20
- 1 22 24 af s v-t q
B ENJAMIN R EPORTING SERVICE aq-
,,,- FM WSM 9
, - -' '. Q> '-_=_,i,,'W
\\4
s
' ' - *i h_ _ _
,'*E" M ' ~'i,}'('
4
,7 v
n 1
1 2
Taylor 46 i
3 MR. EDGAP.:
I would like to note for the
-/ew
}
the record a continuing objection to the ques-tioning on the ground that it calls for an
,a opinion of a legal nature, and it is dealing 6
which a set of regulations which are extremely 7
complex, and which I think you are trying 8
Mr. Taylor's capacity to speak in terms of 9
operative language or operative standards.
j 10 g
I am just asking, Mr. Taylor, for what you 11 have in mind as you make th e s e judgments.
You indi-73-cated that approximately a quarter or maybe 25 percent of the PSC's that come to you ultimately result in Part 21 reports?
14 A
I said Part 21 or 10CFR5055e combined.
15 Q
Okay.
Would one of the important criteria 2
16 that you look to in distinguishing which ones are 17 reported under either of those regulations that you 18 have just referred to and which eses are not reported, 19 would one of the criteria that you use be the question 20 f whether r n e it has a significant impairment or significant change or effect on the public health and safety?
A Yes.
23 Q
And I take it there are some which might 24 come along which may be important in the way of gy y1/~ ('
B EN.JAMIN R EPORTING SERVICE
}
p
,i
..t j,
,,, 9'E
y....-..-.:
..-a..~_=w.--
}
2 Taylor 47
( )b 3
pointing out a problem, but in the judguent of your-self 4
and your staff and the engitears that you consult doesn't have particularly major consequences?
A That is. correct.
6 Q
'A s some which do?
~
7 A
Yes.
Some of them are just honest technical 8
concerns, which further evaluation shows are not 9
worthy of being.
They are not a e,ncern.
o 10
.g some are not valid, in other words?
11 A
Yes.
12 g
Is there a timetable set forth by the B&W procedures under Part 21, the B&W procedures that are designed to implement Part 21, for the resolution of 14 PSC's?
15 i
d A
No, there is no, thing in 10CFR21 that requires 16 that either.
There is a requirement once a concern f
17 has been documented as reportable, there is a time-18 table starting then.
19 Q
As to when it must be in fact reported?
A Yes.
20 Q
Have you made it a practice in your
(
handling of PSC's to have some target timetable,.even though this may not be in your own internal regula-23 tions?
24 A
Yes.
BENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE k
eC- -
A-
-es.e ege.
- *ete -
we % % w
.e-
1 n
~
Taylor 52 F3 Q
Can you tell me how are issues of concern 4
elevated in importance and I guess I am talking 5
primarily about safety issues -- between a utility 6
and a vendor, such as B&W7 What mechanisms are there for elevating an issue and bringing it to people's i
attention?
8 A
I don't know of any standard mechanism.
We 9
have a standard way of communicating with our 10 customers, which is through the Project Management 11 organization, and that would be followed.
Those 12' communications channels are established for all 13 communications on a particular proje t.
}4 Q
How about within this organization, asW; do you have a mechanism for elevating issues g
of concern?
3 16 A
Aside from the PSC procedure?
17 Q
Yes.
I take it you would regard the PSC 18 procedure as a mechanism for that purpose?
19 A
Yes.
20 Q
Do you believe there are others?
21 A
Well, there ir obviously the management route.
s j
33 There could be meetings.
The most common one is the PSC procedure.
n Q
I guess I am talking about other than ad 24 I
hoc attempts t'o elevate a particular 14aue.
25 l
SENJAMIN R EPORTING SERvict AL
p.
_n-1 J
2 T.aylor 55 3
A tio, I don't think I have ever seen that one 4
before.
I 5 Q
Referring you now to what has been marked as W mack Deposition Exhibit 23, have you seen that 6
document previously?
7 A
Yes, sir.
8 Q
Do I accurately describe it as a February 9, 9
1978 memorandum from Bert Dunn to yourself?
10 A
Yes, sir.
11 Q
Do you recall whether you first saw it 12 on February 9, 19i87 13 A
Yes, I believe that is correct.
14 Q
Can you tell me what you did when you received that memo.
la.
A As I recall, I talked to one of my people, Ed t
Kane, and I believe I asked him to get with somebody 17 in 16a S e rvic e Department, Nuclear Service, because 18 operating procedures are not really something that
'19 Licensing gets involved in.
This I considered to be 00 a procedural matter.
21 Q
Do you recall who yoa asked him to get n
in touch with in the Nuclear Services Department 7 c
I #*****
23 Q
Do you recall whether he did in fact, or f24 do you knew wh'ather he did in fact get in touch with
'5 B ENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE M f*f.
$w*
,g
,-y.,
M IN.
s
=.
a 1
C Taylor 56 3
someone in Nuclear Services?
A Well, there was another memo that came up just 4
i after this which indicated that the service Department a
was involved.
6 Q
We are now referring to Dunn Depcsition Exhibit 36, as well?
8 A
Yes, and this indicated to me that Nuclear 9
Sersice was involved, and that there was communication 10 in the right channel happening.
11 MR. ROCKWELL:
Off the record.
12 (There was discussion off the record.)
Q Do you recall, Mr. Taylor, transmitting g
the nenorandum to Kane?
Do you have a present recol-14 lection as you sit here of that?
ls_
A No, I don't.
16 Q
Do you know whether it simply went into 1 4 his "in" box or whether you handed it to him and had some discussion with him?
19 A
I res11y don't recall.
'O
~
Q Do you know when it went to Kane, and l
when I say "it," I am referring to Womack Deposition 22 Exhibit 23, (Indicating.) whether it plugged into 23 Kane's procedure for handling PSC's?
A It was not.
34 25 GENJAMIN REPORTING GERVICE M
-w
-w-
~~
~~
5-
=;-... =.
3=.:------====~
-e x~----
7, 1
2 f
Taylor 63 t.
T /'
4 3
A Give them greater visibility.
/
-4 Q
And set some informal targets?
A Yes.
w.
Q For processi.ng?
A Yes.
-t MR. RCCRWELL:
Could we, George, please 8
have copies of the B&W procedure which was 9
adopted in the light of the 10CFR Part 21 10 amendment that became effective in January 1978, 11 and also eculd we have the' procedure that had 12 been in effect prior to that.
.g3 MR. EDGAR:
If it is available, yes.
Q Returning to Deposition Exhibits 23 and 36, which are tha two.Dunn memoranda, you indicated that la, when you saw Exhibit 2,6, the F eh.u ar' 16th memorandum 2
16 from Dunn, that you inferred from it that Nuclear:
17 Service had entered the picture?
18 x
y,,,
19 Q
Did you route the rebruary 16th memorandum 20 to Mr. Kane or to anyone?
21 A
He was already on distribution to that memo.
o Q
Did you discuss it with him at that time, the memorandum with Mr. Kane7 23 r
A I really don't recall.
24 Q
Do' you recall whether the subject of that.
25 EENJAMIN R EPORTING SERV 1CE l
l h
M m mi "W
}l d*
f-Taylor 64 3
rebruary~16th memorandum or the initial February 9th 4
memorandum ever came up again between you and anyone before March 28, 1979?
5 A
No, I don't recall it ever coming up again.
6 Q
Do you recall whether the issues addressed 4
in either of those memoranda aver came to your atten-8 tion again before March 28, 19797 9
A Not that I can recall.
10
- Q Do you know whether a responsibility was 11 delegated by you to anyone in your department to see 12 whether the Dunn memorandum, both the February 16th g3 one and the February 9th one, were followed up to some conclusion and action?
g A
I don't think it was.
Q Do you know whether the 16 subject matter 3
addressed by either of the two Dunn memoranda was 17 ever ec=municated in any form to any S&W operating 18 utilities before March 28, 19797 19 A
Not the specific content of these nemoranda.
I 20 a= not aware that the specific contants of these memo-11 randa were transmitted.
The information on a similar subject was transmitted to the customers with regard 99 e
to a transient that was experienced at Rancho Seco 23 i
with regard to procedural -- I be.'iev' it was a 24 procedure cha'n'ge on -- no, I take that back.
I think 25 I
1 B ENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE I
i mmr ~~-
e,
-e
g 2
Taylor 67 3
A Yes, I a= talking ab out operating procedures.
4 There are many, many things that the operators are able t d
rn t t d
many f which would not have 5
been considered at all in the analysis, but the analysis is based on the assumption that the operator would do certain things within certain periods of 8
time.
In this particular case it was an operating 9
procedure change that was appropriate and no reanalysis.
10 g
coes the Licensing s etion become involved 11 with operating procedures in any way in its day-to-12 day work?
A Not really.
13 l
Q Do they to any extent?
l A
We have been involved as a special task in la, developing some operating procedure guidelines since 16 l
TMI 2 in connection with the small breaks, but that was a special task force-type item.
18 Q
Are operating procedures required to be on 19 file with the NRC from a particular utility or a 20 particular plant?
21 A
I don't know.
~
99 Q
Tell me, with reference to Exhibit 22, Dunn's first memorandum, regardless of the type of l
issue which is being addressed, what was your evalua-24 tien at the time you received it o f the seriousness i 25 SENJAMIN R EPO RTING SERVICE
.,,p
- er a
a
c i
2 Taylor 68 3
of the issue being addressed?
A 4
Well, I have to say I didn't consider it to be a serfous natter fron a licensing standpoint, but
.a rather one which required a procedural change.
6 Q
Taking yotr given that it requi=ed a i
procedural change, was it a serious question that he 8
was raising in your mind?
9 A
I would like to answer that quest!.on in two 10 ways really.
The first way would be to say I don't 11 really recall whether I considered it serious at the 12' time, and the second way I would like to answer it is the way I would consider it today, and I would g
14, certainly consider it serious today.
I would, as a matter of fact, today suggest that this kind of an 15 item be the subject o?,an PSC.
i 16 Q
I take it that PSC's which were routinely 17 coming to Licensing in 1977 and early 1978 did not 18 necessarily address issues relate 1 only to Licensing?
/
i i
19 A
That is correct.
20 Q
They c uld address any issue?
A Yes.
gy Q
And in the sense tha+; this memorandum was addressed to you, it addressed any issue as any PSC might address any issue?
24 A
Yes.
25 l
i BENJAMIN REPORTING service I
a.:
..=~
- x__~ = C:L
- ~'
F~
-~._.. _ _ s -
1 2
Taylor 70 3
Q Have you ever talked to Mr. Deddens since the TMI 2 accident to ask him whether the Dunn me=o-4 randum came to his attention bef're March 28, 19797 a
A I don't believe so.
6 Q
You don't belicve you talked to hi= or you 7
don't believe?
8 A
I have not talked to him and asked him whether 9
that memorandum came to his attention.
10 Q
was there any routine for matters of safety 11 concern or PSC's to be routed in some cases to the 73 manager of the Engineering Department, as of February
'787 13 A
well, it was my practice when we had an item 14 which was considered to be reportable under the 15 10CFR21 to discuss them with the manager of engineering i
16 at approximately the same time we decided it was 17 reportable.
IB Q
Do you recall, with respect to the two Dunn 19 memoranda whether any review procedure was implemented 20 with respect to whether those memoranda were repo= table under Part 217 A
To my knowledge there was never any consideration 22 given that it would be.
I don't think Part 21 and the
\\
23 consideration of these memos ever was connected.
24 Q
Are the issues raised potentially reportable I 25 S ENJAMIN REPORTir3 5'tRv1CE
'N
_.., _ _ _ _,m
--**N',..w. :.^ - - - ^ ":,-- ^'
>t
_m__._
I I
2 Taylor 71 under Part 21, in the understanding that you have had 3
of these regulations?
MR. EDGAR:
I object to that as calling
,a for a legal conclusion.
6 Q
The question, Mr. Taylo$, goes to the understanding that you employed in the exercise of 0
your judgment in the tima period of February 1978 in 9
determining whether or not an issue should be 10 r* Ported under Part 21.
l
{
11 (Continued on following page.)
12 13 14 15 16
~
3 i
17 i
l I
18 19 f
20 21 22 23 24
,y,/-.
SENJAMIN R EPORTING SERVICE t
t
,;-y m..-<.
,,-,~ ~ ; = -
- ?*;; ;.F'
. ~ ~" l a-
- 8
> ~ ~ ~..
1 7,
14 f
n Taylor 72 3
A Again let me answer the question in two 4
ways.
tio, there is only one answer that I would 5
give you to that question.
I would not consider 6
this t be a reportable matter.
I would consider it to be an' item which is a good candidate for 4
handling according to the procedurc that we have,
,o and the procedure, I believe, would reach the con-9 clusion that this was not a reportable item, but it 10 would cause the operating procedure to most likely 11 have been influenced.
g12 Q
In your understanding of the way you
/
13 were making' judgments about the reportability of
};
issues in the time period of February 1978, what 4
is is-there about the issues raised in the Dunn 16 memorandum which would likely in your judgment, t
as it was exercised at that time, lead to the conclusion 17 that it would not be reportable under Part 217 18 A
It does not invalidate any of the analysis 19 that was done.
It just requires an operating pro-( 20 cedure change or an emphasis of operating procedures.
\\---
21 Q
Would it be fair to say that the last i
22 contact, to use the term broadly, that you had with I
the Dunn memoranda or the implications of the Dunn memoranda before March 28, 1979 was the occasion when you reviewed Mr. Dunn's February 16 memorandna 25 1
SENJAMIN R EPORTING S ERVICE m_..
l p-1 o
Taylor 80 3
because the Psc system required certain evaluation 4
process and it requires closure.
5 Q
The question is a yes or no question.
The question is had the Duna memorandu= been typed in on a PSC form and had it arrived on your desk in that i
form, rather than in memorandum form, in February of 8
1978 would you still characterire it as having been 9
misdirected?
10 A
No, because PsC's are supposed to come to my 11 desk according to procedure.
12 Q
Is the Dunn memorandum an appropriate 13 subject for inclusion in a PSC7 A
It is a good subject to be addressed on a PSC g
because the PSC system prevents it from dropping in is, the crack.
2 16 Q
And it would have been a good subject for 17 being contained or put into a PSC form at the time of IS February 19787 19 A
Yes.
20 Q
since exr 27 21 A
That is m*/ j udgment today, by the way.
n Q
Since the TMI 2 accident, have you talked s
with Mr. Hallman in any way about the handling of the Dunn memorandum 7 24 A
No.
25 I
BENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE i
l r
'I
- + -
~""'**"'~~~~h~~^'
^^
^
,u
= - -,
~
1 2
Taylor 82 se 10 3
Q We already cdvered Bert Dunn.
That is 4
why I didn't cover him.
MR. EDGAR:
He is talking about a different a
6 9
up or beyond that set.
A There was conversation with Ed-Kane and another a
fellow in my section as a result of resurrecting these high-pressure injection securing guidelines and putting 9
them into a prescription to the operating procedures.
10 I believe that was sometime in the neighborhood of j
II April 2nd or April 3rd.
l
)
12 Q
Who was the other person in your depart-13 ment that you talked to?
g4 A
I believe it was Dave Mars, and he happened to h*
15
" d**Y "h*
" Sh* * ****
3* **
f th* f*11 ""
t who works for Mr. Kane.
He happened to be on duty.
i We had round-the-clock coverage either the night we 17 did this or the following night.
18 Q
And the conversation with Mr. Kane and 19 Mr. Mars was with reference to issuance of instruc-20 tions to utilities?
21 A
res.
22 Q
After TMI 27 s
A 23 Q
And were instructions baiad on the Duna ne=oranda ultimately issued to the utilities after 5
l SENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE s
1.- - - - - - 7
p.-
w 2 u.:
/}
1 2
Taylor 83 3
the TMI 2 accident?
A Very similar instructions, yes.
4 l
Q Showing you what has previously been i
o l
arked as Olds Deposition Exhibit 102 and Olds 6
Deposition Exhibit 103, are those the instructions
~
t that were sent in April to the operating utilities?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
And are those instructions essentially 10 based on the prescription or ins ructions which 11 originally appeared in the Dunn memoranda?
12 A
Modifications to them, yes.
g (A brief recess was then taken.)
P Q
Mr. Taylor, you indicated that the Novak, 14 the so-called Novak nemorandum which we have 15 marked in these proceedings as Deposition Exhibit 38, 3
16 came to your attention some weeks ago.
How did the Novak memorandum get into your hands at that time?
l 18 A
Through Mr. Borsum's office.
19 Q
could you explain the background and how 20 it came e Mr. a rsum?
A Mr. Sorsum, I believe, got it from the Public n
Documents Room, and he called me and asked ma if I on had seen it, and I said no, that I would like to have 23 a ecpy of it, and he sent it to us.
24 Q
To your knowledge, had the Novak memorandum, t
23 B ENJAMIN R EPORTIN G SERVICE
_'}"'
y,.-
7 g 1
_..,,.3
, m, ;
__,e 4
1 2
Taylor 102 3
between yourself and Mr. Edgar?
A Tha t is the only one I recall, except for the 4
conversation which was indirectly of that nature that a
I had with Mr. Deddens.
6 Q
Y,ou have indicated that the substance of
-~~
7 the conversation with Daddens related to something 8
alone the lines, as you look back on the handling of 9
the ne=o, it doesn't give a very good picture; was 10 there anything else said in that conversation beside 11 that point?
A Just several different ways of saying the same 12 kind of thing, that we let something slip in the 3
cracks that in retrospect it just was too long a time.
g save you been involved, Mr. Taylor, in 15 any discussions of how'in the future the " slipping D
into the crack," as you put it, could be prevented?
17 A
Yes.
18 Q
Could you tell me abr at those discussions.
19 A
The most significant thing that I believe has 20, j,4ges_ talked about along those lines involves a number ly v-v M 21 of different efforts to try to close the loop between 22 the key participants in the cycle that goes from design to-operatio of a power plant, and we have discussed a number of possibilities, or I have been 24 involved in a number of discussions about possible 2"
U
^ /To I~
B ENJAMIN R EPORTING SERVICE
.e
__y-
,m
~. - -
4.
- ~-
m
-.x
=-
/'S;1 I
2 Taylor 103 3
ways or possibilities of coing enat, where we try to tighten the loop between the system designers, the 4
system analysts, the procedure w - i t e.r s, the trainers 3
and the operators, and there have been a nu=ber of 6
different actions considered.
7 This is one of the subjects which is addressed 8
in the Technical Review Committee's report; this is I
9 a draft report.
It is one of the things that motivated 10 the formation of the new unit in Dr. womack's section, 11 the Power Systems and Control Unit.
Some of the steps that have been considered and are being followed up on in are training programs for the analysts or programs g
involving the analysts in the use of the simulator, 12 greater in-depth followup on operating experiences 15 of any significance to. ferret out the root causes in g
16 the disturbances in the primary system and the secondary 17 system, and as those operating experiences are followed
^
IS up on to again involve these key participants, the 19 system designers, the analysts, the procedure vriters, the trainers and the operators, and to ask questions 20 like:
Did the design behave the way we predicted it 22 q
would behave?
i 23 Were the procedures adequate?
94 r
~
Was-the' training adequate?
l 25 i
l BENJAMIN R EPORT.NG 3ERVICE
.,.. _ - -. - ~ -, - -
-,.. ~,
f 1
Jl l
2 Taylor 104 3
And that is one category of activities.
The second 4
category is the formation of a standing safety review 5
group, and that is in the very formative stages right 6
now, and has been in the formative stages for the last month.
I have prepared some recommendations..to Dr__Roy g
along those--lines in.dr, aft form.
He has asked me to review all of the procedures which /.aal with safety-10 related issues, or which can deal with safety-related i
11 j
issues, including the site problem report procedure, 1"
the site instruction report procedure, the preliminary 13 safety concern procedure, the ccaput r development 14 procedure, and in conjunction with that, to consider 15 the formation of a standing safety Review croup whose primary function vuld be to oversee or to audit, not g
to relieve, but to oversee and audit the functioning 1,:
'of these procedures and the handling of safety-related 18 isst.cs.
19 Those are the two primary areas that I have 90 been involved in discussions along these lines.
s _
11 Q
You said the Safety Review Group is in 22 a preliminary stage, although that may not be your "3
exact language, but I recall that as the thrust of your.=tatement, and is it that the idea is in a 3
preliminary stage or the implementation of such a
,s_
BENJAMIN R EPORTING SERVtCE l
--n
--w m-m
- LL1.'T:'2:C$CT.:.L*X317DM'dLT.ilC'"M?mMW'"ME?0 MWMA NNAAINIASN= $T=~* '
1 2
Taylor 113 I3 Q
Mr. Taylor, you indicated that one of the subjects of discussion with respect to how to prevent f.
5 an item such as the Dunn memorandum from falling into 6
the crack in'the future was a followup on operating 7
experience involving some key participants that you g
identified; to ask such questions as whether the design behaved as predicted, whether the operating 9
)
or emergency procedures were adequate in light of the events and had training been adequate in light L
of the events.
12 Had there been such a procedure at Babcock 13 s wilcox up to March 28, 19797 14 A
Not to do the kind of things that I described 15 there.
There has been a procedure which caused 16 followup action on site problems, but it didn't have l
17 the integrating effects that I described there.
It 18 was more of'a, here is a problem and here is a solution, without gg asking generic or broader, wider-ranging questions.
MR. ROCKWELL:
Off the record.
(
(Discussion held off the record.)
MR. ROCKWELL:
May we have a copy of the 23 site problem report procedure.
24 MR. EDGAR:
If we have not already furnished R ENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE
,p-i e -g fg a
g,
- 98 T9
______2___
_ - - - -