ML20147E440

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Rept of Interview W/Cw Smyth on 850510.Smyth Advised of Unfamiliarity W/Environ Qualification Program in Technical Sense & W/Documentation Needed to Qualify Individual components.Marked-up Lw Harding Statement Encl
ML20147E440
Person / Time
Site: 05000000
Issue date: 06/20/1985
From: Matakas R
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML17342B416 List:
References
FOIA-87-696 1-84-021, 1-84-021-02, 1-84-21, 1-84-21-2, NUDOCS 8801210115
Download: ML20147E440 (7)
v • d • e


Text

.. ._ ,

(.

J REPORT OF INTERVIEW f Report Number: 1-84-021 Courtney W. SMYTH was interviewed by the reporting Investigator on May 10, 1985. SMYTH is the THI-1 Licensing Manager, and his office is physically located at THI-1.

SMYTH advised that he is not familiar with the EQ program in a technical sense and is not familiar with the documentation needed to qualify individual components. SMYTH indicated that he had no knowledge that either the May 20, 1983 or the February 10, 1984 GPUN submittals contained any felse statements.

He said he did not recall talking to either MAUS or BOUCHER about the EQ program during the time of the aforementioned submittals. He said that over the years, he had talked to MAUS on several occasions and was left with the impression that the components within the scope of the Environmental Quali-fication program were qualified. He said that he could not specifically recall conversations or specifics of the conversations. He said that he did not recall attending any meetings with either BOUCHER, MAUS, or QA Auditors concerning the Environmental Qualification program. He said that at the time the submittals were made, such correspondence was required to have three sign-offs. In the case of the May 20 and February 10 documents, SMYTH said the document would require sign-offs from Licensing, Plant Operations, and Technical Functions.

SMYTH did not provide any additional pertinent information.

Reported By:

R. A. Matakas, Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I his/pfsA. 6 -2 0- E?

)

Fou M M

8801210115 880106 696 PDH 5TN .? 1 hNss

)

P1 ace: h/l5 U $ Y Date: QAfg jj, jfff

(.

STATEMENT

[1,LeroyW. HARDING,herebymakethefollowinovoluntarystatementtoRichard A. MATAXAS, who has identified himself to me as an Investigator with the U. S.

Nuclear Regulatory Comission. I have provided Mr. MATAKAS with this informa-tion on April 11, 1985 with no threats having been made or promises having been extended to me.

As background information, I ar currently the Senior Licensing Engireer anc have bee with GPUh in this position since 1981 My current work address is 100 Interoate Parkway , Parsippany, he. Jersey and my werk telephone r.ue ,er is (201) 299-225E.

WP /W As the Senior Liter. sing Engineer, I am responsible for,alf interactiordwith the NRC's Office of huclear Reacto jaulation(NRR)concerningtheThreeMile Island Nuclear Statier., Unit 1. . teractior6with the NRC's Inspection and Enforcener.t Branch is hag at tgegyevel; however, in either case, the docuneris w:ci be signed,by the Site Dire:ter, wh: at the currer.: time is Mr. herr, "Ur:LL. GNh Licer.!ing Prote:ure LP-00I ad:resse! the pro:e:vres :

be folio e: relatirc tc ccrresorn:ence gcing tc the NR:. The prote:.u e ces fe" a Licensing, a Te:hrscai Fun: tier. Division, anc ar, Operations Divis4:r revie, be#cre eg ; y g is signe; by Mr. HUKILL. Ir the case of tnep g 2C,19E: 'G% R T: hr. 5211-85-157) anc the February 10. 1954 (GFL lct~ '

No. 5211-54-203E) et.u e-ts, : ,,rj'g,bf c t,h _dpym,enge,ug3 cr input fror Te:nni:a Functions F.4,0perations jpersor;nel. Comerts from indiVicut's %f':

i to me or, draft copies cf tre l werk ir ou Pa-siop w" c gffice

..-J.- m r usuaV v tw vece i

c0:umente Site revie. Conments usually Come tc me on GPUN "Comert Res:lutic f orms . It is my respersibility tc contact the approt-iate personne' tc resc1ve all coments made or draft letters prior tc obtairing tr,t final signatu-e for the letter whic , ,goththeMay20andFebruaryiC lette-s, wocic have bee Mr. HUKILL. I have provided Mr. MATAKAS wit" cc:ies c' 211 do:ume-ts ir. GPUN Licensing files relating to a: tivit y surrou :inc tne May 20 ar: Feteua 3 IC letter;- -I cic not provide M . K4TALAS witr c::'e: c' l

I

- ^ ) 'Q, "

> m ~, u. re s , lam. s h: : D c M Oc+,n G
  • r ' n b (* U '"' k tu ? a e *

! 4 c

h , j, , p . ,.o *jr ,$ (J (h.- W o u c+/ ' 'T Ga. N M E N S ") /W

,. / . ~

F6Z4-? ?- U V

/b b .14 W try At

2

/ Comment Resolution sheets involving the February 10, 1984 letter, as he already had in his possession the coment sheets that pertained which he advised me he had received from Mr. Ron TOOLE, TMI-1 Operations and

(

Maintenance Director.

In the case of the May 20 document, I received final letter approval from Don CRONEBERGER, Director of Engineering and Design in the Technical Functions Division and for whom the Environmental Qualification people ultimately work.

The first paragraph of the May 20 letter is something that I drafted to put the letter in its proper perspective and established the format for the letter. The first section of the report entitled Safety-Related Electric Eauipment was drafted by me based on verbal input fror M i d who was the Environmertal Qualification Manager at the time. I was aware that tFe Aucust 28, 1981 letterreferredtointheMg20cocumentcor.taine: the Syster Component Evaluatiot Worksheets (5)r!W) for the safety-relate: eie:tri: e c t. i c -

ment impcrtant tc safety which was requirec tc be qualified ir, accercance witt DOF guicelines dated N0vember 1979. I was a3sc aware that the Frankiir

! c.o r

' Research Center (FRC) inspected these SKEW sheets in December 1982 anc wrote a l

TechnicalEvaluationReport(TER)notinggrtaitdeficiencies.

t Wner I wrcte

< the May 20 c:, umett , : did ne compare SKEW sheets to TEE iters. Basically, I

ce: err. ire :n-c.;;" verta' corve-saticr witt MAUE that the letters re'e -e: ::

l nj May 2C lette- rer-eserte: the latest cert:ner: r.a s t e- s.

ir Se:ticr > c' an: relate: S(Ek snee:s fc- tnese cenconents recciring ou 'i'1:sti:r. T r.e see:ific state,e-; ir the May 20 letter that the como:ne-ts lister a-(

l outli'ie: ir ac::rcan:e itt DOF cuicelires cate: h0vercer 1979' was serba'13

, :2 -e -

! relatec tc me :,s u hMAUS. : was aware that tne DOE guicelines we-e the casis for Envie:nnertai Oualificatior but : was nct intimately fae4'iar witr the a::ual te:nr.i:a' information needed tc cualify a certair com?:ne ;.

l l

At tre tine that , crafted the May 20 letter, . was pr: tar'y w:rtir.; er ary one # 1C 1: 15 or:jects at the time. : reije:Jbp a ry er MAUS 's in:.,

il w ee  :

w araftec the lette- anc did not realize the,r.agnitude o' the wn:le Eraircr-j mer.tal Ouelificatier. program at the time that : drafte: the letter. Cente-rin; I lette*s sucr as this, some people give me what I woule :6i' g eat in:Ut' but

w
vic not categorize incut fror the Environmenta' Oue'ificatier Bean ",

I ,

^k l

3 j elating to different licensing requirements, in this category of people. I would like to add that at the time both letters were written, MAUS was the l Environmental Qualification Supervisor and had only tw individuals working for him. He had Mr. BOUCHER (working on TM1-1 EQ) and Mr. BANUA (working on Oyster Creek EQ) in his Branch. I would point out that in Section 1 of the Aenr M May 20 letter, I referred to a March 21. 1983 letter (GPU Geeteel No.

5211-83-054) where the Environmental Qualification Branch for GPUN had requested a meeting to resolve what we termed discrepancies between the FRC TER deficiencies and our understanding of component qualification. (This letter was actually dated March 1, 1983 and not March 21, 1983.) Prior to requesting the meeting in the March 1,1983 letter, I had talked to both MAUS and BOUCHER about problems with the SER/TER. They both indicated to me that they had res:ictions or could ccrrect risuncerstandings which the.y felt existec in tne TER, anc : callec Mr. Jim Var. VLIEi, NR;/hRF., tc discuss the natter witn hit. Van VLIET teld me that the NRC was having contractual problers with FRC and that we should request a meeting with the NRC tc discuss our concerns. This was the reason that I requested such a neetine in the March 1, 1953 letter. Our intention for such a meeting was to provide the documents which both MAUS and BOUCHER thought would resolve the TER deficien-cies. B0tr KAUS and BOUCHER had incicatec to me that they hac cocumer.ts wti:t w:vic rescive sore of the ceficiencies ncte: in tre TEF out FR; r,ad n:t recue:te: tre co;unert: and the cc:uments we e not r,-:v;;e: t: ther #:-

censicevan : ir ineir TEF. Since we cic n:t have the netting orier :: tet May 2C lette , : on:e again discussed the problen cf res:iutier # TEF de'i:iencies witr botn MAUS anc BOUCHER anc it was oe:i:ed tnat we wot.i reiterate our recuest for a meeting in the May 20, 1982 ietter 5e:ause

  • fe't that su:t a meeting coulc haVe an impact on the cualificatior, of certait comp netts w*ich dic n0t meet outlificatior requirements at n:te: in the TER.

Basically, wt!! we felt woLic tapper ir such a meetin; w ule De tha we w0ui:

prese".t Our case for cualificatior based or the nen ir'cer.!tior that we nat, the NR: w : ,. i t revien tne cocuments anc connent, anc somennere alonc int ' i ne , -

we woulc eitner cualify the comp nent or react a decisier on wnat eise woul:

be neece: fcr qualificatien. Rettrcing the May 20, 1982 letter, : felt tnat bott MA.'5 anc B00:HER were sure of theyjpsreca* din;tnei-cen:iust:* that con; nerts liste or the ap;r:priate Sh sheets we'e catlifie: ir ac::ect :e witt D:4 cO:elines. .MP

4 If you look bt the c Mre pondence project accountability check sheet that was prepared by C.mo.3 L ley SMYTH, Site Licensing, you will note that both Mr.

f CHISH0LM and Mr. BROUGHTON, along with myself, are listed as having input intc the May 20 letter. CHISH0LM is listed because he had input into Secticn 2 of the document, and BROUGHTON is listed because he had input into Section 3 of the document. There are two correspondence project accountability check sheetsfortheMay20 letter,theone!jusgrjfgedto,andasecondone which ! prepared. I listed MAUS, SMYTH, WN/fMORE, and BOUCHER as ir.dividuals whom I received inpu g g and the final letter approval block was sigr.ed by Don CRONEBERGER.

W13(TMORE was my Supervisor at the time and his m input n.vwas .s.M Q:

<. g j,,in basically just a review of the May 20 letter. SMYTH's input was<the "',>

c" accountability check sheet and the transmittal to me of the site coment resciutier, sheets whi:b Mr. MATAKAS has copies of. I have already ncte: betr MAUS anc BOUCHEF's input.

On October 5, 1983, MAUS, BOUCHER, and myself attenced a meeting with the NE:,

the purpose of which was to come to an understancing of the outstarding deficiencies of the NRC SER/TER dated December 10, 1982 or Environmentai Qualificaticr.. desvael%,ing, At the meet we discussed a possible resolutier, fer eact ceficier:y anc ::r ::c. it a resciution for each deficien:y. : have : evicet Mr. Mt~AKAE witr cories of bctr rine an; MAU5's nties of trat meeting. Tne Fet ua f I C , 19 E.4 letter was tne resp: se tc tne 0::::e- E, 19E: ree: 9;. "

tre irte-ir, we ha: sen: tne NE: e letter stating we w:ul t resp:n: :: :ne ce'icien:ies ciscusse ir. the 00 ober E meeting by tne en: c' January 1954; no,,ev e r , we actually rescencec cr Fe: vary 10, 19Ea.  : w:uic lite :: ::ir:

Out that in KAUS's n:tes o' tne Octeter 5, 19E' mes:ing, re state: : tat, " G E . '.

ba: recuestec this meeting las: Feb uary because we Oct.it no: unce-sta : wra responses were re:uired tc the ceficien:ies cited ir the SEE, cate: Ee:e,:e-10, 1952' and goes er te say, "Base: upor, the meeting we n0w kr.0, he, tc rest n: to close cut the de#iciencie:.'

Again, I drafted the February 10 letter based up r input fror b::r ML.5 anc BOU:HER. The stateme-t that *:t is GPUN s positier tna* 7 ' is co -ertly it compiiance with the Envirormental Qualificatior rule IC L F SC.dE as ap iica:le tc TM:-l was base: on inform >.:ior provice: tc me verta'is b 00:* - -

MAU an: BOUCHER.g nM . MA AKA5 poir:e' tris state-e ; out :: re ar: ine-

.s Gt ne H < ns s G..,. d % h* u en,d rcv.ew<cI C y N^~~"' W ~ *.d N'O E ,4 K ru [ix W$ . n ?u* Y J 5 w *.Kt a a CJr C O f ,

L_

1 5 l

[ointedoutthatinAttachment2,SectionB,ASCOSolenoidValves,the statement is made that ASCO soient, ids will be replaced with cualified ASCO

( solenoids by June 1984.#Thcsc :t:tenc-ts obvi;usi7 co ntrediet-eact.-ethermg -W I,really an nn+ L e wha + uns going t'rcup y mind when ! dref teu the Fehem y 10, 1^0e ktter. Attachment 2 was also provided to me by MAUS and I didreadthroughtheattac) rent. I recall specifically asking him if this meantthatallofourS)dWtheetsreflectedqualificationwithnooutstanding items and he responded, "Yes." I honestly did not feel that either the May 20, 1983 er the February 10, 1984 letters contained false statements when I drafted and submitted them.

In early 1984, wher we were answering the U.S.C. 2.206 petition, MAUS and :

talked ab:ut the february 10 letter. I believe that MALS hcrestly felt tra; everythinc was cualifiec' arc the February 10 letter was accurate. 1-cr .:

spici:/ statement the ir At0ta hnert u.. ~luen Jc- 1- 2, etion B, relating tc the ASCO solenoids erro * +ha+ m M '+.y*e new W sheet fer the solencids we; : t anc it reflected t were cualified based or the future corrritmer.t." N/ '

,*Pr u ocm.sn fM+Jat the scienoidtc//W

"' 1 did not actually see the S(EW sheet so I do not know if this was the case.

I knen that the NR was werking on a new SEE and that the February 10, 1954 lette wouic prc:at') BE used as input int: tna SEE.

M . KAT AL A: ta s snv r" some come-; res:iutict snee:S wri:r estieve ee f ror F . A. LE Y : NE , 'c. - Engiree", regarcine tne Februa y 10, '954 ie::er. We resolvec LEY:NE s comerts by taking the cement rescii ticr. shee:s dy '

MAUS anc he anc : weat over tre res:iut'.;.s. MAUS ha. tne fina' tectri:a' say or the resclu;ict of each cf LEV!NE's coments.

Ir, retrospect, fee' that there was not enough rescurces apr'ie: t: :ne Environnertai Oua'.ificatior Prograr.  : base this cr, ar:n; ct6er tr.ines, one of Bot LAGEANGE's (NE: ECD ccTents at tre er: ef one # our meetincs witr +

NR: where he said, ser.e Diants nac as mary as 15 tc 2C oeocie worling ir tre area of Environmental Qualificatiers. Ir my ocir.4er it was the 2.20E t.S.:.

petitier tha spa k er managenent 's atter. ict t: tre EC :*ccrat as we at tre March 1954 NR: aucit and the April 27 nettir; 4tr tne hE: ir Betnes:2. Wb n( < - m ~~%E- ~ 'd ~  : V 1

.u(9 p,

  • N . ?. ,c . < 'k:

n .  ; % '

o -

y . ~ M ' t, S St. h ~ ) 0 M O "': * *

' $ ' ^ ~ ?'""'~~~~

~~

3.jx .O,,&..,,m i l,,f.<sn " CO. E m H V ' " ' -

, . , . - ;, ., .1 &

n' e .- . r c. n ' '* pr

l 6

.g/4Ihavereadoverthissix-pagestatenentanddiscusseditscontentswithMr.

MATAKAS who had it typed for me. I have bed the opportunity to'make

.( corrections and additions ard this statement is the truth to the best of rj knowledge and belief t /V SIGNATURE: , ,,-;  ! N',/3//S~ / Ms Ph

./

l saa subscribed and sworn to before me this #'d a/ day of April, 198E, at

)% son NT.

If (/

INVEST: GAT 0E: .,' cf, ,V '*

I i

(

. _ _ _ _

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20147E440&oldid=3363485"