ML19208B136
| ML19208B136 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/05/1979 |
| From: | Haverkamp D, Yuhas G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 7909190100 | |
| Download: ML19208B136 (29) | |
Text
.
7 t
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
I In the Matter of:
2 IE THI INVESTIGATION INTERVIEW 3;
of Donald R. Haverkamp, Reactor Inspector, Region I i
5!
l 6i 7!
8; Trailer #203 Si NRC Investigation.Sita TMI Nuclear Pcwer Plant 10!
Middletown, Pennsylvania 11l June 19, 1979 12!
(Date of Interview) 13!
July 5, 1979 14l (0 ate Transcr1pt Typec) 312 151 (Tape Numcer(s))
16i 17; r
13!
19l 20!
21:
NRC PERSGNNEL:
22l Gregory P. Yuhas Bob Marsh 23; 24i 25:
~-
c, c-lJJ
.r 7 9 0 919 0 /C?C3)
?
l lj MARSH: The time is 3:23 p.m.
The date is June 19, 1979. My name is 2l Bob Marsh. I am an investigator with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory, 31 assigned to the Region III offices, Chicago, Illinois.
This afternoon i
4; we're located in Trailer 203 at the TMI site near Middletown, Pennsylvania 5l and we're here for the purpose of interviewing Mr. Donald R. Haverkamp, i
Si HAVERKAMP, who is a project inspector for the TMI site. 'He is assigned 7
to Region I.
At this time before we start I would like the other 8
individuals to introduce themselves and spell their last name and g;
identify the position.
i 10' YUHAS:
This is Gregory P. Yubas, YUHAS, Radiation Specialist, Region I'
12l 13l MARSH:
Ok, so that's it.
There's three of us in the room at this 14' time.
rien, before we begin, prior to turning the tape on, we discussed briefly the two page memo which you have in front on you.
And at this 17; time I'd just like to review very briefly the contents of that.
As you're aware, it covers the purpose and scope of our investigation, 18!
and of interest to me in discussing it right now is the last paragraph which lists several questions, which I'd like to get your response to.
And the first question reads, do you understand the above making 21; reference to the two page memo?
22l l
231 HAVERKAMP:
Yes.
24!
25i r,
i l
2 I
I MARSH:
q And secondly, do we have your permissi,on to tape this interview?
f 2'
3 HAVERKAMP: Yes.
4i Sj MARSH:
And thirdly would you like a copy of the tape?
Sl HAVERKAMP:
No.
7 Si MARSH:
g Ok, if you should change your mind, we will have both a copy of the tape and the transcript a3 it becomes available for you should you change.
Ok, at this time, Don, I'd like for you to begin by y
giving us a little bit of your background and describing your duties
]
as a Project Inspector with NRC as they pertained to the TMI site.
14 HAVERKAMP:
I've been assigned to the Region I office for a little over three and a half years.
During that time, I was in the Reactor 17:l Operations Branch assigned as a project inspector for various facilities, Yankee Rowe, Maine Yankee, Ginna, Calvert Cliffs.
And most recently ISt assigned as Project Inspector at Three Mile Island, Unit 1 and 2 since 191 about February of 1978.
As Project Inspector I have conducted various inspections of the facility at least once every three months doing an 21!
operations type inspections uf Unit I and/or Unit 2.
Generally go to 22l the facility about once a month for periods of three to four days, 1
23l sometimes longer.
I also schedule, review it, schedule inspections 24i for other inspectors in the office, review the reports, concur on the 25i J
eqg
,c e
f 3
1:
reports when they're written, receive correspondence related to Three l
2!
Mile Island, both units.
I'm on the distribution on all the reports I
3 that comes in.
I'm also primary contact for the licensee relating to 4{
licensing type matters or reports to the region.
i Sj i
6l MARSH: Greg, do you want to pick up then?
71 8
YUHAS:
Don, when was your last inspection at TMI'2?
,9!
HAVERXAMP:
10J At THI cur 2 last inspection was actually combined inspection f
of both units.
The inspection was the week prior to March... the incident on March 28th.
I think it's the 19th or 24th, approximately.
13 It's Monday through Friday of the previous week, plus March 26th.
Now y
that inspection was primarily inspection of Unit 1, which was in a
]
final efforts of the refueling outage, preparing to startup, during g
the last week in March.
I also inspected Licensee Event Reports relating to Unit 2.
That part of my inspection require that I go to trailers on the site complex, although I never physically did a tour 18l in Unit 2, in that time period.
I did do tours of Unit I areas.
t 191 20!
YUHAS:
The reason for having you over today is to clarify several 21!
points related to the facility organization at TMI. What we have is a i
2 21 memorandum from Met Ed, GPU dated March 5,1979, to Boyce Grier from J. G. Herbein, Vice President, Generation.
The first statement of the 24j letter is the reason for the interview.
And I'll read that statement.
25i C.jf
I 4
I 1.'
This letter is to document the telephone conversation between Mr.
2:
Ronald J. Stevens of Metropolitan Edison Company, and Mr. Donald 3
Haverkamp of your staff concerning the changes to our organization.
4 The next statement states, " effective March 5,1979, Mr. Gary P.
g Miller was promoted from Station Superintendent, Three Mile Island i
6 Nuclear Station, to Manager, Generation, Nuclear.
In his new position, l
he will report directly to the Vice President in Generation.
Unit 2 7
g Technical Specification 6.21, shows a facility organization such that gj a manager of the generation is placed between the station superintendent and the Vice President of Generation." Our point of concern is the 10I text of that conversation in that did you specifically concur on this change to technical specification organization charts without prior
]
approval of concurrence of operating licensing branch.
t 14:
HAVERKAM9:
No, I did not concur on this change although I acknowledged the change was going to take place.
Relevent to this is the fact that Unit I has had an outstanding item which is documented over previous inspections, concerning the station organization... unit organization, 18:
the fact that the FSAR, the organization as described in the FSAR, 19l quality assurance plan, and the Unit 1 technical specifications was 201 not the same.
Nor did they reflect the current organization which exists at the site.
This item originated about two years ago perhaps longer.
There have been several technical specification changes 2 31 submitted to revise Unit 1 Tech Specs.
Also...I don't recall any of 24I I
the specific tech changes in Unit 2 Tech Specs but the changes were 25i I
't f
{
5 ilj just addressing, it really applied to both units.
Now there was not a 2!
similar unresolved item for Unit 2.
It was just carried under Unit 1 i
3j catstanding item list. Another factor is that Unit 1 Tech Specs were i
4j being revised in the standard Tech Spec format.
It was kind of 5l understood that the final form of Unit 1 Tech Specs would be the same l
61 as Unit 2 Tech Specs and they would all be the same as the station 7{
organization. These changes have been described previously, discussed during telephone conversations between myself, other project inspectors, g
section chiefs, and with the project managers of licensing.
There was g
n
...I was not aware of any concern over the changes other than the 101 h
fact that the Tech Specs did not reflect the actual organization.
]
During the specific conversation with Ron Stevens, I asked if he was initiating a change to Tech Specs.
Now the question was really...I 13y don't think I was specific, when I said are you going to change the y
Tech Specs.
He said, "yes." The Tech Spec change was going to be submitted, in fact, was scheduled to be out that day, at least a proposed Tech Spec change.
I'm not sure what has happened or what happened since I talked.
181 191 YUHAS:
Don, do you receive copies of proposed Tech Spec changes the I
same time they're sent to licensing?
21!
22!
HAVERKAMP:
No, we do not get correspondence directly from the licensee.
In other words, we do not get carbon copies of licensee correspondence 24i to NRR.
We will get copies usually a couple weeks later, after NRR 25{
c U j',
\\
4
i.
~
l 6
t l
receives them, as part of the NRC way of distributing correspondence, lj 2j but we usually log about two or three weeks, what goes to NRR.
I 31 4
YUHAS: Don, can you describe, if any, the impact of eliminating the title manager, of nuclear generation between the site superintendent 5
t 6j and the vice president of the company? Did this change that occurred, 7l did it have any impact on the organization as far as you're concerned?
I 81 HAVERKAMP:
If there was any impact on previous responsiblities, it g,
was primarily as was explained to me a means of upgrading the management 101 f
at the site so that they could deal at the same levels as the manager, of generation engineering, manager of quality assurance, in other words, these people would report directly to the vice president of 73 l
generation, which was Herbein.
There was responsbilities that previously 14 It was a ful illed by station superintendent, would remain the same.
151 change in position, so that station superintendent is at the same 16i level organizationally, as these other managers.
p 18 YUHAS:
Did you inform your section chief or your branch chief that 19!
the licensee had told you they were in fact changing their facility organization in advance of an improved Tech Spec change?
21; 22!
i HAVERKAMP:
Yes, I did inform my section chief directly.
I don't 23j recall if I informed the branch chief for it, but I believe that the 24{
branch chief but I believe he was advised of this.
Also we wrote a 25!
-s
'i..
1
)
.7 t
i 1
morning report after getting the infernation oa Moncay, car daily 2:
report the next morning, acknowlodging tha, change in organization.
3J The morning. report did not specifically state that the tech specy 4
weren't changsd.
5, Si YUHAS:
For the record, who is.your section Ahief.
I
'~
71 gf HAVERGMP:
At tne time cf this change, it was Rick Keinig.
95i 10)
YUHAS:
Departing from the specific change wa're di:, cussing now, at
'~
the time of your last inspection, were you aware of the position of 17 e.
g,;
Mr. David Limroth?
i 131 HAVERKAMP:
No, I was not.
~
ly
' 15 ;
YUHAS:
At the time of your last inspection, were you aware of the i
position maintained by Mr. Shovlin?
17!
18t HAVERKAMP:
Mr. Shovlin, to my knowledge, was the Maintenance Supervisor.
191 20I YUHAS:
As we find the organization...being somewhat different than 21 Tech Spec 6.E1? Mr. Shov.in is accarently the Superintendent of i
Maintenance, and Mr. Limroth is'tne 3uperintendent of Technical Support in Administration.
Again, coth changes are not consistent with the 24j figure described in_ the Technical Specifications. Were you informed I
t, 9.
F
l l
l i
8 of either of these changes to the facility orgainzation? Or when they 1!
2 were implemented?
31 4
HAVERKAMP:
I was aware Mr. Shovlin was the Superintendent of Maintenance.
I do not know what specifically the Tech Specs call that position.
I
,u s
6; thought that was the same.
I would have to look at the Tech Specs to see what the difference is, I'm just not aware of a difference.
7 8l YUHAS: Yes, there's no Tech Spec position for Superintendent of g;
Maintenance. There's a Maintenance Supervisor for each unit.
1 n:
HAVERKAMP:
- 0. K.
I really am not aware of any of the changes either 12 f...
r pending changes for Unit Z Tech Specs,Section VI.
- Although, 13 the matter has come up, specifically, related to... chemistry.
You g
know, physics changes, and inspections performed by Karl Plumlee, we'd g
have to go back to documentation.
There is some documentation that 1b <
indicates that the Unit 2 Tech Specs do not reflect staffing in accordance with FSAR, or, you know, anybody that... or Tech Spec requirements.
The actual staffing is not the same.
It's not correct.
20!
YUHAS: What's the normal procedure on... if the inspector identifies 21) the facility organization is not consistent with shown in Technical i
22!
Specifications?
24l 25L
\\h\\
ty.,n I
{
9 i
lj HAVERKAMP:
The normal procedure is that they're identified to your 2
supervisor, when you learn of this.
Discuss it with the station 3
manager, because what you normally expect is that they make the change 4;
... officially make the change, per Tech Specs before it's affected at Si the plant.
For some reason, that didn't happen here.
I'm not aware 6i of why it didn't happen.
This matter was discussed with the licensee 7j during the phone conversation, that future changes should be authorized, 8
pri r to their taking effect.
91 1
YUHAS:
This would be the conversation dated...
y 11:
h HAVERKAMP:
It was the conversation on March 5th.
I 13!
YUHAS:
At this time, I would like to leave the issue of the facility organization, and go back to some information that has come to our attention as a result of interviews, relating to the event of March 28th.
Specifically, the Chemistry Supervisor, Mr. Edward Houser, has 17, stated in a previous interview, that he was involved in a situation where he was highly contaminated, could not be deconned, and upon
, 91 1
leaving the site, he mentioned your name and alluded to the fact that you may, in fact, have been present when discussions were made relating c
to Mr. Houser being sent to Hershey Medical Center for decontamination.
The text of this conversation occurs in Tape TMI #s 75 and 76.
At 23!
this time, I'm going to hand you a copy of that transcript, and ask 1
24!
you to give us your comments on what... with respect to what you 25i remember about that particular evening.
l l
14L c,
I
{
10 1l MARSH:
Can you reference a page on that transcript, also?
l 2!
3j HAVERKAMP:
- 0. K.
I'm reading from page 113.
The paragraph on top of the page states as follows, "0.K., fine." This is Mr. Yuhas speaking.
4 Sj "O.K. fine.
Alright.
I'd like to go back to the day of the incident, I
which was March 29th.
- 0. K.
This is the day that you collected a 6i sample. You and Pete Velez are ccming off the audit.
Do you express 7
1 your concern about... at that time, fairly high levels of contamination g;
on your arms and hands to anyone you met coming off the island?
97 10l Bef re y u g t to the 500 KV station." Answer by Houser, " Yeah, we y
met, well we were told to come out to the gate, and wait for our results from our TLD readings. While we were waiting for Bob McCann to arrive there..." statement by Yuhas, " Don Haverkamp."
1,;
14I YUHAS:
Correction.
The name Don Haverkamp, Houser brought the name up.
He just said out of the blue, " Don Haverkamp". Question and then 16 i
he proceeded with the next statement.
17!
1Sl HAVERKAMP:
Next paragraph, Don Haverkamp met us at the gate.
I guess 191 we had... I think I had seen him in the Processing Center, and I 20!
think he left and went out to the gate, and I think came out to talk 21l to us while we ware there.
And meanwhile, Bob McCann came with our readings.
And we had expressed that you know, we were really still 23l l
highly contaminated.
Maybe they can send us to the Medical Center, 241 and I'm not sure what anyone responded to that, but, we didn't get li 25
'4b
\\
y y
I b
4 I
i i,
l 11 l
Do you feel there is some reason why you weren't sent 1{
there.
Yuhas:
End of off to the Hershey Medical Center to be decontaminated?"
2 3
reading.
41 As I recall the situation, I arrived at the Three Mile HAVERKAMP:
5 This is on the 30th... the 29th.
i area around 4 p.m., that afternoon.
6 I went to the Visitors Center, sat in for scme period of time, trying 7f to determine what was happening, and I remained there for a period of gj And in company with John Johnson, proceeded onto the several hours.
-l g
10l site, as I was going to be on shift work, for the swing shift, from At the north gate to the island, I observed a Met Ed four to midnite.
g y
vehicle and there were two occupants. One of them was Mr. Houser.
13l The other individual was Mr. Pete Velez, he was the Health Physics They were inside the vehicle, and they were processed off Foreman.
14 the island.
And they drove away.
The thing that called my attention 15l was that they were both in anticontamination clothing, and I don't recall speaking to them at the time, although I may have had some
""* '#* Y " 9 "9'
95 18!
19, In any case, I talked.o the guards and found out that they were headed to the 500 KV sabstation.
I was thinking more about their 20j contamination, or their possible contamination because of the clothing 21i Of they were wearing.
I also proceded to the 500 KV substation.
This was my first course, up this time, I had not been on the island.
23!
encounter on a personal basis on what was happening.
241 25i
\\ Dn c u,n i
e
1 I
I 12 Don, can you give us an approximate time that this was taking MARSH:
1; 2l place now?
31 It was dark... it was approximately 9 or 10 o' clock at HAVERKAMP:
4 So, John Johnson and I, proceeded to the 500 KV substation.
5l night.
And it was the fiast time there, and the substation, by the way, is i
6{
not too far... a half mile from the station, near the Visitors Center.
i 7l At that location, there were a couple of security guards, and there t
gj Houser and a third individual, who'was another HP was Mr. Velez, Mr.
g; was also there at the time.
I supervisor, or chemistry... Bob McCann 10 spoke with a gentlemen, or I don't remember specifically, who it was I y
spoke to... if it was Velez or Houser.
But, I wanted to find out ey were go ng to be doing, I knew Gey had been taMng a reactor a
13 From the conversation I understood that they had got coolant sample.
sprayed while they were taking a sample.
Somehow they got wet while g
taking a sample.
They got contaminated.
I really wasn' t aware of the extent of the contamination, although, it was... they were 17!
measuring the... that they were still contaminated by a personnel frisker which was being used by these security people at the 500 KV 191 station.
Supposably, this was like a temporary monitoring point, 201 because activities were so high at the site, that you couldn't tell if l
21!
You had to take him away from the site, to a person was clean or not.
22' i
measure whether or not he was contaminated.
We'l, I asked first I 23l Then I was suprised that he would leave the site being contaminated.
t 24)
So, we discussed decontamination, I
learned why that could happen.
\\as 251 s r.,
go o t
i f
13 I
somewhat.
And during discussions, we talked about going back to the 2!
site to be cleaned up... to be decantaminated.
I was aware that they 3f had... at least showered once.
I wasn't really knowledgeable of the 4l extent of the decontamination they had attempted up until that time.
5)
During the discussion, there was also a mention of the Hershey Medical Si Center.
I treated that somewheres... as a suggestion...perhaps a 7!
place to go for decontamination.
I'm not aware of any arrangements i
g!
that have been made with that center for decontamination.
It seemed g;
that the appropriate place to go would be back at the site.
And since 10l Pete Velez is the Health Physics Supervisor, cause he was the right i
11.l person to go back with Houser, who was contaminated.
New, that's y
about all I recall of this situation right now.
l 13l MARSH:
You said when you first saw him, at the north gate, they were wearing Anti-C's, anticantaminated clothing? Can you describe that?
16 17l HAVERKAMP:
Well, there was paper clothing... white... like paper coveralls.
191 20!
MARSH:
So it would have been the paper coveralls they had been wearing?
22l HAVERKAMP:
That's what I recall.
I know it was anticontamination 23l clothing.
It was not regular street clothing.
I recognized it right off as anticontamination clothing.
} b., J CR)
~
1 l
I I
f 14 i
lj MARSH:
- 0. K.
It's not the wet suits, or anything that they would be 2l using as protective clothing?
I 31 i
4j HAVERKAMP:
I don't recall any wetsuit.
No.
Si MARSH:
So it would have been realistic that they had been, would 6
possibly have showered once, initially, and be into the paper clothes 7
8j as such to clothing?
i 9!
HAVERKAMP: That's correct.
10 11!
MARSH:
In other words, they were not wearing what you would expect to ig be original work clothes?
14!
I HAVERKAMP:
It wasn't only that they weren't wearing work clothes and 151 It they weren't wearing someting that would protect them from spray.
161 ll was more of a just anticontamination, lose particle protection.
17 i
181 YUHAS:
A couple of comments.
First of interest, do you remember who 19!
told you they were sprayed?
211 HAVERKAMP:
It was either Houser or Vele:.
One of those two individuals 22I l
said they were sprayed while taking a sample.
231 24!
25!
ikI c } '.',
i
~
I t
i 15 i
I 1:
YUHAS:
Did they elaborate at all?
21 i
31 HAVERKAMP: No, they did not.
I just don't remember any further 4;
discussion of that.
5l Si YUHAS:
Can you recall who specifically brought up the issue of Hershey i
7 Medical Center?
8l g,
HAVERKAMP:
I think it may have been Houser.
This was really the 10f first time I met Houser, face to face.
Although I may have seen him passing through quarters, walking around the plant, 11!
i 12!
13 YUHAS:
Do you recall if the conotation of Houser's comment was a 14; question to you?
In other words, "Mr. Haverkamp, don't you think I g
should go to Hershey." Or was he just throwing it open to the audience f pe pie that were there at the time?
}6 i
17l HAVERKAMP:
I understood it more as a kind of a side thought, not a direct question to me.
It was a consideration, perhaps, this is
,9l coi something we can do to get decontaminated.
I really have no personal 21:,
knowledge of... arrangements 9" decontamination.
However, I felt 22;.
that the site was a perfect place to go.
23!
YUHAS:
Do you know if there are decontamination facilities available 24:
r at the 500 KV substation?
2Si
\\ 'tEJ
l t
i
{
16 l
llj HAVERKAMP:
I believe there was a shower there, although I'm not 2
certain.
There was some kind of water... a wash basin, or someplace 31 where people could wash down.
There's no... it's not what you would 41 call a decontamination facility.
There was someplace if you needed gj to, you could wash yourself up a little bit.
That was the extent of 6l it.
ll YUHAS:
Did any of'the individuals present, point out to you why 8
g; decontamination on site was not possible? Or likely?
10!
HAVERKAMP:
As I recall, it wasn't a problem of not being able to g
decontaminate on site, because there are all the other shower facilities 13 available, other than the Health Physics control point.
Now, the problem was measuring... whether or not you were decontaminated on site, because of the area background, being as high as they were.
16i YUHAS:
17l; At the time, you were present with these individuals, did you become of what their TLD badges nad read as a result of collecting 18!
this reactor coolant sample?
19?
20t do to get decontaminated.
I really have no personal knowledge of 21l arrangements for decontamination.
However, I felt that the site was a 22 perfect place to go.
23!
l 24l 2si 9;
clh
i f
17 1:
YUHAS:
Do you know if there are decontamination facilities available 2l at the 500 KV substation?
31 f
4; HAVERKAMP:
I believe there was a shower there, although I'm not gj certain.
There was some kind of water... a wash basin, or someplace 1
6 where people could wash down.
There's no... it's not what you would 7
call a decontamination facility.
There was someplace if you needed 8
to, you could wash yourself up a little bit.
That was the extent of gj i t.
10I h
.YUHAS:
Did any of the individuals present, point out to you why decontamination on site was not possible? Or likely?
12j 13l HAVERKAMP:
As I recall, it wasn't a problem of not being able to 14j g
decontaminate on site, because there are all the other shower facilities g
available, other than the Health Physics control point.
Now, the p
problem was measuring... whether or not you were decontaminated on
,8t site, because of the area background, being as high as they were.
194 YUHAS:
At the time, you were present with these individuals, did you
<.0 t become of what their TLD badges had read as a result of collecting this reactor coolant sample?
23 l
HAVERKAMP:
I don't recall if it was then, or later that I heard that
-24!
25;!
... I had heard discussions of overexposures, but it may have been the s C,
\\-
k _!
s
i l
18 l
1!
next day.
I don't believe it was at that time.
Overexposures in this 2
case, I mean high exposure, on the order of about 3 rem.
I think it 3l was the next day when I heard that.
41 5;
YUHAS:
At what point did you depart the presence of these other 6
individuals, at the 500 KV station?
T; HAVERKAMP:
Right after they departed, left me, they left the parking g
g lot KV station, and returned to the plant.
It was... I believe they yp, were going back to the plant at that time.
And then I would stay 11:
there until two in the morning, cause the security guards...trying to find out what to do with the truck.
My one concern at that point was, g
13{
the vehicle being contaminated, and the guards, that they would contact Health Physics personnel and see that it was given, it was frisked, g
surveyed to see if there was any contamination.
16; YUHAS:
Did you witness the survey of either of these individuals while you were out there?
g 191 HAVERKAMP:
No.
I don't recall a survey at the time.
21:
YUHAS:
Did any of these individuals describe the quantity or extent of contamination on their bodies?
23l 24!
25j d)i
.; u ; )
I
i I
19 l
l 1!
HAVERKAMP:
I don't think we discussed that.
I 2!
l 3j YUHAS:
Did you do any followup in the next couple of days? Relative j
to the conversation that you had with them?
l Si 1
6l HAVERKAMP:
There was followup to the extent that I discussed it with 7j other personnel at the site.
That is, at least supervisory personnel, 8l and Health Physics inpsectors.
I didn't do an in person call as to g
what decontamination did they undergo, or things of that nature.
At 10l least I discussed it with other people that night.
I don't recall any knowledge as who those individuals were.
But I did find proceeding at the plant, and my activities were to monitor the operations in Unit 2, l
and that's where I went, the control room.
13!
141 YUHAS:
So, you must have arrived at the plant late in the evening of the 29th?
16:
17!
HAVERKAMP:
That's correct.
It was around 9 o' clock at night.
18t 191 l
YUHAS:
About how long did you stay in the Unit 2 Control Room that 20l 21;l night?
i 22j HAVERKAMP:
I must have been there three or four hours.
It was at 23I least until 3 in the morning.
2 41 25!
t4
~
a t
l t
t 20 i
1!
YUHAS: Do you recall a proposed entry into Unit 2 Auxiliary Building i
2:
that night of Mr. Showalter and Mr. Fuhrer to access water levels and i
3j tank levels in the Auxiliar/ Building?
l 4!
5; HAVERKAMP:
Yes, I do.
6i 7
YUHAS: Were you in the Control Room at the time that they planned the g{
entry?
9!
10!
HAVERXAMP:
I thought this happened later, but I'm not sure.
I didn't gj know it was that late that night.
I was in the Control Room, yes.
y But when Showalter... in fact, I kind of recall seeing Showalter around.
13 But, I knew they were going to make an entry into the Auxiliary 14 Building and try to find out what the levels of contamination were 15 16; YUHAS:
Do you recall if Mr. Dubeil or his alternate briefed Mr.
Fuhrer, or Mr. Showalter as to the radiological environment in the 8(
Unit 2 Auxiliary Building, prior to their making an entry.
Do you recall seeing a briefing and discussion, a survey map layed out telling them, " Hey, here's what the dose rates are down there.
This is how you should dress.
22!
This is the maximum amount of exposure we want you i
to take, etc."?
23l 24!
25i
\\ "?; )
C.'hb t
I,
{
21 lj HAVERKAMP: This is somewhat peripheral to what I was doing however, I i
gj do know that Fuhrer was given some sort of briefing.
I do not know if I
31 it was Dubiel who gave the briefing.
But, he didn't go in there 4
blindly. He was aware there were higher... there were areas that gj were highly contaminated, and that there were radiation areas on the i
6i order of several rems. And he was aware that he had to procede rather 7
quickly. And he was given some precautionary advise as stay out of 8
certain areas of certain magnitude, so, I don't know.
I wasn't in on the entire briefing.
I know there was such a briefing took place.
gj 10i f
YUHAS:
Do you know if any member of the Radiation Protection staff g
was involved in that briefing?
(
131 HAVERKAMP:
I just don't recall.
15:
YUHAS:
Oc you recall if there was an HP tech, or member of the Radiation Protection staff in the Unit 2 Control Room by the door.
For instance j
~S 18h Auxiliary Building?
,9 A
20 HAVERKAMP:
Yes.
Well, at that point, I don't know if a log had been established at that point.
I... it was the next day, maybe the day 22f after, but it was a planned evolution.
I don't know whether a log got 23j i
to.
2 41 l
25:
cug i 5..
l l
l l
22 1.
YUHAS: Were you in the Control Room when Mr. Fuhrer and Mr. Showalter returned from their trip through the Auxiliary Building?
2 I
3 HAVERKAMP:
I believe I was, I think it was around one o' clock or two 4j Sj in the morning... something on that order.
Yes, I was there.
Si WHAS:
Do you recall Mr. Fuhrer explain that he had gone over 3 rem 7
by pocket dosimeter to some representative of either the Health Physics I
gj staff or the operations staff?
g; 10l HAVERKAMP:
I was aware that he had exposure on the order of 3 rem.
And I passed that on to a supervisor, NRC.
Although I don't recall who it was I talked to about that.
14i MARSH:
How were you aware again, of that exposure?
16; HAVERKAMP: Well, I was in the Control Room, and I heard him having a discussion with operations pecple.
He walked into the shift supervisor's 181 office, at some point. And just by listening to the conversations, I g
knew that he had...
20!
21:
MARSH:
So, you overheard his conversation with other cperational 22!
r staff?
231 241 25;
~bJ Cg8 I
I
I' I
23 i
i lj HAVERKAMP: That's correct.
i 2l Was there an NRC radiation specialist present in the Unit 2 3;
YUHAS:
4j Control Room that evening, while you were there, of course?
l 5!
6i HAVERKAMP: At that point, I'll have to say yes.
But, I don' t know l
7f who it was.
It seems like there was.
I 81 What was his attitude MARSH:
Pursing first, slightly a little further.
g, in this discussion, or his demeanor? Was he upset over the exposure, 10l i
or just matter of fact, or...
g 12!
HAVERKAMP:
He did not appear upset. He appeared to take it as a 13l He was kind of... he was expected to accept it...
matter of course.
14 15{
this amount of exposure...to radioactivity.
i 16!
YUHAS:
Just quickly.
This table will be reviewed by the operations g
And since, they have not interviewed you, I'd like 1,;
part of our team.
to give you the opportunity to make any comments that you think might 191 be of value to their investigation, relative to what you either saw or 20j heard in the period up to the night of the 30tn only.
That is the 21{
purview of this investigation.
So, if there is something you feel is 22l 1
relevant that should be brought to their attention, or unusual lack of 23l control, something like that.
Please take the opportunity now, to 24!
formalize it.
25i Cjb 15e
l
(
24 I
1 MARSH:
Could you also in a summary point, indicate what your duties 2
were while on site for that first day?
I 31 i
4l HAVERKAMP:
We're going up to the 30th?
l 5!
t 6l YUHAS:
Friday night.
7l 8
HAVERKAMP:
I don't have any specific comments or recommendations to gj make right now.
I'll just kind of wait and see what comes out. My 10 duties and responsibilities primarily were to observe the operation of g
the plant, that proper cooling was maintained in the core.
That there ig was some sembelance of control.
The plant operations were confused, at best.
And they were... well, it was just a matter of trying to find out what was happening, because there were a lot of unusual 13; indications. Many alarms in high radiation areas.
no operation was impeded extremely.
So, observing, trying to find out if the operators 171 were... kind of had a feeling for what was going on.
Although I'm not 18!
trained or qualified at the plant, at least I could...somewhat access their capabilities and their understanding
...I was just monitoring.
20:
YUHAS:
Do you recall... apparently you there from about 11 o' clock the 29th, until very early in the morning on the 30th.
Is that correct?
22l 23}
HAVERKAMP:
That's correct.
24j 25l L"
CGM k JI
r l
l 25 i
If YUHAS: Did you return again on the swing shift on the 30th?
2:
3l 1AVERKAMP:
Yes, I returned on the swing shift on the 30th, and it was 4
... it must of been around 3 o' clock, or before, when I arrived...
51 well, no.
I started around two o' clock.
It took over an hour to get 6
on to the site.
So, it was probably around 3:30 or maybe 4, before I 7
actually got to the Control Room.
And I stayed there until about...
8j at least one in the morning.
9!
YUHAS: On the night of the 29th/early morning 30th, were you the 10 11 senior NRC operations inspector in the Control Room at that time?
12l HAVERKAMP:
I believe I was, yes.
14:
15 Do you recall who was handling the emergency position, in HA terms of control of radiation? Was Oubiel there, or was it Mulleavy?
16s.
Or was it someone else? Was it an HP tech? Someone should have been in the Control Room at that time, accepting responsibility for Health Physics, in terms of the incident?
20!
l HAVERKAMP:
I don't recall a specific Health Physics supervisor there.
I believe that Gary Miller was on at that time.
I don't know if there was anybody subordinate to him, with direct Health Physics responsibilities.
23t There were many ;eople there.
It was not a non-crowded situation, so 24) it was really hard to determine who might be there for Health Physics 25i coverage.
I didn't know.
c 6
j 26 1{
YUHAS:
I'd like to ask you a general question relating to your training, 2f and your preception of I&E inspector's responsibility, in terms of si responding to a major emergency / incident of this sort.
Could you 4j describe the training you have received, and directions on how you are 5i to respond in this sort of an emergency?
Si 7I HAVERKAMP: The training I received, really was more... focused more i
gj as to what happens if you get a call. Who do you notify... things to gi do with the regional office.
Not what to do at a site.
Now, I don't 101 recall any specific training that relates to site activities.
Proceeding 11l there, and observing what's happening, and things of that nature.
12 It's mostly a matter of notifications, making sure that if you get the 13l call, you inform your supervisor, and you go through the emergency 14l plan that we have... emergency response plan for the office, by the numbers.
15, 16i YUHAS: When you did get to the site, could you describe what you perceived as your responsibilities.
Speifically, what I am getting at is, did you consider yourself an observer, or did you consider yourself 19!
in a position to say, for instance, over here you guys aren't doing 401 this right, I think you should be doing this.
And then expect them to adhere to your recommendation?
231 HAVERKAMP:
I consider myself kind of an active observer. Which 24i means, I didn't really tell the operators what to do, however, I did 25i l
l
\\J' qr a
l l
27 li point out certain indications to them, so they could observe them 2:
themselves, and take the proper response.
Particularly, like makeup 3l flow, or letdown flow, or question a parameter.
I tried to bring it 4i to their attention without distracting them from their duties.
In 5
other words, I do not actually take charge of their operation.
Gi 7!
YUHAS:
Did you preceive that you had the authority to, in fact say, 8
tell, and I don't want to say an operator, but eithsr the shift superintendent, g;
whoever senior licensed operator in control of the plant was, for 10i instance, the operation that you are doing is in violation of a Technical 11l Specification requirement, or you are not paying appropriate attantion i
g to this specific instrumentation?
i 13l HAVERKAMP:
I had...certainly had the authority to tell them they were f
operating contrary to our Technical Specification or requirement.
However, we were really beyond that at that point, it was more of a g
,7l I was more realistic of what plant conditions were at the time, 1
and how it was imposs...they were beyon'd the tech spec requirements 18r for overall protection.
But, I had the authority at any time to bring my concerns to their attention.
21!
YUHAS:
Did you bring any concerns to their attention?
29 231 HAVERKAMP:
Ouring this time period... yes, specifically, things such 24l as there were too many people up around the operator.
He's being 25i h
jb'i>
(
)
i
e I
l l
28 1
distracted.
You know, I was talking to management... management such 2:
as Gary Miller, and things of that nature.
Kind of unprepared for 3
these questions, but I don't recall other specific things.
41 f
At this time, I'd like to thank you for coming over and giving YUHAS:
5 6l us the answers to a few questions.
I don't have any further comments, 7
unless you do.
Si HAVERKAMp:
No more comments.
g 10; i
YUHAS:
Thank you.
g 12l 3l MARSH:
The time is 4:07 p.m.
We'll terminate tne tape with a reading of 685.
I 16!
17l l
18l 191 20!
21!
22 23i 24!
25i
'b\\
coo t
,,.