ML19257B955
| ML19257B955 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 08/08/1979 |
| From: | Lawyer L PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ACCIDENT AT THREE MILE |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19257B954 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001210464 | |
| Download: ML19257B955 (88) | |
Text
M e
/
__________________________________________x PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ACCIDENT AT THREE MILE ISLAND
.---_____________________________________________x DEPOSITION of METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, by LAWRENCE L.
LAWYER, held at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on the 8th day of August 1979, commencing at 9:10 a.m.,
before Robert "li nki n, Notary Public of the State of New York.
[
s 1919 132 BENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE CERTIFIED SHORTilAND REPORTERS FIVE DEEKMAN STILELT New YostK.NEW YOltK 10038
[212] 374-1138 co/A/W6
'T f
I 2
12#1 2
LC 3
MEIRg{gL{ggg_gD{Sgg_ggM{gN{:
4
(
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, ESQS.
5 Attorneys for Metropolitan Edison Company 1800 M Street, NW 6
Washington, D.C.
20036 7
BY:
ALAN R.
YUSPEH, ESQ.
of Counsel 8
9 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THREE MILE ISLAND:
10 11 JOAN GOLDFRANK, ESQ.
Associate' Chief Counsel 12 13 ooo 14 15 LAWnENC E L
LAWYE R having been 16 first duly sworn by Ms. Goldfrank, testified as 17
- follows, 18 DIRECT EXAMINATION 19 BY MS. GOLDFRANK:
20 Q
Would you state your name?
21 A
Lawrence L.
Lawyer.
(~
l,919 133 oo Q
What is your present address?
23 A
1215 Dauphin Avenue, Wyomissing, Pennsylvania 19610.
24 Q
Who is your*present employer?
25 A
Metropolitan Edison Company, Post Office Box 542, BENJAMIN R EPO RTING SERVICE
Ad s
1 Lawyer 3
2 Reading, Pennsylvania.
3 Q
what is your present position?
4 A
Manager-Generation Operations.
(.
5 Q
Have you brought with you today a resume?
6 A
Yes.
(Handing.)
7 Ms. COLDFRANK:
I would like to have the 8
resume of Lawrence L.
Lawyer marked as Lawyer 9
Deposition Exhibit 116 for identification.
10 (Above-described document herein marked 11 Lawyer Deposition Exhibit 116 for identification, 12 this date.)
13 Q
Looking at what we have marked as Lawyer 14 Deposition Exhibit 116, did you prepare this resume?
15 A
Yes, I did.
16 Q
Is it a current resume?
17 A
Yes, I believe it is, to the best of my 18 knowledge.
19 Q
Your resume indicates that you were in 20 the United states Navy from 1948 to 1958, correct?
21 A
That is true.
C 22 Q
Did you join the Navy directly out of M 19 134
,,3 high school?
24 A
No.
I graduated.from high school in 1947 I
25 worked in a gas station, as an over-the-road truck BENJAMIN R EPO RTING SERVICE
I Lawyer 4
2 driver, and in a steci mill for the one-year intervening 3
period.
4 Q
While you were in the Navy, were you a
(
5 reactor operator on a nuclear ship?
6 A
Yes, that is true.
In 1948, after boot camp 7
and several electronic schools and that sort of thing, 8
I went to a fleet boat, a regular submarine, for three 9
years.
In 1951, I was selected for the NAUTILUS and 10 went for a training program 'until April of 1954, and 11 was on the NAUTILUS and during that period of time 12 I went to nuclear power schools, various schools, was 13 at Idaho for the startup of what was called Mark I, 14 which was a prototype for the NAUTILUS, I.
then went 15 to the NAUTILUS as a reactor operator, and then when 16 I got off the NAUTILUS in 1955 and taught school for 17 the Navy Nuclear Power School, which was just being 18 set up in New London, prior to getting out.
19 Q
What was the Navy Nuclear Power School?
20 A
It wasn't really a nuclear school, yet it was 21 located at the Westinghouse Bettis, although in a C
22 sense it was a nuclear power school, but it wasn't 23 the Navy Nuclear Power School in the sense of a school 24 that we did set up because it didn't pre-exist then.
25 It was a formal six weeks' classroom instruction, and e
B ENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVICE 1
19 35 P
t I
Lawyer 5
2 then the remainder of the period of time was at Idaho 3
Falls or in the desert in Idaho on a prototype.
4 Q
What did you teach at the Navy Nuclear
(
5 Power School?
6 A
I taught mathematics, electronics and systems 7
and components in both the basic and the advanced 8
courses; that is, enlisted men and the officers' 9
classes.
10 Q
Had you been given any special training 11 to teach at that school?
12 A
.I was given training in those same subjects at 13 Westinghouse Bettis.
I don't know if you mean 14 technical training.
I was given training just prior 15 to the school, some six weeks of instructors' schools, 16 that is,how to teach, as opposed to technical matter.
17 Q
Other than your own training that you had 18 gone through to become a reactor operator and then the 19 training that you were given for instructing in how to 20 teach, was there other training you went through?
21 A
I attended h school on a part-time basis at'the 22 University of Pittsburgh in, I presume, 1952-53, in 23 that time frame, and I attended night school at 24 Mitchell College, New London, Connecticut, but that was 25 during the three years" that I was teaching at the,, ' -
f 1 9 1 9.113 6 BENJAMIN R EPO RTING S ERVICE 1
I Lawyer 6
2 school.
It may have been at the latter portion of 3
that.
I took quite a lot of correspondence courses 4
from the USAFI, United States Armed Forces Institute.
(
5 Q
What type of courses were you taking at 6
the University of Pittsburgh?
7 A
Physics, German, psychology and history.
8 Q
What courses were you taking at Mitchell 9
College?
10 A
A literature course and, I believe, an English 11 composition course.
12 Q
Was this in anticipation of receiving a 13 Bachelor of Science or --
14 A
I can't really say for sure. I believe that 15 the Mitchell College was at the latter portion of 16 my tour of duty in the Navy and probably was after I 17 had already decided to get out and go to school and I8 get a Bachelor of Science degree, so the answer is 19 probably yes, but I am not certain.
sometime prior 20 to my getting out of the Navy, I was offered 21 of ficer's candida te School.
It was at that time I
(
22 that I decided to get out of the Navy.
My impression 23 is that that was about six months before I got out, 24 I
so it was probably early in the year, January of,1958 25 g
}f or December of 1957.
BENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVICE
1 Lawyer 7
2 There was one other college course that I took, 3
but it was during the nuclear power training, and I 4
was formally in the six months of school at Westing-
[
5 house Bettis, and that was a thermal dynamics and 6
heat transfer course which we took at Carnegie, I 7
believe.
I an a little shaky on that.
That was a 8
night class, and that was at the college.
The rest 9
of them were all in the classrooms provided at 10 Westinghouse Bettis.
11 Q
After you left the Navy, you joined the 12 Argonne National Laboratoty?
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
That would have been in June 1958?
15 A
Yes, that is true.
16 Q
What was your position there?
17 A.
The date of joining Argonne in 1958 would have 18 been in July.
In June 1958, I was discharged, so it 19 was sometime early in the month of July.
20 Q
And you joined them as a reactor supervisor?
21 A
No, I joined them as a -- I don't remember the C
22 title, but some kind of technician; it is roughly 23 equivalent to an electronics technician.
A lot of 24 the work involved repair of the electronics equipment, 25 but it was all electronics equipment associated with a BENJAMIN R EPO RTING SERVICE
1 Lawyer 8
2 reactor and with performing experiments on a reactor.
3 Q
Your resume indicates that at the Argonne 4
National Laboratory, that you were employed there as
[
5 a reactor operator, is that right?
6 A
Yes.
It probably took on the order of six 7
months to be qualified as a reactor operator on the 8
reactor at Argonne, at which time I became a reactor 9
operator; that is not a job title, but rather a 10 functional title at Argonne.
I was still at that 11 time what is probably. termed a reactor technician, but 12 I was authorized to be a reactor operator, and I am 13 really shaky on this.
I would guess four years before 14 I left Argonne, I was promoted to reactor supervisor.
15 I am not at all certain what that time was.
16 Q
was the reactor operator licensed from the 17 Atomic Energy commission?
18 x
no, 19 Q
what were your responsibilities as 20 reactor supervisor?
21 A
I was responsible for the safe operation of C:
the reactor, for the maintenance of the reactor, and 23 i
for the safety aspects of the experiments which went 24 into the reactor, and included Health Physics.
2a-t Q
Is the Argonne National Laboratory a i
a BENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVICE
~~
} }) k-
1 Lawyer 9
2 commercial reactor, or is it a research reactor?
3 A
The particular reactor -- there are many reactors 4
at the Argonne National Laboratory, one of which is
[
5 out in Idaho.
The particular reactor I was at was the 6
Argonaut, a small test and research reactor utili=ed 7
for teaching,during President Eisenhower's Atoms for 8
Peace Program.
We brought in graduate students from 9
overseas, about 60 at a time, who spent six months at 10 Argonne in reactor studies.
I might notice during 11 that ten years at Argonne that I really completed my 12 bachelor's, or did my bachelor's work.
13 Q
You received a bachelor's degree in 14 science, in physics, from the Illinois Institute of 15 Technology in June 1967, is that right?
16 A
That is true.
17 Q
In addition, while you were at the 10 Argonne National Laboratory, you were an instructor 19 in reactor physics and reactor engineering at Argonne 20 National Laboratory, is that right?
21 A
At the Argonaut Reactor, yes.
C, 22 Q
Was that as an instructor in a formal 23 i
classroom, or was it instruction on the research 24 reactor?
25 A
I don't know if I can distinguish what you mean BENJAMIN R EPORTING SERVICE
1 Lawyer
~
10 2
as " formal" and something that would be " informal."
3 It consisted of a full day of instruction of a group 4
of students.
Approximately four hours of that was f
n 5
the theory of the experiment, and four hours of col-6 lecting the data and analy=ing the data.
It is very 7
closely analogous to a physics laboratory at a uni-8 versity, and I presume I would say that is formal 9
although it isn't accredited by a university.
It is 10 similar to the Orsort progran at Oak Ridge.
11 Q
I t.
7uly 1968, you joined the Vermont 12 Yankee ~. Nuclear Power Corporation?
13 A
Yes, that is true.
14 Q
What was your position at the Vermont 15 Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation?
16 A
When I joined the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power 17 C.orporation, I believe my title was training 18 coordinator.
My function was to assist in hiring 19 staff for the anticipated reactor.
I was, shortly 20 after that time, in charge of writing the procedures 21 for the hydroflush and pre-op test programs and 22 the conduct of the training.
23 p
Your resume indicates that you were a I
24 technical assistant to the plant superintendent.
Was 25 that your title for the five years you were with i
BENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVICE
1 Lawyer 11 2,
Vermont Yankee?
3 A
No, that was my title at the end of my tour of 4
duty'with vermont Yankee.
It probably was for some-C 5
thing on the order of two or three years.
6 Q
What were your responsibilities as technical 7
assistant?
8 A
As technical assistant to the plant super-9 intendent, I was in charge of all of the departments 10 at the station other than Maintenance and operations; 11 those were Reactor Engineering; Chemistry and Health 12 Physics being the second one; the third one was for 13 computer Engineering, and the fourth one it has been 14 too long ago -- Instrumentation and Control.
15 In addition, I had a small staff of four 16 engineers, and that is a rough numbor.
It could have 17 been less than that or more than that, but four 18 engineers who were plant staff engineers.
19 Q
While employed at the V'ermont Yankee 20 Nuclear Power Corporation, your resume reflects that 21 you took courses at the Western New England College, C
22 is that right?
23 A
Yes, in springfield, Massachusetts.
24 Q
What were those courses?
25 A
All law courses, which would have led to a JD
}h
}k B ENJAMIN R EPO RTING S ERVICE
1 Lawyer 12 2
degree in law.
3 Q
You never completed the program?
4 A
That is - true s that was a half a law degreo.
[
5 MS. GOLDFRANK:
Off the record.
6 (Discussion held off the record.)
7 Q
Then in July 1973, you came to Metropolita.n 8
Edison, is that correct?
9 A
That is true.
10 Q
A r.d the position that you first held at 11 Metropolitan Edison was section head of the Licensing 12 and Safety Analy' sis section of the Generation Engineering 13 Department?
14 A
Yes, that is true.
I might clarify that a 15 little bit.
origin-lly, my letter of offer stated 16 section head of Radiological Safety and Environmental 17 Engineering.
Within two or three days after joining 18 Metropolitan Edison, mys61f and the manager of 19 Generation Engineering interviewed a fellow who 20 could fill that slot, so I took the Licensing position.
21 Q
What were your responsibilities?
5 22 i
A Licensing?
23
,g
- yes, 24 A
I am more familiar with the responsibilities 25 of the Licensing Group now.
As I remember it at that BENJAMIN R EPORTING SERVICE }
1 Lawyer 13 2 time, it was to handle the incoming and outgoing 3 regulatory correspondence for the Generation Division, 4 including the fossil stations and nuclear stations. [ 5 Those regulatory agencies were all governmental 6 regulatory agencies. 7 In addition, there was a safety analysis function 3 which basically, encompassed the acts as outlined in 9 Chapter 14 of the FSAR for TMI, Unit 1. 10 Q You were only involved with TMI Unit 1 at 11 that point with respect to the nuclear stations? 12 A That is true. We may have handled some cor-13 respondence for TMI Unit 2, but not very much. 14 Basically it was a GPU Service Corporation function 15 at that stage. 16 g old you have any involvement with *.he 17
- p. reparation of the preliminary safety analysis report 18 or the final safety analysis report for Unit 27 19 A
Yes, I am sure I did, although I don't have a 20 I clear recollection of submission of those documents. 21 I think my involvement with the TMI Unit 2 FSAR would C 22 have been in receiving the PSAR and distributing it [ 23 to the holders of FSARs and submission under R. C. 24 Arnold's signature to the NRC. f 25 with the exception of one or two portions of BENJAMIN R EPORTING S ERVICE 9
1 Lawyer 14 2 it which are plant-related, the portion which shows 3 the organizational chart for the plant, we would have 4 handled that in a review sense, so I probably -- well, S I am rather sure I coordinated the review of that 6 portion or the FSAR: that would have been a small part. I Q But the PSAR and the FSAR for Unit.2 8 would have been drafted by GPU7 9 A The preliminaries were all done before I came up, 10 I an quite certain. The final Safety Analysis Reports 11 were drafted by GPU, primarily by the group working 12 for CPU head, who had a primary input, and would have 13 been Burns & Roe, or whoever the designer was of that 14 particular portion. 15 g And you basically just reviewed the 16 organizational structure that was set out in that 17 report with resp 1ct to the Island? 18 A The portions that were primarily operations-19 oriented. Very much of the FSARs, as you are aware, 20 I am sure, are design-oriented portions, and we didn't 21 have much input into those. The portions that had ( 2,' to do with operations of the plant, such as the "3 staffing or the anticipated staffing, and statements regarding that, I would have coordinated; that would "5 l have been reviewed by people at the station. i f BENJAMIN R EPORTING SERVICE
I Lawyer - 15 2 Q From November 1973 to May 1977, you became 3 manager of Generation Quality Assurance for Metropolitan 4 Edison? [ 5 A curing the time interval that you specified, I 6 was manager, Generation Quality Assurance. I was pro, I moted to that position in November 1973, some four or 8 five months after I came to Metropolitan Edison. 9 Q what were your functions as manager? 10 A Initially, my functions as manager, Generation 11 Quality Assurance was that I was in charge of the 12 quality assurance engineers in the home office and 13 quality control personnel at TMI for TMI Unit 1. At 14 that point in time, 1973, TMI Unit 2 QA was under the 15 auspices of GPU Service Corporation, since it was under 16 construction. 17 Q At what time did the responsibility for 18 the quality assurance program with respect to Unit 2 19 transfer to Metropolitan Edison from GPU? 20 A well, very generally, that occurred at the time 21 of fuel loading, that initial receipt of fuel. 22 Q That would have been after you had no 23 longer.been manager of Generation for Quality I Assurance, is that correct? 25 A No.-- no, that is not true. It was during the l lh h 14h f-B ENJAMIN R EPO RTING SERVICE L
1 Lawyer 16 2 time I was manager, Generation Quality Assurance. 3 Q Do you remember about when it was, priot 4 to May 19777 ( 5 A I don't re me mb e r. I could take a guess, I 6 suppose. I would guess it was April of 1975. I am 7 rather sure it was in April. 8 Q How were the responsibilities transferred 9 from GPU to Metropolitan Edison? 10 A well, let me explain that by going back a little 11 bit. Formerly, the responsibility for quality assur-12 ance during construction was with Met Ed, the licensee. 13 Met Ed issued a PORD, Project Organization and 11 Responsibilities Document, to GPU Service Corporation, 15 which, in essence, contracted or requested GPU service 16 Corporation to perform the quality assurance function 17 as well as the construction function and some other 18 functions for Metropolitan Edison Company, so in a 19 sense I was responsible, but more directly, the vice-20 president of Generation, who issued this-PORD trans-21 ferred that responsibility from me to the service C 22 Corporation. 23 Now, that document said that at the time of 24 fuel loading of TMI Unit 2, that the quality assurance o5 function would transfer back 9< Metropolitan Edison BENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVICE
O 1 Lawyer 17 2 Company. In the intervening time, a Co= mission 3 renulation or modification of a regulation came out 4 which changed or made more definitive the time at [ 5 which you had to have an operating quality. assurance 6 program and plan in effect, and that was, as I 7 remember it, 60 days prior to fuel loading, so that 8 at that point, we had an operating quality assurance 9 plan or program which we had written that went into 10 effect 60 days prior to fuel loading, and in that 11 plan we recogni=ed that GPU Service Corporation could 12 be requested, contracted to do quality assurance for 13 us during the construction phase. 14 Now, the working out of "Shall we do audits 15 and suryelliances?" "when do they stop on a particular 16 system?" and "when do we start?" we worked that out I7 verbally on-site. It didn't occur at the stroke of 18 midnight, so to speak,when this transfer was 19 effected from one to the others we did it in a rather 20 smoe'.h transfer, a system at a time. 21 Q That would be you discussing that transfer (? 2 with the GPU Startup Group? 23 p'o, with the GPU Quality Assurance Group. x 24 Q who would have headed that group up? o '5 i A Joe wright was the one on-site with whom I was SENJAMIN R EPORTING SERVICE
1 Lawyer 18 2 most intimately involved in this transfer. The fellow 3 working for me, who was a supervisor of Quality control 4 at TMI was William Potts. C 5 Q so that you would discuss with them the 6 transfer on a system-by-system basis? 7 A yes. 8 MS. GOLDFRANK: I would like to request 9 that we be provided with a copy of the PORD 10 between GPU and Metropolitan Edison concerning 11 the quality assurance program responsibilities. 1: A It is somewhat broader than quality assurance. 1,' MS. GOLDFRANK: Then I would request a I' complete copy of the PORD. 15 g It also includes construction responsi-16 bilities, is that correct? 17 A. As I remember it, it is engineering, construction-- 18 go build me a plant... QA is one of the aspects of that. 19 As I noted, that document predates the NRC 20 requirement for a quality assurance plan. It probably 21 does not pre-date Appendix B, which was the criterion C 22 for quality assurance, but prior to about 1975, or 23 perhaps 1974, but prior to that time, my recollection 24 is it was not terribly clear to licensees throughout o5 the country what the 18 criteria in Appendix B meant BENJAMIN R EPORTING S ERVICE
1 Lawyer 19 2 as related to an operating plant. It was to one 3 under construction. 4 Q Then in May 1977, you became manager for I 5 Generation operations? 6 A Manager-Generation operations. I Q That is the present position you hold? 8 A That is correct. 9 Q Have you ever been licensed on a commercial 10 nuclear power p<1 ant? 11 A no. 12 Q What are your responsibilities as 13 manager-Generation operations? 14 A My responsibilities as manager-Generation 15 operations is for the operations and maintenance of 16 Metropolitan Edison company's generating plants; that 17 is, one hydroelectric station, two coal-fired fossil 18 stations, 13 combustion turbines, and two nuclear 19 stations. 20 Now, let me modify it slightly in time. 21 March 1, 1979, we promoted Gary Miller to station C: 22 manager, and as such, he was accountable for operations 1 23 and maintenance of Metropolitan Edison's nuclear 24 generating stations. There was an understanding and 25 I some words in that announcement letter which I don't 'l919 150' BENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE
1 Lawyer 20 2 know verbatim, but I retained a kind of technical 3 advice in nuclear matters in relationship with the 4 nuclear stations. His promotion, though, was a full ( 5 promotion, and I retained the fossil portion. 6 Q what type of organization prior to 7 March 1, 1979 did you have under you to discharge 8 your responsibilities? 9 A I had a station staff at every station. I guess 10 that was something like, I would guess, 925 people. 11 On the staff in Reading, I had one senior nuclear 12 engineer, one junior nuclear engineer, and two 13 stenographers, and that was all at that time. 14 Q Did that change? 15 A I am sorry. I did neglect one thing, although 16 it is not of a great deal of importance, but coincident 17 with the March 1 promotion of Gary Miller, I also had 18 transferred to me a group called the Economy and 19 Production Group from the Engineering Department, 20 which consisted of four people at that time. Their 21 responsibilit:y was to increase productivity and C 22 economy, productivity being.the amount of time that 23 the plant is up, and the economy being the economy of 24 the operation when they are up. This is an engineering 25 discipline. It did encompass both fossil and nuclear B ENJAMIN R EPO RTING S ERVICE
1 Lawyer 21 2 stations. 3 Q once your responsibilities were changed on 4 March 1, 1979, did you lose the one senior and one ( 5 junior nuclear engineers who reported to you? 6 A no. I also had the nuclear engineering group 7 prior to March 1 and after March 1.
- 2 8
Q So that even though Gary Miller was 9 made a station manager, which would be a position 10 under yours in the organizational structure, the 11 Nuclear Engineering Department stayed with you? 12 A With me, that's right, and I incorrect?.y answered 13 your question. You said, did I transfer the senior 14 nuclear engineer and junior nuclear engineer -- some-15 time early in 1979, I transferred the junior nuclear 16 engineer to an operating position at the station, so 17 that immediately after that, he was and still is, to 18 the best of my knowledge, a nuclear engineer at the 19 station. 20 Q Why was that transfer made? 21 A Because he was qualified for promotion, and that C 22 transfer entailed a propotion, and that was because 23 of my. belief that we as a corporate staff could better 24 support the plant with transfers from plants to the 25 home office and home office to the plants. I B ENJAMIN R EPO RTING S ERVICE }h}h
I Lawyer 22 2 Q Your office was in Reading, is that correct? 3 A Yes, and Pottsville Pike. I Q How much time did you spend in Reading 5 versus time spent at the various generating plants? 6 A That varied during the approximately two years 7 that I was manager-Generation operations, but I think 8 I was at TMI approximately one day per week, a day 9 being an eight-hour day, and something less that one 10 day per week at all of the other facilities combined. 11 There were periods where it was quite a lot more than 12 that at TMI. It was rather uniform at the other 13 stations though. 14 Q Whose decision was it to make Gary Miller 15 a station manager and take the responsibilities 16 with respect to operations and maintenance for the 17 nuclear' plants out from under you? 18 A Within the scope of my knowledge, I think I I9 have to answer that by saying that was my boss, Jack 20 Herbein. I was involved in that and had knowledge 21 of it and supported it. pg g,j } 22 Who else was involved I don't know. 23 Q Do you know what the basis of that 24 decision was? 25 at least the basis A I presume it was because BENJAMIN R EPO RTING S ERVICE
I Lawyer 23 2 of my decision was that he is certainly fully qualified 3 to the job. 4 Q Aside from the particular individual ? 5 involved filling that position, what was the under-6 lying reason for separating the. responsibilities for 7 the operation and maintenance of the nuclear stations 8 from the other generating stations of Metropolitan 9 Edison? 10 A That implies that there was a reason other 11 than the need and deserving promotion for Gary Miller, 12 and I don't know that there was another. There may 13 have been, however. My feeling is that, for example-- 14 and this is just an example -- that prior to that 15 transfer, there were probably 2,700 employees in 16 Metropolitan Edison. Of those, 1,050 or 1100 were 17 in the Generation Division, and of those, 900 or so 18 were under me. Now the only significance of this is 19 that in giving attention to promotions, budgeting 20 and so forth, the work load was quite high - 'this 21 kind of work load was quite high. I suspect that there 22 may have been some reasoning on the part of Jack 23 Herbein and anyone else that was involved in that 24 decision to attempt to break the number of people '5 n reporting in an individual chain down. The only BENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVICE 1:9'1 9 T 5 4
I Lawyer 24 2 other thing I know is that sometime prior to that, 3 maybe a year prior to that, we had a consulting groups 4 B o o'Z, Allen, Hamilton came in and performed an audits ( 5 in which they, in a sense, analyzed the organizational 6 structure and recommended that we restructure, and 7 that here would be a better way to restructure. 8 One of the messages of that, although it wasn't 9 terribly clearly delineated on an organizational chart, 10 but more inferred, was that people in plant operations 11 should be relieved of some of the administrative 12 dutie., or I would' call them " extracurricular duties," 13 things like personnel matters, budgeting matters and 14 so fo;th; that exhibited itself not at my level but 15 at the stations in establishing another superintendent. 16 particularly in the large stations, TMI, we established 17 a position of superintendent, Technical Support, or 18 something of this relation, and that encompassed the 19 administrative group, the clerical, stenographic group, 20 document control, personnel, many of these f un c tio'n s, 21 and the idea was to relleve the unit superintendents 22 of that responsibility. That did not take those 23 ftnctions away from the station superintendent, or 24 what is now the station manager, though. 25 I may have, now that I think of it, and that 1919 1SS B ENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE -I
I Lawyer 25 2 may be what your question was leading me to, I may 3 have been a party to some underlying reason prior to 4 March 1. There was also, and I am not sure that I was C 5 ever directly involved in this, but secondhandedly, 6 there was a desire on the part of Mr. Dieckamp to 7 reduce the number of levels of people so that it wasn't 8 so far from a company president to the bargaining 9 unit or hands-on personnel. The number, I believe, 10 that was desirable, was something like eight, and ~ 11 in my chain at TMI, we probably had 9; that may have 12 also been involved in that decision. I don't know 13 that for a fact though; that is kind of secondhand. 14 I probably had discussions with Jack Herbein 15 about that and Don Hetrick of the Service Corporation. 16 He was in the operations Group in the Service Corporation. 17 J Q what is your relationship with the 18 operations Division at GPU? 19 A Let me try to term this in terms of responsi-20 bilities and obligations. I feel an obligation to 21 keep them informed of ideas that I think are signifi-C. 22 cant in terms of plant operation and maintenance. 23 I feel a responsibility to keep myself informed 24 through them of what the other operating companiert 25 are doing. We had periodic meetings, for example,9 9 156 cf 1 BENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE
1 Lawyer 26 2 the managers from Jersey Central and Penn Elec, with 3 Don Hetrick, who was the manager of Operations in 4 the Service Corporation, and this was in kind of [~ round tables, if you will, of operating experiences. O 6 In addition, we had meetings, GPU-wide, of 7 all three of the operating companies in the Service 8 Corporation, of all the managers, not just managers 9 of Generation operations. Those were gener. ally 10 two-day rme e ting s statusing new programs, reports on 11 significant developments at the various stations. 12 -Q How frequently would the round table 13 meetings, as you described, occur with respect to 14 the operating stations within the GPU family? 15 A Those were the round tables of all managers: 16 that manager's meeting was generally quarterly. 17 There was budget restrictions, perhaps, during the 18 last year, which made us miss maybe two of the ones 19 would have had during the past year, two or three, we 20 but they were rather regularly held once each quarter 21 prior to that time. 22 ) Q What kind of budget restrictions are you 23 referring to? 24 A I don't know what you mean by " kind of budget 25 ) 919 15{l restrictions." Lack of money. BENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE
1 Lawyer 27 2 Q To be able to fund these meetings as e 3 frequently as you had? 4 A Not just those, no. It was, in my view, lack (" 5 of rate relief which results in an impact on stock-6 holder and therefore, impacts on how much money I we are able to spend in ongoing budget, so the 8 budget would be somewhat restricted by that. 9 Q At these meetings, were the other managers 10 of operations, and that would be managers of operations 11 from Jersey Central and Penn Elec? 12 A Yes, Penn Elec. 13 Q would just the managers attend those 14 meetings? 15 A Yes, but I am misleading you now, or you are 16 misleading me. I spoke to two meetings: the managers 17 of Generation operations, of which there are only 18 three of usin the operating companies; the meeting 19 that I spoke of the most included all the managers 20 of CPU, so that would be the managers of Engineering, 21 Quality Assurance, operations and so forth, along C 22 with the vice-presidents of Generation. The regular 23 quarterly. meeting was a meeting of all managers. 24 h Now, during those meetings, the managers of 25 ceneration operation frequently met prior to the f919 158 BENJAMIN R EPO RTING S ERVICE
1 Lawyer 28 2 first day of a two-day meeting or in the evening 3 between those meetings. The managers of Generation 4 operations, to my knowledge, have never met on a ( 5 regular basis other than in the context of that 6 quarterly meeting. We did have some regular meetings 7 that had to do with staffing of the Forked River plant. 8 We went through a rather formal process with regular 9 meetings, interviewing and selecting people for pro-10 spective candidates, the best qualified people for ~ 11 Forked River, because of our concern of picking a good 12 staff for Forked niver. 13 Q Was the same kind of process gone through 14 with respect to staffing of Three Mile Island Unit 27 15 A no. I am rather sure it was not. staffing for 16 TMI Unit 2 was basically a process of building your 17 staff for TMI Unit 1 too large, overstaffing of 18 Unit 1; that is, my description of the situation there 19 was quite different. The GPU system at the time of 20 THI Unit 2 staffing, we had oyster creek as a nuclear 21 station and TMI Unit 1 as a nuclear station. Those C 22 the only two sources from which we could have were 23 drawn or perceived that we could have drawn. At least 24 in 1973-74, at the time I came in, there wasn't much i919 159 'O lead time in getting people for TMI Unit 2. I BENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVICE
e I Lawyer 29 2 with respect to Forked River, we perceived that 3 we had quite a long time.n.th it and identified people 4 in the fossil station in Penn Elec, transferred them ( 5 for a two-year tour of duty at THI, where thpy would 6 get nuclear training in addition to that, and they 7 will be ready for a position, a nuclear position in 8 Forked River, probably a more leisurely plan. 9 Those transfers didn't take place, by the way. 10 Q With respect to the operating and Main-11 tenance budget, how was that coordinated? 12 A I suppose that was handled differently or some-13 what differently each year within r.y recollection. 14 Initially, as manager of Quality Assurance, my involve-15 ment in the o&M budget was rather minimal. I think 16 the budget review was more heavily controlled by the 17
- v. ice-president of Generation at that time.
He received 18 the individual budgets and rather did the budget-19 cutting and negotiations himself, one on one, whereas '20 the last budget that we went through just prior to 21 this year was a budgeting process which started with C 22 th'e individual stations making up the budget, then 23 identifying items which would cost approximately 10 24 per cent more than that, that they would add if there 25 were the money to do it, and in addition, from the BENJAMIN R EPO RTING S ERVICE 9 9 160
1 Lawyer 30 2 ~ base budget, if you will, identifying 5, 10 and 15 3 per cent levels that we would cuts in other words, 4 what items we would cut out if the money were not [ 5 available. That was done prior to us knowing how 6 much money there would be available for the O&M 7 budget, so the process started much earlier and went 8 through many more revisions and was more of a peer 9 reviews that is, the manager's review of the total 10 budget during the time it was being made. 11 So the manager'of Generation Engineering had 12 an opportunity to express his opinion of each of the 13 station budgets, rather than just controlling his own 14 budget. 15 0 would you ask the individual generating 16 stations to present you with a budget, and that would 17 be a budget from which you would initially work? 18 A Yes, and the stations, frankly, probably began 19 with their last year's budget, added in items which 20 they felt were items that should be done many of them 21 from an economical sense, and that was probably their 22 best description of their starting point. 23 g once you received their starting point, 24 would you then present the budget to Mr. Christman? 25 A Yes, but there is a distinction. To the.best BENJAMIN R EPORTING SERVICE
1-Lawyer 31 2 of my recollectica of all of the past budgeting, it 3 was that the' individual managers in Generation pre-4 sented a joint presentation, of which Mr. Christman ( 5 was one, and presented to each other, base budgets. 6 How, in my case, with all of the various stations 7 I had and so forth, had those people reporting to me, 8 presented those budgets to the managers. In the case 9 of Generation Engineering, the manager of Generation 10 Engineering, as I remember, ' resented his total budget, p 11 but as I mentioned before, the other managers had 12 nuch fewer people on an O&M budget to present, which 13 was basically the reason, which had to do with the 14 fact that my staff, so to speak, was much smaller. 15 The other ranagers had people performing functions 16 in the home office which they could use as budgeting 17 people for a short period of time. In mine, there 18 were very few of them to do that with, so in essence, 19 I used the station superintendents to present those 20 budgets to the managers. 21 Q Then once there had been this peer review C 22 of this budget. on the manager level, then who would 23 the budget be presented to? Would that be the vice-24 president for Generation of Metropolitan Edison? 2b joink9}h*}b A Yes. There may have beea two or three t BENJAMIN R EPORTING SERVICE r
1 Lawyer 32 2 presentations with some guidance from the manager or 3 the vice-president of Generation in between. In other 4 words, "Your joint budget is way off the mark. Go do 5 it again," with a somewhat lower level or somewhat 6 higher level, so that probably he would look at the 7 book that was made up of slides and so forth, and it 8 might be his impression that that wasn't a very good 9 piece of staff work, and he could change these things 10 and present this differently without actually being 11 there doing it. So there were probably, I would say, 12 two or three practice presentations or peer review 13 p r e s e n ta ti o ns prior to the presentations to the vice-14 presidents. 15 (Continued on Page 33.) 16 4 27 18 19 20 21 C 22 23 24 25 BENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE t fh}h b
I Lawyer 33 SM 4 LC 2 Q You indicated that there were certafn (phone) 3 budget restrictions over the last couple of years, 4 correct? (~ 5 A There may have been budget restrictions; I 6 suppose there were.. 7 Q who would indicate to you those budget 8 restrictions: would that come from Metropolitan 9 Edison or GPU? 10 A Budget restrictions came to me from my boss. 11 Q. So that would be Mr. Herbein? 12 A Yes. It is my feeling that he took the manager's 13 budget or his budget, as we put it together, after 14 his review, and presented that to the officers of 15 the company. That is partly an assumption, but I 16 think it is accurate. 17 Q When you received operating and maintenance IO budgets for generation operations, was it already 19 divided up between the generating stations, or were 20 you.allottsd a. budget that you could then divide up? 21 A No, the budget was presented by individual area -- ( 22 th'a t is, individual people reported to me with the 93 exception of the home office staff. I took care of 24 that piece of it, if you will. The rest of it was 25 already split up. It wasn't split fossil-nuclears BENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVICE
- 1 1919'164
1 Lawyer 34 4.2 2 it was split by stations CT had their own, etc. 3 Q Is that how the budget would remain during 4 the year, as an operating budget divided by station? (. 5 A Yes. 6 Q And with respect to Three Mile Island, 7 was there a separate budget for Unit 1 and Unit 2, 8 or was it a Three Mile Island budget? 9 A It was a Three Mile Island budget, which con-10 sisted of accounts for TMI Unit 1 and TMI Unit 2 and 11 plant common, before this year. 12 This year, there was only two. There was no 13 plant commons the distinction being, the plant common 14 is gen 2 rally 50/50 approximately, so you can budget 15 a Unit 1 and Unit 2 separately by splitting plant 16 common, or you can show the plant common piece. 17 Prior to this year, we showed, in essence, three 18 budgets for TMI. 19 Q with respect to this year, do you mean 20 the budget that you.are now making up for 1980, or 21 would that have been the budget for 19797 22 A The one that wo are making now is for 1980. 23 Q when you indicated that there was no 2I longer a budget for plant common, that would be in 25 the budget for 1980? t. B ENJAMIN R EPO RTING SERVICE 19 9 65'
.~.. s 1 Lawyer 35 4.3 2 A The 1980 budget will not have a plant common 3 if things go as we anticipate they are going to go. 4 Q What types of things would be covered by 5 the plant common budget? 6 A Moe. immediately apparent is Gary Miller's 7 salary. The industrial waste treatment facility, 8 industrial waste filter system, the guard force, 9 security system -- chemicals may bes I am not sure if 10 chemicals are split or not, but those general things. 11 Q Is Maintenance being covered by the common 12 budget, or is that divided.up between the budget for 13 unit 1 and the budget for Unit 27 14 A The Maintenance force has worked with the ability 15 to charge their time to either unit, depending on which 16 unit needed the maintenance effort. Budgeting, though, 17 was an attempt to predict how much of their time would 18 be charged to each unit separately. So it wasn't a 19 plant common function; ,it was just split arbitrarily. 20 What we are speaking of, by the say, is the budget 21 prediction. That wasn't always a fact. For example, C 22 if the situation dictated,t'the Maintenance force might 23 spend all of their time on Unit 2. Now that is an 24 exaggeration, but you might estimate that it is going 25 to be because of refueling outages or NRC-required B ENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE lhlh jh
i t 1 Lawyer 36 4.3 2 equipment or for some otht" reason, you might predict 3 60 per cent Unit 1, 40 per cent Unit 2, and it may come 4 out exactly the other way around, and someone has to ( 5 answer why, but -- 6 MS. GOLDFRANK: I would like to mark as I Lawyer Deposition Exhibit 117, minutes of a 8 Meeting No.' 4, June 28, 1977, Three Mile Island, 9 O&M Committee Meeting. 10 (The above-described document was marked 11 Lawyer Deposition Exhibit 117 for identification, 12 this date.) ~ 13 Q Could you look at what we have marked as 14 Lawyer Deposition Exhibit 117. If you will look at 15 the list of attendees, you will see that your name is 16 listed there, correct? 17 3 y,3, 18 Q Could you explain to me what the O&M 19 Committee is? 20 A well, the O&M Committee meeting to which you are 21 referring is a meeting of GPU Service Corporation and 22 generally the GPU managers whc go to a particular site, 93 ~ and the budget for that site, significant O&M items 24 from that budget are presented to those managers.* o.5 They, in turn, at that meeting generally comment on B ENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE 1919 161
SM4Adil } Lawyer 37 2 items in that budget. 3 Q This is an advisory group, so to speak, 4 made up of the managers of the GPU family? ( 5 A I think it is more I would say it is more 6 than in forma tional mee ting in which -- if I were 7 going to the o.& M budget meeting at oyster creek, g which I have on several occasions, I might learn 9 that oyster creek was able to save x dollars in the 10 o& M budget by contracting a certain kind of work 11 out as opposed to doing it themselves or vice-versa, 12 I would learn of new techniques not in budgeting 13 but rather in performing operations. 14 Usually it is a rehashing of the problems that 15 they tre having, so it is I don't know if o s M 16 committee is a good terminology for it or descriptive 17 terminology for its it is, in my view, more of an 18 operating experience and maintenance experience. 19 Q And who would attend these meetings 20 other than a representative from GPU and managers 21 from Met Ed, Jersey Central, and Penn Elec7 (E 22 A I am not certain a manager from GPU Service 23 corporation has always attended. I think that 24 is probably true, but other than the people -- other 25 than the managers attending, those are generally the BENJAMIN R EPO RTIN G SERVICE 9'l9 168
dA-2 } Lawyer 38 2 people who are most familiar with operations and 3 maintenance at that station, and it is usually 4 those people who put on the show, sa to speak, 5 present the presentation. 6 Q so you would have people from the 7 site give presentations on various topics? 8 A Yes. 9 Q would you usually have your unit 10 superintendent attend? 11 A Yes. 12 Q And it would be to discuss operating 13 experiences and maintenance experiences? 14 A Yes. 15 Q How often did these meetings occur? 16 A I think they occurred once a year. I am not 17 sure that -- I went to -- well, let me say that 18 during the time I was manager Generation Operationt, 19 and manager Quality Assurance, I attended one at 20 oyster creek and probably three at TMI and no others 21 of this va rie ty.. 22 We did have an opr a*:ing or an O & M Committee o 23 meeting at the fossia + te - ons, but it was a 24 localized, Met Ed meetri.g. Those we conducted 25 after each outage. BENJAMIN REPORTING SERWGK j919.169
- A-3 Lawyer 7
39 These were generally in conjunction with an outage, usually after an outaQe. The one I attended at Oyster Creek and I think all of them that I 4 attended at TMI were post-outage. 5 6 Q Why was that? A Because the bulk of the maintenance in a sense 7 g goes on during the outage and the cperations is 9 rather smoothly divided as a function of time function -- that is n t really true, I guess. 10 17 Significant fueld handling developments in 13 operations would occur during the outage. So the reason was that we did a lot of paper 13 14 work, planning, executing during an outage, prior 15 t an outage and during an outage, so it was fresh 16 in everyone's mind, and it was a logical time to 17 put on a presentation. If you waited until just }g prior to the next outage, the person who was most 19 directly in charge of the last outage might be at 20 another station, might be at another company, might 31 be at' Met Ed or might not even be with GPU. 22 Q W uld you discuss transients that 23 ccurred in the nuclear plants at TMI or Oyster 24 Creek? 25 A Yes, I thi.r robably so, although I am not B ENJAMIN R EPO RTING SERVICE -)'9)9 110
4A-4 1 Lawyer 40 2 terribly clear on that, but I believe that is true. 3 Developments such as transients probably would have 4 been. That partly would depend upon how long ( 5 be fore the outage the transient occurred and 6 whether or not it seemed very significant to the 7 people making the presentation. 8 Q For instance, the minutes of the meeting 9 that we have marked as Exhibit 117, the agenda for 10 this meeting would have been made up by you or 11 would it have been made up by Gary Miller? 12 A It would have been made up by either Gary Miller 13 or a fat list of people. I suspect it was made up 14 by Jim O'Hanlon and Bill Sawyer. Bill Sawyer was 15 the outage coordinator at that time. 16 Q So that these meetings would usually 17 focus on the operation experience and maintenance 18 experience with respect to the fuel outage? 19 A And the period of time prior to that. 20 Jim o'Hanlon would have said, "During the 21 last operating cycle we had a certain capacity factor," 22 probably presented the LERs, abnormal occurrences, 23 or whatever they were called at that particular time, 24 what shutdowns occurred, the length of time that they 25 occurrred for and what the final diagnosis of the reason BENJAMIN R EPORTING S ERVICE j}}} }[]
S 4A-5 y Lawyer 41 of those shutdowns or reductions in power were. g stopped for testing, et cetera. 3 4 (A b rie f recess was held.) 5 Q L king at the minutes of this o& M Committee meeting of June 28, 1977, there is a 6 7 discussion in Item 3 with respect to a desire to 8 have additional engineering support on-site, and 9 if you will look at the second page of the minutes, it indicates that you indicated that you will try 10 y} and make some junior engineer swaps to accomplish 12 n-the-job training, correct? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Do you remember what that discussion was? 15 A No. Well, I don't know that it specifically 16 related to that statement or that discussion but 17 we were, perhaps as early as that time, involved }g in transferring people for the duration of an outage 19 to a station to let people get operating experience 20 at stations, primarily just during outages so 21 there might have been another case, but they 22 would be minor, mostly during outages when more 23 personnel were needed. 24 Q If somebody from the site, from Three 25 Mile Island needed to contact the Generation Engineering BENJAMIN R EPO RTING S ERVICE i919 172
4A-6 1 Lawyer 42 2 Division in Reading, do they have to go through 3 you to contact that engineering? 4 A tio. (. 5 If they knew who the particular person was, 6 they would contact him directly. If they weren't 7 quite sure, they might go through Mr. Klingaman's 8 section head. They generally would not go through 9 me. I may have been involved in conversation with 10 the station superintendent or the unit superintendent 11 about needing Reading or GPU SC assistance prior 12 to the enrineer making that call, but I am 13 inte rp re t.: ng that as not going through me. I may 14 have been involved in a decision that we ought to 15 get somebody from the outside to come in and then 16 we would talk about do we have to get a contractor 17 or do we have someone in-house with the kind of 18 expertise that we were looking for. 19 But the contact would always be made from 20 engineer to engineer. 21 Q How would you be kept apprised as C 22 to the status of the plant at T!!I prior to March 1, 1979 23 when Gary Miller became manager? 24 A How would I have been? 1919 173 25 g Yes. B ENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVICE
43 4A-7 1 Lawyer 2 A Under just normal situations? 3 Q Right. 4 A Generally by a.elephone call each morning 5 from Gary Miller. It initially started in that vein. 6 lie called me or I called him in the morning on 7 a rather informal basis -- it was formally every day 8 but not always at the same time. 9 It wasn't very long, though, that it became 10 apparent that because of scheduling of meetings, 11 et cetera, it was best to do that at a particular 12 time and mostly best from my point of view rather 13 than from their point of view. So I established a 14 cchedule for each of the stations -- those personnel 15 reporting to me, including the home office 16 engineering person, to contact me at a particular 17 time of the day, and this is generally started at 18 a little before 8:00 in the morning and extended to 19 9:00 or 9:15. 20 TMI's call was at 0830, if I remember correctly, 21 8:20 to 8:35, somewhere in there. 22 Q Was this a conference call, would anybody 23 else be included in that call or was it just between 24 you and him? 25 A Initially it was a call from Gary Miller to me. B ENJAMIN R EPO RTING SERVICE
44 4A-8 1 Lawyer 2 Then, in order, presumably to save time, he made 3 that a conference call in which the two unit 4 superintedents really were giving the status of 5 their units both to Gary and to myself. 6 So rather soon after May of 1977 it became '7 a conference call among.the four of us. 8 Q. And did this conference call continue 9 daily after March 1st prior to March 28th? 10 A It did continue after March 1st. I am not 11 sure how long after March 1s. Gary and I, ac about 12 March 1st, began discussing whether we shenid continue 13 that. After March 1st it may have those that 14 occurred may have been Gary Miller calling me; I am 15 not sure. I am fairly cercain that we agreed to 16 discontinue those calls, or in essence, discontinue 17 those calls. 18 I do remember that we decided not to 19 discontinue his attendance at a meeting of station 20 superintendents which I was conducting at that time ~ 21 because that was valuable for an exchange of ideas. i 22 We may -- in fact, I guess I am certain we [ 23 haven't had one of those after March 1st, but we 1 24 had decided we would continue those. t 25 g How frequently would you hold those l9i9 175 BENJAMIN R EPORTING SERVICE i i
4A-9 1 Lawyer 2 meetings of those station superintendents? 3 A Those were intended to be monthly meetings. 4 We might have missed some because of too many ( 5 people not being available, but I would guess that 6 we made eleven meetings a year, in that kind of 7 order. We alternated from station to station. 8 That was what was termed the senior superin-9 tendent's meetings. The pay grade of people 10 reporting to me, their experience and responsibilities 11 varied quite widely from small hydrostation and a 12 CT supervisor to Gary Millet who had the bulk of 13 the people that reported to me, most of the capital 14 investment and the bulk of that integration, so 15 those meetings were really meetings of the three 16 other superintendents and myself. 17 Perhaps someone else, on occasion, but almost 18 always it was the four of us. That was the two 19 larae !ossil stations and.cary Miller from TMI. '20 Q How is your time divided between the 21 various generating plants that you had responsiblity C 22 for? 23 A It is rather difficult to come up with a number 24 terribly easily. My guess would be 40 percent TMI 25 and 60 the other stations, but it may have been more U J BENJAMIN R EPORTING S ERVICE
4A-10 1 Lawyer 46 2 TMI than that. 3 The reason I have difficulty with the question 4 is that one of the things, for example, that I did 5 was spend quite a bit of time on something we 6 called a Manpower Assessment committee which I 7 chaired which had to do with the analysis of. g qualitifcations of people, promotion of people, 9 transfer from one location to the other. 10 The sther managers sat in on that committee 11 and I chaired it. 12 Now, at whatever time I spent in that -- my 13 initial reaction was that TMI was just one piece of 14 that -- but that probably was 90 percent of the 15 personnel, and in fact, they may have been responding -- 16 Gary Miller may have responded to this personnel 17 aspect better than the fossil stations, so it mi gh t 18 have even been more than 90 percent. 19 I have a little difficulty picking a number, t 20 but certainly 40 percent was TMI. 21 Q What involvement did you have with a C 22 schedule as to when TMI Unit 2 would become commercial? 23 A I am familiar with the document that was 24 initially -- or procedure that was initially drafted 25 which was a procedure for declaring commercial. 7 1919'l771 SENJAMIN R EPO RTING S ERVICE
a 4A-ll 1 Lawyer 47 2 reviewed that document at least once, perhaps more 3 times than that -- but that I am aware of when 4 it was finalized and I presume I attended the C 5 on-site meeting of Mr. Arnold and Mr. Herbein when 6 they reviewed the feasibility of declaring TMI 2 7 commercial'. 8 I am not positive of that; I was not one 9 of the principals of that meeting. 10 Q You we re not on the commercial operations 11 Review Board? 12 A No. 13 Q Is that the committee you are referring 14 to? 15 A Yes. 16 Q What comments did you make on the document 17 that you reviewed with respect to when TMI Unit 2 18 would be declared commercial? 19 A I don't remember. 20 Q would those have been written down or 21 were they oral comments that you made? C-22 A Probably consisted of a marked up copy, but 23 I only have a recollection of having gone through 24 the procedure at least once. 25 Q Did you pass your comments on to 1919'l78-B ENJAMIN R EPO RTING SERVICE
4A-12 Lawyer g 48 somebody on the Commercial Operations Review Board? g A As I remember it, I was asked to comment on 3 the procedure by Mr. Herbein, and I presume I 4 ( submitted my mments t him. 5 6 Q W uld y u have submitted to him a marked up copy of that document from the Review 7 Board? g A Or a memo or verbal comments; I am not really 9 sure, but I rather think it was somehow a hard 10 71 copr, probably it was a marked up copy. gg MS. GOLDFRANK: We would like to request that we be provided with a copy of Mr. Lawyer's 13 14 comments concerning the schedule for determining 15 Unit 2 commercial written by the commercial 16 Operations Review Board. 17 THE WITNESS: On the record, if I am right, 18 the terminology you used was " Schedule for 19 c mmercial operation." What I referred to as 20 having commented on was a procedure by which 21 the committee will operate. I don't know if-C 22 that makes a difference, but it wasn't a 23 time listing of events. 24 Q But criteria or things If}9'][9 25 A Yes, criteria, right. BENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVICE
49 4A-13 1 Lawyer 2 Q Did you sit in on any of the meetings of 3 the Commercial Operations Review Board? 4 A I don't believe so but I may have. That part, 5 I don't remember. That presentation may have been 6 done purely by the plant staff; I am just not sure. 7 Q Were you aware that there was a desire 8 to have Unit 2 become >:ommercial prior to the end 9 of 19787 10 A Yes, I think so. From.my past experience, I 11 remember at Vermont Yankee there was a very strong 12 desire. I presume this has something to do with the 13 financial arrangements and I would have assumed that 14 the same thing held here. 15 What that advantage is, I don't know. 16 Q Who indicated to you that there was a 17 desire to have Unit 2 become commercial prior to the 18 end of 19787 19 A I didn't indicate that someone indicated it to 20 me but'rather an inference on my part. 21 On the other hand, I suspect that I would have C 22 conveyed that inference on my part to other people, 23 Jack Herbein, those people working for me. It would 24 be an assumption on my part that there was some 25 economic advantage to getting commercial prior to-1919 '180 B ENJAMIN R EPO RTING S ERVICE
=,m h. h. .-e 4 4A-14 1 Lawyer 50 3 the end of the year and that would have started in 3 the middle of tha year before we went commercial, 4 that we thought it would be much earlier. 5 Q Did nybody indicate to you specific 6 financial advantages to becoming commercial prior 7 to the 2nd of the year? 8 A No. I do remember conversations that it was 9 well, conversations about when the plant would be 10 declared commercial. 11 The reason I remember these is from an 12 operational point of view it seems like a very 13 fictitious kind of thing. The plant is no different 14 before than it is after, and not knowing what 15 financial advantage it is to a corporation to have 16 the plant commercial other than somehow there is 17 also a disadvantage through AFEC or something 18 you can suffer some penalty for some period of time 19 after the plant is commercial, but anyway I am not 20 from an operational point of view, it really is a 21 budgetary-accounting thing from the day at which C 22 they declare it's commercial. 23 There are operations or were operations in the 24 past where declarations of commmercial at 20 percent 25 power, 80 percent power, a hundred percent power, so BENJAMIN R EPORTING SERVICE h'
51 .5 1 Lawyer 2 plants have been declered commercial at 50 percent 3 power when the Startup or Test Program was not 4 completed but there was going to be a hold-up in C. 5 the Startup Power Test Program. 6 I guess I can't say that.from firsthand knowledge. 7 I heard of these plants.in terms of Vermont Yankee, 8 but operationally, it would really be a fiction just 9 as in a sense ~the day o f attaining a license is a 10 fiction to us operationally except there is a legal 11 constraint. There is no such legal constraint in 12 terms of commercial operation. That could have been 13 my -- I am fairly sure it was my reaction to being 14 to comment on the procedure for declaring commercial 15 because as manager of Generation operations, it 16 really didn't make all that difference to me. 17 I doubt that I made that comments, but I did 18 verbally, I am sure, but probably not in writing; 19 it isn't a very significant comment. 20 Q From previous testimony I understand that 21 prior to December 30, 1978 when Unit 2 was declared 22 commercial, electricity was sold from the unit, 23 correct? 24 A Yes, there is a budget provision for power 25 generated during the Startup and Power Test'Programior.,,.,., B ENJAMIN R EPO RTING SERVICE
52 4A-16 1 Lawyer 2 there is an accounting for this. There must be an 3 accounting-in a given way. I don't know that it is 4 charged at the same rate. (.. 5 From a budgetary point of view that may be a 6 terribly significant difference in how you account 7 for the power that is generated; it is separately 8 accounted for, power generated during the Startup 9 and Power Test Program. 10 Q I would like you to lock at what we have 11 already marked as Deposition Exhibit 92. That is an 12 internal Burns & Roe memorandum concerning the 13 continuing contract after, master of service contract 14 for Burns & Roe after Unit 2 went commercia.. 15 Looking at Page 2 of this exhibit, you will see 16 that you are listed as an attendee at the meeting 17 in Reading apparently concerning this issue which 18 was in August of 1977. 19 Do you remember attendint that meeting? 20 A res, I believe I do. 21 Q Was there C. 22 A This was in relation to the continuing services 23 contract. This was rather a proposal, as I remember 24 it -- which I don't remember very well -- but I 25 think a proposal by Burns & Roe to provide us with'a 19l9 183 BENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVICE
53 4A-17 1 Lawyer 2 service, yes. 3 Q And was there a reason why you would not 4 automatically have continued with or you would not 5 have entered into a continuing contract with Burns & 6 Roe as the architect-engineer for Unit 27 7 A Yes, there could be many reasons. 9 The ones that immediately come to mind are 9 there is a competitor in this process which is 10 located in Met Ed as opposed to New Jersey, they 11 are much closer to us and thereby closer to TMI. 12 That particular contractor had a lot of experience 13 with our people. Our people knew their people, knew 14 who was qualified to do what, et cetera. 15 I think those are probably the two strongest 16 things that I can think of, and in general, a feeling 17 probably that Burns & Roe was not as good an 18 engineering organization as the local one. But 19 that has probably also got a log of personality '20 involved in it. 21 My tendency might have been the opposite 22 directio n because two of the Burns & Roe presenters 23 there I have had a lot of experience with in the 24 past. Buzz cobean was on the Nautilus, and J.P. Cady 25 was one of my students at the Nuclear Power Schools and I'919 184 BENJAMIN R EPO RTING S ERVICE
54 4A-18 1 Lawyer 2 I had not had any experience with the local 3 architect-engineer prior to joining Met Ed and not 4 really much after. C 5 Dick Klingaman's Engineering Group had a 6 much closer relationship with the architect-engineers. 7 Q Looking at the third page of this exhibit 8 which is the second page of conference notes, signed 9 by Mr..cady, you will notice that the second paragraph 10 under " Discussion," indicates that Mr. Cady apparently 11 concluded that Met Ed personnel favored Gilbert 12 Associates being retained to perform the master 13 service contract rather than Burns & Rc3. 14 Would you say that was an accurate description 15 on his part? 16 A He may have known something that I didn't know 17 but I certainly would not have been able to predict 18 the inclination of GPU. 19 That may have been accurate but I would have 20 been guessing. It may have been accurate on the 21 part of Dick Klingaman and Jack Herbein. There may C 22 have been that inclination, but I certainly couldn't 23 speak to whether it was factual or not. 24 I quoted forces dealing in one direction. 25 There were forces in the other direction. One of 19]9 185 B ENJAMIN R EPO RTIN G S ERVICE
55 4A-19 1 Lawyer 2 them was that Burns.& Roe designed the plant. 3 They logically were more familiar with the plant 4 than GAI was, so there had to be an inclination on C 5 somebody's part to retain Burns & Roe, otherwise 6 there never would have been the presentation. We, 7 I am certain, just didn't do it for show or to 8 satisfy the purchasing people. 9 Q Did you also have the same presentation 10 given by Gilbert Associates? 11 A I am rather sure there was a presentation by 12 Gilbert, but I rather think I wasn't at that 13 presentation. I don't remember but I would tend 14 to remember a presentation by Buzz Cobean much 15 better than Gilbert's people. 16 Q That is because you knew Mr. Cobean? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Whose decision was to retain Burns & Roe? 19 A Jack Herbein as far as I know. 20 I am not sure of the size of the contract. That 21 might have been subject to LSA review in which case 22 Mr. Kreitz may have been the final signatory, or 23 if it were a higher value contract it would have had 24 to go through other officers in the GPU system. 25 g LsA review? 1919 186 BENJAMtN R EPO RTING S ERVICE
9 e SG 4A-20 } Lawyer 2 A Level of Signature Authority. There is a 3 set of criteria at which a purchase document has 4 to go to succeedingly higher levels of authority k 5 for signature. 6 Q Is that based upon the amount of money 7 that is expended? 8 A Yes, and the type of contract, whether it is 9 for services, materials, that sort of thing. 10 (continued on next page.) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 C' 22 23 24 jg;9 187 25 BENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVICE
s 4b-1 1 Lawyer 57 2 O Do you remember any discussion that-resulted 3 from this Burns & Roe meeting in August of 1977? 4 A Not specifically. At some time there were ( 5 discussions -- I don't know if they were as a result 6 of that or preceding that -- primarily centered around 7 only Gilbert and Burns & Roe and the issues I mentioned, 8 how close are they, how fast can Burns & Roe get to the 9 site, will the people know who to call in Burns & Roe, 10 will Gilbert know enough about the plant to be of 11 assistance or of much assistance, and those kinds of 12 things would be in the balance. 13 I don' t know, frankly, whether they preceded 14 or succeeded the presentations. There were probably 15 some of one and some of the other. 16 Q Are you presently a member or were you, 17 prior to March 28th, a member of the GORB? 18 A Yes and no. I am a member of a GORB but not a 19 TMI GORB. 20 Q By GORB are you a member of -- 21 A Oyster Creek. C 22 O And at one period of time you were a 23 member of the TMI GORB? ~ l919 188 24 A No -- I'm sorry, for the past year or year 25 and a half, some time in the recent past, I have been BENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVICE
2 1 Lawyer 58 2 an alternate to the TMI GORB, not a member but an 3 alternate member for Mr. Bartman. 4 Q (. With respect to the kind of information 5 that you learned as a member of the GORB for Oyster 6 Creek, how tras that information transmitted to be 7 utilice'd at TMI? 8 A By myself and common members, I guess. There 9 are -- well, that is one, and perhaps the most direct 10 influence. The second is a GPU practice, probably 11 not a policy or procedure, but a practice established 12 some years ago in which Mr. Dicchamp required that 13 significant occurrences at nuclear stations be transmitted 14 to certain senior people. Mr. Creit: and Mr. Herbein 15 get the Oyster Creek experiences, and to the best of my 16 knowledge I receive all of those, probably -- well, I 17 shouldn' t say "probably" either -- because of my being 18 manager of Generation Operations or because of my 19 involvement on GORB? It is not transmitted to me as 20 a GORB' member, it is third-hand after it goes through 21 Mr. Creit: and Mr. Herbein. Those are not GORB C 22 documents, they are such things as LERs, letters to 23 the Commission, letters to the state regulatory agency:,, 24 Environmental Protection, et cetera. 25 Q Look at what we have previously marked as ~ BENJAMIN R EPO RTING S ERVICE
3 1 Lawyer 2 Kunder Deposition Exhibit 87. That is'an Action Item 3 No. 31 from the Three Mile Island GORB, and if you look 4 (.. at the second or third pages attached to that there is 5 a response to that action item that is signed by you. 6 A Yes. 7 Q Would you read that over to yourself, please? 8 Do you recognize that response? 9 A Yes. 10 Q And was that prepared by you? 11 A No. It was prepared at the plant but I think 12 that probably the Item 3 of that was prepared by me. 13 I am almost certain that -- well, it indicates George 14 Kunder, that I acknowledged his having prepared it. I 15 think that may be somewhat of an injustice or more of 16 an acknowledgement of the work that he did. 17 He may have totally prepared Items 1 and 2. I 18 know that Item 3 was primarily my thought process. I 19 may have transmitted that before he prepared it, though. 20 0 Were you a member of the GORB and is that 21 why this was assigned to you? 22 A No. It was assigned to me because I was manager 23 of Generation Operations. No, it was assigned because, 24 mainly because I was at the meeting that day and 1914) 19U 25 volunteered to do that. BENJAMIN R EPO RTING SERVICE
.-a. e a 60 .4 1 Lawyer 2 Q Do you remember the discussion at the GORB 3 meeting which raised the concern as exprested in Action 4 Item No. 1 wi'th respect to the process and acquisition (~ 5 of user information about accidents at other nuclear 6 plants? 7 A Not in detail. I do remember vaguely. 8 Q What do you remember generally? 9 A The question was raised about whether we needed 10 to develop new techniques for transmitting information, 11 what can we do about the large volume of information 12 that the plant.is deluged with, operating people in 13 particular and the industry in general. 14 Q Was it in response to a particular problem 15 or just a general concern? 16 A No. As I remember it, it was just a general 17 concern. I don't remember a particular problem. No, 18 I think it was an inquiry on the part of the GORB which 19 on the spot we thought we shouldn't answer -- well, we 20 may have given a yes or no answer but we thought it. 21 best to write out in some detail or summarize what (? 22 the mechanisnm were that we were using. }g}9 }9) 23 There may have been drafts before this that had 24 more detail in them; I am not sure about that. Somewhere 25 in the process in there I thought about or we had written BENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVICE
5 1 Lawyer 61 2 some reference to clearing house documents. I know this 3 would come to mind immediately from me because I have 4 read that document for years. It used to be a planned (~ 5 method of transmitting messages, in the '68 time frame. 6 Q You indicated that Mr. Kunder wrote most 7 of this response, correct? 8 A I indicated he may have. I didn't know how 9 drastically I had changed it. I am quite sure that 10 I made substantive changes to No. 3. 11 Q With respect to the page that indicates 12 the current status of means of reviewing information 13 from other nuclear power plants, was that prepared by 14 Mr. Kunder? 15 A Yes. This is a two-page document and it refers 16 to two pages. 17 Q Right. 18 A But I didn't know that I hadn't left all of that 19 out, only included those three items. 20 Q Did you perform at this time any type of 21 review of the kind of information that was transmitted 22 on such things as CURRENT EVENTS POWER REACTORS from 23 the NRC_ that are listed on the third page of this 24 document, the second page of your response? jgjg+ 25 A The first page of my response -- I know the page i BENJAMIN R EPO RTING SERVICE f
. -.. ~. - -. 6 1 Lawyer 2 you are referring to. Is your question did I regularly 3 have access to and review these documents or did I do 4 a thorough review in coming up with those? ( 5 O In coming up with your analysis of what the 6 system for reviewing information coming from other 7 nuclear power plants -- 8 A I suspect that George Kunder did a thorough review 9 and presented'this portion of it at least to me as that, 10 and I went over it very carefully and may have added 11 something, may not hav.e, depending on if anything 12 occurred to me. I did not do a library search to see 13 if there were other pieces of paper. 14 O The information that you indicated on this 15 page that was received by the people at Three Mile 16 Island, for instance, CURRENT EVENTS FEDERAL DIGEST 17 CLEARING HOUSE WEEKLY, OPERATING EXPERIENCE what the 18 type of information that is contained reflected in 19 those documents, was that analyzed to see what exactly 2' was being conveyed in those documents whether or not 21 they were adequate? C 22 A Whether or not those documents were adequate? s. } ]9 g } 24 A No. 25 0 Was there ever any discussion as to the type BENJAMIN R EPORTING SERVICE
7 1 Lawyer 63 2 of information that you received in those documents? 3 A I don't understand the question. Discussion by 4 whom? It was my experience that those documents are 5 the kind of documents that transmitted, on occasion, .6 valuable operating information. They were documents 7 which were available both out at the plant and at the 8 home office. I don't remember -- I guess maybe a 9 question is did we ever or regularly get together 10 to discuss those documents. 11 Q No, my question is with respect to your 12 response to this GORB action item was there an analysis 13 as to the kind of information that was being relayed 14 to you on the documents you were receiving at that time? 15 A well, there certainly was an analysis into it to -- 16 not of the individual documents. I think my response 17 here, this portion that I prepared of it, was a 18 conclusion, and that is an analysis, yes. 19 Q Did you conclude that you received adequate 20 information with respect to experience or information 21 concerning other nuclear power pla'nts? (_ 1919 194 22 A Yes. 23 O On Page 2 you indicated three possible 24 techniques for improving the transmission of information. 25 What was the GORB's response to your suggestions? BENJAMIN R EPO RTING S ERVICE
. - -.. ~ 8 1 Lawyer 64 2 A I don't remember being at the GORB meeting. 3 GORB doesn't generally respond to an answer to one 4 of the action items unless it is inadequate, so I ( 5 have no recollection of any response to this. 6 0 You did not present your~ answer to the 7 GORB but merely sent them this two-page document? 8 A Yes. 9 0 You did not give an oral presentation? 10 A That is true. 11 Q Did you receive any response back from them 12 as you can remember with respect to that? 13 A No, I don't think so. No, I am sure I didn't 14 receive a written response from them. 15 Q They did not ask you to further pursue 16 that issue or implement in any way the suggestions 17 that you had? 18 A No, not to the best of my knowledge. 19 Q With respect to the -- 20 A Let me modify something. A GORB member, not 21 as a member of GORB, but a GORB member, did send me C 22 a marked-up copy and contested a portion of that 1919 195 23 No. 3. I think in No. 3 I said something about EEI 24 participation and we ought to get better at that. 25 My boss attended EEI meetings and did, in fact, BENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVICE
~ I 9 Lawyer 65 2 make some summary of those EE1 documents so that in a U sense he contested the part in which I said there had 4 been no filtering, and in that context that was true, ( 5 he did do filtering. I orally apologized for that 6 piece of it -- he didn' t ask me for an apology, but 7 that was kind of an injustice there. What I had really 0 meant to say was that he also, and a lot of other people, 9 sent all of the document: received. This was, you know, 10 a snow storm of paper for someone to get, and as a result, 11 because of the thickness of it and the other paper work 12 that flows around, I think probably the plant operating 13 people would not go through those in any degree. It doesn't mean he shouldn't have transmitted 15 them around with a summary of it. That probably was 16 helpful. Generally it is my feeling though that hIis 17 summary of significant items was done on the airplane 18 on the way back from the meeting; it was a convenient 19 time to do it. But he did not do that as a GORB '20 member, although he is a GORB member, I believe, or 21 at least I assumed he didn't. It was called to my 22 attention that I didn't quite do him just' ice. Q Would that have been Mr. Herbein? {}{91} b' 24 A Yes. 25 Q The kind of information that is listed BENJAMIN R EPORTING S ERVICE
10 l Lawyer 66 2 on the last page of this exhibit such as CURRENT 3 EVENTS POWER REACTORS, FEDERAL DIGEST CLEARING HOUSE 4 WEEKLY, OPERATING EXPERIENCE, do you receive those , ( 5 documents personally? 6 A I have received all of those at various times. 7 Whether I do right now or not, I can' t be certain. 8 I am having difficulty finding the -- this is 9 referring to the Clearing House document -- I am 10 having difficulty reestablishing my tie with that. 11 It may come in in my name in the Reading office, but 12 since I have been out here I have seen maybe 13 ten per cent of the issues. 14 MR. YUSPEH: Is that the Atomic Clearing 15 House documents? 16 THE WITNESS: Yes, but it is the Commerce 17 Clearing House document. Commerce Clearing 18 House prepared it. It has got atomic something 19 in the title of it. 20 MR. YUSPEH Off the record. 21 (Discussion off the record.) 22 THE WITNESS: The Item 3 which you referred 23 to as the Clearing House Weekly summaries of NRC 24 documents is the Atomic Energy Clearing House. 25 0 Prior to March 28th did you receive, on j9to'l97 B ENJAMIN R EPORTING SERVICE
11 1 Lawyer 67 2 a regular basis, these documents? 3 A Yes, with the exception of No. 2. I think 4 No. 2 probably refers to a document that I can't 5 remember the title of now, but it is the loose-leaf 6 pages that come in that are pronouncements of the 7 Federal Register. I suspect that is talking about 8 the Federal Register. 9 I did receive that regularly when I was manager 10 of Quality Assurance at which time I had licensing 11 responsibility. Subsequent to that, I saw them on a 12 spotty basis, but I certainly didn't receive all of 13 them. 14 0 Would you personally have read such 15 documents as CURRENT EVENTS, CLEARING HOUSE WEEKLY, 16 OPERATING EXPERIENCE? 17 A I believe I read all of every one Jf those documents. 18 0 Would you then forwr.rd those documents 19 to somebody else who would be interested or was it 20 just for your own personal reading? 21 A Prior to the time at which I became manager of C 22 Generation Operations, I marked up the one particIlar 23 document -- I am referring to the Atomic clearing 24 House' document -- and sent that to people within 25 groups that reported to me, Licensing, Quality \\9}9,h' BENJAMIN R EPO RTING SERVICE
12 1 Lawyer 68 2 Assurance, and on occasion probably the plant people. 3 I did that on a rather regular basis. 4 I did not, after becoming manager of Generation ( 5 operations, I did not merk those up and send them out. 6 It was my feeling, substantiated on occasion, that those 7 all were transmitted directly to the nuclear section. 8 Now, th re may have been one or two times that 9 I marked something and sent it out, but those would 10 have been pretty rare occasions, and it wasn' t a 11 regular process. 12 Q Can you look at what we have previously 13 marked as Porter Exhibit 2 and tell me whether or not 14 you had ever read that particular CURRENT EVENTS? 15 A I can't say whether I have or not. My 16 recollection would be severely colored by my knowledge 17 of this one incident, my subsequent knowledge. 18 Q Referring to Davis-Besse? 19 A Yes, Davis-Besse. '20 O At the time that you would have received 21 this, some time in December 1977 or January 1978, at 22 that point in time though you indicated you would 23 have read this for your own information and not 24 forwarded it on to anybody else, correct? 25 A With the exception of some items I may have BENJAMIN R EPORTING S ERVICE 1919-199
1 D 13 1 Lawyer 69 2 marked and sent to the nuclear perscn -- that is the 3 two nuclear engineers that work for me. 4 Q Do you remember if you forwarded this 5 particular one to one of your nuclear engineers? 6 A No, I don't even remember for sure that I read' 7 that one, but I' presume I did. 8 Q But you don't remember forwarding it to 9 anybody? 10 A No. 11 Q Were you aware of the September 24, 1977 12 incident at Davis-Besse prior to March 28? 13 A No, I can' t say that I was. 14 0 Were you aware of an incident prior to 15 March 28 at another nuclear power plant that involved 16 a failed open PORV and pressurizer level high? 17 A And pressurizer level high? 18 0 Yes. 19 A No. 20 0 Were you aware of a memorandum written 21 by Mr. Dunn concerning -- L 22 A I don't think I know Mr. Dunn. 23 Q Were you aware of a memorandum written 24 by an individual from B&W concerning the concerns 25 of a failed open PORV and pressurizer level high? BENJAMIN R EPO RTING S ERVICE }9k9
- - -- ~ e 14 1 Lawyer 70 2 A No. 3 0 Were you familiar, prior to March 28, with 4 something that has become known as the Michaelson Report? 5 A No. 6 Q Were you familiar with memoranda written by 7 Mr. Creswell from the NRC concerning failed open PORV 8 and pressurizer level high? 9 A No. 10 Q Nhen the NPC performs their inspections 11 on the island, do you become involved in those at all? 12 A In a first-person sense I don' t believe I have 13 ever been involved with one. As manager Generation, 14 Quality Assurance, one of my duties was licensing and 15 my people prepared the responses to all of the 16 inspection reports, and I did carefully read all of 17 those prior to Mr. Arnold's signature. 18 Subsequent to becoming manager Generation 19 Operations, I read those responses by Mr. !!crbein af ter 20 the fact. I think I did read them all but I have 21 never been involved in the first-person sense except k. 22 that I got the results of the exit interview and 23 verbal description of the exit interview, what kind 21 of problems that we had that were serious. 25 We would generally get a report, the station BENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICC 1919 201
15 1 Lawyer 71 2 superintendent exited with the NRC inspectors and the 3 inspectors gave them a pretty good idea of what areas 4 we had problems in and what corrective action needed 5 to be taken, and there was some indication on the 6 plant staff's part about whether we agreed with that 7 and were going to do it or we were going to argue or 8 whatever. 9 That predated the inspection report coming 10 from the home office by quite a period of time. It 11 may depend upon the severity of the findings too. 12 Q Looking at Kunder Deposition Exhibit 87, 13 there are certain newsletters that come from B&W 14 that are indicated, specifically a B&W weekly 15 newsletter. 16 A yes. 17 0 Would you receive that? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Do you similarly read it for your own 20 information or is that read and passed on to somebody 21 else? ( 22 A I read that for my own information. That was 23 all, also since 1977 on a regular basis, posted in 24 the home office so it was quite general knowledge. 25 Q What kind of information is transmitted in B ENJ AMIN R EPO RTING S ERVICE 8 1919 202
16 1 Lawyer 7 2 2 that? 3 A There were, on occasions, citations of very 4 general problems that occurred at a plant, always ( 5 the operating history in a capacity factor sense 6 was transmitted -- in other words, the plant was 7 at 100 per cent power except for two hours when it 8 was reduced to 95 per cent for sto p power testing, 9 that kind of thing. 10 It was generally, I would guess, four or five 11 lines about each plant with one exception; TMI 2 was 12 absent from that report from the 1st of April for 13 three or four months later. It is in there.again now. 14 But is is kind of noteworthy that the most significant 15 thing that has happened in a B&W plant, no mention was 16 made, but I also understand why; I am sure everyone II knows. 18 0 What is your understanding as to why TMI 2 19 )9)9 203 was not included? 20 A Well, my presumption is that there is no one 21 in nuclear business in the United States who is not 22 aware of the TMI 2 accident and the volumes of 23 publications that have been produced by that. I would 24 guess that 60 per cent of the utilities at least have 25 been represented at TMI since the accident, so I BENJAMIN R EPO RTING SERVICE
17 1 Lawyer 73 2 think the information has been pretty well transmitted 3 and that what it has taken us and the NRC 40 or 50 pages to describe couldn't be very well written in a paragraph. 4 5 Whether B&W transmitted some other document 6 description, I don't know. I am not aware of any. 7 0 Would you receive any other kinds of 8 standard news letter from B&W? 9 A I don't believe so. 10 Q Did you receive any kind of standardized 11 document similar to that from Burns & Roe? 12 A Not that I remember. 13 Q Did you ever participate in any of the 14 B&W User's Group Meetings? 15 A No. ~ 16 Q Did you participate in any of the B&W 17 Owner's Group Meetings? 18 A No. 19 Q On March 28th how were you notified of 20 the incident at TMI? .g g '/ Q 4 21 A some time about noon of that day I was notified (' 22 that the accident had occurred and that there were 23 indications of a steam generator tube leak; I'm not 24 certain how I got that information. I am rather sure 25 that it came from my secretary who generally took the B ENJAMIN R EPORTIN G SERVICE
18 1 Lawyer 74 2 plant status calls on d<ys when I was not in the office, 3 so I am rather sure that that message came from her. 4 I am not sure that it was first-hand, though. [^ 5 It may have been transmitted from her to somebody else 6 at the conference and subsequently to me. The first -- 7 yes, I was in New York City at a meeting. 8 The first conversatic:t that I had with. plant 9 staff people -- well, there were only two transmittals 10 about the incident at TMI. The second one was with 11 Jim Seelinger who called me at 2:00 the following 12 morning on the 29th. 13 14 (Continued on following page.) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 C 22 23 (919205 24 25 BENJAMIN R EPORTING SERVICE
5/1 1 Lawyer 75 2 Q You were still in New York? 3 A Yes, and at that time he indicated that it was 4 Mr. Herbein's desire that I come back and assist, but ( 5 his feeling was that he didn't really think there was 6 probably anything I could do, and whether they really 7 needed me at that time. It was more in terms of -- 8 he expressed some doubt about whether it was necessary 9 that I come and this had more to do with the urgency 10 with which I get there. The tone may have been that 11 I am calling you out of bed now not because I think 12 we need you urgently, but rather because Mr. Herbein 13 told me to call. I don' t know if that answers your 14 question. Those were the two transmittals. The 15 knowledge I had on the 28th, and as I remember around 16 noontime or maybe before, and I am sure it was 17 secondhand with respect to the plant staff, possibly, 18 and maybe directly from my secretary, and it may have 19 been.from somebody via that. 20 Q Did you call TMI after you received this 21 message? 22 A No, I don't believe so. 23 Q The next communication you had with the 24 plant was about 2:00 that morning when Mr. Seelinger 25 called you and asked you to come back? B ENJAMIN R EPO RTING SERVICE
2 1 Lawyer 76 2 A Yes. 3 0 Did you then come to Three Mile Island? 4 A Yes. I arrived at TMI probably about noon (' 5 of that day. At 2:00 I began calling airports and 6 looking for ways to get to the airport, to get an 7 airplane that I could catch to get to Reading. I 8 did not have tickets because I rode the bus up, and 9 I contacted the bus station and the busses were too 10 late, so I arrived, as I remember, at the airport at Rea' ing around 31:00, caught a taxi home, got my 11 d 12 car, and drove down here. I think I was out here 13 shortly af ter noon on the 29th. 14 Q When you got here, who did you report to? 15 A Mr. Herbein. 16 Q In the observation center? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Did he instruct you to do anything at that 19 point? 20 A Stay around and help, I suppose. My recollection 21 of the occurrences at that particular time, I realize C 22 now, are not terribly accurate, because subsequent to 23 that time and within the past month I was describing 24 to, I guess, someone from the NRC having to do with 1919 207 25 how many people arrived what time, and I found out I BENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE
3 1 Lawyer 77 2 was a full 24 hours off, but anyway I did report in 3 to Mr. Herbein at the observation center, and I don' t 4 have any particular recollection of a particular task 5 other than to be there and assist him. 6 0 In what way did you assist him? 7 A Beginning at about that time, I presume, starting 8 that evening, I stayed in the observation center, and, 9 in essence, represented him from roughly eight o' clock 10 at night to eight o' clock the next morning. 11 Q In what specific way? 12 A Specifically in talking to the plant staff via 13 the radio from the observation center, and attempting 14 to organize the people who were coming in to the 15 observation center into some kind of a coherent mass, 16 primarily in the health physics area; that is the 17 people who were coming into the observation center 18 to assist in off-site surveys. 19 0 Who in the plant did you have contact with? 20 A Gary Miller, Jim Seelinger, Mike Ross, Greg Hitts, 21 a large number of people. 1919508 22 0 You didn't just have contact with Gary 23 Miller; you had contact with various people? 24 A Whoever was standing watch in the TMI Unit 2 25 control room at the time, and by standing watch, I mean BENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE
4 1 Lawyer 78 2 the one that was in charge at the time which initially 3 was Jim Seelinger, Gary Miller, Bill
- Pittman, 4
and then after some period of time became the shift ( 5 supervisor level people. 6 Q Initially, there was one individual that 7 would be in charge of Unit 2 for a period of ten hours 8 or eight hours? 9 A By initial, you mean beginning the night of the 10 29th? 11 Q Yes. 12 A My feeling is that it was very soon after the 13 night of the 29th that we went to a three-shift rotation. 14 The night of the 13th may have been 12-hour shifts; I 15 am just not sure about that. 16 Q The 12-hour shifts would have been Gary 17 Miller and Jim Seelinger? 18 A Yes; perhaps, Joe Logan. 19 Q What responsibilities have you had with 20 respect to the recovery effort.4? 21 A Initially, I was responsible for setting up the 22 organization of the health physics group. 23 0 Who was heading daat? 24 A Who did I report to? 25 0 Were you heading that effort? [919 209 BENJAMIN R EPORTING S ERVICE 4
5 1 Lawyer 79 2 A I was heading up the health physics. 3 0 You were heading it up? 4 A Yes. ( 5 Q Who did you report to? 6 A Mr. Herbein. Now, rather soon after I began 7 that effort I was standing watch at the observation 8 center during the night, 8:00 to 8:00, and in 9 addition was attending some daytime meetings, in 10 addition to sleeping, and in organizing the health 11 physics group. It was apparent that spending the 12 bulk of my time at night was not a good way to 13 correspond with people who were here primarily in the 14 daytime, so Jack Thorpe from GPU Service Corporation 15 came in and joined me as co-manager of that group, 16 and Mr. Herbein stood the OPS watch during the daytime 17 at the observation center and Jack Thorpe stood the 1;8 health physics manager watch during the daytime, and 19 then I did both of those at night. 20 0 What was the purpose of the watch at the 21 observation center, what was still going on at the 22 observation center? 9I9 0 23 A Initially, on March 29, of course, we had I 24 guess about five people,who were corresponding with 25 the survey teams in helos and ground survey teams, and BENJAMIN R EPO RTING S ERVICE
6 1 Lawyer 80 2 in addition to talking to people at the ECCS, and in 3 addition I coordinated with TMI 2 what progress they 4 were making on various things, and on the observation ( 5 center watch, some of those people were also taking 6 data from the plant people, lo,gging data, and making 7 pictorial displays of that data. 8 0 What type of health physics organization 9 was set up unde ~r you? 10 A What type? I don't know if there was more than 11 one type. Let me tell you some of the functions that I 12 saw. 13 Initially, I perceived the problem in health 14 physics was the fact that many people were coming from 15 many places into the observation center, and it was 16 overloaded. At that stage the function I saw was a 17 logistics person who could receive primarily HP people 18 and give them some general plant status and prognosis 19 of our need for them over here, and additional functions -- 20 that was the first great need. 21 It was also perceived that we would need someone 22 to keep track of radiation doses, two people, and 23 manpower projections, and that is what man rem bank we 24 had. Those are the primary functions that I remember. 25 at that time. }hlh 2ll O r.NJ A MIN R EPU n?!NG SERVICE
7 1 Lawyer 81 2 Within a day or two, some of the people that were 3 identified were from Electric Boat Company, and had a 4 great deal of experience in radiological experience, 5 and that sort of thing. We began to think about 6 radiological engineering, in our considerations, and 7 the badging of people, and so forth, and so that 8 progressed until finally, by the time we moved everyone 9 down to TMI 2, we had an organization chart drawn and 10 people functioning in various areas around the clock, 11 although much fewer at night than in the daytime. 12 Q Was the health physics organization that 13 had existed prior to Maz ch 28 integrated into the 14 organization that you set up? 15 A Initially, no, with a couple of exceptions. 16 There were two or three people, two people in particular 17 that I remember from the plant staff that were at the 18 observation center, Pete Velez and Huwve, I believe, 19 were the ones that received the potential health 20 physics survey kind of people, and helped orient them 21 on what the status was at the plant and what our need C 22 was going to be. Other than that there wasn't really 23 an integration between the groups. There weren't 24 health physics people, to my knowledge, coming to the 25 site initially. It was a matter of putting the survey h B ENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVICE
8 1 Lawyer 82 2 teams out in the field in the helos survey on the site. 3 Q Where were the personnel brought in from 4 that made up your health physics group? 5A Where were those personnel brought in from? 6 0 Yes. 7A There were people from Electric Boat, and I'd 8 have to say over and above that, utility people. I 9 couldn' t identify where they were from. 10 Q From other utilities? 11 A Yes. On, I believe, March 30, I left the site 12 at about noon and went to somewhere beyond Lancaster 13 to get a telephone to the Washington area and have 14 people from the NUS come up, so that within the first 15 couple of days there were people from NUS also here. 16 Q Have you had any other responsibilities 17 with respect to the recovery effort since the initial 18 involvement with the watch at the observation center 19 and the organization of the HP? 20 A I, in essence, have continued that OPS watch 21 responsibility. I still stand the watch at night. C 22 It is now borne by four of us on a shared basis 23 rather than one, and my big-time activities have 24 changed from the HP organization to the training j 0] 9 2 f. 25 organization. BENJAMIN REPORTING S ERVICE
9 1 Lawyer 83 2 Q To the Training? 3A Training. 4 Q What are your responsibilities with ( 5 respect to Training? .6 A I am the manager of Training. .I am responsible 7 for training plant staff personnel, maintenance, HP, 8 reactor operatbrs. 9 Q Does that incorporate the existing 10 Training Department under you? 11 A Yes. 12 O Who made that decision? 13 A Mr. Herbein, to the best of my knowledge; he is 14 the one that told me. 15 Q Did he indicate to you why one of your 16 responsibilities was his manager of Training? 17 A I don't think so. 18 Q What is your understanding as to your 19 responsibilities in that position? 20 A My understanding is I am totally responsible 21 for Training at TMI. C 22 O That is for all personnel? 23 A Yes. 24 O Prior to March 28, the Training Department 25 did not report to you, correct? BENJAMIN R EPORTIN G SERVICE
10 1 Lawyer g4 2 A Just prior to March 28, they did not. 3 0 They did not report to the manager of 4 Generation Operations, is that correct? 5 A That is true. 6 O Since when was the decision made to 7 have that department report to you? 8 A I would guess it was a month ago, but my -- I 9 can't give you a date; approximately a month ago. 10 Q Since the reorganization of Metropolitan 11 Edison last week, have your responsibilities changed any? 12 A I am not aware of a reorganization at the 13 Metropolitan Edison Company last week, I am aware of 14 discussions concerning some reorganization. 15 0 Have those discussions concerned any 16 changes in your responsibilities? 17 A. The discussions did, yes. There was indication 18 by Paul Christman at a joint managers meeting for 19 budgeting one or two weeks ago that I would be 20 accountable for, in addition to training, start-up 21 and test, refueling, and what we call a 96-hour group, k-22 which is a very short time frame maintenance group, 23 and I don' t of fhand remember the others. I have not 24 seen any published reorganization that indicates even 25 that I am in charge of training, so I don't -- I have r919 215 BENJAMIN R EPO RTING S ERVICE
11 1 Lawyer 85 2 had indications, though, through oral discussions, 3 which indicate that my future responsibilities are 4 not going to be as broad as I just described in the ( 5 budgeting process, so I suspect that the indication 6 that I had, that during the budgeting process, was 7 to be sure that somebody budgeted it, and I am 8 fairly sure that I am not going to be responsible 9 for all those areas. I still expect I will be for 10 some; I don' t know. 11 Q Since March 28, have you made any statcments 12 concerning the accident on March 28, and have you been 13 interviewed or have you written any memoranda concerning 14 that accident? 15 A I would assume that every memo I have written 16 has concerned the accident, with a few minor exceptions 17 it has been somehow related. I have not written a memo 18 which was a dissertation on here is the sequence of 19 events, or here is what caused it, or that kind of thing. 20 It wouldn't have been accurate to say that they didn't 21 concern the event -- not so much the event, but the 22 recovery. 23 I forget the first part of your cua= tion. 24 Q Have you been 'acerviewed since March 28 25 concerning the accident g }j6 BENJAM N R EPO RTIN G S ERVICE
12 1 Lawyer 86 2 A Oh, yes. A fellow from the NRC came to see me 3 one day; I think that was an interview. 4 Q Was that interview recorded or transcribed? 5 A Oh, I am sorry. No, that one wasn't; that was 6 more of an information seeking meeting. I have been 7 interviewed -- there was a Quality Assurance Group 8 for the President's Commission that interviewed me on 9 one Saturday. 10 0 Aside from the President's Commission, 11 have you been interviewed by any other organization? 12 A Not to the best of my recollection. I am very 13 cautious now because I just forgot the QA Group interview. 14 I am not sure thz.c I have, though. 15 0 You have not testified before the 16 Udall Committee? 17 A. I have not testified, no. 18 Q At this time, I would like to recess your 19 deposition. There is a chance that we will call you 20 back at some future time for further questioning, 21 although I do not anticipate that we will do so. C 22 (Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the within 23 deposition was recessed.) 24 Subscribed and sworn to before me this __, day of , 1979. 25 )h h BENJAMIN R EPO RTING S ERVICE
e g 87 LC 2 I_ N_ D EX 3 WITNESS DIRECT 4 Lawrence L. Lawyer 2 ,e \\ 5 6 7 EXHIBITS 8 LAWYER DEPOSITION 9 F O_ R_ _ _I D_ E_ N_ T_ _I F_ _I C_ A_ T_ _I O_ N P A_ G_ E_ 10 116 Resume of Lawrence L. Lawyer 3 11 117 Minutes of a Meeting No. 4, 36 12 June 28, 1977, Three Mile Island O&M Committee 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 C 22 23 24 BENJAMIN R EPO RTING S ERVICE , }}h
e 9 i 88 LC 2 STATE OF NEW YORK )) ss.: 3 COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) 4 We, ROBERT ZERKIt! and STEPHEN McCRYSTAL, 5 Notaries Public of the State of New York, do 6 hereby certify that the foregoing deposition of, 7 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, by LAWRENCE L. 8 LAWYER, was taken before us on the 9th day of 9 August 1979. 10 The said witness was duly sworn before the 11 commencement of his testinony. The said testimony 12 was taken stenographically by ourselves and then 13 transcribed. 4 14 The within transcript is a true record of 15 the said deposition. not related by blood or marriage to 16 We are 17 any of the said parties nor interested directly 18 or indirectly in the matter in controversy; nor 19 are we in the employ of any of the counsel. 20 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set 21 our hands.this 5 day of August 1979. r.) on .j( _ _ _ _ _6_. _ _C Z_ _ _ _ _ _ _g. ROBERT ZERKIN 23 p alf-- 24 STEPHtF McCPYSTAL f 25 B ENJ AM' N R EPO RTIN G SE }h ..}}