ML19290A042

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Deposition of Util by Jf Hilbish on 790809 at TMI in Midddleton,Pa.Pp 1-55
ML19290A042
Person / Time
Site: Crane 
Issue date: 08/09/1979
From: Hilbish J, Rockwell W
METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ACCIDENT AT THREE MILE
To:
References
TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 7908290135
Download: ML19290A042 (58)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:7 1 UNITED STATES OF AMEllICA l O 2 l 5 --o0o-- 3lPPresident's Commission 1jj0nTheAccidentAt LThree Mile Island 5 I I 7 --oOo-- f, i 3 ji I c DEPOSITION OF a j o, JOHN F. HILBISH 1 0 '. --oCo-- l Deposition of John F. Hilbish, produced before t ' Eugene A. Hayden, Jr., Notary Public, on Thursday, .,3[ August 9, 1979 beginning at 8:45 o' clock a.m. at Trailer [No. 10, Three Mile Island, Middletown, Pennsylvania, I ^ tDauphin County under and by virtue of agreement to take I','Ideposition on behalf of the President's Commission on the l

Accident at Three Mile Island.

i. i6, I ,..? APPEARANCES: ] i '] WINTHROP A. HOCKWELL, ESQUIRE, "', 1 The President's Commission on ( the Accident at Three Mile Island 2100 M Street, N.W. Wh Suite 714 -) W f Washington, D. C. 20073 l 4 On behalf of the President's Commission on the f 21 ' Accident at Three Mile Island 2 1 SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS AND TROWBitIEGr. b BY: MATIAS F. TRAVIESO-DIAZ ^ 3 J, 1800 M Street N.W. ~ Washington, D. C. 20036 i 2: 7908290135 g. x. For - Met-Ed a

2 ._....-..-9 l. l JOHN F. HILBISH, a witness, produced on call of the i i . I ~ 2 ! President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island, i I 8 ihaving been previously sworn according to law, was examined 8 2 r o I 4.and testified as follows: l i. i 5 DIRECT EXAMINATION i l l 6 BY MR. ROCKWELL: i, l 7 p[ The record should reflect this is the continuation Q l t 8 Lof the deposition of Jolm Hilbish, which was originally taken I {i i 9 [on July 9,1979 in Washington, D. c., and recessed at that C i jo (time. i' j; [ Mr. Hilbish, thank you for arranging to be here 7 37<and talk to us again. As you understand, you are still subject s 13 jto the oath that was administered at the beginning of your l { q g lfeposition on the 9th, do you understand that? ~ ._n A Yes, sir. q i. P Q Mr. Hilbish, I would like to talk with about f j c 'how the Licensing Group works, and what the range of its 37 responsbilities are. You became head of that Group in early g ,9,19797 s 1902 190 gj A Yes, January 15th. P" Q ,1 ! And can you tell me the structure of the Group l t !in terms of its personnel and functions in a broad over view, 22' l Iat the beginning? 23 h ~ ,,a A Yes. Licensing is divided up into three groups,' -t 3 i ' eporting to the Supervisor of Licensing, we have two nuclear r i ._J'

nilbash - Direct 3 i', groups -- j 1 ,~ 2 Q Would you give me their names? I 3 A Unit One Licensing. 4f Q That would be one of the three groups? r, A Yes. I 2 [ Q Right. i (, A For TMI-1. Unit 2 Licensing for THI-2, an'd 7 j ' I Environmental Licensing which handles the non-radiological, -q I n, 9 L non-nuclear TMI licensing, and the licensing for all of Met-Et's fossil units. 10 i 11[: Q l have to get that down, non-radiological, non- ! n'uclear, what was the rest of it? [ i .i A And also includes TMI, in other words, the ns 1 . non-nuclear, non-radiological for TMI, and all of Met-Ed's I t-l J licensing for all of Met-Ed's fossil units. l 15 Q How many fossil units does Met-Ed have? I 16 i A Two others, two other plants. Ie e Q Eesides the TMI plants? 18 i A Yes. 19 4 Q And then do you have a supervisor for each of 20/ l these three groups? \\ 'l.9 0 2 1 9 1 I' ( A 1 have a lead engineer. 22 1 C Lead engineer. Who is that, in each case? ~3] A For Unit 1, it is Ron Stevens. I

4 f f

G Unit 2? 25 --.-.-as.- a e a .*t I.' se o e IL(? 4 4g9, es d ' M's t*f> 8 e 17' t 2 ------- ---- ~ ~ i

Hilbinh - Direct .. _ 4 A Roy liarding. I i 2 l Q And for the Environmental Licenning? I 3j A Corry Thompson. I 49 O That is capital G or capital J? I L' A Capital G, 1 I 6 Q /ind in each case those are lead eingineers? i I 7 !- A Yes. l il l 3[ Q Now, what is the broad function o.f the Licensing l! l 9 1 Group? Obviously, you told me that you have three sections, 4 i i gg ; and that they deal with Unit 1, Unit 2 and some, a mix of O ); functions under Environmental Licensing, but broadly, what i b' I

y tasks do they accomplish?

i ,,i A Interface with tho-regulatory bodies. I p I y 'h Q Which regulatory bodies does your group deal l l 1 cvith?. 3 f i I A 16 When you cover all 36, those groups, just abouti ~ l any, naturally, the NRC. g jg} O Can you give me their names? 18 q l A EPA, I:opartenent of Environmental Resources for l the State of Pennsylvania, paring down through then all the 20;; .i k way down to, we arrange for the elevator permits, the building 21 t e .12 l4 pennits, anything like that. It is all, all of the interface i-hwithanyofthereaulatoryagencies. 23!i Q Okay. Do yo.u have specialists on your staff f 1l l' that are familiar with the l . 5, i procedures and personnel of various 1

I v.

m.~, ~. .....u w .. nm

nilbish - Direct l regulatory agencies? {- (" _i l. i A To a point, yes. 1 '3 Q For instance, do you have any NRC specialists? h J 4l l' A Well, the nuclear would handle the NRC. The EPA, i 5f most of that dealing is with fossil or non-nuclear. We have (.- engineers that essentially handle that part of it. e'.[ Q But, for instanco, in the Unit One Licensing Group, j S I is there s omebody who is o xperienced with NRC procedures, and i o the URC personnel that you deal with? l ~ ' 1 1 IO A Our project manager, ye s, that would be the load ' f I II;, engineer which has the contact with the project manager for 12 i the unit, because Unit One has a project manager in the NRC. l. 23 i He would talk with our lead engineer. -i 1 ~ r 14 L Q And who is the HHC project manager for Unit One? 15 !; 1 k. It just changed recently, it is now Domonic Di Ianni. 16-Q Can you spell the last name? Give it phonetically l' if you can't remembor. t A D-i I-A -N -II-I. I902 193 T ~ a,; l s-. 3 Q Okay. And who was Mr. Di Ianni's predecessor, i l as ~9: N.iC pr> ject managor, do you know? i i~lf q A I have just drawn a blank on it. u~~y Q -All ri ht. If you don't remember, I understand E ii 23 $ tha t. I just wanted to know his name, if you have_it in t, 2-mind. 15' A I will think of it. I ..._,.,<-.s..., x.... s, a.. ....., ~.....,,,, _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i

Hilbish - Direct 6 i 1 i, Q Okay. How long has the Di Iannt been project f (~ .: ]nanager? a 3' A I think officially since the end of March, j h 1 !. 0 '79? c A March of '79, yes, sir, 4, i Q At about the time of the accident? l 7j A (Witness nodding in the affirmative,) And it y 3 was based on transfer of the other person, r 9j Q How about for Unit Two, do you know who this i.

g}NRCprojectmanageris?

A Ue were still in the construction project l' management, it was Larry Silver. i 73(e i Q Does the Licensing Unit have, as a kind of I

4 ; single point in contact between the Net-Ed Organization and f

I.,, p, the NBC, or are there contacts flowing through other people t ' and at other levels? 16 i A It is the main contact within Met-Ed, especially 1, Ofor written correspondence. All written correspondence would 18, go out and come in through Licensing. The only part of > communications that does not necessarily go through Licensing, 20: - " which Licensing is involved in, 'is the on site I & E work where 21 i

they would go directly to a superintendent, normally.

l

7. 2 '

i y Q Now, I know that you were not in Licensing 23 h during 'the time period of'the drafting and' revisions.to the 24, {- ,PSAR, the FSAR, but do you know what role the' Licensing Unit .3 ' u. 1 4 ^ 1902 194 1

fillbish - Direct . _. ___. 7_ l would play in that process? ft l 2h A Licensing had a member, if I recall, t'o review l9 1 h team revisions at that point in time. The preparation at 4 !i I 4.!, PMR and FS.iR, prior to the operating license, the licensing i .I 5. for each unit was handled by General Public Utilities. I c." Q Uho would have been the member that -- ctrike l s. l -l that. l 1 D sp Does General Public Utilities have a Licensing ;l I t 9 Unit? l l go A Yes, sir. jg Q And has it had one for a number of years? ? 12 E A YeSe air, they are responsible for new plant I j3 licensing, plant under construction. I Q 34 Who is the head of the GPU Licensing Unit today? 3.,,, A Ed Wallace is the manager, is the Licensing Manager for GPU. p. p Q I _', h And do you know who his predecessor in that job ll 18 [; was? A p-I believe it was Gary Brouchton. i, il Q 201 And do you know when Mr. Wallece assumed his $presentposition? ,1 A Approximately the beginning of this year. 22l 3 Q And do you know how long tir. :Brouchton ~ had been l 23 ' ~ imanager of Licensing for GPU? 249 1902 195 i b A No, I don't. 21/ l .><.. m.... in.

Hilbish - Direct 8 Q What defines the change over in licensing t (* , I, responsibility for the GPU Licensing Group to the Met-Ed .f 1 i 3 :l Licensing Group? i .i 4; A Operating licensing,- I , ;i Q Once the operating license is issued, then 1 i i licensing responsibilities transferred from the GPU organ-l l. I " [ji ization to the Met-Ed organization? I A

Yes, f

g I a[' Q Off the record, i 10 : (Colloquy off the record.) i I h. Q What kind of issues nrise that Met-Ed Licensing l* 11 :,, , Group -- of which you are r_ow head -- has to address once an l operating license is issued? 6 A All correspondence with the NRC. [ Q I understand that all correspondence would go 15 3 throuE to g h your organization, but what kinds of issues are there i .i f which are ongoing once ar operating license has been ' issued? 17 ; i !, Is it possible for you to catego;.ize areas that Met-Ed would 1:t h t r pbe dealing with the NRC in? 19 p a .A 20 !! Some are routine, monthly operating reports,

I

-2' j, response to bulletins, tec specs, technical. specification l 22j; changes. ' 1902 196 i i Q Are there other categories of issues that your I 23

1icensing unit would' deal with?

24 T i A The last one is just the interface point ~with 25J .I I' ,a,. ,,.:..is a

s.. u.
m.. u

.....wi,. n.a -- - - - - - - -. ~ _ _. - - 0

Hil ish - Direct ..._..___9 I the project management from the NRC. l. r-I

  • 8l Q

For whatever issuing -- 3 30 A For whatever issuing of license. 4h Q Will the NRC ge'nerally address correspondence to a I i i 5the licensing group, in the first instance? ,I . f, l, A No, All of our correspondence comes in and 7.b' goes out through company officer Jack Herbein, ~ \\ li 8I Q I,nd to the extent that the NRC might have f 9[reasontocorrespond,theywouldliketogothroughtoMr. u 1Ol: Herbein, but Mr, Herbein would ultimately bring you into the l 11 0 c}iscussion as part of your general structure? 12 A

Yes, p

13 f Q Let's take monthly operating reports. These t n 11(are, I take it, are required to be filed with the NRC? ' i. 13; A Uh-huh. 1 16[ Q Who prepares them? ,a 9 17 ll A We get the information from the plant side," b 'J 18 [ and one of the licensing enginee'rs prepares it, i A . ;.;i 19' Q And that is, it is a routine status report on 20 events over the past month? / . :l. ,.1 A Yes, it is. e l .,, f 'Q Do you personally review those reports before i. .\\ s 'u the ~' t y go _out? 1902'197 ,.s. l -A Yes, I do. I. p 25h O Do you get response from the NRC, ever, based 1 L._-.._._.._............,.,e ,,<m.....c. .....2. < sf

Hilbish - Direct 10 I i l on what they have seen in your monthly operating reports? L s l' ( Z A Not that I recall this year. l ~ i 3[ Q Would the operating reports be directed to the 1 t imC project manager for the particular unit involved? 5 ;l A They are not tirected to him. The object of l 6 it is for preparation of the Gray Book. 7.j Q I don't know what the Gray Book is. J. i. 8 i A A rronthly book, a monthly gray book the NRC' - I 0! puts out on the status of each operating plant. . 1 i 1 10 C Okay. That is not 1.he LER Summary thet'the. A i) i NRC puts out? l i 12 l A Ho. l' i l 13 I' G What kind of information does the monthly Gray l' ( I r 2.; ' Eook take? I Generation,dailygeneration,capacityfactors.l-A 1., i .l g, The NRC adds, for the Gray Book Inspoction Sta vus, gives points I 4 g ] of contact at both the utility and the P'RC.. For example, we g + t" 33 4 list the project manager from the Commission. We list Mr. l i 39 : Herbein. He is the contact at Met-Ed. We give daily generation,j , li 20lf r the unit. If it is not on line, we explain w5v. ' .{ j ' I , ); ~ Q Do you receive that monthly Gray Book...on.a- .., : regular basis? 'l9.02 19& l -- t i-.. A Yes, we do. ',( ~y~ a i ] .Q Do you personally get a copy of it? : A 'de do get one in Licensing, yes, f r j .--.._.c..m .,,,e, ,,.3..v,.u,,... .... r.s.9. f., my -. '*iy s. , e' s. I

llilbish - Direct . _ _ _._ _. _ _ _ _ _ _1 1 I i i i 1[ Q What use do you make of that book? liow is itL. l 2 lj helpful to you? l 3 A Both to review, and as a reference. l 4 l-Q I don't understand what you mean. o 5' A We would review it, look through it for points b} of interest, and at the same time we have used it on man l 6 i I ? occasions as a reference under plant?s capacity factors, 8 I outage lengths, general items. j 9 O I think you do need to speak up a little bit, ,s-10 ;if you can, i 11 1 Does the Gray Book address areas of operating I, o 12 ] problena, or does it describe transients, for instance? 13 i A I believe so, very generally. l. e 14 ji O Who else at Met-Ed gets the Gray Book besides

15) y urself?

n t A One comes to the plant site here for the 16 i.,.

7 Training Department, I believe, or for the -- one comes to.
o)

't 18 h the P ant site. I am not sure what they do with it. l j 9 j, Q And are you on the distribution? t 20 i A I am located in Reading. f3 Q I'm sorry, of course, and just one comes to n 22j"oadina? .1902 199-1 3k Y s, we g t one in Licensing. i Q What is the official name of that Gray Book, 24 a! 1: r is that its' official name? 5 u.-.-.-......,.....<.

a..

.v. ...c. n. ~~."'on S f

Hilbish - Direct 12 { A That is a standard reference. It my be some t, thing like the DRC Monthly Operating -- I have copies of it. 3 t O Does, Licensing review the !!RC's LER Summary 6 ,1r a: that is published on a periodic basis? A Yes, we do. ,; n I ,, b Q

Okay, And for what reabon would you review l

o ' that nummary? e t A We normally reviewed it for experienco in g j-9,. preparing LER's, looking at what the other plants are doing, p t. i ,[ Q Is it your review or the, to understand the, l [forminwhich'LER'sareprepared,ortounderstandthesub-r, i stance of what is happening at other plants, or is it both? ,,i i A It is, I would say it was both, mainly the g 14, philospphy of the reporting, from what you can get from two t' I !; or three nentences in the LER Summary. l 15 ', Q Why do you need to know the philosophy of the c t e !! i hreporting? l_e s 'k[ Just to, all of the LER's go out through l A } rLicensing, and just to keep abreast of other plant's LER's, 19 a I L i .i a summary of other plant's LER's. I 20 g ll 0 Yes, but why? .21( l A Just for our preparation flow. _2 i i li Q For preparation of. LER'a? m 190.2 200 k A Uh-huh. ~ 24 0, l g lj Q As to form? ? 2- ,i t. --.,a. ie...:,e.. ....s n = 3 e. isina e

Hilbinh - Direct _____13 1 A Yes. ~ ^ 0 Okay. Does the Licensing Departnent do a ~ ., i .i 3, review of LER Sumcary with respect to identifying the. j 4 5. significant 1sauea or significant events in transients that i L i I 5 [ have occurred in other plants in order to plug that experience into the operations of Three 1411e Island? l

, I A

Not to my knowledge. 4 81 Q Uow, let's go back to the tee specs modifications t which you indicated was another general area in which you 9 \\ to would have contact with the NRC. Can you describe to me the { i

, j process or the paper flow that is involved with the tec specs l modifications in an operating plant?

j 13 A I didn't really depend on cource of change. There are many many reasons why the tec specs would have to be changed. Routine tec spec change would come about each re- ,3 i fueling outage, right now. ..d Q Okay. And what is the process on a routine i<, tee spec change? g i A Well, that would be one for the, you know, the j g g ' reload IEW analynis for the next cycle prepares a reload } package. Part of that is the tec specs changes that will occur.. o '!We get that out for review, prepare it in a tec. spec formati-

2 '

_ Land submit it to the Commission. ~ .1902 201 l Q Okay. l t 2.i ; Does the Commission then have to sign ~

off on the tec specs change?

t

..,ye

.gWga<d $ e 4 8 i s* A t 1% " FP Sp _ 19. E D 61 I , m 8)L O

il11bish -- Direct .4 1 i '( A They must, yes -- 2' O Approve it, in other words? j 3J A They n;ust approve it and then send it back l 0 4 i amending our license with that change.' r al Q

Okay, And until you get that proposed change

(' returned to you, with NRC approval, you are not permitted to j f i 7 operate? ti A No. 9L Q Do you actually have to receive the pieco of j !c paper before you can then operate under the proposed change? I r,. A Yes. ,o q 12 O How long does that approval generally take? 1 l nf A Well, for a reload, it in a significant package.

q,They like to have the package 90 days prior to start up.

lr g-i. C How long in a refueling? How long does a I i g, refueling cutage generally take? l l A-Somewhere between 30 and 60 days. I p; [ Q So your reload tec specs change package has to I 4 19 i be prepared before you even go off line in order to start I 20 reloading? gg g i 33 i A Right. Q It is my understanding that part of. these .,,i"a ,., b changes, in terms of the operation of plant at the time.of reload, relate to any slight changes in configuration in the ,~4 i lcore, as a result of reload, can that be calculated before you ,s . >..... ~.... -

Hilbish - IJirect 15 Io load the core? j '.[ A Yes, it can. The only thing is, if something 'l f

i 3

would occur during refueling, that it would have to be changed. l* Q Could you read that last answer back? l c i' 5y (Whereupon the Reporter read back: 6 " Answer: Yes, it can. The only I I. 71, tMng is, if something would occur I h I Hf during refueling, that it would have ] i 9 to be changed.")

o.BY MR. ROCKWELL

h, Q Does that happen very often, that you would i;, have to have a modification in the process of refueling itself? i

, [

A No. O What about non-routine tec specs changes, do f they al? fall into one category, or are there a number of i categories of non-routine changes? l p, p i A I would say there are two, those that are ' ' l; that identified by us and those/are identified by B&W. Where they l g ii i p,I have looked at, say analysis, for example, the Small Break LOCA ,gj; would have been LOCA identified by B&W, required a tee specs l c,' change, on our part we have identified them in~Section 6 of .I ,,,g tec specs. An organization change would require'one on our j - i! 11 i g 23qpartwherewehaveidentifieditandsubmitted'.ittothe' Commission. .1902-203 [p n 4 .,i O Okay. Well, let's take an organization change, _s,l 4 . - - - - - - = = - a }p 4 '. % 1 W- " og 4 $, g g9 4g[( &yg 1fl3 E m 'ls 6 $a, [79$j -me.= J

Hilbich - f>1 rect 16 as an example, k'ould the substitution of one person, by "t ,,, another person in a particular slot in the Met-Ed organization, c, L ' constitute the kind of change that would require a slight ~ i 3 r ' modification to the tec speca? A It would depend on what that position was in i > i;- 6.' relation to the chart. g j Q Give me an example. ,g 'f j! A If we reorganize at the manager level, yes, Se ?! 9l.that would. However, if a lead engineer, you know, was l '. replaced or we reorganized at that level, it would not. le ( O Let me distinguish between simply a personnel in } 11 / turnover /an existing organizational slot, and an ac,,tual organ- ,izational change in which you changed the duties and respon-ll i l ( sibilities. Let me take that back one at a time. If a person 4 i simply, if a job simply turns over in terms of one person 1 !, ' leaving, and another person arriving, does that have to be i j o ;i ' reported? ' ~i A For certain of the positions on site, certain i IS i I of the key positions on site are what I refer to as resumed. 19 ! positions. 20J { 1902 ' 2($4-l O Okay. 21 ' A They were not prior to operating license, they j ~.2 ' were resumed in the FSAR. They are not, the resumes are now I ,,.i ~lkeptuptodateonsite. That is not part of tee specs. So i ~1 a personnel change like that would not be a tech specs change.i' i

Hilbish - Direct 17 We could change the recume on site tnd keep it up to date. 2 The organization chart in tec specs is by position. l a ) ;; O Okay. So that a personnel changeover does not h I a$ require a tec specs change? l t 3j A No. I o O Unless it is a different definition of l I 7 responsibility? [ a !; A (Witness nodding in t'.le affirrt6tive. ) l [ \\ 9i O And at what level of responsibility would you l l, l.

g t have to report a redefinition or responsibility to the NRC, i

I .i,1ptarting level? A It would be based, there are two charts in i 11 7,. tec specs, one on site and one off site, and it would be based; 7 l y,,, on that chart. ~ y _, h Q Okay. So if the position is in the chart, we would have to report.it, if it was, report it if moditifactions 1_.Iin any responsibilities had been ende? l A That is correct. l ..s Q Now, let's go to another question in that area ij g p, p Does rmC routinely approve structural changes in. management ~ !!; structure? 22 g l A Yes, they do. 1902'205 _q 9 Q Ilave you ever had one turned down? 23 3 l 2i)1 A (Witness nodding in the negative.) l C Now, with respect to non-routine changes i s: - i , _ generated by...B.a..bc.o.c.k. and Vi,l.cox..t.u.aJ e we..,shoul,d,..,use this, m b .._._______J ,.m

Julbish - Direct 18 t the Caall Break LOCA analysis. I am showing you what has been 2 previously marked as Seelinger Deposition Exhibit 10h. It I o

t appears to be materials from Meeting No. 266 of the Unit.?wo j a

.. Plant Operations Review Committee. Okay. And in that Ib-hibit;, y" I refer you to the fourth page of the exhibit, which is a May 5,1976 letter to the Nuclear Regul'atory Commission signed 7,j' by Mr. Herbein. Am I correct that this relates to the Small g(BreakLOCAAnalysiswhichweweretalkingaboutamomentago? 9( A Yes. Are you feailiar with that letter thtt in con I I O 10 [ l h tained in Seelinger Exhibit 1047 11 3, A I am sure I had seen it. Q Seelinger indicated that you, in fact, drafted ' i ! that letter, although it went out over Mr. Ilerbein's signature. 1,, H A That is not true. I5! i Q Have you had a chance to review the letter to

1..,

I make sure? i 17 ' i s A Well, it was drafted by Bob Lengle in the i 18 4 I r Licensing Group. ^) I was not in Licensing at this time. ft 4 l Q I see. Okay. Mr. Seelinger was probably 23: 21l referring to the Licensing Group as a whole. Were you involved IntheSmallEreakLOCAAnalysisthatoccurredovertheSpringl; (2 ! l of '78 and into the Summer of '78? p 23'; A To a point, here on site, working for Jim ^ j. 't, "Seelinger, 1902 206~ .... ~.... ~..

4.

i 'i- -5

sui u:] 1 Direct 19 -..... 9 tp Q Okay. What was your Job with Mr. Seelinger 1 , ; during that period of time? i c D i 3 j! A Nuclear Engineer. i r Q 43 And that was when Mr. Seelinger was, was he Ur.it One Superintendent at that time? 3 f A Unit Two Superintendent of Technical Support. n lt c 7 3 Q Okay. To what extent were you involved in the i i g Small Break LOCA Analysis? s i 9 A From a plant standpoint of reviewing what ,g ' B&W had been sending up, and also at least one that I can, i l h remember meeting in Eethauda, was the NRC, going down for a f'P&Wpresentation. C Okay. Did you have any duties or specific l .f 2 > role yourself with respect to that isshe, or were you ? 2 -t \\. ' essentially -- I A Following it on site, Licensing was represented i, i, at the meeting, in reference to your first question. It shows; 17 i 'l

up in the meeting here that the minutes, Attachment 1 is I

in b referred to in the minutes by saying, "The PORC held a con-1 "ference call'with Reading Licensing to review a response 20

prepared by Reading Licensing to forward to the NRC in regard t

.ito the action being taken in Unit Two." a i ., 1 --e Q Were you on PORC, at that time? l t 23!l3 A Yes, 1 was. I L' I 7 [ Q Were you chairman of PORC? 1902':207~ l 2., t ~,mm.. ...... ~ - ..o. --- J .m n. 4

Hilbish - Direct 20 l Ir A fio, I was not. . 'l l 2 Q And the recponse prepared by Reading would have j i .ifbeenaresponsethatwejustreferredto? 4 A Yes. i l 5 ', Q Which is the fiay 5,1978 letter over Mr, 1 6 Herbein's signature? I' ?. A That is right. S I O Were you involved at all with the IEC's response I. oftothatletter? Did you see it when it came in? t. iO l; A As far as the tec specs change? t 7; [ Q Yell, I believe the NRC had a -- I am showing i

7, you Seelinger Leposition Exhibit 105.

Well, I had thought l

7, that, just a minute, off the record.

I ,, ) (Collocuy off the record.) l t g '. BY Ni..h0C NELL: G Are you familiar with what I am showing you, g ,7 in what has previously been marked as Seelinger Deposition Exhibit 1o57 And I am showing you a page entitled, " Proposed, 7g I 39jPermanent Solution to Small Break LOCA Concern." Was that (- 0 y ;! generated by the IRC or was that generated by Net-Ed, do you },pknow? I was just trying to take a look at it,~and I am unclear l. A What is here is an unsigned draft of a Met-Ed- ! 9 1902 208 23 )' reparation. i 0 Q Loes that appear to possibly have been a fore-l-2! 1 runner to Mr. Herbein's letter? .. s ; i ...,4

..u,.

Hilbish - Direct 2.1 A Not by the date this chows, July, '78. q r; 21 Q And this shows, when you went down with B&W 0 to Bethesda for a presentation to the NRC, wasn't that entirely ,3 I.

i a B&W presentation, or were Met-Ed people involved as well?

l A As I recall, that was a B&W presentation with L 6 other operating plants also at the meetirg. i i 7f Q Okay. Were you involved in translating the-I k 61 B&W analysis of the Small Break LOCA into an operating h 9(.instructionwhichwasultiaatelycontained,oritnayhave h g, been an emergency procedure contained in the procedure entitle'd, I 1 , Loss of Reactor Coolant Pressure"? i) I I uns involved at some point with that, yes, { A ~ I'* ( 13 O Who took lead responsibility for translating ..;o e the analysis into an actual procedure change? A Well,.the actual steps for the change, you l Imow, were given to us by B&W, with the timeframes. I don't think we had to actually go into the analysis to come up with is h i.those changes, 19 a. j t 20 [; Q B&W gave you a proposed. change procedure? ,I,] A No. They trould have given us the steps to i J put into our procedure, essentially. Di l jj Q Let me show you a document entitled, "Three l I 23 i., Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, General Office Review [ 21i j ' Board, Final Minutes, Meeting Number 30, June 6, 1979, Page 1. 4 2q s . -........,... +,..... 1902'209~- j

Hilbish - lairect 22 l There is an item on Small Break LOCA there. Do you have any l' t- ,c familiarity with the discussien that would have occurred as b 3 > thin Generation Office Review Board Meeting relating to the ~ 4 Small Break LOCA in June? A I don't remember' this meeting speci.fically. I i

c. j.

Q Okay. Would you have attended GORB meetings? e f I attended some meetings on a part time basis. l 7; A t 3 ;! Q Okay. You don't have any specific recollection. e I i of attending a GORB meeting which, in fact, I believe it showsl cj r, gg that you were present? i 3, ( A

Yes, e,

l 3 0 OI:ay. Loes tha b help refresh your recollection? I A No. I had seen that. I attended quite a few i 3 a. ji i I4 [i of these meetings on a part time basis for a few of the t l ' specific items. I do not recall that, i 13[ Q Okay. If a presentation was made at that l 1; 4 i t meeting, on that irsue, in it possible that you made the l E 1,,, o ti f 13 r] presentation? i i ,p A Not that I recall. not that I recall. + hl 0 Looking at the attendance list of those who 20a s a were present at the meeting, who would have, at that time, 21 > 22 )f been knowledgeable about that issue? l l l A Jim Seelinger would also have been knowledgeable. 23 'l 4 O Okay. So he may have, to the extent it was a 24 ll 25 ! presentation or discussion, he may have been the leader in l I i _ _ _.. ~..... _... ,,m.._ f m._.

H11bich - birect L,3 bringing out the information in the meeting? r A He may have been. ) l 3[ Q Would it have been possibly anyone other than l I h Mr. Seelinger? I i, A Possibly, I don't remember. l ,i Q Who were the exoerts, in house at Met-Ed, on o l this issue, people who were tasked with following through, I I seeing that the right information was obtained from B&W, e t' i l \\ ui translating that into a procedure, getting the issue resolved I m 7 and putting it to bed? Uasthereromeonewhowasplayingthatl i !t 1 Irole? I ,3 A I don't know of anyone leader for Met-Ed, in j general. We had the Nuclear Fuels Group in GPU Licensing, j e t and also staff on site, and we would' incorporate the changes that we had committed to. O But was it one person who was given the task oi, I of coordinating this effort reviewing the work of various c l 1 l ,, people involved, and seeing that there was a logical and a ' timely progression? j li i D A Not that I am aware of. l 20g I 6 Q Well, how would the job get done if there wasn't " one person to see that_the right steps were taken?.

2,!

n 3 A Licensing makes it, made the submittals to the l m !i submission, and took the lead. The detail technical work was ' 24; i 2':j done by the GPU Fuels Group. And as far as changing the plant' i ,,,.g,c.c.,..,;}.$ 0 ( ? I l___._; ,,in...,,

Hilbish - Direct 214 1; procedures, getting in fotTaation through to the operators would. 2I have been done here on site, i d I i 3 0 Okay. Referring you to what has previously-been a;arked as Frederick Deposition Exhibit 9, Page 7, do you ~ recognizeSection2.2ofthisprocedure,v.hichIwillidentif) o' as Unit Two, Emergency Procedure 2202-1 3, Loss of Reactor 7.' Coolant, Reactor Coolant System Pressure. l 8 Again, referring to Page 7, Section 2.2, do I l 9 }, you recognize that as the procedure that was incorporated into jo this emer$ency procedure 2202 to account for the loss of -- 0 ,j Excuse me -- to account for the San 11 Break LOCA Analysis that i 7; PiiW performed? i i

3<

A Yes, I do. I 0 Who made the decision an to, as to translating; ,,7 the B&W Analysis into that lang1tage, and those steps, do you i I n,lknow? A I would say the Unit Two PORC. l O Who would have made the recommendation to the g Unit Two PORC to adopt that language? I i; A Again, the basis for it would have com.e from g. B&W. I worked on it with Jim Seelinger. 1902 212 2i il i l =. Q And would you and/or Seelinger have brought a i 2 2.l l $recommendationtoPORCandsaid,wehavelookedattheB&W I 231 / Analysis, we have talked to the B&W people, and here is the l 24* 1 actual lan6uage which we propose to use to modify the Procedur'e 22027

Hilbish - Direct 25 t A Yes, sir. t c '~ 2i Q And you indicated, as I underatand it, that you' i were not a member of Licenaing and, therefore,wouldnothave! 3 l .; I had a role in the draf ting of this letter of Mr. Herbein's to the NRC, which is dated May 5th, is that correct? 1 A We would have reviewed it. I do not remember

r.,?

7[ working on the draft. No. l' 3! Q Okay. In coming up with the actual language l h i c.; to be innerted into Emergency Procedure 2202, with respect to l the Small Break LOCA cuestion, would you have worked.from the g n S&W Analysis or would you have worked from Mr. Herbein's 'l L letter, do you know? g 1 A No. I imagine it vould have been both. i 0 Was there someone in particular at B&W that I fyouwereworkingwithatthetime,intermsoffocusingon 15g l .,'what procedure change.to make, based on B&W's Analysis? I , i..! I i A Not that I recall. It would have been on site.! 17 I ~ Q Lee Rogers? A Lee Rogers would have been our contact here on ' 19 j ii site. 20 O Was Lee Rogers sitting on PORC, at that time? l ,1, -1902L2'13 l A No. 22 ] Q Would he have had any role in signing off on 23 ~~ ,particular language that was inserted in Emergency Procedure 21' '2202? j 25i 4 a _ _.m =,, ._.m i

Hilbish - Direct 26 i 1 A No. 2, O Have you ever, have you cince the accident, or i f I 3[at any time, have you had a chance to sit down and compare the; t i. 4 7 language of Section P_.2 of Energency Procedure 2202 with the i IWd Analysis? 1. A Not since the accident. I am sure we would l l' l 7Ihavedonethatnowinthereviewoftheprocedure. I don't [ l 8 ". specifically recall. l 0 i oj O Does the language in Section 2.2 of Emergency l 10 Procedure 2202, to the best of your understanding, accurately

1

, reflect the BM' Analysis? 1;, A Yes, it does. l 13 ' O And this is defined as a Small Break LOCA 14 response, is that correct? l A Yes. l

n.

n,[ Q Now, what do you understand a Small Break LOCA 17,to be? A And intermediate, small sized loss of coolant. 13 i 19 Q Okay. It relates to a breech in the primary 1 20 system pressure boundary, correct? ll ~ j lj .}.902 214 l ,l A Yes. s Q Of a particular size? , a p( A Yes. l f i Q Okay. And that defines a small break? i-24 h l 1 l A Yes. i j

a. _ _

,.a....<. .u .e .o... j s

Hilbish - Direct 27 1 Q There are not other paraceters, and no other ~ 2 conditions that are necessary in order to have a Small Break lt 3[prenent, correct 9 { 4 l. A Some of the steps in here were clarified, also,' by location in the system. i e Referring ycu to Section 2,2 of the Procedure, l s 6 Q l e 7 there are two systeac listed to verify the existence of the I 3g Small Break LOCA, safety feature actuations, and only one ) li t cake-up pump started, or safety features initiation, and loss i gg of an electrical bus, that is what that refers to? i i ( A Yes, sir. O 7; The existence of a cake-up pump starting or not starting has nothing to do with the existence of a Small i Ereak, does it? J '1 15l A No. O Uhy then is that listed as a symptom for the i 10 j f existence of a Small Break LOCA, namely the operation or non-1_, q k' operation of the make-up pump? If I recal', as I clarified it also by location l, 19,}. a A this worse case would have been on a high pressure injection line, and these two symptoms relate to each other. In that, l ~' I ;. i in only one make-up pump starting, if you would have had loss v 23[ofthatbusordiesel,yougotbacktheotherwaytoeffect thatmake-uppump,andif'thebreakwasonthispump,dischargh za o f i at the reactor coolant system, and failure to the other side, 15; 6 ...,a ....u ...,n.,. .a b

lillbluh - Direct 28 I then your high pressure injection wasn't enough, because on ') an SF/ S nu tomatically starts two make-up pumpn. So what they ) i ,,'are saying is, one has failed, and if the break would he on j the discharge of thin pump that the reactor coolant system, 1 ' ycu don' t have high pressure injection. n, Q Coming back to the terrre that is used to i l j ( categorize this cection of the procedure, namely Small Break j ll i l l LOCA Response, the term, as is corxtonly understood, is much t. lI I e' troader, isn't it, than what is actually spelled out in the I Y go ! procedure? l There are many many Small Breaks that could j

y ;

exist in a system, that are not defined by the symptoms t i_ i listed, is that correct? I l c A Yes, sir, i 3,3 j I i p Q Lu you know why the addition to Emergency 15 Procedure 2202 was defined in terms of the Small Break LOCA JO l Response when, in fact, it was a much narrower set of criteria' Ie l d that you were dealing with? 16 ;3 i. I A Mo, I assumed that was the worse case. l ,9 ] i Q What is your understanding of what an operator hwoulddowhen,~inanemergencysituation,ifh'elookpat .21i ,"! Emergency Frocedure 2202, and the settfan on the Small Break l 22y f LOCA, looks for the symptoms that r ce listea na.~crtion 2.2.2.I1 D !! .l, J doesn't find them, concludes he t'aes not have a Small Break 9 ] LOCA, what does he do then in ' erms of this procedure?. ~ i, j 1902 2f6 l _._J

lillbish , Direct 29 A !3ased on the symptoms, follow other sections. { '1 of the procedure for loss of coolant, cooland system pressure. li 3l 0 But if he has tin'ned to this uection of the p .;.' procedure, he has looked.for the symptoms, and hasn't found .1, them, and he looks back at' the title of this section, he may i O ? vell conclude that he dw.sn't have a Small Break LOCA, 1s that I, ' 1,' cerrect? o 8 h. A Or he doesn't have a Small Break LOCA with l these symptoms and, therefore, wouldn't have to tie, and i 9 10 manually throttle with the failures associated with the loss l' [, of bus or make-up pwnp, manually throttle to go through these ! t. )7 i . actions,

i 13 Q

Put the title of the section is, "Small Break I ( ) [ i.;[LOCA"? I ~ A Yes, sir. j

q O

If he looks for the symptoms and does not find g, t l them, he may well conclude that he doesn't have a Small Break ., c ,s LOCA at all, is that possible? { i i n g ll A It is possible, j n f y: 0 Is there any directive in Section 2202 that'the; - y{ operator,havingcheckedtoseewhetherhehasaSmallBreak [ . LOCA, and found that he cioes not have one, should none the 2 /, i; less proceed to find out whether or not he has any kind of a 7 LOCA? 1902.217 2 I 2'{ Take a minute to review the procedure, if you d.__.______ _..-. m ......e n ,m.m. ...:,.a. ~ o.. (

lillbluh - Direct i0 " wish. h (Responding.) ll 3 A Ilot that I can. find. .;I Q Okay. You indicated that in the analysis of Il i D&W's, Met-Ed's analysis of P2M's Small Break LOCA Analysis, t 4 i o' that the Fuel Section would have been involved. Do you know. i y \\ I' 7, who in the Fuels Section would have been looking at that 1;ssue? j A Cordon Bond is the manager in that group. l 3. ,i I Q Gordon Bond? 9 l I t A B-0-N-D. to [! I Q Gordon Bond. Do you know whether he was the I

, j el

, y person you and Mr. Seelinger were working with in terms of addressing the particular issue of the Small Break LOCA? . 3 l, that i {# o A I believe he went to the meeting /I attended. g [ Q So the actors.from Met-Ed's point of view would n r have been Nuclear Fuels, possibly Gordon Bond, yourself and w n s 1., l Mr. Seelinger for Unit Two, and I think there was someone else I' you may have mentioned within Met-Ed. 18 L A Licensing. l 19!i I Q Licensing Section, generally. And the initials 20 :: on Mr. Herbein's letter were -- 21 g j A R. A. L. n ;. g Q And who is that? 23. i ll A Robert Longel. .t n Q Can you spell his last name? 196221&l. ( 'l .-._______-.) .se.... ,s< n .w.u.s .u.w.. ,..o.., s

Hilbish - Direct 31 i 1 '; A L-E-!!-C L. 'l e t 2j Q And to your knowledge was he the person in i i i T Licensing V:ho was tracking the issue? l 4 A Apparently. j e 5, Q Anyone else within Met-Ed that you know of that 'i l [ was tracking this issue in terms of co'tting it resolved, and /, 7 noving it along? You mentioned Nuclear Fuels, you nontioned s! Licensing, you mentioned you, and Mr. Seelinger at Unit Two, i 9 '; A Not that I recall. i 1. 10 Q Okay. Now, Mr. Hilbish, as I understand it, l<you are involved with the, or have been involved with B&W 1 g i 4, Owners' or Users' Group since you became manager of the ( i3 Licensing, is it section? I y[ A Supervisor of Licensing Section. I Q g._ Supervisor of Licensing Section, is that correct?

g

/: i i b A

Yes, I.

1-l Q 3., Can you tell me, is it the B&W Owners' Group {, p or the PIM Users' Group thnt you have contact with, or both? \\ d A Owners' Group. l ~0 1 l I ] Q And are you a representative to that group, 1

i. by virtue of your position as Supervisor of Licensing, or have:

~~ p ,_, you been named for some other reason? l A The previous Supervisor of Licensing was also l

, ' on the Couanittee.

It is not necessarily in the responsibilities - I l -.__...____5 ,,.,o....

isilbiah - Direct 32 I of the. job, however. I attended one meeting in March af ter I l . [ took that ponition. s 3 l. Q Ohny. I,ro t.here other representatives from l 1.M. too -- excune me -- fron ITot-Md to the IGW Gwners' Group? ;j c o 4.; I I 1, "l A Vericun sub-committoon, yes, nir, j k i i o, O

Clay, thy don't we stdrt with the overall i

r t 7 fstructureoftheOwners' Group, as you underu tan.1 it. l a SI A There is an Executive Committee where members 1 I l n o[ from the utilitien vould sit en that Executive Committee to t t o ; 60 over potential generic engineering and licensin$ related I i bh. offort... 7j O incinacrir.r; niul licensing InW efforts? ,2 I I

i A

ie c, nir. i () 1 hoisMet-Ed'sdelegatetotheExecutivle 0 Olmy. 3.; t,

-[ Co.uicttee?

'l A 1 hav.e been nince Earch.

g i

) gf Q And then you indicnted that there were some sub-i committees? g 39 [ A Yes, sir, I would say that is a large area, is l, defined that the IVivi Owners' group vould work in.

Normally, j

,.., y .. y;theywouldformasub-committeeofthatgroupwithdifferent~l i members following. The chairman of the nub-committee would j ll l l report.back to the Executive Committee. l 23 i l. O I take it the sub-coramittees are formed on kind '4 i of an ad hoc basis with respect to particular issues that have' 2: j i .....,..,,,,,.___.___J ,..m....,. 1902 220' ~

Hilbish -. Direct. - - - - - - - - - -33 7 L i I lj been defined an incuus of concern for the menbera? f 2 i A Tint is correct. 3j Q As of the time that 'you attende'd' the 'Exegutive. y' i 4ih, Conmittee Jr.eeting in early March, do you know what sub-co'a 5 n ittees *.vera then existing? f 7 i f 6! li I would be e,/are of some of them through my a ,i- ,7 l work down here, ,,p i. 3,. ' 'i-

v -

,u, i 8 .Q Okay. What ones were'you aware of?'. j 9 I A Reactor Vessel and Materials Program, a newly ' 1 '. t .s, 10,. established core con:nittee, ...3-11hl C Say the second one again. You said Reactor '. 12 Vescel and Materials Conc 11ttee?' I .c /. 13 A Core Committee. r, ( Q Core Corr,mittee, yes? 14 I 15 p A Assymetric LOCA Loads Comtaittee. p .s g, j Q Yes. Any others that cone to mind?., [.d A I think_they were the ones that I.vas aware of 17 ). e '.:e 3g j prior to going down to the meeting. p d ..g.* f.; {i p 39 G Okay. Afid did you become aware Jof any'others in 2e course of hat meeting?[,. Gl., ':()d i O ~ '.. .a ~O .i p. y i, e 7., i. A .There were approximately:10, I. bell' eve.. l .u-g. ,, pl 0 Okay. Now, the. group 'is called. the B&W Owners' .f ..t. Group.. kho takes,the original ~1ead,, calling meetings ( arrangI. 'f' f.

  • jl;

.i .ing for their location, setting.the agenda? ~ Isthat a B&W 24 .,3 ql runction or does the croup operate independently or.saw? ,l h- . m.... m .., d > j' - 1,902'221L t

H11bish - Direct 34.,, ? 1 A The Group is chartered to operate indep.endently. ;l ( r 2 of MW, The way I understand, it is normally set up a's' a 'tito 3 day aceting which is coordinated through a chalman of the ' L' 4 k Faecutive Cov.aittee. I ~ 5 Q Does EMI have a representative on the Group? l

,;1 6 l A

Normally it would be a two day necting, MW 7l representation is invited _ to on,e of the days. - ,.a.o i 8 i Q But not at the other? G' t ... "t r -r, 9 l A Not necessarily. f 10 Q Okay. Is that because the owners feel that., g,;. f, there are times when they want to be able to sit down.and.' 11 l 12 talk about issues without a MW representative present? t 13 l A Yes, I would say so. L '. ' (, l .s 14 l Q That is an explicit part of the role of the I Group, is to exchange information privately among the Group,- 35 1 and also to put certa'.; issues to MW during the meeting, as 3-37, 17 l well? i. A I thfnk so. 'S 33 .s ~ 39 Q Okay. Why don't we mark this, I believe that ', f'] will b No. 8, if we go to the' numbering in your original., l3 20 g deposition. .f.,. 1902J227.~ . M A Yes. 22 3

.t.

(Whereupon H11bish~ Deposition R ,3 Exhibit 8,-being a multi-paged 4 document dated March 6 & 1, 1979 24 entitled Summary of Babcock &. 25' 8 \\ .......m.. ..c. ,, s. i o c...u o..,.. ....e n...ii... y ,t ,t,"

_ _ Jillbish _ __ Direct.. _ _.. _ _ _ _____,,_3$,* '\\ i held in San Francisco, j' Califomia, was hereby marked by the Reporter,) ' 3 BY FR. ROCKVELL: l Q Now, Mr, Hilbi'ch, I am ahowing you what the 4 ;V 5 ] Court Reporter has marked as Hilbish Deposition Exhibit No, O, ,4 i ~ (' '; and ack you if I identified initially, correct 1'y, as a cooting .7 cummary of the Babcock & Wilcox '177 Owners' Group, for a; + i.,, .r - S meeting on March 6th & 7th, in San Francisco,. California,' = 9-l 1977, is that correct identification of this? f 'J' 10 ll A

Yes, 11 '

Q Have'you caen this document before today? I, 12 A Yes. ~(j 13 Q Would you like to take a moment to ~ review it, e 14 ] feel free if you wish, ~ n 15 ll (Responding.) l l 16 Q Have you had a chance to look over the exhibit l, 17 p briefly, Mr. Hilbish? A Yes. 18 l 19l Q Referring you to the second item on the first 20 Page entitled, "B&W Responsiveness to En5 neering and Licensing - 1 ~, ~ ~1, Problems." Do you recall that item as a topic of discussion' ,Q Q.M. [ at that meeting? 22 , r.: A 0** _. 3 .t p ,,q Q-And you were in attendance at that meeting, "p Correct? stah45ssha. Pa.'altit es o ss e s a c es a w.. Se at, seec

  1. F 's 6 0Ca mf ts on avr

..s

lillbinh - Direct 36 I li ? A

Yen, l,

i Q That was the one meeting th'it you told un'that 3j i 3,alyoudidattend? 4i A That la correct. 4 I Q Reading from the exhibit, it naya, dB&W's'- q ~i l (> ! DI gest deficiency in.this nrea was cited ao being the co-C ordination of generic or partially generic itema,between 7 utilities,"and then.i t Coos on, "following the NRC Region 3 gI finvestigationofpressurizedlevelresponcetotranulon'ts, 9 l 10 ll NRC stated they didn't think B&W was being completely open j-d '!,and candid." And then it refers to a meeting, I think,that I1 1 j wan held at Babcock & Wilcox that discussed loss of preocurizer '.,' eM low, h M comcM I3 j i A Yes. i Q Ilow did that subject, subject to which I have 15 referred you to, and. quoted from in the meeting' minutes? How 16 I ,.did it come up at the Owners' Group minutes, do you know who l_e I g i I rained it? a 5:y, 18 .s A I don't reen11 who raicod it; It'came up to 19' .c ', tho timelinesa, they were referring to the February meeting 20 ~ ~ ' where the utilities went to B&W, and the request of the NRC i 21, l Region 3, I believe, concerning.the Davia-Besak Investigation ,;l 22 l i were most of the utilities did go to Lynchburg in' response. 23 y ', L",. M Some of the membora of the Executive Committee were the members t 24 f who went to the meeting, did discuss the subjeci; with B&W nr.d F i 25! ii. y_._..___._..,,..............'. + ..a.,<., I w l

Hilbish - Direct 37., "U i i s il the NRC and therefore, would have brought this up at the 3 2

neeting, i.

l

s Q

Okay. And you were prosent at that Feb'rklary 3[a .o 11 ~ e 4j 14th, '70 meeting in Lynchburg, is that r1ght'? "[' l 5 l A Yes, I was. 4 6 0 Well, was it brought uj). because it was con-I ,I tinuing concern about this issue?-. ', '^ 3 's 3 { A If I reca?l, it was brought up more because,it V% 9 was very unusual for utilities, outside of Region 3, to be, ], i r l called somewhat rapidly to Lynchburg for a Region 3 Investi- ]- g .a I: gation, also to find that B&W performed an analysis for one, 11 ,, ! of the other utilities, on the subject a few years ago, where p. 13 most utilities learned that for the first time at that meeting. tl in February. 4 14,. p p .i. Q Do you recall specifically who among the,, 15 h p 'j attendees at the meeting, and they are listed on th'e front ,a 16 [ page of the Exhibit, would have sppken up on this issue?.. s..

i 17 i

"l A I do not recall who brought it up. XJ) 18 "f.',.- 19 l t Q 'Would reviewing the names briefly ' refresh your - ? ~ a , recollection,as to who may have spoken to the issue?, y,,M A No, it would not. .1 l Q Well, was the tenor o'f the discussion, at the 22 1 Lmeetings, simply e reference back to the fact that'there had 234 l. - 0 l,, j been a meeting, and that'the NRC had raised the issue, or E,G s I s 24

was the discussion also in the direction of some continuing

.f 25, y -.-~~e me.e 3 a t,e 4 as # 8 s o. a t. 44 0. 27 #e. L fic h 6 h1 ; e AVO. > 4 k Dd 548813.. A. 173iI b 9 1J;. a',

. _.... _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _.. _ _ _..Ililbisn -- Dire ct _ __ _,_ _, _ _ __ 38 \\, r h 1 ll concern on the part of tha utility's reprocontative at thia < 3 2 y I.hrch 6th meeting, that there had been some breakdown in i I }. 3 (i information flow from B&W7 .}l 4[ A I think, as a general obsarvation, as a result ti 5 li of the February meeting, the Owners' Group imnted to bring 6 that up to IuW. 7 l Q~ Okay. Now,whe,nthatdiscussionoccurredh 8 was that in a portion of the meeting where B&W was precent,. .i i 9 ! or was that in the session where B&W was not present?[ .1 10 A Well, as this states, this was brought up,' i 11 and it was agreed, again reading from the exhibit, it says, l. "It was agreed that this would be brought to B&W's attention 1 '- 12 t 13 [' during the meeting on 3/7," which would have 'been the next l 14 f day. r Q So you infer from that a B&W representative 15 Il g, was not present during this discussion? 4' j7 j A That is true. i Do you kn' w whether the usue was then v.. ;? Q Okay. o 33 19 brought up and brought to the attention of B&W Representatives O j the following day, March 7th? : 4 - t t A I do not recall. I had to leave 'the meeting - g m !i early.~ 2 49021226 4' ) l Q Were you'there at all on.the 7th?- A Until 10:00 in the morning.' i - 24 Q I am interested.to know, Mr. Hilbish, your l g e, - 4. -... - --- -. % et i m u w a se ar, si t t, pse ;, 2F us. LQ( k & t;I O p 4 (L. H4 Hlb AVPb. P A., t 713 2 S

H11bish _. Direct 39 __.___..___.____....___._..-..-.___3 I hll i impression of the follouing, Do you recall, when we took I _ I I I ~ / 2 your deposition early, we went into scoe detail about that. 3 p February 14th meeting -- c 1 ,a 4L A Uh--huh, c p 5qt Q -- and what was discussed at it, and I believe i 6 we marked, at that tine, as en exhibit to your deposition,'a: g ?

7., memorandum prepared by Mr..W111ce of Babcock and Wilcox'g i

8 cun=arizing the maeting, And I don't have that memorandum f. i 9 l' present here, I don't think, but Mr, W111ce, the tenor of l 10 Mr. Willae's memorandum was the subject of the loss of pressud-i 11 !,1zer level low, was reviewed with the representatives of, the ' i 12 '! various utilities, including SUMD, Arkansas and Met-Ed, and i. p 13 [ ne other utility, and that the general consensus was that it ( ) H g was an operational inconvenience, and it' was of no particular .r' significance. Does that sound essentially accurate to you? l a_ l g i, ,e A Yes. 16 n 1.,, d,i. Q And my recollection also of the.Willse memor-y,, i andum'is that there, it did not reflect any concern expressed ,g .e n 39 l by any of the utilities about a communication failure or a i mmuni ation delay on the part of B&W, and yet here, three', 'Jl ~ O I,! .. y qi weeks 1rter we are seeing an expression'of tha~t concern..'I. ', [.I am just wondering why the difference. Can you.offeri.shed any...

  • g

~~ 11ght on thate ]S02f227' - 4 23;i-m m-7 p .A r. 24:! I think the only thing I can see in that.is.that~ .) s j1 i 25 ] the other utilities that did attend the meeting, were asked a 3 E j

f. ',

..,,o 2, . un.m. .u. .,..s.m....,,,,, .I , j, p

Hilbish - Direct 40 c-- -- t e v 1p few cpecific questions, however, really didn't realize why., I 7 2 we wera going to the meeting or what the real issues'f the o 3. meeting were until after the meeting was over. Yes. ~ j i . w' .L Q To the extent of your recollecticn,of the 3 h discussion on this issue in the March 6th meeting, is it, i were 6j your impression that the utilities /then seeing the issue as,' a i a -7 viewing it as a matter of greater concern than perhapa had j S ' been expressed at the February 14th meeting,'in light'of; a ^ 2.- l.. 9 i.having more knowledge and understanding of ~what the issue. , i. .- - 4 lwasabout? 10 31 , j] e-g 3,l A' I wouldn't say necessarily more understand'ing O 12 I and knowledge of pressurizer level. As I said, I think, it U' h 13 was more generic response at'this meeting to B&W p i 34 You mean, why, if you had done an analysis,- [ I Q

hadn't you told us?

g

gj A

Yes.. Instead of calling ~ everybody to Lynchburg lfromPennsylvania,Californiaandhay1ngit,atthemeeting } i brought up and an explanation given, and an analysis shown g 1 19 l.fr m I believe 1978 for Arkansas, and essentially the issue. M' i, 20 d res lved t the meeting. - r i Q Do you know whether, at this meeting of the ,1 ~ E&W Owners' Group cn March 6th and 7th in San Francisco,~ there:.i 22 i was any reference made to the September 24th, 23 . '77 Davis-Besse Tran'sient? 24 I E Ug A Not that I recall. 1E es C t= 4 s A C s4 9 48 t F %ss a g. gu, 27 en. LDC 9 m eL Ltta ag E, & a SPtSBJRG. P t. 37192 i-

1 Hilbish _._ Direct ___.__.__..-___.______-____,41' I i i 1 l Q Did that transient overy come to youc attention- ~ 2 I before the accident on the 28th? + t n 3 A Hot that I recall, at least not'in detail. h s' 44l Q h' hat do you mean by that? 3 A I may have known that Davis-Besse was sh'ut'.. I 6 doun, something generic like that. I did not know the details g 1 7 of anything that had gone on until well after this, '. c ' .

  • l.,

8 Q Does the B&W Ownera' Grot:p collectively: + 9 l commission and pay for certain' kinds of work on the part.of M.

  • 2

.i 10 c B&W7 I 1 1 '! ' A Yes. y 12.1 Q What kinds of, what kinds of things would be I! 13 done through the Owners' Group in terms of studies or . ~ 14 l analyses or whatever? l: .) 15 l A Any of the items that could be generic, would .[, y,, l: be split between the utilities, which I think is one of the l,4! j li reasons that the meeting is more or less held,in two parts, 37 jg ' one day with B&W and one day,vithout B&W to discuss generic ' .i I 3' r 39 ; approaches, financial matters,, things like that.. !-r -3 l , e -o w 20 l ?, + ~ l (Transcript continued on'following page.) ',,7 .g 22 S 23 i i. ~ ' ij 2s! L n a.. 6 ....:.t in n e, toci n iow ava. .s neus.. e.. n: : I j] ,c',e.

Hilbich-direct 14 2 ~ s i Q It is a negotiating position, for example,~on p 1 1; ~ C' the part of the owners with renpect to BW or what kind of a. I 2 il ~ 3 j study might be done and at uhat cost?, l I A Yes, sir. 0 sj Q Did BW ever raise, as a reason for not. having. I 6 i: forwarded its loss of presaurizer level low analysis from 1975i' ( ^ 7 f to other utilities, the fact that the other utilities hadn!t. y 8 asked for or paid for it? 4 A Not that I am aware of.- 9 !, - I 'k 10 Q Has that ever come up to this day, to your j 4 l 13 knowledge? l, 12 A (Witness nodding in the negative.) ( ) 13 Q Is that kind of an issue which does arise. i J 1;jp from time to time -- well, if you had asked us for it,,or.if. d o .i 1;p y u had paid us for it, we would have given it to you?: n 16 A Not that I am aware of. 17 Q Is there a central file, to your knowIedge,,'. 18 l either at ' Met-Ed or anywhere which refl'ects the activities of y 7' / 19 the B&W Owners' Group, historical file? a ._ o... 1

o A

There has been one folder. That is the only - F one that I know of that has some of the information, over the 21 i 22 last few years, of the Owners' G.roup., 7 I L s-l s 23l . Q' Okay. _And is that filed with the' Licensing ~ O s l I Section? ~4l 1902.y230 25 A Yes. .s. ......<.,u...<. ,,, c ,,,. w :,,,u .. t.. ,,...m.u......,,,,,- 3.- e

H11bish-direc t 43 . [, p.__.._..._.___..____.._______ 4 1 Q IInve you ever had a chance to review that to - 2 ij see whether it appears to be a co:nplete file of the activities f i 3 1of the Owners' Group? p p A I cannot tell if it is a complete file..I 5 ( have revieued it and given it to the Commission about two 6 ! weeks ago. 7, l Q Okay. That must be -- off the recor.d. l ^ 8 Note: (Colloquy off the record.) t 9,[BY MR. ROC)GTELL: t l Q When you supplied that file, you supplied the ~ 10 11 lWhole file? 12 A Yes. ( 13, Q Now, as I understand it, there.is also.a B&W 3,; Usern' Group. Do you know anything about that? i A Just that that is on the superintendent's 15 level, and discusses the operational aspects of the B&W plants,';[ 16 17 j Q Okay. And have you had any contact with that J .V l 13 group? i' + A No. 19 { 20l Q Now, I also understand that B&W has something called an Operating Seminar once~a year.. Do you know any-21 c thing about that? ~~ i A No. I don't.- \\' ~ 4 i.. - 1902 231 33 -- i i Q To the extent that there are personalized,' '1 21 ~ l e 25l in the FSAR, in certain portions,,and performing certain [{ ,,..m..u..m.. ...,s...... . 'i

,y - [.,% Hilbish-direct 1;14 --q i r i functions, when thoac change, in there a notification procedurp - y 1 I' that you are required to follow for tha IGC7 4..i 'k A Not that I know of. ' I l ,s 4 l5 Q Okay. Do you got involved in simply calling i !l - i up the raC, even on an inferraal basis, telling them about' :' 5 i ^ 6 i changes in staffing or changes in posit 1ons, to the extent ilthatthoacpositionsarelistedintheFSAR?' [. e 7 A No. I don't. , i; a . J. 'S ! .'E l Q Do you have a primary contact that you work 9 \\ ' with at the URC, personally? '. i f g /,. A We have a Pro, ject Manager Engineer. i 11 Q And to the extent that you have dealings, most i 12 I t l e 13 f them would be with those people? A Yes. g y u, in terms of supervising the Licensing 15 p 9 l Section, do you try to specializ~e in one ares'in terms of day-M M i ._..l.' i to-day work, or is it more of an administrative supervision ' if' g +f across the whole spectrum of issues that; are being addressed I, 4..c g s s. lbytheLicensingSection? ~ r. .c. ] ',, [ 19 20 I would say it was for all there is,' both, '].ji A j

1 l fossil i

and the nuclear. I wouldn't necessarily say I: ~ 2., . -)90.2;.2 H ' specialize in one area. t: Q 23 Do you take any ongoing,, day-to-day operational I ! responsibility with the Licensing Group, as opposed to'- .r l' 24 25.j administrative responsibility? Do you understand what I am b 4*-l. d ...c ... s,....c. n .in... u m.. im.' .t

hiloibli-airect 45 q f--doyouundcratandthedistinctionIamdrawingat? -4 i 9 A No. ~~ { ~ 3 l Q Do you tt a certain matters on personally,' 4 'L in order, in terms of taking an issue, following it through,. 5[ eccing that the uork is done on a'particular insue, naybs. f I 6 6 doing some of the. work yourself, having the primary contact l 7 ;with the regulatory agencies, or in most cases do you delegate S all tasks to people working under you, and then supervise - 9 ' their work on it? '.i' I-10 A Normally, that is what I do. .l, a 11 Q The latter?' 12 l-A Yes. 13 i Q Ilave you been involved at all in any specific (') ~ 14 i aspect of the recovery effort, or have you been invel red 15i simply in terms of whatever Licensing has had to do? i 16 A I was working on, in the beginning, on a 17 little bit of the investig '*nn which was outside of the, '.F . :t IS I would say the generalizing area frcm my. experience ~here. ~ t y 19 I was also involved in some of'the testimony back for the 20 ACRS, some of the areas there. Generally, I have been' working l l in Licensing, again still supervising the Licens5.ng of both 21 22 units, and also~ still the fossil generation. ' ,x.i 23 Q Okay. You indicated that you were involved. ~...'l 24 in the investigation. Can you tell me if this was Met-Ed's ~ 25 own investigation of the accident? .Jg g- ] [, }. f .i[ ....<,.......t. ..c. > >. t e c.. m. .u.. ......e...... ...i, 6 '(

,_ _ __.... __- _ _ __ _ _ ___ _. __ _ _ _... _ _. - d i r e c t 46 o.;' y;,. Hilbish ' r. I.."c. n , -i A Yes. 1 .. t 1 Q What specifically were you doing in that; ii' '. s. h .[ ' iny atigation? 3 o.,,T- . e n,9 *. p A I looked at.one part, back in early'Ap iTh.of y ,; 3 m ,4 1 h I think a general classification called Grouth of. Knowledg'a.. ' , pi c ,1 t s 4 1 w . f, 6 Q General claanification called,uhat? 4, a. g.,, j, t', .g .,e- ,.l f.j i A' Called Gr,owth of Knowledge., 7 ~ n : ;c ' r i / m '. m, 'S Q Yes.. n, -y';,.- '; '.,s [.! ~ Which was assi6ned to me, and,'it,just takesi,' ,t,4 v.. A' 9 I o,.- three or four items, and l'ook'~at say the first four.or.five 2 ^6. l'O li - 4 3,, s. '?- l days of the accident, and developed how c.ertain people./,'.

i

~ 11 ,Q[. o 't

. ' g, perceived the situation.

1., e ,t So this would have been Growth :of knowledge'[s '. Q 13 -g using the occurrence of the accident on the 28th as the 'I, g,;

i. ] d c

.3 _ ' il d. starting point? 15 ..y s ,.&.,t 3 A Yes. 16 ryz lc Q, Growth of Knowledge, and,the understandin'g cf -fgl 17 ?, ...,n , - ej m. -i u; ,i. ~ , ' p} '. ./, '.. 'i a i, ~ < d certain aspects'of the', transient? y-

  • 18 y %

h1.' ' ' ',J. ~.. m ;- A That is right. 4f-

it

~ 3 19 7, y l 7

0. i'y w :c [

r 20 4 Which aspects of1the tra,nsienti. Were tho' focus.,,., f* ' 4. .t r tc

c, p

J v.2: ;e f: e, ..e ,.n. of that analysis 7 3 ~I c, .jti s:.' ,...-:t"',..19 T. / T., 'O " ' ' (.3 A'4 Core damage. 3' t %,.', t .r 2? h Just a minute,-yes?..., ;. n

t,'
.

1,',.. a, - e v... s 1.. .. i. a.s.. '. D, c:Q- ,.?.>,,, '3 y.y. ~ Hydrogen bubb b J. . h.'. f.%hj

d.,

'A p j r. p .m.. .s j r -w ', y, e i Q Yes. '5 f,. r 5

a. -.,-

....u,,....... n.. c...a... n.. .........,,,u .. n 4 s

  • I d

g ,,.,n. )- .~ , a. y r. - p

H11bish-direct 117 r------------' r------~~---- -Q O )_ r, t A They are the two apecific' ones I chn remember.d.,- 6, 1} ~

n 2 ! I haven't worked on them cince April.

.'jV ,1 i 3 l Q. There were others? c' f. i n. 3.'. h 4 L A If'I can recall,'th'erc uere three'or four. i g .a Q And ucre they,'uas the $rowthfor knowleds3 pl ,,t 6 analysis reduced to a kind of sequence of events, such.' art ,Y t.... s, g c,',- 7 this event', such and.such a day and. tine, we realize'this, .[. ,- ? ", 3 and then at some'next point.in time.so and.so realized thid, ' i. 9 or began to. suspect this? ( '.B - .. g., s q. v- .,:4-A Yes. 10 l

.,, ;,4-

.{. s i ,., :i: i,.. Q It was that kind of analysis? e 33 i". i l' A Yes. i,- 4 13 Q Did you construct the analysis of the Orcuth.I ,'t ( \\ 14 of Knowledge in those specific issue areas which you mentioned, j ~ .s. m' 15 I or were you simply reviewing what somebody else had dono?, \\ .v I g, A . I developed it specifically from either,; .**t ' J .\\V ,j 17 interviews or media transcripts.1 '.',] l t,, s ,i' jg l -Q . And you say thih was for a time period : .i4 i gg,., t 'I j/ 19 beginning with the accident, extending for ' a matter of some.,,' - , g ier e x.

',., '..r-

, s.-:, - ~, .z 20 i days? , f.;(' -, : n. m ". e ,, s.; f3 A Three or'four. days.., ", - [=, - 7 {f, L .e _"( ,,s,. Q' Did you participate in'any other aspe,ct, of ;, ' ., [,] 3., ,g ,y __ y-V ', '. n, , qr 23 the accident investigation, ~other, than. what you 'have just 'c '..a o. .r e. .o. ..c' ~- t,- described?. m,. -,- T

'1.<901.
.2135..

W; , 4 25 A Only ono _other' 'irkterview -- / Gi ~S I .R. 1-g -.... c.... s. s. i. c. n. i.c.iu. .n.. ..m ms

n. ni u i.,

T f.) i J s gY .,,, i iff. !. !,. s I 'c, o

) , 48 ' *)Wh II11bish-direc t 5 7 1 Q. That you conducted? I ,i.,.4, i. 2 A Thab I helped' condset with ~ tho other pc..-ople..,

1. i.

1 9 [r j}) 3 i Q Okay. And who und intervieued? t ~ > " ;.1 .t _ f,. .t., ...,7 4 d;; A Jim Geelinger, Gary Miller, and' Dick Dubiel',., s <,.i 5 ) I believe, concerning emergency p1dk preparation or Energency. ,- f.j E' Lr .r. I' 3, s g .8 ..,s..- . ~,.. l plan response.>,- c,. - ' 20 Je '

i. ;,.

3m , i ~;.. .a - ? Q. Was there any other' involvement on,yo'ur ai t' '

C

. :e 2 3 lintheaccidentinvestigation?. ,f.A. ~. 8 4 . s' a.e ll 9 ' s -/ ' A No. r .s y. ........ o s. Could we please have a copy of the GrowthPof';e ' Fg.tg to Q 'g r AU 4 t n n.

. v 11 ! Kn'owledge Analysis in the two issue areas that Mr. Hilbish has

'd,:e f~ .,1. j i .t n , indicated, core damage and the' hydrogen bubble,"and whateyer ,. y 12 i .u.. i.:s, 13, other issues were part of that analysis which 'he cani.', recall' j$.. f.) t c 14 i today? I don't think we have seen that. , l,(.. ,j ~ fv ~ 3 15 l I assume the Licensing Section has become-J [- 4 ,.s .n f y ,1 e e' ~..;, ',d',@, 16 l involved in a variety of licensing issues. arising out of the' .l, c, 1, ?,. ',.. (,,.i., 17 accident, is that' correct? .mE' .'J.'n. s - 9.02s.2K..N f.Og ~ t d 18 A Yes." .' ;,. ' ' ' a'.. ': c-ce t - 4.. -..( 9.p> -

  • g,p.g 1,)

.Q- ,Has t,nere been anycspecial. organizational. (, f4 3 M. :;' ...a. w +.,, 5 3 m ..a. r,:., structure det up to deal.with th'e issues f50 wink,Jfrom)t M },!:,.$.'[ 20

5..

4 n. .y ..\\ c.,;, * -,, i s* ,j t

s.,

,."t 21 accident, in the sense of a recovery group.-withinLthe,. 5,.. .,.._,.A. 3 .s . a.., .. u ,, ',,. 7, *4. l (.,-.., c p ,.,. ' f.p' s.. y:..J. 0 ?, X !A / G V.. . 1.. ; ' c j.. '.'; }g., !.p.1,.F. 22 Licensing' Section? . g 3. g/. the Lead Unit'Two, Engineer,' ?.<....., ~..

.?.,.

... r. s 23 A' Only that. s. -.i.. y s C c,I fg

1.. l,9'.-

~ d, p 9. A . ;.i. S normally one to two other licensing' engineers has,been'u?.. a v g 24 Jin - i c.

p * '} D,

f 9- 'l t,. i, . s,. . '. g-g n h' - ?q h. 6 >r 'S ~g reporting here on site to help out in the' licensing. area',['\\,l,' c y !,'..j ....u....,...u. ,,.. m,.. n... n...... m... v.. c.,,,, gi - ;:., 7,,.t. 6 .,t.

  • ., 9 y 3,*
  • ltkJ

.f . e, h:., J ' U 3 ,;e

,9 Y.h.9 0 lillbish-direct ' [. 1 . ("4 [ ./ 8, 1[besidesmyself. . :._. i 0 'g \\,

    • t

.9 O> Q' Read that answer back. 3 s u D g J% A M. 'd-fi t,. g i' i!

o' e

(Whereupon the~ reporter reyl back: . c'. c 4 i "Only that the Laa.1. Unit Tuo' Engineer,.,", q 6 normally one to two f other liceni31ng engined $ a.haa ,, f. .~ been reporting here on si.te to help out in,th p.,; ',' ' / j 7. 3 licensing area, besides myself.")'-. S h i ."fi i .s. j (y l ,'.Ml.y 9 i w .r..., '. .[.(. - BY MR. ROCKWELL: d.'- 10 ' '.j ' i '{.. ' '.N 33 l Q-I don't understand that..The question was. . :" y s \\

n. h

-l .s 12 l have you set up a special group within Licensing to deal"with +4, 13 l the recovery? And I take it you were addressing.that,.but. t ~ lI ajust' don't' follow your answer. I, / " ; N 14 l 15 i A Yes. As I mentioned the Organization of, - . ~, ~. ' 16 l Licensing before, the-Unit One Group,.the Unit,Two Group: .... 1 ", '1].' \\ 17 and a fossil group. Essentially, the Unit Two Group has,'+ j j .m 18 j, now been pulled and reports 'on. site here. from RNading. '..;M ~ ,z 19 i Q To whom? ,,T 4902 237: .x 1 20 A To me. + s p.', ~ 'Q Because'you'are on site.here?.'J, 21 1- , pb 9 t A. 22 Yes, and also Mr. Herbein is on site.c,He 23 signs all of our correspondence to the,'Commissidn;,. Essentially 3., g .ay 1.. _..3... .o 24 the Unit Two licensing effort.and,ito;some point,'the. Unit . q'r 25 One licensing. effort is now being handled on sit $e..Tnat' is: 4.I i 3 ' ?? 4 ....u.,....u ..c. n.. ion..u.. m.: -......,...nu I ,g,' ,4, e, l,

'50 Hilbish-direct 1.' N D" P D Y F~ ~ [ 7 _ _ _ _ _._ J_ au o the only change. g 9 .,f j Q Okay. Is your. Licensing Section also linvolved ~, ~ . in the application to restart Untt One? 3,l p4( A With assistance ~ from GPU Licensing, yen. 1, -,} Q Has GPU Licensing become involved in the; ' n 3 l c,, recovery offort with respect to Unit.T0o? , s . 'a-n. A Not in the actual licensing procebs.,',. i 9 :,,'. 7, ~ k. [W. 3 l Q You indicated'carlier.that the' Licensing:. a,

c.

.Section is really a focus for all governmental' relations,or,., 9

  • ^'

.,,;{;, f E at least. all regulatory governmental relations'I Has that. 10 .'i. l remained true through the TMI Two recovery effort, or has the ' \\' ' 13 t'1 j. 12,1 task of dealing with the regulatory c.gencies become so large i i that it has gone beyond the scope of your department to handle? ,g ( 13 A I would say it is still gen'erally true., 3 s-14 f. Q I have a GPU, what'I understand to be a 15 v.. 16 l GPU or Met-Ed sequence of events here. Let me.show it to Y i Y" 888-YU" "#8 familiar with it. It doesn't appear ( 17 n to have.a title page. It is a' document of'some.40 or 50 Pages gg 'o f. y ~, Q 39 ' in length. Do you recognize it?.. .f. A *- Yes. There have been a number;- 'I am m,. 20 i sure -- a number of them. I am,not sure which'.revis:on this, 21 . i is. We will go by the date,. but I-am familiar,with it... ',3 c, Q, Do you.know who has beert preparing'.the various [ 23 m ~.L y versions of that document? Is it;GPU or Met-Ed?l f,.7. ,d 4

n...

i-A I think that it would fall under a group in, j, 25 ,o ....OO?"238.. 9. .y,- ..t. O ,'}'i ,1 P e

,i Hilbish-direct 51 . s,g,. y> .,,g! } 1 GPU, the group of Data Reduction. D D Dx a 7 a m . JJ,, o sl e es ~, 2 Q Let me refer you to the laut page, FaF;I 36. , ; ji ', p 3 There la a, just read for, to identify it, read the tid o p .; j!.on the page, uould you? Uhat iloes it aay? ~[ a 5 ij A "Guwury of Major Plant Problems at T.Lae,of/, C 0 6 kl Trip and Shortly Thereafter." .j q-t- i 's i'd i 7, Q Are you, familiar dith.that/seetion? Eytef.you-- 0, ~ di y .t 'e 1 8. seen it before? l u. u 9 A 1 have seen it. ,' f ' , y,' t.- \\ 10 I Q Okay. Do you know who put that together? / ,I'd ,,;k 8 11 A No, I don't. a 12 l Q Item number 10 relates to the s'ize of the >p' -C

4 i_

- c n ( 13 ' pressurizer, is tint correct? Mi. Y ' ';, f ,a t e j.; A' Yes, it is. ' +., , i .'-{i ~ i. 9 ~ . v 15, Q Before the accident, had you been aware lpf. ',g 16, any view, either here or at B&W that the pressurizer was: gil a;:. ' . 2-2 . > j. 17 regarded as being small for the task that it was assi ned- , ?( 6 ,.tj

t 18 !

to do? . i,i .'.i.'. j( l IwouldsayIhadgenbrally'he'ardthat,'i, $,N ~ 19 A ,, c,., .-e, f} 20 which I think at that time was no different;than the February

5 l

74 21 meeting, going to the meeting on' loss of pressurizer level low ,(. 3 22 k Q I take it from your last' answer that the 'h z.,. b. 23 issue of. the size of the pressurizer may have. come up in that .' f 'i D 2.; February lilth meeting, in connec' tion with the issue'of' loss .l t t f,0 e 25 of pressurizer level low? } g ] },{ .,3 ..a r, 4 .%/

Hilbish-direct 52 ' A. f .j s ['*. U.; b I' f,, O m 3 . I,...l .1 1 A Ho. e d a- .F You were tying the t,uo together com.cho n,. r ...c. Q Okay. 2 i

i. _. o ;

l ,it ,t 3.! and I nunt hn.ve nissed it. l' 4 Ju It la ay 'oun mind, 'I do not ' recall anytliing'

i 4 f,,

A $hel-d;o' I at that meeting, where they said' that the pressurizer 1 3 6, I am corry - the preneurizer was cuall., I.am just saying, 7 l! generically, in my mind, when you have loss level lui,.1I have heard the reference before that the pressurizer.uns small. ,,,.y 8i And the logic behind that uould. e thatl,. b g 9l Q Okay. n to the extent that you have a greater pressurizer, noro; volume i lf 10. s

l'n the pressurizer, your level fluctusti$ns woul'd be reduced?.

,/ 11 J.} A

Yes,

'd-12,4 l Or at least the magnitude or the amplitude y i. 13 I Q i i. : h. 14 l of the fluctuation would be reduced? . I., J, - + A Yes. ,t-15 n ^# Q Ub y~ou remember that ',iscue coming up.:in,the. ,.4 16 l ~ J.Y,'$ I context of any specific conversation or meeting. or correspo' dence?'- n .m 17 gi j ' v.- ..R.- 18 A No.

e.:

'}f ' ' ,8. :' 4- , Have there been any meetings 'of B&W Owners'.' [!M d' c 19 Q'

e

.7 c ci: i ), f: x..,, :., : 20 Group since the accident? 7 3 ..c,. s lf_Q 8 d A Not of the Executive Committee. K-. o 21 e Q-Have any of the subcommittees?.

  • ' ', I,",.

,. ' : /p . ).l i' 22 3- ' '.. (, '. i A Yes.

y..n 23 a

Q Do you sit on any of. the subcommittees?" b. 24 i 2s a no. 1 aong.. 1902D2400 .7-: no....c e ei an s.i at, i=c.

r a. tocimitow an..,

einanimes. re. erets q*(', +$;. ' '- ;

  • I I. g j,f, k.~.., ', i + Q

,p- ,j a y

.. < i, , 9., w H11bish-direct 53 9, '0;(. li._ - e i 1: Q Have any of the neetings, since the' accident, 3 4 elated to the accident? . j. 2 4 3 [4 ' ;a, A There is a TMI Tuo uubcomittee. Q And teho la Met-Ed's representativa to thati 4 h subcommittee? e. l, 5, r l 6 A If I recall, we have had three, one was .I designated in the beginning, on paper, and has.not been able a ~ ~ S l to attend any neetings, as yet. That.is myself.- And,,thore-

<j i

fore, one of the engineers went.to one or tuo of the teeti.' aj

ngs,
O, fi 9

Ry ig, which would have been Jeff Fritzen, from.our office. 'Then i C. 4l in honjunction with another subcommittee,-Bob Lengel, of the 77 x i, Licensing Group, has attended only one meeting.- 12 Q Has the B&W Owners ' Group, TMI Two sub- ^ ) 13 l y committee focused on any particular issues, to your knowledge? .' j ,o_ .I am,sure they have looked at particular A i . issues. Again, a lot. of the work and analysis; short term l o. i n,. t and long term is being done on a generic basis by B&W; the 1, le generic basis by B&W. j,, ji. yg Q Have you had any reports or meeting summaries- '. W, 19 .it u 'Si O back from the TMI Two subcommittee meetings? c One that I can recall.,,' A s q~ u. .c sp Q Okay. Do you know whether.'that was included i . r, ,, 2 in the group of document's that you supplied to us? '[ 23 i c.,,, .A Not that I am aware of. ' ., 4 i 3 'w, " 25 l Q Okay. Could you provide us a copy of that? ? i _.._.........m ..................c 1.9021.2,@,.

4 Hilbish-direct

  • 0

,3 p l s .< v li 1 13 1 A Yes. 'b ? 2 l Q Let's see, I am trying to remember the other Y. - \\ 3 retptent, what was the other request I made? 4-MR. TRAVIEGO-DIAZ: To date, you vere'aaking 5 for his Grouth of Knowledge Analysis. 6 MR. ROCiGTELL: Yes. h 7 MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ: Off the reeord for a J.-

)

8 ! necond. 'i O I 9 Note: (Colloquy off'the record.)' 'f-y 10 MR. ROCKifELL: I think that is all. 'Let'me i' 11 '.just look back here at my notes. i (Responding.) 12 13 i BY MR. ROCKWELL: 14 Q In your Growth of Knowledge Analysis that you , c' 15 referred to a moment ago, do you remember whether you would 16 have picked up whether or not the NRC consulted either Met-Ed ~ .t-17, or GPU on the hydrogen or oxygen generation questions in the 4 \\ i 18 first three to five days of the accident? .. ,-4 24 of that. J. 25 Q And do you know, quite apart from your Growth ,h.. ..................m m 1902 242'

a Hilbich-direct t-i x Il ~ uhothar I ct-Ed or CPU ucre t of (newledge Analyain, do you knez.i 1 coraulted by the NiiC with respect to either the hydiccen or ~ the oxygen generation questions? 3 ,; I!,, A I7o. I You don't know one uny or the other? Q 5 i. A I. don't know whether no vere. 6 MR. ROCKWELL: That is all. y' ' ,3 .-I. Once again, Mr. Hilbich, ue will recesa your s S i{ deposition, leaving you subject.to recall for.further 9 l-If that is the case,. l testimony, should that be necessary. 10 We appreciate your.

we,ill let you know, through Met-Ed.

w ,1 77 ..y a ' coming down today. 12 s. MR. HILBISH: Okay. Thank'you..~ 13 1 l 14 I + i Note: (Whereupon the hearing adjourned at .:l 15 10:45 o' clock _a.m.) 16 ~ s r4 17

t

' L g o, g, o pd J t g. odf u 18 e. c- ~, i 19 r r- . n .20 ,~ ,l a, f,. 10; .g., 21 '.,. f.'. ~ 22 "p. 23 ,. ~ .i L i 1902 243 24 a.c

  • t I

t 1 ,3 i 25 l' 18 0 M s 34(.s 3 M Aggn sL. twC. If

8.. ( Ct a nta 4 0m Abf..

p & a m t S B 'J # G. PA. 17992 tt O t' '3 .g. m, .-} .._..z.,- _m.__

1 .- - oCo - - 2 3 I hereby certify that the forecoing is a true 4 i.und cerrcet transcript of my utenotype notea taken by ue 5 l lduringthehearingontheabovecauce,atthehercin 6 ! indicated tiv.c and place, beforc The President's Comiccica 7 On The Accidant At Three Mile Island. 8 9 "OURBACHn's MARSHAL, INC. 10 l U /hl1f _ o,,2CNQQQ(_ OJ i 11 "ugene A. Hayden] Jr.,'1%R\\ 12 CP, CM, Registered Professional Reporter K _J '3 s 14 Nd RITCRTED BY: 15 EUGENE A. HAYDEff, JR. 16 Mohrbach & Marshal, Inc. 17 27 North Lockwillow Avenue Harrisburg, Pennsylvsnia 17112 18 19 Date 30 L_. 20 D**D 9 D '9 % 6 22 .cwI 2_ X tn a 23 1902 244 24 25 o..u.....,..<..c. ,,.. i o c..,u o.. u..

.. - - -) n

l} of' Knowledge Analysic, do you know whether Met-Ed or GPU uare ;-

L ii .'/. 2y consulted bv t,he P RC with respec h to either the hylrogen or ( il !i the oxy.sen c.eneration questiona? 3 i, 4 :, A No. Q You don't knou one way or the other? i. 6p A I don't know whabher ve~uere. ..t/: NR. ROCIGJELL: That 13 all. J L s 'i Once again, Mr. H11bich, we will racess your f! 9, deposition, leaving you subject.to recall for further

testinony, ahould that be necessary.

If that is the caso ,e mU g 3 0 yy j uc will let you know, through Met-Ed. We appreciate your I coming down today. I (. 13 l. MR. HILBISli: O ' :ay. Thank you. ~ s J.}, @heim pon the hearing adjourned at 15 e: m, 10:45 o ' clock e.:n. ) i! 17 e-rs ' n ;; N hlI.au ix {$ k I i // John . !Illbish i 19{ISubscribedandswot'nto 1 .,, i before me this (2 . day of t'J s. >.., o k.. , 1979 .i 22

s

,4 "J y-z ~~' ef_g ( \\ s. 5 -?4 ?!otf.iry Publid './ L s ( (.e$ 0 .Yek.5. e 9.; .;a ';, t - .'.'.M .s'. ..___'*,,.........,,.e s, a, ...,ut.,

PRESIDENT'S COM:1ISSION ON Tile ACCIDENT AT TliREE !!ILE ISLANP Corrections to August 9, 1979 Denosition of John F. liilbish P'? U "_ .!d "_0 CJyinge To Resid 6 /li. A av.<l /bul.u., / h #) $'Y fj.uh suu,- O o is' ' n ' S S ' x ^rt. b ed,1U d j u . c:J J J \\. 31 'n ,/ r. b E-w ~ /~ John F. Ililbish (./ Subscribed and sworn to beforemethis17#kday of August, 1979. i' 1902'246 i w / en s ',; FAY e 'No(aryPubli'[/ GEOT 3.5 'ri;f',: F.c"! tisy-,,','*.- r-'.03. .g.., a :.2a1Ca? .}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19290A042&oldid=4826634"