ML19305A669
| ML19305A669 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/25/1979 |
| From: | Heward R PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001160732 | |
| Download: ML19305A669 (56) | |
Text
~
"k i
I N U CLE A R R E G U L ATO R't CO MMI S S!O N i
1 I
i e
l lN THE MATTER OF:
TMI SPECIAL INGUIRY DEPOSITION l
l I
DEPOSITION OF RICHARD W.
HZWARD Place - Parsippany, New Jersey Date - Tuesday, September 25, 1979 Pages 1 - 55 r.onen.:
("C2] J47 3700 ACE - FEDER.tL REPORE% INC.
Off.cial Reponers 4M Ncrth Cc=itol Street Washington O.C.20001 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE. DAILY 7
8001160 f
1 l
CR7296 i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION THREE MILE ISLAt;D SPECIAL 2
INQUIRY GROUP 3
4 der 0 SIT' ION OF RICHARD U. HEWARD o
5 0F GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES 6
by NRC/TMI SPECIAL INQUIRY GROUP TRANSCRIPT OF 7
INTO THE ACCIDENT AT THREE MILE PROCEEDINGS 8
ISLAND 9
10 GPU Headque.rters 260 Cherry Hill Road 11 Parsipuany, New Jersey Tuesday, September 25, 1979 13 APPEARANCES :
^
14 DAVID J. EVANS, ESQ.
R. LAURENCS VANDENBERG 15 NRC/TMI Special Inquiry Group 16 JA?'.ES B. LIBER!ON, ESQ.
General Counsel for General Public Utilities 17 COUCLAS E. DAVIDSON, ESQ.
18 19 i
20j i
21 REPORTED BY:
1BRGA:GT J. TEILIZ3ER, C.S.R.
22i l
23; 24!
? - Federst Repor ters, Inc. I, 25l
2 1
INDEX 2
UIT::ZSS DIRECT 3
RICR\\RD HEWAR5 4
By Mr. Vandenberg 4,6,10,16,23, 29,44,49 5
By Mr. Evans 6,10,15,20,22, 6
29,32,43,45,49 7
8 9
EXHIBITS 10 NUMBER DESCRIPTION FOR IDENT.
Il 1108 Position Description 21 12 1109 CORB report 21 13 14' I
16j 17j 18!
l 19i i
20,!
21i 22i
\\
23h 24J La - ree.ui e4: erie,s, ec. ;I 25?
?
1
'i v
s
3 1
MR. EVANS:
I want to note that this is j
2 a deposition of Mr. Richard Howard which is be-3 ing conducted by the NRC/TMI Special Inquiry 4
Group.
It's being held at the offices of Genera l 5
Public Utilities Corporation in Parsippany, New 6
Jers
, on September 25, 1979.
7 Present in addition to the deponent is 8
Mr. Jim Liberman, the general counsel of General 9
Public Utilities Corporation, and also Mr. Doug 10 Davidson of Mr. Liberman's firm.
II Present for the NRC/TMI Special Inquiry 12 Group is Mr. R. Lawrence Vandenberg and David J.
13, Evans.
14 Mr. Heward, I'm going to ask you if you 15 had an opportunity to read the Witness Notifica-16 tion form and the 1cteer to you from Mitchell I7 Rogovin which I have shown to you earlier today.
l 18' MR. HEWARD:
Yes, I have.
I9; MR. EVANS :
Do you understand your richts 20l as set forth in those forms?
21l MR. HEWARD:
Yes, I do, t
22l MR. EVANS:
Do you have any objections 23'i to proceeding at this time?
i 24i MR. HEWARD:
No.
+c s - Federal Re::ctters, Inc.
o".-
MR. EVANS:
Would you stand and raise j
i i
I 4
I your right hand.
2 R I C H'A R D W.
H E W A R D, having been duly sworn accord-3 ing to law, testified as follows :
4 MR. ' EVANS :
Mr. Heward, at this time Mr.
5 Vandenberg will direct questions to you.
6. DIRECT EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. VANDENB' ERG:
8 Q
Mr. Heward, my questions are going to deal with 9 the area of bringing TMI-2 into commercial operations at the end 10 of 1978 and to some extent your responsibilities at the site dur-II ing that time period.
I would like to start by having you descr:.b e 12 for us your position with GPU in 1978 and who you reported to and 13 1.,,hc ucre your immedicte subordinates.
14 A In 1978 my title was Manager of Projects and I reported 15 to William H. Hirat and ny i=acdiate subordinates regarding the 16 Three Mile'-2 project were John J. Barton, project manager.
17 Q
Can you to up the line a little bit more.
18 A Beyond Hirst?
I9 Q
Yes.
20l A Hirst reported to Robert C. Arnold, vice-president of I
?li
~j generation.
22l Q
Mr. Hewced, uere you aware of any posulble finan-23 [cial incoatives for bringic, TMI-2 on line before.he end of 1973?
e 24l 3-3 3,.
C -7tdef31 R?PHters, Inc. (
25 q
f4,,... y n.,
,1.,. re thEt i:he unit was the nobject of i
I:
! Heward - direct 5
1; a rate case and that there was a test year ending in December of 2
1978?
I 3 A I believe I was aware that the unit was the subject of a 4 rate case which I think was auite a few times.
I'm not aware of 5
a test year.
6 Q
Were you aware that it was a possibility for se-7 curing investment tax credits based on construction of TMI-2?
8 A
No.
9 Q
Did you ever attend any staff meetings with Mr.
10 Herbein or Mr. Arnold where these kinds of things might have been 11 discussed?
12 A
I never attended any with Mr. Herbein.
I attended each 13l one with Mr. Arnold that he held monthly, and it might have been 14 discussed there.
I don't recall at this time.
15 Q
Did you ever hear employees below you talk about 16 any advantages to Met-Ed or GPU that might be secured by bringinn 17 TMI on line?
18l Well, when you set out to build a power olant, it's ot-A 19' vicus that you uant to prcduce pcuer with it so it's obviously 20 hadvantageous to got the thing on the line as soon as you can and ll 211 that was the project goal.
Ycu are referring, I take it from 22i your previous questions, to financial benefits and I don't re-k 23 llcall that I was aware of any specific financl.11 benefits.
l 24' Q
Were you aware in a general sense?
3 - Federal Repceters, Inc. l 25!A Yea, sure.
1 I
!i
! Heward - direct 6
l 1
DIRECT EXAMINATION 2
BY MR. EVANS :
3 Q
Let me probe this a little bit, Mr. Heward.
4 When were you first made manager of projects?
5 A
August 1, 1977.
6 Q
Before that time, what was your title?
7 A
Project manager.
8 Q
When did you assume that job?
9 A
At Three Mile Island?
10 g
- Yes, 1I A
November 8, 1971.
12 Q
So it would be fair to say that you have been 13 involved with Unit Number 2 of Three Mile Island since construc-I4 tion began at the site?
151 A That's fair to say, yes, except for tuo years prior to 16 November 8, 1979 when I was project manager at Forked River.
I 17 uns not at all involved in Three Mile Island at that time.
18 Q
So that would be 1969 or so you vere irivolved i
19' in thu Forhed River project?
20 A
That's correct, yes.
l'I Q
When you ficat becue2 involved with TMI-2, what 22! was the date that had been 92t fer ccu arcial operation?
23!
A I don't really remember.
I dea't rc=2mber when it was.
I 24l; It uns unbutantially earlier than when it went commercial.
'a:e -FMetal Rep:rters, Inc. ll 25 Bi
- 2. VAUDZ::3 ERG:
a
l Ileword - direct 7
Ii Q
Did you have any understanding that there were 2'some criteria to be met for bringing a plant into commercial op-3 eration?
4 A Yes, I did.
5 Q
What were those criteria or how did you learn of 6 them?
7 A
The criteria defined in a corporate procedure that iden-8 tifies what is to be reviewed to bring a plant commercial, and 9 my recollection is that it has to do with the level of training 10 and adequacy of the staff and the fact that the systems have been 11 completed, tested, and have been turned over to the operator and 12 acccoted by the operator with acceptable punch list items.
Ther "
13 may be more criteria in that procedure.
I don't recall at the 14 moment.
15 Q
Did you attend any meetines in the last half of i
16' 1978 that discussed at what time or how those criteria were goin:t I7 - to be met?
I8 A Yes.
I participated in a meetine in October of 1978.
l That wac the meeting for the Commercial Operation Review Board I9 l
,to make the decisica as to whether or not they considered the 20 21 plant acceptabic for commercial operation.
i 22l Q
5.' ant was the tieu at that point?
Il 23 3 73,. view at that point was that the plant had only been
'4! esred to 73 perce:cc ;:ower let al and that the finct testin;: had 9
t a:t-Fejeral Pe ctters,Inc,4 25 ll ye t to be done and subject to the tcceutpble final testine that h
it
Heward - direct 8
1 they did consider adequate and occaptable to be classified com-2 mercini.
3 Q
Were you involved in bringing TMI-1 into ccr.a:r-4 cial operation?
5 A
I certainly was, yes.
6 Q
Was there similar criteria. applied there?
l 7
A There were but it was not done formally.
It was not a 8
corporate procedure at that time but we did sit down and review 9
similar things on an informal basis at that time to bring Three 10 Mile Island commercial, yes.
II Q
Dick, have you ever been aware of a FERC and 12 before that Federal Power Com~.ission 120 day rule, sometimes 13 called Electric Plant Instruction 9D?
14 A
The 120 day rule vaguely rings a bell in my mind but I 15 guess I can't' tell you -- I think I knou uhat it is.
Is it a requirement that the plant is to be in commercial operstion 120 16 I7, days af ter enking its first power?
i 18 i Q
Is that your understandirc.'.
19 A
I'm pulling this out of my head.
I vaguely remember i
20! something like that and I don't know whether that's the rule or l
21! not.
Q Did you ever discucs that with "ob Arnold?
22 i
23l A Yes, if that's what it is, I think ca.
l Q
As far as I kncu, that's -that it 13.
ke - Federal Reportets, lec.
25f A Okay.
120 dayn'?
Is that correct?
T'aat do:.n't scom
I Heward - direct 9
1 reasonable.
Maybe that's what it is.
Offhand it doesn't seem 2
like a reasonable time period.
3 Q
Did you ever discuss tith Bob Arnold or others 4
the runniag of that 120 day period?
'icu stated, as I recall, 5
that the beginning of that period was -- how did you put it --
6 when it's first synchronized with the g.id.
Was that ever a 7
problem?
8 A
Synchronized with the grid?
9 Q
No, the running of the 120 day period.
10 A
It was not a problem for me in that the objective of II the project was to get the testing done as laid out in the test 12 program, and in the particular case of Three Mile Island-2 ue 13 certainly were unabic to get the testing done in 120 days be-I4 cause of the problem we had with the main steam relief valves.
15 So no, it was not a prob 1cm with me offhand.
If you're 16 asking me was there a lot of pressure on me to meet the 120 days I7 the answer is no.
18l Q
Did you talk uith anybody, thou:;h, chout ways to --
19 j Ict me rephrase that.
20l Did you discuss iith anycne dealic.; uith FE.0 21 to re-establish or stop the running of the 120 day pericd?
A I didn't.
236 i
Q Okay.
Thank ycu.
24 (A discua:icn '.r.u 'ad 02f W record.)
re -Federal Peporters, tec. !
k O f 1 9 N,
It yCU C
'J b Q
hr. fitf*.Jard, D*lCh [n NdV i
10
! It2 ward - direct ll' receiving a copy of a memo from Mr. Seelinger to Mr. Miller
)
2 and in that memo there was a section dealing with philosophy 3
that stated:
"We must slow down and proceed forward deliberatel y 4
and correctly.
Senior station management must convey this phil-5 osophy to shift personnel."
~
6
'Does that ring a bell with you?
7 A
No.
8 BY MR. EVANS :
9 Q
Let me try to refresh your recollection.
On 10 April 23, 1978, there was a transient at the plant involving 11 main steam relief valves.
Is that a correct --
12 A
That certainly is, yes.
13 Q
Fo11cwing that transient, did you receive a car-14 bon copy of this Seelinger memo which was written to Gary Miller providing his comments on the transient and procedures at the 15 16ll plant?
i 17' A It's probably likely I did if he wrote it but I don't 18hrecallitnow.
f l9!
Q You vero typically carbon ecpied on those kind t
20l cf w scs la the plant.
21j 'a y,3,
- 3;c 3 cnggece, i
22 Q
Did you file those?
23 A
I pr: bably did, yes.
24 ! BY G. VAFL... 2tG:
- e -Fedeal Re;;;rtm, ine,l
+
'2 5 ii Q
W e r.',: in any discussions, ar, cia, the lact i;$
e.
I s
I Heward - direct 11 1
part of 1978, that ':here was some pressure t a declare TMI-2 to 2
be in commercial operation because to not do to might put at 3
risk the allowance of the AFC on the plant, Allowance for Funds 4
used during construction?
5 A
I don't think so.
I don't recall such a conversation.
6 Q
In these staff meetings you had with Bob Arnold 7
that you attended, what kinds of things were discussed relative 8
to either rate cases or relations with FERC*or the general sub-9 j ect of cottmercial operation of niI-2?
10 A
Bob generally tried to keep us informed of testimony the t II he gave in various proceedings.
I don't recall specifically any 12 discussions of conversations with FERC.
We talked about progress 13 on the various projects and we talked about problems on the var-14 ious projects that were the kinds of things that should be dis-15 cussed at upper levels to try and assist in the resolution of 16 those problems and maintain progress.
I7 Q
Did those things include catablishing a schedule 18 for completion of DII-27 19 A
No, because the schedule for completicn was dcne outsidt 20 the scope of staff meetinas.
The project staff assessed the 21 schedule and proposed that this uaa the amount of time they for.;
., t 22f saw would take to comolete the remaining testing and that was 1
23I reportad mostly in other places.
There was a monthly progress 24! renort issued to Arnold that discussed schedule cach month.
,-resvai neporters, nc. l 25 kThere waa a 1cteer to the Board of Directors that diaeussed E
! Heward - direct 12 1
1lscheduleeachconth.
2 I handled oroject review meetings each month and we dis-3 cussed schedule with the ec)or contractors.
4 Q
Are you saying that you didn'~ have any input 5
into the establishment of the schedule?
6 A
No.
I said that the proj ect produced all the input into 7
the establishment of the schedulei 8
Q What was your role in that process?
9 A
Well, the project manage: reported to me at that time s'o 10 I approved what he produced, if I thought it was appropriate.
1I Q
Did you ever change what he produced?
l 12 A
I probably did, yes.
13, Q
Did you ever change his estimate of when certain l
14 tests should be completed or when the overall project should be 15 completed?
16 A
I don't recall a anecific case of that, but that may I7 have happened.
The project manager has a very long past history I8 ! of being the mana;;er of testin<;, not only'here but elsewhere, I
i 19l and is probably ca capert as anybody I knou in the establishment 20: of schedule for te ::: program for a nuclear power plant.
You are impl ing you wouldn't have any reason --
21 [
q -
/
22f A I'm implylr; that it's orebably unlikely.
I den't aluay; 23 lI,agrea uith thin;c pcoole cay and I aiA t have had a difference 4
2'd'! at one tir:c, but I can't ree.:l1 a spe::ific cuac of that.
By and
. 49-Federal Re:ctters. Inc. !,
25 l la rge, if you Ice' at the hi; tory of what h.ippened in the year
- l f
i
ll lleward - direct 13 I
li 1978, the plant was to be commercial in the spring.
The I.pril 2;
23rd transient put a substantial delay in that.
There were 1
3l other items that came up during the summer that we had to attent 4
to and the plant went commercial when the tese program was com-5t pleted.
6.
I daresay if it weren't completed until two weeks later, 7
it wouldn't have gone commercial until two weeks later.
8 Q
You said you had a lot of interface with the 9
different groups there.
That would include the constructor, UE 10
& C?
II A
Yes.
They were on the site in 1978.
12 Q
So that would be Catalytic in that.
i 13i A
Yes.
i 14!
Q What was the nature of your interaction with UE 15!
& C for the time they were on site?
I i
16!
A UE & C was the. construction manager and constructor.
17lThey hired subcontractors to do specialty jobs and they hired 18!
labor ;a c;o jobs thcaselves.
They essentially worked for me as t
~
19 i the project canc;er for GPU when I was project manager.
20 2y the way, there is a project crganization responsi-21 h hilicies document that cicarly definns interface of UE & C and 1
22 the other ajcr contractora uith GPU.
u h
Q "hich dceue:nt is that?
'4h
'sA It's eclied The Prcject Or;ranization..nd Responaibilitb i
- e-Fe:eral Repctte's, fac.,
9-ei SOOttm?nt, iT.d it h?' 1 c'*Oj '; 0 t n@ heir OttachCd tO it Uh[Ch I 9
4
Howard - direct 14 1
don't remember what it is.
2 MR. EVANS :
Will you be willing to make
/
3 that document available to us?
4 THE WITNESS:
Sure.
5 Q
When was Catalytic brought in?
6 A
I believe the official date was September 1st, 1977.
7 Yet I started' Catalytic in small numbers on the site as early 8
as May or June of '77 so we could get an appropriate interface 9
with United.
10 Q
What was the reason for switching constructors?
II A
We did not switch constructors.
What we did was to britig 12 on a centractor who would ultimately wind up with the maintenance I3 contract of the finished plant and also act as a completion con-I I4l tre.c tor.
Ha did the similar thing on Unit 1.
It' worked out 15 very well.
The only thing we decided on Unit 1 that we wanted 16 to do different on Unit 2 was to bring the guy in earlier and I7[wedidthat.
18 fj Q
Could you gLve me an estimate of percent comple;:e 19i
- . on TMI-2 when the switch was -ade.
20 [. A l
In tbc nineties.
91l Q
Lou nineties?
22 L A
Lev nineties, mid-ninetics, so:newhere.
9,i
~*[
Q Was t'ae switch due in any way to any of the 24f, GPU cempany's dissctisfaction uith UE & C's performance?
.2-rewa amms. m:. ;j 23h A
I di cuc;ed that switch at least a year or trore before 1
lleward - direct 15 1
it happened with the vice-president and project m.tuager of UE &
2 C and explained to'him that ue had good experience on Unit 1, 3 which he participated in that very well, and told him I thought we ought to do it a little sooner on Unit 2 and he concurred.
4 5
This was something that was oremetitated and in agree-6 ment with UE & C.
7 Q
Those discussions were with Earl Nag.le?
8 A
That's correct.
9 BY MR. EVANS:
10 Q
Let me ask at the time that UE & C left the site il do you have any indication of how many punch list items were 12 open?
13 A
I'm guessing the number was in the order of 8,000.
14 Q
Would you consider that unusually high?
15 A
Mo.
In my view it was high, higher than I expected, but 16 I would say no for this reason.
When Three Mile-1 vent com.~er-17 cial, it had 4,000 punch list items.
UE & C left the site just IU prior to the hot ooprations in the tcat program uhich meant tiw -
a lot of thinta not 19 ltherewasstillalotofthinr,snotdone, 20 tes teli.
21 So if you put those tuo nuwbers in nersatetive, I i.uld i
1
! say that it's not terribly cut of line.
22 Q
Do you think uhen the company Ic :rud that t5cr<
23 2# f were that tuany peach list items open Lt
.is.mr p r i.: ed ?
ce - Fe:!eut Reporters, Inc.
25 A I don't know.
It wau hither th a I thou ht it "r-
'et t
I 1
Heward - direct 16 1
I don' t think it was any serious oversight or any such thinr: as 2
that.
3 Q
Let me ask this question.
Was Mr. Arnold sur-4 prised when you told him there were that many open items?
5l A'
I don't remember.
He probably was.
It looks like a 6
big number but when you sit down and look at each one of these 7
items, you go to one item and it says test number so and so is 8
not complete.
Well, test number so and so hasn't yet been run 9
so, of course, it's not complete and you go down there like 10 that and there's a preponderence of those kinds of items that 1I makes the number so large.
12 You say 4,000 items on a commercini operation on Unit 1 13! is a very large number; well, it is a large number, but when 14 you look at the items and you see what they are, it's apparent 15 that they are not serious items.
16 BY MR. VAMDEUBERG:
17 Q
You mean that most of those items could be re-18 solved with minimal effort?
19 - A Yes.
As a matter of fact, a lot of them didn't have to 20 - be reco1ved, may still not be resolved.
If you take an e <trcn e 'y 21 large and complicated thing such as a nuclear power plant and 22 ycu try and get yourself to the point where you have no punch 23l list items, even if the thing is in operation, it's not oossibio 24! and the reason it's not possible is you always have a valve
!-Fe:;atal Rc;;ortats. Inc. i 25 that's going to leak and something like that and those items
?
h
Heward - direct 17 1
co on the punch list.
You have electrical recentacles that or 2
don't work /one is needed somewhere.
That's a work list item.
3 It goes on the list.
The items that were important to safety 4 and to proper operation of the plant, they got fixed.
5 Q
I would like to switch the question to a differ-6 ent area a little bit.
Mr. Heward, I want to ask you if you car 7
identify this document which appears to be a Position Descrip-8 tion for you.
Is that correct?
9 A
Yes, I guess so.
10 Q
What was the date of that?
II A
9/1/72.
12 Q
You've identified that as being the official I3 Position Description for you at that date.
14 A
It certainly looks like it is, yes.
15 Q
Did your official position descriotion change 16 much or at all through 1978 from that time?
I7 A
I had a different position in 1978 than I did in 1972.
18 I was the manager of projects in 1978.
I was the project man-I 19 aper in '72.
~
20 Q
On page 2 of this, there's a statement I wish i
21 i you could explain to us.
The idea that then as project manager 22f there's a need to comple te an initial warranty run prior to com-i 23' eretal operation; could you explain to us what that means.
24' A
The initial warranty run was a test that was required
,t - Faderal Repor*ers, Inc.
25 ' in the Babcock and Wilcox contract that verified that the reactc r r
i e
Heward - direct 18 Ilj plant would produce so rany pounds of steam an hour.
2 Q
Why was that made a pre-condition to commercial 3 operation?
4 A
Well, on Unit I which I was werking on primarily in 1972 5 I don't believe that any large B & U plant had ever been run and 6
it was certainly essential for us to verify that the plant that 7 we bought would put out the amount of steam that it was adver-8 tised to put out, and so we ran the warranty run and, as I recal l 9 on Unit 1, the warranty run was the last thing run in the power 10 range test.
II As a matter of fact, I think I believe that the power 12 range testing had all been completed peior to running the war-13 ranty run, and we did the warranty run just prior to commercial I4 operation.
Now, on Unit 2, the warranty run uns not as importan 15 an item to us as it was on Unit 1 because once again it still 16 required so many pounds of steam per hour from the plant and the I7 plants, Unit 1 and Unit 2, are essentially the same ren::cor, yet 18 the Unit 2 reactor operates at a substantially higher pouer leve l I9 than Unit 1; and since we had alrecay een Unit i and knew what 20 the cutput was, the certainty of getting a similar output was 21 1 I there for Unit 2.
22 As a matter of fact, we ran at a substantially higher 23 output than what was warranted.
4 24*
Q Is this initial wacreaty run the same thing as
- e - Federst Reporters, Inc. !
25 the Unit Acceptance Test?
Wa.; that another nae for the same e
lleward - direct 19 l' test?
2 A
Yes, I think so.
3 Q
Was this test run in 1978 or was it run later?
4 The reason I ask that is that 5
A Oh, sure.
6 Q
'On Unit 2.
7 A
I believe it was run later.
8 Q
The reason I asked that was I seem to recall 9
that in a schedule of the tests remaining to get to commercial 10 operation that Bob Arnold supplied to the Pennsylvania PUC, the II Unit Acceptance Test was shoun as a milestone prior to commer-12 cial operation.
Did Bob Arnold ever discu;s that kind of sched-13 ule with you?
I4 A
Yec.
We had always scheduled the warranty run to be 15I done in the test program.
If you look at the test program cched -
16 ulea going bcek uhere ne got into powet range test; they all I7 shoucd the untranty run being run late in the test program but 18 prior to ccamercial.
The warranty run was run for the reason 19 that I just said; normly, to varify that we got the pcunds of 20 str.m per hour out of the rocctor that B & U advertised it woule 21'ij. produce.
22 'l The: c was no question.:beut getting it here and the war-23i ranty run t.as simply a contract obli, nation, if you even want to 2 4 '!
-W-Federal Peptters,Inc.] call it en dd ication, becauc e I think the cont"act says if you 25! don't run it "cu sim,b.wke your inst payment, Lf you don't rur
Heward - direct 20 1
it so many months after it is ready for it, but it was a con-2 tract item and it could be run at any time on Unit 2.
3 Q
Do you recall why it was decided not to run thi:
4 test on Unit.2 prior to the commercial operation declaration?
5 A
Well, as you are aware, Unit 2 was delayed for many 6
reasons throughout the years, and I'm here to tell you, we look. !d 7
all the time at things that may be in our program that weren't necessary.
Obviously that's our job.
If they aren't necessary 8
9 and they don't provide you something tangible for the operation 10 and the safety of the unit and you can delay it or defer it or II not do it, why not?
12 And the narranty run on Unit 2 was an academic e::ercise.
I3 The data had already been taken, I believe, on two occasions in I4 unofficial warranty runs.
When the warranty run occurred, it 15 meant we had to make a payment to B & W.
16 Q
So the data was available an'd you proved to your-I7 self internally _that the initial warranty run test could be met" 18 A
Oh, yes.
I9 Q
And you decided to delay the of Eicial performanc e 20 of that particular test.
21 A
Not only that, we were abic to get 100 megawatta or more 22 of power out of Unit 2 more than ve ever got cut of Unit 1.
23 BY hR. EVANS:
24 Q
Let me ask a few ore 11al. nary questicas.
Mr.
- ce -Fe:eral Rep;stess, lec.
25 Howard, you said you participated in a meeting on Octob.:r 26,
!l
llewnrd - direct 21 1-1978, a meeting of the Commercial Operation Review Board; is 2
that correct?
3 A
That's correct.
4 Q
Did you see the final report of what has been 5
calle'd the CORB?
6 A
The what?
7 Q
The CORB.
8 A
Is that the Commercial Operation Review Board?
9 Q
Yes.
10 A
Yes, I saw the final. report.
Il Q
Would you identify this as that document?
12 (A discussion was had off the record.)
13 A
Is there an appendix in this?
14 Q
Yes, I believe when you look at the very end.
15 A
Okay.
Yes.
16 MR. EVANS :
Could I ask you to mark this 17 as Exhibit 1108 and to rark the orevious docu-18 ment that was shown to Mr. I!cward as 1109.
19 (Exhibit 1108 and 11n9 are marked for 20 identification.)
21 MR. EVANS :
Just to clarify this, uhat'-
22l been marked for identification is 1103, titled 23 Generni Public Utilities Pacition D ueription, 24 and it's a position descrip:Lon for 'tr. R. U.
. e - Federat Recorwis. loc. !
25' lloward, Junior, c.nd uhat has been f.'.'r%'d for l
22 Heward - direct 1
identification as 1109 is titled Rencrt of Revie i
2 Board for the determination of technical and 3
organizational readiness for placing Three Mile 4
Island Unit 2 into commercial operation.
5 BY MR. EVANS:
6 Q
Mr. Heward, in Exhibit 1109 there is a discussio n
~
7 of the testing program and ir's my understanding that this dis-8 cussion is really the minutes of the meeting that was held on 9 October 26 at the site, and as I will show you, it states in 10 this section that seven tests that were originally scheduled to II be done at Unit 2 were canceled or eliminated because they were 12 determined not to involve any Federal, State or local require-13 ments.
Wo.Ld you look at that.
I4 MR. LIBERMAN:
Mr. Evans, don't you want 15 to also note that the same sentence says that 16 there were no unresolved urobicms?
I7 MR. EVAMS:
That's fair.
18 Q
My only question is these seven tests, are they 19 in addition to the Unit Acceptance Test or is the Unit Acceptance 20 Test one of them?
21 A
I don't remember.
22 Q
Let me ask if these tests, then, are of the samt i
23 ; nature in your mind as the. Unit Acceptance Tast.
A Yes, that's correct.
We did look nnd I think I even 24
-ce -Faderal Reporters, tec.
25 l instigated 1 coking to find out if we had -- and we did this a d
11eward - direct 23 1
number of times -- if we had any testa in our program that be-i 2
cause of new information that was available from other units 3
that had been run or changes in requirements, whatever, that if 4 we had tests that we could avoid doinst, we should omit them frorr 5
the program.
6 Q
Would it be fair to say, then, that every test 7 which was run on Unit 2 was necessary to meet a Federal, State 8 or local requirament?
3 A
No.
10 Q
What was the criterion for eliminating a test?
II A
Well, the criterion was that it was not a requirement 12 from some regulatory activity, it was not needed by us to satis-I3 fy ourscif regarding the acceptability of the unit, and possibly 14 other industry information had come into play in the intervening years since we put that in the tnst program that did not requiro 15 lanyfurthdrtestordatatobetakeninthatarea,sowetook 16 I7 them out.
That's a general statement of the criteria.
Maybe
' Ron Toole can be more specific.
18 I9 BY MR. VAMDEMBERG:
20 Q
Dich, you mentioned earlier that in setting the 21 schedule for T.II-2, you nearly always accepted the schedule pro poned by.the project canager, particularly the laat part of 197 22 i
t.
I 23 Did the project manager have the responsibility to interface
,.c
-it -Federal Rnatars, t c, 25[ 3 yo,,
i I
lleward - direct 24 1
Q So the project minager was responsible for coor-2 dinating the inputs of all those various groups?
3 A
That's correct.
4 Q
And assessing their impact on the schedule.
5 A
Yes.
6 Q
Who was the highest management official that 7 ever made changes or provided specific input to the schedule for 8
TMI-27 9
A I'm not sure what answer to give you.
It could have 10 been Mr. Hirst or Mr. Arnold.
Il Q
No one above Mr. Arnold.
12 A
I don't know.
Not that I'm aware of.
I'm sure Mr.
13 Dicekamp was aware of what the schedule was because he partici-141 pated in a number of reviews from time to time to understand 15 uhat was going on at the site, but I can't say whether he ever 16 input any information into the schedule.
I7 Q
When the operating lleense was granted for Unit 18 2 in February of 1978, is it your recollection that the terms I9l of the operating license required-certain tests or certain work I
20 to be ccepleted uithin specified time frames?
21 A
No.
22 Q
% s there any time condition associated with any
'3 j part of the OL?
24 A
No.
- e - Fe:cral Re;orters, Inc. l Q
Also with record to the onerating licotrie, what 25 h
lleward - direct 25 1
uns the mood of the company in February?
Were people anxious 2
and in a hurry to get that operating license?
You'said there 3
were about 8,000 punch list items outstanding at the time.
4 A
No.
I believe I said the 8,000 punch list items were outstanding when Catalytic took over which would have been Sep-5 6
tember of 1977.
I believe a good many of the 8,000 had been 7
worked off by that time.
As a matter of fact, I believe that 8
most of them had been worked off by this time and it certainly 9
was our desire to get the operating license and proceed with 10 the test program.
II Q
When you say they were worked off by that time, you mean they were re:olved prior to February 8th of 1978?
12 13 A
Yes, cost of them.
The majority were.
14 Q
Do you recall any meetings with NRC inspectors 15 l from the office of the Inspection and Enforcement regarding the i
16 approximately 8,000 item punch list?
I7 A
No, but I do recall that there were meetings of NRC in-spection with our test group to review the outetanding ' punch I8 I9 list prior to the coerating license.
I'm certain that hapoened 20 Q
Can you describe the substance of those meet-
.ings?
What were NRC's concerns at that time?
21 fA I did not attend the meetings but the concern was the 22
'3 ' punen list' items remaLuine needed to be screened to ascertain 1
d in-
- e-Focent Resort <:ss,Inc,!l if cny should hold uo issuonee of the cocratine license an 24' l
25] deed they a:a cod with us that thera should not he any thcere tha h
d
.M
Heward - direct 26 1[ woul'd hold up the operating license issuance, l
2 Q
Who did that review to determine if there were 3
any that should hold up the OL7 4
A Who was it, the I & E inspectors?
5 Q
It was the I & E inspector that did the screen-6 ing?
7 A
Yes.
8 Q
Rather than you as the licensee?
9 A
Wait a minute.
I didn't say that.
What I said it was 10 the I & E inspectors came in to verify our decision that those 11 punch list items should not hold up the operating license.
12 Q
I'm a little confused about that February, 1978, 13 time pericd.
There were still some pre-operational tests to be 14 completed at the time the OL was granted; is that right?
15, A
No, I ' don' t think so.
16 Q
And all canstruction was complete prior to the 17: granting of the OL?
18 A
Yes.
19 Q
Did, in ycur view --
20 lA Just a minute.
Construction was complete'but bear in i
21 ! mind thorn are always modifications and punch list items that 22 have to be worked and at that tire there were such thin 2s being 23l worked.
1 24 !
Q Do the punch list items relate to pre-o?crationt i m-rewat nepeam uc.
25 1 cast itens perhaps?
1
! Ileward - direct 27 1
A Some may, 2
Q Let me strike at this directly.
Do you think 3
that when you got the OL for TMI-2 that that, because you then 4
had to live under a set of tech specs and the conditions of the 5 OL, did that hinder in any way the corpletion of cunch list iter s 6
relating to work normally done before che granting of the OL?
7 A
No.
8 Q
It didn't.
9 A
No.
10 Q
Who do you think really had the final say on II- ~. en TMI-2 went commercial?
12 A
The chairman of the Commercial Review Board, Bob Arnold.
I3 Q
As I understand the si;uation, GPU Service Cor-I4 poration was acting to nerform all the power ascension tests and 15 Metropolitan Edison was the licensee who operated equipment that 16 needed to be operated to perform a tes: and resnonsibility for would I7 the unit / transfer to Met-Ed upon a commercial operation declara-18 tion, uhereas prior to that point it was the responsibi~lity of Ib; GPU Service Corporation.
t 20l Am I correct?
A No.
There's one c::ception and that is from the time 21l 22{ithe OL was issued until comeercial, the operator had the respon-23 sibility to the Ccmmission to perform under the terms of the i
24 license and that was a responsibility that GPU Service Corpora-kJ - Federal Reper ters, Ir.c.
25 tion could not 1ssume.
I
-!i
Heward - direct 28 1
Q In late 1978 as Manager of Projects you uere 2
working for which company?
3 A
GPU Service Corporation.
4 Q
Did you see any signs -- well, struggle is too 5
harsh a word -- but any dichotomy between the service corpora-6 tion and Met-Ed, the service corporation perhaps wanting to com-7 plete the plan and turn it over to Met-Ed and Met-Ed perhaps 8
saying " Hey, we don't want to accept this plan until everything 9
is totally done"?
10 A
Met-Ed certainly didn't wish to accept anything until II it was complete.
Indeed, they did sign off to accept every sys-12 tem in that plant prior to it being completed.
13 Q
To your knowledge did officials from Met-Ed ever 14 cay " Hey, wait a minute, I don't think it's ready to turn over 15 to us"?
I6 A
Certainly.
I7 Q
Can you give me a for instance?
181
- A No, but in the various system turnovers that we had, I'ir I9{l sure there were times uhen Met-Ed felt that I'm not-ready to I
90I take this system becauJe, and the becauses were resolved bet.wcen
~
21 the start-up and test group and the operator, and when they were 22! resolved they toak the s'/ stem.
There vas no system shoved dctm 93 !!
' ? their throats as far as I knou.
24 !
Q Did Met-Ed raise cay of these hinds of concerna t
- 3 - Federal Re:orreis, Inc. ;
25 j durina 'the maath of Deenber,1978, on any particular syste or 9
0
Iloward - direct 29 I
set of systems?
2 A
tiot that I krow of.
No, they didn't have to sign for 3
turnover and' receipt of a system unless they were satisfied that.
4 the punch list was small enough and inconsequential enough to e
5 accept the system.
6 BY MR. EVANS:
7 Q
Let me pursue this.
Who signed off for Met-Ed?
8 A
I'm not sura.
I think it was the superintendent but 9
I'm not certain.
10 Q
Mr. Miller?
11 A
Yes, I guess Miller was the superintendent then.
- Yes, 12 I believe he was.
13 Q
If a tiet-Ed operator and a GPU test engineer I4 disagreed over an instruction, what was the next~ step in making 15 a decision?
16 A
Well, it would go to the project manager and the station 37 manager, but I don't think that ever occurred.
18 Q
Y u don't believe there was ever a disagreement'J 39, A
No, I dot t.
I believe that the two of thera sat dcun 20' and thrashed it out between them until they got it cettled.
I't t 21 reasonably sure on Unit 1 that was the case, and I was a lot 22 l closer to it than obvio'usly --
23 MR. EVAt:S :
Ceuld we go off the record.
t 24 i (A discussion was had off tha recorri.)
- 7 - ftdtf Jf Rf 33f ters, loc !
25 BY MR. VANDENBERG:
Heward - direct 30 1
Q Dick, I'm going to show you this report which 2 was marked in a previous deposition as Exhibit Number 1107, the 3
report by Touche Ross Company.
' dave you seen that before?
4 A
Yes, I believe I have.
5 Q
In that report there are inclusions that con -
6 struction momentum and productivity bottomed out in mid-1977 jus t 7 prior to replacement of UE & C by Catalytic and it goes on to 8
further talk about morale being quite low at that point.
9 Was that true?
10 A
Yes.
II Q
Why was that occurring?
Do you know?
12 A
Well, when you take a group of people working for a com-13 pany uho have been employed for approximately ten years on a i
14 project and the project comes to a close, why, they realize that 15 before long they may be out of work and morale drops and that's 16 something you get at the end of every project.
I7 You see, that was another motive for brineing the com-I6 pletion contractor early so that come of the employees could ceo I9 the action of this guy ecming in.
Jeme of them were picked up 20 on thsse roles because they needed ocople.
They did some local 21l hiring.
I bellove that that's a beneficial ching to do.
221 i
Otheruisc, people lose the b motivation if they see the 23'lend coming and they tend to lose incentive and you never get the 24I Fcurat Repcrt:rs,1.1c. !, j ob done.
b L,'
25 Is this the kind of thi.ng you discussed with Mr Q
l 1
Heward - direct 31 I
!!agic of UE & C?
2 A
Oh, sure, yes.
There is an incentive for a guy who sees 3
a maintencnce contractor for a number of years beyond commercial opern lon.
If he works hard he may get picked up by that com-4 5
pietion contract.
6 Q
You mean picked up in the sense of being con-
~
7 tinued as a maintenance contractor and working with them?
8 A
Yes, that's right.
9 Q
There was also a conclusion in this Touche Ross 10 report that the project control, at least early on, of TMI-2 was II weak.
Did you during your time, both as project manager and as 12 manager of projcets, see a change in the roles among CPU Servicc 13-Corporation, Met-Ed, and the constructor, uhether it be UE & C I4 and Catalytic?
15 A
Yes, but that's a complex question.
First of all, Mot-rd 16 was responsible for the project management of that job until I7 October of '71 so there was a decided change in role at that 18 time uhen the service corporation took over responsibility for i the project and I uould say that I did see a change in the ef-20 fcctivenes of the control that we exercised during the period 21l of construction.
I would say our control became greater as timi -
3 221 uent on.
- 3f Q
!! hen you say our, you mean --
24!
A GPU Service Corporation.
44 -Federal Re;ceters, lec..
25{
3g, gyg S:
Let's take a five-minute
'd u
g
Ileward - direct 32 1l recess.
2 (Five-minute recess.)
3 BY MR. EVANS:
4 0
Mr. lleward, in what has.been marked as Exhibit 1109, the 5
CORB report, section 2.5.2 of that document contains a discussic n
6 of a screen ou~tage.
Do you know when that screen outage was 7
held at Unit 27 8
A I'm not sure I recall exactly but I believe it was very 9
late in the test program, if not after it was completed.
I be-10 lieve it was -- I'm sorry.
I don't remember.
11 THE WITNESS:
FMy I have that.
12 (Counsel producing.)
13 A
I have a schedule here or a chronology of the Jesting 14 program chat tells me the screen outage occurred about mid-Novet i-15 ber.
16 Q
Can you tell me why the screen outage is con-17 nected with the test program?
18!
A Sure.
When you start up a power plant, you place cer-l9ftainscreensinfluidsystemssothatanyresidualdirtorfor-20' eign objects that might be in the system won't go through the 211. system.
They vill be taken out of the screens, so after you 22 have run your components' specified time by the manufacturer, 23 l'they are satisfied that cil icose dirt and so forth that may 24 carry r.way has already carried away and cucht to be on the se - Fscesl Reporters, be. '
25f screens, so thera is a time in the test pro 7, ram where you shut 1
i o
IIeuard - direct 33 1
down for the screen cutage.
2!
On Unit 1 it was after the testing was completed.
You I
3 take the screens out and you Icave them out and that's the re-4 lationship of the screen outage with the test program.
5 Q
Is it true to say that at TMI-2 the screen outa;;c 6
was not planned but it was in feet done during a period of down" 7
time caused by another occurrence?
8 A
Well, it's not fair to say it wasn't planned because it 9
had always been planned.
10 It appears from the chronology I have that there may 11 have been another problem at that time that ccused us to proccet 12 with the screen outage rather than delay it.
13 Q
Can you tell me what is ineant in Exhibit 1109' 14 when it says that plans exist to blitz deficiency list during 15 the screen outage.
f 16 !
A Sure.
What that means is that during the period of the t
I7 screen outage when the equipecut is not being run, the plant is 18 not being run, it's the intention to bring in a larger 'thnn nor-19 mal number of crafts so that the punch list items can be worked 20 with a larger force.
Possibly it c'enns tuo shifts overtice, 21 l that kind of thin;;.
It's more than a normal work eCfort.
2' Q
Do you recall in fact at TMI-2 ho'r trany cddi-23l tional people were brou;'ht in?
29 A tio, I don't.
- < - recmt naam, tae. '
25l Q
Sut it's yeur recollectica that rore people wer
(
b
Heward
' direct 34 I
brought in.
2 A
I remember reading that item.
I guess I can't truth-3 fully say that I < acmber that more people were brought in.
I 4
think at that time I was spending a good deal of my time on 5
Forked River and probably that's why I d-c't remember that.
6 Q
Did Ron Toole report to you?
7 A
No.
Ron Toole reported to the start-up and testing man-4 8
ager and in 1978, late 1978, I believe that was Don Hetrick.
9 Prior to August of 1977, it was John Barton.
10 Q
And both Mr. Barton and Mr. Hetrick reported to 11 you?
12 A
No, they did not.
13 Q
Would you plecce continue the chain of command.
14! A Hetrick reported to Bachofer, I believe, who was the 15 director of operations, and I believe that was subsequent to 16 August of 1977.
I7 Prior to August of 1977, I recall that John Barton re-18 ported to Ron Williams, who was the raana;2er of engineer'ing.
19f Q
Let me ask the questian this way.
Mcv could yot 20 j be made aware of concerns tha: Mr. Toola had in running the test i
21' program,.
22 A
'4 hen I was oroj ect n:ac ger ar.d ~ -i e
- s the superinten-23[ dent, he. uas under t.:y operat L? al em 1, aI m: gh not under 2
my functional directly,and he uac Fece under 2c.rton's c;:cratier
-:t -Faderal Reporters, Inc. l i
25 al control when Earton,vas t'.m proj c c :
v.ager ad that'c how i
l e
l Heward - direct 35 f
1, because there were meetings held uith test superintendent at a j
i 2
high frecuency.
He participated in our review meetings and he 3
was continually advising us of things that were of concern to 4
him.
Their trailers on site were innediately adjacent to one Sj another and it was a c"ose relationship.
6 Q
Did Mr. Toole ever report "to you major problems 7
with running the test program as it had been set forth?
8 A
If you can restate that question, I am not sure I under-9 stand the question.
10 Q
Through your operational interaction with Mr.
II Toole during the course of these meetings, would he outline the 12 problems which existed with meeting the test schedule which had 13 been set?
I I4 A
Oh, yes, but if your question is did he ever come to me 15 and say " Gentlemen, I can't complete the test program" the answ-r 16 I is no., he never said that.
I7 Q
Did he ever say "I need more people to comolete 18 lthetestprogram"?
I I9 lA I'm sure he did, yes.
20li Q
Did he ::et the people?
i 21 A
Probably did, yes.
I did not provide peepic for Toole.
22 9 I assisted if he had a problem getting people in helping him to 23[getpeepic.
24l; Q
Fno provided the people?
-:s -Federal Reporten, tee. !j 25k A The pecple would generally be provided by his ir. mediate il i
Heward - direct 36 1
supervisor or by contractors.
He had significant contractor 2
assistance from the start-up test group.
3 Q
What were the names of the contractors?
4 A
United Engineers Constructora, Babcock and WLc ox, 5
Stearns Roger, Burns & Ror, NUS.
Theue may have been others.
6 I don't recall'.
7 Q
All those people from various organi=ations re-8 ported to Mr. Toole?
9 A
Yes, they did.
10 Q
Do you know if Mr. Toole's start-up test group 11 was required to work large hours of o /ertime?
12' A
They were.
13 Q
Did any of those people ever complain about worl.-
14 ing those many hours?
,A Everybody complains about working overtime.
15 l
Was any consideration given to extending the 16 ;
q.
17 test schedule so that larger numbers of pecole and more hours 18 wouldn't riccessary?
19 A
No.
That was never a consideration.
The consideration 20 was that the people that had to work these hours that were ex-1 21. empt people vere given additional pay.
22l Q
In your opinion did the test program suffer be-23 cau::e of that increased staffing?
I 24i A
Because of the' increased sta:!fing?
a - Federal Re:: ort?rs, Inc. l 25l Q
Yes.
1 t
Heward - direct 37 1
A What increased staffing?
2 Q
As I understand what you've told me here today, 3
more contractors were necessary to assist Mr. Toole in ecmplet-4 ing clie test program.
5 A
You aave possibly interpreted my statement to mean that 6
as time went o'n we had to seek the help of additional contractor s.
7 Q
That's my understanding.
8 A
That's not correct.
9 Q
Would you correct my understanding.
10 A
The original intent of the start-up and test group was 11 to incorporate the services of all those contractors.
GPU 12 doesn't maintain a pertnanent start-up and test group of a size 13; that is required to start up and test the nucicar power plant.
14 So we supplement our staff with contractor help.
15 Now, where we were shorthanded for some reason or anothc r 16 and we needed more people, ue would get them frem these con-171 tractors, but the personnel demand rose and fell throughout the 18 test program, depending on what was going on and during the 19 period when we had the mainstream safety valve outage, the de-
~
20 mands on the test people slacked oft considerably so they had 21 a substantial period there when they were not working the same 22! hours that they would have otherwise.
I 23!
Q Did any test engineers other than Mr. Toole ecm--
24l plain to you directly about the test schedule or the workir.;t e r - Femal itepotters, Inc.,,
they were subjected to?
23 L conditions that I
Heward - direct 38 1
A Yes, I believe I recall complaints about the test sched-2 ule and the extension of the project schedule.
I don't recc11 3
that anybody complained about the working conditions.
4 Q
What was your respense to the complaints?
5 A
There isn't much one can do about the problems one rtins 6
into except fix them and let me tell you, when a guy signs on 7
for a test program, the people that we hired have been throt;gh 8
it before.
Tney know what to expect.
I know what to expect 9
because I've been doing this kind of thing for over 20 years.
10 Some of these guys haven't been doing it that long but they knov II what to expect.
12 Q
Does the name Rick Butler mean anything to you?
13 A
Say again?
1 14 Q
Rick Butler.
15 3
no,
- z. Tao is Rick Butler?
16 Q
That's not important for the question.
I7f Mr. Iteward, did either UE & C or Catalytic ever 18 provide GPU or GPUS with a certificate of completion?
I9 A
I don't know.
20l Q
In your experience with these units, is that 214g noreally the case that after completing the construction a n
22"l certificate of completion of construction is provided?
l 23I A
I dca't evor racall having seen such a thing except with 24:
individual contractors on the Forked River project.
When a sys-
? - FWef al Repct:ar3, Inc.,
25b te i 4.s ca.colecad and u.ill:ed for punch list items and they vere I
I
Heward - direct 39 1
wallied fren enJ to end for punch list items, paint en pipe, nut:.
2 not tight on the hangers, all that kind of thing, and one gets
~
3 through all that, it's a superfluous thing to ask for a certifi-4 cate of completion because we take it piecemeal system by systen,
5 building by building, so the answer on systems and buildings is 6
yes, we get that.
That's part of the turnover package, but I
7 there's no such certificate that I can recall over seeing that 8
says yes, I built you one plant; it's all done, because it wasn' t 9
all done.
They left before it was finished.
10 Q
Who is they?
11 A
UE & C.
12 Q
What about Catalytic?
13 A
They haven't left yet.
14 Q
Would you characterize a portion of their work 15 as being construction work?
16 A
Yes, I uould.
I7 Q
For that constructicn werk they do not provide 18:
a certificatn.
I9; A Same thing.
It's building turncver, yes.
20j q
.io forr:1 piece of paper.
i 21l A
I don't think so.
I 221 Q
As both croject rennager and cunscer of projects t
' 3 !IP with some oversi,:ht rc: cencibility for Theen Mile Isle:nd-2,
~
24 ld
.I would you be avare of union probin:: that thu constructors were
~
4e -Fed:ral Repctters, be. [
havi m?
25 k,,
Howard - direct 40 1
A
-Yes.
2 Q
Do~you know if there were.any problems in attrac t-3 ing and holding the necessary amount of craft labor in building 4
Unit Number 27 1
5 A
There was a point in time when the local crafts could-6 not supply enough pipe fitter welders and we had to request their 7 to go outside their local and bring welders in from Baltimore 8 and New York and other places like that and you run into that 9 with a small labor pool and it does happen and you have to make 10 other arrangements.
11 Q
Who took the responsibility for recruiting those 12 additional people?
13!
The crafts did that.
They did that when UE & C want to A
14 them and said we are short by this much.
You've not been able 15 to supoly them.
I require you to have other means to supply 16 these.peopic.
They did.
They go to other locals and get the IIl people.
18 Q
Once that additional recruitinz has been donc, I9 there was satisfactory staffing?
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
Let me ask just a fcu quastions about what wa 22 previously discussed, the April 23rd, 1973 cransient.
Were you I
23i involved in the discussion felic::ing thet transient to replace 24; the Loncrgan valves?
h
-F :erai Repoies, iac. s A
YeS.
l a
'Heward - direct 41 1
Q Who would you say made that decision?
2 A
My recollection is that between recommendations made by 3
Ron Williams and by me that Bob Arnold made that decision.
4 Q
Can you describe for me the contacts that you 5
had, if any, with the Lonergan Company itself following the 6
7 A
Shortly after the transient, a week or two later, I con-8 ducted a meeting with the president of Lonergan Company, their 9
chief engineer and others to ask them what their opinion was of 10 the failure.
11 Subsequent to that, there were numerous phone calls.
I 12 believe I participated in one or two meetings where their repre-i 13l nentatives came here to talk to us and auhcequently participate (
14 in a meeting regarding a litigation with Lonergan.
15 Q
Following the transient, it's my understand'ng i
16 ! that. a nu=ber of valves were removed and sent to the Lonet an m
17 Corc.pany; is that correct?
18 A
That's correct.
I9' Q
Do you recall approximately what time period this t
20l uns 21 A
May.
22 Q
Was the Lonergan Company told that it had a cer-l 23 {tr.in period of tiec in which to complete Ltn analysis of the 94 >i(valrestoyvurknouledge?
~
u -Fuerat R:ro+ters, Inc. {
A Typledlly, to my knowledge -- I'rd really guess 1CI, b3" r
l' il 0
I Heu.ird - direct 42 i
i ii cause typically we assess a problem like that and we would tell i
I 2
them, Look, here is a problem that we want you to look at and 3
ue would like to have an answer in so many days, so many weeks, 4
and I am quite sure we did that, but if the question is did they have a drop dead date to have the things fixed, the answer is.
5 6
no, because there's no uay you can give them that.
7 Q
Did the cornpany have a drop daad date for Loner ~
8 gan?
9 A
Did w have a drop dead date for Lonergan?
10 Q
A date at which it would no longer consider the 11 a'aility of Lonergan valves to fulfill their function.
12 MR. LIBERMAN:
Can I interrupt just a 13 second.
Unless it's absolutely indispensable 14 to your interrogation, your deposition, I'm 15 troubled because we have pending litigation with 16 the Lonergan Ccmpany.
I don't want to foreclos e 17 any avenue but I have trouble because thes 3 are 18 areas that I think Mr. Heward has not been in-19 volved.
i MR. EVANS :
Well, Mr. Heucrd, I uill in-2I[
struct you, too, only to answer questions which 22!
you have personal knowledge of and I don't want i
23 to cush you beyond what you were involved in 24i percenally, but I cm interested to kncu if ther e
- -Fcceral Rc; rters, Inc. i 25l was a date to your knowledge after which you is
l Heward - direct 43 I
would not consider, the company would not con-2 sider the Lonergan valves.
3 Now, let me state on the record, if you 4
would rathe; that Mr. Heward would not answer S
that question, I can accept that.
6 MR. LIBERMAN:
I want to cooperate in 7
every way that I can.
I can tell you that there 8
is correspondence in which I participated in the 9
preparation of which Mr. Heward was not involved 10 that did exercise contractual remedies against Il Lonergan Company.-
12 MR. EVANS :
Let me withdraw the question.
13 Off the record for a minute.
14 (A discussion was had off the record.)
15 BY MR EVANS:
16 Q
Mr. Heward, you've tectified earlier today that I7 you didn't have any knowled,e of rate base matters or tax mat-
?
18 ters or other general financial considerations t/niet affected I9; completing Unic Number 2 by the end of 1973.
Is that a correct
~
20 statement of what you've told us?
21 l A Ocher than the fact that I tms aware that while the plant
2 uas under ccnstruccion th.p: AFUC uas collected and it ceased to 23 ; be later en, I think that':4 a fcir statement, yes.
I 24 j Q
Let me fclltu that up for a minute.
Ucu do you w - Metai Reperms, inc.
25 percetse arDC?
I:, it a pro'.alem for you as either the project
Heward - direct 44 1
marager or manager of-projects?
2 A
No.
3 Q
Let me ask if during the time period, that is 4
the last six months of 1978, ycu attended any meetings of GPUS S
Board of Directors and officers?
6{ A No. _ I did have meetings with Bob Arnold who is an of-7 ficer.
Possibly others from time to time but not on that sub-8 ject.
9 Q
Did you have any meetings during the time period 10 with Mr. Holcombe?
11 A
No.
12 Q
Did you have any meetings during the time perioc 13 with Mr. Graham on this topic?
i 14! A No.
15 BY MR. VANDEMBERG:
16 Q
Mr. Heward, the original estimated date for com-17 pleting TMI-2, I think, was quite early 1975 or so.
18 A
I don't remceber.
It was a lot earlier than 1973, that ' s I9!
for sure.
i 20 Q
In the Touche Ross report the in-service dates 21l are often nearly always given in terms of May of a given year 22 and this is informatica that I presume Touche Roas received fron i
23[
GPU.
Why was that that in-service date was always expresced as 24[MayorMay31ofa.1ien year?
- - Federal Reaciters, bc. Il 25] A I could caly speculate.
i i
!t
I 45 Ilevard - direct
.1 MR. LIBEPJ!AN:
Can I call to your atten-2 tion the fact that there was discussion of that 3
matter in the cross-excmination of Touche Ross 4
and rebuttal testimony in the Pennsylvania pro-5 cceding which I furni.;hed you which you may want 6
to look at.
At least I believe I furnished it 7
to you.
8 BY MR. EVANS :
9 Q
Mr. Heward, following the replacement of the 10 Lonergan valves, what I understand to be Dresser valves, did yot.
Il notice a change in the attitude either at the site or here at 12 corporate headauarters regarding Unit Number 27 13 A
I dca't think so.
I4 Q.
Was there more of a desire to complete it in 15 1973 than before?
16 A
During 1978 there was always a desire to complete it in I7 1978.
Originally in 1978 the in-service date was May or June.
I8 Q
Let me ask it this way.
Were ecoolo estremely
~
I9l;dicancointed 'ay the failure of the Loncr;:an valves?
20 A
Certainly.
Of course.
That's a terrible disapcointment.
21l Q
I treuld like to clacify one thing.
We we.e 1
wl ci 22' taihing earlier today about the test pre;; ram and the test 1 i
23! were listed' Ln one form or another and I am going to atte:m tv i
~
2al disticp.u'.sh hecteen the variouc ltats ot' tests to be performed.
? s ederal RcM' Ors, Mc. {d It's ay unde;ncending there was a lidt oC tests which 25
Heward - direct 46 1
itself establiched to.be run; is that correct?
2 A
Yes.
3 Q
There was another list, maybe even an identical- -
4 excuse me.
5 A
There was no other list.
There was a single list.
6 Q
Are you aware of commitments which were made to o
7 the Pennsylvcnia Public Utilities Commission to complete certain 8
tests?
9 A
I don't think so.
10 Q
Are you aware of any regulatory impact other 11 than in dealings with the IIRC to complete the test program at 12 Unit 2?
13 A
I h,ie a vague recollection of discussion -- no.
I don' t 14 have any recall on that, no.
15!
Q Are you aware that there were tests snecified 16 in th.e final safety analysis report uhich is presented to the 17 NRC?
18l A
- yes,
^
19!
Q Is that of tests identical to the list of tests i
20 which~are listed in the internal CPUS precedures?
21 A
No, I don' t think so.
I think the test program itself very likely had more tests in it than were listed in the final 22 9 ~, -
safety analysis ' report.
The ccmmission is interested in seeing il 2Si that you committed to certain tests and those tests must be 73 - f*ectf.11 R3;0f tef $, lac.,
25[ addressed to tbc aafety analysis report.
The test program cver
'l N
!1
s Heuard - direct 47 1
all 'is established by'us and a decision to do so many trips 2
from certain power levels is curs, so long as you meet the var-3 ious regluatory requirements, so we produce the test program 4
to suit ourself.
5 Q
So to clarify this on the record, if you will agree with me 'that the FSAR contains one list of tests and Met-6 7
Ed's internal' procedures may be another list of tests, those 8
may not be an identical list.
9 A
That's probably right, yes.
10 Q
Were you present for the full power generator 11 trip test at TMI-2?
12 A
no, 13 Q
Do you know when it was performed?
14 A
From the appearance on the chronology, I bould have to 15 say it was done in either November or December but I do not 16 know when; 17 1 Q
Let me attempt to refresh your recollection.
18 Would December 28, 1978, be a realistic date for that test?
I9 A
It may very well be, yes.
It appears that we ucre at 90lfullpcueruptothe28th,sothatmaybe,yes.
211:
Q Can you tell ec where the full power generator I
92: trip test fic.s into the FSAR lists of test to be performed?
~
23l 3 gg, 24l Q
Ccn you tell me where it fits into the GPUS Ace ~ Fedetal ?eportars, trc. :
25[ internal li;t of tests to be performed? -
3 4
a
Hcward - direct 48 A
Well, it certainly doesn't fit in orior to going to 100 lj 2
percent power.
Tne power escalation program is one that occurs 3
in steps up to full power so it would certainly be in the latte:
4 stages of the test program, only after achieving the 100 percent 5
power.
6 Q
In your opinion is it normally necessary to 7
successfully complete the full power generator trip test in 8
order to declare a unit in conmercial operation?
9 MR. LIBERMAN:
Can I object to the ques-10 tion for clarification there.
Commercial opera-II tion in terms of GPU corporate procedure or --
12 is that what your reference is or some other 13 connotation?
14 MR. EVANS:
Yes.
My reference iis the 15 report of the Commercial Operation Review Board 16 criteria.
I7 A
For nuclear power plant, you want to do that test in 18 ycur test program to verify that it's an acceptable transient I9 pto the plant, and I would say that it's ncrmally pror,rnamed to i
~
20 1 be done during the test program and therefore prier to conniercin L 21 l operation, yes.
22 Q
If I understcnd what you've said, it's your opit.-
'3 9 fion that the entire test pror, ram and, again, tying this to the i
24 ! GPUS internal list of tests, the internal test prear.'m, did the:
.!-Federal Pecorters, Inc. [
25 h entire test program should be ecmpleted prior to the eenmercial I
i
Heward - direct 49 1 ioperation.
Is that accurato?
2-A Only to the extent that you consider the test to be a 3
mandatory test.
Prior to making the plant available commerciall y 4 I think that you might consider putting a plant into commercial l5' operation at a power level icss than 100 percent and take an 6 outage later on and complete the higher level testing.
I think 7
that's a possibility.
It's not something we did but I think 8 te s something you could do.
n 9
For example, I don't see why you couldn't go up to 50 or 10 75 percent power range testing and if the power were needed, run II the plant at that level first or a reduced level for a period of 12 time in commercial operation and then take an cutage and comolet e your higher pouer tests.
I think that's possibic.
I don't know d
13-t I4I what makes it impossible.
I 15' (A discussion was had off the reccrd.)
16 BY MR. EVANS :
Q Just one last question uith respect to the full I7
~
18(ll power generator trip test.
Ucro you involved in any discussions I9las to the postponement of that test beyond 1978?
20 A-I don't remember that.
21 l, BY MR. VAUDES3 ERG:
il 22:1 Q
Dick, did anybody at any time e:: press to you I
23 h concern that the test program una being oursued at too quick a 24fjaace or was being rushed or that the tests were just being sched d e -Federal Pecertars, he. ll 25 i!uled in too short a time?
s l
N i
Heward - direct 50 Il A
'Well, let me tell you that when you schedule a thing 2
like this, the right way to do it is aggressively.
You should 3
bring the plant along as fast as you can.
4 When I say that, I mean within the context of it being 5
safe to do so and ready to do so.
Now, there is a full spectrur i 6
of what people think is necessary to be ready to do so.
You art 7
always going to get a diversificction of opinion as to whether 8
you are going too slow or too fast, I believe.
9 I've seen that for many years and particularly when you 10 have people that have a lot of procedures to get ready, it's II more comfortable to give them more time to get the procedures 12 ready.
But if you proceed and review the things as you go alon; 13 and ma'e sure that what they have is adequate to proceed rather k
I4 than what makes everybody real comfortabic, I think that's the 15 1 way to proceed with completion of the plant.
16 Q
Are you sort of saying that schedules are made 17 to be broken?
I 18i j A No, I don't mean that, but uhat I think you should do 19': is schedule the program in a way that you think you can meet it 20 ll without having serious things go wrong.
My reco11cetion of how 21l the Unit 2 program was scheduled is it fit the actual condition >
i 22!
on Unit 1 and I think if you go look at the schedulan that we 23 '; made on Unit 2, the' durations were taken frcm what we achieved a<l on Unit 1.
We had a very smooth test program en Unit 1, c era-
- ?-Federal Reporters,Inc. i 95 ! parati /ely speaking.
~
l i
i
i Ileward - direct 51 1
So I'm sure you can find a lot of people who think the i
2; thing was pushed too fast, but we had the history of doing it in 3
that time period on Unit 1.
4 Q
You think, then, that the differences between of 5 Unit 1 and Unit 2 weren't/any significant, wouldn't in any sig-nificant.ay affect test time periods or schedules?
6 w
7 A
Well, we had perturbations in starting up Unit 1 but we 8 didn't have any real big items such as the safety valve problem 9
affecting Unit 1.
10 Q
Ant also with regard to NRC, did you know of any II employees or workers at the site who expressed a concern to say 12 something to an I & E inspector but then declined for one reason 13 or another?
I4 A
I only knew of one case with it.
I guess the case I kno v 15 of the guy did~ talk to or write a letter to the I & E inspector 16 and we posted the notices on the site conspicuously to tell peop le I7 that that was their right.
I know of no case uhere a guy wanted I8 to and was afraid to and didn't do it.
Q Which case are you referring to where it hap-I9 20 pened?
21 We had a report from an c=1oyee that had been there som e A
22, years ago who said that he had drilled a hole inside the contain-like that and he 23 ;acnt and had hit reinforcing steci or something 24 k dida' t feel the anchor range was quita right.
I don't remember e -reem nmam, sne. l 25 lI all the details.
l 1
Heward-- dircet 52 I
Q This to the one that was subsequently investt-2l gated by I & E in March of 1978?
3 A
I don't know when but it might have been March of 1978.
4 It was investigated and I believe we did find that we had a 5
faulty anchor and fixed it.
6 MR. VANDENBERG:
I have no further ques-7 tions.
8 MR. EVANS:
Mr. Liberman, do you have 9
any questions or remarks you would like to make 10 on the record?
II MR. LIBERMAN:
I want :o be sure you 12 were furnished with a copy of :he document calle d 13 Three Mile Island Determinatica of Technical and I4 Organizational Readiness for Pincing Three Mile 15 Island Unit 2 into Commercial Operation dated 16 October 26, 1978.
I7 MR. E7A:lS:
I be1Leve we have been fur-18
'lould you like ine to put nichad a copy of that.
I9 it into the racord?
20 !
MR. LI3E%IAN:
Mo, I juct wnnted to be 21 sure that ycu kncu the document existed because l
you hadn't menti:.ned it and you did refer to an 22 l
23'
}i a pp : ii..: which 09 in a nence a follow-up on 24ll(j thl0 dCCUmcat.
- t -Fekat Re
- ceters, Inc, ',
25; i
':R. EV.'i!:,3 :
Off the record.
ll L 1_
53 (A discussion was had off the record.)
1 2f MR. EVANS:
I've asked Mr. Liberman if 3
he had anything to add.
4 MR. LIBERMAN:
I guess I would like to 5
add one other thing.
I think the term "commer-6 cial service" has been used in such a variety 7
of ways that I would like to clarify that this i s 8
now one of four contexts in which it has been 9
used.
10 The document Mr. Heward identified pre-11 viously, which I believe is document 1109, re-12 ferred to commercial service in the sense it was 13 used by the GPU Service Company Internal Commer-14 cial Operation Review Board.
It is a document 15 which has no governmental connotation as such.
16 The' term commercial operation has been 17 used also as a shorthand for the time when a 18l unit uill.be transferred from construction work I9 in progcess to utility plant in service for FERC 1
1 20!
accounting purposes and there was an earlier i
reference to that and to the Electric Plant In-21 !
22l s truction 9D.
l 23 The term commercial service is used alsc 24!
on a different e mte::t in terms of certain ta:t
_e - Federal Ressrtors, Inc. !
- 5 I treatmer.: for el preciation and investment t o-<
l t
O 54 l
1 credit purposes.
In that context is is a collo-2 quialism.
It is not a term which is used in the 3
regu1'ations under the Internal Revenue St,vice.
4 Finally it is used in terms of again a shorthand for the status for interconnection 5
6 dispatching purposes by the PJM.
7 I would like to clarify that my under-8 standing is that all of Mr. Heward's testimony 9
has been directed to the first of these senses 10 and not to any others; is that correct?
11 THE WITNESS:
Yes, that's correct.
12 MR. EVANS:
At this time, Mr. Howard, 13 I would like to thank you for being present here I4 today.
We are going to recess this deposition 15 rather than terminate it on the possibility that loi we might want to ask you additional questions 17 at a later time.
I would say we will make every 18 attempt not to need to ask additional questions, 19 but should thct become necessary, we would like 20 to have you available to us.
21 Thank you very much.
D 22, (The deposition is recessed at 5:30 p.m.-)
I 23l i
24i
- -Federal Repert:rs, ine. l 25l t.
4 E
55 l
1 CERTIFTCATE 2
I, MARGARET TEILHABER A Notary Public and Certi-3 fied Shorthand Reporter of the State of New Jersey, do hereby 4
certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate transcript 5
of the proceedings in the above-entitlad matter as reported l
6' by me stenographically on the date and at the time and place 7
hereinbefore set forth.
8 I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither of counsel nor 9
attorney for any party in this action and that I am not in-10 terested in the event nor outcome of this litigation.
11 12 13I 1
l
")l' L. ',,0 /
14l
' 'l p
/
't
,., /,.,
15i A Notary Public of 'ieu Jersey 16 17 18 19 i
20 21!
I 22!
4 23!
l 24i
- c -Fcteral Re;stbit. IGC.,
25(
!