ML19305A705
| ML19305A705 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/05/1979 |
| From: | Frampton G, Hilbish J METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., NRC - NRC THREE MILE ISLAND TASK FORCE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001240593 | |
| Download: ML19305A705 (67) | |
Text
6 K.
[*'V O %!;
j[d,';QiM1 L b'A iO NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION O
I i
i IN THE MATTER OF:
4 THREE MILE ISLAND i
SPECIAL INTERVIEWS 5
a l
INTERVIEW OF JOHN R. HILBISH t
0 P00R~0RG NAL 1
I Place. Middletown, Pennsylvania a
Date -
Wednesday, 5 September 19 79 Pages 1-67 I
i T.i.chen.:
(202)347-3700 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.
OfficialReporters 444 North Capitel Street Washington, D.C. 20001 24o 5
-,e.,o.co......o,m 20o1 T
1
{
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
{)869 i
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x O~
}
l 4
In the Matter of:
5 THREE MILE ISLAND SPECIAL INTERVIEWS 6
x 7
8 INTERVIEW OF JOHN R. HILBISH 9
Trailer 11 10 Three Mile Island Middletown, Pennsylvania i
11 l
Wednesday, 5 September 1979 12 9:40 a.m.
13 APPEARANCES:
J 14 GEORGE T.
FRAMPTON, JR.,
ESQ.
RON HAYNES 15 DENNIS ALLISON NRC Special Inquiry Group on TMI 16 6935 Arlington Road Bethesda, Maryland 17 ALAN R. YUSPEH, ESQ.
18 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Troubridge 180 0 M Street, N.W.
19 Washington, D.
C.
20036 (Representing Metropolitan Edison Co. )
20 21 22 23
(
24
' Aco-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
J 2
CONTENTS 1
i WITNESS:
EXAMINATION l
2 i
i t
i John R. Hilbish 3
i i
- O i
5
~
'4 l
l l
E X H I.B I T S t
5 t
EXHIBIT NO.:
IDENTIFIED i
6 I
1 30 7
1 8
3 59 9
4 60 10 11 i
1 l
12 l O
i3 i
I i
14 i
l l-15 I
16 s
t 3
17 i-i 18 l
1
.19 I
20 21 cO-22 1
23 1
.ln 2.
. Aco-Federal Reporters, Inc.
l.
95 i
f i
oco9.01.01 3
1 P R 0 c 2 E is IHGS LHn 2
MR. FRAMPfulis On tne record.
This is a t esposition l( )
'3 being taken oy the U.S. iluclear Regulatory Commission's 4
Spacial -Inquiry Group on rhree Mile I sland on September 5, b
1979, ac Trailer 11 at che Three Mile Islanu nuclear plant o
site.
The deposition is of Mr. John F. Hilbish.
Present in 7
the deposition to Mr. Hilbish is Mr. Allan Yuspen, o
representing Met Ed; i s t ha t right?
Y-
%d. YUSPEH:
That i s correct.
10 4R. FA A,.tP f0:l Ron, do you want to administer the
-11 catn to tir. diloish?
12
'sihe re upon,
s 13 JOHN R. HILBISH
/
14 was called as a witness and, having first been duly sworn, was 15 examined and testified as follows:
lo MR. HAYNES:
Have you read and do you understand the 17 witness notification I have just given you?
~
i 18 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
19-EXAMINATION 20 BY MR.~FRAMPTON:
2'l 0
Mr. Hilbish, maybe you can describe very briefly 22 when you were first employed by Met Ed and what position or l
23.
positions you held during the period 1974 to 1978?
f f-24 A
I was first employed by Met Ed in 1973, November of 25 1973 as a. project engineer and held the positions of nuclear -
.g3
- U i
36o9.01.02 4
.[])
i engineer in unit 'I and later for both unit I and 2 on site.
/ LRil.
2 until January 15, 1979.
January 15, 1979 I was promoted to
/".N 3
supervisor of licensing and was transf erred to the Reading
\\)
4 office.
5' O
And that is your current po si tion?
o A
.Yes, it is.
'7 0
As supervisor of licensing, I believe you testified a
before that you are in charge of the interf ace with various V
governrent regulatory agencies with respect to both nuclear 10 and fossil plants.
11 A
Tha t is correc t.
i 12 0
Dow, let-me ask you if you can recall for me what 13 previous testimony or interviews you have given subsequent to I
14 the accident on March 28?
15 A
A taped inverview with the President's Commission.
16 Two depositions with the President's Commission.
And an 17 interview with NRC I&E.
Id 0-And the first interview that. was done by people f rom IV-the President's Commision -- was that ta ped?
20 A
Yes.
121 0
Did you receive a copy of that tape?
~
I
'22 A
Yes.
23 0
Was that transcribed by anyone?
'[k 24 A
Ye s, i t was.
25.
'O TDo-you h' ave a transcript, to your knowledge?
1
o6o9.01.03 5
-()
i A
I will have to check.
I am not sure.
Ln;i 2
0 Did you receiva transcripts of the two depositions
~()
3 that were taken by representatives of the. President's 4
Com:ai ssion?
5 A
Yes.
6 0
Have you reviewed ttose?
7 A
Yes.-
0 0
Is the testimony tha t you gave during those d
Y depositions substantially accurate?
10 A
fes.
Il 0
Now I would like to ask you a f ew questions about i
12 your understanding of the role of the PORC.
13 Can you tell us what those initails stand for?
'O' 14 A
Plant operations Review Committee.
The role of 15 that committee on site was to review nuclear saf ety-related 10 procedures, procedure changes, technical specification 17 changes, plant operations, as f ar as their eff ects on nuclear 10 saf e ty and make recommendations to the superintendent.
'19 0
You have served on the PORC f rom 1974 through 1978 20 i s tha t right?
21 A
Yes.
.22 0
Were you vice-chairman:or chairman at various times 23 during that period?
24
'A Yes.
25' O
When you say that the PORC was supposed to advise O
=.. -. _._
occ9.OI.04 6
l I;
I the superintendent of nuclear saf e ty-related ma tters in v
2LRH 2
connection with plant operations, how would such ma tters ge t
~(')
3 raised before the P0HC7 4
A By any one of the members or, you know, e ssen tially 5-
.anybody, you know, could bring it up at a meeting or in the o
review or in a plan of the day meeting that members of PORC 7
attended.
o O
Mell, I understand there ware a number of specific 9
kinds of things that PORC reviewed such as LERs, new 10 procedures, tech spec changes; is that right?
ll A
Tha t is right.
12 0
Were there other kinds of ma tters that arose out of 13 so.ne operations problem that were brought to PORC, other than m-)
14 because of a customary paper flow such as a procedure that i
15 needed to be a pproved?
16 Did people come to PORC meetings and say, people have told 17 me we have this problem; I want to brief PORC on it and get 18 PORC's views.
19 Did that happen very often?
20 A
No.
Not that I recall.
21 O
What are the ways in which plant operations saf ety 22 ma tters would come to PORC?
If that is a meaningful question?
23 A
As I said, through either the plan of the day and or
. r"s A) 24 through'just the normal chain of modifications, procedure 25 changes, the type items required by tech specs that PORC
.(
6609.01.05 7
v..a i
reviewec.
LMI 2
1 1 Jon't want to cu t words in your mouth, but it 3
would be fair to say that tha matters that came to PORC were 4
matters that came up, a pproval change s of scme kind f or 6
changes in wri tten procedures, or written tech specs?
o A
Primarily the f unc ticns of PORC is a review 7
function.
It does not approve.
It is a review function with o
its responsiolities clearly deliniated in tech specs.
9 0
During 1976, for example, how of ten a pproximately, 10 did the PORC f or IMI-2 mee t?
Do you recall that?
11 A
The time is listed on each meeting minute.
I would 12 say on an average of four to eight hours every week.
f~
13 0
Did those meetings consider only PORC-relatea V
14 ma tters or did they serve as general staff meetings on 15 occasion as well?
Io A
Normally just PORC-related meetings.
17 0
Can you describe a li ttle bi t what the relationship 16 is between PORC and the Generation Review Commi ttee?
19 Is the GRC sort of an appellate body in a sense, which 20 reviews ? ORC reconmendations?
21 A
Not necessarily.
It is an independent group.
I 22 would say there was very little interaction between the two-23 PORC on most items reviewed prior to the f act.
The Generation 24 Review Committee is more of an audit f unction and reviews 25 af ter the f ac t.
i
obov,0l.06 d
()
1 I woula say the Genera tion Review Committee looks at more L R.-l 2
than just an overview of what PORC was doing.
(])
3 0
Mhat kind of things does the Generation Review 4
Commi ttee routinely review or audit?
If you know?
5 A
Again, procedure change s, the safety evaluations for 6
procedure c1anges, tech specs, tech spec changes, change
-7 modifications if they are saf e ty-related change modifications, u
that type of. thing.
The same areas as PORC.
v 0
PORC advises the station superintendent?
10 A
Yes.
11 0
Who does the GRC advise?
12 A
Their chairman would report directly to the 13
'/ ice presiden t, generation.
(
I4 0
The things that you mentioned the GRC reviews, 15 those are many of the same things PORC reviews, are they not?
16 A
That is right.
17 0
What normally happens in the review process af ter 18 PORC reviews a recommended change in the technical 19 specifications, f or example?
20 Can you describe how the GRC gets into that review process?
21 A
They would get a co'py of it and review it at their 22 next meeting.
As I said, that can be -- they would get a copy 23 and review it.
Either call a meeting or review it at the next
(^h s/
24 mee ting inde pendent of PORC.
25 0
That might be af ter the station superintendent had b
%s/-
5669.01.07 9
()
I alreacy acted on the recommendation of PORC or sent his LRW 2
recommendation forward?
()
3 A
Yns.
The Generation Review Commi ttee is off-site in 4
the corporate office and is not really in the chain on the 5
site of PORC recommending approval for change to the o
superin tenden t.
7 0
So it is in that sense that you said GRC of ten o
reviews af ter the f ac t.
9 Does GRC sometimes review changes that have already been 10
'made, in other words?
11 A
Yes.
I am not sure of that on tech spec changes, 12 but I know on procedure changes and change modifica tions it 13 can be after the fact, yes.
'\\ )
14 0
Can you describe the process by which PORC reviews 15 a LER, a license event re port?
16 A
They are normally reviewed two diff erent times by 17 PORC.
One of the f unctions of PORC is through input of the 18 plant or one of the engineers, it is PORC's responsibility 19 to initially determined that the event is indeed reportable.
20 At that point in time per technical specifications they 21 will decide under which reporting category it would f all.
22 Subsequent to that, they must follow up with the actual 23 report either in 14 days or 30 days.
At that time, PORC
(")>
(-
24 and licensing would ge t together to review the actual writeup-25 and again recommend that for approval to be sent.
x(~)
o869.01.0c 10 O
,s_s 1
0 So before a LER that has been craf ted gets sent to LRU 2
NRC it gets reviewed by PORC and by the licensing department?
()
3 A
We normally send one engineer f rom licensing to the 4
PORC meeting.
5 0
If it is a pproved both by PORC and by the licensing 6
representative, let's say, where does it go then before it is 7
sent to the NRC?
Is that the last stop?
6 A
I am sure the superintendent would see it and then V
licensing would have the vice president of generation sign it 10 and it would be sent off.
11 0
Wha t me chanism, if any, does PORC use to identify s
12 or separate the more important saf e ty-related matters f rom 13 le ss important ones?
If any?
O 14 A
I think, if any, the chairman would do that, or 15 vice chcirman.
As I say, the responsibilities for PORC are lo clear in the tech spec s.
Based on that, certain priorities 17 come up.
He would make that decision.
Just as far as the id order of business in the meeting or what changes would be lY done at a certain meeting, he would se t that.
20 0
Do you recall occasions on which a saf ety-related 21 proble., or matter came up to PORC and was discussed at PORC 22 other than through the necessity for PORC to exercise one of 23 its approval recommenda tion f unctions?
That is, other than Akl 24 through a need to look at a change in procedures, or review a 25 LER, or review some other report that was to be sent out as IO u
6669.01.09 11
.I the result of a transient or incident or problem?
LR;I 2
A I can recall a few, mainly dealing with the test
)
3 program for unit 2.
For example, PORC reviewing last year 4
the inoperability of the safety valves based on the transient 5
on April 23, 1978.
o 0
What do you recall about how that was done?
Was i
7 there a briefing presented for a decision on an issue such as when to go ahead ang get completely redesigned valves?
i o
i fs 9
A Essentially, that is what i t was. ' Cognizant 7
10 engineers, lead engineers, members of PORC, PORC met 11 essentially to discuss that and make a recommendation.
12-0 Was a. lot of time spent on that i ssue ?
i
~
13 A
If I recall, a day or so.
O 14 0
Do you recall what the competing considerations 15 were?
laa jor considera tions?
lo A
If I recall, it was with the data that was 17 available at tha t time prior to complete modification of the 18 system of when to go back up and do 'some testing on-line, or 19 whether to start with complete modification at that time.
20 21 22 2l3 24-25 D-
a a
odov 02 01
.2
~N hVros l-0 Maybe you could explain that a little bit more.
F 2
When you say " start with comple te modification,"
n
(_)
3 wta t are you talking about?
What was the comple te 4
modification that was contemplated?
5 A
Replace the safety valves.
o O
The alternative possibili ty would have been to do 7
fixes anc testing, and see if they would continue to opera te 6
without replacing tnem all?
Y A
Yes.
10 0
Wha t was the decision made?
11 A
For comple te modifications.
12 0
I realize this may have been a complex issue, but 13 can you recall what the main reasons were for that decision 14 being rije?
15 A
I would have to go back.
It's in the minutes of 16 the -mee ting.
17 0
Can you recall, without looking at the minu te s, 18 any other issues like that that arose out of -- generally 19 out of operating problems or operating experiences in the 20 plan t, rather than through the need for PORC to a pprove some 21 c hange?
22 A
I am sure already more on that.
Plan of the day 23.
reviews, the operations, PORC attends those meetings.
PORC 24 also reviewed plant transients.
25 0
Did PORC regularly review every plant transient?
O
'6609'02.02 13
- (p,ju ro s i
A I am not sure of the definition of "every plant 2
I would say they reviewed significant plant
()
3 transien t s, ye s, sir.
~4 0
Wha t I am ge tting at, that was some kind of 5
regular policy that whare there was a significant transient, o
somebody would be assigneo to brief PORC on i t?
7 A
Tha t's right.
o O
Do you recall whether those briefings would 9
some times result in recommenda tions?
10 A
Sure.
11 BY MR. HAYNES:
I 12 0
Back on the bypass valves, do you recall who made 13 the competing proposal to not change out the valves but make O
14 temporary repairs and continue testing?
15 A
As I said, there was a proposal at that time -- I 10 think the actual determination PORC had to make was could we 17 go with v. hat we knew now, af ter the April 23 incident, 18 operate to do more testing on the valves, or based on tha t IV information now.
And I think it was PORC's recommendation 20 t ha t that not be done.
21 0
Like I say, do you recall who made that first 22.
proposal?
Was that Lowell Engineering or was that --
23 A
'GPU startup, I guess.
24 0
GPU startup?
That was headed by whom, at tha t 25 time?
6669 02 03 14 m
(3Wros i
'A On site, the test supervisor was hon Toole.
2 MR. HAYNES:
Thank you.
\\_)
3 Bi lAR. FRAMPTONs 4
0 Perhaps I misunderstood.
5 Was GPU startup suggesting that perhaps there o
should be more testing, and PORC came in on the other side 7
of that eventually?
6 A
No.
I believe he said that.
The recommendation 9
had not nece ssarily been made.
If I recall, PORC reviewed 10 it to determine if that could be done.
Il Q
It was a suggestion rather than a recommendation?
.I 12 A
Yes, if I recall, tha t's right.
13 0
That f urther testing might be in order before the f-
.14 valves were completely replaced with a new design?
15 A
The suggestion of tha t, and now PORC, could we do 16 t ha t.
17 0
Right.
Did PORC ever consider saf ety 16 recommendations or saf ety issues that were raised by groups 19 outside of Met Ed and GPU?
In other words, by B&W or by the 20 NRC, as you recall?
21 A
I know PORC met specifically on NRC 22 recommendations, violations; and also B&W recommendations 23 and resulting changes.
[
24 0
Do you recall whether that was a very big part of 25
- PORC agenda, or did most of it come f rom internally O
o809 02 04 IS
.(,)Wros i
generatea issues and changes?
2 A
I would say most of it came f rom that.
()
3 0
I want to ask you some questions about what 4
mecnanisms were available, prior to the March 28, 1979 5
accident,- f or Me t Ed people on the site and in Reading to o
evaluate prior operating experience, both at this plant and 7
a t o ther plan ts.
Did PORC have a role in that?
8 A
I would say it was more an individual role than a V
PORC role.
Certain mechanisms were available, such as for 10 outside plant experience a B&W weekly newsle tter -- the 11 Atomic Energy Clearing House Occument.
It was routed before 12 indivicuals and not necessarily discussed ct PORC meetings.
13 Lead engineers, for example, would ge t documents where they O'
. 14 had the opportunity to bring something to PORC.
PORC didn't IS specifically mee t on, for example, the Clearing House 16 Document or otner plant LERs.
17 0
Was it customary for PORC to have such ma tters on 16
_its agenda because an individual had raised such a ma tter?
19 In other words, do you recall PORC discussing 4
20 questions that were raised about plant operations as a 21 result of something that happened in another B&W plant, or 22 as a result of something reported that had been received 23 from B&W.or the NRC?
24 A
I am sure that happened.
I can't remember it 25 specifically now, but another plant transient, ei ther u-.
I6
$ coy 02 OS
() toros i
fin' ding out f rota the plant or f rom B&W I am sure that PORC 2
met ano looked at i t f or a pplicabili ty, and made some
()
3' recommendations.
4 0
Was there any otner organized mechanism in the S
company, or a person in charge of keeping track of operating j
o experience in other plants, problems in other plants, and 7
determining whether those problems or that experience should o
result in any changes in procedures here?
9 A
Mot noce ssarily f or the change in procedures.
10 Some of this information also went to Reading.
..tos t of the 11 operating plant experience information also went to the 12 training oc partment, where they would take that information 13 ano determine its a pplicability for the requalification O-14 program for licensed operator training.
16 0
Well, are you saying then in terms of a pplying to operating experiences elsewhere to procedures here, tha t the 17 training oepartment would have been primarily responsible 16 f or tha t?
Individuals who received information through 19 circulars or went to users' meetings, or whatever, took the 20 information that they received and applied it?
28 A.
No, that would be engineering.
Either site --
22 mostly site engineering would have done that -- the kind of 23 things you mentioned for integration in the procedure O
V 24 changes.
-25 0
How would they communicate what they f elt ought q-
-(-
7 P
-y
666v: 02 06 17 r(,yjWros I
to be cone to the people that actually rewrite procedures 2
and get those new procedures approved?
(])
3 A
Normally they would do it themselves, or have one 4
of tne engineers that work for them do it.
5 0
Would those change procedures then come through o
PORC?
7 A
They are a memoer of PORC, yes.
o 0
You say they are a cember.
You mean the site V
engineering de partment?
10 A
Yes.
11 0
Is it your understanding that the site engineering 12 department would do that because that would naturally f all 13 to them?
Or was there some management decision that site
.p\\J 14 engineering should be responsible for an overview of 15 opera ting experiences elsewhere?
Io A
I think both.
17 0
What about the role of licensing, and your role lo
. af ter January of '79 as the manager of licensing, in 19 reviewing inf orma tion disseminated f rom the NRC abou t 20 operation experience elsewhere?
21 A
Well, naturally you know, in the discussion of 22 other plant operating experiences, I have mentioned 23 bulle tins and circulars and information notices.
They were 24 handleo on a routine basis into licensing to the plant staff 25 where the bulletin was responded to.
Both the circular
oc69'02'07 13
(,m e
jlWros 1.
.and-intormation notices were reviewed and documented in tne
'2 PO!!C minu te s.
.()
3-So there is a specific, formal system set up for 4
NRC correspondence tnat f alls into the bulletin-circular 5
information, o
0 You are speaking of HRC bulletins and circulars.
7 Those each require some kind of response on the part of the b
utili ty, do they not?
9 A
Just the bulletin requires a written rasponse.
10 0
A written response to NRC?
11 A
That's right.
12 0
The circular requires a -- ordinarily resul ts in 13
.some kind of response at the plant level, does it not?
7_
14 A
Yes, to a point.
And tha t is what I am saying is 15 documented in PORC minutes, as well as information notices.
Io
.0 Okay.
17 What about news le tters and other kinds of to material that are not official URC communications with the
~
19 utility, but rather simply convey inf ormation about what is 20 happening elsewhere or problems elsewhere?
Was there 21 anybody at the ' Met Ed who was regularly charged with 22 dige sting that ma terial and communicating wha tever wa s 23 relevant -f rom it to the right people in the company?
)
24 A
Some of that did come through generation in 25 Reading,'also.
I t did go. to 'the. training de partmen t for
.p
'V.
/
0609 02J:08' 19 l
L/~%
L ldros it' incor pora tion.
- 2!
O
' Wha t 1 - am.trying to ge t a t is whether the training
~
l 3
department :was.inde penden tly responsible for keeping abreast 2
4:
of that:-kindJof information, or whe ther the training
~
5 de partment--(perhaps we should ask them --'would expec t to
.6 getethat kind of information from engineering..or from
,7 generation.
i en A
.They. go t their own copies of all that.
In my
.9 opinion, they were locking at that for incorporation in the p
.10 training' program.
O' Let me ask you-about the bi-weekly URC newsle tter 11 12 that is called " Current Events,- Power Reactors."
I' think 13!
you are familiar with-ttat..
()'
14' In '77 and '78 co, you know who at Met Ed or GPU 4
15 routinely received this newsletter?
16 A
No-.
17L 0
Did you routinely receive it?
16 A-No.
-19:
0 Did you ever receive it?
p,
- 20' LAL I have-seen it before.
21 0.
You 'also. mentioned a B&W publication. - What-is 22:
tha t - call ed?
s-L23 -
-~ A :
'Just a. weekly. newsle tter with essentially one or j
(-.
^'1
- s 24 two sentences' on :.th'e istatus of each1 of - their operating-v.~
' 25:-
plants.
j
~
^
f s
e
's ^,,n.-:,
.m.
,.,. - - - -. - -,, -, - ~
,,r-,--,.,--.,_n..
~
oco9 02 09 20 ip);iros
.I O
Does that describe significant events at other 2
operating plants?
m()~
3 A
To a point, one or two sentences.
4' 0
But not in very much detail?
~
5 A
No.
o 0
Is that a _useful document, in your view?
7 A
I think for keeping abreast of, you know, the e
plan ts, ' the other plants and their status.
It gives you the 9
. opportunity, in seeing a generalization on an occurrance at 10 another plant, to contact that pl an t.
11 0
Is there an eff ective way in which information 12 about significant problems or issues at other B&N plants 13 gets communicated to Met Ed for its consideration?
h#
I4 A
Not in my opinion in a timely mannert no.
' lS 0
I think in one of the President's Commission 16 cepositions you were asked about an. owners
- meeting, 17 B&W 177 aesign owner's meeting, tha t you a ttented in March 16 of 1979 before the accident, out in San Francisco.
They
~
4 19 asked you about an agenda item that was perpared by the 20 utility people for pre senta tion to the B&W people 21-complaining about B&W's coordination of generic issues among 22
.the utili tie s.
23 Do you recall being asked about that?
~ 24 A
cyes.
- 2S 0
I s tha t a con ce rn -- le t me ask you t hi s w ha t
/^\\
L/-
J n
t
---n
,-n- - = - --,
-w,--,
.--7----.
y-
oco9 02 ' I 'O 21
~
[)Wrcs I
- do you recall aoout that coming up, and being discussed and 2
getting draf ted?
()
3 A
I think that was really one specific point, in my 4
opinion, among a much larger generic problem, as it may have 6
s ta ted.
o That specific point was in ref erence to the 7
February meeting at Lynchburg, concerning the NHC Region o
T hr ee, I believe, inve stigation out of Chicago concerning 9
the Davis-Besse transient pre ssurizea level indication where 10 all the utilities were asked to prepare information.
And 11 they found a re port that it had been done at Arkansas years 12 earlier.
Tha t, to a po in t, satisfied the questions that 13 were askea.
14 Here in this case all the utilities came down, 16 were represented f rom all the operating plants, a very quick 16 time frame, to find tha t B&W had looked into it in detail t 17 looking -- before the Davis-Be sse problem -- at one of their 16 other plants, and did have a significant saf ety evaluation
-19 on it.
20 That was not communicated directly to the 21 u tili tie s.
So I think it was about two weeks prior to the 22 owners group meeting, and I think that was f reshly in 23.
people's minds.
I) 24 0
Do you recall what. happened when that issue was s-
'25
~ presented to the B&W people on the following day of tha t
- ~ (') -
26 A
Not specifically, no.
t--
4 6ec7 02.li 22 O)Wros
(,
I meeting?
2 A
t.o t specifically, no.
()-
3 0
Uo you remember any response fron B&W --
4 A
flo.
5 0
-- e i the r a t the mee ting or later?
6 A
No.
7 0
When you say that you f eel that was aimed at or 6
caused by that one technical problem, do you recall any p
45 9
discussion about that being a more generalized concern at
+
10 this meeting?
11 A
Not tha t I recall.
As I said, in the exhibit to 12 theLprevious deposition, I think it was written genericly.
13 Howe ver, if I recall, it was more specifically oriented --
O 14 most of the members of the owners group were also the 15 members that attended the mee ting in Lynchburg.
It was to qui te f re sh in their minds.
17 0'
Is this a complaint or a view that you had heard 16
_ expressed before, either here at Met Ed or among other 19 utili ty people, that they would like to be ge tting better 20 and more timely.information from B&W about problems in all 21 the B&W plants?
22 A
Oh, I think I heard tha t before, mainly from being 23-here on site.
That was the first owners group meeting I 24'
' a ttended.
25' I think to a point, that 'is correct.
-O
- 3 ER6869 23 l
rtl - 13
('T
.1 Q
You said before that you feit that the system j
\\-)'
2 that is -- or at least was -- in ef fect to distribute this j
()
3 kind of information is not really adequate or not sufficient. Do; 4
you know whether Met Ed or other utilities which have B &W 5
plants have made efforts in the past to try to improve that 6
situation?
Either to get B & W to produce and distribute 7
more information or to band together among themselves and 8
distribute that information?
Do you know anything about the 9
history of this issue?
l i
10 A
No, I don't.
11 Q
What views have you heard expressed here at Met Ed I
i 12 l on the subject of whether it was felt that that information 13 was being made available to Met Ed?
By that information, I 14 mean information about operating experience at other plants, 15 particularly other B & W plants.
16 A
I am not aware of specific information right now.
17 From being onsite for six years, I know there were many times 18 when I wish I had more information.
19 Q
Well, I am not trying to trap you.
I am trying to 20 get an idea if you had or others had a generalized concern 21 about that.
I would like to hear more about what that O'
22
. generalized concern was, really with a view not so much to
.23 criticizing what the situation was before the accident here, 24 as to try to look at what kind of system could be put into Acs-Feded Reporters, Inc.
25 effect to enable utilities to be more up to date on what was I
24 rtl'14 I
happening elsewhere.
Do you have any thoughts about that?
'2 A
As I said, I don't know from my experience onsite, 3
as a nuclear engineer, if it was a generalized concern.
4 I look back and I am sure there were specific cases where 5
we were doing something or were-into something here that, 6
having found that it had come up before.
I don't know if it 7
was a generalized concern on my part at that time.
I think 8
it would be more specific cases where I wished I had = r, 9
information, more to draw on at that time.
10 Q
Do you think that you or others who at some installations -- that you would nave wanted to have more or 12 better information at their fingertips might have had tnat Ox 13 information if Met Ed nad a more systemized method for I#
digesting these newsletters and other information about operating 15 experience elsewhere?
In other words, what I am asking you is, I0 Is the information there, but the utilities have to also have I7 a system for putting it together and applying it?
Is that IS a problem?
I9 I think that the utilities definitely have to have a A
20 system, in our case a better. system, for ap? lying it.
I am 21 still not sure on specific cases whether that information is
,O 22 available.in a form to be able.to digest right now.
Specific
.23 cases are brought out in something like power reactors but, 24 for example, both licensing and training review, tne wnole Ace Feder:J Reporters, Inc.
.25 computerized summary is from the NRC of all plants LEWs -- this
- r'.1 15 25 1
is one or two sentences on every plant.
I have gone back l
]
2 since the accident and looked at the LEW from the Davis-Besse 3
incident.
It is two sentences about failure of a module in l
4 an SFRCS system.
That didn't Key -- that LER summary didn't 5
key anybody to anything.
6 Q
Did you customarily or regularly review those LER i
7 summaries?
I 8
A No.
Since I have been in licensing, I now see them.
9 As I said, after the accident, I have gone back and looked 10 at that summary.
II Q
Before the accident, did you regularly leaf through 12 that print-out?
13 A
No.
14 Q
Do you know if anyone else either in Reading or at 15 the site did that or does that?
16 A
I don' t know how long, but licensing got a copy and 17 also training got a copy.
18 Q
Based on your experience, was that print-out useful 19 at all, or was it basically a useless document in the form 20 in which it was sent out by NRC?
21 A
In my opinion, on reviewing it now and looking for DN_/
22 applicability and/or significant items, I would not say it is 23 very useful in that form.
()
24 Q
What about the current events power reactors news-i
' Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 1 tter put out by NRC?
e l
rtl 16 26 I
A There is much more information.
Ona significant i
]-
2 event, the' major thing is getting the information out to the 3
utilities.
I don't think that is done in the LER.
The 4
information just isn't there in that much of a summary.
I 5
think the more information you can get on a significant event, 6
the more helpful it is.
7 Q
I take it you don't recall ever seeing in the NRC's 8
current events power reactors newsletter the account of the 9
Davis-Besse transient that occurred in September of 1977, is 10 that right?
II A
Not prior to March 28.
9 12 Q
Prior to March 28, 1979 accident here?
O-13 A
No.
14 Q
Do you know of anyone else in the company who did 15 '
review that; who did see it before the accident here?
16 A
No, I don't.
17 MR. FRAMPTON:
Let's take a short break.
18 (A short recess was taken.)
19 MR. FRAMPTON:
Back on the record.
20 BY MR. FRAMPTON:
21 Q
I was asking you.about the computer print-out O-22 summary list of LERs that the NRC circulates.
Was there 23 someone in your office in licensing or someone else in the 24 company who was regularly reviewing those print-outs to look Am-Feder'.J Reporters, Inc.
25
.tfor.anything interesting?
I
I 27 ;
j rtl 17 I
A Yes.
A copy went to licensing where one of the
(
)
i 2
licensing staff members dia review that.
Also a ecpy went to l
3 g-traning here onsite.
L ))
4 Q
Did you have somebody wno would regularly or on l
i 5
occasion review those print-outs?
If so, for what purpose?
6 A
It is my understanding now that the main purpose in 7
reviewing it in licensing was an overview of reporting, 8
reporting philosophies.
That was only done for a month or 9
so while -- I am not sure how long it had been done, but I 10 was only in licensing for a month or so prior to the accident.
l 11 Q
Your understanding was that the list was reviewed 12 for the purpose of seeing what kinds of things people were n
(_ l 13 reporting, not for the purpose of trying to identify operat-14 ing experience that might be relevant?
15 A
In licensing, that is true.
16 Q
What about in training?
Do you have any. idea what 17 the practice was there?
18 A
I think there was more looking for significant 19 events to point out to the operators in their requalification 20 program and training program.
21 Q
Do you know whether tnere was any systemized was (3
(.J 22 in the company for requesting the actual copies of the LERs 23 when something on the print-out looked interesting?
h 24 A
Not that I am aware of.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 0
Am I correct that the Met Ed circulated its LERS to
4 rtl 18 28 1
(')
I the Edison Electric Institute for distribution for a library
\\_/
2 to serve as the point for distribution to other utilities?
()
3 A
For the EEI members, that is true.
4 Q
Did EEI put out any kind of list or summary of Si LERs to its members?
l 6
A I found out after March 28 that occurs and GPU i
7 Service Company in Parsippany does get a copy of the actual I
8 LER.
They serve as a clearinghouse to collect the documents i
9 and scnd them out to those who are interested.
They send out i
10 the actual LER.
A Xerox copy of what we sent in.
Q Does GPU get a copy of every LEP that EEI gets from 11 i 12 l other utilities?
fs L]
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
Do you know whether GPU got a copy of the LER 15 relating to the September 1977 Davis-Besse transient?
16 A
I don't know that for a fact.
I know they get copied 17 from EEI of LERs.
I 18 MR. YUSPEH:
Off the record.
19 (Discussion off the record.)
20 MR. FRAMPTON:
Back on the' record.
21 BY MR. FRAMPTON:
73L]
22 Q
As I recall, you prepared the LER for the March 23 29, 1978 transient, is that right?
Tnat was the transient 24 in which there was loss of power to a vital buss and there was Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 loss of power to the PORV which failed to open and a blowdown.
rtl 19 29 l
(~')
1 A
I would have to look at the LER.
I am not sure.
\\~J 2
I may have prepared the PORC review.
I don't believe I prepared
[)
3 the actual LER that went out.
That would have come out of I
\\_/
j 4
licensing at that time.
5 Q
Do you recall that incident?
6 A
I recall the incident.
7 Q
Do you recall it being considered by PORC?-
8 A
Yes.
i 9
Q Do you recall whether -- let me ask this:
As a 10 result of that review, a decision was made, as I understand i
ll '
it, to change the logic or design of the valves so that it 12 would fail shut upon a loss of power, is that correct?
13 A
That is correct.
14 Q
Was that made directly as a result of the March 29 15 transient?
16 A
Yes, it was.
17 Q
Do you recall how that decision was made and by 18 wnom?
19 A
Through engineering, I know that the plant electrical 20 engineering staff worked on that.
21 Q
Do you know whether anyone from the NRC had any 22 input into that?
23 A
Not that I am aware.
24 Q
You don't know about any NRC role in connection Ace-Feder:5 Reporters, Inc.
25 with that determination to make that change?
i rtl-20 30 \\
k l
i I
A Not that I am aware of, no 2
Q Do you recall whether there was any discussion by 3
PORC as to whether that change was consistent with the FSAR?
i 4
A I am sure that was determined as part of the change f
5 modification form which looks at that specific question.
6 Q
Without having the form, do you recall whether 7
there was any discussion of that by PORC, discussion of that 8
particular issue or discussion of whether and why that 9
particular design change was advisable?
10 A
Not that I recall without looking at, you know, the II minutes.
12 l Q
Do you recall any of the discussions that went OV 13 into that decision?
I4 A
Not at this time.
15 0
I am showing you a document labeled G/712-12-650, 16 which is a memorandum by Mr. Selinger to Mr. Troffer dated II June 12,'1978.
Attached is a memo from PORC relating to I8 changes to be made as a result of the March 1978 transient.
I guess we should have this marked as Exhibit 1.
20 (Exhibit 1 identified.)
21 BY MR. FRAMPTON:
.O 22 Q
Do you recall,whether you prepared the memorandum 23 that is attached there to Exhibit l?
24 A
No, I didn't.
Aco-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 Q
You didn't prep. e that?
+..
rtl 21 31 l
l 1
A No.
'\\ J l
2 Q
Do you recall whether you saw this or reviewed it 3
as part of the PORC discussions of this matter?
4 A
I am familiar with the incident.
I would have to go l 5
back to the minutes and see if I was at the meeting.
This was 6
prepared by the electrical engineering department I talked 7
about before.
I can tell from the initials on the letter.
8 I don't specifically remember being at that meeting a year and 9
a half ago.
\\
i i
10 Q
Do you know whether the decision that was also made II to put a position indicator light in the control room for that 12 valve was made as a result of the March transient or was that I"J
'1
(
13 decision to provide position indication made primarily as a 14 result of the April 1978 steam relief valve failure?
15 A
It is listed as one of the conclusions of this 16 memo, so I imagine it came up as a result of this.
17 Q
Well, this memo, Exhibit 1, is a memo dated in 18 June of 1978.
I9 A
I am not sure which one.
20 0
What do you recall about the basis for making 21 those changes or the decision to make those changes?
If O
'\\J 22 anything.
23 A
I remember the recommendations of the site engineer-
,y i.!
24 ing looking at it and sorking on it.
I would assume that both Ace-Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 of those recommendations ca.ne out of the March 29 transient.
I
rtl 22 i
32!
1 Q
You don't recall any discussion about the question
./m
)
'~'
2 of whether the indicator light in the control room should 3
show the state of the solenoid for that valve or should be l
( )
4 a positive indication of the valve stem position, do you?
I 5
A Not at this time.
I know I heard of that and j
6 talked about that specially since March 29.
I don't recall 7
specifically as a result of that talking about it.
8 Q
Do you have any recollection of such an issue being 9
discussed by anybody prior to March 28, 19797 10 A
I believe that I recall, you know, discussions of l
1 11 it a year and a half ago.
I am not sure whether they were 12 l individual or PORC related.
I was aware of i t prior to 1
(,,)
I 13 March 28.
14 Q
When you say that, we are talking about the question 15 of whether tha instrumentation should show whether the 16 circuitry is activate'.. or whether it should show the actual 17 Position of the valve by the valve stem or pilot valve or some 18 other way, is that right?
19 A
That is true.
20 Q
Do you think it is possible that particular issue 21 was considered by PORC at the time?
(y<)
22 A
It may have been.
I don't know.
23 Q
When you say you ale not sure whether your recollec-24 tion is of a PORC conversation or individual conversation, why 9
Ace odercJ Reporters, Inc.
25 don't you just tell me everything that you can recall about L
rtl.23 33 i i
p) hearing something about that issue at that time?
What is the l
I i
o complete - state of your recollection with respect to t hat?
l 2
3 A
I was familiar with it.
My office was next to the 4
electrical engineering office.
I may have, through just 5
discussion or at a PORC meeting, through the plant staff, I am 6
not sure which one.
I am sure I was familiar with that.
7 Q
Do you recall some conversation about which, " Hey, 8
we snould do it this way or that way"?
A Not specifically.
9 t
10 Q
Have you seen anything in PORC minutes that reflect II such an issue coming up and being considered by anyone?
I2 !
A Not that I am familiar with.
13 Q
If your reco1' action is of conversations that you Id may have had with people in the electrical engineering shop, 15 who might those conversations have been with?
16 A
Dick Bensel, who prepared that memo.
I7 Q
Have you talked with him since the accident about 18 this y 2-ti cular issue -- with Mr. Bensel?
I9 A
I don't recall.
20 Q
But you know he did prepare tne memorandum that we 21 have marked Exhibit l?
22 A
Yes.
His initials are on it.
23 Q
You are pointing to his initials RWB on the first 24 page of the exhibit?
Ace Federal Reportets, Inc.
~ 25 A
That is true.
.rtl 24' 34 l
-Q Do.you have any knowledge as to wnether ne was.
i: 0..
i 2
aware at this. time of the September 1977 ~ Davis-Besse incident 3
or of any other history -of PORV failures?
4 A
I am not aware of his knowledge.
E end #3 5
6 7
i i
8 I
9 1
i 10 11-i j
12
+
13 i
14 i
4 15 16 1
17 18 19 1
20 i
l 21 lO 22
?-
23 1
O 24 l.. Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
.25 f -'.. ~..
CR 6869 35l LRW t4 rtl'1 O
Let's go to March 28, 1979.
How did you first hear
^
i 2
that something was happening here at the site?
3 A
I got called at home.
4 Q
What time was that, approximately?
I i
5 A
A little after 7 o' clock.
l 6
Q What was the substance of that telephone call?
7 A
Just that the plant had tripped and there was a site :
8 emergency, I believe, at that time.
I was called about ten 9
after seven.
10 Q
Were you asked to report to the office at Reading?
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
Or did you decide to?
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
When you arrived in Reading, you reported to Mr.
IS I Troffer, is that right?
4 l
16 A
That's correct.
17 Q
Can you describe what your role was or your activi-l
- g ties were during that day?
19 A
Mainly, in just trying to assist Mr. ";roffer in 20 either gathering information or answering questions, you know, for him as he tried to coordinate some of the activities out 21 O~#
of the Reading office.
22 23 Q
Well, when you say he was coordinating activities out 24 of the Reading office, what does that mean?
Was he trying to Aa FWwW Reorms. im.
25 get information for-people or solve people's problems?
. rtl 2 -
36 l 1
A Probably at that time a little of each.
Our I
-( )-
'l I
2 vice president was in Philadelphia at the time so, naturally,
'3
'a lot'of the corporate people both in New Jersey and Reading i
4 had questions on statuses.
Plant people, if I recall, needed i 5
+iangs..It was hard to get through to the plant.
He was 6
more or less in the middle, trying to help out.
All I did was I'
7 assist him.
If he had'some specific questions or needed h
8 sonte information, I tried to give that to him.
9 Q
Was he the principal person at Reading dealing i
withthepressinquiriesorgettinginformationtoanswerpressf 10 11 inquiries?
l 12 l A
Not that early.
Later on, late on that afternoon s-13 and evening for Wednesday and Thursday, he did get involved 14 in that as well as myself.
15 Q
And what was your role with respect to answering 16 press inquiries?
17 A
At that time, just trying to provide some technical 4
18 support to our communications services department.
They would 19 try to have updates.
If there were specific technical ques-20 tions relating to the accident from the press, from the indus-21 try, we would try to help that, specifically manning the phones 22 we had set up.
23 Q
Were you getting information from the plant yourself?
i-()
24 A
Yes.
,! Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
l 25
-Q Did you call the plant to get information?
- f..
F i
rtl 3 37 j 1
A On one occasion, late Wednesday afternoon, I had l
i gg
\\-)
2 a~ licensing engineer get through to the plant to get an update j
3 and preliminary sequence of events at that time for use in f
i 4
Reading.
l 4
l 5
Q For use in --
6 A
In Reading.
7 Q
Was that on account of press inquiries or for use 8
by Met Ed's own staff in Reading?
9 A
Both.
10 Q
Thinking of a previous interview with I&E, you i
I'-
mentioned something about getting information for Mr. Arnold.
12 Do you recall that?
( -
13 A
I remember a few questions.
Early in the morning 14 I was trying to help Mr. Troffer.
I believe at one point in 15 time Mr. Arnold called Mr. Troffer and asked one or two specific 16 questions.
One I recall was on in-core thermo couple s and I 17 tried to get some answers on that.
18 Q
How did you get those answers?
Do you remember?
19 A
I did it.
I tried to get through to one of the 20 engineers on site who at that time was not in the control room.
21 I didn't get an answer to his questions.
O-22 Q
Do you recall approximately what time this was?
23
'A I would say that was ten or eleven in the morning.
f-k-)s 24 Q
March 28?
Ace-Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 A
On March 28.
I
rtl 4 38 l
1 Q
Was this something Mr. Troffer relayed to you that 2
Mr. Arnold wanted to find out what the readings were?
l l
f 3
A Yes, sir.
4 Q
And you reported back to Mr. Troffer that you 5
couldn't get through.
Dc you recall what the upshot of that i
I 6
inquiry was?
7 A
No.
8 Q
You don't recall whether you reported back or --
l 9
A I am sure I mentioned that I couldn't get that 10 information at this time.
I tried to figure ways.
That 11 was the last I heard of it.
12 0
Were you in
.dding Thursday and Friday as well?
-Q
's/
13 A
Yes.
14 0
What role did you play?
What were ycur activities 15 on those days?
16 A
The same type, dealing with the press, trying to 17 help support -- some technical assistance to our communications 18 sarvice department.
19 Q
When you say technical assistance, can you describe 20 what.you mean by that?
Were you the person who was supposed 21 to translate for them what some of the technical things meant (u/D 22 so that they could communicate with the press or were you a i
l 23 liaison with the plant or what was your role?
I ()
24 A
I did mare of -- esseatially, I guess, the way it Ace Federal Reporters, W 25
-worked was we had standard statements for the press.
Quite a.
L I
r
rtl 5 39 1
few calls at that time coming in.
We had quite a staff from f-V 2
communications service manned at least 18 nours a day on l
l 3
the phones.
Thecommunicationsservicestaffwasnot--didn'tl 4
have a technical background as far as the plant was related 5
at all.
Based on my experience at the plant, I would try to 6
help out and answer any -- if the press had questions or we 7
were getting calls, say, from West or another plant or 8
something like that, I would try to heop out on those calls as 9
far as more technical content.
We had two or three people 10 supplementing the staff of, I would sa, 10 to 15, two or 11 three people with plant experience trying to help out with n
12 l some of the phone calls.
13 Q
Was there any kind of organized briefing for the 14 people who were answering the phones, the people from communica-15 tions services, by anyone as to what was happening in the plant 16 and what technical terms meant?
What the significance of the 17 status was?
18 A
To a point.
We would get an update of the status, 19 you know, and go over that.
I don't recall any kind of 20
-formal training session with the communications service people 21 on the technical aspects of what was going on at that time.
[)
22 Q
Did you contact outside groups for technical l
23 support?
24 A
I didn't.
' Am Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 Q
You didn't get involved in that chain of making
rtl 6 40 f i
I requests of other organizations to provide assistance?
2 A
No.
I f
3 BY MR. HAYNES:
(~')
v 4
Q On Wednesday morning, March 28, the day of the 5
accident, there were three public statements drafted by Met Ed.
't 6
Did you have a chance to input into those public statements?
7 A
On Wednesday morning?
8 Q
Well, Wednesday -- the day, Wednesday.
The first 9
one was Wednesday morning.
10 A
Within the first week or two, I did have input or i
II I at least review of some of the statements -- again I say some.
12 I don't specifically know of ones on Wednesday morning.
O 13 Q
Or Wednesday during the day.
14 A
No.
15 Q
When you did review these statements and get a 16 chance to input, did you agree with what was being said at that 17 time?
18 A
I had the ability to comment on it.
19 Q
Were your comments accepted?
20 A
In most cases, I guess.
I don't know the specifics.
21 Q
Were you satisfied with the content of these state-(')
1 22 ments as they finally were put out to the press and to the 23 public?- Based on what was known at the time?
24 A
Yes.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 BY MR. ALLISON:
1
7 41 h RTL_&
t l
1 0
1 believe your I&E statement said you went down in l
7-(-
2 the evening and helped answer the phone calls.
Perhaps more r~'
3 directly than you were during the day, taking calls at that l
(_)
4 time, is that right?
5 A
Yes.
Providing the technical -- there were also 6
quite a few other people there.
They would take most of the 7
calls.
If they needed technical assistance, they would contact 8
either myself, Mr. Troffer, or Mr. Klingaman.
9 Q
What was the basis of what you were telling people, 10 either your communications people or callers who called in?
11 Was there any management policy?
Did someone tell you what to l
12 say?
This is what we want you to say and we don't want you
()
13 to say that, or were you just fielding the questions as best 14 you could from what you knew of the situation?
15 A
I was fielding the questions the best I could, based 16 on what I knew of the situation.
17 Q
Do you recall what time you went down there to help 18 answer the phone calls?
19 A
Not specifically" Wednesday evening.
I had been in 20 the office, you know, all day and stayed there until quite late 21 in the evening.
\\-
22 Q
In the late afternoon, you had a licensing engineer 23 get a sequence from the plant.
Do you recall what that b
s,/
24 sequence said?
Ace-Feder:3 Reporte,s, Inc.
25 A
In general,.it was quite a summary statement of some
rtl 8 42 l l
of the tnings that -- more of a time sequ3nce of the pieces l
3 we had heard.throughout the day.
Again, it was very general.
2 It didn't have any of the specifics of high pressure injection 3
I flow.
It was a general summary.
I didn't take it over the 4
phone.
5 Q
What kind of calls would you personally answer in the 6
evening?
Can you remember any examples?
Were they from 7
rep rters?
From contractors?
From industry? Local citizens?
8 A
Most were from reporters.
9 Q
Do you recall answering any calls from industrial 10 groups or contractors offering assistance?
11 A
No.
I know a lot of them did come into Reading?
12 I don't remember personally taking any of those myself.
13 Q
Do you remember any calls from concerned citizens ja who just wanted to know whether they should be afraid or not?
15 A
I remember some of t; hose calls.
I don't believe I 16 took them.
I remember we were all in one room and I remember f
37 some of those calls I guess coming in.
18 Q
So those did come in as well as calls from people 39 ffering assistance?
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
What, basically, were you telling reporters the 22 plant status was that evening?
Do you recall the basic story?
23 A
I don't remember specifically, you know, Wednesday 24 Aos Federd Reporters,Inc.
evening.
As I said, we tried to update it.
Right now, I know 25
rtl 9 43 I
(~3 1
at least in my mind the first three days was like one day.
%)
2 I don't specifically remember any details of Wednesday night j
i 3
compared to Wednesday afternoon compared to Thursday.
l q{ }
4 Q
Do you remember if you discussed radiation levels?
5 A
Not specifically.
I know that by Wednesday evening 6
some were available.
I don't specifically remember covering i
7 numbers, actual numbers.
l 8
Q I wanted to ask you, and I guess I will, although 9
I think I know what your answer will be:
Can you recall what 10 you understood of the plant status at that time?
What was 11 going on at the plant?
12 A
I think basically I understood to a point the basic
'\\
l (V
13 sequence of events.
However, with the information available 14 at that time on Wednesday, I certainly didn't understand the 15 ex: ant and/or the implications.
16 BY MR. HAYNES:
17 0,
When you say about the specifics, did you know that 18 the relief valve had been opened?
19 A
That it stuck open?
20 Q
Yes.
21 A
Yes.
[)
22 Q
Did you know how long the valve was open before it 23 was isolated?
Did you know that?
24' A
Approximately.
Again, probably not an exact time,
' Ace Feder2 Reporters, Inc.
25 but through just a listing of the sequence of events, being
rtl 10-44 I
able to tell about when it was closed.
I would not infer it 2
was open for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 24 minutes.
However, I could tell-it was 3
open for a while.
4 Q
Did you know the hot leg temperatures?
When did you 5
first become aware of the hot leg temperatures?
0 A
I think the first time I started to realize the 7
significance and really looked at some of the numbers was later 8
Thursday.
I didn't have available the in-core temperatures 9
or consistent hot let temperatures on Wednesday that I am aware of.
Q Who were you getting your information from at the 12 plant?
13 A
The only call that I generated was for the sequence Id of events.
George Kunder, unit superintendent of the technical 15 for unit 2, who was there, did call back and give us support 16 that sequence.
I7 With respect to what you knew about the status of Q
18 the plant, how long the valve was opened and so forth, that I9 was from Mr. Kunder?
20 A
No.
That was the update I got Wednesday afternoon 2I from the plant staff.
That didn't have specific details.
22 Throughout Wednesday and Thursday and Friday, we then, I
l.
23 between myself, Mr. Klingaman, and Mr. Troffer in Reading were 24 receiving calls from a member of the plant staff either at Aes Federet Reporters, Inc.
25 the observation center or -- I remember one specific call later l
1
rtl 11 45 i
' /'N I
Thursday evening from -- I imagine from the control room, you
(.)
2 know, with more specific numoers and updates.
()
3 0
These were various people making the calls?
4 A
Yes.
I 5
Q Not one particular person?
6 A
That's right.
7 Q
Did Mr. Miller ever --
8 A
I didn't talk to Mr. Miller in the first few days.
9 BY MR. ALLISON:
10 Q
On Thursday evening you helped answer calls.then, II too, is that correct?
12 A
Yes.
O 13 Q
Did you answer them the same way as I just asked 14 you for Wednesday?
You tried to field the questions as best 15 you could based on what you knew?
16 A
That is true.
17 Q
Rather than having been told what to say and what 1
18 not to say by anybody?
19 A
That is true.
I was never told what to say and 20 what not to say.
21 Q
On Thursday, did you hear the major Met Ed press n'
22 conferences or see the news releases so that that would have 23 been part of-the basis Thursday night of what you knew?
I 24 A
Yes.
We did have the Thursday morning press Am-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 conference directed into the board room at Met Ed.
I listened
2 46 rtl 1 I
to that.
After Tnursday, some of the information I was N_-
2 getting was from the press conferences here onsite.
3 Q
So would that be a significant part of what you j
l knew by that time?
4 5
A Yes.
However, also brought a significant portion 6
of the questions, especially technical questions, figuring 7
everybody also heard that.
8 Q
So they started from the same place and started 9
asking you what was behind those statements, I guess.
Some 10 people?
II A
Yes.
12 Q
The picture that you nad and that you gave on O
13 Thursday to reporters, was that a more concerned picture I4 Thursday night than it had been Wednesday night?
-15 A
I am sure it was.
Again, I don't remember the 16 details.
I7 Q
Do you recall any specific way, any specific thing 18 that indicated more concern on Thursday night?
Like --
l9 A
Not of what I said specifically.
I think, you know, 20 just looking at it, you know, based on the changes in the 21 previous 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, results of-the press conference, I think 22 everybody was more concerned.
I don't remember specific points 23 that I would have ch;nged or tones I would have changed between
'J 24 l
Wednesday or Thursday.
I think in general that was more or less l Am-Feder9 Reporters, Inc.
25
.cnd #4 done by itself.
I
b869.05.01 47 cmn 1
0 Let me see if I have this straight.
2
'dould it be true that on.iednesday night you were telling 3
peopic that the plent was being cooled down?
By Thursday
(
'J 4
night you knew that it wasn't coolina down very f ast.
It was 3
a pro blem ga tting it cooled down.
6 A
Tha t i s --
t 0
Is that correct?
a A
That is true.
Again, I am not sure of tha actual 9
timing, you know, of when on Thursday.
I do know that cy, 10 as I said, later on on Thursday, I started realizing soms of li what we really had.
Also I sat in on a phone call I would 12 s ay 10 : 00 or 11 :00 o' clock Thursday night with one of the 13 sup3rintendants, you know, that was here and at that tim? it f ~]
14 was the first time I realized the actual noncondensible gas v
15 oubble and some things like that.
15 0
Can you recall what else you found out about at that 1/
phone call?
IS A
Not really.
I know that was the major thing I 19 heard.
You know, and therefore that was impeding us from 20 c ooling down and going on to decay heat.
I specifically 21 remem ber that.
I don't remember anything more specific.
22 0
Did you ever brief Mr. Creitz on Mednesday?
23 A
I didn't brief Mr. Creitz.
24 0
or Mr. Herbein or Mr. Arnold?
(
)
23 A
No.
48 4869.05.02 aan 1
0 Or Mr. Diec'< amp?
(~
L_.4 2
A No.
3 0
Do you recall where you were Saturday and Sunday?
l 4
A Reading.
5 Bl MR. FRAMPTON:
5 0
Subsequent to the accident, you prepared a draf t of a document indicating what people had learned when in the s
3 first few days af ter the accidenti is that right?
A That is true.
9 10 0
Do you have a copy of that, or does Met Ed have a 11 copy of it?
12 A
Yes.
I have just provided that as an exhibit to the 13 President's Commission deposition.
14 0
Could we get a copy of that if it's easily 7g 1
(_/
15 available?
16 MR. YUSPEH Sure.
Off the record.
Ie (Discussion off the record. )
18 MR. FRAMPTON:
On the record.
19 BY MR. FRAMPTON:
20 0
You think that was a memorandum referred to in a 21 prior deposition as the growth of knowledge memorandum?
22~
A That is right.
23 0
Mr. Hilbish, I would like to ask you a few questions 24 about the startup and preoperational test period.
7s 25 Can you tell me, during the period January 1978 through
49 a 869.05.0'3 '
amn I
what your prime responsibilities were in relation to TMI-2, 4-unit 27 l
3 A
I would say as a PORO memoers and a nuclear
)
4 sngineer for Met Ed.
5 0
00 you recall whether there was ever any discussion 5
in PORC, formal or informal, of trying to compress or shorten I
the power tast schedule?
4 8
A No.
I was aware of the recommendation in a letter 9
that went to the commission to delete one test.
Other than 10 that, nothing.
O das there any discussion in PORC, formal or 12 informal, concerning whether the test schedule, as established 13 would permit you enough tima to saf 3(y test the plant and put li it into operation?
O~
I 13 A
Not that I am aware of.
i 16 0
-Do you recall whether there was any discussion of 14 that question outside of PORC?
18 A
Not that I am aware.
19-0 Do you recall any discussion about whether the test i
20 schedule might be so tight that it would compromise the safe 21 completion of the plant?
22 A'
No.
23 0
At any time ?
24.
A No.
O
'23
-Q What is your understanding of the meaning of the
- O
88 69. 05.~ 04 50 amn
.I term, " comme rc ial ope ra tion?"
Putting a plant into 2
' comma rcial operation?
l 3
A My understanding is very limited, really in two
)
4 categories.
One is more or less in the realm of the 5
corporation and I gue ss to me it was more of a financial term.
5 The other thing is that as f ar as the workload of the actual I
nuclear engineering department, we followed it only due to 3
the fact that, to a point, our workload reporting of 9
generation stats changed with commercial operation.
10 For example, the determination of capacity f actors, 11 kilowa tt-hours generated, the official reporting to agencies, 12 along those lines, came out of the nuclear engineering 13 department et that time.
The ref ore, we were aware of the f
14 term and tried to be aware of the timing for that purpose.
15 0
Were-you aware of whether the term had any 16
.s igni ficanct with respect to the NRC or NRC regulations or la licensing?
Mas the question of the plant going into la commarcial operation wholly apart from NRC licensing 1) timetables?
'20 A
Wholly apart except for there is a division, I 21 gue ss, you know, in project management and everything else 22
.between construction, startup and test, and commercial.
Past 23 that, as f ar as any other changes, I wasn't aware of them.
24 0-You are talking about the plant being under the c0 23 jurisdiction of one part of NRR rather than another part of-f3 O
l
Si B85).05.35 aan 1-
- iRR ?
Dwn d
A That is right.
3 0
In f act, was the jurisdiction of the TMI-2 ever 4
changed from DPM to DOR?
3 A
Not to my knowledge.
5 0
Do you recall any discussion of why that might have 4
ceen?
Do you have any knowledge as to why that might have 3
coen?
9 A
No, but I am not aware of the timing in unit 1.
I 10 would not expect it to be things the day it went commercial li and therefore we have new project management.
12 0
What was your understanding of what the relationship 13 was, if any, between going into comme rcial operation on the
~ 14 one hand and going into mode I under NRO regulations?
Full 13 power.
Do you have any undarstanding of that at all?
DId you 15 at the time?
\\
11 A
I don't understand the ques tion.
18 0-Did the notion of mode 1, going into mode 1, mean 19 anything to you at the time?
)
20 A
In relation to commercial operation?
21 0
Right.
22
.A No.
23 Q.
Were you aware of any desire on-the part of 24 management to get the plant into commercial operation before O.
25' the end of the calendar year 1978 as opposed to af ter the end i
O
4869.05.06 52 amn I
of the year at any time?
k_)
2 A
Not really.
Just in the time when I was turning 3
over some of my work at the end of December here on site - I 4
actually startad working in Reading at the end of Decemoar --
3 some of the engineers in the nuclear department were supplying 6
information on generated power capacity factors, some things e
like that.
As a basis of that decision.
Other than that, I 3
was not aware of what was going on.
0
'/lere you aware that there was going to be an attempt 9
10 made if possible to make sure that the plant got into 11 commercial operation before the end of the year, rather than 12 at sometime in January of 1979?
13 A
Not really.
Through the last, you know, weeks of
)
14 December I '<now we were working on the data.
I didn't know O
15 it was a specific, you know -- that there was a specific 15 time.
They were working on it for that week or for, you know, il the coming wee ks.
18 0
Leaving aside any specific information aoout this, 11 during the summer or fall of 1978, at any time, were you aware 20 of or did you discuss any desire or pressure to get the plant 21 into commercial operation before the end of the calendar year?
22 A
Not specifically that I am aware.
As part of the 23 startup schedule, it had been - the date had slipped quite a 24 bit.
-I am sure there was discussion.
First commercial dates 25 were probably back in the beginning of the year.
53 s869.03.07 amn I
(ou know, as they moved, you know, I am sure it was
,q.
Ls 2
discussed.
But not the actual -- you know, any of the d9 tails 3
or implications.
4 0
ilnen you say the date slipped, the largest slippage 3
was due to the need to completely replace all the steam relief 5
valves, isn't that right?
4 A
That is true.
3 0'
That was a slippage of some three or four months.
9 A
That is true.
10 0
Do you recall at the time that that work was oeing 11 done whether there was any conversation about whether this 12 would throw the eventual date of commercial operation into 13 calendar 19197 14 A
I am not aware of that conversation.
.O 13 Q
When you say you are not awara of any conversation, 15 are.you saying that it might have occurred out you just don' t il recall it specifically?
iS A
That is true.
1)
Q So it would be fair to say you weren't aware from 23 any. source of any pressure to meet an end of the calendar year 21 deadline?
22 A
No.
'It would be f air to say I didn't know.
Yes.
23 MR. FRAMPTON:
Off the record.
.24 (Discussion off the record. )
25 9
('b s/
m
54 3869.05.08 aan i
BY MR. ALLISON:
f~
L_s) 2 0
Sack to wnat you knew on Wednesday and Thursday.
3 On Wednesday did you know aoout the containment dome radiation O',)
4 ratings?
Can you recall if you knew?
(
5 A
Not on dednesday.
I knew I had known some.
When 5
it was Wednesday or Thursday, I am not aware.
0 You can't recall when you were aware of those 3
ratings?
9 A
No.
10 0
Okay.
11 B( MR. FRAMPTON:
12 0
I was asking you before aoout whether you were aware 13 of any pressure or management desire to put the plant into 14 commercial operation before the end of calendar 1978.
I want O
15 to broaden that question and go back, and ask you when at any 15 time during 1977 or 1978 were you aware of any pressure to Ie keep to the time schedule for construction, and then for 16 preoperational testing in spite of problems or issues that 19 might be arising with respect to the plants readiness?
20 A
Not really.
Not really any management pressure.
I 21 think as the problems came up, they were evaluated and solved.
22 I don't think we knew of any.
I didn't know of any management 23 pressure to just continue the program one way or the other 24 towards commercial.
{'^l
's 2'5 0
Do you recall any discussions concerning the V(~;
55
@S59.05.09 amn l-question of whether pushing f orward with the schedule would
. (')
bwJ 2
or might jeopardize the safe completion of tne plant?
Other 3
than the conversation that you described before about whether fs
(_)
4 to replace the steam safety valves.
3 A
clot that I recall.
5 BY MR. HAYNES:
I Q
Along the same line, the plant operating review 3
commi ttee -- do they make a decision or consider the status of plant,. whether or not the plant is ready to load fuel, 10 whether it is ready to go to testing, operation, ready to go 11 to power operation?
12 A
Yes, to a point, through either an actual 13 determination or the completion of the prerequisites in the 14 procedures it recommeded for approval.
15 0
Plould these considerations include the overall 15 completion status of the f acility?
14 A
Yes.
13 0
I nave here the GORB, General office Review Board, 19 meeting minutes of meeting 29 dated February 2, 1978.
20 MR. FRAMpTON:
Mark' this Exhibit 2.
21 (Exhibit 2 identified. )
22 BY MR. HAYNES:
23 Q
In these minutes discussed here -- discussion about 24-the incomplete work items list.
There were 1595 mechanical
')
25 items and 1295 electrical items to oe completed prior to going
~n
' )'
\\_
w
k669.05.10 56 amn i
to. node 1, which is power ope rationi is that correct?
10 2
A ves.
3 0
You.got the initial license at this facility
()
4 February 8, 19781 is that correct?
5 A
I am not sure of the date.
I know i t was February.
5 0
Early February.
I A
Yes.
3 0
dell, with respect to those 2800 plus incomplete 9
work items as of 2-22-78 evidently, can you characterize what 10 type of items they were?
By that I mean were they mostly 11 maintenance items or --
12 A
I think so.
I think most of them were maintenance 13.
Items, still working or at that time non-necessary support.
14 A list of all items was prepared and completed and I believe g3 V
-15 summarized at the meeting; the significant ones summarized at 15 the meeting.
Il 0
dell, with respect to the GORB statement here that 18 the items were to be completed prior to going into mode 1, 19 do you recall if in f act they were completed?
All 2800 plus 23 items ?
21 A
I am not aware.
22 0
/ Inst is the status of the GORB-type - recommendation 23 with respect to workings of the plant operations review 24 commi ttee ?
By that I mean are these looked upon as action 25 i tems ?
I
%..)
57 686'f;05. I 1 ann i
A' Yes, to tne superintendent it would oe, yes.
()
2 0,
G3R3 is' advisory to whom?
3 A
- Ine p r es id e n t o f.'.le t Ed.
I) 4 0
The participants on the GORB included whom?
The 5
vice presid3ntlof generation?
5 A
Ye s.
i O
Does it include-any immedia te memoers of the plant 6
staff here?
9 A
No.
I IJ MR. YUSPEH Off the record.
1 11 (Discussion off the record. )
12 BY MR. HAYNES:
13 0
So as a member of the PORO, do you recollect this item coming up, the item meaning the GORB recommendation or I(:)3; 14 15 statement tnat all 2800 incomplete work items are to be i
15 completed before going to mode !?
II A
No, I don't.
j 18 1/
23-21
- 22 i
23 24 25
!G l
L s.
,r,
,..,. =,
4_
r
- 6 CR 6869 58 rtl 24a i
i 1
Q I know in the technical specifications for this l
i 4" ]
\\
2 facility that it addresses in the plant audit review functions
~'
I 3
the GRC and the PORC.
It does not address the functions of I
~
(
)
4 the GORB.
f 5
A That is correct.
I 6,
O Can you tell me why?
7 A
It had to do with the negotiations of the NRR staff 8
in relation to unit 2 starting with standard technical 9
specifications.
Unit 1 lists the GORB.
It was primarily set 10 up for that function, to the best of my understanding.
They 11 would not accept -- NRR would not accept our setup of the 12 GORD with consultants and that level of management for the
,c
(_)
13 review function and, therefore, the GRC was set up as the 14 toch spec requirement to be more consistent with standard 15 technical specifications.
So it stiol exists in unit 1 in 16 tech specs, the GORB.
It does not appear in unit 2.
17 O
The panel make-up for unit 1 is the same as the 18 panel -- panel meaning GORB -- make-up for unit 2, is that 19 correct?
20 A
That's correct.
21 Q
When you said that level of management was not
/
22 acceptable, if I understand, what does that mean
- too low, 23 too high?
24 A
That is my opinion.
This group meets once or twice Acs FederJ Reporters, Inc.
25 a year, I believe.
Normally twice a year.
It consists of I
rtl 25 l
l 59 I
1 essentially consultants, vice president of generation from both
_s
<-)
2 Met Ed, Jersey Central, and Power and Light, and if you look I
3 at the actual requirements of GRC, that meets more often, i
s 4
BY MR. FRAMPTON:
5 Q
Is t..are no GRC for TMI 17 l'
6 A
There is a corporate technical support staff.
I 7
am not sure of the actual tech spec requirements.
8 Q
But the GORB for TMI 1 functions as tne upper level 4
9 audit review body?
i 10 A
That's right.
11 BY MR. HAYNES:
1 12 0
I have an administrative procedure that-describes 13 the organization of the GORB.
It is dated 4-28-1978.
14 Review record No. 280.
15 MR. FRAMPTON:
Can we mark this Exhibit 3?
16 (Exhibit 3 identified.)
17 BY MR. HAYNES:
18 Q
In this, it describes the functioning of the general 19 office review board as well as identifying the various members 20 of the board and their specialty area with respect to technical 21 expertise.
Are you familiar with this document?
22 A
No, I am not.
23 Q
You have'not seen it before?
24 A
No.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 Q
I know this is marked " draft."
Do you know if
~
60 f rtl 26 I
there is an administrative procedure that is in effect in your
,S' 2
plant procedures here?
i 3
~%
A No, I don't.
(V 4
Q What is the basis in the plant procedures for the 5
GORD and their impact on the workings of the plant operations 6
review committee?
Is that memorialized?
7 A
The basis for GORB is in the unit 1 tech specs.
8 Q
A carryover from the unit 1 tech specs?
9 A
It still functions under unit 1 tech specs, and 10 has now expanded to also cover unit 2 and their own decision.
II Q
All right.
I just want to cover a couple more 12 pieces here.
With respect to, again, plant readiness at the 13 time of license issuance, are you familiar with particular Id testing problems that they had with the dampers on the fuel 15 handling buildirg ventilation system and the auxiliary building 16 ventilation system?
I7 A
No, I am not.
18 Q
Okay.
May we refresh your memory here?
Here is a 19 document.
Field questionnair ho. 2513.
Can we mark this 20 Exhibit 4?
21 (Exhibit 4 identified.)
22 MR. FRAMPTON:
Can we have marked as Exhibit 4 Met 23 Ed document labeled TM-0636.
g()
BY MR. HAYNES:
Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 Q
In this package is described a start-up problem --
rtl 27
?
C1 i
I it includes a start-up proolem report about the auxiliary i
fm I
%-n 2
building heat and vent system with filter esting of the l
l
}
bypass dampers showing that it leaked excessively.
Is that 3
4 correct?
5 A
That's correct.
6 Q
And also that the fuel handling building filters, 7
dampers, were also suspect; is that correct?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
And then there is an engineering change memo 10 No. S59151 that specifies the change to essentially block off 11 the dampers on either the upstream or downstream side, is that 12 correct?
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
Now, from this I understand that this problem with the 15 leaky dampers was to be fixed temporarily by coming in with 16 blanks around the bypass ducting until sucn time as new dampers 17 could be ordered and installed?
18 A
I remember blocking the bypass dampers.
19 Q
Okay.
Is the fuel handling building ventilation 20 system a safety related system?
21 A
I don't know.
\\')
22 Q
If it were, such a change'would require review and 23 approval by the PORC, a change?
Q C/
24 A
Yes.
Ace Feoer : n. porters, trie.
25 Q
Because this is after the time the plant received
i rtl 28 62 '
l its fuel loading license, is that correct?
This date?
(qg 2
A
- Yes, j
3 Q
On this field questionnaire No. 2513, also a part 4
of this document package, this relates to the resolution of 5
this fix, is tnat correct?
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
And your signature is here, right, signifying 8
in the usual right-hand corner PORC approval?
9 A
Yes.
I 10 Q
Now, this change also got a safety review.
That is II in accordance with what, your quality assurance program 3
12 l requirements?
O 13 A
Yes.
Id Q
That is also included in that package.
That is 15 approved by Mr. Brownwell?
l 16 A
Yes.
17 Q
What is is position?
I8 A
Burns & Roe, lead site engineer.
I9 Q
Based upon this evaluation that there is no unreview-20 ed safety question involved, such a modification can be made 21 without prior approval of the NRC, is that correct?
22 A
Yes.
23 Q
And is it.this type of system that you used in the O
V 24 PORC to assure yourselves that safety aspects have been Aes-Federal Reporters, Inc.
.25 reviewed and any changes acceptable?
rtl 29 63l t
l 1
A We look at the same type questions, yes.
2 Q
Do you have a separate form to complete?
)
I
(")
3 A
No.
y 4
Q Do you accept Mr. Brownwell's?
5 A
We don't have a separate form.
We just sign that 6
that we did review it and an unreviewed safety question didn't j 7
exist.
8 Q
Is there a check sheet or anything that goes along 9
with this review?
10 A
No.
Il Q
Just a statement?
l 12 :l A
Yes.
13 Q
Do you know if this change impacted at all the 14 technical specifications or if there had to be a modification 15 to your license as a result of this change?
16 A
Not that I am aware.
17 Q
This type of -- what this change does, does it not, 18 is because the air from the auxiliary building and fuel 19 handling building to flow continuously through the filters in 20 tnis ventilation system, mainly being the high efficiency 21 particulate filters and ths charcoal adsorber filters?
(~)
22 A
Okay.
I would have to look at the diagram.
23 Q
There is a diagram included here.
If you can read 3
s 24 it, it is not a very good copy.
Over here it shows where the
, - Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
]
25 damper-goes.
In general, what do you believe or feel about k
rtl 30 64
,I I
continuous air flow through the charcoal filters?
Is this an 7_
(
)
2 accepted method of operation or does it require more frequent l
3 testing of the filters to make sure their efficiency is l
(.
)
Q/-'
4 maintained or what?
5 A
I would have to do research on it.
I don't have an l
I 6
opinion off the top of my head.
Q Okay.
In the technical specifications, tnere is a 7
8 requirement, I believe, specific to the fuel handling building I
air cleanup system. This is technical specification 4.9.12, l
9 10 item C.
After every 720 hours0.00833 days <br />0.2 hours <br />0.00119 weeks <br />2.7396e-4 months <br /> of charcoal adsorber operation, ti l I
some testing is required to make sure it still has its l
l l
12 l efficiency.
nU 13 A
Yes.
Id Q
Do you know if that testing was implemented during 15 this period of time when evidently the fuel handling building 16 air flow was continuously routed tnrough these filters?
37 A
I would have to look at the surveillance records 18 which are available.
I9 Q
Okay.
Would there normally be a consideration in 20 a PORC review of a design change like this, of what impact it 21 would have on the surveillance test schedule?
)
22 A
It certainly could be, yes.
23 Q
In the PORC, you do review these types of things in i 9 2d that light, impact upon the operating procedures?
Ace-oderal Reporters, Inc.
25 A
Yes.
.rtl 31 3k' 65f I
Q Surveillance test procedures and so forth?
2 A
Yes.
3 So it would be in the surveillance procedure i
Q 4
records?
5 A
Yes.
0 Is there a chance I could get a copy of the sur-Q 7
veillance test records for the fuel handling ventilation system 8
during the, period Marc 1 1978 through March 1979?
9 MR. YUSPEH:
Okay.
Off the record.
I (Discussion off the record. )
BY MR. HAYNES:
1 Q
I have one last question nere.
This is with the O
13 workings of the PORC.
In the PORC meeting minutes we know on January 12 and 13, the emergency plan and procedures for the 15 TMI 2 facilities were reviewed.
It was recommended that the 16 unit superintendent approve these prodedures and the plan.
Do II you know at that time if these procedures were compatible with 18 reg guide 1.1.101 revision 17 Do you know if that was considered in the review?
20 A
I am not aware of Wat.
21 Q
Do you know if consideration was given to the reg O
22 guide 1.101 in the preparation or revision of the emergency plan procedures?
23
\\d 24 A
I am not aware.
I could try to find out.
25 I take it then you really didn't participate in the Q
b d
66 rtl 32 1
promulgation of that plan or procedures, is that correct?
)
2 A
The writing of it?
3 0
Yes.
4 A
No.
5 Q
You are familiar as.a member of the PORC to review 6
and recommend approval of the planning procedures?
7 A
Yes.
8 0
Okay.
I don't have any further questions.
9 BY MR.
RAMPTON:
10 0
Mr. H11bish, in addition to the I&E interviews that 11 were conducted with you and the depositions taken by the 12 President's commission and the questions that we have asked 13 you here today, are there any other areas that you have not 14 been questioned about that you think are significant and 15 material to the causes of the accident on March 28?
16 A
Not as far as my involvement.
And I don't know what i
17 else has been done.
I can only answer that for myself.
18 Q
Right.
That is the question I am asking.
Are there i
19 areas you haven't been asked about at all by those groups that 20 we know about that nobody asked you about that you think are 21 important and relate to the causes of the accident or the
. (~s
(-)
22 lessons to be learned from the accident about which you have 23 personal knowledge?
-A
(
\\
x_)
24 A
Not that I am aware of.
Aco Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. FRAMPTON:
All right.
Thank you very much.
j L
i irtl 33 67 l
f 1
'g.l We~ appreciate your time-and cooperation.
i V.37 the special deposition of John
(-
{
2 (Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m.,
~%
-3 R.;Hilbish was concluded.)
j 4
5 6
l 7
8 9
10 11 i
12 i
~13 14 i
15 16 17 18 19 2
20 21 22
' 23 24 Aco Festoral Reporters, Inc.
25
_