ML19305A709
| ML19305A709 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1979 |
| From: | Jordan E, Sidell G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE), PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ACCIDENT AT THREE MILE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001280523 | |
| Download: ML19305A709 (82) | |
Text
r..
l p,.o o
o Transcript of Pr'oceedings o
o o
o UNITED STATES OF M4 ERICA o
o PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ACCIDENT AT g
g THREE MILE ISIAND o
o l>
I) l>
o o
o DEPOSITION OF:
EDWARD L. JORDAN o
.o Ik if ik o
iI il o
o O
Bethesda, Maryland August 6, 1979 o
o if if I'
if r
il d
o o
if d) il l
Acme Reporting Company u
o O.ficial Reporters o
1411 K S:reet. N.W.
O wasnington. D. O. 20CC5 0
(202) 628 4 88 t
o e
8001280 5 2 3 {
.,dh 3 G
e i
1 UNITED STATES OF MiERICA 2
PRESIDENT'S CO 21ISSION ON THE ACCIDENT AT THREE fiILE ISLAND 3
4 5-6 7
DEPOSITION OF:
EDWARD L. JORDAN 8
9 10 11 12 Room 402 13 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, Maryland 14 August 6, 1079 15 9:30 o' clock a.m.
16 17 18 APPEARANCES:
19 On Behalf of the Commission:
20 GARY SIDELL Associate Chief Counsel 21 On Behalf of NRC:_
nn k
SHELDON L. TRU ATCH 23 Office of General Counsel 24 25 Acme Reporting Company m.........
'dda -
2 4
1
_I _N _D _E _X r.
2 MITNESSES:
DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 3
Edward L.~ Jordan i
l 4
5 6
7
_E _X _H _I _B _I _T _S 8
9 10 11 12 13 1
14 4
i 15 16 17.
18 19 20 21
.m I
L n
04 l-l:
25 Acme-Reporting Company
~
L re-d
,dda 3
1
_P _R O _C _E _E _D _I _N _G _S 2
Whereupon, 3
EDWARD L. JORDAN 4
having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness herein 5
and was examined and testifisd as follows:
6 DIRECT EXAMINATION 7
BY MR. SIDELL:
8 G
Would you state your name for the record?
9 A
Edward L. Jordan.
10 G
And your current occupation in the NRC?
11 A
I am Assistant Director for technical programs 12 in the Division of Operating Reactors Inspection, Office of 13 Inspection Enforcement.
14 O
How long have you held that position?
15 A
Since about August, 1978.
16 4
Were you asked to bring a resume to the deposition?
17 A
Yes.
(
18 G
Do you have one?
19 A.
I do.
4 (Document proffered to counsel.)
21 BY MR. SIDEIL:
1?
G Is the information contained in your resure, Mr.
s 23 Jordan, complete and accurate to the best of your knowledce?
24 A
It is accurate.
In a resume one could always add 45 more information.
Acme Reporting Company i
t.
.,:.. u......
4
m e m,w M
iaemis m+
J N-6e dad 4
1 4
But as the information is contained concerning 2
your professional qualifications and educational background 3
is the information essentially complete?
4 A
Yes.
5 MR. SIDELL:
Mark this Exhibit 1 to the deposition, 6
please.
7 (The document referred to was 8
marked for identification as 3
Exhibit 1.)
10 BY MR. SIDELL:
11 4
Have you previously had your deposition taken --
12 not necessarily limited to this subject matter, but in any 13 format?
j 14 A
I have.
15 4
Let me briefly go over what we are going to do in 16 case it might be different from what you have previously 17 experienced.
18 Your testimony is sworn and under oath and even 19 though we are in your office in Bethesda, it has the same l
20 force and effect as though given before a Court of Law and l
l 21 a Judge or jury, t
22 Therefore be as precise as you can in answer to the l
23 questions.
In order so that the reporter might get all the 24 testimony down accurately, I would ask that you answer l
25 audibly all the questions since it is difficult to get down Acme Reporting Company m..u.....
' dtd 5
1 nods of the head and gestures.
2 I ask that you wait until I finish a question before 3
you begin your response even though you know where the questio n 4
is going.
I will try to wait for you to finish your answer 5
to pose my next question.
6 At the conclusion of the deposition your testimony 7
will ha transcribed and presented to you for your review and 8
signature.
Should you find any natters that need to be 9
corrected you will be entitled to make those changes.
10 However, you should be advised that if we consider 11 those changes to be of a substantial nature we will be 12 entitled to comment on those changes which may adversely 13 affect your credibility, therefore the necessity to be as 14 precise as you can be in terms of your responses.
15 Do you have any questions.
16 A
No.
17 G
Could you briefly describe what vour current 18 responsibilities are in I&E7 19 A
Yes.
20 My responsibility as Assistant Director for techni-21 cal programs is to provide engineering support to the regional 22 offices in support of operating-reactors, reactors that are
~23 in the pre-op and testing phase.
24 My duties also include interface with the office of 25 Nuclear Reactor Regulation for operating reactors, once again, l
Acme Reporting Company l
i
~
dho 6
I the object being to coordinate technical problems fron I&E t
2 to'NRR and that is to -- when a problen is identified within 3
I&E that is outside of our purview, let's say a design 4
problem, then we would transfer that particular problem to 5
NRR for review and evaluation.
6 ifould the type of design problem you just referred 7
to deal primarily with generic problems?
8 A
Yes.
9 4
Is the field inspector in I&E the primary point to of focus for the NRC to determine whether or not a generic 11 problem exists?
12 A
The inspector identifies where a problem exists
/
13 and then the determination of generic is made a[)ong the 14 line.
He recommends it as a generic problem, for instance 15 or he recommends it as simply a problem that he is unaware 16 that has been identified previoulsy and then brings it 17 forward.
18 0
Is there any organi=ational mechanism that you are
[
19 aware of that allows a regional inspector let's say in t
M Region-IV to become aware of similar problems he may experienc e
21 that are going on in other regions?
l 22 A
I would say that the most efficient system would i
(
23 be the Bulletin Circular Information Notice System.
Those j
j 24 are problems that have been identified and are being 25 recommunicated to licensees.
Acme Reporting Company ses..s a...
~
d;b 7
1 Insofar as problems that other regions have communi-2 cated in, we do now distribute copies of for instance our 3
transfer to NRR to those other regions.
?
4 4
You just mentioned in your response that you do now 5
provide copies of transfers of matters to NP.R.
In that a 6
change tag place subsequent to the accident at TMI-II?
7 A
No.
It was preceeding.
8 0
When?
9 A
I would guess somewhere before November we made 10 an additional effort to do that.
11 g
197e?
12 A
Yes.
13 0
With the matters included in bulletins and circulars 14 being provided to various regions, are those matters which 15 have already been determined to be generic and include some 16 remedial action been taken by the operator?
17 A
Yes.
This is -- maybe I should define the Bulletinj Circularj Information Notice.
The bulletin first of all is 13 10 '
the strongest correspondence back to the licensee in terms 2
of requiring action, requiring a response fron the licensee 21 on a given matter.
5 The circular is a lesser important document, and it ft 23 suggests or recommends actions by a licensae and does not 24 require a response.
The information notice is even lesser, 25 and it is generally transmitted as the first information we Acme Reporting Company us. n.-...
~
, 600 8
I have and to alert a licensee of what we believe to be a
~'
2 generic problem, and that information may subsequently be 3
elevated to a circular or bulletin when we have additional 4
details.
5 g
Are regional inspectors informed of possible generic 6
problems before they may be corrected?
7 In other words, by an alternative other than 8
bulletins or circulars?
9 A
Yes.
We have a weekly telephone conversation with to the branch chiefs in each of the regional offices.
This is 11 a conference call, and so whatever is current at that time is 12 discussed with them.
13 The system of bulletins, circulars and information 14 notices are sent in draft to the regional offices for their 15 input, and oftentimes even though Region I proposed a bulletin I
16 or NRR proposed a bulletin, other regions may identify some 17 significant area that isn't covered in the bulletin or 18 identify an incorrect statement in the bulletin.
19 So they are brought into the picture as the bulletin 2
is being developed.
21 G
How long in terms of time would you say that it l
22 takes between when an investigator in a particular region 23 proposes someone take a look at a certain valve or a certain l
24 piping system in a nuclear reactor and the ti=e it cets to 3
one of.these weekly telephone conference calls?
Acme Reporting Company m, u..o..
goo 9
1 A
It may not get there.
The thines discussed in the 2
weekly telephone call would be those issues considered to 3
be significant and may warrant additional actions by the e
4 regions.
5 So certain of the proposals from a regional 6
office would not be discussed in that weekly call.
There 7
may be a call to a member of my staff with, " Hey, I think I 8
have a problem.
Oh, you know about this particular valve.
9 Let's take your valve concern. "
10 My staff number who works mechanical components 11 and valves would say, "I have never heard of it before" or 12 "We have a dozen of them" and he would work from there, 13 generally before a memorandun is created even, so there is 14 interaction quite early.
15 The time frame is totally variable.
16 G
What happens in a situation where only the regional 17 inspector concludes a safety concern exists and evervone 18 else in his region on to whom he reports is of the opinion 19 that it is not really a safety concern at all; would a matter
'M such as that be likely to be discussed in a conference call?
21 A
Certianly if there was a dissent, a technical 5
dissent identified, it would be, and that is the obvious 2
way of elevating a concern that staff, his local staff doesn't 24 agree with, and there are procedures for that dissent.
25 G
Are staff personnel includet in these conference 1
Acme Reporting Company l
. m....o..
9' y
dOO-10 I
calls?
t' 2
A okay.
3 The people that are included are myself, Sam Bryan 4
and each of the branch chiefs and oftentimes section chiefs 5
in the regicns for operating reactors.
6 Q
But generally as a rule not including investigators
~
in a region?
8 A
Inspectors.
You ought to clarify between inspector 9
and investigator.
The bulk of the force in the region are to inspectors.
A very few of the people are identified as 11 investigators for a specific action, and they are generally 12 safeguards or legal training rather than technical training.
13 a
Are either inspectors or investigators usually 14 included in your weekly conference calls?
15 A
No, they are generally out on inspections.
We have 16 difficulty maintaining a six party conference call.
17 G
So that it would ba most unusual if an investigator 18 or an inspector ever participated in one of these conference 19 calls?
3)
A No, It happens, but we don't have the 150 or so 21 inspectors all tied around a telephone once a week.
So if S
there is an inspector that has a specific problem, he generally 3
discusses it'with us on the phone, but the -- that is not the 24 purpose of the conference. call.
25 Maybe I'should make that clear.
The branch chief Acme Reporting -Company I
na
.a......
i
dis 11 I
or the section chief then recommunicates items of importance 2
back to his staff.
There is a normal dissemination process, 3
just as I don't attend Gossick's staff meetings, my division 4
director attends them and then pives me a briefing on what 5
happened there.
6 My staff then gets a b:.iefing from me on what 7
Norm Moseley tells me, so there is a natural filtering down 5
of information, not filtering out of information.
9 G
I am concerned in terms of filtering up concerns 10 by an investigator or inspector in a region and how you may 11 find out about it.
12 A
I came from a regional office.
I was an inspector
/
l 13 and I don't believe that there are barriers that exist between 14 the inspector and his supervisors in getting information up.
15 4
Well, based on your description of these weekly 16 conference calls, would I be correct in concluding that if 17 an inspector or an investigator were net able to be a party 18 to the call and had concerns of a safety nature dealing with 19 j
a part or a procedure of a reactor, he would have to l
20 necessarily rely on his branch chief or supervisor to relay 21 that information to you?
l 12 A
Not true.
You misconstrued the purpose of the l
w
%3 weekly telephone calls.
The calls are primarily for me to 24 convey information to the cranch chiefs and then subsecuently 3
we go around the regions end if they have any concerns Acme Reporting Company m,
n......
6
d;o 12 1
identified that are pertinent to the group that are on the
~
2 phone, then they discuss them.
3 But the way that information is communicated from 4
the regional inspector to this office and possibly to NRR 5
is first of all the immediate telephone call from the 6
individual who has the concern, and this would be to my staff 7
member or to the project manager in licensing, frequently 8
both, that say I have something that is bothering me, let's j
9 talk about it.
Sc to Then subsequently 2'would create a memorandum which 11 he would transmit through his section chief or branch chief 12 to my office indicating that here is the problem, here is my
(
13 understanding of it, here is what I recommend be done with 14 it.
.subMiNal 15 That is the formal rit'2rtic' of the proposed 16 action, not our weekly telephone calls.
17 4
So essentially your weekly telephone calls provide 18 information as to what resolutions have recently taken place 19 about specific problems?
M A
They highlight problems that are immediately in 21 front of us, and I will give you a typical example.
22
(
We have had a faed water no::el cracking problem 23 on steam generators at Westinghouse plants.
That problen was 24 identified in Region III at the D.C. Cook Plant and was 25 reviewed, the licensee took metallurgical samples and we were 1
Acme Reporting Company a w 2......
de]
13 l
I concerned that it possibly was generic to other Westinghouse 0
pressurized water reactors, r,o we have several calls on that 3
matter and developed a bulletin and issued it, and it was 4
quite generic.
5 A large number of plants have found cracks in the 6
feed water nozzels as a result of the inspection effort that 7
we required of them through the bulletin.
That matter was 8
discussed quite thoroughly with the branch chiefs, because 9
we were having their people go out and do inspections of 10 what the licensee was doing, urging the licensee to do his 11 inspections in a timely fashion.
12 So that is the kind of thing that would be feedback.
[
13 Now, there is one other thing that we haven't discussed, the 14 product of the regional inspector from his work in the field 15 is primarily an inspection report and this contains a capsule 16 of what he did during a given inspection.
17 It is a three or five day inspection.
His findings 18 are in that report.
If there are things that need to have 19 action taken on them, then they are generally contained in a
'M seperate trsnsmittal memo which identifies his concern.
21 g?,
Who determines whether or not something needs to be 22 done about the concerns raised in the region.
Is that in the
(
23 region or once it gets to headquarters?
24 A
The inspector is the first line.
He makes the 3
recommendation of the :nneerns and then those concerns are Acme Reporting Company l
I
.d f3 14 1
forwarded and we have what is called an actier. ? tem tracking 2
system that tabulates this information on the conputer so 3
that the current status of the memorandum that is transmitted 4
is available as to whether it has been transferred to 5
Licensing, whether one of my staff members is actively 6
working on it or exactly how the disposition is.
7 So there is a mechanism for tracking each of these 8
items.
9 G
Mhat would you say would be the typical time for to resolutions between when an inspector or an investigator 11
- says, "I think I have a problem, I don't know what the 12 precise solution is, maybe someone should take a look at it"
(
13 and the time when there is a resolution of that particular 14 job?
15 A
I couldn't give you an average.
It does vary 16 widely.
Some problems are very, very'long in being clearly 17 identified and acted upon, and some are very short, and it 18 depends on the nature and the significance.
19 0
Well, would safety related problems tend to be 20 resolved more quickly than nonsafety related problems?
21 A
Okay.
/.
22 There in terms of the word you used, the FSAR A
23 defines safety related, and all of these problems are safety
~
i 24 related, but there would be a hierarchy within safety 25 related of~an immediate safety concern as opposed to a longer I
Acme Reporting Company l
m. w..,.
i
l l..
doc 15
~
.1 term problem.
2 0
So the importance of the item or problem is 3
inversely related to the length of time it takes to resolve l
4 the problem?
5 A
No, there may be additional search. time.
I will 6
give you an example there.
One of our inspectors in Region I 7
identified a -- what he felt was a concern at a particular 8
facility with seismic calulations, and he didn't really know 9
what -- he couldn't state his concern concisely, but he 10 felt uncomfortable with some of the data that he looked at, 11 and so -- if you will forgive me I will estimate the dates.
12 I will estimate that he first became conscious of
[
13 this concern in let's say September of
'78, and this ultimately 14 through a rather tortuous path identified the concern with 15 algebraic sunnation that caused five plants to be shut down 16 and the inspector in this case was persistent.
17 He had trouble getting information from the 18 licensee in terms of he was havi.g to work through the 19 licensee with the vendor and there was a lack of understanding 20 on the vendor's part as to the significance of the concern.
21 So this did take several months to finally evolve.
22 Was any of that time in addition to being a result U
of reluctance by the licensee to provide whatever information 24 was recuestion also due to reluctance on the part of someone 3
else in the region reviewing this individual's work saying Acme Reporting Company a w u......
, des 16 1
it is not really much of a problen, that you know of?
2 A
No to my knowledge.
Conversely, I credit the 3
inspector and his supervisor with doing what I think is a very 4
good job in being persistent with this problem and finally 5
unearthing it, because it is complex.
6 He sensed there was a problem but couldn't put his 7
finger on it.
8 0
Would you conclude that between the time of the 9
inspector's or investigator's original recognition of the 10 general problem in around September of '78 or the end of the 11 summer, late or carly fall '78 and when the bulletin was 12 issued or the notice was issued in --
13 A
These were orders to five plants.
14 0
That was April of 19797 15 A
I believe that is correct.
16 4
Shortly after the T:1I-II accident?
1T A
Yes. /)cb<s/ c/
ol orbes was Ats,c4 /Q 0 9 e
f.t.sGr e.
Y~$IE -2 a ecIc{ent 18 0
Between the time of early fall when the problem was 19 generally discovered and the ultimate resolution in April, 20 1979, was that entire time due to the delay on the part of 21 the licensee to provide the information requested?
22 A
No, no.
There were many iterations that were gone
(
23 through in trying to focus the problem down to the actual 24 calulation error in algebraic summation.
1 25 So-it was only clearly identified in a meeting with 1
Acme Repcrting Company l
. m
.a......
.d3 17 e
I the licensee and NRR with I&E participation immediately 2
preceeding the orders.
3 4
So once the matter got to headquarters, there was 4
a rather speedy resolution of the problem?
5 A
once the meeting with the licensee which finally 6
focused all of the concerns was held, there was a speedy 7
resolu~ ion.
c 8
G Have you other experiences where the licensee is 9
more prone to provide the information sought on a rapid 10 tinetable if produced by I&E headquarters or someon in 11 headquarters rather than soccone from the field?'
12 A
well, the -- I guess I have a problem with the
(
13 statement.
There are cases in which when theprecise technical 14 talent required is placed on the specific concern that it is 15 resolved more quickly.
16 That is, the inspectors are very knowledgeable, very 17 good engineers, experienced in operations, but each one is 18 not a combination of seismic design specialist and electrical 19 specialist and all of t:sc other specialities that are involved, 20 so that when one has a specific problem you have to put the 21 specific talents into it to resolve it, and then you have to 22 pick the right time to do ir, because there are many issues
~.
23 as an in.toector that tne inspector develops a concern over iudA;t9 24 that are kr^"ing.
d 25 They evaporate because the inspector hadn't gotten l
Acme Reporting Company
\\
l
.na,.1,as..
daa 18 I
the right information or the licensee hadn't given him the 2
right information.
3 I think you have gone through the same sort of 4
thing with trying to follow a thread of information.
It no 5
longer is significant.
So there are a lot of blind alleys 6
and the inspector has to know how far to go with each one 7
in order to satisfy the technical concern, and that is thesafetyplan[.
8 9
4 Let me show you what has previously been marked as 10 Exhibit 3 to the Grimes deposition which is dated Janunry 16, 11 1979 entitled " Transfer of Lead Responsibility" addressed 12 to B. K. Grimes, Assistant Director for Engineering and
(
13 Projects, Division of Operating Reactors, Office of Nuclear 14 Reactor Regulation, subject:
Davis-Besse steam generator 15 control during auxililary Feedwater Operation.
16 Responsible Assistant Director E.
L. Jordan, 17 Assistant Director for Technical Programs, Division of Reactor IS Operations Inspection, Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
19 I ask if you have previously seen this report.
20 A
Yes, I have.
21 G
Have you seen the transfer memo alone or have you l
22 also seen the 11 or 13 pages of analysis that are attached to l
\\
L'3 it?
l 24 A
I have seen the analysis as well.
i l
25 G
Have you reviewed that analysis?
Aa:me Reporting Company i
i s w 1,
t
, 4:s 19 1
A Yes, I have read it preceeding transmitting it, 2
yes.
3 What is the basic concern of this document, Mr.
4 Jordan, as you read it?
5 A
I am not reading it at this point.
Do you want 6
my recollection?
7 0
Yes.
8 A
My recollection was that it was a concern with the 9
Shrinkage of primary coolant level following trips at the 10 Davis-Besse reactor facility, so that there was a loss of level 11 indicated in the pressurizer.
12 4
Why would loss of level indication be importent in
(
13 the pressurizer?
14 A
Well, the pressurizer is the inmediate means the 15 operator has to identify his water inventory in the reactor.
16 4
Prior to TMI-II of this year, do you know what 17 emphasis operators based on pressurizer level indication?
18 A
Primary emphasis.
19 G
Do you know whether or not it was exclusive emphasis?
20 A
I do not.
21 G
Do you know whether or not pre TMI-II of this year i
22 whether operators considered the pressurizer level indication 03 to be an accurate or unambiguous source of infornation of 24 core inventory?
25 A
I would be speculating.
If you like, I will Acn e Reporting Company m......n
'. d 5 20 I
speculate.
I would speculate that many did.
2 g
tras there the same conclusion among I&E personnel 3
in headquarters pre TMI-II?
4 A
As far as being the primary indication?
5 g
Whether or not the pressurizer level indicatien 6
provided accurate or unambiguous information concerning core 7
inventory?
t 8
A I think my staff and myself are well aware of 9
steam table information and saturation concerns, so not to exclusively, no.
11 G
But was there pre TMI-II the general conclusion 12 that the information provided an operator or anyone viewing
[
13 pressurizer level indication would generally be accurata 14 information?
15 A
tiell, the concern is much in this point accurate 16 information as the concern -- if we are still talking about i
17 the transfer of lead responsibility -- that the operator would 18 lose his level indication and would not know what the inventor:r l
19 was.
2 So we are kind of mixing the two ideas, I think.
l 21 Just generally without specific regard to this 5
document, Exhibit 3 to the Grimes deposition.
Before TMI-II 23 was there an opinion at headcuarters that pressurizer level 24 indication providing accurate information?
25 A
Under the particular operating circumstance, normal Acme Reporting Comoany i
u n,.
- 4...
.d53 21 1
operations, yes.
2 G^
What about abnormal operations?
3 A
Abnormal operations, there was an awareness of the N
possibility of, avoiding.
There was knowledge of the shrink 4
5 phenomena which caused the operator to lose indication 6
altogether.
~
7 G
If an operator lost indication in the pressurizer 8
level, what actions would he take in response to that 9
situation?
10 A
He would be expected to continue his safety injectio n 11 to initiate safety injection and makeup, depending on the 12 particular plant system.
13 G
Turn on the EPI pumps?
14 A
Yes.
15 G
I assume you are referring to a case where 16 pressurizer level indication goes off scale low.
17 A
Yes.
18 G
What about the reverse, where it goes off scale 19 high?
That is a false or ambiguous reading?
l N
A This is assuming a small line break upstream of 21 the pressurizer then.
With knowledge of the upstream break, d
I believe that the operator certainly should recognize that 23 problem.
24 G
Mhy do you say he should recognize the problem?
E 25 Is that post T!!I-II knowledge?
Acme Reporting Compony i
m,........
I
TJ 400 22 1
A Perhaps.
I still feel that the operator should 2
recognize if he has a small line break or the safety valve 3
or relief valve relieving on the pressuri=er that his 4
pressurizer level information is no longer valid.
5 G
But in order to determine in the first instance 6
that pressurizer level indication may not be providing 7
accurate information, the operator must~be aware of a break 8
in the system some place?
9 A
Yes.
10 0
If'he is not aware of a break in the system, would 11 an operator pre TMI place reliance on the accuracy of the 12 pressurizer level indication?
f 13 A
Yes.
We did find, as you know, that the operators 14 were not well aware of the saturation <>& problems and didn't 15 have in their procedures in most cases specific directions 16 with regard to keeping their reactor systems subcooled.
17 0
So there are no procedures specifically dealing with 18 this problem?
19 A
No.
I said they were inadequate.
All the plants 20 had procedures, but they were not sufficiently precise to 21 deal with this specific problem.
22 G
Do you perceive much of a difference between an s
23 inadequate procedure and no procedure at all for abnormal 24 conditions?
aJ A
I don't understand that question.
Acme Reporting Company
=
u......
i 23
,d:b 6
1 4
You just indicated that plants had procedures 2
although they were not sufficient to deal with a particular 3
problem of this nature, which is pressurizer level indication 4
high during abnormal occurrences or a small break in the 5
system and my question to you is, is there much difference-6 from an operator's perspective if he has to rely on a 7
procedure which will not solve his particular problem and 8
not having any procedure at all?
9 A
Is there a difference in terms of -- I am rephrasing to your question.
11 Is there a difference in terms of his response?
If 12 that is the question, no.
[
13 4
Whose responsibility was it to approve the 14 procedures licensees had dealing with abnormal events of 15 this nature?
16 A
The licensees approved their procedures -- I am 17 sorry -- the NRC reviews selected procedures.
18 G
Not all the procedures?
19 A
We don't approve the procedures.
We don't review 20 all of their procedures.
21 4
Did you just previously say the NRC does not approve t2 licensee procedures?
23 A
That is correct.
24 G
So the licensee themself draw up procedures and i
25 submit those procedures to the NRC for --
Acme Reporting Company m n s..,,.
'.ddo 24 1
1 They don't submit their procedures.
2 G
So there is no review by anyone of an operator's 3
procedures?
4 A
No, wait.
Excuse me.
There is a review of the 5
procedures and the review is done by the inspection staff 6
from the regiCnal office on a sampling basis, and then 7
thereafter, and this is in the preoperational testing phase S
when the procedures are being written, then thereafter on 9
a sampling basis annually, so we have quite discrete 10 inspection procedures for the inspectors to follow as far as 11 the relative amount of procedure review that they do.
12 It is not 100 percent in any event.
13 G
Where does an operator or licensee get his operating
<(
14 procedures, if you know?
15 A
Certainly.
Those procedures are developed by the 16 plant operating staff and the NSSS during the preoperational 17 testing program, essentially.
18 G
Who is NSSS?
1 19 A
The Nuclear Steam System Supplier, Babcock & Wilcox, 20 for instance.
21 G
In the case of Davis-Besse?
22 A
Right.
~
23 G
Upon your review of what has been marked as 24 Exhibit 3 to the Grimes deposition, the Transfer of Laad 25 Responsibility, which is a two-page memorandum with a third Acme Reporting-Company l
ns.........
i
~ _ _ _ _ _
i
)
i~
don 25 1
1 page of a distribution list attached to a December 22, 1978
.s 2
letter to Robert Reid of the NRC in Washington from Lowell 3
E.
Roe of Toledo Edison, the owner of Davis-3essee, which 4
includes an analysis entitled " Additional Safety Evaluation 5
of Transient Resulting from Inability of Operator to 6
Control Steam Generator Level at 35 Inches," at the tine you 7
reviewed this prior to transferring this matter on January 4, 8
1979, did you conclude that the concerns raised in this 9
analysis dealt with a specific occurrence at Davis-Besse or 10 just a situation where someone was reviewing their operating 11 procedures and concluded that they really needed more analysis 12 to find out if the procedures were accurate?
l 13 A
An occurrence or occurrences?
14 g
Do you recall the date of that occurrence?
15 A
I believe that there was a Novenber occurrence that 16 this referred to.
17.
G Do you remember the year?
18 A
1978.
19 4
1978.
N Can you remember any other specifics of the November 21
'78 occurrence?
Z:
A I would not -- I wouldn't venture to propose one s
Il at this time.
1 24 4
Hould review of this document assist in refreshing 25
.your recollection or are there other documents that would I
Acme Reporting Company e
- w..
- 4...
n
,-dcc 26
- ~.
I assist.you?
.2 A.
I am sure that one would.
As you know, we deal 3
with a large number of problems.
4 (Witness reviewing document.)
5 6
'T
. s 9
10 11 12
/
13 i
14 15 16 17 18 4
19 i
e 20 t
-21 l
j.
.w
-\\
23 24 3 -.
25
- Acme Reporting Company s
uv n e,...
~
g g.
v
+
ry'-
.pw y
q 9
4 9
%w
-j
-*T+-T*w
~
t~
MS:ama:1 pad 2 1
THE WITNESS:
Okay, I am ready to discuss this 2
document and I will restate that the document is as I identi-3 fled it initially a change in -- I am sorry -- a concern over 4
the shrinking which occurs following a trip and this partic-5 ular document is identifying a change in the steam generator 6
-- a proposed change in the steam generator level which they tested in a natural circulation test so that they would have 8
an automatic level in the event of a trip as opposed to the g
normal operating level and theis reduction in the level following a trip r duces the probability and the amount of 10 e
11 shrinkage which occurs in the primary system.
12 And this doesn't specifically refer to an event, we
(
g3 but it is using test data from this natsenal circulation 14 test to substantiate the licensee's position.
15 BY MR. SIDELL:
16 G
Would the test data provided by the licensee have j
t-been a result ot a particular transient?
i i
gg A
This was a result of a test, but the whole-thing gg was brought up because of transients at this plant and others
\\
.)
which resulted in shrinking and an inability of the operator y
to know exactly what his level was for this interim during
[
gg 22 the time he lost steam generation level.
l s
i 23 4
That is the level in the pressurizer?
A Yes.
g G
What other plants had similar problems?
,,5
%,do &co A
Ranhecy Company had a similar problem.
Acme Reporting Company a n -...
l I
L
20 MSzama:2: pad' 1
0 That is not owned by Toledo Edison, is it?
2 A
No,.
but it is a Babcock Wilcox design.
e 3
Do you conclude that the analysis attached to Exhibit 3 of the Grimes Deposition was provided by Babcock 4
5
& Wilcox or Toledo Edison?
6 A
I am sure that Babcock
&' Wilcox were involved in the preparation.
g 4
Why do you conclude that?
A 9
Becaush classically the facility, the owner relies to rc;11:a heavily on Babcock c Wilcox as do each of the 11 facilities upon their nucles.. team supplier.
12 G
Do you know if in conjunction with reviewing this saw
(
13 report you also say a report specifically stated to be done by Babcock & Wilcox and Robert Winks dated December 22, 1978?
14 15 A
I did not.
Cav 0
S this is the only analysis that you say dealing 16 with this precise problem?
1 A
That is correct.
g 4
Upon your review of this document, Exhibit 3, to g
20 the Grimes Deposition, have you found any place referring to 21 Rancho Seco, for instance?
A I don't understand your question.
22 Well, you indicated that this document, this g3 g4 analysis, dealt with problem experienced at Davis-Besse and ther B&W reactors, is that correct?
25 Acme Reporting Company i
na,......
i
scmas3:pnd2 29 1
A Yes.
2 g
My question is, can you determine brsed on 3
reading or reviewing this document, the analysis offered by-Toledo Edison a reference to, for instance, Rancho Seco or 4
any ther B&W plant that experienced similar difficulties?
5 6
A There was no reference in here to my knowledge.
0 Can re u recall whether or not at the time of 3
January 4,1979 that you transferred lead responsibility on 9
this matter, you knew of other B&W plants experiencing sim-ilar problems?
10 A.
gg I was aware of the level problem being not unique t
Davis-Besse.
12
[
13 g
How were you aware of that?
A 14 Through my staff and through conversations with 15 licensing, I presume.
I don't have any documentation that E"
Y 16 staff g.
furnished this particular problem and then provided r'.
with a proposed solution.
3g 4
Who was that?
19 3
A.
Don Kirkpatrick.
21 g
And his name is also listed on Exhibit 3 to the 23 Grimes Deposition?
t' A.
I believe it is.
- Yes, 23 g
Would Mr. Kirkpatrick have documentation support-ing his recommendations to you that the problem might exist t
25 I
Acme Reporting Compony
{
i
}
m. u......
i
MStama 4:prd2 i
at more than just Davis-Besse?
A Possibly.
3 3
0 Could we check with him to find out if he does have that documentation?
4 A
3 He is on annual leave.
G When he returns?
6
,A Yes.
He just completed his part of the Three 3
Mile Island investigation, the technical investigation at the 9
site, and so that presentation was made last Wednesday, and those people that were involved practically continuously, to 11 as you know.
13 0
That repcrt was the I&E evaluation of problems at
(
g Three Mile Island, I believe NUREG 06000, an 0 range covered report?
14 A
Yes.
I don't know the NUREG number.
15 G
Did you conclude then based on Mr. Kirkpatrick *s g
3 discussions to you before you signed off on this matter that g
1c was generic rather than specific to Davis-Besse?
A gg That there was certainly a possibility that it
.g was generic, yes.
21 0
Generic to a.tl B&W reactor '
A Yes.
Now, let me clarify that a little.
I 3
(
l 23 incicated that the B&W facilities have great similarities and commonalities.
However, Davis-Besse has a higher 3
elevation of their steam genecators than most of the other 3
l-Acme Reporting Company l
a:,. sa......
^
31 3:
35:pcd2
_1 facilities, in fact, I believe all, relative to pressurizer, 2
which changes their natural circulation characteristics some.
3 G
What about the capability of the auxiliary feed 4
water pumps at Davis-Besse relative to other B&W reactors?
5 Is there a difference that you know of that would affect this problem?
6 A
That I know of now or then?
0 Let's start with then first and work back to now.
g A
Then, I was not aware of a difference, a 9
to significant difference between the auxiliary safeed water systems.
it 4
So, that any auxiliary feed water difference 13
[
13 that may have existed did not play a role or c. part in your 14 analysis?
A No.
15 4
Have you since TMI-II, learned.of any difference 16 auxiliary feed water systems between Davis-Besse and other t
E0 plants?
ig A
In fact, between each of the B&W plants there are 19 significant differences, yes.
,g 0
Would those differences mitigate the validity of 31 32 the conclusions reached in this report, Exhibit 3 to the Grimes Deposition?
3 j
A No, I don't believe so.
G So that feed water capacity is not a relevant 25 i.
Acme Reporting Company I
m, u.....
~
3C
.~Stama 6: ppd 2 1
consideration as far as this precise problem goes?
2 A
Well, the idea here is to control steam 3
generator level, and so the feed water capacity -- this is reducing. feed water level, so that feed water capacity is not r*811 5
Y importnnt in the initial stages.
You are actually 6
reducing level from the normal operating level.
Then once you get to maintaining level, then feed water capacity and 3
availability is important.
G But in the first instance, differences among var-9 i us Br,W reactors with feed water systems is not really going 10 11 to change your ultimate conclusion?
A That is correct.
12
[
13 G
Were -the conclusions reached in this report 14 sufficient to eliminate loss of pressurizer level indication, i" Y "#
Pi"i "?
15 A
16 To mitigate to some extent, yes.
And once again, for this particular set of circumstances.
This action would 13 not affect the TMI accident indications problem.
They are 19 essentially unrelated, I believe.
20 0
Well, at least in dealing with Davis-Besse, are gg the conclusions reached sufficient to eliminate loss of i
3 pressurizer level indications should the similar occurrence
~
arise?
23 A
To certainlyminimize or restrict the time during 3
which the operator would lose level indication.
25 Acme Reporting Company i
l m.......
is amas 7: ped 2 -
33 1
O So it is still possibly based on the results of
.m 2
this analysis tor an operator to loose pressurizer level indications off scale low?
3 A
Yes.
The analysis substantiates the change in 4
level to 35 inches and the purpose of that is to reduce the 3
6 shrinking, so to prevent the shrinking and all of the right combinations, I don't know.
g G
Based on your understanding pre-TMI-II of the 9
operators reliance on pressurizer level indications, could to that still not present the opportunity for to turn on the HPI 11 system if his pressurizer level indication went off i
12 scale low, even if only for a more temporary time than it
('
previously did?
13 14 A
Understand if the pressurizer goes low, he gets an automatic initiation of the high pressure injection, so he g
doesn't have to take an action.
If it is dropping f
drastically, he may beat the automatic -- he may act before g
the automatic signal, and that would be good operator 3g practice to anticipate a signal.
t 19 0
W uld the automatic emergency system go on even 20 21 though the pressurizer level indication was below a point l
where the operator could see it, but still within the pressur-23 l
i:er level itsel; or the pressurizer itself?
23 A
Well, the instrumentation, it it is off scale, 3
then you would be well below the trip level of the initiation 25 l
Acme Reporting Company l
i
l.
^
~~
34 15:ama 8: ped 2 1
point for the high pressure injection.
If that was your j._
2 question.
My understanding is pressurizar at B&W reactors 3
has a low level tap which provides water to the bottom of the 4
pressurizer so that the pressurizar-itself is not voided but 1
5 the indication'is such that the operator does not know that i
6 is the case.
7 A
Then I think you'have information I don't have.
8 G
All right.
And by losing level low in the 9
Pressurizer, 5that does an operator conclude..is going on'in 10 his primary system or in the core?
11 A
Well, he would ascertain he has reduction in l
l 12 volume if not a reduction in mass'of water in the reactor l
[
13 system.
14 4
How close then are we getting to uncovering the 15 core when the pressurizer voids?
16 A
We are still quite some distance in terms of 1;
water volume and water level.
18 g
How about level above the top of the core? How 19 far?
20 A
Unless you have -- it is relative.
How long is a 21 stream?
I don't know how to answer that.
If there is 22 water -- if the water is just at the bottom of the 23 pressurizer, the complete vessel is still filled.
24 4
And how far above the top of the core is that?
25 A
The entire eactor vessel is filled'with water.
1 I
l Acme Reporting Company l
. m.,,.....
!o
,45:,ama 9:pnd2 3
W811 ~~
- ~
g -
A So, a bubble has to be -- has to come in through 3
the pressurizer line unless there is a void forming in the core.
4 What is the total distance top to bottom of the 3
uranium in a reactor?
6 A
About 14 feet.
4 And what is the total distance top to bottom of 3
the reactor vessel?
9 A
For the B&W facilities I would guess they are 10 around 30 feet. I will make that as a ball park estimate.
i3 0
And is the uranium essentially placed in the cen-12
( ^
ter, top tc bottom of the reactor core?
33 A
Yes.
The bottom section is, essentially a plenum g
33 the top section is a plenum and carries the core and internals, and so it is probably below center.
We could get 16 drawings if that would help.
I-4 Do you have drawings readily available?
jg A
Not in here, but I could get the FSAR for Davis-39
- Besse,
.,y g
would there be --
,,3 A
If we just simply drew a reactor vessel and 3
indicate the fuel in the vessel and then.the pressuri::er is 23 attached to the reactor coolant line, with the water level 3
here, all I am saying is if the water level decreases cown 25 Acme Reporting Company i
a:..n 4...
's
.MS:ama 10sp2 1
to the bottom of the pressurizer, this whole volume is stili filled with water.
You have to run the bubble all the way 2
3 into this volume before it is not filled with water.
4 (Indicating on black board.)
5 0
And your diagram drawn on the black board in your 6
office depicts a situation during normal operating conditions?
A.
Yes.
The water level would be a normal operating 8
condition, yes.
9 4
So that your diagram of the reactor vessel and to the pressurizer would not depict the situation of abnormal 11 operating conditions?
Essentially voids in the line between 12 the reactor and the pressurizer level to let's say the line,
[
13 then that is one magnitude of shrink.
If we change the 14 water level so that voids have been introduced back into this l
line and there is now a bubble in the reactor vessel, then 13 l'
16 that would be another shrink.
L d
But the concern that these people had a:: this t-18 particular time was that the operator had lost indication, 19 that it was off scale for him, and that there was a 20 possibility of introducing volds, and there was the concern v
21 that the operator did not know what the level was clearly, 4 22 and he should through all anticipated transients.
k And I don't like to hypothesize, but the reason 23 24 he should is because if you have a transient and he doesn't 25 have level indicated, there may be some other phenomena i
1 Acme Reporting Company i
2:2,........
l
- S amas11sptd2 1
occurring.
He may have a line break dat causes him to be 3
losing massive water rather than just a shrink, and he won't be able to visualize that.
He would have to look for 3
indications in the containment of temperature moisture or 4
5 temperature points within containment to indicate that he has ma ne h eak or a large line break.
6 G
What is the reason that an operator would need to know if there were a line break or some._other problem during g
abnormal conditions?
9 A
This gives him the magnitude and the accident g
scenerio that he is faced with, 11 G
Therefore how long the operator to --
g
/
A To take the correct actions, right.
13 14 G
With the ultimate desire of getting a plant back into a steady state?
15 A
That is right.
16 G
Do you at this point in time know whether or not 1-Davis-Besse has larger capacity high pressure injection pumps 18 than other B&W reactors?
19 A
No, not immediately.
There have been some g
parametric data developed, you know, comparing the various 3
plants, and I don't recollect that off hand.
23 23 0
would that have affect on your conclusions in the.
analysis as Exhibit 3 to the Grimes Deposition?
3 A
No.
Once again, the feed water pumps -- you said g3 HPI pumps, right?
Acme Reporting Company l
l n v u.....
t
03 MScama:12:pnd2 O
Yes.
1 A
2 It would affect the rate of recovery, but I don't 3
-- it can't compensate for the rate of shrink.
The shrink is very fast.
4 0
So it would not affect the shrink of the primary 5
system?
6 A
No.
It would only affect the rate at which you recover level after the shrink.
8 Do you happen to know the rate of production g
or flow rate for the HPI pumps at Davis-Besse?
to A
No.
11 Q
How about TMI-II?
gg
'~
A Not specifically.
13 14 Can you give me a ball park figure?
A Yes.
They are around 350 GPM, I believe.
15 16 How about the make up pumps, their flow rate, TMI-II?
3 A
They are higher.
I think they are of the order 18 of 500 GPM.
tg G
At TMI-II?
20 A
I believe so.
21 G
Is that the.same situation at Davis-Besse, if you l
an re a at the flow rate on de make up pumps is higher 23 than the HPI pumps?
3 A
Y u have asked me to estimate,.and I don't know.
25 l
l Acme Reporting Company l
39 isama 13 prd 2 g
I can obtain that data if it is relevant.
2 4
Well, we have been told previously that the HPI 3
pumps at Davis-Besse have a lower flow rate than the make up 4
pumps, but that appears to be the anomoly with that system.
5 other plants the HPI pumps have a higher capacity than the 6
make up pumps.
At TMI-II they are one pump, but.they. allow the operator to regulate flow.
St they have two names for one pump, not the case at Davis-Besse.
g A
9 There are combinations as at Westinghouse CE to and B&W plants of make up and high pressure injection.
it G
Same pump, just different flow rates?
A.
Yes, different functions.
They are called 12 different things at different plants between charging pump
[
13 and make up and high pressure injection.
14 g
At the time in January 1978 that you transferred 15 16 ponsMhy to M you were as fuHy aware of de g
substance of this analysis as you would choose to be?
A.
Yes.
18 g
And Ibelieve you indicated previously that the 1g gg transient producing the utilities desire to provide this
.,1 analysis occurred in November of 19787 22 K
That is my recollection.
s I
23 MR. SIDELL:
Do you have a copy of the Tedesco 3
report, a blue covered 560?
25 MR. TRUGATCH:
Yes.
.l Acme Reporting Compony m.........
'MSsama14 pnd2 (D: cum 3nt prof fered to counSol.)
1 BY MR. SIDELL:
~
m 2
4 I.show you a copy of NUREG 3
0560 entitled
" Staff Report on the Generic Assessment of 4
the Feed Water Transients in Pressurized Water Reactors 5
Designed by the Babcock & Wilcox Company", page 3-11, section 6
3.1.6 entitled
" Davis-Besse unit 1" which deals with two particular transients bcth occurring in 1977, the first in f
8 September on the 24th and the second November 29, 1977, and 9
I ask you if in fact the November transient is not the one 10 that produced Toledo-Edison's analysis as Exhibit 3 of the 11 Grimes depostion?
12 A.
Yes, that appears to be the case, that the I
November 29th transient is what I was talking about -- 1977.
13 14 4
So, the transient you were referring to earlier I
15 as being November '78 was in fact --
i l
16 A.
Yes.
I was not here in this position when that j
1-transient occurred, so I beg your pardon -- for the 1978.
I i
l is g
As a result of this analysis, Exhibit 3 to the j
i 19 Grimes Deposition, and its concern with a problem at Davis-20 Besse and the accuracy of the pressurizer level indication, l
l 21 I believe you indicated that at the time you signed off on 22 this transfer of lead responsibility you vere also aware of i
s 23 a similar problem occurring at other B&W reactors, for '
24 instance, Rancho Seco, is that correct?
25 A.
Yes.
Acme Reporting Company, u n a......
1
, - -.. ~ _
11
{4Stama:15:ptd2 1
G Do you know whether or not this analysis provided
-~s 2
by. Toledo-Edison, the owner of Davis Besse, was going to be 3
used in resolving the same problem at Rancho Seco?
A No, I do no t.
4 5
G Do you know wnether it was going to be used in -
6 resolution of the same problem at other B&W reactors?
A You asked earlier whether I knew whether B&W g
contributed to it and I speculated that I believe B&W g
probably did.
That is really about all I know at that point.
to G
If there was a problem dealing with the pressur-ti izer level indication at cil B&W facilities and either B&W 12 or Toledo-Edison provide analysis dealing only w2th Davis
(
13 Besse but knew of the similar problems occurring at other 14 reactors, would either the utilities involved or Babcock and 15 Wilcox not be required to provide the NRC with that 16 information?
t-A That would be a part 21 report if B&W, for is instance, was aware that there was a generic safety issue, ig and it becomes a matter of its significance as to whether it 20 fits part 21 or not.
I l
j et G
Well, is pressurizer level considered a safety 22 matter, a safety item?
l z3 A
I think so.
W::-it considered 24 G
Was
'.t considered a safety item before TMI-II or 25 this year?
Acme Reporting Company i
m........
l AStama 16: pad 2 42 no$
,N
-1 A
We wouldAhave written it up in this tashion if M
2 it wasn't a safety item.
3 g
So, it necessarily had to be a safety matter, 4
since you provided a substantial amount of effort in your 5
transfer of lead responsibility?
6 A
Sure.
0 Do you know whether or not B&W or the other B&W 3
licensees provide any report of similar transients to the g
Davis-Besse analysis provided?
A In seeking a change in level?
10 11 G
Yes.
sayht A
I am not aware of any others thaty the change.
12
{
0 would they have had to provide the analysis if 13 they wanted to change the feed water level?
34 A
To make the change, yes.
15 G
Based on your prior statament that pressurizer level is a primary method for which the operator runs the phet 1,,
plant, it would appear as though.it is a substantial safety I
is characteristic and not merely a. marginal or borderline safety 19 element, is that correct?
20 It is certainly a safety element.
A O
Would it be one of the more highly rated or imprhtantsafetyteatursofaB&Wsystem?
23 A
It is a significant safety concern.
G So, that if Babcock & Wilcox had not provided Acme Reporting Company
- i-m, u..u..
_n.
-- r --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1:.a -
43 1
similar analysis to that which they offered for Davis-Besse
- ^,
2 concerning all their other plants, would that, in your 3
opinion have been a part 21 violation?
A Yes.
The question is of the applicability to 4
5 the other plants, whether it is necessary for them to all, 6
in fact, adopt a different operating level or the question of whether they have a different operating level already.
I 3
honestly don't know at this point.
9 0
Let me ask you if you know when Davis-Besse 10 received its operating license?
No, but the Y *1 i
11 i A.
9eeen book up there does. Do you 12 need that information?
'[
13 0
Well, maybe we don't.
Let me ask you whether 14 or not you know if Davis-Besse received its operating license 13 before the majority of the other B&W reactors?
16 A
No.
1; G
So, it received its operating license after the is rest -- most of them?
19 A
Several of them certainly, yes.
20 G
So, that if there was a peculiar problem with -
Davis Besse that B&W recogni=ed and was attempting to resolve, i
e by virtue of its position in the licensirig of other B&W i
23 reactors, the same problem existed at the preexisting B&W 24 facilities?
25 A'
It may have.
I Acme Reporting Company
- m........
i I
44 ama:18.
t g
Can you recall whether or not you saw a similar 2
analysis for TMI-II?
3 A
No.
You had as..ed me if I had seen similar analyses for other B&W facilities.
No.
4 5
g And specifically for TMI-II, you had not as well?
6 A
No.
I said, none.
4 I just want to be specifically sure with the case of TMI-II.
8 9
Was there any follow up by I&E to determine what to NRR had done with the problem after you signed off on the 11 matter?
A I honestly don't recollect what the follow up 12 was.
I would have to look through our documentation to see'
(
13 g4 if and when we followed up as far as a formal follow up.
15 Informally, the individual who was identified as the contact keeps a conversation going with the individual aho is NRR's 16 t-contact to maintain status.
13 g
Periodic checkups on the situation?
A That is right, so that it is not lost.
And there l
39 y) is as I say, the track system which maintains the status of the incoming documentation.
21 g3 g
Is there -- when there is an eventual resolution, 23 is there a formal document that says this problem is fixed?
A Yes.
There is a memorandum or a reference 3
memor.4ndum..
For instance, if the licensee received a l
l j
1 Acme Reporting Company j
i m. n......
-. ~..
45 I
technical specification change or some licensing action 2
allowing the adjustment in level, than that could be 3
referenced as the closure on that particular item, and if that were done of course there would have been an analysis 4
5 by NRR of that actual change, which substantiates it 6
technically.
G How long does it usually take between the time 8
of a transfer of lead responsibility on a matter like this 9
unless there is a resolution?
Is there any standard time, 10 or it just varies given the plant and given the --
11 A
of course it varies, depending on the depth of 12 the problem and the significance of it.
(
13 4
If someone in a region were to inquire as to 14 whether or not the problem with pressurizer level indication 15 had been solved as a. result- '3f this analysis, would a,
16 person, let's say'in"NRR and I&E to whom he was speaking be, l
1 n the same wave length an'd be amie to respond whether or nott it was not solved, or does this analysis deal exclusively is with feed water level and have no effect on pressurizer 19
.y) level?
21 A
No.
As we started out in this whole discussion, the feed water level -- I am sorry -- the. steam generator 22 23 level af fects the pressurizer level in this given set of 24 circumstances, So -- would you restate what you are l
25 looking for?
Acme Reporting Compony 1
2:.........
L
5:ama 46 t
G That was precisely what I am looking tor.
If 2
someone said, I was only concerned with reviewing the 3
analysis to solve the steam generator set point level and I didn't look at pressurizer level and I didn't.think it had 4
5 anything to do with pressurizer level, therer would be 6
something wrong there?
A Definitely.
8 G
And a?ternatively, if someone inquired as to 9
whether or not the pressurizar level indication off scale low i
to probably was solved as a result of this analysis, he could it easily be told yes, it was solved, would that be correct 12 A
With respect to this circumstance, yes.
But this
! f 13 would have no bearing on the TMI level indication, y
G Who was responsible within the NRC for suggesting 15 part 21 actions be instituted?
Is I&E responsible for that?
A I&E has, I would say, a first line responsibility 16 t
(
It would be whoever perceives that problem, though.
' lou know 1-l 13 it is not isolated to only I&E or only NRR.
19 0
If I&E ' decides there is a problem, where does I&E
.)
go?
3 21 A
If our concern was with B&W, then the vendor i
i 22 inspection branch would go to the B&W offices and make 23 inquiries and look at documentation as to when B&W became i
l 24 aware of, let's say, this particular level problem and who in i
23 B&W was aware of it, and then try to understand the system Acme Reporting Company a n.a......
a s
47 cs 1 1
that.did not eliminate it, didn't bring it forward so that 2
all licensees would be aware of it, all B&W licensees.
3 G
Is that;one of your responsibilities?
4 A
Illuminating it insofar as it not being a part 21 5
report could certainly be one of my responsibilities, yes.
6 0
How about in terms of if it is thought to be a 7
part 21' problem; who in ISE would push that up the line to 8
resolve it?
9-A okay.
If I were the one that determined that I 10 felt that B&W should have sent a part 21 report, then I 11 would initiate a recuest to the vendor branch to conduct i
12 the inspection, investigation, to find out what happened.
/
13
'G Has that been done for B&W in this case?
14 A
In this case, no.
15 G
Is it planned to be done?
16 A
At this point, no.
I mean I have not written 1-any memorandum on this particular issue to B&W.
Is G
Do you plan to?
19 A
Frcm where we are right now, I would consider it, 20 certainly.
There are, as you know, other considerations 21 based on the investigation report for TMI which undoubtedly 3
will go back to B&W.
23 G
Lut since you have indicated that the analysis 3
included in exhibit 3 to the Grimes' deposition is somewhat 25 distinct for Davis-Besse or at least did not play a part l
Acme Reporting Company ua..a......
i
t i
+
a+,
,M e E E m e T,e m 4e%
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
+ '
1.0 lean au m m p"
'n di l.l
[" EE
\\
l'8 l.25 1.4 1.6 6"
MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART h/////
llk f/ D 4% $
i
/
+QA///f 44<v) 4 effy
,t
. maamw,t.,;
xx
_ l( i y; a1 y;p{fjjb;;.<!,"
p J6.
i
,p);:, :-
,.'n D a ;-,= :. was.L.iikki
- Sic E$L: '
i s
48 w
1 in TMI-2 of March or this year, there seems to be a 2
dichotomy between the analysis in exhibit three and 3
the general TMI-2 problems involving B&W.
4 A
Yes.
5 g
So that this particular analysis we are discussing 6
would not necessarily be incorporated as a matter by which 7
I&E or the NRC would get back to B&W as a result of the 8
TMI-2 problem?
9 A
No, but as far as our concern with this particular 10 problem, we already know about this particul : problem, so the 11 reason for going back to B&W on a part 21 would be to make 12 sure that they understand the responsibility overall and
(
13 that for future actions that they would provide the necessary 14 reporting, and so, you know, this one is already 15 underway, but we are concerned about other activities, and 16 it is my opinion that the spin-off from TMI and that review 17 will do the same thing.
18 So the part 21 report after we already know about 19 it is of no great significance.
What we want is for the 20 licensee and tne NSSS to identify very quickly and clearly 21 their concerns which have potential generic concerns.
22 G
or alternatively, the purpose for a part 21 action 23 on the basis of that matter we have been discussing would 24 be to insure that B&W in the fut.'re doesn't fail to 25 notify the NRC of other safety related problems generic to Acme Reporting Company
- 2.........
49 1
all of its plants?
s 2
A Yes.
Have you heard of something referred to as the 3
G 4
Michelson Report?
5 A
Yes.
6 G
Pre-TMI-2?
7 L
No.
8 0
Have you read it since you have seen it or 9
heard about it?
10 A
Yes.
11 G
Did you come to an understanding as to what the 12 main concern of that report was?
f 13 A
His main concern was with the potential for 14 voiding and the inability to set up natural circulation i
15 under a given set of circumstances.
16 G
What were those set of circumstances as you 1"
understand them?
18 A
A small break and reactor coolant pump inoperation.
19 0
Was Mr. Michelson concerned with very small breaks 20 or just a general small break classification, if you can i
21 recall?
l r
A I don't remember the square foot area that he 1
23 was concerned with.
I guess we call small breaks from 24 0.02 to 0.25 square feet, somewhere around there, and he 25 was in that spectrum, I believe.
Acme Reporting Company a m u.4...
l
50 1
C Who within the NRC, if you know, checks parts of 2
the standard review plan against the plans of a particular 3
plant?
Is that an I&E function?
4 A
No, it is not.
It is within NRR.
5 So that IEE would not be in any way involved in 6
determining whether or not the PORV complied with 7
particular sections of the standard review plan?
8 A
Not directly responsible.
And maybe a clearer 9
thing to say would be that is not within our inspection 10 procedures as such.
11 4
In other words, you don't look for whether or not 12 a reactor has complied with the standard review plan testing I
13 requirements?
14 A
We look to verify that the reactor has complied 15 with the FSAR testing requirements, but not necessarily the 16 standard review plan test requirements, and maybe the 1;
natural explanation would be that between the standard 18 review plan and the FSAR at a given plant, it may be a
- 19 couple of years, so that the FSAR is implementing the m
standard review plan and what applies to that particular 21 facility was established based on the status of the standard 22 review plan at that time.
23 Since then the standard review plan evolved to 24 something else.
25 4
For instance, for TMI-2, its FSAR would have been Acme Reporting Company 2:2. u......
l
51 1-developed by March of '78 when it received its operating 2
license would that be accurate?
3 A
well before, yes.
4 0
And if there was a 1975 section of the standard 5
review plan that existed, is it likely or unlikely that 6
that section of the SRP would have been included in the I
TMI-2 FSAR?
8 A
That the TMI FSAR would reflect the 75 SRP --
9 0
Yes.
10 A
I think it would.
11 0
And if that section required specific testing of 12 a PORV, I&E would not be involved?
13 A
I&E would certainly be involved if the testing 14 were reflected in the FSAR.
15 If the SRP required testing to be done and that 16 section was incorporated into the FSAR, would I&E determine 17 whether the testing is the first instance has been done?
18 A
We would on a sampling basis, once again.
19 0
And that sampling basis is predicated on the safety 20 related/non-safety related dichotomy?
21 A
We don't look at anything that is not safety 22 related by the FSAR.
That is not inspected.
So it would 23
. be a sampling of the safety related.
24 0
And pre-TMI-2, do you know whether or not the PORV 25 was safety reisted or at least defined as safety related?
Acme Reporting Compony nt
.s.a...
52 1
A In many of the plants it was not, because it was 2
downstream of the isolation valve.
3 4
Which is another name for the block valve?
4 A
Yes.
5 g
And, therefore, if you had a block valve, you 6
didn't 'really need to worry about the PORV in terms of 7
failing open or failing closed?
8 A
That is an oversimplification, but that is essentially 9
the case.
10 0
Based on the information contained in your 11 resume, there is a section stating that you were 12 involved with the incident response policies at one point f
13 in time?
14 A.
Yes.
15 g
What involvement did you have with those is policies?
1; A
Okay.
I was the executive officer for 18 operations support from June of 1977 until about August of 19 1978, and that was one of the responsibilities of that
.m particular office was to set up our incident response l
21 system.
While I was there we developed the incident I
r response center facility that is now on the third floor.
It 23 was in the classroem upstairs, and we developed the L
24 procedures and interfaced with NRR in developing the whole l
25 plan for NRC incident response.
l Acme Reporting Company i
j m.........
I l
53 1
G Would it be fair to conclude that you were 2
responsible for developing the emergency procedures used 3
' durung the TMI-2 accident in the incident response center?
4 A
As far as the incident response center, yes, 5
and in getting the coordination with NRR and MNSS on the manual chapter for the NRC manual, 05k2.
6 T
4 And were'you also responsible for the preparation 8
and distribution of the red notebook, the NRC incident 9
response plan?
10 A
I am not sure -- I think that is a later version-11 than I was responsible for distributing.
'It is constantly 12 updated.
So for during that interval, the publication 13 that we used during that time, I was responsible for it, 14 yes.
15 G
Were there any methods determined as to the 16 receipt of information from particular sites to the 17 incident response center?
18 A
I am not sure what your question is.
19 G
Communications between T!!I-2 and Bethesda at least in the early hours appear to have been somewhat 21 confused, to say the least.
In your preparation of the r
emergency procedures for the incident response center, did i
03 you deal with the method of communication between a site 24 and the incident response center, or did you just go from 25 once the complaint or the problem got to Bethesda, that is Acme Reporting Company m. w.....
54 I
where your area of procedures would begin?
2 A
Certainly the procedure while I was in the 3
position of responsibility did deal with the communication 4
and presently does insofar as making the connection between 5
the incident response center and the region and the 6
region with the site, and in this case, we made the tie with 7
-the site and the region in parallel, and I will agree that the 8
communications were inadequate during that initial time 9
frame insofar as being able to obtain information or 10 get questions resolved.
11 4
Was there any original procedure designed to 12 brief NRC commissioners during accidents?
13 A
Yes.
The function there was to receive 14 the information in the incident response center and 15 then translate that information into the executive 16 management tern office and then for the executive 17 management team to then retransmit to the commission l
18 pertinent information.
19 Now, in this particular occurrence, one of the m
commissioners was present during some of the early parts of 21 the incident.
22 0
Who was that?
03 A
John Ahearne.
04' O
Any other commissioners that you can recall?
25
.A In and out of the center a couple of days Acme Reporting Company m. u.~...
r--
n
55
~
1 after, I think essentially all the commissioners 2
circulated through.
I couldn't give times and dates.
3 0
You can only recall Commissioner Ahearne on 4
Wednesday?
-5 A
Yes.
6 G
Anyone else Thursday morning that you can 7
recall -- the next day after the accident?
8 A.
I believe that Chairman Hendrie was there.
That 9
whole time frama ran together.
We worked very long hours 10 and I couldn't separate day and night.
Maybe I should 11 add that the incident response plan doesn't require or 12 request the commissioners to be in the incident response
[
13 center.
14 G
It is just their own interest that --
15 A.
That is right.
And I might say that there is an 16 intention to separate the executive management 17 team from the actual response team so that the people in the 18 response center itself are gathering information and 19 taking actions and the executive management team are 20 evaluating particular problems and making decisions.
21 So there was intended to be a bifurcation between 22 those two.
23 4
Were you in the incident response center a i
24 great part of the time for the first few days of the i
l 25 accident?
l l
l' Acme Reporting Company 4:,,.......
56 I
A Yes, I was. -
2 0
Would you conclude that there seemed to be a lot 3
of activity in there?
4 A
Yes.
5 g
People going in and out?
6
~
A Yes, there was.
7 4
Did it seem chaotic to you?
8 A
'I wouldn't use that as an adjective, no.
9 4
Did it function as you had envisioned it when you 10 developed the emergency procedures?
11 A
Certainly we found a number of ways to improve 12 it since then.
It did not function as well as we had hoped
(
13 it would function.
14 G
As one of the more primary or significant 15 methods of improvement, are you referring to the 16 direct lines to each of the individual reactor sites?
17 A.
Yes.
We had physical communication problems 18 early on as well as difficulties in transmitting information.
19 G
Are you familiar with someone by the name of 20 James Cresswell?
21 A.
Yes, I am.
22 G
Did you know him before the accident?
23 A.
Yes.
I knew him in region III.
I think I hired 24 him, in fact.
25 0
You were previously in region III?
Acme Reporting Compony l.
4:t u.4...
L
57
' ^ '
1 A
Yes, I was.
2 0
Beforc the TMI-2 accident of this year, were you 3
involved in any of Mr. Cresswell's concerns at Davis-Besse?
4 A
Yes, I was.
5 g
The September.24, 1977 incident?
6 A
Insofar as Tedesco's document goes, I was not 7
involved in review or evaluation of that particular 8
incident.
9 And that was after the accident?
10 A
Yes.
11 0
Did you receive or were you aware
'f 12 Mr. Cresswell's reports concernig Davis-Besse in September 13 of '77, pre-TMI?
14 A
His inspection reports or what are you speaking 15 to?
16 G
'lis inspection reports or did you knew of in another 17 matter Mr. Cresswell's concerns?
IS A
His concerns I guess came to this office in 19 January of 1979 first, but -- and those were to things
'M that Mr. Cresswell felt the hearing boards involved with 21 B&W plants should be aware of.
22 0
And those matters dealt with the November 1977 23 transient at Davis-Besse?
24 A
That was one of the things they dealt with.
25 0
Prior to that time, did he ever get on the Acme Reporting _ Company m........
7 58 I
phone and call you up and say I have this problem here, 2
everybody else thinks I am nuts, what should I do?
3 A
No, not to my recollection.
4 G
If he would have called, it is more than likely 5
you would have remembered it?
6 A
I think I would.
7 G
How long did you work with him in region III?
8 A
Not very long, because I left there in June of 9
'77, and he hire'd on -- I am not sure what date he actually to came onboard, but it --
11 0
1977?
12 A
I believe it was 1977.
13 G
So far a maximum of six months?
14 A
Yes, and he didn't work directly for me.
He 15 was in the technical support group initially.
16 G
Did you have occasion to review any of his work?
17 A
In the region, no.
18 G
Did you have dealings with anyone who did review 19 his work in the region?
m A
I am sure I did.
21 G
Did you conclude based on your conversations with his more immediate supervisors that his work was of a 23 satisfactory level?
24 A
That he was a very highly qualified inspector from i
25 the standpoint of his technical knowledge, his knowledge of j
Acme Reporting Company a w n......
59-a 1
reactor critical testing, start-up testing, general reactor
i.
I 2
physics knowledge.
3 g
Do you know whether or not he was considered to 4
have. good common sense as relates to inspections of. reactors?
5 A
I would say that the only thing I heard, and I 6
don' t know even.where I heard it, was that he was severely
~
7 critical of some licensees and in some cases had a 8
communication problem with the licensees as a result.
- Now, 9
I don't know what that means either, but that is --
to g
You heard this while you were still in region III?
11 A
Yes.
12 g
Can you recall who you heard it from?
13 A
Or shortly thereafter.
14 No.
I said at the outset that I didn't recall who 15 I heard it from.
Understand that among all staff members 16 there are statements, well, he is a great inspector; he is 17 very knowledgeable; he can't communicate with the licensee 18 or he makes the licensee mad or -.you know, those kinds of 19 statements.
'M I only heard that one in passing, and-it 21 has.no bearing on what I think of him now or what I 22 thought of him then.-
23 0
You previously referred to Mr. Cresswell's 24 concerns about Davis-Bessee in November '77 and his request 3
for notification of licensing boards in January of this Acme Reporting Company 4
au.......
i
-,y..,
60 I
year.
Was that a standard procedure to follow?
2 A
Not for the concerns that he had, quite 3
honestly.
What he had done was put together some six concerns 4
about primarily Davis-Besse and packaged them for 5
notification hearing boards when, in fact, there were six t
6 technical issues of various states of development, I
~
7 would say, which would not normally be transmitted to a 8
hearing board.
9 Undeveloped information is really, I think, 10 premature for a hearing board, and some of this was 11 undeveloped information, so it was kind of a mixed bag 12 from that standpoint.
13 0
What in your opinion should have been done with 14 what you just referred to as undeveloped information?
15 A
Develop it, which is what ultimately has had 16 to be done with some of the items.
~
17 0
Is that something that would have been within 18 Mr. Cresswell's abilities to do or would he have relied l
19 on the licensee for further information?
20 A
It would be both of those.
He would try to 21 obtain additional information and it would certainly be from 22 the licensee.
2 0
So if the licensee failed or refused or whatever l
24 reason-to provide the information requested, he would be 25 stuck?
The information would be --
4 i
Acme Reporting Company l
2:1,...~...
--r
--e 9
j 61 5
1 A
No, no.
If we feel there is a safety concern, 2
we can issue-an order and get any information we desire, 3
so we are not limited to what the licensee wishes to give 4
us.
5 g
Who issues the order; the region or headquarters?
U 6
A The region recommends it and heardquarters issues 7
it.
8 g
But in order for the region to issue it they would 9
have to be as convinced as the inspector or investigator 10 as to the potential of the problem?
11 A
Yes.
And let me back away from that and say that, 12 you know, it has not been our. experience that we have to l'
(
13 issue orders in order to get information, Licensees 14 are generally cooperative and are generally responsive.
15 g
would you say that they provide information about 16 possible safety concerns without even being asked, to the 17 NRC?
IS A
Well, they do, because they are required, if you 19 will, and so that their technical specifications require 20 them to report a certain spectrum of issues in accordance i
dc9 21 with the reed guide 1.16, revision 4, which is incorporatedinalloftheir$echnicalIpecs.
l 22 23 4
With Mr. Cresswell's concerns dealing with 24 notif' cation of licensing boards, are you aware of the i
l 25 chain of sequences af ter Mr. Moseley and tir. Thornburg of f
l Ac nue Reporting Company ua.
a......
.,_.-----------l
~ - ~ ~ ~ -
j 62 jdI I&E were notified in January of what those particular 1
2 concerns were?
3 A
Yes.
In fact, they have been documented.
4 O
Are you aware of who in I&E was responsible for 5
moving the matter along?
6 A
In part, I was.
7 0
How were you involved?
8 A
I ultimately received the concerns and made the 9
recommendation for Moseley and made the contact with to Mr. Cresswell and the region III staff to discuss the 11 concerns, and asked Mr. Cresswell along with Mr. Bryan, 12 Sam Bryan, who was involved, whether he felt this was'a
[
13 matter that should be directed to the boards in any event:
14 that is, if staff didn't agree that they should be sent to 15 the boards, did he feel that they should be, and he said 16 yes, and we did.
17 Because that is the manner of handling those la items.
You know, if any individual within I&E at least has 19 a position that he thinks should be provided to a sitting M
board and he persists in that, in spite of staff disagreement 21 or management disagreement, then it is sent.
So that is 22 essentially where that one went.
23 0
Do you have any internal I&E requirements that 24 within a certain amount of time you will make you evaluation 25 and forward it to licensing boards?
Acme Reporting Compony I
uw.s ea...
63 1
A Time frames, yes, there is an instruction, and I 2
am sorry, I don't recall the manual chapter number --
J47 pt c. -IC30 I can dig it out for youg-- and I believe that it is 3
4 supposed to be transmitted to the sitting boards in terms of 5
our time in something like ten days.
6 G
Ten days from receipt of the problem?
A Yes.
8 g
Are there any procedures dealing with situations 9
where NRR also gets involved with a problem?
10
. A Well, the sequence of transmittal of issues to 11 boards is from the I&E region to I&E headquarters, and 12 then NRR becomes a clearinghouse for all of them, but they f
13 merely transmit in this sort of a case.
14 So I&E does the analysis and sends it off to NRR, 15 which in turn sends it off to the licensing boards?
16 A
If you understand, where there is an employee t-who feels that the information should be transmitted is irrespective of its quality, then it is, and then analysis 19 would follow as far as -- or further information would 33 follow, and whenever the information is preliminary you et always have to provide further information.
It is just 22 not a complete bag.
And the system that was developed i
23 recognized that, that in order to be timely with 24 information, you can't be complete.
. end es25 Acme Reporting Company 1
.a w.um...
^
dro 64 3:1 1
(Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
2 MR. SIDELL:
Back on the record.
3 BY MR. SIDELL:
4 G
During a brief recess, Mr. Jordan, we have been 5
discussing some other concerns raised by Mr. Cresswell 6
dealing with the September 24, 1977 Davis-Besse problem.
~
7 I am wondering whether or not you have any informa-8 tion about Mr. Cresswell's concerns during the September 9
incidence while reviewing the request for board notification 10 between January and March of this year?
11 A
Okay.
12 As was stated during the recess, I believe that that I'
13 information was pulled and used in reviewing Mr. Cresswell's 14 technical concern regarding pressuri=er level feed water 15 control in his board notification request, that aspect of the 16 board notification request.
~
17 4
Would I be correct in concluding that in the review 18 process of Mr. Cresswell's concerns dealing with Davis-Besse 19 in November of 1977, someone in your office determined that
'M there were other concerns also at Davis-Besse that occurred 21 in September that were mattcT1 interesting to Mr. Cresswell 12 and provided'that information to you in the review process 23 between January and March of this year?
24 A
Yes.
My recollection is that there were a number 25 of issues discussed with regard to Davis-Bessee.
1 Acme Reporting Company m. n.....
dao 65 3:2 1
4 In both the September and November 1977 Davis-Besse 2
transients, pressuri=er level indication loss, both off 3
scale low and off scale high, appear to have concerned Mr.
4 Cresswell to some extent.
5 Apparently concerned Toledo Edison or Babcock &
6 Wilcox sufficiently to have tnem produce some analysis that 7
is the basis of Exhibit 3 to the Grines deposition which you 8
previously stated was turned over by you to NRR in January 9
of.this year.
10 Was it I&E's corsideration of the problems that 11 they might have been generic to all B&W reactors?
12 A
Certainly there was that possibility and concern,
[
13 yes.
14 0
Upon review of Mr. Cresswell's request for notifica-15 tion of licensing boards in January, 1979?
16 A
Yes.
That is part of the basis for board notifica-17 tion -- you know, thatit be generic, applicable to other 18 boards other than for instance the Davis-Bessee board.
19 G
Where does a regional report go within I&E head-l 20 quarters when it is received?
21 A
Presently and at that time the reports are 2
distributed as requested and then filed, and there is not i
23 required evaluation of incoming reports at headquarters.
24
.0 So pre T:1I as well as currently, if I&E headquarters 25 receives a report dealing with a safety related problen with Acme Reporting Company m,
.1,.....
..dca 66.
3:3 a
1 potential generic consequences, there is no independent 2
review of that concern in I&E headquarters?
3 A-No.
The concern -- the policy is that the concern 4
be raised by a memorandum from the region so that it is -
5 elevated out of the routine inspection findings, and it was 6
that kind of a memorandum that Cresswell submitted requesting 7
- boards be informed.
8 So if you will, that was a mechanism for elevating 9
it and getting action.
10 G
Is that limited only when the orgininator requests 11 expressly notification of a licensing board?
12
.4 No.
In fact, that particular case was somewhat
[
13 unique in that normally it is merely a transmission from the 14 region requesting action on an issue, whether it be a 15 technical spe ification change or an evaluation of the 16 safety concern or evaluation of the generic aspect.
17 But a single technical issue is raised and then IS acted upon.
19 Is every report sent in by a region reviewed by 20 your staff?
21 A
No, it is not.
22 4
Is there some method for determining which ones U
will be reviewed and which will not?
04 A
Presently those which have an elevated concern and 25 are referenced in a memorandum would be those that are reviewed.
Acme-Reporting Company 2:,e n......
1 a
n
do.s g;
34 1
0 Nhat does that review consist of?
2 A
It would be using the report for supporting informa-3 tion and perhaps a basis for going back to the inspector for 4
more information if there were other issues or other aspects 5
that neede to be clarified.
6 So the inspection report contains facts and the 7
transmittal memorandum which comes in here contains the 8
inspector's opinions and views or concerns separate from the 9
facts in the report.
10 0
Well, if there were a case where the inspection 11 report was complete in terms of all the facts necessary to 12 determine by I&E headquarters there should be a resolution l
13 of the problem and a generic basis with all other plants, 14 what would tne procedure be?
15 A
That the region would forward a memorandum which 16 may simply reference the inspection report and the appropriate l
17 section as being the basis for the requested action.
18 G
Would I&E perform any independent.nalysis of that 19 recommendation from the region?
20 A
The I&E headquarters office?
21 G
Yes.
S A
We normally wouldn't do an independent insepetion, con versabons 23 but we generally would have ca"eide*=tiens with the inspector, 7
24 possible with the nuclear steam supplier, probably with 25 Licensing in order to put this particular problem in perspective Acme Reporting Company
.aws.....
dp gg 4,
3:5 1
and propose a solution.
2 0
You currently have the same level of staff that you 3
did pra TMI?
j 4
A.
Yes, I do.
5 g
Do you consider that level adequate to resolve 6
all the concerns that are raised to you from the regions?
i A
No, I don't.
8 4
Has anything been done about that?
9 A
Yes.
I have authorization to increase my staff by to five systems engineers, in addition a metalurgist, an it additional electrical engineer and an additional mechanical 12 engineer.
I is O
So that is eight new people?
14 A
That is right, plus an additional clerk typist.
15 4
How many people currently are in your area of 16 responsibility?
t-A Seven.
is 4
So you are more than doubling the size?
19 A
That is right.
m 0
When Mr. Cresswell filed his concerns about et Davis-Besse in January of this year, was there any concen-tration on operator prematurely terminating the HPI system m
23 by erroneous readings produced by pressurizer level 24 indication?
25 A
Not -- that wasn ' t the focus, no.
k Acme Reporting Company j
l 2:,.......
t
l
. WO 69 3:6 1
g Was that included?
stoY 2
A Specifically, it wasj\\ included in the memorandum 3
or the inspection report you just showed me.
4 S
You are referring now to an Oc+.ober 25, 1978 letter 5
addressed to Mr. James Grant from Gaston Fiorelli, chief 6
of the Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch in 7
Region III with an attached inspection report by Mr. James 8
Cresswell dated 10-24-78 referring to the September 24, 1977 9
transient at Davis-Besse, which is an exhibit to the Cresswell 10 deposition.
11 L
Do you have copies of the information which 12 transmitted Cresswell's concerns to -- and this is for I
13 notifying boards.
14 4
The January 8, 1979 memo?
15 A
A January 8 memorandum for Streeter from Cresswell, l
16 and then there is a transmittal from Jim Keppler to Norm
)
1 Moseley.
j is O
As well as Mr Thornburg, January 19, 1979?
)
1 19 A
I am looking for the transmittal now.
20 Yes, C..e metro was for Moseley and Thornburg dated 21 January 19 from Jim Keppler, who transmitted that package.
I 22 That gets it from the region into headquarters?
23 A
That is right.
t 24 G
Then once in headquarters we have a little bit of 25 back and forth between I&E and NRR?
Acme Reporting Company
.J
'dca 7e 3:7 1
A Yes.
2 4
Do you know the date when the matter finally was 3
transferred to NBR from IEE?
4 A
Well, because of the curious mode of transmittal --
5 that is, as information to a licensing board, it was forwarded 6
to Vassallo first.
7 4
He is NRR?
8 A
He is NRR, that is right.
That was from Dudley 9
Thomson to Vassallo.
10 4
So it was in I&E for a period of almost six weeks?
11 A
Yes.
12 Which appears to be somewhat longer than your 10 I
^
13 day rule of getting matters referred to licensing boards?
14 A
Yes.
15 0
Why was that?
16 A
Not at
. making excuses, but the attempt to try 1;
to pull the issues out as technical issues and then put them is in that respect rather than as licensing board matters, I 19 think that consumed part of the time.
20 G
Any other?
21 A
The other time was consumed because of inadequate r
staff.
23 g
Those were the seven people currently existing in 24 your office?
25 A
Yes.
So I had one staff member who was qualified l
Acme Reporting Compony l
t
,m........
.d;o '
71 s
3:8 1
in this area and he had other issues that he was dealing 2
with at the same time.
3 Prior to TMI-II, did you request additional staff 4
to deal with matters such as Mr. Cresswell raised?
5 A
I had, and the position was that we were not 6
authorized additional staff.
0 Who did you make a request to?
8 A
To Norm Moseley and before that discussion with 9
Ernst Volgeneau, who was Director of I&E.
to O
Mr. Volgeneau and Mr. Moseley's response was that tt there are just not enough dollars in the system to increase 12 your staff?
)
[
L That is right.
The position had been taken by 13 g4 Dr. Volgeneau that the headquarters staff should be minimum, 15 a very small staff and the staffing should be primarily in 16 the regions, but it should be maintained as small as possible.
1-0 Why was that, if you know?
is A
That was his view of the NRC's proper role in this 19 area.
We were to a large extent auditorn. very small sample-l 3
takers.
21 0
In headquarters?
l A
In headquarters, yes.
22 23 4
Where the real work is down out in the field?
l l
24 A
Yes.
23 G
Do you racall whether or not there was further T
l Acme Reporting-Company
- o
.2......
- -------:=-----------------
. dOo 72 3:9 1
information needed from Mr. Cresswell once his concerns were 2
received somewhere after January 19 of this year?
3 A
There were telephone conversations with him and 4
then references to other documents, yes.
So there was 5
additional communication back and forth, s
G Were the documents already in Bcthesda or ar least he,adquarters of the NRC as opposed to Region III?
8 A
I believe that they were, but there may have been 9
some that were requested and obtained from the region.
I do -g to really don't know. If they were public '-
--da type documents, 11 they were.
If they were strictly :orrespondence from the te licensee, they may not have been.
[
13 May I have an aside?
14 4
S ure.
15 MR. SIDELL:
Off the record.
16 (Discussit.. off the record.)
t-MR. SIDELL:
Back on the record, tg BY MR. SIDELL:
19 G
During an off the record discussion, Mr. Jordan, 3) we Pree been considering some of the other characteristics l
that Mr. Jresswell raised in his January submission to the 21 l
2 NRC and that in your view provided the basis for time delay 23 between the. receipt of Mr. Cresswell's concerns and the 24 eventual I&E forwarding of the matter to the licensing i
25 boards through NRR.
Acme Reporting Company l
m
.n
l
,dOO 72 3:10 i
What were some of those concerns you just mentioned?
2 A
one in particular was control rod drive system i
3 relay, which Mr. Cresswell had an internal memorandum from 4
B&W to the licensee which indicated a possible maintenance 3
concern, and that was the basis for his identifying it in 1
6 this particular document, so that my staff had to then develop.'
what the relay phys : ally was, its function, and then the 3
actual mode of failure from that.
9 So it was inadequately developed for the purposes H) of issuing a notification to a board, information which 1
11 subsequently proved to be of generic interest from the 12 standpoint of a particular relay that is subject to a parti-I 13 cular type of failure.
14 But still would be considered irrelevant for 15 hearing board notification purposes.
Are you interesting us in pursuing the other issues?
t-4 S urely.
A Maybe to save time, there has been developed a p;
19 memorandum which describes the disposition of those items.
3 Mow I can't find the particular document.
21 4
When you can find it, if you would just forward n
it to us, that would be fine.
We may already have it in
.;3 the piles of paper we have already received.
3 A
It would put it in context with this interview.
5 4
Sure.
2 Acme Reporting Company l
u o........
de3 74
- ,=
' 3:11 s
1 In terms of structure of the NRC, I&E in particular, 2
are there any proposed changes as a result of TMI-II?
3 A
Well, with regard to my staff I have described 4
those changes and I understand that there are organizational 5
changes being examined as far as ways of improving the 6
organization, but I don't have any of them for you to speculate on.
i s
0 You don't know what the proposed changes are?
9 A
I aon't really know what they are.
i to S
Would those be contained in the I&E report j
l it issued last week?
12 A
No.
(
13 g
Aside from'your increasing staff with direct 14 responsibility to you, do you have any suggestions for 15 changing the structure within I&E to more expeditiously 16 resolve problems addressed in a region?
1-A once again, with my staff it is to set aside a 18 group of systems engineers that review all licensee event 19 reports, all inspection reports by the NSSS type, so there 20 will be an individual review of all B&W plant special 21 reports and interim reports, reviewing all General Electric 22 plants for those two aspects.
23 G
How many LER's for B&W reactors would you say are l
l 24 created per week or per month?
25 A
Well, put on an annual basis, it seems that we Acme Reporting Co rnpony
- 2 u.....
l
75 400 3:12
,1 average per unit somewhere between 40 and 80 per year --
2 4
When you say per unit is that per reactor --
3 A
Per reactor unit, and it depends on the licensee 4
and not so much on the reactor type.
There is a bell-shaped 5
distribution of numbers of reports.
6 G
So that is approximately 70 LER's a week per --
A For the 70. plants.
Not too far off.
8 4
In the future one person is going to be reviewing 9
all B&W reactors?
p)
A Right.
So that would be --
11 g
Something less than 70 a week?
12 A
So that would be 8/70 of that number.
So there
[
13 would be an effort to distribute the work and then to find 14 someone to be looking down all af the particular reactor 15 type, of that particular type for generic concerns.
ni I think that is one of the disconnects that the 1-NRC had in not having that continuity across all B&W is facilities, for instance.
19 G
Too much compartmentalization?
3 A
Yea, and in the case of my staff I tormerly had 21 one individual reviewing all boiling water reactors and one 22 reviewing all pressurizer water reactors, and ?. hat is l
33 simply too much.
l-L 24 4
So some problems drop through tha cracks?
l i
25 !
A Yes.
Your general question was organizational l-Acme Reporting Company
.na,.>......
... ~
0 76 3:13 i
changes, and I think I would add that presently there are 2
two technical staffs within IsE, one within the reactor 3
construction division and one within the reactor operations ymnt;tes 4
division, and there are some ;;zz:n n;ileu.11 Lies there that 5
perhaps an organizational change could help.
6 Both groups are overworked, but there are some of the same disciplines between them.
Where there is a s
economy that could be made, that is a question.
9 G
So you might improve things by reducing some to people or exacerbate some things by overworking even more 11 the same people, depending upon what the resolution is?
12 A
That is right.
The construction facility
(
13 problems are of course related to plants that are somewhere 14 along in the phase of construction and find a problem that 15 they report.
16 The operations concerns are generally with respect I-to the equipment not functioning ?ike it was supposed to, is but there are some of the problems that relate all the way 19 back to how they were conatructed, and I think one of the 20 examples would be the feed water nozzel cracking that I 21 described earlier in our discussion.
22 That may be traced back to design and/or Cc ~ m o s a bfy 23 fabrication techniques.
So that common-nationalit-y exists, blurn 24 and right now it is tsue communication between the divisions.
t i
25 4
Do you receive inspection reports only from domestic Acme Repor:bg Company l
l
[
- d. co 77 p
3:14 i
plants?
2 A
That is correct.
3 4
Did you have any information about PORV problems 4
pre TMI with the PORV failing open at various B&W reactors?
5 A
I don't believe I did.
There is a periodic 6
compilation of licensee event reports that a:e run off from the computer and there is an effort there to try to identify a
generic issues by sorting information, and I don't recollect 9
having seen that particular facet run off from those reports.
to G
At this time I don't have any further questions, Mr. Jordan.
it 12 What we have been doing as a prior practice is
/ '
13 to recess rather than adjourn the deposition so that in the 34 event we do have something else to ask you we can just proceed 15 along rather than starting anew.
16 I doubt that will be necessary.
To date I would g
represent to you we lave not redeposed anyone else, although 1
ig we do have a few individuals we are planning on doing that with.
ig 20 So since I can't make any promises in terms of that, 21 I just merely advise you that it is a possibility, although l
3 slig5?. at best.
)
i 23 A
No problem.
j 24 MR. SIDELL:
Do you have any questions?
8 l
MR. TRUGATCH:
No.
25 _
Acme Reporting Company i
ua........
--..: L
'., doc 3:15 1
MR. SIDELL:
We will recess the deposition and 2
hopefully adjourn it if you hear nothing further from us and 3
you will try and find that documentation about Mr.
4 Cresswell's --
5 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
6 How can I transmit that to you?
MR. SIDELL:
I will give you an address.
8 Thank you very much.
9 (Whereupon, at 11:45 o' clock a.m.,
the deposition 10 was recessed, to reconvene at a later date if necessary.)
it I have read the foregoing pages, 1 12
.through 78, and they are a true I
and accurate record of my testimony 13 14 therein record d
15
/
^Mt t/
d A sw
~~
~ L JORDAN Subscribed and sworn to before me 17 this day of
, 1979 18 Notary Public 19 3
My Commission Expires:
I l
21 l
e 23 24 05 l
Acme Reporting Company m. n......
i i
4 l
79 1
f.
2 3
REPORTER'S CERTI?!CATE o
4 5
DOCIET NUMBER:
6 CASE TITLE:
Accident at Three Mile Island deposition of Edward L. Jordan 7
HEARING DATE: August 6, 1979 8
LOCATION: Bethesda, Maryland 9
to I hereby certify that the preceedings and evidence 11 hetain are contained fully and accurately in the notes 12 taken by me at the hearing in the above case before the
~
[
13 President's Comission on the Accident at Three Mile Island 14 and that this is a true and correct transcript of the 15 same.
16 17 1
18 Date:
August 7, 1979 19
/
- 4. -
20 Lus.tv winJ 21
. Official Reporter Acme Reporting Company, Inc.*
02 1411 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 23 04 05 I i
i i
I i
Acme Reporting Company
{
3 t
l b
I
w-0
- 5 i
CERTIFICATE I certify that I have read this transcript and corrected any errors in the transcription that I have been able to identify, except for unimportant punctuation errors.
9 V
7 l
l-
~w e
.QE A '.
~
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF s
EDWARD L. JORDAN Mr. Jordan has more than twenty years of experience in design, operation, l
research, management and regulation of nuclear systems.
From 1956 until 1958 he worked as a design engineer performing shielding calculations and preliminary facility design for nuclear facilities proposed in support of the Nuclear Aircraft Program. From 1958 until 1965 he operated, maintained, modified and supervised operation of research and testing reactors in support of the nuclear aircraft and nuclear rocket programs. From 1965 until 1969 he proposed and conducted nuclear research and testing. The preceding experience occurred -
while Mr. Jordan was employed by the General Dynamics Corporation.
Mr. Jordan joined the Atomic Energy Commission in 1969 as a reactor inspector responsible for conducting inspections at reactor facilities in preoperational and startup testing. He has held positions in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission supervising inspections at operating reactors and at reactors under construction from 1972-1977.
Mr. Jordan was transferred to the Headquarters Office of Inspection and Enforcement in 1977 with responsibility for developing certain policies, including enforcement, incident response, and investigations for imple-mentation by the regional offices and Headquarters.
Mr. Jordan was reassigned as Assistant Director for Technical Programs, Division of Reactor Operations Inspection of the Office of Inspection and. Enforcement in 1978.
In this capacity he is responsible for establishing policies for and managing review of technical problems identified by the NRC inspection program.
Mr. Jordan received his bachelor's degree in math and physics in 1954 from Northwestern State in Louisiana. He has also taken graduate level courses in nuclear engineering and physics at Southern Methodist and Texas Christian Universities.
h4 9/u77 j
-