ML19308C426
| ML19308C426 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/14/1979 |
| From: | Dienelt J, Ornstein H, Zechman R METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., NRC - NRC THREE MILE ISLAND TASK FORCE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001240575 | |
| Download: ML19308C426 (79) | |
Text
.
,i{
%g i I
Jbk L.
O N U CLE AR RE G UL ATO R'I COMMISS!O N O
i h
i IN THE MATTER OF:
i; THREE MILE ISLAND i
SPECIAL INTERVIEWS I
i I
INTERVIEW OF RICHARD ZECHMAN I
.O 7:iBRBREM I
Place -
Middletown, Pennsylvania Date -
Friday, September 14, 1979 Pages 1 - 78
]
7.~.
(202)347 3700 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.
O OfficsalReponers 444 North Ccpitol Street
,9 {} () 1~ 2 el 0 6 7 [
- Washington, D.C. 20001 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE DAILY r
1 l
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CR6989 1
[)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
' wd 2
3 (f_,l
X x_/
In the Matter of:
i 5
THREE MILE ISLAND SPECIAL INTERVIEWS 6
l i
X 7I i
INTERVIEW OF RICHARD ZECEMAN g
l 9
l Trailer 411 l
10 Three Mile Island I-Middletown, Pennsylvania 11 Friday, Septenber 14, 1979 l
12 APPEARANCES:
/~'s
(
13
'~'
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
14 JOHN F. DIENELT, ESQ.
15 Principal Interviewer 16 HAROLD ORNSTEIN,
LEWIS BATTIST 17 For Metropolitan Edison:
18 DELISS A A. RIDGWAY 19 20 21 g()
22 23 l
24 l Ace-eral Reporters, Inc.
25
r1 2
CR6989 1
C O N T,E N T,S 2
WITNESS:
EXAMINATION l
3
- Richard Zechman 3
O 4l
.5 EXHIBITS 6
NUMBER IDENTIFIED 7
3016 5
8 3017 7
9 3018 34 l
10 !
3019 47 l
11 l
12 O
is 14 15 I
16 17 18 19 20 21 O.
22
-23 24
. +.
nosomre, Inc.
25
3 CR6989 1
PROCEEDINGS 3y s
rb,)1 2
RICHARD ZECHMAN LRW 3
was called as a witness, and having been first duly sworn, O'~
4 was examined and testified as follows:
5 EXAMINATION 6
BY MR. DIENELT:
7 Q
State your name and address.
8 A
Richard William Zechman.
458 North Holly 9
Street, Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania.
10 Q
State your business address as well.
11 A
Business address is Met Ed Company, Post Office 12 Box 480, Middletown, Pennsylvania, 17057.
<s
(
)
13 0
I show you a document introduced as Exhibit 3010 14 in a prior deposition and ask if you have seen a copy of 15 that docu ant.
16 A
I have.
17 Q
For the record, this is a copy of a letter which 18 you received a copy of confirming your deposition here today 19 under oath; is that correct?
20 A
That's correct.
21 Q
You understand the information that is set forth r.
(,)
22 in the letter, the nature of the NRC TMI Special Inquiry in 23 general terms, your right to have an attorney here as your 24 representative and the fact that the information you provide A
WRoomn,W.
25 here may become public.
w.
4 f1p 2 1
A I understand.
77+,
/
2 Q
You should also be aware, Mr. Zechman, that the 3
testimony you give today is as effective as in a court of
(_\\
law and the questions we ask you and the responses you give
'~'
4 are beir~ taken down by the reporter and will be transcribed.
5 6
You will have an opportunity to review the transcript and 7
make any changes in it that you wish, but if the changes you make are of a significant and substantial nature as opposed e
9 to changing the spelling of a nature of inserting a word 10 that was not recorded, those changes may be view as affecting 11 your credibility.
It's important for you to understand the 12 questions.
If you don't, let me or one of the other gentle-g(,)
13 men know and we will rephrase the question so we all under-14 stand what we're trying to find out.
)
15 A
I understand.
Could I also request a copy of 16 my transcript?
I so do so.
17 Q
You will have a copy to look at.
18 A
Retain.
l 19 0
I think your counsel will make arrangements for 20 that.
21 A
Okay.
p(,)
22 Q
Let me also ask you during the deposition if 23 you can to let us finish the question before you give the 24 answer even if you know what the question is and know what Am-O Rmor ers, lM.
25 your answer will be.
That way the court reporter will have
5 !
rip 3 1
an easier time getting down a clear record which will be LRW
(
2 easier.
s_s 3
A Understood.
j l
(<~)
4 Q
Did you bring with you a copy of your resume?
5 A
I have.
6 MR. DIEMELT:
Mark that as 3016.
XXX 7
(Exhibit 3016 identified.)
8 BY MR. DIENELT:
9 Q
I show you a document marked Exhibit 3016, two 10 pages, entitled " Resume" and ask you if you can identify 11 that.
12 A
It should be the same one I just handed you.
r')
13 Q
Is this a current resume?
V
~
14 A
Yes, it is.
15 Q
When was it prepared approximately?
16 A
It was prepared in August sometime, I believe.
17 Q
'79?
18 A
Yes, sir.
Right before the deposition I gave 19 to the Presidential Commission.
l 20 Q
You testified before the President's Commission.
21 we have read thet transcript.' We will try to avoid any over-g3 22 lap.
If we do overlap and it proves to be a lengthy cverlap, V
23 let me know.
We may have missed something in your previous 24 testimony.
We will try to eliminate the overlap to the extent
.Ao r;! Reorms, lm 25 we can.
6 l 1
rip 4 1
Let me ask you,with respect to the '.estimony in the LRW President's Commission -- before the Pr Sident's Commission I
i 2
s-3 and with respect to the errata sheet which counsel brought j
(~~
(J 4
this morning, if the combination of those two documents l
reflects a current accurate -- current and accurate testimony 5
in terms of what you gave the President's Commission.
6 7
A Yes, it does.
There was only one area in there 8
that I recall maybe not totally correct.
That was the 9
reported chain.
Who reported to who when.
That one, there 10 may be some differences I discovered since then.
11 Q
Can you tell me what those difference are?
?
12 A
Particularly I refer to Mr. Stegaris' reporting 13 chain.
Mr. Stegaris was my predecessor as supervisor of
('~^.
)
14 training.
At a period in time he reported to Reading as 15 the director of generation division training.
I believe, 16 if memory serves me well, in the Presidential Commission I
?
17 indicated that he reported to George Trover.
Since that time I have learned tha;. he first reported to Sandy Lawyer and then 18 l
19 later to George Trover.
20 Q
Apart from that clarification, are there any items l
21 in your testimony before the President's Commission which you f
now would like to clarify which were not entirely accurate 22 23 at the time?
24 A
Not that I recall.
Other than going through it A
W Reponers, Inc.
25 for corrections, I avoided reading it a second time.
f 7
I rip 5 1
MR. DIENELT:
Mark this as 3017.
i h
(Exhibit 3017 identified.)
~
x 2
3 BY MR. DIENELT:
f) 4 Q
Do you recall participating in an interview
\\/
along with other memebers of the Met Ed training staff on 5
6 or about May 9,
'79?
7 A
With the NRC?
8 g
Yes.
9 A
Yes.
10 Q
Did you receive a tape of the interview?
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
Did you receive a transcript of the interview?
j 13 A
No.
14 Q
Have you reviewed the tape of the interview?
15 A
Not in its entirety.
I started to and put it 16 aside.
17 Q
Let me show you the document that was marked 18 Exhibit 3017 which purports to be a transcript of the tape.
19 I take it your testimony is you have nct seen that document 20 before?
21 A
I have not seen this document.
MR.' DIENELT:
Off the record.
[').
22 v
(Discussion off the record.)
23 24 MR. DIENELT:
Back on the record.
A J Roorwrs, lm.
25 i
l
8 I
f l
rip 6 1
BY MR. DIENELT:
i L"~3
l 2
0 Will you turn to the last page of the transcript.
l i
i 3
Can you recall from looking at the context of the last page t
')
4 or the last several pages whether that was the end of the 5
interview or whether it continued?
6 A
I really don't know.
7 Q
Do you know whether the interview was conducted 8
over one day or two?
9 A
One day.
I 10 Q
Do you recall anything in the interview which 11 you said which you now believe was inaccurate or incomplete?
12 A
The answer is I don't know.
I have not reviewed n
(,)
13 the recently this document to make an accurate judgment on 14 that.
15 Q
You don't recall any?
16 A
I don't recall any.
To be absolutely certain, 17 I would have to read it over again to make that determination.
18 Q
Would it also be a fiar statement to say that at 19 the time you made the statements unat you made in the inter-20 view they were your best recollection of the facts?
21 A
Yes, sir, they were.
,7(,)
22 Q
Do you recall anything which any of your colleagues, 23 the other members cf the Met Ed training staff who were pre-24 sent at that interview, said during the interview which you Au-W Reorwrs, lm.
25 felt was incorrect, incomplete cr inaccurate?
I
9 i 1
I rip 7 1
A The only thing I would say with respect to that j
i LF's
!s,)
2 statement is that their testimony at that time was based on 3
the scattered, if not totally incomplete, information they r's s
t 1
4 had of what happened in the control room at the time of the 5
accident during that day.
They were kind of shooting from 6
the hip, so to speak, on some of their answers and postulating 7
possible indications that the people may have been faced with, e
8 That har to be put in perspective.
Other than that --
9 Q
Would it be fair to say if one of the members 10 of the Met Ed training staff during that interview made a 11 statement which at the time yc; felt, based on your knowledge 12 was significantly inaccurate or incomplete, you would have
(~')
13 spoken up and attempted to correct the statement?
v 14 A
That's correct.
15 Q
What is your current position?
16 A
Supervisor of training.
17 Q
Are you presently active as the supervisor of 18 training?
19 A
Yes, sir, I am.
2r 1 Q
In your testimony before the President's 21 Commission, there was considerable discussion about your f) 22 training toward a Unit 1 SRO license.
Have you obtained 23 that license?
24 A
No, sir, I have not.
I was in training toward at Reporters, Inc.
25 that license at the time of the accident.
l
10 I
rlp 8 1
0 Since the time of the accident, you have 6
LR}f
(
)
2 temporarily interrupted that training?
x
<_/
3 A
Since the time of the accident our attention l
s
(_,)
4 and wcrk' iad in the department have been such that it was 5
impossible to go in that direction.
6 Q
I realize this may be repeating things you 7
told the President's Commission, but what was the period 8
in which you were also involved in seeking a SRO license?
9 Training for tPat license.
10 A
All right.
November of
'77, I was moved up --
11 or took on the acting position of supervisor of training.
12 During that period, I attempted to carry out the functions 13 of the supervisor of training as well as work towards the V("3 14 license requirements.
Then in September of
'78, I was 15 promoted to the supervisor of training and wenr immediately 16 into a full-time training program.
At that time the depart-17 ment responsibility was left with Marshal Beers, the goup 18 supervisor, nuclear technical training, in charge of the 19
'icensing operator training section of our training depart-20 ment, and Mr. Frank McCormick, if memory serves me well, was 21 acting supervisor of training and group supervisor in charge
(~3 22 of non-licensed operator training.
LJ 23 Q
Is it correct to say that from September 1,
'78, 24 until March 28, '79, you were not active as the supervisor l Aha neoon.n inc.
25 of training?
11 i rip 9 1
A That's correct.
I was consulted once in ' while l
LRWll f
l 2
on certain items but not actively pursuing that role.
l 3
Q Is it also a fair statement that since September i
/~S (J
4
'69 when you became employed by Met Ed until the present, 5
you have been involved in one aspect or another of Met Ed's 6
training program?
7 A
That's correct.
8 0
Where were you on March 28 at 4:00 a.m.?
9 A
4:00 a.m.?
At home in bed.
10 0
When did you lean of the incident which began 11 about that time on March 28?
12 A
I became aware of the incident when I came to
(']
13 work at 7:00 in the morning.
v 14 Q
What role did you play, if any, in responding 15 to the accident between the time you came to work on, let's 16 say, April l?
17 A
As I said, I arrived at the site at 7:00 o' clock 18 and proceeded to the Unit 1 control room to pick up with my j
I9 training.
It was during that time that the information was 20 slowly coming over the communications channels in the control It was obvious a problem had existed and the control 21 room.
(^}
22 room people at that time started to take appropriate actions.
23 I stood to the side andeventually at some point was dismissa?
24 from the control room along with other people that had been A
J Reponen, Inc.
25 there at the time while they proceeded with the accident.
l
12 i
rip 10 1
Q From the time you were dismissed from the control LI*-
2 room until April 1, did you have any role in the direct l
t i
3 response by Met Ed to the incident?
I
(;
I t
4 A
Yes, I did.
I reported daily to the observation l
5 center, which was then a communications center, and assisted with various duties along with the emergency coordinator at 6
7 that center.
l 8
Q How long did this role continue?
9 A
That role cotinued until we returned to the site.
10 On what day, I don't recall.
11 Q
Approximately when was that?
Middle of April, 12 end of April?
()
13 A
I'm sorry, I just can't remember.
14 0
Whst role, if any, did ycu play in connection 15 with any recommendations or with respect to discussions of 16 the question of evacuation?
17 A
I played no role in that decisionmaking process.
18 Q
Were you consulted with respect to any of the 19 decisions which resulted in the release of radioactive 20 materials into the environment?
f 21 A
I played no role in that decisionmaking process.
()
22 Q
Can you briefly give me an example or two of the 23 things that you did in assisting the emergency director 24 during the period you were at the observation center?
Am el Rmorun, lm.
f 25 A
Yes, sir.
At that time, they were setting up, as i
1 13 L
l rip 11 1
I said, a major communications center with numerous outside i
2 phones.
At that time, may assistance groups were appearing I
l I
at the observation center and taking up residence in trailers 3
'/;
4 around the observation center.
In that connection, I played t
5 a role in helping to determine who was there at the time, 6
who was setting up, what their phone numbers were, so that 7
as communications came in to the emergency control center, I was aware of who was here and who they could discuss some of 8
9 the problems with.
I answered numerous phone calls and related 10 numerous messages between the control center and people out cnd 1 11 in the trailer complex.
12
!" h 13 G'
Id 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 A
eral Reconers, t.
25
}
~
CR 6989 i
- 2 5
14 rtl - 1 1
Q From the time that you arrived back at the site
(,)
2 to the present, is it accurate to say that you have been i
3 principally involved in matters of training?
l
(^1 t
'i 4
A Yes, sir.
t 5
Q Is it fair to say you have been exclusively involved in matters of training?
6 7
A Yes, sir.
8 Q
Apart from the testimony you gave at the President's Commission and the interview you had with NRC, are there any 9
l 10 other occasions on which you have testified or given an 11 interview which to your knowledge was transcribed or tape 12 recorded relating to this incident?
(~;
i; A
No, sir, u.-
14 Q
During the period beginning March 28, did you 15 mtaintain any diary or log or notes with respect to your 16 activities?
17 A
Would you repeat that question, please?
18 Q
During the pericd beginning on March 28, did you 19 maintain a diary, log, or notes regarding your activities?
20 MS. RIDGWAY:
Could you define how long?
March 28 I
21 until when?
[;
22 BY MR. DIENELT:
s _.-
23 Q
Let's say until you returned to the site.
i
, 24 A
Nc.
A M R woruts,im.
25 MS. RIDGWAY:
He already said he doesn't know when
rtl 2' 15 1
he returned to the site.
?
I' )
\\_/
2 THE WITNESS:
The answer is I maintained no diary.
l l
1 3
BY MR. DIENELT:
[)
4 Q
During the time you were assisting the emergency 5
director, were you aware of the consideration which was given 6
to having the training department having a role in providing 7
information to the public, to assist it in understanding the 8
nature of the incident which was taking place?
9 A
To the best of my knowledge, there was no interface 10 between people in my department -- training department, that 11 is -- and the public.
Other than, you know, friends and 12 relatives, that kind of thing.
,(,)
13 Q
Does the training department have a budget?
14 A
Yes, sir.
15 Q
Is it in written form?
16 A
Yes, sir.
17 MR. DIENELT:
Off the record.
18 (Discussion off the record.)
19 MR. DIENELT:
On the record.
20 BY MR. DIENELT:
21 0
Do you know whether that budget is made available n( )
22 to the public or published in some form?
23 A
I don't know.
24 0
Is the budget prepared annually?
AW ReorMrs, tm.
A 25 A
Yes, sir.
e
rt.
j l
16 1
Q I would like to request that a copy of the budget f
i (s) 2 be made available to us for our examination.
j i
3 MS. RIDGWAY:
We would need to know the dates you l
Il I
\\ /
4 are interested in.
5 MR. DIENELT:
Let's say for --
6 BY MR. DIENELT:
7 Q
Are you on a calendar or fiscal year?
8 A
Calendar year.
9 Q
The budget we are talking about is a budget 10 prepared in advance for the forthcoming year?
11 A
That is correct.
12 MR. DIENELT:
I would like the budgets 1977 through
('~')
13 1979.
v 14 MS. RIDGWAY:
The budgets for calendar year 1977 15 through --
16 MR. DIENELT:
Right.
17 MS. RIDGWAY:
All right.
18 BY MR. DIENELT:
19 0
Are you familiar, in general terms, with the 20 concepts of direct and indirect cost?
21 A
That is not my area.
])
22 Q
What I am trying to get at is what kind of costs are 23 attributed to training in the budget?
There are certain direct 24 costs, I assume.
For example, like your salary.
A eral Reporters, Inc.
25 A
That is correct.
?
I 1
d rtl 4 17 l
1 Q
There would be less direct costs such as, for i
(
)
2 example, the cost which would be borne by Met Ed, if any, for i
i x_
3 the fact that your attorney took the training course yesterday !
\\
' 's m) 4 and spent 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> doing so.
My question is, Does the budget j
5 take into account the kinds of direct costs which I indicated 6
to you as well as indirect costs?
7 A
The budget, as it is set up at this time, takes 8
into consideration salaries, schooling, accommodations, as 9
well as capital.
So we have an O&M budget as well as a 10 capital budget.
Operating and maintenance.
11 A
It includes, yes, according to your terminology, 12 '
both direct and indirect.
(~J) 13 Q
Can you estimate for me the total of the budget L
14 for 19797 15 A
If memory serves me well, I didn't prepare that 16 budget last year.
Mr. Frank McCormick did.
I believe the 17 total budget was $1.3 million.
18 Q
Do you know whether that fiture was more than 10 19 percent different from the budgets for prior years?
20 A
I don't recall.
Keep in mind that also that budget 21 includes training for the whole site.
Maintenance, operation Jx 22
-- other_ departments.
v 23 Q
My next question was to ask you whether the budget 24 is broken down by categories of training.
For example, do you Ah i n oortm, inc.
25 allocate a certain part of the budget to training for health
rtl 5 18 i
i physics?
l r~ x
(-)
2 A
Yes, it is.
l 3
Q Do you know what percentage or dollar number was
(,')
4 allocated for 1979 to health physics training?
I i
5 A
Not without looking.
6 MR. DIENELT:
Off the record.
7 (Discussion off the record.)
8 MR. DIENELT:
Back on the record.
9 BY MR. DIENELT:
10 Q
Yesterday, at the close of the depositions, we 11 asked Ms. Ridgway if it would be possible for you to bring 12 l certain documents with you today.
I understand you have
()
13 brought them.
I would like for you, if you will, to describe 14 what you have brought with you.
15 A
What I have brought with me are the training 16 summary files of Mr. Craig Faust, Mr. William Zewe, Frederick 17 Scheimann, and Edward Frederick.
18 In the files you will find a summary computer listing 19 indicating the courses that these gentlemen have attended 20 and you will find a personal resume sheet that indicates 21 their previous work history and military service.
~
,n
(
)
22 Q
May we examine those files?
23 A
Here.
24 MS. RIDGWAY:
Off the record.
Aeral Reponm, Inc.
A 25 (Discussion off the record.)
l
rtl 6 19 l
1 MR. DIENELT:
Back on the record.
[
,,()
2 Mr. Zechman and Ms. Ridgway have indicated that the 1
full contents of the files on the various individuals which 3
we had requested will be Xeroxed and furnished to us in due
{
4 5
course.
BY MR. DIENELT:
6 7
Q One additional question with respect to the budget, 8
Mr. Zechman.
Perhaps I should say with respect to the cost 9
of the training protram.
Does any other source such as i
10 1 Babcock and Wilcox, apart from Met Ed and GPU, contribute in 11 any direct financial way to the cost of training?
12 A
Not to the best of my knowledge.
/ ')
13 Q
Do you know how the financial arrangements, if
(-
14 any, with respect to the training that is done on the B&W 15 simulator work?
16 A
Yes.
Only from the standpoint that we have a 17 general services contract with them.
18 0
You pay them for --
19 A
Services rendered in training.
20 0
Who is your immediate superior or supervisor?
A Today I report to Sandy Loyer.
21
(~' )
22 Q
Is there a person under you who has x.s direct or principal responsibility for health physics training?
23 24 A
The implementation.of health physics training at A
W Rmomrs lu.
the moment is under the direction of our department.
The 25
rtl 7 i
l l
20 l
1 re7ponsibility for determining the content of that program i
(_
2 rests with the radiation protection department under Richard l
3 Duball.
}
l 4
Q Am I correct that what you are saying is that Mr.
I 5
Duball's department is responsible for the determination of 6
the substance and of the training and the training department 7
then carries it out?
8 A
That is correct.
t 9
Q Does the training department have any substantive 10 input into the health physics training decisions?
11 A
By virtue of the fact that we have discussed with 12 Dick Duball on numerous occasions any problem areas that
[vl 13 arise, any suggestions to those problem areas, by virtue of 14 that, yes, we do, at times, interface with them and make 15 suggestions for improvement in the program.
16 Q
Who is the person in the training department 17 immediately below you or closest to you on the organization 18 chart who has the greatest responsibility with respect to 19 health physics training?
20 A
Mr. Frank McCormick, group supervisor.
21 Q
In circumstances in which there are discussions
,s a) 22 between the radiation protection department and your depart-23 ment regarding the health physics trainiag,;who would be the 24 principal persons who would discuss those matters from each A
wel Roorurs, lm, 25 side?
l
l 21 rtl 8 1
A Frank McCormick and Richard Duball.
i i
I
(,;
2 0
Would you be involved?
xs i
3 A
Occasionally, occasionally, and conversations
(
(_/
4 between Frank McCormick and myself on any problem areas.
5 Q
Is the manner of operating which you have just 6t described between the radiation protection department and your l
l 71 department with respect to health physics training different 8
from the manner of operating with respect to other forms of 9
training, such as operator training?
10 A
I assume by your question you are asking me if the 11 relationship between the. performance of operator training and 12 our responsibility for that program differ _. from our responsi-13 bility in implementing the radiation protection training
(~j}
w 14 program as it relates to the health physics department.
1 Q
Yes, sir.
16 A
The answer to that question is yes.
I guess it 17 will take a historical explanation to give you that feeling 18 for what it is we do.
19 Q
Could you give that to me?
20 A
Yes, sir.
The health physics procedures which 21 dictate the content in each of the health physics programs that
(' ',
22 we'give to either vendors, visitors or onsite persons ~1 was G
23 prepared by the radiation protection department.
Traditionally, 24 over the years, the radiation protection department was not
'A el Reporters, Inc.
25 staffed sufficiently to allow them to be trainers as well in
22 j
rtl 9 I
those areas.
Therefore, the responsibility for basic LP tm l
(,)
2 training fell upon the training department for implementation.
l l
3 That
.cgram is a videotape protram, the content of which --
)
4 particularly the health physics portion -- is conducted by 5
1.= JP department personnel.
That is, all the health physics 6
principles and practices are expressed on the videotape and 7
presented by the health physics department people.
8 The radiation work permit training program for people who 9
are working in a controlled area traditionally has been 10 conducted by live instruction with members of the radiation 11 protection department staff.
At present, we found it necessary 12 to take qualified individuals, put them through an extensive I ')
13 training program to qualify them to teach RWP training, so o
14 during this period of time, we have two individuals -- trainers 15
-- who are not directly reporting to the health physics 16 department conducting RWP training.
17 Q
How does that differ from the historic development 18 for operators?
19 A
How does that differ from the operators?
20 Q
I may have misunderstood you.
I thought you were 21 telling me there was a difference in the relationship or in the I"';
22 way in which the two parts of the training program worked.
J 23 You have given me the health physics part.
Now, the 24 operators' part.
.r.: Reporms, Inc.
25 A
It relates differently with respect to operator I
rtl 10 I,
23 j
1 training in the fact that we have direct responsibility for 2
the implementation and the conduct of the operator training 3
program.
4 0
Would it be accurate to say in summary that you are l 1
l 5
more involved in the training department in the substance of 6
operator training than in the substance of health physics 7
training?
8 A
Absolutely.
9 Q
Would you characterize it as significantly more 10 involved?
11 A
Yes, sir.
12 Q
Are any outside organizations such as consultants (j
13 involved, to your knowledge, in the health physics training?
14 A
Yes, sir, they are.
Dick Duball has used the 15 services of outside contractors to administer rad-chem-tech 16 programs.
He has used the services of outside contractors to 17 teach a portion of the advanced HP training program for 18 auxiliary operators, as an example.
19 Q
I take it from your answer that the determination 20 whether to use consultants, and which consultants to use, is, 21 as you understand it, a responsibility of the radiation 7,
f 22 protection department rather than your department?
23 A
Principally, yes; there are exceptions.
24 Q
Can you give me an example of an exception?
Agerst Reporters,Inc.
25 A
A prime one facing us right now: we need to
rtl 11 24 k
i i
conduct an advanced LP training program for a present group l
()
2 of auxiliary B operators.
The radiation protection department v.
3 personnel are not able at this time to provide the manpower l
l
, n j
4 to do that.
Because of that, I have been in conversation with 5
the General Physics Corporation to supply an instructor that 6
was capable of performing that function.
7 MR. DIENELT:
Off the record.
8 (Discussion off the record.)
9 MR. DIENELT:
Back on the record.
10 BY MR. DIENELT:
11 Q
Am I correct that the person who, in your view, would 12 be in the best position to describe the content of the ht 1th 13 physics training would be Mr. Duball or someone in the radio em C/
14 protection department?
15 A
That is correct.
16 0
In your view, would it be Mr. Duball?
17 A
In my view, it would be Mr. Duball.
18 Q
Would it also be true that, in your view, the person 19 who would be best able to describe the actual training that 20 takes place as opposed to the broad content of the health 21 physics training course would be Mr. Duball or someone in the 22 radio protection department?
')
23 A
The answer to that que=cion is yes.
He is the most 24 responsible person and knowledgeable person of what is covered ei n.ponen inc.
25 in that program.
That is not to say, however, that, for
rtl 12 25 1
example, Mr. Frank McCormick or the supplemental instructors I
')
2 are not also aware of what is in that program.
~s 3
0 If I were to want to find the person who is most i
73s_j likely to be able to describe fully what the training for a 4
5 rad-chem-tech is, who would I look to?
6 A
Mr. Richard Duball.
7 Q
If I were to want to have the fullest possible 8
description of the RWP training program, who would I look to?
9 A
Mr. Richard Duball.
- 3 10 Q
Who actually does the instruction in the health 11 physics program?
12 A
As I mentioned earlier, there are two programs.
One 13 is a basic program.
That one is conducted on a rotating basis
(~}/
c 14 by Mr. Bruderik, Mr. Geisweit, and a Mr. Malin Moore.
For 15 the RWP program, Mr. Malin Moore and Mr. Bruderik are respon-16 sible for conducting that program at the present time.
17 Q
Who gives them their instructions?
18 A
Their initial indoctrination and qualification 19 training program to conduct that program was designed by Mr.
20 Bob Buzyzinski, with approval from Mr. Richard Duball.
21 Q
For whom does Mr. Buzyzinski work?
Is he a Met Ed
/
22 employee?
~
w.)
A Yes, and I am not directly sure who he reports to 23 24 at this moment.
Since the accident, he has reported to several A
el Reporters, Inc.
25 people and I am not sure who he is principally accountable to I
rtl 13 26 1
right now.
l 2
Q Are there various training manuals which have been I,
( 'j)
.l
'~
3 prepared for the health physics training program?
I don't l
l
\\
(b
(_)
4 want us to get hung up on terminology.
Let's say instruction 5
materials, written materials.
6 A
All right, there is a handout for both programs.
7 There is an instructor manual that we have received from 8
NUS Corporation that is associated with the videotape part of 9
the RWP program.
And there is a lesson plan associated with 10 the RWP program.
11 Q
Are those materials prepared principally by the 12 radiation protection department or by persons under its r~;
13 supervision?
O 14 A
I believe it is fair to say all the above, because 15 the initial lesson plan that was created shortly after the 16 accident for that program was prepared by NUS Corporation.
17 It was modified by both the HP department, if memory serves 18 me well, and some of the information was incorporated from my 19 own department.
20 Q
Which department is responsible in a procedural 21 sense for insuring that the training requirements-in the health
,e -)
22 physics program are met?
\\,J 23 A
I would say Richard Duball.
24 Q
As you understand it, would Mr. Duball be the el Reporters, Inc.
25 person -- or would his department be the department -- that I
rtl 14 27 l
i 1
would have whatever documentation exists with respect to whether
)
2l a particular individual completed a particular type of health i
3' physics training?
l
(^ ^.
i 4
A No, that is not correct.
Our training department i
'~
5 maintains all records on that behalf.
6 Q
But it would be your testimor.y that it would be the i
7 responsibility of Mr. Duball or persons under his supervision 8
to create those records in the first instance?
9 A
No, that is not correct, because people who attend 10 the program -- for example, take examples, and we get an 11 attendance sheet from the instructor -- those go directly to 12 us into the files.
(
13 Q
Do you know what mechanism there is, if there is 14 one, by which the documentary information reflecting that a 15 person has completed a training program is made known to the 16 radiation protection department?
17 A
Anyone who has completed a training program in the 18 basic or RWP program, their name appears on a computer print-19 out list.
If memory serves me well, he is on distribution for 20 that list.
21 Q
That would be the means by which he would formally
(~.
22 know that an individual had completed the training necessary v
23 for that individual to enter a certain area;or perform a 24 certain task?
ASwel Reportws, tric.
25 A
That's right.
I
I I
rtl 15 j
28 i
i 1
Q Does your department have the responsibility to l
/~
s
(,'
2 receive any complaints with respect to the quality or the i
3 nature of the health physics training which are made by the s
4 trainees?
5 A
I am hung up with the word " responsibility."
We l
l 6,
hear complaints, if there are any.
We don't necessarily go I
7 out of our way to elicit them because part of the instructor's 8
responsibility is to, during the program, ask for any questions 9
or clarifications.
If there are complaints addressed to them, 10 then we are aware of them.
11 Q
Is there any indication made in the course of 12 training, to your knowledge, that complaints also may be f
13 made or should be made to the radiation protection department?
u-14 A
I don't believe so.
15 O
Is there a procedure that you have established 16 between the training department and the radiation protection 17 department for making the latter department aware of complaints 18 that are received regarding training?
19 A
I can only answer that by saying that the complaints 20 that we are made aware of and find significant enough to bring 21 to their attention, we will do so verbally.
f'. ';
22 Q
Have you become aware, in the last two years, of u
23 complaints which you regarded as sufficiently significant to 24 bring to their attention?
A wW Reorwn, lm.
25 A
Yes, sir, I have.
l l
rtl 16 i
i 29 i
1 Q
Can you tell me in general terms what the complaints
)
2 were?
i 3
A I would recall a recent one.
For example, the t'.
')
4 HP department was allowing waivers for certain requirements 5
in the HP training based on one's previous experience or 6
previous attendance to TMI.
As a result of an NRC comment in 7
which it was pointed out there may be a difference in work 8
practices onsite, we closed ranks, after identifying that l
9 problem with the HP department, we closed ranks and, therefore, 10 cut off all waiver requirements.
11 Q
When you refer to the HP department, is that inter-12 changeable with radiation protection?
[;
13 A
Identical.
v 14 Q
Have you becoma aware of any complaints by HP 15 personnel that their training was not adequate, let us say, 16 within the last two years?
17 A
Would you want to clarify what you mean by HP 18 personnel?
19 Q
A trainee.
Someone who is getting the training, 20 whether it is initial training or any kind of requalification j
21 training.
22 A
The answer to your question is yes, we do receive 23 complaints on occasion.
One of the common ones I can recall 24 is that it is boring.
It is a lot of information to know in Ad Wel Rworurs, tm.
25 a short period of time.
But it is also understood that it is
rtl 17 30 j
required.
{
1 2
Q Have you become aware of complaints which, in j
()
3 essence, indicated that the trainee felt that there was not xO enough training?
4 A
I have received complaints on both sides of that 5
6l fence.
Q Some say too much and others say not enough?
7 A
That's right.
8 Q
Have you brought such complaints to the attention 9
of Mr. Duball or someone else in the health physics department 10 11 within the last two years?
I A
I brought to the attention of Dick Duball many 12 items relating to that training program over the years,
(~~i 13 v
ja including some of those type complaints.
15 Q
Have any of the complaints you have brought to Mr.
Duball's attention been set forth by you in written form?
16 If that is too large a question in terms of history, let's j7 take the last couple of years.
18 19 A
I assume that when you ask that question, you are talking about the specific contract type training, the basic 20 program and RWP program specifically.
21
( ;
22 Q
Yes.
A I don't recall.
I just don't remember if I have 23 or have not.
24 A
el Repo,ters, Inc.
25 Q
Is there a set of requirements imposed by the NRC
i l
rtl 18 31 I
with respect to health physics training?
[^j 2
A Yes, sir.
v 3
0 would Mr. Duball be the person to describe for us j
',)
the manner in which those requirements are dealt with in terms 4
5 of the health physics program?
6; A
I can address them, if you would like.
There l
7 is 10CFR19. Code of Federal Regulations, part 19, part of 8
which addresses the fact that everyone should be aware of the 9
hazardous storage of radioactive material and I believe it f
10 has a few words in there about indoctrination into health 11 physics practices.
ANSI Guide 18.1 addresses general 12 employee training as part of that training program.
It talks 7w 13 about health physics principles.
The guidelines for exposures
\\_)
14 are spelled out in 10CFR20.
Those are the ones that 15 instantaneously come to my mind.
16 Q
Who has the responsibility for integrating those 17 requirements into the program?
18 A
Mr. Richard Duball.
19 Q
Does the NRC conduct periodic examinations or 20 audits of the health physics training program?
21 A
Yes, they do.
22 0
Do they provide you with written reports, written
,r~3 J
23 suggestions?
24 A
Most of the audits that,are performed, to the best et Reponen, Inc.
25 of my knowledge, have been in relationship to seeking proof
32 l
rtl 19 I
of the attendance of individuals that they spotcheck.
I just l
j l
cannot remember if I have seen any I&E bulletins that I recall 2
at this moment that addressed the HP program specifically, or f
3
()
any comments directly related to it.
4 0
Turning for a moment to the question of complaints 5
by HP trainees, do you recall any complaints being made by 6
any trainees with respect to health physics that instruments 7
ther equipment which they were supposed to be learning to r
8 use were only shown to them and that they weren't given an 9
pportunity for what I think is referred to as hands-on 10 training with those instruments?
jj A
Yes, sir, I do.
12 0
Was that within the last several years?
(~'
13 LJ A
Specifically, what comes to mind is since che ja accident.
15 0
Did you communicate that complaint to the health 16 physics department?
17 A
I communicated that complaint directly to Mr.
18 Dave Limroth.
39 0
Who is he?
20 A
Superintendent of radiation protection and chemistry g
0 Does he work for Mr. Duball?
22 A
Duball works for him.
23 0
What did Mr. Limroth say?
24 A
ed Reporters, Inc.
A At that time, the complaint was that the instruments 25
33 i
rtl 20 i
1 weren't even available.
There was a good reason at that time.
i
(_)
2 They were all used in conjunction with the follow-up actions l
3 and requirements in the c.
an-up of Unit 2.
I brought that to i
- t. ~
l l
4 his attention.
He responded by assuring me in short order he l
5 would have them there, and he had.
6 Q
Does Mr. Limroth report to Mr. Loyer?
7 A
I believe Mr. Limroth reports to Mr. Gary Miller.
8 Q
Does Mr. Duball report to Mr. Loyer as well as 9
to Mr. Limroth?
10 A
Not to the best of my knowledge.
I think his 11 direct reporting chain is to Mr. Limroth.
12 Q
What I am trying to get at is we have got you over 13 here in training reporting to Mr. Loyer, and Mr. Duball in
()
14 health physics reporting to Mr. Limroth, and Mr. Limroth you 15 say reports to Mr. Miller to the best of your understanding.
16 A
I said I may be wrong.
17 Q
Do you know whether Mr. Loyer and Mr. Limroth 18 report to the same person?
19 A
I don't know.
There has been such a change in 20 command and reporting changes lately, it is difficult for me 21 to say who in that chain reports to whom.
/];
22 Q
Prior to March 28, did the person who was your 23 immediate superior, regardless of his name, and the person who 24 was Mr. Duball's immediate superior, regardless of his name, 1
wet Rmomrs, lx.
25 report to the s3me person?
e
rtl 21 34 1
A I believe we both reported to -- I will not speak f
I
)
2 for Dick Duball.
I don't know.
I can only tell you who I 3
reported to.
/~ 3
()
4 Q
Fair enough.
Are there, from time to time, audits I
5 or examinations of the training program -- both the health 6
physics aspects and the other aspects -- by outside consultants?
7 A
Specific to the basic HP and RWP type training 8
programs?
9 Q
We can break it down. Take the first.
10 A
Take both of those; I don't believe so.
11 Q
What about audits and examinations with respect to 12 the overall operations of the training department, not limiting 13 them just to HP.
~
(' _),
14 A
There has been a recent one, yes.
15 Q
Who was that by?
16 A
Frank Kelly.
17 Q
How recent was that?
18 A
Since the accident.
19 MR. DIENELT:
Off the record.
20 (Discussion off the record.)
21 MR. DIENELT:
On the record.
Mark this as 3018.
(~l4
- C2 (Exhibit No. 3018 identified.)
( _/
23 BY MR. DIENELT:
24 Q
I have marked as Exhibit 3018 a report entitled wel Reporters, Inc.
25
" General Review of Health Physics Program at the Three Mile
rtl 22 35 1
Island Nuclear Station."
l i
/~ ')
x_/
2 Can you identify that report?
l 1
3 A
Do you know the date on this?
Oh, here it is.
I l
,r m
~
4 found it.
5 Q
Can you identify the report?
6 A
I don't recall -- it seems to me that it looks i
7-familiar, but I don't recall reading this personally.
Okay?
8 0
Okay.
9 A
It looks like a document submitted to the radiation 10 protection department.
11 Q
I have directed your attention to a one-page 12 section on training which appears at paragraph 3.1 of the (x
13 report.
Had you read that passage prior to today?
v) i 14 A
Not to the best of my knowledge.
15 Q
Do you know who within Met Ed made the arrangements 16 to have this report prepared?
17 A
No, sir, I don't.
18 Q
Do you recall discussing the substance of the 19 information with respect to training that was reflected in 20 the passage I. asked you to read with anyone between March 20, 21 1979, which is the cate shown on the report, and the present?
(]}
22 A
Not to the Lest of my knowledge.
23 Q
Are you aware of any reviews or' reports by other 24 outside consultants with respect to health physics training A
se Reponm, inc.
25 which were received by Met Ed within the last two years?
i
rtl 23 i
36 I
1 A
It seems to me there was another NUS evaluation j
2 done -- I don't know how many years ago -- but it is very faint!
(')
I
[
3l in my memory.
/^ '
(_)
4 MR. DIENELT:
I would like to ask for a copy of l
5 any other report by NUS Corporation relating to the health 6,
physics program at Three Mile Island which was prepared from t
the time that the Three Mile Island plant began operations, if 7
a there is such a report.
To be clear, I would mean by "the 9
beginning of construction of the Unit 1 plant."
10 I also want to make the record clear I thought I asked 11 previously for the budgets for the training department for 12 calendar years 1977, 1978, and 1979.
/]
13 BY MR. DIENELT:
~
\\_/
14 Q
Mr. Zechman, with respect to budgets again, do you 15 know whether the HP budget covers HP training or whether HP 16 training comes out of your department's budget?
17 A
Our budget includes HP: training.
18 Q
Okay.
Part of the cost of HP training is within 19 the budget of the HP department?
20 A
Last year it was.
There were several accounts 21 which they utilized for training purposes as well as our
(~'
22 own.
C/
23 Q
Those were within their budget?
24 A
Yes, sir.
A si Reporters, Inc.
25 Q
I would also like to request the HP budgets for i
f 37 rtl 24 1
'77,
'78, and '79.
(.
2 In your view, is the separation, to the extent that there
)
xs l
3 is a separation, of HP training from the other training, the l
I 4,
(/
4 manner in which the content of the training is developed, a 5
good idea?
6 A
My honest opinion is that it is not.
7 MS. RIDGWAY:
I would like to clarify something.
8 When you say you want the HP department budget, thi e is no 9
such department.
Do you mean you want the radiation protec-10 tion --
11 MR. DIENELT:
Yes.
Excuse me.
We have now come 12 full circle.
The radiation department budget.
13 MS. RIDGWAY:
For those three years?
(v~^;
14 MR. DIENELT:
Yes.
15 BY MR. DIENELT:
16 Q
Why is it not a good idea?
I'7 A
I feel it is not a good idea from the standpoint 18 that the responsibility, the knowledge level of HP practices 19 and all the items that relate to training are in the hands 20 of the radiation protection department personnel.
As such, 21 I believe that the radiation protection training should be
("')
22 condrated both by their personnel and directed by their V
23 personnel.
I believe the separation has caused us a few 24 problems in the past, only from the communications standpoint, 4wW Rgonus, lrw.
.A 25 that I think are unnecessary if it were carried out the way t
rtl 25 38 I
1 I just suggested.'
l r
i I. j 2
0 What is the way that you suggest it should be carried 3
out?
The training.
'r~
j i
/
4 A
That both the conduct and administration of that t
5 pr; gram is directly under their control.
6 0
In other words, you would separate them further?
i 7
A I would not have the training department res
..sible 8
for the administration of the program and them -- and by them, 9
I refer to the radiation protection department personnel --
10 responsible for identifying the curriculum and responsible 11 for the content of that program.
12 BY MR. BATTIST:
(;
13 Q
Have you made that suggestion to management?
v 14 A
Yes, sir.
That is under consideration at this 15 moment.
I have discussed that recently with Mr. Sandy Loyer 16 and, as such, he has requested that I redraw the organization 17 chart under his new training management group and identify 18 those areas under a separate health physics training group.
19 Q
The question I have mainly pertains to the 20 instructors.
You mentioned you have some health physics 21 training and you have some auxiliary instructors. Where do
(
22 they come from?
What kind of background would they normally 23 have?
24 A
The instructors that are currently carrying out AAeral Reporters, Inc.
25 the radiation protection training programs are out of the I
h._
rtl - 26 39 l
1 generation division training group, whose home base is in Met s
V 2
Ed Company, Reading, Pennsylvania.
Theirspecificbackgrounds,f
(
l 3
I would have to direct you to Mr. Bob Buzyzinski, who they at 7 _ 3 I
'~'
4 that time directly reported to.
I don't have their resumes.
5 Q
And how do you ascertain that these people are good 6
instructors?
7 A
I can only answer that in the interval they have been 3
down here and acting as instructors.
I have had very many 9
favorable comments on their conduct and presentations in the 10 classroom.
Q And they are teaching all aspects of the radiation II 12 protection program or are they restricted to just the RWP 13 program or visitors and guest instructions or what have you?
( )
14 A
They are directly responsib1'e for the basic HP pro-15 gram and the RWP program only at this time.
16 Q
Do you feel that the company supports the training 17 program, gives you a lot of good suitable support, or is it 18 on a catch-as-catch-can basis?
19 A
I believe that the company support was adequate, but 20 I certainly would be one to say I could h 7e used a lot more.
21 Q
Now, we do have the basic problem in trying to have
)
22 the health physics program insure that people are trained.
23 You say you are responsible only for recording the training.
24 Did you have any responsibility to insure that the training A
eral Reporters, Inc.
25 was actually accomplished?
rtl 27 Since we are administering the training programj0 1
A
( )
2 by virtue of that, yes, we are responsible for insuring that
{
l us
'l it is accomplished.
Any deviation from accomplishments by j
i
)
4 waivers, 7t cetera, would be dealt with through the radiation 5
protection department personnel.
6 Q
That is at the present time. But in the past, did you have any kind of quality assurance program by having 7
8 people sit in on the courses, interview the people at the end 9
of the course, tive your own examinations or any type of 10 quality control to make sure it really was accomplished, and 11 hopefully, satisfactorily accomplished?
at the end 12 A
Are you aware we do have examination 1
(~'
13 of each of those programs?
By virtue of that, we are
'- J 14 evaluating the knowledge level on a spotcheck basis.
Any 15 exam would give you their comprehension of the training 16 program.
To answer further, what you are asking me -- I 17 believe you are asking me -- do we sit down and critique the 18 people afterwards?
19 2
As one item.
20 A
Traditionally, no.
21 Q
Do you ever have your people sit in on the course 22 at unusual intervals without any prior notification or 23 scheduling?
24 A
I believe that probably would have been an ideal Awlhke noorms,ine.
)
25 situation, but time never allowed that kind of event.
rtl 28 41 1
Q Do you have any plans to do something like this in I
l I
2 the future?
f'~}
s/
3 A
Obviously, one of the things that is running through'
(
)
4 my mind, since our unfortunate accident, are periodic auditing l
/,
v 5
of all training programs from our staff on a formal basis.
6 Q
Is the radiation protection portion of your 7
emergency protection plan, the education for that, also 8
administered by the radiation protection department?
9 A
I had the responsibility for insuring that the 10 training program associated with the radiation emergency plan 11 and drill is carried out.
Within the training that is associated 12 with those programs, I rely on different departments for 13 different instructional requirements and, therefore, by virtue
( ';
L,i 14 of that, I communicate with the other departments to try to 15 insure this gets accomplished.
16 Q
But the content is still up to the other depart-17 ment?
18 A
No, sir.
The content of the radiation emergency 19 plan training and team training, that procedure was written by me.
20 21 Q
So that there is a split then in the health physics 22 or radiation protection training program for the routine 7_
t
)
23 versus emergency?
24 A
I guess you could say that.
)
A si Reporters, Inc.
25 Q
That does complicate things.
Okay.
One aspect 1
rtl 29 I
42 1
that did come to mind which you may be able to answer is i
n l
(,)
2 that the health physics and chemistry technicians are rotated i
3 through numerous job assignments during the year so that if
(}
'/
4 a man was, for example, operating the thermoluminescent 5
dosimeter reader, he might get back to it 14 months later.
Is 6
this customary?
Is this something that your department sets 7
up a procedure to do, or is that generally within the control 8
of the radiation protection department?
9 A
The radiation protection department is responsible 10 for both the administration and conduct of training associated II with the radiation protection techniques, i
12 Q
Do you have that kind of situation in any other O
'3 deeertment thee you know of2 I
I4 A
The general management philosophy with the company 15 is that the line responsibility -- that is, the supervision in 16
(
each department -- has the responsibility for the training in I7 their areas.
18 The only exception to that is in operator training, where I9 it is a separate department set aside to conduct operator 20 training.
But if a maintenance training program is to be 21 carried out, it is the responsibility, for example, of the
)
22 maintenance department supervisor or their foremen to see the 23 training gets accomplished.
We would assist them in perhaps 24 research, looking for specific trrining materials, providing eral Reporters, Inc.
25 guidance on how to make up lesson plans, prepare purchase
rtl 30 43 l
i i
1 orders for sending them offsite for schools and keeping the I
r~N
!g 2
final documentation.
l i
3 Q
Well, what I am really trying to get at, Is there a l
/'~'s.
l 4
rotational method as part of their training program or part 5
of an operational program?
6 A
You would have to direct that question at Richard 7
Duball.
I have not the answer for that question.
8 BY MR. ORNSTEIN:
9 Q
The auxiliary operators and the licensed control-10 room operators, do they receive or sit in on the same RWP pro-11 gram courses, or separate?
12 A
The operational people are qualified at the
(~')
13 advanced radiation protection training level.
By virtue of w/
14 that, they have had a program that is a step higher than the 15 RWP level.
16 Q
By whom -- who administered those actual courses?
17 A
The radiation protection department under the 18 direction of Richard Duball.
19 MR. BATTIST:
I think that is about it.
20 BY MR. DEINELT:
21 Q
Let me try to clarify one thing about the l' ~')
22 emergency training.
Is the emergency training, insofar as 23 health physics is concerned, determined substantively by the 24 radiation protection department or by your department?
A erst Reporters. Inc.
25 A
The substantive portion of that program was
i rtl 31 44 l
i' prepared by me in conjunction with Richard Duball.
I wrote j
it, but I certainly touched base with him and had his approval 2
as to its content in those areas.
3
(
)
Q By what means does the operating staff receive 4
inf rmation about events or transients that occur at other 5
nuclear reactors?
6 A
There are several sources which directly lead to 7
inf rming the training department of certain of those 8
transients or events that occur at other plants.
We receive 9
a copy of the clearinghouse document, which lists, of course, 10 events that happened at other plants and also has attachment 11 f LERs, summary sheets, that call our attention to some of 12 e se.
(3 13 Lj Q
What is an LER?
ja A
Licensee Event Report.
We receive a document 15 called current events, I believe, issued by NRC, which talks 16 about incidents at other plants.
I would say that those are p
r the major sources for that type of input.
18
- 5 Q
Does the training department have a responsibility 39 to insure that operators or any other personnel are made aware 20 of events that occur at other reactors?
g A
Part of cur requalification program requires us to
'l 22 s) ver urrent events in those type of topics.
Therefore, the 23 informati n that is sent down to us -- in many cases, for 24 Aheres Reporters, #nc.example, the clearinghouse report will have a note on there from 25
rtl 32 45 l
l I
the superintendent, "Please insure this gets covered in the
(.)
2 training program."
l I
3 Inaddition, I have one of my administrators in nuclear I
(~)
technical training review the clearinghouse reports for 4
5 applicable information we need to put in the training program.
6 Also review the current events and insert those in the training 7
program.
And LERs that we are aware of in that program.
8 Q
Is it your responsibility to decide what information 9
regarding the events at other reactors is integrated into the 10 requalification program?
11 A
By virtue of the fact that I direct my people to 12 make those reviews and rely very heavily on their expertise 13 as licensed operators -- now d's'ructors -- to, review those
( ))
14 and make the decision within their group.
Let me explain that.
15 My department is broken up into two groups.
I have a group 16 supervisor in charge of nonlicensed training and a group 17 supervisor in charge of licensed operator training.
Part of 18 the responsibility of the group supervisor in charge of 19 licensed training is to insure that the requalification train-20 ing program and the license training program get conducted in accordance with our procedures or identified training programs.
21 In that group, I have administrators in nuclear technical
()
22 a
23 training who, as I said, make a lot of these reviews and recommendations for the incorporation of those lessons learned 24 A
wj Roorurs, Inc.
25 into the training program.
I
46 rtl 33 I
Q Do I understand correctly that the ultimate l
1 decisionwhethertoincludeornotincludeinformationregardind 2
'~'
us 3
an event.at another reactor would be made by the group super-i j
visor for licensing, if it were a licensing matter?
For the 4
5 present, that would be Mr.,B'ers.
e 0
A That is correct.
Also, as I mentioned earlier, 7
some of the reports that come down to us have handwritten 8
notes on there from the superintendent or any other reviewees 9
in the chain to incorporate this in the training program.
10 Q
If you or Mr. Beers see such a note, you automati-11 cally include it in the training?
I2 A
Yes.
13 rS Q
But neither you nor Mr. Beers need ask anyone L)
Id higher up for a decision to include or not to include a 15 particular item, is that correct?
16 A
Traditionally, that has been the case.
I7 Q
From time to time, are there changes made in the 18 initial training program as a result of information received I9 about events from other reactors?
20 A
Would you define what you refer to as the initial 21 training program for me?
22 0
What I intended to refer to was the training an 7s i
)
23 operator gets when he first starts work.
Maybe I should have 24 said your basic training program.
A W Reporters, Inc.
25 A
By virtue of the fact that the training associated
f 47 rtl 34 i
with what we learn from other plants comes in through 1
\\
,~
2 clearinghouse reports, et cetera, and is covered and inserted j
(-)
in the requalification program, it does not become a permanent j 3
l
/^1 fixture to the basic program that one would go through to become tj 4
I i
I 5
an operator.
6 Q
How does a change in the basic program get made?
A If a change were te be made to the basic training 7
this information would be relayed to my superior, 8
- program, 9
Mr. Loyer, for approval.
At the moment, the training program is a fixed package program and has not gone through any changes 10 11 that required that.
12 Q
Mr. Loyer then would have the ultimate authority to approve or disapprove a change in the basic training program, (J~)
13 is that correct?
14 A
Yes, sir.
15 MR. DIENELT:
Mark that as 3019.
16 (Exhibit No. 3019 identified.)
17 BY MR. DIENELT:
18 19 Q
I show you a document that has been marked as Exhibit 3019, which purports to be a current events publica-20 tion from NRC published December 1977.
Have you seen that 21 document before?
(~D 22 t/
A The answer to the question is I probably have not 23 seen this document before, because during September and October 24 A
erst Reconm, Inc.
1977 I was in the position of group supervisor over unlicensed 25 l
rtl 35 48 1
training and as such this would not have been called to my
(~~
t,,)
2 attention.
3 Q
Directing irour attention to page 2 of the document, p
do you have any knowledge of the Davis-Besse event which is f
k~
4 5
discussed beginning on that page?
6 A
Since the accident, I heard about it.
7 Q
Since which accident?
8 A
I am sorry.
Since the Unit 2 accident, I heard 9
about it.
10 Q
Prior to that, you didn't know of it?
11 A
No, sir, I didn't.
12 Q
Do you know whether the training department took note of the Davis Besse incident prior to March 28, 1979?
(~')
13 xs 14 A
I have asked that same question of the people on the 15 licensing side of my department, licensing and training side 16 of my department, and the only thing they can recall seeing was a summarized computer printout of the LERs, which in no 17 18 way made it obvious what this accident was about.
le Q
Since March 28, 1979, what steps, if any, have been taken by the training program to provide information 20 21 relating to the Davis Besse incident to operators?
22 A
Since that time, we have sent our operators to the
(}
23 simulator, one, to reconstruct our own accident; and, two, 24 they have been aware through all the published reports of the weneomn.w.
25 Davis Besse incident.
In addition, we have an ongoing training
rtl 36 1
49 l
1 program now referred to as the operator recraining program.
l r~s
(_)~
2 Part of that program, which will start theweekofSeptember24,l l
3 is a complete dissertation on the TMI Unit 2 incident and also l
/
\\
/
4 how the Davis Besse incident related to what happened here.
5 That will be conducted for all licensed operators.
6 Q
Are you familiar with consideration which was given 7
by Met Ed and GPU about 1973 to building a simulator in the 8
Philadelphia area?
9 A
Yes, sir.
In the early stages of that discuosion, 10 I was a part of that committee.
11 Q
Did the committee have a name?
12 A
I don't remember.
( ))
13 Q
Who else was on the committee?
14 A
If my memory serves me well, I believe the committee 15 was made up of Mr. Bob Arnold, Don Hetrick, myself, and 16 several other people I can't recall.
17 Q
Am I correct that the decision ultimately was made, 18 at least for that time, not to build such a simulator?
19 A
No, sir.
At the time I was involved with that 20 comnittee -- as I mentioned earlier, it was in the early 21 stages -- there was a great amount of interest in pursuing a 22 centralized training facility which would incorporate a
()
23 simulator.
24 Q
Do you know of any present plans to build such a A
w) Rmomn. inc.
25 facility?
I
rtl 37 50 i
i 1
A No, sir, I don't.
l
<~x
\\!
2 Q
When did you leave the committee?
I am not asking l
\\
3 for a date as much as I am for an event perhaps that would I
r~'T
)
l 4
mark the time when you left.
i 5
A I believe the only way I could explain that is the 6
last thing I saw in relationship to that concept was a 7
proposal -- I can't even remember by who, I think it was the 8
Singer Corporation, but I am not sure -- for the construction 9
of either the centralized facility or the simulator.
I 10 believe it was directly related to the simulator.
11 Q
Were you replaced by someone on that committee?
12 A
I believe what happened during that time is our fm
(
)
13 work requirements at the Island in relationship to training 14 were becoming so extensive that it was impossible for me to 15 attend all these additional meetings.
By that time, it was 16 pretty much in the hands of senior personnel who had to make 17 final decisions.
18 Q
Did the committee have a chairman?
19 A
It probably did, but don't ask me who, because I 20 don't remember.
21 Q
Do you have an impression of who the principal
()
22 person or persons running the committee were?
23 A
Mr. Bob Arnold.
24 Q
Did you draft the emergency procedures for opela-
'A wat Rumnors, lrw.
25 tional response to a transient?
rtl 38 51 1
A I was not directly involved in the writing or l
1 1
2 approving of any of the procedures, both emergency, abnormal, 3
or normal.
I 4
Q The drafting which you did with respect to emergencies 5
was what?
6 A
We were discussing earlier the drafting of the 7
procedure for the radiation emergency plan and drill team 8
training.
9 Q
I just wanted to clarify that.
10 A
Okay.
The only other procedure I had input on 11 is the requalification procedure for operators.
12 Q
Is Mr. Frederik currently a member of the training
')
13 department?
14 A
Yes, sir.
15 0
When did he become a member of the training depart-16 ment?
17 A
July of 1979.
However, I might point out, that 18 around January or February, if memory serves me well, of 1979, 19 we were trying at that time to get him into the training 20 department.
21 Q
Had you sought him out or had he sought you out?
/~ j 22 A
That came about from the fact that we had an opening 23 in the training department and we were looking for licensed 24 individuals, particularly in Unit 2, who we felt could do an A
eral Reporters, Inc.
25 adequate job as an instructor.
During the past, Mr. Frederik i
l rtl 39 52 l
1 had indicated his interest in joining the training department.
7m
(_,
2 He expressed that, I believe, to several people within my 3
department.
Through both observation of this gentleman from
'J 4
his own peers, from the observation of this gentleman in the 5
training program, we, as a group in the training department, 6
agreed there would be one candidate we would like to see interviewed for that position.
8 Q
Did you go out and ask him if he would be interested?
9 A
Yes, sir, we did.
10 Q
Did you personally call him?
11 A
We personally called each individual in the depart-12 ment and asked them if they would be interested in formally
{],
13 interviewing for that position.
14 Q
iou say each individual in the department.
How 15 many people were there that you called?
16 A
Maybe that didn't come out exactly right.
Each 17 person who the training department as a group decided we would 18 like to have as a candidate for the instructor.
19 Q
How many candidates did you have?
20 A
I had, if my memory serves me well, four.
21 Q
Do you recall the others?
(^')
22 A
Yes.
xs
'23 Q
Who were they?
24 A
Fred Scheiman, Adam Miller, John Kidwell -- there oral Reporters, Inc.
25 was five, there was another one -- Ed Tennis.
1 f
rtl 40 53 1
1 Q
You have testified that there is a services con-l 1
- s.
(_/
2 tract with B&W pursuant to which you had assistance in j
i 3
training.
Are there other outside companies with which there j
r
'N I
4 are contracts who provide assistance in training?
5 A
I believe at the moment we have a contract with 6
NUS Corporation.
7 Q
Any others?
8 A
We have another contract with General Physics 9
Corporation for specific assistance.
Not an ongoing 10 one compatible to the general assistance contract we have with 11 B&W, not of that calibre.
12 Q
Is this specific assistance you are seeking related f/-,I 13 to the March 28 incident?
O 14 A
It is a follow-up to the March 28 incident.
15 Specifically, as an example, we have hired General Physics 16 to conduct an in-depth training program on heat transfer.
17 Q
ARe there any other companies with whom you present-18 ly have contracts for provision of services in connection with 19 training?
20 A
I believe the company still has a retainer contract 21 with PQS, under the direction of Frank Kelly.
22 MR. DIENELT:
Let's break until one.
s 23 (Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., a recess was taken 24 until 1:00 p.m.,
the same day.)
AAeral Reporters, Inc.
25 t
rtl 41
-..s '
54 1
AFTERNOON SESSION j
I 1
(_)
2 1:15 p. m.
l 3
BY MR. DIENELT:
o) t
\\"'
4 Q
Returning to Exhibit 3019, you have testified that 5
you weren't in the training department responsible for the 6
training department at the time that was published, is that 7
right?
8 A
It locks like this was published December 1977.
9 I moved up to the acting positions 11-77.
In any case, I 10 don't recall seeing this, okay?
11 Q
In the normal course, would the acting training 12 director or the training director review the kind of publica-(,)
13 tion of which Exhibit 3019 is an example?
14 A
Yes, sir.
15 0
Ao at the present time you do get and review copies 16 of Current Events?
17 A
Yes, sir.
18 Q
Who was your immediate predecessor as either acting 19 or actual training director?
20 A
At what time?
As this published date?
I was the 21 acting supervisor of training at that time.
I reported to
()
22 Alexis Stegaris.
23 Q
Whose position was what?
24 A
Director of generation training.
9wel Ruorun, lm Am 25 Q
Who else in the training department reviews copies l
t
55 l
rtl 42 I
of Current Events?
3 l
A Upon receipt of Current Events, I would direct this l 2
l to one of two individuals, Marshall Beers or Mr. Nelson Brown.
3
)
Q Is it fair to say that with respect to the Davis 4
s.
Besse transient which is described beginning on page 2 of 5
Exhibit 3019, Mr. Beers would have been expected to be more 6
concerned with the transient than Mr. Brown?
7 A
Both would have been concerned equally.
8 0
Are you aware of whether either of them took note 9
of it and did anything with it?
10 A
No, I have no idea.
11 0
Is the training department responsible --
12 A
Let me continue to respond to that.
I am aware
)
13 from all the people in my department, including Marshall Beers ja and Nelson Brown, that they weren't aware of the Davis Besse 15 incident in the format you have shown me.
Their awareness, g
to my knowledge, of Davis Besse only came about from the fact 37 there was an LER print-out with a summation which, as I said, 18 never identified it in that magnitude.
j9 Q
When did the training department, to your knowledge, 20 begin receiving copies of Current Events?
g A
I uld not tell you.
I have no idea.
(~)
22 Q
Do you recall having seen a copy.of Current Events?
23 Any copy prior to the time in November 1977 that you became 24 A
.re n. con.,i, ene.
acting director?
25
1 l
rtl 43 56 i
i j
A As I mentioned before, I don't recall when we j
l
)
2 started getting those.
I just don't remember.
,l s
3 Q
Do you recall when the first time you saw a copy of x
4 Current Events was?
5 A
I have seen it over the last couple of years.
When it officially started, I don' t know.
6 7
Q How frequently do you have contact with persons at B&W who have responsibility with respect to training matters?
8 A
It depends on -- I have periodic association and 9
communications with people at B&W simulator.
10 11 Q
Do you have contacts with anyone,at B&W other than in the simulator area with respect to training?
12 A
Not normally.
(~')
13 LJ 14 Q
Can you give me an idea how frequently you have the contacts with B&W simulator people?
15 16 A
It is hard to say because there are some months we have frequent contact with them, like right now.
There are 17 times when we communicate with them with respect to simulator 18 19 schedules, when we are sending people there.
Communicating with them with respect to what we want to see in the simulator 20 n a periodic basis.
It is no fixed period.
It is spotty.
21 O
Would you regard the communications you have with
,' S 22 t_)
B&W simulater as being adequate?
23 A
I would say that I feel we have had fair relation-24 A
I Reponen, Inc.
ships and communicated very well with one another.
Obviously, 25
l 57 e
rtl 44 i
i since the accident, w'. learned some things we would have l
liked to have known thit we didn't know about relating to the--
bI 2
v-3 Q
What things-
,kj 4
A The Davis B.sse type accidant.
5 Q
Prior to F.rch 28, were most of the communications 6
between you and B&W initiated by you?
7 A
No, sir.
They would have been initiated by me and could also very well have been initiated by Marshall Beers.
8 9
Q Most of the communications prior to March 28 were 10 initiated by Met Ed as opposed to being initiated by B&W?
11 A
I would say it would be about fifty-fifty.
12 Q
Did you or did Mr. Beers, prior to March 28, make 13 any suggescions to B&W with respect to the simulator training
(~)N
\\.
14 that it was conducting?
15 A
Yes, sir.
16 Q
Have they been in writing?
17 A
I can't hear you.
18 Q
Have they been in writing?
19 A
No, sir; most of our communications are by phone.
20 Q
Can you give me an example of some of the sugges-tions you made with respect to similator training?
i 21 A
I can only tell you the kind of suggestions that
(
22 are made.
When we are getting ready to send people down 23 24 to the simulator, they will call us or have someone come up A
at Reporters, Inc.
and discuss with us and also the control room operator people 25
rtl 45 58 1
suggestions for what we would like to see in the simulator or r~'
{
(_.
2 what particular lessons we would like to have in the class-3 room. And that is the type of normal relationship we have.
i s
(
)
i 4
Q Has it been your experience that when you have l
'~'
l 5
made suggestions with respect to the simulator training to i
6 B&W that B&W has implemented them?
7 A
Yes, they try to accommodate us as best they can.
8 Q
Have they been able to accommodate you in a way 9
that you regard as sufficient?
10 A
I think, like any other trainiag program, you would 11 have complaints as well as praise.
It varies with lesson to 12 lesson, instructor to instructor.
,.()
13 Q
Does the training department have as part of its 14 responsibility the conduct of emergency drills?
15 A
We have the responsibility to see that they are 16 carried out.
17 Q
How did you discharge that responsibility?
18 A
Administratively, we insure that.the training for 19 the drills, the schedules for the drills and the scenarios 20 for the drills are prepared by us.
We insure the documenta-21 tion that is available from the drills is made available in our 22 files.
We act as monitoring during the drills, critique
- ()
23 monitors.
We work in conjunction with the HP department and 24 station management in the timing of the drills and the manage-A eral Reporters, Inc.
25 ment of the drills, if you would like.
rtl 46 i
59 i
l 1
Q Is there any department that has more responsibility l f ~' s sm) 2 with respect to the handling of emergency drills than yours?
l 3
A You are talking bout as far as the ildministration j
?
s i
l 4
of those drills, responsibility for administracien of those
'~'
5 drills.
I would say we played the major role of responsibility 6l of administration of those drills.
i 7
Q Am I correct that your department decides what 8
kind of emergency will be involved in an emergency drill?
9 A
No.
That is a joint reffort.
10 Q
Who decides that?
11 A
In the past, it has been between the training 12 department and senior management, particularly at this time
()
13 it would have been Gary Miller or the unit superintendents.
~
14 Q
When was the last emergency drill?
15 A
In November of 1978.
16 Q
What kind'of emergency was involved in the drill?
17 A
We had six different drills.
Each one was differ-18 ent.
19 Q
The decision as to what kind of drills was made by 20 your department in conjunction with senior management?
21 A
Right.
I believe Herbein give us a directive for 22 one particular type of drill.
We worked up the scenarios
' )
23 with an offsite consultant, who happens -- take that back.
24 This is not true.
This is 1978.
We made up the scenarios in erei aenorters, inc.
25 1978.
P
~_.
rtl 47 60 i
1 Q
How did you decide what persons would be involved 7q
\\>
2 in the drills?
3 A
Let me give you a point of clarification.
During
(
)
t/
4 the period you are talking about of November 1978, I was, as 5
I mentioned earlier, in fulltrime training, so the responsibili-6 ty for carrying out administration of that drill fell to Frank 7
McCormick.
My ability to answer some of you-questions right 8
now may be limited.
In the past, the way that is done is that 9
again it is discussed with senior management as to what shifts 10 are going to be involved in the six drills and so forth.
11 Q
With respect to the drills that occurred in November 12 we understand that from among ten individuals who were p(_)
13 assigned to the shift that was on duty when the March 28 14 transient began in Unit 2, only four had participated in any 15 of the November 1978 drills.
Do you know why only four of ten 16 participated?
17 A
No,. sir, I don't.
18 Q
Who would know?
19 A
I suspect one of two people would ahve the answer 20 to that. Frank McCormick or Mike Ross.
21 Q
What is Mike Ross' position?
,o
(_ )
22 A
Supervisor of operations Unit 1.
23 Q
These were Unit 2 individuals.
Would he still have 24 been the person who would have known why they did or did not Ace-eral Reconen, Inc.
25 participate?
I
61 rtl 48 1
A That is a good point.
1.culd also suggest talking f l
l 2
to Mr. James Floyd.
l
~'
3 Q
Are there rosters or records kept of the people who participate in the emergency drills?
I 4
5 A
hirmally, there was an attempt to keep a roster of who was. involve! with the drills; however, there are so many 6!
people involved that it is hard sometimes for our people to 7
get all the signatures on the sheets of people who attended.
8 9
Q How long does a drill normal]
take?
10 A
One to three hours, dependin in the type drill.
11 Q
You stated that personnel in ae training d:Jartment serves as monitors of the drill. Subsequent to the drill, does 12
~
the training department provide a critique or commentary (V')
13 14 regarding the drill?
15 A
You are saying prior to the drill?
16 Q
I meant subsequent to the drill.
17 A
Yes, sir; normally, after the drill, there is a critique of the drill held in the auditorium.
18 19 Q
Is everyone who participated in the crill required to attend the critique?
20 A
Nos sir.
Usually, it requires the department heads 21 and shift foremen or shift supervisors to be there.
(~3 22
<J 23 Q
How long does the critique normally last?
24 A
I would guess around an hour.
It varies again A
si Reporters, Inc.
depending on what the drill was and what the problems were.
25 I
rtl 49 62 1
Q Is any written critique every made?
,n
__f 2
A There has been in tha past.
I don't know if there 3
was for '78.
4 Q
Is it the normal practice for the director of train-5 ing to give the critique?
6 A
Yes, sir.
l' 7
0 Who gave the critique, if you know, with respect to 8
the November 1978 drill?
9 A
I don't know.
10 Q
Is there an average period of time during the year 11 which an operator is expected to spend in training?
~12 A
A licensed operator?
m
(
)
13 C
Yes, sir.
xs 14 A
Yes, sir.
15 Q
What is that?
16 A
The average amount of time in classroom traing, 17 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br /> per year.
That does not include simulator time.
18 Q
Is there a minimum amount that is prescribed?
19 A
Sixty.
I might point out the average has been 20 around 100 to 150.
CR6989 21 Q
Is there a minimum amount of simulator training that
- 7
(~;
22 is required?
s_/
23 A
No, sir.
We utilize the simulator to meet the 24 reactivity requirements for requalification programs.
j A
wel Rgorurs, lm.
25 Q
Is there an average time?
l 1
rtl 50
}
63 l
1 A
on the average, se send them, except for one year, l
rm to the simulator for one week.
During that 40-hour period, i
( )
2
' 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> would be classroom and 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> would be on the 3
('/
N i
simulator.
k_
4 5
Q This is the requirement for a licensed operator, 6
is that correct?
These are the requirements for licensed 7
operators?
A We use the simulator to meet the license require-8 9
ments.
10 Q
What I am trying to focus on is the amount of 11 training per year that various operators get.
Maybe I don't 12 understand the situation' Are auxilia-'r operators licensed?
13 A
No, sir.
([ )
14 Q
Is there a minimum amount of time which is required 15 of them for training during the year?
16 A
The aux operators?
1 17 Q
Yes, sir.
18 A
On a retaining type basis?
19 0
Yes, sir.
A No, sir.
2p 21 Q
Is there an average amount of time of which you are
(~I 22 aware that is spent?
\\J A
I have never calculated, sir.
23 24 Q
Would it be fair to say it is less than the A
erd Reconm, Inc.
25 average amount of time spent by licensed operators in training?
I
rtl 51 64 l
1 A
Yes, sir, I think it is fair to say that.
2 Q
Significantly less?
3 A
I don't know.
'(~^:
- ' '/
4 0
Can you estimate whether the. amount of training an 5
auxiliary operator averages is more or less than half during 6
the year of the amount that a licensed operator averages?
7 A
I would say it would be equal to half or less.
8 Q
Is there any difference in the minimum requirement 9
of training that is imposed on control room operators as 10 opposed to senior reactor operators?
11 A
RO licenses versus S operator licenses.
Okay.
The 12 training we provide for both is the same.
The magnitude of
()
13 which we expect the SROs to be able to regurgitate, if you
(
14 would like, in their examinations is different.
15 Q
And greater?
16 A
Yes, sir.
17 Q
A moment ago you referred to reactivity.
Were i8 you referring to reactor reactivity?
19 A
I am referring to reactivity manipulations which 20 means that any change that an operator would make that would 21 affect the change and state of the core, the multiplication i
(
)
22 within the core.
23 MR. BATTIST:
Boron ship control?
C 24 THE WITNESS:
Yes, control rod movements.
AceW-eral Reporters, Inc.
25
r rtil52.
65 1
BY MR. DIENELT:
\\2 2
O How often, on the average, are emergency drills 3
held?-
Ius 4
A Once a year.
5 Q
Is there something known as a training week at Met 6
Ed?
7 A
I think what you are referring to in relationship 8
particularly to operators is their training week that is 9
associated with their 6-shift rotation.
In other words, the 10 operators are on a 6-shift rotation.
One of the shifts will 11 be a relief shift.
One will be a training shift.
During that 12 week that they are on the training shift, they are down in the 6) 13 training department for training.
ts, 14 Q
That would be every sixth week?
15 A
Yes, sir, except for periods when we have a 16 refueli;
- utage or some mini outage.
'17 Q
Are all of.the operators on a particular shift 18
. required to attend?
19 A
Yes, sir, they are.
20 Q
Licensed and auxiliary?
21 A
Aux operators are not required to attend.
()
.22 Q
Are they permitted to attend?
23 A
Yes, sir.
'J] !
24 Q
Encouraged to?
Aes-Nfderal Reportm, Inc.
25 A
Yes, sir.
j l
rtl 53 l
66 1
Q What if they don't attend?
7 Y
\\/
2 A
There is no penalty for doing that.
No requirement i
3 that they have to attend.
,s
/
')
~
4 Q
Do they get the time off?
5 A
Yes, sir.
The whole shift is on a training shift.
6 Their training might involve staying out in the plant or working 7
out in the plant duringuthat time.
8 Q
Is an auxiliary operator who decides he doesn't want 9
the training that comes in the sixth week given time off with 10 pay?
11 A
No, sir.
12 Q
What does he do that week?
r3 13 A
He is under the direction of the shift foreman.
(_j 14 The shift foreman determines his workload.
If his shift 15 foreman decides he wants him in the training program, he will 16 be there.
If he decides he wants him in the plant working on 17 specific systems or evolutions going on, that is what.4e dcas.
18 Q
Forcusing on the training sixth week for the 19 licensed operators, is most of that week spend in classroom-20 type training or on-the-job type?
21 A
Most of that training is in the classroom-type
)
22 training.,
23 Q
ARe there written materials provided?
(
24 A
Yes, sir.
A eral Reporters, Inc.
25 Q
Is there a test given at the end?
l I
i
rtl 54 1
67 l
l 1
A Yes, sir, there is.
One point I want to make clear,I n
i_j' 2
you ask, Is their attendance required?
Yes.
If they are not l
3 in attendance, they are required to make it up through other l
/'~%
\\-
4 mechanisms.
5 Q
Is one of these mechanisrs the CARE package that was discussed in some detail in the President's Commission 6
7 deposition?
8 A
That is correct.
9 BY MR. ORNSTEIN:
10 Q
On the CARE package, does a situation arise some-11 times where the operator didn't go to class and has a CARE 12 pacu2ge and does not do the assignment associated with it?
13 A
Not to the best of my knowledge.
That is something f) x-14 we track very heavily and try to insure that every assignment 15 is completed.
16 BY MR. DIENELT:
l 17 Q
When an operator gets a cross license, does he 18 have training on both the Unit 1 and Unit 2 control panels?
19 A
The cross license program, first of all, by the 20 term itself, means he already has a license on one unit and is 21 now cross training on the other unit.
Part of that requirement 22
-- part of that training requirement is that he goes through I
(}
23 an approximately 200-hour program based on systems differences 24 and is also assigned to the opposite unit.
Aw rot Reporters, Inc.
25 Q
So the answer is yes, he has training on both --
i
68 l
rtl 55 1
A Yes, sir.
,.y
(,)
2 Q
In the aftermath of the March 28 transient, it is 3
my impression that one criticism that has been made with respect
')
l N-4 to training of operators is that there was an overemphasis 5
placed on their attempting to insure that a pressurizer didn't 6
go solid.
7 A
That is correct.
8 Q
Do you agree with that criticism?
9 A
Yes, sir, I do.
Again, let me clarify that.
Based 10 on what we have learned.
11 Q
What change in emphasisor change in training would 12 you recommend to take into account what has been learned in
(~3 13 the light of the incident?
\\_/
14 A
It has already been taken into account.
15 Q
What is that?
16 A
They have come out with more procedural guidance 17 on what to do under the circumstances that we faced during that 18 time.
That has already been spelled out in the I&E bulletin.
19 7905-A, B, AND C have been incorporated in our recent procedures.
20 Q
When you referred to "they" in the last answer, 21 whom did you mean?
(~)
22 A
Met Ed.
It also has been drummed into us at the
's_/
23 simulator since that time.
24 Q.
I am going to ask you to give your training departmen.t eral Reporters, Inc.
25 a report card over the last year.
How would you grade the L
i Y
i rtl 56 69 I
l I
training program on the traditional A to F scale?
/..
I
\\_,i 2
A I didn't hear your last part.
3 Q
Over the last year, how would you grade the train-(
l 4
ing program on the traditional A through F scale?
5 A
Where A is excellent?
6 Q
Yes, sir.
I 7
A I couldn't put it on that scale.
I would have to 8
give you a verbal explanation.
Okay?
9 Q
All right.
10 A
I would say that our operator licensing programs II and the dedication of the people to those protrams, I guess 12 if you want a grade for our people and.timir e f forts, I would
( ')
13 given them an A.
's 14 Q
You regard that as the strongest part of the pro-15 gram?
16 A
The strongest part of the program is the dedication 17 of, in particular, our operator training types instructors.
An 18 A.
They have full dedication to training. They are for the 19 student.
They are trying in the best way they know how to 20 get across to the student what he needs to know ar an operator.
21 Q
What would you regard as the weakest part of the
',)
22 program?
/
23 A
I would say the duration of our training program l
24 and perhaps the amount of classroom training.
Merw Reconen, Inc.
25 MR. DIENELT:
Off the record.
I
i rtl 57 70 I
{
(Discussion off the record.)
j j
)
MR. BATTIST:
On the record.
j
[ ')
2 v
BY MR. BATTIST:
3 (n)
Q In the first few months you were the supervisor 4
f training, you were also studying for your SRO.
Do you 5
think that that will continue or will you drop those studies 6
and retain solely the supervisor of training responsibility?
7 A
In all honesty, I haven't given it too much g
thought.
I answered this question once before for the 9
presidential commission.
There is one thing about me.
I 10 don't like to let things drop.
I feel that is a very important 11 part of my education.
I guess my off-the-cuff answer right 12 now is I certainly would pursue it as soon as time allowed.
/^\\
13 U
Q Do you think that would hurt your position as 34 supervisor of training, particularly if, as a result of the 15 accident, it begins to expand in scope?
16 A
I haven't really thought about that.
You have to 37 re all I have very capable people working for me in the 18 licensing side.
Marshall Beers, who has a dual license in 39 both plants.
I have two SROs and -- I am sorry, three SROs,'
20 and one CRO working for me at this time.
Like any other amount 21 of education, it would do nothing but help by my having that g
v license.
g Q
These SROs and CROs that you have in your 24 AM., s a.coners, Inc.
organization, are they fulltime in the traiair.g (lepartment or 25 I
rtl 58 71 1
is it just a parttime responsibility?
[
N i )
2 A
They =re fulltime in the training department.
I s-3 Q
They never stand shifts, operate the reactor and so !
l 4
on?
5 A
Not true.
At times during refueling outages and 6l at other times, when vacations may become a problem, they 7
stand shift on occasion.
8 Q
They may fill in as an ancillary position?
9 A
And in addition to meet the requirements of 10 maintaining their licenses.
They maintain their licenses so 11 they must spend a certain amount of time in the control room.
12 Q
Is there any advantage other than to be, say, more 13 respected by the other people studying for their licenses to
(~]';
~.
14 retain their license?
15 A
Certainly.
16 Q
What would the advantage be?
17 A
The advantage would be credibility.
They are more 18 credible by maintaining their licenses, having been qualified 19 just like everyone else that has a license.
And also by 20 maintaining that license, they are going through everything 21 required to keep the license, they are kept current.
I think,
(~~,
22 yes, it has absolute value.
U
- 8 23 Q
But what about in the case of, let us say, 24 radiation protection training in which there is no license A$.i n porters, inc.
25 per se?
Would,you hire profetlional educators on your staff
I 72 rtl 59 I
to do that training in the future or would you still go into t
(e,)
2 somebody who worked his way up to senior HP or some other sta-s_-
i 3
tus?
(Q) 4 A
I would have to give you a qualified type answer.
5 If the senior type person in the radiation protection depart-ment has the ability to communicate and has the ability to 6
express himself and shows the talents of a teacher, my first 7
8 gut feeling would be that they are the ones that ought to do the training, because they are the ones that are most familiar 9
10 with the HP practices at the plant and the plant requirements.
11 Q
All of this gets, of course, to the philosophy of 12 the prograu and if your recommendations that you are making 13 are carried out, you certainly could not take all these people
{}
14 and decimate the radiation protection staff either.
15 A
That is correct.
I guess the recommendation would 16 be to staff the radiation protection department accordingly, 17 and when you have it staffed accordingly, then you can break 18 away these people to do that type of training --
19 0
What do you do in the interim 6 months or 2 years?
20 A
You have to rely on every resource you have.
That 21 is consultants, in-house people, combination of each.
22 BY MR. ORNSTEIN:
}
23 Q
Earlier there was some discussion about the fact 24 that the operators are trained to be extremely careful about Aas-Fegerse Rego,ters, Inc.
25 filling the pressurizer and going solid.
The question we have
c rtl 60 73 1
is that of saturation conditions.
Now, apparently, during the l t
2 accident, it appears to many people that they were looking i
primarily at having the pressurizer full and not being concern-!
3 l
(
s 4
ed with the question about saturation.
I am curious to know 5
where in the training program they do get exposed to the ques-6 tion about saturation and where that enters into their 7
procedures and how they take care of the plant.
8 A
In the past, the only training that they receive
?
that is directed towards the term " saturation" has been a 10 study of the operation of the pressure itself and the theory 11 of operation of the pressurizer.
To look at what has happened 12 on Unit 2 and put that in perspective, one would say that no f j 13 one that I know of has ever conceived or thought about those 14 particular situations that we got ourselves into.
By virtue 15 of the fact it was never asked by an NRC examiner on any 16 NRC exam, by virtue of the fact it was not incorporated in the 17 training program at the simulator, it is difficult at this 18 time to, in retrospect, understand that, but that is the way 19 it was.
We were so assured by our training and drilling 20 of the operators that everything would take care of itself, so 21 to speak, that this situation never arose and never was 22 discussed.
23 Q
Have you, in the training department -- I assume 24 subsequent to March 28 -- received a copy of the Michelson AAerst Reponen, Inc.
25 report?
I L
rtl 61 74 l
i i
i 1
A The training department has not.
l
<~
l
(,)w 2
Q Are you yourself familiar with that particular l
3 report?
i
(
i
'/
4 A
Only the mention of the name that I heard through l
5 the various commissions that mentioned it.
I I
6l 0
With regard to the training that the operators 7
received, some people have mentioned the fact that after the 8
auxiliary feed water valves were opened and auxiliary feed 9
water was introduced to the system, the steam generators were 10 worked back to their low limits.
That was the 30-inch level.
11 And it was not until about 80 or 90 minutes later that the 12 steam generator levels were raised to their operating range.
~
13 Now, is there some facet of the training program that would (v;
14 tell the operators to keep the steam generator levels in the 15 start-up range during that kind of an emergency?
16 A
I guess the point that I ought to express is I don't 17 want to comment on what specifically the operators did at that 18 time because I have not been involved in any of the conversa-19 tions subsequent to the accident where the operators were 20 present and discussed it in my presence, nor have I read in i
21 detail the way this happened.
The levels in the steam
(~^)
22 generator, both the low level limit and maximum level limit, v
23 we always relied on the ICS performing that: function.
24 Q
That is when you are at some power level as opposed Am-FMeral Reporters, Inc.
25 to being shut down.
rtl 62 75 I
i 1
A Or during loss of reactor coolant pumps or loss of I
(',)
2 feed water.
You have minimum-maximum load level limits that 3
are imposed by the ICS.
/ ';
I
~
4 0
I have one more question here on diagnosis of off-l (J
5 normal behavior of the reactor.
Is there some portion in the 6l licensed operator's training, as well as the requalifications 7
period, in which he is exposed to lectures or work in the area of diagnosis of off-normal conditions, or is it --
e.
9 A
The answer is no, sir.
10 0
I think I had one other question here in a different 11 area.
I think we may have discussed it earlier today, but I 12 could be wrong.
That was a question about the people in the
()
13 training department.
Say, for example, Mr. Frederik just tj 14 jointed the training staff a few months ago.
Does he jump right 15 in and start to train people based on what he has seen in the 16 classroom or is there some special program that he goes through 17 as he receives some other pretraining trainer school classes or 18 something?
19 A
Due to the circumstances that we are in at this time, 20 and the magnitude of the training that is going on, essentially 21 Ed Frederik has jumped in and started training.
- However,
(~D 22 under the direct supervision of Frank McCormick.
We are in
(_, '
23 the planning stage -- in fact, it is in the hands of our 24 personnel department in Reading at this time -- to put together Ace-F et Reporters, Inc.
25 a comprehensive train-the-trainer type training program.
It has N
r
rtl 64 76 1
been traditional to send our trainers to NUS for an instruc-
\\
(
)
2 tor's workshop.
Mr. Frederik, since he was only with us a I
~
ws 3
short time, hasn't had that opportunity yet.
)
4 Q
Now we have received copies of various statistics 5
on the pass rate or pass percentage of licensed operators or 6
those who re applying for specific NRC-sanctioned exams or 7
NRC-given exams.
We have a similar question, which may not be 8
available right now, but do you keep statistics of that nature 9
for the auxiliary operators?
That is, those who come in and 10
-- come in on the operator C level and want to aspire to B, 11 and the B to A?
12 I guess that would be it.
The question is, Could fN 13 you provide us with some information as to what their percentage L) 14 of-failures or passing rates are that you have experienced.
15 A
The statistics you mentioned earlier with respect 16 to licensed operators were put tcgether specifically at the 17 request of many people since the accident.
We have not put 18 together the statistics, nor do we have a central sheet, on 19 the pass-fail information for aux operators.
It would have to 20 be drawn out over the last -- since 1975.
21 Q
Rather than going through that type of exercise, em 22 from your best judgment, would you say it was something like (j
23 90 percent pass or 50 percent pass or --
24 A
I would say more like 97 percent pass.
A d Reporters, Inc.
25 l
l
rtl 65 77 i
i 1
BY MR. DIENELT:
)
2 Q
What is ICS?
3 A
Integrated Control System.
~
I
3 I
\\~J 4
BY MR. ORNSTEIN:
5 0
I have one more question.
I had a question about 6
the tailpipe from the PORV.
Now, it was known that prior to I
7 the March 28 incident, there was a thousand-gallon-per-shift 8
leak through thw PORV or safety relief valve, whatever.
The 9
question that comes to mind is, In view of the fact that it 10 was known there was a leak, and the effluent had to be removed 11 at each shift, and there was a higher tailpipe temperature 12 than you would normally have during that particular -- at that f~j 13 particular point than if there were no leak, did the training s-14 program address this issue?
That is, in your requalification 15 program, where you try to tack more operating experience into 16 it, was there a situation where the operators were all alerted 17 to the fact that the tailpipe temperature would normally be 18 higher than originally prescribed, and, if there was a 19 transient taking place in which this lifted, they would have 20 a different set of temperatures to use as their base line?
21 A
With respect to your direct question, tailpipe s
(G~'l 22 temperatures versus the leakage that went on, no, sir; we have 23 not directed that particular situation in our training program 24 in the past.
AceAeral Repomrs, Inc.
25 Q
But I assume it is presently or has been integrated t
I
1 rtl 66 78 subsequent to March 28?
j
( );
A I presume it will be. We addressed it specifically 2
i
)
since then.
It was brought to the attention of all the people j 3
I i
,-)
by the operation shifts, but we haven't put it in our training I
i
(,
4 pr gram at this very moment.
5 Q
Do you know when you can anticipate that?
6 A
All I could say is we have not been directed to do 7
so at this point.
That is not one of the items that are on g
our agenda for picking up on lessons learned.
Perhaps there 9
is an oversight on our part.
It is a good point.
I will take 10 it back with me.
There was no plans to the best of my knowledge 11 to incorporate it into the training program.
12 f')
13 MR. ORNSTEIN:
Thank you.
x/
MR. DIENELT:
Thank you, Mr. Zechman.
We will ja adjourn the deposition now.
I hope we will not find it 15 16 necessary to ask you to come back.
If we do, we will contact your attorney and arrange a convenient time.
Thank you very j7 much.
18 (Whereupon, at 2:10 p.m.,
the taking of the deposition j9 was concluded.)
20 21 L) 22 23 24 Mer : n.conen, Inc.
25
_.