ML19308C513
| ML19308C513 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/17/1979 |
| From: | Dienelt J, Elliott N BABCOCK & WILCOX CO., NRC - NRC THREE MILE ISLAND TASK FORCE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001280511 | |
| Download: ML19308C513 (45) | |
Text
_
C R'._
d.w l O I
i j
N U C L E A R R E G U L AT O R '( COMMISSION t
1 l
I IN THE MATTER OF:
I NRC/TMI SPECIAL INQUIRY GROUP DEPOSITION OF NORMAN S. ELLIOTT, JR.
O Place - Lynchburg, Virginia Date - Wednesday, 17 October 1979 Pages 1-44 1
l l
w.ohone:
(202)347-3700 ACE -FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.
OfficzalReporters K[Usb$$[Ojyfy{)(3 j? IR)
))[f9fil?(U
~
[t 444 North Capitol Street 8001280 6//
f Washington, D.C. 20001 s
NATIONWIDE COVERAGE. DAILY l
/.
1 57/
pl 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
()
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
x f()
4 In the Matter of:
5 NRC/TM". SPECIAL INQUIRY GROUP 6
x 7
8 Offices of Babcock & Wilcox i
9 3515 Old Forest Road Lynchburg, Virginia i
10 17 October 1979 11 10:45 a.m.
12 13 DEPOSITION OF NORMAN S.
ELLIOTT, JR.
O 14 BEFORE:
15 JOHN DIENELT, Esq.
16 HAROLD ORNSTEIN 17 PRESENT:
GEORGE EDGAR, Esq., on behalf of the Deponent.
18 ALSO PRESENT:
CARLA D'ARISTA, NRC Staff.
19 20 21
()
23 24 gs Ace #,
Reporters, Inc.
25 1
2 g
C O _N T _E _N _T _S 2
Exhibits:
ent M ed 3
3120
- O 5
6 4
7 8
i 4
1 9
10 11 l
12 1
i i
13
!e t
14 i
+
i 15 1
i
.)
16 17 i
(
}
18 19 20 l'
l 21 1
1 22 0
23 24 ace.
Reconers, is 25 9
v.
.,f.,
wi,i -~ 'h4+ *.
3h24,
s
3 P,_ E Q q g g g I_ N_ q g dsph j
2 Whereupon, NORMAN S. ELLIOTT, JR.
3 was called as a witness, and having been first duly sworn, 4
was examined and testified as follows:
5 EXAMINATION 6
BY MR. DIENELT:
7 0
Would you state your name and business address?
8 A
My name is Norman S. Elliott, Jr.
Business 9
address is Babcock & Wilcox, P. O. Box 1260, Lynchburg, 10 11 Virginia.
12 Q
Have you had an' opportunity to review Exhibit 3101?
A Yes, I have.
13 ja Q
Do you understand it?
A I think so.
15 16 Q
The testimony that you give in this deposition has the same effect as if you were in a court.
17 You'll have an opportunity to review the transcript 18 and make any changes in it which you deem necessary.
If you 19 make changes which are of a substantive nature, as opposed to 20 changes in -- to correct a typographical error or to correct 21 a misunderstanding that appears in the transcript regarding 22 what you have said, the changes could be viewed as 23 24 affecting your credibility.
Am-F d Reporters, Inc.
So it's important for you to understand the questions 25 l
3 4
dsp4 and give full and complete answers to them.
y If you don't understand the question, please let 2
me know, and I will try to rephrase and clarify it.
- Also, 3
if you would allow me to finish the question, even though 4
y u understand what the question is, before you give an 5
answer, that will enable the court reporter to give a clearer 6
transcript.
7 Y u have been deposed by the President's 8
Commission on two separate occasions; is that correct?
9 A
It's my understanding there was one deposition taken 10 on two separate days.
jj Q
Have you had an opportunity to review the 12 l'3 transcript of that deposition?
O A
I have read the transcript of that deposition.
34 Q
Have you made any changes or corrections in the 15 transcript?
16 A
Yes.
37 1
Q Have you prepared an errata sheet?
18 A
Yes.
j9 MR. DIENELT:
I'd like to request that.
20 1
MR. EDGAR:
All right, we'll provide it.
g BY MR. DIENELT:
22 Q
Do. any of the changes you made affect'the meaning 23 of y ur testimony, as you understand it?
24 Ace 4%M Reporters, Inc.
^
N**
I 25
5 dsp5 Q
Have you given any testimony before the Presihnt's 3
Commission apart from the deposition?
2 A
Yes.
3 Q
Do you recall when that was?
4
~
A I do not remember the date.
5 Q
Have you given any testimony with respect to the 6
TMI incident to any legislative body?
7 A
No.
8 Q
Do you recall any other testimony that you have 9
given regarding the TMI incident?
10 A
No, I do not.
jj Q
Am I correct that you have not been interviewed by 12 the office of inspection and enforcement of NRC?
O (Pause.)
j4 A
I don't think that's exactly correct, in that we 15 have had contact with members of the inspection and enforcement 16 organization through training activities through their j7 visits here and previous visits of staff members who are a 18 part of your organization who may have been members of the j9 inspection and enforcement branch of the Nuclear Regulatory 20 Commission.
21
.I would conclude that I have had contact with them.
i O
Q Let me rephrase my question.
2-3 Do you recall being interviewed and having the 24 Acs4_M Reporters, Inc.
J interview taped or transcribed, to your knowledge?
25 l
6 dsp6 A
No.
j 2
Q Do you recall any other interview of any sorts 3
regarding the TMI incident which, to your knowledge, was taped or transcribed?
4 (Pause.)
5 A
Yes.
6 Q
Can you tell me what that was?
7 A
We had at least one incident where a reporter came 8
9 to the office, was authorized by the company to conduct an 10 interview, and conduct a tape to maintain a memory of the 11 interview relative to how the Three Mile Island incident did 12
- ecur.
13 Q
Do you know the name of the reporter or the name of ja the organization for which the reporter worked?
15 A
I obn't remember at this time.
It is recorded,in 16 the depositions for the President's Commission.
17 Q
Can you recall any other occasions in which you gave a taped or transcribed interview, to your knowledge?
18 19 A
I don't recall any.
20 Q
I understand that you have a resume but it is not 21 with you.
l Is that correct?
l 22
! O l
A Yes.
23 24 MR. DIENELT:
For the record, I'd like to request kce F 1 Reporters, Inc.
25 a copy of Mr. Elliott's resume.
7 dsp7 MR. EDGAR:
We'11 provide that.
j BY MR. DIENELT:
2 Q
Is the resume you have an accurate and up to date 3
resume?
4 A
It was accurate as of the time of preparation, which 5
was June -- July, excuse me.
6 Q
Has there been any change in your position with 7
B & W or change in responsibility in your position since that 8
time?
9 A
No.
10 jj Q
What is your current position?
A My current position is manager of training services.
12 Q
Could you briefly outline what your responsibilities 13 O
in that position are?
~
jj A
My responsibilities as manager of training services 15 is to be the business and technical manager for the conduct 16 of Babcock & Wilcox's nuclear power generation division j7 training services to various utilities, the Nuclear Regulatory 18 Commission, and other interested people for our execution j9 f training contracts with those people.
20 We have a training facility here, which consists of 21 three classrooms, some office space, a nuclear power plant 22 simulat r, and we utilize that in the conduct of our training 23 f bc th an operational nature and maintenance and technical O
24 Ace-F-A Reporters, Inc.
training for the various customers in accordance with 25 1
8 dsp8 1
contracts.
()
2 (Pause.)
3 MR. DIENELT:
Would you mark that as 3120.
4 IElliott Deposition Exhibit 3120
(}
5 marked for identification.)
6 BY MR. DIENELT:
7 Q
We have marked a document which was also an exhibit 8
to a deposition you gave to the President's Commission as 9
Exhibit 3120.
j 10 Can you identify that document?
11 A
Yes.
i 12 Q
What is it?
13 A
It is the resume prepared by myself and provided O
14 to the President's Commission.
15 Q
Is that the same resume you were going to furnish 16 to us?
17 A
Yes.
Please correct the current address.
It has 18 changed since then.
19 Q
Your home address has changed?
20 A
Right.
21 Q
Just so the record will be clear, we withdraw 22 our request for a copy of the resume, since we now have it O
23 and have made it a part of the record.
24 To whom do you report?
g-)
Aes,,,W Rgomn, lm.
25 A
Mr. Kosiba.
9 i
dsp9 1
Q Is there a contract with GPU or Met Ed that
(~]
2 covers training?
V 3
A Yes.
4 Q
Is that a separate contract from other contracts,
(}
5 or is it part of a large contract dealing with other matters?
6 A
It is separate.
7 MR. DIENELT:
Off the record.
8 (Discussion off the record.)
9 BY MR. DIENELT:
10 0
Where were you on March 28th?
11 A
I was on leave of absence from Babcock & Wilcox 12 Company.
I was assigned to the commander of submarine forces, 13 Atlantic Fleet; and my physical location was Norfolk, p
14 Virgnia.
15
,O And what day did you return from that assignment 16 to Babcock & Wilcox?
17 A
I was released from active duty on -- I believe 18 it's March 30, which is the last day -- last or next to the 19 last day of March, a Friday.
20 I returned officially to work on Monday.
21 Q
Between March 28th and Monday, did you have any role 22 in connection with B & W's response to the TMI incident?
23 (Pause.)
24 A
No.
Allow me to explain that 'I 'did make a visit Ac. Fhi reporters, Inc.
25 to the office on Saturday and Sunday to gain a personal l
I
l 10 dsp10 understanding of what had transpired and where we were.
But
\\
I contributed no --
3 Q
Beginning on Monday --
A Yes.
5 0
-- did you have a role in the response to the TMI 6
incident?
7 A
Yes.
8 0
would you summarize for me what your role was.
9 A
My role was to develop and implement a training 10 program for the operating power plants to demonstrate what had 11 happened at Three Mile Island and provide the students with 12 sufficient simulator time to see the event occur, and hopefully
()
learn enough about the event to -- if they found themselves 14 in the same situation -- to understand how to get out without 15 causing core damage.
16 Q
Have you played any other role or had any other 17 responsibility in connection with the response to the TMI 18 incident?
19 A
Other responsibilities which showed up about --
20 on the order of two weeks later -- was as a consultant on 21 the preparation of certain procedures related to the 22
()x plant.
23
- Now, these are recommended procedures from
("%
24 Babcock & Wilcox to the Metropolitan Edison Company on how Ace _
f.eporters, Inc.
25 to do certain things.
The training organization has a very
'm
11 I
integrated view of how a power plant works.
dspil And so myself and other members of the staff l
O 2
V provided this integrated view relative to some of the 3
procedures as a final check before they went out.
(]
4 v
They were not prepared by us.
It was only as a 5
consultant on there.
6 0
You were a consultant internally, as opposed to 7
being a consultant to Met Ed?
8 A
That's correct.
9 (Pause.)
10 ij Q
Were any of the procedures which you reviewed as a consultant run on the simulator?
12 A
No, sir.
13 O
j4 Q
I'm showing you Exhibit 3115, which is a copy of an organization chart which was in effect at some point.
15 (Counsel handing document to witness. )
16 A
Yes.
j7 Q
Were you on the organization chart or on an 18 organization chart similar to this one at any point, to 19 y ur knowledge?
20 (Witness reviewing document.)
21 A
.I don't think in an original typed version of any 22 O
of them I was ever on the organization chart.
23 (Pause.)
24 Ace F 1 Reporters, Inc.
25 Q
Will you describe -- strike that.
1 I
12 Will you elaborate for me on what you have done dsp12 j
in developing the training program to demonstrate what was 2
done -- what happened at TMI.
3 A
The training program that we conducted for 4
indoctrination of personnel in the Three Mile Island incident 5
had three aspects to it, the first of which was to utilize 6
a sequence of events, the most up to date at the time, and 7
the graphs of the parameters to explain to people whuc 8
happened.
9 And each of the students was provided a package 10 11 with the graphs and the sequence of events.
This was a classroom lecture.
An instructor showed the people what 12 happened, what were the significant points on the graph.
13 O
The second aspect of the program was that the 14 individuals were taken into the simulator and demonstrated 15 how the simulator reacted to a similar set of initiating 16 events.
17 And the third aspect was that the students were 18 then placed in charge of the simulator and placed in a similar 19 set of events and told to recover, if they could.
20 And then there were some other circumstances that 21 w uld get them int:o a depressurized mode with saturation in 22 O
the primary coolant system.
They were allowed to exercise 23 their understanding cf the plant to recover from those A
24 Ac.dm /s n.ponen. anc.
conditions.
25 7
13 dspl3 1
Q How many students have gone through the training
(]')
2 program at this point?
3 (Pause.)
4 A
Someplace the record is around, hit it is about
()
5 160.
That's a recollection.
But it's somewhere on that 6
order.
7 Q
How many of these were TMI employees?
8 (Pause.)
9 A
My guess is that it was about 30.
10 0
Were any of these NRC personnel?
11 A
Yes.
We conducted a special training course for 12 five or six groups of six NRC personnel, which consisted 13 primarily of I & E people; plus I think each group had a 7_V 14 member from the operator licensing branch.
15 Q
Prior to March 28th, could the simulator simulate 16 an incident in which there was super heat in the core?-
17 A
No.
Super heat -- you imply that it is super heated',
18 steam?
19 Q
Yes, sir, that's what I meant.
20 A
Right.
21 0
So you had to reprogram or change the simulator?
22 A
We made a modification to the primary system 7-V 23 control volume that provided for voiding of the primary 24 coolant control volume and the computations to demonstrate Ace 4t Reporters, irr..
25 super heat conditions.
I
14 dspl4 Ultimately, when the flow is sufficiently j
1 w, that -- that is the only way you can get decay heat on.
2 Q
Since March 28, have there been other modifications 3
made to the simulator?
q 4
V A
Yes.
5 Q
Have those modifications resulted from the TMI 6
incident?
7 (Pause.)
8 A
Well, indirectly; they are attempts -- and most 9
of them successful -- at revising the simulator models to 10 jj represent pressurized water reactor behavior at some extremes of its operating conditions.
12 Typic.:.1 of these is recovery from solid condition; 13 O
boiling dry of the steam genreator and refilling;
- and, ja 15 as I say, the modification of control volumes.
16 We have done some specialized things for one of our cust";mers who has an unusual high pressure injection 37 system on a plant which is different than all the others.
18 19 So certain of the Three Mile Island type incidents require use of the high pressure injection for core cooling.
20 And they have a very unique set of circumstances for their 21
,)2 pumps.
And we provided a kind of a mini-mod that allowed O
a special set of equations to cover that co.ndition.
23 24 (Pause.)
Ice-I Reporters, Inc.
25 Q
Can you identify the plant?
P m
15 dspl5 1
A The plant is the Davis-Besse plant.
()
2 0
Were any of the modifications which have been made to the simulator necessary in order for you to be able 3
()
to simulate the TMI incident?
4 5
A The modification to the performance of the reactor coolant control volume is necessary to model the Three Mile 6
Island incident after the idtial eight minutes of the 7
8 incident.
9 Q
Is that the only other modification which was 10 necessary to simulate?
11 A
That's correct.
12 Q
Did your simulation include a simulation of the 13 hydrogen bubble?
14 A
No.
15 Q
Why not?
16 A
That -- the limits of -- of simulation are to remain within the core -- essentially -- safety analysis, 17 and significant zirconium-water reactions were not contemplated 18 19 at the time the simulator was built.
20 We find they're of no real value; we can determine that a student has made sufficient errors that would have 21 res.tlted in core damage without having to simulate zirconium-22 water reactions, which are a long term problem of a loss of 23
(~}
24 coolant accident.
Ace Fla Reporters, Inc.
25 Q
Would it be possible to simulate a hydrogen bubble i
l l
16 l
1 dspl6 with damage to the core on the simulator?
y t
A It is possible to demonstrate or simulate hydrogen 2
generation from zirc-water reaction on a simulator.
I'm not 3
sure that our comupter system currently has the adequate 4
capability to accept additional equations necessary to do 5
that.
6 We would rather use those equations -- what space 7
we have left in the machine for other purposes that are 8
more useful for training.
9 Q
Do I understand correctly that in addition to 10 simulating the TMI incident, you have since March 28th 11 simulated other variants on the theme of a transient which 12 involved super heated steam?
13 (Pause.)
ja A
First of all, we do simulate and cause students 15 to use other scenarios that lead to a depressurization of 16 the reactor coolant system.
j7 To the best of my knowledge and recollection, none 18 of those scenarios have gone out to the extent where the core 39 is sufficiently voided that we would generate super heated 20 steam.
21
-The generation of super heated steam implies that 22 there is less water in the reactor coolant. system than the 23 heighth of the core.
There are instances of super heated p
24 b4_'. n.pon.n, inc.
steam in the pressurizer on a rapid pressurization event 25 i
I l
- o
? -
17 dspl7 where the steam bubble or the steam space in the pressurizer 2
does go super heat.
3 0
What I'm trying to find out is whether since the 4
TMI incident you have taken other examples of transients 5
which you had simulated for the purposes of training and 6
added to the problem the fact of super heating?
MR. EDGAR: Could you hold a minute.
7 (Discussion off the record.)
8 BY MR. ORNSTEIN:
9 10 0
Could we strike the last question and start again.
11 Are thare particular transients that are presently run on the simulator which involve a formation of voids and have the 12 13 presence,f saturation conditions in the primary system which O
j4 result in system behaior different than what would have been 15 seen prior to this reprogramming of the simulator?
16 A
Yes.
j7 0
Are there
-- strike that.
18 Have operators who have had training on the simulator 19 prior to this reprogramming been able to see these same 20 events in the updated form?
(Pause.)
21 THE WITNESS:
Would the reporter please read the 22 O
question back, please?
23 24 (The reporter read the record as requested.)
Ace ed Reporms, Inc.
25 THE WITNESS:
The answer is yes.
May I qualify that?
l
- v.,
18
,dspl8 The events that are affect ad by the modification j
of the simulator are the small loss of coolant accident, 2
1 ss of coolant pressure conditions.
And for those students 3
who have come back through, we have done those conditions Q
4 "981"*
5 BY MR. OMSTEIN:
6 Q
Have the instructions that the operators or the 7
students received for such incidents been modified from what 8
they were prior to the Three Mile Island event?
9 A
10 Q
Okay.
11 Can you give us some more insight on that?
12 A
Yes.
O Would you like me to?
j, Q
Yes.
15 MR. DIENELT: Off the record.
16 J
(Discussion off the record.)
j7 THE WITNESS:
The instruction in loss of coolant 18 accidents had been increased, and it is primarily based on a 19 set f analyses done by Babcock & Wilcox for the Nuclear 20 Regulatory Commisr1.)n in support of our license of Babcock &
g Wilcox type nucle steam supply systems, known as the small 22 O
ea ana ysis, wS ch accounts for small reactor coolant 23 leaks or breaks t.at do not have sufficient size to 24 Ace-Twd Reporters, Inc.
allow the react,r coolant system to completely depressurize f
25 i
v
19 dspl9 on -- on the incident occurring.
And the depressurization is not allowed because 2
the flow and energy loss through the break is less than the 3
core heat -- decay heat.
4
- *YS **
5 different, and the system will repressurize itself to certain levels, as controlled by the steam conditions in the 7
It is not unique to Babcock & Wilcox.
It is unique 9
to all pressurized water reactors.
This instruction has been 10 emphasized to studentes who come to B & W for requalification 11 training and initial training.
12 And we have included some additional heat transfer O
and fluid flow in the initial operator training.as a service ja t
our ustomers.
15 The procedures utilized by the plants have for 16 the most part been modified to include and account for the 37 repressurization of the reactor coolant system or maintenance g
of pressure of the reactor coolant system after a small break 39 in response to procedural guidelines provided by Babcock &
20 Wilcox under the small break analysis.
g
.Thic was submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory O
Commission in May, I believe, 1979.
23 i
BY MR. ORNSTEIN:
LO 24 P-FM Reporters, Inc.
20 dsp20 1
has been a great deal of attention paid to the Michelson
(~}
2 report, which involved an analysis about the interpretation s-3 of the pressurizer level and its relationship to core uncovery.
4 Are you familiar with that particular report?
{}
5 A
Yes, I am aware of its existence.
I have not 6
Personally read it.
7 Q
Has anyone on your staff personally read it and a
to an extent to which conclusions could be made?
9 A
Not to my knowledge.
10 Q
Has anyone from -- within Babcock & Wilcox requested 11 that your staff program or run some simulator event which 12 would indicate or deny or confirm Michelson's analysis.
13 (Pause.)
O' 14 A
Yes.
We have done leak or reactor coolant ireak 15 conditions on the simulator, not specifically for confirmation 16 of the Michelson postulations.
17 The B & W response to the Michelson report was i
18 done by the engineering staff, and I would refer you to them 19 for --
20 Q
But the simulator runs that had been done on j
21 small breaks, did they confirm what Michelson had postulated?
22 A
I do not know.
r^s l
Q#)
1 23 0
Is there a way one could easily run a simulation l
24 if one desired to, to determine or confirm or deny what heht n.porms. Inc.
25 Michelson had postulated?
I
I 21
-dsp21 1
MR. EDGAR:
Could we be specific as to which I
/'T 2
of the many postulates in the Michelson report we're talking
(/
3 about.
4 MR. ORNSTEIN:
Basically, the phenomenon of a
()
5 discrepency existing between the pressurizer level and uncovery 6
of the core.
7 THE WITNESS:
Babcock
& Wilcox, I believe, has 8
done that.
They were done through Mr. Dunn's emergency core 9
cooling analysis group.
10 And they were done with the appropriate computer 11 codes to predict the B & W system response.
12 BY MR. ORNSTEIN:
13 Q
What I am referring to is the actual simulation,
(~)
14 as opposed to the Appendix K type or other computer codes.
15 A
Gentlemen, before we get too far, the simulator 16 B & W has is a training simulator.
It is intended for ise in 17 the training of an operator.
18 It is not an analytical code.
19 Q
- However, our unuerstanding is that it basically 20 shadows the performance of the reactor and you would not 21 expect a disconnect between how the primary system behaves 22 and how the simulator would show it to behave.
\\-)
23 MR. EDGAR:
Will the simulator give you a 24 pressurizer level going up while the system pressure is Ac..hi aanm, inc.
25 going down?
m
22 THE WITNESS:
The answer to Mr. Edgar's question --
dsp22 j
2 the answer is yes.
{}
3 MR. ORNSTEIN:
Okay.
(J~)
4 (Pause.)
5 MR. EDGAR:
Does that answer it?
6 MR. ORNSTEIN:
Yes.
7 (Pause.)
BY MR. ORNSTEIN:
8 9
Q Frior to the Three Mile Island incident, how was 10 the relationship between saturation temperature and pressure 11 condition created in the training process?
12 A
Within the limits of those services provided by 13 Babcock & Wilcox, the relationship between tem perature and O
14 pressure and steam conditions were treated relative to the 15 operation of the pressurizer.
16 And to the best of my knowledge, we did not 17 discuss the performance of the reactor coolant system under 18 loss of coolant conditions in the sense of pressure-temperature 19 relationships and steam formation.
20 0
were the operators or students made aware of what 21 would happen if the reactor cooling system pressure approached 22 or reached saturation pressure corresponding to the primary O
23 system temperature?
24 (Pause.)
Ace ai r:eportm, inc.
25 A
The training program for operational personnel for i
I 23 nuclear power plants is defined in American National Standard /
dsp23 3
O ANS 18.1 - 1971,as revised in American National Standard /ANS V
2 3.1 - 1978, and in that includes a basis training 3
program which includes thermodynamics, fluid flow,
]
4 hydraulics; that was to be taught, and that information 5
provided to the operator by the owning utility.
6 Babcock & Wilcox did not conduct that instruction 7
f r any f its customers in the seven years that I have been 8
here.
9 It was provided to one customer as a subcontract 10 to another organization.
That information was primarily 11 supplied by the owners to their own people.
12 MR. ORNSTEIN:
Off the record.
13 (Discussion off the record.)
14 BY MR. DIENELT:
15 16 Q
Prior to the TMI incident, had the Davis-Besse transient of September 24, 1977 been run on the simulator?
j7 A
Not to my knowledge.
18 Q
Has that been done since, to your knowledge?
39 A
No.
20 Q
Was the Davis-Besse transient reflected in or 21 incorporated in the training process for operators prior to 22 TMI?
23 A
Not by B & W.
24
, Ace-E_.,.TJ Reporters, Inc.
l Q
To yotr knowledge, was there a conscious decision 25 f
l
24
.dsp24 made not to incorporate that transient?
3 A
Yes.
2 Q
What was the basis of that decision?
3 A
The initiating events that led up to the Davis-4 esse transient were considered very unique to Davis-Besse 5
and just -- it really was not an event which was really 6
Possible anywhere else.
7 Q
Has that view been changed since the TMI incident?
8 A
No.
9 Question:
do you understand the initiating events 10 at Davis-Besse?
jj MR. ORNSTEIN:
We're talking about the cycling of the 12 PORV.
13 THE WITNESS:
I mean talking about before that.
jj MR. ORNSTEIN:
The September event or the 15 November event?
16 MR. DIENELT:
I was asking about the September 37 event.
MR. EDGAR:
September, j9 MR. DIENELT:
It is certainly our burden to 20 l
understand them, and in that sense we do or hope we do.
I g
think we do.
22 THE WITNESS:
Off the record for a technical 23 discussion.
24 Ace 4wM Reporters, Inc.
(Discussion off the record.)
25
? ~,.
25 MR. DIENELT:
Will you read the last question.
i dsp25 j
(The reporter read the record as requested.)
2 MR. DIENELT:
Back on the record.
3 BY MR. DIENELT:
4 5
Q Do I underdand correctly that it was your view that the Davis-Besse transient was so unique that simulation 6
f it would not be of value in the training program.
7 A
That is correct.
8 9
Q Do I also understand correctly that to the extent that the Davis-Besse incident raised broader or more generic 10 11 concerns, it was your opinion that those concerns were already 12 adequately dealt with in the training program?
A That is correct.
13
. O 14 0
Is it also correct that your view with regard to 15 the degree to which the more generic concerns that may have 16 been raised by the Davis-Besse incident were incorporated and 17 the training has not changed since the TMI incident?
l A
No, that is incorrect.
The -- the 18 19 recognition of a void condition in the reactor coolant 20 system is an important phenomenon for which an operator 21 should be able to recognize;at the time of our Davis-Besse inciden't, and so forth, that was not recognized as being a a
22 23 training or knowledge difficulty at the time.
l 24 The occurrence of the Three Mile Island incident Ace F t Reporters, Inc.
25 and the long term implications of it are that the recognition s.'-
r'
26 dsp26 of saturation conditions in the reactor coolant system is a j
very imp rtant concept that was not understood by operational 2
personnel before Three Mile Island and needs to be an item 3
of continued work.
4 The Three Mile Island incident is certainly a 5
much more significant event to be concerned with, and it does demonstrate this need for continued recognition of the 7
satt. ration Conditions existing in the reactor coolant system --
ability to recognize.
Excuse me.
9 ause.)
10 0
Prior to TMI, what percentage of emergency drills 11 which were conducted on the simulator wer~e unknown in advance?
12 A
Prior to the Three Mile Island incident, all O
requalification training that was done by Babcock & Wilcox, y,
with the exception of maybe the first very few items of 15 this training -- drills were not known io the student before g
J they were initiated or even the type of drill was not known, g
and we have continued not telling the student what was going g
to happen.
j9 e
st obsene de behador of de simdator 20 l
and determine what the drill was at some time.
g Naw, our program always starts with very simple O
l things the first day, and we progress to more difficult g
l casualties as the week goes on.
. p 24 Ace F_J Reporters, Inc.
(
Q Do I understand correctly that the training l
25 I
27 dsp27 program in so far as the emergency drills you've just testified j
l O
about is concerned has not changed since TMI?
(/
2 A
Not in the philosophy of telling the students 3
about the drills.
The student does not know what drills are 4
coming next.
5 Now, this is concerned with requalification students 6
these are students that are currently licensed.
They are 7
currently on the plant -- operating the plant.
8 New students are not given this challenge 9
10 right away.
They know we are going to do loss of coolant 11 accidents, and they must be able to observe each of the parameters until they have devleoped sufficient proficiency 12 to handle drills on an unannounced basis.
13 14 0
That's a progressive thing as they go through the course?
15 A
That is correct.
16 Q
Does that -- strike that.
j7 Has the extent to which the new students are 18 not advised of the nature of the problem changed since the 19 TMI incident?
20 A
Yes, in that the training program for new students 21 has been extended, which allows a longer period of time for 22 O'
unannounced casualty drills.
j 23 The program before Three Mile Island consisted of 24 Ace ka reporters, Inc.
a two week simulator training program.
Please recognize this is 25 l
t
28 dsp28 not the total training program that a new license candidate
(~T would get, but this is our program -- has gone from a
\\_)
2 two week to a three week for most utilities.
3 Q
In connection with the training of operators, does
(' }
B & W normally assist them in preparing for a walk-through 5
)
test that they must take with NRC?
A Not normally.
O on -- in what kinds of circumstances does Babcock &
8 Wilcox assist in that preparation?
9 A
For certain of our customers and related to the 10 contracts associated with them -- primarily the nuclear steam supply -- we may conduct audit exams of their people prior to NRC examination.
(*)
13 Subsequent to that, we do not normally provide that 14 service.
We do on occasion, and it's particularly at Florida Power Corporation Crystal River plant.
We have one of our employees who is helping with the training program down there and may do some of the walk-throughs of students down there, but he is essentially on loan to Florida Pows: Corporation to do services for them.
O Do I understand that the kind of assistance you 21 provided when you did would be walking the student through
~
{'T 22 a test to prepare for the subsequent walk-through?
23 l
A That's correct.
l 24 I
J Reporters, Inc.
A m-F Q
Do you -- strike that.
25 1
f 29 dsp29 1
Have you furnished materials to the student on 2
Prior walk-through tests that have been conducted?
{~)
3 (Pause.)
4 A
I do not think we have done that directly; we
()
5 have helped people by getting copies of NRC exams from other 6
stations and supplying them to a third station.
That is 7
Primarily the written part.
The walk-through part is -- you know -- very much 8
9 dependent on the particular examiner that might be conducting 10 the exam.
11 Some will stay in the control room for four hours.
12 Others will make a very significant tour of the power plant, 13 so it is dependent upon the instructor.
O 14 So in preparation for that, the student 15 would be drilled on all of those.
16 Q
Have you -- have you ever obtained copies of actual 17 walk-through tests, transcripts of them or tapes of them?
18 A
No.
19 Q
Do you know what task analysis is?
20 A
I can envision what task analysis is.
21 Q
What is your vision or what is your understanding of 22 the term?
23 A
My understanding of the term is that for a total l
24 job there are a number of elements that must be completed to Ac.-h n porms, inc.
l 25 do the whole job; each of those might be considered a task.
l l
l l
30 dsp30 1
Q Have you had any role in attempting to -- strike 1
2 that.
3 (Pause.)
4 BY MR. ORNSTEIN:
5 Q
Have you or your staff ever been involved in any 6
operator task analysis for any utilities as far as formulating 7
the work of the various operators'.at these specific plants 8
and the plant layouts?
9 A
No.
10 0
Control room layouts?
II A
Excuse me.
We must clarify that.
We have provided 12 assistance internally to Babcock & Wilcox in helping in the 13 layouts of control rooms.
14 Q
But not to the utilities?
15 A
Not to the utilities directly.
16 Q
Is there --
17 A
Utility representatives may have been part of a 18 group in which we participated.
19 Q
Who in Babcock & Wilcox would be the person to whom 20 you would be providing this particular assistance -- or did 21 provide that assistance?
22 (Pause.)
23 A
The individual group leadercof the area was a 24 Mr. Costanes.
He has had numerous jobs and may or may not be
,,s F
4 Reporters, Inc.
l 25 involved in control rooms at this time.
4
31 I
l dsp31 MR. EDGAR:
Off the record.
j
()
(Discussion off the record.)
2 BY MR. DIENELT:
3
()
4 C
Let me direct your attention to page 101 of your depositio., before the President's Commission and specifically 5
to a reference to a lecture on the subject of heat transrer, 6
which was given by Mr. Book.
7 To your knowledge is the lecture in a written 8
form?
9 10 A
The lecture on heat transfer, as given by Mr. Book --
11 does he have a written lesson plan?
12 O
Or any documents pertaining to it?
A Some graphic illustrations. associated with it.
13 14 Q
Your testimony is he has a lesson plan and some 15 graphic illustrations?
16 A
Yes, I think so, as I remember.
MR. DIENELT:
Off the record.
j7 (Discussion off the record.)
18 19 MR. DIENELT:
Let me?--Lso the record is clear, we would like have an opportunity to look at the materials and 20 we would like to be able to get copies of those which can 21 l
l 22 easily be copied and made available.
My understanding is there's no problem with that.
23 24 MR. EDGAR:
We'll do that.
Ace 4 Jai Reporters, Inc.
25
32 1
BY MR. DIENELT:
dsp32 2
Q Do you know how many people attended.the lecture
()
which is referred to on page 1017 3
/^
A No, I do not.
That lecture was given as a part of C}
4 our requalification program; specific customer documentation 5
will show that that particular lecture was given to a particular 6
7 gr up, and on our schedules which are included in the documentation furnished to the owners, it will show the 8
l schedule, the students in the class, and the showing of that 9
10 Particular lecture being given.
11 BY MR. ORNSTEIN:
12 0
Was that one particular -- was that a one shot deal, or was that something that was it'done for all utilities r'*
13 L-i 14 over the years?
15 A
It was done for all utilities as a part of the 16 requalification training program over the period of a year.
That documentation is included in the training documentation.
j7 I feel certain it has been provided to you in the package of 18 19 materials.
MR. EDGAR:
And what you are referring to is the 20 PeoP e or persons who attended the lecture?
l l
21
'THE WITNESS:
Right.
j 22 MR. ORNSTEIN:
I wouldn't want to start sifting 23
(~)
24 through the whole thing to figure out who or what, but I would Wi b n. porters, Inc.
be curious to know if this was just a handful of people or a 25 4
33 dsp33 pretty substantial crosscut of operators that came in during the year.
2 And that's what you've established; that's fine.
3 O
BY MR. DIENELT:
v 4
Q Directing your a-tention to page 109 of the President's Commission deposition and specifically to the discussion of the requirements of 10 CFR 55, with respect 7
to obtaining credit for reactivity manipulation, my question 8
is whether there is a minimum amount of activity which a 9
person who wishes to obtain the credit must engage in in order 10 to obtain the credit?
jj A
Yes.
g a
s dam O
13 V
A 10 CFR 55, Appendix A, it specifies that the g
individual must have participated in 10 reactivity changes in 15 a two year period of his operator license or senior operator g
license.
g Q
With respect to obtaining credit for one of those 18 manipulations, is there a minimum amount of activity in which j9 a
mus engage?
20 A
Yes.
g Q
What is that?
g l
A He must have operated the controls for nominally a g
10 percent change in reactor reactivity -- not reactivity --
24 Ace-hJYJ Reporters, Inc.
power or made a startup and shutdown.
25
\\
37 dsp37 around -- if it is a team exercise -- the supervisor may be j
h the supervisor only.
2 Though, most of the time the supervisors like 3
to get a little bit of panel time because this is the place 4
where they can get panel time, and so that in case they have 5
to, they know what to do and have had some -- some practice.
6 MR. EDGAR:
Did that answer the question?
7 MR. ORNSTEIN:
Yes.
8
- a. EDGAR
Okay.
9 BY MR. DIENEW.
10 Q
Do you receive copies of current event reports from jj NRC?
12 A
n so.
13 m
(
1 Q
Do you receive copies of licensee event reports?
j, A
We receive copies of the licensee event report 15 summaries.
16 Q
Not the report?
37 A
We receive some of the -- some of the actual 18 licensee event reports, but we do not get all of them that j9 are issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
20 Q
Prior to March 28th, was there a procedure for 21 in rPorating material from informaticn that you obtained from 22 the current event _ reports or the LERs that.you received into 23 perator training?
24 AceA al Reporters, Inc.
A There was not a written procedure. There was a 25 I
36 i
are outside of my scope.
dsp36 j
2 0
Well, the letter that you send to the training
(])
departments of the specific utilities that have had their 3
staff here indicates that Mr. So-and-so has participated in
([]
4 the course of so much -- these dates -- and has been involved 5
in the following manipulations.
And you start the list.
6 A
Yes.
7 0
Now, I am a little bit fuzzy in my understanding 8
of whether it would say " change in power," " actual motion,"
9
" turning of trubine valves," actual turning of this.
10 11 I thought it would just say, "The following manipulations," and he would sort of be considered as the 12 13 team.
r'q LJ 14 A
Yes.
15 Q
Three people who did the thing.
16 A
That is how our documentation is prepared.
17 Q
So it would not be possible for a utility to determine whether he was on the secondary side during that 18 19 manipulation?
You basically are making that determination when 20 you forward it to the utility, are you not?
21 A
We are determining that he was a member of the 22 team participating in that evolution, and normally there are 23
-}
24 three people participating.
Now, whether or not he was the Ac.4ma n.pon.n. inc.
control operator at the time the instructor moves people 25 i
M
i 35 l
dsp35 case in which we are conducting operations 'in the control j
2 ra and we are going to reduce power to some lower level to r
3 test the turbine stop valves.
In this case, the reactor operator or senior control 4
Perator would have control of the reactor or the reactor, 5
if it was the B & W system, the reactor demand station, and 6
reduce power.
7 The assistant may, under those conditions, take 8
manual control of the turbine and move -- take manual control 9
f the throttle valves in order to reduce those or move them 10 under manual control.
11 12 There is a supervisor who is directing the operation.
Now, I believe,as it would be interpreted by the utility, that 13
)
34 they would grant credit to each of those three people.
15 In possibly a very strict interpretation, you would 16 all w credit to the reactor operator and the supervisor.
So this is not firsthand knowledge on my part.
17 Q
As you understand it, would the assistant have to 18 j9 have some kind of hands-on activity in connection with the mani ulation in order to get credit?
P 20 A
Yes.
g i
\\
BY MR. ORNSTEIN:
i Q
But it could be a secondary system manipulation, 23 24 as opposed to having to be a primary system manipulation?
AcedmE Reporters, Inc.
A 25 Gentlemen, you're asking me to interpret things that
I 34 I
Q As you understand --
I
.dsp34 3
A But these ar's interpreted by the operator licensing 2
branch, and each utility has submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory 3
Commission a plan for reactivity changes and their
{c 4
requalification plan must have been approved by the operator 5
licensing branch.
6 And I refer you to the operator licensing branch 7
f the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to determine exactly 8
what applies to each utility.
9 Q
Well, what I'm interested in in the testimony you 10 gave is the reference to the three person team and the fact 11 that one person may be in the role of an assistant.
12 My question is:
may a person be essentially an f
13 k"]/
observer of a manipulation --
ja A
No.
15 0
-- and get credit for it?
16 A
Not to my understanding.
17 Q
Must the observer at some point during the 18 manipulation be, as you understand it, more than an assistant?
19 A
An assistant may -- and this is my interpretation 20 O f --
21 1
MR. EDGAR:
Your understanding?
22 THE WITNESS:
My understanding,of how this is 23 applied by the utilities -- is that the assistant may participate 24 9si Reporters, Inc.
Ace F in the -- in the manipulations.
Let us take, for example, a 25 l
38 I
dsp38 practice which the summary reports were reviewed.
If som thing O
1 oxea i=teresti=9 we = tent i=vestisete t see ir it 2
ePplicable and incorporate it if it was something that was 3
meaingful and helpful to the student.
4 The summary reports -- the three or four page 5
documents that is published -- I would suspect bi-monthly; I'm 6
not sure; maybe even quarterly -- it is reviewed to see if 7
there is something of interest there.
8 And we receive those -- have received those for 9
three or four years.
10 Our prime source of information in the past has jj been that prior to training, the instructor who will be in 12 charge of that particular utility's training has made a visit 13 to the plant to discuss the training program with the plant j,
training personnel, to go to the management of the plant, 15 recognizing that operations management and training are 16 usually a separate organization; to discuss the training g
program with them and what their desires or interests are) 18 the operational management.
39 And we make an attempt to see as many people as we 20 Can on-shift by our instructor.
He will try to catch three or four shifts in the course of his visit over two or three g
days, and he will stay over the swing shift.and the mid-shift, 23 and then try to catch a day shift.
9er'J Reporters, Inc.
24
.AceF And if there has been a shift change, he may pick 25 l
l l
39 up a fourth or a fifth crew to find out what they are dsp39 j
A interested in, what their problems are, discuss what they 2
V 3
are going to do -- of course -- for lectures and casualties, so we may find out any new or unusual item that concerns these 4
Q/
5 people.
6 Q
Has --
A It was informally done by person to person contact.
7 Q
Has the practice changed, to your knowledge, since 8
March 28th?
9 10 A
No, not that we have deleted this amount of personal 11 service.
12 We attempt ~to do that -- you know.
We are involved at B & W in the quick look approach, in that we are 13
\\)
analyzing each of the plant trips.
ja 15 I am my staff work on those, and if they are 16 significant, we could incorporate those in training.
j7 Q
Is this a new development since TMI?
A Yes.
18 19 Q
Are there any other new developments of that nature in terms of incorporating material from current events 20 reports, LERs, and the like?
21 A
No, that's -- other than may become available; and 22 we try to search them out.
I 23
(
24 Q
Has the practice been reduced to writing since pc.
.i neponers, inc.
25 TMI?
I i
~
l 40 i
A Not to my knowledge.
l
- dsp40 l
BY MR. ORNSTEIN:
+
(
2 3
0 On the licensee event reports that you look at, do
/'
you look only at Babcock & Wilcox plants, or do you look at
\\s]
4 the other pressurized water reactors as well?
5 A
We look at the others too.
Whether or not we are 6
capable of fully understanding them in terms of their 7
significance is -- is a little bit questionable.
8 0
Yes.
Well --
9 A
Because of terminology differences.
10 MR. EDGAR:
Are you talking about LERs or LER 11 summaries in this respect?
12 THE WITNESS:
I hope we're talking about LER 13 pd summaries.
The licensee event report is a reading assignment ja that I don't think is reasonable.
15 BY MR. ORNSTEIN:
16 0
Well, you mentioned that you have this quick look 17 at the trips.
18 A
Yes.
19 0
And you're restricting that to B & W plants?
l 20 l
A That's correct.
21 0
Have you considered the other plants as well?
22 A
Gentlemen, this is funded by the owners of the 23 P ant; I don't think we're being funded to analyze the l
24 Ac.4 neponen inc.
25 Westinghouse plants.
We do not have adequate data to analyze
I 41 l
i dsp41 the Westinghouse or Combustion plants.
We're talking about getting the traces of the 2
vari us parameters at the time of it and the sequence of 3
events as known by the people.
4 0
Okay.
You do this for the owners' group?
5 A
Yes.
MR. ORNSTEIN:
Okay.
7 (Pause.)
g BY MR. ORNSTEIN:
9 Q
Earlier we had discussion about the significance 10 of the saturation conditions in the primary system, what the 33 thoughts were about it prior to TMI and how you people incorpo-12 rate that training subsequent to the TMI incident.
g I was curious to know from your own experience in the j,
nuclear Navy how saturation conditions were discussed and 15 viewed in the primary system in that training.
16 A
To my knowledge and recollection, saturation in g
the primary eistem was considered only in the performance of 18 the pressurizer.
l 39 1
I do not recall any discussion of that condition 20 in.the presentation of accident analysis.either in the basic.
1 school or what was called event school or in the reactor g
1 safety analysis.
23 The knowledge of that subject primarily comes from 24
' Aco-dQ el Reporters, Inc.
my understanding of the steam cycle.
It was not treated as a 25 I
42 i
dsp42 part of the reactor coolant system analysis in either of y
Q those programs.
l 2
0 In -- with regard to the Navy program, again, 3
{_m.}
and similarities to the commercial reactor training programs, 4
an y u pr vide us with some information on the philosophy 5
and training associated with having the pressurizer go solid 6
I and its connection with tripping or throttling back high 7
pressure injection?
8 (Pause.)
9 A
First of all, with respect to the U. S. Navy program,-
10 I would refer you to the department of personnel in the Navy yy and maybe subsequently to Admiral Rickover's office for his 12 treatment of that subject.
13 Much of that is classified, and I don't feel that jj I am free to discuss'that issue.
15 MR. EDGAR:
Let's go off the record.
16 (Discussion off the record.)
37 DI "
18 Q
How, if at all, in your view does the or has the j9 naval training which you and others in the training department 20 received affected the nature of the training, particularly as 21 it relates to high pressure injection and the issue of going 22 solid that is provided by B & W7 23 A
First of all, for myself the Navy program provided l
.'O 24
/
Am 0 ;d Reporters, Inc.
me with the engineering basis on which pressurized water l
25 1
l
43 1
dsp43 1
reactors were built.
It provided my initial understanding of i
2
{)
how the syste.ns operated.
3 Personnel who work for me and are assigned to
(
4 me for service -- many of which were trained in the Navy -- and certainly our understanding of the behavior of pressurized 6
water reactors is somewhat based on our operational experience 7
inthe Navy plus our educational basis in the Navy.
8 I do not think that the Navy training program has 9
any effect on the operation of the high pressure injection 10 system, as that system is not duplicated.
11 The area of solid operation of the pressurizer 12 is not a normal commercial operating condition for Babcock &
13 Wilcox.
,.q 14 We utilized a nitrogen charge on the top of the
'S pressurizer to establish pressurizer level prior to starting 16 the heaters, which will ultimately place the pressurizer in 17 its normal saturated steam operating condition.
18 MR. EDGAR:
And then what do you teach in regard 19 to the operation of the high pressure injection system as it 20 relates to system parameters?
21 THE WITNESS:
The operation of the high pressure j
injection system is per the safety analysis of the plant which 22 23 describes the use of the high pressure injection for small 24 reactor coolant leaks or breaks and specifies that that is the bF t Reporters, Inc.
25 system that will protect the plant in case of those events.
I
f 44 i
We utilize either the simulator procedures in dsp44 j
I training the student or the plant-specific procedures that l
(])
2 the students bring with them or we obtain from them which 3
'3 gives them instructions in operation of the high pressure (Q
4 5
injection system.
Each of those' procedures has a statement for -- or 6
a set of steps to control small leaks where the system does 7
not rapidly depressurize and go to its ultimate position when 8
we have a large break, in which case it ends up on the low 9
10 pressure cooling system.
And the 7 ore flood tanks protect the core until the 11 12 10W pressure injection system can take over.
And that is the thrust of our instruction.
,^
13 k,")
14 MR. DIENELT:
Off the record.
(Discussion off the record. )
15 16 MR. DIENELT:
Back on the record.
I have nothing further.
17 18 Thank you, Mr. Elliott.
39 (Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m.,
the deposition was 20 adjourned.)
21 23
(')
24 co-F._,.J Reporters, Inc.
25 l
I
'