ML19308C533

Deposition of Je Foster (NRC) on 790822 in Glen Ellyn,Il. Pp 1-61

ML19308C533
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	08/22/1979
From:	Foster J, Hebdon F NRC - NRC THREE MILE ISLAND TASK FORCE, NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
References
TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001280542
Download: ML19308C533 (62)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:() V, !1,5 A 'J 4ykg(v: 1 1 / 3~ / p f tl!p< / NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O N ..) IN THE MATTER OF: TEN MILE ISLAND SPECIAL INQUIRY GROUP T INTERVIEW PU0lfDRGINE e o JAMES E. FOSTER Place - Glen Ellyn, Illinois Date - August 22, 1979 Pages 1 - 61 l 0) 3# rei.enon.: (202)247 3700 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC. l OfficialReporters ( Washington, D.C.200018 0 012 8 0 f;,l/ Q 44 North Capitol Street g i .A NATIONWIDE COVERAGE DAILY l

{ g 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j 4 -2 . IN.THE MATTER OF:- ~ 2< 3 TEN MILE ISLAND 4 ^' ,1 S - SPECIAL INQUIRY GROUP INTERVIEW 7 8 OF JAMES E. FOSTER 9 10' -Glen Ellyn, Illinois 11 1979' August 22, 12 The interview commenced at 3:20 p.m. on August 22,- 13 ja -1979, in Room 3, Building 4, 799 Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, 1" 15 Illinois. 16 APPEARANCES: 17. t FRED FOLSOM, Nuclear' Regulatory Commission' staff; IIEB, DON,l Nucleir ~ Regulatory Commission) staf f. ~ -FRED-19 ~ .20 '~ 21 ~ g-22 '23 ~ 24 s,, Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc, ,25 s. ^* s ~. + p T g.4

• }

w ev

r-. - - 1~ ,._./,, m --y e ; m:,,., s ,[ q

f. e s

Y

• .' A.]

4 i

• ,,.. 2. :.-

- ;~r-

,p,,.

.f .x. s~ e y g/I -1 ars a i >L tL, e e y, _ _ r

.~

?

s~ y- ,..w 3( y ~, r 2 " -, " s. e ~ ~ CRt. 6 5 0 7'. - T .6 '.. ~ sPE R O.C1E E D 'IT N G ~Si . e ~~ 1 ~ ~, NEE. - ~., 5 r yg{ tj-N

E

.(3i20 p.m.) + W :mgc 12-D -12 .oy, t g.,. ,a .x MR. _ HEBDON : Wouldyoul'raIseyour,rightihandiplease,? 3 s .v '4 Do you swear or. affirm that2the; testimony' your are about to s n5

give shall'be. the ' truth, the' whole truth, ~and' nothing but the ~

~ u L 2 6 truth,so'helphouGod?- o, ' MR.h F,OSTER. : -I.: do. ' 1= 7 8

,Whereup'on,t

. _. 3 g 1 s es 's 9 JAMES E., FOSTER ..(. r e. J- + 10 .was cal, led as'a' witness and', having been-first4 duly sworn.,~ ~ 4 s Tl'* II was - exanined and' testified as follows: .n.; b .~. = '12 EXAMINATION f >.; ^ ~' .; o, f "T 2 r, ..( f 13 BY MP. HEBDON: g;

3..

~ - . 2 g,, ~ _ 14 Of Have you read.and '<?o; you understandfthe witness 7 o " e .y. . a s 15 notification that was attached.to the notifica' tion. sentTto you' ' '. - Q,, m, s

e.,?

+ q ' ' w ~ 16 concerning-this interview?: ' h

g 9

+ e L., pi =. 1 , O J ".7 4 17 A. Yes,.I do< m g 1 ~ ~.. u.e. 3n m-2 ,gp ~~ ) h. $(.y aNouldgyou'please. state your.,ndme'?? E R,. .t e ,.n. a.. ,3 18 M' T j+ s .? A. e#m i-r M O'r. k.. ,o P d, %.V ~4 Lg i [ "" Z: J - 9 19 % Q d ^rJanes Edwin?Foste.r. m ... ~. .. ~v. e.. -y . ~. y., ,c w.., n. s ~. . ~. c: s .. e.,, -. . ~ - '.O. b1Mhat'is'/yourfcurrent; occupation? W u;$,,,

1. , [.

,.,.,y p*3 - W.. ; 'us p i f 20 ,+ m ,,, t * *f* 4, ],',.. g.', "d ' [I. am. an

• Inyestigatio.n ' S. pecialIst, ~ GS--13 E with L.the

,.r L, a- ~. A 21 m: 3 (.. ia' 3 .y 4 _ "se_" [ [~# ~ -- - ] ' ' ). Y* 4 ' : p" ~22' t NRC,:{RedionJIII,: Of fice = of LInspection 'and' Enfo'rdements 9 F -L< .t _ a-,c y a. yv 3 - L y- .i .o. g.. <E <23 f0' ' Arid' what :is your' currerit jpositi6n?;,Is that;lyour.",'

• j:,

4 2 . If' G 1 24 . ' job' title? A y t n v 3 .a n: n u w, -., .m~ ...; - t. ,- v : o. ", w m,d.dwh n,'eponm, inc.- .n, e-e ~", .x s , A.'.,',.'.That iisD my

• job title and.' position.? _

.x,' pn 1, J.- u25 ~ 4' -'u 3.. A _N, m. t m ) *" j.' :

• i
• u

,,-Q ' .3-

g.

<y. , 3'j - , - E - ~, 4, N ,t .., W Z f *,. f

1..

J, k S ? C' y ,7 ~, $,^. - "', y ',]' N..'"

• (

y; S .t }y. .:{i .},ij c { {!j -Q + ,[ j [ -.,,j . g. f' yn. m.e.., + m a %a w a: . x x t e n,s.; m? w

w. x s

w w x- - 2 w+ w m - y. -.g,a me, mtm, w _.w m 4 a

y

'7 m.. - .s + -^-.

1. -

n s1 - [ .-f. ' - x m'f ' u-s ~ sv .y ~ n c 2.', L m 4 1 5'_ p; g .s, ~, 3 y er A '~ 4 j ^' ~.. I ~ 0. What was your ' position.~in 'early.1979? mqc'12-2^- '~ s 2 T e samei-'- Investigation'SpecialYst withbthei e~gion' 7' A.-, R ~ .1 -3 yyy office, - s. 4,;_

.u,

ss- '4 O.l .5fow' mar (( people reportedk'to,you? 2, -. ~ 5 None. .I don't1have a super ~visory capacity. 6 g,

To wher. do you report? "

7 1 A. Mr. Charles. E. Norelius,7 who isithe ~ Assistant. to the 8 Director. 9 0 . Is he the same person to whom you reported intearly 10 -i797 II A. Yes. I believe so. We've-.gone through a change. 'fould you $ describe your employment history including 12 G ~13 positions held in the NRC? .~ 14! A. - IJwas a Customs Security-Officer,$ informal name was .a Skymarshall during the,AnEi-highjacking[ Program.from--- ~ 15 r ~ ~ 16 approximately'1970 to 1972. I was a' Secur'ities Specialist / 17 ' Investigator for the Federal Aviation Administration; prior.'tc .i. .~ t 18 coming-with the Commissionchere as an'Inve'stigatio'n.s-s-> c e .. r f, .19 -Specialist. J' -. ^ ~ ~ ~ 20 n ~ 0 What is yo'ur educational background?".

21 J A.1 I have go,ti a. BA 'in Psy chology.with -a'.mino'r in

+ s ce

/'

3-r,conomics and-sociology'. I have two yearst graduate schooll ~"' a ?? r-S -22 e } %/- i -23 .~-. . ~... - s 'in lindustrial. relations', which*:is, basically nersenneliwcirk. -..s1

V a -

' y_ r I, do'n' t 'have 4the. Masters ', Degree Lbecause. Ijdid.not finisfigy ], 24 Ace-Federet Reporters, Inc.' .? f +- 7 i25 Lthesis.- '~ 1 1 M . + - ~ ;.,, a ,s: w., .c 'a. v e

[

'c. 'y 'rl l m = ,6f y,i 5 * ,.If + y e -(r 1.- c.c. u., ,gy. a, ~- -w- -s. ; * - >, y - u-s ~ 4 u

j, --9., oc w, w q: 7, c, 1 p' g-Q: 3.. g 5: .g -mget,12-3 ,1 .G From what' institution is.your'BA?' N 4 p'_ aC 2-1 O-A. From Albion College,2 Michigan.- ep g s ^ i -u .w. 3 .G And ~ where did 'yoti do yourLgradua.te wo'rk?. J l ? Y 4 A. ~ WestiVirgifiia. University. w.. k 5 G, First of all, I_would'like-to ask you-some questionsD 6 concerning,an' incident that occurred at the. Davis-B, esse.; plant 1 7 in; September of.1977. I.am mainly interested in what s 8 knowledge you had concerning this incident, prior to the 9 acciden'c that occurred at TMI, prior to March 29, 1979. 10 What knowledge did you have about!the incident that occurred C11 at Davis-Besse on September 24,T1977? ?- u ~ -12' A Prior.to the TMI accident,.the only knowledae-I had 1. Q% A l13' was that~the.re:had been'a reactor'tr$Eisient'on Septiemb'er24, ~ ~ G ~n ~ i t t-14' . hich had;resulted in the-spilling of. reactor coolant'into. w ' ) -e

• 15-

~.the containment at Davis-Besse. s 16 G How did you acquire that informati'on?; -,a .e-w.m w. 17' 1 Ai-I believe= Joel, Kohler told me;o fJ it', - Joel.Kohler. a ; s 'ty. c. w.' ^ = n. ..i 18-is an inspector.in.,the Operations?Section or wascat.that.; time'.- ..r 7 . w n' s. . s a. .C ~ - ~-

1.,

w

• /,.p-4

, ~ 19 'S G' C Jhat?did? hei tell. yoti abo.ut ;it?(' . ' - s ^ E

-,A.

.. ~ .4 '~ c -s s.. ,..4 ... *.~ + '20 A. : We -weregl'o'oking! atithe ; concerns of an 'inspectorf Q >s ~ _y. s. ,g. 21 James - Creswell,Jregardin'q pressurizer levelVat Davis--Besse' i. 3: q colncerning ; thol eventiiniN' vember, andche, hadnnot" told' tis of i 6 ~ o 22 ' -p) v. .~ v ..e. sm , +, j .~ A lthis earl'ierlevent.M nd~apparently Joel,<in hisjdiscussions,q I" '23 y . 1 ,n ~ t y 3 4 J 24 .had found -out 1 hat. this earlier transient exis.ted.; , 'q i 2 Ace-Federal Reporters, ine. y ^- i .q-

n. s

i

+ 25 y w o-

e s

C [, jl cw .~ T 'O *.?

• d, 1

.'a 6 3

a+-.

3-o. w 1 i..- h ,,m ; j r.' j L .Y 'h s .h " Q"., r e s,

• (',

. Y. ;s ?.~ Q

• f,,_ _,

.'\\... b p <,g g,, y _ s g i [pa.. mj). $' 2 .u,- g- ~ c g y,' c, a.l[ '.. _ c-T s ? Org:, M r".%bt_uh. l **' _ 3: ^ + +

y,; n e r-x. - =. - A:. ci w-b;m3:, '.p. .. + -l= ~

.3 c

,1 l. a n 4 ,y, 'l ] 2 6 l k.,, BY'MR. FOLSOM:: .mgc 12-4 1 2 t ,-?, 22 G' When were:these. conversations with Joel~Kohler? C 3 19787L .v - 7' p- .s . o .4 .A....1979, and it would have been approximately in Ethe > f .,s 1 .That'.s- ~5 neighborhood off say), March 16Jthrough 19 possibly. 4 6 ~ the'best I could:do'. u ^^ <., - 7 . 'BY MR. '. HEBDON : 3-4 + 4m u 8 ~ .:x-8 G. This: was in ; the course of your investigation witih '. q., o - 3. m 9 Mr. Kohler of the concerns.that-had~been' raised by Mr. pp g ~ 10 Creswell? ~

1

.., y j._ 11 'A. That's correct. c 12 O MhatJwasjyour;resconsibility orEfunction with a cb 13 respect 1.to suc$1 irfformation? J 7 14 A. If I.u)nder, stood ~the questionJcorrectly,nas'an-m ~; Investigations Speci'alis't' I direct' and? coordinate,. try.tol T 15 .g2 -,. % 16 guide.?an-investigationia'nd deternine.what in' formation:is Y ~m: -.n i j W, j p;; 17 - necessary.~ 4 Someon.c.e e, lse.* participat'esTwith "me 'us a,'.I echnic'al t I." 'M E.i,. ^ 18 specialistitoJ, provide whatever technical information'-is-- ..{ ' m. ,: p vy. -, ~ av_ , 3, 7., 19 lnecessary in Mio'se; pla'ces; where I don't have thei engineeringf 3 4

• Y

-20 ~ backgrotind.it6 look

• into i.iti. ' I was' determining l.wh.at informa- ; <

~ .v ^ ' ~ 21

t. ion would be needed~during'the investigation, and(as best;I d

4 y p 1 22-could, guiding the 'cotirsefof Lit.; _1 .a .) .w. n a-m ; ..~

n. >

'23 ~

• 9..

7 I 'm, 'no t 'sure. I ' ve answered'.your ' ques tion Q

f r

~ '.n s >w caw-Federal Reporters, Inc.' ~, J ' ' ~ 'Whatfrelev'anc,e: A

24

.G Well, let me try another question. . :S - 4 C #f U ~... '.

25 idid yoti - feelJ that' the/information" conc ~erning this-inci' dent h' dj a

1 " !f.h '. ~

f '

n; s L

9. -

s4 .c - s yf r + .^* +.. q - ,~ \\N ~ [ ' n.'*p. 'T f, A conm w, a y {, m j ~,,r ;6. ! ; w [ n L, e ', 2; 4y w%g[" QL ~ v We U,(. N. ,v a '4 u^ M p }u +

3- ? + 3 ;.; ~ -. ; ;m +. .o - -r e

• .m o

t: f* s e g s _ v e. u s r y s,g ,a,-g ^- p -.7. s ^,icige 12-5 1

to?thed nvestigationc$n'd 'Mr.'Creswell'.s concernsEthat you.

~ n ~

• p.

2 were condtscEin'q? ,y ~ 3 At the time",1a-it had no relevance whatsoever. A, 'N

1. _

• _/

.v 3 4 G 5At'any subsequent time; did,ait..incrds, e. in relevance? ? fj t, 3 r 5 A. Only ' somet-ime af ter TMI', when it;wa's brought to"$iy 6 attent' ion"that this was somewhat similar to-the TMI' accident. ~ . ~ 7 G- 'Re' cognizing that this accident was somewhat similar d '8 to the TMI accident, how would-that' make it relevant tolthe, r' A ' - --] '9 investigation you were conducting? ..y 10 A. I'm not sure that eithar I ' understand orVthat 1 can: ~ 7 11 respondr Leti' me. try t'o clarify my underst.aMina and maybe it V l O se'.. f 12 .will helo. . - s ~ 5 y- , y( m - 13 When Jim Creswell came to.us,,the,onlyF. concern,-which.I x r v 3;- 14 understood 1was the November : incident,'. tih'e* ovdi cooling. a t ~ c.s ~15 Davis-Besse-and his concern:1was solelyf,the contractio'n= of the:., y q.., ~. ,( p. = .$t-16 -reastor coolant,' system andithe possible.v'iding-of the' o ~. ,s, c-- pressurizerin,respons~'.toktha't-system:codidowkanhcontraction h <17 e -l'l

• 1 -- l

~, ~ r' W0 - l n. .. I.do not recall,. and[through di'scussion.wi.thiJoel ~c'i% 7 ~ 18 J n 1, ;, y H. 3. n:3 g g,.jg. p f : m e g. e- . + 19 Kohler, nelther of tis can recall 1any concern beina-e.;?g ressedy-s ,M ',,1:- c. -n x .' ' " ~..,. 7 h1 "/ x ..,,, " ~ i... 3T .~ 120

to-us over',the. earlier transient.

And,(inseffect, as I stated 1-

A f

1 .^ - r, several ' times before, ?the. concern /that' was; brought' to us was.,n 21 m v -g .~ - t,es). 22~ Lfor the timeliness; of.the< evaluationionj the part of ' Davis- = ; m ... w...i c r ~ 'Besse.oftthat Novembe;r transien,t, n'ot.t'he l adequacy ;or H the' - 23 ~ .r ~ c 24 (technical ' issues involved with.that evaluation',. but-- the' Ace' ~,. . Federal Reporters, Inc. x.1 i '25 timeliness,of theirfevaluation of'theitransient. - ~ ~ , ~

y 4_:

_L c ~ ~ v .y a$> > #x,

• .J

~ ~., ,1 i C.h ( , ' j. i n) {ifl). ~ " l hr 12, - J^1 :n .., r,y

1,,,<

~ d h gre d w e _ icG

~ .g y _- m [, . y ;y ~ ' 6~r" I" L rin : w r W: - p z: ~ Mo i k 7 ;,, : l 19. " ,~

w.7 8

7.- .m,n I j .w ,g g,. ( 4 s .mac$i2-6I And'I'have with mentwo memos [from Mr.L reswell'which-C c-g q; (r a were presented (to me at thai,$ime talking.about'eva,luations at 2 n i

3 Davis-Bess'e.andI'coiicer, nEregarding voiding of the pr'essurizer.

N-3 .,n,

n.

, m. m ~~ %/,, f' -(i.,. ;Would'it be possible-to get copies'oflthose,twoc. i, 4 q 5 memos? t',P t J 6 A. Cortainly. 7 ' q ' IOkay. :These ~ two memos -. one~is' a memo dated 8 k$ecember 19, 19 78 '.'from' J.S. Creswell to G. L.Fiorelli and the n 9 subject concerns: " Concern ~ Regarding Voiding of Pressurizer-- 10 -Davis-Besse-l." ^5nd the -second one is a memo dated December 19, I ~~ d. 11 1978,'fron'J'.S.?Creswell to J.S., Street,

Subject:

. '" Technical / y F n0 12 Evaluation,~ Davis-Besse--l. " N ^ p . 13 .Would it be fa'ir to say, then, that you:still. feel'that: Jg' L. y ~ s 14 the incident that occurred in Septembernof 7721s (noOrelevant 15 to the investigation that you conducted? 16' A. f. ~ No, t to..the investination that ' I' con' ducted, no.

c, e

yv .y.- f

4. < fly

Go J Yo(stillMeelW then,Jhhatithe' tvid don't-have anything %

7

...: e

~ -

.,.h l- ) -~# k

to do,with ea,ch'other.. Is t"ha' t; a f' air /, statement?

,.18 %. g. ~ .,Y. -C:p ; 3 ,_ A.. 9 p, g; n,L ;, p . v 4.g. .~ 4 e ,.3 7 'l - f 19

' A.

OIp I understand'the'auestion correctly,;no.'O 'e s ~ ., '. y. ~' .w .r c -, n ~,, .v e - c c u.1 7 o',- they Jon't;Jor no;. that's?not a 7 fair statement?- Y, ~ J:G' N -;20 r.

a. %..

e,., c . pet's not gotfthisjwrong.f Please, repeat-the . 4 -f 21 A.1 ' 3.- ,*.s ~. n n .d : J C 22 question.o. 1 %,f 2 . # l ' %[ '.. g > i; ~ /;g 1 . [. 123 I '.E '?Is'it at. fair fstatenant to: say Wis' it a1 true; statement. ,c 2 m~. ..?- n hat ;you Estill 'feelf that'the.investigationt that you fconducted ;

• J t

3-c- 24 u ~ - m,.- dce Federal Reporters, Inc. ,A4 . a. ~ 25.and(the/ incident-that occurred;on~ September 124,-1977;are not: * ~ + , ~,, , '[ - l' '.. ' n.7g), - a y, Y c-e, -., - m, a - - ~ s, c.;.. e - g ' w [ dy-

1. {

1._ D t? 1

g ' 'i ii' v k... W. g s4l'}d$k,n f \\,' [ d[M.'

' A djQt f

• W-.-

'S 4: R' 1 gh :. -..,;Q ; <,. ..-. a. w. n.- e ~ , wan 9 3 g; . j -u 2 -

s 1

_;g

9 mgc,12-7 1 related? 2 A That is a fair statement. 3 0 Did you ever have occasion-to discuss the September 24 i ~ 4 incident with "a.Mr. Joseph Kelly or a'Mr. Bert Dunn-or any 5 other employees of B&N? 6 A No. 7 h Were you aviare of any concerns -that..they had ' concern-8 ing the September 24 incident? 9 A No. 10 0 Okay. Iswould like to ao on an ask some questions ~ 11 thatJare a little bit more directly related to the investiga-12 tion that you conducted. ( )/ 13 14hy were you involved in 'the investication with the concerrts 14 that Mr. Creswell raised? 15 A I can speak to my particular selection amongst the 16 investigation specialists At the time, we had two specialists 17 here -- myself and Jerry Phillip. An Investigation Specialist 18 was determined to be necessary because Mr. Creswell specifically 19 requestedjan investigation. This dealt with-a matter that 20 would noE!normally 'be handle'd under our routine inspection 4 21 program, which is.one of thef eriteria we. look at for having 22 an investigation as. opposed to an inspection. Among ot'her- ^' 23 things, it was obvichs Jhat th'e information.at least partially ~ 24 .obtained,from B&W at their'Lynchburg? facility. Ace-Federal Heporters, Inc. ~ 25 As.'an' investigation, let me Lclari fy a little. bit. What- - G L f w L ,y ,A$;: -s

=~ 'lL._. : . 6 r-s -.> ~ 3 g .g- ~ ,e 10. - e j s e. ~ E I 4we'do is a' bit more'in. depth t an a. routine $ inspection, ~ h

mqc 12-8

.a routine inspection being more or'less an audit. function. o 2 g-r-basically'take'relatively narrow issues and look~'at them 3 ~ in depth.. For this; part'icular investigation, my understanding v 2 '4 2 was that initially,M'r. Creswe'll; inte'nde' d: to -- or per' haps 'S ~ 6

I.should say wanted to participate himself.

He had/one ^ previous investigation.which had been cond'ucted at the-7 .8 Davis-Bes'se faciliby, an~dihe h'ad participated in that' ' investigation with. Jerry Phillip. I refer'specifically to an 9 .~ i 10 investigation conc rning the memos written by~a Mr..Al Moore

p r.II

'on electrical? equi'pment. ~ i I l

• ~

12 "1 Sone. time in the early section of tine before the ~ p. ~, (,) - 13

investiaation got started, a,managementi decision was made here.

V ' t'o have Joel Kohler be in'v,olved.with the investigation with (

,{ $me.so as to give it' complete objectivitiy, since'Joef had been.

[ ~ f

el.6 yery minimdlly.. involved with Toledo Edison'in the licensing.

• 4

.r Is'it common pract'iceito'3 include inlan investigat' ion) 1.- ~ '" t f.I7 ,i 0 ~ ,'. y ~ -18 - aszthe1technicalfp,ersonotheipersonnwho" raised the: concern 7 ^ r-3. --g~ u-4 p i w 39 ,g_. - .' A. ' cI can'only-speak to my limited"exnerience.. I've~ s px g .c ' handled one3 other 'i.nvestication where a ~ member of "the Region", y ; 20- ~ ' %j U ~ - = a , i,c 4'- g IIIr ta'ff Lhas ibeenkinvolved, an'd in' thati' case j.theDind.ividual" N T .';. 21 s x c.n. ~ , T ~ *A ,,.-f< , A ' I '.,. + 7 ~ raisingSthe:issu'e did not participate'. 'I don'tibelieve itiis"' ' ];,;u_ ' ? 22 e 7 g~. ~ n . a r : ~. ;. ^^ an aciency.. p.' policy.- w 2'3 e c,,.( ,4 ..,c. v. m.. n-SohdurJexperiencerisrather.limitedwithT.thi'si54 r, V L 4. 24 C ^," l ' iM,' , 27+ - .j '~ 7 f ts. 01 M.Acef ederal Reporters, Inc.- $,A .m. -n m', C, b9f,25 type'.of ;i'ssue", an kkinytheiotherLincidenE ths ' person did knoti" 3

• \\'

- O T' ' .;; Ph' ?- m. ?, x w,. p :w. : ^ Q ~ ~ -r y ',j, 1 }s ,. y. c-s ~.,,, ~ c

Q, E2 El,

[, k Y. .j.4. > i,. [ ,,.. [ * [,'< ,] J 7 + ..y g gr J.,;pt : gy: 4 g ; y. jg g gg .g .g p y, + 4

• ,1.:

,,.,-a

• . %v;

/. ,1 ~ 1 ^- w' u 4 y Jf 9,. j g g', s 5,- 3-x 11 .+ . ir. n - + v t 9, m;, lmgc ;12-9 i 1 .yarticipate?' ^ V ~ 9 L2. ^ A. iThati ;ir, srrect. .On.a' philosophical basis,.Lif you ' n i -3 'llike, as an investigator.I would~think that it.would'be. g.. w 'i 4 'better to.haveisomeon~e-who:was;l'ess"involvedlwith the issue-i 7 '.5' Lperform the' investigation, so. I approved <of the d'ecision.- t 6 Q- "Who assigned you to the inve^stigation?.. ~ x "7 A.' y Thatfwouldc,belny. supervisor,' Charles:Norelius, N s ~ 1 B

0. -

What was. your tinCersta'nding of the_ purpose of the ' _ r 9 inves tigati on? ( 10 A. '. Okay. I'.m qoing to'have to go a little beyond'the . L, 3 t 11 issues that you're..lookinqJ. t. We had two things thatswere c .s s .~,. involved-in the 'inv.estigat, ion. One involved the~ pressurizer '12

c

.l 13 level' indication'c%oncefns ' pertaining to the Novenber 29th- - m. ~ 14 . incident. :Mr. Creswel1~wi~shed to have us' develop informati6n .a n, m 15 on generic occurrences' at other plantsland'then timelines...s of - a. } aoA- ,*4 4 16 the evaluation done 'of sthe! transient at Davis-Besse. He;also ...1 - (17 . wanted us_to" investigate *the. implementation of Amendment Number. F- .,? ,. ~.4 F+ w f" s 7 . 7, ito : the~ plant 's, technica.1. specifications, which hadi to 'do?. w f18 3 .m

.n y n y_

.y L,.,. + _43 a v +. r,, - the setting, ofthe undervolt' age;1. relay & ' ^lwith - ,; w- _v m <19 s >y v' W c w .,c. m. ;, .,w y%y z .,4.e; .=, w + (20 .T Q, Okay... Now wherh.yousreferf to(the incidentl. tha't* c .m s. 4 ss [ { .s i y .c. m 21 occurred 1.at Davis-Besse',: this?is;the, November'29,41977,c- < 3 ~ ,m & l : :I' ~ s .~ }

n

~ J 22' Lincident.,ils,that correct?g~ T - %~L 't ~y -p i P. e g, q ; 4 s. y. e _a < ' -r. s,... 1 c - y,_. 23, - A

• C =That/i's correct. "At jtheftime ?of the_investigatio'n.

.m, a a= . m,n, - ~,.- .. n, I ~. n? Cl24 swhen:IEwas-at theLsite,Dand.xwhen.'I was.at the'B&N.Lynchburg; on. e, e p= p., ; y 9

• v_,.

w j Ace-Federal Reporters'inc. "; 7 B.; a y -

l s

.y " fi *, * ~ Pr"- i % 25. facility',)I(personally was not; aware! thatsthere.?h'ad. been" a"

b

, 4,.

c + p,. >, ', n ___ ' 3,y n. 1 nyf_,, g ,

• m

.m

.,:h% f? ba y j,;g^ ' l c q, Cl,; g.- >,.y,

v. i ~ w-s 9 ;l,p Q F,

, ~.d ,a ,/ u ..m-a sy. una n.. .c .y .p;g: 7,; .; p y.g ;. s s3. y# .up,w - 7 - m.n. .e ~34-y n y-p e,y,:. > 3,, t- :.. v. ( <y -q. s fvs g -- .e. j A mp'wmmw. w .s= w,}+m -b. y b-' = "~

1 r 1 m. r 'A

1. 17 -,

s 4.- + s . n l E K12 2 m transient at' Davis-Besse, and,therefore I did not di c$ss mget12-10 1 .Lpri 2 7 that' transient at any t.Irae during the. investigation. -3 -G. What'was the, form in which Mr. Cre' swell requested ~ G "O 4 -the investigation? .Did he~ write a memo? 5 A.' The two memos, copies of which I've provided you 6 earlier, are' basically.the only ones that I am aware of. 7 'And'on!the basis of.those two menos, the decision wa'.made s 8 to do an investigation on the tasis of.an interview with' 9 him which took place'on. December 29th where Mr. Kohler[an'd.,

m 10 I int'e'rviewed Mr. C'reswell'for~ son'e time.

He expressed a. &S _3 z_. 11 second - concern *.about, the undervoltage relays at-that point'.. - n :, r-12 4. The. December 19th memo to Mr. Fiorelli has a-13 concl ding f[a'ragraph that starts,'"I. feel the NRC s ould. ~ +. 14 conduct a thoro' ugh investigatiion of this matterito determine' ~ o 15 when the;~issu'efof pressurizer voiding was,first identified, n : y who ~ identified iti, ;B& W or TECO, and if.theiissue was- ~ 16 z ..- 3 4., 17 properlyireported_ under further' requirement.s of Part'21.."' ~ ~. '18 'I.s that the statement to,which you aretreferring,swhich was tn#)2 a. ~ 19 e basis of - the initiation of' this. investication?L ~' 20 ' A. Yen,findeed.L i

n w

21 0 All right. Were you told how to ' conduct-the' a' 1' A 32 li.nvestigation? ' 1 ~ r . (,A ~ A. . Absolutely'not.1 -f7 - +h 23 4 y.. v 24 10 LWere:you,given'any.guidelinesat:a11fas1to_whatQg, ~ .you were: supposed'to:do?- , bj'\\ i Ace-Federal Reporters. Inc. a ~ 25 y, ~

~

s' .- 4*k i .-[ 4 +

• ~

j -y b, _ w-n-1 mL

r. ;3 y ~~'~~-~ [ ,y, \\ G*.y ~: e' 13 nge:12-11 I ~ A. 'No. ~ ~ 2 Q-D'id you 'di.scuss the purpose ' of the cinvestigation with n You mentioned that you had talked with Mr. Creswell. ~ ~ 'ji3 anyone. . ;;f x. 3 ~ A. ', Well, I. would haves to say yes, ' I did. I discusseid,: w ~4 the purpose-of the' investigation with Mr. Creswell',1withlMr. 5 6 Kohler, my; supervisor Charles'Norelius. We laid out~..the 7 basic information that se wanted' to obtain durina the investigakion, whether.othhr plants,-- other B&W nlants -- 8 9 with similar cool-down' transients, wlether they had been' 10 evaluated, the chronology for - the e* valuation at Davis--Besso,' ,A 11 whehe~ the; information had.gone -;,that Mr. Creswell wanted ,. ~ - ~. .12 t know soa.cthingjabout some telephone callinotifi'ations. ~. c ? ,~ o' 1.., s 1

r 4

13 He also wanted to know the: chronology of, the-undervoltage ' ~ Q 'J l 14 relay set point. Those,were basically"1ithesthings that we saw. 15 as'the information-gdals,of the infestig'ation. A,

p.,

16 G

What' did your supervisor 'tell youQas the" purpose

n. s., _ w y.

~ ,[1f of the investigat' ion?

.m;;

I m a,q f..;.3 Q: - ' ' ~ ' m

• ,I:can't/ recall-any specific discussion'--:whether,

T 18 A. ~ . J a .? ~ ; ., 19 we discussed 'the purpose of ;the Li'nvdstigation. w- .20 O. Did'you;have any. discussion with any of Mr.. toswell's ;. _1 ~ g supervisors concernino 'the purpose of the investigation?- ' l 7i 6 22 7- 'I'm'certain;Ifdid. - I can ' t recalllany spe'cific ' i Y o 0 instances. 21 believe I ~ talked with,Mr. Street'er on' at least 1, ^ 23

• ~ < +

u ~ 24

one occasion, and I

indicated.to.him,that I:.had 4some dif ficulty

~ .E i - AceIFederal Reporters.' inc. /- ~ i at'one poi'nis understanding the purpose o.f the investigation._ c =25 ... ~ ', ~ 4 ep ~, A

,.s

,r ^* bl 4 .t O' ! w } _ ~_, _... o,. w ,z m _= ~_ - w.

,,, A - +. - - ;t.w.n$ y,c. ,.). f,, ?- rf-4 -s ',4. C #,. A,3w A' g a 6.' i n,%, ..A. , ', q]* "g- - - Q _ s; g f1 *... ,,i b t 4 r. de, r .p. y'.4,M,, Q ,S. ' - ? 5 e p p.( ' ~ 4 -'i

p f,,,

9 e. 7, 3 . ; c m' y,t'.._

• I _ -' s

.sd .m ., ~, y c' s #. + 4 N 2-,, < d. ,,i e,,, ;

• f.

i *

• W f.f,

f, 45 m s. . ;3g 1 w. .x .j - - y:r s,+ f,,_. / ,n u u. y'-' ' g-p j<. -I,fhadisome. dif fichlty 'why the issue regarding - the.udervo'ltiage- ~ . - m;c'12-12 ^1 g .9 .1* relay set [p ink had' not been.a cijation.against louNregtdations-3 f, ~ 3 2 .. + ,s .C_ (, o y f, 3 based.on(thefinformat.lon we alre'ady had.

&c

.,,,,. mb. - - c-w L- ,. p 1 r a + It; appeared.to ;me tham. hsYlant'I ad[Sp rated 'ih1Niolation - 4 {Ag '- ' - 4 h e a 3., s = m. m. 2,. (~'. - 5.hf its 'techni cal speciff,ations,. hnd ' tio4e thaE is.; aFele,ar bI f f g 4

4. )-

r ' 6 cut itemiof non-cenpliance. l 7

c..

~

1.,. _

c 5 ) ,D*',, g h '. > 9 1 s 1 --*/ e P 'y*, 4 d' 99 y I y'. I

- g

'p y4

,A 7

• 47

- e,3 , J,,', 1 > q ', E-e,",.' ~, B yx ,d' v!. ., c 2

• ~

,n o e%. $ -' # e

• s g

[n, + w ..;r s m-5 ."9, g s I J p e-j. u g 4. ' s,.a -s a.- -,x 8 + '10 ..w ; a 'u g-- ( ^ r f %ms4 k .-+ O d g r. a g*** w.c'. . f..f 'T.N h t j [* y k q "A . a'r 4 y V.- ', gr g i m t E g s 1 5 -* L,e,,, r + tY ^ a'- s 3

• ';.~

_s en,p.16 n-e ,; n. 1 ,,s , -- g... *. w .c ?q p 1 4 f .s - %. .o

h. % J...- fh ~

,'P, ' " p - s I 8 I". e . * %* !E s [ -, 7.. e s ,.jf. y, c,. - y s.- _p .s 5 y + , y':... ' <' ' '. u ', r i-7 j g,s,4. m,

1. s

+ w 'u# -I ag %3 k g- P'r% i~ ; T .v 15

1. : e\\a 3-

- m, ~. g.a ~ - t sx r ff p}9 y_,_N e" 5 + s"s4 4

• • 5 5

p-4 e ,,1 e y e 4-e -k / ,g. g db,. /r + p%$ ' b s~ $ 4

N-

_ Y'l' d I ;; = g 7, f*, s*. -t ?, .s e ^, - - -?~ u~- ~~.

• y _

w.. ,u. s f & k,f - y;

• j W4 },, g r

4 ,?. s-., f Q,

f. f &.,,.

J* fl. r s ~ 4 .~Q , vi, 4# = e 4, M-j av .,.,,,g. - m3, + > <r [ Sj-s W# " e.g ,, d'I e 4 _'.D. s,, - <., .,c ' _y g,

+~

c a 3< ,*t.,,..gm-s'V m g, .t $.. 7/ O, i4 - .f , -. ~,. n. 4 h fi* ",, w'

• g
• * *.!7~

sn v. ,A { lp; p r h? . y_<

• , 'g ', }

( N '4 -.~ m i.

j-El n

9, .t ..o' s 3 (,' .,,4 [..$

• 'b N*

5 , p- _.4 a j . s a, , : n - ,,-,<c n, m' .l*. ie ~ + = s t-L

• ~- - 'i a

f \\ ,d AMM '*[. k k* f' - ( 4 'l ~ g< ,90 k fb ' 7 f.,'. e ' ./ , a yy y,. y 4.. 4 N,., <I t: ..;r 3./' * *.

• 4 -

4 e -,? %. l 3,. - ..j -4 ,e,' q. f,.., g b c* 'l 4, y g; - _. -/ 2) y v.

3p' e

3 s.w e

s. a,:. u$ m,,5 W " 6

_J j ? ) .h,. is ~ p.' (9 ', .N p c en y m

w fQ

.y I1,.. {'7 -g G*,g p g _ j ;' ' y. %e s O -- y, e u,,.22. '?, 4 .c - an, ~ s y e t .W' 5_ m st ,%y*.~. n-_e ,.ts,' 4 q. 7 3 p-f A.., k. i%*4 s ,A l1 3 ,p

"j

,je ~ g ~ <v. .., m'3 a -, 9 .g 1.., ,cy ,g --d, y _f 4+,,,,'.D,+' -.,h. y ,; _ vs e, : J"r.,..,., > [ M .rg r u- .2A3 ~,.,* ,s

w.

u ~{' n. F, g.* ,u r. 4 o 4-g,-('* [.

• f, e

s ~ s .s-y". jef p.t,, g' ...O-tL ,,'.#Q=.% p-- %g' e i + y.a. .,3 . g

,3,

,.,,g.~ w.,, g

• ' ' * ^

,e s <y$.- u s ? y', 4&f" ' $. - ;y e ~ - re',4;:n',[ ... ~, .P 4 I .{ ,.* l.'y',%.,-[' - e 3 '? Q,, . 2- ,24-

,, 4'-,a 3

,7., ~ if b J, n. k.. [. *-) . J, y, 2 'i S WL?.'d)4:_ :, 'M _Lg I [. 4 >am,'s~ pW ' A/ $.- "" se4.d. ,',p-s -_ s,-x *w,.'* c i r a nyM%S 2 f - c' > f. Ace 4ederes Reponm, Inc. e _.v a4 t. m. . m <..,. A g '. 1 ewr ,A e-

• ~ -

a .,t s 2 ..,x ,'g L i N ['M -s 4 %, f =4To.. -A $%. = 8 ~~O,,...,a' M 'c.. ne . >i. l .,* }..s - t [f. i 4f_ '3=4,d4 ~

/,!

k k,,.

• • g..

--4 /8,. $* rg '8' i_ t g, 9 g 1b t. . <.Ib [%' % - % sf ~ I = h M 4' 9'.:s1 + s

m. 'i '. ;', ~ <

n. n . w:. a _J M Q n_.A . -y 7, t (; j (

y, s _gf., y _, 9,

p f .'s . ~-. J.;7 ,ge, w. -f

• g-, ;,Q^. e, ' ' q;p

.;A w ..s m, *< .m. ; q. 4y % f e a. c }, 9)?.' 9;- 2:;; x< Y ( ?>?,'. E).R Q * } % ' l+ V

a. jlLI h S P d 1 <. " A.-

$ s Mfy3fy - f J, [ ' E 'y, 43. de f.a 4,%f.Q; e ]- t,' Q N &,, P P'fl& %^' ^3, ' W. N. j % gg W j 4 c a., x ~. n <. c m. sv s .sn nwm ~ , ;y j -} *,

• .r

[. k z[ r 4 b* (, M [' [ - a hc - ,, 7.[ f Q*b

• { 'N ;. { ,

-{' w n -. u m w :w pwn u n 44.g&4, w : g9 ap aw . &g em p, x ',maran g. a r,~.u -.,g y. w %- o - i.. w smy '+y.mxm pm_u e an n. ... w . vm a 8 ggg g m s. -%. gw. gg g g., 3 7 j.g.g

m?:n.p. ~,- m;. y -

3 +,.

.,w 7.p a m,;. v;y :... . s.. g ,7+<

7. y r

~ . *y. -c,, y ., 2: g, s ,,-v. r a T'6k,6507? O' f 15 -h J,. ~_.s. - IIEER; tl3 s. p: mti Ji-l' 1,:, - ~ A; ' Would you' describe the procedure that.you'followed 41 ~ o R2 in conducting;your investigatbn? N ,1_ f + J", r., t' .a' o f s Et 3 ' A- 'We do not'h.-ave hereJa set'orocedure:for conductinga }:.' 4. n,: 3.

. c ct

>g p.- .s w i - ' '4 an(investigatio,;n.N It is very much'Eup,to my' discretion,;pending y..p a ~ - a.. -,- .s ~ S [rsview from' iny supe'rvisiir, of co'urse.h.An'dcIfkeep him' advised c t s a,.. -, s 6 of what<I'm doing. o .r W Z f f 7 uI; began by. interviewing Mr. Creswell. I'did this' e .s y p,.6 ~8 onttwo occasions. Thenfirst0I do not haveia' specific date' - m .P for.,', arid the -second was on January 29thi That. :is -where ; 10 Mr. Kohler and'I spoke"withfhim for some time'.~ Following * +' 2 Y .1 11 that~ interview, Mr. Kohler and'I went'to hiS~.offi~ce and-sat ~,,. ~ ..a u, 3 -.7a., dodn(.and.d'iscussed what ihe purpose'o'f the inves.tigation'was, i X' 12 s: m + ho ; ped to develop. , v(mF 13 w'ha't 11nformation' we + s f p g 8 7. ,s . s ...( ,,,- We. did.have 'somewhat of a communication prol51em with

14

~ '-..- ~, - - a' ~ v 15. M,r.+Cr'eswell at times, and that.'is why..we'went-and; sat down: N / awhatfaref.w.elookingfor,.whatdokelidtendtoget!? 16 ,., ~ 17 '4, ,c . f_ I called'B&W andAaskedbtNemeio' provide ~me?with ^ 'J s c p.., = n. t 4 ~ sinformation on:gener:c occur?E...rences'ofcloss of'pr.essurizer 18 ~ ,s ur ^' ~,? 2 i19 flevel'...I;. wanted tofset 'up a meeting 'with 'th'em ' at their. - a

p. m..

a. x z y' ra . 3~

s. - e. c; They aW ised meithat they'couldJnoti 2

n- ~ ~ 20 ~Lynchbur{ facility' i = x s 4 .~ 21 ' provide me'_withhinformation.on their other clients without- -~ n m. 3, A 1 . 122 notification tk those clients.- ^ hnd' I-- told J th'em' tha'tT under-pb j... _. 4 -c. .r m ' stood (theirJp'sition and I.4did~want the~information.;;In: order; '23 o .n _ 8 r

s. m..

n , J, 24 (to complyEwithLtheir: compan'y{ position,;If wouldisend( them, af .a, x ~, e '-, Ace-Federal Reporters Inc. w .?, + ~ r. m' 4' ./*e ,1 + -1 n c m,. 1 e,C'; r. f., pT L. a 25 letter"tellingE.Uhem'what I.requestedL n 4 ^ s s 4. k

• • ' ' ' =.[;, h _ g J

,,.[

• S.-'

i a- .*-'4~

, y _t

• ),,,,

's y<#<-[~ -.s, @p t 4 l5~' ' h:. g ,. ~ ' -', 4 j' 9' ^ 6 4., n, 's v r s - .r', ^k-f;4,# ^'W ..I' L_ pybk. , ?C ,(; )' E * ' I ['- Q~# e N

• kp, W-l ^\\.$ !

(-!f Q "a' Qf vhf f - < n yl...,., a s w - Aln, ^ ', ^ ' b ' R' ' l,..hU? .W A &m y w m)s>tia:i:unidm. w a Q. y' h. h ta M - D W. ! A n G;i[ M ' c'L. vu * ' %::t

%<u..

,5 => - s a.n n - - ~. ~- W ~~

VQ ' 5,?. N. f, '. 3.-. p 7;y y .i.16 3 e s, g i 6:e,. -t .m .:, n ,.,..s f ? i;. ~g ' mtF, - '13 - -p' 3-r r, (.q, j. y ,L. ~~f s e e ,e + w +, u . ).T,,8):. I: set the meeting,back several weeks,JI thin 1d.ati ,,,,~ ,i 7i n

r r

?,: n y

• q.

,-._ y g, ' least. two week. ', 'and?said, ; notify;your. cli.entsrIJwant.thi.s -a , +. s x. m s U ,2 + ,s ja- .-, s 1. c'informationi, we will come 'down 'and talk to you about it. ~ 7 [ ~ ~ 3 m ~ pp / 4 I made one visit to the plant b,efore Tjn ;y ,u Joel Kohler and.. h-

1. j i s

s ~, 4 e 4-5 ' going down to B&W. We were basicallyy spendingi the-first visitj ~ s ../ s. collecting the information on the undervoltage relay' set' point' -6 ~ S 4 We touched' on the pressurizer levsl" indication 'iss'ue only ' 7 j n, n. .J s .'I s_- s a: - 9 briefly.' bWe ' talked -with J6ck L Lingenfelter, who is,aiB&W' man $ ' '8 y ..c 4 4 / ^ on - site, q'ues'tioned him brief1 about she transient, about; m 9 ~ 4: s r i his evalua' ion.of it,Jof.'his communications..with B&W:about', t 'i0 s + ..th a t ~.' - ~ 11 2 + ~ i ~ "12 G -tWhat -was his assessm,ent1of. the. transient?' .j .c. . c3-p I'have a note-on that andEI.~ don!t'believ.*I need e -JD 13 A.. - ~ IIe characterized the loss' of pressurizer ~ ~# 'to refer.to it. ja oy-level;during the transientIas an operational hehdache'b't?not"_ u 3 . 15 I ,e-w., 16 a' safety. concern. h._, t ~ 't believe-I have: , j ItIis airather bri.ef j note.'. (I "do. n G 17 + < ~ u. n a.- anything;further.on, that conversation.,B6t' basically', what. 1 . ;18 - { 9 {L

• u.

4,. T 'a. s-sinceJthe? loss.'of? level -.again,1we're-,, 4 1 D 19 he told me was' that, .i m ' , r.. = s,, . r.] s e ' tialking ;about 'a' cooldownftransient - ;was'notla' majArJ.isdf'et31. ~ 120 n y~- 7 . u concernatthetime,,.there,;would[beveryflittleidocumentation 21 m {inthe.way;ofIforma(review.1 ,. : a,e ,a,,., j. .a j - g, 9t , g,

Q [

j y ~ 'I 121 ~~ (a -

s.,.,.....'. - e,,-

-. - m(". ~.IIe said th, a...., 1t. 7 ' x..y m. s t here had.been s'ome'tel>ephone*callsi . :..y 23 - 4 w 5 e sy

• ?.

.c between site people]and,B'&W[Lynchb'urg. I ;ask'edlifdheref wasi I "24 n 2 P,,, y -a , v' ,'" * ~ '. ' 1 z-v~~ .m u ' t '.v. /T' A: M Ew y, AmFederal Reporters;ine. ~ , - > ~~25 'any.' documentati6n, memos ). regarding' ;th~esef phonei calls, l an'd thop~, 3 .y f' ...+' + ~* j;# ,,?. - :.: ', P, s ' ;.N;

y c

[

m. y; ',, '

[Y ,}}' [,, 2p, .. ~y

r:

~ ,1b'iid y g-'-Q. p. r ,'.,;i, e m; .. z - - -?- } . g ,,s f Lc , Q s c i -i n

i y

l1 . Y k,'

D 1*

' Y 4 t: Aq A w;,x w,. _, ~ m w, p; w m. " g. m,,x _ m- +..

c. 7,4 s g~. s., m..

y,,(z _ a_ w a ~ w~. .y - + + v y- -L-n? 25, u e

E t '17 mta'13 'I were' unable te provide any. As I.already knew that we had c ,2 scheduled a meetine downlat B&W, I.did not pursue $the 3 pressurizer-level very much at this particular site visit. I If that indicated any 4 I planned to do the visit to B&W. 5 . additional information,.there was a'second site visit planned 6 and I figured I would pick it up on-that trip. 7 On February 14th, we. met with B&W at their. 8 f acility "a t. Lynchburg. Much to Mr. Kohler's.and.my sdrprise, t 9 there were utility representatives there from various utilities 10 -- Davis-Besse --'.I think each utility had at least two.' ~ Il representatives.there. I would say there were 12 or 13 peoplici I, 12 at the meeting, including some home office B&W people. t-( (,! 13 We were quito surprised, since I just asked them 14 to provide m e' with information. I didn' t ask 'for utility - c-w 15 . representatives to be present. 7,,

v.,

16 They at first, wanted to know why. we were conductiing . 17 our business in this fashion; was this a normal manner of .a 18 interfacing with B&W; vould they have'to respond to-people-, ) from the various regions,.rather.than Region IV inspection ~S 19 ^ - '20 program?. 1

21 Ind I. told them that,.since this was'a concern

~ (N 22 raised by;one of our inspectors and involved _ one'of our.. ~; ~ J23 plants ^in the Region III officesithat we wre performing ani 24 -investigation. ; This was nota ' normal manner of doing- ~ Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 - business,- but we considered it our responsibilitiy in this t. j ig, .E it ,,tj,8 yh 1 4 jpy.. i a. 3 ec. <,; e ,4

J f -ito 13-4 18 1' case and that is what w~e' intended to do. 2 G Did they_r'eal'ize'before you came there that you were conducting an investigation? 3 'i A. Yes, indeed. I sent them a. letter, acopyof.bhich 5 I'm:sureMI have in my pile here, and.I would b'e happy to u 6 give 'you a copy. s 7 .0 If you would, please. 8 A. Certainly. 9 0 Would'you go on with_your chronology? 10 A. Certainly. .m ; 11 'Each utility made a'brief presentation.concerningc a 12 -the occurrences-of loss of pressurizer: level at their () 13 facilities. At the time of the discussion -- and I should make w.- 14 this quite clear -- we were talking'about' loss of pressurizer 15 level going off-scale low. That,was;the.only concern I under-that time and apparently;thbe'only concern which had 16 stood at i 17 been conveyed to B&W and the. licensees. 18 Each' utility advised of.the' dates of transients I 19 at their facilities and whether~t'h'e transient had been-f ~ - 20 rbviewed and aryalyzed by B&W and the NRC. We questioned ~ths. 21 . Dav.is.-Besse people -in particular about the communications. that 22 had t'aken place' following their transients.. We questioned the- - 23' B&W people about whether ' they had any ~ documentation of ~ these L telephone calls.that' took place'-back ar$d iforth. ~ Ace Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 The B&U; people advised-us that they1. had lield"these - ~ y t A g r % A c u w /~. 'V,, )

• 4 d

J 1 e d 3 '.,e s s E c_;}. 4&[ \\ ,. : - ~ ~' ~ r,

nita 13-5. 19 1-telephone conversations, but could not provide anythine in 2 the way of memos or call records..They were able to provide 3 us with a~ memo regarding the review of the transient. And 4 'from talking with-the?other utilities *.e found that the.' 4 5 phenomenon:had been analyzed, I believe i'n 1975, as a' result 6 of a transient at Arkansas Nuclear 1. 7 G The phenomenon of loss of pressurizer level indica-8 tion or the phenomenon of voiding the pressurizer? 9 A. In the case we were talking of there, the two 10 phenomena were the same, the possibility of voiding the- ? .iJ 11 ' pressurizer based on overcoolant and the possibility of cooling 12 down the system too much, losing level and perhaps losing the [ ) 13 bubble' out of' the pressurizer.- 1 ' }, 14 G So"they indic'ated that'that'particular problem had 15 been analyzed as a' result,of the incident that occurred at j 16 Arkansas Nuclear? -r {' 17 A. That's correct. 18 -May I'-ask a question here? 19 MR. HEBDON: Off the record or on the record?- ~9 20 THE, WITNESS: Well, off. '.y 21 .MR. HEBDON: All righ.. 22 -(Discussion off the record.) J ~ MR. HEBDON: Let's go back on.the~ record. 73 ,,4 BY MR. HEBT'ON : - Ace-Federal Reportersi.nc. YouEwele, describing ~;thefactthattheB&W[ people ' q +., e 25 G. ~ a ~, w g e A Q ^

n 4

-a o-c,. >w a 9

m3 3;. ;. ~

• T P ~;

.y &. _ ,,+ A ;o -c '; r s: s, s W g. ~ c ,t" y ^ .g~,a,'.a 'm,,~,; o -~ .v. y- .~ ,.,, ~ ., + ,.o.' ' ^ # V l'.- 1 20

i. Jmti l-3-6 r

,9 a a .~. ..r

expressedsthe fact'that'they had. assessed th.e transient *as;a' 9~

--1 -~, TresultJof'aniincident'that occurred at' Arkansas Nucle'ar. n - I 2 + .~. a 4 -4 ~ 3 y f A.( 'They'provided us with the analysis' performed 7on g,, i r-u 3 ~ fg, '3 ]m.,f.. 4 that by-(them durin.g -- following that' transient. We were ~ 2. v 'already aware.that,ibase'diupon Mr. Crdswell's concernd, they .S . 3ad perrormed U.:+ analyses'of the Davis-Besse, transient ke" ., / 6 3 ,e3, t-q ~~ 17 determine.the actual level *in thespressurizer-during.the s: ~ transient when the level went off-scale.. t '8 9 You will'have to bear.with my technical' expertise. ~ 10' He was. unhappy witb the first analysis for some ~s .c ~ 11 r ea s'o n. I helieve' it'had'to-do with the inclusion or t.he. ' ~ 3

12 exclusio1 of the makeup' pumps.- They did a second analysis, r

~ 3,.,, m whichiI believe gave a lower ind'icated~ level in'.the pr'essurizer,'. J ~ .13 t .? - ~ 14 ' but it was still several inches above the bottom. y ' 4 ~' i 15 All of their analyses concluded that the. pressurizer .,4' v 16 at Davis-Besse-had not w Nd during that' transient. 4 N 9 w s: Following that ' meeting, we returned (to -the .,[ 17 m 18 ~ Davis-BesseTsiteronl February;29th. Welcontinued to lock into 3 ,;.cr ,g the chronology 4 of.th..e ursdorvol'tagw relay ' set. point'and ; w c e 5,.;- vv 19 s ua,c.c . 7,,- ,,-. s 7.. ~ / ' 20' discussed.briefly.our findings. .t p {, .% j ~a.. n. e t - B&W =-- of-course, Never'al' people. from Beshe, had c21 4 [y QV,.; = 7 participated-in(thag meeting:an'd-they were'weli~ aware ofithe- ((_ *, , 2'2, x t. 4 c ,~ ,v g ' ~' Miscussions.,$cTaga'~naskedif.there'AsHs6mel.additionalf it ~ ' '23 l .: f 'n ,x yM: [,docum, entatio,n at, site!c, oncerning[th'e ' evaluhtion,.$nd, f'd,r a s f24 c c v. ~

Amf.d.,.i n.pon.rs, ene.

w; ~ 2,c f^ .m-9, o ~425 'secondLtime-they Nere unable:t'o providefit. ~M I ~ 7 ~-j, , lf. [f - Cp [ }; y -pl' ~ f_ 9 g,.n) me r , ~ e. [ ',,,

• 4 1.i. h ll

- i -,5. 3,. r rs*W =.,ln... j-O 1x a ... - o. ; c. .m ~,,'. _n,~~,m3 r ~ .~ .t n- . ~

t,i;. p ,t ,y+.j.,. , j, ..,~m- .. < t., q.- .n ~,/,,, - 1.1 j f,... y ).4 -fr g: y.- ~ . ~ ~ '. - 21: .y ,,-n .= -- . mtd 13'.7? a ~- r ~ 4 w 1 v %+i~ M 7'I go So then after: that. 'what did you do? ' r ~/ v 2 , A.. Well, we jeturned to the' office. We held-two ' } . 2 - < w s - 3 discus.sions in house over the findingsLof the: investigation. h cf ~ n 3 , 4- ~I'~do"notihave a 'date for the firsti 'me,eting4that is _ firm, but' m 4 f, +5 .I believe it was March 5th, wherein Joe Kohler and' I. met witti \\. g - - j ~ ~ ^ f o L m ~ 6 _Mr. Spessard,.I believe Mr. Heishman'.anh discussed the' ~, 7 ' findi.ngs of tlic investigation'. r, b m w_ 8 OntMarchcl6th,iwo had'what I would have to' term 'a.. c c ~e 9 much more formal' meeting with Mr. Creswell,'myself, Mr. Kohler, r i 10 Mr. Spessard, my supervisor. Charles Norelius,-met. JI;haveta i n -- o. 5 s [ 'll formalk ackage which I made up for presSntiationTat that-p 33 12 meeting. I would be happy to provide you w'ith h copyr ,c m O is a rhank veu. ~ sj ** . < Q, 14 A. 'WhiclEgoesiinto detail in' tid findinWs cin.. the ' 1 .c 1-.~s 15 conclusions. .c 7 ~7. :g ; 9... c 1 , ~.- 16 . The primary reason for this m.ee, ting'was;to' determine h v-u r.. ,<L .x t whether.there-would'be;anycitdtionsadinsthkbhEgulatNn's,-[ 17 w

3.,

..a - w n. - ~ q i 18 primarily? orhthe' und'ervoltage r.elay?.sedo' int,.hoMide JNuld' - 3

w ~ y

~ z. y; '+',- x q + - -iv . "j. , y? '19 handle {the~documentatiori, Cwhat'Troulld be :In ' the" letter %to thel,. >1 .ej- / w, ss? w. s -, s A...M-i f '", 1.^ < ~ ~l -+ 5 ~ . ' 20 ' licensee.'. 7.... ",, ^^ N ' '?/ * ' - =. n . '.:.. t. ~ . ~, ... y; e...., r .ss x. . m -. +z e., " 21 w-

Gi.

.! Could'iwel back" _up. justia '.little? hCould -you summariz'e' e .mnn_-- -.,c: -. -., o.. o .~ s. ,; 3 . v_.c,, 3 ? 22 'th'e dis. .c# ~ sc + -? G i.. x M < cussion 'at. the(fir,st meeting (cthat'you had up.ontreturn-Y'N : W l. a;m.s X :: i:' :, mq:- $;nd? $I belihve hu $entioned Eh'atMere were aboilt"fo'urf *.. N ^ ~ '[ f 13 I 3,.y f r . 3,.,.y, */ g-3 xy, 's. Y , ' ' ~ ?.?.. speople Jinvolved;.; W ', St? G;.27 ' "(,5 "'%.+V ? ' ~-:J%,e. 7@S '2 41 ~ ..w w n. . e 4 ~[. M ~ II W i'-![E b '~' [i'N ' s

Ace-Federaf Reporters, Inc.

'2 N N s [ M ess $stNay forime to: - N --[ ~ F y..- -,. . g. c 7,.;,, .a - $biAeftllatk ' N l 4.?25 -summ m q g3 - ,.q g b _ .,j ~ J r s ' ;. ' 1;-e g -1 e - u, s n. - m 'e;~,- ; /*

p.,

n u y' >,. c . e. e,.1 c

• *;..,., p'Y;,,.-q
• s v

-r, .m. !~ .,, f w ( . 'w AR.A ',j,.' ^ e. J i e-s e > a E

• i.,.

'y .f'* "2[* 'k-

• , t,

a{;, y . <e .e ., e. h , y r n w ~, 3, kI h e, 2i )h - iI .If* m..t .' c m s. . a, [ v-m M >y;w;@unw 2

p..nu n',q ;w,a,.mb,+ m. r= e ~ei W e,,n',,% ~s a

g

.a,

-,s, y div a.q,r # 'w J.v c e.b M A <.m y y ~ e Ng m

cWi, ev m.P g-a

& m; e" ;.. n~- s t "2, j-1.- ' - "g' s) o c , 4 41 m N +c

t x. ~' f-A' ;.

• >e y

e . a e a - 3 >rc + s s s ,s + y w + '. mto 13 8 ~ f ~

e y,

,_1 .1 meeting, it coveredlthef sarie points as we did,in the MarchD16th k, t-s 2 , meeting, basic'al1y, whatiwe found ~ t th'e.Lynchburg facility ~ ~ 3 s and at Davis-Besse. - (I.do ndt have any. notes on that particular '3'. J .( ) ~4 meeting, but Itcan only.s5y that'in the Ideeting onithe.-16'th.we. >~ provided more details and'dmplified-on tihe tiiings.that we" .p 5 6 discussed earlier. ~ 7 G Nhy were there tws sepahate $nectings? ~ a ihe.second meeting was held becauselMr. Creswell* _ ~ 8 A t 9 had indicated t.o.various people'in-the' office'that.he was 10 unsa'tisfied 'with the investiga' tion. - (I'm not -sure I can i f. n s-- 8 ~4 % 11: characterize whether it was~with.the1 findings orlwithfour- ~ u intended documeritation of it, whether he felt ' that. there I 12 J

• n U,q l'3 should be:some items onenoncompliance, he felt it should de-14 expanded to otli'er issuds.

).. ~ 15 <Gettinglinto personal opinion, my ow'n-personal a- ... ~ 1. hat we. ha,d not found' opinion is. that. hetsas dis' appointed: .r. r (. 16 .n ~ I something of more" substance;intourfreview.. s = y s, .A . ; 17 ,.e 'r ~ g .no >[ [ 18 G ' Such.;as-what?s [ . <~- c - ', ^ ' ~ ~ n _.y: sq_ s n. 1,9 ,}Ax Suchdas the failure of'the.-licenseeIto perfoim?a,. m .n e e. m . m. 4 s. sw

timely" evaluation ( such;,as..a' document orirecord?falsificationi

?;

- 20 at O

- 3 3 . v. n t 21 -ID conjunction ~withath. e.,under; voltage relayg setspoin.+t i,. ' w~ d, + -e. 3 y ;e e, 3f - - 's y. W 22 f, i; I w ul'd jave. 'tol odyjatDtli[s point, Jtolclarify' a, 4 - u.: Aj ' c-Q, 23 bit ~,i-Mr.Ycreswell' was, Ii thl.nk', funhappy) f rom : the moment tliat, ~ ,.;w - .u..-, - e. c, .~ .~.. l24 - 2the' decision was made tha,t;he would not participate ^ine.. l ~ f Ace Federal Reporters. Inc. 'O f 1 , + n :n i, ;x;. ; ;- : ' thei 3 -e g.

",a f

1 + c.. u- , 25 investigation.s ' Even before we gotlirito fitf, he Dexpressed Eto. v g', n e s q *.

4'_

h. ,{ k &Y. ' '. > Iln ?, l l-N*y J f _N_ . g' E o p + p y. e 1+ 'c ' %\\ r.'. 4' *, ,,D' ~, w L 'f-s ,[ yfy-u .. n ng .. s f; .y * .e g'. 7.y' x ~ ' t' 'y' '.. '* l -{t L. ' %,._.f;':'

• (r 1.J j

,n u. A '. ,m ay e %,kt; 5 i, l 4 ~ g l 9 9.,...... ~ s 1 .... y.. n~

t.,

+ a .s .c w m w,# ,e p f[ '+%- _ MQ Q ',.4 7*. $ & 'k ' ! i h m ; ' m)# Ny' 4 s l ', f . 1ty;N 0 j' = - .f ..s. .. 1 JhJ i

'y. ..' - :, \\. ;. &;..;;; ~ - y' .x y. g_.n- . y-a: n. p< t. y s, c. ,:*.z.s. y,,..' - . ; ; c. ' intpl3-( 'M' ' L <r._ s

• ?

23 ~ o s b v-4 %E ,y T .~ + v.

-)

me'several times ethatj he wanted ~to participate'himself, he. m-,.~. s . 3; 3 - h. 6 y k' i ..i 2 Twantedito visitathe BtW facility at Lynchburg, he. wanted to' t L 3 p.articipatesin' questioning; people on the undervoltage relay.. y;im,.. v. s 1> r

• j]

' 4 set poirft. y "t c . 3 ~ ^.J t,(.,'I,would have to say that from the: earliest part of .V .5 P' + 6 the' 1'nvest gation he was unsatisfied. ~ ~ -1 c7 G Did'he give you~any indicationLof why-he felt you, ~' n v. had ndt uncoberedithe things: thht-he felt:you should ideiitify? 8 .Did hyi.ve you_any indication why he felt these' things wcre e 10 there and.yot$ did not find them? M [ m. -~ ..e-y, .n. ~ .m 11 A. a.Answ'ering-/our question ~specifically, I'would;have s (. y ' w t - 12 to say,no.y'I hav.e some notes:that I took, - that I' wrote l af ter ..s,.~ L. _n 4,. u 'i: ' 13 that -- 3/16 ' meetin't a'nd they. speak.to some'of thel, ques.tions v. 2 ,.Q that :he rais'ed diirin~g 'the meeting. + s i - ur .wm 15 It-a.ppeare.d;to me at the time,that he was trying to 4 3 16 find somethini,'anything,of significance Shat we-had overlooked e r?. m ,~. i .. e . j7 ' in 'therinvesti;gation?. ?l Helquestioned several. tiii'ngs' which' weEe

z....:;

QG ,, 18 tot within the : scope of the. investigationforz the expertise of. c.

v.. ;w 4

f M, e' l -} the'investiyators to.look at'. -9, O '.,.V -- 19 .y 1 ~ -? : g ~,..a,., . + 1 _j. /- 20 -G3 Suciras 4 hat?i +' 7. s-t g ,3 .,7 , g- .t.*- g s, ia \\ ' ', A' k i ' ;PerfoEmanceJ,of..the. once-throilgh ' steam; generators., pc t +- , 21 ^ 2 7. a s, + .z, during the/ transient. i . <What,he_questionedt as:the',iquo,te/ 1f- -i - 22 ..-t 4 ~ s~, t y :w _f.-

%,.). ;3.)

. p: < '~~ 2'3.; ".sanchity, ",unquo te.' '9 ~ of ethe Tten-second' ECCS Ycriteria. : :I' can : - r .m a. t /. 4-,. y a. a.s,.. -y,m.e.1 s. . s t c x .m, .y q a o ,w r xa-..AW-M

2[

provide}you;with :ac. copy ofimy notegi

.y, JGW".~ Q +P, ',5 q -=- + - ; Ace-Federst Reporters, ine. ,f .g.+.,*. A; m 2..

• .p~

n,z ;;'m.mf :n s. w 1 - , y . *i.1't<,: m.;,.,. ,.5 . e. = ~,. %: fr, s 3; i ~ ' M -7 '?L0~ M If youJcould,'eI-wouldvapprec'iateoit 6, 9 2,5 y, wp :w;..V mig 2 ;a,mny-y, ;~ j .;;,'.m

4 -

t, .h . o( = an & \\ n=, n,

p. ',

a-x cc- .y[: y :9~ >l:, 9') * -

~

2 n A y y j k,p-a v: Q v.gy,p . ;.? q w v 4 4.p, 3.,, 3.~.p.,.; & p. e .,qm -. ,? n .? . y 3 .tc 3 p. 3,g '. y,., k - s; _y g, p, i a; v, .,1 Q 6, % @y g-V. m-.<w 'O 4 ?*

m.

13g m w M,w + ' J -%L M. ~.- 4. 4. pd:.W.sk f,1 rW f;,,' - a$y \\,::'['(n: ' ~$.. w~ 1&y& -:[ s 5'"% ~?,4,. pg&& ',N=Q ^ &w,Q ' *

• I' f$ i $N Y? { l[n^c.f: 'A:'% ; h ' -

ns,h.f f ; i -.wr 1 iu + g : d v. .~,s s - ~QY 1:!?,'w.;.,),'

• h dgeww a 2-c-

m.~

_w-- aw

4 m., J '- ?'. m ,e ..y, v "H t mto113-10 24 - i a- ~ c

Were any of these add'itiional ' issues - that he. raised-.

. /_ <-,1 g' 4-i2 associated with the September,24th,-1977,r, incident at:, g ~ m x '~, e c + 73,. 3_' i Davis-Bes s'e?_~ t ) : ..e Q' _ p ~ 4 A;. No. v. ..s c 5 Of .Would you-go on, then, with your chronology? .I' 6' think we were at.the point of your meeting. .1 s ~.. '7 A. Right, on March 16th. At the close of'that meeting af ter lon, g discussion, we determined ~ that there would be. no,' 7 8 ~9 . items of noncompliance in the. report. ~ However,;we would~ express our concern'.over the adeguacy of'th'e licensee's 10 r~ ,y a '"A 11 tracking of. f acility*: change..: requests, - timely. evaluations, and ,12 that this wou'l~d<be-coveied with the licensee in an upboming >~ ~ m .,_y Q '13 management meeting..., 4. c 3 14 Fol'1owing that,-Mr. Kohler and-I' proceed,edito?writei x [the draf t repbrt. V jd I think that pretty welElbrings us up - ' Ar 15: n.. J 16 to the-TMI accident its" elf.. i ~ s- , y - -4 5 s , + 17 0 'Did'youjhavefany : involvement with this. investiga-- ^ A-t_ es 1,, ' -Q ].. - 18; , tion foliowing;:the TMI,,ac'cident?f 4 ep .E. + ' 'c P , _~ -f j g' . Af[ If I"ilnderstarid-the(question}righ',$the Linvd$tiga ' ' ~, t, y' ~ ion washcomplet'edy at ?that tim, e. We dr'afted a report, - 20 t 21 providled Mr.L Cresweliwith a copy of,it.. By that time he was- -~ . N,

l22

1at-th'e TMI: s'it'e, x having.been selected 'as ione Lof the people _. to - . ~ r 7 'v , 1-v. . perform the investiga't' ion.- ~- .a ~ 23 3 -

/

~ ~ ifter2 review'of2the-drafthwe.generdted-a#finali ~ ,e

e

}',' - 1 ^ 24 +~ . n ..,.e '_4. .; g. '... y . Ad Federal Reporters, Inc. ~* ~ J'? 25 ' report ~and'.itzwas~sent-to the' licensee. 3 -v#a c.~ - 7 :.,[ -g ' ', n m W 9.1,.-v., ' y -.4 j '. ' h' ' - ,c ,7, y,

• c",': r'. ]' 1*'? f

e

f. 6 ~.g. J y,,

py

• _s.p-4 7

.g b t n.,: r .:y ,. ;, ~..: <- s~ * = ; g 3_ , 3.,- k I

• I, d'

s m, 'Y k"#[~ \\.t ' gw, y.,d[ h :w-[ 4. :.'. .[' I.~ M N w" n. -. ~. ',, y mu:.).,;, % :n ,5 w +v c, m

g; 2,. y }: N. - e , e y 7 3,. %. . s ^# - y sm ;> ' )~3 +, 4 J ~, .? }l ~ 51 n x" , l I25

mtn%13-lO.

g ., s. ~, n v ; e..<.+ /. 1 'h? s.. 11 i g- .N Di'd you~have.anyfinvolvement with.this investigation

c p

. m ~ 4 - g ,7 af ter.tlie' report was prepared?,Was that Ethe end of nit? 'x 2 3 ? A.- As. far as inkinvestightion Tof Mr. Creswell's?

1 ).

.y. .g .4 "co~ncebns [;thdt was ~ t.hej end of < it., i have testified. to thk N i' I 'Y

4 r

sn r n ~ v w 7J L k. ~ L .l. r5

President's Commission o;nD Three Mile Island, basically.

. s- ,<r / _ n u ~ m ^ 6 answering'the same. sort of questions you've been asking. r ., 7 ' 45 I 'would 'like to go. b'ack ' now and try and; ask a1f ew + specific:cluestions about some-of the various parts of' your. ' - i 8 .m ~ 9 inves tigation. To some. extent, these questions-may.be some-- 1 10 wha't redundant of some of the things you've alreadyJsaid. ~ kt x ~ 11;o But justit'o make sure the record is complete, 'I. would like., to: 7 12. go. ahead and go back over them. g-(q.- L. 13 -Tou mentioned that you :did interview Mr. 'Creswell j a r-2 'As a-result'of this,cdid[you' i i 14 on at_least two. occasions. - -~ x 15~ co'ntact'anyone at;NRR? 3, s 4 { ?- r

r..a s: 16

- ' A.) Not following.the interview with Mr. Creswell.- v - * .m 1. 3 Kohler' contacted a l.; 17 Before[the generationtof.the report,:Mr. ~' . a

4..

3 s ~,.. N 7.ff- .18 J!r','Sy: Weiss at NRR to; inquire.whetheritheyfexpectedsany, e.,- , 19 further4information, documentatioh:on the-pressurizer:leveli-q .g' ~. 9- ~ 20 iissueOa c. /' M .W mi g q ^p x ^ s Mr,.?St'recter ha'?also" contacted'Mr.s W5'iss : regarcking ; d 21 Y t ~ .y -s m g-n 22 [this issue. E 1 3 \\.) .:3 > ,~. - ~ _n

r:N C-

'Do I' undersrand f tihen,- that $they had ireceived'. + ~ c: 'X

s. :

+

• ~

-. ~ L 24 m'aterial concerning' the ~ pressurizer ? level problem?, ' gn.:S. ? xeo

>o r...

., n, '. ._ ~ y a. m s' <, 1 ' Ace-Federet. Reporters, Inc. Qs -r 5'- r

25 Ax '

The pressurizer ilevel' isstie vas brought up,JaseI,,.

w +, ,8 ep. y 5 0 4 8 { e w j .'s i.' v .1,.n

• r;,- ,

3, w .9 b q.A ,c - 7 6 L. -n. u.;;.~ j '. i 3:.e -6 r x i- .*.."_w, e , c ;. i ,.? Z- ,[s; *, ', c] T .pm. .I,' g g .y g; ', [ggI(.,. f' s li ' ',D 'u .f .h. f 'r. s 0 3 f ,-. k,'g h r [ hi: Si..s 4 v, ".- " j q'. g g g DJ x y%.ga u 4, 7 n

3. i :. _

h >(gs x e x.1 .,.' g.m t _. ( u

%. P,7 g ;ey m

__x

. - - + v. c s s. q. , n a<

• a c,m a, ".m.

.v ,st. - y W; m < - 3, 'w i x ~.... ..l e-t

w.

. mts;13-12; + + ,1 n 26-c +' y .;l i recall, 'some. time around December? and.the; licensee.was asked n.1 - . ~ +. ~ 'th provide:an. analysis justifying continued. operation offthe 2 a- .P ant with.thih question, this possible. unresolved' safety l '3

f3 4

w ~- fy. l 7a ~ question' stilr h'anging.n ' They provided 'their ab,a'.lysi's, which ^ s [ 5 NRR'apparently'a'ccepted. iI did notiparticipate in that. .I'm' ~. "6 . sorry,VI can'.t speakrto'the.proce,ss. w -.' ~ i ~ ' But Mr. Cre' swell lia'd indicat'ed t'o 'us, that they were. '.7 ~ ^ ^ 8 still waiting for some; sort' of informationifrom;t-he licensee.j m 9 I believe it' was listedyas' an ' unresolved. item',in a report, and P p -M, 10 the~ report stated'.that.NRR'is. expecting-documentation'on this> 11-sissue. u 12 Mr. Streeter's contact and Mr. Kohler's contact with3tb' ' Weiss and'.NRR ' indicated' that, no,, they'wer n o t' 4 4 sja-awaiting 'any. more information;. they were doing a review of;the-4 15 licensee's proposed ' engineering, fix for :the pressurizer. loss. ( z ag

16 problem, which.was to go;to a dual level set (point for the _.

e.,.-

4 e, 9 j7 steam; genera' tor.s..- ~ c - u.. ",. g. '4 A '5 Y g ..\\,' L '. 4 4' e ' 18 2 s .,<r .,. _ '- e - - a s A, t 8* I 4 1e h' Y ' A y s,,,y y .i " y y ~ + d ..A e ^r'e- 'Q g* [ g, ,{'"* 20 t 4; f ~h *s.\\ l,,,,lfg.. yc-N .~ + + . -. F . - -.? :' ~.

• 2]

Q s* L },', x z _ nf a' 7w ,3 s .s ~ s. ^. ( 'a 8 7 O ,'6q). .r _o .23 " r". i -, l3. L - ~ " v b

5. ' O ;'.

3' u

~ x t .q, 9 p xy s

m..

3,y ' A Q 'c.- ^ ^ x ~<. x.. + ,y, e-- s +v ~ . r ( r; 4.y'i., ~.- [. ,e %[ ~ < +,.q. s- = [ 7 . =- p. k., a,_ g g s .;~~. .~.

/^ Ace-Federal R,eporters, Inc.

~

• j '. 'j t ;g 9',
• nw

. ' Q,

• Y

.:l : (- 1 i. . ~ ~ t ;. _

) 35

, My P,. 4,[ s ^' + Y po dN, '_?; '-,' j % c, J '[_. .

• e 4 '

8' ' p %./ ' ' 4 1 [ t.. q g-4 .",:"h M -, c- ' g, M. R ? N-L JL @n n ~ n. '. = ' a g- . p: s 4, # } ...+.9 da. 't' J y,,_ a a { L ',.[ k, ., Ih

• ^Q O,$s-

, ' ^.*. ~ h.. m ,y -..x ss ,;. - ' (,'* I b

r .-=. ..e a . ~ \\ 4-y. E 4 ' j 27 6507 4 : t-l'4 8/

1. c mto714-1 s

1 Q. 7 .Did you contact Mr. Weiss?- 3 No,.I did not'.. N, i2 A,- y, -3 ~ O. Did;you contact ~anyone in NRR? l O 'y ) '~ 4

A.

.No', I didinot;; j., L Z Did'you 'eview 10 CFR P' art 21?- s 5 0 r 6 A

I did not review it at'that time.-Itam familiar -

s ~ > 1 7 with it.c 4 - f 8 p. As'I. understand.it,[part of the' concern' raised:by-9 Mr. Creswell was the. fact,.this. question of whether:the - ~. - 10 licensee and whether 'B&W had complied in a timelyEmanner;with .n+ a w - j$ - ; e j +> c .Part.21. -Is that ' a ' ' correct undes.s'tanding? ' r 12 A,_ yes. 7, s. n p u pN) 13 10 What expertise dorypu have to assess'_ compliance 14 with'th[s particu1arlSegulation? ~ . r V r' '15 A. I reviewed"thatl regulation when.it first came out. r- ' : 16 I: participated'in a. seminar here-in. Region III, where' head - + f; s ~ 17 qu' art'ers people - dis.. cussed-it.with the various licensees. ' It:. .w m y s-a 2> 18 has;beenTaJsubjectfa'rEund the.o'ffice of q,uite'a' bit =of

s.. a s

y-19 discussion. f-4 - O_ ~ \\ ~ 1 . 20 ,,V r.2 . ' ' '. _ cI don' t know that-I can speak to.'any,.'other partia ^ 6 cular qualifi'catfions.. My. involvement:with.the Creswelliinves- '21 f ~ u = ~ 'tigatiNn ir[dicated. that : the analysis which.had. been done bb'. ~ tT - 22 .Q) - ~ y-w .. L ~23 B&W had'beenreeviewed by NRR, .f ound. to be ' acceptable',,' thatf - 3' ~ q _ ~ ;. w . - py. w ~ ~ fthey'had'.done ay anslysis back;in-1975:basedfon the: 24 _ y[CM' if~ Ace-Federal Reporters,1nc. h

w..

c. + ~ ~ , 25 .ArkansasINuclear 1"acci~denti:or incident,"however?you:want~to3 .&s' + c ?. A m = + .,s. y s f'

• >g't_

s x w,, y ~ 'J"- Y ? .7 I#- d-' )d; l 1 .] s; y g d ',. d ' ".['.T * '. ' ,<#7 tJ 4 ka :n _ ' %; T. ^2 % ~ ~ h y l W yrfa y_. 4 W ( T. % d @liil g e-XJ ? Qf T, ..;. + ' 42 4

C _' '

d:. e ~. 1_

28 mte 14-2 1 describe it. They had found tha't analysis acce'ptable and 2

apparently concluded that no unresolved safety issue existed.

3 That had been reviewed'again in December, when O' 4 Mr. Creswell had' raised this issue with NRR. To be in 5 noncompliance with Part 21, my understanding is that there 6 must be a significant defect in the facility that would' affect 7 the. health and safety of the public. At the time there did 8 not appear to be any such defect. Therefore, my conclusio'n 9 was tha.t,they.had not violated Part 21. 10 G This is, I guess, to some extent general, and it 11 also applies specifically to your investigation. But I've 12 spent a;11ttleJbit of time reviewing Part 21. I find it to be m () 13 an extremely'clomplex piece of regulation,;particularly if you 14 go back.and review Section 206 of the Atomic Ene'rgy'Act, which isthebasisifhouwhichthatparticularregulationcomes. I 15 find it a little interesting that an investigation of'complianc c 16 with that~ reg'ulhtion was conducted without tina benefit of 17 y-someone who had spent a considerable amount of time reviewing, 18 c': 19 that.particular regulation and the basis for it, and possibly ~ ~ even without the involvement of a lawyer'on the_.NRC. staff. ^ 20 21 ^ Did you contact anyone'from any of the legal staffs to ;get an' interpretation of that regulation?' 22 23 A.- No, I'did'not. ~ 24 G Did you-review a document ^calledINUREG 0302, which Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. has a very long title,' but is" basic' ally. a review of the 1 25 ~ 4 4

g<

+. : {f b f', I ~i M-

q -

T s

• g at~

'M- %;) * >\\

3+;.7 f,6 P 1.. s o ' A ' 7. g =. - n,; 4 y, n. e...o + w.9, 3 w1 a ~, s . 3. c. ~ e. a '29 - 7mto~ l'4-3 : i ~, .,...s -4 s v- .g, ~ ' 1-meetings:.that;were held.'with."the various licensees?s 6 ~ 3 .-t m .m - 3 -2 . t ,g o 2 Yeh,windeed! . y 1 Iparticihatedinoneofthos'e' 5 n. ~ A. u e n. u, e .e g. \\ 3 . meetings. y' - M r - G*'. 'd m, s ,n 4 ..G.. c Did.you review-tho' document $,that was prepa}ed'as:" _# o

• , k "..

hg

4..

e 4 i Y- ,5 .a result cif:it? ' a + ,h i r. ~ ~ 6 A.- vYes', I,.d' id'. ; ' -- '~ ~ 7[ <g As-part of thist: particula'r-investigation? ~ ~ O 8 ~A. -No, prior to,it. 1A Now, I 'et the fe,elin.g..that'you are missingc..a point' 9 g u.3. here.'The; purpose of the investigation concerning loss;of 4 10 m ~ II[ -pressuri Arflevel-was to determlne tihe~ timeliness.of;.th~e- '( ^ 12 -licensee's evaluation of the,-transie.nt.- At-the time we did. n .?- l O 13 the investigation,./ NRR had. concludedsthat there was no unre-: ye u s s solved safety [is' sue pertaiiilng"?t[olthe' transient of November.129th. 14 ~ r : - '.c ;,.... l s g m F-15 O' Well,oif there was,no u.nres.ol~ved safetycissue,.. g* 36 a p4 m P 16 then doesn'.t a question ~ of.ti,me. lines ~s:,become :a rather moot.L 5 w <

~

e., f ~ -s s .u 'y. e. i lA' e s ~' 17 ipoi.n, t? - ' :. '[ .p, 4 ^ &.T, L L ; *.. ? w y + a~ , p.,.; WM D ..s ~ JNo,;Ii so'uid/ haver,to' sayJ nob. (LetI.me" dr5p%ASk -. < Y 18 . A..% w m. a ~ 3 y-e.e 119 just a ittle. bit $'$d 'try tc$ discuss Uhis. " N'ere+ in 'the of fice ' i ~ h s a. v

g r

s .m. C. . 20 - we had+ severs 12 discussions, ; even..bef ore : setting ; out2.on(this ',2,. : ~ ...,,y. <-s , x . 4

• • ,-(.~

,ff 3 +. - s 3 g ..4 r 1;..21 'in[that[the regulat'ionsido) notjsay.;what?klll' be a ;tiinely)3s,. ' %n.. 3. ^ u g .7 n ,m # "e,, ~ r =A. ~ ,.,., m y a. 1 -l_,t" ,22 Ljevaluation'offa transient 1at.a? facility. " It doesLn6t shy you; f ch%. ;:,. n. - s.-c s

y:.

'T:~ a. 7 +. .m -1 ..A_ V C.p ~ J 23 will t haveEt6;do ?it..within. so many> hours or :so.many. days or ,,3 s ,t y s,-

s. (,

3_ y n 4. a, - .m ~ ~ x J M. :. 4 -R @5rH+>...h

• 13((

, N (, }, f . s ~ A

a 7 N24

'Jso many; months.- s - 'v ^ D> .[f Ase Federal Mehrters,lnc. UYb 1-

7.,,,

, ', [ '.9[J V;We: triedit6M, tDsome s5Et'.of1.' feeling [for1 wlia't J.f.' 'y$ jF f( ' 25 f '; 7

s 7._,.. <

?.> - - s,- y z y e s 4- ,,=;y .,frer 4P: ?-

9.,g,.gn.y;,.s

,y, g y 4 s. > f,.. - s.lg".g., .m. sg ;..,s,yaq q. 3 L m m, _ ... - ~. '- ' -. r< y e, 6 r. y,_w, y. u,- 7.,, .+.y -a, e ...u i: Q ..;n y

^*

't-u + s. Y r .' :^ - ,.-7~ e\\ Y E I,. A- ^ , ',. E - p l: ) f{_. y '.~ r h. - 4 $ ' ?'d W' .Nd?f..;h'< '._ Y. "] N&]O O ;ij . ~f s.

• l,l
• k'L. W*;.?, %g^N h h l'.

' & 'l. - - J1 ^ 1 gg. _,6 Ace.>% a, z... m.: + M,, % d.pf, y.., m-u. am;a,y ; ~..;,;@. r 5.... Z1 .. Q ] E. c 3.. _. ',, j, Q i t. m "'~. %_ g ; w _ .r .y . _ti

...w -c p t ~ ~ mti.'14-4,. e a 30. e . b,.,': ,o m ~. ~~ K, s. 1 F.. . ~. 1 a u i, 4-.. j ..wou'1.d be 'a timely evaluation 'of. a reactor' transient. It was- ~ .f ',s t'ill' pretty -much ' of a decisional thing'.when '.I; 1ef t' and began. . 1 7, "1 2 ( d,% A' ]. 3 ing.,the investigation. l Basically,.'we. decided to see wha't. g- ~ 3 4 'g Lthe^ chronology was[and then'try and make a decision,.an-r ' o j e'ctive 'decisio'n'on'that information. 5 6 G Who did you contact.or what' did you do in -your ~ g. ,eff rt to determi,ne,whether' there 'had been.-- or in your 7 w. '8 eff rt to ' define wh'at constituted a~ timely evaluation? A. I. talked with Mr. Streeter,I ta'lked;with 9 4, .1 10 Joel Kohler', I talked withemy supervisob Hr..Norelius. 4 s 4-4 iDid yo..u talk' with. any of J h'e, people. who were :: 11 e,, 4A, t 12 i,nv lved w'i',tih the briefings - of. the ;1icensees concerning o .m [( a 21 tle peopl'c who' con' ducted't!he' meetings that' eventually 13 ,l'e'd:(to",thei UREG document I,:just referred to? ~ ~c N n y u,c ~ ~ AJ, .No, I did not. 15 ...,r r 16 ~7 MR. MSOm. y ua ,8 s. s .} G: g, 'If m still puzzled as to why the. acceptance of] 37 l . a R . W '8 j 'the.,B&W explanation and/or theilicense'e's explanation byJNRR-18 y. ~, - a-3.., _y 4 i I n did" hot. moot o.ut any question Jofe tiniell'ne.ss. Notsthat it is-. j9 ~ u. 'v-20 eryjimportant,Ibut I don't~_know why'an investigationfof] + ) (W,_ .h 3 s timeline'ss:should follow-on after.the judge's'decis' ion.to set- >g .21 s . c minto my. area of expertise.' v ~ s;&n.,,.c i f_)

• 22 a y.

.m Q ~ ' ~ A.; ^ The question is a, good;one. And as~Ifmentioned; x -

f. (

- g 2.

c.,

1. s u

E 23 . n y f. .y W s u m me ~ earlier,f n the or.iginal discussion 1with Mr. Creswell,(itswas" 4.' i 4. .g 1 1 y - E' E. 1 7 J' W n - :N 4 ' e '3 4 .c.. 3.- 1^, - somewhat difficu.ltztofget.'f" rom'hlm what was. expected'from the r@ J Ace Federal Reporters, Inc. .J . -c ,s r a.

~.. -

a 25 6 e 3-2, ,9 ' _. . 3: w 3 ,.. 7.#, a '^ ' N A, -.; s ~ l .l. L ^ h n l. ,c .7 .t .}' Lw .l. %,.y y_l,'n? L 3 + ,s t 5 ^ GN n ply M;= 4$$i D 23 k ~ bib!$0$ W ? A@@$iS - W hT$0S'id M g M. diggm;#6' 3j:. ' _ W.# l-56thh,.s T? n

31 mta 14-5 1 investigati6n. Now,'for me t6.do my work I.needed to:know 2 what information had to ;1x3 developed and hopefully what violations of_NRC regulations would res' ult if-I go out and I 3 t f 4 .get that information. 'S - In'my view, the fact that NRR had accepted this' ~ 6 evaluation does not make the question of timeliness of the 7 licensee's evaluation go away, be'cause of course we are. speaking of NRR's evaluation being some time in December of 8 9 '78 and the transient being quite a bit previous to that. 10 Again, we more or.lcss determined that we would have to get 11 the chronology of the evaluation, as the regulations don't i speak to exactly what would be acceptable as a timely evalua-12 O 13 tion. We will look at the chronology, we will look at the-yy 14 transient. We're going to have to make-some sort'of objective 15 decision. This has been done in other cases. ' I 16 g Suppose you h.ad found it untimely, yet the NRR e 17 had accepted it. What would the penalties be? What would be-18 the purpose?, What would follo'w? l19 .A,' On pure speculation, - ' a'nd that is what this 120 discussion is goingito have to be based'on -.I.could see-21 that we would do severa11 things. I believe that we.could- + 22 have cited them. I would have to even review what.we would'~ 23 cite. And I believe there-is'a seclion:in;the. regulations that speaks. to :a.. timely evafuation. I know that in / 24 Ace-Federal Reporters. Inc.

25 construction there'is,' for example.

.i. 4 1 - w- /, 8 N m' g T:- N C .g 8

y. t:t;,;

my 4 y 4 y, a;.

~. 4 mta 14-6 32 I BY MR. HEBDON: 2 0 But how could you cite them for not providing'-- 3 ~for failing to prov.ide a timely. evaluation of'a nonproblem? It is.-a Catch-22' kind of thing. If'it is not a problem,.how, 4 5 can they be untimely in reporting it? 6 A. I think I understand your question. I'm going to 7 have to go back to my own philosophy, that the fas' t.ha t it 8 wasn't a problem.has no impact on whether they did a timely 9 cvaluation. You have to do something in the way of a timely 10 evaluation. U' Now, the. fact that it turned out not to'be a 12 problem doesn't~mean that you can put off your evaluation 'e ) 13 forever. 14 BY 11R. FO'LSOM: 15 0 I'm not completely satisfied. .I'm no t charging at- .i 16 you. You are starting out on a quest to do something that you 17 are not'sure what the consequences what be, even.if you 18 succeeded in showing it-was untimely. 19 ' A. In some ways that is a correct statement. I ha'd. 20 two missions regarding pressurizer level, the undervoltage "21 relay-aside'. One was whether there had been generic' occurrences ~ 22 at other plants; and second was timeliness, chronology,.in-the 23 Davis-Besse' evaluation of their transient. It had been deter-24 mined. here.in-the office to.do this investigation. That was Ace Federal Reporters. Inc. 25 given to me. as my mission and I went out and I goti the l f <4 wak,' < 7,- 2. l

'mte 14-7 33 i 1 information. 2 G And you didn't care whether the consequences -- 3 you weren't concerned with the consequences';-you were just s 4 doing our job? 5 A.~ Well, I am always somewhat concerned with the 6 consequences. But basically my job is as a fact-finder, to 7 get certain 'information. I do make judgments. Everybody in 8 this' agency who does inspections or investigations makes 9 front-line judgments. It would be very unrealistic to say 10 that I don't make. judgments in my job. Basically, my job is 2 g 11 to go out-and get these two facets' of;in' formation. 12 MR. FOLSOM: All right'.' ,1 ) .13 BY MR. IIEBDON : s_- 14 G Let's pursue this a little jb'1,t more on the other 15 side. What did you finally decide wotild.have constituted an 16 untimely evaluation? 17 A. I. can' t say that that decision was ever reached. 18 G So.then how did you decide that the evaluat' ion-19 performed by B&W wasn't timely? 20 A. ItLwas more of a positive decision than a' negative 21 decision, the way you~ described it. We found in. documentation 22 a memo that indicated ~ that the telephone conversations had ' '23 taken place almost immediately-after the transient, as claimed. 24 They are attached as an exhibit to m report. Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. ~ 25 They also indicated that B&W had been advised of' }MnWiilliiis.' 1 - IDM d 1 :. ' -/ s s- ' i f c. e

v' ~x, 7 -,.. g ~ '34 a ~ ~ mte 14. J ~ thelloss'of. pressurizer level: indication and.had concurred'in 1 f. a j' l 2 the~ licensee's. proposed? corrective action,(the dualvlevel _

s -

u. .~,. + 3 set point. 1 G 8 'O - . Based on'the fact'that they ha5 been in touch with*~ ~ 4 i the vendor,ithe vendor s^ representatives ha'd been on site'at 5 6 the time, that they: were aware of this, ? that they had -an ovaluation' on hand which 'had been performed for the Arkansas ~ 7 u ~ 8 Nuclear 1 plant some'-time before, that they'had d'on'e those ~ ~ two analyses that were r equested. by Mr. ' Creswell in December, 9 M 10 we concliaded that '-- first, NRR reviewed it.; There wasn't s i ~ o - 11 an unresolved safety < issue; that' they had discussed -th'el Jl transient with the vendor immediately after and the vendor ~ 12 ' 'T. .t was aware of the transient and 'had' concurred with the.. corr'ec-' n v' ~ 1 13 (. l l. 14 tive action and was-proceeding along. s - }. 15 G-Let me back up on this a little; bit.' ';j _ f. _. 16 Now, the incident occurred in November of-1977. <..a - l*1 'l [ .17 When were the analyses that ~Mr. Creswell requested provided2 e -y .; to klim? 18 19 A.. I'm not s'ure. y -) ~.c_ u ~ I Were'they provid'ed I'n l' ate'19777.*1978? ~20 .; G~ LRoughly. D21 . When?. ~ ) s 4 a ~ .. '.,,~

A.

22 -V A. - My; guess - eand I'mlsure Mrh StreeterJcould speak R , %); ~: -pg m, ~ ~ _ toithis;-- was that theyfwere probably,provided.,in November.

23

w.,

.f ~ ~^ c.24 '~'ofI'78.[ . :,~. - - [., ~ ' - .P ~. ' y. ~ Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 [.B ' '. JS02 it Lwas '. some time -in.21 ate.j' 78. So it'wasja-year', 4 n + - ~.c ' " ;. 4 l y,. j 4

1. \\

t <,

• _

l' }39 n( yc - $P i. k' };

9 - c .s ,s 3 mte.14-9 135- ' R t y \\ U 1-then, from'the,'t'imeof?theincident}until-he'was.given-the i ~ 1 4 + o 2

evaluations thatlhe had. requested?

,' 'a. ... - ~. -, ~.3 - A. : That's correct. 11 can amplify on that. The,'

k. r.

~ licensee;Ind the vendor informed 'ub that they had not intended- .4' 5 to do:any additional' calculation to" determine'the water-1evel' ~ ~ 6 'within the press'urizer during that. November 7 transient, based- ~ 7 on'their opinion,'their former analysis,'iflyou11ike, the 6.8 ~ voiding of._the/ pressurizer uas not;a' safety; concern.. They,. 9 even at B&W, character'ized'it as an~ operational headache buti ~ 10 ~ not atsafety c,oncern.. 11 lit was.only when Mr. Creswell'requesthd.that:this N 12 analysis,be done that the licensee concurred and had B&Wf 13 ' perform"iti ' They advisedf us ++.ey had not intended to do s ch ~ 14 a< thing independently. 4 - og 15 0 "We have talked"along here about a ' tiinely? evaluatsion. ,s 16 What evaluation are -we ; talking".also6t that y'o'ti were trying to ' ~ -~ hecidewhetilerdorinotit~waftim'ely?L( ~* A 17 e-c ' n . A. ; _ ThefevaluationLIjm talking'about( Mr. Creswell?s 18 4 1 19

expressed concern-about-the voidi~ng-of the%preissurizer, whichi s

~. 4 9 4 r h.e. 'seemed :to..f. eel.t., hat.,the'.' bubb. le could' move. out,of v c,, z. s 4 the 20 N j ,i

• • 4 21 Pres'surizer~,; block $the system,1and~,perha'ps uncover the core.

~ ' v. fN, 22 ' (L Okay. $Nowl.he',r.iised -this concern someitime;.in7 late. s . ~ s 'g 1 g% f' ~ ~ ,. N,.h ,) 't^ 4-. sc , nw 23 '1977? T 2 2' e u ,-7 - - e 5 ~~ ~ A. Yes.. Y,ou, hav.e the. memo 1 reflecting that; ~' ~ c, ~ 24 (,

Ace Federal Reporters, Inc,

- :v w .w r + x <- ~ .g t,f,, ,,7 s %4 1.He: got-a 7 response - f rom 1 th,e.B&W rin <1ateil978? - l +Y ~ ;25 , ;, n;; O;;;i.... n~ g n xy 'G., ' 't ._ _' i 'O [-]; W3,. j O' -\\,f,j ,,_ Q ".u y .s... c a 3 =:>,.. i -a f_ ["* ,'T k6 . 22-,.;, j.3 ia. w, '. y, - ~ z, 5' 'f i

• ~

[ I. 2,_t ,s 3-5

~ s .n l [ ~ a ~ 36 mto.14-10; 3 d, x l~. A. I.believe that's correct. g g_ ',That's a" year. 2 '7, . u.; Okay.. Now, is that one year gap s 3 w' hat yoti'. determined to be timely? .O g' b 'If I', understand.the question correctly, iffit had I4 A. ~ 1 'o r E5 been a ydar'before the licenseecand the vendor had-doneta 6 , full analysis, I think I^would have had a real problem with ~ 7 it.- 'Whati we found.was, they' discussed it'with the vendor ' 8 .immediately foll'owing the transient. 9 0 .In November of '7'7 or December of '77, since the incident occurred' November-29th? - [] I L i m 11 3,- Correct. - - -. /, 12 LG So some time in December of ',77 they' discuss,ed it' t.+ 3 y ~ h. 65.th -- there wasia discussion between B&W and Toledo Edisod? 13 ^ I: e I4 A. That'is correct. We could not be.supplicd any, +. e 15 paperwork that reflects direct conversations. We did= find _i s 9-16 memo which said', due to conversations.wi.th, and it stated) $ ; 17 shostly' af ter. the transienti ~and.speaksio' their.' corre$tive; rl b g., g-4 9. 3> 18 ac$ ions. It: i's on' e, of ~ the :,e'xhibits '.inEmy cinvptigati6n~heport. 3,. ~ ~ =: uam - s . 19 N, (Discussion off'the record.') Wl i r_ { 2, ~ ~ q 20 flR.21IEBDON: Okay. Back'on the record. . 21 J - -BY'MR. l!EBDON: ~ '22 @~" Let-m'eitry this.. You were-trying 'to make a; f, j ' Q(~,- s

u. ^ -

n." dere$mination,ofJ af timely' evalu.ation.: - 'Now,1you?were able,.to. 'a j 23 4

• .3 e

1 c24 determine to your'.satisfactio,,'that]B&W and Toled'o Edison L n o .(. l * >_ f... " ~

• i Am-Federal Reporters, Inc.

~. 4 : ic ;[ ' 25 had conversations /concerni~ng.this..transinnt reasonablyishortly' Wy. q . v.. t - 5 s_,. ,A.. . ~: ie t,sp nc s; - 7,. t 't q 3 s - ' i + ~ w. ...y 7 y_ ,-y.. l .y . rn - m ' E : llc

~

+ 9.,. .i}' ' h 0*, rfN ' ~ ~_ L ? y *.' $

• lh ~ :' t Y

g - n JW u. ~L.;.?M ';, y ]v ' m; .-n,,,'.. m + T? l Q: p w, : {s - [ * *: "l{ W . n ;) ' ;; .g

n m

,gsc .? 12 rum.e y:mr ::&, a. n w* . + -m.9 .,,1

mta 14-11 37 i after'the incident occurred. 2 A. That's correct. N. 3 G Now, did you have any reason to believe that the s. 1 a NRC, either I&E.or NRR, was included in any of those conversa-5 tions? 6 A No, I don't believe I had any reason to believe that, 7 Q So as far as we know, they had conversations, but 8 I&E and NRR weren't involved? 9 A. I would have to say that I am not knowledgeable 10 either way whether they were or were not involved. 11 G Okay. Now, that is an evaluation. was that 12 evaluation the basis for your determinati.on that a timely 7 ) 13 evaluation, as required by Part 21, was 'irl fact done? 14 A. . I am not sure, to begin with,. that a timely 15 evaluation is spoken to under Part 2 Thilt aside, my conclu - timely' evaluation of thb _transieriti at Davis-Besse 16 sion that a j7 .on November 29th.was based.on the memoranda,that I found, that m 18 showed that it had been discussed,between. Toledo. Edison, the 19 vendor, and additionally on the, discovery.that th'e phenomenon ~ 20 . f pressurizer level loss due to overcooling had been analyzed some time ago at the A&O plant. 21 22 I'm not sure I've.~ answered your question. 2 4 Yeah. I think I'm getting deeper into'this' hole. ~ ., 24 You said that the-timely. evaluation that you;were Ace-Federat Nportess,Inc. 25 trying to determine doesn't'come from Part-21,.or you'are'not 1 'A h ( y 711 I',-

• ,. ~
• ^'

38 mte 14-12 1 certain 'that that comes 'f rom Part 21. Regardless of that, 4 Where was this need to determine if 2 where did it come from? there was a. timely evaluation? Where did that come from? 3 ? 4 'A ~I believe you have there in h'and a December 19th i T 5 memo.from Mr.. Creswell which I provided you with, the 6 single-page copy. This is from.Mr. Creswell to Mr. Streeter. 7 0 he talks there about the adequacy of-8 A. Right.

Now, 9

technical evaluations concerning the facility. As I under-10 stood it, his concern was that there were occurrences at the f acility which were not being reviewed and analyzed.on a' 11 12 timely basis. In other words, if I can paraphrase what I .) 13 understood was his concern, he felt that there might be. /* 14 nomething, an occurrence at the. plant which would : indicate a l safety problem that was not being analyzed on a timely basis, 15 16 and therefore they would.not find a safety problem and they s. 17 would continue with some unsafe condition at the glant. ~ h ~, 18 Now, Part 21, to my understanding, speaks of. ~ J. 19 an evaluation. I don't believe there is any word?. timely" in' s - e-14 - 20 th e re'. I would have to review it. i 21 22 'ql> 23 . 24 - Ace-Federal Reporter $, Inc, . 25

. e W

.~- b S'

l 39 I CR 6507 1 G .So then, your investigation was to determine if the HEE mge 15-1 2 timely evaluation that Mr. Creswell felt should be done with-3 out citing any particular regulatory basis but just good ( _, 4 engineering practice I guess, whether' timely evaluations 5 were being done? 6 A. I would have to say that is correct. 7 G Is that a normal basis for an investiaation -- 8 an inspector's concern about what seems to be a rather vague ~ 9 requirement, since there is no regulatory requirement. cited?' have been with this office I gueds approximately 10 A. I 'll some four years. In the' time I've been here,--Ive handled 12 only one other concern from a member of thel. staff'. That had a >j 13 to do with a distinct hardware item for inter,nals for one of our 14 BNR plants. Here in Region III, we cet very. few comments from 15 the staff they consider worthy of investightion. Whin-we get' 16 them, we consider them important. I would haves.to.say other ,y 17 than these two, all.of my. work comes from outside~sou ces. People come to the Commission with. complain $s;ank allegations, 18 19 some specific and some not so specific ' So something not 20 being all that clear is not something that is unusual for me 21 .as an investigator. I handle everything from construction 22 inadequacies to radiation exposure, improper operations, t 23 unlicensed material. At some times-I..will perform an 24 investigation -- look for'information without being aware of. ~ ~ Ace-Feoeral Reporters. Inc. 25 what violations'of NRC requirements will be revealed during 4 s-r 4 hg l 'i , - 'N . : a

s 2 40 mgc 15-2 1 that investigation, simply because an allegation has been 2 made. My job is to go out and find information. 3 I did have a problem in talking with Mr. Creswell', and 1 4 I expressed it t'o him, understanding at the beginning what 5 .information I needed, what possible violations of NRC 6 regulations that there would be. I knew that within house 7 he had expressed a large number of concerns about the Davis-8 Besse plant. These were not the only concerns that he had. 9 I. believe there are other nonos expressing many other 10 problems or analyses that he requested, the majority 'of which 11 I believe were sent to NRR for resolution. 12 Ile considered these two worthy of an investigation.*One / ) 13 of them -- he w' anted them looked'into in more detail. Nithin W/ 14 the office,'I believe that they saw this as one more possible 15 indicaticri that the results of the investigation -- I have 16 trouble phrasing this -- give one more indication of the 17 licensee's performance ).ogarding 'this plant.. There were c 18 rela tively ' few items of non-compliance, reflecting Mr. Creswe'll 's 19 concerns, and I 'think that they wanted to have'some feeling 20 for whether al.1 of his concerns regarding the licensee'were' 21 vali d." ' 7 ~.3 22 Beyond'that, the-undervoltace relay' set; point,was a real ( ) 23 possibility for ali item of non-compliance, and I did not. -24 really knowfwhat the trip down to B&W would bring. Ace-Federal Reporte'rs. Inc. 25 4 . You' ment'ioned 'that the management wanted to' try 4 4 w&

r n, .x - 5:. ,~ .

• p > - ~ K,

^ - ~ ~ .i1. . i; x ca.

41. -

~ ~q 6 = % 4 -( o 4, y ,~ 4 .e as l _.mgc 15-3 1 - and ' document whether -or net. nome of 'Mr. Creswell's ' concerns 2' were v'alid. Did they give you any indication; prior ^to-your. 3 investigation whether their perception was that they were i q'%. g r. %)~ 4 valid or that'they were.not valid?. ~ ~a 5 A,

No.

I had very;little> discussion with management 6 ~ .one way or-:another, and that is not unusual.. ~ I perform 7 reasonably independently,tbasically, and am given a-charter 8 to(go-and do--- I try to keep people advised as to what I'm doinginthecourseofit,-buttheydidnotandgenerallyhill 9 10' not talk tc[ de before the' investigation is performed. I'm's p m, y 11 sure that in}th'ia paEticular case /I. would.have, to sneak from- ~ 12 personal opinion. ". The'y didn't want :to discuss this with me ~ 7 one way-or adot!h{ for fear of' affecting my objectivity. } 13 's.,. I. spoke.withf I Ehink,cMr. Streeter only once very-E 14 ~ ,l H 15 briefly before the investigation. I don't1believe I consulted-l + s a: r. 16 the Project InspectoE, Mr.'Tamling,1other'than7 to advise him ~ y (. - - c 'th.at-we'wouldlbe lo,cki,hg'to these things. ' i 17 r q,. ,.4 e -;

t.- e 18 0J.

Youtreguested sone..information from =B&W concerning 19 tother B&W.piasts. kWhat did youirequest?, " 3 .t 20 i1 May'I.have!a minute? i' c ? 21 70, certainly. Why don't we go off the. record?. p$ ~ ~22

( Discus s ion - o f' (n6 record.)

}l _ + . L,J J MR. '. HEBDO 's. ye, ' s1.'g o. b a c k -- o n ? h e' r e c o r d. Thei l+ . c y', W '23 t ~7 24 ' question-we were dicussingj was::the information you requested" ~- m' ' Ace. Federal Reporters, Inc_. ~ ~ * :i- < 25, ifrom'B&W concerning:o,ther B&W plants, and5I' bel ~ieve I asked '? .,5 's - j '.t. C* D,, , l} c _j-f n ^ j s '~ t.\\ I t j. yt 3 O 7 - '[ ^ -' Am _, Idd i'f?) M '. ' ~ J

• M ~"

-N O V M!iMM, w W Hil %,

h.- .a _.w +> .y .e ~ -e 42L - _v mgc.15-4 I you what it was you'had requested from them.

2,

-While you'are looking hor:that for purposes of?the' ~ 3 record,-Mr. Fos'ter has provided to me a copy of some notes O 4 that -he used 'in the course of ethe briefing that"he gave. ~ ,4 -5 following his investiaation' of Mr. Creswell's allegation. 6 BY MR. HEBCON: 7 0 Go ahead. .8 A 'I' will provide you.with a copy of this also; This 9 is a copy of' a letter which I sent to B&M following my A [; 10 telephone conversati^on with them, specifically outlining the '^ 11 information I requested. ^ i 12 I'will read it for the record if you like.- ' 3.^. g Q. - That is all right. If 'you could ~ just provi'def a r .lj 1" 13 =14 copy o f it to us, I think~that'would be sufficient. :Why_did -15 you request this information? "16 A Well, it appeared-to me to be germain to the issue s ,,j .( 117 , and Mr. Creswell felt that it was cenifral i-a his concern. 1 (( .18 I would have.to say that.at the'. time I reauested it, I did'not ~.. ~ - rQ _ know exactly';where the' information would lead me. AsTit. (19 x turned out,]Mr. Creswell'was;ouite. accurate. ;If.I.had not.' 20 7: _ 2F asked theniaboutroccurrences at other plants, I.probably' . would not have : become-aware of th...e transi,ent and'the analysis:- .p 22 for the.; Arkansas" nuclear;l plant.. I would have-fto a'dmit,that I 73 e when I_ initially asked for thelinformation,-I]did not really 24 Ac..reder : neporters, inc. ? _. g^- ~ ' know-where it;would lead'.me. <.m~ ^. I 25 3 f N s ? w 't J 5 ,y ,s t_, # :. =

• 'd. 4 '. '

4(*84

• Tl L.-

,CM

• ?

.?- Lc . i.1--, t - a t *' a A Jc.b ca "tN r ' 6

9 f43 mgc 15 1 0 Well, it sounds like Mr Creswell'.was the one who P "Tf; '2-ghad. asked'that you reiuests such' informati on. But the-l ^' - 3 inIsression I get is.that he ' felt that you would reach a-A- J 4 f dif ferent conclusion orice Lyou' got thatiinfomation,.since 5 that information seems-to have'contributedsto your[ decision- ~ ~ 6 that his concerns-were;not entirely valid; q ~ I would have to say that is; accurate. + 7 8 0 What do you think he felt you would find by asking ,9 'for such information? ~ ,L ^ v .10 - A. Again,.I.'m going,to have;to go on-pure ' peculation .~ s c. ..J. ' . -11 here. s 1 12 ,.(h .That's understood. ~

• [A I don't believe I have. ever had that question _. asked 13

.v x ~ ,14 o f m'e be fo re. I would have~to' speculate that Mr. Cresw' ell'_ ~ -4 '.15 ffdlt'~that there had been other-occurrences at B&W plants and g s-i- ..jj, pthat(perhaps, ~ there had.been no analysis performed 'of-it. s 3 ...y 4 j7 rIfdon't know.how else-to. respond ~. G Alliright. What did'you;flnallyIdo'with the. J.1.8 ' -,gs,- g information.once~you~got it?. 4 1'9i ~ m._ 1 20 It;is docuriented in' our~ investigation reports.' A. ~ .~ . ;,So'._then-you used it as part.of5the' basis:of.the . 21 y ~3-y. conclusions'of;your invbstigatio_n report? " ; 3-y -4 7-22 (3 g f, ,y A. That is correct. . 4.

• L'7.

'A ..V ' t, , ~,7 .g ~ 24 . A ow.you mentionedr h ..t at;you ha~d la'. meeting 'at B&W [ t' A'c -Federe'l R'eporte5 c. E ~ ,. - N3 25 in Lynchbuig1 to : discuss the investigations. Do youthave anyc ~ ,l w ".. c 2 .s'.- ,.z. ;. '. $m. ,h .,l +3 3.., y s + 1 q

--)__

pf~ s ~* j 4i %" {. F 1;.. nv w" ' A ,q pg.. ( J 4 i w;. 3. p:. _ .s - - : 2' i~ - - ~~ +~' g. .,,n .- ~~w J ~e 'q w.w: n

y n. ~ '~ +' y.s x ^ ' ^^ 44 o ,2] ~ I ~ mgc.15-6 ' idea" what caus'ed lthe: confusion about1 the purpose of the 1 2 -t neeting? b. 3

A.

-I o t sure:I understand the, question. j d* G -4 0 It's my.understandinghthat B&W se'emedo$be rather t I 5 confused by the factthat this was.an investication-of"an 6 allegation of a possible. viola. tion o Part 21,:and'I.was-7 wonderina if you had any' idea what' caused that confusion?, 8 ?You rientioned earlier that you were rather surprised Lthat-9 there were representatives of.the.utilitic's there. So there !! n. 10 seems to have I een 's.o_nle.~ misunderstanding 'of: what it was ; all' b m.. 11 2 ' bout. ~' a 12 A. 'I'would have' to say(that you;are right'. I' cc.n ' t (m.f 13 explain in my discussion with them. .I' simply advised'them':I-jj _,,? ~ -14 was doing hn' investinationLof an inspector's concerns regarding ' ^ y u.. ,s 15 'the(pressurizerilevel indic'dti~on loss. I don't.believe that fs. -s 10 I even mentioned, Pare"211 to then.1 :It1was, I'thinkF in the w,, . 4i - . g;

• i

,y. 17 time' frame tha~t the Part 21.'was;rather;new>at.that-time, and W.; e.. v ~ 7 18 lI tbink -it might have~ been on' a lct' of. W[ndor 's mind's'. lit ? r e N s '19 is.possible that they misunderstood ne.. '. c_ 20 , O. ~Did a Mr'. Anderson'from'I&E,;RegionLIV, attend the 7 v -21. meeting? s y_ a ,G 22 ' A. I don't believe Mr. Anderson wasspresenE forfthe l V:- . I believe" he was-r. F 23 ' morning'part of the discussionTat'B&W. ~ + e = 24"* present.for our. sum. mary'and conclusi'on.,'We had.J.unch with - Ace Federal Reporters. Inc. 4 1 ~ [ ' [I ~.25 [him, and we ' stopped by hisiof fice for;a brief, discus'si.on. - [ I s ' 5 : .t 7 ~ m X ,,:"* ~

• 3

+-. y a ,%3 ~. 3 . g. g,, ,s .h I 1 pm t i . t

~:.. m

n. -

z 45--

i + 4. mgc 15-7 E 1 0.. .Why wasihi there? .y-c<. 4 ~ V 2 A. ' ' He.was there -- ny understanding was hd.was there ~ z durina a' routine inspection.- He wa~s not specifically ther'c R _ 3 c y ~ 4 for our neeting. '-5 O. You d'id not~-contact'him prior rto ' going to ~ -6 Lynchburg for'that meeting? ~ s 7 A.- ' ; We - touched base with. Region IV to! t ell them Lwhat ~ ~ 8 we were doing. I, myself, did not contac't him. As a' matter 9 -of fact, I did not know the nan before meeting him down there. 10 p.' Did he give you any indication of theifact that_ 11 he was.there because you were there? orwasitiust. purely 12 coincidental that he - hapnened to be there atl the^same tim'eb.that. m ~. s. 13 you were there?

.o c..

!Q^ +A"' 3 s._ .l, 'J e 4_ r 14 I A.- My belief 'is ' that he was"there totally, unrefa'tedI 15 ~ .to -- my impression was that it was a coin ~cidenc',eithA6 heUias s 16 there. He may have timed his visit o'n!the-knowlh'dge tilat Ne [ a., .f 3 * ~ 17 would be there. J, s

p ?;-U r w

18 ~ 0. ' .I think you've fairemt. Nscribed Lin som bdetai3 Ehe f 4 ..+, _ i. S /19 contentkof'jthe ' mdeting;that you h~ eld. AsjI undersitand.. it, the morning. meeting was'afdiscussion with thelutilitk representatifes 20 v ~ 121 and in :the af te'rnoon' you reviewed some ;documenta' tion tha t wasi 22 availabl'c'there. '[ f ~ yh y Q, A- ~. 23 ' A. .That's rihht. ~ /_. ,.c 9, . I. g r A 24 - G Ace Federal Reporters Inc. y ,Didyouconclude'a[the-endiof{thenorningfmet'ing r y: 'f ; _. s,. a 3 25, that the issue thatihad. been raised shouldjbe1c,losed.~,i orJ tihatJ s y.-' z. t = x t a < g s m s -rT ~,, '. g. ,g g Y f r.. ;;, ' uli r.- n (M [ * *' k? N;Y A,l, b 'd ~ - -'* @, i J-- ' *v ~ ~ g ++ +q - l, '( )\\If s J h $ ?'Y' ^

7,

y

,3 y. . ITR 1 , ;.g r~ ~ ~ g ~ s v ~. + y 4 46 .il [L ~ 7 mqc 15-8 1 ~ -youlfelt that-the issue was. resolved?- .s 7 ~.

2

-; A.'- W I would ha' e to say that r felt I had nathered v f -s-3- the information' that I came to get. In my closeout, I -( %. z, 'V 4 played back toEthe variousilicensees~at B& W what I'di oundl f .5 T,did not' say that I think the issue should be closed or ~

_ ~

6 any statements-along that line,-because it would be: totally; '7 out.of line for me in my capacity to.do nthat. 5 e 8 MR. HEBDON: Let's go off the record for a'second. 9 (Discussion off : the record.) ., ~., ' r 10, - MR. HEBDON: L5t's golback'.on'the record. .; e. ~ g e II ' BY 'MR. HEBDON: ^ (. ! t 12 O. ' The. document?that I'm abodt to. refer to is a mebo a. t i. 13 from aLMr. Willse-~of B&W.to a rather extensive' distribution-v The d' ate o'f'the document-is March 9, 19 79,. ar.d the 14 list. L 15 document. concerns the i'tecting ; that' Mr. Foster ~and -K.ohler and 16 - Anderson had v.it?..th various, utility, representa'tives and - ' ~ ^ g 17 with the people'from:B&W. J. ~ ,.. ~ ~~~ The. 51osing paragraph of.tre second page'>h' ssaistatementi, 18 -E - a 'E < i y :, .t e ~19 <l ' ' S.j y \\. ?'i i, N . -.tc'.theJeffect that::Mr.VFoster> closed >the,' morning meeting N He:- ^" y .f r _ - n. . g.:.. v g ~u w, -- m r stated - Utsi. as-far.,as ~ he wasf concernediloss of; pressurizer c 20 s; ~ level'in~dication was merely an~operationa.'.Dindonven,ience andi

21 a

1,1. 'o th'at : theIlossio~f pressurizer level' was! n5t-e safety ' conc'ern.

A 22

.L) }[ ~ s. 4.' IIe wa's recommendinF thatit.his'.i.'ssue be closed. ' 0 23 9 vou agree

24 that. you made ?thatlista.teme,nt.?

Ace-Federal Reporters. Inc. 6-* ' -. ~ ~ 4- ~* ~ 'i -25 ' TA.Y That is; inaccurat e.- My notes','.fiEst ;of ail [ indp'cate ~ 0 f.s 7 / p r,y 7' s. _j y x [ ^ ~'.a. ~ >[. [.', y/b . QI; ,g 2% h!Jg, - o f s .g c s .6 A .1 L y .~ph,,'M = 9 .-y'pj g Yky d : -g k. g, M a F '.~L.'t'y 3_J $ g ' :f{, ,gJ e ~ .,<f +. L $ssN ?k

• Q ', U.l ',-{.. ; ',..W --'[^ %R, -.:

)

^ s n

A ji L*,g Sp. ' }i e :. E, - ^ - ' 'I ' ' t '* 5 ' ~ ~ ~ ~ '

JW e. ~ 47 mgc 15 9 I that Joel Kohler handled a good part of the summary, but I 2 uouldihave to. say. both on my behalf and his behalf that we 3 O madE no statement that we think this should be closed.out. ~ I 4 have never 'in.my stay with the : Commission made any sort of. 5 ' 'statenent:. to~ eny licensee af ter an investigation that that 6 was ny feeling. I would, in some cases, tell them that I did-7 not feel that an allegation had been substantiated. I often 8 ~ will play back the. information that I've gained to them,- but' 9 I' don't believe I've ever told anyone that an~ issue should bc 10 closed out, and I believe that that characterization in'that' AlI

memo is inaccurate.

? < 12 0 Okay. On the third page of.the memo, there is a O i3 eeetement thet Mr. roseer summerized the der's meetina by _14 stating that he believe that BW had been exonerated of~'the. 15 charge that.they'had not ' responded in'a timely manner. 'Did 16 .you make that statement? 17 m._ 'A. I would. Eave ' to say that I believe that is' 18 inaccurate,also. I' don',.t think'that wasla? charge,..in any

19 case -- maybe that Mr. Wil.lse misunderstood something.

r x 20 4-How diki ?ou view';the-albilities and cc.npetence and at.titude of Mr. Creswell?f 21 ~ 22 A. .I'can't'say.that I really had much of a decision'. 23 one way or the other. - My~only; contact with Mr.;Creswell before this'was when;ITran into him -- I.believe he was,on an 24 Ace Fedwal Reporters, Inc. inspection at' the Uni /crsity of Missouri - 25 - - and in my caoacity( i s y 1 + sa J\\ ' '4 ""35 l ~. zc <Q _ . n ,4[ ,p 4 } t% t ,i j * ~ +

• ^ -<

DL

E~ t 48 mgc-15-10 1 as an investigator, 'I had not run-into the. man before. At the 2 ' time of Ehe investigation, I ' bad made no conclusions as to 3 his abilities. ~ ' ' 4 BY MR. FOLSOM: 5 (1 .How-long had you know him? 6 A. I would say that I. knew his name for about two 7 years. You see, I am separate from the various branches ~ 8 reporting'to the Assistant to the Director. I have been, I 9 ' guess, for the.first two, years assigned .o the Safeguards 10 Section. Primarily, I have done work in safeguards-and 11

security, the materials procram -- especially regarding 12 radiation expcsures, and for the last couple of years ' I've x

/ I 13 been pretty heavy into the construction department. 14 Allegrtious concerning the Operations Section appear to 15 be much more infreque t than from the o'ther branches. I have 16 no idea why, but-.I had'not-had the occasion to work with Jin 17 Creswell in'anh fbnction. I think there are a' couple of 18 people up there.yet that I'know of Ehem vaguely,'but I have 19 no idea about tEeir qualificatidris~ or functions. ~ 20 BY MR. HPBDON: 1 21 0 You mentioned earlier that you and Mr. Kohler and Mr. 22' Anderson had lunch together while' you wore. at B&N. Did Mr. ^ ) L - 23 Kohler discuss the purpose of the meeting with Mr.; Anderson? 24 A.' Yes. 'I'n certain"he'did.' ' Ace-Federal fieporters, Inc. 25 O. Do you recall what he said? ~ x s .O g e ^ * ^ ' f e t Aln if i . l t 4,,, s w m....

-~ ~ , ~. .+. [ 3, 49 7 f sE mgc.15 -11J1 A.i

Let;meJo'into the talk'with' Anderson. - Mr'? Anderson

? n .m 2 '~was.very unhappy'at ourEpresence2at the.B5W facility in. _S.- t + 3 ~ Lynchburg. I remember' apologizing to him at least three or '(f ~I. don't mind apologizing. 4 four times;... i. ~ 5 He was unhappy'that someone wlic was not in the vendor 6 program wasithere. He was unhappy that'1someon'e was dealing 7 . ith.what he apparently saw as his veridor. He appeared some-w 4 8 what defensive. He : wanted to knoti if this was going to-be a' '9 routine method of business, and I would,have' to say ' that this 10 discussion went around.and around three orifour times? ?He v. $ sc Il ' talked with'Joel about th$ reason roi c.ur-meeting (down there, 12 why we were conducting:busiriess this way., Joel; being a. A a () 13 pretty down to earth guy, I.'m sure told him wh, wer~e'*down there looking' at the concerns of: Mr. Crebwe'll. 1 14 , a 15 I will say, right up-front that -I have heard, and ;I.we -16 of course questioned by the. President's Cormissib on:Mr. im- ^ i r ~ 1

x..

- 17 Anderson's statement that Joel Kohl'e' (h'ad" told' h'im 'that web r q -; 3 s .18 were.there ta shut Mr. CreswellJun. 4 + IJwi'11 st' ate-forsthe' s / + qa ~. ;, ~ 19 record tha It'do.not.recalle. anyJsuch statement beinct made.. U N G.e - + ~ s 4 2- ~ 20 It'is.possible,thatfsuch a statement,could have.been made7.ing' ..,, p. ~ ~ 21 the context that Joel" and.I:were aware.that Mr., Creswell had- .v (OT~ 22 a number,of" concerns aboutithe Davis-B5sse prcject. Tie, as - + 33' Jan off5 c'e,.had-heard them a : number of t'ines. Iltie hopes that 7 he wcjuld bh sa.tisfiedlwith-the, deptih,. the : scope,3the~infor-; 24 ~ Ace-Fderal Reporters, Inc. y s 125 mation that we $rought:back from"ths investigatio'n --'that.we- ~ x.- Qb, c 4 ,.Y ,q= 9 t v ,,.y. e.. ; .... m ~,. a- ,.H

c. i u a-UI

,p. c l lA .y . 5 ?. I yt s_ 3 p,,, .xc s.. yp ,.g., g; _ j,. ;.. .g, 3 s x.c.,, f

c - - - f r q .g o ,r' ,*<*'u& q a s . = v y~ ' - j.. r .( y. e,. 50 =' o f. t y' I would either find! no.n-coinpliance.there or we would put:f hisi I ~ ,mge.15--12 o L.p ,2 '. concern to iresti, andithat,would not come up again', ' l g,, ~ y. 3 'If it has'been characterized'.that this' investigation a L 4 wasacoverup. fin [anyway, shape,orform,IIfirmly' deny'that. ~ 5 (t I.believe that the statement that is' attributed to-6 Mr. Kohler.was something to the effect that Mr. Creswell was-~ s 7 ~ ~ j a, troublemaker and,you weretthere to shut him up. Did :you ,e s 8 .have-any' reason to:believe that'Mr. Creswell.was,.in; fact,.a 9 troublenaker? . n. No, I did-not. 'As I mentioned I did have somo-,...n. v 11 problem in discussing with'him what would be the objective, ~

12 tihe information to be gathered.

There was a suogestion at' 13 ~ the time -- I think it was from my supbrv isor ,- that we qet ~ ~ 14 ~ from Iir. Creswell a written statement of.what he~wan't,ed to. 15 be the gbiective. of;.the investigation. I-didEnot do that. In retrospect,.I see that.I committed an error. I should 16 ( 17 'have doneithat.' I sh'oul'd have?followed that ouidance'. 'It has ,zo; x. . <I3 . not been' typical for me tio do thist.Often',:evenswith' people) $titside $he'igencyj,fwitom I doJnot expect. to. communicate with I9 i . s.- g me very distinccly' at times.'-- wil.hib. t$m 'of f. ice,.within tld - 20 ~ a. m J

other; linvestii[ati ans? Ilhavec participatediin, :I ~ intierf aced;with

? 21 t i t ~ . ~A 22 the inspector. Hejtold me his conchriis ; we sent an'd.did.~ the V e-1 < r +- ~. 23 investigation;/ !and Swe did -not have t'o _reauc'st any sort of ^1 ~ ~,, ~ r 1 ,.24

memo:or document from.himk il_assumedhthat within the office:

~ l Ace-F?deral Reporters, Inc. ~ ~ .' 25 .that someone,: with firl. Cres'well7s l creden'tials as an ' inspector, 5 y ? 'l.. e, ,s 4 e' -e Mr l i e _{ ~ ~' a l f 4 ,.,y t'* g d,ffm., " f i c .,.[ n c -w.

N Nh h 9 J.lk,'

t. [ ' ' w. '[ . y' - Gu be, s a a ht u e < 'x. .u.- x ,m Lax M rqL v. c _=

1 i n,_ 4-:

^'S'.

1 l ,; u~ m _1 y~' ~. a -r ~ ,[ ,<, = ; 4.~ q r ~ ~ 2 s ) y ~ - ' 51 - f', J mg'c.15H13 kl would,be ~able 'to coinmunicate with me effective]y And in,- \\, 2 c enoughfdetail' that.. I could understand what he wanted-'and'I 3 ?could go andj do-my b'usiness;without asking him somewhat 4 7. O= eV 4 ~ 7 de~ minimus ' help,; and'I did not,do -that. + a 5 O,' After you'hhd completed yo' [ investigation, what u 6 .was your' opinion concerning the sig'ni ficanceiof the issues 7 that-had been raised by Mr. Creswell? U 8 A. l 'I did:not view the issues as significantifollowing, 9 the. investigation. n,. L,11 10 p. - ~ In? hindsight, for the benefit"of:the le'seons.that: 5 II we've learned as a result of,th'e accident at TMI, what..... ~ ~' l 12 significance would you attribute to thej concerns raised)by: n.,_ 1 ,,() _ -c 13 Mr. Creswell? .a. , l 14,.

• s

.A s A. That is very difficult. It would-have to'be a total' -~ l,3 15 personal op' inion on my part. Since you'vejrequested it, I-16 will try to,d.o - the, best I 'can., 3.. O'_ 17 Follo ng'the accident,'I think both Jcel Kohler'and I- + ~ + C' 'i uestioned - whother - weihad idisregarded 'somebody who.ha,d really - _18. l 4 .6..g c, u - '19 significant-infomation ---- that.'somehow'we misie'd.thi boat, s _ y -s L20 oven within the lihited' scope ofi.he. inv'estigation whici we.. < b-s. . ^21 s.a.wiloo. king at t,he ti6e limits of th..e eva. l, uat. ion, cand I have: ' .~ m j x , e' 7-m. g.. _. g s. c.olloddd the. techhical analysis.of the TMIlin. vesti.ga. tion,. anc5 ' $f '.. h, ' 22 w -. =... ~ .#.. ;. e ?rc e. 3 $23 [I believe Joel' has also.1. I h' ave (follo' ed'some);of.2 the ~ w s y ~ D .24 Jreports31ooNing-atithe significance of the"pressu.izer'levely r a +.. ' Aco-Federal Reporters. Inc. 'and Y would'havelto say at this point tha't'my. understanding',:. '25 -e- . a 1. 'e.[ ! i '- ~ 2,m g . v Q ; Q g 3 % ; j.,r y & ;; p . j. ~ [ v.y,_, _ k. __ s

k u

[ I. j Jg%!$ 11.9f f( [} Q,M M;.M%

.y

$ 6b f $ $ M M N YE W M d h. d i

n :- . a. y.- ,c_ - ag. -eq ~- c 2 s, _m m g" o

• g.-

.p. . gy. f ~, 4 1 ~ ~ .' C ,.5 2 s 4 4 I:: 'of Mr. Cresuells. co'ncernsi--- especially' as. they. related.only ;

mg c j 15--141

+ ..to.Ethe November.29t.h. e tran.sient,-- areinct.di'r.ectly) relatedI 5 2 4 2 .2. 'j.-g ,3-to. the TMI accident --< tha't'. if; he.had 'r'equested us to look at n 3 s the. earlier incidenf~p., dan,'d weahad-come:to:the srme(conclusion, ~k .. \\._j U{4 L a' f ~^' " [5 I= would hhobably' be 'kicNing, myself right-now for havingt rai sse'd ,g 6 -somethinctJvery significant. ~~ 7 ns I." find:it difficult to see how one gets'from.an . ~ 8 . overcooling transitent' to the -TFI acciden5. 'It.may be that this 9 'was part of-the communication problem thatiat41 east'Joel and - c.vP3 ~ + s 10 I experiertced with Jim Cr.eswell." -I f 'his Sntire concern was

v II with the' perf6Fmande of the system overall~, we did not- -

~ , 7. 12 understand' tha'tTatrthe time. + m .~r. r, ,n V( ~13 0 Y,oE m^entfoned that if you ad -beef 'aslied' tc; p, 1 v -14 assess the>in'cident on September 24thl, yo'u!would.now be? + z kicking.[yournel.f. Why? -What do you-th'inklyou would have i[ 15

• t

- ~ 16 . uncovered ds, a result of.your investigation of that incideni

y

,. ~. y ~, .J ~ 17-that mictht have *had?any bearina on. the accident at TMI? ' 7 ~ +.. r- .g a,y 9 ' W ~ p.n. 1 -r - > ;, ?. 18 s. .., - -. g ^. a e m j.9 - fr I'*-I .,,,f 19 -M A c, ~ + ,j e v. Jt: 20 s 3 / 21' a' C~ ~ 2, s ~ ~

p. '

e 22 s N . k,.,, . y 'l .q, t ) 23 7 '~ ~ L 4 y ' k ' y-g 24 4 .i 's Ace-FedNel Rep'orters, Inc. ~, ' [ 1 Id + ^U 9 -25 7.t 7 :. 3.y -s ,e .a n, } r.

l

~ s > e 7 2 J- ~

{

'AI ,N k}k ' ':h &.. l u._ u4s in; t. i' .\\ ,r 6 ,.,f % ^ ys ~.: ' ; s - %3;',; [.' m L p - ~ ,y '.4 7 ., f ' i. j.

o_

'jj .g ; _ p, q y ' s.:. .j s

=. Lj ' = t y . ~ ~ e n .c ,s

s. ~

..w J-f L6507 'y 53 b Lt-16 l - mte116-i~

Let me see if J

l 'Now-there'is.a, difficult, question. - ' A. u 4 ., 2 - I can. reply to that. 'iff you;will. ~ ive me. a? moment. A g 3~ .SJ SUre. ~ n Q .4 c + A.' / I would hav.i;to.,say('that'iflI had-found it.directly'. .[5 linvolved, evenjinalimitedexhent, looking at the sequenc'e/ ~ i i that' led directly'to TMI, even-with the same* sort of limited 6 7 scope as we hadefor Davis-Besse, lo.oking at ihe,t'ime'luaits ~ 8 'for the evaluation a51d considering.my ' technical' background, 9' which 1s not as'an engineer, and I had not.found a problem, ~ ~ %a '10 my conscience'would bother ~me. n What pr'oblem.[do you-dink.was there'to;be found?I ~ II G -? 12 A. The response.of the system and questions regarding ,f - arii aware that NRR :has the' lead theresponseofthesystem..[, -- q(,,- 13 14 responsibility for review'ing these things, for. reviewing the 15 transients, -and for coi16iudin@ wh' ether there is an unresolved w u,- 16 safety issue. 'And my understanding is that they reviewed. .pa ,,+. p-- .17 both'of:the transients /,expec.ially the~ earlier one. I'm n f.,. ;.- s ,s q

e can't speakito that,because'.I!was'not' involved.- '

18 . afraid <It ~c '19 ,y,, g 4 But, myyinvestihation, reportlaccurately reflects: the g 20 .information that I'. gathered. .I*have. absolutely:no. pro'blem ,] -y 21 withLit, even in~ light of TMI.'.T.hcre-is what we went-to look J there.is.what1we found.,, Myfconscience do.e's not bother 22.

at,

.p^ y L, d 23 -me on thatsscore. .c o'

n y

.24

0. :

Were'y,ou aware.that'Mr.(Creswell discussed'his. A' ~ 7 7 Ace. Federal Reporters, Inc. + 25 coScerns;withxCommissioners Bradford-and:Ahearne'and4theirl p Y

• • a y a

~

• '{

s % :. t it'. w e m __ -,i ;V, L.N ,D y'{*$ M, win ' (-A "r, WMU$

7.,g

.W u, .3 c 9, N.'.., ' ',c n+ Jt

Nl-u ~ Ao

= x.c e n w, w ~~ n

c -,0 n -

w.. > 1 a

-] ~ '< c _,- ~ ~;. + >3 ,,o, , - O :1. ~--< e,+ r .,,.0 e t s y - - <- mte 16 ' ~ 54' w 1

sc

. ~ 1 staffs? C l ~ ~2 A. I came to know that, yes. ~ = M 3 ^0' flow did you come to know that' and when? - .O '~O ~ ,e 4 FA. The exact date -I cari'.t tell you, but'it would not- - n.- _~5 ~be difficult to-find. .Mr. Kohle'r attended a'meetingEin ~ Washington of.thefresiderit inspectors.s At the time he did 6 7- 'the investigation he was'between jobs as.an operations 4 8 inspector, basically looking at integrated leak testing, and-7 1 {9 becoming the Zion resident inspector. ~ lie attended this '10 mee. ting. ..On his flight',iactually when helgot down to'the-p f h v-r:. ' b'oarding' gate, heEdiscovered Mr. Creswell.was-there and he was- 'll .c going {to Washin'gton~, and.he~would not tell Mr. Kohler why. v 12 ~ 13 - -^ Very shortly'aftercthat;Twe_cjot the' concerns 'fbom. 14' Commissioner Ahearne and they read exacitily -like the ithings 15',Mr.;Creswell had been asking~around the' office. 16 1 G When did you get the concerns from Commissioner e_-~ ~ 17 lAhearne? - 7 a M p. A.' rI'm afraid:I,-don'.t:have the chronology.of that. 1,8, ,G ' 'Do you. have a copy of L the.' con lcerns as they were Y 19' 1 20 -forwardhd to you? - ' t 4 No,_I_ don't, t A. .21 + .= ^ + 3.. g. e A 22 10 -Do you.,knowJif they_are available? U 4 Iydidinot ' participate 'in: q, 23 A.- '.'I 'm sure' they/are'. -a reviewingithem or~ answering 'them. .24 ~ .j-Ace-Federal Reporte.r{ inc. s n.'. '25

G, So then,3it]is just 'becatiseJof the fact 'that you 3.' [p.,

e 't + .' g.h, k s* , j' ~ e t', 1 + d , g h,' i' *; h y r; 4 --v ^ O v c, [ 4 IQ'4f 8" ,. ' g ;__ 6 .r '*5 /, e ' # h;l; 5. 'ke \\ '[ y"- 4 38 -~ n . e 4 .r,. L 1. ?. e.

• .;6 e

,-m.. r. _ ': o ^ ~ ~., _;~, _,.=

.y ~, mta 16-3 55-4 s 1 recognized the-c'oncerns.as they were then relayed-along by 2 Commissioner Ahearne that you realized'that that must have 3 been the purpose of Mr. Creswell's'try 'to Washlngton? i 4 'A, That is correct. I would have to say that 'recently 5 there areJ.iranscripts of Mr. Creswell's briefing of,the ~ 6 Commission ~in which. Commissioner.Ahearne indicat'es'that he had 7 approached himself, Commissioner-Ahearne, and Commissioner ~ 8 Bradford, which would. confirm :that suspicion. 9 G bhat is;your general.~ perception of the relationship 10 between I&E headquarters and the I&E regions? 11 A I don't know that.I can answer that question. 12 G Do you have that much-dealing with I&E headquarters? (~s, h (,/ 13 A. Very little at my level, no. 14 G IIave you ever been discouraged from using strongly. l 15 worded statements or inflammatory. statements to describe. 16 deficiencies that you.have found in the, course.of your inves-17 tigations? u 18 A. Can you tell me what.an inflammatory question is? 19 What is an inflammatory 1st'atement?4 +a 20 BY:MR. FOLSOM:, p 21 G Let's suppose you were reporting on some event and 22 you felt that the, quote,'"the licensee was'de'eeptive and 23-crooked in his. statements'," close quote. Now, those would be 24 two inflammatory-words. Ac.FWmI Reponm. tnc, ~ 7 25 A I don' t 'know.that I would$ use "dec'eptive" or., ~ O a I '~ w :: ~ .n n,- T_ - 1 e

e, v ,; #g' 3 ~; 't ,. Z ', 1. ,,..' s e,, - ~j\\': 1 c ~ ^1,mtU16-4 y .U* C ~ _.n~- S-s c_ .t 0; g'~ -:} /.

1. 'f f

I believe<I.have used the.wordstsomewh'at?along u 1 " crooked". 3 ~ - .y '2 tlie line:'in'different c'aseh'.that they were1not sufficiently-J 3 a y W3 .op'en with - us,, or..whatever. 4 p ;. ' J( ,.4 s + { If. I can, reply toyyour question, I' have.never <h'ad' ' 4 s ~ T ', ?- 5 any problem in the' function.of my job'with my supervisor or ~ i .other people ~ in this of fice/L either restraining' me in tihe 6 s ~L7 ' course of my investigations, nor hase I hadLa problem with i r 8 ' any' editorial comments or'Tchanges.they've'made in my reportsi' 9 There'are occasions when we have disagreed on the wording, but ? s '10 7 that -has' been a typical sort of worker-supervisor; type 'ofi ~ y . 3 .+ 11' . thing. ' J ('l,;JL, y y 7. s BY MR.,HEBDON: 4 . J 12 N e '] j } h r.k '*'*) ' t.g 13 d 'But you have never had a draf t report returned to (, ts- ,i 14 you with a comment. to : the ef fect o'f, that.although you could : a -r, a 15 go ahead and' raise this concern,1why' don't uefuse some No~rding j + 4_. m -w s 16 that might Tnot be quite.,so inflanmatory.or juite 'so fo,rceful.? ~ f ~ y .., 3, ~- 7, 17 A.. I don't believe'so, no. a p,'+ g ~.) m. g. G. . I would; assume ' that.there, ar6~ investigators fini.the-- V18 j s 'R f N ^ 119 other. regions which'~are similar.ito yours ;/ i~s that iight? M E c w. ~ c o u..

• r

- p v cg 3 Q.v~, J, " ' -. ^,, 'r Tha t. is c'orr.ect;.' ' '- ~ x, 5 20 A' .V' V.. <d l ~ 21 G[ [Do you4have an informalEmethod for eccha..ngingc e m; a, u .~ [ O, - 7 22 <informat' ion.withLthose? nvestigators?. y i r..,.7 "* ~ m M ~, '. 23 A. No.1 };

c N,;4 l L.

?, 'y1 _4 ~ + ~.~ <a .j', j Do you'hav'.e anyJinformal: method?k,'., L24 l

=.,,,

'9 a_.n ,q. w i ? Ace-Federal Reporters;inc.

• A'-

J. s : : G. ~~ v-4 J? i. a>. 25 /A. N. - Yes..'I'c'a.ll*them up..E e 4 i s' i. '4 l E.. ,t - w;, , ),, 7 f #~

• e

7 y J

Q' - 'a . '.** ".g 'n<- m., g Kys .? 3, s/*i.' , "N. i j d' '- Q.W p,,.j y w r,- '_ w t .~?.;i 4, >. :qq,3. 3, :Q.'f; y Q r

• R- -

~, x :. - ,p w ::a : l . '.h'

f, n ll 4Y v'

_&: fi ] Q Q *$ 6 ;

• 2 y

f., .c _wy , g,.g p y,.. y, ,.y

• r ? * + - '. D $ _.- Af'._'_f n, ',i' *

~k i :. M +' IMI3 N PE__1,. X {yL_, +,.u l ud_1 H 'd'" '~ ' . ?s ? T

~ ~ ~- cg w. / e. w .jp f u ( 7 ^ mte-l'6-51 ^~ , (.- 57 j._ s.. jl~ 0.'i, Do yo6'callithem up;periodicallyLjust.to chat about 4 - c i c .~ 2 concerns or?do=you call <them up when,you'ha~ve a specific- ~. cV 4 ,p .3 problem? n .w-_ s s .g 4 m A. n.,b ~Only, specific. problems'.. - The :only way that I am .c 5 directly informe'd!about-an investigation: performed ^at other' ~

v.

'~ regions is'either by. word of mouth or by reading the daily a. ~ 7 ' report,lwhich I often will, which will indicate that they have 8 either. allegations or an investigation is in progress. 9 G But you don't receive summaries of any of those investigations o'r copies of. tile:. investigation reports? 10 g.- .11 A.. 'Not unless I request.it, noi Some time in the past, f 12 in Safeguards,- theredas a routine exc'lia'nge~ of. reports.

But,

,n e g' , tj 13 that stopped long ago. , 3 14

0. ~

Do you/know why..itUstopped?J,'; p t.' 15 A. No, I don't. I th~ihkat~thktimethatwaswhen I r;; q,7 .a 1 16 all Safeguards reports',. Inostly security,' were being exchanged. .. g

4..

17 At'that time'the majority of the~ investigators fell-in.the

i q-.

18 . Safeguards. Branch. ua ~ 19 lG Is thereianyone in i&E headkuarters that reviews' ~ t. 20 all of these investigation.reporitsi to look for anymcommonality? 4 w i 21 'A . I -believeL tliere 7istnow;i l-don't believe'th.at there .y, ^ S t c' ;e V y 221 'was<1n the...past. 4 1.w 3 1 w,

23 O

The pastJbeing~ prior 1to".TMI~2?.E, 1 %. 1-m t y..g 24-es., JI,would-hate $to make asfirm stiatement'. This'- . a A. ..s z c. w, ! Am-Federal Reporters, Inc. You"6av'e to Neali'ze.,;-I.'m a Oery. Y,,cb ~ ~25

is onlylmy; impression;

~ g . h! V l ( ' '. f'_ ,g y.s r. ..e w +.. t ~,.' i). 'm +* m-m e, ..m.. ~ u m m mg-w

{ .7 7.i;r, y.,.. ..y. =w - =- p, -.,: ; y -q a. w.: w. .p.-- +

3 -

my n v r .,7 mte.16 6f, .58 x , c.., m, m y ,h - 1 regional-type guyi 4 _.This is :the -onl"y place I've. worked in -inn,7 { I y o-o. 2 .NRC. Do you 'know;of' any ' ther. precursor events that are 3' 'G.K o m, -r } .r

• ., Y:

J 3., . a ,+ Wr~ 4 > relevant'to theJaccident.at-TMI? J. s 5 A .-If I lia've ' to res'p~ond - to the question directly,-1I'.ve " ~ 6 read the staff review (of. generic feedwater. transients ' in. B&W : 1 7 f a'cilities. 8 IG Any othhr than the ones discussed in that particular 4 1 9 document?.. 10 2, A. Before I read ' that I was. totally unaware of these'. ~ 4"" L:. ~ G d.- t Do you-ha've any' additional information~that"might + 11 ..s c P .12 be relevant;to our inquiry into the events surrounding.tihe' \\. accid* enti.a, t ' TMI? ' g, ? g 13 - m J.C I, don't'believe~so. A ja x. ys4 J. -15 ^ MR.LHEBDON:- Do you have'any. additional questions?: ~ ~- MR. FOLSOM: I..can'.t think of any,fexceptmto go 16 -y +- back to the NRR's'advicoltoL.yoinall that;they had.no unresolved 17 safet'y issues in-' the matters; that, you were.investiga' ting. - - 7 o 18 1 4. f y 19 I "i. BY MR.FOLSOM:

q. M 5

~~. 7 Did;you.at any1,. time question ' the advisability (of; ' G 20 3 gj, pursuingnit further;after that? , 'm 7

• w.

.r. i ~ J 'No,;Ifdidn t.[ They'having,3as.I understood;it, 'A' 22 j y .~ J.. the responsibility"for'doin'g th'att7 they'had done thatt ,I., 23 s, O g. .1., x 24 -real.ly did-not get?involvedein thatland:by3the tim,e.,that;wei '. 1.. Aca-Federal RepcMets,Inc. ^ + . x ~ 125 started [o,ur in estigation: NRR[had already;.~ reviewed ~ the" w s 2, :.. ,~ ^ a,*- ^ i c..- ,>-l . f, =' ' -/? a y 7 s 7- \\ ., s..1 ' j. p.4 m 3 '.,. [ ' i ?,I. ,;U ', y f-

3~T J, j i

4, a,3 - x,s s(. h g,: g ~. o

g.

3., ;;

m

~ e v v w ~ _ ~ u ,~, ru ;

~ mta 16-7 59 1 licensee's analysis' supporting the continued operation of the 2 plant. They had determined that no unresolved safety issue 3 existed and they had approved the administrative controls that i 4 were supposed to be placed by the licensee to mitigate the 5 loss of' pressurizer level indication until their dual steam ~ 6 generator level set point modifications had been approved by 7 NRR. 8 At the time we started our investigation, my 9 understanding, clear and distinct, was that there was no 10 unresolved safety issue here. 11 BY MR. HEBDON: l 12 G Just to make sure that this is on the record, ) 13 was the basis for your decision that there was no unresolve'd 14 safety issue formally, in'the way of documentation, or was 15 this just an Understanding? 16 A. I was not provided any of the correspondence. I i 17 was aware through conversations-with Richard Knop and I believe 18 Mr. Streeter that the licensee had been allowed to.go back to 19 power, based on NRR's review and their: decision. 20 Q Of the i'ncident? 21 A. Yes. 22 G So it was just the fact that they had been allowed ~ 23 to return to power, that you concluded-that there could not be, 24 then, any unreviewed safety issues?~ AceFederal Reporters, Inc. , 25 A. I would have to say that is'ac' curate, yes. -I did Y r h ^ g

.,Q,p..

., g _

. y.. ; _- -, 4. 9, ; _

w _

a, q, ;s, " _.. ~. V f-. 3 ' + (- ny .c w < ...q.: ( ',., s>, P.. % y . p. ' % 'l;, - - ,.e 1 4 into 16-8 ~>. - g 4 ~ ^ ~ 60 ~ b; o

Th' t ' woEld no t : bN my;<

~ 1. not lookTatJtherpaperwork at that time. ^ a n, - y.< u~. e ~~ ~ 2 'deci~sion..to make. v s 'k- ~ y 3 ,MR. FOLSOM: IThav.e'nofother questiolns. V :{n} e .y .y_ ~ [ k qqMR.; HEBDON:]Do,you haver anpthi'nc) 'efse to add? "x '6 4 ~ e -. r ;.. . j,

• y,

,1. % ~ m 5 THE' WITNESS: ~Only'that at"least I have-my field 2 4 ~ t, a u ' [ '6 [ notes of th'elmeeti,ngiat B&k,..wkich'-- I don't know if you c ~ ~_. s.. w 7 want all of this to' be ;on cthe recbrd. ..w. u r :... 8 .MRJHEBDOii. I 'd'on t think that lthere I s ~~any. neg3 E ! i 9 that they be'formall on the' record, but if yo.u could provide ~ s~

4. -

k 4 10 us with a copy of,any additional documents or: notes that you y u. .g 3;. c 11 might' have, - tha t might be: useful.itio the < inquiry, we would l 12 appreciate t, hat. I v[' E i ~ 13 THE WITNESS: Can I go off[thE record here? i s / (. ~14 MR. HEBDON: Sure. t r,

• i s-15 (Disc ~ussion offfthe record.-)

.- + 16 .MR.IHEBDON: Le't's'go back on the1 record.. ^ .S _.a. a Do youl have' anythingiefse joi, add;.'that"youf feelt-} p ^ '17 y ' '_. G 7.;:,3 e. . W& l~: ~ It'

;~

e .needs to beiincluded'.~in1this record?; ;{ M' T' 4: v 18 ^ ~ 3 y n n n, 19 'c-THE:WITNES'S INo. Iguess[i'f.Ihad'to7make$5' ' I .w -m r A 's ; L,. 5 20 .concludingi stakement, land perhaps - I. can' take advantageL o.f this, 3 F~' 2p mylown feeling,- a's I; stated earlier, Lis.~ that he had la.very _.} ,b },,- - p k 22 dis tinct. scope ' to' the-inves tigatio'n ' thati Joel ! :KohlerLand-I_ p .hl ~ y < 173- ~ o H23 were involved"in' The report'indic.ates!veryJclearly,;in,quite h fy ~ %24,aUbits ,y ; .n E:.

i..

.: -ofidetail) exactly ~what we2found, both'on' pres'surizer

• . ' +

. Am-Fr.derst Reporters;Inc.- level andLundervdit' he relay. set point? ~ c;

• b

25 I

a n. x. _ N s ~ ~ .s- ,4 1? '.), Y -4 s f +, v.. ~_6 'y s. g sf ;_ e 1., ~ e v +-

• s M

~%, 1 g .r. e Jgs. .j /.., 'y,., i,,. ~ ,s a

._, q ':*

.y ; y p,, dNk 1 D'N .,t. 4 ;,. P k , 'g / + ',, ',- O. j ' !'~ ~*4e 'i. ' *. p:. s n,*.,. 3y.~ _ _d _ 'c_ 'I L i._'DN._ 4 d-.y. 'P,. .~.,i, 3

% 9 "

c <* + .= 4 s e

s..,

sr 2 . V /k,' L.*N 4 m._._ i 4 -{. g./. h,, 4 a: * ~. Ih. . 's 5 + [Jh4L 75 ^ :

e mte 16-9 61 s 1 Even in light of TMI, I feel it is an accurate 2 report and. factual in every detail. I don't feel bad about 3 it. And that's all I have. O t 4 MR. IIEBDON: Okay. That concludes'the interview. l 5 Thank you very much. 6 (Whereupon, at 5:00 p.m., the intervicw was e16 7 concluded.) 8 9 10 1 11 12 13 w 14 15 16 i 17 I l 18 19 20 l 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal fleporters, Inc. ( 25 i j 4 4 rM m}}