ML19308C572

Deposition of Newberry (NRC) on 790731 in Bethesda,Md. Pp 1-59

ML19308C572
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	07/31/1979
From:	Helfman S, Newberry S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ACCIDENT AT THREE MILE
To:
References
TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001280602
Download: ML19308C572 (59)

Text

V 8

O e

bWI rFR=9 _ (

=

=

1

--4

=

=

l 4

Transcript of Proceedings o

o

.E o

o

' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PRESIDENT'S ComiISSION CN THE ACCIDENT AT q

9 TERIE MILE ISLAND o

0 0

if

- o o 4 o o ik il g Acme Reporting Company Ofcial Reporte:: 9 1411 T. Stron. N.W. 0-Wesnington.1 C. 2 C05 4 (202; 5:3 4888 o k n 0 l 8001280 6 2 T i i 1 l -cc l-(Ri!TED STATES OF AMIRICA ) 2 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION CN THE ACCIDENT AT THREE MILI ISLAND 3 4 5 6 DEPOSITICN OF SCOTT NZ*d3ERRY 7 S Rocm 6704 Maryland National Bank 9 7735 Old Georgetown Road, Bethesda, Maryland 10 July 31, 1979 11 9:20'a.m. 12 13 APPEARANCES: 14 On Behalf of the Commission: 15 Stan M. Helfman, Gary Sidall 16 On Behalf of NRC: 17 Mark Checko, Esquire is 19 00 l I i 21l 22 i [ I. r 23 24 i 25 I 1 l i \\ Acme Reporting Company = r o A ?,N ' ,;[~ .2 + e il C O'N T E N T S c0.: o EXHIBITS:- PAGE: ..3 i 4 4 2-- 22' ~ 5 3-22' + l '6' 4 2g u. 5-29 ~ ~8 .6 29 1-9 . '71 30 4 1: 10 8. 30 11 f 12. 5 i 13 14 i' 15 ' 5 '16 s li i.- 13 1 ' -19

r-

'.T

. 21 ..w., t 23, jp ~ f 4 L , 25 e- ~ _.A cme _ R ep ortin g C o m p a n yl _._.. '+ 3 1 _? _R _O _C _E _E _D _I _N _G _S -d ' r 2 Whereupen, 3 SCOTT NEWBERRY cs 4 having been first duly swcrn, was called as a witness herein, 5 and was examined and testified as follows: 0 EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. HELF EN: 8 G For the. record, will ycu please state your full 9 name? 10 L Scott Newberry. 11 G Have you ever had your deposition taken before? 12 1 No, I have not. 13 G I will explain to you some of the characteristics 14 of a deposition. 15 The testimony you are about to give teday is 16 sworn and, therefore, will have the same force and effect 17 as if giving your testimeny in a court of law. The testimeny 19 will be reduced by the court reporter.. 0 transcript 19 form and you will be provided with a ecpy and an opportunity 00 to make changes in it which you deem necessary. 21li Ecwever, you should be aware that if you make changes -l i 5 in the descsition we will have the oppcrtunity to ecm=ent l 23 ' .cn those changes and if they are substantial, they may 24 adversely affect your credibility. Fcr this reason, it is I $5 also important that you ask for clarification of any Acme. Reportina Comcony a 4 I qqestions that are asked before answering if you don't 2 understand the import of the question. 3 'For the benefit of the court reporter, give 4 audibie responses because it is difficult to record neds 5 of the head or other gestures. 6 Allow me to ccmplete a questien before ar.swering I even if you anticipate where the questien As go'.ng and I 8 will try to remember not to ask questions wh le you are 9 completing your answer. 10 It has been our practice at the conclusion of 11 a deposition not to terminate it, but to recess it;in the 12 event that we have additional questions to ask you we will 13 reconvene the depositien. 14 Do you have any questions? 15 A No. 16 G Were you asked to bring a resume with you? 17 A Yes. 13 4 May I have that, please? l 4 l 19 MR. EELFMAN: May we have this marked as che l l i i 20 ' first exhibit to the Newberry deposition. I 21 (W1.3:eugen, the dccu=ent referred co i 3., was markec..:cr scentification as l i 23 Newberry depcsition_exhihi: ene.) t 1 1 L 24 3Y MR. EELFMAN: i l 15l 4 Mr. Newberry, could you please begin by inferming i Acme Recortina. Comoany a 1 us of your title at NRC for the record and follcwing tha 2 with a brief descriptien of your respcnsibilities? 3 A My title is reactor engineer. I work in the 4 reactor systems branch. I am primarily responsible for 5. reviewing construction permit and operating license 6 applications in the areas as I believe described in my 4 resume. 3 They would be over-pressure protection of the 9 reactor coolant system, missiles generated inside the to containment, leakage detaction systems for the reactor 11 coolant pressure boundary inside containment, residual 12 heat removal systems or decay heat removal systems, ~ ( 13 reactivity control systems, emergency ecolling systems 14 and other reactor system ccmponents. 15 Who is your i= mediate supervisor? 16 A Gerry Mazetis. 17 4 Has that been the case the entire time you is were with this carticular decartment? 19 A Yes, that is correct. l 00 Well, he has been my immediate superviser up 21 until the time of the accident and through a few weeks, uML fvl 22 reorgani:ed approxi=ately July first. I 23 ' 4 I would like to shcw you a document dated I 24

• January 10, 1973, signed by Ihemas M. Novak, chief cf the i

2 reacter systems branch and ask you if ycu have ever seen it i I i i Acme Reporting Company l 0 I before. MR. HELFMAN: I note for the record that this is O an exhibit to the Sandy Israel depor,ition. 4 THE WITNESS: Yes, I have seen it. 5 BY MR.~ HELFMAN: 6 G Can you describe the circumstances as to how this document came to your attention? 3 A As is normally the practice, when a review 9 feminde'r or a memo like this is written, they are to distributed internally in the branch. I suppose I found it l in my basket and read it when I picked i: up from my mail. La G Do you recall receiving it approximately January 13 10, 1978? 14 A Approximately. I only assume that because of the 15 date on the memo. 16 0 You received it at about the time the memo was 17 premulgated? ,a A I think so, yes. 19 G Who is Mr. Novak? .,9 l A My branch chief in reactor systems. 1 I ., g G Is he Mr..Mazetis' boss? l -l A That is correct. G What is the purpose of distributing memoranda i 34 -1

= an engineer such as yourself frem the staff?

25 A It is to remind the engineer to or request that } i Acme Reporting Company._ 7 t I he icok at scmething on the docket he is reviewing, normally. Scmetimes it is a point that has come up as a 3 result of another engineer's review and was distributed for 4 everybcdy's information. 5 4 I would like to read to you two paragraphs from a 6 document that has already been marked as exhibi: number two 1 to the Sandy Israel deposition. It is a summary of 8 main f actors that caused and increased the severity of the 9 Three Mile Island incident as stated by Chairman Hendrie 10 April 10, 1979. 11 At page 10, paragraph 2, it reads, "The 12 pressuri:er electromatic relief valve which opened during 13 the initial pressure surges failed to close when the 14 pressure decreased below the actuation level. This failure 15 was no recognized and the relief line closed for scme 16 time." 17 Paragraph 3 reads, "Following rapid l 18 depressurization - " l 19 A Excuse me. The relieve line closed? ^0 l ? There is a gra==atical mistake. It shculd 21 read this failure was nce recognized nor the relief +nive 22 ==e closed for seme time. 3,. 23 i And paragraph three reads, "Fol10 wing I rapid depressurization of the pressur:/*i;er the pressuricer 24 z '3^ 25 level ndication may have led to err:necus inferences of high l Acme Reoortina Comoany 5 S I level in the reacecr ecolant system. The pressurizer level I 2 indication apparently led the cperators to prematurely 3 terminate high pressure injection ficw even though substantial 4 voids existed in the reactor coolant system." 5 Based on your present understanding of what 6 occurred at Three Mile Island in March of this year, would you agree with Chairman Hendrie that these two S factors were a=ong the main f actors that caused or 9 increased the severity of the accident? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 G Referring to the January 10, 1978, memorandum 12 which was distributed to you in January of 1978, and signed 13 by Mr. Novak, let me read to you several paragraphs from 14 this memoranden. 15 paragraph ene, beginning with the fourth line is from the top, "Ecwever, under upset conditions such.as 1; prolonged relief valve opening and accidents is, where significant voids are fermed in the primary system. i 19l It may be possible to end up with a two-phase mixture 1 00i in the pressuri:er that is not at the highest temperature i l i I 01 ! in-the primary system. Under these circumstances i Inak r: additionalicss of primary system inventory or sk6ekage in I si i m' the primary system may not be indicated by pressuri:er [ i 24_ level. This situatien has'already occurred at Davis-Besse enel i 2 wheD:-a relief valve stuck cpen." l l I i Acme Remortina Commanv 9 4* t And then frem paragraph three, "Althcugh the I 2 safety analyses do not require ter=ination of the 3 =ake-up system, operators would control make-up flow 4 based on the pressuri:er level as part of their ncrmal 5 procedures. As a result, under certain ccnditiens 6 where the pressurizer could behave as a mancmeter, the 7 operator could erroneously shut off make-up flow where a significant voids occurs elsewhere in the system or loss of 9 inventory is continuing." to Would you agree that the memorandum distributed 11 to you and signed by Mr. Novak essentially predicted the 12 two factors which I read to you from Chairman Eendrie's 13 su==ary of =ain cases in the Three Mile Island transient 14 of March of this year? 15 A No, I don't think it is as simple as that. 16 I don't think you can state it that simply. 17 Well, when you read the first paragraph I believe I is in the memo, first of all, the memo was entitled lecp seals I i 19 ' and pressuri:er surges, and it appears to attribute the j m 'l problem with the pressur :er level indication no the lecp l l. 21 seal. i i i n 4 Could you describe to se what the ter= icop seal sI means' i 24 A Lcop seal specifically relating to the way that i .25 the TMI two plants and the 3&W plants in general are i i Acme Reporting __ Compony_ _ _ J SO I designed. T.t..e'. closure describes i better than I ceuld. 2 4 The second page of the January 10, 1978 me=crandum 3 is a drawing of a pressurizer. 4 A That is correct. 5 4 This upsidedown half-circle would be known as a 6 loop or a leep seal? 7 A I guess a 1 cop seal. That is correct. A curved 3 portion of the pipe. 9 4 Correct me if I am wrong -- my understanding to was that this portion is known as the Icop and when the 11 circumstances described in the memorandum exist and you 12 have the differential in pressure and you have 13 coolant caught inhetween that you then have this sealed 14 and that is why this is referred to as a lecp seal. Are 15 you saying the lopp itself is referred to as a loop seal?

6 A

At times I have heard it referred to that way, 17 yes. It is referred to as a loop seal even when all of this 13 is filled with water, for example. I 19 C Or if the -- t 2)l; i A This is normally filled wi:h water. l I 21 4 If the het leg were empty, the pressuri:er j 22 were empty and this semi-curved pipe were empty, would this i 23 suill be referred to as a locp seai' ~ l. 24 A I suppcse so, yes. I have heard i: referred t l l 2; as that, yes. i I I Acnue Reporting Company I 11 i I f 1 G Are ycu aware of whether icops t icop seals are 2 ccmmonly found in S&W design plants? 3 L I have heard that they are ecmmenly found 4 specifically in B&W plants. 5 0 Do you knew if TMI-2 design contains this loop 6 or loop seal? 7 A I have been told that, yes. 8 4 Could you continue with your explanation of why 9 you feel the memorandum does not predict the factors to addressed by Chairman Hendrie? 11 A In retrospect, I think you may be able to ccme to 12 that conclusion, but I dcn't think.it would be clear -- 13

• ou knew, having been through the TMI scenario -- but 14 there are many other indications that an cperator has 15 available to him in the control rocm to base his actions 16 upon, and therefore should a valve open in the top of the 17 pressurizer, depressurizing the plant,' causing ICCS to ccme is on, it is not clear that just pressurizer level would be 19 the primary instrument causing him to turn cff make-up.

2) G Are ycu finished? 21 A Yes. 4 Do you knew if Davis-Besse concains the same lecp I 22l 1 i 23! or icop seal design? 24 A I assume so. I don't knew that fer sure. Like ples h ar-c. g, $5 I say, I have heard all 3&W ve designed that way. l Acme Reporting Compony i 12 i i + l 1 G Davis-Besse is a 3&W design? 2 L That is correct. 3 G If we assume that the operator prior to TMI-2 4 commonly relied on pressurizar level as an indication of 3 core condition or core coolant level or primary system 6 coolant level, would you then agree that this me=orandum I predicted the factors addressed by Chairman Hendrie? 8 L The beginning of your question was if we assume 9 that? 10 4 Yes. Hypothetically. If we assume withobt 11 deciding that the operator relied - primarily or 12 exclusively on pressurizer level as the indication for 13 primary cc,olant level or core collant level, would you 14 then agree that the Novak memorandum of January 1978, 15 predicted the factors addressed by Chairman Hendrie? 16 We are making a hypothetical assumption new. 17 1 If he assumes solely the pressuri:er level -- if 13 we assume that the operator will turn off high pressure 19 injections based upon a high pressuri:er level and leave i 00 off when the pressurizer level is high, then given the even: 21 - or Three Mile Island, yes, it could lead to a severe 22 consequence. 23 G Eliminating post-TMI learning, the firs sentence .l I 24 of paragraph three of the =emorandum reads, "Althcugh the 25 safety analyses do not require termination.cf the =ake-up -l l, d P R4 e IGM MPO O M M [ M M4 M M M ed ~ 13 I system, operators would centrol make-up ficw based on the 2 pressuri:er level as part of their. normal precedures." 3 The final sentence of the final paragraph of the 4 memorandum reads, "For OL review procedures should be 5 reviewed to insure adequate information before the cperater 6 terminates make-up flew." 7 Would you agree frem those two sentences.that this 8 memorandum assumes that the operator relies primarily or 9 exclusively en pressurizer level as an indication of primary 10 system level? 11 A 2'es, that is what it says. I guess can say 12 that at the time of this memo I had not icokedatanyoperatN 8 13 precedures myself. 14 4 So at the time you received this memorandum you 15 did not knew whether operators did or did not rely 16 exclusively or primarily on pressurizer level indicatien to 17 determineprimary system level? 18 A That is correct. 51y cperating experience l t 19 personally in the Navy would tell me he probably would. 20 4 He probably wecid rely on pressurizer level? I 21 A Yes. 22 4 Do you knew if other plant designs such as l l 03 ! Westinghcuse or Cc=hustion Engineering contained the lecp or l 24 1 cop seal design as well ts 3&W plants? [ 05 i a I have been ts d that they do not have a icop seal. L t t i Acme Reoortina Comocnv 14 I g so this memo would be used by you primar Yfor review a 2 cf B&W plant CP's on OL applications? 3 A I am not sure that is clear. I den't know -- it 4 says for OL reviews, procedures to be requested. It doesn't 5 say for 3&W OL reviews. 6 G The first. sentence of the first paragraph reads, 7 " Loop seals in the pressuri:er surge line are used in scme 3 plant designs (noted in 3&W). " 9 Did you deem this =emorandum to refer to a to generic concern with respect to 3&M plants when you received 11 it in January of 1978? 12 A It is difficult for =e to remember receiving 13 the memo and exactly what I did when I did receive the 14 mecc. It was over a year and a half ago. 15 G Do you recall whether this first sentence which 16 refers specifically to B&W plants caught your eye when you 17 received the memorandum? 13 A I don't recall. 19 G You will note that in the last paragraph it 20 refers to both cperating license reviews and CP reviews. 21 A Yes. l 1 12 G What is the evil to be avoided by insuring I I 23 : that precedures would p cvide the cperator with accur=-= l l i 24 j infermation so that he does not rely on pressuri:er level $5l as an indication of core ecolant level when there may be -l l i 1 Acme Recortina Comoany i m 9.2 i 1 loss of ecolan: or voids and erronecusly turn off the HPI -- 2 what is the cencern? 3 A The concern is uncovering of the core and fuel 4 damage. Although I don't believe that ir mentioned in the 5 meme. 6 4 Is it a rather ebvious implicit concern in this 7 memorandum? 3 A I don' t believe it is that obvious in the memo, 9 no. to 4 Well, there is an obvious concern in this 11 memorandum, is there not, for erroneous cperator action 12 based on inaccurate indication of core ecolant level 13 based.on pressurizer level and operator turning off HPI 14 in light of this erroneous infor=ation? 15 That is rather obvious frem this memorandum; is 16 it not? 17 A Fine. Yes. 15 4 Do you agree? 19 A That is cbvious, I suppcse. Yes. 3) 4 And is the obvious concern for the operater l 21l I turning off HPI under thos circumstances cere uncevery s Z1 or fuel damage? I t 3 A I guess it depends who is readi.T the me=c 24 whether it is cbvicus or not. L $5 4 Was it cbvicus to you when you received this l I 1 I ) Acme Recortino Commony i 16 memorandum in January? ~ A No, I don't think so. That is why I think it is not. i 3 obvious. 4 G Frca post-TMI. learning it is cbvious? 3 A Yes, I would say frem post-TMI learning it is 6 cbvious. G Eave you had an cpportunity since January 10, 8 1978,. to use this me=crandum or the concerns that it raises 9 in reviewing a CP c: OL application? 10 A The only plant I would have had opportunity 11 to use it on is Midland. la G Is that a B&W designed plant? 13 A Yes, it is. It is a plant similar to TMI-2, as a matter of fact. 15 0 And are you referring to a CP application or a 16 OL application? U 1 It is a10L application. 13 4 You say is an OL applicatien. Is this plant 19 presently under review? j

3) '

i A It is docketed and is being reviewed, yes. l ~' G When did that review commence? i A I am not able to give you the exact data, bu. 13l' generally the fall of 1977, I wculd guess. l y~ I i l 4 And it is still under review at this time? I l u A That is ccrrect. i i Acme Reoortino Commony I 17 O So the Novak =emorandum of January 10- 1973, fell 2 scmewhere during the review of the Midland OL application? 3 A That is correct. 4 g Was the Midland application assigned to you for 5 review from the cutset? 6 A No, it was not. 7 0 Who received it initially? 3 A Well, let =e explain. I did the acceptance 3 review for Midland. 10 0 Is that another tern for construction permit? 11 A No. 12 g What is an acceptance review? 13 A An acceptance review is conducted by the staf f ' 14 prior to the docketing of the application to determine 15 whether the safety analysis report is acceptable for 16 raview. Let's say a review that is done to see that there is 17 at least sufficient information in the document to review. 13 G Is that done prior to the review cf the constructicn 19 permit applicatien or is it the opera or licensing -- I 20. A Excuse me. There is an acceptance review dcne 21 both at the CP stage when the PSAR cr preliminary safety i i 22 i analysis report is docketed. I 23 ! There would also be an acce=tance review dcne l l 1 24 ' when a final safety analysis report is docketed for an i L 3 cperating license. I as referring o the FSAR cr final l 4 L L Acme Reporting Company i 13 I I safety analysis report for the Midland cperating license. 2 G And the acceptance review was done by you ~3 when -- in 1977? A Yes, the and of 1977. 4 1 5 4 Is that -- what was the term again you used -- 6 A-The acceptance -- 7 ~4 The acceptance review? i 8 A The,t is correct. 9 4 What document is submitced to you for review? 10 i-The entire final safety analysis report, FSAR, 11 is submitted to me for review. I!2 g Is that provided by the applicant? 13 A That is correct. 14 G And prepared by the applicant? ~ 15 A Prepared by the applicant. It is normally prepared 16 by the applicant -or 'for the applicant by his architect / 17 engineer. Yes. It is submitted by the applicant. He is 13 responsible-for the applicatien. 1 19 4 And your review of the SAR is confined to determining i i 20 whether there is sufficient informatien to do an operating 21 license review? i I 22 1 That is correct. 1 2:L 4 After you did the review of the 5AR, did you remain I-i t 24-assigned to review of the Midland plant opera:cr license l I 1 SL application? i i Acme Remortina_ Commenv i j- 13 1 A -Sort o$ I guess is the way I would have to answer 2 that. I was also reviewing other plants at that time and 3 was involved in other work. The review, the round one 4 review which it is called, was given to EG&G in Idaho. They 5 performed the first-round review and provided questions 6 resulting from that review to us. 7 4 Who is EG&G? 3 A I don't know what the abbreviation stands for. 9 I am sure we could find out. 10 4 I would appreciate that. 11 And what is EG&G? 12 A EG&G, I believe, runs the national laboratory 13 in Idaho. They were doing a little bit of review work for 14 us at that' time and I believe still are. 15 4 And they were involved in review of the 16 operator license application or the SAR at that stage? 17 A They were responsible for -- the FSAR is the is applicaticn for the license, yes. I guess the staff ac NRC 19l is responsible, but they are doing the review. 20 i G And did they provide the propcsed questions to you 21 which you referred to for review before they are transmitted i 20 to the applicant? I 23 A. That is correct. I l i l i l l 24 -i G And are ycu si= gly a conduit for~ transmittal of 1 25 those questions to the applicant or do you do scmething Acme Reporting Company 20 I I further with those cuestiens? 2 L ho., We review the questions, go over them with 3 the reviewers at the lab who prepare the questions and 4 review the FSAR, and if we think some questions are not 5 appropriate or we feel have already been addressed, we may 6 hs able to delete a question; or if we feel additional questions 7 need to be asked, we will add questiens. S 4 Do you recall when EG&G was retained to review the 9 OL application? 10 1 No, I couldn't give an exact date. It was 11 probably around the beginning of 1978, thr? _h; ch_. 3 m 12 c:fa. na. 13 4 Do you recall when their proposed questions 14 were returned to you fer review? 15 A No. I can only guess based upon the date when 16 we sent the questions to the applicant, which was -- well, 17 excuse me. It was in March -- we forwarded the 13 questions frcm our branch to project management in March F 19 1 1978, so I received the questions from IG&G scmetime I T prior to that. 21 i 4 You were referring to a document there. Would ycu l 22 please describe for the record what that is, and may I see t3 it? I 24 A What I have here is a docu=ent. It is a memorandu= ! 3 l 25 frc= G.R. Ma etis thrcugh T.M. Ncvak tc 0.3. Vassalle, Acme Reporting Company 21 i a i 1 assistant director for LWas, which contains the first-round 2 questions on the Midland plant. 3 4 This document is dated March 8, 1979. It consists 4 of 14 pages of questions and a cover letter. 5 MR. EELFMAN: I would like to have this marked as 6 exhibit two to the Newberry deposition. 7 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. I have more Midland S questions here. That isn't the only one. 9 BY MR. HELFMAN: 10 4 The additional questions that you have are also 11 part of._the first-round? 12 A Yes, I have more first-round questions, i 13 0 All right. 14 biR. EELIMAN: I have received a document dated 15 March 9, 1978, consisting of two-and-a-half pages of questions 16 covered by a cover letter directed to D.B. Vassallo through 17 T.M. Novak from G.R. Mazetis. 18 BY MR. EELFMAN: '9 G Are there any additional first -round questions? 20 A As referred to by these me=os, no. I believe \\ 21 project management who received these questiens may have ~22 labelled them differently, but no, these are the only first-l 3' round questions as addressed by us, i t 24 I $5 l 1 i ( Acme Reporting Company ] 22 I i (Whereupen, the documents referred te 2 were marked.fer identification as 3 Newberry deposition exhibits two and 4 threa.) 5 3Y MR. HEIJMAN: 4 4 What materials did you provide to EG&G in order to 7 enable them to prepare first-round draft questions for the a Midland plant? 9 A We, that is the branch, provide them with the FSAR, to any amendments that have come in for the FSAR, and also 11 branch -- well, the same documents that I would use to review t2 the plant; that is the regulations,the standard review 13 plan, regulatory guides, many branch pcsitions that are 13 applicable for the review. 15 g would that include a review =emorandum such as the 1 16 Januarf 1978, Novak.. memorandum? t; A I don'c know whether they received that er not. is 4 If this =emorandum was in your file in January of tg 1978, when you referred the matter to IG&G for preparation of 1 I 20 ; draft questions, wculd you have provided them with a cc=v of i atj this memorandum? t i 22l A I didn't provide EG&G with the pcsitiens. The f 23 branch did. 24 4 Whc in the branch did that? i I 25 ' A I don' knew. It is coordinated by semecne else i i 1 Acme Reporting Company l 23 1 in the branch and I ma no sure wha: the procedure is for getting the stuff out to EG&G. 3 4 Would it have been another engineer on your team 4 or would it have been your team leader or would it have been 5 your tema leader in conjunction with Mr. Novak? 6 A It was probably another engineer in the branch I who is responsible -- well, who coordinates the EG&G review. 3 I am not sure. 9 4 Do you know who that might be? 10 A My supervisor would probably know. 11 O Mr. Mazetis? 12 A Mr. Mazetis. I think at that time an engineer 13 by the name of Byron Seigel was coordinating EG&G review. 14 4 Is he still with NRC? 15 A Yes, he is. 16 G Eow does he spell his last name? 17 A I think s-i-e-g-e-1, or e-i. 13 4 Is he still an engineer? 19 A Yes. He was in the reactor systems branch. i I 00 G From the dates that you have provided, it appears 21 -that the Novak me=crandum would have been in your hands if 12 not at the time the material was provided to EG&G, certainly i i 23 at the time the draft questions were returned to you for 24 review.- 05 A That is correct. j -Acme Reporting Company i i L 24 i l e 1 G Do you recall whether the concerns addressed is chis 2 memorandum were addressed in the draf: questions for 3-

tidland proposed by IG&G7' 4

.A I don't remember. I don't think it was addressed. 5 4 Perhaps we should give you an opportunity to look 6 over the draft cuestions. 7 A These questions you see there that I have shown 3 you are the result of ny review of their draft and what we 9 sant to projects. That is not EG&G's effort. 10 G I see. Do you have a copy of EG&G's proposed i 11 questions? 12 A Not with me. I may have a copy in my office. 13 G Could you chec: and if so, could you provide us with 14 a copy of that? 15 A Yes, I can provide you with that. 16 G When you reviewed the proposed questions, did ' 17 you review those questions with a view to insuring thac the a 15 concerns addressed in this memorandum were addressed 19 in the questions? 20 A I can't remember specifically what I -- what I did 21 do, I reme=her when I went through,when I got the E questions, is I went through my file of memorandums of 23 this type and. branch positions to see that everything was 24 covered by EG&G. I do that, you know, whenever I ask 4kHs a Lea s round of questions. Acme Reporting Company 25 -1 It is the normal p ccedure. So I don't remember 2 specifically what I did with that =eco, thcugh. Looking 3 back through the questions recently, since Three Mile, I 4 do not find the questiens referencing or drawn frem that 5 memo. 6 There are quite a few questions you will note regardin aaniden+ 7 less of coolant ae44en, small breaks, large breaks, but J 8 nothing specific on pressurizer level indicatien. 9 4 And the review that you are referring to was a 10 review of your questions proposed to the applicant which 11 followed your review of the questicns proposed by EG&G? 12 A That is correct. I don't reme=her. Thinking 13 back, trying to remember what my action was when I did get this memo,"I expect I probably discussed it with my 14 1: supervisor, which is normally the case. 16 Mr. Mazetis? 17 A Mr. Mazetis. And although I am not tco clear is on this. Maybe we decided to wait until a certain peint in 19 the review. I don't honestly recall. 20 Did you ever discuss this memorandum with 21 Mr. Israel, who is noted-as the centact in the icwer left I 22 hand cc ner of the January memorandum? I l n 1 I don't re=e=her discussine it with him. i 24 4 Eas there been a second round of questions := l 3 applicants? l [ Acme Reporting Company } j 26 a 1 A Yes, a second round of questions, if ycu want to 2i refer to them as that. 1 3 C Continuing first-rcund questions? 4 A Yes. 5 4 In referring to the first-round questions, does 6 that indicate that there is a second round of questions? A Like I say, there have been several rounds since 3 March of 1978. 9 C Have the concerns addressed in the Novak to memorandum of January '78, been addressed in questions in 11 subsequent rounds of questions to the Midland applicant? 12 A No, sir. 13 g What is the purpose of a review reminder?" Isn'.t 14 it to alert the reviewer to insure that these concerns is are addressed in review of the operating license? 16 A That is correct. At a certain point, like I l-say, the Midland review is still underway, and many of these 13 i areas brought up in these questions are still under review. 19 4 At least in the light of the learning of TMI-2, j i 3' it is likely that Midland will be required at scme point ec 21 address these concerns, would you agree wich that? l 1 S A Certainly. i i Ui G Sut from January 10, 1973, thrcugh March 23, 1979, l 1 24 Midland was act required to address any of these concerns I I l 3' as fir as you know? i t l l l Acme Reporting Company i u 41 1 1 That is' correct. 2 4 And the responsibility in this regard primarily 3 was yours? 4 L Yes, sir. I was responsible for that. 5 4 . Now, you indicated that you may have had a 6 conversation with Mr. Ma:ecis concerning the applicability 7 of this memorandum to the Midland review. Is that an 8 assumption on your part or do you remember a conversation 9 with Mr. Mazetis concerning this matter? 10 A That is more an assumption than a remembrance, 11 because normally. when I get memos like this, I discuss them 12 with him to see what their application would be. 13 Like I say, I just assume that I had that 14 conversation with him, since it was my normal practice to 15 do so. What we decided to do with the memo, I can't recall. 16 4 Did you find a copy of this memorandum in your file 17 when you reviewed your file for purposes of this 13 deposition? 19 L Yes, I did. l 00 G And it was in the file where you normally keep such. I I 21-me=oranda? l i 5 A_ Yes, sir. l 23 4 You indicated that you have subsequent sens of t 24 questions that were posed Oc Midland? 3 A Yes, sir. i Acme Reporting Company j 1 28 i G In document forn? 2 A Yes. 3 4 Could you provide us with copies, please? 4 A Yes. There is the acceptance review. 5 Supplemental rounds. 6 ~ (Documents proffered to counsel.) 7 MR. RELFMAN: Mr. Newberry has provided "r 8 with five documents, the first dated September 28, 1977 9 entitled " Acceptance Review of the' Consumers Power to Company, Midland Plants one and Two, Final Safety 11 Analysis Report" consisting of five pages of specific 12 commentary en the application covered by a cover letter 13 and a routing list. he would like to have this marked as an exhibit to 14 15 the deposition. 16 (Whereupon, the dccument referred to 17 was darked for identification as is Newberry deposition exhibit four.) 19 MR. HELFMAN: The second is a document dated I 20 January 29, 1979, consisting of two pages of 21 inquiries with a cover-letter signed by Gerald Ma:etis. I I E We would like to have this marked as an e:iihit to che i t a! descsition. 1 i f 04 ' l l B Acme Reporting Company l 29 1 (Whereupen, the document referred te 2 was marked for identification as l 3 Newberry deposition exhibit five.) 4 MR. HELFMAN: The next is a. document dated 5 December 27, 1978, consisting of six pages, apparently 6 of reactions to responses provided by the Midland applican: 7 with a cover letter signed by' Robert Todesco, assistant 8 director for reactor safety, and a routing list. 9 BY MR. HELFMAN: l 1 10 4 'I notice that on some of these memoranda 11 Mr. Ross is on the route list and on others he is not, but 12 Mr. Tedesco is. Is there seme explanation for that as to 13 why scme went to Mr. Ross and seme went to Mr. Todesco? i 1 14 L dt some point Mr. Todesco took Mr. Ross' job 15 as assistant director of reactor safety. I don't recall 16 when that was. 1 17 (Whereupon, the document referred to 1 l 18 was marked for, identification as 19 - Newberry deposition exhibit six.) 20 MR. HELFMAN: And the last two, which may be 21li marked together for convenience purposes, one is dated i i i 22 October 26,.1978. It consists of three pages of reactions i l 23 - to response from the applicant and a cover letter and che 24 other is dated September 28, 1973, which censists of i 15 22 pages and a cov,. letter signed by D.F. Rcss, Jr. l I E l l Acme Reporting Company 30 1 (Whereupon, the documents referred'to 2. were marked for identification as 3 Newberry deposition exhibits seven and 4 eight.) 5 SY MR. IIELFMAN: 6 Mr. Newberry, you have stated that you have reviewed 7 these memoranda recently in an effort to determine whether 3 the concerns of the Novak lettar were addressed in the -9 questions propounded to the applicant. 10 A That is correct. 11 g And you found no such reference; is that correct? 12 A No specific reference to the memo. 13 G Did you find any questions -- 14 A Let me continue. Like I say, there are quite a aeaMm+ 15 few questions in t here on the subject of loss of coolant ee4Hren, 16 small breaks, large breaks, emergency core ecoling system 17 questions, operations and a lot of similar things, but LS nothing specifically on pressuri:er level. 19 G You found no questions specifically dealing with t 20 operator error and pressurizer level indication in the 4 l 21 questions? 22 A That is correct. l 5-G I refer.vou to. exhibit nt=ber two, a docu=ent i I '24 entitled "First-cund Questions", page 12, the last 25 ! question, which continues on page 13, would you read that to i Acme Reporting Company i 31 I vourself, clease? 2 (Witness reviewing dccu=ent.) J l 3 SY }iR. HEIESIAN: 1 l 4 4 Eave you finished reading? 1 5 A Yes, sir. 6 C Does it appear that that question addresses 7 the concern of erroneous operator action stimulated by 8 pressurizer level indication? 9 A No. 10 The question reads, for the record, "With regard 11 to an inadvertent operation of ECCS durine..zower 12 cperation, section 15.5.1.2 states that af ter reactor 13 trip,- the operator terminaces EPI ficw. Is this action .necessary for plant safety? Provide a sequence of 15 events' table.hich includes the time frame for operator is action. Also, provide figures showing appropriate plant 8 17 parameters as a function of tine, pressure, Du$R, pressuri:er SN 18 level, et cetera." j 19 To what does that questien refer? 20 A That questica refers to the inadvertent cperatien at 21 of.ECCS pcwer. If,fer scme reason,the ICCS system, actuated irw ^ si 22 I inadvertently, not be ause of a transient like stuck cpen 23 valve, and it begins filling up the syste= with water, i 1 er 24 i pressuri:ka9 level starts increasing, he pressure will l 3^ .m i 25 increase based en certain parameters, time end life of the 3^ l L i Acme Reporting Company 32 I core, =cderator temperature coefficient and what you have, 2 the. plant would probably trip on high pressure or the power 3 would decrease because you are injecting boren, it-is 4 difficult to say. 5 But there is no voiding in the core. There is no 6 transient response as indicated in this me=o here. l 7 4 The question is concerned with operator actuation 8 of HPI rather than operator termination of epi? O 9 A That is correct. It could have been an to inadvertent actuation of the ICCS by the operator. 11 4 Would you agree that the failure to address the 12 concerns raised in the Novak memorandca in any of the 13 questien sets - opounded to the applicant was an oversight? 14 A It may have been an oversight. I guess that is 15 one of the alternatives. I have tried to figure out what I 16 did with this memo. It may have been an eversight. We IT received these me=os pericdically and review reminders. he generate new positiens and areas periodically. I l l i 19 suppose that is a possibility. l 00, Like I say, another possibility would be that i 21 we decided to wait because probably Midland hasn't l 22 even generated their operating precedures yet. The plant is j i 23 still under construction and wou'd "e leading fuel for I I I 24 ' at least I suspect a couple a: years new. i 25 l It is hard to say. I don't re= ember. l I Acme Reporting Company 33 1 l l 1 4 The last paragraph, first sentence of the Ncvak a memo reads, "It is recommended that the basis for the 3 design requirement be studied carefully for all CP reviews 4 with the object . of determining if the leap seal can be 5 eliminated." 6 With respect to that potential solution r.o the 7 problems addressed in the Novak memorandum, would it have 3 been necessary to wait until the Midland applicant 9 developed procedures?

0 A

I don't understand the question. 1 4 Well, there are two potential solutiens which are 12 suggested in the last paragraph. One is a design solution, 13 elimination of the Icop seal. The second is a review 14 of operator procedures. 15 MR. CHOPKO: I think the record should note 16 that the solutions would occur at two different stages. 17 The first sentence calls it a CP stage review and the 18 second sentence indicates that it is the OL stage review. 19 THE WITNESS: If we asked a question, I suppose, 2' ycu knew, at che first or second-round scage, the applicanc j i 21 could have responded by saying when we write our procedures, l 5 they will include such and such. I am just trying to I 4 '5 ' recollect or guess even, because I don't really recall whac l I i 24 j I went chrough when we discussed this memo in January 1973. 1 25 [ Acme Reoortina Comoany 34 l 1 3Y MR. EELIMAN: l 2 4 If at the time of OL review a design defect was noted, 3 and the applicant has already received his construction 4 permit, is it then tco lats-to do something about the 5 design defect? 6 A If it is a safety defect, that is,important to 7 safety, no. It can be fixed. It depends on -- or the plant 3 could be shut down, depending on what the impact is. 9 I note that Mr. Ross received a copy of January lo s 10 1978, memorandum. He was listed as a CC at the bottcm. 11 And I also note that he was provided with several sets of the 12 questions which are propounded to the Midland plant. What 13 would Mr. Ross' function have been? Why was he provided 14 with copies of review memorandums and proposed questions? 15 A I knew it is normal procedure, I guess, for the is assistant director to receive informatien cepies of what the 17 staff under hin is doing. I am not sure what he normally ) 1 IS does with them. Every ence in a while I knew if he sees a 1 19! question that he is interested in he might discuss it with I l XI j me. i 21 G During the time you have been an engineer in 22, this depart =ent, have you ever had an occasien to i i 23! address a generic Ecncern which you felt shculd be called fi l { 24 to the attentien of your superiers er perhaps other departnents i, 05, within the NRC? i i l Acme Reporting Co ntm an y i 35 J l t-1 I don't understand what you mean bv address a ceneric 2 concern. 3 4 Well, let's assume hypothetically that in 4 January of 1978, the full import of the Novak memorandum struck you and you alone. How would you have gone about 6 calling the matter to the attentien of your superiors c: 7 other departments within the NRC? 3 A I am sure if it was a safety concern that came 9 about that I felt was important as you suggest, I to first would have gone in and talked with my supervisors, 11 Mr. Mazetis and Mr. Novak, and come up with a resolution of 12 what action is necessary, whether it is write a

memo, 13 discuss

. with other people, maybe more rapid action would 4 14 he necessary. 15 But I know that path is always available. 16 G Have you ever employed that path? 17 A I have talked with them on many items, many, many is items. You can see there are a lot of cuestions here, so, is yes, I have talked with them on a n"-ber of issues. 20 G 3ased on normal procedures, after having discussed 21 such a concern with your superiors, in the event a decision r! was made to notify other departments, who would be l l 03 ! responsible for doing that? 1 l 24 Wculd that he.you, Mr. Hacetis er Mr. Novak? I 3l 1 I don't know where that responsibility is defined. l i 4 Acme Racertina.. Commanv I .Q l t When you say_other departments, do you mean -- who do you 2 mean? 3 4 For example, you might have concluded after-reading this memorandum that the operat $ reactor branch should 4 5 know so that the concern ceuld be addressed to reactors 6 which already had their constructicn permits and operating licenses. 3 A Normally -- I dcn't know normally -- many times we g will forward them information copies of things like this. to 4 Have you yourself ever notified another 11 department or office about a concern that you reccgnized whied 12-had generic implications? 13 A Well, I have ccmmunicated with operating 14 reactors many times. They call me a number of times to 13 see, you knew, what I have been doing on pl,ints, and I have 16 talked to them many times to set what they have been doing. t-I can think of one specific example on the Midland review. 13 Since Midland is s'~=- 'o a n=nber of operating B&W tg plants -- as a =atter of fact, it is the last of a certain i 20 vintage in the 177 fuel asse=bly-plants to be licensed -- I l 21 all the others are licensed -- I have talked to them a l 22 number of times on issues that had come up en the operating l n reac:crs and have expressed, you knew, concerns en items that, l I 24 may he being reviewed en operating reacters that I knew are 1 l 3 applicable-to Midland and say, icok at this when you are i 6 l L i l Acme Reporting Compony 37 1 looking at it on that operating reactor. There is.an open 2 line of communication. 3 g Was this both pre and post TMI? 4 A Ch, yes. 5 4 Do you know when the TMI-2 operating license review 6 was before your team or group? 7 A Pardon me -- do I know what? 3 4 Do you know when the TMI-2 OL application was before 9 you division for review? 10 A Sefore our division -- at some time, it was. 11 0 Do you know when? 12 A Not specifically, 13 4 Did you work on that application review? 14 A No, I did not. 15 g Do you know who did? 16 A Yes. 17 Who did? 13 A Jim Watt. 19 4 Is he an engineer? l i I 'M A Yes, he is. 21 4 Whose team is he on? 22 A I don't understand. What branch? i UI G You have indicated that you were on Mr. Ma:etis' .,4 team. 25 A In his section. He is in Sandy Israel's section, l i Acme Recortina Commony L 38 1 or was prior to TMI-2. ~., O Prior to the event, pric: to the March transient? 3 - A , Prior to the March transient, yes. 4 4 So at-the time the operator license application 5 was being reviewed by your branch, it was being reviewed by 6 Sandy Israel's section? 7 A I think so. I am presuming that. I came to work 3 for the Commission at the end of 1976, and I believe TMI-2 9 was being reviewed pricr to me ever ccming to work at 10 NRC. I believe I recall Mr. Watt working on the TMI-2 11 application when I came to work for'the Ccmmission. 12 4 Do you know when TMI-2 received its operator 13 license? 14 L No. 15 G Would it have been 1979; do you kncw? .16 L It is before 1979, I think. Scme time in 1978. 17 I don't knew the date. 15 G Do you know if it was before or after the Novak l l 19 memorandum of January 10, 1978 was promulgated? 20 A I do not knew-that, no. I I 4 What were the responsibilities of cr what are the l' 21 M responsibilities of Mr. Ma etis in the review of the Midland l plant as your section leader? l 23 1 i 24 l 1 I am not familiar with all of his responsibilities.l -} l 3l I knew I report to him. He will review my work. Specifica11*j l I Acme Reporting Commeny l 39 I I i on a review,he will go through the questions one by one and 2 we will discuss them and as they move up the chain prior to 3 going to the licenene, he would stay in direct touch with them 4 as they were discussed with management. He supervices '5 my review. 6 He watches the schedule of the review. He is 7 responsible for getting moving my -- for my review time, 3 what plants I review. 9 G Were you aware at the time of the promulgation 10 of the Novak memorandum of the Davis-Besse one transient 11 which is referred to in the memorandum?

a. 4rans'.ent 12 A

Yes, I was aware that there was h of si 13 Davis-Besse one. 14 0 Were you aware of the nature of the transient? 15 A Not really, no. Iknew that they had a is stuck open relief valve on the pressurizer. I didn't ever 17 get involved in the details of that event. i i 1 13 Did Mr. Mazetis ever provide you with an 19 investigation report concerning the Davis-Besse one 'T transient? l 21 ' A No. I don't think I have ever seen that. t L 22 4 Were you aware at the time cf the prc=ulgation l - 23l of this memorandum that the operator had terminated l l 24, HPI during the Davis-3 esse one incident? 03 ' A I don't recall. I think it is referred to in the l 1 Aema Rannetina (" a m n a n v 40 i 1 meno. Yes. It is referred to in the me=c here, the 2 January 10th =e=o, but I don't recall the details of the 3 Davis-Besse one event. At least, I didn't then. I am =cre 4 familiar with it now. 5 4 At the-time you are reviewing an OL applicatien, 6 do you receive investigation reports cencerning transients 7 at plants which might be pertinent to the questions you 3 propound to an applicant? 9 A Yes. Let me say a couple 'of things about LIRs. 10 I am the fellow in the branch that gets the LZRs routed to 11 us in the reactor systems branch and screen them and basically 12 the procedure I have folicwed and have discussed 13 with Mr. Novik is to look at the LIRs and 14 determine which ones are even applicable in any way to 15 reactor systems, whether it is transient, a design problem 16 or even auxiliary systems related in.any remote way to our 17 review. 13 I will do two things with that group of LIRs. If 9 19 I know that there is a person in the branch specifically I 20 . involved with a certain item, it may be the review of ATW/5 sw l j 21 or a failure of reactor coolant pumps er whatever, I wculd I 22 - give the LIR to his for his attenticn; 1: eney are us-ill' l general infor=atien on maybe~ce=penent failures, j A i l s 24 transient that.cccurred at a plant such as a less of Off-si/a vl 1 05 pcwer, I pericdically say ence a week c: whenever the nu=ber i i i Acme Reporting Company- l 41 I of LIRs gets reasonable, I will route them to all the members 2 of the branch for their information. 3 4 Do you recall whether or not you routed the LIR 4 on Davis-3 esse to members of the branch? l 5 A No, I don't reme=her. 6 G Is there some way to find out? 7 A I wouldn't think so. The LIRs are sent around, 3 hundreds of them that come in. As they are routed around, a 9 lot of them are probably thrown away. I don't recall personally seeing the Davis-Besse LER. I don't to l 11 reme=ber. But it would be difficult to find. 4 If I mentionei the name Carl Michelson, does that 12 13 ring a bell? 14 A Yes. 15 4 Did you know of him prior to the TMI-2 16 transient in March of this year? 17 A No. 13 4 Were you aware of his memorandum prior to TMI-2 19 in March of this year? 20 x 30, l 4 Do you know who Jesse Ibersole is? 21 I 1 A Yes. l I I 23 I 4 Who is Jesse Ibersole? l 24 A He is a =e=her of the advisory co==ittee for i l 3' reactor safeguarfs.~. I i Acme Reporting Company 42 1 4 Are you aware of any contacts between Sandy Israel 2 and Jesse Ebersole prior to the January 1978, =emerandum? 3 A I knew that Mr. Ebersale was asking questions on 4 several plants in the review process regarding small 5 breaks. And I know Sandy Israel had responded to seme of 6 thes,e questions at ACRS. That is about the extent of ~ my knowledge. 3 G Do you know if Mr. Israel's respenses to questions 9 posed by Mr. Ebersole concerning some plants were formal to responses in written form or at a public meeting at which 11 a transcript -- for which a transcript would be available 12 cr is it your impressien that these were informal contacts? 13 A I am not "amiliar with any informal contacts 14 he had with Mr. Ebersole. I knew that any contact he had 15 from ACRS would be recorded in transcripts. 16 4 How do you knew about the formal centacts between l~ Mr. Ebersole and Mr. Israel? IS A I know that on a plant.I was.wcrking on a 19 construction permit for, the Pebble Springs units, some 1 20 questions were pesed by ACRS, written questions that were l .,1 directed to the applicant for their respenses. They I i -l .m provided respenses, and these responses were discussed i i .,d to scme degree with the AC

p 1

i 24 I wasn't involved in any de ail with the review i. 25 -of their responses. Sun I can't recall whether Dr. Israel j l Acme Reporting Company l! 43 I discussed them with the ACRS cr not. I knew before the ACRS 2 meetings when I had a meeting I think with Mr. Novak, 3 Mr. Mazetis and Dr. Israel, looking over these respenses, 4 that he was going to address any -- he was going to be ready 5 to address any questions on the small break questions 6 generated by ACRS. 7 g Are the questions generated by the ACRS nornally 8 routed to your division or your branch? 9 A Questions relating to cur branch responsibilities, 10 yes. As I recall -- I haven't been through that many ACRS 11 situaticns in my experience at the NRC, and I am not sure really 12 how the questiens are handled, whether informally or 13 fer= ally. L I4 4 But you have seen ACRS questions / cme through your sh 15 branch? 16 1 Several times. Yes, I know the Pebble Springs 17 questions, and I think a couple of other plants, they may have IS prepared with their agenda scme questiens that they night 19 want the staff to be prepared. to discuss a: the meeting. 'M 4 Are the responses frca the applicant likewise 21 routed through your branch? i i 22 A I don't knew that they are routed through the l l 3 branch, no. When you say rcuted through the branch, you i l 24 mean everybcdv in the branch? I i i I 3 ? Anycne in the branch. i Acme Reporting Company ' i m - l 1 A Anyone in the branch. i l 2 4 Anycne on Mr. Ma:etis' c Mr. Israel's team? E 3 A Nell, I knew in the case of the Pebble Springs, 4 I think it was quite unusual for the applicant to 5 respcnd to ACRS questions directly in writing. At least, 1 6 I was told that was unusual. I I 4 And the responses on the Pebble Springs 3 plant were routed to your branch? 9 A Were routed. I know Mr. Novak, Mr. Mazetis and to I and Mr. Israel had copies. 11 4 Do you have copies of those questions with you? 12 A No. 13 4 Do you recall whether the questions promulgated by the AC5S concerning the Pebble Springs application 14 15 addressed the concerns which are addressed in the 16 January 10, 1978, Novak memorandum? 17 A I don' t remember. I 18 4 You don't recall question number six? 19 A No. I haven't lecked at those cuestions in a l 2, long time. l 21, 4 Who told vou that it was unusual for the applicant I 5l to respcnd in writing to questions propounded by the ACRS? i 03,1 1 I don't remecher. I think -- werking on ?ebble i ) 24 . Springs it was my first year with the Cc= mission and I I l 25l wasn' t' that f amiliar with the procedural aspects of a j i I. I i j Acme Reporting Company 1 i 'I 45 c I review.: I dcn't recall. 2 G co you recall if there were ACRS questions 3 routed through your branch concerning the TMI-2 OL 4 . application? 3 A I am sorry. I get confused by when you say 6 routed through the branch. 7 0 What would be the more appropriate terminology? 3 A Questions from the ACRS? 9 G Questions addressed by the ACRS to the to applicant. 11 A To the applicant? 12 0 To the utility. 10 1 I am not familiar with any situation where the 14 ACRS addresses questions directly to the utility other than 15 Pebble Springs. 16 4 It was unusual in that respect? 17 A Yes. Ixcuse me. To continue en that, the IS questions I am familiar with that the ACRS directs to the 1 19 utility have always been at the ACRS hearing, at the public 20l meeting. I am not familiar with any written questiens, I 21 guess I should say. I i 22, G Other than the Pebble Springs situation? i k Il i A Other than Pebble Springs, yes. a 04, G Were you aware prior to the TMI-2 transient cf 25; March of this year of a transient at TMI-2 which occurred l i i Acme Reporting Company ,o 1 in March of 1978, cencerning a stuck cpen PCRV? 2 A Yes. I think I heard abcut that ene. 3 G Did you address any inquiry to the Midland j 4 applicant cencerning PCRV' reliability or indication? j 5 A I don't believe I addressed anything en reliability l 6 or indication. I asked a question en stuck open PCRV, I think. ' 7 And they provided an analysis in their final safety analysis 8 report for a stuck open -- I don't know if it is PCRV. I 9 think they call it a stuck open safety valve or relief valve to analysis. 11 G I show you the September 28, 1978, set of 12 inquiries addressed to the Midland plant applican: and 13 call your attention to page 22 of the inquiries, the 14 paragraph numbered (5), and ask you if that is the 15 inquiry addressed concerning that topic. 16 A You are referring to questien 211.105, and that 17 is a subpart to a question relating to their over-15j pressure protection system while operating at icw I 19 temperatures. It so happens that on this plant, Midland, i 29, they are intending as of this time te use the power f 1 21 operated relief valve for that tfpe ci prcesc icn. f 22 G Over-pressurizaticn p Otaccion? l 23 A Yes. While the plant is shut dcwn in a ccid i I l 24 condition. It is really an entirely different situation l i 25 l than what-we'are talkine abcut en valve rei4='-d'd y while l Acme-Reporting Company l l ,e I cperating pcwer, because this -- it is an item which is still 4 under review. Their use of that valve -- I am not sure what '3 they are going to end up with as far as the design on that 4 plant. It is a new requirement that has come about in the 3 last couple of years. It wasn't included in the 6 construction permit review of Midland. i O Is your review of construction permits and I i gr l 8 operator license applications confined primarily to 9 safety related items? to A Primarily, yes. That is correct. 11 G Is the PORV considered a safety related item with to respect to the. Midland plant? i 13 A It depends upon your definition o5 safety related. 14 The questien that we just finished discussing, over-15 pressure protection while operating at low temperatures, is that system is installed. to prevent violating the nok a-l. upset limit, L~~.L ef safety limit. There are certain JA M i criteria defined in our branch position which must be i l' met by that protection system. "O l The system is not really. defined as a safety 4{ l system, but must meet certain criteria to prevent y l I t \\ es ,n .,i -- i violation of'what.is called appendix G, a pressure \\ limit. I A .s3 G Are these criteria contained in a me=crandum? a4 A The criteria for ever-pressure protection while i l 25j . operating an: low temperatures are contained in a branch l i Acme Reporting Compeny l l i 48 I positien, yes. 2 G Is the PCR7 addressed in that neme::andum er 3 pcsition? 4 A Not specifically, no. The position states that the 5 system designed by the applicant must meet certain criteria. 6 We don't tell him what ecmponents must be used in that 7 system. It is not necessary for them, for example, to use a 3 PORV. Maybe he would install a new safety valve, 9 an elect cmagnetic valve or use valves on another system. se and ars to It happens that Midland has other plants operating,using si ' 11 the pcwer operated relief valve. 12 4 In the event the power cperated relief valve was 13 not used to address the cencern of over-pressurizatien in 14 the shut-down situatien, but was.used for some other 15 reason, seme other pressurizatien protection reason, 16 would it be addressed by your branch? 17 A If it was used for another reason, yes. It IS would be addressed. If it was used for a safety related 19 reasen, it would be addressed, yes. We are respensible 20l for over-pressure protection of the reactor eccling i 1 21 system pressure boundary'and the devices used to l f, 12 relieve pressure. l I Z3 Ilectromatic relief valves are no: ner= ally I-24 _used for that prececticn. l t 25, G When ycu. refer-to an item as safety related, what I } I l Acme Reporting Company j 49 I is the definition, pre-TMI-2 incident, that ycu are ref erring co? 3 A I don't have an exact definition of safety related 4 that I could give you. I could say -- I will make an 5 attempt. 6 g Please do. 7 A A safety related ccmpenent would be one that was 3 necessary to mitigate the consequences of a transient or 9 accident, that is, to prevent viciation of safety limits'. 10 or would be relied upon to prevent the release of 11 radioactive material. 12 4 Let me read from the first paragraph of your 13 resume and ask you if this expresses the same 14 definition or another definition of safety related. The 15 reactor systems branch is responsible for evaluating the 16 capability of reacecr safety systems needed for safety 17 shut-dewn during normal and accident conditions, including 18 the performance of emergency core cooling systems. 19 A Yes. Safe shut-down would be ancther aspect 20 of what I was saying. 1 21 G Was the PoRV considered a ecmpenent which 12 fell within this definition prior to TMI-2? I. 23l A No. l t i l 24 4 In such event wculd indication of PCRV positien 1 1 l 25 he considered a safety related item?- l l I I Acme Reporting Company l 50 I A In such an event, referring Oc the TMI-2 event. 2 In e.he event that the PCRV is not censidered safety 3 related, would indication of a ncn-safety related item be 4 considered safety related? 5 A We don't in our branch normally get involved with 6 the instrumentation, per se. Not normally would be the ~ response to the question. 8 G Are you aware of whether the Midland plant has a 9 position indicator for the FORV? 10 A No, I haven't reviewed that aspect. 11 G Do you expect to review that aspect? 12 A Subsequent to TMI-2, my responsibilities having 13 shif ted, I don' t even k:.cw for sure that I will be back.cn 14 Midland review, but I would expect that the PORV will receive \\ 15 more attention in the future, including the indication of 16 the valve. That has been the recemmendation frem many 1~ groups since TMI-2, 19 G Do you know who would be responsible for reviewing i I i 19 it in the event that you do not review it? l 20 1 No, I i 21 G Would such a review normally fall outside the S secpe of the review conducted by your branch prior to the 1 i 23 TMI-2 transient o.{ March of this year? 24 1 The indica:icns en ncn-safe y grade equipmen: l i t 3l r den't think wculd be reviewed by =y branch pric: :c TMI-2. l t j Acme Reporting Company l 51 i 4 ,I I am net sure that any branch would lock at them. Instrumentation and control systems branch icoks at indications. l ond si 3 for the operator to some degree,3 control systems, but I as 4 not sure that they would icok at scmething like that, either. i 5 I don't think you would find any of that information in.a 6 safety analysis report for review anyway. 7 4 What are seme of the characteristics of a safety 8 related ccmponent as opposed to a ccmponent which you would 9 review because of its pertinence to pressuri:ation control to systems? 11 A Safety related components are designed to 12 meet certain standards. They are normally required to be 13 seismically qualified and receive a high degree of quality 14 control, quality assurance. 15 They are electrcnical ecmponents designed to 16 certain IEEE requirements, certain IEEE standards and 17 requirements which the electrical people on the staff 18 would review. i 19 They are required to meet single failure. criteria 20 as defined in the regulatiens. They are required to mee l i i 21 as defined by certain ASME requirements if it is a mechanical l l ., i -i ccmponent. 4 I 23 4 cces that include redundancy? .,4 A Yes. 25 4 Testability? Acme Reporting Company 5 52 I A Testability. 4 What is testability? 3 A I think testability is probably defined in one or 4 several of the IEEE documents fc electrical syste=s. I 3 don' t have an exact definition for that. 6 4 Would that involve the ability to test che I component while the plant is operating without scramming 3 the reactor? 9 A I don't knew. to 4 Do you recall whether you were respcasible 11 for posing questions to Davis-Besse regarding their 14 application for an operating license? 13 A Yes. I recall I was not responsible.- 14 4 Did your responsibilities include reviewing 15 operator license applications cr construction permits for is plants other than those of the 3&W design? 17 A Yes. 18 4 Did you review such applicatiens for Westinghouse i 19 plants? l 20 i A Yes. I reviewed a construction cer=it -- well, I .i t i not in detail. It was a plant that had already been evaluated quite a while age by_the staff and certain ice =s i "v' l l were to be addressed on it in 1977. The clant was Shearen-t ., i Harris. I lcoked at individual items. l 3 I did not de a ccmple:e review. l i i Acme Reporting Compcny i 33 9 1 g Iid you review the ECCS actuanien on that plan ? 2 A No, I did not. 3 4 Are you aware of a transient which occurred at a 4 Westinghouse plant in Europe? 5 L Yes. 6 0 Which occurred in 1974, er 1975? l 7 A I don't know the date. 3 4 Are you aware that ECCS was actuated in that plant 9 by a ecmbination of pressure level and pressuri:er level? 10 A My last discussions with my management were that 11 this event was essentially classified. I am not sure to 12 what degree I am supposed to discuss it. 13 Would you like to discuss that with your attorney 14 before you respond to the question? 15 A I think so, yes. 16 (Pause in the proceedings.') 17 THE WITNESS: I think it is typical of all 15 Westinghouse plants as far as I knew -- there nay be one or i 19l two older plants that are exceptions, but that ECCS actuation i 20 is or was a coincident icgic cf pressuri er level and j i 21 pressure. I believe that is also typical cf the reacter i t i i il you are re'a-dag to. t s 5! -3Y MR. HELIMAN: I 04 j -G All right. Are you aware that a he CMI-2 i l ;l inciden which occurred in March of this year pressure i Acme Recortina Comoany r i 54 1 decreased at the same ti=e that pressuri:e level indication j 2 . increased? 3 A Yes. That is cc rect. '4 4 Would it be correct that in a plant in which 5 such a divergence occurred, ICCS would not be actuated despite possible voids in the primary system? ~ A Yes. You would go through that stage, that is 3 correct. 9 Do you know how many plants presently are to actuated by a coincidence or pressure indication and 11 level indication? 12 A I believe there are 4ee many. They were 33 13 originally designed that way, but in the recent months 14 we have changed that. 15 0 By means of what? 16 A Bulletins to the plants from the Commission telling 17 them to make changes. IS 4 And_was this done in response to the TM -2 19 incident? 20 A Yes, sir. G Do you recall if the NRC'became awars of the l 4{' .m European incidant to which we have referred after the i UI TM -2 transient of this year or before? i l 24 l A

After, j

2' G Ycu are referring to yourself or to the NRC? I i i Acme Reporting Company j 55 i. 1 A. Myself. I talked with the -- I was on the telephone 2 when'we were f.nformed, as a matter of fact, and I 3 immediately -- within about two hours -- wrote a memorandum 4 to management giving them a list of details on the event and 5 it was subsequently classified, and -- at that point. 6 G When you refer to management, are you referring to I Mr. Mazetis and Mr. Novak? 8 A. I think the memo went all the way -- we were dis-cussingitwithMr.Casethatafternoon.(Twad NY W* N'h3 3 9 4o Mr. Ma.ac.fis and Mr. Novak at +his Hme,) s M Q. Was this transient, the European transient, 11 reported to you by a member of the NRC staff? 12 A Yes. I think I first heard of it then. 1 13 l Q. Do you recall that member's name? \\ 14 A Yes. Mr. Thadani. 15 Q. Did Mr. Thadani inform you of how he became is informed of that transient? 17 A Yes. I think he told me that Westinghouse 18 told him. I am not sure when. Subsequent to "".C-2, but l 19 I am not sure when. 20 Q. In the questions you addressed to Midland, did 21 you specifically address concerns regarding loss of .w pressuri:er level indication, high or low' I l ."y ? A I don't recall specifically. I know thac l 24 l post-accident monitoring I gon into on -he Midland. 1 i i i 25 l review. Pressurizer level was part of that review. i Acme Reporting Compcny 30 I l I It is still ongoing. j t 2 Q. Post-accident review, are you referring to the 3 TMI-2 accident? 4 A Post-accident referring to accident analysis in 5 general. 6 G Have inquiries been posed to Midland regarding ~ pressurizer level indication? 3 A Yes, sir. 9 G Have you addressed inquiries ccncerning operator override of the EPI? to 11 A Not that I can recall. 12 MR. EELF.%N: Let's go off the record. 13 (DIscussien off the record.) 14 MR. HELFMAN: Bach on the record. 15 MR. CHOPKO: I have no questions. I will say 18 that for the record. tJ MR. HELFMAN: Since there are no further questions, 13 l we will recess the deposition. Thank you for v.our tir.e. \\ 19 00 l 21 ' I i 22 I i i i 23! I I l 24 25 i i i I i l Acme Reporting Company i 57 .o l 1 MR. CHOPKO: I have ne questions at this time. 2 MR. HELFMAN: If we have any further questions we 3 will recenvene the deposition and continue at that ti=e. 4 (Whereupon, at 11: 30 a.m., the deposition was 5 recessed, to reconvene at a later time, if necessary.) 6 I have read the foregoing pages, 7 1 threugh 57, inclusive, and they a are a true and acenrate record of my 9 testimony therein recorded. k / 8f12/7y to SCOTT NEW3ERRY 11 Subscribed and sworn to before me 12 this day of 1979 13 l 14 Netary Public 15 My cer:nission Expires: 16 17 is I 19 i i e m I 21 I i l 22i i l i 23 i I 24 n l l l Acme Reporting Compcny l -.a o. i I I I i l i, r 3l A_0 m-, = C,--.-: : - : - *- =- -l 4 5 DCCZ7, NUM3ER: 6 CASI !"T.I: DEPOSITION CF SCOTT NE'ABERRY ~.:.A R I N G C A " I : July 31, 1979 7 e 3 LCCATION: Rockville, Maryland 9 10 I hereby certify that che p cceed:.ngs and e'ridence it herein are centained fully and accurately in the nctes 12 takan by ne at the hearing in the aheve case befcre the 13 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ACCIDENT AT TERIE MILE ISLAND. 14 and that this is a c ne and cc rea: ::anscrip Of the 13 same. 16 17 IS Cate: August 1, 1979 t 13 ./ v f. !(Wjk<l, %'f !)/J 20 3 l ~ [ 21 l Cfficial EspC ner i l i j AC e Eeyc :iny Cenya".', !.".c. i f I .4 y s._,,_ .N. a. l t .nashingzen, .., 3 :. .u. m l 3l .,4 i .,. j -i Acme Reporting Compcny c-m, n...... i ..-g3 CERTIFICATE I certify that I have read this transcript and corrected any errors in the transcription that.I have been able to identify, except for unimportant punctuation errors. ku0vsl /Z. /979 ~h. Date: S'cott F. Newberry' e f 9 9 e ,.r,