ML19322C228
| ML19322C228 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/16/1979 |
| From: | Spangler W BABCOCK & WILCOX CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001160655 | |
| Download: ML19322C228 (47) | |
Text
.
l'j*
h ~ cM i
l N U CLE A R R EG U L ATO R'f CO MMIS 510 N i
i i
i
\\
i 2,
I i
IN THE MATTER OF:
NRC/fMI SPECIAL INQUIRY GROUP DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM H.
SPANGLER
(
Place -
Lynchburg, Virginia Date -
Tuesday, 16 October 1979 Pages 1 - 129 s
,,,6? b n
q'%
p a'
v reen.:
(202)347 3700 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.
OfficialReporser 444 North C=pitol Street Washington, D.C 20001 NAT1CNWIDE COVERAGE DALLY-8001160[ [ I
}
~,
6.
i i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j
1 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
X l
4 In the Matter of:
5 NRC/TMI SPECIAL INQUIRY GROUP 6
X 7
8 Offices of Babcock & Wilcox 9
3515 Old Forest Road Lynchburg, Virginia 10 16 October 1979 11 8:45 a.m.
12 i
DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM H. SPANGLER 13
-1 14 BEFORE:
15 DAVID EVANS, Esq.
R.
LAURENCE VANDENGERG, Esq.
16 JOHN DIENELT, Esq.
HAROLD ORNSTEIN 17 HANS SCHIERLING 18 PRESENT:
GEORGE EDGAR, Esq. and MICHAEL MANEY, Esq., on Behalf of the Deponent.
19 ALSO ? RESENT:
CARLA D'ARISTA, NRC Staff.
20 21 22 23 24 nce Feoorc3 Reporters, Inc.
25 i
l-2 0
1 SSEEEEEE l
Exhibits:
Identified I
1150 4
3 1151 12 I
4, J'
1152 40 5
f 1153 48 6
7 8
9 l
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 l
1 18
~
19 20 I
21 i
22 i
l 23 1
24 l
ma neaanm. snc.
25 l
=
3
- i dsp3 jh PROCEEDINGS I
2 Whereupon, j
+
3l WILLIAM H. SPANGLER 4
was called as a witness, and having been first duly sworn, 5
was examined and testified as follows:
6 MR.
EVANS:
I would state for the record that 7
this is the deposition of Mr. William Spangler being conducted by the NRC/ TAI Special Inquiry Goup.
8 9l It is being held in the offices. of Babcock & Wilcox,
1 10 :
in Lynchburg, Virgnia.
l i
11 Precent with Mr. Spangler is Mr. George Edgar and 12 also Michael Maney, again representing Mr. Spangler.
13 Present for the NRC/TMI Special Inquiry Group is 14 Mr. Hans Schierling, Dr. Hal Ornstein, R. Lawrence Vandenberg, l 15 and David Evans.-
16 Mr. Spangler, the first thing I'm going to do today l
17 '
is to ask you some preliminary questions in an attempt to 18 ;
establish your background.
i 19 MR. EDGAR:
You brought a resume?
20 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
21 EXAMINATION i
22 BY MR.
EVANS:
23 0
Do you have a resume present with you today?
24 A
Yes.
scefecero Reconm. inc.
25 Q
Okay, I would ask the court reporter to mark l
l l
l 4
dCp4 1
this as Exhibit 1150.
2 (Witness handing document to counsel.)
3 (Spangler Deposition Exhibit.180 4
marked for identification.)
5 MR.
EVANS:
Off the record.
6 (Discussion off the record. )
7 BY MR.
EVANS:
8 Q
Mr. Spangler, is your present position still manager' 9
of nuclear plant startup services?
10 A
No.
l 11 Q
What is your current position?
12 A
I'm in sales in Detroit, Michigan.
13 Q
During 1977 and 1978 were you manager of. nuclear 14 plant startup services?
15 A
Yes.
16 Q
In that capacity, did B & W startup personnel l
17 working on the TMI-2 unit report to you?
18 A
Yes.
19 Q
Was that a direct line reporting to you or did 20 they nave intermediaries between you?
21 A
The site manager reported to me.
22 Q
Who was the site manager?
23
.A Lee Rogers.
24 Q
Could you describe what other nuclear plants you've
! Ace.Feoord Rooorters, Inc.
25 had experience with in your capacity as startup manager or
5 ddp5 1
otherwise, other than TMI-2?
2 A
As manager of startup services, Crystal River, 3
Davis-Besse, and TMI-2.
4 Q
And in other capacities?
5 A
Oconee,as a project manager, and a brief spell as 6';
project manager in the very beginning of the Detroit Edison l
7 project.
8 Q
Turning now to Three Mile Island 2, did General 9
Public Utilities have a contract with B & W for startup 10 services?
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
Is that a separate contract other than the supply 13 contract?
i 14 A
Yes.
i 15 Q
How was that contract like or different from 16 contracts with other utilities that B & W has entered into 17 startup service contracts with?
18 A
I don't know the details of the various contracts, 19 per se, but in so far as I know, they are basically the same 20 from utility to utility.
21 It's a master service contract.
I'm sure there are 22 differences in verbiage because each one is negotiated with 23 each individual customer.
+
24 Q
Do you know if the master service contract with i Ace Feders Reoorms, Inc.
25 -
GPU called for B & W to write procedures or stann.2rd tech 4
\\
6 d'cp 6 spscs or any other startup criteria?
3 A
2 To my knowledge, not specifically.
3 Q
How many B & W. test engineers were at Three Mile Island 2 during functional testing a:d power ascension testing?
4 A
5 It's going to be a guess now, and an order of magnitude; there were two teams on the site.
One was the 6
contract team.
7 Q
Contract for B & W?
8 A
9 one was the NSS contract teun -- okay -- which 10 we supplied as part of the NSS -- part of our startup service.
jj There were probably five -- five or six of those, including Lee.
g Then as part of the master service contract there g
34 were about the same order of magnitude, five, six, seven 1
15 P* P **
Q S
there was only -- anywhere between 10 and a dozen 16 test engineers?
g 18 10 and a dozen B & W test engineers on the site.
A Q
Did these site test engineers report back to 39 Y
20 A
Not directly.
They re; orted to me through Lee.
g g
Did you receive reports from Lee Rogers on their Q
work?
g 24 I don't -- relative to what?
A
' Ace-I80093 RODOft9fs, lnC.
Q Relative to the progress of the test schedule; 25
l i
7 dop7 j
relative to the acceptance of the test results?
2 A
Yes.
We got some of the cest reports, of course.
3 Q
They were sent back to you here in Lynchburg?
A They were sent back to us here in Lynchburg.
4 Q
Do you know a gentleman na.med Ron Toole?
A Sure.
6 Q
Did the B & W site test engineers also report to 7
Ron Toole in any capacity?
8 A
I don't -- I can't answer that specifically;
- again, 9
because that job was administrated by Lee Rogers, and I don't 10 11 know whether some of those people reported directly to Ron 12 in their day to day activities or not.
13 Q
Based upon your experience with other units, would it be odd to have the B & W site test engineers report to the ja 15 utility representative?
16 A
Not at all, Q
Based again on your experience, how does this split j7 reporting authority -- that is, to B & W through the site 18 19 representative and to the utility -- utility's representative l
work?
20 A
You have to understand -- I mentioned what we called 21 our master service contract, and under this contract we provide 22 technical expertise, people -- in the fo$n of people to these 23 24 customers.
! Ace Federd Rooorters, Inc.
And oftentimes they are people that they buy for 25
8 dep8 i
dollara cnd put in their organization reporting within ths 2
utility organization cn1 specific assignments.
3 So although rhey are on B & W's payroll -- and I'm 4
responsible to pay their salary -- in etZ:-t functionally 51 during that assignment they are reporting to the utility 6
supervisor.
It's not unusual at all.
7 8
MR. EDGAR:
How do you spell "Ron Toole"?
9 THE WITNESS:
T-o-o-1-e, I believe.
10 MR.
EVANS:
Thank you.
11 BY MR..
EVANS:
12-0 Mr. Spangler, could you describe.for us your 13 Personal involvement with Three Mile Island 2?
Did you go to 14 the site?
15 Did you observe any tests?
16 A
You're talking about the startup, per se?
17 Q
Startup test program, yes.
18 A
My -- as I mentioned, Lee was my representative.
Lee 19 was our site manager and Lee reported tu me.
l l
20 So the responsibiEty for the test program -- test 21 program results and the everyday activities and the technical 22 responsibility for the plant lay with Lee Rogers who reports 23 to me.
24 I made, while I was in that job -- I was in the Ac F.eer-> Recorwes, ine.
25 habit of making routine visits to the site, and I used to set e
9 dsp9 3
a goal for myself of getl:ing up there or to each site no less 2
than every 90 days.
Tha't was one of my objectives.
3 And the purpone of those visits was more personnel 4
matters than anything eine; I used to make it a point just 5
to go 'up and talk to our, people to let them know that I was here.
6 And so it was' -- unless there was some special 7
8 meeting on some special. problem with the customer,. which i
9 occurred occasionally, nrf visits were mostly personnel in 10 nature.
11 Q
Do I understind, then, that you didn't schedule 12 visits with an eye toward the tests that would be performed '
13 or specific points in the startup program that you wanted to 14 observe personally?
i 15 A
That is corruct, I did not.
I 16 Q
I'd like to focus now on the information that you 17 received from the site;' how often did you receive reports 18 from Lee Rogers on the 11tartup test program?
19 A
We :eceived reports -- well, first of all, 20 we had a policy in which we had a daily morning telephone 21 conversation between the' site and my office.
It was routine.
There was a time set, and it happened at the same time every 22 23 morning.
j I
24 That was our d.).ily communication in which we got sc.4.o.r.: n oomn, inc.
25 brought up to date on Qat was going on and what was going to t
m
10 dcp10 hcppan, cnd what ary problems waro; information exchanga, I guass y
w uld be the best way to describe it.
2 In addition, Lee provided us with a weekly report, 3
written, on the activities at the site.
And then of course we received any number of special' 5
letters or whatever, copies of letters that Lee wrote to the customer, that sort of thing, special reports.
7 0
.In the course of these communications, daily 8
briefings, weekly reports or any special letters, did Lee Rogers ever express to you the opinion that the test program was 10 going rushed?
jj A
No.
g Q
Did he ever express to you the opinion that people g
at the site felt that?
g
^
15 Q
Did Lee ever communicate to you that there was a 16 conflict between the Met Ed personnel and the GPU Service 37 Corporation personnel who were running the test program?
18 A
Not specifically and per se, no.
But in an organizatio8 j9 on a site like that where you have two organizations, there is always some degree of difference of opinion or conflict between g
t 22 i
There isn't any question about that.
I don't, g
l as far as I know -- and Lee certainly never expressed to me 3
"""' f5 that the situation there was bad or unusual or anything of that
11 dcpli nature or detrimental.
Q What.i the usual type of conflict which exists?
2 3
I don't -- I don't know exactly how to answer that:
A Differences of opinion, I guess, on day to day activities.
4 0
Is it your --
5 MR. EDGAR:
The normal spectrum of human differences 6
of opinion that you would expect on any job?
7 ESS:
Yes.
8 BY MR. EVANS:
9 Q
Is it your understanding that the GPU Service 10 11 Corporation personnel were running the test program?
I 12 l A
Yes.
Q Is it also your understanding that the' Met Ed.
13 people were required to physically manipulate the plant to j,
15 run this program?
A Yes.
16 Q
The conflict I'm trying to focus on is the conflict j7 18 between directions to complete a task program from the service j9 corporation personnel to Met Ed employees required to physically manipdate the plant.
20 A
Yes.
-21 Q
Now, are you aware of that conflict?
22 A
No.
23 Q
Did Lee Rogers report to you during the hot functional 24
' Ace Focord Reporters, Inc.
25 test phase a transient during which the reactor coolant pump
~
12 dsp12 seals were damaged?
(Pause.)
2 A
I recall vaguely -- very vaguely -- some problem with 3
reactor coolant pump seals, but I can't sit here and talk any j
details.
5 No, it's very vague in my mind.
6 Q
So you*datt recall at this time the circumstances 7
f that transient?
8 A
No, I certainly don't.
9 MR. EVANS:
Off the record a minute.
10 (Discussion off the record.)
MR. EVANS:
Back on the record.
12 I d like the court reporter to mark this as Exhib'it 13 1151.
j, (SPangler Deposition Exhibit 1151 15 marked for identification.)
16 BY MR. EVANS:
j7 Q
Mr. Spangler, do you recognize what the court f
18 reporter has marked as Exhibit 1151?
- 9 (Counsel handing document to witness.)
20 (Witness reviewing document.)
21 A
Yes, this looks like a paper I prepared for one of 22 our operating seminars at Hersey, I guess; yes, certainly.
It's a very good paper, by the way.
24 Aa Feded Reconen, Inc.
(Laughter.)
25
15 dhp15 were a lot of communication and resolution of that p oblem g
g ing on offsite, presumably at Parsippany.
2 S
we weren't usually privy to or participating in 3
those particular discussions.
4 So I guess as an interested outsider or an interested 5
bystander, we certainly pursued whatever information we could, 6
but we certainly weren't kept totally up to date on what was 7
going on.
g Q
Are you' familiar with the double ported design of 9
10 the Lonergan valve?
11
. A No.
I 12 j Q
Are you aware o. what the term critical path planhing means?
j3 A
I guess so, yes.
ja 15 Q
D y u think that is an appropriate way o'f planning 16 and replacing a major component at a plant?
A Well, yes, I certainly -- it's an effective way of j7 18 planning.
I think in planning any project of that scope you 19 almost have to have some sort of critical path, sure.
0 Can you tell me if any B & W site test engineers 20 or any other B & W personnel were present at the Three Mile 21 Island 2 unit acceptance test?
22 A
I don't have specific firsthand knowledge, but I 23 24 guess I would assume yes, they were there.
se. e.o.re n. con m,ine.
25 (Witness conferring with counsel.)
I l
,o 47 stillbelieveisthatfuelshou?.notbeloade{uitiltheplant d:p47 1
2 is complete.
3 That is just my personal. belief, totally complete.
4 And I personally don't believe that that would cause an ultimate; i
5 delay.
i 6
Q So in your opinion, if you delay loading the fuel, 7
you could still meet an end date if it was realistically.aet?
l 8
A In my opinion; but that's an opinion as a non-i 9
construction expert; my opinion.
10 ME. EVANS:
Off the record.
l 11 (Discussion off the record.)
12 MR. DIENELT: Okay.
Let's go back on the record.
13 BY MR. DIENELT:
14 Q
Have you been deposed by the President's Commission?
15 A
No.
i 16 Q
Have you testified before the President's Commission?'
17 A
No.
18 Q
Have you testified before any state or federal 19 Congressional committee?
20 A
No.
21 Q
Have you been scheduled for testimony before the '
22 President's Commission or any Congressional or legislative I
23 body?
?
i 24 A
No.
Am Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 Q
Do you recall having been interviewed by the office i
46 I
46 0
would you call tha schedulo at TMI-2 unraalistic?
s A
I -- I don't recall the schedule, and I don't 2
recall identifying it specifically as any more unrealistic 3
i than any previous schedules.
Y know, it's always a relative thing, and startupsI 5
are the same in these areas.
t Q
During 1977 and 1978, what other units were going 7
through B & W startup programs?
What other units were you I
responsible for as manager of.startup services?
9 A
Davis-Besse.
I think that's it.
I don't remember when Crystan1 river got finished.
I mentioned earlier it was i
g three plants:
Crystal River, Davis-Besse, and TMI.
j g
I don't remember if there was a period where we had all three of them going at the same time or not; but g
basically Davis-Besse and TMI going at the same time.
Q Was there a period in 1978 when there was only g
TMI-27 i
A I don't even remember that.
18 Q
Turning to one statement you made earlier, I believe,.
g l
l that utilities should consider not loading the fuel as quickly i
20 l
as has been done in some circumstances; is it fair to say 21 that delaying of the load of the core would thereby delay the l
22 j
power ascension program?
Are those two interrelated?
i f
^*
A No.
The point I tried to make here and the point I 25
45 dop45 1
A Certainly.
I 2
Q And no difference in the consequences?
3 A
Oh, I'mtalkingstrictlyaboutgettingapowerplantl 4
into operation; there is a desire to have them run, shether 5
they be coal or whatever.
6 Q
Also on page 31 you have the statement:
"There 7
needs to be an industry-wi'e effort to establish and l
9 l
8 maintain realism in project schedules."
l l
9 MR. EDGAR:
Do you see the context of that?
i l
10 THE WITNESS:
Where is that?
Okay.
11 BY MR. EVANS:
I 12 Q
Can you elaborate on that?
What do you mean by i
1 13
" realism"?
14 A
Vles.
What I mean is realism, if -- and what that 15 simply means is if realistically it's going to take five 16 weeks to repair a reactor coolant pump, for example, then don't' I
t 17 schedule it for three weeks for purposes of making people work i
18 harder.
t i
19 If I schedule it for three weeks and target it for i
i 20 three weeks, you guys are really going to go like hell to f
l 21 make the three week date.
l 22 Q
So in your opinion, utilities have been unrealistic l
23 in scheduling very optimistic work?
t l
I l
24 A
In my opinion, there have been times when schedules
- a. 4 e ns m uo m n.inc j
l 25 are unrealistic, yes.
i m
44 dcp44 questioning by asking you again a couple of questions regarding l, 3
1 statements in Exhibit 1151.
l 2
On page 31, under your generic conclusions section, 3
you state:
" Pressure on startup personnel to achieve unrealistic 4
schedules often results in serious mistakes being made that 5
ultimately cause additional delays."
6 Could you explain to me who puts the pressure on the 7
startup personnel?
8 A
Whoever is running the startup program.
9 Q
Generally, would that be the utility?
10 l
11 A
Generally, that would be the utility-Q Has B & W ever run a startup program?
l 12 l
l m
A No.
l 13 j4 Q
What is your basis for. making that statement?
Is 15 it the units you've been involved in or just what you've l
l 16 learned from your field representative?
l 1
A It's units I've been involved in.
If you look at i
j7 15 my resume, I have a long history of field work, most of it i
l 19 in fossil.
i 20 l There's no difference now than there was then.
4 Things haven't changed; there is always drive to achieve and 21 get the plans operating, which is natural and normal.
So it's 22 just based on years of experience, recent and past.
l 23 l
24 Q
Do you really bel.iste there's a similarity between l
t w.r
. n n.,.. w.
25 coal and nuclear units on drive to get them into operation?
l i
I l
43 e
dep43 and what have you; I have nothing official.
I have heard it said at various times that there 2
are certain advantages, tax-wise, for a utility to get a plant 3
commercial or started up or whatever by some date.
But I have zer understanding of that, and I wouldn't want to put myself 5
in a p sition to be an expert.
6 Q
Have you ever heard from Lee Rogers or his counterpart 7
at other sites that report to you indications that those kinds 8
of factors were important in a utility's schedule?
9
^
8"#**
10 O
Can you give me a --
jj A
Verbal?
Not specific, no.
You know, in conversation 12 type things, but nothing that would be specific, whatever.
13 Q
Can you recall any of those remarks that Lee Rogers j,
might have passed on to you about TMI-2?
15 A
Not specifically, certainly not.
16 MR. VANDENBERG:
Mr. Evans, do you have some 37 quesdons?
18 MR. EVANS:
I have a couple of follow-up questions, 39 but it might be a good time to take a five minute break.
So 20 let's take five minutes.
g (Brief recess.)
g MR. EVANS:
Back on the record now.
l g
BY MR. EVANS:
-24 Ace Foced Reconen, Inc.
Q Mr. Spangler, I'm going to finish this line of 25
42
- dep42 And as the need to change that date comes up due
)
t changes, there is a tendency to move it ahead as little 2
as absolutely necessary for -- I don't know whether they would 3
be public relations remons or whether they would be financial 4
reasons or what.
I really don't know.
5 But it has been my experience that there is a 6
tendency to compress a schedule and try to demonstrate that they 7
can do more work in a shorter period of time so that they can 8
t stay as close to their original predicted date as possible.
Q Is that predicted date,in your view,related perhaps 10 jj to commitments the utility may make for providing capacity to a p wer interchange pool?
12 A
I wouldn't want to -- you know -- venture that.
I 13 do know that utilities have power pools, and I do know that --
jg 15 you know -- they do commit to each other to provide generation l
5 f;: these pools.
16 But I don't know enough about their business to -- tot 37 want to venture a guess as to how much of a factor that jg 19 particular thing is.
0 Do you think that in your experience that the 20 acquisition of certain tax benefits, such as the investment 21 tax credit, is sometimes a factor in a utility setting completion 22 l
r commercial operation dates?
23 A
Again, I have to answer the sa!.c way.
You know, I i
24 Ace-For*aret Reporters, Inc.
have heard by the grapevine -- you know -- whole conversations,
-25
41 d:p41 1
MR. VANDENBERG:
Thank you.
2 THE WITNESS:
Do you want a copy of this standard --
i 3
standard startup plan of ours?
4 MR. VANDENBERG:
Yes, please.
5 THE WITNESS:
I can provide you with that.
l 6
BY MR. VANDENBERG:
l 7
Q By the way, the test schedule that utilities become I
committed to, in your view, what -- what are the reasons or 8
i 9
incentives that exist for a utility to pick a particular date 10 which they then get committed to?
l l
11 A
Okay.
Now, this is in my view.
Okay?
12 And I don't pretend to represent B & W in this i
13 view or the utility, for that matter.
14 But as I view it, these are long term projects; 15 everybody knows that.
You know, it used to be seven years.
16 It's now 12 years or whatever.
And when the projects are 37 initiated, there is a stated startup date at that time b'ased i
18 on whatever, presumably based on some reasonable planning.
fl 19 As we also know in this particular industry, for 20 various reasons, construction schedules have extended for a I
l 21 lot of reasons:
money, additional technical requirements, and so forth, 22 i
23 And -- but the startup date -- the original startup ;
24 date is still in print:
hey, this is the date that we intended,
Ace-facerol Recorters, Inc.
25 to start this plant up.
f c_
f 40
'dap40 1
MR. VANDENBERG:
Also I'd like to ask the court 2
reporter to mark as Exhibit 1152 this March 3, 1978 memo to 3
Metropolitan Edison Company which encloses amendment number one i
4 to the operating license, DPR-73.
5 (Spangler Deposition Exhibit 1152 1
6 marked for identification.)
i i
7 MR. VANDENBERG:
This was previously discussed.
l 4
8 (Discussion off the reccrd.)
9 MR.- VANDENBERG:
Back on the record.
10 BY MR. VANDENBERG:
l l
II Q
Mr. Spangler, I wondered if you could provide a l
12 couple of items for us:
one, the B & W document that contains 13 the standard test plan schedule that we've talked about this j
14 mouing.
15 A
Yes.
16 Q
And also while we were off the record you talked about 17 a follow-on article to what we have been calling Exhibit 1151.
18
- ould you supply that to us as well?
l l
19 A
I think so.
20 The reason I'm saying that is it was mt published.
l 21 I. presented it there, and the question is whether I can lay j
t 22 my hands on a copy of it.
l 23 I'm going to try, certainly.
l i
(
24 MR. EDGAR:
We'll undertake to search farit, and if teFewal Racmrs. Inc.
j 25 it's available, we'll furnish it.
l i
w
i 39 I'
dep39 j
granting of tne OL?
l, 2
A I don't remember any specific -- specific conversation 3
on that subject, but that is a general topic of discussion.
Youj i
a recall I mentioned that we had daily telephone conversations 5
with every job that was in startup.
6 And the punch list -- everfjob at this stage has a l
7 punch list, and we are,one, specifically interested in those 1
8 items on that punch list that are B & W's responsibility.
l
\\
9 We make sure we know and understand those specific j
l jo items.
From a general standpoint, it's not unusual during 11 our discussions for somebody to say, hey, you know, in addition ;
12 to the B & W items there is X-100 additional items on this 13 punch list.
ja But I don't recall that this particular instance 15 was discuss'ed in any different fashion than any previous jobs.
16 It was just an item of discussion during the course of events.
]7 Q
Was the number of punch list items in January 1978 i
18 more or less than other plants at that stage, in your view?
j9 A
I have no idea.
But I don't remember or don't-20 recall thinking, gee whiz, this plant certainly has a large 21 number of punch list items.
l r
22 Q
How about a much later period around December of 1978;?
23 Do you have any recollection then of the number of outstanding 24 items?
t Am FerJ Rgorwrs, lm.
i 25 A
Certainly not.
l
~
f I
I
38 dep38 A
I don't know; I've never seen this before.
MR. VANDENBERG:
Off the record.
2 (Discussion off the record.)
3 MR. VANDENBERG:
Back on the record.
BY M. M M BERG:
i 3
Q Pleasa.go ahead.
l I
A You know, I don't know the specific details of that 7
i instance or -- you know -- just in a few brief seconds here 8
l 6
I'm not sure I know exactly what that was all about.
9 But on the surface, I think it's obvious it's just 10 i
that kind of thing you just referred to.
11 12 Did Mr. Rogers ever report to you additional evidencej Q
i that would support your conclusion that utilities tend to load l
13 fuel prematurely?
9 A
No, not specifically."
15 Q
And one last question I have, Mr. Spangler, deals g
I with the number of punch list. items at TMI-2.
j7 As I understand it, the operating license for TMI-2 18 was granted on February 8, 1978 and for the couple of months j9 pr r
a e e were as many as 10,000 punch list or open 20 items to be completed.
g i
l D
y u have a recollection of that?
22 A
No, not specifically.
j g
Q Did Mr. Rogers ever communicate or talk to you about 24 4 reni n.conm. inc.
the number of items that remainal e be completed prior to 25 i
37 dep37 And my point is that once they load fuel, they j
really have given themselves a kick in the tail because then 2
l they are limited in access -- you know -- all the various 3
safety criteria,and so forth, apply.
4 i
And they are limited in access to the plant to I
5 continue and complete their construction on other faces, other 6
than the NSS.
7
'And I'm simply saying, " Hey, you're really better 8
off, in my opinion, and you. wind up ultimately saving time"'--
9 i
10 again this is my opinion here.
I I
11 You are better off and you'll save time if you 12 finish the whole plant, everything, prior to the time you load i
fuel.
13 ja Q
Mr. Spangler --
l A
Because once you put' fuel in the core, you're very lT 15 limited in access.
16 Q
Mr. Spangler, I want to show you a March 3, 1978 17 l
letter - to Metropolitan Edison from the Nuclear Regualtory l
18 l
39 Commission, enclosing amendment number one to the TMI-2 perating license.
20 Is the -- excuse me.
Let me start over again.
21 1
I Was the need for this amendment an example of the 22
~
i kinds of things you have just been talking about?
.j 23 24 (Counsel handing document to witness.)
Am-Feceral Reporters, Inc.
~
(Witness reviewing document.)
25 i
t
36 i
i dep36 that later proved to be unrealistic.
Do you see that in there?
2
)
A Yes.
3 Q
What kinds of difficulties that lead to?
l 4
(Pause.)
5 i
A Okay.
You know -- this says -- and you know I l
6 i
wr te this and I believe it -- that there is a tendency to 7
get committed to construction dates and end dates and try 8
to hold these end dates and try te compress construction and j
9 i
startup schedules by working overtime and by other means to meet 10 end dates.
11 l
i And one of the points I make and continue to make 12 is that sometimes they tend to load fuel at a time when,the 13 NSS, per se, is ready for fuel.
ja 15 It has gone through all its tests; it is functionally 16 acceptable, and it's ready to load fuel.
And, again, it has met all the criteria, met or exceeded all the criteria, so fuel 37 is loaded.
18 l
39 But that doesn't necessarily mean that the plant is ready to run.
There are other components of that plant besides 20 1
the NSS.
21 l
The NSS is obviously ready, but there are many other' 22 components that make up the total plant:
secondary side 23 i
24 turbine generator; water treatment -- you know -- everything.
am,*wwa neomn. is i
The plant, per se, can't run until it's all ready.
25 t
l
[
1 35 l
I dcp35 Q
And also on this test program, is it fair to 1
chracterize this -- this test program as just a sequence of i
tests that has to be peformed r'egardless of dates, or is it 3
rather -- and I'm inferring from what I think you said -- that l
the utility gets committed to a schedule, a date, and then 5
I matches the tests to accomplish that date?
i 6
1 A
Well, he's got a test program that he has to do;.
he's got a series of tests that he must do.
Eventually, he is overall -- he is going to try to schedule those tests and try to understand the schedule so he can predict when the test I
program is going to be -- but my understanding -- but my g
understanding is that the test program comes first, and then j
i the schedule is developed around the test program because i
13 i
the test pro ~ gram is a required thing.
i Does that answer your question?
l-15 l
Q Yes.
Do utilities often_ review their test programs to 17 I
see if there is anything -- any test item that they can delete I
18 i
or substantially postpone?
19 i
i A
I don't know that.
20 i
Q Did Lee Rogers ever report to you any such indication!
21 l
at TMI-2 that certain tests were being deleted or postponed?
A Most assuredly not.
i Q
Mr. Spanger, in your article, you mention this idea l
that utilities continue to become committed to startuo schedules l
25 e
i 4
i
34 i
\\
A I think that's obvbus, yes.
You know, the utility
}
dep34 j
1 2
puts together a test program, and that test program is approved,
I.
within their own organization and ultimately, presumably, by the:
3 NRC in some fashion.
4 Now, whether that program meets -- we all know it 5
6 meets the requirements of the NRC.
I'm not sure whether any of us really recognize or ask the question whether it exceeds 7
8 requirements of the NRC.
i The test program is developed; it's approved within 9
10 the customer's organization, and it's approved by the NRC.
So 11 the question you asked as to whether they go overboard, I can't 3
i.
answer that.
12 I
You know, the only thing I can say is:
everybody f
13 t
knows that the ultimate test program is approved and accepted l
14 i
15 by those that are involved in that.
i 16 Q
So in the plants -- four or five plants you indicated i i
17 you have been involved in, are you aware that any of those 18 had test programs in excess of NRC requirements?
l 19 A
No, not specifically, no.
20 Q
Okay.
I With recard to tests also, are you aware of anything 21 22 any requirement, rather, of the Federal Energy Regulatory l
e Commission regarding a 120 rule for completing a test program? j 23 This would sometimes be called construction 9-D?
l 24 l Aa4Wwd Rummn, tnc.
A No, I'm not.
{
i 25 f
i
33 dep33 situation where that has arisen?
A We haven't ever done -- taken any specif:.c action about 2
that.
3 Q
Does NRC, to your knowledge, have any guidance about 4
test programs being conducted too slowly?
5 A
No.
i 6
Q Okay.
Going back to some of the things we mentioned.
7 a little bit earlier, is it your impression that all the tests in the startup test program are documented in the FSAR?
9 A
I don't -- again, are you talking now TMI-2?
l 10 Q
Yes.
That's talk specifically about TMI-2.
11 A
I'm n t that familiar in detail with any FSAR; the 12 TMI-2 FSAR is -- you know -- old.
I can't answer that.-
g Q
With regare? to TMI-2 or generally?
9 f
^
""*#^
Y
~
15 Okay.
Do you know if the -- if utilities ever have 16 tests beyond those that are required by the NRC startup tests?
j7 A
Not specifically..
{
18 Q
In general, they keep pretty close to the NRC 39 requ ements?
20 A
I -,you know -- I don't know.
g I
Q Is it your -- is it possible, then, that in your g
e a
ee ent or neer of tests dat are perfomed on a 23l specific unit would vary based on the desires or attitudes of 24
- Ace.Feoe,el Reponen. Inc.
the utility in terms of tests that go beyond the NRC requirements:
25 I
L l'
32 l
l l dnp32 1
Q Did you participate in answering any NRC or f
2 more, specifically office of nuclear reactor regulation questions:
l 3
about the test program during NRC's review of the TMI 2 4
app;.ication?
l l
5 A
No, no.
\\
l 6
Q 1s -- does B & W have any concern that t utility l
7 may conduct its test program either too quickly or too slowly?
l 8
A If you're looking for an official B & W position, I l
t 9
can't give you one.
f 10 Speaking for myself, I'm not sure -- I'm not sure i
11 how to answer that question.
I'm not sure I understand the I
12 question.
13 You know, if we saw -- if I saw in a plant that I was; 14 responsible for that I felt the company was moving too fast, I
15 that he was getting himself in a situation where it was recklessp i
f 16 yes, I would feel obligated to make that fact known.
l 17 I think tha answer to the question is that j
18 obviously B & W would be interested and concerned about that 19 sort of thing.
i 20 Q
How about if the customer, for your point of view, i
21 was proceeding too slowly?
22 A
Well, that concerns us also.
i 23 Q
In what regard?
I I
24 A
It costs us money.
Am.Fews Rummes, inc.
25 Q
And what could or have you ever done about that in a !
1 a
I 31 dcp31 1
Q Okay.
How do you label the tests before core i
2 load?
3 A
We call that pre-op testing.
l l
4 Q
And that would include hot functional testing?
l 5
A To my view, yes.
You may find other people in 6
the building that feel that -- call it something else.
t 7
Q Do you know if NRC provides any guidance on the
{
8 schedule for conducting the full range of startup testing?
i 9
'A Not that I know of.
10 Q
Do you know if there was any formal or informal 11 guidance'that B & W received upon which they based this
^
1
~
12 B & W standard test program?
j 13 A
No.
As far as I know, it was strictly based on our 14 own experi'ence and on our own thinking.
15 MR. EDGAR:
Is this in regard to schedules?
16 THE WITNESS:
This is the standard program test 17 schedule.
18 BY MR. VANDENBERG:
19 Q
That's my question.
So you're saying that as far 20 as you know --
t i
21 A
It was developed by B & W for our own use, for our l
22 own purposes, j
l i
l 23 Q
And was not based on any NRC formal or informal l
24 guidance?
nmJew) Roorwrs, is 25 A
Not as far as I know.
l l
I f
30
+
l d:p30 1
Q You just think it's an irrational --
2 A
It gets to be, " Hey, the plant is near completion, I
3 now."
l 4
MR. ORNSTEIN:
Off the record.
5 (Discussion off the record.)
6 BY MR. VANDENBERG:
7 Q
Mr. Spangler, where is the B & W standard test l
l 8
plan documented?
9 A
The B & W standard test plan?
i l
10 Q
Yes, the one we've been referring to this morning.
11
'A Our test input -- I don't know what you mean.
12 Where it's documented?
It's part of the service department.
13 Q
Is there a particular document that can 7.ist and 14 contains the standard plan schedule?
15 A
I'm sure there is, but I can't identify it by 16 title right now.
}
17 0
I want to clarify two of the terms:
startup testing; i
18 in your view does startup testing include both those tests i
l i
19 before core load and those tests after core load?
20 A
Startup testing?
21 Q
Yes.
22 A
Yes, in my view it does.
23 Q
And if -- is it appropriate to call the tests'after 1
24 core load power ascension tests?
l t tc. wwa namnm. irm 25 A
We call them power escalation tests.
l l
l
29 i
dep29 ascension program.
We used this particular curve for our planning f
2 i
3 purposes, and frankly, it's as much for planning our manpower resources as much as anything else.
4 But it is what we consider to be reasonable in 5
knowing we were going to have certain problems.
6 But that doesn't mean it's going to be anywhere.
7 near that.
It could be much shorter or much longer at any 8
l given site.
It depends on the particular circumstances of that i 9
l site.
10 l
11 Now, let me'say one more thing on that, because I j
12 think it's very important.
Fuel loading gets to be a great big, emotional, commerical thing in the eyes of the customer 13 ja when theyre building one of these plants.
15 That gets to be a day that everybody looks forward i
16 to, and everybody has made commitments for.
So, they load fueli I
j7 as soon as the plant is ready..
Okay?
S that also can affect how ling it takes from 18 l
19 fuel loading to completion of power ascention.
OKay?
It' varies from plant to plant.
20 1
f Q
Why is fuel loading such an emotional, commercial 21 l
day?
l 22 l
A I don't know.
i 23 24 Q
Do you know what importance the empanies see in that?
[ Ace 4eder2 Recorwrs, Inc.
I A
No.
25 l
l
28 dep28 1
went from test to test with no outages and no shutdowns.
2 Q
Would eight weeks surprise you?
3 A
I don't even want to venture a guess.
I don't 4
know how many days are involved.
But 2f you went from one 5
test to the other without shutting down and without problems 6
and without delays, it certainly would be done in a much 7
shorter period than the five or six months we're talking about.
i 8
Q So what is the proper method of planning, in your 9
opinion?
10 Do you plan for the outages or do you schedule the 11 most optimistic schedule and then just deal with the outages 12 as they occur?
13 A
You plan, to my way of thinking -- my way of 14 thinking ~- you plan for reasonable outages based on past t
15 experience.
16 Q
Did you -- excuse me.
17 A
But when you get up to a power ascension program --
la remember this -- there are various degrees of what has happened l 19 prior to that time.
20 Do you understand what I mean?
You could well have 21 been through a -- a hot functional test that ferreted out most i
22 of the problems and you could be in good shape to run a rather t
l 23 rapid power ascension program.
So there are too many -- too 24 many factors that are individual to each individual plant to l aa s e n e n u m m m.inc.
25 say how long it's going to take to do a specific power 1
i
27 dcp27 1
accounts for routine problems.
2 If you have major problems, major equipment problems, 3
it's going to go, longer than that.
If you're lucky and i
4 have few problems, which sometimes occurs, you're going to go 5
shorter than that.
i 1
6 Q
Now, turning your attention to unit 2 at Three Mile j
7 Island, based.upon the discussion we had earlier regarding 4
a main steam' valve failure and the need to replace those, assuming; l
9 if you will, that they had done very few of the power ascension 10 tests before they had that problem, that when they came back on--
11 line after curing'the problem, they would then have to run the i
12 entire power ascension program; would you estimate that it 13 would take six months to complete -- six months to complete i
i 14 that program to the unit acceptance tests?
15 A
That's what the curve says, everything being normal.
16 Q
Would you consider it to be an overly optimistic 17 schedule to complete the power. ascension program in the time 18 period of September -- mid-September to the end of February, i
19 1979?
20 A
Not -- no, not if -- how long it takes to do a i
21 power ascension program -- you know -- if all you do is do i
22 the testing, you go from one test to the other; it doesn't I
23 take long.
24
- 7. don't know, you know, how many days per se are Am-Feder3 Reporters, Inc.
25 involved in the power ascension program, per se; if you just i
i
26 dcp26 A
That's correct.
j Q
And is it accurate that the B & W plant startup 2
schedule calls for a total of approximately 14 months or 3
28 weeks?
4 A
From hydro, yes.
5 Q
From hydro to unit acceptance test?
6 A
Yes, that's correct.
7 t
MR. EDGAR:
14 months or how many weeks?
8 THE WITNESS:
14 times 4.
What --
9 MR. EDGAR:
56 weeks.
10 t
i jj BY MR. EVANS:
Q And is it accurate to state that this B & W planned 12 startup schedule calls for approximately six months between 13 i
ja fuel load.and the unit acceptance test?
j A
Yes.
15 16 Q
Does that six month period in the B & W planned y7 schedule take into account significant downtimes which 18 ccur at units because of problems in the test phase?
will A
I'd say it takes into account what we would consider -
19 to be-- and I know you're going to ask this -- but what 20 we w uld consider to be a normal problem sequence.
21 22 You have outages during the startup period for problems, and -- you know -- routine problems, I guess,.more 23 or less.
24 AcsJederst Reporters, Inc.
25 It does not account for major problems, but it e
i
25 dcp25 1
A Well, I'm going back -- now:
T'm recalling our 2
planning for a startup and our standard plan schedule.
Our 3
standard plan schedule, if I recall right, is about 22 months.
4 0
22 months for what?
5 A
From the beginning of the testing which occurs --
l i
6 you know -- just around about the same time hydro takes place --l l
7 system hydro to completion of acceptance tests.
i 8
Q That's a standard --
l 9
A That doesn't jive at all with this.
You know, tis 10 says four years from hydro.--
i l
11 Q
Now, I believe if you look at that --
l 1
12 A
-- completion of hydro.
i 13 Q
If you look --
i I
14 A
Wait a minute now.
Let me look.
Okay, maybe you 15 are --
16 MR. EVANS:
Le':'s go off the record.
i 17 (Discussion off the record.)
18 MR. EVANS:
Let's go back on the record.
i 19 THE WITNESS:
So we're back to five months.
l l
20 BY MR. EVANS:
21 Q
Back on die record now, Mr. Spangler, let's attempt I
i l
r l
22 to clear up this problem with Figure 6 in Exhibit 1151.
I i
1 23 A
Okay.
l l
3 24 Q
Is it accurate now as listed in that exhibit that l a= Jeers Roorwn, W.
25 the standard is months and not weeks?
i k
4
'!4
'dtp24 (Discussion off the record.)
)
BY MR. EVANS:
2 Q
Mr. Spangler, what is the standard B & W estimated 3
period for the period between fuel load and unit acceptance 4
est, to,your knowledge, whether based upon this article or 5
i not?
6 l
A I really would rather go back and check my records, 7
"Y E*E*#*
8 i
0 Would five weeks be an unrealistic time?
9 10 That's pretty short.
A Q
Would 10 weeks be realistic between fuel load and jj unit acceptance test?
12 13 w u d say it would be fa hly realistic.
But againj A
),
I want to go back and check our planning because this has confused me -- you know -- right now.
i 15 16 Obviously, 10 months is a long time.
Q Would you also suggest then that the measures used j7 n page 27 of the article which talk about months after fuel 18 j9 loading and show that at Crystal River 3 the unit acceptance test was conducted 4.6 months af ter fuel loading.---
20 l
t A
No, I think that's right.
g Q
That's right?
22 i
A Yes.
No, that's actual.
{
23 l
r 0
Well, then could you explain for me why you believe 24 ice Federal Reporters, Inc.
I 25 it's actual on page 27, but a typo on page 297 t
-~
23 I
dcp23 which are prepared as shown in Figuro 6 -- I'll give you a chanca 2
to look at that.
3 (Counsel handing document to witness.)
4 (Witness reviewing document.)
5 A
Okay.
6 Q
Okay.
Would it be fair to say, based upon the table 7
that is presented there -- and I could point you to other 8
points in the article, if neces.sary -- but would it be fair 9
to say that approximately five months is the standard 10 time for a B & W unit between fuel load and unit acceptance II test?
12 (Pause.)
I3 A
Let's see.
Let's see.
We say -- we're looking Id at eight to 10 weeks for fuel loading and acceptance tests.
15 That's what we say is achievable here:
three to five; Oconee 1.,
I0 three to five.
It was, oh, 15 weeks.
I7 Three Mile Island 1 was only about five weeks.
18 Q
Maybe you can help me understand the legend at the bottom.
This is months?
20 A
This is months.
Excuse me.
Yes, it is.
21 Q
So all your prior statements should be corrected to 22 read " months."
i 23 A
Right.
We say, going back, " fuel loading to 24 acceptance test" -- no, there's something wrong here somewhere.
i AesJederd Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. EVANS:
Off the record.
22 dep22 i
customers.
2 The purpose of that seminary is to relay to all 3
of our customers at one time in one room all of the information 4
we have relative to operating plants.
5 In the course of -- well, the objective is to get 6
problems on the table, and usually at these meetings they 7
ask whoever is manager of the startup effort of our startup 8
programs to just discuss the activities of those plants that 9
are' in the startup program or in startup phase.
And that was 10 the purpose of that.
11 Q
Is this an annual meeting?
12 A
This is an annual meeting.
13 But it doesn't have the same agenda every year.
The ja agenda is.put together based on the times, what is going on.
15 So it's not something the same paper would be prepared every 16 year for.
17 Q
Do you recall at the present time what you calculated g
as the average time that would pass between initial fuel loading 19 at a unit and the unit acceptance test?
20 Do you have that in your memory?
21 A
Run that by me again.
22 Q
Do you recall today what is the average time for 23 a B & W unit between fuel load and unit acceptance tests?
24 A
No, I don't have it in my head.
ac.4.o.o n.conen. Inc.
25 Q
Let me ask, if looking at Exhibit 1151, the tables i
i I
l
21 dep21 A
If I recall -- it goes back awhile -- if I recall, j
2 we were not very far along on the TMI startup when that thing 3i was written.
4 And so it was impossible to make comparisons.
Q Subsequent to publishing this article, did you 5
6 publish another article which included data on Three Mile Island 27 7
A No, I don't think so.
l 8
Q Was there a 1978 version of this article?
9 A
No.
10 11 Q
So this is a one shot deal.
It's not something 12 you prepared annually?
A That's right.
13 ja It depends on the subject of the meeting.
15 Q
For your own purposes, have you gone back and 16 compared th.7 startup program at Three Mile Island 2 with the 17 programs that are identified in this article?
A I haven't, per se, because j'ust about the time 18 39 things were wrapping up, the TMI-2 incident occurred.
Otherwise, I no doubt would have.
20 21 Q
Has anyone else that you know of at B & W prepared 22 such an analysis?
A Not to my knowledge.
23 24 Q
Why did you prepare this 1977 article?
se..p.e.,14 a.oor,.,,, inc.
25 A
We have an annual operating plant seminary with our
20 dep20 A
I don't -- I can't answer that question.
I have i
n idea what the significance of those tests are to NRC.
2 Q.
D y u know if it's included in the FSAR of Three 3
Mile Island 27 5
Q Do you know if it's usually included in the standard FSAR test procedures which B & W assists the licensee in l
l preparing?
A I do not.
l 9
r
-Q Do you know if the unit acceptance test has an 10 imp rtance to any other regulatory agency, other than the 11 NRC?
g A
I don't.
13 MR. EVANS:
Off the record.
9 scuss on oH e record.)
15 MR. EVANS:
Back on the record.
16 BY MR. EVANS:
1 g
Q Mr. Spangler, I'm now going to focus on some of the i
information in Exhibit 1151 and specifically I'm going to j9 attempt to have you assist me in drawing comparisons between I
20 the startup test program at Three Mile Islano 2 and those described in your 1977 article, whicli is Exhibit 1151.
i In that exhibit you stated that you hadn't received 23 en ugh information from Three Mile Island 2 to make a comparison 24
' Ace Feeerst Reporters, itic.
f its program when you wrote this article; is that correct?
25 8
h
19 depl9 to be performed.
)
Is that consistent with your understanding?
2 A
Y"
3 Q
My question is --
4 A
Well --
5 Q
Excuse me.
A Are we talking about the TMI FSAR, per se?
7 Q
Not yet.
My question is:
does B & W normally assist licensees 9
in preparing a list of tests to be performed which are then 10 incorporated into the FSAR?
11 A
Yes.
We provide them with guidance and with 12 information, and then they prepare the FSAR from that.
Q Are you familiar with the FSAR for Three Mile Island j,
2 as it relates to tests to be performed?
g A
No.
BY MR. VANDENEERG:
p Q
Is that assistance, Mr. Spangler, part of the master service contract or part of the NSSS?
39 20 l
BY MR. EVANS:
g Q
Mr. Spangler, what is your understanding of the i
g importance of the initial warranty run to the NRC?
l g
A Again, I don't know what a warranty run is.
24 Am.FederrJ Reporters. Inc.
Q Excuse me.
Unit acceptance test?
25 i
l 10 dspl8 1
tsat?
2 A
A full load cperation metting prescribed criteria.
3 0
Is that a test?
4 A
It is a test, but it is not an official test; it's 5
not a test that is reccrded for some official purpose like 6
the acceptance test.
7 Q
Well, that is my question:
what is the test before 8
the acceptance test which is recorded for some official purpose 9
which shows --
jo A
To my knowledge, there is no official test prior 11 to the acceptance test that officially records that.
12 Q
Would you consider the full power generator trip
- 13 test to be the next closest thing?
.~
14 (Pause.)
15 A
I don't recall exactly where that comes in the 16 test sequence.
17 I -- you know -- I don't have the whole test program 18 committed to memory.
19 0
Are you familiar with the -- strike that.
20 Is there a standard set of B & W tests which are 21 incorporated in the FSARs of various units?
22 (Pause.)
i 23 A
I'm.not sure I understand the question.
There is 24 an FSAR, of course.
Ace Federd Reporters, fric.
j 25 Q
And the FSAR, I understand, contains a list of tests 1
17 dcpl7 and again I'm just going by memory --
3 2
Q Yes.
3 A
-- was put into what they called commercial operation 4
significantly prior to the acceptance test.
5 Q
Can you think of units where the acceptance test 6
has been run before commercial operation?
A No, I can't.
7 Q
Do you consider the unit acceptance test the completion 8
9 of the test program?
A Yes.
10 11 Q
Could it be fair to say a test program was incomplete without it?
12 13 That's hard -- you know -- the acceptance test really-A 14 has a lot of commercial impact, per se.
1 15 And in reality prior to the time that official 16 acceptance test is run, the unit would normally have been j7 cperated at full load a number of times, and would have 18 already proven itself capable of doing so.
19 It's this formal thing, then, that becomes the 20 acceptance test.
21 So normally the test program will not be complete
.without it.
But certainly the plant would be proven prior to 22 23 that time, proven capable.
24 Q
What is the test,in your mind,which proves that Ace 4ecor<J Rooorte,s, Inc.
25 the plant is capable of being operated before the unit acceptance l
I l
16 depl6 1
Q Mr. Spangler, would you like to clarify your 2
previous answer?
3 A
No.
I would assume that some of our people were 4
there during the so-called acceptance test.
5 MR. EDGAR:
Off the record.
6 (Discussion off the record.)
i 7
MR. EVANS:
Back on the record.
8 BY MR. EVANS:
9 Q
Mr. Spangler, could you, based upon your experience, 10 draw a distinction, if there is one, between a unit acceptance 11 test and an initial warranty run test?
12 Is there a difference between those two?
13 A
Not in so far as I know about; we use the term 14
" acceptance test," so I don't recall in my history here that t5 we use the term " warranty test," per se.
16 Q
Could you describe for me, based on your experience, 17 the relationship between the unit acceptance and commercial 18 operation at a nuclear unit?
19 A
As far as I'm concerned, the two aren't related, 20 normally.
21 Q
Is complete -- successful completion of the unit 22 acceptance test a prerequisite to commercial operation?
23 A
It certainly hasn't been in some cases?
24 Q
Could you name instances where you --
we.aeras neoorms, inc.
25 A
Davis-Besse, for example:
that unit, as I recall --
l 14 dcpl4 1
A No.
2 Q
Do you hav'e any recollection as to the similarity 3'
between the two problems at TMI-2 and at Davis-Besse?
4 A
No.
5 Q
Do you recall regarding this main steam relief 6l valve problem at TMI-2 whether B & W played any role in 7
analyzing the problem or making recommendations as to the 8
slution of the problem?
9 A
We did not from here.
10 Q
Do you know if Mr. Rogers did?
11 A
I don't know.
12 Q
Would you expect Mr. Rogers to report to you if he 13 did take a role in something of that nature?
14 A
If he did anything in an official fashion, such as 15 written recommendations, I'm sure I would have received 16 copies of such recommendations.
17 Q
Through your daily briefings with Mr. Rogers or 18 through the weekly reports, did you keep track of the progress 19 of this problem at Three Mile Island 27 20 A
Sure.
21 Q
Are you familiar with the planning of GPU with regard 22 to the problem, whether they were going to replace the valves i
23 or modify the valves?
24 A
To the -- to the extent that they kept us advised on AceJeceral Reporters, Inc.
25 a daily basis; but recognize that the communications -- there
13 dhpl3 Q
I'm going to ask you some questions based upon things j
2 in this paper throughout the course of our questioning.
3 At this time, I'd like to call your attention to Table 2 in Exhibit 1151, which deals with Davis-Besse 1, 4
5 problems during startup.
And under that table you have listed HPI pump 6
lube oil system as being one of the problems at Davis-Besse.
7 A
Where are we here?
8 Q
Do you recall that at this time?
9 A
No, I certainly don't.
10 11 Q
Did Lee Rogers report to you during the power 12 ascension testing phase of an April 23, 1978 transient, during which the main steam relief valves malfunctioned?
13 A
I don't recall.
ja 15 Q
Let me attempt to refresh your recollection:
at 16 Three Mile Island 2 there was a significant period of downtime 37 required to replace the main steam relief valves.
A That's correct.
18 19 0
And it is my understanding that this transient -
first brought the problem to GPU.
20,
So are you familiar with the problem?
21 A
I'm familiar with the p~+1em, yes.
22 0
Again referring to Exhibit 1151, at Davis-Besse you
)
23 24 have listed as a problem main steam code safety valves.
ac.se.o n. con.n. anc.
25 Do you recall that at this time?
-