ML20024B165
| ML20024B165 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/17/1979 |
| From: | Ward E BABCOCK & WILCOX CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-02, TASK-03, TASK-2, TASK-3, TASK-GB GPU-6049, NUDOCS 8307070171 | |
| Download: ML20024B165 (12) | |
Text
.
i r
D.."
i gpg,(
g T
l Designations from the NRC Special Inquiry Group Deposition of Edwin G.
Ward, dated October 17, 1979:
11:2 - 11:11 12:4 - 13:3 17:23 - 18:1 29:12 - 29:10 31:16 - 31:24 32:15 - 33:3 36:19 - 37:3 i
(~
a e
i C
8307070171 791017 PDR ADOCK 05000289 T
HOL
-(
2-- 7
-- - L
=-
Q DOY t
11
.I (rause.)
r--
O..
2 Q
IIW did you learn about the TMI incident?
A Prem a telephono call from Mr. W. 11. Spangler uometim?
3 O
4 prior to 8:00 a.m. on !! arch 28th.
3 At tnat time, what did you understand to be the Q
6 nature of the problem?
7 A
That the unit had suf fored a severe transien'..
The 8
reactor had tripped; the turbine hac trir ped.
9 The major concern expressed was that in addition 10 to what, ecnerwiss might have been a normal transient, there II was indication of radioactivity in the centainment.
l Q
Af ter your phone call with Mr. Sp mgler, what did I3 you do?
Id I alerted Mr. J. C. Deddens, my supervisor.
And --
A 3
II What -
excuse' me.-- go ahead.
Q 16 Also advised him that a meeting had been scheduled A
II for approximately 9:00 a.m. and that to consider this report in I8 further detail.
I'
.Did you describe what you understood.to be the
-Q natQre of the prob).em to Mr. Spangler during ycur notification to him? ExcuseIEe, Mr. Doddens?
few,IexplainedtoMr.Deddensthefewfact',that 22 3
g-23 had been passed along concerning the occurrence.
h 24' Specifically, did you advi=0 him of ths, radioactivity Q
cs Fweest' Reports.1, Inc.
25 in the containment?
r -.
-7*-
- gst=_e**eh e e-se Wg -
- w e e.-e-as-a
,M.-
n l
l l
s.
u.w,.u.~.,_~.._...._.__,...__,,,,.,,,,.____
12 l
dsp12 1
A 1 did.
(
{]j 2i 0
Did you attend the 9:00 nocting?
3 A
I did.
!J-l 4
Q Did you du anything also betwoon the 3:00. pheno
(])
call or roughly 8:00 phone call with Mr. Spenglor and the 9 :00 5
f6 meeting related to the TMI incident?
7 (Pause.)
3 A
I don't recall that I did anything other than, perhapa, have conversations with rther people that I hevo no record of.
9 10 Q
Do you recall apprunimately hcw many people were 11 at the 9:00 meeting?
12 A
I'm not sure whether Wandling's memo describes how 23
=any were at that meeting or not.
If I were estimating, I 14 would say, 15 or 20.
15 Q
During prier depositions, a number of different 2
16 individuals have been identified as having boon present at tho.
17 meeting.
I am going to ask you 14 yov are aware of any others 18 who are present, and also, as I go over this list, if thara 19 are any on the list whom you are certain were not present, I 20 would appreciate your telling me.
21 Mr. Roy; Mr. Spangler Mr. Karrasch Mr. La Bellet 1
22 Mr. Dcddens; Mr. Winkst Mr. WomacP.; Mr. Kelly; Mr. El iottr
()
Mr. Gunn; Mr. Olds; Mr. Hallman; Mr. Walters, and possibly 23 24 Mr. Telenko.
Do you recall any other persons who were present?
w.
en
, inc 25 A
Myself, and Mr. L. R. Pletke.
- e e
~ " ~ ~ _
w
"-~ -
= * - -
- 99 *. m
f\\ '
13 dspl3 i
e O
Arc there any other persors on that list whom you Q
2 are certain were not present?
3 A
Not that I'm certain of, no.
MR. EDGAR:
Off the record.
5 (Discussion off the record.)
BY MR. DIENELT:
7 During the day of the 28th, what specific 0
8 resprnsibilities, if any, were you given in connection with I
response to the TMI incident?
A I participate.1 in setting up the project control center; arranging for comunication lines to be established in 12 that cen'ter.
' *"i'i"'
- c "**"" "i '"
"' "
- 1" " * * * * " "7
~
O I Other than that, my rssponsibilities were mainly, to participate 2
I3 in tho d icussions 'and general activity that took place in the 15 project control center.
U What did you do in assisting to estaMish the project Q
I8 control center as the base of operations?
A rimarily recc=ending that be the place to establish 2f the ' control conter and secondly, to arrange for extra telephone 21 services to be installed.
3htatwasthetelephoneservicewhichwasinthe 22 Q
g 23. project control center at the time that you first moved into O
it?
<a-a nanm. i e.
25 A
There was one telephone.
We vanted more telephones
....' ;'.~..
- s. :c.
)
.....-. _ 7,.
m-
. = --.-.._.-
)
1 i
17 i
hpl7 l
1 with anyone frca NRC?
I I
2 A
No, sir.
3 0
Were you involved in any conversations on the 28th Q
4 with any official frca the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?
5 A
No,* sir.
6 0
Were you involved in efforts to obtain a direct 7
line frem the TMI control roca to the project control center?
I 6
A I was aware of these efforts.
I didn't personally l
9 participate in those.
I 10 Q
Did you have communicaciens during the day of the i
11 28th with the telephone company?
12 A
'No.
With Miss Natalie Lampman, who is our sierson, I
12 I here, at Old Forest Road who does maintain contact with the j
O 14 telephone cc=pany.
t 15 Q
What request o'r instructions did you give her?
]
1 16 A
We required additional telephone cc==unication and
)
17 telecopy service in the control center; and essentially, these 18 were the instructicns.
19 Q
Was it your understanding that she was -- or that 20 sc=eone was making requests to the telephone ecmpany to assist l
21 in obtaining a direct lino or a dedicated line?
22 A
I':a not aware of them.
O O
Do you recall any discussion in the project control 25 n
room during the day of the 28th, regarding the possibility or e.v n.:=
i, %
25 the probability that the core was uncovered?
-,1.
_ _..N 8D"W%W"' %' WMeest M.,
_ gum e e eo j..a
18 dspl8 1
A I don't' recall that discussion.
O 2
Q Do you reca11.any discussions of the possibitter or 3
the probability or the fact of super heat in the core?
4 A
Yes.
We were aware, shortly -- excuse me, maybe I 5
should refer to Mr. Wandling's memo; however, shortly after 6
lunch, I recall having -- our having been advised of the 4
7 temperaturcs in the hot legs and they appeared to be super l
B heated.
9 Q
Do you recall any discussion during the 28th, relating 10 to whether the strategy being followed at the site of attempting 11 to deprescuri:e the syst'em w'as a correct strategy?
12 A
As I recall, it was out belief that they should 13 not depressurize, but rather, add high pressure injection to 14 overccme this superhcating condition which was evident.
3 15 Q
Your underscanding is that the high pressure 14 injection would be inconsistent with the strategy of 17 depressuri:atien?
18 A
Y(s.
19 Q
And the view that the HP sho.id be employed rather 20 then an effort to depressurize was a view with resfect to 21 which there was censensus, hero, at B & W7
^
2 **25 " -
O 23 Q
Do you recall how early in the day of the 28th, the O
24 view that high pressure in3ection shou 1d he initiaeed or m.n.a n.conm, inc.
25 increased as a means of dealing with the transient was reached?
G
@v='w-
= wm s,w- -
.- - j
a 29 Il dep29 1
0 Did B & W approved the operuting procedures in any
.O 2i ec==2t =en=c7 3
A No, sir.
When!k. Rogers would complete a procedure O
4 th=e he ~=e assigned to woth on under the== seer services 5
agreement, he,would submit it to t!. plen.M operating review 6
comnitte called the PORC.
7 We were not members of that PORC.
It was that 8
group which made the final approval of the operating porcedures.
9 A
Was there any formal concurrence or signing of f of 10 procedures which B & W did?
11,
'A Not formal signing off, nn.
en -
p-12 Q
Was there a mechanism for B & W's indicating 13 disagreement with a procedure?
14 A
Yes.
We had a plant start up tear. at the site who, 15 in most cases, had prepared tha operating procedure; or at least 16 had an opportunity to review it.
If'there were any inconsistencia 17 in the operating procedures used at the site, they would have 18 brought this to the attention of the plant management of TM..
,==r-19 Q
Was there a means of resolving any disagreement 20 which was expressed to the management of TMI?
21 MR. EDGAR:
Is this in a formal sense?
22 MR. :DIEMELT:
Yes.
O.-
23 MR. EDGAR:
Formal procedure, sort of.
Q 24 MR. DIENELT:
Yes.
c,.r.ws nocomn. Inc.
25 THE WITNESS:
I'm not aware of any formal procedure.
a.
m ev===
g e
- c+ i=-m
-es m ** " +
._>-u.-,
--.a...
o 31 dsp31 I
wculd have been involved in would have been TMI 1r and I'm not
.O 2
ete== whether the eese mockins stoup approved those draft 3
procedures or not.
4 The test working group which in ancther group at the 5
site do apparve test procedures.
That is -- B & W is a member 6
of that group.
7 Q
Are you aware of any plants with respect. to which 8
B & W had or presently has a formal approval or concurrence 9
responsibility with regard to proposed operating procedures?
10 A
No.
11 Q
Was the rolo, if it had one at all, of B & W with 12 respec'.: to cuergency procedures at TMI 2 different frem the 13 role that you have desctibed, that it had with respect to plant 14 operating procedures?
t 15 A
Please revieQ-that question again.
c 16 Q
What I want to know is whether B & W's rGle in 17 connection with emergency procedures at TMI 2 was different frcm 18 the role that you have just described for me, with respect to 19 plant operating precedures?
- 20 A
No.
The role with operating procedures and emergency 21 procedures would be the same.
I did indicate that the role was 22 slightly different for test procedures, and the role with g
I 23 regard to operating procadures on TMI 1 may have been different L
24 early on -- THI 1, that is.
(Q l
l wraww a.comr. rw. '%
l 25 Q
What would the difference have been?
-1
- .m m.~....
-n w -
~
2 c
32 dep32 I
A The role of the test working grcup as cpposed to m
(_)
2 the plant operating re.riew committee having final approval.
3 0
Was the role with respect to maintenance procedures 4
different fremt he roic with respect to plant operating and 3
emergency procedures?
0 l A
No.
I don't believe there was a difference.
7 MR. EDGAR:
Are they the same?
O THE WITNESS:
I believc so, but I'm not -- I'm not 9
clear on that.
BY MR. DIENELT:
11 Q
hto would know?
12 A
The starion. personnel responsible for the preparation I3 Q
and approval of th'ese procedures would kncw.
Within B & W, it I#
would be in our nuclear. service department.
Q Did B & W have.a role with respect to the -- strike 16 that -- did B & W make any reccmmendations regarding the II centrol roca design for TMI 27 18 A
Very early in the design of the control roo=, wo 19 made recc:=endaticas.
20 Q
Did B & W have any formal approval or sign off 21 responsibility with respect to the control rcom design?
22 A
We had no formal approval or sign off responsiblity Q
23 with the overall arrangement of the cc.atro.' room.
We did hw nummn,inc. supply two sections of the main console which we had design 24 25 responsibility for.
.s.
,' -~*-********W:Mr
Y*"*
,w-i
l t
33 l
/\\ \\
dap33' I
We had design responsibility within the context.
I O
2 enou1d sey, hcmever, ehme Buras Roe a1=o had to approve our 3
design.
- 2 4
O Did you have the authority or responsibility to 5
approve the design of Burns & Roe, or anybody else with respect 6
to the parts of L.e control room console which you were not l
7 primarily involved?
8 A
No.
9 Q
Did B & W pn scribe or recommend any safety limits?
10 A
Yes, we have a document called " Limits and Il Precautions" which is a draft procedure which, essentially, has 12 a -- could be construed as a listing of safety limits.
13 Q
And you furnish that to TMI 27 14 )
A That is correct.
15 Q
That was in thir form of a draft?
16 A
Operating procedure.
17 Q
Your responsibilities with respect to that would IB be the same as with respect to any other operating procedures?
I9 A
Excapt that we just supplied very few draft operating 20 procedu as for TMI 2.
An'I indicated earlier, most of the 21 procedures were prepared from Unit 1 detailed procedures.
22 g
In the case of the " Limits and Precautions" document, 1
23 and also the set points document, these were' prepared for TMI Q
24 2 by B & W, and supplied under the NSS contract.
r--,., -
25 Q
Did B & W prepare the final document?
I
- ~-
- - ~ ~
M k
-g m
36 dop26 I
conditioned by t.hc utility operating in accordance with I
('. /
2 instructicns.
In the course of the contract, we supply 3
instruction manuals, and these " Limits and Precautions".
4 Thoroforo, it is a requirement on their part to 5.
operate within those -- these lirtits to maintain their warranty 6
in goed standing.
7 Q
As you understand it, if B & W were dissatisfied 8
with an cperating porccdure, and the matter could not be 9
resolved at the opper management level, would B & W be -- would 10 D & W issue an instruction to operate or to change a procedure U
in accordance with certain requirements that D & N wanted to 12 t, =po3,7 I3 A
I'd have to an*Jwer this in a hypothetical case; but g
Id that is correct.
I3 The reason you*would a'swer it as a hypothetical 1
Q n
i 14 is that you are aware of no such occurrence?
II A
That is correct.
I8 (Pause.)
N Q
Do you have any basis on which to ec= pare any aspect 20 of th's TMI 2 operation with TMI 1, or any of the other plants, 21 with.. respect to which you are the senior project manager, or 22 g
have been the senior project manager?
23 A
I don't believe so.
I -- by that' I mean that I don' t g
24 have any reason to compare the operation of TMI 2 as being el.,w.: n we, im 25 different that TMI,1.
/
~~W
. M *%W%
- *F s
,%W* t %
-~
l.
- J:.. ' T.. ~.... -..
dsp37 1
, In face, we were always of the opinic.n that T.'C 1 Ff-%i was a/acprobl well operated plant, and fully expected T".I 2
(
3
'~
performance to be the same.
O~
'i You mentioned two other plan'*s to which you are now Q
, r.~,
3 the senior porjectD. anager.
../
6 A
Yes.
The WPFS project and the PG
- t. E project, 7
neither of which are even approaching the operating phase, yet.
8 You have not been senior project manager for any Q
plant which did reach the operating stage, other than the TMI 10 plants?
11 A
One additional one would ' e th7 Crystal River plant
^
at Forida Power Corporation.
I don't have any real basis to I
h cecpare the operaticn at TMI with Crys'al River.
t 14 You have never considered that or formed an opinion?
Q A
Never formed any real opinion with respect to that.
16 (Paus e. )
II Q
Were you involved in any discussions on March 28, II 29, or 30 relating to the venting of the makeup t ank at TMI?
19 A
only after the fact.
I was aware that the venting 20 of the makeup tank contributed to a release of radioactivity.
21 You were,not aware of or invo*1ved in any discussions Q
23--
y3 h
prior to the vendin of the makeup tank between the site and 23 B & W in Lynchburg?
I A
Ho, sir.
e.
n a m n,y
- 3' MR. DIENELT:
I have nothing further.
Thank you e
i
.r.,-
I
=%
1 1 4
ID f f fl
~
%