ML20024B171
| ML20024B171 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1979 |
| From: | Womack E BABCOCK & WILCOX CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-01, TASK-02, TASK-03, TASK-04, TASK-07, TASK-1, TASK-10, TASK-2, TASK-3, TASK-4, TASK-7, TASK-GB GPU-6054, NUDOCS 8307070185 | |
| Download: ML20024B171 (30) | |
Text
.,
._...._- ~
'} + *
- Q (9 0 5 c
j
(
(
Designations from the President's Commission Deposition of~ Edgar A. Womack, dated June 30, 1979-9:3 - 10:4 12:24 - 13:8 17:11 - 19:6 19:22 - 20:20 22:20 - 23:7 36:13 - 39:8 54:8 - 61:22 62:19 - 62:25 69:21 - 71:11 73:16 - 74:16
/'
i g
C se, 8307070185 790630 PDR ADOCK 05000289 T
E a
-w..
W+ r
-- m
=
"E m
m 6-m_
hO Womack 9
- pn--
3 g
Within your organirt_ ion.. plant design, is 4
there a mechanism for translating the aspects of plant 3
design which impact on operation into the training pr gram, b th run by the utilities and those training 6
prograqs run by Babcock & Wilcox?
A No formal mechanism that comes to my mind.
We 8
supply occasionally on request instructors to the 9
training program.
10 g
And that would be at the request of the 11 Training Group?
12 A
Yes.
May I ask you to clarify.
Let me clarifp 13 the question.
As I understood your question, it was related directly to the training program of B&W7 g
Q at s
rre te and ra n ng programs for 15 the training requirements of your utilities that have NSS systems frca B&W.
17 A
That is right.
18 Q
And would Norm Elliott be generally who 19 would make the request for an instructor from within" 20 your department or within your section?
21 A
Yes.
Q Is there any work,between the Plant Design 22 Ssetion and the Norm Elliott Group, Training?
A From time to time Norm may' conduct internal 24 programs for our people to give ther a view of the kind "ih 25 1
BENJAMIN R EPORTING S ERVICE
._.,--g
- -.;m ---
m-5 I
1
/
Womac.k 10 3
simulator operator training that he performs for our
'.4 on 4
customers.
r 5
Q When was the last time such a program was
\\
l nducted?
)
6
)
A Well, there is one going on now.
Q Okay,.and what is that devoted to?
8 A
It is devoted at this particular time to a brief l
9 l
introductory session for some of the engineers to the 10 simulator operation, to the control room operation.
]
11 Q
Are'these engineers whica are now in your 12 section or engineers who simply haven't been exposed 13 to the simulator before?
A Both.
14 9
- *"##*"*1Y 15 that is currently going on now between your engineers 16 9
and the Training Department, what was the last one 17 before that?
18 A
I would have to check my training records.
19 Q
can you give me your best estimate?
20 A
I really can't.
I'm.sorry.
21 Q
Do you think there has been one within the N-last,.say, year?
g3 A
In all probability, but I can't say.
3 Q
Would you have a record of that?
A I think that I would have to consult with Nor=
-g
.n.
3 BENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE a.___
~
.M-g FN, O f Y,
$4-
~ --
1 2
Womack 12
.4 3
of issues that arise in training which may relate to 4
your Engineering Plant Design Section?
A N t f rmally designated.
5 Q
Is there outside of your --
A Excuse me.
Let me explain that answer slightly.
7 We have recently established a Power Systems and 8
Controls, and I probably should go back (indicating 9
chart).
10 MR. EDGAR:
What Exhibit?
referring to Womack Depo'sition 11 Q
We are 12 Exhibit 21. -
A We have recently established from this Control 13
- WF Analysis Unit what we call a Power Systems and Controls Group.
It embodies the functions of the 15 4
control Analysis Unit, as I described them to you 16 earlier, and it also establishes a more direct connec-17 tion to operational and operating experience issues, 18 and I would have to say that at this point in time I 19 would expect that the Training Department would form 20 a primary contact with the manager of that unit.
That
~
is a recent change.
21 ss Q
When was that change made?
7 A
About a month ago, but that is, of course, not 23 an exclusive one.
W Q
Was there to your knowledge in the Plant yf?
25 BENJAMIN R EPD F.1N G SERVICE 8'.%*
M---
_g, ag g
_qp 9g,
1 13 2
Womack 3
Design section anyone whose responsibility it was, 4
whether formal or informal, to review operating procedures being used at B&W plants to see if they were
-a consistent with current thinking within the Plant Design Section?
7 A
No, sir.
8 4
Q Do you know whether in any of the other 9
engineering sections there have been people designated to review operating procedures to see if they are 10 11 consistent?
12 A
I do not.
Q Have you discussed the issue of interface 13 between engineering and trainin-at all since TMI 2?
A Certainly.
Q Can you tell me who you have had these
+
16 discussions with?
17 A
Discussions with Dr. Roy, Mr. Kosiba, Mr. Elliott, 18 Mr. Carlton, and general discussion with many members of 19 my staff.
Those are the principals.
20 0
Can you tell me who Mr. Carlton is?
A Mr. Carlton is the manager of Power Syste'ms and 21
(
Controls.
w 99 1
Q Who initiated the discussions -- and I am referring now' to the time period since TMI 27 I
24 A
Goodness, I suspect at various times almost any of
.=-.
'"i 25 BENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE
~
1 2
Womack 17
" +.
3 earlier as to the substance of our discussion, we have 4
taken steps to attempt to reinforce the transmittal of that kind of information with the general objective of 5
improving on offering to our customers such 6
materials as might provide the operator with a better 7
F= ' a E-physical concept of the system, as one thrust 8
of what we are trying to do, and to look in some 9
instances that possibly, to look at some instances of saw on sarch 28.
10 degraded failures similar to the one we 7
11 Q
Would it be a fair statement that the 12 Engineering Department had a clear understanding as 13 early as January f 1978 that the pressurizer level J
indicator should not always be relied on by an operator as an indication of the conditions in the core?
15 A
Well, I think it would not be fair to refer to 9
16
~
as a monolith with respect the Engineering Department 17 to any given opinion.
I think it would be fair to say 18 that I can't agree with that statement, no, sir.
19 g
would it be fair to say that there were 20 members of the Engineering Depa'rtment, in particular 21 at least some unit managers within the Engineering
(
Department, who understood thati 22 A
okay.
If you will repeat the question, the'n I will answer it again.
24 (Previous question was read back.)
ec
-=
?
BENJAMIN R EPO RTING SERVICE
- pp.---
4
r 1
2 Womack 18
' ~-
J 3
A In an effort to be precise, I would say that 4
there was a knowledge in the Engineering Department by
(
ertain parts of the Engineering Department cognizant 5
of, who would be knowledgeable in this general area, that pressurizer level alone was not a good indicator I
of reactor coolant system inventory and should not be 8
relied upon for that purpose.
9 Q
When that knowledge was first available 10 and it may have been earlier than 1978, but let us do you know 11 assume it was available in early 1978 12 whether any steps were taken at that time to transmit that knowledge out to the operating. utilities and their' 13 control room operators?
A I cannot answer that question comprehensibl la, There were communications which did in fact transmit 16 3
this knowledge from one part of the Engineering 17 Department to other groups.
18 Q
And to what other groups was the knowledge 19 transmitted?
f 20 A
Well, I believe that this information was trans-l 91 mitted originally to distributions which may have l
~
s~
l S
in 1 ded the Servicmay Department, the Licensing 2
Section and parts of the Engineering Department and
]
others.
24 Q
So that would be within B&W7 l.
f 25 1 ?
BENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE
~~ % 9
,pW
'M* M V*
4
p_
I 9
Womack 19 3
A Yes, sir.
4 Q
Do you know whether any steps were taken r
t transmit that information outside D&W7 1
5 A
I do not know, sir.
6 Q
Do you know whether any consideration was given, whether or not in fact it was done, to trans-8 mitting that information outside of B&W7 9
A I do not.
I would speculate affirmatively but 10 do not know.
'll Q
Before TMI 2,
was there any recognized 12 method to your knowledge in any of the departments of 13 the Nuclear Power Generating Division of reviewing 9"**
" I*
"P"**
14 operator actions in your operating utilities, and information was available to reviewing whether thgt~
16 operators, and if it was not, seting to it that it was 17 transmitted to operators?
18 A
Well, you have narrowed it with your question a 19 great deal.
certainly methods exist for communicating 20 to our operating groups site instructions, and those i
21 site instructions are not limited either to operations or to design.
33 Q
What I am asking is was there any systematic method for culling out of the Nuclear Power' Generating 24 Division that information which ought to be known by l
- 9P 25 4
l
/
B ENJAMIN R EPORTING S ERVICE l
g s%_._
g e -~
4 e
p----_
(
\\1 l
o I
~;_
Womach 39-a 3
operators and transmitting it ts th - :..- a timely 4
fashion once it was known?
A A systematic meth d which would ve come closest 5
to responding to your question is a :ina problem report 6
system, which is not exclusively aimed 2: that.
(Continued on f 21 ' r,..s g p a g e. )
8 1
1 9
l 10 11 1
12 13 14 15 5
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1
N 25
=..
1 B ENJ AMIN - REPORTING E IRV! E
, --.___N-a--
?
'n[
'l
^
--__--.h-a.-------,-Ju__
. -.. = _,. -.
n,-.-
y 20 1
.-v
+.. u.
} 2 i
.c r a $ l e '.? report system, as I E
i C.
- 2. : c i t.:
,a f'
undcrs:Ind.: -- Ini :Orrect me if I am wrong -- this f
.4 inv:lv23 r2perts genarized at sites of your operating t
3 utiliti23 and sant b a c t.
to Lynchburg?
6 A
cha: L2 c=rre:t.
I Q
3: that ic not a communication generated 8
by the
.i.n r. l y t i c a l or Engineering groups within the 9
NPoo?
10
- .e. I::AR:
"ou mean " originated" rather 11 than "genersted"?
MR. 200KWILL:
Criginated, yes.
ig A
That is correct.
Q What is the responsibility of the p,
department at NPGD for analysing those site problem la.
reports and getting them back out to other operating t
utilities who might be interested in them?
17 i
f l
A The responsibility for that analysis and 18 i
I follow-through lies with tha Service Group, the i
k 19 Service Department.
l.
o
\\'
Who perticularly in the Services Q
e1 Department?
22 A
Well, :hara ars savarmi people involved, and t
23 I wculd hav2 :: rezar to organizational information 24 to be :ble to gi.'e you tha titles and names.
25 g
nell, presu= ably the head of the services E ENJAMIN R EPORTING S ERVICE
,w_.
9?m.- <
2-I 2
Womack 22 3
utilities, then it was that person's responsibility or that person's option to try to do so?
4 f
A Yes, that is right.
5 6
Q And would that be then run through the management structure here at NPGD to be cleared before 7
it is sent out to the operating utilities?
MR. EDGAR:
What do you mean by " management 9
structure"?
10 Q
Would the person making the determination 11 that something ought to be done to get information 12 to the operating utilities make the contact himself?
13 A
To the operating utilities?
14 Q
Call them up?
A No, sir.
16 Q
How would'the information get out?
17 A
The information would be transmitted ultimately 18 t
the service Group, and it would then be transmitted by a site instruction or information letter.
39 20 Q
Was there a procedure wAthin the NPGD that basically instructed people, "If you feel that
.y
-s, you have information which changes current understanding
~
of operating instructions or which ought to be trans-t 23 mitted to operating utilities, that you ought to 24 report it to the Services Group?
25 BENJAMIN R EPORTING SERVICE
'* W y
8
,-m Y,_
T c
,4
~
a --
1 I
2 Womack 23 specific procedure that 3
A
- am not aware of a would align itself with the definition you have given.
4 O
In other words, there was no specific a
procedure in that regard?
',6 A
That is right.
Again, it war a matter of individual 8
decision-making as to whether a particular person 9
thought that something ought to be done?
10 A
- yes, 11 Q
Was there any indication given by NPGD 12 management to the engineering group staff as a whole 13 that they ought to be alert to information which was
,14 important for the operating utilities to know with respect to the operation of their plants?
la.
A I think that ha's always been a part of the 9
16 general management guidance, yes, sir.
17 Q
Was there ever any statement made that if new information becomes available which changes 19 operating procedures or suggests a possible change in operating procedures, that it was a matter of t
l 21 some importance tha t itbe transmitted immediately to s
I 22 Customer Service?
Y 23 A
I cannot recall such statements specifically.
24 Ccrtainly anything that would be of a safety concern j
4+
25 could be processed through the safety concerns.
BEN ! AMIN REPORTING SERVICE f-w PW -
---..e --
---~_-v 1
9 Womac.k 36
.1 3
MR. RocKWELL:
For the record, let me simply
- w 4
identify the document which we have been talking 5
about, and that document is a document entitled
" Response to TMI 2 Concerns, Task Description,"
g dated 6-18-79, and it contains a three-page text at the beginning, and seven, additional pages, one of which is the flow chart, and it is my under-9 standing, Mr. Edgar, that we will have access to 10 it through you?
11 MR. EDGAR:
For inspection.
12 MR. ROCKWELL:
Off the record.
l'3 (Discussion held off the record.)
Q Let me ask you, Mr.
Joma ?k, whether you 74 have made an analysis-yourself of the TMI 2 sequence of la.
events, and'whether yo.u have reviewed the findings of 2
16 other groups with Tespect to the TMI 2 sequence of 17 events?
18 A
Yes, I have, and of course that analysis is 19 continuing because of the many investigations which are 20 continuing.
21 Q
I understand.
In your own mind, at least r-at this point, have you distilled out what you think 22 d
l some of the major findings of those groups have been, 23 and some of the major questions raised by the TMI 2 l
24 sequen.ce?
5
~
B ENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE
-I l
w
_ - 7g;
_3
. - - _. _ ~
f1 2
Womack 37
. y.
3 A
Well, especially in the area of abnormal transient 1
4 operation, I have done so, and have formed some pre-liminary n lusi ns aimed at answering the question 5
which was in the record earlier concerning the Power Systems and Control Grcup which was, how could B&W assist in making this a more complete reliable process.
8 Q
Before we get to specifically what B&W can 9
do, can you tell me what you have distilled out in 10 terms of major areas that you think out to be addressed.
11 A
one area which has been addressed by a number of j 12 groups, that transients at TMI 2 and other transients 1
13 involved multiple failures during the course of the i
transients, and these kinds of failures are not always
' explicitly addressed in the engineering design basis la, I
analysis which is done for licensing and done for the 16 9
design of the engineering systems that go into the 17 j
plant; having the designer address sequences which might 10 go beyond the single failure event I
oc5 19 and include operators' failures, or operathest 3
20 actions when not called for, and which appears to many t
l 21 f the groups who have reviewed TMI 2 to be in order.
j r%
Q Are there other arets which you think need 22 to be addressed?
k I
. l 23 1
i A
Yes.
Having made this examination, it would be 24 important to supply information which resulted from it M4h 25 ff BENJAMIN R EPORTING SERVICE
/
l W
W*WH WW HN
s s
2 Womack 38 3
in a manner which the operators who can use it to be 4
4 furnished to the operators so they could take advantage f it t use the fullest capabilities f their nuclear 5
plants to avoid and handle safely any transient that might be initiated, and that would involve supplying training materials which would relate to this.
8 In addition, it has seemes to a number of groups 9
that have reviewed TMI 2 and have thought further about 10 the whole sequence of events suggested by TMI 2'that 11 additional emphasis should be given to training the 12 operators and providing an understanding of the funda-13 mental systems operational concepts with respect to how the system behaves in response to transients in certain events on a relatively fundamental conceptual basis.
16 Finally, a program, or an objective such as I 17 have summarized for you would certainly be useful if 18 performed in a once-through operation, but to maintain 19 their utility through the years that nuclear plants 20 are operated, it is important that the basis so formu-i 21 lated be continually upgraded as new operating experi-en e is gained, or as information which may be 22 developed in the engineering state of the art may indi-i cate the need for changes in the. area.
24 Q
Could your last point be summarized by ett 25 b\\
?
7, BENJAMIN R EPO RTING SERvlCE
.W*"**,-
T. -
rr- -
r -
r,3 g
,6 *
+
x n
r
.u -
- .C t s
_s
a m.--_-
~
T 1
j l
2 Womack 39 J.E 3_saying that what these groups have perceived to be 4
needed, and I take it what you perceive to be needed,
(~
is to get the benefit of the experiences that you have
.a and plug it back into the system so people can use it in practice, is that right?
t A
That would be a very valuable area, yes.
8/
Q Having those issues in mind, which I take 9
it you have distilled out, would you tell me what you 10 think B&W can do to address them.
11 A
Yes, sir.
I think that we have to recognize that 12 B&W's role in the design of the plant is limited to a g
portion of it,.but by expanding its own engineering knowledge of what is called the balance of the planIand 14 J.,w, u generally designed and supplied by others, and by addressing the plant as a whole in a systematic way 16 with the specific. objective of datermining how the 17 plant can best be managed to responc to the kind of 18 transients we have discussed earlier, I.think B&W has 19 substantial engineering design analytical experience a
20 which can be applied to that, a'nd in the process the og engineering basis for the plant will be expanded and
~
will be created and documented in an expanded form and 22 will be available for ready reference at a later ' time, c
I would envision that such a program would 24 l
involve systems analyses to assure that transients which l ]
5 BENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE
-w-=
-r
-a
-Owy-
-MM'*
y~.-.--.....
~
~~
1 l
l 2
Womack 54 3
g It had become a mattar cf some public 4
discussion.
What was Nelson's request that you were 5
responding to through this May 11, 1977 menorandum?
l l
g MR. EDGAR:
Off the record.
I
,(There was discussion off the record.)
7
~= -
g Q
Mr. Womack, do you have an understanding as to how the Michaelson Report was handled within g
B & W?
10 A
Yes, I thinkI have a basic understanding of 11 how it was handled.
12 outline for me each step that Q
Could you 13
~
you understand occurred?
14 A
Okay.
15 My knowledge.of the dates is approximate, and 16 I would like to reserve the privilege of checking e
these for correctness in your transcript.
77 Basically, my understanding is that what has been called the Michaelson Report is a d'ocument 19 of some length, probably on the order of 30 to 40 20 pages, prepared by a staff member of the Tennessee 91 Valley Authority, and.concerning the general subject (s
22 of extremely small reactor coolant system breaks.
o 23 Q
Let me just say I am generally familiar 24 with what Michaelson addressed.
To the extent that you need to, outline in order to exp3 tin how it was m r.
=3 20
/
B ENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE
~~
h
_m
,W_.
y*ep DF _
,,F
&# merges.,
9-ogy.e
1 2
Womack 55 3
handled, fine, but you don't need to educate me on the subject.
4 A
All right, I will try not to be too didactic.
~
.3 This report was addressed to us under a cover letter 6
in the normal project management communication chain.
7 The report is primarily addressed at our 205 8
Fuel Assembly Reactor System.
j one such system -- or two such systems, actually--
9 i
10 are being provided by Babcock & Wilcox to TVA.
Ca.lbbG f
TWe nic 1 A l
11 4Mr the _ course of construction in Alabama-Bel-af onte,
which is the name of the plant.
It was under that 12 contract that this Michaelson analysis was provided, l.a and if I recollect the covering letter, it requested 14 comments from B&W on the analysis.
l 15 The approximate time of that was the spring
^
16 of 1978 -- was it May?
I would have to check it.
The time of receipt was in the spring of 1978.
17 I
18 My understanding was that it was quickly re-C-oud f
19 viewed by the Eccs group here, and that they &&nd no 20 generally surprising concerns in that document, and than treated as an action item to be c h;d Aesis M I f
it was g
aA time permit'ted in the course of other work.
I t
s_/
22 I believe, and I have been told, that one or 23 more. telephone conversations between TVA representa-24 tives and our engineering people took place on the 5-
$b
~
~~~
-m=^.-
I 1
I 2
Wonack 56 3
subjent of that report or aspects of that report, between the time it was received here and the time 4
that an initial written answer, a brief written a
answer, was prepared, which I think was about 6
January 1979.
7 Q
Were these telephone conversations 8-between Paterson and someone in your group?
A Well, that I can't confirm about the TVA CA 10 respondent.
I believe that bbe person in our ECCS conversations, 11 group would have been involved in those 12 yes, sir.
Q Do you know who in your group?
g A
No, I don't, but I would imagine Mr. Dunn or l
14 one of his staff.
l 15 i
Q So if I understand correctly, the i
16 Michaelson repc'rt.was transmitted in the spring of I
i 1978 and was reviewed by ECCS group, and there were 17 l
18 a number of telephone conversations between ECCS, you
't 19 think, and TVA, and the first written response went I
from B&W to TVA in January 19797 i
20 I
I A
Yes.
I think the written response may have g
\\o,
.gone in February, but it was in that time frame, yes, sir.
I was going to continue.
Q Yes.
I believe there was a response back from TVA, A
__*=
?
25 q
BENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE v.
. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -
- - ~
-. = -
f l
1
/
/
,~ ~
2 Womack 57 3
which was in the spirit of "You have answered most 4
of our questions, but there are a couple of items 5
we don't understand.
Please clarify these for us."
They had requested a response, I think, by the 6
end of March, and we had not completed that response 7
back to them by the end of March, and that work did 8
get disrupted.
9 Then following the heightening of interest in 10 this whole subject as the result of the TMI 2 event 11 of March 28, that was the point in time at which 12 I first became aware of this seris of correspondence 13 that I have just recounted to you, in that context.
I had been asked by the project manager of 14 VA
- P"#*i*iP***'i" * * ""*****' "
15 with some TVA people. which I did not then know 16 t
applied to the Michaelson Report.
17 But I think in retrospect, I understand that 18 simply asked to ask the ECCS unit to it did.
I was 19 a conversation with TVA, which I did.
support 20 21 22 e
23 1
l 24
.=.
2s,
~,A BENJAMIN REPORTING SERVICE
'T-~--
7,
_. =~:: :
_ _ - -. ~
w ----
2 Womack 58 3
g when was that conversation?
s :
4 A
Probably in January or so of 1979, to my recol-lection.
..O Q
Did you sit in on that conversation?
A No, I didn' t, nor did I really get into the 7
material which was to be discussed, but simply asked 8
Mr. Dunn to support the project manager.
Shall I continue?
10 Q
If there is more in the understanding and 11 the handling of the Michaelson report, I wish you would 12 continue.
A well, the acti n that was taken after that, as I o
13 said, with a heightening of interest and specific ques-tions from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was to 15 prepara materials responding more copiously on a point-16
~
t by-point basis to Mr. Michaelson's analysis.
17 That response was prepared by our ECCS unit.
I 18 participated in the review of the response, and it was 19 submitted along with others to our customers and.to 20 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission about the 7th of May.
21 Q
Is that the three-volume blue A
At that time it was two volumes, but the third g
one was added later.
This particular item is Appendix 5 5
23 I think of that volume.
Further. discussion on the 24 technical points have been held, which have involved
=-
5 25
/
BENJAMIN R EPORTING SERVICE
[ b 4
~*
f;- -
.gy_
sm,
~.
I 2
g; Womack 59 2
3 both us'and Mr. Michaelson, primarily in the arena of 4
meetings of the Advisory Committee on Reactor safe-9"""d8' Additi "*i ""^iYti "i I"f
"""ti
"""8 F#*P"#8d 5
and was also submitted as a part of that May 7th compendium, dealing with transients, specifically 7
addressing some of the concerns raised by Michaelson.
8 Q
What was the occasion for the conversation 9
t'at you described between your ECCS Group in January h
10 and TVA: was that an in-person meeting or was that a 11 telephone conference call?
i 12 A
That was a telephone conversation, and my recol-lection of it was that I don't remember who in the PM 13 group, but one of the project managers called and said, "We need some support.
We are being asked to give an 13
- 4 update on the status of this watt, the ECCS Group has 16 been discussing, and can you ask Mr. Dunn's group to 17 support us,"
and I did.
18 Q
How had that other group got. ten involved 19 in the Michaelson issue?
20 A
Which other group?
21 Q
My rec llection fails me, but you indicated someone had come to you and said they needed support of ECCS.
23 A
Our communication on contracts which are in the 24 l
construction phase is through our Department of Project i
401 25
=
l B ENJAMIN R EPORTING S ERVICE l
l
\\
y.
~.
....~.:.n.
. =...
m -.
~
'I 2
Womack 60 jP 2
3 Management.
All such correspondence and communications 4
come through that group, at least ir tially.
Q I see.
Had they been the original recipient 5
of the Michaelson report?
A Yes, sir.
7 MR. EDGAR:
Off the record.
8 (There was discussion off the record.)
i 9
I Q
You made a reference, Mr. Womack, to the l
10 Michaelson concerns having come up before the ACRs, 11 is that correct?
'2 A
The technical issues in particular, yes.
1 13 Q
was that Mr. Ebersole?
A No, not in the meetings that I participated in, 15 after the 1st of April.
In all of which have been fact, I don't recall Mr. Ebersole as a participant at 1
16 any of these meetings.
I 17 l'
Q The occasions on which it had come up as a 10 subject in the ACRS have been since the accident, to 19-your knowledge?
i j
20 A
The occasions in which I have participated, yes, l
21 that is right.
4
/~'
l J
Q Do you know whether Mr. Ebersole's comments 22 before the ACRS, in connection with the hearing 23 concerning Pebble Beach, came to.the attention of your 24 department before the TMI 2 evert?
!EN 25 i
B ENJAMIN R EPORTING SERVICE 1
-y my
-...MMM"*t*
-r---
- FM -
"d
--_.,n-,-
p_
1 1
2 Womack 61 4
3 A
I would have to say I don't know for sure.
4 Q
You have recounted a sequence of events with
(
respect to Michaelson.
Did you acquire that information a
because you made a deliberate effort to investigate and learn what had happened?
7 A
I acquired the information that I thought was 8
important to deal with the technical issue, which was 9
my primary responsibility, particularly after in April 10 it came to my attention that it was a matter of 11 considerable external public concern.
12 Q
Did you go back and mak-a deliberate effort t
rec nstruct the handling of.Michaelson in terms of 13 understanding how it had occurred?
A Yes, I would have to say that I did.
I didn't make that in the investigative depth which I think
'1 16 sense that I would be more satisfactory to you in the i
17 had looked for telecon records and dates of telephone 18 calls, but the general sense of what was done.
I l
19 Q
In an effort to go back and reconstruct, 20 did you also try to go back and reconstruct the handling of the concerns arising out of the Davis Besse incident 21
(
r' on September 24, 1977?
99 l
'imr. _,
. ~.
A Not to that great an extent.
I have certainly c
pf looked at some of those things'since the TMI accident, 24 but not to the extent.
5$5 25 7
=
J B ENJ AMIN REPORTING SERVICE
' s
' g 7f,
,, vy G.
7,.--
-y%-
E P'
s-
..-u.:_.__--
.a 1
2
, = -
Womack 62 5
3 0
Well, tell me what you did do to recon-i 4
struct the handling of the concerns hrising out of the 5
september 24, 1977 incident at Davis Besse.
A Well, I have looked at the site problem report and noted who was involved.
7 As I have recounted to you earlier, I have-become 8
aware of these memoranda and the discussion that 9
resulted from that.
10 MR. EDGAR:
Which memoranda?
11 THE WITNESS:
I think we identified them 12 as Exhib.its 23 and 24.
I haven't really had 13 time t g
a great deal further than that.
That is about the size of it.
'Q I may have la, asked you this question, and if I have, excuse me, but had you ever seen either of the
-16 9
memoranda marked as Exhibit 23 or 24 before March 28, 17 19797 fA To the best of my knowledge, I had.not.
19 Q
were you familiar with the fact that there M ad been.a transient at Davis Besse
'.n September 1977 ol in which there had been loss of pressurizar level 0
indication high?
22 A
Yes, I was familiar with the fact that this' c
transient had occurred, familiar to some degree with 24 the details, but not detailed analysis.
BENJAMIN R EPORTING SERVICE
- .~.
_ ~ ~ -
m mv-
e
.~
I Wonack 69 g
what previous experience'there had been on loss of 3
pressurizer level, that is, going low and outside j
4 r
the indication range, that particular set of circum-O stances did not, I suspect, appear directly connected 6
to the set of circumstances in e se Ssptember 1977 7
Toledo event, and it is not unreasonable to assume 8
that that is the reason why it wasn't discussed.
9 Q
Do you know whether it occurred to anyone, 10 either in the planning meeting or in the February 14th 11 meeting, that during a discussion of pressurizer.
level indication might be a good opportunity to advise I2 the operating utilities present of information avail-able with respcet to the September Davis Besse 14 incident?
15 A
If you mean in connection with the kind of 16 information we have identified as Exhibits 23 and 24, 3
17 it certainly did not occur to me, and to the best of 18 my knowledge, it didn't occur to anyone else, either.
19 As I stated to you, I only became awareoof this Particular inbrmation since the 28th of March 20 incident.
21_ _
Q Do you know, referring to the final 22 period before the Three Mile Island incident, whether 23 any of the engineers in your Plant Design Section 24 ever had any exposure to the simulator training being N
25 BENJAMIN R EPORTING SERVICE
~'
7 -- - -
r-o WO-
2 Wc::.aek 70
- 7 3
conducted here at s&w?
A I am confident that out of the engineers there 4
b that a number of them have, yes, sir.
.a Q
Was there any systematic way or systematic approach to informing the engineers about what 7
operators we're being told by the B&W. training people 8
here in the simulator?
9 A
The definition of the word " systematic" 10 troubles me, 11 (Continued on Page 71.)
12 13 14
\\
15 j
16 17 j
18 f
f 19 20 I
21 P
l 22 i
C I
23 24 9e 25 F"
l BENJAMIN R EPORTING SERVICE.
y
=
I 8
\\
,a F
g g
g
~.,--m-1 2
Womack 71 3
o I can restate the question.
]
4 A
Well, I be happy to try to answer the question in l'
terms that I think I can.
5 Certainly the conduct of such training would be a part of making such a connection at least to individual engineers.
To state, however, that there was a focused, 8
responsibility-defined program for having the 9
Engineering Department review.the simulator training 10 program in that way, I'm not aware that there was one, 11 no, sir.
J
~ 12 Q
Did Norm Elliott ever attend on a regular 13 basis any nestings within the Engineering Department to' keep abreast of developments within the department?
g A
Again let me an.swer with the best precision !
can.
There are many' dozens of meetings within the 16 9
Engineering Department every day.
I had no such 17 generalized contact on a regular basis and wasn't aware 18 of them.
19 Q
Do you know whether Norm Elliott-ever 20 attended a meeting of the Engineering Department?
21 A I would be very surprised if Norm Elliott never attended a meeting in the Engineering Department.
22 Q
In other words, you thir; he did?
A Ch, yes, certainly.
But the subject of the meeting 24 might have been anything from budgeting to personnel i) 25 l
l B ENJAMIN R EPORTING HERVICE i
.~:-,
y
---=x,zs -
I n
~
~
Womack 73 3
3 Department for your engineers to go out to operating 4
plants and simply spend time there to inform themselves 5
of what it is like to be at an operating plant and what it is like to be an operator in a control room?
6 A
Yes, we try to achieve that primarily through the 7
use of through the loan of enginee,rs for field assign-ments, short-term, and through programs of rotation 9
into longer term assignments th.ougl the Serviced I
Department.
r 11 Personally I believe it is very important, and it 12 has been, of course, an objective of mine to make that 13 happen to the extent that I could, since coming into the department.
14 Q
At the time you arrived.in the department, la.
l what proportion of your engineers would have had that 16 kind of field experie'ce?
3 n
17 A
I don't know, sir.
T 18 Q
Aside from field assignments, was there a 19 practice or effort to have engineers simply visit 20 operating plants to become familiar with and talk to 21 operators and become familiar with the problems that g%
22 they deal with on a day-to-day basis in the control room?
A Visitation of operating plants, yes.
These kinds of discussions with operators, I am not at all sure.
.O 25 BENJAMIN R EPORTING SERVICE
,e
-=e--.
I 1
n
((
Womack 74 3
- would be inclined to a negative answer on that.
4 We have provided opportunities for engineers 5
especially and people in general within NPGD to visit 6
plants under construction.
It is frequently more educational for an engineer, 7
who may never have seen a nuclear power plant within 8
arm's length, to visit the plant before it is started 9
up and before fuel is loaded because then he has access 10 to the components in the system physically and can see 11 them, which he designed whereas after startup, the l'2 containment would be closed and his visit after startup 13 as part of a field support assignment would allow him 14 to get into the containment and witness re-fueling peration and participate in re-fueling and maintenance 15 v nac r l
in.ii s Service Depart, ment direction.
t 16 j/
Q Do you think there would be value to 17 engineers being exposed to operators and seeing how 18 operators understand and deal with the system that the 19 engineers design?
20 A
Definitely.
21 Q
How are you and the Engineering Design 22 Department educated about what happens in the field?
"h***
d Y'" '** Y*"# 1"#*******"?
23 A
Primarily from site problem reports and summaries of field operation,' plant operational status, which are FM) 25 B ENJAMIN R EPORTING SERVICE
-.=w-w*.,-
.w--,__.
w,4 --
,3
. i
}
u.-