ML20024C830
| ML20024C830 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/09/1979 |
| From: | Hartman H GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-01, TASK-04, TASK-05, TASK-06, TASK-1, TASK-4, TASK-5, TASK-6, TASK-GB B&W-1022, NUDOCS 8307130382 | |
| Download: ML20024C830 (59) | |
Text
..
- N?
c2. ;.
ygepsysu.7 C--~
,h za. c ;.si;m. l.G, -}m.t.> y, 9%dw,* h,. - 'W*,="*; *7*,";
..v.Wffj sn-3 op y%-,,qig g ip;';sgg;c e y;
. m..,,..
mM. ~ y' h... m -,' *ar.-.m,.. ',+*. a -
- a.us:r.mc.
'* pa
- * \\ ;' 1
' * ** L?
..y 5,'- ; ;=.
yp
- xmh..
- :4.a.
8 2, s
B+W l O 2. R I
/
r-NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION
/*
k 1
t~
I t
i' IN THE MATTER OF:
- r..
I, 1
T!!RE1: MILE ISLAND t
SPECIAL I: Ol'IF.Y DEPOSITIONT e.
I.
l
.. 1
(
[EPOElTIT: OF HAROLD h'AYNE !!ARTv.AN,.J R.
(
C,'
I Place -
- nc' ster, Perr.sylvania i
I t
.onday, October 9,
1979 Pogos 1 - 57 C!
Date -
M t
I i
I,
- -. +. _
1 i
I l
t i
8307130382 791009 i
PDR ADOCK 05000289 I
T HOL Tc..cr w e
(;
(20*4.30 3'O
?
.\\CE. Pl.Ill.It it. I:!.I's titT!*.lt.4. INC.
l 8
Ofr*i. i:J lt, p.rter.
g u........
. c....e.
l
........... r.= v ne -
l
2'
- Ik
'E I
^
E
=
O y
e
~
U!!ITED STR ES NUCLEAR REGULATORY _ COMMISSION
('
THREE MILE _ ISLAND SPECI AL I!!QUIRY DEPOSITION 1
The deposition of HAROLD. WAYNE HARTMAN,JR.,
taken at the Yorkshire Room of the Quality Inn, g
500 Centerville Road, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17601 on
- Monday, October 29, 1979 commencing at or about D
7: 00 o' clock a.m.
APPEARANCES :
HAROLD L. ORNSTEIN L'
Taking the Deposition on behalf of the USNRC Special Inquiry Group
(
JOHN M. SMITH, ESQUIRE 21 North Duke Street Lancaster, Pennsylvania (717-394-3704) o Appearing
- on behalf of the Deponent M
M M
C i
k.
(
=
g f,ro3mmm. u.re ; wr.c.,3NiY?Eb$bk$?bWh5b 4 mm.g ;97 E555 b$$655D$w,y$Uyvat.tO3%YN a m.
,p.w.mn2.=- s, f
g_,.
y-UE$4h N5*EN
?
1N e
s O
r INDEX TO WITNESSES C
WITNESS PAGE C
o HAROLD WAYNE HARTMAN, JR.
BY MR. ORNSTEIN 4
C e
0 9
(
'C l
1 e
C C
o
(
G
d
%M
{
o.
I I
~
O INDEX TO EXIIIBITS t'
N.
O EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION _
PAGE IDENTIFIED G
1201 Letter of October 17, 1979 4
1202 A Document 9
0 1203 A Document 11 1204 Document Containing Various 19 Exams O'
53 1205 A Letter C
C o
O C
O e
f
(
o
(
o L
Q:.p%}t;wgdh5Mzr:
1,-x u m & hlw:w =
M Sn rwm O,
/T
[
P,,,,3 g g E,, g, g I,,, E g 3,
'?
(Whereupon, at or about 7: 00 o'cloc c 6
p.m.,
in the Yorkshire Room, the Quality Inn, 500 cente r-
~
ville Road, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, on Monday, October L
29, 1979, the following proceedings transpired:)
MR. ORNSTEIN:
Raise your right hand.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you. God ?
THE. WITNESS:
I do.
1 f
EXAMINATION
(
BY MR. ORNSTEIN:
D l
4 Will you please-state your name? Give your full name for.the record.
l Harold Wayne Hartman, Jr..
O A
l (Whereupon, Exhibit 1201, a letter of October 17, 1979, wac marked for identification.)
C e
4 Mr. Hartman, I show you an exhibit that is
(
I' marked Exhibit 1201.
Is that a photocopy of a letter that was sent by the NRC TMI Special Inquiry Group r
confirminc your deposition here, today, under oath?
9 9
N.,.,
i O
/*
A Yes, it is.
k 4
Have you read this document in full?
1 Yes, I have.
h f
4 Do you understand that the information set forth in this letter, including the general nature of the NRC TMI Special Inquiry, your right to have an i
attorney present today here as your representative, an d the fact that the information that you provide here ma y eventually become public?
A Yes.
l0 4
Mr. Hartman, is Counsel representing you personally today?
%g A
Yes.
D MR. ORNSTEIN:
I would like to hot e i
for the record that the Witz)ess is represented by an attorney --
p MR. SMITH:
John M. Smith.
l G
MR. ORNSTEIN:
John M. $mith.
Mr..Hartman, you should be aware
(
that the testimony that you give has the same force an d O.
effect as if you were testifying in a Court of Law.
My questions and your responses
(
are being taken down and will be later transcribed.
O OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER -
w+'t*-w C
w=m-
p,..
-l l
l C
1 r
_b You will be given the opportunity t o look at the transcript an,d make changes that you deem h
C necessary.
However, to the extent that your subsequent changes are significant, those changes may C
be viewed as affecting your credibility so please be'as complete and accurate as you can in response to my ques -
tions.
O If you at any time during the depo... *.. n sition don't understand the question please be free to stop and indicate that, and we will make,the clarifica-i D
tion at that time.
Let me warn you of two basic ground rules.
One is that you permit me to finish my questi.on s-D before you give the response even if you know what the
~
question is going to be becadse the Reporter cannot tak e y,
down both of us speaking at orace.
~
t Secondly, please res' pond audibly.
Motions such as nodding your head will not be taken dows
~
O by the Reporter.
Mr. Hartman, did you bring a copy o f your resume to the deposition t'enig,ht?
-)
THE WITNESS:
No, I didn't.
(
0 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER -
i
.. ~.
. -..... ~..
r
,s.,.
O, p
BY MR. ORNSTEIN:
4 Well, =aybe since you don't have a copy with y u, may e y u can re y g ve us a run-down of your
()'
C j
work and educational experience from the point where you think it might be significant.
G A
Okay, I was trained in the U.S. Navy Thermo-nuclear Power Program, served about three years aboard Nuclear Submarines.
h' I was discharged and subsequent 1y' l
Gmployed at Metropolitan Edison, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, as an auxilliary operato,r, and I remai med O
in that capacity for two and-a-half years and was promo e
ted to Control Room Operator, Unit 2, in. September of 1976'.
c And I was trained and licensed by the NRC on about October 20 of last year -- No, of '77; I'm sorry, 1977.
And I held that license until my rasi6 nation from Met Ed on April.13, 1979, th,is year.
o 4
In your academic experience prior to enterin g f
the Navy or between that point and the present, what wa s the highest level of your education,in High School, O
College, etc.?
{
A I graduated from High School, and I have a oFFic Al. COURT REPORTER "I"
O L
g-__
c a
a F-h diploma, some college, and technical training through I,
the Navy.
4
.Okay, was that Bainbridro or --
(])
A Yes, Bainbridge, Maryland was the Nuclear Power School with prototype training as 330 in West g-Milton, New York.
4 Do you remember giving a statement to the 4
l Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of In pection and O
Enforcement on or about May 22 of 19797 A
Yss.
4 Did you receive, a copy of the transcript thnt C-was made from the taping?
k A
'Yes, I received a copy of the transcript, but I.didn't receive the tape.
I had. asked for a tape also,
p' which wasn't received.
MR. ORNSTEIN:
Off the record, t
1g (Whereupon, there was a discussion off the record.)
O BY MR. ORNSTEIN:
4 Back on the record.
(
Did you providd the Commission witl l i,
corrections to the transcript from your recollection o:
{
what took place during that particular interview?
~
OFFICIAL. COURT REPORTER J
v
-.., - - -,. - - -. - - - - - -, -,, - - - - - -.. ~ -
s D.-
C A
No.
4-Did you read the transcript and find that.it k
was free of errors, or wa: it a situation where you O-looked at it but didn't examine it in any great detail for maj or or minor changes?
A The only thing that I saw there was name C:
orrors from mispronunciation of names, but none of the nemes that I can recall were important.
O The important names were all valid, spelled right and everything.
4 I'have here an item that I would like to ent er o
as Exhibit 1202.
I believe this is the transcript of gg that discussion that was held back in May, 1979.
O (Whereupon, Exhibit 1202, a documen t, was marked foi identification and shown to the witness. )
A Ye's, this is a document.
O MR. SMITH:
For the record, I haven't seen it.
He has, but I would like to put some--
C' thing on the record here.
Has this been identified yet?
Firs t of all, could we identify it by number, or are you not O
{:'
going to do that?
CFFICIA1. COURT REPORTER l C
=a'==*=**'~
-tan.
mv4=.4
m **
j
.9 D,
~
o' r
O MR. ORNSTEIN:
I believe I introdu.
k :
ced this as document 1202, and it was the INE transcript of the meeting that was held between Harold Hartman and kh O
several members of the Nuclear Regulatorf Commission.
That meeting was' held on May 22, 1979 at the Red Roof Inn at Swatara, Pennsylvania.
G MR. SMITH:
All right, what I would i
like to say, for the record at least, is that this docu -
ment, Exhibit 1202, was shown to Mr. Hartman who had an opportunity to at least briefly look at it to deter- -
mine whether it was, in fact, the same d'oeument noticing how vario s pages and bits and pieces can, of course, at times be misplaced or what have you.
To the extent that he looked at it O
he would agree that it is the same document.
If during this deposition specific questions are asked, of course, we can verify what it is, but to the extent that he did look at it, it would appear to be the same document.
I think we should mako O,
that clear.
(
MR. ORNSTEIN:, Understood.
Now, do you recall a statement thau
(
you provided to two other members of the Nuclear OFFICIAL COURY REPORTER m,.. s ~ n < n m.<
IU Lancaeren. namsvLvania
C,
(
Hagulatory Commission on or about September 12, 1979,
(
Misters Evans and Vandenberg from the NRC Three Mile Island Special Inquiry group?
({!
THE WITNESS:
Yes.
SY MR. ORNSTEIN:
C 4
Do you have a copy of the tape that was made at that particular meeting that you had?
A Yes.
I have half.
I have half a tape.
The other side didn't come out.
I do have a copy of a transcript which was made from the notes and that tape.
4 Was that a transcript that they made or a transcript that you made?
A No, this was a transcript that they provided
,0 me.
It wasn't verbatim.
It 'was more or less set up in questions and answer type outline.
MR. ORNSTEIN:
I would like to ente r
~
b' this as Exhibit 1203 and have you identify thst.
l
'C (Whereupon, Exhibit 1203, a documen t,
(
was marked for identification.)
l THE WITNESS :
This appears to be th e
(
, o, document.
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER '
unca.un. nwamvania y
s l
1 P
L BY MR. ORNSTF.IN:
O 4
Did you examine a facsimile of this exhibit and review it in any depth?
A I reviewed it'.
Not to any great depth.
Jutt l
O I wanted to make sure that the genersi content of my l
.:>.~
answers and the way kn an swer could be misconstrued,
'O I wanted to make sure that it wasn't, in fact,.'.iscone strued during the tranulation, and I didn't find any of that to ' occur.
C 4
If I understand correctly the version of L
these three exhibits, 1202 and 1203 that.you have seen, are correct from the standpoint of the statements that
'O were made, and if we refer to them -- Strike that, please.
Now, you mentioned the fact that you had spent several years in the Navy program.
Whrt was C
your particular designation?'
A I was an electronics technician and later qualified as a reactor operator.
g 4
For how long were you an electron,1cs technician?
A I was an electronics technician for five C
years and a reactor operntor for about two and-a-half.
!l.
4 During that period of time you mentioned that you were assigned on shipboard duty?
C*
A That's correct.
OFFICIAL COUPT REPORTER,
i.aneaeren.,e== m va..
i 4
4
.......,---.,.,.,.c o
9 hwwmesmT s%mswaNNE'4mmNNUM E
c 4
And during those two and-a-half years as O
reactor operator you were on a Nuclear Submarine?
A That's correct.
4 And the work that you had done for the Navy and your training program you had certain formal class..
room training, is that correct?
c A
That's correct.
4 Could you reflect back and tell me what you noticed that was outstanding in the Navy training and t he C'
Navy training program relative to that of which you re. -
ceived from Metropolitan Edison in your work with Met Ed-as training for Auxiilliary Operator as well as that of a Control Room Operator?
A There is a lot to put together here. I didn' t
(
realize -- I could have done some preparatien, but I lC I
didn't.
I know that the Navy Program was done by top-notch people.
lO l
I mean the Admiral had to handpick all of his instructors.
He met each one personally, arid if he dids't -- Like anything he saw about the person, c,
he just ousted them.
They couldn't be instructors.
They had a regular systematic IC approach.
It was more or less programed almost as to j
a.
i:,'55;;KPORu;MSCTTRRnmW%TMMTE n!W nWDn'A1 g
.ia_1 e D
your, progression through your training.
9 You never learnedtoo much' too fast,
(
and you also,.anderstood concepts before another one was introduced that would later reflect back to that concept.
D So it taught you to think and be analytical to that standpoint.
Met Ed, the Aux 1111ary Operator training really didn't -- We didn't have what I would call top-notch instructors.
They were knowledgeable, but.as far as their ability to put together a programi g
it is my opinion that they couldn't do as professional I
a j ob as a Navy Program would be put together.
O So, therefore, it was haphazard, and the learning I don't believe was as thorough.
I don't believe that we got as muer.
D out of training as we could have had it been more pro-l gramed.
j It is also my opinion that I think D
Met Ed did a fine job of training us with wh,at they had, and people, material-wise, I think they did a fin o job.
C.
As far as the Control Room Operator training, I had eight weeks of intensive training down y
on the Simulator, Babcock and Wilcox.
f
i.4Et7mnv.7!
tm e m m =.-
m e - m m,- m m m m m-s==- - m - =
E
^
(8 That was eight weeks of classroom covering instrumentaiton, controls, various things like
(
that, and then actually applying the classroom knowledg o in the Simulator with casualty actions, simulated casus,1 '. :.
I ties.
That to me was invaluable, and I kr ow it was invaluable to a lot of the other fellows that we nt down there with me because a lot of them never stood a watch on a panel like that before.
They were out in tr e 1engine room turning valves ar.u things like this where C'
I had some hands-on experience with casualties from a panel.
I know it helped them a lot being g
able to recognize and analyze problems real quickly. I thought that that program was well coordinated, and I (0
think everybody came out of there was at that point a
competent operator just on that particular -- They developed skills there, however, that they become int-J stinetatter awhile, so no matter where you go you can use these instincts that you have learned there and apply them to the realm of a control room the size of Unit 2.
1 After the training that we got down in Lynchburg we had several sections learning about G
e-.
,_w--
I w&w w mc_saw,e ma e -ew.euse g
4
-l=2=7m.a w A e W_m, w r-(
individual components.
Reactor cooling pump'd is one p..
I c an re call.
a It was just basically review-type,
(
1 keeping us refreshed on certain ideas and concepts.
't We had a'two-week cram course so-to-speak right before we had a simulated NRC examina-tion that was given by I can't ramember -- General O
Physics.
They gave the simulated walk-through, and I took that.
I didn't make it but, you know, they t~
~
all do that.
4 I don't understand.
(
A Well, I didn't pass that examination'.
s 4
Simulated walk-through?
A I didn't pass the simulated one.
'4 However, later o'n you did pass an actual
(.
walk-through?
A-Yes, that's correct.
C 4
Was that due to the fact that you trained more, or was it that the NRC walk-through was easier?
A No, an. NRC examination to me is never easy O
whether you know the answer, whet, er you' know what th h
ey are going to ask you.
And everybody has a basic idea what o
_.w__,
. _.- - ~ -
-c-
- = - - -
M
=
O, O
they are going to ask you.
They are going to ask you some questions about the reacter.
They are going to
(
a'sk you some questions about the turbine.
They are going to ask you to go out in the plant and find compo ne nt s.
O It 's a standard thing.
If they don't cover that they haven't really -- The NRC hasn't n.
done their job, I think.
My basic impression of an NRC walk -
around, and examination is thorough knowledge, basic l
C knowledge, and also the walk-around part of it I think should be to test the composure of the examinee..
In other words, how well does the O
examinee stand up under a stressful ten-hour examination with questions from anywhere.
This was"my idea of an NRC test so
- C
~ ~ ~
therefore, I conducted myseif during the examination with a great deal of calm, thinking the answere out before I gave them.
l, h
L Some guys were petrified.
You kno,f, 1
they would just stand there for twn hours, but I wasn'<:
like that just because that 's the way I th'ought an C
examination should be.
And it's impossible for anybody that's lo
,......,. - ~. -
.... -.. ~
. ~,,.. - ~... ~.. -,..
O.
f not associated with the plant to ask everything, and
\\
everybody can't know everything.
You know.
So --
q You mentioned the fact that you had difficu:.t y
(
O with the General Physics Corporation walk-through. I assume that was several weeks prior to the other walk-through for your license?
A I believe it was a month or a month and-a-half before the actual.
D 4
Do you think it was because you were more up-tight as opposed to not knowing as much, or was it a combination of both?
g A
Well, at that particular point in time I waa stressed in another way not involving my job, and so I C
think that that p'robably had a big bearing on it as we.L1 as I didn't think the guy that was giving me my walk-around knew as much as I'did', and his concepts were C
completely in left-field, and he based my answers on -
Or the grading of. my answers on what he thought it sho'11d be.
s IC l
4 Did you discuss your observations with anyo:te, from the training department at Met Ed. subsequent to t 1at i
particular walk-through?
O A
Oh, yes, yes, and, you know, they all say that this is just general -- Now, I'm not quoting O n criciai e n...,...a.,...
6
B D
f anybody, but the general concensus of the training s
department was, yes,- they are always. tough.'
They want
([o C
to -- I don't know if it is to instill' a feeling of fear into the examinee or what.
I think it's sort of that type of thir.g, perhaps to make you feel not quite so ready; a bubble buster so to speak.
And then we did have, I know, two
^
D weeks 'more of refresher training after the walk-around,
the mock walk-around before we took the-test.
Classroom, and we brushed up around the plant.and everything like that.
(
4 In the ' interview that you had with the NRC
~
~
Special Inquiry group people you mentioned the fact 9
that there were some typewritten copies of some walk-through exams that were held at other facilities as I O
believe there may have also been some at Three Mile Island.
(Whereupon, Exhibit 1204, a docu-(
ment containing a number of examinations, was marked O
for identification.)
19"
[
~
C OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
O.
C BY MR. ORNSTEIN :
(
4 Have you looked at that?
O A
I'didn't think I gave you so many.
gg Yes, these are the documents.
They appear so.
They appear to be all there.
N 4
Okay, did you use these documents in any way,
shape, or form to assist you in preparing for any of the NRC examinations?
O A
Knowing my philosophy which I just told you previously, no.
I didn't use them.
I had no need to.
4 Do you recall when you first received those i
documents?
i A
No, there would be a time frame up to a year probably that I could have gotten them.
I know I had lO I
them in my locker for quite some time.
4 Was that before ybu became a candidate for a Reactor Operator subsequent to your being an Auxilliary o
Operator?
A
- Yes, e
O 4
Was it before you passed your Aux 1111ary i
1 Operator examination?
(
A My Control Room Operato,r.
I 4
I'm sorry, that's correct: Control Room
(
Operator Exam.
l CFFICIAt. COURT REPORTER.,
g n.
e L
I C
6-O.
(.
A I can't recall.
4 Do you recall what the source of this set of
(-
documents was?
O A
I wouldn't -- I know somebody gave them to me, but I can't remember who it was.
You know, if I could kind of visua] e ize when.I got them I could erobably visualize the face but I don't really know.
C, 4
Were there a large number of pecole like yourself who had this set of documents?
A Yes'.
O 4
It was commonplace among the --
(
A I would say so, yes..
4 Was it ever mentioned to you how the documen ts C'
from St. Lucie walk-through exams. wound up at different utilities?
~
A Yes, but I really just assumed that it's lik e, O
~
you know, nukes are one big family, you know, and one s ets a pat on the back from another, and the other wants to respond.
It's just that way.
.O I mean look at the insurance policy that Met Ed has, five hundred million dollars.
Who pay s for it?
All of the other utilities.
g~
(
It's just like St. Lucie says send CFFsCIA1. COURT REPORTER O
l
v p-e a
t r,
\\
copies of this out.
I would assume that 's how they do it.
4 Would you know'i'r this was something done by O
the training departments or the indiJidual ooerators op the plant superintendents or --
A I have -- No, I wouldn't have any idea.
I 7
have never seen any of this go on, so how would I know how it's done?
o If I wanted to sit down in front o:
a tape recorder for ten hours and talk about what I talked with my examiner about I could do that, and then C
they could transcribe to whatever they want, but I i
really' don't know how it s done.
.4 Do you know if Babcock and Wilcox and the training department were involved in this at all?
A No, I do not.
f 4
Do you know if these walk-through exams wera
- C l
transcribed from tapes that were held on the candidate 1' person as they were actually walking through, the plant as opposed to a debriefing subsequent to the exam?
A No, I don't know that' either.
(
4 When you had your walk,through exam for the Three Mile Island Control Room Operator license were y su s,v g
debriefed after the exam was over?
i OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
-2 2 -
O
=*=* * - "** -
rwwe-w.
.r%+--,
-e-,e+-r-s.
~ - ---
-e-,.c-
-.v-y
. - -----e--
,. ~.,, --, -..---ec----,
-w
,----------------e.w+-
a 4
(
O A*
No, not by anybody other than myself.
I de-.
briefed.
h-Everybody wanted-to know what -- Yc u o'
know, just among my peers.
None higher up.
4 Nas a transcript or recording made of these observations that you made?
ct A
Not to my knowledge.
Just to put it on the record, I hav e no knowledge thr.t Met Ed ever had anything to do with transcribing walk-throughs, and I can't help but think that you are diving for something here, and all I presented you with was a set'of documents which I received from g
training.
~
I realize you are interested in the se O
documents but, you know, I, like I said before, I don't know where they come hNom.
'I don't know who makes them.
Met Ed doesn't make them that I know l
lC o f s o --
d u
I l
4 You scid y'ou received them from training.
Now, does that mean somebody like Marsh Deers, Nelson Brown, or Dick Zechman?,,,
,c 6
(
~.
A It 's possible that they,could.
4 As opposed to someone like Ce11enger or someone like that?
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER.
u
.n.... n.,
L, u,.c un.cs==mvam4
.s n.
A No, I don't think it would come from anybody like Cellenger.
It would probably be.maybe Unit 1 Control Room Operator ha,d had a copy and, you know, he lh gave it to someone else who was studying for a Unit 2 license and, hey, these are pretty neat.
I might make some copies of these and see if anybody else wants ther c,
And he might go about distributing it that way.
That it happea.ed that way I don't know, but it was just one of the mechanisms that was frequent ly used for other things.
4 Yes, but I got the impression from what you just mentioned a few minutes ago that it was coming frc m g.
training as opposed to operations.
Is that correct?
A I assumed that they came from training.
4 No one actually put a stamp on them saying, O
here for your perusal, or to' help you for next month's exam use this but don't tell anyone where it came fromt O
A No.
It wasn't like that.
4 Getting back to comparisons with,the Navy Training and the Met Ed Training, did the Navy teach O
you or have courses or lectures on thermodynamics and
(
phase change in the primary system,as well as phase change in general and the PVT relationships and such?
(
O A
Yes, they did.
-2N" OFFICIAL. COURT REPORTER O
tanca.n a. n uu m vania t
r o
('
4 And did the Met Ed Training stay after the same?
A I can vaguely remember a lecture on that
(
(;
sub[ect,but I think as I recall it was only taught one time, and that was it.
l And it wasn't all in really that l
C much depth.
4 Did --
A I think you might -- Are you referring to the 0-Zirconium Hydriding?
4 No, I was referring to saturation conditionn,
two-phase phenomena not necessarily associated with i
(
hydriding, generation of steam voiding saturation.
A Yes, they did talk about that.
They talked about heat flux versus water temperature in saturated systems, what happens, nucl'e* ate boiling, bulk boiling, film boiling.
They talked quite a bit about it, 6
especially the steam generators.
4 4
They being --
O A
The training department at --
4 Met Ed and the Navy?
A Yes, both.
O Was there any emphasis in your Met Ed train ing 4
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER LA9eCASTER. PENN SYLV ANI A e
~,
a
.~a s--
~
i-o
t.
O
[
i I
on the possibility of boiling in the core?
l C
A Yes, but as long as we didn't exceed a safet y l'
limit there should be no boiling.
4 Did the Met'Ed Ste ef instill within you an O
understanding of the saturation temperature and cressur e j
relationships which were behind the safety limits, or d id C
they just say, " Hey, this is the limit, and this is wha t l
you have to make sure you do or stay within"?
A Well, there were several different curves C
that we operated by based on how many reactor coolant pumps we had operating, and they were the flux flow in-balance curves.
O And they always told you that as ic ng
{
as you stayed within lineu.the departure from nucleate boiling ratio was always going to be greater than 1.03, l
C 4
1.307 A
Yes, 1.30, and that boiling won't occur.
And then also they did dimension O
DNBR, what it was, how we got it.
How we go,t the term things like that.
4 Did they instruct you about going solid in g
the primary system?
A They said you don't ever want to do that, C
and that was -- That's my extent.
That's all they said.
~26-OFFICIAt. COURT REPORTER
-,......m LAseCaJsTER. PENNSYLVANI.%
?
T
g
-=
i.anca ran, n==.vi.v4=ia n
mmbmM =c- -sm6mrciFA.9AR*a33 % wa75EG%enM'MM-A9
[
2D g
4 Did they ever instruct you about pressurize 41 O
level and the fact that high pressure injection was to be kept on as long as the primary system pressure was below a certain point regardless of what the level was,
or was it a matter of looking at the level instead of the pressure or both pressure and level?
c A
Okay, to the best of my recollection we vere told that we should follow our indication. and hiso Rnowing it was heresy to let -- You were committing a O
heretical act to.let the plant go solid.
If I saw a pressurized, level goins; up greater than 400 inches, which is top scale, I woulci O
turn the. pumps on myself.
I would do that probably aft;er I checked all the other three -- Or all the other two channels, the other two redundant channels I would check O
to make sure that those other'two are responding the same way.
4 Did the Navy Training ciffer?
g A
This is taking me back here.
(Whereupon, a technical discussion followed, off the record.)
BY MR. ORNSTEIN:
4 Can we go back on the record.
u==
- wawa anvthine in the Met Ed
tamsagtse teveefv sevat seewes LAseCASTER. PENN',VLVANIA bMm,pzTw.u-wwrwm-N sErevam.Neuawwatemassa
(
0 Training that hinted or indicated that one should A
throttle back the high pressure injection on certain transients in order to prevent a SCRAM and allow a ICS I
runback?
O A
I don't think I understood there.
I don't think it's possible what you just said.
4 Well, the high pressure injection can be c
initiated automatically.
However, the operator has the capability of throttling back the number of gallons per minute that the system is delivering, and the q';as<: ion g
I had is do you recall anywhere in your training the suggestion that you throttle back the high pressure o
injection at any point in order to prevent a SCRAM 7 A
I never been told that by Met Ed.
Can I say that if high pressure O
injection has occurred, auto *matically the reactor should already be tripped.
4 Well, on a turbine trip you don't necessari ly
(
trip the reactor, o
A No, but if you do get high pressure injecti on you will have a turbine trip automatically at low C
pressure or variable pressure temp,erature.
4 But you will not necessarily have a SCRAM.
A Same thing.
All the rods deenergize and
,v
-e
,m
~, -.
,m,...,-,---,...,
_ 64 cast 2.ee==.vtvania
- %o e
3 he h *.E
,?ST/SL' O
.'[?$
Y z ?mY
- E'-'
- LW&D'1N!.NWY N5N4s? ^
0?
5A*5'$
e O
go in the holes.-
0 4
Well, the idea of the ICS needs to allow the plant to remain at some hotel load or house load while you try to fix the problem with your turbine or
- the O
initiating event and not actually SCRAM per se.
Let's proceed on to other points.
When you were with Met Ed you mentioned the fact that O
you were initially an Auxilliary Operator.
I assume ycu.
came in on the Auxilliary Operator A-level?
A That's correct.
.u 4
That was because you had additional training compared to one who would be c6 ming in at the Auxilliar y o
Operator C-level?
A That's correct.
4 And as time went on you applied for the (O
position of control Room Operator, is that correct?
A That's correct.
4 What was the incentive available to people C
like yourself to become a Reactor Operator an opposed to an Auxilliary Operator?
A Well, for cne thing it was over a dollar an C
hour raise just to start, and then; of course, after you progressed through the training period it got progressively more until you got full rate for CRO.
O.
u cama, n mvam.
c r ohE.wwmm.-rmccecmens-rvemw*-enim:,a +mmm
.,[
D When you obtained your NRC 11 ense you got at the' time it was $21.00 a week D
t extra license bonus, and for my own personal reasons for taking control room operator, I wouldn't go D
any further if you, don't take what 's ahead of you.
I didn't want to be an auxilliary operator the rest of my life.
O Q
Did you find that there were any drawbacks associated with being a control room operator?
A Any --
O 4
Drawbacks?
A Oh, drawbacks.
I guess the real drawback that I could see was being in.close contact with so D
many people at one time, especially during the hot functional testing and the stait-up testing program.
There wdre engineers and oeople O
just congregated in the control rooms looking for information, trying to run tests, and, of course,
any tests that are going on in the plant have to go g
through the control room operator or through the shift foreman via the control room operator.
O
.Of course, he,has to~ keep all these things in his mind somehow and keep them with a fair degree of arrangement.
- That, plus all the C
mnm.etc<n.:x=mm:>m.
n- ~ < - - v<-ema n n = = w n ~ ~ ~ m K
u O
P constant hounding by people other than the people run-ning the tests like can I~get this valve closed and O
opened, it was jtxt a constant harassment for eight I'
hours.
4 Was the Auxilliary Operator free of this kind L,
of harassment?
A Yes.
Basically the only harassment he got G
was from us, the Control Room Operators.
4 Now, did you find a requalification program to be a burden on you as opposed to havin,g staved an O
Auxilliary Operator?
l A.
No,.I don't think so.
This is my own per-
?
l sonal.--
lto 4
Well, when you studied for your requalifica-tion did you study on your 6wn time or was it exclusive ly on company time?
O A
Well, as I recall we had three operators, three Control Room Operators at the time.
One guy was designated as surveilk O
e lance coordinator, and that job normally took maybe an hour into the day until you could get all the papers shuffled out to the appropriate people, and then if lO there was any for the guy to do, then he would do it.
It wouldr ; take too long, and I d
_u-
U _ _,.- _--- m., -
-m D
o.
r would use that day to go in the back where it was a little quiet and review my notes and things 11~. 3 that.
O I got to see my wife little enough
(
yet alone taking home a pile of books to study till I generally studied on company time.
4 Was that the norm?
Did most operators do it that way?
A I really don't know.
I don't know -- Some G
guys.took them home.
Other guys didn't.
4 Did Met Ed give you specific _ homework assigr -
ments when you were in the training program for your g
initial Reactor Operator license?
That is would you gc over material in class and then be expected to produce g
certain problems or feedback certain information the next day, or was it something that they did not expect you to do anything at home and it was mainly while you C[
were on whatever cite or classroom?
~
A Okay, I think.I'm picking up what program
~
yc'.. ' re t alking about, and it's.the one that's conducted O
by Met Ed's training through the licensing year.
In other words we have -- We had various stays of training.
We would go do'wn to the O
training building and sit, and we would study say five emergency procedures, and they would give us two hours,
~
O OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER -
~~
'),
o three hours to study them.
They would have an instructor to go C
over them with us, and at the end of that session we
{
would have an examination, and they would be graded.
If we got less than an 80 on it O
they would send it up to us in an envelope, and we woul d have to complete it by such and such a date to get cred it for it.
e But none of that generally had to be taken home.
I don't think anybody ever took any of that home.
L.,
4 Now, did it work the same way in your initial license studying or preparation?
That is not the requ'alification program, but the cold training as you c
had or the hot training as it may have been?
A Yes, we had basically it was what we call th e O
OJT book, and it was -- They had all the systems listed and a general study guide for each system.
And we had to study the study guide a
for the system, and then we could go to a shift foreman
./T or a shift supervisor, and he would give us a checkout on it.
I might s ay at this point I was a i
part of the first group of operators to be licensed at O
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER _-
4
M D
e D
n
\\
the initial -- The initial batch.
The people that were licensed afte r the initial group of Octocer 20, _'77 they started in
(!
O on the company program which was another program thing.
You know, they asked them a lot of-D questions about the feed pumps, and then they would have a test, things like that.
4 But it was mostly studying while on the OJT program or something which did not really involve a lot of outside study where you weren't really expected to take all the stuff home with you and spend hours on end ?
D A
If you had to do that to get the license
.. I they expected you to take things home.
4
.Now, did the Navy operate the same way?
l A
I guess in a basic sort of way.-
l i
They won t let you go home.
If we needed dn extra two hours of training at night because O
we didn't do so hot during the day they said, "You just can't go home until 6 :00 o'efock."
That's just a little push, but that 's p
what they do.,
4 Now, I have been made aware of some nuclear plants in which I'm not sura if it's AO's or CRO's havo been stopped at the gates by union stewards and told to "b"
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER l
g
4g; -
i
~.,
O.
O leave their books at the plant, that they couldn 't take the work home with them, that it was pomething to be t.
C done at the plant on utility time as opposed to their own time.
Do you recall seeing any such thing; O
occur at Three Mile Island?
A Not to my recollection.
4 Was there very heavy union involvement in O
the conduct of business for the Auxilliary Operators and Control Room Operators?
l C
MR. SMITH:
Off the record for a
- minute, (Whereupon, there was a discussion b
off the record.)
BY MR. ORNSTEIN:
C 4
Back on the record.
l When a person like yourself got a new position,- take for example the CRO position, what O
was the basis upon which you might have been rated and salaried, changed upwards or downwards?
l A
It was seniority.
Company seniority deter-
'C mined if I got the job.
If there was 13 openings, and I was OFFICIAL COURT REPCRTER -
c l
. ~. - - _ _, _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _
6
~..
0 O
the 14th in seniority I wouldn't get the job.
The other 13 would.
(;
4 Okay, once you got the j ob what about incre- -
O ments in your salary and reviews or annual reviews?
What~ kind of measu,rc was there in determining your
},*
performance and your eligibility for raises?
,,v A
Okay, we had periodic' reports.
I can't recall if they were monthly or every six months.-
I O
believe they were monthly or 90 days'.
Every 30 days we would get a repor b, and it was a standard Met Ed form 'that his attitude, O
his work attitude, is he picking up the concepts of I
the new j ob ; you know, questions like this, performanc e,
and then they would be rated by the supervisor.
4 Were there any specific things listed?
For i
example turned vavles so mahy times, did so many thing s to cause so many reactivity changes, pushed the wrong C
buttons so many times?
Was there any such assessment made of the operators?
A No.
Basically what we do there was if we O
had a person that was in trainists for a license and he needed to do five reactivity manipulations we would actually -- He would stand by a licensed operator and C
go through everything before he actually did it, and OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER m.........
g.
Lae.caetas, aswasvLvama t
.g,,
,,..--,,-,.,,,-,,-,,_,n,
D, o
C he would make the-reactivity manipulations, and then we would log.it into the main OR log as so and so performed reactor. start-up under direction of licenned E
D operator Hal Har': man.
4 This would be primarily for satisfying some NRC requirements for the license, but it was not some-o thing for a Met Ed assessment having anything to do with-i the employee.'s salary?
A No.
c l
4 Now, getting back to -
A Okay, the former question, I think I under-f stand that.
~
4 Yes, that's what I was going to get back to I think what I am trying to get at O
was if there is any real record made of having a man stand back "and say, "Okay, h'e pushed' the wrong button that time.
Mark it down."
Things like that, there D
was nothing like that?
The performance of an operator was i
based on blank?
You fill in the blank.
A That's a tough question.
I really don't I
know what they base it on.
I don,'t reall' y.
Maybe the shift supervisor likes O
this guy.
You Jcnow.
Maybe he -eally is good.
He N"
OFFICIAL. COURT REPORTER b
LA8eCASTER. PGNNSVLVA$$lA
-c w-%-ww.ei-d w.e---ww
-w--
- w-we ww--
,-t,y--,
i e g.-y w
-wMt-
'---='r.-ww w
e> ww - m evW s-e'+u.
r - Nw wm -C Nm Wr g
"v' W--
r'w y-+
y w--vm 7="wv-y'-we---'w=Tw r w w w-T gy"
6
-l o-.
O.
I just beams out all over as being good, and they know it s
4 I get the impression that you are saying it is sort of a subjective-type thing by the supervisor
(
C as opposed to a quantifiable thing?
A Well, first let me say that during our train-ing -- Now, you'c'an talk two different groues.
4 Okay, training and operating.
l A-Training and operating.
Well, during the training period precriticality.
Okay, we had cold O
license.
Our training. differed after we went critical.
Then there was a separate..
They do walk-arounds that they took D
l overy so often.
The candidates had walk-arounds that they would take, I don't know, every couple of weeks or every couple of segments..
They would have a walk-c around with one, a member of' the training department,
l would come up and walk around the control room with O
him, and~they would go over those systems.
Okay?
And then 'he would make an evaluation based on that walk-around, and they would do basically what an NRC examiner would do, start this pump and ther O
i yrs,were supposed to get the proce, dure and line-up the correct valves and so on.
You know.
This was a following for I thought OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER !
u ca. m.n,..vi.u.a.
g
...,-,,_...z..,.
~ -, -..
i O
O, it was an extensive set of questions that were given g
to you on specific systems that you had to answer subjectively.'
'O They were graded and returned to the candidate before his walk-around, and this was
- progreus, and generally it took a candidate nine months, and they C
would give him a mock NRC test of their own, a written or oral.
And from their day would determine j
l whether they would send him up.
4 Okay, that was one where the Met Ed require
/
ments was you had to pass a certain exam within a O
~
certain period of tire or you went back to where you
~
were before, I believe?
A Right.
4 Okay, b ut let's t'ake the case, the other case. That is yo'u now have the license.
A Yes.
O 4
The question was one of are there any of the quantifiable things upon which the advancement O
individual as far as pay step and such go or is this merely a matter of seniority and n,ot shaking any waves?
A Once you got to be control Room Operator C
with a license your pay went no higher, and you were OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER -.................
LANCASTER, MNNSYLVANI A
/i
~.. ru x w--2.e. #
... ~
-n,,-
m,
.s.....~~.-:.
,.,_,., - ~...
-,.,------n
O just stuck unless you got promoted to shift foreman, O
and that was the discretion of generally the. ' tift supervisor and the plant superintendent.
4 Did you not need a senior operator's licens e O
for that?
A That's correct.
[g, Yell, they would promote you, and then they would put you on a senior operator t.*aining program, but you wouldn't fulfill that capacity until D
you had a SRO license.
The other thing that we had just t o maintain the proficiency was once a year we had to do O
certain things, operate the plant and any maj or evolu~-
tions which we performed were documented under I forget the column, 'but this was just general things that we O
did.
Then we had reactivity manipulations, l
and we had to do five of those with greater than one 0
percent change or something.
I can't even remembrar i
that exactly.
4 This is basically the NRC operator licen-0s sing requirements for requalifyins, I guess, that dete r-mined this kind of thing?
o A
Yes, and that was really all we had.
CFFICIAL COURT REPORTER *
.n....
l.AfeCASTEft, PENNevLVANI A 2 --n M-M
-=
g umsman e.
n sevev e. eves 6 m ea m 2.eenu m v m o hpfg-n:wsMLw:
T Lv2WN UBEMMMLMhM'RW%WWW *MMMMR 4
You mentioned the fact that you did have I
simulated training at Lynchburg.
I believe you said it, was an eight-w'eek program in obtaining your Reactor f
Operator license.
O A
That's correct.
4 Now, had you had subsequent simulated training after October '77 now at Lynchburg?
U A
Yes.
I had one week at approximately the last week in June of '78, and another week approximate:.y the week of the 28th, March 28, 1979.
c 4-Okay, and that was a predetermined program that Met Ed had many operators going down in order to S
stay current and be in fulfillment of the manipulationt I~
requirements for license renewal?
A I'm not sure I know what you mean.
C
~
4 This training that you had at B&W on their facility, the simulator, that involved manipulatier.s of the simulator controls?
b A
(Indicates yes.)
4 And I assume in your case you must have beert involved with numerous manipulations so that you did
$g '
without that simulated training actually meet the NRC requirements for renewing your license in 19797 3
A That's correct, at the plant.
u
~.
s.nneam.nuumvnnez
^
I.ow;B%iral%m -XWMTWMEL-wmW-RW=%5.VXtF0Te%
- awo1.M42Eit l
i C
4 Right.
O A
(Indicates yes.)
4 And the thing that it must have done was t0 assist you in understanding certain transients which O
you did not actually experience during the year?
A That's correct.
4 And I assume that also it was geared so that C-people who were not at the controls per se like a senior operator would have an opportunity to actually manipulate the controls, is that correct?
O
~
A That 's correct.
4 Now, again I'll ask you to try and go back a bit in time.
I assume that in your Navy program you used or had been exposed to the simulator that the Navy may have had in your tr'aining?
O A
We didn't have simulators in the Navy.
4 You did not have any Navy simulators at all f 6
A We had prototype training centers which wero actual: reactors.
They were operating.
4 On those Navy prototypes did you undergo i
similar casualty events such as yo,u had at Lynchburg, or were they more complex?
A It's really difficult to answer the questio t O
i
64=caer:2,a==
vi.vania w;$fJer.%? w knNs'2w TI~M f*Y W M " M M 5 M M M S l
1 o
l because of the nature of the two plants. One is a very simple plant.
It is so stable it's ridiculous, and a13 p
you do is pull rods, and that's it.
Everything else is so self-regulating that it takes care of itself basica3 1y.
The Babcock and Wilcox is quite a C.
bit more complicated to operate.
By failing a TH ins-trument high on-one plant it would do a multitude of -
things where it had an automatic control system that.
looked at that parameter.
If you failed TH high in the Navy plant you would look up and say, "It's high.
Wh at 's f
the other one read?"
Which was right below it, and it reads okay.
Q "Oh, I must have had an instrument
-- To kind of problem back there," 'and you know that l
I say the casualties were as complex, I don't know.
g l
have a hard time answering that.
4 Okay, the simulator in Lynchburg, was that of a reactor, another facility?
That 's the SMUD branc 1 O
of SECO simulator?
A That's correct.
Did you find that this,dctracted somewhat U
q from the training with regard to Three Mile Island, 9
or was it something that you got used to fairly quickly?
O 9
^'
- -m
,x e
, MAN.m=Ynwtmemnzst.s meeo r.-: mm r.:Emm.'w2TNwzem l
e I
O 1
A Yes, I got used to it fairly quickly so it didn't -- It didn't really -- I'm very easy to reorien':
O like that though, and I adapted down there within houra.
And some guys I guess'it still bothered.
I don't know.
c But myself, I didn't find it annoy ing or anything like that.
It didn't deter from my O
training.
4 I'd like to go back to a statement that you sa$ d which was rather. interesting, and that is I got O
the impression that in the Navy plants it was fairly easy to detect an instrument that wasn't working right ?
A That is correct.
O 4
And I gather that it is not quite the same at Three Mile?
A It 's a nightmare.
You know.
O l
I had mentioned before.in'some of these things that certain operators shou 11 develop a sense of, you know, when they sectionalize a, panel O
regardless of what kind of indication it is. style-wise an operator. should be able to look at a section of the 10 panel and just scan it for a secon,d and realize if something is not really kosher, and then, you know, scan another section, do the same thing.
- O hh
TX 3wcmW;n 1ea.a +: ym m c.wR:1wc w_w_,;;,m.w..m.em-p.-,_.wa a.a.:a v..,n
'O C
1
- Now, a lot of guys wouldn't do th at,
and they would become locked in on just certain C
- gauges, you know, and that's really a bad cart.
The gauges, themselves, were hard to. read because they were vertical.
They were only about an inch wide by I'd say ten inches hish.
The needle was very small, and these were the ones on the main console and in back; O
for instance, extraction, steam pressures, and temperatures were gauged on a meter with a face an inch wide by say t'hree inches tall.
And to view those gauges you coulc, probably get as closa as twelve feet to them, which f-requires fairly good eyesight to be able to read the exact v'alue s.
But you.could scan it, and you O
can see l'f your parameters are about where you think they.should be.
4 Did you ever have an opportunity or O
confrontation with anyone at the plant where you expressed your observations on some of this equipment ?
A.
Oh, yes, but I really don't know who I C
would have said it to.
If I said it to anybody it would C
[
N w e -.e e t w v.2 w - :,,: m.
w,#.,,,.
0 m
0 O,
1 have been somebody that 'I was working with at the f
time.
You know,,pr.bably a shift foreman or a shift supervisor.
As far as names, I don't really i
know, but I did mention the fact that I think there is too much,.I think there is a lot of extraneous e
garb' age in that control room.that could be taken out and compressed into a workable size where one man could. scan the panel and know exactly what 's going 0
~
a little on, make it easier to read, sectionalize it i
bit better.
I They have things all over the place.
4 Do you ever actually say to someone: Hey, a
O this is like this, and it really ought to be like that ;
or is it just a mat,ter of simole discussion any change ever being expected to take place?
without O
Well, let me back off and ask you in a slightly different way. ' Was there anything in your manual of procedures of being an operator g
which would allow you to raise to management what
' appeared to you as a significant or even possibly a safety concern for a plant and its method of operatir s O
t or?
or information that was available to you as an opera O
OFFICIAL. COURT REPORTER 46-.
c O,
g, A
Well Senerally if we just had a simple e
problem like a meter was incorrect we would go to C
the shift foreman and say, "This thing isn't operatinF
(.
properly.
Shall we turn in a work request?"
[
And he would say yes or know,
'O and the course would proceed from there.
And either the instrument man fixed it or the work request was disapproved along the line or something.
}'-
l I think if I was operating the I
plant and I saw something that was really serious I'd me". bion it to the shift supervisor.
K You know, maybe we have a better way of doing this.
Maybe we should take a look'at
[O that.
l 4
Did such a situation ever occur?
A
- Yes, I mentioned to him about the polisher system," which was terrible.
You know, the situation O
was just terrible.
They didn't have any automatic bypass around the vessel so that in case a vessel O
would go on a high differential pressure, that is we cut flow off to the booster pumps and subsequently the feed pumps.
O And if they had an automatic valve in t'.nere that was air operated that would send the O
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER.
-4 7 -
I
?,
high DP in the system that couldup open just right away and keep this and condensate boos.ter pumps with some water; everything would have been all r16ht.
n.
It was at least six months before the accident if not longer that this question had been raised by other members of the control room staff to E
their shift supervisors, and I know I and the other operator that I worked with, I know he had mentioned, too, that an automatic vhlve there, it would be ideal because we had experienced these problems with the polishers before.
This was all oral requests or suggestions?
C 4
Was there anything in writing that was put down on that?
e D
No, not that I' can recall.
A 4
Were you, as a reactor operator, familiar with the specs for the plant?
O I could A
I was familiar with them, yes.
generally tell you if there was a tech spec on a o
certain item.
g I couldn't recite it word for but I know where I could go to find t' at h
- word, D
information.
Were you familiar with the tech spec or 4
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
_gg.
~
N
? ~,-
operating procedure associated with the tail pipe
'from the PORY and safety valves?
A Yes.
i d
4 If you knew that a situation existed where the plant in that area was not within the tech 4
specs or operatin's procedures, how would' y'ou go about apprising management of this or what would you do to C'
get it corrected?
A
- Well, what I -wouid do is just T vould C
talk to my shift foreman, and if I didn't really get any satisfaction out of him I would go to the shift supervisor and tell him, you know, I think we've
(
got a problem.
q Did you ever do that with regard to that particular temperature?
A That particular problem I.was -- I never wrote anything down except I -- volumes.of water that had to be exchanged, I thought that was testi-O mony enough. that we did have a problem.
4 Well, were you --
9 O
A But --
4 Go ahead.
But I did talk to Bernie Smith and Dick A
of the Hoyt about this problem, about the leakage out C
valves, and they just said, "Get a good leak rate."
~49" OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER O
~
^
e
)
=
0, And whenever I did it I passed it C
off as often as I could.
I would just say, "I couldn't get a good one all night,"
and keep doing it that way.
g They had three days to get a good one, and sometime during the day or during the night C
a good one would come up, and then it would have to go ror three more days until they would get a good one.
O 4
Was there anyone else you could have gone to with this concerni A
I probably didn't go to anybody because C
I thought that this was such an obvious problem that the people that I could have gone to were already notified.
O I think you're getting at that I could have gone to the NRC.
y 4
Well, I'm not getting to that.
- However, that is an ultimate avenue that one could take, but I was concerned with finding out what specific guide-o lines there are within the Met Ed Organization that l
would allow an individual like yourself to notice l
~
. that you were being stifled by th'e next layer of C
management and try to raise to the surface a concern without rocking the entire boat like what you just -
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
,$g,
G
. -.. u n. no.u m ssu.a
i o
D Yes, I really don't think -
I was kind of 0
A fraid of rocking the big boat up-there.
a It seemed to me like they were
(
I knew they were aware of the c
totally unpredictable.
They problem, and their minds are greater than mine.
l could do things with their heads that I could never.
t imagine.
Was there some quality assurance function or Q
some quality assurance group that was depended upon ld by Met Ed to make sure that this kind of thing wou l
be resolved?
Well, as far as I know they had -
We hel A
surveillance procedure forms, and the surveillance l ted, group would send any. sheets that come back comp e they would go to ISI, In Service Inspection, add an X'
I engineer would look at the hata and evaluate it.
What he gets is just the minimum 1
As far as And -- That's all.
information, you know.
the QA is concerned, that 's all I know about.
o Was there an area that was left out from t
4 D
your training in the Met Ed program on Auxilliary Operator and Control Room Operator or was there some-thing discussed along these lines of reporting or C'
t?
fixing up ' things which appeared to be incorrec
, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 4MsCaette Cownt? 4ewaf teewed g
t AMCASTER, PtNNSYLVANIA
- - - - - -. ~ -. - -
,---e
m*
.s.,.
O o~
A, No, I never -- We never were told to fix g
anything up, but they told us to get one anyway you cart.
4 You get olie meaning what?
O A.
Meaning a leak rate.
4 Okay.
,Are you aware of the recent I think it was Friday Press Conference that the Director of the C.
Division of Inspection Enforcement held Friday in which 155 thousand dollars in finas were levied against.
Metropolitan Edison?'
A.
Uh -h ut..
4 Were you aware of the fine that the NRC would have levied on Met Ed with regard to that parti-C
~
cular tailpipe?
I would like to introduce as Exhibit 1205 a letter written by Victor Stello to Bob C
Arnold, Metropolitan Ediscn,* on their findings, and I would like to draw your attention to the item of leaka ge from the safety valves and the ta11 pipe temperature.,
O The cumulative civil. penalty for 1
o that one item alone would have been 630 thousand dolla rs,
1 0
which amounted to a penalty of five thousand dollars 1
a day for every day,that they'were not in' compliance on that item.
C' This is the' letter, and,this is th e 1'.
... l OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
-....m.,, m.,
j LAncAaren. PawwsYd.VANI A y
6
-7 g
O O.
ite.m over here.
t
(
(Whereupon, Exhibit 1205, a letter,
]
f was markdd for identification.)
A.
This is quite stunning.
g I don't know if there is more that can be 4
said, but apparently the NRC has expressed their though ts O
about this particular incident, and we feel it to be art extremely serious event, but I think you have sort of explained the way in which many people at Met Ed might O
have viewed this tech spec violation, or is it an operating procedure violation as opposed to a tech speo violation?
It is an operating procedure violation, I A.
think, rather than a tech spec violation.
n MR. ORNSTEIN:
May we take a break O
i for a few minutes?
(Whereupon, there was a brief re.ce ss O
in the proceeding's.)'
e 2ed (Whereupon, the proceedings contin h
as follows :)
/
BY MR. ORNSTEIN:
Back on the record again.
O 4
. OFFICIAL COURr REPORTER
-........n..
LANCASTER. P(MNGYLVANI A y,;
.. y. 33,,_
,_,gr.37, 3 3 s_
- ; -3D _'y _ ss Y ~
_vrwe sayT-Q}v way.3 c.
l
L.
D.
You had mentioned the fact that you l
0~
were at the Lynchburg simulator at the time of the Three Mile Island accident on March 28, and I gather
.l that was part of your requalification training.
O Now, were you slated to have your license reviewed fairly shortly?
A Yes.
C 4
Was there a particular submittal date that
~
comes to mind?
c A
No, that 's usually' handled by the training department as far as the submittal date.
I know that my license would have expired the 19th of February or O
the 19th of October of this year.
4 Were you doing satisfactorily well'in the requalification training, or were you having problems O
with it which might have im aired your receiving the renewal?
l MR. SMITH:
I have. a. little troubla O
with that.
Off the record.
(Whereupon, there was a discussion off the record.)
i BY MR. ORNSTEIN:
lO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER.
LApoCASTER. PENNSYLVANI A n '"' w 7 % L K i M W G m
'~ M V's %'_.-
' A m.: 3"-;L i 7m;-n ' ~ ~ *' & n k'.'.' S Y:L n X :2m.a sn u'. w'-
m n.
u
,n,-
,,_-,,,.,.,.n
,,,,. - - -., -,, - - -.,.,, - - - - +,
e Lasecastte sevsety gewet seewee LA88 CASTE 2. PENNSYLVANIS "o
R +1rWJ SFRd8& &Rf46@ M Wi!EIG7fhSYr M YE55A$NNNEY@Y5Mid O
e 4
Can you repeat the last question, please?
O
~
(Whereupon, the Court Reporter rea i back as follows : "Were you doing satisfactorily well f) in the requalification training, or were you having problems with it which might have impad red your receiv Lng the renewal?")
O BY MR. ORNSTEIN:
4 Let ine' quality that.
Prior to March 28, c
1979.
A No. I thought I was progressing satisfactor L ly.
m 4
You were not in a cat e gory, in a training J
program where you were deficient in areas and had to l
make up certain lectures?
A Not that I know of.
O l
MR. ORNSTEIN:
Off the record.
,(,hereupon, there was a discussion W
O l
off the re cord.)
i l
MR. ORNSTEIN:
Let's go back on thit 1
record.
I have no further questions at the present time.
Does your attorney, Mr. Smith, havit
~
any questions?
i.4 ca.n :.
. m v.=.4 b2E4%n.2M'tDM'h%mM3X4E5LF432iMMWWGGEOFD~5@?@CECDM3 O
MR. SMITH:
No,.I' don't think so.
C MR. ORNSTEIN:
In conclusion I woul d like to say that this is an on-going investigation, and although I have completed the questions that I have for today we may need to bring you back for further depositions.
We will, however, make every effort O
to avoid having to do so, so.I will now recess this deposition rather than terminate it and just want to C'
thank you for your time, that you spent with us today.
(Whereupon, at or about 8:53 o'cloc k p.m., the deposition was concluded.)
g
\\
C)
G e
O O
MMCASTE2. PtMNMVlGD
- Y ff7t'EK7SM;t%I5Ef Tn7fN#MM@JMM-W%CJIMN4*55M'u?NWTAF" C
O COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I was present upon the hearing of the above-entitled matter and there reported stenographically the proceedings had and the testimony produced; and I further certify that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of my said stenographic notes.
0,L Y'
S
(
Alfred W. Kershaw, CSR, RPR Official Court Reporter l
LO..
l l
- c l
l l
O 1O e
Fl E
1 1~.
V
.