ML20055D696
| ML20055D696 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 03/25/1987 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055C226 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-90-76 NUDOCS 9007090304 | |
| Download: ML20055D696 (47) | |
Text
--
I.
r y
UNntD STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MA'!TER OF:
DOCKET NO:
INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW (CLOSED) 1
(
LOCATION:
Rancho Cordova, California PAGES:
1 - 45 DATE:
25 March 1987 AG-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
(
OfficialReporters 444 North CapitolStreet Washington, J.C. 20001 1
g g )Y (202) 347-3700 J1 4 9007090304 900510 f
6 %g-g/Q f. $
"^"
ZSMMERMA90-76 PDR:
[/.[./ / C
1 1
s 1
BEFORE THE 2
UNITED STATES S
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0124ISSION 4
REGION V 5
6 In the Matter of:
)
)
7 INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW
)
DOCKET NO:
NONE
)
8 (CLOSED MEETING)
)
9 10 Sunrise Sheraton Hotel 11211 Point East Drivo 11 Rancho Cordova, California 12 Wednesday March 25, 1987 13 14 An investigative interview was conducted with 15 ROBERT A. DIETERICH, commencing at 9:00 a.m.
16 PRESENT:
17 OWEN C. SHACKLETON, Jr. & PHILIP V. JOUKOFF Senior Investigator
. Investigator 18 Office of Investigations, Region V Nuclear Regulatory Commission 19 i
20 21 1k l
23 24 25 1
i
't 2
0 1
CONTENTS s
I WITNESS pggg I
Robert A. Dieterich 4
4 5
6 9
S 9
10 11 12 II EXilIBITS 14 (None) 15 16 j
17 18 19 l
1 20 11 22 28 24' 25 i
i
3 v
1 PEEEEEE1EEE 2
9:00 a.m.
3 MR. SHACKLOTON:
On the record.
4 This is an interview of Mr. Robert A.
5 Dieterich, who is employed as the assistant to the Department 6
Manager in Nuc1 car Licensing for the Sacramento Municipal 7
Utility District.
During the course of this interview we 8
will be referring to Sacramento Municipal Utility District 9
cometimes as SMUD and sometimes as the District.
to This interview is taking place in the Sheraton 11 Sunrise Hotel and Towers in Rancho Cordova, California.
12 Present to conduct this interview from the Office of 13 Investigations, the Field Office in Region V of the Nuclear 14 Regulatory Commission is Mr. Philip A. Joukoff, and myself, 15 Owen C.
Shackleton, Jr.
Both of us are Investigators in the 16 Office of Investigations.
17 It was agreed upon with Mr. Dieterich prior to 18 going on recording that this interview would be recorded and 19 transcribed by a court reporter; Mr. Harry Attmore from 20 1:iggins and Associates is our court reporter today.
21 The subject of this interview is the Radiologi-12 cal Effluent Program at the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generatin; 23 Station.
We will normally refer to this just as Rancho Seco.
l 24 At this time.I will place Mr. Dieterich under l
25 cath.
Will you please rise, Mr. Dieterich?
i 4
a 1
Whereupon, 2
ROBERT A. DIETERICH 3
was called as a witness herein, and, having been first duly 4
sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
5 EXAMINATION 6
BY tiR. SHACKLETOH:
7 0
Mr. Dieterich, for the record would you please 8
give your present position with the District and your job 9
responsibilities and if you would also briefly go through 10 when you were employed by the District and the jobs you've 11 held up until where we are today?
12 A
Certainly.
13 I am at the present time an Assistant to the 14 Department Manager of the Nuclear Licensing Department.
My 15 present job responsibilities primarily are coordination of 16 the B&W Owner's Group efforts within the District.
B&W 17 Owner's Group consists of the utilities in the United States 18 that are operating or constructing B&W designed nuclear 19 steam supply systems, including the Arkansas Power, Florida 20 Power, Toledo Edison, Duke Power.
21 BY 1;R. JOUKOFF.:
12-Q Does the term B&W refer to Babcock and Wilcox?
18 A
Yes, sir, that's correct.
I'm sorry.
24 11R. JOUKOFF:
Thank you.
25 THE WITNESS:
The plants under construction are
i g
5 o
I at Tennessee Valley Authority and Washington Public Power 2
Supply System.
The Owner's Group has about a nine'or ten 3
million dollar a year budget which is shared amongst thesc 4
facilities are I'm responsible for those efforts within the 5
District that relate to this owner's Group. activity.
6 I first came to the Dietrict in the fall of 7
1970.
I was hired as an Associate Nuclear Engineer.
My 8
initial responsibilities werer in the constructi6n area and 9
I was responsibic for the Babcock and Wilcox-supplied I
10 portion of the contract.
For the construction of Rancho Seco 11 I was located at the site until the plant want into commer-i 12 cial operation in 1974,'l believe.
13 My recponsibilities included contract admini-14 stration, technical advice and liaison between the District 15 and the Dabcock and Wilcox company.
I was clso responsible 16 during start-up teating for one shift of start-up engineers 17 and I followed operation of the plant during the initial 18 power escalation.
1 l
19 Following that time I was relocated downtown 20 I was made a Senior Engineer and was put in charge of the 21 licensing a:tivities for the District.
22 B'l MR. JOUKOFF 23 o
At approximately what point in time did that 24 occur?
15 A
This would have been the end of 1974, possibly L
I 6
I the beginning of 1975.
I can't remember exactly.
2 MR. JOUKOFF:
Fine, thank you.
3 THE UITNESS:
I was not in a supervisory 4
capacity at that time, I was an individual contributor, if 5
you will, in the licensing area. I was the only person 6
devoted one hundred percent to licensing activities.
There 7
was, of course, a lot of assistance from other engineers 8
throughout the District organization.
9 In 1979 following the Three Mile Island 10 accident my activities were still in the licensing area, 11 however, I devoted a major portion of my time to a public-12 hearing which was requested here locally and occupied most is of my time from mid-1979 through 1980.
In the fall of 1981 14 an individual by the name of Don Nartin who supervised 15 the environmental activies at the District and the Health 16 Physics and ALAEA activities was transferred to another 17 position within the District and at that time I was made 18 a Supervising Engineer, supervising the areas of licensing, 19 environmental activities and the ALARA Program.
20 During this period of time I also obtained al mora help in the licensing area and in the fall -- summer or 12 fall, I can't. remember exactly when -- the Engineering 23 Department at S!!UD was reorganized and the Nuclear Engineer-24 ing and the non-nuclear engineering departments were 25 separater1.
At that time the environmental engineering
1 7
e 1
activities went to the non-nuclear part of SMUD, since most 2
of the environmental work was involved with our geothermal 4
construction activities.
4 I maintained the corporate Health Physics /
5 ALARA work, the emergency preparedness work and the licensind 6
work.
Soon after the new department manager took over he 7
took the llealth Physics activities, including the ALARA 8
function, and moved them over to report to a Roger Powers, 9
who was a Supervising Nuclear Engineer.
And at that time 10 I maintained just the licensing and emergency preparedness 11 activities.
12 In 1985 I was moved out of the Nuclear 13 Engineering Department and made my own department and was 14 reclassified as manager of the Nuclear Licensing Department 15 and those department's responsibilitie'
- ncluded licensing 16 and emergency preparedness.
In the summer of 1986 the 17 MAC Corporation came in to manage a performanet improvement 18 program'at the District, at which time they brought in an 19 individual to manage this department and I was made an 20 assistant to that manager and the emergency preparedness 21 activities were relocated elsewhere so that the department 12 is now strictly nuclear licensing.
II MR. SHACKLETON:
Excuse me, Bob, may I inter-24 rupt you for a second?
25 THE WITNESS:
Certainly.
8 0
1 MR. SHACKLETON:
For the record, would you 2
give Mr. Attmore the acronym MAC?
Would you spell it, please ?
3 THE WITNESS:
That's spelled M-A-C.
It's 4
the Management Assistance Corporation.
5 MR. SHACKLETON:
Thank you.
6 THE WITNESS:
I believe I'm through with my 7
dissertation, unless you have any questions.
8 MR. SHACKLETON: That's fine, thank you.
9 BY NR. SilACKLETON:
10 0
It's very obvious, then, I can assume that 11 you are intimately familiar with the plant, Rancho Seco?
l 12 A
Yes, I am.
t 13 0
Bob, at the beginning this morning our line 14 of questioning will deal with a document which is commonly 15 referred to as Special Report No. 84-07.
And this is a 16 document from the District dated September 27, 3004 and it 17 was sent to Mr..J.B. Martin Regional Adminir,trator fo:'
r 1
..88 Region V of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cor.cnission.
T 1e 19 document was signed by Mr. R.J. Rodriguez, who at that time 20 was the Executive Director for the Nuclear Division for the 21
- District, 12 Are you familiar with this document, Bob?-
28 (The document was proffered to the witness.)
14 A
I'm familiar in that I heard of it.
I would
)
25 have to read it to refresh my memory.
9 C
1 liR. SilACKLETON:
All ricjht, at this time we 2
will go off the record and I am going to make available this 8
document to Mr. Dieterich so he can have an opportunity to 4
review it.
And af ter that time we will come back on.
5 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
4 MR. GRACKLETON:
On the record.
7 For the record, Mr. Dieterich just returned 8
to me the document Special Report No. 84-07.
And we will 9
now continue with questioning relating to this document, t
10 BY MR. JOUKOFF:
11 0
Did you have a chance to review this document, 12 tir. Dieterich?
15 A
Yes, I did.
14 BY MR. SIIACKLETON:
15 0
Is this the first time, Bob, that you've seen 10 this document, 84-07?
17 A
No, I have read the document previously at the 18 time it w4s generated.
I'm on distribution, of course, for 19 all correspondence to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and i
20 was familiar with this at the time it was written.
21 0
Can you give us, please, as much as you know 12 in background who was the author or authors of this document?
23 A
I can't tell you for certainty, but I would 1
24 assume that the author would have been a Ronald Columbo, who 1-l I'
headed up the Regulatory Compliance Group at Rancho Seco.
l
10 1
They have the responsibility for til reporting activities to 2
the Region, special reports like this and licensee event 3
reports, etc.
4 BY MR. JOUKOFFt.
5 O
Did you have any input into this document?
6 A
No, I did not.
7 O
Did you have any involvement at all in any of 8
the development of any of the infori.ation contained in this 9
report?
10 A
No.
11 I would like to refresh your memory. When I 12 went through that chronological history of my career here, la abouc 1983 I did not maintain any responsibility for the 14 Health Physics or discharge work or ALARA work.
At the 15 time this problem arose and this report was written I was 16 involved with emergency preparedness and licensing.
My 17 licensing functions were the interaction with nucicar '
18 reactor regulation in Washington, D.C.
19 O
So consequently, although you were at that time 20 involved in licensing and this was a submittal to the 21 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, you did not have any involve-12 ment in the development of Anformation for this report, is 25 that correct?
24 A
That's correct.
25 BY MR. SHACKLETON:
Y
11 1
Q On page two of Special Report 84-07 the last 2
sentence in paragraph three states that the steam generator 3
tube leaks were considered the major source of contamination 4
for the secondary system.
Bob, do you know if there are any 5
other sources of contamination of the secondary system?
6 A
To my knowledge -- if you will excuse me, I 7
don't see the sentence you're referring to.
8 MR. JOUKOFF:
That's okay, take your tine. You 9
can go ahead and find it.
10 THE WITNESS:
Did you say the last sentence ---
11 MR. SHACKLETON:
Page two, the last sentence 12 in paragraph three.
13 (The witness examines the document.)
14 THE WITNESS:
My third paragraph the last 15 sentence reads: "This action may climinate the major source 16 of secondary system contamination."
17 MR. JOUKOFF Why don't we just take a minute 18 here and we will all see if we can find it and get at the 19 same point in time here.
20 (Off the record.)
21 MR. SRACKLETON:
We've reviewed the document 1
22 84-07, paragraph three, and, though it doesn't state i
23 explicitly in the wording of the question, it does refer to 1
24 the subject matter.
1 25 BY MR. JOUKOFF:
I
12 1
0 Let me ask you this, Mr. Dieterich -- and you 2
are a nuclear engineer, is that correct?
8 A
Yes, I am.
4 0
In your opinion in reference to the Rancho 5
Seco Nuclear Generating. Station would you consider steam 6
generator tube leaks to be the major source of contamination 7
in the secondary system of the plant?
8 A
That's correct.
To the best of my understanding 9
that was the sourc'c of this contamination of the secondary 10 system, was a leaking steam generator tube.
11 O
What were, or are, the other sources of 12 contamination for the secondary system?
18 A
I don't know of any other sources of contamina-14 tion, I guess.
15 0
Are you familiar with a tank located in the 16
-- it's a water storage tank located in the primary system 17 of the Rancho Seco Plant known as the DRCST tank?
I8 A
I am familiar with the tank, yes.
I' O
It's called the Demineralized Reactor Coolant 20 Storage Tank, DRCST?
21 A
Right.
12 O
Would it be all right with you if we refer to 23 that as the DRCST tank?
~
A That's fine with me.
25 0
I understand that your people commonly refer to l
l
13 1
it as a DRCST tank, it's an easier way to call it.
Can you 2
explain to me the function of that tank in the plant?
3 A
Not precisely, other than it is a source -- it 4
is a storage tank, as you mentioned, to hold demineralized 5
water that has gone through the purification system at 6
Rancho Seco for input back into the system. The tank would 7
contain tritiated water -- that's water with tritium in it --
8 since that can't be chemically cleaned out of the water.
I 9
Dut the water is -- other than the tritium the water is to essentially non-radioactive.
11 O
Okay.
12 And do you know how large that tank is at il Rancho Seco, gallonage of the tank?
14 A
I do not.
15 0
In the event that for some reason that tank 16 should become full what, in your professional opinion and/or 17 experience, would be done at that point in time, when the l
18 DRCST tank is full of water?
19 A
(Pause.)
l 20 0
If you will agree to agree with me, I believe 21 it holds 400,000 gallons of water.
l 12 A
I'll believe you, I'll put it that way.
i L
28 0
Okay, thank you.
1 24 A
We've always had a problem with tritiate water.
25 The intention was to evaporate as much of that type of water 4
~_
i 24 I
if possible if there was an excess.
I think under the 2
circumstances that water was discharged.
And I'm not sure 8
of the exact discharge path, but it was discharged from the 4
plant.
5 O
So once the tank became full you have 6
knowledge that via some mechanism the water was discharged 7
from the plant, is that correct?
8 A
Yes.
9 Like I say, I'm not sure of the exact path or 10 if dilution was involved or not or what the levels of 11 activity are in that tank, even if it would require dilution.
12 O
Okay.
18 If you will again agree to agree with me --
14 A
okay.
15 0
-- we have information that water from the 16 DRCST tank was pumped via a temporary PVC line to the RHUT 17 tanks.
And the RHUT tanks are the Regenerate Holdup Tanks.
18 A
I understand.
19 0
And are you aware of what the water is that 20 is normally stored in the Regenerate Holdup Tanks?
21 A
Water in the Regenerate Holdup Tanks normally 22 is water that comes from the regeneration process of regener-28 ating resins that purify the secondary system.
24 0
So, therefore, the water that is in the RHUT 15 tanks is secondary system water, is that correct?
u, 15 1
A That's correct.
2 0
Getting back to our original cuestion, if water 8
were pumped from the DRCST tank to the RHUT tank would that 4
be a source of contamination for the secondary system, since 5
the RHUT tanks are part of the secondary system?
6 A
It would be my understanding that that would 7
not in itself contaminate the secondary system because the 8
RHUT tanks are there to hold water for eventual discharge 9
from the site, I believe.
10 0
Okay.
11 A
So that wouldn't contaminate the secondary 12 system, per se, but would contaminate the secondary system 13 water, which be discharged from the site.
14 O
So, therefore, the pumping of water from the 15 DRCST tanks to the RHUT tanks would in your opinion raise 16 the radiological contamination in the RHUT storage tanks, 17 is that true?
18 A
It possibly could, yes, 19 O
Possibly could.
20 A
Unless the RHUT tanks were at a higher level l
21 of contamination than the water we're referring to.
12 MR. JOUKOFF:
Okay, thank you.
Owen?
23 BY MR. SHACKLETON:
l 24 0
Are you familiar with the time frame when the 25 pVC connecting lines were installed between the DRCST and the 4
i i
l 16 1
RHUT tanks?
2 A
I'm going to have to plead ignorance.
I 3
remember seeing the pipes in place at the site and I don't 4
remember exactly when that was.
5 0
Do you know whether or not at any time the t-6 liuclear Regulatory Commission was advised of this installa-7 tion of the connecting line between the DRCST and the RHUT 8
tanks?
9 A
I don't know of any notification, per se, 10 except that the site resident inspector should have been 11 aware and could possibly have been informed.
But I'm not 12 aware of any formal notification.
18 0
Bob, in your opinion, working in licensing, are 14 you familiar with the requirements as a licensee of what 15 should be done when a change is made in the plant in the way 16 of notification to the Commission?
17 A
Yes, I am.
18 0
In your opinion when this installation was made 19 do you feel that the Commission should have been advised?
20 A
In my opinion the Commission should have been 21 advised.
I'm not sure if it should have been an immediate l
12 notification or as part of an annual notification of modifi-28 cations to the plant that were made within the auspices of 24 10 CFR 50.59.
But, yes, the commission should have been 25 made aware of that installation at least eventually, a
17 1
BY MR. JOUKOPT:
2 0
Getting back to the reporting of plant 3
modifications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, could 4
you explain to me what your license of technical specifica-5 tions require for making such notifications?
6 A
The technical specifications contain a list, if 7
you will, or items that require immediate notification, 8
items that require notification within thirty days and things 9
that are required to be input into an annual. report.
Like 10 I said, changes that we make to procedure or changes that 11 we make to the plant that are determined to be of no detri-12 ment to public health and safety get done under the auspices 13 of 10 CFR 50.59 and there is annual notification"of those 14 changes in an annual report.
15 0
So, therefore, in your opinion this modifica-16 tion of moving water from the DRCST tank to the RHUT tanks 17 should have been reported to the NRC under 10 CFR 50.59, is 18 that correct?
19 A
Yes, I believe so.
I'm not sure if a 50.59 20 analysis was done on this particular modification.
It would 11 have been up.to the Management Eafety Review Committee at 12 SMUD to have made the determination that this thing needed 13 to be reported to the NRC immediately before it went into 24 effect or if it was an after-the-fact notification.
25 0
Lut at some point in time there should have
c i
18 I
been a notification made, in your opinion, is that correct?
2 A
In my opinion, yes.
8 O
And was such a notification ever made?
4 A
1 do not know the answer to that.
5 o
Okay.
6 The 10 CFR 50.59 reports and -- that's an 7
annual report, is that correct?
8 A
There is an annual report that includes a 9
description of changes made to the plant that were made 10 under 10 CFR 50.59.
11 O
And there is also a thirty day reporting period, l
12 is that correct?
II A
Yes, there is.
14 O
And there is also even a shorter reporting 15 period?
16 A
Yes.
17 O
And via what mechanism is the notification 18 made?
Does that go through you at that point in time as 19 the manager of the licensing?
20 A
No, it did not.
There was a separate group 21 located within Nuclear Operations at that time and I was a 12 part of Nuclear Engineering.
The group within Nuclear Operations'was called Regulatory Complianca'and they had 22 L
24 the reporting responsibility.
15 O
To make 50.59 reports to the NRC?
l 1
19 4
I I
A Yes.
2 0
So consequently during what time frame would 3
Regulatory Compliance have been involved with making those 4
reports, just approximately the years?
1 5
A Reports -- they have done that since initial 6
operation of the plant and continue to do that to this day.
7 Regulatory Compliance is, as of the last four months or so, 8
I guess, part of the Licensing Department now.
It has been 9
pulled into one group.
10 0
Okay, but we could make a safe statement that 11 from the initial licensing of Rancho Seco for operation 12 until just recently Regulatory Compliance would have been 13 responsible to report the type of modification that was made?
14 A
That's correct.
15 0
And it would not have involved you or your le department?
17 A
Correct.
18 MR. JOUKOFF:
Thank you.
19 BY MR. SHACKLETON:
20 0
Bob, referring back to the plastic pipe inter-21 connect between the DRCST and the RHUT tanks, are you 12 familiar at all with the history of this modificiation, how 28 many times it has been used?
24 A
I'm really not.
My knowledge of the piping 25 is rumor, hearsay, if you will.
I have seen it in place out l
l l'
20 I
at the plant.
I don't know how many times it has been used.
2 O
Would I be correct, then, in stating that 3
this has not been a subject of common discussion within your 4
office and Lincensing since you have been there?
5 A
Not since-J've been there. There has been some 6
discussion within the Plant Review Committee and within the 7
Management Safety Review Committee, but I think it was more 8
in terms of plastic pipe is not an appropriate method to 9
transport radioactive material around the site, that it should 10 be steel pipe and done with a permanent modification rather 11 than a temporary lash-up.
12 BY MR. JOUKOFF:
13 0
Who do you think was responsibic for initiating 14 the modification that was made?
15 A
I'd have a hard time naming an individual. The 16 modification was a temporary modification and I believe the 17 responsibility would lie within the Nuclear Operations 18 Department.
But as far as an individual that initiated that 19 work or was responsible for letting the work happen, I don't 20 know who that would be.
21 MR. JOUKOFF:
Thank you.
22 BY MR. SHACKLETON:
23 O
Bob, as a nucicar engineer and with the 24 experience that you have had with Rancho Seco, being as it 25 is commonly referred to as a dry site plant, for the record
)
21 I
and the Commission and those folks who will be readiry your 2
testimony could you briefely give what problems have been A
brought about at Rancho Seco over generating a lot of 4
excessive water?
5 A
Yes, there are several problems, not all 6
related to radioactivity.
We are a dry site and we're limited to discharge; not just radioactive discharges but 7
8 various other solids and dissolved matter in the water.
9 Blowdown from the cooling towers has to be diluted in order 10 to discharge it from the site and meet various state 11 requirements.
12 He are the only dry site as far as I know, il with the exception of the Palo Verde units, whichwere coming 14 on line at that time.
One of the problems we didn't foresee 15 was the build-up of tritium.
He made a commitment to the 16 public to not discharge radioactive liquids from the site, 17 and tritium has always been a problem.
And we have had to I
18 discharge tritium certainly within the license limits but 19 not within our commitment to the public.
20 So tritium has been a big problem and other 21 non-radioactive dissolved material in the water has been a j
12 problem. But that is the extent of the problem, other than l
25 the one we're discussing here today, of course.
24 0
Bob, going back to the transfer of water 25 between the DRCST and the RHUT tanks, do you know what contro3 s i
i i
1
i 22 j-were imposed to insure that water transferred between the 2
two tanks was properly sampled for radioactivity?
3 A
I'm afraid to say I do not know what controls 4
were in place there.
5 0
Going back to Special Report 84-07, in the 6
back of the document, Bob, there is Action Number 7.
It's 7
one of the attachments.
s A
Okay.
9 MR. SHACKLETON:
For the record, at this time 10 Mr. Dieterich has thim document in frcnt'of him and is 11 reviewing it.
12 BY tm. SHACKLETON:
13 0
The policy there in Action No. 7 of the near 14 term corrective actions, there was initiated controlled 15 releases so that the technical specification limits would 16 not be exceeded.
Are you familiar with that particular l
17 action item?
18 A
I am familiar with this activity, not in the l
19 fact that it was an action item in this. report, But, yes, 20 I know that once we realized that we had a problem that 21 somehow the radiation and chemistry protection people did l
12 do sampling or performed calculations to make sure that 23 Tech Spec 3.17.2 were not exceeded.
24 MR. 000KOFF:
Would you like to review Tech 1:
L 25 Spec 3.17.27
l 23 1
THE WITNESS:
If you have it I would.
2 (The witness was furnished the document to 8
review.)
4 MR. JOUKOFF:
Let's go off the record for a 5
few minutes while he has time to review it.
6 (Off the record.)
7 MR. JOUKOFF:
On the record.
8 BY MR. JOUKOFF:
9 0
In reference to the Technical Specification 10 3.17.2, did you have an opportunity to review that?
11 A
Yes, I did.
12 O
Let us get off of that for just one second 18 and let me ask you one other question here.
I hate to do 14 this, but --
15 In 1985 approximately 787,500 gallons of water 16 were released from the DRCST tank into the environment'by 17 the RHUT tanks.
Do you have any knowledge of what the 18 activities were surrounding that release?
Well, that's more 19 than one release, I'm sure, I don't think --
20 A
Yes.
21 0
-- they did it all at once.
22-A Yes, I know there was more than one release, 23 there were a number of releases.
By activity you don't mean
'24 -
radioactivity but you mean --
25 0
No, I mean --
l 1
+
2, 24 1
A
-- procedural activity?
2 Q
Procedural activity of the licensee personnel 3-or* contractor personnel that were involved?
4 A
I'm not entirely sure.
What I know comes 5
from hearsay.
I was involved in some back shift audits out 6
at Rancho Seco. I know that the Chemistry-and Radiation 7
Protection people would do an analysis and determine what a
the release-level would be. They would then get the permis-9 sion of the shift supervisor to make that release.
10 The shift supervisor had the responsibility 11 for determining that the release was acceptable, then it i
12 would be made.
13 O
The shift supervisor is who, is he the senior 14-reactor operator?
15 A
He is the senior reactor operator that has 16 responsibility for p.11 activities that occur on his shif t 17 at the plant.
18 O
Ok ay '.
5 19 Are you aware whether or not the water in the 20 DRCST tank was. monitored for radioactivity prior to being 21 transferred to one of the RHUT tanks?
22 A
I don't know the answer to that.
I know the 23 water in the RHUT tanks was sampled before release from the 24 site but I don't know if it was a sample made before trans-25 fer.
1 1
'f 25-1 0
Okay, returning to Action Item No. 7 of 2
Special Report 84-07 and the referenced Technical Specifica-3 tion in Item No. 7, 3.17.2 --
4 MR. SKACKLETON:
Phil, why don't you read that 5
into the record?
6 MR. JOUKOFF:
The entire Action Item?-
l 7
MR. SHACKLETON:
Yes.
8 MR. JOUKOFF:
Okay.
9 The entire Action Item from the report is:
10 "The District has initiated a policy that all releases'will 11 be controlled such that Technical Specification 3.17.2 12 limits will not be exceeded.
All sampling of the RHUTs and 13-rel' eases of liquids will be based on this objective. Chemis-14 try and Radiation Protection perzonnel responsible for 15 evaluating the releases have been. instructed concerning 16 these objectives.
This Action, coupled with Action 9, will 17 provide a second level of control beyond the other near term
' 18 Actions specified herein."
19 BY MR. JOUKOFF:
20 0
The reference to Action ItemLNo. 7,~which.I 21 have just read into the record, are you aware of what 12 policy mentioned in that Action Item was initiated such 25 that the technical specification limits would not be 7
24 exceeded, or could you explain that policy for us?
25 A
I don't know the details, I guess, but I am W
a{
26 I
aware that, as I said, that the Radiation Protection person-2 nel did sample the RHUT water before a release was made, 3
calculation was made to determine if Tech Spec 3.17.2 would 4
have been complied with, and then it was determined if the 5
release was acceptable..
6 0
In reference to Technical Specification 3.17.2, 7
that talks to dose to members of the public, the permissable 8
dose, is that correct?
9 A
Correct.
10 0
And are you aware of what regulatory require-11 ment.this Technical Specification was used to meet?
I'm 12 talking about 10 CFR, specifically.
13 A
This would have been put in the technical 14 specifications to insure compliance with Appendix I,.which 15 are the ALARA limits.
i 16 Q
And by Appendix I you are referring to 17 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I?
18 A
Correct.
I'm sorry.
19 O
Thank you.
20 Is there any other part of 10 CFR that also 21 is involved with the release of radioactivity from the 22 Rancho Seco site, other than' Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50?
23 A
It seems like there should be, but I can't 24 think of any offhand.
There are other parts of 10 CFR 50 25 which are utilized in the design of the plant to insure
t o,
27.
I compliance with the var'ious radiation levela, but I can't 2
think of any that control releases from an operating plant, 3
I guess.
4 O
Are you f amiliar wit 10 CFR Part 20?
5 A
Yes.
6 O
And are there any requirements in 10 CFR 20 7
that Rancho Seco is committed to?
8 A
Well, we have to comply with 10 CFR 20.
- And, 9
yes, there are release limits in 10 CFR 20.
So, yes, we i
10 have to comply with that.
Those are not part of technical i
11 specifications, I guess.
i 12 O
So consequently Rancho Seco and SMUD have some 13 commitment to 10 CPR 20,which also deals with radioactive-
.l 14' releases, is that correct?
3 i
15 A
Yes, I'm sure as a.part of our licensing j
16 basis for the plant compliance with 10 CFR~20 was assumed.
17 Q
Are you aware of what the requirements are i
18 that are set forth in 10 CFR 20?
I l
19 A
Not without reviewing them.
I could make a 20 wild guess.
21 O
Well, go ahead and give me to the best of your 12 ability.
23 A
If I remember right, 10 CFR 20 lays out tables 24 that specify maximum radiation levels at the site boundary i
25 for various elements.
_-----,-,------_-_--------a-
L 28 1
O Would it be correct to say that 10-CFR 20 2
talks about radioactive releases in terms of curies of-3 radioactivity released, rhereas Appendix I of 10 CFR 50 3
1 4
speaks to dose rates to the public?
5 A
That is correct.
Those radiation levels I
(
6 was referring to are in curies.
7 Q
Thank you.
I s
Are you aware whether or not releases made 9
from the plant during the time frame after Special Report to 84-07 were in compliance with.10 CFR 50, Appendix I, as 11 required pursuant to Technical Specification 3.17.2?
12 A
It's my understanding.
I don't have any direct 13 knowledge of this, that the releases -- there is-some questio n 14 about the releases being in compliance with Appendix I and 4
i L
15 this has to do with the sensitivity or the minimum level of L
16 detectability of some of the samples that were made.
V, l
17 0
Your information in that area, is-that from 18 reviewing documents, or hearsay, conversation with'other 19 individuals?
I p
20 A
Probably all three of the above.
21 0
You are not yourself, though, in the direct 22 line of monitoring that type of a release from the plant,
]
23 are you?
24 A
That is correct.
I am not.
25 0
And you are also not in the direct line of
- V I
29 1-making reports to the NRC regarding those releases, is that 2
correct?
8 A
That is also correct.
4 0
Thank you.
[
5 Did'you have any responsibility to assure that 6
Action Item No. 7 was implemented as stated in Special 7
Report 84-077 i
8 A
No, I had no responsibility in that area.
9 Q
Are you f amiliar with a tenn that is used 10 in the plant regarding liquid wastes, and term is " dilution.
11 of liquids"?
Do you have any independent knowledge of what 12 that term means?
i 13 A
Well, my understanding is that discharges 14 are diluted.
That's one method of getting specific activi-15 ties down to acceptable levels.
16 Q
And in what part of the Rancho Seco plant 17 regarding liquid offluence do you feel that the dilution of
.l 18 liquids would occur?
19 A
That would occur on release from the plant, 20 I would assume in the retention basin before release.
21 O
Is it possible that that could also be done 1
22 in the RHUT tanks?
23 A
Yes, it can be.
24 Q
Does the dilution of liquids help to insure 25 compliance with the. limits of radioactivity released?
4 30 lf
- 1 A
Could you restate-that?
2 Q
Pursuant to the various requirements.of 3
10 CFR that we discussed a few minutes ago, there are levels, 4
maximum levels, that can be released from the plant,-is that 5
correct?
6 A
Yes, there are.
7 0
And is it true that one way to meet those 8
levels is to dilute the radioactivity in either the RHUT 9
tanks or in the catch basins?
10 A
Yes, T believe that is common practice at 11 any plant.
12 O
And that's done in order to make sure -- to-13.
insure -- that the release is in compliance with the limits 14 for radioactivity that had been set, is that correct?
15 A
Correct.
16 (Pause.)
17 MR. JOUKOFF:
We'11 be going off the record 18 now for-a short break.
19-(Whereupon, a short break was taken.)
20
///
21
///
22
///
25
///
24
///
25
///
_ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _._ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ - _ _ _ - _
31 i
~
l' MR. JOUKOFF:
W e - will g o b ac k on t he r e c o rd, 2
now, af ter a short break.
3 BY MR. JOUKOFF:
4 Q
Mr. Die t e ric h, there is an e mployee of the 5
Sacramento Municipal Utility District named Ed Bradley; do 6
you 'know who that individual is?
7 A
Yes, I do.
8 Q
What position does Mr. Bradley occ upy wit h 9
the District?
10 A-At the present time, I d or. ' t know'what his 11 title is; but he is involved with what I would c all the 12 corporate side of the health physics opera tion.
Not wit h 13 the operating department, radiation production people, b ut -
14 with the health physics gro sp outside of operations.
15 O
In a pp r oxima t ely October 1985, Mr.. B r a dle y 16
' issued a draft report regarding the lower limits - o f V
d e t ec tion.
And these lower limits of d e t e c tion which 16 if it is okay with you, we will refer to as LLD?
19 A
Okay.
20 Q
--pertains to the a bilit y to detect 21 radio activity in sa m pl e s.
This draft report that Mr.
22 Bradley issued, were you aware of that report in the time 23 frame of October 19857 24 A
I am familiar wit h the report.
I remember 25 that it was written, but I don't have any tec hnic al
i 32 1
cognizance of the contents of it.
2-0 So, con se que n tly, in your positio n wit h ' the
- 3. -
District in the late 1985 time frame, you really. would not 4
have been in volv ed wit h the a ctivitie s that Mr.
Bradle y 5
--was discussing in his draft report; is that correct?
6 A
That is correct.
7 0
Thank you.
8 Are yo u f a milia r at all with the te r min olog y.
9 known as " count time" for the time b-Ang utilized to count 10 or sample a radioactive sample?
11 A
Yes, I am, s
12 O
And, what is your kno wle d g e of that en tir e 13 process of sampling liquid effluence?
14 A
W ell, my k n o wle d g e
'of-count ' ti m e s,
15
- basic any,. is:
you need to count a sample long enough'to 16 be able to able to detect the sa mple s radia tio n from the 17 background r a di a tio n.
I don't know e x a ctly ho w, but 18 calc ula tion s are made to d e t e r min e an ac c e pt able count 19 time so that sne can determine, sort out, if yo u will, the 20 radioactivity of the sample from the 'bac kgro und ac tivity.
21 Q
Are you aware of spe cific ally what count 22 time -- and I mear, in min utes or seconds -- was utilized 23 by the Rancho Seco he alth physics people when they were 24 monitoring liquid effluence for discharge from the plant?
25 A
I am aware, and again this is by hearsay and
4:
33' i.
I material I have read; it is not with. direct in v olv e m e n t.
.2 But 1 am aware that there was a 2,000 second count tim e,
3 which was subse quently changed to -a 1,000 second time.
4 Q
What knowle dg e do you have as to why the 5
count time was changed, if any?
6 A
Ag ain,
it is a ll h e a r s a y'.
It is my 7
u nderstanding -- and I want to emphasize my understanding 8
only -- that it was determined that a 1,000 second count 9
time was acceptable, and it wo uld provide the sen sitivity 10 to detect complia n c e ; but, yet, was low enough that we 11 could make discharges witho ut alar ming the pu blic, if you 12 will, of e x c e ssiv e r adio a c tiv e relea ses < f rom the sit e.
13 0
In your position as a n u cle ar engineer, in 14 your pro f e ssion as a n uclea r ' enginee r, - do you have an y 15 f e eling at all as to what the dif f er ence is between 2,000 16' se c ond s and 1,000 se c o nd s; or is that an area that is 17 really not in your area of expertise?
18 A
That is an area that I wo uld n ' t want to claim any special e x per tise in.
20 0
Thank you.
21 Do you know who in the management chain 22 authorized the lowering of the count tim e ?
23 A
It is my understanding and a g ain this 24 comes f rom nothing I have read; but j ust f rom what -I have 25 that Fred Kellie was probably the final authority heard
4 i,
34 1
on that authorization to change count time.
2 Q
So, in yo ur opinion, it wo uld have been Mr.
3 g,111,__
4 A
Yes,'it wo uld have.
5 0
--who would have directed that ac tivity; is 6
'that correct?
7 A
Yes.
U 8
O Thank you.
9 Are you f a milia r wit h an individual, who is 10 e m plo y e d by the United States Nuclear Regulatory 11 Commission, by the name of Gregory Yuhas?
12 A
- Yes, I'am.
^
13 O
And what position - does Mr. Yuhas hold in the 14
. Commission, to the best of your knowledge?
15 A
Ag ain, I don't know his exact title, but Mr.
E Yuhas works for the Regional Of fice of I-and E 'in W aln ut II
- Creek, and does in sp e c ti o ns r el a ti v e. to both health 18 physics and emergency preparedness.
-: i 19 Q
Thank you.
20 What k n o wle d g e-do yo'J have of a
21 c on v e rsa tion, or per haps multiple convers3tions, held i
22 between Mr. Yuhas and Mr. Kellie, who you.just m en tio n e d,
23 r e g arding t he ' id en tif ying of peaks of r adioac tivity in a l
24 sa mple ; are you f amiliar with that at all?
25 A
I just know that Mr. Yuhas has done some e
t i
t 35' I
in v estig a tion in this area, and I' wo uld assume he has talked to Fred Kellie ;
and I wo uld assume that this has 3
been a subject of conversation, but I have no knowledge of-f.
these conversations.
5 0
1 wo uld like to show you a copy of a 6
telephone con v ersa tion record.
It is my understanding 7
I that this f r em is a SMUD Form.
8 A
Okay.
9 0
And it is dated 6-6-85.
I wo uld lik e to take a few minutes to re vie w, and also review the CCs at' ll tne bottom please.
12 (Thr. documen t was proffered to the witness.)
13 l.
MR, SHACKLETON:
At this tim e,
for the record, Mr. Dieterich is reviewing that subject doc ument..
15 BY MR. JOUKOFF:
16 0
Do you have any independent kno wledg e of 17 l
what this telephone conversation record refers to?
I0 A
No; I re ally don 't.
I don't, to be honest, r ec all reading it before; but I am sure I did since I am N
on distrib ution.
But the reason for the c all, stated in 21 this f rom, was to resolve a meaning, or interpretation, of 22 the second se n t e n ce, table no t a tion C.
And I am afraid I 23 don't even know, here today, what Table 4. 21-1, pa ge 4-71,
~24 refers to.
Q Let me see if we have that pa r tic ula r
36 i
1 document here.
I think Mr. S hac kle ton has that document.
2 I will ple a st get you to re view that.
Maybe you can get 3
up to speed o.
What we are talking about.
4 MR. SHACKLETON:
Table C is on the next 5
page, Bob.
6 (The document was proffered to the witness.)
7 THE WITNESS:
T ec hnical S pe cifica tions. -
0 MR. SHACKLETON:
For the record, at this
'9 tim e, Mr. Dieterich is reviewing the technical document.
10
( After a pause.)
11 For the record, Mr. Die t e ric h has reviewed 12 the document, and we will now resume the questioning.
13 BY MR. JOUKOFF:
14 0
Now that you re vie wed the.- d o c u m e n t in 15 q ue stion, does the reason for the call make anymore sense 16 to you, Mr. Die te ric h ?
Do you understand what it is
(-
17 about?
18 A
No; I u nd e r st a n d what it is about.
I 19 l
didn't -- did you ask me if I understood what the Oh!
20 the reason for this telephone c all.
IJ 21 O
Yes.
Let's go back to the original t elecon.
22 A
Yes; I believe it does make sense now.
23 Q
Can you e x plain to me, then, what your-24 und e r st a nding is of those doc uments you have before you,
' 25 the telecon and the technical specification?
t v
r 37 I
A
- Again, I don't know the reason for the 2
qu estioning :
- but, ob vio usly, Greg Yuhas was concerned 3
about the notation C, _which applies to a table in the tech 4
specs of a c ti vitie s that are to be measured.
And-C 6
.rclate s to a re q uirem en t that not only those be reported, 6
but that others be reported it they are above the lower '
I le v el of d e t ec t ability.
8 0
- And, in reference to ma king such reports, 9
would you or any i n divid u als under your dir e c tion be 10 involved in that reporting ?
II A.
No.
12 O
Thank you.
13 Is there some r e a so n that you could ex plain l4 to me why you are on distrib'ution f or this teilecon?
15 A
Yes; I was on the distrib ution for all 16 correspondence, records or t ele phone con v er sa tion s wit h l
the Nuclear Regula tory Commission.
18 Q
Even though some of these c onv ersa tion s, 10 and/or document transmittals or correspondence, were not
.20 under your area of concern in the company?
l A
Correct.
22 Q
So, therefore, this was done, ba sic ally, as 23 an ' inf orma tio.1al type a c ti vity?
24 A
"t'is an in f or mational a c ti vit y.
I mig ht 25 point out, for the same reason that Ron Colo mbo is on
38 i
d 4
1 dist rib u tion :
ha had 'the r e g ula tor y c om plia n c e 2
r e s p o n si bili t *,,.
and
-I carbon c o pie d him for any 3
correspondence or telephone conversations that were made 4
under 'my direc tion.
5 Q
So, c o n s e q u e n tl y,
'w o uld it. be your 6
responsibility to ' take any management a c tio n s, as a re sult
'7 of this telephone conversation?
t 8
A No; I wo uld not have made any management 9
action.
10 Q
And, wo uld it have been in your area of 11 supervision, or management, in the company to take so me,
12 if some was taken?
13 A
No, it would not?
14 A
So, c on se que n tly, you took no a c tio n based 15 upon this telephone conversation. record; is that correct?
1G A
That is correct:
I did n'ot.
17 (Discussion'off the record.)
10 THE EXAMINER:
On the record.
BY MR. SHACKLE'aON:
20 Q
In October 1985, the Lawrence Liv e r mo re 21 N a tio n al Laboratory r epo r ted d e t e c tin g C e sium 137 in 22 d o wnstr e a m sediment at levels not a n ticipa te d due to the' 23 fact that no r ele a se s of r adio a ctive products have been 24 reported.
25 A r'e you f a milia r with that r e po r tin g by
.y.
3-
-39 t
- f.
I Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory?
2 A
Yes, I am.
We contracted with Lawrence 3
- Liv ermore Labs, once this problem was determined, to do 4
some' further analysis of our releases.
5 0
Bob, do you know what action, if any, was 6
taken to assure that the lower limit of d e t ec tio n issue, 7
raised by Ed Br a dle y, was not the cause of the ac tivit y 8
being detected by the Lawrence Livermore N a ti o n al 9
Laboratory?
10 A
Would you ask that again, please?
II A
- Surely, i-l 12 l
Do you know what a c tio n, if any, was ta ken 13 by the District to assure that the lower limit of l
14 l'
detec tion. issue, that had been raised by Ed Br adle y, was 15 not the cause of the activity being detected by Lawrence-16 Livermore National Laboratory?
17 A
I am not certain of what ac tion ' was taken, 18 but I am under the imp re ssion that t his report, that you
'19' referred to earlie r and written by Ed Bradley, was not 20 done.
21 BY MR. JOUKOFF:
22 Q
I beg your pardon, I missed that answer.
23 A
W ell, I t hin k Ed Br adley's report, that you 24 referred to e a rlie r, was done as a result of this finding,
25 that you are referring to here, to determine if we were
40-i 1
using a proper count' time, et' cetera,_ for lower limit of.
2 detectability.
3 BY MR. SHACKLETON:
4 i
Q In other words, we may have the-cart before 5
the horse here?
s 6
A I am not sure: I am re ally not.
I.am not-I that f a milia r,
if you will, with ex a ctly what transpired I
when.
9 Q
Do you know, as a result of Ed B r a dl e y 's 10
- report, if any changes were made in the lower limit 11 detection methods used by personnel at Rancho Seco?
3 12 A
To be h'one st, I don't know what changes were 13 made; and I don 't know what sort of co unt - time is-used 14 today.
15 BY MR. JOUKOFF:
16 Q
In reference to sampling of the RHUT tan ks, 17 before taking a sa m ple, the RHUT t an ks were occa sion ally 18 diluted with service water after the water, already in the 19 tank, was transferred from the De min e r aliz e d Reactor 20 Coolant Storage Tan k.
21 Do you know why this dilution was done?
22 A
I wo uld assume it was done to get specific 23 activities down to a lower level, so that we co uld comply 24 with the t e c hnic al ' spe cific a tion s.
25 Q
.Are you f amiliar with what so urces of water
- ,r 41 flow into the RHUT tanks?
2 A.
Ko, I am really not.
Other than, as I said, 3
the waste from the regenerate process.
O Is it tr ue that any leaks that occ ur on the 5
secondary sid e could get down into the catch ba sin s and 6
floor drains, and the y 'would also go in the RHUT tan ks?
Do you have any independent knowledge of that, let me ask 8
you that?
9 A
I don't have independent knowle dg e of that, 10 no.
But I would assume that som e drains do end up there, t
11
- yes, 12 Q
And water that comes into the RHUT ' tan ks, 13 then is, at time s -- was, at time s -- mi x e d with water from the Domin e r aliz e d Reactor Coolan t 'Stora g e ' Tan ks ; is-15 that correct?
16 A
Correct.
O And the purpose of that was to dilute ' the 18 r adio a c tiv e-c onc en tra tion s of the Dominer alized 'Reac tor 19 Coolant Storage Tank water which had been transferred?
0 A-Yes.
21 Q
- And, at ti m e s,
service water, from-the 22 inf ormation I have, was al so u tili z e d to do the same 23 thing.
Does 'that make se'nse to you?
r 24 A
That makes sense to me, yes.
25 Q
The placing of service water in to the tan ks, '
l l
l
'ii
y 42 I
- however, rather than water from the d e min e r aliz e rs, 2
backwash water from the demineralizers, has a tendency to 3
add more liquid effluence that has to be handled; is tha't.
4 not tr ue ?
5 A
That is tr ue.
6 Q
And, however, to the best of your knowledge, 7
that type of o pe r a tion would not n ece ssa rily alarm you, 8
would it?
9 A
No, it wo uld not.
10 Q
Thank you.
11 Were you involved in any type of discussions 12 amongst SMUD pe r so n n el, and/or their c o n 't r a c t o r s,
13 regarding wh'ther or not the transfer of water from the e
14 Demin e r alized Reactor Co olan t Storage Tank to the RHUT 15 tan k should be made --
Let me rephrase that. que stion --
16 whether or not that water transf erred should be reported 1
17 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?
l0 A
Certainly, none that I can remember.
O At one poin t in tim e, during the o per a tio n 20 of the Rancho. Seco Station, some water from the plant was 21 removed off site via shipments in tan ker tr u c ks..
I 22 b elie vt it was in tanker trucks.
However, we will just 23 say that water was removed from the site by a method' other 24 than putting it down the creek.
25 A
Okay.
-l
d g
43 l
Q' Are you f amiliar with that o per a tion at all?
2 A-I remember seeing tr ucks leave the site bac k 3
in the days when we c o uld ship ' liquids, b ut that was 4
cer tainly _ bef ore this problem.
5 Q
And do you know why. those liquid shipments _
6 were stopped?
7 A.
To my knowledg e, they were stopped because 8
there is a re quirem en t to not ship liquids now; all the 9
shipments must be solids.
And it is that sim ple.
10 Q
So, con se quently, there was so me type of a 11 change in the regulations tha t precluded the con tin uan c e 12 of liquid shipments from the site ; is that correct?
A Yes.
14 MR. JOUKOFF:
Thank you.
15 BY MR. SHACKLETON:
16 Q
Have any of your supervision, Mr. Ashley, or 17 others, before you came over for this interview re quested 18 you to furnish them wit h a. brie fing or a summary of the 19 information that you were requested to provide today?
20 A
No; they have not requested that.
21 Q
Have they re que sted that you have you 22 been requested by anyone to tell them about the results of 23 your interview today?
24 A
No; I have not.
25 Q
And were you given any direction, Bob, as to
,7'
=44 I
how you were to. answer que stions given by the Nu cle ar 2
Regulatory Commission today?
3
-A I was given direction in a mee ting to simply-4 be h o n e st, but not to try and relate so m e t hin g, if I
[
5
'didn't know if for a fact.
I was given the advic e' that I 6
co uld have an attorney pre'sent, if I wantedi and that is' 7
the extent of-it.
8 Q
And who was it that' advised you of that 9
information?
10 A
Ra y Ashle y.
11 BY MR. JOUKOFF:
12 Q
Mr. Die te ric h, have I,
or any other NRC 13 r e p r e se n ta tiv e here, threaten you in any manner,. or 14 offered you any rewards in return for the statement' you 15 have made tod3y?
16 A
. No, you have not.
17 Q
And, in reference to this interview, did you 18 do this interview v olun t a rily ?-
10 A
Yes, I did.
20 Q
And, in reference to your being placed under-21 oath, were you placed under oath voluntarily?
22 A
Yes, I was.
23 Q
And have you given the sta te men t, that you 24 have just given, f reely and volun ta rily?
l.:
25 A
Yes, I have.
45 4
4 I
O
- And, at t his point in
- time, is t h e r._e 2
anything further that you care to add for the record?
A I b elie v e not.
4 MR. JOUKOFF:- Thank you.
5 In that case, we will now be concluding t his 6
interview.
7 (Whereupon, at 10 :4 2 a.m.,
the interview was 8
concluded.)
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 5
16 17 l
18 l
19 l
20 21 22 23 24 25
n wenA&tfu%EBM n
' 7.
,7
- .Thic~is tq c rtify that tho ottachcd precO dingo b3foro tho UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
p 1
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW (CLOSED) i l
1 l
h DOCKET NO.
NONE
-l i
PLACE:
Rancho Cordova, California.
' DATES.
2[ March 1987 wara held as herein appear:s, and that this is the original l
transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear i
lo Regulatory Commission.
i p.
/14A l
(Sigt).
M7/
N E lt$ ATTMOR Official Reporter I
Reporter's Affiliation l
Jim Higgins and Associates
. j i
l I
t 4
O 9
6 9
i 4
e e, w.m aswa t e e e v.*e 4=
e j... ag.p..
e.,.. u g,.w a,,,,,..,.,,gg.
,,, g.,, p,7 7.,
3.,f,.,7,,g......
., g g, g
,...g_g.,,,,
N-
. m
-