ML20055D710
| ML20055D710 | |
| 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 9007090320 | |
| Download: ML20055D710 (50) | |
Text
._
+
l f
UNntD STATES i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
p.
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
(
?
INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW (CLOSED) l-L i
LOCATION: Rancho Cordova, California PAGES: ' 1_ 4 9 i
DATE:
25 March 1987 l
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Off:cialReporters 444 North CapitolStreet Washington, D.C. 20001 e -
(202) 347-3700
/
(.
,' ? ; (,.
NATIONWTDE COVERACE 70 g o 900510 5 %CO S -(4 ZIMMERMA90-76 PDR
r t.
I l
I BEFORE THE' 2
UNITED STATES S
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
4 REGION V
{
I 5
)
6 In the Matter of:
)
i
)
7 INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW
)
)
1 8
(CLOSED MEETING)
)
9 10 Sunrise Sheraton Hotel 11211 Point East Drive.
j 11 Rancho Cordova, California 1
12 Wednesday, March 25, 1987 13 i
14 An investigative interview was conducted withi 15 RONALD C. LAWRENCE, commencing at 1:00 p.m.
16 PRESENT:
17 RONALD'A. MEEKS PHILIP ~V.
JOUKOFF 18 Investigators Office of Investigations 19 Region V Nuclear Regulatory Commission 21 22 SS l
24 l
25 l
l JAMES W. HIGGINS VEntwu REpomEA 37 STATES STAEET #23 SAN FRtJCSCO. CAUFORNIA 94114 (415) 621-2450
m 3'
-r i.
2
.-c.
-i.
1 CONTENTS d
2 WITNESS TAGE c
8 Ronald C. Lawrence 3
4 5
6 L(
S 9
10 11 1
12-13-2XHIBITS j.
.14 (Nono) l t
l'-
-15.
- i
'16 i
17 18-19' 20 21 1-t l-22 23 24 25 JAMES W. HIGGINS VEADATN AEPORTEA 37 GTATES STREET 823 SAN FAANCSCO. CALIFOANIA 94114
[415) 621-2460 1
3 I
l EEEEEEElEES 2
1:00 p.m.
I liR. MEEKS:
For the record, this is a inter-4 view of Ronald C. Lawrence, who is employed by the Sacramento 5
Municipal Utility District.
Present at this interview are 6
myself, Ronald A. Meeks, an Investigator with the NRC Office 7
of Investigations and Mirnia Choy, a court reporter.
8 As agreed upon, this interview is being 9
transcribed by Ms. Choy.
10 The subject matter of this interview concerns 11 the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station Effluence Program 12 and more particularly a particular modification to the 13 equipment on the Liquid Effluence Systems.
14 Mr. Lawrence, if you will stand and raise your 15 right hand I will swear you in.
16 Whereupon, 17 RONALD C. LAWRENCE 18 was called as a witness herein, and, having first been duly I'
sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
20 EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. MEEKS:
22 0
Would you just explain what your current 28 position and responsibilities are at the Rancho Seco Nuclear 24 Generating Station?
15 A
At the present time I am on a temporary assign-
4 I
ment serving as a staff assistant to the office of the 2
Restert Implementation Manager, and it is to provide support 3
for handling of the routine office activities und selected 4
special assignments.
5 0
What position did you hold prior to the 6
current functions you have?
7 A
Since January of 195 I have been on special 9
3 assignments from what was my permanent position.
In the 9
beginning of January I was assigned as a project manager for to work on our post-accident sampling system, mui that involved 11 working with testing to identify problems with the system 12 and redesign of the equipment that was installed to improve 13 its operability, maintainability, etc.
14 I also served for approximately a three month 15 period on the Recommendation, Review and Resolution Board 16 which was an ad hoc committee established by our OCI 12,
'17 or management performance improvement program, 18 0
That was as of what time?
19 A
March -- I believe I started on that assignment 20 in approximately May and completed it in the September time 21 frame.
l 12 O
of?
23 A
1986.
24 O
And prior to that --
25 A
Prior to that I was a mechanical maintenance-i
m 5
I superintendent responsible for mechanical maintenance, 2
building maintenance, warehouse, some contract support for A
the nucicar plant operation.
4 0
What were the time periods that you held that 5
position?
6 A
From approximately 1983 to 19 -- to the end 7
of 85, when I was put on temporary assignment for the other a
duties, to support all of our restart activities.
9 MR. MEEKS:
Mr. Phil Joukoff, an Investigator i
10 with the NRC Office of Investigations has joined us now 11 and he will sit in and assist me on the interview.
We have 12 just gotten into Mr. Lawrence's functions and responsibilitie s
13 and we're back to 1983.
14 BY MR. MEEKS:
15 O
Prior to 1983 what were your responsibilities?
j 16 A
I served as a Senior Mechanical Maintenance 17 Engineer in the Maintenance Department from about June of is 1980 until I took the position of Mechanical Maintenance 19 Superintendent in approximately 1982.
And in that capacity 20 I provided technical support to the Mechanical Maintenance 21 activities and supervised the' engineers in that group.
12 O
As a Mechanical Maintenance Engineer who was 28 your supervisor before you assumed the superintendent's 24 responsibilities?
l 15 A
George Coward.
l l
l l
-43.
6 i
O Okay, and when you assumed the position of 2
Mechanical Maintenance Superintendent who was your super-5 visor?
4 A
It remained George Coward.
5 Q
What was his function at that time?
6 A
Initially he was the Maintenance Superintendent 7
respor.uible for 311 of the plant maintenance activities. And 8
as the staff organization evo3ved he took the position as 9
Plant Manager.
And then there was another little iteration 10 in the evo3ution where I reported to Steve Rediker, who 11 was in an acting position as Plant Manager towards the tail 12 end of that assignment..
13 0
Did you have an occasion during your i
14 responsibilities with the Rancho Seco Nuclear Plant to 15 have knowledge of a modification that was nade to allow the l
16 water to be transferred from the Demineralized Reactor l
17 Coolant Storage Tank to the Regenerate Holdup Tanks?
II A
Yes.
19 0
When was that, approximately, when you first 20 had knowledge of that?
21 A
I believe that modification to allow that l
12 transfer or water occurred somewhere in the 1983 or 84 18 time frame.
But I'm not real clear.
I know that we had 24 installed systems to transfer water frat the Miscellaneous 25 Water Holdup Tank, but I don't think '.se transferred from the i
l
7 1
Domineralized Reactor Coolant Storage Tank until later on 2
in some of the evolution of what was going on out there.
8 0
How did you receive this knowledge that there 4
was a modification or that there intended to be a modifica-E tion?
6 A
It was in response to the managing of the 7
water inventory that we had onsite and I was the Mechanical 8
Maintenance Superintendent responsible for installation of the hardware.
10 0
And when did you assume responsibilities as 11 Superintendent?
12 A
In the 82 time frame.
There were a number 13 of organizational changes going on, so reporting responsi-14 bilities kind of changed subtly.
It was a developmental 15 or evolutionary process.
16 0
I'm trying to pinpoint something, in other 17 words, some other function you had or responsibility or 18 activity that would help you pinpoint exactly when you l'
gained knowledge of this.
How did that come about, your 20 involvement or knowledge of thatmodification?
21 A
At the time the modification for transferring 22 water from the Domineralized Reactor Coolant Storage Tank 25 to the Regen Holdup Tanks came about that was just another 24 construction activity or maintenance-kind of activity that 25 required the use of the crafts people that reported to me.
l l
l
.~
F 8
1 And I was given detailed information on what the required 2
modification was to be and directed the people to proceed A
with the installation.
4 0
Okay, and this was approximately in 1982, is 5
that your best guesstimate at this point?
4 A
That's what I'm thinking right now.
I guess 7
I'm a little bit fuzzy as to the exact time because there 8
were a number of different things done during the course of 9
the years following our first major steam generator tube 10 leak.
And I don't have exact recall as to which of the I
i 11 things occurred at precisely what time frame.
12 A
Why do you mention the steam generator tube 13 leak in connection with this, does that have some signifi-14 cance?
15 A
Well, that was the first time that we installed 16 a number of temporary piping systems to facilitate handling i
17 of contaminated water inventory.
18 0
Okay.
19 These detailed instructions that you received, 20 why don't you just tell us about that, who they came from 11 and expound on that, exactly what your involvement was and i
12 how the whole modification was carried out?
28 A
The actual installation would have been in l
l 24 accordance with a work request.
It specified where connec-25 tions were to be made to the existing plant equipment and l
I
3 0
9 I
outlined the physical location of the piping to be installed 2
And, if my memory serves me correct, that was to support 3
temporary procedure changes that were written to accomodate 4
this revision in the plant process flow paths.
5 0
Okay, what discussions did you have and with 6
whom about this modification?
In other words, who were 7
you reporting to, who was overseeing this?
6 A
At that time I was reporting to George Coward 9
and I also would have had some involvement in what was 10 transpiring as a result of my membership on the Plant Review 11 Committee.
The Plant Review Committee did review the 12 procedure changes that were written to provide for this 13 alternate flow path.
14 0
Why don't you explain the step by step process 15 that this work request involved.
In other words, who 16 issues that work request and more or less the track that it 17 ' takes from start to finish in' completing this modification?
18 A
There are a variety of ways that work requests 19 could be generated, and I guess I don't recall exactly who 20 generated this particular one.
It could have been done by
-21 one of the maintenance engineers who reported to me to 12 implement the requirements of the modification, or it could 28 also have been originated by the Plant Scheduling Department.
24 I guess I don't recall which of those two 25 would have originated the work request.
Probably, very
r 10 I
simply stated, it said install a line from here to there.
2 That would have been given an engineering review by the 3
engineers who were in the Mechanical liaintenance Engineering 4
Section that reported to me. And they would have set forth 5
the specification requirements, if you will, for what was 6
to be the type of piping and how it was to be installed, 7
where it was to be installed in detail, valves that were 3
used in the system, what pump was to be used.
9 And then it would have gone to the plant to mechanics, who also reported to me, and they would have 11 proceeded with the physical work necessary for installation 12 in accordance with the completed work request.
is 0
okay.
14 What are the requirements for the retention 15 of the paperwork on the work request and enoineering analysis 16 and the actual -- what did you call that division that does 17 the actual work?
18 A
The mechanics.
1^
l 19 O
The mechanics, any work that they would have 1
l 10 and any other overview of this work, like any QC inspection l:
l 21 or anything like that?
12 A
All of that would be recorded on the original 28 of the work request.
Details of that information are 24 summarized in our maintenance information management system 25 and it is available in a microfiche form.
And additionally
o 11 1
the original of the work request, which includes the 2
documentation of the materials used in it and the descrip-8 tion by the crafts people that perform the work, some 4
detail on what they perform.
That should be all on file.
5 0
And how is it filed, what is the locator 6
identifier for this?
7 A
By, system.
All of the work requests are 8
searchable by system designator and equipment ID numbers.
And they they are filed numerically.
10 0
Okay, what system would this have been filed 11 under?
I2 A
Probably the CDS system.
13 0
Why don't you explain what that is?
14 A
Clean Drain System.
That's the Regen Holdup 15 Tanks and the majority of the contiguous equipment is part 16 of the Clean Drain System.
IT O
What is the safety classification of the' Regen II Holdup Tank?
I' A
Class 11, 20 0
How about the Demineralized Reactor Coolant 21
-Storage Tank?
22 A
I believe that also is Class II.
18 0
Is it possible that it could be Class I?
14 A
I don't think that there is any technical 25 requirement for it to be Class I.
l l
- q.
12 1
O What part of the system is the DRCST tank?
2 A
That would be a part of the Rad Waste Systems.
8 0
The Rad waste system?
4 A
Well, no, it wouldn't either be part of the 5
Rad Waste System.
I guess it would be lumped into the 6
Purification and Letdown System.
7 0
Okay, and that system belongs to?-
8 A
The reactor auxi31 aries.
That's support for 9
the reactor auxiliaries.
The Reactor Coolant Inventory 10 Control Systems.
11 Q
What is the quality control on a Class II 12 system that would have been applied to this modification?
13 A
Quality control would have been the engineering 14 and review of the work request itself by a knowledgeable 15 engineer to insure that the correct technical requirements 16 are set forth.
Inasmuch as it is a Class II system, there 17 ar no mandatory OC inspections required.
18 on this particular one I guess I can't tell 19 you whether there was an actual formal documented Quality 20 Control Department inspection or independent review or not.
21 I suspect probably not.
18 O
If the Demineralized Reactor Coolant Storage 13 Tank were a Class I tank what kind of -- why don't you 24 expound a little bit on the QC coverage that it would have 25 received?
O' 13 1
A The connections that we made to the tank would have been, or were, downstream of the class break.
2 3
So as far as the physical modification is concerned, we did 4
not do anything that would have altered, modified or changed 5
any part of any of the Class I systems.
If that tank was 6
considered to be Class I then the control would have to have 7
come in manipulations of the valves that provided the class 8
break boundary.
9 0
Where would that have been?
10 A
At the tank itself.
11 0
What part of the tank?
12 A
(No response.)
la O
In other words, you say at the tank.
Then I 14 assume the modification was made at the tank, but from what I 15 understand from what you're explaining --
16 A
Connections.
17 0
-- yeah, the connection at the tank.
But from 18 what you're saying that connection was downstream, even 19 though it was at the tank.
So are you saying that it wouldn' t to have received any -- if it were Class I it wouldn't have 21 received any quality control coverage?
12 A
Well, if we postulate that the tank is Class I i
1 Il then the connections that we made to it were downstream of 24 isolation valves that provided a class break boundary and 25 the connection for the temporary lines installed would have l
.c
r 14 1
been on the Class II side of that classification break.
2 Q
Okay, by means of installing that modification 3
don't you have a new pathway for -- what did you call it, 4
it's on the -- what side did you say?
5 A
Class II side.
6 Q
No, no.
I 7
A Okay, the purification --
8 0
I don't recall exactly what you --
9 A
Those auxiliaries are the Letdown and Purifica-10 tion System and then there is the Makeup and High Pressure 11 In]ection System.
And 2 guess I don't clearly recall 12 whether or not the Domineralized Reactor. Coolant Storage la Tank is in that part that is considered part of the Letdown 14 and storage of demineralized reactor coolant, or whether 15 it's considered' part of the Makeup that provides the source 16 of demineralized water for batching into the Reactor Coolant 17 System.
18 It conceivably could be in either one and I 19 can't recall just from memory which without any drawings.
20 Q
NRC did an. inspection in April and May of 21 1986 on the Effluence Program and part of that inspection 12 reported this modification that was made. And the informat1.or la in that inspection report documented the Demineralized 24 Reactor Coolant Storage Tank as being a Class I --
25 A
Okay.
l
-.I l
l 1
)
&\\$,
1 15 j
Q
-- safety tank.
3 So let me ask you this:
As a Class I safety 3
tank what kind of coverage would that modification have 4
received, quality control coverage?
i; 5
MR. JOUKOFF And quality assurance coverage, g
THE WITNESS:
Okay, again, it's my recollection 7
that the connection made to the tank for the temporary piping g
was on the downstream side of an isolation valve that was b
a class break and the connection was into class II components 10 BY MR. MEEKS:
gg
_Q Could you draw that for us so that I can get 12 a better picture of what you're talking about?
From what v
13 I'm gathering from you, then it wouldn't require any --
14 because of its location it wouldn't require any Class I 15 coverage --
16 A
Yes, it was a simple drain valve coming off 17 the bottom of the tank.
And the valve itself was the 1s-isolation boundary.
And wo made the connection downstream 4
19 of the isolation valve.
i 20 0
Okay, but by means of opening that valve don't 21, you 12 A
That's what I said a moment ago about that 23 the significance comes in the manipulation of the isolation 24 valve.
15 0
Well, what I'm trying to determine --
r c
16 i
[
]
MR. JOUKOFF:
What he's saying, Ron, is that 2
the valve ci stitutes a class break and that the valve --
1 the tank is qualified Class I, the nipple coming out of the 4
tank to the valve is qualified Class I, the valve is-5 qualified Class I, and then they make the class break, 6
because that is all class break.
Then they can change 7
classes.
8 THE WITNESS:
Uh-huh.
9 MR. JOUKOTP: And they're changing classos to 10 Class II.
Is that what you're telling me?
11 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
12 MR. JOUKOFF:
That's what he's saying.
18 MR. MEEKS:
Okay.
14 THE WITNESS:
That's my recollection of the 15 situation that was in existence.
16 MR. MEEKS:
Okay.
17 BY MR. MEEKS:
18 0
Once again my question is the same:
What kind 19 of QC coverage would you have had on that connection?
20 A
Inasmuch as it was all class II work, as I 11 recall it, there was none that was mandatory and I don't 12 recall that any was actually carried out.
The hard copy Il documentation of the work request would identify whether 24 or not there was any.
25 0
Okay.
4 17 1
Going back to the documentation on this, it's 2
your impression that it would have been filed under the --
3 what system did you call --
4 A
Probably the CDS System, Clean Drain System.
5 0
That's what the RHUT belongs to?
6 A
Yog.
7 O
So it would probably be classified under that a
system?
9 A
Yes.
10 BY MR. JOUKOFra 11 0
It would be classified under that system because 12 the RHUT is under that system?
13 A
Yes.
14 0
How about the DRCST, what system is the DRCST 15 in?
16 A
Well, that's what I was saying a moment ago, 17 it could conceivably fit in the Purification and Letdown la System as the receiver for domineralized water from the 19 letdown, or it could conceivably be Jumped into the Makeup 20 and High Pressure Injection System which is the source of 21 water for batching.
12 And which of those two sides of the boundary 23 it sits on, I guess I don't know without going back and 24 looking at the plant documentation.
25 0
Can't your HPCI and LPCI pumps take suction l
1 1
f l
y
(N 18 l'
off that tank, off the DRCST tank?
2 A
Not the Domineralized Reactor Coolant Storage 3
Tank.
4 O
They don't?
5 A
No.
They take suction off the voided (ph) 6 water storage tank, they take it off the Makeup Tank, but 7
not off the Domineralized Reactor Coolant Storage Tank.
8 BY tiR. liEEKS:
9 0
What is your knowledge of this same modifica-10 tion that you were involved in and previous modifications 11 that have been made without your involvement?
12 A
Restate the question.
13 0
Were there any modifications made before you 14 became involved that existed similar to the one that. you 15 made but you weren't involved in?
e 16 A
No, I think I was pretty much involved in --
17 you know, from a management oversight perspective of the 18 work group that installed all of those modifications.
19 0
When were you first employed at Rancho Seco?
20 A
January of 1971.
21 O
Are you aware whether or not a similar-type 12 modification was ever done to take water from the DRCST 28 tank and put it to the RHUTs prior to the time frame that 24 we just got through discussing, which is 19827 Are you 25 familiar if that was ever done prior to 1982?
l l
t 19 1
A I don't remember our installing a line to 2
take suction from the Demin RC Storage Tank.
We did install 3
a line to take suction from the Miscellaneous Water Holdup 4
Tank.
And that was done during the recovery from our first steam generator tube leak.
6 0
Which occurred when?
7 A
I think that was about the 81 time frame.
8 BY MR. JOUKOFF 9
Q How about something back in the 1970s time 10 frame, mid-70s to late-70s?
11 A
Not that I am aware of.
I would not have been 12 involved in anything of that nature at that time.
13 MR. liARSH:
Do you have any other questions?
14 MR. JOUKOFF:
Go ahead.
15 BY MR. MEEKS:
16 0
Why don't you explain what the modification 17 consists of as far as hardware.
18 A
For the line taking suction from the Domin 19 Reactor Coolant Storage Tank to the RHUTs?
20 o
- yes, 21 A
Temporary piping that was flanged into a 12 drain line coming off of the tank and routed a short distance 28 where it was plumbed into the suction of a temporary 24 centrifugal pump that had some isolation valves installed 25 on it exactly -- you know, I believe that there were valves l
1
___.mmA_mu_._u_----
- - - - - - - - - - - " - - - - ' - - " - - - - - ' ' - ^ ' " " - - - - - - - - - ^ ' " " ~ - - ~ " " ^ - - ^ - - - - - - '
s
p 9
t 20
)
1 on both the suction discharge and a recirculation flow valve.
2 That pump was powered up from a temporary power supply off 3
3 of the, as I recall, a 480 volt utility outlet.
And from 4
there the line was routed along the railroad tracks at the 5
north end of theturbine building and over to the two Regen 6
Iloidup Tanks with an isolation valve installed at their 7
riser for each of those tanks so that you could select-the 8
tank that the water was being transferred to.
9 And the whole thing was installed in PVC. The 1
10 valves were bronze, however.
11 0
Was there any -- the piping was all PVC?
12 A
Yes.
la 0
Was there an.y other material used?
14 A
As I mentioned, bronze valves were installed, 15 standard off-the-shop Crane valves, as I recollect.
And the 16 pump was a pump that we had out there that I guess I'm 17 not quite certain where it came from, but fairly standard 38 construction, nothing exotic about it, l'
O Okay, as far as the connection from the one 20 valve to the other valve, you know, from the DRCST-side l
II velve to the RHUT valve, that was all PVC pipe and PVC 12 conne.ctors and couples?
II A
Yes.
24 BY MR. JOUKOFF:
25 0
What size was it, diameter?
i e
i=+
e
.j l
21 1
A I think it was three inch.
2 0
Three inch, Schedule 40 PVC7 3
A I believe so.
It may have been four, but I 4
don't clearly recall.
5 BY MR. MEEKS:
6 0
Did you say the modification had any pumps 7
attached to it?
8 A
No, there was a pump in the loop.
So the line 9
coming out of the bottom of the Domineralized Reactor Coolant to Storage Tank was plumbed into the suction of a temporary 11 pump whose discharge was then routed to the two RHUTs with 12 an isolation valve at each.
13 0
What was the flow rate on that?
14 A
I don't recall.
15 0
Now, let's go back to the paperwork that 16 generated this.
That's done under what procedure?
17 A
The work request procedure, AP3.
AP3 is is clearance of AP4.
19 0
Okay, and what sort of review did this modifi-20 cation receive pursuant to that procedure?
11 A
The technical review by the maintenance l
12 engineer that signed off as the review engineer.
23 0
Who would those individuals have been?
i 24 A
At the time, let's see, Mike Price was the 25 senior engineer and there was a staff that consisted of l
22 1
Steve Wellsfree, Bruce Stiver, I believe Gordon Clefton was 2
onboard at that time.
I guess in that time frame it would 8
have been one of those three.
4 0
Now, exactly what was their responsibility 5
according to this procedure?
6 A
The work request procedure requires that they 7
provide the technical requirements for the work to be per-8 formed and provide any engineering input that they deem 9
appropriate, review it for proper quality classification, if 10 it were Class I work then to identify the inspection require-r 11 monts necessary and the procedural requirements necessary 12 for proper control and installation of the work.
18 As I mentioned, I don't believe this was 14 handled as a Class I installation and to my recollection 15 I can't say with certainty whether there was any inspection 16 planning requirements or maintenance instruction used with 17 it,.but I suspect not.
38 0
Other than this procedure and the paperwork 39
'that generated it, is there any other oversight of this 20 modification by any other group or supervisor?
21 A
The physical work itself, no.
12 O
How about the actual engineering of the 2T modification or the fact that that is existing?
24 A
Well, it would have been handled by the 25 maintenance engineer and he would have specified such things
f 1
23 I
as the hydrotest requirement to demonstrate leak tightness 2
of the system, etc.
8 O
Does the Plant Review Committee have any 4
responsibilities to review this?
5 A
The installation was to provide'for a flow 6
path that was required to implement a temporary procedure 7
change.
And the Plant Review Committee was involved in the 8
approval of that procedure change.
9 0
You said you were a member of that committee?
10 A
Yes.
11 O
What did that review consist of?
12 A
(Pause.)
la I'm just trying to think of that time.
I'n 14 sure that we addressed the requirements of control of 15 effluence offsite, and what is in the 10 CFR 50, Appendix I 16 requirements and how that was going to be controlled.
I 17 don't have a real clear recollection of the precise mecting 18 where that was discussed.
I guess I'm working more based on 19 just the type of review we would most likely have performed 20 on that type of an activity.
21 0
Okay.
12 A
And there would have been an SER written to II go with it, I suspect.
24 Q
As a member or the -- SER, you mean Safety 25 Evaluation Report?
N E-p 24 1
A Yes.
2 O
As a member of the Plant Review Committee what I
was your function?
4 A
one of the designated positions to sit on the 5
PRC.
6 O
Because of your position in Maintenance?
7 A
As the Mechanical Maintenance Superintendent.
8 0
Now, what specifically do you recall about 9
this particular review, the particular review of this 10 modificat.4on?
11 A
I guess I don't recall anything real specific.
12 I'm thinking, as I have mentioned, more in terms of the type la of review we would have performed on that kind of a change l
14 to the plant operations.
15 0
And why would a Safety Evaluation Report have 16 been necessary?
17 A
Potential for altering the releases of 18 radioactivity offsite, which is controlled by the CPR and 19 also the tech specs.
20 0
Okay.
21 But that basis for safety evaluation would 22 not be sufficient --in other words, the fact of the release 23 of radioactivities -- to kick that modification up to a 24 Class I modification.
25 A
Well, none of our liquid rad waste handling
A 25 1
systems are Class I.
And I guess I don't see any reason 4
wny this should have been treated as such, either.
Rad 3
waste system is Class II, even though it is handling radio-4 active liquid.
5 0
And it's your recollection that the Deminera-6 lized Reactor Coolant Storage Tank would also be Class II?
7 A
Well, no, I didn't say that.
I said I can't 8
think of any technical reason why it would need to be 9
Class I in support of the safety systems.
10 Q
Okay, the Liquid Rad Waste System is Class II?
11 A
That's right.
12 O
How about the Miscellaneous Waste System?
13 A
That is Class II also.
14 0
Is that the correct name for it?
15 A
Miscellaneous Liquid Rad Waste.
16 0
And that's Class II.
17 A
Yes.
18 0
okay.
j i
19 Who else would have been on the Plant Review i
20 Committee in reviewing this modification, both individuals j
21 and their function?
12 A
Norm Brock would have been on it as the INC l
23 Superintendent; Roger Miller would have been on it as the i
24 Chemistry and Radiation Protection Superintendent; at that 25 time I believe Tom Tucker was the operations Superintendent i
l l
l l
e 26 t
1 and sat on it, but it might have been -- I'm just trying 2
to think when Don Blatchley left, I think it was before that.
3 0
What was his function?
4 A
operations Superintendent.
5 Let's see, who else would have --
6 0
George Coward was your supervisor?
7 A
Yes.
8 0
would he --
9 A
lie did not sit on the PRC.
lie was at that l
10 time Plant Superintendent. But he was not a member of the 11 PRC.
Wert, wait a minute, Pierre -- no, Pierre, was the 12 Plant Superintendent.
George was at that time still the I
13 Maintenance Superintendent and Norm Brock and I sat on the 14 PRC.
15 Q
Did George?
16 A
No.
17 Q
As Maintenance Superintendent he wouldn't sit 18 on the PRC?
19 A
I'm.trying to think relative to this whole l
20 modification scenario when we made the transition from his 21 being a PRC member to Norm Brock and I being PRC members.
12 And I guess it's not real crystal clear in my mind when 28 that happened.
24 0
The guidelines or the procedures that, you 25 know, established the functions of the PRC, that would 1
l
)
L l
i l
h
I.
4 27 1
contain who would be a member and any revisions to that 2
would be reflected if it changed --
3 A
Yes.
4 0
-- memberships or titles or anything like 5
that?
6 A
That's true.
That's all readily available 7
documentation that clearly defines who were the actual 8
members.
9 0
How long was this modification good for, when 10 did you take it down?
11 A
I think it was actually removed after the 12 beginning of the last refueling outage.
It was sometime la during the course of that outage that it was actually 14 removed.
15 0
When was that?
16 A
In the summer of 86.
Sometime during that 17 summer, I believe, is when it was actually removed.
18 0
Okay.
19 What is your knowledge of the updating of 20 the safety analysis report to show this modification?
II A
None.
As far as the USAR is concerned in 12 incorporating into the USAR details regarding this modifica-25 tion, I don't have any first-hand knowledge.
24 0
Whose responsibility is that to update that?
25 A
The Tech Support Group handled that by contract
I 28 I
with Stone and Webster, I believe.
But it was done under 2
the auspices of the Technical Support Group, if I remember 8
correctly.
4 0
Who supervised the Technical Support Group 5
at that time?
6 A
I think it was Jim Field at that time, but it 7
could have been his predececsor, John McCulligan, also.
8 0
Did they sit on the Plant Review Committee 9
to accomplished that?
10 A
Yes.
11 O
Okay.
12 So-that would be their responsibility to 18 update the USAR?
14 A
Yes.
15 0
Updated Safety Analysis Report.
16 i
How about the reporting of this modification?
17 1s there is vehicle for reporting this and other modification s 18 to the NRC, or at least a tabulation of them, for a specific 19 time period, like annually or semi-annually?
20 A
That, again, is a responsibility that was 21 held by the Reg Compliance Group.
And I'm just trying 22 to recollect if this would have fallen into one of those la categories.
Certainly, it was not something that required i
24 mandatory immediate reporting, such as an LER.
And we did 25 not judge it to be, through the 50.59 screening process, one 1
1
C 29 1
that presented any unreviewed safety questions or increas-3 2
the probability of accidents, that sort of thing.
So that 4
it was not required -- it did not require NRC approval prior 4
to proceeding with work.
5 As to the nature of things that are included 6
in the reports that we submit to the NRC on various items 7
affecting safety, I guess I don't know the exact definition 8
of what goes into those annual reports.
I know that they 9
exist but what their precise content is, I can't tell you.
10 0
on modifications?
11 A
Yes.
12 0
The bulk of the make-up of that information 13 or document, or whatever it is, whatever form it takes, 14 would come from your records in Maintenance that would be 15 filed away, you know, after you have completed the 16 modifications.
In other words, the source of information 17 is -- what would be the source of information?
18 A
In the case of a temporary change, which this 19 consisted of, it would have to have been the safety analysis 20 that was performed in conjunction with the change.
That 21 would have been the source of information.
22 O
Okay.
25 A
Because that's what would be used to update 24 the USAR, if such an update occurred.
Which, I guess, I 25 don't know.
r' o
30 1
O When you talk about a Safety Evaluation Report 2
and safety analysis and I think you mentioned 50.59 review --
3 A
Uh-huh.
t 4
0
-- you're talking about all the same thing, 5
essentially?
p 6
A Well --
7 0
It serves the same purpose?
8 A
Yes.
9 It's -- there is a QCI -- OCI 5 -- that sets 10 forth the recuirements for screening for 50.59 considerations 11 and describes the criteria for screening to conform to that 12 section of the federal regulation.
And the precisc -- I 13 guess I can't tell you -- the OCI itself doesn't say what 14 a safety analysis must contain, that is within other 15 procedures.
That'r. covered by a different OCI, whose number 16 I don't recall.
17 But, in any event, it is covered by our 18 quality control instructions as to the screening process and 19 when preparing a safety analysis what things must be 20 addressed by such an analysis.
21
///
22
///
2B
///
34
///
25
///
l
- o 31 e
1 y
O N o w,-
with your r e s p o n sibilitie s as 2
maintenance superintendent, how did that in v ol v e the e
3 safety en alysis,. or the sa f ety. ev aluation report?
As maintenance superintendent, did you get into any review of'
-6 that at all; did that come over to the maintenance 6
department to your engineers for review?
7 A
No, no; that would have been an agenda item 6
for a plant review committee meeting; that would have been i
9 reviewed in a-committee environment, as so m e t hin g
[
10 presented to the gro up f or re view, comment and a pp ro v al.
11 T y pic ally, it would' be handled by a sponsor that wo uld 12' give you the writte n d oc um en ta tion,
and make brief 13 presentations to the committee regarding its content and
'4 c
sig nific a n t issues.
15 Q
What So you recall abo ut an y specific,,as a 16
-uember of the plant re view c o mmit t e e, what do you r e c all 17 about any specific conversation, or discussion, concerning
'O the safety analysis of this par tic ular m odifica tion?
f 19 A-I guess I don't have any clear specific 20 recollections of our transactions on that modification?
21 0
Do you recall -- what are your recollections 22-concerning any planning meetings, or staging meetings, you 23 mig ht have had with George Coward or Pier re Oubre, and 24 Roger Miller and/or Fred K ellie, concerning the planning 25 and the r e a so n for this modification?
"[
' ' ' ' ' ' + ' ' '
I
''g' J ' ' ' "
'e ' ' ' '
- k 33
+
.w 1
A I guess I don't r ecall' being in v olv e d in any 2
pla n nin g m e e ti n g s,
as such.
My r e c olle c ti o n of the 3
situation was an outgrowth of a procedure change and the 4
plan t modification necessary-to support that chang e.
And
=
5 I don't remember sitting on any m e e tin g s, as such, 6
separate from the
- PRC, to disc uss this pa r tic ula r t_e 7
=
installation.
- 8 0
Once again, what was the reason for the 9
modification?
Why don't you just e x plain that ag ain.
I h
thin k you briefly touched upon it.
10 11 A
- The primary reason for the modification was 12 to dispose of Tritiated water.
The Miscellan eo us Waste a
13 system, that we had, produced condensate that, when k
14 cl<eaned up through our d e min e r ali z e r s, et
- cetera, b
E-15 contained very more in the way of r a dio a c tivity and 16 Tritium.
W hl c h, of co urse, is not e a sily se pa r able from 17 ordin a ry water..
- And, this.line was in st alled to reduce
[
the inventory of Tritium contaminated demineralized water; 18 19 that the primary reason f or its installation.
And we were 20 in the mode where we had an excess inventory of water In
- 21 that area because of contamination to tbe secondary system 22 and the need to pump water from what normally would be a 23 clean system, over into the contaminated side of the plant p
ane aeeee to thetin entory.
24 25 0
- Now, the steam generator tuoe le a ks, you l
- - -- e e-musii
---mmmm mm mm meum i-m mum mi i m i.um mmmmmmmme iia a
ii i.i s isi i i ini c ti i mieu
e 33-stated
- before, occurred, you tho ug ht, before this 2
modification.
3 A
Yes; that is my r e c olle c tio n of the
-situation.
5 O
How was that excess Tritiated water released 6
from the first-steam generator tube leak?
L 7
A There was a tremendous amount of water in 8
that first leak that passed from the primary to the 9
se c ond a r y.
Ba sic ally, the secondar y side of the system s 10 were fille d and drained, and the water from those fills Il and dr ain s pa sse d over to the Spent Regen Hold up Tank, 12 where it was processed through the Misc ella n eo us Waste 13 Evaporator.
And, from the Miscellaneo us Waste Evaporator l#
Condensate Storage Tank, pumped to the Miscellaneous Water
'i 15 Hold up Tank, whic h was a so ur c e of de min e r alized water.
16 From there, through a temporary piping in st alla tion in to l7 the Regen Holdup Tan ks.
In the Regen Hold up-- Tan ks, it was
'O dilu t e d ; then, sub se qu e n tly it was transferred to the 19 l-Re ten tio n Ba sin s where it was a g ain dilute d d uring the 20 u
course of release off site.
These were handled as batch i
teleases.
22 0
At the time that the modific ation, that we-23 are talking about today, took place, was initiated--
24 A
- What, the lin e from the De min e r ali z ed 25 Reactor Coolant Storage Tank?
3, a
.e 34
+
1 Q
To the RHUT tan k, rig ht.
At.that tim e, why 2
was it decided tc go wit h this modific a tio n, rather than 3
c o n tin ue o pe r a tin g with the flow path that you just 4
explained to me?
5
+ I have a total, A
I guess I am not sure 6
clear understanding of why we did tha.
I know that, at 7
the tim e, we had a greater in ven tor y of water in that' 8
tank than we wanted to have to give us reasonable 9
man e u v e r abilit y. in handling the water on the primar'y side 10 of the plant.
It was, I imagine, primarily a pr oble m of 11 just in flows into what we have ty pic ally c alle d the 12
" blac k box. "
Anything th'at becomes contaminated is in the 13 blac k box, whether it was pump seal water flow, or sort of
'd draine.
15 0
Ex plain ag ain what you mean by the " bl a c k 16 box"?
17 A
It is just a te r m that has been used at 18 Rancho Seco to g en er ally describe all of those systems -
19 handling con ta min a te d water that are not tied dir ec tly 20 into the dr ain systems going off site.
Once water goes 21 into the blac k box, it is. Tritia ted, and, typic ally, also 22 contains some trace amounts of the other iso to pe s and it 23 is much harder to get rid of.
That is just a
24
. c ollo q uialism, sla ng.
If it goes in there, it is easy; if 25 it gets out, it is hard.
35
,s.
a 1
O I have heard of that before,- and I just 2
wanted you to expand a little bit on your understanding of 3
the black box.
So, this modification, y o u in st alle d it, and S
that was on or about the ~ early part of 1982; is that your 6
recollection?
7 A
Or 1986, in that time frame.
I don't -- you O
~
I was very much involved with dealing with the fir st
- see, 9
st e a m generator tube le a k, and had heavy involvement in 10 that.
' And I've got good r e c olle c tio n of the things that Il we did at tha ti time.
12 Subse que n t to that, my involvement was only 13 as a' support service.
Now, get a line, and in s t all it I4 from.here'to there.
Which my sta ff, re por ting to me, did 15 under my ' jurisdiction; but not n ece ssa rily my imm e dia.t e 16 direc t c o n t r ol.
And, it is for that reason,'that some of II things are a little bit dif fic ult for me to r e c all ex actly 18 what was-done, by whom, and when.
Because 'I was serving 19 i
more in a management oversight f u n c tion, that down in the
'r 20 trenches as a doer.
l 21 l
Q But,.it wasn't in con j'inc tio n in the fir st 22 steam ge ne rator tube leak?
23 A
I don't believe it was, no.
24 O
That is not' your recollection, oka y, it was 25 subsequent to that?
l
36 1
A Yes.
2 Q
And the best we can pin poin t it tod a y 'is 3
1982--
4
'A 1983, somewhere in there.
5
-0 It was after you a ssume d the re spon sibility 6
as maintenance superintendent, which was in the first part 7
of 1982?
1 8
A Yes, in that tim e frame.
9 Q
Based on your in volv e m e n t with the fir st I
10 steam generator tube leak, who had the authority to 11 determine that you were going to release the Tritia te d 12 water in a manner that you did?
13 A
It was a plan that was approved by the plant
'd manager, and in response to that fir s t tube leak.
I-15 belie v e, also, the PRC reviewed and approved the wo* k _ plan 16 that was used_for tr e a tin g, handling and disposing of 17 water.-
18
-Q So that wo uld have been a plant r e vie w I
committee function?
20 A
At tha t-time, at the time of the first st e a m 2I generator tube leak, I was-not a member of the PRC, but I 22 was actively involved in all of the things that went on in 23 dealing with that water in v en to r y..
24 0
Who had. the re sponsibility to a sse ss, you 25 know, what you are going to do with the Tritia te d us p*,
I l
l
37 I
come up with that game plan?
You say it was approved by 2
the pla n t manager, and reviewed by the plant r e vie w 3
committee.
Who would have initiated that?
A Pierre Oubre, f ollo win g the fir st ste a m 5
generator tube leak, had a meeting of the - majority of site 6
management. and dele g ated re spon sibilitie s for a variety of aspects of dealing with the problem.
And one of those 8
p r oble ms, of course, was the clean up and disposal' of the 9
contaminated water in the secondary systems.
I was one, a 10 member of a committee of three that were over that, and was given primary r e sp o n sibilit y for d e alin g with that 12 part of the issue.
. 13 Q
Who were the others?
A Fred Kellie and Joe King.
So the three of 15-us wor ked as a
- team, and my c on t rib utio n was the 16 mechanical, make-the-hardware-happen aspect of-the whole process.
Fred Kellie provided the chemistry and radiation IO control r ele a se in f o rm ation.
And Joe King added the 19 o pe r a tio n s e x pe r tise to the r e c o mm end ation s of the 20 committee.
Q Who is Joe King ?
A He was a senior shift supe r viso r at the 23 time.
24 Q
And who brought this committee together, it 25 was under who se a uthority?
)
l e
aeumaan-m eiumsn:i=iei i..i-.iiic Esii s=ni mis..
. iia i6
.s
.=
em
- i
38 4
1 A
Pierre Oubre.
i 2
O Pie rre Oubre?
I 3
A Yes.
4 O
And this was in con j unc tion wit h the fir st
]
5 steam generator tube leak?'
l 6
'A Yes.
7 0
What were his in str uc tion s to you at that 8
time ?
In other words, the game plan, so to speak.
9 A
To devise a means of cle a nin g up the 10 secondary sid e of the plants and cleaning up the 11 contaminated water 'and disposal of that water.
12 O
Now, w h'.a t he modifica tion f rom t he D RCST to 13 the RHUT came about, who initiated that?
In other words, 14 siz e d up the sit u a tio n --
15 A
That there was a need for that?
16 l
O That there was a need for that, and then 17 sugg ested that; who had that a ut h orit y, or who had that 10 responsibility?
A I
belie v e that was-an outgrowth of 20 constraints being imposed on the operations group due to 21 the' excess inventory of wattr.
They were getting thing s l-22 bo ttle d up to the point whc
^ hey couldn't process water 23 because all the tan kage was full; or at least in c ritic al 24
-areas it was f ull.
That is my b elie f that that is what 25 brought it about.
But I was not in v olv e d in the
?
t-39 r
I d e v elo pm e n t of the need, if you will.
I was more, at that 2
tim e,
on the g o-in st all-so m e - pi pe - e n d of the o per a tio n,
3 than a management role.
~
Q I u nd e r st a nd.
6 So, if I u nd e r st a n d what you are sa yin g 6
c o r r e c tly, then, it was plant o perations stating that, manif e sting that that problem needs to be solv ed.
And 8
that manifestation wo uld, I gue ss, come from the head, t he --
9 superintendent of that o pe r a tio n, plan t o per a tio n s.
Who 10 would that have been at that time?
II A
I belle ve it was Tom Tucker, l
Q Tom Tucker?
13 A
I thin k it was.
Q And, he reported to -- who?
15 A
Pierre Oubre.
16 Q
The plant manager?
You didn't have that' position of plant superintendent at that tim e ?
18 A
Well, I am just t r yin g to r e c all.
There-19 were 'some c hanges.
Tom Tucker, at one point in tim e, was 20 the s c he d ulin g su p e r viso r.
But, I thin k, in the time 21 frame that we are talking about, Bla tchle y had left, he was the o per a tio ns superintendent.
Was he re plac e d by 23 Tucker?
24 Q
W ell, th'at is doc umented.
A Yes.
.c 40 1
0 The point I am getting at--
2 A
The o pe r a tio n s superintendent,'I expect, 3
would have gone to the plan t manager with the problem.
4 And,.from'the o ffic e mee tin g, probably proccaded wit h a 5
- pian of a c tio n.
That is my expectation cf how it wo uld 6
ha ve evolv ed.
I O_
okay.
You have the fir st st e a m generator 8
tube leak,.and you were an in teg r al part of determining 9
.what you were going to do with that excess Tritiated 10 water.
11 A
Tha t's tr ue.
12 O
Along with Fred Kellie and Joe King, was it?
I I3 A
Joe King.
14 O
That group that resolved that p roble m, in 15 conjunction with the first steam generator tube leak, what i
16 33 your k n o wle d g e of that; was that a simila r type 17 committee or task force to handle the containment problem 18
. you had with the steam generator tube leaks?
19 A-I don't thin k-t he task force, as such, was 20
' convened for subsequent tube leaks.
It was done the fir st 21 tim e around be ca use we r e ally haC never addressed 22
. ourselves to the problems that were created by that tube 23 leak.
24 O
The continuing tube leaks?
25 A
W ell, the first one.
And we had to do a i
t 41
, 4-1 little creative work in deciding, okay, now that we've got-2 it, what are we going to do wit h it.
And, subse quen t - to 3
that fir st tube leak,
- a. lot of the groundwork had been 4
laid, I guess, for a ppro pria te responses to further tube.
5 leaks.
l 6
Q-And it is your r e c olle c ti o n,
or it _ yo ur impression altho ug h you were not = in volved in it, as I 8
und e r st a n d that that problem wo uld ha ve been, most 9
likely surf aced L by the superintendent of operations ~ to the 10 plant manager' or if, in
- fact, there was
'a i
11 superintendent at that tim e to the plant manger, 12 thro ug h the superintendent.
A
- Okay, d
14 Q
And, once again, you stated that you are not.
15 aware of any actual group that existed similar to yours to 16 handle that?
A
-No; it was handled. thro ugh as'I rec all, 18 it was handle d through the nor m al sta ff re spon sibilities 19 of the various' par ts of the organization, whe ther it was a 20 radiation c he mistr y
- group, or o p e r a tio n s
- group, 21 maintenance
.g ro up, tech support group; it was just 22 pa rc eled out as a part of t heir staff support in their 23 areas of expertise or r e spon sibilit y.
24 Q
But your presence in any group that sat 25
- Well, here is how we are going to do it.
Let us put a m
42 I
I f modifi a tion from the De min e r ali z e d Reactor Coolant i
2'j Storage Tan k to the RHUT, tha t's wha t we will d o, and that 1
3I will sol v e the problem.
You were not in volv e d in
- a. n y l
g ro up like that ; diel I understand you correctly?
5 A
No; nnt in saying this is so me t hing that we sh need.
My only in volv emen t in the decision ma kin g process 6
at that time would have been as a member on the PRC.
1 8
- {
Q Now, on the modific a tio n, you in st alle d it, h
9 to the be st of your r e c oll e c ti on, in 1982 after you were i
'O 3"
at le a st superintendent of m ec ha nic al m ain t en a n c e.
And 7
11 that r, odi fic a tio n e xiste d u n til the fir st part of
- 1986,
+
12 j the Spring 19867 i
o~i A
Sometime during the summer, that pi pi n g --
Q Spring, summer 1986, oka y.
1 5
'O Did you have o c c a sio n to, with your 16 l re spon sibilitie s a s m ain t e n a n c e supe rin te nd en t, to service i
17 that modific a tio n ?
'O A
I belie v e that so m e parts of that pi pin g 19 4
were r e pla c e d during the course of the time that it was T_
20
(
in st alle d and in se r vic e.
~
21
{
Q Did you have any, were there any p r oble ms I
22 di-vit h lea ks?
--t
=
n3 3b A
And that were, were ver y minor in na ture, i
2#
if -
Q How about dia sse mbling of the m odific a tio n T4 25 for certain periods of time, for whatever r e a so n s ?
d e
DLY
-w Y4 s
2 1
- g qv, m-43 V'M,
-~
< 6 ;;
7, I
f A
I thin k that that was done.
In other words,
,,m
. r-m 2-we ' removed it and, then, rein stalled it.
And, it probably
[
3
-would have been done in conjunction with Triv e n a t ti's 4
W
~ ( phon e tic ) work.
Because of the need for the rail line,
5 w hic h t he - lin e went right across.
It would have been in 6
the way of other maintenance a c tivitie s.
O The disassembling and the servicing did 0
you say there were leaks; what did you say 'about le a ks,
9 refresh my memory again?
10 A
I can rather vaguely recall there being some
'l leaks reported, or the po ten tial of some leaks; but they 12 were very minor in nature.
13 Q
If, in
- fact, there were leaks, or. any t-m ain t e n a n c e to
- that, in the dis a sse m blie s and 15 r e a sse mbling, how would that work have been carried out, 16 as' f ar as the authorization of it, and the paper flow?
17 A
Wor k request.
18 0
Through a work re quest, also?
.A Yes.
20 Q
And how a b o ut in v olv e me n t with the PRC, I
wo uld t ha t -- would those types of functions received PRC 22 review?
23 A
For maintenance ac tivitie s in volv ed in that
=
24 line, no; that would not normally have gone to the PRC.
25 0
Why is that?
k i
1, n.
s
-44 1
A The control of those activities were as 2
pro vide d for in the work request procedure And that 3
procedure, for that kind of an activity, doesn't mandate PRC involv ement.
5
-Q Those wor k requests, wo uld those have been 6
reviewed by you for any type of maintenance work that was 7
done?
8 Not by me; by the staff that reported to me.
a 9
0 That a c tu ally wouldn't come up to you for 10 review and then go back down?
11 A
No.
12 O
W ell, how wo uld have been aware of what is 13 going on, and been able to properly oversee--
14 A
Just g e n e r al k no wle d g e of the a c ti viti e s 15 being performed by the staf f that I was responsible for.
16 Q
Through b r ie fin g s from them on the 17
'a c tivitie s.
Did that occur on a re g ular b a sis with all 0
your. maintenance work?
19 A
I maintained pretty goud awareness of the 20 important a c tivitie s that were going on wit hin my work 21 group.
22 Q.
Were you in volved at all with the ta kin g 23
' down of that modification in 19867 m
24 A
No.
25 Q
When were you -- when your responsibilities 1-
1 45 j-I were changed, you know, they changed, as you explained to 2
us over the years, in v ario us f u nc tion s.
At what tim e 3
wo uld you ~have been removed because of a transfer or a 4
change in your job d e sc rip tio n from ha vin g any 5
re spon sibility with that modification?
6 back up on that pre vio us que stion g
Let me about my involvement in the r e m ov al of it.
I g u ess I-8 wo uld have been in v olv ed.
I t hin k what I said a moment 9
- ago, about not being in v olve d,
was in error in t hin king 10 about it now.
I do belie v e that that stuff - was removed 11 during the time that I was in thu mec hanical m ain t e n a nce 12 superintendent position, 'if I am rec alling correc tly when 13 that particular line came on.
-14' O
You mean disa sse mbled?
I A
Yes.
'O Q
So, when was it disa sse mble d ?
A I g u e ss what I am t hin king is:
that 18 par tic ula r lin e came on -during the refueling outage.
And 19 I may have misquoted' before in saying 1986.
-I have had so 20 man y thing s going on in ' 1987, and all of 1986 f ussing wit.:
21 t his.
It would have been in 1985, then; in the summer, 22 where we were still in the midst of the 1985 re f ueling 23 outage.
That was followed by the December 26,, trip, and 24 y,
3,y,. been down ever since.
25 0
And was it r ein stalle d ?
In other words, it e
L-
a m"'
46
..o I
was taken down, not on a temporary basis, but just ta k en 2
down for good?
3 A
That partic ular line, I belie ve, was removed 4
during that refueling and not reinstalled.
There was some 5
other piping, temporar y piping that was between the RHUTs 0
and the P olis her De min er aliz ers Sump.
And, as I r e c all, l
7 came down in the 1986 time frame.
When I quoted the first 6
time - and said 1986, I g uess I had a mental image of that 9
PVC pipe that was 'out there.
I did not have an y direct 10 involv ement in ' t he removal of the pipe that came down in 11 1986.
That was lines between the RHUTs and the Polis he r J
12
. S ump, if my r ecollection is correct; and, that, the line f
13 between the de min stor a g e tan k and the RHUTs came down 14 during the ref ueling outage.
Then, that wo uld have been l
15 an a c ti vit y performed by crews for whic h I was 16
-responsible.
17 O
And that le in 1985?
k
~l8 i
'A Yes.
I I0
)
Q Do yo u rec all whe n in 198 5 7 f
,20 g
go,
.j 21 O
Okay.
What is-your k n o wle d g e of any 22
. reinstalla tion of tha t modifica tio n ?
In other words, that 1
22 was taken down, that is when it was shut down?
l 24 A
That I am aware of, that's true.
I had not 1:
25 been in volv ed in that at all sinc e the tim e that I left
)
g**'
47
- 6 1
the mechanical maintenance superintendent position.
2 O
Okay.
3 MR. MEEKS:
Au rig ht, we win take a break 4
'noW.
5 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.).
6 MR. MEEKS:
On the record.
7 BY MR. MEEKS:
8 Q
What was your interf ace with NRC immediately 9
preceding the modification, and during the in st aua tion of 10 the - modific ation?
11 A
My personal interf ace is essentiany zero, 12 0
Who was on site at that time ; who was the 13 senior resident?
14 A
That wo uld have been Harvey Canter.
15 Q
Who else was on site, do you recall?
16 A
I am tr ying to thin k of his name.
17 O
Jack O'Brien?
1 18' A
'l e s, J a c k O ' Eiri e n.
19 Q
You don't re c all any disc ussio n s wit h them 20 concerning the modification?
21 A
Not of the lin e from the D e min e r ali z e d
[
22 Reactor Coolant Storage Tank over to the RHUT.
It is 23 possible that there were so m e,
but they would have-24 occurred in a casual conversation f ormat.
25 Q
ilow abo ut withe the inspectors from Region V
=
.. ~.
=
m
48 1
coming dc,wn and reviewing that modification?
2 A
My Anvolvement was zero.
3 Q
Okay.
4 A
No f or. mal invol.vement with the NRC on any of 5
those issues.
6
<Q You don't recar. coming to talk to you about 7
the modification and essentially what 7. am talking to you 8
ebout today?
9 A
No.
10 Q
What dis c ussio n s were you in v olv ed in at 11 that time with your co u n ter pa rts, the K e lli e s,
the 12 Mille r s, the Cowards, the Tuckers, the King s, and whoever 13 mig ht be, concerning NRC's inspection or review, on 14 requiring kno wledg e of this modification?
-15 A
W hat was my -- say the question ag ain?
16 Q
What disc ussions were you involved in where
-17 you became aware, through. those disc u ssions, that the 18' r e sid e n t inspec tor s, or so m eb od y from Region V,
was
.19 reviewing that modification?
20 A
It only would have been in-the form of just 21 casual conversation on things that were going on.
No 22 f or mal. assig nments of r e sp o n sibilit y or that kin d - of 23 thing, action ite ms.
24 Q
You don't rec all any specific con v er sa tio n 25 wherein that type of. casual m e n tio nin g wo uld have
'l
g e-1 occurred?
2 A
No.
3 Q
You specific ally don 't rec all?
That doesn't 4
come to mind.
But, if it did, it wo uld have been under S
those circ umstances, more than likely?
6 A
That's tr ue.
7 Q
Mr.
Lawrence, have I,
or any other NRC 8
r e p r e sen ta tiv e here, or at any other time in con ju nc tion 9
with this interview, threatened you, or offered you 10 promises of reward in conjunction with this interview?
11 A
Not at all.
12 Q
Have you given this state ment freely and 13 voluntarily?
14 A
Yes, I have.
15 0
Is there anything that_ you would care to add 16 for the record at this time?
17 A
No.
18 MR. MEEKS:
Than k you ver y much f or your-19 time and your cooperation.
I appreciate it.
20 Close the record.
21 (Whereupon, at 2:10 p.m.,
the interview was 22 concluded.)
23 24 25
'n
M g.
i4
' Thi3 is t3 COrtify that thG cttachCd precO2 dings b3forO-tho UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY CoteikSSION in the matter of:
NAME'0F PROCEEDING:
INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW (CLOSED) i DOCKET NO.:
NONE
' PLACE :
RancRo Cordova, California-DATE:
2[ March 1987 ware held as herein appears, and that this is the original
-transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
c (sist)..
V')AA Nv U
(TYPED)
MIRNA CHOY official Reporter Reporter's Affiliation Jim Higgins and Associates I
1 I:
1 1.
l:
i
~
z 1 2..
.