ML20129E437
| ML20129E437 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/18/1996 |
| From: | Teator J NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129E434 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-96-359 NUDOCS 9610030167 | |
| Download: ML20129E437 (2) | |
Text
.. . -. -_. _ . _ . . . _ . -.
lo REPORT OF INTERVIEW WITH SALVATORE S. ZULLA -
On July 17, 1995, ZULLA was interviewed by the reporting investigator. The interview was conducted under oath at the Indian Point 3 (IP3) Nuclear Ge'nerating Station Training Building, Buchanan, NY. ZULLA provided.the I following information.
ZULLA was orn num is Hi ri rs in cense numbe i
'H ial sec rit h
$'l He res te ephone n mber i His office number is '914- 68 -6250. He His home graduated from Manh ttan- ege n jwith a Bachelor of Science in l Electrical Engineering.\ He was hire ydthe New York Power Authority (NYPA) I in June 1976. In September 1994 he became the Director of the Independent Safety Engineering Group. His supervisor is John KELLY, NYPA Vice President of Regulatory Affairs and Special Projects. Prior to that he was the Senior l Teghnical Advisor to Ralph BEEDLE, NYPA Executive Vice President of Nuclear '
Operations. In those positions, he did not have any responsibility for fire protection (FP) at IP3.or the James A. Fitzpatrick (JAF) Nuclear Generating Station. ,
ZULLA said that he was partly responsible for Ken VEksTEDT's transfer from the ;
NYPA White Plains Office (WP0) to IP3. ZULLA said that he proposed that VEHSTEDT .be transferred to IP3 for one job, an inspection of the IP3 1 electrical seals on the cable tunnel. The inspection was scheduled to last l one to two months. ZULLA made the proposal to William J0SIGER (Acting NYPA Executive Vice President of Nuclear Operations) probably in late 1992. e VEHSTEDT transferred to IP3 shortly after that. ZULLA had no further e discussions regarding VEHSTEDT remaining at IP3. ZULLA said that John ~@
GARRITY, former IP3 Resident Manager, did not request to have VEHSTEDT 25 transferred to IP3 to be responsible for FP issues. 3s 5 43 ZULLA recalls receiving two or three telephone calls from VEHSTEDT, wherein a5 VEHSTEDTtoldhimthathewasawarethatquestionswerebeingraisedaboutthe.$I validity of the IP3198410 CFR Appendix R Analysis (analysis). VEHSTEDT was s5 -
concerned that the people in the WP0 FP Engineering Group were not familiar E$
with the analysis. VEHSTEDT told him that he did not understand why people, fg h including John TARPINIAN and Andrew BARTLIK, did not understand the 1984 7*E I analysis. ZULLA got the feeling that VEHSTEDT was not satisfied with the "; @g 5h support he was getting from the WP0 FP Engineering group. ZULLA said that VEHSTEDT felt that the 1984 analysis was a good analysis, and that it had j8U.
e addressed all the things that needed to be addressed. jjgy ZULLA said that NYPA didn't think that it needed to spend as much money to fix the FP problems at IP3 as had been spent at JAF. NYPA felt that IP3 did not have the extensive problems that JAF had. He said that there was no !
discussion or direction to NYPA employees to not identify FP safety issues at j IP3. i ZULLA first became aware of problems in getting the IP3 FP issues resolved when some Design Deficiency Open Items (DD01s) were brought to his attention.
He specifically recalls that the IP3 Primary Access Building Ventilation issue b
r4SE NO.
00 1-95-019 7 960918 'gg/t'/e
/
l g '
NORGAN96-359 PDR
P a
was one of the DD01s. ZULLA explained that the DD0I process was to identify ;
issues so that IP3 could understand them. ZULLA said.that VEHSTEDT felt that '
the people writing the D00Is did not understand the 1984 analysis, and that the problems that were being raised were not really problems. ZULLA believes that all of the FP issues that were raised needed to be addressed, and that the questions that were raised in the D00Is were valid. ZULLA said that VEHSTEDT did not make any threatening statements to him about TARPINIAN or ,
BARTLIK. ;
ZULLA stated that he knows Walter WITTICH, Raytheon's NYPA representative.
WITTICH never complained to him about TARPINIAN. He and WITTICH did not have any conversations about FP, TARPINIAN, or BARTLIK.
1 ZULLA said that, on occasion, VEHSTEDT mentioned that BARTLIK might be !
conservative in the scenarios that he postulated in his FP issues. VEHSTEDT j told him that the nature of BARTLIK's scenarios were~"far out." ZULLA sensed i that VEHSTEDT wished that he did not have to deal with some of the scenarios i that were postulated by BARTLIK.
ZULLA's personal observation is that BARTLIK and TARPINIAN were not harassed. '
He feels that VEHSTEDT felt strongly that the analysis was done correctly.
.ZULLA said that when people brought questions to VEHSTEDT about the analysis, VEHSTEDT would tell them, "why don't you take the time to read the analysis and that will answer the questions." ZULLA said that VEHSTEDT felt he was !
right in his position that.the analysis was correct, and that BARTLIK and '
TARPINIAN did not know enough about the analysis.
ZULLA said that there were areas in the 1984 analysis that had to be changed, and those areas were changed. ZULLA said that there were modifications that had to be done, and NRC exemption requests that had to be modified. ZULLA believes that those requests were approved by the NRC. ZULLA does not know why VEHSTEDT fought those changes, other than that VEHSTEDT thought he was i right in what had been done in the 1984 analysis. ZULLA opined that, when l VEHSTEDT believes that he is right, he is very stubborn.
Repo 1"by: p a
[ip
.]
Jeffrey.A. eator, Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I i
l i
b Case No. 1-95-019 2 .
I
& &