ML20134H579

Partially Deleted 960328 Predecisional Enforcement Conference Between NRC & R Weiss Before L Reyes in Atlanta, Ga.Pp 1-92

ML20134H579
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	03/28/1996
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20134H573	List: ML20134H570 ML20134H579 ML20134H582 ML20134H590
References
FOIA-96-357 NUDOCS 9611140166
Download: ML20134H579 (25)

Text

_ . - _ _ _ - - . - . . - . . . - . - - - - - - - . . . - . _ - -

i i'-

4 ,-

InThe Matter Of:

i i

INRE: .

1 PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE i .

k i

l l PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LUIS REYES, CHAIRMAN i

March 28,1996 l

1 l

i .

BROWNREPORTING, INC.

! ATLANTA, ATHENS, AUGUSTA, CARROLLTON ROME 1740 PEACHTREE STREET l' ATLANTA, GA USA 30309 l (404) 8768979 or (800) 637-0293 i

, Original File 0328weis.asc, 92 Pages i Min-U4cript@ File ID:1369523914 i

i. _

Word Index included with this Min-U-Scripte 1

Information in this record was deleted i in accordance with the Freedom of Information i

Act, exemptions b i

Folk 9 1o - 3 5 'l A/.

i 9611140166 961030 PDR FOIA CALANDR96-357 PDR

.,. . . ~ . . . ~ . . . . - . . . . - _ . _ . . . . . . . . . . . ... .- . - - .

PREDECISIONAL ENPORCEMENT COPEERENCE March 28,1996 Pop 1 Page2 pl UNrrED STATE 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION APPEARANCES

[1] ,

REGION e pl On beher ci the Nucteer Regulatory Comminoiort

,/- . 83 . sq C. Rapp

• C. Evens.Esq.

. M t. Clark

?

15] IN RE: PREDECISIONAL )

! ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE. ) K Lamse

- M CRYSTALNVER. ) M 8. Uryc l m s.mchense 4 m lel M J. Lieberman i- M L Royee,Chainnen po) PROCEEDINGS BEFORE

[7] A.Ossoon pt) LUIS REYES, CHAIRMAN , , '

UN , On behes of'Mr.Weine:

-

• ter-

Im p.nt R. M. Esq.

]

I paj pq D. Dickey,Esq. j I [is] 29th Floor V1] ]

101 Mortene Street Also Presort j . De1 Allente. Georgie gig ,

. (19 R. Weise pel 04 D. Flekle pol ,

Ud3 i' pt)

Koeh A.WIkerson.CCR-8-13st,RPR D8I pq tiel ps) 0 71 BROWN REPORTING,1NC. 04 i

p4) 1100 SPRING STREET, SUITE 750 [iet . I 4 . ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30300 pol 4

ps) - (404) s7s-s079 gij 94 1 pq '

! pq ,

4 psi i i Page 3 '

pl MR.REYES

Good afternoon.My name is j . .* - pl Luis Reyes,and I'm the Deputy Regional 14 AdN-!== tor for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission j .

M in the Region II ofBcc here in Atlanta.

ist . This'aActnoon we will conduct a fb *'

. 14 predecisional enforcement conference between the NRC m and RobertWeiss,which is closed to public let observation.This conference is being transcribed.

< 14 Following my brief opening rernarks, Mr.

pq Bruno Uryc,the Director of the Region II j st) Enforcement Staff,will discuss the Agency's i nq enforcernent policy.I will then provide some 04 introductory remarks concerning my perspective on

• n,  : 041 the events to be addressed today.Mr. Al Gibson,

• ne the Director of the Division of Reactor Safety,will -

pq then discuss the apparent violations.You will then nn be given an opportunity to respond to the apparent eq violations.

I 94 In this regard,I wish to reiterate that pq the decision to hold this conference does not mean pil the NRC has deternuned violations have occurred or sq that enforcementaction will be taken.The 94 conference is an important step in arriving at that pq ' decision.At this point,I would like to have the

- psi NRC staffintroduce themselves and then I will ask BROWN REPORTING, INC, (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Scripte G) Page 1 - Page 3 s

u. _ ,

%Q2.g:

2 .

i

_J

PROCPFnINGS BEFORE I.UIS REYES, CHAIRMAN IN RE:

March 28,1996 PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE Page 4 Pagee i p) you to introduce your participants. gg that's the process that we're in now. ,

pi M,R. GIBSON: As Luis said, my name is Al pi There are three primary enforcement i m Gibson. I'm Director of the Division of Reactor pl sanctions available to the NRC,and they are notices I el Safety,the division responsible for operating pj of violation, civil penalties,and orders. Notices tsi licenses in this region. Iq of violation and civil penalties are issued based on gg MR. REYES:I'm Luis Reyes,and I'm the tei identhied violations. Orders may be issued for m Deputy Regional Administer for the NRC in the Region m violations or,in the absence of a violation,

[q II office. m because of a significant public health or safety

[q MR. LIEBERMAN: My name isJim Lieberman, m issue.NRC enforcement, sanctions against a licensed

gig End I'm the director of the NRC Office of pq individual could include a letter of reprimand,a 1 pil Enforcement. -

og notlEc ofviolatio' n,a~civilpEnalty.oriribrdeitF~T ~

'pa MR. RICHARDS:I'm Stuart Richards. pa prohibit NRC licensed activity. Sanctions,if pa MR. URYC:I'm Bruno Uryc.I'm the psi applied, are carefully determined on a case-by<ase 04; director of the Region II enforcement staff. p4) basis.

pq MR. LANDIS: Kerry Landis, Chief of pq Now,this predecisional enforcement its Rc"ctor Projects. ps; conference is essentially the last step of the pn ' MS. CLARK: Lisa Clark, Office of the on inspection and investigation process befdre the

ps GeneralCounsel. pq staff makes its final enforcement decision.The '.

psi . MS. EVANS: Carolyn Evans, region 21 pq purpose of this conference is not to negotiate a pq counset pq sanction.Our purpose here today is to obtain 90 MR. RAPP: Curt Rapp, Region II pq information that will assist us in determining the pa inspector. pa appropriate enforcement action, such as a common psi MR. HENDRIX: My name is Richard Hendrix, pq understanding of the facts, toot causea,and missed p41 and I'm an attorney and counsel for Dave Fields and p4) opportunities assocsated with the apparent -

pq Rob Weiss referenced in the enforcement conference. pq violations,a common understanding of the corrective i Page5 . Page 7 gij MR. WEISS: My name is RobWeiss. gg actions taken or planned,and a common understanding.

pi MR. DICKEY: My name is David Dickey. pl of the significance ofissues and the need for

p1 I'm an attorney and counsel for Rob Weiss and David pl lasting comprehensive corrective action.

I

.pl Fields. pj The apparent violations discussed at this l gq MR. FIELDS:I'm David Fields. [q conference are subject to further review,and they ts

, gn

, )

MR. REYES: Mr.Uryc will noW summarize gsi may be subject.to change lirior to any resulting in enforcement action. As Mr.Reyes mentioned in his 4 get for us - gsi rernarks,it is very important to note that the

' ga MR. URYC: I assume that you invited Mr. m decision to conduct this conference does not mean pq Fields here.He's an observer on your behalf? pq that the NRC has determined that a violation has

' pu MR. WEISS: Yes.

, 99 occurred or that enforcement action will be taken.

na MR. URYC: After an apparent violation is na We would also appreciate your views as to ps; identified,it's assessed in accordance with the ps) whether there is any information that may be v4j commission's enforcement policy,which is published 941 relevant to mitigation or escalation of any p[q as NUREG 1600.1 have copies here available if you pq potential enforcement' sanction as well as your _

pa would like to have them, and I'll be happy to nel position on the inspection report findings and

, on provide them to you. On investigation, and I understand you do have copies psj The assessment of an apparent violation psi of the inspection reports and the synopsis.

pq involves categorizing the apparent violation into 04 I should also note at this time that

pq one of four severity levels based on safety and pq statemenu of views or expression of opinion made by pg regulatory significance. For cases where there is a pu the NRC staff at this conference or the lack thereof

, pa potential for escalated enforcement action,that is, ma are not intended to repreient f'mal determinations psi where the severity level of an apparent violation is ps) or beliefs by the agency.Following the conference, p41 categorized at severity level one,two or three, a 941 the regional administrator,in conjunction with the ,

pq predecisional enforcement conference is held,and pq NRC Office of Enforcement and other NRC headquarters Page 4 - Page 7 (4) Misa-U-Scripte BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979

. +.

~ ~ ^

IN Eh hut.ctumus a ca vauc a.Uas ar.a ca,banancian PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE March 28,1996 l

P ge 8 P;ge 10 p) offices, will reach an enforcement' decision,and we gj violations that Mr. Gibson will describe. It is m expect this process to take about 60 to 90 days. pi also to provide you an opportunity to address what pj That concludes my remarks.If you have pi happened on September 4th and 5th and to receive pi any questions,we'll be happy to address them at p) your views on,first,whether you believed at the tsj this point. Again,as I said,I do have copies of ta time that your actions were appropriate;two, n the enforcement policy for you.Mr.Reyes? tg whether now,after having substantial time to m MR. REYES: What I'd like to do is. m consider those actions, whether your views have (q proceed with some intmductory remarks and then, ts) changed;three,the broaderimplications of those l pi after that, Mr. Gibson will go through the apparent pi actions';and fourth,the corrective actions that you l pq violations that we have previously sent to you,and pq personally have taken or plan to take to prevent l pn then we'lllet you answer those,and we'll probably n,j recurrence in licensed activities in the' future.

pa have a set of questions for clarification. na We will be interested in what actions you psi We're here today because, as a licensed pq took to express your concern with the make up tank pq operator, you were accountable not only to Florida pq pressure limit curve and what actions led up to the pq Power Corporation but also to the NRC for assuring vs September 4th and 5th evolution and why you didn't pq that requirements are followed and the reactor pq raise your concern to higher levels of management.

i on license for,in this case, Crystal River operates on I want to emphasize that we have not yet pq safely.The public expects that the NRC takes of decided violations were committed,if they were pq action,and we intend to ta,ke action as necessary, og deliberate,or whether enforcement action is pq to assure you're thoroughly licensed to operate pq warranted against you.During this conference we pq nuclear power plants and that individually licensed pq will have questions for you to help us reach pa operators properly operate the reactors and comply pa decisions in this matter.Should you need a j ps) with all NRC requirements. ps) question clarified or if you have questions yourself j pq Based on our review of the investigation pq during this proceeding, please feel free to ask.We psi and our inspection findings,it appears that you may as emphasize that we expect from you complete and Page 9 Page 11 p) have not followed NRC requirements.At the outset, 0) accurate responses to our questions,and if we fait p) we recognize that your motives were to pursue a m to ask the right question you feel needs to be

, ni safety issue,and you're to be commended for p) answered that may be relevant to the issues in this pj pursuing the issue up to a point.However,we pl conference,we expect you to come forward and give isj cannot condone opention of the plant outside tsi us that information.

(q established limits,especially where you recognize (q I would also note that the statements, m that the operating limit was probably not m views or expression of positions made by the NRC pi conservative and it was lik*ely that your evolution p1 during this conference do not constitute our fm' al p) would place the plant outside the acceptable p1 position,and please do not take our questions, pq region.You even took measures on September 5th to pq response or silence as prejudging the matter.We pq have a person dressed out and available while ny appreciate this is a significant matter.The va conducting the test,which was not part of the va decision on this matter will be taken only after pq actions taken on September the 4th. 03) careful consideration, not only by Region 11 but by pq There are many ways to raise safety 09 the Office of Enforcement,which is represented here pq concerns.We want safety concerns raised,but using pq today, and the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, pq the machine to demonstrate a concern is not an pq which is also represented here today.The Office of on acceptable way to raise a concern.You may have on the Executive Director for Operations will also pai been right and taken the proper precautions. pq review the matter,and we intend to consult the pq Ilowever, you might have been wrong.others following pq commission prior to taking any action.

pq your example may be wrong,and the end cannot pq Let me assure you that we're not taking pq justify the means.There were other mechanisms pu this matter lightly, and the decision will be given pa available to raise concerns that you should have pzj careful consideration after receiving your views mal used. p3) today and other information that we have developed.

pq The purpose of this predecisional 99 As part of the consideration,we will be considering ps) enforcement conference is to address the apparent psi the actions of FPC that may have contributed to this BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Scripte (5) Page 8 - Page 11

j PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LUIS REYES, CHAIRMAN IN RE:

March 281996 3 PREDECISIONAL ENPORCEMENT CONFERENCE 1

i Page 12 Page 14

! pl matter as well as actions FPC has taken in response p) of your crew.  !

I pi to this matter.We will hope to reach a decision pi MR. WEISS: That's correct. I I p) within 90 days, and that's our goal. pj MR. GiBSON: Procedure Al-500 in Step 6 '-

! pj As you can see,this meeting is being pj of Enclosure 27 stated that it is the responsibility

! pj formally transcribed.A copy ofit may be available (q of the chief nuclear operator who reported to you on f pi to you after the NRC has reached its decision as to pi those dates to ensure that plant evolutions do not m whether or not enforcement action should be taken. m violate admuustrative conttols. Procedure OP-402, j pi If we make it available to you,it will also be in p1 the make-up and purification system, Revision 75, j mi the public document room at that time. pi Step 4.19.9 requires that operators ensure that the pg. Do you have any questions before I turn pq make-up tank pressure limits of OP-103B,Curyc_8 are i

• pu over the meeting to Mr.Gibson? 04 not exceeded when adding hydrogen to the make-up j pa MR. WEISS: No. na tank.

3 poi MR. GlBSON: Good ahernoon, Mr. Weiss. psi Procedure 103B Curve 8, maxunum make-up

! pq This is a very formalintroduction with all of these 04 tank overpressure, Revision 12 defined the j na people in blue suits reading prepared statements, pq acceptable make-up tank pressure versus level fer j pq and it is a serious matter to you,I'm sure,and to psi control of make-up tank evolutions. Procedure i on us as well, and I hope that we can all relax enough on AR 403, annunciator response,make-up tank pressure l pq to have.a free dialogue and discuss what took place pq high/ low, Revision 21,1 tem H4406 required I

• pm on September 4th and 5th.It's truly our objective pq opentors to take action to reduce make-up tank

, si to reach the right conclusion and to be fair in this pq pressure to within the limits of OP-103B, Curve 8 pu matter.What I'm about to present is what appears pn when a valid alarm was received.

i pa to us to be violations of regulatory requirements. pa Now, on September 4th and 5th,1994 you pal As others before me have said,this is psi and members of your drew crew failed to observe the p41 not our final determination.We've exchanged pu operating procedures and other conditions specified .

. pq correspondence on this on numerous occasions,and we pq in your three Crystal River 3 operating license when Page 13 Page 15 1 .pj do indeed want to hear face-to-face your view of 01 you failed to observe NRC Regulation 10 CFR 50.59, i ci what took place on September 4th and 5th to help us pj conducted tests not described in the FSAR without a

! pi reach the right conclusion. pi written safety evaluation,and specifically you

' un ' The first apparent violation is a pi conducted tests in that you conducted evolutions sq violation of 10 CFR 50.59.1 should first say that p; involving make up tank pressure and level not

pi your license requires that you follow the rules and pi required by plant conditions to collect data.

2 in tquiations of the Nuclear Regnistory Conunission, m During these tests'you failed to meet the b isi un 10 CFR 50.59 is such a regulation.That pi requirements ofAl-500 to comply with the following l . pi regulation requires tiiat a written safety evaluation pt Crystal River pmcedures.OP-402 was not followed sq on September 4th or 5th in that when you added l{ pupqnotbedescribedprepared in the FSAR.Weprior to the consider conducting a test or experiment on hydrogen to the make-up tank you exceeded the limits l pa evolutions that took place on your shift on na of OP.103B.The limits of OP 103B were exceeded on l pa September 4th and 5th of 1994 to have been a test. poi September 4th for approximately 43 minutes pgl ; We understand that you did not prepare a pq continuously from 4:24 a.m. to 5:06 a.m.and on p,q written safety evaluation and,in the process of pq September 5th,1994 for approxinutely 37 minutes l pai conducting that test,it appears to us that certain psi continuously from approximately 4:45 a.m.to 5:21 i pn station procedures were violated. Procedure AI 500, on a.m.

! psi conduct of operations, Revision 82, Step 4.31.1 pq Alarm response pmcedure AR-403, Item og stated that it is the duty of every member of the pq HO406 was not met on September 4th or September 5th

. pq Crystal River work force to comply with procedures. pq in that timely action was not taken to reduce pn Now,I understand you were the assistant pu make-up tank piessure to within the limits of l pa shift supervisor on these dates, pa OP-103B, Curve 8 when a valid alarm was received.

[ paj MR. WEISS: That is correct. pa instead,the make-up tank level was lowered, which pq MR.GiBSON: And as such,you were pq caused make-up tank pressure to exceed Curve 8 by an psi responsible for directing the activities of members pq increasing amount.

Page 12 - Page 15 (6) Min-U-scripte BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979

~ _ _ _.. . _ _ - - - _

LbdLim otsc'm - m um March 22,1996 PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE Page 16 Page 18 l pj In summary,that's what appears to us to vi receive additional evaluation, so it wasn't really  ;

p p1 have been the violations that occurred on those pi apparent to us why you felt compelled to take the p1 dates, and at this point I would like to turn the p) action you did without awaiting further evaluation.

p; meeting over to you.We'd like for you to share p1 MR. WEISS: Could you please read the p) with us any response that you may have to those tsj first paragraph of that letter?

p) apparent violations. pi MR GlBSON: Do we have a copy at the m MR. WEISS: Well,let's start out right m table? Why don't you read it?

p; at the start. In my interview I was asked a pj MR. WEISS: Basically what I'm trying to p1 question and was told I probably should bring it up pi point out is that it should be noted that none of pq here.Is it the NRC's position that we had rather pq these options recommen'ded changes to 1031L Curve 8.

pg not have done this and Crystal River 3 was still 04 We believe this curve is' accurate and reasonably na operating outside the design basis? pa conservative to protect the high pressure injection.

psi MR. GIBSON: It's the NRC's position that psi pumps fmm hydrogen gas intrusion in the worst case pq you should follow station procedures.We believe pq large break IOCA.Right there they're saying the  ;

psi that there were other options available to you to psi curve is right.Then they say:In addition, pst raise this concern.If you'd like,we can discuss ps! corrective action number eight of PR 94-149 is na that at this point. On currently in progress to provide technical bases for

. p ej MR. WEISS: Why don't we go through a few ps) the BWST swapover point.

no) of those options? poi MR. GIBSON: That's correct.

pq MR. GIBSON: You were given a memorandum pq MR. LIEBERMAN: And the next sentence pu dated September the 2nd,1994 which stated that, pq reads-pa based upon engineering review,the curve was na MR. DICKEY: The sentence states: During pai considered to be correct,but it also noted that paj this analysis make-up tank overpressure per Curve pq additional evaluations were planned and would be pq No.8 will be rea. valuated.This action is scheduled psi conducted. psi to be completed by September 30th,1994.

l Page 17 Page 19 p1 Based upon that memorandum, did you p) MR. GiBSON: Mr. Weiss,1 think I should pi understand that additional evaluations would be ni say that you and members of your crew did quite a pi conducted? p1 tot to raise this issue to management's attention p; MR. WEISS: No. Based upon that p1 and to the NRC's attention, and I don't mean to j pi memorandum I understood the issue was being closed. p1 imply ' vou did not.But there were other p) It c irly says thaLin the first paragraph. . pl optionr. avauable to you,it seems to me. I m . GlBSON:I don't believe it does.Do Let me summarize the options that we I m

ns bave a copy of the melhorandum?'

. p) believe might have been pursued by you and I don't n MR. WEISS: I believe the quote is pi want to dunmish the fact that you did exercise a

.pq engineering believes that this curve is accurate and pq number of options to raise this issue.We  !

09 reasonably conservative.lfit's accurate and pq understand that you did,and we think that those pa reasonably conservative,why would any more effort pal were appropriate and proper.

l l pal have to be put into it? paj One piece ofinformation is the September l pq MR. GIBSON: The memorandum stated that pq 2nd memorandum,which,although it did say the ps) further evaluation would be done, psi current engineering position did say the curve was ps; MR. WEISS: It talks about doing an pq correct,it did in fact go on to say there would be -

! pn evaluation on the BWST swapover point,which is one na some additional evaluation in the future. Another j psi of the reasons the curve was invalid in ic first ps) option that was available to you was to escalate the I

poi place.Now,my question is this.If they knew that pel matter to higher station management.1 understand pq that calculation stated the curve was not valid past pq that it had been discussed with Greg Halnon.You pu refuel eight because of the change in the BWST pu could have escalated it further.1 understand that pai swapover point, how could they write a memo saying ga a member of your crew had discussed it on several l pal it was' accurate and reasonably conservative? pst occasions with a resident inspector.  !

7 pq MR. GIBSON:It appears to us that that pq MR. WEISS: That's correct.

l psj memorandum clearly stated that the matter was to psi MR.GIBSON:And the NRC could have and j l

BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Scripts (7) Page 16 - Page 19 i

\

. - . . . -. = . . _ . _ _ . .- _ - - _ -_ - - - -

PROCFFnINGS BEFORE LUIS REYES, CHAIRMAN IN RE:

j March 28,1996 PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE 1

1 Page 20 Page 22

! vi arguably should have intervened at that point, but nj sections from an appmved procedure that had a 50.59 j pj you could also have talked to the senior resident gj review.Are you saying that the OP 402 50.59 review '

! p) inspector or his management. Mr.11alnon solicited '

p) was faulty?

j pl written comments on this matter in his memorandum of p3 MR. GlBSON: I'm saying that you violated l to August the 9th,1994 and none were provided.The tsj OP-402,and Or 402 did not provide provisions for j a employee concerns program at the station was not pi exceeding Curve 8 in draining down the tank and I m used.Your shift manager was not consulted pi leaving the plant conditions in the unacceptable j pi regarding the test that was conducted.I don't mean tai region for that curve for an extended period of i te to diminish the steps you took.I think they were pi time. .

, I l pq good,I think they were proper,but'I also think pq MR. WEISS: Which was not an unusual  !

. Du that other options were available.I guess I'd just pu event, correct? I think yourinspection repoit na like your response to that. na showed that a hundred percent of the operators have pq MR. WEISS: Well,I guess I'm questioning pm operated on the wrong side of that curve because l v41 that I haveTo prove that I used every possibic 04) that curve was not perceived as a design basis l pc method to try and get this thing resolved.I think pq lintit.It was not even perceived as a serious par that the burden of proof should be on you guys,who psj limit.If the alarm came in,you took action.I pa are charged with the safe operation of this na don't understand.

pel industry,to say that this would have been fixed if usi MR. GIBSON: Our investigation did show -

pq we hadn't done what we did.We were faced with a pq that many operators operated for at least some pq pretty had situation.No one here seems to pq period of time in the unacceptable region of that pu understand that all the pressure was coming down pq curve.

pa from the vice presidentiallevel to achieve these-pa high make-up tank pressures,that engineering was { pa pz p41 not listening to technical concerns,that they were p4j psi reacting to political pressure. psj Page 21 Psge 23 pl MR. GlBSON:What was the direction you p3 m were getting from higher management? pi l

pi MR. WEISS: The direction was to operate pi l

u4) on the curve, maximize the pressure, stay at the top pj ist of the allowable band.That's the curve.Do you a understand that? At what point do you say,you pj is) EISS: Right.I think that's

]

pi .know, nothing's going to get done? I mean, they go pl significaht.At no point along the lin'e has the .

pi to engineering and ask engineertng,these guys have si company been bringing forward any of the issues a doubts abeat the curves,is it right,and they go pi involved here. All they've been doing is saying pq uh-huhe.di-huh, arid tic's d.That's all the og that we were really bad and that you should punish pq malysis that ever went into it.We took action, pq us, na you know. na MR. GIBSON: Actually, as you probably l pq I wasn't trying to make any money off psi know,the company has reported this matter in p4 this and I wasn't trying to get a raise.This was v4; licensee event reports. Did you participate in the ps not in my best interest.I knew I was probably psj development of those reports? -

ps; going to take some heat for it but I thought it usi MR. WEISS: No.I saw some of the early na would come from FPC management, not from the NRC- on drafts of them.It's kind ofinteresting,the psi MR. GiBSON: Did you think you would take nel history of the development of the LER.The first pq some heat from FPC management from this? pq one was pre.ty close to the truth From there on pq MR. WEISS: Right,because they didn't pq they just started veering away.I think there's pq want to hear any more about this issue.They wanted pq been an obvious attempt to manipulate your actions pa to hit the 25 cc's per kg and shut up and watch the pa by the reports that they gave you.

psi board,and a number of people did.I didn't. pai MR. GlBSON: So you reviewed the earlier p4j First of all, you're saying I violated p4) draft,the first one?

psi 50.59 when what I did was a series of procedure psj MR. WEISS:I reviewed Draft 0 and I saw Page 20 Page 23 (8) Min-U-Scripts BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) S76-8979

LWLis tRER5Eam amm t.t;s:WirrmA uamamum 1

' PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE March 28,1996 l 1

Page 24 Pcge 26 1 p) several of the other drafts along the way.1 didn't nj MR. WEISS: No.We actually pulled the r p1 see the final draft before it went out. p) calculation on the night of the 5th,and that's when p) MR. GIBSON: As I'm sure you know,we met pl we saw first of all, on the first page I think it pl with the company yesterday,and the question we pj was, where it says this calculation is only valid is) asked them is,Why did you not tell us about the tsi through refuel eight.Now, right there that tells p) September 4th event sooner.1 would ask you the si me how serious they are about reviewing our safety m same question. m concern because all they had to do was pull the l pi If you participated in the review of the p) calcu!ation and they'd have seen it. Either they p1 LER and the LER did not mention September 4th,did 14 didn't pullit or they pulled it and deliberately pq you suggest that it be added? nq disregarded it. lt was impossible to miss.

pq MR. WEISS: No,1 didn't.I was present nn Now, bear in mind that everybody's been l na at the design basis determination meeting where. na treating us as if we did this big, bad sneaky thing '

pai engineering was there and senior plant management pai on my night shift.Well,I was on midnight shift. I pq was there and Pat Beard was there.They discussed pq I wasn't going to come in on my time off to do em the issue,and they came to the realization that we na this. it was a normal workday for me, and if you've psi weren't just outside design basis when we went over ps) ever worked shift work,you'd understand that.We on the curve,we were outside design basis any time on were doing something that I considered legal.We ps) we'd operated anywhere near the curve. Osj had approved procedures for everything we did.We pq They made the decision qat it wasn't pq weren't trying to hide anything.We wrote a problem pq worthwhile to go back and try to identify every time pq report on it.1 mean,I guess I don't quite pu that the plant had been operated outside the design 99 understand where everybody's coming from that this pa basis. Rather, they would report from time to time pa was such a bad thing. I pai that the plant had been operated outside design psi MR. GIBSON: We don't think you tried to pq basis,which was still not quite frank. pq hide September 5th.We're interested in hearing ps) I mean, frankly we'd been outside the psi more from you about September 4th,but it's pretty Page 25 Page 27 j

pj design basis for a year.Now,if the seniorvice oj cicar to us that you wrot:: a problem report,you pi president of nuclear operations doesn't think it's p) discussed it with engineering and your management, pj very important to identify each individualinstance pi and that there was no attempt to hide September 5th, pj of being outside design basis, why am I being held p) MR. WEISS: There was no attempt to hide In to a different standard? I had no intent to cover (q September 4th. --

l a up the - personally,I don't think I did anything p) MR. LIEBERMAN: Why didn't the problem I m wrong on the 4th and I don't think'l did anything m report discuss September 4th?

p) wrorig on the 5th. pj MR. WEISS: I did not consider the 4th p) MR. GIBSON: Did you think on the 4th and pl valid data.Like I said,I thought I was going to pq the 5th that OP-103, Curve 8 was an important vm take some heat from this because they just didn't j pu curve? 09 want to hear it anymore.They were tired of having i na MR. WEISS: Yes. na operators questioning this curve,they just wanted pai . MR. GIBSON: What was your understanding nsi us to comply with it, so I was going to make damn pq of the basis of that curve? pq sure I was right before I went in there and picked pq MR. WEISS: Well,I had a better usi the scab off again. 1 pai understanding on the 5th because I'd looked at the nei We had a couple problems.1 don't know ~

pn calculation on the 5th.That doesn't constitute the un if you guys do any graphing on Excel,but basically psi design basis.It just says it affects critical ECCS nej I could get real good computer point values,but

! pq equipment.We knew basically the basis for that og then I would have to try and right-side the graph to pq curve was to protect our HPI pumps.That's why we pq put the curve values on or vice versa,you know.I en were so concerned that the thing was so obviously pu couldn't get two good sets of data that night.And pa wrong and nobody was doing anythisg about it, ma 1 got to thinking,Well,okay,it looks like it went pai MR. LIEBERMAN: Had you discussed the ps) above it and I can't think of any reason except the pq calculations, the errors you perceived in the pq curve being bad. And I thought,Well, we just added pu calculations,with anyone prior to the 5th? pq gas and the gas was cold and maybe that's the gas l

BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Scripts (9) Page 24 - Page 27

, PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LUIS REYES, CIUJRMAN IN RE: l

March 28,1996 PREDECISIONAL ENPORCEMENT CONFERENCE k

i

Page 28 Page 30 - l l vi heating up.So in my opinion that just invalidated pj understand.I did not drive that curve to the

] gj the data.It had not absolutely proved anything ta left.If the curve had been correct the trace would j pi because we had not allowed the temperatures to pl have followed the curve down and we would have never l

M stabilize. 81 been to the left of the curve.Do you understand Y14 Why would I put that in the pmblem (si that? I

! se report, data that I thought was flawed?The stuff ist MR. GlBSON: Yes,I do.

~

pi we took on the 5th,we gave it time to stabilize,we ai MR. WEISS: And any time,any time that1 I

,' isj were able to get good results,and that's why we y you put pressure on the curve you're right where we i pi reported the problem on the 5th, , t. were, because if you'd had a IDCA and the level l*tra MR. Gl8 SON: Would you not normally log pq dropped it would pull it tip over the curve.

l

} pn'this type of evolution? pu MR. DICKEY: Sir,j just wanted to ask j

[ pa - MR.WESS: We logged like the removals na you.Are you saying during the evolutions of j psi and Edditions to the make-up tank,and I believe psi September 4th and the 5th if a LOCA would have

] pq those were logged.We didn't do a special write-up pq occurred during that pmcedure would they have j psi for this one. _

pq caused a significant safety concern?

' psi : MR. DICKEY: Did the logs reveal anything psi MR.G18 SON:Yes.

f pa different on September 5th and September 4th? na MU. DICKEY: Rob,how did you plan for .

j pej MR. GIBSON:I don't know Perhaps pel that eventuality, and did you consider that and plan na someone at the table knows. ne forthat?  !

. pq' MR. RAPP: No. pq MR. WEISS: That's why we had the j pn MR. DICKEY: So the logs were pirtty much pq operator ready to man the make-up tank.

' pai the same for both days? pa MR.LANDIS: So you did basically i

psi MR. RAPP: Yes. pal recognize that there's a potential for moving

) pq MR. LIE 8ERMAN: Were their different pq further in the non-conservative direction?

pq precautions taken on the 4th versus the 5th? pq MR.WESS: We felt if the curve was Page 29 Page 31 i ni _ MR. WEISS:In both cases we communicated pi incorrect,that yes,the pressure response was going j pl with the ops operator and told him to be available gi to pull it up.The pressure was not going to fall

{ pi in case we needed to vent Qc tank.My recollection p) as fast as had been calculated and that was going to j .s is not that good about the 4th because it never p1 cause it - but no, that's not more (q seemed important and it was a long time ago.I. te non-conservative.If you put it right on the curve I

, - pi think, based on going back over it and talking to pi and you have a LOCA,what's going to happen?Your pi the other guys,that on the 4th we did not have the pi tank level's going to drop rapidly just like we -

n man dressed out and on the 5th we did.But to put i.) simulated.

i pl that in perspective, remember that all the shifts pi MR.LANDIS: Let me make sure I h pq had been operating outside the design basis with sq understand' .You're saying that moving further

$ pu nobody standing by.We were safer during that pq outside into what's called the unacceptable region i tia period of time than we were before that, na of that curve would not necessarily have been more pai . MR. GIBSON: You thought the curve was us) non<onservative.

I pq wrong? ng ' MR.WESS:I'm saying that if you go to ng MR. WEISS: Yes,I did. pq 86 inches and you put make-up tank pressure on the -

pq MR. GIBSON: You understood, I presume, psi curve,you were in the exact same place I was if you na that the consequences of the curve being wrong would na had a LOCA,that it would follow the same truce I nei be potential damage to the make-up pumps. nq dre'w.

na MR.WESS: Yes. pel MR. LANDIS: Was Curve 8 intended to be a pq MR.GIBSON:If the curve were correct sq curve that replicated the pressure temperature pu rnd you operated to the left of the curve and a IDCA pu relationships in the make-up tank?

pa had occurred when you were to the left of the curve, pa MR. WEISS: Yes.That's the whole basis psi I presume you understood that damage to the make-up poi of the calculation.Did they come up here saying pq pumps could occur. pq that locus of points crap at you? I'm sorry.

pq MR. WEISS: See,you guys don't psi ' MR.LANDIS: What's your opinion of Page 28, Page 31 - (10) ' RElm-U4cripte BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979

L6&la gammaart. law ee wouw, & 4mc ,

March 2R,1996

~

, PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE

\

l l P ge 32 Page 34 pl that? pj observed in our run.1 don't know how more

(' p) MR. WEISS. If you look at the way the pj officially I could have notified them.

pl curve is calculated, basically they said, Okay, p) MR. LIEBERMAN: Prior to September 5th

p) let's start where we want to end, and they were pj were you aware of other instances of operators

! rq going to squeeze this bubble up and find out what [q collecting data to show the curves were in error, p) our allowable levels are.Now,when you're using isi prior to September 5th?

pj the ideal gas law to do that, you're saying that's p) MR. WEISS

I don't remember ever p) the pressure response of the tank you're modeling. Is) actually looking at a collection of data or l n It's not like some we use to say whether it's pi something.We've come up with this stuff that was j pq acceptable or not.This is not one of those types pq taken inJuly,but we were'n't aware of that at the on of calculations.This is clearly a modeling of nu time. . ,

na systembehavior, na MR. LIEBERMAN: So it was somewhat

. p3) MR. LANDIS: Have you gone through that nq unusual a collect data to show a curve was wrong; l

nq calculation,the calculation for Curve 8,and shown n41 is that fair.

l pq the licensee the errors? pq MR. WEISS: Dcn't you understand the j pq MR. WEISS: Well,it was addressed in the psi position you're taking here? You're saying that if pn problem report,94-267. nn I had not collected data,ifI'd shut up about it i psi MR. LANDIS: The problem report raised ps and not written a problem report.I wouldn't be pq the question.Have you actually gone through the pq here.

, pq calcalation and identified to the licensee the pq MR. LIEBERMAN: No.What we don't pq weakrws? pq understand,in all honesty,and let me say,just to  :

I pa MR. WEISS: The weaknesses are identified pa digress,that we're not happy with the performance ps) in Problem Report 94-267. pai of Florida Power Corporation, an I whether or not we l l pq MR. DICKEY: Before that? pq take action against you,we have ; . natter to deal l l

! pq MR. WEISS: That's the official method of pq with concerning Florida Power Corporation,because Page 33 Page 35 nj notifying a licensee of a weakness in their ej obviously they have some performance weaknesses in pj procedures for something. pi this matter,too. )

[ pi MR. LANDIS:let me make it clearer You p) But on September 5th, after you've gone '

l

! p) raised concerns in that problem report. Did you p1 through the calculations and satisfied yourscif that is) actually go through the calculation?You seem to be Iq the calculations were clearly in error,it seemed n real familiar with the calculation itself. pj that was another opportunity to bring that to the p) MR. WEISS: The night of the 5thw' e in attention of operations management,Mr.Hickle, pi pulled a copy of the calcdlation and reviewed it. pi higher levels than him,'and the employee concern pi MR. LANDIS: Did you identify the errors pi program.

. pq and the weaknesses in that calculation to the pq MR. WEISS: Do you understand at this l pu licensee? pu point that I had lost faith in my management and na MR. WEISS: Yes.We wrote a problem prj engineering? I did not think they were going to do psi report. nsj the right thing anymore.

pq MR.LANDIS: That addressed the pq MR.LIEBERMAN: Are you familiar with psi calculation itself? pq Form 3? Have you ever seen Form 3?

usi MR. WEISS: Right. pq MR. WEISS: Yes.You try and work things -

on MR. DICKEY: When you realized that there on out within the company.I was a loyal company j pq were obvious errors in the calculation did you say nej employce.1 was trying to do the right thing.1  !

pq anything to engineering or management? pq didn't expect the kind of reaction that I got.I

pq MR. WEISS

I did.That's what this pq was really shocked at what happened after that.You i pu problem report does.The title is the curve pg know,if after I'd written this problem report they j pa technical basis is inadequate, and the wrong pa still blew it off,I probably would have been filing

pai assumption about the RV sump swapover level.Then ps) allegations. It would have been appropriate at that pq my opinion as that the ideal gas law was a pq time.

pq non-conservative way to do it and detailing what we pq MR. DICKEY: I'm sorry to interrupt, but BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Scripte (11) Page 32 - Page 35

j PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LUIS REYES, CHAIRMAN IN RE:

March 28,1996 PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE Page 36 Page 38 j nj I just wanted to go back.When you were talking nj MR. WEISS: That all sounds good,but

m about Curve 8, and the question was whether or not pi when you talk to the resident inspectors three or '

4 p) he realized the significance of Curve 8 was p1 four times and they just don't care,I didn't think j pi knportant.Yes, Rob recognized that significance pj that the NRC was being much help, honestly.Who's

pi because obviously it reflected a difference from the gg in charge of the resident inspectors?

] te hydrogen bubble getting into the pump.But whether pj MR. LANDIS:I have authority over the m or not Cu;ve 8 was a design basis curve and m residentinspectors.

n represented something that significant,I think the p1 MR. WEISS: Are you happy with their j pi record is clea and Mr. Weiss is clear that they had in performance there?

j . pq no idea and no knowledge that by going overthat ng MR.LANDIS:Their performance is not j gin curve they had gone over the design basis curve. pq being discussed here',yours is.

pa Yes,the curve was significant,but they did not na MR. WEISS: I feel that it's relevant fl pq know that violating the curve was a design basis pq when you start criticizing me for not calling the

' 114) error. 04) NRC.

pq MR. LIEBERMAN: We accept that. na MR. LIEBERMAN: But we're aware of that MR. HENDRIX: It's interesting to note as pq issue.There's a lot ofissues we're aware of in

[,pq nn well that Florida Power Corporation apparently did pn this case and there's a number of different facets

. pq not report to the NRC for two months that the design pq Today we're here to talk with you about your -i i na basis had been exceeded even though it.was known pq performance.That's not to say we're not looking j pq almost immediately.We have some serious concerns pq ciscwhere.We want to understand yourviews,and I

) pn about the strategic decisions that have beeri made by su appreciate that this is a very significant issue to pa the company to massage the facts in a way that does pa you.But the goal today is to get information.

pa not openly deal with these issues. pa Hopefully we'll make the appropriate decision in 3 p4) I think what Mr. Weiss is trying to p4) this case. i

~

pq communicate is that he had already experienced pq  !

Page 37 Page 39

! gg that.He had already experienced their method of gy j pl management, and he had lost faith in the fact that g pi they wouldn't listen to him.They would not listen pi

! 'ej to him.

pj l :sj MR. WEISS: Let me point out something, gq

{ n We had given them problem report 94149.I think pi feel,tho' ugh,that while it '

l m data under the curve that I thought clearly showed m may be valid that maybe afterthe fact one could pi there was an approach and cross-curve,it looks

~

p) say,Well, you should have done this, you should

} n pretty obvious to me.We wrote that up in an pj have done this,you should have done this,but what pq official problem report and went through the whole pq we would like for you to do is to go back to the l pu official review cycle of a problem repott.It was nu moment at the time and to place yourselfin the I na assigned to engineering,and engineering in their na context in which they were operating with the i tia close-out basically just blew if off with a "Well, na problems they had already experienced internally n4) it looks to me like it's approaching zero." No n4) with management and judge them on that basis, not p.q serious analysis went into that at a!!.You want to pq today,after there's been plenty of thne to reflect -

pq talk about missed opportunities?There's a missed pq and consider and that sort of thing,but back at the on opportunity. ,

nn moment when they felt like they were dealing with a pq My perception at that point was anything ng serious safety issue that no one would listen to, pq under the curve was going to be dispositioned the pq that the company would not listen to.They were pq same way.They'll say,Well,we already looked at og beingignored.

pn this,but they're both approaching zero, case pg MR. LIEBERMAN: In that regard, close to pa closed. _

pa the time on September 18th Mr.Halnon wrote an pa MR.'LIEBERMAN: Why didn't you' cal 1 NRC pq e-mail.

g4) up? We're a telephone call away.You can give your 94j MR.LANDIS:I believe that was August psi name as you choose. RS) 18th.

Page 36 - Page'39 O2) Min-U-Scripte BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979

~ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

i Lb'ftla steue wamm uww wesa, unmswaan PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE March 28,1996 j

P;ge 40 PJge 42

- tu MR. LIEBERMAN

No, September 18th to Mr. gy curve,you would never exceed the curve after that.

l

- pi Fields.1 presume you're familiar with that gj MR. RICHARDS: You don't view Curve 8 at l p) document.Do you have a copy ofit? pi applying to draining down the system >You said you pi MR. WEISS: Is that the five excellence pj were putting together and using an approved I

19 document? sj procedure to conduct the evolution.Now you're at n MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes. I'd be interested pi the step where you're draining down the system.How m in your observation of that document. Do you think pi did Curve 8 apply to that part of the evolution in mi it was fair,is it accurate,or what are your views p) your mind?'

l pl on that document? pj MR. WEISS: It didn't.

pq MR. WEISS: I thought it was a pretty pq MR. DICKEY: Can he refer to the l . py good write-up of what happened.This was after the on operating procedure itself?

pa management review board,I believe. na MR. RICHARDS: I'm just asking him. He's pa) MR. LIEBERMAN:It was. pai telling me he's using various sections of the i pq MR. WEISS: He says that without a shadow pq procedure which you stated you're allowed to do, so pq of a doubt cmssed over the curve.That was after pq now you're at the step where you statt draining down i pa) the management review board.That was after Florida nel the make-up tank, pn Power had decided what they were going to do with pn MR. WEISS: If there had been a limit of ps) us.We had an approved procedure. paj precaution in OP-402 that said maintain make-up tank pel Let me put it this way.lfI could take pq pressure within the limits of OP-103, Curve 8,then l pq any section of OP402,which I'm allowed to use at pq it would not have been acceptable to have that )

l pq any time for anything. it's an approved operating p9 pressure to drift above the curve during pa procedure and I have the authority to do that,and pa drain-down.There was no limit of precaution during l pai if I can spring together any combination of those pal that event.The requirements of one section of a 1 i pq sections and create an unreviewed safety question, pq procedure just don't bleed over.You either have a I

psi then there's a question with 50.59 on OP402. psi procedure applicable to all the system or you don't.

Page 41 Page 43 i pl MR. GlBSON:Is there a device for ni MR. RICHARDS: Does it make sense for l pi draining the system' pi that curve to apply to hydrogen addition but not to l pi MR. GIBSON: The procedure doesn't pi drain-down?

pi require the reactor to be sht.t down. Do you feel pi MR. WEISS: It would make sense if the l si you can vent and drain the reactor coolant system at isi curve was correct.If the curve was correct we is power? _

pl would have never gone over the curve.

l pi MR. WEISS: That's why you don't have p1 M'R.RICHARDS: Then I come back to the i p) chimpanzees operating th& thing.We do have common p) original question.Does it make sense when you're si sense.Every procedure we use was an at power pi operating the system to have a curve that says this pq procedure.1 didn't do the draining the pump pq is acceptable region and for it to only apply when su s,wiWn, enhet,you know,because it was clearly on you're operating in a procedure for adding hydrogen na inappropriate.We felt that the sections we used na and for it not to apply when you're operating a 031 were appropriate for the operating conditions we psj different procedure with the same system that pq were in.They were used routinely.They were pq happens to be a'different part of an evolution?

p51 approved.We had the authority to use them. pq MR. WEISS: Does it rnake sense?

psi MR.RICHARDS: How did you view Curve 8 poi Personally,I would have put it in the limit of - ~

nn in relation to the procedure you were using? pn precautions.

ps) MR. WEISS: Curve 8 was referenced in the pai MR. RICHARDS: Personally, your opinion i

pq section in which we added hydrogen.When you add poi would be that it would apply, then? Is that what pq hydrogen it says refer to Curve 8, don't go over. pq you'ar saying?

pq It was not in the limits of precautions and pq MR. WEISS:It should have.

pa procedure, and I believe that the reason that is is na MR. RICHARDS:I agree.

psi because they assumed that the curve was right,and psi MR. WEISS

Ifit was correct it would pq if you did not put initial gas pressure overit, pq not have been violated.

psi since the curve was supposed.to be a system response pq MR. RICHARDS: That's a different issue.

BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Scripee 03) Page 40 - Page 43

~

PROOFFnINGS,BEFORE LUIS REYES, CHAIRMAN IN RE:

March 28,1996 PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE l Page 44

^

Page 46 pl MR. WEISS: I challenged the curve.Do pj MR.WEIS!II:Iwas doing an approved m you understand that? I did not violate the curve. 7 A procedure that had a 10 CFR 50.59 already done.

p) I put it in a challenge position and it failed.

pi MR. LANDIS:I'm trying to understand " l pj MR.LIEBERMAN: You were testing the-pj yourposition on the curve.The curves kre normally i isi curve,you were challenging it. I isj supposed to be established limitations,and they go, pj MR. WEISS: That's correct.I was is through a lot of rigorous review-m chilenging the curve. m MR. WEISS: Yeah,right.

• i im MR. LANDIS: Let rne make sure I pi MR.LANDIS:In this case the curve was pj understand.When you challenge the curve,does that {

' pj absciutely in error,as we find out,and evidently i

og me

n you have atsthority to go into the unacceptable ng you reviewed it on September 5th and found out also nu region of the curve? -

~~ ~

ng that there were sose wskEssle But curves are- I na MR. WEISS: No. na supposed to be established limits.As a pa MR. LANDIS: Did you go into the na consequence,when can you challenge and in that pq unacceptable region of that curve? nq challenge go to the unacceptabic side of a curve,an pq MR. WEISS: The system response of the ps; admW=mtive limit, or any other kind?

i pej make.up tank pulled it into the unacceptable region og MR. WEISS: Well,first of all,let me

! 'pn of the curve, proving that the curve was wrong. nn point out that this idea that the curves are these na MR. GIBSON: And when you realized it was ng sacrosanct limits was not what was going on at  %

pq in the unacceptable region, what was your response? pq Florida Power and probably stillisn't'If you take pq MR. WEISS:Ilet pressure come down 55 pq a look at their plant curve book,you'll find a ,

pg inches You want to know why? Because engineering pq whole bunch at the old power limit, curves they're pa was not. going to do anything unless we gave them ga operating now.Those curves are not. looked at as pa undeniable proof that their curve was wrong.They'd pa ironclad limits,and if they don't tell you that pq already shown that. Plant management was backing pq they're lying to you.

psi them to the hilt. i 4

psj The curves we saw as operating guidance. l Page 45 Page 47 4

p) MR. GIBSON:I'd like to hear your view p1 There are certain curves that you knew you would not

' A of.*he distinction between a design basis limit and a violate,like your rod index curves were obviously pi an administrative limit.You viewed 103B as an pj limits that you do not want to violate.In training

' pj administrative limiting curve;is that correct? p; it's, Here's the limit, here's conservatism, here's si MR.WEIS!i: Right.The design basis of g the actual design basis limit.This thing was just pj the plant is that point at which damage can occur if pi given to us as, Here's your make-up tank pressure

. m you're actually at, the limit, the design limit of m limit, operate to it.

l p1 the plant:An administrative limit is designed to pj ' Now,as far as a challenge,you know,I p) give you'a margin between the design basis limit and im guess I have to say this, that I thought that the

pq yournormaloperation.. nq only way to go this situation resolved from my ny MR. GlBSON

As a senior reactor ng perception at the time,and you weren't there on na operator, was it your urderstanding that you had the na midnight shift,you weren't there working with my pa latitude to violate or to exceed admuustrative -

nq management and my engineering, but my perception was pq limits? ng that the only way I was going to get this pq MR. WEISS: No, sir.As a senior reactor nq straightened out was to prove that curve was bad, -

na operator my understanding was that it was my duty to nq and I thought it was my duty to do that other than pn protect the health and safety of the public. nn to sit down, shut up and watch the board.

pa MR. GIBSON: I understand that,but that MR. LANDIS: Were there other methods to ns) na wasn't my question. ne do just what you described?

pq MR. WEISS: I understand that that wasn't pq ' MR. WEISS: My perception at the time was pu your question, but that's my answer.I took the pu that no,this was the last resort I had.

pa actions I thought were necessary to protect the pa MR. LANDIS: Were there any other pq health and safety of the public,and that's supposed pa methods?

pq to be your job,too. pq MR. WEISS:Inokirig back on it, pq MR.LANDIS: You were not in - psi obviously. I could have filed an allegation

. Page 44 - Page 47 (14) Min-U-Scripte BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979

__g,g__ , _ _- - - - - - - -

, ,; g,__ _ , ___

i PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE March 28,1996 Page 48 Pags 50

[tj tij l pi It's not perceived around the plant gj ,

4 pi as somethingitat would be a routine thing to do. pj l pi MR.HENDRIX: MayI have just a moment? p) (A recess was taken.)

(a What I'd like to do with your permission, and Rob [sj MR. GlBSON: Mr. Weiss,is there anything ,

pj said it would be all right is to ask him to step pj that you wanted to tell us that we haven't hit on so '

~

in outside the room for two or three minutes. In far? You maybe haven't had the time to reflect on p) MR. GIBSON: Would you prefer us to step pi it and think about that, but I want to make sure l p) out?

pi that,if there was some point you wanted to make tig MR. HENDRIX: No.I would like to share [iq sure you made and you haven't had an opportunity to titj soniething with y'all,and then I'll have him come )

tis') make it yet,that you had the tit ne to do.it before

' [irl right back in. lie ' said he's willing to waive his (12) we run out of time. l Itai presence forjust a few minutes. [isj MR. WEISS: Well,you know,let me just tig (A recess was taken.) (19 summarize it this way,okay? I was faced with what tig MR.HENDRIX tig I thought was a bad situa' tion, and I had a nuclear tisj tig safety concern.IJcensed operators had tried to l [in (in pursue it and management kept shutting them down, 1 tis) tig engineering was stonewalling them.I did what I ,.

i itsi tig perceived was my duty to protect the health and pq pq safety of the public.I didn't think I was doing pij pij anything dangerous or unapproved.And in fact,!

, pri p2; was not.

psi psi MR. GIBSON: Were you surprised by your pq pq management's reaction?

psi pq MR. WEISS: Yes, l

t

_. Page 49 Page 51 til l tij MR.GIBSON: Based on your prior 4

p) gj experience at Crystal River,you would have expected

^

pl pl some different response from your management? I pj . -

pj MR. WEISS: Yes,I would have.

is -

(s) MR. GIBSON: So you would have thought tel p1 that what you did was within their range of pj ~ '

in expectations for what you would have expected of an M , pl operator?

In tg MR. WEISS: Right.And in fact,I was

. tim -

tig congatulated by the plant manager the next l tiil tiij rnorning.He wrote his five excellence le'tter.This tirl tiri is obviously the kind of behavior they were looking tis) rist for and should be looking for in a senior licensed l'

11 4] tiq operator.You don't turn your back on a safety j tis) , tis concern and walk away from it because no one's j 11 81 Its listening to you. -

tit . tin MS. EVANS: Can you isolate a point in tia; tig time when their attitude changed,i.e.they were no

} 11 4 (se longer congmtulatory but something else?

l pq pq MR. WEISS: It was sometime between when j pi; pt) I wrote the problem report and when we had that PR p2) management review board.And I've heard storics ps psi about what happened to change that opinion,but it's P4 pq all hearsay.

E j

ps p pq MR. LANDIS:Is there criticism from the BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Scripte (15) Page 48 Page 51

PRO ('FFnINGS BEFORE LUIS REYES, CHAIRMAN IN RE: I March 28,1996 PREDECISIONAI. ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE I I

Page 52 Page 54 i pl licensce?They congratulated you for raising the nj and focus on that question. ,

l pi safety concern.Was there also some criticisnd - p3 MR. LANDIS: You've got it close.What I l pi MR. WEISS: Well,at the management p1 l'm saying is when you ran the evolution on the 4th  ;

pj review board a!! of a suddes this testing issue pi and 5th,but the 5th especially,did you expect the l l 1a raised its head.Now,this definition you have now isj curve,the pressure and level to go on the

! is) of a test,if that's what you want to live to, get non-conservative side or the unacceptable side of m that's fine, but I didn't have that definition m Curve 8?

! to availabic then.There's nothing in the CFR defining [sj MR. WEISS: I suspected it would because l (s) a test that I've ever seen. Ist I felt that the curve was. inaccurate. I pq MS. CLARK: Could you just cl'a rify a og MR. LANDIS: You said that you recognized

, n y little bit what your understanding was,what your nn 55 inches as a il'mit,that going on the left side'of

{

' pa tuthority was in terms of conducting a test,when na that you were going to need an appmved procedure, j psi you needed to get approval or- ps) Why wouldn't you recognize Curve 8 as the same

' pq MR. WEISS:I can tell you what we did to pq situation that you needed an approved procedure to j pq go on the other side? I l pq psi say thumb wethatneed I usedto write was a test do I have procedure.The a procedure to do ruleps)of MR. WEISS: IfI had planned to add l

vn what I'm doing. Everything in a nuclear plant has on hydrogen and drive the pressure above Curve 8 I I us to be done with an approved procedure.IfI have an pq would have said that's the same thing as going below poi approved procedure I'm okay. lfI'm going to go - poi 55 inches.What I planned to do was raise pressure pm outside the bounds of an approved procedure,then I pq to Curve 8 and then drop level.  !

pu pmbably need to write a test procedure to get a pn MR. LANDIS: So Curve 8 only applied when l pa 50.59 review on. pa adding hydrogen?  !

i pai MR. LANDIS: What do you mean, go outside paj MR. WEISS: Right,which is kind of a pq the bounds? pq technicalissue as far as usage of procedures goes.

pq MR. WEISS

1f I decided I wanted to take psj But the fact is that I did not make that pressure go Page 53 Page 55  !

in the make-up tank level to 20 inches, which is below pl over Curve 8. Inaccuracies in Curve 8 caused ni the normal level band of 55 to 86,then I would have ga pressure to exceed Curve 8.Now, you know,I think i pj felt I needed to write a procedure.so I would have pl you guys make a point that in one o'f the nights that

..ty written a new procedure to allow myself to do that. pl we overshot the curve when we were adding hydrogen, tsj MR. LANDIS: Let me make sure I get it is) If we did, that was inadvertent.We don't have a n clear.So you recognize the lower bound of 55 is) Curve. 8 scope.that we wat'ch. Basically you add

, m inches as'a boundary for which going on tiie left m hydmgen to a point'that you calculate off of a tsj side of that or on the lower side of that you would isj prbview curve,and if you overshoot a little bit the

[si have had to get an approved procedure? pj alarm comes in.There was no intent to do that, not MR. WEISS: Yes. pq MR. LANDIS: Did the alarms come in? l pq MR. LANDIS: Yet the upper Curve 8, upper no MR. WEISS: I believe on the 4th they  ;

pa bound going on the other side of that,to the na pmbably did,and maybe on the 5th.1 don't know.

psj unacceptable region,you did or did not need ps) It's been so long. looking at the graphs, when you no approved procedure for? ny first bring the hydrogen up,it was just a littic n,a MR. WEISS: I did not drive that pressure psi bit above and then comes back to the curve. _

nq to the unacceptable side of Curve 8.Do you pq MR. URYC: Could we go back to Ms.

pn understand that? na Clark's question about the testing?

l pq MR. DICKEY: Did they recognize the upper pq MS. CLARK: Bear with me here because I'm l poi limits of the curve were just the same that they poi not in engineering and you may have to explain a pq needed to go for a procedure? Mr. Weiss will pq little bit.You were talking about following

- py clarify that,but I think he said that's right,he pn written procedures.Now,it's my understanding that

, pa never interated that. Are you referring to on pa the written procedures that you were talking about

• l g3: September 4th when the pressure was raised and went psi were not for the purpose of obtaining information

' pq above the point of the curve? If that's what you're pq but for other purposes,in other words, adjusting psi specifically going to,I think we to address that psi the levels as necessary,but you were performing an Page 52 - Page 55 (16) Miss-U-Scripte BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979

LINLM LC9M UELW WMA%u mus)Wut% wm e

[ ,

L PREDECISIONAL ENPORCEMENT CONFERENCE March 281996 0

l Page 56 Pcge 58

( pl evolution in order to obtain test data. pj MR. LANDIS: Did you recognize when you .

I( p3 Was it your understanding that that was el reviewed that calculation that it was a design basis

, , p) okay,that that was part of your authority,those pi curve?

! p) procedures? p; MR. WEISS: No.

l is , MR. WEISS: Of course. p1' MR. LANDIS: So there was nothing in it pi MS, CLARK: You wouldn't require a test p) that said it was design basis?

l m procedure? , m MR. WEISS: There is a potential there,

[s1 MR. WEISS: Have any of you guys ever mi but the design basis is a pretty technical thing. .

l in operated a nuclear reactor? If you just have a set sq We have a licensing department that took two months i og of procedures to tell you everything you've got to pq to figure that one out.Was I supposed to do it

~

pq do,then it would be pretty easy to do it.You put 09 that night? . .

pa us through all this intensive training and stringent na MR.LANDIS: So you were comfortable that '

pai requirements to have judgment and inquiring minds val your evaluation that day of that curve was pq and look into things like this. lfI stroke a valve pq sufficient to allow any operation m the ,

psi and I go, Gee,that seemed kind of slow,well,make og unacceptable region at least for a certain distance nel I'll restieke it, pull the SP and say okay, what psi to be okay?

on should the stroke time be,restroke it and say okay, pn MR. WEISS: Once again,if you put l psi it is outside of what it should be.Do you not want pg 'makesp tank pressure to 86 inches or anywhere at og rrie to do that? Because I guarantee you,you stick pq any level on the curve, and we were being told to do pq to this definition of a test and you're going to pq that by management,they were insisting on it.in  ;

pq have a lot of allegations based on that. pq fact,they were threatening to fire peopic if they )

na MR.GlBSON:What has the practice at pa didn't.If you did that,you were exactly where we ,

pai Crystal River been with regard to conducting tests psi were that night. All you had to do was have the i pq of this nature? pq IOCA.You'd already set up all the preconditions to l psi MR. WEISS: Of this nature? It's kind of pq draw the same curve we drew.The only difference ]

Page 57 Page 59 p; a unique thing that we did,I think.We'd never p) was you weren't ready for it and you didn't know gj been faced with a situation of having a bad curve, p) it.The curve was bad.

L p; and no one would listen to us before.We used our pi MR. GIBSON: Mr. Weiss, do you understand ri best judgment,and we said,Well,what can we y) that the computer data showed that when you added 5~

is; legally do to try and get this resolved.Now we [q hydrogen you exceeded the curve,you met the pi have a lot of peopic looking back on our judgment pi condition for the alarm to come in, and remained m saying everyttiihg that we should have done. m above the curve for the duration of the test?

pi MR.GlBSON: As you look liack on your pi M9. WEISS: Which night are we talking  !

L a judgment,and I realize that's probably difficult to (q about?

j, pq do,conridering all that you've been through,would og MR.GIBSON: Both nights. ,

l pq you de it d ffereritly? pq MR. WEISS: No.1 thought that the i- pa) - MR. WEISS: Well, obviously knowing what na computer data showed we got back to the curve before psi I know now I'd write an allegation.That was not ps) we did the level drop. i pq obvious to me then.I will say this.I don't think pq MR.GIBSON:You're correct.On the 5th,

- pq I did anything wrong on the 4th or the 5th,and I'm pq I believe,you got back to the curve for a period of ps) proud of the fact that i took action to resolve the pet one minute before you lowered the level. -

l ~ pn safety concern. na MR. WEISS: And we're driving by the ~

! pq MR. REYES: Are there any more nel control board instruments, right?

l pq questiom? Let's make sure that we've gotten Mr. pej MR.GIBSON:I presume that you were.

pg . Weiss's views and any questions we have, pq But I aho presume that you were aware that the

pq MR. LANDIS

Let me ask one further one. pq alarm would sound based upon the computer indication i ga You reviewed the calculation for Curve 8 on pa that you were above the curve.

! pai september 5th prior to doing the evolution that psi MR. WEISS: Yes.

l pq night. 'pq MR. GIBSON: And you're correct that on I psi MR. WEISS: Correct. pq September the 5th you added hydrogen to a point BROWN REPORTING,'INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Scripte (17) Page 56 - Page 59

- PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LUIS REYES, CHAIRMAN IN RE:

l March 28,1996 PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE l

Page 60 Page 62 l vi above the curve when the alarm conditions existed pl serious implications.

pl but that the alarm cleared before you began to pi MR. RICHARDS: But you recognize you were p) reduce level. p1 exiting the envelope that was defined,that you made pj MR. WEISS: Right.

81 a conscious decision to continue.

is MR. GlBSON: On September the 5th.On si MR. WEISS: That's correct,because i im September the 4th the alarm did not go up. p) otherwise I didn't think we would get this curve m MR. WEISS: And you're basing that on m fixed and we would continue to operate with a bad pl what? pj curve,and in the interest of nuclear safety I

( pi MR. GlBSON: On the data from the plant ta thought it was the thing to do.

l pa computer, , pq ' MR. LANDIS:Ixt me make it clear.So l'pq MR. WEISS: How far away from the curve 09 you fully stispected that that curve was wrong and prj were we before we started to reduce level? 02) that operating on or near that curve was dangerous?

, psi MR.GIBSON: 45 minutes,about 25 minutes MR. WEISS: Let's bear in mind that I had ns)

04) or so into the event. All I have is data.The og been forcefully reassured by my management and by pq riarm pressure was 32.33 and the actual pressure was nq engineering that the curve was right.My management ps) 32.38. ps) and my engineering department had told me that ifI

! pn MR. WEISS: So you're saying that you nn put it on the curve and drop levelit's going to

, psi know the alarm was in because the computer point psi follow it down.Not in those words, but they said l poi indicates .05 pounds above the limit? poi that curve was right, accurate and reasonably i pq MR.GlBSON: Right. pq conservative.IfI had been wrong it would have l pq MR. WEISS: You're that confident in the 99 never crossed the curve.I was not wrong.

p2) calibration of their equipment? pai Therefore, we had a serious nuclear safety problem pai MR. GIBSON: I can only presume that when ps) that was not being addressed and I didn't think pq the alarm conditions are met that the alarm sounds, p4) would be addressed without a complete set of data, as MR. WEISS: I think that when you get - pq MR. DICKEY:I'd like to point out also

~

Page 61 Page 63 l .p1 down to .05 you're definitely in an area where vi that during their normal operation, and you can ask p) calibration accuracy can affect you.My p) them where they maintained the plant,and they never pi recollection is we had the alarm cleared before we p) maintained it anywhere close to Curve 8 because they l ..e) started the level decrease cach time,but that is a pj were afraid to.They didn't think it was necessary

[q recollection from quite a while ago, is to do so and they didn't think it was proper

a MR. RICHARDS

You talked about tnining pi procedure to do so.Outside of these two events p) and how you operate the plant'.Lthink one of the m they never ran that pl' ant near those limits because i

~p; questions we have is,that a basic principle of pl of their concerns.

i p) operating the plant is that the plant establishes an pl MR. LANDIS: That's the issue.You pq envelope to operate within.We've been kind of nq didn't operate near the curve because -

pu talking around this,but it appears that the level pn MR. WEISS

We had doubts about the nel was the upper and lower limit of the tank level and nzi curve.

ps) then Curve 8.You mentioned that the system drew ns) MR. LANDIS: And yet in these conditions

! pq the curve when you drew the tank down.I guess it pq on the 4th and the 5th you went up to the curve and j p,q would be my view that as you were drawing the tank De then performed an evolution. -

l pq down you recognized that you were going to go nei MR. WEISS: We previously complied with l pn outside the envelope that was defined that night, nn the commands of senior management and put make-up l

paj MR. WEISS: We recognized that it had ps) pressure at the curve,and then we challenged the ps) gone above the curve when the alarm came in on the pq curve by dropping level.

pq way down. pq MR. LIEBERMAN: I had one question about pq MR.RICHARDS: So why didn't you pu the shift manager and whether you recall whether you p21 ternunate the event? pri discussed this with the shift manager and,if you ps) MR. WEISS: Because,in my opinion, the ps) did,what he said,and if you didn't discuss it with pq larger nuclear safety issue was to get the curve pq the shift manager,why you did not discuss it with psi repaired.If the curve was wrong,then that had pq the shift manager.

Page 60,- Page 63 (18) Min-U-Scripte BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 l

i

uMLM b( g o m m a gte m m umw w.30ew e m unsu m PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE March 28,1996 '

Poge 64 Page 66 pi MR. WEISS: We didn't think that it was - pj MR. GIBSON: Did you suggest to anyone at

' p) that big a deal, to be quite honest.We were using pi the station that a test be run? Did you suggest to i

pi appmved procedures to do some routine stuff with pj engineering or to your management that a test be pj the make-up tank that we do all the tirne.1 think, p; conducted?

gg looking back on it,I wish we had talked to the mi MR. WEISS: Well,SP430,let's be frank, p) shift manager about it, not that I think that would . pi was really ugly because we had what appeared to bc l m have made any real difference.Everyone's talking m cavitation in the HPI pumps.We were runnmg a DK wi like the shift manager would have saved the day p1 heat pump and recert per a different survelhance pi here. Probably the best you're looking at could pi procedure at the same time.it was later attributed ne happen is he'd have stopped us doing it,you'd still pq to air in the lines,but we heverwent back to make ,

on be outside the design basis,and you'd still be as 09 sure of that.The concern'is with the additional l pa happy as anything. Da recert flow.Maybe there's a problem with the MPSH ]

psi Again,I've got to ask. Is it the NRC's vai when you it a full flow in all pumps, and I thought ,

pq position that this rather had not have happened? pq we should have gone back, rerun it and made sure l psi Would you have rather 1 just shut up and watched the ps) that was not it. i l ps) . board? pai My understanding is they're trying to l pn MR. LIEBERMAN:We would have rather you un weasel out on it this outage.I suggested that they pai raised the issue either further in the company or to pai run that test,and I was shut down because it was pq the NRC. pq slowdown and outage at the time.This specific pq MR. WEISS: Well,you weren't there where . pq test, no,I didn't bring it up.We were totally pq I was.You didn't see things th'c way I saw them pn within the area we were authorized to do, norrnal na that night,and my perception was,This is it guys, ga operating procedures.

[ pai if we don't show this curve is wrong,it's closed paj MR. URYC: How long did your crew operate i

pq and we're going to be forced to operate to it pq in the acceptable region? I thought I heard you say psi against our better judgment. pq that you stayed well within that curve except on Page 65 Page 67 I MR. RAPP: Mr. Weiss, what.gave you that pj vi these two occasions.

pi perception? pi MR. WEISS: In the acceptable region?

p) MR. WEISS: Two things, basically. First pj MR. URYC: Yes.

pj of all,a lot of operators had noticed that the pi MR. WEISS: Well, normally we would come p1 response in the level decrease was pressure getting pi in and the last shift would have it right up there l pi nearer the curve.That was common knowledge out pl nestling by the curve. And Mark,who was kind of a l m there.We ran SP430,and this is like during an m lead with the safety concern,would come to either pi actual- it's a lot closer on ICCS actuation.

i .

pj me or Dave and say, Hey,they've got it up by the pl You're sucking down the tank the sarne speed.We pi curve,do you mind if we blow it down,and we'd say,

.pq were under the curve,and I thought the, data clearly pq No,blo'w it down,and we'd vent the make-up tank, l- pu showed that it was approaching and was going to pq which is a pain in the butt, going through that much pa cross the curve. And that was not taken seriously. Da trouble just to get it back down.

paj lt was blown off without analysis by the engineering pai ^ MR. URYC: How long did you do that? Six pq department. pq months,cight months,a year?

nsi Now,we had lots of good indications that pq MR. WEISS: I dont know.Six months pq that curve was wrong,and no one was taking it pq maybe.1 don't know. -

nn seriously.Nobody was looking seriously into it pn MR. URYC: So what kind of heat were you j pel because,as Pat says,the vice president wanted his paj getting from management during that six month period pq 25 cc's per kg.That was his direction.He was pq when you guys would keep that curve -

l pq pounding the table and he wanted it.lf you look at pq MR. WEISS: Well,it wasn't too bad at j pu it,they're getting the 25 cc's per kg now because pu first, but then they started - you know, more and pa you have to violate the design basis.lf you look ga more pressure was coming down from the Pat Beard

pai at the new curve and what we've been running.I paj level. Chemistry would report to him we aren't pq don't think you can do it anymore.I think you can pq getting our 25 cc's per kg and he started having l pq hit about 20. p51 chemistry track it hourly so we could identify which BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Scripte (19) Page 64 - Page 67 L

PROcFEnINGS BEFORE LUIS REYES, CHAIRMAN IN RE:

March 28,1996 PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE Page 68 Page 70.

pl shifts were not complying with his directive.And pj MR. LIEBERMAN: Had it gone up to the pl we heard stories about his pounding the table and pi plant manager,Mr.Hickle?

p) threatening to fire Mark if it wasn't operating the pi MR. WEISS: I don't know.

p: way it was supposed to. It was getting to be a real pi MR. RICHARDS: I understood there were ta unc:mfortable simation. gg some di==lans that came out in May. Do you know im MR. URYC: Who was making it [q the highest level of engineering management that was m uncomfortable for you and your crew? Was it Halnon, i pi nvolved?

te or did Pat Beard come and talk to you? pi MR. WEISS: Well,the manager of systems pi MR. WEISS: DaveJones was the acting [q engineering signed the September 2nd letter. ,

pq Hain'on.He would put e-mail out saying maximize pq MR. DICKEY: Which is directed to Mr.

pq pressure,opente io the curve.We had heard once pq HicklE

~

pa Pat Beard told Halnon to go up there and get these na MR. WEISS:It's not like it wasn't pa operators straightened out,and he once threatened pa commonknowledgeeverywhereinthemanagementchain pq to ilre Mark if he wouldn't put it to the curve. pq that there were opentors that had concerns about i est Personally,I had a man on my crew,he wasn't on the pq this curve.This is no secret.

• pa crew at the time of the tests but cariier he was. pq MR. RICHARDS: Did you participate in any un His name md he was the one who on of the meetings with engineering to discuss it?

pa probably had the concerns"irrt.He had other psi MR. WEISS: Mostly aAer September 5th. < l pa concerns like Appendix R concerns and stuff. pq That's kind of where I really got involved in the pq But basically they just hammered him. pq issue,in the interpretation of the data and dealing pq They kept forcing him,once he got on a different pq with it afterwards,wnting the problem report,that l pa crew,to put it to the curve,and once he did it he pa sort of thing. ,

pa finally gave up and said,I give up,I'll give it a pai MR.'URYC:Was Mr. van Sicklen part of pq thousand pounds a tank if you want to.I know he pq yourcrew?

psi was a good, dedicated opentor,and they had just pq . MR. WEISS

He was my chief operator.I Page 69 Page 71 n; ruined him.You know,they forced him to do pl was his assistant nuclear shift supervisor.

pi something that he thought was unsafe to the point pi MR.URYC: But you were his manager?

pi where he thought,Oh,well if you don't care,I pi MR. WEISS: Yes.

.8) don't. pj MR.URYC: And you knew he was pursuing eq And I felt asharned of my management.I'm ga this concern?

,pi a part of management and I think as an SRO it's my pi MR. WEISS: Yes.

p3 51uty to listen to the concerns oflicensed opentors 'pi , M,R.URYC: And he was having a difficult pi an'd to niake sure something gets done if theylook te time getting it through?

p3 like valid concerns. I've been just trying to do my pi MR. WEISS! Right.

pq job'and duty as I perceive it as I've been told by pq MR.URYC: Did you pick up on that as his pq the NRC a number of times about nuclear safety. pq manager and pursue that?

pa Well,I'm here. na MR. WEISS: Yes.That's why I'm here, psi MR. LIEBERM AN: Did your training teach psi guys.

pq you or suggest to you that when you had an issue you pq MR.URYC: But you're telling us your p,q should be escalating issues? pq pickup was to challenge the curve. -

na MR. WEISS: Well,I thought we had been pq MR. DICKEY: His pickup was to do the pn pretty much doing that.It wasn't like we just on homework first,and that's what they did,and those na ignored it.We pursued it upward through management usi evolutions were to gather the homework first and go na and we pursued it through the NRC residents. pq through it and say in order to do so we need our pq MR. LIEBERMAN: How high through company pq homework, we need to show them I'm not sure this py management did you pursue it? pq curve is wrong,but I need my homework to show you pa MR. WEISS: I did not go up the company pa guys that yes,it is wrong,so we followed approved paj management chain. Mark was taking the lead.He'd ps) procedures and just wrote down how does the system pq talked to engineering.I believe Mark had talked to pq react.

pq Halnon. psi MR.URYC:What is the homework?

Page 68 - Page 71 (20) Min-U-Scripts BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979

[ lbRte tRawuuummmmvwe a.t>as ar.: r.s, umanum PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE March 28,1996 P ge 72 Pege 74 p1 Challenging the curve,is that the homework? pj because they saw the same response we did day after y p3 MR. WEISS: The homework is trying to al day.

( pi figure out - we were hitting this brick wall called pi MR. REYES: 1.ct me suggest something.

pj "you ain't an engineer."The engineers were all 81 We've been here for an hour and a half. I think isi nodding saying yes, sir, yes, sir, three bags full. Isi it's appmpriate to take a five or ten minute break p) the curve is right, the curve is right. Any time Iq and make sure if we have any questions left and make 7 m we'd raise an issue,all they had to do was use m sure that within the time allotted we inquire from p) engineering judgment and it was gone.We had to tej you any other information we need.'I.et's close the pi give them something objective or we were not going pirecord.

pq to be listened to,and'that's a fact. pq (A recess was taken.)

! 09 MR. LIEBERMAN: But you were not hitting - on MR. REYES: We're opening back the l pa the brick wall, Mr. van Sickle was hitting the brick on pmceedings.We have one more question, Kerry's psi wall.You were a member of management.I gather psi going to ask that question, and then we'll give you pq you did not attempt to run interference with other pq the opportunity for closing remarks.

psj managers to get this issue raised to the right level psi MR. LANDIS: Rob,you were discussing j pe) to get it' addressed properly.Is that a fair sq with us that you were pressured to operate on the l

pn statement? pn curve.Do you have any objective evidence to i paj MR. WEISS: looking back on it,I wish I pej indicate that people were pressing you to operate on i pq had taken a much more active role in this thing. pq tha't curve.

pq Some ofit would have been duplication. Basically, pq MR. WEISS: Well,we have the e-mail 99 van Sicklen was taking the lead and going to the pq messages that were sent out.

pa meetings and I was supponing him when he needed pa MR. LANDIS: What did they say?

l pai support. I wish I had just stomped into the plant ps) MR. HENDRIX: We had fiicd a Department pq manager's office and made a scene,but,you know, pq of Labor complaint,and we attached all the l ps) that was then and this is now. It's real casy to psj exhibits if yeu have those exhibits,then the Page 73 Page 75 l .

l pj look back and say what I should have done.1 had to p3 e-mail messages -

p) deal with what I was perceiving in the environment I pj MR. LANDIS: I don't have them here with pi was working in. pl me.lf you could just refer to them,that would be

! p) MS. EVANS:And I think you said you knew pj fine. l l ist Mr. Beard was insisting on this,so would it have tsj MR. HENDRIX: Of course that's just hard I

( is been practical that Mr.Hickle or someone else would pl copy evidence.As he's stated,all the operators

! m have taken up this challenge? m were discussing it.Everybody knew what the in f MR. WEISS: These guys fvere just doing tel expectations were,25 cc's per kg,that's'what you pi what Beard said.If we'd had a decent management I pj wilj do,and it was sort of common knowledge,which pq wouldn't have been put in this situation. pq is why they were so concerned,the fact that they pq MR. RICHARDS: What was Greg Halnon or on had their concerns based on that pressure.lf therc

! pa the acting individual? pa was no such pressure,they would have not had the pai . MR. WEISS: Greg Halnon was the director psi pressure to try to do something about it.

94 of nuclear plant operations,and he was supporting pq MR. LANDIS: There's no cc per kg meter

! psi our goals but not as actively as I would have pq up there obviously that's a chemistry sample.How pq liked.He knew that we had the concerns,but when pq did that get translated into how you were to operate -

on engineering would come back and say,No,you don't na that make-up tank?

pq have a concern,it seemed like it just kind of pai MR. WEISS: When they start taking that

, na died.It was like he didn't believe in our concerns pq sample on an hourly basis they can tell which shift

! pq as much as we did,I guess is what I'm trying to pq is not keeping the pressure up,which they could

] pu say.He didn't sit there day after day on that 90 have also got from the readouts looking at the

! pa control board and watch the behavior of the system pa pressures,but that's how they chose to do it was pai and have it staring him in the face that we're paj just to do hourly samples.There's no reason to do pq operating to the curve. And I think probably most pq that other than trying to narrow down who's doing it psi of the crews out there knew that curve was bogus usi and who's not.

BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Mim-U-Scripte (21) Page 72 - Page 75 i

1

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LUIS REYES, CHAIRMAN ,

IN RE:

l ' March 28,1996 PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE

, Page 76 Page 78 v1 MR. LANDIS: Did people specifically tell oj intending to violate the curve.That wasn't our ,

l p) you to operate on the curve? pi goal.Our goal was to challenge the curve and see

, ni MR. WEISS: Let me go over these pi ifit was correct.

pi e-mails.I've got one e-mail from Dave Jones,who pj MR. LIEBERMAN: One last question.Were

~

ts) tt the time was the acting manager of nuclear ops. Ist you ever personally criticized by your management tel The subject is hot topics. Following are some of tel for where you operated near the curve prior to l m today's, Monday,627. m September 4th?You stated that -

gej MR. URYC: We're going to have difficulty tai MR. WEISS: Not directly.I think pl transcribing- in probably my supervisor, Dave Ficids, dealt directly ng MR. DICKEY: We'll be happy to attach a pq with the pressures from liigher supervision. I'm i 09 copy of this. 99 kind of one' level down fr'om Dave and I kind of hear pa MR. WEISS: The first one is Exhibit No. na it from Dave.Sometunes they come directly to the l pal 4,and it's the HotTopics e-mail dated 627 psi board operator and talk to them.

pq MR. LANDIS

Let me help just for a v4) MR. LIEBERMAN: But as to you personally, i psi moment here. I'm familiar with that, and I think ps! no one spoke to you directly other than Mr. Fields?

pel there's one or two others that refer to the top of pal MR. WEISS: Well,I received these l pn the operating band.What did you interpret the band py e. mails that said operate to the curve.This one ,

pa) to be and what did that mean to you? pai e-mail says parameters are being tracked closely and poi MR. WEISS: Well, the operating band is nel plotted, hourly data points from data by chenustry t pq' the allowable operating region under Curve 8,and pq There's only one reason to do that.They're putting pq right in the top of that is Curve 8 if everything an us on notice that they're looking at it.They're pa under Curve 8 is an acceptable operating region. pa looking to see who's doing it and who's not.

pat MR. LANDIS: That's allI wanted to pai MR. REYES: Any closing remarks? Is i

pq know.The real question I was asking was did p4) there any information you feel we need to know that ps) anybody tell you to go up to the curve and stay on psj we have not discussed in the last couple of hours?

Page 77 Page 79 i p1 the curve. vi MR. HENDRIX: I would just like to make a ni MR. WEISS:I think these e-mails are p1 few comments.I've thought about this issue quite a p) doing that.Plus,beyond these e-mails these guys p) bit in terms of the information that I put in my

.pj would come to the control room,the operations pi letter to you which you've seen, and I quoted from isi manager,the plant manager, Pat Beard would come to Is) some reports. I'm not going to repeat what I wrote n the control room and they'd all ask where is the . is) to you and what you have to study, but I thought of I

m make-up tank pressure, right up at the top of the m an analogy that may help. It may not,but it sort isi curve.1 don't have documentation of that.All is) of simplifies it in my mind.

p1 Ive got is e-mails that were sent out in writing, pi IfI have a lady that I hired to take pq but there was consistent pressure to maintain pq care of mifive year old son during the day and I pu make-up tank pressure as high as possible. On don't want her to smoke around my son and I told her na Kerry,you seem to be real concerned,I pa that I don't want her to smoke around my son,ifI psi think,with the fact that we went over the curve psj came home today and my son was taking a nap and i no during the course of this evolution.I'd just like pq she's in the back yard smoking,I could fire her for psj to stress to you that all we did was exactly what we psi smoking on my property.But would she understand _

ps) were being told to do by our management.We put pej that she would be subject to being fired? Well, l vn make-up tank pressure to the curve.We were being on what you may think is a reasonable interpretation to l pe) told to do that by our management. pel believe is that as long as she went outside to smoke pej We used an approved procedure to lower vel that it would be all right as long as she didn't pq make-up tank level.We're allowed to do that by the pq smoke right around my son,and I think we've got un approval of the operating procedure.That's what 99 sort of a similar situation here.

pa caused pressure to go over Curve 8.lf the curve pa These people,the guidance they got in pal had been correct it would not have gone over Curve pai the procedures,and now we've sort of dissected them l pq 8.There was no intentional"I just think I'll pq and looked at them,but they were bound by l pst drive it over the curve today

• We weren't ps) procedures and they followed these procedures.We Page 76 - Page 79 (22) Min-U-Scripte BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979

r tNLs vts -memmummom.m,umm.

PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE March 28,1996 l

Page 80 Pcge 82 p) now know that these procedures were very p1 don't think it's fair what's happened to these men.

g gi inadequate.Many of them apparently have been p1 IfI might,I'll just share one thing p1 rewritten.That's what they had to deal with,and pl with you that you don't know about.Ngone knows pi it's sort oflike they were operating here but now pi about it except me and my clients andBerald Is) after the fact they should have been operating here tsj Williambho's new deceased.When fwas first a based on the definition of this test. p1 hired bDese men to represent them inJuly 1995,I m As you've seen in my letter to you and as a was retained for that purpose,to represent them at

! e) you review it again, there's a lot of criticism of tsj the predecisional enforcement conference. And when pi the procedures not delineating when an existing tm I flew down toTampa my clients were told in my poi evolution would become a test or might constitute a voi presence,Here's a joint defense agreement;if y'ou pij test and that sort of thing.lf the procedures had vij don't agree to sign a joint defense agreement with na been more precise these gentlemen would have na the company,we're going to put Mr.Hendrix back on 1 l . psi followed them.lf the procedures had said,Before ps) the plane to Atlanta.

pq you do something,an infrequent evolution or pq What does that tell you about this ps) whatever,you must talk to NRC,a shift manager,an pst company? And they didn't do that. And then the nel STA,they would have done that.They followed the ps) company said,Well, okay, we've talked about it,

, on book.In fa,

• hey even discussed among on will give you the lawyer anyway.Now,at the very l

ps) themselves, Are we within procedure.They discussed ps) beginning they were on notice.You're expected to poi that.That shows that they were doing what's pq play team ball and,if you don't,we're going to put moi expected of them to see if they're within poi the lawyer back on the plane and not give you a l pu procedure, Had they not been within procedure they d I

pn lawyer.Do you understand?The4 'idn't do it.I pa would not have attempted to do what they did.At pa was there.They tol l m not going to paj least that's what they felt.

r.Willian3 paj sign that piece of r, we want our lawyer to be l pq We now know that there were so many pq independent of the company because we don't have a psj loopholes in these procedures that perhaps the ps) tot of trust in the company at this point. l Page 81 Page 83 p) procedures should not have had the flexibility to do p) Why did they not have the trust? Is it I p) what was done, and that's apparently the message p1 their fault? Why did management have that kind of pi we're getting loud and clear today,that maybe you pi relationship with these men who are supposed to be pj shouldn't have that flexibility.The procedures p) part of management? Of course my services have been tsj gave them the authorization to do everything that (si terminated by the company today.We're still at the

! n they did,and you've heard the rationale that they p) predecisional enforcement conference that I was

! m had to do what they did for valid saf'ety reasons m originally retained for,but as soon as we began

) si since no one would listen'to them.In fact, not pl making any kind of allegation that was not favorable l pl only would they not listen to them,they were pi to the company I was terminated. I'm not being

. poi demanding that they do the exact opposite.The pm paid.These people are unemployed.They can't pay l pq e-mails are proof no one was listening to them,no on me.The company has seen to it that they can't pay l pa one.They were telling them the opposite. na me, nor is the company paying me. And that's what I osi So I'd just say on hindsight it's one psi was hired to do, represent them here today.

pq thing to judge them,but we hope you'll put pq What does that tell you gentlemen about psi yourselves in their shoes at the time.Maybe they us) this company? I think you can see this whole l

pai should have done some things differently.We could ps) mentality of management from beginning to end where

( pn all say that,but they believe they were acting in on they've never really sat down and listened to these pai good faith. And I think my analogy about the lady not men and talked to these men,and that is why they l

pq who works for me,ifI fired her,I don't think it pq were in the position they were in way back when.

pq would be right because she would not have valid poi And unfortunately I see no change in pn notice of the interpretation today of what I'd pn management.If anything,it seems to have gotten pd previously told her.Herinterpretation of what I pa worse the way they've treated these men.And you ps) told her permitted her to do what she wanted to do, pai can criticize these men,I suppose,in hindsight, pq and yet she gets fired. Is that fair? I say it's pq but I think if you do so you're changing the l ps) not fair.And you've got my letter to read.I just 1251 boundaries a little bit on them,and I guess that's l

l BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 - Min-U-Scripts (23) Page 80 - Page 83 l

l

PROCEEDINGS CEFORE LUIS REYES, CHAIRMAN IN RE:

March 28,1996 PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE I

Page 84 Page 86 l vi the way I'd sum it up.I don't know if you want to tu going to pay,and of course they're not paying, and i- pi add anything, Dave or Rob. p) one reason I suspect is because these men are j pi MR, LIEBERMAN: Could I follow up on one pi speaking out against management and we're not p) thing you said, Mr.Hendrix? You brought up the. p) serving ourselves up as the company wanted us to )

Isl issue of the joint defense agreement.Can you share si do.It was all our fault,we were wrong, management i to with us the terms of this joint defense agreement? Ist was not,everything that happened here was as a {

l m MR. HENDRIX: Well,a joint defense m result of our ertors.That's what initially the tai agreement is a common device.There's nothing tal company was communicating they wamed these l m nefarious about it.It's used all the time by ,

pi gentlemen to do,and when they didn't do it the  ;

.pq lawyers to share information in a case. And one pq relationship soured.

on reason you enter into it is you don't want to 09 MR. WEISS: Could 1 make a quick comment na inadvertently violate a privilege. lf you're va here? Dave and I had a copy of this the day before pai working together on a common case and an attorney us) we read over it,and I'm not a lawyer but I thought )

' pq shares with you something that he's received from pq some of the language in there could have hindered my l

, psi his or her client,you want to be able to have free psi ability to use information that I had to file pq and open discussion without someone violating a ps) allegations or to file a whistle-blower complaint if l pn valid attorney client privilege. Courts have on this thing went the way it sure looked like it was l ps) recognized all over this country that these are pq headed.I thought,by signing that,that anything l pq valid joint defense agreements designed to make sure poi the company shared with me I would be unable to )

pq that there is not an inadvertent attorney-client pq share any further,and that's why I refused to sign l

l pu privilege disclosilre. '

99 it.

pa I have no problem entering into joint sa MR. HENDRIX:I had the company dump on l pa) Elefense agreements,but I do when there's a gun to ps) me a pile of privileged documents and then saying, l pq my head that you must sign it.It's not an option. pq You can't use them now.I would have been muzzled,

! ps) You must sign it or your services will not be ps) you see,because that's what the joint defense Page 85 Page 87 l to retained.It is a voluntary mechanism.In other to agreement says.If someone shares with you pl words, even if you're a member of such a joint pi privileged information you agree not to use it.We pi defense agreement you're under no obligation to pl were not in a position to sign that because we did l ..ty share privileged information, nor is the other side si not want to be muzzled by having stuff dumped on us pi under any obligation to share it with you.The ts) to shut us up, so when we didn't sign it the first l pi agreement merely says that if we do share- isi statement made was,Well,we're just not going to be

! m confidential attorney-client priviacged information m able to pay your fe'es. And that was a bluff

~

i pi you agree,by virtue of this joint agreement,that to initiaUy,trying to force them to sign.We didn't l pi we will jointly protect one another's privileges. p) go with it because I advised them not to sign, and i pq But_ you're under no obligation. pq they didn't want to sign anyway.Then later on,as pq The message I received was,You're going pq you've seen, my services were terminated.

! pa to be under an obligation,and if you don't agree to na MR. LIEBERMAN: But they did pay you psi abide by it we're not going to pay for you. pai initially?

l pq MR. LIEBERMAN: .But there's nothing in pq MR. HENDRIX:Yes.

pq that particular agreement that would restrict your sq MS. CLARK: There was one other thing I _

poi ability to make arguments,to take positions that psi just wanted to clarify.You referred to procedures on may be inconsistent with - on regarding infrequently performed tests, and I don't pq MR. HENDRIX: That was the implicit pai think we had covered that before.I'm looking at a pq suggestion when they linked my even being paid to poi checklist.Were you aware of this checklist?

pq whether l'rn going to be retained or not as to pq MR. DICKEY: For the record,can you 99 whether I will sign it.They said'You must sign pg. identify the checklist?

pa this agreement.Now,any lawyer in any. case has a pa MS. CLARK: Al-400B, and it's entitled pal right to sign it or not sign it as he deems - pal Infrequently PerformedTest for Evolution Checklist.

i p,y appropriate,and we deemed it appropriate not to pq MR. DICKEY:Would you like to see it psi before you answer?

l psi sign it. As soon as we said that,Well, we're not f

l Page 84 - Page 87 (24) Min-U-Scripte BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 i

11JLia vLsem wvermeeumunaea,uummum

[ ,

l- PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE March 28,1996 Ppp pip e p; MR. WEISS: I'm familiar with it. First nj MR. WEISS: One,the shift supervisor was r gi of all,you only do that checklist if you're writing m afraid of getting fired,and that's one of the pj a new procedure.This isn't something that would be p1 reasons he continued with the test.Two,that test

, , si done when you're going to use an approved procedure pi was fully approved by plant management and was being pi to do something.Also,the procedure sections that pi pushed by plant management,and three,the test had p3 we were using are not infrequently performed. pl been reported to the regulatory agency and,they m They're very routinely performed sections of m dropped the ball on it.We've learned all the wrong isi OP-402. Isl lessons from Chernobyl.We learned this vague,Oh, m MS. CLARK: Were you aware that this pi tests blow up reactor things, which is just l pq calls for supervisory approval under this form,that sq sophomoric.It's stupid. l on it provides for supervisory approval for pq What we should have learned is that na infrequently performed tests or evolutions? pa oppressive management is unsafe.W'c stiould have pai , MR. WEISS: Yes,but we didn't meet the pai learned that you don't do business the way you do it p41 criteria that form requires.First of all,we 04) in the Soviet Union.That's why you guys are here, psj weren't in a situation that required the form,and ps) I shouldn't have to worry about being fired because pej second of all,we didn't meet the criteria forit. psi in my judgment it's unsafe to operate to a curve, on MR. HENDRIX:It's not applicable to pn I'm charged with the safety of that nuclear reactor, pej and it's not just,You're going to follow this

~

poi these facts.Had management felt that such criteria voi should be applicable to this situation they should poi little menu.You didn't just license me from the pq have so stated.In the NRC itself no guidance was pq neck down,you know'.I'm a }iretty smart guy and I pu present to assist in determining if an evolution an 'look into things and I look into them deep, and pa being conducted was a test or infrequent evolution. pa that's what I did that night. I did what I thought ps) Furthermore,the licensee did not define what paj I was supposed to do, and I lived up to what I pq activities constituted a test or experiment. 94) thought my ethical standards required.I did what I psi MR. URYC: What are you reading from? psi thought you guys wanted me to do,and I don't see Page 91 Page 89 pj MR. HENDRIX: I'm reading from my letter (9 how now that you're sitting in judgment on me you m can look back and say that I did a bad thing. All pi to you which is quoting from an NRC inspection pl my m tivations were to correct a bad curve that had p1 report.That is the NRC's language, not mine.

p1 nuclear safety implications.

pi MR. WEISS: There's this definition now tsi MR. REYES: Do you have any closing is) that aff of a sudden seems to be an accepted m conunents?

pi definition of a test. May I ask where and when that N ##*#"* * * * *

~m definition came into being?

pi . MR. GIBSON; That definttion is not part

" * "8 g

pl of an agency policy. It is basically our judgment q proceeding,I want to thank you for your staying sq regarding this matter and others that we have pu reviewed that,to perform an evolution for the a Wo b d wriW ouv&%

but we needed to hear it from you directly to make pa purpose of gathering data,that constitutes a test

03) sure that before we make a final decision we had all psi when the evolution is not required by plant

04) the information we needed.

041 conditions. pst Before I close I want to give you an psi MR. WEISS: But just to challenge that nel opportunity separate from this proceeding.If you vej definition a little bit, how does taking data make on have any matter that you feel you need to meet in -

pa an evolution unsafe? I'd like to just address psi pr vate with the NRC about on any subject,we're ps) Chernobyl real quick if I could. because I'm so sick poi available at any time if you're physically here and poi of hearing about Chernobyl.Everybody knows vaguely pq you want to take advantage of that.You're welcome l pq that Chernobyl,that they did a test and the reactor pu to do that.

l 99 blew up,and therefore tests are big, bad dangerous pa With that,I'm going to close this is pa things.Has anyone hear read Chernobyl Notebook ps) enforcement conference.Thank you.

! ral cover to cover? p4; (Proceedings concluded at 3:10 p.m.)

! p4) MR. LIEBERMAN:I have.I've been to ps; ps) Chernobyl.

BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 ~ Min-U-Scripte ' (25) Page 88- Page 91

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LUIS REYES, CHAIRMAN IN RE:

March 28,1996 PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE Page 92 l R1 -

i l RI pi CERTIFICATE l 151 I te; STATE OF GEORGIA:

In COUNTY OF FULTON: ,

l to: I hereby certify that the foregoing i ivi proceedings were taken down,as stated in

tig the c ption,and reduced to typewriting under l Iti; my direction, and that the foregoing pages 1 L (121 through 91 represent a true, complete,

< tist tnd correct transcript 'of said proceedings.

L tig This,the 8th day of April 1996. -

(1 51 til Itn Keith A.Wilkerson,CCR-B 1381 My commission expires on the tia 30th day of May,1999.

. lis)

R4 l Ril l ' (221

- R31

, I l R9 l R1 l

l l

l i ..

i I

. l

• l l

(

0 4

Page 8)2 - Page 92 (26) Min-U-Scripte BRQWN REPORTING; INC. (404) 876-8979 1