ML20197B412
| ML20197B412 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/28/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1368 LRP, NUDOCS 8610300288 | |
| Download: ML20197B412 (140) | |
Text
_
OTGWAL 3
UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
LRP INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND l
UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION Ob LOCATION:
BETHESDA, MARYLAND PAGES:
4165 - 4299 DATE:
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1986
\\
Ap D
s 0 l C
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Official Reporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 IOk0sObON O$f)O20 (202)347 3700 J
P Df4 NATIONWIDE COVERACE
l l
CR28690.0 BRT/sjg 4165
{}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 8
In the Matter of:
l 5
Docket No. LRP INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND 6
UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA i
FALSIFICATION 7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 8
t 9
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fifth Floor Hearing Room 10 East West Towers 4350 East-West Highway 11 Bethesda, Maryland 1
12 Tuesday, October 28, 1986 13 O
The hearing in the above-entitled matter convened at 8:30 a.m.
i l
15 16 LEFORE:
17 JUDGE JAMES L. KELLEY, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
19 JUDGE JAMES H. CARPENTER, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
21 JUDGE GLENN O.
BRIGl!T, Member 22 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 23 Washington, D. C.
24
(
25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserase kn)WM
4166 O
1 APPEARANCES:
On behalf of GPU Nuclear Corporation:
2 ERNEST L. BLAKE, JR.,
ESQ.
3 JOIIN N.
NASSIKAS III, ESQ.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 4
1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 5
On behalf of the Employees:
6 HARRY II. VOIGT, ESQ.
MICIIAEL McBRIDE, ESQ.
7 LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
8 Washington, D. C.
20036 MOLLY BOAST, ESQ.
9 LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 520 Madison Avenue 10 New York, New York 10022 On behalf of Jack !!crbein:
gy JAMES 3. BURNS, ESQ.
12 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza 13 O-Chicago, Illinois 60602 CIIRISTOPilER W. FLYNN, ESQ.
14 RICIIARD O. WOLF, ESQ.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale 15 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 16 On behalf of Gary P. Miller 17 MICl!AEL W. MAUPIN, ESQ.
M. CllRISTINA IIENSLEY, ESQ.
18 Ilunton & Williams 707 East Main Street 19 Richmond, Virginia 23221 20 On behalf of Former Metropolitan Edison Employees:
21 SMTIll B. GEPilART, ESQ.
22 Killian & Gephart 217-218 Pine Street, Box 886 23
!! rrisburg, P nnsylvania 17108 On behalf of the NRC Staff 24 O
JACK'R. GOLDBERG, ESQ.
25 MARY E. WAGNER, ESQ.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 )?00 Nationwide Coverage 80lM)MM6
4167
(]
1 CONTENTS
'o 2
3 WITNESS EXAf4INATION 4
Raymond R. Booher by Mr. Gephart 4175 5
by the Board 4178 by Mr. Gephart 4195 6
by the Board 4196 7
Kenneth R. Hoyt
(
by Mr. Maupin 4233 8
by the Board 4236 9
10 RECESS:
NOO!! - 4232 12 13 14 15 LAY-I!! - PREPARED STATEME!IT OF B00HER, Follows Page 4175 16 LAY-I!I - PREPARED STATEMENT OF H0YT, Follows Page 4233.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 37m Nanonwide Coverage A4334%m
28690.0 i
BRT 4168 1
l' E O. C E E D J, N G
_S, 2
JUDGE KELLEY:~ We are on the record this Tuesday 3
morning.
We have been having an of f-t.he-record discussion on 4
Lt.e schedule.
I just began to refer lo witnesses and their 5
s ta tuu.
.in t. hat regard, there are several rulings and 6
s ta tement.s concerning the status of witnesses that I can now 7
make.
8 of the various people who have been put forward an 9
polential witnesses in the case, we have a lready indicated, I 10
- believe,
- t. hat we do not wich to - not a matter of wishing --
11 we don'L intend to call Dr. Chung, subject only to this
\\
12 out.uLandino discuusion t.haL iu ati11 taking place between t.hu O
13 Glatt and counsel tor the employees regarding a particular 14 position that Dr. Chung took at one time.
We would like to 15 hear from counnel on that; not immediately but in the next 16 day or so, uo we can, hopefully, nail that down.
t 17 We have already the discussion Crom the parties 18 with regard to neveral other witnesses and we have reviewed l9 Lhe pertinent Heellonu of the record, most notably prior 20 statementa by various people concerning their participat ion 21 in leak rate and we deelded tha t we will not call Mr. tilair, 22 we will not call Mr. Weaver, we will not ca)) Mr. Germer, and 23 we will not call Mr. lirummer.
24 Very bilefly in thoue regardo, Mr. ti t a i t by hiu i
25 S t.a lemellt alid by a l l ol. htti Indicallolid We have got., was i
1 4
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
awa u.,w,a r.,a.
- wa
28690.0 DHT 4169 1
merely serving essentially a clerical function in connection 2
with the 1,E R.
We don't see that his input. was significant 3
other than to write down some words.
It may well be that his 4
otaLemenL in the record will be useful and is in the record, 5
but the issue is whether we ought Lo call him in addition to 6
having t he s ta tement.
We don't. think so.
7 Mr. Weaver in the gentleman involved li) various O
ef forts by engineers to work wi th t.he loop seal.
Again, his 9
sLaLemenL is in the record and iL shows what it. shows.
We 10 don't see any real need to call him to testify in addition.
11 Mr. Germer is, I believe, in Maine these days.
12 Iliu involvement in leak rate Lest.ing was minimal.
The same O
13 is true of Mr. Brummer; he's not in Maine but his role was 14 very minimal and it. appears Llia t a t. mos t he may liave liad some 15 rr le in writing procetlures, but it's not the procedure 16 writing we are concerned with, it's the procedure 17 administration.
ilo we believe that Mr. Hrummer's appearance 10 is also not warranted.
19 There lu ali ou t s taliding ques tion wi t.h regar d to 20 Mr. Hellenhausen, the author OL an ottidavit having to do 21 wi th lini t a 1 and 2 and the significance of evaporative 22 Lactoru.
I won't try to characLerige il beyond thal, but in 23 any event, we began to call Mr. Hellenhauuen and then it wau 24 decided we should all read his affidavit.
The affidavit has 25 been piovided, the Hoard han read i t, and sometime in the l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- n.,
u,,m.ae re,m,,
.. m.
. -.. - ~.
~
1 20690.0 BRT 4170 i
1 next day or so we would like to hear a little further 2
discussion as to whether Mr. Bettenhausen or his affidavit or l
3
- whatever ought to be done about this.
But, maybe first t
}
4 thing tomorrow morning; is that all right?
t 5
MR. MAUPIN:
That will be Cine.
6 JilDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
I i
7 i4 R. MAUPIN:
May I just raise a point of inquiry, i
8 Judge Kelley?
That is that we very much appreciat.e the 9
Board's attention to Mr. Germer and Mr. Urummer, because I J
10 had requested the Board decide whether it was riecessary to i
l 11 call them.
But we will then have a procedural matter that i
12 we'll have to attend to, which is that each of those i
L3 gentlemen has pretiled testimony.
I 14 JllDGH KEL1,MY :
Hight.
l IS MR. MAUPIN:
I would propose in the absence of an 4
1 16 objection from a party, that the statements be incorporated 1
f i
17 in the record at some point. as a s tipulallon t,ha t if they l
10 were here that's what. they would say and let it go at that, i
j 19 JUDGE KELLEY:
In the absence of an objection, I
20 that would seem to be a pretty reasonable approach.
Perhaps l
21 counsel could consider whether they have any objection and we i
22 can get a reading from you a li t tle later.
23 MR. MAUPIN:
In tha t connec tion, I wonder if I l
24 m14ht raine one other subiect.
On a review of t he recor d 25 over the break that. we've had in the last week and a half or ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-m s o.,,-< o,m,,y mn
4 20690.0 i
DRT 4171 1
1 so, I discovered that when we had Mr. Haverkamp as a witness, I
2 at least my copy of the transcript does not include his i
j 3
prepared statement.
It was not bound into the record as if
?
4 read.
9 5
I think what may have happened is we had the prior i
6 panel of technical witnesses, mos t of whom were authors of 7
voluminous reports and of course we weren't binding those a
O into the transcript and I'm not sure we fell into the pattern 9
of binding these alatements into record as if read until we 10 yot to our clients.
l 11 I'm not certain about Mr. Kirkpatrick and Wermie) 12
- thal jusL occurs to me now; I can go back and check on
)
13 that -- but if those statements were not bound into the l
14 record as 10 read, it would seem to me appropriate that it be 2
15 done so they would be incorporated into the physical l
t 16 transcript of these proceedings for convenience later.
17 J UDGE KEI,I,EY :
Well, certainly let's check on what a
18 happened in that regard.
Your suggestion would seem to be
{
19 eminently sensible - except for one i tem you f orgot, 20 wouldn'L know about.
I got a memorandum from Judge Cotter 21 and the subject was how much it costs to bind things into the j
22 transcript.
I would say very high.
It's a buck and a half a 23 page per copy.
i 24 We have been asked to use a little discretion 1
2S here, and if we are now going to he asked to put 30 or 40 i
l i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
.,y,;
-- + c~,
- a,-
20690.0 BRT 4172 1
pages in, at that rate, we may pause a bit and just use them 2
as exhibits.
3 You are going to let us know, right, what happened 4
to the other?
5 MH. MAUPIN:
I just thought for consistency we 6
ought to do the same thing for those as we did with the 7
others, but we can discuss it.
We'll talk to you la ter about 0
it.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
There are two witnesses, 10 Mr. Bezilla and Mr. Morck that the Board would like to 11 continue to keep in a holdi ng pattern, so to speak.
They are 12 concerned or involved one way or another with the LER, a rid it O
13 may be that our -- that the presentations f rom Seeli nger may 14 obviate t.he need to call them; however, it may make it a 15 stronger need to call them.
We realize we are not ruling on 16 that yet but we would like to have that matter lo stay with 17 the understanding that we are deferring them now -- have you 10 had a chance to get in touch with these gentlemen?
19 MH. MAUPIN:
Where we left that, Judge Kelley, was I
20 that I cc: ainly indicated to the Board that we would be 21 willing to contact those gent.Jemen if the floa r d so desired.
22 Gince the Board had them in a holding pattern when we were
]i 23 last together and still does, I haven't felt the need to do 24 it.
25 1 don't anticipale there wi11 be any problem in l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m, no, s _ __,
.. u,_
28690.0
)
BRT 4173 1
getting ahold of Lhem; certainly in the case of Mr. Bezilla, 2
and I believe that's also the case of Mr. Morck.
Whenever 3
the Board indicates, if it does, that they would like to hear 4
from them we'll give them a call, but I would like to hold 5
off making those calls until it is necessary to do so.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
My only concern is with delay.
My 7
only concern is with somebody like Mr. Morck saying, gee 8
whiz, you should have called me last week.
I'm off to 9
Hawaii.
10 MR. MAUPIN:
If you are concerned about something 11 like tha t we will certainly call them --
1 12 JUDGE KELIZY:
You might call and alert them.
I U
13 would think if we go over with -- well, it could be the end 14 of next week, certainly, hopefully during the following week, 15 we would be done.
16 Okay.
That leaves, I believe, just two people in l
17 a deferred status, in a sense.
I'm referring to two nominees 18 that Mrs. Aamodt made some ti me ago, Mr. Tim Martin and 19 Mr. Queen.
20 With regard at least to Queen, arguably we haven't 21 reached that yet because we haven't gotten to the management 22 phase so it's not really timely to consider them, but I had 23 thought Mr. Aamodt was going to be here this morning.
She 24 had said she was going to be here this morning and I thought 25 maybe we would Lalk about these people.
She is not here.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Ac-347-3700 Nationwide roserage R3336-6M6
28690.0
,m)
DRT 4174 1
Time goes by and I can only say that the passage of time and 2
the interests of wrapping this case up some day suggest that 3
the continued delay in addressing Lhese issues, due to the 4
absence of their sponsor, may work against their being S
called.
6 Did you have something else, Mr. Voigt?
7 MR. VOIGT:
Yes, sir.
This has to do with 8
Mr. Kunder, who is going to be testi fying a week from touay.
9 The Board may recall that there's a rather 10 extensive discussion in Mr. Stier's report about a steam leak 11 that was being experienced in the plant during the first 12 couple of weeks of January 1979.
And there is a discussion s'
13 about whether or not the plant should have been shut down 14 because of the steam leak and who was responsible for 15 decisions and so forth and so on.
16 In his prepared statement, Mr. Kunder has 17 indicated that he believes those matLers are outside the 18 scope of a hearing on leak rates and therefore he hasn't said 19 anything about it.
But I wanted to point that out to the 20 Board because, if you tell me either now or sometime between 21 now and next Tuesday, that you are interested in that 22 subject, Mr. Kunder will certainly be prepared to address 23 it.
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
That's helpful.
We'll 25 try to give you an indication as soon as possible.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage an336-(M6
20690.0
[
BRT 4175 1
Mr. Booher?
Good morning, sir.
2 Whereupon, 3
RAYMOND R.
BOOHER 4
was called as a witness and, having first been duly sworn, 5
was examined and testified as follows:
6 EXAMINATION 7
HY MR. GEPHART:
0 Q
Mr. Booher, do you have before you a si.x-page 9
document entitled " Prepared Statement of Raymond R.
Booher"?
10 A
Yes, I do.
11 Q
Did you have an opportunity to again review this 12 document last night?
O 13 A
Yes, sir.
14 0
Do you have any additions or corrections that you 15 desire to make a t this time?
16 A
No, I don't.
17 Q
Do you wish this to be bound into the record as 10 your statement?
19 A
Yes, sir.
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
So ordered.
21 (The documenL follows :)
22 1
23 24 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3M)
Nationwide Coverage 800-33M686
1 l
()
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND
)
Docket No. LRP UNIT 2 LEAK RATE DATA
)
FALSIFICATION
)
)
PREPARED STATEMENT OF RAYMOND R.
BOOHER My name is Raymond R.
Booher.
I currently reside in South Haven, Michigan.
I am not licenseo to operate a nuclear power fs
(
)
plant.
Prior to joining Metropolitan Edison in 1971, I was with the United States Navy for six years.
From 1971 to 1981, I was employed by Met Ed, first as an auxiliary operator in TMI Unit 1, then as a control room operator in TMI Unit 2.
I obtained my TMI-2 license in 1977 and retained it until I terminated my employment with Met Ed in 1981.
I then became employed by Louisiana Power & Light (LP&L) as a c3ntrol room supervisor, licensed as a Senior Reactor Operator.
In 1985, I terminated my employment with LP&L.
I am now employed as Training Consultant at Palisades Nuclear Power Plant in Michigan.
While I was a control room operator at TMI 2,
John Blessing
(,)
was a trainee and Harold Hartman was an operator on my shift.
1 O
Kenneth Hoyt was the foreman and Bernard Sr3ith the shif t supervisor.
According to technical specifications, we had to perform one successful leak rate test at least once every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
My employer required us to perform the tests more frequently, but I no longer recall how often we actually did run the test.
I have no reason to doubt that we ran the tests on a shiftly basis.
Tests that did not come out within the specified limit for unidentified leakage were discarded.
I discarded them because I believed that I only needed one acceptable test with less than 1 gpm unidentified leakage during the 72-hour period.
I do not know who taught me this interpretation of the technical specification; all I can remember is that that was how I operated.
I recall that generally my shift performed either one or two leak rate tests in order to obtain a successful one.
There were times when we had to run the test more frequently, and times when we did not get one for an entire shift.
I recall that satisfactory leak rate test results became more difficult to obtain as 1979 progressed.
I tended to show tests with over 1 gpm unidentified leakage to the shift foreman.
While he initially might have told me to run another one, it did become a habit for me to run another one without his directive.
The foreman also sent the control room operators or the auxiliary operators to search for leaks if plant instruments showed that there might be leakage.
' l...
O Although I cannot remember specific values, I do recall submitting negative leak rates to the shift foreman for filing.
At some point, however, I was told that negative test results would no longer be accepted.
I do not know who told me this or why.
I attributed problems I had in obtaining a good leak rate test to variations in instrument accuracy and then to increasing leakage from either the pressure operated relief valve or the code safety valves.
This increase in leakage did cause me to experience some concern as to whether I would be able to obtain a satisfactory leak rate test; however, I never felt that my job would be in jeopardy if I did not produce a successful test result.
All that I can recall hearing from my
(
superiors on the subject was that I should keep trying to get a good test.
I remember logging only the completion time of the surveillances that my shift performed.
I do not believe that I ever logged the start time of a surveillance, and I do not recall anyone bringing the matter to my attention.
I have learned, of course, that my practice was not in compliance with the NRC's interpretation of the administrative procedure governing logging practices.
I no longer recall the November 1,
1978 Licensee Event Report other than from investigators showing it to me.
I know o
that my interpretation of the technical specifications for leak O -.. _
l O
rates did not change, so I can only conclude that the LER had no effect on me.
I recall that I added hydrogen to the makeup tank on my own initiative to maintain a specified pressure band.
I do not think that I would have considered adding hydrogen during a leak rate test to have been prohibited by the leak rate test procedures.
I no longer recall whether I thought hydrogen had an actual effect on leak rate tests.
I do recall some discussion on this subject, although I can no longer pinpoint the time.
I am certain that I never deliberately added hydrogen to affect the makeup tank level.
I am aware that there is one " definite" leak rate test that I filed where hydrogen was added during the test.
This test, dated October 20, 1978, was signed by me, but Leonard Germer was on the panel.
He logged the addition of hydrogen.
I am not sure that if I had seen the hydrogen entry in.the log, I would have invalidated the test because I do not remember being 3
aware that a hydrogen addition could affect a test result.
Edwin Stier claims that another test dated, March 15, 1979, shows a possible hydrogen addition.
Although I performed this test I was not assigned to the panel and I did not collaborate in manipulating this test, or any other, by adding hydrogen.
We were required to log water additions made during the performance of a leak rate test.
The operator performing the test was supposed to check t/,;3 log for water additions.
()
Although the NRC has accused me of deliberately adding water
_4_
~.__,
_m.
A OV during the leak rate tests to affect the results, I never did this, and I believe that I have been unfairly accused.
For three of the tests where I was allegedly involved in manipulation, specifically, January 13,- 1979, February 2,
- 1979, and February 23, 1979, I logged the water entry as I was supposed to.
The operators who performed those tests did not enter the water additions on the computer printout.
I did not
" jog" water, as the NRC claims, for tests dated March 10, 12, 13, and 15, 1979 (two of which I signed).
I really cannot understand how the NRC experts distinguished supposed jogged a
additions on strip charts showing similar effects for the entire day, but I do know that I did not engage in the practices they attributed to me by their analysis of these documents.
I do not know why Harold Hartman stated I added water to falsify leak rate tests.
According to the NRC investigators, he believed that I was not a good operator; perhaps that is why he feels that I was involved in the conduct similar to his.
All I can ask of the Presiding Board is that it fairly scrutinize the evidence compiled against me, and conclude that I did not participate in leak rate falsification.
While the evidence shows that my shift discarded tests and made mistakes in recording information on the computer printout or the log, it does not show that I willfully falsified leak rate tests.
~
What that evidence really proves is that the NRC investigators gave a highly subjective and questionable interpretation to my,.. _ -
L four signed leak r5te tests, and the strip charts from my shift's tests, to fit this data into the Hartman allegations.
In conclusion, I would like the Presiding Board to know that I sincerely regret the mistakes I made as a control room operator at TMI-2.
My experience as a si'ift supervisor at LP&L's Waterford 3 has taught me that I was f ar tc o casual about the interpretation of the technical specifications at i
TMI-2.
At Waterford, I learned the absolute necessity for 4
strict compliance with the technical specifications and plant l
administrative procedures.
Because of what I have been through, I am confident that I could do an excellent job if I can preserve my option to apply at a future date for an NRC license.
O i
O t l J
- -. ~ -
n,,.,,,,,~,,
-u,
. mmw
.,---,_,--_,n,-,
.,-an.
.n-
--e
. ~ -
20690.0 I
DRT 4176 V
l 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Bocher, I have a short l
2 statement that I'll read for the sake of context, largely, 3
and then we'll get into our ques tions.
4 This Board has been charged by the Commission to 5
determine the extent of involvement of employees at TMI-2 in 6
1978 and '79 in leak rate test falsification and other 7
improper practices in leak rate testing.
This is your 8
opportunity to state on the record your recollections and 9
your perceptions about your involvement in leak rate testing 10 at that time and to rebut any adverse statement about you by 11 other employees or investigators with which you might 12 disagree.
O V
13 We have reviewed your prefiled testimony.
We 14 i:onsidered it in the light of the record that has already 15 been made in this proceeding, and we are in the process now 16 of hearing people from your shifL.
We heard from Mr. Hartman 17 some time back, Mr. Hoyd is coming later today.
I mentioned 18 Mr. Blessing, I don't know whether he's coming or not; and l
19 Mr. Smith will be here tomorrow.
And I guess yours is the j
20 las t complete shift that we are hearin<J from.
l 21 Typically tha t's what we've done, we've heard 22 from the CRos, and the foremen and also the shift 23 supervisors.
l 24 We'11 have some questions based on your prefi3ed 25 testimony and we'll also have some questions, possibly based 4
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- eu-
,.m_ m c_.,
,,n _
(
28690.0 BRT 4177 1
on statements you have made in the pas t or s tatements that 2
other people have made.
3 As you may know, there are in t.he record of this 4
case already, two extensive studies on leak rate testing.
I 5
'hink you were interviewed by the NRR/NHC people in that 6
connection, perhaps by Mr. Stier as well.
7 Their studies are in the record and they include 8
ra ther detailed analyses of every les t - in the case of 9
Stier, every test. that was conducted, leak rate test that was 10 conducted at TMI-2 that wasn't thrown away; and in the case 11 of NRR, all the tests that were retained during the last six 1
12 months of operation.
t 13 In those circumstances it has not been our 14 approach with witnesses, and it won't be our approach with
)
15 you, to go through each test you ever had anything to do 16 with; but rather -- those analyses are in t.he record -- we i
l 17 may focus on a few tests so as to get a better look at i
18 exac tly what you did at a particular time, but we are not 19 going to go t.hrough an exhaustive, point-by-point 20 discussion.
Those tests, and the studies that concern them, 21 are in the record and they are entitled to whatever weight J
22 they are entitled to in light of the entire record, including 23 your testimony here this morning.
24 25 i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-370)
Nationwide roverage R&33MM6
28690.0 (n)
DRT 4178 1
EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD 2
BY JUDGE KELLEY:
3 Q
I would like to begin by asking you to describe 4
how leak rate i.ests were performed on your shift, in terms of 5
who did what.
6 A
A little bit of background on how I remember the 7
shift being organized at that time was, there were 8
essentially three people on a shift, RO-wise:
One person had 9
the panel with the control room logbook; one person had 10 surveillances; and one person had tagging.
Something of that 11 nature.
12 The person that had surveillances would actually O
13 do the leak rate.
Tha t was done on a shiftly basis.
14 Physically, how you did a leak rate, you would put some kind 15 of a code into the computer and the computer would ask you 16 questions.
17 Q
At the beginning of the test, as I understand it, i
l 18 you'd type in the code, RCSL -- wasn't that wha t it was?
l 19 A
It could be.
l I
20 Q
That's what'I've heard, anyway -- and tell the i
l 21 computer how long the test was supposed to be; is that righ t?
t l
22 A
Yes, sir.
l 23 Q
Then you are referring 1.o questions, would those 24 questions then come at the end of the test?
At the end of l
25 the hour?
i l
i
\\
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3364M6
,,_.,,..,,.,.m_.-_
m
20690.0
[)
BRT 4179 U
1 A
At the end of the hour -- or whatever; I think il 2
was a variable time period could you put in there.
3 Q
You could change it, yes.
I'm just assuming --
4 A
There were questions.
If you added, I think if 5
you added water, yes, sir, that was one of the questions at 6
the end.
7 Q
Right.
Okay.
So the person who was starting the 8
tes t would punch the codes into the computer?
9 A
Yes, sir.
10 0
And at the end of the tesL he would answer the 11 quesLions put to him by the computer, including, let's say, 12 water additions, and you'd get a resalt.
Right?
13 A
Yes.
l 14 Q
The computer would --
t 15 A
When you put the required answers in for the 16 ques ti ons, then the computer would calculat.e some value.
17 Q
Okay.
Now, if in the course of a leak rate test 18 you had some need to add water, let's say --- would tha t 19 happen, from time to time?
20 A
Yes, sir.
21 Q
Typically who would do thal?
- 22 A
The person that had the panel.
The panel operator 23 would do that.
24 l 0
I put the question in terms of " typically who i
25 would do it?"
Put a little differently, would the panel i
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i sc.347 3no Nationwide Coserage M n336 W46
. _. _ _ _. _ _. _ _ _ _ ~. _,. _
28690.0 m
4180 Q
BRT 1
operator always do that, if water were to be added?
2 A
I don't think the panel operator was the sole 3
person to ever perform action on a board so someone other --
4 some other operator in the control room may manipulate some 5
actions on the board, including add water.
6 Q
But, in the typical case would -- let's take the 7
leak rate situation.
If there were some need, whatever the 8
need may be, to add some water to the makeup tank -- well, 9
let's take a specific case.
10 The makeup tank, as I understand it, was 11 maintained at a certain level, certain minimum and maximum i
12 levels; correct?
13 A
Yes, str.
14 Q
And I went up to TMI last week and at. least as of 15 last week the indicator said 55 inches and 85 inches; does 16 that sound about right?
l 17 A
It sounds good to me; sure.
l 18 Q
Okay.
Now let's suppose that'the level is heading i
19 down below 55 and -- would the surveillance guy, then, be the 20 guy who would put. water in to bring it up above -- to prevent 21 iL trom going below SS or would the CR0 quy, or who would do 22 that?
23 A
IL would be the panel person, or the operator ihaL 24 had the duty of the panel.
O 25 Q
So the pane] quy would do that?
And, again, we'll g
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
~
~ _ - - -
~
28690.0 BRT 4181 i
i say this is typically the case.
2 A
Sure.
3 Q
Now, in order for the leak rate test to come out 4
accurately, the f act that water was added during the tes t has 5
to be communicated to the surveillance man; right?
6 A
Yes, sir.
7 Q
Again, typically, would the CR0 on the panel tell 8
the surveillance guy?
Or how did this work?
How was that 9
communicat. ion maintained?
10 A
The way I remember it, sir, it was the person 11 performing the surveillance would check the logbook for any 12 addition of water.
O V
13 Q
Just as a matter of routine?
i 14 A
Yes, sir.
15 0
So, if you were running the test and you were at 16 the end of the test and you were answering the question, 17 you'd look in the logbook for an addition?
i 18 A
Yes, sir.
19 0
Would you also ask him oral]y:
Did you add any 20 water?
Or would you just look in the book and assume --
21 A
I would think in lieu of looking in the logbook, I 22 would ask the operator if he had added water in the last time i
23 period for the leak rate.
(
24 Q
Would you also tell the panel operator, 25 particularly if you were running a leak rate test., tel] him ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 Nationwide Coscrage 8(XL336-6M6
..._, _-3700_. _. _ _ -. _ _ _ _... _. _. -
20690.0 BRT 0102 1
in advance:
I'm s tarting a leak rate test?
2 A
I don't remember if I did that or not but that's 3
good practice.
4 Q
ilow would you -- let me ask you first.
You say 5
there were typically three CRos.
That's yourself and Hartman 6
and Blessing; is that correct?
7 A
Yes, sir.
8 Q
Was Blessing a trainee during part of the time?
9 Let me be more specific.
Were you and Hartman on the same 10 shift throughout the time of commercial operation?
Or what 11 was your time of service as a CRO?
12 A
If I remember correctly, Hal Hartman was my peer
(~'s
.g 13 throughout the operation of TMI-2.
14 Q
Do you recall whether you were a CRO throughout it the time of, let's say, commercial operation at TMI-2?
16 A
Yes, sir.
I went for the initial license of Unit 17 2.
l 18 Q
You did say in your prefiled that John Blessing 19 was a trainee.
Did he become a CRO during that time, do you i
20 recall?
i 21 A
I don't remember, sir.
22 Q
Okay.
We can check that in the record, I think.
t 23 I just thought I would ask you.
24 But, if he had been a trainee during a portion of 25 that time, then with regard to leak rates, could he have run l
l l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-370)
Nationwide Cos erage 8ak336-6M6 l
28690.0
/O BRT 4183 V
1 leak rate tests himself?
2 A
Yes, sir.
3 Q
If he had done so as a trainee, would he have done 4
iL just 1ike a CRO?
Or would he supposedly have been under 5
some kind of supervision while he was doing it?
i 6
A Typically, a trainee could perform surveillances 7
and tagging wit hout direct supervision.
Ilut if the person a
was on the panel he would have direct supervision.
9 So, yes, sir, he could run a surveillance.
10 Q
How would you describe -- and we have as context 11 how these leak rate tests were run and who does what.
Just.
12 to fill that out, if you were the opera tor on leak rate O
13 tests, you would run the test and the computer would then 14 print out a final result and give -- then you would, what, 15 review the test?
Review the number that came out of the 16 computer?
i 17 A
I would look at the final result; yes, sir.
l 18 Q
And if it was under 1 gallon a minute you would 19 sign it; right?
20 A
Yes, sir.
21 Q
And then would you take it to the foreman or leave 22 it on his desk or how was that step carried out?
1 23 A
I think the routine was for the person performing 24 l the test after receiving the final result, would be to take 25 it to the foreman for authorization and then it would be ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(U Nationwide Coserage 8043EfM6
28690.0 l
BRT 4104 1
entered into the logbook, I think.
2 Q
Okay.
With that context of who does what, how 3
would you describe your working relationship, first with 4
Ilartman and then with illessing?
5 A
Working relationship was profestional.
6 0
I think I understand what the word connotes.
Is 7
that a little bit different from saying it was a close 8
working relationship?
9 A
Pardon?
10 Q
Is that a little bit. different from saying it was 11 a close working relationship?
l 12 A
As in saying best of friends?
13 Q
Okay.
Yes.
14 A
lla] Ilartman was not my best friend, so therefore, 15 we were not extremely close, then.
16 Q
But you managed to get along okay on shift?
17 A
Yes, sir.
18 Q
How about with DJessing?
Ilow would you 19 characterize your relationship with him?
20 A
The same.
Professional but not the best of 21 friends.
22 Q
Are you aware -- I take it you are aware of the 23 various s ta temen ts that Mr. Ilartma ni and Mr. Blessing made, 24 statements about leak rate tests generally and, in the case 1
25 of fla rtmani, lia r t ma ti has made at least one statemeint about 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage 80lF336-fM6
20690.0 BRT 4185 1
you, I'm certain you know about.
How would you respond to 2
Hartman 's claim tha t - excuse me, let me get a page 3
reference.
Well, I'm looking at page 73 of the NRC interview 4
with you.
That's dated November 15, 1984.
5 Looking at page 73, if you could jus t 'show hiin 6
that?
7 A
Where are we?
8 Q
I think on page 73 there's a solid cap 9
" EXAMINATION" called " Examination by Mr. Christopher."
10 A
Yes, sir.
11 Q
Starting below that Christopher says:
"Okay, 12 particularly here I'm talking about water additions."
13 And you say:
"I don't know of anybody right now 14 that tried to manipulate a leak rate by adding water."
15 And Christopher says:
"I asked Hartman this 16 ques tion on July 26, 1983 'what specific operators did you 17 witness add water to a makeup tank in order to manipulate 10 leak rate tests?'
l 19 "And the answer was ' Ray Booher, because he was on 20 my shifL.'"
21 You had seen this statement before?
Of course it 22 was put to you in the context of the interview.
23 A
Yes, sir.
24 Q
From reading your prepared tes timony and your 25 other Lestimony, I understand that you deny that you did add l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I
>c - m, x _. c_.
mos-
= _ -.
28690.0 m
BRT 4186 1
water for the purpose of manipulating the leak ra te test and 2
here is Hartman saying that you did.
What comment would you 3
have about Mr. Ilartman's statement?
4 A
Mr. Hartman's statement is not true.
5 Q
Can you suggest any reason why he would make such 6
a statement?
7 A
No, sir.
8 Q
The particular statement we have just been looking 9
a t strikes me as a little bit ambiguous.
He says:
" Hay 10 Booher, because he was on my shift."
Would you read that to 11 mean anybody who was on my shift would have added water?
Or 12 would you read it some other way?
I'm not sure how to read Os 13 it myself.
14 A
I can't justify anything that. Mr. Hartman has 15 commented on in the past.
But I did not manipulate any leak 16 rates.
17 Q
You indicated that your relationship with Hartman 18 was professional, meaning, I think, that you got the job done 19 working in the same room but you weren't close.
Can you 20 think of any reason why, if, as you characterize flartman's i
21 statement, it's just a false statement, why he would have 22 some vindictive feeling towards you?
23 A
No, I don't.
Socially we got along okay also.
I 24 do not know why he made the sLatement.
i 25 Q
I take it you are familiar with both the Hartman ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm.me
- xe_mm_,
28690.0 BRT 4187 1
and Bocher statements about what they did.
Now, I'm not 2
talking specifica]ly about you, necessari]y, but about what 3
they did in terms of manipulating leak rate tes ts.
4 MR. MAUPIN:
Excuse me, Judge Kelley, you said 5
Hartman and Booher's s tatements?
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Forgive me.
Blessing.
I'm 7
sorry.
8 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
i 9
Q You are familiar with their s ta tements that are in i
10 the record?
11 A
I believe so.
12 Q
And here is Hartman describing various different O
3 13 techniques that he had for manipulating leak rate tests, 14 involving both hydrogen and water additions.
15 Here is Booher saying --
16 MR. GEPHART:
Blessing.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
I'm very sorry.
The names --
18 forgive me.
19 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
20 Q
Here is Blessing saying somewhat more briefly, in 21 a couple of interviews with the NRC, and speaking somewhat 22 more generally, that he would add hydrogen in an effort to 23 change leak rale results.
He wasn't s uc'ces s f ul very often, 24 he says, but he did 3t.
And he said he though'L everybody 25 knew it, that it was common knowledge throughout, at least on ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tC-347-3700 Nationwide Cogerage 50th3364646
28690.0 O
BRT 4188 v
i his shif t and more broadly among operators at the plant.
2 So, if two out of the three CROs, Hartman and 3
Blessing, are saying, yes, sure, we were manipulating tests, 4
why is it that you wouldn't at least know what they were 5
doing?
Wouldn't they have to have actively concealed what 6
they were doing from you, in order for your test.imony to be 7
consistent with theirs?
8 A
I would think they could manipulate leak rates, if 9
in fact they did, without my knowing it.
10 Q
Based on what I 've heard here, I would agree with 11 you it's poss1ble.
Maybe not a lot of the times, maybe not 12 all t.he times, but sometimes, at 1 cast, if I wanted to O
13 manipulate a leak rate test with water or hydrogen I might be i
14 able to do it without the other guy in the room knowing about 15 it.
But why would they conceal it from you, if that's what 16 they were doing?
17 A
I don't know, sir.
l 18 Q
I would like to go over with you two or three of 19 the tes ts tha t you were involved in, either as CR0 or 20 operator on the panel.
Can we look at NRR-94, first of all?
l 21 MR. MAUPIN:
I'll get it for him.
22 THE WITNESS:
Okay.
23 BY JUDG8 KELLEY:
24 Q
Looking at 94, just to establish two or three 25 things about i t -- have you got 94?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 202-347-370)
Nationwide Coserage
- G336-6M6
l 28690.0
(
BRT 4189 1
A Yes, I do.
l 2
Q The arrangement here begins with the computer 3
printout page followed by a Xerox copy of the CRO log, 4
followed by -- somet.imes several pages -- and t. hen followed 5
by the strip chart, makeup Lank strip chart.
6 Looking at the first page, t.he computer print.out, 7
NRR test 94 was run on the 13 th of January,
'79, between 9:37 8
and 10:37 in the morning.
The operator, surveillance 9
operator is Hartman; correct?
Judging by his signature 10 there?
11 A
Yes, sir.
12 Q
And Ken Hoyt approved it as foreman?
V 13 A
Yes, sir.
14 0
And this showed a leak rate of.269 unidentified 15 leak rate.
16 A
Okay.
Yes, sir.
17 Q
If the turn the page, the first Xerox copy ot the 18 logbook shows you signing in at 0700, I gather; is that 19 right?
20 A
Yes, sir.
21 Q
And the leak rate test we are talking about. was 22 run between 9:37 and 10:37, as indicated there in the left i
23 margin.
The heavy ink markings there, the arrows and all of 24 that, that's NRR write-in there.
O 2s The", it vee exin ver i tne
- een t""*
e'ria l
I l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-370)
Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
l 28690.0 g
4190 Q
BRT 1
charL you'll see that test number 94 is bracketed with the 2
heavy ink lines a little bit lef t of center with t.h e time 3
marked up aL the top.
4 I'll just note for the record that once again 5
there's no complete agreement between the strip chart and 6
clock 1.ime.
Typically it's off.
7 Do you recall that very often the makeup Lank 8
strip chart time would be off from clock 1.ime to some degree?
9 A
Not only the makeup tank but most of the charts.
10 Q
Off clock time?
11 A
Yes, sir.
12 Q
Okay.
Sure.
And what has been done here, the NRR 13 analysts have aLtempted to historically establish when things 14 happened by cross referencing, let's say log ent. ries which 15 show clock 1.ime and then finding that on the s trip chart to i
16 the extent that that is possible.
That, sometimes, I think 17 is pretty accurate.
Sometimes i t 's more debatable.
18 Bu t.
the main t.hing I wanted to look a t here, if i
19 you look at the s trip chart a t about, what, 9:45 clock time, i
20 you see a rather sharp rise in the trace; correc t?
21 A
It looks like more -- like 10:00 a.m.
22 Q
Okay.
4 23 A
But, yes, there is a sharp increase.
24 Q
Right.
Then at the bottom there's two typed 25 lines.
That, again, is the NRR analysis of what happened l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwi& Coserage M433M686
l 28690.0 BRT 4191 1
here.
They say that this reflects a water addition of 117 2
gallons at 9:50 and they note that it was logged in the log 4
3 but not included in the calculation.
4 Just looking back at the log, there is an entry at
]
5 10:00, " batched 117 gallons of water to makeup tank."
6 A
Yes, sir, i
7 Q
So the log time in the time indicated at the i
8 botton of the strip chart is 10 minutes off, 10:00 versus 9
9:50.
But, in any case, the 9:37-10:37 time, it would 10 clearly fall within the leak rate test; correct?
The water 11 addition?
12 A
Yes, sir.
O 13 Q
When you say that this was a batched water 14 addition, you were on the panel.
I would assume that you as 15 panel operator would have been the person who would have 16 added the water; correct?
i 17 A'
Yes, sir.
18 Q
And by " batched," that means that you did it by 19 means of the batch controller; is tha t the right term?
20 A
Yes, sir.
21 Q
And by that I mean there was on the panel there a 22
-- what will I call it, a knob?
A valve?
23 A
A box.
l 24 Q
A box.
Okay.
25 A
Okay.
J 4
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage 800-336 4 646
,___m_ _ _ _., _ _ _ _,. _.., _.,, _, _.,
28690.0 BRT 4192 1
Q I can't describe it very well because it's not 2
there anymore.
But it. used to be and that was -- I was shown 3
this black hole in the panel where there used Lo be a batch 4
controller, last week.
But you can dial the amount you want, 5
correct, on t.he box?
6 A
That's why I'm taking such a long time.
I don't 2
7 remember exactly what the box looked like nor how you 8
performed water addition.
But I do remember there was a box 9
and its purpose was to add amounts of water.
10 Q
I guess what I'm trying to get at is, I have 11 understood that the batch controller is something where you 12 can tell this machine:
Put a certain amount of water in the O
13 makeup Lank.
You dial i t, you set it to that setting; 14 correct?
15 A
Whatever you do; yes, sir.
16 Q
And then it proceeds to do that and then it shows 17 you some kind of result, liere it. shows you a result of 117 i
l 18 gallons.
i 19 A
Yes, sir.
20 Q
As opposed to -- ther e are other ways you can put I
21 water in the makeup tank other than the batch controller, are 22 there not?
It's not the only way that one can get i t.
in?
23 A
There has to be because I can remember the batch 24 controller being out of service frequently i
25 Q
And --
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347-3700 Nationwide coserage
- Mk336-6M6
28690.0 BRT 4193 1
A
-- but I don't remember how you performed that.
2 Q
Maybe we'll get to that later.
But in any case, 3
the log indicates this was ba tched in.
This particular entry 4
-- not entry -- this particular injection of 117 gallons was 5
put in through a batch controller; correct?
At least the log 6
so indicates?
7 A
I would think so; yes, sir.
8 Q
And what you get on the strip chart, as I see it, 9
is a sharp, almost vertical rise, which would indicate to me 10 that that 117 gallons went into the makeup tank in a matter 11 of -- how much time would you say?
12 A
Well, let's see here.
10:00, 11:00 -- each one of O
13 those lines is 15 minutes, I think.
You are talking about 7 14 minutes, approximately.
I think each division of the chart 15 is 15 minutes.
16 Q
Well, if that's so, though, I'm looking from the 17 bottom up to the top of that water addition.
18 A
Yes, sir.
19 Q
And I see an almost vertical line which -- if it 20 were going to take 15 minutes, it would be lying across like 21 that at a 45-degree angle, would it not, slicing that box?
22 A
Yes, sir.
23 Q
Since i t isn' t doing that, I would guess it would 24 take two or three minutes for the water to go on.
25 A
Well, the way I read this particular chart is you 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage Rn336-6M6
,... _, ~. _, _ _.... -
mr
i i
I 1
i i
28690.0 ID BRT 4194 U
i i
i i
1 take the 10:00 a.m.
dark line, vertical line, take the next i
1 I
2 vertical line, which is a 15-minute increment, and it's i
i 6
3 approximately one half of that 15-minute increment for the l
4 vertical line lo go from the bottom to the top.
i
}
5 Q
Let's do this slow.
I guess I'm not with you.
l 6
Can I show you a comparison?
Take a look to the right where l
7 they put in 1200 gallons, apparently with a batch 8
controller.
i 9
MR. MC BRIDE:
I'm sorry, at 1200 hours0.0139 days <br />0.333 hours <br />0.00198 weeks <br />4.566e-4 months <br /> it's f
10 400 -- 900?
The 9 looks like a 4.
l 11 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
12 Q
900 gallons at noon?
l O
l 13 A
Yes, sir.
i 14 Q
Now, that whole 900 gallons went in in what?
15 A
I'd say 20 minutes, thereabouts.
16 Q
Give or take.
Okay, 20 minutes.
17 A
- Okay, b
18 Q
So if it could^40 in at a rate of 2 minutes per j
I I
19 100 gallons, very roughly'-- when you turn the batch 20 controller on a pump starts to activate ano it pushes wai.er f #
21 into the makecp tank; ricin t?
r i
s 22 A
1 don't rememb.6r that.
23 Q
I'm jus t as:noning i t.
How else would it get 24 there?
Wouldn't yod turn on a pump?
l t
25 A
The demin water tank may have been pressurized.
I l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage
- Xh3346M6 j
[
28690.0 BRT 4195 1
don ' t know.
Pressurized wa ter went into the tank; yes, sir.
2 Q
Well, at any case, what I'm looking at is the 3
rate.
I don't. want to be obscure here.
It seems to me when 4
you use the batch controller you get water into the tank 5
pretty fast.
You get an almost vertical line showing water 6
going in and that's a rather distinctive, I think, signature 7
of batch control water additions.
At least on this 8
indicator --
9 A
Sure.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
Why don't we take - I think that's 11 really it on this test.
Why don't we take a coffee break, 10 12 minutes or so and we'll pick up again.
13 (Recess.)
14 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let's go back on the record.
15 Mr. Gephart indicated interest in making a clarification.
Go 16 ahead.
17 MR. GEPilART:
Yes, Judge Kelley.
We were more 18 interested in substance than anything else with Mr. Bocher's 19 prepared statement.
I would like to have a correction made 20 EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. GEPII ART :
22 Q
Mr. Booher, you have the statement in front of 23 you?
24 A
Yes, sir.
25 Q
And you want to make a correction, I believe, on ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coscrage 800-336 4 646
20690.0 p
BRT 4196 sj 1
page 1 as to address and current employment?
2 A
Yes, sir.
Since this statement was made I have 3
recently moved to Sacramento, California, and I'm working at 4
a nuclear power plant there as a lead office planner during 5
an outage at that facility.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Is that what we know as SMUD?
7 Tile WITNESS:
That is SMUD.
l 8
JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
Thank you.
9 EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD 10 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
11 Q
Just a couple of more points.
We are back on the 12 record now; righ t?
('l 13 About test 94 we were looking at.
Again, that 14 indicates that Hartman was the operator, was the surveillance 1
15 CHO and you wev e on the panel and you did log that addition r
16 during the test.
17 Do you have any thought as to why Mr. Hartman did 10 not include that amount in the calculation of the leak rate?
19 I'm just looking at the questions on the computer printout 20 and it says "0."
No indication of water addition.
l 21 A
No, I don't.
I have no idea why he didn' t add i
22 that to the computer leak rate program.
It may have -- he 23 may have forgot to look in the logbook or he may have forgot 24 to even, ask me it there were any water additions during that O
2s
""rt4ce14r time "eriea-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4 202-347-37tX)
Nationwide Coserage Sn336-(M6 4
L. _
28690.0 ha BRT 4197 1
Q Well, it appears to me that the noninclusion of 2
this 117 gallons -- correct me if I'm wrong, but 630 gallons 3
in a tes t run over 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> has an effect of 1 gallon, right, 4
per minute?
5 A
Yes, sir.
6 0
117 gallons is almost 120, which is pretty close 7
to 2 gallons a minute.
8 A
Yes, sir.
9 Q
So, if you didn't include that amount here, the 10 result indicated by the computer is.2639 -- say
.3 gallons 11 per minute.
That would indicate to me that the inclusion of 12 the 117 in the calculation would have produced a leak ra te of 13 something like 2.2; right?
14 A
Yes, sir.
15 Q
So the failure to include it has a rather dramatic 16 effect on the bottom line, does it not?
17 A
Yes, sir.
18 Q
Since you did log it, you indicated it should have 19 been Hartman's responsibility as a surveillance operator to 4
20 check the log?
21 A
Yes, sir.
22 Q
There it is in the log -- this strikes me as very 23 sloppy, frankly, and I'm not sure it has anything to do with 24 you -- I assume it's Hartman's problem -- but not to include
(
25 something that's right in the log and it throws you off by ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage SE336-(6m
28690.0 0
BRT 4198 V
1 such a huge amount strikes me as pre. tty sloppy.
Would you 2
agree?
3 A
Yes, sir.
A little bit of background on that.
4 Compared to how I've performed on the shift at 5
different facilities and different positions in different 6
facilities since those days a t TMI, looking back on those 7
operations we performed, they were very sloppy.
Lack of 8
communications is one item I can recognize right now.
9 Q
Then Hoyt proceeds to approve it.
10 What do you recall about his process of approval?
11 What do you recall him doing, when you presented him with a 12 computer printout that s tated a leak rate of under a gallon a 13 minute, whatever it might have been, what did he do?
14 A
I would assume he went over the leak rate 15 calculation.
16 Q
Well, in what sense, though?
L7 A
Probably to verify the plant was in a s table 18 condition and look at the bottom line leak rate result.
I 19 don't know what specifics he reviewed during his review 20 period.
21 Q
What is your recollection, though, about his 22 review?
Was it perfunctory?
Or did he actually study the 23 numbers, check the log, do other things to satisfy himself 24 that the leak rate test was correct?
O 25 A
I don'L remember.
v ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37m Nationwide Coserage MXL3364M 6 s
1 28690.0
/O BRT 4199 V
1 Q
This would suggest, though, would it not, that he 2
didn't check the log?
3 A
I don't think he'd have to check the log --
4 Q
Por a water addition, I mean, j
5 A
Yes, sir.
6 Q
Do you reca)1 this time frame?
This is January 7
13, 1979; mid-January
'79, about three months before the 8
accident, a little bi t more.
If, in fact, you needed to add 9
almost 120 gallons of water to get this - well, let me i
10 rephrase that.
11 Here is a case where you got a leak rate of
.26, 12 round off to
.3, which is fine, but you know by looking at O
13 the log that it wasn't anywhere near that.
You added all 14 this water to come up with this.
Was tha t a t a time when it 15 was difficult, do you recall, to obtain a. leak rate under 1 16 gallon per minute?
17 A
I can remember as time elapsed closer t.o the I
18 accident, getting a leak rate within limits was harder.
19 Q
What is striking me -- and we heard a lot of 20 testimony to that ef fect and I t.hink typically it comes a l
l 21 little later than January but your statement has a lot of i
22 agreement from other people, nu t, still, looking at the 23 record now and realizing that this leak rate, this " good" 24 leak rate, in quotes, of
.3 gallons per minute, was actually i
25 off by at leas t a factor of 2 gallons a minute -- it wasn't ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide roverage 800-3364M6
d i
20690.0
/O BRT 4200 V
1 even close, in other words -- was that a period of time when 2
getting such a nice, low leak rate would have been rather 3
surprising?
Do you have any recollection about that?
4 A
Yes, sir.
I agree.
5 Q
Well then, if you were on the panel and you are i
6 working in some degree of coordination with Hartman and along 7
comes Hartman with this marvelous leak rate,
.3, and if 8
that's sort of a surprising result, wouldn't that have caught 9
your attention?
I realize you are not primarily responsible 10 for that test, but wouldn't that have seemed to you to be a 11 rather surprising result, even leading you to say:
- Hey, 12 Hartman, did you include that water in the calculation?
He -
0 13 would say:
What water?
And then you could tell him about 14 the 117 gallons.
15 A
That would be called good communications and i
16 communica tions is something we didn't have back then, as I 17 realize now.
18 Q
Let's turn over to test 148.
If you want to just 19 Lake a minute to look at the computer -- it's a computer 20 printout, couple of pages of log followed by copies of the 21 makeup Lank strip chart.
Okay?
22 A
Yes, sir.
1 4
23 Q
Now, just to identify it a bit and identify the 1
24 players, number 148 was run on the 15th of March of
'79, 25 between 4:50 and 5:50 in the morning.
In this case you were ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
21c-3473700 Nationwide Coverage axk33(r % 46
28690.0 BRT 4201 1
the surveillance operator.
It was approved by Bernard Smith 2
who, I understand, is shift supervisor; correct?
3 A
Yes, sir.
4 Q
Would that have been a case when Hoyt was just off 5
doing something else or would you have a particular 6
recollection?
7 A
In those days, the shift supervisor and shift B
foreman would go for tours in the plant to check plant J
9 status.
Evident ly Mr. Hoyt was taking a plant tour at this 10 time.
11 O
I don't mean to suggest it's particular]y 12 significant.
I jus t wanted to clear that up, if we could.
O 13 Now, we indicated you are the surveillance CRO and 14 Mr. Blessing is on the panel.
So I gather he is l i.c e n s e d, at 15 leas t at that ti me.
16 A
That's not necessarily true.
He may have been a 17 trainee under Hartman, perhaps.
18 Q
Looking over his shoulder, do you mean?
19 A
Exactly.
20 Q
If we look at the strip chart for test 148, again 21 you can see that the time is bracketed in the heavy line j
22 drawn in by the NRR analyst.
They show the location of 4:50 23 to 5:50 on the strip chart.
In this instance the times seem 24 to be pretty much in agreement.
25 Again, their analysis is towards the bottom of the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2te-347 37nt Nationwide roserage R43346M6
20690.0 BHT 4202 1
page.
They read this s trip chart as indicating a wa ter 2
addition of 100 gallons starting at 5:25, a little more than 3
halfway through the test and they note that there is no log 4
entry corresponding to that and also that there is no 5
inclusion of water in the calculation.
The other thing of 6
interest is that they refer to this as a jogged, t
7 j - o -g--g - e -d, water addition.
8 Are you familiar with the term " jogged water 9
addition"?
10 A
I have heard of it.
11 Q
What does it mean to you?
12 A
" Jogged" means adding amounts in a slow rate.
13 Q
That's my understanding, too.
I don't know as 14 we've ever had a definition on the record but that seems to 4
15 he the context in which it is used.
16 Now, if you can recall our discussion of that last 17 tes t, 94, where there was this sharp jump when there was the jogged water addition 18 batched addition, hew would one make a 19 to the makeup tank as a matter of mechanics?
How do you do 20 it?
21 A
I don't know.
1 22 Q
Well, first of all, the batch controller, we 1
23 talked about that some earlier.
Is it possible to operate 24 the batch controller in such a way that water goes in I
25 relatively gradually, as opposed to a fairly quick injection?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
_n u - + c-,
.,_._._._,,_._,...,_,,m,.___
28690.0 f
BRT 4203 1
A I don't remember if boric acid went through the 2
batch controller or not.
But boric acid went in at slow 3
rates.
4 Q
Do you remember -- and believe me, I'm in the dark 5
here, too; I don't know how to run a batch controller -- but 6
-- that's what I would like to get from you.
7 I can imagine setting a batch controller, in 8
effect telling the batch controller, put 300 gallons in the 9
makeup tank, and hitting a button and it would do so.
10 A
Right.
11 Q
And I assume in a high speed way it would produce 12 almost a vertica.1 line on that strip chart; right?
O 13 A
Yes, sir.
14 Q
Is there any other way that those batch 15 controllers could be operated?
16 A
I th,nk there's a bypass around the batch 17 controller when the ba tch controller is out of service.
18 There would have to be.
19 Q
IL would give you a slow injeeLion of water i
20 relative to the quiek injeeLion?
l 21 A
I wouldn't know how to do that.
22 Q
Apart from the batch controller, are there other 23 ways to feed water into the makeup tank?
24 A
Horic acid, I think, has a different source of 25 liquid.
I L
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37(U Nationwide Coverage 8%).WfM6
_,. _. _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _,.
20690.0 BRT 4204 1
Q No.
Jus t wa ter.
Just plain old water.
Well, I 2
guess we don't use plain old water.
Demi neralized wa ter, 3
wha tever kind of wa ter one puts in?
4 A
I can't think of any other-way.
5 Q
Only through the batch controller?
6 A
Or associated bypass.
j 7
Q Can you elaborate a little bit on what this bypass 8
involves?
9 A
If I remember correctly, just open a valve and f
10 water goes in.
11 Q
So if you opened the valve halfway water goes in 12 more slowly?
O 13 A
If that was possible.
But I think it was an 14 air-or motor-operated valve.
If that was the case it would, 15 I think, go all the way to the open position.
But I don't 16 remember exactly how that batch controller and its bypass 17 worked.
18 Q
Weil, obvious.ly all I am trying to understand is 19 Staff analystu say this looks like a jogged water addition 20 and I see t.he difference on the strip chart.
It is not a i
21 sharp vertical rise.
It's a leveling out of the trace.
And 22 if they are right -- that's a very simple question:
flow did j
23 you do that?
You don't know; right?
Neither do I.
24 A
Yes, sir.
25 Q
So the two of un are sort. of s tuck.
But looking ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37(X)
NdliOnmide rt %ffage 8(tL3%6M6
28690.0 BRT 4205 1
at that makeup tank trace, do you agree that what appears on 2
the trace at about -- they say 5:25, about a little more than 3
halfway through the test, there's a leveling out of the 4
trace?
5 A
Yes, sir.
That's obvious.
6 Q
Okay.
And that, it seems to me, appears to 7
continue for a time interval of, from the beginning of that 8
leveling out through the end of the tes t of, what, 25 9
minutes?
10 A
It appears to be 25 minutes.
11 Q
And then it s tarts lo drop off again at the 12 previous rate of decline; is that fair?
U 13 A
Yes, sir.
14 Q
What would you make of that particular part of the 15 trace?
What would you altribute it to?
16 A
IL looks to me like it could be a plant parameter 17 change.
If primary coolant system temperature would increase I
18 there would be less of a makeup si tuation required and 1.he i
19 makeup tank would hold at a more stable level.
20 0
Temperature change in the reactor could have this 21 efCecL?
22 A
Yes, sir.
23 Q
Where i t appears, just at a glance, to be a change l
24 in water level, that's not a real change in water level?
25 A
I don't know.
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2te-347 371U Naiionwide Cmcrage Rn3%6646
28690.0 b
DRT 4206 v
2 1
Q Or would the temperature change actually change 2
the mass of the water, thereby changing the level?
3 A
Well, if a temperature should increase in the 4
primary coolant cystem, the volume, as you said, would 5
increase.
The pressurizer level would increase and, 6
therefore, reduce the need for makeup to the primary coolant 7
system.
With a decrease in makeup, the makeup tank level 8
would appear to be more stable or level off.
And exactly the 9
opposite on a temperature decrease.
It would make the makeup 10 tank level look like a straight line down, so to speak.
11 DY JUDGE CARPENTER:
1 12 Q
Mr. Hocher, to follow up on your comment that tG V
13 there might have been changes in plant, would you turn to the 14 log for test 1478.
15 A
Yes, sir.
16 Q
On my copy of the NRR report there is a "S8" in 17 the upper left-hand corner.
Do you see that?
18 A
50?
19 0
Upper left-hand corner.
I just want to be sure we 20 are looking at the same page.
21 A
Yes, sir.
A log page number.
Yes, sir.
22 Q
Right.
Now, at 0527 lt reads:
" Pressurized GEN.
23 [
to 76 pounds of hydrogen pressure."
I quess it says.
What 24 does that mean?
O a are"e" "ei""
ooea te tae 2s
^
ma t e"trv <><ers te v
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3 C-347-37t u)
Nationwide Cos erage 8(XK33MM6
_ =. _. _
.. _. _ _ _ _.. - -. ~ _ _ _ _,.
_ _ _.. _ _ _ _,... _ _ _ _ _ - - ~ _
=. -
20690.0 BRT 4207 i
1 main electrical generator in the turbine building and, i
2 evidently, Mr. Blessing had the generator pressure increased i
3 to 76 pounds.
4 Q
Deen that represent a change in plant conditions 5
or is it just a routine adjustment on hydrogen pressure?
1 6
A That would have no effect on the primary coolant.
i l
7 system.
8 Q
The next entry is 0530.
Can you translate the l
9 hieroglyphics for me, please?
i 10 A
"DF --
1-A" refers to emergency diesel generator 11 alpha.
And it started in 7 seconds from a dead status.
12 Q
Does that have any relationship to the reactor O
13 coolant system?
Any effect on the reactor coolant system?
7 14 A
No, sir.
15 Q
The next entry is 0535.
Once again, hieroglyphics 16 Lha L I don' t unders tand?
4 17 A
Well " breaker."
Evidently UKR refers to 18 electrical breaker 2-A-1 E2, and " pull to lock."
I fail to 19 remember what 2-A-1 E2 refers to.
It is some breaker.
And i
i 20 with an E in i l, I think it's a safeguards breaker.
But I 21 don't remember what that breaker -- what i t supplied power to
(
22 or Crom, i
l 23 Q
Can you remember whether or not that breaker would l
l 24 have an ef fec t on " plant conditionu" in terms of --
2S A
I would quesu not.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
31b }47 N.lflonwide roverage Nuk3EN*46
.-____.,_..__,_.______,.,__.-.._.._..,___.-DI),_..
~..
28690.0
(
BRT 4200 1
Q Is that a common action, pulling a breaker?
2 A
PTL?
3 Q
Yes.
4 A
Yes, sir.
5 Q
So it doesn't indicate to you anything unusual is 6
going on?
7 A
Just by that terminology; no, sir.
8 Q
What does " pull to lock" mean?
9 A
Okay.
" Pull to lock" means grabbing a pistol-grip 10 handle, twisting it in a certain direction -- if I remember 11 correctly, in a counterclockwise direction -- and then l
12 pulling it in a direction away from the console.
The handle O
13 would s tay in that posi tion and that would interlock the 14 breaker Crom changing its current position.
15 0
Where were these breakers located?
There's a 16 picture of the control room up there, it that can refresh 17 your memory.
18 A
Most of the breakers were located on a panel, the i
L 19 console which is closest to you in the picture.
It is the i
I 20 one wi th the telephone in the center of the picture.
21 One thing about Three Mile Island, they had a good J
22 electrical panel as a MEMIC, and in that MEMIC system they 23 had breakers that controlled power.
And those breakers had a i
24 pul1-to-lock pasiLion, PTL.
When you want the breaker not to 25 change position you would select that option on the handle.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 202-347-37m Nationwide roserag A n3.1M44
28690.0 BRT 4209 1
I would assume that that particular breaker is on 2
that panel.
3 Q
Then at 0545 the log says he started "CWP-1-A."
4 What is CWP-1-A?
5 A
That would indicate circ water.
P would indicate 6
pump.
1-A would mean the alpha pump.
7 So, John Blessing started circ water pump alpha.
8 Q
What does that do in terms of plant conditions 9
with respect to this survelliance test?
l 10 A
It would have a potential effect.
Starting a cire 11 water pump would essentially increase cooling to the main i
t 12 condenser, which should increase condenser vacuum, which O
13 should increase plant efficiency, so to speak, and that may 14 have an effect on the primary coolant system.
15 Q
Where are the controls that he would have gone to 16 to s tart this circulating water pump?
17 A
Geez - it I remember correctly, all support l
18 systems are on the back upright panels.
If I could have some 19 time I could go over and look at the picture and try to l
20 locate them but I don't remember where they are located in l
21 the control room.
It wasn't a normal occurrence to be 22 starting-and stopping those pumps.
i 23 Q
This is somewhat of a surprise at 5:00, almosL i
i 24 6:00 in the morning, all of a sudden he s t a rts t.h e 25 circulating water pump?
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
.m, s _ m r_,
s< u-
--, ~
1 28690.0 BRT 4210 1
A That is surprising to me too, sir.
2 Q
There are a number of these circulating water 3
pumps, are there?
Were there?
4 A
There were 4 or 6 of them.
I forget how many.
5 But typically you keep them all running for increased plant 6
efficiency.
j 7
Q Well, in March would that necessarily be so?
8 A
Pennsylvania may have been cold in March.
You may 9
not need all of the cire water pumps.
10 Q
Well, to summarize this, you don't see during the 11 time period of this test, any entry in the log which would 12 reflect change of plant conditions with respect to the leak 13 rate surveillance test requirement of steady state?
14 A
Leak rate tes t s tarted at 0450 and was completed a
15 a t 0550.
And if he, indeed, did start that cire water pump i
16 at 5:45, which is five minutes away from the end of the leak 17 rat.e surveillance, I can't see how that would have an ef fect 18 on that chart.
19 0
What about the condition that led him to decide to i
20 turn it on?
l 21 A
1 would have no idea why he turned tha t pa r t.icular 22 pump on aL thal Lime.
4 23 0
W e 1.1, this involved the supply of water to the 24 condenser, which is somewhat removed from the primary reactor 25 coolant system?
1 i
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Nationsidc Coscragt N43 W6f46
..,..., ----,_,, -.-, v
a 28690.0 BRT 4211 5
1 A
Yes, sir.
A circ water pump would take a suction 1
2 from those famous towers and pump it through the condenser 3
and return it to those towers as a cooling method for 4
quenching the steam going through the main turbine.
4 5
Q With an effect, primarily, on the secondary 6
system?
7 A
Yes, sir.
8 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you very much.
I just 9
wanted to see what was going on during that hour.
1 10 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
11 Q
We were talking about possible reasons why the 12 makeup Lank strip chart would level out as we discussed.
You O'
13 indicated that it might be a result of temperature changes in 14 the primary system; right?
1 15 A
Yes, sir.
16 0
Is that something we can determine?
I have been 17 just looking at the computer printout, test 142.
There are a i
lu number of data points included on the sheet.
I was looking l
19 particularly at the T av, if tha t 's how i t 's pronounced, 20 entry.
And it shows that piece of data at the beginning and 21 end of the test with a change of.172.
22 By the way, I think those numbers written in are l
NRR calcu la tions.
3ut that calculation shows as a bottorr.
24 line 13.7 gallons.
Would that mean 13.7 ga] Ion difference in 2S maus?
Or what would that mean to you?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationmde roserage W-33M446
l l
28690.0
)
BRT 4212 v
1 A
It looks to me, from viewing some of the other 2
parameters, that pressurizer level increased over the leak 3
rate period.
That would cause the makeup tank level to 4
become more horizontal.
Like it's shown on the graph.
5 Why pressurizer level went up 1.411 inches, I 6
don't know.
That may be because T av went up 1.72 degrees.
7 Q
You indicated the temperature rise might account 8
for the level.
Was that consistent with what we see on the 9
computer printout here, a change of.172 change in 10 temperature?
11 A
That may be the effect; yes, sir.
12 Q
I'm lookinu for help here.
I frankly don't know 13 what 13.7 gallons means.
I thought it might mean that it 14 would account for a difference of, in the level, of 13.7 15 gallons, which isn't very much.
Certainly a lot less than 16 the 100 that's referred to as jogged water, but I may be 17 misreading this.
18 A
And I don't remember.
There's a thumb rule for, 19 let's see, gallons per inch in the pressurizer versus --
20 Q
Yes.
It's 30 gallons per inch?
21 A
Some thumb rule like that, but I don't remember 22 what the actual thumb rule was.
23 Q
Well, I just told you.
30 gallons per inch, so 24 100 gallons is a little bi t more than 3 inches, which is 25 about what that of f set is, roughly.
Wouldn't you agree?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tr2-347 37m Nationside Coserage
- th 3E6M6
i 1
i k
20690.0 BRT 4213 I
f 1
A Yes, sir.
i l
2 Q
So, again, I'm groping a bit, but looking at the
]
)
3 computer printout page under T av, there's a reference to
{
4 13.7.
Tf that means that the difference that could make in 5
the makeup Lank wouldn't be very significant, it wouldn't be j
6 anywhere near the amount shown on the trace, would it?
i j
7 A
No, sir.
So I can't -- I don't know why the i
8 makeup tank level was straightened out at that particular I
l i
9 point.
t 10 MH. MAUPIN:
Judge Kelley, a point of 4
11 clarification, in the Newtonian world, temperature changes 12 don't change mass, they change density.
O i
V 13 JUDGE KELLEY:
Fine.
14 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
15 Q
In connection with running this test, Mr. Bocher, 16 would you as a matter of routine have looked a t the strip 17 chart?
i 1H A
Yes, sir.
When I had the panel; sure.
19 Q
Okay.
But in this particular test you didn't have 20 the panel, you were the surveillance operator; correct?
21 A
Yes, sir.
22 Q
So, in that situation, would you look at the strip 23 chart?
l t
24 A
No.
25 Q
If you had looked at the strip chart in this i
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
~.m c_,,
,g m.
20690.0 Os BRT 4214 1
particular case, would you have regarded this as a valid 2
test?
3 A
I don't know but I would inquire why the makeup 4
tank level decrease -- decreased.
a 5
Q So you would have looked into it, in any case?
6 A
Yes, sir.
7 Q
Hut you would have considered it to be the job of 8
the panel operator to look at the atrip charL?
9 A
Yes, sir, i
10 Q
Did you do that routinely when you were panel 11 operator?
12 A
Yes, sir.
d l
13 Q
Dut did you do it just as a matter of part of your f
14 job to keep an eye on the trace?
Or did you do it in 1
15 relationship to leak rate tests?
16 A
I did it because it is a good operating practice 17 to keep conscious of plant parameters.
Not only would I look 18 at makeup tank level but also T av, THTC, rod position, 19 pressurizer level, various parameters that would indicate a 20 potential change.
21 Q
My question is, did you look at strip charts in 22 specitic relationship to leak rate tests?
23 A
No, sir.
{
24 Q
Okay.
Let me ask you to assume that this may 25 reflec t a, what we are calling a jogged water addi. Lion; that ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
n w.n.,
+ c-,,.
.. _ ~., _.,. _. _ _, _,, _ _ _ _.
_. _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _. ~. -, -
1 28690.0 BRT 4215 1
is to say, gradual addition of water as opposed to a fast I
2 one.
Can you suggest any valid plant-related reason to add 3
water in that fashion?
4 A
Waterwise; no, sir.
5 Q
Anywise?
6 A
Like I said before, boric acid goes in at a slow 7
rate.
8 Q
But water addition?
Is there any reason you can 9
think of to add water very gradually as opposed to pumping it 10 in the way the batch controller apparently pumps it in most 11 of the time?
12 MR. MAUpIN:
Excuse me, Judge Kelley, but there O
t 13 seems to be perhaps a disconnect between you and the 14 witness.
Horic acid, I think you could put to the witness 15 the question whether boric acid is added in solution, in 16 water solution, and so it actually does constitute a water 17 addition of a different sort.
18 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
19 Q
Okay.
You were indica ting -- would you agree with 20 counsel that you don't put pure boric acid in, you put in a I
21 solution of wa ter and boric acid; is that correct?
22 A
I think there's a mixing T in there somewhere in 23 the system.
I don't remember where that mixing T is loca ted 24 in relationship to the makeup tank.
25 Q
You mean before the makeup tank?
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 N.itionwide roverage Mn33MM6
.--,~-.n.,-,.
28690.0 BRT 4216 1
A It would have to be before the makeup tank 2
somewhere.
I don't know how the batch controller was related 3
to the mixing T in the boric acid sys tem.
I don't remember.
4 Q
Well, you can see what I'm after here.
5 A
Yes.
6 Q
Let's assume that the Staff is right and that 7
Whatever this is, whether it's boric acid or water, got 8
jogged in at. some gradual rate.
Since it has been suggested 9
that jogging water is one way to manipulate a leak rate test, 10 I would like to know whether there's any reason to jog water 11 in other than that?
That's what I'm preparing for.
Do you 12 know of any such reasou?
O 13 A
I don't know of any reasons to put water into the 14 makeup tank at a slow rate.
15 Q
Okay.
Assume for the moment, again, that that's 16 what happened in test 148.
But Blessing is on the pancl; 17 right?
And you are the surveillance man in that particular 18 test.
19 A
Yes, sir.
l 20 Q
If Blessing were doing the water addition here and r
l' 21 he were jogging water -- and I should add I don't believe 22 that he has said that he did do that; I believe he simply l
23 said that he added hydrogen.
But, in any case, it's a CHO 24 operator, other than you.
Assuming that another person other 25 than you were joguing water in to atfect a leak rate test, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202.M7 37(O Nationwide roserage MXK 3 }A6M6
. - ~. - - -
l t
28690.0 i
DRT 4217 f
1 would they -- do you think they would tell you that or not?
2 A
I don't think anybody would tell me i f they were 3
manipulating a leak rate.
4 Q
But you are the guy who is going to sign for iL; i
5 right?
6 A
I guess, especially in that case.
7 Q
In my hypothetical -- let's take one.
You are the 8
operator who has got surveillance duties and you are the onn 9
who is going to sign for it.
10 A
I wouldn't expect them to tell me if they were 11 trying to manipula te something if I'm going to sign for it.
i 12 In this particular case I did sign for this test.
O 13 Q
Pardon?
14 A
In this particular tes t I did sign.
15 Q
148.
Yes.
i 16 A
140.
Yes, sir.
17 Q
Right.
But if they do that to manipulate a test 18
-- and by "do that," I mean jog water in, and they are
]
19 jogging it - in my mind anyway, if it's their intent to i
l 20 manipulate the test the reason they are jogging is so it l
21 won't show up on the strip chart, at least not as obviously 22 as it would if it were batched in.
It's a way of sneaking 23 water in, so to speak.
24 They are doing that and you are the operator on t
25 surveillance.
Then the siLuaLion, as I see i t, is thal tney 1
i i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2n2147 37m Nationw nie Coserage
- n3346646
28690.0 BRT 4218 1
are causing you to make a false certification; isn't that 2
fair?
If you don't know?
3 A
Since I don't normally look at' t.he makeup tank 4
charts and only a visual looking at the logbook, that is a 5
fair statement.
6 Q
Do you think that either llartman or Blessing would 7
have done that to you?
8 A
Obviously one of them has, if iia 1 has alleged that 9
he has done it.
Obviously he has performed tha t ac tion.
10 Q
We have been talking about 148 and the record 11 shows what it shows about 140.
I'm using it - here it 12 really is an example.
I'm asking you to assume that somebody O
13 jogged water in, whether it was Blessing or flartman or 14 anybody else than you.
15 When your -- you are running the test as the 16 surveillance operator you are going to sign for it and I'm 17 just trying to get your opinion as to whether your fellow 18 operators would have pulled the wool over your eyes in that 19 fashion?
20 A
It is possible.
21 Q
Will you take a look at 143.
This tes t is similar 22 in certain respects and different in others, in terms of what 23 you were doing.
You were on the pa tie l in this particular 24 case as contracted with being a surveillance operator at 25 140.
And here the surveillance operator was liartman and it
,I l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 NationwiJe roserage
- b-)WN46
_. _ _ _.,__. _ _. _ _ - _._, _ _ _ __. _- 34 7 3 7( U
4 i
28690.0 O
BRT 4219 1
is approved by Mr. Royd.
The tes t was run on the 10th of f
2 March between 3:51 and 4:51 p.m.,
producing a leak rate of 3
.00,
.81.
4 Let's turn over to the Xeroxed copy of the makeup I
5 tank strip chart.
The Staff has analyzed this test.
Again 6
you can see the times bracketed to the right of center.
They 7
analyzed this to be a jogged water addition of 80 gallons 8
starting at 4 :40 in the morning.
Again, like 148 there's no J
9 log entry.
It is not included in the calculation.
And note I
10 it started 11 minutes prior to the end of the test.
11 Mr. Hocher, do you see the portion of the strip 12 chart where the Staff believes that this jogged water O
13 addition occurred?
14 A
There does appear to be a leveling-of f a t around 15 5:00 a.m.
i l
16 Q
Okay.
I think we are looking at the same place.
17 In comparing 143 and 148, if you just look at the two strip i
18 charts, would you say that one is more the phenomenon - the J
19 level-off phenomenon is more pronounced in one than in the 20 other?
I 21 A
They look similar to me.
But, also looking at 22 that time period, looking back earlier in the day, there i
23 seems to be a leveling-of f a t around 2130 also, as well as, 24 it looks like, around 0200 or 0215.
25 0
I,e t me stick with you here.
I think I see what ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm.,
~. _ m r _,.
..,. _., _ _ _ _ _ _ -, _, _. ~....,, _ _ _ _,,
28690.0 BRT 4220 1
you are referring to.
Well, is there one at 12:30?
2 A
12:30?
3 Q
You tell me again.
Which one --
4 A
I was looking at around 2130.
l 5
Q 2130.
6 A
9:30.
Just a minute --
7 JUDGE CARPENTER:
This is chart time?
8 THE WITNESS:
Chart time; yes, sir.
9 HY JUDGE KELLEY:
10 Q
You are looking at chart time and 9:30 seems to 11 reflect a Jevel-off.
Let's see if there's a water entry at i
12 that point.
Is chart time and log time about the same?
They i o 13 are pretty close.
14 MR. MAUPIN:
Judge Kelley, just for clarification, i
15 according to the Stier analysis in the green volume there is 16 no difference between chart time and clock time in this 17 particular case.
i i
18 JUDGE KELLEY:
Fine.
That's helptul.
Thank you.
19 HY JUDGE KELLEY:
20 Q
Your shift is 11:00 to 7:00, the night shift. here?
21 A
Yes, sir.
I 22 Q
Go do we even have the logged tech spec 11:30 --
23 A
1 don't see it here.
24 Q
We could take that up if we had to.
25 A
10 you want a jus tification of that leveling-OLE,
. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm.n.,
~_ mm_,,
__,._.___-.___._m,_-.__
_ _., -.- ~_ _ _.,-.._ _.__...._
28690.0 BRT 4221 i
1 1
I can't give you one.
~I 2
Q Well, would you agree with the StafL's analysis 3
that it is -- that so-called jogged water addition?
4 A
It. appears there cou]d be one.
5 Q
Could be.
Well, I think you have testified before 6
-- am I clear that it's your test.imony that you did not add 7
jogged water to affect the leak rate test?
8 A
Yes, sir.
9 Q
Hut you can' t sugges t another specific explanation 10 for that phenomenon there?
f 11 A
No, sir.
12 MR. MAUPIN:
Judge Kelley, I think I've got this
. O l
13 right.
If you turn back to test 142, I believe you'll find 14 the previous page of the log, in case you were looking for 15 it.
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
Good.
17 MS. WAGNER:
That's correct.
It would be page J
18 47.
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
What page?
20 MR. MAUPIN:
It has a chart -- or a log numbered j
21 47 in the upper right-hand corner.
In my version it has got i
22 an NRR reference of number 142, just below that.
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
Does this show itemmila?
24 MR. MAUPIN:
Yes, sir.
O 2s sooos xe"ev:
>=oo t 11:00 "itt-se <"ere ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 NJtionwIdc Con cf ase mx33u wa
20690.0
~
s BRT 4222 1
ought to be an entry -- we were looking a t 9:00 something --
2 9:15 in the evening.
3 Tile WITNESS:
It looks likes it would be 9:15 to s
4 about 9:45.
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, 9:00 is 1900; right?
6 MR. MAUPIN:
No, sir.
7 Tile WITNESS:
2100.
O JUDGE KELLEY:
I'm sorry.
2100.
300 gallons of I
+
9 demineralized water to the makeup 'L'aak, 2135.
10 THE WITNESS:
2175.
v"Tha t 's indica ted by a 11 straight line upward.
Right prio{ to the water addition it 12 seems to be a leveling-off.
O 13 JUDGE KELLiEY:
Yes.
The 300 is the vertical l
14 line.
15 THE WETNESS:
Yes, sir, i
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
So, according to the log, we don't.
17 know why 11. flattened out~just before that.
A t least the log 1
10 doesn't tell you, apparently.-
19 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
20 HY JUDGE KELLEY:
21 Q
10 you had made a water addition in the cource of 22 143, normally I guess you would have logged it; in that 23 right?
24 A
Yes, sir.
25 Q
And if flartman were running a test and you would i
k ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37tn NJiionuide roberage m:533uu6
20690.0 l
HRT 4223 1
have known that, you would have told him, or he would have 2
found it in the log?
2 3
A If Hal was on the panel and made an addition he 4
would have logged it.
5 Q
If you are on the panel -- I'm not hypothesizing; 6
on 143, you were on the panel.
7 A
Okay.
8 0
So you would have logged the water addition if 9
there would have been olie and, i n) any case, you may have told 10 him -- or he may have asked you -- about water additions; is 11 that right?
(
12 A
Yes, sir.
O 13 Q
okay.
So it should have shown up in the 14 calculation.
Okay.
15 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
16 Q
Mr. Booher, I'm still looking at this test 143.
17 This is the time period where there was substantial 18 iden ti fied leakage; is that correct?
19 A
Repeat the question again.
20 Q
This was a time period, this March 10th, is a 1.ime 21 period where there was substantial identified ieakage at 22 TM1-2?
23 A
I don't remember, sir.
24 Q
You don't recall some valves over a good many days 25 in March had a substantial leakage?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3 0-347-37(O Nationwide coserage 8(n336-6M6
28690.0
(,JI BRT 4224 w
1 A
One of the pressurizer codes or pour valves had
- some leak; yes, sir.,
2 3
Q That's what I meant by identified leak.
4 A
Yes, sir.
We did experience leakage through one 5
of those valves.
6 Q
What I'm trying to get your help wi th, if we look 7
at this s trip chart for 143, there are a series of water 8
additions necessary to keep the makeup tank level up, going 9
all the way back to the 2100 time period you were talking 10 about with Judge Kelley.
11 If I look.at those severa] additions, five, and 12 the time period right after them, they all show a pretty 13 consistent slope.
Then my eye is caught by the fact that
'j 14 right af ter the leak rate test there's an extended period i
15 where water wasn't added, running from roughly 0500 to 730, 16 where the slope is significantly less.
Do you have any idea 17 how this happened?
We are still trying' to learn, even after 18 six weeks, we are still trying to learn.
19 A
I'm sorry, sir.
The slope looks the same to me.
(
l 20 Il looks longer but the same.
21 Q
Well, I have the advantage of having a ruler and 22 pencil.
,l..t l '
23 A
Oh.
I 24 Q
Let's assume hypothetically that if you did draw a l
25 straight line through that extended period there you would i
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-170)
Nationside Coverage M336-6M6
28690.0
/'N BRT 4225 U
1 see obviously a slope more like the other line that is drawn 2
through the leak rate surveillance test time interval.
Do 3
you see that, that NRR has drawn two lines there, one with a 4
lesser slope and one with a greater slope?
5 A
Yes, sir.
6 Q
See, in that following period it corresponds more 7
to the line with the lesser slope.
And if you use that 8
lesser slope line you don't see any jogged water additions.
9 What I'm trying to do is look for times after the 10 leak rate test and before the leak rate test to see, on the 11 average, what is the slope?
WhaL was the rale of decline?
12 And there seems to be this big change in slope at about the O
13 time of the leak rate test.
I'm just curious as to whether 14 tha t valve leakage was very constant with time or whether it 15 i went up arid down, up and dot.:n, if you recall?
I 16 A
I don't remember any change in valve leakage.
I 17 wouldn't know how to tell that.
18 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Mr. Hocher, I have a few more 19 ques tions for you.
We won't pull any more charts on you for 20 a little while, anyway.
21 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
22 Q
On page 3 and 4, bottom of page 3, very top of l
23 page 4 of your prefiled testimony, you mention this LER, so I t
24 presume you know what that was.
Is that true?
25 A
Yes, sir.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage R&3346646
28690.0
,s BRT 4226
(-)
I 1
Q Are you familiar with the circums tances that led 2
up to it?
That the NRC inspector came around -
3 A
Yes, sir.
4 Q
There were two things about that period of time f
5 tha t I'm interested in.
We have some testimony about shortly 6
afLer this occurrence happened that the word came out to not 7
leave bad leak rates, leak rates in excess of 1 gallon per 8
minute, layi ng around on tables somewhere.
Or to be very 9
careful in your handling.
But the main thing was, don't 10 leave them out where the casual passerby can see them.
11 This appears to be the sense of i t.
12 Do you remember any instructions to that effect?
O 13 A
Yes, sir.
But I don' t know when exactly I heard 14 or read that instruction.
15 Q
You remember getting an instruction like that, do 16 you?
17 A
I do remember a conversation on it.
18 Q
Do you recall who told you?
19 A
Yes, sir.
20 Q
There are two possible -- well, I guess three ways 21 that I have been able to figure out how you all exchanged 22 information.
One would be information coming from your 23 supervisors.
Was it ordinarily Mr. Hoyt's -- he was your 24 shift supervisor -- I mean, he was your shift foreman, was he 25 not?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3C347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8@3364M6
. =. _ _
28690.0 BRT 4227 1
A Yes, sir.
2 Q
Do you recall talking with him about this 3
particular thing?
4 A
No, sir.
5 0
Another way, someone comes around with a piece of 6
paper and puts it in a book somewhere.
And if you ever get 7
the time and inclination to look into that book, then you 8
might have noticed it there.
Would you --
9 A
No, sir.
I don't remember seeing it in the 10 required reading book, but I do remember seeing and reading 11 the required reading book.
12 Q
As nearly as I can tell, it was with some O
13 difficulty -- you apparently signed off on the sign-off 14-sheet.
You initialed it for this particular item, which 15 would generally indicate that you had read it.
Now, would 16 you say that was a fair statement?
17 A
Are you referring to the LER?
1 18 Q
Yes, sir.
19 A
I do remember seeing that I did sign the LER.
But 20 what time I signed it I don't remember.
I don't remember 21 reading it, either.
i l
22 Q
Well, I'm not concerned about that.
It's fairly l
l 23 well established that whatever this instruction was, it came l
24 out not too long af ter the occurrence of October 17th, 18th 25 or 19th, if we could ever get those numbers straight.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Ac.147 3XO Nationside Coserage 800-336-6M6
28690.0 BRT 4228 1
The other way that infornation seeme'd to percolate 2
around the system was at shift change.
Cou.ld you possibly 3
have received the word there from someone that you just 4
happened to talk to when the shift was changing sometime?
5 A
It's possible; yes, sir.
6 Q
But you don't remember how you did get the 7
information?
8 A
No, sir.
9 Q
Mr. Booher, this is a standard question that I 10 ask.
During your training or your experience or talking with 11 your colleagues, whatever, did anyone ever really give you a 12 good explanation of what the safety implications of this O
13 particular leak rate test were?
14 A
During those days, no, sir.
The basis was there 15 in the tech specs.
But we all realized the safety concept of 16 leak rates.
But --
17 Q
Could you explain what you mean by "you all 10 realized the safety context."
What was the saf ety con tex t?
19 A
I'm hoping that I'm not confusing what I have 20 learned from other plants, tech specs, and referencing it to 21 a TMI tech spec basis.
But, basically a leak rate 22 surveillance is performed to indicate primary coolant system 23 leakage.
A primary coolant system leakage, a n.inute amount, 24 can generate itself into a larger amount, and that's the e
25 basis for a tech spec surveillance and a tech spec LCO and ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Natiortwide Coserage 800-336-6 4 6
._, -M7-3700
28690.0
( )
BRT 4229 1
the associated tech spec action statement.
2 The training in those days wasn't as good as it is 3
today.
So I don't think I had the education or the training 4
then as I should have.
5 Q
Would it be a fair statement to say that you do 6
not recollect knowing that in your present s tate of knowledge 7
at the particular time that you were CRO-ing on TMI-2?
8 A
It wasn't as big an issue as it should have been 9
in those days.
10 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Well, thank you, Mr. Booher.
11 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
12 0
Mr. Booher, to follow up on what you were saying
/~N
\\_)
13 to Judge Bright, page 6 of your prefiled, your concluding 14 paragraph.
We don't want to explore Waterford.
You say at 15 Waterford you learned the absolute necessity for strict 16 compliance with the technical specifications and plant 17 administrative procedures.
18 Can you tell us --
there's been a lot of changes l
19 in the whole industry since 1969, but, in particular, how was l
20 that experience at Waterford different than your experience i
21 a t TMI-2, 1978 and 1979?
22 A
For my being licensed a CRO, at TMI, the policy 23 there was to know a tech spec, to know tha t there's a general 24 subject on a particular item.
To know the action statement 25 or to know the basis in detail, being an RO, was not as great ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cose age 84336-6M6
28690.0
[l BRT 4230 v
1 an issue as it is today.
2 Today in training programs at various plants the 3
ROs must know the tech specs almost in as much detail as 4
SHOs, now.
In the TMI days, like I said, the Ros only had to S
know a general subject.
Say, for example, leak rates, 6
primary chemistry, plant radiation levels -- just know that 7
there are items associated, LCOs.
8 In respect, today, the training is much better 9
than it was then.
And at Waterford I did get the training 10 relating to tech specs in much more detail.
11 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Follow-up questions?
)
13 MR. MAUPIN:
Yes, sir.
14 MS. WAGNER:
None from the Staff.
15 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
16 Q
Mr. Bocher, we have just a few follow-up questions 17 from your counsel.
18 When did you first hear the term " jogged water 19 addition"?
20 A
During the investigations and interviews 21 post-accidenL.
22 Q
Okay.
I think that answers this.
I'll give you 23 the next question, Lhough.
24 Did you ever hear the term when you were a CRO at O
2s ma -2 orier te tae mcciaee'?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage fd&346M6
28690.0 BRT 4231 1
A No, sir.
2 Q
Can you tell, just from the CRO log, what was 3
going on in the plant in the period of a leak rate test?
Or 4
were your log-keeping practices such that one could not S
necessarily tell what was going on in the plant?
6 A
The logs were somewhat sloppy then.
I can 7
remember a statement that came out, that during the accident, 8
on March 28, that there was, like two or three lines of 9
entries made during the accident itself.
10 Now, I would have thought that there would be more 11 entries made of the different various parameters.
So, in 12 that respect, yes, the log-keeping was very lax back then.
O 13 Q
Well, to put it a little differently, I think what 14 the question is driving at:
Let's assume that you did make 15 all the log entries that the procedures told you to make and 16 that they were put in at the right time.
Could one then just 17 sit down and by reading the log tell what was going on in the 18 plant?
Would it give you a full picture?
19 A
I don't know about a full picture, but it should i
20 give you an indication of any major parameters' changes.
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
Did that get at what you were 22 after?
23 MR. MAUPIN:
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay, Mr. Bocher.
That takes us O
25 through the questioning process with you.
we appreciate your ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
' 202-M7-3700 Nationwide Cos erage M&33MM6
28690.0 BRT 4232 1
coming.
I know you are joining us from California; is that 2
right?
3 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, it's a long trip.
We 5
appreciate your coming very much and your attention to the 6
questions.
Thank you very much.
7 THE WITNESS:
Thank you, sir.
8 (Witness stood down.)
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
Our sense is just to break and come 10 back at 1:30 for the afternoon witness.
Is that all right?
11 MR. MAUPIN:
That should be fine.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let's do that.
Back a t 1:30.
t 13 (Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m.,
the hearing was 14 recessed, to be reconvened at 1:30 p.m.,
this same day.)
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 86336-6M6
t 4
i 28690.0 BRT 4233 1
AFTERNOON SESSION (1:30 p.m.)
i 2
JUDGE KELhEY:
Mr. Hoyt, good afternoon.
3 Whereupon, i
4 KENNETH H.
HOYT l.
S was called as a witness and, having first been duly sworn, 6
was examined and tectified as follows:
7 EXAMINATION l
l 8
BY MR. MAUPIN:
1 i
9 Q
Would you please s ta te your full name for the i
10 record?
s
]
i l
11 A
Kenneth Richard Hoyt.
J t
1 12 Q
Mr. Hoyt, do you have before you a four-page O
i i
13 document entitled " Prepared Sta tement of Kenneth H.
Hoyt" and i
i a
14 bearing the caption of this proceeding?
15 A
Yes, I do.
1 16 Q
Do you have any additions or corrections you wish 17 to make to that testimony at this time?
18 A
No, sir, i
I 19 Q
Do you adopt that statement as your sworn J
20 testimony in this proceeding?
I l
21 A
Yes, sir.
22 MR. MAUPIN:
At this time, Judge Kelley, I'd ask l
j 23 to have the statement bound in the record as if read.
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
So ordered.
O 25 (The document Collows.)
j g
)
i i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80lk336-6646 4
.I
. 1P 6
0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND
)
Docket No. LRP UNIT 2 LEAK RATE DATA
)
FALSIFICATION
)
)
PREPARED STATEMENT OF KENNETH R.
HOYT My name is Kenneth R. Hoyt.
I reside in Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania.
I am currently employed by GPU Nuclear Corporation as a Decontamination Supervisor in Recovery Operations.
]
i spent nine and one-half years in the United States Navy.
I began employment with Metropolitan Edison Company in 1971 as an auxiliary operator at Unit 1.
I became a control room operator at Unit 2 in 1976 and served in that position until 1977, when I became a shift foreman.
I was a shift foreman at Unit 2 until 1981, when I attained my current position.
My essential duties as a shift foreman were to operate the plant safely, to monitor daily evolutions, to carry-out the required routines for a shift and to supervise the personnel assigned to my shift.
During a typical shift, I would spend 1 ()
approximately one-half of my time in the control room, and the balance of my time touring and inspecting the plant.
,-.~.~.g---
r-,,,,un g-
,.c.-----..-,_-,w
,-,-,,-,,-,,a
a e
)
I never personally performed a leak rate test, although it was my responsibility to review leak rate tests run by operators on my shift.
In light of that information and the information I learned from my routine plant tours, I determined whether or not the plant was being operated in a safe manner.
As a shift foreman, I was aware that unidentified reactor coolant system leakage was not to exceed one gpm.
I was also aware that part of my responsibility as a shift foreman was to ensure that this limit was not exceeded.
During 1978 and 1979, I was aware that the method by which we measured reactor coolant system leakage was not always accurate.
The principal reason for this problem was that the computer program that ran the leak rate test was inaccurate.
At that time, however, I believed that I could ensure that unidentified leakage did not present a safety problem by checking other monitoring methods, which I used routinely.
These methods included observing makeup tank level, pressurizer level, system temperature and the sump pump.
I believed that despite inaccuracies in the leak rate test, I could nevertheless obtain a "ballpark estimate" as to whether we were operating within the one-gpm limit by observing the parameters described above, and by tours through the plant looking at system leaks or other problems.
I realize now that my review of these parameters did not enable me to determine precisely whether unidentified leakage exceeded one gpm.
However, my
()
primary concern was to operate the plant safely. _ _ -
(~;
kl My understanding of the action statement was that unidentified leakage had to be brought to below one gpm within several hours after a bad leak rate test or the process of plant shutdown had to commence.
Due to inaccuracies in the leak rate test, I was not always able to determine precisely whether unidentified leakage was below one gpm.
Thus, I now recognize that there may have been instances when I should have f
entered the action statement but failed to do so.
I was aware that TMI-2 operating procedures required that exceptions and deficiencies be filed with invalid leak rate tests.
However, I never filed an exception or a deficiency with any leak rate test that I deemed invalid.
I estimate that I approved about one-half of the leak rate tests that were brought to my attention.
The remaining tests were discarded.
I discarded all leak rate tests showing unidentified leakage in excess of one gpm because in my judgement those tests were invalid.
If my shift ran a leak rate test showing unidentified leakage in excess of one gpm, we would run other leak rate tests until a good result was obtained.
I did not attend Plan of the Day meetings, and was not informed of the results of such meetings unless that information was relevant to my shift.
I did attend meetings among the shift foremen, although I do not recall discussing problems with system leakage at any of these meetings.
OV -.._
4 I maintained a' log which contained entries concerning leak Edte test results and other indications of system leakage.
I also maintained a list of active leaks, which I would hand over to the next shift foreman.
I logged only satisfactory leak rate test results, because it was common practice at TMI-2 to do so.
I was not aware that during December 1978 one level.
t i
transmitter was very unreliable, although I am now aware of 4
i that fact.
To my knowledge, no one under my supervision deliberately used a faulty level transmitter so as to affect a leak rate test result.
I was aware that adding hydrogen to the makeup tank during a period when the makeup tank level instrumentation was faulty O
could produce a false reading.
However, I was unaware during that time that the addition of hydrogen to the makeup tank i
during a leak rate test could affect the result.
To my i
knowledge, none of the operators under my supervision attempted to manipulate leak rate tests in that way.
I was aware that it became increasingly difficult to obtain a satisfactory leak rate test result before the accident.
None of my superiors ever pressured me to violate TMI-2 technical specifications or operating procedures concerning system leakage.
4 I realize today that I made some mistakes in my actions but I never tried to falsify any information.
If I had it all to
()
do over again today I definetely would be be doing. things differently.
I would log all results of tests and not make any i
assumptions on my own.
]
-4
l i
28690.0
[v]
BRT 4234 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
I have an opening statement just 2
for the sake of context, and then Judge Bright -- Judge 3
Bright is on my right, by the way, and Judge Carpenter on my 4
left.
My.name is Kel]ey.
S The Board has been charged by the Commission to 6
determine the extent of involvement of employees at TMI-2 in 7
1978 and '79 in leak rate tes t falsification and other 8
improper practices in leak rate t.e s ti ng.
This is your 9
opportuni ty to state on the record your recollections and 10 percept. ions about your involvement in leak rate testing at.
11 that time and to rebut any adverse statement about you by any 12 employee or investigator group with which you may disagree.
1 13 We have reviewed your prefiled testimony and we have 14 considered it in Jight. of the testimony that has already been 15 developed in this proceeding.
16 As I expect. you are aware, we have been talking 17 with -- we will talk with jus t about all of the CRos and j
18 shift foremen and shift. supervisors in that time period, and 19 talk with them on roughly a shift basis with respect to the 20 shift that you were wit.h at that time.
We heard from 21 Mr. Ilartman some time back.
Mr. Booher, as ybu probably 22 know, was here this morning.
Mr. Smith is going t.o be here 23 tomorrow.
We are not sure about Mr. Blessing, whether he's l
24 going to come or not.
O 2s net.
1" ev cmse, we w ve erettv e11 t 1*ea te ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37m Nationwide Cos erage 80tK336-6M6
. - - - - -, ~
20690.0
/
BRT 4235 1
everybody in those positions at that time, including your 2
shift.
3 We'll have some questions based on your prefiled 4
testimony, possibly on statements you made in the past.
We 5
may have a few questions based on statements of others, such 6
as others on your shift may have made.
7 As you are probably aware, in addition there are 8
in the record of this proceeding two ra ther extensive studies 9
of leak rate practices at that time -- in that time frame:
10 One by the NRC Staff; and the second one by Mr. S tier, which 4
11 was commissioned by GPU Nuclear.
Those studies cover the 12 whole subjec.t pretty comprehensively, including analyses of k
13 particular tests that were run during the period of TMI-2's 14 operation.
The Stier study, for example, has an analysis of 15 every test run during that period that wasn't thrown away, 16 and the NRC Staff s tudy analyzes every retained tes t coming 17 out of the last six months of operation.
10 We won't have detailed, test-by-test questions for 19 you.
These studies are in the record for whatever light they 20 shed on the subject.
We may have a few ques tions about 21 particular tests, but by and large the tests themselves, the 22 analyses of them, will be in the record for whatever 23 evidentiary weigh t they are entitled to, but we'll certainly 24 consider them in light of the entire record including your 25 testimony here this afternoon.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80tL3E6M6
28690.0 BRT 4236 1
So, with those contextual remarks, let me turn the 2
microphone over io Judge Bright.
3 EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD 4
BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
5 Q
Good afternoon, Mr. Hoyt.
6 I think I have been through essentially all of 7
your prefiled testimony and your previous statements, et 8
cetera, and I have compiled a number of statements here from 9
those documents that, in the interest of time, I'll just ask 10 you -- make a statement and see if you agree with it.
11 You have testified that you have discarded 12 out-of-specification tests; by that I mean what are
(")\\
13 ordinarily called bad leak rates.
14 A
Yes, sir.
15 Q
That you personally have not run any leak rate 16 tests?
17 A
No, sir.
10 Q
You did not ensure that out-of-spec LRTs were 19 documented; that is, entered in the log?
4 20 A
1 didn't hear your first part, sir.
21 Q
I guess the first part was:
You have not made 22 sure that the out-of-spec LRTs, the bad ones, were documented 23 in the log?
24 A
No, sir, I did not.
25 Q
You have no knowledge of hydrogen additions?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-314M46
28690.0 f )-
BRT 4237
%J 1
A No, sir.
2 Q
No knowledge of water additions?
3 A
No, sir.
4 Q
And no knowledge of manipulation?
5 A
No, sir.
6 Q
Or the use of those two to manipulate tests?
7 A
No, sir.
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
Excuse me, the mikes are off.
9 THE WITNESS:
I am having a hard time 10 understanding.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
Hearing Judge Bright?
12
?*IE PITNESS:
Hearing all of you.
OO 13 JllDGE KELLEY:
Is this better now?
14 THE WITNESS:
I can hear you real good now.
15 JUDGE KELLEY:
When you say you have no knowledge 16 of hydrogen additions, did you mean no knowledge of hydrogen 17 additions for the purpose of affecting leak rate tests?
18 Tile WITNESS :
Yes, sir, that's what I meant.
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
And the same with respect to adding 20 water?
21 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
22 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
23 Q
That you personally nor anyone on your shirt, as 24 far as you know, ever made out an E&D on the leak rate O
2s eca i
?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationmide Coserage 800-3346M6
28690.0 4238 b' i BRT r
1 A
No, sir.
2 Q
And you have never put the plant into the action 3
statement as a result of a leak rate tes t?
4 A
No, sir, I never did.
5 g
okay.
I would like to just go over some of the 6
points that have been made previously and kind of flesh out 7
wha t goes on when we have a little trouble because we weren't 8
there, seeing how things went.
9 Could you just brief3y give me your general 10 opinion of the computer leak rate test procedure, what i ts 11 value was, how it worked?
12 A
Well, what am I going to say?
The procedure pO 13 really was for the CRO to go to the computer and put in a 14 code asking for a leak rate of the reactor coo] ant system.
15 The computer then would start monitoring certain parameters 16 throughout the system that it needed to look at.
It. would do 17 this for whatever interval of time the operator had 18 programmed the computer for, which normally was for one I
19 hour2.199074e-4 days <br />0.00528 hours <br />3.141534e-5 weeks <br />7.2295e-6 months <br />.
At the end of the hour the computer would print out 20 certain questions for the CRO to answer, and when he answered 21 those questions, it would print out what it seen as the leak 22 rate for the time interval.
l 23 Q
WhaL was your personal opinion as to the value of 1
1 24 this test?
O 2s
^
av neree" 1 eviesee?
l
. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage WG334646
20690.0 s
BRT 4239 1
Q Personal opinion.
2 A
It had a lot of inaccuracies into it.
The 3
computer was not given accurate enough information, really, 4
to be judging whether the plant had 1 gpm leak rate or not.
5 Q
In what way was it not given information?
6 A
The accuracy of the instruments feeding it. were 7
not accurate enough to give a computer program that would be 8
accurate enough to look for a 1 gallon per minute Icak rate 9
when you are talking -- you know, you have 80,000 gallons in 10 the reactor coolant system and you are looking over an hour 11 period for the thing to lose 60 gallons.
The ins trumen ts 12 that they had this computer -- they had maybe plus or minus, 13 say 1 percent accuracy on them and you are asking the 14 computer to give you plus or minus 1/15000 accuracy.
15 There was other problems in the program that 16 certain things were not compensated for, temperature 17 variations and things like that for the reactor coolant leak 18 tank, drain tank.
Those things were not properly 19 compensated.
The computer had been reprogrammed a t leas t 20 once, as I now remember, to compensate for this but s till 21 there were these little inaccuracies that fed into it.
The 22 computer was too, too variable.
That was my opinion of the 23 computer leak rate.
24 Q
This point has come up before, people sayi ng that O
25 you are trying to determine a gallon or so in a 60,000-ga11on y
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-370l1 Nationwide Coserage 800-336 4 46
28690.0 s
)
BRT 4240 1
system or something like that, whatever the gallonage of the 2
system is.
Isn't it true that you are not really doing 3
that?
Basically, for unidentified leakage anyway, you are 4
depending upon measuring in the makeup tank, which is a much 5
smaller system?
6 A
No.
If that was all the system was looking at, 7
that would be the only thing it would monitor, in my opinion, 8
just the makeup tank level and see if anything was put in or 9
if anything was taken out.
But it looked at plant pressures, 10 tank levels, drain tank Jevels -- these all are independent 11 of the makeup tank per se.
Sort of independent systems., Why 12 would the computer look at them af the only thing it was O
13 worried about was the makeup tank level change?
14 Q
But that was the only thing you could measure, in 15 terms of the water?
You can measure temperature and all that 16 but you had to manipulate that only for the amount of water 17 that actually went out of the makeup Lank; wouldn't that be 18 true?
19 A
Yes, sir.
20 Q
Well, all of that being said, did you really 21 regard this particular surveillance as really being 22 necessary, except for the f act that it was in the tech spec?
23 A
I believe it was a useful tool.
All right?
I 24 don't believe that the 1 gpm, as I said, was really a good, 25 accu ra te number.
But I did use it as a tool to see what the I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80tK33MM6
i 28690.0
[
BRT 4241 1
plant trend was.
In that respect, yes,.I did rely on it.
2 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Does Mr. Hoyt have the Stier 3
compila tion of previous statements?
4 MR. MAUPIN:
Do you mean the St.ier assessment, 5
Judge Bright?
6 JUDGE DRIGHT:
Well, his interviews.
7 MR. MAUPIN:
Yes.
I believe we've got them all 8
here.
Which one would you like him to look at?
9 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Stier investigation 2/14/85.
10 MR. MAUPIN:
All right, sir.
11 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Page 43.
12 HY JUDGE BRIGHT:
O 13 Q
Have you looked at it?
14 A
Yes.
I read it.
15 Q
I just want to refresh your memory here on this 16 particular thing.
You make a statement. that you never 17 remember seeing a leak rate test in excess of 1 gpm which 18 agreed wi th other plant conditions.
19 A
Yes, sir, I did make that statement.
The answer 20 was no.
21 Q
I guess it would be handy if you would turn to the 22 Stier interview of 2/26/05.
23 MR. MAUPIN:
Mr. Hoyt, it's to your right.
24 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
25 Q
Page 11 -- no.
Pardon me.
Yes, that is page 11.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(U Nationwide Coserage MO-336-6M6
d 28690.0 DRT 4242 1
What I would like to do is go through these other 2
indicators and get you to give me some idea of just how 3
accurate they were, and what kind of information you could 4
get from watching these other things.
This is what you said S
they were back at that time.
Would you take them one at a 6
time?
You look at makeup tank level --
7 A
Yes, sir.
Well, makeup tank level, as you are all 8
aware, you get a readout on a strip chart and I roughly had 9
30 gallons per inch on the chart.
So you could look at the 10 trend in the chart and see which way leakage was going, see 11 what water was being put into it and what water was going 12 out, and mathematically, you know, calculating ahead, what.
13 the plant is doing.
14 Q
How accurate would you say that was?
That looks 15 like a little bitty chart to me.
16 A
Yes.
17 Q
Those lines are awfully close together.
You have 18 a pen width to concern yourself with.
Plus the fact there is 19 an oscillation.
It doesn't draw a straight line.
20 A
Well, you never really looked at il as small 21 increments.
You would look at it over a time frame, and as 22 the NRC people have done, you sort of put an imaginary 23 straight line across it and averaged the thing out.
Never 24 really picked out a five-or 10-minute interval or something 25 Jike that; no, sir, you couldn't, because of the i
~
l J
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
hc Nanonaide Coserage 85336446
_-347-37m.,
28690.0
&m BRT 4243 1
oscillations.
2 O
Well, with the method you described, how accurate 3
do you think you could actually be?
4 A
I think that instrument had something like about 1 5
percent accuracy.
6 Q
That close?
7 A
Yes.
8 MR. MAUPIN:
Excuse me, Judge Hright, could you 9
clarify whether you and the witness may have been talking 10 about the same thing?
Were you asking him how accurate was 11 the methodology or how accura te was the ins trumen t?
12 JUDGE DRIGHT:
I 'm asking him how accura te, O(~h 13 considering the ins trument was correct, how accurate was his 14 eyeball guess on it.
15 THE WITNESS:
I misunderstood you, then.
I'm 16 referring to the instrument, was approximately 1 percent 17 accurate.
18 BY JUDGE BRIGilT:
19 Q
Yes.
20 A
To say my accuracy of eyeballing it, I probably 21 was -- could have been anywheres from, I don't know, 2.5 22,
percent, I would say.
Somewhere in that neighborhood.
I 23 Q
Could you characterize this in gallons?
I believe 24 i that was the scale that was used.
r
(
25 A
Yes, sir.
By eyeballing it and drawing your ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8%336-6M6
28690,0 BRT 4244 1
imaginary line you pick a reference of say 60 inches and it 2
drops down to 55; you have got a difference of 5 inches, you 3
multiply that by your 5 gallons per inch, and that is the 4
methodology you would use to determine what the Jevel change 5
had been, how many gallons.
6 Q
And you think that you could defend that to 7
yourself at least?
8 A
Yes, sir.
9 Q
Within 5 percent?
10 A
Yes, sir.
11 Q
Now you say you look at the pressurizer level.
12 A
Yes, sir.
)
13 Q
How did that go?
14 A
Well, pressurizer level, depending on plant 15 conditions, if you were running stable, pressurizer level 16 should be staying stable, makeup tank levels should be 17 maintaining stable.
Ideal condi tions.
18 If the makeup tank level was going down and 19 pressurlzer was not changing and temperatures and pressures 20 were not changing, that is an indication that water is going 21 someplace and not showing up as an addition to the reactor 22 coolant system, which would indicate you have a leak 23 someplace.
24 If you see makeup tank level going down and a 25 corresponding increase for the same amount of gallons into ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(x)
Nationwide Coserage MG33MM6
28690.0 BRT 4245 1
the pressurizer, once again without temperature changes or 2
pressure changes, it is safe to assume that the water leaving 3
the makeup tank is being added to the pressurizer and vice 4
versa.
5 Q
Could you have quantify the amount of water being 6
added to the system by looking at the pressurizer level?
7 A
Yes, sir.
There was a -- I don't remember the 0
exact number now -- but there was a correlation of inches in 9
the pressurizer versus gallons added.
10 Q
Was that a recorded intelligence?
11 A
Yes, sir, I believe it was.
12 Q
The pressurizer level?
OV 13 A
Yes, sir.
14 0
It had a record made of it, much as the makeup 15 tank had?
16 A
What I remember right now, yes, sir, it did.
17 Q
And you say you looked at reactor coolant system 18 temperature changes?
19 A
Yes, sir.
And that's just the, you know, change 20 in temperature is going to change the volume of the system.
21 So, if you see something increasing and you have a 22 significant change in temperature to increase, you can pretty 23 much relate that the increase in leval came from the increase 24 in temperature.
And we had a rule of thumb on that, that 25 would say so many degrees should show so many inches of level ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3MO Nationwide Cos erage
&n336-6646
28690.0 BRT 4246 1
rise in the pressurizer, so we could relate that.
2 Q
Okay.
This was a correspondence between 3
pressurizer level and temperature?
4 A
Yes.
5 Q
It was not a correlation between 1 degree equals 6
50 gallons or something like that?
7 A
I don't remember what we used for the rule of 8
thumb right now, sir; no.
9 Q
Did you ever consider the reactor drain tank in 10 that list of parameters that you gave to me?
11 A
Yes, sir.
They were looked at. _
12 Q
Exactly what went i n'to tiie reactor's drain tank?
4 f
13 A
Well, pressurizer release went ijIthere; valve 14 leak-offs drained into that tank; reactor coolant pump seal 15 leakage went into that tank.". Ij think there might have been a 16 couple of other things I can't remember right now.
17 Q
That. would be, or would it b utItomatic valving?
10 or overpressure valving?
FTanual valvi6g?
Let's say, on 19 the --
20 A
Well, outside of the pressurizer release, it would 21 have been manual valvincj prior to plan t s tart-up.
If there 22 had been any valves in the line that would have been open 23 they would have stayed that way while you were operating.
24 Q
Now, with all of these things, 'withoht the use of 25 the computer method, do you think you cotild determine the 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTER $, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
R 28690.0 rx 4247 g
BRT 1
difference between, say,
.9 gallons per minute and 1.1 2
gallons per minute?
l<
3 A
No, sir.
4 Q
So, it would be a fair statement to say that the 5
only prayer you had was tha t the computer could detect 6
this --
7 A
Yes, sir.
8 Q
-- that small of change?
9 A
Yes, sir.
10 Q
Something that I was curious about.
If you had a 11 leak in the, oh, say one of the main pipes in this system, 12 the primary system -- maybe a weld or just -- you had a bad
/V) 13 radiography job and there was a flaw in the pipe that nobody 14 detected or whatever -- generally, where would the leakage 15 from such a flaw, hole, whatever you want to call i t, crack 16
-- where would that Jeakage go?
17 A
That would end up in the reactor building sump.
18 Q
In the cump.
19 Now, I don't think we need to take worst case, but 20 just someplace tha t is, oh, relatively not very close to the 21 sump tank.
How long do you think it would take for that to 22 get to the sump?
23 A
I can't think of any place in the plant where it 24 should take more than one to two minutes before you start j
25 seeing the inflow of water into the sump and seeing your i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
my sem n.
x_ m_
1
.6 28690.0 I
BRT 4248 1
level increase.
2 Q
Now, we are not talking about a lot of water here.
3 A
No, but the plant was fairly new.
The piping was 4
fairly c. lean.
There was very little, let's call it dust and 5
crud in there to create traps.
k'ater should have flowed 6
through pretty readily, I would think.
7 Q
Was this something that was really considered very 8
carefully in the construction of that plant, do you know?
9 That is, how well all leaks lead to the nump?
We have a 10 garage downstairs that I park in and it's fantastic.
It 11 looks flat, but it is fantastic how often you have to wade 12 through that sucker.
I'm just curious -
0 13 A
But other places in the plant -- I can recall 14 right now that we did have puddles prior to getting to the i
IS drain.
What I can remember today, these were outside of the t
16 D ring, which would be in areas away from the reactor coolant 17 system piping.
i 18 Inside of the D ring itself, no, sir.
Today I 19 really can't recall any places where we formed any puddles 20 from any leaks.
21 You know, wet spots, we'll call it that way, but 22 not depth accumula tion of water.
23 Q
When you say the "D ring," what precisely is 24 that?
Is that a protecting shield inside containment?
25 A
Yes, it's a concrete protecting shield built l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8043%6M6 e
20690.0 i
BRT 4249 1
around the reactor loop and that is inside the reactor 2
building.
3 Q
Is this the sort of thing -- I have seen it in a 4
plant or two -- where you actually have a polar crane or 5
something like that that uses it as a trap?
6 A
No, You don't use the D rings.
You use the outer 7
walls of the reactor building.
8 Q
Now, you, of course, were familiar with the tech 9
spec on leakage out of the reactor.
10 A
Yes, sir.
11 Q
And if you couldn't determine whether the 12 unidentified leakage was less than 1 gallon per minute, in 13 light of the requirements of the tech spec, how could you not 14 go into the action s tatement?
This is something that is 15 puzzling me.
16 A
That's really hard to answer.
I don't know what I 17 was thinking back prior to the accident.
I guess I felt safo 10 with the computer printout that said we were less than 1 and 19 that was sort of the direction tha t was given to the 20 operators and the foremen.
You get your computer printout 21 and if you feel the plant is safe, you Cile that and go on.
22 Today I realize that was all wrong thinking, it P
23 was wrong training to even assume that.
24 So, it has just been too many years and too many 25 people showing me where I made my mislakes that I really ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(x)
Nationwide Coserage 8m346646 m--
28690.0 4250 Q
BRT 1
can't go bat to that point and tell you what I was thinking.
2 Q
That. is difficult.
3 Were you familiar with the safety significance of 4
that leak rate test?
5 A
Yes, sir.
6 Q
The reasoning behind the requirement for the 1 7
gallon per minute?
8 A
My understanding of that reason was to detect a 9
leak prior to it really becoming a problem, where you could i
10 lead into, well, basically like the accident that we did 11 have.
Yes, I am aware of that fact.
12 Q
Were you aware back in those days?
, O 13 A
Yes, sir.
14 Q
Did you ever talk to people in the control room 15 about it?
16 A
I don't understand what you mean by " talk to" 17 them.
18 Q
Well, did you ever point out to them that this was 19 why we needed the leak rate; it wasn't just a nuisance that 20 some bureaucrat had put in to devil the poor operator?
21 A
Not that I recall, sir.
This pretty much was 22 brought out in the training and I can't recall ever stressing I
23 that on my own to the operators.
I l
24 0
1.e t 's see.
On page 4 - first let me ask you, did l
25 you -- the opera tor would come to you and give you a leak i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37m Nationwide Coserage
- S33M646
28690.0 BRT 42.51 1
T 1
rate test for your approval and it would be below 1 gallon 4
2 per minute unidentified leakage.
Would you try to validate 3
tha t before you approved it?
4 A
In which way do you mean " invalidate"?
5 Q
" Validate," not " invalidate."
6 A
Excuse me.
Validate?
I would look at the i
7 informa tion on the printout and I -- usually this was 8
s ome thing that was made after I made my plant tour and if 9
things liked right there and it was less than 1, that's, to 10 the best of my recollection, about all I looked at to see 11 whether 1 felt it was a good leak rate or not.
12 Q
Well, now, you state here on page 4 that all of O
13 the discarded tes ts were grea ter than 1 gallon per minute?
14 A
To the best of my recollection; yes, sir.
15 Q
Let me ask you this:
Does that mean tha t there 16 were no tests less than 1 gallon per minute that were 17 discarded?
18 A
Not that I can recall; no, sir.
j 19 I would like to clarify one thing, though.
There 20 was some times when the computer would come out with some 21 large negative numbers, okay?
Now, those are definitely 22 negative numbers less than 1 but they were discarded because 23 they were definitely an invalid thing.
You can't have a -- I l
24 can remember as high as a negative 5 gallons a minute leak O
2s rm'e wit" "et"1"9 "4 eve"teu te the "1 et
'e 1"oicm'e 4"a "e 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 4 47-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
26690.0 n
BRT 4252 (j
1 way for the plant to make its own water.
2 I do recall at least one of them.
So, in that 3
respect, there was something else less than 1 that was thrown 4
away.
I'm sure there might have been others.
5 Q
Well, with the exception of those negative leak 6
rate tests, did you ever throw away a less than 1 gallon per 7
minute?
8 A
No, sir.
Not that I recall.
9 Q
On page 10 you make a statement.
In your answer 10 at the bottom of the page, the last sentence -
11 A
Yes, sir?
12 Q
Just for the record the sentence reads:
"We were s
(U) 13 Lold to look at these parameters, to do our own evaluation of 14 them, and to make our best judgment call on the condition of 15 the plan t. "
16 You say "we were told."
Who told you?
17 A
Hy "we" what I'm saying is the training department 10 had basically trained us, the crew, okay?
Myself, shift 19 supervisor, CROs, we all attended training normally at the 20 same time, same class.
That is what I'm referritig to as 21 "we."
As the whole crew.
22 O
Yes.
Ilut who told you, the training people?
23 A
Yes, sir.
That's what I'm referring to there.
24 Q
So it wasn't a matter of somebody wrote you a 25 letter or memo, as a condition of your -- well, no, strike ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 447-3700 Nationwide Cos erage
- n 33MM6
28690.0 BRT 4253 I
that.
That's going nowhere.
2 What I was curious about, I presume you applied 3
this to this leak rate.
4 A
Yes, sir.
5 Q
And then the question is:
Did you think that this 6
was what gave you the authority, ability, carte blanche, you 7
describe it how ever you wish -- to use your own judgment 8
rather than what the leak rate test told you?
9 A
Yes, sir, I did.
10 Q
A little thing happened.
Do you remember "the" 11 LER on leak rate tests?
12 A
Yes, sir.
O 13 Q
I wonder if you would turn to page 58; 58, 59, 14 60.
Why don't you read that.
At least the bottom of 58.
15 I think, rather than go through some ]ine of 16 ques tioning here, let me make a statement and see if you 17 think it's a fair statement of what is on these three pages.
18 That you didn't recall seek this LER, 78 19 A
No, sir.
20 Q
-- until people told you about it; and yet your 21 initials appear on the check-off sheet?
22 A
Yes, sir.
23 Q
And you would not ordinarily sign off on something 24 unless you had read it?
O 2s
^
ra t e cerrect.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
___,m
____m..
s,_.
f 28690.0 BRT 4254 1
Q But, regardless of that, that the practices used 2
previous to the incident that led to the LER were not changed 3
as a result of the LER being issued?
4 A
No, sir.
S Q
In connect. ion with that, let's go back to page 6
22.
Let's see, this goes quickly up to page 30.
If you 7
could just refresh your memory.
8 The only thing I'm interested in here, they are 9
talking about pressuring people on shift to do one thing or 10 other, particularly to get good leak rate results.
And you 11 stated that. there was no pressure.
The only thing you could 12 think of was shortly after this problem with the NRC and the O
13 Jeak rates came up, that you did receive the intelligence 14 that had leak rate tes ts were not to be laid out on 15 somebody's desk, or whatever, but were to be thrown away?
16 A
Yes, sir.
17 Q
And you also state that your recollect. ion was that 18 it was communication from your supervisor, the shift 19 supervisor?
20 A
Yes, sir.
21 Q
And it was your deduction, informed quess or 22 whatever, that this did come from upper management through 23,
your shift supervisor to you?
24 A
Yes, sir.
O 25 Q
Ame veer shift sepervieer at 1he 1.1me wme aereie ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37(U Nationwide Coverage 8@336-6M6
28690.0
(
BRT-4255 1
Smith?
i 2
A As I said in here --
3 Q
Yes.
4 Q
-- normally; yes, sir, i
5 Q
F3 u t.
It would have been a shift supervisor?
6 A
Yes, sir.
7 Q
You make a statement in here that they were 8
curious as to why this was the first time you had ever 9
revealed this information to anyone and your statement was 10 "it is probably the first time I had been asked about it."
11 Is that a tr u e ---
12 A
Yes, sir.
O 13 Q
Then, fart.her on down you state that you weren't 14 present when the inspection was made, the NRC inspection.
15 A
That's true.
i 16 Q
And then you think that it was a pass-on, the 17 information that you got, telling you that this had j
18 happened --
19 A
Yes, sir.
l 20 0
-- came from a pass on of information from one 21 crew to another.
22 A
Yes, sir.
23 Q
Could you elaborate on that just a little bit?
We 24 are trying to get the lines of communication here.
O 2s a
oee t *ee hether it e e tter et-v e ""
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage fulo-336-6M6
28690.0
,s BRT 4256 i
1 one day's shift or whether I might have been off and come 2
back after a weekend or something, but it was normal practice 3
for me when I come to relieve the foreman, to ask wha t had 4
happened, essentially, since last time I was on shift.
Lot 5
of times you get a rundown.
Il could have been anything such 6
as this NRC inspector has been here, or it could have been 7
something as simple as somebody dropping something and 8
hurting their toe, type of thing.
That is what I mean, 9
gossip Lype things, t.hings that's happening that's really not 10 the plant itself but it's happening to people.
That kind of 11 information got passed on right along with the technical 12 information on the plant.
O 13 Q
So, generally do you feel you had a pretty good 14 idea of what was going on in the plant, people-wise?
4 15 A
Yes, sir.
16 0
I see.
17 0
Something else:
Different companies, different i
10 outfits, diC[erent parts of outfits, companies, all have 19 slightly different ways of doing business.
I'm just curious 20 about lines of authority in your particular situation there 21 aL TMI-2.
22 What was the company attitude about adhering to 23 line of authority word?
I mean, on your shif t, you had a 24 shift supervisor and there was a line of progression that 25 went through you down to the CROs.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3No Nationwide Coverage A 4 336 W 4
~
\\
l i
\\
\\
\\
\\
28690.0 g
h BRT 4257 i
o
\\
\\
1 Now, I guess, if, for example -- just a 2
hypothet.ical sit.uat. ion -- if someone other than your shift 3
supervisor had told you to quit leaving bad leak rate tes ts 4
out on desks, would you really have considered that to be the 5
definitive word?
or would you have gone to your shift 6
supervisor to find out whether this was -- which was the 7
proper thing to do?
8 A
I believe I would have talked to my supervisor 9
about it and asked him if that's the same word that he had 10 received.
Because that's normally where I took all of my 11 directions from, was from my supervisor.
12 Q
Well, for example, if Mr. Floyd had done this, 13 would you have cleared it with your shift supervisor before 14 you would have complied?
15 A
fes, sir.
I would have made sure that he at least 16 was told the same thing that I was.
I 17 0
Or that he had been told something?
18 A
Yes, sir.
19 0
Just one other thing.
Mr. Hoyt, did you feel it 20 was your responsibility or was it your practice to make sure 21 that your CHos were aware of such things as this 1,E H ?
1.e t. m e 22 put a little finer part on there.
J 23 I realize that supposedly the LER, or whalever the 24 intelligence was, was taken and put in a book and it was 25 supposed to be read by everybody.
And you had a book, shift ACE-FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(N)
Nationside Coverage 8(tk336-fM6
_ _ -. _.. _ _. -~._
28690.O
- O BRT 4250
< v i
supervisor had a book, and the CRos had a book.
But did you 2
feel that it was your responsibility to make sure that in one 3
way or another the CRos had this intelligence, this 4
information?
That they knew about it?
That they were aware 5
of it?
6 A
Yes, sir.
I'll say yes from the fact thatthis 4
7 book you are talking about, and the sign-off sheet, had the 8
CRos right along with the foremen.
Normally my practice, if 9
I had read it and initialed it and seen that my CRos had not 10 done so yet., that I would leave the book out and tell them t-11 when they have the time, please read it and initial it.
i 12 Q
That was something else I wanted to ask you O
V 13 about.
I noticed that all of the initials are on one sheet 14 of paper.
You have six shifts with, let's see, two CHos, 15 perhaps three shift foremen, shift supervisor -- that's a 16 minimum of five.
That's 30 people and they are scattered out 17 in time so they don't get to reading their little book every 18 so often.
It must take a tremendous amount of time for that 19 single sheet of people to get around to everybody?
20 A
Yes, sir.
' P.1 Q
This appears to me to be a rather inefficient way 2h of getting the word passed and to make sure tha t everyone has 23' seen it.
Who is going to check on this, when it will take a 24 month to qet everybody to sign off on iL?
25 A
I quess I don't really have an answer to that, I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
30-347-3RU Nationwide Coserage 80lk34(M6
28690.0 4259 BRT 1
other than agree with you.
Today I can see how it really was 2
a very poor method of doing it.
But I guess sort of the 3
philosophy was there would be people on vacation, people off 4
for a week in the training; with rotating shifts you have 5
four-day weekends, so lo speak.
So, theoretically, at leas t, 6
people could be out of the control room for -- it.'s not hard 7
to imagine two weeks, wi hout gelling into the control room.
8 So, basically within a two-week time frame, 9
anyhow, somebody, or all the shifts should see it.
10 For something like this LER, that definitely was 11 too long a time frame.
I don't believe that would be done 12 tha t way today but I don't have any other t.heory for it O
13 then.
14 Q
That's the part that I have not been able to 15 understand in this case at all.
Everybody says they read the 16 LER.
Everybody initialed the check-off sheet.
Nobody can 17 reca11 whaL iL said aL Lhe Lime.
And there was absolutely no 18 change in the way anybody did business.
This seems extremely 19 strange.
20 Are you sure those were your initials on there?
21 A
1 don't remember the piece of paper.
All I'm J
22 saying is il looks Jike my initials.
I can' t argue that 1 --
23 Q
At one time you thought that was probably your l
24 initials?
O 2s a
1 ae teomv eir.
1 c " < e v tnev re "et.
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m.mme s,m_ m r-mm_
28690.0
[j BRT 4260 v
1 Q
I'm not arguing the point.
I'm just asking you.
2 JUDGE BRIGHT:
I think that's it.
3 THE WITNESS:
Thank you.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let's take a 10-minute break.
5 (Recess.)
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Back on the record, Judge Carpenter 7
has some questions.
8 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
9 Q
Mr. HoyL, I would like to turn to your prepared 10 statement.
On page 2, the third full paragraph you state, 11 "During 1978 and 1979 I was aware tha t the method by which we 12 measured reactor coolant system leakage was not always O
13 accuraLe."
I'm sLill trying to understand, did you think 14 sometimes it was accurale?
Most of. the time i t was 15 accurate?
I don ' t unders tand wha t "not always" means.
16 A
What I'm saying is the inputs to the computer I 17 did not feel as being totally accurate but I cannot say that la the computer printout was accula te or not accurate.
I guess 19 I have no way of giving you that answer.
So that's why I 20 made my statement that way, i
21 Q
I take it what you jus t said you mean to imply --
22 A
The computer could have been correct.
23 Q
-- there was a doubt in your mind?
24 A
l'm not saying it wasn't, all right?
But I'm 25 saying I Lelt there were enough inaccuracies, tha t I could ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
20244747n0 Nanonmde rmerage NXt336WA6
28690.0 BRT 4261 1
not believe it 100 percent.
2 Q
That's what I'm trying to get at.
Why you would.
3 believe i t at all, if. you had a doubt about it?
4 A
It was the best tool that I had to be looking at 5
something that small.
I had to have some faith into it but I 6
didn't have 100 percent faith into it.
7 Q
We are trying to understand the root causes of 8
this situation where a surveillance test wasn't considered to 9
be really reliable and yet it was used, day after day, month 10 after month, without any remedial action taken to make the 11 Les t do what it was capable of.
And that's what I'm trying 12 to understand.
O 13 A
The only answer I can give you on that, that was, 14 you know, for the accuracy that we were looking at that was 15 the best tool that we did have to use.
To my knowledge, the 16 program was looked at prior to the accident at one time and 17 was changed and even up at the time of the accident I thought 2
18 that the computer people were s till trying to come up with a 19 way of programming it to make it more accurate.
20 Q
1 recognize we are forcing you to atrain your 21 memory back to eight y(> ara ago and we are ta.1 king about 22 feelings, impressions, not things written down someplace that 23 you make reference to.
If you thought there was an 24-inaccuracy in the computer program, wouldn't that make every 25 result. that the computer produced inaccurate?
I'm having a 4
1 t
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2024 474 700 Nationwide Coverage mn13M6m
_._,_.___ _ _. - ~ _ -.____,_ - _,_,,,.,,__. _ _ - - _ _ _..._. _ _ _
~.
b 1
I 28690.0 BRT 4262 1
hard time understanding the sort of whimsical -- and you are 2
not the only person that expressed this view, I want you to 3
understand tha t.
4 A
I know I'm not.
I find it hard to put into 5
words.
I have a feeling what you are looking for but I guess 6
I don't know how t.o put it into words.
7 Q
If I have a calculator and I put 2 times 2 in it 8
and il tells me 5, I expect the next time I do that i t ' will 9
also tell me 5.
It will do whatever result --
10 A
Hut you are always putting in the same value, you 11 are putting in 2 times 2 all the time.
The computer was not 12 getting the came values all the time.
It was gett.ing O
13 different numberu; all right?
And what's to say that these 14 numbers t.ha t it was getting was accurate; all right?
15 Q
Tha t's very dif f erent from the computer having an 16 error.
17 A
That's what I'm referring t. o.
The computer 10 compiled all t.h e information; all right?
It had to take the 19 i nf orma ti on that. It got and that may not have been receiving 20 accurate information.
I'm sorry, maybe I didn't s ta te it 21 clearly enough.
22 The computer itself, I'm sure calculated what it 23 seen.
But did it see the accuracies?
That I am not sure 24 of.
Tha t 's wher e I had my doubts.
The inutruments that were 25 feeding the computer was not accurale enough so that the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm.,
~ _ m. m....
..o_
28690.0 DRT 4263 1
computer could be accura te.
2 Q
We certainly have evidence that, in particular the 4
3 level sensors, malfunctioned over extended periods of time.
4 What I'm trying to understand is how somebody trying to 5
change the computer program would have helped the 6
malfunctioning level sensor problem.
7 A
1 can' t answer tha t.
I'm not a computer man.
I'm 8
only telling you what I know the computer people were doing.
9 They were doing something with the program.
I cat't tell you 10 anything outside of that, sir.
I'm sorry.
I 11 Q
But you jus t explained that in your mind there was 12 the computer program, which took whatever signals the sensors O
13 provided it, and manipulated them.
14 A
Well, the one thing that I do know, that the 15 program prior to the accident was not getting proper 16 compensat. ion for temperature in the reactor coolant drain 17 Lank.
All right?
i 18 Now, tha t was -- I don't know how they did it. but 19 it was fixed so that supposedly the computer was getting a 20 proper compensation for temperature.
And my definition of 21 that is part of the computer program.
Maybe I'm using the 1
22 wrong terminology, I don't know.
23 Q
There was in, towards the middle of March, a l
24 temporary change order that called for the i nd i v i d ua.1 running O
2s e'
u>e 1e>* r4'e serveitt "ce tee'e
'e c4rrv eet 4 4""4t ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2112 387-371 0 Nationwide Cmeragt M43146M6
20690.0 BRT 4264 1
calculation.
The essence of that manual calculation was to 2
correct the volumes measured in the reactor drain tank back 3
to reactor temperature.
So far as I have seen so_far, this i
4 was never done by a change in.the computer program, it's a 1
5 manual calculation.
Is tha t what you are referring to?
i 6
A I believe we are talking the same thing.
- That, 7
somehow, did get into the computer.
To the best of my 8
recollection, this change had got put into the computer 4
9 somehow.
If not we would have been running hand calculations i
10 up until the time of the accident.
We never would have went 11 back to the computer.
12 Q
That's what I believe the record chows, at least
- O 13 the records that I have looked at af ter the temporary change 14 order, attached to each test is this hand calculation.
15 A
I don't recall, sir.
16 Q
Do you recall that temporary change order?
17 A
No, sir, not right now.
18 0
What were you doing during the month of March?
19 Were you on shitt'?
Or wece you at Lynchburg in t rai ni ng?
Or 20 were you on vacation, do you recall?
21 A
Well, the week of the accident I was in Lynchburg, i
22 on training.
Prior to that I was on shift.
23 Q
So there might have been a week or 30 where this i
24 temporary change order was in effect.
FJom my quick review 25 of the tests, I didn't see any for your shift where the l
l 4
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
n.wn,
nn-
20690.0 bt BRT 4265 v
1 manual calculation was made?
2 A
No.
Normally the week before our training week 3
was a relief week and we were -- you know -- not really 4
involved directly with the operations in the cont. rolling 5
room.
We were picking up the odds and ends that needed to be 6
done so the week before, if my recollection is correct; no, 7
we would not have been involved with it.
8 Q
In the next sentence of your statement you say 9
"the principal reason for this problem," referring to the 10 inaccuracy referred to in the previous sentence, "was that 11 the computer program that ran the leak rate test was 12 inaccurate."
O 13 Did you ever report that to anybody?
14 A
Yes, sir, I talked about that with my shift 15 supervisor.
That's where I got. my information that the 16 computer people were trying to look into this situation and 17 get it corrected.
18 Q
What I couldn't begin to try to understand, this 19 sort of a casual hopefulness that the computer people some i
20 day will get the problem solved.
And yet the whole time 21 TMI-2 was operating, the problem went on day after day.
22 That'u whaL I don't. understand.
I don't understand the 23 management strategy here which allows a surveillance test 24 that is required by the technical speci fica tion to go 25 essentially untulfilled, not f.or a few shifts or a few days, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm.m.,
~. - m _,...
m3m
i 28690.0 J
BRT 4266 1
but month after month.
2 A
I can't explain for management, sir.
The computer 3
people was an entirely different department from mine.
I did 4
not have a direct interface.
I did not have the authority to 5
tell them:
Hey, get in here and fix it.
This was something 6
that had to go up my chain, over and down another chain in o
7 another department.
8 Q
Uut as you said, this was the tool that you had to 9
see whether the plant was being operated in accordance with 10 the technical specifications?
11 A
Yes, sir.
12 Q
And you recognized thal the tool was dericient?
O 13 A
Yes, sir.
14 Q
And yet you were patient.
That.'s what I don't 15 understand.
16 A
I'm a very patient person.
17 Q
If you had Lried to energize this system, going up 18 the chain of command and down some other chain of command, to 19 get somebody to really come and do something about this, 20 would there have been resistance to your doing t. hat?
4 21 A
I can'L answer thal today.
I don't know.
22 Q
Well, did you have the feeling that it was wiser 23 not to make waves?
24 A
No, sir.
I had a feeling that I should take that.
25 to my supervisor and it was his responsibility to come back 4
1 i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i m m.m.
. o,_
. ~ _. -
f i
28690.0 l
,T BRT 4267 i
lG I
to me with an answer for my question.
And his answer, to the l
2 best of my recollection, always was:
Well, they are looking t
3 into it.
l 4
Q Well, I can t.hink of a lot of things, looking into 1
i 5
it might be the appropriate action, but where there's j
l 6
uncertainty about compliance with the technical
[
f l.
7 s pecifica tion, that seems too limp to me.
l I
8 A
I can't offer you anything else.
I'm sorry.
L 9
Q Well, the informaLion in the order concerning 10 these proceedings asks the Board to make findings concerninq i
11 who participated in, who had knowledge of or condoned or by 12 their dereliction or culpable neglect allowed the leak rate r
O 13 f a ls ifica tions.
And clearly t.hese f alsifica tions would have l
14 never appeared if somebody had paid attention to this leak j
i 15 rate test and goLten it straighLened out.
The aituation I
16 would not have existed in January, February and March of
'79, f
17 if it, had been fixed in October, November or December of '78; l
18 isn't that tr ue?
19 A
Yes, sir.
I 20 Q
So you see what I'm trying to underst.and is where I
21 Lhis neglect occurred.
Is it al the initia ting end or a t the i
I 22 end wheie the response should have been?
l i
i l
23 A
The way you are stating il, my answer to that l
24 would be i. t looku liken everybody fell short of what they 2b should have done, the top end all the way to the bottom.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-147 37tu)
Nationwale roserage MIL)4 tM6
{
20690.0 BRT 4268 4
1 Q
That's certainly the impression we have gotten 2
over the five weeks we have been sitting here.
That it was 3
-- nobody feels that what was done was proper.
On the other 4
hand, you can't really say:
Well, this individual should 5
have been the prime mover.
That's what I call a management 6
deficiency in the structure that we see.
7 You, as the foreman, you would think - not only 8
you but t.he ot.her foremen, recognize that this is the tool 9
that you had to use to do this surveillance, and every 10 foreman I talked to had reservations about it.
But he 1
11 couldn't get it fixed.
That seems strange to me.
12 A
Well, I guess I sort of have to say you would have O
13 had to have been there at the time, '78 and '79 time f rame to i
14 realize that this wasn't our only concern.
We had concerns 15 with other things in the plant and even those things took 16 time to get anything done with.
d 17 So, maybe -- just stick on the foreman level, 18 maybe we got in a rut of just assuming everything takes time, 19 paperwork takes time.
So, therefore, got to be patient and 20 wall for the whole wave of paperwork to make its round before 21 we'll see the res ul ts,
i 22 Q
We haven't seen any evidence tha t any paperwork 23 was ever started.
It sure taken a long time it it never acts i
24 by 40.
25 A
I'll agree with you.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
.n.,
m-
,,o-
=.
i 28690.0 BRT 4269 4
1 Q
Apparently, in your conversation with Judge 2
Bright, apparently you never felt that it was appropriate to 3
identify any of these surveillance tests as representing 4
either a deficiency or exception as required by 5
administrative procedure 1010?
6 A
That's true.
7 Q
Can you tell us why, looking at these surveillance j
0 test results, they didn't look like a deficiency?
1 9
A No, sir.
I really can't tell you what my thinking 10 was other than I felt the plant was safe and I had good 11 results, good computer resultu.
That's the only answer I can 12 give you today.
O 13 0
Well, you had " good" computer reuults which you 14 didn't believe.
The computer might have said the leak rate IS was a hall a gallon a minute.
Did you believe it?
)
16 A
I believe it gave me a good ballpark number and 17 that it was telling me the best information i t had.
Through 10 my own observa tions, tours through the plant and other 19 things, I didn't really have any reason to doubt that the i
20 computer was giving me its best information.
I may not have 21 believed.5; I may have believed it was anywheres from 0 to 1 i
22 gpm, but --
23 Q
In your tours of the plant, what fr action of the 24 primary piping aystem could you inspect?
25 A
I could inspect it all.
a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide rmerage Nuk33MM6
28690.0 O,
i BRT 4270 1
Q You could see all of the primary piping?
i 2
A Anyt.hing that was outside of a concrete wall.
3 Q
Wha t about inside concrete walls?
4 A
I couldn't see in there other than seeing Jeakage i
5 coming from -- running down the walls.
6 Q
You didn't feel that there were places that you 7
couldn't inspect visually --
8 A
No, sir.
in the primary reactor coolant. loop?
9 0
10 A
No, sir.
11 0
That's a 33ttle bit of a surprise because ot.hers 12 expressed the view that there was a substantial fraction of O
13 it that they couldn't see, couldn't visually inspect?
14 A
With the reactor under power you were not allowed 15 without good reason to go into the D rinos.
13u t I think you 16 all know tha t -- it is on record -- that I did enter the D 17 rinys under power to observe a 1eak on a pressurizer valve.
la so that proves that you can go into the D rings for 19 obuervation.
I 20 Outside of that, you could walk over to the sump i
21 and see what is running in the sump, which will tell you that
]
22 there's leak inside.
You can stand on top of the D rings and i
i 23 look for steam, which is what you would see coming up in the 1
l 24 atmosphere, which would tell you ther e's a leak someplace 25 inside.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m,.,
s _m_.
28690.0
/
BRT 4271 1
You may not physically see every inch of the pipe 2
but you could definitely see the indications if there was a 3
leak in that area or not.
4 Q
Well, I accept that.
That's the basis, in your 5
mind, you felt you didn' t know exactly wha t the leak was --
6 leak rate was, but you didn't think it was large or you would 7
have seen these visual indications.
8 MR. MAUPIN:
If I might just make a suggestion 9
that the Board have this witness - if you'll recall 10 Mr. Voigt's sugges tion to you this morning about Mr. Kunder's 11 Lestimony in the Stier assessment of Mr. Kunder with respect 12 to leakage in January of 1979, that. whole controversy, 1 O
13 believe you'11 Cind, if you inquire, that Mr. HoyL is l
14 referring to the same testimony.
15 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Would you s ta te the beginning of 16 it again?
I got most. of it, j
17 MR. MAUPIN:
I'm trying to be helpful but not be 18 Loo suggestive to the Hoard.
There was a period in January 19 1979 in which there was a steam leak inspected, of which I
20 Mr. Stier hau made an ansessment.
Mr. floyt is a 21 knowledgeable witness on that subject.
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
Is this the reference to the time 23 when you went inside the D ring to observe the leak?
24 TilH WITNESS:
Yeu, sir.
25 k
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
n w.~,
-- aa-n
28690.0 g
BRT 4272 1
BY JUDGE KELLEY:
2 Q
Just a follow-up question.
You have been 3
exploring with Judge Carpenter the notion that by walking 4
around the plant and looking for leaks you could derive some 5
level of confidence tnat some large amount of leaking wasn' t 6
taking place.
I haven't heard you place a number on it.
But 7
I assume that you are not saying tha t a walk-around of that 8
kind is not a complete substitute for an accurate leak rate 9
Lest, which is supposed to quantify it right down to the 10 tenth of a gallon; correct?
11 A
Correct.
12 O
Okay.
But just how much confidence do you get by O_
13 that kind of an inspection, in terms of gallons per minute?
14 Could you give us an estimate?
Could you be fairly sure that IS you weren't experiencing unidentified leakage of 2 gallons 16 per minute?
17 A
Yes, sir.
1 think I could.
18 Q
Decause effectively, if you don't really believe 19 the computer in t.he leak rate tes t and you are really going 20 on other indications of leakage, you are really, in effect, i
21 s e t ti ng aside the leak rate test and looking at uomething 22ll else; right?
4 23 A
Yes, sir, 24 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
j
!O 2s ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M M7-nm Nanonwide roserage RE M E N.84
28690.0 BRT 4273 1
BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
2 Q
And isn't it true, Mr. Hoyt, that in this whole 3
area of leak detection you were encouraged to use all these 4
other ways of qualitatively detecting leaks?
5 A
Yes, sir.
ti Q
So that fits in with what you are saying:
You are 7
saying, quan ti ta tive, 2 gallons a minute is roughly 3000 4
j 8
gallons a day.
That's an appreciable amount of liquid that 9
one might look Cor.
10 A
Yes, sir.
j 11 Q
Well, I think the perception you have been 12 providing us is useful.
Turn over to page 3 of your O
13 statement.
In the middle of the third paragraph you say "I
14 discarded all leak rate tests showing unidentified leakage in 15 excess of 1 gallon per minute because in my judgment those i
16 tests were invalid."
17 That's based on what you felt was your knowledge la from other indications of what the leak rate might be?
I l
19 A
Yes, sir.
20 Q
Not tha t you thought high numbers were invalid and l
21 low numbers were valid -
22 A
No, sir.
23 Q
-- in terms of the computer output?
It hasn't 24 been so clear to us that other Eoremen had quite tha t 25 perception.
They uimply felt that the high ones were suupect k
I 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-34M7m N unmwide rmerage
$n334NA
eer.
l 20690.0 BRT 4274 1
so they discarded them without emphasizing the fact that they 2
needed some backup, namely, visible observation,- to be sure i
3 that numbers like 2 weren't real.
s 4
A I can? t speak for the. Other foremeir.
I can only
.s 5
speak for myself.
And it'wasfa very religious thing for me 6
to make my tours of the plant.
'hnd in those tours I did
~
7 inspect everything that I cou'1'd as far as adstpms, whether it 8
be HCS connected system or whether it beijusb a secondary look at all'of,this and see 9
system.
I tried very hard to 10 where any problems were tha t needed repair ' work.
So I sort 11 of feel, myself, that I had a pretty good estimate of what 12 was going on in the plant as far as'any. ind of' leakage.
O 13 Q
Well, I see your posture, that you didn't feel i
14 that this leak rate tent was
,the absence'of the leak rate 15 test, in the sense of producing h result that you could have 16 confidence in, was a. serious safety problem in your mind 17 because of your visual inspection.
And apparently it just 18 made you tolerant of the fact that'this thing went on week 19 after week after week; somebody looking into it.
20 A
Yes, sir.
1 21 Q
Well, the upshot of all this, of course, is that 22 some people, as it begins to get more difficult to get l
23 computer printouts with numbers smaller than 1, which some 24 people termed good, a lot of people got -into manipulating the 25 test ao it became more difficult to get those kind of l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3701)
Natiorimide Cos eragi:
muk3346646
28690.0 BRT 4275 1
results.
In your mind, where does the fault lie for this?
2 For this situation?
It isn't something that was short term 3
at all.
The plant had been operating almost a year; almost 4
October to March.
It was reasonably up to speed.
It was 5
commercial.
6 You mentioned there were a lot of other problems.
7 Was it that the work load was so high that this thing just 8
never got a chance to be given the proper attention?
9 A
I really can' t answer that.
I don't know what the 10 work load of the other departments were, you know, that 11 really should have been - let's say the computer people.
I 12 don't know what their work load was.
I don't know what the O
13 work load of the upper management people that should have 14 been involved in this, I don't know what their work load was.
15 Q
Was your shif t generating items that they had to 16 give attention to?
17 A
I would say no more than any other shift.
Every 18 shift we generated paperwork that had to go up through the 19 chain for different people to review and to look at.
Some of 20 them may be such things as work requests for something to be 21 repaired.
It may be some other surveillance that a 22 surveillance engineer had to look at and prove.
There were 23 just volumes of paperwork created every shift that went off 24 in dif ferent direc tions for different people to review.
O 2s o
vee eiae t " ve the ree11""
t" t it w e excessive?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433M44
28690.0 BRT 4276 1
A That I can't answer.
Only the people receiving 2
the paperwork would know whether it was excessive or not.
3 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you very much.
/
4 THE WITNESS:
Thank you.
i 5
UY JUDGE KELLEY:
6 Q
Mr. Hoyt, I have three or four areas I would like i
'/
7 to talk to you about.
Could I ask you, first, to turn to 8
test number 94 in the NRC study.
I ment.ioned this to your 9
counsel before w<r resumed.
10 MR. MAUPIN:
Yes, Judge Kelley.
He's had a chance 11 to look at those two.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
T h a t. ' s fine.
13 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
<l
!?
14 Q
Okay.
This is the test that occurred on the 13th i
e 15 of January, 1979.
We don't need to go into every detail of 16 it.
There is a specific point that I wanted to ask you about 17 but it does refler.t on the computer printout page that you i
18 approved i t, that Hartman was the surveillance operator.
I 19 think the log indicates tha t Mr. Bacher was on the panel for 20 that test.
21 And if you ]ook aL the Xerox copy of the makeup 22 tank s trip chart about three'or four pages past the computer 23 printout, the test itself, you will note, is bracketed by 24 heavy lines just to the lef t oE center of the chart.
And the
- O 2s
"">>vei-14=e m' the dette-er the n oe.
t" ee t-tvnea-1" ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tC-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800 336-6M6
. _ _ _. ~
20690.0
/O BRT 2
4277 V
1 lines, those are typed in by the NRR analyst.
They read this 2
as reflecting a water addition of 117 gallons at 9:50.
3 Tha t 's an addi tion tha t was logged in the CRO log and I think 4
we can find an entry for it.
It was not included in the 5
calculation.
6 Do you see on the strip chart where the increase 7
of water, where the insertion of water is reflected?
8 A
Yes, sir.
9 Q
Okay.
And then over on the log you have an entry 10 right about in the middle of the page a t 10 : 00, an entry that 11 reads, " batched 117 gallons of water makeup tank."
Entered 12 apparently by Rocher; correct?
13 A
Yes, sir.
14 Q
Then going back to the computer printout sheet, if 15 you look at the questioas just above the top half of the 16 page, the second quesLion asks for operator-caused changes, 17 which I unders tand to include, where applicable, water 18 additions; correct?
19 A
Yes, sir.
20 Q
And it says zero.
So, apparently when Mr. Hartman 21 answered the quesLions at the end of the les L for the 22 computer and he entered the zero in response to that 23 ques tion, he didn't, for some reason, re f!1ec t the fact that i
24 117 gallons of water had been added.
Is that right?
)
25 A
That's right.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nanonwide Coverage 800 336-6( 4
28690.0 BRT 4278 1
Q Okay.
Now, 60 gallons of water in a olie-hour test 2
would mean 1 gallon per minute leakage; correct?
3 A
Yes, sir.
4 Q
So 117 is close enough to 120 to say it's about a 5
2-gallon difference; right?
6 A
Yes, sir.
7 Q
So, if that water had been incJuded in this 8
calculation instead of a leak ra te of.26 -- forget about the 9
39 and say
.26, or even
.3, the leak rate would have been 10 something like 2.3 gallons per minute; right?
11 A
Yes, sir.
12 Q
Okay.
So, would you think -- we talked a couple O
13 of minutes ago about just walking through the plant looking 14 for leak, that you would have seen a leak of 2.3 gallons per 15 minute?
16 A
Yes, sir.
i 17 Q
But apparently in this case you hadn't.
If there 18 was a walk-through associated with this tes t -- I don ' t know 19 whether there was or there wasn ' t -- but t.ha t would have 20 flagged the fact that there was a high leakage ra te if that 21 thesis is correct?
22 A
Yes, sir.
23 Q
So what does this indicate?
That the whole test 24 is just completely out of whack?
Or what do you conclude 25 from looking at this test and looking at the f act that a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Cos erage 800-3M-6M6
28690.0 p)
BRT 4279
,v 1
substantial wa ter addition was not included in the test?
2 A
Well, what I conclude there was a lack of 3
communications between the two CROs.
4 Q
Okay.
5 A
And there was a lack of identifying it to myself 6
when I signed this.
7 Q
In a case like this, whose would be, in your 8
opinion, the primary responsibility for making sure that this 9
water addition got included in the leak rate calculation?
10 I'm assuming that - if my assumption is wrong tell me - but 11 I'm assuming that normally the person on the panel, in this 12 case, Bocher, would have actually batched the water in; 13 correct?
14 A
Yes, sir.
15 Q
Where would the responsibility properly be in 16 seeing to it that it got reflected in the leak rate test?
f 17 A
I'd say it is the man running the surveillance.
18 Ile's the man tha t didn' t ask the question.
19 Q
So the computer says to him:
Did you add any 20 water?
In effect, he, then, could look in the log and he 21 would have found this if he had done this, I take it?
22 A
Ile could have looked in the log or just verbally 23 add.
24 Q
One way or the other he should have found out; I
25 correct?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(U Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
m 28690.0 (v~)BRT 4280 1
A Yes, sir.
2 Q
Would this indicate -- back up a bit.
3 When asked a while ago about the nature of your 4
review -- I think Judge Bright asked you about that -- and 5
you said words to the effect that you would look at the 6
computer printout and look at the bottom line, in this case, 7
.3.
If the numbers on there made sense and the amount were 8
under a gallon, you would approve it; is that correct?
9 A
Yes, sir.
10 Q
So I gather, then, that your review process would 11 not encompass normally your own -- for example, your own 12 reading of the waters, see if water got added?
O
\\'
13 A
No, sir, logs, normally I reviewed them at the end 14 of the shift, not in the beginning or middle.
I waited until 15 all entries were made.
When I was referring the CR0 log, 16 that's when I did it.
17 Q
But would you do it wi th a particular eye toward a 18 leak rate test or just to see whether the log looked okay?
19 A
Just to see whether the log was correct.
20 Q
So, in a case like the one we jus t looked at where 21 there was, in fact, a log entry of that water, you wouldn't, 22 I take i t, have necessarily matched up the two in the leak 23 rate, to see if the two got put together?
i 24 A
No, sir.
j l ()
25 Q
As I'm sure you are aware, Mr. Hoyt, two of the l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tC-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33MM6
28690.0
( )
BRT 4281 1
three CROs on your shift, Mr. Blessing and Mr. Elartman, in 2
interviews, have acknowledged manipulation of. leak rate 3
tests.
Turning first to Mr. Blessing, who has not testified 4
and we are not sure whether he will be here, but in any case, 5
we have earlier s tatements from him.
Let me just, rather 6
than paraphrasing, I'll just quote from the statement of his 7
given to NRC investigators on April 10, 1980.
And this is an 8
excerpt that I'll read:
9 "lle" -- meaning Blessing -- "He acknowledged that 10 it was common' practice, by a large portion of the control 11 room operators, to add hydrogen to the makeup tank while 12 running a leak rate surveillance test in order to assist in O
13 getting good leaks rate results; i.e.,
results that met 14 technical specifica tion requirements.
15 "At this time Blessing did not specifically 16 identify individuals who had actually added hydrogen to the 17 makeup tank but reiterated that it was common practice and 18 well known to personnel, at least up to the shift foreman 19 level of management."
20 So, here's Blessing saying, as I understand him, 21 it's perfectly common practice to add hydrogen in the hope 22 that the leak rate would turn out better and that was 23 generally known, including by the foreman, and at a later 24 point, I believe he refers to you specifically.
n
(_)
25 Yes, let me go on and read the next section from ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationw nie Coserage 80lk33&6646 l
28690.0
[0D BRT 4282 1
the next page in the same vein.
Again, this is Blessing 2
talking to NRC investigators in 1980.
"He emphasized that it 3
was not secret that hydrogen was being added to the makeup 4
tank during the running of the reactor coolant safety test 5
and it was a total common practice.
He said it was his 6
opinion that supervisors and foremen were well aware of this 7
practice.
He again reiterated that nine out of 10 times the 8
hydrogen addition did not work and therefore was not 9
pertinent to this issue.
When specifically asked what 10 foremen were aware of the hydrogen additions, he stated that 11 he was confident that Dick Hoyt, his shift foreman, was well 12 aware of. the hydrogen additions during the leak rate tests."
-(G) 13 I'll stop there.
14 So, comment on Mr. Blessing's statement?
15 A
As far as adding hydrogen af fecting Icak rate; no, 16 sir.
I was not aware that it would and I do not believe that 17 it would.
18 Today, I have been, by some of the experts -- they 19 showed me their opinion but I'm still of a different 20 opinion.
21 As far as adding hydrogen during a leak rate, by 22 procedure there was nothing that said you couldn't do it.
It 23 is not up to -- it's a gas, it increases pressure, which is 24 no different than if I add water and increase the level, I'm 25 still increasing pressure.
So, even if they did do it, I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(0 Nationwide Coserage
&n336-646
--,_,_.___.--,r-
28690.0
-I
)'
BRT 4283 c
1 wouldn't tell them not to.
2 Q
Well, more specifically let me ask you this:
In 3
light of what I read to you, Mr. Blessing, at least, says 4
that he in fact was adding hydrogen, hoping that it would 5
improve the leak rate result.
6 One, do you believe that that's a true statement 7
by Blessing or do you know one'way or the other?
8 A
I don't know.
I'm saying my opinion is that it 9
wouldn't affect it and you didn't know that it affected it if 10 it did.
All right?
11 Q
Okay.
That's two points.
I've got a third 12 point.
Regardless of what you might have thought about the
[_
U 13 technical efficacy of adding hydrogen or not, were you aware 14 of the fact that one of your operators, namely, Blessing, 15 thought that it was helpful in that regard and was using it 16 for that purpose?
17 A
No, sir.
18 Q
Let me shitt over, then, to Mr. Hartman.
19 Mr. Hartman gave a number of interviews.
I won't try to 20 quote from them but Mr. Hartman, as you are probably aware, 21 described a variety of ways in which leak rate tests could be 22 manipulated, hydrogen addi tion being one.
He also spoke of 23 water additions that would not be included in the calculation 24 a Iid therefore would affect the leak rate test.
Whether 25 number 94 that we just looked at is an example of that or not ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationaide Coserage 800 3346M6
1 i
l 28690.0
[v}
BRT 4284 1
I don'L know.
That could have been, as you suggested, a 2
miscommunication.
3 I suppose alternatively it could have been 4
Mr. Hartman deliberately manipulating leak rate tests.
- But, 5
be that as it may, he spoke of a general practice on his'part 6
to use both water and hydrogen to manipulate leak rate 7
tests.
And so, I have really the same question:
Were you 8
aware of the fact that Mr. Hartman was engaged in those kinds 9
of activities?
10 A
No, sir.
11 Q
Did you ever - I gather if you weren't aware of 12 il you had no discussions with him along those lines?-
13 A
No, sir.
14 Q
What we have to grapple with here is, to 15 understand what was taking place and satisfy ourselves that 16 what you tell us and they tell us took place can both be made 17 Lo. fit together and, if not, who is telling the truth and who 18 is not.
19 We have these descriptions of activities by 20 Blessing and Hartman.
We don't have, to my knowledge, any 21 very explicit statement involving you as far as they were 22 concerned, with the exception of the statement I just read a 23 few minutes ago where Blessing said he thought that you knew 24 about these hydrogen additions.
He didn'L Clat say that he OQ 25 told you or refer to any specific incident.
But, if they ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage Nn336-6646
28690.0 s'
DRT 4285 1
were engaged in those kinds of activities, how are we to 2
understand that those activities could have taken place and 3
you wouldn't have known about it?
What was going on between 4
you and them, if you were supervising their work very 5
closely.
What are we to make of this?
6 A
You say " supervising them very closely."
I 7
wouldn't say that I supervised them very closely.
In f ac t, 8
looking over their shoulder --
9 Q
Fine.
I don't want to build in an assumption 10 that's not true.
By all means, clari f y tha t.
11 A
I had full confidence in May operators that they 12 knew how to do their work.
I did not stand to look over OV 13 their shoulders to see what they were doing.
As I s ta ted 14 previously, you know, I had tours of the plant to do.
I had 15 other paperwork to do.
I had lots of things that I had to do 16 on the shift also.
17 I would have to make a special effort if I wanted 18 to look over somebody's shoulder to take the time to watch 19 and see what they were doing and I never f elt that I had to 20 do tha t wi th my operators.
21 Q
So are we to conclude -- I think I understand what 22 you are saying - are we to conclude from that, then, that 23 Hlessing and Hartman were using various tricks and devices to 24 give you a computer printout under a gallon a minute without (O
25 telJing you what they were doing?
y t
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6 4 6 l
28690.0
(
BRT 4206 1
A If in fact they did that; yes, sir.
2 Q
So, in a sense, they are producing a desired 3
result in the sense that a computer printout under a gallon a 4
minute is what the system wants.
And yet in another sense, 5
if we believe their statements, they are doing it in a 6
deceptive manner and then walking up to you with a piece of 7
paper and saying:
Hey, sign here.
And you proceed to do 8
that without knowing, I take it, that the result has been 9
manipulated.
10 Knowinn what you know -- again, using hindsight, 11 knowing what you know about the situation at the time, your 12 relationship with the two gentlemen I have referred to, 13 Hartman and Mr. Blessing -- I am not referring to Mr. Bocher 14 simply because he testified this morning and I'll ask you 15 about him in a moment.
But he is not like Hartman and 16 B]essing, admitted that "I manipulated results. "
Hartman and 17 Blessing did.
So that's why, I think, I'm emphasizing them.
18 But, taking into account your recollection of the 19 situation and your relationship with them and your own 20 estimate of them as people, do you think it plausible for us 21 to conclude that they were pulling the wool over your eyes on 22 these tests?
23 A
Yes, sir.
24 Q
Mr. Booher testified this morning, and the 25 situation is different with Mr. Rocher.
We have the evidence ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80433M646
28690.0
(
BRT 4287 1
before us and we'll have to assess that, consider his 2
testimony.
We haven't reached any conclusions about whether 3
Mr. Bocher was engaged in manipula tion or not.
But would
(
4 your view be any different with regard to Bocher than it 5
would be with regard to Hartman and Blessing, so far as 6
manipulation is concerned?
7 A
Are you asking me do I feel that Ray may have 8
manipulated things along with them?
9 Q
Yes.
I'm asking you that.
Maybe not as neatly 10 and directly as I should, but that's a fair statement of it.
11 A
I find it hard to believe that any of them 1
12 manipulated any of it.
I really had not given any thoughts 0
13 along the line.
I really felt that I could trus t all three 14 of them, to having everybody admit that they were doing it 15 and to say whether Ray was doing it or not, I couldn't say.
16 Q
Can you draw any distinction but I'm - and I 'm 17 not trying to put words in your mouth but, in your own mind:
18 Do you think it more or less likely that Mr. Bocher would be 19 engaging in manipulation than would Blessing or Hartman?
20 A
I think it would be less likely for Ray because of 21 the three, Ray was t.he more professional CRO on the shift.
22 lie was the man really that carried the shift, so to speak.
23 My right--hand man when I wasn't in the control room.
l 24 Q
Was he the senior of the three or just the one you l
25 relied on more or both?
{
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347 3700 Nationwide coserage 8m336-6646
28690.0 mh BRT 4288 1
A No, I think Hartman was really the senior but Ray 2
was the one I could rely on because I knew I could trust him 3
when I wasn't there.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
Excuse me a moment.
5 (Discussion off the record.)
6 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
7 Q
Mr. Hoyt, I wanted to ask you a couple of 8
questions about a certain type of water addition.
The 9
typical batched water addition will show a sharp, almost 10 vertical line on the makeup tank strip chart; correct?
11 A
Yes, sir.
12 Q
We have had the tern introduced in this hearing
+
O 13 that speaks of a jogged, j -o--g-g-e-d, water addition, which I 14 take it means a water addition put in the makeup tank 15 gradually, a t leas t compared to the rather quick way in which 16 a normal batch addition occurs.
Is that your unders tanding 17 of i t also?
10 A
Yes, sir.
19 Q
Can you tell us how, at TMI-2, as a matter of 20 which controls one manipulates, how one makes a jogged water 21 addi tion?
How is that physically done?
22 A
Well, you say "how was it physically done?"
That 23 I can't answer for you because I never seen anybody do it.
I 24 can only theorize, knowing the plant and if I wanted to do 25 that, all right, I can tell you how I would do it.
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage RKk336-6646
28690.0 BRT 4289 1
Q All right.
Please do.
2 A
Well, most of the t.ime we took water out of what 3
we called a reactor coolant bleed tank with a pump, and on 4
the discharge side of that pump there was an air-operated 5
valve which had a variable position to it depending on the 6
air pressure applied.
That fed into the batch controller and 7
into the makeup tank.
8 If you wanted to jog water into the. system, I'd 9
have to have a man on the pump to start the pump to regulate 10 my little air-operated valve here.
I would have to have a 11 man over on the batch controller.
He would either have to 12 manipulate batch controller or have an operator out in the 13 plant by passing the batch controller.
The ba tch controller 14
- I don' t know if Nick brought this thing up -- had a very 15 loud distinct click to it every time a gallon went through 16 it.
You could hear it throughout the control room, sit there 17 and go click, click, click, click.
If they wanted to hide 18 this they wouldn't want to have that this clicking.
I would 19 see an opera tor out in the plant to bypass tha t and get water 20 into the makeup tank.
Under that type of arrangement I'm 21 sure I could jog water into that makeup tank that would not 22 show up on a strip chart.
23 Q
That's the reason for doing it, I assume?
If you 24 want to manipulate a tes t you don' t want any tell tale blip on 25 the strip chart?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8@33MM6
... ~. _. -
28690.0 (v,,m
)
BRT 4290 1
A I assume that's what this is all about.
People 2
trying to get water in without anybody noticing it.
3 Q
Right.
4 A
It could have been -- could be done.
5 Q
Under the procedure that you described, though, 6
you have three different operators cooperating in this 7
venture?
8 A
You would have to to have three because you have 9
the discharge and volume of the pump, which was air-operated, 10 tends to fluctuate a little bit, up and down a little bit; 11 you have somebody watching the makeup tank chart and he has i
12 to stay up there continually watching this thing, is it O
13 continuing my slope normally as it goes, I'm not going flat, 14 I'm not going uphill.
15 So you would have to have a collaboration of 16 several people in order to do it.
I don't think it was done 17 that way.
18 Q
Can you think of any other way to jog water into 19 the makeup tank rather than just the way you just described?
20 A
I'm sure - there were probably some other ways, 21 but off the top of my head; no, sir.
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
Thank you.
23 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
24 Q
Are both the domineralized water and this --
25 A
Reactor coolant bleed tank.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 80tk336-6M6
1 28690.0 BRT 4291 1
Q
-- reactor coolant bleed tank water, both came 2
through the back controller?
3 A
Yes, sir.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
Anybody have any other questions?
5 MS, WAGNER:
Yes, sir.
6 (Discussion off the record.)
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Questions from counsel?
8 Mr. McBride?
9 MR. MC BRIDE:
No, sir.
10 MR. MAUPIN:
No, sir.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
Anybody else?
12 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Bear with my reading, Mr. Hoyt.
13 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
14 Q
If you were obtaining only "ballpark estimates" of 15 leakage, as stated on page 2 of your prefiled testimony, and 16 were unable to determine precisely whether unidentified 17 leakage was below 1 gallon per minute, what was the basis for 18 your belief, as stated on page 2 of that tes timony, that you j
19 "could ensure not unidentified leakage did not pIesent a f
20 safety problem"?
21 A
Well, throughout my tours of the plant to look at l
22 all thasse different parameters, piping and valves, et cetera, 23 just from that if I never found anything that told me, hey, I 24 had a hazard here that could develop into something l
l O 2s a""9er "", the" "ee" ea
~"e "re-
^"a v t "re " r "11v l
4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37t0 Nationwide Coverage 8a>336-fM6
,. _, ~
=
28690.0 l
BRT 4292 1
included enough of the systems that that'was my deduction at 2
the end of it.
3 Q
In light of your testimony that you were not 4
always able to determine precisely that unidentified leakage 5
was below 1 gallon per minute, on page 3 of your prefiled 6
testimony, was it your view that leakage in excess of 1 7
gallon per minute did not present a safety problem?.
8 A
I guess my answer to that would have to be if I 9
found something that was leaking, it would have to be 10 determined where it was leaking from.
I've never given much 11 thought as to where I had a cutoff, what was safe or unsafe.
12 It would be determined by where it came from.
('\\
13 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Thank you.
14 MS. WAGNER:
Could we get some expansion on that 15 answer?
He is saying, then, that unidentified leakage in J
16 excess of 1 gpm might not be a safety problem?
It depends i
17 where it comes from?
18 THE WITNESS:
If I went to a valve and the valve 19 packing is leaking, all right?
Now, one thing, I identified 20 where the leak is, all right?
The valve may be one of these 21 type of valves that I can open up onto the back seat and seal 22 the packing from the leak.
All right?
There, I'm not 23 endangering the plant, I'm no t endangering any thing, I can 24 just completely ot,en the valve and put it on the back seat 25 and seal the leak.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 447 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-M46
28690.0 O
BRT 4293 0
1 If I go up to a pipe at a weld and I have a weld 2
that's bad, it's leaking, I cannot isolate that.
It may be 3
just a trickle.
But I call that unsafe because it's on a 4
weld; I cannot isolate it, because it's going to grow.
It 5
may be anything from a valve that's leaking to a weld that's 6
only a trickle, not greater than 1 gpm.
Therefore I'm going 7
to say it's unsafe, no matter how much it is leaking.
8 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
9 Q
Mr. Hoyt, I would like to have you turn to NRR 10 test 120, please.
All you are going to need to do is look at 11 the strip chart.
This is a surveillance tes t that doesn' t 12 involve your shift at all.
i 13 In this test, apparently, Mr. Adams ran a test of 5
14 the so-called hydrogen effect, as best we can understand.
15 You notice in the center of the strip chart it's 16 labeled " leak ra te test 120."
About in the middle of that 17 there's an arrow showing a time point where hydrogen was 18 added, and what I wanted to find out was:
We look at this as i
9 a pretty clear demonstration tha t at leas t on this occasion 20 when you add hydrogen to the makeup tank it changes the 21 signal that is fed to the strip chart recorder, apparently 22 because this differential pressure sensor didn't sense that 23 additional hydrogen on both legs equally.
24 I wanted to get your opinion.
Is there an 25 alternate interpretation here?
When you said earlier you ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3 % 6646
28690.0
,s URT 4294 1
didn't believe the hydrogen had an effect.
This is one of 2
the bases for a tentative view, at least on my part, that 3
perhaps hydrogen did have an effect.
4 A
I can't answer tha t for you, sir.
The 5
transmitters I'm referring to had a leg that went into the 6
top of the makeup tank in the gas space, and you had a leg 7
into the water side.
If I put pressure in there, both legs
/
8 should see it.
9 You don't put pressure in that stays at the top of 10 the tank and sometime later drifts down to the bo,ttom.
It is 11 felt equally at all places.
12 I can't see where -- I don't know if this is an b)
(
13 effect from the hydrogen or not.
I can't explain it.
14 Q
As far as we can tell is that's the only thing 15 that happened.
The hydrogen was added and the makeup tank 16 level recorder went up, t
17 A
Well, that may have been.
But also looking at 18 this same strip I see -- not quite as elaborate, but I can go 19 over a couple of hours, I see another rise in there where 20 nothing is indicated of anything done.
I can go all the way 21 back right straight to the beginning of this strip, I see a 22 little bit of a leveliza tion there.
I don't know what that 23 came from.
l 24 You know, so, because hydrogen was added at this iIO 2s ti e tr> e,
>v"e it ">o eteect-ae" t x" "et we" '
l
?
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-330 Nationwide Coverage tuk334fM6
28690.0 (m
BRT 4295 1
say that it did.
I don't believe it did.
2 Q
Are you saying you think the amount. of deflection 3
here is not large enough to be unusual?
That you 4
periodically would see upward movement equivalent to, 5
perhaps, three chart divisions?
6 A
Well, that's roughly two or three and - yes, I 7
can go along this strip chart and find two to three in other 8
places.
Maybe not over the same duration, but definitely two 9
or three increments.
10 Q
If the reference leg, the leg that went to the gas 11 phase at the top of the tank, had a low spot in it and liquid 12 accumulated in that low spot, wouldn't that influence the O
13 transmission of pressure from the tank gas phase to the 14 sensor; in the sense that the gas you are sensing would have 15 to push that slug of water up the hill?
16 A
I can't answer that for you without taking, 17 really, some time to think about it.
(
18 Q
Well, we are trying to get your help.
19 A
The tank would normally run around 30 pounds of 20 pressure.
That would take quite a bit of water to -- for me 21 right offhand to say that the wa ter wouldn' t af fect it.
22 Q
We are talking about. pressure changes here that 23 correspond, as I understand it it, to inches of water.
We 24 are looking at a change here that's two to three inches of 25 water as expressed by pressure.
So these are really small l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3NU Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
28690.0
/~'N 4296
'b BRT 1
changes in pressure that are being reflected in the strip 2
chart recorder, aren't they?
3 A
Well, I don't know.
Does the log say what they 4
changed pressure to?
May I go back and review it?
It says S
"added hydrogen."
It doesn't say what they changed the 6
pressure by, so I don't know.
I don't know where the 7
pressure was when they added it or what they ended up with.
8 That may have had some effect.
I just -- I'm sorry, I just 9
can't really help you with this.
10 Myself, I don't believe it was the hydrogen that 11 caused this.
12 Q
Well, I say, I just wanted to get your view.
,U 13 Others expressed the view that this is unequivocally a 14 demonstration of how hydrogen can affect a leak rate test.
15 You add the hydrogen and the sensor temporarily shows bias, 16 in this case, in a positive direction.
17 A
What I see here, it looks to me it's showing over 18 pretty near a half-hour range.
That doesn't make sense to 19 me.
Even in light of you saying it has to push the water 20 uphill, why would it have to take a half hour to push a 21 couple of inches of water uphill?
22 No, sir.
To me -- I can't agree that there's 23 hydrogen additions shown there that af fects that leak rate.
24 Q
Well, certainly it's difficult to reach a firm i
25 conclusion based on a sample of 1.
As opposed to --
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage 84336-6M6
r 28690.0 BRT 4297 1
A Yes, sir.
If i t would have been a blip, maybe I 2
could agree with you.
But this time duration and my feelings 3
and understanding of the way the instrument worked, et 4
cetera, I can't. help you.
I don't believe that that hydrogen 5
addition is what caused that trace.
6 Q
You don'L feel that, a slug of water in the 7
so-called dry sensing line would produce a bias and pressure 8
on that. side so that it wouldn't equalize?
9 A
Not anything that would look like that.
10 Q
What would you think it would look like?
11 A
I said, maybe a blip when you added the hydrogen.
12 As soon as you stop adding and changing pressure you should
,g
.13 be right back to a normal-type reading.
At least what you 14 had before.
You would have had to have t.he water in t.here 15 before you added the hydrogen.
16 Q
Yes.
17 A
And why should it. take a half hour for this t.o l
18 stablize after you add the hydrogen?
It should only have 19 been the fluctuation at. the time you were changing the 20 pressure on that sensing line.
21 Q ' Well, if t.he increased pressure doesn't cause t.h e r
22 gas to bubble through tha t slug, which simply displaces the 23 slug as if it were a piston and then for some time later for i
l 24 some reason it begins to bubble through, then it would come I
l O 2s u cx 1ae" <8e vre eere e1a eue 11ze-I l
1 I
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coscrage Rn346M6 I
28690.0 BRT 4298 1
A I cannot argue that with you because right off the 2
top of my head I don't remember the directions of the sensing 3
lines.
I don't remember any place in those lines, though, 4
that this effect would occur.
You may be right.
I wouldn't 5
argue that point.
6 Q
Thank you very much.
Since others have pointed 7
this test out to us I just wanted to get your reaction.
8 Thank you.
9 MR. MAUPIN:
Judge Carpenter, I wanted to point 10 out to you but I didn't want to interrupt the colloquy, you 11 began by saying this was an experiment performed by 12 Mr. Adams.
The NRR may have typed his name on the sheet, but O,
13 if you will recall his testimony he did not recall 14 participating in this and he denied that the handwriting to 15 the best of his recollection was his.
16 I also wanted to point out to you that you may 17 recall the testimony of Mr. Chwastyk, which was to the same i
10 ef fect about the same test.
The same effect as what Mr. Hoyt 19 just stated.
20 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Mr. Maupin, I accept your 21 products.
I recall Mr. Adams' views about whether or not 22 this is his writing, whether or not this was the tes t, since 23 his memory was he did a series of them which we cannot find 24 any evidence for.
That's not the point here.
I just was 25 trying to get Mr. Hoyt's evaluation to almost a hypothetical, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3Rio Nationwide roverage 800-336-6M6
28690.0 4299 1
if you will.
If you saw a strip chart record like this and 2
saw this excursion, upward excursion in the makeup tank level 3
s trip chart record that correlated with adding hydrogen, how 4
would you feel about that?
5 THE WITNESS:
I would feel there was something 6
besides the hydrogen that caused this trace.
7 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you very much.
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Hoyt, that completes our 9
ques tioning process.
Thank you very much for coming down 10 here today and your responses and attention to questions.
11 Thank you very much, you are excused.
12 TIIE WITNESS:
Thank you.
O 13 (The witness stood down.)
14 JUDGE KELLEY:
Off the record.
15 (Discussion ofC the record.)
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
If there's nothing further, we will 17 s tand adjourned until tomorrow morning at 8:30, 18 (Whereupon, at 4:00 p.m.,
the hearing was 19 adjourned, to reconvene at 8:30 a.m.,
on Wednesday, October 20 29, 1986.)
21 22 23 24 O
2s ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-)?00 Nationwide Coserage 8@ 336-(M6
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER O
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISALND UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION DOCKET NO.:
LRP PLACE:
BETHESDA, MARYLAND C
DATE:
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt)
(TYPED)
JOEL REITNER Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation
,