ML20199J226
| ML20199J226 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/13/1995 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20199J167 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-97-325 NUDOCS 9711280079 | |
| Download: ML20199J226 (53) | |
Text
- . _ _ . - - _ - - - - . . - . _ _ - _ _ . _ . _ . _ . - . _ _ . . _ _ - - _ . - . . . - . . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
i I
i EXHIBIT 26 9 i . ,
L C)<
9711290079 *.?1124 PDR FOIA KEENAr497-325 PDR Case No. 1 95 013 Exhibit 26
')1Iy's0379 _ _ .__ .
- - - , - - . - ... - ..-.- - - - - - .=. _. - - - - - - . .
1 L
I UN8TED STATES OF AMERICA - ,
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-
- i 3 + ++++ l I
4 OFFICE OF, INVESTIGATIONS :
4 l
5 INTERVIEW I 1
6 --------------------- ---------x {
7 IN THE MATTER OF s 8 INTERVIEW OF : Docket No.-
i 9 FRANCIS THOMSON- 195-013 10 11 -------------------------------x f f
12 Thursday, July 13, 1995 t 13 14 Stan Labruna Conference R7om 15 PSE&G Administration Building 16 Buttonwood Road 17 Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 18 19 The above-entitled interview was conducted at t 20 1:35 p.m.
21 BEFORE:
22 KEITH LOGAN Investigato:/
23 24 EXHIBli M[c NEAL R GROSS PAGE / OgPAGE(S)
CEEND F-95'013 ma==5as a~o =$mmas 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENVE, N W (202) #34 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4 33-
2 1 APPEARANCES:
2 On behalf of Francis Thomson: .
3 MARK J. WETTERHAHN, ESQUIRE 4 MARCIA GELMAN, ESQUIRE 5 Winston and Strawn C 1400 L Street, N.W.,
7 Washington, D.C. 20005-3502 ,
8 9 .
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .
18 19 .
20 21 22 23 24 4
25 NEAL R GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHM3 TON D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
3 1 PROCEED 8 HGS 2 (1:35 p.m.)
. 3 Whereupon,
- 4 FRANCIS T.OMSON 5 having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness 6 herein and was examined and testified as follows
o 7 EXAMINATION 1 i
8 BY M.R. LOGAN:
9 O Mr. Thomson, my name is Keith Logan and I'm an 10 itivestigator with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 4
11 King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
1 i
- 12 This is a follow-up interview to the interview i 13 that we did on Tuesday, March 14th of 1995. And, Mr.
14 Thomson, you're appearing again today with counsel, is . ;
15 that correct? ,
j 16 A Correct. -
17 MR. LOGAN: Mr. Wetterhahn?
18 MR. WETTERHAHN: Yes. For the record, my name 19 is Mark J. Wetterhahn, with the firm of Winston and 20 Strawn, 1400 L Street Northwest, Washington, D.C., 20006 -
21 - 20005, excuse me.
22 We are here representing -- with me is Marcia 23 Gelman, also of Winston and Strawn. We are representing 24 Frank Thomson in the same capacity as we cid for his 25 original interview of March 14th, 1995.
NEAL R. GROSS :
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS I
1323 MHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W..
(20it) 2M4433. WASHINGTON. O C. P0006 (200) FM4433
--,.%.. 2,_ ., _ . . _ . _ , . . . , , . _ , . . .._.- _ _ _ _ .,-. ~ _ . . _ _ . - . . . , . . . , _ . - . - ,
_ _ _, _ . . _ . . . _ . ~ . ._
4 1 BY MR. LOGAN:
2 Q Is it your desire, Mr. Thomson, to have Mr.
3 Wetterhahn and Ms. Gelman here as your counsel? -
4 A Yes.
5 O Thank you.
6 Okay, Mr. Wetterhahn -- excuse me. Mr.
7 Thomson, what I'd like to do to start off with is go over 8 a couple of points from your last transcript'. You've had
, an opportunity to review that transcript and t<, make some 10 changes to it. Again, we're looking for accuracy and 4
13 thoroughness.
12 I'd like to direct your attention and start 13 off with Page 13, Line 9.
14 A Okay.
15 0 You talk about -- you said "There was never a 16 question in both my people's minds."
17 When you say "my people," who are you 9
18 referring to?
19 A I'm referring to the licensing engineers and 20 the supervisor that worked for me.
21 Q And who are they, by name?
22 A Dave Smith, Ken O'Gara and Rick Villar. Let 23 me just check. That was the April meeting we were just 24 referring to? Right. Villar, O'Gara and Smith.
25 0 Thank you. Can I see that page for a moment?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C 20005 (202) 23:4 433
5 a 1 Wa're working with only ona. copy of the transcript. I ;
. ?
2 just want to make sure we're all on track here. ,
j 3 And you say.also, "It was my understanding {
4 there was never a question in both my people's-minds or in 5 LDesign Engineering that there were safety issues." l 6 I assume, based on our discussions, you're 7 referring to the fact that safety was not a problem and ;
. 1 8 there was not an unrecolved safety issua, or there was an i
9 unresolved' safety issue?'
10 A I was referring to the fact that nobody in i
11 this discussion considered this to be an issue of any 12 cafety significance.
- i i
13 MR. WETTERHAHN: When you use the term ,
14 a unreviewed safety question," when that was used in the 15 term, did you consider that a generic term or as used in a 16 50.59, in response, just in this previous question?
17 THE WlfNESS: I considered this to be a 18 generic term.
19 MR. WETTERFAHN: Thanks.
20 BY MR. LOGAN:
21 O Okay. Page 14, at the bottom of Page 14, Line 4
22 :21,_you indicate -- and I'll show you the page in a minute 23 - "I was to]d by the Engineering people and the manager 24 that~they had a very high level of assurance."
25 When you say, "the Er.gineering people and the t
NEAL R. GROSS
- COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRSERS 1373 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
. (202) #344433' . WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
6 I manegar," who are you referring to?
2 A Tell me what line that was on again?
3 0 Line 21, 4 A t'm referring to the manager as Jerry Ranalli 5 and the Engineering people were the people present at that 6 meeting.
7 O And again, you're referring to who, by name?
8 A I don t recall who all was there. I know 9 Vijay Chandra was there. I can't recall who else . There 10 were some others.
11 . O Co certainly this statement would then be 12 attributable to Mr. Chandra?
I 13 A Chandra? I --
14 0 He had a high level of assurance that they 15 .would be able to show that their peak pressures would be i 16 below the limits required by the tech specs, is that i 17 correct?
1 e 18 A Correct.
19 Q On Page 15, Line 8, you indicated "At the 20 meeting, I was told there was a DEF and a DEF is another 21 process that we follow."
22 Who told you there was a DEF?
23 A I don't recall.
24 MR. WETTERHAHN: May we have a second?
- 25 MR. LOGAN
- Sure. Can we go off the record?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRSERS ' i 1323 RHODE ISL AND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 734 4433 WASHINGTON, D C,20005 (2t2) 2344433 4
81s r*y t" *rv'--t* T'Tw1w,. r
- rr w. y -erw vgm---r-~+--gs-i-e e-m es4eq ,--rtw.e.-sqw, -*-e---w a+~T--- - =r-em' --'e+ +me* -=-e-e 'ar
7 l
1 (Whereupon, a discusolon war hold off the . !
- b 2 record) '
3 MR. LOGAN: We'll go back on the record.
[
4 Mr. Wetterhahn?
\
U MR. WETTERHAHN: You said on Line 8 cf Page 15 i i i 6 that you were told ther" was a DSF. I show you a document 7 marked -- titled " Discrepancy Evalu~ation Form s DEF !
8 940060." Is that the DEF to which you were referring?
[
9 THE WITNESS: I believe it is, t
10 MR. WETTE7tHAHN: Does tha* DEF, after your
[
11 -perusal, cover the same subject matter as the discussion s, 12 at the meeting?
1? THE WITNESS: Yes.
14 MR. WETTERHAHN: I have nothing further at 15 this time.
l 16 MR. LOGAN's Thank you. ,
17 BY MR. LOGAN:
- 1 18 Q You've also tabbed on a page of the 19 tran::cript , Page 16, I believe. Is there anything that 20 you want to add at that point in the transcript?
21 A No.
22 -MR WETTERRAHN: Can you tell us why you -
23 ; crossed that out?
24 MR. LOGAN: Why he crossed what out?
25 MR.-WETTERHAHN: 3, 4 and 5, which is the tab 1
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVENUE, N W.
GOD 2344433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 (200 2344433-
8 1 indication..
2 MR. LOGAN: .Okay. ,
3 THE WITNESS: I crossed it out because it 4 didn't make any sense.
5 MR. LOGAN: Okay.
6 BY MR. LOGANt 7 Q Go to Page 21. Your z'sponse, starting on 8 Line 15 states, "The next set of calculations that were 9 d "a to my knowledge was the end of May. A letter was ,
10 issued responding to my request to do a more detailed 11 calculation."
12 Did you make a request for more detailed 13 calculations in writing?
14 A No , that request was made at that meeting we 15 had in late April, 16 Q And to whom did you make this request?
- 17 A The Engineering people in my office, ,
18 prL.cipally Jerry Ranalli, - the manager and his people P. hat 19 were-doing the analysis.
26 ,. O And again, when you say "his people,a you're II .
21 .eferring to whom?
22 A- Vijay Chandra and I believe Mahesh Danak 23 was also there.
j 24 Q And the letter that was issued in response to 25 your request, what letter is that?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOF. ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 . (202) 2344433
.- -- - . . - - . . . - . - . . . . - ~ - . - - - . - . . - - - . .
. 9 l 1 :A -I don't understand your question.
2 Q You said-a letter was issued, responding.to. .
l
.3 your request.
~
14 A Right. Do you want me to point to-it or --
-5 A. I want you to tell me what it is and who wrote 6 it and.the date.
7 A I don't recall the date, ,
8 The letter of Mey 26th, 1994. Howard 9 Berrick's letter to John Wiedemann.
10 Q And it's dated 6/26/94?
11 A No , it's dated 5/26/94, 12 Q May 26th,~ that's right.-
13 MR. LOGAN: Off the record for a second~ .
14 (Whereupon, a discussion was held off .the 15 record) 16 MR. LOCAN: Back on the record, i
17 BY MR. LOGAN: .
18 Q Turn to Page 25. Line 8. Talking about a 19 meeting.-- excuse. me, you had a meeting very quickly --
l 20 that's Line 7 -- "within a day or two of receipt of this 21 . letter by my supervisor "
22 Who is the supervisor that pu were referring
-23 to?-
24 A Dave Smith. That'e corrected in the 'i 25 : transcript. -
NEAL R. GROSS
' COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
... - . . - - . . .- , , , . ~ - -- - - _ . . , ,
10-1 0 .Okay. .
2 A he works for_me. ,
3 Q okay. And'it_says "To,'in effect, convince 4 him that we were within our design basis'."
5 My question to you is, did Mr. Smith not agree 6 t hat you were within de sign bdsis?
7 A Based on the fact that this-letter had a 8 number -- the calculation that was 450.7 and it was .7 9 pounds over the limit of 450. Based on that information, 10 he was concerned we may not be within our design basis, if .
11 that were correct.
12 0 _And you were trying to convince him that you 13 were, is that correct?
14 A That is incorrect.
15 0 okay.
16 A Let me correct you. Let me clear up some 17 confusion. I think there's some confusion in that line.
18 It says "We had a meeting."
19 Q "We had a meeting."
20 A The "We" is - "we" is not me.
21 Q It's not?
22 A No, it is not.
23 0 Who is it?
24 A It's my Licensing people, Licensing personnel.
25 Q And who'would they be? l NEAL R. GROSS i
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
- N) 23444',3 WASHINGTON. D.C 20005 (202) 234 4433
,m-,-,. .-- - , - . _ _ - , . -- - . - _ . - -
- . - . . . _ - . . . - _ . . _ - . - . . ~ . . - - -. . . . - . . .-
11 1 A Dave Smith cnd Kon O'Gara.
2 Q Okay. So Dave Smith and-Ken O'Gara "had a' 3 . meeting very quickly, within a-day or two of receipt of 4
~
4 this letter by my supervisor,a that's Smith?
5 A Right.
6 Q -To, in effect, convince who? Smith?
7 A Right. The purpose of the meeting was based
~
8 on that 450.7, they had to convince him that we were still 9 within our design basis,.as they stated in the letter.
1 4
10 .Otherwise, we would have to cut it -- we would have to 11 write in to the Board right then.
, 12 O Just for clarification, who was at that 13 meeting?
i 14 A I dcn't know who all was at that meeting. All 15 I know is Smith and O'Gara were there. I don't know if --
16 Q But there.were other people besides Licensing 17 there?
18 A Yes. The meeting was Licensing, Engineers and l 19 Design Engineering people.
- 20 Q Andhouwerenotatthatmeeting?
21 A No, I was not.
22 O How is it that you're aware of what took place 23 at that meeting?
24 A Because our supervisor and Ken ',Gara, told me 25 about it.
l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS j 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
j ~ (202) 2344433 - WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 i
. .= ..
12 1 Q For the purposos of this interview, if you 2 could, when you say "my supervisor" or "my people,a if you 3 could refer to them by name, that would help us out.
4 A My supervisor is Dave Smith, who works for me, 5 and Ken O'Gara.
6 0 So Dave Smith told you about what took place 7 at that meeting, is that what you're saying?
8 A He told me -- now, you've got to understand, a 9 few months prior to this interview, what went on. He told 10 me during that period that he had this meeting. I don't 11 recall if he told me right after the meeting, that he had 12 it, but I do know he told me.
13 0 And again, he told you the purpose of the 14 meeting was what?
15 A The purpose of the meeting was to determine 16 how they could say we're still within our design basis, 17 given they had a calculation that showed a number of 450.7 18 and that was. 7 pounds above the limit. Engineering said 19 they were still within the design basis, even though they 20 had a number above the tech spec limit.
21 O And how was it that they concluded they were 22 still within the design basis?
23 A After a lot -- as I understand it, after a lot 24 of discussien at this meeting, they concluded that 450.7 25 was overly conservative and in fact, as I recall, the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202) 2344433
13 1 . letter where that appears -- would you look at that May.
2 26th letter again?
3 In-the letter itself,.it~shows that they had 4 other calculations that showed it was actually more like 5 430-something.
6 The actual -- in that same memo, they have an
~
7 informal calculation that showed, with the gothic code, 8 the pressure was estimated to be 438 pounds, which was 9 well below the limit. So they were able to convince my 10 supervising engineer that that was an overly conservative 11 number and that the real number was less than that.
11 2 0 The gothic code. What is the gothic code?
13 A Other than it's a code to do pressure 14 calculations, I don't know.
1 15 0 Is that an approved code for us, to make that 16 calculation?
17 A Approved by who?
18 0 The N.R.C.? Who would have to approve the 19 calculations?
20 A I can't say -- I don't believe it was approved 21 but I can't say for sure, by the N.R.C.
22 Whc would have to do it? I would sav it's 23 based on acccpt ed methodology, that-it would be fine to 24 use it.
P 25 0 You ssy " accepted methodology." Who are you i- NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS i 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W..
(202) 234 4433 . WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
14 1 referring to?L 2 A Industry standards.
3 0 .Is there a particular' organization within the 4 industry that looks at~that ctandard that would approve 5 it?
6 A Not" that I'm aware of You'd have to ask
.. ~7 Engineering.
i 8 .Q You used the term. I was just trying to 9 clarify it.
10 A In my view, the gothic -- I-don't believe it's 11 been approved by the N.R.C. but I can't say for sure. I 12 also believe it didn't have to be approved by the N.R.C.,
13 for the calculations that we were doing here.
14 0 So your understanding is that you are free to -
15 use any industry acceptable code to draw your conclusions 16 whether you were or were not within design basis?
17 A That's. correct, as long as our licensing basis 18 didn't prevent that. There are cases where a licensing 19 basis states you have to use particular codes. And this 20 is not one of them.
21 O Isn't there a safety analysis that's done 22 which would address the use of a particular code?
23 'A I don't know.
24 MR. WETTERHAHN: Just for the record, Appendix ,
.25 .K to 10 CFR Part 50 requires prior approval-of codes used NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHtNGTON, D.C. 20005 -(202) 2344433 .
_ . _ ~ . . _ . . _ - . . - _ . , _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ _ .
15 1 to calculare core heat up. Was this such a code, used to 2 calculate core heat up? !
3 THE WITNESS: No, not to the best of my !
4 knowledge.
5 MR WETTERHAHN: Are you aware of any other 6 specific requirements which requires prior.N.R.C. app. oval 7 for the use of the codes?
, e f 8 THE WITNESS: That was the one I was referring i
! 9 to, Appendix K. I don't know about any other ones.
10 BY MR. LOGAN:
t 11 Q So as a result of this meeting --
12 A Can I ask a question? .
13 O Sure.
14 A Is there -- on Page 25 on the transcript? .
15 Q Yes, f
,. 16 A The statement we just discussed in Line 7, "We 17 had a meeting" --
16 0 Yes.
19 .A Is it appropriate to clarify that? "We" does i
20 not include me.
21 O I think we did.
22 A I know we did verbally but --
23 MR. WETTERHAHN: Would you like to make a l 24 correction-to the prior transcript?
i 25 MR. LOGAN: Go ahead. .
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
. . _ . ~ . . . -
. - . ~ . - , - . . _ . - . . - . - . . - . . . - - . . - - -
16 1 THE WITNESS: Yes. .
-_2 MR. LOGAN: -Let's go off the record while Mr.
3 Thomson makes-that. correction.
- . 4 ;(Whereupon, a discussion was heldio ff the i 5 > record) '
~
6 MR. LOGAN: On the record.
7 BY MR. LOGAN:
a 8 Q Page 29 -- one other point I'd like to ask
! 9 you,-you don't have to go b'ack to Page 25. Mr. Smith's 9
10 position, as a result of this discussion with Mr. Ranalli -
t 11 and Mr. Chandra and others, was it now that you were 12 operating within the design basis?
i
- ~ 13 A His position was that we had reasonable 14 assurance that we were within our design basis, but he
[ 15 also understood, as I recall, they still need to finalize 16 their calculations.
- I 17 Q Okay. Page 29, Line 15. And you can't see 18 from here -- you said " Engineering" on Line 15. '
19 A Okay.
20 Q Which engineering group are you referring to?
4 21 MR. WETTERHAHN: Just for -- are we on the 22 record or off?
23 MR. LOGAN: We're on the record,-Mr.
24 Wetterhahn. As_a matter of fact, we'll note for the
, 25 _ record that Mr. Thomson is_ responding to a question that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234 4 33 ' WASHINGTON, D C,20005 (202) 234-4433
17 1 you've asked. Go chond.
2 -MR. WETTERHAHN: We're.looking for the
.3 antecedent-regarding a question. You say aI_ guess" and-4 it's changed - "It is a-legitimate question. I'm not the s one to answer that."
And we're looking for the-question.
6 The question is --
7 MS. GELMAN: The question matter is whether 8 the subject matter of the IR is a legitimate issue,
- i 9 technically, from what I' read.
10 MR. WETTERHAHN: I think the next question is, 11 "Who in Engineering could answer that question if you 12 can't?" '
13 MR. LOGAN: I believe your statement is 14 " Engineering would have to tell me that," and we're trying 15 to clear up just who " Engineering" is, either by name or 16 more definitely by the group.
17 THE WITNESS: Okay, now I understand.
18 Your question is, Mr. Logan, who I'm referring 19 to when I say " Engineering"? <
20 DY MN. LOGAN:
21 O Yes.
22 A Engineering;is'the Design Engineering people.
23 Q Okay. And-.is.there someone in particular in i 24 Design Engineering who you would look to, to-find out the
, .25 answer to this?
N E A L R .. G R O S S COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
' l 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
Q02) 2344433 : WASHINGTON, D C. 20% 902) 2344433 i
1 A I would_look to, in this' case, the Mechanical e 2 Engineering group,.where Jerry Ranalli is the manager.
-3 -Q Okay-. Page 33'and I guess my question about
- _ _4 this is,. it starts-at Line 15 and it goes down through 5 Line 20-something. It has to do with the preparation of 6 an incident report.
. 7 The question is, "If I worked for you and I 8 prepared an incident report and I didn't bring it up to -
9 you, I took_it directly to nuclear shift supervision, how 1 10 would you take that?" and your response is, "I would 11 probably take it as a positive. 1 made it c3 ear to my 4
-12 people the expectations if an incident report is required, >
13 to cut the incident report, so forth and so on."
14 In talking to you last time, to Mi. Smith and 15' ,
.Mr. O'Gara in particular, it seems as though there was a 16 lot of effort to not having Mr. O'Gara send this incident 17 report forward. One effort, of course, resulted in that 18 hpril meeting.
- 19 I guess it appears to me that there's a 20 conflict in your statement that you would take it as a-21 positive, if someone send an IR forward on the one hand, 22 and that there~was a considerable amount. of effort on the 23 other hand to not have Mr. O'Gara. send his IR forward.
24 -Can you help me understand that?
25 A Yes. I do-not agree with your statement. The
-NEAL R. GROSS-COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR$ERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C 20006 (202) 234 4433
.l
. 19 1 otetcmant I don't egree with is that there was .
2 considerable effort to not have Mr. O'Gara bring his IR 3 forward. That's incorrect. '
4 There was considerable effort to try and 5 understand the issue, and as a result, I don't understand 6 the issue, the subject of the IR was discussed throughout 7 there. The discussion was never al~ong the lines of 8 resisting cutting an IR. It was along the lines of -
'9 whether an IR was needed or'not.
10 If Mr. O'Gara or anyone else in our 11 organization felt strongly that an IR was needed, I would 12 expect them to write it, with or without my approval.
13 Q Mr. O'Gara is a contractor, though, isn't it?
14 A Correct.
15 Q What would Mr. O'Gara's future be like if he 16 said "I cut an IR" wh,en you felt there was more work that 17 needed to be done?
18 A If ha felt strongly, it wouldn't impact his 19 future at all.
20 Q I'm not so sure that I agree with that, but at 21 least your answer is noted.
22 MR. WETTERHAHN: Can I ask a question?
-23 MR. LOGAN: Sure you can.
24 MR. WETTERHAHN: How long has Mr. O'Gara 25 worked for you?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
~.- . _ . . . ..- -.- -- . - _ - . . . - ...
l: ~
1 -THE-WITNESS: He's worked for me several
'2 years. 'At'least two or threeLyears.. f 1
-3 MR. WETTERHAHN: Has he' raised other-issues
- 4 which brought up safety questions in the past two years 5 'that he's w6rked for you?
i 6 THE WITNESS: I'm sure he's raised issues. In I 7 fact, he's the one who does our Part 21 evaluatiori. So-I 8 have a lot of confidence in his ability. -
9 MR. WETTERHAHN: When did his contract expire?
10 THE WITNESS: hell, his contract -- this was i i 11 in '94?-
-12 .MR. WETTERHAHN: Yes.
l 13 THE WITNESS: He was good for the whole year,
! 14 and every year we renew their contracts.
15 MR. WETTERHAHN: And you renewed his contract?
16 THE WITNESS: That's correct. He's here for 17 the rest of this year.also.
18 MR, WETTERHAHN: Thank you. '
19 THE WITNESS: I would like to make a
! 20 -clarification. You made a statement you don't agree?
21 MR. LOGAN: I don't agree.
- 22 -THE WITNESS: .I'd like to understand why you 23 don't.
24 MR. LOGAN: I see Mr. O'Gara as being very .
s 25 nervous and in my interview with him, I got the impression NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
- (202) 234 6 WASHINGTON. O C, 20005 . (202) 2344433-
al ~
1 that there was e lot of effort thnt was made to not cand 2 this IR forward. He prepared several drafts of it.
3 Mr. Lashkari also tried to send an IR forward
- 1 4 and it was thwarted by Mr. Wiedemann. Let's send that 5 over to Licensing. Let's not do that.
I 6 And I see several attempts to send an IR i 7 forward that just don't seem to rise to the level of 8 concern on a particular issue. This happens to be an issue .
9 that concerns POPS.
10 I see in several cases that IR's on this POPS 11 issue keep getting sent back for further and further 12 review. The Westinghouse letter came out in, I believe it 13 was September of '93. An LER was issued in November of 14 '94 under the guise of a one-hour report on an incident 15 that was supposed to be -- that you fai)ed to meet design 16 basis.
17 Now I understand there are new calculations 18 and new concerns that perhaps you were within the design 19 basis, but I'm looking at an LER that was prepared by 20 Salem, and it's Docket No. 05000272, and it talks about an 21 event that occurred on the 14th of September '94 and it's 22 the POPS issue, going right back to the Westinghouse 23 letter.
24 And I see this issue as an issue that -- which 25 you talked about earlier, "Let's convince him why we're NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 123 HHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W, (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (102) 2344 433
$3 1 not out of our design bcois," and that's why I fool that 2 Mr. O'Gara was just someone else who was told to go back 3 and not do it, let's have a meeting and let's beat this to -
4 death a little bit more. And that's why I feel that way.
5 THE WITNESS: You just misquoted something I 6 said -- -
7 BY MR. LOGAN:
8 Q Go ahead. If I misquoted, give me the correct .
9 quote.
10 A You mentioned an inference to convincing him 11 that we weren't outside the design basis. The misquote 12 was, when that was discussed, they had to convince us, the 13 Licensing people, based on that 450.7 number. It was not 14 us convincing them.
15 0 okay, and the "us" doesn't even refer to you, 16 though, does it?
17 A That's correct.
18 MR WETTERHAHN: It refers to Licensing. .
19 THE WITNESS: It refers to Licensing, the 20 people who work f.or me. That's behavior I would expect.
21 When they see something in writing that's above a tech 22 spec limit, they did the exact appropriate thing. If they 23 weren't convinced coming out of that meeting that they 24 were still within the design basis, I would expect them to 25 cut a report immediately.
l NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234,4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 234-4433
.1 BY MR. LOGAN:
2 Q. So what you're saying is you believe.they were
-3 convinced t. hat- they- were within design basis?
- 4 A Yes, at that point in time, when they were
'5 talking about the 450.7.
6 .I ' =t to go back to'one other thing, Mr.
7 Logan.- In my view, there was never any pressure to 8 suppress the incident report in the late April meeting. -
9 An incident report is issued when a deficiency exists, 10 .when a known deficiency exists. In my opinion,'there was 11 enough doubt -- in fact, we didn't think that this 12 deficiency did exist, so there's no need for an incident 13 report.
14 In my opinion, at no time during that meeting 15 or otherwise was there pressure put on O'Gara or anybody
. . 16 else not to write an incident report.
17 And I think that bears out a little bit later 18 in that year, when the issue came up-with the positive '
19 displacement pump, and Smith and O'Gara immediately wrote 20 .the incident repdrt, as I would expect. Once they 21 discovered that within PDP, pressure would be above the 22 limits, even without additional cale's. ,
23 Q When'the Westinghouse letter came in, Mr.
24 Berrick was. assigned the responsibility of responding-to 25 that issu'e?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS ..
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
~ (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 2000$ (202) 2344433 x 4
e - .-n - -
,- - - ~ -,c~~. - --m., , -, ms n. ,--
-. .- .- - . - - ~ . _ - . _ . - .-
JL A I can't --
I don't know. 'They don't coma 2 through my organization. I would assume that's true but I 3 can't verifyfthat.
4 Q And it took several months for Mr. Berrick's 5 memo to come out, one of which was, I guess, December of 6 - '93. Are you aware of that memo, from Mr. Berrick to Mr.
7 Schnarr?
8 A I'd have to look. I don't recall. :
9 Well, I'm looking at the letter now, so I'm a 10 aware of it now. And I believe, again, I was not aware of 11 it -- is your question was I aware of it when it was sent 12 on December 30th, 1993? The answer is no. ,
. 13 0 When did you become aware of it?
14 A That was another one that I became aware of in 15 .trying to understand this issue, in the several months 16 preceding our former >cterview.
17 '
O Well, you were aware of it in the April time 18 frame, when you had an April meeting the following year, -
19 weren't you?
i 20 A I can't say I was aware of the actual written 21 letter. The material in there is what we discussed at the 22 meeting. I don't remember seeing the actual letter.
23 0 It was-at that point that you said you can't 24 .take credit for the code case, right?
25 A; Absolutely. It was very clear in the meeting, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
.1 'when wa -- the motorial in the letter is certainly what,wa 2 discussed. All I'm telling you is I don't remember
-3 physically seeing.the letter'at that point;in time. I'm -
4 not sure it matters, if that's'what-you're referring to.
5 I would.have made it very clear, my supervisor 6 and myself, that it was unacceptable to use-a code case
-7 unless it was approved by N.R.C.
- 8 MR. WETTERHAHN: Can I follow up? ,
f 9 MR. LOGAN: Sure.-
10 MR. WETTERHAHN: You -- one of the questions 11 you were asked was with regard to a late January --
12 January 31st incident report prepared by Mr. Lashkari.
13 In the April 1994 time frame, were you aware
, 14 that that incident report, a draft existed?
15 THE WITNESS: I was not.
16 MR. LOGAN: I don't think he was asked a 17 question about that incident report. That was in response 18 to a gaestion he asked me. .
- 19 MR. WETTERHAHN: Okay. Let's just get that on 20 the record, though. Okay? Whether it was related or not.
21 Secondly, the discovery that the positive 22 displacement pump scenario has been-considered, could one-23 determine that that positive displacement pump scenario 24 had to be considered? Could one determine that from the 25 ; April 1993 Westinghouse letter?
NEAL R. GROSS j COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS I 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
- (202) 234-4433 WASHtNGTON, D.C. 2000$ (202) 234 4433 l
l t
71th 1 THE WITNESS: I don't balieve so.- That letter
~2 addressed a different issue.
3 MR. WETTERHAHN: Who discovered the fact that -
4 -tha positive displacement pump scenario had-to be 5 considered?
6 THE WITNESS: That was discovered as a result 7 of -- we had a license change that was going aroun'd-for 8 approval, the code case, it was going around for .
9 management approval and one of the managers asked the 10 question of whether or not we assumed the positive 11 displacement pump in the analysis, of my people. My 12 people looked into it and found we did not. And that's 13 where it came up.
14 MR. WETTERHAHN: About what time frame was 15 that?
16 THE WITNESS: That was in the November '94 17 time frame, as I recall.
18 MR. WETTERHAHN: So considerations of the 19 positive displacement pump never came up during the April 20 or May time periods, did it?
21 -THE WITNESS: No. I don't ever recall 22 discursing the positive displacement pump.
23 MR. WETTERHAHN: Had other utilities, to your 24 knowledge, having similar systems, utilized the positive .
25 displacement pump in their scenarios.
NEAL R. GROSS
' COURT REMTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234 4433 - WASHINGTON O.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
.. 27
.1 THE WITNESS: Again,- I don' t know.
2 . Engineering would have to answer-that.
3 MR. WETTERHAHN: No further questions.
l 4 BY MR. LOGAN: -j 5 Q Which Engineering?
6 A Design Engineering. Well, it could be Design 7 or Plant Engineering.
8 Q Page 39, Lines 11 and 12. " Basically 9 reinforced to my supervisor," I assume you're referring to .
10 a supervisor that. works for you, Mr. Smith, is that' 11 correct?
12 A That's correct.
13 0 "And Ken O'Gara told people," what people, 14 again, are we-talking about?
15 A The Engineering people that were working on 16 this issue. -
17 Q And by name?
18 A They would be -- again, I don't know all of 19 them, but I know --
20 0 Those that you do know.
21 A Mahesh Danak and Vijay-were working on it.
22 Q Okay. Next page, Page 40, Line 13. You 23 indicate that you were given reasonable assurance that 24 even without taking credit for that, they would, upon 25 doing more detailed cales, be able to show that Salem was -
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 .W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
Ms 2 within dasign basis', and by that, you ware' referring'to 2 the code case or is it somathing_else? That's on Line 14.
3 , MR. WETTERHAHN: Excuse ue; Do you know what' '
4 -meeting we're at?
5 THE WITNESS: That's what I'm trying to figure i
6 out. -
7 BY MR. LOGAN:
8 Q Take a minute to look at the transcript. .
9 A Without tsking credit for that, "that" refere 10 to the code case, ,
il Q When you say; "They would be able to show,"
12 who are you referring to when you say that?
13 A "They" again is the Engineering people working 14 on this.
9 15 Q You're talking Vijay and --
16 A Vijay and Mahesh.
17 Q Page 43, third line down. It's in response to 18 my question about someone discussing -- anyone discussing -
19 an incident report. I believe you're saying, "I don't 20 remember discussing that one had already been drafted."
21 A Okay, what's the question?
22 O I thought you had told me earlier in the 23 interview that Ken was particularly concerned and he was 24 concerned on whether or not you should be writing an 23 incident report because you were outside_the design basis, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
-(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433- I
a 1 and that i had draftod one'and that-was the main purposo
'2 of the? meeting. -
3 -A He -- -
4 Q So I guess the' question'is, did you discuss
)
.5 _the incident report at that April. meeting? .)
E A As I said before in transcr'ipt, we did_ discuss 7 whether or not this report was required. j l
8 O And were you aware at that time that one had- .- ,
9 already been drafted by Ken O'Gara? j 10 A As I said before, I don' t recall being aware-11 of that. That one was actually, physically drafted, at 12 that point. It may have been, but I don't remember.
13 MR. LOGAN: Let's go off the record for a 14 minute.
15 (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the 16 record) .
i -
17 MR. LOGAN: Back on the record.
18 BY MR. LOGAN: -
19 Q Page 11, Line 25, the-question'is, "So.in 20 April of '94, Ken O'Gara had an incident report drafted 21 and presented it-to you?"
22 _Line'2 on Page 12, "He drafted one and that 23 was.the main purpose or one of'the purposes of the meeting 24 -with me, the Manager of. Technical Engineering, Jerry
= 25 Ranalli and some other Engineering people to discuss-where NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.-
(202) 234443: WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 - (202) 2344433
av 1 cre wa to this isoun, end cro we or cron't we in our 2 design?"
3 That would indicate that you were aware that .
4 he had drafted one, is that not correct?
5 A That's not correct.
6 0 okay. I think the way I answered that 7 previously is confusing. Again, when I -- reviewing this 8 issue, months later, I realized one was drafted. ,
9 Afterwards. I can't tell you now, nor could I tell you 10 when I was interviewed previously, whether one was 11, actually, physically shown to me or one had been drafted 12 by our meeting. But definitely -- and to me, it's really 13 not -- it's a moot point because we definitely did discuss 14 whether an IR was needed or required.
15 Let me go back to Transcript Page 12, where it 16 says -- this is my transcript of the previous interview --
17 it says, " Answer: He drafted one. That was the main 18 purpose or one of the purposes of the meeting." I know .
19 now that he drafted one. In fact, one of the main 20 purposes of the meeting was that, to determine whether or 21 not an incident report was needed. It wasn't to review a 22 piece of paper we already had.
23 Q Well, Mr. O'Gara told me that he did pass out 24 copies at the meeting.
25 A He may have. I can't remember that piece of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C 20005 (202) 2344433
r #3 1 paper. ,But again, I will'tell'you, Mr.' Logan, I think -
2 it's a moot point because we did discuss whether an IR was 3 'needed or required. -
4 Q -Page 55. The t,erm " supervisor" on Line 21, was-that Mr. Smith'r
~
5 6 A Yes, it's Dave Smith.
7 Q Go ahead. Just to annotate the transcript and 6 initial and date it. .
9 If we turn to Fage 59-of the transcript, Line 11 0 8,-just one clarification. When you're saying "he" at the 11 end of Line 8, who is the "he" that you're referring to 12 having directed Ken O'Gara to do something?
13 A This is on Line 8 of Page 597 14 Q That's correct.
15 A "He" in Line 8 is referring to Dave Smith, my 16 supervisor that works for me.
17 0 Okay. And I guess throughout your transcript 18 -- and we talked about this before we went on the record - -
19 - when you refer to your supervisor, you're referring to a 20 subordinate supervisor?
21 h That's correct.
22 0 And who is your supervisor, meaning who you 23 report.to?
24 MR. WETTERHAHN: At the time.
25 THE WITNESS: At the time of this --
NEAL R GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(20 4 2344 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344 0 3
1 BY MR. LOGAN:
2 -Q At the time of.this incident and currently.
-- 3 A. April '94 time frtme? April '94 was Stan .
4 Labruna.-
5 O And who is-your current supervisor, meaning 6 who do you' report to?-
7 -A Currently I report to Jeff Benjamin.
8 Q Mr. Thomson, what is your role in the ,
9 preparation of an LER?
10 MR WETTERHAHN: Again, as of?
11 BY MR. LOGAN:
12 O Right now.
13 A I'd like to clarify aat, because the role has 14 changed significantly in the last week.
15 Q In the last week?
16 A That is correct.
17 Q Okay, what is your current role, and then 18 we'll take it back in t!me. ,
19 A My current role is that as of a week ago, my 20 department is responsible for developing - writing and 21 developing Licensed Event Reports, getting them approved 22 and sending them to the N.R.C.
. 23 .Q April time frame, 1994.
- 24 A April '94 time frame, we did not -- my .
25 ' department, Licensing and Regulation, did not have NEAL R. GROSS COURT hePORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS -
i 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4 3'J WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 - (202) 234-4433
.e,b, e -. .r-
-~.-;- , , e c , -- -. - re
-1 -)L I nead clarification.JAre you. talk'ing 4-hour. ,
2 report or the:30-day OAR report?
3 Q Or 1-hour report. -
4 A Or-1-hour report..
5 0 All of them. 4 6 A All of the above?-
7 Q Sure.
8 A The way that's -- the responsibility then and .
9 now is the initial responsibility is the senior nuclear --
20 senior nuclear shift supervisor makes the final 11 . determination on whether or not a 1- or a 4-hour report is 12 required, and he also maken the 1.iitial determination as '
, 13 tx) whether or not an LER is required.
14 After that, the LER Coordinator is expected to 9
15 also review the incident reports, to verify that the l 4
16 correct call was made on whether an LER is required.
4 17 O So as of right now, you're responsible, your 18 group is responsible for preparing LERs for the N.R.C.? .
. 19 A That's correct.
20 Q Are y.ou also responsible for making 1-hour and 21 4-hour reports to the N.R.C.?
22 A No,=we are not.
23 Q So you're only responsible for making the 24 actual document, the written. document -- create the 25 ' written document that will go to the N.R.C.?--
! NEAL R. GROSS I
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
QO2) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 9 02) 234-4433
[.
g-1 BY MR.-LOGAN:
2 Q .At:the= time of this incident ard currently.
3 A' April '94 time frame?l April *$F was'Stan
'4 Labruna.
5 Q And who is your current supervisor, meaning 6 who do you report to?
7 A Currently I report to Jeff Benjamin.
8 Q Mr. Thomson, what is your role in the ,
9 preparation of an LER?
4 10 MR. WETTERHAHN: Again, as of? j 11 BY MR. LOGAN:
12 O Right now.
13 A I'd like to clarify that, because the role has 14 changed significantly in the last week.
15 Q In the last week?
16 A That is correct.
17 0 Okay, what is your current role, and then 18 we'll take it back in time. .
19 A My current role is that as of a week ago, my
-20 department is responsible for developing -- writing and 21 developing Licensed Event Reports, getting them approved 22 and' sending them-to the N.R.C.
23 Q April time-frame, 1994.
24 A. April '94 time frame, we-did not -- my .
- 25 department, Licensing and Regulation, did not have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR68ERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W,
- (202) 234 4433 i WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
-1 rooponoibilitics for the-LERs. The only way we got 2 involved was' on regn. test , we would, review all the LERs, if
\
3 requested by'the Station General Manager. But we_were not .
4 i n .'. i n e , ordinarily we didn't develop them. That was done ,
5 by the Technical Department.
6 Q You were not-in line for reviewing tbam or for
~
7 preparing them, is that what you said?
8 A That is correct. ,
9 MR. WETTERHAhW: I'm sorry, you said 10 " preparing them a ?
11 MR. LOGAN: Reviewing or preparing.
12 MR. WETTERHAHN: Thank you.
13 BY MR. LOGAN:
1-4 O And you said -- you indicated whose 15 responsibility it was back in April of '94? If you can 16 recall.
17 A Yes, I think I misquoted when I said -- I said 18 the Technical Department. It was really a staff function ,
19 of the plant manager. He had assistants to the plant 20 manager and unden him he had staff people. It was their 21 responsibility.
22 -Q To prepare LERs?
-23 A To prepare the LERs.
24 0 Whose responsibility was i: at that time to 25 determine-what matters would be reported to the N.R.C.?
NEAL R. GROSS COU67 REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 23 % WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 c
1 A I nood clarification. Aro you tolking 4-hour 2 report or the 30-day OAR report?
3 0 or 1-hour report.
- 4 A or 1-hour report.
5 Q All of them.
6 A All of the above?*
7 Q Sure.
8 A The way that's -- the responsibility then and .
9 now is the initial responsibility is the senior nuclear --
10 senior nuclear shift superv.'.sor makes the final .
li determination on whether or not a 1- or a 4-hour report is 12 required, and he also makes the initial determination as 13 to whether or not an LER is required.
14 After that, the LER Coordinator is expected to 15 also review the incident reports, to verify that the 16 correct call was made on whether an LER is required, i 17 0 So as of right now, you're responsible, your 18 group is responsible for preparing LERs for the N.R.C.? ,
19 A That's correct.
20 Q Are y.ou also responsible for making 1-hour and 21 4-hour reports to the N.R.C.?
22 A No, we are not.
23 0 0) you're only responsible for making the 24 hetual document, the written document -- create the 2E written document that will go to the N.R.C.?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
~ _ _.. _ _ _ _ .
35!-
- 1 A We're responsible for verifying the-initial i 2 call the senior nuclear shift supervisor made and j 3 ultimately whether an incident report needs an LER and l 2
I:
4 we're also responsible for developing the LER.
i 5 Q Let's talk about hindsight, if we may. ;
6 Looking at the LER that was prepared on the PvPS incident ,
a 7 -- if you will, take a moment to look at it, please.
?
8 We'll go off the record while you do that.
9 MR. LOGAN: Off thw record.
10 -(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken)
[
11 MR. LOGAN: Eack on the record. ;
12 BY MR. LOGAN:
)
13 Q We talked about the LER that was sent to the I
14 N.R.C. on December 14th, 1994. Are you familiar with the 15 incident that's mentioned in this LER? I 16 MR. WETTEitHAHN: Let's identify it as94-017 17 for Salem Unit I.
18 MR. LOGAN: As opposed to the docket number?
~19 MR. WETTERHANN: Yes.
20 MR. WETTERHAHN: Okay, 21 BY MR. LOGAN:
4- .
22 Q~ - Yes, I'm-familiar with it. -
23 Q Was this a timely report?-
24 A The report was issued within the 30 days from 25 when.the incident report was written, so it was timely in I I
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS I 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENVE. N W, (202; 2344433 WASHrNGTON, D.C. 20006 _ (202) 2344433 j
. . _ , _ . . . , . . . . , _ . - . . . . _ . _ . . . - . . _._,_..._.._.._.-_m..,_ - - - - . _ _ , . . . _ , _ - . . _ . . _ . . _ _ . . . _ _ . . . _ , . - _ _ _ . - _ _ . .
36 1 thet sence.
2 O Have you seen the energy study that was done?
3 A No, I haven't.
4 Q Now, based on your reading of this LER, and 5 your knowledge of the POPS situation, do you believe that 6 November 17th of 1994 was the first date that you realized 7 you were operating outside the design basis?
8 A Yes. ~
9 MR. WETTERHAHN: Excuse me. November 17th?
10 MR. LOGAN: I believe so. Isn't that what I 11 said?
12 MR WETTERHAHN: Is that right?
13 THE WITNESS: Yes, the date of the incident 14 report which was -- to my understanding, it was 11/17/94.
15 .That was the first time we understood we were outside the 16 design basis.
17 I have to clarify the record, that was when -- that 18 is when we became aware that the positive displacement 19 pump running was not assumed in the calculation and it 20 should have been, which increased the pressure.
21 BY MR. LOGAN:
22 Q You haven't read this energy study?
23 A That's correct, sir.
24 Q Are you familiar with any of the findings of 25 this energy study?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 AHODE ISLAND AVEN'J". N W (PCm 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 i .
srv 1 A Vcguely. Wo're in tha proccas -- my ,
2 department is in the process of reviewing that now.
3 0 Your department is, but you haven't read it 4 yet.
5 A That's correct.
6 Q Would it surprise you to learn that -- let me 7 rephrase this.
8 Do you believe, based on your understanding of .
9 the facts of this case now, that when Westinghouse first 10 advised Salem in their September memo -- and you are il familiar with that Sep' .ber memo, September 30, 1993?
12 MR. WETTERHAs.N: I don't think it's September, 13 THE WITNEBS: I thought it was earlier in '93.
14 BY MR. LOGAN:
15 0 The first Westinghouse one was March 15th, 16 A Right. So,which one are you referring to?
1? O The September one. If I have the wrong date, 18 I'll be happy to correct that. -
19 MR. LOGAN: Let's go off the record for a 20 minute.
- 21 (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the 22 record) 23 MR. LOGAN: On the record.
24 BY MR. LOGAN:
25 0 Are you aware of the March 15th Westinghouse !
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
)
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (207) 2344433 W ASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
38 i t
1 mame to Mr. Dave Perkins, Manegar, QA, PSE&G. It's dated
,~,, ,
8 i
2 March 15th, 1993. .
. i 3 A Yes, I am. .
4 Q Do you believe that that .nemo was sufficient 5 to put Salem on notice that it was operating outside of !
6 its design basis? ,
7 A No. This memo itself is not sufficient. {
8 Q Why is that? f 9 A They identify a potential' concern. When you -
10 get a memo like that from a vendor, the next step you do 11 -is evaluate the plant specific applicability. So the next i
12 step would be to -- based on this information, and based
- 13 on taking into account the new sasumptions, are we or are 14 we not still within our design basis.
15 Q Do you know who is responsible for making that !
16 determination? .
17 A It's my unoerstanding it was the Mechanical 18 Engineering group had that responsibility from the OAF.
19 Q And do you know who, in particular?
20 A From looking at the December 30, 1993 letter, 21 it appears to be Howard Berrick.
22 O Based on the fact that Mr. Barrick signed a 23 code case that hadn' t bee.n~ approved by the N.R.C. , should !
24 that matter have then been referred to the N.R.C. as -
I 25 operating outside the design basis?-
NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS I 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (200 2M44U WASHINGTON, D C 20006 (20D 234-4433
- , - . . i--~. - - , , ,,,,.,.a.,e.-sa.n, ..._,en,,,,,.,.n.mn,,, , . , , . , , , . , ,.,,.,g ,,,v.y.n.,,...,,.g..._,4 -,g.,
.,,...g. y,.,, , . . , - . , , , , _ _ , , - _
1F0 1 A Wall, no. Only-if they couldn't show wa waro 2 in the design basis, based on the calculations, without 3 the code car'.
4 O So the point at which you believe it's 5 reportable to the N.R.C. As after you have an opportunity 5 to review and study the numbers and crunch the numbers and 7 review the alternatives and so forth?
8 A That's correct. .
9 O And only then would t'.e 1-hour reportability 10 factor come into play?
11 A The 1-hour reportability factor comes into 12 play once tru've determined you're outside the design 13 basis. Nur, i* is expected normally that the analysis 14 would become moro common than in this case. ,
15 0 I would agree with that. And when was it that 16 you determined you wer,e outside the design basis again?
17 A November of '94.
18 Specifically? '
Q 19 A I forgot the date. It was November 17th.
20 November 17th, 1994.
21 Q So as long as someone doesn't conclude that 22 you're outside your design basis, you're really not 23 outside-the design basis?
24 A Yes.
25 0- So if you elevate or orchestrate a particular NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCReERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AYENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, O C. 2000$ - (202) 234 4433 s
=m--ye --w--
40 1 probicm long enough, you een roclly extend that 1-hour 2 reporting time, is that correct?
3 A That's not the expectation.
- 4 Q But it is true, based upon what you're saying?
5 In other words, if you were to --
6 A No, it's not true.. You're not expected to
? orchestrate things to extend -- you're expected to do a 8 proper evaluation in a timely manner, and this was not -
9 timely, but in a timely manner to determine whether or 10 not, with the new information from the vendor, you still ,
11 are within your design basis.
12 Q okay. But if you were to conclude that you 13 were outside your design basis at 8:00 in the morning and 14 you couldn't get to see Mr. Benjamin until 6:00 the next 15 day, then you wouldn't be notifying the N.R.C. or anyone 16 else, because he's your supervisor and he would then have 17 to make --
18 A That's incorrect. '
19 Q Okay.
20 A Therd's no requirement, nor would I see a need 21 to go to my supervisor to write an incident report. We 22 have written, in the last three months in my department, 23 many incident reports, none of which have gone to Mr.
24 Benjamin first, or me. There's no requirement for that, 25 nor is that the expectation, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUL N W (202) 2M4433 W ASHINGTON. O C, 20005 (202) 2344433
41 ;
t 1 -Q Okey, But if you waro to make a .
. I 2 determination, you, Frank Thomson, would make a -
3 determination that you were outside design basis, you 4
4 .wouldn't be reporting that to the N.R.C., would you?
5 A I, either myself or one of ~he people working i-6 under me, would write an incident report promptly and 7 bring it over to the senior nuclear shift supervisor. They 8 would then report that to the N.R.C. i i
9 Q- But even though you concluded it, until it ,
10 went through the proper channels -- in this case it's the -
il senior supervisor, senior shift --
12 A Senior nuclear shift supervisor has the j 13 ultimate responsibility.
14 0 So until the paperwork gets to that individual .
15 and he or she makes that determination, there is no .
16 reportability? . r 17 A I don't understand your question.
18 Reportability, being outside the design basis is 19 reportable. It's a physical time lag of walking this e
20 building to the 5hift.
21 Q But until that senior shift supervisor says 22 "We're outside design basis,a it's not a reportable event? i That's-what you just said, didn't you?
23 3 24 A Yes. He makes the final call. But I will say
, 25 on these issues, it's very rare to disagree with -- it ;
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR$ERS 1323 MHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.
(202) #344433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 3--
. . . - . . ,-.L-_~..,_... . , _ , . , . , _ , . - , _ . _ , , , , , . - _ , . . . ~ _ _ . . . ,
___...c ...s_,. _ . . , ,,. _ . ., .m.,, ,,-y......c-,-,,,mmm...,
11 .
42 !
1 ien't worth in. If he says you're outsido your design ,
2 basis, it would be very rare to disagree with that.
3 MR. WETTERHAHN: Let the record be clear. !
4 When you make a determination, Frank Thomson or somebody f 5 lu Licensing, and write an incident report, do you put it i 6 in interoffice mail?
7 THE WITNESS: Absolutely not. ,
8 MR. WETTERHAHN: How do you treat that?
9 THE WITNESS: Walk it over to the control 10 room.
11 MR. WETTERHAHN: How long does it take you, 12 from this building, Mr. LaBruna's conference room, to the 13 senior nuclear shift supervisor's office?
14 THE WITNESS: Approximately 15 minutes.
15 MR. WETTERHAHN: Are you aware that the N.R.C.
16 regulation require that 1-hour reports be made through the 17 communications network contained in'the control room?
18 THE WITNESS: Yes, I am.
19 MR. WETTERHAHN: So that is the proper method, 20 according to the regulations, for notifying the N.R.C.?
21 THE WITNESS: That is correct.
22 MR WETTERHAHN: Do you know where -- who is 23 on the other-end of'that phone call?
24 THE WITNESS: The N.R.C. Operations Center.
25 MR. WETTERHAHN: Thank you.
NEAL R GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCfuBERS 1323 MHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (207) 234 4433
g 1 MR. LOGAN: Just boar with me for a minuto..
2 Can we go off the record?
3 (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the -
4 record) .
5 MR. LOGAN: Back on the record. !
6 BY MR. LOGAN:
7 Q Let- me read you a stateinent f rom this Energy 8 Report, Page 14. This Energy Report is dated 12/19/95 and .
l 9 it said, and I quote, "When these plant. specific results 10 . were received (Westinghouse letter PSE-93-707, dated 11 September 29, 1993), Nuclear Engineering had documented 12 evidence that the 375 psi set point could lead to 13 violating the technical specifications / Appendix G i
14 pressure / temperature limits.
" Engineering should have realized that 15 16 continued operation with the 375 psi set point would 17 constitute operating the plant outside its licensing 18 basis. An incident report should have been prepared by -
19 Engineering."
20 Would you care to comment or. that, Mr.
21 Thomson?
i
'- 22 MR. WETTERHAHN: First of all, are you 23 familiar.with the September letter that's referred _to in 24 that sentence?
25 THE WITNESS: No. I'd like to read that.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPen?ERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE lblAND AVENUE, N W.
- (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (N2) 2344433
+
c--....y~-,-- ,- 9 -7 .-.-c-, ,,_,, ,,.. y _
_.c ,,,w y.m-,._ ,rg.,,., _,,,-..,.,.,,,p.,,,, , ,.. ,y,,,_.,,,,g, . , _ _, , ,.n. . . . . - _ . , , , , . , %__,, , ,m-. ,w.. -
44 i a MR. LOGAN: Sure con. ,
2 THE WITNESS: That' the first I've heard that l
[
i 3 comment. !
4 MR. LOGAN: Let's go off the record while Mr.
5 Thomson looks at that.
6 (Whereupon, there was a brief pause off the 7 record) -
8 MR. LOGAN: Back on the record. - -
9 BY MR. LOGAN: {
10 0 Mr. Thomson, having had an opportunity to read j
11 that section on your own, do you feel that you can comment 12 on it?
13 A I can't comment on it because I'm not familiar 14 with the referenced September letter, from Westinghouse.
15 MR. LOGAN: Mr. Wetterhahn, you indicated 16 before we started today that there was an issue with 17 regard to the RH3 and.the POPS system, and that it had 18 come to your attention and you'd like to advise us -
J 19 formally on the ree .td.
20 MR. WETTERHAHN: Can we go off the record for 21 a minute?
22 MR.-LOGAN: Off the record.
23 (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the 24 record) 25 MR. LOGAN: Back on the record.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 134 4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
-._u,__,- . _ , . ,, _ . . . . _ _ _ , . _ . _ . , , ,. .,_,_.a,___.... . . . _ . . _ . . _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . , _ . _ _ _ _ , _ _ . . , .
45 )
1 1 MR. WETTERHAHN: For tha rocord, on July lith, 1
2 1995, I transmitted a facsimile to Mr. Keith Logan, a one- i
\
3 page letter, and as an attachment to that is a page marked 4 4 E3/4 4-la and in the lower right-hand corner, it says 5 " Amendment No. 150." That page has a sentence circled and 6 an asterisk, two asterisks in the margin.
7 MR. LOGAN: One on each side.
8 MR. WETTERHAHN: One on each side.
- 9 MR. LOGAN: Thank you.
10 MR. WSTTERHAHN: Mr. Thomson, looking at that 11 pagination and the caption at the top, can you tell me 12 where that date comes from? .
13 THE WITNESS: That's a page out of the Salem 14 Unit I Technical Specification Basis Section.
15 MR. WETTERHAHN: Okay. Are the bases for 16 technical specifications issued along with the technical 17 specification when the license is issued?
18 THE WITNESS: Yes.
19 MR. WETTERHAHN: And may these bases, from 20 time to time, be' amended?
21 THE WITNESS: Yes.
22 MR. WETTERHAHN: They're amended at the 23 request of the licensee?
24 THE WITNESS: For the most part. There are 25 times when the N.R.C. asks for an amendment to the .
NEAL R. GROSS COURT RE6. (TERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20003 (202) 2344433
3 licensing basis.
2 MR. WETTERHAMN: And the procedure would be, 3 if the N.R.C. would request that you do it, you would
- 4 submit a licensing amendment or request 'to change bases?
5 THE WITNESS: The procedure would historically 6 be to submit a change of the basis. However, this can be 7 done in a 50.59.
8 MR. WETTERHAHN: The sentence that is circled .
9 there, to your knowledge, has that sentence been the bases 10 since the operating license for Salem Unit I has been .
11 issued?
12 MR. LOGAN: Mr. Wetterhahn, if you could read 13 that sentence into.the record? l 14 MR. WETTERHAHN: Okay, let's go down to that 15 sentence, and I'll read it into the record.
16 THE WITNESS: ,
To the'oest of my knowledge, it 17 has. I have no reason to believe that it has not, based 18 on what I see. -
19 MR. WETTERHAHN: "In the event that no safety 20 valves are operable, in operating RHR loop connected to 21 the RCS-provides over-pressure relief capability and will 22 prevent RCS over-pressurization."
9 23 Talking'now in the 1993-94 time frame, when 24 they're talking about_over-pressure protection provided by 25 the RHR,-do you know a particular valve number that they NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 :(202) 234 4433 '
1 would ba -- that's referred to in this centence?
2 THE WITNESS: I think there y referring.to the 3 RH3 valve, which is the relief valve. .
4 -MR. WETTERMAHN: And -- strike that.
5 Do you consider the bases as issued by the 6 N.R.C. in this document as part of the design basis for 7 the facility, as defined in the 50.2 of the regulations?
8 THE WITNESS: Would you repeat that one more ,
9 time?
10 MR. WETTERHAHN: Do you believe that the 11 statements made in the basis to the technical 12 specifications are part of the design basis of the 33 facility, as that term is defined in 50.2 of the 14 . regulations?
15 THE WITNESS: Yes.
16 MR. WETTERHAHN: In your view, could this 17 sentence, taken in context, recognize that the RH3 valve 18 is capable of over-protection during the type of ca:ents we ,
19 discussed today, along with the POPS valves?
20 THE WITNESS: I would say yes, based on that 21 statement. 'I t infers very strongly that the RHR loop RH3-22 valve is available for over-pressure protection.
23 .MR. WETTERHAHN:
Were you aware of this-24 particular section when,you testified on March -- I 25 believe it-was 14, 1995?
NEAL R GFU3SS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCMSERS
@ 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (20M 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20006 4202) 2344433
a 1 THE WITNESS: No, I woon't.
i 2 MR. WETTER 11AHN: So if the LH -- if this 3 system were part of the design basis of the facility, .
4 would that have changed your testimony on March 14th, 5 generally?
6 Can you answer that question?
7 THE WITNESS: To be honest, I'm not really 8 sure that I understand the question. ,
9 MR. WETTERHAHN: Okay. Let me he more 10 ersecific .
11 If you could take -- could have taken credit 12 and recognized that the LH3 -- is it.the LH37 13 THE WITNESS: RH3.
14 MR. WETTERHAHN: I'm sorry, the RH3 valve 15 .could be taken into account in figuring over-pressure 16 protection, would there have been any question whatsoever 17 during the April through September time frame, that you 10 were within your design basis? .
19 THE WITNESS: I would say if we had seen that 20 and known that in, formation when we were reviewing it in 21 the April '94 meeting in my office, that would have 22 definitely shed some additional light, to show that we 23 were within our design basis.
24 But I'll say again, we did not have that piece 25 of information when we were discussing this.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 2344433 *ASHINGTON. D C, P0005 (202) 2344433
49 {
1 MR. WETTERWON: Okcy. But it dooo -- whathor 2 you were aware of it at the time, it does represent the 3 design basis of the facility?
4 THE WITNESS: That's correct, design basis 5 tech spec.
6 MR. WETTERRAHN: May I have one second?
7 MR. LOGAN: Sure. We'll go off the record.
8 (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the 9 record) 10 MR. LOGAN: Eack on the record.
11 BY MR. LOGAN:
12 Q I have one question, Mr. Thomson, as a result 13 of what you and Mr. Wetterhahn have indicated and that's 14 the Licensing Event Report No. 94-017-00 dated December 15 14th, 1994. Would the information that you've just 16 presented mitigate the issuance of this Licensing Event 17 Report? Or negate the issuance of it?
18 A I can't say for sure. My judgment would be 19 probably not, because, as I recall, when that incident 20 report was written, that was the RH3, with the PDP pump, 21 were outside the design basis. I can't say for sure. I'd 22 have to refer to Engineering on that.
23 Q Okay. And you indicated that there was 24 -something you wanted to state for the record?
25 A Yes. Since we have discussed this back and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (20h 2344433 % ASHINGTON, O C 2000$ (202) 2344433
1 forth, rolative to the nood for cn IR, I think I'll juct 2 say this in the transcript, I want to make sure my ;
l 3 position is clear. l 4 Relative to the IR, we did, throughout 5 discussions in my office and other discussions with my 6 Licensing personnel and Engineering personnel, this IR was 7 discussed from time to time. At no time, as far as I 8 could tell, prior to the time we actually cut the IR, was 9 there an understanding or conse.1 sus that we were outside j 10 our design bacis. J 11 The timing of the O&L evaluation was untimely.
12 It was very slow. That did not meet expectations.
13 I will say that even with the slow timing, 14 with the additional calculations that were done, up until 15 the time that the positive displacement pump function was 16 brought up, up until that time, we were able to prove --
17 we did have calculations to prove that, in fact, we were 18 within our design basis. When the pD pump came into the '
19 picture, we were not.
20 So tHe question of whether or not we should 21 have cut an incident report prior is somewhat moot, in my 22 opinion, because we were able to show -- although it was 23 untimely, ce dif,show that we were within our design basis 24 with the follow-up calculations, with the exception of 25 when the new assumption of the PDp came into the picture.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ($ LAND AVENUE, N W.
(2@ D44433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 2344433
5a 1 BY MR LOGAN:
2 O Then you determined that you weren't?
.1 A Then we made a determination that we were not, 4 with the PDP pump in the picture.-
5 Q Okay. Is there anything else?
6 A No.
7 MR LOGAN: Mr. Wetterhahn?
8 MR. WETTERHAHN: Coming back to your :
9 transcript of March 14th, 1995, at the bottom of Page 66, 10 it says, aI reviewed this transcript and believe it to be .
11 accurate as of the date of my interview, March 14th, l 12 1995." ,
13 Do you consider your testimony toc ny to have :
14 amended and supplemented that transcript? -
15 THE WITNESS: I would consider it as a 16 supplement.
- 17 MR. WETTERHAHN: Thank you.
18 MR. LOGAN: Mrs. Gelman, do you have any 19 questions?
20 MS GELMAN: I have no questions.
21 .MR. LOGAN: Thank you very much. I 22 (Whereupon, the proceedings were concluded 23 at 3iO5 p.m.)
24 i
.25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR$ERS l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 -_ WASHINGTON, O C. 20006 (202) 2344433
I CERTIFICATE This lo to certify that the attcched proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
Name of Proceeding .Tnterview of Francis Thomson Docket Number: 195-013 Place of Proceeding: Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey, were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings. I
? i m e. g . A , , . m, John Burke, Official Reporter ,
Heal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
e NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENVE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C 20005 (202) 234 4433
. - . - _ - . -,