ML20199J231
| ML20199J231 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/13/1995 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20199J167 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-97-325 NUDOCS 9711280080 | |
| Download: ML20199J231 (29) | |
Text
__
j a
l i
)
EXHIBIT 27
\\
AhO 9711280000 971124 L
PDR FOIA KEENAN97-325 PDR Case No. 1 95 013 Exhibit 27
)
g 7 4) k ('O Ed..__.
L
3 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLFAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
++
++4 4
OFFICE OF IINESTIGATIONS S
INTERVIEW 6
x 7
IN THE MATTER OF:
0 INTERVIEW OF
- Docket No.
9 HOWARD BERRICK
- 195-013 10 12
...............................x 12 Thursday, Jtily 13, 1995 13 14 Stan Labruna Conference Room 15
,PSE&G Administration Building 16 Buttonwood Road 17 Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 18 19 The abovo-entitled interview was conducted at 20 5:32 p.m.
21 BEFORE:
22 KEITH LOGAN Investigator 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS EXHlBIT N
'"" * " " '" ** " " PAGE
/ OFdPAGE(5) cASENh 1-05-013
- o. lu #"" "" T."".^"".?: " *-
2 1
APPEARAMCES:
2 On behalf of Howard Berrick:
3 MARK J. WETTERHAHN, ESQUIRE 4
MARCIA GELMAN, ESQUIRE 5
Winston and Strawn 6
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 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODC ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, O C 20005 (202) 234 4433
3 i
1 PROCEEDINGS
)
2 (5:32 p.m.)
F 3
Whereupon,
)
I 4
HOWARD GEORGE BERRICK
]
i 5
having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness j
-1 6
herein and was examined and testified as follows:
7 EXAMINATION' 3
4 2
8 BY MR. LOGAN:
9 Q
Okay, Mr. Berrick, my name is Keith Logan and i
1 10 I'm an investigator with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 11 Commission, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania..
12 And you're appearing today with counsel, is 13
.that correct?
14 A
Yes, sir.
15 MR. LOGAN:
Mr. Wetterhahn?
16 MR. WETTERHAHN's Good afternoon.
For the 17 record, my name is Mark J. Wetterhahn, with the law firm 18 of Winston & Strawn, 1400 L Street, Northwest, Washington, 19 D.C. 2005.
With me is Marcia Gelman of the same firm.
20 As we have done in the past, _the past 21 interview, we are representing Mr. Berrick on the'same a
- 22 terms as we have represented him before.
He is aware we.
23 have represented other individuals during the course of
[
24 the interviews and we also represent Public Service 25 Electric'& Gas Company.
NEAL R. GROSS-COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR$ERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W,,
(302) 2344433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 w-,v,,-
y.tw.m.-,,c-i-m w
-c<
y-<
,y
.,,yy-m-ew,--.
y
--w-w-
-#w-ie,i.,.-
v m m v e-r. - =,,
r,,,
v
.-,ww.
.,,, v n nw y 4 v w y,- e-- - - grr - r wf
4 1
BY MR. LOGA!h l
2 Q
Mr. Berrick, bearing that in mind, is it still i
3 your desire to have Mr. Wetterhahn and Ms. Gelman as your 4
counsel?
5 A
.Yes.
i i
6 Q
Thank you.
7 Your current position at PSE&G, Mr. Berrick, l
8 is what?
9 A
I am currently on loan to the management 10
' observation group that work under the Q.A. organization.
DM 11 When I'm not doing that,.I am the supervisor the..__
$ k 8/&[6 l
12 Mechanical Group.-
13 0
Okay.
And what are your responsibilities in 14 the position that you are on loan to?
?
15 A
What do I do?
?
16 Q
Yes.
[
17 A
You mean for the MOG group, Management 18 Observation Group?
19 Q
Yes,, Management. Observation Group.
20 A
At this point right now, I am observing 21 station departments and their interactions with each other 22 Land their interactions with engineering organizations, to
-i 23 identify where the organizations are meeting their 24 procedures or where they're-outside their procedures.-
- 25 Essentially an assistant to the general manager's team, to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRtBERS.
j
- 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.
(202) P344433
. WASHINGTON. O C. 2000$
J (202) 2344433
-i 5
i I
give him a sense of whether we're effective and efficient j
VW*'
2 in what we do.
It's kind of a broad over -- it's a broad 3
3 job.
4 Q-Who is the general manager that you then i
f 5
report to?
6 A
Jeff Benjamin.
7 Q
And his title?
/
l 8
A He is the -- I don' t k a.-
exact title.
4 9
0.A. Director.
10 Q
Okay.
And you've just h&u an opportunity to 11 review your prior transcribed interview dated March-14th, I
12 1995, is that correct?
13 A
Yes, sir.
14 Q
And during the course of the review, you I
15 indicated you wanted,to make some points of clarification 5
16 with regard to two separate pages, is that correct?
17 A
Yes.
18 Q
The first one is Page 20?
19 A
Page'20,.yes.
. hat is it that you'd like to clarify on that 20 Q
W 21 page?
22
-A What I just-wanted to add was there was a 23
. question about whether the engineers that work for me 24 would-typically be responsible for searching out' design
- 25 basis and more specifically licensing basis information.
MEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR$ERS E
1323 MMODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
. 5171.'I"...-...
. u. ?iC"T"****.*
- U2"
.._-_,.1*.",'....l'_._,-_._.
- -... - ~ _. -. -,. _,,,
6 1
Certainly today, they would be doing that.
In 2
this time frame, when this was done, it was more the 3
expectation that the Licensing engineers would provide 4
that licensing basis, since they had a more extensive data 5
base.
6 Since then, we have been schooled, if you i
7 will, to work more closely with them and to participate 8
more actively with them.
9 But at this point in time, I just wanted to 10 make that clear, that at that point in time, we would have 11 relied on the Licensing Department, the Licensing 12 engineers more.
13 0
Okay.
The otner change, the other point of 14 clarification you wanted to make was on Page 24.
And what 15 change or what point of clarification did you want to 16 ma ? ? ?
17 A
Would you just give me a second to make sure?
18 Q
Sure.
19 A
I think what I looked at in this questior. on 20 Page 24, Line 6, what struck me was that we did not discussthe[50.59specificallyinthismeeting, and the 21
'4e66l15 22 meeting was a combination of Mechanical'and Licensing 23 individuals.
And it was -- if the question of the 50.59 24 had to come up, I think we would have proceeded at that 25 point in time, but it was a blind spot that just didn't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTEF<S AND TRANSCR$ERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
I 7
1 show up in.that meeting.
2 Q
And the meeting you're referring to is 'the 3
April-1994 meeting?
i 4
A That was the meeting with Dave Smith and Ken f
5 O'Gara.
6 Q
I just want to point out that Line 16 of that i
7 same page, Page 24, "I call your attention to a meeting of 8 _ April 1994 in Mr. Thomson *s office," and I would assume-if 9
it's not the same meeting --
10 A
That's correct.
11 0
-- I guess I'm trying to identify just what 12 meeting it was.
13 A
I believe that was a meeting with -- we're 14 talking ab"It a meeting with the Licensing Department and l
15 Dr. Chandra, Mahesh Danak and myself, along with Ken 16 O'Gara.
I'm not sure if Mr. Lashkari was there or not at 17 that time.
38 Q
Do you recall at what point in time that 19 meeting took plage?
20 A
No, I don't.
-21 Q
It was prior to the April 1994 meeting that 22 you had in Mr. Thomson's office?
23 A-Again, I don't have a time line but I do know 24 that meeting -- that me'eting was identified somewhere in c
25 somebody's notes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSORIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2N4433 WASH 6NGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2M4433
. _.., _ _. _,. - _ _ _ ~. _ _.,.,
8 1
0 Do you went to tako o cocond off the record?
2 MR. LOGAN:
Off the record.
3 4
(Whereupon, a discussion was held off the 5
record) 6 MR. LOGAN:
Back on the record.
7 BY MR. LOGAN:
8 0
Okay, you indicated the meeting you're 9
referring to is the one that you first identified on Page 10 20 in Line 47 11 A
That's correct.
12 O
And, looking at that section and the 13 information that follows that, do you recall whether or 14 not this meeting took place before or after the mee:ing in 15 Mr. Thomson's office?
16 A
This would have been af ter the Frank Tho;nson 17 meeting, because the previous page indicates that a leview 18 letter that was issued on the 28th of September --
19 0
What year?
20 A
That would have been 1994.
And the meeting 21 with Frank Thomson was somewhere in the April time frane, 22 I'm not exactly sure of the --
23 0
'94?
24 A
1994.
So my -- I just wanted to clarify that, 25 that the September meeting, there was no 50.59 discussica, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENVE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C 20005 (202)2344433
.. ~,
t
$_ff:rentattheSeptembermeeting.
1 "arr'- pr
-2 Q-Was there any discussion of-50.72 or 50.73.at 3
that September meeting?
- 4 A
I cannot recall.
It may have been in the memo 5
that was summarized by the Licensing Engineer after the 6
meeting, but-I don't recall specifically.
7 O
The memo was by whom?
-8 A
It was issued from Licensing, Dave Smith to 9
Jerry Ranalli and Jay Bailey.
Essentially summarized our 10 meeting, provided. actual plan as to where we were headed.
11 Q
Let's go back to, if we can, 12 MR. WETTERHAHN:
One second.
13 Does that help you pinpoint the date of the
~
14 meeting?
MMb '
I 15 THE WT.TNESS:
Oh, yes.
This -
";rk
^?ctterh_jh.h.$C
$$0
-- if you look at the memo, Page 3 of the memo 16 17 that I just identified, the meeting -- the meeting that we 18 held with Licensing, ourselves and Sciences was September 19 16th, 1994.
20 MR. WETTERHAHN:
Thank you.
21 BY MR. LOGAN:
22 0
.The meeting where you discussed the 50.59 --
1 23 didn't' discuss any 50.59 issues was, in fact, the 24
' September 16th meeting?
'25 A
That's right.
Just for clarification, it did NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS -
1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(20lh 234M33 WASHINGTON. O C. 200m fMD1 PleMM
10
~
JL not-como up at the September 1Cth mseting. And I just-2 wanted to clarify that.
Perhaps i was a blind spot for 3
us, because had it come up,.we.would have had to deal with 4
it, if.it came up.
And there wasn't any reason to not 5
bring it up, it just it just didn't show up in the 6
conversation.
'=
7 Q
Likewise, 50.72 and 50.73 did not?
8 A
I don't recall them sh<.v;t.g up, no.
9 Q
Would you go now to the April meeting?
Do you 10 recall a discussion of 50.72 or 50.73 or 50.59 at that 11 meeting in Frank Thomson's office in April of '94?
12 A
There was no 50.59 discussion at that. meeting, 13 in the April meeting in Frank Thomson's office.
The only 14 discussion that I recall, what's already in my transcript 15 here.
That it was felt that an IR wouldn't be written at 16 that time.
That as we proceeded through our evaluation, 17 if at any time we found something that required us to 18 issue the IR, that we would at that point do it.
But I 19 don't recall anything about reportability.
I don't recall 20 a discussion of reportability.
21 Q
One doesn't necessarily have to be in 22 conjunction with the other.
23 1 A-I understand.
You can write the IR and still-24 notLgo-through the reporting aspect. But the only thing I 25 recall is the discussion.about the IR.
- NEAL R.- GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
- 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
-(202) 234 4 33
. ASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 234M33 W
gy-
-1 Q
Okay.
And obviously there can be a discussion i
2 as to-whether_or not.you want to report something and_not 3
have a discussion as to whether or not you should prepare 1
4 an IR?
5 A
Right.
I_ don't recall a discussion saying 6
should we report this.
7
. Q Or is this reportable?
8 A
The discussion was more towards do we have --
9 is it operable.
There was no discussion about reportable, 10 It was -- are we operable?
Is our system operable right 11 now?- Is this something that would prevent the unit from 4
12 starting up?
But there was no -- I,wish there was notes 13 of this meeting, but there was no discussion, to my 14 recollection, about reportability.
15 Q
Was there discussion about the cost of failing 16 to start?-
17 A
No.
18 Q
Or the cost of being fined later on?
19 A
No, sir.
I don't recall that.
20 Q
Even in joking?
i 21 A
No.
I didn't hear it.
22 O'
Okay.
23 A-And I was, you know, I was at the blackboard 24 with Dr. Chandra.
There were a lot of-people in the room, 25 but_I don't recall anything cf that nature, in that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 2344433 WASH 6NGTON, D C. 20005 -
(202) 234 4433
12 1
particular meeting.
Or any meeting, for that matter, i
2 O
Did you recall anyone saying that there should 3
have been an IR prepared?
4 A
In that meeting?
5 Q
In that meeting, the April meeting.
l 6
A No, I don't recall anyone saying there should 7
be an IR prepared.
8 Q
Now, let's look a little bit, just briefly, at 9
the memo that is from you to Schnarr dated December 30, 10 1993.
Who prepared that memo for you?
And the reason I 11 ask that is that in your interview on Page 7, you 12 indicated that Gita
-r 13 A
Narasimhan.
14 0
-- narasimhan prepared the memo for you.
I 15 have also come to understand that Mahesh Danak prepared 16 the memo.
17 A
Well, it could have been the both of them, and 18 I'll tell you why.
Gita's initials are on the memo.
At 19 some point in time, she had the initial lead on this 20 particular piece of work.
And when she left or was in the 21 process of leaving because she was a contractor, the work 22 itself went back to Mahesh again.
23 So although her initials are un there, it 24 indicates to me -- right here, see the GN in the corner 25 there?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W, m.
13 1
-Q And what wa're looking at.is.--
h
- 2 A
Page 4,-just after the last f in the q$$
3 recommendation,-there's a GN, full colon -- followed by 4
the typist's-initials.
a 5
0 And the GN-is located just above " attachment" j
6 on your memo?
7 A
Yes.
Now,'it could have been that Mahesh 8
completed the memo and never changed it.
It wasn't'just 9
one individual.
It was a turnover of work from one' person lo to another.
11 Q
And in the memo we talked about just a little 12 bit, basically the memo says that,you could take credit 13
'for the code case?
14 A
Yes.
15 Q
A.S.M.E. code case?
16 A
Yes.
17 Q
And there's nothing in the memo indicating i
18 that the A.S.M.E. code case must be first approved by the 19 N.R.C.?
20 A
That's correct.
That's not in the memo.
21
-Q And we. talked to Gita Narasimhan and she Laid 22 that she:was aware that Salem couldn't take credit-for the L
23 coda case without N.R.C. approval.
24 A
'Okay.
25
?
Were you aware of that?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 132s RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
14
-1 A
- No, I wasn't, She may-have said that to ma or 2
not.
I don't recall that.
I don't recall that 3
conversation, or a conversation.
3 4
Q-And when was the first time that you became n
5 aware of that?
6 A
It-was in 1994, after we started to get into 4
.I 7
the -- when the station came back, Charley came back 1
8 saying that it was no good, that we needed to get -- the 9
response was not acceptable and we needed to do something 10 more.
And there were discussions and I gue.cn I became 11 clear at that point in time that the code case, in order
]
12 to be used, would require prior N.R.C. approval.
13 Q
What about Mahesh Danak?
Did he mention to 14 you that you need d N.R.'C.
approval to take credit for a 15 code case?
16 A
I don't recall.
I do recall in the April time 17 frame, as we were putting the problem report together, the 18 PR, that at that point in time it was clearly spelled out.
19 So I'think in the early part of 1994, it became more i.
20 apparent to me, or apparent to me that what I had done'in 21 1993 was it. correct.
22 Q.
- Let me do a hypothetical.-
Had you been aware 23 of it in December of 1993, and by "it,"
I'm referring to-24 had you been aware prior to that, that the N.R.C. needed 25 to approve'a code case.before you could rely on it, what NEAL R. GROSS CCKJRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
- 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433.
WASHtNGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 r
y..
m
~
- 3.,. -
15
~ !
wouldLyou have done to close out this issve in Decemb
'of I
2 1993?:
3 A
I couldn't have closed it out.
I would have 4
gone -- essentially, the way that was -- that this issue 5
was closed out was saying this is -- this particular task 6
of this larger issue is closed.
It now needs to go on to 7
the next step and people need to take the appropriate 8
action, other than the Mechanical Engineering Group.
9 Had I been aware of the code case requirement, 10 we would have not said, this is closed.
We would have 11 indicated that this is pending the approval of that code
-12 case, and it would have gone off to Licensing, which it 13 did anyway.
It went or it was supposed to have gone to --
14 we would have gone to Licensing and requested that they is initiate the paperwork.
16 Q
Why didn't this go to Licensing?
17 A
Because when we answered that, we sent it back 18 to Fred Schnarr, to the originator of the ATS item.
we don't typically send stuff 19 Subsequently, we. don't 20 back to Fred Schnarr anymore unless it's specifically 'from 21 him.
He doesn't really have any control over it.
He's 22 more-of-a manager of the items that come through the' gate.
-23 I don't mean to put his' job down, but essentially he's a 24
'screeneriand-he's sending the items out.
-25 Q
I notice Dave. Smith is not on here.
NEAL R. GROSS i
COURY REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l
1323 RHOCE ISLAND AVENUE, N W
]
16
.a.
.1
'A.
No, he's~not.
2 0
-Should he have.been?
.3 A
In hindsight, yes.
In -- at thist-point in 4
time, it was our expectation or the expectation was that 5
Fred would have said, "Okay, Berrick's done with his 6
piece -All right, now we've got to get Licensing involved 7
and we have to get Operations involved."
-8 Q
so you relied on Schnarr to do something?
9 A
Yes.
At that point in time, that was our 10 expectation.
11 Q
Do you have a copy of the-draft that Ms.
12 Narasimhan had prepared for you?
Is that retained 13 anywhere in the Salem. files?
14 A
A draft?
15 Q
Yes.
The one she would have prepared and left 16 with you at the time of her departure.
17 A
I would have -- once she left, I would have 18 given that information -- I would expect I would have-
-19 given that infortgation back to Mahesh, since he was l
i 20 picking up the work after-she had gone.
21 Q,
Is it routine to keep drafts or working files?
i 22 A
It's more routine -- I'm trying to make that 23 more of a policy in th'e group, but in the past, no. It. ' s 24 not a_ policy to keep working files.
If there's a copy in' 25 the engineer's' files, it's.there.
Personal files is what L
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
- (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 2000$
(202) 2344433
. ~.
17 1
it was.
2 Q.
Okay.
3 A
I ' establish (1 something a couple of years ago, 4
with all the ATS items, to keep a working file so that if-5 another engineer left for any reason, that a new eng'ineer 6
could pick it up, go into that file and see where the last 7
person had left off.
-8 It's possible -- I haven't looked in that j
9 f'le.
It's possible that any drafts could be still ir 10 there.
Because this was -- it was there during this.
11 frame.
12 MR. LOGAN:
Mr. Wetterhahn, are you aware of 13 any drafts that have been retained in the custody or 14 control of Salem or PSE&G on this issue?
0 15 MR. WETTERHAHN:
The only person I inquired 16 about any drafts was Gita Narasimhan and she answered that i
17 inquiry the same as she answered your inquiry. She did not 18 personally have any drafts.
19 THE WITNESS:
I thought -- again, I could look 20 at the file and see if there's any in there.
That's easy 21 to do.
22 BY MR. LOGAN:
23 Q
Before we leave, could you --
i 24
-A Yes, I will.do that, 1
i 25 MR. WETTERHAHN:
Off the record, please.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISL/NO AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234 4433 W ASHINGTON.' O.C. 20005 (202) 234 4 2
18 z..
4 1
MR. LOGAN:
Off-the record.
2 (Whereupon,.a discussion was held off the 3
record)
~4 MR. LOGAN:
Back on the reco~rd.
5 BY MR~. LOGAN:
6 0
Mr. Berrick, you indicated that you were going 7
to check the ATS files to see if there are any earlier --
8 A
Yes, sir.
9 Q.
And we'll do that after the interview.
10 A
- Okay, 11 0
The next issue I'd like to talk to you about 12 is that memos from Westinghouse. There was a March memo 13 from Westinghouse-and there was also a September memo from 14 Westinghouse in 1993.
Do you recall those two memos?
15 MR. WETTERHAHN:
Can we --
16 MR. LOGAN *:
I don't have them both here.
17 MR. WETTERHAHN:
We have the March memo.
18 BY MR. LOGAN:
19 Q
The March memo is more of a generic memo and 20 the September memo was the result of I guess a task that-21
-Westinghouse-had been given by PSE&G.
4 22 A
Yes.
23 0
.You do recall the September memo?
24 A-Yes, if that is the result of our request.
25 Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR:BERS 1323 RHOOE ISt.AND AVENUE, N W..
i
- (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
___._q.___.,_
19 1
Q Okay.-Now,.having received that Salem specific 2
memo from Westinghouse, do you think that this-prob'lem
-3
-with the POPS system was'then reportable-to the N.R.C.
4 pursuant to 50.72 or 50.73?
5 A
I had -- looking at the memo specifically, I 6
didn't say that.there was anything in the memo that said 7
that you have a problem.
8 Q-Okay. Basically, we're looking at your 9
recollection here.
10 A
Yes.
11 Q
And we're looking at the 1-and 4-hour 12 reportability issue. That's why.I'm addressing 50.72 and 13 50.73.
So based on your recollection of what was in that 14 Westinghouse memo, do you think there.was a repo-tability 15 issue with regard to the POPS system?
16 A
Based on my recollection, no.
And also, 17 I'd also like to say that if I -- I would also have to 18
. consult with the Licensing' Department, because I don't 19 report.the issue.- I would have brought it to the 20 Licensing. Department's awareness.
21 But,I. don't recall anything c.. that memo that 22 moved me to -- that was-a reportability concern.
23 MR. WETTERHAHN:
Can I clarify one-aspect of 24 the question?
25 MR. LOGAN:
Sure.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.We l
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C 20005 (202) 2344433 -
m
20 1
MR. WETTERHAHN:
You mentioned 50.72 and 2
50'.73.
3 Was there anything, to your recollection, that would cause 4
you to' write an LER as opposed to a 1-hour and 4-hour S
report, in that memorandum?
6 THE WITNESS:
To the best of my recollection, 7
no.
8 MR. WETTERHAHN:
Thank you.
9 BY MR. LOGAN:
10 Q
The other point has to do with the fact that li you could not_ rely on the code case, which, in fact, your 12 memo did rely on, code, case exception.
13 Had you known that, at the time, in December 14.
of 1993, that you could not rely.on that code case 15 exception, would that have then been a reportable event?
16 A
Yes.
We would have, at that point -- without-4 17
.the' code case, it's outside design parameters.
18 0
okay.
19 A
Thatawas the basis, based on the fact that I 20 could use the code case.
,7 1
21 Q
Right.
i
'I felt that we were within -- you know, with
-22
-A 23
-that cushion.
24 Q-
~ So you did consider reportability?
25 A
Well, in order to -- I feel like it's -- in NEAL R. GROSS 4
J.
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
~~ (202n 2344433 WASHINC4 TON O C Pnfif% '
,9091 SidJJ11
_. ~.
~.1 1
order to have a. discussion, should we use the code case'or 2
not, you have to look to see, at that point, if you do a 3
calculation and the number is below your design number, 4
then there wouldn't have been even a -- there would have 5
been a long-term consideration for.maybe we ought to use 6
the code case for long term to give us mou margin, but we 7
were looking_at the fact that we had exceeded some number 8
and we needed the code case in order to give us that 9
margin.
10 Again, I thought, in my ignorance, that I 11 could use that, but I had to have that conversation called 12
-- I guess what you say is a reportability conversation --
13 in order to go through that whole thing, in order to get 14 to use thet code case.
15 Does that mau-sense to you, what I'm saying?
16 0
If you were using -- based on what you're 17 telling me, because you could rely on the code case, you 18 were within design basis, and therefore it was not a 19 reportable event' But had you not been'able to uce that, 20 then you would have had.a reportable event?
21 A
Yes, sir.
22 0
And what you're telling me is that you did 23 consider the reportability issue but_you considered it and 24 then dismissed it because you_used the code case?
25 A
I failed to see.the code case needed to be --
NEAL R. GROSS
- COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS -
1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W-.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C,20005 (202) 2344433 '
22' 1
needed to have prior-N.R.C. approval, so in-hindsight,-we 2
exceeded the limit, because we.didn't_have the code' case 3
to-'f all.back on. But at that point in-time, I thought I 4
could use the code case, and therefore I was within that -
5
- I was within that. window, had that cushion.
6 Q
When you learned that the code case was not 7
acceptable without N.R.C. approval --
8 A
Yes, sir.
9
-Q
-- why didn't you then prepare an IR, and say 10
_ we're outside our design basis?-
11 A
Because there were other -- we were looking at 12 other calculations to see if, in fact, we would not have 13 to even rely on the code case.
Were we-being too 14 conservative and restrictive to start with in our 15 thinking?
Was the -- the initial work that we did 16 brought us above this limit, actually too conservative, 4
17 too restrictive.
Did we take -- so we started to look at 18 things again, and rather than -- it was let's go back and 19 do our homework one more time.
Let's sharpen our pencils
+
4 20 and make sure that we understand completely what the whole 21 story.is here.
i 22 Q
Didn't Mr. Lashkari call you after you issued 23 your memo to Mr.-Schnarr to tell you that you needed 24 N.R.C.. approval to use that code case?
r a
25 A
I= don't-recall that.
I'm not saying he did or
-NEAL R. GROSS
' COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRSERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433.
WASHINGTON,. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
23 4
1 didn't.-
.2 Q-You don't: recall.-- So when do you recall being 3
told that you couldn't use the code case?
Or it being 4
. suggested you couldn't use the code case?
9 5
A It would have been in the early part of '94.
6 I can't -- I. don't know exactly.
I can't nail it down 7
because I don't hue any documentation that says they 8
called me on that date and that's when I knew.
9 It was -- maybe it was a process of just 10 discussions over a period of time that I came to realize 11 that it was not a usable document, the way it existed 12 right now, for-us.
13 I don't know.
I do know that when we finally
{-
l'4 wrote the PR, Problem Report, when we were writing down, 15 we're listening now to sometime that we had to consider.
16 We probably knew it before April.
I prc,bably knew it 17 before April, but when, I don't know.
Between January and 18 April.
I'can'* recall.
1
- 19 I went through my notes.
I can't find 20 anything in my notes, my own home notes, about this, 21 because it drove me crazy last night'trying to --_you 22 know,Labout this whole thing.
And I got my Franklin
- 23 planner and I've got all that stuff there, and I don't see 24 it.in there.
So either I was a poor note-taker or.it 25 didn't -- I don't know.
I can't help yau.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
- (2C2) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
24 1
I know it'was in that time frame, though.
The
-2 January to. April time frame, in there.
-3 MR. WETTERHAHN:
Are you finished with that?
4 Can.1 clarify --
5 MR. LOGAN:
On that issue?
6 MR. WETTERHAHN:
dn that issue.
7 MR. LOGAN:
Go ahead.
8 MR. WETTERHAHN:
I think you mentioned, 9
Howard, a few minutes earlier, that if you discovered on.
2 10 December 30th, 1993, that you couldn't rely on the code 11 case, you wouldn't have closed the ATS issue.
Do you 12 recall that statement?
13 THE WITNESS:
I would have statused the issue, 14 but I would not have closed it.
4 a
15 MR. WETTERHAHN:
When you status the issue, 16 was it your understanding of the procedures that existed 17 at the time, that you would have had some point -- some 18 additional time to make the decision with regard to 19 reportability and,to whether you were really catside your 20 design basis?
21 THE WITNESS:
Can you give me that one more
]
22
. time?
23 MR.- WETTERHAHN:
Yes.
Let's say there's an 24 arbitrary time, let's say December 30th, that you find out 25 that you can't rely on the code case.
Under the
- NEAL-R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
25 1
procedures, the administrative proceduros and the
-2 understandings that existed at the time, what.would be 3
your actions at that point in time?
4 THE WITNESS:
Well, I would have gone right to 5
my manager, number one, and said I have this problem and I the way it is right now, I can't resolve it.
And 6
can't 7
it have moved up the chain.
It would have gone through 8
the whole thing and it wouldn't have been an IR 9
immediately.
It'-- we would have taken steps.
It would
- 10
- have moved through people's office with this-issue until j
11 it.got to maybe let's say -- at that point, I believe it 12 probably would have gone to Stan LaBruna, and then Stan 13 would have called over and said, "We've got an issue 14 here."
15 MR. WETTERHAHN:
So there would have been some i
16 period of time for management to analyze it, determine --
17 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
At any time along the way, 18 if it was felt that I hadn't done a thorough analytical-19 piece, it would have been sent back to me to sharpen my 20 pencil, you know, get it clearer before it went off to the 21 station.
22 So it was expected that we would do our -- as 23 much of.the-analysis, do our homework, before we go to the 24 station with'a reportable event.
25 MR. WETTERHAHN:
And that was the NEAL R.- GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
.1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTOrd. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344 433 -
p.
t-9
-aws wr
-m
..__- -.~. - -.
26 1 : understanding at the tiine?
-2 THE WITNESS:
Yes.-
3 MR. WETTERHAHN - Late
'93,. early '94?
4 THE WITNESS: -
Yes,. sir.-
5 MR. WETTERHAHN:
Okay, thanks.-
6 MR. LOGAN:
Just bear with me.
?
MR. WETTERHAHN ' Certainly.
8 MR. LOGAN:
Can we go off the record for a 9
minute?
10 (Whereupon, a discussion was held of f the l
11 record) 12 MR LOGAN:
Back on the record.
13 BY MR. LOGAN:
'14 Q
Mr. Berrick, would you look at Page 22 of the i
15
' transcript, Line 15?
16 The question to you was, "And would you expect l'?
them to identify a decrease in that flow rate, as a change 18 in the design basis for the system?"
Your answer is, "I
would expect then} to identify the dif ference. "
19 20 A
Yes.
4 21 Q
_By that, did you mean yes in response to --
22 A
That's what I said.
4 23 Q
Okay,_so you would expect them to identify the 24 decrease in:.the flow rate, as a change in the design basis 25 for the system?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRSERS 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVENUE. N.W.
4
- (202) 234-4433 WASH 4NGT0N, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 -
27
\\
~
l 1
A No, that I would expect them;to identify the 2
difference between the design flow rate and the flow rate 3
right now.
4 It would'be expected that your engineers would 5
know the original flow rate, and the answer is yes.
6 And would you expect them to identify a 7
decrease in that flow rate, as a change in design basis 8
for the system.
I would expect them to identify the 9
difference.
And we would talk about whether, in fact, 10 that was a change in design basis.
11 MR. LOGAN:
Mr. Berrick, that's all I have.
12 Mr. Wetterhahn, is there anything you want to 13 put on the record at this time?
14 MR.-WETTERHAHN:
Let's go off the record for a 15 second.
16 (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the 17 record) 18 MR. LOGAN:
On the record.
19 MR. WETTERHAHN:
I'have no further questions 20 of-Mr. Berrick.
However, he specifically requests the.
21 opportunity to review today's transcript.
22 MR. LOGAN:
Off the record.
YM fMI e hartrifb 0 Hccf If Q t f k b fe he kJ.
%eds ab d w M Tym,ay e[e$MM
< yY YIY WAlOfWhth 25 NEAL R. GROSS g.' g' COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
g (202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
C E R T I-F I C A T E
.This is to certify-that the attached proceedings before'the United. States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:-
Name of Proceeding:
Interview of Howard Berrick Docket Number:
195-013 Place of Proceeding:
Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey, were held as herein appears,-and that this is the-original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
O ja
., fL,
b.L' TIC 4.
/
John Burke, e-Official Reporter Neal R. Gross & Co.,
Inc.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRtBERS =
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000$
(202) 234-4433
__