ML20199J241

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Transcript of 950713 OI Interview of G Narasimhan Re Case 1-95-013
ML20199J241
Person / Time
Issue date: 07/13/1995
From:
NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI)
To:
Shared Package
ML20199J167 List:
References
FOIA-97-325 NUDOCS 9711280082
Download: ML20199J241 (18)
v • d • e


Text

__ . _ . __ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ _ . __ _ .. . ._ __ .__

0 I

I EXHIBIT 28 I i

l l

l l

l N

l 9711290002 971124

~

l

PDR FDIA l KEENAN97-325 PDR (y p ( ,.se3< v -

Case No. 1 45.n13 c.k4k4+ oo

.g 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + ++++

4 OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS 5 INTERVIEW 6

7 ...............................x 8 IN THE MATTER OF:  :

9 INTERVIEW OF ,

Docket No.

10 GITA NARASIMHAN  : 195-013 .

11  :

12 ~~~--~~~~~---------------------x 13 Thursday, July 13, 1995 14 15 Stan Labruna Conference Room ,

16 'PSE&G Administration Building 9

17 Buttonwood Road 18 Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 19

-20 The above-ent.. led interview was. conducted at

-- 21 4:10-p.m.

22 BEFORE:

  • t 23 -KEITH LOGAN Investigator i- 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS : EXHlBIT.

c*"

CASE ND. 1 -013- ""S ^" 'a^"Sca'"E"8 ' PAGE / OF /7 PAGE(li) -

1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202) 234 9'.4433 "

WASWNGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) N A .a a=te..

2 1 APPEARANCES:

2 On behalf of Gita Narasimhan:

-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 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) W 4433

.3

-1 P R O C E E D I N G S-2 (4 :10 p.m. )

3 Whereupon, 4 GITA NARASIMHAN 5 having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness 6 herein and was examined and testified as follows:

7 EXAMINATION a

8 BY MR. LOGAN:

9 Q- Ms. Narasimhan, my name is-Keith Logan and I'm 10 an investigator with the U S. Nuclear Regulatory 11 Commission, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

12 I appreciate your coming.here for an interview 13 today and I notice you're appearing with counsel; is that 14 correct? -

15 A That's right.

16 MR LOGAN! Mr. Wetterhahn?

17 -

MR. WETTERHAHN: Yes. Good afternoon. For 18 the record, my name is Mark J. Wetterhahn with the law 19 firm of Winston & Strawn, 1400 L Street Northwest, j' 20 Washington, D.C. 20005. Appearing with me today is Marcia

(

21 Gelman. < jl '

22 AsIhaveinformedMs.Narasimha[,we N -

/ I ,

lY 23 represent other individuals in this-proceeding and also 24 Public Service Electric and Gas Company, and after 25 discussion, she has asked us to appear with her today.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W-(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000$ (202) 2344433

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

4

-1 BY MR. LOGAN: -

2 O And, Ms. Narasimham, bearing that in mind,-is ,

3 .it still your desire to have Mr. Wetterhahn and Ms.-Gelman 4 here today as your counsel?

5 A Yes, I'd like that, t

6 Q Thank you.

7 What is your current position with PSE&G?

8 A f I'm a senior staff engineer in the Mechanical A tif 9 Salem S l Group.

10 Q And to whom do you report?

11 A I report to Howard Berrick.

12 O And how long have you held that position?

13 A I've been in this position since September of 14 1994.

15 0 And what position did you hold prior to that?

16 A I was a subcontractor to Sargent &.Lundy prior 17 to that. .

18 Q And as a subcontractor to Sargent & Lundy, who 19 did you work for,, at PSE&G?.

20 A I did work for Howard Berrick's group, through 21 Sargent & Lundy.

, 22 Q And during what period of time did you do work l -23 for Howard Berrick's group?

24 A It-was from December of '93 through June of 25 - '94. I was working through Sargent & Lundy.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR!BERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHtNGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433

5 1 O okay. And during that' period of time, did you 2 work on an issue related to-the POPS issue and the . >

3 Westinghouse memorandum?

4 A 'It was not.at that time.. It was prior-to S that.

6 Q Prior to that?

7 A Prior to that, .I was a subcontractor through 8

PATsco Pat:cc. g/// ff [ff 9 Q Durina what period of time? .

10 A That was from January of *93 through October 11 of '93. And I worked in Howard Berrick's group as an 12 engineer.

13 Q Okay. Now, I'11 show you a memo that is from 14 Howard Berrick to Frank Schnarr. It's dated December 30, 15 1993. It's approximately ten pages.

16 A I have a copy.

17 Q Could you.look at that and tell me if you 18 recognize that memo?

19 A Yes. I recognize this.. I prepared a draft

.20 of this memo right before I left.

21 Q And why did you prepare a draft of that memo?.

22 Were you given an assignment to do so?

23 A Yes, I was given an assignment.

24 Q And who gave you that assignment? -

25 A- The work was' ass'Jned by Howard Berrick.

NEAL R. GROSS

. COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433

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

6 1 Q And what is-it that Mr.-Berrick asked you to 2 do?- .

3 A When the Westinghouse NSAL, when this issue 4 came up. .

5 Q When was that, approximately.

4 6 A Around April.

7 Q March / April time frame?

8 A March / April time frame.

d 9 Q Okay, 10 A He gave that issue to me to investigate.

4 11 O What did you do when he assigned it to you to 12 investigate? -

1-13 A I had discussions with Weg.'.nghouse on what 14 the implications were of the issue. And _ looked at what 15 -- how to address it for Salem.

16 Q Okay. And are you aware of any letters that 17 were written from Westinghouse to PSE&G with regard to how ,

18 it should be addressed at Salem?

19 A No, I,'m not aware of any letters of that 20 nature.

21 Q So you're not aware of a September dated 22 memorandum from Westinghouse on this issue?

. 23 A I think in the September time frame, we 24 received information from Westinghouse which we had-25 contracted them to do, is that Lat you're referencing to? .

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433

7 1 O It would concern the POPS issue.

2 A Yes, it was on the POPS issue. .

3 0 okay. So you did receive information but yot$

4 don't recall any specific memorandum on that point, or do 5 you?

6 A ' recall a memorar5dum from Westinghouse which 7 gave us t.he pressure drops for different . number of RCP's .

8 operating, which was information we had requested from 9 Westinghouse.

10 0 And did you use that information in the -

11 preparation of your first draft of the December 30 memo?

12 A It's my recollection I did. Yes.

13 0 And the table that you just had in front of 14 you, is that a table that you prepared, based on the 15 information you received from Westinghouse?

16 A I prepared a similar table when I prepared the 17 draft. I'm not sure if it's exactly the same as what I ,

18 prepared.

19 Q And c}id you use the Westinghouse information 20 to assist you in preparing the table?

21 A Yes, I did.

, 22 O Now, you said you prepared an early draft of 23 this memo. By that, I_take it to mean you did not see the 24 final draft of this memo that was signed by Mr. Berrick; 25 is that correct?

1 NEAL R. GROSS i COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE l$ LAND AVENUE. N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20006 (202) 234-4433

8 3 A Yes. I left in October of '93, and just l 2 before I left, I prepared a draft and then turned the .

1 3 information over, i 4 Q To whom did you turn the information over?

5 A I think all of the work I turned over to 0  !!oward Berrick and he was going to take it from there.

? Q Either do it himself or reassign it? You ,

8 don't know?

9 A I don't know.

30 Q And did you conclude in your first draft that 11 Salem could rely on a code case exception?

12 A Yes, I did say that we would have to invoke 13 the code case.

14 Q okay. Are you aware cf whether or not the 15 N.R.C. had approved the code case that you suggetted the 16 utility use?

17 A When we first -- when I first started looking .

18 at the code case in April -- I mean, at this issue, back 19 in April, the code case had not been issued by A.S.M.E.

20 So St that -- at the time I left in october, I was not 21 sure whether the code case had bcen issued by A.S.M.E.

22 But I had had discussions with Westinghouse and with other 23 people on the applicability of the code case to our 24 particular situation.

25 0 And do you recall whether or not they said it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR$ER$

1323 RHoDE (SLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202)2344433 W ASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433

9 1 w s cppliccble to your oituction?

2 A They did say it was applicable to our ,

3 situation. l 4 O Did they talk about whether or not that code 5 case needed to firLt be apprnved by the N.R.C., in order 6 for it to apply to your situation at Salem?

7 A We had discussions and I had a general 8 understanding that code cases would have to be -- we'd 9 have to have approval prior to invoking them for our 10 application. Yes.

11 Q And did you comt.aunicate that to Mr. Berrick?

12 A I don't -- I don't recall if I specifically 13 pointed it out to him. I know in the draft letter, I did 14 say that we were invoking that code case, but I don't 15 recall if I highlighted that issue.

16 Q The fact that it needed to be approved before 17 it could be utilized by Salem? ,

18 A Right. I don't recall specifically stating 19 that to him.

20 0 Did you ever discuss this issue with Mahesh 21 Danak?

22 A Yes.

23 0 When did you first discuss it with him?

24 A When we received the NSAL, around the March /

25 April time frame.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 2344433 WA$HINGTON, D C. 20005 (202)2344433

10  !

F r

1 Q March / April timo frems of '937 -

l i

2 A '93. I had discussions with him on how we i i

3 could approach this issue. I remember I did discuss with '

4 him about the set point, the accuracy, instrument 5 accuracy, because that was one of the options that the  ;

6 NSAL had said, one place where we could get margin, and 7 from Mahesh I find out that we had 'aiready taken that 8 margin out of our options. So that was not available to r

9 us. >

10 Q How would that margin have helped you? l 11 A I don't recall the exact number but 12 Westinghouse stated jn their NSAL that instrument accuracy 13 did not have to be considered for the POPS set point. If 14 our original codes had included instrument accuracy, then i 15 that was margin that was available to us.

16 0 And did your original codes include that?

17' A I don't recall the specifics, but the original 4

18 had included at one point, I know we had already taken 19 that margin.

20 Q I see. Who else, aside from Mr. Danak, did 21 you discuss this issue with?

22 -A I discussed it with several people in

-23 We-inghouse.

24 Q- Okay.

25 A- I discussed it with the operations people to NEAL R. GROSS-COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20006 (202)2344433

11 1 find out how the plant was operated.

l 2 0 Do you recall who you spoke to in operations? .

I 3 A I think the name was Joe Serwan.

4 0 Who else did you talk.to?

5 A I talked to a couple of other -- well, I 6 talked to just one other utility. I talked to Zion 7 briefly to see how it had impacted them. ,

1 8 0 okay.

9 A And this is back in '93. All of them, I do 10 not recall.

O Now, after you left and then came back, did 12 you have any additional involvement in this issue, after 13 returning to work here at Salem?

14 A After I came back as a permanent PS employee 15 in September of '94?

16 0 No, after you came back as a contractor.

17 Didn't you work as a contractor also? ,

18 A I came back through Sargent & Lundy, but the 19 laut time I was not involved with this issue at all.

20 0 okay. When was the next time you were involved 21 with this issue? Was that as a permanent employee?

22 A As a permanent employee. Probably around 23 November or December of '94.

24 0 And what was the extent of your involvement?

25 A I reviewed a couple of calculations that had NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W (202) i34 4433 WASHINGTON. O C 2000$ (202) 2344433

12 1 been performed.

2 Q And who had performed those calculations? .

3 A Vijay Chandra had performed the calculations.

4 I was a peer reviewer on one and a design verifier on the 5 other.

6 Q Did you agree with Dr. Chandra's calculations?

7 A Yes. I had a le* of discussions, because my ,

0 own initial feeling was that, because of the 9 compressibility of water being very small, that assuming 10 everything was water solid and whole would be the worst 11 case. And he had to do some convincing to convince me 12 that there was a trade-off between that and the relerreh6 13 capabilities. 4 14 0 When you say he had to do some convincing, I 15 gather there was a fair amount of diccussion between the 16 two of you?

17 A calculations, to insure Yes. AndG,0 heff/IC did $somyljl{g$

q 18 comparisons with the W a rodel. Nggin 19 0 Do yo,u agree with the use of the gothic model?

20 A I know Westinghouse had done the original h vd r/ 4g/x/99r 21 analysis using LOFTRAN and then they had & ub1yd up the _

22 methodology, which is what salem's original had been done 23 with.

y Ghtl Jershpel.4f jglq s p;hydrau ic k Yrjy/

But gothic is an nubled up code for semeg$48.M 24 analysis so it seemed like it would be valid for this 25 application. , .

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RH00E ISt.AND AVENUE, N W.

(702) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 2344433

13 1 Q Now, is there any other work that you did on 2 this case? .

3 A I-think that's about it.

4 O Did you have an opportunity to look at the LER 5 that was prepared? I believe you have it in front of you. >

6 Have you seen that document? "It's again dated December ,

4 7 14th, 1994.

l 8 A I don't recall seeing this document. [

i 9 O C 3.ay , fine. Did you ever discuss this issue i I

10 with Mr. Lashkari? -

11 A I don't recall. I think when it first came, 12 we may have talked once on the phone. He may have asked 13 me if I was looking at this issue. But I don't r2.011 any 14 technical discussions with him.

15 0 so you may have. There's probably some feeling 16 that you discussed it, but you don't really recall the 17 substance of --

18 A If we discussed it, it was only to the extent 19 of whether I was, handling it. If it had been technical, I 20 would recall.

21 MR. LOGAN: Those are all of the quections I

-22 have. Mr. Wetterhahn?

23 MF, WETTERHAHN: Let's go off the record for a 24 second.

25 MR LOGAN: Off the record. '

NEAL R. GROSS .

- COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENVE. N W (20iQ 7344433 ' WASHINGTON, D C 20006 .(202) 234 4433

i 14  ;

1 (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the ,

2 record) ,

4 3 MR. LOGAN: Back on the record.

j 4 MR. WETTERHAHN: You indicated that in the i 5 period January ' 93 through October '93,ThTH$ you were$ f ll4l4 5 I

5 6 contractor for an organization known as 4%ttese, is that i

7 correct?

3 8 MR. WETTERHAHN: That's right.

_9 MR. LOGAN: Why did you leave that 10 organization -- or the Salem Hope Creek cite in October 11 19937 TA TSWl$gjp g

.12 THE WITNESS: PSE&G's, contract with.DaMnee was 4 13 terminated. And that's why I left.

14 MR. LOGAN: Do you know why it was terminated?

15 THE WITNESS: I think it was a general cut 16 back on contracts.

. 17 MR. LOGAN: Okay. ,

18 MR. WETTERHAHN: You indicated that you were a 19 reviewer, either,a peer reviewer or a verifier on a couple 20 of calculations done by Vijay Chandra. Do you remember 21 . stating that a little earlier? ,

22 -THE-WITNESS: Yes. .

23 MR. WETTERHAHN:- And you said you had 24 discussions with him.about some of his. assumptions. Are 25 those type of discussions usual with a peer reviewer or a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 M'40DE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C 20006 (202) 2344433'

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

- 15 1 verifier?-

2 THE WITNESS: Yes. The role of the peer 9

3 reviewer is to make sure that the input and output of the 4 calculations are cor.sistent and also the assumptions in 5 the calculations are valid.

6 MR. WETTERHAHN: And the effect of signing 7 your name, either as a peer reviewer or a verifier, is  ;-

8 that you're professionally satisfied with the calculations

-9 as they are issued?

10 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's right.

11 MR. WETTERHAHN: And specifically for

-12 calculations you reviewed for Mr. Chandra, relating to 13 POPS, were you technically satisfied that they were 14 reasonable and valid calculations?

15 THE WITNESS: When I signed it, that's what my 16 signature there meant, that I had reviewed the 17 , calculations and agreed with his methodology and -

18 conclusions, j 19 -MR. WETTERHAHN: Thank you. I have nothing

'20 further.

21 MR. LOGAN: Ms. Gelman?

22 MS. GELMAN:- No.

23 MR. LOGAN:. Is there anything that you would 24 like to add to the record?-

25 THE WITNESS: I had several discussions with-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AFS 'RANSCRISERS 1323 MHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.

(207) 2344433 WASHp4GTON. D C. 20005 (20el 2344433

16 1 Westiaghouse, and my immediate concern was the safety

  • 2 cignificance of the issue, and I had discussions with .

3 Westinghouse on that. And_there was enough information in 4 that NSAL and pl* tic discussions with Westinghouse to 5 convince me that this was not a significant safety issue.

6 MR. WETTERHAHN: More of a regulatory issue?

4 7 THE WITNESS: Well, at that time I was working 8 as a contractor and I was more guared to the technical 9 aspect of it.

10 MR. WETTERHAHN: Are there any documents or 11 notes that you reviewed prior to coming to this meeting?

12 THE WITNESS: I reviewed -- I had some notes 13 on the NSAL that I reviewed.

14 MR. WETTERRAHN: That's all? 4 15 THE WITNESS: Yes.

16 MR. LOGAN: You don't happen to have a copy of 17 your early draft of this memo to Mr. Berrick, do you? ,

18 THE WITNESS: Not in my files. l 19 MR. LOGAN: Do you know if one exists?

20 THE WITNESS: I don't know. .

21 MR.- LOGAN: Thank you very much for coming.

22 We're off the record.

23 (Whereupon, the proceedings were concluded at 24 4 :25 p.m. )

  • f Iwe. md At AGMW d Y '*

aus s emM -

44 NEAL R. G OSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS r/#/fs 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(702) 2M4433 - ' WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 - (202) 2344433

CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory -

Come.iss.4on in the matter of:

Name Of Proceeding: Interview of Gita Narasimhan Docket Number: 195-013 Place of Proceeding: Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey, wece hel1 as herein appears, and that this is the original .

transc1!pt the. eof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulat.cr

  • Commission taken by me and, thereatter 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.

f I m rAu rl?LR1Ic John Burke, Official Reporter Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. .

s NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W (20?) D44433 WASHINGTON O C. 2000$ (202) 234 4433

. ._

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20199J241&oldid=3335369"