ML20202D128
| ML20202D128 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/14/1995 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20199L462 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-97-325 NUDOCS 9712040155 | |
| Download: ML20202D128 (31) | |
Text
_. . .... . .- . - . - . .
....n.- . . - . - . . . - - . . . . , . - . . . - .~
't i
., 1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '
i a
2 NUCLEARREGULATORY-COMkISSION
'3'_- + + +) ++ ,
~4 OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS 5 INTERVIEW 6 -------------------------------x 7 IN THE MATTER OF: :
- 8 INTERVIEW OF : Docket No.
l- .
9 HOWARD BERRICK : (not assigned) 10 :
11- -------------------------------x 12 Tuesday, March 14, 1995 i
13 14 Second floor Conference Room
- 15 Administration Building 16 Public Service Gas & Electric Co.
17 Nuclear Business Unit la Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 19 20 The above-entitled interview was conducted at
.eW L E 21 6:53 p.m.
w y 22 BEFORE:
e n=
h.
--il
-23. KEITH LOG'4N Investigator 24 BRIAN McDERMOTT- Investigator -
EEE '25 l
/
EXHIBIT U-g NEAL R. GROSS-CASEN:
1-93-0l'3 WM RENS AND WNSCR$ERS f
/ 1323 RHODO ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
[/5f) I (202) 234-4433see WASHtNGTON. O C. 20005 - (202) 234 4433 I
2 1 APPEARANCES: .
2 On behalf of Howard Berrick:
3 MARK J. WETTERHAHN, E3 QUIRE 4 MARCIA GELMAN, ESQUIRE 5 Winston & Strawn C 1400 L Street, N.W.,
7 washington, D.C. 20005-3502 ~
8 9
g 10 11 12 13
, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202)2344433 WASHINGTOtt D C. 20005 0.02) 234-4433
3 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 (6:06 '. m . )
3 Whereupon, 4 HOWARD BERRICK 5 having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness 6
herein and was exa!nined and testified as fellows:
7 MR. LOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Derrick, Would you 8 state your name for the record, spelling your last-name?
9 THE WITNESS: Howard G. Berrick, B-E double R, 10 I-C-X.
11 MR. LOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Berrick. My name is 12 Keith Logan. I'm an investigator with the U.S. Nuclear 13 Regulatory Commission, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
14 With me today is Mr. McDermott.
15 MR. McDERMOTT: For the record, my name is Brian 16 McDermott, reactor inspection -- inspector, from the 17 USNRC's Region I office.
18 MR. LOGAN: And Mr. Berrick, you're appearing 19 today with counsel?
20 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
- 21 MR. LOGAN: Mr. Wetterhahn?
22 MR. WETTERHAHN: For the record, my name-is Mark 23 J. 'Wetterhahn,. with the law firm of Winston & Strawn, 1400 24 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. Appearing with '
25 me is Martha Gelman, also of the same firm.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(2C2) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005
, (202) 2344433 m e-,. m , - - . -- - - . . -
i 4
l 1 We are here tonight representing Mr. Berrick'. j
-l
- 2 As-he is aware and-you are aware, we have also represented '
l 3 a number of other individuals during_this ongoing OI :
4 investigatior.,.and also represent the involved utility, 5 Public Service Electric & Gas Company.
6' MR, LOGAN:- Mr. Berrick, bearing in mind that 7- Mr. Wetterhahn does represent other individuals in this matter, is it still your desire to have him here today as 8
9 counsel?
10 THE WITNESS: Yes. '
11 MR. LOGAN: Thank you.
12 EXAMINATION, 13 BY MR. LOGAN:
14 0 Would you tell us what your current position is 15 at PSE&G?
16 A I'm currently on loan to the Management 17 Observation Group, under the QA Department of PSE&G, but 18 prior.to that, before I went on that, I was or am the N 19 triple S Group, Mechanical Engineering Supervisor. '
a 20 Q What is the N triple S --
21- A N triple'S is the Nuclear Steam Supply Systems SWvce 22 and their auxiliary-systems, such as pur4strs water, aux 23= feed, component cooling.
- Mr 24' NMT Okay.
Q And have you held any other positions 25- during your tenure-with PSE&G?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRtBERS 1323 RKODE ISLAND AVENUE N W (202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 '
4- (202) 234 4 433
, , , _ , . . - - . . , . - - - . _ , ,r,, _ . . . . , , . . . . . , , - . ,. ., . __ . - - ,
l 5 -
1 -A- I'va been a--- I-started here as a contractor-a ;
2- engineer and 1-When-was that?
3 Q_
- 4. A In'1974. And I went'to work'directly for 1 3
5 Public' Service in 1978 as a-lead engineer and was promoted 6 to a senior staff engineer and_then to a senior engineer,
'7 and I've been a supervisor since around 1983, either with l 8- the Salem Balance of Plant Systems or as of '87, '88 time -
9 frame, with the N triple S systems. '
10 Q Do you know an individual by the name of 11 Chandra, Charles Lashkari?
12 A Yes, I do.
i .
13 Q And when was the first time you either met or 14 became aware of Mr. Lashkari?
15 A Well, I've known Charlie since around 1978, '79 16 time frame, when I came to work with Public Service.
17 Maybe -- somewhere in that area. It was the late '70s, 18 early '80s.
19 Q And have you worked on any joint projects with 20 him or in any groups with him?
-21 A I've been in groups with him. When I worked in 22- the -- when I was a senior engineer, I was in a group that c.
, - 23- - was -- I think that he was also part of a mechanical 24 engineering group. We were in separate groups _but-we 25 worked.under_the same department, under the same boss.
,- NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERA 1323 RHODE ISt,.AND AVENUE, N W I i- (2C2) 234 4433 - WASHINGTON D.C.20005 . (202) 2344433
=- - . - . _ - . - - . . - _ - . . - . - . . - - . - -
6 ;
-1. I've.clso worked with-him on teams. My people 2 have worked with Charlie on a1 number of-issues throughout 3- _his time here with Public Service. ?
4 Q And to your knowledge, is he a good enginecr? '
5 Is he competent?
6 A Yes, I think he's a good engireer. J 7 Q Are you aware of an issue that has come to light 8 called POPS?
4 9 A Yes, I am.
10 Q And when was the first time you became aware of 11 the POPS issue? p-th early ,
12 A somewhere in the,1990*-- it was raised by i
- 13 Westinghouse. Thera was some issues concerning non-14 conservatisms. That when Westinghouse did their 15 evaluation, they may have not considered some pressure i 16 drops, depending on the number uf pumps running, that may
, 17 have caused some concern to the utilities, so there was a 18 WOG letter or a WOG issue generated by Westinghouse.
19 Q And that was brought to your attention?
20 A Yes, as-I recall.
21 O When did you becoma involved in that?
22 A Well, when it was brought to our at,tention, it 23 became'an open item in the company, and as the supervisor 24 for the NSSS Group, I.was provided the opportunity to work 25 on that open item. I think it was an ATS item is what it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR18ERS .
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, O C 20005 - (202) 2M
, - o..m.. .r, y- , , ,c~. ,.e- - . , - - - - .
7 ,
.1 was.
2 Q What is an ATS item?
t~ 3 A Action' Tracking System. ;
4 Q -Okay.
5 A Essentially what that is, an issue of importance 6 reaches the' Island, it gets a sponsor and a plan to 7 assigned to it, some typ,e of a time period to get it 8 responded to, depending on the severity of the issue.
9 Q And what was the --
10 A I think this had a 60-day clock, a 60-day time 11, period. It had to be responded to, I think, by the end of 12 the year.
13 0 To-whom was the response to go?
14 A It was -- the item was generated by the -- by 15 . Fred Schnarr. I can't remember Fred -- Reliability and 16 Assessment. And so the response was to go back to the
\
17 person who initiated the item, and that was Fred.
1 1B Q And did you prepare the response?
19 A I had At prepared.
t 20 Q And who prepared it.for you?
21 A There was a contract engineer who was working 22 for us at the time, who has since become a permanent c.
, 23- engineer. Her name w.ts -- is Gita Narsimhan. 3 M QC 24 Q And she prepared the response for.you?
l 25 A Yes.
,' NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
- 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433. WASHINGTON, D.C 20005 A 2344433
- -- - . . - - . ..-. . . . - . - . . - ._.~._ . .. ~ . . . _ . - . . . . - . . . _ . . . - - . - . . - . . - .
8' 1 MR. LOGAN:: Brian, do you have that?-
2' .MR. WETTERHAHN: Yes, I do.
3 BY MR.- LOGAN:
4 0 You're referring to a mechanical memo, December 5 -30th, 1993, memo from yourself to Fred Schnarr, is that 6- ' correct?
7 A Yes.
8 BY MR. McDERMOTT:
9 Q And this memorandum basically closes out the-10 issue?
11 A Well, yes. Based on - that titac period, back in 12 December, we wrote the letter requesting that the item be
'13' closed, and there were some , action items that followed 14 with the letter, that we requested be done.
. 15 0 Were those actions described in the letter?
16 A I believe they are. Let me take a look, j .. 17 Recommend restricting number of RCP's in 18 operation in Mode 5, no more than two, and a procedural 19 change, and -- yes.
20 Q That was the restriction?
21 A .Yes.
22- Q. Okay.
23- A Yes.
24 Q -Okay. And what was the -- your basis for t
25- concluding that this concern did~not affect the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RetODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 2344 433- ' WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
9-l 1 oparebility of the_ POP system?
2 A Essentially,.the basis was that a code case had 3 been developed within the industry, N-514 and allowed a 10 4 percent increase above the POPS pressure, so based on that 5 10 percent allowance, it was felt that we were within that 6 window, and therefore the operability of the system was 7 not impaired.
8 In hindsight, I know a lot more today than I did 9 about this issue -- or we've gone through quite a bit of 10 iterations on this issu?. eince this letter was written in 11 1993, December. But at that time, that was the basis for 12 the clearing, that the item be closed and we go ahead and 13 restrict the number of pumps, 14 And we also were looking to pursue the code case 15 acceptance.
16 Q So to the best of your recollection, in December 17 of '93, were you aware that NRC approval was required?
18 A I don't recall being aware that it was required.
19 I do recall that we needed to have the code case in order 20 to provide us with the window. I was educated of that 21 l awareness subsequent to issuing the letter and getting 22 feed'back-from other individuals, like the Licensing i 23 people, our Licensing people.
'24 Q Okay. So are you telling me that you did not .
25 know in December that NRC approval was required for use of !
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 Rt: ODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
WD) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C 20005 (202) 234 4433
s 10
, -1 that code case?' *
- 2. -A What I'm saying is that-in December, I was not 3 aware that I needed to submit to the NRC for approval. {
i 4 That's' correct.
5 O Okay.
6_ A Can I say that it was based on the fact that the 7 code. case had been utilized by other utilities and I guess +
8 it could be in my ignorance, I felt that as an industry, 9 the letter had been put out saying that the code case was 10 an accepted way to resolve this issue.
11 O What letter put it out to the industry?
12 A There was a letter from the owners' group, I 13 don't have a copy with me right now, that indicated that P
14 the code c.a.se had been utilized.
15 That may be it, I'm not sure. Is that in here?
16 Q I was just reviewing the Westinghouse NSAL --
17 Nuclear Safety Adsisory letter dt.ted March 15th of 1993, 18 just to see if that was perhaps --
19 A May I?
20 Q_ Certainly.
21- Whether or not it's stated directly in that 22 letter, your understanding at the time was that that code 23 ' case.was out there and had been used by the utilities?
24 A Yes, sir.
1 25 0 That's fine.- What I have here is a draft of an NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTEAS AND TRANSCAISER$
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W
.(202) 2344433 WA*HINGTON. D C 20005 Jc2) 2344433
11 1- incident report dated January 31, 1994 that'was reported
- 2. .by Mr.-Lashkari. I'd like you to take a look at it and s
-3 tell me whether or not you've seen it before. ,
4 A I may or may not have. I don't recall seeing 5 the incident report issued, but I may have seen a copy of 6 it. I don't recall. I'm not' disputing what he said in 7 here, but I just don't recall seeing this particular 8 sheet.
9 Q Okay. But as far as your understanding.of 10 what's written there was correct at the time it was 11- written?
12 A Yes. s 13 Q And do you recall any discussions with Mr.
14 Lashkari or any of your engineers that discussed the need 15 to apply for the code case in this end'of January time 16 frame?
17 A The time frames I'm not clear about. I recall 18 the discussions with engineers, my engineers, and I 19 believe Charlie-was involved at some point also with the 20 need to submit for a code case approval. But I'm not sure 21 if it happened in January or February or when.
22 MR.,McDERMOTT: Okay.
23 BY MR. LOGAN:
24 Q Now, when you said you agreed with the substance 25 of that IR, you did read it through, correct?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 AHODE LSLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2x 5433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
- g. __ . . . _ . _ . _ . . _ _ . . _ . _ _ - .._
r
-- , ; a l' A- Yes.
/
2- _Q. Okay.
3' MR. WETTERHAHN: Did that'1R present any 4 information that your people were not aware of, in that 5 same time frame? /
6- THE WITNESS: No.
7 BY MR. McDERMOTT:
8 Q And the type of issue raised in it is something-91 that would typically be handled through the IR process?
10 A Yes. If one could not resolve the question in a 11- reasonable-manner, then it would be raised as an IR. If 12 there was some doubt, one might start the paperwor:. but 13- s then say, well, there's some gray here, let's do some 14 further investigation. So it may get started but never 15 issued, depending on how much more work was required. '
16 Q What was the case with --
l 17 A I don't recall. At that point in time, I don't 18 recall. I don't even see a number-on there. .
19 0 What would not having a number on there indicate 20- to you?
21- A Well, without a number, it would indicate that 22 it didn't-make -- it was drafted but it didn't make it to 23- a point where it was in the system. A number would have '
i 24 been placed on it and it would be in the system.
l- 25. O At that point, it's just purely draft?
y NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 23m3J WASHINGTON D C. 20005 GC2) 23W33
- ~ , - . - - , . . - - . . . - - - . . , . . .
t
. 13 ;
1 A Yes. It's someone's thoughts, accurate or not 1
2 accurate, and it's been signed but -- l
' i 3 0 okay. What was your next involvement with this' i
, 4 issue?
I 5 A We had - on or about some time in April or , l l
6 earlier, there had been discussions with Charlie and with :
?
7 Mahosh about doing some additional work, and we had gotten i
8 ints doing some detailed calculations with Dr. Chandra on 9 the issue rf the COMS over-pressurization. I don't have 10 the time-line in front of me, but it was in the Aptil time !
11- frame. ,
12 O Okay. Do you know at what point it was 13 recognized that PSE&G should not be relying on the code ,
i 14 case?
t 15 !'
A Should not be relying on the code case?
16 O Without NRC approval. ,
17 A There was a meeting -- I don't know the actual 18 time. We had a number of discussions and I don't know -- ,
19 we might have something in the paperwork but I can't i 20 recall the specific point at which it was determined.
21 Q okay, I'd like to refer you to Discrepancy 22 Evaluation Form 94-0060, 23 A okay. That's April.
. 24 MR. WETTERHAHN: Is that your signature on that . :
25 form? ?
NEAL R. GROSS.
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR$ER$
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(2T) 234M33 ' WASHINGTON. O C 2000$ (202) 234M33 i
. - . . - . - - . . _ _ . . - , . . _ . . - _ . . - - - - . _ , - . . - _- . . . ~ . , _ , . . _ . . , . . _ . . _ , - _ . _ _ , . - - , . . . . _ _ . - . _ - - , - . . _ . . . _ . .
i 14- !
1 !
THE WITNESS: Yes, it is. Yes, it is. -
j 2 And it sayo here that we either apply for the i 3 code case approval from the NRC or can you do some l 4 additional calculations to,see if we can remove some of i the conservatisms in our work, seo if it would be okay 5
6 without the code cases.
7 BY MR. McDERMOTT:
)
0 Q So at that point, when the DEF was written, it 9 was recognized that the reliance on the code case was not-10 appropriate without prior NRC approval? I 11 A That's correct.
12 0 Okay, so at that point, why did you believe 13 that the system, the POPS systen. was still operable? t 14 A Because I wasn't sure -- we weren't sure that if !
15' we didn't review the calculations, that we could find [
16 that, in fact, that there was some conservatisms that we 17 had taken, some methodology that had been previously used, {
i 18 that was conservative that would have rcndered us being 1 i
~
19 okay rather than not okay. We were working with our i
- 20 consultant and with my engineere, and with Mr. Lashkari, '
-21 too.
22- Q okay, It's my understanding that this issue was i
23 then dispositioned again in May of 1994 in a memorandum 24 from you to John Wiedemann dated May 26th? j
\
25 A Okay.
NEAL R, GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR$f R$
1323 RMODE ISLAND AvtNUE, N W (200 2344433 WAS*NGTON, D C. 200C4 (20h 2344433
__ ~ . _ _ _ - _ _ . . . . _ . _ . . , _ . _ , - . _ . . . _ . . _ . . . . . _ . _ . _ . _ _ . , . , _ . . . _ _ _ , , _ . - - , _ . . . - _ . , . _ - _ , _ _ . _ - , . _
L 9
15 ;
1 Q We probably have it here in the book.
i 2 Have you had a chance now to review the - .
3 document? i 4 A .I skimmed over it, yes. i 5 0 Although it's not explicitly stated in the 6 document, in the tables which accompany the document, !
t
.7 Table 1, by looking at that table is it correct in !
8 concluding that you were relying on a bubble in the 9 pressurizer that was required for the operation of reactor 10 coolant pumps -- i 11 A Yes.
t 12 0 -- to minimize the effects of that Westinghouse 13 information, correct?
14 A Yes.
15 0 At that point, was this a change in the design !
16 basis condition assumed for this system?
- 17 A What do you mean?
18 k Well, the technical specification basis say that 19 the POPS system should negate pressure transient caused by 20 the injection of a single safety injection pump i
, 21 into cold solid reactor systems? !
22- A Yes.
20 MR. WETTERHAMN: Do you know that to be a fact? $
'24 Brian made a statement and he stated what the !
!. 25 ' basis, the tech spec stated. Do you know, independent of -
l
{.
NEAL R GROSS. j COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W !
(202 234 4433 w ASHINGTON. D C. 20006 (202) 2344433 '
I*
L....-- - . - . . . . _ . - - - - . - . - . - . . . - . - - . . - - . - - - . .
- - - . = .
. _ . _ _ .._m ._ _ _._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ -_ _ _ .
16 I that, hearing it from Brian, whether that's a fact or not, !
1 i 2- that's what the basis states? !
3 THE WITNESS: I'm aware that the basis indicates .;
j 4 a safety inject -- says sortething to the effect of a 5 safety injection pump. Because we-just recently have gone 6 through-and made a change on that. So if you're saying -
i 7 - yes, I am aware of that, t
. t 8 MR. McDERMOTT: Are there additional attachments 9 attached to your copy of that May 26th letter? I believe 10 if you look at the last attachment page there, it's.a copy 11 of Salem Tech Spec, page B344-F11.
12 MR. LOGAN: Off the record.
13 (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the 14 record) i i
15 MR. LOGAN: Back on the record. ;
16 BY MR. McDERMOTT:
17 0 Okay, I'd like to refer you to this document.
18 It's a copy of the Basis Section of the Salem Unit I 19 Technical Specifications, Basis Page 344-11. The last 20 paragraph discusses the design basis transient pumps.
I
. * *l@ 1 21 A Yes. Itstartedwithsafetyinjectogpumpand .
-22 it's injection into a water solid. f s
23- 0 Thank you.
E 24 A The words have been changed on that since then, '
25 but that's-the way it was at that point in time.
- L NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPC4,TERS AND TRANSCR$ERS
' 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 2H4433 WASHINGTDie. D C 20005 (KE) 2344433 l- r l~ _, - ;_-._ - . _ _ _ _ . . - . . _ . - - . - - - - . - . . - . . -.-- - ----- - . - - - - - - .-.- ~ .J
17
, 1 0 At that point in time. And in your May 2 memorandum that closed this issue, you were considering 3 that the transient would not take place with reactor i
4 coolant pumps running because of a procedural requirement 5 to have a bubble?
6 A A bubble in tne pressurizer, correct.
7 Q Okay. What required you to have that bubble in 8 the pressurizer? Administrative controls?
9 A I'm not clear. I'm not sure. i 10 Q okay. To your knowledge, was that requirement 11 something new that was added in response to the POPS 12 issue?
13 A No.
14 0 It was a previously existing control?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Okay. Are you aware of the general time frame 17 in which the disposition that you provided in your May 18 memorandum was determined not to be adequate?
19 A Can you give me that again?
20 Q Sure.
21 A Another way.
22 Q Subsequent to your May 26th, '94 memorandum, it 23 was les.rned that you should consider the ef fects of a 24 running reactor coolant pump and a POPS transient. Do you 25 know about when that was determined?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 HHOOL ISLAND AVENUE, N W (702) 2M4433 WASHINGTON 0 C 2000$ (202) 2M4433
la 1 A No, I can't recall that. Sorry.
2 MR. WETTERRAHN: Does that statement by Brian 3 refresh your recollection as to what the next step in the 4 process was? Prom your perspective.
5 THE WITNESS: Following this letter here, this 6 letter here, there was some additional discussions with 7 Dr. Chandra and with my people, with my person, I think, 8 about other types of scenarios that needed to be '
9 considered and looked at. But I don't know if that's 10 where you're leading to. Maybe you can ask the next 11 question.
12 BY MR. McDERMOTT:
13 0 Sure. Are you familiar with the problem --
14 excuse me, a problem with PORV that was generated on 15 September 22nd, 1994?
16 A I may have seen it. I can't say I did not 17 totally not see it, because I see a lot of paperwork. If 18 I had seen it, I would have -- I probably saw it and 19 turned it over to either Mahesh'or Gita for their support 20 in a resolution.
21 O Okay. . Did you know how the -- the esserce of 22 what we're looking at here, I believe, describes the fact 23 that you needed to consider the fact that perhaps the 24 bubble angle of this is'ue s was not.necessarily appropriate 25 and you did have to consider the injection of the pumpn NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR$CRS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W G02) 2344433 W ASHINGTON. D C. 20005 l202) 2344433
AS 1 into a solid reactor coolant system with reactor coolant 2 pumps potentially running? !
?
3 A If I'm not mistaken, .I thought it was more that ;
4 there might be a bubble in the start, but the bubble wculd i l
5 quickly collapse once the injection started. So therefore 6 there would be some point in time where you would actually 7 be injecting into a solid syst.em.
8 Q Potentially with reketor coolant -- 1 9 A Right. You would start with a bubble but the 10 bubble would disappear, 11 O Okay. So that kind of gets you back to the 12 initial condition?
13 A Yes.
14 0 Okay. Are you aware of what steps were taken to :
t 15 resolve this concern? '
16 A We took -- let me refresh my memory here -- this t
17 Oas part of the issue of showing that certain pumps 18 weren*t operating in various modes and continuing to i
19 restrict the number of RCP's being run, and we did some 20 additional calculations. Dr. Chandra did some additional 21 calculations to assure ourselves that we would not exceed 22 POPS pressure.
23 Q Okay. Perhaps you can refresh yourself a little 24 bit on some reactions by reviewing a September 28th 25 memorandum from Dave Smith --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRSERS
- 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.-
G021234M33 WA$HINGTON. O C 2000$ (202) 234 4 33
. ., . . , . . . . _ . . _ . _ . - . . _ . _ . _ , . . . _ _ , _ . _ _ , . _ _ . , _ . . . . . _ . . . . . . . - . . . , , . , - . . . . . . . _ . _ _ - _ . . . . . . , , . _ . ~ . . _ . . _ . . _ .
30 1 A Yes. .
2 Q -- to Jerry Ranalii and Jay Bailey. j 3 ~A Yes. I l
t' 4 Yes, in general we met with Licensing, 'we"'
5 being -- I was there, Mahesh and Dr. Chandra was there 6 also, and Dave Smith and Ken O'Gara. And we agreed to do l
- 7 some additional calculations and Al'so look at some of the i
8 conservativisms in the flows that were previously 9 considered for the various pumps, to see ifi in fact, 10 perhaps we were-too conservative in initial run-out flows 11 that were assigned to the pumps. And also document the 12 problem' report, what our actions were.
13 Q Okay. And as far as the review of the licensing 14 basis, the design basis for the system, would that .
, 15 typically be the responsibility of one of your reports to i
16 research that information? ;
17 A Yes.
18 Q Okay.
. 19 A Yes, it would be part of -- it's part of the ;
20 job. I would expect that that would be done. I also 21 would expect that the Licensing engineers would assist in 22 ~ that, if that was an issue or a problem.
- 23- 0 Okay. So typically one of your engineers would 24 review any background documents they could find in order 25 to assess whether or not there was margin that they could i NEAL R. GROSS CCNRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W >
(202) 2M4433 WASH 4NGTON. D C. 2000$ (202) 2M4433 5 y -~ w ,. , , -m- .- ,,U- , ,,--e ,, .,,.-,.-.,,,,.-vv...,,. . _ . ._:..my,en,w..-...m_vy,..e we,#y...n... , , . , , , , , , , . . , , . .
21 l 1 gain or conservativisms they could take out? j 2' A Yes, yes. !
3 0 In doing things like that, is it the !
4 responsibility of your engineers to identify when changes ,
5 are being made to the licensing basis or the design basis f 6 of the plant? ,
7 A Yes, i.
8 Q Okay. And based on the change in the assumed [
9 pumps that would inject for the POPS mass addition [
10 transient, would you consider that a_che.nge to that basis?
t 11 A Are you referring back now to the basis and 12 saying that where its says safety injection pump before, 13 there's a change now being made that particular types of !
14 pumps or particular pumps or combinations of pumps that 15 are operating, is that what you're saying? i 16 O Essentially, yes. i 17 A Then I would say that yes, .e would need to 18 identify that and take appropriate action if we're going ,
- 19 to clarify the basis. Which essentially is what we did.
20 What I ended up doing was to clarify what was the i 21 statement that was made in the basis. I think-long-term 22- - that was our action.
23 o okay. At the time this was done, are you -
- 24 familiar with what the-original calculation assumpta.ons l 25 were for flow rate?
NEAL R. GROSS :
COURT'A'PCRTERS AND TRANSCRSER$
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
R0P) 234 4433 - WASHtNGTON. D C 20005
- Q02) 2344433
--s,w-r- ..r, ws,--- .,e
-.,.y -
--,-w,w,,w.,w,,,, -.-mw,-,,,,,,w,v.m-v,-,-< ,,,n,--,,mww-v.,e v,,v-,, e v ,n p,~rw --- v -,we,,e, re-e , ,. p n, r-
I i
22 !
l
. 1 A Not without researching it. Not me, personally. l t
2 I'd have to research it. But hearsay was, I would say we l l
3 were -- I was aware that the rate that was originally l 4 assumed was higher than -- more conservative than what t 5 was, in fact, the actual performance of the pump. I say f
6
- hearsay," because,,you know, I was told that. l t
7 Q And did you believe they_were talking about a 8 specific pump or a chansa in which pumps? l 9 A The. flow rates. What we're talking about is 10 combined flow, which would be either one pump or a 11 combination of pumps. ,
12 O Would it be expected that your engineers would ,
13 have known the original flow rate? i i
14 A Yes.
15 0 And would you expect them to identify a decrease l 16 in that flow rate, as a change in the-design basis for the 17 system? ;
18 A I would expect them to identify the difference. ,
19 Q Okay. To your knowledge, was that done?
20 A Yes. That's why -- I think that's what I'm 21 talking about here. Maybe I'm missing something here, but 22 I -- the flow that was initially assumed was greater than 23 what we determined it to be, so that difference was 24 identified.
25 0 okay.
NEAL R. GROSS CMIRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBEftS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W -
- l CO2) 2344433 w ASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 234 4433 U . - , , . -- , - n , , - . - - . , , - . - - - - - - - , . - - - - ,
L 4
23' 1 A But I don't know --
2 0 Was it done in a specific -- to whom was it i 3 identified?
4 A Okay. It was identified at the meeting that was 5 attended by the people I had mentioned before. ;
e 6 0 okay. And at that point, was there any ;
7 discussion about the need to do a 50.59 evaluation, 8 because you had now gone from a higher assumed flow tate 9 to a lower assumed flow rate?
10 A I don't recall any discussions of a 50.59 at 11 that meeting. And I don't want to assume. I would have 12 thought, there may have been a basic assumption at that 13 meeting that the -- because the flow was less, it was .
14 bounded by the initial basis assessment, but I'm not sure.
15 I just know that there was no discussions about 50.59 at 16 that particular -- at that point.
17 0 okay. Just for clarification, a lower tiow rate 18 would be less limiting in this case. Do you agree?
19 A For this particular case, less flow would be 20 better, as far as pressure, as far as exceeding the 21 pressure in the system.
22 -O So the --
4 23 A Because the mass you're trying to put in over a 24 given period of time, so if you assume that you're putting 25 a greater inass in, you may get a higher pressure versus if NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR$ERS l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 Cm2) 2344433
_ _ _ _ _ - - - . . . - ---. --- . - ~ - - - - - ~ - - - ' - ~ ~ '~"#~~~~~'** '~ " ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ ~
84 1 you assumed you're putting in a smaller mass, a smaller
)
2 amount of fluid.
i 3 Q And your revised calculations at that point were 4 assuming this smaller mass addition?
5 A Yes, sir. <
6 Q Did you consider the fact that there was that i
7 change, that shift in what was the assumed mass addition, )
8 if that was known by an engineer, should that have been 9 identified as something that would require a 50.59 review?
10 A Yes.
11 Q _okay. And to the best of your knowledge, was ;
la one done at that time? .
13 A At that time, no, 1
14 MR. McDERMOTT: Thank you. ,
15 BY MR. LOGAN:
16 0 I call your attention to a meeting in April of 17 1994. It was held, I believe, in Frank Thompson's office.
18 A Yes.
19 Q Do you recall that meeting?
20 A I recall I was there. Yes, sir. I don't 21 . remember all of the participants but I know I was there.
22 Q All right. What was the purpose of.the meeting?
23 A If I remember correctly, the purpose of the f
24- meeting was to discuss this particular concern and to see
- 25 if this was a concern that would prevent the start-up_of NEAL R. GROSS -
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS - ,
1323 R*e0DE ISLAND AVENUE. N W. '
(202) 234 4433 W ASHINGTON. O C. 20005 ' (20h 2344433
4 85 i
\
1 'the unit. Did we have, was there a problem there or was j
- I 2 there a-concern that needed to be addressed right now? '
3 Q At the meeting, did you discuss the proposed IR l 4 that Ken O'Gara had prepared?
l 5 A It was discussed that we were putting together 6 an IR, yes.- '
7 O Let me show you three versions of that draft l
8 incident report. They're labeled April 1 -- excuss me, 9 April 20 draft, April 20 meeting, and subsequent to April 10 20 meeting. That includes the cover sheets.
, 11, would _ you look at those three d: af t IR's and 12 tell me whether you recognize any of them?
13 MR. LOGAN: We can go off the record while he 14 looks at those documents.
15 (Whereupon, there was a brief pause off the 16 record) 17 MR. LOGAN: Back on the record.
18 BY MR. LOGAN:
19 O Looking at those three draft IR's, do you 20 recognize any of them?
21 A They a)1 look familiar, from the standpoint that 22 it looks -- a lot of these, a lot of the words I've seen a +
23 number of times, either -- in other documents. So I may J
24 have seen them that day or I may not have seen them, but -
25 I've seen.this document or forms of this document :
NEAL R.' GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS e 1323 RHODE ESLAND AVENUE, N W
- - (20h 2344433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005
.(202) 234 4433- ,
- l 26 l 1 throughout the course of the coMS= issue.
- 2 O Do you recall whether or not a draft IR, one of 3 those versions perhaps or another one, was passed out at 4 that meeting, do you know?.
5 A I do not recall that.
6 Q But you do recall at some point discussing that !
7 draft IR, correct?
8 A' I do recall discussing the issue of an incident 9 report, yes.
10 Q Whether one would be necessary or not? ,
11 A Yes. Yes, I believe that was part of the 12 discussions at that meeting. ,
13 Q Do you know who had the lead with regard to the 14 preparation or submission of an incident report?
15 A No , I don't. I don't. ,
16 O Do you recall at that meeting in April whether 17 or not there was any discussion as to the consequences of 18 not filing an incident report, if an incident report was, 19 in fact, required?
20 A I recall that it was said, and I'm not sure who 21 said it, but it was indicated or said or heard at that 1
22 point that an IR was not required if, as we continued to 23 do the work, we found that an incident report or an IR was '
24 required, we would issue it at that point in time.
or 25 words to that effect.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUC, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 2344433 -
37 1 Q And when you left tnat meeting, the consensus of 2 the group was what with regard to this POPS issue?
3 A When we left, the consensus was, as I see it, 4 was that the -- we would continue to complete the work 5 that we had started on this, but this was not a concern 6 for unit start-up at this point, because there was still 7 work to be done, but based on what we knew right now, it 8 wasn't an issue.
9 Q And an IR, in fact, did not have to be prepared?
10 A And an IR did not have to be prepared at that 11 point in time, thss right.
12 BY MR. McDERMOTT:
l 13 0 Did you have questions on the operability of 14 this system at that point?
15 A That was raised by -- yes, that was raised.
16 MR. WETTERHAHN: Did you have concerns?
17 THE WITNESS: I, personal 3y?
18 MR. WETTERHAHH: Yes.
19 THE WITNESS: Based on what we had done so far, 20 I didn't believe that the system was inoperable.
21 MR. McDERMOTT: Okay.
/
22 BY MR. McDERMOTT: 9 23 0 At that point, was the planIin a condition 24 around the time of that meeting, that would have required 25 this system to be operable?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOCE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202; 2344433
, pih[ 28' i i
1 A I cannot recall the plant-status at that point in l
2 time, because we may have been prepping for eventual -
-3 start-up or we may have been -- I really don't know. .
4 Q What condition is this system in?
5 A It's in Mode 5.
l 6 Q Okay. And you were discussing start-up at sc:ne l i
7 future point, it's just a matter of how close to that i 8' start-up you weres,_during this meeting?
l 9 Mk. WETTERHAHNi Do you recall whether you were 10 in operation or shut down? i 11 THE WITNESS: We were down.
12 MR. WETTERHAHN: Thank you.
13 THE WITNESS: I don't know if I answered your l 14 last, your other question, but it was more of a statement 15 that since the system, when you're shut down and you have 16 not started up yet, it may have been required at that 17 point in time.
18 BY MR. LOGAN:
19 Q Mr. Berrick, I'm going to show you two '
, 20 documents. One is labeled Attachment 2. It's from Mr.
21 -Lashkari to John Morrison dated April 22nd, 1994. The
^
22 second one is from Mr. Lashkari to the Technical t
-23 Department Manager. It's labeled Attachment 7 and it's
'24 dated January 30, 1994, i 25 I'd like you to take a minute to look at these NEAL R. GROSS court AEPORTERS AND TRANSCR68ERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
l (702) 234M33 WASHINGTON. O C 7000$ (202) 234 4432 ]
i
- . - - , . _ . ~ . _ , - ,. - . _ . _ . . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ . - _ _ . _ . . _ , , _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . - . . . _ - . --
7, 29
, 1 documents and tell me if ycu've ever seen them before.
2 A I saw neither of these.
3 0 Look at that second document. It's the one 4 labeled January 30th -- I'm sorry, dated January 30th.
5 A Yes, sir.
6 Q Do you re, call seeing something that was similar 7 to that, perhaps an earlier or later version of it?
8 A Of this particular thing?
9 0 Yes.
10 A I don't recall seeing that.
11 ! O There's another similar version.
12 MR. LOGAN: Can you identify that, Mr.
13 Wetterhahn?
14 MR. WETTERHAHN: Yes. This is a document 15 labeled to the Vice President, Nuclear Operations, 15
Subject:
POPS set point impact on PTS concerns, and it's 17 indicated tnat it was faxed from the Salem Technicil 18 Department on January 25th, 1994 -- 1994, that's correct.
19 BY MR. LOGAN:
20 0 Have you seen that document before?
21 A No.
22 O One more thing, with regard to the revised 23 assumptions on mass addition, that happened in September.
24 Subsequent to that, you found information regarding the 25 positive displacement pump, and in November, a report was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPO81TERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 nroDE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
- (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. F0005 (202) 2344433
30
+
I made to the NRC. !
l i
2 Are you aware of what mass addition assumptions 3 were considered when that report was made to the NRC7 ,
4 A Not without refreUhing my -- no, I'm not aware.
P 5 I'd have to look at it.
l 6 MR. LOGAN: Okay, that's all the questions I !
7 have, Mr. Berrick. Is there anything you would like to '
8 put on the record at this time?
9 MR. WETTERHAHN: Can we take a couple minutes?
10 MR. LOGAN: Sure. Would you like to go off the !
i 11 record? Off the record.
12 (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the !
13 record) '
14 MR. LOGAN: Back on the record.
15 MR. WETTERHAHN: We have nothing further. ,
16 MR. LOGAN: Mr. Berrick, thank you for coming.
17 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
18 (Whereupon, the proceedings were concluded at 19 8:03 p.m.) '
20 f f ,, (,,,,l hj g ,y,, pgl g{ ,( g(7.ygg gj ,
21 Orwevlel,4'iY'll Y{e hdht ObkraJ sn by a, he a j n. In aa l%; V& Mceyby t 22
,, &b-9wd Ahndt k f mNk, 4h<mdsn, f k ,m ccnkiat Ays +
?O GA e! $$" Obc O ft' (
24 j,havieu lo4 W! le? $l h /k(Ab. NKJWh
, l
- 2s Ybind l
?kmh e 95 eNEkLR. GROSS' COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 2344433 W ASHINGTON, D.C, 20005 (202) 234 4433
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: '
I Name of Proceeding: Interview of Howard Berrick i Docket Number: Not assigned Place-of Proceeding: Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey l
were held as herein appears, and thet this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States i
Nuclear Regulatory Comrission taken by me c d, thereafter i 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.
6Ju &Js Barbara Burke Official Reporter '
Heal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
i 5
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPC9tTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 AHODE ISLAND AVENUE.;lW.
(202) 2344433 W/ASHINGTON, D.C 20005 (202) 2344 33
.. . . - - - ~ . - . _ . - . _ . _. - _ . . , _ . . - . . - , , . - - . - . . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . - .
! . 1 l
l l
l EXHIBIT 6 l
l l
l l
~
i l
i Case No. 1 95 013 Exhibit 6
_ . _ . _ . . _ . _ _ . _ . ~ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . . . _ . _ . _ _ . _ . . . .