ML20203P094
| ML20203P094 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/16/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1209 LRP, NUDOCS 8610200258 | |
| Download: ML20203P094 (127) | |
Text
O UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OTG TA IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
LRP INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION O
LOCATION:
BETHESDA, MARYLAND FAGES: 3908 - 4034 DATE:
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1986
/ f3.0/ 0' \\
c keborp o D,che/ n e,<,oe
// &/ - H SV.
O Act-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
OfficialReporters 444 North CapitolStreet 8610200258 861016 Washington, D.C. 20001 gDR AD0CK O500032O (202) 34~-3700 PDR NATIONWIDE COVERACE
3908 CR28508.0 BRT/sjg l'
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g~)
'~
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY.AND LICENSING BOARD
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 4
In the Matter of:
Docket.No. LRP INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND 6
UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION 7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 8
9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fifth Floor Hearing Room East West Towers 10 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, Maryland yy 12 Thursday, October 16, 1986
(:)
3 The hearing _in the above-entitled matter. convened at 14 9:30 a.m.
15 l'6 BEFORE:
JUDGE JAMES L. KELLEY, Chairman 77 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8
Washington, D.
C.
19 JUDGE JAMES H. CARPENTER, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 20 U.S.
Nuclear-Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
21 JUDGE GLENN O.
BRIGHT, Member 22 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
23 24
(
25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6646
3909 l
APPEARANCES:
kq On behalf of GPU Nuclear Corporation:
,j 2
ERNEST L.
- BLAKE, JR.,
ESQ.
3 JOHN N.
NASSIKAS III, ESQ.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 4
1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 5
On behalf of the Employees:
i 6
HARRY H. VOIGT, ESQ.
MICHAEL McBRIDE, ESQ.
7 LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
8 Washington,-D. C.
20036 MOLLY BOAST, ESQ.
9 LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 520 Madison Avenue 10 New York, New York 10022 On behalf of Jack Herbein:
1y JAMES B.
BURNS, ESQ.
12 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza
(' }
13 Chicago, Illinois 60602 CHRISTOPHER W.
FLYNN, ESQ.
14 RICHARD O.
WOLF, ESQ.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale 15 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 16 On behalf of Gary P. Miller:
MICHAEL W.
MAUPIN, ESQ.
M.
CHRISTINA HENSLEY, ESQ.
18 Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street 19 Richmond, Virginia 23221 20 On behalf of Former Metropolitan Edison Employees:
21 SMTIH B.
GEPHART, ESQ.
22 Killian & Gephart 217-218 Pine Street, Box 886 23 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 On-behalf of the NRC Staff:
24 JACK R.
GOLDBERG, ESQ.
s 25 MARY E. WAGNER, ESQ.
U.S.
Nucleir Regulatory Commission ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
[
3910 f-1-
CONTENTS O) 2 WITNESS EXAMINATION 3
Dennis I. Olson.
~by Mr. Gephart 3911 4
by the Board 3913 5
RECESS:
7 NOON - 3992
.8 9
LAY-IN - PREPARED STATEMENT OF OLSON, Follows Page 3911.
10 11 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE-Pages 3938 thru-3962.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2'O 21 4
i f
22 i,
23 24 j.
l 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage M356646
28508.0 r3 BRT 3911 G
1 P R O_ g E E D I,N_ G S 2
JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Olson, good morning.
My name 3
is Kelley.
On my left is Judge Bright; on my right, Judge 4
Carpenter.
5 Whereupon, 6
DENNIS I.
OLSON 7
was called as a witness and, having first been duly sworn, 8
was examined and testified as follows:
9 EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. GEPHART:
11 Q
Do you have before you a five-page prepared 12 statement entitled " Prepared Statement of Dennis I-Olson,"
7 d )
13 Mr. Olson?
14 A
Yes, I do.
15 Q
Did you and I review this statement again this 16 morning?
17 A
Yes.
18 Q
Are there any additions or corrections that you 19 wish to make at this time?
20 A
No.
21 Q
Do you wish this statement to be bound into the 22 l record as your statement?
23 l A
Yes.
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
So ordered.
O 25 1 (The document follows:)
V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 NationmJe roserage
$n31MM6
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(-')
BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND
)
Docket No. LRP UNIT 2 LEAK RATE DATA
)
FALSIFICATION
)
-)
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DENNIS I. OLSON My name is Dennis I. Olson.
I live in Ijamsville, Maryland.
I do not hold a reactor operator's license.
Prior to joining Metropolitan Edison Company, I was in the
{}
Navy for eight years.
I started with Metropolitan Edison in 1971 as an auxiliary operator at Three Mile Island (TMI) Unit li I was an auxiliary operator for approximately five years.
I was among the group of control room operators who went to Unit 2 approximately in 1976.
I obtained my license in June 1978.
From January of 1979, I was assigned to "D"
shift with control room operators Lynn Wright and Mark Coleman.
Adam Miller was my shift foreman: Gregory Hitz, Sr.,
the shift supervisor.
I tesigned from Metropolitan Edison at the end of May 1981.
I then went to Louisiana Power and Light Company's Waterford III, where I was a control room supervisor with a O
2
-(_)
senior reactor operator's license.
I resigned from Waterford III in June 1985.
I, of course, was responsible for performing leak rate tests.
I recall that we had to perform a successful leak rate surveillance at least once every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, and if we were able to, we tried to do one every shift.
I am not sure how I interpreted the requirements.of the technical specification recallthatkknewIwastolookfor governing the test.
I leaks and demonstrate that the leakage was within specified limits.
Apparently, I did not follow the literal interpretation of the technical specification, because I do not recall entering the action statement.
If I obtained a leak rate test with results greater than one gpm in unidentified leakage, I ran another test.
There were times when I ran more than one, and it is possible, although I do not recall specifics, that I would run more than two tests on a shift.
Because we had three operators, generally one was responsible for surveillance performances, one controlled the log book, and one performed switching and tagging.
As things worked out these jobs could be changed during the shift; for example, anyone could walk over to the computer and start a
leak rate test.
If I were in charge of the leak rate surveillance for the day, I tried to keep my shift mates informed that I had initiated a test.
I believe that at the end of the hour needed for the test, I would ask if anyone had O.. -..
1
/~s I would then enter any additions in the
(_)
added water.
If I had responsibility for the log, I would enter computer.
I did not the satisfactory performance of the surveillance.
log the start time of satisfa'ctory tests; I did not log the start or stop time of unacceptable tests.
Although I have been shown that my logging practices did not conform with an administrative procedure, I never tried to conceal the number of tests that I ran.
I discarded leak rates with unidentified leakage higher than 1 gpm until the time period when an NRC inspector, Donald Haverkamp, discovered a leak rate test with higher than 1 gpm unidentified leakage.
From that time onward, I recall being instructed to attach any " bad" leak rate tests obtained to subsequent " good" tests.
I do not recall discarding any tests after I received this instruction.
On several occasions, I have been shown a Licensee Event Report that I have been told was generated because of Mr.
Haverkamp's discovery of a' leak rate test outside of the technical specification requirements.
Although I do not recall how I saw this document during 1978, I am sure that the circumstances surrounding its issuance were discussed.
I have been shown that I initialed a routing sheet attached to this document.
Although I recall thinking that searching for one gallon of leakage in'a system with many thousands of gallons of water was
()
similar to searching for a needle in a haystack, I do not t
c
()
remember that -I engaged in further evaluation of the accuracy of the test.
I do not recall debating the realiability of the test with my fellow operators or my supervisors.
I also do not recall feeling any particular pressure concerning the difficulty of obtaining leak rate tests; for example, no one ever ordered me to immediately get a good leak rate.
I regarded the performance of the test as a routine part of my job.
I remember that I did file negative leak rate tests,.for a time; however, I received an instruction at some point that negative tests were no longer acceptable.
I do not know anymore who told me this or why it was told to me.
I recall that I added hydrogen based upon the direction of the Unit's chemistry department.
I do not remember whether I would have added hydrogen during a leak rate test.
I do not think I knew that its entry changed the makeup tank level, and I do not recall discussing the effect of hydrogen on leak rate tests with any other operators.
I do recall that there was a problem with the makeup tank level transmitters.
I knew that there were times when the level transmitters did not agree.
I would not have used an erratic transmitter on a leak rate test, other than by unintentional mistake.
If I added water during a leak rate test, I would log its entry.
The fact that a leak rate test was being conducted was not an~ impediment to a water addition.
I recall that I would a
4
'((])
inform the indiv'idual performing the test of my addition of water.
I realize that my shift's leak rate-tests filed in February and March of 1979 show that water was added on a routine basis during the tests.
I can no longer recall why water was added, or explain its addition based on available plant records.
I do not recall knowing on my own or through discussions with the other operators that a water addition could produce a " bonus" in--the makeup tank level reading.
I do know I never falsified leak rate test results by this or by any other method.
)
1 s
i i
J 1
' l
28508.0 m BRT 3912 O
1 JUDGE KELLEY:
I have got a brief statement that 2
I'll read,'Mr. Olson, just for the sake of context.
Then 3
I'll turn the microphone over'to Judge Carpenter and we'll 4
have some questions for you.
5 The Board has been charged by the Commission to 6
determine the extent of involvement of employees at TMI-2 in 7
1978 and
'79, in leak rate test falsification and other 8
improper practices'in leak rate testing.
This is your 9
opportunity to state on the record your recollections and 10 your perceptions about your involvement in leak rate testing 11 at that time and to rebut any adverse statements about you by 12 other employees or investigators with which you may b'
13 disagree.
14 We have reviewed your prefiled testimony and we 15 considered it in light of the record that has already been 16 developed in this proceeding.
17 As I think you are aware, we have talked with, I 18 l believe, all the members of D shift, former members of D 19 shift, prior to your appearances today:
Mr. Wright, 20 Mr. Coleman, Mr. Miller, Mr. lii t z, have all been on the 21 ll witness s tand.
22,
We will have q'testions for you based on your 23 !
prefiled.
We may have questions based on, particularly, what 4
I 24 l other members of your shift may have said.
l
()
25 As I think you are aware, we already have two 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mcom so-ae c~.
mow.
28508.0-p BRT 3913 V
1 quite extensive studies of leak rate practices and analyses 2
of particular leak rate tests in the record in this 3
proceeding:
one put together by Mr. Stier and his 4
associates, and another by representatives of the NRC.
I 5
mentioned that those studies include particular tests; 6
indeed, they include analyses of every test that wasn't 7
thrown away while TMI-2 was running in the case of Stier 8
study.
And the NRR study -- the NRR study analyzes every 9
test run in the last six months of operation, including the 10 tests in which you were running the panel or doing test 11 surveillance on your particular shift.
12 We will have questions on some of your particular 13 tests.
We don't, however, intend to go over every test that 14 you were involved in.
We haven't with other operators and we 15 won't in your particular case.
We want to focus on certain 16 tests, though, and get a little more elaboration on it.
17 That will be the approach.
All the results are in 18 the record; in terms of the evidentiary weight they are i
19 entitled to, that's a judgment we have to make in light of 20 the entire record, including your testimony here this 21 morning.
22 >
So, with that, I'll turn it over to Judge f
23 '
Carpenter.
24 EXAMINATION BY Tile BOARD 25 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
n n.,
~ _ + < -,,
.. n -
28508.0 p BRT 3914
\\j 1
Q Good morning, Mr. Olson.
2 A
Good morning.
4 3
Q Mr. Olson, in your prepared statement, bottom of 4
the first page and the top two lines of page 2, you tell us 5
you went down to Louisiana Power & Light Company's Waterford 6
III, with a senior reactor operator's license and that you 7
resigned from Waterford III in June of. 1985.
Do you still 8
hold a senior reactor operator's license?
9 A
No.
10 Q
You relinquished it?
11 A
Yes.
12 0
Did it automatically run out or did you do 13 something?
Did it just expire?
14 A
I assume it just expired because I haven't done 15 anything to try to maintain it or renew it or anything.
16 Q
I see.
But you didn't resign the license?
17 A
No.
18 Q
You just let it run out?
19 A
No.
20 j Q
So, at the present time you are not licensed?
21 A
That's true.
22 0
Turning over to page 3 of your prefiled, bottom of 23 !
page 3 you testify:
"Although I recall thinking that i
24 searching for 1 gallon of leakage in a system with many 25 thousands of gallons of water was similar to searching for a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
~ _ _ _
-. _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _, ~
28508.0 3915
(~) BRT
\\~J 1
needle in a haystack, I do not remember that I engaged in 2
further evaluation of the accuracy of the test."
3 You further testify, "I do not recall debating the 4
reliability or accuracy of the test with my fellow operators 5
or with my supervisors."
6 Did you realize that this leak rate surveillance 7
. test was the only tool that you had which would give you a 8
quantitative estimate of identified leakage?
9 A
Yes.
I think I was aware of that.
10 Q
I'm'trying to flesh out the thought that you are 11 trying to express here.
If you thought the test was 12 inadequate, which is the sense that I get out of your O
13 statement, why didn't you question it?
I 14 A
I don't think I had the engineering background to 15 be able to determine the accuracy of the leak rate test.
16 Q
Well, as 'you ran it over and over again, what sort 17 of feelings did you develop about it?
18 ll A
I kind of considered it as a routine part of my 19 job that had to be done.
20 Q
Were you aware that the surveillance test was 21 required by the technical specifications?
22 i A
Yes.
23 Q
Weren't there other surveillances that were 24 required by the technical specifications?
l
()
25 l A
Yes.
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
\\
n,n,,
--a-
-n -
28508.0 BRT 3916 g-
'v)/
1 Q
Did you consider not only the leak rate test but 2
other technical specification surveillance tests to be just 3
routine parts of your job?
4 A
They were normally routine scheduled 5
surveillances.
When the time came up to do them, you did 6
them.
7 Q
I was trying to get a feeling whether or not your 8
attitude and your feelings about this leak rate surveillance 9
test was any different than-the other surveillance tests 10 which weren't run as frequently, which, apparently,~were 11 scheduled --
12 A~
I don't know if I felt any different about them at
('h
\\-
13 all.
I had a job to do and I tried to do it.
14 Q
So, in your mind there wasn't any real distinction 15 between this test and the other tests?
16 A
I don't recall ever feeling that there was.
17 Q
Well, I accept that.
Other operators did feel 18 this test, in their mind, was a little different than the 19 I rest of them.
Today they can't tell us why, but I'll accept 1
20 your view that you didn't think of. this test as really being 21 any different from the rest of them.
22 The Board has looked at the interview that NHC, 23 i both OI and NHR, conducted with you on Thursday, November 15, 24,
1904.
Did you have a chance to review the transcript of that
(}
25 interview?
I l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l
~ _ _.
.. ~
28508.0
(-) BRT 3917 v
1 A
I did.
2 Q
Did you feel, upon rereading the interview, that 3
there was anything that was discrepant -- didn't come out?
I 4
know you are sitting there, getting question and question --
5 after the interview, seeing it in black and white, and having 6
had a chance to reflect on it, was there any point that, in 7
the interview, that you felt didn't reflect what you really 8
wanted.say?
9 Frequently, sometimes after I have said something 10 I felt, well, maybe it didn't quite come across the way I 11 intended it.
12 A
It has been some period of time since I have read 13 it.
I don't recall -- when I got it in the mail through the 14 NRC, which was several months ago and I sat down and I read 15 it then, I haven't sat down since then and read it.
Every 16 time I do I guess -- I get disgusted about the whole thing.
17 So I haven't looked at it since then.
i la At the time that I read it I thought that I 19 answered as truthfully as I could when I was interviewed.
20 '
And when I read it I still thought I answered the' questions 21 ;
as truthfully as I could.
I 22 ;
O Well, I accept that.
This is your opportunity.
i l
23 l We are not going to -- as Judge Kelley indicated -- go l
l 24 i through hours and hours of' questioning, just to repeat the 25 questions to see if you answer each and every one of them the l
l i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I m mmm s o,_,a, c.,,
m n-
28508.0 g-) BRT 3918
%)
1 same way.
This is your chance, upon reflection, if you have 2
any different views today than you had at that time, to 3
express them.
I want to be sure that you see this as an 4
opportunity for you to add to this record if you choose to.
5 But I take it that, upon rereading it, you didn't 6
find anything that you felt, well, something else could have 7
been said or a different' emphasis could have been put on some 8
aspect, et cetera?
9 A
The only thing that I have really gone over, in my 10 mind, when they asked me, you know, "Did you add this 11 water?" and the only thing that I could come up with at the 12 time is, I jus t didn' t add water for the sake of adding O
13 water.
There had to be a reason.
But I couldn't specify 14 what the reasons were.
15 Going over this in my own mind and trying to 16 recall what was going on 6-1/2 years ago was -- the only 17 other thing that I could possibly come up with, was the boron 18 equalization process between the reactor coolant sys tem and 19 the pressurizer.
I 20 '
Q Well, that comes to a point that I wanted to get 21 to in a minute but let's back up just a moment.
I'm sitting 22 here, looking at a picture of the control room and trying to 23 l imagine you and two other people in it, on a shift when you
\\
24 j did the leak rate tent as shown by your signature.
I 25 recognize that I'm straining your memory to go back to, 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mmm so-ac cmm.
mo um,
28508.0 g BRT 3919 i
\\
\\)
1 1
particularly January, February, March of 1979.
There were 2
three of yoi in the control room, as I understand it; is that 3
correct?
4 A
Yes.
5 Q
Can you tell me how you carried out the varied 6
responsibilities?
There were a number of things to be done, 7
which you had to split up between the three of you.
8 A
There was -- generally there was one man assigned 9
to the control boards and he would maintain the log and 10 perform plant evolutions.
One of the other guys would be 11 assigned to take the log readings, perform surveillances and, 12 as best as I can recall, the other guy was generally doing 13 switching and tagging.
14 Q
With respect to the water additions, would the 15 person who did not have the panel, who was not operating the 16 plant, make water additions which, of course, changed the 17 boron concentration, changed the plant condition?
Or would 18 it only be the one who had the panel?
^
19 A
Generally it would be the guy that had the panel 2n and the log.
But that's not to say that anybody couldn't go 21 over and add water.
But it generally was the guy that had I
22 ;
the desk and the panel and maintained the logbook.
l 23 l 0
What sort of situations, both from your memory 24 and, I guess to a certain extent looking at the situation, 25 would lead the individual that was running the leak ra te test ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m n,..,
~ _. < ~ _
28508.0 BRT 3920 C/
1 and doing -- tell me a little bit more, what else did that 2
individual do?
He would run the leak rate test which would 3
consist of just starting the computer run.
Then what, 4
typically, would he do?
Or specifically, you do?
5 A
You would have to run a heat balance, which was 6
done by the computer; you would have to get all the log 7
readings; you would probably be doing any surveillances that 8
had to be done, any other surveillances.
9 Q
Were there typically a number of other 10 surveillances to be run?
11 A
There was generally some amount of surveillances 12 that had to be performed every day, whether it would be ISI O
13 or nontech-spec-related surveillances or whatever.
There 14 were generally surveillences of some type to be done every 15
- day, i
16 Q
Did you feel that your eight hours were quite 17 busy?
Or that you had plenty of time to do each thing that 18 you had to do?
19 !
A Generally, I think, we were fairly busy.
Having t
l 20 l the shift supervisor that I had, he made sure you stayed 21 busy.
22 !
Q As I understand it, and, I think, as the Board i
23 !
understands it, there was a lower level in the makeup tank 24jl l
that you tried to keep the water level above; 18 that O
25 correct?
l s_/
h I
l ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm s m>o.am>,mm mov-
28508.0
,cy BRT 3921 J
'J l
A Yes, I believe so.
I don't recall what that 2
minimum level was anymore.
3 Q
Do you have the memory that there was a level 4
short of nearly emptying the tank, where you normally 5
operated?
6 A
We didn't operate anywhere, normally, emptying the 7
Lank.
8 Q
I beg your pardon?
~9 A
We didn't operate at a level that that was nearly 10 empty.
Not that I recall.
11 Q
More like half full?
12 A
Yes, I would probably say around half full.
13 Q
Do you know why?
14 A
Why we operated with that level?
15 Q
Yes.
16 A
I would assume -- I would say it was to maintain 17 sufficient net positive suction head for the makeup pumps.
18 Q
Did you have the feeling that, if the makeup tank 19 level went down a.few inches in any particular moment that 20 i that was the basis for adding water, in this unidentified 21 leak rate surveillance test context?
You were almost at the 22 l end of the test but you looked at the makeup tank level and 23 said:
Oh, my goodness, it's getting down below our operating 24 range?
(}
25 A
No.
I don't believe so.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
20204747m Nanon mide Cowrage
!463hu4
28508.0 BRT 3922 O,A 1
Q If you were doing the surveillances, would you pay 2
attention to the makeup tank level recorder during the hour 3
that the test was being run?
4 A
Generally, I'd say no.
You walk over to the 5
computer and type in the leak rate thing to start it and wait 6
for the hour to be up.
7 Q
Would you show me in the photograph there where 8
the computer is.
9 (Witness leaves stand.)
10 A
The computer was right here and there was a 11 typewriter that sat right here, on this -- there was a little 12 desk out here and it sat right here.
13 Q-Fine.
Thank you.
Just to the left of the area
'14 in the control panel that has the makeup tank level 15 recorder?
Would that be a fair --
16 A
The makeup tank level recorder was somewhere in 17 here, I believe.
And the typewriter was over here 18 somewhere.
19 Q
For the sake of the record you are pointing to a 20 l i
spot that's maybe 3 feet or 4 feet from the extreme left edge f
21 of the control panel?
22 A
It's probably further than that.
I 23 Q
Probably further than that?
24 A
Yes.
Because the plant computer is here and it's O
25 probably as long as this table here.
v I
I I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm.n.,
~ _ m-
28508.0 BRT 3923 (J
s x
1 Q
No, I'm just trying to identify where the makeup 2
tank ~1evel recorder is from the end of the control panel that 3
we can see in the picture.
4 A
From here to here?
5 Q
Yes.
6 A
That's probably 8, 9 feet.
7 MR. VOIGT:
Yes.
8 MR. GEPilART:
That's about right.
9 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you.
10 (Witness resumes stand.)
11 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
12 Q'
When-you would start one of these leak rate O2 13 surveillance tests, and then apparently go to some other 14 task, did you have to sort of keep track of time to know when 15 it was going to come out of the computer?
16 A
You usually listened for it to start typing again.
17 Q
Because you had to go over because it was going to 18 interrogate you about any operator-induced changes?
19 A
Yes.
20 Q
So the clacking of the typewriter is what tells 21 you to go over there and take a look at it?
22 l A
Yes.
I 23 i Q
Ilow long before the end of the test did the 24 typewriter start to type?
Or was it at the end of the test, 25 at the end of the 60 minutes that it would begin to ask you
(' }
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m me.,
~ _ m-mm -
_m.
y 28508.0.
rp q.BRT.
3924
-1 questions?
2 A
I--think it wasithe end of the 60-minute period, 3-from the time.you type "RCSL return," and it took its initial' 4
data, I believe it was 60 minutes from.thatLpoint that it 5
would start again.
6
.Q.
Where in the control room.are the controls..that 7
control the addition of water to the makeup tank level i
j 8
recorder?
4
. +
9 A
They are generally -- the batch controller is - here
'10 and the valves that you had to open are here (Indi'ca ting).
11-If you were putting water in from the reactor 12 coolant bleed tank then you had to walk over to this back O
1,3 panel over here, the next one over from this.one here.
14 There's another one there.
That's where you had to start the 15' pump.
i 16 Q
So, for the sake of the record, you are indicating i
17 the normal water additions are made from a position on the i
j 18 panel that's quite close to the makeup tank level record 6r?
i 19 A
Yes.
i 1
20 l Q
Which makes sense.
So you can see what you are i
21 doing, and what you did.
i i
22 A
Yes.
23 ;
Q Is it your memory that there are a series of i
24 tests, the end of February, early March, test numbers 122 --
?
' (}.
25 NRR test numbers 122, 133, 137, 139, 141 and 146, which you l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
~
.i 202447 3h10 Nationwide rmerage 8(ubH6 %$6
f%>
.m P
28508'.0
,r 3 BRT 3925
%)
I signed and in which there was a water addition quite close to 2
the end of the test?
3 A
I have been shown these.
3: A 2-4 Q
We could go through them but if you agree that 5
that's what they show I don't see any point to me going 6
through them one by one.
7 A
I have been shown a few of them recently and 8
there's some of the things I don't agree with.
9 Q
This is your chance to tell us what you don't 10 agree with.
11 A
I was shown one this morning and I believe it was 12 one.where I had the desk and I also signed the leak rate.
13 Q
Yes.
14 JUDGE CARPENTER:
In the material that is there on 15 the witness table, I believe there are the NRR reports.
16 Perhaps counsel will find leak rate test 122, 17 MR. VOIGT:
I'm directing the witness' attention, 10 your lionor, to NRR test number 137, dated March 3, 1979.
Is 19 that the one you want him to look at?
20 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Well, they start at 122.
If you 21 have 137 --
22 l MR. VOIGT:
Okay.
I'm now directing his attention i
23 !
to 122 which bears the date of February 16, 1979.
l 24 l Tile WITNESS:
That one I don't particularly have l
(,}
25 l any questions about.
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
x_ m o,,
m >> -
t
28508.0 m DRT 3926 b
1 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
2 Q
Well, the question in our mind, at least in mine 3
-- the procedure says to avoid adding water during the test.
4 It does not say it is absolutely prohibited but it says good, 5
protessional practice:
Don't add water.
And yet right in 6
the middle of this test -- I'm sorry, along towards the end 7
but not immediately towards the end, the water is added and 8
there isn't any obvious reason why that water was added.
It 9
is certainly not to keep the makeup tank above half full.
We 10 frequently see the makeup tank level down to 60 inches or so 11 and water was added when the water level was down to roughly 12 73 inches.
(~J 13l.
T
\\_
A That's what it shows.
14 Q
So, apparently, Mr. Coleman, if it in general is 15 true that the one who has the board is the one that adds the
.16 water, decided to add the water in the middle of your leak 17 rate test.
Is that a fair way to look at that?
18 A
Yes.
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
Could we use the word "during" 20 instead of "in the middle of"?
21 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Yes, during.
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
In fact, the NRR analysis indicates 23 it was added three minutes before the end.
I'm looking at 24 137?
()
25 MR. GEPHART:
122.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- mum, x _ m r _,.
mu_
P 28508.0 BRT 3927 73
(_)
1 JUDGE KELLEY:
Forgive me.
Oh, you took him back 2
to 122.
3 THE WITNESS:
According to this the leak rate 4
started at 12:03; water was added at 12:50.
5 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Correct.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Valid point.
Wrong test.
7 DY JUDGE CARPENTER:
8 Q
What do you think of this disregard of the 9
restriction in the procedure that the addition of water 10 should be avoided?
11 A
I think my interpretation at that time was avoid 12 if at all possible, but it didn't say:
Do not add water.
It
\\s 13 didn't say you can't add water.
I don't think that it.makes 14 the test invalid as long as you take credit for what you add.
15 Q
If you know how much you have added accurately.
16 A
Yes.
I would assume that's true, too.
17 Q
So, if you make an addition then you become 18 dependent upon the accuracy of the devices with which you add 19 it, if_that's where you get an estimate of how much you have 20 added, or the accuracy of the makeup tank level recorder in 21 j terms of reading the strip chart to see how much you have.
~ 22 i You see, it introduces an additional possible error.
Is that 23 a fair statement?
24 A
I don't believe I ever used the makeup tank level O-25 recorder in order to determine the amount of water added.
a l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tc-347-37lO Nat nonuide cmerage sn3mwa6 l
28508.0 (y BRT 3928
'd 1
You normally use the batch controller.
2 For here, where it says there was 204 gallons of 3
water added, it would be kind of hard to read 204 gallons off 4
of a level recorder.
5 Q
Yes.
6 A
So I would assume 204 gallons came off the batch 7
controller.
8 Q
For this test 122, where 204 gallons are entered 9
in the log, would you have read the batch controller?
Or 10 would the person on the panel, namely, Mr. Coleman, have read 11 the batch controller?
12 A
Probably it would be the guy that added the water
,s 4
1
(~/
13 l
and that would generally be the man that had the panel.
So 14 that would have been Mark.
15 Q
If you look at this strip chart and look at the 16 water level indication during the one hour you were running 17 this test, do you see that abrupt rise,. roughly 18 three-quarters of the way through the test?
And then the 19 following period, essentially the end of the test, the rate 20 of change of water level indication is very different.
21 A
It looks like it's almost flat.
22 Q
It's almost flat.
Wouldn't you say that that has i
23 produced a deficiency in the test?
The level was decreasing 24 with some irregularities but a pretty consistent trend for
()
25 the hour before the test and through the test up to the point ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 20M47-370)
Nanonwide Coserage 800-336 # 46
. =.
28508.0 BRT 3929 1
'where the water was added.
2 A
It looks different.
3 Q
So there's both the question of the accuracy of 4
the totalizer, and the way in which the sensors respond to a 5
rapid change in water level associated with water addition; l
6 very frequently in these records that characteristic of these 7
sensors is quite obvious.
8 You add water and it doesn't immediately -- the 9
makeup tank level doesn't immediately, as shown by'the 10 sensor, doesn't.immediately return to the rate of decrease 11 that was being displayed before the water was added.
12 Were you ever conscious of that?
13 A
No, I was not.
14 Q
Did you ever look at th'e strip chart after you ran 15 the test?
16 A
No.
I don't believe I.did.
17 Generally, if I looked at the makeup tank level; 18 recorder it was at a glance to determine where the water 19 level was, you know, in a range.
I don't ever. recall going 20 over and inspecting it for, if I added 150 gallons of water 21-to see if the recorder responded with 150 gallons of water or
~
whether it changed the ~ slope.
I don't ever. recall doing 22 23 that.
24 Q
Well, in the context of your testimony that'you-25 felt this looking for a small change in a big volume was a
}
t ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationuide Coverage 80lL336-6M6
,,., - ~ - _,,,, ---.-347-37(n)
28508.0 fs BRT 3930 e
)
l b/
1 little bit challenging, it would seem to me that it should 2
have been obvious that this is a test you had to run very 3
carefully, if you were to reliably see a small change.
4 A
But I felt that there was very little that I could 5
do to affect the outcome because it was all done by the 6
computer.
And it --
7 Q
But you did have an opportunity to decide whether 8
a valid test had been performed.
9 A
That was by looking at the end result.
If it was 10 less than 1 gallon a minute.
11 Q
Did you have the feeling that TMI-2, in the later 12 part of 1978, January, February, March of 1979, that the
,_3
)
13
. plant didn't run as close to steady state conditions as might 14 have been desired?
There were oscillations in various plant 15 parameters?
16 A
That's hard to recall.
I know the pressurizer 17 relief valves were leaking.
But I really don't recall the 18 plant swinging around a whole lot.
19 l Q
Well, that's surprising because.so many of the 20 operators told us that they were impressed with that fact, 21 that the plant was swinging and that's why you got leak rates 22 l greater than 1 gallon a minute.
t 23 ~
A That may be true.
I don't have that recollection i
24 of it swinging all over the place.
(~)
25 l Q
Well, when you got a leak rate more than 1 gallon
\\_e i
k a
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202447-3N U Nationwide Coverage 8(n346M6
28508.0 BRT 3931
, -~3 LJ 1
a minute -- I'm diverging now from test 122 -- when you got a 2
leak rate greater than 1 gallon a minute, what did you 3
ascribe it to?
Did you think there was a leak that big?
4 A
I don't know what I thought.
That's why we ran 5
another one, generally.
6 Q
Well, so then you ran a second one.
Did it 7
usually give the same number as the first one?
8 A
No.
I'd say no.
9 Q
If you ran two surveillance tests, you got two 10 different results, how did you decide which one to accept or 11 whether either one of them was acceptable?
12 A
I guess it was based on the 1 gallon a minute.
If 7
13 it was over it was no good.
If it was under, it was good.
14 Q
But in terms of knowing what the leak rate was, as 15 required by your license, how were you comfortable that you 16 knew what the leak rate was?
17 A
I don't believe I questioned it.
It was probably 18 a sloppy practice back then.
I wouldn't -- I sure would not 19 try to do that now.
I've learned a lot through this.
I've 20 learned a lot when I went down to Louisiana.
I have learned l
i 21 what the tech spec interpretation means.
I guess it was just 22 l sloppy operating practice.
23 l I tried not to do that.
I 24 Q
Well, that's what we are trying to understand, why I
{}.
25 /
all the operators accepted -- I don't know that I'd call it i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 317-37W Nanemude Coverage 8W 336 fM6
28500.0
,r3 BRT 3932
(_)
1 sloppy --
2 A
I don't know whether -- it just seemed that 3
performing a leak rate just seemed to be so routine.
You 4
walked over there, typed it in, an hour later, it spit out.
5 The emphasis wasn't really there, I guess.
It was just a 6
routine evolution.
7 Q
If you had to carry out these leak rate 8
surveillance tests with a full manual calculation every time, 9
do you think you might have had the same attitude about it?
10 Been so casual about doing another one?
11 A
I don't know.
I don't think I've ever done a 12 manual calculation, so I'm sure it was a little more
\\')'
t 13 involved.
It has been a long time since I have seen that 14 procedure so I don't think I would have liked that, either.
15 Maybe I would have paid a little more attention to 16 it then.
17 Q
That's what I'm trying to. understand.
Was it the 18 fact that you just went over and initiated the computer's 19 action and then waited for it to present a result to you left 20 you kind of remote from the test?
21 A
Yes.
I would agree with that.
22 Q
As opposed to having to go read, having to collect 23 the data, and then sit down and calculate a result -- do you 24,
feel that probably would have led you to feel about the test i
(")T 25 i differently?
About running it three or four times a shift, i
i I
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I, 2tc 317 37t0 Na::e:: wide ces era;:e 800 3.16 6M6
28508.0 BRT 3933 L,J 1
and doing a manual calculation that perhaps-took half an 2
hour --
3 A
I probably would have felt different.
I probably 4
would have hated doing them.
5 Q
Yes.
6 Apparently test 122 is one that you signed.
As I 7
look at the strip chart record, I can't see that it was a 8
valid test.
The water addition caused the rate of change of 9
the makeup tank level to be anomalous for the last 10 or 15 10 minutes of the test, so it was spuriously high, the water 11 level indication was spuriously high at the end of the test.
12 But apparently you never looked at the strip chart recorder d
13 to find that out.
14 A
No.
15 Q
Would you agree that this probably is a 16 questionable test, in terms of knowing what the actual leak 17 rate was?
18 A
Yes.
I would agree with that.
19 Q
Thank you.
20 A
But I would also, you know, if this is what the 21 transmitter is showing the recorder about what's going on, 22 maybe it's not showing that to the computer.
23 Q
That's certainly a possibility.
24 A
So, you know --
{}
25 Q
That's certainly a possibility.
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
t 202-347-3700 Narionw kie Coverage A00-33M64
20508.0
('
BRT 3934 C)/
1 A
-- it is anybody's iudgment as-to whether the test 2
is valid or it's not valid.
3 Q
Mr. Olson, did you ever compare the two 4
transmitters, one to the other, as a routine matter before 5
you ran the test?
'6 A
T think as best I can recall the only time I would 7
look at both of them was when I got the log readings because 8
you had to record them both on the log sheets.
9 Q
Oh.
I wasn't aware of that.
10 A
I think you had to write them both down.
11 Q
It certainly would be good practice.
12 A
But I don't recall going over there and saying 7,
k, '#
13 this one is reading this and this is reading this, so I'll 14 pick this one.
Generally, if you ran a leak rate and it was 15 on LT-1, or LT-2, you left it there until the leak rate was 16 done.
17 Q
Yes.
Did you experience some period of time where 13-the level transmitters were not agreeing with each other and 19 there was some question about their accuracy?
20 A
There was a time period when they were messed up.
21 Specifically when that was, I don't know.
I know there was a 22 time ~ period where we were having problems with the level 23 transmitters.
24 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
(}
25 Q
Did I understand you to say that when you entered I
1, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
nu-yw,..
up..n c-
28508.0 BRT 3935 73 Ns)
I the water addition in the log that you had to log both 2
readings?
3 A
No.
On the --
4 Q
De clear on what you are saying.
5 A
on the tech spec logs, when you go around and log 6
all your temperatures, pressures, levels and that -- and 7
there was a selector switch for transmitter 1 or transmitter 8
2, it was-on the daily -- shift and dai]y log sheets that 9
were recorded every shift.
That's where that was logged.
I 10 believe that that's true.
11 Q
Both readings?
12 A
I think so.
13 Q
So if on a given day there was substantial 14 disagreement between the two instruments, that ought to be in 15 the log?
That log?
16 A
On the log sheet, yes.
Not --
17 Q
We are not talking about the logs we are looking 18 at in relation to the test?
19 A
Not the control room operators log.
20 Q
This is an entirely different test you are 21 referring to?
22 l A
Yes.
It is the log that -- I don't see it in here i
1 23 i anywhere.
It was your normal shiftly logs, that were about 24 that thick (indicating).
l
(~N 25 l JUDGE KELLEY:
I'm personally not aware whether
\\_)
l
. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3 2iG34 7,31(x)
Nationude Cos erage nin336-(64
-28508.0 m BRT-3936 V
1 those logs are in the record or not.
Can I have have help?
2 MR. BLAKE:
We are checki'ng now.
But I believe 3
there are at least some examples of shifts and daily logs.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
Examples but maybe not logs for 5
every day on which we have leak rate testings in the record.
6 MR. VOIGT:
There are several examples in the 7
stier report at'least but I don't think any effort has been 8
made to compile the complete record of daily surveillances to 9
which the witness, I believe, was referring.
10 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
(
11 Q
Okay.
Would the person who made tha t entry, did 12 that check, that surveillance,- if you will, and wrote it in
\\~/
13 the log we are talking about as opposed to these logs that we 14 have for every leak rate test, would that be the same person 15 who would run the leak rate test?
16 A
Generally, yes.
17 Q
Part of the job.
18 f A
Yes.
19 Q
So as you went on duty and did that particular 20 check, you would know if the two transmitters were reading in 21 disagreement?
22 A
Yes.
l 23 l JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Olson, I might explain to you 24 we made a comment in the beginning, we are going to have to
(~)
25 take a break.
We have to do a conference telephone call with s-I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-370)
Nanonw!Jc Coserage 800-3%ua.
28508.0 BRT 3937
(\\
I a party who is not present this morning.
I would hope we
~'
2 would be done in a half hour or so.
I guecs i.his is a break 3
for all those that don't have to go on the phone.
4 Let's break at this point, go off the record and S
you can get a badge on the 3rd floor and we'll see you on the 6
4th floor in the same place, in. Judge Bright's office, up 7
front.
8 (Recessed at 10:25 a.m.
to resume in Judge 9-Bright's chambers.)
10 11 12 f) 13 v
14 15 16 17
's 18 19 20 21 l 22 23 :l 24 25 0) v ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 N.itionwidc Cmcrage 8'U-33M(4 a
me:
a w
e - -
28508.0-BRT 3938
/
1 (Telephone conference in ' chambers at 10:45 a.m. )
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
We are beginning, now, a telephone 3
conference call oli the record, as I indicated the other
=4 morning that we would.
I am here, the presiding Board, 5
Judges Carpenter and Bright are here;. representatives of, I 6
believe, all parties and the' Staff'are also here.
7 As I indicated the other morning, the purpose of 4
8 this call'is to bear from you with regard to any people that
~
9 you may want to suggest, either for the first time or 10-resuggest from a prior time, as witnesses for the case based
-11 on the record that we have compiled up until this time.
i 12 I stress that, because as you know, we have not
).
yet gotten to the^witnessesHwho are from supervisory, upper 13
{
14-managerial jobs.
When we get to those witnesses, it is quite i
1 15 possible that other witnesses might be suggested and we i
l 16 really aren't in a position to make judgments on people 17 involved in those parts of the case.
i 18 However, as you also know, we have spent ~a couple i.
I
~19 of weeks of' testimony on technical issues with Staff 20-witnesses, Mr. Stier and his associates; the Faegre & Benson 21 representatives; and we are now drawing to a close on the 4
^
22 CRos, shift foremen and shift supervisors.
There's' only a 23 few of those people.left to hear from.
' 2:4 So the purpose here is to identify as best we can 25 who else ought to be called.
The day before yesterday, I
. (21 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
312-34L37tn Natenwide Coserage fuu336tM6
,_.,r
N T
28508.0 BRT 3939 O-1 believe, we asked the parties to put forward any. candidates 2
that they had and several people were discussed.
I can tell 3
you-in a few minutes who they were.
4 What we-would like to hear this morning from you 5
is who yo.u would like to put forward as a candidate for 6
witness. status.
7 MRS. AAMODT:
All right.
I~think I have to 8
preface that with some of my thoughts, so first I would like i
9-to say, Judge Kelley, that I-feel as though I should explain j
. 10 why'I'm not at the hearing.
i 11
-My plans were made but'I did not receive the call 12 I expected on Friday to provide the order of witnesses and.I
.i 13 felt-there was'no sense in my appearing' unprepared.
I also 14 had some concern'about the recess that had been planned; it.
' 15 may-have been rescheduled for this week.
16 I also want to say I lost enthusiasm after seeing 17 what happened to my request for Mr. Zewe.
I had no idea the 18 Board would have been unacquainted with the fact tha't the NRC 19 had identified three instances of invalid tests from 20 Mr. Zewe's tests, so it seemed to me that, without me being
.21 at the hearing, that I was not gaining too much by going 22 through the tremendous effort that there is to ask 23 fl questions.
So I had lost my desire to question Mr. Mehler i
l 24 and Hitz as I planned and I would like to question l
l l
25 Mr. Guthrie if the Board is able to accept my questions O
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347 3hu Nationwide Coverage AO 3364io40
-.,. - -.,.. - - - -, _ _.. ~., -,. - - _., _
28508.0 BRT 3940 b,
1 today.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
If you didn't get a call last 3
Friday about the witness list, I think that was a slip of 4
communication down here, probably between me and my 5
secretary.
Let me add further, though, that I can't 6
guarantee a perfect flow of-communication between the Board 7
and you.
8 The Board has already heard your reason for not 9
being here.
The Board doesn't find i t a suf ficient reason 10 not to go ahead.
I'm just not in the business of keeping up 11 perfect communication under these circumstances.
We just do 12 the best we can.
NJ
)
13 I did tell you Tuesday morning who the witnesses 14 would be for this week; isn't that correct?
15 MRS. AAMODT:
Yes, you did.
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
Mehler, for example, 17 arrived here yesterday afternoon.
If you had had questions
~
18 for Mr. Mehler, we would have been happy to receive them.
19 As to your questions for Mr. Zewe we put some, we on didn't put some.
We had reasons for doing that, which the f
record to some extent reflects.
All I can say is, if you had 1
22 been here to make an argument for your questions you might 23 have gotten some more in but you weren't here.
24 MRS. AAMODT:
I understand that.
But I would ask 25 that I would have the opportunity to question Mr. Guthrie, if O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 2tG347.3700 tionwide Coverage 80t133MM6
28508.0 BRT 3941 k-)
1 I could; either dictate several questions to Mrs. Davis or 2
say them to you.
3 JUDGE KELLEY:
Guthrie is tomorrow afternoon?
4 MR. VOIGT:
Tomorrow afternoon.
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, I can ask Mrs. Davis, my 6
secretary, to take some questions from you over the phone 7
later today if you will call her'up, on the understanding, 8
what, 10 questions or fewer?
9 MRS. AAMODT:
Oh,-fewer.
He's being questioned 10 this afternoon?
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
No.
Tomorrow afternoon.
12 MRS. AAMODT:
Oh, I can_ Zap those.
Evidently the 13 order has changed a little?
. g.)
V 14 JUDGE KELLEY:
It does change somewhat from time 15 to time.
16 MRS. AAMODT:
Mr. Bryan and Mr. Hemmila, have they 17 been questioned?
18 JUDGE KELLEY:
Hemmila is tomorrow morning.
We 19 are talking this morning to Mr. Olson; tomorrow morning is 20 Hemmila and tomorrow afternoon is Guthrie.
1 21 MRS. AAMODT:
And then Mr. Bryan on Friday?
k 22 j JUDGE KELLEY:
Bryan is put over.
I 23 i MR. VOIGT:
Halloween; next Friday.
l 24 '
JUDGE KELLEY:
Hold on a moment.
Off the 25 record.
l (1) i l
A~CE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I
- o:-347 3no Nanonaide cos erage 8 o-336
- 46
28508.0 BRT 3942.
(
i/
1 (Discussion off the record.)
m 2
JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Bryan has been switched around 3
to the 31st, which is, I think, two weeks from tomorrow.
I 4
should add, while we are talking about this, we do not have, 5
right now, a firm schedule for the week of the 27th.
Let me 6
say again, next week, the week of the 20th is off.
No one 7
will be heard, no sessions will be held.
8 We-have no schedule, firm, for the week of the 9
27th, with the single exception, I believe, of Mr. Bryan.
10 And we should get a firmed-up schedule for that week of the 11 27th the early part of next week, I hope.
As soon as we've 12 got that we'll communicate it to you.
-13 MRS. AAMODT:
Right.
Shall I address the matter 7m
'14 of witnesses?
15 JUDGE KELLEY:
Please do.
16 MRS. AAMODT:
Mine is somewhat -- from what I have 17 seen from the hearing record it has now been established that 18 all the operators have been involved in the provision of 19 false reports to the NRC and the withholding of information 20 but there's also the matter of whether they were knowingly 21 involved.
Except for Hartman, the operators say they did not I
22 deliberately deceive the NRC.
23 Except for Hartman, the operators' testimony is 24 f incredible, but to me the Board does not appear to'have rent i
25 l that paper curtain and therefore I think the Board needs more r~m v
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202447 37m Nationwnie Coserage N10-33MM6
l 28508.0 BRT 3943 1
evidence to reconcile the glaring disparity between Hartman's 2
testimony, that was considered credible by the NRC and the 3
Department of Justice, and the operators' testimony.
So I 4
'would renew my motion that the Board'obtain the minutes of S
the shift supervisors meetings, particularly for the period 6
of the -- the time of the NRC inspection, in October of 7
1978.
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let me interrupt, Mrs. Aamodt.
9 What we asked you for here is witnesses.
People.
Have you 10 got people in mind?
11 MRS. AAMODT:
I do have' people too, but --
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let's hear about the people.
13 MRS. AAMODT:
All right.
Well, I would like to 14 hear from Mr. Blessing.
I understand that he's appearing and 15 you may not --
~
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let me clarify that a little bit.
17 The Board sent a subpoena to Mr. Blessing.
The Board has not 18 confirmed one way or the other whether or not Mr. Blessing is 19 willing to come and will come.
We intend to nail that down 20 as best we can, certainly by the first part of next week.
If 21 he is willing to come, then he'll come.
And there won't be a 22 question about it.
23 I would prefer, I think the Board would prefer, i
I 24 crocsing the bridge of anyone who doesn't want to comply with 25 the subpoena when and if that happens.
That has not yet O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage WL3 Ef64o
28508.0 BRT 3944
. (.(,)
I happened, in the case of anybody in this case, including 2
Mr. Blessing.
3 MRS. AAMODT:
All right.
Then I would renew my 4
motion for the appearance of Dr. Chung but for another 5
reason.
I haven't looked at the NRC testimony on the leak 6
seal, so I'm not asking for it on the basis of Dr. Chung's 7
knowledge of that.
But from what I have seen in some of 8
these early NRC interviews, it appears that it's Dr. Chung's 9
analysis that the interviewers are depending on when they are 10 informing the witness that the plant was, indeed, being 11 operated outside the technical specifications for leakage.
I 12 understand the later NRC investigators did not find that to 13 be the case; in other words, there was no reason for it, no O
14 motivation for falsifying the leak rate reports.
15 So I would ask that Dr. Chung, who evidently is 16 responsible for those early analyses, appear as a witness to 17 explain why he found the leakage from the two plants to have 18 been outside the technical specifications.
19
-JUDGE KELLEY:
Perhaps I'm not focusing clearly 4
20 enough, Mrs. Aamodt.
Would you mind restating your 21 l.
proposition for Dr. Chung?
I'm not sure I followed it.
22 l MRS.-AAMODT:
Well, the question is how leaky was i
23 l Unit 2.
l 24 JUDGE KELLEY:
That's one question.
25 MRS. AAMODT:
That's a matter that was introduced O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l t
202-347-3700 Nanonw ate t os erage N n 3 b bh46
'28508.0' BRT 3945
.1 by the operators in their testimony,_ comparing it to Unit l'.
2 I understand that the more recent.NRC investigations come to 3
the conclusion that'the plant was not leaking.in excess _of 4
-technical specification.
I think this is'an important 5
matter --
~
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Are you saying that the NRR study 7
in the record comes to the conclusion that the plant was not 8
leaking in excess of technical specifications?
9 MRS. AAMODT:
I read that someplace _and I could 10 not find where I read it, but it seems to me that it needs to 11 be established, whether or not there was motivation for 12 falsifying these reports other than just-to meet the 13 technical specification.
14 JUDGE KELLEY:
When you say you think the report 15 found that it was not leaking in excess of technical 16 specifications, are you referring to unidentified leakage or 17 identified. leakage?
Or just what kind of leakage are you 18 referring to?
19 MRS. AAMODT:
Well, I think that's a question, 20 again, that needs to-be~ addressed.
I see the two as being 21 mixed and I'm not sure that I can buy the testimony ofothe 22 operators, that they were able to separate out the identified 23 leakage, which would tend to increase or at least vary in 24 accordance with plant conditions.
I think I would need to 25 depend on a technical expert.
But of course we are talking O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
a 202 347-3700 Niionwide Cus ciagt
- M3M*.6
28508.0 BRT 3946 1
about unidentified. leak'ge.
But I'm thinking how an a
2 identified leakage would mask the unidentified leakage.
3 JUDGE KELLEY:
You realize, of course, we had 4
nine technical experts in a panel here for two weeks from 5
three different sources, essentially:
Faegre & Benson, that 6
' report; Stier in that report; and NRR in that report.
And we 7
went into this in considerable length.
Are you familiar with 8
that record?
9 MRS. AAMODT:
I am not familiar with it but I 10 conclude, from what I see the operators saying, that that 11 record must support their positions that they could separate 12 out the identified leakage from the unidentified leakage --
('
13 the identified leakage from the unidentified leakage, and L) 14 that they were operating the plant safely, in other words, 15 within technical specifications.
16 What I see from earlier interviews is that the NRC 17 was saying:
Oho, that's not true, our investigator found'the 18 plant was outside technical specifications on leakage.
19 Dr. Chung was the person who did those early 20,
investigations, the technical investigations.
I 21 I JUDGE KELLEY:
We are somewhat familiar with 22 Dr. Chung.
Let me be real clear on this, though.
You are 23 asking us to call Chung after we have heard nine days of 24 testimony -- I think it's nine days -- from some nine 25 i different witnesses for some 2000 pages, that you haven' t
.f%
l v)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
7 x
. c-
b 28508.0 BRT 3947 m
( ')
I read?
And you say we should call Chung; is that correct?
2 MRS. AAMODT:
Judge Kelley, the reason I haven't 3
read that is because of very trying personal circumstances 4
and not because of lack of interest or disregard of 5
information that's available to me.
6 I had understood, initially, that you would, you 7
know, lend me those transcripts.
That was evidently a 8
misunderstanding.
9 I did get in touch with a photocopier who is 10 copying these various portions of the transcript.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
That's right.
Those were my 12 transcripts that I loaned the photocopier at your request.
/'s 13 MRS. AAMODT:
That's right.
I did ask that I have
(/
14 Mr. Russell's testimony.
I understood then, I called back, I 15 understood that it was nine entire days.
I did intend to 16 come to the hearing this week, so I set aside the order of 17 those transcripts because I felt that I could look through 1;8 and see whether any of it or some of it was more important to 19 me than others rather than getting all of it recorded.
20 Here I am now being asked something that is very a
21 important to me, that I really haven't had an opportunity to 22 inform myself totally on.
But the Board has.
23 So I'm proposing this to you and of course you 24 make the final decision.
What I'm saying is, I see in the 25 interviews that I've read and in the NRC documents, I see es
(_)
a f
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-m s~m _
28508.0 BRT 3948
,f3 s
/
1 both the position that the Unit 2 was leaking --
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
The problem, Mrs. Aamodt, is that 3
you don't see what's in those 2000 pages of record on this 4
subject.
I really think that your claim, under these 5
circumstances, that Dr. Chung ought-to be called, is 6
baseless.
I'll ask my colleagues if.they concur or if they 7
disagree with me.
8 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Mrs. Aamodt, this is Judge 9
Carpenter.
Can you hear me?
10 MRS. AAMODT:
Yes, I can, Judge Carpenter.
11 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Do you have available to you the 12 Stier report?
/~'i 13 MRS. AAMODT:
The first part of the Stier report,
(_)
14 the summary.
Not all of the Stier report, which is pages and 15 pages long.
16 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Specifically volume I, entitled 17 "The Production and Overview."
Do you have tha t?
18 MRS. AAMODT:
I do have that, yes.
19 JUDGE CARPENTER:
If you look at page 115, there's 20 a listing of the best estimates of what the unidentified 21 l leakage was for the time period January 2nd to January 15th, 22 which shows that the best estimate consists of numbers in 23 excess of the technical specifications.
24 ;
During this week I have been asking the witnesses 25 !
about that page, page 115.
I don't see that it contrasts Os l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 N,uicnwide Coverage M 433 W
28508.0 BRT 3949 O
1 with Chung's conclusions in any way.
It's an analysis which 2
was done over a much more, extended period of time.
We have 3
no indication that it's unreliable or uncertain.
And, as far 4
-as I can.tell, it is in accordance with the Chung 5
conclusions.
So I don't understand your position that 6
there's no record before us as to what the best estimates of 7-unidentified leakage are, based on --
8 MRS. AAMODT:
I didn't say there was nothing 9
before you.
I understood there was something before you and 10 that what was before you was that the plant wasn't leaking in 11 excess of technical specifications.
12 JUDGE CARPENTER:
How can you see that if you look 13 at page.115?
( }.
14 MRS. A A M O D T_:
Page 115 shows it was leaking?
15 JUDGE CARPENTER:
That's correct.
16 MRS..AAMODT:
Okay.
All right.
f 17 JUDGE KELLEY:
Do you have any other -- other
~18 candidates as witnesses, other than Dr. Chung?
t i
19 MRS. AAMODT:
I think it's quite obvious that the 20 people from the -- who were in charge of the computer and I'
21 computer program should be called.
I saw in Mr. Mehler's i
22' testimony it was Mr. Jim Freeman, page 55 of Exhibit 12, was 23 the person who came to calibrate the computer.
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
F-r-e-e-m-a-n?
i 25 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
He was evidently the level of (2)-
1 i-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-346M6
m,
28508.0 BRT.
3950 1
- a. technician.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
The reference there was what?
3 MRS.'AAMODT:
Page 55, Exhibit 12.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
Exhibit 12 to what?
5 MRS. AAMODT:
The OI report.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
To the OI report.
All right.
7 MRS. AAMODT:
I also noticed in Mr. Chwastyk's 8
interview with the NRC -- I think that's Exhibit 21 of the OI 9
report -- that he referred to.I&C personnel, and particularly j
-10 to Richard Wilson of the engineering department.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
-Let me note on your last two i
12 points, let-me just note the name Freeman is new to me.
We 13 can check that out.
] {
14 There is a Mr. Fels, who is a computer person, who 15 has been suggested as a witness by the Staff.
The Board-has l
16 that under consideration at this time'.
17 Mr. Chwastyk, whom you jus t referred to, testified 4
l l.
18 about looking into the loop seal phenomenon and he mentioned l
.19 several. names, one of which was Mr. Doug Weaver was one 20 name.
Wilson, I believe, was another.
Wilson was your r
21 name?
l 22 MRS. AAMODT:
Richard Wilson, of the engineering i
l 23 department.
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
Of the engineering department.
25 What do you have for us about-Mr. Wilson.beyond O
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l
(
202 347-3xx)
Nationwide Coverage 800-336-tM6
28508.0 BRT 3951
/ 1 G
1 the name and the reference to him by Chwastyk?
2 MRS. AAMODT:
Only that Mr. Chwastyk said that he 3
knew about the problem and that he is in the engineering 4
department and certainly would have the expertise to know 5
whether this computer was in fact unreliable or whether it 6
was reflecting what was happening.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
Anybody else?
8 MRS. AAMODT:
No.
That's all I would have on.the 9
computer program.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
Maybe I should pause here f or-a 11 moment.
12 With regard to either Mr. Freeman or with regard
/'T 13 to Mr. Wilson -- these are the two names you have mentioned V
14 most recently -- do the other parties have any comment?
15 Anybody?
16 MR. GEPHART:
Freeman is a new name on me.
I 17 don't recall hearing that name.
18 MS. WAGNER:
Well, Wilson is one of the 19 alternative names that the Staff proposed.
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
Hold on just a minute, 21 l Mrs. Aamodt.
This is a little clumsy, I have this squawk box i
22 '
we are using and when somebody wants to talk I think I'll 23 just try to pass it around.
24 i Miss Wagner had a comment.
25 l MS. WAGNER:
Mrs. Aamodt, the Staff had o
L-)
l I
a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
^f 28508.0 BRT 3952
(
}
1 recommended -- had proposed as a witness, Doug Weaver of 2
I&c.
But in Mr. Chwastyk's oral testimony earlier this week 3
he mentioned that perhaps Mr. Knoche or Mr. Wilson,,that he 4
had spoken with, perhaps, Mr. Knoche or Mr. Wilson, instead 5
of Mr. Weaver on the level transmitter problem.
6 So we had proposed Mr. Weaver as a witness.
If he 7
was not the correct person, exploring the possibility of 8
Mr. Wilson or Mr. Knoche as witnesses.
9 MRS. AAMODT:
Ques tion :
What relationship is 10 Mr. Weaver to Mr. Wilson?
Are they in the sa'me department?
11 MS. WAGNER:
I'd have to check the chart.
There's 12 a chart in Stier that I think would set that out.
I don't
(~)
13 have that offhand, the relationship between the two.
V 14 MRS. AAMODT:
Mr. Wilson is listed on the -- some 15 of the charts of the DPU organizational charts but I've never 16 seen Mr. Weaver's name.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
Any other comment on Freeman or 18,
Wilson or Weaver, I think has been mentioned?
l 19,
MR. BLAKE:
Ms. Aamodt, this is Ernie Blake.
You 20 have referred to a Richard Wilson, who I think is not the 21 Wilson to whom Mr. Chwastyk has referred.
I recognize, too, 22 as you do, the name Richard Wilson, who is currently a vice 23 president high up in the engineering organization.
But I 24 don't think it is the same person tha t -- to which 25 Mr. Chwastyk was referring in this context, the ' 78-79 ti me oq>
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Naticf. wide Coserage 804336-6M6
ph.
^
+1 o.
.m t
i
"[
f28508.0 L'
.BRT 3953
- l
- frame, t.
2 MRS. AAMODT:
Okay.
3-1MR. BLAKE:
And I don't recognize the name, l
4 Mr. Freeman.
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
We'll just have'to check.further, 6
at least on Freeman.
I think that's new to all'of us.
7 I did mention Mr. Fels has been referred to a 8
. number of times in connection with computer difficulties.
9 Okay, do you have other suggestions for 10 witnesses?
11
'MRS. AAMODT:
No, I don't have for witnesses but'I-b 12 do have documents.
13 JUDGE KELLEY:
But that's it as far as. witnesses
{}
14-are concerned at this point?
15 MRS. AAMODT:
That would be, of witnesses, yes.
16-JUDGE KELLEY:
You'll bear in mind as far as 17 documents are concerned we don't have any discovery in this 18
. case.
If there's a suggestion for some specific piece of l
- 19 paper we can get ahold of that might be useful, I suspect l
20 we'll ask for it and try to get it, but I just want you to 21 bear in mind that we don't have any discovery mechanism here i
22 and the parties are not in a position to ask for categories 23 of documents that they think might be helpful.
l.
l 24 Go ahead.
f p
25 MRS. AAMODT:
Mr. Chwastyk's interview with
' ()
L ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l' 202 Nationwide Coserage 800-33M646
..-347 37N..
m
28508.0 BRT 3954 s
1 Mr. Stier -- actually, it was Mr. Stier's words but it 2
appears to summarize what Mr. Chwastyk referred to earlier 3
ref erred to,.zul unidentified leakage from the operator 4
release valve at the time of the accident that had been 5
unidentified at the' time of the accident.
I think that 6
really bears-on the proceedings, how severely that was 7
leaking and whether these computer bugs were printing reports 8
wrong at the time of the accident or whether this had really 9
been reflecting leakage and been disregarded.
10 The sequence of the events of the accident does 11 give an authoritative relation of that happening.
12 I also would -- I think that, if there's any f'/)
13 ques tion of that, that could be reviewed.
w 14 JUDGE KELLEY:
You mean if there's any question 15 about the fact that valves were leaking just before the 16 accident?
17 MRS. AAMODT:
That valves were leaking and 18 unidentified -- that they were unidentified as leaking and 19 unquantified.
20 MR. VOIGT:
This is Mr. Voigt.
That's not i
21 technically accurate.
22 There is plenty of testimony in the record that 23 leakage from the valves at the top of the pressurizer, went 24 into the reactor coolant drain tank and was identified.
25 MRS. AAMODT:
The sequenc~e of events of the I')
U ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
~~
x.y-
4 28508.0' BRT 3955 4
1 accident that I have, say it was not identified.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
What exact sequence of' events are 3
you' referring to?'
4 MRS. AAMODT:
This1was prepared by Mr. Keaton, 5
K-e-a-t-o-n, and th'ere are several different versions.
The 6
version that I have has that it was leaking.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Who is Mr. Keaton?
8 MRS. AAMODT:
He's from GPU, I think the 9
engineering department.
10
.MR.
VOIGT:
This is Mr. Voigt again.
There's no 11 dispute chat it was leaking.
But it was not unidentified.
12 MRS. AAMODT:
This sequence that I have says that 13 it was unidentified, it was not known.
And, also, 4 g.-
Mr. Stier's interview of Mr. Chwastyk indicates that and I 0
-. 1-15 would say that there are a number.of pages there that are
)
16 missing, pages 24 through 21 (sic) I believe are missing from-17 that interview.
That' appears to be where Mr. Stier got the 18 information from Mr. Chwastyk that he repeated back to him 19 about the core -- leakage not having been identified at the 20 time of the accident.
I 21
. JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, it seems to me -- and I'm l
22 happy to hear from.you and the parties about this -- but my i
23 reaction to our discussion right now is as follows:
We were l
l 24 set up this morning to talk about prospective witnesses and
!(i
(
25 not to discuss offers of documents for the record.
l'O' l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS,. INC.
i
-m
- s. ~ ~..
28508.0 BRT 3956
.,m 1
You are talking about, as I understand it, a 2
document'that.might have fit in to the technical part of the 3l proceeding.
For all I know somewhere in that record it is in 4
the proceeding.
But, apart from that we are very handicapped 5
in not being able, among the Board and the parties here, to 6
look at what you are talking about.
I don't think we are 7
really set up here, in a telephone conference, to pass on the 8-admissibility of documents.
9 I do think it is getting very late in the day to 10 submit technical documents.
It may, indeed, be too late.
11 But, be that as it may, I question whether we can 12 do anything very effectively here this morning.about some 13 specific document you may wish to introduce.
(
14 MRS. AAMODT:
Judge Kelley, could those missing i
15 pages be provided, from the Stier testimony that are from the 16 OI report, it's Exhibit 22?
There are about 18 pages 17 missing.
I believe tha t they so --
18 JUDGE KELLEY:
I think there's an answer to 19 this.
Let me turn to Mr. Blake.
20 MR. BLAKE:
Ms. Aamodt, for purposes.of the record 21 of this proceeding the entire Chwastyk interview by OI 22 appears as an exhibit in the Stier report and, therefore, is 23 already in the record.
What you seem to'be referring to is 24 the fact that OI's report, and its exhibits, just take l
25 i extracts from some of the interviews.
n s.-
i i
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-347-3700 tionwide Coserage NU-3W6646 E
28508.0 BRT 3957 (3
l 1
But for purposes of this record the entire 2
interview is here.
3 MRS. AAMODT:
Exhibit 22 appears entirely in the 4
Stier report; is that true?
5 MR. BLAKE:
I can't tell you by exhibit number, 6
but I do know that Mr. Stier, in the exhibits in his report, 7
has captured past statements which include those of 8
individuals such as Mr. Chwastyk; and in Mr. Chwastyk's case, 9
his OI interview appears in the Stier report, which is 10 already.in the record here.
11 MRS. AAMODT:
I'll check that but I just think 12 that that can be very important to resolving this question, 13 the question between me and the employees' lawyers, because I b("x 14 think it is an important question whether this leakage was 15 unidentified.
If we are going to evaluate the_ operators' 16 testimony that they were able to invalidate a tes t on the 17 basis of their inspection of the plant -- this flies right in 18 the face of that testimony.
19 MR. BLAKE:
Mrs. Aamodt, this is Ernie Blake 20 again.
Let me try to mollify you on that as well.
21 l There is some, and I'll grant you, there has been 22 l some dispute about whether or not leakage from' the top of the l
23 !
pressurizer, to which Mr. Voigt earlier referred, came from i
24 !
the PORV or from the code safety valves.
That has been the 25 +
dispute about whether it was identified or wasn't identified, (1) i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
OtC-147-37tU Nationwide Cos erage 800-3%6M6
28508.0 BRT 3958 g) i 1
as between the particular valves.
2 But in either case, it makes no difference for 3
purposes of this proceeding and leak rates, whether it came
-4 from the code safety or wh' ether it came from the PORV, for 5
purposes of leak rate procedures and for purposes of.the 6
record here, in-either case those are both identified 7
leakage.
They go to the same tank and they can be 8
quantified.
9 So, for purposes of leak rate testing, that 10' dispute is really irrelevant.
I say that only to try to make 11 you feel better about what the nature of the dispute was that 12 you may have read about.
/~T 13 MRS. AAMODT:
I'll think about that.
I don't know
'w) 14 whether I can accept that or not but I will think about what 15 you said.
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
Flease think about it in the light 17 of the record we have been making down here, for lo these 18 many weeks.
19 Do you have other records that you wish to propose 20 for inclusion in the record at this point?
21 MRS. AAMODT:
I think there has to be some 22 resolution as to why Mr. Hartman's testimony disagrees so 23 sharply with those of the other operators, concerning whether i
24 l these reports were knowingly discarded and knowingly i
25 8 manipulated.
From the transcript that I have seen, I don't
(~h
\\-)
e f
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-34137m Nationwide Cmerage sn346M6
28508.0
~BRT 3959 7
t I
think that the operators' credibility in denying their 2
knowing involvement has been sufficiently -- well, to me it 3
has been shown to be incredible, their testimony.
But I 4
don't feel that the Board is satisfied that the' operators are 5
withholding the truth, concerning what they were doing.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
The Board is trying to determine 7
that.
The resolution that you call for here seems to me to 8
be a job for the Board to do.
We have to decide whether 9
Hartman's allegations are founded or unfounded.
We'll do 10 that when we get around to deciding the case.
11 MRS. AAMODT:
What I'm saying is I heard the kinds 12 of losses of memory and so forth before in another hearing on r~'N 13 tests at Unit 1 and I feel that some more objective L),
14 information is available to the Board if the Board asks for 15 it.
16 For instance, the minutes of the shift supervisors 17 meetings, and the PORC meetings, and, if they petition, for 18 the POV meetings.
19 The NRC showed some interest in those minutes.
f 20-JUDGE KELLEY:
Mrs. Aamodt, we are simply not 21 going to argue those points here this morning over the 22 l
telephone.
It is not feasible.
We have gone over this to 23 some extent.
You are arguing in a vacuum because you don't 24 j know what has been going on in this case in the last five 25 l weeks.
f~')
r,
~,
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(4)
Nationwide Cos erage 84xk336-6M6
28508.0 BRT 3960 f
)
' ~ ' '
1 We certainly hope that you will be in attendance 2
when we resume on the week of the 27th.
We'll give you the 3
schedule.
We'll give you the names of the witnesses.
But we 4
are not in a position this morning to entertain these kinds 5
of points.
6 Do you have any further witnesses that you want to 7
propose?
I understand that you don't.
8 MRS. AAMODT:
Not witnesses, but I understood that 9
this was an attempt to see what gaps there were in the 10 record.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
No.
No.
It was not that.
I 12 called you and I told you we wanted to look at what
.(J"3 13 additional witnesses should be called.
14 MRS. AAMODT:
Then I apologize.
I did feel that 15 the minutes of those meetings were relevant to our 16 conversation this morning but I certainly apologize if I have 17 introduced something that was not appropriate.
18 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let me ask you whether you have l
19 decided about whether you want to go on this plant tour next 20 Monday morning?
21 MRS. AAMODT:
I thought about it.
I cannot see 22 any advantage to going.
I don't see what that has to do with 23 l this hearing, either.
I 24 j JUDGE KELLEY:
I think if you had been here,
\\
25 :
Mrs. Aamodt, and you heard all this testimony about where the es l
L.),
i l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-370)
Nationwide Coserage MH)-3346M6
28508.0 BRT 3961-('
1-valves are and where the pumps are, it might have aroused in 2
you a curiosity to go and find out.
That's why I'm going.
3 MRS. AAMODT:
I see.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
But your not having' been here and 5
your knowing so little about the case, I can see why the trip 6
might not be very useful.
7 MRS. AAMODT:
Well, I think -- I frankly think the 8
more-important issue before this board is whether the 9
operators are telling the truth.
I think that's -- rather 10 than whether there could have been some confusion introduced 11 into their jobs by the positioning of various equipment --
12 pieces of equipment that they had to deal with.
We all have rN 13 problems, but that's -- we generally learn to work our.way s
v 14 around our impossible problems.
15 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, we all regret you haven't 16 been here to help us find that out.
Are you going to be here 17 a week from Tuesday?
18 MRS. AAMODT:
I'm planning to come a week from 19 Tuesday, and what time is the hearing beginning?
Is it 8:00 20 or 9:00?
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, we haven't set it for sure.
22 We usually start at 8:30.
So you can figure on that as the 23 starting time for Tuesday, the 28th.
If we decide to start a i
24 i Monday witness because of some difficulty in something any f
25
- other time, we will let you know, e) u-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
n.nu sa m
- c u age mu m
4 28508.0 BRT.
3962
,a t
I 1
MRS. AAMODT:
I'll plan to call you,.then, the 2
middle of next week.
3 JUDGE KELLEY:
It's very unlikely that will 4
happen.
5 MRS. AAMODT:
All right.
I'll find the schedule 6
of witnesses and I thank you very much.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank' you, bye.
8 (Whereupon the phone conference concluded at 11:20 9
a.m.)
10 11 12 O
13
'%,)
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1
21 '
22 23 24 25 j
O I
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3Xt)
NationwiJe Cos erage ML336 ua6
,'28508.0 BRT-3963
. f~~) ;
'~# '
~
l' (Proceedings resumed at l'1:30 a.m.)
A L2 JUDGE-KELLEY:
We'll go'bagk on the record.
I 3
regret this.long delay, Mr. Olson.
It's just we had.to do.
l.
'4 We'll pick up'where we were.
5-EXAMINATION BY THE ~ BOARD - (Continued) 6 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
7 Q
Mr. Olson,'if we'can resume, would you look at NRR 8
~ test 133 which is, I hope, before you.
l 9
Are you looking at the strip chart-at the moment?
i 10
~A Yes.
11 Q
We might.begin-there.
Do you see the" note that E
12 has been added by NRR, af 'he bottom of that page?
(}
13 A
Yes.
14 Q'
Based'on the strip chart' record it appears 150 15 gallons were added.
What the log says, and the worksheet
+
16 attached to the leak rate, says 100 gallons were added.
17 Would you agree with NRR's analysis as you look at the. strip Y
18 chart?
What would 150 gallons correspond to, in terms of a
l 19 inches of makeup tank level?
i 20 A
Well, 30 gallons per inch, approximately.
It
(~
21 looks like it went up -- looks like it went up around 5 22 inches.
(-
23 Q
so is the fair to say that you don't see any basis t
24 for disagreement with NRR's conclusion here?
25 A
The strip chart shows approximately a 5-inch 1
. j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33MM6
. ~ _... _
28508.0 BRT 3964
\\/
1 increase, which would be 150 gallons.
2 0
Hight.
Looking at the strip chart, about 20 3
minutes before the leak rate test was initiated by you 4
there's a fairly large~ water addition.
Is that correct?
Do 5
you see the large upward displacement of the pen?
~
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
Why, can you imagine, towards the end of the test 8
the individual on the panel found it necessary to add water, 9
having just made a big water addition?
10 A
I don't see anything in the log that would 11 indicate a reason for adding that water.
I know that Lynn 12 Wright' testified that he added water towards the end of the
("]
13 leak rate in order to get the level up approximately where it 1
's_/
14 was at the beginning of the leak rate, and that is certainly 15 what that looks like.
16 Q
Why, if you were running the test, would 17 Mr. Wright be conscious of it and sort of manipulating the 18 test for you?
19 A
I have no idea.
I went over and -- obviously I 20 was the one that initiated the leak rate, I would assume, 21 because I signed it.
22 Q
Yes.
At any rate you took it off the computer, 23 apparently.
24 l A
Yes.
But other than that explanation, I don't 25 l know.
(Z) i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
\\
wn,,
28508.0 BRT 3965
,~3 I
1 Q
Well, we were trying to get your help here.
You
~
2 are more familiar with these log entries than we are.
In 3
some cases they are hieroglyphics to me because I don't know 4
what all the acronyms stand for.
But you don't see any.
5 blowing down of the pressurizer, for example, which we'll 6
probably come to after a while?
7 A
No.
I don't see that indicated in the log at the 8
time that that was going on.
9 Q
It is very strange to my eye, since the procedure 10 unequivocally says " Don't add water unless it's necessary,"
11 this kind of arbitrary and capricious adding 100 gallons 12 right towards the end of the test?
'T 13 A
Again, at that time we were under the impression (G
14 that adding water during a leak rate didn't necessarily mean 15 that the leak rate was invalid, as long as you took credit 16 for what you did.
17 Q
Yes.
I think vus talked about this before.
But 18 didn't the procedure say " don't add water"?
19 A
It says avoid adding water.
20 Q
In this case procedure was second guessed, is the 21 '
best I can put it?
22 A
I don't believe it was a general prac'._ e to have 23 the procedure in hand every time you did a leak rate, 24 either.
It seemed to be such a routine task to just walk
-i 25 over there and enter it on the computer, and not go get the
(_J I
li ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1
.x mm.,
~ _ m <_.
28508.0 BRT 3966 i"\\
l' procedure every time you had to do a leak rate.
2 Q
Wel-1, at any rate, this-is a case where water was 3
added.
It apparently produced an error in t'he test in that 4
apparently 150 gallons were added and only 100 gallons was 5
accounted for.
Is 50 gallons significant?
6 A
50 gallons, I guess, could make a big difference 7
in the leak rate.
8 Q
Do you know how much of a difference it could 9
make?
10 A
50 gallons over an hour, that's almost a half a 11 gallon a minute.
12 Q
Isn't it closer to 1 than.it is to a half?
(~N 13 A
Well -- yes.
It is.
%-]
14 Q
And the tech spec limit is --
15 A
1.
16 Q
1.
So that 50 gallons is a nonnegligible error; 17 isn't that true?
18 A
Yes.
I would say.
19 Generally I believe at the end -- if I was the one 20 conducting the leak rate, and the leak rate was about over, I 21 would ask, you know, did anybody do anything, add any water, 22 l take any water out?
I wouldn't necessarily go over and look l
23 at the log and say, did you add any water, or did you remove 24 any water?
Did you add water?
Yes.
Ilow much?
And I'd add t-25 l that.
But I never went over and questioned it as far as (v~h ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm.m
~ _. r_.
8-m
. ~. - - - - -
- - - - -. - - ~ - - -.
28508.0 BRT 3967 O
I' ') '
1 looking at the logbook or looking at the level recorder.
2 "Yes,.I added 100 gallons."
All right:
100 gallons.
And I 3
never went over and compared them.
4 Q
I believe earlier you testified that there might 5
have been occasions when you would have added the water, even 6
though your job was to run the leak rate and do the other 7
surveillances.
We can't conclude that every water addition 8
was always made by the operator-who had the panel.
9 A
I don't know if anybody could say that:
I 10 specifically added this water at this time.
The capability 11 existed for anybody to add water.
12 Q
Yes.
But didn't adding water change the plant 13 condition?
Change the boron concentration?
14 A
Not necessarily.
It could, but,' depending on what 15 you were trying to do, whether you added demin water, that 16 could change the concentration.
But if you were trying to 17 keep the same concentration you might add a little bit of 18 demin water, you might add a little bit of bleed tank water, 19 or you might add a little bit of boric acid itself.
20 Q
But would the individual assigned to the 21 l surveillances normally do that?
I 22 '
A Not normally; no.
It would generally be the guy 23 on the control boards.
24 ;
JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you.
I 25 l BY JUDGE KELLEY:
(2) l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202.147-37H)
Nationwide Cmcrage
$43%NM
l 20508.0 BRT 3968
. (~')
1 Q
I wanted to interject a couple of questions.
2 Duilding on, a few questions back with Judge Carpenter, he J
was asking you:
Well, why add water?
Here you had a 4
procedure that said avoid adding water if you could during 5
leak rate tests.
And you responded, I think, in substance:
6 Well, it didn't prohibit you from adding water.
It just said 7
" avoid."
So as long as you took account of the gallonage in 8
the test computation, then that was okay.
9 Dut, what strikes me about the series of tests run 10 by shift D, in a fairly close time period, is the fact that 11 the shift, including, I assume, yourself, Wright and Coleman, 12 consistently added water right toward the end of the test.
13 That to me is different than if there had been 14 some random water additions and every so often some water 15 sloshed over into a leak rate test.
But it seems to me that 16 your shift made a point of it, went out of its way to do 17 exactly that.
And it is illustrated, I think, by table 10.
18 If you'll take a look at table 10, the NRR study.
19 A
Where would I find that at?
20 Q
It's the first of the test volumes, the tables are 21 up front.
The pages aren't numbered but it's about 10 or so I,
22 pages in.
The table numbers are numbered at the top.
Table 23 10 is the one I have in mind.
i 24 l MR. VOIGT:
The document is now before the 25 i witness.
O l
I ACE-FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC.
n w.n.,
~ ~ - -
-n-
28508.0 BRT 3969
(#')
~
1 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
2 Q
What I' wanted you to look at, Mr. Olson, toward 3
the bottom, the NRC Staff study breaks out different tests 4
and test numbers by characteristics that they see pertaining 5~
to the test.
The left column, for example, labeled "no 6
apparent problem."
They reviewed those tests and they looked 7
okay.
8 There is a category in the third column toward the 9
bottom, the category is " water additions only partially 10 included."
11 I understand that to mean, and I think the record 12 will show that that means the situation where you, for
(~T 13 example, put in 100 gallons through the batch controller and L) 14 at the end of the test you tell the computer you put the 10 15 gallons in.
But for some reason, the strip chart level 16 indicator goes up to, let's say, 130 or 140.
The phenomenon 17 we have been looking at.
So that, assuming that the two l
18 level transmitters are working and they are agreeing with 19 each other pretty much, the computer gets told 130 or 140 20 gallons and you only subtract 100, so there's an extra 40 21 there that would throw off the leak rate calculation by a 22 lit tle more than half'a gallon.
23 lj That is what that means.
24 This is simply a categorization.
It does not i
25 l include a conclusion, one way or the other, ae I understand CZ) i l
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
20.t.147 3700 Nationwide Cmcrare mk33M446
28508.0 BRT 3970
/
\\
('l 1
it, whether in each of these cases or all of these cases that 2 -
was deliberate.
It is just the fact that the water was put 3
in and had that effect.
4-Now, what I would ask you to look at, though, is 5
that listing in table 10.
Put aside, for the moment, 93, 6
which is another example.
7 Start with 122.
Do you see test 122?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
It says, " shift D.
" It says "13 minutes," meaning 10 13 minutes before the end of the test.
And if you. read down 11 the road there and you get shift D, in every single one of 12 those tests down to 146, and the water is added anywhere from 13 17 a t the longest interval before the end, to 2 minutes 14 before the end, two, three, four, five, fairly typical 15 entries.
16 I believe when you look at the corresponding 17 records for these tests you find that that chart accurately 18 reflects what they show and I'd be happy to hear if that's 19 not so.
But, in any case, assuming that that's a fair 20 categorization in table 10, that is what jumps out at me.
21 I find it hard to escape the conclusion that shif t 22 D,
for whatever reason, is putting water in toward the end of 23 l the leak rate test on purpose.
For some intended purpose.
i 24 j It's hard for me to believe that's random.
Do you see my I
25 point?
Is there an explanation for that other than the one I CZ) i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2te nMw Nanonode rowrage N n puw,
28508.0
-BRT 3971 mi)
I suggested, that it was deliberately done toward the end of 2
the test?
3 A
I don't know.
As I stated earlier I'm aware of 4
the fact that Mr. Coleman said -that he was adding water.
I'm 5
aware of the fact that Mr. Wright said that he was adding 6
water.
To affect the leak rate.
7 Q
I believe -- it is always a little tricky 8
characterizing what other people said when they have been 9
talking for several hours
- but I think it's fair to say 10 that Coleman said that he added water for the purpose of 11 affecting the leak rate and to get a good leak rate, " good" 12 meaning under 1 gallon a minute.
Wright did not testify to
~T 13 the same effect, as far as I can recall.
He said:
- Yes, (J
14 sometimes he would bring the level back up because he thought 15 that that, I think, in his view was a more accurate way of' 16 running the test.
17 A
Right.
.18 Q
But he did not-concede or admit or-testify that he 19 q was manipulating the tes t result.
20 A
That's what I meant.
I didn't mean to say that he 21 was manipulating.
22 Q
Well, the distinction is rather important in this l
23 i case.
There are two people saying rattar different things.
24 What I'm Jooking at here is shift D.
We can go through and 4
25,
parse out exactly what you did on each of these tests.
In
(^/T s_
r I
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m,..,
s - r-m.._-_._
,. -. ~. - - - -
- - - - - ~
28508.0-BRT 3972 b'
I some of them I take it you are on the panel.
In some you are 2
the operator.
3 When the NRR people, the analysts that put 4
together'the table totaled it up and made these tables, they 5
would frequently count whether you were one or the other as 6
the same thing.
They wouldn't break that out.
7 But I assume that we would find in some of those 8
cases that you signed as operator and we see some of those.
9 In some of them you were on the panel; is that correct?
10 A
Probably.
11 Q
We can check that out, too.
12 A
I would have to 40 back and look.
Go back and 13 look.
14 Q
But if we have seen a pattern in this case it's 15 that part of table 10 at the bottom of the page.
I just 16 can't understand how that can be anything other than 17 deliberate in terms of adding water at the end of the test.
18 A
All I can say is I did not generally do anything 19 to affect the outcome of the leak rate.
20 Q
But did you essentially add water toward the end i
21 l of leak rate tests?
22 A
If I felt there was a reason for the water to be 23 added.
I don't think the fact that the leak rate was in 24 progress, and I felt that I had to add water, I don't think 25 f that thal would stop me from adding it.
O i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m m..,
s_ _,
~~
-28508.0 BRT 3973
(~'N 1
Q Give me an example of a reason why you would add 2
water.
3 A
If there was a boron equalization process going on 4
and rods got down to the lower end of the band.
5 Q
Okay.
I recall, in the case of test 137, I 6
believe, you had a discussion with the NRR investigators and, 7
.at least in the case of that test, they were able to 8
establish in the interview that there wasn't any boron 9
problem at that time.
10 A
Well, if I remember correctly, they looked at the 11 beginning of the shift log and the end of the shift log, 12 which tells you the rod positions.
O(~h
.13 Q
Okay.
14 A
That doesn't mean the rods haven't moved between 15 this eight-hour period from here to here.
d 16 Q
I'd have to get the interview out.
Did you point 17 that out at the time?
18 A
I don't know whether I did or not.
I don't 19 recall.
20 Q
We can go and look at some point.
Maybe over 21 lunch we can take a look.
It's along about page 95 or 100 in 22 !
the NHR interview.
Let 's not do it now but maybe over lunch 23 j we could look at it.
I 24 i Going over these records, if I'm to determine 25 l whether a water addition might have been necessary for boron l
(~)N
\\-
I i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
t yn,
~ _ + c-
i 28508.0 BRT~
3974 t
1 1
concentration purposes, can I tell that in any way other.than
}
2
- the logs that accompany the strip chart?
Wiiat do I look for?
o 3
A I don't know.
There isn't -- looking through the-4 leak rates that I've looked through, I have onlyfseen on~e, I i'
5 think, that either it.was in the log or it was on the leak 6
rate, that specifically states that " equalizing boron 7
concentration."
It looks like, according to the log, that.it 8
was going on during the_ leak rate.
Which would change the 9
boron concentration, which would change the rod-position.
10 Q
But that s'hould be reflected in the log?
~
11 A
Yes.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
All rignt.
i {}
13 (Discussion off the record.)
14 JUDGE KELLEY:
I just want to finish up this line 15 of questions here.
I can do it briefly.
16 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
17 Q
In the case of-where you had to add water to 18 change the boron concentration, was that normally.something 19 that an operator could foresee some time in advance?
4 20 I'll put it to you differently.
You are going to 21 l run a leak rate test; all right?
And let's say you don't I
22 want water to be added during the hour, following the 4
i j
23 precaution in the procedure.
So you say to the guy on the l
24 panel llow does it look for running a leak rate in the next I
i 25 j hour?
Is your boron okay?
He says:
Fine.
(2) 4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 N.stionwide roserage 80lL33M486
28508.0 BRT 3975 k/
1 Then vould you think you could assume you wouldn't 2
have a boron addition for an hour?
3 A
Well, I would probably ask him:
Do you have 4
sufficient water in the makeup tank where you don't have to 5-add it?
6 Q
Well, either way.
My point is you are sort of 7
clearing the deck for a leak rate test and are you aware that 8
you would want to avoid, if you could, adding water during 9
the test?
10 A
I would say that it should have been avoided.
11 Obviously, it wasn't avoided.
12 Q
Was it avoidable, if you asked the question,
/~T 13 looked at the right instrument, as a general matter?
U 14 A
I don't know.
15 Q
Well --
l' 16 A
If the makeup tank level was all right, and the 17 rods are somewhere in the middle of the band, I would assume 18 that you would have sufficient time to be able to run a leak 19 rate.
20 0
The rods move in a certain band; right?
21 A
Right.
22 Q
The ider is to keep the rods in the band; right?
23 '
A Yes.
24 Q
Can you give me some idea of the time factor 25 involved in terms of the rods beginning too move out of the (1)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm,
~ _ m < -,,
mm _
N
' 28508.0' BRT 3976
~
~
1 band or towards the edge of'the band? -How much' time do you
-2 normally have in order.to add water, change the boron 3
concentration, and move the rods.back towards the middle of' 4
the' band where you want them?
i 5
A I don't really have a feel for that anymore.
6 Q
I'll put it to you differently.
It is now three 7
minutes until the end of the leak r~ ate test.
You are the 8
surveillance guy.
It's your test.
The operator says:
- Well, 9
the rods are moving out of the band.
I had better' change the 10 boron concentration by adding water into your makeup tank.
11 Can't you say to him:
Just wait three more i
12 minutes until I finish this test?
13 A
I don't believe that adding water into the makeup-(}
14 tank, and then getting it into the RCS, I don't think you are 4
15 going to see an effect in three minutes anyhow.
16 Q
Well, how much of a hurry is he in?
That's what i
1 17 I'm after.
Ilow essential is it to add water to affect boron i
18 before the end of a leak rate test?
~19 A
I would say it is not.
If it's three minutes I
20 before the end of.the test,-he could probably wait.
21 Q
That's really what I'm trying to ask.
Maybe I'm 22 asking the question in a clumsy manner.
1 23 But looking at these water additions towards the 24 end where there are three, four, five minutes, couldn't'the 25 water addition have waited five more minutes?
Is that what I O
d ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4 m-
~ m _ m c _,,
20508.0 BRT 3977 I i 1
hear you say?
2 A
Yes.
Unless he just totally forgot that leak rate 3
was in progress, which is --
4 Q
I'm assuming that the person knows.
5 A
Well --
6 Q-Okay.
7 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
8 Q
Mr. Olson, we would like to continue to learn.
If 9
you turn to leak rate test 137.
10 A
Okay.
11 Q
As I look at the log which follows the computer 12 printout pages, the following page, the top of page dated the
(~')
13 3rd of March, 1979, it says "D.
Olson"; do you see that?
U 14 A
Yes.
15 Q
Look down the page, NRR has added some writing on 16 the left-hand side.
17 First of all, at 0230 -- is this your handwriting, 18
. incidentally, we are_looking at here?
19 A
Yes, it is.
20 Q
You say you added 250 gallons of DI water, I i
21 l assume that's deionized water?
22 !
A Right.
23 Q
And 240 gallons of RCBT "A."
24 l What does RCBT "A" mean?
25 A
That's reactor coolant bleed tank A.
n
\\>
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 N ationwide Cowrare NV).146 NW.
-28508.0 BRT 3978
(~%
i
'/
1
'Q So that's basically water with a nominal boron 2
concentration?
3 A
Generally it's water that has been processed that 4
does have some boric acid in it.
It is not totally 5
demineralized water.
6 Q
Processed in what way?
7 A
Through the evaporators, and then reclaimed into 8
the bleed tank to be able to reuse again.
It was good enough 9
to put back into the reactor coolant system.
10 Q
You say it had gone through the evaporators.
Do 11 you mean it was distilled?
12 A
Concentrators, yes.
13 0
Is this the distill late?
Or the --
(")T
\\
14 A
Yes.
15 Q
-- or the bottoms?
16 A
The distillate.
17 Q
Distillate.
Why would it have any boron in it?
18 Is boron that volatile?
19 A
Decause they never really did get it all out.
20 Q
Why the mixture of 250 gallons of one kind of 21 water and 240 gallona of another kind of water?
22 l A
Generally the reactor coolant bleed tank had some i
23 j low concentration of boric acid in it; anywhere from, i
24 !
probably 30 to 50 ppm.
It might have been higher than that.
25 But if you blend it like that, you can generally O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2dM47 37L38 Nat h)f1 Wide rou rage -
8(n336 ft.46 1.
28508.0 i
BRT 3979 r^x
(_'l 1
try to keep the concentration in the reactor coolant system 2
the same or you might even be trying to increase it, just a 3
few Pp.m.,
otherwise why.would you add water with any boric 4
acid in it at all.
5 Q
That's what I was trying to get a feel for.
6 Well, turning to the addition that occurred, 7
according to log here, at 0335, and then the log shows 0336 8
that the leak rate tes t had been completed, so, according to 9
the log it is within a minute of the end of the test.
10 According to NRR analysis of the strip chart record it is 11 three minutes.
We are uncertain whether it was one minute or 12 three minutes.
But in this case you were adding water to the
~
13 makeup tank from the reactor coolant -- what's RCBT again?
14 A
Reactor coolant bleed tank.
15 Q
Bleed tank.
16 Would that be a case where you were trying to 17 reduce the boron concentration, rather than just increase the 18 makeup tank level?
19 A
I don't know.
I can't really -- tell.
20 Q
Well, when you were talking to Judge Kelley you 21 said one of the reasons you might add water is to change the 22 boron concentration.
23 If this addition at 0335 is for that purpose, 24 I isn't it more probable that it would have been domineralized 25 water?
Rather than --
(~)
s_,
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202447-37m Nationwide Costrage N 43Wf6M
-28508.0 BRT 3980 r~x
-l
)
1 A
That looks like it was 150 gallons, again,,from 2
the A reactor coolant bleed tank, which would indicate that 3
you were possible trying to increase the boron slightly to 4
get the rods to come out.
5 Q
But if the concentration in that water is only, 6
say 30, 40 ppm, and you are adding 250 gallons, 30 to 40 ppm 7
water to --
8 A
It is not going to have any great effect.
You 9
know, it isn't going to move the rods 5 percent, I doubt.
I 10 don't have a feel for that anymore.
11 Q
At the time did you have a pretty good feel for 12 what was going to happen if you added some amount of water
/~l 13 with some low level of boron in it?
%-)
14 A
I would like to think I did.
15 Q
Is there anyplace, a record of rod position?
Does 16 computer logging automatically log rod position periodically?
17 A
It would be on the daily logs.
But there wasn't 18 any -- it wasn't logged at any specific time.
19 Q
I meant some automatic logging.
20 A
I don't know whether that was on the computer or 21 not.
22 Q
And you don't know that it was not?
23 A
I don't know that it was not.
But I believe this 24 is the one tha t I had referred to earlier, that I didn't 25 necessarily agree with -- their analysis of this strip chart.
U, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3No Nationwide Cmcrage 8410-336 M4
28508.0 BRT 3981
(-
/
1 Q
Would you refresh my memory about your different 2
interpretation?
3 A
I believe-that this is the one that I am in the 4
logbook, and I am also the one that signed the leak rate, 5
which means I was probably the one that~ ripped it off.
6 Q
Right.
7 A-Okay?
Going through the log, according to the 8
sheet from the computer, it said that the leak rate started 9
at 2:38.
Looking over here, I added --
lu Q
When you say "here," where are you pointing to for 11 the record?
'12 A
On the copy from the logbook --
/T 13 Q
Yes.
L) 14 A
-- it says at 2:30 there was 490 gallons of water 15 added.
And at 2:35 there was 150.
16 But if you look back at 2330, it also says there 17 was 450 gallons of water added.
18 Dut when you look at the strip chart recorder, 19 where is it?
20 A
Where is what?
21 Q
Where is the 450 gallons that was added at 2330?
22 And the way I look at this -- or the way I would interpret 23 this is where they have the leak rate marked here, I wouldn't 24 say that that was 2:30.
It looks to me like that was 25 probably the 450 gallons that was added at 2330, and about C) i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 34?.37(u)
Nationwide Cinerage ghk } tMM6
28508.0 BRT 3982 1
2-1/2 hours down from that there are two more big increases 2
and that looks like 490 gallons, or very close thereto.
3 So, I cannot agree with their analysis of this 4
thing at all.
5 Q
Looking at the vertical line in the strip chart 6
that NRR drew to mark the end of the test, it is labeled 7
03 --
8 A
0338.
9 Q
0338.
Looking at the nominal strip chart time 10 that's preprinted on the bottom of the strip chart, what's 11 the disagreement between entry and the nominal strip chart 12 time?
/~N.
13 A
Probably about 15 minutes, it looks like.
That V
14 looks like it's about there.
15 Q
That looks like that to my eye, it doesn't look 16 like the discrepancy is more than a couple of minutes.' There 17 are many times when there are large discrepancies but in this 18 particular case it doesn't look like it is very big.
19 Isn't that vertical line immediately to the left 20 of it, at 0330 --
21 A
Yes.
22 Q
You look at the interval, the line to the left and 23 the line to the right, the line to the left corresponding to i
l 24 l 0345; isn't that right?
l 25 !
A Yes.
o
\\_J ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coscrage fun 33MM6
28508.0 BRT 3983 1
Q So it's perhaps not off by more than a minute.
2 Turning to your point about the addition at 3:30, 3
I believe that appears on a previous strip chart -- no, it 4
doesn't.
I'm sorry.
5 A
This looks a little different from the one I 6
looked at this morning, I think.
This line was extended on 7
over here and I didn't see any big increases there.
That's 0
why I questioned it.
9 Q
You have lost me.
Where would 2330 appear on this 10 strip chart, for test 137?
11 A
It would be two lines over from what says 12:00 12 midnight.
("S 13 Q
Right.
L) 14 A
And there's no line there.
15 0
That's correct.
So apparently it's on the 16
' previous strip chart?
17 A
Apparently.
18 Q
Previous piece of the strip chart.
3 19 A
But what I looked at this morning, which was a 20 g copy of this, I believe that the strip chart indicated all 21 the way across the paper and I didn't see any 450-gallon 22 increase.
23 l Q
I doubt that we are going to finish before 24 lunchtime.
Maybe you -- and I,
certainly, over the lunch l
i 25 break -- will try to look at the Stier report and see whether l O l
l I
t ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage RXh336-6646
28508.0 BRT 3984 i
s i
/
1 the strip chart corresponds.
Let's keep looking at the tests 2
and we'll come back to this one.
3 A
Another thing I don't understand is the logbook 4
entry has the leak rate as being completed SAT at 3:36, when 5
the computer printout says 3:38.
Unless that's just what 6
time my watch had on it, and that's what time I logged it.
7 Q
Well, is that improbable?
8 A
No, it isn't improbable.
9 Q
How closely did you keep your watch?
Do you 10 recall what your habit was?
11 A
It was battery operated and I never adjusted it.
12 Q
If it got off by 2 minutes were you uncomfortable?
/ "'s 13 A
No.
Normally, I don't know if there was any --
U/
14 between the watch and the clock that was on the wall and the 15 computer, I don't know how much they agreed by.
I normally 16 logged things, I look at my watch, write it down.
17 So, you know, it's feasible for it to be that 18 way.
If I logged a water addition at 3:35, that might have 19 ll been what my watch said.
20 Q
Don't you think it's significant that you logged l
21 (
the completion of the leak rate test after you logged the 22 I water addition?
The issue whether the test was over at 3:38 23 l or 3:36 is certainly uncertain, since we can't retrieve your 3
24[
watch --
25 !
A That's true.
f'>%
1 l
Q ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3WW)
N ationwide Cmerage 6'm 3 36-(646
28508.0 BRT 3985 t
(q#
1 Q
-- in its condition as it was then.
2 A
But he might have said the leak rate is done at 3
SAT, and I logged it.
4 Q
.Is this a case where you did the leak rate test 5
and you had the board, as I recall?
6 A
Let's say it indicates that I was probably the one 7
that went over and tore the sheet off the computer.
8 Generally, the guy that' was on the log isn't the 9
one that did the leak rate.
10 Q
I understand.
11 A
But, obviously I signed it.
I didn't have any 12 problem with signing leak rate.
Maybe the other guy was busy
('T 13 and I walked over and tore it off, it was less than 1 and I V
14 signed it.
15 Q
Looking at the log, how is it that you add the 16 water at 3:35, and you enter the leak rates " satisfactory" 17 and write down a four-digit " unusual" and so on, one minute 18 later.
19 A
Because I-might have considered the leak rate as 20 being done, technically, not having the sheet signed by the 21 guy that ran the board, shift foreman, if it's done, it's 22 less'than 1, I might have went ahead and logged it.
In the 23 process I might have thought the leak rate was over and added 24 l the water, too.
25 Q
That's what I'm puzzling about.
When the leak
(~h s_;
i l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3 XO Nationwide Cos erage RG33MM6
28508.0 BRT 3986 7m
\\]
1 rate is over the computer begins to type questions that 2
somebody has to answer so it can proceed.
3 Will it proceed if somebody doesn't answer a 4
question?
5~
A No.
6 Q
So clearly somebody has to be physically at the 7
computer.
8 A
Somebody has to go in and put the information in.
9 Q
I'm having trouble visualizing you being two-10 places at the same time.
There's only a minute difference.
11 How long did it take for the computer and you to have this 12 dialogue?
There were four questions that it asked you?
('\\
13 A
Not very long at all.
Probably less than a half a V
14 minute.
The way it looks to me is it was logged in 15 accordance, probably, with my watch and not in accordance 16 with what the computer said.
17 Q
I'm not questioning that.
18 A
And if I had gone over there and input the 19 information, in the process of it printing out its 20 information, finalizing it, I might have walked over and 21 added 150 gallons.
Then, when it got down I might have 22 walked over, ripped it off, said, it's less than 1, sign it 23 and log it.
24 l Q
This is unusual in that you are both the panel 25 operator and the signer of the test.
<~s
(
i l
\\/
i l
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 447 4700 Nationide Cos erage 8004%6M6
28508.0 BRT 3987
(
s.
1 A
Yes.
2 Q.
The time here is very short, between the two 3
entries.
- s 4
A I probably signed leak rates when I wasn't even on 5
shift.
If'I happened to be there and it was done, tore it 6
off, it was less than 1, I didn't have any problem with 7
signing it.
8 I can't specifically say:
Yes,'I did this.
But 4
9 it is a distinct possibility.
10 Q
Well, as a licensed operator,-I'm surprised that
.11 you weren't more careful about which pieces of paper you put 12 your signature on.
~
13 A
.Obviously, I' am-too.
I; don't enjoy being here any-
{ }[
14 more than anybody else does.
Had I realized this all back then I probably woul'n't have done any.of this stuff.
d 15 j
16 Q
.Well, we'll come back to 137 after we have.a 17.
chance to che'ck the Stier report.
i 18 Looking at test 139.
Looking at the note NRR 19 added on the' bottom of the strip chart concerning water l
20' addition, do you agree that the note accurately reflects what j'
- 21 is shown-on the strip chart?
22 A
Which one are we looking at?
23
-Q 139.
24 A
I mean --
25 Q
-Well, the note says 'there's 100 gallons, and 210
- -()-
f I
L ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage SM3346M6
+
.-, ---- -,-.-,+--, - -.. -.
--.. ~.. -
'28508.0 BRT 3988 1
gallons, Were added.
Do you agree that's what the strip 2
chart shows?
i 3
A It looks like 210 is pretty close.
But it looks 4
like, the one for 100 looks like it may only be about 50.
5 Q
I will agree with you, the strip chart record 6
swings below the eyeball'line and then swings above it.
I t-7
'is pretty uncertain a's to where to begin counting from.
I 8
would certainly. agree with you, it is a small bump -- it only 9
amounts to three divisions, or perhaps 2-1/2.
10 You are identified as running a test and 11 Mr. Wright has the control panel.
Do you know'where he got f
12 the idea that'120 gallons were added?
It doesn't seem to fit
}
13 either one of these increases.
1 14 A
I would have:to say that I asked him how much 1
15 water he added and he said.128 gallons and that's what I-16 put.
17 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
i
-18 Q
Shouldn't there normally-be a form for these water 19 additions?
Sometimes you filled them out, I believe.
20 A
Yes.
There was that form DS-4.
21 Q
Form 4.
Yes.
You filled out a number of those.
22 A
I found them in some of those.
In others I don't
+
23 have it.
24 Q
When it comes out-with a precise number like.128, i
25 is that likely that a batch controller was used and the dial I
C)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coscrage 80tk336-646
. _. =., _ -,_.
28508.0 BRT 3909
/g
\\
)
'~'
I simply gave you exactly that much?
2 A
Yes.
3 Q
You'd read it right off --
4 A
I don't think you could read 128 gallons off the S
strip chart.
6 Q
I don't either.
7 A
It's very logical that that is what he added and 8
that's what it indicated on the batch controller.
9 Q
Which does have a precise demarcation.
10 A
Yes.
11 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
12 Q
Well, Mr. Olson, what I'm trying to understand is
/~T 13 whether this misinformation in the computer should be
\\s' 14 ascribed to you or to Mr. Wright?
15 A
I don't know.
I tried to generally ask, you 16 know:
Have you done any' thing to change this thing?
But I 17 can't honestly say that I went over and looked at the strip 18 chart recorder or the log.
19 Q
I understand.
I understand.
20 A
I took him at his word.
If he said he added 128 21 gallons, that's what I entered.
22 l Q
Uut the evidence is what, apparently, you typed 23 i into the computer because you signed it, and it doesn't 24 l correspond, apparently, with what happened.
It doesn't-25,
correspond with what Mr. Wright wrote in the log.
<~n l
\\_/
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cme age W336-fM6
28508.0.
1 BRT 3990 1
A He wrote in the log 128 gallons.
think 'he conflict is between the log t
2 Q
Yes.
But I l
3
-- the~1og confirms what you typed, as I read a mon.ent ago, 4
it says "128 gallons at 0410," so I don't see any problem 5
with what you typed in on the leak rate. test and what'Mr.
d 6
Wright entered in the l'og.
The problem comes from what the 7
strip chart record shows was actually occurring in the 8
control room.
9 Is that more something Mr. Wright did or something 10
.that you did?
Or can we tell?
11 A
I don't know that you can tell.
.I would say that 12 I asked-him what he added and that's what I entered in'the-13 computer.
14 Q
I think that's clear.
But the point of this test, 15 point of looking-at this test, is this disagreement between 16-both the log and the computer and the strip chart record.
17 That's -the point of the discrepancy.
-18 A
I don't know how to explain it.
19 Q
Is there any question -- should we have any doubt 20 that the water actually was added?
21 A
No.
It -looks like water as added.
22
-Q In two increments?
l 23 !
A It looks like water was added.
24 Q
Is there any other -- I think your jargon-is 25 evolution -- which could cause the strip chart to go up, O
4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage RXh336-fM6
-, _,,. - _ _ =.
128508.0 BRT 3991
( "')
\\
/
1 other than adding water?
2 A
None that I knew of at that time.
3 Q
Well, in particular, it would go up six or seven 4
divisions very rapidly, as the second jump?
5 A
No.
Not other than adding water.
6 Q
So it's reasonably certain that this does 7
represent a water addition?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
And, apparently, Mr. Wright incorrectly entered 10 into the log and then you incorrectly entered it in the 11 computer?
12 A
That is a possibility.
(')i 13 Q
What are the alternatives?
14 A
All I can say is I entered what he told me.
15 Q
We accept'that.
16 A
Well, I can't clarify it any more than that.
17 Q
You said there are other possibilities, you see.
18' In my mind it suggests that Mr. Wright didn't remember how 19 much water he added.
I'm asking you, are there other things 20 that I should think about?
Are there other possibilities?
21 A
I can't think of any at the moment.
22 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Why don't we pause here and have 23 some lunch.
If you would, take a look at test 137 over I
24 lunchtime.
We'll get back to it.
l 25 JUDGE KELLEY:
Until 1:30.
I')
l
\\-)
l I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80lk33MM6
28508.0 BRT A992 o
1-(Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m.,
the hearing was 4
2 recessed, to be reconvened at 1:30 p.m.
This same day.)
j 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 O
l 14 15 16 17 1
18 i
19 l
l 20,
l 21 22 23 f 24 l
25 O
i r
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347-3700 Naricnwide Cmcrage 80tk336-6M6
.... ~.........
W._
f 28508.0
~ BRT 3993 1
AFTERNOON SESSION (1:30 p.m.)
2
. Whereupon, 3
DENNIS I.
OLSON 4-resumed the stand and, having been previously duly sworn, was 5
examined and testified further as follows:
6 MR. GEPHART:
Judge Kelley, may I explain 7
something on a question that arose this morning.
8 lir. Olson testified relative to test, NRR test 9
137, that I disagreed with the analysis of the NRC on that 10 particular chart'.
I believe Judge Carpenter, basically, 11 asked him if he had expressed that in his NRC interview in 12 New Orleans in November, I.believe, of 1984.
13 During the lunch break we had an opportunity to
- {}.
14
~ review that transcript-and also the packet of materials that-l 15 he was presented with in New Orleans, including that strip
~
16 chart.
The strip chart he was shown in New Orlea: s is the 17-identical strip chart that you have in front of you, test
~
l 18 137.
19 The issue that arose this morning in the hearing e
i 20 when we. looked at some strip charts and we were reviewing 21 Stier strip chart 21, which is the same strip chart, the log 22 indicates a 490-gallon addition which is reflected on both 23 strip charts just prior to the test.
The log also indicates 24 an addition of 450 gallons at, I believe, 2330.
On the Stier 25 chart that he looked at this morning, if you look at Stier O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 Nationwide Cos erage Sm3364646
.._._... _ ___.._..,_._, _3700. _, _... _. _ _ _ _ _.,. _,
28508.0' s
BRT*
3994 1
chart 21, he questioned that because there is no indication 2-that that 450' gallons was, indeed, put in at that time.
3' Indeed, there's no place on the Stier chart.that it is i
4 reflected.
That's.why the question arose.
i 5
EXAMINATION.BY THE BOARD (Continued) 6-BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
[
~7 Q
Well, Mr. Olson, how does this reflect on the time 8
period 2:00 a.m..to 4:00 a.m.,.with this leak rate test in 9
the middle of it on the third?
Is it really pertinent, what i
10-happened-just before midnight?
11 A
It looks'like the strip chart time -- let me make
~
~
12 sure-I'm on'the right one -- may not be accurate,.as to where
{~
13 they say it is at.
Maybe it is.
I don't know.
I can't
-14 tell.
15 I mean, looking at, here, where it says, 2:00_
16 a.m.,
or approximately 2:30 there, or 2:28, that looks like a 17 fairly large water addition, e
18 Then the one over a little.at 5:00 somewhere, 19-looks like a fairly large one.
20 After. reading through the. log this morning, you 21 know, I said:
Well, where is the one that was made at-2330.
i 22 You know, is this chart accurate?
Are the times that --
23 accurate?
And I didn't know.
That's the only reason that I I
24 said this morning that I didn't agree with it.
25 Reading through the testimony I had given now in i
C:)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8533M/4
.-,....-.__,m,...
.-.,_m..
-28508.0 fBRT' 3995 I.
1 New Orleans'when they had questioned me, I believe it.is 2
Russell makes.the statement-in there, that I had the J
3
. responsibility of.the desk and the responsibility for doing 4
the' leak rate.
On that particular' day.
4 5
That's not necessarily.true, either.
.I might have
~
6 been the one that went over'and took it off the computer, but 7
it was not my responsibility to do it.
8
-Q Well, this is certainly a continuing problem in my j
9 own mind, that these pieces of paper with people's' signatures 10 on them, don't remember their work.
It seems like.an unusual-11 practice.
12 My guess is that this actuating the computer and r
13 tearing the paper off were sort of routine" things that were
( }-
-14 done so the signature doesn't represent what I would call 15 normal attention to the test.
Is that a fair statement?
16 A
It is obvious that we didn't give leak rates the I
17 attention that we shoul'd have.
18 Q
It's even worse than that, you can't tell who 19 didn't give the attention on any particular day.
20 A
That's true.
21 Q
Well, coming back to your question about the i
22 timing here, you made reference to these. additions at 5:00, 23 or after 5:00, after the test was over, the log says 5:22, 24 '
150 gallons; 5:48, 300' gallons.
As I look at the strip chart
~
25' I believe I can see those two additions in the interval from
! O 4
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8m336-fM6
l 28508.0 BRT 3996 p.,
\\
t
'~'
1 5:00 a.m.
to 6:00 a.m.
2 A
Yes.
It looks like it.
But where is the rest of 3
the strip chart?
4 Q
Well, looking at the Xerox in the Stier report, 5
there's a funny' white area right at midnight suggesting two 6
pieces of paper were pieced together.
We can certainly look 7-into the end of the continuous record that we have, but I'm 8
trying to see how that relates to -- here is this big water 9
addition just before the leak rate test and two water 10 additions a-couple of hours afterwards.
All three of those, 11 as well as the addition that's during the leak rate, seem to 12 show the same, in this case, the same coincidence between
/
13 strip chart time and either computer or operator's wrist
~
t 14 watch time.
To a minute or so.
15 (Discussion off the record.)
16 JUDGE CARPENTER:
For all we know the fact that 17 this is blank for hours around 12:00 midnight might indicate 18 that there was a new strip chart put on at that time.
It 19 might also show why the two additions are so close to each 20 other.
21 MR. GEPHART:
But apparently there's no 450 22 gallons that went in at that point.
23 JUDGE CARPENTER:
I agree.
The thing is strange l
I 24 to me.
l 25 (Discussion off the record.)
~ (~)
s/
I f
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l
~ _ m _.
... ~ _ _
28508.0 BRT 3997 5
m
~
1 JUDGE KELLEY:
We certainly agree there's a:
1 2
question about this before-midnight entry.
We'll certainly 3
look at it.
4-There's a possibility that there was something 5
like a 30-minute difference between the strip chart time 6
prior to midnight on the 2nd, and the analysts made a t.
7 mistake.
8 MR. GEPHART:
Yes.
The only reason I brought it ~
h 9
- up was it seemed to be an issue this morning and Mr. Olson 10 couldn't figure it out this morning.
That was the only --
11 other than that, I don't think it's relevant.
v.
~
12 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Well, focusing back on the time
{
(
13 interval from midnight through the test and into early 14 morning, there-seem to be a number of water entries where the.
15 log entry and.the apparent deflection on the strip chart'are 16 very coincident.
Very little time difference.
That suggests 11 7 to me that probably the strip chart was adjusted at-
~
18 midnight.
It's very rare that the two time sca'les are 19 coincident to this degree.
j-20 JUDGE KELLEY:
In any case, those charts show what i
21 they show in the record.
Our concern would be that Mr. Olson 22 has had an opportunity to make whatever comment he wants to i
make.
I gather you did:
Correct?
j 23 12 4 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
4 25 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
(Z) l ACE-FEDERAL REPOR&RS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Coserage M43366646
d
-28508.0
-BRT
-3998 1
Q
'Take.a look at test 141, please.
Test 141, you 1
2 signed the computer printout page; Mr. Wright had the panel; 3
once again there appears to be a water addition a few minutes 4
before the end of the test.
Is that a fair statement?
I 5
A Yes.
f 6
Q If you_ read the strip chart you see the NRR 7
notation that there's a discrepancy between the log, which.
F j.
8 states 228 gallons added, and the strip chart seems to.
9 indicate 500 -- 250 added?
j 10-A
-This is so small.it's kind of hard to read.
11 Q
Yes.
12 A
It looks like a difference of about 9 inches; 13.
somewhere around there; 8 inches.
{}1 14 Q
That's the whole point.
The discrepancy which NRR i
15 offers is 22 gallons.
As I understand it, that's two-thirds 16
- of the division.
That's the issue here.
17 Do you agree with their analysis?.
i-18 A
If the divisions are approximately 30 gallons per I
19 inch.
l 20 Q
Do you have the Stier report there, test 17?
21 MS. WAGNER:
Would the witness like to borrow my c
22 copy?
23 MR. VOIGT:
Thank you.
- 24 The witness is examining the strip chart that J
25 appears on test 17 of the Stier reports.
!(E)-
1 l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage M10-336-6646
28508.0-BRT 3999 O
1
' JUDGE CARPENTER:
I beg your pardon, I was talking 2
with Judge Kelley.
I didn't hear you.
3 MR. VOIGT:
The witness is examining the strip 4
chart that appears as part of Mr. Stier's test number 17.
5 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you.
6 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
7 Q
Mr. Olson, if you look at the strip chart ~ record 8
for test 17 on the Stier report, can you read that strip 9
chart for us and tell us how many gallons were added 10-according to the strip chart?
11 A
It looks like approximately 250 gallons.
12 Q
Can you look carefully and tell me, not (G-)
13 approximately but give me your best estimate?
14 L
It'looks like the bottom one on the line before it 15 starts going up is at 65~ inches and the top is -- looks like 16 73-1/2.
So that's approximately 8-1/2 times 30.
17 Q
Yes.
18 A
Which is somewhere around 250 gallons.
19 Q
Do you think that dip in the strip chart record 20 that occurs in the previous six or seven minutes -- more J ike 21 five minutes -- before the strip chart pen begins to move 22 l vertically is real?
That downward wiggle is real?
It l
23 certainly deviates from the best-fit line that the Stier 24 analyst drew, doesn't it?
25 l A
Yes.
(1) f i
k I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-370)
Nationwide Coserage Ks%336-6M6
I 28508.0
.BRT.
4000 Which do you think is more credible?
Well, isn't 1
Q 2
the-difference between that little dip and the continuous 3
line that's drawn through the trace for the whole hour of the 4
4 order of a division?
10r of the order.of 30 gallons?
5 A
Somewhere around there.
Might.be a little mor-6 than-that.
7 Q
So isn't the whole issue whether or not that 8
little dip is real or not?
9 A
I'd have to assume it's real.
It's on the paper.
.10 Q
Well, that it truly reflects ---
11 A'
It doesn't follow --
t l'2' Q
-- the 3C-gallon change in the makeup' tank
{}
13 inventory over a period of five minutes?
14 A
It doesn't. follow the normal trend of the line.
15 Q
Do you know of any process'whereby the makeup tank 16 level can go down-30 gallons in five minutes when it'has been-4
]
17 going down at a considerably. slower rate?
l 18 A
You can change the~ letdown flow, where the letdown I
19
_ flow would normally go to the makeup tank but it can be
~
~
l 20 routed over to the bleed tank.
i 21 Q
Who would do that?'
22 A
Normally the operator that has the panel.
23 Q
Would he enter it in-the log?
24 A
I would think so.
25 g
Well, we are talking about a few minutes before O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37W Nadonwide Coserage 800-136-(M6
f 2'8508.0 BRT 4001 (N) ws:
1 4:00 a.m.
i 2
A A few minutes before 4:00 a.m.?
j' 3
Q Yes.
4 A
Okay.
5-Q Do you see that. entry in the log on page 43.--
I
~
t 6
can't read the rest of it,' dated March 8, 1979, the upper; 7
left-hand corner?
I 8
A It says, "added 228 gallons of demin water to the i
'9 makeup tank at 4:03."
10 Q
4:03.
What is the previous entry?
11-A It looks like 0055, RCS boron concentration, of i
12 1117.
4 13 Q
What does that mean?
.)
14 A
That means that was;probably a late entry in the 15 log.
That's-what the boron was at midnight when he took the 16 sample and called it up to the control room at 4:00 in.the
~17 morning.
18 Q
That doesn't represent any action on the part of 19 the operator?
20
.A
'I wouldn't think so.
21 Q
Other than the recording of an analytical' result i
22 from an earlier sample?
23 A
That was probably a phone call from the chemistry
(
-24 department on sample results.
l 25 Q
W e'l l, can we be confident from looking at this log O
i j
-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Coserage 800-3M 446
,,.. _.... ~..
28508.0
-BRT 4002
/m.
1 that in the few-minutes.before 4:00 a.m. on March 8th, the 2-operator didn't do something to make the makeup tank level go 3
down abruptly?
4 A-I don't know.
There isn't anything there.
5 Q
From your experience at the control panel, were 6
there times that you.did things.tofmake the makeup level go 7
down rapidly.and you didn't enter them in the log?
8 A
I can't -- I don't know if I specifically did or 9
not.
Generally you tended to try to log everything that you 10 did.
11 Q
So, in your mind it's indeterminate?
12 A
Yes.
I can't.tell what he was doing.
[}
13 Q
Will you turn over to test 146, which'is the last 14 one in this series.
Did you look at the strip chart, the NRR 15 note at the bottom of it, which is a summary of the NRR i
16 analysis?
1 l
17 A
Yes, I did.
18 Q
Ik) you see anything you would like to comment on?
i 19 A
It looks like about 330 gallons on.the _ strip 20 chart.
The log sheet says 305 gallons, as well as what was i
I 21-entered into the computer for the leak rate.
22 Q
What view do you think this board should take of 23 this discrepancy, which was produced by somebody on the shift 24-ignoring procedure, where it says "do not add water during l
l 25 the leak rate test," that failed to wait another, at most, 10 LO I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
(
- m, s.e_ um_,
4 28508.0 BRT 4003
,r-
\\',)
1 minutes until the leak rate test was over?
2 A'
Well, Mr. Coleman has already testified tha't he 3
did things to influence the leak rate.
Mr. Wright has 4
testified that he did things, not specifically.to influence 5
the leak rate but to try to get the makeup tank level back up 6
to where it was when the leak rate started.
7 Some of these strip charts and things show that as 8
being done.
9 All I can say what I did.
If I did the leak rate 10 I asked them:
Did you add water?
How much did you add?
11 k Then I entered that number in the computer.
12 Q
When they say that they did those things, doesn't
/~3 13 that mean that they did them when they were running the test?
U 14 A
Not necessarily.
Because wou:n they were running 15 the tests, they generally wasn't the one that added water.
16 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
17 Q
The water adder was usually the CR0 on the panel?
18 A
Generally, yes.
-19 Q
Which was sometimes you, sometimes --
20 A
We normally went through a three-day evolution.
21 One day you had the panel, the next day you might have had 22 switching and tagging and the next day you had surveillances 23 !
and logs.
We_ generally followed that same routine.
24 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
I 25 l Q
Do you think it's reasonable to ascribe some
/~N I
N-]
O I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3ht)
Nationwide Coserage R4F33M616
f 28508.0 BRT 4004
'- J 1
anomaly in the leak rate test to the shift as a group or to 2
some individual?
3 A
We generally didn't do leak rates as a group.
It 4
was go over there, type the damn thing in and wait.for it to 5
come out and th'at was it.
That was the general attitude.
6 Q
That's certainly consistent with testimony by 7
others.
8 A
We didn't do leak rates as a group.
There was a 9
normal shiftly function and that was one thing we did.
10 Q
Then you say, "In my mind, usually when I sign my 11 name on a piece of paper I'm fairly careful about what it is 12 that I'm signing."
13 A
If the leak rate come out less than 1 gallon a (N
l' 14 minute, it was considered to be a valid leak rate.
15 Q
No matter what had happened during the test?
16 A
As I said before, I did not have the technical 17 ability to go back and be able to analyze a leak rate.
And I 18 did not question my other operators as to:
why you added 19 I this water, how much did you add, take credit for it.
I 20 didn't go back and question what they did.
I 21 f JUDGE CARPENTER:
I may come back with some l
22 questions but I think I'll stop at this point.
23 l BY JUDGE BRIGilT:
24 ;
Q Mr. Olson, I just have a few odds and ends here.
25 l It might be a refreshing change from looking at strip charts,
<3 i
l
\\_/
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i
~m_ m c_,
s_
28508.0-BRT 40051 1
.anyway.
2-On page four of your prefiled testimony, right in 3
the middle of the page you were talking about adding hydrogen
.4 based on the correction of the unit's chemistry department.
5 I have heard this a time or two before.
Exactly 6
how did that work, anyhow?
7 A
I don't recall-exactly how often the chemistry 8
-department sampled the makeup tank for hydrogen
- 9.
concentration.
There was daily log sheets that came to-the
~
10 control room that were kept in a book up'there, which give 11 the results of the various samples, the. steam generators and 12
-so on.
(}
13 You would add hydrogen, if they called up-and said
15 Generally -- I don't recall ever adding hydrogen 16
'that much to the makeup tank.
[
'17 Q
So this was not an every day' occurrence?
_'l-8 A
Not as I can recall, no.
Not as far as I'm i-19 concerned.
I r
20 Q
So they had, well from.what you said before,-I-j.
i
. 2:1 don't thi.nk you implied they had an on-line sampling gauge of I.
22 some kind that gave them a continuous readout on the thing.
23 l It would be more of a shiftly. thing, then?- A daily thing?
f-l.
24 A
I don't believe so.
It was something the chemists i
25 did on some periodic basis.
I don't know how often they did O
4 l
l ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-370n Nationwide Coverage 80fL3346646 L
i 28508.0 BRT 4006 l'
1 it, whether it was daily or whatever.
2 Q
So they would actually determine the hydrogen 3
concentra tion in the water?
4 A
Yes.
5 Q
It wouldn't be the atmosphere over the tank?
6 That, by this time, must have been pure hydrogen.
7 A
It should have been pure hydrogen atmosphere in 8
there.
But it was, I guess, hydrogen concentration in the 9
water itself to give -- to absorb the oxygen.
10 Q
Well, now, you had a band of hydrogen pressure 11 that you kept to?
12 A
There was some band for makeup tank pressure.
I r~s 13 guess you could assume that's hydrogen pressure'in-tank,
\\-)
14 yes.
I don't recall what that band was.
I think it was 15 somewhere between 25 and 40 pounds, or 25 and 50 pounds; 16 somewhere around that range, I think.
17 Q
That would be overpressure?
18 A
Yes.
19 Q
Would this be on a. written order?
Would they just 20 call you up on the phone and say:
Hey, it's getting low, do 21 something about it?
22 A
Generally I believe that if they took a sample and 23 something had to be added, they would call up and say:
- Hey, 24 you've got to add hydrogen.
Or, if it's something else 25 !
you've got to add lithium hydroxide or whatever -- that
/~T
\\>
\\
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-3 47-370tl Nation wide Coverage MXb33MM6
28508.0
- BRT 4007 h
,1 wasn't a normal evolution either.
'C 2
They would_let'you know it had to be added or they s
3 would bring the chemistry sheets up an'd give them to the 4
shift supervisor or shift foreman.
Anything that was low, S
_'towards the low ends of the bad _or out of range, they would-6 circle-it, bring it to his attention, and then the shift-7 foreman might say:
Bring the hydrogen pressure up in the 8
back.
9
'I don't'think that we wen't over there as a daily-10 routine and checked the chemistry sheets.
11 Q
On page 3 of your prefiled testimony, the first 12 full paragraph, you say that you discarded _J eak rates with 13 unidentified leakage higher than 1 gallon per minute until a 14 particul'ar time and then you were' instructed to attach the 15 bad ones to a good one.
16 A
Yes.
17 Q
The bad ones would disappear, I presume.
18
.A I understand you don't have any.
19 Q
My question is who is making them disappear,. n o'w,
20 since you've abdicated that role?-
21 A
I don't know.
Once it was brought out that we 22 were noclonger to throw away bad leak rates, I do not recall 23 ever throwing a bad leak rate away.
i 24 I If we ran another one and it was a good-one, we'd 25 take the both of them and generally we would give.them to the O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Natiortwide Coverage fiXb336-6M6
- - ~ - -
28508.0 BRT 4008
,( 'l 1
shift foreman for his approval and then they would get
'~
2 attached to the shift and daily log sheets which were the 3
~ tech spec logs.
Whether or not I would attach them or 4
whether he would attach them when he reviewed all the log 5
sheets, I can't specifically say.
It might have been either 6
one.
But I know I did not throw any of them away after that 7
point.
8 Q
So if they were thrown away it would be the shift 9
foreman that did it; is that correct, to your knowledge?
10 A
I don't know that Adam threw them away after that 11 or not.
12 Q
Maybe he just threw them away to the shift
(~))
13; supervisor or something like that?
14 A
I have no idea.
I know I didn't throw them away.
15 Q
They just disappeared somewhere, because they 16 don't seem to be around?
17 A
They went somewhere.
From what I understand,.you 18 don't have them.
19 Q
That's true.
20 I would like to talk about this licensee event 21 report.
You say here you have been shown the one and, you 22 say, "Although I do not recall how I saw this document during 23 l 1978, I'm sure that the circumstances surrounding its 24 l issuance were discussed."
25 Discussed where?
What kind' of discussion?
v)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
%tionwide Coserage 800-33MM6
28508.0
-BRT 4009
~'
1 A
I don't know whether it would have been in the 2
control room or whether it would have been during a training 3
week.
But I feel pretty sure, myself, that out of this LER 4
is where the word came from, you know:
Ycu don't throw away 5
bad leak rates.
Negative leak rates are no longer any good.
6 They are not acceptable.
And I believe all that stemmed from 7
this LER.
8 I don't-recall where the specific discussion wac 9
about the LER.
I know I saw it because I initialed the i
10 sheet.
I read it again this morning.
i 11 Q
But the -- your reason for believing that you read 12 it was the checkoff sheet had your initials on it?
cT 13 A
Yes.
\\.s' 14 Q
Is that correct?
15 A
Yes.
16 Q
Well, let me just ask you one more thing.
I'm l
17 f taking a poll.
It consists of, in your training or hands-on 18 experience or talks with other CRos and shift foremen, shift 19 supervisors, with anybody up until the time of the accident:
20 In that period of time were you ever informed of'what the 21 implications of -- what the reason for running the leak rate 22 !
tests was?
The basic safety reason?
And why that maximum i
23 !
value of unidentified leakage was set at 1 gallon per minute?
I 24 {
A I believe, as far as technical specifications 25
- went, I,
as an operator, concentrated more on knowing that
/~\\D j
l i
i ACE-FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC.
-m
~ _ m_
m33-
3
\\
s 28508.0 BRT 4010
('T
\\2 1
there was a technical specification involved with a certain 4
2 component or pump or whatever, like that.
I didn't dig very 3
hard into the basis of what the reason was for the limits, 4
what it was based on.
i 5
I understand and I always have understood that t
6 tech specs are based on protecting.the general public.
But I 7
never really dug into the basis and studied them as an RO.
I 8
did that a lot more after I left'Three Mile Island and went 9
to Louisiana and got an SRO license, where you were more or 10 less required to understand tech spec, the basis, what it 11 meant and why it was there.
But as a reactor operator, no, I 12 don't think I ever really dug into it that much.
13 As I recall, when I got my license in June of
'70,
(~}
V 14 that was more or less a self-study program.
They give you 15 the boards and they give you the forms to fill out and the 16 questions to answer and the-exams.
It was generally a 17 nine-month program that you went through and it was.
18 basically:
You are on your own.
19 At the end of the time period, when you turned 20 everything in, you had had about eight oral exams, you had 21 various written exams, you had an NRC-type audit exam and 22 then it determi'ned whether or not you were ready to go up for l
23 l your license.
But it was more or less a self-study program.
24 i When I was in that, I was on shift when I was doing that and 25 I was spending the majority of the time studying and very I~'i I
t/
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37k)
Nationwide Cosciage 8(4334tM
28508.0 BRT 4011 fx
/
1 little time out performing control room functions, possibly 2
two, 2-1/2 hours a day.
The rest of the time I was in the 3
books.
But I don't ever really recall digging into technical 4
specifications bases and what's behind all the limits.
5 Concentrated more on knowing.that there was one and how to go 6
find the information if I had to.
7 Q
Can you specifically remember from your senior 8
reactor operator training, which came after the accident, 9
understanding the safety basis of the particular leak rate 10 requirement?
11 A
I think I had a whole lot better handle on it then 12 than I did when it was at Three Mile Island.
We, down there, r-13 spent a whole week on technical specifications and bases.
I (g) 14 don't recall that ever happening at "The Island."
15 Q
I understand that, in the tech spec, there is a 16 final little -- maybe it's even a footnote.
I don't really 17 know.
Which gives you some kind of a basis for, well, the 18 limit in this case.
Are you aware of that?
19 A
On the leak rates?
20 Q
Yes.
21 A
On the leakage limit?
There is a statement in the 22
" basis" section.
Right off the top of my head I really can't 23 '
recall what it says.
24 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Do we have the tech spec in 25 exhibit?
n
\\_/
l l
1 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage Wn336-6M4 I
.4
28508.0 BRT 4012
(')
1 JUDGE KELLEY:
The tech specs are in Stier, are 2
they not?
3 JUDGE BRIGHT:
I don't want you to look at it.
4 I'm trying to find out for my own information here without 5
paging through a 10-foot stack of books.
6 (Discussion off the record.)
7 JUDGE BRIGHT:
That's all I had.
Thank you, 8
Mr. Olson.
9 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
10 Q
Mr. Olson, I have a series of more or less 11 unrelated points that I want to raise with you.
12 First of all, before lunch I was asking you in
{'}
connection with th,e discussion of test 137, I referred to an 13 la intervies you had down in New Orleans, I think, with the NRR 15 people.
I made a reference to a discussion in there in 16 connection with 137, to the possible status of boron 17 concentration and rod position at the time that test was 18 run.
Over lunch I got ahold of my copy.
I think it's on 19 I page 98 of that interview, if you can take a look at'it.
20 The interview is Exhibit 14 to the OI 21 investigation.
It could be in Stier, also.
The one I'm 22 looking at happens to be in Stier 14, OI.
23 MR. GEPHART:
What page was that, Judge?
24 l JUDGE KELLEY:
98.
And I'm looking particularly 1
25 l at the portion again, line 6, where Mr. Capra says:
"And if
(~h l
%,1 l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m-xm-o-I
"" =
r"+e c
4my
28508.0 BRT 4013 I
).
1 you take a look at the shift-foreman's log - "'and so forth.
2 Are you with me?
3 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
If you could read the rest of the 5
page and maybe halfway through the next page.
The subject is 6
boron, as I understand it.
7 Going back to this morning's discussion, when we 8
worked up to this reference that we are now looking at, the 9
context, as I recall it, was we were talking about test 137 10 and generally the matter of adding water toward the end of 11 this test, apparently, and some others, too.
And we were 12.
talking about possible reasons why water might be added.
And
(~T 13 I think you suggested one might be to control boron
\\-)
14 concentrations and rod position.
So at-that point I said:
15 Well, there was this discussion in your interview.
16 We are now looking at page 98.
That's what I 17 meant.
As I read page 98, Russell and Capra are talking with 18 you and they are suggesting that, based on the log, they 19 don't see any reason why there would have been a need to 20 affect boron concentration during Litat leak rate test.
21 l Let me confess that I don't follow this entirely.
P 22 l Maybe you can help me out, explain it to me.
I 23 Capra is talking, oh, on page 90 starting at line 24 6,
he suggests taking a look at the shift foreman's log for l
25,
that time period.
And he suggests, further, that the boron l
/~N i
u l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- nun,
-- + c-
28508.0 BRT 4014 A
f 1
i' v '
1 concentration at the beginning of the watch was 1051.
Can 2
you point me to that in the log so I have this tied down.
3 Do you write in boron concentration in the shift 4
foreman's log?
Or am I looking at a different log here?
5 A
I'm trying -- that was the one on the 3rd of 6
March?
7 Q
Well, it's test 137.
It's on the 3rd of March.
8 The top of the log sheet it says, "Olson" and there's a 9
reference under the 3rd of the hour or so -- under 2300, a 10 reference to RCS boron.
I'm not sure how to read it.
11 A
I had logged the boron concentration in the log 12 that day at 0220, in the control room operators log.
g-13 Q
Let me go back up to the top, though.
At 2300
(.S
' )
14 when you checked in, it says, "RCS boron, 1051."
Correct?
15 A
That's what would have been turned over from the 16 previous shift.
17 Q
Can you tell me, it's a pretty elementary point 18 I'm sure, what does "1051" mean?
Is that parts per million 19 or what are we talking about 1051 ppm boron, 1051 --
20 Q
1051 ppm boron --
21 A
In the reactor conlant system.
22 Q
And then Capra says, looking at the same log I 23 take it, the beginning of the next watch, it's 1047.
24 So if I drop down to where Hemmila signs in, I'm l
l 25 looking for an entry about boron.
I don't see it offhand.
OO 1
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 147-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M646
28508.0 BRT 4015
(' ').
1 A
This entry up here that was made at midnight was 2
the normal, standard midnight shift entry in the log where 3
you logged the rod positions and the boron concentrations and 4
T av.
5 Q
When would it next be logged?
6 A
7-Q Yes.
8 A
Only if they called up a sample result, I would 9
assume.
Because I logged it at 0220 to be 1047.
10 Q
And that's just three hours or so into the shift?
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
I'm just confused because Capra says, at the
(~3 13 beginning of the watch it was 1047.
Can we see that to be
\\._)
14 the case from the log?
15 A
That's probably based on the reason that that was 16 the latest sample result.
17 Q
How often did you say you took these samples?
18 A
I really don't recall.
I think chemistry took a 19 daily boron sample.
20 Q
What_did they do, telephone you and tell you what 21 i it was?
i 22 l A
Yes.
23 l Q
Now, Capra, again, looking at his testimony -- not 24 j testimony, statement, page 98.
I'll quote him:
"The control 25 i groups between the beginning of your shift and end of your
(~h h
(_)
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-347-37tt) 2tC Nationwide Courage 800-336-tM6
28508.0 BRT 4016 v
r i
shift were 93 percent and 96 percent respectively."
What 2
does that mean?
3 A
That means that the controlling groups, 6 and 7, 4
were 93 percent at the beginning of the shif t when I relieved 5
the shift.
6 Q
Tell me, educate me.
I don't know what do you 7
mean by " control group." What does that mean?
8 A
When --
9 Q
93 percent of what, would be another way of 10 putting it?
11 A
93 percent withdrawn.
12 Q
The rods were withdrawn?
/7 13 A
93 percent of 100 percent, the rods were at that U
14 position.
15 Q
Okay.
16 A
I think they were 12-foot rods, so that would be 17 93 percent of 144 inches.
But the indicators read in 18 percent.
19 Q
All right.
It's the extent to which a rod is 20 withdrawn?
21 A
Yes.
22 Q
That's what that percentage is?
23 A
Yes.
24 Q
And that's pretty much -- is that close to full i
l 25 l power?
n v
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202J47 37m Nationwide Coserage 8m-3366M6
28508.0 BRT 4017 l'%
iA' 1
A It might be.
Depends on the boron concentration.
2 Q
I guess we don't need to get into that.
I'm just 3
trying to understand this boron concentration business.
4 Are those numbers in.here 93 percent?
96 5
percent?
Where would I find them?
6 A
93 percent is in the control room operator's log.
7 Q
At the top?
8
'A It's logged in at 2300, 9
Q GP 6/7, at 96?
10 A
Groups 6 and 7 at 93 percent; group 8 was at 26 11 percent, group 8 being the actual power-shaping rods where 12 you use that to control your imbalance in your flux, between (g
13 top and bottom.
And groups 1 through 5 were at 100 percent.
V 14 Q
So you've got eight different groups of rods.
15 A
Yes.
16 Q
1 through 5 -- okay.
1 through 5, all the way 17 out; 6 and 7 at 93 percent and group 8 at 26 percent?
18 A
Right.
19 Q
Is that what you would call -- I hesitate to use 20 the word -- normal configuration?
21 A
Yes.
22 Q
All right.
23 A
As I recall I think we tried to maintain somewhere 24 l between 92-1/4 to 97-1/2, somewhere around there, was the 25 4 controlling bank.
O I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 3 87-no Natiortwide Coserage NO-336-6616
l 28508.0 BRT 4018 rs k-1 Q
For which groups?
2 A
The controlling groups would be 6 and 7.
3 Q
Is that always the case?
4 A
Yes.
5 Q
I realize these may sound like stupid questions.
6 I don't really know much about that --
7 A
6 and 7 --
8 Q
What I'm'after is to understand this need to 9
borate or deborate or vice versa and I think I'm on the trail 10 of understanding that.
I hope I am.
11 A
Towards the end when all this water was being 12 added and the pressurizer relief valves were leaking into the r~
13 drain tank, they were leaking steam.
Boron stayed behind in
(.)g 14 the pressurizer.
So the boron concentration in the 15 pressurizer would tend to get higher than what's in the 16 reactor coolant system.
17 Q
Okay.
I think I have heard that.
Let me ask you 18 l this.
Pursuing this particular point, just this shift, this 19 test.
Capra is saying that at the end of the test they were 20 at 96; right?
End of the shift?
21 l A
Yes.
I 22 I Q
Where is that reflected?
23 A
That's probably reflected in the shift foreman's 24 log.
25 Q
What do you call this log, the operator's log?
n v
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
~ - + c-
- n-
. _ _. _> _. ~,.., _.
28508.0 f
.BRT 4019 O~
~
1 A
The one that'I signed is'the reactor operator's-2 log.
-3
.Q Correct.
Okay.
.4
'A.
The other one is the shift foreman's log.
5 Q
And we don't,.I think, in this study, have' the 6
shift foreman's log.
We may from; time to. time have pieces.of 7
~it, but we don't have it systematically.
What we've got is 8
the operator's log.
9 Does the operators log reflect this 96 percent rod.
10 configuration as you look at it?
11 A
No.
I 12 Q
I don't see it?
13 A
I don't see it.
I' 14 Q
And of course Mr. Capra, on page 98 that we were 15-looking at, does refer to the shift foreman's log.
-So he-i 16-apparently had a different document in front of him when he 17 was saying this; does that appear to'be the case?
l 2
18 A
He might have had this sheet here, which is part i-19' of the. shift foreman's log.
20
-Q Where is.that?
I 21 j, A
It's right prior to the strip chart for test 137, 22 I guess its is, f
23 MR. GEPHART:
That's in Stier?
j 24 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
25 Q
I have a sheet, looks like it's got a few inches
' O l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2fC Nationwide Coverage 80F336-6M6
- _ -. ~,--.__ --...__.
.. _....,.....-- _-34L37t0,.., _ _ - -... - - - _.. _.,,., _, - _. _ _ _,.. _,_ _.,, -.. _... _,. - -. - _,, - _ - -
28508.0
.BRT 4020
'&v l'
at the top, and the word " gosh" in the middle of the page; is i
2 that what you are looking at?
3 MR. CEP!! ART:
I think he might be looking at 4
Stier.
.5 THE WITNESS:
The page I'm looking at.says 2245, j=
6'
" commenced release of - " I can't'tell what it is, but I
'7 believe it.is " liquid waste disposal tank A."
Then there'is 8
a stamp there, which is -- it-has Dick Hoyt's.name and Adam
~9 Miller, as the relieving shift foreman.
10 MR. GEPHART:
I think it's Stier 21.
11 THE WITNESS:
This strip chart here has a 21 12 written over the date of 3/3.
(}
13 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
14 Q
What's your time reference again for this?
15-A 2245, at the top of the sheet.
It looks like it
.16 is page 337 on the shift foreman's log.
I 17 Q
All right.
I think I'm with you.
f 10 A
Over' on -- they use a s tamp of the guy that has 19 been relieved, the guy-that's relieving, T av,~ power level, 20 pressure, boron, rod positions.
21 Q
Right.
Where is rod position?
22 A
All the way -- that's on the right-hand side of i
23 the stamp where it says 1 through 4, then it goes 5, 6,
7 and i
l 24 0 separately.
25 Q
I got you.
It looks like CR RSS, or something?
- ()
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2(12-347 37(Al Nationwide Coserage stk33&M
28508.0 BRT 4021
,m 1
A Control rod positions.
2 Q
Control rod --
3 A
Control rod positions, 1-4, 100 percent, 5 at 100, 4
6 und 7.are at 93, and group 8 is at 25.
5 Q
Okay.
6 A-Then the next stamp entry would be when Adam was 7
getting relieved by Carl Guthrie and at that point it says 8
groups 6 and 7 are at 96 percent.
9 Q
That's very helpful.
Thank you.
10 I must admit I am simply unaware, sitting here, 11 whether the Stier volumes of tests s ome ti mes, frequently or 12 always, contain these documents that we have_just been
(~T 13 looking at.
I have been using the NRR papers.
Do you know,
\\)
14 Mr. Voigt?
15 MR. VOIGT:
My general understanding is that when 16 Stier or MPR or somebody else working with Stier felt.that 17 there was relevant information in another log,- they put a 18 page or two of the other log in.
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
That's fine.
That seems helpful.
20 MR. VOIGT:
You will find some tests where you 21 wouldn't see anything from the shift foreman's log because 22 f they didn't think there was anything from the shift foreman's i
23 ;
log that bore on the test.
i 24 :
JUDGE KELLEY:
That's helpful, in leading me into i
25 '
this other shift foreman log thing.
(l')
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I
- _.m>
, _ m-
28508.0 BRT 4022
, -g I
1 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
2 Q
As I read the Capra/ Russell discussion with you, 3
then, down in New Orleans -- we are back on page 98 -- they 4
seem to be saying, having looked at these papers, there's no 5
apparent reason to add water for borating or deborating 6
purposes.
The rods were out where they ought to be, inside 7
the band between 92 to 98 or whatever it was you indicated 8
the band was.
Anyway, that there wasn't any problem with rod 9
position.
.Is that fair or not?
10 A
Well, no, I don't believe it is.
11 Q
Okay.
12 A
Because this means that at the beginning of the 13 shift, at 11:00, the rods were at 93 percent.
14 Q
Right.
15 A
When we got relieved at 7:00, the rods were at 96 16 percent.
That doesn't mean there was a 3 percent change in 17 rod band.
They may have gone down to 90, back up to 95, gone 18 to 93, gone to 97.
19 Q
That's what I'm trying to find out.
Exactly what 20 I want to hear from you is that kind of information.
21 A
But there isn't, you know -- there's nothing in 22 l here that says I added water to move control rods.
It says, I
23 i "I added water.
It doesn't break down and give you any 24 specific information as to why you added water and I don't 25 know why I added water eight years ago.
The only thing that 1
\\-)
j i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
->.m m o,-
m.o _
28508.0 BRT 4023 ry
\\/
1 I could come up.with through this is to have to move control 2
rods to get them back where they belong.
3 Q
Which is precisely what I want to explore with 4
you.
You see, you are not the first witness to say maybe I 5
did it to move the control rods, maybe there wasn't enough 6
boron, maybe there was too much boron.
That's why I want to 7
find out, can I look at these records and tell, maybe not 8
conclusively, but can I get a pretty good notion whether it's 9
likely but why water -- whether water needed to be added 10 during that shift for that purpose?
So far I've looked 11 through these papers and see the 93 and 96.
12 Let me ask you.
You are suggesting that during
(~}
13 shift which would run eight hours, I take it, you are looking v
14 at numbers that represent the beginning of two successive 15 shifts so there's an eight-hour period of operations in the 16 interim; right?
17 A
That's true.
18 Q
If those numbers were, in that case -- let's just 19 hypothetically say the desirable operating band was 92 to i
20 !
97.
Is that unrealistic?
21 i A
No, that sounds like a normal band.
22 Q
Let's just say that's what it is.
And you are 23 ;
reading 93 and 96, as they were in thia case, t
24 l Was it, in your experience, likely that the rods l
25 ;
during shift would have gone outside of that band?
($)
L i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
wm sn, a -,m nw-
'28508.0 BRT 4024 r-(
1 A
Rods were normally in automatic and they were 2
normally controlled by the integrated control system.
It 3
moved rods based on neutron error, which was looking at where 4
power --
5 Q
Neutron error?
6 A
Neutron error.
7 Q
Neutrons make mistakes?
8 A
operators do, too.
9 Q
It seems a peculiar term, but go ahead.
10 A
Anyhow.
If integrated control system looked at 11 power demand versus actual power level and it generated an 12 error signal that was called neutron error.
When it hit 1 4
13 percent it would move the rods.
I~ don't really, right now, 14 have any feel for how much of a boron change or how much of a 15 water addition it took to be able to generate a 1 percent 16 neutron error or to get them back to where you wanted them 17 but that's'what normally moved the rods.
And, if they got 18 close to the edge of the band that you tried to maintain, you 19 would try to get them back away from it, whether it be the 20 higher edge or the lower edge.
21 Q
The band might typically be about 5 percentage 22 points?
23 ;
A Yes.
That's not a whole lot of rod motion, i
24 j either.
25 l Q
Can you give me any idea?
Rod motion is a fair O
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 37m Nationmde Emerage A n33M6m
1 28508.0 BRT 4025 (3
1 parameter that an operator watches; correct?
Tha t 's fairly 2
significant, that's a fairly significant thing to keep your
~3 eye on; righ t?
4
'A You would periodically go over and look to see 5
where your rods are and where they should be.
6 Q
All right.
Can you give me an idea of whether' 7
rods would actually go out of the band, we are calling it, 92 4
8 to 97, would-typically go out of the band every shift?
Some 9
shifts?
Most shifts?
How common was that?
10 A
Normally, I would say, you could expect them to go 11 out of the band if you were going to be going through the 12 process of doing a boron equalization, and I seem to recall A
13 one time specifically -- exactly when it was I don' t' know --
,d 14 chemistry called up screaming because there was a 400-ppm 15 difference in boron between the pressurizer and the reactor 1
16 coolant system.
I believe we were limited to something like 17 50, 18 So, in order to get that straightened out you've 19 got to go through the boron equalization, which is turn the 20 heaters on and continuous aux spray.
21 Q
But isn't that kind of thing rather unusual?
And 22 your very description of it suggests to me it didn't happen 23 l very often.
24 !
A Not when the pressurizer POR - 'or not as long as i
25 I the relief valves were leaking like they were.
I don't think O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m m.m
,_ m-
_ _ _ _ _. __. _ _, _ _ _ _ _. _.. _. _... _ _ _ ~ _ _..
28508.0 BRT 4026 m
\\',)
1 it was unusual at all'.
I think it was a fairly frequent 2
evolution.
3 Q
To go through the process that you described?
4 A
Yes.
To ensure that the boron doesn't get so far 5
out of whack between the RCS and the pressurizer.
We did it 6
periodically, there, towards the end, before the accident 7
happened.
8 Q
Any reason why you would have to do that before 9
the end of a leak rate test?
10 A
I would say it would really depend on where the f
11 rods were.
If the rods were really right at the edge of the 12 band.
I don't think I normally made it a habit to add water
(~}
13 during a leak rate.
And I --
%/
14 Q
Well, your shift certainly did, at least for a 15 period of time.
The record is clear on that.
16 A
I understand that.
But because my name is on that 17 leak rate sheet doesn't mean I went over there and added 18 water or I tried to do something to it.
19 Q
I understand.
We are making somewhat different 20 points, I suppose.
I still -- this is going to be difficult 21 for me with my, I confess, lack of technical background, to 22 get as good a fix on this as I would like to have.
I'm still 23 l not quite clear how likely it would be that one would have to 24 l add water to keep the rods within the desired bands in the l
25 typical shift?
Putting aside, for a moment, leaking 4 o V
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2t?347-3700 Nat6onwide Loserage
- n )IM 646
28508.0 BRT 4027 (3
t'~'J 1
pressurizer valves and code safety valves.
Let's say the 2
plant is running pretty smoothly and you are having an 3
uneventful shift in matters relevant to leak rate testa 4
anyway.
Would it be likely, in your opinion, that you would
~5 be required to add water to maintain the rods in the band?
6 A
It would depend specifically on plant conditions.
7 Like, you know, where were you when you took the shift?
What 8
was the power?
Were they going through a power level 9
increase?
Is xenon increasing?
Is xenon burning out?
And 10 all of these things affect the control rods.
11 Q
You are saying you can't generalize?
12 A
No.
(}
13 Q
Is there any way you know of, a part from these 14 shift supervisors logs that we have been just been looking 15 at, which show the band at the beginning and end, apparently, 16 if we had all the relevant plant records here, we could find 17 out when the rods were going out of the band?
Was there a 18 strip chart comparable that would show us rods' bouncing up 19 and down, just like water in makeup tanks?
20 A
No.
21 Q
No such thing?
22 A
There was indicators on the control board for the 23 control rod group positions and on the back panel right 24 behind those there was individual rod positions.
But there 25 is no recorder.
O l
l ACE-FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC.
mmn.,
m_ m c-
-s-
28508.0 BRT.
4028
(")
\\-
1 Q
Looking at these papers we have been looking at, 2
makeup. tank strip charts, computer printouts, they don't tell 3'
you anything about where the rods are, do they?
4 A
No, they don't.
He made a statement in here 5
.somewhere around this same time frame, that they could tell 6
by looking at this makeup tank strip chart whether or not the 7
rods were in or out.
I don't see how the hell he can do 8
that.
9 Q
Who was saying that?
Russell and Capra?
10 A
Either Capra or Russell, one of the two.
11 Q
It would be an interesting thing to know, if it 12 was the case.
In any event, you don't agree with the f')N 13 suggestion?
14 A
No.
15 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
16 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Mr. Blake, would you do the-17 Board a favor, find out whether or not the computer logging, 18 which I unders tand went on pretty much uninterrupted, 19 included rod positions?
The main plant parameter logging?
20 (Discussion off the record.)
21 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Mr. Blake, is it possible for f
22 l you to find out whether or not the data exists?
I 23 i MR. BLAKE:
I will check and get back to you.
l 24 l JUDGE CARPENTER:
Specifically, is there a log of t
25 l rod positions, collected by the computer?
(2) l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347.1700 Nahoftwide rowrage 80lk.thfMI)
28508.0 BRT 4029 A
i
/
1 MR. BLAKE:
I believe the answer to be no but I 2
will check.
I' understand the question and the area.
3 JUDGE CARPENTER:
It would be enormously useful if 4
it existed.
Thank you.
5 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
6 Q
Mr. Olson, do you recall ever having any 7
discussion with Mark Coleman about manipulating leak rate 8
tests?
9 A
No, I do not recall that.
I understand that Mark 10 indicated in his testimony that he had tried to discuss this 11 with me and that I turned around and walked away from him.
12 Q
That's what I had in mind.
/^%
13 A
I have no recollection of that whatsoever.
\\)
14 Q
I think in the course of his testimony, when he 15 was on the stand, his prefiled, I think, describes the event.
16 as you just did.
I asked him some more about it.
17 He indicated that you gestured as if to indicate 18 you didn't even want to hear about such matters and I asked 19 him:
Well, what do you mean, what did he do exactly?
And he i
20 said that you put your hands over your ears and walked away.
21 j A
I'm aware that he said that.
I have no l
22 f recollect!.on of ever discussing hydrogen with Mark at all.
i 23 ;
If that did occur, it would not have'been until 24 after the accident had occurred, because I did not have any 25 '
idea of this hydrogen phenomenon prior to the accident.
I
()
(
\\_
l l
i l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
\\
8_
c-
- ~
-28508.0 BRT 4030 r(y) 1 Q
Do you recall any discussion with Coleman -- any 2
discussion at all, which you would have cut off by walking 3
away, perhaps putting your hands over your ears?
4 A
No.
I --
5 Q
Does that ring any bells?.
6 A
None whatsoever.
That sounds like a little boy's 7
gesture.
I think I'm a grown man.
8 Q'
I must say I continue to be struck by what seems 9
to me to be a pattern of adding water toward the end of a 10 shift on your shift.
Again, I realize that there were 11 several people there, not just you, and even acknowledging 12 the case of some of these tests the bump on the strip chart
(~j 13 may be debatable whether 2
's 120 or 140 gallons, the exact V
14 time may be somewhat debatable -- even acknowledging all 15 that, if you ge back to table 10 it just strikes me, looking 16 at that category " water additions only partially included" 17 that we talked about this morning, if you start with test 18 number 122 and you go down through test 146, you find in 19 approximately one-month time span, a little less than a 20 month, precisely February 16, when 122 was run, to March 13, 21 when 146 was run, that that represents 25 tes ts at TMI-2 that 22 showed leakage under 1 gallon a minute; 11 of which, almost 23 half, were run on your shift and every single one of them had 24,
water added toward the end of the shift.
Personally 25 !
discounting a couple where it's debatable.
And that (1) i i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3c _
, _ m c-
. m >-
28508.0 BRT 4031 p.
( ')
-1 continues to strike me as a rather remarkable phenomenon.
2 It's hard for me to think it's accidental.
3 Do you recall -- I would evem think at that time 4
when there's a lot of testimony to the effect that it was 5
very difficult to get a good leak rate test, that time period 6
February, March, lots and lots of leak rate tests being 7
thrown away, that shift D had this remarkable batting 8
average.
Didn't anybody come around and ask you what you 9
were doing?
10 A
No.
I don't think that's hard to explain when you 11 had two people that have said that they had done things.
One 12 was to manipulate the leak rate.
The other one said he added 13 water, had totally different intentions; not to influence the
{}
14 leak rate but to possibly try to make it'more accurate.
15 Out of all of the tes ts that I've looked at here 16 this morning, that'I can recall, I had the responsibility of 17 the control board one time, I belieVe it was, out of.six, 18 maybe.
19 Q
I'd have to count them up again.
I just know that 20 all three people were involved --
21 l A
I was not doing anything intentionally to 22 influence a leak rate.
I didn't do my job that way.
I never 23 even thought about questioning Mark:
Mark, why did you add 24 this water?
I said:
Did you add any water?
25 l Yes.
r,)
x-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
~ _
c-nn -
_ _ _ _ _ _... _.~,~,
_, ~,. _ _ _ _., _,. _,
28508.0 BRT 4032
(
1 Okay.
How much?
I wrote it down.
I didn't 2
question all that.
I didn't feel that I had to.
3 I've got to have some faith in the people that I 4
work with and I had faith in him.
I thought we.had a pretty 5
good shift.
I can understand what you are saying, yes, - i t 6
definitely looks puzzling.
I can't explain it any better 7
than that.
I did not intentionally influence a leak rate.
I 8
did not know Lynn Wright or Mark Coleman were doing that.
9 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
10 Q
One last question, Mr. Olson.
Judge Kelley was 11 just referring.to this time period which went into early 12 March where your shift was the shift that was getting leak 13 rates less than 1 gallon a minute.
Then there's an abrupt
(~)T 14 stop.
Do you know, were you doing something different?
15 A
An abrupt stop after when?
Can you give me a 16 date?
17 Q
Do you have the table there?
What's the last 18 entry for shift D?
19 A
The last one is 146.
20 Q
Say again?
21-A Test 146, 22 Q
I see.
There's no date.
It's early March.
I was 23 just curious as to what you were doing during March, if you 24 recall?
25 A
During March?
(1) l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
> me.,
~ m_ m._,
s.u-
28508.0
.BRT-4033
(-
1 Q
Yes.
2 A
Well, the day of the accident was our first day 3
back on shift after a long weekend.
So that would have been 4
Saturday, Sunday, Monday and Tuesday that we had off.
5 Wednesday was the first day of the shift, that was the day of 6
the accident.
7 We had a long weekend.
We had spent a week down 8
at the simulator --
9 Q
That's what I was curious about, whether you had 10 been out of town?.
11 A
The previous week, you are looking at a week off 12
-- so it's 11 days.
}
13 Q
That would certainly explain the cessation of leak 14 rate tes ts.
Thank you.
15 JUDGE KELLEY:
Follow-ups?
16 MR. GEPHART:
We just have one short one, Judge.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
18 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
19 Q
Mr. Olson, we have one follow-up question by 20 counsel for numerous employees.
21 !
Is it possible that you discussed the Hartman 1
22 allegations on the shift with Mark Coleman after Hartman went I
23 i public and walked away from Coleman because you did not 24 l believe hydrogen additions would affect a leak rate test?
25 A
That's very possible.
Although I have no
(~1 s_-
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-370ll Nabonwidt C(WCrage N G3 46(46
~8508.0 2
BRT 4034 I
1 recollection of a sit-down discussion with Mark on shift, it 2
very well could have happened.
Mark could very well think 3
that he discussed it with me.
I have no recollection of it.
4 Q
Did the shift gather-as a shift?
Did you still 5
work as a shift after the accident?
You were s till around 6
Coleman, on a shift basis?
7 A
Yes.
8 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
Anything else?
10,
MR. VOIGT:
We have nothing further.
l 11 l JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay, Mr. Olson, that, then, 12 completes our process of questioning and your answering here
(~}
13 today.
We appreciate your coming down, being with us.
Thank
\\_/
14 you very much.
You are excused.
15 THE WITNESS:
Thank you.
16 (Witness stood down.)
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
Off the record.
18 (Whereupon, at 3:00 p.m.,
the hearing was 19 recessed, to reconvene at 8:30 a.m.,
on Friday, October 17 20 1986.)
21 l i
22 l 23 i 24 25,
(2)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm.xm
- me_mo_,
..o_
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER AU This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:-
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISALND UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION DOCKET NO.:
LRP PLACE:
BETHESDA, MARYLAND O
DATE:
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt)
(TYPED)
JOEL BREITNER Official Reporter N N k h h A b i b b o'n O