ML20210H568
| ML20210H568 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/24/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#386-913, CON-#486-913 LRP, NUDOCS 8609260200 | |
| Download: ML20210H568 (175) | |
Text
l ORGaAL
~
UN11ED STATES o
l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO: LRP INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION O
LOCATION:
BETHESDA, MARYLAND PAGES:
2036 - 2210 DATE:
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1986 f
t Aa-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
O OfficialReporters 444 North CapitolStreet Washington, D.C. 20001 (202)347-3700 u609250a00 snora F' D P ADOCF 0 500h' NATIONWIDE COVERACE
CR28217.0 2036 BRT/sjg 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 5
In the Matter of:
Docket No. LRP 6
INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION 7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 9
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fifth Floor Hearing Room 10 East West Towers 4350 East' West Highway 11 Bethesda, Maryland 12 Wednesday, Sept. ember 24, 1986 L,!
13 The hearing in the above-entitled matter convened'at 14 15 16 BEFORE:
17 JUDGE JAMES L.
KELLEY, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 18 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
19 JUDGE JAMES H.
CARPENTER, Member 20 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 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 23 Washington, D.
C.
24 a
\\>
25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 4 6
2037 1~
APPEARANCES:
2 On behalf of GPU Nuclear Corporation:
3 ERNEST L.
- BLAKE, JR.,
ESQ.
JOHN NASSIKAS, ESQ.
4 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 18C0 M Street, N.W.
5 Washington, D.
C.
20036 6
On behalf of the Employees:
HARRY H. VOIGT, ESQ.
7 MICHAEL McBRIDE, ESQ.
L Boeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 8
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1100 9
Washington, D.
C.
20036 10 On behalf of Jack Herbein:
11 JAMES B.
BURNS, ESQ.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale 12 Three First National Placa Chicago, Illinois 60602 s s 13 CHRISTOPHER W.
FLYNN, ESQ.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale 14 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 On behalf of Gary P.
Miller:
MICHAEL.W. MAUPIN, ESQ.
17 M.
CHRISTINA HENSLEY, ESQ.
Hunton & Williams 18 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23221 19 On behalf of Former Metropolitan Edison Employees:
20 SMTIH B.
GEPHART, ESQ.
l 21 Killian & Gephart 217-218 Pine Street 22 Box 886 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 On behalf of the NRC Staff:
24 t'
/~T JA'CK R.
GOLDBERG, ESQ.
/
25 MARY E.
WAGNER, ESQ.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336 4646
2038 1
CONTENTS WITNESS EXAMINATION 3
Donald R. Haverkamp 4
by Mr. Goldberg 2042 by the Board 2044 5
Robert A. Capra(Resumed) 6 by the Board 2207 7
8 RECESSES:
9 A.M. - 2084 NOON - 2128 10 P.M. - 2168 11-TELEPHONE CONFERENCE - Pages 2068 thru 2089 13 EMEO M S, Follows Page 2169 14 15 i
EXElElTE 16 NUMBER IDENTIFIED RECEIVED 17 Board Exhibit 16 2122 18 Board Exhibit 16 WITHDRAWN 19 2124 20 21 22 23 24 n
V 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4646
70 01 01 2039 acefederal 1 FROCEEDINGS 2
JUDGE KELLEY:
Good morning.
Our principal 3
purpose here this morning is to hear from Mr. Haverkamp, and 4
we'll call him in just a minute.
5 There are a couple of preliminary matters to at 6
least mention.
7 We received in the mail last Friday, I believe, a 8
motion from Mrs. Aamodt seeking a postponement of the 9
individual responsibility part of the hearing until the 15th 10 of October.
The motion was mailed to us by Express Mail.
11 Ms. Aamodt, apparently, thought th'at she could simply mail it 7
e 12 to us with copies for everybody and we would effect service, 13 which is a little irregular but we did that, in effect, by 14 calling you up and saying the motion was here and arranging 15 for you to pick it up.
16 Does every party at this point have a copy of the 17 motion I'm referring to?
Okay.
18 In any event, we thought the best way to address 19 the motion would be through telephone conference with 20 Mrs. Aamodt participating.
And we propose to do that this 21 morning at 10:00.
We have told Mrs. Aamodt to be standing by 22 for a call and what we propose to do is for the Board and the 23 parties to go down to the 4th floor to Judge Bright's office
,-s.,
.)
24 where there happens to be a squawk box-type speaker.
There 25 doesn't happen to be any equipment of that sort up here on ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(X)
Nationude Coserage RXb3346M6
70 01 01 2040 ccefederal 1 the 5th floor, it turns out.
I think we can leave this off 2
the record for a bit.
3 (Discussion off the record.)
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
We went off the record to discuss 5
some logistical matters.
On the record, we'll acknowledge 6
receipt from the counsel for the numerous employees of a set 7
of questions to be put to Mr. Hartman.
We appreciate your 8
prompt delivery of those questions.
We will not be 9
submitting them to Mr. Hartman or anybody else except the 10 Board, per your request and per our general understanding on 11 impeachment-type questions.
12 Might I just ask whether other parties are going
(
13 to have questions today for Mr. Hartman?
Okay.
14 As to training questions, questions for Mr. Boltz, 15 I don't know that we've discussed that but would it be 16 possible to have, to the extent possible -- we haven't seen 17 material in advance, it's kind of hard to write questions, 18 but to the extent you can, can you bring them with you 19 tomorrow morning, just questions you would want to ask in any 20 event?
21 MR. MC BRIDE:
Well, the problem with that, Judge 22 Kelley, that if he says certain things I may have no 23 questions; if he says other things, I may have some.
So, 24 what I would suggest, because it doesn't sound as if the
,s
' -)
25 testimony is going to be very lengthy, that we ought to try ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3'00 Nationw ale Cos erage W 43346M6
70 01 01 2041 acefederal 1 just working with follow-up questions, once we hear what he 2
says.
My guess is there aren't going to be that many.
I 3
don't know.
I don't know how long he is going to testify.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
That may be right.
It would seem 5
to me that if, upon consideration, you know, by yourself, 6
what you think you are interested in, if you do have 7
questions you definitely want to ask the man, if we could 8
have them at the beginning tomorrow, that would be helpful.
9 MR. MC BRIDE:
Certainly.
If we have some we want 10 to ask in any event we'll have them here first thing in the 11 morning.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Fine.
And other parties, too, s'
13 Counsel for the Staff, call Mr. --
14 MR. MAUPIN:
Judge Kelley, can I raise one 15 additional question involving the subject of questions?
16 JUDGE-KELLEY:
Yes.
17 MR. MAUPIN:
This one has to do with 18 Mr. Haverkamp.
The deadline for filing questions in 19 connection with his prefiled testimony passed some time ago, 20 couple of weeks maybe.
On behalf of Mr. Miller, we didn't 21 submit any questions.
22 We were served by numerous employees with 23 Mr. Seelinger's testimony, only last Friday, I believe -- in 24 any event, recently.
And that prompts us to have one f
is) question for Mr. Haverkamp.
I would like to deliver it for 25 t
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2112-3 4 7-3 '( O Ndti0nuidC Ctwerage 8M336-6M6
70 01 01 2042 acefederal 1 you, if I could.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Any objection?
3 MR. MAUPIN:
This is not a follow-up --
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
I understand.
It's an outgrowth of 5
the Seelinger question.
You may have objections to the 6
question later but just the idea of posing the question --
7 MR. MC BRIDE:
We have no objection to posing the 8
question.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
If you object to the question 10 itself, which of course you haven't heard yet, we can hear 11 that.
7-12 Can we call Mr. Haverkamp?
Mr. Haverkamp?
a 13 Whereupon, 14 DONALD R.
HAVERKAMP 15 was called as a witness and, having first been duly sworn, 16 was examined and testified as follows:
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Goldberg, as a developer of the 18 record do you want to introduce Mr. Haverkamp and go through 19 the usual?
20 MR. GOLDBERG:
Yes.
21 !
EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG:
22 23 0
Mr. Haverkamp, do you have in front of you a 24 document entitled " Testimony of Donald R.
Havercamp," which
,y 1
l K>
25 i has the title of this proceeding on the top, " Inquiry into ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37 0 Nationwide Coserage 84itk33MM
170 01 01 2043 ccefederal 1 Three Mile Island 2 Leak Rate Falsification Documentation, 2
Document LRP"?
3 A
Yes, I do.
4 Q
Did you prepare that document or was it prepared 5
under your direction?
6 A
I prepared the document.
7 Q
Do you have any corrections you would like to make 8
to that document?
9 A
Yes, I have one correction on page 4.
Answer 10 number A-6.
The last sentence referred to Mr. James 11 Seelinger as having two positions.
In reviewing his prefiled 12 testimony I noted that I was incorrect in stating he was
~'
13 acting superintendent, Unit 2.
Therefore I wish to delete a 14 portion of that sentence starting with the word "and" 15 following the word " support" and through the words " Unit 2."
16 It was my -- in that period he was, in my 17 observation, because of the absence of Mr. Miller, from time 18 to time, doing functions Mr. Miller would be performing, he 19 was in fact the acting superintendent.
But Mr. Seelinger, as 20 I understand, did not have that position.
21 Q
Are there any other changes you would like to make 22 at this time?
23 A
No other changes.
-s 24 Q
with that one change, do you adopt that as your
(,/
25 testimony in this proceeding?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1
_n
~ - - -,.
8-, -
70 01 01 2044 acefederal 1 JUDGE KELLEY:
I'd just ask about one thing.
This 2
is awfully close to nitpicking, but on A-2 where it says 3
1986, should that be78?
Page 27 4
THE WITNESS:
That is correct.
It should be 5
1978.
6 BY MR. GOLDBERG:
7 0
With those changes, then, do you adopt this as 8
your testimony in this proceeding?
9 A
Yes, I do.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
The procedure we are 11 going to follow this morning, Judge Bright is going to have 12 the lead and start with some Board questions, my questions 7s 13 and Judge Carpenter may have some additional board 14 questions.
Then we'll be going to the questions submitted 15 from, I think, two of the parties; and then from there into 16 the follow-ups.
We recognize that there may be some overlap 17 between what we ask, what has been submitted, but as we go 18 along I think we can accommodate for that.
19 JUDGE BRIGHT:
I should caution " lead" means I'll 20 be the first one.
If there are any other iraplications in 21 that, wipe it out.
22 EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD 23 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
24 0
I just wanted to follow your testimony a little,
( -
25 Mr. Haverkamp.
Going through here, we start getting into ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37011 Nationwide Coserage MG336 6M6
70 01 01 2045 acefederal 1 substance -- question 5.
I would like to know about this 2
inspection business.
For example, how many inspections 3
similar to that reported in this -- in your. report, 4
50-289/78-32 have you conducted prior to this inspection that 5
we are talking about, roughly?
6 A
My recollection is that I conducted two 7
inspections similar, quite similar to this type of 8
inspection, looking at plant operations, reviewing logs and 9
-records and the sort of things I looked at in this 10 inspection.
11 I had conducted a number of inspections, I guess, 12 you know, that have some similarities that they were looking 3
\\-)
13 at preoperational test records and test results, start-up 14 test records.
If you need a specific number --
15 O
No. ~Just roughly.
16 A
-- I can find that out, but my estimate is that 17 there were eight, perhaps as many as eight inspections that I 18 participated in or conducted, that were similar to this, 19 since the period of February 1978.
I also conducted some 20 similar inspections at TMI Unit 1, three or four inspections 21 in that same period.
Some were done jointly, the same 22 inspection at both units.
23 0
I understand that the plant was in the process of 24 power ascension during the early part of this time; is that 25 true?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationaide Coserage 86336-6M6
l 70 01 01 2046 acefederal 1 A
I may be off by some dates but my estimates would 2
be close.
The plant.was licensed on February 8th, as I 3
recall, 1978, at which time they started to load fuel.
That 4
process took a couple of weeks, after which they heated up 5
the plant, which I think was late February, it may have been 6
early March.
The plant was taken critical the latter part of 7
March 1978.
8 There were some tests done while the plant was 9
operating.at low power or zero power, physics questions, and 10 there were some problems that occurred, operating problems.
11 A significant one occurred in late April related to the main 12 steam safety valves not reshutting and therefore the plant 4
13 decided to install valves of a different design.
14 That modification kept the plant shut down for 15 about 4, 4-1/2 months.
And it was not until somewhere in 16 September -- I believe it was-around mid-September -- that 17 the plant was started again and it went back through the i
18 process of escalating power after they went critical.
19 At the time I was doing this inspection I believe i
l 20 they were still at 40 percent power.
They had not gone l
21 higher than that.
And they sere in the process of going
\\
22 through the approvals and thel executing the next plateau, 23 which was a 75 percent power.
l 24 0
Do you recall at least roughly, when were the leak l
\\./
25 rate tests included in the required surveillance tests?
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3c-347-3700 Nationwide Con rage RXk336-6M6
l 70 01 01 2047
-acefederal 1 A
'My recollection is that is when the plant was 2
above 200 degrees, so it's when -- it would not be required, 3
I believe, when the plant was shut down in that period in 4
late April through mid-September.
They may have been 5
performed on a routine basis but I don't believe they were 6
required nor would they be meaningful at that point.
7 0
Well, what I was curious about, during the time 8
that they were actually performing leak rate tests, how many 9
inspections, say of control room logs, this sort of thing, 10 would you say you actually conducted, when a part of the 11 inspection was to look at these particular items?
12 A
It was my practice, regardless of the number of 13 inspections I did, it was my practice when I did these 14 inspections which was required by our program on a quarterly 15 basis, to look at logs and records and things of this nature, 16 it was my practice to review all the logs that were important 17 to plant operation.
That is, the control room operators' 18 logbook, the narrative log entries, as well as the shift 19 supervisors' logs or shift foremen logs.
And I would look at 20 that throughout the period I wasn't there, so I did look at 21 the records for that period that I was not at the plant.
22 Since the last time I had been there, I guess I 23 can state I had looked at those types of records since, since l
I 24 February, perhaps mid-to late February, 1978, up until the 25 time of October.
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2(G347-3700 Nationwide Coserage K4336-646 l
~*-
, - +
70 01 01 2048 3
ccefederal.1 0
So you were familiar with the leak rate test?
2 A
I was familiar with our requirements to conduct a 3
leak rate test.
.I was familiar with some of the entries in 4
logs, perhaps, related to leak rate tests.
5 0
Well,.the reason I have been asking this, in some 6
of the previous testimony that we have heard the statement 7
was made that the beginning and ending times of all leak rate 8
tests were required to be entered in the control room log.
9 There was also testimony that this wasn't done.
I'm just 10 curious if you were ever aware of this omission, or is tnis 11 contrary to your knowledge?
12 A
I am not aware of that -- I was not aware of this f,
13 omission until I had seen some information to that effect 14 recently.
My reviews of the logs were primarily intended for 15 me to become familiar with the operations or the activities 16 that had been conducted while I was not there.
I was 17 primarily focusing on those activities that directly impacted 18 on safety-related equipment, such as taking the diesel 19 generators out of service or other safety-related components 20 and seeing how long they were out of service to see whether 21 or not there were violations of tech specs.
And then in 22 addition to that, what the nature of the problem was.
23 That was more or less a starting point so I could 24 get up to speed from what had happened since I was last 25 there, and I would u;e some of that information, then, to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Cos erage ikMK3346646
70 31 01 2049 acefederal 1 modify or adjust such inspection,.in my mind, if such 2
modification was necessary.
3 I did not go through -- although I was familiar 4
with requirements, log keeping requirements, to document the 5
start and stop times of important evolutions as well as 6
surveillances, that's not the sort of thing I would 7
meticulously review and I can't remember looking at that 8
during those inspections.
9 Q
At the time of this -- I think you said just a 10 moment ago -- of this October 18th incident,.the plant was at 11 about 75 percent power, did you say?
12 MR. VOIGT:
Judge Bright, excuse me, sir, we are Os 13 having a lot of trouble hearing your questions.
I wonder if 14 you could get a little closer to the microphone?
i 15 JUDGE BRIGHT:
All right.
16 THE WITNESS:
In my review of the inspection 17 report, I believe they were operating, still, at 40 percent 18 power.
I do not recall just when they went to 75 percent l
19 power.
20 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
21 0
So your recollection is it was 40 percent power?
22 A
I believe it was 40 percent power.
I can refer l
23 you to a meeting I was at where the plant operations review l
24 committee was looking at the results of testing at that power
' O 25 plateau, and I in fact attended that meeting on Monday of l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Coserage 800-3E6M6
170 01 01 2050 ccofederal 1 that inspection, which I documented in the inspection 2
report.
I was listed'as an attendee in the PORC meeting 3
list.
That's what makes me think they were at 40 percent 4
power.
I don't have any specific recollection.
5 0
All right.
The plant wasn't perking long at full 6
power, then?
7 A
No, it was not.
8 0
In'your question and answer 7, where you were 9
talking about what had happened after you discovered that 10 something was not right with leak rate testing, you say that 11 you went to see Mr. Seelinger to straighten this out and that 12 Mr. Floyd came in and participated in the conversation.
O 13 Mr. Floyd states that he had no recollection of discussing 14
-- discussions between you and Mr. Seelinger.
And I was just 15
-- is this contrary to your testimony or is there some other 16 explanation for this?
17 A
I cannot account for Mr. Floyds recollection, but 18 I have a very strong recollection of Mr. Floyd being present 19 while I was speaking with Mr. Seelinger.
I guess of all the 20 information that's within this testimony I remember that 21 better than anything.
The fact that I did go to 22 Mr. Seelinger's office, although I'm not specifically sure of 23 the time period, specifically when, I am certain that 24 Mr. Floyd was present during most of our discussion and then 25 I'm certain that he was aware of the concerns that I had ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
~. - -.
-. - -.,., - _ - _ ~ -.. -
2170 01 01 2051 Oacefederal 1 about not shutting down when the LCR was exceeded.
2 Q
I just wanted to get your reaction to that figure?
3 A
I even recall sitting on.a bench in 4
Mr. Seelinger's office.
I have the strong recollection of 5
that conversation.
6 O
Going through this whole thing, I find that I am 7
confused.
I hope I've got this straight.
This could be 8
confusion, also.
9 The LER says that excess leakage was determined at 10 1000 hours0.0116 days <br />0.278 hours <br />0.00165 weeks <br />3.805e-4 months <br /> on 10/18/88, or '78, by you.
And that was when 11 you first became aware that something was wrong; is that not 12 so?
7-(j 13 A
I'm not sure if I understood your question.
14 O
Well, if you will turn to your attachment 6, on 15 page C-3 -- if I can find it -- Exhibit G, that is.
I'm 16 talking about the narrative attached to LER78-62/IT.
That's 17 the first sentence.
That says "on October 19th," and your 18 testimony says October 18th.
Was that ever cleared up?
19 Which one is in error?
20 A
I have, I guess indirectly cleared it up in my 21 mind.
I believe that the LER itself was in error; and that 22 the quotation which I took directly from the LER, which 23 appears in Exhibit G, is also in error because the LER was in 24 error.
That exhibit is something I had worked on, as I 7,
N--l l
25 recall, in the spring of 1980 when some of these issues first l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3'00 NationwiJe ( oserage
- n3 WM4
i 70 01 01 2052 ccefederal 1 came up, and it was subsequently that some more information 2
was learned, in terms of just when the leakage was identified 3
that was excessive, when I got involved.
And I believe, 4
based on reconstruction and some of the questioning I had,
~
5 for example, in front of the grand jury -- which I'm not sure 6
I should discuss here -- I just guess it's a reconstruction, 7
but I have taken from information that I have' learned 8
indirectly, not by my own review, but I believe it was on the 9
18th.
And therefore I'm using the 18th as a date.
10 I certainly have no recollection at this time 11 whether it was Wednesday or Thursday, 18th or 19th, but the 12 18th makes sense to me.
7sb 13 0
Well, that was the least confusing.
The statement 14 was made that the last acceptable leak rate test was 1935 on i
15 10/16/78, and that since then, over limit data had been 16 obtained.
17 This, then, was corrected at 0735 on 10/18/78.
18 Did you ever determine how?
19 A
I guess I determined that it was corrected.
My 20 recollection is it was sometime after that but I did not note 21 that.
I believe it was later in the morning or early 22 afternoon when the leak rate was acceptable.
It was that 23 time frame.
I had spoken with Mr. Seelinger and it was after 24 he had talked with him that I was shown evidence of a record
(
25 that showed that leakage was less than 1 gallon per minute.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(0 Nationwide Coserage 80t A336 6646
70 01 01 2053 ccefederal 1 I believe there were some errors in the LER.
I 2
have not gone back to try to reconstruct what those errors i
3 are.
Others have.
I haven't tried to duplicate'the 4
process.
At the time I was reviewing the LER, my focus was 5
on the corrective actions.
I guess I did not focus on the 6
specific sequence of events that caused the LER to be 7
written.
My focus was on getting the information to the 8
operators and their understanding of what had been a j
9 misinterpretation of technical specification requirements.
4 10 So, I believe the LER was in error.
I did not 1
11 personally verify that to find out the extent of the errors.
12 0
Well, one of the main reasons I'm trying to get O
13 this time straightened out here is then you went on to say i
l 14 that you were informed during your conversation with 15 Mr. Seelinger -- can you remember who informed you?
Floyd?
16 Mr. Seelinger himself?
17 A
I believe it was Mr. Seelinger.
t' 18 0
-- that plant operators were still looking for i
19 leakage sources.
20 A
What time frame are you referring to?
21 0
Well, that was your -- on page 6.
It was later in 22 the day.
The first sentence in the second paragraph on page 23 6, you were informed that plant operators were attempting to 24 identify any leakage sources.
So that would have to be after O
I 25 you had discovered the problem and it would have had to be I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Coverage 80lk336-6M6
. ~.
. - 347-3 700
70 01 01 2054 acefederal 1 after 0735 on that day and I'm just curious how -- they say 2
that it had been fixed at 0735 and yet that afternoon they 3
were still looking for leakage sources.
So, if they were 4
still looking for leaks, how did they fix it at 0735?
5 A
I don't believe it was fixed at 0735; at this 6
time.
7 I guess my understanding is that the leak rate was 8
not reduced to less than 1 gallon per minute until later, 9
until early afternoon that day.
I can't remember exactly 10 when I showed up in the control room but I've estimated 11 around 9:00, around 9:00 a.m.
12 I believe that they still had the high leakage at 4
~
13 that time, higher than 1 gpm, and that there were, in fact, 14 efforts under way to identify what those leaks might be.
15 As I noted in here I spoke with Mr. Seelinger for 16 a period of maybe 15 or 20 minutes, a short, relatively short 17 period compared to my total inspection, with the 18 understanding that, you know, they knew the problem that I 19 perceived and they were then -- they were pursuing the 1
20 l evaluation of that problem as well as the search for any 21 leakage that might exist.
22 Later that morning or early afternoon -- I believe 23 i it was early afternoon -- that I was shown a record --
24 whether it was brought to me or whether I went to look for it
,3
(
)
i 25 I don't recall, but I saw evidence that the leakage was less ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
nn,,
~_
c-
2170 01 01 2055 Oacefederal 1 than 1 gallon per minute.
I don't believe it was, until that 2
time, that they were, in fact, within the acceptable leak 3
rate limit.
4 When the LER came out with information to the 5
contrary, I did not detect that in my review of the leak rate 6
and LER.
I did not note those times when I looked at it.
As 7
I mentioned I was focused on the corrective actions and not 8
the details of the event that caused this to be reported.
9 0
Well, would you say, then, that the narrative 10 attached to this LER had a few problems?
11 A
I believe it does.
12 O
You don't?
7,U 13 A
I believe it does.
14 0
Okay.
Thank you.
15 On the acceptable leak rate test that they showed 16 you, what was the form of this -- whatever it was that they 17 showed you?
A piece of paper with a number written on it?
18 Computer printout?
19 A
I believe it was a computer printout of the leak 20 rate measurement but I am not certain of that; as opposed to 21 a form that had a 1 or -- I believe it was the actual 22 computer printout that I saw.
23 0
You mean you --
24 A
It may have been the form attached to that, also, i,,
%l 25 !
the surveillance record.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage 80lk33MM
2170 01 01 2056
(~ h
\\
'"scefederal 1 0
They didn't give you the strip chart printout or 2
anything like that?
-3 A
I did not -- no.
That is correct.
4 0
So, you would have had no opportunity to make any 5
kind of determination as to whether those leak rate numbers 6
were correct or not?
7 A
I had the opportunity.
I did not sense that there 8
was any error in the results that were presented to me, to 9
the point where I would question the validity of the result.
10 I took the data that I saw as an accurate 11 measurement or representation of what leakage was.
I did not 12 pursue that to any further depth.
But I did have that 13 opportunity.
I was there and I could have done that sort of 14 review.
15 0
Do you think you would have been able, just on the 16 spot, so to speak, to go through the kind of extensive 17 gyrations that we have heard about for a solid week about 18 manipulation on these tests, and really determine whether 19 some of these things might have been done?
20 A
The question was would I have been able to do 21 that?
I guess -- I believe I might have been able to, 22 although my focus -- at that time I just was not looking for 23 any errors and I did not do that.
24 0
I'm not saying you should have.
All I'm -- I'm O
25 just asking you -- I saw how difficult it was to do this sort ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Natio1 wide Cmcrage 904336-6M6
70 01 01 2057 ccefederal 1 of thing in all the previous testimony that we had.
And --
2 A
Clearly, a reconstruction is taore difficult than 3
something at the time when you had the information closer to 4
real time.
Trying to piece together strip charts that you 5
are not sure of times and when events occurred and not having 6
the people there to talk about evolutions that might have 7
occurred, does make it quite difficult to reconstruct.
It is 8
easier to do that at the time of the measurement or shortly 9
following the time of the measurement to find out, for 10 example, if makeup water had been added and not properly 11 h accounted for or whatever might have affected the validity of 12 the results.
I was not suspicious of the validity.
I was 7
l]
13 clearly able, when I was present, to ask some questions about 14 the validity but I did not.
15 '
0 I have one other thing where I'm confused,-again.
16 This went to the PORC, and they came up with an action item.
17 As nearly as I can tell from these appendices here, exhibits, 18 the due date for completing this action item was originally 19 11/20/78 and then I could see that there's a sign-off sheet 20 in here that, I assume, said that all of these people had 21 l seen this thing, LER78-62, had been reviewed by the people 22 l that were supposed to see it and signed off at 11/10/78.
And 23 then in the record there was this thing which said that the 24 action item had been rescheduled to 12/15/78.
L_./
25 Evidently it was done sometime, and, in fact, they ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i mm-
~_-
(21700101 2058
'~dcefederal 1 assumed -- they thought it was done on 11/20/78, but PORC 2
itself only signed off at 3/5/79.
3 Do you have any explanation that might shed a 4
little light on these?
5 A
At the time that I performed the follow-up of'the 6
licensee's actions regarding this LER, which I believe was in 7
January, the operators -- I did, in fact, discuss the matter a.
8 with Mark Bezilla, and I did look at a record.
I recall 9
seeing this PORC action form at the site, and I recali'seeing 10 the fact it was rescheduled.
I do not recall -- I guess I 11 don't remember anithing about -- noting the fact that it i
12 wasn't reviewed, did not have the final review by the PORC,
(
13 Plant Operations Review Committee.
But I guess I was assured 14 that the operators had, in fact, reviewed the LER, which was 15 important to me, and I just do not recall, now, if there were 16 one or two omissions, if all but a couple had initialed this
{
17 because of absences or other reasona.
I do not know why the 18 PORC did not close this out until later, but from my 19 perspective the actions were taken that would permit my 20 closing out from a follow-up perspective.
There was nothing 21 more I planned to do regardin"b this LER.
22 The PORC close-out, I believe, is an 23 administrative function that the plant would do later.
24 O
So when PORC closed ~it out really would have
(
25 nothing to do with the time it was done?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationaide Cmerage 8@3366M6
.?
i l
70 01 01 2059 cefederal 1 A
I don't think they would have closed it out until 2
the actions were done but I don't know of anything that 3
requires them to look at it immediately after the actions 4
were done.
Perhaps the utility personnel can explain that 5
but I can't.
6 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Haverkamp.
7-That's all I have at the moment.
8 EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD 9
BY JUDGE KELLEY:
10 0
Mr. Haverkamp, I just want to be sure my 11 perspective is correct as to your participation in the 12 matter.
My understanding is that you came upon these "in 13 excess of 1" leak rate test results and that triggered your 14 conversation with Seelinger and others employed on the 18th, 15 and the whole thrust of that is that they were getting excess 16 leak rate tests and they weren't in the action statement; 17 isn't that correct?
That was your concern?
18 A
That was correct.
And I think that -- I guess my 19 best recollection is that I came upon the licensee's 20 discovery.
I guess that's the point I would like to make 21 clear.
I believe it was their discovery because I do believe 22 there was a conversation ongoing when I came up open --
23 0
Okay.
24 A
-- which led me to allow the procession to O
25 continue of their reporting this event, rather than my ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
{
mmm x._ e _.
se -
,2170 01 01 2060
"\\ )acefederal 1 initial discovery and therefore making it a violation 2
directly for this report.
But the concern was that they had, 3
in fact, had excessive leak rates in the past couple of days 4
and were still in a condition greater than 1 gallon per 5
minute.
6 O
And that they thought that as long as they got a 7
good leak rate test once every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> you didn't have to go 8
into the action statement when you got an excessive leak rate 4
9 test; correct?
10 A
That was what I was told; yes, sir.
11 0
And you disagreed with that interpretation?
12 A
Yes.
I don't know -- unfortunately, I do not O
-13 recall if one of the supervisors -- if that was part of the 14 conversation that I heard.
I don't recall if some of the 15 operators also had that view.
I think it is important, in l
16 this matter -- and I believe I'm accurate -- in stating that l
17 the shift that was on duty at this time had been off for l
j 18 several days.
It was a Wednesday.
The crew that I was i
l 19 confronting or that was coming up on this matter had not been l
l 20 on shift since the previous Friday.
I believe they had four 21 days off.
And I believe that was what invited that 22 particular questioning -- they were not there that Monday and 23 Tuesday, they saw these records lying around, and therefore 24 there was some questioning.
I C:)
25 It was clear to me right away the plant should i
l i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37m Nationwide Cmerage 800-33&M46
. = _
2170 01 01 2061 i
(l)
"$cefederal I have been shut down in view of what I saw, right away.
2 O
What'I'm trying to focus on -- and I'm really i
3 after the big picture and I want-you to correct me if ~ hn 4
wrong.
My understanding is that you were interpreting on a 5
misinterpretation of the tech specs whereby you did not go 6
into the action statement where you got an excess leak rate 7
reading; correct?
8 A
Yes.
9 O
And that, in large part at least, is what this LER 10 is all about; isn't that right, too?
11 A'
Yes.
12 O
And eventually the so-called marriage statement O
13 says that the appropriate personnel will be instructed on the 14 requirements of the applicable sections of the tech specs, 15
.and the requirement to immediately invoke applicable action 16 statements when the provisions of the LCOs are not met.
17 That's what you were hearing.
That's what you j
18 were concerned about.
Back came a statement on the LER i
19 saying, yes, we hear you loud and clear.
We'll take care of 20 that.
i 21 Now, I also understand -- and let's put rounding 22 off to one side for the moment; let's just say that's not 23 that significant a matter.
I frankly don't think it is.
So 24 let's leave that one to one side.
These other problems that CE) 25 we have had with leak rates, you did not, at that time, look ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 33MM6
~ _ _. _. _ _ - - _, _
_ ~ - _ _ _
1 70 01 01 2062 ccefederal l' into; correct?
2 A
Yes --
3 0-Computer approximate, for example?
4 A'
That is correct.
5 0
Okay.
So the focus from your standpoint was:
6 Would the licensee implement this commitment to see to it 7
that the action statement was entered when a leak rate over 1 8
appeared; correct?
9 A
Yes.
10 0
Now, how did you go about, in your subsequent 11 inspections, confirming or determining that there had been 12 adequate implementation or full implementation of that O
13 commitment?
What exactly did you do?
I've seen the sign-off 14 sheet.
I assume you saw that.
But apart from the sign-off 15 sheet, what else did you do?
16 A
It was my feeling that my interaction at that 17 time, in itself, would have started a communication among the 18 operators, although I did not see any, observe any 19 discussions from a supervisor to the operators.
I guess I 20 felt that when this first came up it was an issue and I think 21 that they, the supervisors that were involved,'I guess I 22 expected them to communicate-this problem immediately either 23 Wednesday or Thursday -- that that action should not be 24 taken.
That when it exceeded, the plant should be shut down, 25 which is a fundamental aspect of compliance with the tech ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage fia%336-6M6
F 2170 01 01-2063
)
'"ccefederal 1 specs.
2 I believe that it was -- this was addressed in an 3
operations memo that I also saw on that Friday, but I'd have 4
to look in my notes here to see if I'm correct.
5 0
My understanding -- I don't mean to hide the ball 6
here -- from what we've heard the last couple of weeks, is 7
that, in fact, this directive to go into the action statement 8
whenever an excess leak rate test arose was never implemented 9
and that notwithstanding some paper generation, the operators 10 kept right on getting excessive leak rates and throwing them 11 away without going into the action statement.
12 So I'm wondering how does it come about that we O
13 have a paper trail that indicates implementation including 14 the.NRC report saying it's been adequately implemented when 15 in fact it never was implemented?
Apart from the sign-off 16 sheet, which is the most kind of obvious thing to look at, to i
17 what extent did you talk to operators about this?
l 18 A
I did not-talk to operators about this, the i
19 reactor operators.
I talked to the senior reactor 20 operators.
I felt they would have talked to the reactor l
21 operators.
l 22 I did not pursue -- in retrospect, I did not 1
23 pursue this to the point of identifying the root cause, that 24 the operators are doing something independent, more or less 25
-- my current view -- independent of supervision and that the l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 Nationwide Coserage R(n 334664
..,-._,.__r
_.-,__,,__._.___..._,,_..._3RU
i 2170 01 01 2064 acefederal 1 operators had a perspective about judgments that they can 2
make about when or when not the reactor should be shut down.
3 0
When you say you talked to senior reactor 4
operators, who were they?
5 A
Shift foremen and shift supervisors, senior --
6 0
Do you recall who they were?
7 A
No, I do not.
People who were on shift that 8
morning, that Wednesday, I believe, that I had spoken with 9
them.
10 0
You are back now on October 18, or in that time 11 frame?
12 A
Yes.
13 0
What about in the course of subsequent inspections 14 such as the inspection report of January -- let me get the 15 exact date.
Exhibit E, I believe.
16 There's a cover letter from Brummer to Herbein 17' dated January 29th.
It attaches an inspection signed off on 18 the 26th by yourself and Johnson.
On page 10 it recites that 19 certain LERs were reviewed.
And the third one down is 20 LER78-62/IT dated October 19, concerning tech spec limits.
i 21 I'll read it.
It reads as follows:
"LER78-62/IT, October 78 22 (technical specification limit for RCS unidentified leakage 23 was exceeded without shutdown of unit due to 24 misinterpretation of technical specification requirements."
)
25 Page 11, paragraph 6, middle of the page it ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Naisonwide Coserage fKX)-346M6
-- -....--._-,.___. _ - _ --_.-_ ~,---.... _.
1 1
1 I
~2170 01 01.
2065 4-i~
4 acefederal 1 recites that -- I won't read the whole thing -- LERs selected i
2 for on-site follow-up, and that was one of them; you verified 1
3 the reporting requirements of the tech specs had been met, ii 4
appropriate corrective action had been taken. And that 3
5 continued operation of the facility was conducted in j
6 conformance with technical specifications.
I guess that's my 7
focus.
1 I
8 At that point in January, what confirmation did 2
9 you have that appropriate corrective action had been taken to 10 make sure that whenever you got a leak rate in excess of 1 11 you went into the action statement and shut down the plant, l
12 if necessary?
13 A
The documentary evidence I saw was the sign-off 14 sheet that the operators had initialed to that -- in fact, i
15 stated they had read -- my interpretation is that they had d
\\
16 understood that the licensee event report -- and it was upon
+
I 17 my reliance of that form that I discontinued any further i
18 review.
I did not speak directly to any operators.
19 0
As a documentary review at that stage?
20 A
That was a documentary review.
I thought it was a I
21 fundamental basic misunderstanding and -- as described in the i
22 LER.
Clearly there are two requirements in the technical
(
23 specifications:
one is an LCO requirement and the other is i
24 surveillance.
They were ignoring the fact that the LCO
(
25 applies at all times, regardless of how you become aware of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
(
202-347-37(U Nationwide Coverage an336-6M6
2170 01 01 2066 (r ~)
'~acefederal 1 being out of limits.
2 That was the concern I had back in October.
That 3
was the concern that I thought was conveyed to the 4
operators.
That's the concern that I thought was discussed 5
in the LER, although it wasn't very clearly discussed, in 6
retrospect.
And I, perhaps I was so close to the issue that 7
I just felt everything was taken care of but I did not talk 8
to the operators to verify that they understood what I 9
thought they understood.
10 0
would you, in the course of your work as an 11 inspector -- I assume that there are wide ranges of concerns 12 that come up and that some of them might in your mind require O
13 verification by talking with the operators and some might 14 not.
Is that correct or not?
You do on some occasions do, 15 at least sort of a sampling check with operators on things?
16 Or don' t you?
17 A
On occasion.
But I guess it's infrequent, at i
18 least at that time, that I talked directly to operators to 19 ascertain their understanding of various issues.
20 We have more of a focus on that, those types of 21 discussions today with our present resident inspection 22 program than we did when we had a region-based program, where 23 I had enough hardware and other problems that I was dealing 24 with, I did not have the opportunity or take the opportunity,
}
25 much, to talk with operators.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage fok33MM6
i 2170 01 01 2067 f
cefederal 1 Q
Without going.into great detail, maybe you could 2
indicate at that time -- let me leave the question with you.
3 We were going to take a little break here and do a phone 4
call..As a practical matter, it might be pushing 11:00 5
before we get back on the stand.
But if you could maybe give 6
us a brief description of the situation then in terms of -- I 7
gather'you were a designated principal inspector -- if that's 8
not exactly the right term, but you weren't resident at that 9
point, or were you?
10 A
I was not a resident inspector at that time.
11 0
Maybe some indication of what your status was and 12 your duties.
I'll leave it at that.
O 13 We'll go off the record.
14 (Discussion off the record.)
15 16 I
17 18 19 20 l
21 22 23 24 O
25 ACE-FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC.
2(12-347-37tU Nationwide Coserage
$Xk3MN
..m-_-
2170 01 01 2068 (h
i j
'-icefederal 1 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE 2
JUDGE KELLEY:
Can we go on the record now.
We 3
are calling about your motion for postponement, and the 4
purpose here this morning, first of all, is to get some j
5 further particularization from you about the reasons for 6
granting a postponement in your view.
j 7
We will then have responses from the various
)
8 counsel for the various parties, and then the Board will 9
retire briefly and decide the motion and come back and 10 announce our result, all on the phone.
So, we are handling 11 this as expeditiously as we can, consistent with the need to 12 have all parties heard and for the Board to get the
,3
\\-)
13 information that it needs.
14 Are you hearing me okay?
15 MS. AAMODT:
Yes, I am hearing you.
I do have a 16 question.
What kind of particularization?
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, I'm going to get to that.
18 Let me tell you first where we are in terms of the 19 progress of the hearing.
We started on schedule on the 8th.
l 20 We have completed nine days of hearings and we substantially 21 completed the testimony of the expert witnesses, namely 22 Rockwell and Stier and their technical associates, plus four 23 Staff witnesses.
We have a little bit of testimony left from 24 the Staff witnesses on individual responsibility but we n
a 25 haven't gotten to that.
But the technical testimony is ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
n,a,-
~ - -_ n
2170 01 01 2069 cefederal 1 largely rendered.
2 Today we are hearing from Mr. Haverkamp, of the 3
NRC. Staff, and tomorrow we are hearing from Mr. Hartman and a 4
witness that we have called concerning training at TMI on the 5
leak rate tests and surveillance tests at the relevant time 6
period.
7 Next week we would propose to go into individual r
8 party witnesses, you know, there are some 25 or 30 such 9
witnesses.
We have made a sort of rough break between line 10 empicyees and their immediate supervisors, on the one hand, 11 and senior supervisory and management people on the other.
12 We do not expect to call the senior supervisory people, by O
13 that I mean people like IIerbein and Miller and Seelinger, as 14 examples, I think there may be about six, until after the 15 line employees have been heard from and I don't expect, given 16 the way we are progressing that we would, if we simply kept l
17 going, reach those supervisory management people before the l
18 middle of October.
But that's approximately where we are, in 19 terms of the progress of the hearing.
In terms of 20 particularization, let me ask you this, first, and just skip 21 ahead to it.
Your interest to date, as manifested in your 22 pleadings, has, I think it is fair to say, been focused i
23 primarily if not exclusively on what I'll call management, i
24 supervisory people, senior people, as opposed to line i
25 operators; isn't that a fair statement?
t ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M-347-37tu Nailoriwide Cos et age
- n34M4
2170 01 01 2070 t
(
'-icefederal 1 MS. AAMODT:
Well, that doesn't mean that I 2
wouldn't need to question line operators -- line employees in 3
order to pursue the interests that you described.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
I'm simply asking, though, for 5
confirmation of my impression that your primary interest has 6
been on senior people and management people.
7 MS. AAMODT:
Well, that's -- if I'm wrong, it's 8
not there -- I'm not saying -- I believe that that's where 9
the responsibility lay, so that's why I'm interested.
I'm 10 not interested in a hatchet type of thing, I'm interested in 11 finding out the truth and that's all.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, what I'm trying to come at, O
13 as a balance of convenience and interest of various parties, 14 it seemed to me a factor if your primary interest is in the 15 senior people, the management people, that you might have a 16 better case for postponeraent, assuming such a case applies at 17 the time more to them than it would to the reactor operators, 18 for example.
19 Let me ask you this, I have been told by my 20 secretary -- I haven't talked with you directly about the 21 problems you have been experiencing in the past few weeks --
22 my understanding is that your daughter has been ill and that l
23 I believe my secretary indicated Friday, having spoken with 24 you, that some surgery had been performed.
i 25 We need to have -- we are not asking for medical l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2112 M7 3711)
Nationwide courage muk3WM
2170 01 01 2071 acefederal 1 detail, but we need to have some rather firm understanding of 2
the reason as to why you say you can't come at this time.
3 Could you give us some more particulars about what the 4
situation is?
5 MS. AAMODT:
Well, the situation was puzzling for 6
so long.
It wasn't straightforward so we couldn't make any 7
address of it and that left us -- me in a position of not 8
wanting to leave because I was uncertain about her safety and 9
that has been resolved by -- she was in two medical -- two 10 hospitals here, one medical center.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
You are referring to your daughter; 12 is that correct?
O 13 MS. AAMODT My daughter.
But it was a matter of 14 them not being able to find u.
recolution to a very bad 15 physical problem and I felt as though I could not leave her 16 at that time.
And I couldn't concentrate on what was l
17 happening in Washington when there was that kind of a problem l
18 with someone in my family.
And we did send her to f
19 Philadelphia by plane on last Thursday morning and had made 20 arrangements for her to see some senior doctors in j
21 Philadelphia and an operation was performed on Friday 22 morning.
It should have been performed two weeks earlier but 23 she is recovering and the problem is that we had this upset 24 in our household, which left me, my husband and my daughter i O l
25
-- my husband and my daughter's husband away with a young i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
{
202-34L.1700 Nationwide roserage Mk34fM6
l 2170 01 01 2072 i ~
acefederal I child here and no one to care for it, and that came down to 2
me and I have sought every way to get some substitution for 3
this, and have not as yet found it.
But I think that this
~
{
4 can be resolved because they will be returning and I'm sure t
5 that someone will turn up by that time, by October 15th.
6 That's why I suggested that time.
l j
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, are you saying -- you are in
.i 8
Lake Placid; correct?
i 6
9 MS. AAMODT:
We are.
Yes.
I 10 JUDGE KELLEY:
Are you saying you can't arrange 11 for child care in Lake Placid, New York?
12 MS. AAMODT:
We had child care for this child on a
(:)
4 13 daily basis but nothing overnight, and that's the problem.
14 We haven't been able to find someone who would be able to 4
15 take over overnight.
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
Where is Mr. Aamodt?
3 17 MS. AAMODT:
He would never be able to do that.
l 18 He's not.an expert at child care.
He would not be able to do 19 that but he is here and would not -- you know, he would not i
20 accept that responsibility.
f 21 JUDGE KELLEY:
And the child's father?
22 MS. AAMODT:
With his mother, in Philadelphia.
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
Is the mother still in the i
24 hospital?
l ()
25 MS. AAMODT:
Oh, yes, and she'll be in the I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i m,.m.,
~ -
u_,.
..o, _
70 01 01 2073 ccefederal 1 hospital and have to remain in the Philadelphia area until 2
the end of next week but we are arranging for the father to 3
return.
But he, you know, can take over in the evening and 4
we probably can make some arrangements then, but it's really 5
quite difficult when you have something like this happen in 6
your family.
You do have to put their health above, you 7
know, other considerations and other interests.
So that is 8
what I've done.
But there was --
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
When did you say that the father 10 would be in a position to return?
11 MS. AAMODT:
The father was considering returning 1
12 today but my daughter had a rise in temperature yesterday so O
13 the latest I had last night was there was some uncertainty 14 about when he would be back.
15 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, I'd say for myself and the 16 Board and I'm sure the parties that we regret and share your 17 concern for the situation you describe.
And I know it can be 18 difficult to cope and arrange in such circumstances.
19 On the other hand, I think you have to bear in 20 mind that you are dealing here with a rather large number of 21 people who are scheduled to, and have been scheduled for some 22 time, to carry on this hearing, and when you add up boards 23 and counsels and witnesses, other people involved, you are 24 asking upwards of 20 people, anyway, to put everything on
(
25 hold for a couple of weeks while your situation normalizes 4
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2n2-3474700 Nationwide Cmerage m m L11MMA
2170 01 01 2074
[6cefederal1 and I don't -- we have to weight that, but it's not something 2
we would lightly do.
3 MS. AAMODT:
I realia:e that and that's why I 4
didn't make an initial motion, but then it seemed as though 5
what I was asking was not something that would prolong the 6
hearing.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, it will prolong it by two 8
weeks, won't it?
If that's all you ask for, and if you come 9
back for another week, who knows?
10 MS. AAMODT:
Two weeks, that's right.
Yes.
But 11 what I'm seeing in the testimony of some of the individuals, 12 it seems that we may have overlooked some of the material 7_V 13 that should be on the record and should be considered.
I was 14 reading the testimony of Mr. Seelinger this morning.
That 15 just arrived today.
And I noted that there are references 16 there to meetings, shift supervisor's meetings and calls to 17 Reading and I would like to motion that that material in view 18 of the testimony be made part of the record.
I was thinking 19 the in-between time could be used wisely, but not having had 20 the transcript I don't know that for a fact.
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, have you ordered 22 transcripts?
23 MS. AAMODT:
We haven't.
I understood when I 24 spoke with your secretary that there could be some O
25 accommodation to lend me the transcript, one of the Board's ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3 h U Nationwide Cmerage 80ik 33MM6
2170 01 01 2075 cefederal 1 transcripts --
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
I have made such accommodations in 3
the past in various cases but always on the basis of an 4
ongoing hearing and a party borrowing a transcript from me 5
for half a day or a day to take it to the copy center and 6
bring it back, and we use these transcripts on an ongoing 7
basis and I have never been in a situation where I have been 8
asked to mail transcripts back and forth on a daily basis.
I 9
think that's stretching the accommodation a bit far.
10 We are under a statutory prohibition, by the way, 11 as you probably know, to render financial assistance to 12 Intervenors.
Someone suggested to me that I might be, in my rs
(
l 13 practices of making occasional accommodation, be 14 transgressing that prohibition.
I have done it anyway, and I 15 figured I think it's a reasonable thing to do.
But I have 16 not been in the practice of mailing out transcripts every day 17 and getting th back a week later.
I can't function that 18 way.
So I did i ow what my secretary exactly said but we 19 did not imply or r..wn to imply, at least on behalf of the 20 Board, that we could give you a transcript service in Lake 21 Placid.
Can't do that.
22 MS. AAMODT:
Well, I really don't know what to say 23 other than what I said in the motion, that I do have interest 24 in the hearing, that I'm the only party that is not paid by 7s,
(
)
'~
25 GPU and has a public interest.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3,m. m.,
, _ m_,
i 2170 01 01 2076 i
('_%
)acefederal 1 JUDGE-KELLEY:
Well, let's fix on Mr. Seelinger, 2
that was your most'recent example.
Mr. Seelinger is not 3
going to appear'in this case as a witness until late October, 4-all indications are.
So I don' t think there's any problem 5
there.
6 Of the line people that -- I have already defined T
7 who they are, the CROs, the shift foremen, a few shift
~
8 supervisors, that we expect to hear from in the next couple 9
of weeks.
Are there particular people among them that you c
i 10 regard as particularly important, from your standpoint?
11 MS. AAMODT:
I would be particularly interested in 4
1 12 Mr. Hartman, to develop the case I was planning to develop.
7-1
(_/~
13 I was really uncertain when we should have questions for j
14 Mr. Hartman and some of the other line employees, to you.
15 Evidently that was by the 15th of September --
)
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
The deadlines for filing questions 17 on some people have been discussed and established in the l
18 course of the hearing.
Hartman came up rather late.
19 Hartman, as I just mentioned, is coming tomorrow.
20 MS. AAMODT:
So Mr. Hartman -- I was really very 21 much interested in asking some questions of Mr. Hartman, so 4
22 the opportunity is past, then?
l i
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
Only if you can't get down here by 24 tomorrow.
O r
25 MS. AAMODT:
I see.
And the other people -- I i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 34717tt)
Nationwide roserage
- Mk336-6M6
. ~. -, - - - -. - -..,
_.._m 5
2170 01 01 2077 4ucefederal I have several additional to Mr. Seelinger this morning -- -
- 2 Wednesday --
l 3
JUDGE KELLEY:
Your voice is fading a little bit..
4 MS. AAMODT:
The testimony -- when -- the 5
questions for the individuals we have just received, when is 6
that due?
i 7
JUDGE KELLEY:
There's a 12-day rule on that,
{
8 which would mean if you got a statement on September 20, that 9
you would be due on October 2, and you can add five days for 10 mailing.
But as to the bulk of the filed testimony, the time i
j 11 has come and gone.
That isn't to say you couldn't make a 12 motion-for good cause shown to put in some questions on
()
1 13 particular individuals in whom you have a special interest.
I 14 But that would have to be done on motion.
i 15 MS. AAMODT:
I really cannot do anything about the
{
16 situation that I find myself in and I've done the best I 17 can.
I have made all kinds of inquiries for representation 18 and for -- which has not ended up in anything specific r
i l
19 because of the fact that the hearing is ongoing and attorneys e
20 don't feel that they can catch up before -- in time.
21 I have also made all kinds of inquiries as to help 22 here.
This is a very small community and there's a very l
23 large demand on the women in this community to service guests 24 in the large number of hotels here in the area, so it's not
(
25 easy to find domestic help in this area.
And we aren't l
4 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 37(X)
Nationwide Cmcrage Mk33MM6
1 2170 01 01 2078
-tcefederal 1 willing to leave the baby with anyone.
]
2 So I'm just hampered in that way.
I have great 3
interest in.the hearing.
I think I have. demonstrated that.
4 I was certainly ready to~ attend any hearing until this very 5
time.
And I never, as can be backed up by Jack Goldberg who 6
has been in this thing for quite a long time, I have never 7
missed hearing days.
I don't believe a single one, prior to j
8 this time.
9 So, it's just something that I can't get around.
i 10 I have great interest.
I raised the motion that brought this 11 matter into focus in the restart hearing and then it came 12 over into this particular hearing.
So that interest will
()
13 just, essentially, be denied if there is no accommodation.
14 I can understand how so many people are being 15 inconvenienced if this were granted and, you know, I'm very 16 sorry for that.
But I don't know what I can do about it.
I 17 just have to ask for your consideration to understand that i
i 18 this is not done lightly and it's not something I could have 19 avoided.
It was a very strange situation where my daughter 20 was misdiagnosed and then, essentially, denied the treatment 21 that she needed because of the timidity of the individuals 22 who were involved.
Now she has received treatment and she is 23 recovering.
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let me ask you this.
I want to be i
25 very specific about this.
Among the 20-plus people we would l
1 i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j 202-347-3700 Nationw kle Coserage mn334N4
2170 01 01 2079
[ ~1
\\ $cefederal 1 ordinarily expect to call in the next two weeks, starting 2
next Tuesday, these are CROs and foremen and supervisors, can 3
you single out any of those people in whom you have a 4
particular interest, such that we might consider postponing 5
that person?
Maybe a few people, so that they, at least 6
probably, wouldn't be, in the normal course of events, before 7
us as witnesses before the 15th?
8 MS. AAMODT:
I don't really believe so.
I believe 9
my questions -- and I will send them to you by express mail 10
-- I have the notes composed, but I just haven't had time to 11 get them into proper form and I will -- my questions will be 12 pretty much the same to all of the operators.
13 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, if the Board thinks the 14 questions are proper and we think the motion is supported on 15 a good-cause basis, we'll ask the questions.
16 MS. AAMODT:
The only person I hoped to question 17 was Mr. flartman, and if the Board would consider a motion I 18 would mail one or two questions that I wish to ask 19 Mr. Ila r tma n.
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
If you have one or two questions, 21 let me suggest you call my secretary and dictate them over 22 the phone.
23 MS. AAMODT:
All right.
Because express mail is 24 sometimes two days from Lake Placid.
I'll do that.
O 25 I can understand how my motion may seem out of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2021471?m Nationwide Coserage Nn.14 Me
170 01 01 2080 acefederal 1 order and yet I ask it because I. feel I see.something in this 2
hearing that --
3 JUDGE KELLEY:
You are voice is fading, again.
4 MS. AAMODT:
I really see from the testimony of 5
the individuals, the way in which some of the parties are 6
essentially seeing the evidence and I see it in quite a 7
different way and I did want that opportunity to at least put 8
that different way before the Board by my participation 9
actively in the hearing.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
I think at this point we've talked 11 about this at some length, myself for the board, and you, I'm 12 going to ask the parties if they wish to speak on the pending O
13 motion.
I'll start with Mr. Gephart and the numerous 14 employees.
15 MR. GEPHART:
Just one question, Mrs. Aamodt, is 16 there any reason that your husband, Norman, cannot come down i
17 to Washington at this time?
18 MS. AAMODT:
Norman has not kept up with the 19 record, again.
He is quite actively involved in his own work 20 here and, you know, he did not make any arrangements to come 21 with me to the hearing, so that is a possibility but, again, i
l 22 I haven't uven discussed that with him because I felt that 23 there are a number of people who are depending on his 24 remaining here.
He employs a number of people and when he O
25 goes, then all of those people would have to be -- have to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
201-347-3710 Nationwide Coserage 8(n3)&6M6
170 01 01 2081 acefederT1 1 stop working for a while and so that's a problem.
But I will 2
discuss that with him.
There is that possibility that he 3
might do it for a few days, anyway.
4 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, on behalf of the 5
numerous employees, we first want to say that Mr. Aamodt has 6
participated in the past in Three Mile Island proceedings in 7
a rather extensive way and I don't believe that it is 8
sufficient basis for granting this motion that Mr. Aamodt has 9
not kept up with the record to date because Mrs. Aamodt was 10 not the only intervening party.
The Aamodts themselves 11 intervened.
So I think it is at Mr. Aamodt's risk that he 12 did not keep up with the record to this point.
O 13 Secondly, I would like to say that because this is 14 a legislative proceeding, Mrs. Aamodt or Mr. Aamodt or who 15 over would participate on behalf of the Aamodts, could have 16 participated by mail in sending questions in to the Board, 17 along the way.
She has done so with respect to a few 18 witnesses and there has been no explanation as to why she 19 could not have continued to do so.
20 And thirdly, we feel that granting the motion at j
21 this time would be detrimental to our interests, among other 22 reasons because counsel involved in this case, at least for I
23 the numerous employees, have had to do an extensive amount of 24 rearranging, or in fact declining to represent clients who 25 have approached us, both Mr. Gephart's firm and, in fact, my ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- - + c -,,
nn-
.y
2170 01 01 2082
[ ')
\\~scefederal 1 own last week, or have had to rearrange schedules, ask other 2
people to take on matters temporarily, and the longer this 3
proceeding goes on the more our other clients in those other
~
4 matters would be prejudiced.
And we believe people have been 5
on notice for some time what the schedule would be and have 6
relied on it, and therefore we believe that the motion should 7
be denied.
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Blake, for GPUN?
9 MR. BLAKE:
Judge Kelley, bearing in mind the 10 competing interests that have been reflected in this 11 conversation this morning and as I know them from the parties 12 in their participation in this proceeding, and bearing in O
13 mind, as well, Commission's policy guidance, albeit on 14 adjudicatory proceedings but with some bearing on this as 15 reflected in CLI81-8, I cannot support Mrs. Aamodt's 16 request.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Flynn?
Mr. Maupin?
18 Mr. Maupin, for Gary Miller.
19 MR. MAUPIN:
I subscribe to the comments that have 20 been made by Mr. McBride and Mr. Blake and I really have to 21 say on behalf of Mr. Miller, I take no particular pleasure in 22 opposing Mrs. Aamodt's motion.
I have a great deal of l
23 sympathy for the position she finds herself in.
But I think l
24 it is important to emphasize that at least insofar as 25 Mr. Miller is concerned, the subject matter that is the l
r ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mmm
, _ m-
~_
2170 01 01 2083 (b
'-tcefederal 1 subject of this hearing has represented to a greater or 2
lesser extent a cloud that has been hanging over his head for 3
some six years now.
This may well be true of other parties 4
but certainly it is in the case of Mr. Miller.
5 Three weeks may seem like a drop in the bucxet 6
compared to those six years, but it's not a drop in the 7
bucket.
I think his desire, now that the matter is underway, 8
is to have it resolved as promptly and expeditiously and 9
without a significant interruption such as I believe would be 10 involved in this motion.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Flynn, for Mr. Herbein.
12 MR. FLYNN:
Like Mr. Maupin, I don't take any O
13 pleasure in opposing Mrs. Aamodt's motion either.
But, for 14 much the same reasons, I think we should forge ahead.
My 15 client is very concerned about seeing this proceeding at long 16 last come to an end.
I think we are making tremendous 17 progress, and I think we should continue and bring the 18 hearing to a close as expeditiously as possible.
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mrs. Aamodt, that concludes 20 comments by the parties.
Is there anything you want to say 21 in response to their comments?
22 MS. AAMODT:
Well, I have been waiting for this l
23 hearing since 1983 when the motion was granted by the Appeal 24 Board.
I had my trial plan ready in September, and was ready l
(
(
25 to mail it when the Commission denied the hearing --
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
... -347-3 hD Natiottwide Coserage
- n34,M6 202
170 01 01-2084 acefederal 1 postponed the hearing -- to provide this hearing.
So I also 2
have been waiting a long time.
And I, frankly, do not see 3
where the delay is inordinate, of the two. weeks that I 4
requested and I really have no other way to pursue my i
5 interest, except if this delay is granted.
6 It is difficult enough not to have the transcript i
7 and not to -- and I understood they were being sent, being g
g-8 lent to me.
So now I am many weeks -- nine days of l
9 transcripts behind in reading and even, you know, if I cou'Jd 10 come immediately I would be at a disadvantage if no delay.is*
11 granted.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mrs. Aamod t', what we are going to' O
13 do right now is the Board is going to declare about a 14 five-minute break here so we can discuss what we've heard.
s 15 Could you just stay on the phone?
16 MR. AAMODT:
Surely.
7 17 JUDGE KELLEY:
I'm going to punch the " mute"~
.s 18 button on the phone but the hookup is still there.
I have'..,
'~
19 10:30.
We'll come back at 10:35.
'l 20 (Recess.)
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
Hello, Mrs. Aamodt, this is Judge 22 Kelley back.
23 The Board has considered your comments and those B 24 of the parties.
We have decided to deny the motion for O
25 postponement and to proceed as scheduled.
The comments in
]
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(t)
Nationwide Cmcrage mn33%M6
}
}
l s
(
..(
' 70 01 Ol' 2085 f
as acefederal 1 the record, I think, set forth the conflicting considerations
(
'2 pretty clearly.
Basically we found ourselves balancing the 3
situation that you describe, with the difficulties in 3
4
' arranging for child care, versus the postponements and 5
attendant dislocations that would occur to the proceeding and
[.
i the parties and we think that on balance that favors our 7
going ahead.
.u 8' 3 Having said that, we want to stress that, if you "9
are unable to be here in the next couple cf weeks, you would, f0j it seems to us, be able to participate to some extent, first t
'i l-of all as to questions to the witnesses that are going to be n
12 coming in.
Elven though the deadline for filing questions on
, O' 13 most of those people has passed, we think you've given good 1
14 f cause for the filing of late questions, i
and, therefore, we q,.
-.i 16 will accept questions from you through the mail provided they j
i4 16 get here at least the day before the person involved 17 k testifies.
18, We are going to be deciding later today the exact s
19 f sequence of the witnesses and when we have got that decided, 4 s 20 we'll transmit that information to you so that you will know s
i 21 who is coming first, second, and third and so on.
i 22 In the case of Mr. Hartman, who is coming 23 tomorrow, I'll simply repeat what I said before, that if you I
24 have some questions for him, within reason, several questions
>o i
25 is what I thought you indicated, you can call my secretary, l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4 202 347.)?00 Nationside Coverage an3%6646
_.L-_
2170 Ol'01 2086 7
'-Ecofederal 1 Mrs. Davis, and she'll take them down over the phone.
2 So that is not full participation, we realize.,
3 You won't be here for follow-ups, but, in any case, the basic 4
questions you have, based on your review of the prepared 5
testimony and the record, you'll be able to put to the 6
witnesses provided the Board feels that the questions are 7
appropriate.
)
8 So, that is our disposition of the matter.
Do you 9
have any questions op comments you want to make?
10 MS. AAMODT:
No.
I wasn't too surprised.
I 11 hesitated making the motion but I do appreciate the 12 accommodation you have provided and I did want to suggest, or 7_.U 13 motion again, before leaving the technical issues completely, 14 that Dr. Chung appear as a witness, particularly concerning 15 the loop seal which allowed the manipulation of the test 16 through the addition of hydrogen.
I don't believe I have 17 seen that matter discussed in any of the other experr, 18 testimony.
19 I also would like to motion that prior to l
20 Mr. Seelinger's appearance, that the minutes of the shift 21 supervisors meetings and the plan of the day meetings and any 22 records that exist at Reading, from the plant, be made 23 available to the parties to uso in questioning.
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let me comment on both points.
As s
25 to Dr. Chung, we do have Dr. Chung on our short list of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tc.347 37m Nationwkie Coserage R&33MM6
. ~..
~
70 01 01 2087 l
1 cefederal 1 people with respect to whom we deferred ruling and we said 2
that we would reconsider whether we should call those people, 3
including Dr. Chung, as a witness at the close of the basic 4
case, Phase I, if you want to call it that.
5 I think I should mention that whether Dr. Chung 6
would be a necessary or helpful witness is something that 7
came up last week and some of the other witnesses were asked i
8 about that.
Their basic response was:
No, they didn't think 9
so.
But there is something in the record on that.
We 10 haven't made a decision on it.
j 11 I'd say further on the loop seal phenomenon, we 12 did have extensive testimony about loop seal from the k) 13-witnesses that were here.
So that is something that, I think 14 if you want to press your motion to call Dr. Chung, that you 5
15 would have to take into account what is in the record 16
'already.
i j-17 MS. AAMODT:
Could you direct me, Judge Kelley, to 18 the witnesses who testified on the loop seal?
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
Excuse me a moment.
'20 (Discussion off the record.)
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
One particular place, the prefiled f
22 testimony of Kirkpatrick and Wermiel, contains a discussion i
t 23 of loop seal with a diagram of the loop seal appended to the 24 back of the testimony.
There is other discussion in the O
25 record, but that's one thing that I can point you to; Staff i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 s.e_. r_,,
i 2170 01 01 2088 ccefederal I counsel pointed that out and I'll just point you to right 2
now.
3 MS. AAMODT:
All right.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
As to other particular documents, 5
we are really not in a position this morning, Mrs. Aamodt, to 6
hear discussion on that.
You know there's no discovery in 7
the case.
You have suggested -- are these not documents you 8
have suggested in the past?
9 MS. AAMODT:
Yes.
I suggested all but the records 10 at Reading in the past.
This is the first I have heard about 11 Mr. Reading, in Mr. Seelinger's testimony.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
I'm afraid we are just not in a O.
13 position to get into that this morning.
We don't have the 14 reference.
Counsel are not prepared to talk about it.
The 15 record can reflect you raised the matter.
It will be in the 16 transcript but we'll have to reach that at a later time.
17 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, if'I could just try 18 to be helpful, although I'm not fully prepared to respond to 19 Mrs. Aamodt's motion that you just discussed, one of 20 Mr. Haverkamp's exhibits, I believe, does reflect matters 21 with respect to discussions with Reading.
So she can look 22 there as well.
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you, that may be helpful but 24 I think further discussion is going to have to be deferred.
25 MS. AAMODT:
All right.
]-
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80fL3346M6 y
w.-,y
.--v
,g.
p r
w
2170 01 01 2089 Oacefederal 1 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, that's all we have for this 2
morning.
Again, we hope you can join us soon.
We regret the 3
situation you find yourself in but we think we are going to 4
have to go ahead.
5 MS. AAMODT:
Thank you very much.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
Good-bye.
7 (Whereupon, at 10:46 a.m.,
the telephone 8
conference was concluded.)
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 i
20 21 22 23 24
')
25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3701)
Nationwide Cos erage 80tM346M6
28217.0 2090 BRT O
1 HEARING RESUMED 2
Whereupon, 3
DONALD R.'
HAVERKAMP 4
resumed the stand, having been previously duly sworn, was 5
examined and testified further as follows:
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Back on-the record.
7 Mr. Haverkamp, our apologies for the 8
interruption.
We had to address a motion in a phone 9
conference.
10 EXAMINATION (Resumed) 11 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
12 0
I believe I left you with a question to the
()
13 effect -- concerning whether the I&E manpower at the time 14 lacked a resident inspector program at that time; whether 15 that affected, typically, the thoroughness with which you 16 might typically conduct an investigation as opposed to 17 kinds of investigations conducted now.
Could you comment 18 briefly on that; we don't need it in great detail --
19 MR. GOLDBERG:
Do you mean inspections-rather 20 than investigations?
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
Yes, routine inspections, not 22 investigations.
23 THE WITNESS:
I can briefly describe the 4
24 inspection program in place for TMI-2 at that time, really
~
25 in two part::.
- O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage RG336-6M6
28217.0 2091 BRT I) v 1
First, we had a program that was developed by 2
the Office of Inspection and Enforcement that would specify 3
the types of inspections that were to be conducted at 4
operating plants, as well as plants in construction.
5 The program was split into several phases, 6
phases covering construction of the facility, 7
preoperational testing, start-up testing, and then finally
~
8 plant operations when that would occur.
9 TMI Unit 2 was in three phases of that-program:-
10 preoperational testing, start-up testing and plant 11 operations phase; whereas TMI-l was in the last phase of 12 operations only.
()
13 This is a very intense period, therefore, for 14 the numbers of inspections that are conducted at a facility.
15 At that time, all the inspections were done from 16 the regional office in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania -- the 17 inspectors were based out of that office.
I was a, what 18 was called a-principal inspector or project inspector.
My 19 function was not only to inspect frequently the facility, 20 in the broad area of plant operations, but to schedule and 21 monitor the other inspections that were done by specialists, 22 such as radiation specialists and construction specialists, 23 operation -- testing specialists.
And I would develop a 24 schedule.in accordance with the program and see that we 25 more or less kept track with what was expected to be done
()
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Natioriw nic Coverage M336-fM6
28217.0 2092 BRT I
during these inspections.
On many occasions when the 2
specialists did their inspections I would accompany them 3
and frequently I became the principal. author of the report.
4 Although there would be several inspectors with me, I was 5
more or less going to know what they were doing, what was 6
happening in the plant in those areas that I would not 7
normally get involved with.
So that's really a kind of 8
general description of the types of inspections that we did 9
during these months.
10 Is there anything more specific you would like 11 to have?
12 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
()
13 0
I guess what I'm interested in is whether, in
~
14 retrospect, through the benefit of hindsight, do you think 15 at that particular time, whereas you say there are these 16 three different types of inspections being performed, were 17 you stretched then?
Or did you feel you were adequate, 18 with yourself and whoever was working with you, to cover 19 everything?
20 A
I felt at that time that I was not stretched 21 thin.
I felt that I was at least inspecting in accordance 22 with the program requirements.
I felt I was doing the depth 23 of inspection that was expected by the program and I was 24 pretty much on track.
25 Our program has changed now.
Currently we have O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6M6
28217.0 2093 BRT 1
a resident program which is -.the major focus of most of 2
the inspections are done by resident inspectors but they 3
are supported, still, by Region-based inspectors.
4 O
Specialists?
5 A
Specialist inspectors.
6 0
At that time -- and I'm still following up on l
7 the inspection and confirmation by you that the LER problem 8
of people not going into the action statement with an 9
excessive leak rate -- we talked about this before; I don't 10 want to just repeat it all, but I'm trying to get a fix on 11 whether there were problems of that nature or of any nature 12 where, as a routine matter you would inspect not only
()
13 records but you would actually go around and talk to 14-operators, if not all, then some sampling of them?
Were 15 there any things designated saying, if you find these sort 16 of things, be sure you talk to the operators?
Was there 17 any such designation as that?
18 A.
I don't recall any such designation.
In looking 19 back, when I did have discussions with the plant Staff they 20 were more frequently, if not entirely, with the engineering 21 Staff or operations management, supervisors, to look at 22 more the hardware-related problems as compared with this 23 issue, which was an interpretation -- clearly it was an 24 operator interpretation problem.
But I don't remember any 25 guidance that says:
Talk to an operator about his
()
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
l 28217.0 2094 BRT 1
understanding of the corrective actions that were proposed 2
or whatever.
3 0
With the benefit of hindsight we can say that i
4 this instruction that was put out was not followed; ignored, 5
if you will.
Operators went right on grinding out 6
excessive leak rate tests and throwing them away.
They 7
didn't go in the action statement.
The confirmation papers 8
were inaccurate, to put it charitably, it seems, in the 9
benefit of hindsight.
10 A
From what I have learned since that time, in 11 that time period I believe your characterization is correct.
12 I just was not aware of that, of those practices during
()
13 1978 and '79 time period.
14 0
I don't know if this was directed to your 15 attention or not, but last week we had a witness before us, 16 a Mr. Edwin Stier, and he was asked lots of things.
But i
17 among other things he was asked, based on his investigation,
]
18 whether he had comments about the LER, and the handling of 19 the LER by yourself and the NRC generally and he did make 20 some comments that are in the transcript of last Friday, 21 from -- I can give you the citation.
It's transcript 1919 22 to 1925.
I don't know -- Mr. Goldberg, do you know -- have 23 you brought this to Mr. Haverkamp's attention?
24 MR. GOLDBERG:
Yes, he has reviewed Friday's 25 transcript of the testimony by Mr. Stier.
O
+
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
[
l 202-347-37(U Nationwide Coverage 8 @ 336-6646
_~
28217.0 2095 BRT (N
.g 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
Right.
And I'm looking 2
'particularly at 1919 and 1925.
There are some other 3
comments scattered further on but that's, I think'it's fair 4
to say, the substance of his comments.
5 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
6 O
Do you have comments on Mr. Stier's views as he 7
expressed them there?
Do you think his characterizations 8
are fair or unfair?
You may want to have a copy.
9 MR. GOLDBERG:
May I allow him to look at those 10 pages?
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
Of course.
12 Let me ask counsel, too, would it be more
(')
13 convenient to ask this question after lunch and let him 14 read those six pages over the break?
15 MR. GOLDBERG:
Yes, I think so.
Because 16 Mr. Haverkamp reviewed more than just.those pages and I 17 think it's important that he focus on precisely what you l
18 want the basis for his answer to be.
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
I might have some specific 20 questions, too, but maybe it's botter all'the way around.
21 We'll be breaking for lunch after a while and we'll still 22 have questions to ask.
We'll just plan on revisiting that 23 piece of transcript and then you can make whatever comments 24 you wish and we will have some follow-ups.
Okay?
25 THE WITNESS:
That will be satisfactory.
CE)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coscrage 80tk336-6M6
28217.0' 2096 BRT
/^)
~
l JUDGE KELLEY:
Fine.
2 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, may I just ask, if 3
Mr. Haverkamp would speak a little more closely into the 4
microphone?
It's a little hard to hear from time to time.
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
Sure.
Let me just take a moment.
6 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
7 0
Just one other thing that may be similar.
Have 8
you reviewed the proposed testimony of Mr. James Seelinger 9
that has been filed in the case?
i 10 A
I reviewed the prefiled testimony.
11 0
His prefiled testimony; correct.
12 A
Yes, I did review that testimony.
()
13 0
He has a section beginning on page 6 which is 14 captioned, " Response to Mr. Donald R.
Haverkamp's Prepared 15 Testimony."
My question would be, do you have comments 16 that you wish to make on that section of his testimony?
j 17
.A If you give me a copy I would comment.
18 JUDGE KELLEY:
It's just a couple of pages but 19 it might be just as well to apply the same rule there.
I 20 Those are really two requests to review prior 21 statements of others about you, in part about you, at least.
22 Perhaps, rather than have you' reread it again right now, l
23 we'll hold those until after lunch, too, and then whatever l
24 comments you want to make you can make.
25 I don't mean to imply that the Seelinger ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 3C-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 85336-6M6
28217.0 2097 BRT nb 1
testimony necessarily require's comment on your part.
I 2
just simply wanted to bring.it to your attention on the.
3 record that it does refer to you and, if you wish to 4
comment on it, you are free to.
5 THE WITNESS:
I will address that after lunch.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Fine. 'Okay.
7 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
8 Q
Mr. Haverkamp, I want you to be aware that the 9
Board is certainly aware that it's difficult for you to 10 accurately recall things.that went on eight years ago.
So 11 I want to ask some questions.
You will be limited in your 12 ability to recall the substance of what I'm going to ask
()
13 you about.
14 On page 5 of your prefiled testimony, the last 15 full paragraph where you are describing your brief meeting 16 with Mr. Floyd and Mr. Seelinger, after you discovered the 17
-tech spec problem, you testified that you believe that 18 Mr. Floyd expressed a lack of confidence in the 19 computer-calculated results of the RCS unidentified leakage.
1 20 In the course of that conversation, did it ever 21 occur to you or Mr. Floyd that you were not entirely at the 22 mercy of the computer and it was possible to make the 23 calculations by hand?
If that was the problem -- and i
24 apparently it was part of the problem; errors in the i
25 computer program -- why couldn't that problem have easily O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide coverage 8tn3M-6M6 l
... _ _. -, ~ -, _, - - - _,. _..
-347 3700.....
.. _... _,, _..... _ ~ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _. ~. _ _
28217.0 2098 BRT 0
1 been solved by doing the calculations by hand?
They don't 2
strike me as being remarkably subtle or profound; the 3
procedure describes how to make the calculations by hand.
4 A
It is possible to make the calculation by hand 5
but I'm not -- I do not recall if that was specifically 6
discussed when this came up on the 18th, October 18th.
And 7
I'm not familiar with the practices that they had in place 8
to do a hand calculation.
9 0
You haven't looked at the procedure to see 10 whether it told the operator how to do the calculation by 11 hand?
12 A
I do not recall having reviewed the procedure
()
13 for hand calculation until after the accident at TMI-2.
14 In the time frame of 1978 to
'79, I do not i
15 recall looking at detailed procedure for doing a leak rate 16 test.
I was looking at the results of tests, you know, the 17 test results associated with those procedures.
l 18 I believe we had other inspectors that did look 19 at.those procedures; I cannot speak to what their 20 understanding of the hand calculation was.
There was an 21 inspection, for example, in February --'I believe it was 22 late February or early March, 1978, when we were looking at 23 the ability to -- of the leakage detection system l
l 24 operability, and a test that was performed of the leakage 25 detection system operability.
That was performed by plant i
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationaide Coverage MG33M646
-28217.0 2099 BRT mU 1
inspectors other than myself.
2
.And, in addition, during initial criticality, we 3
had inspectors present that referred to some inspections of 4
leakage that they had conducted where they were actually 5
there when the leak rate measurements were being done.
But 6
I don't know --
7 0
I didn't mean to go that far.
I meant it just 8
seemed to me when Mr. Floyd said that he questioned the 9
validity of the computer calculations and therefore 10 questioned whether the numbers had reality, the obvious 11 thing to do is say: 'Well, are we really at the mercy of 12 the computer?
Until we get it fixed, can we get a valid
().
13 result by doing hand calculations?
14 A
That concern, I guess, in my view, was directly 15 related to their own evaluation of the problem.
That is, 16 having high leak rates.
Why do they have high leak rates?
17 I left that to the licensee to follow up.
18 0
I'll ask the same question to Mr. Floyd when we 19 see him.
20 Turning to page 9 of your prefiled,'in response f
21 to question 12 you testified that, in December of 1978, you 22 reviewed the records of the reactor coolant system leakage 23 measurements completed during October 1 through December 11, l
24 1978.
You further testified the test results which you i
25 reviewed indicated that the leakage was acceptable.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Cos erage 8%3E6646 347-37t10
28217.0 2100 BRT 1
That seems to me to'ima a valid follow-up to the 2
previous-identified problem.
3 At that time, or any time prior to the accident, 4
did you become aware that surveillances were being made and 5
the records of those surveillances were being discarded?
1 6
A No, I was not aware of that.
7 0
So in your. mind when you reviewed those tests 8
results you had to assume or did assume that that was the 9
complete inventory of tests that had been carried out?
10 A
That was my assumption, that those were the --
11 the records that I reviewed, which were in a file in the 12 control room, were the -- was the tests that were conducted-()
13 for RCS leakage.
I guess I was not aware of the additional 14 tests being conducted and the results not being kept.
15 0
As a general matter, is it acceptable practice 16 to carry out a surveillance test and discard the result and 17 carry out another one?
18 A
No, it is not.
l 19 0
Where's the documentation of the unacceptability?
20 Where do I find, specifically, where it's precluded?
21 A
In this case I suspect that you would find it in 22 the licensee's procedures for performing surveillance 23 required by technical specifications.
There is a procedure, 24 a general procedure that provides guidance as to how to 25' conduct tests and the controls of tests and when.to retain O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmcrage 800-336-6M6
-_.-..m.
28217.0 2101 BRT 1
or how to retain test results.
I do not recall the 2
specific details of that procedure but there was such a 3
procedure for Three Mile Island Unit 2.
4 0
Isn't it true that, in general, it would be 5
undesirable because the people carrying out the 6
surveillance tests perhaps are not qualified by education 7
or experience to interpret the results of the test, to 8
carry out the test and decide:
Well, I won't turn it in, 9
goes beyond the proper performance by the individual 10 because they are really not qualified to interpret whether 11 or not the results are valid?
12 A
I believe that is one of the reasons for that
()
13 requirement.
In my view, it is a fundamental aspect of 14 operation in nuclear power plants is that when problems are 15 identified that they get documented and forwarded up 16 through management to the proper group for evaluation.
In 17 the case of surveillance results, they were -- there we e 18 reviews required by engineers when surveillance results 19 were not accepted or not acceptable, as well as by other 20 people at the plants:
managers.
And I -- it appears in 21 this case, operators did not follow that process.
22 O
Well, it certainly misled you when you did that 23 i
review in December.
I think it was a proper follow-up, a 24 reasonable thing to do as far as you could tell.
It's a 25 fair sample, October 1st through December 11th.
The test (m
t_J l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 4 47-3700 Nationwide Cov erage 14n336-6646
28217.0 2102 BRT
')
l' results were acceptable.
So, based on that, what the 2
licensee put before you'certainly suggest'd that they had e
3 solved the problem when, in fact, they had not.
4 A
You are correct.
Although I was doing this 5
review in conjunction with a broad view of surveillance 6
tests and the performance of surveillance tests, it is 7
clearly related to the leakage problems that they had that 8
I was aware of in October.
9 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you very much.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
That concludes the Board's 11 initial questions.
We'll have follow-ups in the course of 12 the discussion as we had before.
()
13 We'll turn next to the questions submitted by 14 the numerous employees, for Mr. Haverkamp.
In that 15 connection, though, let me just say this, first.
The first 16 13 questions from the numerous employees relate either to 17 experience at other plants where Mr. Haverkamp has worked, 18 which we think is beyond the scope of his appearance here, 19 or to. Unit 1, which is beyond the scope for a different 20 reason that I may not restate.
21 It is our view that those questions are not 22 appropriate.
However, we haven't heard argument on that.
23 What we suggest is that we go ahead, starting 24 with question 14, put the rest of the questions, and then 25 if at the conclusion of Mr. Haverkamp's questions the (2) l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
E 2""?? _ _._. __j'"* f*f1"'"
28217.0 2103 BRT O
1 employees want to make an argument on behalf of the 2
questions we've preliminarily rejected, we'll be happy to 3
hear that and might reverse ourselves, depending on what is 4
said.
5 But, initially we would prefer to go to the ones 6
we think are clearly appropriate and then backfit to.those 7
later, as it were.
8 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
9 0
These are the proposed questions of the
{
10 employees for witness Donald R.
Haverkamp, starting with 11 question 14:
At page 3 of your testimony you describe 12 overhearing a conversation on October 18, 1978, between two
()
13 or three plant personnel discussing unidentified reactor 14 coolant system leakage exceeding technical specification 15 limits.
Is it fair to infer from your description of the 16 conversation that at least the operators involved in the 17 conversation were not ignoring the potential importance of 18 unidentified leakage in excess of technical specification i
19 limits?
20
?!R. GOLDBERG:
Excuse me, Judge Bright.
I i
21 believe that that question misstates Mr. Haverkamp's i
22 testimony.
.I don't believe it indicates that he was 23 discussing'the problem with operators.
The question asks --
24 is based on a discussion at that time with operators.
25 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tC-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 801L3346M6
,_._,_.____ m
28217.0 2104 BRT O
1 0
Mr. Haverkamp, would you care to clear us up on 4
2 this?
3 A
My recollection of the specific conversation is 4
really not clear at this time.
However, I believe -- in 5
view of the fact that the conversation was ongoing, I think 6
there was a concern or there was -- some operators that 7
were involved with this conversation did have a concern for 8
the leak rates which appeared to be excessive.
9 0
But you don't remember whether it was operators 10 or the shift foremen or shift supervisors?
11 A
I have been trying to recall this for a number 12 of years.
I believe it was the senior licensed operators.
()
13 There may have been one reactor operator, not a senior 14 licensed operator.
I believe that conversation took place.
15 in the shift supervisor's office, which would be another 4
16 indicator as to why they were senior licensed people.
I 17-just do not recall who they were.
18 MR. MC BRIDE:
Excuse me, Judge Bright.
I don't 19 mean to disrupt the procedure that we have been following, i
20 but for clarity of the record, given his last answer, I i
21 wonder if you could direct his attention to the top of page 22 3 and see if he misspoke?
He just said the shif t 23 supervisor's office.
His direct testimony refers to a 24 conversation in the vicinity of the shift foreman's desk.
i 25 MR. B LAKE:
You have to read the entire sentence.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37m Nationwide Coverage 80lk336-6M6
28217.0 2105 BRT
,.Q l
THE WITNESS:
The shift foreman's desk is just 2
outside the the shift supervisor's office.
Because of my 3
lack of recollection I have limited it to those two pages.
4 MR. MC BRIDE:
I'm sorry.
I had page 2 in front 5
of me, not page 3.
I didn't see-the "either/or."
I 6
apologize.
7 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
8 0
I guess the thrust of the question, or the 9
question, whether they were operators or they were foremen-10 or supervisors or whatever, would it be fair to say that at 11 least these people who were involved in this conversation 12 were not ignoring the potential importance of unidentified
()
13 leakage?
14 A
I would agree that they were not ignoring the 15 importance of that problem.
16 0
Question 15:
Is.it fair to infer from your 17 description of the leak rate tests involved in the October 18 18, 1978 incident, as being "in clear view," (at page 3 of 19 your testimony) that on the occasion -- on that occasion 20 there was no effort made to hide those results from you, 21 the NRC resident inspector?
I assume we can throw away 22 that " resident."
23 A
From my observation of the records.and 24 discussion I had, there was no --
25 0
'No effort to hide --
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationnide Ctncrage 80 4 336-6646
. ~ - -
4 28217.0 2106 BRT O
1 A-
-- effort to hide any evidence of excessive leak 2
rates.
3 0
Question 16:
Do you believe in October 1978 4
that the TMI-2 computer program for determining RCS leakage 5
and the instrumentation providing data to the computer 6
could lead to inaccuracies in the leak rate test results?
7 Is that a fair inference from the phrase, "any instrument 8
inaccuracies associated with the calculated leakage 9
measurements," at page 8 of your testimcny?
10 A
Now that I'm on page 8, could you repeat the 11 question, please?
12 O
Essentially, that inaccuracies in the leak rate
()
13 test results can result from instrumentation or the data to 14
'the computer -- computer program?
Did you believe that was 15 the reason?
16 A
I asked some question's about the accuracy of 17 instrumentation that were -- these are instruments that 18 were inputting inputs to the computer calculation.
I 19 didn't have, at that time that the questions were posed on f
20 the morning of the 18th, I don't recall being given any --
l 21 I don't remember the answers.
I'll leave it.at that.
t 22 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Bright, excuse me.
There 23 may have been something lost in the translation there when 24 he had to go to page 8 and didn't hear the question again.
25 The question is not limited to October 18th.
I wonder if O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 80tk346M6
~, _ _.. _
~
28217.0 2107 BRT p.
I 1
with that clarification you can put the question to him 2
again.
3 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
4 0
In October 1978.
5 A
I did not learn any of the specific problems 6
that might have been occurring with instruments that could 7
have caused invalid -- computer errors.
I do recall being 8
told that there was an error found in the computer 9
calculation that contributed in some manner to the high 10 leakage rates but I did not pursue it at that time or since 11 to find out what instruments were affected.
It was a 12 general discussion about instrument accuracies may affect
(-}s 13 results, or plant -- changing plant conditions, such as 14 changing temperature and pressure, would have some bearing 15 on the validity of results.
But I do not remember anything 16 more specific than that.
17 BY JUDGE-KELLEY:
18 0
In any case you did not pursue it?
19' A
I did not.
20 0
And when you were told later that some computer 21 problem had been fixed you just assumed it had been fixed; 22 is that right?
23 A
That is correct.
24 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
25 0
Question 17:
Referring to your Exhibit C, do O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Natiortwide Cos erage MK336-6646
.28217.0 2108 BRT 1
you recall Mr. Seelinger's conversation with you at 1530 on 2
October 19, 1978?
3 A
I am going to infer at this point that that 4
conversation is a reference to when I was told that the 5
PORC, Plant Operations Review Committee, had met, and made 6
a determination that this event.was in fact reportable.
7 There was a time in the inspection when 8
Mr. Seelinger conveyed that information to me.
I do not 9
recal) anything beyond that, in terms of details of the 10 conversation ~.
But Mr. Seelinger, after our first 11 conversation, there was a point later in the discussion 12 where Mr. Seelinger did tell me that PORC had met and f ()
13 determined the reportability of the item.
I believe that's 14 what the reference is to.
15 0
Question 18 says:
If not, do you have any doubt I
16 that the conversation occurred?
17 A
I didn't hear that question.
18 0
Sir?
i 19 A
Would you repeat the question, please?
20 0
If not, do you have any doubt that the 21 conversation occurred?
The first one asked you if you 22 recalled it.
The second one says do you think that it 23 actually happened?
24 A
I recall that conversation.
As I have indicated, 25 I believe that's what was referred to in this -- in (2) i 4
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-370)
Nationwide Coserage 8433MM6
28217.0 2109 BRT 1
Mr. Seelinger's letter.
I believe that conversation did 2
occur to the effect that this matter was reportable.
3 0
very well.
Question 19:
In your Exhibit E, at 4
page 9, you state that you reviewed certain licensee event 5
reports, LERs, including LER78-62/IT, "promptly following 6
receipt to verify the details of the event were clearly 7
' reported, including the accuracy of the description of the 8
cause and the adequacy of the corrective action."
9 Did you so conclude with respect to LER78-62/IT?
10 A
Was that question related to 61 -- LER78-62/IT?
11 0
The same --
12 A
What paragraph -- what exhibit were you
()
13 referring to?
14 0
I presume that it's --
15 JUDGE KELLEY: -Exhibit E,
I believe.
16 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
17 0
Exhibit E, at page 9.
18 A
Up until now we have been talking about LER78/62, 19 as related to leakage.
I want to make certain I understand 20 the question correctly.
21 0
In your Exhibit E, page 9, you state that you 22 reviewed certain licensee event reports, LERs, including 23 LER78-62/IT, "promptly following receipt to verify the 24 details of the event were clearly reported, in'cluding the l
25 accuracy'of the description of cause and the adequacy of O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3C-347-3700 Nationaide Coserage 8(n33MM6
l 28217.0 2110 BRT 7.
i 1
corrective action."
2 Did you so conclude with respect to LER78-62/IT?
3 A
In the case of this licensee event report, that 4
review was done by Mr. Lazarus.
5 O
Mr. whom?
6 A
Mr. Lazarus.
I was at the site.
I was at the 7
plant.
The review I was referring to was performed by 8
Mr. Lazarus'in the Unit 1 office, who was familiar with 9
some of the details I was unfamiliar with.
So I do not 10 know the extent to which he did that review.
My own 11 recollection is that I didn't focus, as I mentioned before, 12 on some of the details as to the times and dates that were
( ",)
/
13 not as important to me as the corrective actions that were 14 specified.
I do not recall specifically if I reviewed this 15 report at the site, or the letter or copy of it.
I think I 16 was shown a copy.
I just do not recall that.
17 However, later on.I also looked at that and I 18 looked at the report, the regular report, and even at that 19 time I did not do a comparison of data, one to the other.
20 As I said, I was satisfied with the cause -- I mean that 21 the corrective actions were as I understood it and that's 22 really where my focus was.
23 0
Question 20:
You also state at page 9 of 24 Exhibit 80, "The LERs were also reviewed to determine 25 whether further information was required from the licensee; n
u.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3 x _ mm>-
,,m> _
28217.0 2111 BRT.
I whether generic implications were involved; whether the 2
event should be classified as an abnormal occurrence; 3
whether the information involved with the event should be 4
submitted to licensing boards; and whether the event 5
warranted on-site follow-up."
6 Did you reach an af firmative conclusion with 7
respect to LER78-62/IT, as to any of the questions referred 8
_to in the above quote?
9 A
There was a determination that the event 10 warranted on-site follow-up because it was a prompt report 11 and it was our policy and practice at that time to conduct 12
'an on-site follow-up on all such LERs.
Whereas the~LERs
()
13 that were considered less important, such as the 30-day 14 reports, we had a selective process, a sampling.
So'there 15 was an affirmative determination made to conduct an on-site 16 follow-up.
17 0
But the rest of it you required no further 18 information f rom the licensee there was a generic problem, 19 that it should be an abnormal occurrence, nor should it be 20 submitted to licensing boards?
You found no reason to do 21 that?
22 A
That is correct.
The other elements wouldn't 23 lead to it.
There was no need to carry out those items.
24 0
Question 21:
Do you agree with Mr. Capra's 25 statement, question 70 of Martin V. Cooper ORR/OI interview,
<-o, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3C447-3700 Nationwide Coverage tul-336-(M6
28217.0 2112 BRT 1
September 28, 1984 (Exhibit 10 to the OI report of 2
investigation in case number 1-84-022), that the rounding 3
off of unidentified leakage in the TMI-2 leak rate test "was 4
in fact authorized at the time by the NRC inspector"?
Do 5
you agree that his reference to the "NRC inspector" must 6
have been to you?
7 A
I think the reference must have been to me.
8 0
Do you care to elaborate or just agree with it?
9 A
Yes.
My recollection is that-I did question the 10 accuracy that was required by the measurement, since I kind 11 of came into this quickly, that morning, and I was looking 12 at the technical specifications that required the 1 gpm
' ()
13 limit.
I did question whether or not -- just how accurate 14 did the measurement have to be, what were they looking for?
15 I don't remember if I was the first person who used the 16 te rm " round-of f. "
I was aware that that came up during the 17 conversation.
I guess I can say I did not authorize that 18 but I was aware of it.
In fact, I later during that 19 inspection reviewed the operations memo which Mr. Floyd i
20 wrote, that discussed round-off.
And I referenced that in 21 my inspection report.
22 But, you know, I guess I just want to make.a l
23 point that I did not approve it.
I was aware of it.
I do 24 not know to what influence -- how much I influenced the 25 conduct of that practice but, probably if I hadn't asked C)
L L
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-370l)
Nationwide Cmerage 80lk33MM6 I
L r.
P
,S T p y'l:
.o;y QW ;g,
L y
7.,.
- . h.
'28217.0
,1 2113 I
.1 some questions about it, it may never have been done.
I 2(
, feel that I was the initiator, although I did not intend g
i t
3 for, I guess, the measures to be taken that I seem to have i
[.4,/-
initiated.
t 5'
O 22:
Did you become involved regularly with 6
Mr. Seelinger at TMI?
3 7
A Mr. Seelinger was, in my view, my primary point a
of contact for TMI-2.
There may have been a few occasions 9
when I saw Mr. Miller; I just don't recall those occasions.
~
10 But when it came to plant operations, technical questions D
11 about. engineering-related questions, I spoke frequently
)
12-with Mr. Seelinger, probably -- I'm sure during each
\\s O
- ?
13 inspecti n.
f he was there, I would talk to him.
14 0
Question 23:
Did you have an opinion of 15 Mr. Seelinger's responsiveness to your opinions, reports g
i 16 and observations, while he was at TMI?
17 A
I haven't gone through my inspection reports
'd-18 recently to provide any basis for this, but my view of
\\
s
\\
19'
'Mr.
Seelinger was that he was very responsive to any 20 concerns that I might have and that matters that required 21 follow-up, that I considered required follow-up, he would 22 pursue aggressively.
23 0
Question 24:
Does your inspection report for 24 October 16th through 20th, 1978, attached to your testimony
,' 25 as Exhibit A, refer in any way to the leak rate matters nU 4
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800 336-(616
s 28217.0 2114 BRT A
N J.
I that are the subject of your testimony?
2 A
No.
3 0
25 says:
Does the absenc'e of references to leak 4
rate matters in that inspection report.for October 16-20,
<s 5
1978, imply that you did not consider the events concerning 6
leak rate tests at TMI-2 in October l1978 to be particularly
(
7 significant?
1 8
A No.
I consider this, a
.I mentioned before, 9
being involved in the -- with the event that was discovered 10 by the licensee, and I treated it as a licensee event where s
11 they initiated taking actions where the prob) ems were in 12 described, et cetera, I did not see this as an item that, L
( ).
13 although significant, was something that I should be 14 documenting in my inspection report, because in my view at 15 that time it was somewhat out of the purview or out of the 16 inspection -- separate from the inspection that I was 17 conducting.
I was aware of the event of the prompt report, 18 the written report being generated by the licensee, and I 19 guess my perspective then Na.
that it was -- my involvement 20 was the same as if I lav ser in th'e office.
I did not 4
s 21 spend much time -.other than discussing the issues 22 initially, I did not, as I said, look into the technical l
23 aspects of the calculation.
I did not spend much time
~
24 looking into the causes, the root causes.
I left that'to l
l l
25 the licensee in the process -- procession of reviewing and O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M-347 37(U Nationwide Coserage 8(X) 336-6M6
~.
e 28217.0 2115 P ' BRT l
i 1
evaluating the event and making the reports that were 2
appropriate.
i-3 0
Question 26:
Is it fair to infer from pages 8 4
and 9 of your testimony, that you could understand how 5
TMI-2 pursonnel might have concluded that you had approved
(
6 the rounding off of unidentified leakage in leak rate test 7
results?
- g
]
8 A
I didn't hear part of that question.
Will you 9
repeat it, please?
10 0
Is it fair to infer from pages 8 and 9 of your r/
11 testimony, that you could understand how TMI personnel-12 might have concluded that you had' approved the rounding off 1
7 ()
13 of unidentified leakage in leak rate test results?
14 A
I can understand how 'it might appear I approved i
15 it, since I did not, for example, call headquarters while I 16 was at the site to reach a determination in my own view.
I 7
17 did not have th'e background in this specific area to really i
18 have -- to know one way or another just what the accuracy 19 of the measurement was supposed to be.
But since.I.had not 20 said "no, you cannot issue this memorandum" or -- it could l
21 give the appearance that I had approved it for at least a
+
22 few days.
After I had reached, or obt'ained more
/
23 information on the subject, I conveyed that fact to the 24 site.
It was my under, standing that the round-off practice 3
25_
was terminated promptly.
l
( )-
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i4.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33M646
,,,n,
28217.0 2116 BRT AV 1
0 27,-going down the same path here:
Did you, by f -
2 word or otherwise, indicate to Mr. Seelinger or anyone else 3
that you felt that because "1 gpm" instead of "1.0 gpm" was 4
the technical specification limit for unidentified leakage, 5
that unidentified leakage up to 1.4999 gallons per minute 6
was acceptable?
7 A
I do not recall saying that such a number was 8
acceptable.
I do recall not being sure and not knowing 9
whether it was acceptable and feel'ing an obligation to 10 pursue that and relay the results of my evaluation to the 11 plant.
I just do not recall the specific conversation that 12 occurred during the week of my inspection.
()
13 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Bright, in light of the 14 answers to the previous two question's we would withdraw 15 question 28.
16 JUDG8 BRIGHT:
Very well.
17 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
18 0
Question 29:
Is it a fact,.Mr. Haverkamp, that 19 the circumstances involving leak rate testing that you 20 discovered at TMI-2 on October 18, 1978, were such that you 21 did not feel the need to cite Metropolitan Edison for a 22 violation of the technical specifications?
23 A
I apologize but I missed the first part of that 24 question again.
State it again, please.
25 0
Is it a fact, Mr. Haverkamp, that the k
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 80tK33MM6
28217.0 2117 BRT-1 circumstances involving leak rate testing that-you 2
discovered at TMI-2 on October 18, 1978, were such that you 3
-did not feel the need to cite metropolitan he would did I 4
son for a violation of the technical specifications?
5 A
Yes, in that I considered that an item that they 6
had identified initially and were reporting, in accordance 7
with their technical specification requirements, I was not 8
compelled nor should I have been required to cite this 9
issue in my inspection report or to issue a notice of 1
10 violation and a citation.
11 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Bright, in light of that 12 answer we would withdraw question 30.
And, Judge Bright,
()-
13 it is also correct and I should have pointed out that I
.14 believe his prior testimony has answered question 31.
15 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
16 0
Question 32:
In Exhibit E to your testimony at 17 pages 9 through 11 of inspection report numbers 18 50-289/79-01 and 50-320/79-01 attached thereto, did you 19 indicate to Mr. Herbein that would you follow up 20 LER78-62/IT in an on-site review?
21 A
That report you referred to stated that the i
22 on-site review had been conducted, not that it would be 23 conducted.
i
~
24 0
"Could" rather than "would"?
Is that what you 25 said?
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide roverage mig-336-6M6 l
. ~.
-, - _ _ - -,.. - - - - 347-3 700- -.. -.,.. _ - - -, _ -
28217.0 2118 BRT O
1 A
No.
The on-site review was conducted during 2
that inspection.
3 0
Oh.
4 A
In that the cover letter to that report was 5
addressed to Mr. Herbein, he therefore was informed that 6
the on-site review had been conducted.
7 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Bright, I believe in light 8
of that answer he has answered question 33.
9 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Yes.
10 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
11 0
Following up on this-on-site review thing, 12 question 34 says:
Did you review your findings with the
()
13 TMI-2 PORC?
14 A
I did not review nor did I routinely review my 15 findings with the plant operations review committee.
I 16 would review my findings with the senior manager who was on 17 site at the time I conduc.ted by exit interview.
Typically l
18 this is done at the end of the inspection.
And, in this 19 case, that exit interview was. conducted with Mr. Bezilla 20 and Mr. Kunder, according to my special report.
Mr. Kunder, 21 I believe, at that time, was in his position as unit i
22 superintendent, technical support, was the PORC chairman.
23 So, in a sense I communicated to PORC but really not to the 24 whole committee.
i 25 0
Ouestion 35:
Page 11 of inspection report (2)
I l
~
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M646
28217.0 2119 BRT' AU 1
numbers 50-289/79-01 and 50-320/79-01 states that you 2
verified that the reporting requirements of technical 3
specifications, dot, dot, dot, had been met; that 4
appropriate corrective action has been taken; that the 5
event was reviewed by the licensee as required by technical 6
specifications; and that continued operation of the 7
facility was conducted in conformance with technical 8
specification limits.
9 Does your lack of specific reference to 10 LER78-62/IT imply that you did so?
s 11 A
Yes.
It was also my finding that that review 12 was acceptable.
()
13 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Bright, may I say for your 14 benefit with respect to the next question, perhaps in l
15 retrospect we should have broken it down a little more, but 16 I trust the Board understands the thrust of what we were 17 trying to do there was.
I'll leave it to you to inquire of 18 us if you don't.
We did want to offer that particular 19 document in evidence, if the Board is willing to do so, 20 through that series of questions that appears 36.
21 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
22 0
This memo, 2-78-19, are you saying that that is 23
-- oh.
Okay.
I see.
l l
24 At page 36 of inspection report 50-289/79-01 and 25 50-320/79-01, attached to your testimony as part of Exhibit O
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37tx)
Nationwide Coserage 80fk336-6M6
28217.0 2120 BRT 1
E, you refer to " Unit 2 operations department memos 2-78-17 2
through 2-78-25," that you reviewed.
3 Did you, in fact, do so?
I assume, reviewed 4
these. memos.
5 A
I did review those memos.
My counting may not 6
have been correct because I referred to a couple of those 7
memos in more than one inspection report.
Let me go back 8
to inspecti'on 50-320/78-32.
9 MR. GOLDBERG:
Give the exhibit number, the 10 exhibit identification for your testimony so it's easier to 11 find.
Exhibit A?
12 THE WITNESS:
Exhibit A on page 9.
()
13 During that inspection I.had looked at 14.
operations department memos 278-16 through 278-20.
And 15 then later I have noted that I -- some repetition of those 16 memos, 17 through 25.
-17 I believe, however, that when I did the 18 inspection later'that the one memo, 278-19, which was in
~ 19 effect when the earlier inspection had been canceled, I 20 have no notation in my report of that but there is -- I i
21 believe that one or more of those memos inclusive in that 22 numbering may have in fact been canceled at the time 1 23 wrote the memo.
24 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
25 0
So you are saying all these memos, 17 through 25, l
(2) 1 l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage an336-6M6
l
. 28217.0 2121 BRT 1
by the time you did the review, that ~2-78-19 had been 2
canceled, is your best knowledge?
3 A
That's my best estimate at.this time; yes, sir.
4 There should.be some record of that the licensee maintains.
5 I just do not have the record available to say whether it 6
was. canceled.
7 JUDGE-BRIGHT:
Mr. McBride, he says it had been 8
canceled.
9 M R '. MC BRIDE:
Evidently it had been canceled at 10 the time of the inspection report, if his recollection is 11 correct.
But I believe his earlier testimony today 12 indicates-that he did review this particular memorandum.
I
()
13 think perhaps he could recast the rest of this question in 14 light of that' earlier review, because we still would like 15
-to offer the memorandum into evidence.
16 MR. GOLDBERG:
Has everybody had a chance, other 17 parties had a chance to look at this one-page memo that is l
18 being offered?
l 19 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, I should say this 20 memorandum minus the X is in the Stier report.
But we i
21 wanted to offer the X'd out version as well because I think 22 it will be clear later why it's important.
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
Will somebody explain where it's 24 X'd out?
25 MR. MC BRIDE:
I think you could ask (2) 4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-370)
Nationwide Coserage
- 433MM6
. --,-.__,.,,-,._-- --,... - ~. m,
_, - - _ - _ _,, - - ~. _.. -,, - _ - - -,,
.. - ~
=
28217.0 2122
~BRT 1
Mr. Marshall or Mr. Floyd later.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, offer it then if it's in 3
the Stier report.
Well, does anybody object, subject to it 4
being cleared up, as to why it got 'X'd out later on, does 1
5 anybody. object ~to marking this as admitting it as an t
6 exhibit?
7 We are.up to number 16?
There's no objection to 8
this.
We'll mark this as Board Exhibit 16.
9 (Board Exhibit 16 received.)
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
With-the understanding that the 11 origin of 'the X on this copy will be clarified by a later 12 witness.
] ()
13 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
14 Q
Do you have a copy of that?
15 A
Yes, I do.
t 16 Q
The question continues:
Is the copy of
{
17 Mr. Floyd's October 20, 1978 memorandum a copy of memo l
l 18 number 2-78-19 that you reviewed?
e 19 A
I reviewed a copy of this memorandum without the 20 X.
I do not recall specifically if I saw a copy with the X, f
21 but I am aware it was canceled.
22 My recollection is that there was a list of i
23 effective memoranda that was in the front of the book where-24 these were kept.
So, for numerical accountability, you 25 could see that they weren't missing one -- there was an
()
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m m.m, s.e_
c_,
mn-
28217.0 2123 BRT D
1 entry on this list of effective memoranda that this 2
particular one had been canceled at a particular date.
3 0
So you did or did not review it?
4 A
I did review it.
I did review it during the 5
earlier inspection that was conducted in October, before I 6
finished my inspection; in fact, I noted that in my 7
inspection report.
8 0
Well, let's continue:
Is it a fact that 9
Mr. Floyd's memo number 2-78-19, minus the X through it, 10 carries out your instructions to Mr. Seelinger regarding 11 entry into the action statement for any leak rate test 12 showing unidentified leakage over 1 gallon per minute?
()
13 A
This one' refers to greater than -- this refers 14 to entering in the action statement when the leakage is 15 greater than 2 gallons per minute because at that time 16 there was also thias uncertainty about the round-off 17 procedure.
And the concern that I had was focusing 18 initially and throughout, was on the -- when the action 19.
statement should be entered, when is when.the time clock 20 starts for entry.
That is addressed.
I can read it here i 21 if you wish or assert that it was addressed in the memo.
22 MR. MC BRIDE:
Excuse me, Judge Bright, but the 23 question is whether the memo carries out his instructions, 24 not whether it is addressed.
25 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Yes.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-M7-3?N Nationwide Coserage 8tn3%fM6
28217.0 2124 BRT 1
'BY JUDGE. BRIGHT:
2 0
Does it?
3 A ~
I don't. recall any instructions specifically 4
that I gave in this regard.
I certainly offered my view 5
.about when the action statement should be entered.
But I, 6
as a inspector, do not instruct the licensee as to how to 7
do their job.
8 MR. MC ' BRIDE:
Excuse me.
I got distracted for s
9 a moment.
Could I ask the reporter to read back that 10 answer, please?
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
12 (The reporter read the record as requested.)
()
13 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, I have to apologize 14 for some confusion I've created here.
This memorandum with 15 the X in it is in the Stier report.
I thought the Stier i
16 report had the memorandum without the X, so it isn't 17 necessary to make this an a'dditional exhibit.
l l
18 JUDGE KELLEY:
Then we will vacate the earlier 19 order making this Exhibit 16.
i' 20 (Exhibit 16 vacated and withdrawn.).
21' MR. MC BRIDE:
I should indicate for the record 22 it's V-C, tab 34.
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
4 24 JUDGE BRIGHT:
That, I believe, concludes the i.
25 employees questions.
(2)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 Nationwide Coserage 80[F33M646
_.._...._..___._...,.._.-_.__,_._...._..-3700.,., _ _,.. _., _. _... _ _, _ _ _ _ _.,, _., _..... _, _. _. _.,. _ _ _,,
28217.0 2125 BRT 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
I just have a follow-up on the 2
last one.
I think we might break for lunch here before we 3
go to the other set.
4 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
5 0
The last question was whether that memo, number 6
19, the one with the X through it, carries out your 7
instructions?
And what it says is, going to the action 8
statement 2 when leakage is at 2 or more.
I understood j
9 your position to be in two parts, as it were.
Part one, 10 when you exceed the limit, go into the action statement, 11 whatever the limit is.
And then the other part of this is 12 rounding off.
()
13 I gather there was some discussion about 14 rounding off.
The record, I think, is unclear about who 15 said what to whom, exactly, and whose idea it was.
But in 16 any case, for a short period of time there was a 17 rounding-off practice; a matter of just a matter of a week 18 or so; is that right?
19 A
That is correct.
Maybe a few days longer.
I 20 don't recall specifically.
21 O
After you did a follow-up inquiry with the home 22 office and they said rounding of f shouldn' t be done, then 23 that instruction was countermanded and I gather maybe 24 that's when the X got put through the memo.
{
25 But is it fair to put together those two pieces (1) 4 i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
x,me.,
...-..-.--._-_----...-,._~._mm..- - - - -..-,
28217.0 2126 BRT O
~#
1 and say that you instructed them to shut down when it was 2
over 2 gallons a minute?
3 A
I saw this as an item so fundamental or basic I 4
did haven' t to provide any instruction nor was it my policy 5
to provide instruction.
But I did express my view that 6
when the action -- when the limit was exceeded, the action 7
statement should then be entered.
8 0
Right.
9 A
That may be, perhaps, considered an instruction.
10 I did not really convey it as an instruction or directive 11 or anything that, you know, specified what the licensee 12 should do.
But I did express that as my view -- my view
()
13 was, which I felt was recognized by -- was reviewed by the 14 plant Staff -- would become their view.
15 0
Sure.
I guess what I'm after -- and I'm not 16 sure how significant it is, but I can understand two things 17 happening.
You tell me which is closer to reality, or if 18 neither of them are.
19 I understand you are having a discussion and you 20 are giving your view about when the action statement goes 21 into effect and then separately having some discussion 22 about round-off, from which the licensee concludes:
- Well, 23 gee, that means 2 gallons is good enough so that's the way 24 we'll go.
25 or I can see the two being put together and your C1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-m
- x. _ m m.,.
28217.0 2127 BRT 1
saying, when we consider the availability.of round-off if 2
it is available plus your obligation to go into action 3
statement whenever the limit is exceeded, that means 2 4
gallons is okay.
5 I don' t know which took. place or whether some 6
alternative version of reality really obtains.
But can you 7
help me on that?
8 A
I'm not sure I can d!.stinguish what you 9
described as the differences.
The round-off issue was 10 something that was -- that I was aware of, when that 11 inspection was conducted, to the extent I followed up to it 12 the following week.
The concern I had was exceeding a
()
13 limit and it really was not just limited to the RCS leakage.
14.
My concern was beyond that in the general practices for any 15 requirements of the technical specifications, as to when 16 action statements would be placed in effect.
17 0
I guess I'm not communicating my concern.
18 Putting to one side instructions -- let's assume you don't 19 give instructions.
Did you ever express the view in the 20 presence of those people at that time that you could -- you 21 did not have to go into the action statement until leakage 22 exceeded 2 gallons a minute?
23 A
All that I can recall is that I expressed a view 24 that I did not know the answer as to what -- I did not i
25 personally know whether there should be a 1 gallon per l
(2) l k
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 370)
Nat sonwide Cos crape HulkJWN46
i 28217.0 2128 BRT O
1 minute absolute limit or something more than that, taking i
1 2
into consideration for instrument inaccuracies or whatever 3
other conditions might occur.
But as far as the 2 gallons j
4 per minute being acceptable, I do not recall ever saying i
i 5
that that was acceptable.
6 (Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m.,
the ' hearing was -
7 recessed, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m.,
this same day.)
8 9
10 11 12 1
O 13 14 1
j 15 j
16 17 18 19 4
20 i
21 4
22 i
23 i
24 25 lO 4
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
n~~
- - + c -,.
28217.0 2129 BRT O-1-
AFTERNOON SESSION (1:30 p.m.)
2 Whereupon, 3
DONALD R.
HAVERKAM P 4
was resumed as a witness and, having been previously duly 5
sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
We are back on the record after 7
the lunch break.
8 We left with Mr. Haverkamp two rather broad 9
questions relating to parts of the record which I'll 10 briefly state.
As to the first, we asked you to look at a 11 particular segment of transcript which reflects last Friday's 12 testimony, in this case testimony by Mr. Stier.
I believe n
13 I said 1919 to 1925.
On looking closer I meant more us 14 precisely 1919, beginning with line 16.
Prior to that he 15 was talking about something else.
And then including -- I 16 should have said 1924 instead of -25, including line 22 on 17 1924; the comments of Mr. Cole on -25 don't seem to be 18 particularly pertinent.
There are further on in the 19 transcript some additional comments by Mr. Stier, about you.
20 We looked those over.
It seemed to us that the substance 21 of what we were interested in was the citation I gave you.
22 If you want to refer to other parts you are free to do so.
23 EXAMINATION (Continued) 24 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
25 0
But first I'll ask you if you have any overall O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m,.m
~ ~ m -,.
~~
28217.0 2130 BRT DO 1
comments on the segment I brought to your attention and 2
then I'll ask you some more particular questions.
Do you 3
have any overall comments to make?
4 A
I was intending to go over a couple of these 5
issues point by point rather than an overall comment.
6 0
Go ahead as you choose.
The point is to focus 7
you on the particular and hear any disagreement you have 8
with what Mr. Stier had to say.
1 9
A In my review I do not see anything in 10 controversy or conflict on page 1919.
11 0
okay.
12 A
On page 1920, however, these -- Mr. Stier has
()
13 left open a question as to what I knew or did not know of 4
14 certain problems and actions; specifically it states, on 15 line 16, whether I understood the full range of practices 16 that had been going on at TMI-2 in the performance of leak 17 rates.
The answer to that is I did not understand the full I
18 range of practices at that time.
19 It further stated that he had no evidence that I 20 understood they were throwing away bad test results.
I did 21 not know that they were throwing away bad test results.
22 And there was no evidence to believe that I knew that they 23 were filing leak rate tests that hadn't been evaluated to f
24 determine if they were legitimate.
I, also, did not have 25 any knowledge of that practice.
(1)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 347-37m Nationside Cmcrage 800-336-fM6
_-_..m.__,___..
28217.0 2131 BRT n
v I
1 Q
And that's consistent with your other testimony, 2
I believe.
3 A
Here is a comment on the bottom of page 1921 4
that the practice of writing of f that might have been 5
initiated by the NRC -- I guess I can get to that when I 6
get to Mr. Seelinger's questions.
I'll defer it for the 7
time being.
8 0
All right.
9 A
Page 1922, there was some more reference here 10 about the practice of round-off on that page; in particular 11
.the round-off test results on the 18th.
However, it infers 12 that it was by round-off that they brought the leakage
{}
13 under 1 gpm.
In fact, I had seen a leak rate test that did 14 not rely on round-off.
It was actually -- the test results 15 without any rounding off were less than 1 gpm.
I saw those 16 results on the 18th, in the afternoon.
And the comments 17 continue in the transcript about this issue.
I believe it 18 was NRR test number 14 that is the test I saw that had the 19 acceptable leak rate results without any round-off.
20 0
without round-off?
21 A
Without round-off.
22 O
You think it's 14?
This was during the day on 23 the 18th?
24 A
Yes.
The test results; it was a test that was started around 12:30 with the results around 1:30 p.m.
25 j
(~')
i v
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage
- Wh33MM6
28217.0 2132 BRT
,m
! ')
1 0
All right.
2 A
At the bottom of page 1922 there's a reference 3
to what I knew about the leakage problems and in particular 4
I knew that they had some problems in getting good leak 5
rates.
I guess the time period at which I was aware of 6
those problems was specifically those times addressed in 7
the LER, beginning on October 16th and ending on October 8
18th.
I was not aware of a long period prior to that, of 9
any problems.
10 0
All right.
11 A
There's additional reference about how they were 12 going to solve the problem by rounding off the data,
()
13 rounding off numbers.
On October 18th it was my 14 understanding, and in fact I had seen the data which, as I 15 pointed out, did not rely on round-off.
So, therefore that 16 was not an issue anymore.
17 0
All right.
18 A
Other than an academic issue because I became 19 aware later of the practice being instituted by memorandum.
20 I would just like to clarify that on the 21 technical side of this, on October 18th I was infonned that 22 there were some errors in the computer calculation.
I was 23 informed that they had, in fact, identified a leak, found a 24 leak.
And that, by my review of this test data which 25 indicated that gross leakage was less than 1 gpm, confirmed, b) v ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
\\
~ - -,.c -,
y-ww,..
'28217.0 2133
'BRT O
1 in my mind, what I was told.
I'm not sure what was done to 2
get those acceptable test results.
I never -- you know.
3 But as I saw at that time the. leak rate was less than 1 gpm, 4
both the gross leak rate as well as the unidentified leak 5-rate, on the afternoon on the 18th, and it was dealt with in 6
the time period of my becoming this problem, which was 7
around 10:00 a.m.,
or whatever that time was.
So I saw the 8
technical aspects of the issue were resolved, and my 9
concern --
10 0
Based on what you knew?
11 A
Based on what I knew and what I had been shown.
12 And the concerns that I had been following up to after that
(])
13 were, you know, the understandings by the operators, as to 14 when the LCO was in fact -- when the action statement 15.
should be entered, when the unacceptable results are 16 obtained, and also I was aware of the round-off practice 17 which I was following up to, and did so,.promptly, the next 18 week.
19 On page 1923 there's a notation that after I had 20 pursued the issue of round-off and conveyed my findings to l
21 Mr. Seelinger, that the practice was stopped.
It says at 22 that point it would seem logical one could anticipate there 23 would be a resumption of problems in obtaining a good leak 24 rate test.
I guess it wasn't logical to me, based on what 4
25 I knew about the problem that occurred the previous week, i
(1) 1 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
wn. ~,
-- + <-n
->u n
2821.7.0 2134 BRT A.
N.)
1 that there would be such problems in obtain a good leak 2
rate test.
The LERs I had seen, my perception was there i
3 was a limited time period, a couple of days when the leak 4
rate tests were not acceptable.
The results were above the 5
limits.
I thought that the problem was resolved 6
technically and the fact that round-off -- whether to round 7
off or not to round off was irrelevant, would have no 8
bearing in the future of acceptable sets results.
9 0
In the context it is being used here, as we 10 understand your testimony, the extent.of what you ' knew were 11 a few tests over a short time period, a reference to a 12 computer problem or problems, the nature of which you
()
13 didn't know about but simply suggest, I gather, it would 14 throw the numbers off in some fashion.
And that was about 15 it; is that right?
16 A
It was that, plus it was my understanding there 17 was some actual leakage which was corrected -- which was 18 identified and corrected.
i 19 0
Right.
Okay.
20 A
I had no anticipation that there would be a 21 resumption of problems in obtaining good leak rate test 4
22 results.
23 0
Based on what you know?
24 A
That is correct.
25 0
In fact there were a lot problems that you O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 Nationwide Coserage funU6-6646
_ ~ _ _. _ _
_._ _-3700_. - _.. _, _, _ -. _. _ _. _.. _ -. _,. _.. _. _ _.. _. _ _ _
28217.0 2135 BRT
/^%
1 didn't know about that if one knew about one would assume 2
the problems would resume, would one not?
I mean, knowing 3
what we know-now about the extent of their difficulties, 4
rounding off gave them an extra gallon that might take a 5
lot of pressure off,.but once you lost the-round-off the 6
problems would pop back up, would they not, based on 7
everything that was happening at the time which was 8
considerably more extensive than it appears that you knew?
9 A
Yes.
I think this may be logical to the review 10 of these events after they occurred, such as Mr. Stier 11 conducted.
But it just wasn't logical to me at that time.
12 Some of the comments that might be referring to
()
13 the LER, and the fact -- in the case the problem was 14 corrected at or about 7:30, I forget the specific time, and 15 that was a leak rate measurement that did rely on round-off.
16 I just want to make it clear that it was a later leakage 17 measurement that I was shown, that I was relying on to 18 resolve this problem.
It was not the one at 7:00 -- not 19 the earlier leak rate test that morning.
20 on page 1924, transcript refers to the January 21 inspection report that I wrote, where the -- where I 22 reviewed the LER, corrective actions, and the transcript 23 states that TMI-2, in fact, had resumed the pattern of 24 behavior that had existed previously, and, indeed, in 25 January were performing leak rate tests at a time when O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80lk336-6M6
28217.0 2136 BRT
.iq
~
l leakage actually exceeded 1 gpm using a bad makeup level 2
transmitter.
I was not aware of that at the time.
I was 3
not aware of that problem in January.
4 0
I believe you testified earlier your review 5
didn't extend to talking to operators, to getting into 6
these other problems that confronted them at the time; is 7
that right?
8 A
That is correct.
And, in addition, my review of 9
data, the last data that I reviewed was in the mid-December 10 time frame when I was looking at test results between 11 October 1 and I think it was December llth, or thereabouts.
12 That's the last data I looked at of leak rate measurements
[v) 13 that I can recall.
14 I had, in fact -- I looked at the LER, but I did 15 not look at any measurements in January.
I looked at the 16 corrective actions but I did not look at any data.
17 0
When you say you looked at the corrective 18 actions, you spoke of the sign-off sheets.
Was there 19 anything else that you looked at?
20 A
That's all that I recall looking at.
21 O
And when you say you looked at data, data from 22 October through December, in the prior inspection, December 23 inspection, did you not at that time believe that all the 24 bad tests were being thrown away?
25 A
No, I did not.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37(W)
N.itioriaide Co erage
- L3.4M
28217.0 2137 BRT O
1 Q
So the data that you saw was reflected --
2 reflected test of 1 gallon or less; is that correct?
3 A
That is correct.
4 O
So the problem was submerged, at that point, as 5
far as you were concerned?
6 A
Yes.
7 O
Right down at the end of the section I was 8
drawing your attention to, Mr. Stier says this, quoting 9
from line 17:
"All I know are the facts that I have given 10 you that indicate to me that there was a failure on the 11 part of an inspection mechanism and a reporting mechanism 12 to bring to light the underlying problem that existed in
()
13 this test and to solve that problem.
The problem simply 14 continued unchanged."
15 Would you agree with that or not?
16 A
No, I do not agree.
In my view there was no 17 failure on the part of the inspection mechanism.
I 18 reviewed the data upon which I relied as being accurate and 19 correct.
When the LER was developed and the corrective 20 actions identified, I reviewed -- followed up to the i
21 licensee, that report itself.
I think the items, as I 22 understand it, that were being done, as you mentioned, were 23 somewhat submerged.
I was not aware of any bad practices.
24 I just was not aware of it.
And I don't think our j
l 25 inspection practice is able to identify those types of (1) l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 Nationwide Coserage Mn336-6646
-3 7(X ).-
28217.0 2138 BRT O
1 practices.
2 O
As.I read Stier's comments he's deliberately 3
using words like "the inspection mechanism," "the reporting 4
mechanism."
He's not saying Inspector Haverkamp, in a 5
personal way.
But he's saying that the system just didn't 6
turn this up.
And isn't that true?
7 A
The system didn't turn it up.
But I don't think l
8 that represents a failure.
I don't think the system is 9
designed to be able to detect intentional manipulation of 10 data.
You can't detect by an inspection process,
. any 11 falsification-type practices directly.
You'd have to 12 have -- this issue, I believe, was brought to us by -- as
()
13 an allegation.
The concerns we are dealing with now, were 14 identified to us.
It wasn't developed as part of the 15 process.
Nor do I think it's possible to.
16 When you are looking at data, or if I were 17 looking at the test being performed, I might be able to 18 uncover it.
Our inspection process then was pretty much 19 relying on the data that was available in the record.
I 1
20 don' t think it was designed to detect this type of problem.
21 0
Putting to one side, say a manipulation practice 22 that's sort of hard to detect sometimes -- jogged water 23 addition.
Trying to figure out a strip chart wiggle, what 24 it means, putting that to one side, what about something as 25 relatively crude as just throwing the test away?
I just O
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-370t)
Nationwide Coserage RU-33&MM
28217.0 2139 BRT' A
~
1 think, for example, of OA practices I became familiar with in 2
another case, where their nonconformance reports, so-called, 3
are sequentially numbered and you start with 1 or up to 4
25,000 or whatever number you need, but they are all 5
flubbed and they all have to be accounted for.
Take a leak 6
rate test, a document like that.
Is the system really such 7
that people can just throw away documents with impunity and 8
nobody will ever know it?
9 A
I think the system -- if a person wants to be 10 devious, as appears to have been the case, or whatever, and 11 not keeping test results, not only would I not detect it, 12 but other people, even operating in the same plant would
(])
13 not detect it.
14 Perhaps the management of the facility -- in 15
-fact I understand the management of the facility -- it's my 16 understanding that the management did not detect this 17 problem.
I just think that discarding records is something 18 you are going to be able to find.
And I'm not sure if our 19 inspection process is going to be able to cover it, when 20 you don't have the continuity, as you described, of 21 sequentially numbered records.
22 0
That's just an example, quite frankly, off the 23 top of my head.
But it's quite frustrating to look at a 24 situation where what went on here went on, and to just sort 25 of shrug and say, "well, that's just sort of how the world O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage
- n33MM6
~
28217.0 2140 BRT
-O 1
works.
There's nothing you can do about it."
One would 2
hope an inspection system in some way could cope with that.
i 3
That's more in the nature of a comment than a 4
question.
5 A
I guess I have nothing else on this par'ticular.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Judge Carpenter may have a 7
comment on this.
8 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
9 0
It goes, really, beyond the bounds of the issues 10 before us.
But you sort of implied with the change of the 4
11 inspection program to a resident inspection program that l
12 there is a possibility, since the resident inspectors have
! ()
13 time to observe activities in the control room, there's a 14 chance, now, that behavior like this would be detected.
15 You sort of implied that.
I thought we should get it out 16 on the table.
j 17 A
I think you are correct.
The emphasis, as I see 18 it, with today's resident inspection program, we spend a
~19 lot more. time and devote a lot more attention to operating 20 practices, observation of surveillances, rather than 21 relying on record review, observation of maintenance j
22 practices, again, instead of relying on records.
So we are 23 in the plant quite a bit more, I think we are much more 24 familiar with the day-to-day practices, and I think today's 25 program is much more likely to uncover this type of problem.
l ()
i 1
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
.m.,
s.e _ m m.,
.~
['
ma N
yi v.
28217.0 2141 BRT t
1 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you very much.
2 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
3 0
The other thing I wanted you to look over again 4
and comment on, if you wish, Mr. Seelinger in his prefiled 5
at page 6 responds to aspects of your testimony on three 6
separate points, really.
Would you like to. comment on that 7
portion of his testimony?
8 A
His first point was regarding identification.
<l 9
As an act unit 2 superintendent, I have already covered
\\
10 that item and corrected it in my testimony.
11 The second point, my role in the rounding-off i
g t'
12 issue is minimum.
()
13 0
Specifically, and I may have said this, but in 14 this context he suggests that it was your idea.
In the l
15 middle of page 7.
He says you brought up the issue, and so 16 on.
Do you agree with that or not?
Or do you really 17 recall?
18 A
I disagree.
What I recall as I have pointed out, 19 I was asking some questions about the accuracy required by 20 the test and what the value of 1 gpm plus 1.0 gpm, or the 21 significance of the limit of 1 gallon per minute.
I do not 22 recall posing this question in the sense of taking i
23 advantage of tech specs from a devious perspective or 24 trying to get away with something.
But I do recall asking 25 some questions about it.
(2)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(al Natiot1 wide Coserage NXb336-6646
~-- -......,,.
28217.0 2142 BRT Yj 1
At the same time, I never, and I'm sure 2
Mr. Seelinger would agree with this, indicate that I had 3
authorized the conduct of such a practice or that I had, 4
you know, was indicating some permission.
Because I at no 5
time gave permission or authorized or directed that they 6
institute that practice.
7 0
Any comment on the third point he refers to?
8 A
Mr. Seelinger goes into some detail about what 9
he did to verify implementation of the corrective actions 10 on the LER.
I really have no argument with what ha 'did.
11 I believe that the, comment'about being 12 adequately implemented really convoys, not only the a
s I
13 understanding or reading the issue, as was described in the i!
14 LER, but practicing that, entering the action statement 15 when you are seeking the LCO.,That's what I meant by the 16 adequate implementation of the practice?
I have nothing g
s 17 else in mind.
3 18 0
I think this portion of Mr} Seelinger's s
19 testimony is important and the Boaro! will have questions s
20 for him when he comes.
I rhink, as far as we are concerned, 21 I want to bring it to your attention, but I'm not 22 suggesting that it is something that has a great deal to do 23 with you, so far as appears to us.
Thank you.
24 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
25 0
Mr. Haverkamp, Mr. Floyd indicated to you that f~T V
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage
$h)3MM6
q 19 :
i
. 28217.0 2143 BRT 1
they had some computer problem.
In your mind, who was 2
responsible for pursuing a resolution of those problems?
3 Would it have been Mr. Floyd or Mr. Seelinger or somebody e
4 else?
Or do you know?
l 5
A I believe it would be somebody else.
I believe I
6 the person is Mr. Bill Fellows, but I'm not sure of that 7
name.
I don't recall ever having any contact with s:
8 Mr. Fe'llows.
I think he was responsible for the computer l'
9 operations and any programming related to the computer.
q 10 In that respect, I think Mr. Seelinger would
]
,j xl11 have more responsibility in monitoring what Mr. Fellows did
~' 12 with the computer.
Mr. Floyd would have no responsibility, 13 as I see it, for the computer operation.
Mr. Seelinger is 3
14 a PORC chairman, superintendent, technical support.
I f
15 think he would have a terribly technical responsibility for i
16 what the computer functions are.
L
,17 0
As you described the conversation, it was more
,l' 18 Mr. Floyd than Mr. Seelinger who pointed this out.
I get N-the impression Mr. Seelinger really didn't pick up on it at 19
'2 0, '
that time.
There was a technical problem?
A I'm not'sure what -- I don't recall where 4
21 l
22 1 Mr. Seelinger gave that impression.
I guess I thought that-
'l
' 23 i
on the day of October 18th, one of the factors I was told 24 that was contributing to the excessive leak rates was a a
25 computer input error.
I thought Mr. Seelinger was aware of O4 l
4 s
1, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6M6
,1
28217.0 2144 BRT k_)
I that as one of the things.
He may not have had a. lot of 2
direct knowledge about what the error was any more than I 3
did.
I really don't know.
4 O
Or interested.
As you say, it wasn't your 5
responsibility.
Perhaps someone else's?
6 A
I don't know what interest he had or didn't have.
7 But I think he had a technical interest in the sense that 8
it affected the results of the leak rate test and that this 9
might af fect -- I don't know if this, for example, would 10 require a procedure change.
If the procedure was right but 11 the computer wasn't, or was it the form had to be corrected, 12 I just don't recall.
But I think Mr. Seelinger would Imj 13 certainly see the procedures that had to be changed.
14 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you.
15 JUDGE KELLEY:
Take the next series?
16 JUDGE CARPENTER:
We'll move on, now, to some 17 questions submitted --
~18 MR. MC BRIDE:
Excuse me, Judge Carpenter, I 19 thought the Board's preference was to hear from us about 20 the questions that were not asked before we moved on to 21 anyone else's questions.
Am I right on that?
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
We can do it either way.
Go 23 ahead.
24 MR. MC BRIDE:
In reviewing questions 1 through 25 13, I'm not going to try to press all of those being asked.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage Nh336-6646
28217.0 2145 1
Some of them have already been answered in the record.
)
2 Others, the Board has made rulings on I don't want to 3
quarrel with.
But I would respectfully suggest that 4
questions 5 through 8 fall in a somewhat different category, 5
and in two respects.
6 It may be that because they are kind of j
7 sandwiched between other questions as to which the Board 8
has made prior rulings the Board may not have appreciated 9
the significance of them.
But it seems to us that 10 Mr. Haverkamp's knowledge, if any, of leak rate practices j
11 at the other units where he had responsibility, how those 12 tests were conducted, any confusion about how the operators 13 may have performed those tests and whether practices 14 changed after the allegations in this proceeding came to 15 light, which are the general thrust of those questions, may 16 well be important in two senses:
Number one, question of 1
17 Mr. Haverkamp's knowledge about this whole subject at the 18 time these matters came to light that he has been 4
l 19 testifying about; and, number two, whether the Board might 20 be aided in finding out that if there was confusion at i
21 other reactors, the same kind of technical specifications 22 and limits, that that might have at least some mitigating 23 impact on the Board's conclusions about whatever practices 24 went on at TMI-2.
So we would ask that the Board ask those 25 questions.
l0 L
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(0 Nationwide Coserage 8(uk33M646
28217.0 2146
'BRT 1
MR. GOLDBERG:
Judge Kelley, I'm at somewhat of 2
a disadvantage in arguing whether questions 5 through 8 3
should be asked of the questions because I don't have those 4
questions.
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
Maybe we should give you a set.
6 Do you want to take a minute to read the questions?
7 MR. GOLDBERG:
Okay.
Thank you.
8 MR. FLYNN:
Judge, while Mr. Goldberg is 9
reviewing these questions, Mr. Haverkamp has touched, at 10 least partially, the answers to many of the questions that 11 Mr. Herbein submitted, and at least right now it seems that 12 at the very least, questions 10, 12 and 13 have been
()
13 answered complete ly and I would withdraw those at this time, 14 and as any others come up I'd be happy to withdraw those as i
15 well.
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
17 MR. GOLDBERG:
Judge Kelley, I am prepared to 18 respond.
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
Fine.
20 MR. GOLDBERG:
I object to all of these 21 questions for a number of reasons.
They are beyond the 22 scope of the issues in this proceeding and asking these 23 questions would be inconsistent with prior rulings of the 24 Board that we will not go into practices at other reactors 25 because those practices are not material to the Board's O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage 8M33MM6
E-
]
28217.0 2147 BRT 1
determination of the issues in this proceeding and to go 2
into them, even to the extent suggested here, would require 3
a substantial broadening of the record in this proceeding 4
in order to examine in detail the various differences in 5
the tech specs at the other units, the practices at the 6
other units, and the reasons for any differences between 7
the tech specs and the practices at those other units and 8
those at TMI-2.
9 The NRC Staff has examined practices at other 10 units.
Mr. Kirkpatrick, when he was here, so indicated.
11 And he was involved in that effort; not this witness.
So, l
12 even if the Board would determine for some reason that they,
()
13 wanted to inquire into these-areas, we don't have the 14 proper witness here to address these subjects.
15 As I believe we indicated, there is at least one 16 inspection report which addresses leak rate testing 17 practices at other units.
That report could be made t
18 available to the Board and the parties, but I suggest that l
19 doing so and allowing that report to become part of the i
20 record, again will necessitate quite an expansion ~of the i
21 scope of this proceeding in order to fully explore the 1
l 22 basis for practices and the extent to which they are i
23 different.
I don't think that's necessary because those l
l 24 practices, in the view of the Staff, are not material to 25 the Board's resolution of what the practices were at TMI-2; C) f l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6(46
28217.0 2148
~
BRT
'N d
I whether or.not there was compliance with the tech specs, 2
and a determination as to who was involved at TMI-2 in any 3
leak rate testing improprieties.
4 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, I would like to 5
respond in a couple of ways if I could.
First of all, the 6
Board has ruled on a number of occasions that Mr. Goldberg 7
cannot object, and he started off by objecting.
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
I think we have allowed him to 9
object on questions to Staff witnesses.
10 MR. MC BRIDE:
I hadn't recalled that.
If he 11 had, I'm sorry.
12 Secondly, we are not attempting to litigate the
(')
13 specifics of leak rate tests at other units, and in fact I 14 have told the Board that on prior occasions,'with respect 15 to TMI-1.
Which is why we were striving to have section 4.0 16 of NUREG-0680 sup. 5 on the record to avoid the necessity 17 for that, and I'm not seeking to avoid that suggestion here.
18 What I was suggesting is what I think was material to the 19 Board for its inquiry here, is in having a benchmark, if 20 you will, to evaluate Mr. Haverkamp's testimony, first of 21 all as to his own knowledge of the practices at the time 22 and secondly to have a benchmark for evaluating the conduct 23 of my clients and the other people who are going to testify 24 here.
It doesn't seem to me the Board can have any kind of 25 a fix here as to how to evaluate this conduct in this (2) l l
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 84Xk336-6M6
r 28217.0 2149 BRT
('i V
1 rather unusual and unique proceeding if the Board isn't 2
going to have some sense as to whether the practices at 3
TMI-2, in this time period, were or were not in any manner 4
consistent with what happened at other units.
And I don't 5
understand why the Staff, which represented early in the 6
proceeding that it is in favor of a full and fair record, 7
is not interested in hearing Mr. Haverkamp's statements 8
about his experience at other units.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
In light of Mr. Haverkamp's 10 testimony about what he did in this particular instance, 11 that is to say he came -- I'm going to oversimplify now 12 just to make a point -- but he came, saw that people were
()
13 not following a correct interpretation of the tech specs, 14 told them to stop doing that, they said okay, and they 15 wrote a LER saying they would stop and that was it, except
~
16 for the round-off thing which is sort of a side issue -- he 17 hasn't come in and testified about all kinds of leak rate 18 practices in this case.
He has been here for a very narrow 19 purpose.
Why do we need any more than we know already to 20 evaluate that?-
21 MR. MC BRIDE:
Two responses, Judge Kelley, 22 First of all, when I was -- we had put some questions to 23 Messrs.. Russell and Capra.
They. indicated some inability 24 to fully respond to them.
And I suggested, and I think the 25 Board agreed at that time, that it would be best to defer (2)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(u)
Natior. wide Coserage 8M336-6M6
1 l
28217.0 2150 BRT
\\
1 those types of questions for Mr. Haverkamp.
And now here 2
is Mr. Haverkamp.
I don't have the transcript page in 3
front of me, but that happened in the last two weeks.
We 4
deferred some of this about'other reactors to Mr. Haverkamp.
5 Secondly --
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
I'd appreciate having the 7
citation.
I just don't remember that.
8 MR. MC BRIDE:
I have been asking my associates 9
to try to find it, and they are looking right now.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
11 MR. MC BRIDE:
In any event, it does seem to me 12 that it would.be helpful for the Board in evaluating (m
(_)
13 Mr. Haverkamp's testimony and Mr. Seelinger when he comes 14 and Mr. Floyd when he comes, to have some background about 15 Mr. Haverkamp's state of mind at the time these 16 conversations went on about instrument inaccuracies and 17 computer problems and rounding off and that whole subject.
18 And, secondly, the Board is in the unique proceeding here 19 in which the Commission has rarely, if ever, evaluated the 20 conduct of reactor operators.
And the Board doesn't have 21 any grounding, if you will, in whether these practices were 22 at all the same or at all different from practices that 23 went on at other reactors.
It seems to me that that has 24 some bearing on what the Commission is going to decide i
25 l
about whether these operators did or did not engage in i
(~s j
%-)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage
- 4336-6M6
28217.0 2151
'BRT d
1 improper conduct, in legitimate conduct, in understandable 2
conduct, or whatever they conclude, and particularly, if 3
the Board please, with respect to the contrast between 4
section 4.0 of NUREG 0806 sup. 5 and what we are inquiring 5
into here because that section sets forth the tact that a 6
number of the same practices, not all the same, but a 7
number of the same practices occurred at TMI-1.
8 And then the Commission didn't impose sanctions 9
on anyone for what went on at TMI-1.
Here we are with the 10 same things being discussed that went on at TMI-2 and 11 somebody is going to have to decide what to do, if anything, 12 in light of whatever the Board concludes about those
()
13 practices.
14 It seems to me it's relevant to find out:
Is 15 this unique in the industry or is this somewhat commonplace 16 in the industry, at least as of that time, as.to whether 17 they _ were having problems with this type of a test?
The 18 Board heard two weeks of testimony about its inaccuracies.
19 MR..GOLDBERG:
Judge Kelley, I would like to 20 respond to a couple of things Mr. McBride mentioned.
i 21 I understand they are looking for the transcript 22 citation to the references by Mr. Russell and Mr. Capra to 23 deferring certain questions to Mr. Haverkamp.
Those 24 references, I believe, pertain to questions about I
25 inspection practices at TMI-2, and not to leak rate testing l
(1) i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
x.m c _,
28217.0 2152
'BRT 1
practices at other facilities.
2 Mr. Kirkpatrick indicated, when he was here, 3
that he conducted an inspection of other facilities and I 4
have offered to make available an inspection report which 5
documents the results of that inspection, with the 6
understanding that we believe it is far beyond the scope of 7
this proceeding to get into those areas.
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
We haven't seen the document you 9
are referring to.
You have referred.to it before.
In a 10 general way we are aware of its existence.
11 What about -- I'm not really proposing this 12 rather than -- I'm not pushing it.
I'm just saying, does
()
13 anybody think I'm making any sense -- along the lines that 14 we have been talking here, could counsel review that 15 document?
It's not huge, is it?
How many pages is it?
10 16 or --
17 MR. GOLDBERG:
It's more than 10, I believe.
18 But I don't think it's 100.
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
I'm wondering if this couldn't be 20 looked at and counsel may think it useful to stipulate it 21 in the same way we put in subsection 4 of section 5, 22 without any further questions but just for what it's worth.
23 I'm not suggesting that you do that.
We haven't inspected 24 it ourselves, but as one option, do you think it is viable 25 to have counsel look at it with that in view?
You may not (1)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80tk336-6646
P 28217.0 2153 BRT 1
think it's a good idea when you see it.
.If we are 2
presented with it we may not think it's a good idea, but 3
it's something to consider.
Is that something we can do, 4
usefully?
5 f1R. GOLDBERG:
It can be provided to other 6
counsel.
I certainly would not agree at this point to 7
entering that into the record because, as I said, I think 8
it would require a further expansion of the' record.
To the 9
extent that the parties want to stipulate it in, that is 10 another matter.
f 11 I do object to getting into practices at other 12 plants because, in my view, it would require additional
()
13 Staff resources to fully address the details of the 14 technical specifications at those other reactors and the 15 reasons, if any, why there are differences in those 16 technical specifications and the reasons why the practices 17 at those other facilities are in some respects, perhaps 18 similar, and in some respects different.
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
We are sensitive to those 20 considerations as well.
We might very well, on seeing this 21 document, exclude it.just for that very-reason.
But just 22 as something that might be explored and might result in 23 some useful compromise, if perhaps you could provide copies 24 by tomorrow?
25 MR. GOLDBERG:
I don't know whether that's
~
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage R4336-6M6
c 28217.0 2154
)
BRT
($')
1 possible.
I'll do it as soon as I can.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Whatever you'can do, yes.
3 MR. GOLDBERG:
The other thing, I wanted to 4
respond to what Mr. McBride said, suggested that-there was 5
an inconsistency between our position and opposing an 6
examination of practices at other facilities with our 7
often-stated. interest in this proceeding in making sure the 8
record is full and complete.
9 There is no inconsistency at all.
Our interest 10 as directed by the Commission is to ensure that the record 11 in this proceeding is full and complete on the issues which J
12 the Commission specified in its order.
()
13 In its order the Commission said, "the specific 14 issues which the presiding Board is to address are limited 15 to the following - " and there follows from that some very 16 specific issues, after which the order states, and I quote:
i 17 "The presiding Board is not to entertain issues other than 18 those set forth in A through D above, without the prior 19 authorization of the Commission.
It is the Staff's belief 20 that an examination of practices at other facilities is 21 clearly beyond the scope of the specific issues which this 1
22 Board was asked to consider and for that reason I oppose 23 going into those areas.
24 "At the same time, with respect to the specific 25 issues that are identified in the Commission's order, it is O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tC-347-3700 Nationw nie Coverage Mn33MM6
28217.0 2155 BRT O
1 my interest to assist the Board in developing a full and 2
complete record on those specific issues."
3 MR. MC BRIDE:
Well, Judge Kelley --
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
Just one more close-out comment.
5 MR. MC BRIDE:
I am not trying to get into all 6
the specifying of leak rate testing practices at all other 7
units.
I agreed with that with respect to TMI-1.
That 8
issue is settled.
9 What I'm talking about here is not whethar or 10 not Mr. Haverkamp can remember the unidentified leakage 11 number on every test at every other plant he inspected or 12' anything of the sort.
I am simply trying to get
()
13 state-of-mind testimony, if you will.
And that's what 14 these questions are addressed to.
15 We are not asking the Staff to.do a big study-16 here and send people out and bring in four more witnesses 17 and tell you what is going on at Oconee or something.
We 18 were simply asking questions to Mr. Haverkamp of what he 19 knew went on at those other plants.
It has been my 20 experience that when you hear all these kinds of objections 21 to questions you might really be getting somewhere and I 22 think we might really be getting somewhere.
I think the l
23 Board ought to know what Mr. Haverkamp knew and whether f
24 these practices were at all like practices at other units.
25 That's all we are asking about.
We are not asking him to 1 ()
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm, me_
c-
~28217.0 2156 BRT 1
come in with all the leak rate tests, all the specifics of 2
the tech specs.
Just what he knew.
3 MR. GOLDBERG:
That's the problem, Judge Kelley.
4 We are only putting in that a small portion of what 5
Mr. Haverkamp may know about those other plants is grossly 6
misleading.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
I think we understand the point.
8 I would suggest that we go ahead with questions 9
for Mr. Herbein and at the break the Board will deliberate 10 on this dispute and rule on it.
11 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
12 Q
Mr. Haverkamp, we'll now move on to some
-()
13 questions that were submitted to the Board by John G.
14 Herbein.
The first of these is a.very broad question, 15 perhaps overly broad.
And I think a real answer would take 16 a long time.
You might think about just answering it in 17 broad outline.
18 1:
Describe your duties and responsibilities as 19 an NRC inspector at TMI-2 during 1978 and 1979 up to the 20 time of the accident.
Will you tell us in a brief way what 21 your duties and responsibilities were?
22 A
My duties and responsibilities included the 23 planning of -- scheduling and, in part, the planning of all 24 the inspections that were conducted at TMI-2, the 25 coordination of inspections done by other inspectors, such C)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage 8ab336-6M6
I 28217.0 2157 BRT-0 1
as our specialist inspectors, understanding the scope of 2
their inspections and understanding the results of their 3
inspections.
And in conducting my own inspections, my 4
responsibilities were primarily in general areas related to 5
administrative control practices, plant operations, 6
maintaining equipment, complying with technical 7
specifications,'from a general standpoint of monitoring the 8
day-to-day activities, but on a quarterly basis.
So I 9
point out, the inspections I did of plant operations were 10 once every three months.
11 In addition there were a number of inspections 12 of a more technical nature.
Some of them were quality
()
13 assurance related.
Some of them are health physics, 14 environmental ~ protection.
These were done in a different 15 frequency, normally once per year.
Those are the times of 16 inspections I coordinated in the sense of knowing when they 17 were to be conducted, seeing what the schedules were, 18 conducting the inspections for -- that is, when the plant 19 is chut down, at the appropriate times, and ensuring that l
20 inspections at the same time were not conducted at l
21 inappropriate times.
For example, making ~sure that we did 22 not overburden the licensee by having 10 inspectors show up l
23 at one time to do their inspections.
There was some 24 coordination aspect.
25 I was the initial contact or say the principal (2)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3 2-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
28217.0 2158 BRT l
contact in the regional office on any operating problems 2
that might come up at the facility.
If such problems 3
occurred, Mr. Seelinger, generally, would contact me, 4
inform me of such problems such as licensee event reports.
5 So when I was not at the facility I was a point of contact 6
at the regional office.
7 In the general sense or the broadest sense,1my 8
responsibilities were to assure compliance with the 9
technical specifications, that is, that the licensee 10 demonstrated compliance with the technical specifications 11 and ensure that they had what was in.my view, an 4
12 appropriate perspective of safety.
()
13 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Will counsel agree that 14 questions 2 and 3 were covered in that answer?
15 MR. FLYNN:
Yes.
16 BY-JUDGE CARPENTER:
17 0
Question 4:
During 1978-79, up to the time of 18 the accident, how often were you on-site at TMI-2?
19 A
Would you repeat the time frame for the question?
20 0
'78
'79.
21 A
During the periods between February 1978 and 22 March of 1979, I was at the site at TMI-2 almost every 23 month.
I believe I may not have been there during the.
24 month of August of 1978 -- no -- I correct that.
I was 25 there during August, too.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80fk336-646
28217.0 2159 BRT
/~%
V 1
The visits that I conducted there were 2
approximately monthly.
I count 15 inspections that I 3
conducted at TMI-2 during that time period.
~4 0
Thank you.
-5 Did you have the opportunity while on-site at 6
TMI-2 to observe CROs and other operating personnel 7
performing their jobs?
8 A
Yes, I did.
I had that opportunity.
9' O
How frequently were you able to observe them?
10 A
There may be one or two exceptions, but during 11 each of the inspections I mentioned, of the 15 inspections, 12 I would spend some of that time in the-control room, either
()
13 doing the quarterly operation inspection, where I was 14 reviewing records, but at the same time and in the course 15 of my inspection, talking to operators or observing when 16 they were doing.
I was doing two things at one time.
17 When I reviewed records I would sit in the 18 control room so I could not only look at the records, but 19 monitor the activities and have a sense for what was going 20 on in the control room.
I probably did that, maybe four or 21 five times within the period for a number of hours each
(
22 time.
Some of the inspections I didn't spend much time in l
23 the control room because I was talking with other people.
24 0
The next question follows:
While on-site at i
25 TMI-2, did you ever observe CROs or other operating I
-l-)
t l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347-3700
. Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 r
r
- _ _.. - _. -, - - - - ~. - -, - - - -,. - _ - - -
28217.0 2160 BRT
(~h V'
1 personnel performing leak rate tests?
Did you ever observe 2
a leak rate test?
3 A
I might have observed such a performance of a 4
test.
Frankly it's not very exciting to observe that and I 5
don't recall it.
It doesn't stand out in my memory to
~
6 observe that test being performed.
7 O
Thank you.
8 While on-site at TMI-2, did you ever review 9
plant daily. status reports and/or shift supervisors' 10 turnover notes?
11 A
I am certain that I have seen such reports and 12 such notes.
I don't recall specifically how many or even
()
13 what they contained.
14 0
That's seeing and reviewing, I think are not the 15 same ---the question was:
Did you ever review?
16 A
I reviewed them to the extent that particular 17 turnover notes -- I made it a point to try to be present i
18 during shift turnovers.
Sometimes I would show up early so 19 I would be there during a turnover process.
And, so, yes, 20 I would review those notes to see what was contained in 21 those notes as compared with what was contained in the log 22 entries.
23 0
The next question follows from that one:
Did 24 the leak rate test numbers on the plant daily status l
25 reports jump out at you or did you specifically focus on (2)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33Mo46
28217.0 2161
-BRT-O.
1 them?
2 A
The daily status reports that you are referring 3
to are something that would be prepared on a daily basis.
4 The intention was a report for management and not a 5
permanent record at the facility.
.If my understanding of 6
that is correct, I did not -- I may have seen, on occasion, 7
some of those forms or some of those sheets.
I don't 8
recall focusing on those and specific, ally I don't recall 9
seeing - anything about leak rate data that was on those 10 records.
11 0
Thank you.
12 Did you ever express any concern to anyone
()
13 regarding the leak rate test numbers on the plant daily 14 status reports?
15 A
As I point out, I don't recall recall seeing 16 any -- recall any data on those reports that were -- would 17 cause me to have concern.
I just did not look at that many 18 of those reports.
19 0
Thank you.
20 Moving on to question 13 --
21 MR. FLYNN:
11.
22 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Oh, I'm sorry.
23 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
24 0
Given your prepared testimony about your 25 discussions with TMI-2 personnel in the early afternoon of (2)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tc-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8m336-6M6
28217.0 2162 BRT U
1 October 18, '78 and with Mr. Seelinger in'the afternoon of 2
October 19,
'78, were you satisfied at that time that the 3
incident was an isolated occurrence that was being properly 4
addressed and corrected?
5 A
Yes.
Based on my discussions, my review of that 6
time, I was satisfied that that was an isolated occurrence.
7 I saw what I took it to be, and I thought that the 8
corrective actions were appropriately taken for that 9
occurrence.
10 0
Would it be fair to say that a reader of the LER 11 could have reasonably concluded that the reported 12 occurrence was an isolated incident without generic
()
13 implications which had been identified and addressed and 14 that the appropriate corrective action had been taken by 15 TMI-2 personnel?
16 MR. GOLDBERG:
Could I have that question again, 17 please?
18 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
19 0
Would it be fair to say that a reader of the LER 20 could have reasonably concluded that the reported 21 occurrence was an isolated incident without generic 22 implications which had been identified and addressed and 23 that the appropriate corrective action had been taken by 24 TMI-2 personnel?
25 A
I guess that's difficult to respond to in the O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 33MM6
28217.0 2163 BRT t
)
'~'
1 broadest sense, as to how everybody might interpret what 2
was written in that licensee event report.
But I think a 3
person familiar with the technical issues, as I understood 4
them and as they were described in the LER, would reach a 5
determination that the appropriate corrective actions were 6
in fact stated and being taken.
7 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
8 O
Part of the question is whether it would have 9
been seen as somothing not having generic significance.
I 10 don't know whether " generic" is the term.
It certainly had 11 programmatic significance, did it not, if that was their 12 interpretation of the tech specs?
(,)
13 A
It did have programmatic significance.
I think c
v 14 the generic significance we are referring to is, perhaps, 15 the application of these problems to TMI-1 or the 16 application of these problems to all utilities, whether or 17 not everybody was misinterpreting technical specifications 18 the same as was described in that LER.
19 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
20 0
In preparing your 1979 inspection report.
21 Exhibit E, what information and input did you consider?
22 For example, did you factor in your on-site follow-up, any 23 review of TMI documentation, your meetings and discussions 24 with TMI personnel on October 18, 19, 1978, concerning the 25 event as set forth in your prepared testimony, and any of
(~h v
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
20L347-3700 Nationwide Coserage mn336-(M6
28217.0 2164
~BRT 1
your prior observations of and experience with TMI 2
operating personnel during your tenure as an NRC inspector 3
at TMI?
And the focus is, if the response is yes to any of 4
those, that you are asked to describe them.
5 I'll go back through the question item by item 6
now that you have seen the scope of it.
.I'll start by 7-asking what information and input did you consider in 8
preparing your January 1979 report?
Specifically asked, 9
did you factor in your on-site follow-up?
10 MR. GOLDBERG:
Excuse me.
Obviously I think the 11 question has to be interpreted as being limited to the 12 events in question here.
The inspection report deals with 13 a lot of subjects other than the ones that are the focus of w
~14 this hearing.
I think it should just be clear on the 15 record that the question should be limited to the events at 16 issue here.
17 MR. FLYNN:
I'm sorry, I didn't make that clear 18 in the question, but that is the focus of the question.
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
I think I asked that question 20 somewhat less compendiously.
As to your January-conclusion, 21 you said, I think, that you considered the signoff sheet in 22 concluding that the matter had been corrected; right?
23 THE WITNESS:
The matter about the incorrect 24 interpretation of technical specifications in my view was 25 corrected by the signoff sheet, that being noted by the
-O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC..
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
28217.0 2165 BRT
/~N U
1 operators.
2 The other aspects of this which are also 3
important, about the technical results of leak rate tests, 4
I had been there in December doing an inspection where I 5
had looked at results.
I had perceived that this was an 6
isolated event in October.
I had been there before, and-I 7
believe it was early in the October time frame, also 8
looking at different leak rate measurements.
And I 9
really -- you know, that aspect of it really was pretty 10 much resolved and I did not pursue that when I did the 11 follow-up in January 1979.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
In Mr. Flynn's terms, you
' ()
13 factored in those leak rate tests.
That's part of the 14 answer; is that right?
15 THE WITNESS:
Yes, I did.
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
Was there something else?'
17 MR. FLYNN:
I think the question has been 18 answered.
I would just like to apologize for making Judge 19 Carpenter read it twice.
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
That's all right.
21 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
i 22 O
Given all your knowledge of information about 23 the event, were you satisfied when you submitted your 24 January 1979. inspection report, Exhibit E, to your 25 superiors, that the event was an isolated incident and the CE)~
I l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationside Coverage 800 336-6M6
, _-347-3700,, -.. -,,., _ - - -.... - -..,, _, ~ - -, - -, - - - -
28217.0 2166
.BRT
(
1 proper corrective action was being taken?
It's nearly 2
redundant and cumulative of your recent response.
3 JUDGE KELLEY:
Yes or no.
Were you satisfied?
4 THE WITNESS:
No, I was satisfied with the 5
actions at that time.
6 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
7 0
In any of your inspection reports or in any 8
'other communications, did you ever notify TMI management'in 9
Reading, Pennsylvania, about the rounding off of leak rate 10 test results for.a short period of time by TMI-2 personnel 11 as described in your prepared testimony?
12 A
I personally did not have any such communication
()
13 with management personnel in Reading.
14 O
To your knowledge, did anyone from the NRC ever 15 make such notification concerning the rounding off of leak.
16 rate test results?
17
_A During this time period that we are describing, 19 February through March '79 -- February '78 through March 19
'79, I'm not aware of anybody in the NRC making such 20 notifications.
21 O
I guess that takes care of 19.
22 Question 20:
In your prepared testimony, you 23 indicate that on October 20, 1978, backup project inspector, 24 Mr. Lazarus prepared an input to the I&E daily report 25 regarding the incident; please describe specifically the oa ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80k3346M6
28217.0 2167 BRT O
1 content of that input.
2 A
I cannot describe the specific content.
I have 3
searched in our own office r'ecords for a copy of the record, 4
unsuccessfully.
What I can describe, however, is the 5
general content of what that record might have said, if 6
that's important.
7 0
Do you have a record that shows that the input 8
was made?
9 A
No.
If a record exists I believe it would only 10 be in the headquarters here at IE, or somewhere -- I do not 11 know what happens to these records.
The morning reports --
12 in that time period the regional office kept them for a
()
13 number of months or maybe a couple of years, but after a 4
14 while they were not retained permanently by the regional 15 office.
16 What these consist of was generally a 17 paraphrasing or translation of what was provided to us in 18 the prompt report, the letter that Mr. Seelinger sent.
So 19 it was a description of the event and what had happened.
20 We relied heavily on what was provided to us in the written i
21 input and we would transcribe that so it would be 22 understandable to our management -- by the Office of 23 Inspection and Enforcement, to whom we reported at that 24 time.
I believe such a report might be in the archives at 25 headquarters.
I don't know what was kept or what is kept O.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80k3346646
~,
28217.0.
2168 I
here.
2 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you.
That concludes the 3
questions that were submitted by Mr. Herbein.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
This would bring us to follow-ups, 5.
plus we need to rule on 5 through 8.
6 MR. MAUPIN:
Excuse me,-there was one question 7
we submitted, you recall.
In light of the testimony he's 8
given, since I handed you that question, let me give you 9
one that is -- a substitute one.
It is slightly more wordy, 10 but designed to -- in fact, extremely more wordy.
11 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, we also have some 12 follow-up questions.
It does seem to me -- I haven't had a O
3 che ce e ri"a the co 1 a=v-14 JUDGE KELLEY:
We can go off the record now.
15 (Discussion off the record.)
16
( Reces s. )'
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
Back on the record.
We indicated 18 earlier that in reviewing the questions of the numerous 19 employees, our initial screening of those questions led us.
20 to conclude that 1 through 13 were objectionable on one 21 ground or another.
Employees subsequently asked us to hear l
22 argument on 5 through 8, which we did.
I think it would be 23 l
helpful -- I'll give to the reporter a text of those.
I l
24 won't read them right now, but the reporter at this point I-25 could copy into the transcript the text of questions 5 O
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
nw.,.
-- + c-n,,-
28217.0 2169 l
BRT O
1 through 8 submitted by the employees.
2 (The document follows:).
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 0
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 l
l l
21 22 23 24 25 O
l
[
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
20h347-37W Nationwide Coserage 8(X)-3 36-%'4,
'N \\
).
N i) 5.
Are you familiar with the experience of thosE units O,
t,
'{
insofar as RCS leak rate tests are concerned?
i i
)h-k Please describe the experience with leak rate tests 7t
{N(M'
/
(
each of those units, including whether the test res'),{ts have
'{y' L
been erratic, whether the operators have entered.Ehe " Action Statement" each time unidentified leakage has exceeded V'
1 J
'?
technical specification limits, and wheth,er those practices f
- s have changed after the allegations at is
- ;ue' ing this ti V
\\
proceeding came to the Commission's attention.
s Has the NRC recommended changes in the manner in which kgv in
\\
\\
s RCS leak rate tests have been performed at those, units,
(
the computer programs for determining leakage at those units, 7
or in the. duration of the leak rate tests at those units, a
since the time that the allegations at issue in this t
s
'1 i
proceeding came to the Commission's attention?
's.
f, 4'
.\\
I (p&.
Did any of those units experience difficulty in r
)
performing successful leak rate tests during their sta[ tup or early operation?
,g Prior to March 28, 1979, did TMI-l have an evaporative igits 1
loss factor of approximatdly 0.51 gpm built into its compucer program for determining RCS unidentified leakagei I
(/
s t
\\
s '
s A
s
ki s
J+.
+<^
3*
28217.0 2170 BRT 6
(")
I
\\m) hm
-+
1 JUDGE KELLEY:
We heard arguments from u
./
2 Mr. McBride for the employees, Mr. Goldberg for the Staf f.
A
.+
3 I don't know if we solicited other counsel's comments.
Do ls
'y 4
other counsel have any comments at this point?
I should 5
have asked you earlier, I guess.
y$
2 s'
6 Mr. Blake?
f 7
MR. BLAKE:
I don't even have the questions, 8
your Honor, so I don't have anything to offer at this point.
,?
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
We could give them to you --
g_
10 perhaps as time goes on we could make this automatic.
.4
./
11 Unless counsel submitting the questions doesn't want the g,,;
A.
- \\',
'.f [%
12 other counsel to see them for some reason, we could l
13 distribute them so when we have arguments pro and con we
{
A'
^
14 could get argument.
4 15 We did hear argument from the Staff on questions N g.l('
s
(
16 5 through 8, and those questions I'll just characterize as a
17 going to leak rate practices at. five other facilities where i s
./
a 18 Mr. Haverkamp has worked in the past:
Yankee Rowe, Maine N
3,:
19 Yankee, Ginna, Calvert Cliffs, and TMI-1 and TMI-2, and 20 they go to his knowledge' of practices at those facilities.
3 21 Again,~the whole text will be in the transcript.
23
22 We are going to sustain the objection to these g3 n., /h I ;2 !
23 questions.
It seems clear to-us that it is quite difficult s.i,'
','s
(
24 to go into leak rate practices at other facilities, or even tx
\\
25 more narrowly, a particular witness' knowledge of leak rate O,
9 s.
~
.Y
'e ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i go-m.m.m
~_ m c-s.
x
28217.0 2171 BRT b
v 1
practices at other facilities, without getting off on 2
rather extensive excursions, far from the points that we 3
are really focusing on.
We have so far run up a couple of 4_
thousand pages on leak rate practices at TMI-2 and we've 5
learned that they do vary a great deal dependent upon a 6
number of factors.
It seems very hard for us to generalize 7
unless we got into these factors at some depth.
8 That was the thinking that largely underlie'our 9
treatment of the Unit 1 matter, whether we should get into 10 Unit 1 facts at all.
And we, as everyone knows, put in a 11 description without hearing questions on that area.
12 We think the questions are essentially beyond
()
13 the scope.
We don't have, under the Commission's order, 14 any direct issue on industry practice as such, so to build 15 a record on industry practice seems to us to be outside the 16 scope.
l 17 Furthermore, we don't really think it's 18 necessary to go into the matters these questions would 19 elicit in order to give the employees a reasonable 20 opportunity to show mitigating circumstances.
And that, l
21 coupled with our reading of the order that we don't have an 22 issue of industry practice, leads us to conclude that they 23 are outside the scope.
24 We also think that, if the thrust of this is 25 industry practice and it is really the wrong witness, that l
(1) 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cosetage 8@33&M4
'28217.0 2172 BRT 1
would have been more appropriately put to Capra/ Russell, 2
perhaps Kirkpatrick, but not to Mr. Haverkamp.
t 3-Insofar as the thrust of the question is
-4 different, that is'to'say that it is designed to elicit j
5
' state of mind,-and specifically Mr..Haverkamp's state of I
6 mind, we think that state of: mind, as the testimony has 7
developed here, has little or no relevance.
8 Mr. Haverkamp came, he saw the incorrect 9
interpretation and he pursued that and followed up on that.
10 The point is, he never got into leak rate practices.
He f
11 didn' t get into computer errors and loop seals and throwing 12
.away copies of reports and all these other things that we 13 have been talking about that really are the fociis of our i
14 concern.
For purposes of taking into account what he did,
~
1 15 it seems to us that his knowledge of leak rate practices 16 generally at other facilities is really not very relevant.
17 So, for all of those reasons we are going to adhere to our 18 initial determination that these questions are beyond the j.
19 scope..
20 With that, we 'll pass. to the follow-up questions.
21 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
l-22 0
In your prefiled testimony in this proceeding, 23 Mr. Haverkamp, you identified James Seelinger as acting j
24 Unit 1. superintendent.
You subsequently stated that upon t
25 reading Mr. Seelinger's prefiled testimony you would like L O 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80lk3%6M6
,..,as..+,,,,---.--
)
)
28217.0 2173 BRT 1
m
( /
1 to modify that portion of your prefiled testimony, 2
identifying Seelinger as acting Unit 2 superintendent.
3 In a March 3, 1985 interview with Robert Winter 4
and Frederick _ DeVisa, you apparently characterized James 5
Seelinger as acting Unit 2 superintendent.
6 Recognizing that you have corrected your 7
prefiled testimony, what was the basis for your belief on 8
March 3,
'85, and when you wrote your prefiled testimony, 9
that Seelinger was the acting unit 2 superintendent?
10 A
The basis that I had was that on most occasions, 11 as I pointed out, I would have my exit meetings with 12 Mr. Seelinger, as he was the senior manager for TMI-2 f) 13 immediately available, in the absence of Gary Miller.
~/
14 I guess I had a perception that although he may 15 not have been designated formally.or officially as acting 16 superintendent, he was, nonetheless, the senior manager and 17 therefore he would be carrying out some functions that 18 would normally be carried out by the superintendent. for the 19 unit.
20 Q
A series of Staff questions for Mr. Haverkamp:
21 Can you identify inspections which the NRC conducted of the 22 TMI-2 reactor coolant system leak rate test between the 23 time TMI-2 was licensed until March 28, '79?
And, if so, 24 please do.
25 A
I believe I can summarize those inspections by
/~N U
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2112 347-3AU Nationwide Coserage 80lk3366646
28217.0 2174 BRT 1
referring to the inspection number and short subject as to 2
what that inspection included, related to leak rate 3
measurements or related to inspections of the equipment 4
that was installed to do those measurements.
5 There were a total of six inspections between 6
February '78 and March '79 that I am aware of that one way 7
or another are discussed -- that discussed leak rate 8
measurements.
9 Inspection 78-10, which was conducted in 10 February
'78, had.some discussion of the review of 11 surveillance procedure, 2303-M-9, the subject of which was 12 RCS leakage detection system operability, and that review
()
13 included the verification that the surveillance procedure 14 had been prepared, approved and scheduled as required.
15 Inspection 78-11, conducted during March --
16 February and March
'78, included an inspector's evaluation 17 of test results of test procedures 600/10, and found them 18 acceptable.
Although I was a participant in that 19 inspection, I was not the inspector.
I believe that 20 inspector was Mr. Rebelowski.
21 Inspection 78-14, conducted in late March 1978, 22 included verification by one or two inspectors that prior 23 to initial criticality, technical specification 3.4.6.1, 24 RCS leakage system operable, had been satisfied.
25 During inspection 78-30, in which I and another O
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37(o Nationside Coserage 80k33MM6
28217.0 2175 BRT 1
inspector participated in early October 1978, the inspector 2
reviewed records to verify technical specification 3.4.6.2, 3
RCS leakage has been satisfied.
I do not have a copy of 4
that report immediately available, but I was one of the 5
inspectors at that time.
6 Inspection 78-36, conducted in December of 1978, 7
included a review of a sampling of records completed 8
l related to SP2301-3Dl, RCS inventory for the period October 9
1 to December.11, to verify conformance to requirements.
10 That had acceptable findings and I have referred to that 11 inspection previously in my testimony.
12 0
Do we already have a copy of that?
( s) 13 A
Yes, I believe that's attached to my prefiled
~
14 testimony.
15 And finally there was in section 7901 where I 16 reviewed the follow-up to the licensee event report.
17 0
That's Exhibit E.
So the first four we don't 18 have at this point but the last two we do; is that correct?
19 A
To my knowledge, that's correct.
20 0
Okay.
The Board can consider whether it wants 21 to see the others and the parties can do as well".
You can 22 raise that later, if you wish.
Okay.
23 I just mentioned something that I forgot to 24 mention before.
We ruled on the objections to the four 25 questions.
It might have been implied but let me state ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 1MG336-6M6
r 28217.0 2176 BRT 1
explicitly, this is without prejudice to the idea that was 2
suggested about looking at this Staff repor't that 3
Mr. Goldberg was referring to and counsel seeing whether 4
they want to suggest that that be put in thr.ough 5
stipulation or in some manner.
We have an open mind on 6
that subject.
7 Next question:
Were you aware that " Exceptions 8
and Deficiencies" were not being -- that's initial caps in 9
quotes, " Exceptions and Deficiencies" were not being filed 10 for invalid leak rate tests or for leak rate tests showing 11 greater than 1 gpm for unidentified leakage?
Why?
Why not?
12 Also, what purposes are served by " Exceptions and
()
13 Deficiencies"?
14 A
Well, first, " Exceptions and Deficiencies" 15 identified inaccuracies in the test results -- I believe 16 that's in the case of exceptions.
For example, that might 17 be caused by changing plant conditions or the procedure may 18 not be correct.
And a deficiency, if I recall, is a test 19 result that exceeds the limit of the exceptions criteria 20 for the test.
I was not aware that test " Exceptions and i
21 Deficiencies" were not filed, as has been brought out in 22 other testimony.
23 Q
Okay.
Next question, on October 19, 1978 --
24 MR. GOLDBERG:
Excuse me, Judge Kelley, he 25 didn't answer the other part of the question, what is the O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m_
~ m_ m_,.
28217.0 2177 BRT
(
1 purpose served by filing of " Exceptions and Deficiencies."
2 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
3 Q
Do you want to comment on that?
4 A
The purpose that was served was to identify the 5
problem or the exception and the deficiency, the 6
appropriate engineer or manager, so that that. deficiency 7
could be evaluated and resolved.
This was a practice that 8
was required for all surveillances, when test results were 9
found not to be acceptable or that there was a problem 10 found during the test, in the conduct of the test.
11 O
On October 18, 1978 when you discovered leak 12 rate test results which exceeded the 1 gpm limit, did you (ox-)
13 have any reason to believe that these results were 14 indicative of, or would be indicative of continuing 15 problems associated with the leak rate test procedure at 16 TMI-2?
17 A
I may have answered part of this question before, 18 but I have -- my impression of that problem, as I 19 understood it on October 18th, it was an isolated case.
It 20 was a case where the test results were excessive for a 21 period of -- short period of time, between October 16th and 22 October 18th.
I had seen, as I pointed out, some records 23 l
of test results or tests prior to that time, where the test i
24 results were acceptable, and later I saw that the test 25 results were also acceptable, based on the records I O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(N)
Nationwide Cos erage MXb33MM6
28217.0 2178 BRT 1
reviewed in December.
So I did not see that indicative of 2
a generic problem.
3 0
Okay.
During October 1978, did you.believe that 4
Met Ed would have reported the tech spec violation 5
violation regarding the leak rate test, even if you had not 6
discovered it or -- on' october 18, 1978?
7 MR. MC BRIDE:
Your Honor, I object to that 8
question.
Unless it is going to be characterized purely as 9
opinion testimony but we are getting awfully close to 10 speculation here.
I'm not sure what value this is going to 11 have.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
What is the thrust of it,
()
13 Mr. Goldberg?
14 MR. GOLDBERG:
Well, there was some earlier 15 testimony about Mr. Haverkamp and his knowledge of 16 Mr. Seelinger and how Mr. Seelinger dealt with problems.
k 17 This question is simply asking Mr. Haverkamp to. explain 18 whether he believed that, in the course of his inspection 19 when he came-upon the conversation that is described in-his 20 testimony, that that was something that licensee was 21 addressing and asked whether he believes they would have 22 reported that, even if he hadn't entered the conversation 23 and expre'ssed his concern about the problem.
4 f
24 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, I think I can 25 suggest to you a simplification of the problem here.
If (1)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3C 347 3700 Nationside Coverage 80k3h6M6
~
28217.0 2179 BRT 1
the' question is "does he," Mr. Seelinger would have done.so, 2
I have no objection to it.
But the problem with the 3
question is, with his sort of vague reference to the 4
company or they or whomever, the' answer could be very 5
prejudicial without the Board knowing who it is talking 6
about.
7 MR. MAUPIN:
I agree with that objection.
8 MR. GOLDBERG:
I think Mr. Haverkamp can specify 9
the basis for his opinion and identify the individuals who 10 he had knowledge of and who he would be -- and felt he was 11 justified in relying upon.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Would the question then be
()
13 restricted to people he dealt with directly and knew 14 personally?
15 MR. GOLDBERG:
Yes.
16 MR. MC BRIDE:
It seems to me that's the only 17 basis on which he can answer the question.
18 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
19 0
Well, on that basis we'll put the question.
20 A
Well, at that time, assuming that the issue 21 would have been up the line through Mr. Floyd and to 22 Mr. Seelinger, I have a strong confidence that that would 23 have been reported as had numerous reports of occurrences 24 been reported over the previous year.
25 0
Because of your dealing with those two O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8m34fM6
28217.0 2180 BRT t-(y/
1 particular people, is that what you are saying?
2 A
Primarily because I felt that, in particular, in 3
Mr. Seelinger's case we had a very, shall I say effective 4
exchange of information.
He freely brought problems that 5
occurred at the plant to my attention and it was primarily 6
his involvement, once the issue was brought to his 7
attention that I felt certain I would hear about that.
8 0
Okay.-
Next question:
When were you scheduled 9
to conduct a quarterly inspection at TMI-2, after the 10 January 1979 inspection?
11 A
The next inspection similar to that which I had 12 done in January was scheduled for the first week, I believe,
([ )
13 in April 1979.
That would have given me the opportunity, 14 of course, to look at records similar to those I had looked 15 at in January and on previous occasions regarding leak rate 16 testing.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
I'm a little unclear here, 18 Mr. Goldberg.
You have a number next to a question and 19 then there's an X through the question?
Is that a live one?
20 MR. GOLDBERG:
No.
Sorry.
i 21 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
22 0
In October 1978 what was your view of when the 23 action statement for unidentified leakage greater than 1 gpm i
must be e.atered?
In your opinion, did you clearly convey 24 25 this to Met Ed personnel during your discussions?
n
(_)
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37(3)
NJtionwide CO)CIJgf NIk33MM6
28217.0 2181 BRT
,a 1
A My view is that the action statement must be 2
entered whenever the information was identified to the 3
licensee on the basis of their performing their 4
surveillance of the RCS leakage measurement.
That is, when 5
they had their results, at the time that those results were 6
obtained is the time the action statement should be entered.
7 0
Was that view clearly conveyed, do you think, to 8
people with whom you were dealing?
9 A
Yes.
That was conveyed to Mr. Seelinger and to 10 Mr. Floyd.
11 0
Even assuming that round-off is permitted in 12 calculating leak rates, is there any reasonable
([ })
13 interpretation of the 1 gpm limiting condition of operating 14 for unidentified leakage which would allow operation up to 15 2 gpm, before being required to enter the action statement?
16 Please explain.
17 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, I wonder if we 18 could have some clarification of that question.
The 19 question seems to imply that the leak rate test would 20 print out a result that was not rounded up or down.
It 21 hasn't been established through this witness whether he has 22 any knowledge about that.
It seems to me that he is going 23 to have to be -- we are going to have to lay some 24 foundation here as to whether he knows whether the test i
25 would have been rounded up or down because the question oU ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37m Nanonwide rm erage Nn33f fM6
28217.0 2182 BRT q
~
l implies that you can go all the way up to 2 on leakage.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, okay.
As a matter of 3
foundation.
4 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
5 0
It is my impression that for a short period of 6
time the computer was in fact readjusted in such a way as 7
to print round numbers; am I right about that?
Are you 8
aware of that?
9 A
Yes, I am.
That's what addressed in the 10 operations memo 2-78-19.
However, it was never my 11 understanding that leakage -- a 2-gallon a minute leak rate 12 would be acceptable and would not cause action to be taken f~')
13 in the course of the tech spec limit.
Limiting value was 1 a
14 gpm, and even by that round-off procedure, it was not 15 permitted to operate the plant with a 2-gallon per minute 16 leak rate.
17 0
Is that because when a commuter printed out a 18 reading of 2, and it is programmed to round upward or 19 downward, you'd have to be at least at 1.50 or 1.51, 20 whatever it is, to get a 2?
A That is my understanding, that you had to be 21 22 greater than 1.50.
That or anything less than 2.49 would 23 give you a value of 2 gpm.
Less than that would be 1 gpm.
24 0
All right.
25 l
A Or zero.
(1) l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2112 347 37(11)
N.llionu s&* r0\\CT.lge W 33f> 6fM
28217.0 2183 BRT j%
i I
~
l O
Next question:
When you observed operators 2
during operation of TMI-2, would you necessarily be aware 3
of whether a leak rate test was ongoing?
Why or why not?
4 A
I could be aware when a leak rate test was 5
ongoing.
However, I have no recollection of ever observing 6
a leak rate test being performed or being aware that one 7
was being performed.
8 0
There wasn't any light that went on in the 9
control room saying " leak rate test in progress" or 10 something like that?
11 A
As I understand it, it was an operation at the 12 computer console -- at the computer that required the data
( })
13 to be taken to initiate it and the program to run.
But 14 nobody came to me and said "Well, we are going to run a 15 leak rate test," and as you point out there's nothing that 16 really stands out, as far as I know -- there's nothing that 17 would attract my attention to the conduct of such a test.
18 0
Was it your or the NRC's responsibility to 19 inform Reading headquarters of rounding-of f practices?
If 20 Reading headquarters should have been notified, whose 21 responsibility would it have been to notify it?
22 MR. MC BRIDE:
Your Honor, I'm not sure he can 23 l
answer the second part of that question without some 24 I
foundation as to whether he knew who dealt with Reading on i
25 a day-to-day basis and there's no testimony, as far as I'm (1) l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 2112-347-37(O Ltir nwide Cm crue Mkl%ud6
28217.0 2184 BRT.
O 1
aware of, that he knows who dealt with Reading.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
We can break it down that way.
3 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
4 0
You testified earlier, I believe, that you did 5
not notify Reading headquarters,_is that right?
6 A
In my view it was not my responsibility to make 7
such notification.
8 0
Do you know, then, whose responsibility it would 9
have been to communicate with corporate headquarters?
10 A
In terms of a specific individual, I'm not sure 11 whose responsibility that would be.
.It most likely would 12 be Gary Miller.
But other than that in a general sense it
()
13 would be the responsibility of operations department or 14 management at TMI-2 senior to the operations supervisor.
15 0
I may just be under the wrong impression, but 16 typically, I&E correspondence to a licensee -- does it go 17 to the plant site to whoever is in charge there, or does it 18 go to the utility management in the typical case?
19 A
Typically, correspondence went to utility 20 management in-Reading.
I guess I did not perceive'this as 21 an issue, that I sensed ~at that time as something that I 22 should be responsible for notifying Reading.
23 0
Well, in fact -- I guess I was, in speaking i
24 generally, I was thinking of inspection reports, violations, l
25 things of that sort.
Here the LER route was the way that (E)
L i
(
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i
- m. _
m_ m-
l 28217.0 2185 BRT b
1 this was dealt with; correct?
With follow-up?
2 A
This LER route was dealt with through follow-up, 3
and-it was documented in inspection reports.
The issue of 4
round-off I don't recall ever being documented.
5 My inspection report -- there was no intent to 6
document, it was just something I did not perceive to 7
document.
It was an item that was communicated, however, 8
directly, with Mr. Seelinger.
He may have some notes of 9
those conversations.
I did not keep any.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
Has that been covered to your
.11 satisfaction?
12 MR. GOLDBERG:
Yes.
()
13 JUDGE KELLEY:
A series of questions from the 14 employees.
15 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
16 0
This next one identifies with a touch of drama 17 where were you on October 19, 1978 at approximately 3:30 18 p.m.,
when Mr. Seelinger told you that PORC had decided the 19 incident was reportable?
I might just add the next part.
20 Was the conversation in person or over the phone?
That 21 will give a little more context, I suppose.
22 A
It's difficult at this time to recall 23 specifically where I was.
Very likely in Mr. Seelinger's 24 office, but I could just as likely have been in the control 25 room.
I was, nonetheless at the site at TMI-2.
It was a O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3'(U Nat gottwide roverage mn33MM
28217.0 2186 BRT TT 1
direct discussion or conversation.
2 O
Face-to-face discussion?
3 A
Face-to-face discussion; yes.
4 0
was anyone else involved in the conversation?
5 A
I do not recall anyone else at that time being 6
involved.
7 0
Why did the -- Mr. Lazarus testified you 8
reviewed LER78-68/IT and did not sign the inspection report, 9
which is your Exhibit E?
10 A
Mr. Lazarus did not physically participate in 11 the inspection that was conducted at the site.
His role in 12 this, to the best of my recollection, was limited to his f( )
13 review of the initial letter that was sent to Mr. Seelinger 14 on October 19th.
I believe that review would have occurred 15 on October 20th, in the morning, while I was at the site.
16 And then I later saw that same document and I believe my 17 initials are on the sheet, indicating that I had seen that 18 document.
He was not a direct participant in the 19 inspection.
20 0
Okay.
Where in the inspection report, which is 21 your Exhibit E,
is Mr. Lazarus referred to?
Is he referred 22 to in that report?
23 A
No.
He's not referred to in that report.
I 24 believe the only reference to him -- is on Exhibit B -- B 25 as in " baker."
The reference to Mr. Lazarus was on the
/~T L)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2(12 347 374II NJtiUT1%IdC rthCI.lFC N 0 33(*fM
28217.0 2187 BRT m
1 action control form which is an internal form we had at the 2
regional office where he signed -- although there's no date 3
by his signature, that would have been the time when the 4
initial report came in which I am estimating is October 20th.
5 0
But then the question was, is Lazarus referred 6
to in Exhibit E?. Either he is or is not.
l-
.7 A
As far as I know he's not referred to in that i
8 exhibit.
9 0
There's one more related question.
Was it your 10 testimony that Mr. Lazarus' review of LER78-62/IT would 11 have related to the statement in the Exhibit 9 that " details 12 of the event were clearly reported, including the. accuracy
()
13 of the description of cause and the adequacy of corrective 14 action" in that LER?
2 15 A
This review was really done in two time frames.
16 We did a review of the one-page written letter that 17 Mr. Seelinger sent and then there was a later review of the 18 written report, the LER itself and really my reference 19 there was to both.
However, I had reviewed both and that f
20 finding was based on my review.
21 0
And not Mr. Lazarus'?
i 22 A
That is correct.
I relied on my review for that i
23 entry in the report.
24 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, as you noticed that 25 was the last in the sequence.
I had been confused by his
- (1) i i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3701)
Nationwide Coserage Wh334N46
. _. _, _ _, - -, _ - _,., -.,.., _,. _ _ _ _ _ _.. _. ~ -. _ _ _. - _ _. _.,,-.
4 28217.0 2188 BRT 1-1 earlier testimony whether it was he or Mr. Lazarus that did l
i 2
this.
I wonder if you could put_the same question, but j
.3 about his conclusions on page 11.
I thought he said it was i
4' Mr. Lazarus who was the source of those conclusions.
I now 5
understand him to say they were his own.
f 6'
JUDGE KELLEY:
The source of which conclusions 7
exactly on page ll?-
8 MR. MC BRIDE:
On page 11 under the heading 6, i
9 "For those LERs selected for on-site follow-up, et cetera."
i I
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
The paragraph in the middle of 11 the page?
12 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes, sir.
. ()
13 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
14 Q.
Mr. Haverkamp?
15 A
The on-site follow-up was done entirely by 16 myself and I did not rely on anybody else_for that part of 17 the report.
j 18 MR. MC BRIDR:
Thank you.
f 19 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
i 20 0
At page 8 of your prefiled testimony you refer i
I 21 to, " instrument inaccuracies associated with the calculated
(
-22 leakage measurements."
Were you aware on October 18,
'78, i
23 or shortly thereafter, of such instrument inaccuracies?
i 24 A
I was unaware of any specific instrument i
(
25 inaccuracies.
That was discussed in a general sense and
! ()
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i mm.n.
s
_um,.
28217.0 2189 BRT q
,Y l
that was really the limit of my knowledge, was to a general 2
discussion of inaccuracies in instrumentation, but I was 3
not aware of anything specific on that date.
4 0
Did such instrument inaccuracies lead you to 5
believe that rounding off unidentified leakage values might 6
be appropriate, at least until you discussed it with others 7
at the NRC?
Underlining the word " mig h t. "
8 A
I don't, at this time, recall anything that led 9
me to believe rounding-off might be appropriate, even given 10 the instrumentation inadequacies and the -- especially 11 given the instrumentation inaccuracies -- I have no 12 recollection of that right now.
()
13 0
Just sort of a common sense reaction, which is 14 how I label my own reactions.
If you are told that there 15 are instrument inaccuracies, to be conservative I would 16 think that one would not approve a procedure making it even 17 more inaccurate; is that --
18 A
Yes.
In fact, when this issue first came up in 19 my mind, I was, to my recollection, I was thinking of this 20 in the opposite sense, where if you had an inaccuracy, that 21 would cause you to have a limit less than the 1 gpm, to 22 account for those inaccuracies.
So you are, in fact, 23 always less than 1 gpm.
Which is how we account for other 24 types of measurements, other surveillance results.
You 25 have to provide some conservatism or provide a value less n(~)
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Natmnwide Cmcrage NXk336 6M6
28217.0 2190 BRT pV 1
than the technical specification limit.
2 O
Did you not question, as you reviewed the logs, 3
that every leak rate that was logged was under 1 gpm?
In 1
4 other words did it not seem unusual that no tests were 4
5 logged as invalidated because of plant oscillations or 6
operator error?
7 A
It did not seem unusual to me at that time.
8 -
0 Without drawing on your experience at five other 9
plants, it didn't seem unusual in reviewing leak rate 10 results over some period of time, that there would never be 11 one over 1 gallon?
12 A
In hindsight my response is quite different.
()
13 But at that time I did not think there was a problem with 14 getting acceptable leak rates.
Leak rate. test results, I 15 had reviewed a number of tests and I guess, since I had 16 seen them all acceptable, I had no reason to believe they l
17 were not acceptable.
Or, I really had no reason to believe L
18 that there would be something outside those limits, given 19 they conducted the tests in a stable plant condition and 20 there were certainly enough periods when the plant was I
21 stable to get a good result.
But I did not challenge that l
22 or have any cause to challenge that at the time.
f 2'3 0
Based on your fairly frequent appearances in the 24 TMI-2 control room, were you aware that leak rate tests 25 were run much more often than once every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />?
(1)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
sm_m m-
_.- ~,._--
_ ~,, -,.. - - - _ _. - - -.. - -. _ _,,. - - _ - _
m 28217.0 2191 BRT
,OU 1
A I was aware the tests were run more often.
I 2
~ don't know if I was aware then, that they were done once 3
per shift or once per day, but I was aware that they were 4
done more than once per 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
5 0
You testified and your inspection reports 6
indicate that you reviewed the CRO and shif t foreman's log.
7 During such review, did you notice that only the stop times 8
of leak rate tests were recorded?
9 A
No.
As I pointed out before, my focus was on a 10 general review of the operations that had been ongoing 11 since I was last at the facility.
I didn't look at the 12 details of start and stop times for this measurement or
()
13 from any other types of operations similar to this.
14 0
Based on your review of the leak rate test of 15 October 16 through 18, 1978, did you realize that during 16 review or your discussions of those tests with TMI-2 17 personnel, that the exception and deficiency procedure 18 might have applied to such tests?
i 19 A
Could you repeat that question, please?
20 0
Sure.
Based on your review of the leak rate 21 tests of October 16 and 18,
'78, did you realize during 22 that review or during your discussions of those tests with 23 TMI-2 personnel, that the exception and deficiency 24 procedure might have applied to those tests?
25 A
At that time I did not consider the application O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tC-347 37m Nanonwide roserage 8m336-6646
28217.0 2192 BRT O
1 of the exception and deficiency procedure.
I just was --
2 it was just not something I was thinking about during that 3
time period.
4 0
Okay.
In any event, is it your opinion that the 5
exception and deficiency procedure, if applied to leak rate 6
tests, might have applied TMI-2 operations personnel to 7
invalidate leak rate tests?
8 A
Is that guestion a reference --
9 0
I'm not sure I understand the question, as I 10 ponder it.
It seems to me if you applied that procedure to 11 the leak rate tests that would have surfaced the problem 12 and something else could have happened.
()
13 JUDGE KELLEY:
Could you elaborate or explain 14 this a little bit?
15 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes, sir.
The thrust of the 16 question is whether it occurred to him at the time that the 17 application of that procedure would'have permitted 18 personnel to have invalidated such tests.
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
I still don't understand the 20 question.
What do you mean " invalidated"?
21 MR. MC BRIDE:
To not cause the occurrence of an 22 event that would trigger the action statement or otherwise 23 cause, you know, the plant to go into a different mode.
In 24 other words, did he consider the application of this 25 procedure at the time and what were the consequences of CZ) i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 37tu)
Narsonwide Coserage th uk346M6
....._,_...,m.__,_._..
._._,._.m._.,,,.._....__.
28217.0 2193 BRT p
1 applying this procedure to a surveillance test that 2
otherwise indicated an unidentified leakage of 1 gpm to be.
3 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let's put it that way, all right?
4 MR. MC BRIDE:
All right.
5 THE WITNESS:
Perhaps the question is still a 6
little bit long for me to grasp.
Could you res ta te that 7
question one more time, in context?
8 MR. GOLDBERG:
Judge Kelley, may I suggest that 9
we just ask the witness what actions were. required when the 10 test that was run was deemed to be invalid for some reason?
11 MR. MC BRIDE:
No, Judge Kelley.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
The question goes to the f) 13 exception and deficiency procedure.
As I understand it, v
14 the thrust of it is, if that procedure had been followed at 15 the time, what would have been the result in terms of the 16 operational result of doing that?
17 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes.
To test that showed 18 unidentified leakage in excess of 1 gallon per minute.
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
Right.
They didn't in fact 20 follow that procedure, but what if they had?
What would l
21 have happened then?
I 22 THE WITNESS:
I believe that had that procedure 23 l
been followed, the condition of being in excess of the 24 technical specification limits would have been clearly 25 l
identified and that condition would have been, therefore,
(")
l l
t i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
x m_ m c_
28217.0 2194 BRT
]
1 forced to be reviewed by the process that they had in place 2
would have been. reviewed by the appropriate engineering 3
Staff at the site for determination as to what caused the 4
high leakage and what actions should, therefore, be taken 5
to correct it?
6 In a sense, the same identification or 7
discussions I had on Wednesday, did the same' thing.
8 However the procedure was not filled out or they did not 9
follow the ND procedures by completing those forms when 10 those high leak rates existed.
The forms were not j
11 completed as they should have been, for the excess;1eak 12 rate condition.
l ()
13 MR. MC BRIDE:
The problem with the question as 14 recast, I guess, is it appears to me Mr. Haverkamp may be 15 considering some circumstances under which the E&D 16 procedure be applied and not others.
For example, suppose 17 the reactor had not been in steady state or gone out of 18 steady state during the course of the hour, or suppose the 19 operator entered the wrong number into the computer before 20 the sheet spat out and I wonder if you would put that 21 question to him and ask him whether his response would be 22 the same.
23 THE WITNESS:
In my review the E&D procedure t
24 applied under any conditions.
When the test is being l
25 l
conducted that's one of the purposes, one of the reasons, l(1) l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 blionwide CinerJge 8@33MM6
~ __.- 3 4 7-3 701 )... _ _, _. _ _., _... _. _ _ _. _, _...... _..
E i
.28217.0-2195 1
perhaps, for not having such a result was the plant was in.
2 a transient condition, but that's something the plant t
3
' engineers would evaluate and document on the E&D sheet.
4 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
i 5
'O Does the E&D sheet apply across the. Board?
In 6
the sense that whenever you had a leak rate test in excess 7
of the limiting condition, in excess of 1 gallon, you were 8
supposed to fill out one of those sheets,.whatever the i
9 reason may have been?
10 A
It is my understanding that that is certainly 11 the appropriate action to take.
i 12 0
Whether it's lack of steady state or anything
()
13 else -- and in the meantime you also go into the action 14 statement.
The mere filing of that piece of paper doesn't i
j 15 take you back out of the action statement, does it.
f 16 A
That is correct.
The.E&D sheet documents the t
17 condition that existed at the time and it documents what 18 actions were taken to resolve that condition.
It is a 19 document that should be retained by the facility and could 20 be referred to later.
l 21 0
And then it, in effect, kicks the problem i
l, 22 upstairs for a resolution by whom?
I 23 A
It could be by operations department, and it 24 would be also by, in some cases, by the plant operations l
25 review committee, if it's the type of thing that is
!(2)
}
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37m Natir nuide Cmerage
$n336-6N6
28217.0 2196 BRT
('-),
1 potentially reportable.
2 O
This may be a little irregular, but Mr. Capra 3
explained to us an elaborate flow chart just about a week 4
or so ago.
May I ask you whether that pertained to the 5
proc'edure we are talking about here or not?
If Judge 6
Carpenter is showing it to me.
7 JUDGE CARPENTER:
The flow chart that we were 8~
explaining was the flow chart for filing " Exceptions and 9
Deficiencies".
It was required, regardless of whether the 10 value that was obtained was greater than 1 or less than 1.
11 It depended on the circumstances.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
Thank you.
I just
()
13 wanted to tie in the flow chart and your earlier testimony 14 about where these pieces of paper would go once they are 1
15 filled out.
Okay.
16 I think we were a little unclear about the next 17 one, Mr. McBride.
The witness can listen too, but I want 18 to ask you about it.
19 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
1 20 0
Did it occur to you in 1978 or 1979, prior to 21 TMI-2 accident, that without rounding off unidentified l
22 leakage, leak rate tests might or would result between 1 I
23 and 1.5 gpm and we don't understand the thrust of the i
24 question.
25 f1R. MC BRIDE:
In other words, your Honor, after I
(I)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m_,,
~.e _ m. _,,,,
,,om
_-.-..-._.,__.._.._,..,,_...m,_..
28217.0 2197 BRT V(.
1 they ceased rounding off, did it occur to hinithat tests 2
that were like the ones he had seen that had leakage, 3
unidentified leakage depicted between 1 and 1. S' gpm would 4
again result?
Would there be tests in the future that were 5
like the tests that he saw for the period October 16th t.o.
6 18th?
And once you stopped rounding off they would be 7
deemed to be in excess of 1 gallon per minute?
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
All righi..
9 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
10 0
Comment?
11 A
Well, first, I want to stre[a that I did not.
12 rely on round-off in my evaluation of the leak raie f
13 conditions that existed on October 18th.
I' relied on the 14 results of a surveillance that was acceptable without 15 round-off.
16 I was not aware at any tim when round-off was 17 relied upon, or of any time, even in.the several days that 18 I was aware that it was in effect, that the practice was 19 permitted, I believe there were results that showed the 20 leak rate tests during that time frame, at least some,cf.
21 the results that I had seen, were acceptable without 22 round-off.
So I guess round-off was not something that I 23 was real concerned about, whether I was there or not, as 24 affecting the plant operation.
25 0
I thought you asked earlier in this regard -- I AV ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tC-347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage 800-336-(M6
~
r i
.bA
\\
K
' i 2821*i.0 2198 JBRT/
h^4,.
s 5
1 think this was asked before, but I thought before you e
2 stated essentially that based on what you saw in October 16 3
and 18, looking at that problem, that time frame, you 4
thought there was some computer problem the exact nature of U""
5 which you didn't know what it was, but there was apparently 6
some kind of computer problem.
You thought there was some I
7 actual leakage which was found, and therefore reduced the 1
8 number, and that, therefore, if I understood you, you i
e i -
e 9
didn't believe that you had danger signals, apart from 10 those considerations with regard to future operations.
Is 1,
11 11, that my understanding -- is that correct or not?
12 A
Your understanding is correct.
But beyond that 7, ( }
13 I could not predict whether or not leaks would occur.
- And, 14 if leaks occurred in the future, whether it was between 1 15 or 1.5 -- I'm not sure what bearing the round-off has when x
16 I didn't think they were relying on it or that it was a 17 practice in effect, because I just didn't see that that was 18 i
going to impact on their operation.
p 3
19 0
Your prefiled testimony at page 9, to which 20, Judge Carpenter referred you this morning states that you s
1 i
- H21
" reviewed measurements of RCS leakage measurements s
22 completely Branch 1-December 11."
During that test did you 4,
} " !!3 review leak rate tested between October 19-26 or October 27, fj)
-25 I
1978, which showed unidentified leakage of "1 gpm" which c A 25 actually could have been results in excess of 1 gpm if K'(21
~
y
- a.
jn O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8@336-fM6 i
~,
28217.0 2199 BRT 1
carried out to four decimal places?
It's kind of a long 2
question.
Do you need a repeat?
3 A
No.
I'm certain that I did review the test 4
results during that period you stated, which was around 5
October 18-19 to the 27th.
I don't recall specifically how 6
many I looked at at this time, but I do not recall any 7
results where the unidentified leak rate was greater than 1-8 gallon per minute without round-off -- with or without 9
round-off.
10 MR. MC BRIDE:
I'm sorry, Judge, he doesn't 11 understand the question.
The test results which are in 12 ev'idence before the Board, show whole numbers for
()
The supposition of the question is 14 did he review those results with whole numbers on them?
.1 15 THE WITNESS:
Oh.
I did review results with 16 whole numbers on them.
I guess I can say that I did not 17 rely merely on the whole number, but I did a -- I was aware 18 of how that whole number was developed and I'm quite sure 19 that there were no cases where, when I did a mental 20 subtraction of the gross leak rate minus any identified 21 leakage, that there were any results greater than 1 gpm, no 22 matter how you got that 1 gallon per minute.
I looked at 23 those results and I looked at the dif ferences and did a I
24 mental calculation for those that had a 1 gpm subnumber.
I 25 don't recall anything being greater than 1 gallon per O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
_ _-347-3700. _ _. _, _
28217.0 2200 4
BRT 1
minute.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
I'm not clear.
The question I
3 refers to tests which actually could have been results in 4
excess of 1 gpm, carried out to four decimal places.
Does 5
that mean like 0.9849 or 1.00017 6
MR. MC BRIDE:
Either one.
In mathematics it is 7
referred to by the number of digits to the right of the 8
decimal point as the number of decimal places.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, who is looking at numbers 10 like that?
What's the significance of that?
Who cares, in 11 short, beyond 1.17 Isn't that'what we are really looking 12 at?
()
13 MR. MC BRIDE:
No, your Honor.
Other than 'he t
14 period of October 18 to 27th, the leak rate test would 15 depict values such as, for identified leakage, 2.6548, 16 0.8942 for unidentified leakage, and the point is, if they 17 hadn't been rounding off, the unidentified leakage might r
18 have been 1.2348, but the computer spat out 1.
That's what 19 I was getting at with the four decimal places.
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
I'm wondering about the four 21 places.
I thought we were doing business, at least in my 22 mind in 1/10.
It's as if three or four places are going to 23 change the result?
I don't see how.
24 MR. MC BRIDE:
I was trying to point out the.
25 contrast between leak rate tests outside that period of O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2(C-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8410-33MM
28217.0 2201 BRT 1
time to which I referred and inside that period of time.
2 outside the period of time, values were depicted to four 3
decimal places.
Inside the. period of time, the value from 4
unidentified leakage was a whole number.
It was never to 5-1/10, either inside or outside the period.
6 THE WITNESS:
What I was describing or 7
attempting to describe is that the values for gross leakage 8
were carried out to those number of digits and the values 9
for identified leakage were carried out to some number of 10 digits.
Maybe it's two or three significant digits.
I am 11 quite sure that I did a mental calculation, even though 12 that -- even though the round-off may have existed, to see
()
13 that there was nothing, in fact, greater than 1.000 14 unidentified leakage.
15 I do not have those test results here, but we 16 could certainly look at those test results to see if I made 17 a mistake in my calculation.
18 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
19 0
They are all in evidence, as I understand it.
20 We could check that.
You are free, if you wish, of course, 21 to check with Mr. Goldberg and let you take a look.
I 22 don't think we necessarily need to do that now, but you can 23 take a look if you wish.
24 One more question:
There is some handwriting, 25 printed underlining, circling and asterisks, on a few of O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide coserage f00-336 M46
-....,,.. _, - ~
28217.0 2202 BRT g
'd 1
your exhibits, whose. marks are those?
The.LER towards the 2
back, I know, is marked up some.
3 A
I do not know whose marks they are.
I obtairied 4
these as exhibits in my regional office and I believe I 5
obtained them from a file maintained by the investigators.
6 As part of exhibits used for investigation of this matter, 7
that might have occurred in 1980.
But these are the 8
exhibits as I found them in the office and it was the only 9
copies of those exhibits that I have.
The marks were there 10 when I obtained them.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
Do you want to see if this can be 12 pursued further or not?
()
13 MR. MC BRIDE:
No, I don't, your Honor.
But I 14 do have one area that I'm a little concerned about and I 15 wonder if the Board would indulge us to have a moment to 16 talk to Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Capra off the record?
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
Do you want to just take five 18 minutes?
19 MR. MC BRIDE:
That would be fine.
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let's take a short break.
l 21 (Recess.)
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. McBride, do you have another 23 question?
24 MR. MC BRIDE:
We had a discussion with 25 Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Capra off the record, and I think they n
N.]
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 N.itionwide Cos erage NG336-(M6
28217.0 2203 BRT
(.
\\ '!
1 had spoken with Mr. Haverkamp.
There was some confusion in 2
our mind between some testimony last week and today, and I 3
don't know if at all it has been resolved or whether the 4
Staff agrees there is any inconsistency.
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
Comment, Mr. Goldberg?
6 MR. GOLDBERG:
I think if Mr. McBride wants to 7
pose a follow-up question to make the point that he wants 8
to make, he should do that.
9 MR. MC BRIDE:
The follow-up would be as follows, 10 Judge Kelley:
As I recall the testimony of Messrs. Russell 11 and Capra, if the reactor, hypothetically, was at steady 12 state as the leak rate test began and then deviated from
( ])
13 steady state during the course of the test, such as power 14 level change, would, as a result -- at the conclusion of 15 the hour, if the operator had attached an exception or 16 deficiency form because of that power level change, would 17 he, nevertheless have been required to enter the action 18 statement upon doing so because the test result depicted 19 leakage in excess of 1 gpm, notwithstanding the power level 20 change?
21 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
22 O
I think I was asking a question along_those 23 lines just to understand.
My understanding was, I think I 24 put it to you, that whenever there is a test in excess of 25 the limit, that triggers the deficiency _ requirement.
Am I O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-371o N ationwide Cos crage MXL33M646
28217.0 2204 BRT
~
l right or wrong about that?
2 A
I guess it could be either a test exception or a 3
deficiency, depending on the circumstances that got you 4
there.
If it were a change in plant conditions, that might 5
be a test exception.
6 0
Then taking Mr. McBride's hypothetical, would 7
that in your view be a circumstance in which the operator 8
should fill out the " Exceptions and Deficiencies" form?
9 A
Yes, in my view the form should be filled out, 10 and also a repeat test should be conducted to -- that would 11 demonstrate a valid measurement of whatever you were trying 12 to obtain.
(Ji 13 0
That, too, and many other things.
But in any u.
14 event, on his hypothetical you would view that as a 15 circumstance where an exception and deficiency paper should 16 be filed?
17 A
Yes.
I do view that as a situation where an 18 exception and deficiency sheet -- or -- one or the other 19 should be filed.
20 Q
One or.the other.
Right.
21 MR. MC BRIDE:
But the second half of the 22 question was not only whether an exception and deficiency 23 procedure should have been followed at that point, but 24 whether the action statement would have had to have been 25 entered under those circumstances, if the number in excess r~s i
L>
\\
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage W336-6M6
28217.0 2205 BRT O
1 of 1 gpm was as a result of power level change.
2 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
3
.O Is that the case?
4 A
I guess, in my view the action statement is 5
entered or at least a time clock is started until you make 6
a determination one way or another whether or not you were 7
in excess of the limit.
If you can resolve that acceptably 8
and demonstrate there was a problem with the test then the 9
clock stops and you are no longer in the action statement.
10 0
That was my understanding and I think we had 11 some discussion to that effect earlier.
Were it otherwise, 12 the mere filing of an exception and deficiency statement
()
13 would operate as a stay for being in the action statement, 14 and that's not the way things work; is that right?
15 Dropping a lawyer's parlance for a moment, let me restate 16 it.
17 I run a test, the circumstances that Mr. McBride l
18 describes, obtained, the result is 1.7.
I would file an
~
19 exception and deficiency statement.
But I would also be in 20 the action statement at that point?
The fact I filed the l
l 21 statement doesn't postpone the action statement, does it?
l 22 A
No.
You are still in the action statement.
The 23 E&D sheet is the form that documents the condition that had I
24 existed and what actions were taken to resolve that problem.
l 25 JUDGE KELLEY:
Does that cover it, Mr. McBride?
l CE) l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Coserage 800-336 # 46
_~
i 28217.0 2206 BRT 4
/T V.
1 MR. MC BRIDE:
Well, it apparently covers it as 2
far as this witness' knowledge is concerned, but I am 3
concerned that there may be a confusion in the record.
4 Because I thought I heard the other witnesses testify to 5
the contrary.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
There's a couple of ways to 7
explore this.
Mr. Capra is with us.
Maybe the quickest 8
way would be to ask him.
Or we can let you look.it up in 9
the transcript, wherever you think this problem is, and 10 bring it back to us.
What do you prefer?
11 MR. MC BRIDE:
I assume Mr. Capra is still under 12 oath, the question could be put to him and that would be i
()
13 the most' efficient way to proceed.
14 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let's do that.
15 Whereupon, 16 ROBERT A.
CAPRA 17 resumed the stand, having been previously duly sworn, was 18 examined and testified further as follows:
1 19 THE WITNESS:
The point of conflict may be, I 20 think -- where the example I think we were testifying to is 21 if an operator had started a test, something had happened 22 during the test, that the operator knew the result was not
~
23 going to be a valid result and it came out of the computer.
24.
Regardless of whether it was below 1 or above 1, he would
~
25 still have to file an exception report, why the test was O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage 800-3346M6
. ~.
28217.0 2207 BRT
(~)
1 invalidated.
I believe we may have testified that the 2
action statement was not required to be entered into 3
because the operator knew at the time that the test result 4
came out, it was an invalid result.
5 However, if the same situation occurred that the 6
operator ran the test, it came out, let's say greater than
~
7 1, he was in the action statement.
He may, upon further 8
evaluation of the test, determine that the test was invalid, 9
run another test, get an acceptable result, he would then 10 be out of the action statement.
11 EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD 12 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
m (v) 13 0
But, if I understood you correctly in that 14 circumstance where something went wrong -- maybe went wrong 15 is the wrong word, but something happened in the course of 16 the test such that the test result would, in his opinion, 17 be invalid, then when the computer problems out this 18 statement with a result in excess of 1, you say he is not 19 in the action statement?
Doesn't he have to be?
20 A
No.
I said he may have done something.
I think 21 the example came up that the reactor scrammed during the 22 period of the leak rate, if I recall.
I think that was one 23 of the examples that we were talking about, the result of 24 that test would obviously be invalid.
We didn't consider 25 that he was in the action statement at that time.
The
/~T v
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M-347-370)
Nationwide Coverage 8ak336-6M6
28217.0 2208 BRT 1
operator knew it at the time and made a conscious f
2 determination that the result was unacceptable.
3 This wasn't an after-the-fact thing.
It was 4
something that he knew at the time, that the test was in 5
progress.
6 0
How obvious does it have to be, though?
At 7
least the rule that says that you are into " Exceptions and 8
Deficiencies" whenever the result is over 1 gal-lon has the 9
virtue of simplicity and maybe the nonvirtue of writing a l'ast you know 10 lot of unnecessary pieces of paper, but at e
11 where you are.
I'm just wondering how far this goes?
12 A
Sir, that's different from the action statement.
()
13
" Exceptions and Deficiencies" applied all the time to every 14 test.
If the test was invalid for a reason, an exception 15 would have to be filed.
If the test was greater than 1, a 16 deficiency would have to be filed.
17 0
- okay, okay.
18 A
The action statement has nothing to do with 19
" Exceptions and Deficiencies."
20 0
They are separate things.
I understand that.-
21 But what I'm not clear on, my impression was that when your 22 result was over 1 you automatically are into the action 23 statement, whatever the cause.
Is that wrong?
24 A
That would normally be the case because you 25 wouldn't know, until the test was over.
The hypothetical O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(o Nationwide Coserage Kn3346M6
)
28217.0 2209 BRT 1
situation that we were talking about here was if the 2
operator did something during the test and knew it at the 3
time, he didn't have to evaluate the test afterwards as far 4
as knowing that there was going to be a problem.
He knew 5
at the time when the result came out that it was going to 6
be an invalid Last.
7 0
So you say then you are not in the action 8
statement?
9 A
I think that's what our testimony may have been.
10 I.think that's what Mr. McBride is referring to.
11 0
And that's your testimony today, too?
Is that 12 right?
()
13 A
Yes, sir.
14 0
okay.
15 Does that clear it up, Mr. McBride?
16 MR. MC BRIDE:
To my. satisfaction, yes, sir.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
18 Do we have any further follow-ups on follow-ups?
19 Does that, then, bring us to a point where 20 Mr. Haverkamp is through with his testimony and we'll 21 excuse him, and then after that we'll have some discussion 22 of sequence of witnesses next week.
Maybe some procedural 23 things.
24 Is there any need for us, when we excuse 25 Mr. Haverkamp, any reason why we can't close down?
We'll O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm.m s _ m c_
i
28217.0 2210 BRT
)
t
/
1 do our discussions off the record.
2 Mr. Haverkamp, that does take us through the 3
course of our questioning.
We very moch appreciate the 4
time and effort that you've put into your appearance.
We 5
appreciate your coming and your attentiveness, and thank 6
you very much.
You are excused.
7 (Witness excused.)
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
With that we will go off the 9
record for today.
We will be resuming tomorrow morning 10 with Mr. Holtz, followed by Mr. Hartman.
11 (Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m.,
the hearing was 12 adjourned, to reconvene at 8:30 a.m.,
Thursday, September
()
13 25, 1985.)
s-14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
(~h
\\>
l i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(4)
Nationwide Coserage 80rk33MM6
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER O
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 ISLAND UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION 1
.i DOCKET NO.:
LRP PLACE:
BETHESDA, MARYLAND DATE:
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 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)
.'re 1
(TYPED)'
JOEL BREITNER Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation O
1
- - - _.. _ _.. -.. _.. _ _. _. - _. - ~.. _ -. _ _ -,. _. - - _., - =
.