ML20210T215
| ML20210T215 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/01/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1068 LRP, NUDOCS 8610080338 | |
| Download: ML20210T215 (145) | |
Text
ORIGINAL UNITED STATES O
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
LRP INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION LOCATION:
BETHESDA, MARYLAND PAGES: 2515 - 2657 DATE:
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1986
)
D l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
OfficialReporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 (202)347-3700 D5s 8s08032o NATIONhTDE COVERACE T
PDR 1
CR28286.0
- .BRT/sjg 2515 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA fs k)
'^^
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
x In the Matter of:
5 Docket No. LRP I QUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND 6
UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION 7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 8
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9
Fifth Floor Hearing Room 10 East West Towers 4350 East-West Highway 11 Bethesda, Maryland 12 Wednesday, October 1, 1986
(}
13
\\
The hearing in the above-entitled matter convened at 14 8:30 a.m.
15 16 BEFORE:
17 JUDGE JAMES L.
KELLEY, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 18 Washington, D.
C.
19 JUDGE JAMES H. CARPENTER, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
21 JUDGE GLENN O.
BRIGHT, Member 22 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 23 Washington, D.
C.
l 24
()
25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nanonwide Coverage 60 4 336-6646
2516 1
APPEARANCES:
- /
2 On behalf of GPU Nuclear Corporation:
3 ERNEST L.
BLAKE, JR.,
ESQ.
JOHN N.
NASSIKAS III, ESQ.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 4
1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 5
On behalf of the Employees:
HARRY H.-VOIGT, ESQ.
7 MICHAEL McBRIDE, ESQ.
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 8
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1100 9
Washington, D.
C.
20036 on behalf of Jack Herbein:
10 JAMES B.
BURNS, ESQ.
11 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza 12 Chicago, Illinois 60602
(~}
13 CHRISTOPHER W. FLYNN, ESQ.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale
~-
14 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 15 On behalf of Gary P.
Miller:
MICHAEL W. MAUPIN, ESQ.
M.
CHRISTINA HENSLEY, ESQ.
77 Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street 18 Richmond, Virginia 23221
~
19 on behalf of Former Metropolitan Edison Employees:
20 i SMTIH B. GEPHART, ESQ.
21 Killian & Gephart 217-218 Pine Street B x 886 22 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 23 on behalf of the NRC Staff:
24 JACK R. GOLDBERG, ESQ.
("N MARY E. WAGNER, ESQ.
(,)
25 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 33 & 6646
2517 1
C O N T E N.T'S 2 -
WITNESS EXAMINATION 3
Craig C. Faust (Resumed) by the Board 2518 4
Mark S. Coleman 5
by Mr. Gephart 2578-6
.by the Board 2582 7
8 9
LAY-IN - PREPARED STATEMENT OF COLEMAN FOLLOWS PAGE 2579 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
,l' 22 23 i
i 24
!O 25 4
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 2 3366646
_.., _. _,,___..____ ___,._,~,___._.,_____._. _.__,__.. _.... _,,_.....__ _ _.__, _
.. : +-
Y t
28286.0 BRT 2518 1
P R O C E 3,D I N_ G S_
2~
Whereupon, 3
CRAIG C.
FAUST 4
' resumed the-stand and, having been previously duly sworn, was
'S examined and testified further as follows:
6-JUDGE KELLEY:
Off the record a moment.
7 (Discussion off the record.)
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
on the record.
This morning 9
Mr. Craig Faust is with us as a witness.
Yesterday i
10 afternoon, the record will reflect, he was sworn in and his A
11 testimony was inserted in the record so we will move directly
\\)
12 this morning to questions from the Board.
Judge Bright will'-
13 lead off.
14 EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD 15 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
16 Q
Mr. Faust, good morning.
l 17 A
Good morning.
4 18 Q
1 would like to get some little background here.
19 First, this is your chance, as we explained to you, to see 4
20 about former statements, statements that may have been made 21 about you by other people, this sort of thing.
Do you agree 1
l 22 with what you have said before and with what the other people i
j 23 say?
Do you disagree?
Would you like to change anything you 24 have said at all, remembering that all of these things were 25 part of the record and that's what we depended on to make a
(
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- mmm, s.e_m r_...
i
.f'y
\\'
28286.0 BRT 2519
.1
. decision.
So, please speak.
2 A
If-I understand that right that means that you are-3 talking about all the depositions I have been in in the 4
past?
5 Q
Yes.
6 A
Okay.
I can't say I have reviewed all of them at 7
this point, again, but from what I remember I don't have any 8
problem with what I have said in the.past.
9 Q
I'm sure your very capable counsel has pointed out 10 any that might be not to your satisfaction.
11 A
They usually try to, yes.
{
12 Q
Well, with that caveat I guess we can plunge ahead 13 here.
14 I'm not sure that I fully understand how this 15 makeup tank business works.
Let's start from the beginning.
16 You have a potful of water sitting there, called a 17 makeup tank.
What is the purpose of that tank?
I'll bet 18 supply of water?
19 A
The supply of water from the makeup tank, what you 20 end up doing is having a ready supply of water for the 21 primary system to account for -- well, I should say you have 22 a pressurizer, okay, that takes care of immediate in-surges 23 and out-surges within the system from temperature surges
()
24 within the system.
25 You have a makeup tank, it's a volume-control ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 370)
Nationside Cmcrage
- b3346M6
fm.
)
' ' 28286.0 BRT 2520 1
tank, of sorts, that you then replenish water.
Say if you 2
had a decrease in temperature in a primary, you would have an 3
out-surge from the primary, or out of the pressurizer into 4
the primary, you would then want to restore the level in the 5
pressurizer to normal.
This would come from the makeup tank 6
initially, okay?
Depending on how long you might maintain 7
that temperature in the priniary at that level, okay?
You 8
would then replenish the makeup tank from other sources, 9
using borated water, normally, for controlling rod position 10 in the plant.
We had operating bands on the rods that we
(~S 11 tried to maintain.
We also used the makeup tank for means of
%]
12 adding boron into the plant.
13 Q
The actual boron addition would be from the makeup 14 tank, not from a separate --
15 A
Okay.
You could bring water -- you would bring 16 water from the bleed tanks er from the reactor coolant drain 17 tank, over to, usually, to the makeup tank.
From there it's 18 a tank external to the system, if you want, that you would 19 then replenish that water into the plant while you are 20 bleeding down from the plant to maintain the same volume, if 21 you are holding a constant temperature in the plant or the 22 temperature is not moving.
All right?
23 So the makeup tank -- what do you want to call it
()
24
-- it gives you, what, flexibility in moving water volumes 25 around.
It also is used for hydrogen addition to the plant ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Omcrage Nin3346Am
..m 3
28286.0 s
BRT 2521
^
\\
forcontrollingoxygenconcentrationintheprimarhyby 1
2 maintaining an overprecrure of hydrogen on the makeup tank.
3 Q
The --
4 A
It was part'of a volume control system,jreally, in.
5 the system.
6 Q
At what point in the system does the water from 7
the MUT enter the primary system?
4 8
A At what -- okay.
It is usually injected into --
9 just downstream of your reactor coolant'pumph, thq cold leg 10 piping.
11 Q
That seems logical.
12 Nov, these additions to the prinary system, is 13 that an automatic function?
Or is it a totally manual one?
14 A
There is an automatic feature there.
Let's see --
15 I believe it's called MEV-17; it was a Bailey-controlled i
16 valve from the panel, which you had an automatic setting in 17 it, that would try to regulate pressurizer level in it.
This 10 would cause your source of water for that -- usually 19 depending on temperature now we are talking about, changer in f
20 the plant -- would automatically make up from the makeup l-21 tank.
The operator himself had to manually replenish the 22 makeup tank from other sources, usually that being either i
23 bleed tank or -- normally a bleed tank was selected.
()
24 Q
In the automatic mode, is there any recording of 25 the amount of water that goes into the primary system from ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-370)
Nationwide Cmcrage kn3%6M6
(~
A' 28286.0 BRT 2522 1
the MUT?
2 A
Okay.
You could determine that from level changes f
3 off strip chart recorders, either from the makeup tank itself 4
or off the pressurizer.
Okay?
I -- realizing that, 5
especially now there is a temperature change, right, from the i
6 makeup tank into the primary, you are going to have swelling j
7 or volume change in that water once it enters the primary 4
8 system and heats up.
9 Q
And the same would be true to a manual input, I 10 presume?
11 A
Yes.
Right.
12 Q
You have stated in your prefiled testimony that 13 your method of operation, in doing leak rate tests, was that 14 you would run the test, then you would look at the record 4
15 and, if it was not what we will arbitrarily call a " good" 16 test, meaning below 1 gallon per minute unidentified leakage, i
17 if you didn't get a good test, then you would see whether 18 something might have invalidated that test, and you would l
19 actually search around; is that true?-
20 A
Yes.
l 21 Q
And, if you could find something that, in your 22 opinion was -- would invalidate it, then you would throw it i.
23 away and do another one?
()
24 A
That's right, sir.
I 25 Q
Or at least throw it away and -- whatever.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nacionwide Coverage suk336-u>46
_4
. __ _,_ _-347 37m,.. _ _,. _., _.,..... _,,. _ _, _ -,. _ _,. _.. _, _......, _ _..,. - _,.,, _ _, _,, _
i
a, 4
4 ii 28286.0 BRT 2523 1
Could you describe some of the things that you
)
2 would look at and see whether the test should be invalidated 3
or not that you could figure out?
4 A
Okay.
What I tend to recall as far as why I threw 5
-- unfortunately I. don't have the tests because I threw them 6
away'-- were actually wrong entries, if you want, just i
7 entering the test in.
At least that is what I tend to 8
believe at this point.
e 9
Q Entering tests in?
Would you explain --
10 A
Entering information in for the test or improperly 11 administrating the start of the test, even to the point where 12 the water might be added during the test; right?
And I t
13 didn't realize it after.
I called it out and instead of 14 worrying about it at that point, because I hadn't entered it 15 in during the hour's-time period, I just invalidated the test 16 and do another one.
A lot of times that would show up with i
L 17 an excessive number, which would get you -- just turning t
i i
18 around to the other operator and saying:
Did you add water?
19 Or I might have even forgot that water had been added and'I 20 didn't include it in the test or I didn't get around'to it 21 that hour, right on that hour, to add it in when the test 22 printed out.
So that accounts for some of them.
23 Other ones would be, we may have had a change in
()
24 plant power level itself, as well as just -- there were times 25 when I would -- I don't remember this clearly, but I would I
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coscrage 8M336-6M6
. _ _ _ _ _ -......... _ = -. - -... _ __.., _, -,, -..,.....
OkI 28286.0 BRT 2524 1
have added water and just didn't use that test; just from 2
that point of view.
I'd just run another one.
It depended 3
on what time in the shift I would go about that or not.
I 4
can't say it was 100 percent always that way.
5 Q
If you couldn't invalidate the test -- and I think 6
you say that sometimes it has happened -- personally, you 7
would go ahead and give it to the shift foreman?
8 A
That's right.
9 Q
Would you talk about it?
Discuss it?
Just give 10 it to him?
How did you handle that?
11 A
Sometimes a foreman wasn't always in the room, 12 that I discussed it at that point.
Once again, I'm talking 13 generalizations right now in that period of time.
I know 14 there was times that we talked over why I -- why a test may l
15 have come out greater than 1 gpm, for instance.
Okay?
16 Talked over in the sense of, well, I would give the test to t-17 the foreman and he might give me direction to just look 18 around and try to figure out why, or would send operators out 19 in the plant to determine if there was additional leak rate 20 that we could come up with.
I don't think I can -- that's 21 about the extent of it.
22 Q
That's information that is useful.
But in that 23 kind of case, Mr. Scheimann -- is that the way he pronounces 24 it?
25 A
Fred Scheimann?
Yes.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 l
im\\ ')
f 28286.0 BRT 2525 1
Q
-- the ball would be in Mr. Scheimann's court, so 2
to speak, after you gave it to him?
3 A
Yes.
I can't always say it was just Fred at that 4
point that I would have given it to.
Fred might not have 5
been in the room and I might have mentioned it to Zewe, Bill 6
Zewe, my supervisor, and he would take it at that point.
But 7
the idea was that he would turn it over to the next 8
supervisory level, basically.
9 Q
So it could have been either one of them?
10 A
Yes.
{~J')
11 Q
How did you get along with Mr. Scheimann?
12 A
I don't think we had any problems, as far as 13 operational.
I can't say we socialized outside of work that 14 much.
I don't think we did.
But I would describe our 15 working relationship as being pretty good.
16 Q
Pleasant?
Conducive to a good atmosphere, this 17 sort of thing?
18 A
I never really had any problems with him but I l
l 19 tend to be known as getting easy -- tend to get along with l
i 20 people easily.
I 21 Q
That is handy when you are working with big l
22 fellows.
l 23 A
Not everybody, but most people.
()
24 Q
How about Mr. Zewe, your relations with him?
i l
25 A
Yes -- I'd describe it the same way, i
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
t m_m c_,
- N~/
28286.0 BRT 2526 4
1 Q
Same way?
2 A
I might have -- I have socialized with Bill Zewe a 3
little bit more than I did with Fred, but it was along the 4
same lines.
5 Q
Mr. Frederick made an interesting statement.
6 Without trying to read it totally, something to the effect 7
that:
When you came on shift you would immediately get the 8
computer and start a leak rate test.
I was wondering just 9
how far that went?
Or whether this is just sort of a 10 description of the way you did business?
11 A
I guess I had a tendency to try to get the
(}
12 paperwork out of the way early when I came on because because i
13 I didn't know what would take place on shift.
It didn't take 14 much to delay you when an evolution came up, even doing a 15 switching and tag order, depending on how extensive it was.
16 So I would say to a point I have a tendency to agree with 17 him, in that I probably did come in and start a leak rate 18 right within the beginning part of the' shift.
I don't know 19 if I -- I can imagine I walked in, at times, and put a leak 20 rate in just about right away when I came in.
I don't know 21 if I was constant on that.
I would describe it more as 22 towards the beginning of the shift.
Maybe within the first 23 hour2.662037e-4 days <br />0.00639 hours <br />3.80291e-5 weeks <br />8.7515e-6 months <br /> when I come in, along those lines, that I would enter a
()
24 leak rate and try to get one started.
25 Q
But there was no set time to run these --
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3AX)
Nationwide Coverage 804336-646
k/
28286.0 BRT 2527 1
A No.
2 Q
You did it at-convenience or when it appeared it.
3 was possible; is that correct?
4 A
Yes.
5 Q
Page 5 of your testimony, in the first paragraph 6
you say, "I most frequently figured out the amount of water-7 added by observing the makeup tank level indicator." It would 8
seem to me -- well, would you describe that operation?
9 A
As far as adding water to the makeup tank?
We 10 used a manual --
11 Q
That and watching MUT level indicator.
12 A
Okay.
You had a graph paper on it that you could' 13 observe the actual increase in water level -- without having.
14 the documents here.
If I remember right there are 10 gallon 15 per minute increments on it.
But it was fairly easy just to 16 look at-the chart and take a -- depending -- fairly easy to 17 take a look at the chart and mark off your points to get an 18 actual water addition.
That's not saying it was the most 19 accurate way to go but that's the way I tended to prefer to 20 do it.
t l
21 Q
That's what I was wondering about.
What would be 22 the time frame for the addition of, say, a couple of hundred 23 gallons?
How long would that take when you were doing that
/~T j
(_j 24 kind of operation?
25 A
Might only take you -- a couple of hundred -- say ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33MM6
4 28286.0 BRT 2528 1
about 300 gallons?
2 Q
Yes.
3 A
Geez, I think you are talking about maybe -- I'm 4
trying to remember the capacity of the pump.
I think the 5
transfer pump you are talking acout was rated at about 50 to 6
100 gallons per minute.
I'm going to say 50 right now and go 7
from that.
Under uptake you have about five minutes -- not 8
five minutes but six minutes to make the addition on that.
9 That's rough to say because a lot -- depending on whatever is
'10 affecting that pump at that time, whether it's not airbound 4
11 at all or anything, that capacity can change easy within~the-
{}
12 ranges -- I would imagine, the manufacturer's limits.
But I 13 would say about 10 minutes, if you want to rough it out.
14 Q
Well, the reason I was asking is you do have this 15 error built into that kind of system.
If it takes very much 16 time you don't have a step function?
4 17 A
That's right.
18 Q
So you are fighting a battle with a descending 19 level all the time, and with an ascending level, in which the 20 longer the time of adding the water lengthens, then you are 21 going -- if you just take the difference you are losing?
Not 22 much, but I'm --
23 A
I don't believe I thought of that.
I didn't
()
24 consider it from the point of view you are just explaining 25 it.
It's a good point but I don't believe I considered ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Coserage 800-33M4;6
_ -, _ _ -347-3700. _. -.
. -.__. ~., _.. -_.
(')
\\'
28286.0 BRT 2529 1
that.
2 Q
But it-doesn't appear that it takes very long to
.3 complete this operation; that you haven't really incurred a 4
big error?
5 A
That's right.
I'm probably overestimating the P
6 time, even.
7 Q
For the record, now, what was your feeling toward 8
negative leak rates that show up in the leak rate test?
I 9
A I didn't have'a problem with them unless they.were 10
-- and I don't have -- I can't remember the value I put on it 11 at the time, but within -- all I can say at this point is 12 within a range I didn't have a problem with a negative leak 13 rate.
14 Q
What was the reason for that?
15 A
Not having the problem?
16 0
Yes.
17 A
I just associated it with change in the water 18 temperature that I guess you are adding into the system, 19 possibly, as one of the things.
I can't say I associated 20 each negative leak rate with a particular parameter.
I just 21 figured it was within the tolerances of the plant, you could 22 get a negative leak rate.
I don't recall anything being -- I 23 can't recall direction, in other words, at that time, or II 24 anybody saying -- coming up to me and saying, we are not 25 going to accept a negative leak rate.
Within reason it ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6 4 6
.-.... _ ~ -,--,-,
(
' 28286.0 BRT 2530 1
didn't bother me.
2 Q
The negative --
3 A-Pardon?
4 Q
The negative leak rate, was this a common practice S
as far as this being accepted was concerned?
6 A
I --
7 Q
Say you take it to the shift supervisor and he 8
would say:
Okay, fine, dandy, we'll go with a negative leak 9
rate.
Was that a common practice, do you know?
Was it 10 common on your shift?
11 A
I turned in negative leak rates and as far as I --
{}
12 the best I can say, I haven't -- I didn't have anybody come 13 back and tell me not to hand one in.
That's the way I could 14 phrase it best.
I never had anybody come back and tell me 15 not to do it.
16 I have had negative leak rates that I disregarded, 17 I considered they were definitely invalid.
I have been asked j
18 this question before and I can't put a value on when did I 19 cut it off.
At what point did I say, I'm not going to 20 believe this to be true or anywhere close to being true?
I 4
21 can't give you an answer for that.
22 Q
I don't want to get into any kind of exhaustive 23 investigation here, but do you have access to the Stier
()
24 report, volume III-A, tables 1 and 2?
Perhaps your counsel 25 could supply it.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage
&n336-6646
=.
(D
\\/ 28286.0
^
BRT-2531 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
I have a question here.
2 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
3 Q
On the negative leak rate, did.I understand you to i
4 say you can no longer recall the cutoff point at which you 5
would no longer believe one, but might I assume that you 6
would believe a reading of minus.21.and you might not 7
believe a reading of minus 10, for example?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
Now, in the case of one that you wou.2d believe --
10 "believe" I think is the wrong word; " accept" is a better.
(
11 word; " accept" in the sense that you would follow it.
When 12 you accepted a negative leak rate of minus
.2 gallons per 13 minute, did you make some determination, whether on paper or 14 in your head, that said that the true leak rate was some 15 other number but still less than 1?
Or-did-you just take it?
16 A
It was a small number and I -- I'm guessing, once 17 again, but I think I would have remained in the less than 1 18 gpm range on a negative leak rate.
If it were over that, 19 that's when I would -- once again, I'm just using that as an 20 example at this point.
If it went over that value, right, I 4
21 would then try to decide why:
Did I do something in the 1
22 plant or did something change that would cause an influx like 23 this, like I didn't take account of a water addition that I
()
24 could come up with at that point, and disregard it.
25 Q
Let me make sure that I follow you.
Are you l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tc-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
'(V '28286 0.
3 BRT 2532 1
saying that in the example I give, minus.2,'that you didn't 2
think that was-the real leak rate; right?
I assume you-
.3 didn't.
-4 A
I would assume that to be -- I would assume that 5
to'almost indicate I didn't have any leakage, unidentified 6
leakage.
7 Q
Not only that, you have the machine making water 8
somehow and that's not possible, is it?
9 A
I understand that.
That's why I'm saying within 10 the range -- I guess I just felt it was within the range of 11 the instrumentation.
}
12
-Q Such that you thought that actual leakage-was 13 probably less than 1?
Or such that it is under the 1, and 14 that's my only problem, I'll file it?
15 A
It's under a. positive 1.
16 Q
Positive 1.
17 A
Right.
It's not so -- that's what I'm saying.
18 I'm having a hard time identifying, at this point -- to me i
19 this is based on where would I cut this off and look for it 20 and --
21 Q
That's part of it.
What I'm trying to find out is 22 did you take the leak rate test as a real indication of plant 23 leakage?
Or as an administrative thing you had to walk
()
24 through and somehow get a number Less than 1?
Do you i
25 understand the distinction I'm making there?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
N2-W3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
7
's J 28286.0 BRT 2533 1
A I believe so.
I took the leak rate test for the 2
most part towards satisfying a tech spec requirement, the 3
paperwork for it.
4 Q
And not to measure actual leakage?
5 A
I had a tendency to -- it was the method, if you 6
want, to measure leakage in the plant.
It was the method we 7
used to determine leak rate in the plant.
I would have more 8
of a tendency to disbelieve -- or look at a trend change on 9
the makeup tank level.
10 When I say "a trend change" I'm talking about --
11 you see a change in the slope on it that was noticeable, that 12 will give you an indication that you had a leak generating.
13 Q
Did you think the test, in and of itself, was an 14 accurate measure of plant leakage when you used the test?
15 A
I don't think I questioned it at that point, to be 16 honest.
I don't think I analyzed it at that point to make a 17 determination whether it was accurate.
There were other 10 people that did that, that looked at those tests and 19 generated what went into them to form the test.
I'm talking 20 about your engineering department, basically.
21 Q
Let me get back to negative leak rate.
I'm just 22 trying to get a handle on why you night take a minus
.2 --
23 and I think you said you would probably reject a minus 10.
A(_)
24 That suggests to me that you thought that the test had some 25 relevance to actual leakage; is that right?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8M336-6M6
(M
\\l 28286.0 BRT' 2534 1
A Yes.
2 Q
But in the case of the minus 2, I-gather you 3
didn't go_through some --
4 A
You are talking about minus.2; right?
5 Q
Minus
.2.
You~didn't get out a pencil and say:
6 Well, it's minus
.2 and I think there have been temperature 7
changes and:this and the other thing, so the real leak rate 8
is
.8, so I'll accept this?
I assume you didn't do something 9
like that?
10 A
No, I didn't.
11 Q
If was in that rough range of minus
.2, minus_.3, 12 maybe, plus
.1, you would regard that as instrumentation 13 variation and file it?
14 A
Yes.
15 Q
Without any further analysis?
16 A
That's right, sir.
17 Q
Indeed, any time you got a test that came out 18 between
.1 and
.9, would you do any analysis of its 19 validity?
Or would you just file it?
20 A
I'd just file it.
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
Go ahead.
22 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
i 23 Q
If -- I see you have the volume there.
If you
()
24 would turn to part 2, table 2 in the Stier report.
If you go 25 down alphabetically far enough you'll find a section called i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
t
~ -
c-,,
a_
("1
' ' 28286.0 BRT 2535 1
" test data for Faust."
It is about, oh, I'd say halfway 2
through that table 2.
Do you have it?
I 3
A Right.
4 Q
Now, this total compilation here is -- well, it's 5
your career on TMI-2, is what it is.
All of these tests you, 6
supposedly, were responsible for.
They have the.date, then 7
when the test was done, what shift, and what your duties were 8
on the shift.
And then we come over to the evaluation 9
criteria part and there is what I am curious about, the 10 next-to-the-last column.
This is "possible test manipulation f
11 and type."
And then we have some. notes on there.
Do you see 12 that?
13 A
Yes.
4 14 Q
Mr. Stier does a very good table, I must note.
15 A
Depends on if you agree with him, I guess, or not.
16 Q
If you will go on up, here, to test 150.
I don't 17 know whether you know it or not but Mr. Stier numbers his 18 tests 1 through 200-and-some-odd; but he starts with I was 19 the last test done on TMI-2 and goes backwards.
20 A
Starting from the beginning of that page -- that 21 section?
22 Q
Just test 150.
23 A
Okay.
(/
24 Q
That's the first one where there's any real 25 problem.
The one before, 152 said that the reactor start up ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwute Coverage 800-336 6M6
n
'28286.0 BRT-2536 1
wassin progress so that you had unreliable data.
There's 2
certainly no hint of manipulation.
3' Now, we have for 150, there was a-problem with a 4
little matter of 246 gallons of water that weren't accounted.
5 for in the test.
Then, if you go.to 40 -- a note on 150, in 6
the fifth column, on the left-hand side, it says, 7
" unidentified leakage result in gallons per minute."
For 8
150, you have a. negative leak rate of.3514; then "40," water 9
added
- under "possible test manipulation and type," it 10 says, " water added where it was not necessary"; and the 11-unidentified leakage result is minus.2438.
q
)
12 Then, 9 is on the next page --
13 A
You were at 40 there?
14 Q
Yes.
4 15 A
And it says -- at least the one I'm at says, 16
" unidentified leak at.2438."
Okay.
Now you are going to 17 9?
1 18 Q
Negative 2438.
L 19 A
Right.
20 Q
And number 9, that says they are unclear but there
[.
21 was a water addition.
It may have been required.
And that 22 is negative,.7522.
23 Here are four leak rate tests and they are among
()
24 the very few that Mr. Stier can find where there was any 25 possible test manipulation.
Everything else was pretty ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Natsonwide Coverage 800-336 6646
\\2 28286.0 BRT 2537 1
clean.
And they all turn out with negative leak rates.
Is 2
there any -- would you attach any significance to that i
3 particular fact?
4 A
No.
5 Q
This is just a matter of, as you have explained, f
6 negative leak rates didn't bother you all that much if they 7
were within reason?
8 A
That's right.
9 Q
Is that fair?
4 10 A
Yes.
11 Q
So the fact that a number of these -- four may not 12 seem like many tests, but that's --
13 A
These are being run by Ed.
l 14 Q
Beg your pardon?
15 A
These are the tests, it looks, that are being run 16 by Ed Frederick?
~17 Q
No.
These are tests that were run by you.
18 A
Oh, I did these?
Oh, he had the log.
19 Q
See, " duties on shift," that's yours.
What were 20 your duties?
Here it says, I presume, " surveillance" and - -
i 21 what's that, " performance"?
22 A
All right.
I was reading it wrong here.
All 23 right.
()
24 Q
So you see nothing odd about that, I presume?
25 A
No.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202 Narionwide Coverage 2 3346686
. _ -347-3700,
.p
\\/ 28286.0 BRT 2538 1
Q In your testimony you say that " tests got quite a 2
bit harder as time went on."
Is that a true statement?
3 A
Yes.
The tests didn't get harder, it just got 4
harder to end up with less than 1 gpm, or maybe not something 5
excessively negative, probably -- leak rate -- at the time.
6 Q
Well, it appears that the last four leak rate 7
tests that were run on TMI, you did them.
And it certainly 8
-- I guess it could be surmised that you were having a little 9
more trouble, at least more was. going on.
But tests had --
10 4,
3, 2 and 1 -- if it says " panel and log," supposedly, in 11 that " duties on shift," supposedly you signed the leak rate
[}
12 test or something that says that you knew everything that was 13 going on there and you did it; or something like that?
You 14 have some kind of responsibility in connection with the 15 actual leak rate test.
16 A
When it says " panel and log," " duties on shift:
17 panel and log," That would have been Ed?
l 18 Q
Yes.
But you were involved in some way --
19 A
Mainly surveillances.
20 Q
-- such as signing off the test sheet or something 21 like that?
22 A
Yes.
l 23 Q
And all those were water additions, 4 -- even
()
24 though you got a positive leak rate, all seven of these 25 involved water addition and all of them would have been over ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33MM6
., _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _.. ~, _ _ _ _, _.. _. _ _, _. _ ~ _ _ _,
s 28286.0 BRT 2539 1
1 gallon per minute, if there hadn't been any water added.
2 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Bright, excuse me just one 3
second, could you give me the test ~ numbers, the Stier test 4
numbers that you are now inquiring about?
5 JUDGE BRIGHT:
1, 2,
3, 4.
6 MR. MC BRIDE:
Sir, I don't want to quarrel in any 7
way but the Stier volume indicates that Mr. McGovern-8 performed test number 2 and that Mr. Frederick ~ performed test 9
number 3 and that Mr. Congdon performed test number 4.
10 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Are you. telling me Mr. Faust had 11 absolutely nothing to do with any of these tests?
12 MR. MC BRIDE:
No, sir.
He performed test number 13 1.
14 JUDGE CARPENTER:
That agrees with the NRR 15 tabulation.
16 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Fine.
Let me get back to my 17 question which I was going to ask.
18 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
19 Q
Would you consider, even though there were four 20
_different people that ran these tests -- you were there; 21 would you figure that the difficulty of doing the test had 22 anything to do with the results obtained?
I mean you've got 23 all sorts of things going on.
It says here, "might be a feed p(,)
24 and bleed."
All of them say that -- well, except for 4 --
25 say that you may have had to add water.
Would you connect ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
\\
28286.0 BRT 2540 1
this in any way with the difficulty of the testing, because 2
of the valves going blooey and all sorts of stuff like that, 3
pressurizer going up and down --
4 A
We weren't in what I would consider the most 5
stable condition at that point.
We had known leakage in the 6
plant that -- our codes were leaking.
I'm sure you are aware 7
of right now.
At least that is what the thought was as far 8
as I was concerned at that time.
We ended up with a lot of 1
9 surging in and out of the pressurizer and we were having 10 problems controlling rods in the proper bands of operation so 11 we were moving volunes to do that.
It tended to make doing 12 leak rate tests, as far as I was concerned, a little 13 difficult to do.
I tended to associate that leakage and the 14 manipulation with water in the plant with the problems doing 15 leak rates.
16 Q
So you were put in a position of having to add-17 water --
2 18 A
Oh, yes.
19 Q
-- to make up for what was going on in the rest of 20 the plant?
21 A
We were definitely adding water.
We were bleeding 22 and feeding off and on through -- it was hard to get a period 23 of time when you weren't bleeding and feeding when you had a
- ()
24 leak rate in.
It might interfere with it at any given time.
25 Q
So this, the fact that water was being added in ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Coverage 8%33M646
-347-3700
_... _ _ ~. _, _.
1
'd 28286.0 BRT 2541 1
here, you wouldn't consider that this was an intentional 2
addition of water in order to try to manipulate the test?
3 A
No.
.I would not.
4 Q
You were on the 3:00 to 11:00 shift on the 16th 5
and 17th of October --
6 A
Okay.
7 Q
according to the record-that I have here.
8 A
All right.
9 Q
And this was, along in there somewhere was where 10 the big 2.6-gallon leak rate perturbation came about and the
)
'11
-NRC inspector found it out and everything kind of.got in a (s_'/
i 12 mess around that.
I'm just telling you that.
13 All I'm curious about is, can you remember on the 14 17th, do you have any idea who it was that relieved you off 15 that shift?
16 A
I'd have to go back to the log, sir.
I don't 17 remember who relieved me at this point by any means.
18 Q
And I presume you don't remember who relieved you 19
-- I mean, who did you relieve, to go on the shift?
(
20 A
No.
It would have been the order of the shift 21 rotation.
I would assume it was B shift.
22 Q
What you are saying is the same people didn't f
23 precede and follow you all the time so it wasn't an automatic
()
24 thing; it could be anybody; is that correct?
l 25 A
I have a tendency -- we had a log or a shift l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6 j
28286.0 BRT 2542 1
rotation that we followed normally, but that's not saying it 2
was absolutely always that individual there.
I would say it
~
3 would be in the order of that shift rotation.
I was on A 4
shift.
B shift was following me.
5
' JUDGE BRIGHT:
Okay.
That was my interest.
Thank 6
you very much.
7 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
8 Q
We seem to have a random performance of Mike row 9
phones -- random pattern.
10 Mr. Faust, in your prefiled testimony at page 2, 11 the third full paragraph, you testified:
"We performed the
{
12 test on a shiftly basis."
Would you say that was rigorous?
13 Or that by and large, if you had time on a shift you ran one?
14 A
It tended to be -- we tended to try to get a leak 15 rate run on a shiftly basis, yes, but that's not saying we 16 couldn't get through a shift and not run one.
It's very i
17 possible, if we got busy we didn't run one.
18 Q
Well, that's the point.
In the period 1978-79, I 19 have the impression that the daytime -- day shift, perhaps, 20 was the time of more activity than the other two shifts.
21 Perhaps it wasn't useful for all three shifts.
22 A
I would -- I would say that's a fair statement, 23 that it wasn't useful.
I don't know that for other shifts.
()
24 I can just speak for myself, it had a tendency --
l 25 Q
In your experience, if you were on in the day --
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-M86 r
i f
\\l 28286.0
-BRT 2543 1
perhaps -- did you run them as many times in the day as you
?
2'
-did at night?
3 A
It was usually less frequent but we'd run them 4
during the day shift.
We had performed leak rates during the 5
day shift, depending on what was going on.
6 A lot of times if the computer was available we'd 7
run them.
If it wasn't, in other words, if it was being tied:
8 up with other activities we wouldn't run them.
9 Q
Is it true that the computer available tended to 10 be higher at nighttime than daytime?
V(~N 11 A
Yes.
12 Q
So the there's some contrast in your simple 13 statement and your explicit statement that they were run on a a
14 shiftly basis and others who say by and large there were more 3
- 15 run at night than in the daytime.
So there's a tendency to 16 say there's an inconsistency in the testimony.
And I think 17 that wasn't your intent.
18 You don't disagree that sometimes during the day 19 the computer wasn't available?
i 20 A
That's right.
21 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you.
l 22 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
23 Q
Turning to the las t paragraph on page 2, you l ()
24 testify:
"I'm sure that I complained to my shift mates about 25 leak rates, but I did not lodge a formal protest."
And I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2(C-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage Wn336-6646 f
- 7. s
' 28286.0 BRT 2544 1
have been struggling ever since, after looking at all of this 2
material, as to why it is that, when you got leak rate test 3
results, that you felt were not valid, that you couldn't 4
submit them with a notation:
Look, I've got another S
questionable leak rate test?
And that flow of paper -- as 6
far as I can tell, the applicable administrative procedures, 7
administrative procedure 1010 -- why you didn't simply 8
document either an exception or a deficiency on those tests?
9 Can you help me with that?
10 It seemed like there was a mechanism in place and (N
11 L) 12 A
We didn't use it.
13 Q
You didr.'t use it.
Or is it that there really 14 wasn't a mechanism, in your mind' 15 A
I'd just answer that, l't think about it at 16 that point in relation to the leak ce tests that were going 17 on.
It became -- if you invalidated a leak rate, we ended up 18
-- we through it away.
At least I through it away.
19 Q
But wouldn't it have been an effective form of 20 communication --
21 A
I definitely agree with that right now.
I don't 22 disagree with that.
All I can say is at that time I didn't 23 consider it.
n
(_)
24 Q
What was it about the leak rate tests that was 25 different from other surveillances?
I quite agree, if you ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Coverage 800-334 6646
-34717(X)
.,m 28286.0 BRT 2545
'I are running a surveillance and the reactor trips,.you'd 2
probably say that the surveillance was terminated and you 3
throw that test away.
But by and large if you run the 4
surveillance and you are having trouble with it, if you are S
testing a pump or what have you, you don't just keep throwing 6
away surveillances in that the category?
But the leak rate 1-7 in some way was a different kettle of fish.
8 I realize we are taxing your memory, but what was-9 the thought process that the leak rate surveillance test was 10 really different from the rest of them?
Why was it not --
11 you know, I think you.probably did -- did you fill out 12 exceptions and deficiencies for other tests?
13 A
Yes, sir.
When I had a problem with them.
14 Q
What was distinct about the leak rate test?
15 A
The only thing I can think of is it was routine, 16 became routine-nature test and I keep calling back on this --
17 Q
If you had trouble as a matter of routine --
18 A
Yes.
I see what you are saying.
It wasn't as if, 19 I guess you consider we --
"we"?
Me.
I should speak for 20 myself.
It contributed more to conditions in the plant than l
21 an actual problem with the test.
I don't know if that helps 22 in that sense?
23 Q
Yes.
()
24 A
I didn't see a problem, personally, with the 25 test.
I didn't question it, I don't believe.
I didn't ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationuide Coserage 804336-6M6
T kY 28286.0 BRT 2546 1
question the nature of the test.
I questioned -- we knew we 2
had problems in the plant where things were shifting, where 3
we moved, manipulated water -- that's a bad term -- we moved 4
water around in the plant during tests.
It just became 5
difficult, due to leakage in the plant and the way we were 6
shifting water around, mainly, where -- just evolutions, I 7
didn't consider -- I just didn't consider it was appropriate, 8
I imagine, to use an ESD on a test I was going to throw away.
9 Q
That's sort of distinct to the leak rate test as 10 opposed to other tests?
(~j 11 A
When a pump breaks it is pretty obvious.
So you
\\_/
12 can't do it.
13 The leak rate is greater than 1 gpm, and you have 14 invalidated it in your mind as to what it was that -- maybe I 15 added water and I didn't account for it in the test -- I 16 guess I don't associate an E&D with that.
I just didn't 17 consider it at that point.
18 Q
Well, it is an exception.
You have to simply 19 acknowledge it.
20 A
I agree with that now.
I would put E&Ds in on 21 whatever you want.
22 Q
On the other hand, according to the tabulation by 23 NRR, you have the best batting average on this test of any
()
24 operator, in terms of fraction of tests where they say 25 there's no apparent problem, vis-a-vis turning in ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37m Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
- )
\\'
28286.0 BRT 2547 1
questionable tests.
2 Were you aware of that?
3 A
Not until about, what --
4 MR. CAPRA:
January.
5 THE WITNESS:
-- January.
I had an interview with 6
the NRC here.
7 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
8 Q
Can you identify anything that you did that the 9
other operators didn't do that made you more successful?
10 A
At this point?
(~}
11 Q
Yes.
%J 12 A
I didn't try to manipulate leak rate tests.
13 Q
Yes.
14 A
That's about the best I can say for it.
15 Q
That's a clear explanation for the difference.
16 Turning to page 6 of your prefiled testimony, in 17 the second full paragraph where you are talking about erratic 18 performance on the level indicator, the second sentence, you 19 testify:
"I soppose if the more erratic one was not marked 20 out of service, it could easily have been used during leak-21 rate tests."
Did you ever get any instruction to look at 22 whether or not the instrument that you were using to make the 23 measurement with was misbehaving?
Were you taught to be
(/
24 critical of measuring devices?
25 A
That's sort of a -- I can't remember -- you are ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(O Nationwice Coserage 823364M6
vs 28286.0 BRT 2548 1
saying like being given instructions to that?
2 Q
Yes.
3 A
We were supposed to -- obviously if we thought an-4 instrument was out of service you would -- I shouldn't say 5
" obvious."
I can't remember being given instruction or 6
classroom training,-if you want, that specifically geared in 7
on when or when isn't an instrument out of service, cnr in a 8
condition where you don't use'it.
That would have been more 9
-- I don't know how to say it~~- you get to a point where, I 10 guess, it's background.
Just your history on it, I guess.
11 Q
How does an instrument get to be declared out of 12 service?
Who originally identifies that there's a problem 3
with it?
14 A
An operator, in this case, would usually say:
15 It's broke.
16 Q
And then report it, and somebody would tag it out?
17 A
That's right.,Well --
18 Q
Or would the operator tag it out?
19 A
The operator would probably tag it out.
He might 20
-- he may or may not.
It depends on where he is at in the 21 shift.
22 Q
What I'm having trouble with in your sentence is 23 that it implies if somebody else didn't mark it out of
- ()
24 service, then you would just go ahead and use it.
1 25 A
It might not have been recognized as being out of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(U Nationwide Coserage M3%6M6
-~
s
' ' 28286.0 BRT 2549 1
service at that point.
Usually something -- you can have 2
something go on in instrumentation that will go on for a 3
period of time before action will be taken on it.
4 Q
That's what concerns me, is this early 5
recognition.
6
~A I don't think you are going to find that uncommon, 7
even now in the industry.
I haven't done any research on it, 8
obviously, but I, for some reason, feel that's not an 9
unnatural thing in the industry.
Not only nuclear power but 10 any other industry you are dealing with.
(
11 Q
I'm not trying to confuse perfection with good
\\_]/
12 performance or excellent performance.
But it just seemed to 13 me, for example, that these level transmitters were unstable 14 and oscillated for -- severe oscillations, for a number of 15 days before they were tagged out of service.
Thus, they 16 produced questionable test results.
So, shift after shift 17 they were used uncritically.
18 A
You are saying " knowingly" or " unknowingly"?
Like 19 I say, the operator would have had to have at some point, 20 fixed in his mind, this instrument is erratic, not usable; 21 instead of just saying, I'm going to use this for that 22 purpose.
23 Q
To help clarify, would you turn in the NRR volumes (m
(_)
24
-- does the Staff have a set for him to use?
25 A
This one?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-M13700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
iy
_/ 28286.0 BRT 2550 1
MR. MC BRIDE:
Which volume, Judge Carpenter?
2 JUDGE CARPENTER:
The volume December '78 to 3
January
'79, test numbers 42 through 96.
4 THE WITNESS:
I have through 41.
5 (Discussion off the record.)
6 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
7 Q
Do you have the book that has test 85 in it?
8 MR. MC BRIDE:
The test numbers are in the upper 9
right-hand corner.
10 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
11 Q
Just thumb through the book.
They are in
)
12 numerical order.
In my book, 85 is in the back.
13 MS. WAGNER:
It's right after the white tab.
14 THE WITNESS:
I have it.
15 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
16 Q
Do you see the test -- if you look at the cover 17 page it has your signature on it.
i' 18 A
Yes.
19 Q
Turn over to the strip chart record, about four 20 pages along.
What perplexes me is, if you would look at the 21 test interval, on the right-hand side, it's marked off by two 22 vertical lines.
Do you see that?
23 A
Yes.
(~N 4
\\ )
24 Q
You can see the trace of the signal from the 25 transmitter that was attached to the strip chart recorder ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6M6
( - 28286.0 BRT 2551 1
running along with oscillations of a couple of chart 2
divisions before the test and through the test.
But then in 3
the test interval -- the original strip chart record has been 4
modified ~ NRR has added that solid line that shows a 5
different slope, and also, a substantial bias, difference.
6 A
You are saying a different slope?
The' slope looks 7
pretty much the same to me.
8 Q
Well, it looks pretty much the same, but when you 9
are trying to measure leak rates to less than a gallon per 10 minute, it's my understanding that one division is a half a 11 gallon per minute.
So a slope in an hour, as the note in the 12 bottom of'the table says, it should have decreased by 3 1
13 inches, according to NRR.
It decreased by 2.
So, yes, they 14 look from a distance to be not greatly different, but they 15.
represent a 50 percent difference in the estimated leak rate.
16 A
I thought each division on this was 30 gallons an 17 inch.
18 Q
Right.
So 30 gallons in an hour, in my mind, is a 19 half gallon per minute.
r 20 A
Okay.
I see where you are coming from.
All 21 right.
l i
l 22 Q
So it is, of the total amount of water in the 1
23 tank, it is a small change that we are talking about here in
()
24 order to detect a leak that small.
25 A
Yes.
That's right.
l l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
r.
-k)J.28286.0 BRT.
2552-1 Q
What concerns me is, it's obvious that the two 2
level transmitters didn't agree with each other.
3 A
We didn't look at'them side by side like this.
I 4
don't think anybody -- I didn't.
5 Q
And it'was never suggested to you, you've got two 6
instruments that measure the same thing, you might check them 7
one against the other?
8 A.
You mean during -- usually you were considering 9
the instrur-int -- an instrument being out of service -- is 10 that what you are. talking about?
You are trying to determine 11 if one is out or in?
(~s) u 12 Q
I'm talking about how you would discover it should 13 be out of service?
14 A
That would be a method to do it, yes.
Compare two 15 instruments.
Then you have to compare which one is right.
16.
Q If there's a difference, it at least puts a 17 question in to pose to your foreman?
18 A
I agree with you.
19 Q
But that wasn't the practice, compare the two 20 instruments?
J' 21 A
I can't -- if you thought you had a problem, it 22 would be.
23 Q
You wouldn't know there was a problem unless you
()
24 do it?
25 A
Not at that point.
I see what you are saying.
In ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 2 336-6646 l
O 28286.0-BRT 2553 1
other.words, when do you recognize the problem --
2-Q.
Right.
3 A
I don't know -- I~could look at it right now~and 4
say:
Yes, there's a problem.
5 Q
Well, if you look over at the left-hand side of 6
that strip chart, you see a' time period there along -- my 7
copy is only partly legible -- 10 -- 8:00 p.m.,
9:00 p.m.,
8 strip chart time.
9 A
You know where that was at that point on the 10 recorder?
11 Q
Where was it?
12 A
You are looking at the recorder, looking at two 13 inches on the front, and this is probably around the back 14 rolling around the chart.
In this case, in other words, the 15 operator wouldn't have seen something like that to compare 16 it.
17 Q
If you turn one of them on and then the-other one 18 on for a few minutes to look at their condition, it might 19 have raised a question in your mind, and this unstable 20 situation wouldn't have persisted for several days until it 21 was tagged out?
i 22 A
I don't know about that.
I honestly can't say at 23 this point.
Obviously it did exist at that time.
l ()
24 Q
Well, if you turn to that transmitter, don't you 25 think, based on what you see in the left-hand side of this, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8( 4 336-6646 4
28286.0 BRT 2554 1
it's quite probable it would have raised a question?
2 A
That's what I'm saying.
I can't describe the 3
atmosphere at that time to understand why it wouldn't have-4 been.
At this point I'wouldn't have a question on taking it 5
out or at least getting instrument shop in there, putting in 6
a work request, in other words, on it.
7 I -- you would have to move us back about 7-1/2 8
years here, right, to-see why we were doing what we did.
9 Q
I'd probably ask your foreman why he didn't 10 routinely teach you to compare instruments as a mechanism for 11 picking up out-of-service instruments as soon as possible.
12 A
You realize my foreman was pretty much going to-13 school at the same time I did.
14 Q
The record will show that?
1 15 A
I'm just saying we all sort of -- you've got a 16 group of people in a unit that, fou could almost say came up 17 together.
18 Q
Yes.
I'm very conscious of that problem.
But I 19 thank you for putting it in this record.
t 20 Thank you very much.
i 21 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Faust, I have a few questions; 22 I may have some follow-up.
I suggest we first take a coffee i
l l
23 break for 10 minutes or so and then come back.
()
24 (Recess.)
25 JUDGE KELLEY:
Just a word of reassurance about l
i l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6N6
h
'/ 28286.0 BRT 2555 1
the sound.
I simply want to note that we have filed an 2
exception and deficiency report downstairs and here comes 3
Jack now, Jack Wetstein works with us on hearings.
We'll do 4
what we can to get this thing in working order shortly.
If 5
we have to call in somebody from the outside, we'll do that.
6 In the meantime, we'll try to speak up.
7 MR. MC BRIDE:
Could I make a suggestion?
Judge 8
Bright's microphone seems to be working better than the other 9
two.
Perhaps we can move it over.
10 (Discussion off the record.)
(-}
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
We'll go back on the record.
N/
12 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
13 Q
Mr. Faust, I have one final question.
As we look 14 at the information that has been provided to us from the 15 Stier report, NRR report, it seems pretty clear the day 16 shift's behavior and performance is distinguishable from the 17 other shifts and we are trying to understand the reasons for e
l 18 that.
l-19 I'm going to, once again, strain your memory back l
20 to 1978 and 1979.
Is it your feeling that your attitude by 1
21 your shift foreman and your shift supervisor with respect to 22 these leak rate tes ts was dif ferent than the attitude of 23 other shift foremen?
Did you talk to other shifts about the
> ()
24 leak rate situation?
Did you get a sense that there was a 25 difference between your shift and the other shifts?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(O Nationside Cosciage tko.336-6M6
{
k>
28286.0 BRT 2556 1
A To tell you the truth, just from what I said 2
before, I didn't realize we were that significantly different 3
from other shifts until last January when I was told our 4
shift tended to stand out from others.
5 Q
Back then you weren't conscious of it?
6 A
I can't make a comparison to that.
The only 7
thing, I can make an assumption now but that's about it.
8 Q
I accept that as being a fair answer.
You weren't 9
aware of it.
You happened to be on a shift where the foreman 10 took more responsibility, apparently, for evaluating these
(~)
11 tests than other shifts but apparently you weren't aware of
\\._./
12 it at the time?
13 A
Not that other shifts weren't doing similar.
14 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you very much.
15 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
16 Q
In the same vein, really, I gather that your 17 foreman, Mr. Scheimann, was generally receptive, if you had a 18 leak rate test in excess of 1 that you didn't have some basis 19 for thinking was invalid, you would take it to him; is that 20 right?
21 A
That's right.
22 Q
Now, was he always willing to talk with you about 23 it if you wanted to?
(~)
l
(_/
24 A
I can't say I really wanted to at the time, i
25 Q
You indicated there were times when you and he i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6M6
~28286.0 BRT 2557 1
discussed it; is that correct?
2 A
-All right.. When I'm saying " discussed," it was 3
really pointed at why, what is doing it?
Why are we getting 4
leak rate higher than I?
And I can't say it was every time.
5 Q
At times you just left it on the desk and you
.6 assumed he reviewed it; is that correct?
7 A
That's right.
8 Q
But whenever you brought a test to him with a leak 9
rate over 1, were you ever rebuffed by him?
10 A-No.
Not that I can recall.
If I take that term 11 right -- in other words, told to forget it; right?
Don't 12 bother me with it.
13 Q
Forget it.
I don't want to see any leak rates 14 over 1.
Anything like that?
15 A
No.
I don't remember that; no.
16 Q
Okay.
I would like to discuss with you concerning 17 your working relationship with Mr. Frederick.
You and 18 Frederick were, you said, I gather, over a long period of 19 time, on shift A; is that right?
l 20 A
That's right.
21 Q
Was there another CRO?
22 A
There had been a Hugh McGovern up until the first 23 of the year and from that point on it was just Ed and I.
()
24 Q
Okay.
Would you say that you had a good working r-l 25 relationship with Frederick?
L ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8043364M6
_ _. =, _ - _ _, _. _.., _,..
. _ =
1 4
,.g
'/
28286.0
-BRT 2558 1
A Yes.
Definitely.
2 Q
I don't know if you can generalize about this, but 3
I'll try it in general terms.
Would you say that in the 4
course of doing your work on a shift, were the communications 5
with Hugh fairly close?
Or did you two go off in different 6
directions and do your own thing, so to speak?
7 A
I think that is hard to generalize because it 8
leads me to think that -- we communicated, yes.
Okay?
9 Through the shift.
We tried to let each other --
10 specifically if what we were doing would affect that
~
11 individual and what his routine -- what he was involved
}
12 with.
I can't say every time I did something I told Ed that 13 I did it.
14 Q
The main thing I gather was, if you were going to 15 do something that would somehow affect his responsibility you 16 would tell him?
17 A
That's right.
18 Q
Vice versa?
19 A
Right.
20 Q
Right.
Now, on leak rate tests specifically, I 21 gather that the running of those tests would alternate, 22 depending on who was on the panel and who was charged with 23 doing the surveillance test; right?
()
24 A
That's true.
25 Q
Could you describe the performance of, let's call ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336N>46
kl 28286.0 BRT 2559 1
it a routine leak rate test?
Let's say that you are doing, 2
surveillance so you are the one who is going to run the test, 3
basically, and you are the one who is going to sign the sheet 4
when it's over; correct?
5 A
That's right.
6 Q
In the course of performing that test, would you 7
likely have -- would you be required to coordinate or deal 8
with the man on the panel, Frederick in your case?
9 A
I would say you'd have a tendency to, if there 10 were water addition -- a statement would be made, normally,
(~)
11 that:
Ed, I'm putting in a leak rate test at this point.
%.)
12 Try not to make any changes in the plant.
13 Q
So you might caution him just orally that you were 14 running a test.
15 A
That's right.
That's if I remembered to do it.
16 I'm saying generally I would do that.
17 Q
Okay.
What about a situation where you were going 18 to add water during a test?
Would there be situations where 19 you might decide that water needed to be added?
20 A
True.
Yes.
21 Q
What kind -- for example, what kind of a situation 22 would that arise in?
23 A
The main thing I'm thinking about now is more
()
24 towards the accident time period where we were adding water 25 quite a bit.
It is very possible that I added water when he ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage ML336-6M6
()
k/ 28286.0 BRT 2560 1
may have had a leak rate in; I added water and I forgot to 2
tell him about it at that time.
3 Q
Just to keep our facts straight.
In my 4
hypothetical he is on the panel and you are running the test.
5 A
Okay.
6 Q
Could there come a time, then, in the course of 7
such a test, where you decided some w3ter needed to be added?
8 A
Oh, myself?
Yes.
9 Q
Yes.
You.
10 A
- Yes, t) 11 l Q
Such as to bring it up to the necessary level in f'
12 the makeup tank; is that right?
13 A
Okay.
I'm doing the surveillance right now.
It 14 is possible I would have done something like that, yes.
15 Because I would be taking the readings going around on the 16 panel.
17 Q
During the test.
Right.
18 A
I could have added water while he had the panel, 19 yes.
20 Q
Okay.
Now let's suppose that that happens.
I 21 think we both understand that you are supposed to avoid 22 adding water during leak rate tests but it is not actually 23 prohibited, given some valid plant reason, to add water?
()
24 A
That's right.
25 Q
You have been reading the gauges and you decide ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I s
--s a
s.e_ m c_.,
,w-,
- - - - - + -, - - - - - - -,
l y
a
'/ 28286.0 BRT 2561 1
water needs to be added, you are running a leak rate test and 2
Frederick is on the panel.
Who actually adds the water, you 3
or Frederick, typically?
4 A
I'd say typically Ed would have added it.
I would 5
have probably said something to him that the makeup tank 6
level -- or the pressurizer was down, whatever.
We should 7
put some water back in.
8 This is sort of the extreme.
I mean " extreme" as 9
being -- the man on the panel would normally be the one that 10 would be watching the parameters of the plant unless 11 sometimes he got involved in a test on the plant.
Because
(^}
v 12 I'm saying I run surveillances, that doesn't mean the man who 13 has the panel isn't running surveillances.
He can be 14 actively engaged in that.
15 Q
Sure.
He's surveilling something else?
16 A
That's right.
17 Q
All right.
18 A
In a case like that, I might take the initiative 19
-- I'm pretty sure I did -- at the time, to make changes in 20 the plant as I saw that they were needed.
I might just write 21 him a note on the log -- not on the log, or I might even make 22 the addition to the log.
Write it in the log that I made the 23 addition.
O 24 Q
This is what I'm trying to focus on.
Who is going
(_y 25 to do what in this case?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3c-347-3'00 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6M6
(-
t s
28286.0 BRT 2562 1
A It's not --
2 Q
There are two or three things to do, I gather.
3 One is add the water, which means what, pushing a button --
4 A
Depending where you are coming from, two to three 5
valves and starting a transfer pump depending on where you 6
are getting the source from.
7 Q
So it would be necessary to open some valves on 8
the panel to activate a transfer pump to put in a certain 9
quantity of water?
10 A
That's right.
/~}
11 Q
All right.
Now, again, you are running the test.
(./
12 He is on the panel.
In the typical case, who would open 13 those valves?
14 A
I might open the valves and he might start the --
15 he might open some over in the other part of the panel, I'll 16 start a pump.
That happens.
He might do the whole routine.
17 I'd just say -- I might caution him:
I'm trying to get what 18 initiated it.
I might need water in the plant, whatever the 19 reason may be, and he might just add it.
I might not say 20 anything to him and he would add the water.
You might come 21 up with those.
I'm sure we hit those combinations.
22 Q
Are you saying, then, that the circumstances 23 varied considerably and it's hard to generalize and say what
()
24 would be typical?
25 A
1 would say typically he, the man who has the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS., INC.
gm.m,
~_ m c_,
ym
28286.0 BRT 2563 1
panel would be doing it.
2 Q
Adding the water?
3
-A Typically.
4 Q
By opening the valves, adding the water?
5 A
But typically -- that's where I get a little 6
afraid for a hard statement here'because we were at points --
7 we did get involved with running surveillances, both of us, 8
where you could probably come up with a significant number of 9
times where we were both actively engaged in surveillances, 10 also monitoring the plant even though he had the lead role in 11 running the plant.
}
12 Q
Are you saying, then, that --
13 A
In other words, we worked together.
14 Q
You worked together, yes.
Sure.
15 If he's busy doing a lot of other things --
16 A
That's right.
17 Q
-- you might open the valves?
18 A
Yes.
19 Q
And add the water?
20 A
That's right.
21 Q
And tell him later?
22 A
I might not even tell him.
I might have logged it 23 in the logbook and forgot to tell him.
I just might have
()
24 added it.
25 0
You might not have told him but you would log it?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-341-37(1)
Nationside Coserage 800 3346M6
~
(~)28286.0 w-BRT 2564 1
A Yes.
2 Q
Let us suppose that you are returning the leak 3
rate test and he's not particularly busy.
Would you say to 4
him:
Add 200 gallons, I'm running this leak rate test but we 5
nee' that additional water in the makeup tank and we'll log 6
it and include it in the computation?
7 A
Now I see where I'm having a problem on this.
I 8
can't say I was -- the man doing the leak rate wasn't 9
necessarily the person that said -- came up with a reason to 10 add water.
That's where this doesn't seem right to me.
The 11 individual on the panel is the one that made that --
12 Q
You say you were doing surveillances and you might 13 note there was a need for water in the makeup tank while you 14 were doing the leak rate test?
15 A
But I have a tendency to feel it was more the 16 other way:
that the man who had pr31ary responsibility for i
17 the panel usually took the judgment as to whether we needed 18 to add water or not at that time.
That's why I would make a 19 statement to him, or try to make that statement, I got a leak i
I 20 rate in -- letting hin know I had a leak rate in so he was 21 aware of that so he didn't add water, at 1 cast without 22 telling me.
We tried to do that.
That's not saying it 23 always occurred that way.
()
24 In other words --
l 25 Q
So the need to add water, you are saying, more ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3hD Nationwide Cmerage Ikn3%%86
~
(
O 28286.0 BRT 2565 1
typically, would be something discovered by the man on the 2
panel?
3 A
Yes.
That's what I'm saying.
4 Q
But you, typically, would have told him:
I'm 5
running a leak rate test?
6 A
That's right.
I would have typically said that.
7 Q
So he would have, I gather, told you he was going 8
to do that because of its impact on the test?
9 A
That's right.
10 Q
You would have to know that in order to figure it 11 in the computation, subtract it, add it, whatever one does --
12 A
That's right.
13 Q
-- to come up with the right number?
14 A
You have to put it in before you bring the 15 printout out, you have to enter it into the computer to take 16 account for it, if I remember it right.
17 Q
From the s tandpoint of -- I don' t know if you can 18 generalize about this, but timing in addition -- let's say 19 you need to add water to the makeup tank for sore valid plant 20 reason.
21 A
Right.
22 Q
Can you give ~e any feel for the urgency of time 23 with regard to such additions?
)
24 A
The main thing that I can think of that would push 25 us to add it, say during leak rate tests --
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-147-37to Nationnide Coserage 8M.13MM6
('N '
\\
28286.0
-BRT 2566 1
Q Speaking generally right now.
2 A
1 would say control of the rods within their band 3
of operation.
If you end up with the rods being driven all 4
the way out, you don't have any control.
Power will~ start 5
decreasing on you, okay?
Due.to an increase in boron in the 6
plant, which, as I said before, we had that problem where we 7
could get in-surges _and out-surges from the pressurizer which 8
would end up actually shutting -- trying-to shut you down.
9 The rods, the diamond or the ICS system would pull 10 the rods to the top.
You don't have any more.
So you try to 11 borate the rods back into the core so you had control over 12 the plant.
You had some maneuverability.
That would be a 13 point where you end up coming down off your required 14 generated output if you leave that condition exist.
15 Q
The condition that you are talking about -- I 16 mean, if you are maintaining-surveillance on the relevant 17 plant parameters and you note that you should add some water, 18 is that the sort of thing that is likely to come up on an 19
" emergency, quick" basis?
Or is it something, usually, you 20 can do when you get around to it?
Put it differently --
21 A
I wouldn't call it --
22 Q
Were you in a situation where if you don't get 200 23 more gallons in that makeup tank in the next 60 seconds, or 2
()
24 minutes or five minutes, something very unfortunate is going 25 to occur?
Or would you typically note to the panel guy:
You ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M-347-37tX)
Nationwide Cmcrage RXL336-6646
(
)
' ' 28286.0 BRT 2567 1
need some more water in the makeup tank.
And he says:
- Okay, 2
when I get around to it.
And half an hour later he puts it 3
in?
4 A
Something like -- under that statement, yes.
I 5
took the question to be what would cause him to put it in 6
right away.
7 Q
Is there such a thing as an emergency addition of 8
water to the makeup tank?
9 A
Yes.
Depending on what is happening in the plant.
10 Q
Did that ever happen on your shift?
11 A
Well, yes.
There has been -- they were more 12 injections straight into the plant.
It was usually 13 associated with after a trip, reactor trip that we ended up 14 having those problems.
It was sort of a common -- we had 15 been in those conditions before.
16 Q
Can you think of a situation --
17 A
I can't think of -- during normal operation, the 18 only thing I can think of right off the bat is the one I 19 described about rod control.
Because it had an immediate 20 effect on your generation output.
21 Q
Well, okay.
But are things likely to come to such 22 a pass that you have to rush over and put 200 gallons more in 23 the makeup tank to avoid a problem there?
()
24 A
That's the way we fed it into the plant, if I'm 25 following you.
The idea is to get boron in or out of the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
ww7.,-
y, pn,-,.
3,, y
n
\\_) 28286.0 BRT 2568 1
plant.
Bleed or feed --
2 Q
Is there such a thing as an emergency addition of 3
water to the makeup tank?
4 A
Yes.
There's a flow path for it.
S Q
I think I asked you that before.
I'm sorry?
6 A
There is a flow path for it.
7 Q
I'm trying to get a grasp on time for makeup tank 8
additions.
That's all.
9 A
What you are talking about and I'm envisioning, 10 there is a flow path that I had at that time that required an
/~T 11 operator action outside the control room to line up a flow Iv' 12 path directly into the makeup tank from our REBAT, boric acid 13 mix tank, excuse me.
A heavy concentrated source of boron.
14 That's what I'm picturing when I say an emergency makeup to 15 the system.
16 Other than that, we didn't have -- we put it 17 through normal means, which would be from a bleed tank, 18 normally; or it could be from this highly concentrated tank 19 of boron, depending on our plant needs.
20 As far as a need to immediately put it in at that 21 moment, I guess it depends on the operator, you know, what 22 his -- what he considered his needs to be at that point.
23 I get the impression you are almost entering into
()
24 a casualty situation when you are saying an immediate need to 25 do it.
There are situations where you get in there where you ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37m Nationwide Coserage 800-346M6
4 f ) 28286.0 k'
BRT 2569 1
want to add water just to get the plant around into a.
2 condition you want to keep it in.
3 Q
Let me try it on a different tack.
I want to 4
manipulate a leak rate test; right?
I'm not on your shift, 5
I'm on some other shift, and that's what I want to do; right?
6 A
Oh.
Okay.
7 Q
And I have discovered, through some empirical 8
means, if I add water with three minutes left in that hour 9
time interval, lo and behold, up goes the indicator and I get 10 a good leak rate.
11 So my intent is to hit that point.
I don't want 7
12 it 10 minutes before or one minute after, I want it three f
13 minutes before the end and that's my approach.
i 14 Can you understand, under those circumstances, if 15 you can accept for the moment that I can manipulate a test 16 that way, why I would want to get it into a certain time 17 frame?
18 A
You are speaking of tne added bonus that I heard 19 about?
20 Q
Yes.
21 A
Yen.
You could do that.
22 Q
Sure.
And I'm running this test and I say to the 23 guy on the panel, if I want to ask him to do it:
In exactly
()
24 two minutes, give me 200 gallons.
And he does that and I get 25 this nice test that says
.8.
And I've achieved my result, i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
]
2(12 347 37tu)
Nationwide Cmcrage 8(XL3%fM6
r
\\
'28286.0 BRT 2570 1
Can you think of any other. reason why an operator 2
would say -- a man running a test would say to-the man 3
running the panel:
Give me 200 gallons into the makeup tank 4
at exactly 1:57?
Do you think he would be trying to solve 5-this boron rod problem you have been telling me about?
6 A
A specific time?
I wouldn't say it would be 7
associated with that; no.
You are talking hypothetical to L
8 me; right?
9 Q
That's-true.
10 A
All right.
11 Q
Would you say, in summary, that the panel and 12 operator and the surveillance person worked in close 13 coordination in running a test where the activities of one 14 could affect the activities of the other?
15 A
say that again now, please?
16 Q
Talking about the person who signed the 17 surveillance, the CR0 on surveillance and the CRO on the 18 panel.
i 19 A
All right.
I 20 Q
There's a leak rate test being run.
21 Would you say as a general matter they are working l
22 in close coordination with one another, or they are working 23 independently, without regard to one another?
i ()
24 A
I would say they are working -- I would say they 25 are working independently of doing it, but they communicate i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage
$433MM6
b
'/ 28286.0 BRT 2571 1
with each other.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
Any more follow-ups?
3 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Follow-up questions for Mr. Faust.
4 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
5 Q
You indicated that if the test results were in 6
between zero and 1 gallon per minute unidentified, you would 7
hand these tests in without additional investigation.
Did 8
you invalidate some otherwise " acceptable" results if you 9
detected that you had made an unaccounted-for water addition 10 or some other error during the test?
11 A
There were times that I would add water and then V(~T 12 discover -- I shouldn't say "I added water"; water _was added 13 after I had gotten a test out, punched the test out and 14 realized that an addition had been made and not accounted i
15 for.
And I disregarded the test, yes.
16 Q
Even if it was less than 1 gallon per minute?
17 A
Yes.
Had I realized -- in other words, when I 18 realized I made a water addition and it was because of the i
l 19 water addition, obviously, that I ended up with a test where 20 it affected it, that was unaccounted for.
21 Q
Isn't it a fact that, if you began a leak rate i
22 test and at the completion of the test you were not at the 23 computer, the computer would not automatically proceed to l ()
24 calculate the leak rate?
25 A
Yes.
1 1
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmcrage Nn336-6M6
<s
(
)
k/ 28286.0 BRT 2572 1
Q What input by the operator into the computer was 2
needed at the completion of the test before the computer 3
would calculate the leak rate test?
4 A
It usually was, if I remember right, it was 5
usually water additions onto the test itself.
I believe it 6
was the temperature that we used to enter from the RC drain 7
tank but I don't know at what time that came about.
I think 8
there was a change in the procedure.
We used to make that 9
addition to it, or I should say, in the program.
10 Q
Those are the only two?
/~'
11 A
I can't remember what else we added at the time.
'm 12 Usually the emphasis was on water.
That's why it stuck 13 around so long.
14 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Bright, it may be helpful for 15 the Board if the witness would refer to any one of these leak 16 rate sheets and just look at it for a moment to refresh his 17 recollection and then answer the question.
18 THE WITNESS:
Okay.
We ended up making four 19 additions here.
If there were any changes in the plant, 20 usually most of them were zero, except for " enter identified 21 leakage," " enter operator-caused changes"; DS-4, you see a 22 sheet on 2301-3D1.
I'd have to go back and look at it.
And 23 from the RC drain tank, any changes to that, reactor coolant O(_)
24 drain tank, were entered into it.
So there's actually four 25 things at this point, at least by this one, that we entered ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 80tk3%fM6
t
'- 28286.0 BRT 2573 1
into it.
2 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
3 Q
If a test interval was completed and you were not 4
at the computer to input the needed information, could you 5
input this information upon your return at a later time to 6
the computer and still obtain a valid leak rate test?
7 A
If you had the information according to this that 8
you added from that time period, yes.
9 Q
So the computer just sits there and waits until 10 somebody does something?
(~N, 11 A
Yes.
LJ 12 Q
But in the meantime it has taken its points?
13 A
That's right.
14 JUDGE BRIGHT:
That concludes the add-on 15 questions.
16 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
17 Q
I have just one more question that's really a 18 follow-on to what we were talking about before, having to do 19 with the relationship of the CR0 assigned to surveillance and 20 the CRO assigned to the panel.
21 In terms of manipulating the valves and buttons 22 and whatnot on the panel, I know you testified before that if 23 both people were busy and you were running leak rate, you O
(_j 24 might go and add water if you thought that was necessary and 25 you'd log it and you may or may not tell him; is that right?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I m m.m,
~ m
- m. m.,,,,
m n_
,m
\\ -)
I 28286.0
'BRT 2574 1
A That's right.
2 Q
That could happen?
3 A
Yes.
4 Q
Generally speaking, though, was there any 5
understanding or feeling as between the CRO assigned to the 6
panel and the CR doing surveillances and, I gather, 7
miscellaneous other things -- was there some understanding 8
that the panel operator had basic responsibility for and 9
basic control over the panel controls?
10 A
Yes.
(~)
11 Q
At least for that shift, that was his panel;
%.)
12 right?
13 A
That was -- yes.
That would have been normal, 14 normal understanding.
15 Q
In the sense that he's responsible for the panel.
16 If somebody else goes and manipulates controls without 17 telling him, would that be viewed as undercutting his 18 responsibility?
19 A
It could be, yes.
20 Q
Could be.
How would you feel about it?
You are a 21 panel operator and --
22 A
Depends on who is doing it.
I think I already 23 know the end there.
()
24 Q
Part of the end, I guess.
You are assigned.
25 You've got the panel.
And you go along on the panel, maybe ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
.$o2-347-37tu)
Natiorimide Coserage An3h6646
O' 28286.0 BRT 2575 1
for several' shifts and then you discover that your fellow 2
operator has been making various moves without mentioning 3
that to you.
Would you -- how would you react to that?
4 A
I'd say if it was really consistent I'd get a 5
little upset about it and let him know about it.
But if it 6
-- you are talking about, to me, if I take that to'be-Ed 7
Frederick, the man I worked with and I had a lot of trust in 8
him, still do.
I wouldn't -- I would probably just ask him, 9
how about letting me know what you are doing; if he slipped.
10 I didn't have that problem because we usually told each other
(~}
11 what we did.
v 12 Q
If you recall -- this goes back a ways -- but I 13 spoke of there being an understanding, some feeling, at 14 least, that the man on the panel had charge of the panel; not 15 quite his property, but he had certain proprietary rights, if 16 you want to say that.
17 Do you remember whether there was anything written 18 down in job descriptions to that effect?
That is to say:
19 That panel is the panel operator's primary responsibility and 20 he's supposed to turn the controls, et cetera, et cetera?
Or 21 was this just an understanding on the job?
22 A
There is -- let me see if I can get the source --
23 I think the-definition in tech specs is where I would have
()
24 run across something like that.
I can't even -- I can't say 25 I remember it from back there.
I have looked --
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
20L347-3XO Nationwide Coserage 8m336-6646
/~')
C' 28286.0 BRT 2576 1
Q It isn't necessary to find it because it would be 2
in the record, but that would be your recollection?
3 A
I would say from tech specs, either tech specs or 4
10 CFR 50.53, something like that, that identifies duties of 5
a licensed operator.
If anybody is going to be manipulating 6
controls --
7 Q
But of course you are both licensed.
8 A
That's right.
I'm just saying that's where it 9
would sort of define that somewhat.
I don't think it's 10 written down.
I can't remember reading something like in an 11 admin. procedure where it clear cuts the two duties of the
{~s}
s 12 individuals like that, on shift.
I think it just addresses 13 the CRO, the licensed CRO.
It didn't get that refined.
14 Q
But just leaving it as an understanding, never 15 mind whether it's in any tech specs or some procedure 16 somewhere, I gather there's some demarcation of duty that 17 seems to be fairly clear that the CRO assigned to 18 surveillance is supposed to do the leak rate test.
Would the 19 panel guy just suddenly say, I feel like running one of those 20 today, and do it?
21 A
It depends on whether the other individual was 22 busy.
He might do it for him.
He might run the test for 23 him.
()
24 Q
Without telling him?
25 A
Well, he'd eventually tell him so he doesn't run ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 37(U Nationwide cO%erage mn3w6m6
4
(~'\\
kl 28286.0 BRT 2577 1
another one.
2 Q
I don't say this by way of criticism, but it 3
sounds pretty loose, in terms of whoever is available to do 4
whatever.
5 A
I don't look at it as loose.
I guess I look at it 6
as cooperation among the two operators, in this case.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
Anything else?
8 Mr. Faust, that brings us through our questioning 9
process now.
We will be excusing you.
I want to say that 10 the Board very much appreciates your coming down.
Based on
(~]
11 everything we know we are impressed with you as a forthcoming
%i 12 and candid witness.
We appreciate that very much.
13 THE WITNESS:
Thank you.
14 JUDGE KELLEY:
We appreciate your time.
Thank you 15 very much.
You are excused.
16 (Witness stood down.)
17 MR. MC BRIDE:
Thank you, Judge Kelley.
Do you 10 want the next witness?
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
Off the record.
20 (Reces s. )
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Gephart?
22 MR. GEPHART:
May it please the Board, the next 23 witness to be called is Mark S.
Coleman.
If the Board would
()
24 like to swear him?
25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m,. 3,<.,
u.8 _ m m...
,,n3 -
- O
' 'ss' 28286.0 BRT 2578 1
Whereupon, 2
MARK S.
COLEMAN 3
was called as a-witness and, having first been duly sworn, 4
was examined and testified as follows:
5 EXAMINATION 6
BY MR. GEPHART:
7 Q
Mr. Coleman, will you speak into the microphone, 8
please, so everybody can hear you.
9 Mr. Coleman, have you submitted a document through 10 counsel to-the Board entitled " Prepared Statement of Mark S.
11 Coleman"?
12 A
Yes, I have.
13 Q
Do you have a copy of that statement in front of 14 you?
15 A
Yes, I do.
16 Q
Do you have any additions or corrections or 17 changes in that document that you would like to make at this 18 time?
19 A
Yes.
On page 1, I would like to clarify, towards 20 the bottom here it says that the shift supervisor was Gregory 21 Hitz and the foreman was Adam Miller. During 1978, it says 22 that those two people were the supervisors, and in actual 23 fact, before that there was Adam -- Adam Miller was a
! ()
24 replacement for Richard Hutchison, sometime during
'78.
I 25 don't know when before, but before Gregory Hitz, Mike Ross ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 Nationwide Coserage
- R3346646
-3 700.
- -, ~.., -,,. -. -
,m k/ 28286.0 BRT 2579 1
was the shif t supervisor for some tirae.
2 Q
So you are clarifying the last paragraph on page 1 3
to indicate that Gregory Hitz and Adam Miller were 4
replacements for two other supervisors; right?
5 A
inat's correct.
6 Q
You don't know the exact dates when these 7
replacements came about?
8 A
That's also correct.
9 Q
Would the plant records reflect, to your belief, 10 when these changes occurred?
11 A
I believe so.
b'N 12 Q
Okay.
Other than those corrections do you have 13 any other changes?
14 A
No, I do not.
15 Q
Nould you, then, adopt this statement as your 16 statement to be bound into the record?
17 A
Yes.
18 MR. GEPHART:
Judge Kelley, I would ask at this 19 time that this statement with these corrections be bound into 20 the record.
21 JUDGE KEIIEY:
So ordered.
22 (The document follows :)
23
()
24 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37'3)
Nationwide Coserage 8(0 336-t446
M UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND
)
Docket No. LRP UNIT 2 LEAK RATE DATA
)
FALSIFICATION
)
)
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK S. COLEMAN My name is Mark S. Coleman.
I live in Middletown, Pennsylvania.
I am currently employed by GPU Nuclear Corporation as a training instructor at TMI-2.
s j I served in the United State Navy for six years as a machinist's mate.
I began my employment with Metropolitan Edison Company as an auxiliary operator in Unit 1 in January 1974.
In 1976, I was assigned as a control room operator in Unit 2, and subsequently received my reactor operator's license.
I held this position until August 1983, when I assumed my present position.
During 1978 and through the 1979 accident I was assigned to "D"
shift.
The shift supervisor was Gregory Hitz, the shift foreman was Adam Miller, and the other control room operators assigned to this shift were Dennis Olson and Lynn Wright.
(v~'i
il 9
T'T There were usually two or three control room operators on V
each shift.
Generally, the work was divided up between the operators, with one operator assigned to the panel controlling the plant and the other operator or operators assigned to switching and tagging duties and taking readings.
The operator assigned to the panel controlled the reactivity and power level and ran the more complex surveillances.
He was also the operator who made entries into the CRO log.
Usually, the panel operator would be the one to add water to the system to maintain plant conditions and make hydrogen additions to the system, but it was possible that any one of the operators could it.
perform these functions without the others knowing about Leak rate tests were usually performed by the operator who em k-)
was assigned to do the readings or the switching and tagging.
We usually ran leak rate tests on every shift, and it was the practice to run these tests again if we obtained one that reflected unidentified leakage of more than one gallon per minute.
I do not recall anyone giving me directions to run leak rate tests on a shiftly basis; it was just accepted procedure.
It was my practice to discard leak rate tests where the and then unidentified leakage exceeded one gallon per minute, to run another test.
I do not recall exactly when this began, that was the way I did it when I started as a control room but operator.
I recall that one time I ran a leak rate test and the results were in excess of one gallon per minute.
I signed 73 O -.
~ i the test and put it on my shift foreman's desk.
A short time three people came out of the shift supervisor's office
- later, and I was told by one of them, I don't rememoer who, that they did not want to see leak rates that exceeded the technical specifications.
After that incident, I began throwing away those leak rates that showed unidentified leakage over one gallon per minute.
During the numerous investigations regarding leak rates at TMI-2 since the accident, I never attempted to conceal the fact that I made hydrogen and water additions several time during the performance of leak rate tests.
When I was making these additions, I never thought I was falsifying leak rate tests.
I felt at that time that I was operating within the technical
()
specifications and procedures, which did not specifically prohibit the addition of hydrogen or water, if properly 1
accounted for during a test.
I always accounted for the additions I made.
We continually had problems with the computer and it was extremely difficult to get 3 test result that came out less than one gallon per minute in unidentified leakage.
I knew that work was underway on the program to correct the error, and so I thought the problem we faced was just temporary.
When I made additions to the system, I was only trying to do my job the best way I knew how.
When I was first interviewed by the NRC in April 1980, I informed the investigators that on some occasions I added leak hydrogen to 'the makeup tank during the performance of a. - _ _ -
I in order to get a good result.
I first found out Ij rate test about this phenomenon when a control room operator from another shift, I believe it was Harold Hartman, told me about it.
I experimented myself and determined that sometimes if you added hydrogen, usually toward the end of the test, it could affect the makeup tank level indicator.
Initially, it was possible to room, and any of the make a hydrogen addition from the control CRO's could do this.
At some point, however, the hydrogen valve in the control room became inoperable and it was necessary to call an auxiliary operator and request hydrogen additions manually from a remote station outside of the control I believed that a hydrogen addition during the room.
(,
performance of a leak rate test had to be made at the end of
)
x/
the test if it were to have any effect on the level transmitter, and it became extremely difficult to control the timing of these additions when one had to call an auxiliary operator to make them.
when I There came a time during the operation of TMI-2, became aware that the water additions sometimes had the sam 2 If effect on the level transmitter as did hydrogen additions.
water were added toward the end of a test, for a short period of time the level indicator would reflect a higher level in the makeup tank.
I do not know whether I discovered this myself or whether a CRO from another shift told me about it.
I have reviewed several makeup tank strip charts which indicate that for some periods of time one of the level g7 r
,.,/
l'
')
transmitters was not operating properly.
I have no
(
recollection of any problems with the level transmitters back in 1978 and 1979.
However, any instrumentation can go bad and require service, so it would not be unusual for a level transmitter to go out of service.
I understand that some have alleged that if a level transmitter was not operating properly, an operator could switch it to the computer during the performance of a leak rate test and perhaps improve his chances of obtaining a satisfactory leak rate.
I have never done this, and have no recollection of knowing of anyone else who did it.
It was always my belief that you would want an instrument that was operating properly on the computer when performing a leak rate test.
Because of fluctuations in the plant instrumentation and the operation of the computer, it was possible to get a test that showed negative unidentified leakage.
Provided the negative number was small, I considered such results acceptable and in compliance with the technical specifications.
I was not aware of any of my fellow CRO's on.my shif t or any other shift, who were aware of the water or hydrogen phenomenon or who were cheating on tests, other than Harold Hartman, who discussed hydrogen additions with me.
I do vaguely recall bringing up the subject of hydrogen with Dennis Olson on one occasion, but he walked away from me without discussing it.
I do not know if my immediate supervisor, Adam Miller, was & ware of how I was performing leak rate tests.
I _.
l
(~'.
do not believe, however, that he knew about it because I think L/
he would have talked to me and reported it to Gregory Hitz, the shift supervisor.
I realize today that what I did was probably wrong.
I would like to stay in the nuclear industry and have the option of reacquiring an operator's license from the Commission.
I feel that I have learned many lessons during the TMI-2 leak rate investigations.
In my present position as training instructor at TMI-2, I refer to my leak rate experience in order to impress the trainees with the importance of strictly adhering to the requirements of the technical specifications and procedures in operating a nuclear power plant, and to urge them to raise questions if there is something they do not fully n
(_,)
understand.
C'\\
v i
G
\\s/ 28286.0
'BRT 2580 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Coleman, I have a short 2
statement that hopefully puts things in some context and 3
gives you an indication of what our process will be.
Let me 4
just read that first.
5 The Board has been charged by the Commission to 6
determine the extent of involvement of individual employees
'7 at TMI-2 in 1978-79 in leak rate test falsification and other 8
improper practices in leak rate testing.
9 This is your opportunity to state on the record 10 your recollections and perceptions about your involvement in 11 leak rate testing at that time, and to rebut any adverse 12 statements about you by other employees or investigators, 13 with which you disagree.
14 We have reviewed your prefiled testimony and we 15 considered it in light of the record that has already been-16 developed in this proceeding.
We will have questions for 17 you, based on your testimony, and upon your prior statements 18 that are already in the record.
19 We may also have questions based on statements 20 that other employees at TMI-2 have made about you, either 21 previously or in testimony prepared for the proceeding; and 22 upon assessments that investigators and technical experts 23 have made about your participation in leak rate activities.
()
24 As I believe you know, there are two extensive 25 studies of TMI-2 leak rate procedures in the record already:
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage 8043346M6
,3 J
N/ 28286.0 BRT 2581 1
one by Mr. Edwin Stier for GPU Nuclear and another by the NRC 2
Staff.
The Stier study includes analyses of every leak rate 3
test conducted at TMI-2 that was retained; that is to say not 4
thrown away.
The NRC study includes analyses of every 5
retained test during the last six months of operation.
6 The Board has already heard extensive technical 7
testimony on leak rate testing, including questions elicited 8
by your counsel on numerous particular tests.
In these 9
circumstances, the Board does not propose to review with you 10 each test in which the investigative studies indicate that
/~T 11 you were involved.
Those studies have been available to you
\\m/
12 through counsel and you were free to discuss particular tests 13 in your prepared testimony if you chose to do so.
We may ask 14 particular questions about some particular tests.
For 15 example, if the Stier and NRR analyses indicate that 16 deliberate manipulation occurred or where something unique or 17 unusual appears to be reflected in the test records.
18 Apart from that, analyses of particular tests, 19 whether or not addressed in specific testimony, will be 20 considered in light of the entire record, including your 21 testimony here today.
22 Let me introduce ourselves.
My name is Kelley; 23 this is Judge Bright on my right and Judge Carpenter on the h-x 24 left.
25 I'll begin with questions, and then the other ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationuide Coserage 800-336-6M6
m-
%/ 28286.0 BRT 2582 1
judges may have some.
We may have follow-up questions later 2
on.
3 EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD 4
BY JUDGE KELLEY:
5 Q
I would like to ask you firs't, Mr. Coleman, about 6
the extent and nature of any training you received in 7
performing' leak rate tests, whether in a. classroom, CRO 8
school type setting, orfwhether on the job.
Would you tell 4
9 us about that?
10 A
I recall no formal training that I received in a i
11 classroom.
When we went to Lynchburg we. studied the 12 technical specifications, but I don't recall any particular 4
13 lessons on that subject.
14 My actual training, as I recall, was -- they l
15 showed me how to do one on the plant.
"They,"-I don't recall 16 who showed me.
17 Q
You mean it was just on-the-job training --
18 A
That's correct.
19 Q
-- as far as that particular test was. concerned?
20 A
That's correct.
21 Q
Do you recall the extent of that on-the-job 4
22 training?
l 23 A
I don't recall the actual incident or training i ()
24 session; no.
25 Q
Do you recall -- well, anything about it?
Would ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(U Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
=
1
28286.0 BRT 2583 1
it have been an hour one morning at the plant, or something 2
more extensive than that?
3 A
I don't recall it being very extensive.
4 Q
And you say you don't recall who it was that 5
taught you?
6 A
That's correct.
7 Q
In retrospect, would it likely have been your 8
foreman?
Fellow CRO?
9 A
I would expect it would have been one of those 10 personnel, one of my shiftmates or one of my foremen.
(^}
11 Q
Okay.
Let me just note, we have questions in 12 various areas.
They don't necessarily follow in 13 chronological order, or even very logical order; they are 14 just areas we are concerned about.
If we seem to be shifting 15 sharply from one point to another, that is, indeed, what we 16 are doing.
I just want to caution you or prepare you for 17 that.
i 18 At the -- beginning at the bottom of page 2, the 19 last two lines and continuing over to the top of page 3, you 20 recall one time that you ran a leak rate test, results were 21 in excess of 1 gallon per minute.
And so forth.
I'm 22 focusing on the incident you described in the rest of the 23 paragraph:
"A short time later, three people came out of the l
(_
24 shift supervisor's office, and I was told by one of them -- I 25 don't remember who -- that they did not want to see leak l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 804336-646
-m
'/'- 28286.0 BRT 2584 1
rates that exceeded the technical specifications.
After that 2
incident, I began throwing away those leak rates that showed 3
unidentified leakage over 1 gallon per minute."
4 I realize this is an incident you have been asked 5
about in prior statements and that we already have some 6
description of in the record.
Could you tell us, once more, 7
what you remember about that incident, in terms of, 8
particularly, the time, circumstances, and who was involved?
9 A
I know that I have testified that, before, that I 10 have said that I recall the test as being early on, meaning 11 like some of the first few leak rate tests we had done, b'N 12 Q
That would place it about where in time?
13 A
I'm not exactly sure when we started doing leak 14 rates, at what point or date.
The first one --
15 Q
Were you in the plant from the beginning of its 16 operation?
17 A
If I recall, I was in the second group of control 18 room operator trainees.
So we started late -- I think in the 19 fall of
'76.
But we didn't get into the plant until probably 20 in the next spring.
21 Q
Spring of '77?
22 A
I believe that to be true.
I may have put some 23 more -- other time in the plant, in the interim time.
But I
()
24 don't recall how much or when.
25 Q
When did the plant begin to operate?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
x _m e-mme
7n ss - 28286.0 BRT 2585 1
A I don't recall the exact date.
2 Q
We can establish that.
But you would place this 3
incident, as best you can remember, about where?
4 A
Alls I can tell you is early on.
5 Q
You can't give me a season of the year?
6 A
No.
There's no windows in the control room.
I 7
don't have any feel for that.
8 Q
What do you recall about people involved in this 9
incident, particularly the-person who said that they didn't 10 want to see leak rates exceeding tech specs?
11 A
Alls I can recall is it was probably a shift 12 supervisor.
13 Q
The shift supervisor.
At that time who would have 14 been your shift supervisor?
15 A
I only had two, Mr. Hitz and Mr. Ross.
I don't-16 know if Mr. Ross was around when we did the first leak rates.
17 Q
Are you suggesting it was Mr. Hitz?
18 A
I'm not suggesting it was Mr. Hitz.
I'm 19 suggesting that it could have been Mr. Hitz.
20 Q
Or Mr. Ross?
21 A
I do not -- I don't, I really don't think it was 22 Mr. Ross.
But I really don't remember all the details of 23 this incident.
Alls I remember is that it happened.
It was
()
24 one incident in the course of my operating the plant.
25 Q
Isn't it a rather striking incident?
There have ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
D 28286.0 BRT 2586 1
been various paraphrases of what was said to you, and I'm not 2
clear ~that you knew -- that you were prepared to say early on 3
-- I'm looking at a NRC report of interview dated April 10, 4
1980.
But that version of the event was to the effect that 5
someone said to you:
Don't' bring me this shit, I want good 6
test results.
Is that a reasonable paraphrase?
7 A
I-would say so.
8 Q
All right.
Now, that's a fairly harsh message, 9
isn't it?
Even in the context of people whose language may 10 be, from time to time, less than perfect?
11 A
Yes.
That was a pretty strong message.
12 Q
Right.
It seems -- seemed to me that would be the 13 kind of thing you would remember who said it.
14 A
Yes.
That would seem like that but I don't 15
-recall.
16 Q
Yet in other places in your testimony you do have 17 some fairly sharp recollections of people.
You remember, for 18 example, that Harold Hartman told you about hydrogen 19 additions; correct?
20 A
That's true.
21 Q
You describe an incident with Mr. Olson, where the 4
22 subject of water or hydrogen additions came up.
I gather you 23 broached it and he fled rather than hear these words.
That
()
24 seems to be etched in your mind.
25 A
Yes.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationmide Coverage 8043364M6
r f~)
k/ 28286.0 BRT 2587 1
Q But not this earlier incident?
2 A
No.
3 Q
I would just note for the record, Mrs. Aamodt had 4
one question that went to this incident and the identity of 5
the people involved, so I think in substance I have asked 6
it.
7 Mr. Coleman, I want to ask you some questions 8
about statements that you made in the course of an interview 9
conducted as a part of the Stier investigation.
It is dated 10 the 5th of February, 1985, where you were interviewed by 11 Mr. Robert Winter, who is associated with Mr. Stier.
I would 12 like to ask you about certain portions of that.
I don't know 13 if you have it there.
Could counsel provide --
14 MR. MC BRIDE:
We have one copy.
We'll try to get 15 other ones so we can follow along, also.
16 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
17 Q
If you've got that, Mr. Coleman, would you turn to 18 page 42.
Just to be sure we are tracking, at the top of my 19 page 42 there's a question that says, "You indicated before, 20 Mark that you believed" -- is that what yours says?
21 A
Yes, sir.
22 Q
Would you take a couple of minutes to read over 23 pages 42 and 43, down to the third line of page 44.
()
24 A
You say the third line of 44?
25 Q
Yes.
Right.
You can read on if you wish, but in ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 b at.onwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
~
.. -.. ~..
=
p 5
128286.0 BRT 2588 1
' terms of the questions I wanted to ask you, you can stop 2
where it says, on line~4, "Let me go back for a moment."
3 That's not what I'm focusing on.
4 (Discussion off the record.)
5 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
6 Q
Have you had a chance to read that over?
7 A
I have read it over.
8 Q
Turning back to 42, the context for the record and 9
others that can't follow, I'll have to read a section of 10 this, beginning with the question from Mr. Winter:
'll
" Question:
You indicated before, Mark, that you 12 believed you had to get a good leak rate within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> 13 otherwise you had to go into the action statement.
14
" Answer:
That's right.
15
" Question:
Can you recall times when that 72-hour 16 period was approaching, getting closer, when you still hadn't 17 gotten a good leak rate?
18
" Answer:
Yes.
19
" Question:
What would go on?
What kind of 20 atmosphere existed in the control room with respect to having 21 to get leak rate tests as that hour, the 72-hour period 22 approached?
23
" Answer:
The only difference seemed to me like,
( ).
24 was that the shift supervisor would be much more interested 25 in the results than normally and the shift foreman.
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Coverage 804336 4 16
-347-3700. -
.o E-28286.0 2589 BRT 1
" Question:
And when you say 'much more-2*
interested,' what would.they do.to demonstrate to you they 3
were now much more interested, which obviously would be the 4
case?
What kind of manifestation would that have?.
S
" Answer:
Usually in questioning -- usually in 6
questioning:
Did you get a good one yet?
Something of that 7
nature."
8 Could you flesh that out for us, a little bit, 9
Mr. Coleman, as to the atmosphere you, felt you were in with 10-regard to leak rates when the 72-hour clock was about to run?
11 A
Well, in the succeeding statements.--
)
12.
Q We'll get to those, too, but go ahead if you want 13 to refer to that.
14 A
One time, alls they wanted me to do was leak 15 rates, continuously, one'right after the hour -- or one right j
16 after the other, every hour.
That's all I was told to do~.
4 l
17 Also, they didn't mention to me at that time, I 18 also had to do my other tasks, too.
So I felt under a lot of f
19 pressure to get one because I had to get my other work done, l
l 20 too.
21 Q
So-you didn't get an exemption from the other 22 work.
You were expected to do both?
l 23 A
That's correct.
l ()
24 Q
of course, isn't it true that you would start a l
[
25 leak rate simply by punching the computer and then you could i,
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-M7-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6M6
_.. _ -. _,.. ~, _,. _,, _ _ _. _,,... _, _, _.,, - - _ _ _.... -., _. -
(--
kJ 28286.0 BRT 2590 1,
go do other things, for the most part, while the test was 2
running?
3 A
That's correct.
4 Q
So just help me to understand -- I think I get it 5
in part -- but the nature of the pressure.
Would the 6
cumulative effect of focusing on leak rate -- what would you 7
run, three or four in an eight-hour shift, possibly?
8 A
You could get more than that if you really wanted 9
to.
10 Q
Sometimes more than that?
^'s 11 A
I said you could get more.
k'_/
12 Q
You could.
Did you sometimes get more than three 13 or four?
14 A
I don't recall any incident where I had three er 15 four or eight -- I don't recall any particular number of leak 16 rates I had to do at any one instance.
17 Q
Well, if that was your " primo" job, as you say in 18 here, and you could do as much as, let's say six -- I'm 19 assuming you can't really run it back to back and do eight in 20 an eight-hour shift; is that possible?
21 A
I do believe you could probably get seven.
22 Q
Seven.
All right.
Well, with the benefit of --
23 or in retrospect, what's the mos t you think you ever ran on O)
(_
24 the shift?
25 A
I don't know.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage A3336-646
~
b > 28286.0 BRT 2591-1 Q
Might you have run three?
f.
2 A
I don't know.
Also, when I say " primo job," that 3
also means that I'm supposed to coordinate efforts to look 4
'for identified leakage and things like that.
j '
S Q
All right.
So that would be time consuming, I 6
assume.
Could be.
7 A
Yes.
Because then you have-to figure out how much 8
leak you've got,.in your identified' leak.
9 Q
Under those circumstances, where you are on the 10 line and the message is "get a good leak rate," what was your
(~N 11 reaction to that, in terms of what you could do?
Was this at u) 12 a time when you had begun to use hydrogen or water to affect.
13 the test?
14 A
I don't recall any -- I can't match those two 15 together.
I can't put those times together in my memory.
16 Q
When you were told to get a good test -- let's 3
17 look at the bottom of 43 and the top of 44.
Winter says:
18 What could you have done to get a good leak rate?
How could 19 you have controlled, I mean in your mind what did that tell 20 you?
How could you have done something to come up with a 21 good leak rate, I mean given what your function was in the 22 plant at that point in time?"
23 And you say: "Just keep running them until they 4
()
24 get -- a good one comes out.
Sometimes, randomly, they 25 did."
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
\\/ 28286.0 BRT 2592 1
That suggests to me -- and correct me if I'm wrong 2
-- that you were really looking for a leak rate test that 3
said something under 1 gallon a minute?
4 A
That's correct.
Unidentified.
5 Q
Right.
Did you have any particular-concern about 6
whether, if you got a leak rate test, let's say
.8, you got 7
that test out of the computer, were you concerned about 8
whether that test was accurate or not, as long as it~was 9
under 1?
10 A
Well, any time you get a lot of information that 11 is, what you might say, conflicting, it is very hard to find 12 what the true value is.
That's how I feel today.
I don't' 13 know how I felt about it then.
14 Q
If you were in a situation, when you think back to I
15 the time when there was some pressure on you to get a good F
16-test and the message was "get a good test," and the computer 17 produces a test of
.8, was that the end of it as far as you 1
18 were concerned?
Or did you feel some obligation to consider, 19 analyze, review, do something to determine whether it was a 20 valid number?
r l
21 A
As far as analyze and review, I think the 22 jubilation over getting a good one would have overwhelmed
{
23 everybody in there.
We would have just gone on with our
)
24 business and not worried about it.
25 Q
Okay.
Kind of in the same vein, would you skip ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage Mo336-6646
t k /~28286.0 BRT 2593
.1 over to page 68'of the statement, the bottom of the page.
2-The question from Winter to you is:
3
" Question:
And, also, you have no recollection of 4
being concerned about plant leakage at'any point in time when 5
you were getting results above 1 gpm."
6 Your response is: "If you get them all the time, 7
how are you going to feel about it?"
You start to say, "I
8 don't believe the computer - "
9 The next line, "I wonder if that is the correct, 10 if it does give you the truth you ain't going to believe it 11 in time, neither."
12 Might you have meant that it doesn't give you the 13 truth?
14 A
That statement means very little to me.
I don't 15 understand what I was trying to say.
16 Q
Well. let's go back to the first sentence.
You 17 say, "If you get them all the time" -- meaning tests over 1 18 gpm -
"how are you going to feel about it?"
I assume you 19 were implying you are not going to pay much attention to 20 them.
You don't believe the numbers anyway.
That's the way 21 I read it.
Am I right or wrong?
22 A
It was very difficult to believe the machine when 23 all your other indications didn't really back it up.
()
24 Q
Did you, in any systematic way, check other 4
25 indications in relation to particular tests?
Or did you 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 4 47-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
.. _. _.... ~ _,
M
~g.
28286.0 BRT 2594 1
simply come to believe that the test is inaccurate and it's~
1 2
not worthy of any further pursuit?
3 A
It's very easy to fall.into that situation, where 4
you have a machine that you routinely don't believe its 5
results, and it is very easy, then, to disregard any results 6
it gives you.
7 Q
Is that how you felt?
8 A
Yes.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
10 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
11 Q
Mr. Coleman, along the-same line, if you thought 12 the machine was making untrustworthy results, why didn't you t
13 make the calculations manually, collect the data manually.and-14 get results you did believe?
Why were you at the mercy of 15 this machine when you had manual calculation methods right i
4 1R there in front of you?
17 A
Part of the reason was because the manual 18 calculation was very complex.
Once you gathered all the data 19 and started your calculation, it may have been about an hour 20 to two later that you would have had your information.
21 Q
But if it was believable, wasn't it worth it?
22 A
I don't know if the test, the manual calculation, 23 was any better than the computer calculation.
It took the
()
i 24 same inputs.
25 Q
Yes.
But did you ever make a manual one and ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8m33M686
-)
' - ' 28286.0 BRT.
2595 1
compare it with the computer output?
2 A
At one time we did start a manual leak rate, but L
3 we never finished it, for whatever reason, I don't know.
4 Q
Well, the tech specs require you to make these 5
measurements.
You expressed some uncertainty about the 6
results from the computer.
So it would seem to me you were 7
kind of in a bind, kind of in a dilemma.
As a licensed 8
operator you agreed to follow the tech specs and I don't see 9
there was any other option.
Perhaps thefcalculation was i
10 tedious, but do you think it was beyond your capability?
11-A I don't know that, having never actually completed 12 one.
I don't know if it was beyond my ability or not.
13 Q
It's hard to say -- sitting here, eight years 7
14 later.
It seems mysterious, at least to me, why you all felt 15 you were at the mercy of this computer when, apparently, 16 everybody recognized it had some kind of problem, 17 understanding what the problems were.
And didn't do the I
18 obvious thing, where many of the surveillances you performed l
19 you did the calculations by hand?
20 A
There weren't too many surveillances where you 21 actually had calculations to do.
22 Q
Would you say the calculations were difficult to
{
23 do in the sense of understanding how to carry them out versus
()
24 rather tedious because you had a fair number of numbers which 25 had to be manipulated, but the manipulations were simple ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433MM6
_ ~ _ _ _., _ _,
k' 28286.0 BRT 2596 1
arithmetic?
2 A
I don't recall that much about the actual test.
3 All I remember, it was fairly lengthy and difficult to do.
4 As to pinning it down exactly, why it was like that, I don't 5
recall.
6 Q
I guess it points, once again, to a deficiency in 7
the t:'aining program.
You were asked to run a test that you 8
didn't really understand.
9 A
As far as I remember, I had no training on that 10 part of the test.
(~}
11 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you.
L.)
12 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
13 Q
Turning to the subject of adding hydrogen or 14 water, which you discuss, begin to discuss on page 3 of your 15 prefiled testimony. I'll quote a portion of this:
"During 16 the numerous investigations regarding leak rates at TMI-2 17 since the accident, I never attempted to conceal the fact 18 that I made hydrogen and water additions several times" -- I 19 take it that is -- instead of time?
Is that a typo?
20 A
It says "several times."
-- Several " time."
21 Yes.
That's what it says.
22 Q
"-- Several times during the performance of leak 23 rate tests.
When I was making these additions, I never (3
s_)
24 thought I was falsifying leak rate tests."
t 25 Could you explain that statement, Mr. Coleman:
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80fk336-6M6
y.
28286.0
~
BRT 2597 1
that.you did not think you were falsifying the leak rate 2
test?
3 A
Well, the procedure -- when I added hydrogen, in 4
spite of the fact that the procedure says to minimize I
5 chemical additions, I thought of those additions as being --
6 that they were referring to, as liquid chemical additions 7
and, this being a gas, would not normally involve the actual 8
water level -- inventory change.
Also, the water additions 9
that I made during those, even though the instrument 10 responded abnormally, or what might be called abnormally, I
~'%
11 accounted for the amount of water that I added.
(d 12 Q
Well, for example -- let's suppose that you added 4
13 200-gallons toward the conclusion of a leak rate test and the 14 instrumentation, I won't go into all the mechanics of how 15 this happens, but the instrumentation for one reason or 16 another, gives you credit for 250.
And, therefore, you 17 improve the leak rate test in the sense of decreasing
-v 18 unidentified leakage; correct?
19 A
That's correct.
20 Q
If you say you didn't add water for the purpose of 21
-- excuse me, I'm looking through testimony here.
22 If you say that you didn't think you were 23 falsifying leak rate testings when you were doing that, what
()-
24 were you doing?
What was the purpose of this?
25 A
To get a good leak rate.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
.g4 l 28286.0 BRT 2598 1
Q
" Good" meaning oneLunder 1-gallon per minute?
]
2 A
Unidentified, yes.
3 Q
All right.
Did you believe that by adding water 4
in this fashion you would actually get a more accurate leak i
-5 rate, or simply one that was under 1 gallon per minute, 6
accurate in terms of actual leakage in the plant?
'l 7
A What I was looking for was to get the--less than 1 l
8 gallon'per minute.
That was my --
9 Q
Objective?
10
-A
-- objective.
l
(
1 11 Q
Well, if the objective of the-test as/I take it!
12 is, is to determine actual-unidentified-leakage whatever that l:
13 may be, why doesn't that constitute falsification of the 14 test?
15 A
Because I didn't do anything that was really said 16 not to do.
I took advantage of a glitch in the system.
17 Q
And therefore produced an artificial number; 18 correct?
19 A
That's correct.
i 20 Q
A number that you knew did not have anything to do 21 with actual leakage?
22 A
Well, you have to look at my rationale at the 23 time, in those days.
I know better nowadays.
j ()
24 Q
Tell us what your rationale was at the time.
25 Didn't you know at the time that the test was designed to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(U Nationwide Coserage 800 33MM6
(,
28286.0 BRT 2599:
1 determine actual unidentified-leakage from the plant?
2 A
Well, we have already established that1most 3
operators didn't believe the-test results anyway.
4 Q
That's not my question.
The purpose of the test 5
-- whatever-you might have thought of the test, whatever you 6
thought in'the way of the errors in the test, whether it was 7
afphony test,.still and all, the people who designed this bad 8
test thought they had a device to determine unidentified 9
. leakage; correct?
10 A
That's what they thought.
11 Q
They may have been wrong.
There's a lot in this 12 record that suggests that they were, but that was the 13 intention of the test.
And then, if your objective is to 14 satisfy this 1 gallon per minute test you have been stuck 15 with and you use.the, what you call a glitch in the system so 16 as to do that, why isn't that falsifying the test?
17 A
I think I have answered that to the best of my i
18 ability.
I don't know how else to tell you.
19 Q
Did you think that by adding -- let's say with the 20 case of water, there are a number of water additions 21 reflected in the record, did you think that by adding water, 4
22 you were somehow improving the test?
l 23 A
No.
I don't think so.
()
24 Q
I would like to turn to another portion of the 25 deposition that we were looking at before in this case if you ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coveragt 80 4 336-6646
-c
"s>-28286.0 BRT 2600 1
could turn to page 82, beginning at line 19 on page 82.
At 2
that point Mr. Winter starts a long question by saying, 3
"There is a whole series of tests starting from February 25, 4
'79 - " and so on.
This will take a few minutes, 5
Mr. Coleman, but could you reread, beginning at that point --
6 ar e you with me at that point, page 82?
7 A
Page 82, line 19.
8 Q
Line 19, there's a whole series of tests.
Are you 9
with me?
10 A
I see where you are.
11 Q
Fine.
If you could read from there, up through 12 all of 83 and 84 and 85 and 86, down to line 6 at page 87, we 13 can take several minutes for you to do'that, but I would like
'14 you to read that.
15 A
To myself, I hope?
16 Q
Yes.
Why don't you read it to yourself and then 17 we'll pick up with some questions.
If people want a stretch 18 break in place, go ahead.
19 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
20 Q
In the primary area of the Board's interest with 21 reference to this particular piece of material, is the extent 22 to which other people working with you, namely Mr. Olson, 23 Mr. Wright, may have been either themselves involved in
()
24 manipulating tests with hydrogen or water, or at least were 25 aware that you were doing it, or whether they weren't -- let 4
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433M6:6
4
-m
(
)
v 28286.0 i
BRT 2601 1
me first establish open -- take the case of a water 2
addition.
You described that some here and in a subsequent i
3 statement.
4 Can I oversimplify, perhaps, and just say that the 5
technique, if you wanted to get a leak rate test under 1 6
gallon a minute through the technique of adding water, you 7
would do that in the last five minutes or less of a test, and 8
gain the advantage of an error in instrumentation that would 9
give you credit for more water than you put in, and thus 10 producing a smaller leak rate.
Is that basically right?
(-]
11 Please elaborate or spell out more, if you wish, but that's V
12 my understanding of what basically happened.
13 A
I don't know what else I could add.
14 Q
Okay.
That's a description of the technique 15 itself.
Could you tell me how that would work in the case o
16 of, let's say you are the operator assigned to do 17 surveillances and other things, but including leak rate.
You 18 are going to run a leak rate test and you will be the one who 19 will sign off on the sheet.
Then there's another operator 20 assigned to the panel; is that correct?
21 A
That's correct.
22 Q
In the normal case.
I realize there may be 23 exceptions to that, but the normal overall responsibility
()
24 falls along those lines.
Now, let's suppose that you are the surveillance 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cos etage 800-336-6M6
' 28286.0 BRT 2602 1
person.
You are going to run a leak rate test.
And you have 2
been having difficulty getting a test under 1 gallon per 3
minute so you decide that you are going to try to get a good 4
test by adding water at the end of the test.
Who exactly 5
would do what in.those circumstances as between you and the 6
panel man?
7 A
As far as adding the water, anybody could have 8
added it.
9 Q
Walk me through it, would you?
How would this 10 work?
rS 11 A
If I was doing it, I'd say -- I would tell V
12 Mr. Olson, for instance, that I was going to add a little 13 water.
14 Q
Would you tell him why?
15 A
No.
16 Q
Why not?
Why not tell him that you are going to 17 add water because you are trying to get a good leak rate test 18 and you think if you put it in right at the end you'll be 19 able to get one?
Why not tell him that?
20 A
I don't know.
21 Q
You say you "might have added the water."
I want 22 to ask you something about this dejosition here, which of 23 course speaks to that at some length.
But if that was your O(_)
24 intent -- and Olson is running the panel and you are going to 25 add water at a pretty precise time; right?
In order to get ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
xc.x,.32.
m.e_m c~.,
sm -
,.n.
I i
\\J 28286.0 BRT 2603 1
this desired effect, it has got to be within the last five 2
minutes or so of the test; is that fair?
3 A
We can live with that.
4 Q
All right.
So there's Olson, and he says:
Don't 5
you know you are not supposed to add water during the leak 6
rate test?
It says so right here in the book.
This is 7
hypothetical.
But what do you say to that?
8 A
Well, the truth of the matter is, that Mr. Olson 9
never did ask me about it; not that I recall.
And the time 10 we are talking about here is -- there were a lot of times --
/~T 11 the water addition came later and there was a lot of time V
12 there where routine additions were, like I'm saying, routine, 13 because of the leakage out of the pressurizer release.
14 Q
So your testimony is -- let's tie this down a 15 little bit.
There was a period of time during -- let me 16 refer you to the chart here.
There's a period of time when a 17 number of water additions took place on your shift.
18 Mr. Winter cites the rough time frame -- at the beginning of 19 this quote, he says, 2/25/79 to 3/13/79, February -- end of 20 February to middle of March, where there were a series of 21 tests on your shift involving water.
22 Just taking that time frame, and we can look at 23 individual tests, we will, at a couple -- while you are here
()
24
-- as much as you wish.
But if you were adding water during 25 that time frame, are you saying that you would have done that ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage 800 346M6
F l
Ns 28286.0 BRT 2604 1
.without any communication to olson, if Olson were on the 2
panel?
3 A
I think Mr. Olson would have liked to have been
.4 apprised that I added the water.
5 Q
What about why you are adding the water?
6 A
Like I said, he never asked so I never followed 7
him.
8 Q
Well, one possible interpretation of events, I 9
suppose, that you discovered this very effective technique 10 that would produce a leak rate under 1 gallon per minute, and 11 if cou thought that was a perfectly valid thing to do, why 12 not share it with the other operators who were struggling 13 with this problem, presumably, themselves?
Why keep it to 14 yourself?
15 A
Well, apparently I did, because I don't recall 16 ever discussing it with any of the other operators, except I 17 went to talk about hydrogen one time to Denny Olson and he 18 didn't want to listen.
So --
19 Q
So you didn't talk about the techniques we have 20 been discussing with Olson, with Wright?
21 A
I don't recall any conversations of that.
22 Q
With your foreman, that's Mr. Miller?
23 A
Same thing.
)
24 Q
Shift supervisor, Hitz?
i 25 A
Same thing.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationaide Coserage 800-336-6 4 6
, _ - - ~..
w_
r~w i
)
20286.0 BRT 2605 1
Q So you had this private technique that worked, 2
that nobody else knew about, at least from you; is that what 3
I'm hearing?
4 A
If they knew about it, I don't know that they knew S
about it.
6 Q
You referred, in your testimony at another point, 7
to a time when you were beginning to say something, I gather, 8
to Mr. Olson about hydrogen or water.
And he walked away.
9 Can you give us a description of that event?
10 A
I think you have done a pretty good job yourself.
11 Because there isn't any more I can add to that.
That's about
(~)%
12 the gist of the conversation.
13 Q
Well, maybe you can restate it as best you can.
14 I'm only paraphrasing my understanding.
What is your 15 understanding -- what is your recollection of what was said, 16 what was done?
17 A
Alls I recall is that I was going to discuss 18 hydrogen addition, or mention its effect to Mr. Olson.
And 19 he walked away from me like he didn't want to hear it.
20 Q
Why do you say like -- when you say " hydrogen 21 addition," do you mean hydrogen addition to affect a leak 22 rate test?
23 A
Yes.
O)
(
24 Q
So you got that much of it out for him to i
25 understand what you were proposing to talk about; is that ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(H Nationwide Coverage 8(n33M416
f~~)
\\/ 28286.~0 BRT 2606 1
right?
2 A
I think so.
3-Q You say he walked away as if he didn't want-to 4
hear it.
Did he say anything?
5 A
No.
6 Q
Were there some other -- people walk away a lot of 7
times and don't necessarily mean anything.
What caused you 8
to interpret his departure as a message that apparently 9
said:
Don't talk to me about this.
I don't want to hear 10 about this.
(~T 11 That's how you read it, I take it?
V 12 A
Well, when he walked away he was holding his ears.
13 Q
He was' holding his ear?
14 A
Ears, plural.
15 Q
Right.
Like that?
(Gesturing) 16 Did you consider whether he may not have been 17 reacting to you in a-humorous fashion?
1 18 A
I can't say which way he was reacting to me other i
19 than he walked away and he was holding his ears.
He didn't 20 want to hear what I wanted to say, so I suspect I never 21 brought it up again.
22 Q
What I mean by " humorous" is -- I'll put a 23 hypothetical to you, and it is hypothetical.
We haven't A)
(_
24 heard from Mr. Olson, but people sometimes recoil or walk 25 away in what I will call " mock horror" about something T
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-374)
Nationwide Coverage 80h3366M6
w/ 28286.0 BRT-2607 l'
everybody knows about.
It's.no big deal, and yet the person 2
wants to feign horror over something.
It is possible that 3
problems with leak rates are very common around there, others 4
were using various techniques, and when you.said.something 5
about jiggling the test with hydrogen, he walks away not in a 6
genuine effort to escape this contaminating information but 7
just-to make a joke of it.
Is that possible?
8 A
My recollection of it makes me believe that he 9
wasn't joking.
10 Q
Why is that?
Could you spell'it out a little 11 more?
What you said so far is not really very illuminating,
{~)g u
12 at least to me, as to why you believe that.
13 A
Well, his face was turned away from me so I don't 14 know if he was laughing or not.
So I don't think that -- I 15 can only assume that he just didn't want to hear it for 16 whatever reason.
Whether it was mock horror or whether he 17 truly didn't want to hear about it.
18 Q
Going back to this segment of the deposition that 19 I asked you to read, starting at page 82, look at page 83, 20 toward the bottom, line 17.
Winter says: " Question:
Bas'd e
i 21 on your job description, it is Olson who would have added the 22 water, is it not?"
And in his questions, Olson is on the l
23 panel.
Then you reply "It's not a hard and fast rule."
()
24 Could you say what you meant by that?
2:
A Well, we worked in a way that the other person ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Coserage 800-3%-6M6
.- - _... _,.. _, _ _ _ _ _. -. _.. _ ~
- l -
/ 28286.0
\\
BRT.
2608 1
could do just about anything with the plant he wanted, as 2.
long asL he -told.the person who had the log cur had the panel 3
that day.
.4 Q
Well,'then, when'you-say "It's not a hard and fast' 5
rule," that would suggest to me, without hearing or reading a 6
lot else, that the general. rule was the CRO guy runs the 7
panel and when you want to manipulate the controls on the 8
panel and you are not the CRO, you ask him to do it.
Then 9
this goes on to refer to exceptions and so on.
10 There's a later segment in the next deposition
- ('T 11 where the same general-topic is being raised.
Let me just
%.)
12 turn to that.
I think it's on page 11 of the next 13 deposition.
Yes.
14 MR. MC BRIDE:
2/20.
15 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
16 Q
Start on page 10 with the question:
17
" Question:
Do you recall ever doing that?
18 Although you may not recall which specific test it was, do 19 you recall going to the panel even though you weren't 20 assigned to it and adding the water in your test?"
21 And then if you could just read down the rest of 22 the page.
23 MR. GEPHART:
What's the date of this deposition,
()
24 Mr. Kelley?
25 JUDGE KELLEY:
It is in the Stier report -- the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8@33MM6
,/
I k'
28286.0 BRT 2609 1
date of the deposition is February 20, 1985.
2 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, I'm sorry, I have 3
that deposition in front of me but I don't have, on page 10, 4
at least that I can see, the question that you just started.
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
Bottom of the page, line 25.
6 MR. MC BRIDE:
There is no type on my copy of line 7
25 except for the word " instructions."
On page 25, line 10.
8 (Discussion off the record.)
9 MR. MC BRIDE:
I've got it.
Sorry.
10 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
(~N 11 Q
Picking up, again, the loose threads here, the L,)
12 area of interest now is on pages 10 and 11 of Mr. Coleman's 13 interview of February 20, beginning line 25 on page 10:
"Do 14 you recall ever doing that?
Although you may not recall 15 which specific test it was, do you recall going to the panel 16 even though you weren't assigned to it and adding water in 17 the test?"
And if you would just read on down to the bottom 18 of the page.
19 Have you had a chance to read pages 10 and 11, 20 Mr. Coleman?
You say here that you don't recall any instance 21 where you yourself went to the panel and added water when 22 somebody else was assigned to the panel.
And then, what is 23 striking to me, toward the bottom of the page you say --
n()
24 Mr. Gephart says, "But is it possible you did?"
And you say 25 "Oh, yes, it would be very possible."
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(x)
Natioriwide Coserage 80ik346M6
s-28286.0 BRT 2610 1
Then the question-from Winter is:
"You say it~is 2
possible because no one would break your arm because you went 3
to the panel or do you recall ~that this is something you did 4
on occasion?"
5 And your answer is:
"Nobody would break my arm if 6
I did it."
7 That suggests to me that, although it is possible 8
you have might have done it, as a general rule you wouldn't 9
have.
That's how I read that page.
Is that fair?
10 A ~
Well, I have stated today, before, that I could 11 manipulate the plant pretty much as long as I told the man 12 who had the panel.
There was much more -- many things going.
13 on that, as a group we could keep the plant together.
14 Q
I guess what I'm asking you to tell me now is how 15 do you square what you just said to what you said to 16 Mr. Winter in this interview?
You seem to be saying 17 something different to Mr. Winter.
18 A
I'm sorry.
I don't read it this way, i
19 Q
Why do you say, if you were given an option -- the 20 question on page 11, line 18, the question is:
21
" Question:
You say it is possible because no one 22 would break your arm because you went to the panel or you 23 recall that this is something that you did on occasion?
()
24
" Answer:
Nobody would break my arm if I did."
25 That means to me, you wouldn't get your arm broken ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8433&6M6
.. = ~
___..__-.,_-_,--_,.....--..-.m.
l 1
<v
'28286.0 BRT 2611 1
but you don't exactly do this on an occasional basis.
That's 2
how I read it.
If I'm wrong, would you explain it?
3 A
You can read it that way.
But I'm seeing that --
4 I guess you could say I was saying it at the extreme end, 5
meaning that nobody would -- it wasn't that unlikely, that-I 6
could do it and nobody was going to yell at me for it.
7 Q
But, on the other hand -- and that's the side of 8
the equation that I want to get in balance here -- let's 9
suppose it is not unlikely, not impossible, maybe nobody 10 would yell at you; given all these things, is it still not 11 the case that normally, when you would have wanted to add 12 water during a leak rate test you would have done it through 13 the man on the panel, asking him to do it?
14' A
No.
That's not necessarily true.
15 Q
That's not my question.
I'm trying to get at the 16 usual situation.
"Not necessarily" isn't what I'm asking 17 you.
What I'm asking you is, normally, what would have been 18 the case?
19 A
As far as I'm concerned none of this was usual 20 situation.
This plant was still new and we were always very 21 busy, trying to keep it running.
And if you want a usual 22 situation, give us 10 years of operation and we'll tell you 23 what a usual situation is.
There weren't any usual
(~\\
(,)
24 situations.
25 Q
Well, I'll try it once more, Mr. Coleman.
~ ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Natkmwide Coserage Mn336-6M4
-347-3R U... - - - -
~... _, _.. - _ _,
/~
( )8 28286.0 BRT 2612 1
Are you now telling me that in the normal course 2
of events on most, if not all, of these tests we are talking 3
about, when you were the surveillance person in charge, you 4
yourself went over and put in the water?
5 A
I could have very easily.
6 Q
Do you think it likely that that's the case?
7 After all, this is something you were keeping to yourself.
8 You weren't telling other people what you were up to.
You 9
just told me that a while ago.
Doesn't that stick in your 10 mind, at least to be able to tell me that much?
r' 11 A
Alls I know is that we could go over and ks}
12 manipulate the plant and as long as we told the guy on the 13 panel, that was okay.
That's my recollection of it.
14 Q
But all you can give me is a "could," and what I'm 15 after is what you did.
16 A
I don't recall.
17 Q
I, frankly, find that hard to believe, 18 Mr. Coleman.
19 (Discussion off the record.)
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
We have decided to break for lunch 21 and we suggest until 1:30.
We would like you, Mr. Coleman, 22 over the lunch period, if you would, to take a look at 23 several tests that we probably will ask you questions about
()
24 after the break.
25 These are NRC tests.
I say that because the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
fx 28286.0 BRT 2613 I
numbers differ, depending on whether you call it NRC or
'2 Stier.
But the NRC test numbers were 93, 129,_131,l132 and
-3 138.
4 MR. GEPHART:
Let me repeat-that and make sure we 5
have it.
93, 129, 131, 132, 138?
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Right. 'We'll break until 1:30.
7 (Whereupon, at 12 :10 p.m., the hearing was
)
8 recessed, to be reconvened at 1:30 p.m.
this same day.)
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- l 16 i-17 1
18 19 20 21 l
i l
22 23 24 i
25 i.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-147 370)
Nationwide Coverage 80k3EM46 202
(
)
x/ 28286.0 BRT 2614 l'
AFTERNOON SESSION (1:30 p.m.)
2 Whereupon, 3
MARK S.
COLEMAN 4
resumed the stand and, having been.previously duly sworn, was 5
examined and testified further as follows:
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Olson -- I beg your pardon, 7
what I'm reading says "Olson" at the top of the page and 8
that's the reason for the slip.
9 Mr. Coleman, I would like to read to you a 10 sentence or two from a statement made by Mr. Dennis Olson on 11 October 22, 1984 conducted by Mr. Winter with Mr. Stier.
_I'm 12 looking at a paragraph on page 8.
It's only a sentence or 13 two I wanted to ask you about.
Counsel may, at least, want 14 to focus on this and see whether they are getting the 15 context, or you are free to show the page of Mr. olson.
It's 16 on page 8, volume 6-J, the witness statements from the Stier 17 report.
18 Are you with me?
l 19 MR. MC BRIDE:
Page 8, did you say?
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
Yes.
21 EXAMINATION BY Tile BOARD (Continued) 22 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
23 Q
The top of the page says "Olson was questioned f ()
24 with regard to the practice of adding water to the makeup 25 tank."
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-346M6
E
\\-
28286.0 BRT 2615 1
Skipping down to about line 14, I believe, the 2
sentence that begins with, "It was his. recollection."
3 "It was his recollection" --
that is, 01 son's --
4 "that the person assigned to the control panel was generally 5
responsible for adding water, although this could be done by 6
other operators."
7 Would you agree or disagree with that statement?
8 A
I don't see much about it to disagree with.
9 Q
You don't disagree with it.
Reading along, all of 10 this is of less interest:
"The operator assigned to the 11 panel was also responsible for logging any water additions.
}
12 The log entry for the amount of water added was based on 13 figures obtained from the batch controller."
14 Do you agree with that?
15 A
Yes.
16 Q
I would like to direct your attention, 17 Mr. Coleman, to what I think of as the second volume of the 18 NRR report.
It's not numbered but it contains tests number 1 19 through 31 and 32 through 41.
Do you have a copy of that?
20 If you would turn to table 6, up toward the very front.
The 21 pages aren't numbered, but it's up about 10 pages in.
The 22 caption at the top of the page is, "Overall evaluation of 23 high leakage period by shift period,.Tanuary 1, 1979 to March
()
24 28,
'79."
About the three months preceding the accident.
25 If you would look at the bottom page, the caption ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 37tn Nationwide Coverage 80tk3%6M4
D
,t
?-
28286.0 BRT 2616 1
" Breakdown of leak rate test evaluation by shift," and it-2 lists the shift, indicates the letter A, B,
C, D,
E or F, and 3
of course you were on D, the supervisor, the foremen and the 4
CROs.
And it lists, under shift D, Hitz and Miller and three 5
CR0s, Olson, Wright and yourself.
6 The chart then goes on to give a breakdown of 7
different kinds of problems that the NRR analysis determined 8
existed and attributes them to different shifts.
9 I would like you to look, particularly, under the 10 second category called " water additions (partially 11 included)."
You will note that shift A had one, shift B had n
s-12 one, shift C had none, your shift had 12, shift E had none 13 and shift F had 3.
14 So that indicates, does it not, two things, 15 assuming you accept the analysis of the NRR people.
I'm not 16 asking you to do that, but assuming that they knew what they 17 were about, there is a rather marked concentration of water 18 addition problems in your shift; is there not?
j 19 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, before he answers i
j 20 that, you said yesterday we could ask for some clarification 21 if questions were vague or ambiguous.
I just wonder if you 22 could describe for Mr. Coleman what the nomenclature 23
" partially included" refers to.
It may not be clear to him
()
24 what NRR meant by that.
25 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, I'd be happy to stand ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
21Q.347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(Xh336-(M6
\\ '
28286.0 BRT 2617 1
corrected, but I thought that " partially included" meant that 2
you may, for example, add 200 gallons in the course of the 3
test, but the instrumentation would kick up in such a way 4
that you got 250 indication.
You would then in your 5
computation figure in the 200, but the 50 was an artificial 6
extra, so to speak.
7 MR. MC BRIDE:
I agree that that's the way that l
8 they defined it.
I simply wanted to make sure that 9
Mr. Coleman didn't understand that they were alleging, in 10 your example, that he added 200 and entered 100.
(~}
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
The actual amount added, as I w/
12 understand it, was accurate.
It was that the instrumentation 13 variation was not added, and therefore you got the benefit of 14 the lower leak rate.
15 MR. MC BRIDE:
That's my understanding of their 16 testimony and I simply thought it might be confusing for him, 17 not having been here for the first three weeks.
18 JUDGE KELLEY:
Certainly.
19 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
20 Q
Is that clear, Mr. Coleman?
21 A
Yes, I understand.
22 Q
And then my question to you was:
Doesn't the 1
23 chart indicate a rather marked concentration of that type of
!( )
~
24 test practice in your shitt?
25 A
There's 12 compared to, at the most, three of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3 0-347-37011 Nationwide Coserage 801133MM6
. /~%
(1/ 28286.0 BRT 2618 1
'anybody else, so yes.
2 Q
So when-you look over the rest of the chart you 3
- see zeros, and 1, and 2, and a 4 and 5 -- there isn't.a 12 4
anywhere else on the chart, is there?
5 A
No.
6 Q
So in that sense it tends to stand out.
7 Then, if you turn to page 7, that chart entitled 8
"Over-evaluation of high leakage period by individual 9
period," again January 28 '79 to March 28,
'79, breaks down 10 the same category test according to particular individuals, 11 including, toward the middle of the chart, yourself,
{}
12 Mr. Wright and Mr. Olson.
13 Yesterday there were changes made in the numbers 14 pertaining to Mr. Olson and Mr. Wright.
I don't know if they i
15 are reflected there.
Did the 11 get changed to a 10?
~
16 MS. WAGNER:
Judge Kelley, they are not reflected 17 on that copy.
They are on this copy.
We could --
18 JUDGE KELLEY:
Perhaps you could show that to this 19 witness.
Mr. Capra made these changes on the record 20 yesterday so it reads:
10 for Mr. Olson in that category; 6 l
21 for Mr. Wright, and 6 for yourself.
22 Again, assuming -- and I'm not asking you to vouch 23 for the technical analysis here, but just to note what the 4
()
24 reviewers, in fact, concluded, that that set of numbers l
25 involving the three of you, the 10, the 6 and the 6, putting i
I ace-FEDER.AL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Coverage 863NM6
_.._.-. _ - _.,___, _. __._._ _ _.~ _ _-347-3h u. _.. _ _.. _..
.. ~._..,. _ __ _, _ _
d
/"T.
28286.0 BRT
.2619 1
to one side the "no apparent problem" column, reflects a 1
-2 comparatively large number of tests of that type; is that 3
right?
4 A-Yes.
5 Q
In terms of the breakdown between the three of you 6
on shift D, Mr. Olson, Mr. Wright and yourself, it indicates 7
equal numbers for you and Mr. Wright and a substantially 8
higher number for Mr. Olson; correct?
9 A
Yes.
a 10 Q
Let me just make one qualification here.
I think 11 Mr. Capra could perhaps correct me if I'm-wrong.
12 When you add those numbers, 10, 6,
6, and you get 13 22, you don't have 22 tests.
You have 22 involvements in a i
14 test.
Put most simply, a single test has one guy on the 15 panel and another guy doing the test.
That will be counted 16 one for each.
So that this would be some substantially 17 smaller number, in terms of tests.
And the numbers don't 18 quite add.
In some cases, I gather, one person did both or
).
19 there was a carryover from another shift.
But the basic 20 point is, even with those qualifications, there's a 21 concentration of water additions on your shift, according to 4
22 this chart; and it is pretty well distributed between the 23 three CR0s except that Mr. Olson had a significantly higher
.. ()
24 number.
25 Again, my interest in questioning you this morning l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationmide Coserage an3%fM4
._.__.._,.,__._.-.._.._._._.__._-M7-3700
s rx
's-28286.0 BRT 2620 1
has gone, largely, to the extent to which use of water for 2
this purpose was a shared enterprise, at least known about, 3
and I find it rather difficult to believe that with those 4
numbers as they are, that'these activities could have been S
carried on in complete isolation, one person from the other.
6 In light of these numbers, would you like to comment on that?
7 A
No.
8 Q
Well then, you would just have us draw whatever 9
inferences we want -- we think reasonable, in the light of 10 your silence; correct?
/~
11 A
That's not true.
I have told you --
(_N) 12 Q
I asked you to comment and you said no.
13 A
I have told you in the past that I have never -- I 14 don't recall conversations between the three of us about this 15 subject.
16 Q
Doesn't it strike you as peculiar that in a short 17 period of time all of these tests would be carried out in 18 isolation, one from the other, given all the circumstances 19 that obtained and all the circumstances that we've talked 20 about?
21 A
Yes, it would appear that way.
22 Q
Finally, in this same vein, I'm looking now at a l
23 statement from you -- correction, it's not a statement from
("
i
( j) 24 you.
I'm looking at volume 2-A from the Stier report I
i 25 entitled, " Current GPU system employees, assessments of
(
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M-347 37m Nationwide Coserage Mk336-M46
(
l 28286.0-BRT 2621 1
involvement in leak rate testing."
Under tab C, you are the 2
first person discussed.
If you have that document, we can 3
give'it to you.
If you don't.--
4 (Discussion off the record.)
5 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
6 Q
If you have it now, I would ask you to turn to.
7 page 11.
The material I would like you to read begins on 3
8 page 11, the bottom paragraph, which begins, "a review of the 9
plant documentation."
Are you with me on that?
10 A
I. don't have the document.
1 11 MR. MC BRIDE:
I've got it, your Honor.
Did you 12 refer him to a specific page?
13 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
14 Q
Yes, if you would turn to page 11 in Mr. Coleman's i
16 interview -- not interview.
Summary of Mr. Stier's analysis 16 of the evidence bearing on Mr. Coleman.
The bottom paragraph 17
- begins, "A review of the plant documentation."
Are you with 18 me on that?
19 A
Yes.
i 20 Q
IL you could read, beginning there through page 12 21 and down to the middle of page 13, please.
1
~
22 Now that you have had a chance to look it over, a 23 fairly brief section, I would like to read through this with I ()
24 you and ask a few questions.
I 25 The beginning paragraph reads:
"A review of the t
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-fM6
.m___._-_.,,,_,__.m._._._.__,,_,_,-
(~).
'~/ 28286.0 BRT 2622 1
1 plant' documentation pertaining to the leak rate test 2
performed on Coleman's shift indicates that_it is unlikely he 3
participated alone in the water addition method of 4
manipulating leak rate test results.
On January 11, 1979, 5
the first accounted-for water addition during the course of a 6
leak rate test occurred on Coleman's shift.
He was the test 7-
. performer while Olson was the control. room operator,
~8 operating the control room panel.
Testimony from numerous 9
members of the operations department makes it clear that 10 water was usually added to the system by the control room
~
11 operator controlling the panel."
12 Any comment on the paragraph I just read?
13 A
No.
14 Q
"The next water addition appears on February 16, 15 1979.
On that occasion Olson was performing the test while 16 Coleman was controlling the panel.
Thereafter, 11 tests containing logged water addition in February and March were 17 18 performed on as many of Coleman's consecutive assigned 19 shifts.
In each case the water addition was made near the 20 end of the test, suggesting some degree of collaboration 21 between the operator assigned to the panel and the operator 22 performing the test.
Coleman and Olson performed all these 23 tests, sometimes with assistance from Wright."
()
24 Any comment on that?
25 A
No.
4 i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l M-347-37(1)
Nationside Coserage an33MM6
.m
~,, _ _...,..... -, _ _ _.., _.. _.. -. _..,, - -.
,.--__-.,..---.,,,--m
---,-m-----
OkJ 28206.0 BRT 2623 1
Q Reading on:
"It is likely that all members of 2
Coleman's shift were well aware that they were the only shift 3
obtaining satisfactory results during this period."
Do you 4
agree with that?
5 A
That's a conclusion.
That's a conclusion they 6
drew.
I don't know.
I don't come to that conclusion.
7 Q
What is your recollection in that regard?
This is 8
during a time period, the evidence will show, that it was 9
very difficult to obtain a leak rate under 1 gallon per 10 mi'n u te.
This Stier report states that you were the only
(~T 11 shift getting satisfactory reaults.
If so, that would have
%.)
12 been rather striking, would it not?
13 A
If we knew the other shifts weren't getting them, 14 or none of them were getting any, I suppose that would have 15 been striking.
16 Q
What was your knowledge in that regard?
17 A
I don't recall anything in that regard.
18 Q
You had shift turnovers, did you not?
19 A
Yes.
20 Q
You participated in those?
21 A
Yes.
22 Q
Was it not -- it's not an invariable practice, at 23 least it's a sometimes practice to tell the shift coming in
()
24 that they have been unable to get a good leak rate test?
25 A
Yes.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tC-147-3700 N,itionwide(m.a ge 8m33MM6
\\-
28286.0 BRT 2624 1
Q Well, if that happened. frequently during this 2
period, wouldn't you at least get the impression-that the 3
shift preceding you was having a lot of trouble?
4 A
I don't-recall putting those -- that information 5
together.
6 Q
Did you have contacts off the. job with other 7
CROs?
Is there a cafeteria at TMI where you go for a cup of 8
coffee, for example?
9 A
No, there is not.
10 Q
I think you mentioned that Mr. Hartman was on a 11 different shift; right?
12 A
That's correct.
13 Q
And he was the one who told you about using 14 hydrogen to affect the test?
15 A
That's correct.
16 Q
What sort of a contact was that?
17.
A Part of a shif t ' rnover.
l 18 Q
That was on shift turnover?
19 A
That's correct.
20 Q
Just finishing this particular segment, the next 21 paragraph says that, "It should be noted that Olson denies 22 knowledge of adding hydrogen or water during the course of a 23 leak rate test in order to manipulate results."
- Then,
()
24 finally, "This test data makes it clear that it is unlikely 1
I 25 Coleman acted alone when making logged water additions during 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37U Nationwide Coserage Nn3h6M6
gs
(-) 20286.0 BRT 2625 1
the course of the leak rate test in an effort to manipulate 2
results.
The evidence also makes it clear that Coleman had 3
to be aware of the participation of others during this 4
period, although he insists he does not recall at this 5
time."
So, this is Mr. Stier's conclusion on the point and 6
we aren't -- as a Board we are going to draw our own 7
conclusions.
I want to stress that.
Still and all, it is in 8
the record and it makes an adverse conclusion about you and 9
it is based on footnote citations to the various other parts 10 of the record, which we'll certainly look at.
So, this is an
(~N 11 opportunity for you, if you wish to take it, to comment on
()
12 Mr. Stier's view in this regard.
Do you wish to do that?
13 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, could I ask for i
14 clarification of your question?
You referred to "that 15 period," and it is not entirely clear to me what period you 16 or Mr. Stier are referring to here because I'm not sure that 17 the leak rate tests bear out the predicate for the question.
18 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, I assume in this context, on 19 the prior page he's talking about some specific tests 20 starting in January and running through February and March.
21 MR. MC BRIDE:
His own report will reflect that 22 Mr. Coleman's shift was not the only shift to get good leak 23 rate tests during that period.
I think the only period that
()
24 we were referring to this morning was from the latter part of 25 February into the middle of March, and a review of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37m Nanonmide roscrage Mh3466M
/^\\
1 N'
28286.0 BRT 2626 1
Mr. Stier's report also shows that, for example, Mr. Stier's 2
test 24 was not performed on Mr. Coleman's shift; his test 23 3
was not performed on Mr. Coleman's shift; his test 22 was not 4
performed on Mr. Coleman's shift; and these are all right in 5
the midst of that time period.
So there's some problem with 6
the conclusion that has been reached as compared to the leak 7
rate tests that are part of Mr. Stier's report.
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
I'm not sure I followed you, 9
Mr. McBride.
I'm not criticizing at all.
I'm just not sure 10 I'm completely with you.
I thought that in context the
/'s 11 reference was to the tests cited and indicated the kind of U
12 knowledge that Mr. Stier thought existed.
Are you saying 13 that Mr. Stier is wrong in some respects about tests?
14 MR. MC BRIDE:
What I'm saying is that it is 15 somewhat confusing what period we are talking about here.
I 16 believe that the period referred to in the questioning by 17 Mr. Winter, this morning, in the passages that you shared 18 with Mr. Coleman, was from approximately January 25th to 19 March 15th.
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
Yes.
I think that's a different 21 period.
It's a shorter period.
Shorter but overlapping.
22 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes.
And if you make it longer the 23 point is all the more true that as you thumb through
/O
(_j 24 Mr. Stier's leak rate test, is the point I'm making, they are 25 not all from Mr. Coleman's shift.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(n)
Nationwide Coverage 80tL334446
\\
28286.0 BRT 2627 t
1 The supposition for the question was:
Didn't~it' 2
strike you as peculiar that all the tests were from your
.3
' shift.
I was simply pointing out'that the tests are not all 4
from his shift.
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
The whole thrus t of thisdiscussionislikelyknowledgeof)tr. Coleman in light 6'
7 of his activities.
That's really the way we see this.
8 MR..MC BRIDE:
I understand.
I just wanted-to 9
make it clear since he doesn't have all the tests in front of 10 him that as you go through them.in sequence in that period 11 they are'not all from his shift.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
13 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
14 Q
Mr. Coleman, I'll begin by belaboring the same 15 issue.
Before lunch break we asked you to look at NRR test 16 number -- tests as numbered by NRR 129, 131, 132 and 138.
17 Can you confirm for the record you signed the test sheet for 18 all four of those?
19 A
The number for them is on the upper right-hand 20 corner?
21 Q
Yes.
22 A
129 has my signature on it, a copy of my 23 signature.
131 has a copy of my signature.
132 also.
138
()
24 also.
25 Q
Thank you.
When you reviewed those four tests, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37(x)
Nationwide Coverage Mk334M
'l j
28286.0 BRT 2628 1
did you have a chance to look at them over lunchtime?
2 A
Yes.
I looked at them.-
3 Q
Would you agree that all four of them are 4
described by NRR as cases where the amount of water used in
-5 the calculation, the amount of added water used in the 6
calculation, is significantly less than the amount of water 7
that was actually added?
8 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Carpenter, I'm sorry if 9
perhaps tre didn't carry out all of your wishes.
What we were 10 asked to do and what I understood we were supposed to do was 11 show him the tests, and we did.
We did not have him read the
[s}
~
12 portion of the NRR report that may have drawn conclusions 13 about the tests.
If we misunderstood, I'm sorry, and perhaps 14 we need to take a couple of minutes to do that, if that's 15 what you want him to do.
16 JUDGE CARPENTER:
The test results show on the 17 bottom of the graph.
18 MR. MC BRIDE:
I understand, but there are a lot 19 of pieces of paper.
20 JUDGE CARPENTER:
It's also repeated in --
21 MR. MC BRIDE:
He may need to go through those 22 strip charts.
We looked at the test sheets themselves, is 23 what I'm telling you, and the question went beyond that to
()
24 what NRR concluded.
I 25 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8 4 336-6646
bNl 28286.0 BRT 2629 1
Q If you would look, for each of those four tests, 2
129, 131, 132, 138, at the strip chart record for each of 3
those tests, would you agree that the NRR note at the bottom 4
of the copy of that test, for all four of them, indicates 5
that the amount of water indicated as added and used in the 6
calculation is significantly less than the amount of water 7
added?
Is that common to all four of them?
I'll give you a 8
minute to look through them.
9 (Discussion off.ne record.)
10 THE WITNESS:
Would you state your question hgain, 11 please?
12 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
13 Q
Yes.
Would you agree that all four of those tests 14 can be described as having the characteristic that the amount 15 of water indicated as added and used in the calculation of-16 the leak rate was, in fact, less than the amount'of water 17 that was added as shown by the strip chart?
18 A
Yes.
Triat's true.
19 Q
Wouldn't you say that all four of those represent 20 a false leak rate test?
Untrue leak rate test?
21 A
Yes, I would.
22 Q
What perplexes me, on page 6 of your prefiled 23 testimony you begin the last paragraph by saying you realize l
. ()
24 today that what you did was probably wrong.
I'm curious as l
25 to why you think it wcs only probably wrong, vis-a-vis just ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 2"2"'"
~ > * * " * * ~
f I
1
\\~/
28286.0 1
BRT 2630 1
plain being wrong?
Why the uncertainty in your mind that 2
these tests were wrong?
3 A
There really isn't any uncertainty.
I'm sure I 4
was wrong to do that.
5 Q
That's a change in your testimony and I think it 6
certainly fits.
The reason I'm exploring this,'I can easily 7
imagine with all the things one has to do, one forgets he 8
adds 250 gallons and five minutes later he goes to puts it in 9
the computer and he remembers 150.
But there was a pattern 4
10 here, four in a row, that did seem striking to me, which 11 would lead you to conclude that something really was wrong 12 rather than inadvertent.
13 MR. MC BRIDE:
Excuse me, Judge Carpenter, this 14 gets back to the point I got into with Judge Kelley before.
15 Because the witness wasn't here for the first three or four 16 weeks, the allegation here is that he added 200.
He used 17 Judge Kelley's hypothetical or the one you just made, and 18 that the computer read 240, rather than that he added 200 but 19 recorded 150.
There has been no allegation in this record 20 that Mr. Coleman ever entered on the computer sheet less 21 water than he actually added.
Rather, the allegaLion is that I
22 the computer sees more water than he added.
23 JUDGE CARPENTER:
I understand.
I ()
24 MR. MC BRIDE:
And I think your question suggested 25 the former rather than the latter.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
p> 28286.0 BRT 2631 1
JUDGE CARPENTER:
I accept that point..
2 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
3 Q
At any rate, what I was really coming to was this 4
conclusion that you come to at the end of your prepared 5
testimony that you were -- you can only conclude that you 6
were probably wrong, versus your view today that it is pretty 7
clear that you were wrong, without any qualifications.
8 A
It appears to have been a bad' choice of words.
9 Q
Thank you.
10 Did you consider the leak rate surveillance test r
11 as "a routine administrative test"?
Would that be a way of 12 characterizing it, that would describe -- not today, but in 13 1978, 1979, your feeling about the test?
14 A
Who are you quoting on this one?
15 Q
Myself.
16 A
Oh.
Okay.
I think I could characterize it that 17 way.
18 Q
Was the leak rate test required by the technical 19 specifications?
20 A
Yes.
Once every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
21 Q
Did you conduct other surveillance tests that were 22 not -- that were not required by the technical 23 specifications?
()
24 A
Yes.
There are ones called " operations 25 surveillances."
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationaide Coverage 804336-6M6
- -. - - - _, ~
- 28286.0 BRT 2632 1
Q What's the difference between those tests and the 2
ones required by the technical specifications?
Once again, 3
in each question. there's implicit a tes ting of your memory as 4
to how you felt in 1978 and 1979.
-I realize it is difficult.
5 A
Yes.
It has been eight years since 1 have been 6
involved in these things.
7 Now, would you please restate your question s
8 again?
9 Q
Yes.
What was the difference between the tests 10 that were required by the technical specifications and the 11 tests that were not required by the technical specifications?
12 A
Well, we had surveillances, operation 13 surveillances and the like that -- they were just tests --
14 usually, you know, like tests on brief surveillances, things 15 like that.
Some of them were a little more complex than 16 that, like alarm surveillances that we did.
They weren't i
17 required by tech specs, but they could be considered fairly 18 important.
How they were handled once they were completed, i
l 19 as far as records and things, may have been somewhat 20 different.
21 Q
Did you have the feeling that the tech spec l
22 requirements for measurements of unidentified leakage were 23 not essential for safe plant operation?
()
24 A
I never felt that allowing a plant to leak 25 excessively was a good idea.
And at no time did I really ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33M646
r
(
l
'/ 28286.0 BRT 2633 1
believe the plant was leaking excessively.
Now, it's hard to 2
point -- pin down what I call " excessively," because most of 3
the alternate methods of checking the leak rate are -- they 4
are not that quantitative.
5 Q
And perhaps not as sensitive?
6 A
That's correct.
7 Q
You can't get down to a gallon per minute?
8 A
That's correct.
And I never at any time believed 9
the plant was leaking excessively.
10 Q
Have you ever read the final safety analysis
(~)
11 report of TMI-2?
V 12 A
I have read some sections of it.
13 Q
The section that talks about leak rate tests?
14 A
Prior to the accident, no.
And after the 15 accident, also, no.
16 Q
Are you familiar with trade jargon, " leak before 17 break" referring to a pipe?
18 A
No.
I've never heard that term before.
19 Q
In your on-shift training concerning safe 20 operation of the plant, did you ever have any discussions 21 about -- while in the safety analysis report there are 22 indications of a double guillotine pipe break, that's a l-23 bounding condition; the more probable thing that might happen I
/~N l
i, )
24 is a pipe will develop a crack and begin to leak.
And after 25 a while, if the leak gets big enough, the crack might i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
AC-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
\\
\\>
28286.0 BRT 2634 1
propagate and the pipe might break.
That's what " leak before 2
break" means?
3 A
That's what I concluded it may have meant.
4 Q
Well, I'm surprised -- well.
I say, it's jargon.
5 It is colloquial terminology, something within the Commission 6
that is widely used.
7 So, one of the reasons for requiring the test in 8
the technical specifications, in my mind, is to ensure safe 9
operation of the plant.
But I get the impression you were 10 never explained, really, what a small leak like a gallon per
(-]
11 minute might do, in terms of telling you:
Go look for a leak V
12 before it causes the crack to propagate to the point where 13 the pipe breaks and you get a LOCA.
But, apparently, that 14 just wasn't included in your discussions with your trainer?
15 A
Most of our leak training, especially at 16 Lynchburg, involved:
All of a sudden 2.t happens.
17 Q
Beg your pardon?
18 A
All of a sudden it happens.
The major 19 double-ended cold leg sheer, that kind of stuff.
Very little 20 small-break LOCA information was available in those days.
21 Q
Yes.
I agree that there's a lot of focus on 22 that.
It seems unfortunate that -- it would seem more 23 probable to me that pipes will behave like the ones I see in n
(_)
24 ny house and first develop a leak and then maybe crack.
If I 25 pick up the leak soon enough maybe I can keep them from ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
p.
P).
tX-28286.0-
. BRT 2635 1
cracking.
2 A
I have read one thing about'the leak rate, and I 3
think the basis for the leak rate.
I don't believe it said 4
anything about that.
5 If I recall, the basis said something to the.
6 effect that, if you had a greater than 1 gallon-a minute 7
leak, unidentified -- don't quote me on this one because --
8 well, he is -- but it was something to the effect that if you 9
had a 10 percent fuel failure _and a 1 gallon a minute leak 10 and a-reactor building ruptured, you wouldn't' overdose iodine 11 on the thyroids of-people outside.
It didn't talk anything, 12 if I recall, about crack propagation.
f 13 Q
What concerns me here, it seems that -- and your 14 view of this test is certainly shared by many of your 15 colleagues-in the time period 1978-1979, so you_didn't have a 16 unique view about this at all, about this-being a routine 17 administrative task.
What concerns me is the author-of the 18 technical specifications was setting forth what he thought 19 was essential for safe operation, the things you had to 20 assure yourself of in order to assure safe operation.
And 21 you felt the number had to be substantially bigger than 1 22 before there was a real safety issue.
He didn't feel that l
23 way.
And I'm perplexed about you second-guessing him.
()
24 A
Do you want me to comment on that?
25 Q
Yes.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(0 336-(M6
. - _.... ~ _ - _, _ - _ _
er im 28286.0 BRT 2636 1
A I really can't say much about that.
I really 2
can't.
I don't know.
I never thought about myself as 3
second-guessing the engineers that designed the plant.
4 Q
Well, specifically the engineers that set up the 5
tech specs.
It would seem to me a license is a freedom to do 6
as you choose, except for the. technical specifications that 7
tell you what you cannot do.
That's the way I think of a 8
license.
9 A
Well, there's other limitations.
There used to 10 be, 11 Q
Finally, the Board continues to be perplexed as to
}
i 12 why you never labeled any of these tests as being 13 appropriately identified as being an exception or a 14 deficiency as required by administrative procedure 1010.
Can 15 you shed any light on that?
16 A
A lot of my instructions on how to do my job came 17 from my boss and my boss never said to put one on.
Or I 18 don't recall my boss saying that I should.
19 Q
What did the procedure tell you?
20 A
I can't really answer that for you.
21 Q
Isn't it true that this was a problem that went on 22 for many months?
Didn't, at some point, you think maybe 23 there's something about this -- start marking some pieces of
(
24 paper to call some people's attention to the fact that some 25 problems exist?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
~
T
(")%
's 28286.0 BRT 2637-1 A
Well, I was aware that my supervisors were aware 2
of it.
They knew we had our problems getting leak rates.
3 And I know that the computer guys-were working on the 4
program.
So I felt at the time that this problem we are 5
having with leak rates will eventually go away because they 6
will fix it.
It seemed like they were fixing it, with the 7
' computer program.
8 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you very much.
9 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
1G Q
Mr. Coleman, you just made a statement a few
/~'
11 sentences go about "my boss-never told me" to do something or i
12 other.
When you say that, who do you mean, your shift 13 foreman?
14 A
Most of our direction came from either the shift 15 foreman or shift supervisor.
Occasionally you'd get some 16 kind of operations memo from the supervisor of operations.
17 Q
On this particular thing I think it had to do with t
18 signing, putting your imprimatur on something or other.
19 Would you recall whether that was the shift foreman or not?
20 A
Would you state the question again?
21 Q
Well, I'm just trying to remember what he was 22 asking you.
23 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Bright, the question was
()
24 about the application of the E&D procedure to leak rate 25 tests.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3M 6646
28286.0 DRT 2638 1
JUDGE BRIGHT:
Oh, very good.
Very good.
2 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
3 Q
And your boss never told you to do that?
4 A
I do remember an instance, I don't know when it 5g was, when we were adding an E&D as part of the search for 6l identified leakage.
But other than that, no.
7 Q
You say that -- and I didn't get the time when you 8
first started testifying that your shift foreman had changed 9
from Mr. Hutchison to Mr. Miller?
10 A
Mr. Miller?
"i 11 Q
Originally it was Hutchison?
(V 12 A
That's correct.
13 Q
Then changed to Miller?
14 A
That's correct.
15 Q
In the Stier list here it shows that Miller phased 16 in and Hutchison phased out about the end of August in
'78.
17 Does that disagree with your remembrance on the subject?
18 A
I have no -- I don't have a recollection of 19 exactly what happened.
We did look it up earlier this 20 morning.
It was sometime around there.
21 Q
I'm just trying to establish a time.
It doesn't l
22 really matter.
l 23 A
Okay.
()
24 Q
When there is a third operator on a shift -- and f
25 we'll confine it to the shift you were on -- what, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m-l s.c_my..,.
28286.0 BRT 2639 1
ordinarily, did he do?
2 A
If we weren't in a'ny plant transients, it would 3
usually involve switching and tagging, which, depending on 4
work going on, it could he very busy or it could be very 5
- slack, t
6 Q
Was this a common occurrence, to have a third 7
operator in the control room?
f 8
A Some shifts had three, some had two.
9 Q
Would that third person be a trainee of some kind?
10 A
It would be very difficult to operate one of those 11 plants with an operator and a trainee.
12 Q
Two operators --
13 A
The third one would someti,nes be a trainee.
But' 14 on my shift that wasn't the case.
15 Q
So, sometimes you operated with two operators and 16 sometimes with three.
And there was no particular pattern to 17 this, it just happened that way?
18 A
No, the men -- the people who worked in the plant i
19 were divided up into six shifts and each person was assigned 20 to that shift and they would rotate on the shift work 21 together.
Bear in mind, also, there would be, due to illness 22 or something like that, a man would be pulled from one shift 23 to another, occasionally.
()
24 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Thank you.
25 JUDGE KELLEY:
Are there follow-ups?
- Anything, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
. _ _ _ _.... ~ _. _ - _ _ _ _.. _. _.., -..
f'/28286.0
\\
s-BRT 2640 1
Mr. McBride?
2 MR. MC BRIDE:
No, sir.
3 JUDGE KELLEY:
You may know, Mr. Coleman, our 4
procedure here is to begin with Board questions and then we 5
receive questions from the various counsel and the NRC 6-Staff.
We have a few questions, in the first place from GPUN-7 counsel and then secondly from the-Staff, which I'll now put 1
8 to you.
4 9
BY JUDGE KELLEY:
10 Q
In your testimony you have referred to a couple of 11 situations where you had exchanges or discussions with your 12 immediate supervisors.
This could be either probably, 13 possibly, or maybe including your shift supervisor at that b
14 time, if you follow me.
And those discussions effectively 15 told you in no uncertain terms to get a leek rate less than 1 16 gpm; is-that correct?
17 A
That's not correct.
i 18 Q
That's not correct?
l 19 A
If you are referring to the incident that I 20 account -- recounted, about the shift foreman, giving the 21 shift foreman the leak rate?
22 Q
Where you were approached by three individuals?
23 A
Yes, sir.
()
24 Q
Is that the thrust of that?
25 MR. BLAKE:
Yes, sir.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
....-..-. -3700
1 i
>~(
(
s.
A/ 28286.0 BRT 2641 1
BY JUDGE KELLEY:
2 Q
Yes.
That's the intent.
Then the question to you 3
is, weren't you told in no uncertain terms to get a leak rate.
4 less than 1 gpm?
And you'say you don't agree with that?
5 A
That's not-true.
He said he.didn't want to see 6
the ones less -- greater thun 1.
7 Q
How do you distinguish those two ideas in your 8.
mind?
9 A
Well, if I did what you told me, then that would 10 give me license to do anything to get a good one --
11
" license."
The way I say it, it means he wants them thrown 12 away that don't show good.
13 Q
Give me that again?
I'm sorry.
14 A
The way I saw it was that the man wanted them i
15 thrown away.
He didn't want to see the ones that were 16 greater than 1.
17 Q
And you, in your mind, don't see that as the same 18 thing as somebody saying to you:
Get one less than I?
19 A
That's not the same thing.
20 MR. BLAKE:
Judge Kelley, that answer is 21 sufficient for my purposes.
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
Excuse me?
23 MR. BLAKE:
That answer is sufficient for my
()
24 purposes.
25 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
(j. 28286.0
^
BRT 2642 1
BY JUDGE KELLEY:
2 Q
Next question:
While you are uncertain as to the 3
exact time, is it your recollection that these incidents 4
occurred in conjunction with actual leak rate tests you ran 5
at TMI-2, sometime during TMI-2's operation?
"These 6
incidents," again, I think, being the reference to the 7
meeting with the three gentlemen.
Did they occur during a 8
time when you were running TMI leak rate tests, TMI-2 leak 4
9 rate tests, at that "sometime," without nailing it down, 10 necessarily?
11 A
I had just run one and I gave it to him.
(~))
12 Q
And the one that you referred to was a leak rate 13 test at TMI-2?
14 A
Oh, yes.
That's correct.
I've never done leak 15 rates anywhere else.
16 Q
All right.
Was there fuel loaded in the reactor 17 when you ran these tests?
Again referring to the same time 18 period.
19 A
I don't know because I don't really remember when 20 it happened, so I don't know whether it was like a hot j
21 functional no-fuel test or what.
22 Q
Could it have been?
23 A
I said it was early on.
It might have been.
("%.
(,)
24 Q
Are you aware that TMI-2 obtained its initial 25 license to load fuel and operate in February 1978?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 80433M646
es.
28286.0 BRT 2643 1
A I don't get the gist of this question.
-I don't 2
remember what the dates were on that.
3 Q
Do you have any reason to believe that that date 4
is wrong?
5 A.
No.
6 Q
In a clarification to page -- is it page 1 that 7
you are referring to?
In a clarification to page 1 of your 8
prepared testimony, you have indicated that Mike Ross 9
preceded Gregg Hitz as your shift supervisor at Unit 2; is 10 that correct?
11 A
That's correct.
12 Q
Okay.
13 A
The actual date when he moved over to Unit 1 as 14 supervisor of operations, I don't recall.
15 Q
Okay.
Mr. Ross has stated, and plant records 16 confirm, that beginning in January 1978, he, Mr. Ross, left 17 his shift supervisory position at TMI-2 and, since that time, 18 has been employed at Unit 1.
Do you have any reason to 19 disbelieve Mr. Ross's statement as to the timing of when he 20 no longer served as your shift supervisor at Unit 2?
21 A
I don't have any reason to disbelieve the dates he 22 gave.
23 MR. VOIGT:
Judge Kelley, I think the predicate
()
24 for that last question is lacking, mistaken.
I'm looking at 25 Mr. Stier's volume 6-J, a sworn statement by Michael J.
- Ross, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
_ _ -, - - _ -. - -.. ~ -.
L' 28286.0 BRT 2644 1
under tab R, page 3.
Prior to April --
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let me catch up with you.
3 MR. VOIGT:
Okay.
Page 3, line 13.
4
" Question:
Prior to April, 1978, what was your 5
occupation?
6
" Answer:
I was a station shift supervisor at Three 7
Mile Island."
8 MR. BLAKE:
Judge Kelley, I have no problem with 9
prior to April he was.
I would refer Mr. Voigt to Stier 10 volume 6 (J ) tab R, page 10, where the question is, of
(~'}
11 Mr. Ross:
"You became manager of plant operations in April
%i 12 of 1978?"
13 And the answer is:
"In reality, I was assigned to 14 Unit 1 and doing that job since January of 19 -- of
'78, so I 15 was really up there a longer time period than that."
16 I would also refer Mr. Voigt to another document 17 which is in Mr. Stier's report, which is a duty assignment 18 roster for January 1978, in which Mr. Ross does not appear as 19 shift superintendent and Mr. Hitz does.
And I will provide 20 him that. reference as well.
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
I confess that the significance of 22 this date remains obscure to me.
Could you indicate, 23 Mr. Blake, what difference it makes?
()
24 MR. BLAKE:
The difference it makes is any 25 potential that, whoever the shift supervisor was -- and the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-147-3700 Nationwide Cos erage 800-336 # 4
,/5
~
'\\-[ 28286~0 BRT 2645' 1
witness doesn't remember the gentleman with whom he talked or 2
had these exchanges -- and actually,- there was more than one, 3
there was "go get leak rates," and "go get leak rates, 4
doggone it, until you get one"; there-was another instance, 5
"I don't want any more of this shit" -- something to that 6
effect.
There were several, and the change in his testimony 7
this morning, that, gee, he had more than one shift 8
supervisor, I wanted the record to make sure and not leave 9
any dcubt in the Board's mind that during the entire 10 operation of TMI-2, fron the time -it received its license, 11 from the time it had any fuel, during all the leak rate 12 testing period that was done, which is reflected in any of 13 the records that we have which began on March 28, 1978, 14 Mr. Ross was not this gentleman's shift supervisor.
15 JUDGE KELLEY:
Thanks.
That's helpful.
The-f 16 context is helpful for us.
17 MR. VOIGT:
Let me state also why we have a 18 concern with it.
It's not the same concern.
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
20 MR. VOIGT:
Our concern is that Mr. Russell, based 21 on nothing other than speculation, keeps gratuitously telling 22 this Board that the incident in question must have tal:en 23 place in October and that Adam Miller must have been the l()
24 shift foreman.
And we do not agree with that at all and we 25 think the record will show that there is at least an equal ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage RG336-6M6
.,f'
\\~. 28286.0 BRT 2646 1
possibility that the shift foreman in question was not Adam 2
Miller.
3 JUDGE KELLEY:
I understand.
It is helpful to 4
have that perspective here.
5 MR. VOIGT:
We have no concern with Mr. Ross, 6
ically.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
I wonder, just to -- we can check 8
the Commission order, of course, as we will.
My 9
recollection, without having reread it, is that Mr. Ross is 10 not in jeopardy, so to speak, in this proceeding.
11 I can understand where you still might be 12 concerned about things in the record which you think 13 inaccurately may reflect on him, but in terms of this Board's 14 jurisdiction, I believe Mr. Ross was, in effect, exonerated, 15 was he not?
16 MR. BLAKE:
That's correct.
17 MS. WAGNER:
Judge Kelley, I just note for the 18 record that I think the record will show that Mr. Russell's-19 comments regarding Mr. Miller's involvement were not 20 speculation.
I think he explained those to some degree 21 yesterday.
22 MR. VOIGT:
This is an explanation by a nonparty, 23 Judge Kelley?
()
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
Developing the record.
25 What I'm trying to do, frankly, is get a fix on ACE-FEDERA,. REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Natio., aide Coverage 800-336-6646
_q.
~)
28286.0 BRT 2647 1
this in terms of what we need to do one way or the other.
2 The witness on the stand has testified, as he has 3
testified, with an uncertain fix on time.
Is that right, 4
'Mr. Coleman?
5 THE WITNESS:
That's true.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
We have, from Mr. Blake and 7
Mr. Voigt respectively, different concerns with regard to the 8
timing of that meeting.
We are going to have Mr. Miller as a 9
party before us later, so we can explore that timing with 10 him.
I believe you indicated, Mr. Blake, that there is a 11 plant record indicating a transfer, or what exactly is that?
d('s 12 MR. BLAKE:
I referred to two documents.
One of 13 them is Mr. Ross' statement to the NRC, which appears in the 14 Stier report.
15 JUDGE KELLEY:
Right.
16 MR. BLAKE:
The second document to which I 17 referred also appears in the Stier report at volume V (A).
18 That volume includes tabs 1 through 9.
At tab 4 there 19 appears the shift assignment schedule for January of 1978.
20 on that shift assignment, which would confirm Mr. Ross' 21 statement that he left in January, under shift D, appear the 22 names of the various operators and the shift supervisor.
23 That position is not Mr. Ross.
That's the document I
()
24 referred to which confirms this timing of the shift.
25 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, since this matter has ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage 804336-6M6
4 28286.0 BRT 2648 1
just arisen on the record, I think it's incumbent on me to 2
point out, also, the plant records, I believe, will confirm 3
that in the -- approximately the first quarter of 1978,_which 4
may at least overlap the potential time period involved here, 5
shift supervisors were assigned on a more strict basis to one 6
or the other unit, because of a scheduled outage.
And I'm 1
7 not aware -- I'm not certain whether those documents are in.
g 8
the record.
But with respect to Mr. Hitz, who has been 9
identified as Mr. Coleman's shift supervisor during that 10 significant period of time -- before the Board could draw any
.31 conclusion about Mr. Hitz, and whether he was any part of 12 this meeting, I think it might be important to try to 13 determine whether or not it was, in fact, the case that there 14 were different shift supervisors during different periods of 15 time because of outages.
16 Typically, when there were no outages, shift 17 supervisors had jurisdiction, if you will, over both units.
18 But at different periods of time they were permanently 19 assigned to one unit or the other because of outages.
It i
20 makes the situation confusing, I know.
But it does seem to 21 me if we are talking about assignments of responsibility here i
22 it is important we make clear here that the shift supervisor 23 was not the same for any given units for any period of time.
()
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
We may need to do this.
Let me ask 25 counsel at this point, so where are we this afternoon on this i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
~._
l ss 28286.0
.BRT 2649 1
whole dispute?.
2 MR. MC BRIDE:
I don't think we can go any further.
~
3 with this-witness.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
That's my impression.
4 5
Mr.:Blake, anything further to be done in this 6
regard?
7 MR. BLAKE:
No, I don't know of anything.
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Voigt, any comment?
9 MR. VOIGT:
No, sir.
10 MR. MC BRIDE:
I just wanted to say, what I said 11 is based on my understanding of the decision.
Obviously I j
12 don't have firsthand knowledge of this, bu't I understand the 13 shift supervisory responsibilities were allocated differently 14 at different periods of time depending on whether there was 15
-an outage.
I could stand corrected by plant records, but 16 that's my belief.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
We have several questions i
18 here.
We'll take a short, five-minute break.
We'll be 19 through shortly after that and we can quit.
20 (Reces s. )
j 21 JUDGE KELLEY:
We'll go back on the record.
The 22 Staff has proposed a series of questions.
The initial 23 sesaral questions do relate to who was supervisor and who was
)
24 shift supervisor, who was foreman in a time frame in 25 relation, perhaps, to -- and that's what we'll explore -- to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(X)
Nationwide Coserage 80 4 336-6646
, ~,
,3
(-) 28286.0 BRT 2650 1
the incident Mr. Coleman referred to.
I think you will see, 2
when I get into the questions ~, the difference, as I see it, 3
is we were debating here a bit ago and it began to appear 4
that perhaps the person to ask might be Mr. Hitz, Mr. Ross, 5
Mr. Miller, but not this witness, in terms of straightening 6
out dates on who worked when where.
7 However, these questions are tied to Mr. Coleman's 8
experience.
So even though we indicated a disposition to not 9
try to tie up every loose end on that question at this time, 10 just before we signed off for this break, it seems to us that 11 these, at least these first several questions are appropriate 12 for the witness.
We will try them, subject to objection or 13 suggestion.
14 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
15 Q
Mr. Coleman, after the incident with your shift 16 supervisor that you refer to at the top of page 3 of your 17 prepared statement, did you ever sign and turn in a leak rate 18 test result if the test showed leakage greater than 1 gallon 19 per minute?
20 A
Currently I have no recollection of that, but I do 21 know that some of the -- what, October -- one of the October 22 18th ones has my name on it.
23 Q
Can you answer the question yes or no, whether you
()
24 recollect turning in any test signed by you with a test in 25 excess of 1 gallon after that incident?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 80 4 336-6646
\\'
28286.0 BRT-2651-1 A
Do I recall it?
No.
2 Q
You don't recall turning in a. test showing a 3
result less -- a result of more than a gallon following the 4
incident?
5 A
Because of the confusion in my memory about when 6-
.these things occurred, I don't know if I did or not.
7 Q
Isn't it a fact that after signing and turning in 8
test 12-B -- and we'll pull that out, I'll read the rest of 9
the question -- isn't it a fact that after signing and 10 turning in test 12-B, which shows an unidentified leak rate 11 of 2.07 gallons per minute, you never turned in another test 12 showing leakage in excess of 1 gallon per minute?
You might 13 want to look at 12-B.
Do you have 12-B, there?
NRR-12-B?
14 MS, WAGNER:
I have the cover sheet right here.
15 JUDGE KELLEY:
It's in the first of the three 16 exhibit volumes.
It shows you as operator and a leak rate of.
17 2.0738, dated October 17, 1978.
18 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
19 Q
That does show a leak rate over 1; correct?
B 20 A
Yes, sir.
21 Q
Do you recall ever turning in another test after 22 this one showing a leak rate greater than 1 gallon per 23 minute?
()
24 A
I do not recall turning in any greater than 1.
25 Q
Do you remember turning in this particular test?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage 800-336-6M6
\\
'28286.0 BRT 2652 1
A No.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Excuse me.
3 (Discussion off the record.)
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
The Staff's proposed questions 5
which follow on the ones I've just put assume that the 6
witness would have had a clearer memory than he in fact does, 7
and therefore, on these matters, we are not going to put 8
these next questions.
9 MS. WAGNER:
Judge Kelley, I don't know whether 10 you want me to wait, but I would have another follow-up 11 because of his last couple of answers.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Why don't you go ahead and write it 13 and we'll go ahead and work with what we've got here.
14 MS. WAGNER:
Fine.
15 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
16 Q
You state on page 5 of your prepared testimony 17 that if the test showed negative unidentified leakage, you l
18 considered the results acceptable and in compliance with the-19 technical specifications, "provided the negative number was i
20 small."
What was your rationale for finding negative leak 21 rates acceptable and within the tech specs?
22 A
I remember an incident where I asked Adam Miller 23 if negative leak rates were okay and he said yes.
()
24 Q
So it was the word of your foreman?
l 25 A
That's correct.
Algebraically, that meets the l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage
- X)-336-6646
kJ 28286.0 BRT 2653 1
intent of the procedure.
2 Q
I believe I asked you this morning, but I'll put 3
it again:
How large a negative leak rate did you believe was 4
acceptable and within tech specs?
S A
I don't think you asked that question, but I don't 6
recall what values they were going by or we were going by.
7 Q
I thought you indicated this morning that if you 8
had, for example, a negative leak rate of minus
.8 or 9
something, that you might regard that as within instrument --
10 expected instrument fluctuation, but you wouldn't think the
,r'N 11 same thing of, say, a minus 8; is that correct?
Q,I 12 MR. MC BRIDE:
Excuse me, Judge Kelley, that was 13 Mr. Faust.
14 JUDGE KELLEY:
Forgive me.
I'm just wrong.
15 Strike that.
Thank you.
16 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
17 Q
Did you believe that by adding hydrogen during the 18 leak rate test you were getting a less accurate indication of 19 actual unidentified leakage?
20 MR. MC BRIDE:
May I have that question reread, 21 please?
22 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
23 Q
Did you believe that by adding hydrogen during the O
(,)
24 leak rate test you were getting a less accurate indication of 25 actual unidentified leakage, less than if you hadn't added ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
r
].
'ud 28286.0 BRT 2654 1
2 A
You are saying less accurate?
3 Q.
Right.
4 A
I'm thinking that the accuracy of the test is in 5
question to start with.
And, secondly, I don't think --'the 6
way I look at it now, it-doesn't seem like it would be any 7
better.
I-don't now how I was-thinking about that. EI don't 8.
recall-ever thinking on those lines.
9 Q
All-right.
A similar question about water:
Did 10 you believe that by adding water during-the leak rate test 11
~ you were getting a less accurate indication of unidentified r~}.
12.
leakage?
i 13 A
I'd have to answer that more or less the same way 14 I did with the previous question.
15 Q
Isn't it true that if, in seeking to get a better 16 number out of the computer you,added water right at the 'end 17 and you then had the benefit, if you will, of an 18 instrumentation problem that would show you had more water 19 than you actually had, wouldn't that make the test less 20 accurate in that you were simply, at least, adding another 21 inaccuracy on top of what you already felt was an inaccurate 22 test?
23 A
I would agree with anybody that would say that
()
24 now.
But I never gave that any thought back in those times.
J 25 Q
Under what circumstances, if any, would you have ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-M7-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336- % :6
(
kl 28286.0 BRT 2655 1
turned in a leak rate test in excess of 1 gallon per minu'e c
2 after being told by a supervisor that he didn't want to see 3
any such tests?
4 A
I can't tell you from my memory of those times 5
under what circumstances I would.
I don't know.
6 Q
Well, suppose -- and this-is purely hypothetical 7
-- you have been watching this leak rate test for a long time 8
and you see the numbers bounce around from minus
.2 to 3.1 9
and everywhere in between.
I gather you got pretty skeptical 10 about the utility of the test at all; is that correct?
11 A
I didn't know what to believe from that computer.
/~^)
\\-
12 If you get a leak rate test out of the machine and it shows 8 13 gallons a minute and you look at the other instrumentation to 14 back it up and it shows, hey, there's something going on in 15 there as far as a leak, then it's time to take action.
That 16 leak rate is useless anyway.
17 Q
But in your hypothetical I thought you said, if 18 you get an 8 gallons a minute and other instruments also 19 indicate that, there's a problem?
20 A
Yes.
You had such level in your reactor building 21 and you had radiation monitor for the reactor building and 22 you also had reactor building temperature, which is kind of a 23 slow method.
But if you look at tech specs you'll see that (O
s_,1 24 reactor building such and radiation monitor were the first 25 ways they determined, or wrote down, to help you determine ACE-F.EDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- c347-3 nd Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
r._
l 28286.0 BRT 2656 1
whether you,have a leak rate excessive or not.
The 72-hour 2
computer leak rate was the third way they gave you to do 3
that.
4 Q
I wonder, though, under those circumstances, which 5
you and I both, I think, just described, would you go to your 6
supervisor and show him this 8 gallons a minute leak rate 7
reading?
8 A
I'm not -- I suppose it would lend some 9
information to the situation, but it wouldn't tell you where 10 the leak was.
If I told him I thought the' plant was Jeaking 11 excessively, I'd have to back it up with other information.
12 I'm certain of it.
13 Q
Sure.
14 A
He would look himself, too.
15 Q
But the hypothetical suggests a drastic jump in 16 the kind of numbers you have been looking at; isn't that 17 correct?
18 A
That's true.
19 Q
You weren't getting many readings at 8 gallons a 20 minute, were you?
21 A
Not that I recall.
22 Q
Did you ever see one that high?
t 23 A
Not that I recall.
()
24 Q
Did you ever see anything over 3?
l 25 A
I wouldn't want to try to pin down any numbers i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M686
F
' 28286.0 BRT 2657 1
because I don't recall.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
Anything else by way of 7
3 follow-up?
4 MS. WAGNER:
No.
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay, Mr. Coleman, that takes us to 6-the end'of our questioning process.
He appreciate your being 7
here today and answering questions.
With that you are 8
' excused.- Thank you.
"3 (Witness excused.)
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
Off the record.
t i
(~3 11 (Discussion off the record.)
~ \\_)
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
9:30 tomorrow morning, then, for 13 Mr. Wright.
I guess we can adjourn at this point.
14 (Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m.,
the hearing was 4
15 adjourned, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m.,
on October 2, 1986.)
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 O
24 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3XX)
Nationwide Coserage 8m336-(646
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 3
DOCKET NO.:
LRP PLACE:
BETHESDA, MARYLAND O
DATE:
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original l
transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt)
(TYPED)[
JOEL BRtITNER Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation i
O
__