ML20210V616
| ML20210V616 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/02/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1180 LRP, NUDOCS 8610100745 | |
| Download: ML20210V616 (94) | |
Text
,
l DIGWA_
,o UlN11ED STATES o
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
LRP l
INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND l
UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION l
l
\\
l l
l0 LOCATION:
BETHESDA, MARYLAND PAGES:
2658 - 2743 DATE:
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1986 Tff. Of ^\\\\
j%%)chkAdeM
/ / 7I-Y i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
OfficialReporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001
@ 2) M N 8610100745 [3 ;.3 t ( io p PDR ADOCk 050007,.O I
PDR NATIONWIDE COVERACE
CR28287.0 2658 h-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x In the Matter of:
5 Docket No. LRP INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND 6
UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION 7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 8
9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fifth Floor Hearing Room 10 East West Towers 4350 East 47est Highway 11 Bethesda, Maryland 12 Thursday, October 2, 1986 13
~~
The hearing in the above-entitled matter convened at 8:30 a.m.
15 16 BEFORE:
17 JUDGE JAMES L.
KELLEY, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 18 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
l JUDGE JAMES H.
CARPENTER, Member
(
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 20 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
JUDGE GLENN O.
BRIGHT, Member 22 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 23 Uashington, D.
C.
l 24 f
('
25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
s 2659 7
1 APPEARANCES:
2 On behalf of GPU Nuclear Corporation:
j 3
ERNEST L.
BLAKE, JR.,
ESQ.
i JOHN N.
NASSIKAS III, ESQ.
j 4
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 5
s On behalf of the Employees:
6 1
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 i
10 On behalf of Jack Herbein:
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:
16 MICHAEL W.
MAUPIN, ESQ.
17 M.
CHRISTINA HENSLEY, ESQ.
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street 18 Richmond, Virginia 23221 19 On behalf of Former Metropolitan Edison Employees:
SMTIH B.
GEPHART, ESQ.
21 Killian & Gephart 217-218 Pine Street 22 Box 886 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 23 On behalf of the NRC Staff:
24
(~
JACK R.
GOLDBERG, ESQ.
MARY E.
WAGNER, ESQ.
25 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
I 2660 f
} h-1 CONTENTS l
WITNESS EXAMINATION Lynn O. Wright by Mr. McBride 2663 4
5 Joseph Raymond Congdon by Mr. Gepharto
~
2708 6
by the Board 2712 7
8 RECESS:
9 NOON - 2707 c
10 I
11 LAY-IN - STATEMENT OF WRIGHT Follows page 2663 I
I 12 LAY-IN - STATEMENT OF CONGDON Follows page 2709
! s' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 I
24
,m F
l 25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M686
28286.0 BRT 2661 1
P R O C E_ E D I N G S_
2 (Discussion off the record.)
}
3 JUDGE KELLEY:
Good morning, Mr. Wright.
My name 4
is Kelley; this is Judge Bright on my right, Judge Carpenter I
5 on my left.
We'll go through some opening preliminaries, 5
l 6
first.
l 7
MR. MC BRIDE:
Thank you, Judge Kelley.
(
8 Would you please' state for the record, sir, your
)
l 9
full name?
10 MR. WRIGHT:
Lynn O.
Wright.
11 MR. MC BRIDE:
Would the Board please swear the 12 witness?
t 13 Whereupon, f
14 LYNN O.
WRIGHT 15 was called as a witness and, havina first been duly sworn, 16 was examined and testified as collows-17 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley and members of the i
18 Board, in an off-the-record Bench conference before we went 19 on the record this morning, the Board and the parties i
20 discussed the circumstances of Mr. Wright's prepared 21 statement and we are prepared, at this time, to offer 22 Mr. Wright's prepared statement as an encapsulation of his 23 prior testimony with the understanding tha t, because of his l
24 current inability to recall everything that happened several 25 years ago, Mr. Wright is not prepared to swear at this time f
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3XU Nationwide Cm crage 2336-6M6
20286.0
(-)sBRT 2662 1
that he can recall everything that'is in the statement, but, 2
rather, that he beJieves that the statement is an accurate 3
summary of his prior testimony which the Board has in-the 4
record.
5 If those circumstances are acceptable to the Board 6
and the parties, we would be prepared to offer the prepared 7
statement of Lynn O.
Wright for the purpose of having that 8
summary of his prior testimony.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you, Mr. McBride.
10.
Mr. McBride has summarized the discussion among the Board and 11 counsel just a moment ago.
()
12 The circumstances are a little unusual in the 13 sense that when we get prefiled testimony of the kind that 14 was filed for Mr. Wright in this case, we normally have the 15 witness adopt and swear to the testimony and then that 16 becomes substantive evidence in-the proceeding.
17 Under the circumstances Mr. McBride just 18 described, I gather you are not.in a position to affirm, in 19 the same sense, with regard to your statement.
So our 20 discussion produced an understanding that we would put-your 21 statement in the record; that it would not be treated as f
22 sworn testimony in the usual sense; that it would not be 23 regarded as substantive evidence, but that it would serve a l:
24 useful purpose in providing us with, oh, in one sense a brief Ok/
25 summary of a much longer statement that is in the record and I
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336- % 46
28286.0
~7x h BRT.
2663 l
1 that is regarded as evidence.
2~
I'm referring, in this instance, to your interview 3
with the NRC personnel a year and a half or so ago, the exact 4
date of which I don't have, but it is Exhibit 18 in the OI 5
report.
And it~1s also useful as a springboard for questions 6
and discussions here this morning.
7 So, in that sense, we will have your statement 8
filed into -- folded into -- placed into the transcript this 9
morning and proceed on that basis.
l 10 Have Mr. McBride and I managed to state this f
11 understanding with suf ficient fullness and accuracy?
()
12 MR. MAUPIN:
Yes.
13 MR. MC BRIDE:
Then, Judge Kelley, I'would just 14 ask if I may be permitted to put one further question to the 15 witness?
i 16 JUDGE KELLEY:
Go ahead.
17 EXAMINATION 18 MR. MC BRIDE:
-19 Q
Mr. Wright, do you have before you a six-page 20 document carrying the caption of this proceeding and 21 entitled, "The Prepared Statement of Lynn O.
Wright," which, f
.22 to the best of your knowledge, is an accurate summary of the 23 prior testimony to which Judge Kelley just referred?
24 A
Yes.
C\\
\\~/
25 (The document follows :)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80tK33MM6
I e
s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
!}
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD I
i
)
In the Matter of
)
)
INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND
)
Docket No. LRP I
i UNIT 2 LEAK RATE DATA
)
FALSIFICATION
)
i
)
l PREPARED STATEMENT OF LYNN O. WRIGHT My name is Lynn Owen Wright.
I reside in Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
I am currently self-employed as a f~
gift shop owner.
\\
Prior to joining Metropolitan Edison Company (Met Ed),
I spent three years at Juniata College and worked as a laborer at the Harrisburg Steel Company.
I began my employment with Met Ed in 1972 at the Crawford Generating Station.
In 1974, I entered the Auxiliary Operator training program at Unit 1.
In 1975, I began the control room operator (CRO) training program for Unit 2, and received my CRO license in the fall of 1977.
I worked as a CRO until April or May of 1983, at which time I went to the Quality Assurance Department as an Operations Monitor.
I left Met Ed in January 1984 to open my business.
j During 1978-1979, I was assigned primarily to the "D"
l CE) 1
l shift, with Gregory Hitz as Shift Supervisor, Adam Miller as j-)
V Shift Foreman, and Mark Coleman and Dennis Olson as my fellow CRO's.
On each shift, one CRO would be designated as the primary plant operator, another CRO as the secondary plant operator and the third CRO as the surveillance operator.
The primary plant operator was responsible for maintaining the CRO log and monitoring conditions in the primary plant.
The secondary plant operator supervised the activities of the secondary plant auxiliary operators.
The primary responsibility of the third shift member was to conduct surveillance tests.
Each CRO was usually aware of the activities of the other two CRO's.
The CRO's on my shift received the bulk of their f (}
instructions from the shift foreman, Adam Miller.
There was very little discussion of leak rate testing with management j
personnel, such as George Kunder, Joe Logan, Gary Miller or Jim f
Seelinger.
I do not recall any meetings with the Operations Supervisor, Jim Floyd, concerning leak rate problems with the plant.
Nor do I recall any such meetings with Mike Ross, the Operations Superintendent.
During 1978-1979, I realized that the plant had to be in a steady state condition while a leak rate test was being conducted.
Due to the frequent occurrence of plant variables such as feedwater oscillations, the plant was often unstable during the performance of leak rate tests -- thus making it
.( r t
y' result.
As a very difficult to obtain a valid leak rate test s
consequence of this plant instability, I did not have much faith in the leak rate test as a reliable indicator of plant leakage.
Our experience demonstrated that the more accurate means of determining plant leakage involved examining a variety of indicators in conjunction, including pressurizer level, makeup tank level and sump pump starts.
We thus came to regard performance of the leak rate test as merely fulfilling the administrative requirement to obtain one satisfactory leak rate test result within a 72-hour period.
A leak rate test result was considered satisfactory if it showed unidentified leakage of less than one gallon per minute (gpm).
I did not consider a negative leak rate test f'll result to be satisfactory, however.
u It was the accepted practice on my shift to retain satisfactory leak rate test results and to discard leak rate tests showing unidentified leakage in excess of 1 gpm or j
showing negative leakage.
To my knowledge, this practice was not originated by any particular individual.
I do not recall ever being warned by anyone to discard unsatisfactory leak rate test results so that the NRC would not discover them.
Prior to the post-accident investigation, I was aware of no rule at Unit 2 that required that we retain unsatisfactory leak rate test results.
There was a short period of time, however, during
(
t,s which we were instructed to retain both satisfactory and unsatisfactory leak rate test results.
This directive may have
/
been issued in response to the Licensee Event Report (LER) dated November 1, 1978, although I cannot be absolutely sure of that relationship, because I have no independent recollection of either the LER itself or the events leading up to it.
Within a short period of time, we resumed our original practice of discarding unsatisfactory leak rate test results.
My recollection is that we had continual problems in obtaining satisfactory leak rate test results.
On the other hand, I do not recall unidentified leakage ever becoming so i
severe as to necessitate entering the action statement.
I also l
do not remember ever filing an exception or deficiency for an unsatisfactory leak rate test result, nor do I recall any
{}
requirement to do so.
As far as I knew, the problems we experienced in obtaining a satisfactory leak rate test result were sometimes attributable to flaws in the computer program that was used to conduct leak rate tests.
l I do not recall any Unit 2 rule that required that the start and stop times of leak rate tests be logged.
Nor do I recall ever being told about such a rule during 1978-1979.
Moreover, no one ever instructed me to refrain from logging the start and stop times of leak rate tests so as to conceal how I
many tests were actually run.
There were occasions when I added water to the makeup t O
l
!}
tank during a leak rate test.
My purpose in s;ch cases was to f-)
bring the makeup tank back up to its,riginal level so as to minimize instrument error, and it was never designed to falsify test results.
I believed that by establishing the same level in the makeup tank at the end of the test as was present at the start of the test, I would enhance the accuracy of leak rate i
test results.
I never made under-recorded or unrecorded water additions to the makeup tank during a leak rate test so as to falsify the test result.
Nor am I aware of any other Unit 2 operator (including my fellow CRO's Mark Coleman and Dennis i
Olson) ever engaging in such falsifications.
During 1978-1979, I was aware that when the batch controller was malfunctioning, the amount of a water addition
(])
as registered on the makeup tank strip chart could exceed the amount that I had dialed into the batch controller.
- However, neither I, nor to my knowledge either Mark Coleman or Dennis Olson, ever took advantage of this phenomenon to manipulate leak rate test results.
Both I, and to my knowledge Mr.
Coleman and Mr. Olson, made a practice of entering into the computer the amount of the water addition as read from the makeup tank strip chart -- thereby avoiding any discrepancy.
Prior to the post-accident investigation, I was not aware of any Unit 2 rule that prohibited the addition of hydrogen during a leak rate test.
Rather, I believed that maintaining constant hydrogen pressure during a leak rate test !
\\
L was essential to-the accuracy of the test.
For these reasons, f-it is likely that I added hydrogen to the makeup tank during
~#
certain leak rate tests.
In all cases, I logged the hydrogen additions that I made.
During 1978-1979, I was not aware of anyone who added hydrogen during a leak rate test in an effort S
to falsify the test result.
l I remember various periods of time prior to the accident when an outside contractor came to Unit 2 to repair one or both of the level transmitters.
However, I do not recall one particular level transmitter malfunctioning more than the other.
During 1978-1979, I was not aware of any j
.l operator switching level transmitters during a leak rate test l
I so as to manipulate the test result.
{}
Although I am no longer employed in the nuclear i
industry, I wish to convey my recollections to the Presiding Board in the interest of the Unit 2 operators with whom I worked prior to the accident.
During that time period, neither i
I nor any operator that I was aware of falsified leak rate test results.
In addition, I recall no instruction from any supervisor to deliberately manipulate a leak rate test.
O _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _... _
l 7--
28286.0
()J BRT.
2664 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
First, I have a statement that we 2
have been reading to all the employee and ex-employee 3
witnesses, to provide some context for you.
Let me do that.
4 The. Board has been charged by the Commission to 5
determine the extent of involveaent of individual employees 6
and former employees at TMI-2 in 1978-79, in leak rate test 7
falsification and other improper practices in leak rate 8
testing.
1 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 any other employees or investigators f
13 with which you might disagree.
l t
(.
14 We have reviewed your statement which was just put
[
l 15 in the transcript and we have considered it in light of the 16 record that has already been developed in this proceeding.
i l17 We will have some questions about your statements and upon l
l 18 your prior statement that I referred, the OI/NRR interview of l
l 19 a year and a half or so ago.
We may also have questions l
l 20 based on statements that other employees at TMI-2 have made 21 about you, either previously or in testimony prepared for i
22 this proceeding and upon the assessments investigators and j
t 23 technical experts have made about your participation in leak j
f
.24 rate activities.
O I
25 As you may know, there are two extensive studies i
f i
i i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80(k3366646
28286.0
(,s) BRT 2665 1
of TMI-2 leak rate procedures in the record already:
One by 2
Mr. Stier for GPU Nuclear, and the other by the NRC Staff.
3 It is in connection with the latter, Staff study, that you 4
were interviewed.
The NRC study contains analyses of every S
retained test during the last six months of operation.
By 6
retained I mean not thrown away.
7 The Board has already heard extensive testimony on 8
leak rate tests in question, including questions by your f
9-counsel on numerous leak rate tests.
In these circumstances l
10 the Board does not intend to review with you each of the leak 11 rate tests with which you were involved.
Those records are
/m (x-)
12 available to you and counsel and you are free to discuss 13 those in your statement if you wish to do so.
l r
14 We may ask you questions about some particular i
i 15 tests, for example, if the Stier and NRR analyses indicate 16 that manipulation occurred or where something unique or f
17 unusual appears to,be reflected in the test records.
Apart b
18 from that, analyses of particular tests whether or not they
[
19 are addressed in your testimony here this morning, will be I
20 considered in light of the entire record, including your 21 testimony here today.
i 22 That concludes our opening statement.
I'll turn i
i 23 to Judge Carpenter at this point.
24 EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD 5
Di kJ 25 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
[
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i f
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
f-(
20286.0
(,,) ~ BRT 2666 1
Q Thank you, Mr. Wright, for coming down.
Good i
2 morning.
Looking at the NRR tabulations of the leak rate 3
. tests that were carried out by your shift, I see that on that 4
shift, of the tests that are retained in the files,.you 5
submitted far less than either Mr. Olson or Mr. Coleman.
We
'6 have just started this proceeding, and have been looking 7
primarily at the A shift, which had only two operators.
I 8
would like to get a feel for these three-operator shifts.
9 Was there a reason, where you have three operators, that 1
10 perhaps one of them wouldn't run the leak rate tests as often 11 as the others?
()
12 A
I can't answer that.
I don't know why, you know, 13 things come out that I ran less leak rates.
14 Q
Do you think you might have attempted them as 15 frequently as the others and had been unsuccessful, and 16 therefore the ones that went in the file are smaller in 17 number?
18 A
I don't know.
19 Q
But you didn't have any feeling that the other two 20 on your shift, Olson and Coleman, would volunteer to run leak
.11 rate tests instead of you?
-22 A
No, I have no such recollection.
23 Q
So it's just luck of the draw as far as you can 24 tell?
25 A
Yes.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80tk33H646
s J
28286.0
]
l
(_) BRT 2667 lE 1
Q With respect to the practice of discarding leak y
[
2 rate tests, did you consider the leak rate surveillance-test 3
to be essentially a routine administrative task?
f 4
A Yes.
t-5 Q
Rather than something important to the safe j.
L operation of the plant?
l 6
i.
7 A
The test itself became very routine, yes._
[
l-
[
8 Q
-Was a leak rate test required by the technical f
j
-9 specifications?'
l 10 A
As I recall, yes, it was.
i 11 Q
In that sense, would you agree that it was not a
()
12 routine 1 administrative task but rather a task required by the i
13 technical specifications?
14 A
'Aell, sir, I would refer to some of our shift logs 15' and so'forth, things, parameters that we kept on them that
'16 were required to be recorded by tech specs as routine logs, 17 also.
In that sense, yes, it was routine.
It was a tech 18 spec requirement but it was routinely done.
It was not 19 something that was, you know -- how shall I say -- different 20 from running other surveillance tests.
21 Q
Well, along that line, did you conduct other 22 surveillance tests that were not required by the technical 23 specifications?
24 A
Yes.
25 Q
But in your mind -- and I realize that we are ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-M00 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336 6646
{
(
<~(
28286.0
( ) BRT 2668 1
talking about how you thought and felt in 1978 and.1979; we are very conscious of the burden that we are putting on your
'2
)
3 memory.
Is it'your recollection today that you had an 4
attitude.that there was a difference in the significance of 5
the surveillance test if it was required by technical 1
6 specifications versus not being required by the technical 7-specifications?
8 A
Yes.
There was a difference in them.
l 9
Q What was the difference in your mind?
10' A
The tech spec requirement, in that -- in other l
l 11 words, if you had -- I guess the best I can recall is, let's
()
12 say we had a whole bunch of tests that would come out.
I 13 think they came out on a computer printout, a green sheet, f
i 14 they called them.
And you had a lot of, I guess, operational i
i 15 sheets, other things that were just on a -- what should I say 16
-- nontech-spec component or something, to test a standby 17 component; that if you had a busy day, something like that, l
t 18 you were falling behind on your work, that, you know, you 19 would make the effort to run the tech spec surveillances i
i 20 within the' time limits and so forth and the other ones would
[
21 be the ones that you woul-let slide back.
You would catch
)]
22 them, you know, when time pe mitted.
l 23 Q
When you ran these surveillance tests, were there i
i f
(~T )
24 other surveillance tests where you threw away the results of l
25 the test as a regular situation?
?
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(Xk336-6646 t
1
'I 28286.0 1 _, ~3 J,
/_BRT 2669-1 A
I don't recall other surveillance tests that were 2
run-that often within the same time frame.
I would.say most 3
of the. surveillance-tests were mostly like a weekly or a
'4 monthly type test.
5 Q
So one of the things distinctive about the' leak 6
rate test is the frequency, essentially the flood of tests 7
that you had to run?
8_
A I would think so.
It was something that sticks in 9
my mind, that it was run more frequently than others.
10 Q
I'm curious on what basis you concluded, 11 apparently, that the technical specification requirements for
(}
12 measurement of unidentified leakage were not essential for 13 safe plant operation?
4 l
14 A
Would you repeat that, please?
15 Q
Well, since you discarded an unsatisfactory test, t
16 it appears to me.that you concluded that the technical 17 specification requirement that you lus assured that.the 18 unidentified leakage wasn't greater than 1 gallon per minute, 4
19 wasn't really necessary for the safe operation of the plant..
20 For example, if you got a test result of 2.5
- 21-gallons per minute, rather than accepting that you had 22 something to resolve, you simply threw that test result away, l
23 even though it showed at that point in time that technical 3.
i' 24 specifications were being violated; which, to me, implies 25 that that part of the technical specifications in your mind ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80 4 336-6646
28286.0
-,s V BRT 2670 1
really wasn't important to the safe operation of the plant.
2 A
Sir, my memory of that time is it would not have 3
occurred to me that just because one-test came out-that way 4
that we were in violation of tech specs.
It seemed to me 5
that we treated it as a 72-hour thing.
You needed a good 6
test once every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
7 Q
That's my point.
So that at any particular point 8
during the 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, if the test showed, say, 2.5 gallons per 9
minute, you didn't feel there was a safety problem as long as 10 sometime in the future somebody else ran a test which showed 11 a lower leak rate?
[
12 A
We did not have a lot of faith in our computer 13 test, is the thing.
We did look at our plant as operators.
14 A lot of times we saw results come out of that computer that 15 we felt in no way could be indicative of the actual 16 conditions of leakage that were occurring in the plant.
17 Q
That certainly is in conformance with the 18 testimony of the people that we've talked to so far.
19 Why, if you had this uncertainty about the 20 computer result, didn't you carry out a manual calculation?
21 Did you ever discuss with your foreman or supervisor that the 22 computer program -- some way the computer-operated or 23 computer-assisted approach to this test was producing random 24 numbers and that perhaps you should not be dependent or. the 25 computer until it was fixed?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
-. ~
s 28286.0 L (_)'4 BRT 2671 1
A I don't recall any specific conversations on 2
that.
I'm sure that, you know, they must have occurred from 3
time to time.
People get frustrated with a piece of 4
equipment that doesn't work.
I don't recall any specifics of 5
-- it runs in my mind that some people, I think, like 6
engineers or something, did run some hand-calculated' leak 7
rates from time to time.
8 Q
Did you ever look.at the hand calculation 9
procedure?
10 A
I believe so, yes.
11 Q
Did it seem beyond your capability to carry out a
.()
12 hand calculation?
I 13 A
It's a long time ago, I don't remember, really.
14 Q
But you mentioned you thought some engineers did 15 it?
16 A
Yes.
17 Q
As I look at it, it looks like something that even 18 I,
as a nonengineer, might do.
But your memory is not very 19 sharp about this?
20 A
About the hand leak rate?
No.
21 Q
Why, as you kept getting leak rate tests which, in 22 your mind, were questionable, didn't you ever identify any of 23 them as representing an exception or a deficiency as required 24 by administrative procedure 1010?
25 A
I don't know why.
For whatever reason, at the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
28286.0 g~g Q BRT 2672 1
. time it just never seemed
- you know, it was accepted 2
practice.
That's all I can say.
We just never did it.
3 Q
Were you conscious that you were not complying 4
with the requirements of the administrative procedure?
5 A
No.
6 Q
If I understand the requirements, this is a 7
perfect case of an exception or a deficiency.
It seems 8
unnatural to me.
Why did you feel differently about it?
9 A
All I can say is it was accepted practice.
I 10 don't know why it, you know, did not jump out glaringly.
11 After March 1979, in subsequent things, you know, the subject
(')
12 ofTEs and Ds became much more to the fore and so forth and I 13 think their importance was impressed upon operators a great 14 deal more.
But at the time I guess they were, at least in my 15 individual mind -- and I don't think it was ever impressed 16 upon me, either in training or anything else, the importance 17 of these from the s tandpoint of, I guess, what they were 18 intend $d to do or anything else.
19 Q
I think it's difficult to avoid the retrospective 4
20 view of this.
But do you feel, now, that in the time period 21 1978-1979, your training with respect to that administrative 22 procedure was not as extensive as was desirable?
23 A
From the standpoint of today and what has 24 transpired since?
Definitely.
It was not -- you know, it 25 could have been better.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3366M6
28286.0
( ) BRT 2673 w,
1 Q
Did you discard the test results with or without 2
the knowledge of your supervisor?
3 A
My supervisors, I'm sure, were aware that we were 4
discarding the test results.
5 Q
Thank you.
6 A
I don't recall that we handed them to them and 7
they discarded them or anything like that.
They just got 8
discarded.
9 Q
It was not something that you did without the 10 knowledge of your supervisor?
If your supervisor had come in 11 and observed you throwing out a test, you would not be
,m()
12 surprised?
13 A
No.
14 Q
In your training, do you recall getting any sense 15 of why this leak rate test was in the technical specification 16 and what its safety significance was?
Do you have any feel 17 for why somebody thought it was important?
18 A
Well, to measure leakage in the plant.
Sitting 19 here today I recall, way back in simulator training at 20 Babcock & Wilcox, a gentleman there explaining about, like 21 pump sealings and so forth leaking.
You know, that type of 22 thing.
What did they call it now?
I can't think of the 23 type, anymore, what type of leak it was called.
But it would 24 be like a leak on a valve stem or something like that inside
['l
\\- /
25 containment that might show up on a leak rate, or something; ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8633M646
~
-d 28286.0
.BRT.
2674 1
as a way.of measuring that, f
2 Q
In that training, there wasn't any discussion of 3
this being the only way to detect intersystem leakage?
4 A
Intersystem?
5 Q
Yes.
There are a lot of systems connected to the 6
primary system, aren't there?
7' A
Yes.
8-Q How would you discover that there was an 9
intersystem leakage by any other means?
10
.A By changes in tank levels, things laf this nature.
b -(
).
11 -
Q I thought that's what this test was all about.
12 A
Yes.
13 Q
It was a careful look at changes in tank level 14
.over an hour, if I understand it.
i 15 But, at any rate, it's your recollection --
16 A
Okay.
I guess a hand type of leak rate or 17 something like that wouldLbe similar in what it is arriving 18 at, as a computer-generated one, yes.
I guess you'd look at 19 the same parameters, whether you are calling that a leak rate 20 test or whatever you are doing.
Whether the computer looks 21 at them or whether the operator looks at them or whether the
'22 -
operator takes the numbers off a gauge or whatever.
23 Q
So you looked at the tank level but you didn't 5~/
24 analyze it by the manual calculation, if I understand you 25 correctly?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700.
Nationwide Coverage M&336-6M6
,-~.c.
28286.0
,r g
- Q.BRT 2675 1
A I do not recall ever doing a manual leak rate 2
calculation.
Probably for a training exercise or something,.
3 but doing one, I don't remember any.
4 Q
But as a thing that gave you an opportunity to 5
assess the plant conditions --
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
-- in your training, do you recall any case that 8
this leak rate test might be important in terms of picking up_
9 the beginning of a leak?
Not necessarily the valve stem, but-10
.in a pipe crack?
11
-A I would assume that would have been mentioned in (f
12 training, yes.
13-Q Are you familiar with the expression " leak before 14 break" with respect to pipes?
15 A
No, I can't say that I am.
16 Q
In the training sessions, did you get any 17 indication that if you picked up a leak early from a crack, I
~
18 that perhaps that crack wouldn't propagate; whereas, if the 19 leak were allowed to continue, perhaps the crack would 20 propagate?
21 A
Just, I remember, you know, running -- what shall 22 we say -- casualty drills or whatever where it would 23 propagate a leak and it would gradually worsen; that type of 24 thing.
i 25 Q
But you didn't view this leak rate test as a way
~ '
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
28286.0
)'BRT 2676 1
of catching that casualty process before it could progress?
2 A
I really don't know if I was that astute at the 3
time in question or not.
4 Q
That's what I was trying to get a feel for.
- See, 5
from our view, there was an administrative procedure in place 6
which should have flagged this problem.
As far as we can see 7
there were real problems with the leak rate tests which could 8
have been resolved in a very few days if somebody had really 9
given their attention to it.
That's why it's a great mystery 10 as to why, apparently, appropriate administrative procedure 11 just didn't do the job.
There was no flow of paper that
()
12 would have gone upstairs-to say:
Look, somebody come down 13 here and take a look at what is going on.
14 But apparently at that time you didn't feel it was 15 necessary for plant safety?
16 A
I believe from the standpoint of the leak rates 17 and the computer and so forth being hard to, you know, come 18 up with what we considered, you know, a satisfactory leak 19 rate, that we just -- you know, people discussed this, you 20 know, or complaints, as people will in a workplace, that I 21 can't imagine -- what shall I say -- upper echelons weren't 22 aware that there was a problem with the computer-generated 23 leak rate test.
But I have no specific times, dates, names 24 to tell you that I told somebody that this thing is a piece
/3
\\J 25 of garbage or anything.
l l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-}47-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33&6M6
28286.0
'Ns) f 7-
-BRT 2677
}g l'
Q
'You see the paper record'would be.very-useful.
I 2
agree with you --
3 A
Hindsight is terrific.
4 Q
We will inquire of those-people as to whether they 5
were aware at some point in time.
But right now we are 6
.looking at the fact that, apparently, y.ou and others, all' 7
others, failed to initiate any exception and deficiencies?
8 A
I do not recall ever writing one on'it.
9 Q
You can't recall why you thought it wasn't 10 appropriate other than no one else did it?
Why you didn't do 11 it?
I 12 A
It may be a poor defense but that's it.
It was a M) 13 poor practi ce.
It's like topsy, I guess.
It was there.
14 That's why it was done.
15 Q
Thank you very much.
16 Mr. Wright, coming back-to your previous 17 statements,-in interviews with NRR and the office of 18 investigation, and as expressed in your prefiled, which we 19 take to be a summary of your views at that time, you 20 testified that there were occasions where you added water to i
21 the makeup tank towards the end of the test because you 22 believed that, by doing that, if there were any problems with 23 the sensor, that that problem wouldn't be as severe.
Is that 24 a fair statement of what you now think you were thinking at 25 that time?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
. -, -3700.
28286.0
(
) BRT 2678 a
1 A
Excuse me while I look at that statement.
Could 2
you direct me to what page you are referring to?
3 Q
The top of page 5.
The first sentence reads, "My 4
purpose in such cases was to bring the makeup tank back up to 5
its original level so as to minimize instrument error, and it 6
was never designed to falsify test results."
7 A
Yes.
8 Q
If you felt that this was a technically sound 9
strategy, why didn't you discuss it with your colleagues on 10 the shift?
11 A
I don't know.
n I
i 12 Q
If you thought you saw at least a partial solution uj 13 to the problem, it would seem to me at least you might have 14 talked to your colleagues.
15 A
I don't recall any conversations about it with my 16 colleagues, as you put it.
That, to the best of my 17 recollection, was the thinking at the time on my part, was 18 that by -- you know, it was just one more thing.
I had also 19 thought of an idea, which I had no way of controlling, was 20 even the amount of time that perhaps it would take for 21 temperature feedback to get in, like say a change in hot leg 22 or cold leg temperature, things like this that could change 23 an apparent look when the computer snapped its picture at the 24 beginning and end of the leak rate.
How they might affect
[/
\\-
25 it.
They all looked to me like they were possible variables i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
~.
~.
k hg~128286.0 BET 2679 1
that the computer couldn't take into account.
2 This is one thing that I as an operator could 3
control and, you know, possibly -- in other words, bring 4
things back to the same condition they were at time 1; you 5
know, whatever.
Very close there.
And get out some of_the 6
error that builds into a system as parameters get-further 7
apart and changes take place in the plant.
8 Q
Well, the only parameter you were restoring to its 9
initial condition was the amount of water in the makeup tank,.
10 wasn't it?
11 A
Yes.
There wasn't much I could do about any
()
12 feedback from hot leg or cold leg temperatures, as an c
13 operator.
This was one thing that I could do something with.
14 Q
But I'm still kind of mystified at the lack of 15 communication between you and your shiftmates, if you really 16 thought this was helpful.
In general, did you just come in 17 and do whatever you had to do that shift, go through your 18
. assigned duti,es without much communication with each other?
19 A
We had conversations throughout the shift.
But we 20 also -- we also often had our own work to do throughout the 21 shift.
22 Q
Well, I'm sure this was not the only problem that 23 you all were struggling with as controllers.
24 Mr. Wright, why was it your opinion that if you 25 returned the makeup level back to the level that it had at ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6646
.. _ ~, -,..,, -..,,,,..
f~
28286.0 1,,y/ BRT.
2680 1
the beginning of the test, that would reduce errors in the 2
test?
3 A
Well, as best I can recall it now, it had to do 4
with having -- on other tank levels and so forth like that, 5
and calibrations and so forth of instruments -- having 6
discussed with, I guess, like instrument technicians and so 7
forth that worked at the plant and I guess probably in 8
training courses when they discussed, I guess, generically i
9 certain types of instrumentation, that -- I'm not very sharp 10 on this anymore.
11 You have a certain band that.an instrument, a-
- (')
12 level transmitter, pressure transmitter, whatever, is 13 calibrated to perform at its optimum accuracy in.
As you get-14 away from that point that it's calibrated for, let's:say zero 15-against a test gauge or whatever, and you get further away 16 from that point, that then inaccuracies, I guess just 17 inherently, just due to the mechanics or electronics or 18 whatever, certain things built into the system -- in other 19 words, an instrument that's calibrated and tested for 20 whatever, for the sake of argument, 1 percent error at in 21 this case a level, let's say at 50 inches, might be -- that 22 error might expand if the tank level is either at 90 inches 23 or, you know, 30 inches, or whatever.
24 Q
Did you ever have any basis for feeling that, O
\\_/
25 perhaps, the tank level transmitter was -- had the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage 804336-6M6
-=
(
28286.0 BRT.
2681 I
characteristics you just described?
For some instruments 2
that I am familiar with in other settings, what you just 3
described is certainly possible.
For many other instruments, 4
if they've got a bias, if they are off calibration, it is a-5 fixed error over the whole range.
6 Did you ever have any basis for questioning the 7
calibration of the makeup level transmitter?
8 A
Just my own thoughts, really, what I have 9
described to you.
I don't know that I'm that technically 10 astute to be able to say that a particular type of 11 transmitter would -- I probably felt it was inherent to any t
12 transmitter or level'or pressure indicator, s_
13 Q
So it was more hopeful than based on any real 14 examination of the -- any property of the transmitter ~which 15 led you to conclude that it was out of calibration?
In a 16 sense --
i don't 17 A
At this point in time I would have to say 18 remember.
19 Q
But even then you didn't, or some day, say, look 20 at this thing --
21 A
This is a such-and-such model transmitter and it 22 does that?
No.
23 Q
It's off calibration and I'll put it back to where 24 it was started from --
p/
x-25 A
If it was off calibration you would report that to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage 800-336-6 4 6
u 28286.0 m
(_) BRT 2682 1
your I&C department.
I wouldn't know, unless it was very 2
gross, off calibration to that extent.
3 Q
Well, it has been your testimony in the past that 4
you didn't consciously add water towards the end of the test 5
for the purpose of increasing the probability that the 6
computer printout would be a number less than 1.
I take it 7
that is still your testimony today?
8 A
Yes.
To be more accurate, it was -- my reason for-9 doing it was to try to make the test as accurate as I could 10 make it, as I felt I could make it.
Because I did not feel 11 that the test was that accurate.
c,
( s) 12 Q
Well, I'm still mystified.
If you thought it x
13 really was an improvement in the way of carrying out the 14 test, why you didn't share it with your colleagues?
I'm 15 trying to get a feel --
16 A
Well, I think one thing, maybe, you are for 17 getting is that we are looking at this now.
I did not --
18 leak rates were something -- they were another job that.you 19 did on the shift.
We did not go in there with that as our 20 primary goal in r.ind for the shift.
We had a lot of other 21 jobs we were doing in that plant.
And that I don't recall at 22 this point in time, you know, that doing that had any 23 specific effect of making -- you know, that I got good leak 24 rates a certain percentage of time as opposed to before I did
/"3 w) 25 that whether I got -- my frequency of, you know, good leak ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
f
. f 28286.0
. g(j'BRT 2683
~1 rates was better or worse.
I just don't know.
2 Q
.Doesn't the procedure for the leak rate test 3
caution you not to add water during-the test?
4 A
I do not have a copy of that in front of me.
But 5
it's my recollection that it did not prohibit it.
6 Q_
No, it doesn't prohibit it.
But it says it is to 7
be avoided if possible.
But, apparently, you weren't aware 8
of that?
i 9
A It says " avoided if possible"?
I would feel that 10 that would give me leeway to do that, though.
.11 Q
Well, presumably the author of the procedure had
( s)
-12 something in mind when he said " avoided if possible."
In.
13 essence, you are second-guessing the author of the 14 procedure.
Isn't that a fair reading?
15 A
At this point in time I don't recall what the --
16 you know, what the reasoning was, wiat thoughts we put into i
17 the mind or that I would put into the mind of the author at 18 that time.
I don't know.
-19 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Wa?i thank you.
Everything 20 that you've testified to doesn't show any disagreement with
~21 your previous testimony.
Thank you.
22 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
23 Q
I want to make sure I understand, Mr. Wright, what 24 exactly was involved when you say that at the end of a leak k}./
/
25 rate test you would bring the makeup tank level back to where ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336 6M6
~
28286.0 fs
'684 (j'BRT 2
1 it had started; is that right?
2 A
Approximately.
Within, I'd say, you know, an inch 3
-or so.
4' Q
And an inch in the tank represents how much water?
5 A
I think about 30 gallons.
6 Q
So I understand how this is done, mechanically, 7
let's say you are running a leak rate test and you are down 8
.toward the end of the test and you decide to add X quantity 9
of water.
How would you determine X?
By eyeballing the 10 strip chart?
11 A
- Yes, I believe so.
l '[ )
12 Q
So you would look at the chart and you would see z.?
13 over the course of about an hour, close to an hour, a decline 14 of a certain magnitude; read it in accordance with the 15 calibrations on the chart; and put in 150 gallons, let's say, 16 just as an example.
17 A
That sounds fair, yes.
4 18 Q
Okay.
Having done that, and you are then past'the 19 hour2.199074e-4 days <br />0.00528 hours <br />3.141534e-5 weeks <br />7.2295e-6 months <br /> and you are going to get the result of your leak rate 20 test, when you compensate in the test calculation for the j
21 amount of water you added, where do you get that amount?
22 From the reading on the batch controller?
From the makeup 23 tank strip chart?
or where?
24 A
You could get that reading from'either the batch
(~\\
(/
25 controller or the strip chart.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336 6646
_ _ = - -..
4 28286.0 f3
(
2685
- s,) BRT i
1 Q
For that matter, was.it always the. batch 2
controller that one added water with that or were there other 3
ways also you could put water in the makeup tank?
4 A
It has been a long time.
I know there was another 5
way.
I cannot go into with you how you did it.
I guess it 6-was through that line but around the batch controller or 7
whatever -- I don't remember.
8 Q
Okay.
Well, let's go ahead and keep this example 9
simple.
10 Then you say you would -- well, you tell me.
I'm 11 not clear.
The number you would put on the calculation sheet l( )
12
-to figure out the leak-rate, would that be the 150 gallons 13 that you dialed on the tank, from the batch controller --
14 from the batch control tank?
Or would that be your-eyeball 15 reading off the chart?
16 A
I think it would be a case, because we did have 17 problems with the batch controller from time to time,: and if 18 the batch controller was reading properly, was supposed to be 19 in service, working properly, you would probably use the 20 batch controller because that gave you-the night digital 21 readout.
If not, then you'd have to go off the makeup tank 22
-level.
23 Q
Suppose you went off the batch controller in this 24 example, you thought it was okay and you used that number.
25 Do you recall noting whether or not the makeup tank level ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
i 28286.0
!,,3 : BRT 2686 1
reading would be the same?
2 A
If the batch controller was working properly it 3
should have been, yes.
I believe so.
4 Q
But do you recall one way or the other, whether --
5 do you remember checking that out and saying:
Yes, they 6
agree, it must be right?
Or what is your recollection in 7
that regard?-
8 A
I would imagine you would look at the two and, you 9
know, if there was a gross difference there you'd assume the 10 batch controller was not -- you know, sometimes it seemed 11 like -- I~ don't know if the valve, the control, you know --
)
12 the control valve would not seat properly or what, but s._
13 sometimes you would hear it clicking after it had timed out a
14 and supposedly was shut off.
At times you could see that the 15 makeup tank had appeared to get more water in it than what 16 you had set in at the batch controller.
17 Q
Indicating in your mind --
18 A
As I recall we also had times when the batch 19 controller, for whatever reason, would shut down too early.
20 Q
So as between the two, would you tend to believe 21 the makeup tank strip chart more than you would the batch 22 controller?
23 A
It guess it would depend on what the status of the 24 batch controller was.
Or my knowledge, at any particular 25 time, about the batch controller, what its status was or was ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- T-347-37(X)
Nationwide Coverage 8tn336 6M6
.f"w 28286.0 BRT 2687 1
supposed to be.
l 2
-Q Dut there were times when you thought there were 3
problems with it.
In those situations would you tend to-4 accept the number by reading it off the strip chart?
5-A Yes.
I think so.
6 Q
All right.
Were you aware of any problems in the 7
accuracy of the strip chart after you added, say -- you put 8
in 150 gallons; right?
Were you aware of problems with that-9 reading at the time?
10'
.A With the strip chart itself?
11 Q
Right.
What it was telling you.
()
12 A
I don't recall it.
13 Q
Without getting in right now to variods theories 14 of what can be wrong with an instrument, were you suspicious 15 of the result from the strip chart?
16 A
No.
17 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
18 Q
Mr. Wright, I'm having trouble following this.
19 Because when we were talking you said the reason you put the 20 water in was because you felt that there might be a 21 calibration error in the level transmitter that fed the strip 22 chart.
You were trying to cancel those out.
23 If you felt those -- if you questioned it, then 24 how can you be comfortable with using that signal as a basis
)
25 for knowing how much water you added?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 2336 6M6
28286.0
_ 73 I
J-BRT 2688
&J 1
A Because I think you and I -- you are talking about 21 calibration.
Perhaps I don't understand your use of the 3
terminology.
I think I'm looking at it from, I think they 4
call it " span" or something.
In other words, over the' span 5
of an instrument's range, how its calibration can vary, where 6
I think you are thinking -- in other words, any absolute 7
reading that you take along any point on there'being the 8
calibration.
9 Q
Let's be clear.
If, at the beginning of the test, 10 the strip chart read 80 units on the strip chart and at the 11 end of an hour it read 70 -- picking round numbers to work
[)
12 with -- your testimony is, I think, that you were doubtful'of u
13 whether the 70 -- the difference between the two was as 14 reliable as adding the water and making the level transmitter 1
15 read close to 80.
Not exactly 80 but close to 80; that any 16-error in that 10 unit change over the hour wouldn't affect 17 the test?
Is that a fair summary?
18 A
I think that it was my theory that the one 19 possibility could be that there was, in that span, an error.
20 In other words --
21 Q
A 10-unit change?
22 A
Over that 10-unit change; in other words, that the 23 error -- accuracy of the instrument -- in other words if --
J 24 let's see, 10 units at 30 gallons would be, what, 300 25 gallons?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 -
Nationwide Coverage 80433MM6 m
_ A.20286.0 Jvl BRT 2689 1
.Q-Right.
l 2
A Maybe the thing was seeing, because of the change 3
in the feedback of the signal that actually maybe it should 4;
havejbeen seeing another number of. gallons, other than 300.
5 Whereas, if I bring it back to approximately the level it was 6
to begin'with, whatever error was in there should be 7
compensated for by it being -- in other words, whether the 8
tank level when it was reading 80, if somebody had gone in 9
there with a measuring stick and it would have said 81 or 10 whatever, if I bring it back to around 80, then it should 11 read with the same amount of error, meaning the two errors
()
12 cancel one another out.
13 Q
But, see, to my mind you were questioning the 14 10-unit change as perhaps having an error in it.
But isn't 15 it the 10 unit change would lead you to conclude that you had 16 added 300 gallons?
So whatever the error was, it went.right 17 back into the calculation if you had used the strip chart 18 record as your best basis for estimating how much water you 19 had added.
Do you follow me?
20 A
No.
21 Q
In responding to Judge Kelley, I think you said 22 you went to the strip chart and looked at the change in the 23 reading on the strip chart record, after you had finished 24 adding the water as a measurement of how inuch water you had 1
\\-
25 added.
So, if it was almost down to 70, not quite to 70, you ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Coserage 80[k336 6646
2B286.0
-s i
) BRT 2690-v 1
went back to 80; whatever error there was in that signal 2
would have been present in your estimate of how much water 3
you had added.
4 A
Maybe you're right, but it certainly wouldn't have S
been my thinking at the time, that I was generating more 6
error.
I don't know.
7 Q
What I'm trying to find out is how it could be 8
otherwise.
If you thought the 70 wasn't a true number and 9
yet you are using that 70 as a reference point in your 10 estimate of the addition of water, that, if it was an error 11 there, the error would have then propagated into your
()
12 estimate of how much you added?
\\_ /
13 A
I don't know.
Your theory sounds reasonable but 14 it never entered my mind.
15 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you.
16 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
17 Q
Pursuing just a little further, you had said 18 earlier that, at least where there was an indication there 19 may be a problem in the batch controller and the accuracy of 20 its reading, you would probably go with the strip chart 21 reading in determining what number to use in calcu]ating the 22 leak rate.
Let me just tell you about some testimony you may 23 know about and get your reaction to it.
24 There is testimony in the record to the effect
(~)
(._ /
25 that the readinac from the strip chart were, themselves, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coscrage 800 *36-6M6 i
28286.0 BRT 2691 1
inaccurate and that.there were some operators who knew about 2
that and who, for example, in'an attempt to manipulate a leak 3
rate test, would add, let's say, in round numbers, 100 4
gallons, and then the strip chart would read, not-100 but 5
130, maybe.
Then, in calculating the leak rate test the-6 operator would include 100-but not the 30.
And that's what 7
he actually did' dial into the system.
But the recorder would 8
come back, the strip chart would come back and say 130, 9
putting more water.in the tank, resulting in a lower leak 10 rate.
A very, sort of, convenient way to get what you want 11 if what you want is a leak rate that's under 1 gallon per
()
12 minute.
13 Were you aware of problems with the accuracy of 14 the strip chart in that regard?
15 A
I have previously said I was aware that there was 16 a guy in there from an outside contractor from time to time, 17 working with level transmitters.
But what he was doing, you 18 know, why -- it seemed he always was taking one or the other 19 out of service for something.
But what specifically he was 20 doing with it or why I don't know.
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
The Board would like to take maybe 22 five or 10 minutes, no more than that, and come back.
I 1
23 think we can finish with Mr. Wright in time for lunch.
24 MR. MC BRIDE:
I appreciate the Board's indulgence 25 in these circumstances.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage W 336 W 4
,., - _ - ~. ~.,
28286~.0
_BRT 2692
<1 (Recess.)
2 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
3 Q
Just a follow-up question, Mr. Wright.
We were 4
talking about the procedure you followed whereby-you were
.5-bringing the tank back up to level through-an injection from, 6
say the batch controller, which reading you would then go by 7
in making your calculation.- I believe you indicated that, at 8
least if you had reason to suspect the batch controller, you 9
would go with the reading on the strip chart; correct?.
10 A
It would either be ti.at -- and I don't recall 11 anymore if it was -- I know that we had the capability of 12 getting a digital reading of makeup tank level off the CRT on 13 the computer.
I don't remember if it was the same signal 14 that fed the strip chart fed that or not.
We may have used 15 that one for the reading.
16 Q
If you took it off the strip chart, though -- and 17 this is the question I want to ask you -- and assuming my 18 hypothetical, which has some basis in the record -- I don't 19 want to get into all that; I'm really putting to you a 20 hypothetical question:
Let's assume that the makeup tank 21 indicator is inaccurate and that when you put in 100 gallons 22 from the batch controller, and the batch controller is 23 accurate, the strip chart is going to indicate, let's say 130
()
24 gallons.
If you then take that 130 and enter that into the 25 leak rate computation as the amount that you added, you get, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
4:
<~
28286.0 BRT 2693 1
4 1
do you not, a higher leak rate than if you had entered the 2
100-gallon amount?
3-A Yes.
That would be' correct.
4 Q
So that if the makeup chart, strip chart were
'S inaccurate in that manner, by using the number from the strip 6
' chart you would be aggravating the leak rate, showing a 7
higher leak rate?
I 8
MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge'Kelley, I'm sorry to 9
interrupt but the prior testimony of the experts was that by 10 reflecting.the 130. gallons in your hypothetical rather than.
11 the 100 gallons on the batch controller, it~would result in a i
12 lower leak rate.
33 JUDGE KELLEY:
I'm going to need help.
Why is 14 that?-
15 MR. MC BRIDE:
The reason-is --
16' JUDGE KELLEY:
I would think if you lost a bunch 17 of water out of the makeup tank, that would reflect leakage; 10 right?
And the more you lose out of the tank the more the 19 leak.
4 l
20 MR. MC BRIDE:
The reason, Judge Kelley, is that 21 if you enter the 100 but the computer believes there are 130 i
22 in the tank, the computer believes that the tank has lost 23 less fluid than it, in actuality has.
j
)
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
So that the bottom line, you are 25 saying, would be a lower leak rate?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M646
. >R (sl.28286.0 BRT 2694 1
MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes, sir.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
I'm not sure.I follow all that.
I 3
suppose the testimony says what it says.
We can go back and 4
parse it.
I'm not sure I'm with you.
1 5
MR. MC BRIDE:
I don't-want to be the one to 6
testify, except to make sure that the hypothetical is 7
grounded in the record, which is the only reason for the 8
interjection.
C JUDGE KELLEY:
I understand that.
The 10 hypothetical ought to be from the record.
Could we ask 11 Mr. Capra to comment?
(-)
(,/
12 MR. CAPRA:
if you put in a lower number -- let's 13 say you put in your 100 gallons and the makeup tank strip 14 chart is showing 130 gallons, you are going to wind up, 15 obviously, with a 30-gallon difference.
16 So, if you put in the 100 gallons into the 17 calculation, you are going to wind up with a leak rate which la is lower than if you put in your 130 gallons.
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
That's what I thought.
But my 20 hypothetical that I'm trying to state involves putting in the 21 calculation 130, which is a wrong number, by 30 gallons.
8 22 JUDGE CARPENTER:
When you only put in 100.
23 MR. CAPRA:
I thought I followed what you said i_ ()
24 when you said it and I didn't see any problem with what you 25 said.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8533MM6
N-) 28286.0 BRT 2695 1
_ JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
Again, this little colloquy, 2
if it has any significance, is going to-have to stand the 3
light of theirecordLanyway andLwe'll be able to match that
-4 up, presumably.
Okay.
5 BY J'JDGE KELLEY:
6 Q
Mr. Wright, I would like to ask you a few 7
questions about the working relationship that obtained 8
between you and Mr. Coleman and Mr. Olson.
5L MR. MC BRIDE:
Excuse me, Judge Kelley, because I 10 interrupted you before you didn't get an answer from the 11 witness.
(g
.k )
' 1:2 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
13 Q
Do you agree, under the hypothetical that I gave, 14 that if the number you relied on for the amount of water 15 added to the makeup tank was 130, as erroneously shown in my 16
. hypothetical by the strip chart, then you would show a higher 17 leak rate than if'you used the accurate number of 100?-
18 A
I'm trying to do some pidgin math here~from-what I 19 can recollect how it was generated.
At first I agreed with 20 you, yes, it would show a lower leak rate.
21 Q
No, no, no.
I said it would show a higher leak 22 rate.
23 Let's make it even simpler --
()
24 A
Could I try to rephrase it?
25 Q
All right.
Sure.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
-347 3700
~...., _.., _. _. _. _. _. _... _,_. _. -, _.....
>~T ~
f%,I28286.0 BRT.
2696 1
A Okay.
Hypothetically we added 100 gallons as per 2
.the batch controller number.
3 Q
Correct.
4 A
And-we enter 100 gallons in the computer where it 5
asks water additions or something made?
6 Q
No.
You say that you may not have trusted the 7
batch controller; at least in some cases you would rely on 8
the strip chart reading, so you enter 130, which is what the 9
strip chart is telling you.
10 A
All right.
I have entered 130 gallons in the 11 computer.
And the computer cease makeup tank level -- I
.(
12 don't think it would make a difference.
13 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
14 Q
To make it-absolutely specific, the computer only 15 reads the beginning of the test and the end of the test; 16 isn't that correct?
17 A
That's say unders tanding.
18 Q
So, if, by chance at the beginning of the test the 19 strip chart record read 80 units and you added water at the 20 end of the test, and came back to 80 units, as far as the 21 computer is concerned'there was no change in water level 22 during that 60 minutes, except that you tell the computer you 23 added water.
It you overestimate how much water you added,
()
24 it seems to me you would overestimate the leak rate.
If you 25 put the 130 in there, it's going to calculate the leak rate ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6M6
(_/ 28286.0 BRT 2697 1
as corresponding to the disappearance of that '30 gallons, 1
'2 because the data it has says there's no change in the 3
inventory over the 60 minutes and that constancy of inventory 4
was produced by the addition of 130 gallons.
5 If you put in 100 gallons it would say the leak 6
rate was smaller than if you put in 130.
I'm asking the 7
question:
Isn't that true?
8 A
I don't even know how to begin to answer your 9
question.
I'm confused by what'has transpired here.
I don't 10 know how to answer that, whether the answer is yes or no at rx 11 this time.
12 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
13 Q
-Let me put it more simply --
14 JUDGE CARPENTER:
If you had a big leak, wouldn't 15 you have to put in more water?
16 THE WITNESS:
That sounds correct, yes.
17 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
18 Q
That's what I was heading toward.
If you put in 19 1000 gallons in there, even though the strip chart told'you 20 you put in 100, wouldn't that give you a pretty big leak 21 rate?
22 A
You are vibrating on the mike.
Could you 23 please --
()
24 Q
I'm frustrated because it seems to me ao simple 25 if you add what you had to have in this machine and if the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(o 336 4 46
m
- k-)28286.0 BRT 2698 1
error is on the high side it's bound to mean there's more 2
leakage in terms of this whole test.
That's what it is all 3
about.
4 A
All I cat. say at this point is I am technically 5
incompetent to answer that question right now.
I don't 6
know.
7 Q
Well, I continue to believe that the entirety of 8
the record will enable one to derive a clear answer to this 9
question.
We'll go on.
10 Let me ask you, Mr. Wright, a few questions about 11 your working relationship with Mr. Coleman and Olson.
You gs
('
12 were on shift with_them for some period of time; correct?
?
4 13 A
That's correct.
14 Q
And all of
'79, at least during -- up to the time 15 of the accident?
16 f A
I think that's correct.
17 Q
How would you describe your working relationship, 18 in general terms?
19 A
Satisfactory relationship.
20 Q
How was the communication level between the three-21 of you?
22 A
I think we --
23 Q
In a general way?
().
24 A
We communicated well.
25 Q
Any serious antagonisms such as somebody would ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
s c
ft sA 28286.0 BRT 2699:
1 avoid somebody else?
h 1!
.A No.
No.
3 Q
In terms of the leak rate test, performance of.the-4 test, could you outline -- let's put it this way.
5 on a given shift you were assigned to do a.
6
. surveillance, including leak rate, and someone else, either 7
Coleman or Olson is assigned to the panel.
Run the plant.
8 Could you describe how you would perform the leak rate test
.n terms of_your interaction with the men on the panel?
i 9
10 A
First of all, depending on the various peoples' 11 work loads and whatever they were nominally responsible for 12 on that shift, it could be that the man on the panel would, 13 himself, initiate and run the-leak rate test.
14 It could also be if I were the surveillance 15-operator that I initiated and ran it.
I would imagine it 16 could even be that the second man, depending on what his work 17 load was that given evening, could do it.
18 Q
How about the normal case, then?
Normal case, 19 normal work load?
20 A
Any one of those three cases could be true.
21 Q
I'm looking for sort of the dominant, typical mode 22 of work and not what might happen in any given day.
I assume 23 that if you are assigned and you are pulling surveillance 1
)
24 duty, that you've got the lead on the leak rate and that you 25 will be the person who is going to end up signing the sheet.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 804336 4 86
r-(_,/
28286.0 BRT 2700 1
Is that correct?
2 A
1 do not recall that that is necessarily correct 3
for a leak rate; no.
4 Q
You are saying that performance of leak rate tests 5
was not normally the primary duty of what I'm calling the 6
surveillance CRO?
7 A
The surveillance CRO would pull the sheets, he 0
would get the tech spec and other surveillances ready to run 9
throughout the shift; those that were run by aux operators, 10 he would see throughout the shift turnover or throughout the 11 shift would go to him.
The control room -- what word am I gS
\\
)
12 looking for --
13 Q
What about the leak rate test itself?
One of many 14 surveillance tests, I realize.
15 A
As I stated before, it could be run by the man, 16 the guy with the panel, the primary CRO.
It could be run by 17 the surveillance CRO.
I do not recall that any percentage of 18 the time it was run more so than another by the guy on the 19 primary or surveillance or whatever.
20 Q
You mean it might have been equally guided in 21 terms of responsibility between the surveillance person and 22 the panel person?
23 A
It may have been.
()
24 Q
In the course of running -- again, what I'm after 25 is sort of a typical,' average day or night leak rate test.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationuide Coverage 800-334 6646 i
n i ) 28286.0 m
BRT 2701
.1 Let us suppose that you are the surveillance person'on that 2
particular shift and you are going to take the lead and.see 3'
to it that a leak rate test gets performed.
How would you go 4
about that and what would your interaction be, if any, with S
the panel man?
6 A
Let's see.
With the panel operator, you would 7
make him aware that you were going to punch in the leak. rate, 8
initiate it on the computer.
By that notification, he should 9
either be aware of, if he is going to have any expected plant 10 changes he would tell you:
Don't run it now, wait until 11 I've, you know, done this or that evolution.
Or say:
- Okay, (q-
./
12 go ahead.
At which point then it would be his 13 responsibility, and all others who might decide that there 14 was-something t:ey had to do on the panel, to be cognizant of 15 the fact the leak' rate was running and try not to do anything 16 that would disturb plant conditions, try to keep them as 17 steady state as possible while the leak rate was in progress.
18 Q
Who would normally do the logging on a leak rate?
19 A
The man, what was called the primary CRO, the man 20 that kept the control room log for that shift.
21 Q
He would be who?
The panel operator?
22 A
Yes.
23 Q
What about the situation where, in the course of a
()
24 leak rate, you decide to add water to the system?
And you 25 are the surveillance guy, again, and there's somebody else ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
'28286.0 BRT 2702 1
who is-running the panel.
How would that typically be done?
2 By whom?
3 A
I think it could be done by either the-primary CRO
-4 or the surveillance CRO.
And then it would be entered in the 5
log.
6 Q
What would you say would be typical?
7 A
I hesitate to say that one would be.more typical 8
than the other.
I don't recall'that, you know, it was - :
9 that we would say:. Well, because you are the primary guy you 10-have to open the valve or whatever.
11 Q
Let me read you a quotation from a statement by 12 Dennis Olson dated October 22, 1984, page 8.
Mr..Olson says 13 it was his recollection that "the person assigned to the 14 control panel was generally responsible for adding water, 15 although this could be done by other operators.
The operator 16 assigned to the panel was also responsible for logging any 17 water additions."
18 Would you agree with that?
19 A
I would agree that the operator assigned to the 20 panel was responsible for keeping the log there for logging 21 the water additions.
I don't know that my memory coincides 22 with Mr. Olson's as far as what he said, that the primary guy 23 would, I guess the majority of the time --
()
24 Q
He said " generally responsible for adding water."
25 A
I don't know that it would be so.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
. _ ~
--Q(
./ 28286.0 BRT 2703 1
Q-You are, I assume, aware.of-the fact that 2
-Mr..Coleman, who was here yesterday, has admitted that he 3-added water to certain leak rate. tests for the purpose of 4
affecting the result of the' test; are you aware of that?
5-A Yes.
6 Q-Did he ever discuss-that with you?
7' A
No.
8 Q
Did you ever discuss with him your practices --
9 well, first, just leak rate tests generally.
Do you recall
~10 discussing leak rate tests with Mr. Coleman?
11 A
I cannot recall any specific conversations with 12 Mr. Coleman.
13 Q
Apart'from specific conversations -- I'm not 14 asking you to call back right now any particular words or 15 phrases, but over the course of time when, after all, you 16 were having -- not you personally alone, but all the 17 operators were having considerable difficulty in getting leak 18 rates under 1 gallon a minute, wasn't that problem a topic of 19 conversation on your shift?
20 A
It probably was, as well as were a lot of other i
21 things that were also problems during that period of time.
22 Q
Do you recall discussing with Mr. Olson or 23 Mr. Coleman your practices with regard to adding water on 24 leak rate?
1 25 A
No, I don't.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationuide Coverage NXF336-6M6 4-
I
?"N i,) 28286.0 s
BRT.
2704 II Q
Can you characterize your difficulties running 2
leakLrates in terms of how often you were unable to get a 3
result under 1?
Was that a frequent occurrence?
4 A
It seemed to me that from day 1 that we started 5
running leak rates that they always started presenting us 6
with a problem, getting good leak rates.
7 Q'
The description you gave of why you added water 8
about equalizing the tank,-was that something you shared with 9
Coleman and 01 son?
10 A
I do not recall ever discussing it with them.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
Follow-up questions?
gg V
~
12 MR. MC BRIDE:
No, Judge.Kelley, except that I do 13 wish to say that'I'm sorry if I'ereated any confusion 14 before' I think the record is clear that if 100 gallons of 15 water was added to the system and the operator recorded 100 16 gallons of water and the computer read 130, that the leak 17 rate test would.come out to be lower than if he had added --
10 entered 130 into the computer.
So, if I've confused you in 19 any way I think the record is clear on that.
If I misstated 20 it in any way I'm sure others can correct me.
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
Give me your statement again?
22 MR. MC BRIDE:
If you enter 100 gallons you are 23 going to get a lower leak rate than if you enter 130
{)
24 gallons.
25 JUDGE KELLEY:
Right.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
n) 28286 0 BRT 2705 1
MR. MC BRIDE:
And vice versa.
2 JUDGE CARPENTER:
The point of the question was, 3
if you add 130 it would be higher --
4 MR. MC BRIDE:
The problem with the question I was 5
understanding, I'm not sure we had it clear:
higher than 6
what?
Higher than actuality or higher than one or another 7
circumstances --
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
We never got to actuality.
We were 9
just comparing the two numbers.
We probably never will get 10 to actuality.
11 MR. MC URIDE:
I'm sorry.
I didn't want to create
,f 3
()
12 any confusion.
I just wanted things to be buttoned up.
13 MS, WAGNER:
We have, probably, just one 14 question.
(Handing.)
15 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
16 Q
Mr. Wright, on a follow-up along the lines Judge 17 Kelley was exploring, I want to be sure -- I see these leak 10 rate surveillance test sheets that have an individual 19 signature, should I have any question in my mind about who 20 actually ran the test?
If the primary operator ran the test 21 would the primary operator sign it?
22 A
I think you can say generally that would be true 23 but I don't know that it would be in all cases.
()
24 When you say "the man ran the test," he started 25 the computer program and also finished it?
That type of --
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3RU Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
7g
(_) 28206.0 BRT 2706-1 Q
Right.
And was responsible for telling the 2
computer if any water was added and so on.
3 A
No.
I don't know that you can say that is in all 4
cases true.
5 Q
We have only one question submitted by Staff, 6
which reads:
Mr. Coleman has testified that on one occasion 7
he signed and submitted to his supervisor a leak rate test 8
showing leakage in excess of 2 gallons per minute.
He 9
further testified that he was told by one of three 10 individuals who came out of the shift supervisors office, the 3
11 supervisor, in effect, "didn't want to see any more of this
)
12 shit," referring to results in excess of 1 gallon per 13 minute.
14 The question is:
Did Mr. Coleman tell you about 15 this incident?
16 A
I have no recollection of such an incident.
17 MG. WAGNER:
Judge Carpenter, I may have made an 18 error in my statement of what Mr. Coleman's testimony was.
I 19 don't think it will affect his answer in the least, but just 20 in case I did, I'm not sure Mr. Coleman testified that there 21 was leakage in excess of 2 gallons per minute.
It was 22 leakage in excess of 1.
23 MR. MC DRIDE:
I believe that to be correct, as
()
24 restated by Staff counsel.
I hesitated to make that s-25 statement without being certain about it but I believe she is ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 843346M6
7'
.(V 28286.0 i
BRT 2707 1
correct, that he did not tie it to a specific number.
2 MS. WAGNER:
I apologize for that.
3 THE WITNESS:
My answer would remain the same.
4 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you.
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
No further questions-from anyone?
6 Mr. Wright, that takes us through our questioning
'7 process.
I appreciate your coming down.
I'm sorry we got a 8
late start.
Your appearance has been helpful to us.
Thank
-9 you very much.
You are excused.
10 (Witness stood down.)
fy 11 MR. BLAKE:
Judge Kelley, while counsel are
.Q) 12 making --
13 JUDGE KELLEY:
Off the record.
14 (Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m.,
the hearing was 15 recessed, to be reconvened at 1:45 p.m.
this same day.)
16 17 18 19 i
20 21 22 23 l O.
24 25 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8aK33MI>46
F 28286.0 BRT-2708 f
1 AFTERNOON SESSION (2:20'p.m.)
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let's go back on the record.
3 MR. GEPHART:
I apologize, Judge Kelley, 4
Mr. Congdon.was in Bethesda at noon, but somehow -- Bethesda 5
is a big place and we didn't get together.
Mr. Congdon is 6
seated.
I would ask-the Board'to swear the witness.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr.-Congdon, good afternoon.
My 8-name is Kelley.
Judge Bright is on my right and Judge-9
. Carpenter is on my left.
10 Whereupon, 11 JOSEPH RAYMOND CONGDON 12 was called as a witness and, having first been duly sworn,-
13 was exami,ned and testified as follows:
14 EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. GEPHART:
16 Q
Mr. Congdon, you have a document before you 17 entitled " Prepared Statement of Joseph R.
Congdon."
18 A
Yes, I do.
19 Q
Have you and I had an ample opportunity to review 20 this statement in detail in my office at the time it was 21 prepared?
22 A
Yes, I have.
23 Q
Have you had another opportunity, just before the
()
24 hearing commenced today, to read it again?
25 A
Yes.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage Rn336-6M6
"28286.0'
'BRT 2709 1
Q Do you have, at this time, any additions or-2 corrections that you desire to make to this statement?
-3 A
No, lidon't.
4 Q
Would you adopt this statement, then,;.as;your 5-statement, to be bound into the record?.
6 A
'Yes, I-will.
7 MR. GEPHART:
I would ask, Judge Kelley, that this.
O be bound into the record at this' time.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
So ordered.
10 (The document follows:)'
11 12.
13 14-15 16
-17' 10
.19 20 21 22 23
)
24 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-34t3700 Nationwide Coverage 80lk336-6646
a s
9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I
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 JOSEPH R.
CONGDON My name is Joseph Raymond Congdon.
I currently reside in Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania.
I am currently employed by GPU Nuclear Corporation as a Shift Foreman.
served in the United States Navy from 1966 to 1973, I
I began attaining the rank of Petty Officer First Class.
1974 as an employment with Metropolitan Edison Company in Auxiliary Operator in Unit 1.
I qualified for and received my Reactor Operator's license in 1977, and was assigned as a Control Room Operator (CRO).
During 1978 and through the 1979 accident I was a CRO assigned to "C"
shift.
The shift supervisor was Brian Mehler, the shift foreman was Charles Adams, and the other control room operators were Martin Cooper and Mark Phillippe.
As a CRO, my general duties consisted of controlling plant the controls,
(
parameters and reactor power, operating overseeing the general operation of the plant, running required
(~)=
surveillances, carrying out switching and tagging operations
\\/
for maintenance and equipment and directing the work of the Auxiliary Operators.
The technical specifications in Unit 2 required that a leak rate surveillance be performed at least once every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
As a company policy, however, we attempted to run a surveillance at least once per shift.
There were times when we ran them more than once a shift, maybe twice or even more.
I believe this, frequency of performing leak rate tests was carried over from our on-the-job training in Unit 1.
I was if the unidentified leakage exceeded 1 gallon per aware that that minute, we were required to enter the action statement, is, correct the problem within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />, or commence shutting g
)
the plant down.
I thought this meant that if we did not that we were successfully complete a test within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, I did not have a lot required to go into the action statement.
of faith in the accuracy of the test, considering the size of the system, the inaccuracies built into the instruments, and in a stable condition, the problems with maintaining the plant it was the only tool we had to calibrate an integrated but number of what the overall plant leakage was.
Because I did not have a lot of faith in the test, I tended to read the results against the backdrop of my overall plant experience.
The leak rate test program provided that water could be added to the system during a leak rate test if the operator
()
accounted for it.
However, it was preferable not to add it, so -
O on our shift we tried not to make any water additions during
\\'
We used to put signs up on the makeup tank level the test.
recorder to alert the other operators that a leak rate was in progress.
I was aware in 1978 and 1979 of the administrative procedure which required the completion of Exception and Deficiency reports (E & D's) on surveillances, and I understand that this procedure applied to the leak rate test.
I do not recall even using this with leak rate tests which I believed to be inaccurate or unreliable, but cannot explain why, without addressing a specific situation.
and we did We were also required to log leak rate tests, so, when they were satisfactory.
We did not log on the
}
beginning and ending times of the tests, and I believe my understanding at the time was that this was not a requirement on surveillances that were run more frequently than once a week.
On my shift, we did not retain leak rate tests where the unidentified leakage was greater than 1 gpm.
Typically, I would discard those tests where there was obviously an error, such as an inadvertent addition of water, or a power change, or some other reason the plant was not stable during the If there was no apparent reason to performance of the test.
believe the test was not as accurate as it could be, I would consult with my shift foreman, and run another test.
It is my recollection that we would retain out-of-spec tests untti we l
3_
f~h then either the shift foreman or I k/
got a satisfactory result, would discard them.
Sometime during 1978 or 1979, I became aware that hydrogen additions sometimes would have an effect on the makeup tank level indication.
It might make it go up or make it go down, and sometimes it had no effect on it.
At one point, we and marked the strip chart when the addition was experimented, made to note the experiment, but I cannot recall whether it had any effect on the result.
I do not recall who ran this test with me, but my best recollection was that it was Charles I cannot be certain that Adams was Adams, my shift foreman.
aware of the hydrogen phenomenon, but I believe he was because we operated very close together, and I had no reason to conceal it from him, since I did not think I was doing anything wrong.
I do not have any recollection of any conversations with Adams or Brian Mehler, my shift supervisor, about hydrogen.
I did the time that the addition of hydrogen during a not believe at I never tried to hide it.
In fact, I leak rate was wrong.
logged those additions every time I made them.
believe that I leak rates, I Although we had difficulties in obtaining felt we were operating the plant in an unsafe condition.
neve:
There was plenty of capability built into the plant to and there accommodate leakage up to several hundred gallons, were other parameters you could use to observe the plant to determine wh,ther it was operating safely.
We were very e
take our
()
observant of all these parameters because we did not responsibilities lightly.
,fm
(_) 28286.0 BRT 2710 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Congdon, the Board will be 2
putting questions to you this afternoon; depending on how we 3
get along, tomorrow morning.
We are going to have to quit at 4
3:30, so we only have an hour or so this afternoon.
I want 5
to begin with a short statement that I have been reading to 6
witnesses to provide them with some context, from the Board's 7
standpoint.
I will do tha t firs t and we'll pass on to some 8
questions.
9 The Board has been charged by the Commission to 10 determine the extent of involvement of individual employees 11 at TMI-2 in '70 and '79 in leak rate test manipulation and 12 other improper practices in leak rate testing.
This is your 13 opportunity to state on the record your recollections and 14 your perceptions about your involvement in leak rate testing 15 at that time, and to rebut any adverse statements about you 16 that other employees or investigators may have made with 17 which you disagree.
r 10 We have reviewed your prefiled testimony and we 19 considered it in the light of the record that has already 20 been developed in the proceeding.
We'll have questions for 21 you based on your testimony and upon your prior s tatements 22 that are already in the record.
23 We may also have questions based on statements
()
24 that other employees at TMI-2 have made about you, either 25 previously or in testimony prepared for this proceeding, and ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 3c-37m Nationwide cperage IKn33uu6
c -
4 28286.0' BRT 2711 1
upon assessments-that investigat' ors and technical experts 2
have made about your participation in-leak rate activities.
3 As I think_you know, there were already two 4
extensive studies-about TMI-2 leak rate procedures in the 5
record:
One complied by Mr. Stier, whose people,'I believe, 6
interviewed you; and another by the NRC Staff, 7
representatives of which also interviewed you.
The Stier 8
study includes analyses of every leak rate test conducted at 9
TMI-2 tlurt was retained; that is to say not thrown.away.
And 10 the NRC study includes analyses of every retained test during the last six months of operation.
11 12 The Board has already heard extensive. technical-13 testimony on leak rate testing questions, including testimony 14 elicited by your counsel on numerous particular tests.
In 15 these circumstances, the Board does not propose to review 16 with you each and every test in which the investigative 17 studies indicate you were involved.
Those studies had been 18 available to you through counsel and you were free to discuss 19 particular tests in your prepared testimony if you chose to 20 do so.
21 We may ask questions about some particular tests; 22 for example, the Stier or NRR analyses, if they indicate 23 manipulation in a test or where something unique or unusual
()
24 appears to be reflected in the record.
But, apart from that 25 analyses of particular tests, whether or not discussed here ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 37a)
Nationwide Coserage RXA336-6M6
(_je28286.0 BRT 2712 1
today,-will'be considered in light of the entire record, 2
including your testimony.
3 I'll pass, now, to questions that we would like to 4
begin with.
5 EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD 6
BY JUDGE KELLEY:
7 Q
My questions, for the most part, grow out of your 8
two rather lengthy statements that you made to the NRR 9
investigators and also to Mr. Stier's representative.
Let me 10 ask you, first, to open up the NRR interview.
I'll. identify 11 that.
It took place on January 29, 1985, in Harrisburg.
You 12 were interviewed by Mr. Christopher, Mr. Russell, and 13 Mr. Capra and Mr. Gephart and -- Messrs. Gephart and Boyd 14 were there as your counsel.
15 Do you have a copy of that?
16 A
Yes, I do.
17 Q
Fine.
On pages 12 and 13, just for the sake of a 18 general overview of how you conducted leak rate tests, would 19 you read, beginning on page 12, line 13, down through line 20 20 of the next page?
Just take a minute to do that, beginning 21 with the phrase, "just to give a kind of general overview to 22 start with" and so forth. You begin by saying, "Okay."
Are 23 you with me?
()
24 A
Yes.
You just mean read this over silently?
25 Q
Read it over silently, yes.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m m.,-
s_ m, r_...
28286.0 BRT 2713 1
A Okay.
2 (Discussion off the record.)
3 THE WITNESS:
Okay.
4 DY JUDGE KELLEY:
5 Q
Does that appear to you to be accurate now, as you 6
reread it?
7 A
Yes, sir.
8 Q
I recognize there might be exceptions, where 9
different people do different things, but as you are speaking 10 to, as a general rule, how these tests were performed; is f
11 that correct?
12 A
That's correct.
13 Q
I would ask you a rather general question about 14 training and training specifically having to do with 15 performance of leak rate tests.
Do you recall what the 16 nature of your introduction to leak rate tests was in 17 training and performing leak rate tests?
l 18 A
To the best of my recollection it was through the 1
{
19 on-shift training that we received as trainees in Unit 1 i
)
20 prior to licensing and through our licensing training 21 program.
i 22 Q
You were a trainee on Unit I?
I 23 A
As part of our cold licensing training for Unit 2
{
()
24 we spent five weeks, I believe it was, on shift in Unit 1.
l 25 Jus t as an observer, in,a training status, to observe the 1
L ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 347 1700 Nationaide Coserage 853)M4:6
o
(_) 28287.0 BRT 2714 1
shift routine.
2 Q
Do you recall whether, as a part of that process 3
-- this would have been, I guess, 10 years or so ago -- you 4
focused any particular attention on leak rate tests?
S A
No, I don't, sir.
6 Q
As a part of your train'ing, you also had some 7
classroom training, I take it, did you not?
8 A
That's correct.
9 Q
Did the classroom part of the training address 10 surveillance tests in -- particularly?
Did it address leak 11 rates, to your recollection?
g-)
\\J 12 A
No.
Not to my recollection, sir.
13 Q
Did you believe that the leak rate test as you 14 actually experienced running it on a day-to-day basis, did 15 you believe it was a reliable indicator of actual leakage in 16 the plant?
17 A
No.
I did not believe that it was extremely 18 reliable.
I believe it was the best tool we had to give us a 19 number or integrated value for plant leakage, but I used it 20 tempered with the awareness of dif ferent instrumentation that 21 we normally reviewed and kept close track of in operating the 22 plant.
23 0
When you got a leak rate test resul t, did you make
()
24 an effort to analyze whether it was a reasonable, reliable 25 number, by comparing it to other plant parameters, for ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37(U Nationwide Coverage MD-33MM6
V 28287.0 BRT 2715 1
example?
2 A
Yes.
I believe we would, sir.
3 Q
Could you turn to page 29 of that same statement.
4 Picking up on line 5, with the question to you that begins:
5
" Question:
Do you have any rationalization or 6
recall - " et cetera.
7 A
Okay.
8 Q
That seems to suggest that your approach -- and 9
I'm not meaning to suggest that that was true throughout the 10 entire time -- but at least at some time was to simply accept n
11 a reading under 1 and throw away a reading over 1, without V
12 analysis of its accuracy.
Is that fair?
13 A
I think there were periods of time when the faith 14 in the test was such -- was so poor that we did discard those 15 with leakage greater than 1, run another one; and it was kind 16 of an ongoing process to try to get what we believed was a 17 valid leak rate.
18 Q
Were you really looking for a valid leak rate in 19 the sense of accurate?
Or just a valid leak rate in the 20 sense that it said the leakage was less than 17 21 A
My recollection would be that it the plant's 22 parameters did not indicate that we had a substantial -- had 23 a leak rate problem, and if we were consistently getting 24 numbers that were not consistent, it was a gut feeling that 25 they were unreliable and not true.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm.m.,
s.e_ m r_...
D.
(_/ 28287.0 BRT 2716 1
Q Whether above or under 17 Whatever they were in 2
that period of time?
Is that what you are suggesting?
3 A
That's true.
They could --
4 Q
So, if you were having a tough time, you were in a 5
situation where -- let's say you had run two or three leak 6
rate tests and you were 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br /> into the 72-hour period and 7
you got a test, then, that came in under 1.
Would you just 8
file it and say " valid test" or " acceptable test," or would 9
you analyze the number?
10 A
I believe we'd just file it as a successful test.
11 Q
Successful in the sense it's less than I?
'12 A
Yes.
13 Q
I would like you to take a few minutes, here, and 14 read a somewhat longer segment of this statement, beginning 15 on page 44.
Just by way of background, do you recall that 16 there was a LER issued by the company in -- I believe 17 actually it might have been November 1st, but the events la occurred in mid-October, when Inspector Haverkamp came on the 19 premise and in the control room saw some leak rate test 20 results showing results in excess of 1 and that then led to 21 discussion and eventually this LER.
Do you know what LER I'm 22 talking about?
23 A
Yes, sir.
()
24 Q
The segment of the statement there that I'm going 25 to ask you to read, you'll immediately see, has to do with i
I ACE-FEDER.AL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide roverage 804)h(6m
+.. _...
.. ~
28287.0 BRT
~2717 1
that LER and what its impact was, particularly on your shift 2
and'the people you immediately worked with.
If you would
.3 just take a few minutes to read that over, I will want to ask 4
you a few things about it.
5 I'm not sure if I was clear.
I was asking you to 6
go down to page 51, line 17.
Okay?
7 A
Yes.
J l
8 Q
Have you had a chance to do that?
j 9
A Not quite there.
10 Okay.
11 Q
Okay.
The LER itself, documents associated with 12 it, including the sign-off sheet, I think, that's referred to 13 in here, they are all exhibits in the case already.
We have j.
14 had some testimony about that.
15 I wanted to look at it,.really, from your 16 perspective and your experience.
17 The LER -- and I may oversimplify a little bit, i
10 but the LER said, in effect, this notion that you only need
^
19 one good one every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> is an incorrect interpretation of 20 the tech specs and that if you got a test showing leakage in i
21 excess of a gallon a minute and there wasn't some obvious 22 reason why it was invalid, that you ought to go on the action 23 statement at that point.
That was the thrust of it.
24 Apparently the operators at that time, most of 25 them, at Icast, thought as long as you got a good one every l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37tn Noionwide roverage Wn33MM6
)
/~}
-(_/'28287.0 BRT-2718 1
72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />,-you were okay.
Now, the LER was supposed to lead 2
to instruction to the operators.
3 This' refers to some extent -- and you discuss here 4
to some extent, what you got out of that._
But could you tell 5
me again'in your own words what your recollection of this 6
event is?
First of all, did you change your practice with 7
regard to throwing away tests and turning in an action 8
statement as a result of this LER?
9 A
My recollection of the LER is pretty vague, as far 10 as thinking back to that period of time.
Most of my 11 knowledge of it is knowledge that I have gained over the O.
12 years since that time.
13 With regard to what impact did it have on the way 14 I interpreted the tech spec, I don't believe that it changed.
15 my interpretation.
The LER, itself, didn't stand out in my 16 mind as anything significant.
I have a very vague 17 recollection of it.
18 Q
Do you recall signing off the sign-off sheet?
19 A
I don't recall actually signing it off but I know 20 I did sign it off.
j 21 Q
All right.
Do you think -- what is your best 22 recollection as to whether this was a sheet of paper you 23 looked at that was in a three-rino notebook, let's say, or
()
24 something, some kind of oral presentation by your foreman or 25 supervisor or someone concerning this LER?
Was there any 1
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m m.m,
~ _ m m.....
u-
q
_)
28287.0 s
BRT 2719 1
such presentation made, as far as you recall?
2 A
I don't recall any oral presentation as far as the 3
LER itself.
4 Q
Okay.
Now let's look at the bottom of 46, and 5
following that, where the interviewers here referred you to 6
some statements by Mr. Cooper.
" Cooper says that his shift 7
was not instructed in the reqtirements of the applicable 8
sections of the tech specs or in the requirement to 9
immediately invoke the tech spec action statement when the 10 associated limiting conditions for operation was exceeded."
11 And then you say much to the same effect that you 12 just did, you don't recall specific instructions at this 13 point, anyway, or at that time.
14 Now, Cooper, though, in the next half a dozen 15 lines says this, being paraphrased by the questioner:
16 Beginning with reference to this LER, the only instruction 17
" Cooper received following the October 18, 1979 incident 18 associated with the LER, was to ensure that bad leak rate 19 surveillance sheets were thrown away and not left lying 20 around the control room where the NRC could find them."
21 And then the question to you is:
22
" Question:
Were you ever given that direction?"
23 And then you are interrupted with the further I) 24 question:
1
\\~/
25
" Question:
I think you are telling me that the way ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
u.-a-,,
7~} 28287.0
(/
BRT 2720 1
1 you handled unacceptable leak rate tests by throwing them 2
away never changed from before the incident to after-the 3
incident but were you instructed to be more careful by 4
saying, don't save all these unacceptable leak rate tests.
5 When they are unacceptable, throw them away."
And you 6
responded to:
"Yes, or something in that regard."
7 What is your recollection now in that regard, 8
about being instructed to-throw tests away?
9 A
I-can't recall those instructions or the 10 circumstances at which Marty refers to.
That briefing may 4
11 have taken place, but I don't recall it taking place.
I 12' think I may have been on the panel, possibly.
I don't really 13 have a good explanation of why I don't recall the briefing 14 but I don't really have a recollection of that briefing 15 taking place.
16 Q
On page 38 at the top you say you don't have a l
17 real strong recollection of the briefing because you think i
18 you may have been on the panel but then you add, "but I do 19 recall that statement being made."
20 Does "that statement" refer to a statement that i
21 tests ought to be thrown away?
22 A
I recall that statement.
The statement itself 23 stands out in my mind but I can't associate the
()
i 24 circumstances, when I initially heard it.
25 0
When I read this I had the impression that you l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
20L347-37tU Nationwide Coverage 80k336-(M6
+
k._/
28287.0 BRT 2721 1
were recalling a statement being made at this time you 2
referred to, when you think you were on the panel, when you 3
think some shift briefing took place.
Do all those fit 4
together?
Or are these somehow disconnected?
5 A
No.
I agree with what the testimony -- how the 6
testimony reads.
That's my best recollection.
7 Q
So that your statement, whoever made it, it was 8
made at that time?
Is that what I -- do I understand you 9
correctly?
10 A
That, to the best of my recollection, is true.
11 Q
Okay.
Then you were asked:
"Who would have, on (g
G' 12 that briefing, made those kinds of statements?"
13 You say, "As I recall, I think it was Brian 14 Mehler" -- is that the correct pronunciation?
Mehler?
15 A
Yes.
16 0
" shift supervisor."
17 So, do you have a specific recollection now that 18 Mr. Mehler would have made those statements?
Conducted that 19 briefing?
20 A
My recollection is basically -- basically agrees 21 with my previous testimony.
I don't have any better 22 recollection of it, of that incident.
23 Q
Can you provide any further details?
Was it day
()
24 or night?
Was Mehler wearing a red shirt or green shirt, 25 that kind of stuff?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37(O Nationwide Coserage R&33MM6
c.
l i
-l 2'8287.0'
-BRT 2722 1
1 A
No, I can't, sir.
i 2
.Q Anything that would put a little more flesh on.the 3
whole thing?
4
-A
'I'm sorry, I can't.
5 Q
It goes on for a couple of more pages on the same 6
general subject.
Having read that again, does that still 7
seem to be accurate in your mind?
8 A
Yes, sir.
9 Q
I won't pick it apart line by line.
I just -- all 10 right.
I'm going to ask you to read another section here, if 11 you would.
Turn to page 55.
Starting about in the middle of O-12 the page, about line 11 with the phrase, "As the time of the 13 accident approached - " and so forth.
If you would take a 14 few minutes to read up through 56, through 57 to, say line 10 15 on page 50.
16 MR. MC BRIDE:
Excuse me, Judge Kelley, how far 17 did you say?.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
58, line 10.
You might also look 19 at 59, lines 7 through 21.
20 (Discussion off the record.)
21 Tile WITNESS:
Okay, sir.
22 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
23 Q
So the general thrust of that section, as I 24 understand it, is it was suggested to you that there was a 25 period of time, let's say a couple of months before the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 Nat:onwide Coverage 85334fM6
-3 7(n- -.
I
, ~\\
k / 28287.0 BRT 2723 1
accident, that, even January through March, where leakage was 2
relatively high and suggestion is that there was some feeling 3
among operators that some feit that the plant should be shut 4
down but that there was also a contrary feeling that it was 5
the kind of a thing that should be handled at a plant outage 6
and they should try to keep Unit 2 going until after number 1 7
went back up.
That's very general, but is that a fair sort 8
of thumbnail sketch at least what this is about?
9 A
Yes, sir.
10 Q
Could you, in your own words now, speak to that 11 and tell us whether you were aware of that kind of thinking, G
12 the thinking that said:
Let 's keep i t going until number 1 13 comes back up; and your own view about that?
Particularly, 14 whether in the leak rate context, you felt that put any 15 pressure on you to somehow come up with an under 1 reading so 16 that you could keep running?
17 A
I believe through that period of time that it was 18 definitely more difficult to operate the plant, in the sense, i
19 as an operator, because you were required to continually be 20 making up to the makeup tank.
It was more difficu]t to 21 obtain a satisfactory leak rate.
I don't recall, really, 22 considering that I wished they would shut down and fix the 23 problems now.
I think I more or less accepted the judgment i
24 of my superiors, in that when a plant outage was planned, you 25 know, it would be dealt with.
But I believe I was looking ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37( A)
Nationwide rmerage M)-3%(M6
,y C 28287.0 BRT 2724 1
forward to when they would, when the outage would come, 2
because it would have made our day-to-day life a lot easier 3
in the control room because we would not have to deal with 4
the constant makeup and the inability to get a leak rate 5
calculation performed with relative ease.
6 Q
This attitude of keeping the plant going at the 7
time, can you recall where that was coming from?
Was it 8
coming from your supervision, for example?
9 A
I can't recall specifically where it was coming 10 from.
It is my recollection that would have been coming from 11 the higher supervision, management icvol, that would make the U
12 decision on whether or not to shut down for an outage or the 13 timing of the outage and other concerns.
14 Q
You don't have any direct knowledge of that, 15 though?
16 A
No, sir, I don't.
17 Q
Was there ever a time when you might go to your 18 foreman and say:
This place is just too leaky, it ought to 19 be shut down.
And he might say:
No, no, we are going to do 20 it on a planned basis two months from now, so just keep it 21 going.
2 ;.
Did any discuss.lon of that nature ever occur?
23 A
No, sir.
24 Q
I would like to ask you a few questions about 25 hydrogen additions, now.
As I understand your testimony and ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-e
~m_ m c_.,
4
.28287.0 BRT 2725 1
'your prior statements, there were times, I believe in early 2
'79, where you would be running a. test (n-be involved in a 3
test, or as the panel man, one or the other,.and you were r
-4 aware of the fact that by adding hydrogen during a test you 5
could get a higher reading on the strip chart and therefore a j
6 lower leak rate result?
7 A
Yes, I was aware that sometimes when you did add j
8 hydrogen it would affect the makeup tank level trend.
l 9
Sometimes it would not but there was a possibility it would f
f 10 affect it.
11 Q
Was there a time when you performed -- I believe
{
12 there was, you testified to this -- what you called an 13 experiment on adding hydrogen in the course of a leak rate i
14 test, along with Mr. Adams; is that correct?
15 A
That's my recollection, my_best_ recollection.
I 16 can't be absolutely certain about it.
j 17 Q
I would like to ask you to take a look at a
{
10 particular test.
Counsel, do you have NRR test 120?
19 MS. WAGNER:
We've a copy in front of him.
j
~
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
Stier test 38.
21 MR. MC DRIDE:
That I've got him -- for him more 22 readily.
I've got that right here, your flonor.
(llandi ng. )
l 23 Do you mind if I look over his shoulder?
()
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
Not at all.
I'm looking at NRR 25 test number 120.
The date is February 15, 1979, time is 2025 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3?(O Nationwide Covvtage 804 3 % 6646 1
/~'s
(_,!
28287.0 BRT 2726 1
-- 8:25 p.m.
2 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes, sir.
We've got the same test 3
in front of us.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay._ Excuse me just a moment.
5 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
6 Q
You talk about a test in this vein, on page 4 of 7
your prefiled testimony, Mr. Congdon.
I would just like to 8
establish, if I can, '4hich particular test was involved.
And 9
the NRR analysis, ar.ong other things, notes that in this 10 particular test, first of all, if you look at the strip chart 11 you can see a place where, according Lo their analysis, V( s, 12 hydrogen was added.
The bottom of the analysis says 13
" hydrogen'added at 2100."
14 Then, it cross-references the CR0 log, with the 15 notation, " pressurized MUT."
16 If you turn back, just the preceding page, as a 17 matter of fact, you'll see a Xerox copy of the CHO log.
At 18 2100 the words are written in, "added" -- I don't know if 19 that's "H"
or "f!2" -
"to MUT-1."
20 Do you follow me on that yet?
21 A
I haven't located the spot in the log yet, sir.
22 Q
Right.
Okay.
23 You were on the log; is that right?
24 A
Hight.
25 Q
The handwriting on the rest of the page, except ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
fm.n.
~.y _, g...
gu-
.=
l
)128287.0 BRT 2727 1
for the 2100 entry, is that your handwriting?
2' A
What I have here is the shift foreman log.
I need 3
the CRO log.
Yes, sir, that's my handwriting.
4 0
Okay.
You' signed-it at the bottom.
4 S
What about the handwriting entry at 2100.
"Added 6
H" --
7 MR. MC BRIDE:
Excuse me, the sheet we have 8
associated with NRR test 126 has his handwriting at the top.
9 Are we looking at the wrong page?
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
I'm looking at 120.
We'll go off 11 the record for a minute.
12 (Discussion off the record.)-
13 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
4 l
14 Q
We are looking at test 120, dated February 15, IS 1979.
In the NRR compilation of exhibits it's the last page 1
16 from the log.
Mr. Congdon's signature is at the very end, 17 following an entry at 2200 which says, " completed releasing 10 WDL."
19 What I wanted you to look at was the entry, third 20 from the bottom, 2100:
"Added" -- again, I don't know 21 whether that is "H" or "H2."
But, in any event, "H" and a 22 squiggle "to MUT-1 at 2100."
23 Let me ask you again, since I don't think we are
()
24 looking at the same log, the handwriting on that page or 25 printing, as much much it is, is it all yours?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80 4 336-6646
s._/
28287.0
.BRT 2728 1
A Yes, it is, sir.
2 Q
' Including.the entry at 2100?
3 A
Yes, it is.
4 Q
The "added H2" is your handwriting also?
5 A
Yes, it is.
J 6
MR. BLAKE:
Judge Kelley,-did you ask him whether 7
all the handwriting on that page was his?
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
Yes.
9 MR. BLAKE:
And the answer was yes?
e 10 JUDGE KELLEY:
Yes.
i 3
11 THE WITNESS:
I would like to correct that, from i
12 the 1523 entry to where my name is to where my name appears 13 at the bottom of the page.
14 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
15 Q
Is that "Booher" up above?
16 A
Yes, sir..
17 Q
He would be on the prior shift?
{
18 A
That's correct.
I relieved him at 1523.
i 19 Q
All right.
Well, let me at this stage confess a i.
l 20 little confusion.
I'm looking at the Staff -- at the NRR 21 report, at the enclosure pertaining to Mr. Congdon and I'm on 22 page 4 where this test is discussed.
It refers to test 120.
23 One thing I'm unclear about is that it says test
()
24 120 is annotated with the words, " pressurized MUT," which I 25 have not been able to find.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coscrage 800-336-6646
I O
.(,/
20287.0 BRT-2729 1
MR. CAPRA:
-Sir, that's on the strip chart 2
itself.
'3 JUDGE KELLEY:
On the strip chart itself?. Well, 4
let's look at the strip chart.
Okay.
5 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
6 Q
The strip chart itself does have some words 7
written on it.
Looking at the top at about, I guess between 8
11:00 and 12:00 midnight, there are the words " pressurized 9
MUT."
As best I can work out, underneath that, a seeming 10 parenthetical, "C.
Adams," and something unreadable" and a 11 close paren.
.O.
12 Having been involved in this test, Mr. Congdon, 13 can you explain those words?
14 A
What I believe occurred is at that time frame I 15 had heard something to the effect that hydrogen did have an 16 effect on makeup tank level indication.
I thought it might 17 be good to attempt to pressurize it and note what effect it 18 did have.
In the course of doing that, to the best of my 19 recollection, Chuck suggested why don't we mark the chart at 20 that point, so we referenced what time we actually add the 21 hydrogen.
And I proceeded to log it in the book and, to my 22 best recollection, Chuck made that notation on that chart.
I 23 might be wrong on that.
()
24 Q
The notation that we are looking at right now that 25 says, " pressurized MUT"?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 447-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80r 346M6
~.
4 s.
'28287.0 BRT 2730 1
A That's correct, sir.
2 Q
Can you read for me the'-- I gather that's a word
-3.
after -- it seems-to say "C.
Adams"; is that correct?
14
'A I don't believe that's on the original.
I don't S
b'elieve.his name is on the original.
Otherwise there would 6
be no discussion.
7 MR. CAPRA:
Judge Kelley, may.I make a comment?
1 8
JUDGE KELLEY:
Please do.
Mr. Capra may-be able 9
to help us.
10 MR. CAPRA:
The pressurized makeup-tank is written i
O 11 up and down vertically on the strip chart.
You can barely 12 read it, at least on this particular copy.
You can also 13 barely read it on Mr. Stier's.
14 The part that' you can read, not very well, that 15 says, " pressurized MUT," with a parenthetical phrase Chuck --
16-or "C.
Adams."
And then the next word not very clear is i
17 "wri ting. "
" Chuck Adams' writing."
That was put on the 18 strip chart by me.
The original writing is the one that' goes 19 vertical, sir.
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
The parenthetical 21 phrase was written on this chart by Mr. Capra.
22 MR. CAPRA:
And the words in the quotation marks, P:
23
" pressurized makeup tank," and the little arrow to the left.
()
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
That too, is written in by you?
25-Is there anything on this piece of paper written 7
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
210-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
N MW
()'28287.0
' BRT 2731 1
in by -- by anybody?
2-MR. CAPRA:
-Yes, sir.
Between the two vertical 3
lines, 2026 and 2126, you cannot see it very clearly, but 4
there is some handwriting there.
That handwriting says, S
" pressurized MUT."
6 MR. BLAKE:
Judge Kelley you might contrast.it 7
with the Stier report 38, same strip chart, and come to an 8
understanding.
9 MR. MC BRIDE:
That's what I was showing you.
We l
10 can show Judge Kelley the strip chart in the Stier volume for 11 the'same test; Stier test 38 has a slightly expanded version r3 V
12 of the strip chart and on this expanded version of the strip 13 chart you can make out some lines.
But they didn't reproduce i
14 well.
15-JUDGE KELLEY:
This?
16 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes, sir.
We are now pointing to 17 the writing on the chart below the arrow which is in -- which 18 is a vertical arrow, below the words, "NRC to allege 4-inch 19 hydrogen addition."
But you can't make out the words on the 20 strip chart.
l l
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
Does Mr. Blake have a comment?
l 22 MR. BLAKE:
The words, as I understand it, on_the l
23 Stier exhibit were written on there by MPR, simply to aid the t ()
24 reader.
That is, those that appear up above the strip 25 chart.
It is just to aid you in understanding what is very l
l i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433MM6 L
A
f')\\.
(_
28287.0 BRT 2732 1
difficult to read on this copy.
And I agree with Mr. Capra, 2
that apparently what appeared on the original strip chart,
.3 written vertically, were those words that both NRC and Steve 4
have tried.to interpret and have written over or on top of, 5
to aid the panel in understanding.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Is there any dispute among counsel 7
that those words are written on the chart?
8 MR. GEPHART:
" Pressurized MUT"?
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
Yes.
.10 MR. GEPHART:
No.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
So that's not disputed, in O.
12 somebody's-handwriting.
13 MR. GEPHART:
That's correct.
14 JUDGE KELLEY:
If we wanted to pursue the matter, 15 ideally I guess we'd see the original.
Short of that --
16 okay.
That clarifies the status of things, anyway.
17 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
18 Q
Mr..Congdon, this particular strip chart and set 19 of papers relating to test 120 we have,been looking at, do 20 those papers appear to reflect the test that you had in mind 21 when you spoke of your experiment with hydrogen?
22 A
Yes, they do.
4 f
23 Q
Okay.
Now, recognizing that the papers we have
()
24 here don't reflect signatures very well, is it your f
25 recollection that Mr. Adams wrote the words " pressurized MUT" ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6M6 t.
28287.0 l
-BRT 2733 1
right on the chart?
2 A
That's my recollection, sir.
2 3
Q Apart from'the handwriting on the chart,.are there 4
other aspects of this particular test and its performance 5~
involving you and Adams and, I gather, you were on the log
.f 6
and the actual person who signed it as operator was Cooper.
7 Does that stand out in your mind that sets it apart from 8
other leak rate tests?
After all, it was an experiments.
Do 9
you recall conversations that may have occurred in connection 10 with that?
11 A
I don't recall any real significance of the test.
(
12.
I recognize that somewhere through the hearing process, we 13 identified it as what we have alleged-it to be, a test -- I'm-14 not.uure_of Chuck's. full awareness of his full participation d
15 or whatever.
But the idea was that we would try to confirm 16 what we had heard -- what I had heard about the possible 17 effect of hydrogen on makeup tank trend.
l~
18 Q
Looking at this particular experiment and looking 19 at the strip chart, how would you characterize the 20 experiment?
Successful?
Unsuccessful?
Promising?
l 21 Disappointing?
l l
22 A
Looking at the strip chart right at this time it l-23 appears that it did have an effect on the makeup tank trend h
24 in that it leveled it out.
So it would -- I would say, 25 looking at it now, that it did have an effect -- hydrogen did ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
- 28287.0
-()BRT 2734 1
have an effect on that particular makeup tank level at that 2
particular time.
3 Q
So,iif the purpose of the experiment was to see 4
whether a hydrogen injection of this sort could give you a 5
better leak rate, would you characterize the experiment as 6
promising?
7 A
Looking at the strip chart, that information at 8
this time, I would say yes, because of the fact that it.did 9
-reflect in a change in the trend.
The slope, downward slope' 10 was leveled off.
11 Q
Do you recall any discussion at the time, say
(}
12 between you and Adams?
13 A
tha, I don't, sir.
14 Q
Well, it seems if you were doing what you thought 15 of in your own mind as an experiment, and apparently so did 16 he, wouldn't the result be of enough interest to talk about?
17 A
That's probably-a safe assumption but:I don't 18 recall ever discussing the results of it.
i 19 Q
Just walked away from it?
You are not saying
~
1 20 that; you are saying you don't recall.
All right.
21 A
Yes.
22 Q
Do you recall anything about Cooper's 23 participation in the experiment?
24 A
No, sir, I don't.
25 Q
But based on the assignment of responsibilities ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6 g'
1
'28287.0-I) BRT 2735 V:
1 that normally prevailed between the man on the panel and the-2 man doing surveillances, I would infer that he was probably 3
involved in it.
He signed the test.
4 A
I don't recall him being involved in it.
I know 5
he was present in the control room at that time.
But I 6
cannot recall his degree of involvement or awareness of what 7
we were doing.
8 Q
So you think this, this test could have been run!
9 and what was done could have been done without:his knowledge 10 and participation?
11 A
I think it's a possibility that he didn't
/~'
12 participate in it.
Probably he, at one time or another, V.
13 would observe that, you know,.the strip chart had been 14 marked.
But I really can't say to what degree he was aware 15 of what we were doing at this time.
16 Q
'Wouldn't that have been sort of a marked departure 17 from the usual practice, though?
The usual practice being, 18 as I understand it, that the panel man and the surveillance 19 man keep each other informed and if one does something to 20 affect an ongoing test he tells the other one.
Isn't that 21 pretty routine?
22 A
That was a matter of routine on our shift.
That's v
23 true.
For example, whenever we would make water additions, 24 if there was a water addition in progress you would put a
(
25 little sign on the batch controller to flag that to the man ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433MM6
4.
(_
28287.0
) BRT 2736 1
on the panel.
But it's hard to say what else, you know, was 2
going on in the control room at that time.
3 There were a lot of activities; leak rate was just 4
one of them.
5 It's just hard to -- I-just don't recall all that 6
was going on.
I don't recall Marty's involvement.
The only-7 portion of it I do recall is I think it was Chuck who made l
3 8
the notation on it, on the strip chart.
4 9
12 But it appears to me,'looking at the strip chart, 10 if I'm reading it correctly, there was a rather marked l
11 stabilizing effect on the' trace when this occurred which
}
12 carried through to the end of the test; wliich would have had 13 a fairly significant impact on what the test showed; isn't' 14 that right?
15 A
Looking at it now.
But I think in light of that 16 day, I don't think it had a very significant impact to me 17 because I didn't -- wasn't thinking that, first of all, that
}
18 there was anything wrong with making the hydrogen addition, 19 and considering its effect -- because I located it in the log
-20 that I did make the addition -- and it was just in a kind of 21 discovery mode where I was trying to make up my own mind, a
22 judgment as to what effect it did have.
It wasn't 23 significant --
1 24 Q
The actual test came in
.93.
So you were just 25 sort of under the wire, so to speak.
e
(
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
+
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
~, _ - - _. -, _, - -... _. -. _,.. _.. _ -
28287.0 a[_sE BRT 2737 1
A-Yes.
2 Q
And -- I'm not a professional strip chart _ reader, 3
but it would seem to me that the effect of.the hydrogen here 4
made the difference..That this would have been a test over 1 5
if you hadn't put the hydrogen.in.
Doesn't it look that 6
way?
Assuming.this leveling here is. artificial?
7 A
I think you can make that judgment; yes, sir.
8 Q
And in effect told the computer that there's more.
9 water down there than there really was; it looks to me like 10 that would make the difference.
Doesn't that appear to be 11 the case?
(}
12 A
Yes,'it was, sir.
13 Q
And yet here is Cooper running this test and 14 signing the test and you and Adams are putting hydrogen in 15 and not telling him about it.
It seems odd to me.
16 A
As I mentioned before, in my thinking at that time 17
-- certainly it's different hoa I think about it today.
But 18 at that time I didn't think there was anything wrong with 19 putting hydrogen in the makeup tank other than when it was 20 needed.
We were required to maintain a certain overpressure 21 and that was the initial reason why we put the hydrogen in.
22 I didn't think there was anything wrong putting-it in.
There 23 were no words in the procedure, to my mind, that prohibited i
24 me from putting hydrogen in.
I didn't treat it as a chemical
(
25 and I certainly would never put water in, in the makeup tank ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 2 336 6646
28287.0 I )<BRT 2738 U
1
.during a test.
2 Q
But didn't you know that it would have the effect 3
of producing a false test?
4 A
At that particular time I wasn't sure about what 5
the effect of the hydrogen was.
But, certainly, if it did 6
make the makeup tank trend go up, as it did, or level it out, 7
it would affect the makeup test or the leak rate test, that's 8
true.
9 Q
Let me read you a segment of Mr. Adams' prefiled 10 testimony in this case.
I'm quoting:
"One of the control 11 room operators under my supervision has testified _that he 12 conducted an experiment'with me to determine whether the
}
13 addition of hydrogen would in fact affect the level of the 14 level transmitter and did in fact mark the strip chart at the 15 time the experiment was conducted.
I have absolutely no 16 recollection of such an event ever occurring or knowing, in 17 1978 or
'79, that hydrogen additions might affect the level 18 trans mi tters '.
19 "It is possible that I was involved in such an 20 experiment and was aware of the so-called hydrogen 21 phenomenon.
However, I really do not recall it.
If I was 22 aware that hydrogen was being added during leak rate tests, I 23 am not certain that I would have stopped the practice since 1 24 do not recall any prohibition agains t hydrogen additions and 25 may not have believed that such additions would have any ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage 800-33MM6
28287.0
,s
(_) BRT 2739 1
effect on the test results."
2 And I guess my request for comment really is 3
focused on Mr. Adams' saying that he has no recollection of 4
the experiment ever taking place.
5 Do you have any comment on that?
6 A
No, sir, I don't.
7 Q
Do you believe it?
8 A
All I know for sure is what my recollection is.
I 9
can't really speak for Mr. Adams.
10 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Off the record a moment.
11 (Discussion off the record.)
(')
12 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
V 13 Q
Mr. Congdon, in the course of the interview you 14 had with the Stier representatives there was some discussion 15 about looking for leaks when you found -- when you had a leak 16 rate over 1.
Could you tell us what your procedure was about 17 looking for leaks?
What all that involved?
18 A
Basically what was done is the shift foreman or 19 the control room operator would direct the auxiliary 20 operators to look for leakage in the plant and try to 21 quantify it as to how much.
For example, valve packing 22 leaks, or a valve leaking by, such as a drain valve or a vent 23 valve.
24 Q
Now, the search for leaks in response to these
<s
(_)
25 high leak rate tests -- were the extent of such searches any ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3'00 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6 4 6
28287.0 cs
(
) BRT 2740 x_/
1 different as between, let's say,
'78, mid-78 as opposed to 2
early '79 when, I understand, there was quite a bit of 3
leakage in the plant?
4 A
Well, tne leakage just prior to the accident, the 5
vast majority of it was confined to the drain tank, which we 6
were aware of because it was quantified -- because it was a 7
tank with a level instrument on it.
8 But I think our approach to looking for leaks in 9
the auxiliary building or fuel handling building or reactor 10 building was basically the same during that period of time, 11 as best I can recall.
(~]
12 Q
If one doesn't believe a test one is running, do v
13 you think it's really sort of an arbitrary thing -- use that 14 particular analogy, crapshoot, why go out and look for leaks 15 if you think the number didn't mean anything?
16 A
Well, the number did mean something but the degree 17 of accuracy and its reliability was challenged because we 18 could hold the plant conditions as stable as you possibly 19 could and you could run tests back to back and you wouldn't 20 get the same numbers.
So it would lead you to believe that 21 something unbeknown to what you can visually look at is 22 happening that you can't get a reproducible test.
23 But it was the best test that we had.
Knowing 24 that, that it was the only test that pulled all these things
(")
(_
25 together and spit out a number, it was useful information but ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2(C-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
r.
=28287.0
.BRT 2741 1
it, as far as the tolerance as to its accuracy, was unknown.
2 To me I couldn't swear it.was-accurate to a tenth-of a gallon 3
or a gallon a minute.
I'm not sure what the range of its 4
accuracy.was.
5 Q
In general, though, would you say that your search 6
for leaks trailed off toward the'enul of operation?
When you 7
were running a whole bunch of leak rate tests in a row, one 8
after the other and they are all coming up over 1, did you 9
keep dispatching people out to look -- don't the auxiliary 10 operators get kind of cynical after a while-if you call them 11 up and say,.it reads 1.4, so go out and look again?
()
12 A
I think relating the dispatching of the operator 13 to the test performance is probably not realistic.
- Because, 14 you know, they routinely toured the plant and routinely 15 looked for leaks.
Whether you told them to go look for a 16 leak or not, certainly if a man was in a cubicle he would 17 look for leaks and try to identify them and bring them to the 18 attention of the operator.
19 So, to say every time we came out with a test 20 result greater than 1 we dispatched operators again, even 21 though they hadn't come back from the last time we dispatched 22 them, it does sound like unrealistic and probably was.
23 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
24 Q
Mr. Congdon, right at this point in the record, 25 while we have been talking about test 120, Mr. Cooper signed ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationuide Coserage 800-3346M6
s 28287.0 2742
(_) BRT 1-this surveillance test.
Can you imagine he wasn't aware that 2
the test -- that this, experiment had been run?
3 A
I really don't know if he was aware of it or not.
4 Q
When you ran a test, you got the printout from the 5
computer.
Did_you look at the strip chart record to see what 6
had gone on during the 60 minutes the test was being run?
7 A
I don't know if that was always the case.
I think 8
there's a good probability we did sometimes but I can't say.
9 every time that you took the printout, went over and looked 10 at the makeup tank level. -Because there are~several 11 parameters that went into that.
I know I didn't go around to 12 check every parameter to make sure it agreed with what the
)
13 computer was saying.
That would have been similar to just 14 doing the whole thing by hand.
But the makeup tank level 15 didn't -- was one parameter that we looked at and it was 16 available in the same vicinity of the panel that the 17 pressurlzer temperature, pressurizer level and makeup flow 18 and a whole variety of things were.
19 Q
So you don't think it's reasonable to assume that i
20 Mr. Cooper necessarily looked at this strip chart. record?
21 A
Tha t's correct, sir.
22 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you.
i 23 JUDGE KELLEY:
We have come up on the time on l
l 24 which, on Thursdays, we have to adjourn.
But we will be 25 seeing you tomorrow morning.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3C-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3 4 6646
. ~....,
e 28287.0
,_y
)'BRT 2743 "N.,
1 (Discussion off the record.)
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
We'll adjourn till 8:30 tomorrow.
3 (Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m.,
the hearing was 4
adjourned, to reconvene at 8:30 a.m.,
0ctober 3, 1986.)
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
/)
12
(/
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 n
V 25 t
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
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 DOCKET NO.:
LRP PLACE:
BETHESDA, MARYLAND DATE:
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt)
(TYPED)[
JOEL BREITNER Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPOETEES, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation O
-