ML20211A307
| ML20211A307 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/08/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1179 LRP, NUDOCS 8610150070 | |
| Download: ML20211A307 (102) | |
Text
ORJG h A_'
UNITED STATES O
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO: LRP INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION i
O LOCATION:
BETHESDA, MARYLAND PAGES:
3142 - 3235 DATE:
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1986 D\\
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Oficial Reporters 444 North CapitolStreet Washington,'D.C. 20001 n.-_, i c : 1 (202)347-3700 PDR a: t I
NATIONWIDE COVERAGE
q 3142
-CR28398.0
.BRT/sjg.
h-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 5
In the Matter of:-
Docket No. LRP 6
INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION 7
_ _x 9
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fifth Floor Hearing Room 10 East West Towers 4350 East-West Highway 11 Bethesda, Maryland 12 Wednesday, October 8, 1986 The hearing in the above-entitled matter convened'at 14 9 00 "***
5 16 BEFORE:
17 JUDGE JAMES L. KELLEY, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
19 JUDGE JAMES H.
CARPENTER, Member 20 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
JUDGE GLENN O.
BRIGHT, Member 22 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 23 l
Washington, D.
C.
24 k
25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33(Hl646
l t
3143 Jllh__.--.1 APPEARANCES:
2 On behalf of GPU Nuclear Corporation:
3 ERNEST L.
BLAKE, JR.,
ESQ.
JOHN N. NASSIKAS III, ESQ.
4 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
5 Washington, D.
C.
20036 6
On behalf of the Employees:
HARRY H. VOIGT, ESQ.
7 MICHAEL McBRIDE, ESQ.
LeBoeuf, Lamb,-Leiby & MacRae 8
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1100 9
Washington, D.
C.
20036 10 On behalf of Jack Herbein:
11 JAMES B.
BURNS, ESQ.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale 12 Three First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602 O
- k-CHRISTOPHER W.
FLYNN, ESQ.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale 14 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 On behalf of Gary P.
Miller:
MICHAEL W.
MAUPIN, ESQ.
17 M.
CHRISTINA HENSLEY, ESQ.
Hunton & Williams 18 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23221 19 On behalf of Former Metropolitan Edison Employees:
20 I
SMTIH B.
GEPHART,' ESQ.
21 Killian & Gephart 217-218 Pine Street 22 Box 886 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 On behalf of the NRC Staff:
24
("
JACK R. GOLDBERG, ESQ.
\\-
25.
MARY E. WAGNER, ESQ.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 i
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33(H5646
[
3144 1
T CONTENTS 2
WITNESS EXAMINATION Hugh Albert McGovern, Jr.
4 by Mr. McBride 3147 by the Board 3151 6
7 LAY-IN - PREPARED STATEMENT OF HUGH A.
- McGOVERN, JR.,
Follows Page 3148 8
9 10 11 12
(-
_.)
13 14 l
15 16 17 18 19 20 i
l 21 22 23 24 (b
\\/
25 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
i
$/^\\ 28398.0 A )~BRT-3145 m
t 1
E 1 9. E E E.D._ 1 H g 1
]'
2
'MR.EMC: BRIDE:
I have a_ preliminary matter,-Judge-3
'Kelley.
'4 JUDGE KELLEY:.Right.
5-MR. MC; BRIDE:
Following the Board's ruling 6
yesterday that it would not sit the week of October 20th, we 7
considered the matter again that we have raised with you 8
before, that it strikes us that-it would be useful, as we 9
have said to the Board in the past,- that at11 east you, Judge
- 10 Kelley, and-Judge Bright, might= profitably'use a day during 11 that week to have a site visit and see the control room and
()
12 perhaps some other parts of the plant that have an impact on 13 the issues you have been hearing, such as'the place where 14 hydrogen would have been added or valves would have been 15 lined up to accomplish various things.
16 You have heard testimony about the fact that some 17-of the panels that the operators were responsible for in the j
18 room that you can see in the oversized picture faced away 19 from them and toward the walls and that various things are 20 situated in various places.
(-
21 The shift supervisor's office is a glass cubicle 22 within the confines of the room itself but it's treated 23 separately by the operators as not being, technically, part i
l 24 of the control room, at least as most of them would describe i O 25-it; where the desks may have been at various times and this ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide coverage 8(XL336-6M6
I jrN.28398.0 11_/ BRT 3146 L
1 sort of thing.
2
_I must say that-we', as counsel, have always foun'd-3 it extraordinarily helpful in our understanding of these 4
matters to have had the occasion on a number of-times to have 5-gone through the control room and have understood the spatial.
6 relationships and the duties that these fellows had and the 7
number of indicators that were available to'them.
We believe 8
that you could profitably spend a part of a day up_there, 9
going through.the control room and understanding these 10 things.
11 I think, now that you have heard a variety of bits
()
12 and pieces of testimony that indicate those types of things, 13 that we would, at this_ time, renew our request that at least 14 the two of you who would be available that week might see if 15 you could carve out a date to engage in that kind of a site 16 visit.
1 L
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Blake, would it be possible to 18 make the appropriate arrangements?
19 MR. BLAKE:
I know of no reason why we could not.
20
-Our position would be the same.
If the Board decides it 21 wants to go --
l 22 JUDGE KELLEY:
It's certainly true it would mean 23 more to us now than it would back in August, in terms of l
24 hearing a fair amount of testimony.
We'll discuss it and O
25 give you a reaction, maybe later today or tomorrow.
Okay?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m>..
~ _ m o _.,.
/~S 28398.0
() BRT 3147 1
MR. MC BRIDE:
Very good..Thank you.
2 I should also point out that joining us at the 3
counsel table today is my colleague, Ms. dolly Boast from our 4
New York office, who has previously entered her appearance on 5
the record.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Welcome, Ms. Boast.
7 MR. MC BRIDE:
At this time, Judge Kelley, we 8
would call a witness who is already seated at the witness 9
table, Mr. Hugh A.
McGovern.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
11 Good morning, Mr. McGovern.
My name is Kelley.
()
12 On my right is Judge Bright, on my left is Judge Carpenter.
13 Whereupon, 14 HUGH ALBERT MC GOVERN, JR.
15 Was called as a witness and, having first been duly sworn, 16 was examined and testified as follows:
17 EXAMINATION 18 MR. MC BRIDE:
19 Q
Would you please state your full name for the 20 record, sir?
21 A
My name is Hugh Albert McGovern, Jr.
22 Q
Mr. McGovern, do you have before you at this time 23 a nine-page document bearing the caption of this proceeding 24 and entitled "The Prepared Statement of Hugh A.
McGovern"?
I 25 A
Yes, I do.
4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2H2-347 3ho Nationwide Coserage 600 336-6M6
~. - -
' pd ;BRT 28398.0 i
3148 1
Q Do-you have any additions or corrections or 2
. amplifications you would like to make to that statement at 3
this time, sir?
4 A
No, I don't.
5 Q
Does the statement indicate to the best of your 6
recollection or belief, recognizing the passage of time, 7
those matters which you understand to be-of concern to this j
8 board?
9 A
Yes, sir.
I believe it is true.
10 Q
All right, sir.
Do you adopt it as your sworn 11 testimony at this time?
U 12 A
Yes, sir, I do.
13 MR. MC BRIDE:
Thank you, Judge Kelley.
14 -
JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
The testimony will be 15 inserted in the transcript at this point.
l 16 (The document follows:)
i 17 18 l
19 20 21 1
22 l
i 23 l
24
- O 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8m3W6646
.,n-s 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 HUGH A. MCGOVERN I reside in My name is Hugh Albert McGovern, Jr.
Middletown, Pennsylvania.
I am currently employed by GPU Nuclear Corporation as a Plant Operations Manager for TMI Unit 2.
I served in the United States Navy Nuclear Power Program for six years as a Nuclear Electronics Technician prior to becoming employed by Metropolitan Edison on October 11, 1976 as an Auxiliary Operator A.
I remained as an Auxiliary Operator A until January of 1978, at which time I began a i
I became position as a Control Room Operator Trainee at TMI-2.
l a licensed Control Room Operator in November or December of 1978 and remained in that position until October or November of I was a Shift Foreman for 1980, when I became a Shift Foreman.
[
two years.
In 1982, I became a Shift Supervisor, and served in
()
that capacity until August 1984, when I became a Plant i
~
'w
- * +. + - - _
.m.,._
0 e
[ ).
Operations Manager at TMI-2.
This position requires that I
.v maintain aLSenior Reactor Operator's license, which I currently do.
In January 1979, I;was assigned to the "F"
- Shift, together with Earl Hemmila and Leonard Germer as Control' Room Operators (Germer was a CRO Trainee), Carl Guthrie as Shift Foreman and Ken Bryan as Shift Supervisor.
Immediately prior to that time, I was assigned to the "A" shift with Ed Frederick and Craig Faust as Control Room Operators, Fred Scheimann as Shift Foreman and Bill Zewe as Shift Supervisor.
As a Control Room Operator, my-general duties consisted of controlling plant parameters and reactor power, manipulating the controls, running required surveillances, overseeing the general operation of the plant, carrying out switching and tagging applications for maintenance and equipment, and directing the work of the Auxiliary Operators.
I was aware, during 1978-1979, that the one gallon per minute (gpm) limit for unidentified leakage was a limiting condition for plant operation.
I was also aware that certain precautionary measures (that is, reduce the leakage to within limits or begin plant shutdown) were required to be taken if unidentified reactor coolant leakage exceeded one gpm for several hours.
Despite certain inaccuracies in the computer program and instruments used to calculate reactor coolant system leakage, I nevertheless believe that the plant could be I was confident operated safely with the information we had.
I,
---.._r
--.,.,-,---,2,,_.-,c
.w-r.,
.----,ny_
c--..,-..--..,wy,.
y-
,%~,
p.,.,
,_.+,,.r e,
I) that by paying close attention to the makeup tank level and the Os t
I could have a reasonably good idea of what was pressurizer, going on in the primary plant.
I was aware, during 1978-1979, of certain TMI-2 rules All surveillances mandated by the technical regarding logging.
specifications (such as leak rate tests) had to be logged.
More specifically, we were required to log the starting time I did not always and completion time of any. surveillance test.
comply with that requirement during 1978-1979, however, in large part due to the fact that we were a lot more lax administratively at that time, than we are these days.
I can instructed me to refrain from state, howeser, that no one ever logging the start and completion times of a leak rate test so g3\\)
as to avoid revealing how many tests were started.
During 1978-1979, I interpreted the frequency rule regarding leak rate tests to require that only one good leak rate test every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> be obtained.
This was the prevailing interpretation of that requirement when I started work in the Unit 2 control room.
As a new CRO, I did not question this practice.
I do not recall seeing Licensee Event Report (LER) 78-62 at the time it was issued.
It was not until after the accident that I became aware of the lesson of that LER, namely, I know now, that we had been misinterpreting the 72-hour rule.
but did not know prior to the accident, that regardless of how often one runs leak rate tests, the TMI-2 operating rules (v~)
'5 e
()
~
require that the action statement be entered whenever
-I am also unidentified leakage in excess of one gpm is found.
more aware now that important safety considerations underlie the 1 gpm limit'for unidentified leakage.
I was familiar with the requirement that exceptions and deficiencies be filed with unsatisfactory surveillance recall ever filing an exception or deficiency tests.
I do not with an unsatisfactory leak rate test, although I now realize that I should have done so.
While I knew that exceptions and deficiencies were applicable to technical specification surveillances, I did not regard the inputting I did to the computer as, performing a technical specification surveillance.
I viewed the computer input work I did in connection
(;-
- Rather, with leak rate tests as merely fulfilling an administrative
" paper" requirement.
The standard frequency that leak rate tests were run at TMI-2 was two or three times per shift, although this could vary depending upon what had occurred during the previous shift.
Namely, if the previous shift had obtained a satisfactory leak rate test result, we might conduct only one leak rate test on the next shift, or perhaps none.
During 1978-1979, I was aware of several inaccuracies leak rate tests.
One in the instrumentation used to conduct such inaccuracy was in the computer program used to calculate leak rates.
Specifically, that computer program yielded Ak-)
inaccurate results because it did not make the proper This y; tY temperature compensation for-leakage to the drain tank.
inaccuracy-was a key. reason that I did not believe that the leak rate test was a valid indicator of actual leakage.
The indicated by makeup tank level and actual parameters pressurizer level often conflicted with the results of the computer leak rate test.
During 1978 and early 1979, I was not aware of the phenomenon by which water added to the makeup tank during a leak rate test could enhance the result.
Nor was I aware of the phenomenon by which the amount of a water addition as registered on the strip chart exceeded the actual amount of water added and logged by the operator.
It was not until after the accident that I was informed that adding water to the (O
makeup' tank during a leak rate test could produce an enhanced
_/
result.
The reason for this unawareness was that the existence of this phenomenon regarding water additions was inconsistent with what I had learned as a reactor operator in the Navy.
While I was a control room operator at TMI-2, I never made either unrecorded or under-recorded water additions to the makeup tank during a leak rate test for the purpose of manipulating the test.
Nor did I ever make a " jogged" water addition to the makeup tank to influence the leak rate test result.
I have no personal knowledge that any other operator manipulated leak rate tests through water additions during that time period.
I can also state that to the best.of my knowledge, E'arl Hemmila never made a " jogged" water addition to the makeup tank in an attempt to alter a leak rate tast.
w i
/
During 1978 and early 1979, my shift's approach with
~
We would respect to water additions was basically as follows.
add water routinely to the makeup tank before leak rate tests to better hold the plant steady while the test was being conducted.
We also added water to the makeup tank whenever it approached its low limit, which sometimes occurred during a leak rate test.
We were aware, however, that water additions during leak rate tests should be avoided.
In any event, my shift was aware of the requirement that all water additions to the makeup tank be logged and accounted for, and we complied with that requirement.
Neither I, nor to my knowledge the other CRO's that I
()
worked with, were aware that hydrogen additions to the makeup tank could affect a leak rate test.
I personally never added i
leak rate test.
hydrogen to the makeup tank so as to alter a Nor did I ever observe anyone else add hydrogen to the makeup tank during a leak rate test for the purpose of influencing the test result.
As far as I knew at the time, the reason one added hydrogen to the makeup tank was to scavenge oxygen (which is a corrosion agent) from the reactor coolant system.
It was always my practice to log hydrogen additions to the makeup tank.
I was generally aware of the fact that at various times prior to the accident, there were problems with both makeup tank level transmitters.
I cannot specifically recall seeing an out-of-service tag placed on the level transmitter i
O
\\/
selector switch prior to the accident.
l L
r
,c
%~1 As a general rule, I tried to switch the accurate leak rate level transmitter to the computer when running a provided that the other level transmitter (which would
- test, give us our level indication in the Control Room) was not so inaccurate that we could not rely on it.
I was able to determine which level transmitter was functioning properly by examining the strip chart level recorder.
Specifically, the good. level transmitter was-the one that exhibited the fewest random oscillations.
There was a time during 1978 and 1979 when we ran some leak rate tests knowing that there were inaccuracies with the makeup tank level instrumentation.
We performed.those tests under such circumstances because we were
(')
compelled by the 72-hour administrative requirement to run leak rate tests.
We recognized that the equipment was malfunctioning, but it was the only instrumentation available to us at the time.
In addition, there were people working on the problem, so it seemed to me that the problem was only temporary.
I remember a period of time when one makeup tank level indicator was being worked on virtually daily.
I can state unequivocally that I never deliberately switched level transmitters during a leak rate test so as to obtain a satisfactory result.
There would be nothing to be gained by doing that.
The deliberate use of an inaccurate level transmitter could just as easily lead to an unsatisfactory leak ate test result as a satisfactory one.
(v~) _
i e
I As a general rule, leak rate test results for which
\\q' unidentified leakage exceeded one gpm were discarded, basically because it was a common practice in the control room to do so.
I was_never informed of a requirement to retain the results of such unsatisfactory tests.
We also discarded leak rate test results more negative than 0.1 gpm.
I personally remember either discarding leak rate test results exceeding 1 gpm, or referring such tests to my shift foreman.
I also recall discarding more leak rate tests than those I kept.
However, I do not recall that Carl Guthrie ever told me to discard leak rate tests exceeding 1 gpm.
I do recall an incident in which the NRC found some unsatisfactory leak rate test results that had not been
(-)
. discarded and brought this to the shift foreman's attention.
However, no one ever instructed me to_ discard unsatisfactory leak rate tests so that the NRC would not see them.
Our standard procedure for measuring identified leakage entailed the shift foreman from time to time sending an auxiliary operator with a graduated cylinder out in the plant to measure leakage.
To the best of my recollection, we made a consistent practice of quantifying identified leakage in this way, and of accounting for it in the unidentified leak rate calculation.
I never felt significant pressure from my shift foreman or shift supervisors to obtain a satisfactory leak rate test result.' Nor do I recall receiving any pressure from those 4 '
p)
L-in-the managerial levels above shift supervisor to obtain a satisfactory leak rate test result.
Occasionally, someone in the control room would say something such as "run another one, we're approaching the clock", but I don't remember any arm twisting or anything like that.
I do not recall it becoming more difficult to obtain an acceptable leak rate test result as the day of the accident approached.
However, there was a lot of leakage from the pressurizer valves just before the accident.
As I stated before, however, we did not regard the We leak rate tests as an accurate indicator of actual leakage.
viewed the obligation to perform leak rate tests as a
( ')
Given that we took perfunctory administrative requirement.
'~
little stock in those tests, why would we go to extremes to manipulate them?
My job is important to me.
I believe that my experience them and about with leak rate tests and legal proceedings about the TMI-2 accident has taught me to be much more scrupulous about procedures.
As Plant Operations Manager at TMI-2, I am very interested in helping the Company complete the cleanup that is well underway.
I believe that I was, and am, a safe operator and that this experience has taught me to be a better operator, and I sincerely hope that the Board will exonerate me from involvement in leak rate test falsification because I did
()
not manipulate leak rate tests.
_g.
/~T 28398.0
( L BRT 3149 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. McGovern, I have a short 2
statement which provides some context for where we are and 3
the nature of the questions that we'll have for you, which 4
I'll read first and then we'll get into the questions.
5 The Board has been charged by the commission to 6
determine the extent of involvement of individual employees 7
of TMI-2 in '78 and '79 in leak rate test falsification and 8
other improper practices in leak rate testing.
This is your 9
opportunity to state on the record your recollections and 10-perceptions about your involvement in leak rate testing at 11 that time, and to rebut any adverse statements about you by
()
_1:2 other employees or investigators with which you disagree.
13 We have reviewed your prefiled testimony and 14 considered it in light of the record that has already been 15 developed in this proceeding, including some prior statements 16 by you.
We'll have some questions based on.your testimony 17 and on those prior statements that are already in the 18 record.
We may also have questions based upon statements of 19 other employees that they may have made about matters in 20 which you may have been involved, and we may also have 21 questions about assessments that investigators and technical 22 experts have made about your participation in the leak rate 23 activities.
24 As I think you know, there are extensive studies 25 of TMI-2 leak rate procedures that have already been put in ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
'l
(~) 28398.0
\\_./
BRT 3150 1
the record:
one by Mr. Stier for GPU Nuclear and then 2
another. study by the NRC Staff.
The Stier study includes 3
analyses of every leak rate test conducted at TMI-2 that was 4
retained; that is to say, that wasn't thrown away; and the 5
NRC study includes analyses of every retained test during the 6
last six months of operation.
7 The Board has already heard extensive technical 8
testimony on leak rate testing questions, including testimony 9
elicited by your counsel on numerous particular tests.
In 10 these circumstances, the Board does not propose to review 11 with you each test in which the studies indicate you were
()
12 involved.
We are not going to go through all your tests one 13 by one.
We'll have a few questions about a few particular 14 ones.
15 The studies have been available to you through 16 counsel and you were free to discuss particular tests in your l
17 proposed testimony -- in your prepared testimony, if you 18 chose to do so.
But, as I indicated, we'll have questions on i
19 a few particular tests, not the others.
Apart from that the 20 test analyses are in the record and they will be considered 21 in the light of the entire record, including your testimony 22 today.
23 Reviewing your testimony, Mr. McGovern, and your l
24 prior interviews, particularly your interview with the NRR b
l 25 '
staff people, in many respects, it seems to me, that things l
l l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage Rn).16-NA6
p 28398.0
. t,/ JBRT 3151 1
are pretty clear.
We don't propose to go over every 2
significant point, point by point, since there's no need to 3
belabor the obvious.
But we are here, really, to seek
'4 clarification and elaboration on some selected points where 5
we think that is necessary-or desirable.
6 EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD 7
BY JUDGE KELLEY:
8 Q
Let me ask you, first, if you could characterize 9
your general attitude about leak rate tests at-that time.
10 More specifically, did you consider the test as it was 11 working at that time a valid test of actual unidentified 12 leakage?
13 A
No, sir.
I don't think -- I know I didn't really 14 believe that the leak rate test was an accurate indication of 15 plant leakage.
I tended to regard the test as fulfilling an 16 j
administrative requirement more than anything else.
17 Q
In terms of administrative requirement, being that 18 you get a test, as you then understood it, that you get a j
l-19 leak rate test under 1 every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />?
20 A
That is correct, sir.
21 Q
So, in running these tests and approving them or E
22 not approving them and throwing them away, was that the basic 23 question, just whether it read less than 17 l
24 A
Yes, sir.
That basically was the criteria I used.
- O 25 Q
Did you -- again, I'm speaking a:3 a general I
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm..
~_ m _,
'/ % 28398.0' i d BRT 3152 l'
matter, and I think this is imp 1'ied from your prior answer --
2.
but, did you really give much serious consideration to
-3 whether the test you were looking at, the.particular test you
.4 were looking at, was a valid test?
5 A
No.
I'm afraid we were' pretty cavalier in our 6
handling-of. leak-rate tests at that time.
7 Q
So, if it was under 1, file it; if it'was over 1, 8
throw it away?
9 A
Yes, sir.
10 Q
There are some tests that you were involved in 11 where there were water additions.
You are not unique in that
()
12 regard.
There were water additions in lots of tests run by i
13 other. people.
But I would like to get a little firmer hold' i
14 than I think I presently have on one aspect of water 15 additions.
'16 I believe it's accurate that the leak rate test 17 procedure did not absolutely prohibit the addition of water 18 during a test but it cautioned against it; is that fair?
19 A
Yes, sir.
I think that's a fair statement.
t 20 Q
So that one was to avoid adding water unless there 21 was some operational need to do so?
l 22 A
Yes, sir.
1 i
23 Q
You refer in several places to that l
t 24 consideration.
I'm-looking at the top of page 6 of your i
(:)
l 25 prefiled.
I'll just read the part that I'm focusing on, i
l
[
ACE-FEDER.AL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 8a>336-6M6
28398.0' s
BRT-3153 1
starting at the top:
2 "During '78 and early79, my shift's approach 3
with respect to water addition was basically as follows.
We 4
would add water routinely to the makeup tank before leak rate 5
tests to better hold the plant steady while the test was 6'
being conducted.
We also.added water to the makeup tank 7
whenever it approached its low limit, which sometimes 8
occurred during a leak rate test."
4 9
What I would like to understand is what you mean 10 by "whenever the makeup tank approached its low limit."
What i
11 was its low limit?
! ()
12 A
I don't recall the specifics.
I believe it was 13 around 70 percent but it has been too long to actually 14 remember what the procedure required.
15 We tried to maintain the makeup tank level in a 16 set band, and if during the course of the operation of that i
17 leak rate operation we reached that set limit, we added water 18 to take us back up to the higher end of the band.
l 19 Q
I'm not sure it's even in the record.
I have 20 heard these references -- at least one other witness has 21 spoken'to what he understood to be a limit and I thought --
22 let me just try this on you -- his recollection, I think, was 23 that the water was to be maintained in a band with a minimum 24 of 60 inches on the makeup chart and a maximum of 85.
Does O
25 that sound --
r ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 23be
~.._.__.,,,.-...__._...._______.-_._,_,,_..,_._,_._,,.___..,_.,_._.m.__.._._,..
(~N 28398.0 A )LDRT 3154 s
1 JUDGE KELLEY:
Is that a fair statement, 2
Mr..McBride?
3 MR. MC BRIDE:
That is a fair recollection of a 4
prior witness' recollection.
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
Of his recollection.
6 MR. MC BRIDE:
Of his.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Whether it's right or not -- I 8
don't know if we have a piece of paper that says " makeup tank 9
level, Three Mile Island 2," which spells out exactly what it 10 was supposed to be.
11 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
O)
(,
12 Q
In any event, would you agree with that or would 13 you not disagree with that?
14 A
I really don't remember what the specifics were.
15 I remember there was a band that we controlled within.
16 Q
Just as there was a band, I believe, with hydrogen 17 pressure; correct?
18 A
Yes, sir.
That is correct.
19 l Q
Different purpose but same concept?
The band 20 concept?
21 A
Yes, sir.
The concept was you had a controlling 22 operating band that you stayed within.
23 Q
Can you tell me what the purpose of the minimum 24 water level in the makeup tank was?
i 25 A
Ensuring you had sufficient volume in the makeup ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
~ _ m m,. - - -, - - - - - -
-,--.,--.,,n
. m,. -, - - ~.
,.--.n
(~)~28398.0
\\_) BRT 3155 1
tank for addition to the reactor coolant system.
Getting 2
down towards the low end of that band didn't necessarily mean 3
anything bad was going to happen, but if you were at the low 4
end of that band and had to make a large-scale injection into 5
the reactor coolant system for whatever reason, you ran the 6
risk of running out of water in the makeup tank and the pumps 7
that take at suction of f of the makeup tank are very, very 8
sensitive to a loss of suction.
9 In Unit 1 during their start-up and test phase 10 they lost no less than six pumps, six makeup pumps because of 11 suction problems.
Very, very sensitive to that.
()
12 Q
I'm sorry.
Could you --
13 A
I'm sorry.
Maybe I got it out a little fast 14 there.
15 Q
You were talking about the sensitivity of the 16 pumps in the makeup tank; in other words, they would break?
17 A
Explode is a better word.
18 Q
They won't work anymore?
19 A
No.
Explode is a better word.
They would explode 20 and take out chunks of concrete wall and tear themselves to 21 pieces.
They exploded.
22 Q
Was this because the water level got too low?
23 A
Yes, sir.
They were high speed, high pressure 24 pumps which are very, very sensitive to having an adequate O
25 amount of suction pressure to them.
Very sensitive to that.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37tX)
Nationwide Coverage
- 10-33MM6
(] BRT.
28398.0
\\-
3156 1
Q Were they located on the floor of the makeup tank?
2 A
No, sir.
They are located on the.281 elevation, 3
which is roughly 24 feet below the makeup tank.
4 Q
But this problem of not having adequate suction, 5
is that another way of saying not having enough water?
6 A
Yes, sir.
7 Q
These pumps would explode, disintegrate, when the 8
tank ran dry?
9-A When they lost net positive suction head, the 10 ability to have enough pressure to maintain adequate 11 suction.
Enough water to the pump.
That doesn't necessarily
()
12-mean dry, it means the level was insufficient to give them 13 enough pressure at the suction.
14 Q
I'm just looking at the strip chart which is 15 designed to show water level in the makeup tank.
Do you have 16 the NRC's report there?
Pick a test, any test.
I just want 17 you to look at a strip chart.
It doesn't matter which one.
18 I happen to be looking at test 125.
19 MR. MC BRIDE:
Why don't we turn to that so there l
20 won't be any confusion.
125?
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
Right.
22 MR. MC BHIDE:
Unfortunately, Judge Kelley, that's 23 one of the few that has several pages and more than one strip I
24 chart.
I have the ones for both 124 and 125 here.
I think O
i 25 there also may be one just for 125; is that the one you were I
r i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage
&h33(MM6
f'T 28398.0
(_/ BRT 3157 1
looking at?
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well,.125 starts with your standard 3
computer printout signed by, apparently either Mell or 4
Kidwell, I'm not sure which.
Approved by Conaway.
Nothing 5
to do with Mr. McGovern.
6 Go over about three pages and you see, it saysfat 7
the top, "Illjes CRO; Conaway, shift foreman; Chwastyk, shift 8
supervisor.
a 1
9 MR. MC BRIDE:
We've got it.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
Test starting -- as a matter of 11 fact, the chart shows test 124 and 125.
()
12 That's just for identification.
13 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
14 Q
If you look at that strip chart it goes from zero 15 inches to 100 inches; right?
16 A
Yes, sir.
17 Q
That's 30 gallons per inch; right?
18 A
Yes, sir.
19 Q
So if you filled'it all the way up to the' top 20 you'd have 3000 gallons of water?
21 A
Yes, sir.
22 Q
It appears that the trace there is bumping up and 23 down but it is, most of the time, above 70 in the test 125.
24 It seems to go down to the 60s, even a little below 60.
For O
25 that test, anyway, that's the range in which it was being ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-17(0 Natioriwide Courav En 334N>M
- 28398.0 3158 l'
-generally maintained and my recollection from looking~at a
~
'2 flot1of others is it's usually up around 60 or 70, something 3
like.that.
4 What I'm trying to get at is, putting to one side 5-an administrative procedure which may.have said:
Keep it at 6-60, if you were going to.run a leak rate test and it is just-7 above 60, let's say, and you are getting a decline of several 8
inches per hour so it's obvious that, all other things being 9
equal, the tank will recede down into the 50s during the 10
. course of the test, is there any safety reason you are aware 11 of that would prevent you from not adding water and letting
()
12 the-thing slip down into the 50s during the test and then 13 bring it back up after the test?
l, 14 A
I don't think you'd get yourself in any real 15 trouble by being at 50 percent.
Most of our limits are relatively conservative.
They have a lot of extra margin in
.16
(
17 them.
It would not be something that we would routinely do, I
18 though.
Again, you try to maintain the normal operating l
19 band.
I can't think of anything technical --
20 Q
The adequate suction problem you were referring 21 t o.. the lack of which might destroy a pump, in terms of 22
' inches in the tank, would you think that that would be a 23 concern if there were 30 inches in the tank?
l 24 A
Possibly at 20 to 30 inches you could run into
)
l 25 that, depending upon the overpressure from the hydrogen.
\\
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 370)
Nationwide Coverage
- 80) 33M646
(_l 28398.0 E
/ BRT 3159 1
Q That, in effect, pushes down on the water and 2
provides more suction?
3
~ A Yes, sir, it provides positive suction.
4 Q
Would you think that above 30 the suction problem
?
5 wouldn't be a concern?
6 A
Most likely not unless you had to do a large 7
injection in the reactor coolant system and found yourself in 8
a situation where the amount of water that you had available 9
was used up going into the RCS, and left you with a' low 10 makeup tank level.
11 Q
Well, when you say "large," most of these
()
12 injections that I see are 100, 200, 300-gallon injections.
13 Is that sort of the typical addition?
14 A
That would be a routine addition..
~
15 If I was at, let's say, 30 percent, a 300-gallon l
16 addition would take me down to 20 percent.
So you could get 17 yourself in a problem there.
18 Q
Correct.
19 A
Again, we tried to maintain a normal operating 20 band, which does include a lot of conservatism.
l 21 Q
Is it fair to say, though -- here's how I 22 understand it.
On the one hand the leak rate procedure says 23 try not to add water when you are running a leak rate test.
5 24 And on the other hand, this other procedure that I'm prepared 25 to assume exists says:
Keep the makeup tank above 60.
Do ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8 4 3366646
. - -...,,.., _ ~ - - -. -
- ~, -, ~, -,, -.., -. -, - -.. - -.... - -,. -..,, -.... - _
(~x 28398.0
\\-) BRT 3160 1
you have a potential conflict of those two requirements?
2 A
Yes, sir.. Depending upon the amount of leakage 3
from the reactor coolant system to the reactor coolant drain 4
tank, for example; yes, you could easily get the conflict.
5 Q
Would you resolve it in favor of adding the water 6
because the leak rate test provision about water is a 7
precaution rather than a prohibition?
8 A
Yes, sir.
I think that's a fair statement.
It 9
was a "should" and not a "shall."
It was something that you 10 should do, or should avoid doing.
4 11 Q
But I believe you have indicated that your other
()
12 option in this situation is to pump the makeup tank up pretty 13 high before you'even start the test?
14 A
Yes, sir.
You could add water to the makeup tank 15 prior to the start of the test.
16 Q
Could you run it up high enough so that, barring 17 some emergency, there just wouldn't be any need to add water 18 during a test?
19 A
Again, that would depend upon the amount of 20 leakage from the reactor coolant system to the RC drain 21 tank.
And, again, I'm not really that up on what the actual 22 band was, depending upon the amount of water that we could 23 add for that band.
24 Q
Assuming you could pump it up to, say, 80 of the 25 100, if you are going to run a leak rate test you would be ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Coserage 800-33MM6
(^/T 28398.0
\\-
BRT' 3161 1
pretty safe in assuming that you wouldn't have to add water 2
during the test unless you had a leak that knocked you down 3
all the way from 80 to 60 in one hour.
4 MR. MC BRIDE:
Excuse me, Judge Kelley, are you 5
speaking in terms of inventory control or other operational 6
purposes as well?
.7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Right now we are talking about 8
inventory. control.
9 MR. MC BRIDE:
Okay.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
If there are other reasons, I'd be 11 happy to ask about that, too.
OV 12 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
13 Q
I don't understand, quite frankly, I'm trying to 14 get at why water was ever added to the makeup tank during a 15 leak rate test, and if there are legitimate operational.
16 reasons, fine, that helps explain it.
The idea of 17 maintaining a quantity of water in there we have been 18 exploring.
I'm not suggesting thoroughly, but we are probing 19 it anyway.
But, if you run up -- just to put it to you 20 again, if you raise the level to 80 inches to make sure, you 21 thought, that you wouldn't have to add more water in the next 22 hour2.546296e-4 days <br />0.00611 hours <br />3.637566e-5 weeks <br />8.371e-6 months <br />, wouldn't it have to be a pretty unusual event that 23 would require you to add water with that much water in the 24 makeup tank?
./~)
(_/
[
25 A
Again, depending upon what the actual band l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage RG3E6M6
L t
()BRT 3162 1
required and the amount of leakage, that's why you added a
2 water to the makeup tank prior to a11eak rate, was to try to 3
avoid that.
But I won't rule it out 100 percent, sir.
It-4 just depends on'the actual situation.
5 Q
I'm trying to put you in an actual situation.
6 Isn't the leak that drops the makeup tank from 80 to 60 in 7
one hour a pretty big leak?
l 8
A Yes, sir, it would be pretty healthy.
9 Q
We could figure it out, I guess.
But --
10 A
600 gallons.
11 Q
600 gallons.
Thank you.
()
12 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Which corresponds to how many 13 gallons per minute?
14 THE WITNESS:
Approximately 10, sir.
15 JUDGE CARPENTER: 'Is there a limit on identified i
16-leakage?
17 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir, 10 gpm.
i l
18 JUDGE CARPENTER:
So if it were in excess of 20 1
19 divisions per hour you could be exceeding not only the 20 unidentified leakage tech spec but the identified leakage.
i 21 '
Coming back to Judge Kelley's question, is it l
i 22 reasonable to imagine that you would continue operating the 23 plant with a 20-division change in an hour?
24 MR. MC BRIDE:
Could I point out, Judge Carpenter, 7-V 25 that the he evidence of record includes the fact that not ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 hationwide Coserage Ik&33&6646
-, -. - ~
=-.
28398.0
.s BRT 3163 1
only was there a 10 gpa identified leakage but also a 1 gpm 2
' unidentified leakage for a total gross leakage thatione would j
3.
have applicable to --
4 JUDGE CARPENTER:
So-it isn't 20 divisions, it's 5
22 divisions.
6 MR. MC BRIDE:
That's correct, sir.
7 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you.
8 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
9 Q
If you saw a drop'of 20 divisions in one hours.
10 that you couldn't explain, that would be a rather unusual 11 event, would it not?
_ ()
12 A
It would be rather significant; yesj sir.
I 13 Q
Okay.
So, barring the occurrence of such an 14 event, if you routinely pumped the tank up to, say, 80'before 4
l 15 you ran the test, you would, in all likelihood, not have to f
16 add water during the test in order to maintain it-to 60;
('
17 correct?
18 A
To maintain inventory, not necessarily.
i 19 Q
Do you have a copy before you of your interview j
20 with the NHC people?
21 A
Yes, sir.
22 Q
The 78-page interview dated June 4, 1985.
23 A
Yes, sir.
24 Q
Could you turn to page 30, please?
.()
r 25 A
Yes,-sir.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 147 Naticnwide Coverage 800-336-6646
-,,. _,. _. _....-3700-. - -. -., - -... _..., -..... -.. -...,., -.., _. - _... -.. -
~
'{ T 28398.0 sl BRT 3164 1
Q Get back to 29, actually; the bottom of 29, line 2
22, where a question is put to you:
"How would you know at 3
the end of the test," and so forth.
4 Could you pick up there and read the rest of 29 5
and then 30 down to the bottom?
6 A
Yes, sir.
The question was "How would you know at 7
the end of the test"?
8 Q
Yes.
I just wanted you to read that section and I 9
wanted to ask you a question or two about that particular 10 portion of your interview, beginning with line 22 on page 29 11 and continuing through page 30.
In fact, you can stop on
()
12 line 19 on page 30, 13 A
Okay.
14 Q
What you are speaking to, there, as I read it, the 15 sort of real life situation about how matters worked between 16 you and another operator when you were running a leak rate 17 test and what kind of communication obtained between you.
18 You are speaking more directly to finding out about water 1
19 additions.
l l
20 Does that mean -- take this hypothetical, you are l
l 21 the one who is running the test, you are on surveillance;_
l 22 somebody else is on the panel.
In the normal course of l
23 events, if there were a need -- whatever the reason for the l
24 need -- if there were a need to add water, who would l
25 typically do the water addition?
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
/ 28398.0 k
BRT-3165-1 A
Typically it would be the panel operator.
~2 Q
And so, then,-if-you are the surveillance man and 3
you are the one at the end of-the test who, I gather, 4
typically would'-- let me back up.
S' You start the leak rate test by punching the 6
computer and telling it to run a leak rate test for an hour; 7
correct?
8 A
Yes, sir.
That's correct.
9 Q
Then at the end of the_ hour you go back and it is I
10 you, as the' surveillance guy, who typically would.go back to 11 the computer and the computer ~would ask you some questions;
_ ()
12 correct?
13 A-Yes, sir.
That's correct.
14 Q
One of which would be:
Did you add any water 15 during the course of the test?
4 16 Then you indicate'that the communication there was 17 such that you might say:
Well, I just finished the leak rate 18 test.
Then he would say, understanding what was going on, he 19 would say:
I'added 100 gallons, if that's what he did.
Is 20 that right?
i 21 A
Yes, sir.
It wasn't very formal but basically 22 both people understood the test, and if an addition was made 23 during the test he was supposed to let you know that so you t.
24 could add it in.
O 25 Q
Do you recall there ever being any communication i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-370t)
Nationwide Cos erage 800-3%M>46
. ~ - _,. _ -, _,._
(~} 28398.0
( /- BRT 3166 1
problems in that process?
2 A
Specifically during that time frame I don't 3
remember any.
4 Q
How about the case of adding hydrogen to the 5
system during the test?
Let's suppose the panel operator did 6
that, pressurized the makeup tank, and you simply said to 7
him:
I just finished the leak rate test.
Would he likely.
8 volunteer the fact that he had put hydrogen in'the system?
9 A
I really don't know the answer to that one.
I 10 tend to think that he probably would not but I don't know 11 specifically.
-I don't remember ever coming across that.
()
12 0
-Is that because, apart from this -- we'll calliit 13 the loop seal phenomenon, which I'll comment on later --
14 there was no reason for the panel operator to think that the 15 hydrogen addition would have any effect on the test?
16 A
Yes, sir.
I believe that to be true.
17 Q
It's also the case, isn't it, that the test 18 doesn't ask in so many words:
Did you add hydrogen during 19 the course of the test?
20 A
No, sir, it does not.
21 Q
It's not in the computer program?
22 A
No, sir.
23 Q
The program itself, does it use the word " water,"
24 or does it ask you, on this printout:
Did you add anything O
25 during the test?
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage 800-336-(646
i
- /'N 28398.0 '
(/ BRT.
3167
)
1 A
The program itself says " water additions."
2 Q
okay.
I believe you've covered this but it's kind 3
of a central concern in this whole proceeding so I would like 4
you to turn to page 37 and 38.
Just look at the bottom of 5
37, beginning with line 23 where the question is:
6
" Question:
Were you aware at that time that at 7
least the possibility of hydrogen additions could affect the 8
leak rate test?-
't 9
" Answer:
No,-not at that time."
10 Then go on down the page to -- page 38 -- to line 11 6.
()
12 A-
-Yes, sir?
13 Q
Okay.
I think'the same subs'tance is reflected in 14 your prefiled, but is that your statement today?
-15 A
Yes, sir.
That is correct.
16 Q
While we are.on this page 38, could you pick up at 17 the bottom of page 38, line 22, and read over on page 39 to 18 line 17.
- }
19 A
Yes, sir.
I 20 Q
That particular set of-questions and answers 21 between you and Mr. Russell, again, I think it emphasizes 22 your attitude that the the test was meaningless.
Was that 4
23 your attitude?
The test was meaningless?
24 A
Yes, sir.
I think that's a fair statement; that O
25 the test did not accurately reflect the leakage from the l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M616
~/'
k- '28398.0 BRT 3168 1
plant.
2 Q
Is it fair to ray that the beginning of this asks 3
you about differences between water addition to the batch 4
controller that resulted in a level increase in the makeup 5
tank that was different from the amount of water added -- you 6
go on and indicate on the next page that you may have noticed 7
a difference in the two, at one time or another -- I'm 8
paraphrasing.
9 Is it also fair to say that, in your reading of 10 instruments in connection with leak rate tests, that you were 11 sometimes rather casual about that?
O(_)
12 A
Yes, sir.
I believe that's a very fair statement 13 of the general attitude at that time towards leak rate tests.
14 Q
You say at the conclusion of this section I asked 15 you to look at that you'd just go back and punch the buttons 16 again.
It sounds like a slot machine, in the sense that you 17 keep pulling the crank and sometimes you get a cherry or a 18 bell and sometimes you get lemons.
Does that analogy have 19 any validity in this context?
20 A
I think that the attitude at that time, that 21 probably pretty much sums it up.
I really tend to believe 22 that that's the way that leak rate test was run.
23 Q
I want to ask you about a couple -- two or three 24 tests here.
Take a minute to look at them.
Could you find 25 test numbers 120 and 121.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationaide Coverage Ro 3346M6
N 28398.0
/~\\ l-BRT 3169 1
MR. MC BRIDE:
NRR test numbers?
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Right.
NRR test 120 and 121.
3 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
4 Q
We'll look at 121 first.
121, you were the
.5 operator, it was approved by Guthrie, and it appears 6
Mr. Hemmila was on the panel at the time, judging by an 7
entry, typed-in entry on the strip chart.
8 121 is a leak rate test performed on February 16, 9
1979, started at 2:53 -- I don't know if that's the afternoon 10 or 2:00 in-the morning.
I guess 2:00 in the morning?
11 A
2:00 in the morning.
()
12 Q
Right.
2:53.
And it showed a net unidentified of 13
.8759.
14 I wanted you to look at the strip chart where the i
15 test is bracketed with the times at the top, just about right 16 in the middle of the strip chart.
The principal point of 17 interest that, if you look at the trace of the strip chart 18 going back to shortly after midnight, there was, apparently, 19 a water addition -- no, shortly after 1:00 a.m.,
it appears 20 to have been a water addition at around 1:00 a.m.,
a little 21 after.
The trace from about 1:15 is, as I read it, down to a 22 little lower than halfway through the leak rate test, it 23 jumps up and down, as they usually do, but there's a straight I
24 line drawn through it which indicates that the decline O
l 25 between 1:15 and around -- let me make the same point I made ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
292 Nationwide Coverage 800-3346M6
. _ _. _.,-347-3700
j '
~\\- 28398. 0 BRT 3170 1
~
1 the other day.on a test like this.
2 The actual times as reflected on the computer 3
printout and the times at the bottom on the strip chart don't 4
agree.
That can cause some confusion.
5 A
Yes,-sir.
6 Q
I think we've established pretty much to our i
7 satisfaction for this purpose that the adjustment reflected 8
in.the lines that bracket the-test at the top where it says 9
12:53 to 3:53, there is testimony that the chart was off-by a 10 certain amount at that time, maybe an hour and a half or so.
11 What the analyst would do is-look at something from which
()
12 they were pretty sure about time, which would be, for 13 example, a log entry.
You can-find a log entry that says,'
14 "300 gallons at 12:15."
And you can find that at 1:45 on the 15 strip chart, so you say:
Okay, it's off by an hour and a 16 half.
And that's what we'll say the time is.
That may be to 17 some extent debatable, but in any event, that's the 18 explanation for the effort to reconcile the times.
I don't 19 know that -- well, the time would be significant here for L
20 purposes of what we are going to look at, but I'll assume for l
l:
21 the moment that the analysts' times are accurate.
1 l-22 So, you see the line going down more or less l:
23 evenly from the strip chart time of, what, 1:15?
Are you 24 with me on that?
v 25 A
Yes, sir.
I see where you are looking.
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-1700 Narionwkle Coserage 800-33MM6
c s 28398.0 o
- {/ BRT g'
s-3171 1
Q Right.
Down to the middle of the leak rate test.
2 It seems to be fairly consistent.
Would you agree with that?
3' A
Well, it's in the same general trend but
-f
)
4 consistent?
No.
It's up and down,-pretty much.
5 Q
There is some up and down.
It is what it is.
6 A
Yes, sir.
7 Q
But my question would be thist. About halfway 7
~
8 through the leak rate test there is an up, it goes.up an inch 9
and a half or so, and then seems to level off.
Do you see 10 that?
11 A
Yes, sir, I see where it deviates from the l ()
12 straight line.
13 Q
And that's really it.
The analysts, NRR analysts, 14 came to'the conclusion, as. indicated by th'e note on'the 15 bottom,.that they think there was a hydrogen addition or 16 water addition at 3:25 and that they read this as having had
}
17 a 2-inch, or 60-gallon effect.
The note goes on to say-that 18 the makeup tank shows the same characteristics as test 120, 19 which we'll look at in a minute.
In this case there's no log 20 entry of either water or hydrogen.
And it is not included in 21 the calculation.
22 Would you agree that there is a consistent offset 23 at the point that is being referred to?
24 A
Well, if there is it's a pretty minor of.fset, 25 sir.
There is an offset from the line that they've drawn.
I L
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
y
'/~N 28398.0
(_) BRT 3172 1.
don't know if.that's an actual good analysis of the-trend.
2
-It could be off a little.
There is a change there.
3-Q There is a change.
It's a question of how much?
4 A
Yes, sir.
5 Q
How much would you say it reflects in terms of 6
inches in the tank?
7 A
Maybe 1 inch.
8 Q
So you'd read that as a 30-gallon effect rather 9
than a 60-gallon effect?
10 A
Yes, sir.
11 Q
Do you have any recollection of this particular 12 test?
i l
13 A
No, sir.
I'm afraid not.
14 Q
Let's take a look at 120, which is not a test run 15 by you.
It's a test -- the operator was Mr. Cooper.
16 Mr. Congdon was on the panel at the time, and Mr. Adams was 17 the shift foreman.
18 I gather they would have immediately preceded you, i
19 I believe that's correct.
Did you typically relieve that 20 crew?
I 21 A
The rotation varied between which crew relieved i
22 which crew, sir.
It's a 6-cycle rotation.
It is not l
23 cons'istent that way.
In this case, yes, we did relieve them.
24 Q
It appears that way.
I'm just looking at the
(
25 logs.
You've got Congdon signing out on the log for 120 at l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
s.e_m m aegy
V(~'\\
28398.0 BRT 3173 1
2200.
And Hemmila signs in at 2300.
Does that make sense?
2 You say you did relieve him in this case?
3 A
It appears from the records, yes, that we did.
4 Q
Would you look at the strip chart for number 120.
5 A
Yes, sir.
6 Q
In the case of 120 -- as a matter of fact, it 7
shows 121, on the far right, I notice.
So they are both on 8
the same sheet.
Could you look at the offset that occurs 9
during 120, about halfway through?
10 A
Yes, sir.
11 Q
This, as the note shows and the log would show, r~s
(_)
12 this reflected hydrogen addition at that time which produced 13 the result that you see.
In fact, Mr. Congdon testified that 14 what happened there was that they were running an experiment 15 to see-whether the addition of hydrogen would have an effect j
16 on the makeup tank strip chart, such that it would improve, 17 that is to say, make smaller, the leak rate test.
18 So, the log is a hydrogen addition, there are some 19 unreadable words above the strip chart where someone wrote 20 in, " pressurized MUT."
So there's a lot of evidence that 21 this particular test did reflect the hydrogen addition and 22 produced this particular result.
23 Do you think that a comparison -- well, when you 24 compare the offset in 120 with the offset in 121, what 25 observation would you have in that regard?
Do you think they ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationside Coverage 80lk336-M46
("J BRT T 28398.0-N 3174 1
are comparable?
2 A
The first one, is that offset as marked on 120 3
appears to be quite large compared to the offset on 121.
4 Q
That seems fair.
5 A
The second one is, there is what appears to be a 6
general rising trend on 120 -- it's a small but it's a sharp 7
peak on.121.
8 Q
I agree with you that the offset is not as 9
pronounced.
Could you explain why that offset would occur at 10 all if it were not for either an unrecorded water or hydrogen 11 addition?
r 12 A
Well, no, sir.
I really can't give you any hard 13 facts on why this occurred or what happened in that. time 14 frame.
I don't remember anything specific about that test.
15 Q
I. understand that you wouldn't remember about the 16 test.
I wouldn't expect you to.
I think, in 120, according 17 to Congdon's testimony, it was an experiment.
That might 18 stand out in your mind.
But other tests are run together, I 19 assume.
What I'm asking you for is not so much that specific 20 test, which I accept you might not remember, but whether you 21 can offer any explanation for why that offset would have 22 occurred in 121?
23 A
No other than possibly an inaccuracy in the 24 instrument.
I really can't give you a good one.
Maybe a fg 4
25 little inaccuracy in the logging, too.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
'~'
28398.0
~
'BRT 3175 1
Q Do you think it's either possible or likely that, 2
in the case of 121 -- again, that involved yourself, Guthrie 3
and Hemmila?
4 A
Right.
5 Q
Do you think it's possible that if Hemmila were on 6
the panel that he could have added water or hydrogen and not 7
told you?
8 A
It is possible but that -- hydrogen, maybe.
But I
~
9 don't think that it would -- if the previous chart, 120, is a 10 hydrogen addition and you look at that trend and you look at 11 the one on 121, there are some significant differences
()
12 there.
The slope, the increase, the amount of deviation.
It 13 doesn't really look to me like hydrogen.
14 If it was water, routinely we added water in 200-15 to 300-gallon shots.
It looks far too small for that.
I
.16 really can't give you a good explanation for why that 17 apparent deviation is there.
18 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
19 Q
Mr. McGovern, in your experience during 1978 or
-20
'79, or prior experience in the Navy, so on, did you ever 21 have occasion to draw a straight line best fit through a 22 wiggly curve?
Have you ever done that?
23 A
I have ballparked them, taken a look at them and 24 said:
Okay, this looks approximately like a trend.
25 Q
Have you ever laid a ruler on a wiggly line?
l A
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- _ _ _._,. __,, _._.._ - 347-3700 Nationside Coserage 8%33MM6 202
(~'g 28398.0
!() BRT 3176 1-A I don't remember anything specific like that; no.
2 Q
So you really don't have any experience in this 3
area?
4 A
I wouldn't say -- no.
I'm not a statistician or 5
anything like that.
6 Q
I didn't ask you whether you ever did a least 7
squares best fit, I asked you if you ever did an eyeball best 8
fit?
9 A
Eyeball estimate, yes.
But I never --
10 Q
What sort of rule did you have in mind when you 11 did that?
-( )
12 A
What I was looking for was a trend or change.
I 13 presume you are talking makeup tank level?
14 Q
No, I'm asking a very general question and we'll 15 come back to the makeup tank.
16 Would it be the rule that over the interval to 17 which you were applying your ruler, that the values above the 18 straight line in terms of frequency and amplitude, and the 19 values below the straight line, should be equal?
20 A
Yes, sir.
21 Q
Would you look at the straight line that goes 22 through leak rate test 121.
23 A
Yea, sir.
24 Q
It goes back to beyond 2:00 a.m.,
chart time.
O 25 Does that line appear to follow that rule?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3C-347-3700 Nationwide Coscrage Kn336-t446
OL28398.0-BRT 3177 1
A Well, roughly.
I would have to sit and really 2
look at it to get that down.
Roughly..
3-Q Since this is in evidence before us, maybe you 4
want to look at it carefully.
5 A
I think if I was going to draw that line I 6
probably would have it at slightly more of an angle than 7
they've got it.
8 Q
Angle towards the horizontal?
s 9
A-Towards-the horizontal.
It looks to me like that, 10 in the approximately 12:301 time frame he's clipping the top 11 of.the line versus going through the center of it.
()
12 Between 2400 and 0100.
13 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you, Mr. McGovern.
I' 14 would say for the sake of the record, to my inspection this 15 conforms exactly to your -- the line as drawn tends to have 16 more values below the line than it does above the line, and 17 while the change in slope is not large, we are not looking-at 18 big things here.
We are looking~at small things.
L 19 THE WITNESS:
Thank you very much, sir.
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
Why don't we take a 10-minute 21 coffee break.
22 (Recess. )
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
I asked Mr. McGovern, during the 24 break, to take a look at NRR test 150.
He has been doing i
25 that.
Have you had a chance to look it over?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
312-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
~ _ _...,...... _.., _ _ _,, - _,,,, - _
~
(: BRT' 28398.0 3178 1
THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir, I did.
i
^
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
I directed his attention 3-particularly to the third sheet in the book, which I'm told 4
has to do with the temporary change notice.
I think this is 5
the first test on the record where we have had any occasion f
6 to. refer to that.
7 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
8 Q
Do you recall what was involved, as reflected in
-9 that third sheet of paper?
It is a handwritten sheet.
10 First-of all, do you know who wrote that sheet?
11 A
No, sir.
I really don't remember who the author-( )-
12 of the TCN was, temporary change notice.
13 Q
The temporary change. notice that we are referring' 4-14 to, what did that involve, just briefly?
15 A
Basically, I believe it was an attempt to correct.
16 the computer program for an error that resulted from the 17 change in density of the reactor coolant system when it was 18 leaked through the pressurizer valves to the reactor coolant 19-drain tank; the difference in temperature of those two 20 volumes caused a difference in indicated level and a 21 different amount of water.
I 22 Q
Right.
And we have some technical testimony in 23 the record on that.
It's just that we haven't looked at that 1-
~
24 change in the context of a specific test, so far as I 25 recall.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M 147-3NU Nationwide Coserage MXb336-6646 4
= -.. -. -,. _..., _. _ _ _., _. _, -
(~} 28398.0 V BRT 3179 1
When you refer to "the change notice," is-that 2
what that sheet of paper is?
3 A
Yes, sir, basically it was a handwritten form to 4
do the calculations for the changes in density.
5 Q
This was distributed or copies of this were made 6
available in the control room?
7 A
They were attached to the survelllance procedure.
8 That's the way a temporary change notice is made.
It becomes 9
a part of the procedure.
10 Q
Right.
But when I read these tests and associated 11 paper, I don't routinely run across a copy of the procedure.
12 Was this piece of paper actually stapled to the test result 13 in.this particular case?
Or did the NRR apparently just put 14 this in as a point of information?
15 A
I really can't answer that.
I believe they were 16 attached to the test, routinely, but it's conjecture.
I 17 don't remember specifically.
18 Q
But the piece of paper I'm looking at reflects the 19 application of this temporary change notice to this L
20 particular test?
21 A
Yes, sir, I believe it does.
22 Q
So the numbers here are being -- are a result of l
23 applying this change; right?
24 A
Yes, sir.
It appears that.
(O 25 Q
And other tests would have different numbers?
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 4 47-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3366M6
r^x-28398.0
(_) BRT 3180 1
A Yes, sir.
2 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
3 Q
Can you identify the handwriting on the sheets 4
that Judge Kelley is asking~you about?
Does it look like 5
yours?
6 A
As far as the entries for the numbers?
I believe 7
that's my writing.
8 Q
Well, the words?
9 A
No, the words are not mine.
The blanks that are 10 filled in -- for example, on line, I guess it's B, if you 11 look under " interpolate," which is not my writing, the 50
(_m) 12 degrees, it appears that I wrote the 50 degrees in.
13 Below that, the 100 -- that looks like the entry I 14 made.
15 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
16 Q
Nobody ever got around to typing this change 17.
notice?
18 A
No, sir.
Temporary change notices, by their very 1
19 nature, are supposedly a temporary correction to a procedure 20 to be followed up with a PCR, procedure change request, which 21 is the typed version.
You do it with a pen and ink change 22 first and then follow it up with a typed correction.
I 23 MR. BLAKE:
Judge Kelley?
l l
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
I'm just kind of puzzled by this 25
- document, i
i L
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2(C 347-3700 Nationwide Coveraae 8@33W
a a
1 L/'Nh28398.0' k--BRT-3181 b
1 MR. BLAKE:
Can I ask the Board look-in the Stier 1
2
, report with the corresponding -- same test, and the pieces of 3
paper associated with that.
It's tab -- or test 8, in-the 4
Stier report.
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
Hold on a minute.
Off 1
6 the record.
i 7
(Discussion off the record.)
8 MR. MC BRIDE:
Let the record reflect that I have 9
put before the witness Stier volume IV(C), which pertains to 10 test numbers 1 through 25.
I have specifically directed his 11 attention to Stier test 8 and the sheets of paper that follow
()
12 that tab number 8.
13-I think Mr. Blake's suggestion, if I understood it 14 correctly, was to turn to the fourth sheet and those that 15 follow, which I have now done for the witness.
- l'6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Yes.
The fourth sheet under that 17 tab is a printed form.
It is captioned, " Temporary Change
- 18 Notice 2" apparently.
19 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
20 Q
Did you fill out that form on this test?-
21 A
No, sir.
22 Q
Did you fill out this form on this test?
2 ~
23 A
No, sir, I did not.
You mean the actual TCN 24 itself?
On this test?
No, sir, I did not.
g-
%)
25 Q
Who would have done that, do you know?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3E%46 1
(~
28398.0
- BRT 3182 1
A If you look under " duration of TCN," it has'a 2
" submitted by."
I can't say who wrote that.
3-Q
.Would you have done the-handwritten sheet?
You at 4
least completed the handwritten sheet that we were just 5
talking about; right?
6 A
I would have performed the calculation required by
'7 the TCN, yes.
8 Q
Would somebody in operations, then, have taken 9
this other form and filled in, based on your calculations?
10 or do you know?
11 A
I'm sorry.
I -- could you go through that for me O)
(,
12 again?
13 Q
I'm just wondering, if you know, who would-have 14 filled out the printed form?
Would that be somebody in 15 operations as opposed to control room person?
16 A
The printed form being the TCN itself?
The 17 temporary change itself?
18 Q
Right.
19 A
It could have been somebody in operations.
It 20 could have been somebody from the plant engineering group.
21 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
22 Q.
Is this thing we are looking at sort of the cover
(
23 sheet for the change order?
24 A
Yes, sir.
That's exactly what it is.
25 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you.
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
?"2:'f'"E lt"?"?'*:"*
"fi"*
l
T 28398.0 l BRT 3183 1
MR. MC BRIDE:
If we could make sure the record is 2
clear, Judge Carpenter, I think what you meant by "this 3
thing" is -- we are talking about the first two pages that 4
are, on the first page entitled " Temporary Change"; and the 5
second page, I believe, reads " Evaluation."
Then, there 6
follows two handwritten pages.
I think the witness was 7
responding with respect to the first two pages:
the printed 8
form.
Is that correct, sir?
9 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
That's correct.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
I confess I'm baffled.
I don't 11 know what's going on here as a matter of pape'r.
,/
12 MR. BLAKE:
Judge Kelley, would you allow me to?
13 Then we might be able to confirm it.
14 JUDGE KELLEY:
Please do.
15 MR. BLAKE:
The two-page pieces of paper entitled 16
" Temporary Change," the typed form, was a form that was 17 available to individuals at this unit when they saw the need 18 to make, and promptly make, a change in their procedures.
19 They would fill it out, as was done in this case, and they'd 20 get it approved, which you'll see on the second page --
21 evaluated and okayed.
Now put into place it becomes a 22 generic change, applicable thereafter to the implementation 23 of this particular procedure.
And, as you look at each one 24 of the -- in Stier's volumes, each one of the leak rate tests gg
'd 25 from March 16th until the time of the accident, you'll find ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tC-147-3700 Nationwide Courage 800-3346M6
,,._----_-,_,__m_
(")N 28398.0
\\_
BRT 3184 1
this exact same two-page document, with each one of the filed 2
leak rates.
And then attached to it you will find the 3
implementation of that TCN, or temporary change, with 4
different figures, depending upon the. parameters that apply 5
to that individual test.
6 So you have the recognition of a need for change 7
in a procedure, its putting into place through this approved 8
temporary change notice, and they implement it with the
.9 handwritten calculations which they make and are then applied 10 to each leak rate test as they do it.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
That's helpful.
I guess what just O(_)
12 strikes me as rather unusual is that the form on which the 13 calculations were made, by Mr. McGovern, by others, was not 14 itself, at least, a typed form.
It seems a strange way to do 15 business.
16 Somebody wrote this out by hand?
A whole bunch of 17 Xerox copies got made and they were used?
Is that the way it 18 works?
l 19 THE WITNESS:
That's right.
20 MR. BLAKE:
I expect Mr. McGovern can fill in the 21 blanks or correct what I said if I misspoke.
THE WITNESS:
The handwritten version was part of 22 l
23 the procedure by the approval of the temporary change l
24 notice.
It became part of the procedure.
That is what you (2) l 25 used.
l t
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 4 47-3700 Nationside Coverage R&336-6M6
t)
28398.0
'x/ BRT 3185 1
BY JUDGE KELLEY:
2 Q
Okay.
Let me ask you if there's a mistake.
If 3
you could look at your interview with.the NRC people that we.
4 have been looking at, look at page 63.
I'm sure there's a 5
-simple answer to this.
6 Question to you:
"How many gallons does that 7
show?"
Are you with me at the top on line 2?
8 A
Yes, sir.
9 Q
You say, "We reported.270 gallons in the log."
10 The question says: "Okay, you have a data sheet 11 filed with this that shows 270 gallons was added."
fD (j
12 Now the data sheet that I am looking at says that' 13 207 gallons was filed.
14 A
Yes, sir.
I think it was most likely a 15 communications error between myself and the other CRO.
270 16 versus 207.
17 Q
What's your recollection about the correct amount 18 that was added?
19 A
I'd have to look at the makeup tank level 20 indicator to come up with that, sir.
21 Q
I was speculating that the mistake was made during 22 the interview by the reporter.
23 A
It may have been.
I'm speculating, 24 Q
Well, it's kind of important from the standpoint
\\g-)
s l
25 of figuring out what this test means.
Can you find a log
~
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 Nationwide Coserage 800-3%6M6
-3700
. -.,. ~
N.:
1~) 28398.0 N/ BRT 3186 1
entry for that water addition?
I see a log addition at 3:23 2
that says, "added 200 gallons demineralized" --
3
" demineralized water to MUT."
Which would suggest, I would 4
think, that it was a 200-gallon addition.
S' MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, if it's all right 6
with_you I'm going to show him the NRR strip chart for the 7
same test because the copy we have here is not very clear.
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
Sure.
9 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
10 Q
The confusion in my_ mind is it says 200 in the 11 log, at 3:23; it says 207 on data sheet 4, and it says 270 in
()
12 the_ interview.
13 A
Yes.
I guess it was a miscopy in the transcript 4
14 or maybe I said 270, meaning 207.
15 Q
Looking at this now does it appear to be either 16 200 or 207?
i l
17 A
Yes, sir, it's right in that area.
18 Q
Can you suggest why there would be the 19 discrepancy, not that it's all that large, between 200 and l
l 20 207?
l l
21,
A Possibly we planned on adding a 200 gallon batch 22
-- this is a suggestion; I really don't specifically l
23 remember.
Possibly we planned on adding a 200 gallon batch
(
24 and it actually went to 207 before the controller timed out.
l l
25 Q
This is from the batch controller?
I l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37fU N,ationuide Cos erage 80lk33 N
28398.0
' k'-)N-BRT 3187 1
A Yes, sir.
2 Q
Does the batch controller -- you set it and it 3
activates a pump and in goes some water.
At the end of that, 4
does it have a, like a speedometer -- odometer,'rather?
5 A
Yes, sir.
More like an odometer.
It has an odometer on it that says 207?,5 6
Q 7
A Yes, sir.
That's basically correct.
It actually 8
opens a valve but the effect is the same.
9 Q
If you would look at the strip chart itself, test 10 150 is marked by lines.
Looking-at the reflection of.the 11 water addition at'about the middle of the test, the line goes l
12 up almost vertically; right?
13 A
Yes, sir.
14 Q
How much water would you say that-reflects?-
15 A
Just using a straight inch conversion it's about 16 240, somewhere in there.
17 Q
Okay.
As I understand the way the instruments 18 work, at the end of the test wher,. you push the button and you I
19 told it that you added 200 pe.lc the computer reads the 20 makeup level indicator; correct?
21 A
Yes, sir.
It did.
22 f Q
So that there would be, as far as the computer 23 knew, 40 more gallons in there than it had been told about in 24 terms of addition; correct?
O) s*
25 A
Just using the straight line indicator, yes.
4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
Y
'(~gf28398.0 V BRT 3188-1 Q
Give or take a.few gallons.
I grant you that,.
2 certainly.
3
'A-Yes.
4 Q
But, then an amount -- well, an amount of 30 5
gallons on an_ hourly basis would affect the leak rate test by 6
half a gallon per minute; correct?
7 A
That-is correct, sir.
8 Q
So it could have -- would appear to have had, in 9
this case, an effect of half a gallon or more, slightly more, 10 on this' test?
11 A-Not necessarily, sir.
()
-12 Q
No?
Why not?
13 A
Post-accident we became aware, at least I 14 personally became aware of a phenomena with the makeup tank 15 level indication of the compression -- the compression of:the 16 gas in the makeup tank was not accurately reflected-through 17-the level transmitter.
It resulted in an indication higher
-18 than the actual addition.
19 If you'll look at this one, you'll see that that 20 addition was performed in the middle of the leak rate and 21'i that the dropoff occurred somewhere in the last 20 or 25 22 minutes of the leak rate.
It appears that it would have come 23 back down and stablized out.
24 Q
Let me look at it again.
I'm sorry.
Yes, you are 25 right.
The computer takes a picture at the beginning and the l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coscrage 800-336-6646
k'm/') 28398.0 BRT 3189 1
end, basically.
2 A~
Yes, sir.
It doesn't look at the middle.
3 Q
As I read this, though, it does, indeed, come down 4
but it comes down --'if.it went up eight in the first place 5
as a result of the addition, eight increments -- correct?
It 6
appears to me it came back down about four.
7 A
About 32 gallons, or about the difference between 8
207 and 230, 240.
9 Q
If you take it literally, say it's eight -- that's 10 40 over minus 7.is 33, minus four more inches is -- just 11 about right.
They cancel out.
1) 12 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
13 Q
Mr. McGovern, I believe you just testified that 14 the apparent offset, vertical offset in terms of increased 15 inventory in the tank that occurred in the middle of this
'16-test was erroneously high?
17 A
I believe that to be so, sir.
f 18 Q
In the ensuing half hour it looks to me that the 19 rate of decline of the inventory is very similar to what it 20 was previously; those two straight lines-are essentially 21 parallel.
For that erroneous overindication to have 22 decreased, wouldn't it be true that those two straight lines 23 would have to have different slopes?
24 A
Yes, sir.
I think if you look at the line right O
25 above the addition point, where the actual bar graph, 70 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
_ _.. _.,... _. ~ _.,
(~
(_)N 28398.0
-BRT 3190 1
inches, and it goes to -- I think it peaked at about 74, 2
somewhere in the 74 range -- it looks to me like the first 3
five or 10 minutes are in a slightly steeper slope than the 4
overall trend of that curve.
Again, that's without a 5
straight edge -- I believe that to be the phenomena that we 6
are observing, sir.
7 Q
Mr. McGovern, if we look at the straight lines 8
which the NRR analyst has added, we look at the straight line 9
that's drawn through the portion of the record beginning 15 10 minutes before the initiation of the test, approximately, 11 through a half hour, we see a slope there.
And then after
()
12
.the test was over, about 15 minutes later, water was added 13 and then there is a renewal of the decline in water level 14 with very close to the same slope as preceded the test.
Is 15 that fair?
16 A
I think that's fair, sir.
Yes, sir.
There may be 17 a little difference but it's not much.
18 Q
I grant you that the 20-minute interval that we 19 are talking about, the last 20 minutes, has more l
20 j irregularities than were occurring before and after.
But 21 wouldn't it be reasonable to guess that the best fit line 22 might -- estimating the best fit line might be aided by 23 considering the slope information that is contained in those 24 two other lines?
O 25 A
I think that would, depending on what other plant ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Courage 801L336W
(^*
28398.0
\\
'BRT 3191 1
evolutions were in progress, I think that would probably be 2
fair.
It was probably a general trend.
3 Q
I agree with your qualification.
There's a
-4 tendency to wish that this data had all the data necessary to 5
do the analysis.
I'm well aware that it doesn't.
Thank 6
you.
7 Because, if you draw that line through the last 20 8
minutes that is parallel to the two other lines -- do you 9
have a piece of paper you can use as a straight edge?
10 A
I have a little paper clip.
11 May I offer, sir, if you start from the bottom of lf 12 that first peak following the addition and line that out 13 through to the next water addition, that your trend will be 14 approximately the same as the trend before that one.
15 Q
Right.
So that gets back to my point.
If that 16 overshoot were to dissipate, we'd have to have a line 17 steeper?
18 A
Yes, sir.
You do, for the short period of time 19 immediately prior to that.
20 Q
That makes the record clear; thank you.
21 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
22 Q
You recall this particular test?
23 A
No, sir, I'm sorry, I don't.
24 Q
In a test like that, or in any leak rate test, was
(~).
25 it your habit to look at the makeup tank strip chart?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3%6M6
.. ~
_(s/~\\ 28398.0.
BRT 3192 1
A No.
Not as a general practice.
10n occasion we 2
may have but it wasn't something -.you may have walked over-3 and looked at-it and-you may not have..It wasn't a routine.
4 Q
This does reflect -- by the way, I think'in 5
earlier questioning with you, it does seem to me that an 6
offset persists.. Just ho's much, one can debate, but there is 7
an offset.
It.isn't theEfact that just by going down for a 8
period of time toward the end of the test that it wiped out-9 the whole effect.
The effect, it seems to me, to be still 10 there.
11 Isn't it fair to say that -- not " fair,"-it's a l
12 matter of how the instruments work..
If the makeup tank strip.
g 13 chart were reading, were reflecting a 240 gallon addition-and 14 you entered a 207, that that would then read a leak rate that i
15 was off by 33 gallons?
16 A
- Again, no,. sir.
Not necessarily.
l 17 Q
Then tell me why.
l 18 A
If the offset -- the offset was caused by a 19 compression of gas in the makeup tank not being accur'ately i
20 reflected through the reference leg of the makeup tank 21 transfer --
22 Q
You are talking about loop seals.
f 23 A
Yes, sir.
l_
l 24 Q
There's evidence that's true, but right now I O
l 25 don't care what caused it.
I'm simply saying let us assume l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4 M-347-37(U Nationwide Cosetage N4346M6
('/ BRT] 28398.0 w
3193 1
that the makeup tank strip chart is reflecting an addition of 2
240 gallons.
Just assume that.
3 A
At the end of the test, sir?
4 Q
At the end of the test.
And let's not quibble 5
over whether it's 225 or 253.
Let's.just say it does that.
6 Isn't it true that if that is the case, and 207 is 7
put in as the addition, that the computer will produce a 8
result that is off by 33 gallons?
9 A
If it was added as 207 and the indication was 10 240:
Yes.
That is correct.
At the end of the test.
11 Q
Yes.
Right.
)
12 A
Sir, can I kind of follow up on that level 13 transmitter?
I want to explain why it is important, when the 14 addition was done and the effect.
15 Following the accident we discovered this loop 16 seal phenomena, but it is a temporary phenomena.
Once the 17 pressure is registered on the reference leg side of the 18 makeup tank transmitter, it balances out for the overpressure 19 condition, the compression of the gas, and you are indicating 20 a true level again.
That's why it is important that you look 21 at the time of this addition.
The fact that it took place 22 halfway through the leak rate should not have caused any 23 effect on the leak rate itself.
24 Q
Well, wasn't the effect of the -- let's call it t
gg
,/
5 25 the loop seal phenomenon.
If I want to determine -- I agree i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 Nationside Cmerage SE33MM6
.-. -3700
/~N 28398.0 Isl 3194 BRT 1
with you.
I have heard a lot of testimony -- some testimony a
2
-- that you had to do it right toward the end to get the
~3 effect.. But, isn't the proof of that pudding what the strip 4
charts actually show?
5 A
Yes, sir.
It is.
6 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
7 Q
Mr. McGovern, the Board has been in a learning 8
process,for the last five weeks.
We are continuing that 9
process.
This is the first occasion I, personally, have had 10 to look on these tests that had the temporary change orders.
11 I would like to have you help me.
I) 12 On the first page of NRR test 150, looking in that 13 book; I'm not looking at the Stier volume at all --
14 A
Sir, was that 50.or 150?
15 Q
150.
The one we were just looking at.
16 A
Yes, sir.
17 Q
That first page I see you signed as the operator; 18 is that correct?
19 A
Yes, sir.
The person performing the calculation.
20 Q
So it's fair to say this is basically your work?
21 A
Yes, sir, I believe it is.
22 Q
On that page the computer printout indicates a 23 gross leakage rate of -- I question the five significant 24 figures -- 4.4 gallons per minute, and a total identified O
25 leakage rate of roughly 3.9 gallons per minute to produce a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(t)
Nationwide Cosetage 8(X)-346646
., - _ _.. _ _ _.. ~.,.
J (i28398.0'
% /'BRT 3195 E
1
-total unidentified leak rate of
.5.
Is that_a fair reading 2
of_that page?
3 JMR. MC BRIDE: _Did you'say total unidentified 4
leakage?
15 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
6
.Q Net unidentified leakage.
7 A
.54.
8 Q
I think if I saw.549, I would~be inclined to call 9
it.55.
Then I go by the next few pages, by the second, by s
10 the-third, and I come to the fourthione, which indicates --
- 11 and you say the numbers are in your handwriting -
that you
()
12 wrote down that the total leak rate is 4.4297, which.is 13 identical to what the computer thought.
But now you've 14 calculated an equivalent identified-leak rate, as a result of-15 your calculations, of 5.4264, to produce a net unidentified 16 leak rate of minus.9967.
Do I read that correctly?
3 17 A
Yes, sir, you are.
-18 Q
When you turned this in, which pages were you 19 turning in?
20 A
The whole thing was turned in, sir.
[
21 Q
But which page tells me what you thought --
22 A
The actual leak rate that we have used?
23 Q
The actual leak rate used for that day, i
24 A
They would have used the negative.9967, sir.
25 Q
I want to observe that I personally am very b
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Cowerage 800-33W46
. -,..,. _ -.... _ _..., _. _ _... _ _ _..... _.. -. _-347 3700. - _, - - _.. _ _. _. _. _. - _ - _ _ -. _... _,. -., _.....,... _. _,,.,. _ _ _ _.., _
-(~3 28398.0
'(d BRT 3196 1
impressed that you.are trying very hard to recall events of 2;
Leight or nine years.ago.
.Can you-recall -- this is March 3
17th -- what your reaction was when you finished doing that.
4 calculation?
Somebody said, change it, do it better, and it 5
comes out to a minus quantity almost as big as.the tech spec; 6
limit?
7 A
I don't remember anything specific on the test, 8
sir.
It just kind of fit in-with the whole program, the 9
computer program wasn't that accurate, they gave us a hand' 10 calculation in an attempt to straighten it out and I don't-11 think it was that accurate either.
'rg
(,/
12 Q
Do you disagree that the volume that was collected 13 in the sump should be corrected back to reactor temperature?
14 A
I'm sorry, sir?
15 Q
Do you disagree -- I mean the thrust of the change 16 order is correct the volume.
You are trying to do a mass 17 balance and you've got volumetric measurements.
You correct 18 the volume back to reactor temperature, as I understand the 19 procedure.
i 20 Do you think it was erroneous?
21 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Carpenter, can I make sure 22 the record is clear?
I believe you said " correct for the 23 water density in the sump."
This is for the water density in 24 the reactor coolant drain tank.
25 JUDGE CARPENTER:
I'm sorry.
I was using them as I
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3 4 6646
.. ~
~
% 28398.0 t
- -(Asl BRT 3197.
a.
1-equivalent. : -Apparently they aren't Thank you.
2 THE WITNESS:
I'understoc
.e question as RCS 1.
-3
~ drain tank.
Yes, that'is in fact the purpose of it and-1 4
there's no question that it is a calculation required to get l
5 accuracy to the-leak rate.
Whether the actua1Lcalculation l
6
.that we were given to perform was that accurate, I really
-7 don't know.
That's an engineer's. job.
8 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
9 Q
You mean in terms of the values of the densities? A The values that were used; yes, sir.
11 Q
Let's assume somebody can look at a handbook and
()
-12 given a temperature, can read the density.
13 A
Yes, sir.
14 Q
Could you imagine an error in densities that would
+
15 change the leak rate from a half a gallon per minute to minus 16 1?
That's 300 percent, roughly.
17 A
Again, the calculations as put out by that 18 computer were sometimes very unbelievable.
I know what you 19 are saying, sir.
I can't give you an answer.
20 Q
I think maybe more believable than minus 1 --
I 21 A
Yes.
22 Q
I have visions of the reactor vessel slowly 23 expanding.
I've asked a lot of witnesses, "why didn't you 24 ever do a manual calculation" because I thought it would have 25-provided a basis for stimulating some reflection on:
What i-1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Coserage 8tH 33MM6
....,._..m_..,,,,..
,,.... __,.._,.._- 3 47-3700,, _,,, _ _ _ _ _, _
..m...
~
N('_/
's-28398.0 BRT 3198 1
are we-doing here?
2 A
To a degree I think I knew, personally, you didn't 3-sit down and actually figure one out,.do a longhand 4
calculation.
But what you did was you tracked the parameters 5
that were available the makeup tank and the pressurizer'and 6
the RC drain tank, and you might, you know, do a rough, 7
ballpark calculation.
That was usually enough to convince 8
you that the computer program was wrong.
9 Q
Okay.
Well, here you have a hand calculation and 10 it doesn't seem to be much better, does it?
11 A
No, sir, it doesn't.
()
12 Q
You didn't stop to think:
What the heck is wrong?
13 A
No, sir.
I guess in that. time frame it was more 14 or less as a nuisance -- or, as I said:
This is the way we 15 do it, and that's the way I did it.
I never really 16 questioned the leak rate practices at all.
That's what I was 17 trained to do.
Go'do it this way.
18 Q
By whom were you trained?
19 A
Routinely, the training was on-the-job training 20 from your fellow CRos.
21 Q
Not the foreman and not the shift supervisor?
22 A
Not -- not routinely; no.
23 Q
Just for the sake of the record, doesn't it make l
24 common sense if you've got to correct the water you get out C:)
t 25 of the bucket back to the temperature of the water in the l
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-34L37(U Nationwide Coserage tKWL3364646
.__,.m...
[~T 28398.0
- d BRT 3199 1
bucket you ought to correct the water in the bucket to the i
2 same temperature?
3 A'
Yes, sir.
4 Q
Then maybe you wouldn't get minus l' gallon a 5
minute?
But it just kept sailing by.
.I can't believe you 6
are not intelligent enough not to have seen that if you in 7-any way thought about-it.
Is that a fair guess?
8 A
Again, the real problem with that is the leak rate r
l 9
test itself was wrongly, cavalierly, discarded or eliminated 10 from concern.
.11 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you.
I just wanted to be
()
12 sure I understood what I was looking at.
Somebody put this 13 in-the file.
You did it.
Your signature says you did it.
14 Somebody. approved it.
15 JUDGE KELLEY:
I just have a couple of more small 16 points, I think.
17 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
i j
18 Q
Could you look at page 70 of your interview with l
19 the NRC people.
Looking at the middle of the page, lines 12 20 to 15.
The question to you is:
21
" Question:
You had no indication that any other 1
[
22 shifts were doing anything to influence the outcome of the l-l 23 tests?
" Answer:
No.
Except once we ran a test with a
(
25 hydrogen tank -- a hydrogen makeup."
i l
t i.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 147-3700 Nationwide Coserage Mn3346646
4 I
r~N, 28398.0:
(f.BRT 3200 1
I didn't know anything about that, and I'm unclear 2
about your reference in your answer to running a test with a 3
hydrogen tank.
4 A
That was a misstatement on my part that was 5
carried over into the transcript.
It was a hydrogen addition 6
to the makeup tank and it referred to the fact that after the 7
accident, during the course of one of the many litigations on 8
this matter, it was brought out that a test was run with a 9
hydrogen addition on the makeup tank and its effect on the 10 level transmitters.
11 Q
Post accident?
()
12 A
Yes, sir.
13 Q
On the subject of adding hydrogen to the makeup 14
. tank we have heard testimony that there was a directive -- I 15 don't believe any tech spec requirement, but a directive that 16 you maintain hydrogen pressure in the makeup tank in a band i
17 between about -- between 15 and 25 psi?
18
.A Again, I don't remember the specific band.
I i
19 thought it was a little higher than that, personally.
I was i
20 thinking it was in the 30-pound range.
21 Q
The exact -- for the purpose of my question, the 22 exact --
23 A
Again, the answer is yes, there is a band.
1 24 l Q
There was a hydrogen band, you were supposed to gs d
25 maintain it in that band.
What was the purpose of doing ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-M7-3XO Nationwide Coserage A4MMM6
1
'['
BRT
- 28398.0 3201 z
1 that?
'2 A
Two purposes:
an overpressure on the makeup i
3 tank.
Again, it did aid the net positive suction head for 4-the-makeup pumps;'and the more primary purpose was hydrogen 1
5 addition scavenged oxygen from the makeup water, which-6
_ prohibited corrosion or minimized corrosion in the primary i'
7
. plant.
8 Q
Was it, as you recall, important from a safety 9
standpoint to maintain that hydrogen band in the makeup 10 tank?
Let's assume for the moment'that the makeup tank is 11-somewhere up over 60 inches.
If that were so, would it be
()
12 important to, nevertheless, have hydrogen pressure in order 13 to have adequate suction to the pumps?
14 A
No, sir.
In that case the more pressing issue 15 would have-been the-chemical contr'1 and corrosion control.
o 16 Q
Was that so pressing that you couldn't allow the 17 hydrogen pressure level to drop below the band for a short c
18 period of time?
Or could you?
19 A
Technically, probably you could have done so.
20 Technically, again, I think there's enough conservatism in 21 our bands that you could have probably allowed it to drop off 22 with no adverse effect for a short period of time.
- But, 23 routinely we did not.
24 Q
You maintained it?
O 25 A
Yes, sir.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 N ationwide Cos erage M133M/46
28398.0
' BRT 3202 l'
1 Q
Do you recall whether you had occasion to add 2
hydrogen to maintain the band during the course of leak rate 3
tests?
4 A
No, sir.
I don't.
5 Q
You don't recall one way or the other; is that 6
right?
7 A
I really don't recall one way or the other.
8 Q
Wouldn't it have been possible, if you were about 9
to run a leak rate test, if you wanted to avoid adding 10 hydrogen during tests, wouldn't it have been possible to 11 pressurize the tank before the test?
()
12 A
Yes, sir.
It would have been possible.
13 Q
I mean your typical rate of decline or pressure 14 was not such that you would lose your minimum pressure in the 15 course of an hour, was it?
16 A
As I recall, no.
I don't think you had to.
17 Again, it's a recollection.
18 Q
But your testimony is that you were not aware of 19 any relationship between hydrogen additions and leak rate 20 tests; right?
t 21 A
That is correct, sir.
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
I don't have any others.
Judge 23 Bright has some questions.
Judge Carpenter may, too.
24 If you have follow-ups, you might bring them up.
O 25 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mmoe m_. <._,.
., _ _. _... - - -.. _ _..., _. _.... -. - -. _ _. -.. - _, _... _. _..,... _ ~, _
u
'28398.0
(~} BRT v-3203
'l Q'
I just have a'few little questions on general 2
_ things in your testimony, Mr. McGovern.
3 You were a trainee on shift A, and a CRO-on shift 4
F.
Let me ask you, did you. notice any' difference in the way i
5 they operated?
Their attitudes?
Procedures?
Whatever? tit:
Ei seems to:me that what we have been listening to here, every.
7 shift would kind of do things their own way.
And I just 8
wondered if you had noticed this when you changed over?
9 A
Well, there were changes but --'some caused by the i
10 difference in one shift foreman and another.
The changes'I 11 remember most were my role on the shift.
In 1978, as a
()
12 trainee working for two other CROs, well, that-was a.
13 different mode than in 1979 when I was one of the' licensed 14 CRos on the shift.
That's really the biggest thing I 15 remember about it.
Yes, there are always differences between 16 the shifts.
17 Q
From your remark there, would you say that the 18 personality of the shift supervisor had a lot to do with the 19 way the shift operated?
I 20 A
The shift foreman, I would say.
21 Q
Shift foreman?
1 22 A
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
I think that's a fair 4
23 statement.
k 24 Q
When you were still a trainee on shift A, C:)
25 Mr. Frederick testified that he kept all of the tests and J
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3701)
Nationwide Coserage WG336-fM6
(^} 28398.0 V BRT 3204 1
gave them to the shift foreman, regardless, whether they were 2
invalid or not.
Mr. Faust testified that he threw away all 3
the tests that he could personally invalidate.
I just 4
wondered where you fit in that little scheme.
What was your 5
way of operating?
Everybody else did whatever they wanted 6
to.
I assume that you did much the same thing.
7 A
Having been trained by those two gentlemen I 8
probably fell halfway in between.
Half of the time the leak 9
rate tests would have been given to the shift foreman and 10 half the time just outright discarded, presuming they were 11 invalid tests.
()
12 Q
Your criterion, was it more like Mr. Faust's?
13 Mr. Frederick didn't seem to have one.
He said if he could 14 personally and to his own satisfaction invalidate the test, 15 he would throw it away.
16 A
Generally I think it even got more haphazard than l
17 that.
I think it was:
It's greater than 1 gpm.
Go run i
18 another test.
i 19 Q
I would like to ask you a little bit about the l
20 LER.
I assume you know the one I'm talking about, 78-62?
21 A
Yes, sir.
22 Q
You state that you don't recall seeing it.
You l
23 really had no knowledge of it, for which a part of the reason l
24 might be that you were in training and not there, in fact, at 25 the time.
But what I was wondering:
You weren't aware of 1
i t
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l x.m.
m-um,-
L-I L
l-l~
.28398.0 l
BRT 3205 1
it.
Did anyone on your' shift say-anything about it when you 2
returned?
3 A-No, sir.
Not that I recall.
It was following the 4
. accident and during the previous litigation that it was 5
brought _out the first time.
At that. time I did not remember 6
ever seeing it or hearing anything about it.
7' Q~
So your shift foreman never said a word to you 8
about the changes that supposedly the LER was going to bring 9
about?
-10 A
.No, sir.
Not that I recall.
11 Q
Nor the shift supervisor?
O 12 A
se, sir.
13 Q
You were discussing this change notice with Judge 14 Carpenter.and Judge Kelley.
I understood that that notice 15 came out of what happened at that particular time.
Wasn't it 16 subsequent to the October whatever the date was, test, that 17 brought about the LER?
18 A
I believe it did follow the tests.
But from what 19 I have gathered, recollection, I think it was the mid-March 20 time frame when that change was put in and the LER came out 21 in October of
'78.
That's several months' gap.
22 Q
So there's no particular --
23 A
I don't think so.
A temporary change notice is a 24 rapidly put together change.
There is something wrong with O
25 the grocedure that needs to be corrected now.
One would ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
n,.n.,
-- + <-a
-('C28398.0
- V BRT 3206 2
1 think, if the two were tied _together, the temporary change l'
2 notice would have been in the October time frame.
.g 3
Q One'would_think if they really wanted action on an 4
LER, think would have issued a temporary change notice?-
5
-Would that'be a fair statement?
6 A
Not necessarily.
The LER dealt more with the 7
handling of the action statement and the tech spec _ limits, 8
and really didn't deal with the mechanics of the test, the I
i 9
actual manipulations that were required by the program to get 10 a valid leak rate.
It dealt more with what you did with the 11 leak rates when they'were not valid -- the LER --
()
12 Q
Wouldn't you regard that as being a significant 13 change from what you had been doing before?
14 A
Oh, yes, sir.
It's definitely a significant 15 change.
But it did not require a procedural change, okay?
16 The procedure, the method of actually performing the test was 17 not directly impacted by the LER.
That is a mechanical 18 thing, a software program thing, if you will, that needed 19 correction.
That's what the TCN took care of.
20 The practice of the discarding of the leak rates 21 and the ignoring them, basically, if they were over 1 gpm, 22 that was, more or less was the subject of the LER, and was 23 not directly tied to the mechanics of performing the test.
24 Although I will definitely grant you that if the mechanics of O
25 performing the test had been better, there probably wouldn't ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Natiotimide Cmerage 800-3 W6646
{^s} BRT 28398.0 3207 s
1 be this problem now.
2 Q
Well, I'm just trying to figure out why nobody 3
ever heard of any change in the way you did business there 4
after, supposedly, the LER came out and says oh we are going-5 to do all these big things.
Everyone said the same thing:
6 No, doing business to the same old standards.
7 You have no comment?
8
-A No.
That's basically true.
9 Q
Is this the way it went?
10 A
Up until the time of the accident we performed, at 11 least I performed them pretty much the same way.
'( )
12 Q
Very well.
During your training, or any time
+
13 between the time you started and, say, the accident, did 14 anybody ever explain to you what the basic safety 15 implications of doing that leak rate test were?
Or did you f
16 find it out after?
I understand you understand it now.
17 A
Yes, sir.
I really don't remember any specific 18 lectures or training or anyth.ing else on leak rates.
All I 19 remember about performing leak rates and learning how to do 20 them was what I was taught by the CRos.
This is how you 21 punch it out and make the leak rate test come out.
That's 22 what I remember about leak rate training.
t 23 Q
You were talking about the high-speed pumps that 24 transfer water.
Would the reason that they, as you 7,
V t
25 explained, explode when the mpsh got too low, they would ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tC-147-)?al Nationwide Courage M433M6m
()
28398.0
\\_/
BRT 3208 1
begin to cavitate?
2 A
Yes, sir, that's exactly correct.
3 Q
And that would blow them apart?
4 A
Yes, sir.
At the speeds that they rotated they 5
came apart very, very rapidly.
6 Q
I would like to be sure about one thing.before I 7
quit here.
Do you -- well, would you like to retract, 8
modify, change, whatever, any of your previous statements 9
that you have made in this affidavit?
10 A
No, sir.
I believe that the statements I have 11 made are, to the best of my recollection, good statements and
()
12 true statements.
13 Q
How about any statement by others that you would 1
14 like to discuss?
15 A
I was.not overly pleased with some of the 16 conclusions from some of the NRR reports.
They have a 17 tendency to be somewhat biased on the outcomes that they 18 provide.
I will grant you that we didn't do things very well 19
-- real badly, as a matter of fact, as far as this particular 20 test was performed.
But the overall black cloud that they
?1 paint was not really indicative of the situation, at least I 22 don't believe so.
I really can't change that one but that's 23 the one I would like to.
s l
24 JUDGE BRIGHT:
I think that's all.
Thank you, 25 Mr. McGovern.
k ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-M7-3700 Nationwide Coverare 800-3 M-6M6 l
/~' 28398.0
(-
BRT 3209 1
BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
2 Q
By chance, Mr. McGovern, my.last question kind of 3
follows along with your last statement.
4 As I review the NRR report I see test number 50, 5
64 and 74 that were signed by you.
For all three of those 6
tests, the NRR analyst concludes that the unstable level 7
transmitter was used.
I'm not sure I would say that but at 8
least it was the -- the least unstable wasn't used.
9 Would you dispute NRR's analysis with respect to 10 those three tests?
These are all in December, 11 A
I would have to sit and look at them.
()
12 Q
Do you want to take a quick look at them?
It's 13 your chance.
It's your chance.
14 A
Could I, please.
15 (Discussion off the record.)
16 (Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m.,
the hearing was
_17 recessed, to be reconvened at 1:30 p.m.
this same day.)
18 19 20 21
(
22 23 24 C) l 25 l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
t m,.m, s-c-
28398.0
(^} BRT s_-
3210 1
AFTERNOON SESSION (1:30 p.m.)
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
We'll go back on the record.
Judge 3
Carpenter has a few questions, then we'll ask the follow-up 4
questions after that.
5 EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD (Continued) 6 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
7 Q
Mr. McGovern, just before we broke for lunch I 1
8 asked you to look at NRR test numbers 50, 64 and 74, which'I 9
believe have your signature as the operator, from the point 10 of view of seeing whether.you disagreed with the apparent NRR 11 interpretation of these tests, i. ()
12 A
Yes, sir, I have had a chance to look at those 13 tests.
14 Q
Do you have anything you want to put on the record 15 here that is in contrast to what NRR states?
16 A
I would like to go through 50, for example.
17 Q
I have it in front of me.
18 A
The conclusion that the NRR people reached was 19 that the makeup tank level indicators were switched over to 20 put the bad indicator to the computer and, therefore, cause a 21 problem with the leak rate.
22 Q
It doesn't say it was switched; it says it was 23 used.
24 A
Yes, sir, I'm sorry, 25 Q
There's a profound difference.
j l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
ace,.m
~~,
c
.,--n,.
..,--.---.,-----,,.-----.,----.-.--.--~-,.~.,,------.,-,...n.-
..,,,v~.,,
,. -. ~.. - - -
(^}:28398.0 k /=BRT 3211 1
A Yes,1 sir.
From looking at the strip chart that'is 2
available for leak rate 50, it is somewhat difficult for me 3
to see a lot of difference between any of the 4
instrumentation.
Neither instrument is overly accurate, is 5
the point I'm trying to raise, there.
6 Q
If you look back to test 49, which precedes test t
7 50, test 49 was at 2140 on the 8th, and the test we are 8
looking at -- do you see test 49's strip chart?
9 A
Yes, sir.
10 Q
Looking at it, and test 50, would you say -- and 11 looking at test 49 for the' period 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.,
()
12 there is an oscillator retrace with an amplitude of three or 13 four divisions?
~14 A
Yes, sir.
i l
15 Q-And from 10:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight, there is a l
16 oscillator retrace with an amplitude of, perhaps, 10, and in 17 the extreme, 12 divisions?
18 A
Yes, sir.
19 Q
Would I be correct in interpreting that probably 20 the smaller amplitude trace represents one level transmitter 21 and the large amplitude trace represents the other one?
22 A
It could indicate that.
It could indicate a f
l 23 number of other things, too.
I don't know what was going on i
f
(:)
24 in the plant, for example, at that time.
It appears that 25 there was a switch made there.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m m.m.,
~ _ m c _,.
( T 28398.0
/~
) BRT 3212 1
Q As-far as things going on in the plant, was it 2
common for, oh, temperature, pressure, what have you, 3
associated with power level, to go up and down?
4 A
Depending on what was going on with, for example, 5
feed water -- it could easily cause oscillations throughout 6
the entire primary plant.
7 Q
Wouldn't it affect both level transmitters?
8 A
Yes, sir.
It just depends on which one was 9
indicating on the strip chart.
10 Q
In this case it looks like, if we think one is one 11 level transmitter and one as the other one --
()
12 A
Yes, sir.
I think that's a fair statement unless 13 something happened in that one period of time where that was 14 settled out or the transient, assuming before the switch was 15 made, was made.
16 Q
Your bottom line on test 50, your point is you 17 don't see how one can, just by looking at test 50 strip chart 18 record, conclude which transmitter was on?
19 A
It is difficult to see how they determined that, 20 yes.
21 Q
Do you have comments about the other two tests?
22 A
On 64, about the only thing I would offer is I i
23 used what was available or was already on the computer.
It 24 appears that that level transmitter that was in use was in 25 use for quite some period of time.
I
(
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 170)
Nationwide Cm erage 8@3)MM6
(~N
(-) 28398.0 BRT 3213' 1
Q In your prefiled on page 7, the fifth line down 4
2 you testified, "I was able to determine which level 3
transmitter was-functioning properly by examining the strip 4
chart level recorder."
5 A
Yes, sir.
That may have been somewhat of an 6
over-specific comment.
As a general rule, you could look at i
7 one set of oscillations versus another and decide that, 8
perhaps, this is the better of the two.
9 Q
If you switched back and forth?
10 A
Yes, sir.
11 Q
I see no indication in this strip chart record
()
12 that any switching back and forth was done.
j 13 A
No, sir.
That was as a general rule.
It wasn't 14 necessarily each and every time.
15 Q
It.wasn't identified by you as a matter of good 16 practice?
17 A
It is something that probably should have been i
18 done each and every time; yes, sir.
19 Q
I don't see any point in belaboring that.
20 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Carpenter, when you said
~
21 "this strip chart" were you referring to the strip chart for 22 leak rate test 64?
l 23 JUDGE CARPENTER:
That's correct.
l 24 MR. MC BRIDE:
I wonder if you would mind I
25 inquiring of the witness whether just before strip chart time i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Coserage Rn13MM6
., _-347 3700,,.,. -...,. -.. - -., _ - - - -..,. - -. - - - -, -., - -, - - - -,.., -.
3
/~%
28398 0 5
fBRT 3214 1
10:00 a.m.,
whether he could identify that spike?
2 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
3 Q
Did you identify the question, Mr. McGovern?
f A
Yes, sir, I do.
I believe he's actually referring 4
.5 to'something that happened around 10:05 a.m.; the strip chart 6_
time indicates 10:00 a.m.,
but the chronological markings at
'7 the top make it earlier than.that.
I believe that there is 8-some sort of a spike there that could have been a. check of
~'
9
.one level-instrument,and then returning to the other.
10 Q
Are there other possibilities for what that could 11 be?
(f.
12 A
It's a very narrow band spike.
The chances of it 13 being something else are pretty remote.
14 Q
It looks like whoever did it didn't want to look l
15 at it for very long because he switched the switch right 16 back?
17 A
Ile looked at it and then got off of it; yes, sir.
18 Q
To keep on with some continuity, how about 74?
19 Test 74?
20 A
Yes, sir.
Both of them are oscillating.
Assuming l
21 that was a level transmitter switch at the point they',ve got j
it marked, it looks like it was around 3:00.
I can't really 22 O>-
l=
23 offer too much on that other than both of them were i
24 oscillating, and a conjecture that possibly the guy that was i O' 25 at the panel wanted the more stable indication on his reading
{
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Nanonwide Coserage 80t)-33MM6
('} BRT 28398.0
\\_-
3215 1
rather than applied to the computer.
That's conjecture.
2 It's a guess.
3 Q
You, as the signer of this test, you would not be 4
the one to choose which level transmitter you were going to 5
use?
6 A
Nine times out of 10, what you'd really do is say, 7
which level transmitter have you got up?
Or you may not even 8
pay any attention to it at all and run the test, to be 9
perfectly frank about it.
Ideally, obviously, you'd want the 10 better indication for the operator that was trying to control 11 the plant versus for the leak rate.
That's the gentleman
()
12 that's really got a job to do there.
And, again, remember 13 the way that we dealt with leak rate tests, wrongly, but we 14 didn't put a lot of stock in them.
15 Q
Well, I want to come back to just your point of 16 not putting a lot of stock.
In your prefiled, the last 17 paragraph on page 7 you testified you can " state 18 unequivocally that I never deliberately switched the level 19 transmitters during the leak rate test so as to obtain a 20 satisfactory result.
There would be nothing to be gained by 21 doing that.
The deliberate use of inaccurate level 22 transmitter could just as easily lead to an unsatisfactory 23 leak rate test result as a satisfactory one."
24.
Isn't it true that you had the practice of 25 discarding leak rate tests indicating more than 1 gallon per ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 1k10-336-6646
~
('~)T 28398.0
(-
BRT 3216 1
minute and, as a hypothetical, let's suppose the true 2
unidentified leak rate was 1 gallon per minute and every time l
3 you got a 2 you threw it away and every time you got.5 or.3 i
4 you kept it.
5 If the level transmitter were absolutely stable 6
and the plant was at steady state, the probability of getting 7
1 gallon per minute was very high.
But if you had an 8
oscillating transmitter,~ chances are 50/50 that you would get 9
a number bigger than 1 or smaller than 1, as long as the 10 period didn't change very much.
You are stacking the deck by 11 throwing away the highs and buying the lows.
Isn't that
()
12 close to dealing off the bottom of the deck?
13 A
To a degree.
To a degree that would be true, but 14 I don't know that it really would be 50/50.
You already had 15 an installed bias of the actual leakage.
16 Q
Around that central tendency.
17 A
Right.
And then you'd have a varying, oscillating 18 trend.
Depending upon the point, the point that the computer IF picked up at the beginning and the and of the leak rate --
20 Q
I'm not talking in terms of "a" test.
I'm saying, 21 if I got 100 of them and I'm having trouble getting good 22 ones, I'm throwing away three times as many as I'm keeping --
23 your testimony is in contrast to others' -- to be sure it l
l 24 wasn't substantially different.
It didn't occur to you that I
(:)
j 25 that was the way to stack the deck?
i l
}
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33MM6
_~
e 28398.0 BRT 3217 s
1 A
It would not have made sense.
Just off of what I 2
would have gone through, it would have sounded like the odds 3
were -- maybe it would help, maybe it would hurt.
4 Q
If you threw away the highs, you've got to end up 5
with lows.
Isn't that right?
6 A
But that was true whether you kept one transmitter 7
on or the other, you know.
8 Q
If there weren't any -- well --
9 A
Yes.
10 Q
I'm sorry.
I didn't see your point.
If you have 11 one that's got a small oscillation and one with a big
()
12 oscillation, it still biases the same way.
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
I would like to leave the details of individual 15 tests now.
16 It is my perception that you are trying pretty 17 carefully to remember what happened in 1978 and 1979.
The 18
. Board has been mystified about'the training or lack thereof.
19 In your training, I think you were telling Judge Bright, 20 around October you were down in Lynchburg for some sort of 21 training, and either in your on-the-job training or your 1
22 training in Lynchburg, did you ever see a multi-volume 23 document called " Final Safety Analysis Report"?
24 A
Yes, sir.
O 25 Q
In the training program, was there any indication ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33MM6
-. ~.
, _ ~..
('} 28398.0
(>
BRT.
3218 1
that the technical specifications for the plant -- for any 2
plant that you might be involved with as a licensed operator, 3
came from the rationale in that final safety analysis report?
4 A.
I know that now, of course, for a fact.
I don't
.5 remember whether it was specifically covered in training'at 6
that time.
7 Q
Apparently your testimony is, to the best of your 8
recollection, no one made a point --
9 A
Definitely they did not make a-point of it.
10 Q
-- that this is what the tech specs are.
They 11 came out of this multi-volume book.
They are not arbitrary I)~
12 and capricious.
They have a reason behind them.
It would 13 almost seem that would be an introductory statement and a 14 lecture on technical specifications?
15 A
I don't remember any such statement in a lecture 16 on tech specs.
17 Q
That they came from them and the basis for them 18 was well documented?
19 A
No, sir.
I don't remember anything like that at 20 all.
21 Q
You began your testimony today by saying you felt-22 that the attitude that you had towards the test was j
23 j cavalier.
l l
24 Just before lunch you said you felt that perhaps
.O 25 NRR's final evaluation was a little harsh.
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationmiue Coserage
$433M616
e' 28398.0 k)N -BRT 3219 1
In Mr. Russell's October 4, 1985 memorandum to 2
Mr. Denton, on leak rate testing and evaluation of you, the 3
second to the bottom line on that page 5, he concludes with 4
the sentence:
"The leak rate test was conducted in a 5
frivolous manner."
Are you uncomfortable with Mr. Russell's 6
characterization?
7 A
No.
I would say that was basically a true 8
statement.
We were, again, pretty -- held it in very light 9
esteem.
10 Q
The last few questions have been in very broad 11 termed --
()
12 A
Light esteer.
13 Q
What perplexes me is that the license reads, "In-14 manipulating the controls of the above facilities the 15 licensee shall observe the operating procedures and other 16 conditions specified in the facility license."
Was_there any 17 doubt in your mind that this technical specification was part 18 of the facility license and therefore part of your license?
19 A
I've got to kind of throw that in two parts.
Part 20 A is the actual physical plant conditions.
There was no 21 doubt in my mind that we had to minimize the leakage from the 22 plant and monitor and control that leakage.
Part B is:
Did 23 I view the leak rate test as actually being the necessary 24 part to meet my license requirements?
And the answer to that O
25 has got to be no.
The test had just proven itself to be too ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
' ~
202-347-37tM Nationside Coserage 8(Xb336-(M6
f'Nd.L53s8.0 BRT 3220 1
invalid over a period of time to be relied on.
2~
Q Why would you generalize that the test,.as they 3
gave it to you, was the way it had to be?
4 A
I'm sorry, sir?
5 0
You are saying the test, as you were instructed in 6
the control room by the other operators, as you found it in 7
the control room, had so many deficiencies that you couldn't 8
take it seriously.
Is that fair?
9 A
That is a fair statement, yes.
10 Q
But, meanwhile, others had judged that it was-11 reasonable to make measurements to a gallon per minute.
They
()
12 didn't say it was easy.
They start off by saying " steady 13 state," which is not easy to come by.
Things like don't add 14 water."
They didn't say it was easy.
But they said:
We 15 l think it is doable.
What is mystifying to me is why, given 16 your identification that this test was really just full of 17 holes, you never filled out an exception and deficiency in 18 accordance with the administrative procedure 1010, which is.
19 one of the procedures by your license that you are required i
(
20 to follow.
You've got freedom to do all kinds of things as 21 long as you follow the stated procedures in particular 22 areas.
23 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Carpenter, I'm afraid there's 24 a bit of a legal conclusion in that question about the
-(
25 inclusion of administrative procedures in the facility ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3c-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
~ (~~Y 28398. 0
\\_/ BRT 3221 1
license.
We had some technical testimony about the fact.
We 2
went back through the regulations --
3 JUDGE CARPENTER:
I quite agree, Mr. McBride.
I 4
ran the two together and they are different animals.
5 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
6 Q
But in terms of the emotional climate.is what I'm 7
getting at, not so much a legal thing, the kind of problems 8
here -- did you feel pressure not to identify the test as 9
having a serious deficiency?
10 A
No, sir.
I can't say that I really felt pressured 11 that way.
It was an accepted, known fact.
The test has
()
12 serious deficiencies.
13.
Q But nobody that we have talked to yet ever 14 bothered to document it, even once.
15 A
All I can offer in that is, again, the manner in 16 which we treated a leak rate' test was 180 degrees from the 17 way we treated any other surveillance.
We just didn't treat 18 them like a surveillance.
19,
Q Can you tell me now, reflect for a minute, just 20 why was that?
Why was this the oddball?
21 A
I was thinking about that before and I'll try to 22 give you a few of the thoughts that I have come up with or 23 conclusions I have come up with for why that was.
24 Q
This is not your thinking in '78 or '79?
O 25 A
No.
This is trying to --
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage N G 336-M 4
E' 28398.0
(-) BRT 3222
'l Q
Your thinking about the thinking?
2-A Trying to review and trying to come up with some 3
sort of a logic for that time frame.
They were different in 4
their very nature.
Normally, a tech spec surveillance is set 5
on a scheduled frequency by.a computer system.
It is called 6
a generation maintenance system, GMS system.
It comes out 7
with a little computer-generated sheet that says~ perform it 8
on such and such a date.
Normally, surveillances tested the 9
operability of some piece of equipment.
For example, you 10 would run a decay heat pump on a monthly basis to determine 11 that it developed sufficient flow, sufficient head.
O(_j -
12 This test, this leak rate test, was not run on any 13 set frequency.
It wasn't covered specifically by a GMS 14 computer sheet.
And it didn't really test the operability of 15 anything, as was common with most of the surveillances.
It 16 just was the oddball of the group all the way around.
17 You throw in that along with the problems with the 18 program itself, and it was.just not taken as a tech spec 19 surveillance.
It just wasn't dealt with that way.
20 Q
In the midst of that, I get the sense that if it 21 hadn't been the habit, not a requirement, of running it every 22 shift or at least daily, perhaps you might have viewed it 23 differently?
24 A
Possibly.
.O 25 Q
If the steady state requirement was taken very e
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
.N. 2-347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage
&&336-M16
(')'28398.0
(>
BRT 3223 1
seriously, don't run the test unless you think you are going 2
to have steady state, perhaps it wouldn't have been run-as 3
frequently?
4 A
That's quite possible, yes.
5 Q
And if you had to carry out the calculations by 6
hand, the whole calculation by hand, maybe you wouldn't have 7
done it so cavalierly?
8 A.
If it was a case where the hand calculation had 9
proven to be reliable; yes.
I think it would have been taken 10 a lot more seriously.
11 Q
Suppose the hand calculation raised questions?
m) 12 A
Then you have to resolve the questions, of course.
13 l
Q But that's what the problem is, of course.
You 14 don't see anybody taking it seriously enough to bother to 15 start a paper trail to cause somebody from technical support 16 to come over and take a look at what was going on.
L 17 A
I really wasn't into that end of the business.
l 18 But it was my impression that they were working on it.
The l
l 19 computer people working on the program, the I&C people 20 working on level transmitters.
l l
21 Q
When you say "the computer people," did you feel 22 that they -- we may talk to some of them -- did you feel, l-23 were they -- did they have training at nuclear engineering?
24 A
I believe they were computer-trained personnel, l
CE) l 25 given a set program or a requirement, a set of requirements i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationmide Coverage 800-3366M6
-347-3700
}BRT 28398.0 3224 1
to develop a program.
2 Q
But if the input to them, as to what you put in 3
the computer in terms of what calculation you want to do, 4
like not change the density of the water back to the reactor 5
density, do you think that individual would -- I don't know 6
whether you had enough contact to have any opinion -- if you 7
did, do you feel he would be a person that would pick up 8
things like-that?
9 A
Again, it's an opinion.
In my opinion, probably 10 not, unless he was specifically brought a board --
11 Q
That's-why I said somebody in technical support.
()
12 Is that a reasonable guess on my part, that that's the 13 individual that might have come over and straightened it out?
14 A
Somebody from the engineering department.
15 Q
Did you ever see any people trom the engineering 16 department looking at the situation?
17 A
Not that I can recall.
18 Q
So you had hardware people and computer people.
19 Thank you very much.
20 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
21 Q
We've got a few follow-up questions from the 22 parties, Mr. McGovern.
The first several are a series of i
23 questions about adding water and under what circumstances.
l 24 Were there reasons, other than for inventory control, that l
25 water might have to have been added, particularly during the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Natuviwide Coverage 800-3 W6M6
(~ '; 28398.0
(_) BRT 3225 1
period when there was a water loss through the code' safety 2
valves on the top of the pressurizer?
3 A
The answer to that is yes, there are other reasons 4
other than just inventory control for adding water.
I can 5
expound on that if you would like?
6 Q
Yes.
Please do.
7 A
Besides just straight inventory control in the 8
makeup tank and the reactor coolant system, the other 9
function that adding water took care of for us was boron 10 concentration, control, and the reactor coolant system.
11 Boron concentration is absolutely critical for controlling r-(,m) 12 the power level of the plant.
Boron is a neutron absorber 13 and tends to shut the plant down.
You tie that in with an 14 automatic rod control scheme and the requirement to maintain 15 a certain band, again the operating band for the rods.
If 16 one was approaching that band limit, one might have to add i
17 demineralized water or borated water to move the rods back 18 into the center of the band.
And that could occur at any 19 ;
time, no matter what the makeup tank level was, i
20 '
Q In my mind, and maybe I don't have the right 21 picture of this, the boron adjustment, boron level 22 adjustments you are talking about here -- by the way, is that 23 what one does in the so-called feed and bleed operation?
24 A
Yes, sir.
That is one method of changing boron V
25 concentration, is a feed and bleed.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347.1700 Nationwide Coverage SW336-6M6
-.___,__...m
f' BRT 20398.0 3226 1
Q Okay.
When we use the phrase " inventory control" 2
in the makeup tank, that is a fancy way of saying how much 3
water is in the tank; right?
4 A
Yes, sir.
5 Q
So in my mind, I have heard a lot of testimony 6
about feeds and bleeds, and about boron concentration.
As I 7
understand it, if the boron concentration gets too high or 8
too low, you might add water from the makeup tank in order to 9
bring that into balance or into the range that you want; 10 correct?
11 A
Yes, sir.
You would add water to the makeup tank
()
12 to adjust the makeup tank boron concentration and therefore 13 any RCS boron concentration.
14 Q
But doesn't the water -- you've got water there in 15 the makeup tank; right?
And you want to add water to the 16 RCS, in order to effect boron concentration; right?
So you 17 do that.
And you pump in 200 gallons.
Lo and behold, the 18 tank goes down 200 gallons.
Then you say, as a matter of 19 inventory control, I'll put 200 more gallons in the makeup i
20 tank.
To me they are part and parcel, they are
'.7.ed 21 together.
The question was, are there reasons other than i
22 inventory control why you might have added water?
And then l
l 23 we talked about boron concentration.
Well, to me that's the 24 same thing.
It's all one transaction; isn't that right?
7-i V
25 l A
No, sir.
l l
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700
,Nationside Coserage 800-336-6M6
~
-(");28398.0 V BRT 3227 1
Q It's not?
2 A
It really is two separate functions and that's the 3
key point.
4 Q
I guess I don't understand it, then.
5 A
Yes, sir.
With a slight change in boron 6
concentration in the reactor coolant system, which was a 7
relatively common occurrence during the period of1 time that.
8 we had leaks from the pressurizer, the pressurizer tended to 9
steam the water off and" leave the concentrated boron in the 10 pressurizer.
11 Q
So the boron level got higher?-
p/
12 A
The boron level in the pressurizer got higher.
If s,
13 you did something to cause that water to mix with the-rest of 14 the reactor coolant system, an out-surge from the 15 pressurizer, you would increase the boron concentration in 16 the reactor coolant system.
17 Q
Yes.
Right.
18 A
Increasing the overall concentration would cause 19 the rods to adjust themselves.
They would see that increase 20 in_ poison, and start trying to bring themselves farther out 21 to maintain power level?
22 Q
Right.
23 A
That had to be adjusted for to add demineralized 24 water to bring the rods in, keep them in the band.
25 Q
Demineralized water comes from a source other than ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coscrage 800 336-6M6 l
4 i(~\\128398.0 4
L
.BRT 3228 1
the makeup tank?
2 A-No, sir.
It is added to the makeup tank but you 3
-adjusted the boron concentration in the makeup tank so you
-4 could adjust the concentration of the reactor coolant system.
5 Q
Oh, so you are saying -- let's see if I can. follow 6
this.
I'm not a person with a technical background so I'm 7
kind of slow on a lot of these things.
8 You have a certain boron concentration in the 9
makeup tank.
10 A
Yes, sir.
It usually is approximately the same as 11 the reactor coolant system because it's on a continuous, if
'( ')
12 you will, feed and bleed from the reactor coolant system to 13 it and back.
14 Q
So, if you want to dilute the boron concentration-15 in the RC3, you would add water to the makeup tank so as to 16 make that less borated?
17 A
Yes, sir.
That is exactly right.
18 Q
And, unless you did that.you couldn't accomplish 19 your objective of lessening the boron concentr<stion in the i
20 RCS?
21 A
Yes, sir.
That's it.
22 Q
And that would be independent of whatever level 23 was in the makeup tank at that time?
24 A
Yes, sir, f
25 Q
Thank you.
I think I understand.
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
c/~T -28398.0
(-) BRT 3229 1
A Thank you.
2 Q
The next one I think is answered:
Was it 3
necessary to maintain boron concentration within the reactor 4
coolant system?
I gather that's been answered.
5 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes.
6 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
7 Q
If boron concentration was increasing in the 8
pressurizer or the reactor coolant system, what type of water-9 would be added to the makeup tank to restore the boron 10 concentration?
11 MR. MC BRIDE:
That's been answered.
((_)
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Demineralized water.
13 THE WITNESS:
Demineralized water, sir.
14 JUDGE KELLEY:
Which is also deborated water; 15 correct?
16 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
It is -- all of our water 17 is demineralized water.
It is borated by adding boron 18 chemicals to it.
19 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
20 Q
Okay.
Hight it have been necessary to add 21 demineralized water to the makeup tank for operational i
22 reasons other than inventory control?
And we've talked about 23 one reason, which I think I now understand.
24 A
Yes, sir.
That was the primary thing I wanted to j
25 make sure we got across.
L ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6 4 6
i J
(~3~28398.0
= (./ BRT-3230
_1 Q
Why was that necessary at times during leak rate 2
tests?
I gather.the rods might go out of the. band, so to 3
speak?
4 A'
Yes, sir.
They'd actually go out on the top 5
limits, they'd hit their full limit of travel.
6 Q
If they were brought all the way out does that-7 shut the reactor off?
4 8
A No,.all the way out is 180 out from that.
That's 9
as'high as they go.
10 Q
Oh, that's full power.
11 A
Yes.
But what happens at.that point is --
()
12 Q
Note my spot on the learning curve.
All right.
13 A
Yes, sir. -That would be the maximum power that 14 they could attain.
But if the boron concentration was --
15 Q
Yes, if you take the rods out, those are are 4
i 16 control rods.
l 17 MR. MC BRIDE:
Right.
18 JUDGE KELLEY:
Right.
Thank you.
19 i MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, can I just add one 20 more that I didn't have on my list there that might help 21 you?
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
Yes.
23 MR. MC BRIDE:
Maybe you do understand this, but 24 you might just inquire of the witness whether it required any i
25 operator action to make water from the makeup tank flow into
?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
p mmn m.e_m. c_,.
("1 28398.0
\\_/ BRT 3231 1
the reactor coolant system itself, that is the reactor 2
vessel.
Or do you understand that that was an automatic 3
thing?
4 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
5 Q
Did it. require operator action?
6 A
No, sir.
Again, the makeup tank received water 7
from the reactor coolant system and injected it back into the J
8 reactor coolant system, in a kind of a recirculation-path.
9 You could do things to adjust the flow from the reactor-10 coolant system to the makeup tank or vice versa.
But 11 routinely-it was an automatic action, controlled by an
()
12 automatic level control valve.
j 13 Q
And that activated the pump?
14 A
The pump wae routinely running.
It just opened 15 the valve more and let more water in and closed it.
I l-16 Q
All right.
That has been very educational.
17 MR. MC BRIDE:
I'm sorry my earlier questions 18 didn't accomplish the same thing.
19 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
20 Q
Question from GPU.
Would you look at Stier tab 21 21.
It is a copy of TCN number 2-79-070, dated 3/16/79.
r 22 A
Yes, sir?
l 23 JUDGE KELLEY:
Number 21?
l l-24 MR. JK: BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, it's volume V (C), tab
~ E)
(
i 25 21.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L x.m.m>
s m _ c _,.
/
g '/ BRTr };28398.0 t
3232 1
JUDGE CARPENTER:
21?
2 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes, sir.
3 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
4 Q
If you have the document, I'll start again with 5
the question.
Would you look at Stier tab 21, which is a 6
copy of TCN number 2-79-070, dated 3/16/79, particularly the 7
fourth page entitled " Attachment 1-A."
Compare this with.the 8
similar page in NRR test 150, which I think was the one we 9
talked about a bit before lunch.
10 A
Yes, sir.
-11 Q
Continuing with the question:
Earlier you
()
12 testified that the number inserted under the word 13
" interpolate" was inserted by you.
Comparing these two 14 documents, do you still believe you inserted the number "50"?
15 A
Looking at the writing I really believed that was 16 my writing.
But if that is the generic TCN, and I'm assuming 17 it is for the way that it is tabbed in, then it must have 18 been put in by the author and not by myself.
I would have 19 j entered the others --
20 Q
The word " interpolate," you mean?
. :21 A
No, sir.
The 50 degrees and 100 degrees, 22 underneath the " interpolate."
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
Off the record.
24 (Discussion off the record.)
f-U 25 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3%6M6
(5 28398.0
~(
BRT 3233 1
Q You understood the question?
2 A
Yes, sir.
I believe it really dealt with who 3
inserted the 50 degree and the 100 degree on the TCN.
4 Q
Right.
5 A
Assuming that is the generic TCN, although it 6
appeared to be my writing off of test 150, if that is the 7
generic TCN, it should not have been my writing, it should 8
have been the authors.
9 Q
On page 8 of your prefiled testimony, a question 10 from the Staff.
Page 8 of your prefiled testimony, you state i
11 that you discarded leak rate test results more negative than
(~T
(_)
12 0.1 gpm.
However, in NRR test 150 you calculated the net 13 unidentified leak rate to be minus.9967 gpm.
Can you f
14 reconcile the retention of this test with the referenced 15 statement in y.our prefiled testimony?
l 16 A
Yes, sir, I believe that's a misstatement in my 17 l original filed testimony; it should have been 1.0 gpm.
My 18 recollection is if it was greater than a negative 1 gpm, we t
19 discarded it.
i 20 '
Q Negative gallon, 1 full gallon?
21 A
Yes, sir.
22 Q
Should we understand that to be a correction of 23 your prefiled?
24 A
Yes, sir.
25 JUDGE KELLEY:
Any further questions from ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
/~) 28398.0
(_)
BRT-3234 1
counsel?
Staff?
2 MR. GEPHART:
Judge, we may have another 3
correction here in connection with his statement.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
We'll go off the record here.
5 (Discussion off the record.)
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
We are back on the record for a 7
clarification.
Mr. McBride?
8 MR. MC BRIDE:
Mr. McGovern, do you have before 9
you the interview conducted of you by Mr. Stier's associates, 10 and specifically page 42lof that statement?.
11 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir, I do.
p 12 MR. MC BRIDE:
Do you, at this time, having now
(,j 13 just seen that statement again, have any corrections to make 14 to what appears to be your testimony on that page?
15 THE WITNESS:
Yec, sir.
Again, this shows
.1 16 gpm -- actually it says "gmp" -- for negative leak rate.
It 17 should be 1.0.
h 18 <
JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
Same correction, different i
19 place?
20 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
21 1 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, I think with that, 22 Mr. McBride, we have completed our questioning process.
We 23
. appreciate your being with us here today and your attention 24 to the questions, and your answers have been very helpful to 25 us.
Thank you very much.
You are excused.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3C-147-3700 Narionwide Coserage 800-D6-6646
a 28398.0 3235 BRT 1
(Witness stood down.)
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
We can adjourn the record at this 3
point.
4 (Whereupon, at 2:15 p.m.,
the hearing was 5
adjourned, to reconvene at 8:30 a.m.,
on October 9, 1986,.)
6 7
8 j.
9 10 11 lO n
i 13 i
i 14 c
15 l-16 }
l l
17 16 l.-
19 1
I l
20 21 22 23 24 O
l 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 3346M6
r CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER 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:
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
s (sigt)
(TYPED)
JOEL EITNER Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS INC.
Reporter's Affiliation,
(