ML20211A417
| ML20211A417 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/09/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1171 LRP, NUDOCS 8610150126 | |
| Download: ML20211A417 (173) | |
Text
.
O UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ORJGl\\AL IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
LRP INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION LOCATION:
BETHESDA, MARYLAND PAGES:
3236 -
3401 DATE:
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1986
/
g\\
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
ofpcialReprters 444 North CapitolStreet Washington, D.C. 20001
- p.., i c 15 < 1
~
(202)347-3700 e pre x.
T NATIONWIDE COVERAGE
1 CR28399.0 3236
~SIMONS,DAV/-
9Af 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 7
(
)
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
._ _ _ _ _ _ _._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x In the Matter of:
5 Docket No. LRP INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND 6
UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION 7'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 8
9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fifth Floor Hearing Room East West Towers 10 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, Maryland 12 Thursday, October 9, 1986
(~2 i
13 x-The hearing in the above-entitled matter convened at 14 9:00 a.m.
15 BEFORE:
16 JUDGE JAMES L.
KELLEY, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 18 Washington, D.
C.
19 JUDGE JAMES H. CARPENTER, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 20 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
21 JUDGE GLENN O.
BRIGHT, Member 22 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
23 24
()
25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
3237 1
APPEARANCES:
f3_
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.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 5
On behalf of.the Employees:
HARRY H. VOIGT, ESQ.
7 MICHAEL McBRIDE, ESQ.
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 8
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1100 9
Washington, D.
C.
20036 On behalf of-Jack Herbein:
10 JAMES B.
BURNS, ESQ.
77 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza 12 Chicago,-Illinois 60602
(~}
13 CHRISTOPHER W.
FLYNN, ESQ.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale 14-1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 15 On behalf of Gary P. fliller:
16 MICHAEL W.
MAUPIN, ESQ.
M.
CHRISTINA HENSLEY, ESQ.
77 Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street 18 Richmond, Virginia 23221 19 On behalf of Former Metropolitan Edison Employees:
20 SMTIH B.
GEP. HART, 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.
f'}
MARY E.
WAGNER, ESQ.
25 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission x,
Washington, D.
C.
20555 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3)2 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
f P
3990101' 3238 A marysimons
(.) -
1 CO N T E N T S-2 3
' WITNESSES:
EXAMINATION 4.
5
. CHARLES F.
MELL 6-Direct 3239 7
. Board........ 3242 8
9 JOHN M. KIDWELL Direct 3285 i
-10
' Board........ 3287 11 12 13 14' 15~
16 17 18 19 20 i'
21 22 23 I
24 l
25 g
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33HM6
3990101 3239 t'] marysimons
\\_/
PROCEEDINGS 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
Good morning.
2 3
Mr. Mell, right?
4 MR. MELL:
Right.
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
Would you raise your right hand, 6
please.
7 Whereupon, 8
CHARLES F. MELL 9
was called as a witness and, after having been duly sworn by 10 Judge Kelley, was examined and testified as follows:
11 DIRECT EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. VOIGT:
s 13 Q
Mr. Mell, do you have before you a copy of the 14 document carrying the caption of this proceeding, that is, 15 Prepared Statement of Charles F. Mell?
16 A
Yes.
17 Q
Do you have any corrections to make to that 18 statement this morning, sir?
19 A
No.
20 Q
And is the statement true and correct?
21 A
Yes.
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
Your statement will be 23 inserted in the transcript at this point.
24 The Prepared Statement of Charles F. Mell 25 follows:)
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage 800-336-6646
. \\ s# -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND
)
Docket No. LRP UNIT 2 LEAK RATE DATA
)
FALSIFICATION
)
)
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES F. MELL i
My name is Charles F. Mell.
I live in Carleton, Michigan.
I am self-employed as a nuclear consultant.
In 1976, I began my employment with Metropolitan Edison Company as'an auxiliary operator.
I received my license as a I was a control control room operator in the summer of 1979.
in March room operator in training at the time of the accident 1979.
I left Metropolitan Edison in December 1981.
In January of 1979, I was assigned to "B"
shift.
I was on shift with John Kidwell and Theodore Illjes.
William Conaway Because I was the foreman and Joseph Chwastyk the supervisor.
was in training, all the tasks I performed were supervised by a licensed operator.
I learned how to perform a leak rate on the job.
No one received gave me specific training other than the directions I
()
from the shiftmates who were supervising me.
There was no set
.+ -.
...-.-....r...
,,..-.,.,m,-
_..we__,=...m.-
_.,.,.e-------,----1
-,-e.,.---,.-..m.,.v-.
.cww.,,
o but it was one of m
k_)
time on our shift for performing a leak rate, I thought that the things that we tried to do on each shift.
each shift performed leak. rates in the same basic way.
We had 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> to obtain a leak rate test with I did unidentified leakage less than one gallon per minute.
not believe that-I had to enter the Action Statement, if I obtained_a leak rate over 1 gpm, as long as no more than 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> had gone by since the last one.
I thought the 72-hour time period was the factor that controlled when we might have to enter.the Action Statement.
As far as I can remember,
.everyone on my shift interpreted the procedure the same way.
If I did not obtain a good leak rate, I would run another leak rate test.
I discarded tests that were higher than one 0)
\\"
gpm when I obtained a satisfactory test.
This was a common practice that I learned on shift.
I did not have to show the foreman the leak rate before throwing it away.
I do not recall that I ever knew the reason for the practice of discarding leak rates, but I do remember believing that the plant parameters did not show excessive leakage.
I viewed running the leak rate surveillance as less important than some of the other tasks assigned to me.
My shift rotated the responsibility for running the leak I might have run it every third day.
I recall rate, so occasion's when we did not obtain a satisfactory leak rate on my shift.
k'
]
3 iY
-g recall whether we ever entered the Action
( )-
I do not it became harder to get a good leak Statement.
I remember that rate closer to the accident,-because we had a valve that was leaking.
I do not think that I knew which valve it was that was leaking.
I never deliberately added water during a leak rate without-recording it.
Sometimes, I did add water if the system needed it, but I always tried to record it.
My shift occasionally had a problem communicating to the operator on the panel, who was adding water, that a leak rate test was in progress.
We tried to put up a sign on the batch controller indicating that a leak rate test was underway, but others in the control room still In could have been unaware that a test was being performed.
(_-
1978 and 1979, I was unaware that anyone purposely added water knowing it would be under-recorded, because of an.effect on a makeup tank level transmitter.
I was also unaware that hydrogen could affect the leak rate test or that anyone was deliberately trying to do this.
I remember that we added hydrogen only in response to a directive from the chemistry department for corrosion control.
I saw no a leak rate.
The addition problem with adding hydrogen during of hydrogen should have been logged by the control room who made the actual operator and the auxiliary operator, addition.
recall the performance of an experiment with I do not hydrogen on my shift.
I do not remember Joseph Chwastyk
6
- g_
L(_)
cautioning us not.to add hydrogen during a leak rate; in my he would opinion, if he had noticed a problem with hydrogen, it close to his chest until he had so fully checked have kept it out-that he could explain it.
I recall that I first discussed the hydrogen phenomenon with my crew after the Hartman allegations were made known, and we were all surprised by Hartman's claims.
I remember that I sometimes filed negative leak rates.
I thought it was normal to obtain negatives because of slight perturbations with pressure and temperature differences in the system.
I have been confronted with the fact that the files I do contain a negative 8 gpm leak rate test conducted by me.
not remember this test, but its existence does suggest that a 1eak rate might have been accepted without sufficient consideration of whether it was genuinely valid or invalid.
I also remember that for a time, we had a problem with the level transmitters.
One was worse than the other.
I recall trying to use the least erratic one on the computer when
., running a leak rate.
Switching a transmitter during a test would have thrown off the calculation.
As far as I know, no one on my shift ever deliberately switched transmitters to get a good leak rate.
I remember hearing that the NRC had found a bad leak rate once, which created some fuss.
I have no recollection of the j
November 1, 1978 Licensee Event Report, even though it appears that I signed the routing sheet.
I remember that we rounded
{}
-4
.L.
{
o'\\ J off leak rates at one time; but I never knew much about it and just did what.I was told for that period.
I cannot recall
. receiving any specific training on the meaning of the 72-hour requirement either before or after the LER was issued.
I I decided to become-a party to these proceedings because would like to continue as a nuclear consultant, and I may wish to study for an NRC license in the future.
I have a unique ad/antage in this business because I have been involved in implementing changes that resulted from the TMI-2 accident.
I can bring a depth to that process that someone who has not been-through this cannot approach.
I hope that the NRC finds that a
my past conduct does not warrant my removal from the industry.
V i
I l0 l
-s-
J
.x 3990101 3240 t) marysimons 5 j 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Mell, I have a short statement 2
that I have been reading to all the witnesses.just to.
3 provide a little context about where we are and the nature 4
of our questions and then we will get into the particular 5
questions.
,s -
6 The Board has been charged by the Commission to
+
7 determine the extent of involvement of individual employees 8
at TMI-2 in '78 and '79 in leak rate test falsification and' 9
other improper practices in leak rate testing.
10 This is your opportunity to state on the record 11 your recollections and your perceptions about your 12-involvement in the leak rate testing at that time and to 13 rebut any adverse statements about you by other employees or 14 investigators with which you disagree.
15 We have reviewed your prefiled testimony and we 16 have considered it in the light of the record that has 17 already been developed in this proceeding, including some 18 prior statements or one prior statement I believe by you.
19 We will have some questions based on your testimony in that prior statement that are.already'in the 20 21 record.
We may also have some questions about statements of
)
22 other employees that have been made about matters in which i
23 you may have been involved, and we may also have some 24 questions about assessments that investigators and technical 25 experts have made about your participation in leak rate 4
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-33MM6
3990101 3241 f'} marysimons s_-
1 activities.
2 As I think you know, there are extensive studies 3
about TMI-2 leak rate procedures that have already been put 4
in the record.
One extensive study by Mr. Stier for GPU S
Nuclear and another by the NRC staff.
6 The Stier study includes analyses of every leak 7
rate test conducted at TMI-2 that was retained.
That is to 8
say it wasn't thrown away.
The NRC staff study includes 9
analyses of every routine test during the last six months of 10 operation.
11 The Board has already heard extensive technical 12 testimony on leak rate testing questions, including q(_/
13 testimony eJicited by your counsel on numerous particular 14 tests.
In these circumstances the Board does not propose to
-15 review with you each test in which the studies indicate you 4
16 were involved.
That is to say, we are not going to walk 17 through all your tests one by one.
We don't think that is i
18 necessary.
19 We will have a few questions about particular 20 tests.
The studies including the test analyses have been 21 available to you through counsel, and you were free to 22 discuss particular tests in your prepared testimony if you 23 chose to do so, i
24 Apart from that, the test analyses that are in the i
25 record will be considered in the light of the complete l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationside Coverage 85336-(M6
3990101 3242
~
}marysimons 1
record, the entire record, including your testimony here 2
this morning.
3 And with that, I'will turn the microphone over to 4
Judge Bright.
5 BOARD EXAMINATION 6
BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
7 Q
Mr. Mell, it's good to see you here.
8 A
Thank you.
9 Q
Before we convened I gave to your counsel a report 10 of interview, Report No. 184022, which is Exhibit 23 in the 11 OI report.
It was submitted by R. K.
Christopher,~ Office of 12 Investigations, Field Office, Region I, which is a abstract
(,,
13 or a condensation of an interview that OI had with you at 14 the Fermi Nuclear Power Station in the presence of.your 15 attorneys, Mr. Gephart and Mr. Voigt.
16 You have read this, have you?
17 A
Yes.
18 Q
Do you take exception with any of the statements 19 in here as reflecting on your actual interview?
20 A
No.
I think that is a fair statement.
21 Q
Thank you.
22 I just have a few questions here.
23 Now you were a trainee, correct?
24 A
At what period?
25 Q
Say any time before the accident.
~)
\\_/
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
3990101 3243 f] marysimons v.
1 A
Yes.
2 Q
And you were'not. licensed before the accident 3
occurred?
4 A
Right.
5 Q
I have looked through your testimony and I would 6
like to, oh, sort of summarize some of the things that you 7
said in there.
8 You stated, and this is just to get this on the 9
record, that you never entered into the action statement; is 10 that correct?
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
You did discard all leak rate tests that you ran
()
13 which were greater than one gallon per minute?
14 A
That I determined were not valid.
15 Q
That you determined were not valid?
16 A
Right.
17 Q
You also say,that you didn't show those to.the j
18 Shift Foreman, the ones you determined were not valid, the 19 ones you threw away.
Is that a correct statement?
?.
i 20 A
Yes.
l 21 Q
That you never added any water purposely to 22 gimmick up a test; is that correct?
23 A
Yes.
24 Q
That you have no knowledge of the effect that a i
25 hydrogen addition into the makeup tank would have on a leak l
r l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-(616
-.. - ~
3990101 3244
(~')marysimons v
1 rate test?
2 A
Right.
3 Q
You also say you had no knowledge of what we have 4
been told was an experiment in adding hydrogen to the makeup-5 tank during the course of a leak rate test by_Mr. Chwastyk 6
and you are not aware of that?
7 A
Right.
8 Q
Do you think you would have been if this had 9
happened?
I don't know what trainees do, but if you were 10 mixing around in the control room do you think you would 11 have known what was going on?
12 A
Yes, I do.
13 Q
And you have no knowledge of Mr. Chwastyk saying 14 to all around that no more hydrogen was to be added during 15 the course of a leak rate' test?
16 A
I don't remember Bill talking about that.
17 Q
Now you say that you were not aware of an LER that 18 was issued around the middle of October in 1978 which had to 19 do with changing the procedure actually or changing what you-20 did insofar as conducting leak rate tests.
You state-that i
21 you never were aware of it; is that correct?
22 A
Over the years I am sure that document has been 23 shown to me and it has probably shown that I have signed a 24 little cover sheet reading that in the past.
That shows 25 that I did read it because I didn't initial anything unless l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3.tMM6
~
3990101 3245
(~) marysimons V
1 I did read it, but it had no importance or any immediate 2
impact on the way that I performed the leak rate test in the 3
control room, nor was any training performed, to my 4
knowledge,.on that LER.
5 Q
As a trainee doing leak rate tests would you have 6
felt that you had the opportunity or the authority if you 7
ran a leak rate test and it turned out to be a bad one to 8
immediately alarm and go into the action statement, or would 9
you go to one of the people, another operator or your shift 10 foreman?
I mean how would you go about taking a step that 11 would be that important?
12 A
The way that I probably would have done it at the (m_)
13 time, and I had worked directly for a control room operator, 14 a licensed control room operator, I would have brought it to 15 his attention and discussed it and taken it from there.
16 Q
And from there you would have taken it to your 17 Shift Foreman?
18 A
Or we both would have, sure.
19 Q
But you have no knowledge that you can remember, 20 no knowledge of the LER.
21 A
Right.
22 Q
Did any of the control room operators ever tell 23 you about it?
24 A
I don't remember that they did.
25 Q
Did your Shift Foreman tell you anything about it?
G ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6M6
r J
. 3990101-3246 2
(
marysimons 1-A I don't remember.
-2 Q
Did your Shift Supervisor tell you-anything about 3
it?
4 A
Not that I remember.
~5 Q
Now as a trainee I presume you came into the 6
control room fairly cold.
Would that'be an accurate, 7
statement, that you really didn't know all that much about 8
it?
What kind of training did you get before you actua]Iy 9
'went into the control room?
10 A
As far as plant specific?
11 Q
yes.
Well, as far as what your job was.
12 A
Okay.
I would have had a good idea of what the
('
13 job was from my past military-training as far as working in 14 the nuclear industry on nuclear submarines.- I had a good 15 idea of what a power plant is and how they run and'how 16 everything interrelates.
17 I worked as an auxiliary operator outside of the
~
18 plant, which means that we essentially ran any equipment t
i 19 outside of the control room.
I would have had some 20 knowledge as to the control boards and where the control f
21 switches and that type of items were, but probably not as 22 much knowledge on the computer and the computer alarm 23 systems, that type of stuff, which was learned afterwards.
24 I wouldn't use the word " cold."
It is just that i
25 it is a different job.
We ran the equipment outside the i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433MM6
I 3990101 3247 marysimons 1
1 control room and we understood how tne equipment ran.
We 2
actually had ou'r hands on the equipment, but now it was the 3
time to come in and be the fellow who turned the switch and 4
not the fellow outside the control room.
g 5
Q Specifically on leak rate testing, did you learn 6
anything about that before you went into the control room?
7 A
No.
8 Q
So all of your training on leak rate testing was 9
hands on in the control room and it was done under the 10 direct supervision of either one of the control room 11 operators or your Shift Foreman?
12 A
Yes.
/~T
(,/
13 Q
Now how did they handle that?
I am sure that they 14 started out showing you how to activate the computer and 15 pushing the proper buttons and telling you how that went.
16 Would that be how you would start?
17 A
Yes.
18 Q
And also I would guess they would be going over 19 this procedure with you in some detail and telling you the 20 various things not to do like let's don't get a big flood of 21 water, let's keep the plant in a stable configuration and 22 all of that; is that correct?
23 A
I am sure we went through the procedure, and I 24 believe we left a copy of the procedure out on the table rs 25 there were the computer was, t
)
\\/
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationside Coserage 8m33MM6
3990101 3248
(~/} marysimons w
1 Q
As time went on were you more or less expected to 2
sort of proceed on your own on the leak rate testing that 3
you did?
4 A
As in any training type position, I am sure as you 5
showed your proficiency you were allowed to do more on your 6
own than in the beginning, sure.
7 Q
Did you ever do any creative work on procedures in 8
terms of some of the things that we have heard, little water 9
additions or using little orifices to enhance the 10 probability of getting a good leak rate?
I mean you never 11 went outside of what you-were taught; is that correct?
12 A
No, I never went outside of punching in the 13 computer and letting the computer give me the numbers, 14 right.
15 Q
When you said that you threw away those that you 1
16 could not validate, the leak rate test results, what were 17 your criteria for invalidating a leak rate test?
18 A
It is tough to remember what the criteria would 19 have been then, but today the criteria of the leak rate test 20 is that you are in steady state operations and you look at 21 different levels and different pressures and temperatures in 22 the reactor coolant system.
23 If, for instance, I had one that showed that I had 24 a large leak and I came over and I did look at the reactor 25 coolant system on the panel to see that the makeup tank O
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
3990101 3249
)marysimons 1
hasn't changed much and the other tanks, if they did go 2
down, that the other tanks have come up accordingly, I would 3
have a good idea with that test that I probably did not have 4
a leak and there was something else wrong with the leak rate 5
test that was run in the computer.
6 Also, if I began a leak rate test and for reason 7
the plant was not at steady state as required, then I could 8
get rid of that leak rate test because it didn't meet the 9
requirements.
10 Q
How long was it before you either felt that you 11 could or were allowed to sort of fly on your own in making 12 these decisions from the time you started in the control
)
13 room?
14 A
I couldn't answer that.
15 Q
I realize it is an evolving process.
16 A
Sure.
17 Q
But there must have come a time when you were not 18 going to someone else to help you validate or invalidate a 19 test.
20 A
I guess the only way I can answer that is whenever 21 I felt comfortable that I was doing something properly and 22 the way that I was taught and the way that the other people 23 that were licensed were doing it, then I would have no 24 Problem doing it on my own, and them the same way.
They 25 would keep an eye on me, and if they thought I was doing it
-)
('
h ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationside Coserage 8M3346M6
..3990101 3250 f~') ' marysimons v
1 Properly, then they would like me do that.
I don't know 2
that there was a time period or a month or that type of 3
thing.- I am sure it was different on the different things 4
that we did on shift where we had a handle on certain 5
things.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Can I ask a question here?
7 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Sure.
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
You testified that you would 9
validate the tests by the various means you just referred 10 to, correct?
11 THE WITNESS:
Right.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
And by validate do you mean that 13 you would make your own determination of whether the number 14 coming out of the computer was accurate in terms of actual 15 unidentified leakage?
16 THE WITNESS:
By accurate do you mean to a certain 17 decimal point?
I absolutely could not do that on the panel.
18 JUDGE KELLEY:
No, I don't mean to a decimal 19 point.
I mean did you make a judgment that yes, this number 20 reflects unidentified leakage?
21 THE WITNESS:
If you are asking generically if l
22 what it showed was a trend of what my plant parameters 23 showed me, yes, I would make that judgment.
4 24 JUDGE KELLEY:
Did you ever file for approval any i
25 test exceeding one gallon per minute?
i-i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6M6
=.
3990101 3251
.f marysimons 1
THE WITNESS: ~Not that I can remember,;but.if I
~
2 can look through the documents here'.
3 JUDGE KELLEY:
We-can determine that.
Do you 4
recall ever filing a test for-approval which was over.a 5
gallon a minute?
6 THE WITNESS:
No, I don't remember.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Then didn't you simply assume that i-8 if a test came out of over a gallon a minute that it was to
?
9 be thrown away.
I. won't whether it was valid or not, but j
10 that is what you in fact did, right?
Did you pause and-t 11 consider about a test of over a gallon a minute, or did you 12 just throw it away?
13
.THE WITNESS:
Before I would just throw it away, 14 no.
15 JUDGE KELLEY:
Maybe my question wasn't clear.
I 16 am not sure about the answer.
17 Did you really go through some sort of a process?
t 18 If the computer spit out a number of over a gallon a minute, 19 1.3 let's say, did you really attempt to analyze plant j
20 conditions or did you just throw the test away?
21 THE WITNESS:
I tried to analyze the plant 22 conditions.
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
What if the test came out under a 24 gallon, let's say
.8, did you attempt to analyze plant 25 condition or did you just file it?
O i
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
3990101 3252
,}marysimons t
1 THE. WITNESS:
I probably filed it.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
On the assumption.that if it was' 3
under a gallon a minute it was okay?
4 THE WITNESS:
Sure.
5 Go ahead.
6 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
_7 Q
As a trainee you were in a little bit different-8 position than most people.
When you ran a leak rate test it 9
had to be approved.
Now you had to operate under the same.
10 rules as the: control room operators who were licensed, did 11 you not?
12 A
Yes.
13 Q
Which mean that they, the control' room operators, 14 could not approve your leak rate test; is that correct?
15 A
They could not or did not?
16 Q
They could not, that you had to go to the Shift-17 Foreman just as they had to go.
18 A
We had to have the Shift Foreman's signature, yes.
i 19 Q
So it would be the same position that you would 20 have as they would have?
21 A
Right.
22 Q
I looked through some of the tests that the NRR 23 looked at.
I didn't take on the ones that you didn't sign, 4
24 and I also didn't consider the ones where there was a basic l
25 argument between Mr. Stier and the NRR as to the validity of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3364M6
3990101 3253
/ ] marysimons v
1 each other's argument as to whether there was something 2
wrong with it or not.
3 So I wind up with four tests that you signed that 4
.the experts agree something was not right.
We don't have to 5
look at any of them.
.I will just tell you what the expert 6
said and see where we go from there.
7 NRR's test No. 9 which was done.on October 13th, 8
you turned in a negative eight and a half gallon per minute 9
leak rate, and Mr. Conoway approved it.
Did that seem at 10 all strange to you?
11 A
To tell you the truth, I don't remember that leak 12 rate specifically.
()
13 Q
I mean it is a wanging big one.
No.
9, October 14 13th.
15 MR. McBRIDE:
Do you want me to show.it to him.
l 16 JUDGE BRIGHT:
If he wants to see it.
17 (Pause while the document was shown by Mr. McBride 18 to the witness.)
19 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
20 Q
Mr. Mell, the reason that the test was 21 questionable was that the plant was in an unstable i
22 condition, it was during power ascension and evolutions were 23 going on.
1
[
24 A
Right.
25 Q
Was that fairly early in the game for you, October l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 '
Nationwide Coserage 800 33MM6
3990101 3254
}marysimons 1
13th?
2_
A I believe I started training in September.
So it 3
would be very early.
4 Q
Do you were still somewhere on the learning curve 5
as to what could be happening while the test was going on in 6
terms of your experience in validating or invalidating a 7
test?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
So I guess it would be a little early for you to 10 have really felt there was anything strange if Mr. Conoway 11 would approve a negative leak rate of eight and a half 12 gallons per minute.
And I can understand you turning in one 13 because it was less than a one gallon per minute leak rate, 14 but I am a little surprised at Mr. Conoway approving it.
15 But you didn't think anything about it I presume?
16 A
No.
I didn't remember it until we looked at it 17 during some of the hearings.
18 Q
Another one on December the 3rd.
It.is NRR 45.
19 There were two of these actually.
20 A
45 did you say, Judge?
21 Q
45 and then 91.
They were both the same, had the 22 same problem.
23 (Pause.)
24 The problem there making it questionable was it
.25 was determined by the experts that the unstable level ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364 616
3990101 3255
(
) marysimons y
1 indicator or level transmitter, LT-1, was used as the input 2
to the computer.
3 Now what did you know about those transmitters?
4 That is, they seemed to be a pretty bad bunch, but one of 1
5 them appeared to be particularly bed in terms of stability.
6 Were you aware that one of them was unstable, and the other 7
that was at least not as unstable, and that you probably use 8
the mote stable of the two in terms of input to the computer 9
rather than to the strip charts.
10 A
Yes, I remember that the level transmitter, there 11 was some problem with them and the stability, and I knew 12 that the level transmitter selected on the panel, there was O)
(_
13 an indication on the panel, and the other level transmitter 14 not selected went to the computer.
15 So what I tried to do was make sure that the good 16 level transmitter went to the leak rate test.
17 Q
That the good one was on the computer?
18 A
Yes.
19 Q
Was this one of your main concerns where you were 20 doing leak rate tests?
Could it be that you were in a hurry 21 or something and didn't pay any attention to which way it 22 was switched?
I understand that you just turn it from one 23 position to another to interchange the leak rate 24 transmitters from the computer to the strip chart and vice 25 versa.
U-s-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage 800-336- % 46
3990101 3256 (J; marysimons 1
A Right.
2 Q
Well, the experts tell us that the problem with 3
these two tests was that it was done with the unstable 4
transmitter on the computer, and I was just wondering how 5
this could possibly have fallen into a crack.
You say that 6
this was one of the things that you really looked at.
7 A
Right.
8 Q
And you have no idea how this happened then?
9 A
No, I sure don't.
10 Q
And then test 114 on February lith turned in a 11 minus.06 gallons per minute leak rate.
12 (Pause.)
r 13 The problem there appeared to be that there had 14 been a 300 gallon, although it was possibly only 180 gallons 15 added, and this was according to the log, but it was not 16 included in the calculation.
17 Now could it have been that you were not aware 18 that there had been a water addition during the course of 19 the leak rate test?
20 A
Yes, that is possible.
The person who ran the 21 leak rate test was not the person that added the water.
22 Q
How else do you think this water might have been 23 added and not included in the calculation?
Can you think of 1
24 any way?
25 A
Pardon me?
-Oi ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coscrage 2 33 N
.3990101 3257
.(}'marysimons l'
Q Water was added.
It was not included in the 2
calculation the computer turns out, and I am just asking you 3
if you can think of any other way other than it was an 4
addition that you knew nothing about, any other way that 5
this could happen?
6 A
I guess I still don't understand your question.
l 7
You asked me physically if there is another way to add 8'
water?
9 Q
Physically is there another way for it to not get 10 on the calculation which gave you the result.
11 A
If you are asking me if the water should have been 12 Put in the calculation, the answer is yes, and having two
()
13 different people doing that and probably a miscommunication 14 things like that can happen, but I don't know of another way 15 water can be added.
I still don't understand what you are 16 asking.
-17 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Well, I think you are reading more.
18 into my question than I had intended.
19 (Pause.)
20 That I think is all I have, Mr. Mell.
21 Thank you.
22 (Board conferring.)
23 BOARD CONFERRING 24 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
25 Q
Mr. Mell, as I see by your prefile apparently you ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6 1
i 3990101 3258
()marysimons 1
now live in Michigan and you have come all the way here 2
today to help us?
3 A
Yes.
4 Q
Thank you very much.
5 The Board is still trying to learn.
Judge Bright 6
asked you some questions about an item that was in the 7
reading list, and I am going to ask questions exclusively 8
about the time period in 1978 and 1979.
It will not be 9
stated but be implied.
It is entirely focused on '78 and 10 early
'79.
11 Do you recall that reading material?
Imagine you 12 are back in the control and are shown that photograph.
I
( f) 13 get the impression there were large scoseleaf notebooks, 14 much like the notebooks that you have got sitting right by 15 your right hand, a big pile of stuff.
If that a correct 16 impression?
17 A
I guess I missed the first part of your question.
18 We had a lot of notebooks in the control room, if that is 19 what you asked me.
20 Q
No, reading lists.
21 A
Oh, required reading?
22 Q
Yes.
23 A
Yes.
24 Q
Were they big notebooks?
25 A
Oh, yes.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3364646
1 3990101' 3259
'{}marysimons 1
Q So that things like licensee event reports might 2
be in between what other kinds of documents?
3 A
There were quite a few documents that were 4
required to be read,.all procedure revisions, all temporary 5
change procedures and anything else that was deemed 6
necessary for us to read in the control room.
There was 7
always quite a bit of required reading.
8 Q
But it wasn't categorized in any way as priority 9
one and priority two or flagged in any-way?
10 A
It may have been, but I don't remember it being 11 that way.
12 Q
Well, if I were to give somebody a big notebook
()
13 and asked them to read it and I thought some items were more 14 important than the others I might have identified them~in 15 some way.
But to your memory.you saw no such 16 identification?
17 A
No.
18 Q
Did you have the feeling at that time, and I 19 recognize that I am straining your memory, that a licensee 20 event report which meant that there had been some violation, 21 however small, of licensed conditions was going to be the 22 subject of that document, that it was different from the 23 rest of them?
o 24 A
If you are asking me if I would open a notebook 25 and think that there were specifically LERs in there, no I l
J ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
3990101 3260
}marysimons 1
wouldn't.
2 Q
When you came to the LER did you say, oh, look at 3
this?
This is a little different from the rest of them.
4 A
I am sure I recognized it as an LER, but I would 5
think today that had there been some reason to change the 6
way that we did business but that would have been conveyed 7
to me also besides just having that on a reading list.
8 Q
Fine.
You anticipated my third question from 9
now.
That is the point.
Management says we took care of 10 the problem.
We circulated the LER.
And it is quite 11 obvious that they didn't take care of the problem because 12 nobody remembers changing the way they did business.
)
13 But apparently you felt that if they really were 14 serious about it that there would be some addition to the 15 routine LER statement.
16 A
Yes.
17 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you very much.
18 JUDGE KELLEY:
While we are on this subject, have 19 you got a copy of the LER that you can show the witness, and 20 particularly could you direct his attention to the narrative 21 to the LER, the last page.
22 MR. McBRIDE:
Do you want the witness to be shown f
23 the version that the operators saw or the version filed with 24 the Commission?
25 JUDGE KELLEY:
I'm not sure it matters.
fg V
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage 800-33HM6
. _ -.~
I
. 3990101 3261 marysimons 1
MR. McBRIDE:
I can; assure it does, Judge Kelley.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, I am only interested in the 3
last two sentences.
Does it matter for the last two sentences?
J5 MR. McBRIDE:
It does'not matter for the last two i
6 sentences.
7
-(The document was shown by Mr. McBride to the 8
witness.)
9' JUDGE KELLEY:
What I wanted to ask you about was i
10 that the last two sentences of the narrative portion 11 beginning with "The appropriate personnel.
Is-that-l
-12 the way it begins for you?
(
-13 MR. McBRIDE:
That's correct.
14 JUDGE KELLEY:
Could you just. read those two i
-15 sentences.
j-16 THE WITNESS: "The appropriate personnel will be 17 instructed on the requirements.of the-applicable sections of 1
18' the technical specification and the requirements to 19 immediately invoke applicable action statements when the f
20 Provisions of the LCO's are-not meant."
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
That sentence in particular, the 22 one you just read, does that sentence say to you here are 23 your instructions, or does it say to you we are. going to 1
24 send you some instructions?
25 THE WITNESS:
It tells me that I am going to be i
C:)
t ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
3990101 3262 q
)marysimons 1
trained on these instructions.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
In the future.
3 THE WITNESS:
In'the future.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
To use the vernacular, stay tuned; 5
is that what it says?
6 THE WITNESS:
Say that again?
7
. JUDGE KELLEY:
Does it say stay tuned?
I am using 8
vernacular and maybe I shouldn't.
9 THE WITNESS:
Okay.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
Did you think that something else 11 was forthcoming in the way of instructions as you read that 12 now.
I don't know what you might have thought in 1978, but
(
13 if you have a recollection, fine, I would like to have it.
14 Do you have a recollection of what you. thought in 1978 when 15 you read that paragraph, or do you know whether-you even 16 read the paragraph in 19787 17 THE WITNESS:
No.
18 JUDGE KELLEY:
But reading it now, I gather you I
19 are saying that it suggests that something else is going to 20 be forthcoming in the way of instructions; is that correct?
21 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
l 22 JUDGE KELLEY:
Do you recall that anything ever 23 did come at a later date on this subject to you?
24 THE WITNESS:
I recall that we didn't have l
25 anything come at a later date.
,-)
l u-)
l-l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3990101 3263 j'] marysimons
-m) 1 JUDGE KELLEy:
Thank you.
2 (Board conferring.)
3 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
4 Q
Looking at the first page of your prepared 5
statement, at the end of the second paragraph you say 6
"Because I was in training all-the tasks I performed were 7
supervised by a licensed operator."
8 Specifically with reference to leak rate tests, 9
which is the boundaries of what we are interested in, what 10 did that. supervision consist of?
11 A
The supervision of performing a lead rate test, in 12 the beginning it would be sitting down and reading the
,- S 3,_)
13 procedure, someone showing me how to get into the computer, 14 how to punch in a time period on the computer and anything 15 else that went aiong with that.
4 1
16 As time went along and as I showed my proficiency, 17 then I would probably have less and less supervision, direct 18 supervision.
19 Q
Well, that leads me to a time period in February, i
20 and most specifically the 19th of February where I think you l
21 would have been in the control room for how long?
That is 22 February of
'79, and when did you first come into the 23
-control room?
24 A
I believe in September the year before.
25 Q
So it had been some months.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
3990101 3264
.(]marysimons 1
A Right.
2 Q
So is it fair to say that probably by February of 3
'79 if you ran a leak rate test you wouldn't have had 4
intensive, active supervision?
5 A
Right.
6 Q
We are trying to interpret events that occurred on 7
February.the 19th on your shift, and one of those leak rate 8
surveillance tests was signed by you and we would like to 9
have your help in helping us understand it.
10 So we are going to take a little break, and I 11 would like during the break for ycu to look at NRR Test 124 12 and 125 which are unusual in that they were run within a i
)
13 half hour of each other and there is a considerable record 14 before us about those two tests and you are the one 15 responsible for one of them.
16 So we thank you for coming to help us.
17 MR. McBRIDE:
Judge Carpenter, before we take a 18 break I think it is incumbent upon me to point out to you 19 that neither test that you are referring to was in fact I 20 believe signed by Mr. Mell.
21 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Whose signature -- is that 22 Kidwell on page 125?
23 MR. McBRIDE:
I don't want to testify, but it 24 would seem to me that the best thing to do would be to put 25 them before the witness and ask him whether either one of ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
l
'3990101 3265 (N marysimons
%)
I them is his signature.
2 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Fine, good.
3 JUDGE KELLEY:
We talked about this the other day j
4 as I recall.
5 MR. McBRIDE:
Yes, we did.
l 1
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
In any case, it is your shift, 7
correct?
8 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
9 MR. VOIGT:
And Mr. Kidwell is the next witness.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
Right, one way or the other.
11 (Laughter.)
12 In any case, since it was your shift, we would r's
(_)
13 want to ask pretty much the same questions.
14 MR. McBRIDE:
You might want to ask the same 15 questions, but may make a suggestion to you.
You might want 16 to ask him whether he recalls whether he was there or not.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
A fair question.
18 JUDGE CARPENTER:
I think we might start off by 19 letting him look at the two tests.
1 20 MR. McBRIDE:
Sure, whatever you want to do.
4 21 (Recess taken.)
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let's_go back on the record.
23 BOARD EXAMINATION (Resumed) 24 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
25 Q
Mr. Mell, just before the break we were indicating i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
202.147-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
~
3990101 3266 j
}marysimons 1
that you were going to take a look at Tests 124 and 125 in 2
the NRR report.
3 Have you had a chance to look at that material?
4 A
Yes.
5 Q
As I. indicated before the break, at first glance I 6
thought perhaps you had signed Test 125.
Is that correct?-
7 A
No, I haven't.
t 8
Q Do you recognize the signature on 1257 9
A It appears to be John Kidwell.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
Did you ever sign as a trainee?
11 THE WITNESS:
Pardon me?
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Did you ever sign a test as a 13 trainee?
14 THE WITNESF:
'.'e s.
15 MR.~VOIGT:
Judge Kelley, I think you will find in 16 the NRR report that he signed a total.of eight, and Judge i
17 Bright had asked him earlier about some of'the ones that-he 18 did sign.
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
Yes.
I just forgot.
Okay.
.20 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
21 Q
To the best of your recollection in the time 22 period of 1978 and 1979 on the shifts that you worked, did 23 you run a leak rate test that indicated an unidentified 24 leakage of less than one gallon per minute and then proceed 25 to run another one for some reason?
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-(M6
3990101
.3267
/~
Q)T marysimons 1
A No.
2 Q
If it fair to say that the record with respect to 3
124 and 125 that shows the two tests were run one after the i
other with rough a half hour interval in between is unusual?
5 A
It would be unusual for me to do it, yes.
6 Q
Was it unusual for others to do it, to your 7
knowledge?
8 A
As far as I know, yes.
9 Q
Do you believe that you were present during this 10 shift?
11 A
I believe I probably was not present during that' 12 shift.
O(_)
13 Q
What is the basis for your belief?
14 A
During the training period of a control room 15 Operator the last four weeks or so you are taken off shift
-16 and put into a classroom daylight training program.
So I 17 worked with the shift for'"X" amount.
I was preparing to 18 take the NRC examination in, I believe I recall, in early 19 March.
20 This is February 19th, and the possibility exists 2:
that I probably was not on shift at that time.
I was 22 Probably in training, the daylight.
23 Q
I believe in your prepared statement you testified 24 that you were unaware of any instructions from Mr. Chwastyk 25 to avoid adding hydrogen to the makeup tank during a test; 7-
%)
t ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
3990101 3268
(~N
\\-) marysimons 1
is that correct?
2 A
Yes.
3 Q
If Mr. Chwastyk had issued his instructions in 4
that time period that we have just been talking about when 5
.you were in the classroom during the daytime, then there is 6
a chance that you perhaps wouldn't have been aware of it if 7
they were verbal instructions rather than written?
8 A
If they were verbal instructions, I wouldn't have 9
been aware of it.
10 (Board conferring.)
11 JUDGE CARPENTER:
I would like to ask those who 12 are more familiar with the Stier report than I am, are the
()
13 attendance records in the report?
I think the testimony was 14 they looked at them, but are they in evidence?
15 MR. BLAKE:
I don't believe that there is anything 16 in the Stier report which would confirm that one way or the 17 other, but we will continue to check.
18 JUDGE KELLEY:
My recollection is that there was 19 some discussion about attendance records, and I wonder 20 whether it is casting back a few in the record in connection 21 with the Stier set of tests where they list who was there 22 and whether the record doesn't indicate that they actually 23 did a check before making those listings.
I am speculating 24 and I don't really remember for sure.
25 MR. BLAKE:
We will do some more digging, Judge ls)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-(M6
3990101 3269
')
(J.marysimons 1
Kelley.
2 MR. VOIGT:
I would imagine also that either the 3
company or the staff could pin down the precise day or days 4
upon which'Mr. Mell actually took the exam.
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
Yes, I would think so.
6 Ms. Wagner, would it be possible to just.have 7
someone look into that?
8 MS. WAGNER:
Sure.
We'll do it.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
If there is a handy piece of paper 10 with a date on it, we might just nail it_down in the record, 11 the first page of the test or something like that.
12 Just following up on Judge Carpenter's question,-
r)
(_
13 Mr. Chwastyk does refer, as you know, to testing the effect 14' of hydrogen.
It just occurs to me that if you were gone for.
15 about a month you say?
16 THE WITNESS:
As far as I recall, yes.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
If the experiment, assuming it 18 occurred, if the experiment of this nature that occurred 19 shortly after you left for a month and you didn't come back 20 for several weeks after that experiment, the chances of your 21 not learning about it if the. instruction that grew out of 22 the experiment were oral just to whoever was in the room, if 23 you were gone and didn't come back for let's say three 24 weeks, that would, it would seem to me, increase the chances 25 that you might not be told about it.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3990101 3270
(~
V) marysimons 1
THE WITNESS:
Yes.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
A lot of things can happen in the 3
meantime.
It is not hot news, in other words, by the time J
4 you get back.
I realize that is rather speculative, but I 5
just wanted to explore that with you a little bit.
6 MR. McBRIDE:
Judge Kelley, I would.like to be 7
somewhat helpful to you.
In response to your question of a 8
few moments ago, I can't nail it.down with certainty, but I 9
can direct you to a couple of places in the Stier report 10 that might at least let you know what is there.
11 In Volume 3-A, Tables 1 and 2, you will find a 12 listing of the leak rate tests that were performed by date rm
(_)
13 and Stier number.
For Stier tests 34-and 33, which are the 14 corresponding numbers to these tests, February 19th the 15 shift as they used the nomenclature, 23-07, meaning 11 at 16 night till 7 in the morning, military time, it lists the 17 shift foreman Conoway, the surveillance performer Kidwell 18 and the operator who signed the log Illjes for each of the i
19 two tests.
It does not, however, show whether or not anyone 20 else was present.
21 If you then look at the green volume, the more I.
22 recent, and I think it is Exhibit 1-B ---
l 23 JUDGE KELLEY:
- Right, i
I 24 MR. McBRIDE:
--- one of the two tests has some 25 information with respect to it in there, that is Stier test 1 ()
f l:.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3990101; 3271
-marysimons 1
33, and it again on.their summary sheet, which I think.the 2-Board is now familiar with, it essentially contains the same 3
information about individuals that I just described to you 4
from Volume 3-A.
5' JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
That's helpful.
We 6
still need to nail down if we can whether there was some-7 actual attendance check or not, but it seems to me that that 8
at least is some indication that Mr. Mell wasn't there.
9 MR. McBRIDE:
It is some.
That is why I say'I 10-couldn't nail it down for you, but I wanted to let you know I
11 what is before you.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
That's helpful.
Thank you.
- ()
13 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
14 Q
Mr. Mell, if the Board were to look at the time 15 and attendance records, would they tell us what-you did on 16
.the shift that you were identified as being present?
17
.MR. McBRIDE:
It is an 11 to 7 shift, Judge 1;8 Carpenter.
I 19
' JUDGE CARPENTER:
Yes, 11 to 7 shift.
So it is 20 improbable that there was much classroom training going on 21 from 11 to 7.
So the time and attendance records would be 22 useful then.
23 THE WITNESS:
The classroom training would have 24 been the daylight shift.
H25 JUDGE KELLEY:
But you wouldn't go train all day i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
{
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 s
'3990101 3272 b~'\\ marysimons 1
and then pull and 11 to 7 shift, would you?
2 THE WITNESS:
No.
That is why I am saying that I 3
would not be. rotating with the shift.
I would working on 4
the late shift.
5 By JUDGE CARPENTER:
6 Q
Turning to page 2 o,f your prepared statement, in 7
the last sentence of the second full paragraph you 8-testified, "I viewed running the leak rate surveillance as 9
less important than some of the other tasks assigned to me.
~
10 Could you amplify on that a little bit?
I am not so much 11 interested in what surveillances you thought were very 12 important, but rather how important you thought the leak 13 rate test was both in your own mind and in terms of your 14 training from the CR0s on your shift.
15 A
Okay.
From my own mind it was a test that we were 16 required to perform every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
We tried to perform the 17 test and get a good leak rate on every shift.
It was a 18 repetitive task and something that we may or may not have 19 tried to start early in the shift or later on in the shift.
l 20 It was something that we knew we had to do.
It was 21 something that we had not really any hands on and no really 22 feel for what it was.
It was something very cold and l
23-something you punched in the computer and then the computer 24 spit a number back at you'and the number is what you looked 25 at.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
m
.L 3990101 3273
_marysimons 1
Q As I understand:it, the procedure did describe-how-2 to do the test and carry out manual calculations; is that 3-correct?
4 A
I would have to look at it, but I recall that it 5
was'in there, yes.
6 Q
Do you feel.now'that.then you would felt a'little 7
more involvement with the test if you had to carry out the 8
calculations by hand and you might have been emotionally on 9
the test a little better?
10 A
Certainly.
l 11 Q
So one of the things that contributes to this l
12 statement that you expressed, that you had this feeling
()
13 about the test probably was the fact that this. test-was done.
14 by the computer and it went in and came out and you didn't 15
.really follow what was going on.
So you didn't really 16 identify with it.
Is that a fair statement?
17 A
Yes.
18 Q
In your training or on your own did you recognize 19 that the leak rate surveillance test was the only 20 quantitative measurement of unidentified leakage and there 21 were many other ways that one could be aware that a leak was l
22 developing, radiation monitors, sump level, et cetera?
23 A
Sure.
24 Q
But this was the only quantitative tool you had?
i 25 A
yes.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationside Coverage 800 336-6646
3990101 3274 marysimons 1
Q Was that clear in your mind?
Did you feel that at 2
the time?
3 A
Today I.would say yes.
4 Q
Yesi I-know.
We are very conscious of'the 5
difficulty.
6 Did you ever in the time frame of 1978 and 1979
~
7 hear the. engineering jargon " leak before break"?
8 A
I have heard of it today.
I don't know if I heard 9
of it before then.
10 Q
Just try to close your mind to what you have 11 learned since then, but at that time did anybody tell you 12 this, we need to detect leaks when they are_small and we-()
13
-need to know how big they are because it will contribute to 14 the same operation of the plant.
Did you ever get that 15 feeling?
16 A
No.
i 17 Q
Do you think you might have felt different about 18 the importance of this test if the fact that it was the only 19 way of detecting intersystem leakage quantitatively, and 20 certainly a leak in the steam generator would have been 21 Picked up as an increase in the radiation monitor, but that 22 is difficult to convert into a quantitative estimate of.how 23 big the leak is.
24 So it is a very useful test to get an intersystem 25 leakage.
I could think of other intersystem leakages.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
'3990101' 3275-
{
marysimons-1 There have a' lot of systems hooked onto this primary system 2
and it would seem to be very useful to an operator to know 1
3 when a leak started and when a check valve didn't do its.
4 thing and a stop valve that was supposed to be closed might~
5 be open,-and a leak before break, the notion that a pipe 6
most frequently failed by developing a crack and then it 7
takes time for the crack to propagate.
l' 8
So in my mind there is a real valid reason as 9
described in the Final Safety Analysis Report for this 10 test.
But I just want-to confirm that apparently you got no 11 feeling that this was a useful tool and could really make a 12 contribution to the safe operation of the plant.
(
13 A
At that time I did not.
4 14 Q
Well, that is the issue that is before us.
You 15 are not~the only individual who was so miseducated.
We'have i
j 16
.a consistent posture that nobody explained that this' thing 17 was important, and because it was run over and over again 18 one way of interpreting that is somebody-thought it was I
19 important.
But apparently the emotional impact was, gee,.
20 this thing is routine and we do it every time we come on 21 shift and therefore it got downgraded.
l 22 Mr. Illjes says he quite honestly feels that they 23 approached this test with a cavalier attitude.
Did you get 24 that sense from Mr. Illjes or the other CROs?
i 25 A
I don't know what he means by cavalier attitude.
!p ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
~. _ - -. - _ - _ _. _, _ _. - - -
.3990101 3276 marysimons 1
It was, in my opinion, a mundane. test that had to be done 2
and it was something that we ran automatically and was maybe 3
not as important as other things that we had to do on the 4
shift.
5 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Mr. McBride wants to help us, e
6 MR. McBRIDE:
Yes. -My recollection is, and I will 7
stand corrected by the Board if I am wrong,_but my' i
8 recollection is'that the person who used the word " cavalier" 9
was Mr. McGovern.
10 JUDGE CARPENTER:
I beg.your pardon.
I stand 11 corrected absolutely.
12 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
(m,)
13 Q
But at any rate, it was just routine and it was 14 just something not to be taken seriously?
15 A
It was a. tech spec, and I wouldn't say not to take 16 it seriously, but I think I have explained what my attitude 17 was about it already.
18 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you very much.
19 (Board conferring.)
20 BOARD EXAMINATION 21 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
22 Q
I think most of my questions have been answered in 23 your discussions with my colleagues.
I just want to follow 24 up a little bit on the testimony by Mr. Chwastyk about an 25 experiment that he said he ran.
Do you have his testimony, ACE-FEDERAL REPOP,TERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Cosc. age 800 336-6616
3990101 3277
/~
marysimons L)i 1
Mr. Chwastyk's testimony, a copy of it?
2 A
No.
3 MR. McBRIDE:
I have it, Judge Kelley.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
I wonder if he could just look at a 5
paragraph, and I'll refer you to it.
It is_on page 5.
6 MR. McBRIDE:
Of which statement?
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Chwastyk.
t 8
MR. VOIGT:
His profiled statement?
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
Prefiled.
10 MR. Meh2IDE:
Oh, prefiled.
Excuse me.
11 (The. document was placed in front of the witness.)
12 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
r~
(_),
13 Q
This was discussed at great length in various 14 interviews, but for my purposes I don't need to get into 15 that.
I just wanted you to look at the prefiled.
i 16 Perhaps I should clarify, Mr. Mell.
The prefiled, 17 as you may know f rom your cant counsel, this is the statement 18 that Mr. Chwastyk has prefiled with us.
He is coming 19 tomorrow as a matter of fact.
It isn't yet sworn testimony 20 in the case, but I think it is fair that it is counsel's 21 view that it includes a summary of what he has discussed in 22 other interviews.
It is sort of a capsule version of this 23 event, and for purposes of what I wanted to ask you I think 24 that is all I really need.
25 Could you look at the paragraph at the bottom of G
V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
3990101 3278
(') marysimons
(./
1 page 5.
2.
A Okay.
3 (Pause while the witness complies.)
4 Q
I think you have already said that you don't 5
recall the experiment that Mr. Chwastyk is referring to here 6
and that you weren't, to the best of your recollection, 7
instructed by Chwastyk not to add hydrogen to a leak rate 8
test; is that correct?
9 A
Yes.
10 Q
We might note that Mr. Chwastyk's testimony isn't 11 necessarily inconsistent.
He doesn't refer to you by name, 12 and beyond that we have had your recollection that you were
, ()
13 in training in that period of time in all likelihood and 14 hopefully we can nail that down in the attendance records.
15 But in any event, understand that that might then have the 16 effect of compromising the two statements.
17 Let me ask you when you said in your prefiled that i
18 you don't remember the performance of an experiment with
[
19 hydrogen, were you at the time you prepared that thinking 20 specifically of the time period involved in those tests, 124 21 and 1257 In other words, why didn't your prefile say well, 22 I was in training at that time?
Was it because you weren't 23 thinking of those two particular tests?
I 24 A
yes.
25 Q
On the next page of your testimony you say "In my i
I L
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6616
~
-.. =-
J J3990101 3279
- {}marysimons OP nion, if he -- that is Chwastyk -- had noticed a problem i
1 2
with hydrogen he would have kept it close to his chest until 3
he had so fully checked it out that he could explain it."
4 Could you give me the basis of your opinion in 5
that regard?
6 A
I guess what you are asking me is a personal 7
opinion of Joe's personality, or the way that Joe ---
8 Q
yes, because you are offering one.
As I read it, 9
you are saying this is the kind of a guy who would check 10 everything out carefully before he went off and told the 11 shift what to do, and I just want to have a little better 4
12 understanding of why you say that.
. ()
13 A
All right.
In working for Joe he was a very --
14 oh, it is an overused term -- take-charge kind of fellow.
15 His position was very different than my position.
If 16 something like this had gone on-and Joe didn't really 17 believe or understand why hydrogen would affect the leak 18 rate, then my opinion of Joe's personality is that Joe would 19 do something on his own and try to understand that before he l
20 would tell somebody here is what it is and here is why it 21 is, that he wouldn't necessarily share that with us until he 22 knew what that was.
23 He would have someone else do add the hydrogen or 24 whatever if he wanted that done.
He would just come up and 25 tell someone to do that and not necessarily sit.down and ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3990101-3280 marysimons-
.1 explain to someone what.he was going to do and-why he was 2
going to do it.
3
.Q
'Well, of course, I haven't met Mr. Chwastyk.
We
~will tomorrow and there are limitations on getting to know
'4 5
people in this context.
But, anyway, I would-have thought i
6
-if you are telling me somebody is a take-charge guy, one 7
thought I think I might have is that if he is in charge of a 8
control room and he is concerned that his operators would be
'9 adding hydrogen'and thereby distorting the results of a leak 10 rate test, why didn't-he take charge by saying stop doing.
11 that and I'll figure out why this: happened just~as soon as I
-12 can.
13 He wouldn't be taking charge, would he, if he just 14 let things go on as usual while he was researching the
{
15 question?
16 A
Well, again, I don't know anything about Joe doing 17 this experiment, and I guess I can't really say today 18 whether.he would have.
I can say that he probably would not 19 have had us do anything wrong-or out of~the ordinary.
Had 20 Joe really thought something was wrong or he wanted to do 21' this, he would have said something to us.
22 Q
Would you characterize him as a methodical, 23 careful person or not?
I l
24 A
- Yes, I
i 25 (Board conferring.)
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationside Coverage 800-336-u>s6 i
3990101 3281
'/~N marysimons.
%_)
1
'JUDGEjKELLEY:
Any follow-up questions?
2 MR. VOIGT:
We don't have any.
3-JUDGE KELLEY:
Staff?
4 THE: WITNESS:
It1may not be necessary.
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
We'll take a moment here.
6 (Pause.)
~
'7 BOARD EXAMINATION 8
BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
9 Q
Mr. Mell, a couple of. questions from the staff.
10.
There is a long preamble here which I think we have already 11 gone into'at some length.
So.I will just read a. couple of 12 questions here.
l ()
13 One, is it fair to conclude from your testimony 14-
'that you do not believe Mr. Chwastyk conducted an experiment.
15 by adding hydrogen nor that he instructed his crew not to.
16 add hydrogen during leak rate tests?
End of question.
17 A
Would you read it one more time, please?
18 Q
Is it fair to conclude from your testimony that 19
.you do not believe Mr.-Chwastyk conducted an experiment by 20 adding hydrogen nor that he instructed his crew not to add 21 hydrogen during leak rate. tests?
22 A
I can't answer no to that.
On the shifts that we 23 worked we sometimes worked more than just our eight hours.
24 We Possibly worked 12-hour shifts.
If there were less shift H25 supervisors, Joe possibly could have worked 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, say ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33w%46
5 3990101 3282 marysimons 1
eight hours with ours and four with another shift.- If Joe 2
says he ran a test, I believe Joe ran the test, an 3
experiment.
I can say that I knew nothing about it nor did 4
I hear anything about not to add hydrogen.
5-I believe Joe did run the experiment, but it is 6
possible that it was with someone else and not with us, and i
7
_the possibility exists that he could have worked with other 8
shifts.
There could have been'someone on another shift 9
because oftentimes those people were on vacations or out of 10 town and the shift supervisors with split shifts, not only 11 at Unit 2, but at that time Unit 1 also.
They were 12 responsible for both units.
So I can't say that I believe (O
_j 13 he did not run the experiment.
Knowing Joe as I do, I am 14 sure Joe must have done it.
l 15 THE WITNESS:
Judge Bright, I believe that covers 16 the next two questions as well.
17 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Fine.
18 Thank you.
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Mela, that concludes our 20 questioning process.
We appreciate your being with us here 21 today, your attentiveness to our questions and your answer.
22 Thank you very much.
You are excused.
23 THE WITNESS:
Thank you.
24 (Witness Mell was excused.)
25 MR. McBRIDE:
Shall we have the next witness or a
'~')
)
(_-
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80 4 336-6646
3990101 3283 CT marysimons V
1 short break?
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Off the record.
3 (Discussion off the record.)
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
We would like to break until 11:15.
5 (Recess taken.)
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Back on the record.
7 Mr. Kidwell ---
8 MR. KIDWELL:
Yes, sir.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
Would you raise your right hand, 10 please.
11 12-
'13 14 15 16 17 18 l
19 i
i-20 21 j
I 22 23 24 l
25 l
t l-l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8n0-336-6646
3990101 3285
{}'marysimons 1
Whereupon, 2
JOHN M. KIDWELL 3
was called as a witness and,-having been first duly sworn by 4
Judge Kelley, was examined and testified as follows:
5 DIRECT EXAMINATION 6
BY MR. GEPHART:
7 Q
Mr. Kidwell, do you have before you'a five-page 8
document entitled " Prepared Statement of John M.
Kidwell?
9 A
Yes, I do.
10 Q
And have you reviewed that again this morning?
11 A
Yes, sir.
12 Q
Are there any changes or corrections you care to
()
13 make at this time?
14 A
No, sir.
15 Q
Are you willing for this to be bound into the 16 record at this time?
17 A
Yes.
18 MR. GEPHART:
I ask that this be bound into the 19 record.
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
Yes.
So ordered.
21 (The Prepared Statement of John M.
Kidwell 22 follows:
23 24 (E)
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M646
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(';
BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND
)
Docket No. LRP UNIT 2 LEAK RATE DATA
)
FALSIFICATION
)
)
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN M. KIDWELL My name is John M. Kidwell, and I am employed by General Physics Corporation.
I was in the United States Navy from August of 1961 until January of 1969.
After I left the Navy,I
()
was a line mechanic for Howe Motors, Inc, in early 1969.
Later in 1969 I was employed by Monsanto Research Corporation.
In early 1974, I went to Three Mile Island as an auxiliary operator in Unit 1. In 1978, I was promoted to control room operator in Unit 2.
In 1979, I was promoted to shift foreman in Unit 2.
I left Three Mile Island in October of 1980 for a position with Energy Incorporated.
In late 1985, I obtained my l
current employment with General Physics.
During 1978 and through March 28, 1979, I was a control room operator at TMI Unit 2.
My shift supervisor was Joseph Chwastyk, my shift foreman was William T.
Conaway, and my fellow control room operators were Theodore Illjes and Charles O
e Mell.
Previously, I had worked under shift supervisor Bern,ard
()
Smith and shift foreman Kenneth Hoyt, with control room operators Raymond Booher and Harold Hartman.
As a control. room operator, it was one of my It is responsibilities to conduct primary leak rate testing.
my recollection that we had 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> to obtain a good leak rate test; that is, one with unidentified leakage less than 1 At the time I believed that a test with under 1 g.p.m.
g.p.m.
unidentified leakage re-established the time clock so that we had a new 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> time period to obtain a test within the technical specification limits.
If through the 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> period.
.o a leak rate test with a number within limits could not be obtained, but plant conditions did not make us feel the numbec
()
was reasonably correct, the leak rate test was re-run and we did not enter the action statement.
Some of the plant level conditions we looked at to make this judgment were sump changes, makeup tank changes, airborne activity, and steam generator activity.
When my shift assumed the watch, I recall that we would first take a verbal turnover and check plant documents that were pertinent to current events.
The panel operator would scan the control and alarm boards.
Quite often after the shift relief, a shift meeting consisting of the shift supervisor, shift foreman, reactor operators, and auxiliary operators was If it held to discuss plant conditions and upcoming events.
was my turn to perform surveillances I would usually start a rs.
c-9 T
x The leak rate test was Jun
(_)
leak rate test using the computer.
for an hour, and at the end of the hour whoever heard the computer print out the leak rate document would usually type in how much the water inventory changed.
After the proper entries were made the computer would calculate the primary leakage in gallons per minute.
It could and did happen that a leak rate calculation was in progress without the other operators being aware of it.
If I learned that I had not taken credit on the computer sheet for an inventory change, I would discard the To aid shift communication, we sometimes placed a test result.
note on the makeup tank inventory control switches and the computer key board indicating that a leak rate test uas in progress.
(~}
If'I obtained a computer generated leak rate test that did
\\-
I would not meet the technical specification requirements, attempt to find out why.
I recall cases where the results were in error due to changing reactor power level or changing boron concentration by feeding and bleeding.
These leak rate tests were thrown away after another test came out within the technical specification limits.
I have no idea where the that is just practice of throwing away leak rates originated; the way it was performed.
I did not question the practice because we had a 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> window, the tests were not signed and approved (thus not a legal document), and I believed at the time that we did not have a leakage problem.
l
($)
l l 1
I)
I do recall running more than cne test on some shifts..If time and work load permitted, I would run leak rate tests until I received one within requirements, provided there was not a
reason to question the obtained results.
relied on the computer to perform the leak rate test and, I
thus, on its results to satisfy the technical specification I did not consider the test a particularly requirements.
reliable indicator of the existence of an exact amount of leakage.
On the average, it provided a good trend indicator and that trend used with common sense was a reliable indicator g
of leakage problems.
Prior to Harold Hartman's allegations, I had no knowledge whatsoever of operators deliberately adding hydrogen or water -
to the makeup tank for the purpose of manipulating the end result of the leak rate calculation.
I do not recall receiving instruction in any form that provided me with I was to refrain from adding hydrogen during leak guidance that rate tests.
I do not recall reading the October 1978 LER; however, my initials are on it, so I must have seen it.
I do not recall s.
and I do not receiving an explantion of the LER's contents, remember being told to change my interpretation of the leak rate technical specification.
I have no recollection of reviewing an operations memorandum from that same time period.
I now associate I do remember hearing of some commotion that with Donald Haverkamp, but all that I can remember is that it
(} -. -. -
i
,r~'
had something to do with a leak rate test Mr. Haverkamp fou,nd somewhere.
To conclude, I have no objection to discussing my past operatoring practices with those who wish to know why certain practices were employed.
My possible errors in interpreting the technical specifications and administrative controls for operations were due to inexperience, never contempt for the I sincerely believe that public or for the nuclear industry.
this is a great industry.
I have tremendous loyalty to it and respect for it and the people and companies involved with it.
intend to remain a part of the industry to share my u,
I experience with those of lesser experience so that we can shape a more reliable future for the industry as a whole.
O m-O -
'u y
1 39901'01-3286-
. I l(}_marysimons:
-1 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Kidwell, I have a short statement that I will' read to provide a little context for
)
3-where we~ are and then we will get _ to our questions. -
4 The Board has'been charged by the Commission to l
S.
determine the extent of involvement of individual employees 6'
at'TMI-2 in 1978 and '79 in leak rate ~ test falsifications 7
'and other' improper practices in leak' rate testing.'
8 This is your opportunity to say'on the record your
.9-recollections and perceptions about your involvement-in leak 10
~ rate-testing at that time and to rebut any adverse I'
11' statements about you by other employees or investigators 12 with which you may. disagree.
. ()
13 We reviewed your prefiled testimony _and we have 14:
considered it in the light of the record that has already
'15 been developed in this proceeding.
I 16 We will have some questions for you based on your i
' 1'7 prefiled testimony and we may also have.some questions based i-18 on whi; others have said about events in which you may have 19 been involved'and also about-assessments that investigators' j
20 or technical experts may have made about your participation 21 in leak rate activities and in some cases particular tests.
22 As I think you know, there are extensi're studies
^
23 of.TMI-2 leak rate procedures that have already been placed i
i 24 in the record.
There is a study by Mr. Stier-that was done j
25 for GPU Nuclear and also an extensive study-done by the NRR f
}
i 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700
~ Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
~
~
_ ~ ~
A 1
}mrys ons-
- 7 1
staff.
These two studies include. technical analyses of'in 4...
2 the case of1the Stier study all the leak rate tests that 3
fwere performed at TMI-2 that weren't thrown away,'andLin the 4
case of the NRR study all of the tests that were.not thrown' 5
away.that were run in the last six months.
6 We have already heard a lot of testimony about 7
technical questions and about particular tests.
We don't
'8 Propose to go over with you one by one'every test you were 9
ever. involved in, although we will focus on-a couple, 10 several perhaps.
j 11 The studies and the analyses of all the-tests will I
12 be in the record and are entitled to whatever weight they.
'( )
i 13 are entitled to in light of the entire record, including
}
i-14 your testimony here today.
I 15 With that, I will turn to Judge Carpenter.
16 BOARD EXAMINATION
[
17 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
i 18 Q
Good morning, Mr. Kidwell.
Thank you for coming.
19 In looking at your prepared statement, I.will sort I
20 of go to the bottom line first.
On page 5 in-the middle.of 21 the first full paragraph, the fifth sentence in that 22 paragraph -- well, I'll read the second sentence.
1 23 "My possible errors in interpreting the technical 24 specifications and administrative controls for operations I
25 were due to inexperience, never contempt for the public or I
4 i
^
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3990101 3288
(~Nlmarysimons v'
1 the nuclear industry."
2 I would like to ask you to reflect for a moment.
3 I accept your statement that you think inexperience 4
contributed.
To what extent do you think inadequate 5
training contributed, or did you feel the training was 6
adequate?
7 A
At that time, and I have to go back, at that time 8
I had no question whatsoever, no ability to question the 9
training.
I thought the training was adequate and 10 substantial.
11 Since the incident at Three Mile probably it 12 wasn't, but at that time there was nothing to trigger us
)
13 that there was probably some lack of training as far as-leak 14 rate calculations were concerned or even as far as that goes 15 documentation.
16 We assumed that we was doing business in a proper.
17 method and that is the way we continued until, you know, 18 after the incident there and going over stuff and talking 19 about things that we realized that probably we weren't doing 20 it a hundred percent up to speed, but at that time we 21 thought we were.
We thought we was in good shape.
1 22 Q
With respect to training, both with regard to 23 surveillance tests in general and surveillance, this 24 particular surveillance, the leak rate test, can you recall 25 if your classroom training in Lynchburg covered the leak ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
3990101 3289
(~} marysimons x-1 1
rate testing and any explanation about what its purpose was?~
2 A
I don't remember any training in Lynchburg 3
associated with leak rates.
I believe that there was some 4
training prior to licensing on leak rates.
Most of +. hat q
5 was associated with going through the leak rate procedure, 6
and then the rest of the training would have been on shift.
7 More or less you would come on shift in a training capacity 8
in the control room and somebody else that has already 9
operating there, you would ask them how you do a~1eak rate 10 and they would show you how to put it on the computer, and 11 that is about the extent of it.
12 Q
In your prepared statement you say that you were
()
13 on the shift supervised by Joseph Chwastyk.
But then you 14 say you previously worked on another shift with supervisor 15 Bernard Snith.
Would you say that the training -- well the 16 learning experience, as you say, was not formal training.
17 You just went in and said, well, I've got to do this, that 18 and the other thing and show me how to do it.
Is that a 19 fair statement?
20 A
Not in all aspects of training.
Leak-rate-wise, 21 yes, but not in all aspects.
22 Q
Well, do you feel that your process of becoming 23 familiar with carrying out the leak rate tests probably 24 occurred when you were in the control room with Raymond 25 Booher and Harold Hartman or with Theodore Illjes and ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-(6*6
3990101 3290
(~'} marysimons a
1 Charles Mell?
I am trying to get some feel.
You don't tell 2
me when exactly how long you spent on what you call the 3
previous assignment.
4 A
To tell you the truth, I don't remember how long I 5
was with one shift as compared to the other one either.
As 6
far as training on a leak rate in the control room, what it 7
basically consisted of was knowing how to key the computer 8
to start a leak rate, how to recognize when the computer had 9
gone its extended period of time, whatever you typed in it, 10 whether you wanted it for an hour or two hours or a half an 11 hour1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br />, how to recognize when the computer was done with the 12 calculation and it would type and ask you if you had added r(_))
13 any water or if you had taken any water out of the plant, 14 and you could make your corrections at that time.
You 15 entered your corrections if you had any, and then the 16 computer would calculate the leak rate.
17 Now anything beyond that, there was really no 18 training on shift associated with it.
So the aspect of leak 19 rates would have been the same after you knew how to work 20 the computer associated with it.
The association of leak 21 rates would not have changed from the shift of Bernie Smith 22 of Joe Chwastyk.
23 Q
We have testimony that the leak rate procedure 24 fairly clearly states that you carry out the test during a 25 period of steady state.
Are you familiar with that?
U,s c
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3A10 Nationside Coserage 800-33MM6
3990101 3291
(~} marysimons M
1 A
Yes, sir.
I am not familiar with the exact 2
procedure or the statement but, yes, that is the time to run 3
a leak rate, no doubt about it.
4 Q
Were there other surveillances that required that 5
you have steady state for periods of an haur or more?
6 A
Right off the top of my head I can't remember.
I 7
don't know whether.there was or not.
8 Q
Was steady state a condition.that was easy to 9
achieve?
Was the plant frequently in steady state?
10 A
There I have ask what you mean by steady state?
11 Q
No, I am going to ask you that.
What was your i
12 impression of what the procedure meant when it used the
()
13 words " steady state"?
14 A
My interpretation is you have established a power 15 level.
It could be 15 percent to 100 percent power.
You 16 have established a power level.
You have settled out at the 17 Power level.
If there is any significant oscillations in 18 the plant such as feedwater condensate or Xenon and stuff 19 like this that would be associated also with rod movement, 20 steady state is where all these elements have pretty much 21 gone away.
22 Q
Well, to the best of your recollection was it that 23 the steady state conditions were frequently available to you 24 or did you have to kind of search for them?
25 A
They were there.
We as a base load plant, and if ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3AX)
Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
_ -,.. ~
3990101 3292
/~j marysimons LJ 1
I remember we ran in the neighborhood of I think 95 percent 2
power or something like that, and once we picked up the --
3 got it to 95 percent power and we was there for a period of 4
time, the Xenon would flatten out at that point, and at that 5
point we would be at so-called steady state, yes, sir.
6 Q
Was a leak rate test required by the technical 7
specifications?
8 A
Yes, sir.
9 Q
What was the significance, if you can recall, in 10 your mind of the fact that the leak rate test was required 11 by the technical specifications?
What did that mean to you?
12 A
Why was it there?
Why was it in technical specs?
)
13 Q
Well, we could go with why to start off with.
Why 14 was it there?
15 A
It was there, well, one, as part of the license 16 document, two, it would enable me to see a trend, if you 17 will, in an unsafe direction in the plant that would not 18 necessarily jump out and say here I am and come and 19 straighton this out.
I am looking really for unidentified 20 leakage.
Ove.r a period of an hour I am looking for a total 21 of 60 gallons in that one hour or less to fall within tech 22 specs.
23 The important thing with it is if I developed a 24 leak somewhere such as if I had a packing leaking on a valve 25 and nothing else attracted my attention to it such as an x.s ACE-FEDERAL REPOR'lERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M4
3990101 3293 marysimons 1
airborne activity monitor or a sump _ level that started 2
increasing for no reason at all, the leak: rate would draw my 3
attention to start looking at-something or looking for 4
something that could be showing up.
5 The significant part of it would be trying to --
6 if you found it was a packing leaking on a valve, that is 7
one thing.
If you had a pipe leaking or a weld leaking, 8
that would be extremely significant.
That would be pressure l
9 boundary leakage and the leak rate would be greatly used in 10 drawing your attention to find out where your problem is at 11 so that you can get it corrected.
12 Q
In the time frame of 1978 and 1979 in this on-the-O)
(,
13 job training were you ever exposed to the engineering jargon 14 expression " leak before break"?
Do you have any notion of 15 what that mean then?
You may know today, but try to focus 16 it back then.
Did anybody say that one of the reasons for 17 running this test is pipes most frequently leak before they 18 break?
19 A
As far as I remember, I have never heard that 20 jargon.
21 Q
We haven't found any case of where you identified 22 any of the tests that you ran as having any deficiency or, 23 as I understand it, the term that was used at TMI-2 at that 24 time " exception" with respect to this test.
You were never 25 led to question its quality; is that correct?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3990101 3294
.'/~N marysimons V
1 A
Yes, I believe it would be.
2 Q
So all these tests that you ran were in your eyes 3
acceptable?
4 A
Yes, sir.
I had no question really to speak up 5
whatsoever about any test.
6 (Board conferring.)
4 7
Q In your prepared statement on page 3 at the bottom 8
you testify "I did not question the practice because we had 9
a 72-hour window, the tests were not signed and approved 10 (thus not a legal document), and I believed at the time we 11 did not have a leakage problem."
i 12 As I look at these tests I see the computer-()
13 printout pages and I see your signature on some of them.
So 14
.I am perplexed by what your testimony implies when you say 15 were not signed.
16 A
The document that you're looking at, does it have 17 a leakage of less than one gallon a minute?
18 Q
Without even looking I would say I expect so.
19 A
Then that is why I would have no problem with it.
20 I guess I don't really understand what you are asking.
21 Q
Well, you ran a test.
Did you run other 22 surveillance tests?
23 A
Yes, sir.
24 Q
Were there occasions where the results of the 25 tests were not satisfactory?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336 6M6
3990101' 3295
. (O'N marysimons 1
A Right off the top of my head I can't remember 2
any.
I am sure there was,.but I can't remember any.
3 Q
Well,-we'll put it in a hypothetical, if there 4
were one that you wouldn't identify as satisfactory, would 5
you have thrown it away or marked it as an exception or a 6
deficiency?
7 A
I would probably have marked it as an exception or 8
deficiency.
9' Q
Why the difference with respect to this test, this 10 leak rate test?
11 A
Well, one, the surveillance, we normally did one 12' on the midnight shift.
It checked out different components
()
13 and you would make a signature on it and they were in a list 14 on a log sheet.
And if you ran across one that did not meet 15 the requirements that were set forth as far as the limits 16-that were allowable for it, you would mark it as deficient.
17 Now just easily that paper could have been copied 18 over again and reinitialed and what-have-you, but it 19 wasn't.
Now you just marked it and you went on and did the 20 rest of your log sheets, you finished it up and made the 21 proper notifications to get the deficiency corrected.
22 Now the leak rates, you had the availability of 23 running, if you wished, eight a shift.
It was easy to put 24 it into the computer, and you could wait an hour and it came 25 back out of the computer.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
4
. 3990101 3296-(}marysimons
~
1 I could look-at around at things substantiating 2
the leak rate, I knew if I didn't change the inventory in-
'3-the tank, in the makeup tank, I could'look'at the airborne I'
4 monitorsLif I'had no airborne activity showing-uptin 5
containment or the auxiliary building, if I had no sump 6
level changes-in the plant and I wasn't having trouble-with i
7 the sump levels increasing, these type of items I.could look.
i' 8
at and I knew that I had no. leakage out of the-plant.
9 If I knew I did not have any leakage out of'the.
4 10 plant and my leak rate sheet told me I had two gallons a-11 minute, I don't know why it is wrong, but I know it is 12 wrong.
I had reason then to question the calculation i
f ()
13 because I knew the calculation wasn't right.
4
'14 Q
Did that situation where you concluded that the i
15 calculation wasn't right occur many times during 1978 and.
16 1979 when you were in the control room at TMI-27 l
17 A
Well, I don't know what you mean as many.
Out of i
i 18 what I have been through in the last eight years I don't 19 know how we would define "many."
20 Q
Well did you more often than not have to run it i
21 twice to get a " good" one, a good one within the tech specs?
22 A
I can't really give you a good answer.
I don't-23 know how many times I had to run them twice to get a good 4
[
24 one, but I don't remember going, maybe once or twice, from 25 one shift to another shift without a goed leak rate.
It was j
s l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.
l.
202-347 3700 Nationide Coverage 800-336-6646
' ~.-......,
3990101 3297
(~3 marysimons
.Q) 1 somewhat difficult, but not at that time to where I was 2
greatly concerned about it.
3 Q
Do you think your attitude might have been 4
different if you had had to do the test and carry out the 5
calculation by hand instead of just punching the buttons on 6
the computer?
7 A
What do you mean by attitude?
8 Q
Well, as I understand it, it was not a large task 9
to go over and type in instructions or the code into the 10 computer and simply wait for the computer to print out an 11 hour1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> later the results of the leak rate test.
So it would 12 seem to me that you didn't get very involved in the test.
/N
(_)
13 A
I really honestly don't think probably the 14 involvement would be any different, the mechanical 15 involvement.
16 Q
Well, having to do something twice where it takes 17 you a fair amount of time and effort to do it the first time 18 might have changed your attitude a little bit is what I am 19 wondering about.
20 A
The end result, you know, number-wise, I have no 21 examples to run a comparison that way because we didn't do 22 it manually.
So I don't guess I can really give you what 23 you would say a good, honest baseline answer on that.
24 Q
On page 4 of your prepared statement, the second 25 sentence reads, "I did not consider the test a particularly ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nation *ide Coserage 800-336-6646
3990101 3298
^) marysimons
~
1 reliable indicator of the existence of an exact amount of 2
leakage."
3 Did you recognize that the leak rate surveillance 4
test was the only quantitative measurement of unidentified 5
leakage?
I quite agree with you that there were other 6
qualitative indications if there was leakage, but what other 7
quantitative measurement did you have?
8 A
Do you mean as far as documenting gallons per 9
minute?
10 Q
As far as knowing that some pipe hadn't developed 11 a flaw in the weld and was leaking at a gallon per minute.
12 A
Well, the thing that needs to be looked at in a n(,)
13 plant running the way it does, I can type in wanting a leak 14 rate out of it, and I can be 20 minutes into that leak rate 15 and I can have a pipe that starts leaking, and if I am 16 interpreting it right, I've got to wait many more minutes, 17 I've got to wait 40 minutes before I find out that pipe is 18 leaking.
19 Now I did have instrumentation in the control room 20 such as a makeup tank level recorder that would tell me 21 while that leak r'ste was still calculating in a computer 22 that I had that pipe leaking.
23 So the trend of what was taking place on the 24 makeup tank level recorder was to me operational-wise worth 25 more than the leak rate that came out of the computer.
The L,)
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nation *ide Cmerage 80lb3364M6
3990101 3299 E(b'marysimons T
1 trend on that recorder could tell me at any time I looked at 2
it what the trend of my plant was.
What's hid in the 3
computer didn't do me any good at all operating.
4 Q
Well, as I understand it, all the computer did, 5
the program was that the computer took three readings at the
.6 beginning of the hour and three readings at the end and 7
determined the trend over the 60 minutes.
So it seems to me 8
that the computer was doing the same thing that you just 9
described, only it was doing it quantitatively.
You were 10 simply eyeballing the slope.
11 Is there any real difference 7 I am trying to see 12 if there is technically any real difference.
A' i
,1 13 A
Yes, sir, there is.
In a dynamic situation that q
14 we are in with the plants the computer doesn't jump out and 15 say, hey, guy, I've just got a leak that developed.
I've 16 got to wait on that to tell me.
The instrumentation I don't 17 have to wait on.
It is there in front of me any time I want 18 to look at it.
19 Q
Well maybe I can get this question focused a 20 little better.
Will you turn to test 125 in the NRR test 21 book.
22 (Pause while the witness complies.)
23 This happens to be the 19th day of February of 24 1979, and as I look at the strip chart record of the makeup 25 tank level I see the slope is not very smooth if you look at l
l l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-(M6
3990101 3300
(
marysimons 1
one of the strip charts.
As I see it, it is kind of 2
irregular and I would think if I were in a control room and 3
looking at this recording of the makeup tank level and I saw 4
a change one or two divisions, which of course could 5
correspond to 30 to 60 gallons, that I wouldn't conclude 6
instantancously that I had a leak.
I would kind of wait for 7
a while to see what the sensor told me after a while because 8
sometimes it goes down and sometimes it goes up.
9 You were saying that you just by looking with a 10 quick snapshot could get a better impression of what the 11 plant condition was than you could by doing this one hour 12 test.
13 A
Yes, sir, that's true.
14 Q
Am I correct that a leak rate of one gallon per 15 minute which according to the technical specifications i
16 somebody thought sensitivity to a very small leak level was 17 important to safety.
Without questioning that, I have the 18 impression that that represents a change on this strip chart 19 of two divisions in a one-hour period; is that right?
20 A
That chart is in percent.
21 Q
We have been told it is in inches.
22 A
And it's about 30 gallons, if I remember right, 23 per division.
24 Q
So one gallon per minute for 60 minutes is 60 25 gallons or two divisions.
So that in order for you to look w
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationmide Cos erage 800-336-6644
.3990101 3301
(}marysimons 1
at the strip chart and know that you didn't have a leak any 2
larger than'one gallon per minute, you would have to say-3 that there is not going to be a two division change in 60 4
minutes..That seems like a fairly small change.
If it is-5-
truly safety significant, it looks.to me like this test'is a 6
bit of a challenge given the minute-to-minute variability in 7
the strip chart-record.
8 I certainly agree with you that if a five-gallon-
~
9 per-minute leak abruptly appeared in the plant you would see 10 it as an easily discernible-offset in this record.
In the 11 context of this leak rate test it says you should know that 12 you are within the tech specs with this one gallon per
- ( )
13 minute which is a fairly. stiff standard in my mind.
You 14 could tell that you are within the tech specs by looking at 15 the chart.
16 A
That is not waat I am implying.
What I am saying 17 is while the leak rate is being generated or calculated in 18 the computer I have got an hour's period of time that I 19 don't know what its end result is going to be.
So through 20 that hour's period of time of operating the plant I've got 21 other instrumentation that is going to give me feedback that 22 will end up showing me that if I have a large leak develop 23 the same way that if ---
24 Q
No question about a large leak.
25 A
Then I'm not understanding somewhere what your ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
{
202 347 3700 Nationside Caverage 800 336-6646
=
4 E
h i -
3990101 3302
<(~h marysimons V
l
. _1 question is.
2 Q
The. radiation monitors would start singing-and the 3
strip chart could move abruptly.
It is my impression that c
4
.the purpose of this leak rate test was to detect.the 5
beginnings of the leak so that. corrective action could be 6
taken early.
I'm.no student of pipes failing, and I have 7
the impression, except in my house and there have been 8
occasions where it did leak before it broke, and it leaked 9
for a while and I didn't repair it and it finally broke.
So i
10 it is not incredible to me at all from my personal 11 experience.
12 But the thrust here is to pick up a problem before
().
13 it gets to be a big one, and you are telling me that it was 14 a no-never-mind because a big one you could see, and-I don't'
[
15 question that you could see a big one.
4 16 A
No, that's not what I am doing.
No, I don't mean i
17 to imply that.
I don't want you to take it that way.
18 That's not true at all.
I don't see how you could got that l
19 impression out of what I'm saying.
i 20 Q
Well, if a leak developed, an unidentified leak of 21 a half a gallon per minute, that is one chart division 22 change in the record over a 60-minute period.
And it just 23 seems to me difficult in looking at the oscillations here i
24 that you could pick out a one-unit displacement, even l
25 looking at 15 minutes of record, that is only a quarter of a l
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-(M6
,3990101-3303 s (~} marysimons
'u 1
division.
2 A
You're looking at the trend.
~
3 Q
That is.a trend of a quarter of'a. division in 15 4-minutes.
5 A
Now what do I do when it goes back up?- Do I say1 6
my goodness, where did this water come'from?
So I've got to-7' take the average somewheres.
8 Q
That's the point I-am trying to come to is what do i
9 you think the minimum period is-that-you couldLget a l
l 10
-reliable eyeball estimation that'the leakage _was of the 11 order of a half a gallon per minute.
It is certainly not.a 12 five-minute average I don't think.
)
13 A
I think looking at this, if_I remember right, and 14 I don't see the times on there, but each division on there l-15 going across the chart is 15 minutes I believe.
j1 16 Q
Right.
17 A
So looking at them and pretty much within that 15-j-
18 minute span there is enough oscillations in the line that f
19
-you can see a trend, and then you bo".nce that against the j
20 other 15 minutes and you have definitely got an established l.
21 trend.
l 22 Now you have got to take that in conjunction with l
23 some other items, as I was saying, such as the sump levels 24 and atmospheric conditions, and you pretty much know that 1
25 you are okay.
()
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 I.-.._-.:._-.-_._,__-____._..-,_.__.__.,,,.
l I.
3990101 3304 G(N marysimons 1
Q Well, I accept your answer.
'2 Turning to this test 125, the entries here are 3
.four pages.
Did you have a chance to look at-this at all?
4 Have you looked at it at all?.
5 A
Do you mean prior to coming in?
6 Q
Yes.
7 A
No, sir.
8 JUDGE CAPPENTER:
You might just take a minute to f
9 look at the paper so you are familiar with what is there.
j 10 The first page, as I understand it, is the computer 11 printout.
12 (Pause while the witness complies.
()
13 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
14 Q
That first page'of 125 ---
15 A
yes, sir.
16 Q
--- is that operator's signature your signature?
17 A
Yes, it is.
I can tell by the "J".
18 Q
Well, that's_the only clue.
Certainly the last 19 name had me ---
20 A
There is no John Mell that works there.
21 Q
Well, I was confused earlier, but I hadn't had my 22 second cup of coffee.
23 Looking back at 124, which precedes 125 by eight 24 pages, so you need to go back eight pages.
25 (Witness complies.)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-(M6
3990101 3305
/~N marysimons V
1 A
The log sheet?
2 Q
No, back to another computer _ printout.
It has-
.3 124 handwritten in the upper right hand corner.
4 MR..McBRIDE:
Excuse us for a moment, Judge 5
Carpenter.
This being a three-ring notebook some of the 6
Pages got out of order, as you knew the other day, and I 7
think they-have gotten out of order here again.
I have to 8
find 124.
9 (Pause.)
10 Perhaps you could help me, and I believe this is 11 right.
This Xerox is a little funny and the numbers didn't i
12 get reproduced on it.
124 is 2/19/79 at 01177
)
13 JUDGE CARPENTER:
That is correct.
t 14 MR. McBRIDE:
All right, sir.
15 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
16 Q
Do you see the signature on that page next to the 17 word " operator"?
I 18 A
Yes, sir.
is Q
Is that your signature?
l 20 A
Yes, sir, l
21 Q
So it's fair to take that you ran both tests 124 22 and 125?
23 A
Not exactly.
It is fair to say that I signed r
i 24 them, but not necessarily that I ran them.
{
25 Q
Well, when you signed them did you vouch for their j
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6616
3990101 3306
/'~N marysimons d
1 veracity?
2 A
I vouched that the leak rate was less than one 3
gallon a minute.
That is what I vouched for, that that fell 4
within tech specs.
5 Q
Why wouldn't the person that ran the test be the 6
one to sign it?
7 A
Well, it was just the way we did business.
There 8
are a lot of things that go on.
The shift was broke up into 9
several parts, and at not all times did the guy that, or was 10 directed to by any procedure that I knew of, that entered 11 the beginning of the leak rate into the computer was always 12 the man that took the leak rate out of the computer.
It
()
13 would ba very easy for me or say an RO to go take the 14 control panel and normally it was standard for the switching 15 and tagging operator to run the leak rates, but that was not 16 a hard written rule.
17 It would be very easy for him to start the leak 18 rate and an hour later I could be walking by the computer 19 and he would be involved in something elce and it would type 20 out and I could terminate the leak rate, it looks good and I 21 could sign it and turn it in.
There I didn't start it and 22 he did.
Or it could be many other ways.
It could even be
~
to -- well I think you understand what I'm saying.
23 24 Q
Well, you really didn't have to do anything during 25 the one-hour period that the leak rate test was being run.
7-(_)3 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 233MM6
- =.
3990101 3307
(~'}marysimons
\\s/
1 A
No, sir.
2 Q
So when I said that you ran the test, I think you 3
just told us that it is -- is it more probably that the 4
person who signs the computer sheet is the one who took the 5
computer sheet off the computer and looked at it and made an 6
evaluation?
7 A
The probability is higher in that direction, yes, 8
sir.
9 Q
So if it fair to say that you, even though you may 10 not have initiated either one of or both of these tests, 11 that by your signature we can assume that you tore it off 12 the computer and then signed it?
()
13 A
Unless a trainee on shift might have taken it off 14 and brought it to me.
That could happen, and being as the 15 leak rate was within tolerance, then I would have signed it 16 and turned it over.
See, the leak rate is part of the 17 licensing document, and the only person who should sign a 18 leak rate should be a person with a license.
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
Can I just clarify what it is that 20 you believe you vouched for when you signed the test as 21 operator?
Now I heard you say that by signing the test you 22 were vouching that the result of the leak rate test was less 23 than one gallon per minute, right?
24 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir, as printed out.
25 JUDGE KELLEY:
Right.
Now do you not also vouch ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
3990101 3308 marysimons 1
for the performance of the calculations that the computer
).
2 asks you for, for example, how much water was added'during 3
the test?
4 THE WITNESS:
Yes, and can I make a clarification?
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
Sure.
I 6
THE WITNESS:
Okay.
The thing that could happen f
7 to you that you might not.be aware of is I could start a 8
leak rate being on clearance and tagging and here it comes 9
back out of the computer with less than a gallon a minute, 10 and there is a possibility that the individual on the 1
11 control panel could have.taken water out of the plant or 12 added water to the plant and I didn't know it or I didn't f
I)
-13 think to ask him or he didn't think to tell me.. Now there 14 is that possibility.
15 In working with Ted Illjes, I have done it to him 16 several times and he had done it to me several times.
So we 17 established a rule amongst ourselves on shift that any time 18 he would put a leak rate in he would lay a piece of paper on i
19 the typewriter saying leak rate is in progress, and'he would 20 also lay a piece of paper on the control panel where I could i
21 either add water or take water out of the make-up tank i
22 indicating leak rate test in progress, a flag.
We J
l 23 reciprocated on that deal to prevent us from making that 24 mistake, but other than that there was no flags and there is-25 a possibility that that could exist and did exist.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
3990101 3309 marysimons 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
But when that kind of a mistake 2
happens, a miscommunication, as an example using a water 3
addition, as I understand it, that is a mistake.
And as I 4
would understand it, the operator who finishes the leak rate 5
test, that is to say, goes to the computer at the end of the 6
hour, he has to respond to those questions, one of which is 7
did you put any water in.
And if notwithstanding the 8
question on the computer, did you put any water in, and I am 9
paraphrasing now, but that is the substance of it I think, 1
10 you don't make any water entry.
That is a mistake.
And 11 when you signed for it, I would understand that you are 12 vouching for it and in that case you are wrong.
. f )
13 Is that fair?
14 THE WITNESS:
I guess I have to take that hit, 15 yes.
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
To me when I say I vouch for this I
17 leak rate test sort of broadly, and then if what I say is 18 what I am really vouching for is that it says less than one 19 gallon on this piece of paper, and one gallon is the limit, 20 and therefore it is okay, my reaction would be that is not 21 vouching to anything.
Everybody knows that.
22 What I want to know is what are the parameters, 23 what happened, is there anything that affected this and 24 those kinds of things.
If you just leave out a water 25 addition by inadvertence, the operator then is vouching and i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33&6M6
3990101 3310
/~
b} marysimons 1
he is just wrong I would think.
Is that fair?
2 THE WITNESS:
The only thing that would flag you 3
on something like that is if the water change was a 4
significant amount that would affect the leak rate where it 5
would come out and flag you.
And you would look around and
+
6 say, hey, did you add water on me.
Yes, I added water a few 7
minutes ago.
And you knew then that your leak rate was no 8
good and you start all over.
Yes, we have learned a lot 9
since then,- haven't we, 10 JUDGE KELLEY:
What did you understand that the 11 shift foreman was doing when he approved the leak rate test 12 by signing it?
)
13 THE WITNESS:
He was verifying the same thing and 14 verifying that he believed in what you signed because 15 normally he looked at the numbers and didn't go step by step 16 i and say, hey, did you do this and did you do that.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
He didn't go step by step?
18 THE WITNESS:
No.
He put his trust in his 19 operators.
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
It's a better question to a 21 foreman than to you, but I just wanted to have your notion 22 of what you thought his approval constituted.
So you 23 understood that he was saying that he was approving it and 24 he was at least implicitly saying not only is this test 25 under one but I and I foreman think that it is a valid ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336 (M6
1 3990101 3311
/~^ marysimons LN 1
test.
Is that what he is saying in a general way?
2 THE WITNESS:
yes, sir.
3 By JUDGE CARPENTER:
4 Q
Mr. Kidwell, I believe a while ago when we were 5
talking that yo,u indicated that you paid pretty close S
attention to this strip chart record of the makeup tank 7
level.
you kept track of one of the plant things that you 8
paid attention to.
9 you in answering Judge Kelley's question said if-10 there was something.that flagged you, the you would ask your 11 colleague did you add water.
12 Did you routinely look at the strip chart?
Could 7~
(_)
13 he put 100 gallons in without it being visible on the strip 14 chart?
15 A
If I was the reactor operator and somebody put 16 water in my plant without me knowing it, I'd break his 17
. fingers.
18 Q
How about the other way around?
19 A
Now when I am clearance and tagging, that is not 20 my console.
21 Q
Right, but if you are clearance and tagging and 22 you are running the leak rate test and the guy on the panel 23 adds water to adjust the rods or what-have-you and doesn't 24 tell you, wouldn't a flag for that be the strip chart 25 recorder that you were paying attention to?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
3990101 3312
{~'}marysimons 1
A I had other things to do in the control room for 2
one than just sit and look at that recorder and, No.
2, if I 3
am not the RO -- you know, I am not saying the recorder is 4
not important to me and I am not paying attention to it like 5
I do or would if I was on the console.
There are two 6
different categories.
7 Q
You never had the view that one way before you 8
signed this thing to assure yourself that steady state had 9
occurred was to look at the strip chart record for the hour 10 that just took place?
11 A
Prior to?
12 Q
At the time you pull the printout off the computer
()
13 and had to decide whether this is a valid test and.then go 14 ahead and sign it.
15 A
You mean go over and look at the recorder chart to 16 see if anything had changed?
17 Q
To see if any pertubation had occurred.
18 A
Normally, no, and the reason I say no is if I l
19 remember right, most of our water additions was in the I
l 20 neighborhood of 300 gallons at a time, and looking at 300 21 gallons on a hour basis, I'm looking at about five or six 22 gallons a minute.
And if I'm looking at that volume of 23 water, the leak rate coming out of the computer would have 24 smacked me right in the fact and that would have flagged me 1
25 to say, hey, guy.
(./
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
b t
l I
3313 3990101 U} marysimons j
[~
-1 (Board conferring.;
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
In the example that you just gave, 3
that would give you a nagative leak rate, wouldn't it?
.4 THE WITNESS:
But'it would sure flag me.
5' JUDGE KELLEY:
Well,'not necessarily negative.
6 THE WITNESS:
I can take water out and put water 7
in, yes, sir.
8 JUD'GE KELLEY:
But when you add 300 gallons to the 9
makeup tank and you don't include it in the calculation --
10 oh, that's backwards.
11 THE WITNESS:
It's easy to do, isn't it.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
It lowers the leak rate, right?
. ()
13 THE WITNESS:
If I put 300 in it would make like 14 umy plant was leaking water, yes, sir.
15 JUDGE KELLEY:
Depending on what else might be 16 going on.
In any event, it makes for a lower leak rate,.
17 correct?
18 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
l 19 JUDGE KELLEY:
When you count for it, it makes for.
20 a higher leak rate?
21 THE WITNESS:
Wait a minute.
22 MR. McBRIDE:
Could you restate the question, 23
. Judge Kelley, just so we know higher than what?
Are we 24 talking about ---
25 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, I am talking in relative l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
. - - ~.
3990101 3314
/) marysimons
%J 1
terms, and the hypothetical is that the operator will say 2
Mr. Kidwell is running a test and he doesn't know or wasn't 3
told about a 300 gallon addition in the course of the test, 4
but he says that when he punches the test out that 300 5
gallon addition is going to make a big difference in the 6
leak rate.
So he will know right then that such an addition 7
has been made.
That is what I understand you to be saying.
8 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
And that if you not knowing about 10 the addition didn't initially punch it into the computer, 11 you would get a much lower leak rate than if you had punched 12 it into the computer in the final calculation step.
()
13 Does that make sense?
14 THE WITNESS:
Yes, I agree.
15 JUDGE KELLEY:
We understand.
16 Could you take a look at test No. 115, NRR test 17 115.
It is dated February 12, 1979, and it is signed J.
18 Kidwell, if I read it correctly, as operator, and Conoway as 19 foreman; is that right?
20 MR. McBRIDE:
We have got a Xerox problem again.
21 Can I just confirm it.
February 12,
'79, 2119.46.
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
Right.
23 MR. McBRIDE:
No. 1157 24 JUDGE KELLEY:
Right.
l 25 Do I read your signature right, Mr. Kidwell?
(_)
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Cos erage 800-336-(616
i 3990101 3315
(')_marysimons V
1' THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
And it showed a leak rate of.80 3
gallons per minute.
Skipping over to the strip chart on 4
that leak rate test, and the code at the top indicates SF 5
meaning Shift Foreman Conoway and CRO Illjes, meaning I 6
gather that he was on the panel.
7 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
And Test Kidwell meaning that you 9
were doing surveillance.
The leak rate test'is docketed on 10 vertical lines just right of center, running from 2120 to 11 2220, and you will see that there is a rather sharp jump up 12 in the trace about five or ten minutes into the test which
()
13 appears to persist in an offset manner according at least to 14 the line drawn through the trace that had persisted for some 15 time before the test and drawn down passed it.
16 And the staff concluded that that sharp jump 17 shortly after the test started represented a water addition 18 of 150 gallons.
It was not logged and not included in the 19 calculation.
20 Having looked at that strip chart, Mr. Kidwell, 21 I'll ask you do you remember that particular test?
22 THE WITNESS:
No, sir.
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
Not that I would expect you to.
24 What is your reaction to the strip chart and the staff's-25 note at the bottom giving their analysis of the situation?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
-~
4 3990101 3316 L
marysimons 1
THE WITNESS:
-I'd say the staff made a mistake.
2
. JUDGE KELLEY:
Why:is that?
Y
^
'3 THE WITNESS:
Well, first of all, that whole width I
'4 of~that b'an is 15 minutes.
So that manipulation there takes 5
place'in a period of seven and a half minutes, and if a. man 6
can pull a strip chart out.and plot it together with leak 7
rates or what-have-you in the plant which it has been 8
readjusted and adjusted to come within seven and a half 9
minutes he is a very remarkable person.
i 10 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let me make sure that I understand 4
11 your point.
Are you suggesting that the staff's adjustment-12 of strip chart time to clock time is questionable?
f) 13 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
14'
-JUDGE KELLEY:
I just want to make sure I
'15 understand.
The discrepancy between strip chart time and I.
16 clock time can be seen by simply looking at the bottom of 17 the chart where the hours are written in.
This would have l
(
18 been about 11 o' clock at night or shortly thereafter, i
19 correct, on the strip chart time, and the staff's 20 calculation shows that it actually started at 2120.
I l
l 21 always have to pause.
9:207 H22 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
l 23 JUDGE KELLEY:
Their reading of it is the test ran f
24 from 9:20 to 10:20 p.m.,
and the strip chart time is up 25 roughly 11 to 12.
So there would be.an hour and 40 minute
- O l-l-
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
3990101 3317
{}marysimonc 1
difference'in' time as'they calculate it.
2 I might just say and I don't know whether you may 3
have discussed it.with your counsel.in speaking generally 4'
and briefly that there were these' discrepancies between i
5 clock time and chart time.
What the staff in their study r
6 attempted to do was adjust them with reference to. times that
.ere fairly well know.
7 w
8 I think the main technique was to simply take 9
clock times and assume the log time was right and find
~
10 various things on the strip chart from.the. log.
That.is-11 basically what they did.
4; 12 Is it your suggestion then that that'wasn't a f) 13 sufficiently accurate way to nail these things down?
14 THE WITNESS:
Well, there has been some hard 15 lessons learned here on logkeeping, too.
One' thing that.you i
16 can smack me for is recordkeeping.
I don't know if I am 17 really looking at the chart in the right place, to tell you' 18 the truth.
I focused-in on one point, but I am not really 19 sure I am in the right place.
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
What I am looking at is you see the
-21 word " clock" up in the right center and the words 2120 to 22 the left of it and 2220 to the right.
l 23 MR. McBRIDE:
Do you mind if I show him what you l
.24 are pointing at?
l 25 JUDGE KELLEY:
Please do.
LO t -
i' ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3990101 3318
'~S "U marysimons 1
MR. McBRIDE:
I don't.want to prompt him.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
No, please do.
3 (Mr. McBride confers with the witness.)
4 THE WITNESS:
So we are looking there at the 2120, 5
the line straight down?
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Right.
7 THE WITNESS:
And we are saying that again seven 8
minutes later a period of water was added and not 9
compensated for?
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
That is the staff's analysis as I 11 understand it, yes.
12 THE WITNESS:
That's awful close.
()
13 JUDGE KELLEY:
It's close, and let me just pursue 14 that with you a little bit.
It would be close in the sense -
15
-- let's assume the staff, their calculations were somewhat i
16 rough here and there was a certain amount of gray zone in 17 nailing down these times.
18 As I see it, if they were adjusting the clock and.
19 making it too early that could make a big difference, and if j-20 it should have been 10 minutes later than it was, then the 21 water addition would have occurred just before and wouldn't 22 have affected the test, at least not rith respect to what we 23 think here is significant.
24' On the other hand, in the ending line for the 25 test, their line 2220, let's say it is too far to the right, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-370C Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
3990101 3319
~,- ' marysimons
\\_))
1 you could move that over a half hour to the left and you 2
would still havb a problem, wouldn't you?
3 MR. McBRIDE:
Could I restate that just because he 4
hasn't been here for a few weeks to try to get the essence 5
of the question for you so I think he understands what you 6
are doing?
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Sure.
8 MR. McBRIDE:
Mr. Kidwell, what Judge Kelley is 9
suggesting to you is that if the line drawn on that strip 10 chart by the staff at 2120 were moved forward in time to say 11 2130 in the first half of his question, then the addition 12 would be outside of the one-hour period of the test.
()
13 If, however, the line were moved backward in time 14 by a half an hour, the addition would be still within the 15 hour1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br /> of the test.
16 Would you I guess agree with that as a foundation 17 question?
18 JUDGE KELLEY:
Right.
19 THE WITNESS:
I understood.
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
Fine. All right.
21 MR. McBRIDE:
But, Judge Kelley, might I ask your 22 indulgence, if you would.
I think a few moment ago the 23 witness was about to make a comment about recordkeeping and 24 the law.
I don't know whether you want to get to that, but 25 I am not sure he got a chance to complete that statement.
(,
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Coscrage 800-336-6646
3990101 3320 g
i marysimons C/
1 JUDGE KELLEy:
Sure, go ahead if you want to 2
continue the comment.
3 THE WITNESS:
We were sloppy, you know, I was, and 4
I don't want to speak for the other fellows, but we did 5
really know the significance of a lot of the people that we 6
had or a lot of the importance.
We do now.
It makes very 7
good lecture material for a training class.
8 But at that time as control room operators we just 9
didn't really relate too well, I guess, and in ignorance on 10 our part go around and time the charts, if you will, on the 11 midnight shift.
It would be easy for me to start at the 12 left-hand side of the panel and date the chart and write the
()
13 time on that chart and work across the panel to the right-14 hand side.
And it would be very easy for me to get to the 15 right-hand side and still be using the same time.
16 Now I am not saying that is correct.
I am just 17 saying that by myself looking back on it I know I have done 18 it and I know now that before the time goes on the slip you 19 need to.look at the clock and put the exact minute down 20 because now it can relate to the importance of a minute or 21 two minutes or even seven and a half minutes.
22 The other thing is we talk about timing in the 23 charts and the' question needs to be asked why are we timing 24 the charts, and it is obvious to me that it is due to 25 slippage and the chart drive mechanism, or otherwise I would v'
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
~
.j 4
l
.l
~
. 3990101, 3321
. marysimons-
~1 never have.to time them.
.2
.And then to sit and look at a chart thatua man has
-3 pulled and reconstruct it and-fill within a period of.seven 4
and a! half minutes, and it just so happens that_~1tilines up 5
with a 1eak rate, to me there-is enough question within time 3
~
6
' spans that it does not indicate concretely to me that_the 7_
- water was added within that period of time that the leak 8
rate was;being run.
9 JUDGE-KELLEY:
Okay.
I was just looking at this 4
10 particular chart'to'see.if there were any really prominent 11
-landmarks in the trace-that wouldfhelp you tie down time-
. 12 fairly closely, and'the one that catches my eye 11s the one-h
~
13
'that is at about 6:30 p.m. chart time.
There~is-a log entry.
?
14 for --'and I am not even sure I can readEthat' But whatever..
I 15 that is, if it is 6:30 chart time and the staff is saying 16 that the real. time is an hour and 40 minutes earlier, there 17 ought to be a log entry.around 10 minutes of five as I read f
18
~it.
I haven't looked at this yet.
Well, there are two entries at 1428 and 1435 for.
j 19' 1
20 500 gallons.
l~
- 21 THE WITNESS:
Judge Kelley, I think it is-the i-l
~
- 22' 1750.
L 23 JUDGE KELLEY:
1750.
Oh, added 626 gallons?
f
. 24 (Pause.)
25' JUDGE KELLEY:
1750, that is 10 minutes of 6.
1 i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 o
m
,~,.m-
.,,...,...,.,,.,. ~, ~,, _ _.,. _ _ _.,,,.. _ -, _ _ _,,
, __ m.
,.._,____..._,r.,___,,,,,,.,
l 3990101 3322
~
marysimons 1
MR. McBRIDE:
1750 is 10 minutes of 6.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, at 1750, if that is that jump 3
in the strip chart and that is at 10 minutes of 6, that is 4
only a time differential of 40 minutes roughly.
Isn't that 5
right?
I 6
MR. McBRIDE:
I am not sure he understands.
In 7
other words, are you asking him to compare 1750 on a clock 8
with the jump on the strip chart which appears at 9
approximately 6:30?
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
Right.
11 MR. McBRIDE:
And you are asking him if that is a' 12 time differential of 40 minutes?
c
,m
(_)
13 JUDGE KELLEY:
Right.
14 MR. McBRIDE:
Is that correct, Mr. Kidwell?
15 THE WITNESS:
The time differential between what?
16 You've got me lost.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
How much is the strip chart off?
18 That is all I am trying to find out with you?
I don't know 19 myself.
I haven't been through this exercise.
20 THE WITNESS:
You know, even with it marked I.
21 don't know.
There is another variable, too, and maybe you 22 don't want to hear this, but there is another variable of 23 shall I say logkeeping.
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
Which may or may not be accurate; 25 is that what you are suggesting?
Sure, you get around to it 7gQ ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6616
3990101 3323
(~N marysimons V
1 and you write it down, but to the extent that that is so, it 2
undercuts the whole idea that you can nail these things down 3
in the first place from a log.
4 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
If you take the log at face value, 6
the log says 1750.
That is 5:50 in God's time, right?
7 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
Then at 6:30 according to this 9
chart, that is when that entry gets reflected, is that 10 right, approximately 6:30, 45 minutes let's say, and yet the 1;
difference that the staff analysis shows in the brackets, 12 where they say 2120 to 2220, unless I heard this wrong
()
13 before, they are adjusting the chart and clock time by an 14
. hour and 40 minutes.
Is that fair?
15 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
This 2120, which is 9:20, becomes 17 11 o' clock.
18 MR. McBRTDE:
Judge Kelley, just so there isn't 19 further confusion c! the record, if you will look at Stier 20 Tab 43, according to Mr. Stier's people it was 1.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> or 21 an hour and 30 minutes, but you are in the ball park.
22 JUL3E KELLEY:
1.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> adjustment between clock 23 and chart time.
24 MR. McBRIDE:
That is what Mr. Stier said.
25 JUDGE KELLEY:
And do we know or can we find out U
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6616
3990101 3324 marysimons 1
what Mr. Stier based that on?
It is interesting that the 2
two come out more or less the same.
3 Well, this is very ragged, I grant-you that.
I 4
frankly hadn't been through this exercise before and decided 5
to try it cold on the record, and I guess that is what 6
happens when you do those things.
At this point it seems 7
unclear to me.
8 Can you help, Mr. Blake?
9 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Well,'I don't think there is any 10 difference between the staff and the Stier with respect to 11 at least how they came out from an evaluation standpoint of 12 actual versus chart time in this area.
But where they had
. o)
(_
13 differences I think they pointed out in the Stier report 14 that they had a difference of opinion between the 15 evaluators.
So I think an hour and a half is the time that 16 these fellows came up with.
(:
17 But the other thing to get out of the Stier. report 18 is when you look at the strip chart you get support for the
~
i l
19 witness' statement that logging wasn't always what it might I
20 have been.
What you find for that actual increase on the L
21 strip chart is at least MPR's evaluation that they suspected i
22 maybe three or two additions were logged as one at that 23 particular point as 626 gallons.
So you get some of each 24 here.
25 MR. McBRIDE:
And if I may just point out, Judge (O
\\-
_)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
3990101 3325
(~'s marysimons.
V 1
Kelley to try to help you with that, it is a fact that they-2 two analyses are fairly close in the differential between 3
chart time and real time, but it is also a fact that both 4
analyses assumed that the entries in the log were made --
5 the manipulations of the plant were made at the time the 6
entry is in the log.
7 So if the water was added at 1735 or 40 and it 8
says 1750, both analyses preceded from the erroneous 9
assumption that the addition was made at 1750.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well that leaves me with the 11
-question of if the differential between clock and chart 12 time, between 1750 and 6:30 in that range was just 40
()
13 minutes or so, how in the world did the differential 14 increase to an hour and a half in a couple of short hours?
15 That doesn't sound reasonable to me.
16 MR. McBRIDE:
You might want to inquire of the 17 witness whether there were times when they moved the chart 18 or the chart stuck or that the chart drive mechanism, as he 19 earlier said, had a problem.
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let me ask you, Mr. Kidwell, an 21 assumption that was probably only that, namely, that these 22 chart time indicators very gradually either slipped behind 23 or went ahead of clock time, and over a long period of time 24 you could get a pretty big gap and then you could reset the 25 thing and it would be more or less on target.
Am I wrong
(/
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
3990101 3326'
-(~imarysimons-1 about that?
2 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
3 JUDGE KELLEY:
I'm wrong about it?
4 THE WITNESS:
No, no, no, you're right.
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
I'm right'.
6 THE WITNESS:
Don't go backwards on me.
7 (Laughter.)
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
So if they just ran on different 9
means of propulsion, then if one was a.little off from the 10
.other, you wouJd'get this gradually increasing 11 differential.
Were they ever so far.off in'your 12 recollection that they would be diverging at the rate of
( ):
13 several hours a day, which seems to be indicated by low and 14 behold a differentia.1 cropping up of an hour in a space of i
15 two or_three hours?
16 THE WITNESS:
Well, no.
No, no differential slip 17 like that.
We are talking probably in the neighborhood of-18 slippage of maybe an hour a day.
19 The other. thing that is standard for charts of 20 this nature is for the sprocket holes to rip, for the chart 21 paper to get crooked on the rolls.
You now, we have got_a 22-
$500 chart recorder with a 90 cent motor in it.
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
So could there develop a glitch in 24 whatever is driving the strip chart such that it could slip 25 or jump an hour inside of an hour or two in some O
circumstances?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-(656 i
l 3990101 3327 marysimons 1.
THE WITNESS:
Somewhere in most^ cases a line 2
should show you that if so.
The distance between'the peaks
~
~
3 should either change or you'll end up with-a blank spot on 4
the chart somewhere.
Right here we are looking at, you 5
know, for the length of the roll or the chart or whatever, 6
we are looking at a very short span and that is a bad r
7 assumption to make, too.
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
9 THE WITNESS:
Mr. Chairman, I sort of hate to 10 break in again, but I might be able to clarify something.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
Go ahead.
12 THE WITNESS:
If you will notice this add.626
()
13 gallons, there are two lines in the NRR strip chart'that
~
14 shows a period of. time that on strip chart time begins at 15 6:30 which would show a 40-minute discrepancy, but the 16 second line ends at about-7:20 strip chart time which would 17 reflect aul hour and a half difference with the log.
i 18 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, but what immediately occurs 19 to me is if you are suggesting that --- are you suggesting 20 that the water was actua13y added in that stretch of time c
21 between 6:30 and 7:20 or so?
22 THE WITNESS:
I think that may be the case, but in i
23 any event I think you had earlier said it looks like there i.
24 is a 40 minute lag time.
25 JUDGE KELLEY:
Yes, about.
L l
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
l 3328-3349 3990101
~
marysimons 1
THE WITNESS:
I think if you look at the NRR test 2
and the Stier strip chart which indicates that there may 3
have been more than one addition to this log.
4 MR. McBRIDE:
But it is also obviously the case, 5
Judge Kelley, that both sets of investigators had to make an 6
assumption.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
You are not suggesting that the 8
water got added over that 40-minute period because the strip 9
chart knew better than that.
It went straight up.
All the 10 water went in in a few minutes as I read the strip chart.
11 (Board conferring.)
12 I think I understand the point.
()
13 Well, it's about time for supper, isn't it?
14 (Laughter.)
15 Shall we take an hour?
I 16 All right.
17 (Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m.,
the hearing recessed to l
l l
18 reconvene at 1:30 p.m.,
the same day.)
l 19 l
l 20 l
21 l
22 23 l
24 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 NationwideCo erage 800-336-M46
3990 01 01 3350 DAVbw 1
AFTERNOON SESSION 2
(1:50 p.m.)
3 JUDGE KELLEY: -We were talking before the lunch 4
break about NRR Test 115.
We got a little bit bogged-down 5
in our efforts to figure out the time differentials, because 6
of some apparent peculiarities associated with the addition-7 we were looking at on the left side of the chart.
It is 8
unclear whether the logging is accurate and just exactly
.9 when the additions, which apparently add up to 626 gallons,.
10 went in.
In any case, we are going to, for the moment, 11 abandon that particular landmark and take a look at a couple j
of seemingly simpler and more straightforward indicators of 12
(
13 time differential.
14 Let me just tell you, Mr. Kidwell, how this 15 appears to me to be, how this appears to me.
I am looking 16 ~
at the addition of 300-some gallons apparently, at a clock 17
. time of 2345, meaning 11:45 at night, which is a couple of 18 inches to the right of the leak rate test segment.
i 19 Whereupon, i
i 20 JOHN D..KIDWELL resumed the stand and, having been previously duly sworn, 21 l
[
22 was examined and testified further as follows:
23 EXAMINATION 24 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
(Continued.)
25 0
Do you see the 2345 there in pencil?
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide CoseraFe 800-3364M6
3990 01 02 3351
(_)DAVbw 1.
A Yes, sir.
2 O
If I assume that the log is right and that 3
amouant of. water was put in at 11:45, I see the strip chart 4
beginning to reflect it about 2025, after 1:00 in the-5 morning and comple, ting the examination at about 1:30 a.m.
6 i
Is that fair?
7 A
Uh-huh; yes.
You don't know what clock was being 8
used either.
9 0
Well, I'm assuming the log time says 2345 and so 10 does the time noted on the chart.
I'm assuming he is going 11 by log time, and it may be that the log time isn't precise.
12 Let's assume, if we use that as a benchmark, all
()
13 I am really establishing is an apparent time differential of 14 about an hour and 45 minutes between log time and strip 15 time.
16 Is that fair?
17 A
Uh-huh.
18 0
If you look over to the right a couple of inches 19 to the next major addition, I gather, of water, I believe 20 the log will show an addition at 1:30 in the morning.
Look 21 at that.
22 A
Okay.
To the right.
23 O.
To the right; yes.
I'm just checking that.
24 (Pause.)
/\\
25 Yes.
At 1:30 on the log associated with -- wait l
i l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
J3990001 03 3352
)fDAVbw I
a minute.
All right.
2 MR. MC BRIDE:
Excuse me.
Can I just suggest 3
that the steer sheet is a' lot clearer, because it doesn't
'4 have the rectangle.
5 JUDGE CARPENTER:
We are looking at logs.
1-;
6 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
i:
7 O
The log entry reflects for 1:30, added 300 8
gallons.
Strike that.
i 9'
The log reads 0130.
Added 300 gallons of 10 demineralized water, H20; right?
If you take' that as 11 reliable, and I realize it may.not entirely be reliable, but 12 if you take it as such, that would show a differential on
)
13 the chart, as I read it, of about I hour and 40 minutes.'
14 Tracking back to where 1:30 would be on the chart and going.
15 forward, the water addition begins at 5 or 10 after 3:00 in 16 the morning, and is completed around 3:15; is that right?
17.
.Is that the way it appears?
j 18 A
In the morning?
My chart shows a peak at 0130, 19 and it's rather sloped after that, and it runs out, I would 20 say, right in the neighborhood of 3:30.
That's the end of 21 my chart.
l 22 O
Well, we must not be looking at the same chart 23.
then.
I'm looking at the additions, the first of which, I l
24 think I just indicated on my chart, starts around 1:20, 25 25 E
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3990_01 04 3353
(_) DAVbw I
a.m.
2 A
Yes, sir.
3 0
And it's completed at about 1:30, almost a 4
vertical line.
5 A.
Yes, sir.
6 O
Then I am skipping over to the right about an 7
inch and a half, and I am looking at another 300-gallon 8
addition, and that begins according to chart time about 5 or 9
10 af ter 3:00 in the morning and is completed close to 10 3:15.
11 A
Well, now, we've got different charts.
12 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, I'm going to make a k_m) 13 representation to make this a lot simpler.
I have before e
14 him Steer Tab 43, the strip chart, which is the same strip 15 chart.
It's larger and doesn't have as many notations.
16 So it would be clearer and easier for him to 17 read.
18 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Mr. McBride, in the NRR report, 19 Mr. Capper, at the top of the chart, put in the numbers 1:45 20 at the very top.
21 Do you see it?
22 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes, sir.
23 JUDGE CARPENTER:
I take that to be the lag 24 between the chart time and real time.
25 Above the other one, he wrote 1:40.
Judge Kelley ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 8@336-6M6
- ty-
+
F v-
'7' yv-r--r-w e
-ww y-wr w
--re-y
- ' - = =
wgd-r-=
w->-
a--w wy
?
3990 01 05 3354 f) DAVbw 1
is trying to pursue whether the witness agrees with those i,/
2 two numbers.
You see, I agree, the other record is clear, 3
but at the moment, we're looking at Mr. Capper's analysis.
4 He drew these vertical lines and says the water addition for
~
5 this Test 115 was within the test time.
6 MR. MC BRIDE:
Precisely.
7 I'm just pointing out, he can read the numbers of 8
the hours on the bottom of this strip chart.
9 JUDGE CARPENTER:
I agree.
Putting that legend 10 there was unfortunate.
11 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
12' BY JUDGE KELLEY:
l
)
13 0
So I see a lag time, if you're with me now, of 14 approximately an hour and 45 minutes on that first addition 15 and approximately an hour and 40 minutes on the second 16 addition, and that's also reflected in the Capper note over 17 those two respective positions.
And I see a_ lag time 18 between clock-time and chart time on this test of the 19 difference between'2120, 9:20 in the evening versus, let's 20 say, 11:05, which turns out to be an hour and 45 minutes.
21 Is that a fair reading of the chart by 22 comparison?
4 23 A
You're asking ma to make it absolute, but I think l
l 24 maybe you're straight on it, but between the chart time and l
k-)/
r 25 the time that's been wrote in and the scribbling that's all i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
ua_
c-,
13990 01 06 3355
()DAVbw 1
over the' place, I still don't have-the picture of what you 2
are trying to draw, sir.
3 0
Let's take it again, then, a step at a time..
4 I'm simply suggesting that the interval between 5
clock time and strip chart time reflected on this sheet by 6
the Staff in their analysis that that interval, with respect 7
to your test, that they bracketed on the strip chart is 8
roughly the same as the interval between two other events r
i 9
depicted on the strip chart that are tied to long times, and 10 I am saying that suggests to me that the time bracket that 11 they selected at least agrees with that.
It may leave open 12 the possibility that the log times are wrong, I know that,
+
I b
13 but putting that one to one side, it seems to me that.
14 they're on target, and I want you to understand how I see 15 that, if it's not. clear, but that's what I see.
16 Do you-want me to walk through this again?
17 A
It all depends on how important it is..
18 0
Well, when I asked you initially to look at this, 19 your response was, how do I know the time is right?
And 20 we've been there ever since, and that's what I'm trying to 21 nail down.
Okay.
22 Now, is it not so that according to the computer i
'23 printout, this' test ran from 2120 to 2220, 2119, to be a I
24 little more precise?
25 A
Yes, sir.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j:
202-347 3700 Natienwide Coverage 80433M646
.. -. ~ -....
-..... -.. ~, _, _... _.,,,.
4 3990 01 07 3356
(,)DAVbw 1
O Can-we take that to be clock time?
2 A
No, sir.
That's computer time.
3 O.
Are you saying -- I frankly don't recall what
~
4
_the record shows in this regard, that the time punched out 5
by the computer was typically wrong, to some significant 6
degree?
7 A
That's very possible, yes, sir.
It's all in 8
relationship.
One, you've got the computer time here.
9 You've got another time on the wall on the clock, and you've 10
,got another time in the man's wristwatch.
So you've got 11 three variables, depending on which was used.
You might use 12 the wall time to start one thing and your wristwatch to stop
)
13 it, and then the computer printout a different time.
So 14 you've got three entirely variables that get involved in 15 time.
16 0
I'm familiar with the fact that the strip chart 17 time can get way out of whack, and we can see that here 18 before us.
We can stipulate to that.
19 A
Yes, sir.
20 0
I don't recall, however -- and that isn't to say 21
-- perhaps you're perfectly right.
I don: recall hearing 22 before that there were significant time differences.
I 23 thought computer time was clock time, in short, and that 24 clock time was the time that everyone pretty much thoughtr
- p/
3 s-25 the time of day was.
/
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
3990 01 08 3357
-()LDAVbw 1
Are you saying that there are significant 2
variations between computer time and, let's say, the average 3-wristwatch at the control room at TMI 2?
4 A
Yes, sir; there could be.
5 O
Theoretically, of course, there could be, but, in 6'
point of fact, do you remember that to be true?
7 A
Well, let me explain something to you.
If my 8
time -- I had a window on the computer that I could put the 9
time in, I could call up the time, and they'd leave it 10 there.
Also that same window, if I wanted to watch a 11 temperature or pressure on something, that would replace the 12 time in the window.
I) 13 0
Wait a minute.
Let me make sure I'm with you.
I 14 thought, and I may be wrong, that the computer had its own 15 clock.1 16 A
It does; yes, sir.
17 O
And that when I go over and push a bui.on and get 18 it to spit out a piece of paper, the time printed on the 19 piece of paper is what the computer is telling me the time 20 is.
21 A
That's computer time.
22 O
You don't tell the computer what time it is.
23 A
Oh, yes, sir.
24 0
You do?
25 A
You have to.
Somewhere you have to set a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
,. - _. ~ _
3990 01 09 3358
/~5
(_) DAVbw 1
reference.
2 0
I know you tell it to run a test for an hour, for 3
example, but do you tell the computer that it's 2:38 in the 4
morning, for example?
5 A
At that particular time, no, but somewhere it was 6
given a time.
7 0
What do you mean "a time"?
8 A
Say, the computer was down two days ago.
It 9
tripped for some reason, and I brought the computer back on 10 line, where did I get the time to tell the computer?
11 0
You mean you reset the clock on the computer?
12 A
Yes, sir.
Where did that time come from?
O imj 13 0
Okay.
Are you saying that, typically, the time 14 that would get punched out automatically by the computer 15 when it was asked something, that that time typically was 16 off?
17 A
I'm not saying, typically, it was off, but when 18 you run it in comparison against another time, it means, 19 moat definitely, it could be off.
A man might bring the c
I l
20 computer back up, look at his wristwatch and put the time in 21 it.
He may bring it up and look at the clock on the wall L
22 and put the time in it.
And the difference between the wall l
23 clock and his wristwatch could be five minutes.
Then you've 24 got another man that relieves.
You've got all the variable 25 coming in.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage 800-33MM6
L3990'01 10 3359
([DAVbw 1
Q So are you.saying that the typical man who's on 2
the panel and who, therefore, has the log, that when he puts 3
300 gallons into the make-up tank for whatever reason, he'd 4
look at,his wristwatch and note the time and write it down 5
on the log?
6 A
I have.
7-O or he might look on the wall and do-the same 8
thing?'
9 A
I have pone that.
10 0
Is anybcdy likely to look at the computer?
11 A
I've done that also, sir.
22 0
Does it have a face that shows time?
O' sj 13 A
It's digital.
14 0
It's a digital read?
I 15 A
It's a digital readc't.
I have auso used it.
16 O
But it's there all the time?
17 A
No, sir.
i 18 0
You had to punch for it?
19 A
Yes, sir.
20 0
Assumming, and it would possibly be a significant 21 assumption, but assuming that the computer is our frame of 22 reference, let's just try to keep it fairly simple.
i 23 The computer is the frame of reference and i.
l 24 proposes this question.
We'll assume the computer is
(-}
25 right.
The computer said-the test ran from 2119 to 2219.
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3990101 11 3360 G-4 j DAVbw 1
-A 2220.
2 0
2220.
All right; fine.
.3 Now when the NRR people' analyzed this strip 4
chart,-they bracketed your test time on the strip chart, 5
beginning shortly after 11:00 p.m.,
a few minutes after 6
11:00, and ending a few minutes after 12:00; right?
7 A
We're talking chart time.
8 0
.Okay.
So if you just add that differential from 9
2120 is 9:20, from 9:20 to, let's say, 5 after 11:00, you 10 get an hour and 45 minutes; right?
11' A
Yes, sir.
12 O
Then I just want to find out, knowing that the
()
13 NRR people went through a process of comparing log times and 14 events they could see on the strip chart, in order to figure 15 out what it ought to be, then I look at these two additions 16 on the right, and the first one is the first sharp upward 17 incline to the right of the test, 300-some gallons, I 18 believe.
And it was logged at 11:45, 2345, and it shows up 19 on the strip chart at about 1:30 in the morning.
20 A
Yes, sir.
21 0
So again, it's an hour and 45 minutes, so it 22 would be consistent with the interval that we just talked 23 about with reference to the test; right?
24 And it's marked up there at the top, plus 1:45, 25 which I gather is the NRR analyst's perception of the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804 336-6646
3990 01 12 3361
(%,/ DAVbw 1
difference.
(
2 And then the next one, in exactly the same 3
analysis, the next sharp upward rise, was logged at 1:30 and 4
shows up at shortly after 3:00 in the morning, about an hour 5
and 40 minutes, which is what the notation means at-the 6
time.
7 So I'm just asking whether you agree that if you 8
consider those two additions to be time benchmarks, whether 9
they aren't consistent with the same time differential that 10 was used for your test.
11 A
You've still got a lot of variables involved 12 now.
O, 13 0
Well, my assumption is that the computer clock is s_
14 right.
If my assumption is that the computer clock is right 15 and my second assumption is that the log time is right, then 16 don't these things fit together?
17 A
Yes, sir, they would.
18 O
And those are both variables, I grant you that.
19 A
There are so many variables.
I know exactly.
20 where you're going, but when you consider the variables f
21 involved, and we're talking about a small amount of time, 22 that makes or makes whether there is an issue.
23 O
I understand that.
24 A
I've got to make an assumption on something like
\\ -)
25 that, and I don't wish to do do that.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3XU Nationwide Coverage 804336-(M6
_. -. - ~
4 a
3990'01 13 3362 (k.DAVbw
~
1 O
I understand.
2 Let me ask you to make this assump' tion, though.
3 Assumina that the time bracket.is correct and that the water J
4 was added ten minutes or so into the test, wouldLthis 5
represent, in your view, an inadvertent. omission of a ' water-6 addition that we're looking at?
7 A
By looking at the chart, I would say there wasJa 8-water. addition; yes, sir.
9 0
-And since it wasn't logged, would you assume i
10 that's inadvertent, the fact it wasn't logged, including the 11 calculation?
12' A
I don't know any-time water was added to the
()
13 plant inadvertently, for one.
14 0
.I'm not being clear enough, I think, or precise 1
15 enough.
16 I'm saying, if this occurred.in the time frame 17 depicted, and if it occurred during a leak rate test, and if~
18 it wasn't logged and it was included in the calculation, 19 what am I to conclude?
Was this a deliberate manipulation 4
20 of the test, or was it a case where, for example, one 21 oporator, the panel operator, may have put in that quantity 22 of water and didn't tell the operator, and the operator.
q 23 forgot to ask him, and lo and behold, it just didn't show up 24 in the calculation?
s 25 A
Now you asked me what you conclude out of that.
i F
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8043346M6
-. Ju --
, _ -.. _.,, _.., _ ~, ~., _, _......,, _.,., - - -. -.,. _
?
g
- 3990 02.01 3363 h
DAV/b' L
c 1
O Yes.--What am I to conclude about it?
'2 A-By looking at it, I will take a guess, 300 i
3 gallons of. water.
Somewhere in that ball park; 275 l
4 gallons. 'And-I go over and look at'the-leak rate, f
5 O
Staff thought it_was just 150, by'the way.
6 A'
-This says -- I have 8 gallons.- And I'll assume And I'm talking
'7 that to be the ones-that'I'm talking.about.
}
8 about 60 gallons of water.
And looking at that number and 2
J' 9'
knowing that I had'no leakage out.of my primary system other-10 than-out of the pore, that 300 gallons would definitely have 11 showed up'asca negative three to five gallons on-the i
12 computer printout.
1
- -(I 13 O'
Let me make sure that I'm with you now.
-I don't I
141 know where you get your 300..
I don't see 300 there.
And i
15' neither did the staff.
So if we're going to talk about 300,
.16 let me understand what you mean by 300.
17-A Okay.
My mistake.
We're going from 63 percent 18 to, say, 69 percent.
(
19 0
If you read it as six, it would be 180, right?
5:
20-A Six percent or six levels time 30, certainly
[
21 percent inches.
Well, each division there is about 30 22-gallons, if I remember.
l-[
23 O
And I think it represents an inch in the tank.
24 A
Okay.
So we're talking about 120 gallons.
4 25 O
Staff thought 150.
I think it's debatable i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage M3364M6
3990 02 02 3364 g
.(_)
DAV/bc 1
because of the.way it's squiggled around.
Okay, let's say 2
- 120, 3
A So you still look at that.
You're looking, if 4
you run it outward over the period of an hour, you've got to' 5
come down into gallons per minute.
6 I'still think that if the assumed timing and 7
everything was correct, that it would have showed up in a 8
leak rate in a different way than what it showed up.
It has 9
not shown up.
10 This negative
.8 or this.8 is a reasonable 11 number.
That's a number that I'm used to seeing;
.5 is a 12 good number;
.3 is a good number.
And deviation from that (G,)
13 by the addition of water, and not taking correction for it 14 in the sheet would definitely show up.
15 I have to have had positive leakage.out of the 16 primary system.
If I had that, it's got to show up either 17 in airborne activities, in the containment or aux building.
18 It's got to show up in the sump levels.
And I haven't got 19 those documents, but the water had to go somewhere if it was 20 put in.
21 I've got other pieces of paper that goes with the 22 leak rates.
So my assumption is, out of all the 23 assumptions, is that the timing or the assumption of the 24 timing in the chart and the places it took place is (N_/
25 definitely wrong.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3XD Nationwide Coverge 804336-6M6
.~
3990 02 03 3365
.,-( j-DAV/bc 1
Because, for one, I do not add water.
I do not 2
add anything to the makeup tank when I'm doing a leak rate.
3 That's one of my laws.
It's been my law ever since I 4
started this business.
5 And by seeing that number thae come out as 6
unidentified leakage, from what I've seen in the plant, that 7
is not an unreasonable number whatsoever.
8 Now, if that kind of water had been added, the 9
number would have been unreasonable.
10 0
Well, I'm having difficulty.
Are you questioning 11 the fact that the water was actually added?
12 A
Oh, no.
I'm not questioning the fact that the
. ()
13 water was added.
I'm questioning the fact that the 14 association of the chart, its alignment with the leak rate 15 and no other documents around it, such as containment, sump 16 level, reactor coolant drain tank level, even airborne 17 activity, sump level in the auxilliary building.
I've got 18 all my primary leakage had to show up in one of these 19 places.
20 And I've got no documentation to show me.
That 21 water had to go somewhere if it was stuck in and my leakage 22 come out at
.8.
That's a good leak rate.
23 But if I put that kind of water in, it would have 24 to show up on the computer sheet.
And it does not.
So I s-25 know that the water did not go in.
I know I didn't have any ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
. _, _ _. _. _., _. ~. _ _
4 L3990 0:2 04 3366
)DAV/bc 1
primary leakage, so I : know the water didn' t go in.
1 -
2 0
-Didn' t go -in where?
3'
'A Into the RCS.
i
[
4~
MR.'MCBRIDE:
During the. leak rate test, ck; you
.5 mean that-the~ water was not-added during the leak ~ rate-test?
6 THE'. WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
No way.
[
-7 MR. MCBRIDE - That's what he tried~to say,: Judge 8
Kelley.
i 9
EY JUDGE KELLEY:
q.'
10 1).
Could'you repeat it then?
1 11 A.
-The water was not added.during the leak rate
[-
12 test.
()
13
_O That wasn't my question.
Let's take it back from' 14 square one.
Under my hypothesis, I'm asking you a 15
. hypothetical question.
The water was added during the leak 16 rate test, just as this strip chart depicts it..
i
~
17 A
With all the assumptions?
And'all the 18 inaccuracies that we've talked about, and then looking at it 19 at face value, yes, the water.would have been added during t -
20 the leak rate test.
l:
21 O
Right.
All that is so.
My question was.I come 22 along and I read this and let's assume that I want to look l
[-
23 at it on the basis of those assumptions.
24 What am I to make of this?
j l
i-25-It seems to me it's one of two things.
It's i-l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC..
1 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33MM6 i
~. - -
~
3990 02L05 3367
()LDAV/bc 1
either an attempt to manipulate the leak rate test or it's a 1
2 case where, for whatever reason, the operator did not 3
include the water in the calculation.
4 Maybe there's a third possibility that I'm'not 5
aware of, but that's_my reaction in looking at it.
6 Am I wrong about that? _That it's got to be one 7
of those two?
8 A
If I was in your position, I would probably 9
assume that.
10 0
which of the two is it?
What's the more 11 reasonable assumption from your standpoint, assuming.you ran 12 the test?
I'm here talking with you; you ran the test; what
. t( )
13 should I believe?
i
~
14 A-Being as I ran the test, I can guarantee you one 15 thing, as I did not add the water to manipulate the leak 16 test. -That's fact.
Okay?
4 17 O
So, am I to conclude that it was just an I
18 inadvertent omission?
Is that what I'm supposed to i
19 conclude?
l 20 A
No, the water wasn't added.
It's obvious on the 21 leak rate test sheet.
To me, it's obvious.
So the water 22-wasn't added.
We're dealing with assumptions, and it's 23 kind of hard to me to deal with real items with all the l
24 assumptions.
25 0
Well, I'm asking you again to accept the j-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
{
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8N336-6646
~ _
3990 02 06 3368
(~x
( f DAV/bc 1
assumptions and then help me on what I'm to conclude.
And I
~2
. gather you're telling me that much you dislike the 3
assumptions, if I persist in wanting to entertain them, I 4
should then conclude that it was an inadvertent omission.
5 Is'that correct?
6 A
Underneath the assumptions, yes.
7 0
Okay.
8 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
9 O
Mr. Kidwell, I thought you indicated earlier in 10 your testimony that you and Mr. Illjes didn't always 11
-communicate perfectly and that's why you left notes to each 12 other.
(3
(_)
13 Why isn't this just a case of you ran the test 14 and Illjes added some water and didn't tell you?
15 A
Well, it's just like the variable you just used, 16 sir.
You said sometimes.
Sometimes, we did.
Sometimes, we i
17 dion't.
The situation didn't always exist where Mr. Illjes
~
18 was on the panel and I was at clearance and tagging.
So l
19 we're back into that doggone dog chase again.
i 10 0
Well, we've got a record now where you take the 21 position that this strip chart which shows a vertical 22 displacement of roughly five, perhaps six divisions over a 23 time interval of maybe four or five minutes, to your eye, it 24 doesn't look like a water addition.
(.
25 MR. MCBRIDE:
I'm sorry, Judge Carpenter.
He ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3 % 6646
I
'3990 02 07 3369 A)~DAV/bc
(,
1 testified to the opposite.
He agreed with Judge Kelley that 2
it was a water addition.
The question was whether it 3
occurred during the test.
4 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir, I agree with that.
I 5
know of nothing else that would cause the tank to change 6
like that.
That's the only reason I agreed that it's a 7
water addition.
8 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
l 9
0 The computer printout tells us that the makeup 10 tank level at the beginning of the test was 65 and a half 11 inches.
That seems to agree with the intersection of the 12 vertical line and the horizontal line at the beginning of
()
13 the test.
j 14 So isn't that another line of evidence as to 15 whether that vertical line was entered in the chart in the 16 right place?
It could have certainly been five minutes 17 later, or five minutes earlier.
18 But isn't that an additional help?
19 A
To tell you the truth, I can't find makeup tank 20 level on here.
TCA, THA, TCB, THB, TF and pressurizer 21 level.
22 O
The next one over.
i 23 MR. MCBRIDE:
The problem is, Judge Carpenter, as 24 I alluded to before, that he's got this xerox that's cut 25 off.
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(X)
Nationwide Coverage 8( 6 336-6646
3990 02-08 3370 DAV/bc 1
JUDGE CARPENTER:
Oh, okay.
2 MR. MCBRIDE:
I am putting before the witness 3
steer test 43, which~I1believe to be the same test.
You 4
might want to ask the' question'again.
5 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
6 O
Now can you see the copy of the whole computer j
7 printout?'
8 A
Yes, sir.
9 0
I'm sorry.. I was causing you a handicap.
10 A
It looks to me like -- oh, wrong one -- 65.5 and 11 65.0.
12 O
Right.
Now go-back to the NRR strip chart.
If 13 the analyst is correct, in entering-those vertical lines 14 guided by the two water additions on the righthand side of 15 this' strip chart that you talked about with Judge Kelley, if 16 you did that right, if you made a real error, it would be 17 surprising, wouldn't it, that the intersection of his 18 vertical line happens to come right out at 65 inches of 19 water level, which is just what the computer says it ought 20 to be?
21' Doesn't that add some further credibility?
22 (Pause.)
23 Do you see the side horizontal line that's drawn 24 across the test interval?
25 A
Yes, sir.
I'm thinking.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
1 3990 02 09' 3371
()DAV/bc 1
0 That's the NRR.
Remember, the straight' lines you 2
see were drawn by the NRR analyst.
He simply plots.
As I
~
l 3
understand it, he first creates a time scale, identifies the 4
time interval, draws two vertical lines.
L 5
Then he goes and looks at what the computer sas 6
the makeup tank-level was, and he enters those as-two points 7
and just connects them with a straight line.
1
.8 So what that straight line is is telling us what i
9 the computer showed'at the beginning and the end.of the
}
10 test.
i 11
-You see, the computer says, over the 60 minutes, I
12 there was hardly any water level change.
If the water l ()
13 hadn' t been added, if you look at the strip chart, I think 14 it's reasonable:the slope has been fairly steady for a good 15 many hours, but there would have been a substantial decrease
[
16 in the water level in the 60 minutes.
I 17 A
That one, I cannot explain.
18 0
Well, as Judge Kelley was saying,.you know, we
~
19 have to face the fact that this could be willful and 20 malicious manipulation, or it could just be that one 21 operator adds the water and didn't tell the other one.
22 So we'll have to puzzle about that.
23 But, you see now what we're faced with?
24 A
Yes, sir.
25 0
Coming back to this log and the timing, I don't ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
_~ _ _., _,, _... _. _ _.. -.. -, -, -
{
~
=3990 02 10 3372 p
(,)._ DAV/b'c 1
'think this_ test'is nearly'as significant as others that you 2
were not' involved in. 'So I'm not addressing my questions.
~
~
3 A
Thero'c something still that I don't like, and I 4
can't explain it.
But there's something here I definitely i
5 don't like.
Like I said, I can't explain why, but if you'll 6
notice the straight line of the supposed water addition, and
-7 then you notice the taper of that line for that next ---
1 8
0
--Are you talking about the pen recorder now?
9 A
Yes, sir.
And that, I do not understand.
I i
10 cannot explain that.
11 0
'Say that again, please?
12 A
Look at where the water was added, just after the
()
13 corrected time of 2120.
And the water was put-in and the 14 slope of that line went to 2220 is not in comparison with 15' the slope on the entire page, any other one-hour line.
16 Now, something's wrong there.
That does not set i
17 the proper sequence, you know.
.I don't ever know if anybody-18 added water, a few gallons at a time.
I think my shots were 19 normally in the neighborhood of 300 gallons at a time.
10 That part right there, I~ don't understand.
21 0
There are a lot of other occasions when it looks 22 like the water addition --
l 23 A
'-- is so much that it looks line a little bit 24 more and a little bit more and a little bit more.
And I j
25 can' t explain that.
So I don't know of anybody --
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-34717th)
Nationwide Coverage NXh3166646
3990 02 11 3373
(,fDAV/bc 1
O Well, look at the next lower in time, at 2345.
I 2
quite agree with you that it's flatter than one would 3
-. expect.
4-A Yes, sir.
Somethina's wrong somewhere.
5 O
But, if I were to take a straight edge and draw a 6
line parallel to that straight line that's vaderneath it, it 7
wouldn't be a bad fit.
I agree with you.
If I didn't have 8
anything else to look at but that one hour, I would say, 9
look, it's flat and then it's down.
10 But if I see this, if I look over at the 2345 11-right there just to the right of the next water addition, it 12 also shows that funny behavior.
You add the water and the
()
13 makeup-tank level goes up, but it doesn't drop all that 14 fast.
15 Or, maybe the sensor doesn't sense it 16 immediately, like there's a little hysteresis in.the sensor.
17 A
I can' t explain that part.
But let's do 18 something else.
Let's do the water addition.
And, at the l
19 peak of the water addition, let's put the same angle after 20 the addition that's on the other additions and think about l
21 what the makeup tank level would have been at the end of 22 that leak rate.
23 And I think you'll see that, possibly, something 24 was wrong with the indication, because I believe if I put 25 the same angle of descent, I would have been below.
I would ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Coverage 8 @ 336 4 646
-. - _ _ -347-3700_,. _
4
=3990 02.12 3374
- ()-DAV/bc.
I have showed up at.the end of the. leak. rate in the ball park i
2 of about 162 inches.
3
.O Starting from the.high spot?
l 4
A Yes, sir.
Theoretically, that's the beginning of.
5 the leak rate.
6 O
Let's get you a better straight edge.
7 A
Hey, I'm doing this-to my advantage.
8 0
I know.
Have you got a piece of paper?
9 A
I just lay it right on top of the peak of where-10 that water was added and put it on the same angle aus what 11.
the rest of the curves were running at.
We'll end up 12 somewhere around 62-63 percent.
.()
13 So, either water was added a'little bit along the 14 way or something was wrong with the instrumentation.
And 15 it's not a very straight line we're getting out of any of 16 this.
17 0
If I put a straight edge that's parallel to the 18 straight.line that NRR drew on this chart?
~
19 A
You just draw off the reak and parallel to their 20 line.
21 O
I come out about 65, maybe 64.5.
22 A
I'll squeeze with you on 64.
23 0
Well, you need a ruler or straight-edge.
24 As I say, we don't want to pursue this test O
(_/
25 indefinitely.
However, the more discussion goes on, the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804346M6
3990 02L13 3375
.DAV/bc
'l more opportunities I have.
2.
A That's about 63 percent.
3 4
4
.5 i
j 6
7 1
8 9
10 1
L 11 l
12 lO 13 14 15 j
16
[
17 18 i
19 20 t
21 22 23 24 O
2s ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700
- Nationwide Coserage 80tk336 6646
3990 03 01 3376
(
DAV/bc 1
MR MCBRIDE:
I think perhaps part of the 2
. confusion may be, Judge Carpenter, he was trying to draw his 3
own line.through the previous several hours of the strip 4
chart.
5 You may want to ask him whether he's willing to 6
accept the line which NRR assumed.
7' BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
8 Q
Mr. McBride suggests we inquire as to whether you l-9 accept the line NRR drew in the previous four hours.
10 A
Yes, their line's all right.
All I'm doing is 11 going off the peak of that addition and going parallel to 12 their line.
And I end up down in the neighborhood of 64
()
13 percent on the normal droppage, that I show for the previous 14 three hours.
15 O
So he's come back from 62 to 64.
i 16 A
What's happening there in the instrumentation, I 17 don't understand.
That's got me buf f aloed.
i 18 0
Why?
l 19 A
Because it stayed at a plateau too long.
The l
20 plateau is too long.
21 O
Well, I agree.
But then it's too steep for about 22 15 minutes.
It's too flat for 15, and too steep for 15.
It l
23 comes out wildly dif ferent.
l 24 Well, I don't believe we're going to be able to 25 resolve it.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3%6M6
1 3990 03 02 3377
/~~T
(_j-DAV/bc 1
A I can't.
I cannot give you a good answer.
2 O
I'd like to back away now and, in general, first 3
of all, is my impression correct:
4 More often than not, the CRO that had 5
. responsibility for the panel added water?
If there was a 6
water addition, he was the one that did it?
7 A
Yes, sir.
8 0
What place on the panel are the controls for 9
water addition?
10 A
Now, this is going back eight years.
11 O
Oh, yes.
12 A
If I remember right, it's right here.
This keeps
()
13 track of the gallons of water that's going in, the control 14 valves.
So they're associated with it.
15 MR. GEPHART:
Let the record reflect that the 16 witness pointed to Exhibit 9-A.
17 MR MCBRIDS:
And he pointed on that exhibit 18 approximately over the rightmost telephone on the desks in 19 the center of the picture, to the panel in the left center 20 of the room.
21 Is that correct, Mr. Kidwell?
22 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
23 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
24 0
The paper we see over there, the xerox copies of
(
25 something, were they originally loose pieces of paper or a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage an336-6646
3990~03 03 3378 (fDAV/bc 1
bound notebook?
2 A
Looseleaf, I believe.
I don't know for'sure.
3 0
So you had a looseleaf notebook that you wrote 4
in.
5 A
I'm sorry.
Are you talking about the log book?
6 0
Yes.
The operator's log.
7 A
That was a bound book.
8 Q
A bound book?
9 A
Yes,' sir.
10 Q
Did you carry the bound book around with you as i
11 you moved up and down the panel?
12 A
No, sir.
()
13 Q
Where did you leave it?
14 A
On the control room desk.
15 Q
So, if you went over and made a water addition, 16 you'd have to walk back over to the desk to log it in?
4 17 A
Yes, sir.
There's another element that probably 18 should be talked about.
I'm sure you don' t want to hear 19 it.
But I have caught myself at times where I've added 20 wa te r.
As I say, I'm going to use as a reference 300 21 gallons.
If I remember right, that was pretty much 22 standard.
23 We'd make up, if you will, or calculate a batch 24 for 1,200 gallons.
Then we'd add it in four shots at 300 25 gallons a piece, 300 gallons a piece.
That's about the way ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80tk33&6M6
~. -. -
/
3990 03 04 3379
<~n
() DAV/bc 1
I did it.
2 I've caught myself where I've added water and get 3
involved in other things, and forgot to make the doggoned I
4 entry in the log book.
5 And the next time I add water, I'd say I added l
6 600 gallons of water.
I kept track of the water that went j
7 in, but I have totalled them and made them as one entry.
8 Sometimes, I've made it as a late entry.
9 0
Tha t's what I'm curious about, is the potential 10 for late entries.
You might have decided to go to a log 11 book.
And think of two things you want to do, one of which 12 is a water addition.
)
13 You go and do those two things and you come back 14 to the log book.
Would you try to estimate the actual time 15 you added it?
Or would you just look at your watch or wall 16 clock at the time you wrote in the book?
17 A
There was times that I've caught myself in 18 estimation.
But if I walked back to the panel or back to 19 the log book to make that entry, I would probably have 20 looked at my wristwatch, not the computer or the wall clock, 21 and write the time down.
l 22 0
Did you write down the time at which you were 23 making the entry or the time that you added the water?
24 A
Making the entry.
I have caught myself where O
\\J-25 I've added water and remembered it and forgot to put the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433MM6
3990 03 05 3380 r~.
I j. DAV/bc 1
entry in.
And even tried to extrapolate back...it was about 2
15 minutes ago.
And if I didn't have a log entry after 3
that, I'd put it in.
If I did have a log entry, I marked it 4
as a late entry, added 300 gallons of water and maybe 15 5
minutes previous, but in reality, it might have been 10 or 6
20 minutes.
7 So there's another doggoned variable in there 8
that's goofing us usp.
9 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
10 0
May I ask a question?
In terms of the accuracy 11 of log times when you were on the panel, apart from the 12 exercise we've gone through here this afternoon, did you
()
13 have any reason to think at the time -- did it matter very 14 much one way or another whether the log entry was accurate?
15 A
That's a very good point, sir.
I know I could 16 probably give a four-hour lecture on the values of it at 17 this time.
Previous to it, I couldn't have given you a 18 five-minute lecture on it.
19 0
On the values of accuracy in the log?
20 A
Yes, sir.
21 Q
How about a one-minute lecture?
22 (Laughter.)
23 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
24 0
What I'm after is whether operators at that 25 time--forget about leak rate tests for a minute--had any ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 80lk336-6M6
3990 03 06 3381 fy jv/ DAV/bc 1
real' incentive to be accurate other than'the fact that 2
somebody told them once:
Be sure you write it in the log.
3 Something to that ef fect.
4 Well, they just sort of shrugged and said, well, 5
it doesn' t really matter.
I'm going to put it in at 5:20 or 6
5:40, as long as I put something in there to reflect it.
7 Can you give me some feel for why a CRO on the 8
panel either wouldn' t want to be accurate or wauldn' t care 9
whether he was accurate?
10 A
I'm going to give you an example, and it's not to 11 degrade anybody or the system.
I'm going to say it's just 12
- the way it was done.
That doesn' t mean it was done right.
13 I'm just going to say it's the way it was done.
14 And, in comparison, if you jump in a pen and 15 there's a bunch of rats running clockwise, you run clockwise 16 with them, you don't go counter-clockwise.
17 We was wrong, but we didn't know that at the 18 time.
And there's been a sequence of events that has showed 19 us the importance of where the importance lies.
20 0
What is the importance of it other than in one 21 trying to figure out when a leak rate test occurred?
22 I mean, forget about that.
Is there some other 23 importance in it?
24 A
The importance is being able to reconstruct O
l 25 something to get it back together so that you can tell what l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
s., 7 7 r _,,
mn-mm..
3990 03 07
.3382
.DAV/bc 1.
caused something to go wrong.
I'm~ assuming something went 2
wrong somewhere.
I've got to be able.to put it back 3
together to try and troubleshoot to find out why.
4 And the way we kept our records--- and we didn't-5 do it on purpose, but the way we kept them, we'veLdamned 6
near made it impossible.
7 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
8 0
Turning now to an entirely different topic, would
'9 you go back to test 124 in your NRR book?
10 MR MCBRIDE:
Once again, Judge Carpenter, we've 11 got a reproduction problem, so I'm going to try and lay-in 12 front of the witness the same tab from the Stier volume.
()
13 Somebody can help me as to what the number is.
14 I think, by inference, it's 34.
Is that correct?
15 JUDGE CARPENTER:
125 occurs within a half an 16 hour1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> or so of 124.
Are all the copies messed up?
There are 17 lines on the NRR report that are not in the Stier report.
18 MR MCBRIDE:
We've got the strip charts.
That's 19 not the problem.
It's the test.
I've got it here.- It's f.
20 Stier test 34, and.I'll lay that alongside in case he needs 21 to refer to it.
22 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
i F
23 0
We established earlier that you identified the l
24 signature for both of these tests as being your signature.
25 Now I'd like to turn to the strip charts.just for a moment.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 801k3366M6
-.. -.. - - ~. -, _ _.,. _ _ -
- - - - -,.... - - _ ~ _,, _. - -. _ _ -.,,. - - ~ -. - - - -. -.. _
3990 03 08 3383
- (O,) DAV/bc 1
Isn't it very unusual to find leak rate tests 2
both of which indicate unidentified leakage as less than one 3
gallon per minute run almost back to back?
4 Is this an unusual event?
5 A
I wouldn't use the word " unusual".
I might say 6
not very of ten would I discover it, but I wouldn't use the 7
word unusual.
" Unusual" sounds like it's setting on a 8
differentiating trend.
But it's not unusual.
9 0
But, if you ran the first one and the result was 10 within the tech spec, why would you bother to run another 11 one on top of that?
12 A
Well, the first thing we didn' t do is we didn' t O
ij 13 establish that I ran either one of them.
We established the m
14 fact that I signed them.
All right?
15 So a leak rate may have been started by -- I'm 16 going to use the name Chuck Mell.
I may have been walking 17 by the computer and it typed out, and I completed it, signed 18 it and gave it to my shift foreman.
19 I'll use another name, Bill Conaway, just for an 20 example, and Ted Illjes.
Knowing Ted, he could walk by the 21 computer and say, oh, geez, we haven' t done a leak rate yet 22 and type a leak rate in.
23 I could very easily be walking back by.
That 24 sounds like a lot of sequence of events.
But when that come-25 out again and I look at it and the leak rate's still good, l
l l
(
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage m)36-6M6
3990 03.09 3384 f').
i
(,f DAV/bc 1
. I'll-say, Hey, I've got'a good leak rate.
Why not sign it 2
and stick it in?
That's the same to me as throwing it in 3
the trashcan.
It didn't do any damage either way.
So why 4
not?
5 That's a scenario that could happen.
I know of 6
it happening a couple of times.
I don't remember what I did 7
with them.
But I know it's happened at least a couple of 8
times.
One guy would put one in and say:
I'm going to move 9
a leak rate.
And I'll say,.Geez, I just got it out a little 10 bit ago and I terminated it and threw it away.
11 So, no, I wouldn't say it was very unusual.
I 12 would just say that it probably didn't happen very often.
()
13 0
Well, we have the strip charts records and looked 14 through them to see how many times-this did happen.
I want
~
15 to be sure I understand.
Even though you just turned one 16 in, you still might file a second one?
17 A
Yes, sir.
18 0
I wouldn't be surprised if you tore a second one 19 of f the computer and said to somebody, Hey, I've already got i
i 20 one.
I don't need this one.
I 21 A
That's sure.
22 0
Why wouldn't you just throw the second one away?
23 A
As equally the same reason that you would stick 24 the second one on the shift foreman's desk.
It's just --
i 25 what do you want to call it, really?
There's no reason for l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 804 336 6646
~_ - _ _ _ - _,
..___z._,
m._____...,._,_____,,~_-r..,_
.F 1.
3990 03 10 3385
()DAV/bc 1
it.
Where your mind is that day, what you're thinking of.
2 You're in a different mood.
We' re not in the full moon, so 3
it's just something you do that is different than maybe what 4
you've done in the past.
No particular reason that I can 5
think of.
6 0
If you turn back in the NRR book from the strip 7
chart going forward four pages, you come to a page that has 8
the number 263 in the upper righthand corner, with the 9
heading SF Log.
10 Do you see that?
4 11 A
Yes, sir.
12 0
If you turn over to the page that follows, which
()
13 is a continuation, that page is marked 264.
It's the second 14 page of this copy of the shift foreman's log.
l 15 A
Yes, sir.
16 0
Look at the bottom of that page.
And it reads:
i 17 "At 0140, completed a leak ra te test."
18 And the bottom line of that an identified leak 19 rate of.5558.
It's scratched out.
Do you have any idea 20 why the shift foreman would scratch out an acceptable leak 21 rate test?
22 A
No idea.
No, sir.
23 0
The fact that you apparently gave him two and he 24 didn' t want to keep more than one?
Both of them went in the i
25 file, but the log entry got scratched out.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3701)
Nat unsiwide Coserage 8M346M6
3990 03 11 3386
(~x) DAV/bc
(_
1 A
Who was making the log?
I cannot answer that 2
one, no, sir.
Personally, myself, I wouldn't have crossed 3
it out.
I would have made a log entry for both of them.
4 0
It was Conaway, I believe.
5 A
Bill Conaway.
Maybe Bill can answer that for 6
you, sir.
I can't.
7 0
You see, this is a curious pattern here though.
8 These two tests back to back and somebody scratching out, 9
the shift foreman scratching out the log entry.
10 A
Well, I don' t remember, but maybe there was a 11 reason that he had for it.
And he didn't put down an 12 explanation.
I don't know.
()
13 0
I think, from the fact that you signed these two
'14 tests, it's pretty clear that you were in the control room 15 on the 2nd of February -- I'm sorry -- the 19th of February, 16 1979.
If a test which consisted of adding hydrogen in one 17 or the other of these tests had been conducted, do you think 18 that could have been done without your knowledge?
19 You've told us you get busy doing other things 20 and happen to be strolling by the computer printout printer 21 when it came out and you might have signed it.
22 Do you think you could have been in the room when 23 something special was going on and you wouldn' t have known 24 it?
?
25 A
Well, I'm going to tell you, you know, there's ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3 2 147-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80iM W 6646
-3990 03 12 3387
()DAV/bc 1
been a lot of discussions over the past eight years.
I 2
don't know any time frame.
I can' t give you a time frame or 3
a lot of specifics.
4 But it's kind of like you see something out of 5
the corner of your eye.
Joe Chwastyk, and I don't know who 6
else -- I kind of remember the possibility of Hal Hartman, 7
but I cannot say that with a lot of assurance because that's 8
just reaching for things, like I say, I caught out of the 9
corner of my eye, and I never really thought anything about 10 it.
11 And Al Hartman started talking about it, about 12 the sequence of adding hydrogen to the makeup tank to affect
()
13 the leak rate results.
14 I, myself, personally had never heard of it until 15 then.
And I had quite a few words that I used for it, which 16 I can't use here.
But people swear up and down that it does 17 have an effect.
18 And I still, to this day, don't understand it, if 19 it did have an ef fect.
But I remember -- I think I remember 20 out of the corner of my eye seeing Joe Chwastyk over at the 21 control panel where the water additions or the hydrogen 22 additions are made or controlled from, and two or three 23 people -- two people, I think, and I believe one of them was i
24 Hal -- at the valve.
25 Now, as to whether they was running a test or
.i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
]
202 347-37m Nationwide Cmcrage RG33MM6
'3990 03 13 3388 f-x
(,);DAV/bc 1
whether the hydrogen had an ef fect or not, I don't know.
2 The only reason I can give you for an explanation 3
of not knowing is my philosophy on doing'a leak rate was you 4
take no water out, you put.no water in.
If you're going to 5
run a leak rate,.you're going to.have to have-water, you add 6
the water before the leak rater because there was 7
uncertainties involved with adding the water densities that 8
the computer didn' t correct for.
9 And I couldn't correct for.
So I would get these 10 things taken care of and then do my leak rates.
As far as 11 adding hydrogen, that was the farthest thing from my mind 12 until the Hartman allegations came out.
l
)
13 And, to this day, I'm still not thoroughly 14 convinced that on a normal situation, I just can't imagine 15 how raising the pressure in the tank at the same time 16 affecting leak rate because of the way a differential 17 transmitter works.
i 18 So, to whether that was associated with.the 19 hydrogen test and going into the makeup tank, I don't really 20 know for sure.
But I do have a fuzziness in my vision, if 21 you will, or recall, kind of'out of the corner of my eye.
22 But I wouldn't have paid any attention to it because it 23 didn't affect me.
i l
24 I had dif ferent rules associated and they were
{
25 hard and fast.
And most things that didn' t apply to me, I l
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
f 202 147 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8m346M6 L
..s
J
['
3990.03 14 3389 DAV/bc 1
wasn't paying any attention to them, because there was no f
'2 need to worry about them.
i 1
3 i
[
j 4
i l
5 i
6 1
i-l 8
1 i
1 9
10 i
11 j
12 i
i O 13 i
14 t
i 15 16 17 f
18 j
19 l
20 21 ii 22 i
4 23 24 lO 25 4
i i
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j 202 347-37(X)
Nationwide Cmcrape RNA346M6
c 3990 04 01 3390
).DAVbw 1
0 Do you have a time frame for this faint t
2 recollection?
3 A
No, sir, I sure don't.
4 0
Why would Mr. Chwas6yk and Mr. Hartman be in the 5
control room at the same time?
6 A
Mr. Chwastyk was not only the shift supervisor, 7
but he was operations supervisor, and as any good supervisor 8
is, he'll show up at any time.
There was many times he'd 9
come in early or he would work over.
He'd have a shift to 10 do his shift work, and then he would have two or three hours 11 to do his administrative work.
It's very easy for that to 12 happen.
()
13 0
At any rate, these two tests that you signed, it 14 doesn't ring any bell.
It doesn' t ring out any recall of 15 something unusual going on on that shift?
16 A
No, sir.
17 0
Even though most cases we looked..at, page by 18 page, we only see one test and suddenly here comes a page 19 with two.
It's a reasonable inquiry.
20 A
Yes, sir.
In your position, I'd question it 21 too.
Now there's one variable that we haven't discussed, 22 and that is how many loak rates that were good did I turn in 23 that the shift foreman said, Jooz, I've already got one.
I 24 don't nood this one and threw it in the trash can.
You 25 know, how many did I possibly pull out of the machino to go ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m,. 31,,
s._. <_..
mo m
3990 04 02 3391 DAVbw 1
to turn in and see it land on another one on the shift 2
foreman's desk and say, hell, I don't need this one and 3
throw it in the trash can myself?
So there's no record of.
4 that, and that's a variable, and I-know I hava (one that.
I 5'
can't speak for the other gentlemen, but I have.
So that's 6
the only answer I can give you.
It may not satisfy your 7
question.
8 0
No, it gives us some perspective.
Thank you very 9
much.
10 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
11 0
A couple of questions following up on this 12 hydrogen experiment Mr. Chwastyk's referred to.
13 I'hadn't realized before that Mr. Chwastyk had 14 been, I think you indicated, a operations supervisor.
I 15 looked at his prefiled testimony, and it says he became an 16 operations supervisor at Unit 2 after the accident, but 17 we're just focusing on preaccident.
As far as I know, he 18 was a shift supervisor, but that was it.
19 A
Maybe I'm in error, sir.
20 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, just to clear it up 21 for you, he'll be here tomorrow, and he'll confirm that he 22 became supervisor of operations in the summer of 1979.
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
24 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
25 0
Now when you were telling us about your, I think, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j m,.m s.
m_,,
3990 04 03 3392 O) DAVbw
(_
1 rather faint recollection of maybe seeing, out of the corner 2
of your eye, Chwastyk and maybe Hartman, and I gather 3
speculating that maybe they were experimenting with water or 4
hydrogen on a leak rate test.
5 Do I understand you, that you're not necessarily 6
tying that recollection to these particular tests, 124 and 7
125?
8 A
Yes, sir.
9 0
So the time frame there is open?
10 A
Yes, sir.
11 0
Nonspecific.
12 A
Yes, sir.
)
13 0
We look at 124 and 125, and I think it became 14 ovident when Judge Carpenter was talking with you -- have 15 you read Mr. Chwastyk's prefiled testimony?
16 A
No, sir.
i 17 0
Well, I think I'll ask you to look at that.
1 18 It's at the bottom of page 5 of his prefiled.
19 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, is it all right with 20 you if -- I would appreciate it if the witnoss could have 21 the occasion to read pagos 5 and 6.
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
Sure.
23 (Pauso.)
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
At least through 6-1/2 seems 25 pertinent.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202447 37tn Nationwide Cmerag mn34ua4
3990 04 04 3393 A(,) DAVbw 1
Have you had a chance to look it over, 2
Mr. Kidwell?
3 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir, almost.
4 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
5 0
Whenever you're through.
6 A
The infamous hydrogen test that you hear about 7
over the period of seven years.
8 0
Yes.
That's what I wanted you to look at, 9
because this is in so many words what Mr._Chwastyk has to 10 say about it, and since you'were on his shift, I believe you 11
. testified separately and today too, that you didn' t 12 participate in or know about such a testr correct?
()
13 A
No, sir.
14 0
Looking at the bottom of page 5, Chwastyk say "I 15 also recall making a statement to B shift CROs and the shift 16 foreman to the effect that they were to insure that they did 17 not add hydrogen while doing a leak rate test.
18 Now I think you said in your prepared testimony 19 that you don't recall getting such an instruction; is that 20 right?
21 A
No, sir.
I don't remember.
If Mr. Chwastyk 22 remembers saying, I am sure that he did.
23 0
You just weren' t there, or you don' t remember, or 24 which?
25 A
I don't remember; no, sir.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 447 37(I)
Nathmwide Coverage ms> 33MM
3990 04 05 3394
()DAVbw 1
Q It could have been either that you weren' t there 2
or you don't remember?
3 A
Yes, sir.
4 0
okay.
5 With reference to the tests that we're looking 6
at, 124 and 125, and applying to them a sort of 7
experiment-oriented frame of mind, and this involves some 8
ass',.ptions, and I've not asking you to buy all of them or 9
most c.f them, but let us suppose that I am bent on running a 10 test on hydrogen, and I do so, and it turns out to be, at t
11 least just like Test 124.
Let me look at 124.
Yes.
The 12 strip chart following the papers on 124 shows both of them,
()
13 and so I run 124.
Sure enough, I get a blip toward the end 14 of the test, which, although it may not affect the final 15 number, still shows that the machine registers when I put in 16 some hydrogen.
1 17 So I say to myself, that's very interesting, and 18 I've run this experiment.
It does seem to have some effect, 19 but since I'm a man of integrity, I'll void this test, at 20 least to the extent of striking out the writing in the log 21 and run another one, in which I won' t do that.
22 Now 125 has an even bigger blip in the middle, 23 but be that as it may, it sooms to me that these 24 back-to-back tests are not inconsistent, anyway, with 25 somebody running an experiment, but you woro there as ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 37m Nationaide Cmerage knNM4
3990 04 06 3395 1
()DAVbw 1
operator.
You signed and you said that you don't recall 2
hydrogen additions under these circumstances.
3 Do you think it's possible, taking into account 4
what you know about the character of Chwastyk, Conaway, 5
Illjes, that they would have run an experimental leak rate 4
6 test, jiggled the result with hydrogen and let you sign it 7
without telling you about it?
8 A
Normally, no, sir, they would not.
9 0
It would be kind of a rip-off, wouldn't it?
10 A
They wouldn' t do it.
Their credibility is much 11 higher than that, sir.
12 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
()
13 0
Mr. Kidwell, I think back some number of chart 14 strips ago, you were talking about you might have signed a 15 test for Mr. Mell, and you said, the reason would be that 16 trainees could not sign.
It wouldn' t be a legal document.
17 A
If my recollection -- if my memory is right, 18 associated with the legal documents now, a trainee -- I'm 19 going back, could sign.
I'd have to countersign or 20 initial.
21 I'm not saying that's absoluto, but I may just 22
.have boon so many otner placos, I may be thinking about 23
' another place I'd boon, ovon possibly thinking about, well, 24 you' re not doing it that way.
And this is the way we're
(~T 5
(/
25 going to do it, because of lessons learned.
I've learned a t
ACE-FuDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M-347 37m Nationwide Cmerage an33MM4
3990 04 07 3396 DAVbw 1
few.
2 0
I just wanted to point out that there are any 3
number of tests, 12 or so at least that I know of, where 4
Mr. Mell signed for the leak rate test.
It was approved by 5
Mr. Conoway.
6 A
Did he, at that time, have an NRC license?
7 0
No, he did not.
8 A
He did not?
Maybe I'm in orror then, because 9
Mr. Conaway is not the type of person that would let that 10 slide.
He would yell, " Hey, we need a cosignature here for 11 Mr. Mell."
So I must be in error on that point.
12 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Thank you.
()
13 JUDGE KELLEY:
Have you got follow-ups?
14 MR. VOIGT:
We have no follow-ups, Judge Kelley.
15 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
16 0
We have only one follow-up question suggested by 17 Staff.
18 You say it was your law not to add water during a 19 leak rate test.
20 Can you think of any valid reason why you might 21 want to add water during a leak rate test?
22 A
Valid reason?
In certain respects, no.
If I 23 started running a leak rate and my volume control, my 24 makeup tank, I can't use them Westinghouse terms, was at a 25 lower point than what I would wish, say, halfway into the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3701)
Nationwide Cmerage NNk31 M 646
n 3990 04 08 3397 DAVbw 1
leak rate,'I may, just out of the safety evaluation of the 2
equipment in the plant, add water to the makeup tank.
3 Myself, if I had full control of the leak rate, putting it 4
-in, taking it out, and adding the water, and I had to add 5
the water, what I would do is, I would terminate the leak 6
rate, throw it in the trash can, and once I got the water 7
in, I'd start all over.
8 There was really at that point two uncertainties 9
in it.
One is, I didn't have the ability to compensate for 10 the temperature dif ference of the water that's being added 11 as to the water that's inside the makeup tank.
12 The other thing I had to depend upon was the 13 accuracy of the recorder that kept track of the amount of 14 water that went into the makeup tank.
And being as I don't 15 know it, those two variables, I chose not to have.
To me, 16 when you're using that, you're back into the unstable 17 condition.
18 I would rather have stability when I was doing 19 the leak rate.
20 0
The second part of the question reads, could one 21 such reason be to be the boron concentration into a desired 22 range during the timo period whero you had the leak in the 23 pressurizer, and you had the boron concentration going up 24 all the timo?
f 25 A
I can't imagino, for a period of one hour, how ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M.3471?un Natnitiwide Coserage RM))4N.66
3990 04 09 3398
()DAVbw 1
the reconcentration, if you will, the pressurizer would pull 2
.enough boron out of the system, where it would affect my rod 3
position associated with the tech specis to that amount.
4 0
So your answer is, essentially, no?
5 A
Yes, sir.
6 0
Thank you.
7 MR. MC BRIDE:
May I follow up with a follow-up?
8 Mr. Kidwell, what was the purpose, during the 9
period of high identified leakage into TMI 1 for adding 10 demineralized water to the makeup tank as opposed to borated 11 water from the borated water storage tank?
12 THE WITNESS:
Well, the pressurizer with its
()
13 leaking PORV into the RC drain tank, was acting like a 14 distilling plant, and in doing such, it left the boron 15 behind in the pressurizer, which leaves me up with a look at 16 the overall view of the plant, and I think it was some 17 68,000 gallons of water in the total inventory of the 18 plant.
19 Being as I was reconcentrating the boron and the 20 pressurizer, that would leave me somewhat short of pure 21 water or de-min water.
22 So in order to make up for that, that's what I 23 would end up adding, was de-min water to get me back into 24 the proper specs on boron concentration, but then on the 25 same problem with the pressurizer acting like a distilling ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tC 347 37m Nationnide rmerage ank3%M46
3990 04 10 3399 rs
(_) DAVbw 1
plant, leaving the boron behind, I.had the tech spec of, if 2
I remember right, 50 ppm dif ferential was allowed between 3
the pressurizer and the RCS loops themselves.
4 So we was continuously also spraying the 5
pressurizer pretty much continuously to keep some water 6
moving through the pressurizer to prevent me from getting --
7 exceeding that dif ferential, thus violating the tech spec.
8 I was continuously adding de-min water -- well, not 9
continuously, but in batches to make up for the de-min water 10 that was going through the PORV into the RC drain tank, 11 which was not recaptured then and put back into the system.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, Mr. Kidwell, that takes us
()
13 all the way through the process.
You came all the way from 14 Michigan?
15 THE WITNESS:
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
Georgia's even further.
17 Well, in any case, we appreciate your coming up 18 here and your attention and your answers.
19 Thank you very much.
You're excused.
20 (Witnoss excused.)
21 JUDGS KELLEY:
Off the record.
22 (Discussion off the record.)
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
We conducted a brief poll about 24 the desirable time to start tomorrow morning, so long as it 25 isn't any earlier than 9:30.
)
8 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 2c34t37(o Nanonwide Cmerage an3M Ne
3990 04 11 3400
()DAVbw 1
What about 9:30 or 10:00?
2 MR. MC BRIDE:
The only problem -- I don't know 3
whether anybody's got a problem at the back end of the day, 4
but Mr. Chwastyk is coming _from California.
I am certain he 5
won' t be appreciative of coming back on Monday, and I 6
wouldn't want to jeopardize that.
7 MR. VOIGT:
I could carry that one step further.
8 I'm not at all sure he's in any position to come back on 9
Monday.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
I don't think we envision -- he's 11 the only person on tomorrow.
I mean, can he be on until 12 late in the afternoon?
()
13 MR. MC BRIDE:
Certainly.
He simply has to 14 conclude his testimony tomorrow.
15 MR. GEPHART:
How about 9:00, Judge?
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
That's not a dif ference.
It's a 17 different parameter.
Mr. Maupin?
18 MR. MAUPIN:
The firm is having its retreat 19 tomorrow, starting at about 1:30.
I realize I am going to 20 miss some of it, but as these folks will tell you, every 21 minute I'm away from that thing is fraught with peril.
22 MR. MC BRIDE:
It's that time of year.
23 MR. MAUPIN:
It's always that time of year.
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
The perils of missing a meeting, 25 eh?
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347.)?m Nikmaide Cmcrage mn))wa6
i l
i
.3990 04 12 3401 DAVbw 1
Any other votes?
2 (No response.)
3 JUDGE KELLEY:
9:30.
4 (Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m.,
the hearing was 5
adjourned,'to reconvene at 9:30 a.m.,
Friday, October 10, 6
1986.)
7 8
l 9
i I
10 11 12 13 14 i
15 i
l 16 17 4
18 l
19 20 21 4
1 i
22 e
i 23
.i i
i 24 i O 2s i
,i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 37(E)
Nationwide rostragt NIh)MM
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER O
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION g
DOCKET NO.:
LRP PLACE:
BETHESDA, MARYLAND DATE:
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt)
(TYPED)
MARY C.
SIMONS Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation O
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER V
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION DOCKET NO.:
LRP PLACE:
BETHESDA, MARYLAND DATE:
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt)
(TYPED)
DAVID L.
HOFFMAN Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation O