ML20211B423
| ML20211B423 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1207 LRP, NUDOCS 8610170229 | |
| Download: ML20211B423 (243) | |
Text
DRIGINAL-O UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
LRP INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION O
LOCATION:
BETHESDA, MARYLAND PAGES:
3772 - 3907 DATE:
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1986
$.0l0\\
f)pp hockef' /
fVic e
//g2/-f/
9, fyl l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Official Reporters 444 North CapitolStreet Washington, D.C. 20001 3
8610170229 861015 (202)347-3700 PDR ADOCK 05000320 T
PDR NATIONWIDE COVERAGE
- CR28507.0' BRT/sjg:
3772-
./w
'l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA LJ L2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
_ _ _ _ _._ _ _ _ _._._._ _-_ _ _x In the Matter of:
5-Docket-No. LRP INQUIRY INTO THRED MILE ISLAND g
UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION 7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 8
9 Nuclear Regulatory' Commission Fifth Floor Hearing Room 10 East West Towers 4350 East-West Highway 11 Bethesda, Maryland 12 Wednesday, October 15, 1986.
([)
The hearing in the above-entitled matter convened at 14 9:00 a.m.
15' 16 BEFORE:
17 JUDGE JAMES L. KELLEY, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 18 Washington, D. C.
19 JUDGE JAMES H. CARPENTER, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
21 JUDGE GLENN O.
BRIGHT, Member 22 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 23 Washington, D.
C.
24 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37CO Nationwide Coverage 800-3 5 6646
3773
,m-1 APPEARANCES:
(_)
On, behalf of GPU Nuclear Corporation:
-2 ERNEST L.
- BLAKE, JR.,
ESQ.
3-JOHN N. NASSIKAS III, ESQ.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 4
.1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 5
On behalf of the Employees:
HARRY H. VOIGT, ESQ.
MICHAEL McBRIDE, ESQ.
7 LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
8
. Washington, D.
C.
20036 MOLLY BOAST, ESQ.
9 LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 520 Madison Avenue 10' New York, New York 10022 11 On behalf of Jack Herbein:
JAMES B.
BURNS, ESQ.
12 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza
. (')
13 Chicago, Illinois 60602 CHRISTOPHER W. FLYNN, ESQ.
14 RICHARD O. WOLF, ESQ.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale 15 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 16 On behalf of Gary P. Miller:
17 MICHAEL W.
MAUPIN, ESQ.
M.
CHRISTINA HENSLEY, ESQ.
ig Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street 19 Richmond, Virginia 23221 20 On behalf of Former Metropolitan Edison Employees:
21 SMTIH B.
GEPHART, ESQ.
22 Killian & Gephart 217-218 Pine Street, Box 886 23 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 On behalf of the NRC Staff:
24 I)
JACK R.
GOLDBERG, ESQ.
\\_/
25 MARY E. WAGNER, ESQ.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33M646
3774 I
CONTENTS
/T
\\_)-
2 WITNESS EXAMINATION Charles D. Adams by Mr. Gephart 3775 4
by the Board 3779 5
Brian Allen Mehler i
6 by Mr. McBride 3841 by the Board 3845 8
RECESS:
9 NOON - 3856 10 11 -~
12 LAY-IN'-' PREPARED STATEMENT OF ADAMS, Follows Page 3776.
13 LAY-IN - PREPARED STATEMENT OF MEHLER, Follows Page 3842.
15 16 17 18 19
]
20 21 22 23 F
24 i.-
25 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
c 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
~28507.0 BRT 3775 v
1 PROCEEDINGS.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
We'll go on the record.
I'll say-3 good morning to Mr. Adams.- My name is Kelley.
Judge Bright 4
is on my'right, Judge Carpenter.is on my left.
5 Whereupon, 6
CHARLES D.
.7 was called as a witness and, having first been duly sworn, 8
was examined and testified as follows:
9 EXAMINATION 10 BY'MR. GEPHART:-
11 Q
Mr. Adams, do you have before you a six-page 12 document entitled " Prepared Statement of Charles D.
Adams"?
13 A
Yes.
-14 Q
And this is your statement?
15 A
Yes, it is.
16 0
You have reviewed it?
17 A
Yes.
18 Q
Do you wish to make any changes'in that statement 19 at this time?
20
-A I wish to make a correction on paragraph-2 of the 21 firs t page.
22 Q
What is that correction?
23 A
.The second sentence should read, "Upon my 24 discharge from the Navy in 1972, I went to work for Carolina
()
25 Power & Light Company at their nuclear facility in i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
'202-347-370l)
Nationwide roverage 8@)M-M
1 I
28507.0 rm. BRT 3776 L'
1 Hartsville, South Carolina for one year and then at the 2
Brunswick plant in Southport, North Carolina."
3 Q
You went to North Carolina, then, in 1973?
4 A
Yes.
5 Q
Other than those corrections, then, do you have 6
any additional questions?
7 A
No, I don't.
8 MR. GEPHART: I would point out to the Court, 9
Mr. McBride just brought to my attention, on page 6, the full 10 paragraph there, seventh line down, the last word should be 11
" matters."
And the third line from the bottom where it says 12 "20-year," that should be "20 years."
(' ')
13 BY MR. GEPHART:
14 Q
Do you want this statement bound into the record 15 at this time as your statement?
16 A
Yes.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
So ordered.
18 (The document follows:)
19 l l
20 21 22 23 24
/i 25 v
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i mm,
~ _ < _,.
sn-
s:
s
('s N)
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 D. ADAMS My name is Charles D. Adams.
I live in Annville,
()
Pennsylvania and am currently employed by GPU Nuclear Corporation as a special project assistant working on the TMI-1 Probablistic Risk Assessment.
I served in the United States Navy for 8 1/2 years as an electronics technician.
Upon my discharge from the Navy in 1972, I w'ent to work for Carolina Power and Light Company at their nuclear facility in Southport, North Carolina.
At I was a control room operator and obtained my Carolina Power senior reactor license.
I began employment.with Metropolitan Edison Company on October 6, 1975, and during 1978 and 1979, I was a shift foreman in Unit 2.
My shift was C shift and the shift supervisor was Brian Mehler.
The control room operators At under my supervision were Joseph Congdon and Martin Cooper.
(E"l Mark phillippe was assigned to my shift some point during 1978, as a trainee.
l 0
p
'~
Generally, my duties as shift foreman were to supervise the to oversee the control room operators and auxiliary operators, operation of the plant and perform various administrative duties.
During the course of a shift, I might spend 7 or 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> in the Unit 2 control room, or maybe only an hour or two with the rest of the time out in the plant.
I was generally familiar, however, with any unusual problems or plant evolutions.that might exist during the course of the shift.
At
'the beginning of each shift I would direct the operators to perform the evolutions and perform'the surveillances that were scheduled, and I would review the CRO log at the end of the shift.
()
One of the surveillances that the operators performed on a shiftly basis was the leak rate test.
The technical least once specifications required that a test be performed at but as a matter of practice we attempted to get every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, one every shift.
If the computer printout reflected the unidentified leakage in excess of one gallon per minute, There were times operator would start another leak rate test.
when three or four tests might be performed during the course of our shift.
Usually, we would retain the leak rates over one gallon per minute until we obtained one that was within the technical specification limits, and then discard those that were outside of the limits.
It was my belief in 1978 and 1979 that the leak rate test O'
program was not accurate in that it could not give you the 4
(
.i in a stable precise unidentified leakage, unless the plant was condition.
However, at that time the plant was new, and when operating at various power levels,.there were' oscillations in the secondary side which caused the primary side of the plant to oscillate.
This_resulted in an unstable condition, and it was extremely difficult to get-an exact, believable figure.from the computer.
This was proven to me by the fact that you could run two leak rates, back to back, with no power changes or operator-caused changes and the test results would vary.
l Although I did not believe the leak rate tests to be accurate, I never felt that we were operating the plant in violation of the technical specifications or in an unsafe condition.
I was generally aware of plant conditions, and if a leak rate was on my desk or handed to me that reflected a drastic change from previous tests, I would try to determine the cause.
On many occasions we would dispatch auxiliary operators to tour the plant and search for leaks..If leaks were discovered, they were quantified, if possible, and were accounted for in the next leak rate test which was performed.
We constantly monitored other plant parameters such as radiation monitoring instruments in the reactor building, reactor building cooling fans condensate, leakage detectors, and the reactor building If these instruments gave no indication of excessive sump.
leakage, I believed that the problem was in the leak rate test program.
O. _
_. ~ _ _
O u
I have become aware over the last six years that
~
some operators have stated that they purposely added hydrogen to the makeup tank during the course of leak rates in order to affect the results of the test.
Specifically, it has been alleged that the addition of hydrogen during the last few minutes of a test would affect the level transmitter and perhaps enhance the results of the test.
One of the control room operators under my supervision has testified that he conducted an experiment with me to determine whether the addition of hydrogen would in fact affect the level transmitter, and marked the makeup tank I have strip chart at the time the experiment was conducted.
absolutely no recollection of such an event ever occurring, or
()
knowing in 1978 or 1979 that hydrogen additions might affect the level transmitters.
It is possible that I was involved in such an experiment and was aware of the so-called hydrogen phenomenon; however, I really do not recall it.
If I was aware that hydrogen was being added during leak rate tests, I am not certain that I would have stopped the practice since I do not recall any prohibition against hydrogen additions, and may not
~
have believed that such additions would have any effect'on the test results.
I have also been informed over the course of many interviews that if water were added to the system during a leak that as rate test, and properly accounted for in the computer, a result of. level instrumentation problems in the makeup tank, the level transmitters would indicate more water than the
_4
t
's
( )
I do recall that water was constantly amount that was added.
being added to the system, particularly as the date of the acc'ident approached, due to a leak in one of the safety valves.
However, I do not recall any problem with the level indicators that would affect the'results of a leak rate test if water were added.
I was on duty on October 18, 1978, when certain events occurred which triggered LER 78-62.
I have been exhaustively interviewed about these events and have very little recall about this particular day.
I remember there was a lot of activity in the control room at that time, and it was unusual because the shift supervisor and the supervisor of operations
()
were actually performing leak rates.
I have reviewed the LER that was generated, and am certain that I reviewed it when it was issued, but I have no specific recollection of it.
I also have no recollection of going into the Action Statement on that date.
I am aware that Edwin Stier, in his assessment of my involvement in leak rate testing, has alleged that I first contended that the plant was in the Action Statement on my I
shift.
This is absolutely untrue and an unfair assessment.
told Mr. Stier's investigators repeatedly that although it was I could never recall possible we were in the Action Statement, it.
The only reason I raised the possibility was because I remembered a shift supervisor and the supervisor of operations O
actually performing leak rates, which was unusual, and because
'O of' documents that'I have seen in the course of these investigations which stated that we were'in the Action Statement.
I would like to make it clear that'I did not know of anyone on my shift or any other shift who deliberately falsified leak-rates at Three Mile Island.
The events that are the subject of this investigation occurred almost eight years ago, and because-of the time that has passed and the numerous interrogations that I have been subjected to, I.believe it is understandable that I have very little recollection of these matter.
- However, of one thing I am certain.
During the almost 11 years that I have been employed by Metropolitan Edison Company and GPU Nuclear, I have always attempted to perform my duties in a.
.(])
proper manner with the safety of the plant being paramount.
Mr. Stier's assessment that there is substantial ~ evidence-to support a conclusion that I participated in or knowingly tolerated manipulation of. leak rate tests is completely unjustified and unfounded.
Including my Navy service, I have been involved in the nuclear industry for almost 20 year and it-It is for is my intent and desire to remain in the industry.
this reason that I asked to become a party in these proceedings.
O 28507.0 m BRT 3777 1
1 JUDGE'KELLEY:
Mr. Adams, I have a short statement 2
I'll read for purposes of context and then we'll get to the 3
questions we want put to you.
4 This board has been tasked by the Commission to 5
determine the extent of involvement of employees at TMI-2 in 6
1978 and
'79, in leak rate test falsification and other 7
improper practices in leak rate testing.
This is your 8
opportunity to state on the record your recollections and 9
perceptions about your involvement in leak rate testing at 10 that time, and to rebut any adverse statement about you by 11 other employees or investigators With which 'you' night 12 disagree.
Y
13 We have reviewed your prefiled testimony and we 14 considered it in light of the record that has already been 15 developed in this proceeding.
As I think yo'u'are aware, we 16 have already heard from your shift.
We have talked to 17 Mr. Congdon, talked to Mr. Cooper, and of course Mr. Mehler 18 will be following you today.
19 We will have some questions, undoubtedly, based on 20 your preflied testimony.
We'll have some questluns based on 21 statements you have made in the past.
I know you had a 22 couple of rather extensive interviews with the Stier 23 investigators.
And we may also have questions based on what 24 other witnesses have said about their interactions with you, f~)
25 As I think you know, there are already in the v
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tC 347 37(X)
N.itionw ide Coserage B(Nk3 MM46
28507.0
- BRT 3778 Y_]
1 record two extensive studies about TMI leak rate procedures 2
and including extensive analyses of tests during the relevant 3
time frame.
The Stier report, in fact, contains analyses, 4
copies of strip charts and logs and computer printouts for 5
every test that wasn't thrown away during the time that TMI-2 6
was operating; and the NRC Staff has, in some respects, a 7
somewhat similar study which includes their analyses of every 8
test that was retained during the last six months.
9 We don't propose, in these circumstances -- we've 10 got these extensive studies before us -- we don't propose to 11 just walk through every test you may have signed in the 12 course of your history at TMI-2.
There are some tests that 13 are of special interest that we probably will ask you about;
~
14 but these other test analyses and studies, they are in the 15 record, they are there for whatever persuasive value they've 16 got, and they will simply be assessed in the light of all the 17 evidence that we receive along with all your testimony here 18 today.
19 I indicated earlier that you had had some pretty 20 extensive interviews with the Stier investigators.
We have 21 rend over the transcripts of those interviews.
We don't, by 22 any means, intend to replicate that whole process and go over 23 that line by line.
There are some particular things in there 24 which are discussed there and in other places that we want to I~T 25 focus on, however.
V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33MM6
28507.0 BRT 3779
\\_J 1
EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD 2
BY JUDGE KELLEY:
3 Q
You say, in fact, in your prefiled testimony, at 4
page 5 of your prefiled, you speak, in the middle paragraph 5
to some events-that occurred on October 17, 1970.
These 6
incidents are described at greater length in your interview.
7 You cite the fact that you were exhaustively in.terviewed, I 8
think, on those incidents.
9 Briefly, as you know, it is the time when you came 10 on shift on the 10th, apparently there had been some 11 difficulty in getting -- I'm going to use the term " good" 12 leak rate, and by that I mean " good" in quotes, meaning under
+
1 13 1 gallon a minute -- leak rate for a couple of days prior.
14 That was the day, apparently, on which Mr. Floyd and 15 Mr. Mehler got involved in leak rate testing.
16 The record also indicates, although your 17 recollection, I guess, is somewhat uncertain, that this is 18 the day Mr. Haverkamp arrived on the scene and began 19 reviewing leak rates.
So there was a lot going on that day, a0 In terms of getting a handle on this, what I would 21 like you to do is turn to the Stier volume II(A).
Mr. Stier, 22 in his volume II(A), at a page I'll cite you to, undertakes 23 to sort of summarize what happened in about three or so 24 double-spaced pages.
And to give us a little context to talk
('/
T 25 about it I'm going to have you just read over his summary of i
x_
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nanonaide Cos erage MG336-6646
28507.0 rq BRT 3780
%s!
1 those events, based, in turn,'on your interviews,.I think, 2
largely.
Then I can ask you some questions from there.
3 What I have inimind for you to look over, if 4
you've got volume II(A) of Stier, turn to page 19, there's a 5'
left-hand caption which reads, " October 16-22, 1978."
6 Starting with, "On October 15," and so forth, if you could.
7 read the-rest of 19 and 20 and 21,:down through the bottom of 8-22 where that section ends.
9-A
.Okay.
10
'(Discussion off the record.)
11 THE WITNESS:
Okay.
I'm ready.
12 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
. r~T
(~#
Do you believe that tlie Stier summary that you 13 Q
14 were just reading over is a fair, reasonable summary of the 15 events as you recall them?
16 A
Yes, I think it's fair and reasonable.
The only 17 thing that I have a problem with is I'm not sure I reviewed 18 all the leak rates as they were being done that day'.
I'm not 19 sure if they'were given to me like we normally did'on a shift 20 or if there was some other thing going on at that time, that 21 I didn't see them right away.
22 Q
Okay.
A couple of-the earlier ones -- well, this 23 was the day, for example -- and we'll get into this in more L-24 detail -- when Mr. Floyd himself was in the control room
()
25 focusing his attention on leak rates, was he not?
l L
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-147 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
28507.0-BRT 3701
-.l 1
A Yes.
2 Q
This is a complicated series of events.-
I'm not 3
really-interested in pursuing all aspects lof it.
There are'a 4
couple of aspects that I think may be of particular 5
interest.
6 In terms of the scenario we are talking about, if 7
I understand this. correctly, you came on' shift at 7iOO in the 8
morning and there was a shift turnover note from Ken Bryan; 9
right?
10 A
Yes, sir.
11 Q
-The wording of that is quoted here someplace.
12 Just a minute.
'I'm really looking at the Stier volume, it's O
13 in your interview and --
'14 MR. GEPHART:
Page 20.
15-
'BY JUDGE KELLEY:
16 Q
In any event,-"still could not get a leak rate, 17-1900 today is the deadline, doing hand calculations.
Cannot 18 find leak.
Don't believe it's in the RB" -- reactor 19 building.
Okay.
That's the note.
20 Now the turnover note is in the context, as I
- 21 l understand it, of a time when it had been a couple of days or l
22-so since the last " good" leak rate; right?
23 A
That's correct.
I 24 Q
Bryan says at "1900 today" is going to be the
. ()
25 deadline.
Do you understand that to be what I'll call the-L ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347-3700 Nationside Coserage MO 33M686
28507.0 c
BRT 3782
(
)
%J 1
72-hour deadline?
2 A
That's what I understand it to be; yes, sir.
3 Q
That's the way I read it, too.
I just wanted to 4
confirm that.
5 Was it your understanding at that time that, if 6
you had a good leak rate at hour 1, let's say -- well, let's 7
use it in this context.
8 Bryan's notes says "1900 today is the deadline."
9 1900 is 7:00 in the evening; right?
10 A
Yes,. sir.
11 Q
Okay.
That would suggest to me that the last time 12 there was a good leak rate was 7:00 three days earlier, and
'\\ #
13 the clock is ticking and, in this scenario, then, yours is 14 the las t full shif t before the deadline is reached; correct?
15 A
Yes, sir.
16 Q
You are cn 7:00 to 3:00 and then you are really 17 down to four hours until the 72-hour period is up.
18 The 72-hour period, as I understand it, has this 19 term of art, " action st(tement."
Do I understand then 20 correctly that after 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> had expired you'd have to 21 proceed to shut down the plant?
22 h
Yes.
l 23 l Q
That day were there four different tests run on 24 your shift?
u' l 25 A
That's what it says here, yes, sir.
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33 4 646
28507.0' BRT 3703 m
1 Q
Let's just take a look at these.
Again, I don't 2
want to become immersed in the paper, but just to be sure we 3
understand what tests are being talked about, maybe'you could 4
look at the NRC study, the first volume of the tests, 5
starting, I believe, with what is called 12-C by the NRR 6
analysts.
7 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, it might be a little 8
more efficient to use the Stier copies for this reason:
9 These copies have some handwriting on them that was not 10 contemporaneous, in addition to the contemporaneous-11 handwriting.
I don't know if that makes a difference to 12 you.
p,
(I 13 JUDGE KELLEY:
It doesn't matter to me.
I just 14 happened to have the NRR in front of me.
15 MR. MC BRIDE:
The witness has 12-C before him.
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
If this becomes a problem, fine.
17 But why don't we give it a try.
Because, again, I don't 18 intend to get into a lot of parsing of these papers but just 19 to give it a little context.
20 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
21 Q
Now, if I look at log for 12-C, just following the 22 computer printout, there is a Xerox copy of a log dated 23 10/18/78; correct?
24 i A
Yes, sir, f,,
25 Q
I'm looking at the middle of the log, it says, uj l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Nationwide Coverage 8tx13364686
1
~ 28507~0
~
1BRT-3784 1.
"7-3,.M.V.
Cooper," which_would mean he was on the panel and 2
'taking care of the log that day?
3 A
That's correct.
F 4
Q Now, the -solid black lines to the left,_they are
~
5
~ written in by the NRR people.
They aren't your log entries--
~
6 but they are.just a help in finding when. leak rate tests 7
occurred.
12-C, apparently, took. place on the prior shift, 8
where Mr. Booher is'on the log.
Does that appear to be
.9 right?
~
10 A
Yes, sir.
t-11 Q
Then the NRR peop15 have a leak rate on the log a't
. 0-.
12 from 7:36:to 8:36, if I read that right, so-called [12-D, what 13 they called 12-D.
Then they have a later-leak rate called 14 12-E at between 9:00 and 10:00 roughly, on the' log; is that.
15 correct?
11'6 A
I believe so, yes, sir.
17 Q
Then the next one.is -- this1says "LR test."
It l
18 doesn't have a number, apparently, like they usually assign.
l
. 19 A
Above that it says "LRT-13."
I believe that might
\\-
l 20 be the next one.
I' 21 Q
Oh.
Okay.
22 A
I'm not sure.
23 Q
10:16-to 11:16?
-24 A
Yes.
f [f]
- 25
.Q Is that how you would read that?
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8M33M6s6
-, - -,. - _,,.,... -...... _. - -, ~,, - -, _,. _.... _. _.,. _ - -,., -, _..,, _ _ _. _.. _., _.....,. _..,
28507.0 BRT 3785 Q,)
1 A
Yes.
2 Q
Then below that where it says "LR test," that's 3
the result, I take it.
Okay.
4 And then another test was run between 12:00 and 5
1:00, thereabouts.
Do you see a number for that?
The log 6
marginal notes.are, to me, a little bit confusing, but it 7
looks like four tests.
Does that --
8 A
I think so.
Yes, sir.
9 Q
Okay.
Then, looking -- just turn on over to 12-D, 10 which is the first one that would have been run on your 11 shift.
I'm looking at the computer printout.
That shows 12 1.23, and then some handwriting says, "okay by roundoff."
(
13 Correct?
14 A-Correct.
I believe it's 1.29.
15 Q
Okay.
16 MR. MC BRIDE:
And, Judge'Kelley?
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
What?
10 MR. MC BRIDE:
For clarification of the record, 19 this is one of those tests that Mr. Stier provided to you 20 after his appearance here because the Xeroxing of these tests 21 did not reproduce all of the handwriting that was on them at 22 this time.
In other words, if you look at the enclosures of 23 '
his letter to you on September 3, 1986, you'll see more words 24 on this test than appears to you from the Xerox in fronts of l
[]
25 ;
you.
v l
l' ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, I.NC.
202-34L3700 Nationside Coserage 84336-t446 L
28507.0
. Q(:/~ BRT 3786 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
Then maybe your earlier 2
point was well taken.
I don't have that particular letter 3
with me.
Can you show us what is involved?
4 MR. GEFHART:
I have it here.
5 That is significant.
Can the witness see this, 6-too?
7 MR. MC BRIDE:
I have found mine now.
8 MR. GEPHART:
He can show it to the witness.
9 MR. MC BRIDE:
These Xeroxes, because of the need 10 to reproduce the handwriting, don't have the dates at the 11 top.
But I believe that the three that are enclosures to l'tter to you, your' Honor, are 12-C,'-D, and -E.
12 Mr. Stier's e
13 I may stand' corrected but the first one shows 5:14.
14-JUDGE KELLEY:
The time 7:35, the one I'm looking 15 at'now, agrees; right?
16 MR. MC BRIDE:
That's the second of the three 17' enclosures to his letter.
18 JUDGE KELLEY:
The so-called 12-D.
19 MR. MC BRIDE:
D.
Yes.
I have now put that-20 before the witness.
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
We are now looking at a 22 more complete Xerox copy of this particular piece of paper 23 which now'says, in the handwriting in its entirety, "okay by 24 ~
roundoff."
Is that "J" something "F"?
/~
25 THE WITNESS:
I believe it's JRF.
v).
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8@336-6M6
. ~
- .,._- ~. - -
'28507.0 f s-BRT.
~
3787
-Q
~
1-BY' JUDGE-KELLEY:
~
2 2
Q 12: 00, that would mean noon?
3 Al IYes.
l 4
_Q-10/18/78.
5 Did I ask you before, can you identify.the 6;
' handwriting?
I realize you'are not.an' expert, but I-mean t'
7 based on your recollection of-events, familiarity with someL 8
of their handwriting, do you have a belief as to who wrote
-9 that?
-10 A'
I believe it was written by Jim Floyd.
4 11
'-Q Okay.
On.that test:we:just looked at, 12-D, that i.
12 was not,-according to thisnXerox-copy, signed by an operator 13 or approved'by.a foreman.
It is unsigned except for-that.
14 notation;-correct?
4 15 A
That's correct.
.16 Q
Let's just-look at 12-E, which is the next ' test.
y 17 Again, Mr. McBride points out, the Xerox provided 6
- 18 subsequently _by Mr. Stier is more complete.
Do you have that i
19 more complete --
l 20 A
Yes, I do.
21' Q
It says the same thing, "okay by roundoff."
Same 22 initials, time and date?
p 23 A
Yes, sir.
V Q
It appears to be the'same person; right?
[
24 L
25 A
Yes, it does.
L i-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage M336-6M6
. - ~
28507.0 f y BRT 3788 G
c l'
Q Okay.
And 13, the next test in the series, 2
started at l'0:16 -- 10:18 and ran to 11:18, denominated test-3 13 by the NRR analyst.
That.shows, does it not, a leak rate-4 of 1.02?
5 A
Yes, it does.
6 Q
Could you. help us out with the handwriting at the 7
bottom near the word " operator"?
8 A
It reads, " net unidentified leak rate rounded off.
9 to nears," n-e-a-r-s, "whole number,
- 1. gpm."
10 Q
Under that are apparently two signatures?
11 A
Under that are two signatures.
The top signature,.
12 squeezedJin between the writing above and Brian Mehler's t
1
\\~
13 signature, is Charles Adams -- C.
Adams.
14 Q
That identifies this.
You talk about this in your 15 interview at some length.
Is it fair to' summarize that by
.16 saying that your recollection was that Mehler ran the test 17 but he.needed somebody to approve.it and he couldn't' approve 18 it himself so he asked you to sign it as operator?
19 A.
I don't recollect it happening but that's the way 20 I perceive it could have happened.
I. don't really --
21 Q
Okay.
That was your. reconstruction?
22 A
That's right.
23 Q
All right.
Fine.
Then there's one more test on 24 the 18th, on your shift, I believe, which is number 14.
Just
()
25 turn over to that.
That shows a negative leak rate of minus ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I m
s _ m c_,
28507.0 lBRT 3789 s
-d 1
.283;_ correct?
2 A
Yes.
That's written in.
3 Q
Right.
The initial printout is stricken and the 4'~
operator's. signature is D.
Olson, and you approved.it; 5
correct?
6 A
That's correct.
m 7_
Q-Below that are.the words " corrected by Bill 8
Fels."
This, too, is something you have spoken to before but 9
could you interpret.for us this rather_ unusual change intthe 10 fact that Fels signed it?-
11' A
I-believe he reviewed it and noticed that.the
~
12 operator did not put in the correct number for identified
(,_5 13 leakage and then he put in the correct number of a minus
~14'
.196, and corrected the calculations below.that based upon 15 that change in the number.
16
.Q I'm sorry, where is minus.196?
l..
17 A-It's up where the computer prints out at.the top, 18 about five or-six lines down, it says, " enter identified 19 leakage from DS-3."
20 Q
okay.
l 21.
A The operator put in a.196 and he -- it looks like 22 Bill Fels put in minus.196, which, I believe, is the. correct 23-way you had to put it in, with a minus sign.
I 24 Q
Well, when you say you think it was the correct f'T 25.
way, is it that.196 was just wrong?
v ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700
- Nationwide Cmerage RO-336 6646
_ _.., + - _ - - -.,,
28507.0 BRT 3790 wj 1
A I think you have to put the minus sign in front of 2
.it for the~ identified leakage.
The number is correct.
I 3
think you have to put the minus sign in front of it.
4 Q
Oh, you mean " identified leakage" is, by 5
definition, a minus number?
6 A
That's correct.
7 Q
Which is another way of saying you have found 8
leakage representing.196, but you are' going to subtract it 9
from gross leakage?
10 A
That's correct.
If you look on some of the other 11 tests they do have minus signs in front of that number.
12 Q
All right.
All right.
What was -- I'm just a
).
- 13 little surprised to see Mr. Fels correcting leak rate tes ts.
14 What was his authority in that regard?
15 A-I don't know what his authority would be.
His job 16 was to make sure the computer had the proper formula for a 17 leak rate test.
That's all I know his job would have been, 18 is to verify the computer was calculating it correctly.
19 When he was doing that he might have noticed that 20 this one was improperly put in, this number was improperly 21 put into the computer and then the computer gave a wrong 22 answer because of that.
23 Q
I guess I'd have to know more about Mr. Fels' job 24 than I do to answer the question, but it strikes me as odd --
[^';
25 I understand CROs run leak rate tests and supervisors and x-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3366Me
~28507.0 r-
'BRT 3791 (w)_
1.
foremen _ approve'them but to have somebody walk-in from the:
2
-wings and correct them, it strikes me -- maybe it's
~
'3 appropriate but I need to know more about his job.
- Okay, 4
that was just an observation.
5 The test that we just looked at, if we can just 6
flip back through D and E and F.
.I~ask you this general 7
question:
During the period of. time that these' tests were 8
being run on that day,'do you recall whether there were any 9
efforts under.way to find leakage?
Identify is a different 10 word, identify. leakage?
11 A
I don't recall any effort on that particular day; 12 no, sir.
)
t 13 Q
So in terms'of running repeated tests, what was 14 the theory behind'the apparent thought that you might get a 15 better leak rate test if'you weren't finding any leaks?
Was 16 the plant oscillating?
Were you going for a steadier state 17-and-that-sort of-thing?
18 MR. MC BRIDE:
Excuse me, Judge Kelley.
Just 19 because the witness doesn't recall whether they were looking1 i
20 for leaks I don't think we have established that they were' i
21 not.
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, I'm just.asking him.
Lots of 23 people can speak to this.
I suppose Mr'.
Floyd will be along 24' a.nd he can tell us if he was looking for leaks.
But, I don't
()
25
.know -- my thrust is, as far as you know, were there efforts
~
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
28507.0
,e, BRT 3792 s_;
1 to look for the leak?
2 THE WITNESS:
As well as I remember what was going J3 on that day, Mr. Floyd, Brian Mehler, and some of-the other 4
people were looking for -- were monitoring leak rates and 5
doing something about leak rates.
6 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
7 Q
Right.
8 A
I had the responsibility of looking at the rest of 9
the plant and jus t maintaining the res t of the plant.
I 10 don't really recall too much conversation about leak rates 11 during that time period, or what was going on.
I seem to 12 recall that Mr. Floyd was actually looking for leak rates and
(
\\
13 doing something about leak rates.
14 Q
Okay.
I want to pursue that a bit.
15 If you were there --
16 A
That's right.
17 Q
-- and it was your shift --
18 A
That's right.
19 Q
-- and in the normal course, at least one of --
20 two of these tests you signed, which you normally do, but 21 this is the day on which Floyd comes in and he evinces a 22 sudden strong interest in leak rates along with Mehler.
If 23 there were, at that time, ongoing efforts to find leaks and 24 if they were focusing on the computer and that end of-the
(~T 25 leak rate business, who would be in charge of looking for the U
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2(12-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
28507.0 BRT 3793 g
- 1.. k /
i 1.
leaks?
Wouldn't that be you?
2 A
That would be aux operators,.actually,.looking for.
j 1
-3 the leaks.
4 Q
But you are the supervisor of the operators?
5 A
That's correct.
j 6
Q~
When we say "looking for leaks," we are.actually 7
going to go out in the plant, right, and look in pipes and 8
look in sumps --
9 A
That's right.
10 Q
-- and that sort of thing.
It's a physical'--
11 it's not a button-pushing exercise, you.actually go cnit and 12.
look; right?
.,(~ \\
13 A
That's correct.
14-Q tinder those circumstances, if there were a serious 15 effort to find and identify leakage, wouldn't you likely have 16 been aware of it?
17 A
It is.possible~, but there was also another shift 18 there, I'believe, and it is possible that that shift's aux 19 operators were-doing that job.
20' Q
Does that include Dennis Olson?
21 A
Right.
22 Q
I seem to remember his name mentioned.
23 A
Yes.
24 Q
That's the only reason I mention it.
Olson was an 1( )
25 operator; right?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
.. -347 3700-.._
'28507.0 BRT '
3794 7q V:
-1
.A He was.a control room operator but it-should'have 2
been the whole. relief shift there that day and there would 3
have been numerous auxiliary operators available to.go look 4
for. leaks.
Probably'four or five.
5 Q
I think all we can do here.is establish what.you 6
personally remember about looking for leaks or not.'
7 A
Sure.
8 Q
I guess we have been over that.
Olson is yet to' 9-come.
We can ask Olson and other people.
10-IfEyou look at these tests,--take-12-D, for.
11 example.
I'm looking at the computer ' printout.
It.says, 12
" enter identified leakage from," and then it' cites a 13 procedure.
I see minus.216?
14 A
That's correct.
15 Q'
Now, if you turn to 12-E, again the computer 16 printout says minus 2.16.
Same number; righ't?-
4 17 A
Correct.
~
~
18
-Q Which would indicate that between those two tests, 19 in any-case, no new leakage was identified?
20 A
That's correct.
21 Q
Now, if you go to 13, a couple of hours later, the 22 identified leakage number is minus 2.75; right?
23 A
That's correct.
24 Q
And then is that a correction to 776?
The number
(}
25 next to it?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-370)
Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
.. ~.
.~
l m
~
--28507.0-BRT 3795 Q
1
.A-It looks.-like-it's a' correction; yes, sir.
!?
2 Q-
_Not very significant though, is it?
4
.3
~A No.
4 Q
So, does that reflect an increase of identified 5.
. leakage'-between 2.16 and_2.75?
6
_A Yes.
i 7:
Q-Essentially.
Slightly over a half-gallon?
8 A'
That's~ correct.
-9_
Q
-And then.the-last'one on your shift _that we-just 10 got through' looking at -- this is the one that Fels corrected.
11'
-- the identified leakage is minus.196; so that/ identified 12 leakage had decreased by.8 gallon, roughly?-
o- '
~By 2 gallons, isn't it?
13
-A No.
14' Q
Well, I was at minus 2.76; rigbt?
~
.15 A
Right.
16 Q
And I went to'minus 1.9:something.
17 A-No,;.19.
18 Q
Did I misread--this?
-I'm sorry.
I did misread i.
19 it.
I was wrong.-
20 Identified leakage is reduced to.19. - So the 1
21 reduction is from minus 2.76 to minus
.2, rounded off-as we 22 sometimes do.
Does that mean that between those two leak 23 rate tests, a leak was plugged?
Is that what happened that s-24 caused a decrease in identified leakage?
25 A~
That could be; yes, sir.
n ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Coserage
&&3364M6
.. -.., _, -. -. -, -.-347-3700. - -. _,, _ _, - - -. _,..,, -. ~ _ _ -. _.
28507.0
. BRT 3796 f
i i
\\v',
1 Q
.An identified leak, as I understand'it, is a leak' 2
that.is then leaking, there is water coming into some sump or.
3 going someplace, but you know how much it is so you quantify 4
it..
If it is gone, it is not.there anymore, the leak must 5
have been stopped; right?
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
Just looking at one more test, the'next NRR test 8
is 15.
.That takes place the next morning, the following day 9'
on the 19th, at the first thing on your shift.
7:46'to 8:46 10 test, produced a raw number leak rate of.6104 and --
11 A
That's identified, now.
12_
Q I'm sorry.
Identified.
I misread it.
I'm
()
13
.sorry.
14 So there would have been an unidentified of
.2,
-15 roughly; and the zero reflects roundoff; correct?
16 A
Okay.
You are subtracting the' gross from the 17 identified to get your.2; is that what you did?
18 Q
Yes.
19 A
That's correct, then.
20 Q
And I take it that since the computer typed out 21 zero it had been told by Mr. Fels, at this. point, to round i
22 off?
23 A
I believe so.
That's what it looks like.
24 Q
Okay.
Now, could we backtrack a little bit to
(')'
25 Mr. Floyd's role in determining
- his role, his involvement
%d ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(Xb3346M6
)
i 28507.0 3797
.,2~3 l BRT J
1 in leak rate tests'that~ day.
2 Do you recall, for example -- you came on -shif t at-
~
3~
7':00 in the morning, give or take a few minutes, I suppose.
4-Was he there when you got_there?
5~
A I normally would come in around 6:30, to start a t -
6 shift.
7 Q
okay.
8 A
I believe-Mr. Floyd would come in earlier than 9
that, is what I seem to recall, around 6:00:is what I recall.
10 Q
You mean as a matter of usual routine?
11 A
Right.
I don't remember that day what time he 12 would have come in.
13 Q
But seeing him there at 6:30 would not have-been 14 surprising; is what you are saying?
15 A
That's correct.
.v.
I 16.
Q-That wasn't a departure from the norm as'far as 17 you were concerned?
18 A
That's right.
19 Q
Okay.
Now, again in the normal case, leak rates 20 are run by CROs and' approved or disapproved by you.
Could 21 you tell~us your best recollection of Floyd's involvement in 22 leak rates that day?
23 A
I can recall him sitting at the computer console 24 and I believe he was actually typing-in the RCSL, I think,
(}.
25 and getting the leak rates out.
I'm not real sure.
I don't ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
201 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
m
,.28507.0
( BRT 3798 N)
~1 really. recall him doing that but I remember him sitting over-J n
2 there.
Q Okay.
At-this stage is Mr. Mehler working with
'. 3 4
him?- Where is Mr. Mehler in the process?
5-A-
I'm not real sure.-
I believe Mr.'Mehler was and then talking to
- 6-probably.in the-shift' supervisor's, 7-Mr. Floyd and back and forth but I'm not -- I don't know how 8
'he actually interacted in the process.
He probably knewfwhat 9
was going-on, about the same as I did.
i 10.
Q Well, do y'ou recall any conversations between-l 11
- yourself.and either Floyd or Mehler on the subject of leak
~
12 rates that morning?
13 A
No.
-l' 4 Q
Did they, in effect, take overLthe process-for a t
15 period.of time?'
16 A
I think that's what occurred.
I'm not sure but I~
17 think that's what occurred.
- 18 Q
It sounds like you were sort of -- I don't mean to 19 use a deprecating term -- but kind of shunted aside'--
20 A
That's.right.
21 Q
-- while they just went in.and started doing-22 things they normally didn't do.
I think you said in one of 23 your interviews its was an abnormal occurrence for them to do i
24 that.
J
)
25 What was your impression at the time about this 4
p ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
f28507.0
'BRT-3799 f3v) 8 l'
abnormal occurrence? 'Why did you think they were doing
~2
~that?
I mean getting a leak rate over 1 was hardly an
'3 abnormal occurrence at.TMI-2, was it?
That was practically ll an everyday. event?
5 A-That's true.
6 Q.
So why this sudden flurry of activity?
Why'is 7
Floyd suddenly in the control room pushing buttons on the-8
-computer trying to get a leak' rate?
'. 9 A
I don't recall why or how he got'there or what 10-happene'd before that.
11 Q
Well, would it be related, in your mind, to the i
12 fact that, if Floyd's note was correct and.it sort of_ fits 13 with the other tests we know about, that 72. hours was 14
' approaching?
15 A
. Ken Bryan's note?
16 Q
' Ken Bryan's note.
17 A
That probably had something to do -- that's 18 probably the reason, yes.
-19 Q
That's the context, isn't it?
I 20 A
Yes.
2:1 Q
I mean, do~you know of any time while you were i
f 22 working at TMI-2 when TMI-2 was shut down because of an 23 inability to get a good leak rate?
24 A
-No.
(]}l 25 Q
And yet here was a time when, apparently, the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nanonside Coverage 8533MM6
_-. - _ _. ~ _,.. _.... -,. _ __
.,, ~,.
x 28507.0 r-s BRT' 3000-
.D) 1' l'
72-hour clock was running under a then-prevailing-2 interpretation in many people's minds, many operators and-3 foremen and! supervisors' minds, if you.-didn't get-a. good leak 4-rate in 72. hours-you had to shut off the plant; right?
5
'A Yes.
6 Q.
So'here is the supervisor of operations going so 7
'far as 'to take-over this routine surveillance--process.
Did t
8
.that suggest to you that'Mr. Floyd would attach importance to
~
9 a 1eak rate test if he thought he was going to have to turn' 10~
off his. plant?
11 A
Yes.
i 12 Q
There is other evidence in the record -'- I'll l
k.
13 refer to it without-trying to describe it in-detail -- that 14 Mr. Haverkamp, Mr. Donald Haverkamp was in the. control room l
15 that same morning of'.the 18th.
Do you have-any recollection l
~16 of that being the case?
Do you know Haverkamp' personally?
l-
-17 A
I know'Mr. Haverkamp but I can't recall him being L
18 there that day.
19 Q
Tiyere is, in your statement, as you may recall, 20 some conf'usion about what day Haverkamp came.
But it gets 21 pretty well straightened out in your statement, in my mind, 22 anyway, that he came on the 18th, although there is some 23 correspondence indicating he was there on the 19th.
But the 24 records that seem to be more persuasive in that regard
{ }-
.25 suggest he was there on the 18th.
r i
. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tC-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage Nn336-6646
28507.'0' 3801-C,BRT
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
~ ~ + g,.
_ y-
28507.0 rw BRT 3825 N.
1 A
That's right.
2 Q
Well, in the middle of page 3 you say you never 3
felt you were operating the plant in violation of technical 4
specifications or in an unsafe condition.
I don't see how 5
you felt you had any knowledge of how you were operating the 6
plant when the practice was, given the variable results of 7
the tests, to throw away the high ones and keep the low 8
ones.
9 Do you see my problem?
I don't see how you had 10 any assurance that you knew what the plant condition was, 11 from the surveillance tests.
It didn't seem to exhibit any 12 information at all, because of this deliberate biasing.
Is
,_s 13 that a fair view that I'm taking?
14 A
I think our perception was if we could get a good 15 leak rate test, less than 1 gallon a minute in 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, and 16 watching the other plant parameters, that we were confident 17 we had less than 1 gallon a minute leakage.
Looking back at 18 it now, I believe if we would average it out we probably 19 would have gotten a more accurate number.
Or if we had had 20 it for a larger time period we would have had a more accurate 21 l number.
I 22 l Q
Well, either way Jt's the same thing.
Given time 23 variations the strategy is to average them out if they are 24 truly random, unless there's some bias in the test for time
('T 25 I variation of the input signal -- that's how you measure it.
%J ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm.m
~m _m
r-
-28507.0
,- BRT 3826 v
1 At the bottom of the page you say, "We constantly-2 monitored the other plant parameters such as radiation 3
monitors in the reactor building, reactor cooling fan 4
condensate leakage detectors, and the reactor building sump.
5 If these instruments gave no indication of excessive leakage, 6
I believe that the problem was in the leak rate test 7
program."
8 Given the technical specification limit of 1 9
gallon per minute, would these other -- this other monitoring 10 of other plant parametern allow you to detect unidentified 11 leakage of approximately I gallon per minute?
12 A
I seem to recall one of them being able to get 10 13 gallons a minute.
I don't know if any of the others could 14 get finer than that or not.
The tech spec does point that 15 out, I think, though.
Or the FSAR points out how close it 16 can get.
17 Q
Well, I'm trying to -- what I'm trying to get a 18 feeling for is, you say you never felt that the plant was 19 operating in violation of tech specs.
Tech spec, in this 20 case, is 1 gallon per minute.
I would wonder whether these 21 other instruments -- A, I doubt that you can make a 22 quanti tative estimate --
23 A
I don't recall now.
I think, the way I perceive 24 it now I believe the only one that could get to 1.0 gallon
(]
25 per minute would be the leak rate test itself.
L-I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
20L347 37m Nat amwide Cm crage W DMM6
r 28507.0
, BRT 3827 v
1 Q
And get their quantitatively, in the sense of a 2
number?
3 A
That's right.
4 Q
But it's because of the existence of these other 5
instruments that you felt that the plants didn't have a 6
serious leakage?
7 A
Yes.
8 Q
So far in this record there's no indication that 9
there was ever a pipe that developed a crack.- Which would 10 be, in the safety point of view, the most interesting 11 situation.
But apparently you were never faced with it 12 because all the leaks finally got run down, they were valves 13 or shaft seals or what have you, but no pipe cracks?
14 A
I think at one point we had a crack that was in 15 the makeup system that really wasn't attached to the part of 16 the primary at the time, though.
17 Q
But it would contribute to --
18 A
I think it might have been a weld.
19 Q
It would have contributed to the leakage?
20 <
A I don't think it did.
Due to the valve lineup it 21 would not contribute to the RCS leakage.
22 !
Q Well, now I have read page 3 and it expresses your 23 views today.
24 l I would like you to turn to test 95, in the NRR
(~T 25 report.
That's dated January 15, 1979.
Do you see that?
V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202.147 37(O Nabonwide Cdicrage 8(M L ) 36-6M6
-28507.0 S~(LBRT'
~3828
.I
\\"
Q) 1 A.
Yes.
2
-Q Looking at the first page of the computer 3
printout,'it was approved by you, according to the-4 signature.
5 A
Yes.
6 Q
Just in passing, I thought I understood that this 7
net-unidentified leak rate was' finally calculated by 8
subtracting the identified leak rate from the gross leak.
9 rate; is that right?
10 A
I think so.
11 Q
Do you see that the gross leak rate was, to five 12 figures, was 1.6087 and the total identified-leak rate was
(>
13
.7121?
If I subtract the second number from the first 14 number, I don't get 9867.
It's not a very important point 15 but it's just a mystery to me.
16 A
I don't either.
My gross leak rate number is 17 written in by someone.
I_ don't know if that was what the 18 computer printed out or not.
'19 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Carpenter, I'll make a i
20 representation to you that I don't believe the 21 contemporaneous document had that writing on it.
I believe 22 that has been added during the course of various 23 investigations.
24 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
(}
25 MR. MC DRIDE:
I may be wrong on that but ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 37(N)
Nationwide Coserage Exk336-6M6
j
-28507.0 Ef s7 BRT-3829 1
JUDGE' CARPENTER:
It's.certainly a reasonable 2
speculation.
3 MR. MC BRIDE:
If you'll bear with me for just a-4 moment I'm going to get-the Stier test out=and see if it 5-looks the same.
6 JUDGE ~ CARPENTER:
While counsel is researching ~
7-this aspect, this is really not my point of.asking you to 8
look at test 95 but just as'I looked at it, I thought --
'o see if I really know what's going on -- if I can't 9
- well, t
10
-do the arithmetic I can't know what's going on.
11 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
i 12 Q
Well, turn to the strip chart record for test 95,
/~
Lk h j
13
'what I was struck by, it.looks like your generalization that f
14 oscillations were always an impediment perhaps isn't borne
[
15 out by the strip chart record.
This is early January of 16
'79.
That's why I asked you whether you felt there was some-17 improvement in the integrated control system as-time went on 18 and the oscillations were not this severe as time went on.
l-19 Is that a fair reading of this strip chart?
These 20 oscillations that you testified to, wouldn't they be 21 reflected in this strip chart?
i-22 A
Yes.
They normally would be reflected on makeup 23 tank level also, yes.
i 24 Q
So if -- this was interfering with the test, I
(}
25 recognize that there is a dif ferent transmitter going to the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
.wt:7 3700 Naimnwide Cmcrage kn)WIMA
28507.0 BRT 3830 s
l
\\
%.J 1
computer, but certainly this transmitter shows that the 2
makeup tank level was varying rather smoothly with time.
3 A
It is only changing by about 3 inches.
That's 90 4
gallons.
5 Q
There is something strange about this.
You see, 6
right before the test was run there is a slope that NRR has 7
identified as 5 inches an hour.
That's 150 gallons an hour.
8 Then a big slug of water was added and, as you 9
say, during the test interval the decr. ease is only like 3 10 inches, and then there's another little bit of water added, 11 15 minutes after the end of the test, and then there's a 12 several-hour period where there's a rather smooth decline of
)
\\
13 4 inches an hour or 120 gallons an hour.
We don't know what 14 the pressurizer level was doing and so on during this time 15 interval, but it certainly looks like 60 gallons an hour is 16 not a very good number, not very representative of what you 17 can see in this strip chart over that time period.
Is that a 18 fair statement?
Look before the test and after the test?
19 A
Yes.
The slope has changed, it looks like, during 20 I the test.
21 Q
NRR notes say the reactor was in mode 3.
That's 22 down at the bottom of the s trip chart there.
What does " mode 23 l 3" mean; do you recall?
I 24 j A
We were not -- that probably means that we were I
(^)'
25 l not at power.
I think mode 3 means we were just hot and the w-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m,.3,e,
~ _7 g,_,
ym
28507.0 BRT 3831 v
1 temperature, the primary temperature could have been changing 2
and that's what is causing that slope change.
It changed 3
only about a degree or less than a degree on the form.
It 4
went up, though.
Going up would cause the slope to level off 5
some.
15 Q
And the computer doesn't understand end take that 7
into account?
8 A
Well, the computer would take it into account but 9
it would show up on the chart as a leveling off of the slope.
10 Q
Yes.
Hight.
11 Would you say that the lack of oscillations that 12 are apparent here might reflect being in mode 3 rather than p_
13 some other mode?
14 A
That's right.
That's the answer.
You are not in 15 the mode where ICS is controlling at high flow rates.
You 16 are now in a very stable mode.
17 Q
You can see why I'm asking the question?
18 A
That's right.
19 Q
All you say is oscillations were -- all general 20 statements.
I had to look at one test and, hold it, this was 21 pretty happy.
But this was not a typical plant condition?
22 A
That's right.
23 Q
Well, what perplexes me, before the test there's a 24 i substantially greater slope and af ter the test there's a 1
(~'
25 '
substantially greater slope, and just by chance right at test
\\~
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTER'S, INC.
202 # -3700 Nationwide Cm crage W 34t63
28507.0 s BRT 3832 1
\\.
LJ 1
time there is a flatter slope.
Strange coincidence.
2 A
Unless it was due f.o the addition of water just 3
prior to the test and somehow now that has affected that
~
4 slope change, too, and that water is now heated up in the 5
primary or something like that.
Because we had a large 6
addition prior to that.
7 Q
Yes.
That's a very -- unusually large addition?
8 A
If you look back on the leak rate form you see 9
where the TH and TC are within about 2 degrees of each 10 other.
When the reactor is at high power, TH and TC is a 11 much larger difference so the reactor was probably at no 12 power level at all.
It was at zero power.
13 MR. MC DRIDE:
Judge Carpenter, would you permit 14 me to ask one clarification of this prior discussion between 15 you and the witness?
16 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Certainly.
17 MR. MC BRIDE:
Mr. Adams, when the reactor was at 18 or near full power, what would T av typically be?
19 THE WITNESS:
T av would be 581.
20 MR. MC DRIDE:
Does this leak rate test depict to 21 you a substantial difference from the normal T av indicative 22 of near full power?
23 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
We are at 535 on this T av.
24 So we are not at power.
(~}
25 l JUDGE CARPENTER:
Which corresponds in your mind j
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3 7(W)
Natnmwide Coverage
%Wh33&hM6
28507.0 BRT 3033
-s l
\\_,/
1 to the NHR statement that the reactor was in mode 3?
2 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
3 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Carpenter, I also can now 4
help you with the handwriting problem that we had.
5 If you look at Stier test 63, which I'll bring up 6
for you if you don't have it readily available, I believe the 7
problem is, because of the poor quality of the copy, the 8
gross leak rate on the computer printout was 1.6987 and when 9
you subtract.7121, within 1/10,000, you get.9867.
10 I think it was simply misreading the 9 for a 11 zero.
12 JUDGE CARPENTER:
I ac' cept that explanation.
It's
')
13 not a central point -- I just was surprised.
14 MR. MC DRIDE:
And I don't see the same kind of 15 handwriting effort on this copy as was made on the NRP copy.
16 JUDGE CARPENTER:
I think somebody tried to 17 reconstruct that number by adding the two lower numbers and 18 failed to do the addition correctly.
19 MR. MC BRIDE:
Frankly I think they tried to 20 misread it as best they could without doing the addition and 21 ll they misread the 9 for a zero.
22 l JUDGE CARPENTER:
Okay.
And they didn't bother to i
23 l check it.
I 24 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
~
( )/
25 l Q
Well, coming to the bottom line here --
s h
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m,. -
s._ m o-
28507.0 s BRT 3834
)
/
1 Mr. McBride, could you provide the witness with volume 1-of 2
the Stier report if he doesn't have it?
~
3 MR. MC BRIDE:
Certainly.
Any particular page?'
4 JUDGE' CARPENTER:
115.
5 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
6 Q
This test 95 for the NRR number that we are 7
looking at, had an unidentified leakage of.9867, and it was-8 conducted on the 15th of January which happens to be the last 9
entry in the tabulation.
Do you see the very last horizontal
'10 entry?
11 A
Yes, sir.
'12 Q
Which I take to mean that at the' time this-leak 13 rate test was carried out, the estimate that was filed,
.98, 14 very close to 1 but still.02 under 1, you felt-it-was 15 acceptable -- meanwhile, the best estimate of unidentified-16 leakage in the plant is 1.7 gallons per minute.
Had you ever 17 looked at this situation before?
Had you been aware of this 18 situation?
19 A
During.the investigation I-have become aware that 20 some people have made estimates of leakage and it was over 1 21 gallon a minute for a period of time, yes.
This specific one 22 I don't recall, no.
23 Q'
The Commission asked us to look at the question of.
24 whether the plant was operating in violation of technical
{}'
25 specifications.
Here is.a case where you were the shift l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L
. "'" ""t97""
N"""!.
28507.0
-~ BRT 3835 I )1 l'
foreman, you approved.the tdst and the best estimate of
-2
~ actual unidentified leakage is that, in fact, the plant was 3
operating in violation of technical specifications, unless 4
you can help.me see why that.is not a necessary conclusion?
5 A
Which test was that again, in'this.other book?
6 95?
7 Q
95.
8 A
dell, that test looks to.me like it's probably the 9
most stable test we had in a long-time ~and it printed-out.the 10
' number of_.9867.
I don't know what was wrong with that test.
11 Q
-You are aware of these estimates of, unidentified 12 leakage, and the. basis for those estimates?
13 A
Estimatesoof unidentified leakage -- basis --
14 Q
Yes.
s 15-
.A-No, I'm not fully aware of how they did that.
16 Q
Well, if they-carefully;1ooked at all the water 17 being added to the system, day after day, and if they 18
' carefully looked at how much water was collected from the 19 system day after day, do you think that's a valid way to get' 20 an estimate?
~21 A
Yes.
22 Q.
What I'm curious about, in the-last two sentences 23 on page 3 you make reference to other plant parameters-and 24-the fact that if they didn't give any indication, you felt
(}
25 there wasn't a problem.
L ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tc 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
r4 28507.0
, BRT 3036
.)
1 In the time frame, middle of January, the plant 2
shut down the following day so that the interesting =cquence
~
3 doesn't go on -- do any of these other parameters.suggest
~
4 that the leak rate may be as big as 1.7 gallons per minute?
5 A
I don't recall that.
When this test was done the 6
plant was actually shut down then, in mode 3.
That's a 7
shutdown mode.
8 Q
It's on its way.
9 A
Yes.
10 Q
This was the last test that was run until the 11 30th, the next test starts the 30th of January.
So it is 12 clearly on the down side, power level.
/-,T
/
13 But what I was curious about, not just on the 14 15th, but all the way along, the 10th, lith, 13th -- the 15 estimated unidentified leakage is substantially above the 16 tech spec.
But apparently all these other radiation 17 monitors, leakage detector on the -- in the sump didn't 18 signal that you had an unidentified leak.
19 A
Right.
That's correct.
That's the way I see it, 20 too.
21 Q
So I accept your testimony as a hypothetical.
Now 22 I tried to test it with the evidence that's before.us.
I've 23 got a problem.
24 Do you agree with me that there seems to be some f~
25 difficulty in resolving your generalizations against these C)/
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nmoi, wide Coverage 8G3346M6 7
28507.0 BRT 3837
- s
(
)
uj 1
specifics?
2 A
Yes.
3 Q
For all we know now, this habit of throwing away 4
leak rate tests in excess of 1 gallon per minute, perhaps 1 5
was thrown away'a few hours before where the slope was 5 6
inches an hour, which would have' been close to right oli the 7
money for the actual leakage.
8 Looking at a lot of these strip charts, to my eye, 9
there is a tendency of the sensor, and sensor system, if you 10 add water it does a variety of things.
One of the_ things, to 11 my eye, the slope doesn't return to the previous slope 12 immediately.
I have very rarely seen such a large single 1
\\ '
13 addition of water as this one that might have caused the 14 effect.
15 A
We could have been in a cooldown mode.
It looks 16 like that's what we were in, is a cooldown, so that's when 17 you do add a lot of water.
18 Q
Well, if the level was way down you might just 19 want to get it on back up there.
20 My point is, looking through the data, there's not 21 a lot of examples.
I haven't looked through carefully to see 22 If it was characteristics -- but it is strange, the 23 unidentified leakage is substantial, 10 percent, approaching 24 double the technical specifications.
None of these backup t4 25 systems worked and the leak rate test didn't work and there
\\_J ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage 8%336-6M6
_, ~.., -,,, -. _
J8507.0
-BRT ~
3838 (s>:
1 1
.weren't any oscillations.
A strange series'of coincidences.-
2 But I guess to pursue the notion, perhaps the great. big < water 3
addition dic bias the' test.
We'll see whether that works 4
out.
5 It caught my eye.
-I hope you agree --
6 A.
Yes.
~
7 Q'
-- this being unusual, against your testimony.-
i 8
Against'this feeling that the problem was oscillations.
2
'9 Well, here's a time when you have a chance.for the test to
'10 work:and nobody added water in the middle of the~ test for a 11:
change _and it still was a bummer.
And -- well, it certainly 12 gives us pause.
13 I just wanted.to explore this because I didn't 14 know what mode 3.was --
15 A
It's written on the log sheet also,. mode 3.
On 16 the CRO log, that's where they got their information..
}
17 Q
I didn't know what mode 3 -- I'm sure when-I get
^
thr' ugh these piles of papers I will know the difference.
-18 o
f 19' JUDGE KELLEY:
I think there are mode definitions 20 in the NRR --
21 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Yes.
Thank you.
I just wanted 22 to.get that~ perspective.
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
Do we have follow-up questions?
24 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes, sir.
i
/~3 25 JUDGE KELLEY:
We have a few, what we call
\\~/
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3 2-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 23346M6
J
'28507.0:
r~
BRT 3839
_ i\\>
1 follow-up. questions, that I'll put to you now'from either 2
your (:ounsel or the Staf f.
3 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
W 4
Q You stated that you have no recollection of 5
Mr. Haverkamp being in the control room on October. 18,-1978.
6 You als'o said that you thought Mr. Haverkamp was involved in 7
the directive not to let leak rates -- not to leave leak 8
rates lying around.
Which directive do you believe was 4
9' issued the next day, or October 19th?
Did you find out in
+
10 soxe manner, by the 19th, that Mr. Haverkamp-was on-site?
Ell A
I can't recall when I found out that he had been 12 there and there had been an inspection.
He must have: talked 13 to me if he had my name on his. form, that'he. talked to me.
14 Q
I think the thrust of this, and I can stand 15 correction:
If you are testifying that_you ha~d the 16 impression that Haverkamp was, somehow, involved in that 17 whole series of events and that you read the directive as a 18 part of that_ package, so to speak, you must have -- are you 19 saying that you thought that at the time, on the 19th, at the 20 very time that the directive was given to you, that this is E
21 somehow something Haverkamp is involved in?
22 A
I can't say that now for sure, no.
23 MR. GEPHART:
That was a follow-up on Judge 24 Bright.'s question.
I just wanted to clarify his earlier 25 testimony, which was he doesn't recall that he was in the
(
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I
,m.--
s _ m c_,
28507.0.
BRT 3840 o-s i
w.
~1 control' room on --the 18th.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
That's true.
Okay.
3 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
4 Q
This is from the Staff on the same subject.
In-5 connection with the instruction to you not to leave leak rate 6
tests lying-around on your desk, did anyone indicate to you 7
that Mr. Haverkamp was involved in or even aware of.this 8
instruction?.
9 A
No.
10 Q
Going back to this notation, " pressurized MUT," on 11
-test-120, and focusing on that specifically:
Do you have any 12 reason to believe that the notation was put on the strip
\\ '),
i 13 chart by'anyone other than Mr. Congdon, Cooper, Phillippe or 14 yourself?
15 A
No.
I have no reason to believe it was someone 16 else.
17 Q
So it's logical to assume it's one of the four?
18 A
That's right.
19 MS. WAGNER:
Judge Kelley, there was another part 20 of that question that I don't think --
21 JUDGE-KELLEY:
It was asked and answered, in our
'22 view.
23 MS. WAGNER:
I don't -- all right.
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
We deliberately didn't ask it.
(
25 That takes us through our process this morning.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationside Coverage 8 @ 33 4 646
3.
28507.0
,-J:BRT 3841 k_)
1 Mr. Adams, we appreciate your~'being with us, today and your 2
attention to the questions and your responses have been 3
helpful-to us.
Thank you very much.
You are excused.
4 (Witness ~ stood ~down.)
5 MR. MC BRIDE:
If we could make maximum use of our 6:
time today,_I'd' appreciate it, unless you'are running into a 7
time problem with your upcoming court appearance.
8 JUDGE KELLEY: 'Why don't we take a short. stretch 9
and spend a half hour on Mr. Mehler.
I 10 MR. MC DRIDE:
That would be great.
Thank'you.
11-(Reces s. )
.r
'12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Mehler, my name is Kelley.
(D
^/
13 This is Judge Bright.cr; my right, Judge Carpenter on my 14
'left.
l-15 Whereupon, 16' BRIAN ALLEN MEHLER 17
-was called as a witness and, having first been. duly sworn, 18 was examined and testified as follows:
19 EXAMINATION
~20 BY MR. MC BRIDE:
21 Q
Would you state your full name for the record, 22 please?
23 A
Brian Allen Mehler.
24 Q
Do you have before you a nine-page document
"}
25 bearing the caption of this proceeding and entitled, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
. - 347-3 700
28507.0
~
. BRT 3842 1
" Prepared Statement of Brian A.
Mehler"?
2
.A Yes, I do.
~
3-Q At this' time,-sir, do you have'any correctionsfor 4
1 additions'you wish to make to that testimony?
5 A
No, I don't.
6
-Q.
Do you adopt thatl statement as your sworn ~
7 testimony in this pro'ceeding?
i 8
.A Yes, I do.
9 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, Ifwould ask that1the 10 document'just described be-bound into the record as if read.
4 11 JUDGE KELLEY:
So-ordered.
12 (The document foll'ows:)
i 13 14 15 16 f
17 18 19 o
20,
21 f
22 23 24 l!([)
25 l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L l
202-347-3700 -
Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
r s'
UNITED STATES OF' AMERICA
(~T T)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION m
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 BRIAN A. MEHLER My name is Brian Allen Mehler.
I currently reside in Palmyra, Pennsylvania.
I have been employed by GPU Nuclear
()
Corporation as radwaste operations manager at TMI Unit 1 since
~
January of 1984.
I started employment.with Metropolitan Edison in May 1967 at the Crawford Generation Station in Middletown, Pennsylvania.
I began work at Three Mile Island in October 1969 as a CRO trainee at Unit 1.
I served as a licensed CRO in Unit 1.until_about September 1976, when I went to Unit 2 as a shift foreman.
I became a shift supervisor'in April 1978, by which time I was licensed as a SRO on both Units.
At some time after the TMI-2 accident, I ceased being licensed on Unit 2.
Later, I was asked by the company to give up my license on Unit 1.
After giving up my Unit I license, I worked for Ron Toole for approximately three months as an operatio'ns and maintenance coordinator.
After that, I attained my current position.
g As a shift supervisor, my basic responsibility was to
'O supervise'the shift foremen at each U' nit and, during periods when I was responsible for both Units, to ensure that both were operated in a safe minner.
I reported to Mike Ross in Unit 1 and to Jim Floyd in Unit 2.
I had regular contact with Jim Seelinger in the context of the Plan of the Day (POD) meetings.
I had only occasional contact with Gary Miller.
On the daylight shifts, I spent most of my time in the control room, discu'ssing the scheduled evolutions with the shift foreman.
I spent less time in the control room on the back shifts, however, since during those shifts I was expected to make frequent tours of the plant.
It was my responsibility to schedule surveillances so that they would not interfere unduly with plant' operations.
V: /
Because the performance of leak rate tests had no impact on plant operations, I had little direct involvement with leak rate testing.
As a shift supervisor, I was responsible for ensuring that leak rate tests complied with technical specifications and surveillance procedure requirements.
In practice, I became involved in leak rate testing on the ll-7 or 3-11 shifts only when a control room operator or shift foreman informed me of problems with that surveillance test.
In general, I assumed that acceptable leak rate test results were being achieved unless I heard otherwise.
On the 11-7 shift, however, I expected to be presented with leak rate test results so that I could include these results in my morning report.
It
)
was very unusual for me to run a leak rate test myself. --
J POD meetings and shift supervisor meetings occurred on 7-(/
a regular basis.
As part of my basic duties, I attended POD meetings at each unit.
The primary purpose of POD meetings was to discuss the plant evolutions scheduled to be performed.that day.
Although there was no set agenda for shift supervisor meetings, we typically discussed personnel problems and plant
~
problems.
I do.not-recall any discussion at those meetings of difficulty in obtaining satisfactory. leak rate test results.
During 1978 and.1979, I was aware of the limiting conditions for reactor coolant system leakage, which provided that unidentified leakage not exceed one gallon per minute (gpm) and that identified leakage not exceed ten gpm.
It was my-responsibility, as well as the responsibility of every other licensed individual, to ensure that leak rates were within
{}
these limiting conditions.
As I understood them, the procedures concerning unidentified leak rate' test results exceeding 1 gpm required that we determine the validity of that result.
One means of doing this.was to run another leak rate test.
In addition to running another leak rate test, I assumed that the operators assessed the validity of the unsatisfactory test result by evaluating it against all the other plant indications.
If it was concluded that the unsatisfactory leak rate test was invalid, the test results that prompted the search would be discarded.
If-the test result exceeding 1 gpm was deemed valid, the procedures provided that we identify and reduce O "f rtv
,m---.--
s leakage to within specified limits within four hours, or failing that, begin to shut down the plant.
Leakage would be identified by sending a crew member out into the plant to attempt to locate the leak and quantify it using a graduated cylinder.
I was aware, during 1978-1979, of the general requirement that the reactor coolant system and makeup system be maintained in steady state'during leak rate tests.
Thus, I
. realized that water additions, borations and deborations should not be made to the makeup tank while a leak rate test was being performed.
I certainly believed that the same source shou'1d be used when recording initial and final reactor coolant system temperature, pressurizer level, makeup tank level and drain tank level.
Prior to the accident, it did not occur to me that an exception or deficiency had to be filed with an unsatisfactory leak rate test.
I do not recall receiving any instructions
~
from anyone to file an exception or deficiency with leak rate tests.
The results of leak rate tests would be communicated to the next shift through the status board in the shift supervisor's office and through the morning report.
I would include in my morning report the most recent valid leak rate test result.
The leak rate test was not always a reliable indicator of leakage.
I merely regarded the leak rate test as the best
(
tool'available to quantify plant leakage. _ -.
e
'd Often, one leak rate test was run on the 3-11 shift (s
s_-
and one was run on the 11-7 shift.
As a general' rule, we did not run a leak rate tast during the daylight shift.
I realize, however, that there were instances in which two or more leak rate tests were performed on a shift.
I did not instruct the operators under my supervision to bring leak rate tests exceeding 1 gpm to my attention as a matter of course.
I assumed that those under my supervision followed proper procedures upon obtaining a leak rate test in excess of 1 gpm (that is, run another leak rate test, identify plant. leakage, and so forth).
In. general, I do not recall any situations at Unit 2 where I believed that a threat to plant safety existed as a consequence of reactor coolant' system n(g leakage.
I was aware during 1978-1979 of the practice of discarding leak rate tests that showed unidentified leakage in excess of 1 gpm but were deemed invalid based on an observation of plant parameters-or on the results of a subsequent leak rate test, or both.
I assumed that those under my supervision discarded unsatisfactory leak rate tests only after observing other-indicators of plant leakage, and concluding that the test was invalid.
If an instrument fluctuation occurred during a leak rate test, this could also serve as a basis for concluding that the test was invalid.
I did not discard any leak rate tests nor do I recall directing anyone to discard leak rate tests showing ex'cessive unidentified leakage.
I did witness, f
_ _ _ _ _ _,.. ~
1
(^}
however,.the discarding of leak. rate tests showing excessive.
v unidentified leakage and those showing negative leakage.
We assumed that a small negative leak rate was an acceptable re'sult because the tests were somewhat inaccurate due to instrument errors.
Thus many such tests were filed.
The'only time during which I. recall many leak rate tests being discarded was just before the accident, when it was difficult to get a satisfactory leak rate because of a pressurizer relief valve.
However, my knowledge of matters just before the accident is limited because during most of the period from February 16 through the accident, I was assigned to Unit 1 for part of the time as an outage coordinator for its refueling and was assigned to different shifts while I was in Unit 2
()
I recall that Jim Floyd reported that Don Haverkamp had authorized us to round off the results of leak rate tests to the nearest whole number.
This policy was rescinded, however, soon thereafter.
-Apart from what I have learned through post-accident interviews, I have no recollection of the incident in which an NRC inspector discovered unsatisfactory leak rate tests lying around in the control room.
I have no independent recollection of any discussions at POD meetings or shift supervisor meetings regarding the Licensee Event Report that resulted from that incident.
Nor do I recall discussing the propriety of our interpretation of the 72-hour frequency requirement with Don Haverkamp in the aftermath of that incident.
7_(
J
(-\\
Leak rate tests at Unit 2 were logged according to A
their' completion time only,-as had been the practice at Unit 1.
There were two reasons why hydrogen had to be added to the makeup tank on a periodic basis.
First, the addition of hydrogen maintained the net positive suction head for the makeup pumps.
In addition, the addition of hydrogen fulfilled the necessary function of scavenging oxygen from the reactor coolant system.
My observations at Unit I had shown me that the. addition of hydrogen to the makeup tank produced only a slight increase or slight decrease in the level ~ indication of the makeup tank strip chart.
In any event, the level indication returned to its original position very shortly after the hydrogen addition.
I am not sure which other TMI-2
~
()
personnel (if any) were aware of this phenomenon, because I never discussed it with anyone while Unit 2 was operational.
In light of the negligibility of this effect, I believed during 1978-1979 that the addition of hydrogen to the makeup tank during a leak rate test had no significant effect on the test result.
I have no knowledge of any operator deliberately adding hydrogen to the makeup tank during a leak rate test in order to affect the test result.
I was aware of the requirement.that any water addition to the makeup tank had to be logged in the CRO log.
I was not aware, during 1978-1979,- of the alleged phenomenon by which-the makeup tank strip chart.would register a water addition greater in volume than that actually added and logged -- thereby -,
{J~)
enhancing' the ' leak rate test result.
Nor was I aware, during that time period, that anybody was manipulating leak rate test results, as has been alleged, by gradually adding.small quantities of water to the reactor coolant system.
I also believe that it would be impractical to jog water, because the operator would have to start and stop at least one pump a number of times with split-second precision to avoid detection.
I do not recall any deliberate attempt on the part of an operator to conduct a feed-and-bleed operation during a leak rate test so as to manipulate the test result.
I do not recall any operator falsifying leak rate test results by adding water during the course of the test.
I was not aware of anyone switching makeup tank level
()
transmitters during the course of a leak rate test so as to enhance the test result.
I believe that using a faulty level transmitter to feed information to the computer could just as easily lead to an unacceptable leak rate test result as an acceptable one.
I can recall no time when I felt pressure from my supervi~ sors to operate the plant despite the fact that I felt it was unsafe to do so.
Nor did I ever feel pressure from my supervisors to tolerate improper conduct on the part of my subordinates.
I was unaware, during 1978-1979, of any manipulation of leak rate tests by TMI-2 operators.
I can assure the presiding Board that had I known of such irregularities, my
- 1). _. _ _.
concern for plant safety would have prompted me to take immediate corrective action.
I have been employed in the nuclear industry for nearly two decades and I wish to remain so employed.
I beli' eve that the Board should find that there is no evidence of my involvement in. leak rate test falsification or improprieties at TMI-2, so that I may finally be cleared of alleged involvement in these matters.
O i
i t
- O f
4
,w..,,,., -
-,,m,-
y.r.-..,.-.--,w,--
---p.,r.,.,.,.,,,,,v,
,,..r-
--e+we-w+-------
r---vv
--*---r
r
=-- --*
---e=------
e 28507.0 BRT 3843
(
s s -
1 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Mehler, I have a short 2
statement that I'll read for the sake of context.
Then well 3
go to Judge Bright, who will begin the Board's questions.
4 The Board has been charged by the Commission to 5
determine the extent of involvement of employees at TMI-2 in 6
1978 and 1979 in leak rate test falsification and other 7
improper practices in leak rate testing.
This is your 8
opportunity to state on the record your recollection and your 9
perceptions about your involvement in leak rate testing at 10 that time, and to rebut any adverse statements about you by 11 other employees or investigators with which you might 12 disagree.
( )
'/
13 We have reviewed your prefiled testimony and we 14 considered it in light of the record that h'as already been 15 developed in this proceeding.
As you know, we have already 16 heard from three other people-on the same shift as yourself:
17 Mr. Congdon, Mr. Cooper, and, just this morning, of course, 18 Mr. Adams.
19 We may have questions based on your prefiled 20 testimony, we may have questions based on earlier statements 21 you may have made to either the Stier investigators or the 22 NRR people, and.we may have questions based on statements
?3 made by shiftmates, for example.
24 In addition to the oral testimony that we have f')
25 been developing, some of which you have heard this morning, v
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage sh336-6M6
28507.0-
-BRT-3844 7-)
's.s!.
I we do have two rather extensive studies of leak rate testing 2
in the record.
There is the Stier study, the multi-volume, s
3 multi-boxes of volumes study, and also an extensive study by 4
the NRR staff.
These studies include analyses of, in.the 5
case of Stier, every leak rate test that was retained at 6
TMI-2; and in the case'of the NRR study, every test retained 7
in the last six months.
8 We don't propose, having all that documentation 9
already and having heard a loot of expert testimony about 10 these. tests, to go down the-line with you and talk about 11 every test ever performed on your shift.-
We understand, of 12 course, you are'a shift supervisor and your involvement in f'
13 the-tests, on a test b~y test basis, was usually indirect --
'14 if that's a fair term.
15 We may have a few questions about the. specific 16 tests but for the most part, the analyses of tests that we've 17 got'in the record.and the conclusions of -- not so'much their 18-conclusions but the reasoning of the investigators, will 19 stand on the record for whatever weight it's entitled to.
It 20 will be weighed in light of everything before us, including 21 your testimony here this morning.
4 22
-THE' WITNESS:
Okay.
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
I'll turn the microphone over to 24 Judge Bright.
f~)
25 EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD a
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M-347-3700 Nationside Coverage '
. 800-346M6
E 28507.0
- f-q. BRT 3845 Y.
-1
'BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
~
2 Q
Welcome to beautiful downtown Bethesda --
3 beautiful gridlocked downtown'Bethesda.
4 I think I have been through most of your previous
.5 statements and vour prefiled testimony, and it appears-to.me 6
that.your prefiled is a pretty fair representation, a 7
condensation of your previous statements.
So I'll be 8
concentrating on that, principally.
9 Looking through all this, insofar as what we are 10.
looking at here, our-concerns,.I picked up some things that 11 you have stated, and see if you agree with my analysis.
=
You never filed an exception or deficiency on a 12 13 leak rate test; is that correct?
14 A
That is correct.
I 15 Q
You have no knowledge of adding hydrogen to the l
16 makeup tank in order to manipulate leak rate.results?
17 A
That is correct.
18 Q
You have no knowledge of water-being added to.the 19 makeup tank in order to manipulate leak rate results?
20' A
That is correct.
21 Q
You never entered into the action statement on any 22 leak rate test results?
23 A-There'is no formal document that I can come up i
-24 with.
But, on the morning of -- where we rounded off to the i-25 nearest whole number, I believe at that point we-were into
}
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3X0 Nationwide Coserage 800-336 # 46
4 28507.0
--.. BRT.
3846 1
'the action statement.
I can't come up with any documentation
~
2 saying that -- to back that statement'up.
3-Q Would that be during the October flap?-
2 4
A It's the one where we rounded -- the first time we
~
5 ever rounded off. numbers to.the nearest time frame.
It could 6
have been during that October 18th, hearing the discussion 7
.today.
8 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
9 Q
I have a question while we are on this.
Just to 3
10 try to nail this down i little' bits.
As I recall, there.was 1
11 a leak rate test paper on which someone wrote some words to s12 the effect that-the action statement.had been entered at-5:00 13 in the morning and gotten back out of at 7:30-something in 14 the morning, by. virtue of the fact that there was a leak rate t
15' test around 7:30 which, if.you rounded it off, did not exceed 16 1.
17 Does;that ring a bell with'you, too?
18 A
I'm aware of the documentation you are-talking 19
.about.
I was not aware of that writing on them documents 20 that morning..Through a series of investigations, I became 21 aware of that.
That is not what I was referring to as being 22 in the action statement.
23 I thought we went into the action statement and we 24 were getting ready, long term, to shut the plant down if we
~
25 could not come up with a good. leak rate.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Narionwide Coscrage 2 336-6646 m
r 28507.0
- fs,.BRT.
3847
\\J 1
Q On the 18th?
2
-A on the 18th.
3' Q
You are not talking about that little notation, 4
.that's not what you mean.
5 A
That is not what I mean.
6 Q
All.right.
When you say that you thought.that-you 7
were -- not you personally -- the plant was in the action 8
statement, what, that morning?
9 A-It was my belief, and I -- the actual time that I 10 would have had to have the plant in hot standby by the end of 11 my shift.
That would have been roughly around 3:00.
~12 Q'
Hot. standby?
,A) 13
.A I think, by the tech specs, if you.go-into the 14 action statement you have so many hours to reduce leakage 15 less than 1, then you have so many-hours to get to hot 16 standby.
I think the number -- the time element ~was around.
'17 3:00, where I assumed I had to be there.
18 Q
Well, did you hear the discussion this morning 19 with Mr. Adams --
20 A
Yes, I did.
21 Q
-- on this subject?
22 A
Yes.
23 Q
In the course of that, I was trying to establish 24 the framework in which all of those activities were taking J
l'T 25 place.
From my understanding of the context, including the
\\_)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage M336-6646 e-
3 ic q-28507.0 j7 3848 BRT
\\u]
1' fact that the two prior. days had produced excessive leak 2
rates, including the fact that Mr. Ken' Bryan left a turnover 3-note saying the deadline is 1900, meaning 7:00 that day ---
=
4 A
Yes.
5 Q
-- I thought people were operating on,a 72-hour.
6 basis and'that 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> was going to run out at.7:00 that 7
day, or at least that's what Bryan thought.
8 A
All I can' repeat is what I basically-remember, J
9 that I thought we had to have it shut'down on my shift if we i
10 didn't-come up with a leak rate l'ess than 1 gallon.
11-
- Q But when you were, so to speak, looking over.your 12 shoulder on how much time you had, were you looking over back-(s) w-13 to a time 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> prior?
Or were you looking to a: time --
14 A
That would have been the 72-hour clock.
15 Q
Not a four-or six-hour clock --
16 A
No.
17 Q
-- such that the " action statement," in quotes, 18 got triggered somehow by, let's say a leak rate at 5:00 that 19 morning?
20 A
That.is correct.
It was not triggered by the leak 21 rate at'5:00 in the morning.
22 Q
Okay.
You were thinking 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />?
23 A
I was thinking I had a certain period of time and 24 that I had to have -- I cut myself some. extra time, that I
^N 25 would had to have it shut down.
('j f
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tC-347-3700 Nationuide Coserage 80-346M6
s 28507.0
-BRT 3849 m
1
'Q All right.-
Thank.you.
2-BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
3
-Q I was a little interested, Mr. Mehler, in your Sometime after 'he 4
opening' statements here.
You said:
t S-
.TMI-2 accident I ceased'being licensed on Unit 2 and-then 6-later I-.was asked by the company to give up my license on 7-Unit 1."
8
-That's an odd occurrence.
9 A
Well, I was licensed under -- I had a dual. license 10 on both units.
After the Unit 2 accident some supervisors 11-
.had-primary dutiesnon Unit ~1 and some had primary duties'on 12-
'Unitc2.
During that period of-time we basically left the 4
13 portion of the Unit 2 license lapse for the people assigned 14:
to' Unit 1.
Also, I'believe in some commitment to the NRC, 15 that we would all retest on Unit 1 and I done that,-received 16 my license.
Then; prior to the Unit 1-restart I was asked, 17~
basically, to let -- give up,my license.
18 Q
Was this an administrative thing?
19' A
It was -- it would be administrative, yes.
In 20 other words, there was a period of time where the company 21 de'cided to move anyone-involved with Unit 2 out of any 22 operations in Unit 1 -- in an operations capacity or 23 supervisory or -- oh, there was another one -- an oversight 24 type of position.
So at that point they asked me to give up 25 my license.
o ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
28507.0 b
3850 BRT.
1 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
2 Q
Did you understand that to have occurred'in 3
connection with litigation in front of the NRC?
4 A
I didn't know there was -- no.
I thought it would 5
just make it easier for us to restart Unit 1 if certain 6
individuals were removed from operations positions.
7 Q
I don't know~if it's terribly significant, just 8
for the record --
9 A-I didn't know there was any litigation going on on 10 that particular thing.
11 Q
Well, there was a lot of litigation going on over 12 Unit 1.
Mr. Blake is the expert on the subject.
kI 13 MR. BLAKE:
Well, did he understand it to have 14 been in conjunction with the NRC hearings and' ongoing 15 licensing matters -- I suspect you might get a different 16 answer.
It's just litigation in the civil context as well 17 and.he may be having trouble differentiating those terms.
18 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
19 Q
Did you understand it to have been associated with 20 the NRC hearings on restart?
21 A
Yes.
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
23 j BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
24 Q
On page 2, I would just like you to flesh out your ot$
25 statement that your basic responsibility was to supervise the i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1
~ ~ - + ~,,
n,-
=-
28507.0 BRT 3851
, ~.
O 1
shift foreman.
My question would'be:
Did you feel that all 2
you had to do was say, shift foreman, go do something; and 3
'your responsibility ended there?
Or what?
If you could 4
expand on that statement I would appreciate it.
5
.A Basically, as shift supervisor of both units, I 6
had both units.
What we would do is come in, relieve the 7
other shift supervisor, and then, depending on what was 8
transpiring in either unit we would decide which one we had 9
to spend the most time at.
10 In reality, during Unit 2 period we were spending 11 more time there.
I would leave directives to the Unit 1 12 shift foreman of what to try to accomplish during the shift
(/
13 or any actions that would interrelate between the units.
14 Then I would go over and basically do the same thing with the 15 Unit 2 shift foreman and also spend most of my time in Unit 2 16 when Unit I was on the line at 100 percent power, basically 17 steady state.
Because the more experienced people were on 18 Unit 1.
19 I also had an obligation to know what maintenance 20 was going on, and of course the HP foremen worked directly 21 for me.
I was the senior person on the island, on the 22 '
' 3 - D-11, the 11:00 to 7:00 shift.
23 i Q
Did you feel your responsibility extended.to i
24 checking and making sure the shift foremen did what they were f'}
25,
supposed to do?
s/
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 NationwiJe Gn erage R4336-N4
28507.0 BRT 3852
,sg' 1
A I would -- yes.
2 Q
You were quite famil-iar with the leak rate test, I 3
presume.
I'm sure you heard enough about it.
4 A
I have heard considerable testimony on it.
5 Q
What was your opinion of it, anyway?
Your 6
statement, that you make on page 4 -- that's one of the 7
nicest views we have seen.
8 A
Are you talking about the last paragraph?
9 Q
I.think so.
"I merely regarded the leak rate test 10' as the best t'ool'available."
11 A
I have become more knowledgeable about the leak 12 rate test since the accident'than I was prior to.the
(]
\\
13 accident.
And I focused on a lot of faults that were in the 14 leak rate test since the accident that I was not aware of 15 prior to that, i
16 But the leak rate test was the only tool available
~
17 to.us to quantify a leak -- produce a leak rate.
There was 18 nothing else that I knew of to do a quantified measurement.
19 The actual inputs to it, basically I knew what the i.
20 inputs were.
I did not, at that time, know the errors that 21 were involved with each particular input, which T. have become 22 more knowledgeable at, after the fact.
And I basically find 23 that it wasn't a very good tool.
24 Q
You were aware that the control room people were
(~}
25 having a very difficult time, sometimes,.in getting a good v
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Ntionwide Coverage 8(4336-6M6
-28507.0 p 'BRT 3853
\\
1 N.s 1
leak rate result, weren't you?
1 2
A In Unit 2, t'owards the January-March time frame, 3
there was an extremely hard time of getting good _ leak rates.
4 Q
So this.would kind of help your feeling about the 5
leak rate tests along, I presume?
6 A
At that particular time I associated most of the 7
problems with the leaking code safety valve going into the 8
. drain tank.
9 Q
When you talk about the. leak rate test, on page 3
.10 and 4.of your prefiled, it indicates that you had a pretty _
11.
good knowledge of how to run and treat the.results of the 12 leak rate tests.
But-the question is:
Did you ever 13 determine that the shift ~ foreman and control room operators 14
-- did they have the same knowledge you did?
15 A
I would say -- well, I can't say at this time that 16 they had the same knowledge I did.
Because I just don't~
i 17 remember.
18 My knowledge came from running the leak rates in
.19 Unit 1, when I was a CRO.
Basically, that transferred over 20 into Unit 2.
I assumed -- and I have been corrected on that
.21
-- that both leak rates were identical in the way they were 22 run.
I found out that they weren't.
At that time I thought 23 they were.
But I did not have any problem with people in 4
24 Unit 2 running the leak rates or their knowledge level of f) 25~
it.
It was basically a computer program that, all it NA 4
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Coserage 800-3 4 # 4
-28507.0 j s:BRT 3854
\\)
1 required of the operator was to plug in some numbers and wait 2
'for the results.
3 Q
Well, I guess in.that discussion, something that 4
bothered me just a little bit -
maybe-you would like to talk 5
about.it a little1-- says you assumed the CROs, and so on, 6
followed the proper procedures when over 1 gallon per minute-
~7 tests were m'ade.
8 Did you ever. personally satisfy yourself'that they 9
did?
I.mean personally.
Not'just ask-somebody down the 10 hall?
11 A
I don't recall any incident's where I went'out and:
12 personally verified that.
.g).
b.
13 Q
Did you talk to the control room operators very 14 much?
15 A
I would say I talked to them every shift we were 16 on.
I didn't spend a whole lot of time with them but I did 17 talk to them on a shiftly basis.
18 Q
Would they tell you any of their problems or would 19
'they rather go through Mr. Adams?
20 A
Oh, they would tell me their problems.
21 Q
You make a statement on page 7 that leak rate 22 y tests were logged according to their completion time only.
23 By that, did you mean that all Jeak rate tests were logged?
24 Or just the less than 1 gallon?
25 A
Just the valid ones.
q
)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700
. Nanonwide Loverage ax)-33&bh46 j-
'28507.0 3855 j-~l[ BRT..
L 1
Q Just --
-2_
A' Yes.
The valid ones, yes.
3 Q
And " valid" in your definition is?
4 A-Those thatLwere run and, compared to the_other 5
parameters," deemed good.
6 Q
Regardless of what the result was?.
7.
A I don?t know of any'that were valid -- that were 8
logged that-were greater than 1 gallon on. Unit-2.
.9 Q
You make an intriguing statement-on page 8, which 10 is that "Anybody that was trying to jog water' additions, they 11 would have to start and stop a pump with split-second 12 precision to escape detection."
What do you mean by
'13
" detection"?
14 A
This came up during the Stier investigation where 15 they were talking about -- they started into a bleed and feed 16 process and a jogging-in of water, which was the first time I 17 have ever heard of it.
After-I thought about it,.I don?t see i.
18 how you can possibly do it without involving a lot of people 19 and precision timing.
20 Q
Well, I guess my question -- I guess you are going.
21 farther along than just what was happening in that particular 22 period of time.
Now, you say " escape detection,"'and my 23 question is:
What kind of detection?
Nobody ever seemed to 24 lovk at anything that would reveal it.
(}
25 A
During the Stier investigation they indicated that ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6M6
._,,' 202-347.1700
,,. _... ~...
28507.0 7 q BRT 3856 t
s 1
people were slowly adding water to tend to level the lines 2
off, the makeup tank level at a different rate.
And I don't 3
think it is possible.
I would think, if you had added water 4
you would see a distinct increase-and then maybe it would 5
stop and-then another time a distinct increase.
I don't see
~
6 how you can have a gradual slope to it and then 1evel it 7
off.
8 Q
Let me try this.again.
Way before the Stier 9
report, the thinking was a little different.
What 10 detection?
Nobody looked at the chart very much to determine 11 whether the thing was valid or not, if it was below 1 gallon 12 per minute.
( \\
52 13 A
I see.
14 Q
They didn't do the kind of exhaustive analysis 15 that Stier and the NRR did.
And so I just couldn't quite 16 figure-it out.
17 So you got --
18 A
I got that knowledge --
19 Q
You came by that after what happened?
20 A
That's correct.
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
I regret we are going to have to 22 stop now and we'll be reconvening at 2:20.
23 l (Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m.,
the hearing was 24' recessed, to be reconvened at 2:30 p.m.
this same day.)
(~T 25
\\.)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 8%336-6M6
28507.0 BRT 3857
-m s-1 AFTERNOON SESSION (3 :00 p.m. )
2 Whereupon, 3
BRIAN ALLEN MEHLER 4
resumed the stand and, having been previously duly sworn, was 5
examined and testified further as follows:
6' EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD 7
BY JUDGE ~ BRIGHT:
8 Q
I just have a few more, Mr. Mehler.
You say, on 9
page 5 of your testimony, that you don't recall any 10 discussions at plan of the day meetings of the 78-62 LER.
11 A
That's correct.
12 Q
And I was wondering, were LERs ordinarily
(~x t
i
\\>
13 discussed at POD meetings?
14 A
Significant events were usually discussed at POD 15 meetings, and since this LER seems to be such a significant 16 event in all the investigations, it seemed like a good 17 statement to make.
18 Q
Do you figure that the reason it wasn't discussed, 19 then, inasmuch as you did discuss significant LERs, was 20 because everyone really rather thought of this as rather a 21 routine matter?
22 A
I don't really want to put it in those words.
I 23 would -- not " routine," but the importance, I don't believe, 24 was there at the time.
(')
25 Q
Now, you say that it was very unusual for you to v
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3C-347-37m Nationwide Coserage NO 33M446
28507.0
, y.BRT 3858 i
1
'N,_/
1 run a leak rate test.
2 A
That's correct.
3 Q
That seems to imply, however, that you did run 4
some leak rate tests as a shift supervisor?
5 A
The only incident that comes to mind was the one, 6
I believe it was the morning of the 18th, where we rounded 7
off.
I was involved in running leak rates tha t day.
8 Q
That was the Haverkamp incident or whatever you 9
want to call it, 76-62?
10 A
It was in that -- that day.
11 Q
Okay.
12 Now, on this LER, the only thing you say about it
\\l
~
13 is that you don't remember discussing it at a POV meeting?
14 A
That's correct.
That's correct.
Through the 15 different investigations I became aware of the LER.
The 16 first time I was ever shown it during that investigation, I 17 did not recall it, either.
18 Q
Okay.
So you didn't recall it.
Did you read it?
19 A
Yes, I did.
20 Q
And you base this on --
21 A
Based it on my initials on the cover sheet, which 22 stipulates that I read it.
23
,Q You can't remember whether you made sure that' 24 people up and down the line on your shift actually knew what
(~')
25 was in this LER?
Or can you?
u _.-
ACE-FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC.
mm-
~ _ m -,.
20507.0 BRT 3859
,m
(
)
1 A
The book was there.
It was a required reading 2
book.
The farthest extent we would take it was to ensure 3
that everyone on your shift did read it and initialed it.
4 Q
Was this one book for all of the CROs?
5 A
There was one book kept in the control room.
It 6
was-in the book cabinet behind the shift foreman's desk, and 7
it would have all the LERs in that -- and I'm not certain if 8
it would have been all'of them for that year or all of those 9
that were not completely signed off.
10 Q
Let me ask you something.
The sign-off sheet I 11 saw, it was just one sheet and had everybody's initials on 12 it?
O
\\-
13 A
That's correct.
14 Q
Is this a traveling sort of thing?
15 A
No.
The book itself would be kept in the control 16 room and when you assumed the shift, you would review the l
17 book to see if you had any outstanding items.
Sometime 18 during that shift you would read the items that are in the 19 book and initial the cover sheets, stipulating that you read 20 that piece of paper.
21 Q
Let me go to my little poll.
During your 22 training, your experience, whatever, did you ever have told 23 to you or stumble across it, the safety significance of this 24 leak rate test?
/)
25 A
I do not-recall any specific training on the
'J ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(1)
Nationwide Coserage 8(U 336-t616
X 28507~0.
W BRT' 3860
- u..
1-significance of this' leak rate. test.
I~do know that we had 2
training on. tech specs, and studied the basis of that.
And 3
it was in. preparation for NRC tests.
4 Q
Does the tech spec go'into the basis for the test 5
itself, and particularly the limitation of 1 gallon per 6
minute?
7
-A The-tech spec itself says-the conditions that.the 8
plant must lue in, land it would.tell: you what conditions you 9
must meet based on 1 gallon unidentified, 10 gallons 10 idiantified, 30 total.
I haven't' read-it for six years so --
11 along those lines.
But at the bottom of the tech spec there 12'-
was a little paragraph giving you a reason-why.
.O 13 I don't remember the -basis any more for this 14 particular one.
15 Q
Do you think you knew it at the time?
16 A.
I would say I knew it back in the-time when we 17 were preparing to take the tests.
18 Q
~I know that feeling.
19 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Okay.
Thank-you very much, 20 Mr. Mehler.
21 BY JUDGE-CARPENTER:
22-Q Mr. Mehler, as I read your prepared statement I 23 get the overall impression that, in the time period 1978, 24 first three months of 1979, you didn't really feel there was
(}
25 any problem with this leak rate surveillance test.
Is that a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
c 128507.0-
_, s.-BRT 3861 1k-)'
1 correct impression?
2 A
Today, knowing what --
3 Q
-No --
4 A
Back at that particular time?-
5-Q' Yes.
6 A
The answer would be I did not find significant 7
problems-with the leak rate test.
8 Q
You were shift supervisor for the C-shift?
9 A
Yes.
10 Q
I don't know whether the alphabetical designations 11 have any significance.
Would you-normally relieve the B
^
12 shift? ~Not always, but more times:than not?-
-)
13 A
I have to think about that,'it has been so long 14 since_I have been on shift work.
But there was one shift you 15 would relieve more times than the rest. -And some shifts you.
16 would catch maybe one or two days.
It would have been either 17 B or Dthat I would have relieved more times.
18 Q
But it wasn't uncommon for you to relieve 19 Mr. Chwastyk?
i 20 A
I would say no.
21 Q
He was the shift supervisor for B?
22-A Yes, he was on B, the best that I recall.
23 Q
What I'm trying to resolve, Mr. Chwastyk testifies 24 that he realized that there were problems with this leak rate
()
25 test and, on page 3, the first full sentence on his prepared 5
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-34747(t)
Natiotimide Coverage 800-33M646
,28507.0 BRT 3862 "1
statement he states:
2 "I recall that this was discussed at the' shift-3
-supervisors' level."
4 You have no. memory of either Mr. Chwastyk or other 5
-shift supervisors saying, you.know;-I think we've-got 6
something wrong with this surveillanc~e test.
Maybe we ought' 7
to do.something about it?
8.
A The only thing that comes to my' mind on problems 9
with the leak rate test was.in the beginning of 1979, January 10 through March time frame.. Exactly what particular time when
. 11 it started was when the code relief valve started to leak O
. 12 into t'he drain tank, that there was discussions on the leak 13 rates among the-supervisors and the other people in the 14 plant.
15
.I don't recall any specific discussions before 16 that time frame.
There may have been some, but I.do not
~
17 recall them.
f
.18 Q
Well, I'm tirying to understand why these problems 4
19 went on month after month after month without ever being --
20 any serious effort, as-far as I can tell, to find the root 21 causes and take the appropriate corrective action.
22 A
I cannot recall having significant problems with i
23-the leak rate.
If I look at it from the beginning of '78 l
24, through the first three months of
'79, I do not recall a i'
25 total period of having problems with the leak rate.
There ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
am.-
~.e_m c_.,
r,.
,,,.m-
..,... ~.. _.
...m,,._._._,._..-.-
28507.0 cm BRT 3863 i\\_/
1 maylhave been individual portions of '70 where we may have 2
had minor problems but the only place that sticks in my mind 3-where we had significant problems with it was in the early 4
part of
'79.
5 Q
Yes.
They certainly were more obvious in that 6.
time frame.
But, by saying you weren't aware of problems, on 7
page 3 of your prepared statement, the last paragraph you 8
say, as you understood, "the procedures concerning the 9
unidentified leak rate test results exceeding 1 gallon per 10 minute required that we determine the validity of that 11 result.
One means of doing this was to run another leak rate 12 test."
(O,
'/
13 If the first one was invalid, what was the basis 14 of confidence that the second one would be less invalid, 15 other than some obvious change in plant condition that 16 occurred during the first test?
17 A
I believe the procedure itself states that if you 10 ran a leak rate and you got in excess of the 1 gallon, you 19 should immediately run another.
20 Q
We have had a lot of testimony at the operator 21 level, it was a habit to view leak rate surveillance test 22 !
results with values greater than 1 gallon per minute as l
23 '
invalid or at least questionable.
And then, if one got --
l 24 l ran the test over again and got a result less than 1 gallon
(J T
25 per minute, the first one was concluded to be invalid, ACE-FEDEPAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm mm.m.
s _ m m.
28507.0
<m BRT 3864
)
s
\\_
/
1 primarily based on comparison with the second one.
2 We also had testimony from Mr. Adams, in your 3-group -- he expressed the view that the TMI-2 never really 4
got its integrated control system really tuned to the point 5
that you could have the steady state that the procedure calls 6
for.
7 If part of the cause of these surveillance test 8
~ results exceeding 1 gallon per minute was due to oscillations 9
in the makeup tank water level, not a computer error or 10 anything else but a real time variation of water level, would 11 you think it appropriate to throw away the highs and keep 12 only the lows?
On your right, there, there's a multicolored
\\
13 chart which shows -- it happens to be a hypothetical where
'14 the tank level -- it's reflecting changes in average 15 temperature with time and the person constructed the chart, 16 there's three examples there.
There's a case in red where 17 you happen to start on a high and end on a low; that would 18 give an abnormally high apparent leak rate.
The green one 19 you start on low and end.on a high; that would give an 20 abnormally low leak rate.
And the blue one, by chance, 21 l happens to start at the midpoint of two oscillations _and 22 j probably comes closer to the central tendency or the true 23 value of the leak rate.
24 j I'm totally mystified why, if it was recognized
( )J 25 l that some of the problems with this leak rate test was the
~
\\_
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nallon%ide rose l3ge 80fk 336-6646
1 28507.0 BRT-3865 73 i
1 plant oscillations, why the approach wasn't to do a number of 2
them and take their average instead of throwing away the 3
highs to produce a biased, artificially low estimate of leak 4
rates?
Tha t 's the kind of decision that I would expect at 5
the shift supervisor's level.
6 A
I have no answer for that.
I agree with the logic 7
and I can't dispute it.
I just don't know why it wasn't 8
done.
I don't know if we could have done it, legally..
9 Q
1 quite agree that the 4-hour situation in the 10 action statemer.t -- but at least you'were frequently, if.you 11 got a high, then you got a low, and arguably you could, as 12 you did, you could say -- but from a safety point of view, of O) t\\'
13 you personally being assured that there wasn't an undetected 14 leak of the order of a gallon per minute, I would have 15 thought you would be curious.
This -- isn't this the one 16 quantitative tool you.have?
17 A
It is the only one out of the possible leak 18 detection systems stated in tech specs that gave you a 19 quantitative value.
20 Q
Well, you, as the shift supervisor, both within 21 the letter of the technical specification but also the l
22,
spirit, that if you could pick up a crack in a pipe as it 23 l began to develop, and identify that and take remedial action, 24 you might avoid something fairly serious.
I'm just surprised
(~T 25 that there wasn't this recognition:
Well, we just -- ICS is
\\s' ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
20214L 3700 Ntinnwide Coserage Mk3%M46
28507.0 m BRT 3866 i
w.
1 not tuned yet.,
We've got~the ups and downs.
But if we 2
average them?
The way you met the tech spec was to argue, 3
well, you had indications tha t it wasn' t real big because you 4
got low numbers once in a while.
But from the spirit of the 5
tech spec, and from the point of view of the safety of the 6
. plant, it seems strange to me.
7 Operators tell us they basically only had time to 8
run'the test.
The shift foremen tell'us they spent most of 9
their time out in the plant.
And both of them thought the 10 shift supervisor was doing the evaluating.
11 Then we get to the shift supervisors and 4 hey 12 didn't get the impression that there was really a problem.
(
\\
.i
'/
13 That's not a very happy bottom line, about where we come to.
14 A
I will agree that this was the only test that gave 15 you a quantitative value.
But there were other means of 16 determining possible, but not the magnitude of a leak in the 17 plant.
18 0
Certainly, when it got big enough there are a lot 19 of backups that would start sinking?
l 20,
A But if you would take the reactor building itself, i
21 which physically you wouldn't be able to go inside the D ring 22 '
and look, our radiation detectors would pick up on a leak.in i
23 containment based on radiation off the primary.
You would 1
24 also see it off the reactor building sump; off of your fan
/7 25 leak detection system, and then, outside the building in that
'w)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage Nn3%6M6
120507.0 p. BRT.
-3867 b~
1 type of piping,-you could visib -.visib -- you could.see it.
2
-Q No,-I have no question you could inspect..You had 3
other, redundant, qualitative-indicators.
But they were not 4.
a one-for-one substitute-for this.
- 5 A
Tha t's correct. -
6-Q
- I.would think as. shift ~ supervisor you would have 7
been attracted to the idea that you could pick up leaks as 8
they started.
9 A
All I can say is I never thought of it at that-10 time.
If I knew then what I know now~it wo.uld be a different 11 story.
12 Q
Well, the Commission has asked'us to look at the.
13 situation and see to what degree management was involved.
14 And I get the impression,:at least in your case, you really 15-didn't see a problem big enough to bring to the attention of 16 anybody in the chain of command above you..
l l17 A
The only time that'I recall the problem going up 18 the chain was back in the early '79 time frame, when we had 19 the code safety relief into the drain tank.
20 Q
And that did go up the line?
21 A
I would say, yes, it went up the line until we 22 generated a TCN to compensate for the temperatures.
23 Q
What did you think of that TCN?
Did you look at 24 it?
(}
25 A
I haven't seen it in a couple of years, but I know I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j t
-,4,m
- _ m. < _,.
128507.0
,e s 3868 Vl BRT 1'
the general contents of it.
It-was the train tank-and we had 2
to.take credit 'for_.the density changes due to' temperature,
~
3 which originally wasn't being taken credit for in the leak 4'
rate.
5
-Q Did you think that TCN was adequate?
6 A
At the time, yes.
Knowing what I know now, it 7
wasn't.'
8 Q.
In-what sense?
9 A
We didn't take credit for temperature changes in 10.
the makeup tank.
11:
Would that have been credit or.a deficit?
^
12 A
In the makeup tank?
13 Q
The bottom _line.
14 A
By not taking credit for temperature changes in 15 the makeup tank, it would have given you lower leak rates.
16 Q
That's right.
17_
A At the time I didn't know that.
I found that 18 through the investigations.
19 Q
Uut doesn't common sense suggest that once you 20 recognize water coming out of the system needs to be 21 corrected back to reactor temperature, that obviously the 22 water going in ought to be corrected the same way?
23 A
Normally the water coming out of the RC drain tank 24 wasn't at the elevated temperatures that we were.seeing at 25 this time.
It was normally lower because it was -- the
(}
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-RO)
Nationwide Coserage 8n34fM6
.. _... _.. _. - - -.. ~.., _.. _, _..., _.. _. -.. - - -,, _. - -.
l 28507;0-7 3.BRT, 3869
(,f 1
- amount of water going into the drain tank was a lot smaller,
~2 normally.
3 With the code safety relieving, weeping into the
+
f 4
tank off'the' pressurizer, you had a very.high source of 5-temperature-going into it, which it normally didn't see.
~6 Q
As you read the technical specification of 1 71
- gallon per minute, did you think that was 1' gallon per minute 8
at reactor temperature or at ambient temperature?
9z A
I never thought'of'it.
. 10 Q-Does it make a difference?
11 A
Well, a gallon is a gallon, no matter how you 12 compensate -- no matter what you look at.
13 Q
The record before us suggestsLthat.there's a 40 14 percent difference in the volume of water, ambient 15 temperature vis-a-vis reactor temperature.
' 16 A
I may stand corrected, but didn't we base on level' 17 versus -- I thought it was density, and the weight of the 18
. water in the tanks versus, you know, so many gallons per 19 inch?
20 Q
That's the point.
You did the inventory 21 essentially as a mass inventory.
The technical specification 22 is a volumetric unit.
You've got to convert that volumetric
+
23 unit into a mass unit to know whether you are complying with 24 the tech spec.
4 (}
25 A
I don't have an answer for you.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80lL346M6
-~.e
--,_-.--..,_-....---.__--..-,.-,--.,._,-__..-.._._m...__
28507.0 BRT 3870 s
i
)
'J 1
Q Well, this is, in one sense, not nitpicking but 2
certainly technical details -- the thing that's perplexing, I_
3 just-kept trying for weeks to understand this:
Why this 4
problem didn't get to the point of somebody saying to the 5
technical support people, look, we've got a problem here.
6 Come figure out our problem and get what the solution'is and 7
get this straightened out.
It just went (n) and on.
The 8
accident interrupted it, but for many, many months --
9 A
I believe that it -- when that TCN was written, 10 that came out of the engineering group.
11 Q
That was the middle of March?
12 A
I believe so.
In that time frame, f' ')
13 Q
Why didn't you think that any of these 14 surveillance tests should be identified as having either an 15 exception or a deficiency?
16 A
The only answer I can give to that is that I 17 worked in Unit 1 as a CRO and at that particular time we 18 didn't put exceptions and deficiencies on the leak rates over 19 there either.
All I can say, it was a practice that was 20 carried over from Unit 1 into Unit 2 and it was never -- it 21 just wasn' t ques tioned.
22 i Q
If it were to be questioned it would seem to me it 23 would be somebody at the shif t supervisor level that would l
24 l question it.
Certainly the operators -- their posture was f')
25 they had a lot of things to do and didn't really have time to s-1 ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3ht)
Nationwide Cos eraye Mkk 346M6
28507.0
-w BRT 3871
(
)
. j 1
sit down and think about it.
2 A
All I can say for myself, I never thought of 3
questioning that.
Now it's an altogether different story.
4 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you very much.
5 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
6 Q
Mr. Mehler, I have a series of questions on 7
various topics.
The first one, though, I'm going to have to 8
ask you to look at a particular section of a prior interview 9
of yours, and also leak rate test, just so-I can set the 10 context.
11 Could you look at your interview with the Stier-12 people of September -- strike that -- of March 15, '05 at 13 page 11 -- actually, go back to page 10.
At the bottom of 14 10, say starting at line 19.
Mr. Winter is asking you a 15 series of questions and you are answering, and he is 16 apparently showing you a copy of the morning report for the 17 18th.
'O Are you with me on that?
19 A
Yes.
20 Q
Could you just pick up there, read the bottom part 21 of 10 and read 11 and 12, go over to line 19 on page 13.
i 22 l Just take a couple of minutes to do that.
23 Maybe I can ask counsel for information.
This 24 reference to this morning report that the witness was I;
25 apparently being shown at the time.
Do you know if we have (t
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3,m>g.,
m e m <y _,
mo m
28507.0
.7m BRT 3872 s
(
\\_/
1 that in the Stier report?
2 MR. MC BRIDE:
I think that's in the volume 5, the 3
document, tabs 10 to 14.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
Is that all tied in with the LER S
and the Haverkamp visit and all the rest of that?
6 MR. MC BRIDE:
Well, it's tied in chronologically, 7
but it is, I believe, in the same volume as you were showing-8 Mr..Chwastyk the other day.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
You mean volume 5-C?
10 MR. MC DRIDE:
Yes.
I did that from memory.
That 11 was pretty good, wasn't it?
12 (Discussion off the record.)
,/~T k-13 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
14 Q
We are simply trying to pull together some 15 documents relating to the question or questions I want to get 16 to.
The transcript of the interview with Mr. Mehler, on page 17 10, refers to the morning report for the 18th.
We now have a 18 Xerox copy of that which is contained in volume 5-C of the 19 '
Stier report.
That, in turn -- you can look at that, 20 Mr. Mehler -- reflects a leak rate of minus.86; is that 21 right?
22 A
That's correct.
23 l Q
Now, that particular report is for the 18th, is it i
24 not?
At least that's what the indication is.
f'/}
25 A
It indicates on the side it was the 10/18/78.
w ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37410 N JfiOT1% idC C0% erag.c M1336-f M6
'2'8507.0
,3 BRT 3873 is
(_/
s
~
1 MR. MC BRIDE:
Let the record reflect that the 2
witness is referring to the handwritten notation ~that appears 3
alongside the copy of the document in the Stier report.
I'll 4'
stand corrected _by the witness if I'm wrong, but I don't see.
5 a date on the document.itself.
6-
'BY JUDGE KELLEY:
7 Q
Okay.. What I'm a little confused about here is, 8
and this may not be crucial, when I look in the NRR report, 9
and~I look for a leak rate test under 1 gallon immediately 10 preceding that date, I find I have to go back to.the 15th of i
11 October and, indeed, on page 10 of.this~ interview we have 12 been looking at, Winter says to you, "The last successful 13 leak rate was on October 15th" he says.
14 Then when I find test 12, it has a reading of 15 minus
.35.
Well, I was sort of expecting to find.86, and 16 I'm confused.
Can anyone shed light on where this minus.86 17 comes from?
Because the other test, dated the 15th in the 18 NRR' report is test number 11.
It reflects a leak rate of 19 plus
.03.
20 I don't know th +. the point is crucial.
But if 21 somebody can clear it up with a trenchant observation or two, 22 that would be helpful.
Otherwise I guess we can pass on.
I 23 A
I have no explanation.
24 Q
Well, in any case you and I share the confusion
(}
25 at the moment?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide coverage 8m33MM6
_,,. _,. _. _ _, _ _ - ~.,., _347-370)
.-.._.,.~,__.__..m.,,...m.___m_.
!i I
t I.:-
- 28507.0 l.
l,:'
BRT 3874
-NJ 1
A Yes.
l-2 Q
Let's see if we can't~go ahead and get to my L
f 3
point without.that. interfering too much.
4.
As I understand your statements in this series of 5
questions and answers with Winter, you are saying,'in effect,
'6 that the report of the day will carry the last good leak 7
rate, " good" meaning below 1 gallon, whenever that was?
.8-A That's correct.
-9 Q
And if you hadn't had one for a couple of days, 10
-then the two successive morning reports will carry that 11 number?
12 A
That's correct.
O 13' Q
In this instance, it appears that this last good
~14 test, be it.86 or
.03, happened on the 15th.
So this same 15 number might have appeared on three successive such morning 16 reports; right?
17 A
That's possible, yes.
18 Q
16, 17, 18.
19 Now, there are also questions and answers there 20
-which I understand in substance to mean as follows:
Winter 21 is asking you about whether people receiving the report would 22 infer from reading it if the number on the report was getting 23 stale, so to speak, that there-were probably efforts in the 24 meantime to get a good test, which were unsuccessful.
Is
(
25 that fair?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3R0 Nationwide Coscrage ikU-346M6 l
1
28507.0 7q BRT 3875 C/
1 A
That's a fair assumption a large percentage of the 2
time.
j 3
Q I'm looking, really, at page 11, lines 17 to 22.
4 That question and that answer, do they seem reasonable to L
5 you?
l l
6 A
Yes, it does, i -
7 Q
Then over on 12 and 13, the discussion turns to 8
the least likely knowledge of people like, well, people 9
specifically referred to are Floyd and Gary Miller.
In the 10 case of Floyd, of course he was there on the scene that way, 11.
very much involved in the leak rate activity.
So I would 12 assume his knowledge of the overall scheme of things, what d
13 was going on, was pretty clear and he'll be coming as a 14 witness.
I can find out about that.
15 I was wondering -- the reason I raise this month, 16 really, was to get your perspective on what you believe Gary 17 Miller, at that particular point in time, would have known 18 about this series of tests leading up to the events of the 19 18th, and the commotion and excitement attending all of 20 that.
21 What can you tell us about that?
22 A
All I can say with any certainty is that the 23 morning report was delivered to Gary's trailer every morning 24 by the off-going shift supervisor, along with a copy of the 25 j 11:00 to 7:00 turnover notes.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Natsonwide Coverage Rn33M686 1
28507.0 r 3 ' BRT 3876
]
1 Q
Who actually wrote the morning report?
2 A
The shift supervisor on 11:00 to 7:00.
3 Q
It's his document?
4 A
It's his document.
5 Q
He fills out the form but --
6 A
He fills out the form.
But it was our habit to 7
turn over a set of the 11:00 to 7:00 turnover notes.
That 8
would be taken along as he was leaving and slipped through 9
the door of Gary's trailer.
10 If you look at the morning report, you see all 11 those names, all those gentlemen received the morning report 12 along with a copy of the turnover notes.
/"N
\\
)
13 Q
And those particular shift turnover notes on that 14 particular morning of the 18th would have been from Mr. Ken 15 Bryan?
16 A
On this copy I have seen, yes.
17 Q
Okay.
18 A
Can I add something to that?
This looks like Ken 19 l Bryan's handwriting.
I think he was in a training mode at 20 the time and he was on with Bernie Smith.
21 Q
I'm thinking really of the sections we have quoted 22 -
earlier today, perhaps when Mr. Adams was on the stand rather 23 j than yourself, but the note to the effect there was a 24 deadline at 1900 and so forth, I thought it was established f"}
25 that that was from Ken --
a l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3?m Nationwide rmerage tulo-3 WN46
28507.0 fx BRT_
3877
(
)
v 1
A That is Ken's handwriting.
2 Q
Okay.
So the report and the notes went to Gary 3
Miller routinely in,the morning?
4 A
Yes.
Yes.
5 Q
And then you.said earlier that with a leak rate 6
test reflected on a morning report, let's say three days 7
running the same test, you would assume that a person reading 8
it who was knowledgeable would pick up on the fact that the 9
test was getting stale and you were probably unsuccessfully 10 running other tests; is that correct?
11 A
That is my assumption.
12 Q
Okay.
Now, one other thing here that seems to be 13 reflected.
I understand from your prior statement, and I 14 assume that that is your statement, that you can't -- you 15 didn't have any discussion with Gary Miller that day on this 16 topic?
By "that day" I mean the 18th?
17 A
No, I didn't have any discussion with Gary that 18 day.
19 Q
But you did indicate in your statements on page 20 13, you say "he," meaning Gary Miller, "was on top of almost 21 everything that went on.
He was in the control room.
He 22 would call periodically.
In fact, when he went off-site or 23 went away for days, you still had his phone number to get l
24 l ahold of him if anything came up."
i j
(~}
25 !
That, to me, means that he was -- means what it
\\._/
2 l
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l mm._
x _. <--
28507.0 BRT 3878
. (.)c 1
says; right?
2 A
He always made himself.available to us.
3.
Q More than available.
He showed an active-interest 4
in'what was going:on?
5 A
I would say yes.
6 Q
Is that a fair characterization?
You'say-you had 7
his phone number and you could get ahold of him.
Take this 8
particular case of, as Bryan describes it, the deadline of.
9
.7:00 approaching.
A situation where -- let's say you hadn't 10 gotten a good leak rate as the day wore on.
In fact I think 11 in one of your prior statements you are asked about this at 12 some length by Winter or.DiBasa, and you say at one point you 13 were thinking:
Well, along about noon or 1:00, you would 14
.have to shut the plant down.
I would assume if you had not.
15
-- if Floyd had not been able to resolve.the leak rate 16 problen, you would have been in touch with Miller, would you 17 not, before shutting down the plant?
l 18 A
In that particular situation I would have expected 19 Floyd to get in touch.with Miller.
1 20 Q
Yes.
Chain of command.
21 A
Yes.
22 Q
But you wouldn't go over his head, I assume?
23 A
I would not go over his head if I could get ahold 24 of him to tell him the problem.
If I couldn't, then I would
(}
25 have called Gary.
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
s_ m <-,.
~3-
i i'
~28507.0 f~
BRT.
3879
- \\J 1
Q Right.
Right.
2 In that.particular. context do you recall any 3
involvement of Gary Miller on the 18th, in' connection with 4
the leak rates that were being run that day and the concern 5
about getting a good leak rate?
6 A
I don't recall any contact with Gary on leak rates 7
that morning.
8 Q
In that time frame, that couple of-days -- let me 9
put it a little' differently.
10 A
Well, I have a problem looking back from the 11 18th.
Tlie 18th, the morning of the 18th,'and only.because 12-documents stipulate it, that I came on shift-that morning.
I V
'13 do not -- I believe, if they would check the record very
.14 thoroughly, they would find that I was not on duty the 17th, 15 or prior to the 18th.
The 18th happened 1to be a Wednesday, 16 that would have been ny first day on shift.
17 Q
Right.
Okay.
18 Put it this way.
You were on the 18th and 19th?
19 A
Yes.
Wednesday would have been my first day and t
20 then I would have worked my, straight shift, six days.
21
'Q Do you recall any interaction between yourself and 22 Gary Miller on those two days?
23 A
No.
I don't.
l 24 Q
On the question of roundoffs, and I believe in i
/~T 25 this context you know what I'm referring to?
V I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-1XO Nationwide Coserage 8ttk336 6M6
28507.0 m BRT 3880 i
tV.
1 A
Yes, I do.
2 Q
I have, I think, a fairly simple question.
I want 3
to reconfirm what I read at page 18.
If you can just flip 4
ahead in that same statement.
At the bottom -- look at the 5
bottom half'of 18, say from line 14 to the bottom of the 6
page.
All I'm really trying to clarify is where this 7
roundoff concept came from, as far as you knew.
8 Was it your understanding --'I understand that you 9
were not a participant in the conversation between Floyd and 10 Haverkamp but that there was an outgrowth of that discussion 11 which, you say at the bottom, I'm quoting you:
"The net 12 result is,,in Haverkamp's opinion, we were allowed to round
(
)
13 off to the nearest whole number."
14 Does that mean that you understand Haverkamp to 15 have said at that time to Floyd:
You can round off?
16 A
That is the impression I got from Jim Floyd.
17 Q
It's kind of a small point, really.
You say --
18 it's not even a point here -- that you thought this. rounding 19 off business was, I think your word was dumb,.but you 20 thought:
Well, it's their tech specs.
If they say we can 21 round off, we can round off.
22 Is that a fair paraphrase?
23 I A
That's a fair paraphrase.
24 0
Why did you think it was -- why dumb?
Not that I
(~)
25,
disagree with you but maybe you can express i t --
(/
j i
i a
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l_
Nationwide Coserage mK3% u,46 2112 347-370)
28507.0 BRT 3881 7-()
1 A
Because it seemed like the tech specs were very --
2 fairly explicit saying "1."
3 Q
Suppose the tech spec had said 100.
Would you 4
think round2ng off to one integer would be okay?
5 A
The higher the number goes, I guess, it becomes 6
less significant.
7 Q
That's all I meant to indicate.
That would be my 0
view, too.
After all, if you round off at 1, you can change 9
your leak rate by 50 percent, can't you.
10 A
Right.
11 Q
In connection with -- we are still at the 18th of 12 October.
Do you recall in the course of that morning whether
(_)
/
13 your shift, morning to noon -- afternoon -- I think ran four 14 different leak rate tests and do you recall -- I don't mean 15 to attach great significance to four versus three or five, 16 but several were run.
17 The thrust of my question is this:
Do you recall t
18 in the course of a shift, you came on starting the 7:00 19 shift, whether efforts were being made to go out and identify 20 leakage?
21 A
By sitting here and hearing the previous testimony 22 and some of the information that Chuck answered to, I can't 23 say with any certainty.
I do not recall sending people out 24 in the plant to look for leakage.
But based on the last leak
(T) 25 rate that you discussed with Chuck Adams or Denny Olson, we ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tc-347-3MO Nationwide Cmcrage 8(6346646
28507.0 3882
.f-)BRT v
1 must have done it because they came in with a known 2
identified leakage and took credit for it.
3 Q
That as I recall -- we can look at the test, I.
4 know what you are referring to.
There was an increase in 5
identified leakage, something like 2.16 or.06 up to 2.76; is 6
.that what you were referring to?
7 A
I think that was the first leak rate we took 8
credit'for identified leakage.
9 Q
Let's'take a look.
10 A
I'm not sure.
I'd have to look at them.
11 Q
It's easy to do.
Let's just take a look at it.
12 MR. MC BRIDE:
I'm going through the Stier 13 volume.
We can go through the NRR volume, Judge'Kelley.
14 JUDGE KELLEY:
I think for purposes of what we 15 want t.
look at here, I think we established earlier-that the 16 first leak rate on the shift that day is what NRR calls 17 12'-D.
On at 7:35 in the morning.
j 18 MR. MC BRIDE:
12-B, your Honor, October 17, 19 1978.
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
"D" I said.
21 MR. MC BRIDE:
Oh, "D."
I'm sorry.
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
Looking for the first one on 23 Mehler's shift.
Along with Mr. Adams.
12-D is the first one 24 that I see.
-( }
25 MR. MC BRIDE:
The book has a hole punched right ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 S 86 3700
_ _ ~
28507.0 BRT.
3883
(
)
v
-1 there.
2 MR. BLAKE:
That's correct.
3 MR. MC BRIDE:
It's negative 2.16.
4 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
5-Q So 7:35 in the morning it was negative 2.16.
6 Now let's go back to the one run on the prior 7
shift, 12-C.
8 MR. MC BRIDE:
We have it and it is the same 9
number.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
That's also a negative 2.16 from 11 the earlier shift.
12 TBE WITNESS:
That just does tell me we did 4
As' 13 identify some Icakage prior to running the leak rates.
14' BY JUDGE KELLEY:
15 Q
Excuse me?
16 A
That would tell me that where we did identify some 17 leakage prior to running these leak rates and tcok credit for 18-it.
19 Q
Well, let me run through this a little bit more 20 and make sure I understand this.
21 12-E was the next one?
22 l A
That's the same.
i 23 l Q
Running at 8:59; correct?
24 l A
Yes.
4 fm 25 Q
That, again, shows minus 2.16.
t
)
N' ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-370)
%tionwide Cos erage MG336646
28507.0 BRT 3084
,f-3 V
1 A
Yes.
That's correct.
2 Q
And if you go.to 13, that's run at 10:00, 10:16, 3
to be exact, and that's where you go to minus 2.75 or 2.77, 4
depending on whether you like~1onghand or typing, but it's 5-the same amount?
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
That indicates to me that there was leakage 8
identified between --
9 A
8:59 and 10:16.
10 Q
It would be 9:59.
11 A
Yes.
You are correct.
12 Q
At the end of 12-E -- sometime between 9:59 and
,s 13 11:18; correct?
14 A
That's' correct.
-15 Q
Some previously unidentified leakage was 16 identified.
17 A
That's correct.
18 MR. MC BRIDE:
Could I just ask one minor 19 clarification question at this point, so that this 20
' conversation will be clear?
Could we just establish through
'21 Mr. Mehler, if he knows, whether.the entries that the 22 operators would make that appear above the printouts for the 23 various parameters on the leak rate test would be entered at 24 the beginning or the end of the leak rate test?
When would
(~)/
25,
the operators answer those questions?
s-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-370)
Nationwide Cmcrage 800 33MM6
28507.0 BRT 3885 g ]s
\\x 1
THE WITNESS:
I haven't run a leak rate in so long 2
I would have to think about it.
Some were entered in the 3
beginning and some entered at the end.
I can't say with any 4
certainty when that would be entered, at the beginning or 5
end.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
I would have assumed they would be 7
entered at the end.
8 THE WITNESS:
That's a pretty good assumption but 9
I can't say with any certainty that it's a fact.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
It makes the test more conservative 11 if you enter it at the beginning.and don't take any credit 12 for anything you find during the hour; is that right?
(M k-13 THE WITNESS:
No.
It makes no difference as long 14 as it doesn't change.
15 JUDGE KELLEY:
I'm assuming it might change,.
16 though.
If it. changes then it gives you a higher leak rate 17 than you otherwise would have?
18 THE WITNESS:
That 's correc t.
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let's go back one more test.
We 20 went back as far as 12-C; correct?
Yes.
The last one on the 21 prior shift, that was minus 2.16 and it was the same on the 22 first two tests on your shift.
23 THE WITNESS:
Right.
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
Then 12-B is also minus 2.16, on
(~s')
25 the 17th.
And 12-A -- now here there's a hole in my Xerox u
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2t12-347-3700 Nation aide Coverage 800-33MM6
28507.0 x BRT 3886 i
V 1
copy on this one.
Does anybody have an identified leakage on t' e 16th?
The 16th?
h 2
12-A, 3
MR. MC BRIDE:
It's easier on~the Stier' version, 4
your Honor.
We'll get it for you in just a moment.
5 MS. WAGNER:
Part of my Xerox is gone.
6 MR. BLAKE:
12-A is 1.49.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
12-A is which?
8 MR. BLAKE:
Stier 1.49.
9 MR. MC BRIDE:
And here unfortunately the clips 10 went through the number and all I see is.21 -- something 11
.21.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, to add to the mystery on my
,s 13 version of 12-A, on the computer printout, written in is less 14 than 2.15.
15 MR. MC BRIDE:
Stier test 150 has identified 16 leakage of 1.21.
17 MR. BLAKE:
That's correct.
On my version I can i
18 read it as 1.21.
And that's confirmed by the MPR data sheet 19 that is attached to the front.
20 JUDCE KELLEY:
This is the test that was run on t
l 21 the 16th, at 1935 -- 16th?
22 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes.
23 MR. BLAKE:
Yes.
I
(
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
So there was lesser identified
/~'
25 leakage at that test than there are in the, I believe, five U)
-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-370)
Nationwide Coverage 800-336t646
28507.0 BRT 3887 f
)
\\,/
1 subsequent tests in all of which the identified leakage was 2
2.16; correct?
3 MR. MC BRIDE:
No.
At the end of them -- that was 4
correct until you said it was all 2.16; at the end it was 5
2.75 or 2.77.
It went up.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
I'm just referring to the number of 7
consecutive tests that'had 2.16.
I thought it was five.
Is 8
it only four?
It's easy enough to see.
9 MS. WAGNER:
It's four.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
12-B, 12-C, 12-D and 12-E.
Four 11 consecutive tests, I read, B,
C, D,' and E.
12.
Stretching 12 over -- whatever the days and hours will show.
It's a couple
\\
l'3 of days, I guess.
That's all in there in the computer 14 printouts.
15 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
16 Q
Does that mean to you, Mr. Mehler, that from the 17 test 12-B on the 16th, through test 12-E, second test on your 18 shift on the 18th, the identified leakage number remained the 19 same?
That's sort of a --
20 A
I think it was 12-B through 12-E, the identified 21 leakage stayed the same.
22 Q
B, C,
D and E, I believe.
23 A
I stand corrected.
E.
And E.
24 Q
So, from 1327 on the 17th, around 1:30.in the
/~^
25 '
afternoon of the 17th, until 8:59 on the 18th, the identified t_J i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347-37a)
Nationwide Coserage 8%3364M6
28507.0 3886
, '()BRT 1-leakage' figure, through four-leak rate tests, remained.the 2
same?
3 A
That's correct.
4 Q
Now, what would you infer from that, with' respect 5
'to whether any efforts were then being made to locate -- to 6
identify leakage?
7 A
It would-indicate to me that no one was looking 8
for more leakage.
9 0
okay.
10 A
Then again, I 'can ' t prove that.
11 Q
I understand.
I just asked what it indicates to 12 you.
Conceivably, somebody.was diligently.was_looking and 13 couldn't find-any; right?
14-A It could be.
15 (Recess.)
16 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
17 Q
I think we Icft at a point where we'hadLreviewed 18 the several tests -- reviewed several tests done by the' shift
~
19 preceding yours.
The first two done on your shift, on the.
20 18th'.
You indicated, I think, that those numbers, at-least, 21 would have reflected an identical identified leak' rate --
22 [
didn't'suggest that any leak searching was under way?
4 23 A
That's correct.
24 Q
Could you look at what we call the LER, in this
(
25 case -- LER 78-62.
There's a particular portion of it I want
. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-370.)
Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
1 28507.0 7, BRT 3889
<)
I 1
to draw-your attention to.
2 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, I believe the witness 3
has the version circulated to them in front of him.
If I can 4
ask him to direct his attention to the previous tab of the 5
volume he's looking at, I think he'll be looking at the same 6
document.
7 JUDGE KELLEY: 'Witat I'm looking at is a page with 8
a capti' n at the top, " Narrative to LER78-62/1T."
o 9
THE WITNESS:
I have it.
10 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
11 Q
If you would look in the middle paragraph, halfway 12 down that paragraph the sentence beginning with "however."
,()
13 "However, action is being taken'- " and so forth.
14 Could you just read the rest of that paragraph?
15 A
Out loud?
16 Q
No, to yourself.
17 A
Oh.
All right.
18 Q
My question to you would be, with respects to the 19 first sentence you read, whether the tests we just looked at 20 reflect that, " action was being taken to reduce the 21 unidentified leakage to within allowable limits and was 22 accomplished at 7:35 on 10/18 by determining the portion of 23 the leakage to be identified, leakage from the reactor 24 coolant system and to be well within the limits of TS3462
(^>
25 c."
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
21c-347-37(U Nationwide Cos etage
&Xh33M4t6
28507'0-
-<~~. BRT-3890 1
The documents we have been looking.at,.do they 2
support or contradict that' statement?
3 A
It doesn't' support that statement.
4 Q
Do the documents contradict that statement?
5 A
I would say.yes.
6 Q
Okay.
Now, in that generali. time-frame -- I'll be 7
more specific, strike the " general time frame" phrase.
8 During your shift that day,-in the morning, was 9
the time, as I understand it, where this rounding off 10-procedure was first invoked as far as you know?
11 A
It was on my shift.and I -- the best:that I.
12
' recall, it occurred somewhere in the' neighborhood of.12:00;.
,,~$
\\/'
13
.1:00 in the afternoon.
-.14 Q.
Okay.
There are some entries that'we went over 15 with Mr. Adams before.
Perhaps if I-refer you to them you'll 16 know what I mean.
17 There were a couple of earlier tests, I think'th'e 18 first.two tests on your shift, you have written in by' hand, t
19 "okay by roundoff."
Initials of Mr. Floyd.
20 Are you aware of what I'm referring to?
21~
A I have seen them copies in other interviews.
~
22 Q
And it says "1200" mean, I take it, 12:00 noon, on 23
-the date 10/10/78.
Did I understand correctly that at that 24 time that meant at that time, 12:00 noon, Mr. Floyd wrote on
}
-25 those tests as indicated?
L I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3m)
Nationwide Coserage 800 33MM6
g
.x 1
3
.28507.0 3891' b,BRT.
7 1
A I would assuro that, yes.
-2
.Q~
Okay..
So, and I believe the next-test after that, 3-which is signed by you'and-Adams, we could look-at'that.
4'
'It's-13,'I.think.
'5-A-
Yes, it.is.
6-
.Q Yes.
That also indicates that it is rounded off 7
and, therefore, considered acceptable?
8-A That's correct.
- 9 QL
'Okay.
5
-10.
A This is the one where, after. talking to' Jim, after
~
11 he came back from a meeting somewhere he said we could round 12 off.
.I made the statement infthere'and. signed it.
O
~13 Q.
Other than'these roundoffs, which-are. reflected in
.14 the notes we just talked about,-do you know-of anything that 15 went on that morning to reduce these' leak rate tests to
~
16 within allowable limits?
17 A
'I can't recall:with.any certainty anything that 18 went'on.
But based on the increase of the overall-leakage,-
19' It indicates to me that I must have sent. people'out in.the 20 Lplant to look for other leakage.
21 Q
Between the second and third test?
-22 A
No.
I would say after I assumed the. shift at 4
23 around 7:00, 7:30, in that time period.
t 24 Q
'They could have gone out at that time and not i
)(
25 found it-until 10:00 or something like that?
4 l'
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202-347-3700
- NationwideCoverage 800-336-6M6
.~.
28507.0
.c BRT.
3892
~( Ji 1
A That's possible.
2 Q
All right. 'This last sentence here, I don't know
-3
'if you know about that, the sentence that says, "In addition 4
it~was discovered that errors in inputting data to the
.5 computer caused-indicated unidentified leakage to be greater 1
6 than ac+.ually was occurring."
7 We. talked earlier today, again, when you were in 8
the audience, I think, about test number 14, which you might 9.
.look at.. There's a marking at the bottom, it says,.
10
" Corrected by Bill Fels."
11 Would you know whether.this sentence in the LER 12 had-reference to that?
Or would you know what it has O'
13 reference to?
14 A
I do not'know what it has reference to.
15 Q
Okay.
We can ask Fels about-that if we call him.
16 We are considering calling him.
17 This day we spent so-much time talking about the 18 18th, the morning, we have testimony from'Mr. Smith that 19 Mr. Floyd was in the control. room and was at least 20 manifesting a strong interest in leak rates.
He did make, r
21 apparently, the notes that we' talked about.
22 What was your involvement, if you can generalize, 23~
during the morning, in leak rates?
24 MR. MC BRIDE:
Excuse me, Judge Kelley, I'm sorry,
' (J 25 but I don't believe that we established.that Mr. Smith was ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 QC-347-3700 Nationwide Coscrage 80tk336-6M6
28507.0 3893-(v) BRT s
l' there that morning.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Did I say Smith?
I meant Floyd.
.3 MR. MC BRIDE:
You said Floyd and Smith.
4 M R '. GOLDBERG:
You said Smith indicated Floyd had 5
an interest in the leak rates.
It was.somebody else --
6 MR. BLAKE:
You said Smith when'you meant Adams, I 7
believe.
The only other witness.
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
I meant.to.say Adams.
Adams --
9 Smith -- I meant to say Adams.
You heard him this morning.
10 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
11' Q
The picture in my mind from hearing Mr. Adams this 12 morning was there was a great to-do, a great hubbub of (oi s'
13 activity that-morning because you.couldn't get a good leak 14 rate and here was Floyd in a rather unaccustomed role of 15 pushing computer buttons and testing leak rates.
What were 16 you doing at that time?
17 A
The best I can recall about-this morning, that
^
18-upon coming in and relieving the shift I was notified that we 19 needed a leak rate and the 72-hour clock was running out.
I 20 don't recall Floyd being there immediately in the morning, 21 early.
I believe I went out and ran a leak rate then.
22 I believ'e, when Jim showed up, I told him the 23 status of the plant and the problem with the leak rate.
I'm 24 not sure if he went out and ran one then or.not.
I do know 25 that at some time period he left the. control room and'then he
{}
t ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tC-347-3700 Nationside Coverage 804 336.-6646
' 28507.0
-<.BRT-3894~
.1
'came'back'and he said he was in a meeting and he was. talking 2
about rounding off and that -- and he mentioned Don Haverkamp-
-3 that was in the meeting.
And it was at Don's-suggestion that-4 we'round off.
And this occurred sometime when he came back 5
out,:I estimate between 12:00 and 1:00Ein the afternoon.
6
'Q I guess what I'm after, really~-- and this may be 7
difficult, but I'm really more after your sense of the 8
situation, almost the atmospherics of it, rather than exactly 9
who.did what.
d-10 The way it strikes-me from what I have' heard is, I 11-mean in this case I have heard witness after witness-.after' 12-witness tell me-that nobody had'any faith in this leak rate.
1 just some administrative thing you had to
~
13 test and it was 14 do.-
Didn't tell-you what the leakage was.
It was a big pain 15 in the neck.
So they proceeded to do it.
This is typical 161 CRO testimony, not~everybody but a lot.
And about the last:
17 thing-in the world you would ever do, I would think, is' shut-18 down a big 1000 megawatt plant over something as silly as 19 this.
That's the picture that tends to come across.
20 Now here-we'are on a morning in October when-some
[
21 pretty high-level' people are there pushing buttons.
There's 22 a great deal of concern, it would seem.
And there's even
~
23 some feeling in the air that, my goodness, we may have to 24 i
shut this plant off if we can't-get that machine to give us j }
25 the'right number by 1900 that day.
And that strikes me as a a
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Xc-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
+
-,.._...-a
l 28507.0 BRT 3895 i
I
'l tense, difficult situation.
It is certainly not routine.
2 Is that fair?
3 A
There was a' possibility of shutting the plant 4
down.
There was a lot of concern.
I wouldn't say that it 5
was -- everyone was in a turmoil or anything.
It was just 6
concern.
More than normal.
7 Q
Doesn't this create a fairly high pressure 8
situation, though, in terms of those involved?
Let's say I'm 9
a CRO, and normally it is my job to run leak rate tests.
And 10 next. thing I know here is this guy Floyd running leak rate 11 tests.
What is my reaction to that?
12 A
In all fairness, the CRO normally ran the leak EJ 13 rate.
But Jim Floyd did have a habit of coming in and using 14 the computer to get information out of it at times.
15 Q
That's not why he'was there that morning?
16 A
That particular morning he~ was punching out a leak 17 rate.
I can't say with certainty he did, but I can make the 18 assumption he did.
19 Q
All right.
You testified earlier, I believe, that 20 you didn't recall significant problems with leak rates until
~
21 you got up into the January '79 time frame.
This morning of 22 the 18th of October strikes me as fairly significant.
You 23 l were going to actually shut the plant down because you 24 l couldn't get this computer to tell you less than 1 gallon a
/~3 25 l minute.
%)
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3 2tC-347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage 801133M616
28507.0 BRT 3896
' )i 1
A The only one, other than the 18th coming to light 2
through all the hearings, if you would have asked me without 3
showing me, then I would have said the only time we had 4
problems with leak rates would have been the last three 5
months of the year.
6 This is one incident out of a period of months 7
where there-was'a significant problem.
8 Q
But it certainly would have been regarded 9
significant if you had to shut the plant down that day for 10 that reason; isn't that right?
11 A
Definitely.
Definitely.
12 Q
Would you have-thought that that was a rational l'-
13 thing to do, given all the things that you knew about the 14 test, all the circumstances?
15 A
It would be the only thing we could have done.
16 Being rational wouldn't have entered it at the time.
17 Q
Tech spec says so, so that's what you do.
18 A
That's correct.
19 Q
But there was, it seems fair to say, a round of 20 concern that if by some way, rounding off or whatever, by 11 21 y some means or another you can get your rate down under a 22 gallon, that that would be a desirable thing?
23 A
That's correct.
24 Q
I think I just have one other question,
(~)
25 Mr. Mehler.
We talked earlier today with Mr. Adams about a
\\/
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tc-347-3AU Nationaide Coserage
$4336-6M6
28507.0 BRT 3897 igj 1
particular leak rate test.
It is NRR's test 120.
2 Mr. McBride, could you show the witness, again, 3
the strip chart from 120?
4 MR. MC BRIDE:
Sure.
Would you like me to show 5
him an additional --
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
I think'all we need to look at is 7
the strip chart.
Have you got the clearer version?
8 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
10 MR. MC BRIDE:
If you want him to look at the test 11 or the strip chart, he's got it all there.
~
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Fine.
,~
13 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
14 Q
This is a record of the test, Mr. Mehler, that was 15 run on your shift.
We have had a lot of testimony on it, 16 Mr. Congdon, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Adams this morning -- and I 17 believe in some of your testimony you were asked about it, 18 too.
I don't have a lot to raise about it.
19 What I would~ask you to do is, if you would look 20 at what I call the clearer version of the strip chart, 21 there's not a lot of printing on it.
It's out of th~e NRR 22 study -- is that right?
Well, it's not out of the NRR study, 23 it's out of the Stier study.
The clear version.
24 MR. MC BRIDE:
The clear version was provided by
(~')
25 Mr. Capra.
It's a board exhibit, 18.
But I wonder if, as a
</
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationmde Cos erage 8M 3346686
28507.0
--J BRT 3898 1
foundation,.you could'first establish with Mr'..Mehler whether 2
he; recalls that he was there on:the day that this test'was-3 performed.
You said it was-performed on his shift.
There's
~
4
- no dispute'that his shift' people performed it but I_think.it 5
would f.irst be appropriate to inquire.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Fine.
If I misspoke, Mr. Capra of 7
NRR gave us.this co~py.
The purpose was to enable us to see a 8
handwritten notation on.the strip _ chart _that doesn't show'up-9 in.their bound volume of the study.
10 This, I'm recollecting, was the 15th of February?
11 MR. MC BRIDE:
That's correct.
1979.
12 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
1 k2 13 Q
Do you know whether you were on duty that day?
14 A
.No.
I don't know if I was on duty-that day.
15 Q _
I suppose we cu611 find out.
16 A-It would be easy 17 check.
17-Q All right.
The question _I want to ask you is 18 this:
Do you-see written in'the top center of the strip.
19 chart--the.words, " Pressurized MUT"?
20 A
Yes.
~ 21 Q
" Pressurized," at least, is in longhand.
And then 22
.there are two lines which more or less bracket the words, 23 down below-the.words.
24 Do you recognize the handwriting?
{}
25 A
No, I do-not.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage fun 336-6M6
P 28507.0' BRT 3899
- (_f 1
Q Can you say specifically whether it's your 2
handwriting?
3' A'
It's not my handwriting.
4
-Q Okay.
Would you have any opinion of whether it is 5
or might be Mr. Adams' handwriting?
6 A
It doesn't look like Chuck's.
7 Q
Or Mr. Congdon's?
8-A I'm not familiar with it.
9-Q You are-not familiar.. Familiar with Cooper?-
10 A
Neither.
I've seen it in logs and that, but I'm
~
.11 not that familiar with it.
I 12 Q
How'about Mr. Phillippe?
Was he on your-shift
. (
13 training?
s 14 A
Mark was on.our shift as a trainee.
I'm not 15 familiar with his handwriting at all.
I 16 Q
So your familiarity, of course, is with your own 17 and. to some extent with Adams ' and not the others.
Is that 18 what that comes down to?
19.
A.
That does not look like Chuck's.
.I would have 20 printed.
21
-MR.
MC BRIDE:
I wonder if you could inquire for 22 clarification why he believes it's not his handwriting?
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
Fine.
24 THE WITNESS:
I normally print.
25 JUDGE KELLEY:
That's all we have.
I'll take some
{
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Natiimwide Coscrage 800-336664
28507.0
.,f-(
BRT.
3900
\\j a
-1 follow-up' questions if we h' ave any.
Let's see if'there are 2
any.
-3' MR. MC BRIDE:
We have none.
~4.
MS. WAGNER:
Staff.has'none, your Honor.
7
. 5.
MS. HENSLEY:
I have a couple, your Honor.
6
. JUDGE KELLEY:
Do you want a few minutes?
7 MS. HENSLEY:
Please.
'8
' JUDGE'KELLEY:
Off the record.
-9 (Discussion off the. record.)
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
We have two follow-up questions 11 from counsel for Mr. Miller.
12 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
f>.
13 Q
Isn't it a fact that various: plant conditions, 14 such as increasing power level, boration and deboration, or 15 activities occurring within the plant'such as emergency
~16 safeguards tes ting, - sometimes prevented you from running leak 17 rate tests over an extended period of time?
18 A
That's correct.
19 Q
Could'you give us some more specific notion of 20 what you mean by " extended period of time"?
21 A
We could take, basically going critical and going 2:2 up to 100 percent power.
That's not accomplished in a short f ;
-23 period of time.
It is a matter of, heck,-you could.almost 24 say days.
l
[
25 Q
Do you have to run a leak rate in 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, 1
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80t>3E6646
.28507.0
- fBRT 3901 1
though, to satisfy the tec'h specs?
2
'A That's correct.
You.would probably do your leak
~
3 rate prior to going up in power.
Then you would go to your-4 different power levels, which are required whether they are S-tech spec' required,-B&W required, and you have different hold' 6
points.
7 I'm not up to date on the actual hold points and 8
the time element any more, but the one that is most 9
<significant is-the xenon hold point where you must hold power 10 at, I think it is roughly 92 percent, somewhere-in that 11 neighborhood,.until you are within 10 percent of equilibrium, 12 and xenon isotopically approaching instability; but in
[.
13 reality xenon bleeds up over a period of 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br />.
That-is 1
14 negative reactivity and as-that is bu-ilding in, you must 15 compensate for that via rod movement or deboration.
16 During this period of time there is very, very 17_
short periods.of~ time that you c~ould actua11y'do a leak rate 18 in.
.19 Q
During deboration or boration?
20 A
As the-xenon bleeds in, you have to compensate for 21 it.
It's a-poison.
It is either compensated using the 22 control rods or by adding water, demineralized water at a 23 lower boron concentration.
24 Q
So you add water.
Isn't it possible to run a leak-(
p
~25 rate while you are running water?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800L3366M6
28507.0
. BRT 3902 I
.)
Q) 1 A
The procedure lets you do it, as long as you took 2
credit for the water that was added.
3 Q
Putting aside the loop seal that a lot of people 4
didn't know about, if you weren't worrying about loop 5
seals --
6 A
You could do it.
7 Q
-- as long as you took account of the water you 8
could still do it, could you not?
9 A
You could do it but it wasn't looked upon as 10 something that you normally did.
11 Q
When you say here in response to this question 12 that you might be prevented from running the leak rate test I\\ ')
13
.over-an extended period ~of time, would you try to put a 14 little flesh on that?
15 A
Well, I picked out the period of time that that 16 would be most extensive and that would be an escalation of 17 power; if you look at doing ES testing, you normally ran them 18 on the daylight shift.
You attempted to do one A side or B 19 side at a time, and you would -- it would take you almost a 20 complete shift and then some to do one side of ES testing.
21 So you could be tied up for two days and there's 22 also the possibility you could slip in a leak rate on the 23 11:00 to 7:00, when nothing was going'on.
24 Q
Well, I'm trying to look at this from the
("3 25 perspective of a station manager who gets morning reports.
x/
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-1700 Nationwide Coverage 80tk336-6M6 t
L.
'28507.0 BRT 3903 I,)
v 1
From what I have understood, so far, the fact that I got the 2
same leak rate reported tc me two days in a row, let's say, I 3
might. shrug and say:
Well, they are up in power, or they are 4
doing an emergency safeguards, or they are deborating or 5
something, and not think much about it.
But if I'm a station m' nager and I get the same 6
a 7
thing three days in a row and I'm coming up on.the 72-hour 8
clock, don't you think I'd perk up and notice that?
9 A
'I would think so.
But in the same token I.would.
-10
-- it's my assumption that whenever we escalated in power, 11 the station manager was aware of that.
12 Q
I would.think so.
\\
13 A
_I'm also -- that we had what we refer to as a plan 14 of the day meeting, and that was held.every day.
In that was 15 discussed most major evolutions of surveillances.
And ES 16 testing was a major evolution.
17 Q
So, by the same token,.if you saw a particular.
18 leak rate-that was starting to get stale, you might also know 19 why that was, because you are going to these meetings or you 20
.are hearing in some other manner about some major evolution?
21 A
That's correct.
22 Q
Similarly, if you didn't know about-any major 23 evolution that would explain the increasing staleness of the 24 leak rate, that might be an indication that the matter was a U'"N 25 matter of concern?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 8m3hM16
-,.. _.~
28507.'O lBRT 3904
, 7--
- %.)
1 A
And maybe you should. question it, yes.
2 Q
Okay.
3 A
To go back to clarify that --
4 Q
Sure.
5 A
-- back in the Stier investigation there was a 6
. period of time when they were saying we were nearing the 7
72-hour time clock and they asked me t'o make.some assumptions 8
on it and I told them I couldn't without different documents 9
to tell-me what the plant was doing at the time.
And they 10 proceeded to produce the CRO log,.and I proceeded'to tell 11 them why we couldn't do leak rates.
12 It clearly showed we were escalating in power 13 during..that period of time.
14 Q
So you needed to have an overall appreciation of 15 the situation to answer some questions of this nature?.
16 A
'Most questions.
l'ou can't just look at one 17 parameter and answer it.
18 Q
Could you turn to page 12 of your' March 15 19 interview..with Stier, the Stier people.
20 You and I have already talked ~about this.
21 MR. MC BRIDE:
While I'm getting that, Judge 22 Kelley, could I follow up the follow-up with a clarification?
'23 JUDGE KELLEY:
Sure.
24 MR. MC BRIDE:
You just said, Mr. Mehler, that you
(
25 would have to have an idea of all of your parameters and not ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tC-347 37m Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
28507.0 BRT 3905
)
/
(_ /
1 just one.
And would that "not just one parameter" include 2
the makeup tank level strip chart recorder?
Can you have an 3
appreciation, was the question, of whether you were able to 4
do a leak rate test or not without looking at all the-5 parameters?
And you said:
Not just one.
My question is 6
whether you could do that by just looking at the makeup level 7
strip chart recorder?
8 THE WITNESS:
Were you -- I'm sorry?
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
This is a clarification question 10 from your counsel, which the board is suffering him to make.
11 THE WITNESS:
My answer to that, you could not 12 make a determination by just looking at the makeup tank level
(,_h
\\#
13 indication.
You would have to look at other parameters, 14 which could be pressurizer level, could be T av, could be RCS 15 pressure, even..
16 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
17 Q
I think we are getting pretty abstract here.
It 18 tempts me to ask a further question, though.
You might look 19 at a strip chart and see something pretty peculiar there and 20 that might prompt you to investigate something further?
21 A
That's correct.
22 MR. MC BRIDE:
Page 12, March 15?
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
Hight.
24 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
25 Q
What I would ask you to do is, on page 12
/
\\_)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37'4)
Nationwide Coserage 80tk336-6M6
28507.0
-f gzBRT.
-3906 kJ 1
.beginning with line 4, if you could read that paragraph 2
beginning with, "I cannot go into any' specific area - " and 3
so on.
4~
It's a simple question, I think.
In_the-first 5
full-paragraph on page 12 of your March 15 interview, which 6
you just' read,.with Mr. Winter, are you referring to plan of 7
the day meetings?
8 A
Ye's.
l 9
JUDGE KELLEY:
Anything further?
Okay.
10 Mr. Mehler, that, then, completes our process and 11 we appreciate your being with us today and responding to 12 questions.
13 THE WITNESS:
Could I just make a brief 14 statement?.
15 JUDGE KFLLEY:
Sure.
16 THE WITNESS:
I appreciate it, for being invited 17 as a party to this.
I have been through just about every
~ 18 hearing they had so far.
This is not a pleasant experience 19 at all.
20 I honestly believe none of us intentionally tried 21 to do anything wrong.
Knowing what I know now compared to 22 what I believed then, my actions now would be altogether 23 different and I can pretty well say that for most people 24 involved with this.
/~T 25 Looking at the Stier report, I don't totally agree V
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage fkB336-%s6 i
28507.0 BRT 3907 i
%./
1 with their assessment on it and on certain individuals,.
2 particularly Chuck Adams.
Knowing Chuck and the time I'vs 3
worked with him, I found him to be very thorough in 4
everything he did.
He was the type of individual that dott'ed 5
the I's, crossed the T's, and watched everything.
I find it 6
hard to believe that he could be a party to anything that was 7
wrong.
And I thoroughly -- I don't believe he was.
And I 8
thank you for having me.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
Fine.
Thank you.
It may have been 10 an oversight on our part.
If a-person wants to add a word 11 that doesn'.t fit in with any question we have seen fit to 12 ask, he should do so.
I'm happy to hear from you in this 13 regard, in that statement.
We can appreciate it has been a 14 long unpleasant experience for you and for a lot of people.
15 We think it is unfortunate this hearing is taking place so 16 many years after the event has taken place.
It just makes it 17 harder to reach back so many years, trying to remember so 18 many things, many of which must have faded by now.
But we do 19 appreciate your coming and you are excused.
20 THE WITNESS:
Thank you.
21 (Witness excused.)
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
Off the record.
23 (Discussion off the record.)
24 (Whereupon, at 4:55 p.m.,
the hearing was
(']
25 adjourned, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m.,
on October 16, 1986.)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37tu Nationw kie Coserage 800-33M646
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER
(')Y 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 O
DATE:
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1986 were held as h.erein appears, arid that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt)
(TYPED)
JOEL JITNER Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation O
_