ML20211F598
| ML20211F598 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/29/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1384 LRP, NUDOCS 8610310212 | |
| Download: ML20211F598 (130) | |
Text
i n
UN11ED STATES v
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ORG AAL IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
LRP INQUIEY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION LOCATION:
BETHESDA, MARYLAND PAGES:
4300 4424 DATE:
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1986 I
,0
/
9\\\\
Aa-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Olficial Reporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700 8610310212 861029 F'DR ADOCK ODOO O
NATIONWIDE COVERAGE l
- CR28691.0
. bht /sjg 4300
/'N 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA O
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x In the Matter of:
5 Docket No. LRP INQUIRY.INTO THREE MILE ISLAND 6
UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION 7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 8
9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fifth Floor Hearing Room East West Towers 10 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, Maryland 12 Wednesday, October 29, 1986 O'
13 The hearing in the above-entitled matter convened at 14 8:30 a.m.
15 BEFORE:
16 JUDGE JAMES L. KELLEY, Chairman 17 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 18 Washington, D.
C.
19 JUDGE JAMES H. CARPENTER, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 20 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
21 JUDGE GLENN O.
BRIGHT, Member 22 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
23 24 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
4301-O-
1 APPEARANCES:
On behalf of GPU Nuclear Corporation:
2 ERNEST L.
- BLAKE, JR.,
- ESQ, 3
JOHN N. NASSIKAS III, ESQ.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
4
~ Washington, D.
C.
20036 5
On behalf of the Employees:
6 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.
l 9
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae l
520 Madison Avenue 10 New York, New York 10022 On behalf of Jack Herbein:
y JAMES B.
BURNS, ESQ.
12 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza
()
13 Chicago, Illinois 60602 l
CHRISTOPHER W.
FLYNN, ESQ.
14 RICHARD O. WOLF, ESQ.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale 15 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 On behalf of Gary P.
Miller:
1 MICHAEL W.
MAUPIN, ESQ.
i M.
CHRISTINA HENSLEY, ESO.
18 Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street 19 Richmond, Virginia 23221 20 On behalf of Former Metropolitan Edison Employees:
21
)
SMTIH B.
GEPHART, ESQ.
Killian & Gephart 22 217-218 Pine Strect, Box 886 23 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 On behalf of the NRC Staff:
24
()
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
.=_
I t
4302 4
1 CONTENTS
^
2
. WITNESS EXAMINATION 3
Bernard G. Smith by Mr. Gephart 4330 4
by.the Board 4338 by Mr. Gephart 4366 5
i.
by the Board.
4367 6
Walter J. Marshall 7
by Mr. Moeller 4379 by the Board 4384 8
i 9
RECESS:
10 NOON - 4382 11 i
i 12 j
LAY-IN - FREPARED STATEMENT.OF SMITH, Follows Page 4331.
13 I
LAY-IN - PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARSHAI,L, Follows Page 4380.
14 15 EEEEEl1E l
16 NUMBER-DESCRIPTION IDENTIFIED RECEIVED 17 j
i 18 Exhibit 20 - Haverkamp's testimony and 4336 4337 exhibits 19
{
Exhibit 21 - Bettenhausen affidsvit 4336 4337 20 21 22 3
23 i
24 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3 % 6646
28691.0 BRT 4303 i
)
\\/
1 PROCEEDI NGS 2
JUDGE KELLEY:
Good morning.
A week or so ago we 3
were discussing additional prospective witnesses and the name 4
of Mr. Lee Bettenhausen was suggested by counsel for the 5
numerous employees, and the basis for the suggestion was an 6
affidavit that Mr. Bettenhausen had given in the TMI-1 7
restart proceeding.
So, following a little preliminary 8
discussion it was agreed that the next step would be for the 9
parties and the Board to actually read the affidavit and then 10 hear some comment on whether either Mr. Bettenhausen or the 11 affidavit or both or neither ought to be in the case.
We 12 were subsequently given copies of the affidavit, which is
( })
13 dated October 7, 1985, a four-page affidavit.
14 With that, I would like to ask Mr. McBride to 15 speak to the point.
16 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes, thank you, Judge Kelley.
17 First of all, as a preliminary matter, if I might 18 point out in yesterday's transcript where we were also 19 discussing witnesses, including the possibility of 20 Mr. Bettenhausen, I am referred to in my comments -- in our 21 exchange yesterday morning as Mr. Maupin, and I'm sure both 22 Mr. Maupin and I would appreciate it if I was referred to as 23 Mr. McBride.
24 Second, with respect to Mr. Betterhausen we feel 25 strongly this affidavit ought to be part of the record for n
v i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
a,m.m, s _ m _,.
.. ~.,. -.. - ~..., -,,
~
28691.0 BRT 4304
- O j
1 several reasons.
Mr. Bettenhausen's affidavit was submitted 2
in response to a petition that was filed'in the TMI-1 restart.
t 3
pr seding and, although the affidavit does have references 4
to THI-l'in it and it was filed in response to an issue 5
raised in the TMI-1 proceeding, we believe that it is clear 6
that the affidavit does refer to reactor coolant system 7
inventory balance tests and pressurized water reactors in l-8 general; discusses several generic concepts with respect to 9
those tests and the Commission's expectations of what its 1
10 technical specifications and standardized form and otherwise i
11 mean with respect to the tests that do apply to pressurized i
12 water reactors generally; now the chief of the operating-i ()
13 branch of the Commission's appropriate division views the 14 various technical issues that have arisen about the test.
15 We think the affidavit is significant in several 16 respects which I could go through if you would like.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
Please do.
1 18 MR. MC BRIDE:
Well, first of all the, tail end of 19 the affidavit ties the leak rate test, if you will, into 4
l
)
20 Regulatory Guide 1.45 and explains the interrelationship 1
21 there.
I'm sure as the Board is well aware from our 1
22 questions, it is the subject that we consider to be j
23 appropriate to describe the genesis of the procedure of the i
24 test and the purpose of it.
j i
1 25 The affidavit describes the fact that in a
()
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347-37(o Nationwide Coverage 80tk33MN4
28691.0
'BRT 4305
,3 i
v 1
virtually leak-free plant the Commission recognizes that the 2
statistical fluctuation, if you will, due to instrument 3
inaccuracy, plant oscillations, is such that you would have 4
both negative as we13 as positive results, which is a subject 5
which has come up repeatedly in this proceeding, both in 6
technical testimony and in the testimony of individual 7
witnesses.
8 The affidavit describes the purposes of the tests, 9
the various limits that generally apply, which are the same 10 limits as apply to TMI-2, and it describes the purpose of 11 having an evaporative loss factor and why at one time that 12 was considered appropriate by the Commission.
f')
13 So, for all of those reasons we think the v
14 affidavit ought to come in in its entirety so the Board will 15 have the context of it.
Various parties make differing 16 arguments about it and rely on one portion of the affidavit 17 nore than another.
There might be argument that something 18 has been taken out of context, and we think under the 19 circumstances it would be most appropriate to put it in in 20 its entirety.
We think it speaks for itself.
21 The Board is obviously capable of drawing what 22 conclusions it will from it, but we think that the fact that 23 these issues firs t arose in the TMI-1 res tart proceeding, 24 because that was the then-pending proceeding before the 25 Commission, but that the affidavit refers to the fact tha t v
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I x.m _ < _,
4 28691.0 BRT 4306 O'
! V 1.
the issues arose-because Mr. Marvin Lewis sought a new and 1
2 expanded contention concerning the Hartman leak rate 3
allegations, is proof of the fact that this was really a 4
TMI-2 issue; that this was the technical response of the 5
Commission's Staff to that TMI-2 issue, because the record 6
will show that Mr. Hartman was a TMI-2 operator..
I 7
The Commission decided eventually to carve that 8
issue out of the TMI-1 proceeding and make it this-T i
9 proceeding.
So we think this affidavit speaks directly.to 10 the issues in this proceeding; would obviously not burden i
11 this record to put a five-page affidavit including its 12 one-page attachment into it.
13 The Commission has already had this before it'when
(
l 14 it decided to initiate this proceeding and we think that it 15 ought to be in this proceeding for that reason.
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
I'd certainly concede it wouldn't 17 burden the record.
It is not clear to me that it won't i
18 confuse the record.
I, frankly, find this affidavit
)
19 difficult to understand.
It is rather, I think, poorly 20 drafted, and I find myself struggling to understand what it 21
.:a s trying to say.
Maybe I just didn't understand some of 22 the technical concepts but -- which evokes in me a desire to i
23 hear Mr. Bettenhausen if we are going to have his affidavit l
24 so I can find out what he's telling re.
7 4
I 25 Apart from that, what is in here -- true enough,
! ()
4 i
l 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
)
.._, - _.. -- _. _.. -. _.. __347 37(X) '
202 Nationside Coverage W336-6M6
,,.. _.... _. - _...... - _ _. _ _. ~ _. _ _. - _ _..., _ _... -...,,,. - _ _ _. _
28691.0 BRT 4307 i
i several of the subjects here are same as subjects we have 2
talked about.
But if it's merely cumulative of things we i
3 have already heard, then why add this?
If it has something I
4 new and different, what is new and different about it?
5 MR. MC BRIDE:
Let me give you some examples.
On 6
the top of page 3 Mr. Bettenhausen states:
"When the water 7
inventory balance is done carefully for a reactor coolant i
8 system without leakage, the resultant leakage should be zero; 9
repeated determinations should give results statistically 10 distributed about zero with some negative and positive values 11 in the distribution."
~
12 How, I think that's a very significant statement.
()
13 JUDGE KELLEY:
I agree, and I have heard it before 14 from other experts.
Same thing.
If you get a distribution i
15 around a certain point you are going to get some minuses and 16 pluses.
There's nothing new about that.
17 MR. MC BRIDE:
We have had some testimony about l
18 that but I think we have also had a substantial amount of j
19 criticism from our investigators over the years that some of i
20 our clients may have discarded tests with negative results as 21 if to say -- and there have been questions along the line in 4
22 this proceeding -- that you must have been doing something 23 wrong if you have this test that has a negative result on i
24 it.
How can you have a negative leak rate?
Doesn't that 25 show you that something is wrong?
We have had those kinds of 1
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37(X)
. Nationwide Coserage MXK346M6
..,--...r
..,........-,__.___..__,..-.,__,_,.__-..,m....,.-..,-
.c 28691.0 BRT 4308
. f3 V
1 questions from the Board, if I may respectfully submit.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
We haven't had questions clustered 3
around zero, I don't believe.
We have been talking about 4
minus 8, stuff like that.
5 MR. MC BRIDE:
We have also had questions about 6
leak rates with minus
.05, minus
.2 --
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Some questions, to be sure.
I 8
don't think you have had any questions from this board on the 9
fact that a leak rate may be negative on the small side 10 automatically nakes it invalid.
11 MR. MC BRIDE:
I don't think the Board has said 12 that.
()
13 JUDGE KELLEY:
I don't think the experts have said 14 that either.
15 MR. MC BRIDE:
I'm not sure about that, and I 16 think somewhere down the line someone is going to say one of 17 my clients did something wrong because they got a test that 18 was negative.05 or negative
.2 or negative.3 and they threw 19 it away or, conversely, they got such a result and they 20 accepted it.
And it seems some of my clients have been i
21 criticized because they did either one.
And you can't have 22 it both ways.
I'm not ascribing this to the Board.
The 23 investigators can't have it both ways.
If you are going to 24 get these kind of results as a natural by-product of tests 25 such as this and a natural by-product of statistics, then ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M-347-3m)
Nationwide Coserage 8m3.W6646
28691.0 BRT 4309 1
.you've got to do something with it.
You have either got to 2
keep it and decide that it is within the realm of reason or 3
you've got to decide to throw it away because-it isn't.
4 Whether you were justified in doing one or the 5
other, this affidavit, I think, makes it very clear that that 6
is to be expected.
That's the price you pay for having a 7
test that has some inaccuracies in it and that's the price 8
you pay for living in a statistical world where you have 9
results that do fluctuate.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
What else do you have in here that 11 you think is new or different from what we've heard?
Or 12 contradictory; insofar as Mr. Bettenhausen may be saying
()
13 something directly contradictory to something that 14 Mr. Russell said or Mr. Capra said-or Mr. Kirkpatrick-said, i
15 that I think we'd be interested in.
Is there something in 4
16 here that's contradictory?
17 MR. MC BRIDE:
The same paragraph goes on to
(
18 describe an inspection report, which I believe was issued in 19 1983 from the numbering system the Commission uses, j
20 inspection report 50-289/83-20.
What is being referred to in i
21 here is the fact that an investigation was done by the 22 Commission of negative leak rates at TMI-1, 23 They did inquiry into that.
They determined that 24 there was this evaporative loss factor.
They did a i
25 substantial investigation about whether they should have such I
t-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 Nationwide Coverage
- 1h 336-6646
~~.-.-...,------,-_,-_-3700.
28691.0 BRT 4310
,_s I
)
~s 1
a factor.
They reached certain conclusions about whether to 2
have such a factor at TMI-1 and eventually made a decision 3
about it.
That is something the Commission has some 4'
experience with as a result of the TMI-1 investigations and 5
there are people on the Staff -- and let's remember that the 6
course of thic proceeding will be that this board will make 7
findings and then the Staff takes this board's findings 8
together with its recommendations, including a more current 9
evaluation of performance of our clients, and the sum 10 product, I am sure, of all that Mr. Russell and Mr. Capra and 11 Mr. Denton and others have learned about this subject over 12 the years, and they will take that total product to the
()
13 Commission and they will say:
This is what we think.
This
~
\\s 14 is what you ought to conclude.
The Board has found.
15 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
16 Q
Y, and 2.
You, the five commissioners, now have 17 to draw some conclusions and you ought to conclude the 18 following, based on everything we have learned.
19 The Board's findings of various investigations, 20 testimony offered, what t'
"MI-2 operators had to say, et 21 cetera.
22 This is a summary of the Staff's views of this 23 whole subject when they looked at it as an inspection matter few years ago and the commiaulon ought to have thin before 24 a
25 them.
R./
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
20M47-37(O Nationwide Coserage MnUHM6
~
9.8691.0 BRT 4311
(_)
1 I,
frankly, am not at all sure because this is 2
such a unique proceeding, of exactly what it is that the 3
commissioners will be presented with by the Staff down the 4
line when we are down on H Street -- or wherever the 5
commissioners are then sitting when they are presented with 6
the record in chis proceeding plus everything else the Staff 7
has -- whether this would ever be presented to the Commission 8
or whether we would ever have a chance to refer to it, even 9
though it is in the Commission's files, if we don't have it 10 in the record of this proceeding.
Because at that point I'm 11 going to be totally reliant, on behalf of all my clients, on 12 what Mr. Russell and what Mr. Capra and what Mr. Denton --
13 who are good people to be sure, but they have developed a n
(_)
14 point of view on this subject -- what they choose to present 15 to tne Commission.
And I am not doing my clients a service 16 unless I be sure, to the extent that I can, that this record 17 has in it those things that I feel the commissioners ought to 18 have before them when they make that judgment.
19 There are going to be people who are sitting on 20 the Commission at that time who were not on the Commission in 21 1983 when this subject was the product of an inspection 22 report.
It's going to be four or five years later by that 23 time.
As this proceeding shows, time goes on and people 24 change and things have happened that people don't know 25 about.
I think that the then-current commissioners have to t's L>
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 447-3700 Nationude Cm crage
$xk3%um
28691.0 ERT 4312 1
)
1 make a judgment, ought to have the product of what their 2
staff people, who spent untold hours on this subject, have 3
developed.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let me get to this point.
Are you 5
arguing for the affidavit or are you now arguing for the 6
inspection report?
7 MR. MC BRIDE:
I'm arguing for the affidavit 8
because this is a very neat and tidy summary of what 9
Mr. Bettenhausen concluded about this whole subject as a 10 result of these much more lengthy inspections.
And my point 11 is I don't feel the need to have Mr. Bettenhausen, but if the 12 Board feels they have the need to have Mr. Bettenhausen to 13 understand this -- and I can certainly accept your comment
(~%
(_)
14 that you may feel the need to have him explain some of this 15 to you -- I certainly don't oppose it.
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
17 MR. MC BRIDE:
But I absolutely feel the record 10 needs this affidavit.
And if it can't come in without 19 Mr. Bettenhausen, then I support bringing in 20 Mr. Bettenhausen.
I personally am not advocating that, but 21 if the Board says it's not coming in unless Mr. Bettenhausen i
22 comes in here to sponsor it, then I say that we propose that l
23 you call Mr. Bettenhausen.
i i
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let me ask --
l 25 MR. MC BRIDE:
I could take off some more but I i
(2) 3
[
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-331)
Nationwide Coserage Wik316-(M
._.,.. _. _ _ _ _. ~.. _ _
20691.0 BRT 4313
("%
(_)
1 don't know how long you want me to talk.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let me ask a procedural question.
3 I assume this affidavit has been available to you for some 4
time.
Why wasn't it put forward as a proposed part of the 5
record last spring?
6 MR. MC BRIDE:
.It was, Judge Kelley.
7-JUDGE KELLEY:
It was?
i 8
MR. MC BRIDE:
We have been suggesting 9
Mr. Bettenhausen since the time the Board asked us to suggest 10 witnesses.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
The name Bettenhausen was.
The 12 affidavit wasn't, but Bettenhausen was.
13 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes.
But we can't submit evidence
(
14 here.
The Boa'rd has already told us we can only propose 15 things.
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
The time was when the door was open 17 to propose inclusion of documents in the record.
All parties 18 were given the opportunity.
You got documents for the 19 record, put them forward.
And very, very few were, but there 20 was a time for that.
21 MR. MC BRIDE:
We listed a number of documents.
22 I'm not sure I have our listing here today.
Perhaps somebody 23 else does.
I'm not sure we didn't list it, but in any event 24 we listed Mr. Bettenhausen because, not being an enormous 25 document, we thought it was going to be relatively easy to u< 8 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347-3700 Natioriwide Courage 8(n33W4
-.~.,.
-.. - _ _.. _. _ _ _.,,,.,... _ _ ~ - - -.. _
28691.0 BRT 4314
(_)
1 develop these points through questioning.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
It's not an overriding 3
consideration.
I simply react, when we did have a period of 4
time to put in documents, why are we being offered a document 5
in the fall instead of the spring.
6 You mentioned a couple of poin s in which you 7
think this is significant.
Are there other points?
I gather 8
you want it in for whatever is in there; right?
I 9
MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes, sir.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
You are not offering just paragraph 11 3 or something.
12 MR. MC BRIDE:
Absolutely.
I'm offering it in its 13 entirety.
For example, I can go right down page 3, paragraph O.
(_,)
14 7,
"The inclusion or exclusion of the evaporative loss term 15 has no impact on safety."
l 16 Now, we may have differing views in this room 17 about what that means, but I think that's a significant 18 statement.
I'll be entirely candid with you.
I think a 19 permissible reading -- I believe it is the appropriate 20 reading of that -- is that if the leak rate, unidentified 21 leakage term was 1.5, because the evaporative loss factor at 22 TMI-1 was
.51, instead of 1, that Mr. Bettenhausen's view 23 seems to be that that would have no impact on safety.
And I 24 believe that as you continue to read the affidavit and you 25 read the references to Regulatory Guide 1.45, which you have O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1
- - + ~.
nn -
t 28691.0 BRT 4315
( )-
1 in the record before you, you will find that the Commission's 2
view when that regulatory guide was written and reactor 3
coolant systems were much smaller, was that safety problems 4
began to appear significant when you got to 5 gpm.
What the 5
Commission did was come up with a 1 gym because of safety?
l 6
No.
Because industry practice began to suggest that that's j
7 when you could begin to detect changes of leakage.
8 So in the traditional practice of the Commission, i
L 9
which I don't criticize in any respect, but this is a-i 10 conservative Commission when it comes to safety standards and 11 the Commission attempts to impose as stringent a safety
]
l 12 standard, whether it be radiation protection standards, EPZ 13 limits or what have you, this commission attempts to impose
, ()
14 as conservative -- that is, as stringent a limitation when it 15 comes to matters that have any conceivable relation to 16 safety, as it can.
And it should.
That's the job of this 17 Commission.
18 But what he's talking about here is that there was 19 room to argue about whether the limit ought to have been 1 or 20 1.5 or some higher number, but the 5 was the number that the-4 21 writers of the regulatory guide had in mind as where safety 22 really began to become a problem.
And what he's saying here 23 is the difference between 1 and 1.5, in my judgment, he's 24 saying, that is not that significant from a safety 25 standpoint.
- O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336 4 16
28691.0 BRT 4316
)
1 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Mr. McBride, let me explain my 2
problem.
I know of no part of this record which gives us any 3
indication that the operators at TMI-2 ever requested a 4
change in the technical specification which, as I understand 5
it, was proposed based on the FSAR.
What this issue would 6
speak to is what was the proper number for the technical 7
specification.
But that technical specification is not at 8
issue here.
This was accepteu by the licensee.
The issue of 9
whether it was appropriate, proper, whether it had good 10 recognition of the level at which safety significance began 11 to be apparent is an interesting question, but I see no 12 evidence that it was ever raised.
13 MR. MC BRIDE:
Well, Judge Carpenter, I will grant
()
14 you that I am not aware of any formal request to change the 15 technical specification.
However, you have already heard 16 some glimmerings of testimony and you are going to hear more
' 17 about Mr. Haverkamp's views on the question of rounding-off, 18 for' example.
It just so happens that if you look at what the 19 evaporative loss term was in the TMI-1 reactor coolant system 20 inventory balance procedure, being.51, and then if you think 21 about what Mr. Haverkamp's recommendation was, you can go up 22 to 1.4999 and it's all right within the meaning of this 23 technical specification because of how it was written.
It's 24 a standard technical specification.
25 JUDGE CARPENTBR:
Mr. McBride, you miss my point.
n v
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(U Nationwide Coverage Mn33M646
,...-.-.---.-. - n
.~
28691.0 BRT 4317 (G
_)
1 Perhaps what you are testifying to has substantial technical 2
merit.
But from a regulatory procedural point of view, the 3
issue the Commission has put before us is:
Were the 4
technical -- was the plant operated in violation of existing 5
technical specifications?
And whether or not some other 6
technical specification could have been justified is really 7
-- is an interesting question, but I don't see that we have i
8 to go to that question.
That's what I'm concerned about, 3
9 where this affidavit might lead you in proposed findings and 10 in your analysis of your proposed findings.
11 MR. MC BRIDE:
Well, believe me, Judge Carpenter, 12 I'm not trying to testify.
I'd love to, but I'm responding 13 to Judge Kelley's questions.
I will say in all respect that
()
14 although you are right, the Commission asked you to find out 15 whether this technical specification had been complied with 16 or net, with all due respect you can't answer that question 17 until you first know what it means.
You have to know what a 18 legal standard is before you can know whether it has been 19 complied with or not.
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
What are we confused about as to 21 what it means?
I think I know what it means.
I'm perfectly 22 clear on that.
There's no evaporative loss factor at TMI-2, 23 period.
There's 1 gallon a minute.
24 MR. MC BRIDE:
But it says the limit is I gpm.
It 25 doesn't say the. limit is 1.000 gpm --
0 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage R4336-6M6
n 28691.0 BRT 4318
'_)
(~
(/
1 JUDGE KELLEY:
If you want to argue that point 2
back and forth I'll tell you my view, this rounding-off 3
business is, I think, unsound, illegal and it's 1 gallon.
If 4
we are going to go to 1.41 and all that, that's my view.
5 It's a legal point, real.lt.<, more than an evidentiary point.
6 I'm not confused about is, though; I'm clear.
7 MR. MC BRIDE:
I understand, Judge Kelley, and you 8
and I may differ on it, but the fact of the matter is if it's 9
a legal point, as you and I recognize, then I think I have a 10 right to try to create a record to preserve my legal right 11 later, whether we agree or not.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
You are saying the Bettenhausen 13 affidavit buttresses that?
)
14 MR. MC BRIDE:
I think when I put together a 15 mosaic the Commission is going to see there's a lot of doubt 16 about the specification here, what the Commission wrote, what 17 that specification meant to people.
And when the inspector 18 at the time said you can go to 1.5 and he told that to 19 Mr. Seelinger -- and you are going to hear it on Monday -- it 20 all ties together.
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
I think we all understand the 22 Haverkamp round-off dispute and we all understand what it 23 says on pieces of paper about the tech spec.
The suggestion 24 that Mr. Bettenhausen is going to shed light on that in an 25 affidavit about TMI-1 strikes ne as strange.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
X -347-3700 Nation aide Coserage 8533MM6
28691.0 BRT 4319
(~h
(_)
1 MR. MC BRIDE:
I'm not saying he has any light to 2
shed on the Haverkamp dispute.
He wasn't there.
What I'm 3
telling you is there was a relationship here between the 4
ambiguity in this technical specification that gave rise to 5
the Haverkaan/Seelinger discussion which you are going to 6
hear more about.
There's a relationship between that and the 7
kinds of concepts that are discussed in this affidavit.
8 Ms. Wagner may have a different view of the 9
affidavit than I do.
Others may have a different view.
10 That's fine.
That's what litigation is about.
But if I 11 can't even put it in the record, I can't make my argument, 12 and I don't think that the legal process is such that I can't 13 even be allowed to put in what is clearly a relevant A(/
14 document, about which people may disagree, so that we can all 15 make our arguments later.
16 MS. WAGNER:
Could the Staff be heard on this?
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
Oh, yee.
Everybody can be heard.
18 Let's go to the Staff next.
19 MS. WAGNER:
The Staff is opposed to putting this 20 affidavit into ei'idence on sever 3 grounds.
First, we don't 21 see its relevance to the issues in this proceeding.
At best, 22 it touches on some issues which -- on which there has already 23 been extensive testimony, so it would be cumulative.
24 Secondly, it's not an accurate statement of the 25 Staff position on the issue that counsel wishes to cite it (2)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3XO Nationwide Coverage 800-334M6
28691.0 BRT 4320 1
for, the basic issue.
2 And finally, to produce Mr. Bettenhausen at this 3
point would be unduly burdensome on the Staff.
4 To take, first, the issue of relevance, it relates 5
to TMI-1.
It relates to the decision to remove the 6
evaporative loss factor at Unit 1.
The topics that I have 7
heard Mr. McBride mention this morning, showing relevance, 8
are topics that have already been covered extensively in the 9
several weeks of hearing that we have had.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
Is it your position on the question 11 of relevance -- and you say that this material is cumulative, 12 to me material that is cumulative -- if three or four people 13 come in and say 2 plus 2 is 4, then you have someone else
(
14 come in and say it's 4, I don't need to hear that.
But if 15 someone else comes in and says it is 7 -- is there anything 16 in this affidavit that's inconsistent with what the other 17 experts for the Staff stated?
18 MS. WAGNER:
Mr. McBride stated in 3733, when he 19 initially discussed the affidavit that he would seek to use 20 the statements in the affidait as an indication of the 21,
Staff's view of the safety significance of the differential, 22 if you will, between the amount stated in the technical 23 specifications, which is the same in each unit, 1 gallon per 24 minute, and the safety significance of an additional.51 25 gallons per minute leakage.
As to that point the affidavit r^)
s_-
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationside Coserage 800-336-6646
~.- -.
28691.0 BRT 4321
()
1 does not present the Staff's view.
I discussed this point 2
with Mr. Bettenhausen and the Staff's view that any leakage 3
in violation of the limits violates it.
Mr. Bettenhausen was 4
not saying a leak rate of 1.5 gmp had no safety significance 5
if the FSAR did not consider a leak rate of 1.5 gpm and he's 6
not saying it has no safety significance if the tech spec has 7
a 1 gpm limit.
So we feel that paragraph 7, which I believe 8
is the main focus -- or the main interest that counsel for 9
the numerous employees has in getting this into evidence, as 10 stated in his remarks on October 14, I think including it for 11 that purpose would not reflect the Staff's view on this 12 issue.
{
13 Mr. Bettenhausen would then have to come in and
(
14 testify.
He personally would be happy to testify for several 15 days on subjects related to this affidavit, but I think it is 16 a distortion to take out paragraph 7, which was put in for a 17 different purpose, and now say that the Staff's view is that 18 there is no safety significance to the leak rate of 1.5 gpa.
19 This topic could have been covered by Mr. -- well, 20 in fact, was covered to a certain extent by Messrs. Russell 21 and Capra.
So we think that putting in the affidavit alone 22 would confuse the record and would not accurately present the 23 Staff's position on any issue in this proceeding.
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
Am I to understand that 25 Mr. Bettenhausen has a differing view from what you are O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 804336-6M6
28691.0 BRT 4322 n
_\\_)
1 characterizing as the Staff view on the point reflected in
-2
' paragraph 7 of his affidavit?
3 MS. WAGNER:
No.
I'm sorry if I gave you that 4
impression.
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
I just wanted to be clear about 6
that.
7 MS. WAGNER:
No, he doesn't.
He would not -- he 8
thinks that you cannot use paragraph 7 to say that there is 9
no safety significance in the leak rate of 1.5 gpm, in a 10 situation where there is a tech spec imposing a 1 gpa leak 4
11 rate limit.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Of course, only he can really say-13 that.
()
14 What is the burden problem from the Staff's 15 standpoint?
Let's suppose, hypothetically, that the Board-f 16 reads this affidavit and decides that the affidavit may have 17 some pertinence but standing alone it may be confusing so we 18 should call Bettenhausen.
Let's suppose further that his
)
19 testimony were restricted to two or three points raised by 20 the affidavit and that one could reasonably expect that 21 Mr. Bettenhausen could come and go inside of an hour or two.
22 Is that a burden from the Staff's standpoint?
23 MS. WAGNER:
Well, I don't -- well, if you are 24 saying would an hour of Mr. Bettenhausen's time be 25 burdensome; no.
He is, of course, based in the region.
1 4
<n
\\_s
)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
_ _ _. _ _.___,,___j
28691.0 BRT 4323 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
Is he?
2 MS. WAGNER:
Yes.
He is based in the region.
3 Region 1.
So he would have to come 11, 4
JUDGE KELLEY:
Is that Philadelphia?
5 MS. WAGNER:
Outside of Philadelphia.
6 MR, MC BRIDE:
King of Prussia.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Close enough.
-8 MS. WAGNEH:
It's burdensome because there's one 9
Staff counsel in these hearings who has to try to talk with 10 him.
He can't come in cold.
He has got some preparation to 11 do.
He has got to talk to me about it.
12 I don't know what his work load is at this time.
13 It is, at least I would say, given the fact he has
)
14 got to drive up and back and testify, let's say even for an 15 hour1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br />, a day of his time there plus preparation.
In view of 16 the fact that --
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
I'm not suggesting necessarily this 18 is the course of action but could you tell us whether 19 Mr. Russell and/or Mr. Capra might accompany 20 Mr. Bettenhausen, since they, too, have had some things to 21 say on this subject?
l 22 MS. WAGNER:
Whether they could be called back?
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
Yes.
I'm asking as a matter of l
L 24 convenience, not as a legal issue.
Are they around?
Can
(
25 they come back to speak to this?
l(Z)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage Ink 336-fM6
~,,. - _..,.
i 28691.0 BRT 4324
(~(j) 1 MS. WAGNER:
I, personally, don't know whether 2
Mr. Russell is in or out of town right now.
3 JUDGE KELLEY:
You might look into that.
4 MS. WAGNER:
Mr. Capra is around, as far as I 5
know.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
You might look into that.
7 Mr. Blake, any comment?
8 MR. BLAKE:
Just briefly, Judge Kelley, because I 9
am certain that we have already spent more time on this than 10 the document would be worth to the Board in the end making 11 its decision and that really is what drives our decision.
12 To the extent the Board wants to take this into 13 the record for whatever it is worth and we get on down the
(~N i
s_)
14 road, I don't have any objection to that.
To the extent it 15 prompts or would precipitate the need or requirement of yet 16 another expert witness to explain an affidavit in the TMI-1 17 proceeding, then I frankly don't think it is worth it.
18 Particularly in light of Staff counsel's refutation that the 19 very language, which I think gave rise to the desire by 20 numerous employees' counsel to have this document in, would 21 be explained by Mr. Bettenhausen to be consistent with 22 evidence that we already have in the record.
23 The particular sentence is the first sentence in 24 paragraph 7 of the affidavit, and I would point the Board in 25 that regard to page 1139 of the transcript, where precisely oo ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage SCG336 6646
28691.0 BRT 4325
/~T
(_)
I the same question was put to the expert panel of witnesses 2
through the Board and provided by numerous employees' 3
counsel.
Questioned exactly about the safety significance or-4 inclusion of the appropriate evaporative' loss factor.
5 So, I think that evidence is already here and 6
available to us.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Do you see it as consistent, the 8
affidavit and the citation you just gave?
9 MR. BLAKE:
Well, I could sure read the affidavit 10 and that one sentence as written, as I think Mr. McBride has 11 indicated he could read it, and I could read it as consistent 12 with them.
13 I think it is confusing, frankly, at the moment,
-)
14
-with Staff counsel's representation that Mr. Bettenhausen 15 would come in if required to and testify and say.something 16 consistent with the Staff's position already in the record in 17 this proceeding.
I frankly don't see a need to call him in 18 to have him do that.
19 But I sure can agree with Mr. McBride that if I 20 look at the sentence right now, it could be read as 21 inconsistent with the past Staff testimony in the 22 proceeding.
I just don't see a need to call a fellow down 23 here from King of Prussia to say -- straighten out what was a 24 confusing affidavit submitted in a-different proceeding and, 25 in fact, in a proceeding with regard to evaporative loss, the O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC-202-347-37tX)
Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
28691.0 BRT 4326 1
difference between the units, we already have evidence on it 2
in an agreed-upon inclusion in the record from section 4 from 3
NUREG-600 sub 4.
e At that point in time, whether we agreed that was 5
what we were going to put in on Unit 1, I think it was clear 6
agreement of the parties that that was going to be it with 7
regard to Unit 1, with the exception of individuals who have 8
experiences, as the next witness will share in his testimony, 9
having been at Unit 1.
10 In that regard I would point the Board to 11 1 transcript page 321, where you, Judge Kelley said, after we 12 agreed on putting in section 4, "would it follow with that in 13 the record as background with the understanding that certain
(~)h
(_
14 of the individual parties in their testimony, as I believe 15 some of them have, might say something about their personal 16 experience at Unit 1, but whether or not, that Unit I would 17 not be a subject in the case; is that the proposition?"
18 Mr. Voigt's response:
"That's the intent.
- Yes, 19 sir."
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
And that would be our intent here.
21 It seems to me that if we did let in this affidavit with or 22 without a witness, the notion would be that it is in for 23 purposes of whatever it says about Unit 2.
Insofar as it 24 recites studies about Unit 1 it's either out or it is 25 background at most.
()
B ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Cosciage 8(4336-6M6
28691.0 BRT 4327
( )
\\_/
1 MR. BLAKE:
Finally, let me echo one thing that I 2
previously indicated on this same Bettenhausen subject, at 3
transcript 3735.
That is that I don't believe that this 4
proceeding, whose purpose was to determine the factual 5
circumstances regarding what occurred at TMI-2, need be the 6
place to make all the arguments from various settings in the 7
Commission that ultimately might properly be taken into 8
account by the Commission where this, the record of this 9
after will be, one, if not the most important element.
And I 10 don't believe that the Board need include in this record 11 anything that might be properly taken into account by the 12 Commission at that point in time when they make their 13 determinations about individuals.
(
14 While Mr. McBride may have well-placed concerns 15 that he wouldn't be allowed to argue to the Commission, from 15 the Bettenhausen affidavit or others that there are 17 inconsistent or potentially inconsistent statements from the 18 Staff, to the extent the Staff does not take this into 19 account in providing its recommendations to the Commission, I
'20 would not want to be in its place if it were hit with that 21 sort of an argument, and I expect they will take this and 22 lots of other things into account when they make the 23 recommendations based on the record in this case and others, 24 as the Commission has indicated on page 10 of its initial 25 notice of the proceeding that it should take into account in O
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80t).336-tM6
1 28691.0
.BRT 4328 e
)
1 making recommendations.
2 I don't have anything more to add.
3 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
Thank you.
4 Mr. Flynn?
5 MR. FLYNN:
Without taking a specific position we 6
generally support whatever resolution gets us to wherever we 7
are going most quickly.
j 8
JUDGE KELLEY:
Ms. Hensley?
9 MS. HENSLEY:
We' don't oppose the admission of the 10 affidavit or Bettenhausen as a witness if that's what the 11 Board wants.
J 12 JUDGE KELLEY:
What do you think we ought to do?
J J
13 MS. HENSLEY:
We really have no opinion on what
(
14 the' Board should do.
I could give you my personal opinion 15 but-I don't think it would further this proceeding.
i 16 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
Any last comment?
17 Mr. McBride?
18 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes.
Thank you, Judge Kelley.
19 Unless I misunderstood, Staff counsel said-that this document 20 is not relevant to this proceeding.
I don't understand how l
21 that could be since this was in response to the time when 22 this very issue was initially raised, albeit in a different i
23 proceeding.
24 The affidavit states that the purpose of this 25 affidavit is to address certain of the allegations raised in 4
C) i i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverags 800-33W
20691.0 BRT 4329 I
1 the " Petition of Marvin I. Lewis, Intervenor, for a New and 2
Expanded Contention Concerning the Hartman Leak Rate 3
Allegations," dated September 19, 1985.
4 I don't understand how anything could be more 5
relevant than an affidavit of the chief of the operations 6
branch of the division of reactor safety of Region 1 of the 7
NRC responding to the Hartman allegations.
8 I think Mr. Blake, in his usual frankness with the 9
Board, has explained to you that at transcript 1139 we put a 10 question to Messrs. Russell and Capra, who, I think it's fair 11 to say, have pretty strong points of view on a number of 12 things here, and got an answer about this very subject of 13 evaporative loss factors that appears to differ from what is
)
14 in this affidavit.
And I think it is somewhat significant 15 that the Commission had before it what~it believed to be the 16 views of the Staff at the time it disposed of this issue from 17 a procedural standpoint at least, in another proceeding, and 1 23 now we find that the people who the Staff had as witnesses in 19 this proceeding may have di f fered with the gentleman whose 20 affidavit the Commission had before it when it had to decide 21 what to do about this subject.
22 Ms. Wagner also suggested that I was talking about 23-lifting paragraph 7 out of the document for whatever use I 24 might make of it.
I am not.
I am offering the entire 25 document.
And certainly it can't be misleading to put in the C)
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage m336-6M6
- - - __. -. ~,.,
I i
28691.0
~BRT 4330 p)
(_
1 entirety of a man's sworn statement on a subject.
That's 2
what I have put before you.
3 So, I don't find the affidavit confusing.
I think I'
4 I understand exactly what he's talking about, which is why I 5
feel that it would be necessary only to put the affidavit 6
in.
But if the Board wants to hear from him, fine.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
I think that's enough on 8
that subject.
9 Why don't we get Mr. Smith sworn in and take a 10 short break.
11 Mr. Smith, a belated good morning to you.
12 Whereupon, 13 BERNARD G.
SMITH
)
14 was called as a witness and, having first been duly sworn, 15 was examined and testified as follows:
16 EXAMINATION i
17 BY MR, GEPHART:
18 Q
Mr. Smith, de you have before you a document, i
19 eight pages, I believe, entitled " Prepared Statement of 1
20 Bernard G.
Smith"?
[
21 A
Yes, sir.
22 Q
Have you had an opportunity to review thic 23 statement last night and again this morning?
24 A
Yes, sir.
25
-Q Do you have any additions or corrections to make O
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202-347-3AO Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
. =.
28691.0 BRT 4331 1
to this statement at this time?
2 A
No, I don't.
3 Q
Do you wish to have this statement bound into the 4
record at this point as your statement?
I 5
'A Yes.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
So ordered.
7-(The document follows:)
8 9
10 11 1
12-A 13 14
'15 16 17 18 19 4
20 21 22 23 24 3
25 O
4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
NU-347-37(o Nationwide Coverage M10-336-6M6
s 4
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 BERNARD G.
SMITH My name is Bernard G. Smith.
I am 50 yesrs old and I live in Hummelstown, Pennsylvania.
I am employed by GPU Nuclear
[)
Corporation as Radioactive Waste Operations Manager at Unit 2.
N~/
I no longer hold a license to operate a nuclear power plant.
Prior to January of 1983, I was a shift supervisor for approximately four_ years, including during the period from September of 1978 through March of 1979.
Before I became a shift supervisor, I was a shift foreman at Unit 1.
I started that position ~in January of 1968.
I have been an employee of Metropolitan Edison and GPU Nuclear for a total of 27 years.
During 1978 and 1979, I reported to James Floyd who was supervisor of operations.
Kenneth Hoyt, a shift foreman, reported to me in Unit 2.
The control room operators assigned A trainee, to my shift wera Harold Hartman and Raymond Booher.
John Blessing, was also assigned to my Unit 2 shift.
("]
\\~/
e The shift supervisors had an office in each unit.
Generally, we started our shifts in Unit 1.
After the tirst 4
needed our hour, we spent most or our time in whichever unit attention; for example, during Unit 2's hot functional testing.
large part of my time there.
Regardless of wh'ere we I spent a shift supervisors were actually working, our crews told us about the progress of work at both units.
The shift supervisors had meetings once a month.
At thase meetings, we discussed plant problems and personnel problems for both units.
I kept the minutes of our meetings and distributed them to those who were responsible for completing the action items contained in the minutes.
I also attended each unit's plan-of-the-day meetings.
These meetings were not O
designed to discuss problems; they were there so that we could structure the work that needed to be done for that day.
If we had a problem with leak rates on a particular day, we would have a separate meeting in the shitt supervisors' office.
3enerally, I did not become involved in leak rate testing.
The operators reported to me only it they could not obtain a leak rate during the shift.
I cannot recall ever having run a leak rate test at either unit.
I have been shown that I approved only two tests at Unit 2.
Usually, of course, leak rate tests were reviewed and approved by the shift foreman.
I have difficulty recalling the exact requirements of the technical specifications concerning the amount of leakage
()
permitted.
I remember that at Unit 2 you needed to shcw you
_2_
P..
O were under one gallon per minute in unidentified leakage every One valid leak rate during this period satisfied the 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
technical specification; on the other hand, it a valid leak 1
rate over one gallon per minute was obtained, you had to enter the action statement.
I do not recall ever entering the action statement for leak rates at Unit 2.
I did not require my shift to log anything but the t
completion time of a leak rate and, probably, the result.
I'do not recall recognizing any requirement that the start time for 4
leak rates be logged.
I think that the operators used the log book to keep track of leak rates.
~
I knew that leak rate tests were discarded, and I probably discarded some myself.
This practice began in Unit 1.
There
, o was never an ulterior motive for doing this.
I believed that if a control room operator considered a test invalid,.he did
'~
not have to document the test.
Exceptions and Deficiencies or because the were not used; possibly for the same reason, leak rate test had different paperwork than the other This surveillances, because it was performed on the computer.
f was also a carry-over from the way we operated Unit 1.
I do j
not think that I even considered whether I should apply l
administrative procedure 1010 to our leak rate practices.
The interpretation of whether a leak rate test was invalid f
was left up to the shift foreman, or shift supervisor on i
The control room operator could consult either of occasion.
them; however, he primarily consulted the shift foreman.
The
()
1 ;
---m---mvm,
,, w y m, y y,,-,
,,,-n,---,,n,+-,w,,,,-.-mn,,-,
e
,-e,rm-,,----,,m
,e,,
w-ey--..--m.,,-,,
m.,
control room operator could also declare a leak rate test invalid, if he saw a reason to do so from his plant parameters.
If the plant appeared to be in steady state, we would claim a leak rate over one gpm invalid.
This practice started at the beginning of operations in Unit 1.
We did not interpret leak rates any differeatly in Unit 2 than we did in Unit 1.
If my shift obtained consistently high leak rates, we dispatched auxiliary operators to search for leaks.
If leaks were discovered, they would be repaired or measured.
I always tried to fix leakage or to see that it was contained safely inside the plant.
If leakage were identified and measured, it would be added to a new leak rate.
The old cne showing results
()
higher than one gpm would be discarded.
I am sure that if I could not have corrected a leakage problem, I would have entered the action statement.
I wish to stress that I thought that I was operating the plant safely even if I was relying on my eyes, rather than the leak rate test printout, to estimate leakage.
This practice I
was not designed to deceive the NRC or harm the public.
This J
practice evolved from the way I learned to cope with leakage at Unit 1.
I simply did not comprehend at the time that my concern for the plant's safe operation should not have been given priority over the strict interpretation of the technical specifications that I should have employed, and I would now employ.
O.
I
_4_
. ~.
/~')
the The operators with whom I worked complained to me about
~
This was no surprise computer problems with the leak rate.
results from because the computer program produced inconsistent day one in Unit 2.
It was common knowledge that people were spending many months trying to correct the computer program.
I tolerated invalid leak rate tests because I was confident that the computer problem would eventually be solved.
During the many interviews which I have given, I learned about an NRC inspection that resulted in the issuance of a Licensee Event Report (LER).
I do not think that I was on shift when the incident leading to the report occurred, and I do not recall being part of any decision-making process triggered by this incident.
I do not mean to suggest that I never discussed the ineerpretation of the technical I am sure specificati'r.s with my superiors and my colleagues.
that we discussed the interpretation of leak rates many times.
I, however, do not remember any formal meetings seeking my opinions on leak rate testing or instructions telling me to abandon my interpretation of the 72-hour rule for leak rate testing.
I have no recollection of reading LER 78-62, although f
my name is on the sign-off sheet attached to it.
I do not know how I interpreted the LER when I did read it.
I do know that I never changed the way I did business in response to the LER.
l I do nor recall reading the Operations Memorandum issued on October 20, 1978, but I do remember that at one point we were
()
instructed to round off leak rates by eliminating the decimal
, i
readings.
I have been told that I directed the rounding off to because there is an entry in a computer log (made by
- stop, someone else) stating that it ended "by Order of Bernie Smith."
I am sure that I had no role in this, other than to issued while communicato a directive from my superiors that was I was on duty.
I have no knowledge of operators manipulating leak rates by adding hydrogen.
I remember that in 197E some people believed hydrogen could affect leak rate tests.
I discounted this theory because I thought that adding hydrogen would increase pressure and make the leak rate appear worse.
I would not have leak rate, where prohibited the addition of hydrogen during a because I did not the operator knew the system needed hydrogen, consider it a chemical; therefore, I am sure I did not tell my operators to refrain from adding hydrogen during a leak rate.
never directed anyone to add hydrogen to deliberately I
manipulate a leak rate test, I also have no knowledge of anyone adding water and not recording it or adding water to achieve some type of bonus during a leak rate test.
I am sure that the operators occasionally made mistakes and did not inform each other of the addition of water during a leak rate.
That would have I was unaware of any other way in which invalidated the test.
an operator could have falsitied a leak rate test.
I did not even remember, for example, that there was a level transmitter 10 problem until the post-accident investigations began.
I did
(_/,
(3
~
not hear about or learn of anyone discussing the switching of level transmitters as a way to tamper with leak rate tests.
Although Harold Hartman was on my shift, I was totally unaware that he was falsifying leak rate tests.
I still have difficulty believing that he would do such a thing, because I considered him a competent operator.
He constantly brought concerns to me and I would try to correct them depending upon the circumstances.
I cannot remember any safety concern that he brought to me that I did not take some action on.
I am not claiming that he was easy to work witn, however.
Even though he had the ability to complete his assignments well, his over-reaction P.o problems detrimentally affected his I often had to speak to him about his inability performance.
.O to handle pressure and I know that at least one other shift supervisor became exasperated with him.
I will always regret that I did not realize the effect that the everyday pressures Hartman.
I wish of operation trould have on someone such as Mr.
Mr. Hartman could have understood that it was my responsibility, not his, if he could not obtain a satistactory leak rate test.
I decided to participate in this proceeding to clear my name and to remove the impediment which is blocking my progress in the nuclear industry.
Over the years, I have gained a trememdous amount at knowledge about this industry and I have become extremely proficient in the clean-up, removal and j ()
shipment of radioactive waste.
My goal is to have these skills
b o
evaluated for their own worth, without the Hartman allegations marring my reputation.
I hope that the Board helps me to in attain my goal by clearing me of any alleged involvement leak rate falsification.
O 1
0 - _., _ _. _,. _
28691.0 BRT 4332 k,_)
1 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let me read a short statement that 2
we have been reading to the witnesses just for context and 3
then we'll take a short break before we get into the 4
questions.
5 Mr. Smith, this Board has been charged by the 6
Commission to determine the extent of involvement of 7
employees at TMI-2 in 1978 and '79 in leak rate test 8
falsification and other improper practices in leak rate 9
testing.
This will be your opportunity this morning to state 10 on the record your recollections and your perceptions about 11 your involvement in leak rate testing at that time and to 12 rebut or comment on any statements by other employees about 13 you or statements about investigators about your role in leak
-(~N
(_)
14 rate testing.
15 We have reviewed your prefiled testimony in the 16 light of the record that has already been developed in this 17 proceeding.
As I think you are aware, just yesterday and 18 today we have spoken with several people who work directly 19 with you.
Mr. Hartman was here several weeks ago and then --
20 we are not sure whether Mr. Blessing will be coming or not.
21 He is under subpoena to come and we are attempting to arrange 22 it -- a time for him to come.
But the other members of your 23 shift have already been here.
24 We may have some questions about your prefiled 25 testimony.
We may have questions based on what members of A
\\-)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Comage m336-6646
28691.0 BRT 4333
()
1 your shift have said about leak rate testing.
2 In addition, there are in the record two quite 3
extensive studies about leak rate testing, one conducted by 4
the NRC Staff and another, entirely separate study, conducted 5
by Mr. Stier on behalf of GPU Nuclear.
Both of those studies 6
are in the record and they both contain extensive analyses of 7
tests run on leak rates in the time period of interest.
The 8
Stier study has an analysis of every test that wasn't thrown 9
away and the NRR study has an analysis of every test during 10 the last six months of operation that wasn't thrown auay.
11 Those studies are in the record and they are to be 12 '
given whatever weight they are entitled to in light of i
13 testimony of witnesses and other documents that we have.
We
()
14 don't intend to go through the studies point by point and ask j
15 you about every test that your shift ever did, and indeed, in 16 view of the fact that your involvement in leak rate testing 17 was one or two steps removed from the people who did it-I 18 don't know that we'll get to particular tests but I just want 19 to comment on the fact that the studies are in the record and 20 they are there and we will be taking them into 21 consideration.
But our interest this morning is what your 22 actual experience was and we'll get to that after a, let's 23 say, 10-minute or so coffee break.
24 THE WITNESS:
Okay.
25 (Recess.)
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nanonwide Coserage 800-336-6646
~
28691.0 BRT 4354 7)
(_
1 JUDGE KELLEY:
We'll take just a minute, before we 2
take up with Mr. Smith, we discussed the question of 3
admitting the Bettenhausen affidavit and we've decided as 4
follows:
We are going to admit the affidavit.
We are not 5
going to call Mr. Bettenhausen.
And we have these further 6
comments r.o make.
7 In that connection we also want to put in the 8
record the portions of the FSAR cited in the Staff testimony 9
as the technical basis for the 1 gallon per minute leak rate 10 established for TMI-2 and the citations to the FSAR are as 11 follows:
Page 9.3-26 through 9.3-30, and 5.2-16 through 12 5.2-27.
We'll give counsel an opportunity, if they want to 13 comment on whether those pages are properly inclusive, F
14 whether there's something they object to, let us know or seek 15 leave to comment in the next day or so.
But it is our 16 proposal to put in those sections of the FSAR, along with the 17 Bettenhausen affidavit.
18 We'd just say further in that connection that we a
19 recognize the Staff opposed admission of the affidavit but it i
20
'also opposed Mr. Bettenhausen's appearance as a witness.
The 21 other parties -- Mr. Blake, at least, favored putting in the 22 affidavit without a further witness.
That was Mr. McBride's 23 initial proposition that it be put in and the other parties, 24 I believe, were not in disagreement with the approach we were 25 taking.
(2) i l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage 800-336-(M6
-. ~ -.. _.
I 28691.0 BRT 4335 m
is_)
1 We would say in addition that we are letting it in 2
for what it is worth.
Our ruling letting it in does not 3
imply it is the Board's view that any particular part of it 4
is particularly relevant or particularly essential to the 5
record.
We are simply letting it in on the basis it may have 6
-- parts of it may have some relevance to issues before the 7
house.
/
8 So, that's our disposition on that and, again, if 9
any party wishes to comment on the portions of the FSAR that 10 we are letting in, please let us know about that within the 11 next day or so.
12 MR. MC BRIDE:
Could I make a request, Judge 13 Kelley?
I may be wrong and may have it around here
(_,/
14 somewhere, but I don't have the 20 or so volumes of the FSAR 15 in my office or in the hearing-room.
Could we get a copy of 16 those pages that you recited?
I'd sure appreciate it.
It 17 would be a lot easier to put our hands.on it.
18 MS. WAGNER:
We are having copies made today.
19 MR. MC BRIDE:
I would like to have a chance to 20 review it before I respond to your comments.
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
22 MR. MC BRIDE:
Could I also, while I'm thinking 23 about it, just to make sure the record is put together as it 24 ought to be, Mr. Blake and I had a conversation off the 25 record and it appears to him, and I have no information to (2)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8Gk336-6646
28691.0 BRT 4336 G
'x_)
I the contrary, that Mr. Haverkamp's testimony is the only 2
testimony that was n'ot bound into the record.
I recognize 3
the comment you made about Judge Cotter's concerns so I don't 4
necessarily feel that it has to be bound into the record if 1
5 that's an expense problem, although I don't think that's a 6
particularly major consideration because all the other 7
testimony has been bound in.
But if it is not bound in, then 8
I think we certainly have to make the Haverkamp testimony an 9
exhibit so that the record later will reflect properly that 10 that testimony was a part of the record.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
The difficulty there, I think, is 12 that the Haverkamp testimony while itself, while not too 13 long, has rather voluminous exhibits.
In fact, I think we
()
14 now have three exhibits to think about.
Were we up to 18 or 15 19?
16 MR. MC BRIDE:
We have already admitted 19.
The 17 next would be 20.
18 JUDGE KELLEy:
Should we assign to Mr. Haverkamp's 19 testimony and the associated exhibits, the number 20?
20 MR. MC BRIDE:
I would propose that would be the 21 right way to go.
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
The Bettenhausen affidavit, then, 23 could become Exhibit 21.
24 (Exhibits 20 and 21 identified.)
25 MS. WAGNER:
Judge Kelley, in your ruling on the O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3C-347-3%10 Nationwid-Cos erag-800-336-6M6
28691.0 BRT 4337
()
1 Bettenhausen affidavit you noted the Staff opposed admission 2
of the affidavit but also opposed bringing Mr. Bettenhausen 3
down.
I just wanted to clarify that it was our position that 4
if the Board admitted the affidavit, Mr. Bettenhausen should 5
be called.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Fine.
Okay.
7 The Staff will be providing the Haverkamp 8
statement if they haven't already, and the FSAR, and the 9
Bettenhausen affidavit copies should come from Mr. McBride, I 10 should think.
11 MR. MC BRIDE:
I don't have a copying machine with 12 me.
I only have one.
We could bring them in tomorrow if 13 that doesn't foul up the reporter.
O
(,)
14 JUDGE KELLEY:
We have a spare up here.
Off the 15 record.
16 (Discussion off the record.)
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
So, based on the prior discussion, 18 Exhibits 20 and 21 are admitted and we are reserving ruling 19 on Exhibit 22 pending receipt of any comment by tomorrow 20 sometime.
21 (Exhibits 20 and 21 received.)
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
We are back on the record.
23 Mr. Smith, again forgive our interruption for 24 procedural matters.
I don't know if I introduced ourselves.
25 I'm Judge Kelley, this is Judge Bright on my right and Judge
<~1 v
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-370)
Nationwide Coscrage 800-336-6M6
-28691.0 BRT 4338 4
1 Carpenter on my left.
Judge Carpenter will take over the 2
microphone now.
3 EXAMINATION BY THE EOARD 4
BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
5 Q
Mr. Smith, the Board recognizes that we are asking 6
questions about events, and more specifically your opinions 7
and your feelings as they existed in 1978 and 1979.
And we 8
realize this is a burden and a difficult' thing to do.
9 In every question that I'll ask, the frame of 1C reference is always the time period 1978-1979.
I just want i
11 you to be aware that we realize you have been interviewed by 12 others, this whole topic has been batted around for really an 13 unreasonable period of time.
I just wanted to give you that O(_/
14 perspective.
15 In the time period 1978-1979, and more 16 specifically while you were shift supervisor, did you 17 consider the leak rate surveillance test as what I'd call 18
" routine administrative task" rather than a surveillance test 19 which you needed in order to operate the plant safely?
20 A
It was a routine evolution, yes.
21 Q
Did you distinguish it from other surveillance 22 tests or was it pretty much like all of them?
23 A
Well, it was
-- the leak rate surveillance was 24 handled just a little bit different than the other 25 surveillances.
I I
' ()
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-(486 i
28691.0 BRT 4339 gS A) 1 Q
Was the leak rate test required by the technical m
2 specifications?
3 A
Yes.
4 Q
Did the shift that you supervised carry out 5
surveillances that weren't required by technicai 6
specifications?
7 A
Yes.
1 8
Q What was the difference between the ones that were 9
required by the technical specifications and the ones that 10 weren't required?
11 A
In how we handled them or paper-wise?
I don't 12 think there was any difference between the two; whether it 13 was a tech spec requirement or a nontech spec requirement.
(O 14 Q
So you saw no particular significance to those
.j 15 that were identified in the technical specifications?
16 A
No.
17 Q
Well, if you viewed the leak rate surveillance 18 test as essentially a routine administrative task, we are 19 trying to understand why you, and apparently on the record 20 that has been developed to date, concluded that the technical 21 specification requirement for measurements of unidentified 22 leakage were not essential for safe plant operation.
It was 23 '
treated more as a routine paperwork exercise rather than a --
24 something that was essential for safe plant operation.
25 A
Well, leak rate was, you know, it's essential,
(~)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Courage 800-336-6646
28691.0 BRT 4340 13
(_)
1 okay, as far as routine.
You know, once a shift, something 2
that you do, you know, becomes very routine.
3 Q
I agree
-- that the technical specifications 4
require you to run it once a shift?
5 A
No.
That was administrative.
6 Q
Would you say it was a sound administrative 7
decision as applied to the shift that you supervised?
8 A
Yes.
It's more conservative.
9 Q
Paesn't the procedure for running the surveillance 10 test require that you do the test under steady state 11 conditions?
12 A
Yes.
13 Q
Is " steady state conditions" something that
)
14 frequently occurs?
15 A
In most -- yer, most nuclear plants run at steady 16 state operation, 1500 percent power, yes.
There's a-17 definition of steady state.
You know?
18 Q
Yes.
The precedure doesr.'t tell you very much 19 about that, does it?
20 A
No, it doesn't.
21 Q
In your mind what did steady state mean?
22 A
That all plant parameters were basically stable.
23 Q
That would mean that operator action should not 24 occur while the test wac being run; is that correct?
25 A
Tha t's true, n
v ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347-37(x)
Nationwide Coserage 8043.W6646
28691.0 BRT 4341
("5
(_j 1
Q So it would seem to me if you were going to take 2
an hour out of each and every shift and require that no 3
operator actions which would disturb steady state operation 4
should occur during that hour, that that was kind of an 5
imposition on the system?'
6 A
No, not really.
7 Q
So you feel it wasn't any problem for the 8
operators to find an hour when they could knowingly avoid 9
disturbing the plant conditions so that the surveillance test 10 would be properly conducted?
11 A
That's true.
12 Q
Were you aware during 1978 and 1979 that there 13 were some problems with this surveillance test?
im i
/
14 A
Yes.
15 Q
What, to the best of your memory, what was the 16 nature of those problems?
17 A
The problem was the sof tware in the computer in 18 Unit 2.
You know, it just wasn't that reliable.
19 Q
Software to me is software --
20,
A Well, computer program.
21 Q
You mean it produced a persistent error?
If 22 there's an error in the program, every time you run the test 23 you get that error?
24 A
That's true.
25 Q
So you felt that there was --
rd ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3?(U Nationwide Coverage RO 336-6M6 r.-
28691.0 BRT 4342
.,q.
(,_)
1 A
Yes, sir.
2 Q
If you felt there was a persistent error, 3
uncorrected problem in the computer program, how could you.
4 accept any of the surveillance test results as being valid?
5 A
You know it printed out at such a wide scope or 6
random pick, you know, it was probably plus or ninus 2, 3,
7 whatever the number may be.
8 Q
You felt that the machine itself in some way was 9
fickle?
10
-A Fickle?
11 Q
Well, to me, like a calculator
-- it's a little 12 more complicated than a calculator, but what it does 13 essentially is perform calculations?
(
14 A
That's true.
15 Q
When you ask it to add 2 and 2, would it give you 16 4?
17 A
But the parameters it looked at, okay, were not 18 always the same.
19 Q
Well, was that the computer or the input to the 20 computer?
21 A
Well, that's the input to the computer, yes.
22 Q
Would you consider the input to the computer to be 23 part of the software?
24 A
That's probably a true statement.
I don't know.
25 Q
Is that what you mean by software?
(2)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage RM33MM6
- - -. -...., - -,. -,,...., -. - -,. =,, -,.. -... - - - _.. -. - - -...,
28691.0 BRT 4343
(%
(_)
1 A
Software to me means computer program.
Input and 2
output.
The output does something to hardware to make it 3
move.
4 Q
Well, for example, as I understand it, there was a 5
time period where the level in the reactor coolant drain tank 6
had to be read by going to some place and reading.a meter 7
readout and then coming back and telling the computer what 8
the value of that parameter was.
Does that jibe with your 9
memory?
10 A
I don't recall that; no.
11 Q
Well, if you had to put sonaething like
-- at the 12 end of the test the software program caused the computer to 13 type out a question to the operator:
Have you added any
()
14 water?
And then the operator would type in whether or not he 15 had added water.
Would you consider that input by the 16 operator of the amount of water that had been added during 17 the test to be part of the software?
18 A
Well, you are getting beyond the scope of my 19 knowledge on computers, okay?
I don't know how ne done 20 that.
I d,n -t know how the operator -- if the operator typed 21 anything in.
I don't know that.
l Q
Well, of course these things are fairly fresh in 22 23 my mind.
I just sat here for six weeks and listened to 24 people talk about them.
25 What I'm still trying to understand is this O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide t'oserage 800-336- % 86
28691.0 BRT-4344
()
1 identification that you have.just made that.there was a i
2 deficiency in this leak rate surveillance test and that 3
deficiency was never documented in any way.
Can you help us 4
to understand how it was that your shift ran these 5
surveillance tests, week in and week out, month after month 6
after month, witn no identification of any deficiencies 7
associated with the test?
8 A
Well, at that time, you know, we just didn't do 4
9 business that way.
.There was no deficiency piece of paper 10 generated.
You know, it Was basically verbal.
11 Q
Would you say that the fact that deficiencies 12 weren't noted was a violation of administrative procedure 13 1010?
()
14 A
Oh, I say that now, since the investigation, you 15 know.
I recall that procedure does call for you to do that.
16 I have been shown that.
+
i 17 At that time, you know, I didn't realize it.
18 Q
Was it that in your training you weren't exposed 19 to administrative procedure 1010?
20 A
Training?
21 Q
Yes.
22-A I don't recall any training on that particular 23 subject.
24 Q
You never got exposed in any formal way to the 25 existence of administrative procedure 1010 and what it (2) t l
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
~
i mm.
s.o _ m c _...
28691.0 BRT 4345
<g
(_j -
1 requires?
2 A
I don't recall of any.
You know, I'm not saying 3
-- you know, we had formal training programs, you know.
All 4
licensed operators, of course, attended a --
5 Q
Yes.
Well, once again, you use the expression 6
"that wasn't the way you did business," so far as I 7
understand it, management of this company thought they had 8
specified the way you were going to do business by creating
.9 this procedure.
10 A
That's true.
But, you know, the procedures --
11 there's a lot of gray areas in procedures.
I'm sure many --
12 you can't commit them all to memory and, you know.
13 Q
Well, for other surveillance tests, you ran a
()
14 surveillance test and there's something wrong so you didn't 15 think the test was valid.
Didn't the procedures call for 16 either identifying that test as an exception or as a 17 deficiency?
j 18 A
Yes, sir.
19 Q
What I'm trying to understand is why this leak 20 rate surveillance test was considered to be something 21 different?
22 A
You know, it's just a carryover from Unit 1.
23 That's the way we done business, and that surveillance, that 24 particular surveillance was handled differently than any 25 other surveillance.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202.t47-3700 Nationmide Coserage kn336-f646
28691.0 BRT 4346
. Q (m/
1 Q
We don't choose to and don't find in the 2
boundaries of this proceeding to consider the details of what 3
went on at Unit 1.
But to the extent that-that was the 4
genesis of this practice, do you know why at Unit 1 this was 5
the practice?
6 A
No, I don't.
I don't know.
7 Q
So this leak rate surveillance test just developed 8
this funny, different, peculiar characteristic, that it was 9
considered to be different from all the rest of the 10 surveillances required by the technical specifications.
11 A
That's --
J l
12 Q
-- just by chance?
13 A
You know, I really don't recall the origin how it
)
14 got started.
I really, you know, I don't know that.
15 Q
On page 3 of your prepared statement, in the 16 second full paragraph, the third sentence you say:
i 17
" Exceptions and deficiencies were not used; possibly for the 18 same reason."
And it isn't clear to me what you are 19 referring to there when you say "the same reason."
Would you 20 amplify that just a little bit?
21 A
Well, because the two -- you know. he did not i
22 document it and he also did not submit an ELD, you.aow?
23 They both run together.
Because that's just basically the 24 way we handied, you know, the leak rate surveillance.
j l
25 Q
Well, I think the record to date certainly O
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i mm.m
~.s _ m a.,.,.
l28691.0.
-l BRT 4347 l
l
)
^
1 supports the statement.that, yes, that's.the way it was l
2 done.
We are trying to understand why.
j 3
A Just that we didn't do things right.
That's all.
i a
4 Q
You seen -- it seems almost whimsical.
I 5
A It's how we got started.
We didn't do things the 6
right way at that time.
l 7
Q Leaving'that subject of why administrative 8
procedure 1010 wasn't inviolate, turning over to page 4 of 9
your prepared statement, the.beginning of the third line 10 reads:
"If the plant appeared to be in steady state, we 11 would claim a leak rate over 1 gallon per minute invalid."
I 12 don't understand that.
i 13 If the plant appeared to be in steady state, why
(
14 would you declare a leak rate to be invalid?
I 15 A
If the plant is in steady state, you know, it's t
16 just by eyesight.
When you say " steady state," the rods 17 aren't moving, the water inventory,isn't changing.
You know, i
l 18 it's a judgment call.
i 19 Q
Well, it would seem to me if the plant were in i
20 steady state, that would be a basis for declaring
-- weren't i
21 in steady state, that would be a basis.for calling it i
22 invalid, but now you say if it is in steady state anything 23 over 1 is invalid.
I don't understand the basis for that, j_
24 A
But it's only a judgment call, whether it's in
).
25 l steady state or not.
That's an operator's, you know,
!O i
1 I
1
[
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
20L347-3700 Nationaide Coverage 8 0 3364646
.--y..,,,--._,__...-,_~..-.-,,_....m-
... - - _,....., _,,._ _ _..~.,_.
28691.0 DRT 4348
,O
(_/
1 judgment.
7 Q
Well, given that he thinks it's in steady state, 3
why would a leak rate over 1 gallon per minute be claimed to 4
be invalid?
5 A
Because we -- we didn't rely on the computer.
It 6
was just a tool to the, you know, give you some indication.
7 We didn't -- it wasn't that accurate.
8 Q
I still don't get the thrust of this sentence.
9 Are you -just saying that because -- see, I don't see the 10 relationship of the beginning part of the sentence that says 11 "if the following prevailed," then one could conclude 12 something.
13 A
Well, the statement as it stands, okay, steady O(_/
14 state operation can be at any power level, okay?
15 Q
Yes.
16 A
You know, it can be 50 percent power, 60 percent, 17 when you refer to steady state and we are not changing power, 18 not feeding and bleeding, changing inventory, it's a judgment 19 call of the operator.
If the plant is leaking, you could see 20 that.
21 Q
Is the thrust of the sentence that any leak rate 22 over 1 gallon per minute was just automatically considered to 23 be invalid?
24 A
No.
No.
I don't agree with that statement.
25 Q
Well, I'm trying to understand what your sentence n
v
]
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(U Nationwide Cmerage mn33m
.__.m__
28691.0 BRT-4349 O
i._/
1 says.
2 A
Well, as it stands, you know, we just didn't 3
arbitrarily throw every one out that came out of the computer 4
greater than 1 gpm.
We did not do business that way.
5 You know, if we had consistently, two or three, 6
you know, we'll go look for leaks, find out if we did have 7
any leaks, see if the computer was valid.
Send operators out 8
to look, check water inventories.
And if we found leaks, you 9
know, we would repair them or account for them or measure 10 them.
11 Q
Why would finding a leak subsequent to running the 12 test invalidate the test?
It would seem to me at the time 13 the test was run, if there was a leak, that was a valid
()
14 tes t'.
That's what led you to go look for the leak.
15 A
That's true.
16 Q
So why would the test be invalid?
17 A
It probably wasn't.
Okay?
18 Q
Were such tests filed?
19 A
Greater than 1 gallon per minute leak rates?
20 Q
Yes.
21 A
I think I've heard that there were, you know.
I 22 don't recall of any myself personally.
23 Q
Do you recall times when leaks were found as a 24 result of investigations that were initiated because of leak 25 rate tests?
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 80(F336-tM6
28691.0 BRT 4350 7-)s.
t 1
A Sure.
No specific, you know, incidents.
I know s_
2 we found leaks.
3 Q
You are not saying it was rare.
4 A
And you would go fix them.
You know.
5 Q
Well, since that's familiar to you, doesn't it 6
appear probable that there was more than one occasion where 7
the leak rate test surveillance showed leakage of greater 8
than 1 gallon per minute and that plant inspections were 9
carried out and the leak was identified, and therefore the 10 leak rate test was invalidated or was discarded?
11 A
I don't know if that's a true statement or not, if 12 it was.
I don't know that.
13 Q
Following on down page 4 of your prepared
)
14 statement, the last sentence on that page, you say:
"I 15 simply did not comprehend at the time that my concern for the 16 plant's safe operation should not have been given priority 17 over the strict interpretation of the technical 18 specifications that I should have employed, and I would now 19 employ."
1 20 Why was there a conflict between your concern for i
21 the plant's safe operation and the technical specifications?
i 22 A
I guess the answer to that, you know, plant safety 23 was very important to me.
You know, the technical 24 specifications were also.
But, you know, plant safety was 25 very important to everybody.
Of course, the 1 gallon a O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-1700 Nanonaide Coscrage 8(0 336-(M6
~..-
I 28691.0 BRT 4351
,)
1 minute is a very conservative number, I would think.
I don't 2
remember the basis for that number anynore but I'm sure it 3
was a very conservative number.
t 4
Q Well, as I read your sentence, you know, it 5
implies that if you had followed the technical specifications r
6 in some way you couldn't have given priority to plant i
safety.
Was that your intent in that sentence?
8 A
I never said that we didn't follow the technical 9
specifications.
j 10 Q
Well, what I'm mystified about is you say that the 11 plant's safe operation should not have been given priority.
12 That surprises me.
i 13 A
Plant safety was a priority.
()
14 Q
So why the conflict with the technical 15 specification?
16 A
I don't think there was any conflict with the 1
17 technical specifications.
18 Q
Maybe you could express your thought that's in 19 this sentence in different words and see if it helps me here.
I 2J A
We always strived to comply with the technical 1
21 specifications.
To the best of my knowledge, I have never 4
22 violated technical specifications.
23 Q
Why do you use the word " priority" in this j
24 sentence, as though safety and technical specifications are 25 in conflict and you have to give one or the other priority?
(2)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 202 Nationwide Coserage stk336-6646
.. _ _ __.. _,. - _ -. _ _- 3 47 -3 7t t ).,._.._,_ _ -__._,-__.._ -..__..,-_ -.,-. -_
28691.0
~BRT 4352 O.
(_/
1 A
The technical specification is law.
You know?
2 Q
Yes.
3 A
And I complied with the law to the best of my 4
ability, to the best of my knowledge.
5 Q
As I read the sentence I get the feeling, which 6
may be mistaken, that you felt that the technical 7
specifications really weren't based on concern for safety?
8 A
No.
I don't agree with that.
}
9 Q
That's why I don't see the conflict.
10 A
I'm sure every technical specification written, 11 not every one but -- you know -- basically geared to plant i
12 safety and to protect the public.
13 Q
Turning over to page 35 of your prepared
)
14 statement.
At the top of the page you say, "The operators 15 with whom I worked complained to me about the computer 16 problems with the leak rate.
This was no surprise because 17 the computer program produced inconsistent results from day 18 one in Unit 2."
19 When the operators explained to you about computer 20 problems with the leak rate, what actions did you take?
21 A
You know, I knew they had problems with the 22 computer.
Like I say, I'm not too heavy on computers, and 23 they spent a great deal of time working on the program.
So 24 as long as, you know, management or whatever you want to call 25 it, you know, was taking care of the problem, I probably i
(2)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
w.w.n.
c-,,.
nu-
.-.,~.., -..,...,...
.-,,,,_-.,n___n_..
. -,,, _ _, - _ _ _,.. _,,,, ~
28691.0 BRT:
4353 k
1-didn't do anything.
2 Q
What led you to think that management was doing 3
something?
4 A
Because they worked --
5 Q
Did you send in any requests that this problem be 6
looked into?
7 A
I'm sure there were work requests, you know.
You 8-know, we handled problems -- I don't know if there was a 9
written document handed to the computer people to correct 10 this problem.
I don't know that.
11 Q
Well, we certainly haven't seen any evidence of 12 it, of you or anybody else ever initiating any request that 13 the problem be resolved.
So what did you do when the
)
14 operators complained ~to you?
What did you tell the 15 operators, as you recall?
16 A
Well, depends on what they told me.
The statement 17 is too general.
18 Q
Well, I'm quoting your statement that they 19 complained.
I don't know what they said either.
I wasn't 20 there.
I was hoping that you might remember what, if not the 21 exact words, but what the thrust of the complaints were?
22 A
If an operator come to se and say, you know, I'm 23 having trouble with a particular surveillance -- it may be 24 leak rate or anything -- I would look into the problem.
25 Q
Did you look into this problem, leak rate (2) 1 e
t ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 S 7 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
,-,--,n.
-28691.0 BRT 4354
)
1 surveillance test?
2 A
Not to my knowledge.
P 3
Q Did you feel at that time -- I think you stated 4
both in your prepared statement and here today that you felt 5
most of the problem was associated with the computer in some 6
way?
7 A
That's true.
8 Q
Did you feel that you could demonstrate that the 9
plant was being operated in compliance with the technical 10 specifications if there was this computer problem?
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
How could you do that?
13 A
As I remember, we was required to have a less than
/
14 1 gpm leak every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
And to the best of my knowledge, 15 we had always complied with that.
16 Q
How did you know that?
17 A
How did I personally know it?
18 Q
Yes.
As shift supervisor how did you know that 19 during your shift the plant was operated in compliance with 20 the technical specification?
21 A
Well, I basically rely on the CRos or shift 22 foremen to tell me that we weren't.
You know, because I 23 didn't operate at the console or anything like that.
i i
24 Q
But if you were aware that there was a deficiency 1
25 in the computer program in the surveillance test, how could i
- ()
i i-l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3
.n.
x.o_ um_..
28691.0 BRT 4355
()
1 you -- and the surveillance test was, as I understand it, the 2
only quantitative basis for estimating leakage.
There were 3
other qualitative indications.
The only quantitative way of 4
doing it, and you recognized there was a problem with this 5
surveillance test, how could you go on operating this plant 6
feeling that you knew that you were in compliance?
7 A
You know, like I say, I didn't have that much 8
faith in the computer program.
The company was working on 9
it, management or whatever.
And I felt that I was within the 10 tech specs and the plant was operating safely.
11 Q
What's such a mystery here to me is, if I 12 understand the organizational structure properly, then there 13 should have been a chorus of voices to the shift supervisor
(
14 or in writing saying:
Look, we nee this test because it's 15 required so that we can demonstrate that we are operating 16 within the technical specifications.
We haven't got the test 17 so we c.an't do our job.
18 That is what is mysterious to me.
This laid-back 19 attitude, well, maybe someday maybe somebody will fix it, 20 maybe.
Is that a fair statement of the attitude?
21 A
No.
I didn't like " laid back."
22 You know, my knowledge of computers is very 23 limited and, you know, and they was working on it is all I 24 know.
I don't know if it takes two months or --
i 25 Q
Well, meanwhile, as a shift supervisor you had a n
V ll l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j m m..
sm_ m c__
28691.0 BRT 4356
/%
' (_)
I responsibility for demonstrating that the plant was operating 2
within technical specifications.
I agree with you about the 3
computer not being your thing.
4 A
Okay.
5 Q
But meanwhile, your thing was the technical 6
specifications.
7 A
To the best of my knowledge I did not violate the 8
technical specifications.
I'm sure, you know, that we had a 9
good leak rate within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
10 Q
If you thought there was a real deficiency in the 11 computer program and therefore the printout and the results 12 shown in that printout were unreliable, why didn't you 13 consider, as the procedure describes, carrying out a manual 0) s_
14 calculation to see whether the computer was telling you the 15 truth or not?
i 16 A
I don't recall if I ever -- if my shift ever done 17 a hand calculation.
I'm sure somebody had.
You know, I know 18 the nuclear engineers used to play with the numbers all the 19 time.
I didn't require my shift to do a hand calculation.
20 0
Do you see my point?
If I think that some 21 computer program is deficient and therefore it can't carry 22 out a calculation for me and the procedure tells me how to 23 carry it out by hand, then I certainly don't use the suspect 4
24 computer program.
I'd go ahead and use the hand calculation.
25 A
I don't know.
We just didn't do it.
O l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8 M 3 % 6646
28691.0
-BRT 4357 1
Q Do you think the attitude about the surveillance 2
test might have been different if you had had to carry out j
3 the calculations by hand?
4 A
The attitude different?
5 Q
Yes.
r 6
A No.
I don't think so.
7 Q
To be a little clearer, as I understand it, the i
8 mechanics of this, you just went over and typed in sor.e code 9'
into the computer and waited for an hour and it spit out a 4
i 10 piece of paper.
If you didn't like the piece of paper, you 11 typed the code in again, waited an hour and got another piece 12 of paper.
If you didn't like one of those you would do it 13 over again.
14 If you had had to read the parameters someplace j
15 and go ahead and make a calculation that took some time, 16 don't you think there might have been a different attitude 17 about these numbers?
18 A
Well, it probably would have made the CROs mad, I 19 guess.
I 20 Q
It might have made their complaints a little more 21 audible?
22 A
That could be, I guess.
j 23 Q
Maybe the problem might have gotten fixed, which 24 it never was?
See, that's what I'm trying to understand.
j 25 How this problem went on month after month, never getting up
!O t
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 147 3700 Ntionwide Coserage 800 33MM6 m,
.~.. _,_._ _,___ _ _., __. ___,..... _ _,.... _ _ _ _.
28691.0 BRT 4358 (D'
x_j J.
to the point of something saying:
Come on, let's stop 2
fooling around, let's fix this.
3 A
They was working on it.
I don't know.
4 Q
But you didn't feel any impediment as far as your 5
responsibility to operate the plant and know that it was 6
within technical specifications because of this deficiency?
7 A
As far as I knew, to the best of my knowledge the 8
plant was in, within the technical specification limitations.
9 Q
I don't know of any evidence that shows that you 10 knew the plant was outside of it but I don't see how you knew 11 it was inside of it.
12 I
A I guess my eyes told me that or something.
I 13 don't know.
I always thought we had a good leak rate, you
(
14 know, every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
15 You've probably got evidence up there that says 16 that it was greater than 1, I don't know that.
17 Q
Just on the basis of your prepared statement, you 18 said that the computer program was no good?
19 A
It's not reliable.
20 Q
Okay.
So all the test results produced by that 21 program were not reliable.
Isn't that true?
22 A
Well, I don't know if I said -- it was just 23 random.
You know?
You could get minus 5, plus 5.
You 24 know?
25 Q
Granted.
So why would the, once in a while, when n/
s_.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Coserage 8(n336-6M6
,_-347-3700._ _
I 28691.0 BRT 4359
'Q
- t _j 1
you got a number between zero and 1, was that thought to be s
2 valid and other times it wasn't valid?
3 A
Random probability.
I don't know.
4 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
5 Q
When you say that as far as you knew every 72 6
hours you were getting a good leak rate, do you mean by that 7
that you knew every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> you were getting a piece of 8
paper that said less than 1 gallon per minute?
Or did you 9
mean you thought that you were getting an accurate leak rate 10 every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />?
11 A
Both.
12 Q
Both.
You actually thought that every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> 13 you were getting a measured leak rate of less than 1 gallon O)
(_
14 per minute which was accurate?
15 A
Yes.
I would say that.
16 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
17 Q
But on what basis did you conclude that one of 18 those pieces of paper was accurate and the other pieces 19 weren't?
That's what is mysterious to me.
20 A
Because if I would get two or three positive 21 numbers I'd probably go out and inspect for a leak.
We found 22 no leaks.
23 Say the next shift got a good leak rate, you know, 24 I believed it and I'm assuming the other people --
25 Q
But that is primarily based on your visual (1)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwioe Coserage Rin336-6M6
.-. _. -347 37(X).,, _ _. _
28691.0 BRT 4360 1
inspection?
2 A
That's true.
3 Q
Not on some sudden confidence in the computer?
~
4 A
That's right.
Right.
5 Q
Do you think it's fair to view the way this leak 6
rate surveillance test was carried out by the shift for which 7
you were the supervisor, and specifically, your supervisory 8
activities, to have been a matter of neglect towards this 9
test?
10 A
Did I think it was fair?
11 Q
Do you think it's a fair view, looking to the 12 period 1978-1979, that the way that this test was treated by 4
13 you and those that you supervised, as a matter of neglect?
n)
(_
14 A
Today I believe, back then, you know, we made a 15 mistake.
We just didn't do business like we should have done 16 business.
17 Q
This is your chance to put on this record your 18 views about that.
Staff has said that the plant was 19 operated, including your shifts, persistently, over and over i
20 and over again, in violation of procedures.
And as you have 21 acknowledged today --
4 22 A
I understand that.
We have learned an awful lot 23 since those days.
The procedures are more black and white l
24 now than they were back then, you know, because there were a 25 lot of gray procedures.
The industry, not only TMI, has (2)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2f)2-347 37(X)
Nationwide Coverage 80t%334M46
_ _, _. ____ _.._,.-.. ~
...m
.-,_,._,-..-___,..,____._,_---...---,---,...m
~,
f 28691.0 BRT-4361 (O
_/
1 changed.
The whole industry has changed, and I'm sure you 2
are well aware of that, and I've gotten a lot smarter; I'm 3
sure everybody that came in here to see you so far has got a 4
4 lot smarter since those days.
5 Q
Well, to the extent the procedures as you call 7
1 6
them, had gray areas, isn't that a matter that the procedures i
7 writer tried to allow you some' latitude, tried to make the 4
8 procedure not so stringent that perhaps it would cause 4
9 problems?
i 1
10 A
And in this business we've found out that you 11 can't leave too much latitude.
It has either got to be black 1
12 or white.
Because in shift work, you know, things get a 13 little hectic sometime and the operator has got to be given
()
14 very direct guide lines on how to do' business.
i 15 Q
Yes.
So, in your mind, I'm trying to look for a 1
4 16 root cause for this.
In your mind it is primarily that the 17 procedures were kind of limp?
I 18 A
I would say that; sure.
There were too many gray i
19 areas.
You know, the training back in those days, I'm sure, a
20 was not even close to what they are today..
The operators are 1
21 better trained, you know --
22 Q
That's a question in my mind, whether it wasn't 23 more a lack of adequate training than a deficiency in the 7
i 24 act, the pieces of paper on which the procedures are written t
25 on?
i
!(2) 4 1
1 i
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
u mm, m_ m c_,
28691.0 BRT 4362 1
A In those days it was very limited.
2 Q
And this procedure says run this test at steady 3
state and I see strip chart after strip chart it wasn't run 4
in steady state and then it turns out the operators were i
5 never trained to look at the strip chart and see in 60 6
minutes if it was in steady state.
They can just look at a 7
change in slope and say this is not steady state.
8 A
I agree with that statement.
9 Q
This is almost a commonsense level but there was 10 no training, apparently, to really bring this out.
What 11 should be done.
12 Well, thank you very much.
13 JUDGE BRIGHT:
I just have a few short questions
(
14 here.
15 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
16 Q
You state on page 5 of your testimony, about this 17 LER that we have heard so much about, you say that you -
"I la do not think that I was on shift when the incident leading to 19 the report occurred."
Do you recall that because you don't 20 recall what went on?
Or do you remember definitely you were 21 on vacation or on days off?
22 A
I just don't recall the incident at all, you know, i
23 leading up to the LER, what generated it, other than the fact 24 of reading it.
You know?
25 Q
When did you become aware that an LER had been
/~T
(_/
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8633MM6
_ _ _ _ _.. _ _. _... ~. _ _.. _..
28691.0 BRT 4363 1
issued?
2 A
I can't remember.
3 Q
Do you have any idea about that?
4 A
I have no idea.
5 Q
There must have been some talk about it when you 6
qot back from wherever you were.
Do you recall any of that?
7 A
As far as talking -- no, I don't.
8 Q
You say you don't recall reading it in your 9
testimony, but you did sign the check-off sheet, or you 10 initialed it.
11 A
That's true.
I would have done that because, you 12 know, where he was obligated to -- I think all licensed 13 people have to sign LERs.
I don't remember.
I don't recall k,)
14 exactly how that procedure worked.
15 Q
That is true.
They also are supposed to read them 16 before they sign them.
17 But you don't recall what was in the LER, do you?
18 A
No.
Only since, you know, an investigation --
19 Q
Well, everybody that we are talking about here I 20 would like to find out what you were thinking back before the 21 accident, 1ct's say.
22 So, and your shift did not operate any differently 23 than it had before the LER was issued?
24 A
Right.
25 Q
I believe you make that statement.
nU ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i mm.,
~.c_ m c_..
28691.0 BRT 4364
?
[ \\()
1 A
I believe that's true.
2 Q
one other matter, we have testimony that says 3
there was a notification which came down concerning leaving 4
bad leak rate tests lying around on desks or out in the open, 5
whatever.
On that specific point -- and this was shortly 6
after the events that led to the LER.
Specifically, V
7 Mr. Hoyt, who was here yesterday, recalls that directive, 8
intelligence, information, whatever you want to call it.
He 9
wasn't sure exactly how it was communicated to him but he was 10 almost positive that it was communicated to him to not leave 11 bad leak rate tests lying around from his shift supervisor 12 and he was almost certain that you were his shift 13 supervisor.
I believe you mentioned 90, 95 percent as the
()
14 time that you would be there.
I w$s wondering if you would 15 have any recollection of that?
16 A
You know, I don't recall giving him that directive 1
17 but I could have very easily.
18 Q
Well, if it's one of those things that shift 19 supervisors just happen to be -- put together, somebody would 20 just pass him the word.
This is a common enough occurrence 21 in plants, in almost any organization.
22 A
I believe that.
23 0
That it could just have been sort of a:
- Hey, 24 let's quit this sloppy leaving things around on desks, 25 whatever, and "better brace, boys," or something like that.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-3-47-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3M-6646
. =.
28691.0 BRT 4365 1
()
1 Is that your recollection?
2 A
Like I say I don't remember that particular 3
incident but I could have told them, you know, don't do that.
4 Q
Back before the accident -- this is a standard 5
question I ask everybody -- did you in your training or your 6
experience or this talking around with the fellows or 7
whatever, did you ever have the clear idea of what the safety 8
implications of the leak rate tests, the quantitative leak 9
rate tests were?
Particularly the 1 gallon per minute?
10 A
The basis for the 1 gallon per minute?
11 Q
Yes, sir.
12 A
I could have known that.
13 Q
You could have known that.
G(_j 14 A
Yes, right -- at this particular time I do not 15 remember the basis for 1 gallon per minute.
I do not now.
16 At that time, I was a licensed operator.
I could have known 17 the basis for the 1 gallon per minute, yes.
18 Q
Would the basis be that there is a statement in 19 the tech spec as to why 1 gallon per minute should be the 20 limit?
Could that possibly Le how --
21 A
Yes.
Because all tech specs, you know, the second 22 part of tech specs is the basis for the tech specs that are 23 in the front and I'm sure it is in there.
24 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Thank you sir, that's it.
25 Let's take five minutes.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coscrage 8(G336-6M6
. _, -. ~,. _, _ _. _ _.
28691.0 CRT 4366 1
(Reces s. )
2 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Mr. Smith, we have been informed 3
that you would like to, perhaps, clarify some of the things 4
that you and I were talking about earlier; is that correct?
5 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
I think there was a 6
misunderstanding between the questions and my answers.
7 MR. GEPHART:
May I direct the witness, Judge 8
Carpenter, to the particular areas?
9 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Certainly.
10 EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. GEPHART:
4 12 Q
Would you look at page 4, Mr. Smith, of your 13 prepared testimony.
Specifically the first full sentence at
()
14 the top, beginning with:
"If the plant appeared to be in 15 steady state, we would claim a leak rate over 1 gpm 16 invalid."
17 Do you see the sentence I'm referring to?
18 A
Yes.
19 Q
Judge Carpenter asked you why, if the plant 20 appeared to be in steady state, in essence, why would you 21 call a leak rate over 1 gpm invalid?
Why wouldn't you 22 believe it, if the plant was in steady state?
What did you 23 mean by that sentence?
If you looked, you did a leak rate, 24 it was over 1, the plant appears to be in steady state.
25 A
It only appears to be in steady state by my eyes, O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coscrage 800-33M646
28691.0 BRT 4367
(~ ~'\\
(_j 1
you know.
Evidently that's all I had to go by because the 2
computer -- I didn't have any confidence in it so I was using 3
my own experience and my knowledge.
4 Q
So if it were over 1 gpm and your eyeballs told 5
you that it didn't appear to be over 1 gpm; is that what you 6
meant to say?
7 A
Right.
That's what I was using.
8 Q
Down at the bottom, the last full sentence on that 9
- page, "I simply did not comprehend at the time that my 10 concern for the plant's safe operation should not have been 11 given priority over the strict interpretation of the tech 12 specs."
What did you mean by that?
13 A
I'm saying, basically the same thing.
You know,
^
/s
(_)
14 through my experience, my eyes, my knowledge of the plant, I 15 put more faith in that than I did any other piece of paper, I 16 guess.
You could say that.
17 Q
The word " concern" perhaps is not the proper 18 terminology to use there.
19 A
That's probably true.
20 MR. GEPHART:
Thank you.
21 EXAMINATION BY THE SOARD 22 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
23 Q
Mr. Smith, I want to discuss with you a subject 24 that I don't think we have really spoken to so far, and that 25 is, the subject of manipulation of leak rate tests by some of o/
~_
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2f)2-347-37f t)
Nationwide ~ overage 80lk336-6646 r
28691.0 BRT 4368
)
I the operators at TMI-2 and specifically by some of the 2
operators on your shift.
3 As I am sure you are aware, we have been charged 4
with looking at, particularly, allegations of manipulation.
5 The record is pretty extensive on what is involved in that.
6 There's more than one way to manipulate a leak rate test, or 7
so the record indicates.
Are you generally familiar with 8
these claims of falsification?
Have you read some of the 9
testimony; for example, Mr. Hartman's?
10 A
I have not read any other ones but my own.
I am 11 aware of what he says but I haven't read it.
12 Q
The perspective that I want both of us to have on 13 this subject is rather specific.
It's not the whole s) 14 waterfront.
Let me just state a couple of things by way of 15 summary for the record as I understand it.
If counsel thinks 16 it needs to be added to he can feel free to do so.
17 There is evidence in the record about a variety of 18 techniques for manipulating leak rate testings.
Two, I 19 think, were particularly notable so far as CRos on your shift 20 are concerned.
One was a technique of adding hydrogen during 21 a leak rate test for the purpose of affecting a result; that 22 is to say, for the purpose of getting a lower leak rate 23 number.
There has been a lot of discussion of how that can 24 be done in a technical manner.
Suffice it to say that there 25 is testimony in the record that a loop seal formed in one of s)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-h7-37(5)
Nationwide Coverage 8@336-fM6
28691.0 BRT 4369 f~h
(,)
I the reference legs of the instrument and in some fashion 2
resulted in a higher indication on the makeup tank level 3
indicator than would otherwise have occurred, and I can show 4
you a test in which that is evident.
That's one category.
5 That's what we mean by adding hydrogen.
6 There's a separate category of manipulation having 7
to do with water additions and, of course the simplest way, 8
if you want to manipulate the Jeak rate result, is to simply 9
add significant batch of water during the course of the test, 10 and when you come to the end of the test if you are supposed 11 to include in the computer calculation any water additions, 12 just tell the computer -- for example, if you add 60 galJons 13 of water and don't tell the computer in a one-hour test, you
()
14 can throw off the result by a gallon a minute.
Do you follow 15 me on that?
16 A
Yes, sir.
17 Q
Right.
120 gallons, 2 gallons a minute, and so 18 on.
19 So, when I say " manipulation," there are some 20 other kinds of manipulation that we have some evidence about 21 but I think for present purposes that's all we need to refer 22 to.
Those are two principal techniques that are discussed 23 repeatedly in the record.
24 In the case of your shift, shift E, we have, of 25 course, Mr. Hoyt is the foreman and Mr. Booher, Mr. Harts.ian O
. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M-M7-3700 Nanonwide Cmerage 800-336-6646
28691.0 BRT 4370 g-)
(,/
1 and Mr. Blessing are CROs; Blessing for a time was a trainee 2
and then later became a CRO, as I understand it.
And it is 3
to me rather striking that there are six different shifts, A 4
through F.
And on three of the six shifts, one or more CROs 5
has admitted that he manipulated a leak rate test.
One such 6
person on shift D, Mr. Coleman; one such person on shift C, 7
Mr. Congdon; nobody admitted it on shifts A, B or F, nor do I 8
suggest necessarily that they should.
Just the fact that 9
they didn't.
But on shift E, there are two people, Hartman 10 and Blessing, both of whom admit that they nanipulated leak 11 rate tests.
Mr. Booher denies manipulating leak rate tests.
12 The extent of his involvement in manipulation on the record 13 we have before us is disputed to some extent.
l
()
14 But two people at least, two out of the three 15 CROs, have said that they were manipulating tests.
16 In Mr. Blessing's case, he admitted using hydrogen 17 to manipulate or at least attempt to manipulate tests.
And 18 Mr. Hartman admits to hydrogen,. water and possibly other 19 techniques.
He was rather versatile, it seems.
20 But we have a picture of shift E where there was 21 quite a bit of evidence of manipulation.
22 In the case of Mr. Blessing, I'm looking at a 23 statement he gave the NRC investigators back in 1980, on 24 April 10, 1980, one portion in particular I'll just read and 25 I'll ask you to comment on this.
This is page 2 at the C;)
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
ncay
~~ + cy
I 26691.0 BFT 4371 k_m) 1 bottom paragraph in the middle of the paragraph:
"He 2
emphasized this was no secret that hydrogen was being added 3
to the makeup tank during the running of the reactor coolant 4
surveillance test and it was totally common practice.
He 5
said it was his opinion supervisors and foremen were well 6
aware of this practice.
He again reiterated that nine out of 7
10 times the hydrogen addition did not work and therefore was 8
not pertinent to this issue.
When specifically asked what 9
foremen were aware of the hydrogen additions he stated he was 10 confident that Dick Hoyt, his shift foreman was well aware of 11 the hydrogen addition during the leak rate test.
When asked 12 about the other shift foremen and supervisors in the plant he 13 stated it was his opinion that because it was such common n
(_)
14 knowledge, all the foremen should have known about the 15 practice.
Referring to an operations department personnel 16 roster he identified F.
Scheimann, W.T. Conaway, Adams, A.W.
17
- Miller, C.L.
Guthrie, who are the Unit 2 shift foremen.
18 Blessing did not provide any supportive information as a 19 basis for this assertion."
20 That's the end of the quotation.
But I guess the 21 thrust of what Blessing had to say at that time was:
Well, I 22 was doing it and everybody knew it, including foremen and 23 supervisors, although he didn't refer to you specifically.
24 Would you comment on Mr. Blessing's assessment of 25 not only what he eas doing but what other people knew about (1)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 33MWt6
.. ~,
28691.0 BRT 4372 fsU 1
it?
2 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, before he does, I 3
just wanted to make one other observation.
I'm not sure it's 4
clear'tc Mr. Smith -- I know it is clear to you from what you 5
read -- what you read from was a report of Mr. Blessing's 6
interview and not Mr. Blessing's actual words.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Correct.
It's a summary of 8
interview, if you want to call it that.
It's not a verbatim 9
transcript.
But we are taking into account the fact that 10 there were -- that it is not a verbatim transcript.
We are 11 assuming that it is a reasonably accurate representation of 12 the substance of what he said.
I believe in the subsequent 13 interview he read this interview and affirmed its accuracy.
%,)
14 So I don't think that fact, the fact it is not a transcript, 15 detracts from the thrust of what he had to say.
16 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
17 Q
So, do you have any comment on the quotation I 18 gave you from the Blessing --
19 A
Being a shift supervisor I was, you know, quite 20 far removed from watching day-to-day, or hour-by-hour 21 operators operate the console, whether leak rates or bleed 22 and feed-and things like that.
Adding hydrogen to the makeup 23 tank, of course I have heard many times.
I never believed in 24 the philosophy.
Nobody ever convinced me that it af fected l
25 the leak rate.
And as I recall, right now, there was no law O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nanonwide Coserage 80tA336-tM6
28691.0 BRT 4373
/m
(_)
1 against adding hydrogen while you were doing the leak rate.
2 And as far as I remember --
3 Q
Well, there wasn't a law in the sense of there 4
being any explicit procedure saying, don't add hydrogen 5
during a leak rate test -- is that what you are referring to?
6 A
That's right.
There was a band, a pressure band, 7
as I remember, right on the console, you know.
You operated 8
me.keup tank pressure between two numbers and there was no 9
limitation when you could add it and when you couldn't.
10 Q
I think what I'm interested in here, though, is 11 something rather more specific.
I'm aware of the fact that 12 there was a band for adding hydrogen and people said -- they 13 said in this case, that I added the hydrogen to keep it
()
14 within the band.
But I'm talking about a different kind of 15 hydrogen addition, one for the explicit purpose of producing 16 a phony result in a leak rate test.
That's the reason it is 17 done.
That's what Blessing said he was doing.
That's what 18 he wanted to do.
And he says that everybody else knew about 19 it, including the supervirors and the foremen.
20 Now, do you agree with his perception?
21 A
No, I do not agree.
I would have no knowledge of l
22 '
him adding hydrogen while he was doing a makeup -- or a leak 23 rate.
I would have no knowledge.
24 Q
So you doubt he was doing what he said he did?
25 A
I would have no knowledge.
I don't know that.
(~s U
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 35m Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
28691.0 BRT 4374 1
Q I'm asking you a somewhat different question --
2 A
I was not aware that he was doing that.
3 Q
You are not aware that he was doing it?
4 A
No, sir.
5 Q
Does it come as a surprise to you that he was 6
doing.it?
7 A
Yes.
8 Q
Do you think that the workxng relationships being 9
what they were and the nature of the leak rate being what it 10 was, that it would have been possible for somebody like 11 Blessing, who thought he had a trick technique for getting a 12 leak rate resuJt under 1, that he would do that on his owit l
13 hook and his foreman wouldn't know about it and supervisor
()
14 wouldn't know about it?
15 A
What I know of John Blessing, I would not expect i
16 him to do that.
I took -- you know, as a supervisor I judge 17 people by their character or whatever; you know?
I didn't l
18 think he would intentionally do that.
If he did, it was -- I i 19 didn't know about it.
i 20 Q
But my question -- maybe I wasn't entirely clear; 21 what I'm trying to understand -- what am I supposed to make L
22 of-this?
I have a statement here from a guy who is a CRO l
23 saying:
Sure, I did that.
It was perfectly well known.
I 24 didn't hide it.
That's the thrust of what he is saying.
And 25 you are telling me:
I didn't know about it.
From your s
l l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
20 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
28691.0 BRT 4375
(_/
1 side.
I'm trying to understand what is going on here.
2 Is it possible, possible -- first, is it possible 3
that somebody like Blessing could have done what he claims to 4
have done without anybody but Blessing knowing about it?
In 5
other words, not letting a foreman or supervisor know about G
it?
7 A
Yes.
That's very easy.
And, you know, very easy 8
with me because I never stood over anybody and watched them 9
run a leak rate or operate a panel or --
10 Q
What would be the motivation, though, of a CR0 who 11 is operating in an atmosphere where it's often difficult, as 12 we have seen, to get a Jeak rate under 1 gallon a minute --
13 he's doing the best ha can.
He wants to please his foreman, O(_/
14 presumably.
What is his motivation in coming up with this 15 fraudulent device for producing what he has to know is a 16 phony result?
Why would he do that?
17 A
I have no idea what he would gain by doing that.
18 I don't know what he would gain.
He wouldn't gain anything.
19 Q
Granted that you are a step removed from, say, 20 Hoyt, who is foreman, are we running a system where, if a CRO 21 is intent on violating procedures to make.his life easier, by 22 coming up with some result that he otherwise has a hard time 23 doing, are we running a system that is just impotent in the 24 face of that?
If the person wants to conceal it he can do 25 it?
Should we just face that fact?
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Coserage 800-3363 646 j
28691.0 BRT 4376 i
rm(,)
1 A
Yes.
If the person wanted to do that he could do 2
it without his foreman knowing it or -- you know, because I 3
don't know how the foreman would even know it.
4 I'm sure you've seen --
5 Q
One of the issues that we have got here -- really 6
what I'm getting at is, on one level, what were the CROs 7
actually doing?
But then above them, what were the 8
supervisors doing?
Could this have been prevented?
Who was 9
quilty of " culpable neglect"?
When I talked to the 10 supervisors, I'm wondering, given what Hartman and Blessing 11 tell me what they were doing, I have to wonder, were the 12 supervisors guilty of culpable neglect?
And I guess what you 13 are suggesting is that what they were doing was beyond your
(
14 reasonable capacity to detect; is that right?
15 A
That's a true statement.
16 Q
Would you think, also, that it would have been 17 beyond Mr. Hoyt's capacity or should he have realized what 18 wau going on, assuming the accuracy of Blessing and Hartman's 19 description of what they were doing?
20 A
No.
I think Mr. Hoyt had confidence in the 21 operators that they were performing the job as they were 22 required to.
He wouldn't be standing over the console 23 either, you know, watching them do such a routine evolution 24 as a leak rate.
25 Supervisors and foremen got involved on power O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Coserage 2336-fM6
- - - - ~ _
J 28691.0 BRT 4377
/~1 s/
1 escalations and shutdowns and start-ups and things.
But 2
routine surveillance was, you know -- the CRO is a licensed 3
operator and is required to perform his job.
i 4
Q Would you have any observation along this'line, 5
meaning Hoyt's -- likelihood that Hoyt would have known what 6
Blessing and Hartman were doing?
Based not merely on the 7
jobs of CRO versus foreman, but on the kind of relationship 8
that obtained between those particular people?
Would you 9
describe them as a close group?
And the group I'm talking p
10 about is Hoyt, Blessing and Hartman.
11 A
No.
12 Q
Or Booher?
Booher too.
How would you describe
[
13 them?
()
14 A
I don't think Mr. Hoyt was close to anybody.
He 15 was kind of a -- he was a good foreman.
I don't think he was 16 as close with the three CROs at that time; no.
Not at all.
17 Q
I guess some foremen, maybe not very many, but j
18 some are almost father figures, buddies, supportive i
19 relationships,-so on?
4 20 A
Dick Hoyt is not the type.
21 Q
I take it that does not describe Mr. Hoyt?
22 A
That's true.
That does not.
Done his job.
Come 23-to work.
He was a good supervisor for me and that's all that 1
24 is required.
i 25 The three CRos, I thought I had a very good l ()
j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I Nat' mwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
- _ _,. -.. _,,..---~,,-
,,_,....,_.-3700- _,. _...
202 347 v
,, ~ - -. _. _. _ - - - -.. _. - - - _.
28691.0 BRT 4378
()8 i
I working relationship amongst the three of them.
I mean they 2
all had different personalities but --
3 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Any 4
follow-up questions?
5 MR. MC BRIDE:
No, Judge Kelley.
6 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
7 Q
We have one follow-up question posed by Staff.
8 You state on page 6 of your prefiled testimony you remember 9
in 1978 some people believed hydrogen could affect leak rate 10 tests.
To the best of your recollection, which people 11 believed hydrogen could affect leak rate tests?
12 A
Which people?
As far as rank?
Or name?
13 Q
Why don't you tell us to the extent of your memory O
(,/
14 of the situation.
15 A
I would think some of the CRos did believe that.
16 Q
Do you remember which ones?
17 A
No.
I have no idea of that; no.
18 Q
Did you have any knowledge of CRos that were not 19 on your shift?
20 A
That were not on my shift?
21 Q
Yes.
22 A
Oh, I've probably worked with all of them at one 23 time or another, you know.
I knew them all.
24 Q
But you can't identify any particular people that 25 you recall as being --
C')
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 370t)
Nationwide Coserage
- ML3W646
28691.0 BRT 4379
)
1 A
No, I can't recall that.
2 C
-- knowledgeable about the hydrogen?
3 A
No, sir.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, Mr. Smith.
That takes us 5
through our questioning process.
We appreciate your coming 6
down here today and appreciate your attention to the 7
questions and responses.
Thank you very much, you are 8
excused.
9 (Witness stood down.)
10 Whereupon, i
11 WALTER J.
MARSHALL 12 was called as a witness and, having first been duly sworn, 13 was examined and testified as follows:
ys
(_)
14 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Moeller?
15 EXAMINATION
?.6 BY MR. MOELLER:
17 Q
Mr. Marshall, do you have before you a_three-page 18 document which bears a caption of this proceeding and which 19 is entitled " Prepared Statement of Walter J. Marshall, Jr."?
20 A
Yes, sir.
21 Q
Have you had an opportunity, earlier today, to l
l 22 once again review this statement?
,i 2.;
A Yes, sir.
21 Q
Are there any corrections or additions that you i
wish to make to this statemenc at this time?
l 25 l
O l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm
~.e _ m. c _,.
i
- _ _ ~
28691.0 BRT 4380 1
A There is a correction.
I'm not a " Junior."
It's 2
just Walter J.
Marshall.
3 Q
With the exception of that one change, do you wish 4
to adopt this statement as your sworn testimony in this 5
proceeding and to have it incorporated into the record?
6 A
Yes, sir.
j 7
JUDGE KELLEY:
So ordered.
8 (The document follows :)
9 10 1
11
+
12 4
13 I
14 15-i 16 i
17
[
18 l
l 19 t
20 21 J
l 22 l
23 24 25 t
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
~~"-"
9 t
, 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 WALTER J.
MARSHALL, JR.
My name is Walter J.
Marshall.
I live in Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania.
I am presently employed as an operations engineer at TMI-2.
I maintain a senior reactor operator's license.
I began employment with Metropolitan Edison in February 19'i7.
I obtained a control room operator's license in September of that year and a senior reactor operator's license in June or July of 1978.
I obtained a license because I was interested in doing so, and because my employer needed licensed personnel available in case of union strikes or other emergencies.
During 1978 and 1979, I was one of two operations engineers assigned to the Supervisor of Operations, James Floyd.
We split our responsibilities, which included writing and
/~T reviewing procedures, establishing operations surveillance V
1
/
(_T programs, operating the condensate polishers, the mechanical
)
draft cooling towers and the natural draft cooling towers, plus performing anything else with which Mr. Floyd needed assistance.
I reported to Mr. Floyd at least once a day to tell him about the work I had accomplished and to receive additional assignments.
From September 1978 until sometime in February 1979, I spent about eight hours a day working on the condensate I spent so polishers in the basement of the turbine building.
much time there because we were having dif ficulty operating the polishers and regenerating the resin beds.
This problem affected TMI-2's ability to run at 100% power.
During this same period, I spent approximately 10% of my time in the control room.
I brought the shift foremen up-to-date on work I had performed on the condensate polishers and I requested personnel, as needed, to help me.
Once a week, for about 15 or 20 minutes, I reviewed the shirt foremen's logs for compliance with the company's administritive procedures.
I did not review the logs to discover what evolutions had been performed or if they were conducted in compliance with the procedures.
Occasionally, I stood watch as a shift foreman if someone was sick.
When I did this, a shift supervisor was usually in the control room with me.
I had to become familiar with the requirements of the technical specifications governing the leak rate test in order to pass my license examination.
I did not have to put that.
(_,,-I knowledge into practice.
To the best of my recollection, I Jh I
never performed a leak rate test and I never approved one.
am fairly certain that I never saw an operator discard a leak and I had no idea that operators were discarding rate test, tests on a routine basis.
The only problem that I can recall with leak rate tests is one that I associated with the issuance of LER 78-62.
I had come into the control room early in the morning at the end of my shift.
I overheard a discussion about whether the operators should be on a four-hour time clock.
I think that shift supervisor, Joseph Chwastyk, was there and James Floyd may have been present too.
I do not remember anything else about this episode and I do not remember being assigned additional (G) responsibility for the LER.
My understanding is that a computer program error was the reason for the LER's issuance, and that the program error was corrected.
In conclusion, I believe it was apparent to everyone with whom I worked that I was not expected ta perform or interpret leak rate tests.
This fact has also become apparent to everyone who has interviewed me on the subject.
I would be exceedingly grateful to the presiding Board if it would acknowledge that I was not involved with leak rate testing. -
m 28691.0 BRT 4381 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
I have a short introductory 2
statement to Mr. Marshall that we can get done.
I think you 3
probably heard what we would like to do is go ahead and take 4
a lunch break now and have a little more chance to look over 5
some of the papers.
We'll plan to pick back up here at 6
1:00, 7
I indicated to your counsel earlier that speaking.
8 for myself, I am merely interested in the LER., the subject of 9
the LER, the implementation of the LER.
And I asked your 10 counsel to ask you to take another look at pages, about 30 to 11 50, of your Stier interview and then the papers cited there.
12 You are familiar with them.
But that's where my interest 13 will focus.
)
14 The Commission has charged this board with 15 determining the extent of involvement of employees of TMI-2 16 in 1978 and '79 in leak rate test falsification and other 17 improper practices in leak rate testing.
We know from your 18 prefiled and from our general knowledge that you yourself 19 were not involved in leak rate te.ating.
As I just indicated, 20 the primary interest I think we'll have will be in the LER, i
21 and the aftermath of that and the implementation of it.
This 22 would be, I want to stress, though, even though we are not 23 looking at leak rate tests, we are interested in the LER and 24 implementation.
That's a specific issue before us.
l 25 This would be your opportunity to state your l
(2)
I 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-4 7-3700 Nationwide Coserage F0lL336-(616
e-28691.0 BRT 4382 l
,)
1 recollection of your participation, your perception of what 2
was going on, and give as full a picture as you can of that j
3 particular part of the story.
4 We have reviewed your prefi_ed and we may have 5
some questions on that, but I think our questioning will j
6 probably focus on the prefiled.
I'll just comment in 7
addition that there are two very extensive studies already in j
l 8
the record about leak rate testing at TMI in '78-79.
The NRR 9
study -- the NRC study I might call it -- doesn't focus 10 particularly on the LER aspect, although it does touch on 11 it.
There is a somewhat more extensive discussion of that in 12 the Stier study.
13 In any case, we don't propose to go over r')
(_/
14 everything line by line.
We think we understand generally 15 what went on, in terms of the statements given previously, at 16 least, but there are some gaps and possible ambiguities that 17 we'll try to clear up in the course of the questioning this 18 afternoon.
So, with that as background, we are going to 19 declare a long lunch and come back here at 1:00.
I would 20 guess it won't be a terribly long session.
We should be done 21 midafternoon.
22 (Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m.,
the hearing was 23 recessed, to be reconvened at 1:00 p.m.
this same day.)
24 25
<~1 v
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
28691.0 BRT 4383 I,I 1
AFTERNOON SESSION (1:30 p.m.)
2 Whereupon, 3
WALTER J.
MARSHALL 4
resumed the stand and, having been previously duly sworn, was 5
examined and testified further as follows:
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
We are back on the record.
As I 7
indicated before the lunch break, Mr. Marshall, our primary 8
i~nterect in talking with you today has to do with the LER, 9
the genesis of which was 18 October, I think,
'78.
And then 10 it was dated a little later than that.
11 We focused on that because it has an obvious 12 importance in the context of the issues we are looking at.
13 Moreover, we did specifically have this issue put to us by A
(_/
14 the Commission.
It's something we are supposed to determine 15 as best we can.
I'll just quote here from the Commission 16 order that gives you an appreciation of their concern.
17 "Following the discovery by an NRC inspector in 18 October 1978, the technical specification 3.4.6-2 1
19 requirements were not properly interpreted or implemented.
20 What corrective action was taken by management personnel?
21 Was the corrective action taken sufficient to ensure 22 compliance with the technical specification 3.4.6-2, by the 23 personnel performing and reviewing the leak rate surveillance 24 tests?"
25 So we do have a very specific charge to take as (1)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
28691.0 BRT 4384 7(
1 hard a look as we can at that sequence of related events and 2
determine what happened.
3 You referred in your pr epared testimony to this I
4 LER, and I know you were questioned about it at some length 5
by the Stier people.
We have already referred to that, too.
6 Let me ask you first what at that time -- I don't 7
mean now, but back in October 1978 -- did you personally have 8
an opinion about the proper interpretation of the tech spec, 9
limiting unidentified J eakage to a gallon a minute?
And, if 10 so, what was your interpretation of it?
11 I have in mind under what circumstances, if you 12 had a leak rate test in excess of a gallon a minute, under 13 what circumstances would you have to go into the acti.on l'3
(_/
14 statement?
15 THE WITNESS:
I think that my interpretation back 16 then was if you had a leak rate greater than 1 gallon a 17 minute, that you would go in the action statement.
18 EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD 19 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
l 20 Q
At that time?
21 A
Yes.
22 Q
The so-called four-hour clock, one hears that 23 phrase also.
And just for the sake of contrast let me tell 24 you, as you may know, we have had a number of witnesses in i
f 25 the case who have said that their interpretation of the tech l
i (E) l l
1 l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I xmm s c_ m m.
{~~
28691.0 BRT 4385 1
spec in this regard, back in 1978 and in many cases 2
throughout the time up to the accident, was that so long as 3
you could get one leak rate test that showed leakage of a 4
gallon or less in any given 72-hour period, you were home 5
free, regardless of getting tests showing leakage in excess 6
of that during the same period.
7 So, if I understand you correctly, that was not 8
your interpretation?
9 A
Well, when you put it that way, I'm not really 10 sure what my thoughts were back then.
It has been so long 11 it's hard to remember what happened then and what I remember 12 or know now.
13 Q
I understand that.
It has been a long time, a
()
14 regrettably long time, we might say.
But we are trying to 15 reconstruct what happened.
And I think in your particular 16 case it does make a difference.
I wanted to get this from 17 you at the outset, if I could.
18 A
Yes.
19 Q
Frankly, the reason I ask you the question right 20 up front was it seemed to me that if you had -- it is 21 conceivable to me that at that time you were not, yourself, 22 directly involved with leak rates on a day-to-day basis; 23 correct?
24 A
That's true.
25 Q
You weren't in the leak rate business, except O
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3 3 0 Nationwide Coverage 800-334 6646
28691.0 BRT 4386
<y
(,m,)
1 incidentally, from time to time?
2 A
That's true.
3 Q
That's my understanding from your prior 4
statements.
So, I have put to you two alternative possible 5
interpretations of leak rate requirements.
Might there be a 6
third possibility in your case?
You didn't have much of an 7
opinion on it one way or the other?
8 A
That's also very possible.
You know, like you 9
say, I wasn't in the leak rate business.
10 Q
Okay.
If you did have a fixed idea of what your 11 view was at the time, I did want to find that out.
I take it 12 now that as best as you can recollect now, you didn't; right?
13 A
Yes, sir.
f' 14 Q
I asked the question because it seems to me it 15 might make a difference, depending on what your opinion had 16 been, how you might have reacted to all of this, in terms of 17 seeing something crop up and thinking:
Well, this is no big 18 deal.
That's what I always thought.
19
'or seeing something cropping up and saying:
My l
20 God, they are standing the world upside-down.
That's the 21 exact opposite of what we have been doing all along.
l 22 A
I don't recall being impressed as to turning the 23 world upside-down.
I would think that I probably was under 24 the impression that, if you had a 1 gallon leakage, you were 25 on a four-hour time clock.
o( /
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Natonaide Cmerage N4336-%56
.. -. - - - -. -.. - ~ -. -
.28691.0 BRT 4387 i
1 Q
That, it seems to me, would be consistent.with your thinking now that you didn't think all of this was all 2
3 that remarkable.
Is that fair?
4 A
Yes, sir.
5 Q
I don't mean to be obscure about all this.
I am 6
afraid I'm being less than completely clear but it does seem 7
to me that if.I, like most operators at TMI-2, thought that 8
all I needed was one good leak rate in less than 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, I.
9 would have been shocked by this LER.
It would have said to 10 me, if you get one bad leak rate, shut it down.
That's 11 totally different than what I was doing all along.
But your l
12 recollection is not to that effect, I take it?
1 13 A
I don't remember how I felt about leak rates
( )'
14 then.
To be perfectly honest, it was something I really 15 didn't get involved with.
16 Q
Let me see if I can't, for the sake of compressing 4
17 our inquiry a little bit, I'll make a few statements of facts i
18 as I understand the facts leading up to your involvement in j
i 19 this LER.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
20 A
Yes, sir.
21 Q
I gather you are familiar with Mr. Haverhamp's 22 arriving on the scene on the morning of the 18th and there i.
23 being a discussion between him and others.
Were you involved 24 in discussions directly with Haverkamp?
25 A
No, sir.
.O I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
201 Nationwide Covcrage 800-33MM6
~ -,
...,,,--,--,,-,...-.-.-347-3700, -. - - -, -. -.,, - - -., _,.. _.. -. _ -.... - ~. _.
28691.0 BRT 4388 O
(_j 1
Q I take it you were not.
Okay.
2 So, those discussions ensued.
There was a 3
decision that the matter would be handled by an LER 4
determination through the PORC committee.
So the matter went 5
to the PORC committee where Mr. Seelinger was the chairman; 6
correct?
7 A
Yes, sir.
8 Q
And when I refer to the LER, let's just establish 9
what piece of paper I'm talking about.
I'm looking at the 10 Stier volume 5-C.
Starting with tabs 28 through, I believe, 11 30, they are a series of documents all bearing on this.
12 Different versions of the LER and certain other things we can 13 talk about as we go along, but that's where I'm looking.
(~)
(,j 14 Have you got those papers there, Mr. Marshall?
15 A
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
16 Q
Look at tab 28 in the Stier report, in that volume 17 I just cited.
The first cheet of paper is a document from 18 Seelinger to Mr. Troffer, forwarding LER 78-62.
The next 19 page is the first page of the LER itself, and then there is 20 another -- the next page is captioned " Narrative to LER 21 78-62"; are you with me?
22 A
Yes, sir.
23 Q
We have established earlier and I don't know if 24 that's sufficient for yourself, but the versions of the LER 25 were different depending on whether you were a member of the O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37tX)
Nationaide Coverage 800-336-(M6
{
~
~
28691.0 BRT 4389
(_j 1
NRC or on the Staff, but anyway that LER was produced.
Did 2
you have any hand in drafting the LER?
3 A
No, sir.
4 Q
There were indications in it Mr. Stier was one of 5
the draftsmen, at least initially.
I asked you whether you 6
had a hand in drafting it.
Might you have had a hand in 7
revising it at any stage?
8 A
No, sir.
9 Q
So, this LER that we have looking at was generated 10-by the PORC committee, and if we look over at a subsequent 11 document we would look under tab 30.
There is a document 12 captioned "TMI-2 PORC action items.
In the top right-hand 13 corner it says, " responsible individual, W.
Marshall" which I rx
(_)
14 take it is yourself?
15 A
Yes, sir.
16 Q
And Mr. Fels, it would be William Fels whom we 17 have heard referred to as a computer man, primarily?
18 A
Yes, sir.
19 Q
He's going to be coming, talking to us a little 20 later.
21 The paper we are looking at now is a sort of 22 assignment sheet, assigning responsibility for implementation 23 and follow-up; is that correct?
24 A
Yes, sir.
25 Q
Now, did you attend -- I take it in the normal O
t-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3M10 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
h 28691.0 BRT 4390
)
1 course, when anlitem like this turns into an LER there will 2
be a discussion of the matter at a PORC meeting; is that 3
correct?
4 A
Yes, sir.
Generally speaking, I believe so.
5' Q
Did you attend such a meeting on this LER?
6 A
No, sir.
7 Q
So, what was your first involvement?
Was it when 8
you received this assignment sheet.that we are looking at?
9 A
I don't know.
I don't remember receiving that 10 assignment sheet.
I believe that my first involvement with 11 the LER was when I.was reviewing it to send it to the control 12 room.
13 Q
Okay.
Let me just take this one step at a time to
'( )
14 make sure -- and I realize we are asking you to remember 15
-something that happened a long time ago, which may not be 16 completely possible.
17 A
Yes, sir.
18 Q
First of all, I guess I was assuming that what we I
19 call an assignment sheet, I guess we know what we me 4
20 that, the sheet naming you responsible individual assigned by 21 PORC chairman R.P. Warren, which puzzles me a little bit.
22 PORC chairman, R.P. Warren?
7 23 A
I believe that's when it is completed, I think --
24 Q
It's just a name.
Who is he?
25 A
Ron Warren.
!(1) c ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
,..-.-,-.,,..._...._--_-m-.
.,,. _ ~. -
28691.0 BRT 4391
)
1 Q
He was the PORC chairman?
2 A
He was the PORC chairman or vice chairman, I 3
believe.
4 Q
Seelinger was chairman, at least for a time; 5
correct?
6 A
Yes, sir.
7 Q
I thought he was chairman at this time.
Might 8
Warren have been vice chairman?
9 MR. BLAKE:
Just looking at this same document we s
10 are focused on, it is unclear that everything on this 11 document would have been filled out at the same period.
It 12 is more likely -- the witness can probably confirm this --
13 that the top portion would have been filled out, where you f)-
(_j 14 see Seelinger's signatures, at that time I think he was 15 chairman of PORC.
Then later on in time you get the bottom 16 portion filled out by Mr. Warren.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
One would even infer by looking at 18 this that R.P.
Warren signed this on 3/5/79, certified 19 completion.
1
[
20 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
21 Q
Does that seem reasonable?
22 A
Yes, sir.
23 Q
In the absence of R.P. Warren, we'll assume that, 24 I guess.
Okay.
25 No 2, first of all, would you as a person assigned (E) r a
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 Nationwide Coverage 800-3%6M6
-3700
.,,. _ ~.._..,_ _._ _._,,_ _. ~....._...,_,,,,-...___ _._.
28691.0 BRT 4392
)
I responsibility for this action item, would you normally have 2
received this assignment sheet we are looking at?
3 A
Yes, sir, 4
Q And under the caption, III, it talks about 5
commitments and actions required and'gives "WJM," meaning 6
you, a particular charge that I won't quote but I may ask you 7
about.
8 A
Yes, sir.
9 Q
But that's your written charge with regard to the 10 implementation of this action item; is that right?
11 A
Yes, sir.
12 Q
If you didn't go to the meeting in this case, the 13 best you can remember, was this just something you would find f()
14 in your in box or how would this work?
15 A
Yes, sir.
Probably.
I 16 Q
Okay.
Then do you recall at the time you received 17 this action item, receiving any oral instructions from 18 Seelinger or anybody else?
i 19 A
No, sir, I didn't.
20 Q
Okay.
So, with this piece of paper, the 21 assignment sheet plus a copy of the LER, that's really all 22 you've got right now; right?
You are going back to that 23 point in time, that's what you've got in your hand; correct?
i l
24 A
Yes, sir.
25 Q
So then what do you do with that?
i
!(1) 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage Sm33&M46 L
b' 28691.0 BRT 4393
()
1 A
It is conceivable that I could have even had a 2
copy of the LER before this came out.
3 Q
Right.
4 A
We had a program set up that all LERs went to the 5
control room for review by the licensed operators.
When we 6
got them in, I usually reviewed them with Jim Floyd, put a 7
cover sheet on them and sent them out.
I didn't necessarily 8
do that all the time.
There was another OPS engineer and 9
another consultant working with us.
He may have even been 10 involved in doing that at different times, but all the LERs 11 came into the OPS office and they were sent to the control 12 room for review.
13 Q
Let me be sure that I'm following you here, now.
(3
(,)
14 I believe it comes out in your interview with the Stier 15 people that this was the only LER assigned to you by PORC in 16 a rather long time period; correct?
17 A
This was the only PORC action item assigned to me.
18 Q
PORC action item.
19 A
Right.
LERs, the other part of this -- all of 20 those came through the OPS office.
21 Q
You are saying -- forgive me if I'm not keeping up 22 here, but I believe you said all LERs were sent to the 23 control room for review?
24 A
Yes, sir.
25 Q
Do you mean there's such a thing as an LER that i O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Co erage 8 % 336-6646 L
28691.0 BRT 4394
_(m)
I was not a PORC action item?
2 A
Yes, sir.
3 Q
I thought all LERs went through the PORC; is that 4
not correct?
5 That's true.
All LERs went through PORC but not 6
all LERs took any specific action.
7 Q
Oh, there could be such a thing as an LER for 8
which no particular action was required, but you'd send them 9
to the CROs for reading anyway; is that right?
10 A
Yes, sir.
11 Q
But this was an LER thut was considered to require 12 some implementing action; correct?
13 A
Apparently PORC felt so, yes.
O)
(_
14 Q
Now, can you just back up a bit and tell me again, l
15 it comes in to your office and you are working for Floyd and 16 there's another engineer also working for Floyd and also a 17 consultant?
18 A
Yes.
19 Q
Now, with regard to particular LER and the 20 implementation follow-up, do you recall whether you yourself 21 did whatever was done or not?
i 22 A
Looking at the document review sheet, I don't 23 believe I filled out the document review sheet.
That would 24 be under tab 30.
25 Q
I'm sorry -- under tab 30?
- o ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nation +ide Coverage 8013346M6
28691.0 BRT 4395 13
(_)
1 A
The second page.
2 Q
Let me catch up with you.
Hold on.
The document 3
review sheet is the sheet of names of supervisors and foremen 4
and CROs and yourself and Floyd; is that right?
5 A
Yes, sir.
6 Q
And you are referring to the printing at the top?
7 A
Yes, sir.
8 Q
And saying that that is not your printing.
You 9
don't think it is?
10 A
I don't believe so.
I don't print that neat.
11 Q
Going back to the preceding sheet, I don't see a 12 date on that sheet, a date of origination; do you?
13 A
No, sir.
That's why the LER could have showed up
()
14 without the PORC action item attached to it.
15 Q
But the PORC action item -- they both would have 16 gotten there around the same time, would they not?
17 A
I would think so; yes, sir.
18 Q
Whether separately or together?
19 A
Within a few days of each other, I would think.
20 Q
Can we assume that, then, that even if they didn't 21 come simultaneously -- well, frankly it strikes me as odd 22 that a bureaucratic organization like PORC would be handing 23 out assignments and not attaching the relevant document to 24 the assignment sheet.
Did they operate that way?
25 A
From PORC's standpoint, their PORC action item
(~')
s-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage IKKb336-6M6
28691.0 BRT 4396
(
1 would'have had a copy of the LER with it?
2 Q
Right.
3 A
Okay.
But in the preparation process for the LER, 4
that was a total separate distribution --
5 Q
Right?
6 A
-- and that copy, you know, was independent of the 7
PORC action item, basically.
8 Q
But then you would have gotten two copies of the 9
LER?
10 A
Probably; yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
11 Q
All right.
So without a date on this assignment 12 sheet, is it fair to assume, speculate, that the actual date 13 of the assignment sheet was the same as or pretty close to
)
14 the date of the LER itself in final form?
15 A
Yes, sir.
16 Q
And going back to the document review form on the 17 next page, someone filled in on top and said:
"Get this 18 reviewed by the 10th of November."
19 A
Yes, sir.
20 Q
,o that the LER itself is dated -- well, the 21 transmittal is November 1st, from Herbein to the NRC.
Is 22 there a date on the LER itself, that you see?
11/01, so tne 23 PORC transfer and the LER were dated 11/01.
So someone other 24 than you turned out the document review form and gave it a 25 10-day turn around or thereabouts; right?
O l
ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(X)
Nationwide Coscrape 8 @ 336-6646
28691.0 BRT 4397 (3
(,)
1 A
Yes, sir.
2 Q
And you have the signatures on here.
We don't 3
know the date those signatures were all put on.
But later on 4
we'll see this other piece of paper signed by Mr. Warren, 5
saying it was completed on the 5th of March, or 15th, or 6
whatever it was.
Some considerably later date.
7 A
Yes, sir.
8 Q
Now, am I to assume, then, that this LER was sent 9
along with the signature sheet to the control room?
10 A
Yes.
11 Q
And would that have been something that you might 12 have done yourself?
Or would there have been a secretary who 13 had done that?
()
14 A
Either way.
You know, LERs going to the control 15 room was a routine process.
It could have been the secretary 16 or myself or one of the other engineers or even Floyd.
17 Q
But it is an in basket /out basket form of 18 transmission normally?
19 A
Actually it would go up and be put in a book, an 20 LER review book in the control room.
21 Q
This may seem kind of trivial, but I'm trying to 22 visualize it.
I see it sitting on your desk or the 23 secretary's desk next to you, but it ends up in a three-ring 24 notebook, I guess?
25 A
With a cover page on it.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 M7-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 346M6
-. ~. -. -..
=
28691.0 ERT 4398 I) 1 Q
With a cover page on i,t.
And I guess 11t got there 2
since everybody signed it, but that's just an internal mail 3
or carrying operation?
4 A
Yes, sir.
5 Q
Okay.
Now, apart from your causing.this to be put 6
in the. book for a reading, did you take any other steps to 7
get across the message of this LER to the CROs and the 8
foremen and the shift supervisor?
9 A
No, sir.
10 Q
Looking at the assignment sheet document again and 11 under part 3, it says "WJM."
And the introductory phrase 12 is:
13 "To ensure the following 'ts documented by OPS
()
14 review of LER 78-62" -- just that introductory phrase I just 4
15 read, what does the phrase " documented by OPS review" -- what 16 does that mean?
17 A
That means that the document went to the control 18 room with the cover sheet'and that the operators had the l
19 opportunity to initial and read it.
20 Q
OPS review means review by people in operations?
i l
21 A
Yes, sir, i
l 22 Q
Including control room operators?
I l
23 A
Yes, sir.
24 Q
Including mainly control room operators, I 25 suppose?
(
l(2) i h
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 370')
Nationwide Coverage 8ah336-6646
e-28691.0 BRT 4399
)
1 A
Yes, sir.
2 Q
Would it be fair to translate this and say:
Make 3
sure that all the control room operators and their foremen 4
read this LER?
Is that the same thing?
5 A
Yes, sir.
6 Q
Then moving onto the quotation in that same 7
section on the same document where it says, "the appropriate 8
personnel will be instructed on the requirements of the tech 9
specs," and so on; how did you interpret the phrase 10
" appropriate personnel will be instructed"?
What did you 11 think that that meant?
12 A
I didn't interpret it.
I tock the -- basically 13 the LER went to the control room to document the review.
No
)
14 one gave me any specific direction to do anything else.
15 Q
That was the standard procedure, I take it?
16 A
Yes, sir.
17 Q
You send it there and they had all been told to 10 read whatever was found in this particular book and initial 19 it to prove, show that they had done it?
20-A Yes, sir.
21 Q
I recall -- not recall, I realize that you 22 testified that you were not involved in, and the record shows 23 you weren't involved in, implementing the follow-up on a lot 24 of action items.
But even recognizing that, was it the 25 assumption that a reading by the CROs would be sufficient?
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS,. INC.
202 447-3700 Nationside Coverage 8(G33MM6
.~,--.- -.,.----
28691.0 BRT 4400 f
\\m 1
A On my part, was that an assumption?
2 Q
Yes.
3 A
Yes, sir.
4 Q
The system seems to assume that?
5 A
Yes, sir.
6 Q
Mr. Floyd must have assumed that.
We can ask him, 7
too.
But do you know of any instance involving an LER, and I 8
gather there were quite a few all the time, where, in 9
addition to sending a copy of the LER to be read, there might 10 have been, let's say, an instructional meeting where somebody 11 like'Floyd stands up and says, I want to tell you a little 12 bit more about this LER, this is what happened, here's what 13 you have to understand, from now on do it this way -- was
()
14 there any supplemental oral presentation of these things?
15 A
I don't believe so.
I don't recall one.
16 Q
When -- of course the language we are looking at 17 now is a quote from the LER.
We can go back and find it in 18 the last, I think the last paragraph of the so-called 19 narrative section.
Right, it is in the last paragraph of the 20 narrative section.
I just find that language in the context 21 in which it appears -- I wasn't there and I don't know what 1
22 the established system was, if I had been there and 23 understood the system maybe I wouldn't find it ambiguous --
24 but when I read this I thought that this was a domestic 25 commitment by the company to instruct the operators on this o
V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3 2-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage M k3364 M 6
fr 28691.0 BRT 4401
()
1 matter in the future by some means other than this LER.
2 A
Yes, sir.
3 Q
But that's not what happened?
All they got was a 4
copy of the LER; right?
5 A
Yes, sir.
That's all they got from me.
6 Q
Or anybody else as far as you know?
7 A
I believe that the OPS memo was written as part of 8
this.
9 Q
Let's turn to the OPS memo.
This may be in 10 various places.
The copy I have is after tab 37.
There was 11 a letter written by Mr. Floyd to former Chairman Palladino on 12 August 13, 1984.
And he attached -- I think that's what you 13 are referring to?
()
14 A
Yes, sir.
It's OPS memo 278-19.
15 Q
Right?
16 A
Yes, sir.
17 Q
So we are now looking at this OPS memo or 18 operations memo dated October 20, 1978, it was from Mr. Floyd I
19 as supervisor of operations to all the shift supervisors and 20 shift foremen.
You are familiar with it, aren't you?
21 A
Yes, sir.
I have read it.
22-0 Now, for that matter, did you have any hand, if 23 you recall it, writing on this particular memorandum?
24 A
No, sir.
25 Q
Because you do in the course of your interview 4
(2)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-370)
Nationwide Cmcrage MU 346M6
f f
.28691.0 BRT 4402 1
with the Stier people, you recall you wrote quite a few OPS
\\,j -
2 menos for Floyd at one time or another?
3 A
Yes, sir.
4 Q
Just so I be sure I understand.
Are you clear 5
that you didn't write this memo or do you not remember 6
whether you wrote the memo?
7 A
I'm clear that I did not write this memo.
8 Q
Okay.
Thank you.
9 Now, I think.what led 'is to this immediately -- we 10 are going to get to this eventually anyway but -- I was 11 asking you about whether there had been instructions other 12 than the LER.
And then you referred to this.
So, in that 13 setting, would you regard this as an effort by Mr. Floyd in I) 14 writing --
15 A
Yes, sir.
16 Q
-- to instruct the supervisors and the foremen?
17 A
Yes, sir.
18 Q
What he covers there, really, are three different 19 numbered paragraphs.
Again they speak for themselves.
But I
i 20 would the instruction aspect of this memo, then, come from, j
21 essentially from paragraph number 2?
i l
22 A
Yes, sir.
23 Q
Could you comment on why the figure 2 gallons per i
24 minute is being used here?
25 A
No, sir.
I believe the computer program was O
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
l 28691.0 p
BRT 4403
/~
l (_}j i
1 changed so that 2 gallons figured into it someplace.
2 Q
I think the record will indicate that on the 18th 3
' -- Mr. Fels will be the expert on that, it think -- they did 4
reprogram the computer to round off.
But I still don't 5
understand how you could get from 1.49 to 1, but the 2 6
puzzles me, how that comes into play.
7 Well, do you have any other comment on it?
8 A
No, sir.
9 Q
I'm just studying this for a moment, this i
10 paragraph 2.
i 11 How would you understand paragraph 2?
What's the 17 message that that is sending?
13 A
That basically says:
If your unidentified leak is
()
14 equal to or greater than 2 gpm, that's when your.four-hour 15 time clock starts, when you determine that.
16 Q
So would that mean -- we could take that to mean 17 that -- I think prevailing understanding prior to this memo 18 was that if you got 1 good one in 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, you were all 19 right.
Is that instruction intended to supersede that 20 understanding?
21 A
I believe so, yes.
22 Q
This particular memo, now you say you didn't write 23 it.
Did you have, yourself, any role in the dissemination of 24 this memo?
Did you have anything to do with this memo at 25-all, as far as you recall?
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage run336-6646
F" 1
i 28691.0 BRT 4404
)
1 A
Yes, sir.
I recall this memo because at a later 2
.date, I guess the next time I issued an OPS memo, this one 3
wasn't on the index and I updated the index to include this 4
one.
5 Q'
Okay.
So it stands out in your mind for that 6
reason?
7 A
Yes, sir.
8 Q
But if I were focusing, as we pretty much are this 9
afternoon, on your personal implementation of the LER and the 10 message contained in the LER, we are aware of this memo of i
11 October 20, but your personal involvement in that was zero; l
12 correct?
i i
13 A
Yes, sir.
Essentially.
- ()
14-Q You know it exists and that's basically it?
15 A
Yes, sir.
I 16 Q
So, the sign-out sheet -- sign-off sheet, attached 17 to the LER, went to the control room, and the best we can i
18 tell the final turn around was sometime in March; correct?
19 A
Yes, sir.
20 Q
You indicated in your interview that a routine 21 turn around of an LER, through the routing system, might be i
22 six or eight weeks; is that right?
l 23 A
I believe that's probably close.
O 24 Q
Was that somehow tied to the fact that there were j
25 six shifts?
Does that have anything to do with that?
i C)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M-347-370)
Nationwide Coverage 80(k336 6646
..._..._.,_-,.__....-_.____.,._..-.m.__..
-28691.0 BRT 4405
)
1 A
That was just a guess.
I would think it was 2
around six to eight weeks.
I haven't gone back and looked 3
through them.
But you could -- you know, you could determine 4
that from the time the LER was written until the time the 5
sign-off sheet -- no, it doesn't have a date on it.
You 6
couldn't determine-that either.
7 I think that's just a feeling I had, six to.eight 8
weeks.
9 Q
And, in fact, it appears that in this case it was 10 more like four to five months?
11 A
Something like that; yes, sir.
12 Q
In sending LERs, whether they were action items or 13 not, to the control room for review,.and instructing the CROs
()
14 and their foremen about LERs, was any attempt made to 15 differentiate between matters of either immediate or 16 near-term safety importance as opposed to mattersunot having 17 safety significance in your view?
18 A
No, sir, I don't believe so.
19 k
How about.the present case where it was a matter 20 of deciding under what leakage circumstances one should shut 21 down the plant.
Wouldn't that qualify as safety significant?
22 A
I'm sorry.
I don't understand.
23 Q
Well, put it hypothetically.
Let's assume, whicN 24 is not the case, but let's assume that these leak rate tests 25 were a very accurate, good indication of leakage in a plant.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37tX)
Nationwide Coverage 8(XF336-6M6
28691.0 BRT 4406 eg
(,)
1 The record demonstrates the opposite, but assuming the other 2
for the moment.
If the NRC thought that as soon as you get 3
leak rates over a gallon a minute you better start shutting 4
that plant down and a licensee thought, well, as long as I 5
can squeeze out a good reading every three days, I can ignore 6
the ones in between that are in excess of 1 gallon.
Along 7
comes the NRC and says:
No, you are misreading it.
8 Moreover, safety requires that you shut down these plants or 9
be ready to shut them down promptly on the appearance of an 10 excess leak rate reading.
11 A
Yes, sir.
12 Q
That would seem to me to be a safety matter --
13 A
Yes, sir.
()
14 Q
-- that I would then make efforts to transmit to 15 the CRos and their foremen forthwith.
16 A
Yes, sir.
17 Q
Not five months later.
18 A
Yes, sir.
l 19 Q
To the extent that there was a fair amount of 20 cynicism about leak rates at TMI-2, which I daresay was 7
21 well-founded, maybe they have didn't regard this as a safety i
I 22 matter.
Rightly or wrongly, though, if I understand you 23 correctly, there wasn't any effort to differentiate?
They 24 were just treated as LERs?
They were all the same and they 25 turned around whenever -- however long it took?
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tc-347-37(o Nationwide Coverage 80t>3346646
~. - _ _
..,. - - - = _ _ _ _ _..
28691.0 BRT 4407
(~)
's_j 1
A Yes, sir.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
We'll take about a 10-minute 3
break.
That will give me a chance to review my notes and I 4
can finish up.
5 (Recess.)
6 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
7 Q
Mr. Marshall, could I ask you to turn to tab 8
number 30, five or six pages in, entitled "TMI-2 PORC action 9
item" signed by Mr. Bezilla.
It effects an extension of time 10 for review of this action item?
11 A
Yes, sir.
I have it.
12 Q
One t.hing we might just take a moment to clear up, 13 it isn't clear elsewhere in the record, this refers to this O
(,/
14 LER 78-62/IT, I believe it is.
On this document there's a 15 reference to PAI 2-78-053.
Is that a serial number?
Serial 16 number of PORCs?
17 A
Yes, sir.
18 Q
And the 78-62, it is the 62nd LER in in
'78.
This 19 serial number reference is a reference to 78-62.
20 A
And that's 78-62/IT, I believe, 78-62 is the usual 21,
reference, the PORC serial number referring to the same item 1
22 is 2-78-053, 23 Q
I believe you were asked about this in the 24 interview.
I just wanted to be clear.
I gather you did not 25 have anything to do with this extension?
oU ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(X)
Nationwide Coserage Mxk3346M4
28691.0 BRT 4408 (m()
1 A
I don't remember having anything to do with that 2
extension.
3 Q
Okay.
Bezilla may or may not be in the hearing 4
ton orrow but I understand he worked for PORC at that time?
5 A
Yes, he did.
6 Q
Would he be the one that would be tracking action 7
items and if a deadline came went, would he be the one 8
putting in the piece of paper effecting an extension?
9 A
I would assume so; yes, sir.
10 Q
As far as the paper trail goes, this particular l
11 piece of paper extends the time to the 15th of December.
I 12 don't believe there's anything in the record, then, until the 13 close out up in March.
Were you aware of any interim action
()
I 14 on this document?
15 A
No, sir.
Not particularly.
16 Q
In the normal course, if you were assigned I
f 17 follow-up responsibility on an action item, correct me if I'm 18 wrong, but if all went smoothly and paper went to the control 19 room and everybody read it and everybody signed it and the 20 sign-off sheet got back to the PORC people, that would be the i
21 last you'd hear of it; is that right?
22 A
Yes, sir.
23 Q
Did you have any sort of interim responsibility to 24 expedite, coordinate, keep moving an item like this, or not?
25 A
Yes, sir, actually.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I m.m.m s.- m c_...
I
(..
28691.0 BRT 4409
(
l' Q
What would that consist of?
2 A.
Normally I, periodically -- I don't remember any 3
specified time or frequency -- but I would go trrough the LER 4
book and the ones that weren't signed, I would tell the guys 5
to take a look at it and sign it.
I don't, you know, 6
particularly remember doing that for this one or anyone in 7
particular.
8 Q
Okay.
We talked before about the fact that this 9
was the only PORC action Item that was assigned to you in a 10 rather long time frame.
11 A
Yes, sir.
12 Q
Why, if you know, why were you selected as the 13 implementing person for this particular item?
()
14 A
I don't know.
15 Q
You indicated you are not a person particularly 16 involved ir. leak rates.
17 A
That's true.
18 Q
It wouldn't be because you are sort of a 19 specialist in that area?
20 A
I would think that I was selected because of the 21 fact that it did require the review of the LER, and that was
[
22 strictly under the OPS program.
l 23 Q
So you being one of two engineers working for 24 Seelinger, got the assignment on that basis?
25 A
Yes, sir.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
ll 202-w.rm nation iae contage
- mumu,
r~
1 28691.0 BRT.
4410
)
)
1 Q
Can I ask you to --
l 2
MR. BLAKE:
I think you meant for Floyd, rather 3
than Seelinger.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
5 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
6 Q
Can I ask you to turn to tab 36 in the Stier 7
volume ve have been using.
I direct your attention to the 8
fourth paragraph of this letter dated August 9, 1984, to then 9
Chairman Palladino from Mr. Seelinger.
Beginning with "When 10 the TMI resident inspector - " and so forth.
Would you just 11 read over that paragraph.
12 A
Yes, sir.
i 13 Q
I think it's fair to say that it has to do with
()
14 Mr. Seelinger's view of steps he took to see to it that i
15 people knew about this tech spec interpretation following the 16 Haverkamp visit.
I wanted to ask you specifically now.
We i
17 have been over the LER itself and we have also looked at the i
18
-- what is the word I'm trying to think of -- action i
19 memorandum --
20 A
OPS memo?
21 Q
OPS memo.
So those are two documents in the 1
22 record that we have talked about.
23 Apart from them, focusing on the sentence "I 24 promptly informed appropriate individuals at both TMI-2 and 1
25' TMI-1 of that requirement," do you know what Mr. Seelinger, (E) l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 Nationwide Coserage En336-646
. --. - 3 47 1700
l' 28691.0 BRT 4411
()
1 in this letter, might have been referring to by way of 2
"promptly informing people" other than the LER and the OPS 3
memo we talked about?
4 A
No, sir.
Not really.
5 Q
And then in the following sentence, "On two 6
following occasions in TMI-2, within a few days of my 7
discussion with the resident inspector, I again confirmed 8
with operations supervisory personnel that they were aware of 9
the requirement to immediately invoke the requirements of the 10 operations statement after toe performance of an 11 unsatisfactory leak rate test."
So my question there would 12 be, do you recall either one or two occasions, within a few 13 days of the Haverkamp visit, where Mr. Seelinger would have
()
14 confirmed this interpretation of the action statement in the 15 tech specs with what he described as supervisory personnel?
16 A
No, sir, I don't remember having a conversation 17 with Jim Seelinger about leak rate testing at all.
18 Q
Apart from personal discussion between you and 19 him, or perhaps you and others, were there any group meetings 20 that you were either perticipant in or knew about where this 21 was discussed?
22 A
No, sir.
I don't recall being in any meeting i
23 where it was discussed.
24 Q
Okay.
25 A
There could have been meetings on it, but --
(1)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433 M M 6
l 28691.0 BRT 4412
,m
!s_)
1 Q
No, I understand that.
You are there, working 2
directly with Floyd; correct?
3 A
Yes, sir.
And in this time frame I was working 4
out in the plant, down in the basement, actually, the 5
condensate polishers, on a rotating shift.
6 Q
Would you say that your being assigned the 7
implementing role on the LER -- would LER -- would that have 8
had any significance insofar as any discussions in that time 9
frame might have been concerned?
10 Let me give you an example.
You are down in the 11 basement working with the polishers.
Seelinger comes around 12 and says:
I want to talk to the supervisors about leak 13 rates.
So Floyd sayst Wait a minute, let's call Marshall n()
14 up, he's the implementer on the LER.
15 Would that have happened?
Or could they have had 16 a meeting without you?
17 A
They could very well have had a meeting without 18 me.
19 Q
Is it more likely they would have called you in?
20 A
No, sir.
21 f Q
Not necessarily?
22 A
Not necessarily.
23 Q
So some sort of meeting could have taken place and 24 you might not have been there and known about it; is that a 25 fact?
O-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage Mn336dM6
28691.0 BRT 4413
)
1 A
Very true.
Yes, sir.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
That's all I have.
It's possible 3
Judge Carpenter and Bright may have some questions.
4 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
[
5 Q
Mr. Marshall, I want to be sure I understand.
We 6
have had testimony by a large number of people now to the i
7 effect that the problems with this leak rate test were 8
general knowledge in the operations department.
Would you 9
agree with that observation that others have expressed?
It 10 was generally well known that there were problems with this 11 leak rate test?
12 A
I don't agree with that.
I didn't -- wasn't aware 13 of any problem other than the one that I relate to the
()
14 computer program and the computer error and that being f
15 corrected.
16 Q
In your testimony, on page 3 of your prepared 17 statement, you say your understanding is that a computer 18 program error was the reason for the LER's issuance and.that 19 the program error was corrected.
20 Do you know that for a fact?
21 A
No, sir.
No, sir, I don't know that for a fact.
22 Q
As I read the LER, it doesn't talk very much about 23 any computer program error.
It talks about a 24 misinterpretation of the tech spec.
So I was kind of 25 surprised at your saying that's what the LER was all about.
O l
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 m-37m Nationwide coserage sot >3wou6 l
- e..
28691.0 BRT 4414
.()
1 A
Yes, sir.
1 2
Q Did you have a different thought here than the 3
literal:words that are before us?
4 A'
My impression of why they had a 2.6 gpm leak rate
)
5 was due to an error in the computer calculation and that was 6
corrected.
7 Q
I think there's some evidence that perhaps they-8 found a leak which, having identified it, then made the 9
unidentified leakage smaller.
10 A
Yes, sir.
But my --
11 Q
That's an alternate reason for what happened.
12 A
My impression of the problem with the leak rate,.
13 that particular one -- not so much the time clock, but the f ()
14 actual leak rate -- was a computer problem in that.
15 And that we corrected th'at, 16 Q
But you didn't -- is this more gossip or rumor j
17 than factual knowledge?
i i
18 A
Yes, sir.
That was my impression of it.
I'm not i
19 positive how I got that impression.
i-(
20 Q
A number of people that we talked to, shift t
l 21 supervisors, shift foremen, operators, all expressed the view i
22 that the way they did business didn't change one lota as a 23 result of this LER.
I'm still trying to understand how that 24 came about.
25 Were you the person that was supposed to see that
.I(:)
r ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage mn336 6M6
g-28691.0 BRT 4415 1
the way business was done did change?
2 A
Nobody ever gave me that job.
Nobody instructed 3
me how to run leak rates or how to do anything else with leak 4
rates.
5 Q
Or how to interpret them?
6 A
Or interpret; no, sir.
7 Q
So what was the significance of this piece of 8
paper that you got from PORC, other than to see that the LER 9
was put in the reading book?
10 A
That was what I did with it.
I can't explain why 11 but, you know, I do not remember having a conversation with 12 Seelinger or Floyd.
I would think that if I had the action 13 item I probably did and the answer was, you know, you need to
()
14 send that to the control room and get it reviewed.
That's 15 what I did.
16 Q
This numerical designation, 78-62, means this is 17 the 62nd LER in
'78.
So LERs were not uncommon?
18 A
No, sir.
They were not uncommon.
19 Q
If you can recall, how many of them required some 20 change in the way the people were doing business?
21 A
I don't really remember.
One or two, maybe.
22 Something like that.
23 Q
So motion of them did not?
24 A
Most of them did not; true.
25 Q
So if you would read them in a control room CE)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202d47 3700 Nationwide rO%Crage 80lb3346M6
~
n 28691.0 BRT 4416 1
reading book, these were more or less for general 2
information, not for -- not in terms of, now I'm going to 3
read something that's going to teach me to do something that 4
I have been doing in the past, to do it differently?
5 A
That's true.
6 Q
How do you think management could have gone about 7
seeing that there was a change from business as usual?
8 A
I believe the attempt was made with the OPS memo 9
to inform the people of the time clock requirements.
That's 10 my own personal belief, that the OPS memo was the attempt to 11 do that.
12 Q
But that didn't go in the reading book, did it?
f 13 A
It went to another book and a copy was also sent 14 to each shift supervisor and each shift foreman.
15 Q
So that should have been a flag that this was not 16 just like most of the other LERu?
17 A
Yes, sir.
18 Q
So there was an attempt to flag it?
19 A
Yes, sir.
I believe.
20 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you.
I didn't understand 21,
that.
Thank you.
22 f JUDGE KELLEY:
I have a couple of questions along 23 that line.
24 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
25 Q
The OPS memo -- on its face it is addressed to the o
l i
i r
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
g
-m
~ _ _.
~~
28691.0 BRT 4417
()
I foremen and supervisor so they would each get a copy, I take 2
it?
3 A
Yes, sir.
4 Q
But there was also an OPS memo book in the control 5
room?
6 A
Yes, sir.
7 Q
Was that also required reading for everybody?
8 A
Yes, sir.
It was.
9 At some point in time we started putting cover 10 sheets on the OPS memos, but I'm not sure whether it was 11 before or after this was written.
12 Q
Cover sheet meaning a sign-off sheet, an 13 initial-off sheet?
()
14 A
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
15 Q
But a CRO was supposed to read both?
16 A
Yes, sir.
17 Q
Now, could you elaborate a little bit more or 18 circumstances under which an LER would also generate an OPS 19 memo?
I believe you spoke to that to some extent in your 20 testimony.
Was it automatic?
That's question one.
21 A
No, sir.
It was not automatic.
22 Q
It wasn't always given an OPS memo?
23 A
No, sir.
24 Q
What was the criterion?
25 A
It was une method of notifying people in the
!(2) i 1
i i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Cmerage axk3364 M 6
... -. - 3 4 7-3 ?( x)
l 28691.0 BRT 4418
!O 1
' control room, the operations staff, of something that 2
- changed, t
1 3
Q Is that the distinguishing characteristic?
I'll 1
3 4
give you this example.
There's an LER that doesn't require i
5 any change in procedures.
It is almost informational.
In i
6 that case would there not be an OPS memo that would accompany 7
or be issued contemporaneous 1y with the LER?
j 0
A Would you repeat that?
i 9
Q I'm trying to get a handle on the significance of 4'
10 an OPS memo.
The OPS memo, at least in part, the one we are L
11 talking about here, seems to overlap or duplicate the LER.
12 Why even have one, I asked myself, so I'm sort of groping --
i 13 why this separate document?
Were the OPS memos only directed
)
l 4
14 at situations where new procedures were going to have to be 15 followed?
i 16 A
No, sir.
There was any number of reasons for r
J j
17 writing an OPS memo.
l l
18 In fact, when this one was written there were 18 i
l 19 of them already written for that year.
l 20 Q
18 OPS memos versus 62 LERs?
21 A
Yes, sir.
So it's not necessarily tied to an j
22 LER.
In fact, it is obvious that it isn't.
But it was a i
1 l
23 method that was used to notify operations personnel of i
24 problems and things that they needed to do.
And I believe l
25 that this one was an attempt to straighten out the problem i
l ()
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3hD Nationwide Cmcrage F4Ak336N4
28691.0 BRT 4419 1
with the leak rate and the action statement.
2 Q
What would be the purpose-of having both an OPS 3
memo and a copy of the LER?
I gather if I'm a shift foreman 4
I'm supposed to read both; right?
5 A
Yes, sir.
The OPS memo is supposed to put some 6
emphasis on it.
7 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
8 Q
As I understand, there were OPS memos that weren't 9
related to LERs; is that right?
10 A
That's correct.
11 Q
So that at any time there was some formal 12 communication that involved operations, it typically appeared 13 in the form of an OPS-memo?
O 14 A
That was one method, yes.
15 Q
What were the other methods?
16 A
There was, I guess the shift supervisor's turnover 17 book, you know, could also have information in it.
I believe 18 there was a shift supervisor's turnover book.
19 Q
In the sense of PORC or some manacement group 20 trying to communicate to everybody:
Let's change what we are 21 doing or let's pay attention to the following -- primarily 22 OPS memo?
23 A
We issued a lot of them.
I'd have to go back and, 24 you know, read each one individually.
25 But generally speaking that was one method that we O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Emerage 80iL33MM6
1 28691.0 BRT 4420 0
-1 used to tell operations department something was changing or 2
to flag something to them.
3 Q
But at any rate, the fact that this OPS memo 4
existed for this LER should have distinguished it from most 5
of the other LERs?
6 A
Yes, sir, I believe so.
7 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you.
8 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
9 Q
Mr. Marshall, you said that you had never had a 10 conversation with Mr. Seelinger about this matter?
11 A
Not concerning this, the LER, no, sir.
I do not 12 remember having a conversation with Seelinger about that.
I 13 may have, but I don't remember one.
O 14 Q
Okay.
He explicitly instructed you to inform all 15 the operating personnel of this LER; is that correct?
16 A
No, sir.
He didn't explicitly.
17 Q
Well, that memo -- ensure the following is 18 documented and the following personnel will be instructed, et 19 cetera.
That's what he told you to do?
20 A
I ensured that the LER was reviewed by the 21 personnel in the control roo.n.
22 Q
Exactly how dpi you do that?
Put this thing in l
23 the book?
i 24 A
Yes, sir.
I 25 Q
Does it seem a little strange to you?
I have been C)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2(C 347 37(n)
Nationwide Cmcrage RnL336-tM6
3 28691.0 BRT 4421 m
1 asking everybody that came along, practically, about did you 2
read the LER; what did you do about it?
3 Everyone read the LER.
They don't have the 4
foggiest notion what it said.
The only reason they know they 5
read it is because they initialed it on the check-off sheet.
6 That is strange.
7 MR. MC BRIDE:
Excuse me, Judge Bright, one 8
correction to your statement.
Mr. Chwastyk's sworn testimony 9
states that he did recall the LER.
10 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Several people have said they 11 recall but --
12 MR. MC BRIDE:
He had a contemporary recollection 13 of it.
The others recalled -- they testified they recalled f3
!'~
14 it through investigations.
15 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Okay.
Mr. Chwastyk did the same 16 thing as everybody else did.
17 MR. MC BRIDE:
He did or did not?
18 JUDGE BRIGHT:
He did.
19 MR. MC BRIDE:
He said he had a contemporaneous 20 recollection of 5t in his testimony.
21 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Perhaps I should enlarge my 22 statement.
He said he didn't do anything about it either; 23 how is that?
24 MR. MC BRIDE:
He stated his interpretation of it 25 in his testimony, but with respect to everyone else you o
V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m m >-
~ m,-
a,,..,.
~,_,
28691.0 BRT 4422 O
1 heard, your summary of the record is correct, I believe.
2 BY JUDGE-BRIGHT:
3 Q
So this -- actually you could have just passed 4
around the initial sheet, couldn't you?
5 A
Yes, sir.
6 Q
As far as any results are concerned?
7 A
Yes, sir, that's true.
8 Q
So the only result of Mr. Seelinger sending you 9
this memo and you making sure that it got into the book and 10 you making sure that everybody had signed off on it was this 11 piece of paper that says everybody signed off on it?
12 A
Yes, sir.
13 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Thank you.
O 14 JUDGE KELLEY:
Follow-ups?
15 MR. GEPHART:
Yes.
16 MS. WAGNER:
I have none.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
We have a few follow-up questions 18 from counsel.
19 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
20 Q
Please turn to the narrative to the LER.
Is there 21 a reference to a computer error in the narrative contained at 22 lines 13 and 14, under tab 30?
23 A
Yes, sir.
There is.
24 Q
Is it possible that this reference was what led 25 you to believe the computer program was corrected to take O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37m N.itioriwide roserage Nin346M6
?-
28691.0 BRT 4423 1
1 care of the leak rate problem?
2 A
Yes, sir, it is possible.
3 Q
Is it possible that because of your assignment to
[
4 work on problems with the polishers from approximately 5
September '78 to February '79, your normal follow-up routine 6
of making sure the appropriate operations personnel had i
7 signed and signed off on LERs was changed?
8 A
Yes, sir.
That's possible, 9
Q In what way?
j 10 A
In that I was spending eight hours a day down at t
11 the polishers and my time was limited otherwise.
j-12 Q
Perhaps by implication, but I understood you to be 13 saying before that when you were assigned as the implementing 14 person on an action item, as you were in the case of the 1
15 78-62, that you understood it to be your responsibility to 4
16 make sure that the document got to the control room and was 17 read and signed off on and that was it; right?
18 A
Yes, sir.
1
]
l 19 Q
Are you indicating that, let's say at a time prior i
20 to your commitment in time to the polishers, you would have 21 done something more than that?
22 A
No, sir.
I may have done it more of ten, though.
l 23 0
oh, you mean in terms of checking on whether it 24 was complete?
25 A
Yes, sir.
1O 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mum.,
~.e _ a. c _,.
..u -
~
1 l
t 28691.0 BRT 44 4 1
Q But not in terms of taking additional action?
2 A
No, sir.
Not in terms of taking additional 3
action.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
Mr. Marshall, that completes 5
our questions.
We appreciate your coming down.
6 We didn't get into leak rates with you for obvious 7
reasons but, as I said earlier, the implementation part of 8
the LER was important in the Comnission's agenda, and we did 9
think, even though we didn't spend that much time, together 10 we did want to focus on that closely which we think we have 11 done.
So that was important to us.
Thank you for coming 12 down.
You are excused.
13 (Witness excused.)
O 14 JUDGE KELLEY:
Off the record.
15 (Discussion off the record.)
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
0:30 tomorrow.
17 (Whereupon, at 2:40 p.m.,
the hearing was 18 adjourned, to reconvene at 0:30 a.m.,
on Thursday, October 19 30, 1906.)
20 21 22 23 24 25 mu ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3?m Naiionakle Coserage mn))MM
I CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER O
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION DOCKET NO.:
LRP PLACE:
B E T IIE S D A, MARYLAND DATE:
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear e
Regulatory Comnission.
(sigt)
(TYPED JOEL ITNER Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation O