ML20211H420
| ML20211H420 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/03/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1456 LRP, NUDOCS 8611050131 | |
| Download: ML20211H420 (184) | |
Text
_
O EGYl UNnED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
LRP INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION l
l
=
lO i
l l
LOCATION:
BETHESDA, MARYLAND PAGES:
4611 - 4792 DATE:
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1986 l
/((6I O\\
O Acn-FEDERAI. REPORTERS, INC.
OfficialReporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700 S e i 1 O M,13 :
- >. i i s,.,
Fna c.e O.
x;s I
' ! b' NATIONWIDE COVERACE
CR28728.0 BRT/sjg 4611
. )s 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is_
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x In the. Matter of:
5 Docket No. LRP INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND 6
UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION 7
_ _ _ _ _._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 8
9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fifth Floor Hearing Room 10 East West Towers 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, Maryland 11 12 Monday, November 3, 1986 f( )
13 The hearing in the.above-entitled matter convened at 14 10:00 a.m.
15 16 BEFORE:
JUDGE JAMES L.
KELLEY, Chairman 77 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 18 Washington, D.
C.
19 JUDGE JAMES H. CARPENTER, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. Washington, D.
C.
21 JUDGE GLENN O.
BRIGHT, Member 22 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 23 Washington, D.
C.
24 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3?6- % 46 L_..
4612
,(')
1 APPEARANCES:
On behalf of GPU Nuclear Corporation:
2 ERNEST-L. BLAKE, JR.,
ESQ.
3 JOHN N.
NASSIKAS III, ESQ.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 4
2300 N Street, N.W.
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.
9 LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 520 Madison Avenue-10 New York, New York 10022 On behalf of Jack Herbein:
yy JAMES B.
BURNS, ESQ.
12 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza
()
13 Chicago, Illinois 60602 CHRISTOPHER W.
FLYNN, ESQ.
14 RICHARD O. WOLF, ESQ.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale 15 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 16 On behalf of Gary P. Miller:
MICHAEL W.
MAUPIN, ESQ.
M.
CHRISTINA HENSLEY, ESQ.
18 Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street 19 Richmund, Virginia 23221 20 On behalf of Former Metropolitan Edison Employees:
21 SMTIH B.
GEPHART, ESQ.
22 Killian & Gephart 217-218 Pine Street, Box 886 23 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 On behalf of the NRC Staff':
24
()
JACK R.
GOLDBERG, ESQ.
25 MARY E. WAGNER, ESQ.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Cos erage KO-336-646
4613
~
4
(
l CONTENTS 2-N sXAMINATION 3
James' Leonard Seelinger 4
-by-Mr. McBride 4614 5
by the Board 4625
.by Mr. McBride 4663 6
by the Board 4682 7
8 i _.
9 RsCsSSsS:
}
10 NOON.- 4681 l
11-12 1
O 13-tir-1N - enseinso SrirsMsNr or Ssst1Nosa, re11oxe eeee 4623 i
14 15 i
16 17 18 19 20 t
l 21 22 23 24 h
25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800
._,-._-_,.._._.__,._-_.-_..._.____.._____,__..__________.,_.____336-6646_ _ _ _ _.... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
28728.'0 BRT 4614 rq V
1 P R O_ C E E D_.I N_ G S.
2 JUDGE'KELLEY:
On the' record, I received a 3
telephone call this morning from.Mrs. Aamodt'who is not here 4
and she was expressing her regret at not being here and 5
referred to some arrangement difficulties, th; details of 6
which we did not discuss.
It is not clear that she will be 7
here this week.
8 I did point out to her -- not point out -- simply 9
tell her that the schedule is now set and calls for our going 10 through Thursday and we have no scheduled. meeting for Friday,.
11 but we do have Mr. Herbein the following Wednesday, which she 12 had not heretofore been aware of.
I don't believe che will 13 be here this week.
She may be here next week.
I simply. told 14 her, well, come when you can.
And that's where we stand.
15 We are meeting here today to hear the testimony of 16 Mr. James Seelinger.
17 Whereupon, 18 JAMES LEONARD SEELINGER 19 was called as a witness and, having first been duly sworn, 20 was examined and testified as follows:
21 EXI.MINATION 22 BY MR. MC DHlDE:
23 Q
Would you please state your full name for the 24 record?
25 A
My full name is James Leonard Seelinger.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
.rm x _ m_,.
,,om
28728.0 1BRT 4615
,,i
'4ql' 1
Q Mr. Seelinger, do you have before you a nine-page 2
document bearing the caption of this proceeding and bearing 3
the caption " Prepared Statement of James L. Seelinger"?
4 A
Yes, I do.
5 Q
At_this time, Mr. Seelinger, do you have any 6
corrections or additions you wish to make to that testimony?
7 A
Sir, I have no corrections that I wish to make to 8
t.h e testimony, but I do have an addition that I would like to.
9 make to the testimony.
10 Q
What is the nature of that addition, 11 Mr. Seelinger?
12 A
The nat.ure of that addition involves a single 13 sheet, a document that I believe has been passed-out to the 14 judges prior to this proceeding, which is a. handwritten copy 15 of the narrative to the LER that is discussed in this 16 testimony and referred to in this particular testimony.
17 MR. MC BRIDE:
Let.the record reflect that I have 18 passed out copies of that single-page document to the parties 19 and to the NRC Staff.
20 BY MR. MC BRIDE:
21 Q
Mr. Geelinger, do you have a copy of that one-page 22 document in front of you?
23 A
Yes, sir, I do have a copy of that one-page 24 document in front of me.
25 Q
All right, sir.
And does it bear the title ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700
' Nationside Coserage 800-136 6M6 m.
_. _ -,.. ~. -,.., - - - -,... _., - -.., - - -
28728.0 g~
BRT 4616 (l
1
" Narrative to LER 78-62/1T"?
2 A
Yes, sir, it'does.
3 Q
Directing your attention to that document, 4
Mr. Seelinger, do you see your handwriting on any portion of 5
that page?
6 A
Yes, sir, my-handwriting does appear on portions 7
of that page.
8 Q
Would you, without attempting to go through the 9
entirety of the page, indicate by example some portion of the 10 page that is in your handwriting?
11 A
Yes, sir.
I think the easiest place for the-12 judges to focus upon would be at the end of the narrative; bi 13 the last five lines on the bottom of the page, are all in my a
14 handwriting.
15 Q
All right, sir.
And directing your attention to 16 material which appears within circles in three places on that 17 page, can you identify i f possible whether any of that 18 handwriting is in your own hand?
19 A
Sir, I would like to just back up for one second.
20 I would like to say that I believe the last five lines to all 21 be in my handwriting because the handwriting appe:trs to be 22 mine.
And if you could ask your next ques tion aga'tn, please.
23 Q
Directing your a ttention to the material which is 24 in three circles on that page, do you believe tha t any of the 25 handwrit.ing in those circles is your own?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
acem.,
~.e_ m r-mu_
~
20728.0.
BRT 4617 73 i )4 1
A Sir, going circle by circle, I do.not believe that 2
any of the handwriting in the first circle that. appears, that 3
is within the circle, is in my own hand.
4 In the second circle, I believe that t.h e "2.6 gpm" 5
is In my hand.
And, in the third circle, I do not believe 6
that any of the numbers or letters contained within t. hat 7
circle are in my hand.
8 Q
Directing your attention,. sir, to the end of the 9
third line at which appear a time and a portion of a date 10 below which are straight lines, are those -- is that time and 11 that portion of that date in ' jour own hand?
12 A
Sir, I believe you are referring to -- that is on D(j 13 the third line, at the end of the third line; am I correct?
14 Q
That's correct.
15 A
I do not believe that the numbers that appear to 16 have been put in blanks at the end of the third line in this 17 handwritten narrative are in my hand.
18 Q
And directing your a ttention f urther to the 19 quesLion marks that appear alongside the Cirst and the third 20, circles, do those question marks appear to be in your hand?
21 A
Sir, I can't be sure on those question marks, 22 whether those quest. ion marks are in my hand or not.
I just 23 don't know.
I made question marks lots of different ways.
I 24 don't know for sure.
25 0
Do you believe them to be in your hand?
O f
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 370()
Nationwide ruerage ttOO-336-6646
28728.0 HRT 4618 gO 1
A I believe that they are in my hand but I don't 2
know for sure.
3
'O All right, sir.
And finally, with respect to the 4
-what appears to have been a t one time a. ques tion mark af ter E
the second circle, do you believe that you may have put a 6
question mark at that place on this page?
7 A
I believe I may have put-a-question mark there.
I 8
can no longer see much of the Iemnants of the~ question mark 9
and so I don't think I can further comment on that.
10 Q
Do you believe that this handwritten document in 11 typed form was the version of the narrative that was 12 forwarded to Reading?
13 A
I believe that this handwritten narrative in typed 14 form was the version of the document that was forwarded to 15 Reading via a typewritten correspondence to Reading.
16 Q
And finatly, sir, at the opper right-hand corner i
17 of the page appears the notation, "pg.
4 of 4."
Do you know 18 if that was a contemporaneous writing or added after the 19 fact?
20 A
I do not know if that was contemporaneous or added 21 after the fact.
22 Q
All right, sir.
23 MR. MC BRIDE:
With the Hoard's indulgence I would 24 propose that this document be attached to Mr. Seelinger's 25 testimony and accompany it in the record.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37m Nationwide Coserage MXL336-fM6
28728.0 BRT 4619
-,Ib v
1 JUDGE KELLEY:
Could we establish a little bit 2
more where this page came from first?
It is like an exhibit,.
3 it seems.to me.
And it does appear to be useful.
-I'm not 4
indicating any predilection on my part to keep it out, but 5
was this something you found in your personal ~ file on 6
reviewing these matters or where'does this come from?
7 THE WITNESS:
Sir, I don't know, today, where this-8 particular document came from.
I did not have.it in my 9
personal files.
I was provided with the document.
I have 10 seen the document. in the past.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
By your counsel provided?
12 THE WITNESS:
I asked for this document, having 13 seen the document'in the past, and was provided i t by my 14 counsel.
15 JUDGE KELLEy:
Can you tell us where it comes 16 from, Mr. McBride?
17 MR. MC BRIDE:
Frankly, Judge Kelley, there have 10 been so many years that have past, I am not sure where it has 19 come from.
20.
JUDGE KELLEY:
Do other parties have any comments 21 on this?
22 MR. MC BRIDE:
I should say, Judge Kelley, as 1 23 think about it, I do believe this document was provided to me 24 by other coI1nse] quite some time ago but I don't recall the 25 exact circumstances.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37(U Nationwide Coverage 80tL336-6M6
-28728.0 BRT-4620
-.S t
'w/
1 JUDGE KELLEY:
The reason I sort of pause on this, 2
Mr. McBride, it is one thing to have prepared. testimony based 3
on the record, typically summarizing the record and giving 4
the witness' recollections.
This piece of paper strikes me 5
more as an exhibit.
6 MR. MC DRIDE:
We could make it, as an exhibit if 7
you would like.
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, that's not a sacred 9
distinc tion either, but where does it come from?
Nobody 10 seems to know.
It strikes me as unusual.
11 MR. MC BRIDE:
The witness has authenticated the 12 document and that's all we are required for evidentiary O
13 purposes.
g f
v 14 JUDGE KELLEY:
We all recognize the words.
15 Obviously it came from TMI somehow and we have an 16 identification of ha,ndwriting to the witness' - as best any 17 nonexpert on handwriting can identify their own handwriting,-
18 but can you help us out a little more?
19 MR. MC BRIDE:
I should have made a reference to 20 you which would help quite a bit.
If you'll turn to page 7 21 of Mr. Seelinger's testimony.
I'll ask Mr. Seelinger.
22 BY MR. MC URIDE:
23 Q
Mr. Seelinger, do you have page 7 of your 24 tes timony before you, s.ir?
25 A
- Yes, o
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-370)
Nationwide Coverage 8m3346M6
28728.0 BRT 4621
-s
(
)
y 1
Q Is this the typed version of the handwritten
~
2 version of the narrative that you referred to, at that page?
3 A
If you look up from the bottom, seven lines from 4
the end of the' bottom I have a statement in my prepared 5
testimony that says, "my recent review'of a handwritten 6
version of the narrative" and goes on from there.
This 7
document is that handwritten document that is referred to.
8 MR. MC HRIDE:
I will say,_off the record on 9
Friday's session I asked the Board whether there were things 10 this witness ought to be looking at, and wi th respect to this 11 particular document Judge Bright indicated that he would like 12 to see the handwritten version of this narrative and I have 13 provided it on that basis and because Mr. Seeiinger wanted 14 the Board to have it so you'd better understand his 15 testimony.
He was not aware tha t you did not have it.
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
That's fine.
And I share Judge 17 Bright's desire to see it.
I'm just trying to nail down 18 where it came from.
19 Can you tell us who wrote the rest of it?
20 THE WITNESS:
Sir, I can't say for sure who wrote 21 the rest of it but I believe that Jim Stair wrote the 22 majority of the rest of it.
23 JUDGE KEI, LEY:
We can get into more details of t
24 that.
We'll be ta lking to you about the process by which 25 this LER is generated, and I suppose we can question about v
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-n
~ _ m c-
~~
28728.0
~BRT 4622 g
N.]
-1 this as well as some other things.
2 Do the parties have any comment or objection to 3
this page we have been discussing either becoming an extra 4
page of the testimony, as an attachment, if you will, or a 5
separate exhibit, numbered, I guess, 24?
6 MR. MC BRIDE:
I should say, by the way, this is.
7 the best copy we have available to us.
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
I understand.
Mr. Blake?
9 MR. BLAKE:
No.
No objection.
10 MR. BURNS:
No.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
Anybody else?
12-MR. MAUPIN:
I don't have any objection making it (G) 13 either part of the record or.part of his tes timony.
I'm 14 curious as to whether there are more than two different 15 handwritings on the page but I trust the questioning will --
16 MR. MC BRIDE:
I think the questioning will bring 17 that out.
18 MR..MAUPIN:
-- will develop it.
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
Do you prefer it as another page of 20 testimony or separate exhibit?
21 MR. MC BRIDE:
I prefer to have it as another page 22 of testimony because he does refer to it in his testimony.
I 23 provided a copy to the court reporter.
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
With the understanding 25 that the handwritten page we have been talking about entitled O
o i
s ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i mm,
-_ m m...
28728.0
.BRT 4623 s
Iis) 1-
" Narrative to LER78-62" will be appear after page 9 as 2
another page of testimony, and all that will be bound into 3
the record as has been our practi'ce.
4 BY MR. MC BRIDE:
5 Q
I would just like to conclude the questioning by 6
asking, with this addition, Mr. Seelinger, is your prepared 7
statement true and correct to the bes t of your knowledge, 8
information and belief?
9 A
Yes, sir, it is.
10 Q
Do you adopt that statement as your sworn 11 testimony in this proceeding?
12 A
Yes, I do.
/~N 13 MR.'MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, I would move the gg 14 testimony with the accompanying page identified be bound into 15 the record as if. read.
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
So ordered.
17 (The document follows:)
18 19 20 I
21 22 23 24 25 g
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-370)
Nationwide Cmerage 80k3%6M6
\\
,a (D
%/
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 JAMES L.
SEELINGER Introduction My name is James L.
Seelinger.
I live in Palm Beach O~
County, Florida.
.I am 41 years old and am employed as Manager, Utility Operations and Environmental Affairs for Pratt &
Whitney, a division of United Technologies Corporation.
I have been employed by Pratt & Whitney since November.1979.
In 1978, I was Unit 2 Superintendent-Technical Support at Three Mile Island (TMI).
On or about December 1, 1978, I l
became Unit 1 Superintendent.
I left TMI in mid-October 1979 because the time commitments required of me by my job had been so great that I had not had sufficient time to devote to my family, and I did not feel this situation would improve i
significantly in the future.
I I chose not to become a party to these proceedings because I am no longer involved in the nuclear industry and
()
have no present intention of becoming a part of that incustry.
i 1
/'N i'-)
My present commitments to my job, family, and church more than fill my time and are such that I do not have the desire to take on other responsibilities.
Nevertheless, when I became aware that the Presiding Board wanted to hear from me about leak rate matters at Three Mile Island, I chose ~to file prepared testimony.
Doing so has refreshed my recollection as to what I now recall and what I cannot recall of what happened in 1978 at Three Mile Island with respect to leak rate matters.
In October 1986 it will have been seven years since I was employed at Three Mile Island, and eight years since the events this testimony discusses.
I am certain that the Board will understand if I cannot recall everything that happened at that time.
~ Background I grew up in Montana and was awarded an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy.
I enrolled at the Academy in June 1963.
I graduated in June 1967 with a Bachelor of Science Degree.
My class standing was 6th out of approximately 900.
Upon graduation from the Academy, I was selected to attend the U.S. Naval Postgraduate Schcol in Monterey, California.
I received a Master's Degree in Mathematics from the Postgraduate School in the early Spring of 1968.
While attending the Naval Postgraduate School, I was selected by Admiral Rickover for service in the Naval Nuclear Program.
l l
l I
! l t
h 6
/~%
After participating.in nuclear and submarine training from May 1968 to the Summer of 1969, I spent approximately the next five years, with'the exception of a 6-month interlude for.
additional schooling,'in the submarine service.
I received an honorable discharge from the Navy in the Spring of 1974.
I began my employment with Metropolitan Edison Company at Three Mile Island in June 1974.
My first assignment was as a Training Engineer.
Later in 1974, I became the Supervisor of Training.
I was Engineer Senior-1 from the Summer of 1975 to the end of 1976.
While an Engineer Senior-1, I reported to Mr. Herbein.
In December 1976, I took the Senior Reactor Operator license examination on Unit 1 and shortly thereafter became licensed on Unit 1.
O)
In January 1977, I was interviewed by a group
\\_
consisting of Messrs. Herbein, Miller, and Colitz for the job of Unit 2 Superintendent-Technical Support.
Shortly after the interview I was awarded the job.
Because I was very concerned about the number of hours I might end up working in this capacity due to what I observed of the approximate 300 hours0.00347 days <br />0.0833 hours <br />4.960317e-4 weeks <br />1.1415e-4 months <br /> per month Messrs. Herbein, Colitz, and Miller frequently worked, I brought a detailed and lengthy list of concerns to the interview with me.
One of these concerns dealt with the chain of command.
I was told that I would not be the Unit 2 Superintendent and that Mr. Floyd, the Unit 2 Supervisor of Operations (and thus the Operations Department) would not OV i
r~x report to me, but rather would continue to report to Gary Miller, the Unit 2 Superintendent.
I was told that my position was a higher position than Mr. Floyd's, but not in the same line of command.
This reporting relationship existed for my entire term as Unit 2 Superintendent-Technical Support from January 1977 through November 1978.
I did not have line responsibility or authority for the day-to-day management of TMI-2.
I was not designated as the " acting" superintendent of TMI-2, nor was I the " acting" superintendent of.TMI-2.
The only exceptions to this that'I recall were (1) that on " duty" weekends Mr. Miller and I sometimes filled'in for each other and (2) I was authorized to sign procedures as Unit 2 Superintendent when Mr. Miller was not available, n
v Involvement in TMI-2 Leak Rate Testing I never performed a leak rate test in Unit 2.
I do not recall ever supervising the performance-of such a test in Unit 2.
Therefore, I did not perform any false leak rate tests, and do not recall supervising the performance of any such tests.
The only reason'that I cannot be certain that I never supervised a leak rate test is that on one day--in April 1978--since Mr. Floyd had been on site virtually the entire previous day and night, I filled in for him in the Unit 2 Control Room during the evolutions associated with initially n-
- 4
-v,------,r--
-.,m-
.a.<~
~
t I do not recall bringing the turbine generator on line.
x
/
whether leak rate tests were performed that day.
Response to Mr. Gary p. Miller's Prepared Testimony In his prepared testimony in this proceeding, Mr. Miller stated or implied that I participated in daily calls from the Unit 2 Control Room shortly after 8 A.M. each day to update management in Reading on the status of the TMI Units.
As Unit 2 Superintendent-Technical Support, as a matter of I was neither present for these calls nor did I
- course, participate in them.
On rare occasions, I may have been present in Mr. Miller's office or the Unit 2 Control Room during a morning status call.
O
\\#
As Unit 2 Superintendent-Technical Support, I did not routinely attend the monthly Shift Supervisor meetings Mr. Miller conducted, and I may have never attended such a meeting while I was Unit 2 Superintendent-Technical Support.
What actions I got out of the Operations Department I felt I got through either asking Mr. Floyd or his Operations Engineer, Mr. Marshall, or through'having gained the personal respect of one or more shift supervisors.
I acted from the side and appealed to the Shift Supervisors' sense of good will and their respect for me to get items accomplished by them.
O h.
k-)
If Mr. Miller regarded me as the acting Unit 2 Superintendent, he did not share this with me (with the exceptions previously discussed).
My perception was that Mr. Miller regarded me as a very hard working and conscientious senior employee who, like himself, was consistently willing to make unreasonable personal sacrifices to get jobs done.
I routinely worked 70 hours8.101852e-4 days <br />0.0194 hours <br />1.157407e-4 weeks <br />2.6635e-5 months <br /> per week during September-November 1978, despite severe back problems.
By default and by having the nature to tackle what was there, I ended up with my plate of jobs more than full.
The last time that I had any involvement with Unit 2, as Unit 2 Superintendent-Technical Support, was in November 1978.
To the best of my recollection, I had no knowledge of any leak rate test problems at Unit 2 after November 1978, until I learned of the Hartman allegations in 1980.
Response to Mr. Donald R.
Haverkamp's Prepared Testimony Mr. Haverkamp's testimony in this proceeding makes several points to which Iwishhorespond.
They are as follows:
(1)
That I was the acting Unit 2 Superintendent; (2)
That his role in the " rounding-off" issue was minimal; (3)
That the corrective actions stated in LER 78-62/lT, "if adequately implemented, would have been 7
) __
9 6
g) iI sufficient to preclude recurrence of the problem as I.
understood it."
As to the first point, I was not the acting Unit 2 Superintendent.
As previously stated, Mr. Gary Miller was the
^
Unit 2 Superintendent; I was the Unit 2 Superintendent-Technical Support.
As to the second point, during a meeting with Mr. Haverkamp'on October 18, 1978, he brought up the issue that we may not be taking full advantage of the leak rate Technical Specification, namely, that the Technical Specification limited unidentified leakage to 1 gpm, not 1.0 gpm.
I feel confident in stating that the rounding-off practice that was in place for approximately 7-10 days in October 1978 would not have been
,()
adopted had the issue not been brought up by the NRC.
As to the LER, and before I discuss our implementation of the corrective actions described in it, I want the Presiding Board to know that I am now aware that there are a number of errors in the Narrative to that LER.
Some of those errors relate to times and dates.
My recent review of a handwritten version of the Narrative leads me to believe that I may have questioned the times and dates and that others provided the times and dates or did not correct the errors.
How those errors got there, I am not sure.
Although the words in the Narrative about reducing unidentified. leakage by identifying leaks do not. appear to have
(~3-v. _ _ _ _.
I.
6 been a part of the Narrative before the Narrative was sent to Reading, I did believe that the operators were attempting to identify leaks.
I do not know how those words came to be a part of the Narrative.
In any event, I attempted to implement the corrective actions described in the Narrative by assuring myself that Mr. Floyd followed Mr. Haverkamp's interpretation (which he appears to have done by issuing his Operations Memorandum dated October 20, 1978), by instructing Mr. Walter Marshall (by memorandum) to inform the operators of the correct interpretation, by discussing the matter in a plan-of-the-day (POD) meeting and again at a later date on second shift with a Shift Supervisor, by satisfying myself that appropriate
(
computer changes had been made, by advising Mr. O'Hanlon (the
~
then-Unit 1 Superintendent), in October 1978, of the NRC's interpretation of the Action Statement requirement, and by assuring myself (after I became Unit 1 Superintendent) that Unit 1 operators would also take comparable action if unidentified leakage was greater than 1 gpm.
I believe that any fair-minded person would conclude that I tried to implement the corrective actions proposed in the Narrative.
O g.
}
c 0
s v.
Conclusion I took a number of steps to implement the corrective actions set forth in the Narrative to LER 78-62/lT.
Because I never performed or (so far as I can recall) supervised a leak rate test at TMI-2, I nscer falsified such tests.
My reputation is extremely important to me; therefore I would appreciate it if the Presiding Board would-exonerate me of
~
involvement in leak rate test falsification.
2 O
4 4
r '.
tyggtfrgriv E~
r n t c G '7 e s t / si
~
o
?
1 6 " "od M M.P M,vAA @ q 4~s h Fw A ar"g
\\
14,t;g, "4
w t
hW
- wy m-opfis:Ay W Q k out E5@ l~
- tA d q2J ca W.w M.. nz yy a a 9.t..
d'&%1L~&j w#tr$'&~
~
M
~
y 9,.7 -
e,
4
.m.
%-, #+-
f %>w.
^
..,,. A x ~ p.A 74_ 4( q.m3 g*gjp^r,, --
A -~t s4.e=fqm..a.a. 4+ mg. i 2
n
'.L 4 U e A hg...
.= e 3 '- A. r. s.. ~ g J u,,, s.
,,' ' < - ~
.t k 4 M u A D.-1p) ALS y t,, jag
- g_,,.
6,...'., J d'. n o. wWAA A(In r oc % <r.n:g.._] T n
,n.,. s LJ PiiW,$ 41 mmCS4%$
6..aML~
.:t
~s., L.,,u ll?
f h -
A.
EL<E3 m mc9. JL, c.(.(.,p,: n.f
, j f, y 7
h I'~~adL M n.A
.. i t 4.,(e & $ @ p e a - ! y t.
-s,
.Y.....
m sto A
4 r
u.
. s as g
.... u~,(
- v.. a
- n...
?
h 3
JMQ. M 4A u,AA eskbAu A
)O y
A i
.seu hw m
q
20728.0 BRT 4624 t
b
\\_/
1 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Seelinger, T have a few 2
introductory comments and then Judge Bright will start our 3
questioning process and then myself and Judge Carpenter will 4
also have some questions for you.
5 Just by way of introduction, as I'm sure you are 6
aware, the Commission has charged this board with looking 7
into leak rate data f alsification and other improper 8
practices associated with leak rate testing in 1978-1979 at 9
TMI-2.
This will be your opportunity to s ta te on the record 10 your recollection of your own participation and involvement 11 in leak rate testing or matters related to leak rate 12 testing.
I add that phrase simply because we are aware of i-(y
)
13 the fact that you, in your position, were not performing leak
~
14 rate tests nor were you directly supervising the performance 15 of leak rate tests in the sense i~n which a shift foreman 16 would or shift supervisor would.
17 Our interest, in fact, focuses on'the events 18
-surrounding the LER that we have already starthd to talk 19 about, in October or November of 1978, and we are aware from 20 the record. that we have compiled from other witnesses that 21 you were involved in tha t as you, indeed, described in your 22 prepared testimony.
But that is what we are primarily 23 interested in this morning.
24 The Commission, I should add, charged us with 25 looking at, in addi. tion to who falsified a leak rate test, if gu ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3AO Natiormide Coserage 800-336-6M6 -
28728.0 BRT 4625 r-L.)
l 1
anybody, they specifically referred to this LER and the 2
circumstances surrounding it and whether adequate correct.ive 3
action was taken at that time to make sure tha.t people --not 4
just people, CRos, people. involved in leak rate tests, had 5
the proper unders tanding of the tech specs that was brought 6
to Jight at that time by that LER.
7 So, that is our orientation.
Let me'say that we 8
. realize you had to come from a dis tance to be here this 9
morning.
We appreciate that.
And it is our intent to simply 10 get as much light. thrown on these events as we can.
11 With tha t I'll turn it over to Judge Bright.
12 EXAMINATION DY Tile BOARD 13 HY JUDGE BRIGilT:
14 Q
Mr. Seelinger, I would like to get some kind of 15 straight idea of 'your actual authority when you were at Unit 16 2.
In your prefiled testimony, bottom of page 3 and then on 17 up through the top of page 4, you state that Mr. Floyd 18 wouldn't report t.o you.but, rather, would continue to report 19 to Gary Miller; that you were told that your position was a 20 higher position than Mr. Floyd's.
What does that mean, you 21 both reported to the same person, Mr. Miller?
22 A
We both reported to the same person, sir.
23 However, in terms of --perhaps an analogy might be that if 24 various jobs had grade levels -- just say within an 25 organization -- tha t although they were not in the same line ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3WU Nationwide Coverage 8(n336-6M6
28728.0 BRT 4626 (v)
-I chain of command and both reported to the same person, the 2
grade level of my job would be higher than Mr. Floyd - the 3
grade level of Mr. Ployd's job.
4 I state that in that fashion to try to clarify 5
your answer.
The term " grade level" was not used in terms of.
6 explaining it to me but I think it's the easiest way to try 7
to convey my perception of what was meant at the time.
8 Q
Well, you say later that you had no responsibility 9
for day-to-day operation and -.well, let's just go through 10 it here.
11 You had no "line responsibility or authority for 12 the day-to-day management of TMI-2."
You were not designated
(
)
13 as the acti ng-superintendent of TMI-2, "nor was I the v
14
' acting' superin tendent of TMI--2. "
And then the only 15 exceptions were that sometimes you filled in.for Mr. Miller 16 and vice versa and you were authorized.to sign procedures 17 when Mr. MiJ1er wasn't available.
18 Mr. Miller's statement -- he made a gratuitous 19 s taternent here about that particu]ar relationship in his 20 prefiled testimony.
On page 3 and 4, the very bottom of page 21 3.
Have you refreshed yourself?
22 A
I looked -- I s tarted, sir, reading at the bottom 23 of page 3, I started reading "as a result."
Did I start at 24 the right place?
25 Q
Yes.
gu ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
20728.0 BRT 4627 1
Y
%s 1
A I read from there over to the end of the first 2
paragraph on page 4.
3 Q
That's fine.
~4 I realize you take issue with Mr. Miller's 5
statement that you represented' Unit 2 during '70 in the 6
morning conference ca))s on Unit's status.
Ilut I'm not 7
particularly interested.in that.
He does state that he 8
depended upon you to supervise day-to-day operation and, as.a 9
practical matter, you were the principal Unit 2 manager 10 during this time frame.
Now, it -- and you substantially 11 discharged the responsibilities of Unit 2 superintendent.
12 Quite often there is a difference between actual
(
13 designation and carved-in-stone job description or whatever, 14 and a perceived authority.
And it appears to me that this 15 might be one of those cases where, even though it was not 16 written,down, that everyone at Unit 2 knew that if Miller 17 wasn't available, you were the boss.
10 Could that be somewhat descriptive of the 19 situation?
20 A
Sir, I think that in any given situation, 21 different people have different perceptions and perceive 22 things differently.
The older I get, I think, the more'I 23 tend to become aware of tha t.
My thoughts are not 24 necessarily the only way that a particular situation appears l
25 to someone else.
- O I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2(C 347-37a)
Nationwide Coserage 8ah336-(M6
[
28728.0 BRT 4620 (v
1 In this particular situation', it is certainly 2
possible that different people had different perceptions, 3
relative to the situation at hand.
4 I had what I thought was a clear understanding 5
that the operations department did not work for me, the line 6
people responsible for operating the unit on a day-to-day 7
basis; they worked for Mr. Floyd, and Mr. Floyd reported to 6
Mr. Mi l] er.
And when I was interviewed for the job of unit 9
superintendent, technical support, that was made quite clear 10 to me.
And that reporting responsibility,.to the best of my 11 recollection, did not change during my tenure as Unit 2 12 s uperi n tenden t, technical support.
(
13 Q
Well, let's try another thing, then.
As chairman 14 of the PORC, this gave you quite a bit ~ of authority to do 15 things that were matters for surveillance or whatever you 16 want to call it.
Au with --wel], with Mr. Marshall.
17 Mr. Marshall worked for Mr. Floyd, but you had no problem in 18 flat out telling Mr. Marshall to do thus and so; and he did
~
19 it in his own inimitable way.
Would you say tha t that was 20 another source of authority that you might have around the 21 plant?
22 A
sir, I made assignments on various items.
I made 2i assignments on items rele2 ting to the PORC; I made assignments 24 on such things as vendor communications.
I made assignments 25 on such things as NRC correspondence.
And put r.ames by.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6 4 6
20728.0 BRT 4629
/N G
1 things to ask people to carry those things out'and tried to 2
f.ollow up or set up a mechanism to follow up to see if those 3
things were carried out.
4
- 11. terms of the relationship directly with the 5
operations department, I think that -- I think maybe a key 6
difference in my mind was in day-to-day-type communications, 7
I asked.
I did not typically order, I would say, in a 8
day-to-day, verbal-type communication.
At least in terms of 9
my own feeling and perception, la wha t I'm talking about here 10 right now.
11 With respect to the engineers who did report to 12 me, I also asked, because tha t's a better way of doing n
(
)
13 business in terms of dealing with people.
But if I ever 14 would have needed to, sir, in that circumstance, I felt that 15 I had the capability to order.
16 In the area of the operations department I 17 personally did not feel that I had that authority.
18 Q
Did you ever run into a situation where there was 19 some, perhaps disagreement between you and Mr. Floyd?
20 A
Sir, we had situations where we disagreed on 21 things; yes, sir.
22 0
Was there any feeling of who_ deferred.to whom, in 23 i situaLion like tha t?
24 A
Sir, I can think of two situations, one of which I 25
-- that come to mind.
In one of which I deferred to him and O
i i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 x e_m c_.,
28728.0 BRT 4630
(%.)'
1 in another of which he deferred'to me.
And they were 2
amicably worked out.
3 Q
I assume you didn't try to bother Mr. Miller with 4
these crass little details of organization and management.
S You could work things out amicably and not have to go'to the-6 man to get the final word?
7 A
Sir, I think that if Mr. Floyd and I had had a 8
disagreement that we had not been able to work out amicably, 9
-then that would have been the step that likely ultimately 10 would have been taken.
That.is, based on the tense and my 11 usage, is speculative.
I don't recall such a thing as 12 happening, m(j 13 Q-Let's talk just a little bit.about the Haverkamp 14 incident.
As I recall Mr. Haverkamp's testimony, he did this IS
-- he saw unident.ified leakage test rates of. greater than 1 16 gallon per minute. lying out on the desk and he talked a 17 little bit with some unidentified persons and then he 'went to 18 your office.
19 Was your office the proper place to go?
In light 20 of what you said about authority and responsibility, 21 whatever?
22 A
Sir, in this particular case I think my - I think 23 my office was a proper p_ lace to go.
24 Q
Was Mr. Miller available?
25 A
To the best of my recollection on that particular (Oh I
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
28728.0 BRT 4631-(sU) 1 day Mr. Miller was on-site; yes, sir.
2 Q
But he didn't go to the uni t superintendent, he 3
went ta you?
4 A
Sir, as Mr. Ilaverkamp said in his testimony, I was 5
his principal point of contact for TMI-2, in terms of when'he 6
exit interviewed from his visits.
I think - I believe that 7
I was typically the person that he exit-interviewed with and 8
he may weil have enter-interviewed Nith me.
I'm not ac clear 9
on the latter, as a typical enter interview.
J 10 Q
So he knew you and knew where your office was and 11 to him this was the straight line between'two points, the 12 best approach to a situation?
Would'that be a fair statement f
\\
(j
-13 of what you were saying?
14 A
Well, sir, it would be a fair statement that, as I 15 have just stated, that I was his contact and his principal 16 contact and that I think he came to his principal contact,- or 17 perhaps someone in the control room advised him to come see
~
18 me on this particular matter.
19 Q
You had this conversation with Mr. Ilaverkamp and 20 he remembers that someone elsa was there.
And I'm curious, 21 who was that other person?
22 A
Sir, I don't recall if another person was present 23 during the conversation, for any of it or a portion of it or 24 all of it.
I just don't recal.1.
I do recall, however, if 25 another person was present for any of that conversation, it O.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 447-3700 Nationwide Coserage M633MM6
4 28728.0 BRT 4632 cs
/
)
.q; I
was Mr. Floyd.
2
-Q That was what I was puzzled about to begin with.
3 The leak rate tests were an' operations item.
The operations 4
people were the ones who carried them out.
And why 5
'Mr.
llaverkamp didn ' t just go to Mr. Floyd -- it seemed a 6
little strange to me.
7 Do you have any idea why?
As I understand it, 8
Mr. Floyd was around t.here all that morning.
9 A
Sir, I can c.omment on that.
I was the person ---
10 excuse me -- I was the person involved with technical 11 specifications, and perhaps the principal person involved 12 wi th technical-s pecifica tion-in terpre ta tion.
I don't know if 13 I said it. correctly to start out with.
I'.11 try it one more 14 time.
Excuse me.
15 I was the principal person involved with 16 technical-s pecifica tion interpretation and the ma tter tha t wo 17 discussed.was'a technical-specification-interpretation 18 matter.
Whether or not Mr. Haverkamp had gone to Mr. Floyd 19 first or not, I feel confident that I would have become 20 involved in this particular matter in terms of 21 Mr. Haverkamp's discussion and in terms of our practice on 22 this particular matter during Mr. Haverkamp's visit.
23 Q
Let's go a little bit into this LER procedure.
24 According to Mr. Stair, who was the -- according to his 25 previous statement, he was the one of two engineers that were O.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-334 6646 1
l 28728.0 BRT 4633
. ls\\.
' 'U 1
assigned the job of doing the actual writing of LERs.
Was 2
that your understanding?
3 A
Could you ask the question again, please, Judge?
4 Q
I made a statement about Mr. Stair, tha t he was an -
S
. engineer who wrote up LERs for the PORC, and I asked you'if 6
that's your undersLanding.
7 A
Sir, Mr. Stair was an engineer assigned to the 8
Metropolitan Edison s ta f f in Reading.
We had started a 9
practice somewhere in 1978 of bringing engineers from the 10 Reading s taf f to the site to write up the LERs for the 11 purpose of gaining educ'ation on Three Mile Island matters o..
12 a firsthand basis and in enlightening those engineers 3
13 slightly more on matters relative to the island on a
~J 14 firsthand basls.
15 Mr.' Stair was one of the people that was; involved 16 in that particular program and way of preparation of LERs.
17 But. I don't mean to convey'that.that Mr. Stair was either, 18 one, the only one from Reading that was involved in that or 19 that all LERs were prepared in that particular fashion.
20 Q
What would be an alternate procedure?
21 A
Prior 1;.o that ti me, sir, the.LERs had -- prior to-22 sometime in 197H --and I don't recall what the timing was of 23 that --the initial LER would have been prepared by one of the 24 site engineers and then forwa rded to Reading for ultimate and 25 final preparat. ion, prior to forwarding to the NRC.
l U
\\
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l I
'02-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80tk33MM6
. _., _ ~
28728.0 x
BRT 4634 I
\\
V 1
We established this practice of bringing an 2
engineer from Reading down for educational and traini'ng 3
purposes, and Mr. Stair was involved in that program because 4
of his position on the Reading staff.
5 Q
Okay.
Now we've es tablished this type of 6
procedure,'let's say.
Because Mr. Stair was in position, and 7-it wa.s his -- he didn't mention any alternate ways of doing 8
business.
He merely says that he'd get a phone call, he'd 9
get on his horse, and something would happen.
10 So, af ter you instituted this. particular 11 procedure, were there any alternate procedures that you might 12 follow on an LER?
13 A
Sir, I don't reca11'after we instituted the 14 procedure if every LER was done in tha t particular fashion or 15 not.
16 Q
Okay.
Well let me -- as I remember it --and 17 correct me if I stray
--Mr.
Stair's statement was that he 18 would receive notification, sometimes written, but for a 19 14-day report such as the LER, this particular LER, 78-62, 20 he would probably get a phone ca)).which would require him 21 to, rather quickly, come down to the island and look up the 22 cognizant engineer, whoever that might be for the LER matter, 23 confer with him, get the tacts as presented by the engineer, 24 and draft an LER statement.
25 ACter that he would meet with the PORC at their ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
28728.0 BRT 4635
-s
-l J 1
x.
1 pleasure,.and give the PORC his handwritten draft for their 2
editing, whatever they wanted to do.
And it was his position 3
that he, being a young engineer, I think -- I think that's 4
what he sai_d -- being a young engineer he was rather reticent 5
about asking any questions or this sort of thing'with the 6
PORC, anyway.
And whatever they said to do he did it.
7 I'm just trying to bring out the way it appears to 8
me, that he was a conduit.
Supposedly he was taking raw 9
statements from the cognizant engineer, taking them to PORC,
-10 PORC had its will with the document, at which point he would 11 then take the document without any input from himself, that 12 is, he provided no input whatsoever to these things.
It all
[
13 came from the cognitant engineer and from PORC.
%)
-14 Is this your understanding of his function?
15 A
Sir, I'll try to briefly restate what my 16 understanding of his function would be.
First of all, 17 although I don't recall, I would doubt-sitting here today 18 that Mr. Stair would get a call directly from Three Mile 19 Island to come to Three Mile Island.
Because Mr. Stair would 20 have worked in a chain of command in Reading at the time, and 21 it's likely that -- I believe that it's likely that such a
'22 call would have gone to his supervision and his supervision 23 then would have assigned someone to come to the island.
24 Q
He only said he got a phone cal 3, he didn't say 25 from whence it sprang.
Os ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3 4 6646
]
28728.0 BRT 4636 f
i q) 1 A
Again, not direc t recollection,. but I imagine 2
that's the way that that would have occurred.
3 Ele would have come ~ to the site, interfaced with 4
the appropriate personnel relative t.o the incident or event 5
at hand-to be written up, take a shot at writing it up; in 6
~ other words, write it up, then present that write-up to the 7
PORC.
PORC would question it as necessary, edit.it as 8
necessary as you have stated, revise it as necessary, and 9
that would then form the basis of the LER that would be 10 transmitted to Reading.
11 I do not recall in all instances if it was always 12 transmitted to Reading in the same fashion.
It may have oQ 13 been, in some instances, typed on Three Mile Island and 14 forwarded to Reading, or it may have even, in some insLances, 15 gone back directly from Three Mile Island with the preparer 16 to Reading.
I don't know how to time sequence that remark 17_
but I believe, sitting here today, that either could have 18 happened, but that's -- I just can't say for sure, sir.
19 Q
I think his statement was that ordinarily, not 20 entirely but ordinarily, he would reta.in one copy of the 21 handwritten, edited, ready-to-type statement that finally 22 issued from the PORC and would take it back to Reading, have 23 it typed up.and sent for, I think he said the superintendent 24 of generation or something like that, for his signature 25.
somehow or other.
pV ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Coserage 800-336-6646
\\
28728.0 DHT 4637
,_i V
1 But I got the. idea that this one was not quite 2
that way; that it went directly from Three Mile Island, in 3
typed form, and that's th'e way he got it, is in typed form.
4 It went directly to someone named Trof f er or Truf fer -
5 something-like that.
Do you recognize the name?
6 A
The name would be Troffer, sir.
I 'm not - if 7
that's the direct sequence on that, I don't have direct 8
recollection of that.
A paper trail seems to support that, 9
however.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
Isn't it tab 28?
Just as long as Lil you are ref: erring to it, isn' t tha t tab 28?
12 MR' MC BRIDE:
Ile doesn 't have it.
I'm going to n
( )\\
13 put.it before him.
x 14 JUDGE KELLEY:
Seelinger sending it to Troffer.
15 MR. MC BRIDE:
I put before the witness a document 16 that appears at tab 28 of volume V(c) of the Stier report.
17 JUDGE BRIGilT:
Judge Kelley has a couple of 18 questions he would Jike to interject.
19 BY JUDGB KELLEY:
20 Q
First of all, that's a transmittal from yourself 21 to Mr. Troffer, which, I gather, indicates you are sending 22 the draft LER to Reading with this transmittal note on the 23 front.
Is that right?
24 A
Sir, the transmittal letter on the front indicates 25 that we are sending the drafL LER Crom Reading with this ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3A10 Nationwide Coverage Mn336-6M6
28728.0 BRT 4638 pd 1
particular transmittal letter.
2 Q
Right.
3 A
However, I cannot comment for sure on when this 4
transmittal letter was signed.
I'll elaborate on that if you 5
would like.
6 Q
I take it that what is attached is a dra f t.;
7 right?
What is attached is a draf t?
8 A
Sir, what is attached is a draft; yes, sir.
-9 Q
Right.
And the report date says, in the upper
~10 right-hand corner, "11-blank," meaning, I take it, that the 11 preparer assumes it's going to get signed in November but.
12 doesn't know when.
Does that help?
I'm just inferring from
(
13 that that that's what that means?
14 A
Gir, sitting here today I believe that your 15 inference is probably correct.
16 Q
Okay.
So would that have been sent up late 17 October, in all likelihood?
It has to be after the 20th or 18 so, that's when the whole thing happened.
So I take i t 1. hat 19 would be 1.he time frame?
20 A
Sir, I believe that the actual PORC meeting that 21 reviewed Mr. Stair's write-up, occurred on Oc tober 30th.
22 Q
Right.
23 A
. believe I have seen minut.es to suggest that it.
24 did occur on October 30th.
And those minutes, if memory 25 serves me correctly, suggest that it occurred quite late in
%)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
28728.0 BRT 4639
,3b I
the day on October 30th.
2 0
'It could have been the 31st, then?
3 A
This could have been typed on the 31st; yes, sir.
4' Q
Judge.Dright was talking to you about procedure 5
and we are talking about Mr. Stair who does get retlected 6
here as the preparer of this particular LER.
7 When he gets his directive from his boss.and he 8
goes down to Three Mile-Island.to help draft this LER, you 9
said, I think -- I believe you said he went to the
~
10 appropriate operationa] people.
Well, does he report to 11 somebody first?
Does he go to PORC by checking in with 12 Mr. Bezilla, for example, who then tells him who to go to?
(
13 Or does he know who the appropriate person is before he 14 drives through the gate?.
15 A
Sir, I don't really know the answer to your 16 question.
17 Q
I'm realJy asking you typical terms.
I assume you i
18 don't know or recall about this particular one.
l 19 A
I don't really even know on a typical basis, 20 sitting here today.
I think, speculating, I would say tha t 21 it varied.
I 22 Q
All right.
But however it is when he drives in 23 the gate and goes to his first checkpoint, when it comes out l
24.
of there as a draft to go to Reading, it is leaving from 25 PORC; correct?
It's a PORC document that's leaving?
o V
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage 80th336-6M6
28728.'0' BRT 4640 V
1' A
Yes, sir.
That's correcL.
2 Q
Does Mr. Miller know anything about this in the 3'
typical case other than getting a' copy?
He's not in the 4
loop, he's not involved, as I understand it.
5 A
Mr. Miller was not a ' typical attendee at PORC 6
meetings and would not typically have seen this prior to its 7
being forwarded to Reading.
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
9 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
10 Q
Let's.see if we can fill in a little more on this 11 handwritten part of your testimony.
If you'll look at 12 Mr. Stair's Stier i nterview of 4/18/85.
Volume VI(k).
OQ 13 MR. CAPRA:
Which statement was it, Judge Bright?
14 JUDGE BRIGHT:
It's Stier investigation 4/18/85.
15 MR. MC BRIDE:
Which page?
I'm sorry.
16 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Excuse my not being totally 17 prepared on this.
I didn't have this little handwritten 18 thing.to really concentrate on.
19 MR. MC BRIDE:
I should say that was my fault, 20 Judge Bright.
Mr. Seelinger just assumed that you had it and
~21 it wasn't really until Friday after the record closed that.I 22 knew that you wanted to see it.
I apologize for that.
23 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
24 Q
Down at the bottom of page 6 the questioner states 25 that there's a handwritten LER, and the questioner says:
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage 80tk336-6M6
-28728.0 BRT 4641 i
N..),
.1 "You testified that on the handwritten copy that the 2
handwriting of the original statement is yours" -- speaking 3
of Mr. Stair.
4 So I assume that all of this. stuff in here:
5 "While performing" -- unintelligible -
"3DI, it was 6
determined that the data obtained" -- that would be in 7
Mr. Stair's handwriting?
It looks like the original draft to 8
me.
Would you agree?
9 A
Yes, sir.
And perhaps I could clarify this for 10 you and maybe save some time in so doing, if I were to read 11 what'I believe to be at this point what is in the original 12 handwriting, if you would like me to :lo so.
(~I 13 Q
That might be helpful.
- wJ 14 A
Starting out with the. item that is circled at the 15 beginning of the narrative, I cannot tell if that is in the 16
-- I cannot tell if that's in the original handwriting or 17 not.
I don't believe that is in my handwri ting, as I 10 previously stated.
I will now s tart to read what I believe 19 t'o be in the origina.1 handwriting.
20 "While performing surveillance procedure" -- and 21 I'll pause because I can't make out the next word on this 22 copy -
"3DI, it was determined tha t da ta ob tained" -- the 23 next, that may be " original'? but I do not know, is t.he blank, 24 and the blank at the end of line 3.
"That unidentified 25 leakage" -- skipping the words -- "during the interim l
l l
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 8( 4 336-6646 l
28728.0 BRT 4642 7,
(
)
I period," and continuing on:
" exceeded the limits specified 2
in technical specification" -- it appears to be "3.4.6.2, and 3
that the required action" -- skipping the word " statement" --
4 "was not invoked."
5 Skipping the next sentence, beginning with the 6
word "the" and ending with "2.6 gpm."
Contin'uing with what 7
appears to be in the original:
"This event was. caused by a 8
misinterpretation of the requirements of the" -- skipping the.
9 words " technical specifications" -
"since the" -- and I 10 believe skipping the word " actual" -
" frequency of 11 performance of the surveillance procedure was greater than 12 that_ required by" -- skipping the words " technical O'
13 specifications" -- continuing on:
"It was not clear to.i.he
$u) 14 personnel involved so Lo" -- "as to which" -- and I can't 15 read the next part of it, but, a word I can't read "of 16 data."
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
" Set of data?"
1 18 Tile WITNESS:
-- " Set of da ta taken, came within 19 the TS requirements." - Then skip the words beginning with 20 "and" and ending with the word " applicable."
I'll continue 21 on:
"However, action was being taken to reduce the 22 unidentified' leakage'to within allowable limits and this was 23
-accomplished at" -- then there is a time and date given in 24 the circle and I don't know on the time and the date relative 25 to the origi nal handwriting or not.
Continuing on:
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
20720.0 BRT 4643
/ ;3 Q
1 "In addition,. it was discovered tha t errors" -
2 and I'm not sure on the word " errors" -- skip the words 3
beginning with the~ word "in" and ending with the words,"to 4
the," continuing on:
" Computer caused" skip the words 5
- " indicated unidentified leakage to be. greater."
Skipping at 6
" greater" and continuing on:
"than actually was occurring.
7 The appropriate personnel will,be instructed on the 8
requirements of the" -- I believe it is " applicable" -I 9
can't read the next word -
"of the TS."
And skip from 10 there, beginning with the' word "and" and ending at the end 11 with the word " clarify."
12 Sir, for clarity's sake and maybe for a check on r~s.
Q 13.
ourselves and with the Board's lenience, it may be just 14 easier for me to read what I believe is in my handwriting and 15 then I think we would make sure that we had this correct; if 16 you would lik'e me to do that.
If not, I'll stop.
It would 17 be trying to do it the other way.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
I think I can read it.
19 THE WITNESS:
Fine.
20 JUDGE'KELLEY:
Can you read it?
. ell -- no, I guess what I
'21 JUDGE'BRIGilT:
Sure.
W 22 wanted to do~is kind of look through here and see what 23 Mr. Stair thinks and see whether you agree with him as to 24 whose handwriting is whose handwriting.
You have it in front 25 of you, don't you?
G)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
28728.0 BRT 4644 e
'uj 1
TIIE WITNESS:
Yes,. sir.
I have in front of me 2
what you have~in front of you.
3 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
4 Q ~
And you have the appropriate statement'by 5
Mr. Stair?
6 A
I have Mr. Stair's st.atement; yes, sir.
7 Q
Okay.
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
What you skipped there was your 9
writing, essentially; where you said " skipping words," you 10 were skipping your own words?
11 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
That's whaL I tried.to do, 12 sir.
,/
I 13 JUDGE KELLEY:
I think you succeeded.
Except I think he indicated in'our 15 qualification of him that. there were other words on t.here in 16 whose hand he's not sure.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
Right.
Let's take a coffee break.
18 (Recess.)
19 DY JUDGE BRIGHT:
-20 Q
Mr. Seelinger, before we go any farther with this, I
21 would you kind of describe what these PORC meetings ~are 22 like?
You are chairman, you-are sitting there, you have this 23-handwritten draft in your. hand.
Okay.
Someone at t. hat 24 meeting has to take.the editorial suggestions and whatever, 25 and I_ presume it is discussed and then somebody writes in oa
(
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationside Coserage 2336-6M6
{
28728.0
- ,s BRT 4645 N)
I what the consensus happened to be.
2.
Would you be that one?
3 A
Sir,.you've asked a generic question, in terms of 4
in general in the PORC meetings.
And I would say that that 5
could vary from, maybe PORC meeting to PORC meeting, in terms 6
of maybe the way a particular thing was written, who wrote it 7
and so forth.
8 But without having direct recollection of this 9
particular PORC meeting, I'll s tate that I believe that in 10 this case, based on my handwriting on this particular 11 narrative, tha t I believe. that in that PORC meeting, that~
12 while that PORC meeting was ongoing, that I took.the (n
-13 handwritten version of that narrative.and made the comments d
14 that are in my handwriting on that narrative while that 15 meeting was going on.
I do not, sir, have direct 16 recollection of doing that, however.
17 Q
Would this in general not just necessarily be your 18 doodling but would be what the PORC actually wanted done as 19 f ar as editing or revising or wha tever?
20 A
Sir, I believe, again, that would be t.h e~ c a s e.
21 And also, again, I don't have direct recollection of that 22 particular meeting.
23 Q
In what way, and possibly by whom, would this 24 draft that came out as the result of the PORC meeting be 25 further amended?
It went to several people after you al] got s
(
j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationuide Coverage 800-336-6M6
28728.0 BRT 4646
)
U 1
through with it; isn't that true?
2 A
Yes, sir.
Sir, the version that I looked at 3
further, in which we had Mr. Troffer's name on it, cover 4
letter.that was Exhibit 28 in the Stier report, appears to 5
show :a large list of ecs associated with it.
It also shows 6
that there was one addressee on it.
7 If we assume'-- and again, this is speculation --
8 that this was the mechanism by which this went to Reading --
9 and that is probably quite likely -- then it would have gone 10 to Ir. Troffer, in Reading.
11 In terms of your question as to who might further 12 comment or add to, I was not aware of the actual sequence n(j 13' within the Reading office that an LER forwarded from Three 14 Mile Island went through, prior to its being signed by Jack 15 ile rbei n.
I don' t know exactly wha t level of review and what 16 stations it went through in the Reading office' prior to being 17 signed.
18 Q
I guess my question really bears on:
This would 19 be what went to Reading was typed fr om; would that be-20 correct?
21 A
Sir, I would say that would typically be correct; 22 yes, sir.
23-Q And would anyone else have a chance, a shot' at it, 24 there.on the island itself?
25 A
Sir, I would say not typically.
ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
t xc.,q.
x.e_m c_,
28728.0 BRT-4647 b'
/
1 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
2 Q
Can I -just back this up a little bit?
In the 3
first place, I haven't done this word for word, but I believe 4
if I compared your new page, this handwritten page we have 5
been working with,.with what got sent to Reading under your 6
transmittal, it's identical.
Are there any-di f ferences at 7
all?
8 MR. MC HRIDE:
Not that I'm aware of, Judge 9
Kelley.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
So ac far as I'm concerned the 11 record shows that this was typed up and there.wasn't anything 12-else done to it on the island.
)
13 DY JUDGE KELLEY:
a 14 Q
Now vou are asking me to assume that this 15 transmittal from you to Troffer is the way, I think you said 16 one could speculate.
I don't see how I could think anything 17.
else.
How much do I need?
Here is a copy of a document
~
18 signed by you as chairman of the PORC to Troffer in' Reading.
19 Isn't that the way it went?
l 20 A
Perhaps I could clarify it, sir.
i i
21 Q
Where is the doubt?
Where is the speculation?
It 22 seems to me that is clear.
23 A
The doubt is, sir, I have a vague recollection in 24 my mind or a feeling in my mind that at some point in time on i
i 25 Three Mile Island we were trying to avoid a double-typing 0g t
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(n 336 M 46
20720.0 BRT 4648
- 7..
- v) f 1
situation.
In other words, something got prepared, it got 2
reviewed by the PORC and got sent to Reading.
It got typed 3
before it went to Reading yet there was a messenger from 4
Reading that had just been through the review process in the.
5 PORC that was on his way back to Reading.
And it would be 6
typed again in Reading.
7 So, if you will no tice, sir, that the other 8
version here is that Exhibit 20 is different than the type on 9
the version tha t ultimately went to the NRC.
10 0
Not only the type, the narrative version i~s 11 different, too.
Right?
12 A
Yes, sir.
That-is correct.
And at-some point; in (n) 13 time we were trying -- I believe we were trying to reduce a v
14 double-typing effort.
I can't place in my mind, today, where 15 that occurred or even if that. occurred.
16 Q
Are you s ugges ti ng that the handwrit. ten version, 17 namely, this piece of paper, might have been sent to Reading
'18
-under this transmi ttal dcecument - to Trof fer?
19 A
No, sir, I am not suggesting that.
I am 20 suggesting that at. some point in time it is possible that we 21 went to a system where the handwritten version got directly 22 taken back to Reading to tvpe.
23 Q
That's what I thought.
Are you saying tha t that 24 may have happened here?
25 A
I don'L Icnow, sir.
n 4
1 m,'
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80t>336-(M6
_=_.__
_- ~ - _. _.
28728.0 BRT 4649 m
/\\U 1
Q I guess I was assuming that Mr. Stier got his 2
documents from the appropriate file and then when he put in 3
tab 20 there's someplace in the file that corresponds to 4
this.
I guess we.could read l'ack -- can anybody help us?
On 5
tab 28, is there any information in Stier that explains where 6
tab 28 came from?
Is there anything to suggest it was sent 7
to Heading in handwritten form?
'8 A
Sir,.maybe I can just clarify why I have an 9
element of doubt here.
The reason for my element of doubt is 10 that this cover. letter that I'm holding up from Exhibit 28 11 has some fill-in-the-blanks.
It also has my signature on it 12 but it may have been a presigned signature.
I don't know (O) 13 that, sir.
I don't recall.
w 14 Q
What do you'mean by that?
15 A
I mean, sir, that if you would take and just look 16 at the b]anks and assume for a second that the signature was 17 signed with blanks yet to be filled in and that the 18 thing that remained to be filled in o.n this particular letter 19
.were the blanks; namely, what followed " report" in the 20 capital letters; what followed " subject" after the number 1; 21 and what followed " preparer" on this particular let 'a r could 22 have been the only three things added.
23 The other element of doubt, sir --
24 Q
Let me stop you on that element of doubt.
Was it 25 your custom to sign blank documents in advance and let ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationw:de Coserage 85336-6M6
28728.0 BRT 4650
. g.,
/
\\
%. )
1 somebody else just fill in what they wanted?
2 A
Sir, I may have had that situation in this 3
particular -- in this particular set of circumstances-for
~
4 this type of t.ransmittal.
I don't recall for sure.
5 Q
You would have some blank LER transmittal forms 6
around that you would go ahead and sign and then somebody 7
else would just fill in whatever blank they. thought 8
appropriate and send it. to Reading?
9 A
Sir, it is possible that I had blank LER 10 transmit.tal forms that were signed.
11' Q
Why?
Why?
Why would you do that?
12 A
I might have done that, sir, from just strict.ly.
Ag 13 availability.
In other words, jus t my own availability.
14 Q
on-site?
15
-A On-si te or availability to get to me to sign a 16 particular document.
17 Q
Suppose you aren't available.
Why can't the 18 assistant or acting deputy sign it?
19 A
Sir, there are a number of ways that it could have 20 been done.
I have told you a way-that it might have been 21 done.
22 Q
Do you.think that this document is such a document 23 l or do you think you signed it yourself knowing what it said?
24 A
I don't know, sir.
~25 Q
All right.
Go ahead.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. '
{
mm.m u m a c - ge e
A 28728.0
- BRT 4651 s
't
- U
.1 A
But I would like to add something that I didn't 2
finish that does also lend an element of doubt in this 3
particular case.
You will note that the cover letter does 4
not have a date on it.
5 Q
I noticed that.
Is that typical?
6 A
Sir, I believe that most letters that we had would 7
have had dates on.them.
8 Q
We talked about the draft having an "11-blank" 9
date suggesting some time reference.
Well, in any case, what 10 you say is obviously true.
11 I'll just ask one other ques tion coming in on 12 Judge Bright's question.
This went to Reading.
Whether p()
13 typed or whether handwritten, it says the same thing.
There 14 is one respect I note, in which the version sent to Reading 15 differs from the version sent to tne NRC.
16 Are you-aware of what I'm referring to?
17.
A Yes, sir, I am.
10 Q
I,ook at the narrative attached to the version that 19 went to.the NRC, in the middle paragraph --
20 MR. MC BRIDE:
I'll direct the wi tness ' attention 21 to tab 30 in the same volume.
22 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
23' Q
The second sentence of the second paragraph 24 following the comma:
"By determining a portion of this 25 leakage to be identified leakage from the reactor coolant ou ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage m336-6646
.28728.0 BRT 4652 7
l v
1 system and to be well within the limits of TS 3.4.2.6.C."
2 That appears to be added by somebody; correct?
3 A
Yes, s i~r, it does.
4 Q
Do you know who added it?
5 A
No, sir, I don't.
6 Q
What would be your assumption, if any, about how 7
it got added?
8-
-A One assumption that I will make is either the 9
person that added'it or the typist made a mistake when they 10 added it because the technical specification reference is 11 wrong.
In other words, the technical specification 3.4.6.2.C 12 is not the appropriate technical specification that deals pQ 13 with the matter at hand here.
14 Q
But are you suggesting that the typis t would have 15 put in such language?
16 A
I'm suggesting, sir, that that could l' ave been.a 17 typographical error, relative to that particular portion.
18 Q
I'in ta3 king about the entire words that I just 19 quoted?
20 A
I'll address the rest of the words, sir.
21 Q
You' are not sugges ting tha t the typist put in the 22 words I quoted?
23 A
I'm not suggesting that the typist originated the 24 words that you quoted; no, sir.
25 Q
Right.
Judge.
g
'd I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80h33MM6
28728.0 BRT 4653
-i
)
\\. J l
Q Well, the typo may have come from the typist, rut 2
again, what was your thought about where this could have come 3
from?
4 A
Sir, I don't know where it'came from.
However, I 5
think that~it well could have come from -- and this is 6
strictly speculation -- a call from a person in Reading.back 7
to someone-on Three Mile Island to ask them for further 8
details on the statement that preceded the comma.
9 MR. MC BRIDE:
Could the record reflecL what the 10 witness believes the appropriate technical specification 11 reference should have been?-
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Why don't you give it, p
\\_)
13 THE WITNESS:
I can't give it at this point, s i r,-
?
14 without looking at the technical specifications.
15
-MR.
MC BRIDE:
I believe it should have been 16 3.4.6.2.B.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
- 18 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
19 Q
Looking at Mr. Stair just another minute -- oh, 20 these court reporters and their --'page 15.
Actually it's on 21 16, questioning Mr. Stair, top of page 16, it says:
22
" Question:
To the best of your recollection how 23 would any changes be made before the documentation was l
24 submitted to Mr. Herbein for final signature?"
t l'
25 And Mr. Stair proceeds to say:
"After signing
- O l
\\
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide roscrage MXk336-6646
28728.0 BRT 4654 7..O 1
-what change should b.e made, it would have to undergo another 2
review by the PORC chairman or the PORC. commit. tee and have 3
that change approved prior to it being incorpora teel into the 4
narrative or i nto the rest of the LER."
S Now, that change was to me obviously made.
To 6
your. knowledge, did it ever go back through the chairman of 7
the PORC, which was you, or to the PORC committee itself?
8 A
Sir, I don't recall that. change coming back
.9 through me or the PORC.itself.
.10 Q
Would the minutes of the PORC committee show this?
11 A
Sir,.if the full PORC committee met on the item 12 and convened in actual -
an actual meeting, which addressed
(
13 this particular item, I would say that there is a good 14 chance, or at least some chance that the minutes would show 15 it.
If it'was a telephone call.-- excuse me -- if it was a 16 telephone call to the PORC chairman or someone else on Three 17 Mile Island, I would say that it probably.would not show it.
18 Q
Now let's go back to what you jus t said --
19 A
And that is just my belief at this point in time.
20 l 0
-- to the PORC chairman or somebody elre on the 21 island."
Who would somebody else be?
22 A
Sir, the only reason -- excuse me.
Let me back 23 up.
The reason that I have suggested somebody else is I 24 don't recall -- I'was the PORC chairman.
I don't recall such 25 a call taking place.
It could have taken place.
I don't V
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37tU Nationwide Coverage 800-3346M6
28728.0 BRT 4655 m
(
)
1 recall it.
It --
2 O
Well -- go ahead.
3 A
Such a call could, perhaps, also have gone to 4
another engineer on the Three Mile Island site, to gain the 5
additional i n f orma tion.
By the fact that Mr. Stair has 6
stated that such a change would have to come from the PORC 7
chairman or the PORC review, I'm not 100 percent certain that
.8 that would have been our operating practice.
I don't recall 3
that, sir.
10 In other words, if one looks at the universe of 11 LERs, and looks at, perhaps, other changes that may have been 12 made in between what was done on the plant site and what (m) 13 ultimately leet the Reading s taf f site to be submitted to the i
14 NHC, if other such changes exist -- and I don't know if other 15 such changes exist -- I, sitting here today, have no direct 16 recollection of reviewing those in PORC.
However, we may 17 have.
18 Q
Well, let.'s see, now.
This is coming down from 19' Reading.
From all that has been said and read, it does 20 appear to me that-someone up there thought it would be nice 21 to find out just why this was found to be within the tech 22 spec.
So he called somebody down there and says:
- Well, 23 what's the reason here?
How did you clear this ap?
24 He says:
Okay, it was some ~ unidentified leakage 25 was found out to be identified leakage and therefore it was I,g
$m,/
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3'M)
Nationwide Cos etage 8M336-6M6
4
~ 28728.0 BRT 4656 n
)
-v 1
within the tech spec.
2' Well, hey, goody,-let's jus t add it in here.
And 3
this is such a minor thing that we won't even bother to mess 4
around with PORC or any of these other chain-of-command 5
outfits, and just go ahead and do it.
Would that be 6
possible?
7
.A Sir, the PORC review, to the best of my 8
recollection, of licensee event reports was a practice.
I 9
don't recall whether, as such, the practice was directly 10 mandated'by the technical specifications.
It may have been.
11 I just don't recall, sitting here today.
12 Q
You mean that the. mandatory PORC review would have-i
- Q\\
j 13 to be written into the technical specs on occasion -- or 14 would be written into it, if it were actually a mandatory 15 procedure?
I didn't realize that's what went into tech 16 specs.
17 A
Sir, it has been a~1ong time since I dealt with 18 the technical specifications and I don't recall, sitting hue 19 today.
I do kiiow we had -a practice of reviewing things 20 within the PORC for reportability.
We had a practice of 21-reviewing the LERs.
I don't recall whether, if a change was 22 generated at th" Rea ling level, if such a change would 23 necessarily go back through the PORC.
I just simply don't 24 recall, sir.
25 BY JIIDGE KELLEY:
g N)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage NG336 6646
28728.0 BRT 4657 7
i s
V 1
Q Do you. feel confident, based upon your experience 2
at that time and the established structure and the kind of 3
people you were dealing with, that a change, perhaps first 4
thought of in Reading upon reading the draft, would go back 5
through Three Mile Island at all, to confirm its accuracy?
6 A
Sir, I think that might depend -- I'm speculating, 7
and I think that might depend upon the type of' change and the 8
knowledge of the person who was involved in Reading.
9 Q
Well, I guess what I wonder about in looking at 10 this, if all the two of us can wonder -- I suppose'we 11 shouldn't do it because it's.an on-the-record hearing; we are 12 supposed ~to have some basis for what we say.
Still, in 13 reading this it occurs to me possible, maybe not very likely, 14 but possible that some draftsman in the Reading department 15 might have thought that this was a clarifying change and it 16 sounded good so he or she just put it in.
Is that possible 17 or not?
18 A
Sir, again, I would be speculating to answer the 19 quesLion.
I don't think that some draf Lsman is the likely 20 scenario.
And,.i n terms of --
21 Q
Was it your understanding --
22 A
Let me finish that.
By "some draftsman" I mean 23 some lower-lever person on the Reading staff.
24 I think a more likely scenario -- again, it is 25 speculating -- that some higher-up person on the Reading ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Coserage 80t k 3.16-6M6
., __,-347-3 7( 0 _
28728.0 BRT 4658 n
1 staff, wanted further information relative to that particular 2
-- the phrase.that preceded the comma.
3 Q
Well, might have wanted it.
And then where does 4
one go?
5 What I'm af ter is :
you send a draf t tcs Headincj.
6 Did you understand that Heading would not make substantive 7
technical changes in directions of-LERs and the facts 8
surrounding them without clearing them with Three Mile Island 9
or not?
I' assume they could make clarifying grammatical 10 changes of whatever you sent up.
Could they go beyond that?
11 What was your understanding in that regard?
12 A-Sir, I really don't know, sitting here today, that (nv) 13 we had worked out a total understanding of where the 14 respective roles were and.how far those roles s tre tched.
15 We had had some conversations about having the 16 engineers from Reading come down to participate, nut I 17 really don't know.
And it might have been item-specific.
18 Q
This particulars change, is it in your mind the 19 kind of change that somebody might have thought was just a 20 clarifying change?
21 A
S i-r, today this change has significance.
At that 22 particular time, without, probably, knowing what we know 23 today, at that particular time a person would probably have 24 had to have had a number of facts in front at him to have 25-made that change properly.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nanonwide Coverage 80lL33466 6
28728.0-BRT 4659 Q)
~1 Q
I would think so.
I have been asking myself this 2
as a nontechnical person and I. pick up at the same point in 3
the sentence an'd where it.says "by determining that" and this 4
goes on to say they identified some leakage.
Well, they 5
could have plugged the leak, I suppose, and had the same 6
re s u l t. ; right?
I mean you couldn't just pull it out of the 7
air and say it was a clarif ying change.
8 A
Sir, the sequence of events can tend to be so 9
important here to. actually get to wha t happened tha t, whereas 10 the words are true for events at a particular point in the 11 sequence, they may tend to be confusing at a different point 12 in the sequence.
A()
13 Q
I'm asking for something I think is very simple.
14 I can think of two ways to reduce leakage in this context.
I 15 can go find some leaks and identify it.
That's one thing I 16 can do, and that's what this is.
Or I can go plug the leak 17 that I found.
Right?
It isn't there anymore.
It's no 18 longer a leak.
I find this leaky valve and the fix it.
19 Ilow could somebody in Reading just say:
Well, we 20 identified some leakage, that. sounds good, and stick it in, 21 and be comfortable that they were right?
Could they be 22 comfortable that they were right?
23 A
Gir, again, I'm specula ting, but I think my 24 speculation is likely that I think that someone in Reading 25 probably checked with somebody at Three Mile Island.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coscrage 8(n336-6M6
28728.0 BRT 4660 f,
i
\\
v 1
-Q
.You think it's unlikely that this came off of the 2
top of somebody's-head in Reading?
3 A
Yes, sir.
I think that's probably unlikely, off 4
the top of somebody's head in Reading.
5 Q
Without checking with' the Island?
6 A
Without checking with Three Mile Island or having 7
knowledge of the Three Mile Island-activities associated with 8
this.
9 Q
Well, that's a little broader.
This person we.are 10 talking about is working on this draft and they are going to 11 rewrite i t to this extent.
Do they have to pick up.the phone 12 and say:
lley, can I say this or not?
You are indicating, I 13 gather, you think they would?
14 A
I'm sorry, sir, my mind wandered for just a 15 second.
I apologize.
16 Q-I just want to know if this is dramatic license by 17 somebody in Reading.
I'm trying to find out whether your 18 opinion is that that's a possibility, fairly likely or not
~19 very.likely and I hear you saying it's not.very likely?
20 A
I don't think it's very likely; no, sir.
21 Q
Okay.
22
'A However, I have not had the liberty to review all 23 Mr. Stair's testimony.
Mr. Stair did come down to Three Mile 24 Island and took some knowledge of this event back to Reading 25 with him.
g
(,1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37a1 Nationwide Co.erage NG33MM6 -
28728.0 BRT 4661
,3'q) 1 Q
'1 h a t ' s true.
So he might have gone back with some 2
knowledge that wasn't yet in the draft and figured that he 3
could add that in upon further reflection, based upon his own 4
knowledge?
Is that what you are stating or indicating?
5 A
Sir, you folks may have already asked him that 6
question.
7 Q
We haven't.
8 A
He would be a person on the Heading staff that,.
9 based on the scenario we set up that would have some 10 knowledge somewhat be somewhat equivalent to the people 11 on Three Mile Island on certain matters.
'12 Q
Your point is valid.
Stair at least has been 13 there, he knows something of what went on there.
14 Okay.
Fine.
15 MR. MC BRIDE:
If the Board is about to. move off 16 this handwritten version of the narrative, I would like th'e 17 record to reflect what portion of the handwriting 18 Mr. Seelinger has not yet identified clearly, is in his 19 judgment his own and what is not his own and what he's not 20 sure about -- he's identified painstakingly what he believes 21 was the original draft, but I think it would be very helpful 22' for your understanding of this if you were t.) permit him, 23 perhaps by exception, if you will, to the remainder, what he 24 thinks is his own and what he thinks is not his own.
[
25 JUDGE KELLEY:
I thought we pretty well covered O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3 7W.
Nationwide Coverage 800 336-66M l-
28728,0 BRT 4662 73b 1
the waterfront.
What exactly do you think is unclear at this 2
point?
I think we know who wrote the' original,.or the record 3
indicates that.
We know where Stair's writing is and we know 4
where the witness' writing is.
What don't we know at this 5
point?-
6 MR. MC BRIDE:
What we don't know is of the 7
remainder of the handwriting other than that which he 8
identified that he believed to have been the original draft 9
which the record would appear to reflect was Mr.-Stair's, 10 whether all of the remaining handwriting or virtually all the 11 remaining handwriting is his own and whether he has some 12 doubt about some portion of it.
Because I can assure you.it i
13 has some significance to clarifying the errors of the 14 narrative.
15 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
16 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
17 Q
Could you' identify those portions that aren't 18 Stair's that you also think.might not be yours?
19 A
Gir, I'm somewhat confused at this point.
20 However, I can -- I don't know how to identify what is not 21 Stair's, but I do know how to identify what is mi ne.
I can 22 iden tif y wha t may not be S tair's but --
23 Q
I just don't want to go through this long, painfui 24 process of reading this whole thing again.
I hope that's not 25 f
!o ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 80lb336-(M6 -
28728.0 BRT 4663
(
)
sJ 1
MR. MC BRIDE:
I don't, either.
I just thought he 2
could point out to you --
3 JI!DGE KELLEY:
Can we be specific about where the 4
areas of doubt are, in your mind?
What should we qualify?
5 MR. MC DRIDE:
Certainly.
I think there are three 6-of them, your Honor.
The first one is the firs t circle.
I 7
think the record is clear but we kind of short-circuited the 8
process when we were going through the handwriting.
9 EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. MC BRIDE:
11 Q
Mr. Seelinger, do you believe'the handwriting in 12 the first circle is your own?
- (~%w;-
13 A.
I do not believe that it's my own.
14 Q
With respect-to the time and the date above the 15 lines at the end of line 3, do you believe that that is in 16 your own handwriting?
17-A I do not believe that the two items there above 18 the lines, the time and the date, are my own.
19 Q
And with respect to the third circle, do you 20 believe that the information in that circle is your own?
21 A
I do not believe the items in the third circle are 22 my own.
23 Q
And with respect to the remainder, do you believe 24 that all at the revisions to the original drafL are in your 25 own hand?
. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-370)
Nationwide Coserage mn336-%56
28728.0 BRT 4664
,..s (v) 1 A
I'm sorry. on tha t-ques tion, Mr. McBride, because I 2
don't know how to really do that without going word for 3
word.
4 MR. MC BRIDE:
I think that adequately does it, 5
jusL so you-understand.where we are going here.
6 MS. WAGNER:
I'm not clear now.
Did Mr. Seelinger 7
actually testify that the original draft is in Mr. Stair's 8
handwriting or just someone other than his own?
9 MR. MC BRIDE:
He did not.
I said the record 10 indicates i t ' is in Mr. Stair's handwriting.
I don't believe 11 Mr. Seelinger tes tified to that.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
/%
()
13 JUDGE BRIGHT:
I might point out tha t in Stair's 14 previous statement that we have been looking at, on page 7, 15 leading up to 8, Mr. Stair takes responsibility for what is 16 in the first circle.
17 Moving on, Mr. Seelinger, you say you told 18 Mr. Marshall to expedite this particular LER and to make sure 19 that it got to - that this knowledge was -- on page 8 of 20 your tes timony - instructed Mr. Walter Marshall by 21 memorandum to inform the operators of the correct 22 interpretation.
23 Are you aware of how Mr. Marshall assured that he l
24 inEormed the operators of the correct interpretation?
25 A
Sir, I hve some knowledge of tha t.
1 O_
l l
i l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347-3700 Nationwide roverage
&XF33MM6 L
28728.0 BRT 4665 7s 1
Q What would that be?
2 A
I have knowledge that Mr. Marshall, through what I 3
believe to have been a system called "the PORC ac tion item 4
system" placed the LER or a version of t!e LER -- and I don't 5
know which, sir, or I don't know specifically which; I have 6
heard various versions -- in the control room for operators 7
to read.
8 Q
Did he do anything else, to your knowledge?.
9 A
I. don ' t know J f Mr. Marshall did anything else, 10 sir.
I know I did.
11 Q
We'll get to that.
I'm curious about Marshall 12 right.a t the moment.
You don't know of anything else he did?
)
13 A
Gir, I don't have direct knowledge of what 14 Mr. Marshall did, other than I believe tha t ---and I don ' t 15 know how strong my statement was before, but I'1.1 back up and 16 say that I believe that he put this in a book or had it put 17 in a book in the control room.
18 Q
That was his tes timony.
Now, you actually -- what 19' was that thing that you sent out, directing him specifically 20 to expedi te consideration of that LER?
21 A
Sir, I believe it was called a PORC action item.
22 Q
Now, in the normal course of events the LER would 23 he put in a reading file, would it not?
24
.A I don't recall, sir.
I don't know if it would be 25 in that or in a PORC action item.
Sitting here today I just Up ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Mc-347-37(o Nationwide Cowrage
& Mk33(> 6tW,
l 28728.0 BRT 4666
(
)-
%)
-1 don't remember.
Even at that time I don't know if I would 2
have directly known, sir.
3 Q
So you can't recall how the word would get around 4
on something like that?
Is that what you are telling me?.
5 A
No, sir.
I'm not telling you that.
As I 6
mentioned before, I know what I did to get the word out.
I'm 7
aware of another memo that went out to put word out.
And I'm 8
aware of the PORC action item that went out with this 9
particular -- with what I believe was a version of the LER 10 attached.
11 Q
Well, Mr. Seelinger, the thing that I'm trying to 12 find out is why the word didn't get out with all of this care 13 being exercised to make sure that it did.
Mr. Marshall's 14 testimony was that he put it in the black notebook in the 15 control room and then he periodically would go around anc' gig 16 people who hadn't signed off on it yet.
This appears to me 17 to not be what you would call the stiffest of.regimena which 10 one might use to make sure that people read the thing.
j l')
I just would like to get your opinion.
Is this 20 the way this sort of thing, which was -- had been 21 communicated to management, anyway, and was a gross violation 22 of the tech spec, was this the way that ordinarily you would 23 let the people who were actually doing the tests find out l
l 24 that they were doing the wrong thing and to shape up?
i 25 A
Sir, I believe that you are tending to focus on l
g
' u l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Naiionwide Cmerage sub33M6m
28728.0 BRT 4667 i.-V 1'
one aspect of the way the word got out or that I tried to get 2.
the word out.
And there are a number of other ways that that 3
word was tried to be put out.
I enumerated them in my 4
prepared testimony.
5 0
Yes.
And that's fins As I say, we'll get to 6
that.
But my -- I was just curious.
Normally,'I gather, 7
that sort of thing would go to the reading file or the action 8
-booklet, whatever it was, and would have a checkoff sheet on 9
it.
.It appears to me the only thing.Mr. Marshall did was ~ to 10 make sure that the sheet got in there and then to go Arnold 11 and make sure that people signed the checkoff sheet.
12 Do you consider this to be what you would call 13 pretty rapid action on this item?
They were st'll. running i
14 leak rates ail the time.
15 A
Gir, again, I don't mean to frustrate you, but --
16 Q
You cati' t f rus trate me any more than I have 17 already been frustrated, Mr. Seelinger.
So just go ahead.
18 A
But I feel like you are looking at a piece of the 19 pie and saying:
Is that the " rapid" piece of the pic?
- Sir, 20 that's not the " rapid" piece of the pie.
21 There were actions taken that were more rapid than 22 that and in a were timely relative to the evelit a t hand, to 23 get the word out.
Again, I mentioned those in my prepared 24 testimony and that's the one we have kind of -- seemed to say 25 we were going to talk about.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 NationwiJe roserage 800-334 6646
28728.0 BRT 4668
,. 3 L.)1 1
Q Okay.
So you thought that whatever it was that 2.
Mr. Marshall-did was within the context of whet you expected 3
of him?
4 A
Sir, it was the system that was used to -- in a'--
5 it was one system, I guess ~I could say, sir -- le t me back 6
up.
7 We had a system in place.t. hat was used to get the 8
word out on a written. basis that people were expected to 9
read.
That was that system.
And that was one of the ways 10 that tnis was communicated to shift personnel.
11 Q
I as.'ume in this particular case that when you 12 instructed Mr. Marshall to do this action you acted as the
(
)
13 PORC chairman.
You said you really didn't -- you didn't ask 14 him, you to.d him.
This was a flat letter or whatever to 15 him, that says, "Thou shalt do this," or something like that?
16 A
Sir, I assigned PORC action items.
The actual 17 assignment, however, in most cases if not all cases, was done 18 by the PORC secretary and I signed the piece of paper that he 19 generated, if I am not mistaken, in this particular case, and 20 tha t was probably a typical, generic way of doing things, 21 based-on my belief here today.
22 Q
Okay.
But the point is you did have the authority 23 l to do that and he would accept that as a legitimate order?
24 A
I think you have characterized tha t correc tly, 25 sir.
n v
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37(x)
Nationwide roverage 804346M6
28728.0 BRT 4669
,V' 1
Q-Speaking of PORC chairmen, who succeeded you as 2
the PORC chairman?
Would it be your replacement as --
3 A
Sir, I don't know for sure.
And the reason I say 4
that or at least a contributing reason to my saying that is S
because at the end of November, when I became Unit 1 6-superintendent, which I believe was December 1st, I was quite 7
sick.
And I spent -very little time on Three Mile Island 8
during the -- I was off at least a couple of days in the last 9
week in November and I was there, I think, for a portion of 10 the week of the first week in December and then I was off for 11 about seven weeks or so, having a back operation, in the 12 hospital, and recovering from that.
t" h t
J 13 1 would be speculating to say for.sure I know who v
14 succeeded.me in the job of Unit 2 superintendent., technical 15 support.
I could speculate ~ Lhat that was a direct transition 16 but I can't remember -- direct transi tion relative to the 17
-PORC.
But I can't remember for sure.
18 Q
I wonder if you would turn the Stier volume we 19 have been looking at; tab 36.
This is a letter that you 20 wrote to Chairman Palladino on August 9, 1984.
Down in the 21 last full paragraph on the first page, in the second senteace 22
-- well, first let me say, the subject of the letter here 3s 23 that you are not happy with the conclusions of NUREG-0680 24 supplement number 5, with respect to the statements that are 25 made in that volume as to your qualifications.
You ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-370)
Nationwide rmerage Rn336 #M6 1
28728.0 jx BRT 4670 f
1 v
1 characterize them as misleading and unfair.
2 Okay.
Now,.looking at that down there, what I 3
pointed to you before, would you tell me exactly what_these 4
actions were?
This is your chance.
They wouldn't do 5
anything before so now you can talk about it, if you would 6
like, on the record.
7 A
Good.
Thank you.
I would like to get clear,.
8 though, am I talking about the sentence that begins, "I
9 promptly"?
10 0
What did you do?
I think "I promptly" -- yes.
If 11 you.think of anything else you say in here that' you think 12 bears upon this matter, that would be fine.
13 A
Yes sir.
Sir, relative to getting out the word c
14 of how the technical specification was to be interpreted.I 15 did a number of things that I'll enumerate.
16 Q
Fine.
17 A
One:
I called the Unit 1 superintendent, who at 18 the time was Jim O'Ilanlon, and I explained to him what the 19 NHC inspector's interpretation of the technical specification 20 was and how it was o. b e interpreted according to the NRC 21 inspector and that it was -- that that was not a negotiable 22 item or words to that effect.
23 Two:
I worked with the control room personnel 24 shif t supervisor and/or supervisor of operations on two or 25 three occasions in Unit 2, and I'1] time sequence those as pU l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2(c-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3%M46
20728.0
,- _ BRT 4671 U
1 best.I can for you, and I don't remember if it was two or 2
three specific occasions.
Two I do specifically remember.
3 One was a POD,. which s tood for a " plan of the day" meeting, 4
which shortly followed-Mr. Haverkamp bringing this matter to 5
my attention or bringing his interpreta tion as-to.how it was 6
to be interpret.ed and our discussions.
I brought this up'in 7
a pian of the day meeting.
I brought it up in the context, 8
to the best of my recollection, to the shift supervisor.
I 9-believe thal Mr. Floyd was present in the meeting.
And the 10 context of my remarks were:
You do understand that. once you 11 have begun a leak rate -- you are in steady state operation 12 and have begun a Jeak rate test, that if the result should A
13 come.out and not meet the acceptance criteria of 1 gallon per g
14 minute unidentified leakage, that you must enter the action 15 statement.
16 I was told at the time that the shift supervisor 17 understood that.
I got the impression from the remarks thal 18 were made in that. plan of the day meeting that that was 19 understood.
20 Approximately a week later I was in the control 21 room on second shift.
I believe it was sometime in the early.
22 evening.
I again brought the matter up and had a similar 23 discussion with a t least the shift supervisor and there may 24 have been more personnel involved in the discussion, one or 25 more personnel.
I can't say for sure.
o LJ ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- m.m.-
s_-
s_
t
28728.0 BRT 4672 D
1 I may have, and.I can't say this for sure, brought 2
the matter up in t.he control room on the day or the immediate 3
-- on October 18th or October 19th, similar to my discussions 4
on the first plan of the day meeting that I mentioned.
5
~I do recall at the firs t ~ plan of the day meeting 6
that I mentioned, and I do recall this, being reluctant t.o 7
bring the matter up because of having the feeling of having 8
already set the wheels in motion to accomplish this matter, 9
and the people whose attention I was again bringing it to, it 10 was my impression that they should have already been doing 11 that based upon the wheels that had been set in motion and 12 that they would feel I was just unnecessarily checking on 13 them.
However, I felt it was important and I brought it up 14 anyway.
But I do remember, sir,- that feeling of reluctance; 15 yet I did bring it up.
16 When I went to Unit I as the superintendent of 17 Unit 1, I brought the ma tter up at a plan of the day meeting 18 in Unit 1.
I don't know, sir, if that was before my back was 19 operated on or if it was after.
If it was before there were 20 very few plan of the day meetings that I attended because of 21 l being off for an extended period of time.
But I did bring it 22 up at a plan of the day meeting to either the shift 23 supervisor or the supervisor of operations in Unit 1 or both, 24 and went through basically the same scenario and received 25 satisfaction, to my satisfaction, that they understood that ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Conenge 80lk33MM6
28728.0 BRT.
4673 s
.(v) 1 the equivalent of the action. statement as it related to the 2
Unit 1 specifications would be invoked under the similar set 3
of~ circumstances.
4 Sir, I believ'e that I followed up on this 5
particular technical specification personally, and 6
interpretation personally, more so than I did on any other 7
particular event, in terms of a personal follow-up.
And I 8
did say " event," I should have said " licensee event," to put 9
it in a similar context.
10 Q
So that was the extent of what you actually did?
11 A
Sir, that's what I have direct recollection of.
12 Q
Yes.
Okay.
13 A
I would like to elaborate just a little bit 14 Curther because my prepared s tatement actually goes further
~15 than that.
I know because I have seen an operations 16 memorandum that went out.
And my recollection today is that 17 that operations memo was from Mr. Floyd.
That also addressed 18 this matter.
I don't have recollection of that memo at that 19 time.
I would like to tell you, r:r, sitting here today, 20 that I do, but I don't.
21 I also believe, sir, that I discussed the matter 22 with Mr. Floyd, but I don't have recollection of it.
I have 23 every reason to'believe that I did because it's the kind of 24 thing that I would have done.
But I don't have the 25 recollection of that, other than as it relates to the POD ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-370)
Nationwide Coserage 8ak336-(M6
--.-_.~.,.,.-.. - _-_-
28728.0 BRT 4674 n
)
1 meeting *. hat happened on firs t shif t, that I have a 2
recollection of his being there because of my reluctance to 3
bring that particular matter up.
4 I may have enumerated other things in here. -Those 5
are the ones that are on the top of my head.
If you'il allow 6
~ me just to look down for a second it may trip my memory on 7
some others.
8 Sir, I think I have covered the items that you f
9 have given me the opportunity to cover.
10 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Judge Kelley would like to ask a 11 question.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
I have other questions later but 13 one particular one now.
14 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
15 Q
You were testifying a minute go about your 16 attending a plan of the day meeting shortly after the 17 Haverkamp visit, I take it?
I 18 A
It may, sir, have been even during the visit.
It 19 was.within, I would say, a day or two of October 18th.
20 Q
Fine.
At this plan of the day meeting I' 21 understood you to say that you did refer to the matter and 22 that you told those present that if you ran a leak rate test 23 and the leak rate test showed a result in excess of the tech 24 specs, or i f you want to call them acceptance criteria, then 25 they had to go into the action statement.
Correc t?
d t
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-374X)
Nati<mwide Coserage HUfk33MM6
_ _ _ _ _ -..... _ _., - _,.. _ _ _ ~, _ _ _. _ _ _ _
.. ~. _. _. _ _....,, _. _,., -.. _ _ _ _.., _.. _.... - - _, _., _ _ -. _ _
i
-28728.0 BRT 4675 O
1 A
Yes, sir.
I told them that, words to the effect, 2
that if they judged the plant to be in steady state to run 3
the test, to initiate the test --
4 Q
Right.
5 A
-- then once the test result was obtained, that 6
they had to live-with that particular test result.
And if 7
that test result then put them -- or words to the effect, if 8
that tes t result did not rmet the acceptance criteria it 9
required action statement entry.
Words to that effect,. sir.
10 Q
Do you recall any qualification other than the 11 reference to steady state?
12 A
No, sir, I don't recall any qualification.
A 13 Q
You see, what bothers me is it they had followed g
14 your instructions this plant would have been shut down all 15 the time for the next five or six months, virtually.
We have 16 heard other testimony to the effect that you have to go into 17 the action statement if you get a leak rate test in excess of 18 a gallon a minute, unless -- and this is the big hooker --
19 unless, somehow, the test is invalid.
20 Now, you have referred to unsteady plant 21 conditions.
There are a whole bunch of other thingu that 22 might come in, I assume, and invalidate the test.
Did you.
23 get into that at all in the course of this discussion?
24 InvalidaLion ot lest and under what circumstances?
i 25 A
Gir, I don't recall getting into that in this ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37(O Nationside Coserage 8(tk336-6M6
__,__.._.,.,__..__..-,-,__.m.
_,_,__r_.__.._,m.
.l.
.28728.0
. g..
'BRT
.4676 1
particular. discussion, and-I time-sequence the discussion 2
because the time sequence is important, the time sequence 3
being Mr. Haverkamp's visit telling us how the technical 4
specification was to be interpreted and, relative to that, 5
the way that.I tried to put that word out was tha t :
If you 6
felt the test was -- excuse me -- that the plant was in 7
steady state enough to run the tes t --
8 Q
Right?
9 A
-- then the result that came out was a result t. hat 10 you had to live with.
I don't know if I expressed that quite 11 the same way, but it's what I tried to explain.
12 Q
Right.
And go into the action statement.
And 13 under the action statement if you don't get a test under a 14 gallon a minute within the few hours that you've got, you've 15 got to shut down; right?
16 A
Sir, I don't have the action statement sitting 17 here right in front of me, but it. is my belief that they are 4
18 words to that effeet.
19 Q
I want to get to t.his more later. ~ Hut the problem 20 is you apparently thought by coming out and saying words to 21 the effect that you described, that that was going to do the 22 job.
Apparently -- well, more than apparently, it just 23 didn't do the job.
These people did not get t.he message.
24 I'll have some other things I want to raise but I did want to 25 get at what you recall you had said.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. n.
~ ~ + ~....
-n -
28728.0 BRT 4677
/cT V
1 It seems to me if you say s teady sta te, shut down 2
the' plant, if anything, that's conservative.
That. certainly 3
didn't happen.
That plant didn't get shut down for'this 4
reason, then, or ot.her.
And the bad leak rates kept right on 5
coming in.
6 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
7 Q
Do you recall any individuals that you informed 8
about what the new order was going to be in this plan of the 9
day meeting or on the shifts tha t you talked to?
10 A
Sir, my reluctance that I expressed before, as I 11 used that word, makes me believe -- and I think my belief and 12 recall, somewhere between belief and recall, perhaps, that 13
'M r. Floyd was present in the particular plan of the day 14 meeting.
It was his habit also to at. tend such meeti n~ s.
The g
i 15 only individual -- excuse me -- the only memory tha t I have 16 as it relates to an individual is that when I went and 17 brought t.h i s matter up on second shift., I was disappointed to 18 find out that I was addressing the same shift. supervisor that.
19 I had previously addressed.
I don't recall which shift 20 supervisor it was, but I remember the fee. ling of 21 disappointment. because I had hoped that. I was going to get 22 another shift supervisor to talk to.
But apparently with the 23 way the shifts rota ted and the date that. I ended up having 24 gone 1.o the control room on second shift, which was 25 approximately a week later or so, the rotation was such or ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3701 Nationude roserage mU.3%ue
28728.0 BRT 4678
/~N)
L
-1 the assignment was such that that shift supervisor was the 2
same.
I only -- I remember that feeling.
I don't remember 3
who it was,. sir.
4 Q
The-plan of the day meeting, who was required to 5
attend?
6 A
Sir, I can answer that in terms of who typically 7
attended.
I don't know tha t there was a specific 8
requirement.
The typical attendees were myself, the shift 9
supervisor, the supervisor of operations, I believe that a 10 representative from the maintenance department frequently 11 attended.
In Unit 2 at that time I also believe that the GPU 12 service corps start-up engineer frequently attended.
Some 13 engineers from my staff attended from. time to time.
14 Q
Was this -- the people that were there that 15 weren't -- tha t were shif t people -- this represented only 16 one shift?
17 A
Sir, it was -- during the day shift, and depending 18 upon which day, it was on the day shift, there could be two 19 day sh-ifts in the control room or two shifts in the contro]
20 room at any given time.
Whether a representative from both 21 of those shifts -- excuse me -- representativen from both of i
22 those. shifts would be present, I can't say, sir.
I don't l
23 know.
I would say that varied, perhapu, from meeting to 24 meeting.
25 And when I say representatives from the shifts, it 4
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwi& roserage 80iK 3h6M6
,.-___.._-...-,_m.-..._
28728.0 BRT 4679 g(,)
1 would typically be the shift supervisor as opposed to the 2
shift foreman.
I would say that it would not be a totally 3
unusual situation to have two' shift supervisors present.
But
-4 that was not always the' norm either.
S Q
Well,-I'm about through here.
But --
6 A
Sir, let me clarify that last statement' just a 7
little bit more?
I'm sorry to drag this on.
8 Q
Okay.
9 A
I guess I'd say I really don't know what the norm 10 was relative to the shict supervisor being present..
I'd say 11 1.here was typically at least a shifL supervisor present.
li There may have been more.
h.
13 Q
Well, let me kind of go down on this matter as to v
14 what we have found out so f ar:
That practically no one, that 15 includes -- practically, I said, Mr. McBride -- practically 16 no one in the operating staff -- this includes shifL 17 supervisors, shift foremen, CHos and even trainees -.they do 18 not remember reading that LER.
And the only reason
- t. hat they 19 remembered reading it at al.1, most of them, was because they 20 had checked off -- initialed the checkoff sheet.as to the 21 fact that they had read i t..
But everybody did init.ial the 22 checkoff sheet, without exception.
However, no one, not on 23 any shift, not any shift supervisor, not any shift foreman, 24 not any CHo, not any trainee, changed the way that they were 4
25 doing business in the slightest.
They just didn't.
Is was ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
sm_ m < -
_,,,_.,_,_-.._._,m,._,__
28728.0
-BRT 4680
(
)
v i
sort of a la-la-la feeling, whenever you talk about this.
2 I'm just curious, how can this possibly be?
It 3
just - if one shif t didn' t get the word, well, okay.
But 4
when everybody did the same thing, what are we supposed to 5
believe went on?
Because the principal. objective of doing 6
whatever was done was to get the method changed from what it 7
had been doing, and it didn't work.
They_kept right on doing 8
what they were doing.
And I don't understand it.
Do you?
9 Do you have any idea how this could'have transpired?
10 A
Sir,'my ideas would be speculation.
11 Q
Well, that's about all we've got so far.
12 A
Hut I will state before I start to speculate that O}
13 I never tried harder on any other LER, and I have stated that V
14 before, to personally get involved to get the word out.
15 Gir, I think one element of confusion that could 16 have come up and ended up confusing the situation was the 17 rounding of f practice with the memo that was put out with 18 respect to the rounding of.f practice and subsequently 19 canceled.
20 This is again speculat. ion.
But it is possible --
21 I'm speculating saying -- and knowing how hard, perhaps in 22 retrospect and learning 1 canons over the years rela tive to 23 communica tions - but it is very hard to communicate.
Two 24 people can sit and look at each other and have a discussion
~
.25 and hear two completely different thinga.
And we all ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m.m.,
e-
28728.O BRT 4681
.. '%.J i
1 experience that in our lives from'one ti.me to another, I'm 2
sure.
But it is possible that the subsequent cancellation of 3
that practice was interpreted to mean going back to the 4
. practice that was being used prior to Mr. llaverkamp's visit.
5 Q
Well, you mean the practice that' was always used, 6
period, except for a very short few days where they were 7
doing this rounding otI business because they never changed.
8 It was as if they had never heard of anything like that, the 9
tact that you should go into the action statement.
Don't 10 figure that you can just run test af ter test af ter tes t 11' without doing something, and all of that.
~
12 I think for now that will do nicely.
Thank you.
13 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let's break for lunch until 1:30, 14 (Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m.,
the hearing was 15 recessed, to be reconvened a t 1:30 p.m.
this same day.)
16 17 1
i 18 19 20 21 l
22 1
23 l,
24 l
25 l-l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
20244717to Nationmide Cmcrage mn.146M6
I 28728.0 BRT 4602 V
1-AFTERNOON SESSION (i:30 p.m.)
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Back on the record.
3 EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD (Continued) 4 DY JUDGE BRIGHT:
5 Q
Mr. Seelinger,
- 7. have a question I want to put to 6
you.
To some extent it may sound like we are going over some 7
ground you have already been over.
Some of the points I want 8
t.o make are a little different or come at it. from a different 9
angle, but bear with me if I sound redundant or if you have 10 already answered the question.
I'll try to minimize that as 11 we go along.
12 Focusing on the LER, and for that purpose I want 13 to look at the LER that was sent to Reading over your 14 signature; tab 20 is what I'm looking at.
There are a number 15 of points made in the LER that raise ques tions in my mind.
16 You in your prepared testimony adverted to the fact that 17 there were some errors in the LER narra tive which you 18 apparent.ly questioned and that was one reason for our looking 19 at the handwritten version.
But I would like to nail down a 20 little more precisely, if I can, at least my own concerns 21 about the LER, namely the narra tive but ac tually the text 22 itself.
23 Looking at the text, the form it. has been typed 24 in, apparently an NRC form, the second sentence says, "Gince 25 all leakage from the RCG is processed through the rad waste ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
n,a,.
~ - - -,.
.n-t
28728.0.
BRT 4683 Q
l' treatment system, this event did not af fect the health and 2
safety of the public."
3.
The reference that the water got put. through the 4
rad waste-system, was that the safety concern thal arose out 5
of this LER, radioactive water contaminating people?
6 A
First, sir, I would like to say that I'm not sure 7
that I reviewed the portion of the LER that you are speaking 8
of that is in the form.
I may have but I may not have.
I 9
just don't recall.
10 But to address your specific question, I believe 11 that tha t s ta tement was a common s tatement that was made on 12 LERs.
It may have reflected the understanding at the time, 13 in terms of the' safety significance of the leakage.
We all 14 understand a lot more today, after mounds of paper and 15 looking at t.his thing from a number of different angles.
But 16 I think I could understand, in the parlance or perhaps 17 knowledge of the time, I think you would find, although I 18 don't know for sure, thiu same sta tement on a number of LERs, 19 and I don't think it was --
20 Q
Well, you wouldn't find it, surely, on LEHu that 21 had nothing to do with water getting out of place, would 22 you?
If you are saying it's boilerplate, I know what that 23 means.
I ati11 would think it would have some -- I don't 24 mean to be obscure here.
It just seems to me when I look at 25 this LER it has to do with leakage and that ultimately has to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202J4t)'tU Nationw @ roserage
- r> 3 %(6M
28728.0 BRT 4684 M
1 do with cracks, is there some big crack out there.
2 Ordinarily, given this amount of water, I wouldn't care 3
whether they dumped it in the parking lot -- but they have 4
health and safety problems, they have cracks, valves going 5
haywire -- not what' happened to some small amount of water.
6 A
Sir, the overall safety concern of leakage is what 7
you are talking about in the area of cracks in pipes, things 8
of that particular nature.
In terms of how globally this was 9
looked at, at that point in t'ime, I don't know, sir.
10 Q
I'm just cor.cerned that perhaps -- I assume that 11 the level of sophistication of NHC reviewers is such it l
12
_ wouldn't affect them anyway.
But just reading this as a 13
' layman, I think, well, this is about spilling contaminated 14 water or so one would infer from that sentence, and it's not 15 about. tha t a t all.
It's about cracks in pipes, as I 16 underutand it now.
Wouldn't you agree?
17 A
Sir, aitting here with today's knowledge and level 10 of detail and review and a number of the things that I have 19 reviewed, taking a fair amount of time to do tha t, I would 20 agree that what the leakage specification is all about is 21 cracks in pipes and things of that nature, Crom a safety 22 significance.
23 In termu of whether or not that type of a scenario 24 or that type of depth ot underutanding took place in what i
25 I'll call the numerous eventu going on at that point in time, O
r l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 20244M'm Ntionwnte rmerage mn))MMA
28728.0 BRT 4685
_/ %
O 1
it well may not have.
And that detailed of an unders tanding 2
and stepping back from-the trees to look at. the forest, well 3
may not have occurred, sir.
4 Q
I didn't think it was such a subtle point, but be 5
that as it may, you suggest that you may not have reviewed 6
this particular page.
Would your review -- might it, have 7
been limited to the narrative, the part we have looked at in 8
wri t.i ng ?
9 A
Sir, it is possible that it could have been 10 limited to the narrative; yes, sir.
11 Q
Dut the narrative is -- as this document in 12 structured, the narrative is an integral ptrt of a larger 13 document called an LER; right?
14 A
Yes, sir.
That is correct.
15 Q
Looking at. t.he narrat.1ve paragraph -- again, I'm 16 looking at the draft version that apparently went to Reading, 17 and I think the only difference is over that language that wo 18 talked about boCore which I needn't belabor at this time.
I 19 noted -- I think we've all noted -- maybe some minor points 20 in here.
Like the very first line, " October 19th" is really 21
" October 18th"; lan't that right?
Prom a point of accuracy i,
22 it should be the 18th?
23 A
No, sir.
Excuse me, let me jus t pause f or a i
I 24 second.
25 The time associated with the wordu that. appear in
- O i
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- emn,
s_ u. cmo.
..o u.
j
20720.0 BRT 4686 1
the first sentence, "while performing a surveillance 2
procedure," the time and the date associated with that, yes, 3
sir, should be October 18th.
And the time, I'm not exactly 4
sure of the. time, sir, sitting here.
I have seen a number of 5
leak rate tests being performed in that period of time.
6 Q
I raise that point only to lower it.
I think 7
that's a nitpicking point, the fact that it's the luth rather 8
than the 19th.
The evidence is clear trom many other sources 9
that the whole thing took place on the 18th.
I don't want to 10 belabor it.
Do you think it's significant?
I don't.
11 A
Sir, it could be significant.
It's not 12 significant, I don't think, in the overall context of what I 1.
13 believe the purpose of this Board is looking at, but it could 4
14 come up later on in our discussions.
15 Q
okay.
16 A
If it does, I'll bring it up at that time.
17 Q
I think it is kind of stoppy that the mistake was 10 made, but putting that to one side, what concerns me is the 19 extent to which aspects of this paragraph are not only not i
i 20 f actually accura te, but misleading.
21 Moving down to the sentence two thirdu oC the way 22 through the text, the one that had wordu added onto it in 23 Reading, "llowever, act. ion was being taken" and so forth.
Arc 24 you with me on that sentence?
25 A
I am with you on that, "llowever, act.lon was being lO i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m.m.,
u _ + c -,.
,, w, -
~28728.0 BRT 4607 1
taken."
2 Q
Right.
That sentence.
Now there was the addition 3
of words we talked about earlier; correct?
4 A
In the version that went to the NRC there were the 5
addition of words; yes, sir.
6 Q
Now, what I want to look at. here is, this says 7
that " Reduction of the unidentified leakage was accomplished-8 at 0735 on October 18th."
Do you know that to be the case?
9 Did you know it at the time?
10 A
Bir, I don't know, at the time, what. I knew in 11 terms of which ti me that we had ultimately decided that we 12 had got. ten within the 31mits as we underst. cod those limitu to 13 be, af ter approximately late morning or so on October luth.
14 0
Let me get. an appreciation of your involvement and 15 your level of review of the facts at that time, some of which 16 are indicated by this sentence.
17 We can spend a lot of time walking through the 18 tests on that day and we may do a little bit of that, but I 19 don't think that would be neceusary from our standpoint.
20 What. I wondered wan:
When you went over this document and 21 you questioned some thingu, made uome changes, did you have 22 any personal knowledge about the extent of search for 23 leakage, let's say?
24 A
Yen, sir, I did have nome personal knowledge about 25 the extent o:' the nearch for leakage.
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m,
~ _ r _,.
20720.0 BRT
'4600 1
Q What was that?
Was it your understanding that 2
leakage searching was taking place?
3 A
Yes, sir, it was.
I had b6en in the centrol room 4
sometime on October 101.h, and possibly twice on October 10th, S
and I recall the shiCL supervisor having a lis t and being 6
working on a list, to go out and identify leakage.
I recall 7
tha t very clearly.
8 O
Go you were not just somebody sitt.ing off in 9
another part of the facility in an ofCice but you were 10 actually up in the control room and in discussions with Floyd 11 and so on in connection with this matter?
12 A
Sir, I made one or two visits.
I made at least 13 one or two vis1La Lo the control room on Octobnr 10th.
I was 14 aware of the fact that an ongoing ef fort was in progress to 15 find leakn and that a great deal of allention was being paid 16 t.o that on October 10th; yes, sir.
17 Q
Would you think, then, that. tests being conducted 10 on October luth would reflect. that search for leakage and 19 effort to ident1Cy leakage no as to Lake it out of the 20 unidentified category?
21 A'
Sir, I would think that tests would reflect that.
22 10 we were succoustui in finding leaku, and Lestu Lhat. I have 23 seen on October 10th do reflect
- t. hat Jeakage was found.
24 0
Well, let's take a look at. a few.
I'm perfectly
[
25 happy to hear other nuqueutions but I would like to unggest ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202147 lhu Nationu kte rm etage kn HMM6
)
28728.0 DRT 4689 OG 1
-- I'm looking at t.he NHR volume tent 12-B, ffrom the day 2
before.
Did you focus Mr. Geelinger on that?
3 MR. MC DRIDE:
Yes, sir.
Ele reviewed the same 4
version so you'll be talking from the same sheel of music.
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
Fine.
Can we sing the same t.une?
6 MR. MC BRIDE:
That. remains to be seen.
7 Judge Kelley, I have put before him the volume of 8
the NRH report which begins with test 12-A.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
We'll look at that.
10 MH. MC URIDE:
Unfortunat.ely I'm going to have to 11 get another copy because the way the book put it together the 12 number for identified leakage --
13 JUDGE KELLEY:
The hole puncher look it right out, 14 d i d n ' t. i t.
That.'s why I gave up on 12-A and started with i
15 12-U.
16 MH, MC DRIDE:
I think it's important. to utart 17 with 12-A.
Glier's version of 12-A, would that help?
18 MR. MC HHIDE:
You, sir, I think so.
If it 19 doesn'L, Mr. Glier's lett.cr to you will help.
20 If the Hoard were to direct. it.n alt.ention to test 21 number 149 in the Gtler volume, the hole puncher has narrowly 22 aaved the relevant information:
1.21 for identif.ied 23
- leakage, i
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
So the 17 t h ---
li 25 MR. MC HHIDE:
16th.
- O
\\
r
(
ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mwa u n a c -,,,,
,n w a
28728.0 HRT 4690
' g.
U-1 JUDGE KELLEY:
Sorry.
16th of October, 7:30 at 2
night, thereabouts?
3 MR. MC 13 HIDE:
That's right.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
Unidentified leakage of how much?
5 MR. MC DRIDE:
1.21.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
1.21.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
That. also is the test, I take it, 8
that wau the highest one that came up in this period.
It 9
rounds to 2.67 10 MH. MC HRIDE:
That's the one referred to in the 11 narrative; yes, sir.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
So that's the evening of the 13 16th.
The next one, B,
shows identified leakage of minus 14 2.16 and a leak rate of 2.1, rounded off; correct?
So, 15 starting at 1:00 in the afternoon or so on the 17 th, the 16 unidentified. leak rate is 2.16.
Correct?
17 MR. MC HRIDE:
The identified leak rate.
18 JtIDGE KEL, LEY :
The identified Icak rate fu 2.16.
19 MR. MC HHIDE:
It's the identified leakage that 20 the operator entern.
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
That's what he entered, yes.
22 MR. MC HHIDE:
And then the Leut, if you look at t
23 the bottom, ident.ifles a somewhat different amount of 24 identified leakage because it addu in the amount in the drain 25 tank.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
w s,,,.
u _ a r-,,,
d 28728.0 BRT-4691 4
V) i 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
Are we all satisfied with that?
2 Does it look right, Mr. Seelinger?
3 THE WITNESS:
Sir, I see the 2.16 that you 4
referred to.
5 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
6 Q
All right.
Let's move on a little bit.
We've got 7
what is called te.it 12-C, by the NRC analyst.
Once again, 8
minus 2.16.
This is at 5:00-in the morning on the 10th, the 9
10th being the day when all the action occurred.
10 So, as I see it, between 1:00 in the afternoon, 11 1:30 in the afternoon on the 17th, to S:00 the next morning 12 on the luth, the same quantity of 3dentified leakage.
13 Correct?
Minus.16 -- minus 2.16?
14 A
The 2.16 in the two are identical; yes, sir.
i 15 Q
So they didn't find anything in that interval; j
16 correct?
1 t
17 A
They did not, apparently, find any leakage that j
10 they entered into the computer program in that interval; yes, l
19 sir.
20 0
Okay.
1 21 And in 12-D, the next one up, thlu lu 7:30 in the 22 (
morning on the luth, still minus 2.16.
And I would gather 23 that that's the test. referred to in the narrative where it
)
24 uays " identification was accompl19hed at 7:35 on October 10, 25 1978."
Wouldn'L that seem to 1it?
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-147lho Nationwide Cos erage An14N M
28720.0 BRT 4692 1
A Sir, that appears to be the test referred to in 2
the narrative; yes, sir.
3 Q
Yes.
That's what I mean.
And the narrative says 4
that this identification had been accomplished by that time.
5 And we move on to 12-E, which is between 9:00 and 10:00 that 6
morning, still ninus 2.16 of identified leakage and let us 7
note as we go along'that in the case of 12-D, and 12-E, there 8
is a notation at the bottom of the page that says, "okay by 9
roundoff."
10 MR. MC URIDE:
And there are more words.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
And if you keep going and you have 12 the better verulon, 3t says Geelinger's -- not Geelinger --
13 Ployd's initials; correct?
14 MR. MC IIRIDE:
I believe that, to be the case.
i 15 There are a little more of the words in the.Stier volune and 16 there are even more on the letter that he sent you.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
We'll get to that.
10 IlY JUDGE KELLEY:
19 Q
Moving to test 13, run at roughly between 10:00 20 and 11:00 that morning of. the luth, nome additional 21 uniden t. i c t ed leakage apparently had been found; correct?
22 A
That appearn to be the caste, sir.
l 23 Q
11ecause you are going from minus 2.16 to minua i
24 2.7S.
i 25 A
You, sir.
0 1
J i
i ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3,m m.,
- s. _ m m,,,,
-o m
28728.0 BRT 4693~
1 Q
Or.776, if you want to take that correction into 2
account, the handwritt.en one.
But this additional 3
identification of leakage reflected _in this tes t still gives 4
you an unidentified leak rate of 1 gallon, albeit by a tiny 5
fraction; correct?
6 MR. MC BRIDE:
Absent the roundoff.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Absent the roundoff.
8 DY JUDGE KELLEY:
9 Q
If you move to the next test, on a busy day on the 10 t.esting machine, number 14, under " identified Icakage" you 11 see.196, and then apparently a correction to minus.1916; 12 but. the amount of identified leakage there in smaller than 13 what we had been looking at in the preceding tes t; right?
14 A
That is correct, sir.
15 Q
Move on to the next one, number 15, you find zero 16
, identified leakage.
Hun the next day, 7:00 in the morning.
17 So, having looked at those test.s rather quickly 18 but for a narrow purpose, I look back a t this LEH again and I 19 read it, "llowever, an action was being taken to reduce even i
20 identified Icakage to within allowable limits and thiu was i
21 accomplished 7:35, October 16, 1970."
Do you think thal is 22 true bar:cd on what you just looked at?
23 A
Gir, I think that that statement la true based on 24 the tent that wan accomplished and baned on what the 25 underntanding of allowable limits was when one incorporated ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
(12 3 47.Um Nationwi fe roserne M L )16 N.46
28728.0 BRT 4694 V
1 the roundoff, in terms of the allowable limits.
2 Q
Then why doesni t t.his statement say words to this 3
effect:
Action was being taken to reduce unidentified 4
leakage by rounding it off to the largest integer.
Period.
S This doesn't say that, it says we were dashing around, a
6 finding previously unidentified leakage and ident.ifying it 7
and tha t 's how we did it, and tha t's no t wha t happened here.
8 A
Sir, it in difficult to know or recall why 9
somet.hing doesn't say something.
It. may have come up in the 10 session that we had, should the roundoff be included or 11 should the roundofC not be included in this.
12 Q
We can agree that it doesn't include that in 13 terms; all right?
14 A
I'm sorry, sir?
l 15 Q
It doesn't say anything about roundoff'in this j
16 paragraph?
l 17 A
It doesn't say anyt.hing about roundoff in this 18 particular paragraph.
It does say something about allowable 19 11mits.
i 20 Q
And when you look at the actual test. you see the a
21 way you get that down to a gallon is by rounding off the 1
22 I numbers and it says so on the face of the tests; isn't that i
23 right?
24 A
10 you look at the ucquence of the teuts that you 25 Look me to, beginning on the 16th, which is, I believe, the n
i V
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
wom m.,
s _.. n,m m mu-
28728.0 BRT 4695
- fV 1
highest number, 2.6, then additional leakage was found to get 2
that to -- was found that brought the identified leakage 3
almost a gallon a minute greater than where it started out, f
4 in the interim period between the 16th and the 18th.
5 Q
On the test, the very first tes t we. looked at and 6
t.he very-second test we looked at, that happened.
From then 7
on i t was logged at minus 2.16, for several tests including 8
the one cited here.
9 A
That is correct, sir.
10 Q
'Right.
11 A
Dut. there was leakage, there was apparently 12 leakage found from looking at these two tes t results or-13 looking at. this sequence of test results, in between the 14 largest test. that we saw, the first test, and the test on the 15 0735 test.
16 Q
My point is it was the very next test.
And that.
17 seems to me to be indisputable.
It's right there on the l
18 paper.
You add a reduction between test 12-A and 12-B.
19 Detween 12-B, and going on for a good while through 7:35, you 20 didn't get anywhere; right?
I 21 A
Sir, it one looks at this in terms of a period i
22 between the f i rs t. test and the last -- the first test and the 23 tes t a t 0735, leakage was reduced at a point in time between 24 that period.
It oae looks at that between individual tests, 25 the leakage between any two individual testa may or may not i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202447 Pte Nationule rmetage RN %6M6
.. _ _. _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ - - ~ _ - _. -, _,, ~ - - -
28728.0 BRT 4696 i
\\'
V 1
have been reduced depending on what we looked at.
2 0
I will grant you that one can say that and be 3
technically accurate.
The problem I have is twofold.
- One, 4
and not. the'more important of the two, I think:
It is not 5
accurate to say that the' unidentified leakage was reduced by 6
this identification process and it was accomplished by~7:35.
7 That's just not true.
Not a damn thing haurened between 7:35 8
and the prior three tests; zero, zilch.
9 MR. MC HRIDE:
I have to object.
It's 10 argumentative.
The period started on the 16t.h of Oct.ober and 11 the leaks were developed after that time and the narrative 12 was developed since the 16th of October and the witness just h
13 testified to that.
V 14 JUDGE KELLEY:
That's your view.
You call it an 15 objection.
To call it happening since 7:35 is as sticky a 16 wicket as I can imagine.
Is it not true that. for the three 17 tests preceding these tests that nothing was accomplished for 10 iden t.l f yi ng unidentified Jeakage by identifying leakage; 19 isn'L that true?
20 Tile WITNESS:
Si r, I have to go back and look aL 21 each at the testa.
I think I said 3.
I'll amend i t.
Lo 2.
22 HY JUDGE KELLEY:
23 Q
The 7:35 test is test D,
if I'm not mis taken?
The 24 two test.s preceding that kept precisely 1.he same numher for 25-identified leakage.
That's my point?
. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37tt)
Natlonwidt roscf agt NIk3% N>46
28728.0 BRT 4697 V
1
-A Sir, you are correct that the.two tes ts before 2
that had precisely the same number for unidentified leakage.
3 Q
And the one after that, E,
also, also had 4
precisely the same thing.
~
5l A
The test right after that did have the same amount 6
of unidentified -- excuse me -- of identified leakage, yes, 7
sir.
8 O
So the reference
-- and again, I'm not reading 9
this in a hair-splitting way.
I'm trying to read this as I 10 think a reasonable person would.
And that is to the extent 11 this implies to me tha t something got done by 7 :35, I would 12 have expected something prior to 7:35 to show me that, and I 13 don't find that to be the case.
I have to ao all the way 14 back to test number A, a couple of days before, to find that 15 to be true.
16 Isn't that -- you and I may see this differently, 17 we may see time frames ditterently.
Hut my point is, in 18 terms of -- it would seem to be indisputable facts that the 19 two preceding tests be t.c re test D showed no change in 20 unidentified leakage; isn't that right?
I 21 A
Sir, it certainly appears to be a true statement 22 that the two tests before test D showed no change in the f
23 identified leakage.
24 Q
Now, the point I think is even more significant is 25 the statement that says " action was being taken to reduce ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37tO Nationwide rmerage 8(o 336 6M6
-s......
. _,=_ _
28728.0
-BRT 4698 b
v 1
unidentified leakage to within allowable limits."
Tha t means 2
to less than 1 gallon per minute; correct?
That's the 3
allowable limit.
4 A
Sir, the allowable' limit as we understood the 5
allowable limit at sometime -- the best what I -- wtat I 6
believed to have been late morning on October 18th was 1 7
gallon per minute, not 1.0 gallons per minute.
And 1 gallon 8
per minute, taking advantage of the rounding off procedure 9
tha t had been brought up by the NRC --
10 Q
So you are saying that in order for this sentence 11 to hang together in that regard you have to build in 12 roundoff; correct?
i 13 A
Sir, the statement, "However, action was being 14 taken to reduce the unidentified leakage to within allowable 15 limits" can address two separate periods and be an accurate 16 slatement.
IL can address the period between the firs t tes t, 17 which we will call test A, because you have already labeled 18 it test A, and it is a test referred to'above in this 19 document, because leakage was identified during that period.
20 And.it also can address what was going on during the morning 21 of October the 18th, which was to find, go out and search for 22 leakage, which is what I observed when I was in the control 23 room on October 18th.
24 Q
I'm not talking about either of those points.
The 25 point I'm talking about is, this sentence says:
You got the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(XK336fM6
28728.0 BRT 4699
/.ss
!.j 1
job done.
You got the thing reduced to within allowable 2
limits by 7:35.
That to me means 1 gallon.
The fact of the 3-matter is that didn't happen; correct?
You didn't get it 4
down to a gallon by 7:35, by finding leakage; isn't that 5
right?
6 A
Sir, if one looks at how the events unfolded --
7 Q
I don't care how you look at.it.
I have been 8
reading these test.results and they all say more than 1 9
gallon per minute.
Every one of-these tests reflects 10 unidentified leakage in excess of I ga] Ion per minute, tests 11 we have been talking about; correct?
12 A
The words though, sir, say " allowable limits."
em( )
13 Q
Let's get'to that as a next step.
I know it.
14 If you want to get the roundoff there, then I 15 guess you can do that, but let's keep my question to:
'All 16 these tests, if you read the computer printout, reflect an 17 unidentified leak rate of.more than 1 gallon per minute; 18 correct?
They go all.the way back to A and up to-13.
19 A
Sir, from A through 13?
20 Q
12-A through 13.
21 A
Yes, sir, from 12-A through 13, the computer 22 printout reflects a net unidentified leak rate in excess of 23 1.0 gallons per minute.
24 Q
Correct.
Okay.
To me, if~I read this, I would 25 have thought that meant that by finding leakage and ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS,'INC.
202-347-3710 Nationuide Cos erage 800 336-6M6
28728.0 BRT-4700
'(
)
v 1
identifying it, you got a leak rate of a gallon or less.
Now 2
you are suggesting, I take it, that I should have also
.3 tactored in the roundoff technique; is tha t correet?
In 4
order to get -- in order to understand this statement 5
correctly?
6 A
Sir, the way_that we unders'tood allowable limits 7
at that point.in time, and by that I mean on the 18th, after 8
what I believed to have been sometime in the late morning, 9
'was that the allowable limit allowed the roundof f practice.
10 0
And you are building that understanding into this 11 sentence; correct?
12 A
Slr, reading that~ sentence today I believe that 13 that sentence is true.and I believe the centence -- I believe 14
'the sentence'is true as written, in terms of what-all went 15 into that sentence as that sentence was composed.
And if we 16 had the level of detail of all o'E these particular leak rate 17 tests there and looked a t all of these leak rate tests
-- I 18 don't know, sir.
19 Q
Let me try to put this to you as simply as I can.
20 I'm looking a t these tes ts 12-A through 13.
Every single one 21 of them says the leak rate test, unidentified leak rate, is 22 more than 1 gallon per minute.
It's 2.6 on down; that's 23 right, isn't'it?
24
'A I think you used " unidentified" and you meant 25
" identified."
nv ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(43346M6
28728.0 BRT 4701
_s
. )3 1
Q No, I meant.unidenLified.
2 A
I'm sorry, sir.
I'm sorry to ask you.to say it 3
again.
4 Q
Every single one of those tests from 12-A through 5
13 reflect unidentified leakage in excess of 1 gallon per 6
minute; correct?
7 A
They reflect unidentified. leakage in excess of 1.0 8'
gallons per minute.
9 Q-1.0 gallons per minute.
Right.
Okay.
10 I suggest to you that if you essume the legitimacy 11 of roundoff, and I'm not commenting on whether I think it 12 legitimate or illegitimate right now, I'm'just saying if you
- 1. 3 assume that's the~way the calculation ought to be-made, then 14 this sentence to me makes sense because some of these tests 15 are under 1.5 and lo and behold I'm down to 1 by roundoff.
16 But without a roundoff there's no-way in the world I can get
'17 there.
Without roundoff, this statement that we reduced la leakage to within allowable limits is false, without 19 roundoff.
Isn't that true?
20 A
Sir, that sentence relies on the roundoff to get 21 within allowable limits.
22 Q
And isn't that the only way you can get the 23 sentence to make any sense, to make it a true statement?
24 A
It would not have been within allowable limits 25 without roundoff.
o u
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3C-347-3?(X)
Nationwide Coserage MB336-6M6
28728.0-BRT 4702
[_s) v 1
Q All right.
There are a couple of sentences here 2
further on, talking.about input errors on the computer.
The 3-fourth sentence from the end, oile of them.
4 MR. MC BRIDE:
I think you mean the third 5
sentence, Judge Kelley, from the end?
6 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
7 Q
Yes.
Right.
Third sentence from the end.
"In 8
addition, it was discovered that errors in inputting data to 9
the computers caused indicated unidentified leakage to be 10 greater than actually was occurring."
11 Skipping to the last sentence, " input data for the 12 computer program which calculates unidentified leakage has
{m}
13 also been clarified."
14 Can you clarify for us what you are referring to 15 by those two sentences?
16 A
Sir, I'll sure try to clarify that.
I don't know 17 if, when I get done, that I will have clarified it, but I'll 18 try.
19 Q
Go ahead.
20 A
-To the best of my recollection, I heard, and I 21 don't know from whom, if it was from Mr. Fels directly or if 22 it was secondhand from somebody else through Mr. Fels or from 23 others, that we had a situation where algebraically something 24 was being added when it should have been subtracted or vice 25 versa.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3C-347-3700 Nationwide coserage 800-336-fM6
28728.0 DRT 4703 d
1 Q'
Algebraically or arithmetically?
Go ahead.
2 A
I think we are probably using those to mean the 3
same thing.
4 Q
Go ahead.
5 A
A-whole -- a number that should have been 6
subtracted was added or vice versa.
7 Q
All right.
O A
It is not clear to me at. this point whether I 9
thought or_ understood that to be a generic error or whether 4
10 that involved only a few tests.
I really don't know'for 11 sure.
I have a feeling' that I thought it was generic but I 12 don't-know for sure, sir.
/"')
13 With respect to the statement, and there are two,
>V 14 on the computer, "In addition, it was discovered that errors 15-in inputting data to the computer caused indicated 16 unidentified' leakage to be greater than actually was 17.
occurring."
18 After reading Mr. Fels' testimony it appears 1. hat 19 that~may have dealt with -- and in discussions in preparing l
20 for this_ testimony, it appears that that. may have dealt with 21 specific tes ts as opposed to a generic situation.
Again, I 22 don't know if I realized that.
23 I also heard, and I don't remember from whom or in 24 what t.ime frame, that there was an additional error or i
25
. errors.
I don't recall or have direct recollection of what i O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(O Nationwide Coverage
- M3%6646
I 28728.0 BRT 4704 O
1 those additional error or errors were.
I don't have any 2
independent recollection of that, I'll say.
And I have a 3
vague recollec tion of that, maybe, was algebra.ically 4
different than the first set of errors that I. understood to 5
exist.
6 The second statement was drafted by me, " input 7
data for the computer program which calculates unidentified 8
leakage, has also been clarified."
It is in my hand on this 9
handwritten version of the LER.
10 Q
Right.
~11 A
I had very little knowledge, direct-knowledge of 12 the computer.
The PORC minutes.suggest tha t Mr. Fels-was pQ 13 present when, I believe, this LER would have been reviewed by.
14 the PORC.
My-practice would have been to rely on Mr. Fels, 15 and asking him about the accuracy of those particular words.
~
16 I don' t have direct recollection of tha t.
I believe those 17 words were drafted in that PORC meeting.
As I have stated, 18 they are in my hand and I think I would have asked to make 19 sure that those words were accurate.
20 I don't know for sure whether those words were 21 drafted in a way that they would account for what may or may 22 not have been some additional error that I may or may not 23 have thought to exist or have heard somewhere existed.
24 Q
With regard to the last sentence, the 5
25 clarification that that refers to, do you know what p
, U l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
28728.0 BRT 4705
,sh 1
specifically that refers to?
2 A
Sir, when it was drafted, I have a feeling -- and 3
again It's a feeling, it is not a recollection - but I have 4
a feeling'and I'll speculate on what may have happened.
And
~
5 it may have been a situation where, as I was drafting.and 6
getting input, I.'ll assume from Mr. F e'I s, that we may have 7
been on different wavelengths with each other.
That I may 8
have been hearing something generic and he may have been 9
saying somethinig specific.
10 I feel that, as I wrote those,- that I thought that 11
'they referred to corrections in terms of getting a sign 12 convention corrected, so t' hat what was supposed to be added
()
13 was subtracted or vice versa, and that they possibly also 14 referred to some additional error.
And I don't have direct 15 independent recollection of what,any of that additional error 16 would be
-- of what that additional error would be.
17 Q
Well, Mr. Fels _ told us the other day that as to 18 the last sentence, the~ clarification sentence, that he was 19 involved in tha t and that that was a change in form which
-20 under linen your entering negative values.
But I believe it 21 came a month 'or so later.
It's not a major point.
But this 22 language has also been clarified.
As.of the time this 2?
speaks, it seems like it hadn't yet been done.
24 Do you have any recollection about that one way or 25 the other?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433MM6
28728.0 BRT 4706
/_N -
~
1 A
Well, sir, I don't have any recollection of it, 2
other-than Mr. Fels was in the FORC, or the minutes make it-3
~ appear tha t lie was in the FORC, that I would not have known 4
enough, of'myself, to have drafted the words, I do not 5
believe, without some input and help.
And I believe, sitting 6
here today, that I would have asked to ensure that people 7
Celt that the words that were put down were truthful.
8 Q
Let me ask you a generic point, whether the words 9
in'the computer were' generic, programmatic, repetitive as 10 opposed to an. isolated instance, I only know of one place in 11 the record where that's reflected, that's.in test 14,.where 12 Mr. Fels.came along and made a correction in the identified (n) 13 leakage number.
I. don't know of any other case like that.
m) 14 Do you know of any others?
15 A
I don't --
16 Q
Mr. Blake pointed to an earlier one where the 17 correction wasn't made.
But outside of that 18 A
I'm sorry, sir?
19 Q
-- do you know of any other errors of that nature 20 that might have suggested a need for.some programmatic 21 change?
22 A
I would not have had any independent knowledge 23 relative to the computer.
However, again, I have a~
feeling 24 tha t Mr. Fels and I may have been on a different wavelength, 25' rela tive to perhaps having a discussion, and me hearing one v
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2(c-347-3700 Nationwide Cm erage 80tb336-6646
28728.0 BRT 4707 1
thing and him trying to convey something else to'me.
2 I.'11 offer in support of that, that later on, and 3
1 don' t recall tite exact timing on this particular situation, 4.
but I'll say within the next few weeks -- one of the items 5
and documents that you have undoubtedly seen is the PORC 6
action item which was divided int'o-two separate items; one of 7
which dealt with the action portion on the computer.
8 There is a notation associated with that that 9
says, I-believe, on it, " Delete per JLS," or words to that 10 effect.
That is a handwritten note on that.
That 11 handwriting-is not mine.
But I have a very vague 12 recollection of' going back to Mark Bezilla, th.e PORC pQ 13 secretary, and trying to get a write-up from Mr. Fels on this 14 particular item, and Mark being unsuccessful in doing so.
15 And I don't recall the ensuing discussion, or if I ever truly 16 understood exactly why, but I just kind of, at this point.,
17 leave a feeling that there was some sense of t esis tance tha t I 18 was getting, in terms of doing that and I-don't know that I 19 really ever understood why, at that time.
If, in. fact, I was 20 hearing something generic and Mr. Fels was saying something.
21 to me specific, those two pieces of information would kind of 22 fit together.
23 Q
Just one more point in regard to these computer 24 matters.
I find computer ma tters somewhat arcane -- I'm sure 25 you are more sophisticated
. C1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(H Nationwide Coverage Rn336-6M6
20728.0 BRT 4708
\\-)
1 A
I missed the word, sir.
2 Q
I say I find computer matters generally arcane, as 3
tar as I'm concerned, generally esoteric.
I'm sure you are 4
more sophisticated than I am.
Nevertheless, if a computer 5
. expert like Fels came to you in this setting and he is one 6
piece of input among several, and says "Here is your computer 7
problem and here's the ways to fix it," would you be inclined 8
to probe into it' and try to unders tand it, or would you just 9
take his words and use them, as long as they seem reascnable-10 to you?
11 A
Sir, I didn't probe very deeply into the computer
-12 at TMI-2.
-I knew extremely little about the computer.
I
)
13 would be inclined to probably try to take the words or the (J.
14 thought that that particular person had given me.
15 Q
Okay.
16 A
I might, however, sir, be inclined to try to 17 express that thought maybe somewhat differently than the 18 computer person addressed that thought.
I don't know for 19 sure.
l I
20 Q
Okay.
So you might wordsmith it some, but you are 21 not inclined to get into it substantively; is tha t f air?
22' A
I think it's fair to say I would not get into it 23 substantively.
The words might be changed slightly
-- or 24 might be changed, 25 Q
This brings me, Mr. Seelinger, to the one part of t
s
\\
r ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coscrage 80lL3346646
28728.0 BRT 4709
[v) 1 this LER and its implementation that really does strike me as 2
most significant.
I think it was important to explore the 3
things we have jus t been exploring, but this is the thing 4
that does interest me the most.
And that is -- well, let's 5
start with this sentence in the LER:
"The appropriate 6
personnel will be. instructed on the requirements of the 7
applicable sections of the _ technical specifica tions and the 8
requirements to immediately invoke applicable action 9
statements when the p'rovisions of lilniting conditions for 10 operation are not met."
11 This language is largely put in by you, I 12 believe.?
"Largely" may be the wrong word, but you made a m
13 substantial contribution to the words in that sentence; 14 correct?
15 A
Yes, sir.
That is correct.
16 Q
I see that sentence of the narrative of the LER, 17 and the question I'm asking myself is:
liow are we going to 18 get this new interpretation conveyed to the supervisors and 19 foremen, and most importantly of all, the CRos?
And I read 20 that sentence, and then there's one other sentence that I 21 find in the record that I read directly on that, and that is 22 Mr. Floyd's memo, the so-called operations memo of the 20th.
23 Do you know what I'm referring to?
24 A
I do, sir, but I don't know if I have it in front 25 of me.
gtj ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37tU Nationwide Coserage 8(Xk336-6646
'28728.0
,_c BRT 4710
'l I
v 1
Q Well, among.other things, it's going to show up at 2
the end of tab 37, if you've got t. hat book.
I'm looking at 3
the sentence I read from the narrative, and now I look at the' 4
second numbered paragraph of the Floyd memo which I think you 5
earlier referred to,_ and I-gather you had something to do 6
with that memo actually issuing; is that correct?
7 A
Sir, I don't know that to be a fact.
I don't 8
recall seeing the memo at that~ time.
I think that it's 9
likely that Mr. Floyd and I had discussions on this matter on 10.
October 18th - excuse me, let me back up.
11 Mr. Floyd and I definitely had discussions on 12 October 18th, relative to the rounding off practice.
If'
[
13 that's the direc tion we are going, I can elaborate.
14 Q
No, we are not.
Let me just get us off rounding 15 off.
I don't think rounding off is all that important, 16 frank]y.
17 I point to the Floyd memo.
I thought you had some 18 role in its issuing, but it can serve our purposes anyway.
19 The Floyd memo in paragraph 2 seems to be referring to the 20 same thing thal the narrative refers to in the sentence I 21 just read; correct?
It's a marching order Floyd is giving; 22 correct?
23 A
Yes, sir.
24 Q
And that sentence in the narrative, plus Floyd's 25 number 2 paragraph, are the only marching orders I have
,.V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(0 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
'l
\\
28728.0 BRT 4711 (3
V 1
really found in this record, written in this regard.
You 2
told us this morning that you attended a POD meeting and had 3
some other discussions.
Put tha t to one side for the 4
moment.
But in terms of the eftort to put in writing the 5
interpretatiori that came out of flaverkamp af ter, and the way 6
things are supposed to be done henceforth, this is all I know 7
about it, these two sentences, really.
One sentence in the 8
narrative and one sentence in Floyd's memo; correct?
Is 9.
there anything else I should look to?
10 A'
Sir, I don't recall directly but the PORC action 11 item itself.
12 Q
The PORC action item says, "To Marshall:
Here are 13 your instructions."
Correct?
We can look at that, too.
14 Let's look'at i L.
Tab 30.
Tab 30, as I read it, tells 15 "WJM," Mr. Marshall, to " ensure the Col. lowing is documented 16 by ops review of LER:" -- And it's the same s.c n t e n c e, right 17 out of the narra tive of the LER.
I 18 A
It's basically the same sentence, sir.
19 Q
Basically?
It's not word for word?
20 A
In one case, the limiting conditions for operation 21 is spelled out.
In another case, it's abbreviated.
22 Q
Okay.
Apart. from that it's a quote; right?
23 A
I didn't review every word, but the idea is i
24 certainly the same, sir.
I 25 Q
Well, subject to check it, looks like a quote.
O i
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M -347-3h n Nationwide Cmcrage mK3E6M6
28728'0 k
4712 O,,
BRT 1
There may be some abbreviations thrown in, but there's 2
nothing new in there in substance, is ttvsre?
3 A
There does not appear to be anything new in 4
substance.
5 Q~
Okay.
So this simply repeats what was in the 6
narrative of the LER, in that regard;.right?
7 A
Yes, sir.
8 Q
And Marshall then takes the LER and causes it to 9
be inserted in the required reading book, as he told us the.
1.0 other day.
Is that consistent of your-understanding of what 11 happens to LERs and what you expected of Marshall here?
12 A
Sir, I don't know exactly where he put the LER.
I-f 13 did not read his testimony.
I think it would be fair to say 14 that: I would have expected him to put it into the control 15 room, into a system where it would have'been read.
16 Q
All right.
I think his testimony will reflect 17 that that's what he did.
Put the' text of the LER, along with 18 the statement, among the required reading ma terials along
.19 with a sign-off sheet and then everybody comes along and 20 initials it.
21
-Do you know what I mean by a " sign-off sheet"?
22 A
Yes, sir, I do.
23 Q
One of those is in here -- in fact it's right 24 after, I believe it appeared right after the PORC action 25 item.
Yes, it does.
Next page, called " Documentary View."
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2(c-347-3No Nationwide Coverage Nh336-6M6
r,
- <e_a 28728.0 BRT 4713 3b 1
So, focusing, first, on the LER, do you think that 2
the single sentence we've quoted, next to the.last sentence 3
in the narrative, standing by itself, is an adequate means 4
for conveying what war' involved here and what the CROs and 5.
foremen and supervisors were henceforth to understand as to 6
their responsibilities about leak rate tests?
7 A
Sir, I assume you mean by your question, the 8
sLatement out of the narrative that I was largely responsible 9
for writing?
That --
10 Q
Maybe I'm not being clear.
I'm trying.
I said 11 the sentence I quoted beginning with "the appropriate 12 personnel."
That's what I'm talking about.
13 I don't want you to assume anything.
That is what 14 I'm talking about, that sentence.
And my question to you 15 is:
If this went through the process we described, and it 16 went down to the required reading back in the control room 17 where all the CRos were going to read it, do you think a CRO 18 would walk away and say, "Now I understand; henceforth I'll 19 go into an action statement when the leak rate is above 1 20 gallon a minute"?
21 Do you think you'd get that kind of a reaction?
22 A
Sir, by itself -- and you've isolated on one 23 mechanism here.
24 Q
I'm trying to isolate, yes, deliberately.
This.
25 sentence tucked away in this LER at the bottom of the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nanonwide Coserage 80433MM6
28728.0 BRT 4714'
. c%
(G 1
narrative statement down there in that 3-ring notebook, 2
whatever it is, for people reading it -.do you think that 3'
would adequately convey to the CROs, one; that they have been 4
making a mistake, that their understanding about the tech 5
specs.and the ga11on'a minute has been wrong all along; that 6
they 41e supposed to change.the way they are supposed to do 7
business; and, henceforth, do it in accordance with the new 8
view?
Do you think they would get tha t from that sentence?
9 A
I don't know, sir.
10 Q
Do you think it's likely that they would?
11 A
Sir, I think it might depend, again, on a person's 12 background, the atmosphere in which he read the particular --
13 what he brought into reading this particular sentence, what 14 he.might take awa'y from it as opposed to just letting the 15 sentence sit there by itself; and say what would a person get 16 out of i t, I think I'm speculating and I think there would, 17 perhaps, be a number of different answers to tha t.
18 Q
There's real]y no need to speculate.
We have a 19 record that shows they got nothing out~ of it, absolutely 20 no' thing.
They went right on doing things the way they used 21 to do it; that the effect of tiiis sentence we are talking 22 about was zero, essentially zero.
Not just the CRos, but the 23 foremen and the supervisors as well.
That's what in fact 24 happened, so we don't have to speculate.
25 What I'm trying to focus on is what your thought ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80433M446
I 28728.0 BRT 4715 O
1 was at the time.
Did you think that this was an adequate 2
mechanism?
If so, why?
That's what.I'm really interested in 3
at this point, because I know what happened; nothing.
4 A
Well, sir, I think that you have to look at.the S
combina tion of mechanisms thattwere used to get out the 6
word.
I think it's extremely-important to look at this as an 7
integrated-type of a system.
8 Q
Let's not add them up quite yet.
Let's put them a 9
piece at a' time and then we'll add them up.
I quite agree 10 with you; we should look at.them all, but let's look at them 11 a piece at a time.
When I read this I read it'this way:
12 "The appropriate personnel will be instructed" -- I thought (m]
13 was the phrase.
Well, that's good.
Pretty soon there will 14 be a memo coming along, written in simple English, spelling 15
.out what this is all about and what people.are supposed to do 16 from now on.
But that. never happened, and I eventually 17 concluded tha t, when the sentence said "will be instructed,"
~
18 what was intended was this LER would be read and that will be
-19 it.
There aren't any subsequent instructions in writing, are 20 there?
21 A
-Sir, I think you've covered what has been in 22 writing as we have enumerated it here beforehand.
23 Q
Let's put the ot.her piece in.
There are three 24 pieces:
There's the LER; now there's Mr. Floyd's memo to the 25,
supervisors, correct?
Paragraph 2 thereof?
We looked at ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M-347-3700 Narioriwide Coverage sh336-646
28720.0
,A BRT-4716 t,j 1
that a little while ago.
2 A
Yes, sir.
3 Q
I'll ask the same question:
Assuming this.ever 4
came to the attention of the CHos -- and it isn't addressed 5
_to them, but assuming it came to their attention somehow, do 6
you think they would have understood what the problem is and 7
what the new interpretation is; what the new marching order, 8
if you will, is, from that?
9 A
Sir, the problem I'm having with your line of 10 ques tioning ' is, I'm really having a problem separating these 11 things one at a time.
If a person took one piece of this and 12 looked at one piece without the others, what he would have
. (
)
13 gleaned or gotten out of that particular portion.
v 14 0
Well, again, stick with me on this because I'm 15 perfectly happy to put them altogether, but I would like to 16 see what each piece is before we do that.
I find the Floyd 17 sentence, paragraph number 2, very cryptic.
I think it I 18 worked there at the time, I might have known it had something 19 to do with t.he time clock and actions taken and that's about 20 all it would tell me.
Is it clear to you?
Does this carry 21 some message to you it doesn't carry to me?
22 A
Let me take time to read the memo again, sir.
23 Q
I realize it's not your memo, it's Floyd's.
But 24 we are looking at the overall context.
25 A
Con 3d you repeat the question again, sir?
I'm gN)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3AU Nationwide Coserage 84Xh336-6646
--v-28728.0 BRT 4717 p
V 1
sorry.
2 Q
Do you think that sentence in the Floyd memo adds 3
anything in terms of shedding light on the matter and giving 4
those underneath Floyd a better idea of what the new marching 5
' order is?
6 A
Well, sir, it adds light to me.
7 Q
Why?
Why does it do that?
8
-A Decause it relatively -- clearly states when to go 9
into the four-hour time clock.
10 Q
Okay.
And it's addressed to you, Mr. Seelinger, 11 who has been discussing this very matter with Mr. Haverkamp 12 and a bunch of other people for the last couple of days; 13 you've got quite a bit of context.
What about the shift
,d 14-foremen on any shift that wasn't around, plus all the CROs?
i 15 Does it tell.them anything?
16 A
Sir, that's the exact portion I'm trying to get to 17 in terms of something that's integrated here.
18 Q
Okay.
So we've looked at the LER and we looked at 19 the Floyd memo.
Now you testified earlier about your 20 speaking to a plan of t.he day meeting on this matter; right?.
21 A
Yes, sir.
22 O
You can expand on that..
Are there other ooints, 23 though, that you want to refer to?
24 A
Well, sir, at. a plan of the day meeting, if 25 something was to be done -- when-you work a shift-work ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERSj INC.
202 447-3700 Nationwide Coserage M43%6M6
28728.0 BRT 4718 U(m.
1 situation, and you-have something that affects the various 2
shifts, there is a certain amount that.is expected to be 3
carried over from shift to shift.
I don't have direct 4
recollection now of saying, "Make sure and carry this over to 5
the next shift," but I feel -- I believe very s trongly that I 6
said that.
I fe]t very, very strongly about this particular 7
issue.
It is why I put so much personal effort into this 8
particular issue in terms of follow-up.
And I did put a 9
significant amount of it in.
I had mentioned it even when I 10 got over to Unit 1 and brough t i t. up, 11 I expected -- I believe that I expected.that to be 12 passed from shift to shift.
13 Q
Wel1, part of my problem is when you say you 14
" expected that passed from shift to shift"?
And my question 15 is,. exactly what is that?
And I'm satisfied given your 16 participation with Haverkamp and Floyd and the whole thing 17 you had a handle on the problem.
You know what it is-about.
10 But I'm equally staisfied that those who welen't, didn't have 19 your background and your grasp.
And frankly, I'm impressed 20 by the complexity of what can on the surface seem to be a 21 rather simple matter.
22 There are a lot of qua)ifications you have to 23 make.
And by the time you get through, wha t I look for in 24
'this record and don't find, is some kind of instruction to 2
25
-Coremen, supervisors, CROs written in very simple English, o
o ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3W Nationwide Coserage fok3.WIM6
~,-
28728.0 BRT 4719 3
1 less than 500 words -- maybe 300; a page, double spaced, 2
saying what this is a.11 about.
Because I.can't find it.
And 3
you see when you tell me that you said orally, at a meeting 4
that if you get a reading ~in excess of a gallon you.'ve got to 5
go in the action st'atement, that doesn't help me very much 6
because it's not quite that simple, as you know.
7 There are ways to invalidate these tests.
But I 8
guess what I would have been looking for is an instructional 9
notice, memorandum to'the affected employees.
Starting off 10 with the simple fact that we've got a tech spec here at TMI, 11 1 gallon a minute, its is a~little ambiguous as written and 12 so for a.long time we have interpreted.it to mean that as 13.
long as we got one good test in 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> we were home free.
14 Now the NRC has come along and'said, "No, you are 15 wrong.
That's not the way it is."
And-then you'd spell out 16 what you would have to do under their reading,'and somehow 17 you are going to have to explain to them what. kind of tests 18 you can invalidate and what kind of tests'you are stuck
^
19 with.
20 You certainly can't have people wandering around 21 the plant, if they have don't find a leak and they don't find i
22 their particular test through far off, just throwing out 23 tests 1.3, 1.4.
You can't do that.
And that's how this 24 plant ran for months and months and months.
Never mind 25 throwing away the tests.
But there was never a simple l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3100 Nationwide Coverage m i-33 M M 6
28728.0 BRT 4720
-~
\\
V 1
English explanation to the people involved.
2 All I find'is this sentence buried in the LER; 3
Mr. Ployd's paragraph number 2.
That's all I can find.
4 Again, we don't have to speculate about what happened.
5 Nothing happened.
Nobody got the word.
6 Why wasn't there some -- why didn't somebody sit 7
down for an hour with a pencil and just write a 500-word 8
explanation what was going on here and how people had to 9
change?
Particularly when you had to change the way you have-10 been doing business for a long time.
This was a radical 11 change in the way this plant was supposed to operate.
Maybe 12 pa rt. l y, because it was so r adical, it was ignored.
But it
[
13 was a pretty -- pretty important matter.
14 Wonldn't it have been reasonable to draft a simple 15 English explanation with a couple of examples so people 16 couldn't misunderstand?
17 A
Sir, I think what you've arrived at is that 18 hindsight in 20/20, and had that been done, hopefully we 19 wouldn't have the situation before us that we have.
But that 20 wasn't done.
I don't recall if we ever thought about doing 21 that particular thing.
And such a piece of paper as you 22 described, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't exist..
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let's take a break.
24 (Recess.)
25 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tC-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8N336-6M6
28728.0 DRT 4721 nb 1
Q Mr. Seelinger, I've just got two or three 2
miscellaneous questions and then Judge Carpenter will have a 3
few questions.
4 We've looked at the transmittal memo that you 5
sent, by which you sent the LER, and then there are a number 6
of people listed.at the copy'who got copies, one of whom -was 7
Mr. Miller, and then there are various people on and off site 8
that got them, but do I understand correctly, and I'll focus 9
on Mr. Miller, that his copy was for information and not for 10-concurrence; is that correct?
11 A
Sir, I would say that you understand that 12 correctly, oQ 13 Q
So that among people, including Mr. Miller, if he 14 happened to read the drafL on time and had some thought about 15 what he inigh t want to contribute, he might call up and 16 contribute it, but the matter could go ahead and be resolved i
l 17 without any participation from him; is that correct?
18 A
Sir, the matter in terms of the --
19 Q
LER?
20 A
-- LER narrative; yes, sir.
21 Q
Well, in redolving the LER, sending it to the 22 NRC.
Tha t could progress to completion f rom PORC out at the 23 Island to the people in licensing at Reading, who, 24 apparently, reviewed and may have massaged the drafts, on 2s into Mr. iierbein's desk; that that LER, and an LER of that ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationmde Coserage 80tk 3h%46
20728.0
,~.,
HRT 4722 U
1 kind, could have been dispatched by Herbein without 2
necessarily.getting Miller's concurrence?.
3 A
Yes, sir.
That is correct.
4 Q
I really asked, obviously, about that LER.
Were 5
there, in your mind, any kinds of LER matters that had to be 6
-- that required Miller's concurrence, or was he just not in 7
that business'at all?
8 A
Gir, I think that you would have to associate or 9
.look at the difference, perhaps, between the LER and the 10 event itself.
I'm speaking from a generic standpoint because 11 I believe you've asked a generic question.
12-Q Yes.
I basically have.
13 A
That he wouldn't necessarily have been 14 disassociated from an event or activity surrounding a given 15 event, but he wouldn't necessarily be intimately involved, or 16 perhaps even involved at all on a generic basis with an LER, 17 Q
Okay.
I appreciate that.
So that, take this-18 particular case, you are testifying, as I understand i t, that 19 Miller wasn't involved in the LER in this instance; and that 20 he got a copy of the draft, but he wasn't in a concurrence i
21 chain on that piece of paper; correct?
22 A
In terms of the LER draf t itself; that's correct, 23 sir.
24 Q
Did he, to your recollection, have any involvement 25 in the ac tion -- in the underlying activity?
l l
l i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationuide Coserage Wh346M6
~ - - -,,,,,,
28728.0 BRT 4723 l
).
v 1
A Yes, sir.
2 Q
The Haverkamp visit and so on?
Can you indicate 3
what that would have been?
4 A
Yes, sir, I can.
On the morning of the 18th of 5
October, when I became aware that Mr. Haverkamp was in the 6
control room.and had questioned our method of interpreting 7
the leak rate technical specification at that time, I went to 8
Mr. Miller's office and I covered the matter in terms of our 9
interpretation -
excuse me, let me back up.
10 I went to Mr. Miller's office.
I don't have 11 current recollection of everything that I covered with him.
12 I believe I would have covered with him our interpretation, 1
13 the events that I was aware of as to how -- or surrounding 14 that interpretation that I had played a part in, and that 15 Mr. Haverkamp was. aware of that interpreta tion and had a 16 problem with that interpretation.
17 Q
Were you, in effect, reporting to Miller about 18 what was going on?
19 f A
I was in effect telling Mr. Miller what I knew at 20 that point in time.
21 Q
An informational visit to his office; is that 22 right?
23 A
Not totally, sir.
24 Q
Okay.
25 A
I don't know if, when I came into his office he ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(x)
Nationwide Coverage Rtk3%fM6
28728.0 BRT 4724 g
1s,)
I was on the phone, or subsequent to my getting to his office 2
we, together, got on the phone.
But a phone call came out of 3
that visit to his office while I was in his office.
That 4
phone call was to someone in Reading; I do not recall, sir, 5
today, to whom it was in Reading.
6 That phone call, one of the items that had come 7
out of that phone call, discussed the reportability of what 8
we had at hand, and some g'uidance was developed out of that 9
particular phone call, relative to the reportability of that 10 particular item.
11 Q
This may be of some interest if we could, maybe, 12 flesh it out a little bit more.
r(,)
13 You went to Miller's office.
Did you and Miller 14 initiate the call to Reading?
15 A
I don't recall, sir.
16 Q
Okay.
17 A
For sure.
18 Q
But in any case you had a discussion about what 19 was going on with flaverkamp and what ought to be done; 20 correct?
And whether it ought to be treated as an LER?
21 A
We had a discussion about what was going on with 22 lla verk a mp.
We had a discussion as to how to handle, or if to 23 handle under the circumstances, whether this should be a 24 reportable event.
25~
Q Okay.
Now, you indicated you don't recall who 3
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8ak336-6M6
28728.0 7-BRT 4725
(
)
a 1
this was with?
2 A
I cannot say for sure; no, sir.
3 Q
Was -- what sort of -- is this a. conference call
~
4 where you have a squawk box?
Did you have two phones?
110w 5
did that work?
6 A
To the best of my recollection, sir, I believe it
. as a squawk box call.
7 w
8.
U Recognizing you said you don't remember, would il 9
have been or do you think it might have been Mr. Herbein?
10 A
Sir, it could have been Mr. IIerbein.
It also 11 potentially, and I don't know about timing and the timing may 12 have something to do with whom'else it could have been, but i( )
13 it~potentially could have been Mr. Lawyer.
14 Q
We are on the 18th, aren't we?
15 A
We are on the 18th of October, yes, sir.
We are.
16
_Q All right.
17 A
I don't know, sir, if it could have been anybody 18 else.
It's possible that it potentially could have been 19 Mr. Troffer,'but I think the most likely -- I believe the 20 most likely ones that that call could have taken place to 21 would have been those three people.
22 Q
Okay.
23 A
one of those three people.
24 Q
Herbein, Lawyer or Troffer?
25 A
Yes, sir.
fsu ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M)2-347-370)
Nationwide Coverage Mn33MA6
28728.0 BRT 4726 e
i
(_)
'l Q
Given Mr. Miller's position in the hierarchy at 2
that time, let me ask you a bureaucrat's question.
In those 3
circumstances, would you think it likely that Miller would go 4
to the top, in the sense of calling Herbein'directly?
or 5
tha t he would go to.someone underneath Herbein?
6 A
Sir, it would be speculative for me to answer 7
that.
And I jus t don' t recall who i t was.
8 Q
Well, this is helpful.
9 So, in terms of Mr. Miller, Mr. Miller will.be 10 here in a day or two and he can speak to it, too.
But you've 11 helped us unders tand, anyway, that it was more than Miller 12 getting a copy, informational copy of the draft LER.
That he
{1 13 knew about the matter earlier and, indeed, discussed it with 14 some responsible, presumably responsible level person in 15 Reading.
Okay.
16 Do you recall any discussion that you have had --
17 you may have had --
18 A
Sir, could I add something to the last, that might 19 clarity this?
20 Q
Sure.
21 A
It may not clarify what we just talked about but 22 it will expand upon it just'a little. bit.
23 Q
All right.
Fine.
l 24 A
That is, I think the Board might be interested in 25 the guidance that came out of that cal).
(~)
v ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Nationwide Coserage 80tk336-6646
28728.0
. BRT 4727
\\)
1 Q
Yes, please.
2 A
From whomever it was on th~e end of the call.
At 3
3 east I believe t. hat's where the guidance came from.
And the 4
guidance was to the effect of:
Handle the particular item as 5
you would any other item tha t might be a repor table item.
6 I'm not sure I'm saying that quite correctly.
But 7
handle the item to review it -- I got the message out of-that 8
to review the item for reportability, as we would any other 9'
item for reportability, even though the NRC was already aware situation w's relative to the way that we were 10 of what the a
11 handling leak rates as a result of Mr. Haverkamp, on October 12 18th,.and what he had come across in the control room.
And
(,~)
13 review it accordingly and act appropriately.
v 14 0
Once the LER issued, and then the ques tion 1
15 remained of implementation in. informing others about the LER
'16 and its impact, did you have any interaction with Mr. Miller 17 on that, on implementaLion?
18 A
I don't recall any interaction on that., sir.
19 Q
Mr. Marshall, as.you know, was here the other 20 day.
And we established in terms of follow-up on PORC action 21 items, that that was routinely assigned to various people, 22 but that, I believe, was the only LER over a fairly long 23 period of time that Mr. Marshall was assigned to be the 24 follow-up person on.
25 Did yo1 yourself pick Marshall to do.that?
Or was ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coscrage 800-336 6M6
28728.0 DRT 4728
,.;V 1
that'Mr. Bezilla or.somebody else who picked Mr. Marshall?
2 A
Sir, I don't recall directly.
But the most likely 3
scenario for that was that Mr. Bezilla would have written up 4
the PORC action' item and picked.Mr. Marshall to do that 5
particular item.
6 Q
Can you think of any particular reason why 7
Marshall would be picked as opposed to other people?
Anybody 8
.else?
9 A-Yes, sir, I can, a
10 Q
Who would tha t be?
11 A
Sir, I believe that would be that Mr. Marshall was 12 tt;e operations engineer for the operations department And he pi 13 was, typically -- a number of his duties fell along the lines
,\\v/
14 of administratively trying to carry out things within the 15 department, and he was relied on for that in carrying out 16 i,
administrative items, paperwork kinds of items, within the 7
17 operations department.
10 Q
We've looked at your letter of August 9,
'04, to 19 former Chairman Palladino.
i 21 Did the NRC or any.of its elements ever answer 21 your letter?
22 MR. MC URIDE:
I direct the witness to tab 36 of 23 St.ie r vol ume 5-C for his letter.
24 The response to the letter, I don't believe is in 25 the record before you, Judge Kelley, but there was a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 s m_ m <-,.
28728.0 BRT 4729
-(w/
1 response.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
There was a response?
3 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes, it was signed for the 4
Commission by Mr. Denton.
5 JUDGE ~KELLEY:
I'm happy to take your 6
representation, Mr. McBride.
Would it be of any interest to 7
us?
8 MR. MC BRIDE:
Well, I always hesitate'to hazard.a 9
guess, but I imagine it might well be.
I don't see any 10 reason why we couldn't provide it and I don't think I have it' 11_
here.
I have it in my office.
I can provide it to you.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
If you can bring it in'for the 13 record.
Mr. McBride can provide it if it's all'right with 14 you?
15 THE WITNESS:
That's satisfactory to me, sir.
i 16 JUDGE KELLEY:
Fine.
17 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
18 Q
Mr. Seelinger, I would like to sort of take a 19.
mental stretch.
I'm not going to talk about the LER.
20 Ilopefully, before you mentioned a remark about the forest and l
21 trees, you are going to, hopefully, get the sense that my 22 questions are broad in the sense of forest.
I'm acutely 23 aware of a fact that we are talking about a s i tuit ti o n that 1
24 existed some time ago and you are straining your memory to l
I 25 remember that time period.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37tu)
Nationwide roserage fun 336-%86
28728.0 BRT 4730
[G 1
Most ot the things I'm going-to ask you about, 2
even your opinion today would be useful in he1 ping me try to 3
understand the situation that existed in.the time period 4
August, September, October, November of
'70, while you were 5
the superintendent for technical operations a t TMI-2.
6 Can you help me a little bit about, what was the 7
role of the plant operations review committee?
How did it 8
fit in the scheme of things?
9
'A I don't mean to be picayune, and I'm afraid I'm 10 back in the trees here instead of the forest, but it was unit 11 superintendent, technical support as opposed to technical.
12 operations.
13 Q
I'm sorry.
Yes.
.14 A
And now to address your specific question, the 15 role of the plant operations and review committee, the 16 principal role of the PORC, in terms of how it was 17 abbreviated, was to review procedures used to start up, 18 operate, maintain Three Mile Island Unit 2.
That was its 19 principal role in terms of the time commitment that was spent 20 in the plant operations and review committee.
1 21 Q
So some particular small opera tional problem 22 didn't get on the PORC agenda?
23 A
Typically it did not, sir.
24 Q
So it was sort ot the broad, as you say, procedure 25 review.
Were there problems with procedures that PORC had to V
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Natiortwide Cos erage 8lXK336-(M
28728.0 BRT 4731
%)
I resolve?'
2 A
Sir, the --
3 Q-I'm trying to get a feel for what PORC did on a 4~
month in and month out basis.
5 A
Month in and month out, broad spectrum basis, PORC 6
spent a tremendous amount of time in the actual review of 7
procedures.
A recomme'nded approval to the best of my 8
recollection ~or to the best of my belief, I should say, at 9
this. time, on the front of the procedure required -- or had a 10 space for -- indicated for review of the PORC that'I believe 11 the PORC chairman or vice chairman signed after the PORC 12 review of a procedure.
The number of procedures used to-13 carry out the functions I've just stated'in a-nuclear plant 14 was large and the PORC reviewed those procedures and approved 15 or recommended those procedures for approval.
16 Q
So a large number of new procedures were being 17 generated in that time frame?
18 A
Sir, in the time frame that you are talking about, 19 and you focused on a four-month period, August, September, 20 October and November --
21 Q
Right --
22 A
-- it's difficult for me to go back and 23 specifically state how many new procedures, perhaps, in that 24 period of time.
However, maybe I can, in keeping with your 25 philosophy of forest and trees, perhaps give you a little bit ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m.m.nm x _. c_,
28728.0
,s - BRT-4732
/)
\\J 1
mo're of the forest.
And that is that in'the the 1977-type
-2 time frame, it was necessary to create a tremendous number of 3
procedures to carry out.the functions that we've talked 4
about.
5 In the startup of the unit and through.its initial 6
phases, those procedures would then be taken out to the field 7
and tried to be used; or deficiencies would be found in those 8
procedures, corrections needed and so forth and the procedure 9
worked, I alway, perceived, I think during my entire term as 10 Unit 2 superintendent, technical support, to be a very large 4
11 work load.
12 Q
Primarily corrections and revisions and what have 13 you in the latter part of '78?
14 A
Sir, I don't know for sure if just corrections and 15 revisions.
There well may have been a new --
16 Q
Again I'm asking the f ores t-type ques tions.
Not 17 leaves.
18 A
I understand that, sir.
I would say there~would 19 have been.both, but the large majority would have been 20 revisions to procedures.
21 Q
On page 6 of your prepared statement you say, "I
22-routinely worked 70 hours8.101852e-4 days <br />0.0194 hours <br />1.157407e-4 weeks <br />2.6635e-5 months <br /> per week during September and
~23
' November
'78, despite severe back problems.
24 What made it necessary for you to work 70 hours8.101852e-4 days <br />0.0194 hours <br />1.157407e-4 weeks <br />2.6635e-5 months <br /> a 25 week?
O i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
201347 37tU.
Nationwide Coserage mF336-6646
28728.0-BRT 4733
-\\
1 A
Sir,Ithe work load'during that period of time I' 2
perceived as being extremely high.
We-were going through the' 3
startup of a nuclear unit.
The people ~that we had in place 4
were not large, in terms of numbers.
At least I don'.t 5
~believe they were large compared to the standard -- or 6
compared to the size of the staffs that I believe exists 7
today.
Startup of such an activity generates a number of 8
problems.
9 I also feel that in terms of trying to be 10 responsive, I think that from time to time, that, perhaps,.
11 caused working tremendous hours or-what I felt like were 12 difficult hours during thal period of time.
The normal work 13 load, procedural work load that we have talked about before 14-was very high.
A unit superintendent, other than Mr. Miller, 15 was not in place and functioning during that period of time.
16 1 don't know, sir, if I've helped clarify that for 17 you or not.
18 Q
I just wanted to get some feel because I want to 19 come back to this leak rate surveillance tes t and the 4
'20 problems with it that were never addressed.
I'm just trying 21 to get some feeling for context of what was going on at the 22 plant in that time period.
That's the reason for this -- a 23 foundation of what kinds of things you were primarily 24 occupied with; whether they completely occupied your time or 25 in a certain sense kind of overwhelmed your time and caused t0 v
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-370)
Nationwide roserage 80tk336-6M6
~,,-
28728.0 BRT 4734 1
you to work overtime, from the point of view of perhaps an 2
undermanning. situation.
3 You say you had a sense'that the station was 4
undermanned?
5 A
Sir, I think that if you would compare today's 6
level of staffing --
7 Q
That's not the issue.
At that time, did you feel 8
that it was undermanned?
9 A
Did I feel that it was undermanned?
10 Q
Yes.
11 A
Sir, I would have liked to have worked fewer 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
I did not have a terribly senior staff in terms of
(
13 experience.
v 14 In terms of the engineers that had licenses from 15 the NHC, during that period on Three Mile Island Unit 2, if 16 I'm not mis taken, sitting here today, I believe I was the 17 only one that had a license on the unit.
18 The staff was not senior.
I don't believe and did 19 not feel the staff, just looking back on it, the staff did 20 not have a large amount of experience.
And the problems 21 associated with startup of a unit were many.
22 Q
Well, that certainly agrees with the impression 23 that we have been given from the other witnesses.
24 What I'm still trying to understand is that this 25 leak rate surveillance procedure, which was required by the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 mme.,
x.c_m m..
,, m _
28728.0 BRT 4735
,.s b
1 technical specifications, had inaccuracies; the operators,
~
2 one after another, have testified that they did not trust the 3
results of this surveillance procedure.
They didn't believe 4
the numbers on the computer printout.
But that they thought 5
somebody was werking on it.
This is where -- what mystifies 6
me.
7 Many of them express a surprising view that the.
8 computer results were erratic, as though the computer itself 9
-were in some way neurotic and whimsical, which Mr. Fels 10 assures us is not the case, and when he looked a t the 11 computer, he couldn't find much wrong with it.
But the
-12 operators felt that. they go over and type this code into the 13 computer and wait 60 minutes and it would type out some 14 questions, "IIave you added water," and so on, and then they and that had discharged 15-would tear of f the sheet and sign it,.
16 their responsibility.
That was the limit of their 17 responsibility, was to carry out the operation as an 18 operation.
And they thought that some supervisor, either the 19 foreman or the shift supervisor, would review it.
And those
~
20 people tell us that they would look at it and if they didn't 21 see anything really wrong with it, they would s'ign it.
So 22 the results were not considered to be accurate; not 23 considered to be believable; but were signed for and accepted 24 in a framework that somebody was going to solve this 25 problem.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tu.347 37(U Natieriwide roserage
$lik33M416
-~
.m
m.
28728.0 BRT 4736 OO
~
l' What-I want to ask you is, did you get any sense 2
that there was a real problem over in operations with this 3
leak ra to surveillance test?
4 A
Sir, on one occasion --
5 Q
I can't find anything in writing.
All they tell 6
me is, it's the shift supervisors that'say:
Well, it was 7
generally known.
We talked about it and it was generally 8
known there was a problem that somebody was going to fix some 9
day.
10 A
On one occasion that I recall after October 18th, 11 and I will say it would have had to have been before I became 12 Unit 1 superintendent, which would have been December 1st, 13 associated with another meeting on another subject, one 14 and/or two shift supervisors said something to me about they 15 needed help or needed relief relative to the leak rate, 16 either procedure or technical specification or both, and I 17 don't remember which.
I don't remember which shift 18 supervisor that was or which supervisors those were, for 19 sure.
20 I did not feel I had any relief relative to tech 21 spec interpretability.
That had been pretty well finalized 22 by Mr. Ilaverkamp's visit of October 18th.
And I felt like, 23 at the time, I believe I felt like the procedure was a 24 derivative, or largely relied on what we had gotten from Unit 25 1,
and I didn't know what to do or how to give procedural ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
t 202-347-3700 Nationwide roserage 80lk3366646
28728.0
.BRT 4737 1
relief.
I didn't go any further with that at that point in 2
time.
3 Q
You did not spend some hours looking into this at 4
all?
5 A
No, sir, I didn't.
6 Q
Did you assign anybody to look into it?-
7 A
No, sir, I didn't.
8 Q
As you said earlier, I believe, to Judge Kelley, 9
hindsight is 20/20.
What's so perplexing here is that it 10 looks to me as though someone with a reasonable background in 11 engineering and'a little bit of experience could have 12 probably understood what the problems were and solved them in
'13 a relatively short period of time.
But instead.t.he problems 14 just went on; the complaints that the supervisors apparently 15 expressed to you didn't go away.
They jus t Jived with them 16 week after week, month after month.
This is wha t I'm trying 17 to understand, how that could be when there was a technical 18 support group on the Island.
19 As I understand your background, you have a 20 master's degree in ma thema tics.
I can't believe that if you 21 looked at what was really going on, tha t you couldn't 22 straighten it out in a very short order.
That's why I came 23 back to this question of the overload, you apparently just 24 didn't have the time.
You felt -- it just never got up to 25 the top of your pile or perhaps never even got in the agenda ACE-FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC.
202-14L3hN)
Nation *ide Cos erage
- ML346M6
~ -. _.. _. _ _,
28728.0 BRT 4738
. n 1-
?
C/
1 of things to be attended to.
Is that fair?
2 A
Well, sir, it's fair to say that, as I stated, I 3
didn't-have any interpretation relief for the people.
-I 4
didn't know what to do from a procedural standpoint.
I 5
.think, again, we could perhaps again look a t fores t and 6
trees.
I was handling a large number of trees, and right now 7
it is fairly easy to sit back and look at the forest with 8
somewhat 20/20 hindsight.
But I did handle a large number of 9
items and during the period of, from approximately Labor Day 10 to Thanksgiving, on Unit 2, I worked an average of 70 hours8.101852e-4 days <br />0.0194 hours <br />1.157407e-4 weeks <br />2.6635e-5 months <br /> a 11 week on Unit 2 matters.
And, sir, I think I saw a lot of 12 trees.
13 Q
If you had assigned this to somebody, who would 14 you have assigned it to?
Was there someone with a reasonable 15 background you thought you could have assigned this to?
16 A
Sir, IE-I had assigned it, going back now and 17 looking at the situation, and today not even remembering, 18 probably, all of the names of the people that were there 19 because it has been so long for me, I probably would have 20 assigned it either to Mr. Fels or perhaps to Mr. Brummer or 21 programs to Mr. Porter.
22 Q
Are they all three pretty much the same kind of 23 person?
24 A
Mr. Fels was the computer individual with a 25 background in instrumentation and control.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide roscrage
- n33M486
l 20728.0
-. BRT 4739 1
Q Yes.
2 A
At least, today,.I believe he had some background 3
in instrumenta tioni and control.
Mr. Porter had a background 4
in instrumentation and control; and Mr. Brummer had a 5
background in instrumentation and control.
6 Q
Can you recall at all why you refrained from 7
making such an assignment?
8 A
Sir, the only thing that I can recall, I think I 9
already s ta ted, is that I thought the procedure had come from 10 Unit 1 and I.didn't, perhaps, put a number of things together 11 and I~believe, at the time, though t that the procedure was' 12 appropriate.
13
-Q' But yet the shift supervisors expressed some sense d
14 of distress, you told me.
That's what I'm trying to 15 resolve.
16 I can understand how you thought, well, the 17 procedure was successful in Unit 1.
It ought to be 18 successful in Unit. 2, it i t ac t.ually exi s t.ed in Unit 2 19 properly.
But it isn't clear to me how you were confident 20 that it rea))y wau?
21 A
Gir, I'm sorry, maybe you could ask the question 22 again?
23 Q
Well you said because there had been a successfu]
24 procedure in Unit 1, that you assumed the procedure in Unit 2 25 was acceptable by t.h i s st. age --
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37tt)
Nationwide roserage
- 1k3346646
20728.0 BRT 4740 1
A I believe, sir, that I assumed that the procedure 2
was derived from the Unit 1 procedure.
That was how the 3
majority of our procedures were derived'.
4 Q
Yes.
Well, sometimes derivations go astray.
I'm S
curious as to how you were satisfied that the derivation 6
hadn't gone astray?
7 A
Sir, I didn't take any steps past that point to 8.
satisfy'myself.
9 Q
The record before us shows that, to a man, none of 10 the operators, foremen, shift supervisors, thought 11 administrative procedure 1010 applied to this surveillance 12 test and therefore they never considered filling out 13 exception and deficiencies.
If'they had, would those 14 surveillance tests, with exception and deficiencies, come to 15 your attention?
16 A
Gir, I don't recall for sure.
I just don't recall 17 whether exceptions and deficiencies, for sure, were reviewed 18 either by me and/or the PORC.
I believe at least some 19 exceptions and deficiencies
-- sitting here today, I believe 20 at least some exceptions and deficiencies were reviewed by 21 the PORC.
22 Q
Well, in particular --
23 A
In fact, sir -- let me finish.
In certain areas I I
24 know exceptions and -- or I know deficiencies were reviewed 25 by the PORC.
In other areas I believe deficiencies were i
l i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M-347 37tU Nationwide Coserage mn33MM6
- _ _,.. ~....
28728.0 BRT 4741
( ]-
.v 1
reviewed by PORC.
I'm not sure on exceptions.
2 Q
Isn't that one mecnanism that would lead to a 3
procedure review, for some deficiencies which appeared as a 4
result of the use of that procedure?
If somebody used the 5
procedure, they identified a deficiency or an exception, 6
therefore they questioned the procedure.
It would seem to'me 7
that's the way we would get back tc PORC for review?
8 A
Sir, a deficiency could load ~to a procedure review 9
or change; yes, sir.
10 Q
So that if there were -- instead of throwing these 11 tests away, if they had been identified as a deficiency, 12 would that have led PORC to focus on the problem?
13 A
Sir, I believe if they had been identified as a 14 deficiency, that PORC or an engineering effort or a mechanism 15 would have come to pass to focus on the problem.
I believe 16 that today; yes, sir.
17 Q
In your mind -- we have been told by a number of 18 l
witnesses that, because this particular surveillance test 19 among all the surveillance tests required by the 20 specifications, this particular surveillance test was 21 computer-assis ted :.o that the paperwork was different.
It 22 looks different.
It's just a computer printout with a place 23 for signatures at the bottom of the page -- that in their 24 mind this made the surveillance test distinctly different and 25 that was their basis for deciding that i t could be treated u
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 80lk33MM6
- =,--- - - --, - -
.-,,.,n--.-
r-,--
~
1 28728.0 BRT 4742 lO1-p 1
differently.
You didn't have to use administrative procedure 2
1010 on this test.
3 From your perspective, if someone had asked you in 4
that time frame, whether this was an appropriate S
understanding of this surveillance test, what do.you think 6
your posture would have been, if you can guess?
I recognize 7
it's.a guess.
8 A
Well, air, with hindsight today, the use of 9
exceptions and deficiencies, I believe, would clearly have 10 been appropriate under the circumstances in what I believe to 11 have been early.0ctober.
Approximately.two weeks or so 12 before Mr. Haverkamp's visit, I became aware of 13 interpre ta t. ion rela tive to the 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> and the sleady state 14 o pe ra t.io n, cutting through it, in short, and the use of 15
' exceptions and deficiencies did not occur to me at that time.
16 Q
Can you give me any hint au to why not?
17 A.
Possibly, sir, and this is speculating, because I 18 was not a normal one to have run surveillance.
And also, 19 possibly, because of the computer printout, that it just 20 didn't occur to me at the time, t.o the best of my 21 recollection.
I just don't believe -- let me back up, I 22 don't recall thinking of that at that ti me.
23 Q
Well, from the point of view of management, you 24 see,-I look at the existence of administrative procedure 1010 25 as being the mechanism that should have flagged to you and ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 4 47 3700 Nationwide roverage 80Ik3.4%46
_._-..._,,,__..-__.._-.,,___.--,___,,m_. _........,., _ _
r.
28728.0 BRT 4743-O)
R.
1 others, PORC, all the operations group, that there really was 2
a problem.
So, in my mind I can't say that the procedure 3
didn't exist.
Management failed to provide a mechanism, but 4
everybody thought the mechanism wasn't necessary.
And that's 5
what is a mys tery to me:
how it could be considered to be 6
outside administrative procedure 1010.
7 A
Sir, I can only tell you what I had -- the 8
specific one, that I had brought out before.
9' Q
You mentioned a couple of times that you are 10 certainly aware tha t the procedure called for doing the.
11 surveillance test when the plant was being operated under 12 steady state conditions.
And, in that time frame, even 4
13 September, October, November of 1978, was the plant 14 frequently at steady state in where there were opportunities 15 to carry out the surveillance test properly?
16 A
Sir, there were opportunities to carry out the 17 surveillance -- there were opportunities to carry out the 18 surveillance test at various times during the startup program 19 in the September, October, November time frame.
There were
.20 also a number of opportunities where the plant was going 21 through various transient -- transient testing or unplanned 22 transients or outages during that same period.
23 Q
What do you
- t. h
- ik of the practice of running the 24 surveillance test, in some cases nearly on every shift?
Some 25 shifts made a habit of running it on their shift.
Other ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Natioriwide roserage 86346646
~
28728.0 BRT 4744
/,_T q) 1 shifts didn't run it in the daytime.
What did you think of 2
that practice, vis-a-vis the requirement of steady state?
3 A
Sir, at the time I don't recall'if we determined 4
how often the surveillance should be run.
When I say "at the 5
time," I will say pre-October 18th.
I'll say in early 6
October, or after October 18th.
I just don't recall if we 7
came up with a time frequency any different tiia n, say, what 8
had -- and said here's how often this particular surveillance 9
should be run other than what was, perhaps, particularly done 10 before Mr. 11a verkamp 's visit or.What was in the technical 11 s pecifica tions in terms.of the 72-hour requirement while in 12 s teady s tate opera tions.
13 Have I answered your question, sir?
14 Q
Yes.
Were you aware that by and large the 15 operators considered the results of the surveillance test-to 16 be unreliable, and to a certain extent, almost like a game of 17 chance?
Perhapc a dice game would be a reasonable analogy, t
18 if not a slot machine.
They just went over and played.
They i
19 got a piece at paper with a number less than 1 gallon a 20 minute, they signed it.
If they got a piece of paper with a 21 number greater than a gallon a minute, they held onto it and 22 ran another one.
And if by chance they got a number less 23 than 1,
they threw away the piece of paper with the number 24 greater than one 1.
Were you aware of that practice?
25 A
Sir, you've covered a lot of different things in e
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37tU Nationwide Coverage mn3366M6
28728.0 BRT-4745 O
1-your particular question.
2 Q
In essence, to run the test.over and over again-3
-until you have get a number less than 1 and discard all the 4
tests with numbers greater than 1.
5 A
Sir, I became aware on.approximately -- what I 6
believe to have been early October, approximately 2-1/2 weeks 7
before Mr. Haverkamp's visit, of that particular practice of 8
which you speak.
9 Q
What was your reaction?
10 A
At that point in time, my reaction, my initial 11 reaction was that I didn't think that was permissible.
And 12 when I reacted in that fashion, I got a comment from the 13 shift supervisor, this occurred either at a plan of the day 14 meeting or on the way into the plan of the day meeting in the 15 shift supervisor's office, or immediately outside it in the 16 unit control room.
That if I applied th'e interpretation that 17 I thought was appropriate, which was action statement entry, 18 that that action would shut TMI unit number 1 down.
19 I was taken aback somewhat by that.
And Mr. Floyd 20 was present a t some time, either when the statement was made 21 or right on or about -- or about that time.
And Mr. Floyd 22 and-I were together to look at the technical specification.
23 Again, this is approximately two weeks or so before Mr.
24 Hav:rkamp's visit.
25 In looking closely at the technical specification I
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2fc 347-37tm)
Nationwide Coserage R4336-6M6
2'8728.0 BRT 4746
,s 1
we looked at the requirement to run the specification and it 2
says it was required to run the test once -- excuse me, it 3
was required to be run runs every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> while in steady 4
state operation.
A past data point in my brain, relative to 5
leak rate testing, was in Unit 1~when I had studied for a-6 license in the latter part of 1976.
I had gone to the Unit 1 7
control-1oom and asked the operator how to run a leak rate 8
and he had showed me how to put a leak rate test into the 9
computer.
And to the best of my recollection, he had told me 10 that the plant must remain very,.very steady in order to get 11 a good leak rate or an acceptable leak rate.
I don't-know 12 which word he used.
He probably used "in order to get a good 13 leak rate."
That was the data point, though, that I. carried 14 into that conversation.
t 15 We came out of that conversation with an i
16 interpretation that I agreed-to for a period of time --
17 excuse me, that I agreed to, that allowed the use of thal l
18 particular interpreta tion, that the leak rate test was to be 19 set ~aside if it exceeded the criteria on the basis of the 20 fact that the plant was not in steady state operation and 21 would allow the running of another, or another, and we didn't 22 specify the number, of leak rate tests.
~23 1 resolved, sir - and I would like to finish 24 thiu, if I might.
I believe that I resolved in my mind at 25 that time, in light of the comment tha t was made by Three oV ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
me_ m m.
_... _... ~ _
28728.0
.BRT 4747 C
1 Mile Island Unit 1,
cover the matter with the Unit 1 PORC 2
which had a fair amount of interns; also I had a mandate from 3
my supervisor, Gary Miller, to keep the units together 4
wherever possible.
In terms of -- and-I' interpreted the 5
planned date to mean go off in one direction on one unit and 6
another direction on the other.
And I interpreted that to 7
mean to keep them together if at all possible to do so.
8 Shortly later on the same day, I left to go to a 9
neeting and did not return to the site for approximately 10 2-1/2 days.
When I returned to the site, which was either 11 very late afternoon or early evening -- I'll say it was late 12 afternoon on October the 5th, the plant was shut down.
They 13 had just shut' down from, I believe, a planned transient in 14 the test program and remained shut down for approximately the 15 next -- I'll say 7 to 10 days, without remembering exactly.
16 During that period, other things occupied my time 17 and.I did not get to the Unit 1 PORC.
I had not gotten to 18 the Unit 1 PORC prior to the time of Mr. llaverkamp's visi t.
19 I felt very badly that I had not done so, but I had not done 20 so, and I felt that I should have done so.
I became more 21 comfortable with that interpretation as time went on, but the 22 interpretation was not used very -- I do not believe it was 23 used.very frequently in that time period, due to the actual 24 condition of the plant in that time period.
l 25 Q
You mean in its operation from October 5th to l O I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage lun33MM6
28728.0 BRT 4748
[s's V
1 October 18th?
2 A
Yes, sir.
3 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, if I could just 4
interrupt without interrupting Judge Carpenter, I was just 5
looking in my briefcase for something else and.I discovered 6
the response to Mr. Seelinger's letter.
If you would like to 7'
have it now, we'll be happy to provide it to you.
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
Fine.
Take i t - tomorrow is 9
also.
Can I just see it?
10 MR. MC BRIDE:
Sure.
11 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
12 Q
I didn't want to interrupt you to come back to 13 something in the middle of that statement, which I thank you 14 for the completeness of it.
It gives a very full perspective 15 on these events in early October.
16 In your conversation with Mr. Floyd, if I can 17 recall now, there was a feeling that many of ihese 18 surveillance -- leak rate surveillance tes t resul ts that 19 yielded values greater than 1 gallon per minute,. arose 20 because the plant was not in steady s ta te.
Is that a fair 21 paraphrase?
In that the feeling?
22 A~
Sir, I think tha t when Mr. Floyd and myself and I 23 believe the shiCt supervisor worked on looking to see if 24 there was any interpretive flexibility, tha t I felt that 25 while that was not my first interpretation, that there was at ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide roserage kn3366M6
28728.0 BRT 4749 m.b.
I leas t some validity for the interpretation of very small 2
changes causing problems in meeting the 1. gallon per minute 3
in the leak rate test.
4 Q
You are now referring to the technical aspects of 5
the test' now, not the administrative aspects?
That 6
technically small changes in plant conditions could cause 7
appreciable changes in the bottom line of the leak rate 8
surveillance test?
9 A
What I'm referring to, sir, was something that we 10 dealt with on an interpretive basis.
But that fit the data 11 point I brought to the discussion, back from when I had been 12 in training on Unit 1.
That is that the plant had to be 13 very, very steady to get what I will call a good Icak rate.
14 Q
I certainly think the instruction you got in Unit 15 1 was sound.
With respect to Unit 2 and its interpretation, 16 did you sit down with Mr. Floyd and ask yourself the 17 question:
What are the parameters that control this test, i
18 that are significant in the test?
And how much variation do 19 we have in those parameters?
And what is the numerical i
20 effect ot tha t variation?
Did you do an analysis, is what 21 I'm asking you?
22 A
No, sir, not at that time.
A r.d not at any time 23 that I recall that I participated in.
I 24 0
Go close.
In talking about steady state, you said 25 that perhaps the test could be considered invalid because ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
20244747m Nationwide Coverage mo D4&A6
____.,__.-..,.._--,.m_____
____r.._.c__,__.__-,.m-.
-...., _.. ~... _, _. _ ~ _
20728.0 DRT 4750 n
N.)i e
I they weren' t run under s teady s ta te conditions.
In your 2
conversation with Mr. Floyd were you trying t.o interpret 3
this?
Ilow did you define " steady state"?
4 A
Sir, we really didn't. define " steady state,"
5 explicitly.
I don'L recall whether we looked at the 6
technical specifications to see if steady state was defined 7
or not.
It well may have been a likely thing to have looked 8
for and we well may have done no.
But. we allowed ourselves 9
the flexibility at that point in time, and, again, t.h i s is 10 the two weeks, approximately two weeks or so before 11 Mr. llaverkamp 's vis i t, to define steady state after the fact 12 of running the Leut.
13 Q
Fine.
What were those definitions?
14 A
Gir, I don't know that we formally -- I don't 15 believe we tormally wrote that down.
Ilowever, I believe as 16 we talked through the mat.ter that we felt.
- t. hat small changes 17 in plant conditions would be sufticient -- that were 18 sufficient to cause the leak rate test. not t.o be acceptabic, 19 would be such -- would be -- excuse me - would be enough 20
- t. hat the plant would not be in steady state.
21 Q
Well, without having an objective criteria, for 22 the leak rate Leutu
- t. hat gave numerical values of less than 23 1,
did you have any concern that programa, those values were 24 equa11y apurious because of Iack of steady uiate?
For
"' 5 example, for one of the parameteru tha t af f ects the leak rate ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202447 37W Nationwide rmef Jgt
$6 DMM6
28728.0 BRT 4751 n
1 surveillance test to be scored on a low point for that 2
parameter, within its variations which were occurring, and 3
'the computer happened to collect the data at the beginning of 4
the test, during that low point, and then at the end of 60 5
minutes the computer collected its data at a high point, you 6
could have a biased low value equally as well as the vice 7
versa, of having nonsteady state to cause a biased high.
8 What I'm trying to understand is, it there was 9
this notion that these high valves were produced by 10 oscillations in the plant, why, one could accept any result, 11 because certainly the same phenomena that could produce a 12 biased high could produce a bi'ased low.
Do you follow me?
13 A
I follow what you said, sir.
14 Q
I'm trying to understand the thinking here that 15 said:
Well, the big numbers probably represent unsteady 16 state -- failure to to have steady stato conditions.
So 17 that's "an excuse" for them or a basis for invalidating 18 them.
19 What I don't understand is, why the logic didn't i
20 go on:
If I haven ' t got s teady s ta te and 1 haven't got any i
21 obiective criteria to train the operators that these are the 22 permissible variations and these are the parameters during 23 the 60 minuten or most specifically during the beginning of
^
24 the test and the end of the Leut; how the operator could ever 25 decide whether he met the proceduren' requirement for steady i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwi&* rograge MOlk MMAM
28728.0 BRT.
4752 o
1 state?
2 A
Sir, the only way that I think I can answer your 3
question is that the matter came up at a plan of the day 4
meeting.
We put a minor amount of time of review into the 5
matter at that point'in time, which was strictly 6
interpretive, to the best of my recollection.
Also, I 7
believe that shortly thereafter, although I can't say for 8
sure, that that well may have been the same day that I left 9
town, which would have been in the afternoon of that 10 particular day.
I had a POD meeting in the morning and I 11 don't believe, sir, that we gave that analysis - we well may 12 have thought of. that, that you bring up, and in fact perhaps 13 did.
At that period in time, we did not address tha t.
- That, 14 again, I would like to say, sir, though, that that 15 interpretation was used in my mind for a brief period of 16 time.
17 Q
When do you think there was a change in that 18 interpretation?
19-A Sir, I tried to implement a change in that 20 interpretation on October 18th.
21 O
Well, in that material you apent so much time with 22 Judge Bright and Judge Kelley with -- I didn't see any 23 reference to steady u ta te and how di f ficul t it was to find it 24 a t TMI--2 in this time frame.
25 A
Well, 1ir, I think I mentioned it a couple of NJ ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Zo 4474?to Nationwide roserage 84M4fM6
28728.0 BRT 4753 (b
v 1
times before here today.
2 Q
You mentioned it today,.but I say in looking at 3
what the operators read, I don't recall seeing any reference 4
to steady state, and to nonsteady state, in particular.
5 So it may have been your intent on October 18th.
6 But what I'm perplexed about, it doesn't seem that that. part 7
of it, got stated.
It might have been your intent, but I 8
don't see the lack --
9 A
Sir, I can only tell you what. I put out to the 10 people on four or five occasions; the ones that I had 11 mentioned previously, two of which dealt with Unit 1.
12 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
13 Q
In your discussion a minute ago about your view
- /
w 14 for that brief period of time before the 18th and before the 15 period of time when you were out of town when, as I 16 understand it, you came to the view for tha t very brief 17 period that it would be a valid approach to say that if the 18 test came out over a gallon a minute, then LC there were a 19 lack of steady state conditions, then the test could be 20 inva1idated.
And it would not require an aeLion slatemenL 21 entry; right?
22 A
For that period of time, sir?
23 Q
Right.
24 A
Prior to October luth?
25 Q
Prior to October luth.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347.1700 Nationwide rmerage mn34%M
28728.0 BRT 4754
,5 L.)
1
.A That is correct.
I allowed that interpretation.
2 Q
Now, if-steady state can be lost by small 3
variations in maybe one or a few parameters affecting the 4
leak rate in the real world, doesn't that come down to saying S
that any test tha t comes out over 1 gallon is just 6
automatically thrown out because it is presumed to be the 7
product of a lack of steady state?
8 A
Gir, during that period of time in the real world, 9
that well may have been, and probably was, the practice.
10 Q
Okay.
11 A
And when I say "that period of ti me, "
I'm,
- again, 12 referring to a period of which I am aware, that occurred b
13 between what I think was early October, I believe to have v
14 been early October, to October 18th.
15 Q
And, conversely, if you had a test result that was 16 less than a gallon a minute, but, let's say, more than zero, 17 was there not under that interpretation a presumption that 18 steady state prevailed?
Which is another way of saying that 19 the test was okay.
20 A
Yes, sir.
21 0
Okay.
22 A
-During that period, again, sir.
23 l Q
All right.
We'll stick to the period for the 24 moment.
25 A
In terms ol my knowledge of that interpretation; ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
x.m.n.,
m _ m r _,.
l 28728.0
. DRT 4755
!v -
I 1
yes, sir.
2 Q
All-right.
But in the real world, in-terms of 3
what would happen with operators operating under that 4
interpretation, would one -- would one not expect, then, that 5
it would become simply automatic.
Over a gallon, bad tes t 6
out; under a gallon, good test in; simple?
Without any 7
analysis of individual parameters or anything else, you'd 8'
just read the test?
9 A
Not quite, sir.
10 Q
What would happen, other than jus t an automatic -
11 automatically, as I just described it?
12 A
The test results were to be set aside, and-13 accumulated, if you will.
They were ultima (.ely allowed to be 14
-discarded, but they were to be set aside.
And I don't recall 15 everything that went into the thinking that was associated 16 with that in that' period but I feel that some of the things 17 that went into the-thinking there were to be able to look at 18 trends.
This is today talkina.
Now, sir.
But I believe 19 that we would have -- that that went into that logic.
And --
20 Q
Hut you would have been, under that interpretation 21 we are-talking about now, you would have been under a 72-hour 22 clock, would you not?
23 A
under that. interpretation, sir, we would have been 24 on a 72-hour clock.
2S Q
Such that if you got a test under a gallon at hour ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tCJ47-37(O Nationwide Coserage N3E6M6
c 28720.0 BRT 4756
,s i
\\
V 1
zero, and you start counting 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, you could run any 2
number of tests in the meantime that would come in over a 3
gallon, so long as you held onto them and then when you got
, s 4
one -- let's say on hour 69, let's keep that one and throw 5
the others aw y; is that correct?
6 A
Yes, sir.
That is correct.
And I will add 7
something to clarify it, something I'm not particularly proud 8
of, but I think it should be added to complete the record.
9 And that is that the tes ts were not to be left out 10 and lying around.
My thinking that that, much as I don't 11 like to say it, sir, was that I felt like I was'not too -- I 12 did not particularly care for the interpretation when we A()
13 started out.
It was not my interpretation.
I allowed that 14 interpretation.
I had intentions of trying to resolve that 15 interpretation with Unit 1, and I was not particularly crazy 16 on having the NRC involved with that interpretation or 1.7 -
finding out about that interpretation.
18 Q
I appreciate your raising the point.
There has 19 been some testimony about there being an instruction put out s
20 around this time to not leave these tests lying around.
21 Would you be the source of that i n s t r'uc ti on?
t
22 A
Sir,\\ I aon't know thit there was any written 23 instruction about tnat, but I believe that I,
at least, said 24 that to one or more shift supervisors; yes, sir.
Again, I'm 25 nt,t particularly happy with that at this point in time.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
u hC-347-37(U Nationwide Coserage En336-6M6 4
r 28720.0 BRT 4757
/\\N$
1 Q
All right.
I appreciate your raising it.
2 By JUDGE CARPENTER:
3
'Q In talking with ' Judge Kelley jus t a few minutes 4
ago, you made the point that people would hang onto these out S.
of spec tests, perhaps they would be looking for trends.
Who 6
would'do this trend analysis?
Who would keep track of what 7
.was going on?
8 A
Sir, again, I speculated somewhat in doing that.
9 But I would expect or would have expected that that would 10 have been the shift supervisor.
11 Q
You mean for that eight hours?
The trend didn't 12 go beyond eight hours?
O) 13 A
Sir, the shift supervisor was an ongoing 14 f unc ti on.
The shift supervisor was in place 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day.
15 Not the same person, but the same posi'~on'.
16 Q
Did you know of any trending activity that they 17 had with respect.to unidentified ~ leak rates?
18 A
No, sir, I didn't.
I didn't know of any trending 19 activity.
But I do believe that those tests were handled as 20 I have previously stated, at least in terms of being saved 21.
for that period.
I beJieve that today.
22 Q
Ilow would you feel about the situation which is in 23 this record, where the same leak rate appeared successively 24 to four figures, from one shift to the next?
If someone were 25 doing a trending or being aware of what was going on, don't ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage 80rk336-6M6
28728.0 BRT 4758 f-s i
\\
(_/
1 you think that would have rung a bell?
2 A
I'm not sure I understood your "four figures" 3
remark, sir.
4 Q
The same test result appeared on successive days, 5
to four figures.
6 Q
Sir, first of al], if I may ask, during what 7
petiod did that occur?
8 A
As far as I know it might not have occurred while 9
you were at Unit 2.
Biit tha t general -- wha t I'm trying to 10 get at is, I didn't see any evidence that the shift 11 supervisors did -- shift supervisor-officer did trend these 12 unidentified leak rates.
,s
[ )
13 A
Sir, I would like to back up.here for just a v
14-second.
And I would like to state that on October 18th that 15 I tried to implement something to change what I 'have just 16 discussed.
So that a trending, if you will, had the 17 instructions that I had been talking about here.
I don't i
18 believe that a trending would have been necessarily 19 required.
Perhaps, and I don't remember the time sequence, 20 but I think there's a four-hour time. sequence and then 21 perhaps -- again, I'm specula ting, I apologize for that, a i
22 six-hour sequence in terms of actions that must be taken with 23 the plant if one goes into the action s ta tement.
24 Q
Well, from that poin't of view, if you do get a 25 surveillance test greater than 1 gallon per minute in a LO ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3AU Nationwide Coserage 800-336 4 46
20728.0 BRT 4759
/;b 1
certain 60-minute period, and-then you start looking for 2
leaks and run another test and you've got~a four-hour time 3
clock, you can't do a lot of trending?
4 A
Yes, sir, that's correct.
5 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
6-Q So that sort of does away with the new 7
in terp etation; is that correct?
~
8 A
That should do away with the new interpretation; 9
yes, sir.
10 Q
That's the reason I object -- similarly you 11 stated, that you stated about not leaving tests lying around 12 because you did not like that interpretation we were talking fr,)
13 about for a while, the one a couple of weeks prior to the v
14 18th, when the 18th came and~the LER came and the new 15 interpretation came out, that point went away too, didn't it, 16.
the business about not leaving tes'ts o'ut?
I mean your reason 17 for being concerned about these tests went away with the new 18 interpretation, did it not?
19 A
My reason for being concerned about'the tes t would 20 have gone -- excuse me, sir -- would have gone away from that 21 standpoint.
'I don't recall, sir -- I don't recall in terms 22 of putting the word out to the shift supervisors in my 23 discussions, any discussions relative to the results.
24 Perhaps in my discussions I presumed too much.
25 Q
Okay.
But -tla logic of it would suggest that your
,_s z,i t
T ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33M646
l 28728 0 BRT 4760 l,i v'
l' earlier' concern went away with the new interpretation?
'2 A
Yes, sir.
Earlier concern being the multiple leak 3
rate tests and saving throwing away, et cetera--- that
~
'4 concern would have gone away-had the interpretation of the 5
18th that I ~ tried to implement, if that were faulty.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Right.
7 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
8 0
In your conversations with Mr. Floyd about these 9
leak rate surveillance tests around October 5th, or 10 independently, did you reflect on whether or not the 11 integrated control systems functioning was -~- some of the 12 witnesses appear to use the jargon " tuned" -- to the point
(
13 where the plant oscillations were small enough that.one could 14 carry out a leak rate surveillance test by this procedure and 15 get a credible result?
16 A
Sir, our deliberations and~ discussions on October 17 Sth were quite brief in the overall scheme of things, I would-18 say on the order of 15'to 20 minutes, maximum.
And~they felt 19 with interpretation.
I don't recall any discussion relative 20 to the integra ted control sys tem, in terms of getting into 21 the nitty-gritties, and you have asked some questions before 22 about some of those nitty-gritties, and relative to tests,
(
23 perhaps, in the other direction.
And I well may have been l
l 24 aware of tests that went in the other direction.
25 Q
Well, did you feel the integrated --
- o V
1 1
I I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage R0-3366M6
_ ~.
28728.0 g - BRT 4761 (w
1 A
I did not give that a great. deal, a great deal of 2
analysis, sir, if any.
3 0
Well, if not in the context of this leak rate 4
surveillance test, did you feel, and I don't know whether it 5
would have been reasonable for you to even be cognizant of 6
i t, but did you feel tha t the integrated control sys tem s till 7
required a fair amount of work to get it to run in -- as 8
smoothly as it was supposed to, or were you satisfied with 9
the condition?
Or did you not have an opinion?
10 A
Sir, the plant went through a major -- a major 11 power runback, as I recall, on November 7th of 1978, that I 12 believe the integrated control system may have had something
(]
13 to do with.
14 My involvement with Unit 2, when it was operating 15 at power after November 7th, I don't believe happened at 16 all.
I don't believe the plant ever again returned to power 17 while I was at Unit 2 after the date of November 7th.
But 18 there were tuning activities associated with startup that 19 occurred prior to the summer of 1978 and then again, I 20 believe in the fall of 1978.
But I believe I don't have 21 direct recollection of that and I'm relying on that trip to 22 be saying what I'm saying
. trip or runback.
It is a little 23 foggy what all' tha t involved at'this point.
24 Q
But you didn't have the feeling that there was 25 still more work, disrega'rding the trip -- that the plant was ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3R0 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
l 28728.0 BRT 4762 s
1
-- was not running as steady, for example, as Unit I?
2 A
Sir, the plant was in a startup mode during the 3
fall of 1978.
And I would not have expected it to have been 4
running as smoothly as Unit 1 in a startup mode.
5 Q
Well, if it got to some power level and stayed
~
6 there for a while, I agree with you -- well, what in 7
particular about startup mode would dictate tha t it wouldn' t 8
run steadily for some period of time, for a shift, for 9
example?
.10 A
I don't mean to split hairs here and use words 11 that are maybe somewhat imprecise, but I think you used 12
" smoothly and steadily" and so forth.
In the course of a g).
13 startup, more transients, both planned and unplanned, I-14 think, would be expected than during the course of normal 15 operations of a plants that had.run for a while.
And that, 16 sir, was all I think I was trying to say.
17 Q
I agree.
But some of the notion -- some 18 impression I have from other witnesses, is that the plant had 19 these oscillations because the integrated control system 20 hadn't been finely tuned, and apparently that's not your 21-impression.
There was so much variation due to the startup 22 situation that you never became conscious of that?
Is that 23
.the gist of what you are saying?
24 A
Sir, I wasn't in the control room in an operating 25 position on a day-to-day basis like the operators.
I did go i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-147-3700 Nationside Coverage MXF3346M6
28728.0 BRT 4763 7.g
$~
1 to the control room to attend POD meetings.
But in terms of 2
observing those kinds of oscillations, I wouldn't have been 3
in a direct position.to do that on a very frequent basis.
On 4
a trip, programs, or a major event, I would have been in the 5
position to observe that.
Perhaps even do an analysis of 6
that.
7 Q
No, I'm just wondering whether you were aware that 8
there was a feel'ing, say,_in November, that there still had 9
to be more tuning of the integrated control system?
10 A
Sir, I don't recall for sure but I certainly 11 wouldn't have been surprised.by a feeling like that, in 12 November 1978.
[/
T 13 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you very much.
x_
14 JUDGE KELLEY:
We have three or four-follow-ups.
15 We might go right ahead, if we have more than that we might 16 take a short break.
I don.'t know what we are talking about.
17 MS. WAGNER:
I have four or five and I'd like 18 about f.ive minutes to review my notes to see if I ha.ve more.
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let's take a short, five-minute i
20 stretch-type break.
21 (Recess.)
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
We will be turning to these 23 follow-ups for a moment.
Let me note, I asked Mr. Seelinger 24~
if the letter to the NRC had been answered and we asked to l
25 see a copy when he said it did.
Mr. McBride showed us a copy (2) l
\\
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Coserage 800-33&6M6
28728.0 BRT 4764 1
and we reviewed it.
There is indeed an answer.
It appears 2
to us it is not important for the record, from our 3
standpoint, that it-be included.
If for any reason --
4 Mr. Seelinger, do you want to have it in the record, 5
particularly, or are you indifferent?
6 THE WITNESS:
I'm indifferent on the point, sir.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Then let's not put it in.
Thank 8
you for showing it to us.
9 MR. MC BRIDE:
Thank you, Judge Kelley.
10 BY JUDGE DRIGHT:
11 Q
All-right.
We have a few. follow-up questions from 12 the parties.
These are from the Staff:
You stated that you h) 13 recall two situations where you and Mr. Floyd had a x
14
~ disagree a nt; one where he deferred, one where you deferred.
15 With respect to each disagreement, what was the nature of the 16 disagreement?
17 A
Sir, can I ask a question about that before we_go
~
18 into it, because I'm not sure -- I stated that in this 19 proceeding today, just so I have a better understanding of 20 that?
21 Q
Yes, you did, when I was talking to you this 22 morning.
23 A
Okay.
Fine.
Good.
It wasn't necessary to answer 24 the question but I just wanted to know where that came from.
25 The nature of the two disagreements were as ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Xc-347-3700 Nationwide Coscrage 800-3366M6
28728.0 BRT 4765 s
/
i V
1 follows:
The discussion that we just had concerning the 2
events.that occurred approximately two weeks or so before 3
Mr. Haverkamp's visit, relative to the interpretation of the 4
technical specification in terms of the once every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> 5
and using -- or the once every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> versus immediate 6
action statement entry.
My initial interpretation-was action 7-statement entry, immediate action' statement entry.
8 Mr. Floyd's interpretation was, I believe -- excuse me, the 9
once every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
We reached a common ground, as I have 10 previously stated here today.
11 The second disagreement occurred over the matter 12 of rounding off.
I was in favor of the roundoff.
Mr. Floyd
[v) 13 was not initially in favor of the roundoff.
And in that 14
_particular situation we agreed upon the' rounding off.
15 Q
Very well.
Did the matter involved come within 16 your area of responsibility or his?
17 A
I assume that's following up on the previous 18
-discussion, sir, that we just had?
19 Q
Yes.
20 A
We'll have to take these one at a time.
21 The first matter came, I would say, perhaps more 22 in my area of interpreting the technical specifications.
At 23 least that was kind of my perception.
I felt that I had a 24 mandate to do some interpreting of the technical 25 specifications, and " mandate" may be too strong a word, but I
'J i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 202 Nationwide Coverage 80(k336-6M6
-. -347-3700
28728.0 BRT 4766
-s.
1 did some interpreting of the technical specifications.
2 The second matter, relative to the rounding off, 3
it'also involved some interpretation, but it also - - it also 4
involved a number of things from an operational nature, 5
because of the various inputs to the leak rate procedure 6
itself, the number of significant decimal points, perhaps, 7
that any given thing would be carried out to, and so forth.
8 In a way, we_both had some responsibility -- both had some 9
areas of responsibility for the items in our normal course of 10 doing business in the areas that we covered.
11 Q
ilow did you and Mr. Floyd go about resolving the 12 disagreement and what was the ultimate resolution of the O
13 matter?
%)
14 MS. WAGNER:
I think that's already been 15 answered.
16 BY JUDGE BRIGilT:
17 Q
I think you covered that.
18 Second question:
On page 4 of your testimony you 19 state that you were " authorized to sign procedures as Unit 2 20 superintendent when Mr. Miller was not available."
Did you, 21 in fact, sign procedures as Unit 2 superintendent when 22 Mr. Miller was not available?
23 A
Yes, sir, I did sign Unit 2 procedures.
I think I 24 should clarify that "available" did not necessarily mean that 25 Mr. Miller was, say, off the plant site.
It just meant his v
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 4 47-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33M646
28728.0 BRT 4767 U{A
. \\
1 general availability.
We just had general numbers of 2-procedures.
3 Q
When you signed these procedures did you not view 4
yourself as acting for Mr. Miller in this regard?:
5 A
Sir, the procedure -- the volume of procedures 6
that we had to run a. nuclear unit was very large.
.It well 7
may be larger today.
I would be speculating on that.
8 However, in terms o.f performing a review of those procedures,
^
9 it is far more likely that I would have had some degree of 10.
involvement in many of the procedures because of my 11 involvement with the plant operations and review committee; 12 not necessarily all because either the PORC chairman or the O
13 vice chairman, was there, I believe, in reviewing them.
But v
14 the stacks of procedures to sign were very, very large.
15 Did I view that I was acting as the unit 16 superintendent in that particular scenario?
I think I really 17 viewed that along those lines, procedures was one of the 18 things that was within my charter as the unit superintendent, 19 technical support.
It was one of my primary functions.
And 20 l signing those procedures, there was more of a chance that I 21 had done some review of the procedures in some degree of 22 detail for some of those procedures that Mr. Miller would 23 ever have logically had time to do.
24 I don't know if I hit it.
I talked kind of around 25 it, but I tried to display a perception, I think.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(10 Nationwide Coterage 804336-6M6
28728.0 BRT 4768
/~(s V-1 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Ms. Wagner, would you care to 2
comment?
3 MS. WAGNER:
I think that answers the question.
I 4
would have one clarifying question.
5 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Please.
6 MS, WAGNER:
In this general area:
I take it, 7
though, from the prefiled testimony that it' was not a 8
situation where someone could go to either you or Mr. Miller 9
to.have the procedures signed off on.
The way I read your 10 testimony, it would only be in situations where Mr. Miller; 11 was unavailable; is that right?
Assuming, as you have 12 already said, he might be on-site. ~ But would it be the
()
13 situation where they would go to him first, and if he.was not 14 there then you would fill in?
15 THE WITNESS:
I'm not sure necessarily in practice 16 it worked that way.
The ques tion really would have to be 17 directed to the PORC secretary who handled the ultimate 18 signing of the procedures -~ excuse me, handled the ultimate 19 obtaining the final signatures on the procedures, whether he
-20 would have tried to carry a large stack, maybe a three-foot 21 s tack of procedures, maybe a one-foot stack of procedures 22 over to Mr. Miller's office, found out whether he could have 23 gotten in or not; or just felt like that won't work today and 24 give those procedures to me.
In terms, operationally, how 25 that worked, it in perhaps very possible that his (n
.)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336M16
-28728.0 BRT 4769
,, x J
1 availability, and probable that his availability wasn't 2
checked each and every. tine.
3 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
4 Q
I would like to ask a question along these lines 5
.to clarify something in my own mind.
6 Mr. Miller, in his prepared testimony, spoke of 7
you as 'being acting superintendent of Unit 2 for a time and 8
you were at pains in your prepared testimony to say that you 9
were not acting superintendent 'of Unit 2.
We have had some 10 discussion today about whether you were or you weren't.
It 11 is not clear to me what difference it makes.
From your 12 perspective, considering the issues we are looking at, what r~3
(
13 difference does all th'is make?
Is there something here'I v
14 should appreciate that I don't?
15 A
Perhaps and perhaps not.
And I'll try to clarify 16' that comment.,
17 I think -- I did a large number of items.
I tried 18 to say that in my prepared testimony and I believe I used 19 words that -- to the effect that my " plate was full."
And it 20 was.
I think that the one, perhaps, significant difference 21 is that in terms of the chain of command, that~was -- the 22 operations department, Mr. Floyd and the opera tions 23 department, did not report to me.
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
Okay.
25 DY JUDGE BRIGHT:
vG ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-st6
-347-3700 l
20728.0 BRT 477'O
-s i
+
'w].
1 Q
When you eigned these procedures, was your name or 2
signature accompanied by a tit]e, and if so, what was that 3
title?
4 A
Sir, I signed procedures in two different blocks.
5 Whether I ever signed them in the same block -- or in both 6
blocks on the same procedure, I don't know for sure.
But on 7
the -- as I recall,.on the lower portion of the procedure 8
there was a block for PORC recommending approval.
And then 9
there was also a place f or the unit superintendent to sign.
10 In some cases I signed in one place and in other cases I 11-signed in the other place.
12 One was the PORC recommending approval, and I 13 don't remember if it said PORC chairman under it or not.
In 14 the other I believe -- I don't recall exactly what it said --
15 but the --
I_ don't recall exactly what it said.
It is 16 likely, and I'm speculating t.oday, that it said " unit
~17 superintendent."
18 MR. MC BRIDE:
If I could just help the Board with 19 this, if you would look at Exhibits 12-A or 12-B, you wi.ll 20 see such a form and see what it says.
It proceeds'as 21 Mr. Seelinger just-described.
22 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
23 Q
You s tate on page 7 of your prepared testimony 24 that "Mr.
Haverkamp brought up the subject of rounding off 25 leak rate test results."
Is it your testimony that t
v ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage 8(0 336-(M6
28728.0 DRT 4771
_7s.
5t 1
.Mr.
Haverkamp suggested that you adopt a roundoff policy?
2 A
Sir, I'd like to discuss that matter and I would 3
like to discuss how that matter came up.
Because I think it 4
is appropriate to do so.
5 I don't recall for sure if anybody was with 6
Mr. Haverkamp and myself when that matter came up,-and I 7
previously_ testified that I don't recall who was in the 8-particular meeting.
But I do remember the prefacing words 9
that were used as that was brought up.
The prefacing words 10' were words either to the effect that, or very close to 11 effectively:
" Don't tell anybody that I told you this, and I 12 will deny it if I'm asked" -- these are Mr._Haverkamp's 1
)
13 words, sir -- and then went on to state words to the effect 14 tha t we may not be taking full advantage of the technical 15 specification relative to the 1 versus l'.0 gpm.
I don't 16 recall exactly what followed those prefacing words.
But 17 those prefacing words are close to or ' exactly what I recall, 18 sir.
19 MS. WAGNER:
Is that the end of your answer?
20 JUDGE BRIGHT:
No, there are a couple --
21 MS. WAGNER:
Is that the end of his answer?
.22
. JUDGE BRIGHT:
As far as I know.
23' MS. WAGNER:
I would ask that that response be 24 stricken and that he be asked to answer the question 25 submitted, which is whether he is stating or suggesting --
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. 2(c-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage NG336-6646
28728.0 BRT 4772 L.)
I whether he stated that Mr. flaverkamp sugges ted ' that they 2
adopt'this procedure.
3 MR. MC BRIDE:
Well, I oppos'e the motion on the 4
ground that the witness for this entire day has att empted to 5
be responsive to each and every question.
I think this 6
answer was responsive and, in any event, I had a follow-up 7
ques tion that called for the same answer.
O JUDGE KELLEY:
Very well, the Board will consider 9
it briefly.
It's not very difficult.
10 (Discussion off the record.)
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
The Board considers the witness' 12 answer responsive.
Whether deemed a request or motion, is
,~,
(
't 13 denied.
v' 14 T!!E WITNESS :
Sir, I'm sorry --
15 JUDGE KELLEY:
.Your answer' stands.
We are going 16 to pass o'n to the next question.
17 THE WITNESS:
Thank you, sir.
18 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
19 Q
Did you inform Mr. Haverkamp that you would be 20 adopting a practice of rounding off' leak rate results?
21 A
Sir, I don't recall whether I informed him at that 22 time that we would be adopting that practice.
What I have 23 read -- I have read Mr. fla verkam p 's testimony.
From his 24 testimony, it appears that he was aware of that.
However, I 25 did inform Mr. Haverkamp, when Mr. Haverkamp called me back (v)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 84336-6M6
28728.0 BRT 4773 m
(
i
'w) 1 approximately 10 days or so, one way or the other, later, 2
that we had in fact.had--- excuse me -- that we.had, in fact, 3
been using the rounding off mechanism.
I told him that we 4
had been-using that.
I a]so in that conversa tion, used S
words to the effect, and I wasn't terribly straightforward in 6
my words, but that we had-little effect, that we may have 7
relied on it for certain tests, and also that we would get 8
rid of that practice of rounding off in response to his call 9
back to me to cease the rounding off.
10 What was behind my remarks, sir, is I did not feel 11-that it would be productive to go through the few days that 12 had just passed, and we'll say 10, approximately, and then f)h 13 analyze each and every leak rate then during that period, to m
14 see if each and everyone of those had been above, if you 15 will, 1.5 -- excuse me, 1.49 gallons per minute, which was 16-behind my remarks.
But I wasn't very direct in saying that 17 nor did I come right out and say that.
18 Q
Well, now, in the course of what you just got 19 through saying, is it the sense of it that Mr. Haverkamp had 20' told you that he was going to check around and see about this 21 rounding off stuff?
He did check around, he did call back, 22 he told you to quit it, and you did?
23 A
Sir, I don't recall if he had told me he was going 24 to check around or not.
Hit, testimony says that he did check 25 around.
I don't recall if it says that he had told me he was I
-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage Rn336-6646
9 28728.0 BRT 4774
'N ]
1 going to check around, but he did call me and said:
"Stop 2
it."
'And that's what we did.
3 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Is that adequate, Ms. Wagner?
4 MS. WAGNER:
I think so.
5 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
6 Q
QuesLion 4:
You *.entified tod'ay, that between 7
about October 18th and December 1, 1978, one or two shift 8
supervisors said.they "needed help" with the leak rate test.
9 What did you understand the shift supervisors'to be asking 10 '
for?
11 A.
Sir, I understood them -I don't know if I can 12 recall this directly or not, or if I'm giving you my best
()
13 belief.
But I believe that I understood them to be asking 14 for either interpretive relief, procedural relief, or both.
15 And I don't know on the "both," sir.
I think I'would rather 16 state that and say procedural relief or interpretive relief; 17 and possibly both.
18 Q
What did you respond to the supervisors?
Did you 19 tell them that you were not going to look into the problem?
20 A
I just don't recall my response.
My response may 21 have been, "I don't know what.I can do for you."
I don.'t 22 know though, sir; for sure.
23 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
24 Q.
Can you give me an idea of what you mean by 25
" procedural relief" in the leak rate context?
o V
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Nationside Cos erage 800-33M646
28728.0 DRT 4775
( )'\\
1 A
Sir, wha t I mean by that, I think, would be help 2'
with the test itself.
I think in today's context it would, 3
perhaps, be getting back to some of the things that Judge 4
Carpenter mentioned earlier in some of his questioning.
But 5
I think that I felt like it would be -- it's hard to.say 6
going back now at that point in time, but going through and
~
7 seeing if the procedure was, in fact, proper.
I don't know, 8
sir, if I thought through it'to the point at'that time of 9
going and looking, say, at each instrument-or things of that 10-nature.
I don't'know that I thought through it that far, or 11 I didn't think through it that far.
It was more or less a 12 comment in passing.
[~D 13 Q
That's about the time you were going to leave and As/
14 take a different job; right?
15 A
Sir, I don't know that.
It may have been slightly 16 before that, just based on plant conditions.
And I say that 17 because the. unit tripped on November 7th and did not return 10 to power. until. right a t the end of the month.
19 Q
And that's when you left?
20 A
I lef t at the end of the month, but it may have 21 happened after the Haverkamp visit, but befor'e the trip of 22 November 7th.
23
.BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
24 Q
Question 5:
The LER s ta tes that " unidentified 25 leakage was subsequent ly reduced to allowable Jimits."
You U
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
312-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
28728.0~
BRT 4776 I
I v
1 have' testified today that " allowable limits" is an accurate 2
-statement only if one employs a rounding.off policy.
The 3
record shows that the rounding off policy was no longer in 4
effect at the time the LER was drafted; that is around 5
October 30th or 31th.
In light of that fact, do you-believe 6
the above-quoted statement in the LER was accurate at the 7
time it was written?
8 A
Sir, at the time it was written, I believed that 9
the statement was -- I believe. the s tatement was an attempt 10~
to be truthful.
In' terms of, if one looks at those dates 11 that you have just mentioned and looks at the time periods, 12 it is a true statement that at the time that the LER was
()
13 written,.that the roundoff procedure was no longer being 14' used.
It had, however, been used during that interim period 15 and had been the limit that we lived with during that interim 16 period.
17 Whether we thought through that at the time and 18 put those two facts together, of "this is no longer allowed 19 and therefore is it allowed during this' period in time, and 20 how should that be handled?"
I just don't recall, sir, 21 whether we thought of that at that point in time or not.
I 22 just -- I don't know.
23 Q
Well, you could get into a real metaphysical 24 brouhaha about this one.
25 Ms. Wagner, what do you think?
D>
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Cowerage 800-3164M6
28728.0 BRT 4777
,,b 1
MS. WAGNER:
Whether he's answered the ques tion, 2
or do.I have a question 6 there?
3 JUDGE BRIGHT:
No, I'm asking to you, you heard 4
him respond to your question, what do you think?
You don't S
have to be' happy, just not mutinous; how about 'th'at?
6 MS. WAGNER:
Well, frankly I haven't heard any yes 7
or no answers to any of my questions and I would have thou(jh t 8
some of them could have been answered by a yes or no.
I-9 wonder if he could go on and provide that kind of answer.
10 I think his answer, as far as he's gone is an 11 attempt to be responsive, but if he can answer yes or no 12 beyond that I wou]d ask that he do that.
s i 13
-JUDGE BRIGHT:
Can you respond yes or no?
sm) 14 MS. WAGNER:
If he remembers the question at this 15 point?
16 MR. MC DRIDE:
Can we have a restatement of the 17-question?
In other words, is the. ques tion, did he believe at 18 the time this statement was written is that it was truthful?
19
'I s that the question.
20 MS. WAGNER:
Why don't we have the question 21 reread?
22 MR. MC BRIDE:
No.
Wait a minute.
He answered 23 that question.
I don't think that's appropriate.
24 MS. WAGNER:
'Let's reread the question I did ask.
25 JUDGE KELLEY:
Do you need a board ruling on 7-sU ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80ll 336-6646
1 28728.0 BRT 4778
.,,T
,(
)
y,#
1 whether there's an answer or not?
I think we can give you 2
one.
I'm satisfied.
The. question has been answered.
We'll 3
move to the next question.
4 JUDGE BRIGHT:
These are from your counsel.
5 MR. MC BRIDE:
And, Judge Bright, one of those 6
questions has already been answered, the question about, what 7
did you and Mr. Haverkamp discuss on October 18th.
8 JUDGE BRIGHT:
And we know what he did after the 9
discussion.
10 MR. MC BRIDE:
I think you ought to put that 11 ques tion to the witness.
12 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
(
13 Q
What did you do af ter your discussion with 14 Mr. Haverkamp?
15 A
This was aft.er my discussion with Mr. Haverkamp on 16 October 18th, relative to the roundoff?
17 0
I assume it's your initial discussion, yes.
~18 A
I had the discussion with Mr. Floyd that we have 19 talked about here today, relative to the roundoff.
We talked 20 about our respective positions that we took on that.
21 I don't have direct recollection today on exactly 22 how we implemented that, from that point, other than I l
23 believe from that point, and the records reviewed, certainly 24 appear to show that we did go out and implement the roundoff l
L 25 procedure and practice that we have discussed.
O l
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l
-347-3700 3c Nationside Coverage 8(n336-6646 l
28728.0 BRT 4779 1
BY JUDGE KELLEY:
2 Q
The most effective way to do that is to reprogram 3
the computer; correct?
4 A
Yes, sir.
5 Q
Which you proceeded to do, it proceeded to spit 6
out round numb 6rs?
7 A
The computer, and from Mr. Floyd's memo it appears 0
the computer was reprogrammed.
It is just my direct 9-recollection that I'm talking about here today.
10 Q
.I think it's paragraph 1 of Floyd's memo about the 11 computer being reprogrammed.
12 Okay, go ahead.
Or maybe you are through?
(
13~
BY JUDGE BRIGilT:
14 Q
Do you recall any discussion other than those you 15 have described with a shift supervisor about getting good 16 leak rates?
17 A
Yes, sir, I do.
And with respect to this 18 discussion, I believe that this discussion occurred sometime 19' prior to Mr. Haverkamp's visit.
I don't have direct 20 recollection of that, but I do recall either calling the 21 control room or being in a call with the control room, asking 22 about the leak rates or a question ab~ut the leak rates and o
23 the shift supervisor saying to me:
"We know how to get a 24 good leak rate."
25 I was a little bit bothered by that statement, but gu ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage SM336-6M6
b-28728.0 BRT 4780 m
t s
\\.]
1 I thought about that statement in light of holding the plant 2
' steady and I didn't follow up any further with that 3
statement.
I offer that to you today in an effort to try to 4
be complete.
5 0
You don't remember'who the shift supervisor was?
6 A
1 cannot say for sure, sir.
7 Q
Oh.
Now we are talking about the LER itself.
Do 8
you believe that the first time and date in the narrative may 9
have been mist'akenly derived from your prompt reportable 10 occurrence letter of October 19, 1978?
11 A
Yes, sir, I do believe that.
And I also think 12 this is important in order to set the record straight.
My O
13 prompt response letter dates an event that was at 1000 on
%)
14 October 17, 1978, which corresponds, if I'm not mistaken, 15 with the date that we are talking'about here.
The 1000 date 16
- I don' t right now have direc t recollection of the 17 specifics on the 1000 date, but I have speculated other times 18 here today and will take the liberty to do so,.as to what I 19 think is a logical explanation for what happened.
20 I have looked at the PORC minutes associated with 21 the timing of the particular activities at hand.
The minutes 22 indicate tha t the PORC met late in the afternoon on October 23 18th, to review reportable occurrences.
Since this was the 24 reportable occurrence at hand, and I don'L know if there were
.25 others, sitting here today, it is likely that this was nU ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3701)
Nationwide roverage M)-3M&46
28728.0 BRT 4781 c.-s i
Q' I
discussed at that time.
I noted also on those PORC minuted 2
that -Mr.
Floyd was not present, according to the PORC 3
minutes.
4 I think it's logical that in this'particular 5
situation that since there was obviously to be an effect on 6
the operations department, that we would have wanted to.make 7
sure that the operations department was aware of what the 8
PORC's intentions were and what the PORC was doing, relative 9
to the situation.
10 I believe, and this is speculative, that the 1000 11 date on October 19th reflec ts a conversation or something 12 that I do not recall it directly with Mr. Floyd when he was
(
13 brought on board, relative to our intentions to go forward 14 with the prompt report.
And I-believe that is what that time 15 represents.
16 One could look at a number of different times 17 associated with the LER.
One could look at a time during the 18 morning of October 18th, when Mr. Haverkamp was in the 19
' control room.
He could look at a time associated with the 20 event when he discussed the matter with me, which I believe 21 was later in the morning on October 18th.
Ile could look'at a 22 time when the PORC first met on it, and -- as the record 23 shows, at approximately, I believe, sir, it was 4:30 to 5:00 24 from the minutes on October 18th.
Or he could look at the 25 time that, assuming I'm correct, Mr. Floyd'was brought on ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tc.347 3700 N,nionwide Cos erage 80tk336-6M6
28728.0 BRT.
4782
'wJ 1
board as a final item for a final discussion relative to the 2
reportability.
One of the drivers in this may have been the 3
requirement to r6 port within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> on a prompt reportable 4
occurrence.
5 This was, however, a very unique situation.
.It 6
was a situation that the NRC had, in fact, brought to our 7
attention. -So the NRC knew the substance of what it was we 8
were talking about with the new information here as I saw it; 9
perhaps not all of'the new information, but information as I 10 saw it',
being the fact that we were going to report it at 11 all.
And I believe that that's what that 1000 time, on 12 October 19th represents.
And I believe that that's the logic g's()
13
-- the logic that I used in it may have had something to do 14 with the fitting it within that 24-hour window.
15 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
16 Q
I'm having trouble seeing what difference it 17 makes.
18 A
Sir, it's a tree, I believe, and not a forest.
19 Q
Maybe a leaf?
20 A
Maybe a leaf, sir.
21 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Does tliat satis f y you, 22 Mr. McBride?
Your last thing:
What do you believe happened 23 on October 18, 1978, I'm sure we heard.
24 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes, we did.
I didn't remember I 25 had written that additional ques tion.
I just wanted to make V
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37tn Nationwide Coverage MG336-6M6
I 28728.0 BRT 4783 i()
1 sure that was brought out because the witness wanted that.
2 JUDGE BRIGHT:
That concludes the follow-up 3
questions.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
5 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
6 Q
Mr. Seelinger,.in December, when you lefL to go 7
take a new job, as I understand it, Mr. Kunder took over the 8
job that you had at one time?
9 A
Yes, sir.
That's correct.
10 Q
Do you recall in passing the baton to Mr. Kunder, 11 whether you expressed or informed him of any problem's with 12 this leak rate' surveillance test, with the supervisors' 13 request for some help and so on?
14 A
Sir --
15 Q
Was this an ongoing agenda item for your office or 16 not?
17 A
Sir, could you ask the question one more time?
18 I'm sorry.
19
.Q When Mr. Kunder took over the position as 20 superintendent of technical support, did you tell him that 21 there had been problems with his leak rate surveillance test, 22 both interpretation and apparently some distress --
23 interpretation of technical s pecifica ti ons and some distress 24 expressed by the sh f t supervisors abotit carrying it out in 25 the real'world?
V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(n336-6M6
!I-1 18728.0 DRT 4784 rYe 1
A Sir, I don't know if I told Mr. Kunder or not.
It 2
-- I don't know if I told him or not.
It would have been
'3 more likely, perhaps, that I would have covered the former 4
rather than the latter.
However, I can tell you, sir, that-5 that turnover, because of my illness and back problem, and 6
being either home or in the hospital, did not take place 7
formally until late January of 1979.
8 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you very much.
I just 9
wanted your perception of how Mr. Kunder starts out.
We'1'l 10 talk to him tomorrow.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
Anything?
12 MR. MC DRIDE:
No, sir.
13 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
Mr. Seelinger, that brings 14 us to the close of a rather long day for you.
I appreciate 15 that, and we appreciate your coming up.
Your responsiveness
.16 to'our questions and your answers have been very helpful to 17 us in filling out some important parts of the record.
18 Thank you very much.
You are excused.
19 (Witness stood down.)
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
One small matter that we can do on 21 the record here, I~think, briefly.
The board expressed an 22 interest earlier in getting ahold of a clean copy of the 23 strip charts.
We've got, of course, the Staff exhibits with
-24 their wri ting, and we have the Stier set with a little bit 25 less writing but writing nevertheless.
We thought, in ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 147-3700 Natiorwide Coverage 800 334 % s6
I 28728.0 BRT 4785
,_s I
\\
v 1
analyzing these charts it might be-useful in some cases, at-2 least, to have a clean set to work from.
3 Mr. Blake has kindly put together two sets of 4
these strip charts.
You can appreciate that putting these 5
sets together is-something of a production and no doubt some 6
expense.
7 We -- let me just say that I've got a copy of a 8
paragraph provided by'MPR which describes in more detali just-9 what these are.
I won't read it this evening, but I can pass 10 this around.
Maybe you already have it.
Essentially it's 11 the strip charts from January 1 through March 28 of
'79.
It 12 is not the entire history of Unit 2.
It is that in 13 approximately three-month period.
(v)
-14 Let me try a proposition on the parties and see 15 whether that commends itself to you, namely that we not at 16 this time treat these papers as another exhibit with.its 17 attendant 8 or 10 copies and the rest of it, but that we 18 rather take the set and have the set available for the 19 parties.
And as we get into working with the record, my 20 hunch is that we may find it useful with respect to a few 21 specific tests, but not a]I that many.
And then at that time 1
22 if it is appropria te we migh t simply let Mr. Blake know, j
23 could we have copies of those particular pieces, clean, and 24 served as an exhibit.
That would, I think, save a lot of i
25 trouble and expense.
l O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage 8tn336-6646 L
.l.
.28728.0 BRT 4786 g
i v
1 Is that general approach sensible?
Mr. McBride?
2 MR. MC BRIDE:
I think it is, Judge Kelley, with 3
the proviso that there not~be any sort of a handicap, if you 4'
will, in getting access.to this if we might need it for 5
findings or what have you.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let's assume that that can bc 7-worked out.
I would assume it could be.
8 MR. MC BRIDE:
I'm sure Washington counsel can 9
cooperate on that thing.
I'm jus t thinking of people being 10 in other cities, for it to be a problem.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
We'd prefer to leave it to counsel 12 to talk about it for the next couple of days and-ensure you
~
r (v) 13 have a workable arrangement.
If you have trouble with an 14 arrangement bring it back to the Board.
15 MR. MC BRIDE:
I can't believe we will.
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
I can't believe you will either.
17 How does that sound to you, Mr. Blake?
18 MR. BLAKE:
I would suggest Mr. McBride take 19 charge of the existing copy for the parties and we can take 20 it from there.
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Maupin?
22 MR. MAUPIN:
We have a.11 gotten to know each other 23 so well, it's good to think that we would have excuses in the 24 Cuture to visit still~more often.
25 JUDGE KELLEY:
Compelling argument.
Mr. Burns?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
20728.0 BRT 4787 7_
(
)
~,.
1 MR. BURNS:
No-problem.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Does'the Staff think that's all 3
right?
4 MS. WAGNER:
That's fine.
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
Anything else on the record this 6
evening?
7 (Discussion of f the record. )-
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
We had begun some discussion off 9
the record, and we decided it best to put it on the record on 10 the question of what, if any,' additional witnesses should be 11 considered and. called in this case.
Without restating all 12 that was said, I'll ask Mr. Blake to j'tst summarize briefly
)
13 his-position ~on what we ought to do.
14 MR. BLAKE:
Judge Kelley, there have'been four-15 individuals whose names have been raised potentially as yet 16 additional witnesses in the proceeding:
Mr. Queen, 17 Mr. Martin, Mr. Bezilla, Mr. Morck.
18 With regard to Mr. Bezilla and Mr. Morck, 19 presumably their testimony would be with regard to subjects 20 tha t we've dealt wi th in some depth before, but with other 21 witnesses.
Preparation time wouldn't necessarily be that 22 great, at least from our standpoint.
23 With regard to Mr. Martin and even more 24 particularly with regard to Mr. Queen, their appearance could 25 require considerable preparation time, and for that reason, o
, o i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-147-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3346M6
28728.0 4
BRT 4788
%)
1 and because I don't believe any-of the additional witnesses 2
in the proceeding will particularly aid the Board in a need 3
to hear from these individuals, it's my view that experts of 4
this type and the need to hear from additional experts, the 5
question of whether or not we need to hear from either 6
Mr. Queen or-Mr. Martin, has been essentially ripe since we 7
heard from the initial experts.
And for that reasonable and 8
with the close of the hearing being next week, with just one 9
person scheduled next week.and with few working days left, so 10 as not-to extend the schedule unnecessarily, and as well to 11 give the parties additional time in the event the-Board were 12 going to bring someone like Mr. Queen or Mr. Martin, I would (A) 13 encourage the Board to make a determination, if.it is at all 14 able to, with regard particularly to Mr. Queen and Mr. Martin 15 and their potential appearance.
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
As to those two gentlemen, do you 17 personally believe they should be called?
18 MR. BLAKE:
No, sir, I don't believe they'd add 19 subs tantially to the record based on the substantial amount 20 of testimony which the Board has from experts who have spent i
i 21 lots and lots of man-hours on this.
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Martin is still an NHC employee 23 who was involved in the early phases oE the NRC phases of 24 this matter?
l 25 MS. WAGNER:
The very early phases and is l
(Z)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
.202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage R0-336-6M6
l 28728.0 BRT
~4789
/s%.
()~
1 presently in the region.
I think if he were to be called as 2
a witness, which we oppose --
3 JUDGE KELLEY:
You oppose it?
4 MS. WAGNER:
If he were to be called as a witness, S
we would requi-re a fair amount of notice.
I have no idea of 6
his schedule and he needs 1.o prepare himself.
As I say, he 7
was only involved at the_ early-stages.
8 JUDGE KELL,EY :
Do you oppose i t on the ground that 9
he has nothing to add to what we've heard already?
10 MS. WAGNER:
That's correct.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
In the case of Mr. Queen,
~12 Mrs. Aamodt is not here to speak about this nomination, but p.
13 we think you are correct.
The Board and parties ought to V) 14 start looking at. this now.
Mrs. Aamodt gives us no assurance 15 that she will ever come to this hearing, so the nomination 16 being on the table I think it is appropriate that we talk 17 about it.
18 Do you understand - does any party understand 19 tha t Mr. Queen has any-personal knowledge about the matter 20 before this board?
21 MR. DLAKE:
I have no reason to believe that 22 Mr. Queen doesn't have some personal knowledge about matters 23 before the Board, but it is tota 13y unclear to me that-he's 24 in a position to address them in any greater degree than is 25 included in his statement which is already in the record of.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l mm.m x.e_
c_.,
.I 28728.0 BRT 4790
'w)
I this proceeding.
2 I should think to any-greater degree would require 3
Mr. Queen to rely on evidence that was presented to the grand 4
jury.
It is unclear to me that he's in a position to do 5
that.
6 JUDGE'KELLEY:
In the sense of personal knowledge 7
I was using the term rather restrictively.
Mr. Queen never 8
ran a leak rate test, did he?
9 MR. BLAKE:
Gosh, I don't think so.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
He never worked for Met Ed, GPU i
11 Nuclear.
What kind of personal knowledge has he got?
12 MR. MC~ BRIDE:
I should point out that at least 13 two of our clients have taken issue with statements.he made 14 in his statements of fact.
But having said that I would take
-15 issue with calling him because I think it would be enormously 16 difficult, if not impossible for Mr. Queen to testify about 17 the sta tement of f acts without violating rule 6(e) of the 18 Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
19 MR. BLAKE:
I'm embarrassed, Judge Kelley.
20 Obviously with regard to any personal knowledge he has of l
21 leak rate testing, the answer clearly, to the best of my 22 knowledge, is no, he doesn't have any.
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
He was the United States Attorney, 24 was he not?
25 MR. BLAKE:
Yes, sir.
Ov ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202447-37tU Nationwide Coserage 80tA33MM6
I 20728.0 BRT 4791 gb 1
MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes, sir.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
He in turn got what he knows from 3
his assistants, I assume, who in turn got what they know from.
~ he only point I want to make.
4 on_down the chain.
That's t
5 Mr. Burns, any comment?'
6 MR. BURNS: -My particular_ concern was as to 7
Mr. Queen's press release, or the statement, the one 8
paragraph that talked about the conversation'with Chwastyk.
9 Chwastyk has already testified.
He's-the direct witness as 10 to what occurred during that conversation.
11 It is my understanding that Mr. Queen wasn't even 12 present during the interview by the United States Attorney's n
(d' 13 office of Mr. Chwastyk concerning that conversation.
So, at' 14 best, as far as that conversation is concerned, we'd have at 15 least a double hearsay problem and I don't know that he could 16 add anything beyond Mr. Chwastyk's own testimony as to what 17 he recalls about that particular telephone conversation.
18 In addition, I join the other counsel in terms of 19 the 6(e) concerns, I think, would be presented if Mr. Queen 20 were asked to testify to anything beyond anything that 21 facially is stated in that press release s ta tement of facts.
22 MR. MC BRIDE:. Judge Kelley, I can just confirm 23 both from Mr. Chwastyk's preEiled statement and the fact that 24 I.was present at the interview that Mr. Queen was not present l
25 at, the Chwastyk interview.
O i
o i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationai& Coserage MG33MM6
I 28728.0 BRT 4792
,_s
(
)
v 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
_Mr.
Maupin, any comment?
2 MR. MAUPIN:
I don't have anything to add except 3
I'm opposed Mr. Queen's appearance.
I don't really have any 4
views on Mr. Martin.
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
If there's nothing further in the 6
way of comment that we need at this point --
7 MR. MC BRIDE:
I'm not sure I completely stated 8
.our position.
I'11 simply state thal we are opposed to 9
calling all four.of the witnesses whom Mr. Blake named.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
I think for this evening 11 we'll focus on Queen and Martin.
We've heard about Queen and 12 Martin.
I don't see any reason why the Board can't make a O
13 ruling first thing in.the morning on Queen and Martin.
We b
14 recognize t.he need to rule on Bezilla and Morck and anybody 15 else whose' names crop up au soon as we can on an ongoing 16 basis.
17 Okay.
Thank you.
18 (Whereupon, a t 5:26 p.m., the hearing was 19 adjourned, to reconvene at 8:30 a.m.,
Tuesday, November 4, 20 1986.)
21 22 23 ;
24 O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Natkmwide roserage
$433M646
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER f".)i This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
IN'QUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION DOCKET NO.:
LRP PLACE:
BETHESDA, MARYLAND
(
DATE:
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1986 J
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt)
/
(TYPED)
JOEL REITNER Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation O