ML20214S367
| ML20214S367 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/25/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-0929, CON-#486-929 LRP, NUDOCS 8609290475 | |
| Download: ML20214S367 (102) | |
Text
.-
O UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ORIGIWL IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO: LRP INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION O
LOCATION:
BETHESDA, MARYLAND PAGES: 2211 - 2309 DATE:
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1986 sb o i i
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i OfficialReporters 444 North CapitolStreet 8609290475 860925
- 0) 7 3~
PDR ADOCK 0500 0
NATIONWIDE COVERAGE
CR28218.0 BRT/sjg t
i 1
2211 2 )\\
UNITED STATES OF AMERIC A
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO 3
BEFORE THE AT MMISSION
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ OMIC SAFETY AND LICE 4
RD In the Matter of:
_ _ _ _ _ _x 5
UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATINQUIRY INT 6
E ISLAND Docket FALSIFICATION 7
No. LRP A
8 9
_ _ _ _ _ _x 1
i 10 Nuclear Regulatory C Fifth Floor Hearing Rommission 11 East West Towers oom I
Bethesda, Maryland 4350 East-W 12
(:)
ay 13
- Thursday, 4
The hearing in the September 25, 1986 15 8:30 a.m.
above entitled. matter 16 '
convened'at I
BEFORE:
17 JUDGE JAMES L.
Atomic Safety and LicKELLEY, 18 Chairman U.S.
Washington, D. Nuclear Regulatory Censing Board C.
ommission JUDGE JAMES H.
20 Atomic Safety andCARPENTER, U.S.
Member Washington, D. Nuclear Regulatory CoLicensing Board 21 C.
mmission 22 JUDGE GLENN Atomic Safety and LiBRIGHT, Member O.
23 U.S.
Washington, D. Nuclear Regulatory Ccensing Board C.
ommission 24 25 ACE.FEDERA 202 3474W
CR28218.0 2211 l BRT/sjg
__ __. 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
x 5
In the Matter of:
Docket No. LRP 6
INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION 7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 8
9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fifth Floor Hearing Room 10 East West Towers 4350 East-West Highway 11 Bethesda, Maryland i
12 !
l Thursday, September 25, 1986
(])
13 l l
The hearing in the above-entitled matter convened'at 4
8:30 a.m.
16 BEFORE:
17 JUDGE JAMES L.
KELLEY, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 18 l U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington, D.
C.
JUDGE JAMES H. CARPENTER, Member I
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 20 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
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.
m.347 37ao s.iion.ia.co soo.336 6646
2212 1
APPEARANCES:
2 on behalf of GPU Nuclear Corporation:
3 ERNEST L.
- BLAKE, JR.,
ESQ.
JOHN NASSIKAS, ESQ.
4 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
5 Washington, D.
C.
20036 6
on behalf of the Employees:
HARRY H. VOIGT, ESQ.
7 MICHAEL McBRIDE, ESQ.
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 8,
l 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1100 9
Washington, D.
C.
20036 10 On behalf of Jack Herbein:
I e
11 JAMES B.
BURNS, ESQ.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale 12 Three First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602
- f')-
13 l l
CHRISTOPHER W.
FLYNN, ESQ.
s, 14 '
Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
15 l Washington, D.
C.
20036 i
j on behalf of Gary P. Miller:
16 MICHAEL W.
MAUPIN, ESQ.
17 M.
CHRISTINA EENSLEY, ESQ.
Hunton & Williams 18 '
707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23221 19 On behalf of Former Metropolitan 20 Edison Employees:
SMTIH B.
GEPHART, ESQ.
21 Killian & Gephart 217-218 Pine Street 22 Box 886 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 On behalf of the NRC Staff:
24 S
JACK R.
GOLDBERG, ESQ.
(_)
25 MARY E. WAGNER, ESQ.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646 ar... _ n... m m. - -v n v
.ns,
,rr, o
y
.-y n_:.m-s.. w-y m m..m m,_.
f 2213 1
CONTENTS
.s 2
WITNESS EXAMINATION 3
Dennis J. Bolt:
4 by the Board 2218 5
Harold Wayne Hartman, Jr.
by the Board 2240 6
7 8
LAY-IN - PERSONAL RESUME OF MR. BOLTZ, Follows Page 2217.
9 LAY-IN - PARAGRAPH OF PREFILED TESTIMONY OF MR. SMITH, Page 2262 10 11 RECESSES:
1 12 NOON - 2235 A
13 !
-U 14 <
l EXHIBITS 15 1 NUMBER-DESCRIPTION IDENTIFIED RECEIVED 16 i
Exhibit 16 - Training Department 2220 2234 17 '
Administrative Memo Number 5 18 19 20 li 21 1
l 22 23 24 O
2s ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 33Mi646
,-, age, m;,-+
.. -- ~ - y _ --.,,
v,,,.,,.,,
l.
PERSONAL RESUME NAME:
Dennis J. Boltz BUSINESS ADDRESS:
TMI Nuclear Station Rte. 441 South Middletown, Pa. 17057 BUSINESS PHONE:
717-948-8309 EDUCATION:
High School Graduate - 1966 Northern Lebanon High School
{
Fredericksburg, Pa.
Curriculum -- College Preparatory Attended Lebanon Valley College Annville, Pa.
Chemistry Major 1966/1967 Penn State University Capitol Campus JAdult Continuing Education
()
BSME Program 1984/1985 LICENSES:
NRC Senior Operator License SOP-2784 Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1 Active August 1976 to Present NRC Reactor Operator License OP-3615 Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1 Active August 1974 to August 1976 O
l EXPERIENCE:
January 1985 to Present Employed by GPU Nuclear Corporation as Simulator Development and Training Manager at TMI.
Responsible for the develop-ment and presentation of all GPU training conducted on the TMI Basic Principles Training Simulator, the Power Safety International simulator at Lynchburg, Va., and future l
training on the TMI-l Replica Simulator.
Acting as GPU Test Director during factory and site acceptance test programs j
for the TMI-l Replica Simulator.
l Acril 1982 to January 1985 Employed by GPU Nuclear Corporation as Supervisor of Simula-tor Instruction, responsible for planning, preparation, con-l duct and supervision of all simulator training programs per-j taining to TMI.
During developmental stages of the TMI BPT and Replica Simulator projects responsibilities included de-velopment of simulator specifications, malfunctions and graphics requirements, simulator acceptance testing and in-structor training.
January 1977 to April 1982 Employed by Metropolitan Edison Company as Administrator -
Nuclear Technical Training (licensed operator training in-structor) at TMI.
Responsibilities included "courseware"
(])
development, classroom instruction and trainee oral and written evaluations.
Participated in 2 training programs until April 1979.
Collateral duties included participation in Radiation Emergency Plan drill scenario development, Operations Support Center coordinator, technical advisor to Emergency Support Director and refueling supervisor in Unit 1.
October 1975 to January 1977 TMI 1 Shift Foreman - Nuclear, responsible for coordination and supervision of operating crew and safe operation of the plant during startup, shutdown and full-power operation, and maintenance / refueling outages.
October 1969 to October 1975 Employed by Metropolitan Edison Company as TMI Unit 1 Con-trol Room Operator (Unit was declared commercial in September 1974).
O
I 28218.0 i
l 2214 BRT
(
1 PROCE ED ING S
()
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Good morning.
Just a brief word or i
3 l
two about last evening's off-the-record discussion of i
4 j
sequence of witnesses beginning next week, following the 5
l reappearance of Capra and Russell, and the appearance of i
6 l
Christopher on some individual responsibility questions.
I l
7 l
I'll just read off the names in the order in which they were i
8 j
proposed by numerous employees.
That was, for the first week 9
l
-- that is to say, beginning sometime next Tuesday the 10 sequence would be Mr. Frederick, Mr. Faust, Mr. Coleman, 11 Mr. Scheimann and Mr. Congdon; and for the following week the I
12 l
proposed sequence would be Mr. Zewe, 2-e-w-e,
- Illjes, 13 followed by Conaway, followed by McGovern, fo,11 owed by i
14 Kidwell, followed by Wright and followed by Mr. Mehler.
O 15 We discussed this at some length.
This represents 16 roughly most of shifts A and B, with some other people 17 j
filling in because they were available.
The Board had a 18 couple of reactions.
We can get another-B or two worked in, 19 meaning Mr. Mehler, Mr. Chwastyk, if we can, that would be 20 j
available.
Mr. McBride is looking into that.
But in general f
we recognize the difficulty getting everybody up here in 21 22 j
shift order, so it would seem to us that the proposed l
23 l
sequence was the best we could do under the circumstances and l
24 that's the way we should go.
25 It was noted that Mr. McGovern, although part of O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
..a.
28218.0 2215 BRT 1
the time was on shift F, was on shift A, so that got us more t
()
2 of that shift represented.
i 3
~
We don't know how long people are going to take, 4
j so this is sort of a rough guess.
Our sense of it was that 5
we might get through a little more than this number of people i
6 and that what we really needed was sort of a rolling time f
expectation.
7 That is to say, we might give a specific time 8
to somebody coming from California, some such place as that.
1 9
l But people closer should be asked to be ready on, say, a i
10 l
two-day time frame so they can be a little flexible and come 11 down here when we need them.
12 The main thing is to be able to keep the hearing 3
13 going and just not have to wait.
But I think that's a fair 14 summary of what.we talked about.
Are ther*e elements there I 15 j
left out?
l 16 MR. MC BRIDE:
None that you left out, Judge i
f Kelley, but I just wanted to report in addition to the fact 17 i
18 i
that we appreciate the Board's indulgence on the people who 19 l
are coming from great distances, what I tried to do to 20 accommodate the Board's concern that there might not be i
21 l
enough people for the first week, was to ask one of my 22 associates this morning to place calls to a number of these 23 people and particularly with respect to Mr. McGovern, who, as i
24 l
the Board noted, spent some of the time on A shift, to see if 25 we go faster the first week than I had anticipated, the Board
(:)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
28218.0 2216 BRT 1
thinks we might go, we can get Mr. McGovern here sometime
()
2 during that first week, slotted in.
3 We.are also trying to reach Mr. Mell and 4
Mr. Chwastyk to see if we can satisfy the Board's desires 5
with respect to the second week.
I may be able to report 6
back to you later today.
Otherwise I'll just have to give 7
you a call, perhaps, and give you a report if I don't know by 8
the end of today.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
In any event, are we clear on the l
l availability of the first two or three:
Frederick, Faust, 10 11 Coleman --
12 MR. MC BRIDE:
We are clear on Frederick and 13 Faust.
We are going to be checking on Mr. Coleman.
I 14 believe we are clear on him.
But my best understanding is l
15 that Mr. Frederick and Mr. Faust will be available.
16 Mr. Frederick, unfortunately, had to go to California this 17 week on business so we have been missing him a bit, but the I
18 messages'that we had were that he would be available.
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
We expect to hear from l
l 20
)
two witnesses today, Mr. Dennis Boltz and then Mr. Harold i
21 Hartman later.
Is Mr. Boltz with us.this morning?
Fine.
22 MR. BLAKE:
Judge Kelley, while Mr. Boltz is 23 1
coming up to take his seat at the witness stand I note that I i
24 have distributed to counsel and have provided to the Board, 25 two documents, one of which is a personal resume for O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6M6
l 28218.0 2217 BRT j
1 Mr. Boltz, two-page document; and the second, a document that 2
Mr. Bolt = can describe, which is double-sided, about a 3
two-page document whose subject is " Category IV CRO Training 4
Program."
5 (The document follows:)
6 7
8 9
10 l
11 12 13 O
15 16 1
17 l
18 19 l
20 l
1 l
21 22 23 l
24 25 l
I O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
28218.0 2218 BRT 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
Good morning,
()
2 Mr. Boltz.
3 Whereupon, 4
DENNIS J.
BOLTZ 5
was called as a witness and, having first been duly sworn, 6
was examined and testified as follows:
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
I'm sure you know from Mr. Blake, 8
in general the background and circumstances which led us to 9
call you here.
We have had, from the beginning, some 10 interest expressed in the training opportunities that were 11 provided to operators in the time frame of during and before 12 the accident at TMI-2, in particular with respect to these 13 particular operators.
We hc.d given some thought to calling a 14-witness and when the subject kept cropping up as we got into
(-))
15 our evidentiary hearing, it became apparent that it would be 16 useful to have someone like yourself join us.
17 We have some questions to put to you.
18 EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD 19 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
20 Q
First of all, would you like to describe the time 21 frame and your responsibilities with respect to training at 22 that time, and then perhaps also describe the documents you 23 brought with you this morning?
24 A
Sure.
The 1978-79 time frame, I was in the 25 training department at Three Mile Island as an instructor i
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
-28218.0 2219 BRT 1
assigned to the licensed operator training group.
My O(_)
2 responsibilities at that time included the development and 3
presentation of classroom training in the training trailers I
4 l
that we had at that time as well as the development and 5
implementation of evaluations, both written weekly quizzes, 6
annual NRC-time evaluations, and on-shift, in the plant, oral 7
exams, of people who were in their initial qualification 8
program as well as those who were already licensed and 9
qualified by the NRC to operate the unit.
MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, just for clarity of 10 l
l 11 the record I wonder if, before we get into the discussion of 12 these documents, whether we could just mark them with exhibit 13 numbers so that the record will be clear.
14 JUDGE KELLEY:
Why don't we mark them initially 15 and then counsel can consider whether they are going to have 16 any objections to them.
It's just the one document that I 17 have; is that correct, Mr. Blake?
18 MR. BLAKE:
Yes, sir.
I would suggest that I
19 Mr. Boltz's resume just be physically incorporated into the l
20 record as though read.
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
Why don't we at this point in the 22 transcript, incorporate Mr. Boltz's resume.
We don't have to 23 make it a separate exhibit.
24 But the document that we have before us is 25 entitled " Training Department Administrative Msmorandum O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
I 28218.0 2220 BRT 1
Number 5, Change 2."
The subject is " Category IV CRO
()
2 Training Program."
It is dated October 8, 1976.
I take it 3
it simply describes what the program was or was to be?
4 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
This describes the control 5
room operators initial training program which was in effect 6
in the 1978-79 time frame.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
8 (Exhibit 16 identified.)
w 9
JUDGE KELLEY:
Perhaps I can just take a minute to 10 look over this document.
11 MR. BLAKE:
Let me give you the benefit of my 12 having looked over it.
Mr. Boltz searched training records.
13 As I understand it -- he would have to confirm it -- but this was the one document he could find specifically referencing 14 15 to leak rate testing.
The one reference to leak rate appears 16
-- and the pages are not numbered -- about halfway through 17 the document on the left-hand page right at the bottom of the l
18 page.
You will find VII-b, " calculations performed."
And 19 the quote is, " capable of using computer for calculations of 20 leak rate, peak balance, reactivity balance, et cetera."
21 That's the sole reference and the reason that I have provided 22 the document today.
23 This document also, as you review it -- in my 24 i
review of it -- you'll find it's a cover letter of three 25 pages and then it purports to have three enclosures.
I, in i
1 C)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336 6646 j
28218.0 2221 BRT 1
my review of it could only find explicit reference to an
()
2 enclosure 2 and a number of other documents in here, number i
3 l
of other pages which I would think, from the cover sheet, are 4
probably a part of or maybe all of enclosure 3.
5 I find no enclosure 1.
This was the way the 6
document was located in the microfiche files.
We didn't try 7
to improve on it.
This is what we got.
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
Right.
Thank you.
9 (Recess.)
10 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
11 Q
Good morning, Mr. Boltz.
Thank you for coming on 12 such short notice.
13 A
Good morning.
14 Q
The Board is well aware that some of our questions 0
15 will strain your memory to ask you to recall things as they 16 existed eight years ago.
I'm sure, since you have been 17 involved in the training program over an extended period of 18 time, it's kind of hard to decide when the situation was as 19 it,was then and when it changed.
With that recognition of 20 the strain on your memory, we would like you to engage in 21 it.
22 I would like to ask you if the training program in 23 the time period 1977 to '79 included consideration of 24 Administrative Procedure 1010, which describes the technical 25 specifications for surveillance programs?
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336 4646
_n._.
==-
. _. -.,,,.,,...........:=
. - =
-,_, sw -
= :-_ n,. - -
~. _.
. ~... -.
I 28218.0 2222 BRT 1
A Is your question did it include that?
2 Q
Yes.
3 A
Yes, it did.
4 Q
Was the function of the exception and deficiency 5
list made clear in that program?
Do you recall the extent of I
6 the consideration of Administrative Procedure 1010 to make l
7 the exception and deficiency mechanism clear?
8 A
I'm aware of the contents of the 1010 procedure 9
and what it spells out to do with an exception or a j
j 10 deficiency.
The training that would have been received by 11 the personnel on that procedure would have been on-shift, j.
12 on-the-job, and really supervised by the shift supervisor who 13 was on at that time.
I don't know if you picked it up or j
14 not, but in this CRO training program description, which we 15 brought in today, AP-1010 is included as an OJT item to be 16 completed on shift.
17 MR. MC BRIDE:
Could the witness direct us to the 18 place in the memo?
i i
19 THE WITNESS:
It would be on the back of the i
l 20 handout here, under " enclosure 2."
The section is 21
" administrative procedures" and it's about midway down the i
22 page.
23 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
24 Q
I see that.
25 So that both the instruction and the evaluation of r
I ()
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3%&W6 I
I 28218.0 2223 BRT 1
the training, I note that the action code is action code D,
/~N l
(_)
2 which says, on the first page of enclosure 2, under D:
3
" Discussion, the individual must show orally that the i
4 evolution is understood to the satisfaction of the shift 5
supervisor, shift foreman or the licensed training 6
coordinator as denoted by an asterisk."
So that the 7
instruction, as I understand it, the instruction in this 8
procedure was then followed by an interrogation by the 9
instructor, just an oral interrogation?
10 A
Yes.
And actually the evaluation, as included 11 here on enclosure 2, would have been done on shift by either 12 the shift supervisor, the shift foreman, or a licensed 13 individual on that crew who was already familiar with the 14 procedure.
15 Q
With. respect to the subject that is before us, 16 namely, the conduct of leak rate tests at TMI-2 in the time 17 period 1978-1986, so far there has been no example of when a 18 test was run and either an exception or a deficiency noted.
19 j
That's the reason for the question, l
20 In your mind, would the training program have 21 failed to instruct the operators when they ran a surveillance 22 test, and there was some exception to be noted or some 23 deficiency to be noted, that they should simply do so and 24 submit it to their foreman?
25 A
Sir, that time frame that we are talking about C)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 804339 446
28218.0 2224 BRT 1
here, the scope of' training that was performed by the
()
2 training department was pretty much the textbook type of 3
topics, the theoretical, the big picture procedures as the 4
plant heat-up, start-up, things like that.
5 Things that were carried on during daily 6
operations of the unit as it operated, that training was 7
pretty much left up to the operating crews themselves, so 8
that the instructions on how to handle an exception or 9
deficiency would hpve been handled by that particular crew 10 and the members of that crew, rather than the training 11 department themselves.
12 Q
How could the training department be sure that the 13 several crews all took the same approach to evaluating any of 14 these items in enclosure 2?
I see them listed, but I'm 15 curious what sort of assurance the training department-had 16 that each shift was essentially at the same understanding of 17 what was involved in each of these procedures?
18 A
As we operated at that time we really had no I
19 mechanism to really do that.
That would have been 20 coordinated within the operations department.
21 l
Q Thank you.
Along the same line, did the training 22 program include consideration of administrative procedure 23 1012, that describes requirements for operating logs?
24 A
Sir, within this category IV, training program, 25 right after the admin. procedure 1010, you'll also find lists O
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
28218.0 2225 BRT I
1 I
at AP 1012 for the shift relief and log entries.
And,.again,
(
2 that was performed as parts of the on-shift, on-the-job 3
training program for the control room operator initial 4
qualification.
5 So, again, that type of training would have been 6
performed on shift rather than in the classroom.
7 Q
Is it fair to say that the training department at 8
that time did not really have good control of the extent of 9
training that each individual operator got, because you l
10 weren't -- didn't have any oversight over the activities of
{
the individuals that were doing the training?
11 12 A
That's really a judgment on my part, but we had to 13 rely heavily for the operations and on-the-job training i
)
aspects of their training programs with qualified personnel 14 15 on shift, to support the training and qualification of the 16 new people that would be placed into the control room i
17 positions.
18 With that in mind, this on-the-job training 19 j
program with the sign-offs, noting the people who were in the 20 licensed operator training group at that time, the Unit 2 I
21 j
shift supervisor, shift foreman, or.the already-qualified 22 l
control room operator, probably were more qualified to do 23 these on-shift-type evaluations than the training personnel 24 at that time.
25 Q
Thank.you.
CE)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 447-3700 Nationwale Coverage 80 4 336-6646
~
28218.0 2226 BRT 1
The next question forces you to speculate, or try,
()
2 with the reservation it is unavoidably coing to be a 3
i speculative response.
Were there any conditions under which i
I the results of surveillance tests might be properly discarded 4
5 described in any part of the training program?
Can you think 6
of any examples when an operator might have been taught that 7
it was acceptable to run a surveillance test and discard the 8
result of that test?
9 A
No, sir.
10 Q
Do you suppose there was any emphasis on the 11 importance of retaining each and every test result?.
12 A
I guess I don't know how to answer that because 13 the scope of what the training department training was, at 14 that time, was very limited.
Again, it was sort of the
, O 15 textbook type of training.
16 Q
Thank you.
17 Did the training program include any-material on 18 the leak rate surveillance test?
Was the need for this I
l surveillance in order to operate the plant safely presented 19 1
20
)
in the training program?
21 A
The only reference we could find to leak rate 22 testing surveillance tests in training program descriptions 23 is what I presented here today.
I can only speculate that 24 since it was an every-shift operation that occurred when the 25 unit was on line and at hot conditions, there apparently was
{
(^)
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwule Coverage 800 33M646
28218.0 2227 BRT 1
deemed to be no training need since it was a normal
()
2 evolution.
l 3
Q Thank you.
I 4
MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Carpenter, may I just 5
interrupt for clarification of that last answer?
The witness 6
referred to this being an "every-shift" surveillance, and 7
according to his resume he has never been an operator at Unit 8
2.
I wonder if you can clarify whether in fact he has 9
personal knowledge of how frequently these,were performed.
10 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
11 Q
Did you understand the question, Mr. Boltz?
12 A
Yes.
I did.
As I recall it, the technical 13 specification required interval is every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
- However, 14 the unit did it more frequently for their own surveillance 15 purposes.
16 Q
I think Mr. McBride wanted to inquire as to how 17 you were aware of that?
How do you have that knowledge?
18 What was your involvement with TMI-2?
19 A
Just as an instructor.
However, knowing the 20 people on shift and knowing the practices at Unit 1 at that 21 time.
Maybe I'm just assuming they did it at the same 22 frequency as TMI-1.
23 Q
The Board will accept your qualified answer.
i I
24 Turning to a little more of the technical 25 aspects:. Was the meaning of the required " steady state" o
u ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
28218.0 2228 BRT 1
conditions that are described under the surveillance
()
2 procedure, or specified in the surveillance procedure, nade 3
clear in the training program?
4 A
Sir, again, this procedure would have been taught 5
on shift rather than in the classroom, so I can't answer 6
that.
7 Q
Can you tell me from your familiarity with the 8
surveillance procedures, whether " steady state" was required 9
under any other surveillance procedure?
10 A
Yes, sir.
11 Q
So there were a number of cases where the i
12 individual carrying out the test had to assure himself that 13 there was steady state?
14 A
Yes.
{
15 Q
. What kind of things were those?
I'm just curious 16 as to whether they were frequently run tests or things that 17 were infrequent.
18 A
One particular that comes to my mind is the heat 19 balance surveillance, where the indicated reactor power is 20 compared to a thermal calculation.
For that calculation 21 there to be accurate they would have had to maintain steady 22 state conditions.
23 Q
For how long a period of time?
24 l
A That calculation takes about 10 minutes.
25 Q
liow long do you have to keep the plant at steady CE)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
28218.0 2229 BRT 1
1 state to have a valid surveillance; about 10 minutes?
()
2 l
A For the run of that calculation.
I 3
Q Can you think of any that require keeping the 4
plant at steady state for an hour, other than the leak rate I
5 test?
6 A
No, sir.
7 Q
Thank you.
8 I have some other questions that really go to 9
details that are based, I think, on your description of how 10 the training was carried out and just go beyond.
I 11 l
For example, the material, the exhibit you have l
given us this morning, mentions the use of computer for leak 12 i
13 rate testing.
One of the questions I had was whether they 14 were' properly trained to carry out hand calculations for the 15 leak rate test.
As far as you can tell; you don't have any 16 firsthand knowledge of whether that was done or not?
17 A
That's right.
The only reference to leak rate 18 testing in this training program is through the use of the I
19 j
computer and not the hand calculations which would be 1
20 performed if the computer was out of service.
21 Q
Since, I think, it is always expectable that a I
22 computer will be out of service once in a while, it would 23 seem to me an essential part of the training.
Also, I think i
24 l
it's nice to verify that the computer is producing 25 l
appropriate answers to some calculation by carrying it out by l
l C)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
28218.0 2230 BRT 1
hand, once in a while.
2 As you see, our interest really goes to -- down to 3
a level where I don't think you are capable of helping us, in l
terms of whether these operators were prepared, if the 4
5 computer was malfunctioning, they thought it was 6
malfunctioning, to turn in the procedure to the description 7
of how to do it by hand.
But we'll ask the individual 8
operators.
9 Thank you very much.
10 i
BY JUDGE KELLEY:
i 11 Q
I just have a few questions.
I want to be sure 12 I',m clear.
The document here that we put in as an exhibit 13 was prepared, I take it, by the training department but it
()
14 isn't so m'uch an outline-of.what_the_ training _ department 15 itself does as what the program consists of.
And most of the 16 outline here is done on the job; is that right?
17 A
That is true for this program.
18 Q
I realize this is the program in that time frame.
19 A
Yes.
20 I
Q I'm clear that you didn't cover how to do a leak 21 rate test in your training classes in a sort of step-by-step 22 way.
Did you -- when you say it's a textbook type thing, 23 does that include, for example, a lecture on reactor core 24 physics and that kind of thing?
25 A
Yes, sir.
On the average, the fellows that went (2)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3 Nationwide Coverage M 336 & M
28218.0 2231 BRT through this program, near the end of it got five days of 1
i
()
2 classroom lecture.
That consisted of principles of reactor 3
theory and core physics as you mentioned, control systems and 4
transient response for the unit.
5 Q
In that five-day classroom presentation, to your 6
recollection was there any discussion of surveillance 7
requirements, like leak rate tests?
8 A
No.
There would not have been.
9 Q
Did these trainees receive training on simulators, 10 prior to being licensed?
11 A
Yes, sir.
12 Q
I hear references to " going to Lynchburg" for 13 example, where I gather there's a B&W simulator.
Would a CRO 14 trainee do that?
15 A
Yes.
At the end of his. program he would go' 16 through a three-week course down at the B&W simulator at 17 Lynchburg.
18 Q
Would he run a leak rate test down-there?
19 A
No, sir.
The training that they received down 20 there that involved leaks, reactor coolant system leaks, was 21 geared towards the emergency. procedure. implementation, i
22 recognition of symptoms and dynamic responses of the plant 23 rather than the actual surveillance test itself.
24 Q
So the surveillance tests, tneory and practice, l
25 were entirely given over to on-the-job training?
(2)
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
28218.0 2232 BRT I
1 A
Yes, sir.
()'
2 Q
Could you tell us whether, as a part of training, 1
3 there, any time was spent on procedures for reporting safety 4
concerns?
Let's suppose -- let's put some flesh on that.
5 I'm a reactor operator and I'm assigned to a shift 6
and I'm told any time I get a bad leak rate test, just throw 7
it way.
And it seems to me that's not the right way to do --
8 not the right thing to do with a surveillance test, yet that 9
is what is being done.
10 Was there any procedure in place at the time l
whereby a person could get his concerns heard above the level 11 12 of his immediate boss?
10 A
Are you talking about in-plant procedures?
()
'14 Q
In-plant.
15 A
There was no formal procedure for that at the 16 time; no'.
However, I don't know of anything that would have 17 inhibited that.
18 Q
I happen to be aware of, usually in the context of 19 quality assurance programs now, reactors quite typically have i
20 even provision for anonymous reports.
People don't want to 21 l
be -- get in trouble with their boss.
They can call up hot 22 line and report some concern.
Those, I think, are fairly 23 recent developments.
24 There wasn't any such formalized procedure at that l
25 time?
(:)
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
y 202 347 3700 Nmionwide Coverage 800 3 4 6646
28218.0 2233 BRT 1
A No, not within the company.
2 Q
Not that you know of?
3 A
Not within the company.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
I think that's all the questions 5
the Board had.
We didn't have written questions submitted.
6 Am I correct about that?
I don't think we set a particular 7
deadline for that matter.
8 MR. MC BRIDE:
Well you asked us to get them in if t
9 we knew we were going to have a question but we didn't know 10 what he was going to say so we didn't know what to ask.
4 11 JUDGE KELLEY:
That's true.
Do you have 12 follow-ups?
13 MR. MC BRIDE:
Can we have a moment?
()
14 JUDGE KELLEY:- Sure._
I 15 Follow-ups from anybody else?
16 MR. BLAKE:
Judge Kelley, I have offered some 17 questions to the Board simply for clarification because we've 18 talked exclusively about this one document.
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
Sure.
Fine.
I 20 Does anyone else have questions?
21 MR. MC BRIDE:
We have none, your Honor.
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
23 MR. MC BRIDE:
We would like this exhibit i
l introduced in evidence, though.
24 25 JUDGE KELLEY:
Is there any objection to (2) 4 I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
28218.0 2234 BRT 1
introduction of the exhibit we have numbered 16, the training 2
memo?
I 3
Fine.
So ordered.
4 (Exhibit 16 received.)
I 5
BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
6 Q
Mr. Boltz, we have just a few clarifying 7
questions.
The first reads:
Exhibit 16 relates to category 8
IV, CRO training.
Would you please indicate whether this was 4
9 the only category of CRO training at TMI-2 in the 1978-1979 10 time frame?
11 A
Within that time frame, this is the only category 12 of control room operator initial training; yes.
j 13 Q
There are no other categories of CRO trainees on 14 the job at that time?
1 15 A
That's right.
The only other category that 16 remained at that time was category 1, and that person was 17 fully qualified and licensed by the NRC.
i 18 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, there being no further l
19 questions, Mr. Boltz, we very much appreciate your coming and 20 appreciate your time and responsiveness to questions.
1
~
21 Thank you very much, you are excused.
22 (Witness excused.)
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let me inquire, I have not met Mr.
j 24 Hartman.
I'm wondering whether he might b( in the room?
25 He's not due here until 10:00.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
800-336 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase
.6646 -
i 28218.0 1
2235 BRT I
1 Off the record.
l 2
(Whereupon, at 11:00 a.m.,
the hearing was 3
recessed, to be reconvened at 12:00 p.m.
this same day.)
I 4
1 l
l 5
l 6
i 7
8 i
9 10 11 j
i j
12 I
13 l
!. O 24 16 17 l
18 4
19 l
1 l
20 21 l
l 22 i
i 23 i
l 24 i
l j
25 i
O l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 3 4 6646 i
-..- _.-.-._..._ -,...~,.-_._ -~ ~ _ _..._ - _ _ - -- - -- -
l 28218.0 i
2236 BRT 1
AFTERNOON SESSION (12:00 p.m.)
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
On the record.
Mr. Hartman, my 3
name is Judge Kelley.
On my right is Judge Bright and on my i
4 l
left is Judge Carpenter, and we make up the Presiding Board
)
5 in this inquiry.
I say " inquiry," it's sort of an unusual 6
case for the NRC.
We spend most of our time in licensing 7
cases.
This is not a licensing case, it's a case in which we 8
have been directed by the Commission to hold hearings and 9
compile a record in order to find out about leak rate I
10 l
falsifications in the time period during which TMI-2 was l
l 11 i
operating.
12 We appreciate your coming down here today.
Let me 13 just state,,as background -- I spoke with you, oh, sometime ggg 14 maybe in mid-August and then wrote you a letter on August 29, 15 in which I sent you copies of prior statements that you had 16 l
made with respect to this matter.
It may not be every l
17 statement you have ever made, but it's a rather large 18 collection of statements that you made at one time or I
19 another, including, I might refer principally to the lengthy 20 l
deposition-type statement that you made to Mr. Rockwell back I
21 in October 1980.
There was also a lengthy deposition taken 1
22 i
in some litigation between B&W and GPU, and also a statement 23 that grew out of an interview with NRC people.
Those were 24 ones -- we looked over all the statements, but they seemed to 25 be the ones that raised questions in our minds that we wanted l
tin ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
28218.0 2237 BRT l
i 1
l to pursue with you.
O l
2 i
I did not send you copies of two very extensive l
investigative reports that we have in the record in this 3
l 4
i proceeding, for this reason:
As I mentioned to you on the i
5 phone; one, these reports are voluminous, 25 volumes or 6
something.
The main point, I think, is that they don't 7
really focus on you directly.
One investigation by 8
Mr. Stier, who was commissioned by the company, focused on 9
present employees at the time that he conducted his 10 investigation and you were not one of those.
And then the 11 NRC investigation focused on licensed operators at the time 12 of that investigation, which you also were not.
13 You are referred to a few places there, but you f
()
weren' t a f ocus-of-principal concern._..I think I can say it 14 15 is my understanding that those investigations, apart from not 16 focusing on you directly, do not reflect on your activity, 17 except insofar as you have, yourself, stated that you did --
18 such as you stated you add hydrogen to effect a test at one 19 point or another.
And that's reflected in those statements.
20 But it's not, for all those reasone, our intention to inquire l
21 to you today about those investigations.
But rather about 22 l
your own statements.
23 If you want to review those reports we can make 24 l
them available to you but, as I indicated in my letter, our 25 main interest is in your prior statements.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
I 28218.0 2238 BRT 1
Just a couple of other preliminary comments.
In (1) l 2
addition to your statements, the basic format, and this is 3
oversimplifying, but the basic format that we are following 4
here is this:
We have heard very extensive testimony from 5
NRC and outside experts on the technical aspects of leak 6
rate.
We are now hearing from you.
We heard a gentleman 7
thic morning talk about training at TMI at that time.
The 8
NRC inspector, Mr. Haverkamp was here yesterday.
But 9
starting next week we are going to be hearing from a 10 succession of present and former employees, some of whom 11 worked with you.
And some of whom are, let's use the right 12 word, some of whom, the investigators believe, manipulated 13 tests or took other improper action, so they are here to I ()
14 present their_ side of..the story..__
15 In a couple of cases, particularly, we have'gotten 16 prefiled testimony from most of these people and in a couple 17 of cases it includes people you worked with, such as 18 Mr. Bernard Smith and Mr. Booher, and we have this testimony 19 filed with us.
It is not yet an official part of the record 20 in this case because they haven't appeared yet and sworn to 21 it.
Nevertheless, it is what-we understand they propose to 22 say and insofar as, in some places these statements talk 23 J
about you, we would like to have you have a chance, now, to i
24 comment and react.
So, in addition to questions based on 25 your statements, we'll have a couple of questions which will 1
O s
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
80433M646 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage
28218.0 2239 i
BRT 4
1 1
involve your listening to or looking at portions of 2
j statements of others that we would also like you to comment 1
3 l
on.
4 I might just say that generally, it has been a 5
long time since these events occurred, eight years plus, and 6
we do, in some instances, want to ask you about particular 7
statements you made about what happened and what a person may 8
have done.
All we are asking for is your best recollection 9
of those events.
10 If you don't remember you don't remember.
We 11 understand that the passage of time is going to be -- or may 12 be a problem with witness testimony in the case.
13 I'll begin with some questions that the Board
()
14 wants to put to you, and then, following that, we have a set 15 of questions proposed to us by the counsel for the :mployees 16 and we also have a set of questions from an Intervenor in the 17 case, Mrs. Marjorie Aamodt, and we'll be putting most of 18 those questions to you also.
19 Whereupon, l
20 l
HAROLD WAYNE HARTMAN, JR.
21 was called as a witness and, having first been duly sworn, 22 was examined and testified as follows:
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
I should add that the Board's 24 questions grow out of a review of your statements.
They are 25 not arranged as neatly and logically as one might hope.
In O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433MM6
28218.0 2240 BRT 1
fact they might sound rather random.
That's the way the O
2 statements read to some extent, but you'll understand if we 3
l don't progress in what seems to be an entirely logical 4
order.
5 You have testified in the past that you used 6
hydrogen, hydrogen additions, as a means of effecting a leak 7
rate result, hopefully getting a result that would come in 8
under the 1-gallon minute.
9 EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD 10 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
11 Q
I want to confirm my understanding.
Did you ever 12 see anyone else use hydrogen for that purpose?
13 A
Not that I can recollect.
The only thing I know 14
--is that I got-the-information fro"m. other_ operators, that
()
15 that's one way that they could get a good test.
16 Q
This was just common knowledge among operators, 17 would you say?
18 A
Yes.
I believe so; yes.
19 Q
Do you remember any names, as to who may have told 20 you that?
21 A
No, I don't.
I don't recall.
22 Q
And you have said before that you hadn't seen 23 others, that was actually adding hydrogen.
I wanted to 24 confirm that?
25 A
Right.
That's correct.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Ccverage 800-336-6646
28218.0 2241 i
BRT 1
Q Now, in cases when you would add hydrogen in a O-2 i
leak rate test for that purpose, did you inform your -- your l
immediate supervisors were -- Mr. Smith was the shift 3
4 supervisor, as I understand it, and Mr. Hoyt?
Am I correct?
5 A
That's correct.
6 Q
He was the shift foreman.
7 Did you inform them that that's what you were 8
doing?
9 A
Not that I can recall.
One thing does stick in my 10 mind, however.
When I got to the point when I tried the 11 j
hydrogen addition to affect a test, I found out that the 12 hydrogen bottle and the automatic addition system was out of 13 Commission, that they had to add the hydrogen by hand.
So
()
14 that by-manipulating _the external.. control _in the control 15 room, it was actually doing nothing.
That was some period 16 very close to March, I would say maybe three months prior, 17 that I can recollect.
18 Q
So, if you weren't able to add the hydrogen by 19 means of the control panel, how was it accomplished?
20 A
Then you had to contact an auxiliary operator that 21 was stationed in the auxiliary building, close to the 22 hydrogen addition station, to do a manual add.
23 l
Q You'd just call him on the phone?
l 24 l
A That's correct.
I 25 l
Q Would you discuss with him why you wanted it C)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage M33M446
I 28218.0 2242 BRT i
1 added?
Or would you just tell him to add some amount of O
2 hydrogen?
l 3
l A
As I can recall it was just to add, just to add t
4 j
the hydrogen, for no specific reason other than the pressure 5
was low in the makeup.
6 Q
Switching from hydrogen to additions of water to 7
affect the test, did you, yourself, use that technique?
8 A
Not directly but I know -- I think it was done on 9
a shift that I was working on, I believe.
I don't know how l
10 j
many times.
11 Q
Did you actually observe this being done?
12 A
I believe on one occasion.
13 Q
Do you recall who it was?
14 A
.It was Ray.Bocher ______.
15 Q
Mr. Bocher.
I have heard the term " jogged water 16 addition."
I don't know if you have heard that in the past 17 or not.
Does that mean putting in a little bit at a time?
18 A
Yes.
That's correct.
19 We had a -- the makeup, which has a level recorder 20 on it, that indicates the level on a continuing basis and at 21 l
that time we had considerable leakage through some valves.
I 22 believe they were the pressurizer relief valves at that time.
23 Q
This is what time frame, roughly?
24 A
Three months before the accident.
25 Q
What, January, perhaps?
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433MM6
28218.0 2243 BRT 1
A Perhaps.
~T
(% /
2 I
Q Okay.
3 i
A With the leakage the indicated leak rate would 4
slowly decline over a period of time, as indicated on that 5
level recorder.
If you added a batch of water, say 50 6
gallons, it would show up as almost an immediate rise in the 7
level indication.
But if you jogged it, the tendency was to 8
just reduce the slope very slightly of the decrease in water 9
in the makeup.
10 Q
When you say " level indication," do you mean strip 11 chart there?
12 A
That's correct.
Strip chart.
13 Q
Right.
So if you were to use the term " jogged 14 water addition," if I wanted to accomplish that, would my*
(}
15 purpose be to get in a significant -- get in enough water to 16 affect the leak rate result and have it not show up on the 17 strip chart?
Was that the reason to do that?
18 A
That's correct.
19 Q
And you say you saw Mr. Booher do that; is that i
20 right?
21 A
Yes.
22 Q
How did you know that that was what he was doing?
23 A
Well, I asked him.
I said:
What are you doing, 24 Ray?
And he said:
Well,.if you just put in a little bit of 25 water at a time you can slow down the rate of decrease in the
~
C)
J ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336 & l6
I 28218.0 2244 BRT 1
makeup level which, if that level stays up, then your chances 2
l of coming in under 1 gallon per minute leak rate, you stood a I
3 better chance of doing that.
4 Q
Was it possible -- I understand what you just 5
said.
But might he have been adding water in that manner for 6
any other purpose than influencing the leak rate result, in 7
your opinion?
8 A
No.
In my opinion, no.
9 Q
Do you recall, in that particular instance, 10 whether the addition of water in this jogged, small amount 11 manner, was logged?
12 A
I can't recall.
13 Q
You don't recall whether you checked the log one
(}
14 way or the other.
15 A
No, I don't remember.
16 Q
Would it have been Booher's responsibility to make 17 the log entry if it were going to be?
18 A
If it were going to be made; yes, it would have 19 been.
20 Q
Do you recall at the time whether you felt 21 pressure from your superiors to get a good leak rate?
22 A
I felt pressure at times.
23 Q
How did that manifest itself?
24 A
Well, I guess I was very frustrated at having to 25 do the leak rate tests on a continual basis.
It was like 4
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
28218.0 2245 BRT 1
during the mid-shift it was constant.
You'd run the test, if 2
l you get a good result you turned it in.
If you didn't, you'd l
j go back and start it again.
And sometimes we'd run as many 3
f as six or eight on a shift.
4 5
Most of the time we did the test it was a hit or 6
miss type thing.
You know?
We just took a chance that we'd 7
come up with a leak rate that was acceptable.
8 Q
You are familiar with, you recall, the action 9
statement procedure whereby if you weren't getting -- I'll 10 put that differently.
11 Did you, at the time, understand that you had to 12 get one good leak rate -- I'll put " good" in quotes -- leak 13 rate, every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />?
()
14 A
That was my understanding.
15 Q
The pressure to get a good leak rate, that you 16 felt -- were there times when you were pushing up pretty 17 close to the 72-hour limit?
18 A
Yes.
Quite frequently.
19 Q
Did you notice any difference in pressure when 1
20 that was the case?
l 21 A
Yes.
A little bit.
If we didn't have a " good" 22 leak rate we'd have to go into a hot standby, I think was the l
23 l
term.
Basically shut the plant down, not generate any i
24 l
electricity.
25 Q
Did there ever come a time when you did have to at O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
28218.0 2246 BRT l
i 1
least start to shut the plant down because the 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> had rm 2
passed and you hadn't gotten a good leak rate?
3 j
A I don't remember.
i 1
4 Q
You said in a statement given to the NRC on July 5
26,
'83, along this same line, I'll just quote it and see 6
what you recall about it.
The question was:
7
" Question: Can you describe what you meant by the 8
comment, 'there was a lot of pressure on us to get good leak 9
rates'?"
10 And your response was, in part:
"Bernie. Smith, 11 maybe or maybe not in jest, told me to get a good leak rate, 12
' type one out if you have to.' Do you recall that comment?
13 A
Yes, I do.
()
14 Q
- And the circumstances --
15 MR. MC BRIDE:
Can we have clarification whether 16 he recalls the comment or recalls the testimony?
17 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
18 Q
I'll ask both.
Do you recall making the statement 19 to the NRC?
20 A
I recall both.
21 Q
He recalls both.
Okay.
22 Could you, to the best of your recollection, give 23 us the circumstances surrounding that statement?
24 A
Well, the best I can recollect, we were probably 25 getting close to the 72-hour period where we needed to have a Oo ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336 6646
28218.0 2247 BRT 1
good leak rate on file.
I believe we were on the mid-shift,
\\'
2 or 11:00 to 7:00, which is the normal time to run such a 3
test.
4 My feeling is that he wanted our shift to do it, 5
to get one so that day shift didn't have to run one.
I know 6
day shift gets kind of hectic, sometimes, and I just wanted 7
to get it out of the way.
8 Q
Would it have been possible, if you take 9
Mr. Smith's -- the statement that you attribute to Mr. Smith, 10 if you take that literally and you had gone off to a 11 typewriter, would it have been possible to produce a piece of 12 paper that looked like a printout from a computer?
Of course 13 you could do these calculations by hand, could you not?
()
14 A
That's correct.
15 Q
So that I guess is the answer to my question:
16 Yes, because you could do these by hand?
17 A
Yes.
You could do them by hand, but generally 18 they weren't typed.
It was on a handwritten form.
19 Q
You took the form and you filled it out?
20 A
You filled it out by hand.
21 Q
So that initially what I wanted to find out was 22 whether this statement you attribute to him might have been a j
23 joke, because it would be impossible to do such a thing?
But 24 if you were going to do a hand calculation on a form, I guess 25 it would be possible; is that right?
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336 4 56
l 28218.0 l
l 2248 BRT l
1 A
I guess what I remember about that whole incident,
("l
's l
and especially in the testimony, the reason I said that it 2
l 3
may have been in jest was because it was not possible to type i
4 l
one out on the typewriter that they had available for us to 5
use.
It was a computer input typewriter and there was no way 6
you could type out the information that we were looking for.
7 Q
So the leak rate test result that one might expect 8
in the normal course of business to see would be either a 9
computer printout or a filled out form --
10 A
That's correct.
11 l
Q
-- not a typed out test result?
There wasn't any 12 such thing in your procedures; is that right?
13 A
That's correct.
()
14 Q
If there wasn't any such thing in your procedure, 15 though, could he have been serious, do you think?
16 A
I think he was serious to the point where he 17 wanted to see a good leak rate at the end of the shift.
18 Q
So it was a way of, as you understood it, of his 19 making a point without being, literally intending that you'll 20 sit down at the typewriter and type something out?
21 A
That's correct.
l 22 Q
Were there any other instances that you can recall 23 that illustrate your feeling of pressure to get a result?
24 A
Not that I remember at this point.
25 Q
Okay.
Did you receive any training in performing O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
28218.0 2249 BRT 1
leak rate tests while you were a trainee, that you recall?
[\\ -)
2 A
I don't recall, but I feel that in the training 3
program that would have been part of the training.
4 Q
As I understand it, there were two aspects, maybe l
l more, bu; at least two aspects to the training program.
5 6
There wa:s some classroom instruction, but a fair share of it 7
was just
- was on-the-job training; is that correct?
8 A
That's correct.
9 Q
Was your training on leak rate tests on-the-job 10 training, as you recall?
11 A
For physically doing the test and entering the 12 da ta into the computer, yes.
It was on shift.
I remember 1
13 l
having some discussions in classroom about leak rate' tech
{}
14 specs and the requirements, and that sort of thing in the 15 classroom.
And I believe at one point we did a hand 16 calculation using some numbers that the instructor provided.
17 Q
About what time were you in training?
Classroom 18 training?
19 A
I started as control room operator in September of 20 1976, I believe.
And I was licensed in October of
'77.
So 21 it would have been in that time frame.
22 Q
'76, early '77?
23 A
Yes.
24 Q
Apart from the hand calculation that you recall as 25 a training exercise and the explanation of the tech spec U~
r ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804 33 H 646
28218.0 2250 BRT 1
requirement, the actual performance of the test was something 2
you learned when you were a trainee in a control room; is 3
that right?
4 A
That's correct.
5 Q
I understand it was your practice, and there's 6
evidence that it was the practice of others, when you got a 7
" bad" leak rate test, you may have taken actions like looked 8
for a leakage, but you threw the test away?
9 A
That's correct.
10 Q
Right.
Do you recall your practice in that regard j
and how it started?
Did it strike you as -- well, let me 11 12 just ask you that.
13 Let's say you are in day 1 as a trainee in a
()
14 control room at TMI. _And.you.are told to run a leak rate 15 test.
And it comes out 1.3.
Sort of a hypothetical 16 situation.
I'm trying to get at the origin or how you were 17 first instructed, if you were, to throw away tests over 1; do 18 you recall that?
19 A
No.
I don't recall any specific incident like 20 that.
But I do remember the practice of, if we got an l
21 unacceptable leak rate, I would usually show the foreman or 22 the shift foreman and say, well, we ran the leak rate and 23 here it is.
And he'd say:
Throw it away -- run -- start 24 another one.
25 Q
Was this Mr. Hoyt?
(~(-)-
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
28218.0 2251 BRT 1
A Yes.
()#
2 Q
Were you always working under Mr. Hoyt?
3 A
There was occasions when he was on vacation and I 4
would work for someone else, but he was permanently assigned 5
to the shift, so I would have done most of my operating with 6
him.
7 Q
Do you specifically recall -- maybe I'm repeating 8
this -- but going to Mr. Hoyt with a bad test and his telling 9
you, throw it away?
10 A
Yes.
11 Q
Did it occur to you at the time whether these f
12 tests might be retained?
Did you give that any thought?
13 A
No.
If I remember a statement -- and I forget who
()
14
-made it--at this -point,_but, _ s ay :
Make.sure you throw it away 15 so that the NRC doesn't see it. laying around.
Or something 16 to that effect.
They didn't want powers that may be to see 17 the bad results.
18 Q
But you don't recall who made the statement?
19 A
No, I don't.
Not at this point.
It would have 20 been on shift.
It could have been Bernie Smith or Dick 21 Hoyt.
22 MR. MC BRIDE:
I move to strike that last remark.
23 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
24 Q
Let me just ask you, do you have any firm 25 recollection about either Mr. Smith or Mr. Hoyt saying that?
O
.l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 NationwideCo erage 800-336-6646
28218.0 2252 BRT l
1 A
No.
A 2
JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
I think that clarifies it.
3 We won't strike it.
4 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
5 Q
Can you suggest what, in your mind, would have 6
been a good reason to throw away tests registering over 1 7
gallon a minute?
8 A
No, other than the test was out of spec.
9 My understanding of keeping --
10 Q
Let me give you an example.
Say you are running a 11 ledc rate test and you start it and you punch-in a number, a 12 piece of data.
You just make a mistake.
You are off by 13 hundreds of gallons, if it's a water thing, let's say.
And
()
14 you know that -the test-is -wrong-because -you.knou -your own.'
15 mistake.
16 Would you think it legitimate to throw away the 17 printout in that case?
18 A
Yes.
19 Q
Apart from that kind of a situation, though, is 20 there any reason in your mind to throw them away?
21 A
I guess at that time I just felt that that was the 22 way it was to be done.
You know, if you got a bad leak rate 23 you just have to go back and try again.
24 Q
Did you consider it a possibility that the leak 25 rate test was telliiag you something real and valid about the O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Cg 800-336-6646
28218.0 2253 BRT l
1 condition of the plant?
,_O 2
j A
On occasion we did.
And we'd go out and look for 3
leaks and try and tighten up the systems.
Even after doing 4
that we still had a lot of problems.
5 I guess I rationalized the thing that the plant 6
was operating in such a transitory manner for the months 7
prior to the accident that there were so many parameters that 8
there could be instrument errors in, in measurements and 9
things like that, that would -- that it would influence the 10 computer's calculation.
11 It seemed like when the conditions were right you 12 could get a good one.
When they were oscillating they tended 13 not to come out so good.
()
14 Q
Is it f air to say,.Mr.. Hartman,--.that. in_ the course 15 of your functioning there as an operator and performing leak 16 rate tests, that you had concerns about the validity or 17 propriety of what was being done?
18 A
At times.
I really didn't have much faith in the 19 test --
20 Q
Right.
21 A
-- as done on the computer.
22 Q
Right.
But, well, let me give you a quotation 23 from your interview with Mr. Rockwell.
It's short.
You are 24 talking about running tests and then you said, page 58 of 25 that interview:
"The last month we kind of tried to put it 4
<x
\\
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
I 28218.0 1
i 2254 BRT l
I off because obviously we weren't getting anywhere with our l
1 2
concerns."
3 That suggested to me that you had concerns that 4
you felt frustrated because you weren't getting anywhere with 5
it.
What efforts did you make to voice your concerns?
Were 6
there channels open to you that you could have used to raise 7
the concerns that you eventually raised later with the NRC 8
and the media?
9 A
At that point I guess there were channels other 10 than my shift supervisor and foreman.
But I guess I put too 11 much faith in those guys, that I just aired my concerns to 12 them and felt that they would take those to the higher 13 powers.
It was like the chain of command in the political
/"
14 tier, so.to speak.
()3 15 Q
We've covered some of this, but could you 16 summarize, in the context of ventilating and expressing your 17 concerns, the kinds of concerns that you raised with Mr. Hoyt 18 l
or Mr. Smith?
19 A
The only main point that I can recall would have 20 been, and I think I addressed it earlier with the transitory 21 state of operation of the plant.
It wasn't what.I would 22 consider steady state.
There were some operating problems 23 that we were experiencing at the time, which I felt were 24 l
causing difficulty in running the test.
I 25 If I had any concerns that I can recall now, it (2) i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
28218.0 2255 BRT 1
would have been:
Why weren't some of these other operating O)
(_
2 problems being taken care of?
3 i
BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
4 Q
I would like to ask a little to that.
In your 5
mind, if the plant were maintained " steady state" for an hour 6
or more, did you feel the leak rate test would provide an 7
accurate estimate of leakage?
8 A
That was my feeling at the time, yes.
9 Q
Thank you.
10 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
11 l
Q In really the same vein, and this bears on i
12 Mr. Smith, the supervisor, let me just quote a section from 13 page 81 of your Rockwell interview.
The question to you is
{}
14 as follows, from Mr..
Rockwell:
15
" Question: You said said that a number of times, or 16 at least once, you went to somebody and said:
Hey, we've got 17 a problem.
Look at these numbers.
Do you think you did it 18 more than once?
19
" Answer:
Sure.
20
" Question: How many times?
21
" Answer:
I don't know.
It was just an ongoing 22 concern with me.
That is all.
23
" Question: Can you give me any estimate of how many 1
24 times you would have expressed this concern to someone?
25
" Answer:
Five, six.
CE)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646 l
28218.0 2256 BRT l
1 1
" Question: When you expressed it, who would you 2
express it to?
3
" Answer:
It was usually Bernie Smith.
4
" Question: And the question is, and Bernie's 5
response was --
6
" Answer:
Well, he would just say, well, we are 7
working on it.
We are working on it.
8
" Question: Did he ever indicate to you how they 9
were working on it?
10
" Answer:
No.
Not really.
Bernie was pretty easy 11 to work with.
I can't remember any of his answers because 12 they just kind of called you down.
Then you went off because 13 he said to you in some way, whether it was garbage or not I
(';
don ' t know,_but_he_ never_said_any. thing to me _that "this is 14 15 what they are doing."
16 Continuing the same answer, "Well, he might have 17 said at the point they changed the computer 'Well, so we are 18 getting a new computer program, that is fine, that is great.'
19 Then, when the same thing'happens after the new computer 20 program, then you ask him again, and of course the problem 1
21 l
with the safety valves, I believe that the leaking safety 22 valves, someone had something to do with the results of the 23 leak test."
24 i
That's a long quotation but it seems to me that I
25 you went repeatedly to Bernie Smith voicing concerns about (E)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646 J
2d?1A.0 2257 BRT 1
leak rate tests and you were put off with sort of vague 2
reassuring nonsubstantive responses.
3 i
Is that a fair characterization of that quote?
4 And is that how you recall it?
5 A
That's how I recall it, yes.
6 Q
Let me shift over, now, from your statements to 7
two of the prefiled statements, one by Mr. Bernard G.
Smith 8
and another by Mr. Raymond Booher.
We could do this in two-9 ways.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
Do counsel have a feeling on it,.to 11 point out portions we want Mr. Hartman to react to?
Or I 12 could simply read them out loud.
Is there any --
13 Mr. Hartman, if I read a paragraph to you, do you think you 14 could--take -that in well..enough._to._ comment.on it._or.would, you 15 prefer to read it?
16 THE WITNESS:
If you read it that would be fine.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
Try it that way, then if you say 18 you want to read it you can read it.
I'm looking at prefiled 19 statement of Mr. Bernard Smith.
Again, this is not yet in 20 evidence, but it's not practical to keep calling people back 21 l
and forth, so what we have to do here is go with what we've l
got.
If, for some reason later on we have to hear from you 22 23 or Mr. Smith again, we can do that.
But it seems to us 24 expedient and not unfair to go ahead and get your comments on 25 his prefiled testimony.
I C:)
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
28218.0 l
2258 BRT 1
BY JUDGE KELLEY:
2 Q
Reading from page 2, the third full paragraph:
3
" Generally, I did not become involved in leak rate 4
testing.
The operators reported to me only if they could not 5
obtain a leak rate during the shift.
I cannot recall ever 6
having run a leak rate test at either unit.
I have been 7
shown that I approved only two tests at Unit 2.
Usually, of 8
course, leak rate tests were reviewed and approved by the 9
shift foremen."
10 Does that seem to you, in retrospect,_to be a fair 11 description of that part of Mr.-Smith's involvement in leak 12 rate tests?
13 A
Yes.
14
-Q The first f.n1L paragraph.An_page 4. reads _as 15 follows:
16 "If my shift obtained consistently high leak 17 rates, we dispatched auxiliary operators to search for 18 leaks.
If the leaks were discovered they would be repaired 19 or measured.
I always tried to fix leakage or to see that it 20 was contained cafely inside the plant.
If leakage were 21 identified and measured, it-would be added to the new leak 22 rate.
The old one showing results higher than 1 gpm would be j
23 discarded.
I am sure that if I could not have corrected the 24 leakage problem, I would have entered the action statement."
i 25 Do you have any comment on that?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
28218.0 2259 BRT 1
A I guess it depends on what time frame he was
(~r
(_)
2 talking about.
I think at one point we were running leak 3
rate tests and we'd have the auxiliary operators go down and l
4 actually make checks and report back.
As I recollect, it 5
just became a problem with the computer, that we have gone 6
out and searched so many times for leaks, physically, and the 7
results of those checks yielded nothing, that they stopped 8
doing it.
9 Q
It is a fact, is it not, that you never -- not you 10 personally -- but to your knowledge, TMI-2 never did go into 11 the action statement, the procedures leading towards 12 shutdown, as a result of a leak rate test?
.13 A
Not that I can recall.
14 Q
That's consistent with other teltimony that we 15 have heard.
16 This seems to suggest that Mr. Smith is saying 17 that -- according to him, "I am sure that if I could not have 18 corrected the leakage problem I would have entered the action 19 statement."
20 I thought that in the course of your work there,.
21 you had many leak rate tests showing leakage in excess of 1 i
22 gallon.
I thought you further said that you regarded the 23 test as essentially useless and it didn't really show 24 leakage.
It was a numbers game.
Is that fair?
25 A
Yes.
n v
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8043 % %46
_ _ - - - ~ _
28218.0 l
2260 l
BR.
j 1
Q This seems to imply that the test, in Mr. Smith's
(~)s 2
view, was a valid indication of leakage and whenever he got a q_
3 high number he went out and looked for leaks.
And if he i
4 I
couldn't identify enough leakage he would have shut the plant 5
down and gone into the action statement.
6 Is that consistent with your experience?
7 A
I'm -- I really -- I don't remember.
In the 8
months, really, just three months prior to the accident I 9
don't think that that would app]y.
Perhaps in the time 10 frame, maybe six months, it would have applied.
I 11 Q
In those few months before the accident, is that 12 the period of time when you would have regarded the test 13 results as more erratic and unreliable, generally speaking?
14 A
Yes.
15 Q
Do you think, during that period of time, that you 16 or-anybody else was taking that test seriously?
17 A
No.
18 Q
This last paragraph I want to ask you about is 19 kind of long.
I think I'll bring it around and just let you 20 l
read it.
I would like to read it into the record, too, but i
l you can just read it in text and that way it might be j
21 i
22 j
helpful.
I 23
{
Perhaps the reporter at this stage can simply type 24 in the paragraph I'm referring to, the center full paragraph l
25 l
on page 7.
oo C
ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
28218.0 2261 BRT i
1 MR. MC BRIDE:
Of what document, please, sir?
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Of the prefiled of Mr. Smith.
3 MR. MAUPIN:
did you say the first full paragraph 4
on page 7?
I 5
JUDGE KELLEY:
I'll have to see it again.
6 (The document follows:)
7 8
9 9
l 10 11 12 j
13
- O 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 j
22 i
23 24 25 O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 % 46
I 28218.0 i
I 2262
{
BRT 1
"Although Harold Hartman was on my shift, I was 1
()
2 totally unaware that he was falsifying leak rate tests.
I 3
still have difficulty believing that he would do such a 1
l 4
thing, because I considered him a competent operator.
He 5
constantly brought concerns to me and I would try to correct 6
them depending upon the circumstances.
I cannot remember any 7
safety concern that he brought to me that I did not take some 8
action on.
I am not claiming that he was easy to work with, 9
however.
Even though he had the ability to complete his 10 assignments well, his over-reaction to problems detrimentally i
11 affected his performance.
I often had to speak to him about 12 his inability to handle pressure and I know that at least one 13 other shift supervisor became exasperated with him.
I will 14-always regret that I did not realize the effect that the 15 every day pressures of operation would have on someone'such 16 as Mr. Hartman.
I wish Mr. Hartman could have understood
{
}
17 that it was my responsibility, not his, if he could not I
18 obtain a satisfactory leak rate test."
19 20 21 22 23 24 I
I 25 l
(2)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 m
28218.0 2263 BRT 1
BY JUDGE KELLEY:
()
2 j
Q Mr. Hartman, if you have had a chance to read that 3
over, we'll just walk through it line,by line.
If you have 4
no comment, fine.
Then if you want to make any comment, go 5
right ahead.
6 The first sentence?
7 A
No.
No problem.
8 MR. MC BRIDE:
I'm sorry, what was the witness' 9
response?
10 THE WIT'IESS:
No problem.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
No problem.
No comment.
12 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
13 Q
Let me ask, do you have any comment overall on the 14 paragraph?
15 A
I could understand how Bernie could feel that 16 way.
That's just generally -- as a general statement about 17 what he said, I can understand how he would feel that way.
l 18 To me it would be characteristic of him.
19 Q
You don't have any specific -- it is not terribly 20 factual, it's a rather " general impression" type paragraph.
21 You don't have any specific quarrel with any of the -- either 22 factual statements or the assumptions or implications of the 23 paragraph?
24 A
I 25 Q
I'm not inviting them.
I'm just wondering whether O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
I f
28218.0 2264 BRT 1
you did.
()
2 A
He says that "I cannot remember any safety concern 3
that he brought to me that I didn't take some action on."
l 4
And I know I brought quite a few to him.
I guess I became 5
exasperated, the fact that I never saw anything further on 6
them.
But there was a few little things that you get 7
feedback on, but some of the big -- bigger items, it just 8
seemed like he would say:
Yes, they are working on it.
You 9
know.
That sort of comment.
10 Q
Is this, this reference you make now, would that 11 include other things other than leak rate matters?
12 A
Yes.
I 13 Q
Was it primarily leak rate or was the leak rate 14 just one among many?
l
~J l
15 A
I think the leak rate was probably one among many.
16 Q
Okay.
Those are the only portions of Mr. Smith's 17 statement I wanted you to specifically focus on.
The other 18 portion I wanted to read to you is from the statement of 19 Mr. Ecoher.
I'm looking at page 5 of his testimony.
It's a 20 fairly short segment.
I'll just read it:
21 l
"I do not know why Harold Hartman stated I added 22 water to falsify leak rate tests.
According to the NRC l
23 investigators, he believed that I was not a good operator.
24 Perhaps that is why he feels that I was involved in the 25 conduct similar to his.
All I can ask of the Presiding Board l
O 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
'm n
~
f
)
28218.0 I
2265 BRT j
1 is that it fairly scrutinize the evidence compiled against me
(~)x 2
d and conclude that I did not participate in leak rate
(
i 3
l falsification."
4 Any comment or reaction to that statement?
5 A
I think I testified before that I saw him do it.
6 In fact I think I remember seeing, in one of the testimonies I
7 that I gave, where they actually showed me a test where I was 8
signed off as the control room operator and then they showed S
me a log entry which corresponded to the same time frame that 10 the test was run, and that Ray Booher actually added water to 11 the makeup.
And he logged it in the control room log but 12 never said anything to me about the fact that he added it, 13 because there is a section on the test where you can subtract 14 the additions that you do make.
15 Q
All right.
Okay.
16 Judge Carpenter has some additional questions.
17 Judge Bright may have a few.
18 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
19 Q
Just a few questions.
What does the term " steady 20 state" mean that's used in the specification of procedure 1
21 l
that the tes t be carried out during steady state?
What did 22 that mean to you during the time you were carrying out these 23 tests?
l 24 A
At the time it meant that there would be no 25 operations in the plant that would affect the results of the (q
__/
\\
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646 m - - m - - _
m.
~
28218.0 2266 BRT 1
leak rate test and that, also, that reactor power would be
()
2 held within a certain limit of change.
I don't recall what 3
that change was.
But generally, when we ran the test we 4
would try and keep reactor power at the same setting as it 5
was when we started the test.
6 Q
I believe you testified in your conversation with 7
Judge Kelley that the plant for an extended period of time 8
was experiencing oscillations.
Can you give me a feel for 9
the time period of those oscillations?
Did it go up and down 10 or --
11 A
The oscillations I was referring to was actually 12 during " steady state," operation.
13 The oscillations were due, as I can recall, tc 14 feedwater fluctuations, variations in the feed flow between O
15 the two loops.
They would oscillate back and forth, which 16 would cause primary temperature indications to oscillate up 17 and down.
It was probably, maybe on a frequency of once 18 every two minutes or so, where you would have a swing of, 19 say, T hot, would start at zero and make a complete cycle in 20 about a minute or so, as I can recall.
But that was without 21 corresponding change in the reactor power setting.
22 Q
When you finished the test and had to evaluate 23 whether the steady state requirement had been -- had existed, 24 did you check the strip chart recorder for the test period to l
25 see what it told you about whether or not steady state had (2)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6646
28218.0 2267 BRT 1
been maintained?
()
2 A
Generally we didn't.
The operator who was 3
responsible for entering the program into the computer and 4
requesting that the computer do it would inform the panel 5
operator that a leak rate had started and, generally, it was 6
up to the operator to maintain that steady state.
7 Generally we conferred with each other.
I'd say:
8 Hey, Ray, anything going on that I can't run a leak rate?
9 No problem, go ahead and run it.
10 And then we would go ahead and do it.
11 Q
But you wouldn't use the strip chart record of 12 what had gone on for the hour just to confirm that the 13 situation really was steady state?
fs 14 A
No.
(-)
15 Q
You assumed --
16 A
We assumed that it was.
A lot of times when I 17 would run a test and get the results back, we'd look at some 18 thinge and see if we could figure out what-was -- what may 19 have caused the test to not come out.
But it was not --
20 there was no set procedure that we would go through, to make 21 any kind of verification that steady state operation.had 22 existed.
~
1 23 Q
Turning to a different line, what is your 24 understanding of the portion of the surveillance program that 25 talks about evaluating a surveillance test and classifying it O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
28218.0 2268 BRT 1
as requiring either a notation of an exception or a
()
2 deficiency?
Can you tell me what you knew about that part of 3
the program at the time you were an operator?
4 l
A That's really digging deep.
I can't recall 5
specifics about it.
6 Q
You ran many different surveillance tests, I 7
assume?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
Did you, occasionally file an exception or a 10 deficiency?
11 A
Occasionally.
12 Q
It was not something that you were reluctant to 13 do?
14 A
No.
15 Q
Why, for these leak rate tests, which I think --
16 negative numbers, et cetera -- some of the questions in your 17 mind, wasn't there ever an exception or defi^
filed?
18 A
Not that I can recall; not on a leak rate.
19 Q
Can you tell me why you didn't feel it was 20 justified?
i 21 A
I think it was just-the general conception.of the 22 test throughout the control room operators.
I don't think 23 anybody else had much faith in them either anc tnat --
24 Q
Well, you have something that's deficient -- how 25 could it be more deficient than you just described it.
There CE)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 80433MM6
28218.0 2269 BRT 1
l was general lack of confidence.
There was a consensus that
()
2 there was a deficiency.
And yet, from what little I know I
l 3
now, apparently it was never put in writing.
No test was 4
turned in that was marked " deficient."
5 Is that your impression?
6 A
That's my impression.
7 Q
How do you resolve that against the requirement of 8
the license, the operator's license, to abide by the t
9 procedures and identify -- an identified deficiency which you 10 and the other operators have failed to identify in writing?
11 Can you rationalize it?
12 A
If I had to come to some scrt of conclusion, or 13 rationalize it, the Unit 1 leak rate program was very, very 14 similar.
In fact I guess it was the same, other than certain 15 formulas that would measure tank levels and things like 16 that.
But it was basically the same program as Unit 1, and l
i 17 l
Unit l's worked fine.
18 i
BY JUDGE KELLEY:
l 19 l
Q Your training in this regard was on-the-job 20 training and control room training.
21 A
Yes.
l 22 y
Q Do you recall whether or not anyone ever told you 23 one way or the other about filing an exception or deficiency 24 j
report on a bad leak rate test?
25 A
I can't recall.
As far as I can recall, nobody 1
l l ()
1 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6(A6
28218.0 2270 BRT 1
ever instructed me that I could.
()
2 Q
If you as a trainee were watching other people do 3
things like leak rate tests and nobody else did it -- you 4
would follow the example that's set in the room, I assume.
I 5
i A
That's correct.
6 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
7 Q
You never felt that you would like to file an 8
exception or a deficiency or classify the test as falling in 9
the exception and deficiency program?
10 A
I really don't remember.
It was just an overall 11 concern about the test and its validity.
12 I guess maybe I just, at that point, felt that if 13 I did want to do something like that, that it would get 1*
struck down at the shift foreman level.
O 15 Q
Did you ever have any discussion with the shift 16 foreman about this?
17 A
Not that I remember.
I couldn't remember l
specifics, but I'm sure that I discussed it with him.
Not 18 19 necessarily the exceptions and deficiency part, no.
20 Q
So you had that feeling, but I don't have any-21 basis, in terms of conversation, where he told you that that 22 would be his response?
23 A
That's correct.
24 Q
Turning to another area, I got the impression both 25 you and a number of the other operators thought that the O
C ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 u N :.
c.-
x m -
c e
28218.0 2271 BRT 1
results of the leak rate test as provided by the computer
()
2 were questionable.
Did you ever carry out a manual 3
calculation to compare it with what the computer was telling 4
l you?
5 A
I can recall doing a manual calculation, or 6
several.
But I don't remember any specific differences or 7
comparisons that I could make between one and the other.
8 Q
To what purpose did you carry out the manual 9
calculation?
I l
\\
10 A
I really don't remember.
11 Q
Do you remember doing one for the purpose of l
i 12 evaluating what your manual calculation showed vis-a-vis what
{
13 the computer showed?
14 A
I don't remember.
15 Q
I can't help but be surprised at you reporting to 16 your superiors there was a problem, the easiest way to 17 document -- retrospect, hindsight -- Monday morning 18 quarterbacking is what we are doing here, you see.
It just 19 didn't occur to you that that was-a way to try to get at it?
20 Perhaps you didn't feel your job responsibilities went that 21 far?
22 A
That would be a valid statement.
I guess my 23 responsibility, as I felt that it was, was to run the leak 24 rates and follow the direction of the foreman, in such a 25 case.
O l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage M3M
28218.0 2272 BRT 1
Q And finally, in response to Judge Kelley's
()
2 question, you said the leak rate problem was one among many.
1 3
l Would you characterize.the situation, particularly January of 4
'79 through March of
'79, as a time period when the foreman 5
and the supervisors remained faced with many, many problems 6
on a daily basis?
7 A
Yes.
8 Q
To the point of having to work overtime, et 9
cetera, to keep up with it?
10 A
I really couldn't say how much overtime they 11 worked.
I think probably January through March the control 12 room operators had some but it wasn't -- wasn't all that 13 much, that I can recall.
(~
14 Q
Well, the thrust there I was trying to get at is, q
15 do you feel that the leak rate problem perhaps didn't det the 16 attention that it might have gotten if there had been more 17 time devoted to it?
It just didn't get to the top of the 18 pile, in essence?
19 A
I guess one could come to that conclusion.
I -- I 20 might feel that way, too.
21 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you.
l 22 JUDGE BRIGHT:
I just have a couple of thinge 23 here, Mr. Hartman.
24 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
25 Q
Do you remember the LER that so much dust was ov ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Natewide Coverage 804336-WA6
28218.0 2273 BRT 1
raised about?
The licensee event report dated in October of 2
1978?
3 A
I believe that concerned the leak rate program, if 1
4 i
I recall.
5 Q
Yes.
I guess my question is:
Were you on shift 6
work at that particular time?
7 A
Yes.
8 Q
It is my understanding that you -- that the plant 9
-- that they got a good leak rate test on October 16th.
10 Then, on October 18th the NRC inspector came through and they 11 hadn't been able to get a good leak rate test since that 12 time.
And that's how he ran into this problem.
Then they 13 fixed it on October 19th, I guess it was, or 18th.
The LER 14 is a little vague about dates.
~
15 Do you have any idea which shift you were working 16 at that time?
17 A
No, I sure don't.
18 Q
I mean, if you could connect it with the LER?
19 What I'm trying to find out is who was there that morning of 20 the 18th?
21 A
I don't really recall.
I don't believe that I was 22 on shift or I would have a better recollection of that, that 23 whole incident.
But it is foggy, and I know that the LER 24 l
exists, but -- and I remember reading it after it had been 25 published, but I'm sure that if I had been on shift at that O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
28218.0 2274 BRT 1
time I would have remembered it a little more clearly.
()
2 l
Q Where might that be recorded?
Surely there was 3
some list of shifts and whin they came on?
You did rotate 4
shifts, didn't you?
5 A
Yes.
6 Q
So somebody must have kept a record of it?
7 They've got to pay you --
8 A
Who was on shift at that time?
9 Q
Yes.
10 A
Generally the control room operator has a log.
I 11 I
guess that's the legal and binding record of the station.
12 And he has to sign it when he comes on shift and when he goes 13 off shift.
So it would be in there on that morning of the 14 16th, when the inspector came through.
If they knew what 15 time he came through they could look in the log and see who 16 was control room operator at that time.
17 Q
Did Met Ed, or GPU, or who ever it was at that 18 time, did they have a personnel organization out there?
19 A
I believe they did, yes.
20 Q
Did they keep records on whether you were there or 21 whether you weren't there?
You know, like T&A here with the 22 government.
Time and attendance.
23 A
We filled out a daily time report.
24 Q
It actually showed time periods that you dere at 25 the reactor?
(1) 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 1100-336-6646 r--
.u_
28218.0 2275 BRT l
A I don't remember, but I don't think there was 1
()
2 individual times.
There was a date but not times.
3 Q
All you had to do was sign in and say I was here 4
on such and such a date?
5 A
Yes.
6 Q
About this LER, evidently all of the shift 7
supervisors, shift foremen, CROs, trainees, had to read about 8
this LER as something that came down from PORC, and check off 9
as to whether they had read it --
10 A
Yes.
11 Q
-- and don't do it again.
Something like that.
12 A
Yes.
13 Q
Can you remember that?
14 A
I remember having to read LERs and initialing the 3
J 15 book that we did read it.
I don't remember a lot of 16 specifics about that particular LER.
17 Q
The checklist was completed, supposedly, on the 18 10th of November.
19 l
A Yes.
20 Q
So it was very close to the actual LER that went 21 j
out.
22 A
Yes.
)
23 Q
But you have no recollection of the actual --
24 A
No, I don't.
25 Q
Okay.
Let's talk about something else.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336- % 46
28218.0 2276 BRT 1
You brought up something that I hadn't thought
()
2 about before.
I hope I didn't miss it in all the testimony i
3 that we got from the earlier witnesses.
4 I
This hyperactive pressurizer situation, you 5
discussed this at several places, but the Faegre & Benson 6
interview of April 27 and 29th, 1980 of Harold Hartman, do 7
you recall that?
8 A
Which page would that be?
9 Q
I'm on page 25 and 26.
10 Do you recall that subject about the leaky valves 11 and the pressurizer activity, that whole bit?
12 A
I can recall a little bit about that.
13 Q
I mean you obviously had given the matter some
~14 thought?
O 15 A
Yes.
16 Q
And seemed to have quite a good idea of how the 17 reactor was reacting to all this.
18 A
Yes.
19 Q
In that you made a statement that the pressurizer 20 is actually acting like a distilling plant.
21 A
Yes.
22 Q
By which I presume you meant it was removing boron 23 from the system?
24 A
Yes, it was.
It was acting as a chemical 25 concentrator, where the boron concentration would gradually O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
_________---________-__-____-___-___-________-__--____.___-_-___--________-___336-6M6. - - _ _ _
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800
28218.0 2277 BRT 1
increase in the pressurizer, taking water from the reactor
()
2 coolant system, or boron, I should say boron from the reactor l
3 coolant system into the pressurizer as a result of the 4
i steaming process from the leeky valves.
So that the 5
distilled water would come out of the code safeties and go 6
into the reactor coolant train tank and it would concentrate 7
in the pressurizer so that, over a period of time, the 8
reactor control rods would need to be inserted until such 9
l time when we would go into an operation we called "recircing l
10 the pressurizer," which would more or less place a continuous
)
l l
11 flow of water into there from the reactor coolant system to 12 equalize the boron concentration between the reactor coolant 13 system and the pressurizer, at which time the rods would then 14 withdraw.
15 Q
You would do that by spraying the pressurizer?
16 A
Yes.
Yes.
17 Q
Okay.
Now, ordinarily when you spray in the 18 pressurizer, is it not to reduce the pressure in the system?
19 A
That's correct.
And there was -- there were 20 auxiliary, or backup sets of heaters that would provide the 21 additional heat as a result of.the loss of heat from the 22 spray.
It would provide for that additional heat.
23 Q
What I'm trying to get at is the effect on the 24 reactor of this operation.
There's nothing wrong with the 4
25 operation.
Just what happens to the reactor?
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nanonwide Coverage 800 33MM6
-- - - _. ~= ; ;. :.
n c - --
28218.0 2278 BRT 1
You state that the control rods are automatically
()
2 controlled.
3 A
That's correct.
4 Q
So that they would insert the rods automatically 5
as the pressurizer bled boron out of the system, and then it 6
would bring them back out again automatically, as boron was 7
injected and I presume a feed and bleed -- you are already 8
bleeding -- so it would be a boron -- borated water feed?
9 A
That's correct.
It would be essentially the same 10 thing as increasing the boron concentration in the reactor.
11 Okay.
Now, did you -- you, evidently, looked at 12 it quite a while.
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
You were interested about all the amount of water A)
L 15 that you were pumping out of the system and that sort of 16 thing.
While you were looking at the amount of water, did 17 you look at possible temperature swings, small ones?
We 18 found out that you-don't have to have much of a change to get 19 a big change in the actual amount of water that you have to l
20 use to makeup.
21 A
Yes.
22 Q
In the temperature, the pressure, perhaps even the 23 flux pattern, I don't know; associated with this, the rods 24 are automatic but is there lag built in there?
It's hard to 25 think of an instantaneous reacting system.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
28218.0 2279 BRT 1
A No.
It's slow.
It is over a period of time,
()
2 which I can't recall how long it took us to equalize the 3
boron concentration.
I don't remember.
But it was gradual.
l 4
My general feeling right now would be a couple of 5
hours, maybe, before that proscess would be complete.
6 Q
I wondered if this would cause some kind of 7
oscillation in the apparent amount of water that was in the 8
makeup.
See, we have a lot of trouble, looking at those 9
jiggles all over the place, and I wondered if this might be a 10 contributing factor to that, when you are trying to do a leak 11 rate test?
I Just quickly I can't see how that would influence 12 A
I 13 the makeup level except that the level would gradually 14 decrease.
If you looked at the whole -- for several hours, 15 look at the general trend of the slope, it would be 16 downward.
But as far as the minute oscillations, I don't 17 know where that would come from at this point.
18 Q
So you don't think this would really have all that 19 much effect on trying to do a leak rate test?
20 A
That's my feeling, yes.
21 Maybe -- now, if I think back, I looked at the l
22 code safety problem with the leakage, and having to recirc 23 the pressurizer and view those sorts of operations as -- not 24 necessarily nonsteady state, but they weren't ideal.
Okay?
]
25 It was a problem I saw that could have been corrected and it O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
u 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6M6
l 28218.0 2280 BRT j
l j
was something that, during the normal operation of the plant 1
()
2 we had to be constantly aware of because we had certain roa 3
pads that we had to keep rods withdrawn because of the flux 4
patterns and things like that.
And it was just something 5
else among other things that created some operating problems 6
for us.
7 JUDGE BRIGHT:
I was just trying to find as many 8
as I can.
I guess that's all.
Thank you.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
10-minute break.
10 (Reces s. )
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
We are back on the record.
We have 12 conclud'ed the Board's initial questions, at least, and we'll 13 turn now -- we have a set of questions for counsel from the 14 employees, the other employees, followed, as I indicated C) 15 before, by a set of questions by Mrs. Aamodt.
16 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, before we begin, 17 would you ask the witness to speak more into the microphone?
18 We are having some difficulty hearing him.
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
20 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
21 Q
Question 1:
Is it a fact that at TMI-2 you 22 typically performed leak rate tests on the mid-shift; that 23 is, from 11:00 p.m.
to 7:00 a.m.?
l 24 A
That's typical, yes.
25 Q
2:
Is it a fact that you or other TMI-2 operators (1)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3 0 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33 & % 46
28218.0 BRT 1
working with you at times performed more than one such leak
()
2 rate test per shift?
I think you said that's true; right?
3 A
That's correct.
4 Q
Is it a fact that the values depicted for 5
unidentified leakage on those tests were erratic?
6 A
I don't recall.
7 Q
In the sense of, I think, of numbers seemingly 8
bouncing up and down.
9 A
Yes.
10 Q
Is it a fact that the values for unidentified 11 leakage that were depicted on leak rate tests that you 12 performed were sometimes negative, sometimes between 0 to 1 13 gallon per minute and sometimes greater than l' gallon per 14 minute?*
15 A
That's correct.
~
16 Q
Is it a fact that when you observed leak rate test 17 results for unidentified leakage that were negative, then, 1
18 say, 2.35 gpm, and then, say,
.5 gpm, you did not believe 19 that reactor coolant system leakage was fluctuating by those 20 wide margins?
21 l
A That's correct.
22 Q
Is it a fact that you threw away leak rate tests 23 depicting unidentified leakage of greater than 1 gpm?
24 A
That's correct.
25 Q
Is it a fact that, if you ran more than one leak i
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage M336-6M6
1 28218.0 l
2282 BRT 1
1 rate test, it was because you believed that the previous test
()
2 had produced an invalid result for unidentified leakage over i
3 1 gpm?
I 4
A That's correct.
5 Q
Is it a fact, number 8 -- just pick up the nt mbers 6
again, this is number 8:
Is it a fact that you attributed 7
the erratic results of leak rate tests to be due to plant 8
oscillations or computer problems or both?
9 A
Both.
10 Q
Number 9:
Is it a fact that you observed TMI 11 personnel working on the computer to correct the leak rate 12 test?
13 A
That's correct.
14 Q
Is it a fact that the only TMI-2 operator that you 15 claim to have personal knowledge of adding water during a i
16 leak rate test to affect the leak rate test results is Ray i
17 Bocher?
18 A
That's correct.
19 Q
11:
Is it a fact that, with respect to this leak I
rate test during which you claim Mr. Booher added water, you 20 21 do not recall whether he accounted for those water additions 22 in the leak rate test calculation by entering the amount of 23 water added into the computer?
24 A
That's correct.
25 Q
12:
Was it your opinion that, if Mr. Booher did i
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Natx>nwide Covense M3m s
-c.---
28218.0 2283
?
BRT 1
account for those water additions in the leak rate test, by
()
2 doing so, Mr. Booher had complied with the leak rate 3
procedure insofar as water addition was concerned?
4 A
Could you repeat that?
I 5
I Q
Read it again.
Was it your opinion that, if 6
Mr. Booher did account for those water additions in the leak 7
rate test, by doing so Mr. Bocher had complied with the leak 8
rate procedure insofar as water addition was concerned?
9 A
Maybe a point of clarification.
Where -- was he 10 accounting for the water addition?
Where are we making that.
11 assumption?
12 Q
The question just redds, "did account for those 13 water additions in the leak rate test."
14 Do you want to clarify it, counsel?,
15 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes, Judge Kelley.
The previous 16 question asked, and the witness agreed, that he did not 17 recall whether he accounted for those water additions in the 18 leak rate test calculation by entering the amount of water 19 added into the computer.
The supposition would be that he 20 entered the amount of water into the computer in.the. tail end 21 of the performance of the test.
22 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
23 Q
So that's the manner in which it is intended.
24 Do you want me to reread the whole thing?
25 A
Okay.
Repeat it.
)
()
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4 46
)
28218.0 1
2284 BRT 1
Q Was it your opinion that if Mr. Booher did account l
D)
(,
2 for those water additions in the leak rate test by entering 3
i the amount in the computer, by doing so Mr. Booher had 4
complied with the leak rate procedure in so far as water 5
addition was concerned?
6 A
That's correct.
7 Q
I would like to ask a question on top of that 8
question, though.
Going back to your earlier testimony, I 9
thought you spoke of a discussion with Bocher at the time, in 10 which he, in effect, explained to you that the reason he was 11 adding in these amounts of water was to affect the leak rate 12 test result?
13 A
That's correct.
5 14 Q
Would you still feel that if he included the g-V 15 amounts in the computer calculation, that -- that what he had 16 done was perfectly appropriate?
17 A
I would make that assumption; yes.
18 MR. MC BRIDE:
May I have that reread, please, the 19 answer?
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
"I would make.that assumption, yes" 21 j
I believe is the answer.
22 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
23 Q
13:
Was it your belief, while you were a TMI-2 24 operator, that the leak rate test procedure did not require 25 that hydrogen additions to the makeup be logged?
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase im3)MM6
i 28218.0 2285 ERT 1
A I was under the impression that they had to be
((j m
2 logged.
3 Q
They did have to be logged?
4 A
Yes.
5 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, do you wish a 6
follow-up now or at the conclusion on that?
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let's do them later.
8 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
9 Q.
14:
Is it a fact that during much of the three or 10 four months preceding the TMI-2 accident, it was impossible 11 to add hydrogen to the reactor coolant system for the Unit 2 1
12
-- from the Unit 2 control room?
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
I think you talked earlier about a time when you 15 had to phone an auxiliary operator to add hydrogen; was that-16 in that time period?
17 A
Yes.
18 Q
During the time that hydrogen had to be added to 19 the reactor coolant system from outside the TMI-2 control 20 room, is it a fact that the hydrogen would have had to be 21 added by an auxiliary operator in the auxiliary building?
22 A
Yes.
23 Q
That's the same point.
24 16:
Is it a fact that you do not recall seeing 25 any TMI-2 operator add hydrogen to the reactor coolant system CE)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
E-347 3700 Nanonwkie Coverage.
fl00 33M6m
. - ~ -
28218.0 2286 BRT 1
to affect a leak rate test result?
()
2 A
That's correct.
1 3
Q 17:
Was it your opinion, while you were a TMI-2 4
control room operator, that the addition of hydrogen to the 5
makeup during a leak rate test did not violate the leak rate 6
test procedure?
7 A
Yes.
8 Q
18:
Is it your best recollection that you do not 9
know whether others on your shift knew that hydrogen was 10 being added to affect a leak rate test result?
11 A
That's correct.
12 Q
19 --
13 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, I believe question 1,9 14 has been answered.
15 JUDGE KELLEY:
Right.
16 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
17 Q
20:
Is it a fact that, at times, you had a 18 different shift supervisor from Mr. Smith?
I think you 19 indicated --
20 A
Yes.
21 j
Q
-- Smith would go on vacation, for example.
22 A
Yes.
t 23 Q
Is it a fact that you were extremely anxious when 24 l
you worked at TMI?
I 25 l
A Yes.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 447-3700 Nationwide Coverage m 3FA646
28218.0 2287 BRT 1
Q Will you elaborate on that a little bit?
()
2 A
When I left the Island I had gone to my family 3
doctor and he diagnosed labile hypertension, which is 4
stress.
And at times I'd have an upset stomach, the nervous 5
twitches in the eyes, that sort of thing, butterflies in the 6
stomach.
And I attributed it to the fact that the knowledge 7
that I had of the plant, the faith that I had in the control 8
systems and the systems themselves, I didn't feel as though 9
they would react the way I knew they should react if I would 10 take a corrective action.
So, therefore, I was a little bit 11 anxious -- a lot anxious about having to go in there and the 12 thought of having to go through a casualty procedure, 13 manually operating the reactor with controls and having i
14 equipmeat either malfunction or not react as expected.
15 Q
The reference to " casualty procedure," I'm not 16 clear on that.
What did you have in nind?
17 A
If we would lose a component or have to take a 18 j
manual control of a particular function of the reactor 19 support systems or the reactor itself, it would -- we would 20 use casualty procedures as a means'of guidance in correcting 21 or recovering from the casualty.
22 Q
The casualty, in this case, is a piece of 23 machinery or component?
l 24 A
That's correct.
25 JUDGE KELLEY:
Counsel, I think 22 has been (1)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 80l>336-6M4
I 28218.0 2288 BRT l
l answered?
1
()
2 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes, Judge Kelley.
We withdraw 3
l question 22.
4 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
5 Q
23:
After the TMI-2 accident, is it a fact that 6
there came a point when you announced you were quitting your 7
employment with Metropolitan Edison Company?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
About what time was that?
10 A
I believe it was the Friday after the accident.
11 Q
Next question:
Is it a fact that after the time 12 when you quit, you asked Metropolitan Edison Company to 13 rehire you?
14 A
Yes.
O.
15 Q
25:
At the time you asked to be rehired, is it a 16 fact that Metropolitan Edison Company asked you to submit to i
l 17 psychological testing?
18 A
Yes.
l 19 l
Q 26:
Is it your understanding that, as a result of 20 that psychological testing, Metropolitan Edison Company chose 21 l
not to offer you a job with access to the control room?
22 A
Yes.
23 j
Q 27:
Is it a fact that you first informed the NRC 24 of your allegations concerning leak rate tests only after you 25 became aware that Metropolitan Edison Company would not offer O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nanorinate Coverage 8043%&A6
28218.0 2299 BRT 1
i to rehire you in a job with access to the control room?
2 A
Yes.
i 3
Q That concludes that list of questions.
If you 4
want to comment any further on the last several, you are free 5
to, or not.
It's up to you.
6 A
That's fine.
7 Q
Next we have a series of questions from 8
Mrs. Aamodt.
Some of these questions -- they are very short 9
-- some of them have been asked and answered.
I think I can 10 cover them quickly.
We'll read them into the record but l
11 needn't spend time on them.
i 12 1:
State your position at TMI Unit 1 in the years 13 you held that position.
We are restricting this to Unit 2 14 and I think you described what you did there; is that 15 correct?
16 A
Yes.
17 Q
We are striking question 2 which is, did you 18 perform leak rate tests at TMI Unit I?
19 l
Word by way of explanation, Mr. Hartman, we are 20 allowing some limited testimony on Unit 1 but we are not 21 going into details on what took place at Unit 1.
Just as a 22 practical matter, we can't do it.
23 Number 3 relates to Unit 1.
It is also 24 disallowed:
When did you begin as an operator at TMI Unit 25 2?
Maybe you can just restate that?
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3*00 Nationwide Cmerase
- A 336 4 4
28218.0 2290 BRT i
1 A
I believe it was September of 1976.
()
2 Q
When were you first aware that leak rate tests 3
were being manipulated at Unit 2?
4 A
At this point I can't recall.
I'm sure that it's 5
in one of the statements.
6 Q
Your statements go into this in rather great 7
detail.
If you wanted to respond, fine.
But -- fine.
8 Number 6:
How did you learn to use hydrogen to 9
manipulate leak rate tests?
10 A
Through another operator.
At this point I can't 11 remember his name.
12 Q
Okay.
Do you recall whether you were literally 13 shown how to do that or someone just spoke of it?
14 A
If I remember right, somebody just spoke about 15 it.
I wasn't "shown."
l i
16 Q
You wouldn't need training if you were told, you 17 knew where the appropriate button was?
18 A
That's right.
19 Q
You didn't really need to be instructed in any 20 details; is that right?
21 A
That's right.
22 Q
Okay.
7:
Did those who taught you indicate that 23 the addition of hydrogen during a test was a violation of 24 test procedure?
25 A
No.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37tJ)
Nationwide Coverage N10 346646
28218.0 2291 BRT 1
Q 8:
When were you first aware that the addition of 7s(,)
2 hydrogen during a leak rate test was a violation of the 3
procedure?
4 A
I don't ever think I remember that it wasn't, but 5
I don't remember that.
6 Q
Was it your understanding from the outset, when 7
you learned of this from whatever the source, if the purpose 8
of it was to manipulate the result, I gather, you felt that 9
that was improper as a procedural matter?
10 A
That's right.
11 MR. MC BRIDE:
I'm sorry, Judge Kelley.
Could we 12 clarify as to what "it" is in that question that he's 13 agreeing to?
What is a violation?
14 JUDGE KELLEY:. Adding--_ hydrogen to. manipulate a 15 test result, I believe.
16 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
17
'BY JUDGE KELLEY:
18 Q
Did you routinely log the addition of hydrogen to 19 the containment -- I don't believe we are talking about the 20 containment, are we?
21 A
I don't think so.
22 Q
It's to the makeup.
23 A
Would be to the makeup.
That's correct.
24 Q
Well, did you routinely log the addition of 25 hydrogen to the makeup?
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
28218.0 2292 BRT 1
A I don't ever recall ever adding it for the
()
2 specific purpose of increasing hydrogen pressure in the 3
tank.
If I would have added the hydrogen, I would have 4
logged it; yes.
5 Q
Well, suppose you were adding hydrogen to 6
manipulate the test; would you have logged the hydrogen?
7 A
No.
8 Q
No.
The next question really speaks to that.
It 9
says:
Did you purposefully avoid the logging of the addition 10 of hydrogen during a leak rate test at Unit 2?
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
Did you ever approach your supervision with your 13 concerns about the manipulation of leak rate tests at Unit 2?
14 A
. N o,.
15 Q
Did you manipulate the test because you believed 16 plant management wanted you to do so?
17 A
No.
18 Q
13:
Why did you continue to manipulate leak rate 19 tests following your knowledge of the licensee event report, 20 in response to the NRC discovery of leak rate falsification 21 in October '78?
22 I think that assumes something that is not in 23 evidence.
I could rephrase the question to say:
While 24 attempting to use hydrogen to manipulate or what other means 25 you may have used, if there were any other such, do you O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 804 336-6646
~-1
28218.0 2293 BRT 1
recall whether that began before that October-November LER (N
(_)
2 time sequence?
3 A
No.
I don't remember.
4 Q
I'm going to disallow 14.
5 Excuse me a moment.
I just want to ponder a 6
couple of these questions.
7 Number 15 reads as follows:
Was it a change in 8
loyalty to the company, following your -- the word " firing" 9
is used.,
I'm not sure that's accurate.
You quit; right?
10 A
Yes.
11 Q
-- after the accident, that moved you to report 12 the matter to the NRC?
13 A
No.
14 Q
Do you feel that the operators are accountable for O
15 the manipulation of leak rate tests at Unit 2?
16-Don't answer that yet.
I think that's a 17 conclusion this Board is supposed to reach and not the 18 witnesses.
I'll disallow that.
I read it for the record.
19 I believe you've already spoken to question 17, 20 which is as follows:
Why was it so difficult to get a good 21 leak rate test at Unit 2?
So we'll pass on.
22 18.
This, similarly has been commented on:
In 23 your opinion did the excessive leak rate report, in Unit 2, I
24 reflect unidentified leakage at that point?
25 MR. MC BRIDE:
I'm sorry, Judge Kelley, I don't O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33HH6
28218.0 2294 BRT 1
understand the question.
I'h 2
JUDGE KELLEY:
I think it means did the test V-3 results that you were getting, were they a true indication of 4
unidentified leakage or were they more like random numbers?
5 THE WITNESS:
I don't think they were an accurate 6
indication of-unidentified leakage.
7 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
8 Q
Right.
19:
Did you or.anyone to your knowledge 9
attempt to determine the cause of tests in excess of 1 gpm?
10 Describe these attempts, if any.
11 You have already described some of your 12 discussions with coworkers and supervisors.
Do you have any 13 knowledge about other attempts, either by yourself or anyone 14 else, to determine the cause of the problem?
[)
'~'
15 A
I think on occasion other shifts would start 16 looking for leaks, to identify them.
And that would be 17 carried on to the next shift.
The off-going shift would 18 transfer to the oncoming shift and they would continue the 19 identification effort.
20 Q
Was that identification effort more pronounced and 21 frequent, say, back in '78 than it was in '79?
22 A
Generally --
23 Q
Well, what I'm getting at, I think if I had been 24 an operator, the more cynical I became about the whole test 25 the less frequently I would look for leaks.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationmde Coverage 80433&A646
28218.0 2295 BRT 1
A As I feel it now, that would be correct.
!q 2
l Q
Number 20, this is the last question from s
3 Mrs. Aamodt:
Why was it increasingly difficult to get a good 4
leak rate report -- I think meaning test result -- at Unit 2 5
during the time prior to the accident?
6 A
In my opinion, at that time, I felt as though the 7
code safety leakage in the reactor coolant drain tank was 8
somehow affecting what the computer was looking at or 9
interpreting.
That's still my contention today.
I believe 10 that that is why it was increasingly more difficult.
11 Q
Is this related to or the same as leakage from the 12 pressurizer?
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
We have a lot of testimony.in the record to the
-~
~
15 effect that it became tougher.to get a " good leak rate" 16 result during that period of time, at least partly for that 17 reason.
18 What we'll do, then, we've gone through the 19 previously submitted questions and we have a follow-up 20 period.
Let's see what that produces.
21 (Discussion off the record.)
22 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
i i
23 Q
We have half a dozen or so follow-up questions.
24 The first follow-up question rests on a quotation from your 25 deposition in the B&W/GPU litigation. Do you have that copy O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
28218.0 2296 BRT 1
with you?
i 2
A Yes.
3 Q
I think you ought to look at it in context.
Then 4
we'll ask you the question.
Turn to page 264.
Actually, go 5
back to 263, toward the bottom, line 18.
Does your page 6
read:
1 7
" Question: Were there instructions posted that 8
indicated when hydrogen should be added?"
Are you with me?
9 A
Yes.
10 Q
Do you want to read the rest of that page, down to 11 line 17 on the next page.
12 A
Okay.
13 Q
The question is phrased as follows:
In your 14 deposition in GPU against Babcock & Wilcox, page 264, were 15 you asked --
16 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, may I interrupt 17 because this is our question.
I wonder, I think in my haste 18 of writing there you probably did a fairer job than I did in 19 trying to write this question out and I think it would be 20 better to phrase the question whether there is anything in 21 the lines and pages that you just referred him to -- whether 22 he gave the answers that are contained in the lines and pages 23 you just referred him to and whether he was truthful giving 24 the answers.
I think perhaps the one answer I pulled out 25 could be read as being out of context unless we give him that O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 43 %-6646
28218.0 2297 BRT 1
whole opportunity.
[)
2 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
3 Q
Okay.
Having just read, and if you want, you can 4
look again at 263, beginning with line 18, "were there 4
5 instructions," and so on, down to line 17 on the next page 6
where you say:
"No, it wasn't concerned with_ hydrogen 7
additions," I gather -- as far as you recall, is that an 8
accurate transcript of what was said by you at the time?
9 A
Yes.
10 Q
Do you still believe that that is -- do you adhere 11 to that answer and those answers at this time?
12 A
Yes.
13 Q
Let me backtrack just a bit, though.
It's a follow-up question on a follow-up question.
The procedure 14 s
d 15 might or might not speak to hydrogen.
Let's just assume that 16 that's the case.
Let's assume that, except for a reference 17 to "not adding chemicals during a leak rate test," and then 18 you can debate whether hydrogen is a chemical or not, it 19 doesn't speak to it.
20 When you say that the procedure doesn't speak to 21 it, does it necessarily follow, in your view, that adding 22 hydrogen for the purpose of manipulating a leak test result 23 is unacceptable practice?
24 A
No.
Although I don't understand why hydrogen 25 addition would affect the results of the test, my conscience O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33H446
_ _ _ _ ~.-
28218.0 l
2298 BRT 1
would tell me that if you would do it to manipulate or to get
()
2 a good result, it's not right.
3 Q
You say you don't understand it.
Is that in the 4
sense that you heard that you could get a different leak rate 5
number by adding hydrogen and you tried it and lo and behold,.
6 it worked.
You didn't know why it worked.
It just worked; 7
is that what you are saying?
8 A
Yes.
That's right.
9 Q
And you are also saying, I gather, that your 10 conscience, if nothing else, even if the procedure didn't 11 write it, would tell you that you shouldn't be doing that?
12 A
Right.
13 Q
And that's because you are producing -- I gather 14 it's because you are producing what you know is a phony O( g 15 number?
16 A
Right.
17 Q
You testified this afternoon that you saw 18 Mr. Bocher jogging water on one occasion and then you asked 19 him about it at the time.
Isn't it a fact that in none of 20 your numerous prior statements did you ever recall having 21 such a conversation?
22 A
I wasn't aware of that; no.
23 Q
Questions from the Staff:
You testified today 24 that you can't think of a good reason to throw away a " bad" 25 leak rate test, other than the test being "out of spec."
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwule Coverage J0433M646
- - - =
28218.0 2299 BRT 1
First, what do you mean by "out of spec"?
()
2 A
Greater than 1 gpm or less than zero.
3 Q
Secondly, under Administrative Procedure 1010, I
4
. which applies to tech spec surveillance programs, shouldn't 5
an " exception and deficiency" have been filed for a test "out 6
of spec"?
7 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley,'I object to that 8
question on the ground that the witness has previously 9
testified that he would have to really dig, I think is the l
10 way he put it, to even recall much about that procedure.
So 1
11 I don't think a. foundation has been laid to permit him to I
12 answer the question.
13 MR. GOLDBERG:
Judge Kelley, it doesn't have to 14 specifically refer to AP-1010.
It can just be phrased in 15 terms of the procedures of which he was aware at the time, 16 would an exception and deficiency -- was an exception and j
17 deficiency required to be filed with respect to a test which 18 was "out of spec"?
)
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, we'll allow it.
I'll make 20 the observation that we talked some about exceptions and 21 deficiencies and Mr. Hartman's and their filing are not --
[
22 but in any case, can you give us a response?
23 THE WITNESS:
I really don't recall.
It is back i
i 24 in a faded corner somewhere.
25 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
i' ()
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3*00 Nationwide Coserage 800 33W
... _.. -.. -, -, ~. - - -. - -, -. - - - -
28218.0 2300 BRT 1
Q Is a test being "out of spec" a good reason to
()
2 throw it away?
3 A
I thought it was.
Every time we would submit one 4
that was out of speck, and we'd give it to the shift foreman 5
and tell him that it was not a good one, he'd say, throw it 6
away.
It was common practice.
7 Q
Approved by the foreman?-
8 A
Yes.
9 Q.
You testified that you were shown a test by the 10 NRC where water was added during the test and logged in the 11 control room log by Mr. Booher, but not included in the 12 calculation.
Was this a batched, as opposed to a jogged 13 water addition; do you recall?
14 A
Yes.
I recall that I testified about that.
What d
%)
15 I was shown -- this was during testimony, I believe it'was in 16 GPU versus B&W; I was shown a leak rate test that I had 17 signed as being valid as a control room operator and it was i
18 approved by the foreman.
I believe it was Dick Waye but I'm 19 not sure.
20 And then I was shown a logbook entry in the 21 control room operator's log that showed a 50-gallon addition 22 of demineralized water to the makeup during the time period 23 when the test would have been run.
But I don't recall having 24 seen the strip chart of the makeup to know whether it was 25 jogged or batch.
I (2) 4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33M446
28218.0 2301 BRT 1
By seeing the log entry, I would assume that it l'
2 was batched.
3 Q
In the same regard, was it your practice to inform 4
the CRO on shift with you that you were running a leak rate 5
test?
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
Next question:
To your knowledge, would a water 8
addition only affect the leak rate test results if the 9
addition were not accounted for by input into the computer?
I 10 A
That's correct.
11' Q
Next.
Would Mr. Booher's explanation to you that 12 he was adding water to influence test results make any sense 13 If he was accounting for that addition by input into the 14 computer?
15 A
No.
I'm detecting a bit of, maybe, some time 16 referencing here if I made a statement and answered the 17 question about whether I felt that he was trying to 18 manipulate the test if he accounted for the water additions 4
19 in the leak rate testing, I would say that he was following 20 procedure.
21 If he was adding water in a batch and recording it 22 in the log without telling the operator who was running the 23 test that the water addition had been made so that he could 24 correct for it on the test, then I would assume that he did 25 it to get a good leak rate.
()
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 1700 Nationwide Coverage 60N366M6
28218.0 2302 BRT 1
Q Let me ask you a related question.
I'm trying on
- 2 my own recollection of testimony two weeks ago, which may not 3
be accurate.
But, were you aware of any defect in the 4
1 instrumentation relating to water additions in the makeup 5
tank, such that you might add 100 gallons and the instruments 6
would say you got 140, something like that?
So that you 7
could -- and then, if you wrote down the 100 in your computer 8
calculation, that was perfectly kosher.
But you would still 9
get the benefit of defective machine, defective indicators?
10 Are you aware of any such defects in. indicators?
11 A
No, I wasn't.
12 Q
Does it seem likely to you that a jogged water 13 addition, done with the intention of manipulating a leak rate 14 test, would be logged by'the operator in.the control room
{},
15 log?
16 MR. MCBRIDE:
I object, your Honor.
That question 17 calls for pure speculation.
18 JUDGE KELLEY:
It's not pure speculation.
He was 19 there at the time, objection overruled.
1 20 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
21 Q
Do you have a reaction to that?
22 A
Could you repeat the question?
23 Q
Does it seem likely to you that a iogged water 24 addition done with the intent of manipulating a leak rate 25 test would be logged by the operator in the control room log?
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 147 Nanonwide Cmerage 8043)M646
_ __,, _ _1700
28218.0 2303 BRT 1
A No.
!}
(_/
2 Q
In your signed sworn statement to the NRC on July 3
26, 1983, you were asked:
4 "Are you aware of operators-jogging water into the 5
makeup to affect the leak?
If so, who, and how often did it 6
occur, and, in your opinion, could these instances be in any 7
way conclusively identified?"
8 Your answer was: "Yes.
Ray Booher, myself 9
again, my recollection tells me that this was done only 10 occasionally and not as a matter of course.
I don't think r.
11 that foremen and supervisors were aware that this was being 12 done.
I don't think the conclusive evidence could be shown 13 to support the " water jogging" effects."
14 Do you believe today that..that statement is 15 correct?
We have been over some of this but, in.any event, 16 do you believe that statement is correct?
17 A
Yes.
18 MS. WAGNER:
Judge Kelley, we have one more.
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
Do you have that reference here?
20 MS. WAGNER:
Yes.
(Handing.)
21 MR. GOLDBERG:
Judge Kelley, there was no verbatim 22 transcript of that interview.
That was a record of the 23 interview.
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
I would simply ask for documentary 25 evidence underlying a question the Staff proposes.
That is (1)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
?)2-347 370)
. Nationwide Coverase
- n 3346646
28218.0 2304 CRT 1
provide..
This is a portion of the NRR report, section 13, is
(~)
2 it not?
V 3
MR. GOLDBERG:
Yes.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
So it's in the record.
5 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
6 Q
According to statements in the report of the NRC 7
Staff on this matter, the investigation and report, they 8
interviewed Mr. Blessing, who, I think, was once on shift 9
with you?
10 A
Yes.
11 Q
Was he on shift with you throughout or most of the 12 time or --
13 A
I believe he was on most of the time as an 14 auxiliary operator.
Then I don't remember what the exact O
15 time it was, he was promoted to control room operator, I 16 believe.
17 Q
For a time the two of you served together?
18 A
Yes.
19 Q
on same shift?
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
The NRR report indicates that Mr. Blessing 22 admitted in an interview with the NRC that he added hydrogen 23 for the purpose of altering leak rate test results.
Do you 24 recall from your work with Mr. Blessing whether he added 25 hydrogen to influence test results, to your knowledge?
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
an.347 3700 Nationwhie Coterage 80433MM6
=.... -
28218.0 2305 BRT 1
A No, I don't.
()
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Any follow-ups?
3 MR. MC BRIDE:
Can we have take a five-minute 4
break?
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
Surely.
6 (Reces s. )
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Back on the record, we have one 8
more follow-up question.
Mr. McBride wanted to make a 9
comment first.
10 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes, Judge Kelley, in our haste to 11 prepare some earlier follow-up questions, the factual 12 assumption in one question was that in none of his eight 13 prior statements had Mr. Hartman referred to his testimony 14 today about jogging of water and it turns out that our 15 representation to that effect was incorrect.
At page 141 of 16 the B&W transcript, in July and August of 1982, there is a 17 discussion to that effect.
I apologize to the Board and to 18 Mr. Hartman for any misimpression that may have been created 19' in that question.
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
Your citation just now is what?
21 MR. MCBRIDE:
Page 141 of the B&W transcript.
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
But the question you had proposed 23 relates to page 156 of Faegre & Benson.
I'm a little 24 unclear.
25 MR. MC BRIDE:
Certainly.
I understand.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M 147 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80k336tM6
28218.0 2306 BRT 1
The B&W transcript is among the statements of
()
2 Mr. Hartman in the Stier report in the record.
It's page 141 3
of that transcript.
4 It's a discussion of that subject.
5 This follow-up question, which relates to page 156 6
of his Faegre & Benson interview of February 1980 is with 7
respect to the same subject but it's from two different 8
statements.
That's why it's different page numbers.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
But the question itself refers only 10 to Faegre & Benson.
11 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes.
I was just trying to make 12 sure the Board wasn't left with a misimpression from our 13 previous follow-up question.
14 JUDGE KELLEY:
Did the previous question refer to 15 the B&W quote?
16 MR. MC BRIDE:
The previous question referred to 17 all of his prior statements, and after the question was put 18 and during the break we became aware of the questions and 19 answers at page 141 of his B&W transcript.
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
Hold on just a moment.
We are just 21 having to take a minute to look at context.
j 22 MR. MC BRIDE:
If you would like I can get you the 23 pages, unless you have them up there.
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
I think we have them now.
25 Excuse me, I have to confess to some confusion O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M-)47 3700 Nationwide Coverage
$1k))46646
28218.0 2307 BRT 1
here.
Perhaps you can approach the bench and explain these O(_/
2 different references.
3 (Discussion off the record.)
4 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
5 Q
We had to look at the context, a couple of 6
transcripts, to understand the context of the question, but I 7
think we can put it to you now, Mr. Hartman.
8 You earlier testified that you had a conversation 9
with Ray Booher in which you claim that he added water slowly 10 to affect a leak rate test by changing the slope on the 11 makeup strip chart.
12 In April 1980, in your statement to Mr. Rockwell 13 at Faegre & Benson, referencing the Faegre & Benson report 14 volume 4, tab 6, pace 166, you'were asked -.and now I'm 15 going to quote from that interview; it's the questioner who 16 I'm now going to quote:
17
" Question:
But was this a subject that was ever 18 discussed with any other individual, if you take and slide 19 the water in, or ease it in, that you can improve the test?"
20 Referring, from the whole context, to jogging water.
21 I can read the quote again 22
" Question:
But was this a subject that was ever 23 discussed with any other individual, if you take and slide 24 the water in, or ease it in, that you can improve the test?"
25 According to the transcript you answered:
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80k3366M4
28218.0 2308 BRT 1
" Answer:
Yes, I think I did discuss it with at
(
)
2 least one person.
Possibly others.
I can't remember."
3 Do you recall that?
Do you --
4 A
I have it.
5 Q
Page 156?
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
Does that appear to you to be an accurate 8
transcript of what was said?
9 A
Yes.
10 Q
And were you testifying truthfully when you gave 11 that answer?
12 A
Yes.
13 Q
Would you agree that your memory of events at j
14 TMI-2, prior to the TMI-2 accident was better in April of 15 1980 than it is today?
16 A
Yes.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
Any further follow-up questions?
i 18 MR. MC BRIDE:
No.
No, thank you, your Honor.
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Hartman, this then brings us 20 through our question and answer procedure.
Let me just say 21 that the Board very much appreciates your coming down and 22 appearing before us today.
I'll say again, we asked you to 23 come.
You came voluntarily, and we appreciate that, i
24 You can see we are embarked on a very wide-ranging 25 look at this whole thing and I think it's appropriate to note
- O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Natonwide Coverage an3)MM6
l 28218.0 2309 BRT 1
that you were the person that brought the subject to light 2
many years ago and we think that that was a good thing for 3
you to do.
We appreciate it.
We appreciate your 4
appearance.
Thank you very much.
You are excused.
j i
5 (Witness excused.)
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Off the record for a moment.
7 (Discussion off the record.)
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
We are adjourned.
9 (Whereupon, at 2:50 p.m., the hearing was 10 adjourned, to reconvene at 8:30 a.m.,
on September 30, 1986.)
11 4
12 13 14 2
15 16 i
i 17 18 19 1
1 20 21 22 7
23 24 25
- O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 37(U Nationwide Coverage 23336646
... ~ ~, _ _
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER O
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
INQUIRY INTO Ti!REE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION DOCKET NO.:
LRP PLACE:
BETilESDA, MARYLAND O
DATE:
T l!U R S D A Y, SEPTEMBER 25, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
b (sigt)
_.c AS (TYPED}/
JOEL IIREITNER Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation O