ML20215D799
| ML20215D799 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/06/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1125 LRP, NUDOCS 8610140301 | |
| Download: ML20215D799 (190) | |
Text
ONUVAL O
UN11EU STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO: LRF INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION
<O
~
LOCATION:
BETHESDA, MARYLAND PAGES:
2832 - 3006 DATE:
MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1986 I
/f,-O]
i l
ti ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
O Offr'cial Reporters 06101403o1 e61006 PDN ADock 0n000i70 444 North Capitol Street PD" Washington, D.C. 20001 (202)347-3700 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE i
2832 CR28375.0 LRT/sjg 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 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 9
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fifth Floor Hearing Room 10 East West Towers 4350 East' West Highway 11 Bethesda, Maryland 12 Monday, October 6, 1986 13 The hearing in the above-entitled matter convened'at 74 9:00 a.m.
15 16 BEFORE:
17 JUDGE JAMES L.
KELLEY, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 18 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
19 JUDGE JAMES !!. CARPENTER, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 20 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
21 JUDGE GLENN O.
BRIGHT, Member 22 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 23 Washington, D.
C.
24 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
2833 h-1 APPEARANCES:
2 on behalf of GPU Nuclear Corporation:
3 ERNEST L. BLAKE, JR.,
ESQ.
JOIIN N. NASSIKAS III, ESQ.
4 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
5 Washington, D.
C.
20036 on behalf of the Employees:
6 HARRY H. VOIGT, ESQ.
7 MICIIAEL McBRIDE, ESQ.
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 8
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Suite.1100 9
Washington, D. C.
20036 10 on behalf of Jack Herbein:
JAMES B.
BURNS, ESQ.
11 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza 12 Chicago, Illinois 60602 bl
\\/
13 CHRISTOPHER W.
FLYNN, ESQ.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale 14 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 on behalf of Gary P. Miller:
16 MICHAEL W. MAUPIN, ESQ.
17 M.
CIIRISTINA IIENSLEY, ESQ.
Hunton & Williams 18 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23221 19 On behalf of Former Metropolitan Edison Employees:
20 SMTIll B.
G E P ilA R T, ESQ.
21 Killian & Gephart 217-218 Pine Street 22 Box 886 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 23 on behalf of the NRC Staff:
i 24 l
JACK R.
GOLDBERG, ESQ.
MARY E. WAGNER, ESQ.
l 25 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Na:ionwide Coverage 800-33H646
2834 h _ _1 CONTENTS 2
WITNESS EXAMINATION 3
Martin Vincent Cooper 4
by Mr. McBride 2835 by the Board 2838 5
William H.
Zewe 6
by Mr. Voigt 2945 by the Board 2948 7
8 9
RECESS:
10 NOON - 2915 11 12 fm PREPARED STATEMENT OF COOPER Follows Page 2835 14 PREPARED STATEMENT OF ZEWE Follows Page 2946, 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336.o646
3960 01 01 2835 g
(_,cefederal 1 PROCEEDINGS.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Good morning.
Our first witness 3
-this morning is Mr. Martin Cooper.
Let me ask Mr. Cooper, 4
first, to raise your right hand, please.
5 Whereupon, 6
MARTIN VINCENT COOPER 7
was called as a witness and, having first been duly sworn, 8
was examined and testified as follows:
9 EXAMINATION 10 MR. MC BRIDE:
11 O
Would you please state your full name.
12 A
My name is Martin Vincent Cooper, k_)
13 O
Mr.1 Cooper, do you have with you at this time a 14 10-pace statement bearing the caption of this proceeding 15 entitled " Prepared Statement of Martin V. Cooper"?
16 A
Yes, I do.
17 O
Do you have any additions or corrections that you 18 wish to make to this statement at this time, sir?
19 A
No, sir.
This statement is good the way it 20 roads.
It's good the way it roads.
21 0
Do you adopt that statement as your sworn 22 testimony in this proceeding?
23 A
Yes, I do.
24 MR. MC BRIDE:
No further cuestions, your Honor.
25 (The document follows:)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-147 3700 Narionwide Cmerage 800 3366M6 a
A' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND
)
Docket No. LRP UNIT 2 LEAK RATE DATA
)
FALSIFICATION
)
)
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARTIN V. COOPER My name is Martin V. Cooper.
I reside in Oceanside, California.
I am employed by Southern California Edison r'3 Company at its San Onofre Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, as a
(_)
Shift Superintendent.
I became employed at San Onofre in 1982.
San Onofre is located near San Clemente, California.
I am a high school graduate and attended St. Francis College in Brooklyn, New York for one and one-half years (1967-69).
In June 1969, I joined the Nuclear Navy and after completing my training was assigned to the USS Ethan Allen.
I served in the Navy for six years.
While in the Navy, I was a reactor operator, electronic technician.
Upon leaving the Navy, I was employed by Stone &
Webster Engineering Corporation in New York City as an engineering aide.
Subsequently, I became employed by 0
)
a Metropolitan Edison Company (Met Ed) at Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station Unit 2.
My first position was as an auxiliary operator (AO); I was promoted to control room operator (CRO) in 1977 and obtained my reactor operator's license in 1978.
In 1980, I got my senior reactor operator's license and became a shift foreman and, later, shift supervisor.
I left the employ of Met Ed in 1982.
I chose not to become a party to this proceeding because I am fully occupied in my present employment and did not'wish to become re-involved in Three Mile Island matters.
I have testified on Three Mile Island leak rate matters in the past and I did not feel that another look at that issue would be productive, as far as I was concerned.
I felt that these matters were historical in nature and not relevant to the more recent performance of my duties at San Onofre.
During 1977-79, I was assigned to "C" shift.
My shift supervisor was Marshall Beards while I was in training for licensing and after receiving.my license my shift supervisor was Brian Mehler; my shift foreman was Charles Adams; Adam Miller and Joseph Congdon trained me, and after I licensed, Joseph Congdon and I trained Mark Phillippe while Adam Miller was promoted to shift foreman.
Auxiliary Operators were also assigned to our shift; the AO's answered to the CRO's.
During the day shift, the relief crew was usually available as well, and might assist the duty shift in carrying out its 0..
j
4 assignments.
Occasionally, the personnel on my shift would
%s vary if someone was sick.
Also, as I recall, Brian Mehler was assigned to Unit 1 during some portions of the Unit I refueling outage prior to the TMI-2 accident.
During the time period relevant to this proceeding, that is, 1978-79, my duties as a CRO included conducting the actual operation of the plant and performing switching and tagging operations and necessary surveillance testing.
I understand that the scope of this proceeding is to determine the facts about reactor' coolant system leak rate testing practices at TMI-2.
On my shift, leak rate tests were performed soon after we began our shift.
The test was performed on the computer at the command of the operator.
Normally, one control room operator had overall charge of O
a operations and kept the CRO log.
Another CRO performed switching and tagging operations and perrormed surveillances.
If we had a third CROc de might have performed the surveillance operations.
The leak rate test could have been done by any of the CRO's or the shift foreman.
The leak rate test was performed by punching "RCSL" into the computer, specifying the duration (1 to 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />), and allowing the computer to conduct the test.
Normal practice was l
to conduct the test over a one-hour period.
Sometimes tests were cancelled without generating a printout from the computer if plant changes or inadvertent operator-caused changes l
l t
occurred while the test was in progress.
( 3 k/
Our shift typically performed leak rate tests early in the shift because we tried to obtain a successful leak rate test every shift and we had a problem getting tests to come out within technical specification limits.
Our practice, if a test exceeded technical specification limits, was to run another 8
test.
If the second test's result was within limits, I recall that our shift would throw away the first test and keep the second.
Our shift threw away leak rate tests with negative as well as positive unidentified leakage depicted on the computer printout.
Our rationale for keeping the second test, and discarding the first (in the above example), was that plant r]
parameters, as indicated on strip charts in the control room,
'~
including pressurizer level, makeup tank level, and other instrumentation, indicated that the plant was stable and not leaking.
Typically, I could see that the trend since the last shift was such that I did not believe that there was significant unidentified leakage.
Also, we did not have a lot of faith in the leak rate calculation because the results were erratic.
When the results varied so much from test to test, even though the plant was stable, it was hard to believe the results.
Therefore, it was common practice to discard " bad" leak rate tests, that is, those above 1 gpm in unidentified leakage, whose results we did not believe.
+
l
.e I recall that my interpretation of applicable technical specification requirements was that, after a " good" leak rate test result was obtained, we had 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> to get another " good" result.
Looking back on that practice, now, I would say that we were complying with the letter, but not the spirit, of the technical specification.
Because we sometimes had a problem getting " good" leak rate test results at TMI-2, my recollection was that there was a lot of concern to get such results.
The concern (as I viewed 1
it) would come from supervisors asking whether we got a " good" leak rate.
I assumed that the reason that they asked is because we had trouble getting acceptable results.
I am aware that Mr. Russell of the NRC's Office of
('N Nuclear Reactor Regulation has accused Edward Frederick of lying because Mr. Frederick testified that he never performed leak rate tests on the day shift.
I remember that once I relieved Ed at the conclusion of the day shift (7-3) and asked him whether he "got a leak rate" and he said that "we don't do them on day shift" (or words to that effect).
I remember being annoyed because I thought that everyone tried to run a leak rate test every shift.
I think that incident, though, proves that Mr. Frederick was telling Mr. Russell the truth when he testified that he did not recall doing leak rate tests on the day shift.
I remember that there were several changes made in the 0 a
computer program at different times to improve the leak rate calculations.
The personnel in charge of the computer told us that changes were being made and that we might see a difference in the results.
However, the operators were not informed of what was changed; we just were expected to keep performing the tests.
I remember thinking that the tests were almost meaningless because we got such inconsistent results.
I am told that certa-in events occurred in October 1978 that led to a Licensee Event Report about leak rate tests at TMI-2.
However, I recall that I continued the interpretation of the leak rate test procedure that we were required to get a
" good" leak rate test result at least once every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
I also recall that, for a time, we rounded off unidentified leakage below 1.5 gpm so that the test was deemed to be within technical specification limits.
I remember that most, if not all, of the control room operators balked at rounding off test results, but that was the prevailing interpretation at the time.
I do not recall whether Mr. Haverkamp, the NRC Resident Inspector, approved the rounding-off, but Mr. Capra told me in l
my September 28, 1984 NRR/OI interview (at page 70) that Mr. Haverkamp had done so.
It is not surprising that I would not know whether Mr. Haverkamp approved the rounding-off of unidentified leakage; he would have dealt with more senior personnel on that type of issue.
I was aware, prior to the TMI-2 accident, that the 0 J
addition of hydrogen during a leak rate test sometimes affected
,9kJ makeup tank level, but I never added hydrogen to affect the leak rate test results.
If I added hydrogen during a leak rate test, it was because it was needed, not to alter the test results.
Not only was the addition of hydrogen not prohibited during a test, but it was necessary to keep oxygen from entering the system and possibly causing corrosion.
I remember that when Joe Logan became the TMI-2 Unit Superintendent, the one thing that he always checked when he came into the Control Room was whether we had enough hydrogen in the reactor coolant system.
Therefore, our shift always tried to keep up the hydrogen level because of Mr. Logan's concern about hydrogen.
To the best of my recollection, I never added water to
,-)
the reactor coolant system during a leak rate test without
~
accounting for it in the computer.
As I understood it, we were permitted to add water during a leak rate test if we accounted for it.
I am aware that I have been accused by Mr. Russell of adding hydrogen (but not water) to affect leak rate test results.
I testified under oath before Mr. Russell that I did not do that, and I repeat that here.
I resent Mr. Russell concluding otherwise.
I do not believe that there is any evidence that I did so.
My shift logged hydrogen additions; if we had been trying to hide anything, we would not have done so.
My testimony on these subjects has been consistent 8
throughout, and I do not believe Mr. Russell has any evidence U
to the contrary.
I do remember having the vague feeling that Hal t
Hartman may have done something to affect leak rate test results because of the manner in which he would tell us that he got a " good" leak rate test.
I did not, and do not, have any proof of that.
I am aware that the NRC is accusing me of performing leak rate tests with a faulty level transmitter, which would make the test results invalid.
I did not try to manipulate leak rate test results by using a faulty level transmitter.
I do recall that we had continuing problems with one or both transmitters exhibiting oscillations and also not agreeing with each other.
As I recall, one or both transmitters were
,3 f
i
\\~/
awaiting or undergoing maintenance the majority of the time prior to the accident.
Leak rate tests were not the only things that CRO's had to do; we had many surveillance tests to run.
Many times, our shift had to stop a leak rate test because an operator performed a plant evolution that would invalidate the test.
In fact, there came a time on "C" shift when we taped a 3x5 card to the panel showing makeup tank level to inform the other operators that a leak rate test was in progress so as to avoid altering the plant conditions during the test.
Joe Congdon was sometimes absent-minded and the card helped him and the rest of G ]
e
(_
the shift to avoid inadvertently doing things that would iJ invalidate the test.
It is possible that leak rate tests on our shift may have been turned in when operators caused changes to the plant that should have invalidated the tests, but if that happened I believe that it was inadvertent.
During much of the time that THI-2 was operational, hydrogen had to be added by an AO from outside the control Room.
Therefore, it is difficult to fairly accuse my shift of adding hydrogen to affect a leak rate test during that period because the operators could not control the timing of hydrogen additions.
Based on our observations, hydrogen sometimes (but not always) had an effect on makeup tank level, but the effect was not consistent.
In fact, I told Mr. Russell and Mr.
f-Christopher that I never gave an AO instructions to add V]
hydrogen to affect a leak rate test result, and that is true.
I worked with Joe Congdon and I do not believe that he ever added hydrogen or water to falsify a leak rate test.
I know Joe well, and I know his family, and he would not have done that.
Chuck Adams was also a stickler for detail, and he would never have permitted us to " cut corners", or told us that a little subterfuge was okay.
Now that I have become involved in this proceeding, I would be grateful to the Presiding Board if it would exonerate me of any involvement in leak rate test falsification, because I did not engage in any such activities.
I also do not believe,
Q that anyone on my shift did so.
I take my responsibilities at k-)
San Onofre very seriously, and the operators who are responsible to me have been trained by me to strictly adhere to all procedures, especially leak rate test procedures.
I believe that my experience with the TMI-2 accident and the TMI-2 leak rate investigations has made me a far better operator and supervisor, and I hope the Presiding Board will make that finding about me.
I sincerely wish to remain a licensed operator and supervisor in the nuclear industry.
I also sincerely appreciate the opportunity through this testimony to tell my side of the story, after years of simply answering investigators' questions.
,xe) t r
3960 01 01 2836 icefederal 1 JUDGE KELLEY:
I have a short statement I read to 2
the witnesses to present some context for our questions.
3 I'll do that now.
4 The Board has been charged by the Commission to 5
determine the extent of involvement of individual employees 6
of TMI-2 in 1978 and 1979 in leak rate test falsification and 7
other improper practices in leak rate testing.
This is your 8
opportunity to state on the record your recollections and 9
perceptions about your involvement in leak rate testing at 10 that time and to rebut any adverse statements about you by 11 other employees or investigators with which you disagree.
12 We have reviewed your prefiled testimony and
,c(_j 13 considered it in the light of the record that has already 14 been developed in this proceeding.
We will have questions 15 for you based upon your testimony and upon your prior 16 statements that are already in the record.
17 We may also have questions based upon statements 18 of other employees of TMI-2 that they have made about you or 19 matters you have been involved in either previously or in 20 testimony prepared for this proceeding, and we may also have 21 questions on assessments that investigators and technical 22 experts have made about your participation in leak rate 23 activities.
24 As you know, there are extensive studies of TMI-2
(~'N 25 leak rate procedures that have been placed in the record, one ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-370)
Nationwide Coverage 800-336-(M6
3960 01 01 2837 1cefederal I by Mr. Stier -- and I don't believe the Stier people 2
interviewed you in particular but they did a lot of others.
3 That was conducted for GPU Nuclear, and then another study by 4
the NRC Staff.
5 The Stier study includes analyses of every leak 6
rate test conducted at TMI-2 that was retained; that is to 7
say, not thrown away; and the NRC study includes analyses of 8
every retained test during the last six months of operation.
9 The Board has already heard extensive technical 10 testimony on leak rate testing questions, including testimony 11 elicited by your counsel on numerous particular tests.
In 12 these circumstances, the Board does not propose to review l
(_/
13 with you each test in which the investigative studies 14 indicate you were involved.
Those studies have been 15 available to you through counsel and you were free to discuss 16 particular tests in your proposed testimony if you chose to 17 do so.
18 We may, and in fact, we will ask questions about 19 one particular test and, apart from that, however -- possibly 20 one or two others, but one in particular I want to ask you 21 about this morning.
Apart from that, however, analyses of 22 particular tests, whether or not they are addressed here in 23 specific testimony, will be considered in light of the entire 24 record, including your testimony today.
7s
-I 25 i That concludes this brief opening statement.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationmide Coverage Sulk 336-6M6 4
.3960 Ol'01
'2838 A_Acefederal 1 EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD 2
BY JUDGE KELLEY:
3 0
Mr. Cooper, looking at the bottom of page 2 of 4
your. testimony, you say, and I'm quoting, " Adam Miller and 5
Joseph Congdon trained me and after I'was licensed Joseph 6
Congdon and I trained. Mark Phillippe while' Adam Miller was, t
7 promoted to shift foreman." Could you give me a little idea 8
here what training consisted of?
I take it this was
'9 on-the-job training?
10 A
Right.
Our training for getting licensed for 11 reactor operators was a nine-month training course and it was 12 all on-the-job training.
There was a one-or two-week. period n
A/
13 during those nine months where we actually had classroom m
14 training and another week at a simulator in Lynchburg.
Other 15 than that it was all on the job, assigned to a shift, and 16 basically studying areas that the training-department had 17 outlined, said:
You should study these areas; and reading 18 the material and talking to the CROs on shift to help 19 understand it, get a better insight into it.
~
20 Also, just standing the watch to learn by doing, 21 with either Adam or Joe acting as the operator in charge with I
22
-me under instruction.
23 Most of the training I received --
well, Adam 24
. Miller was a good trainer, was a good teacher.
And he was 25 involved in most of my training on shift,-where I had to deal ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
3960 01 01
.2839
- /'%
(,)cefederal I with somebody else or get some information from somebody 2-else.
3 O
And then -- I appreciate that as-sort of a general 4
statement.
A little more specifically, with regard to leak 5
rate tests:
You referred to a couple of. weeks of classroom 6-training and also work at Lynchburg on a simulator.
Did 7
either of those kinds of training focus specifically on leak 8
. rate test?
9 A
No, sir; no, they didn't.
10 0
So the leak rate training was specifically on the 4
6 11 job?
n 12 A
Yes, sir.
(~$
- (s/
13 0
You referred to reading or studying written i
i 14
-materials in the-course of the--nine-month period, which were 15 given to you by the training department. -Do you recall 16 whether you had any written materials that focused on leak 17 rate tests?
18 A
Well, part of the training material that they gave 19 us -- and they buried us in paper, just gave us everything j
20 there was to study, which included a copy of every procedure, r
21 in the plant.
So I had a copy of every plant procedure 22 including the leak rate procedure, a copy of the tech specs, j
23 and numerous other training handouts.
24 0
When you say "the leak rate procedure," I'm
~'
25 familiar, for example, with the tech spec which talks about ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33MM6
l 3960-01 01 2840
(~m
-(,)cefederal 1.
getting -- which sets a limit at 1 gallon per minute and it 1
i 2
covers certain other points.
Are you referring to that?
O r.
3 was there a sheet of paper called "How to Run'a Leak Rate.
4 Test"?
l 4
5 A
No.
There was an actual procedure for doing the 6
hand calculation on the reactor coolant system inventory 7
balance.
That was the procedure that I'm talking about.
l 8
o okay.
i 9
A I had a copy of that.
[
10 As far as doing any specific studying on it, I s'
11 don't recall, really, studying that procedure at all in 12 preparation for my license training.
There was nothing-in.
13 the program that keyed me in to putting any' emphasis on that, i'
14 or ensuring that I went through that prior to licensing.
1 15 0
Do you recall ever doing a hand calculation when j
i-16 you were on the job?.
17 A
Not when I was on the job; no.
18 O
As a training exercise?
l l
19 A
Not as a training exercise.
20 I did --
l 21 (Alarm sounded.)
l 22 JUDGE KELLEY:
We'll go off the record while we 23 determine what this was all about.
24 (Discussion off the record.)
3 25 JUDGE KELLEY:
We appear to be reconvened.
Could l
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4 m.m.
~ _ m c _,.
I
3960 01 01
.2841 vs you read back the last couple of lines.
j
(,cefederal 1 2
(The reporter read the record as reauested.)
3 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
4 0
I'll repeat it.
I was asking you whether you did 5
a hand calculation as a training exercise, and you began to 6
answer, when we --
7 A
Khen I went to get my license I didn't do a hand-8 calculation as any kind of exercise or formal training, I 9
think.
After I was licensed, and we were having difficulty 10 getting satisfactory leak rates, there was a time, I recall, 11 when I tried to perform the hand calculation to compare 12 against the computer printout and I couldn't make it work.
13 The numbers were just way out in left field and didn't even 14 come close to what -- my orders of magnitude of 100.
I was 15 having trouble with the hand calculation, and I threw up my 16 hands in disgust and gave up on it.
17 0
You referred -- well, you described a number of 18 different things in the course of your prepared testimony.
19 Let me just refer to a couple.
You say it was your practice 20 and your shift, if you got a bad leak rate -- and by " bad" I 21 mean one in excess of 1 gallon -- you would run another test 22 and then, if you got a gcod one, you threw away the bad one.
23 And you also referred to your interpretation of the tech spec 24 requirement regarding a 72-hour clock as being that if you 25 got a good one during the course of a 72-hour period, that ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
3960 01 01 2842 f ~s
(,jcefederal 1 that was allyou were required to do -- that that met the 2
tech specs, if you got a good one in that period, 4
_3 notwithstanding the fact that you had some prior bad ones.-
4 Are those fair paraphrases of your testimony?
l 5
A Right.
That's the way I understood it and 6
believed at that time. -Obviously it's wrong but we believed i
7 that we were at a constant 72-hour clock and it just kept i
8 ticking and we had to try and reset-it once every.72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
t 9
O And those two examples that I cited about your 10 views of leak rates, were those things that you would have 11 gotten from those who trained you?
12 A
Yes, sir.
y/3-(_
13 0
In your case, Congdon and Miller?-
.i 14 A
Congdon, Miller and Chuck Adams, who was the 15 foreman on my shift the whole time.
i w
l-16 O
Right.
Okay.
Could'you describe for us in-17 general terms what procedure you followed,. exactly, in t
18 running a leak rate test?
I'm thinking in terms of who-does 19 what.
20 Let's suppose that Adams is there, he's the l
21 foreman, you are there with the surveillance responsibility.
i 22 Do you also call that switching and tagging?
23 A
Sometimes we had -- if we only had two CROs on 24 switch there would be switching and tagging; surveillance O.
25 would be one guy and the other guy would be the guy on the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage
% 0-336 4 646
.. ~. -.
_ ~ _
1 l
i 3960101 01 2843
'l rx
. (,)cefederal 1 boards.
2 O
Let's'take that hypothetical and leave out the 3
third _CRO, for the moment.
You ar a switching ' and ' taggina and 4
running' surveillance, including leak rate, and Congdon1is on j
5 the panel and Adams is there as supervisor, it comes time to 6
run a leak rate.
How was that done?
Not -- in.a general, 7
typical way.
I'm not asking you to cover every conceivable 8
circumstance, but in a general, typical way, how would it 9
happen?'
10 A
Any one of us -- it wouldn't just be the 11 surveillance CRO;.any one of us going by the plant _ computer 12 input typewriter would punch in.the instructions _to chart a 13-leak rate.
Normally we would start one right after the 14 beginning of the shift. -We'd come in to take the shift and 15 we'd have two surveillances to do on.the one computer:
one 16 would be the nuclear surveillance heat balance, which usually 17 took about two minutes, and we'd do that and then do the leak 18 rate surveillance. -And anybody -- any one of us might punch 19 it in as we were going by the computer typewriter heading for 20 the coffee pot.
21 The coffee pot was around behind the panels.
22 Usually when you take the shift, you know, after you have 23 settled in you go grab a cup of coffee, and while you are 24 going by you might punch in the instructions to the 25 computer.
It wouldn't necessarily be the surveillance CRO; ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-33MM6
L
~
'3960 01 01 2844
()cefederal1 maybe the guy on the desk, the panel CRO; it might-be'the
^2 foreman.
There was no hard and fast rule to say who would 3
start the computer, access it to tell it to start the 4
calculation.
5 0
You start it.
Okay.
Then what happens?
6 A
You give the computer its instructions'and then it 7
would lock up for whatever time period ~you instructed it to 8
do the calculation over and we normally did that for one 9
hour.
j 10 0-Right.
11 A
At the end of the one hour the computer would come 12 to life and the typewriter would start printing out 13 questions, interact with us, for us to answer.
14 O
Right.
15 A
Whoever happened to be out in front of the boards l
16 or near the computer, might answer these questions.
If, say, i
17 I was on the panel and the other fellow was the switching, 18 tagging, surveillance guy'and he was around the board doing t
19 something, I might answer the questions, or vice versa, or I
20 the foreman might answer them.
And then once you.have i
21 answered the questions about whether you have added water, l-22 taken water out, pumped down the reactor coolant drain tank, t
23 we had to input the reactor coolant drain tank levels at 24 beginning and the end of surveillance.
i l
25 O
Let's suppose that there had been a water addition i
r ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433M486
.-..~
3960 01 01 2845
()cefederal1 in the course of that hour period.
2 A
Right.
3 0-If you yourself had made the addition and actually 4
gone to the panel and manipulated whatever control you needed 5
to manipulate, with the batch -- is that the right term?
6 A
Batch controller, I think that's what it was 7
called.
8 0
Is that what you used to add water with, or you 9
could, anyway?
10 A
Yes.
11 O
Okay.
So you add 100 gallons.
Then-you are there 12 at the end of the test and the_ computer is asking you these 13 questions and it says:
Any water added?
14 You could type in 100 gallons, I suppose; is that 15 right?
16 A
Yes, sir.
That's right.
17 0
What if Congdon had added 100 gallons?
Would tua 18 tell you?
19 A
Usually that was routine.
We would try to keep 20 each other informed.
21 Sometimes one of us would add water or do 22 something and forget to tell the other guy, and there were 23 even times where one guy was running an inventory balance and 24 another guy would add water and not tell the second person 25 and we aborted the leak rate because we didn't want to do the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80 4 336-6646
3960 01 01 2846
,.m
(,,1cefederal 1 leak rate with any additions and so we had to tell the 2
computer to stop the calculation.
Sometimes we forgot to 3
tell each other.
4 O
But the general rule was, if one person, let's 5
say, added water, he would tell the other person?
6 A
General -- yes, sir.
Generally that was true.
7 0
What is the exact significance of the signature?
8 You know, on a leak rate form at the bottom it says 9
" operator," and then it says, " approved by," and the 10 operator, let's say, could be Cooper and the " approved by" 11 line could be Adams.
12 If you saw that on a sheet of paper, would you
()
13 then think if it was you-and Adams and Congdon on the shift 14 it would be Congdon on the panel?
15 A
No, sir.
Any one of us could fill that out and 16 sign it or even the foreman could sign as the shift operator 17 and have the-shift supervisor sign as reviewed by.
18 0
Okay.
Let's take the case, though, where you sign 19 it.
20 A
Yes, sir.
21 0
Then, as I understand it -- and it shows a leak 22 rate of.8 or whatever it is.
You were then certifying that 23 you had run this test and to the best of your knowledge the l
24 leak rate is whatever is stated on the sheet of paper; I
f\\
Nl 25 correct?
j l
l i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationmide Coserage M33MM6
3960.01 01 2847 (m,jcefederal 1 A
It's -- signing the paper was completing an 2
administrative requirement.
Before you could turn in a 3
surveillance, it had.to be signed by an operator, reviewed by 4
a supervisor.
5 If somebody else ran the leak rate while I was on 6
. shift and basically ran it independent of me and then they 7
took the computer printout and gave it to me, as a --
8 completing a surveillance that was required on my shift, I 9
would review it and I might sign it.
Or it could mean that I 10 actually did the whole thing and had full cognizance of 11 everything that went on it.
I don't really think you can 12 look at the signature on the bottom and determine that the r
(_)
13 person who signed it had total control of everything involved 14 in doing the calculation.
15 0
No.
I understand that.
16 A
Okay.
17 0
Different steps might be done by different 18 people.
Nevertheless, when you sign it at the end, and it 19
- says, "M.
Cooper" at the bottom, M. Cooper is saying:
We did
(
20 this test and this is the result, and you believe it is 21 accurate; is that correct?
22 A
I accept the result.
As far as the accuracy of 23 leak rate surveillances, I never believed that they were
[
24 really accurate.
l
[^h
\\/
25 0
There's a lot of testimony in this case that l
i l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
3960 01 01 2848 g(,1cefederal 1 everybody knew the leak rate wasn't any good and everybody 2
knows it, so I assume you knew it at that time.
But let me 3
rephrase it and say, at least it means this much:
You 4
followed the procedure you are supposed to follow.
You 5
didn't add -- for example, add water and not include it, and 6
this is what came out of the machine.
Is that fair?
7 A
Yes, sir.
All the questions on there, the way 8
they were answered, that is what I'm signing for, that that's 9
true.
10 0
All right.
I understand now.
11 Mr. Cooper, you are aware, among other things, I 12 read the OI interview with you and Mr. Capra and Mr. Russell
)
13 and other people, read some of the material.
One of the 14 things that was focused on there at some length had to do 15 with-the question of hydrogen additions and whether or not 16 you and others on your shift add hydrogen in order to affect 17 a leak rate result.
18 I want to ask you a series of questions about that 19 general subject, and feel free to add or supplement, if you 20 feel I'm not giving the full context.
But I will proceed to 21 get into that subject.
22 You said, for example, in your interview, looking 23 at page 33 -- maybe -- have you got that there?
Why don't 24 you get it out.
i
- s 25 I'm simply looking at a particular line now, but l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433MM6
--e-v gn.-,-,
-_~y
.g
3960 01 01 2849
([lcefederal1 in the course of my question I may want you to look at 2
various places, so it would be well if you had it before 3
you.
We'll also want to look at test 120 in a couple of 4
minutes.
5 A
Okay.
I have have got page 33.
6 0
Okay.
I'm just noting a statement there of yours, 7
at lines 15 and 16.
I'll start with the preceding, question, 8
I think, from Mr. Christopher, where Christopher says:
9
" Question:
I think your earlier resdits of your 10 interview that you looked at briefly out there indicated that 11 you were generally aware that hydrogen would affect the leak 12 rate test.
13
" Answer:
Yes.
We had some feeling that hydrogen 14 addition to the makeup tank tended to affect the makeup tank 15 level."
16 In general you were aware of that phenomenon; 17 correct?
18 A
We were aware it might have an effect.
We weren't 19 really sure.
We had heard about it.
We thought we saw it 20 sometimes.
And then other times we thought we didn't see it, i
21 but we thought there might be an effect.
22 O
Sometimes you did, sometimes you didn't see it.
23 A
Yes, sir.
24 O
Right.
And I think you testified in your s
\\
25 statement here, also, that you didn't know why it happened; ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Coserage 800 3364M6
._,. -347-370t)
3960 01 01 2850 (Jcefederal1 is that correct?
2 A
That's correct, sir.
3 O
As a matter of technical explanation, I mean.
4 A
I didn't understand why it would happen.
From 5
what I understood about how the level transmitter worked 6
there should be no effect, since it had a dry reference leg.
7 I can recall having a conversation with Doug 8
Weavers, the instrument control department supervisor 9
asking:
Should hydrogen be able to do this?
And he told me 10 that I was all messed up.
There's no way it could have any 11 effect, since there's a dry reference leg, and I'm seeing 12 things.
He was telling me what I was asking him about was a
(
13 waste of time.
You know, he didn't even want to be bothered 14 with the question.
15 We were looking at something and we thought we saw 16 something that we didn't believe should be happening and we 17 couldn't get any response out of the instrument control 18 department.
19 0
In any event -- and this is really a somewhat 20 different point, I believe, but it's related -- you say you 21 couldn't understand why it was happening, couldn't believe it 22 was happening; nevertheless you seemed to see this phenomenon 23 from time to time.
Did you think about, or consider whether 24 the addition of hydrogen gas pressure in the makeup tank
[N-25 ought to have -- could have any effect on the real leak rate?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage M 336-6646
'3960 01 01 2851 g.
(,jcefederal 1 A
The actual plant leak rate?
2 O
Right.
3 A
Not the calculated leak rate.
4 O
The actual one.
5 Let me give a contrast.
It would seem to me if 6
you added a couple of hundred gallons to the makeup tank 7
water, if you didn't account for that in the calculation, 8
that would affect the leak rate because there's more water in 9
the makeup tank; isn't that right?
10 A
That's going to affect the calculation.
That's 11 not going to change the leak rate in reality.
12 O
Not the real leak rate; that's true.
\\,_,
13 A
Yes.
14 O
But at least it's water and water is what leaks.
15 What I'm asking is, if you put hydrogen into a tank, what 16 conceivable effect could that have on the real leak rate?
17 A
I'm getting confused.
When you say "real leak 18 rate" you don't mean the actual amount of water leaking out 19 of the tank?
20 0
That's exactly what I-mean.
I concede you are 21 having a terrible time trying to do that.
But as you are 22 sitting there is it conceivable to you, I don't care how --
23 could adding hydrogen into the system affect the true leak 24 rate in the plant?
25 A
Adding hydrogen into the system would increase the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-M7-37X)
Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
3960 01 01 2852
()cefederal1 pressure.
Any time you increase pressure on a system that.
2 leaks, the' leak increases.
3 O
As a matter of --
4 A
Usually that's the way it works.
5 0
As was a matter of -- I don't know~if the word is 6
" physics" or what -- you are saying the hydrogen level by 7
raising it is pressing harder on the system and pushing 8
against the water and pushing against the cracks and shoving 9
water out faster?
10 A
Yes, sir.
11 O
I'm not an engineer.
I don't know.
12 A
If you push on something harder and it's already G
(,)
13 leaking it's going to leak more.
14 0
I understand the general proposition.
But, I'm 15 really thinking this through with you.
Quite frankly, I 16 hadn't thought it through in quite that angle.
17 If hydrogen, increased hydrogen pressure increas'es 18 the leakage, the phenomenon that you observed was precisely 19 the opposite, was it not?
20 A
No, sir.
As I said the phenomena that we thought 21 we were observing was variable.
There were times, I know, 22 that I thought it made the calculated level on the tank go 23 down.
Other times it didn' t do anything.
Sometimes I 24 thought it made it go up.
It was inconsistent and I really 25 wasn't able to get a firm grasp on what this hydrogen ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationaide Coserage 804336-6M6
3960 01 01 2853
-, ~.
(_).cefederal1 addition was doing, if anything.
2 0, - okay.
Let's assume the response to adding hydrogensgight be variable, as you say:
Up, down, nothing.
3 4
The response in the makeup tank level indicator that was 5
helpful, in terms of getting a better leak rate, was the one 6
that went up; right?
7 A
If making the the makeup tank level to go up would 8
cause the calculated leak rate to come up with a lower 9
number.
10 0
Exactly.
11 A
Yes, sir.
12 O
So that the explanation that adding hydrogen is a
(<-)~
13 matter of physics and metallurgy causes leaks to leak more is 14 exactly the opposite in that case, is it not?
15 A
Yes, sir.
16 O
Than' decreasing the leak rate?
17 A
Decreasing the calculated leak rate; yes, sir.
18 O
The calculated leak rate.
The effect you observed 19 by watching the makeup tank indicator go up or at least go 20 flat level'rathdr than continue to go down, is to give you a 21 "better leak' rite"?
Lower leak rate?
~
22 A
Sometimes that happened sir; yes, sir.
23 O
That's the only time it did you any good; right?
24 If you were looking for a good leak rate of under 1 gallon a s/
25 minute, the only time you got any mileage out of hydrogen was ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2C-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
3960 01 01 2854
(_,'_ce f edera l I when it made the indicator go up?
2 A
We weren't trying to get any mileage out of 3
'4 0
I'll ask you about that eventually.
But let's 5
assume that you were not displeased if you got a reading that 6
was under 1 gallon a minute.
The only way that could happen 7
would be if the indicator went up?
8 A
No, sir.
You can get a reading under 1 gallon a 9
minute with the indicator still going down.
It's monitoring 10 a trend, a decrease, over whatever period you are doing the 11 calculation for.
12 O
I understand that.
Let me postulate a time when
.(
13 you are having difficulty getting a good leak rate; that is 14 to say, a leak rate under 1 gallon per minute.
And all I am 15 trying to get at is:
If that was one's concern, it only --
16 you only get a positive benefit out of a hydrogen addition, 17 in terms of leak rates, if the makeup level indicator goes up 18 or at least flattens out?
It's not going to do a damn thing 19 for you if it keeps going down?
20 A
It's not going to have -- it's coing'to make the 21 leak rate surveillance probably more unsatisfactory if it 22 goes down.
23 0
It's going to give you a bigger leak rate?
24 A
Going to give you a bigger leak rate calculation O
l w>
25 if it goes --
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide coverage 8p336-6646
>s,
3
-3960-01-01~
2855 13 g,,cefederal'1 O
Okay.
Let's take a look at leak rate test number 2
120.
If you-haveuit there.-
E 3
MR. MC BRIDE:
You'mean NRR test 1250, Judge?
4 JUDGE KELLEY: - Yes.
5 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, I have before the 6
witness both the. test and the. version as it appears in the 7
NRR report and also the three-page Xerox which.was 8
distributed on Friday.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
Right.
Thank you.
Okay.
10 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
11
~ O If we look at the first sheet here, Mr. Cooper, 12~
NRR test 120 is dated February 15, 1979, run at 2025 --'34
)
13 8:25 in the evening, Eastern Standard Time, I guess.
14
.Toward the bottom -- and you can -- if you'want-15 some time to look'over the sheet,-go ahead.
I was just going 16 to look toward the bottom and just identify a couple of 17 things.
That indicates that you signed as operator, correct?
18 A
Yes, sir.
19 0-And, underneath is "C.
Adams," which was your 20 foremsa at that time?
4 21 A
Yes, sir.
22 O
The next couple of sheets are log sheets.
If you 23 turn to the second one, if I understand this correctly, it 3
24 shows R. Booher, presumably on the prior shift, signing off 25 at 1430 and Congdon signing in af ter that and then Congdon ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
, - - - - - _.... _,,... ~ -,
,,_-_.,m~
.._.--.m..-,__
3960 01 01 2856 s
signing off at.2200..
So that indicates, does it not, that Icefederal 1.
2
.Mr. Congdon was on the. log and normally he would be on the 3
panel, so'to' speak?
4 A'
Yes, sir.-
U 5
0 And does that. indicate that you were the person 6
charged with surveillance, and basically ran the leak rate 7
. test?_
8 A
No, sir.
It doesn't indicate that.
9 0
What does it indicate?
~10 A
The log-sheet says that Joe Congdon had the log 11 and the panels.
That I can be'sure of.
12 O.
Right.
l ()
13 A
I can't tell whether I was -- whether we had two 14 or three CROs on shift at that time and whether I was the 15 switching and tagging CRO, or I was the-surveillance CRO, or i
16 I was both, l-17 0
Would that normally show?
Would it say something 18 like -- Phillippe; is that the correct pronunciation?
19 A
Mark Phillippe.
20 0
He was a trainee; correct?
21 A
Yes, sir.
l 22 O
I just pick him as an example.
But would we know r
23 from these papers whether there was a third person or not?
24 A
No, sir.
25 0
In any event, you signed it as operator; right?
l L
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8@336-6M6 r-
3960 01 01 2857
.q fy,,cefederal 1-A Yes, sir.
2 O
So would that mean, in accordance with our 3
discussion a little while ago, that whoever might have 4
punched the button to start the test, you finished it up?
5 A
Yes, sir.
6 0
If we turn over to the strip chart --
7 A'
Well, maybe it doesn't mean that.
You know, it 8
could be different.
It could be that the foreman, Chuck 9
Adams was coming by the typewriter when the computer started 10 printing out and asking the questions and he could have 11 answered the questions and taken the sheet off and given it 12 to me.
Then I could have reviewed it and signed it and given 13 it back to him.
14 0
Well --
15 A
That's a possibility.
16 0
Would that be a normal situation?
Or would a 17 normal situation be that you answered the questions?
18 A
The normal situation would be that I'would do it, 19 but I think what I described also occurred at times.
20 0
I'm asking you for the. typical case.
The typical 21 case, if you sign as operator, aren't you the one who answers l
r-22 the questions and signs off on the test?
23 A
Not always.
I can't say that.
l l
24 0
I'm asking you -- I'm not asking you for always.
s -
25 I'm asking you for the typical case.
l I.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
3960 01 01-2858
()cefederal1 A
The way we operated, there was no hard and fast 2
" typical" on who did what.
You could pretty well bet that 3
the guy who was in the log -- that was normal and always --
4 was the guy responsible for the boards.
The guy who had 5
. switching and tagging did all the switching and tagging.
6 other than that there was a lot of overlapping of roles 7
depending on who was doing what and who was in front of the 8
boards, who was beside the boards doing something else, and 9
what was going on at the particular time.
10 0
Nevertheless, though, as I understand you, you 11 indicated earlier that the operator, in this case you, would 12 review and certificate the correctness of the numbers;
()
13 correct?
14 A
Yes, sir.
To the best of my knowledge I would 15 review and certify that all of the questions were answered 16 correctly.
17 -
0 These questions that we have been been referring 18 to -- educate me here -- are they and the answers actually 19 reflected on this sheet of paper we are looking at?
Say it-
^
20 was a water addition.
It asks you about water additions; 21 correct?
22 A
Yes, sir.
I think it is the second line where it 23 says " enter operator-caused changes from list 4."
24 O
So it tells you to enter water additions?
25 A
Yes, sir.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmcrage 80rF336-6646
~.. -
?3960'01-01 ~
2859-()efederall 0
If there had.been such'an addition, would that
'2-number be reflected further below?
t 3-A
.You would type it in right there underneath.the 4
' question, what it was.
.M 5
0 Oh.
It says "50.0."
So you would-type in 100 or 6
whatever it was?
7 A
100 or zero -- the computer had to be answered.
.i 8
0 when the computer asked you about additions, did 9
that question encompass hydrogen?
i 10 A
No, sir.
l 11 0
So would the practice be, if you did add hydrogen 12 during the test, it ought to be in the log but it wouldn't be 13 in the computer part of the thing; right?
l 14 A
No, sir.
The procedure didn't prohibit adding -
t c
15 hydrogen to the makeup tank and there was nothing in the 16 plant design that said that it should be-prohibited from an
.I 17, addition to the makeup tank during this surveillance.
We f
l 18 were trying to' keep out volume changes due to water or boric i
l 19 acid,;or taking water out of the system and trying to-do an-l l
. 20 inventory balance.
i 21 0
Let's turn over to the strip chart.
That's three 22 or four pages beyond.
l 23 MR. MC BRIDE:
Just me, Judge, just to assist the
(
witness, you may find it there, you'll find a better copy --
24 25 THE WITNESS:
This one here?
Okay.
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 347-3 Nationwide Coserage 80CL336-6M6
_.,._-,_.._'00..., _ _ -. _ _ _ _.., _ _... _. _.. _. _ _ _ _ _.., _.. _ - - -. -. _
3960 01 01 2860 f().cefederal1 MR. MC BRIDE:
Unless you wanted to refer to the 2
NRR versions, Judge.
He has the two versions, depending on 3
which one you want him to look at it.
4 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
5 0
Well, let's look at the NRR-version first.
The 6
only significant difference that I am aware of is that there 7
was a handwritten entry on the strip chart on that leak rate 8
test, which we'll look at in a minute, that you can't read in 9
the NRR version but you can read in the supplemental version 10 we got last week.
11 The area of concern is the period of the leak rate 12 test, depicted on the strip chart, which ran from 2026 --
()
13 8:26, I gather -- to 2126.
And the letters "LRT-120" are 14 marked in.
Are you with me there?
15 A
Yes, sir.
16 0
If you look down the chart and you watch the 17 progress of the trace through'the beginning of the test, 18 about a third of the way through, what happens, then, to the 19 trace?
I 20 A
Where you have the line drawn through the slope of l
l 21 the trace, it flattens out with bumps -- I mean the trend i
22 flattens out.
l 23 0
Right.
24 A
Still bearing -- and then it starts trending down 25 again.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L m>..
s.e_
m....
3960 01 01~
2861' OQ cefederal 1 O
Wh'at would you say, approximately, is the 2
-difference between the extended line showing the trend and 3
the actual trace that goes up and levels out in the end of 4
the test?
5 A
It looks like about 1.5 to 2 increments on the 6
strip chart.
7 0
Okay.
There's a note down at the. bottom which is 8
typed in by the NRR staff.
It says -- you can see it --
9
" hydrogen addition at 2100, 2 inches of 60-gallon effect 10 logged in the CRO chart, ' pressurized MUT' printed on strip.
11 chart (Adams' handwriting according to Congdon's testimony)."
12 Let me say right now we asked Mr. Congdon last 13 week if he could identify that as Mr. Adams' handwriting.
He 14 was not able to do so.
I think I should state that.
He may 15 have in an earlier interview, I don't know, but last week he 16 was not able to say that.one way or the other.
17 Now, do you have this other version of the same 18 strip chart?
19 A
This one?
(Indicating.)
20 0
Yes.
Right.
If you could look at the same 21 segment of the chart, up toward the top where I see the 22 words, " pressurized MUT."
Seemingly -- well, there are two 23 lines there; whether they were drawn simultaneously or not we 24 don't know for sure.
One can speculate.
But you see the two 25 words I'm referring to?-
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M-347 37(X)
Nationwide Coverage 80Lk336-6646
3960 01 01 2862 X
l
'cefederal 1 A
Yes, sir.
..v.
2 O
So, you might also just note, if you turn over to 3
the log at 2100, the time doesn't exactly agree with the 4
strip chart time.
But it says, "added H,"
or "H2," depending 5
on how you read that, "to MUT-1."
Do you see that entry?
6 A
Yes, sir.
7 O
So that would indicate to me that that represents 8
a hydrogen addition in that time frame, and that's the 9
general thrust and substance of what Mr. Congdon thought it 10 represented last week.
11 Does that seem reasonable, a reasonable 12 interpretation to you?
That that represents a hydrogen
-()
13 addition that had the effect indicated?
14 A
If it was annotated to say " pressurized," we would 15 pressurize it with hydrogen; yes, sir.
16 O
So if you were just reading this strip chart and 17 trying to figure out what all this meant, would you read this 18 as a hydrogen addition having the effect that you indicated?
19 A
It looks like something made the tank level 20 indication steady out for a while, rather than continuing the l
21 trend down it was doing.
22 It's not the only place on the strip chart it does l
23 that.
There were other flat spots on the curve that don't 24 have that same annotation, " pressurized MUT."
)
25 0
What are you referring to?
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37m Nationside Coserage 8(XL336-646
. -..... - _ ~,. _
3960 01 01 2863
. fm)cefederal1 A
.On the strip chart where, between 8:00 and 10:0 i
t.s 2
p.m.,
right on the scale from zero to 100, you go up to
-3 around 807 4
0-Yes.
5 A
It looks like a very flat spot there on the chart.
6 0
I'm not with you, I'm afraid.
Can you tell me 7
that again?
On the strip chart?
8 A
On the strip chart between 8:00 and 10:00, right 9
in the middle of that there's a scale from zero to 100.
Go-10 up from there to where it intersects the trace, 78 to 79 11 percent.
12 0
Right.
t(_)
13 A
There's a very flat spot there.
l 14 0
The downward trend continues, does it not?
15 A
Yes, it does.
The downward trend always continues 16 afterward, so it did, too,'after the other flat spot.
17 0
So you think that's comparable to the other flat 18 spot?
19 A
What I'm trying to give you is, looking at this 20 trace and singling out this spot and saying, okay, it 21 flattened out there and it did something and that was it, may 22 seem perfectly clear to you.
Looking at this trace there's a 23 lot of flat spots in there and the recorder is very erratic.
t 24 As you can see, it's not perfectly obvious to me that you can l
i 25 say it flattened out strictly because of hydrogen.
It
~
i t
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37(t)
Nationwide Coverage NX)-3%6646
3960 01 01 2864
()cefederal1 flattened out at several other spots.
2 0
What spots do you think you see that are 3
comparable?
4 A
Also, above the 6:00 p.m.< entry on the left-hand 5
side of the sheet where it's indicating around 73 percent?
6 0
All right.
7 A
20, 30-minute flat spot there.
8 0
Do you think that's comparable to what's written 9
on here as a hydrogen addition during the test?
10 A
What I'm saying is there's more than one flat spot 11 on here.
You are asking me to interpret this.
12 0
In fact, didn't the hydrogen -- the area indicated
()
13 as a hydrogen addition is more than flat.
It actually went 14 up for a little bit.
15 A
Yes, sir.
16 0
Is there anything else on there you think is 17 comparable?
18 A
Well, you can see right after 12:00 midnight, 19 about the third increment over at about 65 percent tank level 20 it went up and then it went down.
This -- the indication is 21 very erratic.
And it is going up and down all over the place 22 and with no set frequency; it isn'F like an even 23 oscillation.
It is bouncing a lot.
i 24 0
okay.
Let me ask you about the words " pressurized 25 MUT."
Do you recognize the handwriting?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage im336-646
'3960 01 01-2865
/~N
(,fcefederal 1 A
No, sir..
It's not mine.
.2 O
It's not yours.
Correct.
Okay.
I wanted to ask 3
you that, thank you.
4 Do you have any reason to doubt that the words-5 were written on at the time?-
6 A
I've got no reason to believe they were or they 7
weren't.
I don't recall the words being written on there.
8 O
Looking over at the log again, where it says, 9
2100, "added H2 to MUT."
2100 appears to fall within the 10 period of time that we have been focusing on.
If you assume 11 that the two lines, apparently drawn on the chart underneath 12 the words " pressurized MUT," were drawn on there to bracket 13 the time during which hydrogen was to be added, it would 14 appear that it ran from about 10 -- what are those, 20-minute 15 increments?
'16 A
15-minute increments.
17 0
Yes.
They are 15s.
Okay.
I 18 It looks like 10:15 to 10:45; is that right?
19 A
Yes, sir.
20 0
And you do have, over here on the l'og, a 2100 i
21 entry, which, whatever the reason, comes in after those two 22 lines; right?
23 A
No.
2100 would be before that.
That's 2215 to 24 2245, on the chart recorder, where those lines were drawn.
(
/~T, (J
25 0
I don't know if I'll ever acclimate to this j
I i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
20L347 3700 Nationwide Coscrage 80tF336-6646
-3960 01101 2866
(
cefederal 1
. military time.
I'm sorry.
2 A
It looks like those lines were drawn after this 3
leak rate was. performed if the times match up.
4 0
Let me get.with you on the time.
If I'm off on 5
the time I want to get that straight.
Okay?
j 6
The first page indicates that this test began at 7
2025; correct?
8 A
Yes, sir.
s 9
0 And that's -- that translates to.8:25 in the 10 evening?
11 A-Right.
12 0
Right.
And it went on to --
h)
's, 13 A
9:26 p.m.
i 14 0
9:26.
Just about an even hour.
15 A
Yes, sir.
1 16 0
2126 -- would that be the terminology?
17 A
Yes.
18 0
Well, what I wonder, was this the time when-the 19 strip chart was running about two hours off?
I'm literally i
20 wondering, I don't know.
I 21 A
I don't either.
22.
O When I look at the strip chart it says between 23 10:00 and 11:00; and when I look back at the other -- at the 24 leak rate printout, it says 8:00 to 9:00, in effect; is that l
, p)
\\_
25 right?
I f
L ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M.347 3700 Nationside Coserage 8%336-6M6
3 3960 01 01 2867
-O
(
fcefederal 1.
A
'Yes, sir.
2 MS.-WAGNER:
Judge-Kelley,.if you look at the NRR 3
analysis for test 120 you'll see that-there's a difference of 4
an hour and a1 half between the clock time and the strip chart 5
time.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
We had some testimony 7
on that.
Thank you.
I think we can unsnarl that.
4 j
8 All I was really. interested in here, was, is the 9
correspondence, or not, between the log entry and the time 10 indicated on'the strip chart?
11 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, before we go further, I
12 there may be some confusion here that was created by Staff
)
13 counsel's remark, which I don't think she attempted to be 14 misleading about in any way, but the Board may recall that 15 the manner in which the NRR witnesses determined the time l'6 variance between the strip chart and real time, so to speak, 17 was correlation.with whatLthey believed certain events real 18 time to be versus the strip chart time.
If, in fact, they 19 simply observed the. strip chart and believed this to be the f
20 hydrogen addition and then adjusted the time accordingly, I'm 21 afraid I have to say-I don't believe we have unsnarled this a 22 bit, because they simply made the same inference.
)
23 MS. WAGNER:
I might note, if I could, that if you 24 look at the analysis of the starting and stop times, this 25 hour2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> and a half dif ference appears not only for test 120 but 4
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
_,- _ _ ~.. _.. _, -. _, -.., _.. _ _. - ~., -.,. _ _.... _ _ _,. _... _ _... - _. _... - _ -. -, _
.3960 01 01 2868 r)cefederal 1 for several tests preceding it as well, and after.
(,
2 JUDG8 KELLEY; All right.
The Board is going to 3
take five minutes.
Let me talk to my colleagues about all 4
this.
5 (Recess.)
6 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
7 0
We have discussed, we, the Board, have discussed 8
this time discrepancy between the computer printout and the 9
log on the one hand and the strip chart on the other.- We do 10 have testimony earlier in the hearing from the Staff, 11 possibly from Mr. Stier -- at least from the Staff -- about 12 discrepancies in time between the strip chart and real time.
()
13 Our general understanding is, what the Staff tried to do was i
14 establish or correct, if you will, strip chart time by 15 correlating with notable events that would show on strip 16 chart for which there was a log entry, and, therefore, a more l
17 accurate source of time.
i 18 Without trying to restate all of that, we simply 19 note that, in the case of test 120, the computer time, which 20 we take to be pretty accurate, reflects that this test began i
21 at 2025, or 8:25, and that it concluded at 2126, an hour 22 test.
That's shown on the front sheet.
23 The log time, which we also assume is reasonably 24 accurate, shows that hydrogen was added to the makeup tank at 25 2100, which would fall within, as we read it, the time ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
i
-3960 01 01
'2869
()cefederal1 bracket. indicated on the. strip chart for the. test.
- And, 2
also, within the ' time bracket.durina which. the --- within f the 3
time bracket indicated by the notation, " pressurized MUT."
4 4
Does that all seem reasonable to you?
5 A
I. don't know how they figured that all out.
I'm 6
saying, from what'I'm looking at, I can't tell.that'from
[
7
'here.
That's all.
]"
8 O
what I tried to indicate, Mr. Cooper -- were you 9
aware of the fact that the strip chart was off from time.to-i 10 time?
i J
[
11 A
Yes, sir.
12 O
Do you agree that the computer time would have I
13 been accurate?
14 A
Yes, sir.
15 0
Okay.
If I've got a computer time for a certain 16 leak rate test and I can locate that-in relation to other l
17 events, such as that big water addition-earlier on this strip i-18 chart, why couldn't I establish with reasonable accuracy when 19 the leak rate test took place and when on-the strip chart the i
20 trace applied?
In short, why couldn't I establish that'the 2:1 strip chart was off by, say, an hour and a half and, 22 therefore, I just locate the applicable trace with reference 23 to that adjustment?
24-A I don' t know why you can' t.
I don't know why you
. v' 25 could.
I can't do it just by looking at these three pieces i
)
L ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide roserage 80th336-6M6
3960 01 01 2870
(
cefederal 1 of paper, say this -- these times match up.
If you want to 2
say so, that's fine with me.
3 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
4 O
Mr. Cooper, look at the log in the notebook, the 5
page preceding the strip chart, test 120.
6 A
Yes, sir.
I've got it.
7 0
1845 the log states, "added 40 gallons batched to 8
the reactor coolant system."
Do you see that?
9 A
Yes, sir.
10 0
Now turn over to the strip chart and I see a 11 substantial, relatively rapid, perhaps 10 minutes, change in 12 makeup tank level that's marked 1845.
Why isn't that a valid n
(_)
13 way of establishing the time scale on the strip chart?
14 A
Okay.
Okay.
I see it.
I see what you are 15 saying.
16 Yes, I agree that's 1845.
Then if you go 17 15-minute increments from there:
1945 to 2045 to 2100, it 18 looks like that that hydrogen -- that " pressurized MUT" would 19 come out around 2100.
20 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
21 O
Which is what the log says.
22 A
Yes, sir.
23 0
Which would be during the leak rate test?
24 A
Yes, sir.
~s-)
25 O
In this particular case the leak rate came out, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3?(x' Nationwide Coserage An33A6M6 1
'3960 01 01 2871
.m(,)cefederal1 according to the first page pertaining to it, unidentified 2
leak rate was 0.93; correct?
3 A
Yes, sir.
4 O
The strip chart in back of it, I think you 5
indicated that the period of time marked for a hydrogen 6
addition caused a differential in the trace of about 2 inches 7
in the tank; correct?
8 A
1.5 to 2 inches; yes, sir.
9 0
1.5 to 2 inches.
That would be 45 to 60 gallons; 10 correct?
11 A
Yes, sir.
12 0
30 gallons a minute.
So, the net effect of that,
()
13 is it not, is that you've got a 45-to 60-gallon false 14 indication from the hydrogen?
15 A
The indication is changed by 45 to 60 gallons.
16 O
Because you put in the hydrogen?
17 A
That's the way it looks, sir.
Yes, sir.
18 O
That's the way it looks.
In the course of, then, 19 certifying this leak rate at.93, I gather that the hydrogen 20 addition was not accounted for under the four questions; 21 correct?
22 A
No, sir.
There was nothing in the questions that 23 would make you account for it or anything in the original 24 design of the plant that made us believe that we had to O
25 account for any hydrogen.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80th336-(M6
3960 01 01 2872 (n)cefederal 1 0
But, if you know, as you apparently knew then, 2
that the hydrogen addition is going to_ throw off the 3
calculation by -- if we say 45 to 60 gallons, it's anywhere 4
from three-quarters to 1 gallon per hour; correct?
5 A
No, sir.
We didn't know that.
At least I didn't 6
know that.
We believed there was some effect.
We weren't 7
sure about it.
And it changed.
I was never able to satisfy 8
myself that there was a definite correlation between the two, 9
between adding hydrogen and an effect on the leak rate.
10 0
I thought that strip chart was pretty clear.
It-11 was even marked, " pressurized MUT."
It jumps up 2 inches.
12 A
But that's not what you said.
You asked me if I
/~')
i 13 knew and I'm telling you that I didn't know.
s_
14 You are right.
I agree, the strip chart is pretty 15 clear.
You can see a flattening-out and a rise in the level 16 indication during a hydrogen addition.
I don't dispute 17 that.
But as far as what I knew from operating day to day 18 and what we saw in the plant, I thought there might be an 19 effect, I wasn't really sure.
I couldn't get any technical 20 explanation on why that effect should exist.
All I could get 21 were technical explanations on why I was seeing things and 22 nothing -- that effect doesn't exist.
23 0
Let's look at this particular test, now.
As I 24 understand 1t, three of you were involved in its
- yourself, 25 Cooper and Congdon; correct?
Do you recall this test?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Natkmwide roserage MG3364646
~.
3960 01 01 2873
(\\
(_,1cefederal i HR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, have we established r
2 that Mr. Congdon was involved in this test?
3 JUDGE KELLEY:
In spades, I thought.
He signed 4
the log.
5 MR. MC BRIDE:
But that doesn't mean he's involved 6
in the test.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Are you cuibbling with the word 8
" involved"?
He was there, he testified about it.
9 MR. MC BRIDE:
I don't doubt he was there and 10 testified about it,.but I thought the testimony was that the 11 person on the panel may or may not have been involved in any 12 given test.
()
13 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, the testimony of Mr. Congdon 14 is the testimony of Mr. Congdon.
He referred to this 15 specific test as an experiment in which he participated with 16 Adams.
That's involvement, in my book.
17 MR. MC BRIDE:
Sir, I believe his testimony was 18 that he recalled the hydrogen experiment.
Couldn't recall 19 the date.
But he did not recall, necessarily, whether it was 20 this test.
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
Oh, I disagree with that.
I think 22 the testimony was quite clear.
This was an experiment.
He 23 identified " pressurized MUT."
24 MR. MC BRIDE:
He identified the " pressurized 25 MUT."
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 8043346M6
3960 01 01 2874
/D 1
( )cefederal 1 JUDGE KELLEY:
We don't have to argue about this.
2 Is the word " involvement" bothering you?
3 What's your problem?
I have a question.
Have 4
you got a problem with it?
5 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes, sir.
At transcript 2737 you 6
asked Mr. Cooper whether or not -- you asked Mr. Congdon 7
whether or not he informed Mr. Cooper of the hydrogen 8
addition that corresponds with " pressurized MUT," and then, 9
as you understood his testimony, you stated:
"And yet here 10 is Cooper running this test and signing the test and you and 11 Adams are putting hydrogen in and not telling him about it.
12 It seems odd to me."
O(j 13 So we haven' t established that Mr. Cooper knew 14 that this hydrogen was added during this test.
15 JUDGE KELLEY:
That's what I was getting at.
I 16 hadn't asked him that.
I certainly intend to.
17 MR. MC BRIDE:
I thought you previously stated he 18 was aware of this notation on the strip chart through l
19 Mr. Congdon's testimony.
i 20 JUDGE KELLEY:
I'm interested in knowing whether 21 the witness knew about this test.
Let's just start from 22 scratch right there.
Mr. Congdon's testimony is whatever it 23 is.
24 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
i 25 0
Are you familiar with Mr. Congdon's testimony?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37tu Nationwide Coserage Nn33MM6
3960 01 01 2875
- ,g (v;cefederal 1 A
I discussed it sir, with Mike, last night.
2 0
Are you familiar with this particular test?
3 A
No, sir.
4 0
We have been over what's on " pressurized MUT."
We 5
have been over what's in the log.
The log says they added 6
pressurized hydrogen 2100 hours0.0243 days <br />0.583 hours <br />0.00347 weeks <br />7.9905e-4 months <br />.
7 A
Yes, sir.
8 0
Under those circumstances, do you believe Congdon, 9
and/or Adams if they had added hydrogen during the course of 10 the test, would have told you about it?
11 A
Not necessarily, sir.
They may or may not have 12 told me about it.
(G_)
13 O
So you could have signed off.on this test, which 14 contains, as far as I can tell, a false indication of almost 15 a gallon a minute because of a hydrogen addition and not even 16 known that had been done?
17 A
That's possible, sir.
I would answer the 18 questions involved and none of those questions involved 19 hydrogen additions.
Hydrogen additions were not prohibited.
20 0
I understand that.- Do you think the draftsmen of 21 those questions for the program, if they knew a hydrogen 22 addition could throw off the makeup tank indicator, would 23 have put in a question for that, too?
24 A
W(ll, certainly.
25 O
They didn't think of it, right?
Apparently?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(O Nationwide Coserage sk33MM6
~_, _
3960 01 01 2876
,7
(,)cefederal 1 A
Apparently not.
2 O
So that left it open, I gather, in your view, to 3
add hydrogen whenever you felt like it and that you didn't 4
have to answer the computer as far as that was concerned; is 5
that correct?
6 A
Well, they didn't think of it.
The problem was 7
that it was a problem with the plant design that I've now 8
learned.
The way the plant was actually built, which was 9
different -- they had this loop seal in the level instrument, 10 I guess, that caused this hydrogen effect.
I never did know, 11 until the NRR/OI investigation where they interviewed me, 12 where they finally explained to me how this effect worked.
()
13 During my initial interview with the NRC, the 14 first time, I asked them, you know -- told them we thought it 15 might have an effect and I wanted to know how it was doing 16 it.
It didn't make any sense.
Everybody I was talking to 17 told me it shouldn't be happening if it did happen and I 18 couldn't get an explanation.
So I don't know why the 19 computer operator should understand it any better than I 20 understood it.
21 0
I don't expect you to understand it.
I'll 22 stipulate you didn't understand why this happened from time 23 to time; not even all the time, from time to time.
24 You say the computer didn't ask you the question 25 so you didn't have to enter this in, in your view.
Weren't ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80lk336-6M6
i 3960.01 01 2877
~[)cefederal.1.
you charged with getting an accurate leak' rate test?
2 A
Yes,-sir.
s 1
3 O
Didn't you know that when you got this peculiar 4
reaction out of a hydrogen addition such that the makeup tank 5
level went up, that you would get an inaccurate, a more-i 6
inaccurate leak rate test?
7 A
My view of the leak rate test is that none of them 8
were accurate.
9 0
That's not what I asked you.
10 A
Well, you are asking me about accuracy of tests.
I 11 O
I'm asking you a narrower question. ~Didn't you 12 know that by adding - hydrogen, the test result would be more
()
13 inaccurate than it would otherwise be?
14 A
.I didn't know if that was necessarily true.
i 15' O
Isn't that obvious on the face of' things?
If you 16 know that the makeup tank level.will sometimes take a t
i 17 significant jump in response to hydrogen, don't you know for T
18 a fact at that time that, if you don't account in some I
19 fashion for.that change, or if you don't throw the test away, 20 you are going to have a less accurate leak rate test than f
21 otherwise?
l 22 A
We are not communicating.
Adding the hydrogen was I
23 not prohibited by the procedure.
i l
24 0
Yes.
I know that.
25 A
There was nothing that prohibited me from adding ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3960 01 01 2878
(~b
( fcefederal 1 the hydrogen.
I thought --
2 0
There certainly was.
You were under an obligation 3
to do the best you can to run an accurate leak rate test.
If 4
you were relying on a false indication from a hydrogen 5
addition in order to get a number under 1, then that's -- I 6
submit to you, that is not acceptable.
7 A
I was not adding hydrogen to get a false 8
indication or to improve the leak rate test.
9 0
okay.
Let's get into that subject.
10 A
You can look at this chart recorder and you can 11 see the effect of hydrogen on this one particular level 12 transmitter.
This is not the level transmitter that feeds O)
(_
13 the computer that does the calculation.
14 On the control board there's a selector switch to 15 select between LT-1 and LT-2, and whichever one you select to 16 is the one that feeds this strip chart recorder.
T1.e other 17 one feeds the computer.
18 Unless you put it on one of the extra recorders 19 that's on the computer or to call up that point, you can't 20 tell that it is reading the same as this or having the same 21 effect on, you know, the other level transmitter.
The level 22 transmitters rarely agreed with each other.
23 0
Let me make sure I understand.
In the case of 24 120, are you saying there was a problem with the level 25,
transmitter?
4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coscrage m)3MM6
3960 01 01 2879
<g j fcefederal 1 A
No.
I'm saying that the level transmitter that we 2
are looking at in this strip chart recorder --
3 0
Right.
4 A
-- is not the same one that went to the 5
calculation, the one the computer was monitoring.
6 0
I understand that.
7 A
So you can't say what happened to that level 8
transmitter by looking at this.
9 0
What's your point?
10 A
I'm saying, you know -- you are saying that this 11 change here had an obvious effect on the leak rate.
12 0
Right.
()
13 A
I agree that's a good supposition, but I can't 14 tell that for sure because I don't know that the other level 15 transmitter responded in the same way.
16 0
well, but isn't that just building in -- and 17 neither of us know in this particular case -- but if you have 18 a problem in terms of agreement between the level i
19 transmitters, then isn't that yet another problem with the 20 test?
f 21 A
Yes, sir.
22 0
Is it a justification for using a test that has a 23 hydrogen addition, which, apparently, threw off the l
24 indication?
1
\\-
25 A
I'm not trying to justify the addition of hydrogen ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage R$3364646 t
i 3960 01 Ol'
'2880 13
(,.cefederal 1 in using-the test..That was obviously wrong now.
I 2
understand more about what was going on now than I did then.-
'3 If I had it to do over again today I would do nothing of the 4
sort.
I understand better now than I did then.
4 l
5 At the time I was very unsure about what I was i
6 seeing, as far as what these leak rate calculations were 7
telling.me, what I was seeing on-the level indications during 8
hydrogen additions.
I was very unsure.
9 0
But isn't it pretty clear in test 120 -- by the 10 way, when you signed off on this test, would you typically.
4 l
11 have looked at the strip chart?
12 A
Not always, sir.
()
13 0
Sometimes yes, sometimes no?
f 14 A
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
15 O
So, if you hadn't looked at the strip chart and if 16 Congdon's testimony is accurate, and he added hydrogen but 17 somehow you didn't find out about it, then you could have 18 signed off on this test thinking that procedures had been i
19 followed; is that right?
I 20 A
Yes, sir.
)
i 21 0
Let's get to this question of adding hydrogen for i
22 other purposes.
There's only one purpose that I'm familiar 23 with from your testimony, and that has to do with maintaining i
24 a certain level of hydrogen in the makeup tank.
Could you s
25 explain that a bit?
Comment on that was done?
i s
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
.n w.,,a,
~ ~ -. c -,.
r -.
y
-3960 01 01 2881
(
cefederal 1 A'
Okay.. We keep a hydFogen overpressure on the 2
makeup tank so that we keep a-certain amount of hydrogen 3L
-dissolved in'the reactor coolant system.. We can,aby keeping 4
the pressure within a certain band, maintain the right 5
. concentrations, ccs per lqg in the reactor coolant system for 6
oxygen control.
This helps reduce corrosion in the plant.
7 I believe the spec at the' time was we-had to 8
maintain above 25 ces per kg hydrogen in the reactor coolant 9
system.. We didn't have an, automatic pressure regulator that 10 worked to do this for us so'it had to be done manually by the 11 operator when necessary to bring the tank up to pressure.
12 We had been somewhat lax, during a period of time,
- O)
(_
13 keeping the tank's hydrogen concentration correct.
And the 14 chemistry department, who monitors the reactor coolant system 15 hydrogen, had complained to the operations management and the 16 plant's unit superintendent.
It was reemphasized t.o us to 17 maintain the hydrogen within a certain band in the makeup 18
' tank.
-I believe it was about 15 to 25 pounds pressure.
19 Every morning, let's say if I was on the back 20 shift or just came on daylight shift and the plant 21 superintendent, Joe Logan, came in the control room, he would
.22 go right to that indicator wanting to.see whether we had 23 hydrogen where he had told supervision that he wanted it 24 maintained at all times, 15 to 25 pounds in the tank.
So O.
25 there was a lot of emphasis on this one parameter, keeping it ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
N2-347-3700 bationwide Coserage 84433MM6
3960 01 01 2882
(
'cefederal 1 where the unit superintendent wanted it.
i v
2 O
When you say, "within a band of 15 to 25" -- this 3
is a gauge you are looking at?
4 A
Yes, sir.
It's a gauge.
5 0
And you can look at it and there's a range of 15 6
to 25, and below and above; is that right?
7 A
I forget what the scale was, like zero to 100 8
pounds, and we were told to maintain it between 15 and 25 9
pounds.
10 0
You say this was to prevent corrosion?
Is that 11 the reason for maintaining this level?
12 A
Corrosion -- yes, sir.
Putting hydrogen in the
()
13 reactor coolant system helps to keep oxygen out of the 14 system.
Oxygen helps corrosion take place; if we keep the 15 oxygen low by having an adequate hydrogen level, we have less 16 l
corrosion in the plant.
17 0
In the whole plant or just in the makeup tank?
18 A
The whole plant, sir.
The whole reactor coolant 19 system throughout the core and the loops and into the 20 charging -- I'm getting confused with the systems I'm 21 familiar with -- the makeup system.
22 O
This maintenance of hydrogen level, does it have 23 any safety significance?
Or is that just protecting your own 24 property, so to speak?
ob 25 A
I --
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Cmerage 804336-fM6
-.-347-3700
3960 01 01 2883 p(,)cefederal1 0
Put it a different way, you just decided one day 2
you don't feel like putting any hydrogen in.
Would that pose 3
any hazard to public health or safety?
4 A
Yes, sir.
5 0
It would?
6 A
Yes, sir.
7 0
In what way?
8 A
Increased corrosion in the plant could cause 9
decreased strength of the piping materials, could case piping 10 to undergo cracking or fracturing.
I'm not familiar enough 11 to know just how long it would take to do something like that 12 but that's what I have been taught.
We want to minimize 13 corrosion to keep the plant within its design basis so that i
14 it will last the 40 years it is designed for and stay within 15 the chemistry specs that we have been given by the vendor.
16 0
I understand it was Mr. Logan who was so concerned 17 about this; is that right?
18 A
Yes, sir.
19 0
He was the unit 12 superintendent?
20 A
Yes, sir.
21 0
I can determine this from him -- do you recall l
22 approximately when he became superintendent?
i 23 A
Not really.
He was hired in but, after being 24 hired in he had to go through license training.
i
)
/
25 0
Never mind.
l l
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80t 336-%86
,. _, ~. _ _ _ _. _, _ -,. _ _..
3960 01 01 2884 q,)cefederal 1 A
He got his license when I got mine.
2 O
He's going to come as a witness and we can find 3
that out if we don' t already know.
4 I'm curious to explore what options, if any, that 5
you had in these circumstances.
As I understand it, you say 6
that you were under orders to keep hydrogen maintained in 7
this band of 15 to 25 and that you would add hydrogen from 8
time to time in order to maintain that level when the test 9
was going on, but that your motive, really, was to maintain 10 the hydrogen level.
Is that correct --
11 A
Yes, sir.
12 0
-- so far?
Okay.
,(_)
13 Now, as a. general matter, how often would you have 14 to add hydrogen to keep it within the desired level?
15 A
I can't recall specifically.
I seem to feel that 16 it was at least once a shift and maybe more.
17 O
Twice a shift?
18 A
Might be twice a shift.
I'm not sure on that.
19
. That was a long time ago.
20 0
More than?
I mean, it wasn't once an hour.
21 A
No, it wasn't once an hour.
22 O
Okay.
A leak rate test took an hour; correct?
23 A
Yes, sir.
24 O
Let's suppose that you know you are going to run a 25 leak rate test.
You have come on shif t at 7:00 in the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804 336-6646
3960 01 01 2885 r~
",)s
(
cefederal 1 morning and you know you need to run a leak rate test and you 2
look at the hydrogen band and it needs some hydrogen.
3 Couldn't you pump in enough hydrogen to-run it up to 25, 4
-let's say, and then be pretty confident that you are not 5
going to have to add any hydrogen until halfway through the 6
day?
Noon?
7 A
Usually that would be true; yes, sir.
8 0
Okay.
If that were an option, why did you get 9
into this problem of adding hydrogen during a leak rate test?
10 A
At the time we didn't view it as a problem, of 11 adding hydrogen during leak rate tests.
We didn't feel that 12 we were doing anything wrong.
()
13 0
Even though you knew that it might cause the 14 makeup tank indicator to go up?
15 A
Even though we felt that it might do that at some 16 times, we didn't really feel we were doing anything wrong, 17 sir.
18 0
But, if I understand correctly, if you did want to 19 avoid adding hydrogen during a leak rate test, you could have 20 simply pumped the system up with hydrogen and then ran a leak 21 rate test; correct?
22 A
You could do that.
What I'm trying to get across 23 is I didn't, as a routine nature, try and coordinate hydrogen 24 additions with leak rate tests.
I didn't try to time them so 1
N 25 that I did them during the leak rate tests or try to time the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
i 3960 01 Ol' 2886 i
()cefederal1
-leak rate test until after I did the hydrogen addition or 2
waited to do the leak rate test until I needed'to do a 3
. hydrogen addition.
They were:two separate issues We 4
noticed when they occurred we had some indications that they' 5
might be affecting each other and we.didn't' understand it.
6 0
But the effect was favorable in' terms of getting a l
7 lower leak rate test?
8 A
Sometimes it appeared that way.
9 O
Similarly, if you were running a leak rate test so 10 you just entered a leak rate test, and you read the hydrogen 11 indicator and it is getting down a little below'15, is there 12 any reason why you couldn' t just wait until the leak rate
)
'13' test was over before adding hydrogen?
~
14 A
With the unit superintendent putting out-very 15' specific instructions to maintain it within a certain band i.
16 and impressing that upon the supervisors who impressed it.
i 17 upon us, our awareness of what that band was -- I think'like.
18 most people, if your boss tells you that he wants this one 19 certain thing done a certain way every day, no matter what 20 else you do, make sure you do'this, you-tend to respond to l-21 that.
So we'd see it get to 15, we'd push it back up to 25.
22 O
Did you ever respond to your boss that if you add 23 hydrogen during a leak rate test, it might produce a j
24 significantly inaccurate result?
l-25 A
I know that we discussed -- I don't think I ever l
l l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336M86
3960 01 01 2887
( )cefederal.1 responded to him that I didn't want to add hydrogen because a 2
leak rate test was in progress.
I know that we discussed on 3
shift that we thought that the hydrogen would be having an J
j 4
effect on the leak rate and we were trying to talk amongst 5
ourselves, brainstorming, trying to figure out a means that 6
this might be happening and we never really came up with any 7
clearcut solutions.
We couldn't really tell just what the 8
effect was, if there was one.
9 0
We have been over this several times.
My 10 understanding is that your observation was that at least on 11 some occasions, it caused the makeup tank level to rise and, 12 therefore, tended to produce a lower leak rate; correct?
()
13 A
I believe that's what happened; yes, sir.
14 Q
Do you have any estimate of distribution?
Let's 15 suppose you added hydrogen 10 times.
Is this going to send 16 the leak rate -- send the monitor up three times out of 10?
[
17 Or five?
Or seven?
Or what?
l 18 A
I don't have any feel for that, sir.
l 19 0
But it was a significant number of times, I take L
l 20 it, or you wouldn't remember it?
l-l 21 A
I don't think it was a significant number of 22 times.
It was just something that we noticed going on and we 23 had a lot of discussion about it because we were trying to I
24 find an answer and we talked about it time and again and I l
1 o
25 know that we experimented on shift to see if we could affect ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
-3960 01 01 2888 o
)cefederal1 the makeup tank level with hydrogen additions.
You know, i
2 watching it, trying to maintain everything controlled, to see 3
if it had some effect.
Trying to nail it down for ourselves 4
because we couldn' t get any answers anywhere else.
5 0
This particular test we have been looking at, 6
number 120, is labeled by Mr. Congdon as just such an 7
experiment?
8 A
That's what Mike McBride was telling me, that Joe 9
said he remembered the experiment.
I think I testified 10 before I we did experiment, trying to figure out what-was 11 going on, did it have an effect or didn't it.
And we weren't 12 sure.
That's why we were experimenting.
We were trying to
()
13 understand how the plant worked.
And we weren't getting a li lot of outside help.
So we were trying to solve the problem 15 the best we could on our own, trying to figure out what was 16 going on; try and tell I&C we have a problem and they think 17 we are full of baloney and we can' t get any help for them.
18 What we were trying to do is troubleshoot the problem from 19 them so we can tell them what to go fix.
20 0
But in terms of frequency, I was trying to get an-21 idea of just how often this phenomenon would occur, and you 22 didn't have any specific number in mind.
I gave you the 23 example of three out of 10, five out of 10 --
24 A
I couldn' t give you an estimate.
25 0
Then you went on to say you didn't think it was ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage M336-6M6
3960~01 01 2889
( )cefederal 1 significant.
What'makes you say that?
2 A
Which part?
3 0
I understood you to say that you didn't regard 4
this phenomenon of the tank level going up in response to 5
hydrogen as a significant phenomenon.
Did that mean it 6
didn't happen very much?
7 A
It didn't seem like it happened all the time.
I 8
don't know what you mean -- did I say "significant"?
9 0
I guess I would regard three'out of 10 as.
10 significant?
11 A
You said three out of 10.
12 0
I'm giving you a frame of reference.
I'm trying
(")%
(_
13
-to get some notion.of what you mean out of this.
You can't 14 give me a number and you can't say that, so then I asked you 15 significant, and I'm getting frustrated because I don't know 16 how significant this effect was in your experience.
17 A
We thought we saw an effect.
But we didn't see it 18 often enough to convince me at the time that I could say hard 19 and fast, hydrogen addition is going to do this to the makeup 20 tank level.
I couldn't tell you how long a period of time I 21 made that judgment over or didn't reach a conclusion.
But I 22 could never reach the conclusion because I didn't see it 23 exhibit itself often enough or do the same thing, time after 24 time.
O
(_/
25 0
Yes.
I understand that it didn't happen all the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-..-,'336-6M6 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800
3960 01 01 2890
(( x),cefederal 1 time.
We talked about it going up, down, and doing nothing.
2 I understand that.
3 What I'm after is, did-it go up some significa'nt 4
numbers of times so that you thought, from time to; time, this 5
would affect leak rate tests?
6 A
I th'ought that it might but I wasn't sure.
7 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
8 O
Mr. Cooper, I would like to observe, I'm very 9
reassured you are the first person we've had that said they 10 orally reported that there was a problem with the leak rate 11-test to the instrument repair group.
Did you ever consider 12 documenting the situation with a copy of the strip chart f(
13-record, like this test 1207 14 A
No, I.didn't, sir.
15 t O
If they said you are seeing things, the strip 16 chart evidence, I think, might have been of assistance to 17 you.
18 A
I think it might have.
But I don' t think -
you 19 know, at the time, I thought there was an effect.
All I did 20 was discuss it orally with the I&C guy.
I don't believe I 21 ever wrote any maintenance orders or anything else that said, 22 investigate this thing.
23 At the time we just didn't have the resources 24 available to investigate some kind of anomaly that showed up 25 like this.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33H486
~
3960 01 01 2891
(~m
( ):cefederal.1 Since -- you know, the world of nuclear power back 2
in 1979 and the world of nuclear power today is quite 3
different, from my view.
Still operating.
And I know that 4
if I saw some effect in the plant that I didn't understand, 5
I've got engineers on call to -- you know, cognizant 6
engineers from particular systems that I can get in touch 7
with and call in and go over strip. chart traces with them.
8 All I have to do is tell them:
I think I've got a problem.
9 Then they have to prove to me I do have a problem or I don't 10 have a problem or explain to me why I'm seeing what I'm 11 seeing.
12 At that time we didn't have that kind of
()
13 organization to respond to us.
We simply had the on-shift 14 operators and we could talk to the I&C department, and if 15 they told us they didn't think they wanted to waste any time' 16 investigating what we were talking about, they were convinced 17 their level instruments were right all the time and they 18
.didn't want to waste any time checking them or calibrating 19 them, we were at a dead end, at least as a control room 20 operator.
21 Q
But I don' t know that they ever saw one of these 22 strip chart records like test 120.
23 A
I know we didn't show them any.
I didn't.
24 0
If you felt it was a little more difficult to get 25 attention at that point in time, rather than today, one way 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
u v
3960 J01 :01 2892
(
cefederal'1 to get attention is something in writing.
Some i
f 2
documentation, some' evidence.
3 A-Yes, sir.
I understand that very well now.
I 4'-
understand, better, how the system works and how to get 5
things done.
6 O
At any rate, I just wanted to be sure for the 7
record you never did submit in writing to anybody any 8
documentation that a problem existed?
9 A
No, sir.
10 0
So it's somebody else's performance, I can't say:
11 Look, you were advised in writing that there was.a problem
~
12 and you did nothing about it?
f) 13 A
No, sir.
14 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you.
15
.BY JUDGE KELLEY:
16 0
Talking about options, given your knowledge that 17 hydrogen addition might affect the leak rate test,-again in' 18 relation to your having to add hydrogen to keep it in the 15 19-to 25 band, apart from pumping up the hydrogen system before 20 you run the test or just letting the hydrogen wait until 21 after you are done with a leak rate test, if you run a leak i
22 rate test and you add hydrogen in the course of it and you 23 get a marked strip chart reaction from the hydrogen addition, 24 why wouldn' t you just invalidate that test?
25 A
well, because our mindset at the time was that ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-(646
.-.......m._,
3960 01'01 2893
,m
-( Jcefederal i hydrogen was not prohibited.
There was nothing wrong about 2
it.
There was nothing illegal and we were complying with the 3
procedure.
4 Our mindset at the time, as far as doing these 5
leak rate calculations, is that they were meaningless and it 6
was a chore that we had to do, shiftly:
Get a satisfactory 7
leak rate surveillance done.
Get it out of the way.
And do 8
the other work we had to do.
9 If we added water during a surveillance 10 inadvertently, when we didn' t intend to -- and that happened 11 several times during the shift where one of us realized that 12 a leak rate calculation was in progress and we had done-a
()
13 water addition -- we would abort the leak rate test and start
'14 over again.
15 0
Why wouldn't you just subtract the amount you 16 added?
17 A
We didn't like doing that as a rule because we 18 didn't have a lot of faith in the instrumentation that was 19 telling us how much we added, either.
We tried to avoid 20 doing anything that would mess up the calculation.
We wanted 21 the calculation to be real straightforward and we were trying 22 to -- it said " minimize additions," and we tried to minimize 23 additions.
24 0
Of what?
2S A
Of water and boric acid.
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
,. -347-3mo
~_
3960.01 Ol' 2894
(,)cefederal 1-0 But not hydrogen?
2 A.
Not hydrogen.
3 0
Hydrogen was okay?
4 A
Hydrogen was okay.
5 0
Let me.ask you, Mr. Cooper, to turn to pages 48 6
and 49 of your prefiled -- not your prefiled, your 7
statement.
Your interview.
I'm going to ask you to read, 48 8
starting with "We did" down to the middle of 49, which ends 9
with "If the result came out good, we accepted it."
Would 10-you read that over, please?
11 A
I'm trying to find 48.
The copy I have isn't 12 numbered too well.
I
(~h
(_j 13 O
The copies are poor.
The' numbers are in the-14 left-hand margin of the copy I have.
They are hard to read.
15 Starting with "We did" and over on the next page, a little 16 past the middle of the page where you says, "If the result 17 came out good, we accepted it."
Line 16.
18 A
Okay.
19 MR.1MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, may I note for the 20 record on what I take it is page 48, there appears, in lines 21 13 and 14, to be a transcription error.
It reads, "We are 22 talking about in the C-department."
I'm quite sure I recall 23 the witness saying, "We were talking to the I&C department."
24 The problem.here was that the witnesses never had
/~
(_h i
/
25 an opportunity to make transcript corrections.
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
l 3960 01 01 2895 1
(
Icefederal-1 JUDGE KELLEY:
I&C --
us 1
2 THE WITNESS:
Instrument and control department.
3 JUDGE KELLEY:
It sounds right to you?
It should 4
be I&C?
5 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, let's change it, then.
7 THE WITNESS:
I have completed reading that, sir.
8 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
9 0
You and I have been' talking over the general topic 10 covered there for a while.
Do you believe what you say there 11 on those two pages, do you endorse that?
12 A
Yes, sir.
(Q_j 13 0
On page 49, the last paragraph, make sure I read 14 this right.
Let me read it and see if the inflections are 15 correct.
You are saying:
16 "It may be splitting hairs.
I think the final 17 line is, it wasn't:
Okay, we are doing a leak rate, let's 18 add hydrogen and maybe we'll get a good leak rate out of it.
19 lit was more like:
Okay, we've got a leak rate in progress, 20 hydrogen is low, I've got to add hydrogen, let's see how that 21 affects.the result.
If the result comes out good -- came out 22 good, we accepted-it." ?
23 A
That's correct, sir.
24 0
" Good," I take it, is, in the last sentence means 25 "less than 1"?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433M646
3960101 01 2896
()cefederal.1 A
Less than 1.
2 (Discussion off the record.)
3 BY JUDGE KELLEY:-
4 0
Skipping over to 83, there's a series of questions 5
between you and Christopher and Capra.
Let me ask you first, 6
whether there isn't a mistake on page 84, line 9.
You are 7
saying, "Right, if hydrogen was in the band that it was 8
supposed to be, I would."
Do you mean "wouldn' t"?
9 A
I can't-find the page.
847 10 0
Yes.
I think there's a mistake there.
11 A'
Which line was that?
12 0
Line 9, 84.
Read the two lines and see if "would"
()
13 shouldn't be "wouldn't."
14 A
I wouldn't.
That's right.- That's incorrect.
15 0
It should be "would not"?
16 A
I would not have added hydrogen.
17 0
That's what I thought.
Okay.
18 Could you read over from -- it covers much the 19 same ground, again, from the top of 83 down, halfway down 85, 20 where you are discussing much the same point and see if you 21 think that's a fair statement of your recollection.
22 A
Line 19, page 83, should say, " aware that if I 23 did."
There's no "if" in there.
24 0
Yes.
O( /
25 MR. MC BRIDE:
Would you repeat that?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Cmcrage N3346646
.3960 01 01 2897
/(,1cefederal 1 THE WITNESS:
Page 83, line 19, starts with the
.2 sentence above:
"Though I was aware that 'if' I did add 3
hydrogen while the leak was occurring - " there should be an 4-
"if" in there.
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
Right.
6 THE WITNESS:
How far did you want me to read, 7
sir?
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
The middle of 85, let's say 85, 9
line 11.
10 THE WITNESS:
We already corrected page 84, line 11 9.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Right.
We corrected the
()
13 "wouldn't."
14 THE WITNESS:
Okay.
Middle of 85.
15 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
16 0
That whole discussion, if I can characterize it, 17 goes to your state of mind and intention in situations where 18 you would add hydrogen because the 15 to 25 level was low in 19 its relationship to leak rate.
That's the subject, correct?
20 A
Yes, sir.
21 Q
And you think that that portion of the transcript 22 is fair and accurate as far as you are concerned?
23 A
Yes, sir.
24 0
You may be aware from your counsel, last week rN k-)
25 Mr. Congdon did testify -- he, of course, is your shiftmate ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433MM6
~.
x 3960f01 01 2898
.g, cefederal 1
-- and he testified, among other things, about test 120 which
(_7 2
he characterized as an experiment.
He also testified that 3
he, Congdon, and I'm speaking rather generally and counsel 4
may want to qualify it.
Speaking rather generally, Congdon 5
testified that he did, from time to time, add hydrogen in 6
order to affect a leak rate result.
He said he thought that 7
Miller and yourself were aware of the fact that he was.doing 8
that.
9 MR. MC BRIDE:
Adams.
10 THE WITNESS:
You mean Chuck Adams?
11 JUDGE KELLEY: Adams, strike that.
12 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
.( )
13 0
Adams and yourself were' aware of the fact that he-
~ 14 was doing_that.
But you said, in general -- I think a 15 paraphrase of a part of what he said.
16 Now, you express disbelief in your prefiled that 17 Congdon would have d'one that, in light of the fact that he so 18 testified.
Do you have any comment on that?
19 A-I have known Joe a long time.
I haven't really 20 had much to do with him for the last couple of years.
From 21 what I knew of Joe, and how we operated on the shift, as I 22 said in previous testimony, that wasn't the way we operated.
' 23 Chuck Adams wouldn' t allow it.
24 Chuck wouldn't allow us to cut corners.
He 25 wouldn't agree that it was okay to do something a tiny bit 1
4 L
ACE-FEDERAL-REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M646
,-347-3700,. - -.
-3960 01 01 2899
,~~
(,),cefederal1 illegal or unauthorized.
Chuck was very serious about 2
following the rules.
I don't believe that Joe would 3
purposely go out of his way to get a good leak rate.
There 4
was no great benefit to us to go through any gyrations to try 5
and make a leak rate come out by using unauthorized means, by 6
lying to the computer program or.doing something else such as 7
adding the hydrogen just to specifically affect the leak 8
rate.
9 We had different things to do in the plant and you 10 can't separate them all.
We had a lot of things to do'and we 11 tried to operate in an above-board, straightforward manner 12 all the time.
That was just our normal way of doing
()
13 business.
14 What I know about Joe, I still don't believe he 15 added hydrogen to purposely affect the leak rate.
He may 16 believe it today after all the years that have gone by, and 17 the testimony that has occurred.
I know several 18 interrogations that have gone on.
I recall the day -- the 19 first time we were interviewed by the NRC we were both being 20 interviewed in adjoining trailers at TMI.
And I came out of 21 my interview and Joe was standing outside the other trailer.
22 They were taking a break and he was going to go back in.
I 23 was done.
24 He looked like he was all wrung out, had really 25 been put through the mill.
I knew he had just heard the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 8 6 336-6646
3960 01 01 2900
-((,1cefederal1 things I had heard from the interrogators and I know some of 2
the things they told me, completely took me aback, some of 3
the allegations they made.
Because initially going into the 4
interviews, they said that they had a different purpose and 5
we got in there and it turned into an entirely different 6
thing.
And I know that I was pretty shaken when I came out.
7 When I came out and saw Joe, he looked like he had been beat 8
up pretty good.
I believe time has gone by and he has taken 9
a beating and he now believes just what he told you.
I just 10 don't believe that he was doing that or that we were doing 11 that on our shift.
12 0
You make a distinction, as I understand you, (A,)
13 between, on the one hand, adding hydrogen for the. purpose, 14 che specific purpose of changing the leak rate result and, on 15 the other hand, adding hydrogen to keep the pressure up, 16 knowing that it might also have the effect of altering a leak 17 rate test.
Is that right?
18 A
Yes, sir.
[
19 0
You draw that distinction.
20 Do you think Mr. Adams would draw that 21 distinction?
22 A
I think he would.
I don't think that we ever did l
l 23 anything different than what I'm telling you.
I'm not saying 24 that it was right.
I mean this was the rationalization I was 25 doing in my own mind at the time.
I had this other thing to i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage 800-336 4646
3960 01 01 2901
/ ')s
(_ cefederal 1 do and that made what I was doing okay.
I know it's wrong.
2 0
I just have a couple of other specific points.
3 Do you recall a time when an LER was -- came down 4
concerning the correct interpretation of the 72-hour 5
requirement?
6 A
I'm well aware of the LER now, from previous 7
interviews on leak rate surveillances.
But I don't recall 8
seeing it on shift or being instructed in it on shift.
9 0
What I wanted to focus on, particularly, was not 10 so much what the LER said or what people might be instructed 11 about it.
Do you recall that, at that time, receiving any 12 instruction as to how to handle -- what to do with bad leak
()
13 rate tests, tests in excess of 1 gallon per minute?
14 A
Do you mean instruction from supervision or part 15 of my turnover --
16 0
Yes.
Well, either way, but particularly 17 supervision?
18 A
I don't remember if supervision came out and said 19 anything.
But I remember that we had come on shift after 20 this incident with Don Haverkamp, the NRC inspector finding a 21 leak rate printout on the computer console --
22 O
Right.
that was unsatisfactory.
I guess that's called 23 A
24 a big brouhaha.
When we came on, part of the turnover from 25 the off-going operators telling us what had happened and the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
3960 01 01 i
2902
(^s x_,1cefederal 1 gist was that if you got -- don't leave bad leak rates lying 2
around.
When you throw them away or you are not going to 3
keep them, make sure you throw them away good.
4 0
Yes.
You said that in an earlier statement.
My 5
follow-up question is:
Who told you that?
6 A
I can't recall exactly who.
I thought that it was 7
somebody on D shift, but I'm not sure who.
8 0
In a turnover context, you mean?
9 A
In a turnover.
Right.
Somebody I was relieving.
10 0
Do you recall whether Adams said anything to you 11 about that?
12 A
I can't recall that Chuck said anything.
()
13 O
Mehler?
14 A
No.
15 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, could we just be sure 16 whether the witness said B or D?
17 THE WITNESS:
D as in dog.
18 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
19 0
Were you asked over page 81 of your interview 20 whether you discussed leak rate problems with various people 21 in supervisory positions, including Floyd, Ross, Congdon, 22 Miller, Seelinger.
23 You s9y at the bottom of the page, are you with me 24 yet?
On 81?
25 A
Yes.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
3960 01 01 2903 g)cefederal 1
(,
0 Capra says:
2
" Question:
Iha you know if any of those individuals 3
were aware of all the problems you were having with leak rate 4
. test?
5
" Answer:
I know that Jim Floyd was supervisor of 6
operations, he was getting feedback from the shift 7
supervisor.
Whatever conversations they were having, he was 8
aware of."
9 Could you -- first of all is that still your 10 recollection in that regard?
11 A
Right.
As far -- you know, as how much the 12 management above me knew about it, I know about Jim Floyd and
()
13 below.
14 0
I see.
I understand.
15 A
Yes.
16 0
This means, from yourself to Adams?
17 A
To Mehler to Floyd.
18 0
To Mehler to Floyd?
19 A
Right.
20 0
Are you referring, there, just very generally, to 21 leak rate problems of all kinds?
22 A
Well, we were having trouble with the leak rate 23 surveillance.
The computer program was changed several 24 times, at our insistance.
We don' t know what they did to it 25 because it was all inside the black box in the computer.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
3960901 01 2904
((_jcefederal 1 0
Right.
2 A
They would tell us things like:
Well, that should 3
make your problems go away.
Every time they fixed it they 4
thought they had gotten the last fix.
5 0
Yes.
6 A
I recall the time when Jim Floyd, because we had 7
problems, had put out a memo about rounding off leak rate 8
values.
And we wouldn't do it.
That was very clear to us, 9
that that was very unsatisfactory.
We just wouldn't sign 10 it.
You know?
They put out this memo that you can round 11 them down, you know -- what, half a gallon, I think, is what 12 it said.
O i_/
13 So, if you had 1.3, you'd round it down to.99 or s
14 something like that.
We just refused to do it on shift and 15 that policy was rescinded for a few days, but we dug in our 16 heels as operators, you know?
It was something very clear to 17 us about right and wrong.
I don't know if that will help you 18 understand the quandary we were in.
Trying to figure out 19 what was going on in the plant.
This was very easy to 20 understand, what was right and what was wrong.
21 0
In those situations, I realized all the testimony 22 indicates that the rounding off was only in place for a week.
23 or 10 days, something like that, as a directive.
But there 24 was a period of time, I take it, when you were being told to
-/
25 round-off and didn't do it?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-1700 Naiionwide Coverage 804336-6M6
3960 01 01 2905
()cefederal1 A
Yes, sir.
2 O
So then what happened?
You ran a leak rate test 3
and --
4 A
We didn't do one that shift.
If we couldn' t --
5 you know -- we didn't do one.
We didn't turn one in.
We may 6
have gotten ones printed out of the computer that were in 7
excess of 1 gallon a minute, but they didn't get turned in.
8 They got thrown away.
And we just signed them.
9 O
Did this come to a crunch, so to speak, just on 10 this one shift?
11 A
The other shifts wouldn't sign them as far as I 12 know, either.
It became, amongst the control room operators,
()
13 a general, single wiew that we weren' t going to have anything 14 to do with this.
15 0
Okay.
In terms of knowledge, you say Floyd ---
16 speaking generally, at-least -- knew about leak rate 17 problems.
Are you aware of whether the phenomenon of 18 hydrogen added during a test when you were adding it to keep 19 the band up, that phenomenon, do you know whether that was 20 known to him?
21 A
I don't know that.
22 O
It was known to Adams, I assume?
23 A
Yes, sir.
24 O
Mehler?
25 A
Yes, sir.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
3960 01 01 2906 (m,)cefederal1 0
But you don't know one way or the other beyond
/
2 that; is that right?
3 A
That's right, sir.
4 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
5 0
on page 8 of your prefiled testimony, in-the 6
second full paragraph, you note that the NRC is accusing you 7
of performing leak rate tests with a faulty level
.8 transmitter.
Do you think that's an unfair accusation, based 9
on your review of the records, pieces of paper we have before 10 us?
11 A
I think so.
It sounds like they are saying that I 12 intentionally used a bad level transmitter to do the
()
13 calculation with.
I'm not going to stand by either one of 14 the two transmitters on the makeup tank because they were 15 both very unreliable from time to time.
But we never-tried 16 to use a bad level transmitter to do a calculation with.
17 0
I didn' t read the' NRC accusations that way.
There 18 are other people, where there is' evidence of switching back 19 and forth, which is implied in the question but --
20 A
When I read it that's what I was thinking they l
21 were saying.
22 0
How can you carry out a leak rate test if you 23 don't have a valid sensor?
i 24 A
It's very difficult.
25 0
No.
Isn't it impossible?
l l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 804336-6Mo
I 3960 01 01 2907
'p
( Jcefederal 1 A
Yes, sir.
But we had level transmitters that 2
' indicated generally what was in the tank.
You can see on the 3
strip chart that it suffered from oscillations that it 4
shouldn't have done.
The tank level wasn't really going up 5
and.down like that, at least I don' t think it was.
And you 6
could switch from one transmitter to the other and they might 7
disagree 10 or 15 inches.
But, usually they would show the 8
same general trend.
9 0
From my review, sometimes it did and sometimes it 10 didn't.
11 A
I'm not going to swear by these transmitters at 12 all.
We weren't happy with them.
They were a constant
()
13 problem.
14 O
So you wouldn't be uncomfortable if this Board a
15 were to find that there were times that an unstable level 16 transmitter was used by you to carry out tests, without any 17 implication about motivation?
18 A
No, sir.
The level transmitters were unstable.
i l
19 0
Where I'm -- I'm still trying to learn.
It has 20 been a few weeks now, talking to various witnesses.
Was'the 21 leak rate test required by technical specifications?
22~
A Yes, sir.
23 0
What does that mean to you?
24 A
What does it mean to me now, or then?
O
\\/
25 0
- Then, t
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(n336-6646 j
3960 01 01 2908
().cefederal'1 A
Then it meant that once every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> I had to 2
get a satisfactory surveillance.. And as long as I got at 3
least one good one within the 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, I felt that I was 4
satisfying the requirements.
5 0
In your mind did you draw a distinction between 6
surveillance tests required by technical specifications and 7
surveillance tests that weren't required?
8 A
Yes.
We had surveillance testing that wasn't 9
required by the tech specs.
I don't remember that much 10 detail about it, but we had surveillance requirements that 11 were nontech spec-related.
12 O
In your mind was there a difference between the
()
13 two categories?
14 A
Yes, sir.
15 0
What was the difference?
16 A
The difference was how much attention you had to 17 pay to the documentation and that you had all the Ts crossed 18 and the Is dotted; that the tech spec surveillances were very 19 much subject to audit by the quality assurance group, by the
(
20 NRC, upper management looked at the tech spec surveillances 21 if they became a problem as far as how we were performing l
22 them.
Nobody ever came down and audited our nontech spec j
23 surveillances.
l l
24 0
I agree with your description, but it still l
/~(~)
/
25 doesn't get at the root here.
I had the impression that the l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
1 4
4 3960 01 01 2909 r~x.
i,4cefederal 1 tech spec surveillances are the ones that are, in the opinion 2
" of someone, necessary to the safe operation of the plant.
3 A
Yes, sir.
4 0
Other things are desirable in terms of producing 5
electricity on a continuous basis in terms of public safety 6
and health, and that is what the tech spec waterfront was all 7
about?
8 A
Yes, sir, that's the purpose of the surveillances, 9
- ensure the equipment will' work when required in an accident 10 situation.
11 0, - Well, Nith~ respect to the -- to this leak rate 12 test, on what basis did you. conclude that this requirement
()
13 was really not essential for safe plant operation?
14 A
It didn't tell us anything in that we couldn't 15 make the test repeat itself.
16 0
I didn't say that.
17 A
I'm'not saying --
18 0
I'm not saying the test as in your hands.
But the 19 test, as specified in the technical specifications.
Not --
20 A
Okay.
It never seemed to make an impression on 21 us, that this test was doing anything to protect anybody.
22 That was our impression.
23 0
That's what I'm trying to get at.
Have you ever 24 read Reg Guide 1.45, back in that time frame?
(~
\\
25 A
I don't think so, sir.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(G336-6M6
.... ~
-3960 01 01 2910
(,1cefederal1-O How would you detect intersystem leakage at TMI-2 2
in the time frame 1978-1979, any other way than with this-
-3 test?
4 A
If you had a steam generator tube leak, you would 5
see it on your radiation monitor from the condenser off-gas 6
system,.long before you ever saw it ~in this calculation.
7 0
What about other systems?
8' A
If you saw it in a let-down heat exchanger, you 9
would see it on the nuclear service water system, radiation-10 levels going up.
And it also had a radiation monitor on that 11 system,.too, to detect intersystem leakage.
The radiat' ion 12 monitors will see the increase in radioactivity long before 4
( )-
13 the calculation will ever show you the leakage.
14 0
You are making a pretty sweeping generalization.
15 A
That's what I've seen from my experience.
16 0
Well, let's imagine that someone actually put
[
17 together a system with reliable sensors, and an accurate 18 computer program so that you could make measurements in a 19 repetitive basis with a precision d?d accuracy of the order 20 of a tenth of a gallon a minJt.
you think such a test l-21 would be useful in terms of safety?
22 A
Oh, yes, sir.
I found it useful.
You know, in my i
23 present day work I find it useful.
It hasn't shown me 24 intersystem leakage, but it has shown me leakage that told me 25 there was a leak and I could then put my resources to finding ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage 80I1336-6646
-. ~
3960.01 01 2911
)cefederal1 that. leak and getting it fixed.
But it hasn't shown me -- I 2
have had steam generator tube leakage that has never shown up 3
in the calculation because the activity that showed up in the 4
water on the secondary-side of the plant showed up long 5
before the steam' generator leak showed up in the --
6 0
Before it got big enough?
7
-A Big enough to show in the calculation.
The steam 8
generator tech spec limits you to 720 gallons a day.
That's-9
-- if you are doing an~one-hour leak rate that's a very small 10 number.
11' O
Half'a-gallon a minute.
What continues to' mystify 12 me is why you and others didn' t adhere. to the requirements of
(~
- (,j) 13 administrative procedure 1010, to label suspect ~ tests as 14 either an exception or a deficiency.
I've tried to.look at 15 what was wrong here, in. terms of management.
16
'I see a system in place, administrative procedure.
17 which should have flagged this thing, and somebody should 4
18 have gotten awful sick and tired of these tests labeled i
19 either exception or deficiency piling up on their desk?
20 A
That would have worked.
I know it would now.
I~
21 know that would have fixed the problem.
22 0
Okay.
Thank you for reassuring me that I 23 understand the situation.
24 Did you have pressure not to do that?
i 25 A
No.
I don't even think -- I don't think it ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
_ _ _ _ _ _ _. _, _, ~.... -,. -. _ - _.,. _. _ _, _...., _,, _. -.,,... _ _
3960-01 01 2912
()cefederal1 crossed my mind to.use them.
Computer-generated 2
surveillances were a different animal.
We had two different 3
surveillances_we ran on the computer:
The nuclear instrument 4
calibration, we do a heat balance on the secondary side of l
5 theLplant and.then calibrate our nuclear instruments'by-it.
4 6
And we were required to' check that the nuclear instruments 7
~ agreed within 2 percent with the calimetric, once a shift.
8 That was a 10-minute surveillance on the computer.
[
9 If it came out unsatisfactory, we didn't write Es 10 and Ds.
We called instruments right over to fix it, right 11 away.
And then we had got another one.
I'm not sure if we 12 ~
turned in the bad ones or not.
We had a clear path to
( )~
13 follow.
We didn't write an E~or D.
We approached the leak 14 rate surveillance the same way.
We didn' t write Es or Ds.-
J 15 It came out of the computer.
16 All our'other surveillances, when we had to do 17 them, we were told to do that by a computer generated sheet.
18.
There was a folder that came in once a week with a number of
'[
I 19 computer sheets in there that we used to track-in all this i-20 stuff and we'd fill in all the little codes on there saying 21 when we did the surveillance and who did it and our employee 22 number, so they could keep track of all this in the 23 computer.
But we didn't have the computer-generated sheets 24 for doing the inventory balance surveillance.
So you didn't 25 have to answer the questions on the computer-generated sheets ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L 202 Nationwide roserage 8&336W46 E
. -347 33 0
'3960 01 01 2913 (3_,cefederal 1 which said are these surveillances satisfactory?
Are.there 1
2 exceptions?
Are there deficiencies?
You didn't have to do 3
that.
And it never struck us, at least not me, that we never 4
were answering those questions that we normally did when we 5
performed a surveillance on some other people of equipment.
6 0
I had the impression that there was some piece of 7
paper associated with this test where that -- where exception 8
and deficiency boxes were available.
Is it a cover sheet to 9
the test that goes along with the computer sheet; do you 1
10 recall?
11 A
No, sir.
All we ever dealt with, to the best of 12 my knowledge -- recollection, are these computer-generated
()
13 sheets.
14 O
What about after the foreman or supervisor signed 15 them?
Did he have another sheet, cover sheet?
16 A
I don't think so.
Maybe ---I don't think so.
I 17 think they had a manual form you could fill out if you didn' t 18 have one of these computer-generated forms, but I don't think 19 we filled them out for these surveillances done on the-plant 20 computer.
21 Let's say if you had a piece of equipment out of 22 service and it was fixed and it was coming back and you now 23 had to do the tech spec required surveillance to declare it 24 operable again.
We'd do the surveillance and make out one of 25 these manual computer sheets to document the surveillance ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationmide Coserage 800-33MM6
= -
3960 01 01 2914 r\\cefederal 1 being performed, the retest being satisfactory.
But I don' t
(,7 2
think we used that on the inventory balance at all or the 3
other surveillance, on the heat balance.
4 O
There isn't any question in my mind -- so far I 5
haven't found anybody that even thought it might be 6
desirable; you had this aggravating test, as I understand 7
it.
Nobody says let's get this thing off our backs and get 8
it fixed?
9 A
Like I said, we talked to the people writing the 10 program.
We talked to the I&C department.
We didn' t try 11 anything that worked.
12 O
You never put anything in writing?
()
13 A
No, we didn't.
14 O
As an exception.
Just to see what would happen if 15 you followed the procedure.
We look up the line, we wonder 16 why those people didn't help you out of this situation.
17 There was really -- no papers went in that direction.
There 2
18 were no papers going --
19 A
Most of our communication was verbal.
It was 20 pretty unusual for control room operators to be writing memos 21 to upper management, things like that.
22 O
If the problem lasted only two webks I could 23 understand that, but it went on for a year?
24 A
It wasn't like we were quiet about it.
But I 25 think we were so frustrated, we were screaming, you know, and l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 4 6
3960 01 01 2915 (Nefederal1 complaining about it.
But you are right we didn't document a 2
lick of it.
It was all verbal, face to face, complaining to 3
each other,' complaining to the foreman.
4 0-But there was nobody telling you:
Don't use the 5
procedure?.
6 A
No.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Off the record.
8 (Discussion off the record.)
9 (Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m.,
the hearing was 10 recessed, to be reconvened at 1:30 p.m.
this same day.)
11 1
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3RU Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6686
- ~ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _
-3960-'01101 2916
()cefederal1-AFTERNOON SESSION (1:30 p.m.)
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Judge. Bright has a few questions 31 and then we'll have follow-ups after that.
4 JUDGE BRIGHT:.Just a couple of short ones, 5
- Mr. Cooper.
6 EXAMINATION:BY THE BOARD-(Continued) 7 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
8 0
I think I'm familiar with your characterization of 9
the leak rate test.
It seems to follow right along with what 10 everyone else has said about it.
Bdt,.let.me ask you, in 11 your training', class work, anywhere, were you really aware of 12 what the safety significance of that 1 gallon ~per minute leak
()
13 rate limit was?
4 114 A
No, sir.
No, sir.
I basically had no training i
15 except what the limits were, which was:
Study the tech l-16 specs, these were the limits.
What it was for, really'didn't 17 have anything --
18 0
No'one that you -- well, possibly the subject 19 never came up so you didn't know whether they knew anything i
I -
20 about it or not.
But at least they didn't communicate to you
(
21 that this was a safety-significant feature?
22 A
No, sir.
l l
23 O
This may sound a little redundant.
You have said l
24 that you don't even remember this LER, 78-62, the one that 25 had to do with the leak rate test that somehow Mr. Haverkamp ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M646
.-3700-.
. _.. _ _,. _ _ _. -. _. _. _. -. -, - _. ~. -. -.. -. - - -.
4
3960 01 01 2917
. 'q
-(_,cefederal-1 found. lying around with unacceptable leak rate limits.
2 A
I remember the incident.
I didn't remember the 3
LER.
4 0
Then, inasmuch as you were not familiar.with it, 5
is it fair to say that your supervisors, the shift foreman 6
and the shift supervisor, never communicated to you anything 7
about it, what you were supposed to do?
8 A
I think it would be fair to say that, r
9 O
Thank'you.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
It is our practice here, 11 Mr. Cooper, as you probably know, we have questions from the 12 Board.
Then the parties have an opportunity, and the Staff
()
13 has an opportunity, to submit so-called follow-up questions 14 which grow out of what we have already talked about.
That's 15 what I'll turn to now.
We have a series of' follow-up 16 questions from both your counsel and from the Staff.
17 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
18 O
This is from your counsel.
Referring to the 19 photograph of the TMI-2 control room back there, please 20 describe the location, prior the accident, of the two desks 21 used by the CROs.
As you do it, feel free to go right up to 22 it and point.
4 23 A
Okay.
The way the desks are configured, here, is i
24 the way I remember them being configured just before the 25 accident.
There was a long time period before the accident ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8@336-6M6
~
3960 01 01 2918
. f s,
( Jcefederal 1 where both desks faced each other.
So one gentleman, the 2
switching and tagging CRO, would normally sit here and the 3
CRO on the boards would sit. facing him with his-back to the 4
boards.
5 O.
You can stay where you are.
I think this question 6
follows on that question.
Were there panels and instruments 7
behind the ones in the photo?
8 A
Yes.
You go around the back.
As you go by the 9
plant computer over here you go around back to the panel for 10 the reactor cooling drain tank controls and also plant 11 ventilation controls.
There was a whole row of controls back 12 there with alarms, just like you see on top of these panels.
w 13 0
Okay.
Next question:
When you had the log on 14 your shift, did you' regularly leave the desk and go behind 15 the panels shown in the photo?
16 A
Yes, sir.
All-of the operators in the control 17 room moved freely about the control room, going this way and 18 also back this way.
There are other panels that sometimes 19 required us to go back there.
20 0
Okay.
Thank you.
21 0
Are you aware whether the NRR report -- that's the 22 Staff report -- you are familiar with the term NRR?
23 A
Yes.
24 0
Are you aware whether the NRR report alleged that 25 you personally performed a leak rate test which was filed, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 6(Xb336-6M6
'I i
.3960 01 01-2919.
1
(
cefederalJ1 and during which a faulty level transmitter was used?
2 A-Right.-
I read that report a few months ago, about 3_
.a month ago.
I-believe it does allege that.
4 0
Okay.
Please refer to table 7 of NRR's September 5'
~ 20, 1985 memorandum.
Let's get that.
i 6
MR. MC BRIDE:. I'll just put it in front of him.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
This is a series of tables in the 8
first volume of tests?
9 MR. MC BRIDE:
It's the September 20, 1985' staff 10 memoranda.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
Let us get ahold of that.
12 MR. MC BRIDE:
As a reminder, you may recall'the-
'( )
13 table that has the operator's names at the top.
14 JUDGE KELLEY:
I'll start over.
15 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
16 O
Please refer to table 7 of NRR's September 20, 17-1985 memo, which claims that Mr. Congdon was responsible for-i:
18 one such test, and you and Mr. Phillippe were responsible for
)
19 one.
Do you think it is fair to assign responsibility to you
+
i 12 0 for the one test in which Mr. Congdon is alleged to have used i
21 a faulty level transmitter?
22 A
I don't see how you can differentiate who did i.
l 23 what.
I'm just looking at this chart.
I don't know the l
24 circumstances of the test.
But you can't tell by looking at 25 the computer printout or the log just who did what in e
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coscrage MG336-6M6
3960 01 01 2920 fs t,,1cefederal I relation to which operation.. Somebody may have-logged it, 2
somebody else may have done it, it may have been logged after
't feel it's 3'
.the fact.
You can't -- I can't toll.
4 justified.
5 0
Next question.
The NRR report states, " Cooper 6
also denied he intentionally added to the makeup tank during 7
leak rate test without including the addition in the leak 8
rate test calculations.
This is in conflict with technical 9
analysis of the leak rate test records, which show unrecorded i
10 water additions."
11 Do you think that is a fair conclusion?
12 A
No, sir.
A's_/
13 MR. MC BRIDE:
I'm sorry, excuse me, one second.
14 Either I miswrote, Judge Kelley, or you misread.
The word 15
" water" is supposed to follow the words " essentially added" 16 in the first two sentences that we quoted.
If I missed it, 17 I'm sorry.
18 JUDGE KELLEY:
You did, but I'll read it in.
19 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
20 0
Did you understand it to mean water anyway?
Do 21 you want me to reread the question?
22 A
Yes.
Please do it again.
23 0
Reading in the word " water" in the first 24 sentence:
" Cooper also denied that he intentionally added e
25 water to the makeup tank during leak rate tests, without 3
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
~
.- ~..
C
.3960 01'01 2921'
()cefederal1-including the addition in the leak rate test calculations.
l 2
This is in conflict with technical analysis of leak rate test 3
records which show unrecorded water additions.".Do you think 4'
Jthat's a fair conclusion?
5 A
No, sir.
I positively deny adding water while an 6
inventory balance was in progress and not accounting for it.
7-0 A follow-on I think you have' answered.
It goes 8
this way:
Did you add water;to manipulate-leak rate tests?
s I
9 A
No, sir.
i 10 0
Was there a time when hydrogen could not be added 11 from a Unit 2 control room?
^
12 A
Yes, sir.
The original plant design had a
()
I 13 pressure regulator that was supposed to valve in from the 14 control room with a remote operated valve.
That system 15 wasn't working.- I don't recall how long it went on but it j
16 seemed like a good several months, maybe over a year, that we 17 had to have an auxiliary operator go out into the plant and 18 put the hydrogen into the makeup tank when we needed it, so 19 we.couldn' t do it directly from the control room.
20 0
Under those circumstances, that is to say the l
21 circumstances when you couldn't add it correctly from the 22 control room, under such circumstances could the timing of a
(.
23 hydrogen addition to the makeup tank be determined precisely i
l 24 by the control room operators?
!~
25 A
It would depend on the work load and what the i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M-347-37(U Nationwide Coverage 8(n336446 m_.,.
.,,, - -,,, _, _ _. _ _, _., _,, -,,,, _ _.. _,., _ _,... _,... _ _ _.,.. _ _ ~
3960-01 01 2922
(,S;cefederal 1 auxiliary operator had to do on his normal tour.
If he had e-2 other duties, spaces he was supposed to walk, if we saw that 3
we were getting low in the band we might tell-him to give us 4
a call when he goes to that area and we'll add-hydrogen.
He 5
might call us and say:
I'm here, do you want some hydrogen?
6 And we'd say sure.
It wasn't anything where we'd say give it 7
to me by such and such a time or anything like that.
We 8
would work it in with whatever each of us was doing.
We 9
would just work it into the routine.
If it was out of spec 10 low, then we'd call him immediately and tell him to do it.
11 0
If it was out of spec low, that is to say under 12 15?
O-x_j 13 A
Yes, sir.
14 0
Then you'd call him and tell him to do it right 15 away or words to that effect?
16 A
Yes, sir.
17 0
Did the auxiliary operator -- what was his 18 reporting relationship?
Who was his boss?
19 A
The auxiliary operator worked for the control 20 operator.
It was normally set up that he worked for the r
21 control operator on the boards.
He did his tours and 22 reported to him and the control operator reported to the 23 foreman.
24 If there were other jobs that came up involving
\\
25 switching and tagging surveillances, the same auxiliary ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationside Cmerage 800 336-6646
., ~
3960 01 01 2923
( )cefederal1 operator might interface with another CRO, to do those tests.
2 0
And in that situation the boss would be the 3
switching and tagging CRO?
4 A
Right.
5 0
In effect?
6 A
In effect.
Or, if the switching and tagging CRO 7
saw something that needed to be done in the plant, feel free 8
to call him up and tell him something needed to be done.
9 0
But they were, if I understand,' roughly, 10 correctly, the auxiliary operators were sort of the eyes and 11 ears and arms and legs of the people in the control room; is 12 that correct?
(O 13 A
Yes, sir.
,,j 14 0
And they did work subject to your direction?
15 A
Yes, sir.
They also, the times -- the foremen 16 called them up and had them do specific jobs themselves.
17 This caused friction between the control operators and 18 foremen because the foremen would also call them up and have 19 them do things, and we had a hard spot with that.
i 20 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
21 0
Mr. Cooper, you could call up the auxiliary 22 operator and say, Hey, give me a shot of hydrogen.
Okay, he 23 could turn it on, but how did he know when to quit?
24 A
He had a gauge locally that he could read.
25 0
He has a gauge that reads the makeup tank ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(n3346646
.....L.-.
3960 01 01 2924
()icefederal1 overpressure level?
2 A-Yes, sir.
I believe that's the way I remember 3
it.
He had a gauge locally that he could look at, too.
And 4
I believe he could also valve it in and tell me I needed 5
I'm not sure, but I think that's'the way it was 6
because I remember sometimes they would call me and say do 7
you want some hydrogen because I think you need some.
8 Because he had a pressure gauge, he had a regulator down 9
there that he had to set up and make sure it was adjusted 10 right.
11 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Thank you.
12 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
()
13 0
The question as initially put to you was whether 14 you could control the timing of a hydrogen addition 15 precisely.
I gather the answer to that, unless there was 16 some emergency condition, was no; is that right?
17 A
We could control it.
We didn't routinely pinpoint 18 it to anything.
19 0
What I'm coming to, really -- let me ask it this 20 way:
Could you control the timing of a hydrogen addition 21 approximately, as distinguished from precisely?
22 A
Normally, the kind of communications that might go 23 on, we'd tell the guy, give it to me early in the shift.
Go 24 by there first.
Or, no, fine, I don't need it.
Just give me l
25 a call before you come back in for lunch in case I need l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8410-336-6M6
3960 01 01 2925 n
'(,':cefederal 1 -
- something.
That would be the routine kind of communications 2
that would go on.
3 If we saw something that put us outside then we'd 4
call him on the radio or page him and tell him that'we needed 5
it sooner.than that, or if we forgot to mention it to him at 6
all.
We wouldn't normally pinpoint when it would be added or 7
anything like that.
8 0
Would you ever say to him:
Add hydrogen in the 9
next 10 minutes?
10 A
No.
No, sir.
11 0
But you could have?
That's possible?
12 A
Oh, I could have.
Yes, sir.
()
13 0
We have some questions from the Staff, two of 14 which we are not going to put because we think they have been 15 asked and answered, but we'll put the rest of them.
16 You testified that any one of the men on your 17 shift might begin a leak rate test.
When beginning a leak 18 rate test, was it your practice to inform the others on your 19 shift that you were beginning a test?
20 A
Sometimes.
Not always.
Sometimes you just punch 21 it into the computer and keep on walking by, if you were 22 going to the back panels.
23 0
Why would you tell?
24 A
Well, because I didn' t want him to do any water 25 additions while the leak rate was in progress.
I didn't want ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmcrage 8tXh3346M6
3960 01 01 2926
. (-
( Jcefederal~1 him to change any of the conditions of the test so we could 2
get the test done.
3
-O Why wasn' t it necessary to tell him that in all 4
cases, then, as opposed to some of the time?
5 A
It probably was.
It would have been better 6
communications if we had told each other that all of the 7
time.
It was one of the reasons -- since we didn't, that's
'8 one reason why we had to abort tests, because one of the guys 9
wasn't aware of the fact of what the others were doing.
And 10 after the test we realized water additions had been made and 11 we aborted the test, because it wasn't perfected 12 communications.
()
13 0
okay.
I believe you testified that in regard to.
14 this hydrogen phenomenon you did a little bit of 15 experimenting with that phenomenon.
Is that fair?
16 A
Yes, sir.
17 0
Do you remember personally participating in the 18 addition of hydrogen during a leak rate test as'an 19 experiment?
Do you have any personal recollection of your l
20 personally being involved in that?
21 A
I don't personally recollect, like this leak rate l
22 test 120 or any specific test.
But I believe that I did participate in some kind of experiment to see what kind of 23 24 effect we would get for a hydrogen addition.
And I think it j
\\~/
25 happened more than once.
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 37(10 Nationwide Coserage WXh3366646
3960 01 01 2927
<x i_)cefederal 1 O
All right.
In connection with that recollection, 2
do you have'any recollection as to who was working with you?
3 A
Specifically, no.
I would assume it would be my 4
normal'shiftmates:
Joel Congdon, Mark Phillippe, and Chuck 5
Adams.
6 O
All right.
Do you know what was the normal 7
pressure band -- well, I think you've already said the normal 8
pressure band that you maintained in the makeup tank was 15 9
to 25 psi; is that right?
10 A
Psig, I think, yes.
11 O
Was the normal pressure in the reactor -- what was 12 the normal pressure in the reactor coolant system?
()
13 A
It was 2250 pounds -- 2150 -- 2250 where I work 14 now, 2150 there.
15 0
Okay.
Bearing in mind that you were maintaining 16 15 to 25 in the makeup tank and 2150 or 55 in the reactor 17 coolant system, does it seem reasonable that increasing 18 hydrogen pressure by, say, 5 to 10 psi in the makeup tank 19 would increase leakage from the reactor coolant system?
20 A
It doesn't really seem too reasonable.
21 O
You stated that you cannot tell what effect 22 hydrogen may have on a leak rate test result by looking at 23 the level transmitter, providing input to the strip chart 24 recorder.
Can you tell the beginning and ending values for 25 the makeup tank that the computer saw during the test by ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage RXK33MM6
3960 01 01.
2928
-s
( {cefederal 1 looking at~the surveillance test sheet?
2 A
Yes, sir.
3 0
Is what we-are calling.a surveillance test sheet 4
page 1 of all of this, the computer printout?
5
'A The computer printout.
6 0
Right.
That sheet.
So you can tell the beginning 7
and ending values --
8 A-Yes, sir.
9 0
-- by looking at that?
10 A
Yes, sir.
11 O
And that would be where?
12 A
The next to the last column of data under MUT O(,_j 13 level?
14 A
You mean 73.48?
15 A
And 70.48.
16 0
With a difference of 3 inches and a small 17 fraction?
18 A
Yes, sir.
19 0
Okay.
20 Continuing with this question:
Please look at 21 beginning and end values shown on the test sheet for NRR test 22 120.
We have already done that.
Do these values match the 23 trace shown on the strip chart?
Could you compare the two.
24 We have already talked about the time difference --
25 A
I'm just trying to block in that hour on this ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 1700 Nationwide Coserage 8%336 6M6
.. _ _. _, _ _,. _.. - ~
3960 01r01 2929
()cefederal1.
chart, too, because it is only blocked off for a half hour's 2
time.
3 0
It'says the test. times of 2026 and 2126 correspond
'4 to chart. times of 2156 and 2256.
Just about an hour and a j
5 half differential.
6 A
It looks like there's at least -- on the chart in
-7 the beginning of the data it looks likes it would read about.
8 73.5, which is pretty close to the beginning value.
Yes, it 9
looks like -- let's see -- final time -- the final reading of 10 70.482 is -- looks like an inch, inch and a half lower than 11
.the chart reading.
12 0
Let me see-if I follow you here.
( )-
13 A
Have I got this right?
1 14 MS. WAGNER:
Mr. Cooper, the times are marked off 4
15 in the NRR report copy as opposed to the copy you are holding 4
f 16 in your hand.
It might be easier.for you.
17 THE WITNESS:- Okay.- The final data value on the 18 computer printout is 70.4 -- essentially 70-1/2 inches.
If f
19 you look at where that 2126 is marked off on the chart it 1
20 looks like it is -- the trace is above the 71-inch mark,
[
21 somewhere between 71 and 72 inches.
l 22 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
23 0
Just about 71, maybe sitting on top of 71?
[
24 A
Right.
So there's at least a 1-inch difference i
25 between the computer -- the computer is actually reading the i
i l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 201 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
~,. -. - -... -
., - -., -,,. ~,.,,... _,,,. -, - -, - -.
, ~.,. -.. -.
-,.... - ~ ~.
3960 01 01 2930 if)cefederal lower value than the strip chart' recorder.
So the_ computer-2 is seeing a larger leak rate than the strip chart is..
3 0
In your September 24,'1984 interview with OI/NRR, 4
you testify that you were not on watch at the time 5
Mr. Haverkamp found several leak rate tests in excess of the 6
technical specifications lying in.the control-room.
7 According to the control' room-log, you were the panel 8
operator on the 7:00 a.m.
to 3:00 p.m. shift-on October 18, 9-1978, the day Mr. Haverkamp found the test.
10 Is'it still your testimony that you were not 11 present when these events occurred, and that you only heard 12.
about the incident-from another shift when you came in to s
)
13 relieve them on the evening shift?
14 A
Yes, sir.
Without a doubt.
i l
15 Can you tell me where I'm at in the transcript of i
16 my testimony, there?
17 0
Okay.
Off the record a second.
i i
18 (Discussion off the record.)
19 MR. MC BRIDE:
Page 634, I think, is the right
(
20 page.
21 (Discussion off the record.)
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
We have a pending question which i
23 has already been put into the record, I believe.
The i
24 reference to Mr. Cooper's testimony appears on page 64 of the i
25 transcript of his interview of September 24th.
I have just
(
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
(
202447-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433MM6
3960 01 01 2931
(_T,cefederal 1 asked the Staff off the record whether the control room log
('
2 to which reference is made in the question is in the record 3
and, of course, there are lots of control room logs in here 4
as part of leak rate tests, among other things.
But the 5
question referred to, I'll reread part of it:
"According to 6
the control room log, you" -- meaning Mr. Cooper -
"were the 7
panel operator on the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift on 8
September 18th."
9 Can the Staff refer to which control room log it 10 is for the record?
11 MS. WAGNER:
Yes.
It's for test 12 C.
12 THE WITNESS:
If you continue reading and you get
)
13 to page 66, you can see that in that testimony, it appears 14 that there was some confusion between Mr. Christopher and 15 Mr. Russell, too.
It looks like they are saying here that 16 somebody else was on, Mr. Faust was on shift when the leak 17 rate was picked up.
He's not normally on my shift.
18 JUDGE KELLEY:
Excuse me a moment.
As a next step 19 let us find this control room log we have been referring to.
20 Let's just hold it until then and go off the record for a 21 minute.
22 (Discussion off the record.)
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let's go back on the record.
We 24 are still pulling together the relevant paper here and we now 25 have the transcript citations to the pertinent testimony.
We ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37m Naiionwide roserage Rn336-6M6
?3960 Ols01 2932
()cefederal1 have been getting before all of us, myself and Mr._ Cooper and
'2-other parties, NRR test 12-C, which includes a copy of a 3
' portion of the log for. that day and I'm looking at the-first
'4 log page in the_ Staff exhibit.
It appears that the shift, 5
including Mr.-Booher, signed off somewhere between 6:20 and 6
7:00,-that shift, including Mr.' Cooper, signed in at about i
7 7:00, and that Mr. Cooper's shift signed out at 1325.
8 BY' JUDGE KELLEY:
9 0
The next entry says, " relieved the shift,.
j i
1;-
'10 condition as before, signed C.
Faust."
Craig Faust, 4
11 presumably?
1 12 A
Yes.
)
13 0
So that.would appear to' indicate that you were.on i
14 the 7:00 to 3:00 shift?
Or-7:00 to 1:00?
l 15 A
7:00 to 3:00, daylight shift.
i 16 0
There just wasn't any entry after 1325, daylight 17 shift.
Does that indicate you run that shift?
i 18 A
Yes, sir.
I 19 0.
Okay.
Now, I frankly don't recall, we talked 20 about this a little earlier and I was asking-you about it in 21 the context of anybody asking you to throw away tests.
22 Perhaps you recall that.
I don't believe you and I were then 23 focusing very precisely on what time of day it was and so 24 forth, and what shift it was.
Having looked, now, at these 25 documents, does it appear t. hat you were on shift from 7:00 to i
)
i
[
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8533MM6
-3960 01 01 2933
('s)cefederal 1 3:00 that day?
t 2
A It looks like -- I was on shift 7:00 to 3:00 on 3
the 18th.
If this event with Don Haverkamp happened, then, I 4
wasn't aware of it until I learned about it later on from 5
another operator.
Are we sure this is when he found this?
6 On the 18th of October?
7 0
We did have Mr. Haverkamp here before.
He 8
testified for the better part of a day.
I, personally, would 9
have to go back to the transcript to see exactly what he did 10 say about time.
We can do that.
11 A
See, I'm pretty sure if he found it while I was on 12 shift I was totally unaware of it and I really don't think
()
13 that it happened then.
14 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, I can be helpful to 15 you.
Don Haverkamp's prepared testimony, page 2, he states 16 that he made this discovery sometime around 9:00 a.m. on l
17 October 18, 1978.
In fact, you may recall you asked him if 18 he had the correct date.
He had 1986 and he changed it to 19 1978.
And it is in his prepared testimony that it 20 happened --
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
And he said which day, exactly?
22 MR. MC BRIDE:
Page 2 of his prepared testimony, 23 question 5: " Question:
During October of 1978 did you become 24 aware that GPUN had experienced unidentified leakage l
25 exceeding the technical specification requirements?
If so, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37(U Nationwide Coserage INX1336-MA6
l 1
I i
3960 01 01 2934
- v[').cefederal1
-please explain the circumstances surrounding your becoming 2
aware of that fact.
3
" Answer:
Yes.
On the morning of October 18, 1986" 4
-- which is now corrected to 1978 -
"at or about 9:00 a.m.,
5 I was conducting a routine inspection - " et cetera, and he 6
goes into a long answer.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
So according to-Haverkamp's 8
testimony, at least, his recollection is that the incident of 9
his coming in the control room and seeing several tests over 10 one gallon and getting into a discussion with various people 11 all took place around 9:00 in_the morning on the 18th.
t 12 That's what is in the record from Haverkamp.
And this i. ()
13 indicates that you were on shift.
14 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
15 0
Do you have any recollection of that?
16 A
No, sir.
And I think I dispute it, that I was on 17 shift when he found that.
3 1
18 0
Having looked at the log and that having indicated 19 that you were on shift, what leads you to the conclusion --
l 20 A
Well, maybe Mr. Haverkamp is in error about the d'
21 date.
I don't know -- did he save that?
Did he save the one i
22 he found?
23 0
Save what?
I'm sorry.
24 A
He found a leak rate that showed unidentified
(
25 leakage in excess of 1 that was the subject of this LER?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage MXb336-6646
_c,__--
960 01L01 2935 cefederal 1 O
Let me simply-ask.the Staff, I think Mr. Capra 2
-wouldrknow.-
The tests that'were the subject of this whole 3
flap, are they in the record?
4 MR. CAPRA:
Yes, sir, they..are.
5
' JUDGE KELLEY:
12-C, D,
E, 13, 14 -.those tests 6
are all in the record?
7:
MR. CAPRA:
Yes, sir.
They are.-
He's got them in 8'
front of him.
We are talking about tests 12-C, 12-D, 12-E, 9'
and tests 13 and 14, all occurred on that 7:00 to 3:00 watch
' 10 that morning.
11 THE WITNESS:
Which is the one that Haverkamp 12 found?
O 13 JUDGE KELLEY:
We are going to have to focus this 14-discussion a little bit.
The record we developed with 15 Mr. Haverkamp says what it says.
The focus here is whether 16 you were on the shift and if you were -- we'll have to focus 17 on those lines.
It is going to get pretty clum1y-trying to 18 correct what Mr. Haverkamp testified to a few weeks ago.
I 19 MR. MC BRIDE:
12-C has someone's handwriting, COR 20 Booher, and the time is 5:13 in the morning, which would have
[
21 been before the 7:00 shift. 'Some of the other sheets show 22 times during the 7:00 to 3:00 shift but not 12-C.
i l
23 MR. CAPRA:
12-D and E were conducted on that g~g -
24 shift --
V 25 JUDGE KELLEY:
But you are correcting what you ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80lk336-6M6
.._,._m__-.._._..._,-..__._.--_,.
-. -.. ~.. -
60 01 01 2936 scefederal 1 said about C7 r
2 MR. CAPRA:
The reason we picked D is we were 3
picking one'out that had an excerpt of that. control log-4 itself.
That does, too.
All the rest of these have the same 5
excerpt attached to them.
6 JUDGE KELLEY: -All right.- We got into this rather 7
complicated transaction.by a question --
8 THE WITNESS:
Maybe I can help.
From the log I 9
can tell I was on watch that day.
As far as I know, the flap 10 with Haverkamp didn't occur that day.
If it did, it 11 completely bypassed me in the control room and he was off 12 with supervision somewhere else and I heard about it maybe a O
13 week or two later when I was back on shift, if that's the day 14 he found it.
But I really don't believe that's when it 15 happened.
16 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
17 0
Were you on the panel on that shift?
18 A
Yes.
I had the log.
19 0
It would appear, too, if you had the log?
20 A
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
21 0
So you had, as between the foreman and the other 22 CRO, or CROs, for that matter --
23 A
Day shift -- I don't know what day of the week it 24 was, but if it was any other day but Tuesday, maybe even on 25 Tuesday, we would have extra CROs in the control room helping ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37(X)
Nationwide Coverage
- 8(Xh336-(446
a 3960 01 01 2937 cefederal 1 out.
2 0
We can determine that, too.
3 So, if you were on-the panel, you were, so to 4
speak, running the plant; is-that right?
5 A.
Yes, sir.
6 0
If an N'RC inspector walked in at that time and --
7 do you have. time for extended discussions with NP.O inspectors 8
when you.are running the' plant on the panel?
9 A
Not normally.
At that time the NRC inspectors
' routinely didn't deal with operators.
They dealt with 10 11
. supervision; they didn't talk to us.
12 0
Mr. Cooper, could you turn to -- this is a little.
'O 13 different now.
Stier test 38.
Have you got the Stier 14 volumes over there?
15 A
Is that what this is?
16 0
Their numbering system was different, you may 17 know.
i 18 A
Okay.
I've got it.
19 0
Can you tell me what volume number that is in?
[
20 MR. MC BRIDE:
IV-D.
I 21 JUDGE-KELLEY:
Off the record a minute.
t
[
22 (Discussion off the record.)
23 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
l 24 0
Mr. Cooper, please turn to stier test 38 in volume i
25 IV-D.
This, by the way, corresponds to NRR test number 120.
1 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
~ _ -.. _ _ _,
3960 01 01 2938 cefederal 1 So it's the same test we looked at in the NRR volume.
The 2
second page behind the tab for leak rate test 38 is a form 3
ontitled " Generation maintenance system manual performance 4
form."
Cot that?
5 A
Yes, sir.
6 0
Okay.
Is it true that this form was preprinted 7
with certain information and completed by the operator 8
performing the tect?
9 A
No.
This form was blank.
Well, this form is a 10 blank.
This is a manual surveillance form.
11 0
Right.
12 A
You'd fill in the blanks and you would write --
13 fill in all of the boxes that say what surveillance it was 14 and where it was at and what the date was, the man-hours 15 taken and the -- put down the employee number.
That my 16 employee number, 6398, and the " approved by" employee 17 number.
18 0
Dut the first part of the question was:
Isn't it 19 true that this form was preprinted?
That's true, isn't it?
20 I don't mean with the numbers filled in --
21 A
Oh, yes.
22 0
-- but with the information on there, the standard 23 information that then calls for certain things to be filled 24 in?
25 A
Yes, sir.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage 8 m 336 4 16
3960 O! 01 2939 cefederal 1 0
Okay.
And then the numbers specifically filled in 2
with reference to this test were filled in by the operator 3
performing the test; right?
4 A
I don't know who filled in these numbers.
5 0
Let me finish the question, here.
Wasn't one of 6
the portions to be comoleted by the operator the block 7
entitled, "results"?
8 A
Yes, sir.
4 9
0 And what choices are shown in the block entitled 10 "Results"?
11 A
Performed okay; exemptions; deficiencies; both Es
()
and Ds; or not performed.
12
~
13 0
Do you recall whether or not you filled in this 14 form?
15 A
I don't believe I filled it in.
I don't recall 16 it.
17 0
I can understand why a bunch of numbers on a page 18 you wouldn't recall.
There isn't even any handwriting.
The 19 only thing on here is numbers.
Those look like your numbers?
20 A
That's my employee number in there.
I don't know 21 who wrote them in there, but somebody wrote them in.
22 0
Well, again, this isn't what I properly would call 23 handwriting, but does it look like your number writing?
24 A
I don't think so.
,e 25 0
How is your number writing different?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationside Coserage Suk336-6o46
3960 01 01 5940 cofederal 1 A
Would you like a sample?
2 0
okay.
3 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, might I also suggest 4
that you ask whether it was, in fact, the case that the 5
operators typically filled out these forms, if he knows?
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Sure.
7 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
8 0
Do you know if these forms are typically filled 9
out --
10 A
No, sir.
These forms were not typically filled 11 out.
I believe we talked about it this morning.
We didn't p--
12 fill out one of these forms for the leak rate surveillances,-
13 at least the operator didn't.
14 0
Does manual surveillance form mean what we might 15 call a calculation?
16 A
No, normally the manual surveillances were 17 controlled by a computer-generated system and a sheet such as 18 this would be generated by the computer with all the blanks 19 filled in, computer typewriting, and the section right across 20 the middle where it says "TMI" and " component type 2301, 3 21 Dl," all of that, that would be all typed in and not 22 handwritten in.
There would be a number of things 23 handwritten in here such as the stuff up above as GC code and r7 24 component number and component description.
There would be a
)
25 whole lot more data filled in because the computer is ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33M646
3960 01 01 2941 cefederal 1 cranking this stuff out on a monthly or weekly basis as the 2
surveillance is required to be done.
If we're doing the 3
surveillance and we don't have one of these 4
computer-generated forms, we'd fill out one of these manual 5
forms.
6 0
When you say " computer-generated form," you are 7
referring to the computer form that we looked at in the NRR 8
version?
9 A
No, sir.
10 0'
This is still something different?
11 A
This is something different.
p_
12 0
All right.
Okay.
'~'
13 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, since the subject has 14 just arisen, I wonder if you might be interested in asking Mr. Cooper whether there was a person whose job it was to 15 l 16 keep track of this type of paperwork?
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
Yes.
Sure.
18 THE WITNESS:
Well, yes.
There were a couple of 19 guys that worked for operations superintendent, Jim Floyd, 20 that collected all the surveillances and made sure all the
~
21 paperwork was filled out and if we didn't fill in some blank 22 they would bring it back to us and have them -- you know, 23 initial something we might have forgotten to initial.
24 The shift foreman normally ensured that the i
s
{
25 surveillance paperwork was complete.
That was the major part ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8( 4 334 6646
3960 01 01 2942 Or.cefederal 1 of his review.
He didn't really observe performance of the 2
test, he verified the surveillance was complete in this form 3
here, where you see the " performed by" employee number, and 4
down below that, " approved by" employee number; normally we 5
put our employee numbers in there and then sign alongside.
6 As you can see, nobody signed this, though they do have my 7
employee number and probably that's Chuck Adams' employee 8
number below that.
9 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
10 Q
So, are you suggesting that it is possible that 11 this form we are looking at here might have been filled out 12 by somebody working for operations?
13 A
It could have been one of the operations 14 assistants.
Jim Floyd had a couple of them:
Bubba Marshall 15
-- there were some other guys over there in the surveillance 16 tracking group.
They were just computer types that tried to 17 make sure all the paperwork was filled out right.
It looks 18 like it could have been filled out by somebody else who was 19 trying to fill in blanks, because they didn't get any 20 signatures.
21 0
Might such a person have gotten ahold of the 22 computer printout that we have been looking at, and derive 23 from that that, Frederick and Adams were involved in the e
24 tests?
CJ 25 A
Yes.
Right.
That would be my guess, that they ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage 8043346M6
3960 01 01 2943 acefederal 1 saw the names, looked up our employee numbers and wrote them 2
in the blanks.
3 0
Okay.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
Any other follow-up questions?
5 MR. MC BRIDE:
No, Judge Kelley.
6 MS. WAGNER:
One.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
8 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
9 Q
Mr. Cooper, would you look at NRR test number 13, 10 dated October 18, 1978.
11 A
I've got number 13.
12 0
I think for purposes of this question, all you 13 need to look at is the computer sheet up front.
If you want 14 to take a moment to look at that.
15 A
All right.
16 O
The question is this:
Test number 13, which was 17 conducted while you were on watch on October 18, 1978, was 18 signed off on by C. Adams, and approved by B.
Mehler.
19 If you look toward the bottom that appears to be 20 direct -- it's filled out rather strangely in terms of 21 location.
But there is a note there which seems to read, 22
" net unidentified leak rate rounded off to ' n e a r s, ' t' meaning 23 nearest, I guess, "whole number, 1 gpm."
(
24 Then I see a very small C. Adams, and a somewhat 25 larger "B.
Mehler" underneath; is that right?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-370)
Nationwide Coserage 8%3364M6
3960 01 01 2944 Occefederal 1 A
Is that the one from 1016 in the morning?
2 MS. WAGNER:
That's correct.
3 THE WITNESS:
Next to the operator's signature --
4 oh', yes, I see Mehler now.
I didn't see it at first.
5 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
6 0
I assume at that time that Adams was a foreman?
7 A
Yes, sir.
8 O
And Mehler was a supervisor?
9 A
Yes, sir.
10 0
Do you recall why this test was signed by Adams 11 and Mehler rather than a CRO?
Specifically, was it because 12 the test results were rounded off to 1 gpm, from a higher 13 number?
14 A
As I said earlier this morning, I wouldn't sign a 15 leak rate surveillance and accept it as satisfactory by means 16 of rounding off.
That may be why they signed it.
17 O
That, at least, is sort of a logical inference by 18 you under all of the circumstances?
19 A
Yes, sir.
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Cooper, that brings us to the 21 end of our questioning process.
I know you have come a long 22 way from California and we appreciate that.
I know it has 23 been an inconvenience.
But we appreciate your coming out and
,cy 24 you have certainly been attentive to our questions.
We
)
\\J 25 appreciate your responsiveness.
Thank you very much.
You ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationmde Coverage 80lk3M 6M6
3960 01 01 2945 O:.cefederal1 are excused.
2 (Witness stood down.)
3 MR. MC BRIDE:
Do you want to take a break or do 4
you want the next witness?
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
Why don't we take 15 minutes.
6 (Recess.)
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Zewe?
8 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
Good afternoon.
My name is Kelley, 10 the man on my right is Judge Bright, on my left, Judge 11 Carpenter.
12 Whereupon, I
~
13 WILLIAM H.
ZEWE 14 was called as a witness and, having first been duly sworn, 15 was examined and testified as follows:
16 EXAMINATION 17 BY MR. VOIGT:
18 o
Mr. Zewe, do you have before you a copy of a 19 document which bears the caption of this proceeding and then 20 l
" Prepared Statement of William H. Zewe"?
- says, l
21 A
Yes.
22 Q
Do you have any corrections to make to that 23 document, sir?
24 A
No.
-m
- n. s 25 Q
Do you adopt that document as your sworn testimony ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
XC-347-3700 Nationside Coserage 800-33MM6
c 3960 01 01 2946 acefederal 1 in this proceeding?
2 A
Yes.
3 JUDGE KELLEY:
Fine.
We then will include your 4
prepared statement in the transcript at this point.
5 (The document follows:)
6 7
8 9
10 11 12
~)
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1
,r3 24
- o 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage 800-336-6M6
.d i
n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION hs BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
-INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND
)
Docket No. LRP UNIT 2 LEAK RATE DATA
)
FALSIFICATION
)
)
PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. ZEWE My name is William H. Zewe and I live in Hershey, Pennsylvania.
I am presently employed as the Manager of
(
Metropolitan, Edison Company's Titus Generating Station.
I began employment with Metropolitan Edison Company on February 14, 1972 as an auxiliary operator.
I worked my way up to the shift foreman's position at Unit 1 in' September of 1973, and in April or May of 1976 I was promoted to shift supervisor.
I remained a shift supervisor until August of 1982, when I became a radwaste operations manager at TMI-1.
In January of 1984, I went to the Titus Station.
While at TMI-2, I was normally assigned to supervise "A"
shift, which was comprised of shift foreman Frederick Scheimann and control room operators Craig Faust and Edward Frederick.
I also worked with control room operators Hugh McGovern and Lynn Wright on various occasions.
A --
As shift supervisor, I was often the most senior person on O
site, and while I ultimately was responsible for the operation of both Units, I left the shift foremen with the responsibility.
of running their respective Units.
The actual leak rate testing was performed by the control room operators.
It was the shift foreman's responsibility to ensure that the operators performed the tests properly, and he would approve the results after receiving the tests from the operators.
I cannot. recall ever personally running any leak rate tests while I was a shift t
supervisor, but I did understand that it was partially my responsibility to ensure that the technical specifications were complied with, and it was ultimately my responsibility to ensure that the plant was operating safely.
()
The Unit 2 technica'l specifications required that we obtain one valid leak rate test of less than one gallon per minute i
unidentified leakage every seventy-two hours.
We complied with this by running a test every day and sometimes every shift.
In the event that actual unidentified' leakage exceeded one gallon per minute, we then had to either reduce the leakage rate to within limits by identifying and quantifying leakage, or enter the Action Statement.
I can recall personally inspecting for reactor coolant system leaks on many occasions.
Whenever a leak was identified, I would either go myself, or have someone else go and check it for several things, including the safety implications.
We would measure the amount of leakage as O ~.
4 i
accurately as we could, then enter the leakage figure into the
~O, computer to re-categorize unidentified leakage as identified leakage.
Once we had measured and identified the leakage, we would then run another leak rate test.
We would also inspect the leak to evaluate its potential for getting worse, its effect on other equipment, and to determine its source (that is, whether it was a weld leak, a boundary leak, a packing leak or whatever).
There were often times when the operators were prevented from running leak rate tests because the plant was not in steady state.
Often the leak rate test results would be determined inaccurate because the computer's test results did not agree with what the other plant instruments or parameters indicated RCS leakage to be.
(}
Operators who ran leak rate tests that were invalid or inaccurate routinely would discard those tests and initiate a new test.
Before the operators discarded invalid tests, they were to compare the results with other plant parameters to ensure that the tests were invalid.
The control room operators, the shift foreman, and the shift supervisor, had the ability to make the determination that a test was invalid.
t Although I was aware that invalid leak rate tests were routinely being discarded, it was not a requirement that I be notified before each one was thrown away.
It was my understanding that all of the shifts, in both Units 1 and 2, followed the same policy of discarding invalid leak rate l
j tests.
s i _
4 Invalid leak rate tests were not the only surveillance tests that were discarded.
If we were conducting a surveillance on a decay heat pump, or a nuclear. river pump, and for some reason we had to turn on that pump, then we would void the invalid test and discard it.
I specifically recall one time in particular when we were doing a control rod movement test in Group 3 and the reactor tripped.
The control rod movement test would not have been valid then because it tripped, so we discarded the invalid test.
I remember that the computer would sometimes print negative leak rates.
I attributed the negative leak rates to a 3
variation or statistical error in the computer calculation.
Depending on their magnitude, some negative leak rates might be
()
accepted as valid and some might be invalidated and discarded.
The decision was left to each shift's judgment.
There were a number of general complaints from the operators concerning the accuracy of the leak rate tests performed by the computer.
A small plant oscillation could throw off the test, and make the difference between a good leak rate as determined by the computer and a bad leak rate.
We expected a few bugs in the leak rate testing system because f.
Unit 2 had only recently come on line.
While we did not ignore the computer leak rate tests, they were only one of many things we looked at to determine leakage.
As a result of the various things we have learned during (g
the course of the TMI-2 leak rate investigations, I now feel U..
r-N that the leak rate test that was available to us in 1978 and JJ 1979 was not an effective tool for measuring leakage.
- However, in 1978 and 1979 it was the method of precisely measuring leakage available to us, and we did not have the luxury of analyzing the test as has been done during subsequent investigations.
It is very difficult to separate what I know now from what I knew back in 1978 and 1979.
In reviewing different documents over the past several years, I have been made aware of problems with one of the makeup tank level instruments, and that I made entries in the turnover notes concerning these problems.
I have no independent recollection of problems with this instrumentation, and I have no recollection of plant operators
/~3 ever attempting to switch makeup tank level instrumentation
(,j back and forth in order to get accurate leak rate test results.
I do not remember if all water additions to the reactor coolant system inventory were required to be recorded in the CRO log book, but that was standard procedure on "A"
shift; also, if water was added during a leak rate test, the water addition would have to be computed into the leak rate program.
If the operator running the test failed to realize that an unrecorded water addition had been made, then he would not know to invalidate the test and would record the result, if it was acc,eptable.
If the operator running the test realized that J
there had been an inadvertent., unrecorded water addition made while the leak rate test was being run, the test would be O
-S-
e
( ' considered invalid and would be discarded. I am unaware of any incident where an operator added water during a leak rate test, and knowingly failed to enter the addition into the program in a deliberate attemptsto alter the test result. At Unit 2, hydrogen was added by a control room operator through a control valve on the panel (except for a period of time when the valve was not working, and hydrogen was added out in the plant by auxiliary operators). I am not sure if hydrogen was generally considered to be a chemical addition or not; however, I did not consider it to be a chemical. I cannot 4 recall whether or not the operators were required to record additions of hydrogen in their-log book. In the pre-accident period, I had no knowledge that an addition of hydrogen would affect a leah rate test, and I do not remember thinking about it or considering it. I cannot recall any discussion among the operators concerning how a hydrogen addition would affect the makeup tank level. The first time I heard anything about hydrogen affecting leak rate tests was when Harold Hartman made his allegations. j As shift supervisor, I was aware back in 1978 and 1979 that Administrative Procedure 1010 required an Exception or Deficiency when certain problems were encountered during surveillance testing. I do not remember considering this, procedure in connection with leak rate tests. Prior to the start of these investigations, I had no independent recollection of the issuance of a Licensee Event
Report on November 1, 1978. I do recall, however, hearing at some point that a new interpretation of the technical specification required that we begin rounding off the leak rate tests. I do not remember exactly when that practice began, but I do remember that it did not last long. I also have a problem remembering a Temporary Change Notice to the leak rate procedure that was issued in 1979. I have trouble differentiating between what I knew then about it, and what I now know as a result of being shown the TCN several times over the past few years. I felt that with all the instrumentation and parameters that we were able to observe, we were operating a safe plant. In 1978, I thought that we were using all of the leakage () detection methods available to us, and we were operating the plant the way it was supposed to be operated. The leak rate test was only one of many, many items we looked at to determine leakage, and it just was not something that we dwelled on or focured on, which is being done now. Although I am not employed in the nuclear industry, I would like to clear my name of any involvement in leak rate improprieties. I never falsified a leak rate test, approved 4 i the falsification of a leak rate test, or was aware that anyone else had done so. I would be most appreciative, therefore, if the Presiding Board would officially recognize that I was not part of leak rate test falsification at TMI-2..
3960'01 01 2947 \\ ]dcefederal 1 ( JUDGE KELLEY:.. Judge Bright will begin your 2 questioning at this point but I have a short statement to 3 . read which will provide ~some context to the questioning that 4 will be placed to you. 5 The Board has been charged by the Commission to 6 determine the extent of involvement of individual employees 7 at TMI-2 in 1978-79 in leak rate test falsification and other 8 improper practices in leak rate testing. This is-your 9 opportunity to state on the record your recollections and 10 perceptions about your involvement in leak rate testing at 11 that time, and to rebut any adverse statements about you.by i 12 other employees or investigators with which you disagree. O_ 13 We have reviewed your prefiled testimony and we 14 have considered it in light of the record that has already 15 been developed in the proceeding. We will have questions for 16 you based on your testimony and possibly based on statements 17 of other employees of TMI-2 that they have made about you 18 either previously or in testimony prepared for this 19 proceeding. 20 Normally I read on about-tests. I don't believe i 21 we are going to be asking you questions about particular-12 2 tests, test 183 and so forth. So I will pass that part of 23 what-I would normally say and just rest with the indication I 24 gave you about the general nature of questions that we'll 25 have. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3960 01 01 2948 <g l '-Jcefederal 1 EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD 2 BY JUDGE BRIGHT: 3 0 Thank you for coming, Mr. Zewe. 4 Now, I had a terrible time pronouncing your name 5 because I mispronounced it for a long time before I finally 6 -found out what'it was, but I'll do my ever loving best here. 7 Mr. McBride even gave me a little thing so I can keep up with 8 it. We are happy to welcome our first shift supervisor in 9 this particular hearing, so you are blazing trails. I hope 10 you keep that in mind as we go along. 11 Following up Judge Kelley's opening statement, I 12 would like to question: Do you have any previous statements j, 13 or statements from other people involved in this hearing that 14 you now disagree with? I'm sure you have gone over your 15 previous statements with counsel and all of that. Can you 16 think of anything that you would care to repudiate before we 17 launch into this? l 18 A Not anything that comes to mind right now, no. 19 O Just as a personal curiosity question: After the 20 accident, what did the regular shift people do at TMI-2 in -- .21 I keep hearing about,-in 1982, somebody was made a shift 22 foreman at TMI-2, and somebody else in 1980 was made a shift 23 supervisor -- things like that. What were they doing? The 24 plant wasn't operating? 25 A No. The plant was not operating but they were ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6 ~., - -,
3960 2949 _ q. '01 01 '\\-scefederal'1 still trying to stablize the plant'and-continue'to operate-2 their license-because the fuel-was still in the core and they i 3 still had licensed duties and so forth, to keep the core 4 cooled and to monitor it until the plans'could be developed t 5 for the present defueling process that is in process right 6 now. 7 0 lSo you ran regular shifts and'just the same 8 routine, except, well, I mean the same type routine. I'm 9 sure-the things that you did were somewhat different. 10 A As I remember, we maintained the normal 11 round-the-clock shift rotation that we had-previously with. 4 12 shift foreman _and operating crew. There were still a lot of O 13 surveillance testing and a l'ot of other checks-on the 14 equipment that we needed to maintain, as well as monitoring [ 15 the plant systems as it was at that point in time. 16 0 As'a-general thing, also, did-you personally l 17 conduct any leak rate tests during your tenure at TMI-2?f 18 A I don't recall that I personally conducted a leak i 19 rate test, no. 20 0 I would like to clear up one little thing in the 21 record. If you have the OI Exhibit 25. On page 47, the 22 second question: Was a hydrogen addition considered a l 23 chemical addition? And you answered: I don't think I would 24 have differentiated that from a chemical, no. 25 By that did you mean you thought it was a chemical i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nain) Coverage 80 4 336-6646
3960.01 01 2950 ('-Jcefederal 1 or you didn't think it was a chemical? I can't quite make l' 2 out whether.you did say yes or no. 3 A I believe at this point that.I-was trying to 4 equate that to hydrazine or to boric acid or some other 5 chemical. This was really used as a gas over pressure and 6 I'm not sure at the time that-I really stopped to think 7 whether it was a chemical or not. I really just treated that 8 as an overpressure gas. I knew that that was involved in the 9 chemical reactions that it underwent. I believe that's what 10. I meant'right here, was I would really never stop'to think of 11 that as a chemical addition. 12 0 Well, if you look -- 13 A .But it was. 14 O Look at page 67. Down about the middle of the 15 page, Mr.. McBride is--trying to nail that down. He says: 16 " Question: You mean you didn't identify it as a 17 l chemical, or you did?" 18 And your answer was, "I did not. 19 " Question: You did not? 20 " Answer: No." 21 Are you saying no, you didn't consider it as a 22 chemical addition? l l 23 A That is what I said, yes. 24 O And that is what you meant back on page 47? O 25 A I was trying to differentiate, again, about adding ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336- % 6 ._~ -.,
k '3960 01 Ol' 2951 (D. ~ - \\-dcefederal 1 ~ a specific. chemical. I really treated that as'an over gas 2-and I really didn't think about it as a chemical; but, yes, 3' it was. -I hope that's clear. 4 0 Yes. I wonder if you would just explain in your 5 own words, how did you see your responsibility for the 6 supervision of leak rate tests? I 7 A My responsibility for the supervision of leak rate 8 testing was like my responsibility for the efficient and safe 9 operation of units. I didn't treat it any_ differently. I-10 felt it was my responsibility to ensure that the leak rate 11 test, as all the balance tests, were done properly and 12 justly. 13 0 Did you feel the same kind of - -it's hard to put 14 your finger on a word - " urgency" springs to mind, but most 15 of the people that have testified such things as: First-16 ) thing we would do is come in and run the leak rate test, and l 17 we would run several leak rate tests during the course of a 18 shift. Or we would do this, we would do that. There seemed. 19 to be a great deal of awareness on everybody's part.that leak 20 rates were very important. I was just wondering how you 21 considered them and whether you paid much attention to them 22 or not, t 23 A Leak rates were important. 24 0 What was your knowledge and/or experience in the '25 validity of the leak rate test? I can tell you that some of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33MM6 ... _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _, _. _ _ _ _ _. ~..,, _ _...
13960 01 01 2952 r~~ - cefederal 1 your previous testimony, on pages 32 through 35 on the Stier 2 interview dated 2/27/85 -- 3 JUDGE BRIGHT: Do-you have that, Mr. Voigt, or 4 does he have it? Volume VI-K. If you would care to read' 5 through, what did he say, 32 through 35? 6 THE WITNESS: 32? 7 BY JUDGE BRIGHT: 8 0 32 through 35, just briefly. This just seemed to 9 be your-general attitude. 10 I would just like to know -- I'm only interested 11 in what you-thought then, not what you think now. We all do 12 get older and wiser, hopefully, as time goes on. Just what j 13 your state of mind about leak rates was then. You make 14 several remarks about it, that is what we used and that is j 15 what we had available, and that there were complaints about 16 the leak rate tests, or whatever. 17 Just, generally, you give me the feeling that you 18 didn't think all that much about this particular leak rate 19 test. I mean the mechanics of it, how well it measured what 20 you wanted to measure, and the difficulty of using-it. 21 Do you have any recollection of thinking about it 22 back in those days? 23 A Here again, it's very hard to separate the time 24 span, over what I was actually thinking then and what I'm 25' thinking now and what I have learned in the interim time. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433M646
(.960 01 01 3 2953 \\ l '-Jcefederal 1 I sort of thought that the 1 gallon a minute was a 2 little bit unreasonable for a dynamic system that we had. I 3 felt that the instrument parameters that we had could assess 4 the true condition of the reactor coolant system and its 5 subsystems, and I felt the computer leak rate system was just 6 a documentation of that fact and that the leak rate system 7 itself, the computer program, had an accuracy span. And I 8 felt that in the time period of the plant, that there were 9 some inaccuracies there that just showed up in the computer 10 system and that we were constantly trying to work on that, to .11 refine it. I felt it was just a question of time until the 12 program inaccuracies and problems were solved. O 13 0 We haven't had an explanation, along the way of 14 getting to the rank of shift supervisor -- what kind of 15 training and, hopefully, more than just on-the-job training, 16 did you get along the way? We have asked a number of CROE, 17 and they told us it's practically all on-the-job training, 18 but not supervisors. 19 A I can only speak for myself because each of the 20 shift supervisors were somewhat different; somewhat alike in 21 some respects and in other cases there were differences. 22 Some of my training occurred while I was in the 23 United States Navy as a reactor operator and as an electronic 24 technician. Following that I came to Three Mile Island as an 25 auxiliary operator and as such I went through both formal ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80M36-6M6
2954 ,,3960 01 01 \\-u)cefederal 1 training in the' classroom and on-the-job training. i 2 From that position I was promoted to shift foreman 3 and I received further classroom training and on-the-job 4 training and training at a simulator in Lynchburg, the same 5 training that occurred there at the plant through 6 company-wide training, right up through the shift supervisor 7 position. 8 0 Let me ask you a specific question, then. You say 9 a part of what you didn't like about the leak rate test was 10 your gut feeling about it. And then you go on to say that, 11 "I thought that 1 gallon a minute was unreasonable." 12 Did you, at that time, have any idea why 1 gallon ()# 13 per minute was the criterion of the test? 14 A That was the criteria set down in the technical 15 specifications for our license. Are you asking me why that 16 was picked? 17 0 Yes. Well, I'm asking you if you know why it was 18 picked? What is the basic technical reason behind specifying 19 1 gallon per minute as the outer limit for unidentified leak 20 rate? 21 A I think it was, one, to ensure that you could 22 catch a problem area or a problem leakage soon enough so that 23 you could take corrective action so it did not progressively 24 get worse and cause further problems. s i 25 0 Then you were -- please continue. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8043364M6
139'60 01 01-2955 ~ -Jcefederal 1 A I'm not sure why it's 1 gallon a minute versus 1.5 2 or 2 gallons per minute, some other small amount. But I 3 think that categorically is why it's some relatively small 4 amount, so that you can have early detection of a pending 5 problem. 6 0 Up until the time of the accident, were you fully 7 conversant with the idea of leak before break in the primary 8 system components? Piping, whatever? 9 A To a large degree, yes. I'm not sure exactly what 10 you are referring to, if I'm fully conversant in that. 11 O well, according to -- I'm not trying to testify 12 here -- \\' 13 A I think that in most cases you would have some 14 leak before you would have a catastrophic failure, if that's 15 what you are referring to, for a major leak, yes. 16 0 That's what I'm referring to. So you feel there 17 was a dichotomy -- is that the word? between the 18 requirement for the 1 gallon per minute outer limit, and the - 19 ability of a plant to measure that on a plant that's going 20 into service and is fluctuating all over the place? Are you 21 saying you think it's unreasonable? 22 A I felt that it was very hard to do because of 23 those problems, plus or minus 1 gallon a minute, or 1 gallon 24 a minute unidentified leakage, was very hard to determine in 25 a dynamic system that contained roughly 90,000 gallons of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80CL33M686 -rm+ g-er a w-w +-t-w-r- --%e e-w w r-- g 9 + = -, - + e w-- P
,3960 01 01 2956 ' -dcefederal 1 inventory. I-felt at that point that that was very hard to 2 determine. Plus or minus 2 may have been more realistic. 3 0 so your feeling is based on your conception of 4 what is possible in that situation and it wasn't based on any 5 quarrel with the rigorous standard, which is there for a 6 safety reason? In other words, you just thought that this 7 was too conservative, perhaps, considering the situation of 8 the plant?- 9 A I think that it was too conservative on the-basis 10 that it was very hard to accurately quantify that amount. 11 BY JUDGE CARPENTER: 12 0 If I can jump in, why didn't you initiate actions \\ 13 to have the technical specifications changed? You can change 14 tech specs, I think. 15 A Yes, I believe that you can change the tech 16 specs. I accepted what the limits were and operated in that 17 manner. l 18 0 To the distress, I think, of some of the 19 operators, with hands on to do this? 20 A I'm sorry; what? 21 O I think to the distress of the individuals who act 22 to carry out the test, you didn't do anything about the 23 technical specifications. So then the operators had to live 24 with this technical specification for many, many months. 25 A I was one of those operators, yes. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33M646 .-.. -----. -, - -.-- -.-.. ~ -.
m 3960 01 01-2957 '-ucefederal 1 0 If it was recognized that you thought it was -- 2 did you read the. discussion, the FSAR that read to the 3 disagreement? The safety analysis that underlies it? 4 A I have read the safety analysis. I don't remember 5 it specifically now. 6 0 Well, I can't help but be struck, if you really-7 felt that it was more conservative than necessary for safety 8 and you were having trouble meeting it, why there wasn't some { 9 action to change the technical specification. Isn't that the 10 sort of responsibility that would be at your level? 11 A I-thought that the refinement of the leak rate 12 program and the startup -- newness of the plant, would work O 13 itself out to where they would become compatible and that we 14 would be able to do that with a lot more assurance and a lot 15 less problems. 16 0 We've had a lot of testimony about this sort of' 17 wishful thinking, without anybody ever initiating real 18 action. 19 Thank you. j 20 BY JUDGE BRIGHT: l 21 0 Would you turn to page 44 and 45 of the Stier 4 22 interview. Would you just read 44 and 45, and the very first 1. t 23 part of 46. 24 A Okay. C:) 25 0 Would you agree that this could be interpreted as ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6646 ,_. -3700-,, _. _ ..m.
i 3960 01 011 2958 ) you actually gave these CROs, shift foremen, the permission '('-dcefederal1 2 or-authority to throw away tests that they considered were 3 invalid? 4 A. Yes. If they made the determination, for whatever 5 reason, reviewing the parameters, that the leak rate test was 6 invalid, that they could discard them. 7 Q No matter what the reason? t .8 A They would need to make a value judgment of why it 9 was invalid. There may have been several reasons for that 10 for any particular test, but there should have been some 11 value judgment saying that, hey, we know that this isn't 12 right because of the instrumentation that.they used leads to- 'O~ ~ 13 a difference between what it showed and what the leak rate 14 from the computer showed. And based.on that value, it could 15 be discarded. 16 O So you are not saying that you intended that kind 17 of permission to mean that if it is over 1 gallon per minute, 18 that they could automatically say it was an invalid test? 19 .A Not automatically. 20 0 There had to be other reasons, of some kind or 21 other? 22 A They had to make some determination that 23 invalidated the test. 24 O But it was strictly within their judgment as to i 25 whether it was invalid or not; is that correct? l i i l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80 4 336-6646 [. , _ ~..
I 3960 01.01 2959 ('-Qcefederal1 L A They could have made that judgment, yes. 2 0 I mean they didn't have to explain to anyone about 3 what.made.the test invalid? They could just do it, is that 4 correct? 5 A If there was a question in their mind whether it 6 was valid or not, they could certainly ask the shift foreman 7 or the shift supervisor or any other control room operator, 8 to whatever ends that they felt was necessary in making that 9 determination. 10 0 Page <46'and 47, there I think you say that you 11 were. aware the tests were being discarded. 12 A That is correct. b' 13 0 And that were you aware of -- let's see -- on the 14 top of page 47, the question is asked, these tests generally 15 would have been greater than 1 gallon per minute? And I 16 think you answer in the affirmative. I 17 Would you agree? 18 A-What is your question, then? You are asking i. l [ 19 what? 20 0 I say, would you say that that is what you meant 21 here? The question is, the sixth line down: 22 " Question: As a general rule those test results 23 that they would have obtained, that they were throwing away 24 and trying to repeat, those test results would have been test 25 results in excess of 1 gallon per minute, would they not? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80M364646
,3960 01 01 2960 m ( ) '-Jcefederal 1 " Answer: I can only assume that to be the case." i 2 A Either greater than that or for some reason they 3 were invalid. Either that they determined during or just 4 after the test that they had added some inventory or 5 something else was wrong that invalidated the test. So it 6 may not only be greater than 1 gallon a minute, it may have 7 been a large negative leak rate. So I'm not sure. It 8 depends on the particular one. 9 0 I believe Judge Carpenter has already asked you 10 about exceptions and deficiencies. If not, I'm sure he 11 will. So, I will leave that to him. 12 But, on page 52 and 53, 53 at the top down through (_ 13- " discussion off the record" -- up at the top you state that 14 you are familiar with the tech specs and then at the bottom 15 -- the.last part of that little section there you are asked: 16 "Were you aware you were violating these?" Now you answer 17 "No." Now, could you give us a short statement as to why 18 that can be true? 19 A I never believed at any time that we were 20 violating the tech specs in relationship to unidentified 21 leakage or any other technical specification. 22 0 So it wasn't that you were not familiar with the 23-tech specs, it was just that your particular interpretation 24 of the tech spec was what you followed? x,_ 25 A That is correct. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Narionwide Coverage 800-336-6646 ..,--n-,,
3960'01'01 2961 m .( ) N-Jcefederal 1 Q Were you ever aware of tests being manipulated in 2 any way atcall? 3 A No. 4 0 Were.you close enough to what was being done down 5 in the control room to really get a grip on this sort'of 6 ' thing?- 7~ A I.believe that I~was. There have been a number of times, and I don't 8 0. ~ 9 want to get into any kind of specific test situations here, 10 where you were not.able to get a good leak rate test during 11-shift. Now, what -- did you ever -- for the record, did you 12 ever tell your people to enter the action statement because C:) 13 of in four hours they hadn't been able to find the source of 14 leakage or to prove that it didn't exist? 15 A Not that I remember. 16 0 What did :mu consider your ultimate responsibility '17 to be? Now, I know that it has been stated time and time 18 again that control. room operators could enter the action 19 statement. They had the authority to do that. And shift 20 foremen could enter the action statement. The shift 21 supervisor could enter the action statement. Based on what 3 22 experience I have had out in the cold, cruel world, if I were 23 a CRO, I wouldn't enter any action statements until I bucked 24 it up to the foreman, the shift foreman. And if it came to 25 shutting down a plant that was going to cost you millions of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage %0-336W46 . ~.
3960 01 01 2962 acefederal 1 dollars if you even let it cool down, if I were a shift 2 foreman I don't think I'd enter the action statement without 3 going to the shift supervisor. You've got a lot at stake 4 here. Ultimately the responsibility is yours, as I 5 understand it. I was wondering what your feelings are in 6 that regard. 7 A I agree with that, that the control room operator 8 would consult with the other control room operator, with the 9 shift foreman, who would also consult with me and it would 10 ultimately be my responsibility. And the availability of 11 myself and the shift foreman would lead that action. 12 O You think you were available at any time that this ( ) 13 might have come up? 14 A Yes, I was. 15 O This LER incident bothers me a little bit. You 16 know the one I'm talking about, I presume? LER 78-62, the 17 one where Mr. Haverkamp came through the plant and found a 18 big leak rate and that good stuff? 19 A Yes, I am. 20 0 Okay. Now, a memo, I guess it was, was sent 21 around to all hands, telling them what the new procedures 22 were going to be. And they included some changes, like 23 entering the action statement, for example, if you got a bad 24 leak rate test, not discarding tests. And there were all ? 25 sorts of people who signed off, according to the sign-off ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cos crage 86336-6M6
3960 01 01 2963 cefederal 1 sheet -- there are some unintelligible jiggles on it, but I 2 assume in good faith people did initial it. But we have yet 3 to stumble tcross anybody who has any idea what it said? 4 Jt; E KELLEY: Could we establisn if the witness 5 knows what w$ sre referring to. The sign-off sheet is one 6 term. It's a et of Haverkamp exhibits, among other things. 7 MR. MC BRIDE: Judge Kelley, I'm sorry, I can't 8 find the sign-off sheet in the Haverkamp exhibits. We've got 9 it here if it's necessary but he knows which LER is being \\ 10 referred to, if that's all that's necessary. 11 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, I think there are two pieces 12 of paper in Judge Bright's question. There is what we call p_ 3 13 the sign-off sheet, a copy of which I happen to have. I 14 could show it to you and the witness. 15 MR. MC BRIDE: Got the LER itself in front of 16 him. 17 THE WITNESS: Okay. 18 JUDGE KELLEY: When you say "the LER itself," are 19 you referring to a two-page legal size sheet that's a sort of 20 " fill-in-the-blanks" type of document? 21 MR. MC BRIDE: No, I was not, your Honor. I'm 22 referring to the actual licensee event report filed with the l 23 Commission. It's Exhibit F to Mr. Haverkamp's testimony. 24 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me make sure we are looking at ,ry !~,,i 25 the same thing. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationw i.ie Cos erage 86336-(M6
3960 01 01 2964 ('-c)cefederal 1 MR. VOIGT: There's a potential problem there 2 because what was circulated with the sign-off sheet-I don't 3 think is exactly the same as what went to the NRC. 4 JUDGE BRIGHT: I hope not. 5 MR. VOIGT: But I have the document. It's TF30 in 6 volume V-C, in Mr. Stier's report. 7 MR. MC BRIDE: When I refer to the " licensee ever. 8 report," I refer to what was transmitted to the Commission by 9 letter dated November 1, 1978. 10 JUDGE KELLEY: Cover letter signed by 11 Mr. Herbein? 12 MR. MC BRIDE: That's correct. 13 JUDGE KELLEY: Right. Followed by two pages -- 14 MR. MC BRIDE: Followed by a form entitled 15 " Licensee Event Report" which has type filled in which is 16 carried over on a blank page and then a narrative. 17 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. When we refer to the LER, 18 that's what we mean. Right? 19 MR. MC BRIDE: Technically speaking, that's what 20 an LER is. There are other versions in other places but -- 21 JUDGE KELLEY: With underlining and what not, but 22 in any event what you just described there comports with my 23 idea of what 78-62 was comprised of; right? 24 MR. MC BRIDE: For reporting purposes to the f-NS) 25 Commission, that's correct. Yes. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6 4 6
3960 01 01 2965 g! t '-Jcefederal 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Is there any dispute -- I'm-not 2-aware of any, maybe there is or maybe there's some 3 discrepancy -- as between what got sent to the NRC and what 4 at least in all likelihood got circulated and ended up in 5 3-ring notebooks in the control room for reading materials by 6 the CROs? Was that somehow different? 7 MR. VOIGT: I'm referring to -- 8 JUDGE KELLEY: I'm not really asking you to 9 testify but we are just trying to straighten this out. 10 MR. VOIGT: I'm referring to the index prepared by 11 Mr. Stier. For this tab 30, which I identified a moment ago, 12 it says, " circulates first draft LER," which indicates to me V 13 that what was circulated was not necessarily the same as what 14 was forwarded to the NRC. I'm not going to testify about 15 what the differences may have been. I think we may have some 16 testimony in the record or to come on that subject. 17 JUDGE KELLEY: Would you refer me exactly what you 18 are referring to? 19 MR. VOIGT: Again, V-C, in Mr. Stier's report, 20 which includes tabs 15 to 37. The front of the box has an 21 index. I read you a reference to this tab 30, in the index. 22 When I turn to tab 30, that's the sign-off sheet. j i l 23 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. i i 24 MR. VOIGT: So there's at least an indication in gS l \\~) I 25 Mr. Stier's analysis that there could have been a difference l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l "*?"'"'T':"' .T"""
3960 01 01 2966 m ( ) N-Jcefederal 1 between'what Mr. McBride refers to as the official LER, and 2 what the operator saw. 3 MR. MC BRIDE: 'Just for clarity, in the same 4 volume and for convenience you'll find in tab 39 the LER 5 itself as transmitted to the Commission. 6 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. It is useful to pointing out 7 this potential difference. We can all parse that when we get 8 around to it. It may or may not be'significant for purposes 9 of talking with Mr. Zewe. Okay. 10 I think I stepped into this just to make clear, if 11 we could, what we were talking about when we talked about 12 this LER. Having established -- I think we have established l 13 it. Go ahead. 14 MR. MC BRIDE: Judge Kelley, can I just point out 15-to you that in fact if you compare the two tabs, the 16 narratives are different. The narrative in the version filed 17 with the Commission are three paragraphs and contains 18 different words in a few cases than the narrative in tab 30, 1 19 which is was the version apparently that was furnished to the 20 operators. You will have more witnesses who will be more 21 familiar with this document than this witness but -- 22 JUDGE KELLEY: For present purposes it may not be 23 critical, but perhaps where he can straighten that out with l 24 the appropriate people, authors and so on. Okay. v 25 BY JUDGE BRIGHT: ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I mm. ~.e _ c _,.
a 3960.01 01L 2967 'icefederal~1 0' Perhaps.we can:get around toEthe real question I 2 wanted to ask you which is, in a generalLway, whatL'o you d 3 cons'ider:to be your responsibilities, insofar as the shift ~ 4 ' people that: you supervise know what's going on, in terms of 5 how to operate that plant? 6 A Could you-please repeat that?- I'm not sure I r 7 followed what you are-asking. 8 _0 You did an LER, and let's hypothetically-say'it-is 9 on leak rate testing.- Somebody has found out something. bad 10 about leak rate testing, little things like they are not 11 following the leak rate testing, et cetera. Then, supposedly 12 they send out some kind of notice to the troops. ' Surely they O 13 did. Okay, now let's further. speculate that this does go out 14
- to the troops.
All right. -You get a copy. Correct? 15 A Yes. 16 0 Who else'will get a copy? Say it's an all points 17 ' bulletin of some kind or other, which some particular LERs in 18 this world have been. 19 A All the operations group would have access to it. l 20 Typically, the shift supervisor and the shift foreman would 21 receive a copy and so would the control room operators. In 22 the control room operator's case it may not be an individual i 23 copy but it may be a required reading book that we had in the 24 control room for all the operators to periodically review and \\ l 25 sign off on. i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-334 6646
I 13960.01 01 2968 f') ; \\-ccefederal 1 0 very well. 2 Now, this LER comes through on some test or 3 whatever that people seem to be -- they think it's a fairly. 4 important one because-there's a time limit on it and-it calls 5 for_ shutting the plant down if something bad happens. So 6 everybody is quite aware that'they have to do this particular 7 test. What do you think is'your responsibility to make sure 8 that-the word gets to everybody on your shift? Back then, 9 what did.you think your responsibility was? Pardon me. 10 A Just to make sure that they receive the 11 information and make sure that they understand the 12-information. 13 0 Well, in this specific instance we have 14 interviewed Mr. Faust, Mr. Frederick and Mr. Scheimann. None 15 of them remember the thing at all, except Mr. Scheimann says 16 he knows.that he initialed it because he is very careful 17 about that sort of thing. But he still didn't know what l't 18 said. And we run into a situation, here, where it appears to 19 me -- and correct me if I'm wrong, please -- that nobody was 20 paying attention to anything that was going on down the road, 21 in this particular matter. 22 What are your feelings? 23 A I'm not sure I understand what you say, is that no 24 one down below knew what was going on. Is it, 1, that they 25 don't remember, looking back at 1978? Or are they saying ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
3960 01 01 2969 cefederal l back then they remember, but they were not told about it? 2 I'm a little bit confused, because I, like them, prior to the 3 leak rate allegations in the LER, I did not recall any' prior 4 knowledge of the specifics of the LER. I didn't -- not until 5 it was shown to me, subsequent to the start of the leak rate 6 allegation proceedings and so forth. 7 O So you are telling me that you didn't get the werd 8 on that particular -- 9 A No, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that I 10 don't remember. I believe that everything that was passed on 11 and signed off for on the check-off sheets for the required 12 reading and so forth, that I actually did read them at that 7sb 13 time and thought at least at that time that I understood 14 them. It is just that I did not remember this particular 15 LER, when the question -- when questioned about it the first-16 time subsequent to that. 17 0 Well, let's see. According to the testimony we've 18 received, with some small changes, nothing happened as a 19 result of issuing the LER. There was something about 20 rounding off, which they only did for a few days. Something 21 else about somebody tinkered with a computer, except they 22 didn't fix the problem. Except for that, they don't remember 23 a thing about it. Business as usual, right down the pike. 24 Do you have any idea how this could happen in a 25 structured organization such as I understand TMI was? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 Nationwide Coserage 8 % 336-6646 -347-3700, _,.,. _, -. _
3960 01 01 2970 j- '-dcefederal 1 A 'I remember when I was first asked about this LER, 2 the only thing that I remember coming to mind was about the 3-rounding off of the leak rates. If it was greater than 1 but 4 less.than 1.5,'it was rounded off to 1. If it was above 1.5, 5 that was' rounded off to 2. I do remember that. And.I do 6 remember-that that occurred for a short period of time. ~Then 7 that was rescinded. That I remembered. The LER itself I did 8 not remember, and I really offer no explanation for that-9 except that I did not remember. 10 BY JUDGE KELLEY: 11 0 Can I just ask a clarifying question? 'I think it 12 will clarify something for me. n' 13 What was your understanding with regard to the 14 72-hour requirement in the tech specs? And let me give-you 15 alternative possibilities: 16 Possibility 1: Whenever you got a leak rate test 17 result in excess of 1 gallon and there wasn't any obvious 18 . basis for invalidating it, like the plant got shut down, you -19 then went immediately into the so-called action statement. 20 Possibility 2: As long as you got a good-leak l 21 rate -- meaning a leak rate under 1 -- within a given-72-hour i l 22 period, that's all you need concern yourself with, and i 23 therefore, if you got maybe several bad leak rates, meaning 24 leak rates in excess of 1, before the good one, that didn't O i l 25 matter? i i 4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 8043 % 6646 ., -.,. -, - -,, - -.. - _. _ _. -,, -,,,,,, -.,. - _,.. - - ~. -., _,,,,, _. -, - -..,, -.,,, -
33960 01 01 2971 O \\-Ocefederal 1 Did you have your own interpretation'that would 2 have adopted either interpretation 1 or interpretation 2 as I 3 -have just pointed out? 4 A. We had a requirement for the 72 hours for the good 5 leak rate. If we had a good leak rate it was good for 72 6 hours. 7 If, in between that and the next 72. hours we came 8 up with a valid leak rate -- i 9 Q Right. I 10 A I really find-it hard separating then and now, but 11 I believe that we were going by the 72 hours. 12 O So that, just to use an example, if I get a good O 13 leak rate, .9 at hour zero, to begin the clock running, I l 14 then have 72 hours to get another good leak rate, one under 1 15 gallon; correct? 1 l-16 A A valid leak rate, yes.- I i 17 O Well, I'm not using the words quite i 18 interchangeably. Let me put it this way. But -- I use r " good," I mean one under 1 gallon per minute. I'm using 19 t 20 jargon that we have sort of developed in this case. ~ 21 But, under the example we are following, if you 22 had one that was good at hour zero to start the clock 3 23 running, you've got 72 hours to get another one that's under l 24 1 gallon per minute. And as long as you do that, you can i l 25 continue to operater correct? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6 . ___.. _ _.._. _ _.. _....._. _ _-347-3 700.___._,._.m..__,
'3960 01 01 2972 cefederal 1 A. Yes. As long as they were valid leak rate tests, 2 yes. 3 0 'All right. Now, what if right smack in the middle 4 of that 72-hour period you had another seemingly valid leak 5 rate in excess of 1. Does that obligate you to go into the 6 action statement under your understanding at that time? I'm 7 focusing at that time. 8 A I know it's very hard for me to separate that time 9 from this time right now. I don't remember that fine 10 interpretation of it. I think that it really keys on whether 11 we really believe that we had a valid leak rate test or not. 12 0 -Let's assume in this hypothetical that all three O 13 tests are valid in your opinion. There's no obvious reason 14 to invalidate them. But the one at hour zero is .9, the one 15 at hour 36 is 1.5, and the one at hour 71 is .8. 16 In that scenario, would you have thought that you 17 were obligated to go into the action statement at hour 36 18 when you got in a 1.5 reading? 19 A Would you go over that again? I was thinking of 20 something as you were talking, I'm sorry. 21 Q Okay. Hour zero. Good leak rate; .9. 22 A Okay. 23 0 No reason to think it is invalid. The plant was 24 at steady state. Other indicators were favorable. Favorable u 25 to a valid leak rate test. So you say: Fine, that's a valid ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cove age M3366646
3960 01 01 2973 [ dcefederal 1 ) test. That's within specs. 2 At hour 36, a day and a half later, you run a leak 3 rate test under similar conditions and you get a leak rate 4 test result of 1.5. But, again, no' obvious reason that you 5 can see to invalidate the-test. You don't go in the action 6 statement, let's say, at that point. You might look for some 7 leaks, but beyond that you don't. 8 In any event, at hour 70, 71, you get another 9 reading; .8, .85. Seemingly valid test. '10 Now, I just want to know whether under your 11 interpretation of the tech specs at that time, you would have 12 considered if you had to go in the action statement at that 13 36-hour test? 14 A I believa if I thought that the leak rate test was 15 valid, as you said, at the 36 hour point, that I would have 16 did something about it -- taking action -- 17 0 Let's be more specific. Under the action 18 statement, so-called -- and I'm paraphrasing, maybe I'm not 19 specific -- you have to take some other actions, take some 20 other tests; but in you don't get the thing resolved in a 21 matter of four hours, six hours, you go into hot standby, 22 next thing you know you are into some semi-shutdown status, i l l 23 you are moving to shut down the plant, right, under the 24 action statement? l 25 A That's true. I l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80M36-6646 ~
2974 ,3,9 6 0 - 0 1 - 0 1 - - cefederal'l' 0 Was there ever a time you did that because of the-2 leak rate test? 3 A No, there wasn't. 4 0 I think I can paraphrase testimony by a number of 5 other operators here, and it's in the record. There was 6 universal opinion that if you got a good leak rate test in 72 7 hours, you were home free and prior leak' rate tests that were 8 in excess of 1 gallon per_ minute could be disregarded. That 9 was the prevalent view. Does that surprise you? 10 A I have heard that before in subsequent 11 investigations. So it doesn't surprise me now. 12 It does surprise me that they would say that O 13 regardless of the leakage that we had, that they would not 14 take any. action. 15 0 I don't mean to represent that anybody said 16 regardless of leakage, if there was some horrendous leak 17 apparent, maybe they would do something. In point of fact 18 this plant was not -- they begin undergoing the action 19 statement at any time by anybody during the whole period so 20 far as I know. There is absolutely no record of that that it 21 was ever done, by any shift foreman, shift supervisor, COR, 22 or anybody else; despite the record of apparently scores and 23 scores, hundreds and hundreds of bad leak rate tests it was 24 never done. 25 That seemed to be consistent, at least, did it ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 Nationwide Coverage 800-316-fM6 -. - _ --- _ _ -- _-347 3700-.. _ - - - -.. - - - -,. _
-3960 01 01 2975 I 'y \\-Jcefederal 1 not, with the idea that as long as you got a good leak rate 2 within 72 hours, that was all that was required? Doesn't 3 that seem to be consistent with that view? 4 A Yes. It does. 5 0 I wanted to establish that. It turned out to be a 6 long colloquy between you and me. But to me, I can only make 7 sense out of this LER if I knew, first, what your view was 8 about the 72-hour requirement, because that's what that LER 9 is all aboutt right? That's what it is directed at? 10 A Yes, it is. 11 0 If you had been doing business in accordance with f 12 the LER interpretation reflected by the NRC at that time, I 13 can see why this would not be any particularly big deal. In 14 fact, why would it even be written at all. It would just be 15 consistent with your practice. 16 But, on the other hand, if there was a general 17 view that all you needed was 1 good leak rate in 72 hours, 18 then this LER -- and it seems to reflect a substantial, even 19 a rather dramatic departure from current interpretation, does 20 it not? 21 A Taken in that view, yes. 22 0 Because it indicates -- it's not the clearest 23 prose into the world, I'll grant you that -- but it does seem 24 to indicate, does it not, that the proper view here is -- and f- \\ )J ~ 25 the key sentence is, if you look in the narrative, next to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 2112-347-37(X) Nationwide Coverage 8(4336-6M6 - -. _ _ -. _ -.. _ _ ~, _, _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3960 01 01 2976 ,e 3,. \\ '-dcefederal 1 the last sentence of the narrative version that comes from 2 the Stier report. This may be a little different, Mr. Voigt, 3 from the so-called official version. I'm looking at the next 4 to the last sentence: "The appropriate personnel will be 5 instructed on the requirements of the applicable sections of 6 the TS, and the requirements to immediately invoke applicable 7 action statements when the provisions of the limiting 8 conditions for operation are not met." Which suggests to me 9 that you get a leak rate test in excess of 1, it isn't 10 obviously invalid, you are in the action statement forthwith; 11 isn't that what that seems to say? 12 A Yes, it does. (' 13 MR. VOIGT: For the record, Judge Kelley, that 14 sentence and the sentence which follows it are identically 15 worded. 16 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Thank you. 17 BY JUDGE KELLEY: 18 O So I guess it's in that context. I wanted to get 19 the context. Judge Bright was beginning to question you 20 about the LER and its impact, and it seemed to me that the 21 context of a rather sharp change in practice is what ought to 22 have attracted your attention at the time. And given what we 23 have been told about this plant, that LER should have said to 24 you, I would think: "We should have been shutting the plant (- 25 down when we had these bad leak rate tests, on at least some ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-37(1) Nationwide Coverage 8(XK3%6M6
3960 01 01-2977 acefederal 1 -occasions." Isn't that the practical effect of this? 2 A Yes. I would say it is. 3 O And, as I think Judge Bright indicated, I have 4 been sitting here, too, operator after operator comes here 5 and says that LER made absolutely no impact on me. I kept 6 thinking as long as I got a good test in 72 hours it made no 7 impact on me, no impact. It is hard for us to understand 8 that. And from your perspective, how can that be, that an 9 LER of that apparent import could have just been a pebble in 10 the pond that quickly settled to the bottom and everybody 11 ignored it? Can you explain that? 12 A No, I can't. Because I didn't remember it () 13 either. So I really can't comment as to why, except that I 14 don't remember that either. 15 JUDGE KELLEY: We would like to finish up here 16 shortly; I think we will. But let's take five minutes. 17 (Recess.) 18 JUDGE KELLEY: Back on the record. 19 Mr. Zewe, I would like to go back over a piece of 20 the ground that you and I were traveling 5 or 10 minutes ago, 21 to make sure that I understood you and you understood me. 22 BY JUDGE KELLEY: 23 0 My focus here is what, at that time, was your 24 understanding with regard to what the tech specs required in \\ 25 a context where you got a bad leak rate. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8s336-6M6
3960 01 01 2978 f}. \\-2cefederal 1 Let's take this hypothetical once more. You run a 2 leak rate test and get, let's say, .9. I think I said that 3 before. There is no reason to doubt the test in terms of. 4 plant parameters that you can see, so that's regarded as a 5 good test and it is filed. From that point on it is, under 6 one reading, anyway, of the tech specs, it's 72 hours before-7 you have to get another leak rate test under 1, and.also one 8 that appears to be valid by the usual indicators. But in my 9 hypothetical, when you got the.9 reading at hour zero, along 10 about hour 36 you got another leak rate reading, let's say 11 1.5 gallons. 12 Now, it's 36 hours into the 72, if you will. What 13 action, if any, at that point would you feel you were 14 required to take? l 15-A Again, if the leak rate at the 36-hour point was 16 valid in terms of the plant parameters, and if the operator 17 really thought that his leakage was really 1.5 gallons a i, 18 minute -- ^ 19 0 Let's say hypothetically; in this hypothetical it 20 appears to be valid in the sense there's no obvious reason 21 for discarding it. You can't point to obvious unstable 22 conditions, for example. There are now unaccounted for other 23 actions that you are aware of. 24 Now, we know with the benefit of hindsight, ( 25 there's all kinds of things wrong with this test and some i 't ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Co <crage
- D-3364646
_. _ _.,.. ~ _ _., _. _. _.. _. _ _.. -
60 01 01 2979 ccefederal 1 kind of genius could have figured out it was off at the time, 2 but knowing what you did then, let's assume it looked okay 3 and'it said 1.5. 4 Then what, if'anything, do you need to do at that 5 point under the tech specs? 6 A I think that if the operator indeed felt that it 7 was a valid test and he really had leakage, he would have 8 taken action and entered the action statement. 9 0 What would that involve? 10 A I don't recall the specifics right now but it was 11 something that, within four hours you needed to identify, 12 quantify and evaluate the leakage. 13 0 You run another test, don't you? I don't have it 14 in front of me, either, but you would run another test -- 15 A You would do that. But the point I'm trying to 16 make is through the makeup tank level and pressurizer level 17 and so forth, if they really thought that there was a leak, 18 that they would be out looking for it, trying to reduce it. 19 If that leakage was real, I think they would have 20 entered the action statement. It is really one of whether 21 they felt that the leak rate program at that point in 22 relationship to the plant parameters was really valid. 23 That's the point that I wrestled with here; it's not a (~J) 24 clearcut 72 hours that you've got to make the computer R 25 program show that you are less than 1 gallon a minute. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. M447dM Nationwide Coverage 80lk336-6646
f';60 01 01 2980 f(_) ccefederal 1 That's a part of it. But I think it's one of which, whether 2 it's a valid leak rate or not. I can look at the makeup tank -3 level or pressurizer level, but particularly the makeup tank 4 level, and over a given time period, I can assess what the 5 leakage rate is. Not down to a fraction, but I can assess 6 , over like an eight-hour period that if I say, have 2 gallon a 7 minute leakage for 8 hours and if I don't charge in any water 8 to make up that difference, I can say I did not have a 9 leakage of 2 gallons a minute. 10 0 Well, okay, let's stick with my hypothetical 11 first, though. Let's suppose that in this case you don't 12 have a good clean basis for invalidating the test. For all (~) %.) 13 you know, it is 1.5. And you go out, you do two things. You 14 have the auxilliary operators and whoever else is available 15 go out and look for leaks. And in the meantime you run 16 another test; right? 17 A Yes. 18 0 Okay. Then suppose at the end of four hours you 19 run this other test and it says 1.6 or 1.5, again, and the 20 situation is the same. Then what would your obligation be 21 under the action statement? 22 A Enter the action statement and proceed to make the 23 evaluation on the safety implications, and to shut down. (~} 24 0 Yes. Don't you, in fact, go into the action v 25 statement automatically when that high leak rate test result ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-37tn Nationside Coverage R4336-6M6 _ _ _ _ _ _. - - -. - ~, _. _ - _,..
2981 g?]600101 \\~) ccefederal 1 comes in? In other words,.doesn't your clock start to tick 2 at that point? 3 A From the first invalid reading -- 4 0 First seemingly valid, but excessive? 5 A Right. 6 0 As far as you know it's valid but it's over 1 7 gallon. That's the point at which the clock starts to tick; 8 is it not? 9 A That is correct. 10 0 Again, I don't have the tech spec language in 11 front of me, you go to -- is it hot standby? Well, it's in fg 12 the record here. We can all look it up. But eventually it k.) 13 leads to shutdown; correct? 14 A If you don't correct the problem. 15 0 If you don't figure out the problem and get a test i 16 on record that is -- that, again, seems to be valid and 17 thereby get out of the action statement, then you have to 18 lean towards shutdown. 19 Now there's another possible interpretation I 20 thought you were starting to suggest. My hypothetical talks 21 about a leak rate test that is seemingly valid. That's what 22 leads to the action statement and conceivably to a shutdown. 23 Was it the case that there was so little faith on 4 (} 24 the part of the operators and the foremen in the performance 25 of this test, there are so many things wrong with it in their ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 2@347 37fU Nationwide roserage axk3364646 . _ _. _.. _. ~ - _ _.. _ _ _. _. _. _.. _., _ _. -., _ .__.__._,._.__._.m
- ]600101 2982
~(L/ ccefederal 1 view, that there really wasn't any such thing as a valid leak 2
- rate test over 1 gallon per minute?
They just automatically 3 disbelieve any such reading? 4 A .I don't know if that was true for the other 5 operators or not. 6 0 What about the ones on your shift? 7 A I don't believe that was the case for them; 8 knowing where the plant was and the plant parameters, that 9 was the real operating tool that we used, was where the plant 10 actually was. You would either validate or invalidate the 11 leak rate test from the computer program based on that. 12 0 So you are saying that the people on your shift at 13 least, frederick, Faust, Scheimann, took the test seriously? 14 Thought it was an indication of leakage? 15 A Thought it was what? 16 0 Thought it was a true indication of leakage?- 17 A If it was supported-by the plant parameters, yes. 18 That was my understanding. 19 0 I'm looking at a summary of an analysis by 20 Mr. Stier concerning you. Looking at page 5, top paragraph.- 21 Have you got that there? I 22 A The summary? 23 0 Yes. Volume II-B of the Stier report. (} 24 A I have that. I { 25 0 I'm looking at the top paragraph, beginning with ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i 3-202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 84336-fM6 . -... _ - - - - - ~ ,,_._.._,..m_,_.,-.,-.._.____...__-
g#}600101 2983 - u ccefederal 1 -the words, "our own analysis reveals," and so forth. You can ~ 2 just look over that paragraph. -3. MR. MC_ BRIDE: I'm sorry, Judge Kelley, what page 4 did you direct him to? 5' JUDGE KELLEY: -Page 5. Top paragraph. I'll just 6 ~ read this into the record: 7 "Our own' analysis reveals that their shift -- 8 meaning it's A shift, right? 5F THE WITNESS: Yes. 10 JUDGE ~KELLEY: "that A shift filed test results 11 only on approximately one-third of_the shifts they worked. 12 No test result above 1 gpm was ever f'iled." 13 "Zowe also acknowledged.that he knew there wer'e 14-occasions when his operators worked entire shifts without 15 obtaining a good leak rate test results result. He-16 understood this probably meant they had repeatedly tested and 17 discarded test results because they exceeded 1 yallon per l 18 minutes." l 19 BY JUDGE KELLEY: i 20 0 Now, of course that's Stier's summary. Do you 21 think the paragraph is a fair characterization of things that i-22 you had said? Is there anything in there you disagree with? l 23 A The only thing there I would like to add is, (} 24 repeatedly running the test results and disregarding them, I f. 25 believe there was some value judgment on whether that was i i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 80lF336-6646
60 01 01 2984 ccefederal 1 valid or not. Not just solely based on 1 gallon a minute. 2 O Well, it does seem to suggest, though, one 3 inference -- without reading the footnotes in back of 4 everything, in back of the paragraph, to get a fuller feeling 5 -- but it just reflects a long period of time, and there was 6 never a test in excess of 1 that was treated as valid in the 7 sense that it was filed. It certainly suggests that they 8 were automatically discarding tests over 1 gallon. Isn't 9 that fair? 10 A You could reach that conclusion, I assume, yes. 11 Q So, if you did that, then, you'd have at least eT 12 some -- something to point to, in terms of not going to the 13 action statement, I would gather; isn't that right? 14 A State that again, please? 15 0 Well, if there was never a test over 1 and 16 somebody said to you "why didn't you go into the action 17 statement," the short answer is: "I never had such a test. 18 They were all thrown away. They were invalid." Isn't that 19 something that an operator is in a position to say? 20 A Yes. 21 0 Okay. Thank you. 22 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me ask counsel whether this 23 colloquy has been helpful in regard to our discussion off the ^') 24 record. We had a discussion off the record, Mr. Zewe, just 25 to see whether there might not have been a miscommunication ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33M/4
(']60 01 01 2985 x..) ccefederal 1 between you and ne earlier, so we thought, in effect, we'd 2 try part of it again. We have done that now, I think, but 3 let me ask whether there are any follow-ups or questions that 4 other counsel would like to put? 5. JUDGE BRIGHT: No. 6 MR. VOIGT: We have no follow-ups on this 7 particular line. 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. 9 BY JUDGE CARPENTER: 10 0 Mr. Zewe, on page 5 of your prefiled statement at 11 the top of the page, the 4th line at the end of the sentence 12 reads: "And we did not have the luxury of analyzing the 13 test, as has been done during subsequent investigations." 14 I have been puzzling about this for a good many 15 weeks. I had the impression that there was a technical 16 support group at TMI-2 in 1978 and 1979; isn't that true? 17 A Yes, there was. 18 0 Why weren't those people available to you to look 19 into what was the problem with this test? 20 A I believe that they were available to look at the 21 problems with the test. 22 0 I don't understand. The sense of your sentence 23 implies that to do that would have been a luxury that you (} 24 didn't have. 25 A Maybe that's a poor choice of words. I really ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage
- n33MM6
V(*160 01 01 2986 ccefederal 1 thought that the status of the plant and the working on the 2 computer program and some of the other problems that we had 3 were going to correct the inefficiencies there and not just-4 to dwell on one thing like the reactor coolant leakage test. 5 There were many other things to consider and that 6 was only one thing. I was just trying to relate, here,, that 7 you just can't -- I mean you,can, in a real sense, but you 8 can't in the practical sense -- channel all of your efforts 9 to just one thing. 10 0 I certainly agree. That's why I say, what 11 perplexes me is, I can't imagine that this was ever 12 identified as an extremely high priority item: "By golly, 13 today we are going to solve this problem." 14 On the other' hand, it never -- it was clear from 15 the record -- there wasn't a management mechanism where this 16 problem got to the top of the pile at some point in time. 17 And I'm talking about over a period of a year. 18 You say there's somebody working on the computer, 19 it isn't clear to me that he had a background with respect to 20 the aspects, technical aspects of this case, to sit down and 21 do a manual calculation and compare it with the computer 22 result and say, "Oh look, there are errors in the computer 23 result." And then sit down and figure out what they were. i (~% 24 If I understand what the individual working with the computer \\_] 25 program was all about, vis-a-vis somebody with an adequate 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage Nn3M-6M6 ._._.,._~.,._.._m. . ~,.., _, _,
- ^
')600101 2987 \\_ ccefederal 1 background sitting down looking -- I can't imagine it would 2 -- it would take a person with a proper background more than 3 a reasonable period of time, a matter of days, to have 4 resolved all of these problems. 5 I agree with you; I certainly understand that 6 there were many other problems. But this one never got to 7 the top of the pile and it's a management failure in my mind 8 that I'm trying to understand. This went on month after 9 month after month after month, without ever being resolved. 10 That's why I don't understand the lack of any piece of 11 paper. As Judge Bright said, i just don't understand, t, tere 12 was an exception and deficiency program. If something got on 13 that list, it had to be resolved sometime. But if it never 14 got on the list, it would never get resolved. That's what 15 seems to me is mysterious here as to why this problem didn't 16 go along with all the other problems in the normal course of 17 events. It got on a list. It wasn't rectified immediately. 18 It wasn't a fire drill but in the normal course of bills, 19 many things got fixed, presumably. 20 A Yes. 21 0 This one -- I don't understand why this one was 22 excluded? 23 A I think they were working on it throughout that ( 24 whole period. They had not reached the endpoint to where the 25 program was totally acceptable, if you will, or totally ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cherage 800-33MM6
g "j60 01 01 2988 U ccefederal 1 correct. I think that there was a considerable effort made 2 to work on the problem and to correct those deficiencies over 3 that same period of time. 4 0 It sure doesn't show. I mean there was a 5 temporary chango order in March when somebody recognized that 6 they were failing to correct the water in the sump back to 7 reactor temperature. But that same individual didn't 8 recognize that t he water you added needed to have its density 9 put to reactor temperature. So that if you added 250 10 gallons, there was a bias in-the test of 1.7 gallons per 11 minute. That's a substantial inaccuracy when viewed against 12 the technical specification. I'm not talking about a 1 13 percent or 10 percent refinement, but a really substantial 14 flaw in understanding what was being done here. .You are 15 measuring the volume while you were trying to do a mass 16 balance, and keeping track of temperatures is very important. 17 A I understand what you are saying. I know that now 18 in retrospect. I didn't know that then. 19 0 I say it's not so much -- your helping identify -- 20 the system doesn't look all that imperfect to me, exceptions 21 and deficiencies and so on. But it just never got on that 22 train. Nobody put it aboard. 23 A We never used the exceptions and deficiencies in . (} 24 accordance with the leak rate surveillance test, yes. l 25 0 I don't understand why they were outside of it. l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33MM6
rC60 01.01 2989 gG) ccefederal 1 A I really can't answer specifically on what was the 2 conscious effort not to do it. It was, rather, one at which 3 we didn't do it. I don't know if you understand what I'm 4 saying here. 5 O That's my point. That is what I have been trying 6-to ask witness after witness. You run a surveillance test. 7 You've got some problem. The individual running the test 8 shouldn't have to sit down and try to understand what's 9 wrong. He just checks a box and somebody is going to look 10 into it. He checks a box and goes on with his shift. He 11 doesn't have time right there. Then it goes across your desk 12 and you know there's some problem there that you've got to (~} v 13 keep track of. But for some reason this test was just not 14 treated the same way. 15 A-I think, also, it's one of the few tests that, say 16 that you had a leak rate that was 1.1 at one point, and then 17 the next point you did it, it was .8. How could you have 18 really resolved tne deficiency and deficiency because of that 19 -- the exception and deficiency because of that? 20 0 But when you get minus 2 gallons a minute and you 21 can't see, on the basis of plant parameters -- you know, 22 these tests were actually filed as valid. They were sitting 23 there when the investigators went to pull them out of the {} 24 file. This was meeting the tech spec requirement with a 25 minus 2 gallons a minute. I can't believe that shouldn't ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8&336-6M6
f ]60 01101 2990 \\_) ccefederal I have been labeled an exception or deficiency. Surely the 2 difference between.8 and 1.1, vis-a-vis 1.0 -- is a close 3 call. But we have too many papers where the numbers were 4 much more divergent than that. 5 And who knows what these tests that were thrown 6 away showed? You see? That's the real point. Rather than 7 throwing it away without an obvious basis for invalidating 8 it, why wasn't an exception or deficiency filed rather than 9 throwing it away? 10 A I don't know. I really don't have any basis for 11 saying which of the ones that were thrown away were really r% 12 because they were inaccurate for obvious reasons and which O 13 ones that you couldn't, or that were on the borderline of 14 whether they were valid or invalid. I really can't answer 15 that. 16 JUDGE KELLEY: Can I interrupt a second? I want 17 to interrupt simply to say, following these questions we have 18 a series of questions from Mrs. Aamodt. A couple of 19 questions here the Board has some doubts about, there we 20 would put them. In any case what I propose to do is provide 21 a copy now to at least Mr. Voigt and Mr. Blake. Others may 22 look over their shoulders so that you'll have a chance to l 23 read this, think a little bit about it before we get to it. l (} 24 It's questions 4 and 5 I'm passing out. l 25 JUDGE CARPENTER: Judge Kelley, I had come to the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -m s.-m c_, 7
1r
- 0 2991
[v)600101 ccefederal 1 end of this question which seems to be an unanswerable 2 question. I just keep asking it in hopes that somebody, 3 sometime, somede.y can explain it to me. 4 Thank you. 5 Let's go off the record a second. 6 (Discussion off the record.) 4 7 JUDGE KELLEY: We have received a list of -- 8 questions from Mrs. Aamodt to be directed to Mr. Zewe. I'll 9 begin with the first one that seems to us to be 10 straightforward. 11 BY JUDGE KELLEY: 12 O Did you review all your interviews concerning leak 13 rate performance at TMI in preparation for this hearing? 14 A No, I did not. 15 0 If you did not, why not, in view of your prefiled 16 testimony that you now have difficulty in recalling what you 17 knew prior to the accident? Why didn't you refresh your 18 memory? Or would it have refreshed your memory to have read 19 your prior statements? 20 A I don't think that it would have helped. 21 0 Question number 2. I confess some Board 22 uncertainty about the question. I will read it. 23 Have you received any bonuses from Met Ed or GPU 24 during the past year? {} 25 MR. VOIGT: I think it's irrelevant, but I'll ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M686
i ) 60 01 01 2992 {"^j .a ccefederal 1 permit him to answer if the Board wishes him to. 2 JUDGE KELLEY: All.right. 3. THE WITNESS: ~ Any what? 4 BY JUDGE KELLEY: 5 0 Bonuses.during the past year from GPU or Met Ed? 6 7L No. 7 0 Have you had any contacts with employers employed 8 by Met Ed or GPU during the past year? If so, 9 particularize. Let me just add and ask: Have you had 10 contacts with your present counsel.in preparing for this 11 proceeding? 12 A Yes, I have. 13 0 I think that's as far as we need to go with that 14 question; thank you. That brings'us-to questions 4 and 5. 15 These two questions I distributed copies of to counsel a few 16 minutes ago. 17. Again, we have the understanding in this case that 18 impeachment-type questions are not given to the witness in [ 19 advance, but that has not been done in this case. I have ~ 20 simply handed out a copy of 4 and 5 with the thought that 21 counsel may have comments they wish to make on it, and they -22 might as well read it first rather than just hearing'it 23 cold. Let me ask whether there are any comments on question j (} 24 number 4. l 25 MR. VOIGT: First of all, it seems to me that both ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 Nationwide Coverage 8 % 336-6646 ~. .. _ -3700_,.. _ _. - _ _.. -,.. ..~ _ --..__..,._,. _,
t 2993 g?'{60 01 01 Giccefederal 1 questions 4 and 5 have nothing to do with the credibility of 2 this witness. They seem to be an effort to impeach a third 3 person. The A part of 4, standing alone, to me is not 4 objectionable. But the other portions of 4 and all of 5 5 don't seem to me to be relevant to the subject matters of 6 these' hearings. So I would -- if you want to ask just the 7 straight one-liner from 4-A, that's fine. But I object to 8 the rest of it. 9 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Blake, any comment? 10 MR. BLAKE: I'd like another minute, if I could, 11 to read the end of 5 where there's some handwriting? 12 JUDGE KELLEY: Sure. 13 MR. BLAKE: Judge Kelley, I would subscribe to the 14 view stated by Mr. Voigt with regard to the apparent worth of 15 any answers we might get to questions within the scope of 16 this proceeding. I would carve the questions 4 and 5 up the 17 exact same way Mr. Voigt did in terms of worth to the record 18 that the Board needs here to make its decisions. I must say 19 in doing so that it is with some mixed emotions, that I would 20 not like to hear the answers to these questions, but I agree 21 with Mr. Voigt from a legal standpoint. 22 JUDGE KELLEY: The agreement as I heard it from 23 counsel, at least, was that 4-A was acceptable? 24 MR. VOIGT: Yes. 4-A, standing by itself. } 25 JUDGE KELLEY: Does that include the introductory I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. , -347-3700. _ _.. _ _ 202 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
7'160 01 01 2994 %.) ccefederal 1 paragraph? 2 MR. VOIGT: It doesn't include the introduction. 3 JUDGE,KELLEY: It is just 4-A. "Do you ever plan 4 to reenter nuclear employment?" That's okay in your view? 5 BY JUDGE KELLEY: 6 0 The Board, on reading 4 and 5, had doubts about 7 them on several scores. We have heard objection to them, 8 with the single exception of the questions presented by 4-A, 9 which seem to us to be straightforward, and we'll ask them in 10 just a moment. 11 By way of explanation, the relevancy of the } remainder of these two questions seems to us to be far from 12 13 clear. -In fact we think it is not relevant. I might add 14 that the last sentence of number 5, beginning with the words 15. "are you constrained," I have difficulty simply understanding 16 and I'm not at all clear that the record that we have 17 developed supports the question. So we are going to disallow 18 all of 4 and 5 with the exception of the small part that I'll 19 now put, which is as follows: "Do you ever plan to reenter 20 nuclear employment?" 21 A I leave that option open at this time. 22 0 Similarly, might you seek an NRC license in the 23 future? (} 24 A I might, yes. 25 0 You might. Okay. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 )
^r 960 01 01 2995 ccefederal:1 BY JUDGE BRIGHT: 2 O Question 6: You stated in your interview by NRC 3 investigators, that's in Exhibit 25 of the OI report -- 4 MR. MC BRIDE: Does-she have a page reference? 5 JUDGE BRIGHT: No page numbers. Just a general 6 thing. 7 BY JUDGE BRIGHT: 1-8 0 that you, your shift foremen and operators 9 participated in the discard of leak rate tests. Describe 10 your participation with particularization. 11 It is my own belief that that was asked and 12 answered in my original questioning. What is your feeling 13 about that, Mr. Zewe? Would you care to say something along- ~ 14 those lines? 15 A Asking about my participation in the throwing away 16 of the leak rate tests? 17 O That's right. 18 A I do not recall throwing-any leak rate test away 19 myself. I just reiterate that I had knowledge that leak 20 rates that were deemed -- judged to be invalid were l21 discarded. I'm not sure what else I could add to that. 22 O A, part of 6: Were you aware that your shift 23 foreman, according to his testimony in this hearing, (} 24 discarded tests that operators could not invalidate without l 25 routinely invalidating them? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
- e:60 01 01 2996 U -ccefederal 1 MR. MC BRIDE: ' I object to that question on the 2 ground that that mischaracterize Mr. Scheimann's testimony; 3 and we had a similar problem with the same quotation from 4 Mr. Scheimann's testimony last Friday. You'll recall that I 5 objected, without laying a foundation as to whether he agreed 6 'with that characterization of his testimony. He testified 7 that he did'not. And it was on that basis that the Board 8 disallowed-the remainder, essentially of the same question to 9 Mr. Scheimann.- 10 This had to do with the statement in 11 Mr. Scheimann's prefiled testimony that he did not ~ 12 automatically discard leak rate tests over 1 gpm. I think 13 I'm quoting exactly. I don't have it right in front of me. 14 JUDGE BRIGHT: Close enough. 15 JUDGE KELLEY: I don't think it's consistent with 16 his testimony. 17 JUDGE CARPENTER: It is inconsistent with page 3, { 18 the first full-paragraph. 19 JUDGE KELLEY: We'll sustain the objection. 20 BY JUDGE BRIGHT: 21 0 Question 7: What measures did you take to 22 validate positive tests within limits that were reported to 23 the NRC? If none, why were you unskeptical of positive tests (} 24 within limits when you believed that the computer was not i 25 reliable? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
.g]600101 2997 ^ o acefederal 1 A Here again, it's really observing the parameters 2 that the operator does on an almost minute by minute basis. 3 It is the trending of those parameters which really has the 4 operator very aware of the situation of the reactor coolant 5 system and connecting systems. So it is really based on that 6 fact. 7 If it shows you don't have a leakage on the 8 parameters, and if the leak rate test prints out that you 9 don't have it, you have two things that are supportive and 10 there's no reason not to believe it. 11 0 Let me interject a little thing, here. These. 12 invalid tests, ones that could not be validated by the r-)x \\_ 13 operators -- okay, you've got the operator filter; then 14 you've got the shift foreman filter -- how many invalid tests 15 ever came up to your level? Were brought to your attention? 16 A I don't really remember. 17 0 It couldn't have made much of an impression on 18 you? 19 A Not if the operators and the shift foremen have 20 already said that they were invalid. 21 0 That was my point. Did they ever come to you and 22 say, " Hey, look, we can't quite make this. What's your 23 opinion?" 24 A No. The only thing that I recall is one of which {} 25 "We didn't get a good leak rate and we are going to try ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationuide Coverage 804336-6M6
,/'160 01 01 2998 L) cccefederal.1 another one." Not that they would show me the paperwork and i 2 have me analyze and agree or disagree with their 3 interpretation whether it was valid or not. It was more in 4 the first context, trying to get a good valid leak rate test. 5 0 So it was more to keep you informed, does that -- 6 A Yes. That would characterize it. 7 0 Okay. Question 8: Do you consider yourself 8 responsible for the three instances where your shift provided 9 invalid leak rate reports to the NRR analysis? It doesn't 10 say where, what the three tests are or where they are il located. 12 JUDGE KELLEY: How about the table? Off the 13 record for a minute. 14 (Discussion off the record.) 15 MR. VOIGT: I don't think there's any foundation i 16 for the question. If you want to put it as a hypothetical, I 17 don't have any objections to that. 18 JUDGE KELLEY: There is no foundation on the 19 record for question 8. It's rejected. 1 20 BY JUDGE BRIGHT: 21 0 Continuing question 8: How great expenditure of 22 your time would have been required to compare the strip 23 charts and computer computations for unaccounted for water i ( '} 24 additions.in the leak rate tests prior to their acceptance as 25 valid reports? l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-37tX) Nationwide Coserage 800-33MM6
f'760 01 Ol' 2999 ' k) i ccefederal 1 A This would just be a guess on my part, what it 2 would really take, because it's really germane to the 4 3 condition of the plant at the time and so-forth. I would 4 think that you could make a value judgment in about 20 5 minutes. 6 0 very-well. Part A: Explain how your testimony 7 that claims you operated the plant in a safe manner is 8 consistent with proJiding invalid estimates of leakage. She 9 says, you say you operated in a safe manner and yet -- I 10 don't know who is being provided the invalid estimates of 11 leakage. If that is based on the NRR reports, which we threw (~) 12 out, I would assume we leave out for lack of foundation. \\, / 13 JUDGE KELLEY: As I understand, Mr. Zewe, whether 14 or not reading all the record we might completely agree with 15 you, putting that to one side, your testimony this afternoon 16 is that you did not knowingly t:le invalid tests; is that 17 correct? 18 THE WITNESS: That is correct. l 19 JUDGE KELLEY: Maybe accept is a better word than 20 file, since your CROs did the filing. But in any case, that 21 being your testimony this afternoon, then I think the l 22 question has no premise and we'll pass it. 23 BY JUDGE BRIGHT: (} 24 Q The second part of A is, what other measure of 25 boundary leakage did you have, if any, and what was your i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 80 4 336 4 646
60 01 01 '3000 'ccefederal-1 basis for confidence in it? 2 A Other than the computer program? 3 0 Yes. 4 A The installed instrumentation on the reactor 5 coolant system itself, on the makeup system, on the reactor 6 building, temperatures and pressures, flows. I'm not sure 7 how much of a detail is wanted there, but basically all the 8 plant instrumentation says that in all areas of the system 9 and connecting systems, including the reactor building and 10 auxiliary building. 11 0 Question 9: If, as you stated in your prefiled f"] 12 testimony, the computer was so unreliable as to print V 13 negative leak rates and to frequently disagree with plant 14 instruments and parameters, why did you report any rates 15 printed by the computer to the NRC? 16 MR. VOIGT: The same problem, again. Objection. 17 They weren't reported to the NRC. 18 JUDGE KELLEY: This whole ground has been gone 19 over this afternoon in some thoroughness in any case. The 20 thrust of it has been answered, it seems to me. 21 MR. VOIGT: I think that's right, too. JUDGE KELLEY: Let's just reject number 9. 22 23 Number 121 comes after number 9 and before number 1 24 10 in this list. It inquires into leak rate problems at Unit (} 25 1. That will be rejected for reasons we need not restate, i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
Y160 01 01 3001 .ccefederal 1 _ leaving us with question number 10. 2 JUDGE BRIGHT: Do you think.A.is invalid? 3 JUDGE KELLEY: ' That's not a question. 4 BY JUDGE BRIGHT: 5 .0 Question 10 is, how leaky was Unit 2? Part A of 6 that is, were leaks repaired? 7 A Yes lir, they-were. 8 0 I'm assuming they were within the action statement 9 of 10 gallons per minute identified. 10 A Yes. 11 Q And leaks were-repaired? 12 A As they were identified, they were repaired, yes. 13 0 Except for those valves,.the code safety valves 14 that I have heard so much chitchat-about? i 15 A Except for those valves. They were planned-for 16 the future. 17 Q We have another A here, and it is,-did-the number ~18-of leaky components increase during the year of operation? 19 A. I find that hard to really quantify. As there 20 were leaks.that were identified, we repaired them, and maybe 21 something else leaked and we identified and repaired them. l 22 I'm not sure if you are saying if you look at one. point in 23 time or another point in time, there was more leakage?' I J} 24 would have to say "no. " I'm unsure how to answer that one 25 from the standpoint of what's expected. I don't understand. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336 4646
60 01 01-3002 ccefederal 1 O I think we had several tests on the leakage 2 problem and the number of components, really,'doesn't tell us 3 very much. 4 We get to B now. Was the leakage of the plant the 5 major reason of the difficulty in obtaining leak rate reports 6 within. limits? 7 A I'm not sure how to answer that, except to say 8 that I think, looking back at some of the inaccuracies that 9 we had with the computer program and so forth, contributed to 10 that. I'm not sure if I can really quantify that answer, 11 O Well, would you say in light of all the testimony-12 we received about how it was getting harder and harder, 13 principally, they thought -- because of the code safety 14 valves -- that this would be a significant part of the reason 15' for it, whatever the total reason is? 16 A Yes, that was. 17 JUDGE BRIGHT: That concludes the questions. 18 JUDGE KELLEY:.Do we have follow-ups for 19 Mr. Zewe? 20 (Discussion off the record.) 21 BY JUDGE BRIGHT: 22 O We have a few follow-up questions here, Mr. Zewe. 23 Mr. Frederick has testified that he sought (} 24 guidance from Mr. Scheimann on the subject of acceptability 25 of negative leak rates. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6 ~__
~}60 01 01 3003 ccefederal 1 ' Question: Did anyone under your supervision ask -2 you for guidance on the acceptability of negative leak rates? 3 A I don't remember discussions like that on negative 4 leak rate criteria, now. 5 0 The next one starts, "if so," so I guess we can 6 drop that. 7 Did you ever seek management guidance on the 8 subject of negative leak rates? Or (your) management? 9 A Not that I remember. 10 0 The next one says "if so," so I guess we can 11 scratch that one. 12 Was the issue of acceptability of negative leak 13 rates ever resolved to your satisfaction at TMI-2? 14 A I don't remember having an issue with the negative 15 leak rate acceptability. 16 0 So, as far as you are concerned, it was resolved 17 to your satisfaction? 18 A Sort of by default, yes. 19 0 What was your understanding of the plant policy 20 concerning the acceptability of negative leak rate results 21 and what is the basis for that understanding? .2 A I don't remember the specific value on negative 2 23 leak rates. The only thing that I can r:ecall is that there (} 24 was some small negative values that were accepted, in terms 25 of a fraction of a gallon. But I don't recall there being l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33MM6
( 160 01 01 3004 ~ O acefederal 1 any set, so much negative leak rate being accepted. 2 0 Is this one of those "all the other shifts do it 3 so we do it, too" sort of thing? 4 A I don't really remember if A shift validated 5 negative leak rates. They may have. I just don't recall. 6 O They did. 7 A Okay. I really don' t remember if -- that text -- 8 if they do it, we do it. I don't remember. 9 0 Does the fact that A shift was on duty necessarily 10 mean that you were also on duty at the same time? 11 A Not as a 100 percent rule, no. There were times 12 when I was on with another shift filling in for vacations, 13 switching shifts so that someone could attend another 14 function or something like that. And it was a period of time 15 whenever the shift supervisors and the rest of the shift, 16 1.e. the foreman and the control room operators, were on a 17 different rotation than the shift supervisors. But that 18 varied. But by and large, if A shift was there, I was there, 19 if I wasn't on vacation, filling in or had the disparity 20 between our shifts and their shifts. 21 Q The last question appears to be the converse of 22 the preceding one: Were there times when the A shift was 23 supervised by someone other than you? (} 24 A Yes. 25 MR. VOIGT: I believe he's already answered that, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3AX) Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
^'60 01 01 3005 r 6 LJ ccefederal 1 Judge Bright. 2 JUDGE BRIGHT: I'm waiting to hear it from his own 3 mouth. 4 THE WITNESS: Yes. Th,e same comment. 5 JUDGE BRIGHT: Thank you, sir. 6 JUDGE KELLEY: Anything further, counsel? One 7 last question, Mr. Zewe. We are trying to get as clear a 8 picture as we can of some complicated events that occurred in 9 1978 and 1979. 10 BY JUDGE KELLEY: 11 O If everything else were equal and we had the 12 benefit of all these investigations that had been conducted, 13 but this were, let's say, 1981 instead of 1986, do you think 14 we'd be better off from the standpoint of your being able to 15 remember things? 16 A I would say yes. 17 0 significantly so? After all, we are asking you to 18 go back 8 or 9 years. 19 A Yes, I do. The more that I review and the more 20 that I hear about, the less sure I am of myself and what I 21 really remember and what I think I remember and what I read. 22 So, it just tends to get cloudier in my own mind. That's one 23 of the reasons for not going back to review a lot of the () 24 prior things. Judging on what I read, it is just not the t 25 same. 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. X)2 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-f646 -347-3700.
,60 01 01 3006 i ) acefederal-l JUDGE KELLEY: Well, we, and I'm sure I can speak 2 for the Board, wish that this had been done, this proceeding 3 had been conducted long before it was. I'm sure there are 4 reasons for that. We are not going to try to go into that, 5 but it is a source of frustration to have the witnesses have 6 to struggle with memory. It's just something we-have to deal 7 with. But I did.want to get your perspective on it. 8 Thank you. We have gone through our process now, 9 Mr. Zewe. We appreciate your coming down and your 10 attentiveness to questions and your answers. 11 Thank you very much. You are excused. 12 THE WITNESS: Thank you.- 13 (Witness stood down.) i 14 MR. MC BRIDE: Judge Kelley, before we quit for the day I wanted to-give you a report -- 15 I 16 JUDGE KELLEY: Let's go off the record. 17 (Discussion off the record.) 18 (Whereupon, at 5:10 p.m., the hearing was 19 adjourned, to-reconvene at 8:30 a.m., on October 7, 1986.) 20 21 1 22 23 .() 24 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6646 ,. _ _ _, - _ ~
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of: NAME OF PROCEEDING: INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION DOCKET NO.: LRP PLACE: BETHESDA, MARYLAND O DATE: MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (sigt) v (TYPED JO REITNER Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Reporter's Affiliation _}}