ML20215F654
| ML20215F654 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/14/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1203 LRP, NUDOCS 8610160307 | |
| Download: ML20215F654 (186) | |
Text
UNITED STATES oL, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OR GWAL IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
LRP INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION e
O LOCATION:
BETHESDA, MARYLAND PAGES: 3601 - 3771 l
l DATE:
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1986 l
0 777.0/
' q,f,,,
DcAd v $e rvic o
e.
//#/- H S/.
l ACE-FEr dRAL REPORTERS, INC.
OfficialReporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700 06101t03C p-2 i
F F'F A P O C i, NATIOSMTDE COVERAGE T
.[,
CR28506.0 3601
-BRT/sjg
,r s 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA t
?
I 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O
3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
- - - -x In.the Matter of:
5 Docket No. LRP INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND 6
UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION' 7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 8
9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Fifth Floor Hearing Room 10 East West Towers 4350 East-West Highway 11 Bethesda, Maryland 12 Tuesday, October _14, 1986
.-(~T 13 The hearing in the-above-entitled matter convened at 14 9:00 a.m.
15 16 BEFORE:
JUDGE JAMES L. KELLEY, Chairman 17 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nu_ clear Regulatory Commission 18 Washington, D.
C.
19.
JUDGE JAMES H.
CARPENTER, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
21 JUDGE GLENN O.
BRIGHT, Member 22 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 23 Washington, D.
C.
24 P
xl 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6686
3602 1
APPEARANCES:
s
- t. )
On behalf of GPU Nuclear Corporation:
s ERNEST L.
- BLAKE, JR.,
ESQ.
3 JOHN N. NASSIKAS III, ESQ.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 4
1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 5
On behalf of the Employees:
6 HARRY H. VOIGT, ESQ.
MICHAEL McBRIDE, ESQ.
7 LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
8 Washington, D.
C.
20036 MOLLY BOAST, ESQ.
9 LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 520 Madison Avenue 10-New York, New York 10022 On behalf of Jack Herbein:
yy JAMES B.
BURNS, ESQ.
12 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza
(~)'
13 Chicago, Ill'inois 60602 A'
CHRISTOPHER W.
FLYNN, ESQ.
14 RICHARD O. WOLF, ESQ.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale 15 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 On behalf of Gary P. Miller:
I MICHAEL W.
MAUPIN, ESQ.
M.
CHRISTINA HENSLEY, ESQ.
18 Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street 19 Richmond, Virginia 23221 20 On behalf of Former Metropolitan Edison Emplcyees:
21 SMTIH B. GEPHART, ESQ.
22.
Killian & Gephart 217-218 Pine Street, Box 886 23 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 On behalf of the NRC Staff:
24 (m~/)
JACK R. GOLDBERG, ESQ.
25 MARY E.
WAGNER, ESQ.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
'3603 1-CONTENTS 2
WITNESS-EXAMINATION 3
Adam W. Miller by Mr. Voigt 3608 4
Gregory Ray Hitz
-6 by Mr. McBride 3663-7 8
RECESS:
9 NOON - 3662 10-11 12 LAY-IN - PREPARED STATEMENT OF MILLER, Follows Page 3608.
13 LAY-IN - PREPARED STATEMENT OF HITZ, Follows Page 3664.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 i
25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
28506.0 BRT 3604
't w.
1 P R O.C E E D I N G S 2
. JUDGE KELLEY:
We will go on the record this 3
Tuesday morning.
Let me first just note I had a telephone 4
call from Mrs. Aamodt, oh, a half hour ago.
She expressed 5
some misunderstanding about scheduling and whether it was I
6 this week as opposed to next week that the week was being-7 taken off and also said that she had been attempting over the 8
. weekend to reach these offices ~by phone, which, of course, 9
were closed.
I don't know the source of the
'10 misunderstanding.
I don't believe me or my secretary have 11 ever indicated that this week was off, but, in any case, 12 there wasn't any postponement sought.
Mrs. Aamodt
()
13 understands that we are proceeding this morning but she is 14 not here and probably won't be here tomorrow.
She might be 15 here on Thursday; wasn't sure about that.
I explained that-16 next week was off, the week of the 20th and 21st, but that 17 the'following week would resume per the usual schedule.
18 I did discuss with her the procedure we had talked 19 about late last week that we were going to follow to try to 20 establish what, if any, additional witnesses ought to be 21 identified and factored into the process at this point.
And 22 I explained to her that, given wherd we are, we are now 23 thinking in terms of supervisory management-type witnesses.
24 We haven't even gotten there yet.
But we were thinking in 25 terms of names of people that had cropped up so far.
She ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80tK336-f446
g
~.. -.
. jty is:
i 28506.0 BRT.
3605-1' understood that.and I indicated'that we had asked the parties 2
to be prepared to tell us today-if.they had any candidates,-
3 who they were and what-their basis was for thinking-they
~
-4
-ought to.be called.
And I think if time permits today, we'll
^
5;-
try to' spend a little time on that.
6 I told Mrs. Aamodt that, as far as she.was 7
concerned, I thought.she might have somelpeople and she-8 affirmed that she was interested in some additional 1
9 witnesses, so I said:
Well, we will telephone you next i
{
10 Thursday morning, this coming Thursday morning at 10:30.
And 11
.we will hear from Mrs. Aamodt over the phone who her 12 candidates are and why she wants them, thereby enabling the
)~
13 Board to stay on a track that will allow us to decide these:
14 questions by Friday so that we can go ahead and if we decide 15 to call people, to start contacting them and working them i-16 into the schedule.
i -.
I 17 We are happy to hear comment on the question.
Ourl 18 initial thought would be to go ahead and hear from the other 19 parties on the record, who they want and why, before 20 Thursday, maybe today, and not pull the whole thing over to a 21 phone conference on Thursday, just because of the clumsiness 22 of the whole process.
It seems to us there may be people 23 suggested that Mrs. Aamodt has no interest in.
What we would 24 have to do, I would think, is if Mrs. Aamodt is pushing for a
~
25 particular person as a witness, then either the Board -- and i
i l'
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage M10-33MM6
28506.0 BRT 3606 t
1 that witness has already been discussed, the Board might 2
. summarize whatever negative points had been made or counsel 3
may go ahead, counsel or counsels who are against that 4
particular witness, could go ahead and restate the argument.
5 But we are inclined to not put the whole thing over and do it 6
from scratch on the phone.
7 Any comment on that?
8 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes, Judge Kelley.
Just that if it 9
would be the Board's pleasure and parties', I would prefer if 10 we could put that conversation off until the end of today in 11 the hopes that we might be able to get Mr. Hitz out of here 12 today because he has other professional responsibilities.
().
13 JUDGE KELLEY:
We could even put it over to 14 tomorrow morning, I suppose.
15 MR. MC BRIDE:
We would just be putting the 16 problem over to tomorrow morning because we have people we'd 17 like to get out by the end of the day but we have problems 18 with pt,ple's, schedules and trying to accommodate people's i
19 schedules.
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, this is a day where we could 21 run a little late.
If we are through with Mr. Hitz at 3:30 22 or 4:00, we'll go ahead and do it.
If not, we can put it 23 over.
Just so we get these things on track.
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Maupin?
25 MR. MAUPIN:
I'm afraid I'm not going to be able ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i i
mm.m m_-
28506.0 BRT:
3607
- {v}.
1 to be here every day this week.
I am here today in large 2
measure because I am interested in what is going to be said 3
on that very issue.
So I. hope that we are able to reach it 4
today.
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
We'll. hear everybody out.
I 6
understand your point.
7 Mr. Flynn?
8 MR. FLYNfJ:
Nothing.
'9 MR. BLAKE:
I'm prepared to addrest the subject 10 today.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let's have the understanding that
'12 if we.get through with today's witnesses by, let's say 4:00,
()
13 4:30, we'll go ahead and address this subject today.
- Then, 14 if it's later than that we'll think about it.
Okay?
15,
Anything else before we pass to our first i
16 witness?
17 MR. MC DRIDE:
No, sir.
i 18 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
19 Mr. Miller, my name is Kelley.
Judge Bright is on 20 my right, Judge carpenter is on my left.
21 Whereupon, 22 ADAM W.
MILLER j
23 was called as a witness and, having first been duly sworn, 24 was examined and testified as follows:
25 EXAMINATION l
(_~-)
1 1
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700
. NationwideCoverage 8 % 336 # 46
- - +,
,,,--..n,-,-,,,
- - -,,,,,,,.,., ~. - -. - - -. -,,., -.,.. - -,,.,, -.-,.. - - - - - - - -
-n.-
..y_--
. _.. ~.
28506.0=
BRT 3608 1
BY MR. VOIGT:
L
[
2 Q
Mr. Miller, do you.have before you a six-page 3
document entitled " Prepared Statement of Adam W.
Miller"?
}
4.
A-Yes, I do.
5
'Q Do'you have any additions or corrections to that-6-
statement at this.-time?
i 7
A No.
8 Q
Do you want this statement to be bound into the 9.
record at this point?
10 A~
Yes, I do.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
So ordered.
J
[
12
.(The document follows:)
.13 4
14 15 1
16 4
f 17 i
18 j;
19 F
20 i
f 21 22 I
23 l
24 i.
25 g
3
'U 4
h ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(X' Nationwide Cmerage 80}336-f646 r----e. ----r--
[4y'&
s.
UNITED STATES OF' AMERICA
~ [)'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARQ
)
In the Matter of
)
)
INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND
)
Docket No. LRP UNIT 2 LEAK RATE DATA
)
FALSIFICATION
)
)
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ADAM W. MILLER My name is Adam W.
Miller.
I currently reside in Annville, Pennsylvania, and am employed by GPU Nuclear Corpora,
I currently hold
\\l tion as Manager of Plant Operations at TMI-2.
a senior reactor operator's license.
I began my career with Metropolitan Edison Company.as an Auxiliary Operator in Unit 1 in 1973.
I was promoted to Control Room Operator in August 1975, and Shift Foreman at Unit 2 in August 1978.
I was a Shift Foreman until the fall of 1979, when I became an Administrator of Nuclear Technical In the Spring of 1991 I Training in the Training Department.
was transferred back to the Operations Department as a technical analyst in the position of assistant to the Manager of Plant Operations.
I remained in that position until the 1983, when I was promoted to my present position.
Summer of O
1978 and 1979, I was Shift
,a
()
During the latter part of Foreman of "D" shift in Unit 2.
My shift supervisor was and the Control Room Operators under my Gregory Hitz, supervision were Dennis Olson, Lynn Wright and Mark Coleman.
I was generally familiar with the activities'of the As foreman, although th'ete were some shifts where I was CRO's on shift, outside the control room part of the time.
As part.of our-duties, we were required to monitor reactor coolant system leakage.
One of the methods of doing and the technical this was to perform a leak rate test, least once every 72 specifications required this to be done at to the best of my recollection we ran these hours.
- However, Because we were doing this on a more8 tests on a shiftly basis.
frequent basis than the technical specification requirements, those tests which exceeded the limit of one it developed that gallon per minute in unidentified leakage were not considered recall when this understanding to be surveillances.
I do not To the best of my started, but I think it existed for years.
recollection, this philosophy was not applied to any surveillances other than leak rates, which were considered more or less a routine thing.
There were other indicators which were utilized besides the leak rate test to determine leakage from the These were the particulate channel reactor coolant system.
the leak instruments for reactor building atmospheric sampling,
()
detector channel in the reactor building air coolers, and the
-2
m E
4
/^)
These instruments would not reactor building sump indicator.
\\'
I believed that give a number for unidentified leakage, but they certainly would indicate any change in reactor coolant system leakage within the reactor building.
formed an opinion when I was a Control Room Operator that I
I have no the leak rate test was not very accurate.
recollection, however, of ever attempting to ascertain ~in my own mind what the precise degree of tolerance =in the test was.
If a test came out exceeding one gallon per minute in unidentified leakage, it was discarded and another test was If the second test was under one gallon per minute, performed.
it was approved and retained.
I believed at the time that if 8
we had a one gallon per minute leak inside the reactor building, the radiation monitors would have activated.
I did not believe that we exceeded the technical Therefore, specification limit for unidentified leakage.
have been informed that some Control Room Operators I
have said that they added hydrogen to the makeup tank during the performance of a leak rate in an effort to influence the I did not have any knowledge of this practice by test results.
anyone on my shift or on any other shift until a year or two after the accident.
In fact, I was not aware of anyone on my shift doing anything in an attempt to manipulate the tests.
also understand that there have been allegations I
that some operators deliberately added water to the system
(
during a leak rate in order to influence the tests.
(
these additions were logged and accounted for in k-Apparently, I had absolutely no knowledge that this practice was the test.
To the best of my recollection, I going on, if it was.
4 to tests when required my operators to attach a Data Sheet I have reviewed several of the tests which I water was added.
approved where water was added, but no data sheets were attached, and I have no explanation for this.
I believe, I would have been concerned with the fact that no however, that Data Sheet was attached when I reviewed the tests in 1978 and 1979.
There have been allegations by the NRC that some of leak rate tests the operators on my shift added water during a
and did not account for the additions in the test or log them.
O have reviewed the strip charts for several of these tests, I
and I believe that most of them do not reflect any water additions.
Mr. Stier apparently agrees with me.
leak I have also reviewed several strip charts on rates performed by my shift when there were apparent problems with one of the level transmitters.
My review indicates several tests where the stable level transmitter was switched to the computer during the test, which would give a more accurate leak rate.
On other tests, the unstable transmitter and the stable one to the strip chart.
I went to the computer, recall knowing that one of the transmitters was out of do not service at the time, but I am certain I would have known and
()
informed the CRO's at the time if a level transmitter was
-4
,m._
to According to Mr. Russell of the NRC,
()
declared out of service.
i there are log entries for periods of time when the transm tters and returned to service.
Therefore, were calibrated, repaired, the operators were unaware that a problem it is possible that At any rate, when I with the transmitter had recurred.
reviewed leak rate tests, 'I do not recall inspecting the strip chart to make certain that the proper level transmitter was used.
I should have I would agree in retrospect that perhaps leak rates and done a better job as shift foreman in reviewing attempting to solve the apparent problems we were having with leak rates were only a small part of the the tests.
- However, Routinely, I things that had to be done when we came on shift.
t O'
would review all of my paperwork at the end of the I would have leak rate shift--usually the last half hour.
tests, shift and dailies, various sets of readings, and other the review done was necessarily documents to review.
- Thus, very brief.
the time of anyone I had absolutely no knowledge at adding taking advantage of the system by adding water, level transmitters with the intention of hydrogen, or switching manipulating the leak rates.
Furthermore, I can recall no including other shift foreman, of such discussions with anyone, manipulation.
The leak rate issue has had a significant impact on my attitude towards strict procedural compliance and the need to
()
s
.4 The resolve problems completely to. achieve compliance.
performance standards of my company and the industry have risen i
and I
-significantly since the time of the-TMI-2 accident, I
believe my own performance has risen with these standards.
i I would like have always tried to do as good a job as I could.
the opportunity to continue to do so in the nuclear industry.
i i
O 4
i I
i I
I i
I t
lO l
6-
-,-+,---r-,w-re-.--..w-..--yw--
.-- --,-.- e.-
- ---, e -, -..., -., v
,-e.-,,,,-,,,---_
.--m-.,,-
,,+-wr - m - e n
28506.0 BRT 3609
- j3 V
1 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Miller, I've got a short 2
statement I'll read and then we'll take up the questioning 3
with Judge Bright.
Excuse me just a moment.
4 (Discussion off the record')
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
The Board has been asked by the 6
Commission to determine the extent of involvement of 7
employees of TMI-2 in 1978 and 1979 in leak rate test 8
falsification and other improper practices in leak rate 9
testing.
This is your opportunity to state on the record 10 your recollections and perceptions about your involvement in 11 leak rate testing at that time and to rebut any adverse 12
~ statements about you by other employees or investigators with j )
13
. which you might disagree.
14 We have reviewed your prefiled testimony. Tie have 15 considered it in light of the record that has already been 16 developed in this proceeding.
17 As I think you already may know, we have already 18 talked with some people on your shift, Mr. Coleman, 19 Mr. Wright, prior to your coming here today and we may have 20 some questions for you that grew out of their testimony as 21 well.
And we may have questions based on assessments that 22 investigators or technical experts, such as the Stier people 23 or the NRR people have made about your participation in leak 24 rate activities.
25 There are, in the record already, two extensive O,s ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(4)
Nationside Coverage MKk33Me
~
28506.0 BRT 3610 gq
(,.
1 studies about TMI-2 leak rate procedures and tests:
One 2
developed by Mr.-Stier for GPU Nuclear and the second study 3
by the NRC Staff.
The Stier study includes analyses of every 4
leak rate test that was conducted at TMI-2 that wasn't thrown 5
away and the NRC Staff study includes analyses of every 6
retained' test during the last six months of operation.
7 We have already heard a lot of testimony about 8
those tests and about those studies.
In those circumstances 9
we don't propose to sit here and go over every test we have 10 run on your shift.
That's not our approach.
We may have 11 some questions about particular tests, but apart from that, 12 the test analyses and studies associated with them will be in
/')
13 the record and they will be there for whatever -- for ts 14 whatever weight they are entitled to, including the oral 15 testimony that you'll give here today.
16 I'll turn now to Judge Bright.
17 EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD 18 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
19 Q
Mr. Miller, welcome to beautiful sunshiny 20 Bethesda.
We are glad you are here.
21 A
Thank you.
22 Q
I think I have been through essentially all the 23 previous statements that you have made and I got a few ideas 24 about what you have said, and just in general let me ask f
25 you:
Some of your actions that occurred during this period ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwkle Coserage M n 33 M 446
28506.0
'BRT 3611
.r)[
'b 1
we are talking about, 1978 and 1979, you admitted that you 2
threw away certain tests that were run on the leak rate; is 3
that true?
4 A
Yes.
That's true.
5 Q
That.you knew nothing'about hydrogen additions in-6 order to manipulate leak rate tests?
7 A
Yes.
That's true.
8 Q
And that you knew nothing about additions of water 9
to manipulate leak rate tests?
10 A
That's true.
11 Q
That you filed no exceptions and deficiencies?
12 A
Yes.
'r'
(,).
13 MR. MC BRIDE:
Excuse me, Judge Bright, filed no 14 exceptions or deficiencies for this test?
15 JUDGE BRIGHT:
For this test.-I'm talking about 16 only leak rate tests.
17 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
18 Q
That you never entered into an action statement as 19 a result of a leak rate test?
20 A
That's true.
21 Q
And that you did not insist on your CROs logging l
22 start and stop times of leak rate tests that were done?
l 23 A
That's true, yes, l
l 24 Q
Very well.
I don't intend to'try to go through 25 the whole nine yards on this.
There are a few questions, l C l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I
~,.,,.
- - + a,...n.
e 28506.0 BRT 3612
[%/
1 though, that I have to mainly sort of point up certain things-2 that happened, perceptions, attitudes, this sort of thing.
'3 HS o, with that in mind, let'me ask you:
Between March and 4
August of 1978 you were a control room operator at TMI-2; is 5
that not so?
6 A
I believe that's approximately the right time 7
' period.
8 Q
Yes.
Just up until the time you were made a shift 9
foreman, in August.
10 A
Yes.
11 Q
I presume that you might have run. leak rate tests 12 while you were a CRO?
()
13 A
That's true.
14 Q
Did you find that you had much trouble with 15 running those tests?
I realize it has been a long time ago.
16 A
My general recollection of that was yes, that 17 there was some trouble running the leak rate test.
i 18 Q
You don't remember the precise problems, do you?
19 or do you?
l 20 A
No.
i 21 Q
Dy the i,y, who were you on shift with when you 22 were a CRO?
23 A
Do you mean who were my fellow CRos or who was my l
24 shift foreman?
i 25 0
Yes, and your fellow CRos and shift foreman and 4
1 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3'00 Nationwide Coserage fl00-3%MM
. - - - -. ~.
28506.0 BRT 3613 m
I shift supervisor.
2 A
I'm trying to think.
When I first started as a 3
CRO in Unit 2, I believe it goes back to the middle of 1975 4
or
'76.
5 Q
We can restrict this just from the period when you 6
first started doing leak rate tests, which would be sometime 7
in the reasonably early spring of 1978.
8 A
Yes.
I'm trying to remember what shift I was on.
9 Most of my review had to do with the period of time from 10 October '78 to March of
'79.
I'm more familiar with that.
11 I believe I was on C shift and I believe the 12 control room operators who were on shift with me most of the b) 13 time were Ed Frederick and Hugh McGovern, I believe.
I think 14 the shift foreman was chuck Adams and the shift supervisor 15 was Marshall Beers.
I believe it was B-e-e-r-s.
16 Q
Beers.
That's a new name.
17 l MR. MC BRIDE:
According to Mr. Cooper's 18 testimony, Mr. Beers' last name is spelled B-e-a-r-d-s.
19 MR. BLAKE:
That's incorrect.
It is B-e-e-r-s.
20 MR. MC BRIDE:
Is it?
I apologize.
21 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
22 l Q
Well, the reason I was asking, everyone else 23 learned how to do the leak rate test in a hands-on manner, t
24 were taught by fellow'CRos, that sort of thing.
I was just 25 l wondering who you got your tutelage from, so that would
(, ~)
i x-I l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 447-3?(1)
Nationude Coserage sn3% fem
28506.0
- BRT 3614
/]L (s
1
'probably be-from Frederick, McGovern --
2 A
Well, I was one of-the original control room 3
operators.
I'm not sure if Frederick or McGovern were -- I 4
believe they started a little after I did.
But we certainly, 5
you know, learned from each other.
6 Q
Well, let me ask you, where did you learn how to 7
run a leak rate test?
8 A
I learned as a control room operator, and I 9
believe it was just from the people who ran leak rate tests 10 from TMI-1.
The majority of the people who initially manned 11 TMI-2 came from TMI-1 and that was where the majority of the
)
12 practices, procedures were developed, from TMI-1.
/~T
- (,/
13 Q
Very well.
While you were a CRO, were you ever 14 aware of any actions being taken by other CROs which might 15 appear to be manipulating the tests?
16 A
No.
I was never aware of anybody manipulating 17 tests.
18 0
Well, I might as well get your opinion of the
-19 value of the leak rate tests.
Everyone else has informed l
20 us.
What was your opinion of the leak rate test as an 21 operative thing to do?
22 A
I believe I considered the leak rate test a 23 routine practice and didn't give it the significance that it 24 deserved.
I 25 Q
And I presume you continued with this opinion j
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I x-,
- - + < -,.
-n -
'28506.0
..-BRT-3615 m.Q 1
'through the time, let's say up until the~ time of the 2
accident?
3 A
Yes.
4 Q
Now,-you said you discarded some leak rate tests.
4 5'
Could you describe what was the criterion you used, or 6
criteria that you used in making this decision as to~whether 7
to discard or keep?
8 A
The criteria was wrongly just, if it was greater.
l 9
than 1 gallon a minute, then the leak rate test was i '
10 discarded.
11 Q
You said in your prefiled testimony on page 4 12 that, "To the best of my recollection, I required my
()
13 operators to attach a data sheet 4 to tests when water was 14 added."
15 Exactly what is data sheet 4?
16 A
Data sheet 4 is an attachment that was attached to I
17 the computer-generated part of the leak rate test that had 18 some specifics on water that was added during the test.
I' 19 Q
These were additions?
Or the form was filled out 20 by the operator?
21 A
Yes.
22 Q
I presume it's a sheet that has spaces for 23 specific items on it so that -- kind of a checklist sort of 24 thing they would run down?
25 A
Yes, it does.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37(X)
Nationwide coserage 80)-33&M
28506.0 BRT 3616
]j
' ']
1 Q
And you say that.you have reviewed ~several of the 2
tests which you approved where water was added but no data-3 sheets were attached.
Are you intimating that they may have 4
been removed or lost or whatever?
5 A
I _ have no explanation why they are not attached.-
6 Q
But your recollection is that they originally were 7
there, the ones that you approved?
8 A
Yes.
My recollection is that generally I would 9
look for that and they would be there.
10 Q
You also talk about the-level transmitter.
That's 11 on page 4 down at the bottom.
It goes over to 5.
12 You say, "I am certain I would have known and
()
13 informed the CROs at the time if a level transmitter was 14 declared out of service."
15 My question there is, on this sort of thing, 16 information that comes to you, were you pretty conscientious, 17 I guess is the word, or caring, or whatever you want to call 18 it, in getting information to your CROs?
19 A
I believe I was.
20 Q
You made a conscious effort to keep them abreast-21 of what was going on, anything they needed to know?
22 A
I tried to do that, yes.
23 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Judge Bright, may I ask a 24 question here?
25 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Certainly.
O.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3NU Nationwide Coserage IKU 146646
m
~28506.0
-BRT 3617 O' )'
1 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
2 Q
Who would declare the level transmitters out of 3
service?
Who would initiate that?
4 A
Typically it would be the shift foreman.
5 Q
So if you didn't know it, that~ meant you didn't 6
initiate the action?
Is that what you are saying?
+
7 A
I'm sorry?
If I didn't know it was out of 8
service?
Was that the question?
9 Q
You testified that you are certain you would have 10 known and informed the CRos at the time if a level 1
i 11 transmitter was declared out of service.
That's not somebody 12 else, that's yourself; is that right?
()
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
It wasn't a matter of communication?
15 A
No.
16 Q
So the fact that the defective transmitter was not 17 declared out of service, that was a deficiency on your part 18 for those occasions where it's obvious that the transmitter 19 was questionable?
20 A
Well, it could have been.
It would have to be --
21 I would have to know about it, that it was acting erratically 22 to declare it out of service.
23 Q
Would you depend on the operators to tell you?
24 A
Yes.
25 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
O_
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2112 347-37(X)
NJIiOMHide cOierage kn)3MI*t6
28506.0.
BRT 3618
')
v; 1
Q My real question there, actually -- were you 2~
fairly close to your CRos in that, was this in the various 3
kinds of management, the big-happy family?
The other ones 4
are autocratic or something like that -- democratic -- but 5
ariuming chain of command in this case, did you converse 6
freely?
Did you talk to one another?
7 A
Yes.
I believe we communicated fairly openly.
I 8
wouldn't characterize it, necessarily, as a big happy 9
family.
I didn't generally socialize with the CROs off work 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />.
But there were no real antagonisms or anything like 11 that.
12 Q
Nobody hated you and you didn't hate anybody?
()
13 A
Not that I was aware of.
14 Q
Well, with that in mind, let's talk about the 15 infamous LER on leak rate tests.
I should tell you that all l-16 of this is in your 3/21/85 statement and it's in the Stier 17 report, pages 62, 63 and 71.
18 MR. VOIGT:
Did you wish the witness to review 19 that?
j 20 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Yes, if you would like.
l 21 THE WITNESS:
All right.
22 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
23 l Q
You say you could not recall ever seeing this LER.
24 A
Yes.
Not originally.
25,
Q You mean when the LER was passed around first, you s
c ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3hu)
Nationwide Coserage 80lk33M446
-28506.0 BRT 3619 I~')
kJ 1
can't remember seeing it?
2-A
,Yes.
s 3
Q They sent around a checkoff chpet for this s
i\\
4 particular item.
Did you initial that?
5 A
Yes, I did.
"E 6
Q But you don't recall seming-it and you did not t
7 discuss this with your CRos or with your l3hift supervisor, 8
for that matter?
t...
9 A
I may have discussed it.
I just don'.t recall 10 seeing it or discussing it.
11 Q
How did you ordinarily treat an applicable LER, or 12 memorandum -- what do you call it -- memorandum that would V,G 13 come around and say:
Thou shalt do this from henceforth?
.14 Ordinarily, would you make sure that it got to the CRos, that 15 they had seen it a~nd that they understood it and that they 16 were going to comply with it?
Gener'lly_.that would be the 17 A
Yes, I think so.
a
- .. x 5
18 case.
19 Q
You can't recall anything.about this LER?
This l
20 particular one?
21 A
No.
I don't remember ~anything specifically about 22 it.
23
.Q After all this happened, it appears that no one t
24 paid any attention to it.
You state in your previous 25 statement that it had just been disregarded, was your ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l M
Nationwide Coverage IK6336tM6
.__... _.. -347 37m_ _ _... _.... - _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _.., _ _ _.,. _, _,,. _ _. _,.., _.. _.,.., _.....~_ _
28506.0 BRT 3620
-)
1 opinion.
Is that true?
2 A
Yes.
I believe that's true.
3 Q
Does it seem a little strange to you that this 4
sort of thing would have struck everyone at the. plant at the 5
same time?
6 A
Could you repeat that?
7 Q
Different shifts have different ways of doing 8
business, to some minor degree.
It-depends on the 9
personalities of the people and how a shift supervisor likes 10 to run a shift and how the shift foreman likes to run a shift 11 and how the CRos like to be left alone and, you know, this 12 kind of thing.
But it appears that nobody, really, followed
( ~)
(,
13 up this LER, and, in fact, from what we've heard to date, 14 what was proposed as the company's way of fixing things was, 15 as you say, disregard it.
And I was just wondering how, if 16 this sort of thing did come around and it was signed off by, 17 so many people, how come the word never got out?
18 A
I don't know for sure.
I would just guess that 19 the emphasis just wasn't there.
20 Q
You would ascribe it to the general perception of 21 the leak rate test as being a routine matter and not of all 22 that much importance?
Is that what you are saying?
i 23 A
Yes.
I believe that was a large part of it.
24 Q
You make some statements in response to questions 25 about Mr. Floyd.
That's in the investigative interview of 7gu ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37(X)
Nationwide Coverage 80M36-6M6
___,,_,._m,
I 28506.0 BRT.
3621
,a'L) 1 Adam W.
Miller, June 5, 1985.
It is OI Exhibit 19.
2 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Does the witness have that?
3 MR. MC BRIDE:
Oh, I'm sorry.
I'll get it for 4
him.
5 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
6 Q
Pages 10 to 12.
7 A
Okay.
8 Q
Now, there you seem to state -- correct me if I 9
have misinterpreted this somehow -- that Mr. Floyd'J 10 attitude, he really wasn't very good and didn't like 11 paperwork?
12 A
That's true.
.\\ )
13 Q
A common fault many of us have.
And that it was 14 your belief that he' imparted this attitude to the operators, 15 quote, I believe:
" Don't worry about paperwork, just keep 16 the hardware running."
Is that a fair statement?
IsLthat 17 your statement?
18 A
Yes.
That's my statement and that's a fair 19 statement.
20 Q
Okay.
Well, now this is an understandable 21 attitude, but what I'm a little curious about, how was this 22 imparted, this attitude, of Floyd's, not necessarily made by l
23 the others -- how was that imparted to the operators?
Would.
24 it be through the shift supervisor?
Through you?
From l
25 Mr. Floyd himself?
l l'
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-334 % 46
28506.0
. BRT' 3622 1
A I think it was primarily by example, by the 2
example that Mr. Floyd was setting.
Sort of a shadow-type 3
message that he was sending.
4 Q
Well, let me tell you, most of the operators when 5
they have been asked about this really have had -- or had 6
very little, oh, connection with Mr. Floyd.
He would 'come 7
around all right, sometimes:
Hi, how are you?
How is 8
everything?
Fine.
All right.
At least that was the import 9
of what was said, as least as far as I'm concerned.
10 So it would appear that this attitude, inasmuch as 11 they didn't know what Mr. Floyd was doing -- they certainly 12 weren't up 'in his office all the time -- that it would seem
)
13 logical that this came through him to either Mr.7 Hitz or 14 yourself.
I assume you had much more contact with Mr. Floyd 15 than the control room operators did.
Would that be a fair
'16 statement?
17-A I would say I would have had more contact than the 18 control room operators.
19 Q
And does it seem reasonable that it actually would 20 be a chain-of-command thing'as far as " Don't worry about the 21 paperwork, keep the hardware running" would have been 22 diffused through the shift organization, primarily through 23 Mr. Hitz's perc'eption or your-perception, rather than 24 Mr. Floyd operating directly on the control room operators?
25 A
That's probably true.
O.
p ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37a)
Nationwide Coverage M336-6M6
28506.0
~ BRT 3623 m
1 Q
The control room operators never -- or did they 2
ever come to you and say:
Hey, this guy Floyd is hitting on 3
-us again, why don't you do something about it?
Or something 4
like that?
5 A
I don't have any remembrances of anything like 6
that.
7 Q
Thank you.
8 Another thing that happened, Mr. Coleman in his 9
prefiled testimony stated that he didn't know exactly when, 10 but it must have been rather early on that he ran a leak rate 11 test which was a greater than 1 gallon per minute; he signed 12 it and put it on the shift foreman's desk.
Later, three
()
13 people came out of the shift supervisor's office, approached 14 him, and said:
Don't turn in any more over 1 ga'llon per 15 minute leak rate tests.
16 Now, it would seem logical, inasmuch as you were 17 the shift foreman most of the time -- I know you took l
18 vacations and you did this, that, whatever -- but it 19 certainly is possible that you were the shift foreman when 20 this happened.
Because it would have to be the shift foreman i
21 going to the shift supervisor to get it to the shift 22 supervisor's office.
Does that seem fair?
23 A
That's likely.
24 Q
Then, after discussion, possibly, with the shift 25 supervisor, the shift foreman and the shift supervisor were O-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage MG336-6M6
28506.0 BRT 3624
'h (J
1 joined by someone who undoubtedly would be even higher in the 2
chain of command:
Mr. Floyd, Mr. Seelinger -- I have heard 3
lots of names.
I have difficulty placing exactly where they 4
belong in the organization.
And that that would be the three 5
that approached Mr. Coleman.
Would this seem like a logical 6
scenario?
7 A
It is possible, yes.
8 Q
Do you have any recollection of this sort of thing 9
happening?
10 A
No, sir.
11 Q
Mr. Coleman, also, in his prefiled testimony, 12 admits that he added hydrogen to get a good leak rate, on
()
13 page 3 of his prefiled testimony.
And he also admits adding 14 water toward the end of the test to take advantage of the 15 density change in the water as it goes from the makeup tank 16 into the system to get a good leak rate.
17 MR. MC BRIDE:
Excuse me, Judge Bright, but I 18 don't believe there has been any testimony from Mr. Coleman 19 that he was aware of the density change, as you referred to 20 it.
21 JUDGE BRIGHT:
I'm sorry.
I will take that phrase 22 away.
23 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
24 Q
He did add the water and he admits he did it to 25 get a good leak rate, regardless of what it was, Brownian O-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tc-3@3700 Nationwide Coserage 8tV-336-rM6
28506.0 BRT 3625 l'
movement or whatever.
And something seems a little strange.
'2 He says that he didn't have any idea why this was so, what 3
the hydrogen addition did for the leak rate test or what the 4
water addition did for the. leak rate test.
As far as he 5
knew, there was no restriction as far as hydrogen was 6
concerned, no. restriction in the rules as all.
As far as 7
adding water was concerned, that was perfectly legal if you 8
actually logged the amount of water you put into the system.
9 Is that true?
10 A
I believe that was the perception, yes.
11 Q
I mean do the rules say that?
12 A
No.
I have --
.,rh
(_)
13 Q
Let me say it again.
You can add hydrogen to the 14 system at any time, is that correct, during a leak rate test 15 or any other?
The rules are silent on that?
That's my 16 understanding of what people have been telling me.
17 A
I believe that's true.
l 18 Q
You can add water if necessary, as long as you put 19 it into the leak rate test -- on the computer, you say:
20 Added 200 gallons or whatever.
Is that true?
21 A
Yes, I believe that's true.
22 Q
Now, you are cautioned to avoid these things if 23 you can but you don't have to totally avoid them.
Is that 24 right?
25 A
I believe that's how all the rules were stated,
,f S v
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationside Coverage 800-336-6 4 6
-347-3700...
.~,.
-28506.0 BRT 3626 7~(>
1 yes.
2 Q
And your statement is that you were not aware of 3
this being done.
Is that a true statement?
4 A
No.
I was not aware that those things were being 5
done in order to manipulate the test.
6 Q
Mr. Coleman says that he did it to get a good leak 7
rate.
Why you would get a better leak rate if you added 8
water or if you added hydrogen, it would appear to me that 9
even to anyone as dense as I quite often am, I would have to 10 be a little suspicious if I was somehow or other jimmying the 11 works?
Is that a terribly left-field statement somehow that 12 I just made?
()
13 A
I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand.
14 Q
If I knew that I could change the result of a leak 15 rate test by doing one of these two maneuvers so it would 16 come out to be a " good" leak rate, might I not have some idea 17 that,-even though I didn't know why it did it, it was 18 actually doing it and it wasn't miraculously helping 19 determine how much water is leaking from the system, it is 20 merely covering up something; would that be an unrealistic 21 assumption?
22 A
No.
That wouldn't be an unrealistic assumption.
23 Q
The thing I wonder about, no one seems to know 24-that Mr. Coleman was doing this, yet it wasn't illegal and, 25 just on the face of it, it was not illegal.
You could add ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
.,. ~. _
.. _, _ _ - ~ _ _ _... _ _,
28506.0
.BRT.
3627 1
hydrogen or you could add water if you logged it in 2
properly.
And yet --
i 3
JUDGE KELLEY:
I would just qualify that and say 4-it didn't violate a written procedure.
I think it was 5
illegal in my personal view.
But go ahead.
6 JUDGE BRIGHT:
True.
7ith that -- well, let's 7
see, I was somewhere --
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
Excuse me.
I just be31eved I i
9 should' comment on that.
10.
JUDGE BRIGHT:
Oh.
4 I
11 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
12 Q
It seems to me that if I were a good buddy I would
()
13 be telling everybody in the plant this.
I mean, after'all, 14 here is something that is innocuous and gets good leak 15 rates.
Everybody is having troubl'e.
Everybody knows it.
16 Why so many people found out about these particular maneuvers 17 and yet nobody ever told anybody.
I mean, that's drawing 18 coincidence rather thin, it seems to me.
19 Do you have any feeling for this at all?
You say 20 you never found it out.
21 A
No.
I was not aware that those two maneuvers
~
22 would have any effect on leak rates until well after the
-23 accident.
'24 Q
And when Mr. Coleman discovered it, he didn't come 25 to you and tell you:
Say, look, I've got a good thing going ggv i
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Cmerage 800-336-6M6
.,. - -,...., _ _,. -... -. ~.
28506.0' BRT-3628-
}p.
l' here.
Is'there anything wrong with doing this?
According to
-2 the strict letter of what was' written down, you would be 3
forced to say:
No.
There's nothing' wrong with it.
- And, 4
thereby, make it easier on everybody on the shift t'o try to-5 make sense out of these leak rate tests that you were having 6
trouble with.
But this never happened?
7 A
No.
I have no recollection of that ever 8
happening.
9 Q
You,-~Mr. Miller, in your training, on the job, in 10 the classroom, simulator, whatever, were you ever made aware 11 of the real safety significance of doing these leak rate 12 tests?
13 A
No.
14 Q
Did anyone ever' describe the " leak before break"
{
15 behavior of these ductile pipes that you have in the primary 16 system?
(
17 A
No.
I don't have any remembrance of that aspect i
18 of operation being stressed at all.
-19 Q
Nobody ever told you why the leak rate limit was i
20 set at 1 gallon per minute?
f-21 A
No.
~
22 Q
Did you ever discuss that leak rate limit with 23~
your control room operators?
l 24 A
I don't have any recollection of discussing it.
I t
25 may have.
But no recollection of it.
i (2)
L ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i M-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage M336-6M6
!28506.0
'BRT 3629 O
1 Q.
Most people that have. talked about it said, in 2'
their personal opinion, it was unrealistic.
I just' wondered 3
if this matter ever came up.
Hey, Joe, what's the matter f
4 here?
Why do we have to do this?
1 gallon per minute out of 5
65,000 gallons or-whatever?
You don't recall any of that 6
going.on?.
i 7
A No.
But something of that nature probably
'8 occurred sometime during my training as a control room 9
operator or while I was a shift foreman.
g; -
10 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Thank you very much, Mr. Miller.
11 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
12 Q
Mr. Miller, you were just telling Judge Bright
( )'
13 about the fact that you didn't remember the occasion that 14 Mr. Coleman remembers,' suggesting that you-didn't want to see 15 any more of these leak rate tests more than 1 gallon per 16 minute.
17 MR. MC BRIDE:
Excuse me, Judge Carpenter, I don't 18 believe Mr. Coleman ever identified Mr. Miller.
19 JUDGE CARPENTER:
I'm sorry.
People came out of 20 the shift supervisor's office.
21 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
22 Q
What I wanted to ask was would it have been --
i
.23 would you have felt that that was appropriate at that time?
24 The leak rate test was unreliable and it was the practice all 25 over the plant to throw the ones greater than 1 gallon per gs l
l l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Cmerage 800 336-f686 L
~. - -. -,
. ~..
.-347-3700.-,___., _ _.-., _ - _.. - - _.....,. - _. _.. -.. -. -.. _. -.
28506.0 BRT 3630
,- \\.
(._)
I minute away..Would it have been contrary to your position 2
about this issue to tell Mr. Coleman that you didn't want to 3
see any more of these?
4 A
Well, from -- personally, that just wasn't my 5
style of dealing with people.
I don't know if I would have 6
communicated with him like that.
7 Q
In what sense?
You might have done it in writing 8
instead?
9 A
No.
Apparently, this was a somewhat traumatic 10 exchange and I don't ever remember, you know, treating people 11 in quite that fashion.
12 Q
How frequently did you have leak rates that you (m_)
13 questioned their validity and you indicated that the 14 unidentified leak rate greater than 1 gallon per minute that 15.
you took in to Mr. Hitz to discuss with him?
16 A
I really can't remember to give you a good answer 17 on that.
18 Q
Did the leak rate tests essentially stop at your 19 desk and get resolved there or did you pass some of them on 20 for him to take a look at?
21 A
I believe generally it didn't go beyond my desk.
22 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you.
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
We'll have some more questions, 24 Mr. Miller, but I think it might be wise just to take a 25 coffee break at this time.
I want you to look, though -- one O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6 4 6
~ _ _, - _,.
yl 4
e 128506.0 5
- BRT 3631
' Th ks
+
11
. reason we're taking the break now -- I want you,.over the T2 breaksto take a look--- maybe another look; you may have 3
looked at these before -- at several tests that I'll new r
4
' direct your attention to.
They are NRR. numbered tests 122, 5-129, 131, 138 and-146.
You'll see when you look at the 6
documents,'there are four or five pieces of paper associated i
7 with each test.
There's a' front sheet that comes out of the 8
computer,;a Xerox copy of a log, maybe a couple of pages of 1-9-
that, a strip chart, possibly another form on some of them.
10-I'm not asking you to study all this stuff in detail'.
I'm.
7 l
11 going to tell you in advance what it is I'm interested in~and.
12 what~I want you to look at.
()
13 Would you note three things, really:
Who is 14 involved in the test.
That's easy.
I think it's usually i
15 you, Coleman and Olson; you as the approving supervisory 16-person, shift foreman.
I would like you to-note the timing.
17 These are all water additions.
All water additions toward 18 the end of the test.
You should simply note when the water i-19 addition occurred, and the way to do that is simply look ~ at-20 the strip chart and also note the NRR notation at the bottom 21 of the strip chart', which gives their reading of when.the i
22 addition occurred.
Note the differential that NRR, at least 23
-- NRR -- I keep using that acronym:
Nuclear Reactor 24 Regulation, I mean the NRC Staff study.
Are you with me on 25 that?
L ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tC Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6( 4
,,, _, _ _ - -. _ _ _.. _, _, -347-3700-. -.. _ _.. _. _,.
128506.0 BRT 3632.
.O O
fi-
'l THE_ WITNESS: 'Okay.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Note the differentials that they 1
3 saw, at least, between what was put in and what showed up on 4
the recorder and therefore what showed up on the computer and 5
therefore produced the leak rate.-
6 Those are the main-things.
I'll note that we have j;
7 had continuing occasion to refer-to differences between clock 8
time and s{ rip chart time and that factor can be significant 9
in'these tests, at least arguably.
If you wan.t to look at 10 that:too, fine.- I'm not directly interested in that.
You 11 may want to bring it up.
It's something we can at least 12 note.
But those are the things I would like you to look at.
(()
13 What these tests show'to me, frankly,.is a pattern
~
14 of adding water towards the end of the test along the lines 15 that Mr. Coleman testified to, with you approving the test.
i 16 I would just like to go over some of these and ask you some 17 questions about them.
llB Why don't we take a 15-minute break.
19 (Reces s. )
i 20 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
21 Q
Mr. Miller, before the break I asked you to look i
22 at several tests in the NRR study, I ticked off the numbers.
23 What I would like to do now, fairly briefly, is look at these 24 tests, particularly the strip charts pertaining to them.
25 Would you turn to the strip chart portion of test 122.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-370t)
Nationwide Coverage 8(n346646
28506.0
-BRT 3633
.Q) 1 A'
Okay.
2 Q
Much of the pertinent information is summarized 3
there.
It says at the top that you were there the shift 4
foreman; that Coleman was on the panel.
The CRO designation 5
means " panel," I believe.
The test operator would have been 6
Olson.
And that is confirmed by the signatures on the 7
computer sheet three sheets back where Olson signs as 8
operator, you sign as approving the test.
9 Looking at the time-bracket about in the middle of.
10 the chart it says:
" Leak rate te.9t 122, between 12:03 and 11 1:03.
12 Do you note the steep climb in the trace about two n
( _)
13 thirds, three quarters of the way through the test?
14 A
Yes.
15 Q
That was actually logged as 204 gallons, which I 16 think is reflected on the computer sheet -- yes, it says 17 204.
According to the NRR analyst, the effective change in 18 the trace was closer to 234 gallons.
They are counting up 4
19 each increment -- each increment is an inch; right?
d 20 A
That's correct.
21 Q
And each inch is worth 30 gallons.
So I gather 22 they are calculating this between 7 and 8 inches as an 23 increase between the original point of entry and the top of 24 the trace.
25 Those exact demarcations on a chart this size we ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-34'-37(H 2f12 Nationwide Coserage 8CO 336-6646
i 28506.0 BRT 3634 7
(_)
I have acknowledged before is sometimes kind of debatable..You 2
can see, you know, give or take 30 gallons you can probably 3
argue about it sometimes.
I wouldn't quite say 30.
4 In any event, the main point I want to make here 5
is'you see the rise toward the end of the test; right?
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
They say 13 minutes, "they" being NRR, said 13 8
minutes before the end of the test.
Okay?
9 Is there anything in particular you want to 10 comment about this number 122?
These are the main points I 11 want to focus on.
As we go along, if you want to interject 12 something, please feel free to do so.
()
13 Okay.
Let's go to 129.
If you look at the strip 14 chart for 129, again,.you were there as shift foreman.
This 15 time Mr. Wright was CR0 on the panel and Coleman ran the 16 test, according to the entry.
E 17 As the Staff reads this strip chart, their note 18 says the water addition of 200 gallons at 2058; CRO log 19 states 159 gallons added at 2058.
So-that's, reading on, 20 session calculation includes 150 gallons (50-gallon 21 difference).
Do you follow what that notation is saying?
22 A
Yes.
23 Q
As I understand it, what that means is the 24 operator logged 150 and, for purposes of our discussion I'd 25 be prepared to stipulate he asked the batch controller for w/
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80lL336-(M6
28506.0' BRT 3635
'J~
~
.1 150 and included 150 in the final calculation.
But the 2
50-gallon difference comes about because'the strip chart 3
shows approximately 50 gallons more than'that.
In that case, 4
again, the exact demarcation may be debatable but it is
-o 5
certainly more than 150 gallons, isn't it?
6 A
Yes.' It appears to be more than 150.
7 Q
Staff thought 200.
Here it's 4 minutes prior to 8
the end of the test.
9 Let's look at 131.
Once again,.this is your 10 shift, you are there as foreman.
Olson was on the panel.
11 Coleman ran the test as operator.
Once again you see a sharp 12 rise.in-the trace toward the end of the test.
The note
{)
13 suggests that it was added 17 minutes prior to the end of 14 this 60-minute test and the Staff sees a 26-gallon difference 15 between what was logged, namely 150 gallons, the calculation 16 included 154.
But the addition on the strip chart-shows 180, 17 meaning a 30-gallon difference; approximately.
26-gallon 18 difference.
19 As we go along on these differences, now, take the 20 case of the 30-gallon difference.
The computer reading the 21 final result of the test is getting its information from the 22 strip chart level recorder; correct?
23 A
It's actually the one that is not selected to the 24 recorder.
They should be fairly close, though.
25 Q
Well, I don't want to get in trouble here.
Maybe l O n
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 Nationwide Cos erage 800-336-6M6
-.-37(o
4 28506.0 3636 BRT U
1 Judge Carpenter can help me.
Excuse me a moment.
2 (Discussion off.the record.)
3 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
4 Q
This gets complicated by the fact that, as you 5
probably know, there's a lot of testimony in this case about 6
problems with the transmitters and whether one of them was on 7
the fritz or not, or out of service and so forth.
My 8
assumption here is that this is not a test where the 9
transmitter was out of whack and that therefore the signal 10 that ends up in the computer for purposes of calculating the 11 test is the same signal that the makeup tank strip chart is 12 showing.
()
13 A'
It should be fairly close.
14
-Q
'Ought to be.
Okay.
The point of all this is that 15
.there's a phenomenon getting us into another complication 16 get' ting into the so-called loop seal,;which you might comment 17 on in a minute.
We'll get into that too.
18 K' hat I'm 'trying to keep fairly simple, and trying 19 to point out, is that there's a test where there's a 20 significant difference in the amount logged and the amount 21 I'm prepared to assume that the batch controller was asked to l
22 put in and the amount that shows up on the strip chart.
Here 23 it says 26 gallons, according to the Staff.
24 Let's take the hypothetical of 30 gallons.
That
.25 would reflect, if it's an inch -- if it's 30 gallons per inch L
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2(C-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-fM6
28506.0 BRT 3637 O
1 on there -- well, 30-gallon -- the time is less significant 2
here -- 30 gallons in an hour's test is a half gallon 3
difference; correct?
4 A
Yes.
5 Q
So if you had a
.9 leak rate test, which would be 6
a " good" test in the jargon we are using here, a half a 7
gallon would kick it up to 1.4; correct?
8 A
Correct.
9 Q.
About.
Let's look at 138.
Again, it's the same 10-pattern, same people; you are foreman, Coleman is CRO, 11 l Coleman is also running-the test.
You see a sharp climb in 12 the trace towards the end.
According to the note at the end
()
13 of the NRR pote, it says, " water added by shift 2 minutes 14 prior to end of test."
And the differential here between 15 what was shown in the calculation and what showed up on the 16 strip chart was about 32 gallons.
17 Just one ' ore I'll ask you to look at, 146.
18 Again, in 146, looking at the strip chart, you are foreman, Coleman is the CRO on the panel and the operator is Olson, 19 t
20 running the test.
This shows an addition five minutes prior i
i l
21 to the end of the test and a differential between the amount 22 included in the calculation and the amount showing on the 23 strip chart of about 25 gallons, which is in the i
24 neighborhood, again, of a half a gallon of unidentified i
25 leakag~e.
i O l
\\
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 80433M646
28506.0 BRT 3638 i
rh
(
)-
x_/
1 So that's the pattern that strikes me out of all 2
of this, that you are on for a series of tests.
I believe 3
there are a few others.
I just picked those out quickly.from 4
the book.
It appears there was a substantial addition of 5
water near the end of the test.
The strip chart went up 6
significantly higher than the actual amount that was put in, 7
according to the log, and the difference is typically in the 8
range of 25, 30 gallons over an hour test, meaning that the 9
leak rate apparently, if you trust the amount that went into 10 the calculation, the leak rate was thrown off in the 11 neighborhood of a half a gallon.
Is that what that seems to 12 show?
OQ 13 A'
Yes.
14 Q
I'll mention, again -- I' don't think we need to 15 belabor it, but to give a little fuller picture, one of the
- l'6 things this depends upon is this analysis -- this analysis 17 depends upon what I just walked through with you, that the 18 times are right between the clock time and the strip chart 19 time.
2G We have heard a lot of testimony that the NRR 21 people, when they performed this analysis, looked in the log 22 for places they could nail down in clock time, then they 23 looked for an event on the strip chart such as a big addition 24 of water.
For example, if there was a log entry of 300 25 gallons of water entered at 1700 and they saw a great big t,
I l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M-347-3W Nationwide Coserage ikn33MM6
28506.0 BRT-3639
- O i
1 jump at-approximately 6:40, then'they' fig *ured the strip was 2
off for an hour.
They would try to confirm-that with other 3
similar references, but that-was the approach.
1 In the cases we have looked at, all of these 5
entries, I think one was 17 minutes from the end.but the 4
6 others were closer to five, seven minutes, in that range from I
7
-the.end.. If that attempt at calibration.of clock time and-8 chart time was off significantly and the test really should i
9 have been earlier on the chart, in quotes, then one could 10 say, I suppose:
Well, some'of those additions came after the 11-test was over then it's perfectly innocuous.
I guess all you 12 can do is make what you can out of the logs and out of the
.( ).
.13 analysis that has been advanced.
14 I just wonder -- if you wish to comment on that, 15 go ahead, but I think in fairness and the interest of some 16 perspective I ought to' mention it.
That's why I bring it out 17 as one complication in making this analysis.
Is there any i'
18 comment you want to make on that aspect of it?
19 A
Well, one thing is that, due to, I guess, my lack ~
20 lof thinking about it, I never really went through an analysis 21 like.this at the time, so it real1y never -- I didn't.think 22 of doing it.
23 Q
You mean the strip chart analysis?
24 A
Right.
As far as trying to detect a trend that 25 had developed.
O-l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 212-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage feb336-6M6
~
28'506.0 BRT 3640 (s.
1 Q
Okay.
I think we can move on fEom this clock
?
differential' business.
I tried to just summarize.that.
3 There would be another question or two that'I 4
would have for you about what-you did atsthe time.
What I 4
5 was trying to nail down now was, well, okay, let's look at 6
the records and'see-what we find.- I find a pattern.-
I' find t
,7 a pattern of late water entries having an effect on the leak 8
rate test in the sense that the strip chart trace is jumping 1
9 up higher than the water added would justify.
There's a lot 10 of testimony here which you may be familiar with also that
-11 that was'due to the so-called loop seal condition.
Have you
~
12 heard about that?
()
13 A.
Yes.
14 Q
Okay.
We don't have to belabor that at great i
15 length either.
In any case, apparently that phenomenon l
16 didn't always work but a lot of times it did.
So if you
- 17 added water or hydrogen during a leak rate test-you might get 18 an extra kick-on the trace and a lower unidentified leak rate 19 as a result.
20 We also have to, in talking with you, take into 21 account the fact that, well, we've looked at this series of i-22 five tests that seems to show this pattern of late water 23 additions.
We have got Mark Coleman testifying that,, indeed, 24 that's exactly what he did.
He would add water late in the 25 test in the hope that he would get a better leak rate.
So it ACE-FEDERhL REPORTERS, INC.
J 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 84336646
_s.
28506.0 BRT 3641
(
'% )
1 seems to me that in terms of what took place and whether 2
there was a pattern, his testimony, coupled with the record 3
testimony we have just reviewed,-is fairly strong.
Would you 4
agree with that?
5 A
Yes.
6 Q
There's another thing I will just bring to your 7
attention.
You may also have looked at this before, but I 8
would like.you to turn to table 7 in the NRR study.
The 9
pages aren't numbered.
It's about 10 pages into the first of 10 the worksheet volumes.
I think Mr. McBride can show it to 11 you.
12 If you look at table 7, the title of it is
( )-
13 "Overall evaluation of high leakage period by individual 14 period," and then it's broken down by, left to right, control 15 room operator -- and-top to bottom the categories are 16 different kinds of problems, dif ferent kinds of improper 17 actions taken by particular people according to the'NRR 18 analysis.
19 If you look over, going left to right at the top-20 on " control ro_om operator," and I'm looking in the middle at 21 Olson, Wright and Coleman, shift D --
22 A
Yes.
23 Q-If you look at the whole chart you see numbers 24 scattered all over the place in terms of kinds of activities 25 that different operators in different shifts engaged in in G3 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-(M6
28506.0 BRT 3642
'l
%)
1 order to -- well, in relation to leak rate tests.
But there 2
is one set of numbers that seems to stand out.
The second 3
category down from the top is water additions (partially 4
included in the calculation).
Do you see that category?
5 A
Yes.
6 Q
If you read over toward the right you come to the 7
largest numbers right in the middle there with Olson, Wright 8
and Coleman.
Your book should show a change.
Olson was 9
number 11.
Is that stricken out and number 10 written in?
10 A
No.
It's still 11.
11 Q
It should be 10.
That was done on the record 3
12 sometime back.
It is not terribly important for the point
()
13 I'm going to make, but in the interest of being accurate, 11 14 is 10.
The next one over is Wright, his number 4 ought to be 15 6.
And the next one over is Coleman, and his number remains 16 6.
17 Now, let me explain one other thing to you as I l
18 understand it.
If you go off to the right you see total 19 number, it says 17?
That will not add up to 17.
I think it i
[
20 means 17 tests.
The reasons the numbers are higher is that 21 in most tests, two people got counted, the CRO on the panel 22 and the operator.
So that if Coleman was on the panel as 23 CRO, and Olson was the operator, each of them would get a 1.
24 That's my understanding of how that thing is structured.
i l
25 In any case, the 17, I think, is numbers of tests ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-(M6
~.
A
~28506.0 BRT 3643 1
and the numbers of events, numbers'of participations, if you 2
want to call them that, are off to the left.
3.
But, having made that qualification it still.
4 doesn't affect the main point I want to make.
Would you look 5
over the chart and look at the Olson/ Wright /Coleman numbers 6
under " water addition," namely 10, 6 and 6, and ignoring the 7
top line of "no apparent problem," those are the okay tests, l
8 just' eyeball the rest of the numbers that you-see there on.
9 the chart, also ignoring the bottom line of " number of 10 questionable tests."
1 11 A
Okay.
l 12
.Q It kind of stands out, doesn't it?-
(f 4
13.
A Yes, it does.
14 Q
-This is asking-the reader to assume that they.
~!
15 agree with the NRR analysis about water additions and every 16 other analysis in their tests.
We can't really walk through 17 all of that this morning.
But at least in'the view of NRR,.
18 shift D had a technique of underreporting water additions, l
19 namely the kind of thing we have just been looking at.
Again j.
20 I want to stress that I believe we are-talking about actually 21 recording what you asked the batch controller to put in.
I 22 don't mean chopping down on that.
I mean simply taking 23 advantage of the fact that the strip chart would jump higher.
24 than it was supposed to.
That's what I take that to mean and 25 that sort of jumps off the page to me.
Doesn't it to you?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33M646
-wwe
s 28506.,0 BRT 3644 LJ 1
A Yes, it does.
2 Q
This is all in a period of January -- it's the 3
last three months of operation, essentially, when that was 4
done, according to this analysis.
A good number of times.
5 In fact more by Mr. Olson than by Mr. Coleman or Mr. Wright.
6-If that kind of pattern emerges from the record, 7
again I would like to have a better understanding of, if you 8
didn't understand that was going on, why is that?
If you 9
knew you are supervising these people, Wright and Coleman and 10 Olson, day in and day out, and they are using a technique 11 which Coleman admits that gives a much desired thing, namely 12 a leak rate under 1 gallon a minute, why didn't this come to
()
13 your attention?
14 A
After I reviewed these five, now, and more than 15 that last evening, and one of the things that I think 16 contributed to not noticing the pattern was just the total 17 number of water additions that continually took place during 18 the shift.
I think another contributor was just not 19 suspecting that -- not suspecting that was giving any 20 advantage.
I just didn't put the things together.
21 Q
If Ccleman, at least, knew this and acknowledges 22 now and has been acknowledging for some time, why didn't he 23 tell you?
I don't understand that.
24 A
I don't know.
It may have been that if he 25 suspected that it wasn't the right thing to do, he may not g
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8&336-6M6
l 128506.0 BRT 3645 1
'have. wanted to say that.
T 2
Q Why should he take that responsibility?
That's 3
assuming the burden on h'is shoulders; right?
4 A
Yes.
I don't know, other than, perhaps, just it.
5 was -- he felt like that was his-responsibility to be able to 6
get a leak rate under 1 gpm, and-he was going to do that.
?
7 Q
This was during a time -
by "this," I mean the 8
last three months of operation; allithe tests I'showed you 9
just now were in the last three months of operation and the'
' chart'we looked at depicted had the last three months of 11 operation.
This was, I think.we.said'before, a timeLwhen~it-4' 12 was, generally speaking, pretty hard to get a leak rate under.
..( f 13 a gallon.a minute; right?
14 A
Yes.
l 15 Q
Here's Coleman.
He has discovered this way to do I
l 16 it.
I think Judge Bright has already asked you this but I'm 17 trying to understand:
Here is Coleman with-this wonderful 18 technique..Why would he keep it to himself?
Didn't you ask 19 him:
How did you do that, Mark?
That's great.
First good i
i 20 leak rate we've had in days, perhaps.
21 Wouldn't you have your curiosity aroused, if he 22 can come in with a leak rate under a gallon a minute?
i 23 A
I don't recall.
I may have.
I just don't recall 24 ever having -- being that sensitive to getting the leak rate.
25 Q
I think you testified earlier that if the leak
(
,s/
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80tk336-t486
_ _.. _ _.. ~. _,.. _ -. _ _ _ _ _..,... _ -... _.. _ - -.. -. -. _ _..
'28506.0 BRT' 3646 w/
1 rate was over l'you threw it away; right?
2 A
Yes.
3 Q
If it was under 1 you-filed it; correct?
4 4
A Yes.
5 Q
And you, in that connection, whether over or-6 under, did not have any practice of reviewing strip charts?
7 A
Yes.
That's true.
8 C
So was it merely a matter of what the number was, 9
in terms of your being concerned about real leakage and the 10 validity of the number?
Did you pursue that at all?
Or did 11 you just say, if it's over 1 it's out, it is in the trash 12 can; if it's under 1 it's filed?-
)-
13 A
That was the practice.
I realize that is very 14 poor practice, but that was how things were back then.
15 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
16 Q
I just have a few questions about your prepared 17 statement.
Will you turn to page 3, please?
18 A
Okay.
19 Q
T,he first sentence of the first full paragraph 20 reads:
"I formed an opinion when I was a control room 21 operator that the leak rate test was not very accurate."
22 Did you feel that the test was adequate for the 23 purpose of demonstrating that you were operating the plant in 24 compliance with the technical specifications or not?
How big did you think the inaccuracy was?
I'm trying to get a 25 J'
1-l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 Nationwide Coserage 80l%3366M6
-3700.. _.,
. ~...
__ _,~._, ____
..m 28506.0
'BRT-3647 l'
1
- feeling for'what you mean by "not very accurate."
21 A
That was one of the problems that I didn't pursu'e 3
to really resolve.
I never did get any sort of feeling.what 4
-t e ' tolerance was associated with the test.
You know, 4-h 1
5 whether it was accurate to within a half a gallon a minute or 6
what number.
I just never pursued that to-try to get an 7
answer on that.
8 Q
But from the point of view of your having an 9
opinion that it was not very accurate, the implication is you 10 h' ave to be comparing it to something when you say "not i
11 very.". Whether you felt it was really inadequate for'the 1
12 purpose of measuring l' gallon -- measuring unidentified
. ()
13 leakage to 1 gallon.per minute.
14 A
Some of that had to do with how repeatable was the 15 test.
If you did a test for one hour and then turned around 16 and did another tesi'and, whatever leakage existed didn't 17 really change, essentially -- but the numbers could havo l
18 varied -- I don't remember specifically but the numbers 19 varied, you know, by several -- at leas t several tenths of a 20 gallon a' minute.
21 Q
And you didn't feel the test was deficient, 22 inadequate?
i 23 A
I don't recall ever looking at it from that point 24 of view whether it was-adequate or inadequate.
I feel, 25 obviously, today, it was very inadequate and I believe I was f3v ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3.4M446 t-a.
_. ~.... _. _.. _ _ _. _.. - -,
28506.0 BRT-3648 J
1 just sort of taken over by events back then and didn't pursue 2-11t hard enough.
3 Q
'That's what I'm trying to understand.
Was it.
4 really necessary for you to pursue it or:to question it?
You 5
say you formed.this opinion.
What would have happened if-you-6 just filled out a' deficiency report on it and somebody else
.7 could have pursued it?
r-
[
8 A
Well, I don't know what you mean by " deficiency."
9 You mean an exception and deficiency sheet?
10 Q
Yes; according to administrativeLprocedure 1010.
i 11 Didn't administrative procedure 1010 apply to this test?
12 A
It should --
(f 13 Q
Isn't it a general procedure to cover surveillance 14 tests?
p 15 A
It should have applied.
But I don't know exactly 16 why that procedural requirement for exceptions and 17 dericiencies was never applied to the test.
18 l Q
Didn't it strike you as strange?
What is so 19 unique about this test that administrative procedure wouldn't 20
-apply to it?
What puts it-outside of that procedure?
~
21 A
I think it was just the way that the test was 22 considered.
Even though the test was a tech spec-required 23 surveillance test, the attitude toward the test was such that
~
24 it wasn't really given that status.
Incorrectly, the 25 exception and deficiency procedure wasn't applied to it.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationside Coverage 8533MM6
. ~
.. -... - ~ ~. -.,..,. _ _ - -. -, -,.,. _..,. - _,
28506.0 BRT 3649 1
Q That's what is so mysterious to me, why you and 2
many others were very comfortable second-guessing the tech 3
specs.
For some reason, apparently this.was unusual.
I 4
don't think you disregarded many of the other technical 5
specifications, did.you?
6 A
No.
Like I said,-this was -- this particular 7
surveillance had a history, if you will, of not being treated 8
the same as other tech specs.
9 Q
How were you or others, if you know, comfortable 10 with the conflict between the conditions of-your license, 11 which; required you to see the procedures were followed, the 12 plant was operated within the limits of the tech specs, how
(
13 were you comfortable with ignoring this tech spec?
Did you 14 think it just really didn't have much of a safety 15 significance?
16 A
I believe it was just that that was the situation 17 as it existed.
Perhaps a carryover from TMI-1, how they 4
18 thought of that practice.
I guess nobody really considered 19 questioning it that seriously.
Looked at from today, it is 20 really hard for me to reconstruct but it seemed like, back 21 then, that was a normal thing to do.
22 Q
And the fact that it was in contrast to the way 23 you felt about all the other technical specifications never p
24 struck you because you did the test so frequently compared to 25 the other tests, apparently?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 4 6 lJ
28506.0I
- Ek
.BRT-3650 H
u}
. That had -- I think that had a. lot to'do with it.
/
1 A
2.
Q
.Did you ever think that perhaps the test was not 3-an easy one to carry out?
4-A Yes.
1 5-Q And get accurate results?
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
-Well, the continuing perception, as we listen to 8
one individual after another, that the test - -carrying out 9
the test wasn't recognized as something you had to be very 10 careful'about, if you were going to do what'you. hoped to do, 11 which was!to determine leakage, unidentified leakage'with'a-12 sensitivity and accuracy so you could say:
I know the plant f)
' is within the technical specifications.
It is'quite a 13 14 challenging thing to do, in my mind.
'15 Instead it'was treated in a-very cavalier manner, 16 just punch the computer, see what it spits out, throw away 17 the high ones and file the ones that are.just ch in 18 error as the high ones but filed as a pretense of meeting the 19 technical specifications.
Without anybody ever saying to 20 somebody in the technical engineering group:
Come look at 21 this thing and tell us what's wrong.
That's vhnt is a 22 mystery to me.
23 Did you get any pressure from anybody in the 24 management above you, not to question this. test?
25 A
I don't remember specifically.
s/
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33MM6
g
- 28506.0
- BRT-3651 p:
V 1
Q Irmean in the sense:
This is all we've got and 2
~this:is what we are going to use?
3 A
My~ remembrance.of the subject is that it had a lower. priority than.other things and it was not being pursued 5
as actively as;it should have been.
There didn't seem to be
-6 a realLuncomfortableness associated with that.
7 Q-What do you think wouldLhave happened ifcthe 8
exception-and deficiencies identification required by 9
administrative procedure 1010 had actually been put on every.
10 one of these tests that were questionable?
Wouldn't.they 11 have piled up someplace?
12 I get the sense that others have-testified that it 1(f 13 was gen'eral knowledge that there was -- there were problems 14 with this test but it never got to the top of the pile.
It 15 never.got=to be an item where somebody with the technical 16 background to look at it was told:
Look, go and work on this 17 until you get it straight.
It just never happened.
And 18 that's why I wonder why this neglect of standard procedure --
19 management had a procedure.
If you had a problem you were 20:
supposed to identify.it.
You weren't supposed to' solve it.
f 21~
You were just supposed to identify it.
That's what is so 1
22 '
mysterious.to me.
But apparently you just didn't think the 2:3 test was even worth identifying as questionable.
You just l -
2:4 threw them away.
25 A
Yes.
Like I said before, it was a carryover-type ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
28506.0 BRT 3652 v
1 thing'that had existed for a long time and a lot of people I
2 like myself sort of grew up with that.
It was just not -- I 3
didn't think of questioning it.
I should have.
I didn't 4
think of really questioning it.
5.
Q Turning to the last part of that same paragraph 6
you state, "I believed at the time that if we had a 1 gallon 7
per minute leak inside the reactor building, the radiation 8
monitors would have activated."
What was the basis for that 9
belief?
l 10 A
That had to do with some training that I had 11 received on the approximate accuracy of the containment 12 '
building radiation monitor.
A\\)
13 Q
There were times when you had identified leaks
.14
.substantially larger than a gallon per minute, weren't there?
15 A
As I found out -- identified leaks?
16 Q
Yes.
17 A-Yes.
18 Q
Did the radiation monitor Cctcc* those?
i 19 A
I don't know if we ever had an identified leak 20 greater than 1 gallon a minute inside the containment.
We 21 may have.
I'm not aware of that.
22 Q
Even in the time period of February-March, 1979?
23 A
I think a lot of that leakage was identified 24 leakage but it was all contained within piping and a tank.
I i
25 believe the leakage you are talking about was from the S
w.)
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 233MM6 g
I
~28506.0 BRT 3653
(~%
\\_]
1 pressurizer relief valves into the RC drain tank.
2 Q
Well, I just happened to open the book to test 3
135, which is the March -- March,
'79, it showed a total 4
identified RCS leak rate of 2.79 gallons per minute.
I have 5
the impression that this was not -- are you saying that was 6
in this contained area?
7 A
Yes.
8 Q
Which the radiation monitor woul,dn't see.
9 I'm looking at NRR test number 93, which was 10 carried out by Coleman and approved by you, which shows a 11 gross leak rate of half a gallon a minute, total identified 12 leakage of.7 gallons per minute, and a small net
()~
13 unidentified leak rate of minus
.2.
This surveillance report 14 was filed on the lith of January of
'79.
Have you looked at 15 the Stier report at all?
16 MR. VOIGT:
What was the number again, please?
17 JUDGE CARPENTER:
It's 93.
But my question 18 doesn't really focus on that.
It is repeated again in the 19 document I want him to look at.
Do you have volume 1 of the-20 Stier report?
I 21 MR. VOIGT:
The witness now has it before him.
22 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
23 Q
Will you turn to page 115, please.
There is an 24 uncaptioned table there showing a series of tests.
Those 25 numbers are not the same as the NRR numbers.
Those are the j3u I
ACE-FEDERAL REPOFTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(0 336 6646
. _ - - _.... -.. ~. -.,. _,., _,.,_._,_,___.---_......_..._.
28506.0
-BRT 3654
_'q) 1 Stier numbers in the time period January 2nd through January 2
15th, and this test that you approved is the one on the 3
lith.
The bottom line on that test, in the computer printout.
4 is minus 1.68, and that shows in the Stier report as minus 5
1.68.
The analysis of.the probable estimated unidentified 6
leakage on the lith of January was that you actually had 7
unidentified leakage of 1.6 gallons per minute.
8 Were you awiare, during that shift or in that 9
general time period, the radiation monitor gave you any 10 indication that there was a leak as big as 1.6 gallons per 11 minute?
12 A
No.
()
13 Q
It seems your belief isn't borne out by the 14 facts.
I'm trying to understand.
Was there something funny-15 in January, like the radiation monitors weren't working?
16 A
No.
What I found out subsequently was that there 17 was a problem with the sensing line to the radiation monitor 18 such that its theoretical accuracy was nowhere near what its 19 actual accuracy would be because of the long routing that the 20 sensing line took.
A lot of the the activity that was inside 21 the reactor building would never make it to the monitor.
22 Q
Because most of the radioactivity was 23 particulates?
24 A
Yes.
The particulate detector.
25 Q
Well, you did not believe you exceeded the
\\_/
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Coverage 8 @ 334 6646
.,_ -,-347-3 7M- _,,,... _ _. _ -. _ - - - - ~ -. _
'28506.0L BRT 3655 v-1-
technical history, yet the Stier report says you did.
I 2
accept that explanation.
If you were right, the radiation 3
monitor wouldn't have give you a quantitative but it would
~4 have given you a flag to go to the leak rate tests 5
carefully.
That would certainly limit the safety 6
implications of this failure to carry out the leak rate test 7
with the care that it really deserved.
8 It is not a simple thing to measure 1 gallon a 9
minute.
The procedure says steady state.
That doesn't 10 happen very often.
You have to, actually, search for it.
It 11 says don't add water for the reason that this is a small 12 change over a one-hour period and if you add water you have
()
13 to note it very accurately.
And yet everybody, willy-nilly, 14 added water right in the face of the procedure's cautions.
15 Not prohibitions.
You know if the control rods are at the 16 limit, you have to add water.
You have to add water.
But it 17 doesn't seem.very sophisticated to add water before you start 18 the test so you know you don't have to add it.
19 It seems too trivially elementary to carry out 20 this test properly if it was just punch the computer and 21 throw away the ones that didn't come out the way you wanted 22 them to come out.
It really wouldn't have been that hard to 23 do it right.
4 24 I'm trying to get some feel for why this was.
25 Whether management said don't sweat it?
,..x L-)
4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
-347 37to....
28506.0' BRT 3656 fW]-
\\_
1 A
I believe you stated earlier, it was the cavalier 2
-- almost the cavalier attitude towards it.
3 Q
But what we are trying to figure out is whether 4
management caused that attitude.or just didn't detect it.
5 Did management say:
Let's -- this is what we got, let's make 6
it fly.
Keep the hardware running?.
7 A
I can't say for sure, you know.
It was just, 8
maybe, a lack'of overall experience and appreciation for the 9
significance of that particular requirement.
10 Q
I notice that you and many others first started 11' employment-in generating plants with this company and sort of 12 grew up'in the company.
Would you say by and large the bulk
(
)
13 of the people at TMI-2 were of that type?
Perhaps had been
.14 in the Navy or something but their first exposure to large 15 nuclear reactors was TMI-2?
16 A
I would say the vast majority.
We had -- in fact, 17 I can't even think of somebody who had previous commercial 18 exper: ance.
There were a lot of nuclear Navy people but I 19 can't think of anybody who had.
20 Q
So whatever the local tradition was, there wasn't 21 much opportunity for somebody to say:
Well, we didn't do 22 that at some other plant.
23 A
Yes.
For myself, there was nothing to compare to, 24 other than what I saw there.
s 25 Q
Skipping over to page 5 of your prepared s
~J
~
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 2(C Nationwide Coserage an33MM6 347-3700
28506.'O BRT 3657 k.
1 statement, at the top of the page you are talking about 2'
problems with the level transmitters and you state:
"It is 3
'possible that;the operators were unaware that a problem with 4
the transmitter had recurred."
5.
How would the operators become aware of a problem?
6 A
I think most of the time it would be if they would 7
notice a difference between the two level transmitting i
8 channels.
9 Q
Did you teach them to deliberately switch back and 10 forth to check one against the other before they started 4
11 using them?
12 A
I don't specifically remember that.
I probably 13 did --
14 Q
When~you ran the test when you were an operator, 15 was it your routine practice to check the two against each 16 other?
?
17 A
I would say that was a fairly routine practice.
18 Q
But you didn't make a point of it in your training 19 of these people?
I 20 A
I don't recall now.
21 Q is The fact -- the inference you can draw is they 22 weren't aware, and I can't believe, if they switched back and 23 forth a few times, that they wouldn't see there was a 24 discrepancy between the two.
25 A
Well, one point I would like to make on that is it i
]
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Coverage 800.134 6646
...._...,-347-3 700
,,.,,,,,.--..-_..,,_,,....y_._,._-
a 128506.0 BRT
~3658 y
1
. was subjective; when there was just a slight discrepancy 2
between the two, it was hard to tell when you.would consider-3 a' channel out of service.
4' If one was tracking relatively steadily.and you
-5 switched and the other-'one:was' bouncing up;and down,fthat t
6 would be obvious.
But, if you checked them and.there was 7
maybe only an inch or an inch and a half difference, it was
.8 hard to say.
Again, there was no real clearcut guideline on 9_
when.it would be even brought to my attention because they 10-were never 100 percent perfect tracking each other..
11 Q
But if they were only an inch different, wouldn't 12 they both be actually -- but steady, with time, that assumes-I
().
13 the plant was steady -- then either one of them would be 14'
_ usable-for this. test to measure a change over an hour?-
15' A-Yes.
16 Q
But as you say, there probably was no guidance, no 17 criteria for when to declare a transmitter out of service?
18 A
My recollection of it is that it was fairly-i t'._
19 subjective.
If there was just a slight -- if the problem was 20 just beginning --
21 Q
Well, there's evidence that. tests were run with
+
22 transmitters that were oscillating wildly, transmitters 23 full-scale, grossly out-of-service devices.
But the g
24 operators didn't pick it up.
They just punched the computer 25 and waited an hour, tore the sheet off the computer, signed O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m_ m_,,
_g
(_
l28506.0
.BRT-3659 3-
.e f
1-
.it and turned it in.
They tell -- some of them expressed'the-2 view that it was'the responsibility of the foreman to 3
evaluate the' test.
They were-just the computer punchers.
Is that appropriate?
Did you feel that way when 4
5 you got~the tests?:
6 A
No.
'7-Q You've got the blind leading the blind here, in my 8
mind.
They tell me all their job was to do-was to run the 9
test and give it_to somebody.
He would review it.
You tell-10 me at the end of the shift you had a lot of papers to go
'11 through and you didn't.have time to sit and study it.
Is 12 that correct?
()_
13 A
Well, part of that is correct, yes.
14 Q
So my point is the operators weren't very critical 15 of what they were doing and you never focused on it enough to 16 be adequately critical.
17 A
Yes.
I believe the attitude was just way too lax.
18 JUDGE CARPEhTER:
Th'ank you very much.
That's the 19 situation as it was.
I don't -- you made the record clear.
20 JUDGE'KELLEY:
I just have a follow-up here, 21 Mr. Miller.
22 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
23 Q.*
I'm looking at page 4 of your prefiled.
You and I 24 spent most of the time talking about a series of t'ests and 25 talking about what the NRC Staff thought for water additions ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33HM6
~_
3 f
28506.0 BRT 3660 I
where the makeup tank trace registered. higher than the amount 2
actually put in.
3 In reading the paragraph.in the middle of page 4, 4
I'll just read it for the record:
"There have-been 5
allegations by the NRC that some of the operators on my shift
.6 added water during leak rate tests and did not account for 7:
the additions in the test or. log them.
I.have reviewed the 8
strip charts for several of these tests, and I believe that 9
most of them do not reflect any water-additions.
Mr. Stier.
4 10.
apparently agrees with me."
11 I think every test of the specific tests we looked
}
12 at were logged water additions and we were only talking about
] ()
13 the differential between whatever was logged and whatever the 14 strip. chart would show.
15 Is that a different set of tests than the ones you 16 are referring to here?
17 A
Yes.
18
.Q Okay.
I just wasn't sure whether that was 19 correct.
- 20 When you say "Mr'.
Stier apparently agrees with 21 me," does that reflect your reading of Stier's analysis of 22 some of these specific tests where Stier.may have diverged 23 from the NRC?
24 A
Yes.
25 Q
That's all in the record.
We can determine that.
3
-Q ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80lk336-6M6
. ~ -.
i.h' s
z.
28506.0 BRT.
3661 7 f}
.1 If it becomes important we can focus on that.
I understand 2
that.
3' JUDGE KELLEY-What we do next typically, 4
Mr. Miller, is we ask the Staff and.the parties for any 5
follow-up questions.they are going to have.
6 Are we going to-have any follow-up questions, F
7 Mr. ~ McBride?
8 MR. MC. BRIDE:
Yes, sir.
4' 9
JUDGE KELLEY:
I'm debating whether to do them 10; after lunch or do them now.
Do you have very many?.
11 MR. MC BRIDE:
No, sir.
j 12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
We'll do them now.
()
13 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
[
14 Q
Mr. Miller, when your shift was on duty did you i
15 spend all of your time in the control room?
i j
16 A
No.
I often spent considerable portion of the 17
' shift'out in the plant.
[
18 Q
Under what circumstances would you leave the i'
i 19 control room?
f 20 A
Typically it would be to go out into the plant and i'
21 see how some of the systems were operating, some of the 22' problems that existed.
23 Q
Did this typically occur on every shift?
v 24 A.
I would say most shifts that occurred ~.
t I
25 Q
Could you please estimate how many hours per shift z
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L x.m.m.
mu-
~.my_,,
m
. 28506.0 BRT 3662
. v 1
you were out of.the control room?
l F
2 A
It would vary from, essentially no hours'some days 3
to some four, five or.six hours.
j'.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
Anything further?
l 5
MR. MC BRIDE:
No, sir.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.'
7 Mr. Miller, this, then, brings.us to the end of f
8 our. questioning process.
We appreciate your coming down here 7
?
l 9
today.
We appreciate your attention to our questions and 1
. 10 responses.
You have helped us flesh out the record on some=
11 difficult points.
12 Thank you very much.
You are excused.
- i
.- 13 THE WITNESS:
Thank you.
i 14 (The witness-stood down.)
l I
15 (Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m.,
the hearing was i
16
. recessed, to be reconvened at 1:30 p.m.
this same day.)
j 17 i
'18 19
?
. 20 1
1' 21 4
22
[
i 23 24
- O
- 25 i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2(12 347-374W)
Nationwide coverage an)356646 4..
--e
..u-...__,._._...__...,..__..,_,,,....~.,_,._,___..,_,-....._,..-_,..-m-,,,__.._......--_._.__.,
28506.'0 BRT 3663
(~)
w 1
AFTERNOON SESSION (1:30 p.m. )
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Hitz, my name is Kelley.
Good
'3 afternoon.
On my right~1s Judge Bright, on my left is Judge 4
Carpenter.
.5 Whereupon, 6.
GREGORY RAY HITZ 7
was called as a witness and, having first been duly sworn, 8
was examined and testified as follows:
9 EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. MC BRIDE:
11 Q
Would you please state your full name for the 12 record?
<m ij 13 A
Gregory Ray Hitz.
14 Q
Do you have before you a seven-page document i
15 entitled " Prepared Statement of Gregory R.
Hitz"?
16 A
Yes, I do.
17
-Q At this time do you have any corrections or 18 additions you wish to make to that testimony?
i 19 A
No, I don't.
20 Q
Do you adopt that testimony _as your sworn 21 statement in this proceeding?
22 A
Yes, I do.
23 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, can the statement be 24 bound in the record, please, as if read?
i 3
25 JUDGE KELLEY:
Yes.
~-l l.
I i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 202-347 3%M Nationwide Coverage 80rk336-6M6
28506.0 BRT 3664
- O 1
(The document follows :)
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 i
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 j
18 19 20 I
21 22 23 24 O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2"""":'
O, I
' Y '/A l
+.
/~N UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i._,/
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 GREGORY R. HITZ My name is Gregory R.
Hitz.
I reside in Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania.
I have been employed by General Physics a
Corporation since April 1982.
I was in the Air Force from 1964 through 1969.
I began employment with Metropolitan Edison at the Crawford Station in 1969.
In October of 1969, I moved to TMI Unit 1.
I was an auxiliary operator until early 1970.
I became a TMI-L control room operator in 1974 and a shift foreman in 1975.
I became a shift supervisor in 1977 and was, of necessity, licensed on left Three Mile Island in 1981 and was employed both Units.
I by Instrument and Engineering Services Corporation until I went with General Physics.
While I was a control room operator at Unit 1.
I performed leak rate tests as part of my responsibilities.
I do not i
f (}
rememberattendingaspecifictrakningclassontheleak' rate
}
although I may have.
I also do not
)
technical specifications, to do with an invalid remember receiving instructions on what 2 license.
leak rate, when I studied for my Unit When I became a shift' supervisor, part of my training included spending time with the other shift supervisors in Unit I watched how they did business, I took notes and asked 2.
situations.
questions about how they would handle different They gave me a feel for how to run a shift.
After I received my Unit 2 license, I was put in charge of "D"
shift.
My crew included Adam Miller, foreman, and Mark Coleman, Lynn Wright, and Dennis Olson, operators, I believe to shift supervisor occurred while Unit 2 was in my assignment its hot functional testing phase.
I spent 95's of my on-the-job,
(~)h time at Unit 2 during this period supervising hot functional
\\-
testing, low power physics testing, and then the start-up of Unit 2.
I answered to Jim Floyd, the supervisor of operations.
We used the chain of command very well.
Mr. Floyd dealt with ce and let me deal with my shift.
Mr. Floyd relied on the shift His supervisors to perform the paperwork part of the jot primary concern was the safety of the plant.
My duties included operating both units, coordinating maintenance, health physics, chemistry operations and security.
With the other shift supervisors, I attended plan or The supervisor the day meetings as well as monthly meetings.
/~)
of operations for each unit, each unit superintendent and the
(./
-2
J
'T j:
-( )
site superintendent would attend these monthly meetings.
We things talked about personnel problems and we tried to get running more smoothly.
surveillances, As part of my other duties I had to see that including leak rate tests, were performed, and that the plant I had was operating within the specified limits for leakage.
the ultimate decision as to whether a leak r+te test was valid when a test was questioned and brought to my attention.
In Unit 2, we needed to obtain one valid leak rate test If we could not determine why a leak rate test every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
My shift was, invalid, we had to enter the action statement.
would decide whether a test was valid or invc...d by looking at Some of the parameters evaluated included a
plant parameters.
makeup tank level, makeup tank valve position, pressurizer
\\
level, and reactor coolant drain tank level.
The operators would also examine whether they had made any unrecorded additions, or other errors.
If we obtained a later valid leak rate, we would discard the invalid leak rate.
j I do not know how the diacarding of invalid leak rates developed originally.
Any licensed operator could discard an No one had to ask for my or the foreman's invalid leak rate.
permission.
perhaps this practice started because there were so many variables present in the leak rate test that were not present in other surveillances.
By variables I mean plant swings, temperatures, levels and pressures.
O
.e-
_e_-
e We tried to perform a leak rate test once a shift.
I never 7-(_)
really analyzed why we performed it more than the procedure leak rate, foreman generally ' approved the required.
My shift but if he were out in the plant, I would review and sign it.
I fact in my shift turnover notes.
probably would have noted that I did observe that the Unit 2 leak rate test results were quite erratic, as compared to the results of leak rate tests peformed at Unit 1.
Unit 2 was not yet a stable plant; tuning the condensate system and tuning on the heater drain system, within the ICS had not yet been completed.
The plant swings on This all affected the leak the Unit 2 side were more frequent.
rate results; you had no idea where on an oscillation the I remember that we had a computer was going to take a picture.
many negative numbers, as well as positive numbers.
There was
'~'
no consistency.
Although we knew that we were having problems with leak recall specifically discussing leak rates with rates, I do not in either plan of the day meetings or other shift supervisors our regular monthly meetings.
I did, of course, discuss leak rate problems with my shift.
I thought that the problem would solve itself once the plant tuning was completed.
I have no knowledge of any operator willfully cheating on a leak rate; leak rate tests.
I never pressured anyone to get I do not believe that anyone else in management did, either.
The NRC Staff contends that start times of leak rates log.
()
should have been recorded in the control room operators'
-4
)
1
.L 4
l No one omitted logging start times as a way of hiding the
'l I suppose it developed because number of bad leak rate tests.
as the official-record of the we handed in the computer sheet and stop time was right on that sheet.
' leak rate, and the start know why Exceptions and Deficiencies were not I do not I do not think it ever occurred to me applied to leak rates.
to apply them.
I know that the computer had to be told about water additions made during a leak rate.
I recall, on occasion, when I was an operator in Unit I that I forgot to inform my shift that I had a leak rate going.
I had run the leak rate again due to my mistake.
because the other operator had added water, in i imagine anyone doing this deliberately and handing I cannot rS O
I attribute unaccounted-for water additions to the leak rate.
honest mistakes.
It was the better practice not to do anything to disturb If the system or to add anything during a leak rate test.
water had been added and accounted for, I would have assumed that the system required the addition.
I was unaware that that it anyone would have deliberately added water knowing would affect the makeup tank level.
I knew that when the hydrogen valve was opened in Unit I
and hydrogen was put in the makeup tank you could see a change.
I do not remember if it went up or down or how it did in the level indication.
I it, but you would see the movement 2,
though I
()
suppose the same thing could have occurred at Unit <
4 A
I never made a remember watching that gauge.
r' _y
()
do not I do not know of correlation between this and leak rates.
a leak rate.
anyone who deliberately added hydrogen to affect did permit my shift to file negative lea'k rates.
I I
If the attributed the negative leak rates to plant swings.
final leak rate data were taken on a low' side of a swing, this affected leak rate calculations.
I recall that my shift had a If we had a negative range of acceptable negative leak rates.
.0 or.05 or 1.0, I would accept that but not a negative 9.0 or 10.0. I threw the high negatives away.
remember there having been an issue about the I do not leak rates.
interpretation of the technical specifications for It is obvious that I saw,
My interpretation remained the same.
r~s
'/
the November 1, 1978 Licensee Event Report at some point,
(
1 because my signature is on it.
I cannot remember it, and I remember any other related documents or conversations.
cannot In 1978-79, I did not believe that I did anything wrong with respect to leak rate tests.
Today, I would not throw them let others throw them away, but it was not clear to me away, or any NRC requirement was violated by doing so.
then that During the time that I was an operator at TMI, I sincerely tried to do my best.
I was a good operator, but I am human and I made mistakes; however, I believed I learned something from I want more than anything for the entire nuclear each of them.
industry to benefit from the exhgustive examination of our conduct and the lessons we have learned.
Personally, I have
(}
a s
)
rules (v) absorbed the need'for strict compliance with all the governing plant operations, and I better understand the need for thorough discussion of problem areas prior to taking hope'those who will pass judgment on us actions.
However, I will factor in the differences between what is acceptable in 1986 and what was acceptable in 1979, because there is a huge I believe there are many more learning curve in these years.
lessons learned and if I am permitted to remain a part of this I will emphasize these to all with whom I come in
- industry, I want others to learn from our mistakes and what contact.
better way to drive the point home than to hear it from someone who has suffered the consequences of his errors in judgment.
a O
i 4
)
O 28506.0-
.fBRT 3665-1
. JUDGE KELLEY:- Mr. Hitz, I have a short. statement 2
that I'll read just for the sake of. context and'then we'll 3
turnLto Judge Carpenter and he'll' start with some questions.
4 The Board has been charged by the Commission to 5
~ determine.the extent of. involvement of individual employees 6
at TMI-2 in 1978 and '79 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, your 9
perceptions about your involvement in leak rate testing ~at 10-that time an'd to rebut adverse statements, if any, that have 11 been made about you by other employees or investigators; any 12 adverse statements with which you may disagree.
(
-13 We have reviewed your prefiled testimony and we 14-P. ave considered it in light of the record that has already 15 been developed in this proceeding.
As you know, we just 16 finished talking with the shift foreman, Mr. Miller, who 17 worked.with you.
Prior to that, I think as you-also know, we 18 talked with Mr. Coleman and Mr. Wright.-
We haven't yet 19 talked with Mr. Olson, who is due to come along a little 20 later.
21 We'll have some questions based on your prefiled 22 testimony.
We may have questions based on what other 23 witnesses may have said about you to date.
We may also have 24 questions based on test analyses that are contained in the 25 record.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M447 370)
Nationuide Coverage 80*1 4 6646
28506.0-
-BRT 3666 D.
Li 1
As I think you know,.we have already in the record 2
two very extensive statements on leak rate test procedures i
1 3
and analyses of particular tests performed,by Mr. Stier on 4
behalf of GPU and by the NRC-Staff.
These analyses, studies 5
" studies" may.be a better word -- are in the record.
We 6
don't in those circumstances propose to go through every 7.
single' test you may have had anything to do with.
We think-8 that's not necessary.
We may have particular questions about 9
particular tests.
But the contents of the record,. insofar as 10 it bears on you, including these studies, will be viewed in 11 light of the whole' record, including your testimony here this 12 afternoon.
And with that, I'll turn to Judge Carpenter.
()
~13 EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD 14 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
15 Q
Mr. Hitz, based on your prepared statement and in 16 your interview-with the Office of Investigations, is the-17 general thrust that in the time frame 1978-1979,.into March, l
18 the time of the accident, that in your role as a shift 19 supervisor you didn't feel there was a real-problem _with this 20 leak rate surveillance test.
Is that a fair summary of your-21 memory of your attitude towards the surveillance-test?
22 A
I think a fair assessment of how I-perceived the 23 leak rate test to be is that the test itself, in order to i
24 l obtain the test, we were having problems with that.
We would 25 have the negative leak rates, the positive leak rates.
That O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37tz)
Nationwxle Coverage 8@336-fM6
28506.0
~BRT 3667
(^h O'.
1 itself was a problen.
It came to light later on-that there 2
-were problems with the computer, but that I'didn't think it 3
was s problem, I don't want to give you that impression.
4 Q
That's why I raised the question.
5 A
Right.
6 Q
There's a little bit of a sense that, well, if 7
there was a problem, it wasn't very big?
8 A
The problem existed in the fact that we would get 9
very large negative numbers, small negative numbers, positive 10 numbers, very large positive numbers.
And so, with that 11 particular swing in the numbering system there was a 12 problem.
But I, you know, as far as not believing that there
()
13 wasn't a problem with that particular surveillance; no, I 14 don't want you to get that. impression.
15 Q
What the Board has been wrestling with when'we 16 talk with individual after individual is why the problem 17 wasn't documented anyplace.
Apparently administrative 18 procedure 1010 was set up to cover just this kind of thing 19 and yet, as far as we have been able to find, no one 20 considered labeling these questionable tests as either an 21 exception or a deficiency so that somebody would come and 22 look at the problem and find answers to it.
23 Can you help us with that in why didn't you feel 24 it'was desirable to label these questionable tests as either 25 an exception or deficiency?
i
\\.
ACE-FEDER.AL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage 8t&33&M46
4 i
28506.0-BRT 3668-
" JOI 1
i A'
'Whyrwe did not label them?
2 Q
Yes.
As I~ understand it, administrative procedure l
3' 1010, that is what it requires.that-you do; 4
A Why'we did not attach the exception and deficiency
'S l sheet,. strictly looking at that particular portion of-your i
6
- question, I'm not really sure why we didn't do that exceptl 7
that it was a test that we-did over and over and over.
We j
'8
'have recognized'that we-had plant swings,' problems with the i,
t-9 plant itself, which would cause the large differences in the 10.
numbers.
Possibly that played a part in our thought
- 11
- process.
But I can't -- you know, I can't go back, sir, and 1
12 try and remember what our-thought process was then as to why l-
-(~g q j/
13 we didn't put the exception and deficiency sheet in.
14 Q
Well, one thing that I have been interested in, j.
15 was there any indirect instruction, or almost a feeling,- - that-
!l-16 a flood of these deficiencies wouldn't be favorably received.
17 by, management? 'Was there pressure.to keep-on doing-as you-18 were doing, other than highlighting this deficiency, to the 19 point of making somebody work on?
f 20 A
To my knowledge, no. ~ To management -- I don't l.
21 think that management looked at X number of deficiencies as a 22 problem, you know, and if they had more than X number that 23 was a problem for them.
If there was a problem and a i
24 deficiency sheet should have been there, I don't think 25 management would say:
Hey, don't put it there.
I didn't 4
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
28506.0 BRT~
3669 bj.-s 1
feel that or I was never told that.
c 2
Q Well, apparently it was not uncommon for other 3
surveillance tests, and those that were required by the 4
technical specifications in particular, if there was an 5
exception or deficiency there wasn't any hesitation about 6
identifying it that way.
Is that correct?
7 A
That's right.
There was not.
The E&D sheet was 8
attached to the surveillance.
9 Q
So what's mysterious is why this one particular 10 surveillance test was considered to be outside of 11 administrative procedure 1010.
12 A
Again, I can't -- I don't know why we perceived
()
13 that to be that way.
14 Q
Your answer is the same as the one I have gotten 15 from others.
No.one seems-to know why.
It seems strange 16 because, I quite agree with you about plant swings during 17 start up, but this went on month after month after month, and 18 if there hadn't been the accident, it might have gone on many 19 more months.
20 A
You are talking _about the problems with the leak 21 rate test or the plant swings?
22 Q
The plant swings, apparently got smaller as judged i
23 by the strip chart records which we have in abundance.
24 A
In that -- that ties in.
When you look at the 1
25 plant swing and the time to do the tuning that's required in 4
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37m Nationwide Coserage 80(L33MM6
28506.0 BRT 3670 1
order to get the plant to be a more stable -- to draw a more 1
2 stable line or a straighter line, so to speak, it takes time 3-to do that.
And we did not get that-particular portion of 4
the tuning done.
5 We had secondary plant problems, heater drain 6
tanks, heater levels, those types of things which take time.
7 Sometimes it takes over a year to work those things out.
If 8
you adjust something on one side it will affect the other-9 side and you have to take time to work that out.
10 For example, if I adjust something on the 11 feedwater side it will affect the reactor coolant system 12 temperature, or if I affect the heater level.
And I think
/~T
(,)
13 that was part of the thought process, as to why we had this 14 wide range of numbers.
15 Q
Would you say the plant swings were as frequent on-16 all three shifts?
Or is it possible that perhaps the 17 mid-shift from 11:00 p.m.
to 7:00 a.m.,
there might be less 18 of that because of less people being around to cause plant 19 changee?
20 A
- I don't think that the change in the plant status 21 had anything to do with the number of people around.
It may 22 have had something to do with the surveillances that you were 23 required to run.
That may have caused it.
And typically you 24 do more surveillances on the back shift than you do on the 25 front shift.
-)
v ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Nationwide Coserage 8%3%6M6
28506.0 BRT 3671
(
)
Li 1
Q Well, turning to your prepared statement, look at 2
page 2, third full paragraph.
You express the view in the 3
second sentence:
"Mr.
Floyd relied on the shift supervisors 4
to perform the paperwork part of the job.
His primary 5
concern was the safety of the plant."
6 The implication there is that the paperwork part 7
doesn't have much effect on the safety of the plant.
Was 8
that your intent when you expressed that sort of contrast?
9 A
That the paperwork did not have impact?
10 Q
Yes.
11 A
No.
That's not the intent there.
12 Q
I don't see the distinction.
/n
(,)
13 A
There are many aspects to the job:
The paperwork 14 portion and the actual work portion of that.
A lot of the 15 work was delegated.
Jim delegated a lot of it down to us to 16 assure that we were doing what we were supposed to be doing, 17 which left him free to do other things that he needed to be 18 doing.
Not that one was lesser than the other.
19 Q
Well, the implication here was that Mr. Floyd 20 wouldn't really look at the paperwork part very critically.
21 Was that your intent?
22 ;
A That was not my intent but I don't know how 23 critically Mr. Floyd looks at the paperwork when it leaves 24 the control room and gets to his desk, but that's not what 25 intended to say there.
7s t
)
q)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- m, m_ m_.,
28506.0 BRT 3672
/'N3 AJ 1
Q That's what I was going to go~on to, was whether 2
you had any knowledge of how much review he did of the 3
paperwork?
4 A
No.
The paperwork left the control room and went 5
to his office, which is where he would have reviewed the 6
paperwork.
There.
7 Q
Isn't it true that most of the paperwork simply 8
makes a record of actions that have been taken?
There aren't 9
two distinct kinds of activities, are there?
10 A-I don't think I understand the question.
11 Q
Well, with respect to plant safety and the 12 relationship of-paperwork to plant safety, I get the feeling
)
13 that you felt there was an area of actions'which contributed 14 to plant safety that was separate from the_ paperwork.
15 A
I don't want to give you that impression.
I think 16 the paperwork is a portion of the total picture which then 17-leads to the plant safety aspect.
Okay?
18 Q
I think perhaps the unfortunate apparent contrast 19 of those two sentences -- you did the paperwork and Mr. Floyd 20 worried about the safety.
21 A
No, that's not what that meant.
22 Q
That, obviously, was not your intent.
23 A
Right.
24 0
We have it clear, now, on the record.
25 Turning to page 3 of your prepared statement, the
<-)
/LJ ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37m Nationuide Cos erage mak33MM6 v
___._...,,.m.
28506.0 BRT 3673 rm 1
following page, in the middle of the second full paragraph 2
you start talking about leak rate tests and you say:
3 "My shift would decide whether a test was valid or 4
invalid by looking at plant parameters.
Some of the 5
parameters evaluated included makeup tank level, makeup tank 6
valve position, pressurizer level and reactor coolant drain 7
tank level."
8 First, we haven't had anybody previous to you talk 9
about makeup tank valve position.
Could you help a layman 10 understand what makeup tank valve position has to do with 11 leak rate test?
12 A
That's just another item that you could look at to r~s
( )
13 give yourself another understanding of what is going on in 14 your plant.
15 If you would have an excessive -- a pipe broke and 16 you had a major leak, you could look down at the makeup valve 17 position and see whether it was open or closed; whether it 10 was performing its function.
It's just a parameter he would 19 look at in trying to make an assessment of what was going on 20 in his plant.
Because the water went from the makeup tank.to 21 the pressurizer through the makeup control valve which was 22 l controlled by pressurizer level transmitters.
23 l So that's just another item that he could possibly 24 look at.
l 25 !
Q So that's indicative of the amount of water that rs LJ l
I i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm.,
s_ m_,
m._
28506.0 BRT 3674 (v
-1 is flowing from'the makeup tank back through the system?
2-A Well, you could then look at a flow transmitter to 3
tell you exactly how many gallons per minute.
Okay?
4 Q
Yes.
5 A
But it would tell you that the valve was open.
6 Q
I don't think we have any examples of that, even 7
though we have lots of tests to look at.
8 A
Well, you can't see that written down anywhere.
9 That's just -- it's a meter.
You just look.
i 10 Q
But in terms of a basis for declaring a test 11 invalid, which is what this paragraph was about --
12 A
Well, for example, if the operator got a very
()
13 large positive or a very large negative number -- let's s 14 assume he got a very large positive number, he would expect 15 to see that valve full open.
So as he looked across his 16 board, if he had a number that said 20-gallon-a-minute 17 unidentified leakage and he looked across his board, these 18 are some of the things that he will look at.
That's all.
19 Q
I see.
20 DY JUDGE KELLEY:
21 Q
I'm looking, also, Mr. Hitz, at the middle 22 paragraph of page 3 of your preflied testimony.
And I'm 23 looking at, in one of the contexts is the testimony this 24 morning of Mr. Miller, your foreman.
25 The issue you addressed in the paragraph is O
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
312-347 3701)
Nationuide Conerage NIM %66M
28506.0 BRT 3675 V
1 validation-of leak rate tests, which I understand to mean a 2
process one goes through in order to determine whether the 3
leak rate test result read out on the computer is an actual 4
reasonable representation of real unidentified leakage in the 5
plant.
Is that how you understand the validation conc'ept?
6 A
The way I would interpret validation is to take a 7
look at what was on computer sheet.
If that did not -- if s
8 that was an unrealistic number, to take a look at the plant l
9 parameters to determine if there was a correlation between 10 the two.
11 Q
But what you are looking for in that process, as I 12
' understand it, is some indication of actual leakage at the
()
13 time; correct?
14 A
That's right.
15 Q
And one approach -- and I have heard the testimony 16 from various witnesses to the general effect that they would 17 look at other plant parameters such as the ones suggested 10 here, in an effort to validate the test.
I have also heard 19 other witnesses say they made no attempt whatever to validate 20 the test, in terms of actual leakage; that they would assess 4
21 a leak rate test result very simply:
If it was over 1 gallon 22 a minute, it was invalid.
If it was under 1 gallon a minute, 23 !
and not too far down in the negative range, it was valid.
4 i
24 And that was the end of that.
It was an administrative l
25 requirement and either thrown away or duly filed based on L
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37m Natioriaide Coserage mvA3Em
28506.0 BRT 3676 1
whether you are over or under 1.
2 I would not call that validation myself, would 3
you?
4 A
By strictly looking at the paperwork and then not 5
referring to the plant?
Is that what you are saying?-
6 Q
Looking at a number and seeing whether it is over 7
or under 1.
Period.
Would you think of that as a validation 8
process?
I would not.
I don't want to hide the ball.
9 A
No.
I understand.
I would not think that that is 10 the validation process that I described here; that's correct.
11 Q
Would you think of it as any validation process in 12 the normal connotation of that te,rm?
Validation, again,
)
13 being:
What's the real leakage in this plant?
14 A
Remember, it's a comparison, not -- you can't get 15 an actual figure by looking at what is going on in the 16 plant.
It's a comparison to what you read on paper versus 17 what is going on out there.
10 Q
I understand.
But I understand some operators 19 saying:
When I got a number which for some reason I thought 20 maybe wasn't quite kosher, I would then go look at various 21 things such as the things you mentioned.
22 I understand that at least is an attempt at 23 validating.
How effective it is is another point, but at 24 least it's an attempt.
25 A
Okay.
All right, O
t ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-47. Um Natonaide Cmcrage
- RL34fM6
s 28506.0 BRT 3677
'O
'V 1
Q But if I have just a mechanical process where I j
2 say, " thumbs up" if it's under 1 and " thumbs down" if it's 3
over 1, I wouldn't think of that as validation, would you?
4 A
No.
It's just acceptance of what's on the 5
surveillance staff sheet.
6 Q-Without any further look at anything?
7 A
That's correct.
8 Q
Now, that's essentially what I heard your foreman, 9
Mr. Miller, this morning, say he did.
If it was over 1, he 10 threw it away.
If it was under 1, he kept it.
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
So you are saying here your shift went through
()
13 some validation process.
That's not what he seems to recall.
14 A
.Right.
But that may be the difference between 15 Mr. Miller and what the operators themselves would look at.
16 Okay?
17 Q
Conceivably.
Are you suggesting, then, that when 18 you describe this validation process, that's what people like 19 Coleman and Wright and 01 son were doing?
20 A
That's what I assume they were doing; that's 21 right.
22 Q
Do you know that to be the case?
23 A
I never physically saw them do it that I remember.
24 Q
Are you simply assuming they went through this 25 validation process?
5 4
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 37m Nattoriwide Cmcrage 8vk346M6
28506.0 BRT 3678 m
()
1 A
That's correct.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right..
3 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
4 Q
Well, following along that line, Mr. Coleman in 5
his prepared statement -- have you had a chance to look at 6
that?
7 A
I looked a t it briefly.
8 Q
He describes an occasion where a test result, 9
apparently more than 1 gallon per minute, ended up on the 10 shift foreman's desk.
I presume that was you.
And then he 11 says:
"A short time later" -- I'm sorry.
12 It was put on the shift foreman's desk.
I jumped O(,j 13 a sentence.
"A short time later three people came out of the 14 shift supervisor's office."
I assume you are the 15 supervisor.
Is that a fair assumption or not?
16 A
No, I don't think it is a fair assumption.
I 17 don't remember that incident that Mr. Coleman described.
It 18 depends on when that particular incident took place as to 19 whether or not I was on shift.
Okay?
20 Q
Yes.
21 A
That instance I have no recollection of and I 22 don't know if it happened.
If you say it happened very early 23 :
on in the leak rate process, there's a possibility that I may i
24 i not have been on shift when that took place because I was the 25 newest, at that time the newest shift supervisor.
So I would (v~)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 l?m Nahonw kle Em erage AuL3hNe
28506.0 BRT 3679
,o, m/
1 have been in my training program.
Or I could have been on 2
vacation or covering for somebody else.
But I do not 3
remember that instance.
4 Q
That was the question I was going to come to, if 5
you had any recollection.
6 A
No, sir.
7 Q
Because, apparently, he couldn't remember who it 0
was.
But at least the emphasis made an impression on him and 9
from that day on, they didn't want to see leak rates that 10 exceeded the technical specifications.
11 A
That's right.
It made an impression on him from 12 what I heard and read in his testimony.
()
13 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
14 Q
Well, there is some support that some unidentified 15 person said to Coleman, at that time:
"I don't want to see 16 any more of this shit."
Words to that effect.
17 Now, if it wasn't Miller, the foreman, and it 10 wasn't you, what I find a little puzzling is -- if it wasn't 19 Miller, anyway, you would be the logical person, I would 20 think.
Would some other superintendent tell Coleman --
21 Coleman is not even on his shift.
22 Assuming this is a group of superintendents and 23 foremen who are meeting here -- and we don't have it much 24 more clear than that -- wouldn't you be the logical person if 25 it weren't Miller?
($)
i I
. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
243C )7m Nat ninuide Cm erage M L UW>W
28506.0 BRT 3680 Q
^
v
-1 A
Sir, it depends on what shift we were on at the 2.
time..If we were on a. relief shift Mark could have been 3
working for some other shift or Adam and myself could have 4
been on different shifts, also, working ~a back shift with a 5
different crew.
6 Q
So lacking a way to tie down the time more or less 7
accurately, possibly he was working for somebody else?
8 A
That's quite possible, yes.
9 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
10 Q
Turning to page 6, the first sentence of the first 11 full paragraph, you state:
"I did permit my-shift to file 12 negative leak. rates."
I need a little help.
How did you
()
13 feel that a. surveillance test produced an estimate of 14 unidentified leakage as being some negative quantity gave you 15 any assurance the plant was being operated within the 16 technical specifications rather than just an erroneous test?
17 A
Again, you know, looking at the data that we 18 received, looking at the leak rate and the number that we got 19 there, if you didn't have a major influx or outflux in any of 20 the plant's parameters, you had reasonable assurance you 21 weren't making a lot of water because the plant doesn't make 22 water, and you had reasonable assurance you weren't losing a 23 lot of water because you went having to constantly make up; 24 and so, we felt that some realm in the negative side was 25 possible because of the way the plant was oscillating.
So we O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- nr.~,
m_ ua,-.
- n-huhh h h
28506.0 BRT 3681 i
had -- you know, we felt, at least I felt reasonably 2
comfortable with a small negative number.
3 Q
But didn't that comfort depend on the implication, 4
I think that you just made, that you knew the leak rate 5
wasn't very big?
Totally independent of this test.
This 6
test was really redundant of your knowledge of plant status 7
from the other parameters?
8 A
I don't think it was redundant.
I think it was in 9
addition to.
Maybe I don't have a good handle for that but I 10 think a combination of the two, not relying strictly on what 11 we saw in the plant and just say, okay, here's the leak rate 12 paperwork and it supports what we see in the plant, so to mQ 13 speak.
14 Q
Well, didn't you recognize that the leak rate test 15 was the only quantitative measurement that you had of 16 unidentified leakage?
17 A
The only quantitative surveillance?
That's 18 correct.
19 Q
In the technical specification the requirement is 20 a quantitative requirement.
21 l A
Yes, sir, i
22 l Q
It doesn't say the leakage should be small.
It i
23 l gives a numerical value.
24 !
A That's correct, sir.
25 !
Q So I'm trying to see how a negative test would be
(~)
\\,
~.,
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3e m n.,
som o,m, m.o w,m
28506.0 BRT 3682
-fT Q
1 filed as meeting the surveillance requirement.
I don't 2
question your statement that if you looked at other 3
parameters, you felt leakage wasn't very big, you weren't 4
alarmed by the negative, but I don't see how you felt it was 5-fulfilling-the requirement that actually had any infcreation 6
content whatsoever.
Once again, why it wasn't an exception 7
or deficiency rather than a valid test.
8 A
Right.
9 Q
And it was signed by the operator, approved by the 10 foreman and was used in the file as a demonstration of 11 compliance with the technical specifications.
12 A
You know, I cannot give you a very sound, logical
()
13 reason, other than that it was common practice and that we 14 felt comfortable with a small number but not a very large 15 negative number.
Does it meet the intent of the spec, I 16 guess, is really what your question is?
17 Q
Yes.
And your license.
18 A
That's correct.
Yes.
And --
19 0
It's not unique to you.
Don't misunderstand me.
20 A
No, I understand.
21 Q
I just don't understand, given the thoughtfulness 22 that being licensed should provoke, why negative computer 23 printouts, computer printouts with a negative number, were 24 thought to have any information in them at all?
25 A
I can't -- I can't answer that.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m m. n.,
s.m
..o m,
28506.0 BRT 3683 fi C/
1 Q
Go in the file and say:
Look, I know I'm 2
complying with my license because this piece of paper tells 3
me I know.
That's perplexing to me.
4 A
Yes, sir.
I understand.
I just don't have a very 5
good answer for you other than that it was an accepted 6
practice within a certain band.
7 Q
As an example, this morning with Mr. Miller, there 8
were time periods where -- the best estimates upon 9
retrospective analysis are that there were times when TMI-2 10 did have an unidentified leakage greater than 1 gallon per 11 minute.
Because of the deficiencies in this test, neither 12 you nor anyone else knew it, rr
(,)
13 As an example I went through with Mr. Miller this 14 morning, on the lith of January, they got a negative leak 15 rate, not a large negative number,
.2 when the unidentified 16 leakage was 1.6 gallons per minute based on the very 17 parameters that you are telling me they would be aware of:
18 water additions to the makeup tank, collection of water 19 coming out of the system.
When donc carefully in a 20 quantitative sense, it becomes a conclusion that I haven't 21 heard any rebuttal to yet, that there really was an 22 l unidentified leakage that exceeded the technical i
23 I specifications.
So this notion that by glancing at the plant i
24 '
parameters rather than sitting down with a pencil and paper 25 and looking carefully at it is the basis for deciding that f3 (t -)
l i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i mr.rm s.,w m m,,,
m
28506.0 BRT 3684
.r\\
(1
\\
1 there really wasn't a problem, and, therefore, any small
~
2 number -- any number less than 1 -- that there was no 3
indication from a quick look at the plant parameters met the 4
tech specs, just isn't borne out by the facts.
5 I put these before you because if there's some 6
alternate interpretation I want to be aware of it.
7 A
To my knowledge not, sir.
It's just the way we 8
did business in that time frame.
9 Q
The Commission has asked us whether there's 10 violations of technical specifications and I have a.hard time 11 seeing that this was not.
12 I'm going to belabor this a little bit.
In your
()
13 interview with the Office of Investigation, page 53 -- do you 14 have a copy of that?
15 MR. MC BRIDE:
March 29, 1984, Judge?
16 JUDGE CARPENTER:
I believe so.
I'm not aware 17 that there was more than one.
18 MR. MC BRIDE:
Nor am I.
But you can't remember 19 them all.
20 JUDGE CARPENTER:
In my copy the page numbers 21 aren't very clear, so it may take you a whil, co find it.
22 THE WITNESS:
They are here.
Page s3?
23 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Yes.
24 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
25 Q
Down towards the bottom of page 53 you and the O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-- + c...
28506.0 DRT 3685 p
LY.
1 questioner started going back and forth on this page.
Then 2
you have an answer.
You say:
3
" Answer:
You know, we followed the rules as best 4
we could.
We did what we thought was right."
5 Does that, once again, reflect this failure to 6
think sufficiently?
7 A
I don't think I understand what you mean by 8
" failure to think sufficiently."
9 Q
Well, I don't see how you could have thought that 10 a piece of paper with a negative leak rate was a 11 demonstration the plant was operating within technical 12 specifications.
I don't see how you could have thought (n) 13 that.
So I take it that you just didn't think, when you say 14 you did what you thought was right?
15 A
As --
16 Q
I'm trying to distinguish between a lack of 17 tho 1ght and deliberate falsification.
18 A
Yes.
19 Q
Deliberate mischief.
Not in the sense of 20 l manipulating the test but accepting an invalid test as though 21 '
it were valid.
22 A
If I look at the situation today, as you and I 23 ;
speak, there is no doubt in my mind that any number less than i
24 zero was not a valid test.
Okay?
25 Q
What's the information content of that?
()
I i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- x wxw s.,,,. - ac c ~,c nmn
26506.0 BRT 3686
(")
c 1
A Pardon me?
2 Q
I ask you what the length of that table is and you 3
say it's minus a foot.
What does that tell me?
4 A
It means it's not here.
5 Q
okay.
6 A
Yes, but going back -- knowing what I know now and 7
then going back to 1978, 1979, and living in that time frame, 8
it was accepted -- an accepted practice to use that type of a 9
leak rate as a valid leak rate.
I'm not saying that that was 10 right.
But then I don't know that I knew it wasn't right 11 then.
Today --
12 Q
That's what I was asking you about.
You said we
()
13 did what we thought was right.
And it seems to me maybe you 14 didn't think very much about the leak rate test.
You just 15 accepted whatever the -- your predecessors' habits had been 16 and just followed that habit?
17 A
That's basically correct, yes.
18 As I said, looking at it today and knowing what we 19 know now, we know it's not an accepted practice.
But looking 20 at it then and living in those times and doing the things --
21 being in that atmosphere and knowing that that was an 22 accepted test, it never dawned on me that it wouldn't be an 23 accepted test.
24 Q
In your 1978-1979 experiences at TMI-2, did you 25 ever talk to anybody who had been in another operating U<s ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
e m im, s e.
,m-,,,
mow.
28506.0 BRT 3687 (O_)
.1 reactor and ever raised the issue of whether that was their 2
habit?
Their. custom at another reactor?
3 A
Addressing the leak rates?
4 Q
Yes.
5 A
No.
No.
6 Q
Were there people with experience at other plants 7
whom you talked to at til?
8 A
We had some -- we had, I know of one person that 9
was an auxiliary operator in our plant.
I believe he was an-10 auxiliary operator and had come to TMI.
I don't remember any 11 foremen or supervisors that had previous commercial 12 experience except for maybe Saxton, which is where a lot of
()
13 the peopic were trained before they came to the island.
So 14 we did not kick that type of a problem around with people I
15 that may have operated another unit for an extensive period 16 of time.
At least to my knowledge.
17 Q
So this habit that we have been talking about was 10 sort of homegrown?
It just sort of grew up on the island and 19 there wasn't much infusion of people that might have come 20 from someplace else to say:
Well, we didn't do that where I 21 came from?
22 A
Well, that's true.
That's true.
But I don't want 23 you to -- you know, it would have been nice it we had had 24 somebody in to do that, to kick that idea off of them.
25 Okay?
But there's also -- there are good things about O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-147 3700 Natmnwide Cmerage
- n 116-6M6
28506.0' L
BRT 3688 V('h 1'
growing your own people also.
I don't want to lose sight of 2
that either.
It is bad for this particular situation.
But 3
the company certainly had a thought process --
4 Q
It might be that there's a happy medium.
5 A
Okay.
All right.
6 Q
We are just trying to understand.
I had suddenly-7 been struck with the fact that we had seen person after 8
person; they all seemed to have come up through~the Met Ed 9
system without very much experience with any other commercial 10 reactor, that I've seen so far.
That's something I've seen 11 for today after five weeks that seems to strike me.
Of 12 course people say that was the habit because they hadn't seen
()
-13 any other operating reactor, hadn't been involved with it to 14 have any perspective other than the local perspective?
15 A
Yes.
Outside of the Met Ed family, that's 16 correct.
17 Q
Turning in that same interview to page 72, 18 please?
Beginning in the middle of that page, your question 19 is in regard to hydrogen additions to makeup tank:
"Were you 20 aware that a hydrogen addition to a makeup tank during the 21 leak rate test would affect the leak rate?"
You went on to 22 say "It keeps coming up," and that you were uncertain about 23 it and that you don't remember it very well.
24 Did you ever think -- you said " keeps coming up."
25 Could you give me some feel?
Apparently "it keeps coming up" O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-n,,
- - + c -,.
p 28506.0 BRT 3689 N
,/
1 means post 1979?
2 A
That's correct.
Through the investigations.
3 Q
In the time period 1978 and 1979, do you recall 4
hearing anything about the effect of adding hydrogen from 5
another shift supervisor?
6 A
On leak rates?
7 Q
Yes.
8 A
No, sir, I do not.
9 Q
You never heard it mentioned?
10 A
Not to my knowledge.
11 Q
Well, the lack of communication surprises me 12 because, on other shifts there were shift foremen who did n) 13 tests and observed the effect of hydrogen.
(
14 A
Yes.
15 Q
And even a shift supervisor became aware of it to 16 the point of instructing the people on his shift not to add 17 hydrogen.
But apparently it didn't occur to him to say to 18 his fellow supervisors:
Look what I found.
Maybe you might 19 think about it.
Apparently there was no informal or formal 20 communication.
1 21 A
I don't want to give you impression that I don't 22 know when we add hydrogen that it causes the pen recorder to 23 change.
You know you get fluctuations in the pen recorder.
24 That I certainly understand.
25 Dut how that addition of the hydrogen would affect (Z) i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m um.,
~_
l 28506.0 BRT 3690
(}./
l 1
the'1eak rate, you know, it just doesn't make sense to me 2
that it would.
Yes, you would see the pen recorder go up or 3
down but where the pen recorder stopped after you stopped 4
adding hydrogen, where the pen recorder stopped it just makes 5
sense it would stop right back where it was before you added 6
the hydrogen.
7 Q
Why would you think the pen recorder would respond 8
-- are you saying the response would be confined to the time 9
interval when hydrogen was being added?
10 A
That's right.
You would see --
11 Q
That's not clear in this OI interview.
So I was 12 confused.
()
13 Why would you think it would do anything?
14 A
Well, it depends on where the level tap is and 15 where the hydrogen addition line come9 into the tank.
You 16 understand?
So if it comes in at the top of the tank and you l
17 have a fluctuation in the tank you certainly would see that 10 perturbation in the recorder.
But once you close the valve 19 the perturbation should go away so your pressure goes up but 20 your level would remain the same.
21 Q
Do you think there would be a high pressure spot 22 in the tank when the hydrogen is being added?
23 A
A high pressure spot?
24 Q
For the pen recorder to move it has to be sensing 25 some pressure.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3M)
Nationwide coverage 80t L33MM6
28506.0 BRT.
3691 Dv 1-A Well, it would be seeing the change in pressure.
2 The level-pen now, okay --
3-Q Yes.
4
.A
-- would be seeing the flux -- the change in 5-pressure as just the movement on the pen.
You would be 6
adding hydrogen to the tank which is changing the pressure.
7 But once you were done, the pen recorder should go back to 8
where it was, level pen recorder.
Of course.you have a 9
higher pressure in the tank.
10 Q
Since the level sensor is a differential pressure 11 recorder, why wouldn't an increase in the pressure be 12 reflected on both sides of the sensor, and therefore the
()
13 sensor would respond?
I thought that was the whole purpose 14 of having a differential system.
15 A
For level differential; right?
16 Q
Yes.
Well, no.
To detect level with a system 17 that was insensitive to pressure, in the sense if you 18 increase the gas pressure it would be reflected'on both sides 19 of the sensor and therefore cancel out?
20 A
That's what I'm saying.
The level recorder came 21 back.
It never went up -- it never -- it came back to where 22 it should have been.
You know, it didn't -- level 23 '
indications should not have gone up.
Okay?
At least I 24 wouldn't think it would.
25 Q
Apparently you never observed this?
Did you ever I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Co.<eraFe M U-33MM6
28506.0
~BRT 3692 1
' observe the pen moving when you added hydrogen?
2 A
In Unit 1.
Not in Unit 2.
3 Q
Oh, you did in Unit I?
4-A I used to be an operator in Unit'1.
Control room 5
operator.
So when I would add hydrogen to the makeup tank I 6.
would see the pen wiggle, stop adding hydrogen and the pen 7
stop wiggling.
And that was the end of that.
And the. level 8
never changed.
You know, the level was the same before the 9
pressure -- the hydrogen addition to what it was before the 10 hydrogen addition, to my-recollection.
11 Q
Well, that's once again, very helpful.
It is 12 information that's not in the OI report because we have been J) 13 looking at strip charts in Unit 2 which show if you add 14 hydrogen there is an upward offset that's persistent for 15 many, many minutes.
That's not what you were talking about.
16 You were talking about your observations at Unit I?
17-A That's right.
Because part of the investigation I 18 believe that this was done under was a Unit 1.
19 Q
That's the only background interview I-had for you 20 so that's why I read it while I was watching the football 21 game.
22 A
I understand.
23 Q
I say, those were the only two questions that came 24 out of my review of your interview.
That didn't make any 25 sense to me because it is not the kind of behavior of the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
20L347 37(o Nationwide Cmcrage 8M33MM6 -
28506.0 BRT' 3693 t
I s
1 strip chart pen recorder that we have seen in Unit 2 at all.
2 A
I understand.
3 Q
It just didn't add up.
4 Finally, coming back to your prepared statement, 5
on the seventh page, the sixth line down goes along.
In the 6
middle of the sentence are the words, "The differences 7
between what is acceptable in 1986 and what was" -
"was" 8
underlined -
" acceptable in 1979," you go on, after a comma 9
to say, "because there is a huge learning curve in these 10 years."
11 Is the sense of what you are trying to convey 12
" acceptable to you" or " acceptable to the regulatory agency A) 13 that you have been licensed by"?
Do you think there is a
}
14 difference between -- well, first of all, was it the former?
15 Are you trying to say what was acceptable to you in '79 and 16 what is acceptable to you in 1986?
Or in some way the 17 industry has changed?
18 A
I think that everybody has changed from this 19 experience.
Okay?
20 l I mean if you go back to 1978, the nuclear 21 industry was a tremendously fast-growing industry.
We had a 22 very difficult time getting good supervisors.
People would 23,
get their licenses and go off to other plants that were being 24 h built.
So the industry was in a stage of growth.
And then d
25 l we had the accident.
,s
)
l xs ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mo.
s -_. <-
28506.0 BRT 3694 ps N.)
1 We operated under what we certainly hoped was 2
within the license that we had and did not violate or 3
willfully violate anything.
But I will tell you, I would bet 4
that if you paraded all the operators from Unit 2 through 5
here, they would not throw anything away.
So we have learned 6
from.that and were able to take that to the other places that 7
we go and preach this story.
You understand what I'm 8
saying?
9 Q
Yes.
10 A
Okay?
And I think --
11 Q
But I'm curious to know how you know what the 4
12 practices were and the habits in 1978 and 1979 at other
()
13 places?
14 A
Well, that's -- it's -- it's not what other.
15 places, it's what I experienced at Three Mile Island.
You 16 understand?
Okay.
But then --
17 Q
The sentence doesn't tell me that.
18 A
I understand.
But after you leave there and you 19 get out and you meet other people and you work in other areas 20 and at other facilities, and you intermingle as you suggested 21 would have been a good practice at the island to have 22 somebody else to bounce that idea against, you can see that 23 those people can learn from things that we've learned.
24 Q
No question.
25 A
Okay?
I certainly hope that this is what this is l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3XU Nationwide Coserage 80lk33MM6
r,
'28506.0 BRT 3695 gO.
I all about.
2 Q,
Well, it perplexes me that this leak rate 3
surveillance test, where the technical specification 4
specified a small number, for reasons that, I believe, are 5
described in the FSAR, primarily from the point of view of 6
picking up not a packing leak, not a pump leak -- in 7
particular picking up a crack before it gets a chance to 8
propagate before it causes a pipe break and a LOCA.
That 9
simply wasn't clear to the people at Three Mile Island.
But 10 there was no attempt to change the technical specification, 11 but rather, it was sort of ignored, in the sense of'saying on 12 any shift, when you finished the shift that you knew with
()
13 confidence that the technical specification was being met 14 because of the uncertainty in this test.
Is that a fair
?
15 statement?
16 A
Yes.
I think, you know, in retrospect that is a 17 very fair statement.
Knowing what I know now and going back-18 and looking how we operated then, that's a very fair 19 statement.
20 Q
Well, I'd be surprised if, at other plants, they 21 were having this protracted -- I quite agree with you about 22 the start-up.
It is hard to find steady state when steady 23 state means two chart divisions on a level recorder in an 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
That's a very severe thing.
25 I presume that's one of the reasons why it'only ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j m.m.m>
s.e _ m c _,.
28506.0 BRT 3696 U-1 calls for doing this once every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />; that it might be 2
difficult to do, The author of the technical specification 3
thought it wasn't reasonable to say every shift you have to 4
know what the unidentified leak rate is.
It's a sometime 5
thing when you get the plant in a condition where you really 6
can honestly say I've got steady state, I'm going to add 7
water, I'm going to add hydrogen and I'm going to be all 8
ready and I'm going to be careful about this test.
That 9
whole thrust that I read in the procedure just was totally, 10 as you say, it was, on the island, habit.
It apparently came 11 from Unit 1 to Unit 2:
Run it any time you can.
Just punch 12 the computer and see if you get three cherries.
Like a dimes
()
13 game or a one-armed bandit.
Is that an unfair analogy that 14 it was about that?
15 A
I may have chose different words but I think your 16 meaning is very fair.
17 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you very much.
18 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
19 Q
Just a couple of things, Mr. Hitz.
You say in 20 your prepared testimony on page 2 that you and Floyd worked 21 well together, that "he allowed me to run my shift."
22 A
That's correct.
23 Q
Which is commendable in any supervisor, I think.
24 Let me ask you this:
Did you do the same thing 25 with Mr. Miller?
,f 3 i,/
s_,
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage SUO-33MM6
28506.0 BRT 3697 f8 V
1 A
I would like to hope that I did.
As a shift 2
supervisor, you know, you have two units, Unit 1 and Unit 2.
3 In this particular time frame, we spent most of our time in 4
Unit 2.
Most of our time -- we, the shift-supervisors --
5 because of the just starting up of that unit.
6 I liked to let Adam run his shift, but set his 7
priorities for him just as I would set the priorities for the 8
gentleman that I had in Unit 1.
9 Adam spent a great deal of his time in the plant.
10 That was a rule that I had.
You know, the rule is that the 11 control room operators are licensed individuals, responsible 12 individuals.
Adam Miller was a licensed, responsible
()_
13 individual, and he did not have to stay in that control room 14 eight hours a day.
In fact, I wouldn't stand for it.
15 He was required to take a tour right after shift 16 turnover on 3:00 to 11:00, or 11:00 to 7:00.
Now, sometimes 17 he couldn't do that because of the paperwork requirement on 18 the foremen, but he spent a great deal of time getting a feel 19 for the situation and knowing where the problem areas were in 20 the plant and he directed the activities of that shift.
So I 21 would hope that he felt that I gave him the latitude to do 22 that.
23 Q
So Mr. Floyd would give you the priorities that 24 you should be looking for and you would give Mr. Miller the 25 priorities he should be taking care of?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-34tM6
28506.0 BRT 3698
(
(_/-
1 A
Mr. Floyd's priorities generally come from what 2
are known as a " plan of the day" meeting.
You know?
And 3
then the priorities were split up amongst the three shifts as 4
to who was going to do what or who was responsible for what.
5 But his direction normally focused on things that came out of 6
the plan of the day.
7 Then my direction to the shift foremen focused on 8
what we were going to try to accomplish on the eight-hour 9
time period that we nad at the site.
Whatever those jobs 10 were that came out of the POD.
Okay?
11 Q
Let's talk about this LER a little bit.
You 12 remember the LER, 78-62.
q,j 13 A
I remember it through all the investigations, yes.
14 Q
Evidently, when you say -- you don't recollect the 15 LER itself?
16 A
Well, I don't -- I cannot say to you that,
-17 gentlemen, I remember reading that LER on a certain date at a 18 certain time and it registered with me; no.
But I would have 19 had to have read it because my signature is on the cover 20 sheet.
21 Q
Okay.
So you are saying that you probably read it 22
-- or you did read it, but that you can't remember what you 23 might have done about it because -- can you recall doing 24 anything about it, as far as your shift was concerned?
This 25 is the TMI-2 shift.
g-C ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m_
c-s<,-
. - - x.m.y
28506.0 BRT l
3699 q
V; 1
A Yes.
I understand.
Yes.
2 In direct response to that LER, I cannot remember
~
3 doing any particular different thing than'that we had ever
'4 done before.
I mean nothing jumps out at me and says:
We 5
did this or we did that, because of that LER.
I don't 6
remember doing anything like that.
7 Q
And then Mr. Floyd's communication supposedly came 8
out on the 20th or something like that, of October?
Right 9
after the LER?
10 A
I'm not sure that I know what you are referring 11 to.
12 Q
Well, supposedly he issued a memorandum which
()
13 implemented precisely what the LER said, or rather closely.
14 You don't recall that either?
15 A
I recall looking at a memo that, last night, that 16 Jim wrote.
Okay?
I suspect that that's the memo you are 17 talking about?
18 Q
I suppose.
I didn't read it last night.
19 A
Okay.
20 Q
But, in any event, you cannot recall taking any 21 action on this?
22 A
No, I don't recall the memo; you know, when I read 23 the memo, either.
24 Q
This is something that's very strange.
You are
?
I 25 the shift supervisor and you, evidently, read the thing j
7_
l
\\-)
l l
L ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3NO Nationwide Coserage 800-33M646
l i
28506.0 BRT 3700 i
i 1
because you initialed the attached sheet, but you don't 2
recollect doing anything with it; you don't recollect what 3
was in it or anything like that.
And, specifically, you did 4
not go down the line finding out if anything had been 5
implemented on that.
Is that a fair statement?
That you 6
recall.
7 A
That's a fair statement, yes.
8 Q
Mr. Miller, this morning, told us exactly the same 9
thing, that he must have read it because he initialed that 10 sheet.
But he couldn't recall what was in it and he couldn't 11 recall anything that he did to implement it.
12 A
May I say something?
7m(,)
13 Q
Certainly.
i,.
14 A
Okay.
fou know, that is -- I'm not sure when we t
15 read it.
You know( I say "we," Adam and myself, or all the i
16 other people that 8igned that memo.
But that was probably in 17 a required reading book which, if we had been off of shift 18 for a period.of time, four days, two days, three days, or 4
19 whatever, the4e could have been 10 or 15 documents in that 20 requiz,cd reading list, you know, in addition to that 1
21 partibular document.
So I don't know that that document 22 would have jumped out as more important than another LER, 23 maybe, on the diesel generator.
Does that make sense?
Do 24 you know what I'm saying?
25 Q
Oh, yes.
Things can pile up on you.
7--
(
)
i,_,/
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage 800-3346M6
28506.~0 BRT 3701 p-Q 1:
A Especially if you'are:off and then you come back.
2 Q
If you are off.
That's quite right.
Let me 3
continue.
Then, let's see, Mr. Wright, he.was on your shift, 4
wasn't'he?
1 5
A Yes.
That's correct.
Lynn Wright.
6 Q
If my-memory serves me' correctly -- if it'doesn't, l
7 I'm sure that Mr. McBride will bring-it to my attention -- he 8
evidently read the thing because his initial were on the 9
sheet.
But he can't recall doing anything about it.
Or that 10 anybody from up'above said boo to him about any kind of 11 implementation of.it.
l 12 Mr. Olson we haven't heard from.
All we have.is
! j) 13 his prefiled. testimony.
I don't want to. turn to it, read it, l
l 14.
and see where he evidently did the.same thing.
Then, let's-i-
l 15 see, Mr. Coleman?
h 16 A
Yes.
Mark Coleman.
'17 Q
If my recollection-is correct, he evidently read l.
'18-it, because his initials are on the transmittal sheet -- the
- 19 sign-off sheet, whatever you want to call it.
But he doesn't 20 remember anything that was in it.
And just didn't, I guess',
21 -
pay any attention to it.
22 This seems a bit strange, particularly when it 23 seems to have happened on every shift that we have had on 24 board here, it was written in English, and why there was 25 nobody that picked up on that, I just don't quite ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide CoScrage 80l%336-6M6
28506.0
. BRT 3702.
I~v-l
~1 understand.
And here we have, out of five people, all 2
charged with looking at LERs, I should think, and'nothing 3
. happened.
In fact, Mr. Miller gave us an opinion this 4
morning, I think it was, that it had just been disregarded.
5 And this makes me kind of wonder what the attitude of upper-a 6
management was.
7 Mr. Floyd sends out this thing and nobody pays any 13 attention to it.
If I were Mr. Floyd, I would be more than.
l 9
wrathful if something like that had happened.
10 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Bright, are you suggesting 11 that Mr. Floyd sent out the LER?
12 JUDGE BRIGHT:
He sent out the memorandum.
()
13 MR. MC BRIDE:
He sent'out the memorandum.
.That's 14' correct, sir.
2 15 JUDGE BRIGHT:
I don't know who sent out the LER, 16 Apparently nobody else does, either.
But it is part of the 17 record that'it was sent.
18 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes, sir.
Stier tab 30.
19 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
20 Q
I'm just curious if you have any thoughts about 21 this.
It seems a little strange to me.
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
Can I ask a question about this 23 just so we are clear on the record?
I'm not completely sure f-24 th'at I am.
25 There's the LER itself which is typed on the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i M-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80fk3M-S86
28506.0 BRT 3703 t
/
1 form.
Then there's something which is called " narrative to-2 LER78-62."
Is that what we mean by the memorandum?
3 MR. MC BRIDE:
No, sir.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
No.
That's part of the LER.
5 Fine.
What's the memorandum, then?
6 MR. MC DRIDE:
The memorandum you will find in 7
several places, by now, I think, in the record.
Among other 8
places, if you look in Stier volume V-C, tab 37, the 9
attachment to Mr. Floyd's letter to Chairman Palladino is his 10
" Operations Memorandum 2-78-19."
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
The Floyd memorandum -- I remember 12 a Floyd letter.
Is that what you mean?
()
13 Mil. MC BRIDE:
It's attached to Mr. Floyd's 14 letter.
15 JUDGE KELLEY:
Excuse me just a minute.
16 (Discussion off the record.)
17 PR. MC BRIDE:
I might tell you by the way, the 18 index to that volume of Stier is incorrect.
It tells you 19 that memorandum is in tab 34 but in fact it is not.
20 (Discussion off the record.)
21 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, just to make it 22 clear, earlier what we were talking about was the LER, and it 23 is my understanding that the narrative went with the LER.
24 They both went to the operators and to the Commission.
25 JUDGE KELLEY:
That's my understanding also.
7--o ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationeide Cos erage an3E6M6
E
/28506.0 c
BRT.
-3704
- /~y L.
7 i.
1 Always had gone with~it.
2 MR. MC BRIDE:
That's my understanding..
In two 3'
.different versions, by the way.
You'll recall our exchange 4
on that.
5-
. JUDGE KELLEY:
Yes.
Different versions went to p
6 the employees as opposed to the NRC.
Slightly different, 7
anyway.
8 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes, sir.
l 9
JUDGE KELLEY:
The memorandum we are talking about 10 isidated October 20, '78?
11 MR. PKL BRIDE:
Yes, sir.
12' JUDGE KELLEY:
Directed to the Unit 2 shift
'.f )
13 supervisors and foremen.
Directed, as I. understand it, to 4
14
" rounding off."
15 MR. MC BRIDE:
That's paragraph-1, sir.
If you 16 look at paragraph 2 and 3, you'll see it also bears on the l.
17 other hand, the issues you have been inquiring about.
i 18 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
That helps.
That's separate l
19
-- then, separate and distinct from that you've also got this' i
l 20 sign-off sheet; is that correct?
21 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes, sir.
l.
1!2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
I'm sorry for 23
- interrupting.
I for one was confused.
i l
24 MR. MC BRIDE:
If you turn in the same volume to l
25 tab 30 you'11'see the document to which I earlier made l<
L O.
l-I t
I:
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
V n w.
c
28506.0 BRT 3705 m
(
,i
'tJ 1
reference.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Tab 30 has the sign-off sheet, the 3
LER, okay, and some other stuff.
4 MR. MC BRIDE:
Then if you look at tab 29 you'll 5
see the version that, as I understand it, went to the 6
Commission.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
The cover letter from Herbein.
8 Okay.
That orients me somewhat.
I hope I haven't confused 9
things too much.
Go ahead.
10 JUDGE BRIGHT:
11 Q
Let's see, where were we?
Except for people being 12 on vacation or what was this litany of ways that some poor
,9
! j 13 devil didn't get the word?
Vacation?
And it would be way s
14 down deep in his pile?
Or -- go ahead.
15 A
Okay.
This was probably in what is known as a 16 required reading book, which is one of the books that you had 17 to look at when you assumed the shift.
So it wouldn't -- you 18 know, when you say it's in a pile underneath his "in" basket, 19 that's probably not the case.
It was probably in his book.
20 And they would stay in the book until everyone had signed it i
21 l off.
Okay?
So when you assume the shift you go through and 22 any documents that are in the required reading book that you 23 are required to read, you read them and you initial.
So it 24 would be in that book, not in an "in" basket somewhere, which 25 is what I think you were alluding to.
s
(
)
FJ l
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2024 47-3700 Natlonwide Coterage Mk336W46
-28506.0 BRT 3706 (3
Q) -
1 Q
Well, I assumed that when they put it in they 2
don't put it in their own notebook.
If they have a notebook 3
of required reading, they will put stuff in from the front or 4
.the rear?
When you open it up do you see what was fresh 5
yesterday?
Or do you see what happened two or three weeks 1
6 ago that you hadn't had a chance to --
7 A
Usually it was the latest document that was put in 8.
on top.
9 Q
That's what I meant by being.down in the pile.
10 A
Okay.
All right.
11 Q
Well, I guess there's no real use to belabor this 12 anymore.
It just seems strange to me that here are four or s
. ( )
13 five people -- in fact, many more that we have had -- they
/s 14 have all read it because they have initialed that sheet.
15 None of them recall what it said and none of them did 16 anything about it.
And I just wondered if you had any idea 17 how this would be?
Did everybody go on vacation at once?
18 It's possible, I suppose --
19 A
No, sir.
That's not true.
20 Q
Well, let's drop it.
21 Just one other thing.
I'll subject you to the 22 same catechism that I have everyone else.
During your 23 training -- and this includes hands-on, it includes
~
24 classroom, simulator, whatever -- were you ever given a very 25 good idea of the safety significance of this leak rate test?
s-T
-l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationw k!e Coserage fuU-3346646
28506.0 BRT 3707 1
What it was designed for?
2 A
Let'c talk about training in general, okay, for a 3
second?
Then we'll get to that.
4 As you prepare yourself, you know, to take your 5
exam or to "requal," there are certain things you study.
Or 6
if you are in a license class there are certain things you 7
study.
Of course one of the things you study is tech specs.
8 That tech spec is one, of course, of many tech specs that are 9
in there, so it will be addressed in that portion of your 10 training.
Not just the spec itself but the basis for the 11 spec and, you know, what the reason is for the basis.
12 So in that regard, yes, you do get training in
,,)
(,
13 tech specs.
It's not an in-depth sort of thing.
Look, you 14 need to know the tech specs, here's the basis for the tech 15 specs, and it becomes more of a memorization type of thing 16 for some folks than it is to what the real consequence of 17 that thing is.
18 So it is training in tech spec.
But to look at 19 the leak rate itself; no.
There's really nothing that 20 identifies right on the leak rate:
We are going to hammer 21 this thing home for two days or something like that.
But 22 th3re is training in general.
And specifically on that, when 23 you talk about tech specs.
24 Q
Well, the point that I was thinking of, it would 7-25 take about five minutes to hammer it home, it seems to me.
i%)
h ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 371v1 Nationwide Cos erage ikB33Mt46
L28506.0'
~BRT 3708'
,r3 i-
\\ J.
1 A.
That's_true.
I mean you may.have aftwo-hour class 2
on tech specs. -And that's about the time frame you would 3
spend on that spec.
That's right.
Okay?
Both the spec _and 4
the basis for the spec.
5
-Q And would it ever be brought'out that the 6
quantified leak rate test actually has a safety significance, 7
it's not just a bureaucratic requirement?
-8' A
Well, the training -- what you would look at is, 9-when you study 1the bases for-the leak rate spec, is what are 10 the things you are looking for?
And it talks about i
11 sensitivity of radiation monitor systems and things like b
12 that; okay?
Or it talks about looking at such levels and
{ ()
13.
different levels and things like that.
That's the way it was 14 addressed.
Okay?
It.came from that aspect and not -- not 15 from the aspect, you know, of the variances in the numbers or I.
16 anything like that.
17 Q
Were you ever acquainted with the -.some of the-4 18 basis properties of-the stainless steel that the primary i
19 piping was principally composed of?
Particularly your big i
l 20 pipes?
21 A
You are talking about intragranular stress.
i
~
22 corrosion and that sort of thing.
1-23 Q
That is part of it; that is something that can l
24 cause cracking?
1 25 A
Sure.
3 i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Narlaawide Coverage an336-6M6 j
,.,,..,,.c
,,._.v.,
-.. ~.
s,.
28506.0' BRT.
3709 O
.v 1
Q The' question was, if it causes cracking you've got-2
.a hole in the system; right?
i
[
3 A
_That's correct.
4-Q Were you ever told why it was advisable'that.if 4
5 you had more than an unidentified leak. rate of 1 gallon per 6
minute, you better find that leak or you better start-7.
shutting the plant down?
That may be a little turgid there, 8
but I was trying to get you to tell me what you. knew about' i
9' it, rather-than me telling you.
?
10 A
Sure, the leak rate spec had various numbers in 11
.it, the leakage specification had.various numbers in them,.
i 12 and one of them was a boundary, you know, a boundary' leak or
()
13 a crack like you are talking about,-nonisolable-type leak ~.
14 And then of course there's the unidentified leakage' portion 15 of that spec also.
The way I remember the spec.is, if you 16 had_a crack that, you know, there was no._-- the number for 1
I 17 that was zero.
That was like a boundary leak.
You couldn't t
i 18 isolate it.
So there was-action statements you had to take I
19 for that.
So that was not --
t-20 It could be identified.
But if it's out of a 21 crack or a weld, the spec for that is zero, not 1.
That's-22
'the point I'm trying to make.
23 Q
Well, yes.
24 A
But, you know, if you have identifie'd leakage or
?
25 unidentified leakage that you can't find and -- but you know O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 4 &-3700 Nationaide Cmcrage 8@3364M6
28506.0 BRT 3710 g
-V 1
it's not in a crack, it's just unidentified, you can't. find 2
-it, then the spec of course is more.
3
.Q You say you know-it's not in a crack?
4 A
That's'right -- well, you don't know where it is.
5 I'm'saying.if I know it's in a crack then I've got a specific' 6'
action I've got to take.
7 Q
That's true.
8 A
But if it is not -- if it's unidentified, I also 9
have an action I have to take but the number is different.
10 That's all I'm saying.
11 Q
Are there places in that plant that you can expect
.12 it will?
Are there any places in the plant where the primary
().
13 piping, for example, cannot be inspected for leaks?
14 A
Primary piping?
I 15 Q
Yes.
~
16 A
Yes.
Inside the D ring.
If you are in power you 17 are not to go in there.
18 Q
I have heard of some plants engaged in vicious 19 debates, where they have piping that is encased in concrete 20 placements and they cap't be inspected.
Is there anything 21 like that at Three Mile Island?
22 A
Well, pipes penetrate walls, you know.
23 Q
I guess my point is -- and I don't think I want to 24 belabor it any further -- there are places where you can't 25 see if it is a big leak or a small leak in primary piping.
j-v ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M 347-3700 Nationuide Coserage 8(XK3366646
-28506.0 3711 4
%./
1 A
That's right.
2 Q
At least it's extremely difficult to.
And so the 3
main thing you have to depend on is that leak rate test --
4 A
That's correct.
5 Q
-- so determine if that condition exists.
If you 6
can't find it anywhere else, then you play it safe.
Is that 7
right?
8 A
That's correct.
9 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Okay.
Well, that's fine.
Thank 10 you.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
Why don't we take a short break in 12 the expectation that we will be through with our questions
(
13 briefly after coming back and then we'll have' follow-ups.
I 14 think we'll be able to let Mr. Hitz go within the hour, 15
- anyway, 16 MR. MC BRIDE:
Thank you.
17 (Recess.)
18 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
19 Q
I have two or three kind of narrow areas where I 20 have questions.
I think these areas are all areas we have 4
21 already spoken to to some extent with the other witnesses, 22 but they are really kind of follow-up questions in those same 23 areas.
24 First, on the subject of the phenomenon that's 25 described at some length at various places in our record, the O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 Nationwide Coscrage 800-336-6M6
,.. -.. -3700
28506.0 BRT-3712
. fw)
. (G 1
way in which a hydrogen addition could affect the strip trace 2
-- strip chart trace recorder in Unit 2 -- maybe it was 3
different in Unit l'-- but the testimony is to the effect --
4 and this is from several different witnesses and I'm going to 5
just characterize it briefly -- that at certain times, not 6
always, but at certain times when you added a shot of 7
hydrogen toward the end of a leak rate test there would be an 8
offset in the trace and the trace, in effect, would say 9
there's more water in the tank than there really was so that 10' you would get, as a result of the computation from the 11 computer, a lower leak rate.
This is sometimes referred to 12 as the loop seal phenomenon.
Does that ring a bell with
()
13 you?
Have you come to hear that phrase, at least since the 14 accident?
15 A
Since the accident.
16 Q
So you know what I'm referring to?
17 A
Yes, I do.
18 Q
Okay.
Now, I think you indicated earlier, I'll 19 just ask you again, prior to the accident were you aware that 20 a hydrogen addition could have that effect?
21 A
No, sir.
I did not know that it would affect the 22 leak rate.
23 Q
Do you know, or at least did you know Mr. Joseph 24 Chwastyk?
_25 A
Yes, I do.
g I
\\
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tc 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80ik336-6646 l
-28506.0
-BRT-3713 0
1 Q
He was also a shift supervisor at that time?.
2-A Yes, he was.
3 Q
Do you recall -- well, what was your relationship 4
with him?
Was he a person that you had any particular.
5 contact:with other than perhaps relieving on a shift?
Or 6
vice versa?
7 A
Other than a work relationship, do you mean?
I 1
8 mean he was a shift supervisor.
9 Q
He-was a shift supervisor.
Did you have any_
10 relationship with him other than work rela'tionship?
I'll ask 11 it that way.
12 A
We were friends, yes.
()
_13 Q
To some extent off the job, off:the site?
i 14 A
Oh, yes.
Sure.
15 Q
Do you recall his ever discussing with you this 16 hydrogen phenomenon that we have.been talking about, i
17 preaccident?
Discussing that with you preaccident?
18 A
No, sir, I don't remember any discussions,-you 19 know, with anyone about how the hydrogen would affect the 20 leak rates.
21 Q
Do you think it's possible you could have had such 22 a discussion and you've forgotten?
23 A
Sure, that could be possible.
24 Q
I bring this out, I don't know whether you are 25 aware of it or not.
Mr. Chwastyk was here last Friday.
And ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage an336-ms6
,.-.,,-,--., _,.. -.. _. _ _,..., - - - _ -,, ~.., -. _.,_ _ _.. -., _...
28506.0 BRT 3714 Q
1 we talked about various things but one was this loop seal 2
phenomenon associated with hydrogen and also he testified 3
that he did become aware of the phenomenon, certainly 4
preaccident.
Then we spent some time trying to figure out 5
when and we probably figured out -- he probably agreed it was 6
late February
'79.
But, in any case, he tes tified that he at 7
first couldn't_ understand why that would happen; that he 8
talked with -- is I&C the right acronym?
9 A
I know what that means, yes.
10 Q
The engineering people come around, they blow out 11' the reference leg -- they did that more than once, 12 apparently.
And Mr. Chwastyk recalled that as being a matter
()
13 of great interest.at the time.
I believe he said that he 14 thought, in response to a question, that all the other shift 15 supervisors would have known about this.
Does that ring any 16 bells now that I described it that way?
17 A
No, sir.
It does not.
18 Q
He didn't say, as I recall, he talked to you 19 specifically, or anybody else specifically except the 20 engineers.
But he did make a rather inclusive statement 21 about shift supervisors.
That's the reason I wanted, really, 22 to ask you about it.
Okay.
23 shifting topic, this is just a small point.
You 24 were talking to Judge Bright.
The point came up, sort of by 25 the by rather than the central point but it had to do with ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-371)
Nat toriwide Coserage MXh334 M
- 28506.0 BRT 3715
.fwU 1
time spent at Unit 1 and Unit 2.
I believe that you 2
indicated that there were significant chunks of time when you 3
would have spent most of your time at 2 because it was in 4
start-up, in
'78, I take it.
5 A
That's correct.
6 Q
But the period of time that is of -- I won't say 7
"most" interest, but great interest to us here is the period 8
of the last three months or so before the accident, the '79
{
9 time frame.
10 Now, in terms of '79 when you were a shift 11 supervisor, how would you characterize your division of time 12 between Unit 1 and Unit 2?
()
13 A
That's a difficult question to answer so let me 14 explain to you why.
15 In-January, February, March time frame, in Unit 1, 16 we were in an outage, a refueling outage.
17 Q
Right.
Right.
18 A
-And we then split the duties between the shift 19 supervisors.
I believe we had two shift supervisors working 20 down at Unit 1 covering the outage and we had four in Unit 2, 21 covering Unit 2, which meant three were on duty and one was 22 off all the time.
So, if you go back and check some of the 23 records for the refueling outage logs, you'll find that 24 several days -- and I don't know if it's weeks or days, 25 because I cculd not come up with that -- you will find that I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationw Rie Coverage 800-33MM6
28506.0 BRT 3716 J
1 was down at Unit I working the outage and then you will find 2
that I was at Unit 2, working at Unit 2.
So it's hard for me 3
to say in that time frame how much time I spent in Unit 1 and 4
how much time I spent in Unit 2.
5 Q
But, if I understand you correctly, the six 6
supervisors would continue, each of them, to work at both 7
units?
8 A
Well, that's true.
We rotated through a shift, 9
four shift supervisors in Unit 2 and two shift supervisors in 10 Unit 1.
11 Again, I would think that a guy would spend a week 12 or two weeks or more running the outage because of
()
13 continuity, and his responsibilities.
So that would mean you 14 spent all of your time at Unit 2.
15 Q
After that?
16 A
During the refueling outage.
Let me go back and 17 explain.
Okay?
19 January Unit 1 and Unit 2 were both on line.
19 Sometime in February, I believe, we took Unit 1 off the 20 line.
Two shift supervisors were then assigned to Unit 1.
21 They never came to Unit 2.
They stayed in Unit 1.
22 Q
For how long?
23 A
That's the part that I don't know.
I don't know 24 if it was a week, two weeks, three weeks.
I can't answer 25 that.
I don't know the answer to that.
73 I
J v
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 371)
Nationwide Cos erage Rtk33MM6
28506.0 BRT-2717 I
.J 1
Q Could it have been from the beginning of the 2
outage until the accident at Unit 2?
3 A
No.
Because if you look at the refueling outage 4
log, you will see that some of the people signed in on the 5
log and that different people signed in different days.
So 6
people rotated through there so they were not there from the 7
beginning of the outage until the time of the accident.
8 Q
All I'm really trying to find out is whether some 9
disproportionate period of your time in early '79 was spent 10 at Unit 1 on the outage.
11 A
Some of my time was in Unit 1 on the outage.
12 That's correct.
(
13 Q
But was it disproportionate in relation to the 14 amount of time you wculd have spent at Unit 1, just running 15 the unit when it was up?
16 A
No.
When the unit was up, when Unit 1 and Unit 2 17 were up, I spent most of my time in Unit 2.
18 Q
During the start-up, I thought?
19 A
Well, during the start-up and also into January 20 and, if I wasn't down at Unit 1, the February time.
21 Q
So up to the accident, apart from this period when 0
22 you were down for refueling at Unit 1, more of your time 23 would have been spent at Unit 2?
24 l A
That's correct.
25,
Q If that became significant, I would hope the
[s tj t
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage 800-336-t446
28506.0 BRT 3718
.,C 1
record could tell us, in terms of various documents, who was 2
where at a given time.
We could probably figure that'out.
.3 Okay.
4 A couple of questions about this LER we have 5
talked about some already.
6 What was your understanding at that time, let us 7
say prior to the LER, about the-72-hour requirement?
And by 8
that I mean the tech spec requirement that says:
Get a valid-9.
leak rate every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
What was your understanding about 10 that requirement and what you thought you had to~do, if 11 anything, when you got a bad leak rate during the 72-hour 12 period?
n) i 13 A
hs I remember, it seems to me that the 14 understanding would have been'that we were required to have a 15 leak rate that met the tech specs within a 72-hour time 16 frame.
17 Q
Okay.
Step 1.
I'm with you so far.
18 A
And then, if we did, if we've got that leak rate 19 and now we are running other leak rates --
20 Q
Right.
21 A
They were not within compliance with the tech 1
22 spec, okay?
23 Q
Right.
24 A
You obviously did not have a leak.
You know, it 25 didn't show -- it showed a 5-gallon-a-minute leak rate, but O~
l 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
\\
.~
-- + c-.n
28506.0 BRT 3719 O,.~
1 it was fairly obvious to you'that you-didn't have a 2
5-gallon-a-minute leak rate by looking at your plant 3
parameters as I talked about before, you could throw that 4
leak rate away.
5 So you were required to have a valid leak rate or 6
a leakfrate within the spec within a 72-hour time frame.
If I exceeded the 72-hour time frame and did not have a' leak 7
8 rate that met the tech spec, I was then into the action 9
statement.
i 10 Q
If you exceeded 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
~11 A
That's correct.
12 Q
What about the case though where -- I agree that
-( ) _
13 the 5-gallon-a-minute, that's easy, because you look at that 14 and say there's got to be something wrong with this and it 15 probably wouldn't be too hard to throw that out.
Or at least i
16 that would be your immediate reaction, I suppose.
17 What about the situation where.you get a good leak 18 rate at noon on Monday and that would mean that you had to 19 get your next' good one at noon on Wednesday; right?- In fact, 20 Thursday -- three days.
You've got to Thursday to get 21 another. good one; right?
You could, if you want to, sit on 22 your hands and not run another test until 11:00 on Thursday; 23 if.you were feeling lucky you could do that; right?
24 A
That's correct.
g-4 25 Q
What if, though, 8:00 on Monday you run another
, u ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage W G 336 W e
._,,m
~. - - _.. _
e 28506.0
-BRT 3720
~/T
's / -
1 leak rate and it says 1.2 gallons per minute.
And you take a 2
look irt the plant parameters and you don't see anything 3
obviously wrong with the test.
Did you have to go into the 4
action statement then, in your view?
5 A
It was my understanding that our philosophy at 6
that time was not to go into the action statement but to 7
discard the leak rate.
8 Q
Right.
Okay.
And that is the understanding that 9
I have heard from most witnesses.
That's consistent with 10 that.
11 The LER we have been talking about, does that 12 express to you a different interpretation of these
)
13 requirements?
Take a look.
Have you got a copy of it there?
14 A
No.
Not here.
15 JUDGE KELLEY:
Maybe your counsel could provide
'16 you with one.
17 MR. MC BRIDE:
I ji'st happen to have it.
I've put 18 before him the version that's in tab 30 of volume V-C, Judge 19 Kelley.
Do you want him to see the three-paragraph narrative 20 or one-paragraph narrative?
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
I'll look at the paragraph which is 22 the same in both versions.
If you want to direct the 23 witness' attention to other parts, that's fine, too.
But 24 what I'm after, frankly, is this.
25 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
m ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
20L347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8%336-6M6
1 1
28506'.0 BRT.
3721-
- ; -e
,A Look at the last paragraph-of the. narrative.
It
+
i,.
1 Q.
2
.says, "The appropriate personnel will.be instructed on the 4_
~
3
- requirements 1of the applicable sections of the tech specs, 4
'and the requirement to immediately invoke applicable action 5
statements when the provisions of the limiting conditions of 1
6 operation are not met."
'7-That'isn't1the clearest statement I have ever 8~
'.I=would immediately grant 1you that.
But does_that not seen.
9
-indicate-that when you get asleak rate test that's over !
10 gallon you are in the action statement immediately?
Is that 11-what that suggests?
Or not?
12 A
.Yes.
It leads me to th'at impression, that that's:
-(f I
13 what that'means.
14 Q
What strikes me is.that this LER, albeit somewhat
} "'
- 15 elliptica11y--- it's not the greatest prose you'll ever read h
16 seems to.say, seems to express a radically different 17, interpretation of the' tech spec requirement.
Here it is that 18 you are going along in 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, it doesn't matter what else 19 you get.
Then you get the LER that says as soon as you get I
20 one bad one you are in'the action statement.
That's a pretty 21 big change, isn't it?
~~
i-22 A:
Yes, it is.
23 0
Yet this LER didn't seem to have any effect on 9'
m 24.
anybody?
Including the shift supervisors, foremen, CROs.
25
" T'h'a t 's the fact that I find hard to understand.
Not that
'.,()
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
~
202 Nationwide Coserage 8 4 336-6646 347-3 700. _,. _ _ _
28506.0 BRT 3722
. f3) q.
1 it's another LER.
There's lots of those.
But the fact that 2
this is a pretty big change in how you do business, as I see 3
it.
4 Again, it would-be better if-it were spelled out 5
-more clearly than it is but'it seems to say that.
And if 6
along comes an LER that really does have seeming major impact 7
on the way you do business, how does it come about that 8
nobody seems to react to it that way?
I 9
A I don't have an answer for you, sir.
You know, I 10 can't answer that.
I don't know.
11 Q
Did you, as a shift supervisor -- maybe you can 12-help me out a little on allocations-of responsibilities
- f~
13 here.
Did you, as shift supervisor, as you view it in 14 retrospect, have any particular. responsibility for seeing to 15 it that your foremen and your CROs, not only read or 16 initialed these things but actually understood them and 17 implemented them?
Whose job was that?
18 A
You are talking about what I know today in 19 retrospect?
20 Q
What you thought at.the time is really the main 21 point.
Was it part of youl' job to see to it, if a seemingly 22 significant LER came through the process, and into your "in" I
basket or however it came to your attention in the required 23 24 reading folder, did you have any responsibility, as you saw 25 it, to see to it that people under you reacted to it?
O, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 4 47-3700 Nationwide Coserage Nn33MM6
. ~.. -. -
28506.0-
.BRT 3723 t3 U
1
-Understood it?
2 A
I believe that I was totally; responsible for the 3
people 1that were on my shift and their actions.
That is my 4
responsibility as a senior licensed individual on the site.
5 That's what I was paid to do and that's what I had' hoped that-6 I was doing properly.
7
~It is obvious to me that we did not do that 8
properly.
I did not do that properly.
9 But, no, that was my responsibility.
It did not 10 belong to Adam Miller, it did not belong to the Unit 1 shift 11 foreman.
That is what I was paid to do, to make sure that 12 they understood and operated within the rules of the license
( )'
13 and their license.
It is quite clear to me that.I didn't do 14 that quite properly.
15 Q
Do you recall, in that. specific connection, what 16 you just stated about your view of your responsibility at the 17 time?
Was that a view that you would have had simply by 18 virtue of the nature of the job?
Or,--for example, to give a 19 contrasting possibility, would somebody like Floyd come along 20 and say:
Now, make sure all your people know about these 21 LERs?
Ilad that particular duty ever been imposed on you by 22 anybody?
23 A
I can't remember a situation where they would 24 impose it upon me.
Again, I don't think anybody should have 25 to impose that upon me.
r NJ ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwidc Coverage 800-336-6646
...... - ~.. - - -
--,-n
.-n.-,
c,
1 28506.0 BRT 3724
/~s U-1 You know, I feel that that was my responsibility.
2 Q
I'm not quarreling with that at all.
3 A
Okay.
And everyone does things differently, too.
4 I mean each shift supervisor may feel that his 5
responsibilities start and stop somewhere else.
It wasn't 6
just the operations people that we were responsible for.
We 7
were responsible for the site:
That includes maintenance,.
8 health, physics, security, everything.
9 Q
As a shif t supervisor art the time, again, did you 10 have -- see we in the Federal Government usually have 11 something called a job description.
It is an actual piece of 12 paper which spells out the things we are supposed to do.
A-(,)
13 Often the stuff we actually do doesn't have a great deal of 14 relationship to the piece of paper but at least, you know, 15 that's one place you can look.
Did you have a job description that pertained.to 16 17 your job, sort of spelled out what you were supposed to do?
4 18 A
Yes.
I did.
I don't think there's a man on this 19 earth that can meet those job specs, okay?
That's how job 20 specs are written.
But there were a set of job specs.
21 Q
There is a set somewhere.
I don't know that we 22 need them in the record --
23 A
Yes.
24 Q
-- I don't think we have them, but there is a set 25 of job specs somewhere?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage SN3%S16
l 28506.0 BRT 3725 7
A_/
1 A
Yes, there are,' someplace.
2 Q
But the idea that you and I were talking about
-3 here, I gather,'doesn't necessarily flow from the job specs 4
11 but from your own concept of the job as you saw it; is that 5
correct?
6-A That's correct.
My. responsibilities.
7 Q
We have a few follow-up questions that come from 8
counsel.
9 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
10 Q
Staff has one question.
It relates to your 11 prefiled testimony.
12 On page 4 of your prefiled testimony you state
()
~
13 that you have no knowledge of-any operator " willfully 14 cheating on leak rate tests."
Do you see that on page 1?
15 MS. WAGNER:
Near the bottom of the page;.
16 THE WITNESS:
At the bottom of the page?
Yes.
17 The statement says, "I have no knowledge of any operator.
18' willfully cheating on leak rate tests."
19 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
i 20 Q
Right.
The question is -- there's two parts.
The-l 21 first part:
What does the use of the word " willfully" 22 indicate in your testimony?
23 A
That he intentionally knew that he was falsifying 4
24 a leak rate.
For example, he would add 500 gallons of water
~
25 and not put in to the computer program that he added 500 4
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80()-33 4 686
s
-28506.0
'BRT.
3726
(~T
$_j-1 gallons of water.
2 Q'
LThe second part, do'you have knowledge of_another 3
form of cheating that might not involve wi11 fulness?
4l
~A No, sir.
5
.Q Thank.you.
6 Turning to' questions submitted by counsel; it 4
7 begins with a foundation statement.
8 The NRR report states, page 5 of enclosure 11, i
9 discussing Adam Miller, "while Mr. Adam Miller was not 10 directly involved in.the actual conduct.of the tests and his E
11.
statements that he'did not order or direct the manipulation 12 of tests-are credible and are supported by operator's-()
13-
. testimony, it-is not plausible'that Mr. Miller was unaware 14 that~ leak rate test manipulations were taking place on his 15 shift."
l 16' The question is, the first one is: LIs it 17 plausible to you that Mr. Miller was unaware of leak rate-18 test manipulations on his shift?
Manipulations were 19 occurring.
Is it plausible that Mr. Miller was unaware of 20 it?
1 1
21 A
I think -- if we go back to some of my testimony 22 carlier today, you will remember that one of the rules that I' 23 enforced on the shift for both of my shift foremen were that 24 they spend a tremendous amount of time in the plant because 25 that is where they would get the feel of what is going on.
i O e
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coscrage 80rk33MM6
28506.0 BRT' 3727 c.b
~
l' The situation in Unit 2, a freshly' started up new 2
unit, certainly had its share of steam leaks and things that 3
were not quite finely tuned.
. Adam spent a tremendous amount 4.
of his tine out of the control room.
To the' point where he 5
may have had to come back into the control room, find the 6
on-coming shift foreman there, relieve the on-coming shift 7
foreman,.and then complete his paperwork.
8 So if he wasn't there a great deal of the time, 9
there certainly could have been things that had happened that 10 Adam had no knowledge of.
11 So, yes, it is plausible that he did not'know what 12 was -- that something of that nature had happened.
A)'
13 Q
The second question, having worked with
(_
14 Mr. Miller, please state your opinion of Mr. Miller as an 15 operator and a person.
It doesn't'give us any frame of 16 reference, so I guess you are free to comment where you
.17 choose.
18
-A Let's talk about Adam Miller as the operator 19 first.
Okay?
Then we'll talk about Adam Miller as-a 20 person.
21-I don't know of another shift foreman in either 22 unit that knew as, about his plant and as much about what was 23
-- what the tech spec requirements were and the procedure l
24 requirements were than Adam Miller.
I spent a tremendous 25 amount of time with that individual on shift.
(1) t ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 4 47 Nationwide Coverage M3%6M6
~.____..-._.___..__,._,.,__._._-3XO. _ _,..
_.. _. ~.., _ _. _. _ _,
28506.0 BRT 3728
/b
-V
.1
'When you work 8, 10, 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />'a day with a guy, 2
you get to know them better than their wife-knows them.
And 3
you learn things'about them.
4 Adam Miller -- I can remember two specific 5
instances where we had a plant run back, and Adam Miller was 6
sure that we were in an action statement on a: tech spec that 7.
no one else even thought about or could imagine.
And 8
spending some time in the tech. specs', he was able to pull
.9 that out.
That's the type of individual we are talking about 10 here.
11 He just -- I guess the best way that I could-12 explain this is that trying to slip something by Adam Miller
()
13 is like trying to slip dawn past a rooster.
Do you know what 14
.I mean?
He had a real good teel for those 'eople-and that p
15 unit.
He know what was going on.
16 I believe that if Adam knew that -- what was 17 happening was wrong, he would have questioned me on that.
18 Adam took great pride in questioning me.on a lot of things.
19 And that was his nature.
He would not willfully do anything 20 wrong.
He's just a daggone good control room operator.
He's 21 just a good person.
He wouldn't-lie about anything, either.
- 22 So when he says that, he says that he did not know what was 23 going on, he didn't know what was going on.
That's just the 24
-way it is.
You won't find a better operator or more 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37(n)
Nationwide Coverage 80tM36-6646
28506.0 BRT 3729 m
=
1 conscientious person than Adam Miller.
And I'd be proud to 2
work with him again, I'll tell you that.
3 Q
The next question I think you have answered.
It 4
says do you believe Mr. Miller would lie to an NRC 5
investigator; and you just told us you didn't think so?
6 A
No.
Absolutely not.
May I say something?
7 Q
Certainly.
8 A
If I can.
Okay?
9 Q
That's why we are here.
10 A
We have learned, at least the people that I work 11 with and myself, have learned a tremendous amount about the 12 differences between operating and what is known as the white,
()
13 the gray, and the black areas.
The white areas, if you take 14 a leak rate and you do nothing to it and you watch it, and 15 we've talked about that; the gray area, of course, is if you 16 add water during the leak rate test for whatever reason, that 17 automatically puts you in that gray area where you are open 18 for interpretation and following of the rules; and of course 19 the black area would be to add the water and not account for 20 that' water.
21 I think it's important for all of you to know that 22 we as a group of individuals -- especially myself, since 1 23 deal with a lot of people in the industry now -- we are 24 trying to send a message.
And when we go out and teach a 25 course -- or some of the individuals that used to work on the O
v ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
n,.-
-- + c-
28506.0-
-BRT
-3730' v-1 island now work _at other power plants -- it comes-back to 2
what~you said about do you talk; was anybody there from 3
another plant that discussed the experiences that.they had at 4
that plant?
And that's what is happening now, I think.
~5
-I think people are saying:
You got'to understand, 6
you can't -
there is no gray area any more.
It's'either 7
black or'it's white.
Don't get in-the gray area because 8
you'll have to sit through'this.
And this is not fun.
9 okay?
10-I think that we are tryin^g very-hard.to send that 11 message and I-certainly hope that the Board-finds it -- I 12 certainly hope that the Board finds it in their heart to
()
13 allow us to continue to do that and to spread that message 14-and not limit us and not enable us to do that.
I would 15 greatly appreciate that.
And I think my fellow workers 16 would, too.
17 Q
Well, of course what you -- and I think, 18 Mr. McBride, he has answered your last question?
19 MR. MC BRIDE:
I believe he has, your Honor.
20 JUDGE CARPENTER:
I hope you see that what you 21 call a gray area essentially amounts to second guessing.
22 Perhaps people with considerable experience wrote the 23 technical specifications.
They thought they knew what they 24 were doing.
And if you try to second guess them without 25 talking to them, then they don't know what the quality of t
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tC-347 37(O Nationaide Coverage NG336 ud6
28506.0' BRT 3731 (v'T 1
safety;is.
So the whole game --
L 2
THE WITNESS:
That is the lesson learned.
3 JUDGE CARPENTER:
That's the reason for all these 4
painfu'l -- and_.be assured certainly I have no perception for 5
myself or the other Board members -- the whole problem-in my.
6-mind is that this went month after month after month that 7
this got resolved.
Somebody told you they don't-want to see 8
any more of these-things so, there was testimony that the 9
people didn't take the test seriously, they thought it to be 10 false to begin with; and.then by some strange logic,-if it's 11 already false it doesn't make any difference if I make it
^
12 more false, I guess, was in the back of some people's'
()
13 minds.
Who can tell?
But. clearly there was testimony that i
14 doubt about the tests contributed to their willingness to 15 falsify them.
Rather than saying we've got a problem, 16
.somebody come help us.
Find out what's wrong.
Certainly 17 operators couldn't do that.
They didn't have time.
That's 18 what perplexes us.
And you look at the management scheme i
19 here, it doesn't seem to be all that deficient.
There were 20 procedures for somebody to say:
We've got a problem.
But it 21 just didn't -- that's the gray part in_my mind right there.
22 Tile WITNESS:
I understand, sir.
23 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Rather than saying:
Look, I've 24 got a problem.
It was more:
Let it slide.
Let it slide
.25 along.
Maybe somebody will fix it, maybe the plant will be (1) 2 t
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8 m 33 4 446
~~
- .28506.0 BRT 3732 1.
more. stable next month.
Wishful thinking.. Rather than 1
. 2 saying:
Look, I've got a problem.
Maybe'I'm wrong.
Maybe.
3 I'll err on the side of checking the deficiency, and maybe.
4
'somebody will say I was wrong, rather than failing to check 5
it and learn in the future that in. fact there was a problem 6
that should have been checked as a deficiency.
I think
~
7 that's the feeling I have about your gray.
Better to err on 8
the side of safety than the other way.
9 THE WITNESS:
No.
I understand.
10 JUDGE CARPENTER:
So, you preached to me and I 11-preached back.
J( )
1 G
C RPE TER We Mr. Hitz, that completes 14-
.our process here this afternoon.
We appreciate your-being 15 with us and.your attentiveness to questions and your 16 responsiveness.
You have helped us flesh out the. record in 17 several respects.
Thank you very much.
You are excused.
18 THE WITNESS:
You are welcome.
19 (Witness excused.)
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
Off the record.
21 (Discussion off the record.)
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
We are back on the record.
We are 23 now going to have some discussion among the parties and the 24 Staff concerning candidates for witness status.
We'll start 25 with the numerous employees.
As each candidate is put ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
20244747W Nationwide Coserage 8013W686
.28506.0 BRT 3733
~h (V
1 forward, perhaps the proponent of the prospective witness 2
could state briefly why they are viewed as helpful or 3
necessary, and then we'll go around, the other parties, if 4
Staff has comments they can add them.
We'll get all the 5
comments together in one place on the transcript.
6 Mr. McBride?
7 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes, thank you, Judge Kelley.
At 8
an earlier point in the proceeding we had put forth three 9
names of Staff people, two of whom evidently were associated 10 with regulatory guide 1.45.
At the present time we do not 11 see the need to call those people.
Ilowever, there's a third 12 individual whose name I believe is Bettenhausen.
I don't
()
13 have his affidavit in front of me, but I believe he was the 14 autt.cr of an affidavit filed in the TMI-1 restart proceeding 15 that was addressed to this issue and took the position that 16 among other things there was no safety issue associated with 17 the 0.51 evaporative loss factor test at Unit 1: and we feel 18 that af fidavit would be useful on this general subject in the 19 record, not with respect to Unit i leak rate practices but 20 with respect to the Staff's view of the safety significance 21 of that differential, if you will, between the amount stated 22 in the technical specifications, which is the same in each 23 unit, 1 gallon per minute, and the safety significance of an 24 additional.51 gallons per minute of leakage.
25 JUDGE KELLEY:
Where is this affidavit of CZ) i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3hMI Natiottwide Coverage
- M)34fM6
28506.0 BRT 3734 V
1
-Mr.
Bettenhausen?
2 MR. MC BRIDE:
It was submitted to the Commission, 3
I'm not sure at which level of the Board's conducting the 4
TMI-1 restart proceeding,"but it was submitted as I recall at 5
a time when the appeal board had decided to include the 6
issues that are now before this board in that proceeding.
4 7
The Commission was reviewing that determination to_ determine 8
whether they should be.
9 For the purpose of convincing the Commission as I 10 understood it that the issue did not have to be resolved 11 before the restart of TMI Unit 1, staff filed this affidavit 12-with respect to the safety significance of the leak rate test
()
13-and the safety significance of an additional.51 gallons per 14 minute unidentified leakage which, in effect, the TMI Unit i 15 leak rate test at one time included by virtue of the 16 inclusion of a evaporative loss factor.
17 It is our view that without going to the issues of 18 TMI-1 leak rate practices, that that view by the Staff is a 19 significant matter that ought to be before this board with 20 respect to leak rate testing practices in general.
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
I will hear from the matters.
22 Mr. Maupin?
23 MR. MAUPIN:
I don't have any comment on that 24 proposal.
25 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
Mr. Flynn?
O-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202.M7 3700 Nanonwide Cowrage mn3% M46
28506.0 BRT 3735 m
I a
1 MR. FLYNN:
I don't have a position.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Blake?
3 MR. BLAKE:
Judge Kelley, there is already 4
available to the Board by virtue of the agreement of the 5
parties and the inclusion of Section 4 from new regular 0680 6
sub 5, as a background document, identification of the 7
evaporative factor and its availability in Unit 1 and the 8
lack of that in Unit 2.
That's specifically identified in 9
section 4.
I don't recall the Bettenhausen affidavit that 10 might have been submitted in the Unit i restart proceeding, 11 but it strikes me that, to the extent that view of the Staff 12 might be significant, it might be more significant in the r's
(,)
13 next phase of this proceeding, when the Staff, with all of 14 its views is obligated, based on this board's findings and 15 anything else that is available to it, to make 16 recommendations to the Commission on what ought to occur in 17 some broader perspective.
18 I guess in the context of what occurred at Unit 2 19 and who was involved in it, and without having seen the 20 affidavit, I'm not convinced at this juncture that it would 21 be necessary to bring Mr. Bettenhausen in.
22 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, if I might add, I'm 23 not convinced it's necessary to bring him in either if the 24 parties would stipulate to the admission of the affidavit.
25 l But if we did that it's up to the Board whether we want to l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 dl7-37W NJIiOfNdC C(H Cf 3FC 800-3 3N6M
28506.0-BRT
'3736 ym-U 1-hear from him.
2 MR. BLAKE:
At a minimum I'd want to see it.
3' JUDGE KELLEY:
Could you provide -- what are we 4
talking about, an affidavit of three pages or 35 pages?
5:
MR. MC BRIDE:
I'm sorry, it has been quite a 6
while since I looked at it.
I remember the essence of what it 7
'just described.
I-don't have it with me but we can provide 8
it, I'm sure.
9 JUD3E KELLEY:
Check into that.
Maybe let us know 10 tomorrow what this is like.
And if it's possible, if it's j
11 not very long, just give people copies.
12 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes.
I'll certainly try to do 13 that.
14 JUDGE KELLEY:
Does Staff have a position on 15 this?
16 MS. WAGNER:
Well, I haven't seen the affidavit 17 either.
I'd be in a better position to speak to it after I 18 have seen it.
That's the first step.
But right now I don't 19 see why it is necessarily relevant, at least to this stage of 20 the proceeding.
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
Since this is a technical issue, as 22 I understand it, we don't know whether or not we'll have any 23 occasion to recall Messrs. Capra or Russell, but to that 24 matter couldn't they have been asked something about this 25 affidavit when they were here?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2415 347 3701 Natiotiwide Cowrage Mn31We
1 28506.0 BRT' 3737 m.
1 MR. MC BRIDE:
They could have been, your Honor.
2 But among other reasons I don't believe that it was clear to 3
us that they would have necessarily-held the same view as 4
Mr. Bettenhausen.
I think it's well known to the Board that 5
'there aren't always the same professional opinions on the 6
Staff of the Comnission from one person to another, 7
JUDGE KELLEY:
We understand that, yes.
8 MR. MC BRIDE:
Secondly, Mr. Bettenhausen was the 9
author of the affidavit.
We had put forth his name much 10 earlier in the proceeding because he was the author of it.
11 I think that he probably was, or he is more 12 qualified in that area specifically than Mr. Russell or E()
13 Mr. Capra, as I recall vaguely his qualifications, 4
14 particularly because Mr. Russell, at least, and I believe 15 this is true of Mr. Capra -- Ms. Wagner will correct me if 16 I'm wrong -- are in the human factors division of nuclear 17 reactor regulation.
Others are more well versed in some of 18 the real nuts and bolts here.
19 As I recall he's more of a nuts and bolts guy.
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, I think Russell and Capra are 21 pretty nutsy and boltsy too, in /;erms of their background.
22 But isn't the next step to look at this affidavit, again 23 assuming it's a reasonably sized piece of paper?
Could you 24 get us sone copies and we'll take a look at it.
25 MR. MC BRIDE:
Sure.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-M00 Nat,onwidc Cos erage
$nD&6646
28506.0 BRT 3738 I
\\
tj 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
2 MR. MC BRIDE:
We have one more name, if you would I
3 like.
The second name is one you heard before and we would 4
want him for a very limited purpose.
I have discussed this 5
with Ms. Wagner and I-think, if I understand correctly, she 6
hasn't had a chance to track him down on this.
But Dr. Chung 7
is our second name.
At this point the only reason that we 8
would intend to call him, perhaps if the staff would make an 9
admission to this effect it wouldn't be necessary to call 10 him, but it is our understanding that after his work with 11 "
respect to the Unit 1 leak rate testing practices -- you may 12 recall I put a follow-up question much earlier in the
( )
13 proceeding to Mr. Kirkpatrick I believe, which after we 14 struck the TMI-1 reference made it a general question the 15 Board put to the witness -- the initial judgment of Dr. Chung 16 after doing his analysis was that the way to make the leak 17 rate test more accurate was to run it for four hours; and he 18 put forth his view at a meeting and was told why, evidently, 19 that could not be done or could not be done very conveniently 20 because of other plant evolutions.
At that point he went 21 back to the drawing board for a week or so and came back with 22 the recommendation that they run the test for at least two 23 l hours.
24 In recognition of the point that we have been 25 striving to have the record bear, and that is that there are
-(s)
~,
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2:12447 3?(1)
Nat amwide (merage
- kL3 4 tM6
28506.0 BRT 3739
(')h 1
conflicting goals here, one is accuracy and the other is the 2'
timeliness of the discovery of the leak, and the two collide 3
with respect to that type of recommendation.
If the Staff 4-would admit that Dr. Chung' held those different views we-
~
5 don't feel it would be necessary to call him..But if they 6
will not we do feel it will be necessary.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, let's hear the other 8
parties.
Mr. Maupin?
9 MR. MAUPIN:
I don't have any comment on that 10 proposal either.
11 MR. FLYNN:
I don't have a position.
12 MR. BLAKE:
I'm somewhat anxious to hear what the
()
13 results of the communications might have been, to the extent 14 this is a nonproblem, or the Staff is able'to provide this 15 minute portion of Dr. Chung's knowledge about leak rate 16 testing.
17 You may recall that Dr. C h u n g h a s a l s o b e'e n 18 advocated by Mrs. Aamodt, not just on one occasion but on 19 several.
I think the worth of Dr. Chung and the need for-20 Dr. Chung, bearing in mind the Commissien's views on 21 repetitiveness, redundancy and need for understanding leak 22 rate testing, has been considerably minimized by, if not 23
. mooted, by subsequent NRR analysis, Mr. Russell and Mr.
j 24 Capra's explicit testimony that they talked with, dealt with 25 Dr. Chung, took into account what he had been able to develop i
(m)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2024-II-M W
- Natiortwide Coserage MXA H(>MM w-
-- ~
j 28506.0.
- 49 BRT 3740 g.
1 in the '85-81. time frame; Mr'. Kirkpatrick as well in that 2
~ regard, and the explicit testimony.that in the. view of the 3
. expert panel of witnesses, when they appeared there was no 4
need to hear from Dr. Chung.
5
-Now, if we can agree that all we need is this one 6.
' nugget of-Dr. Chung's and get full agreement, including 7
Mrs. Aamodt's, then I would probably have less problems, for-8 whatever it is worth, to get this view expressed by one 9
member of the Staff.
But I'm not sure, Judge.Kelley, that we-10 are going to get from here to there, once we ask Dr. Chung to 11 come and talk about leak rate testing, and that you'll have 12 the agreement of everyone.
()-
13 MR. MC BRIDE:
You may recall that at an earlier
^
14 time we felt Dr. Chung ought to have been on the panel of 15 technical people.
The Board deferred the decision and-
[
16 decided not to hear from him at the-outset.
It may well be 17 that some parts of Dr. Chung's analysis have been mooted by 18 subsequent events.
But when this specific question was put L
l 19 to the Staff witnesses,-as I recall, they couldn't confirm i
l 20 it, and the Board put the question.
We are therefore'left l
21 with the only person who can confirm it with Dr. Chung.
I 22 JUDGE KELLEY:
The specific question whether Chung 23 held this view, four hours, compromising on two hours?
That l
24 view?
25 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes, sir.
e f
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2 @ 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage A10-33MM6
'28506.0 BRT-3741 1
MS. WAGNER:
I wish I could confirm that Dr.lChung 2
or whether Dr.'Chung even recollects making that kind of 3
statement.
We are in the process of tracking him down.
I
~4 have been trying to get someone on the. phone to get word for-5 you so I don't'know yet what his recollection is.
6
.However, I would certainly oppose' bringing him 7
in.
.I don't see any need for that, either for this point, 8
which I don't think is particularly relevant, and certainly 9
is cumulative of Mr. Kirkpatrick's testimony, as far as I can 10 see.
And, however, if the Board should wish some kind of a 11 stipulation be worked out, if Dr. Chung actually did make 12 this statement, there is a possibility -- I will explore the
()
13 possibility of working out a stipulation.
14 I will certainly report back to you as soon as I 15 hear what Dr. Chung's recollection-is.
16 MR. MC-BRIDE:
I'd rather have an admission, Judge 17 Kelley,- than a stipulation.
Because a stipulation might have 18 to be entered into by all the parties ar.d it might be a lot 19 easier, since all the parties aren't here, if we could just 20 get an admission from the Staff.
- 21 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, if it's as narrow as what is 22 being described I don't think we'll have too much 23 difficulty.
24 Do you think you can let us know by close of 25 business tomorrow?
Do you think you can get in touch with ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 84n)hfM6
28506.0 BRT 3742
,~
f
)
w/
1 Dr. Chung in that connection?
2 MS. WAGNER:
Someone is trying to.
I was hoping 3
to have word today so I would expect to tomorrow.
4 MR. MC BRIDE:
If we had that admission I would 5
agree we wouldn't need to call Dr. Chung at this point, as I 6
said.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
I think if I could just make an 8
observation that's really not my own or the Board's, my 9
colleagues can either agree or disagree, and that is my own 10 inclination at this point is not to call Dr. Chung.
11 We had nine experts here for two weeks, coming to 12 the problem, often from difter: nt angles, three separate sets
()
13 of experts.
To me the remarkable thing is the degree of 14 agreement they ultimately reached on the basic issues.
And 15 the idea that got to bring in yet another expert on basic 16 technical issues, it strikes me as not necessary.
But I 17 realize you are making a narrow point.
I would only say, 18 though, the point you are making that some expert at one time 19 or another said:
Well, we ought to go for four hours and 20 then there was some pressure -- not pressure, but it was 21 pointed out, well, you need to know about the cracks sooner 22 than that so you compromise and say two hours, is not exactly 23 an esoteric point.
As much as I have struggled in this case 24 even I understand that, I think.
And I don't know that I 25 need an expert to tell me that.
%.)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 4 47 37(O Nationuide Coserage Mk34-MM
28506.0.
BRT 3743
,m.
!,.s) 1 MR. MC BRIDE:
Perhaps you don't, but I'm trying 2
to protect the record when we get before the Commission.
3 f Frankly, very frankly I would like to tell the Commission two 4
things.
This is the fellow they put-in charge of.this 5
problem for a while and he held these views and they differed 6
from time to time based on what he learned.
That this was a 7
learning experience for him, too.
8 You know, I draw some comfort in the fact that 9
this may now be clear to me, because.you have been here for 10 5-1/2 weeks but the commissioners may have a lot less time 11 than that to devote to this when this matter'gets before 12 them.
()
^
13 JUDGE KELLEY:
I'm simply saying it's not an 14 esoteric point as it is being described'to me.
It's pretty 1
15 straightforward.
16 If we can get this in in some brief statement 17 without putting witnesses on the s tand and opening up the 18 thing for broader exploration, I suspect that Mrs. Aamodt may 19 wish to put forward Dr. Chung's name for other purposes.
20-We'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it.
21 The next step here, then, is to see if Dr. Chung 22 can be reached and his views elicited on this point.
Maybe 23 you can let us know tomorrow.
Okay.
24 MR. MC BRIDE:
We have no other names.
25 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Maupin?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2112-347-37(h)
I%ationwide C0%cragt
$)k3%6M6
28506.0 BRT 3744 a
1 MR. MAUPIN:
I have no nameu at this point.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Flynn?
3 MR. FLYNN:
No names.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Blake?
J 5
MR. BLAKE:
Just one clarification.
Does that 6
mean the name Keimig and Wenzinger, which at one point -- are 7-now withdrawn by the numerous employees?
8 MR. MC BRIDE:
Assuming, and I base this on 9
hearsay, that Bettenhausen was the affiant, I'm intend to go 10 withdraw the two people who were the regulatory guide 1.45 11 people and those would be the names as I understand it.
12 MR. BLAKE:
The reason is I don't think Mr. Keimig
.n) 13 had anything to do with Reg Guide 1.45 but happened to be 14 Haverkamp's overseer in the regional office at that point in 15 time.
Just so we have the names straight.
16 MR. MC BRIDE:
You may be right in that and, in 17 any event, I see no need to call him.
10 MR. BLAKE:
The one person you see the need to 19 call is the affiant.
20 MR. MC BRIDE:
You may hear from some people down 21 the road, I think you will, who know a little more about the 22 LER.
At that point things may look a little different but at 23 '
this point --
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
Do you have any candidates, 25 Mr. Blake?
\\_/
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2020 47 4 700 Nationwide roserage
- n 3)MM6
28506.0 BRT 3745 e ~N L;
1 MR. BLAKE:
No, Judge Kelley.
We have no specific 2
individuals to recommend to the Board.
Other parties have 3
discussed a number of' people.
We have certainly looked in 4
and have references to the extent the Board considers other 5
people, we can provide ready references in the record so that 6
you'll have, I think, a better feeling for their need.
But 7
we have no specific individuals.
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
Does Staff have any 9
candidates?
10 MS. WAGNER:
Actually, the Staff does have some 11 candidates, in the interests of developing and full and 12 complete record.
('m.
()
13 JUDGE KELLEY:
Of course.
14 MS. WAGNER:
First would be Mr. Morck.
He may 15 know about the TCN.
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
Can you spell that?
17 MS. WAGNER:
M-0-R-K.
18 MR. MC DRIDE:
M-O-R-C-K.
19 MS. WAGNER:
Sorry.
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
First name?
21 MR. MC BRIDE:
Thomas.
He's from PORC.
22 ;
JUDGE KELLEY:
I remember.
Go ahead.
What's the 23 '
case for calling Thomas Morck?
l 24 l MS. WAGNER:
He may know about various changes t
g-25 j being considered by management with regard to the leak rate L-)
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37141 Natt011%1Je Coserage kix A 31eM6
28506.0 BRT 3746-(
1 test.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:.Can we establish'his job, 3
actually? -He worked for tech support?
Where_does Mr. Morck 4
fit?
5 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes,, sir.
He was in that.
6 department.
Exactly who he answered ~to I'm_not sure, but he 7
ultimately would have answeredito the unit' superintendent, 8
technical support.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
That was Kunder?
10 MR. MC BRIDE:
That was Mr. Kunder after 11 approximately December 1, 1978.
Prior to that time it was 12 Mr. Seelinger.
()
13 JUDGE KELLEY:
Seelinger.
Okay.
-14 MS. WAGNER:
If you recall also, Mr. Stier-15 suggested that Mr. Morck would,be an' appropriate person to 16 speak with.
17 MR. MC BRIDE:
That is correct.
He did.
I would 18 like to comment on that, if I could?
t 19 MR. MAUPIN:
Could we get Ms. Wagner to repeat 20 that?
21 MS. WAGNER:
I think in response to a Board i
22 question, Mr. Stier suggested Mr. Morck would be an 23 appropriate person for the Board to interview, in connection 24 with this proceeding.
~
25 MR. MC BRIDE:
First of all, Judge Kelley --
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-147-37(M)
Nationwhie Courage IWXb33M/W:
f:
28506.0 t-
.BRT-3747 i
s.J l
1.
JUDGE.KELLEY:
Is that it?
Let's just take them-i l
2 one.at.a time.
l L
3 MS. WAGNER:
That's really all I have to say on 4
it.
-I have a list of six or seven people.
5-JUDGE KELLEY: -Let's take them one at a time, 6
then.
7 MR. MC BRIDE:
If the Board has before it the now 8
' famous volume 5-C, tabs 15 to 37.
.If you turn to tab 21, you l
9 will find the temporary change-notice that we have heard 10 testimony about on the record.
i 11 There is no dispute that Mr. Morck was involved in L
j 12 it.
You'll see his signature on the page, the first page of L
[)
13 the temporary change notice.
But that, in and of itself, ss j
l 14 doesn't justify calling a man down here who hasn't been in l-15 the nuclear industry for seven years and has no interest in 16 this proceeding because his name is on the document.
If i
l 17 that's all you are going to ask him, there it is.
18 With respect to Mr. Stier's observation he did l
19 suggest Mr. Morck.
With all due respect to Mr. Stier, 20 Mr. Stier has spent about two years of his life on this j
21 subject and I think he's developed kind of an " affection" for 22 it, if I can use that term in a certain perverse way, and he 23 wanted to talk to Mr. Morck or he wanted you to talk to him p
24 because he didn't talk to him.
But people who may have sort I
25 of an endless interest in a subject like this don't ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 37(4)
.NatiOf1%ide Contrage fl(Xk3.lM646 l
Vf-l 28506.0 BRT 3748 d
1 necessarily come to it with an unbiased view of what_is 2
necessary, a-3 If'you really wanted to explore this subject in 4
complete depth, you might parade in here 20 or 30 auxiliary 5
officers to find out whether they ever added hydrogen to the 6
makeup tank; you might talk to the security guards to find 7
out who was there on a given day.
I mean you could talk to a'ybody.
8 n
9 People have bits and pieces of knowledge.
They 10 may bear on the subject.
But it just seems to me there has 11 to be some justification beyond the fact that somebody was 12 involved in something.
It has to be a factual issue that the 3
()
13 Board needs to hear testimony onto resolve.
You don't need 14 to resolve whether Mr. Morck was involved in this.
15 JUDGE KELLEY:
This is the temporary change notice 16 that had to do with adjusting for differences in temperature 17 of March 16, 1979?
18 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes, sir.
I 19 JUDGE ~KELLEY:
Is there anything else in our 20 chronology of interest that we know at this point Morck was 21 involved ~in?
h 22 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes, sir.
We asked a question 23,
about it and the experts confirmed, he did one Icak rate 24 test.
It was the hand calculation.
It was in December of 25 1978.
The experts did not find that there was any O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M.M7-1700 Nationwide Cm crage Hork3)MM6
28506.0 BRT 3749
{
't x_/
1 impropriety to it.
They did testify they didn't know where s
w 2
the data came from but there was no falsification that they 3
found, no irregularity that I can recall.
And they confirmed 4
that that was the only one to the best of their knowledge 5
that he was involved in.
6 So those two facts are all we have by Mr. Morck.
And I don't see that they constitute a basis for uringing a 7
8 man in here that has been out of this industry for seven 9
years and about which there's no dispute.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
As a matter of timing, let's 11 suppose that we let the questions of Mr. Morck get left on 12 hold and you proceed to hear from Mr. Seelinger and you Iy 13 proceed to hear from Mr. Kunder and you may or may not have j
14 an abiding interest in talking to Mr. Morck at that point.
15 Would it be possible, could you get in touch with 16 Morck and say you might get called or you might not?
Could 17 you try to make yourself potentially available in some time 18 frame to be described so that if we decided after hearing 19 from those two that we wanted to talk to him, too, we could 20 talk to him without waiting a long time?
21 MR. MC BRIDE:
I could make that call, but I 22
' always hesitate to make those kind of calls.
i 23 !
JUDGE KELLEY:
But if requested you would?
24 MR. MC PRIDE:
I certainly would.
25 JUDGE KELLEY:
Anything else?
m, i
j I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m,..,
~ ~ m <-
_e 28506.0 BRT.
.3750
,m
^U 1-MR. MC BRIDE:
I wanted to say,'also,'that it may 2
help your thinking on this that it appears, and since I'm 3
.never in my office any.more I'm not certain about this, but 4
itLappears that my conflict for November 3rd has
)
5 disappeared.
It has moved to later that week.
The other 6
case that I have.
So Mr.'Seelinger I have contacted over the 4
7 weekend, would be available to testify on November 3rd, which 8
would mean you would hear from him two weeks earlier than you 9
had graciously agreed to allow us because of my conflict.
10 That might help you in putting this question off 11-for.a. bit.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Comments fr5m others?
13 MR. MAUPIN:
I have no comments with respect to i
14 Mr. Morck.
(
15 MR. FLYNN:
No' comment.
'16 MR. BLAKE:
Only in addition in the record with f
which 17
[
respect to the temporary change notice-to the tab 21, f'
18 Mr. McBride has referred you to,-there are brief references r
19 in Stier volume 1 to the technical -- to this temporary 20 change notice at pages 100 and 120; and in the Faegre &
i 21 Benson report, volume 1, page 22, 22 JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
23 Any view on the merits of whether he should be 24 called or not?
25 MR. BLAKE:
No, sir.
Ms. Wagner referred to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 NatiomvHe Coverage 8 @ 336-6646
l
'28506.0 BRT 3751
(
N-)
1~
14r. Stier's view.
That,'s the only expression I've heard so 2
far on-the record about the need.
3 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
4 MR. BLAKE:
There are no interviews of Mr. Morck 5
on the record.
~
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
That's maybe 7
~ significant.
Anything else, Ms. Wagner?
On Morck anyway?
8 MS. WAGNER:
No, not on Mr. Morck.
I don't think 9
it would be inappropriate to defer the decision.
That's true 10 with a number of the people whom we propose.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
We may turn out to be premature.
12 Our objective here is to isolate and identify people as to
(~f s
13 whom a decision now would be timely.
Not having gotten into
(,
14 the so-called management phase of this thing, Morck, in a 15 sense, is a-management witness.
More so than management --
16 management level witness; does that help?
17 MR. MC BRIDE:
I don't know that you could fairly 18 characterize him as such because he was really sort of a line 19 engineer.
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
He's not a CRO, maybe I should put 21 it that way.
22 MR. MC BRIDE:
He's not a CRO, but he was at the 23 time, as I understand it, a fairly low-level engineer in a 24 technical support division.
25 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336 4 646
. ~ _ -.
-28506.0
'BRT-3752 1
e 1
MS, WAGNER:
But the purpose of his testimony 2.
would be to flesh out conversations, knowledge,.et cetera,.
3 with --
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
Upper-level people.
CROs.
5 MS. WAGNER:
Other than control room operators.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Who is next?
'7 MS. WAGNER:
'Mr.
Stair.
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
S-t-a-i-r?
9 MS.-WAGNER:
Yes.
S-t-a-i-r.
He drafted the 10 LER--- well, it's listed as the preparer of the LER.
11 JUDGE ~KELLEY:
Okay.
12 MS. WAGNER:
Again to determine directions he was
- (')
13
.given, conversations he may have had with others involved, 14~
and the decision-making involved.around the LER.
- 15 JUDGE KELLEY
Okay.
Mr. Blake, any comment on 16' Mr. Stair's nomination?
17 14R. BLAKE:
There is a good deal of information 18 already-in the record and available to the Board that 19l includes Mr. Stair.
I'll give you the citations'so you can 20
. find it in the documents.we have.
It may be helpful in 21 deciding whether or.not it is necessary to bring another 22 person.
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
Sure.
24 MR. BLAKE:
Mr. Stair's interview, an interview of 25 Mr. Stair appears in Stier volume VI.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationside Coverage 8 % 336-6646
... _ _ _ _-347-3700. _. -,. _
'28506.0' BRT 3753 s.
L(j 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
Can we establish again who 1
2 Mr. Stair worked with before?
3 MR. BLAKE:
My understanding of Mr. Stair at that 4
period was he was in the licensing organization.
Precisely
~
5 who he reported to, I don't know, Judge Kelley.
6 MR. MC BRIDE:
He was in Reading, as I understand 7
it.
.8 MR. BLAKE:
I don't know the people.in the
-9 structure.
10 JUDGE KELLEY: ~All right.
-11:
MR. BLAKE:
There is a Faegre & Denson interview 12 of Stair on May'12, 1980, which, appears at Faegre-& Benson at
(
) --
13 volume III V, Exhibit 49; and, as-I~say, in the Stier volume 14 VI, a discussion of Stair interview from his Faegre & Benson j.
l 15-interview and Stier's. interview as well.
I can give you as 4
16 well specific pages but you can probably pretty quickly find 17 those because that was the principal interest Mr. Stier and 18
-Faegre & Benson had in talking with Mr. Stair.
i.
19 JUDGE KELLEY:. Okay.
Do you have any view on 20
.whether or not we ought to call Mr. Stair?
21 MR. BLAKE:
No, sir.
I would await reading of i
22 those and determine'whether or'not the Board feels it's 23 necessary.
i
- 24 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. McBride?
25 MR. MC BRIDE:
I agree with that and I would add i
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37m Nationwide Cmcrage 800-336-6M6
E 28506.0..
BRT 3754' m;
1 you might deferLthe question until=you hear from g
2-Mr. Seelinger.
F 3
JUDGE KELLEY:
Seelinger?
4 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes, sir.
Because Mr. Seelinger's 5
prefiled' testimony does address the LER, and his reporting of I
6
-this event to_the Commission.
I can represent to you he'll 7
be prepared'to answer'at least some of your questions on_that 8
subject.
'9 JUDGE KELLEY:
Did he-have some hand in drafting?-
10 MR. MC BRIDE:
That's a more complicated question 11 than you know.
But he had a hand in some'of the rewriting.
12
-Some.
It's a complex-question.
().
13-JUDGE KELLEY:
The gentleman in the back have any J
14-comment _on Mr. Stair?
1 15 MR. MAUPIN:
All the way'in the back?
.1 <6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Not all the way.
The middle back.'
17 MR. MAUPIN:
I have no-comment.
18 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
.j -
19 MR. FLYNN:
No.
}
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
Any more from Staff?
Can we. defer 21 on this for Seelinger's appearance also?
22 MS. WAGNER:
I think that would be appropriate.
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
Who is next?
24 MS. WAGNER:
Mr. Fels.
You'll have to help me t
25 with his first name.
He worked on the computer.
0 t
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
I 28506.0 BRT 3755
{
\\
(
/
u-1 MR. MC BRIDE:
William J.
- Fels, F-e-1-s.
2 MS. WAGNER:
And ultimately Floyd.
There was a 3
gap I think in reporting but -- we thought it would be 4
appropriate to see what general instruction and feedback he 5
got.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
What was he doing with the computer 7
all the time?
8 MS. WAGNER:
Yes.
How high a priority was it.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
We talked about this a little among 10 ourselves.
We are somewhat inclined to call Mr. Fels.
Is 11 there some reason not to?
12 MR. MC BRIDE:
He's a client of ours, Judge
(
)
13 Kelley.
There are statements of his in the record -- I don't w-14 say that with respect to every name on your list, though.
15 I think along the lines of Mr. Blake's suggestion 16 about Mr. Stair, there are statements in the record and 17 before we bring people in it might be appropriate for the 18 Board to review them and decide whether there's any purpose 19 to be served in asking them any more questions than he's 20 already been asked or statements that he's already given.
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
The statements I remember, all 22 kinds of people were in there, at various times it was fixed, 23 Fels was fixing it.
It never seemed to get fixed.
One would 24 think he knows what was going on.
I don't think I know what 25 was going on now in terms of working on the computer or when j-t i
\\/
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I i
scmm s _m c-m,m_
w 28506.'0 BRT 3756 V('N:
1 or.what or anything very specifically.
2 MR. MC-BRIDE:
I~ guess the question I have is, 3
just for'the Board to ponder, I'm not sure I see-what 4
difference it makes.
5 MR. BLAKE:
Judge Kelley, let me provide you some 6
references to where Mr. Fels himself was interviewed,-and 7_
they are available to the Board to look at.
=8 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
9 MR. BLAKE:
He was interviewed by the NRC,'NRR, OI 10 on March _16, 1984.
That interview appears in Stier volume 11 VI (C).
That's capital C in parenthesis.
12 He was also interviewed by the Stier group on
.[ )
' 13 February 25, 1985.
That appears in-the same volume-of 14 Stier.
15 Fels himself was specifically covered by Stier in 16 his evaluation because he's a current GPU system employee.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
Right.
' 18 MR. BLAKE:
That's Stier's volume II(A), tab F.
19-So there is already available to the Board, I submit, 20 information to determine of how much value Mr. Fels might 21 be.
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
We will certainly determine all 23 that.
The citations are useful.
Thank you.
24 Any further comments on Mr. Fels pro or con, from 25 anybody?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-1700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
28506.0 BRT 3757
/
)
w 1
MS. WAGNER:
Mr. Phillippe?
2 MR. MC BRIDE:
P-h-i-1-1-i-p-p-e.
3 MS. WAGNER:
As you know he was on shift with 4
Cooper and Congdon.
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
We considered him preliminarily in 6
the past.
At the time he was a trainee.
In going over the 7
table of everybody involved, I note, I believe, that 8
everybody on that table has been called with the exception of 9
Mr. Phillippe.
We didn't call him earlier because he was a 10 trainee, wasn't involved in very many so-called questionable 11 tests.
12 MR. BLAKE:
I think that's the other way --
,-()
13 uniqueness of Mr. Phillippe.
If you look at table 7 he'll be 14 referred to in the Staff's report.
There are, in fact, no 15 questionable tests under Mr. Phillippe.
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
Hold on a minute.
17 MS. WAGNER:
It would not be because of tests, 18 necessarily, that he ran himself that we think he should be 19 brought in.
It's more because he was on shift with 20 Messrs. Cooper and Congdon and there are some conflicts 21 between the testimony of those two individuals.
We thought 22 it might be appropriate to ask Mr. Phillippe if he could shed 23 !
any light on those conflicts.
I 24 JUDGE KELLEY:
If you look at table 7 you find 25 zero under Phillippe's name.
As Mr. Blake points out, if you
,s
(
)
j x-i l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
b
- - + c -,.
28506.0 BRT 3758
,<s
(_]-
~
1
-look-at table-8 on the next page, and look at Phillippe, you 2:
see, according to that chart, he was involved in seven tests, j
3.
four.of which were questionable.
4.
How you reconcile the two, I'm sure that can be 5
done.
It is not immediately apparent to me how you do it.
6-MR. MC BRIDE:
The way.you do it, Judge Kelley, I 7
may have earlier created a slight misimpression on this-8 subject myself.
Table 7 covers 1979.
Table 8 covers 9
September through the accident.
10 MR. BLAKE:
I'm pulled in by that, too, in terms
~11 of documents I have in front of me.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
It's paradoxical that-is the case 4 ()
13 but maybe that explains it.
I always thought the main i
14 problem was in 1979.
It seems to me a. paradox that you come
}
15 up with no bad tests in '79 and several in '78 when things t
16 weren't so difficult, I tho' ugh t.
17 But, in any event, for present purposes, that was 18
- our reasoning at the time.
We wouldn't call Phillippe.
19 Frankly I didn't think, then, we even knew where he was in 20 view of the fact that there really wasn't anything in the.
H21 record very suggestive of impropriety on his part.
That may-22 be true.
We have since had testimony from two shiftmates, 23 whose testimony varied to some extent.
Then one question 24 is:
Can Mr. Phillippe~come in and shed light on testimony 25 already given by his shiftmates and his foreman, and for that-4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 300-336-fM6 m._,
., ~ _ - - _.. _,, _. _.. _., _., _,,... -
28506.0
.BRT 3759
_,m _
V) i 1
matter, his shift supervisor?
I' guess that's the issue.
2 MR. BLAKE:
I can't provide insight into that 3
because I'm aware of no interviews of Mr. Phillippe.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
There's nothing in the way of 5
interviews.
That's true.
In either study.
That's another 6
reason we thought we had nothing to go on.
.7 Staff sees this'as a matter of possibly being more 8
information about shif traates; is tnat the idea?
9 MS. WAGNER:
That's the main idea.
That's right.
10 To see if there can be any resolution in the conflicts'in 11 testimony between Cooper and Congdon; see what Mr. Phillippe 12
'was aware of being on shift with these two operators.
()
13 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. McBride?
Is Mr. Phillippe a 14 potential client or client of yours?
l l
15 MR. MC BRIDE:
He is a client of ours.
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
17 MR. MC BRIDE:
-I would suggest deferring until at 18 least tomorrow when you hear from Mr. Adams and Mr. Mehler, 19 M-e-h-1-e-r.
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, we are going to do that 21 anyway.
Your point is we could hear about both of them 22
-tomorrow and decide this when we have a little more 23 information on the issues.
Okay.
24 Next candidate?
25 MS. WAGNER:
Mr. Doug Weaver from I&C.
v(~)
. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
28506.0' BRT 3760 1
Mr. Chwastyk had said he. talked to him and asked
~
2 to get the reference 1eg checked.
This is with reference to 3
th'e level transmitter.
However, listening to Mr. Chwastyk's 4
testimony, I think he mentioned some people he talked with
[
S other_than Mr. Weaver, so perhaps some investigation in this 6
area is no longer a good idea.
He may not be the person 7
involved.
8 MR. MC BRIDE:
He have no position on this.
9 MS. WAGNER:
Again, this goes more to the 10 management involvement.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, I thought it went, for one 12
. thing, to the knowledge among, not just supervisors, foremen,
()
13 CROs, everybody around, with reference to hydrogen 14 additions.
I hear Chwatsyk saying he discovered it, at least.
15 for himself, in late February.
He went to Weaver, got the 16 reference leg blown out and did a lot of other things.
Made 17 a lot-of noise about the whole thing.
18 It may be worth knowing who heard what he was 19 sayingoat the time.
For all we know the other witnesses come 20 in and say they never heard of hydrogen and having any 21 problems with hydrogen and they don't know what Chwastyk is 22 talking about.
This is one way, I guess, of finding out 23-whether or not anybody else got the message.
We don't know 24 whether it ought to be Weaver or three or four other people.
i 25 Any comment, Mr. Blake?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 85336-664 y
..-e
-m. - -, - - -. -
9
1
~ 285 06. 0.
.BRT 3761-O l
1 MR. BLAKE:
Again, Mr. Stier interviewed
- Weaver'on this subject.
That interview appears-in 2
Mr.
3 Stier's~ volume VI, in the' interview on' March 5,
'85.-
I'm 3
4 told the pages on-this particular item are -- it was at least 5
the faulty instrumentation and what could be done about it or.
6 discussions about it, or-on pages 16 through 20 and 33 7
through 39.
8' JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
We'can look at that, at' 9
' lea s t.
That's Weaver.
l 10 There were these'other names mentione'd the other-11 day.
I don't know that they were any more than-mentioned by.
12-Mr. Chwastyk-last Friday.
7-c (j-13 MS. WAGNER:
Mr.'Knoche or Mr. Wilson.
8
-14 JUDGE KELLEY:
What's the Staff suggesting in this-15 regard?
We have three different names at least on the 16 table.
Are you suggesting we call all three of them or what 17 do you think we ought to do, if anything?
18.
MS. WAGNER:
ILthink we should start with 19 Mr. Weaver.
t 20 JUDGE KELLEY:
What if we conclude -- we read the 21 interview, we conclude, well, Weaver-doesn't have that much' 22 to do.
We drop Weaver.
Do we then pursue the other two?
23 MS. WAGNER:
Not necessarily, if the Board is 24 satisfied it has the information it needs.
'25 JUDGE KELLEY:
So this is in the nature of a ll:
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(0-336-6M6
- _, - - - - ~,,.
.l 4
28506.0' BRT 3762 c..
,g I
suggestion rather than a firm recommendation at this point as 2
to the other'two, as to Knoche and Wilson?
3 MS. WAGNER:
Well, in fact all of these people are 4
really suggestions.
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, there are suggestions and 6'
suggestions.
I would hope if the Staff feels strongly that 7
-somebody-ought to be called you'll make the suggestion one 8
way.
9 MS. WAGNER:
Make a suggestion.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
If you just think we ought to 11-passingly think about somebody, we can think a different way 12 in making the decision.
(
)
13 Anybody else?
14 MS. WAGNER:
Oh, yes.
Mr.
W.J.
Marshall; Bubba 15 Marshall.
16 MR. MC BRIDE:
He's a party to proceeding, he has 17 prefiled testimony, and he'll be here.
I 18 MS. WAGNER:
Oh, he'll be here.
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
Right.
20 MS. WAGNER:
You also asked whether the Staff felt 21 there was a need to call in Messrs. Germer and Brummer.
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
That's a slightly separate 23 question.
That covers the waterfront.
We recognize 1
24 Mrs. Aamodt may have some candidates, I expect she will on.
25 Thursday, and we'll hear her and factor that in.
But do we s
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433MM6
'28506.0
~BRT 3763 g
O l'
have everybody else's candidates to'date?
2 MS. WAGNER:
I-have one more that was added later 3
'to my list:
Mark Bezilla, the PORC secretary.
He was 4
involved in the.LER.
5 MR. MC BRIDE:
I'd.put.him in the same category as 1
6' some of the others; that is, you might-want to wait until you 7
hear from Mr. Seelinger.
Mr. Bezilla, B-e-2-i-1-1-a is a-8 client of ours.
c 9
JUDGE KELLEY:
He's a secretary or executive 10 secretary of the PORC; is that right?
I know his name is on 11 various documents.
i 12 MS. WAGNER:
He's the secretary of PORC.
-()
13 JUDGE KELLEY:
He, like two or three others might
.14 await the appearance of Seelinger and Unger and other people 15 who will speak on the LER.
Again recognizing, Mr. McBride, 16 if we passed now on a potential candidate like this, we don't 17 want to build in a long delay later and have people tell uc
'18 they never heard of this proceeding in the middle of 19 November.
20 MR. MC BRIDE:
I understand that completely.
I 21 guess the only question, then, is whether to some extent your 22 wish is your command but whether you want prefiled testimony 23 from some of these people or whether you just want them to 24 know what we are doing here and we bring them in.
25 JUDGE KELLEY:
We may or may not.
I think we can 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
~
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cove; age 8043346M6
1 28506.0 BRT 3764
.V 1
cross that bridge when we come to it.
Now I think we have 2
heard all the candidates here and we have before us, we'll 3
factor in Mrs. Aamodt's comments and we will have something 4
decided on this subject by Friday.
We may, in the case of 5
some of these people, simply take the path of least 6
resistance and defer decision until after we have heard other 7
witnesses speak on the-same subject.
But, in any case I 8
think this has served some useful purpose.
9 MR. BLAKE:
Judge Kelley, if I mignt add at this 10 point since we are -- the cites on Mr. Bezilla, so it's all
-11 in one place in the record.
Stier volume II(A), items 2 to 12 8, and there are discussions with Mr. Bezilla by the OI, by-
)
13 Stier, which appear in Stier volume VI.
14 JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you..That's very helpful.
15 We can look at all this material and give you a reaction 16 pretty soon.
17 There may be other things.
Can we quickly review, 18 again, the bidding on upcoming people?
Tom it's --
19 MR. MC BRIDE:
Mr. Adams and Mr. Mehler, Bryan 20 Mehler.
And Thursday we have Mr. Olson lined up.
It was my 21 understanding the Board wanted to take a half day off on 22 Thursday so we have not lined up anyone else for Thursday, 23 unless you tell me otherwise.
And since we are going to have 24 this call with Mrs. Aamodt, that seems to me that pretty much 25 makes it sensible not to.
7sJ i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Ac-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage fKG3366646
~. -
28506.0' BRT 3765
(
)
%j 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
That seems sensible, yes.
2 MR. MC BRIDE:
I have Mr..Hemmila lined up for 3
Friday morning.
Mr. Voigt, you'll recall, offered, 4
Mr. Hemmila is going to be here.
He will be here Friday.
5 You will recall my comment in the light of the 6
number of questions Mrs. Aamodt had for Mr. Chwastyk, I 7
really hate to call these fellows and rearrange their times 8
to tell them they don't have to come, so I haven't lined up 9
anyone for Friday, but I have lined up Mr. Guthrie, who was 10 on shift with Mr. Hemmila on.the F shift.
I don't know 11 whether he'll be able to be here, but if we can get ahold of 12 him that would be_the potential person we would bring in if-rm
, ()
13 you want'me to bring in a second person on Friday.
14 JUDGE KELLEY:
Yes.
I thought we were talking 15 about having three on Thursday or Friday,.regardless of how 16 they stacked up.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
You did say that and then I made 18 the comment with 53 questions from Mrs. Aamodt to 19 Mr. Chwastyk I wasn't clear how this week would go; we 20 thought she would be here and I thought it would add to the 21 time it took.
I didn't just want to be bringing guys in and 22 rearranging their schedules if it wasn't necessary.
If she 23.
isn't going to be here this week and we go a little faster 24 than otherwise I'll make every effort to have him here on 25 Friday.
- gs V
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
.. ~
28506.0
_BRT-3766
.V 1
(Discussion off the record.)
2 MR. MC BRIDE:
May I make'an observation that 3
might be helpful to you?
If you get through with the people 4.
I have named, not including Mr. Guthrie this week, among our 5
clients on shift, putting Mr. Brummer to one side for one 6
moment, and Mr. Germer, who was a trainee, all you would be 7
left with would be Mr. Guthrie, Mr. Smith, Mr. Hoyt and 8
Mr. Booher.
Then we would move into-the people not on 9
shift.
So we are making pretty good progress here.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
I think we are going to have to sit 11 down Friday, when all the smoke clears,-we ought to sit down 12' and work' out the schedule for the week after next, which
.,y
()
13 starts dipping into Mr. Floyd and Mr. Seelinger and those.
14 people.
But it's a little premature-now.to try to work that 15 out, it seems to me.
It's really the rest of this week that 16 we are immediately concerned with.
17 I think we would like to have another person in on 18 Friday if that's at all possible.
19 MR. MC BRIDE:
We'll try.
The only reason I made 20 my observation was we'd have three more shift people and if 21 you don't get Mr. Blessing, then you'd be into people like 22 Mr. Marshall and Mr. Floyd.
Mr. Seelinger would be here on 23 Monday, November 3rd, so you might one short of people.
24 We might have Mr. Kunder that week of the 27th, 25 but beyond that you are talking about getting into the 7-r-
U ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347-37(K)
Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
28506.0 BRT-3767
(
l-v~
1 highest people in the organization that you are planning to 2
hear.
So you might be getting a little ahead of yourself.
I 3
don't know what you are really thinking in terms of your 4-schedule but I don't have enough people to fill up the week 5
of the 27th.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
We don't expect that.
_Got.a week 7
off, the week of the 20th.
And we expect to come back on the 8
27th?
And --
9 MR. MC BRIDE:
28th.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
That's Tuesday.
11 MR. MC BRIDE:
Because of your conflict.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Right.
That one.
()
13 The 28th.
And to forge right on ahead.
We are 14 not talking about a break between CRos and supervisors on the 15 one hand and Kunder and Floyd and the other set of people on 16 the other.
We are just going to march right on.
Nobody 17 suggested that so far and we are not thinking.of it.
18 MR. MC BRIDE:
I didn't either.
All I'm 19 suggesting if I can't get Mr. Seelinger by the 3rd, we might 20 run short of witnesses that week.
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
We'll just have to fill it up, I 22 would think.
But that's precisely what -- we have to get 23 very specific on this.
I would suggest at the end of this i
24 week, so people can be called and set down for specific dates 25 and so forth.
Okay?
Let's do that.
. O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
28506.0 BRT 3768 1
MR. MC BRIDE:
I have been the keeper of the 2
schedule but I'm not going to be with you Thursday and Friday 3
but we'll be prepared to address it.
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
Fine.
Has what I just said 5
disturbed anybody?
No?
Okay.
6 We may be working up -- I haven't factored this 7
myself.
One of these days Mr. Miller and Mr. Herbein are 8
going to come.
We'll have to figure out dates for them.
But 9
that's not too far distant, I would assume.
10 Okay.
Anything else we have to do this 11 afternoon?
12 MR. BLAKE:
Judge Kelley, can we take this
()
13 opportunity to clear the question that you put to Ms. Wagner 14 in one regard and me, maybe, more-broadly with regard to 15 Mr. Mell and asked us to get back to you with the 16 information.
17 Mr. Mell, you may recall,.there was some question 18 about whether or not he could have been involved with a test 19 that occurred on February 19th on his shift.
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Mell has already been here a 21 week ago?
22 MR. BLAKE:
That's right.
The question is he 23 thought gosh he was in preparation or final preparation to 24 take an NRC exam.
He was gone for about a month.
And you 25 said what exists about that?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3N10 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
k 28506.0 BRT 3769
-(,)
1 We have'been able to search the company records 2
and Ms. Wagner as well.at NRC, and we have that information.
3 JUDGE KELLEY:
You were going to check.and see 4
when he had taken his exam; correct?
5 MS. WAGNER:
Tnat's right.
He took the written 6
part of his exam on March 20, 1979, and the oral part on 7
March 23, 1979.
I have copies of the examination report 8
sheet which has that date on it -- those dates on it if it's 9_
important that it be an exhibit.
I can distribute it.
i 10 JUDGE KELLEY:
Do counsel want to have that in as 11 an exhibit?
12 MR. MC BRIDE:
.I accept Ms. Wagner's
(()
13 representation and I don't want test results in the record of 14 this proceeding.
15 MS. WAGNER:
Test results in terms of scores have f
16 been deleted from this document in anticipation --
17 MR. MC BRIDE:
Nevertheless, without having seen 18 it, you know, there can be privacy interests here.
I don't r
19 see the value of it.
I 20 JUDGE KELLEY:
In any caue if we are all willing 21 to understand that those dates are the dates on which these 22 exams took place I don't see any need to make it an exhibit.
23 Did you have something on your end, Mr. Blake, 24 also?
25 MR. BLAKE:
Just for the company's records, we I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3XX)
Nationwide Coserage 80433M686
_ ~.,.. -...
'28506.0.
BRT 3770
- j.
.' XJ 1
would support the fact that he was-apparently not on-shift 4
2 during that time period.
It doesn't show up on the leak rate 3
test documents themselves anywhere from February 26 to March 4
26.
Not at-all during that period.
And we checked 5
specifically -- it was a little more difficult task -- but 6
attendance records for a week or so on either side of the 7
19th and he didn't show up at all'between February 10th'and 8
February.26th.
The only reason we didn't give a more 9
e: tended period, we didn't go beyond that.
So it confirms 10 what he said.
1 -
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
The particular test in which.he was-12 on what date?- The 19th of February?
r'()j 13 MR. BLAKE:
My-recollection was. February 19th; 4
14 yes,. sir -- the NRC exam, I believe you heard you say, was on 15 March 20?
And the oral was on.the 23rd?
16 MS. WAGNER:
That's correct.
17 MR. MC BRIDE:
He testified he was off for some
- 1l8 period of time prior to the examination to study for the 19 examination.
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
I understand that.
But I thought 21 he said he was off for a month.
He went back a month from 22 March 20; that's cutting it kind of'close, isn't it?
23 MR. MC BRIDE:
I think he testified to the best of 24
'his recollection it was on the order of a month but 25 Mr. Blake's records would appear to support the fact that he ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
28506.0 BRT 3771 y~,
. ( /.
1 was not there on the 19th of February.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
3 MR. BLAKE:
That's correct.
~
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
Anything else that we might 5
usefully raise at'this point?
6 We are going to suggest, I hope you will concur, 7
that we begin tomorrow at 9:00 instead of 8:30.
8 MR. MC BRIDE:
I assume we are not going to have 9
any problem finishing-by the end of the-day.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
I don't see why we would.
We don't 11 need any long lunch tomorrow that we envision -- we envision 12 finishing the two people.
().
13 MR. MC BRIDE:
That will be great.
Thanks.
14 JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
1 15 (Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m.,
the hearing was 16 adjourned, to reconvene at 9:00 a.m.,
on Wednesday, October 17 15, 1986.)
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
()
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
-~.
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER
-b[N -
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 IGLAND UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION 4
DOCKET NO.:
LRP PLACE:
BETHESDA, MARYLAND O
TUESDAY,' OCTOBER.14, 1986 DATE:
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt)
(TYPED)
JOEL BREITNER Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation O
-