ML20215N050
| ML20215N050 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1428 LRP, NUDOCS 8611040215 | |
| Download: ML20215N050 (76) | |
Text
OR'G WAl UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATOR'l COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO: LRP INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION
~
O LOCATION:
BETHESDA, MARYLAND PAGES:
4536 - 4610 DATE:
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1986 0l o (
i ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
O OfficialReporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 3'sd1 IiM:' d.f'I lg (202) 347-3700 r
m NATIONWIDE COVERACE
I 4
-CR28727.0 BRT/sjg 4536
()
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY-COMMISSION i
3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 4
In the Matter of:
5 Docket No. LRP INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND 6
UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION 7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 8
i 9
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fifth Floor Hearing Room East West Towers i
10 i
4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, Maryland 12 Friday, October 31, 1986 l
)
13 The-hearing in the above-entitled matter convened at 14 11:00 a.m.
t 15 BEFORE:
16 JUDGE JAMES L.
KELLEY, Chairman 17 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 18 Washington, D.
C.
1 19 JUDGE JAMES H. CARPENTER, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
21 JUDGE GLENN O.
BRIGHT, Member 22 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
23 24 l
1 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
E 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
4537 1
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of GPU Nuclear Corporation:
3 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 LeBocuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
8 Washington, D.
C.
20036 4
' SQ.
MOLLY BOAST, E
9 LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 520 Madison Avenue 10 New York, New York 10022 11 On behalf of Jack Herbein:
JAMES B.
BURNS, ESQ.
12 Isham, Lincoln & Beale l
Three'First National Plaza 13 Chicago, Illinois 60602 CHRISTOPHER W.
FLYNN, ESQ.
I 14 RICHARD O. WOLF, ESQ.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale l
15 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 16 On behalf of Gary P. Miller:
17 l
MICHAEL W.
MAUPIN, ESQ.
M.
CHRISTINA HENSLEY, ESQ.
18 Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street t
19 Richmond, Virginia 23221
)
20 On behalf of Former Metropolitan Edison Employees:
21 SMTIH B. GEPHART, ESQ.
22 Killian & Gephart 217-218 Pine Street, Box 886 23 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-24 On behalf of the NRC Staff:
()
A R. GOLDBERG, ESQ.
25 MARY E. WAGNER, ESQ.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4 646
7_
.-~ __ _.-._. _._
m 1
1 4
l 4538 1
CONTENTS j
2 WITNESS EXAMINATION-
,i 3
i Kenneth P. Bryan I
by Mr. Gephart 4539 f
by the Board 4543 by Mr. McBride 4600 i
5 1
by the Board 4600 i
6 7
- l. -
8 1
f I
9 LAY-IN - PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRYAN, Follows Page 4540.
10 i
11 l
i.
I 12 i
.i 13 14 1,
15 I
16 4
17 4
1 i
18 I
I j
19 P
20 i
l 21 I
22 1
23 Y
24 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j
' 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage M 336 46 4
28727.0 BRT 4539 1
PROC 33D1NGS 2
JUDGE KELLEY:
Good morning, Mr. Bryan.
3 Tile WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
4 Whereupon, 5
KENNETil P.
BRYAN 6
was called as a witness and, having first been duly sworn, 7
was examined and testified as follows:
0 EXAMINATION i
10 Q
Mr. Bryan, do you have in front of you a six-page 11 document entitled " Prepared Statement of Kenneth P.
Bryan"?
12 A
Yes, I do.
()
13 Q
And we had an opportunity to review this statement 14 again this morning.
15 A
Yes, we did.
16 Q
Do you wish to make any additions or corrections 17 or any changes in this statement at this time?
18 A
Yes, I do.
On page 4, I would like to delete the 19 firs t complete sentence.
20 Q
Beg. inning with "I also can no longer"?
21 A
Right.
Delete that sentence.
22 Q
Yes.
l 23 JUDGE KELLEY:
Where is that again?
Oh, top of l
24 the page?
25 Tile WITNESS :
First sentence.
<8 s)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m.w.-
--+ c-,.
28727.0 BRT 4540 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
2 THE WITNESS:
And - the next sentence right after 3
it, "As far as I can remember, water additions were required 4
to be recorded."
5
. JUDGE KELLEY:
Required to be?
6 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
7 BY MR. GEPHART:
8 Q
You want to insert the words " required to be" 9
after the word "were" and put a period after " recorded" and 10 strike the last four words, "as a general practice."
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
Any further corrections or additions at this time?
13 A
No.
14 Q
Do you wish this statement bound into the record I
15 as your s tatement?
16 A
Yes.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
So ordered.
i 18 (The document follows:)
19 20 l 21 22 23 24 25 O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-M46
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(
BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD
)
-In the Matter of
)
)
INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND
)
Docket No. LRP UNIT 2 LEAK RATE DATA
)
j FALSIFICATION
)
)
J PREPARED STATEMENT OF KENNETH P.
BRYAN j
My name is Kenneth Paul Bryan.
I currently reside in Augusta, Georgia.
I am a self-employed consultant.
j I began employment with Metropolitan Edison in 1967 at the Crawford Station.
In 1969, I started at TMI Unit 1, and I 4
obtained my license as a control room operator in 1974.
In 1976, I became a shift foreman at Unit 1.
In 1978, I became a dual-licensed shift supervisor.
I left TMI in 1980 and was I
employed by Quadrex, Inc. for approximately a year and a half.
j I then became self-employed.
By my own choice, I am no longer licensed to operate a nuclear power plant.
l Through the time of the March 1979 accident, I was a shift supervisor assigned to "F". shift.
The shift foreman in Unit 2 r
was Carl Guthrie and the control room operators were Hugh 1
McGovern and Earl Hemmila.
Leonard Germer was a trainee.
As O
4
b
()
shif t supervisor, I oversaw the operation of Units 1 and 2.
My duties included keeping track of all surveillances and seeing that they were-performed.
The time I spent in each Unit changed on a daily basis depending upon plant conditions; however, more of my time was spent in Unit 2 until March 1979.
I then spent more time in Unit 1 supervising refueling.
Whenever I worked day shift, I attended plan of the day (POD) meetings.
At these meetings, we discussed any major problems with operations.
I recall that we discussed. personnel and administrative concerns at monthly shift supervisors' meetings.
l Unit 2's technical specifications required that a successful leak rate test be performed every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
Company
(}
policy required us to perform one every shift.
By obtaining a test with unidentified leakage less than 1 gpm, we extended the 2
72-hour time clock.
If the computer printout indicated that the unidentified leakage was high or excessively low, it was my understanding that the operators would evaluate it based on plant parameters including makeup tank levels, radiation levels, and so forth.
If nothing indicated why there was a change from previous leak rates, the test performer would-3 discard that printout and initiate another.
It was my understanding that we had to enter the action statement if we obtained a leak rate higher than 1 gpm that we could not invalidate.
I did believe that if I had looked at everything
(
I. - -
1
\\
~ (])
else and did not think that I had obtained.a valid leak rate, I did not have to start the time clock.
I never specifically instructed my shift how to interpret leak rates oecause this subject was part of their training on technical specifications.
I do not recall receiving _
instructions from any of my superiors as to the way in which I should construe the technical specification ~ governing the leak rate test.
On my shift, the control room operator would decide when and how often to run a leak rate test.
My permission was not-required.
Often, leak rate tests were not performed on day shift, because the computer was being used for other functions.
Each control room operator could decide whether to
(}
discard the leak rate printouts.
There was nothing secretive about this process.
Unit 2's leak rate numbers varied quite widely, and more leak rates were determined invalid.in Unit 2 than in Unit 1.
.I attributed the inconsistency of the numbers to the fact that Unit 2 was not yet as fine-tuned as Unit 1.
As I recall, tests with unidentifed leakage less than 1 gpm were getting harder to obtain as we approached the time of the accident.
The start' time for leak rate tests was recorded on the computer printout.
I do not remember being aware that the control room operators also had to record the start time in their logbook.
My only explanation for our not recording the -
l' i
.r start time is that we must have overlooked it.
I also can no
(}
longer recall whether water additions made during a leak rate were required to be recorded in the logbook.
As far as I can remember, water additions were recorded as a general practice.
I thought that water could be added during a leak rate test if it were properly accounted for.
I would not have accepted a test if I knew an operator had not accounted for a water addition, but I am unaware of the existence of any tests where this occurred.
I am also unaware of any operators who " jogged" water during a leak rate test to deliberately affect the result.
I could understand, however, if some operators occassionally failed to communicate with each other, causing an unaccounted-for water addition.
I remember being aware that the addition of hydrogen
{}
affected makeup tank level.
I could not explain how this phenomenon worked, but I was aware that hydrogen caused a change in level.
I did not first learn of this by experimenting with hydrogen during a leak rate test; I observed its effect on the makeup tank during normal operations.
I concluded that hydrogen would affect the leak rate test, because it changed the makeup tank level.
I do not recall having any specific discussions on the subject with supervisory personnel or control room operators.
I was unaware of anyone who deliberately added hydrogen during leak rate test to affect the test's results.
O - - - -
(')
I believed that Exception and Deficiency sheets did not.
%/
have to be applied to leak rates determined invalid due to computer error, variance with plant parameters, or whatever.
~
For purposes of the "E and D" procedure, the leak rate was.
treated differently than other surveillances, because the other surveillances were not computer dependent.
I did not consider a computer printout to be a surveillance until it was approved and a cover sheet was attached for filing.
Because I was used to seeing negative leak rates on a fairly frequent basis from my Unit 1 days, I permitted the filing of negative leak rate tests as valid.
I thought there was no reason why the instruments could not select a number on the other side of zero.
My shift made. judgment call on whether to file a particular negative number; there was no hard
)
and fast rule on what negative number would be accepted.
I have no recollection of reviewing the November 1, 1978 LER,' or of discussing it with my shif t or with my superiors.
I
'51so have no recollection of reading the October 20, 1978 operations memorandum.
Neither document changed my interpretation of the technical specifications for leak rate tests.
I have some vague recollection of the March 16, 1979 TCN because I remember that we were attempting to account for i
the density change in water.
I do not remember if it improved our ability to obtain satisfactory leak rate tests.
I do not know of anyone who deliberately falsified a leak I "
1 4.
rate test.
I do not know of any supervisory personnel who I
would have directe'd anyone to do something like that.
I knew that operators were experiencing problems obtaining I
satisfactory leak rate tests, but we were trying to find out what was wrong with the test.
I remember that we continuously looked for leaks, we looked at instrumentation; in fact, we j
looked at anything we could to rectify the problem.
4
'I l
O 4
i i
I O
f I..,.
28727.0 BRT 4541 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Bryan, I have a few 2
introductory comments and we will get into the questions we 3
want to put to you.
4 This board has been charged by the commission to 5
determine the extent of involvement of employees at TMI-2 in 6
1978 and
'79, in leak rate test falsification or manipulation 7
and other improper practices associated with leak rate 8
testing.
9 This will be your opportunity to. state on the 10 record this morning your reco11cetion and your perception of 11 events at that time about your own involvement in leak rate 12 testing.
13 We've reviewed your prefiled testimony and we've 14 reviewed other portions of the record such as the statements 15 you had given earlier to other investigators.
I think you 16 gave a statement to the NRR people and also to one of the 17 Stier people, and we'll also be considering tests in the 18 record, s tatements by other people.
19 1 might just say that you should realize, first --
20 I guess you know -- that we have heard from Mr. Guthrie, Mr.
21 McGovern, Mr. Hemmila.
We have decided not to call Mr.
.:2 Germer, basically because he was a trainee at the time, he 23 wasn't particularly involved in leak rate testing, he Jives 24 in Maine, and it just didn't seem to be justified -- I think 25 particular.ly from his trainee status.
[G 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3c-347 37m Nationwide Coscrage 233MM6
28727.0 BRT 4542 1
Since you were a supervisor at t*.e time, it seemed 2
to us to be more important to get your views into the 3
record.
We have, in fact, talked now to every CHO, shift 4
supervisor and shift foreman running -- involved in leak rate 5
tests in '78-79, with the exception of Mr. Germer and one CRO 6
from another shift who, so far, hasn't complied with the 7
subpoena.
8 So our approach, generally, has been to talk to 9
everybody who had some significant involvement in it.
- This, 10 I think, is partly to say we didn't bring you up here all the 11 way from Georgia lightly, and if this had been just a 12 manipulation case, frankly, I don't think we would have
()
13 called you.
14 Your shift, shift F, and shift A, at least in 15 terms of the NRR -- by NHR I mean the NRC's inves tigation --
16 came out of this whole thing comparatively -- looking pretty 17 good compared to some of the other shifts.
18 Nobody on your shift has admitted manipu]ation; 19 none of the investigators has accused anybody of 20 manipulation.
So we want to focus, really, on other aspects 21 l of your knowledge and'your shift's participation in leak 22 rates.
23 Don't feel that you have been singled out in any 24 adverse way, but rather out of a desire on our part to get a 25 full record.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationuide Coserage 800-3364M6
28727.0 BRT 4543 1
With that, I'll start off with some questions.
2 Then Judges Carpenter and Bright will have some as well, I'm 3
sure.
4 EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD 5
BY JUDGE KELLEY:
6 Q
Beginning, I would like to begin with some of the 7
statements in your prefiled testimony.
You talk at the 8
bottom of page 2 about your understanding of the tech specs 9
in terms of.the 72-hour time clock.
10 Should I read your testimony. correctly to mean 11 that so long as you had a leak rate test, what is often 12 called a good leak rate test, which really means one under 1
()
13 gallon, if you had such a leak rate test, then for 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> 14 you were home free, so to speak?
15 A
That's correct.
16 Q
And to make that a little less -- that's almost in 17 slang.
If you got a leak rate test, then, after a good one 18
-- say you got a good one on hour 1, if you didn't run 19 another one for 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, I guess that was fine under the 20 tech spec; correct?
As far as the tech spec was concerned?
21 A
We had to have one every 72. hours, within a 22 72-hour period.
23 f Q
But if you ran a test later, the next shift ran a 24 tes t -- and typically the practice was for every shift to run 25 a test?
. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(0 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
28727.0 BRT 4544 1
A That's correct.
2 0
-- and that test came out to 1.2, let's say, where 3
did that put you in terms of the action statement and tech 4
spec compliance?
5 A
My understanding of it today or then?
6 Q
Then.
Generally speaking we are talking about 7
then unless we say otherwise.
8 A
At the time, if we had a good leak rate within a 9
72-hour period we were all right, unless we did develop a 10 leak in between the time we got a good one and the 72-hour 11 time clock was up.
If we had a valid leak we would have had 12 to be in tech specs -- in the clock.
O 13 o
reer weer to te ahv ee ce>a thi ea thet --
14 okay.
15 A
Hight.
16 Q
How would you know, though, whether you had a 17 leak?
Again, let's take this hypothetical where you get. a 18 leak rate test that says 1.3; then what happens?
What do you 19 do then?
20 A
We'd do another one.
We are talking back in time, 21 now.
22' Q
Right.
I understand.
You would run another onc.
23 And if the next one came out
.9, you'd throw away the 1.3.
24 A
That's correct.
25 Q
You refer in~your statement to -- well, I'll quote ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
28727.0 BRT d545 c
k 1
this sentence towards the bottom of page 2.
2 "It was my understanding that we had to enter the 3
action statement if we obtained a leak rate higher than 1 gpm 4
that we could not invalidate."
5 Focusing on the end of the sentence, "that we 6
could not invalidate," how did you go about doing that?
I 7
mean, I can understand certain kinds of mistakes in running a 8
test.
If somebody put in 300 gallons of water and you didn't 9
put it in the calculation and you realized that, then I guess 10 you'd throw it in the trash; right?
But other than an 11 obvious error, or obvious lack of stable plant conditions, 12 how would you go about validatin'g or invalidating a test?
~
13 A
By observa tions of the containment building 14 radioactivity, containment sump leve]s, makeup tank levels; 15 if everything is trending along the way it has been for the 16 last three or four days, there's no obvious reason to think 17 that now, all of a sudden, I've got a leak.
18 Q
Okay.
I think I understand what you are saying.
19 But a leak of what magnitude?
I mean, if the tech spec, when 20 it sayr 1 gallon, really means that and means 1.0, and not 21 just some vaguer version of 1 or rounded-off version of 1, 22 but 1.0, and it says when you exceed 1.0, go into the action 23 statement leading up to a shutdown if necessary, and then 24 your -- then you get a leak rate test that has a result of 25 1.2, by looking at these things you've mentioned, the trend ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationaide Cmerage N 336-(686
28727.0 BRT 4546 1
in the tank, walk around and look for leaks, the 2
particulates, radiation detectors, all of those things I'm 3
sure are useful in seeing gross problems anyway.
But can you 4
see
.2 gallons?
5 A
Probably not.
We probably -- made a mistake.
Bad 6
judgment.
7 Q
On page 3, the top of the page, "I never 8
specifically instructed my shift," and so on, and you say 9
"because this subject was part of their training on tech 10 specs."
11 What did you understand their training to have 12 been about leak rates?
(')
13 A
They were supposed to know tech specs as well as I 14 did.
I knew the 1 gallon a minute, four hours, every 72 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br /> we had to have one.
16 Q
Where did they get that training, as far as you 17 understand?
18 A
Well, probably from the training, training 19 department during their formal training classes and 20 on-the-job training.
It's something -- you do discuss tech 21 specs during the course of a day when you are working and it i
22 comes up.
23 Q
When you say "their training," then, you are 24 l referring to both whatever they got in the way of classroom i
25 instruction and their work, take on your shift with Hemilla (g_/
j 1
. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804 336-6616
28727.0 BRT 4547 1
and McGovern?
2 A
Hight.
3 Q
Tha t 's training too?
4 A
Yes.
5 Q
Continuing on through your statement.you. talk 6
about water additions and indicate that taey basically didn't 7
occur on your shift.
I wanted to look at a couple of tests 8
here.
9 First, could we turn to a table in the NRR
.0 analysis, table 6 or 7 -- table 6 initially.
11 (Discussion off the record.)
12 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
()
13 Q
I'm just asking you to look at this to sort of 14 help me get into a few of the tests.
We can look at some of 15 the things that happened with your shift.
16 The first thing that strikes me by way of 17 confirmation of your testimony, you say you wouldn't have 18 accepted a tes t if you knew an operator had not accounted for 19 a water addition.
You are not aware that that happened.
20 If you look at this chart number 6, toward the 21 bottom, on the bottom of the page, that's a breakout by the 22 h7C Staff.
That's their analysis of different kinds of 23 practices that occurred in different numbers of tests on 24 different shifts, as you can see from the headings.
25 IInder the category of " water additions not ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(4)
Nationside Coverage 8m3366646
28727.0 BRT 4548 1
included," your shift, F,
at the far right column, has zero.
2 So they found no tests where they thought there had been an 3
unincluded water addition.
4 You can glance up and down and see where they did S'
find either no problem or some indication of a problem.
The 6
category above that, " water additions partially included,"
7 they found three.
And " unstable instrumentation," one; " feed 8
and bleed," two; " hydrogen additions," one; " hydrogen or j
9 water," one.
10 I want to emphasize that these are the technical 11 analyses and conclusions of Staf f experts.
They are, in some 1
12 cases, debated.
There's another very extensive study in the i
13 record from Mr. Stier, and Stier and his experts made a very 14 similar analysis but - not exactly the same - but they in 15 some cases reached the same square by different streets.
But 16 they came out by and large in agreement on tests but in some 17 tests they didn't.
So some of these analyses are debatable 18 is all I'm saying, and by referring to them I'm not saying 19 the Board necessarily agrees with it, I'm just saying it's in 20 the record.
21 So I just wanted to point out that as to " water 22 additions not included," they didn't find any.
I would 23 assume tha.t the same would be true with the Stier~ test.
24 On " water additions partially included," let's 25 take a look at one of these so we can get a clearer idea.of gC 1
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
XC-347-3700 Nationwide Caerage 800-33MM6
)
28727.0 BRT 4549
%)
1 what is being talked about.
2 The tests that are cited by the Staff are test 3
number 150, 151 and 153.
I think 150, it might be just a 4;
good example to look at.
Why don't we take a look.
Do you 5
need a book for 150?
6 MR. MC BRIDE:
Thank you.
7 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
8 Q
I wanted you to take a look at 150 as an example.
9 There are a couple of others but I think it might be 10 sufficient to look at this one.
That's a test run on the I
11 17th of March between 2:48 and 3:48 in the morning by shift 12 F.
The CRO on surveillance was Mr. McGovern and it was
[gh 13 approved by Guthrie.
The log would indicate who the panel 14 operator would have been:
Hemmila, I guess it was.
Yes.
15 Mr. Hemmila what on the panel.
16 Let me ask you this.
Confirm my impression, in 17 the case of a test like this -- and I'm citing it now as a 18 typical test -- would you have had any occasion to see it, in 19 most instances?
20 A
No.
21 f Q
Did it go beyond Guthrie to you?
22 A
No.
Not normally.
i 23 Q
Did it ever go beyond Guthrie to you, to review 24 some test or other?
25 A
It's possible, if Carl was out in the plant doing 7_u ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tc.347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
28727.0 BRT 4550
'N (O
1 something and the CRO finished the surveillance test and 2
said, here, I just finished this; and if I knew Carl wasn't 3
going to be back and he had a bunch of work piled on his 4
desk, I might help him out and review them and file them so 5
he wouldn't have to do it when he came back.
6 Q
So you might do it instead of Guthrie.
Okay.
7 Would there be tests, though, that, for whatever 8
reason, the CRO brings it to Guthrie and Guthrie decides to 9
bring'it to you?
Do you recall that happening?
10 A
No.
11 Q
So, except for cases where you were substituting 12 for Guthrie you didn't see the test; is that right?
()
13 A
Not on -- normally.
14 Q
In a reviewing capacity, I mean?
You might have 15 looked in the book or something --
16 A
Yes.
17 0
-- but in looking at it at the time, and in making 18 a decision whether it's valid or invalid, whether it should 19 be filed or not filed,. in the normal course of events I 20 ga ther you didn' t see it?
21 A
No, I didn't.
22 Q
Okay.
This 150, then, is an example of what the i
23 Staff calls a " water addition partially included."
24 i The way we have learned to look at these -- in 25 terms of documents, by the way, the computer printout of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MI>46
28727.0 4551 0_.
BRT 1
course is on the top.
The next sheet is a data sheet 4, 2
reflecting the water addition.
It was 207 gallons in this 3
instance.
4 The handwritten two sheets after that were a 5
result of the temporary change notice, I believe, in March.
6 Do you recall that, where there was some adjustment in the 7
formula to take into account density --
8 A
Vaquely.
9 0
-- differences?
In any case, we talked about this 10 at some length with either Mr. Hemmila or McGovern or both, 11 and I believe that's what you are looking at in the next 12 couple of pages.
()
13 Then you have the log.
Then there's the strip-14 chart.
You will note that the strip chart brackets the 15 location of the test to the right of center, where it says, 16 at the top, in heavy printing, "LRT-150."
That's the time 17 that the NRC technical analysts concluded this test was run, 18 2:48.
19 This appears to be a time when strip chart's time 20 was -- were you aware of the fact that strip chart time and 21 clock time were sometimes out of sync?
22 A
CartTinly.
23 Q
l'm looking at this.
This appears to be off by_15 24 or 20 minutes, if you compare the chart time and the clock 25 time.
But for your information, what the NRC analyst did was O-s ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
28727.0 BRT 4552 1
locate certain events in time, such as a big water addition, 2
find it in the log and then correlate the position of the 3
increase on the chart with time, so that's the derivation of 4
the location of these two lines.
5 Then their analysis is jus t a couple of sentences 6
typed in at the bottom of the sheet.
It says " water addition 7
of 240 gallons at 3:23.
The log states 200 at that time; the 8
calculation concludes 207."
9 We walked.through this with -- I don't remember 10 whether it was Hemilla or McGovern or both, but I believe our l
11 earlier discussion indicated that the difference between 200 12 and 207 was simply that the batch controller was likely to
()
13 print out that number.
If you asked it for 200 it's going to 14 give you 207 or 198 or something close, but that's what you 15 get.
But the more important point from our standpoint is, 16 could you take a look at the trace at the point where this 17 water addition begins?
Do you see this steep, almost 18 vertical slope of the trace?
19 A
Yes, sir.
20 Q
How many gallons would you say -- the records 21 indicated to us that 1 inch on this, or one increment on this 1
22 is worth 30 ga] Ions.
How many gallons -- how-much of an 23 increase would you say that that reflects on the chart?
24 l A
About 210.
Seven inches there.
25 Q
The NRC analysts said they read it at 240.
I g-(_)
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tC-347-37m Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
2872.7.0 BRT 4553 C) r 1
guess it depends on how you read the top peak as whether you 2
read that as going to the very top of the line or whether it 3
stops at the increment before.
I suppose that's debatable.
4 But as I understand their analysis, they are saying we see 5
240, the batch controller says 207, which is what got put 6
into the calculation.
It should say 207 on the computer 7
printout sheet.
And it does.
Therefore the strip chart 8
reflects 33 gallons more than actually got put in.
Which, if 9
you then went ahead and calculated.the leak rate, let's say 10 it was 30 gallons, that would be half an inch in a one-hour 11 test; right?
12 A
30 gallons in --
(m) 13 Q
If you had 30 gallons -- if you got credit for 30 v
14 gallons more than you actually put in, then in a 60-minute 15 test, that would have a 1/2-gallon effect on the test; righ t?
16 A
Okay.
17 Q
So the reasoning, as 1 understand it, is that the 18 strip chart indicator was off by roughly that amount.
19 Therefore your test is off by about a half a gallon per 20 minute.
And that, in their analysis, is a partially included 21 water addition.
22 Does my commentary on this hang together?
Do you 23 know what I'm saying?
Does _it make sense to you?
24 A
I understand what you are saying.
I don't know if 25 I believe the difference between a 240 and 207 but I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336 6M6
28727.0 BRT 4554 V
1 understand what you are saying.
2 Q
Okay.
The way one reads those increments in some 3
cases, I agree with you, is debatable.
4 A
Especially this one where it happens to stop 5
the peak is right on a line instead of being in between a 6
line where it could be more clearly defined.
7 Q
Were you aware of the fact -- let me ask you this 8
first.
Did you have occasion, as best you can recall, to 9
look at strip chart readings in connection with leak rate 10 tests?
11 A
I would look at strip charts only to verify, to 12 confirm to myself that we didn't have the leak in the plant g
Q 13 and everything was normal.
But in relationship to doing a 14 specific leak rate did I look at it and see how many gallons 15 they added?
16 Q
Right.
17 A
No.
18 Q
So --
19 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, could we just clarify 20 that you are talking about TMI-2, because he was a foreman in 21 TMI-1.
22 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
~
23 Q
Right.
I'm just talking about your role as 24 supervisor at 2?
25 A
Right.
That's how I answered that.
gU ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8@33MM6
28727.0 BRT 4555
[mv) 1 Q
All right.
Fine.
2 I understand you to say that you would look at the 3
strip chart for rate of decline, essentially?
4 A
Trends.
5 Q
Trends.
And not a specific piece of a strip chart 6
which represented the time when a leak rate test got run; 7
right?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
Were you aware, did you hear in connection with 10 leak rate tests, that the strip chart trace, sometimes 11 anyway,.would give what appears to be a false indication?
In 12 the sense of giving you more credit in the tank for water 13 than you added?
14 A
No.
I don't recall that.
15 Q
I might just add, almost parenthetically, 150 --
16 150 doesn't-look like some other charts where we have seen 17 clearer evidence of manipulation because you'll go along for 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br /> and have no water additions and then, bingo, you'll 19 have a water addition right sicack in the middle of a leak 20 ra te test.
21 Here you are adding water, what, every hour?
22 Looking at 150.
23 A
That's pretty accurate.
Even more.
24 Q
Even more than an hour.
25 A
Yes.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3M Nationwide Coverage 800-336-u46
28727.0 BRT 4556 g_
km 1
.Q So it just seems to me as one element in analyzing 2
this chart, the addition of water at that time was perfectly 3
consistent with the additions all day long.
4 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, if I could just help 5
you for clarification, if you would turn to the log that 6
follows the test for that shift, which carries Mr. llemmila's 7
signature at the end of that shift, you will see more than 8
eight water additions.
It's a little easier to read the 9
shift -- the log in this case than it is the strip chart.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
Fine.
Thank you.
Okay.
11 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
12 Q
At the bottom of page 4 you talk about being aware (f
13 that the addition of hydrogen affected makeup tank level.
14 Could you spell out for us a little more fully what your 15 awareness was?. What was your observation, what happened, 16 where you came by this knowledge about this phenomenon?
17 A
I can't remember a specific day and time or 18 anything.
But I recall just being in' the control room, 19 somebody added hydrogen to the makeup tank and said:
Look at 20 t hi r:, the level went up.
You know?
Wow.
That was basically 21 it.
You know.
We did it again and-Yeah, it goes up when 22 yo" add hydrogen, increase the pressure.
23 Q
Could this have been Unit I?
l 24 l A
No.
This is Unit 2.
I'm pretty sure.
25 l Q
You think it was 2?
O-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3Xp Nationwide Cove age -
800-336 4 646
28727.0 BRT 4557
(~T
'u) 1 A
Yes, sir.
2 Q
Can you fix time at all?
3 A
No.
4 0
IJp toward the accident or prior?
5 A
Oh, no.
I would' think more -- way before the 6
accident.
7 Q
'78 sometime?
8 A
I'm guessing:
Yes.
9 Q
All right.
We'll take it as a guess.
10 Now, when you became aware of this at that time, 11 as you describe this incident, do you recall,'did you 12 actually see this on the strip chart?
Or were you just in
()
13 the room and somebody said -it?
Maybe, you indicated, you 14 went and looked at the chart?
Saw the chart?
15 A
I'm pretty sure I seen it, as I recall.
16 Q
Well, can you give us an indication of how much of 17 an effect occurred?
18 A
It was slight, and I would say on the order --
19 well, depending on how m'Ich you added, 2 inches, 2-1/2, 3 20 inches somewhere -- just a little blip, as I recall.
I 21 !
Q Do you recall noting the time duration that the 22 blip, if you call it a blip, would last?
23 A
If I recall it would look like a water addition.
24 Q
Put it a different way.
A blip in my mind --
25 A
It would Pe a sharp increase.
And then --
,,-u ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2024 47-3AU Nationwide Coverage 500-33M646 t
28727.0 BRT 4550 7_
V 1
-Q Is it an up and a down?
2 A
No.
It's an up and then just a normal -- slope.
3 Q
An offset.
4 A
Typically, what you would see as a water addition 5
except of a smaller magnitude.
6 Q
Of course it depends on how big a water addition.
7 A small' water addition won't du much either, will it?
8 A
Right.
9 Q
A little bitty one won't even move it, really, 50 10 gallons.
30 gallons is supposed to move it one increment, I 11 guess; right?
12 A
Right.
()
13 Q
Now, you indicated that it would depend on how 14 much hydrogen you put in; right?
15 A
Yes, sir.
16 Q
So, is that statement based on your having seen it 17 done experimentally several timer ?
Or why do you say it 18 would depend on how much you put in?
19 A
I think I'm making an assumption there; if you put 20 in more pressure the increase would.show higher.
It was not 21 something that we -- this happened once, one day and that was 22 )
it.
We didn't do this on a routine basis, checking to see if 23 the increase you get from adding hydrogen, or if you do 3 24 pounds you get this and 15-pounds --
25 Q
You didn't run a series of controlled experiments?
(~)
s-i t
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33M616
28727.0 BRT 4559
,s
(_)
1 A
No.
2 O
You did it once, as you recall?
3 A
Yes, sir.
4 Q
When you say "we," is it you and --
5 A
Hemmila --
6 Q
-- and Guthrie?
7 A
I don't recall if he was involved.
Me and the 8
control room operator, whoever it was at the time.
I can't 9
tell you who it was, if 1. was McGovern or --
10 Q.
It would have been your shift but you can't 11 identify people beyond that; is that right?
12 A
Right.
(')
13 Q
Let's take a look at one test -- it doesn't 14 involve your shift; it involves another shift -- where there 15
.i s fairly good reason to believe it represents a hydrogen 16 addition.
17 I'll bet Mr. McBride knows the number without 18 being told.
19 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes, sir.
- 120, 20 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
4 21 Q
Let's look at test 120.
If you turn to the strip 22 chart there, you can look at the bottom of the page and see 23 the NRE brief analysis.
Just by way of background, briefly, 24 Mr. Bryan, there's testimony that this strip chart we are 25 looking at represents a time when another shift -- I guess
%J ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804 334 6646
28727.0 BRT 4560 7-s b
1 just before yours, cooper, Congdon, Adams -- do they-2 typically precede you?
3 A
I don't remember.
4 Q
There's a line at the top.
Do you see the line S
where it says "McGovern, Hemmila, Guthrie," on the right?
6 A
Right.
7 Q
At, presumably, 2300 they took over.
8 But the testimony -- and I'm paraphrasing and I'm 9
maybe not being too precise -- is to the effect that the 10 shif t preceding yours had heard about a hydrogen ef fec t and 11 decided to conduct an experiment.
So during leak rate 120 12 they pressurized the makeup tank and, in fact, there's an
()
13 entry in the log that says that they pressurized the makeup 14 tank.
And, as a matter of fact, there's some handwriting 15 that you can't see on this version that I'm looking at, at 16 least, that indicates that they pressurized the MUT at that 17 time, and that's what that notation means at the bottom of 18 the page; the typed-up version.
19 Take a look at that offset that you see beginning 20 about halfway, a little less than halfway through test 120.
21 Is that similar to the offset that you recal) seeing at the 22 time on your shift that you did a similar experiment?
23 MR. MC HRIDE:
Judge Kel3ey, I'm sorry, I have to 24 object to the characterization of it as an experiment.
I 25 think his testimony was just that they observed the 7~s U
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
28727.0 BRT 4561
.s 1
phenomena.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
3 THE WITNESS:
No.
4 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
5 Q
I'll ask you about that in a little more detail, 6
but go ahead.
7 A
Ours was more of a line like a water addition back 8
there at 8:00 p.m.,
shortly after 8:00, as I recall.
9 0
8:00 chart time?
10 A
Yes, sir.
11 Q
Almost vertical line?
12 A
Yes, sir.
Not in that magnitude but-it would be
()
13 approaching that degree of rise there; that type of a slope.
14 Q
The similarity is'in the -- the slope was more 15 like the almost vertical slope you are pointing to, as 16 distinguished from this, how would you characterize the 17 hydrogen --
18 A
I don't recall when we had to start adding 19 hydrogen by hand.
Was this after the time when.the bottles 20 were installed down a t the makeup tank?
21 Q
I think the record would show-chat.
I don't want 22 to testify on it.
23 We have a lot of testimony about when you couldn't 24 add it anymore from the control room and you had to do it by 25 an auxiliary operator.
Just exactly when that is I wouldn't ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
l 28727.0 BRT 4562 V
1 want to say.
2 A
If this is after that time it would probably be 3
realistic; if the addition was slower and not by merely 4
popping the valve open, pressurizing the tank at a faster 5
rate than if they did it by hand and cracked the valve open 6
and you had to walk back out in the hallway and tell the 7
control room, let me know when you got enough pressure, I've 8
got it opened up a little bit.
9 Q
That's an interesting point.
So you would think 10 it might be a matter of using the automatic equipment in the 11 control room versus --
12 A
Slow pressurization.
r i
13 Q
-- the slow pressurization that an operator would 14-have just by using a tank.
15 At the time that you observed this phenomenon --
16 and you indicated that it might'have gone up three inches on 17 the tank indicator, approximately?
18 A
I would -- as I recall, best -- three or four 19 inches.
Something in that neighborhood.
20 Q
Have you any recollection at all about how much 21 hydrogen wan being put in a t tisat time?
22 l
A How many cubic feet or how many pounds?
b 23 Q
Pounds.
I guess pounds is what we want to know.
24 A
I don't remember.
We are not talking in the 50 to 25 75 pounds range.
It seems to me it was somewhere around the nU ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC..
202-347-37(U Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
28727.0 BRT 4563
. x.
iQ 1
3 to 15 psi range.
I'm not sure about the numbers anymore.
2 Q
Let me clarify.
I may have used the wrong word 3
when I talked about your experience and talked about it as an 4
experiment now.
We already established it wasn't some sort 5
of controlled experiment where you did several things and 6
compared and all the rest, it was a one-shot deal.
7 But, was it an addition you were making for plant 8
reasons, other reasons?
9 A
Normal repressurization of the makeup tank when it 10 got low.
11 Q
And you just happened to notice when you were 12 doing that that you got this result on the chart?
'c()
13 A
That's correct.
14 Q
That was maintained, the overpressure was 15 to 25 15 pounds; is that about right?
16 A
It's as good a guess as I got.
I said 3 to 15.
I 17 don't remember the number.
18 Q
You may be right.
There's some testimony in the 19 record on it.
It's not crucial for our purposes exactly what 20 it was.
21 But if you observed this in the course of a leak 22 rate test -- strike that.
23 If you observed this in the course of a normal 24 addition to maintain pressure and did it then occur to you 25 that adding hydrogen during a leak rate test might throw the o/
s_
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33MM6
l 28727.0 BRT' 4564 1
test off?
i 2
A Yes.
3 Q
So, did you give any instructions to your 4
operators to,.therefore, avoid adding hydrogen during leak
~
5 rate' tests?
6-A I may have.
I don't recall I specifically told 7
them not to.
I-mean, we knew the general game plan doing a l
8 leak rate test was not to change any parameters.
I would 9
hope. that I told them.that but I can't remember if I did, i
10 eight years ago, or not.
11 Q
At that time do you think you would have viewed --
12 let's take a context which is, I think, fair at that time.
A
- ()
13 lot of the time it was pretty tough'to get a leak rate test i
14 to come out under a gallon a minute, especially up towards 15 the accident.
And the operators.had a responsibility to keep t
l 16 running this test and.get a good one, so to speak.
i 17 In that kind' of a context, would you have regarded i
18 the deliberate addition of hydrogen during.a leak. rate test i
19 to affect the result -- how1would you have regarded that?
l 20 A
Falsifying the test.
21 Q
Yes.
So would I.
22 A
If it was unaccounted for.
It'was'really hard to 23 account for hydrogen.
I don't think we had anything in our 24 procedure.to account for~ hydrogen.
~
25 Q
Water I understand,.but hydrogen -- was~the.
4 1
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 -
Nationwide Coverage 80433MM6
28727.0 BRT 4565 s
s 1
equivalent?
You could run it?
You could run a whole bunch 2
of fancy experiments and show just exactly how many pounds 3
would produce how many inches and then start subtracting --
4 A
We didn't have that.
5 Q
-- but nobody knew that, did they?
6 A
Right.
7 Q
At that time, or at least under -- was it 8
Mr. Logan who was particularly insistent on maintaining 9
hydrogen pressure; do you recall?
10 A
I don't recall that.
11 Q
I have heard testimony -- and I may have the wrong 12 name and confusing Logan -- that during the period, the, say
()
13 three months before the accident, that there was a 14 supervisory-level person there, whether it was Logan or 15 Kunder or -
.I don't know who --
16 MR. MC BRIDE:
It was Logan, was the testimony, 17 Judge Kelley.
18 JUDGE KELLEY:
That's what I thought.
19 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
20 Q
-- who, I am told, was particularly concerned, 21 sort of had a. thing about hydrogen pressure.
And there was 22 an. outstanding directive that hydrogen pressure be maintained 23 at a certain level.
I was frankly guessing at 15 to 25, may 24 be some other number -- but whatever the number is, would it 25 have been possible at that time to both comply.with that b_
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-1700 Nationwide Coverage
. 800-336-6M6
28727.0 BRT 4566 7-U 1
directive to maintain a stern pressure band and at the sanie 2
time run a leak rate test?
3 A
I don' t recall having any problem with that at 4
all.
5 Q
Well, I guess what I'm envisioning -- and maybe 6
you can explain to me why it wouldn't be a problem -- I'm 7
running a leak rate test and the light goes on on the 8
hydrogen pressure indicator saying it is below minimum 9
pressure.
If l'm going to maintain that hydrogen pressure, 10 I'm going to have to invalidate the tes t; is that correct?
11 A
That's correct.
12' Q
Okay.
But would it be possible, then -- h'ow do
()
13 you avoid the problem?
By just making sure the thing is 14 pumped all the way up to the top before you start running a 15 Jeak rate test?
16 A
Well, normally an addition of water prior to doing 17 c leak rate test will increase the level and increase the 18 pressure, just by the water level addition.
Okay?
19 Q
Oh.
So by --
20 A
Filling the makeup tank prior --
21 Q
-- filling the makeup tank up to 80 or 85 inches, 22 just by doing that I increase the overpressure?
23 A
- Right, 24 Q
And I also increase -- I'm betraying my ignorance; 25 obviously I increase the overpressure.
Do I also increase 1
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336 6M6
28727.0 BRT 4567 s
[O
\\
1 the hydrogen overpressure or is all the pressure there 2
3 A
Well, you are squeezing that volume smaller.
4 Q
Right.
5 A
So if you had 3 pounds in there -- and I don't 6
know, you might cut that volume in half now because you've 7
filled it full of water -- the hydrogen pressure is going to 8
increase.
9 Q
I understand about the compression, sure.
And the 10 bubble.
What I wasn't clear about was when you speak of 11 hydrogen overpressure, is that what you've got in that makeup 12 tank?
Just hydrogen overpressure?
I thought it had to do CJ s
i 13 with the content of hydrogen in the bubble?
Not?
No?
I'm 14 wrong?
Am I making any sense?
15 A
All we read is pressure in the makeup tank.
16 Q
Well, I have been heari.ng people tell me for 17 several weeks:
I've got to maintain hydrogen pressure.
I 18 thought that's what that meant.
Is that not anything 19 separate, just from the overpressure in the-makeup tank?
20 Same thing?
21 A
I'm confused on this question.
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
So am I.
Let me ask Judge 23 Carpenter, can you straighten me out on this?
24 JUDGE CARPENTER:
I think what Judge Kelley is 25 trying to ask:
First of all, was the gas phase in the makeup y,yu ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
28727.0 BRT 4568 OV 1
tank exclusively hydrogen or was it a mix of hydrogen and 2
3 THE WITNESS:
We had a hydrogen bottle hooked up 4
to it.
We fed hydrogen to it.
If nitrogen got in there, I 5
don't know how it did.
As far as I know, it was purely 6
7 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
8 Q
All right.
So the overpressure in the makeup tank 9
was a hydrogen overpressure.
10 A
That's correct.
11 Q
And as you say, by raising the water level, I 12 increase.the hydrogen overpressure automatically.
()
13 A
Right.
14 Q
Okay.
So it's not two separate things I worry 15 about.
I just raise the water level and then by so doing, 16 I've got the water level up way above minimum and I've also 17 got the hydrogen overpressure level higher than I had it, 18 anyway, by doing that.
And I proceed to run my leak rate 19 test, and can I be pretty sure that absent some unusual 20 circumstance, I can finish the test before I have t.o worry 21 about either pressure or water level, minimum?
22 A
Yes, sir'.
23 MR. MC BRIDE:
Could we go off the record for a 24 second?
25 JUDGE KELLEY:
Sure.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336M46
28727.0 BRT 4569 m
1 V
1 (Discussion off the record.)
2 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
3 Q
Apart from maintaining overpressure, hydrogen 4
overpressure, we'll call it, might you not also have occasion 5
to add hydrogen in order to maintain rod position?
Why do I 6
say "tyydrogen"?
Excuse me.
I'm thinking of boron.
Strike 7
the question.
Never mind.
Forget it.
8 You indicate in your interview with the NRR 9
people, when you are talking about this phenomenon of.
10 hydrogen additions and makeup tank levels, that you assumed 11 that other people knew about it too.
I realize you covered 12 this to some extent in your statement, but let me just ask
()
13 you fresh, about your assumption in that regard and why you 14 assumed that.
15 Why do you assume others knew about it?
Do you 16 assume others knew about it?
17 A
As I recall, there was just general conversation 18 about it in shift changes and talking to other people.
19 Nothing formal.
It just occurred in conversations that I had 20 l with other shifts.
21 Q
You never wrote a memo on the subject?
22 A
No, I didn't.
Not that I recall.
23 Q
Nor did you ever see one from the ops people 24 saying watch out for hydrogen in leak rate tests?
25 A
Not that I recall.
%.)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 803 336-6646
28727.0 BRT 4570 1
Q See, we've had a number of witnesses come in here 2
on this subject and they say not only do they not know that 3
was the case, they don't even believe it to this day that 4
that could happen.
So yours is -- your observation, I think, 5
is certainly borne out by the record that it can have such an 6
effect.
But in terms of who seemed to know about it, you are 7
in a distinct minority as far as I have been able to 8
determine.
9 other than casual conversation, that would be your
.10 basis for assuming others knew about it.
11 A
Yes, sir.
12 Q
Just a couple of questions shout negative leak
()
13 rates.
You indicated in your statement, I think in your 14 interview also, that you did approve negative leak rates on 15 occasion, or your shift did; correct?
-l'6 A
Yes, sir.
17 Q
What was the rationale behind that?
18 A
Leak rates were hard to get.
In my opinion it was 19 because of the ICS and the way it was tuned.
It would pick 20 off a number from a chart.
The computer would pick a number 21 out of the ICS levels, pressures, temperatures, and 60 22 minutes it would pick off another number.
And with the 23 swings in the chart it is possible for it to pick '-1p a 24 negative leak rate.
If it's a small negative leak rate, it 25 was no -- I didn't figure that was any big deal.
It~could 7,
NJ
\\
. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80 4 336-6646
1 28727.0 BRT 4571 7
utner side and been a
.3 or 1
just as likal"
"^--
. mue 2
something.
3 Q
Would you think anything inside a minus 1 gallon 4
would be okay?
5 A
Certainly.
6 Q
Minus 5?
7 A
We are getting into a gray area now.
There's no 8
hard and fast rule on it.
I think one time somebody asked 9
that question I might have gave them a number, and I don ' t-10 recall what it was, but it was nothing -- it was a decision I 11 would have had to have made at the moment.
12 Q
But I gather from what you are -- I hear you
()
13 indicating, that there would be some point where you wouldn't 14 believe the number?
15 A
That's true.
16 Q
Minus 10, minus 20, minus 200, at some point?
17 A
Oh, yes.
Right.
18 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let's take a short coffee break and 19 come back.
20 (Recess.)
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
I've got just one thing that I 22 think we might usefully clarify.
23 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
24 Q
I talked to you about your shift and without 25 reference particularly to time, what we call F shift -- that u
ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
28727.0 BRT 4572 f)
(_)
I what we meant by your shift, and I'm thinking of the people 2
we mentioned, but that shift was put together in January of 3
'79; is that right?
4 A
Yes, sir.
5 Q
So from -- in January, can we nail down the time 6
at all?
Was it right at the first of the year or do you 7
recall?
8 A
I don't recall.
9 Q
Well, the records will show it in any case.
The 10 names will start showing up on certain sequential records, 11 but from that time we are talking about the people we have 12 already identified.
Prior to that time, what was your f3 13 posi tion?
Were you on any particular shift?
s_/
14 A
No.
I was in training and I was working different 15 shifts with different people.
16 Q
I see.
So we really couldn't identify you with 17 any fixed set of-people in that -- let's say -- well, 18 throughout
'78.
Were you in training throughout the whole 19 year?
20 A
I don't remember the dates of the training,,but I 21 would say in
'78, at least until the latter part of the year 22
-- I don't know when I actually started working with A 23 shift.
I was kind of floating around.
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
Do counsel think that's 1
25 sufficient for our purposes?
(^T
\\-)
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- x. -
~ ~-+ c-,
28727.0 BRT 4573 f~)
%)
1 MR. MC BRIDE:
Yes, sir.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
The thrust of your testimony is 3
about A shift and we have nailed down that's from January on; 4
and I guess that's sufficient for our purposes that prior to 5
this, you were moving around in training.
6 MR. GEPHART:
From July of '75.to October of '78 7
he was shift foreman in Unit 1.
From October '78 to June '79 8
he was shift supervisor on Unit 1 and Unit 2, from his 9
resume.
10' MR. MC HRIDE:
And I believe Mr. Blake's reports 11 will indicate that F shift was comprised in January of
'79.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
And again, we have certain records,
()
13 if it's necessary to clarify it further than what we have 14 done.
Judge Bright has some questions.
15 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
16 Q
Mr. Bryan, let's talk about the LER -- do you know 17 what I mean when I say "the LER," 78-62?
18 A
"The" LER?
Yes, sir.
19 Q
When -- where were you when this came about, say 20 November 1?
Were you shift supervisor at that time?
21 A
What year was that?
22 MR. GEPHART:
'78.
23 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
24 Q
'78.
The incident happened on-October 18th, in 25
'78.
nV ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37u)
Nationwide Coverage 80433MM6
I 28727.0 BRT 4574 V
1 MR. BLAKE:
Judge Bright, I believe the records 2
that are already in evidence would indicate that he would 3
have been a shift supervisor in training during that time.
4 JUDGE BRIGHT:
In training at the time.
5 MR. BLAKE:
Yes, sir.
6 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
7 Q
But you would, even if you were a shift supervisor 8
in training, have seen this particular document?
9 A
I did not see this particular document at that 10 time.
11 Q
At that time.
I presume that it was shown to you 12 at some time when you were being interviewed after the f) 13 accident, let's say?
ss 14 A
That's correct.
15 Q
Are your initials on the sign-off sheet for review 16 of that particular LER?
.17 A
No, they are not.
18 Q
They are not.
19 A
They are not.
20 l Q
Let me ask you, when something like that came 21 around, say it's an LER or -- what do you call it here, the 22 operations memorandum -- I understand that this particular 23 LER was distributed with something called an ops memo 24 attached to it.
And supposedly was accorded special 25 treatment, should bring special attention to it or something g~
L)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
28727.0 BRT 4575 1
like that.
2 A
I don't recall.
3 Q
Do you recall the process?
That is, if it had 4
this particular attachment to it, would it be accorded more 5
importance than just your standard little happy thought for 6
the day?
7 A
I don't really recall.
I thought it would be in 8
the required reading book or something.
9 Q
Let me ask you about that required reading book.
10 Did things like this LER -- you didn't see this one, so let 11 me ask you just things like that -- we know that they were 12 put in a required reading book that was kept in the control
()
13 room somewhere.
14 A
Yes, sir.
15 Q
As a shift supervisor, did you get your own copy 16 of these things?
Or did you have to percolate around the 17 control room and read it?
18 A
Some things we got and some things we didn't, and 19 I don't recall if this was one of them.
Sometimes we each 20 got an individual letter about certain items, but I don't 21 recall this one.
22 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
23 Q
At this particular time you were a shift 24 supervisor in training; correct?
25 A
Yes, sir.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage m3%6M6
28727.0 BRT 4576 7s xa 1
Q This operations memo that we are referring to --
2 do you know the document that we mean by that?
s 3
A Yes, sir.
4 Q
That's addressed, is it not, to all supervisors 5
and foremen?
6 A
Yes, sir.
7 Q
Would that have been addressed to a person like 8
yourself who was a supervisor in training?
9 A
It probably would have; yes, sir.
10 Q
Were you at that time also a foreman?
11 A
No, sir.
12 Q
The normal progression -- normal -- but the (m
e 13 frequent progression of promotion is CRO, foreman, shift v
U 14 i.
supervisor.
Did you move from being a CRO to a shift 15
' supervisor?
16 A
No.
I went from a CRO to a shift foreman.
And 17 then to shift supervisor.
18 Q
Well, that's what I thought.
So when you were a 19 shitt supervisor in training, were you then also considered a 20 foreman or were you no longer a foreman?
21 A
I was no longer a foreman.
I was a shift 22 f supervisor.
But I didn't have control of a shift.
I was 23 s till in training.
24 There was another shift supervisor there.
I 25 needed an SRO license -- I think -- no, I already had that.
'J i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3'(4)
Nationwide Coserage 8533M6m
28727.0 BRT 4577 1
Scratch that.
2 Q
I would just assume that if I'm going to send a 3
memo and I'm Floyd or Seelinger or somebody like that, to all 4
the shift supervisors, I would include shift supervisors in 5
training.
6 A
I would assume so also but this one, I didn't see 7
it.
8 Q
You say you don't remember or you are sure you 9
didn't see it?
10 A
I don't remember seeing it.
11 MR. GEPHART:
Judge, there may be some confusion, 12 something Judge Bright said a few minutes ago that the
()
13 operations memo -- and I guess we are talking about the Floyd 14 memo -- was attached to the LER.
15 JUDGE BRIGHT:
I'm talking about what Mr. Marshall 16 said.
17 MR. GEPHART:
Okay.
I want the record clear on 18 that.
We are not talking about the Floyd ops memo of October 19 20th.
20 JUDGE BRIGHT:
No.
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
I'm sorry, I certainly was.
22 THE WITNESS:
I'm confused.
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
Maybe I've muddied the water.
I'm 24 thinking of an October 20 memo -- that's signed by Floyd; is 25 that right?
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80133MM6
28727.0 BRT 4S78 7_
1 V
1 MR. GEPHART:
Yes, sir.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
-- to all supervisors and all 3
foremen, with three little paragraphs.
That's what I'm 4
talking about.
5 MR. GEPHART:
I think Judge Bright was talking 6
about the memo that went to Marshall.
7 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Perhaps I was asleep at that 8
particular time.
I have a terrible time that way.
But it is 9
my recollection that Mr. Marshall, when-he was talking about 10 his tremendous job of expediting this, that to bring special 11 attention to this whole thing, he included something with the 12 LER so that. people would pay attention to it.
()
13 Was I wrong?
14 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Bright, you have two things 15 in his testimony confused.
What he said was he did not 16 recall whether the PORC action item, which shows a direct to 17 Mr. Marshall, had attached to it the LER, or whether those 18 two came to him separately.
That was one part of his 19 Lestimony.
20 Another part of his testimony was that the Board 21 inquired about the Floyd operations memo of October 20,
'78, l
22 and he said that it was issued for extra emphasis, or words 23 to that effect.
24 He testified.as to both subjects but he did not 25 testify that the Floyd memo was attached to the PORC action I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage Nn336-6M6
~
28727.0 BRT 4579 U
1 item sheet that was sent to him.
His confusion was whether 2
the LER was attached to that sheet.
3 JUDGE KELLEY:
And my questioning was strictly 4
about the Floyd memo of October 20.
As I understand it, 5
looking at it now, you don't recall having received that; 6
correct?
7 THE WITNESS:
No.
I don't recall having received 8
it.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
But I was attempting to establish 4
10 whether or not -- it's a sort _of simple, narrow point --
11 would a supervisor in training likely have gotten that memo 12 which, on its face, is directed only to supervisors, 13 presumably full-fledged.
14 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
15 JUDGE KELLEY:
But my guess would be, sure,.i t 16 would go to people in the training, and you agreed with 17 that?
18 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
20 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
21 Q
Okay.
What I'm trying to find out, is it correct 22 for me to say that there is only one place in all creation 23 where you go to read things such as this LER:
the required 24 reading file, I think you call it?
25 A
No.
On occasions we would get a letter put on our
- O l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 102-347-37(H
~ Nationwide Coverage 8(G336-6M6 L
1 28727.0 BRT 4580 O
1 desk or in our mailbox, plus it might go in the required 2
reading book.
3 Q
Did shift supervisors normally go down and plow 4
through the required reading book?
5 A
Yes, sir.
6 Q
Shift foremen did the same thing?
7 A
Yes, sir.
8 Q
So there was one required reading file, to your 9
knowledge?
10 A
As'best I can recall.
i 11 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
12 Q
Did the ops memos go in that same reading file or
~
13 a separate reading file?
14 A
I don't remember how we did it anymore.
15 Q
Okay.
Well, that clears up one thing that I was 16 curious about.
Now let me ask you my standard question.
17 In your training or in your conversations with 18 other people or wherever, were you aware of the safety i
19 implica tions of the 1 gallon per minute limit on leak rate, 20 unidentified leak rate?
21 A
Yes, sir.
22 Q
And what was that knowledge?
23 A
Leaks don't get smaller, they get bigger.
And you 24 need to find out what is going on if you've def.initely got a 25 leak.
A weld leak or something like that could be very i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(0 336-M4
_.., _ _ _ ~
28727.0 BRT 4581 1
serious.
2 Q
Do you recall where you picked _this up?
3 A
During training -- way-back when, you know, a 4
control room operator in Unit 1, in training.
5 JUDGE BRIGHT:
Okay.
Thank you, sir.
6 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
7 Q
Mr. Bryan, looking at your_ prepared statement you 8
say you started employed with Metropolitan Edison in 1978.
9 can you testify what your occupational background was before 10 you went to work for Metropolitan Edison?
11 A
I had completed high school and two years of 12 college in hotel and restaurant management.
()
13 Q
Did you have any other work experience before you i
14 went to work for. Metropolitan Edison?
15 A
I worked i.: a Howard Johnson's as a restaurant 16 manager, and Bethlehem Stee] for a while.
17 Q
You weren't one of the nuclear Navy graduates?
18 A
No, I wasn't.
19 Q
Turning over to page 2 of your prepared statement, 20 the second full paragraph, second sentence.
You say " Company 21 policy required us to perform one -- with reference to this 22 leak rate tes t -- "every shift."
Was that written down 23 anyplace or was that just word of mouth?
l 24 A
I don't recall.
25 Q
Are you aware of where that policy originated?
l fsO ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
i 28727.0 BRT 4582
(_/
1 A
I vaguely remember starting in Unit 1 doing it as 2
a control room operator.
3 Q
Who would have caused such a policy to appear in 4
Unit I?
5 A
I don't -- I can't remember.
It probably would 6
have been the operations boss, but who it was at that time I 7
don't know.
8 Q
Do you think it was a sound policy?
9 A
I don't see anything wrong with it.
10 MR. MC BRIDE:
Is your question did he think so 11 then or does he think so now?
12 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Every question will be (v~)
13 specifically 1978-1979, before the accident.
14 THE WITNESS:
A sound policy to do a leak rate 15 every shift?
16 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
17 Q
Yes.
18 A
I can't see anything wrong with doing them every 19 shift, every hour.
20 Q
Did you think a leak rate test was something easy 21 to do and do properly?
22 A
Yes.
23 Q
As I understand it, the leak rate test calls for 24 steady state conditions.
25 A
Yes, sir.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37(U Nationwide Coverage WXK3%fM6
28727.0 BRT 4583 1
Q Were they frequently available?
2 A-It depends on how you define " steady state."
In 3
Unit 1 and Unit 2, steady state operations were entirely 4
different.
5 Unit 1, if you want to talk steady state, you are 6
drawing a straight line on a chart for T av or pressurizer 7
level or steam generator level.
8 Q
Or even makeup tank level.
9 A
Makeup tank level; true.
Okay?
10 In Unit 2 the oscillations were far greater than 11 what they were in Unit 1, but that was as steady as we ever 12 got.
Compared to Unit 1,
it wouldn't look like steady O(_)
13 state.
Steady state operation really is not intentionally 14 changing power or having a rod drop or a runback of some sort 15 or pump trip, having reactivity changes in the core.
16 Q
Or adding hydrogen or adding water?
17 A
No.
That has nothing to do with steady state 18 operation.
i 19 Q
Why does the procedure tell the operator not to 20 add chemicals and, if possible, to avoid adding water?
21 A
It's easier to get the leak rate if you don't make 22 any additions.
You don't have to take in the extra -- ekay, 23 I added 200 gallons of water, now I have to take that into 24 consideration for calculating the leak rate.
Or you can just 25 go back and let the computer do it, don't touch nothing for k
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37tt)
Nationwide Coverage 8534(M6
28727.0 BRT 4504
\\ /
1 an hour and it will spit it out for you.
2 Q
I agree the mechanics are simpler, but isn't it 3
also that if you do something like that, then you are 4
introducing a potential inaccuracy?
For example, if you add 5
water, you don't know exactly how much you've added, you have 6
introduced an inaccuracy?
7 A
That's correct.
8 Q _
While I'm on this subject, the procedure, as I 9
read it, tells the operator not to add water as a general 10 matter and then says, if you have to, be sure to tell the 11 computer that you added it.
Do you think the procedure 12 should have told the operator add water first?
I'm trying to
()
13 get a feeling from your perspective as a supervisor, how much 14 common sense you could expect the operators to have.
It is 15 very clear the operators didn't think about this.
Just, if 16 they needed to add water, they added water.
17 A
I have to go back to when I was a control room 18 operator in Unit 1 to answer the question.
19 The person that I was working with -- one person 20 had the control board, one person took care of the switching 21 and tagging desk.
The guy that had t'he switching and tagging 22 desk would run the leak rates.
J 23 If I was-going to run a leak rate I'd walk by and 24 look at the makeup tank level and say:
licy, Tommy, you are a 4
25 little low.
I want to do a leak rate.
So he'd add 150 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
y-n - + c -,.
20727.0 BRT 4585
('T U
1 gallons or whatever, and when he was finished I'd do it.
He 2
and I communicated-like that.
3 I can't answer for what everybody else did.
He 4
wouldn't go back and start a leak rate when I'm 3 inches from 5
a minimum level in the makeup tank, knowing I'm going to have 6
to add water in the next 10 minutes, and I wouldn't have done 7
the same thing to him.
' hat has 8
Q Well, that appeals to my common sense.
W 9
been so surprising is to discover how many people in TMI-2 10 didn't do what you just said.
11 A
I don't know what the other shifts did.
I know l
12 what we did on our shift.
f 13 Q
Well, I just was curious.
The procedure doesn't d
14 say in all caps, "think."
15 A
That's true.
16 Q
Because you expect people, even at the level of 17 control room operator, to think a little.
It wouldn't seem 18 to necessarily clutter up the procedure to say add water 19 first, add hydrogen first, get yourself ready to do the 20 test.
21 See, a lot of.ests NRR classifies as questionable 22 become questionable because they just didn' t do wha t you 23 described, which is to say:
I'm going to run a leak rate 24 test.
What do I have to do?
25 I'm just curious as to your impression as to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage Mn3?6 6M6 l
+_
28727.0 BRT 4586
[)
I whether the procedure should have been more explicit.
It 2
seems to me silly.
Where the procedure writing would have to 3
say:
If I don't add water this means add it first.
It's 4
almost implicit in my mind.
It certainly was -- apparently 5
that was your re.letion to the procedure.
6 Come back to your point about performing one every 7
shift.
We have -- or I have the impression that because this 8
surveillance was done so frequently, it was viewed-9 differently than other surveillances.
10 A
I don't think so.
Not because it was done --
11 there's stuff we did more frequently than this.
12 Q
Such as?
()
13 A
I can't remember all the tech specs, but you have 14 requirements for RWST level; steam generator levels -- not 15 steam generator levels, but core flood tank levels and 16 pressures.
They are all -- they were part of our reading 17 sheet.
You'd go around --
18 Q
But they weren't surveillances, tech spec 19 surveillances?
20 l A
It was required by tech specs that you verify --
21 that you had to have so many feet in the core flood tank so 22 we did this with our reading sheets.
So we actually were 23 doing a surveillance on, you know, levels and verifica tions 24 of water contents of different tanks by taking readings on an 25 hourly basis.
IL ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage RXM W6M6
i 28727.0 BRT 4587 v
1 Q
So, in your mind the fact that this leak rate 2
surveillance test was run every shift didn't really make it a 3
different kind of surveillance test?
4 A
Not the fact it was run on every shift; no.
5 Q
I'll skip o'.er to page 5 of your prepared 6
testimony.
The first paragraph where you talk about the 7
exception and deficiency sheets did not have to be applied to 8
the leak rates to determine invalidity, computer error, 9
variance of plant parameters, whatever.
10 I wonder if you would help me.
For other 11 surveillances, what kinds of things led to an identification 12 of an exception or a deficiency?
)
13 A
Let's take emergency feedwater pump.
l 14 Q
All right.
15 A
You've got to do a surveillance on it to determine 16 if it's operable.
You go down and you start it.
Obviously 17 if it doesn't start, you've got a problem already, okay?
You 18 get the pump running, you check the discharge pressure.
It 19 has to be able to produce X amount of psi and flow to be 20 operable.
Those are hard and fast numbers.
You can say:
21 Okay, if it's supposed to be 1000 pounds discharge pressure 22 and I have 700 pounds discharge pressure, something is wrong 23 with this pump and I've got an E&D sheet.
Or if it didn't 24 start, obviously you've got a problem.
25 Q
Well, if you ran a leak rate surveillance test and e
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(Xb33&MI6
28727.0 BRT 4588 1
you get 1.5 gallons per minute against a 1 gallon per minute 2
limit, why wasn't that the same kind of deficiency?
3 A
It certainly should have been.
It was.just poor 4
judgment at the time and we did it.
5 Q
That's what I was trying to get at, a feel for 6
whether you.could remember how that habit, this poor habit, 7
bad habit of not identifying these things as being 8
deficiencies came about?
Why was this leak rate test 9
considered to be a different can of worms than the rest of 10 them?
11 A
It relied on the ICS to maintain the parameters of 12 the plant as close to s teady s tate as possible.
The computer A
13 would pick the numbers off.
When you are doing it, you know,
(_)
14 it could pick it off at a high point here or a low point the 15 next time; it's going'to throw the leak rate off.
16 If you have done leak rates for a while and you've 17 gotten good ones for a week or two and you get-a bad one and 18 the makeup tank trends and everything else s tayed the same, 19 there is no reason to conclude that you all of a sudden 20 developed a leak when everything else has remained the same.
21 That's kind of the attitude, if that's what you are looking i
22 for.
It's not an excuse of why I didn't do it but tha t 's the 23 attitude behind the thing.
24 Q
I unders tand.
That's my point.
We are trying to 25 understand the facts as they existed; not whether good, bad ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
212 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8 % 336 6646
28727.0 BRT 4589 V
1 or indifferent at the moment.
2 Well, the reason that this is so awkward in my 3
mind is there was never any documentation of the fact that 4
there were problems with this leak rate test, that I can 5
find.
6 A
I can't think of any.
7 Q
If it had been that these out-of-tech-spec tests 8
were labeled as deficiencies, they would have piled up 9
someplace.
Maybe drawn a little more attention.
10 A
They certainly would have put some heat on some 11 people to get some things done.
12 Q
As these things keep piling up, then I think it is
( )
13 difficult to fault management in general when administrative 14 procedure 1010 is the mechanism for identifying problems, 15 starting paperwork that would cause somebody to resolve them.
16 A
I'm not so sure that things weren't in progress to 17 resolve them.
18 Unit 1 had been on the line less than a year --
19 excuse me, Unit 2.
It took us pr obably six, eight, 10 months 20 in Unit 1 to get the ICS finely tuned where it was 21 controlling everything at a better rate and they were s till 22 working on Unit 2's.
It is something you can'L go in and set 23 the module up and plug it in and say, okay, turn the plant on 24 and everything turns out straight.
You have to start working 25 with it.
Pumps are a little bit different and everything ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Ntionwide Coserage 843346M6
28727.0 BRT 4590
' O t
%J 1
else is a little bit different.
2 They were working on the ICS continually to try to 3
improve it.
4 Q
You say "they," were these company people or --
5 A
I&C.
6 Q
-- or. Met.Ed employees?
7 A
I&C department.
8 Q.
You in your prepared slatement make reference to 9
these plant oscillations.
Would you say by January of '79 10 that they had gotten appreciably smaller?
Make it specific 11
-- let's look at the strip chart from along in October.
12 A true random process.
Test 35.
13 A
We are looking at makeup tank level?
14 Q
Right.
Wouldn't that reflect these oscillations 15 you were talking about?
16 A
No.
It wouldn't. have any effect on it at all.
17 Q
Well, how would it affect the leak rate tes t?
18 A
The oscillations I'm speaking of are on the 19 primary plant.
The water in this thing is the same 20 temperature.
It doesn't vary its level because of steam 21 generator getting a little full and temperatures changing on 22 the primary side.
23 Q
Okay.
24 A
This is strictly a function of how much water you 25 are making up to the primary system.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8@3M-MM
28727.0 BRT 4591
(_)
1 Q
But if you look at that makeup tank level record, 2
it does show oscillations.
That's what I was trying.to get 3
some feel for, what was causing those?
4 A
I don't know what was causing these, but there's 5
~ more oscillations than just this that go into the leak rate 6
calculation on the computer.
7 Q
So you are telling me the pressurizer level, 8
perhaps, showed bigger oscillations?
9 A
RCS temperature showed bigger oscillations.
10 Q
Well, by January, February in 1979, the p] ant had 11 been operating, not commercially, but was operating for 12 near]y a year.
Would you say the leak rate system tuning was (s')
13 advancing some?
14 A
I can't recall whether we had made any appreciable 15 headway on it or not.
You would have to take a strip chart 16 of the first or second month of 100 percent power operation 17 and then compare it to one from six months later and see what 18 we had done.
I can't --
19 Q
The strip chart record of what?
20 A
RCS temperature, steam generator level --
21 Q
Well, you don't have any notion about what causes 22 the kind of oscillations that. we see there?
That's one input 23 to the computer which clearly was time-varying.
24 A
I agree with that but -- no.
I couldn't tell you 25 why these oscillations are in here.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
28727.0 BRT 4592 OO 1
Q As I understand it,'the makeup tank was being fed 2
continuously and being pumped out continuously and you had to 3
get those two bumps balanced; is that correct?
4 A
That's the first time I've ever heard that.
5 Q
Okay.
What was making the water flow through the 6
makeup tank?
7 A
We added water to the makeup tank manually.
8 Q
But jus t sitting there, was the water in the tank 9
stagnant or was it --
10 A
No, as the level decreases it is going into the 11 primary system.
12 Q
There was no continuous water supply to the makeup
()
13 tank?
14 A
No.
This is a difficult question -- no.
Whenever 15 we wanted to make up to it, that's what all the water 16 additions we have been talking about have been --
17 Q
I unders tand tha t, but I got the impression -- and 18 I'm still learning -- that there was a continuous supply of 19 water to the makeup tank and a continuous pumping out of it.
20 In fact, some of those pumps got starved -- I believe some of 21 the testimony was some of those pumps explode because of the 22 cavitating and overheating.
That was the enthusiasm for the 23 hydrogen overpressure, to keep the suction on those pumps.
24 A
I know what you were talking about, but no, there 25 was no -- there was a continuous supply of water available to l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. mom s _ mr7.,.
m m.m,
28727.0 BRT 4593 O
O 1
the makeup tank but it wasn' t always being filled.
And,.yes, 2
the charging pumps -- charging pumps -- the makeup pump sucks 3
off the tank.
It injects water through the reactor coolant 4
pump seals and its makeup to the pressurizer level.
As the valve opens up off the 5
pressurizer level goes low, a
6 discharge of the makeup pump and brings the level back up in 7
the pressurizer.
8 Q
So that valve is being controlled by the 9
pressurizer level?
10 A
Pressurizer level controlled a valve to maintain 11 pressurizer level at a set point.
12
,There was also letdown coming out of the system
()
13 that goes back to the makeup tank.
But there is no pump 14 associated with it.
It just comes off, because of the 15 pressure in the reactor coolant system -- as a matter of 16 fact, there's a few orifices in there to break the pressure 17 back down so that the piping can handle it.
So there's a 18 continuous flow of water in the makeup tank and out of the 19 makeup tank but not pumped into the makeup tank from a 20 separate source.
21 Q
So it just has the head that leauss the primary 22 circulating water sys tem and it is reduced lown to some level 23 and then supplies a flow into the tank and
- f. hen there's a 24 flow out of the tank.
I was just curious iinether these 25 oscillations did represent hunting back al.d forth between the
/
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage
, - 80tk33MM6 1
]
..V
28727.0 BRT 4594 n
1 input and the output?
2 A
That's possible.
But I can't -- yes.
3 Q
I mean if the pressurizer system is hunting a 4
little bit, opening and closing that valve, it seems to me 5
the makeup tank level would reflect that, and with time, g
6 these osci]1ations seem to get smaller by January or 7
February.
But those are not the oscillations you are 8
referring to in this answer?
9 A
Not -- well, there's other oscillations besides 10 this one.
11 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you.
12-JUDGE KELLEY:
May I just clarify my own mind on
(
13 this point, the discussion that Judge Carpenter and Mr. Bryan 14 just had about continuous flow in and flow out of the makeup 15 tank.
16 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
17 Q
The continuous flow in that is referred to, I la gather, would not come under the heading of operator-induced 19 addition?
20 A
That's correct.
It is all part of the RCS 21 inventory.
22 Q
Okay.
Because most of these tests under " operator 23 additions" had zero, unless you batch in 200 and then you put 24 that in.
Okay.
25 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
g ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationaide Coscrage 8M33MM6
28727.0 BRT 4595 s
1 v
1 Q
Coming back to page 5, your paragraph at the top 2
of the page about exemption and deficiency sheets, earlier 3
today you and Judge Kelley were looking at test 150.
I would 4
like for you to look at it again for me.
If you look at the 5
computer printout page for test 150, it shows a net 6
unidentified leak rate of roughly a half a gailon per 7
minute.
But if we look over to the third page and the fourth
-8 page of this material for this leak rate test that was 9
carried out after that temporary change notice was issued, we 10 see that if you do what the temporary _ change notice gets you 11 to do, you get a net unidentified leak rate of minus 1 gallon 12 per minute.
So that you go from plus 1/2 to minus 1 as a IC) 13 result of this temporary change notice.
14 Does that make any sense to you?
15 A
No.
The inaccuracy in the leak rate itself, you 16 know, it can change from one minute to the next or one hour 17 to the next.
You can do two in a row and not get the same 18 one.
19 Q
So you think this is just sort of happenstance?
20 A
It was just one of our oversights at the time.
21 Q
Well, apparently Mr. Guthrie didn't bring this to 22 you.
We have no evidence that he did.
He j'es t signed it.
23 If Mr. Guthrie had brought it to you, what do you think your 24 reaction might have been?
25 A
Not knowing what I know now?
a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-147 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8@3%fM6
28727.0 BRT 4596 7,
s 1
Q Yes.
This is March of
'79.
2 A
I would have signed it and turned it in.
3 Q
This difference, this improvement in the test as 4
per this temporary change order, takes an original result 5
which you would have accepted prior to this change order from 6
a half a gallon to minus 1.
Does that make any sense 7
technically?
8 A
No.
But like I said, not knowing what I know now 9
I would have signed this and turned it in because that much 10
-- we are only talking a gallon and a half difference here, 11 total difference.
That's not much of a change in leak rate.
12 0
compared against the technical specification limit.
()
13 of 1,
is 1-1/2 small compared to 1?
14 A
Negative leak rates were acceptable.
15 Q
Do the technical specifications tell you that?
16 A
It doesn't say they are not.
17 Q
Do they appeal to your common sense?
18 A
Well, obviously I've got to answer no.
But going, 19 again, to the swings in instrumentation -- in the ICS, it is 20 very likely, just as likely to get a negative leak rate as a 21 positive leak rate.
22 Q
Yes.
But here, this is a change in the procedure, 23 not a change -- not different inputs to the program, not a 24 different data set, but the same input manipulated 25 differently, in one case to give a plus 1/2; in the other ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80t>33MM6
28727.0 BRT 4097 m
1 case, to give minus 1.
But the minus 1 was supposed to be an 2
improvement as promulgated in this temporary change order?
3 A
There would have been a bigger improvement if the 4
original one would have been a 1.5.
5 Q
Yes.
If you are s tacking cards there are ways to 6
stack them in your favor and there are ways that are not in 7
your favor.
This seemed -- what I'm curious about is why 8
this didn't raise some question?
9 A
I don't know that it didn't raise any questions.
10 I don' t rece ll any myself, but certainly it was there, had 11 some thought into it at the time to try to help take out some 12 of the oscillations that we were seeing in the plant to get a
()
13 better leak rate; and certainly if you got one that's within 14 the limit of
.5, and you are doing something here that's 15 going to help you get a better leak rate, it is going to the 16 negative side.
Where, if you have a 2, or a 1.0 and it gets 17 you within the 1, and you've got the documentation to back up 18 how you come up with that number, you are fine.
19 Q
So you think there's nothing wrong with this?
20 A
I didn't say that.
I said at the time we were 21 trying to do the best we could with what we had and the 22 oscillations.
23 Q
Is this an oscillation problem?
24 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Carpenter, could we establish 25 whether the witness was working in TMI-2 at the time that 7_s U
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6645
I 28727.0 BRT 4590 1
this was performed?
I believe his testimony indicates that 2
he may have been in Unit 1.
He may never have been familiar 3
with this procedure and it may be difficult for him to answer 4
the last question without that foundation.
5 JUDGE CARPENTER:
That's just fine.
I got the 6
impression that from January of '79 you were shift supervisor 7
of shift F in Unit 2, all the way up to the time of the 8
accident.
9 MR. MC HRIDE:
If you look at the top of page 2, 10 he says, "The time I spent in each unit changed on a daily 11 basis depending on plant conditions.
However, more of my 12 time was spent in Unit 2 until March 1979.
I then spent more em( )
13 time in Unit 1, s'upervising refueling."
14 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Well, that indicates perhaps you 15 weren't around.
16 THE WITNESS: I recall this attachment.
I probably 17 never used it.
18 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
19 Q
But you were still splitting time between 1 and 2; 20 correct?
I understand Mr. McBride's point, had you gone over 21 to 1 permanently and entirely in March; but if you are 22 bouncing back and forth, how do we know whether you were in 1 23 or 2 at any given time?
You may not have been.
Maybe the 24 probabilities are you were-in I but you can't exclude the 25 possibility, can you?
O_
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 4 6
28727.0 BRT 4599
('J s
t-1 A
No.
2 MR. MC BRIDE:
I don't think the record does tell 3
you which unit he was in, but you might want to ask a 4
clarifying question, whether during the refueling, whether 5
there was one shift supervisor or two on the island.
And 6
what their respective responsibilities were, if you are 7
curious.
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, okay.
9 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
10 Q
During the refueling, did you have one or two on 11 the island?
12 A
We usually had two because we'd put one person to
()
13 be in charge of refueling.
The other person would take care 14 of babysitting Unit 2.
15 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Mr. McBride, I stated earlier 0
16 there's no evidence in this record that Mr. Guthrie ever 17 showed this to this gentleman.
18 JUDGE KELLEY:
Can I finish this point?
19 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Yes.
20 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
21 Q
Your testimony says you spent more time. "
I 22 would understand the point Mr. McBride is bringing out, if 23 your testimony said "I
spent all of my time," but that's not 24 what your testimony says.
25 What am I to take to be the case?
Were you 1Cl.)
'l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3?00 Nationwide Coverage 8(633MM6
28727.0 BRT 4600 1
exclusively at Unit 1 in March, during refueling?
2 A
I don't recall.
3 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay 4
MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, it might help you if 5
you would lac me ask a clarifying question.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Go ahead.
7 EXAMINATION 8
MR. MC BRIDE:
9 Q
Mr. Bryan, do you recall whether on any given day 10 in March of 1979 you spent all or none of your time in Unit 2 11 as opposed to Unit I?
12 A
I can recall days when I spent the entire day in
()
13 Unit 1.
For sure.
14 JUDGE KELLEY:
What day was this test run on?
15 MR. MC BRIDE:
March 17th, St. Patrick's Day.
16 EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD 17 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
18 Q
Do you know where you were on St. Patrick's Day in 19 1979?
20 A
No, sir.
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, it helps some.
22 THE WITNESS:
It can be found out by looking in 23 the logbooks by looking at what was going on.
If we were in 24 the middle of doing something in Unit 1 with regards to 25 refueling, I could probably figure it out.
n v
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804 336-6646
28727.0 BRT 4601 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
Unless it shows more than that, 2
though, that line of inquiry is a loser because there ar.e 3
four more tests that involve the same thing, the T av test, 4
knocking it off by a gallon and a half, following on the 5
heels of 150.
6 JUDGE CARPENTER:
To come back to Mr. McBride's 7
point, your testimony is, page 5, the end of the third _ full 8
paragraph:
"I have some vague recollection of March 16, 9
1979, temporary change notice because I remember we were 10 attempting to account for the density change in the water. "
11 So, Mr. McBride,
'I don't think that's compatible with his 12 being over at Unit 1 continuously the month of March.
()
13 MR. MC BRIDE:
I never said he was there 14 continuously the month of March, sir.
I never said that.
15 JUDGE CARPENTER:
All right.
16 MR. MC BRIDE:
What I said was on any given day 17 there was one supervisor in Unit 1 and one in Unit 2.
18 JUDGE CARPENTER:
And my. questions began by saying 19 there's no evidence that Mr. Guthrie ever showed test 150 to 20 him.
So I'm simply asking questions of what his opinion 21 wou:.d have been if Mr. Guthrie had shown it to him.
22 MR. MC BRIDE:
What happened, Judge Carpenter, I 23 t'aink the record will reflect, is we moved off of test 150 to 24 the TCN itself, which might have pertained to a different 25 test.
I was simply asking if the Board would lay a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I m e.34,.3,co s.,,e... ce,...
so<s33 eme
28727.0 BRT 4602 1
foundation as to whether he was in fact familiar with it.
2 I think you have now done that and he has 3
indicated some vague familiarity.
But it was the change in 4
the line of questioning that triggered my request.
5 JUDGE CARPENTER:
I'm specifically trying to flesh 6
out, he testifies he does not remember if this TCN improved 7
their ability to obtain satisfactory leak rate tests.
And I 8
accept that, that he doesn't remember.
9 Now I put test 150 before him to see what you 10 think your opinion would have been at that time, if you had 11 looked at 150.
That's what I was curious about.
12 THE WITNESS:
I thought I answered that.
()
13 DY JUDCE CARPENTER:
14 Q
Yes.
And I think what you have been telling me is 15 that you felt the t.est was so erratic, that a change from a 16 plus
.5 to minus 1 would be a "no, never mind."
17 A
That's correct.
18 Q
Would you have the same opinion if you had 19 realized at that time that this temporary change notice told 20 the operator to correct the water that came out back to 21 reactor density, but it didn't tell him to correct the water 22 that he added to reactor density, so every time he added 250 23 gallons to the test he biased the results low by 1.7 gallons 24 per minute?
If you set out to stack the deck so you got 25 small numbers, this is one of the ways you could do it.
As
\\_/
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
28727.0 BRT 4603 1
shown by this calculation.
This is not a random 2
oscillation.
This is two different ways of doing the 3
computation.
4 A
I'm not sure I understand your question this 5
time.
6 Q
The temporary change notice says you've got some 7
water that came out of the system and that, the bulk of this 8
is, perhaps, identified leakage.
But, instead of doing 9
essentially a mass balance here, you've got to correct the 10 volume by multiplying by the density to get the mass.
11 Previously they had used the density at ambient 12 temperature instead of reactor temperature,.as I understand
()
13 the temporary change order.
14 Meanwhile, somebody was adding water to the system 15 to make up for the water that was coming out of the system.
16 Isn't that correct?
17 A
That --
18 Q
In your discussions with Judge Kelley, earlier, I 19 believe we established that water was being added somewhat 20 more frequently than once an hour.
21 A
That.particular one we looked at, yes.
And we 22 account.ed for that change.
It's going into the makeup tank, 23 which is at the same temperature -- room temperature, 24 basically, 100 degrees.
25 Q
Right.
But aren't you trying to see whether
\\-)n l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
.I
28727.0 BRT 4604 1
there's a leak of a whole lot of water that's at a very 2
different temperature?
3 A
Yes, sir.
4 Q
Why would it make sense to correct what you 5
collect out of the system back to its parent tempera tu re, 6
it's original temperature, and not at the same time correct 7
the water that you are adding to that temperature?
8 A
The water that is coming out of the system is 9
going to the RC drain tank.
Leaking through the safety 10 valves.
11 Q
Yes.
12 A
We are not adding -- we are adding water to the
()
13 makeup tank, which is at a set temperature.
We are adding 14 the same temperature water, basically, to it before it goes 15 into the reactor coolant system.
16 I really can't see where you're coming from by us 17 taking the water and adjusting it up to RCS temperature when 18 we are putting it into the RCS at a point where the 19 temperature is 100 degrees.
I'm not taking it out of a. place 20 where it is 650 degrees and putting it into a drain tank.
21 On the other hand, we are adding water at the same 22 temperature, to the system at the same temperature.
23 Q
But does the water stay at that same temperature, 24 the water that you are adding?
1 25 A
Until it-gets into the RCS, and when it comes back fsb l
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8043364M6
28727.0 BRT 4605 O
v 1
it's the same temperature as it was when it left.
2 Q
So in your mind there is no error here?
3 A
Right now; no.
4 Q
Or -- well, fine.
I just wanted to see what the 5
reaction was.
There's testimony before us from the technical 6
people, that this did produce'a systematic bias.
7 A
I missed that part.
8 Q
The testimony that we have in this record is that 9
this temporary change notice produced a systematic bias, for 10 the reasons that I tried to explain very briefly and perhaps 11 not as clearly as I could.
But, in any case, what I wanted 12 to get at is if Mr. Guthrie had shown this to you it still
()
13 wou l rin ' t have flagged in your mind that there was a problem 14 with that temporary change notice.
15 A
At that time; no.
16 Q
Thank you.
I just was trying to see -- you say 17 you don't remember if it impro'ved.
I though t, well, let's 18 just look at an example and see.if you could remember what 19 your reaction might have been at that time.
It was 20 apparently even if you had seen it, the-surveillance test 21 results, you wouldn't have questioned them as being out of 22 the realm of the oscillations.
23 Finally, on page 6 you say, "I knew operators were 24 experiencing problems obtaining satisfactory leak rate tests, 25 but we were trying to find out what was wrong with the U,g ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
28727.0 BRT 4606 1
test."
2 What do you mean "we"?
When you say "we were 3
trying to find out"?
4 A
I meant operations department, the IRC department, 5
the plant staff.
6 Q
Were you aware of any piece of paperwork that 7
said, there is a problem and it needs to be solved, whatever 8
form that might have taken?
9 A
No.
I can't think of anything other than maybe 10 showing up on the POD, if any were.
11 Q
So it was more or less word of mouth rather than 12 anything formal?
()
13 A
I can't recall seeing anything formal.
14 Q
Well, certainly your testimony is not in contrast 15 to others' that you had the vague impression that somebody or 16 other was trying to solve the problem.
Who did you think had 17 the primary responsibility for.trying to solve this problem?
18 A
I&C department.
I 19 Q
Who were they?
20 A
Who specifically?
21 Q
Yes.
22 A
I forget who was in charge of the Unit 2 I&C at 23 that time.
They were the people that would be working on the.
24 i ICS.
As far as I was concerned, that's where the major part 25 of the problem was coming from.
CE)
J ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
28727.0 BRT 4607
/
i (J
1 Q
Well, a lot of other people told us it was, they 2
thought, a problere with the computer.
You didn't share that 3
opinion?
4 A
No.
I don't.
5 Q
Were you aware that there were problems with the 6
sensors in this sys tem?
The makeup tank level sensors?
7 A
Yes, sir.
8 Q
llow, in your mind, did you distinguish between 9
that problem and the integrated control system contribution 10 to the problem?
11 A
Just by looking at the trend recorders for reactor 12 coolant system' temperatures,. pressures.
()
13 Q
And you felt you saw enough oscillation in those
'14 to' violate the steady state requirement?
15 A
No.
I didn't say anything about violating the 16 steady state requirement.
17 Q
Well, to make the test results time-variable to an 18 extent?
It was not small compared to the technical 19 specification?
20 A
I'm sorry, I didn't hear that last part.
21 Q
To produce a time variation in the test results 22 that wasn't small compared to the tech spec limit of 1 gallon 23 '
per minute; if they are jumping around by a gallon a minute 24 or some such thing, was just caused by the ICS?
25 A
Yes, sir.
73U ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433M486
28727.0 BRT 4608
%_]
1 Q
That makes this a lot clearer because it wasn't 2
clear to me what you thought the problem was or who was 3
working on it.
In your mind this would never get resolved 4
until the ICS was tuned adequately.
5 A
Yes, sir.
That's how I felt.
6 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you.
That is a different 7
perspective.
I think a valid one.
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
Follow-up questions?
9 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
10 Q
Mr. Bryan, would you look at the sign-off sheet 11 attached to the LER that you have?-
12 A
You are talking about LER78-62?
f )<
13 Q
Right.
x 14 A
Yes, sir.
15 Q
The sign-off sheet with all the initials on it.
16 A
Yes, sir.
17 Q
Are_those your initials on the sheet?
18 A
No, they are not.
19 Q
I don't have it in front of me.
Is your name 20 typed on the sheet?
21 A
Yes, it is.
22 Q
Is there a set of initials there next to your 23 name?
24 A
Yes, there is, 25 Q
This is not a perfect Xerox copy.
I'll agree with Os ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 '
Nationwide Coverage sn3346616
28727.0 BRT 4609 1
you, it doesn't look much like K.P.
Bryan.
Whose initials 2
are they?
3 A
I don't have an opinion.
4 Q
If someone accidentally placed initi.11s in the 5
place where you were supposed to sign, is it possible you 6
might have never reviewed the LER?
7 A
That's not --
8 Q
If so -- I'm sorry, go ahead.
9 A
That's not only possible, it was probable.
10 Because if I go to the book, required reading, what I do is 11
-- they are usually stapled together.
12 Q
Right.
()
13 A
-- I just look until I get a blank next to my name 14 (ges turing).
15 Q
Where you haven't signed.
Then you read that?
~
16 A
Right.
Then I read that.
I didn't look -- I 17 didn't take the time to look to see if I signed that or 18 somebody else.
I just see something there, I just keep 19 flipping the book.
20 MR. MC BRIDE:
I think that adequately-answers the 21 ques tion, Judge Kelley.
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, Mr. Bryan, that completes our 23 question process, a long trip for two hours of work but we do 24 appreciate your coming.
Your answers have been, certainly, 25 forthcoming, and I think very helpful for-our record.
We Cg ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
28727.0 BRT 4610
_s
'wA 1
appreciate it very much.
Thank you.
2 MR. BLAKE:
Judge, may we go off the record for a 3
moment?
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
Right.
5 You are excused.
6 (The witness stood down.)
7 (Discussion off the record.)
8 (Whereupon, at 12:53 p.m.,
the hearing was 9
adjourned, to reconvene at 10:00 a.m.,
November 3, 1986.)
10 11 12 0
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 n.
m I
i I
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 2336-6M6
_, _ ~
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER rb This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION DOCKET NO.:
LRP PLACE:
BETHESDA, MARYLAND DATE:
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt)
(TYPdId JOEL BREITNER Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation O
,.-n
.r.
9m-.