ML20215N522
| ML20215N522 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/04/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1485 LRP, NUDOCS 8611060179 | |
| Download: ML20215N522 (175) | |
Text
,
UEE o
UMM STAHS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO: LRP bO'%
INQUIRY.INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UN?T 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION l
O LOCATION:
BETHESDA, MARYLAND PAGES:
4793 4944 DATE:
TUESDAY, NOVEFBER 4, 1986 I
r
/ ' g\\_
0\\\\\\
(]
AceFI;oERAr. finvolatxs,1N1 '
Official & porters 444 North CapitolStreet Washington, D.C. 20001 (202)347-3700 I
NATIONWIDE COVERACE
CR28729.0 4793 BRT/sjg
()
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 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
9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fifth Floor Hearing Room 10 East West Towers 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, Maryland yy 12 Tuesday, November 4, 1986
()
13 The hearing in the above-entitled matter convLned at 14 8:30 a.m.
15 16 BEFORE:
JUDGE JAMES L.
KELLEY, Chairman 17 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 18 Washington, D. C.
19 JUDGE JAMES H. CARPENTER, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 20 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
21 JUDGE GLENN O.
BRIGHT, Member 22 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 23 Washington, D. C.
24 O
25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336-6646
~
4794 4
()
1 APPEARANCES:
On behalf of GPU Nuclear Corporation:
2 ERNEST L.
- BLAKE, JR.,
ESQ.
3 JOHN N. NASSIKAS III, ESQ.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 4
2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20037 On behalf of the Employees:
6 HAE3Y H. VOIGT, ESQ.
MICHAEL McBRIDE, ESQ.
7 LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
8 Washington, D.
C.
20036 MOLLY BOAST, ESQ.
9 LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 520 Madison Avenue 10 New York, New York 10022 On behalf of Jack Herbein:
11 1
JAMES B.
BURNS, ESQ.
12 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza l ()
13 Chicago, Illinois 60602 CHRISTOPHER W.
FLYNN, ESQ.
14 RICHARD O.
WOLF, ESQ.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale 15 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 16 On behalf of Gary P.
Miller:
MICHAEL W.
MAUPIN, ESQ.
M.
CHRISTINA HENSLEY, ESQ.
18 Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street 19 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 1
On behalf of the NRC Staff:-
24
()
JACK R.
GOLDBERG, ESQ.
25 MARY E. WAGNER, ESQ.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage 800 336-6646
4795
,,s( )
1 CONTENTS 2
WITNESS EXAMINATION 3
George A. Kunder 4
by Mr. Voigt 4799 y
e a
02 5
James P.
Floyd 6
by Mr. Gephart 4892 7
by the Board 4896 l
8 9
RECESSES:
10 NOON - 4891 11 12
~
LAY-IN - PREPARED STATEMENT OF KUNDER, Follows Page 4800.
g()
LAY-IN - PREPARED STATEMENT OF FLOYD, Follows Page 4894.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 l 21 22 23 24 rs 25 l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4 86
\\
i 1
28729.0 l
i BRT 4796 i
s 1
.P R O C E ED1NG 'i i
I 2
JUDGE KELLRY:
Good morning.
We have a couple'of f
i i
3 preliminary matters from last night that I will speak to 4
first.
j i
5 From earlier pleadings in the case seeking j
f 6
nominations for additional witnesses we had two names we 7
talked about last night, Mr. Martin and Mr. Queen.
And it 8
was noted by Mr. Blake that they were to appear in the case; t
)
9 if they were, then the question of their appeara nce should be j
i l
10 decided early on because of preparation problems likely to be i
1 11 attendant upon thei r appearance, which the Hoard agrees.
4 12 These two nominees are from Mrs. Aamodt; their names were put i
13 forward some time ago, as I have already indicated.
14 The Board does not, on the face of it, see why 15 either of these two witnesses would be important to the 16 proceeding and it is obvious tha t it might entail delay for 17 just a cumulative record.
Arguably both of these names 18 should have been addressed and resolved a couple of weeks ago 19 when we attempted to first narrow the list.
It seems to us, j
20 though, that it is also arguable, anyway, that they could l
21 have -- that these names could have pert.ained to the 22 management supervisory level as well as the CRO, tront line i
i 23 l supervisor level.
So,_with that ambiguity, it seemed to us i
i 24 k that it is ati11 an open question.
25 Hut, having. heard the parties last night on the O
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
.. ~,. _..,....
28729.0' BRT 4797 1
record,'no party nor the Staff support either of these people 2
being cal. led as witnesses.
Staff, and I believe most 3
parties, indicated opposition to their being called.
And, in 4
those circumstances it seems to us a rather clear decision 5
that they not be called.
6 It's unfortunate Mrs. Aamodt, their sponsor, is 7
not here.
But as we commented on the record, she has not 8
asked for postponements nor has she put forward any reason 9
tha t would require us -- I'm probably saying the same thing 10 twice -- Mrs. Aamodt hasn't had good cause for postponement 11 nor has she asked for it, and the proceeding has to go 12 forward and we have to make these discussions as they ar.ise 13 and call for re:mlu tion.
So those are our decisions with 14 regard to those two gentlemen.
15 There are two other names that have been put 16 forward and not resolved at this point, that we are aware of 17 at least, namely Mr. Morck and Mr. Bezilla.
It is the 18 Board's thought, subject to comment from the parties, that we 19 could probably resolve whether or not they ought to be called 20 by the end of today or tomorrow; that is, after we have heard 21 from Mr. Kunder and Mr. Ployd.
Mr. Morck, I believe, worked 22 for Mr. Kunder, and that wi11 give us an opportunity to learn 23 f a
little bit more about his role in some of these ma t ters.
24 Mr. Bezilla was involved in the IEH that we talked 25 so much about, and as we heard from Mr. Seelinger yesterday ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 370)
Nationwide Coserage 8 @ 336-6646
20729.0 BRT 4798 1
and Mr. Kunder and Mr. Floyd today, we can, I think, probably 2
determine whether there's any need to hear from Mr. Bezilla 3
also.
4 We'll hear the parti es ' comment, whatever comment' S
they may have on the question, either this evening or 6
tomorrow morning and then try to decide in light of the 7
record that we have developed to that point whether either of 8
those gentlemen should be called.
9 So, beyond that there would be the possibility 10 that in the course of testimony today and tomorrow and so on 11 through the end, through Mr. Herbein, something may come up, 12 unexpected -- some name may surface we haven't heard before 13 and there-may be some further need to consider additional 14 witnesses.
But subject to t hat possibility, we wouldn't 15 envision having any Curther witnesses.
q 16 I have said quite a bit.
Do the parties want to 17 comment on what I have said?
Peel free -- Mr. Voigt?
Any 18 thcugh t.?
19 MR. VOIGT:
I don't have any comment at this 20 time.
It is my expectation tha t if it hasn't already been 21 demonstrated, the testimony this morning may demonstrate that.
22 there's no real need for Mr. Morck.
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Blake, any comment?.
24 MR. BLAKE:
None at the moment, your Honor.
25 MR. BURNG:
None.
l
,s lv\\
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3XX)
Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
)
i
r 28729.0 BRT 4799 1
MR. MAUPIN:
No.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Staff, any thoughts?
3 MS. WAGNER:
I'm going to check with our people to 4
see whether they see a cont.inuinc need to call Mr. Bezilla.
5 I'm going to try to do t.ha t at one of the breaks.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Fine.
I indicated that we would 7
try to address that tonight or tomorrow, if you want to get 8
back to your people before that time, fine.
9 With that, Mr. Kunder?
Good morning.
10 Whereupon, 11 GEORGE A.
KUNDER 12 was called as a witness and, having first been duly sworn, 13 was examined and testified as follows:
14 EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. VOIGT:
16 Q
Mr. Kunder, do you have before you a copy of a 17 document bearing the caption of this proceeding and the 18 heading " Prepared S ta temen t of George A.
Kunder"?
19 A
I do.
20 Q
Do you have any addi tions or-corrections to make 21 to your s ta tement, sir?
22 A
None other than to update it in terms of my 23 current employment, effective October 1st.
I assumed the 24 position of manager, generation, technical support on the 25 generation division s ta f f of Metropolitan Edison Company, v
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80(b336-6M6
1 l
l i
28729.0 HRT 4800 i
O i
1 which is a sister company to GPU Nuclear.
And that's really l
2 all.
3 Q
With that updale, sir, is this statement true and 4
correct?
5 A
Yes, it is.
6 Q
And you adopt it. as your sworn tertimony in the 7
proceeding?
8 A
Yes, I do.
l 9
JUDGE KELLEY:
The testimony will be bound in the 10 transcript a t Lhis point.
1 11 (The document f:ollows : )
12 i
13 14 15 l j
l 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I
25
. O ACE-FEDERAL REPQRTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(0336-(M6
o UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
()
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
INQUIRY INTO THREE. MILE ISLAND
)
Docket No. LRP UNIT 2 LEAK RATE DATA
)
FALSIFICATION
)
)
PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE A.
KUNDER My name is George A.
Kunder.
I reside in Middletown, Pennsylvania.
I am currently employed by GPU Nuclear Corpora-()
tion as Manager of the Unit 2 Safety Review Group, a position I have held since 1982.
Prior to assuming my present position, I was employed by Metropolitan Edison, with whom I began employment in 1968.
I became TMI-l Superintendent-Technical Support in the latter part of 1977.
I was transferred to the similar position in Unit 2 in December 1978.
As TMI-2 Superintendent-Technical Support, I was responsible for supervision of the technical aspects of plant engineering.
I had the additional duty of coordinating the planning for refueling outages, and I was the Chairman of the Unit 2 Plant Operations Review Committee, known as PORC.
I was not licensed on Unit 2, and I had no direct role in the operation of the' Unit and no responsibility for operational
My relationship to the Operations Department was
()
decisions.
limited to advisory.
My contact with operations personnel was occasional meetings, such as those conducted by PORC, and t
intermittent conversations when specific engineering problems were brought to my attention.
In fact, usually I learned about-operational problems through people on my staff who performed the engineering tasks assigned to us.
During the time that I was assigned to Unit 2, I never ran a leak rate test, I never signed a leak rate test, and I never-reviewed a leak rate test.
I have no recollection of ever being present in the control room while an operator was running 4
a test.
It is obvious, I think,.that I had no role in or
()
responsibility for performing or recording leak' rates.
That was the job of operations personnel.
As a technical engineering group, my department did not even review leak rates.
We also had no part to play in developing or implementing leak rate practices at the time.
I am also not aware of any role in the' preparation of the leak rate surveillance procedure itself.
My only memory of leak rate testing in Unit 2 is that somewhere in'the 1979 time frame, I i
became aware that there was some question whether leak rate results accurately reflected plant conditions.
The test believe, was that the calculation used to determine concern, I leakage was in error, and that erroneously high readings were being obtained.
At one point my department was requested to.
. _. ~
4 take a look at the leak rate procedure or calculations to
()
determine if a problem actually existed, and if so, to resolve it.
The Plant Operations Review Committee, of which I became chairman when I came to Unit 2, was responsible for i
~
investigating instances of noncompliance with technica1 i
i specifications that were brought to its attention.
By virtue of the many inquiries that preceded this one, I am aware that in late 1978 or early 1979, pORC reviewed a Licensee Event i
L Report (LER 78-62) that involved a question of. interpreting the i
Unit 2-leak rate technical specifications.
I should note at the outset that I do not have any memory whatsoever of this LER that I can relate to events or 4 ()
discussions that might have taken place in 1978 and 1979.
I was not employed in Unit 2 at the time the LER was issued, and I have no memory of PORC's disposition of it after I assumed I
the chairmanship of the Committee.
All I can do to assist.the Board in its assessment of the place of the LER in this proceeding is to provide an overview of PORC's role in Unit 2 and its relationship to other departments and management.
PORC was responsible for review of various' procedures, tests, and system changes and modifications in Unit 2.
Its specific charges were set forth in Technical Specification 6.5.1.6.
The list is fairly lengthy.
One of PORC's charges was investigating v.iolations of technical specifications, including preparing and forwarding reports covering evaluations
~
L E !
Y s
recurrence to the Station f '( )
and recommendations to prevent i
Superintendent and the Generation Review Committee.
As I recall, PORC usually discharged this responsibility by assigning to managerial personnel in the appropriate department the task of following up an LER.
LER 78-62 was typical in that it required that instruction be given to affected personnel and 1
documentation be provided to show that they had received or 3
reviewed the instruction.
While PORC kept records of it assignments and close-outs on corrective actions for LER's, was not required independently to confirm the completion of I
assignments.
i i
I think it is important to point out that PORC's role was advisory in nature.
PORC was an interdisciplinary committee 3
f ()
composed of persons holding certain positions established by the technical specifications.
PORC had no authority either to implement or to enforce changes.
As its name implies, it was a review committee that in matters concerning LER's coordinated i
i the dissemination of action items.
Once PORC chose the
~
appropriate individual to follow through, it expected that I
individual to fulfill his responsibility.
PORC usually requested that some kind of documentation be provided for our records, so that it could demonstrate, to the extent i
practicable, that the action item had been completed.
The sign-off sheet on LER 78-62 was typical of one kind of d3cumentation, but in the instance of a repair, or the i
a notation performance of a mechanical or technical procedure,
-4 i
r 1
. ~.
suffice.
()
that the repair or procedure had been completed might Documentation provided by the managerial or supervisory reasonable demonstration that the personnel was considered a required action had been completed.
pORC normally did not undertake any independent steps to verify the implementation of action items, although it would sometimes make recommendations 1
for additional action or follow-up if it found that the documented actions were insufficient.
That being said, I should also point out that in a
]
situation where I understood that the plant was operating in
]
i violation of technical specifications, I would have felt it j
incumbent on me to immediately advise the Unit Superintendent of the problem.
Of course, the nature of my job was such that,
()
almost of necessity, the violation would have to have been brought to my attention by someone else.
Mr. Stier, in his report, has found no evidence that I was involved in, or condoned, improper leak rate practices.
He has
~
also concluded that I was involved in January 1979 in a decision to continue operating TMI-2 in violation of the y
technical specifications.
Because I believe the latter conclusion is outside the scope of these hearings, I have not addressed it in this statement, even though I disagree with Mr. Stier.
I would like to take this opportunity to clear up an i'
inaccurate conclusion drawn by the NRC staff.
This inaccuracy, which is of particular concern to me, appears in NUREG-0680, O-
t
'l
()
Supp. No.
5, the NRC staff report on management integrity i
for TMI-1.
In that prepared as part of the restart proceedings report, the staff noted that it had reviewed the Statement of i
Facts prepared by the prosecuting attorney in the 1983 criminal action against Metropolitan Edison and accepted the Statement "as fact."
The report proceeded to name me, as Superintendent i
of Technical Support for Unit 2,
as a person " involved or implicated in the indictment" of Metropolitan Edison.
This a
identification of me is repeated later in Section 13.2.2 and Table 13.2 of the report.
I believe that this conclusion is based on a factual misunderstanding, and this proceeding provides an appropriate moment to put the error to rest.
First, I know I was not involved nor implicated in leak
()
rate falsification nor the indictment.
Further, I reviewed the Statement of Facts myself and found that it contains nothing to i
suggest that I was " involved or implicated" in indictable offenses.
Section I of the Statement of Facts merely discusses the NRC staff's view, at that time, of the regulatory and 1
l operational requirements of Unit 2.
Section II is a review of I
Unit 2 operations from licensure until October 18, 1978, and-Section III discusses specific events on October 18,_1978 --
i all well in advance of the C2cember 1, 1978 date on which I l
assumed any responsibility for Unit 2.
Thus, while there are i
repeated references to "the Superintendent of Technical 4
Support" in those sections they could not possibly be references to me'.
Section IV of.the Statement of Facts, titled
} 1 i
. ~. _ -,
()
" Events After October 18, 1978," contains only one reference to
~
a specific event (which occurred on October 19, 1978) -- again, many weeks before I moved.to Unit 2.
The remainder of Section IV discusses the perceived failings of certain operators and supervisory operational personnel, none of which could be
. attributable to me in my role as a-provider of technical support, because I was in Unit 1 as. Superintendent of Technical i
l Support, not in Unit 2.
For these reasons, I believe that the staff's identification of me, as opposed to my predecessor in the position of Unit 2 Superintendent of Technical Support, was an unintended error.
I attempted to explain this to the l
Commission in a letter dated August 13, 1984, a copy of which
()
is attached to this testimony.
The Commission responded in the form.of a letter from NRR, which asserted that because the Metropolitan Edison indictment covered the period October.1978
.through March 1979, and I was part of the Unit 2 " management structure" during part of that period, i t was not incorrect to
[
state that I was " involved or implicated in the indictment."
I
~
believe that assertion is completely unwarranted by the Statement of Facts, and I respectfully request that the Board
~
include express recognition of the Staff's mistake in the findings adopted at the conclusion of this proceeding.
l t
. i i
- +,
e
.~ n,-
.,n,--.n--.-
--.-----,r-n.-
-.--,,-,-r-,
n,,.--w,-,
,,,,-em
~
O O
f O
GEORGE A.
KUNDER 1906 Light Avenue Middletown, PA 17057-August 13, 1984 Hon. Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulation Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Chairman Palladino:
I am writing to you to protest the reference to me contained in NUREG-0680, Supp. No.
5, issued by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in July, 1984.
In 55.2.1, the staff refers to the prosecuting attorney's Statement of Facts, and in 55.2.2, the staff states that it " accepts, as fact, the prosecuting attorney's Statement of Facts read
()
into the record as part of the trial settlement, that five Met-Ed management ~ personnel were involved or implicated in the indictment."
The staff goes on to identify me as one of those five individuals.
That identification is repeated in 513.2.2 and in Table 13.2.
Staff's identification of me, which has no basis in fact, is extremely damaging to my professional and personal reputation.
I have been provided with a copy of the Statement of Facts referred to by the staff.
My name is not included in the document.
Apparently, the staf f relied upon the identi-fication of certain position titles in the Statement of Facts to conclude that I was involved.
That conclusion is unwarranted and incorrect.
I assumed the position of Superindendent of Technical Support at TMI-2 on December 1, 1978.
Prior to that time, I was not assigned to TMI-2, nor was I involved in its operation.
The incidents referred to in the Statement of Facts involving the Superintendent of Technical Support took place prior to December 1, 1978.
There is no basis for the staf f's assumption that I was involved.
1 e
O
h Hon. Nunzio J. Palladino August 13, 1984 Page 2 I would also like to point out that at no time prior to March 28, 1979, was I licensed to operate TMI-2.
I had no involvement with the performance of leak rate tests at TMI-2. I am not aware of any statement by any person suggesting that I was associated with any questionable practices concerning leak rate tests at TMI-2.
On September 28, 1983, I was interviewed by the Commission's Office of Investigations concerning my knowledge of leak rate tests performed at TMI-2 in 1978 and 1979.
I have not been furnished with an official transcript or summary of that interview, but my attorney took extensive notes.
I reviewed those notes and found nothing in them to support the staff's finding that I was " involved or implicated" in the indictment of Met-Ed.
In summary, I believe that the staff's accusation of me in NUREG-0680, Supp. No. 5 is completely improper.
In order to protect my reputation and preserve my credentials in the nuclear industry, I ask that the Commission take whatever action is necessary to correct the record publicly and to withdraw the staff's findings concerning me.
O Very truly yours, George A.
Kunder GAK/bjk i
cc:
Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal Commissioner Zech Mr. Harold R.
Denton Guy H. Cunningham, Esquire Mr.
P.
R.
Clark CE)
28729.0 BRT 4801 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Kunder, I have just a couple of 2
introductory comments and
- t. hen I'l] turn it over to Judge
~3 Carpenter.
I guess I haven't introduced ourselves; this is 4
Judge Carpenter on my left, Judge Bright on my right.
I'm 5
Judge Kelley.
6 As I'm sure you know, Mr. Kunder, the Commission 7
has asked this Hoard to look into leak rate data 8
falsification matters at TMI-2 in 1978 and 1979.
We, of 9
course, understand from your testimony, from the record, the 10 nature of your position.
We realize you were not one who was 11 doing hands-on leak rale Les Ls but rather you were in the 12 area of technical support in the time period of interest to
)
13 us.
There are some ma tt ers that bear on the issues before 14 us; the kind of reaction that upper supervisory levels were 15 making to that problem that the CRos were facing.
We'll want 16 t.o ask you a bit about what we've come to call "the" L,ER, the 17 LER having to do with change of interpretation in the tech 18 specs, and I expect a coup]e of other things along those 19 lines.
We'll have some questions for you based on your 20 testimony and some ques tions based on testimony by others.
I I
21 '
In the case of CRos, we went through a lot of 22 particular leak rate tes ts and looked at strip charts and 23 what not.
I don't know that that would come up so far as you 24 are concerned, but it will probably be more on wha t you have 15 said and some of your associales have said about certain 1
oG l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
)
4 28729.0 BRT 4802
{
/3 4
O 1~
problems.
f f
2 With that as sort of an introduction, I'll turn it I
i j
3 over to Judge Carpenter.
)
4 EXAMINATION HY THE BOARD t
1 1
5 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
)
6 Q
Mr. Kunder, by way of background, looking at your i
1
)
7 prepared statement you tell us that yod began work with i
8 Metropolitan Edison in 1968.
Wou]d you briefly review your 1
I 9
educational background and any experience relating to i
10 reactors prior to 1968?
i f
11 A
Prior to 1968 I attended Penn State University and i
12 gradua ted in '68 with a B.S.
in mechanical engineering.
13 In terms of working experience, I rea11y can't say
{
14 that I have worked in any a rea tha t would relate to, you 4
15 know, the technical disciplines involved in operating or in
)
16 engineering of a nuclear power facility, other than a summer 1
1 17 that I spent with Met Ed working for two weeks at their Titus l
18 generating station, which is a fossil-fired plant, just i
i 19 becoming acquainted.
So really no work experience to speak 4
j 20 of prior to that time.
l 1
21 Q
So, in essence when you graduated from college you 22 went to work for Met Ed?
23'l A
That's correct.
1 I
24 l Q
Pine.
Thank you, l
25 l Moving on to the second paragraph in your -- on j
g
~
i u i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3X0 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646 r
I 28729.0 BRT 4003 gU l
1 page 1 of your prepared s ta tement, I would like to ask, as 3
4 2
superintendent of technical support, beginning in December of l
l 3
1978, to the best of your recollection -- and we are very 4
aware that we are talking about-events that occurred some r
5 time ago and we are going to be straining your memory -- to i
6 the best that you can recall, how would you describe your l
7 work load in that position?
4 l
8 A
1 guess I'd best characterize it as very heavy, 9
because I was attempting to not only take over the reins of, j
10 in effect, managing the engineering organization but also 1
11 take care of the colla tera l duties of PORC chairmanship,
?
12 beginning some preparation for the refue. ling outages which I
{
13 was responsible to coordinate the planning for, and I guess j
14 in parti cula r, deal wi th a myriad of issues and problems that j
15 h existed al the time and to attempt to get myself up to speed l
t 16 on the details of the Unit 2 systems; that is, to prepare for f
l l
17 senior reactor operators license, ultimately.
So I recall l
18 spending quite a hi t of time on the job.
i f
19 Q
Would you say you worked some overtime?
20 A
I guess overtime was the rule.
I think I worked 21 considerable. overtime.
Tha t 's my recollec tion.
22 Q
Do you have any notion whether it was five hours a 1
23 week or 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> a week or 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> a week?
I 24 A
of' course time sheets could confirm, but I suspect I
25 in those days I was working an average of 55 to 65 hours7.523148e-4 days <br />0.0181 hours <br />1.074735e-4 weeks <br />2.47325e-5 months <br /> a
! U i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80fL336-6M6
28729.0 BRT 4004 OV 1
week.
2 Q
If you went in on Saturdays and Sundays I think 3
you would remember iL.
4 A
Yes.
5 Q
There were weekends you did have to work ?
6 A
I think that year in particular even the holidays, 7
particularly like New Year's Eve I think there was some sort 8
of -- we were going commercial a t that time and I had the 9
duty and I was there.
j 1
10 0
Did you feel at the time that this was a rather t
11 severe overload?
j 12 A
I guess I didn't perceive it an a severe 13 overload.
The period of time was challenging to me.
I think 14 because of the transition into a new job and the interest 15 that I had in trying to grasp all that was going on and all 16 the issues tha t I would need to dea] with in my new role, I i
17 I looked at it a bit more ambitiously and I didn't perceive it 18 in terms of being an exhaustive overexertion of time on my 19 part, although I think it did involve considerable hours.
20 i O
Well, as I understand, you were superintendent, I
i 21 j technical support, for TMI-1 from the latter part of '77 up I
22 to December of
'78.
So you. essentially moved from the same 23 kind of job at Unit 1 to Unit 2; is that correc t?
24 '
A That's correct.
25 Q
Did you find the situation and the conditions at Qa l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80433M616
-28729.0 BRT 4805 1
Unit 2 to be in any ' strong contrast to the environment and 2
the number of problems to be looked at every day.at Unit 2?
3 Was it a difterent work environment?
4 A
I would characterize it in terms of two areas:
5 More issues that were open that needed to be dealt with, in.
6 part because of my newness to them, to the technical detail 7
surrounding them; and I guess the basic fact that Unit 2 was
~
8 still in somewhat of a s'hakedown period, goi ng through or 9
just at the tail end of the start-up period.
Whereas Unit 1 10 was comparably seasoned and had a history of a few problems.
11 And so I was going from the one environment into the other.
12 So in those terms I think there was a significant difference 13 for me.
14 Q
So there was still a lot of start--up issues and 1S that had to be resolved and so on?
16 A
- Yes, i
17 Q
Over on page 2 of your prepared statement in the 18 second full paragraph you are describing, in general terms, 19' the technical engineering group and you say, "We also had no i
20 l part to play in developing or implementing leak rate 21 practices at that time."
22 What group or what individual would have had a 23 part in either developing or implementing leak rate 24 practices?
25 A
It's hard to say.
The practices I assumed or 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coveragw 800-3364M6
28729.0 URT 4806 gV 1
presumed, evolved over a number of years; not only evolving 2
out of the Unit 1 processes but Unit 2, apparently, had 3
developed their own practices in the control room.
With 4
respect to the procedures, to the best of my knowledge they 5
were created by B&W, evolved into forma ts thal were the basis 6
for the Unit 1 procedures and ultimately they were utilized l
7 by Unit 2 personnel, prior to my involvement in Unit 2, to 8
develop the Unit 2 surveillance procedures.
9 So, to that extent our group at that time, the 10 time I was assigned to Uni t 2, was no longer involved in the 11 developmenL of the procedures and the pracLices that were 12 ongoing.
13 0
Would you say that prior to December of 1978 that 14 this engineering group was involved in either developing-15 procedures or revising pr ocedures ?
16 A
Well, the prepara tion of procedures was typically 17 a function that the engineering organization would primarily 18 be responsible for.
However, also typically, in the early 19 stages, any operations personnel, engineering personne] 'o r 20 others, contractors, et cetera, who might be. brought on board 21 to assist in the preparaLion of Unit 2 procedures could be 22 involved in those processes.
I wouldn't really know, myself, 23 specifically who or what groups prepared all the procedures.
24 But I guess I could summarize by saying it was typically an i
25 engineering-oriented function to prepare them and to get them i
oa
\\
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3366M6
i 28729.0 BRT 4807 i,'
O
(
1 in place.
I f
2 Q
Well, if there were a problem with any of the 3
surveillance procedures, particularly those required by the 4
tech specs, where would the people who identified those 4
5 problems go to get the problems resolved?
l l
l 5
6 A
Okay, that's a little bit different question.
l 1
,l 7
Q Yes.
I 1
8 A
I guess it would depend on the nature of~the I
1 9
problem, in my view.
If it related to, let's say, you know, that would be dealt I
10 an operational issue, I would expect that i
11 with in the operations organization.
If it involved a 12 technical issue, then it might be referred to my engineerinq 13 organization.
1 l
14 Q
I'm talking in the narrow area of surveillance l.
15 procedures, an operating issue, essentially, a
16 A
I'l.1 tend to be a bit more specific as you need, 17 but if the procedure needed -
)
18 Q
1,e t 's say surveillance procedure for testinq a i
19 pump and for some reason there was a problem with the results 1
I 20 of a surveillance.
Where would that go?
i 21 A
If the pump failed to perform, for example, the l
22 pump would be repaired.
So maintenance would be initiated 23 h through the paper processes to initiate repairs, corrective r
i i
l j
24 i maintenance activities, for example.
I 25 You know, if there was a procedural problem, it ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-uA6
_ _ _ _. _ _ -.. _ _. -. -.. _. _ _ _. ~.., _ _,. _ _. _ _ _. _ _ -, _ -. _. _ -
28729.0 BRT 4000 V
1 may be of the nature that the person'performis.g the work 2
could recognize, understand what needed to be fixed, and 3
initiale a procedure change.
4 If there was a much broader, longer-range 5
technical i. sue, it. could be referred to the engineering 6
organization for resolution if the engineering personnel had 7
the talents and the disciplines and so forth to inves tiga te 8
the problem and offeet a resolution.
9 I guess I can't be -- there is'no one pa t tern that 10 I believe would be initiated.
It really depended on the 11 nature of the problem involved.
12 O
I didn't make it sufficiently clear.
For 1.he case 13 where the problem was some glitch in procedure, i.n which the 14 operations people couldn't resolve -- that's why I was 15 cutious whether your group would be the group that they would 16 go to for help.
17 A
1 think it. would be one of the groups who would be i
10 sought for assistance if the issue tha t needed resolution 19 required engineering expertise in order to solve it.
That 20 would be typically what would trigger --
l 21 Q
Well, if it was essentially a review of the 22 procedure to see if there was some problem with the 23 procedure, were there other groups with the technica]
24 background to carry out such a review?
25 A
Yes, there was, v
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336W4 m, _
I 28729.0 BRT 4809 O
1 Q
What were those groups?
l l
2 A
Well, there was engi neeri ng personnel and also l
l 3
experienced supervisory personnel in operations, t.he 4
maintenance organization; and for that matter, if it involved i
l l
5 a licensing issue the licensing organization could be l
(
6 consulted directly by operations or maintenance or whoever 7
was responsible for performing that surveillance in order to I
1 8
attempt to resolve the issue.
9 Again, I sense maybe I introduced a certain 1
10 frustration but the kind of expertise that would be sought in
{
11 fact depended upon the nature of the problem, and what l
l 12 organization had the wherewithal and the responsibility to 13 deal with that kind of a problem.
l l
14 Q
Well, that's my point.
I would think maintenance 15 would be pretty busy with maintenance, et cetera.
Tha t's why 16 I was wondering whether it wasn't your group that was 17 expected to have the time and be the group that could sit 18 down and look at a procedure and look at it and see whether 19 there was some problem with it, rather than some other 20 group.
But I think you are telling me that is not a fair 21 impression on my part.
22 A
I'm trying to be cautious and not give the 23 impression that engineering took care of all these things 24 because that, in fact, is not the case.
To the extent that 25 problems involved the need for engineering resolution, I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80 4 336-6646
20729.0 BRT 4810 1
think it is fair to say that the engineering organization 2
typically handled many of those issues but. not all.
3 Q
Well if someone in operations could only go as 4
far, say, a :, raising a ques tion about a procedure but 5
couldn't diagnose what the problem was, would they know where 6
to go?
7 A
I think in general they would.
8 Q
This multifaceted thing you are describing to me, 9
it would seem to me, might. lead to some doubt on the part. of 10 operations people as to where so go for help unless.Lhey 11 could clearly identify what it. is they needed help with.
12 A
I think what typically transpired is the operator, 13 if confronted with an issue like t h a t., would consult with his 14 supervisor, his foreman.
15 0
Yes.
16 A
You know, run up the line until he gets to a leve]
17 where the individual will make a decision as to whether this 18 is an engineering box, whether it is a maintenance box, 19 h whether it is an opera tic.na box, or jus t whatever.
And I 20 think that by and large is my unoerstanding of the way i n 21 which these kind of items would be dispositioned, in that it 1
4 22 l was reasonably clear who would be responsible or at least 23 they had the wherewithal to ask and someone would he 24 assigned.
25 Sometimes it wouldn't he clear because it was a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
28729.0 BRT 4U11 1
new issue and it wasn'L yet es tablished either formally or 2
informa]1y as to who or wha t. organiza tion would deal wi t.h i t.,
3 and decisions would be made.
But typically they would follow 4
1 hat kind of a proces:..
5 0
In this same second full paragraph on page 2, you 6
say your "only memory of leak rate testing in Unit 2 is that 7
somewhere in the 1979 ti me frame, I became aware that. there 8
was some question whether leak rate test results accurately 9
reflect.ed plant conditions."
10 Can you recall how you became aware?
11 A
I have tried to on many occasions and I don't 12 i know.
I just recall the understanding or the impression that 13 I had that there was concern about the representativeness, as 14 I'll characterize i t, or the a4 curacy of the test or of the 15 procedure, the calen ation.
I can't recall it in any 16 specific terms.
And that the issue was assigned to people in 17 my group to attempt to understand what t.h e problem was and 18 resolve i t.
19 Q
Can you recall if there was anything in writing 20 requesting that your group look into the problem?
I i
21 '
A I recall that during my preparation for the H&W 22 :
litigation, I saw a POD, Plan of the Day computer lis ting' of 23 tasks -- I think it was in the February time frame -- which 24 had a line item on it which dealt with the need to resolve 25 leak rate procedure, or something -- I can't remember the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 804 336-6646
-- -- ~
l i
28729.0 BRT 4812 D
\\
1 V I
1 specific terms.
I do recall that.
2 I don't have any independent recollection of 4
t l
3 anything in writing from that time period, in the actual 4
February time period, however.
t 5
Q So you never found any document that would show l
6 how that iLem got on the POD Jist?
7 A
No.
I do not know of that.
I 8
Q It just appeared?
z i
)
9 A
I'm personally not aware of how it got on the t
10 list.
It obviously got on the list because someone felt it.
4 11 important to identify it formally and track the issue.
I 12 cannot recall the specifics of how that might have occurred.
13 I don't even recall the list item, independently.
I can just-I 14 tell you that I recall seei ng that af ter the fact, i
I 15 Q
I don'L think we have very much knowledge of how 16 items got on the Plan of the Day list.
Could you help a i
17 little bit?
How did items get on this Plan of the Day list?
l 18 A
I can give you my impressions as to how the 19 process typically was conduct.ed.
I 20 Q
Yes.
j 1
21 l A
There was a Jist that was maintained, happened to j
1 I
22 use a computer to provide a listing, of tasks.
These tasks 23 were not unique to any department.
They covered any issue or 24 problem or equipment repair procedure difficult.y, whatever 25 was in need of resolution to support continued plant V
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
t 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-f646
-. =. -.
- _._- - - _ - __ ~.
i i
i 28729.0 IlRT 4813
- V 1
operations.
That list was used almos t as an agenda item for 2
the, I think it was daily, perhaps three times a week meeting
(
3 which occurred in the morning.
It was called the Plan of the i
[
4 Day.
5 To the best of my recollection, anyone who i
t l
6 attended that meeting could add items for consideration to be 4
7 placed on the list, and typically it would be senior t
8 management personnel, shift supervisors, department heads, et i
9 cetera, who would concur and put the items on the list;
{
10 h basically agree roughly to who needed to accomplish the task 11 that was listed.
That was maintained up to date, and at each l
12 meeting that lis t among other things would be reviewed and 13 tracked to determine the completion of the tasks.
14 Q
So that, perhaps, the shifL supervisor could put i
i 15 an item on that list?
s 16 A
Yes.
I i
17 Q
Shift supervisor from operations?
i 18 A
Yes.
19 Q
Well, having done that, how did the putt ing of 20 that item on the list, the agenda for that activity, how did t
21 that get transformed into an assignment?
Who did the 22.
assigning?
I 4
t i
'l 23 -
These items appeared on the menu.
Who told the l
24 cook to cook them?
25 A
I think it varied quite widely.
I think people, l
l i
i J
i l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6M6 i
i
28729.0 BRT 4814
(.v) 1 in some cases, took the list back with them and gave the list 2
to people in iheir department.
In other cases, peop)e might 3
have been working on a problem al, ready and the list is just 4
making that particu]ar problem visible for tracking 5
purposes.
I 6
In other cases, formal task systems or perhaps A*'
7 informal task systems might have been used by some 1
8 departments to track particular items.
Some items that might 9
have been of a nature that.needed generation, engineering or 10 license assistance, they might have been verbally or via 11 correspondence triggered and requested; or perhaps using the 12
-- any of 1.h e action-item, formal acti on-i tem sys tems.
A) 13 Go really I can't give you a specific one process 14 by which these would be implemented.
It varied.
This list 15 simply was kind of a co11cetion of all the outs tanding it ems.
16
.Q Well, narrowing your perspective, with respect to 17 items that came to your department -- you don't know about 18 a3J the other departments, but with respect. to your 19 ;
department, would they necessarily go through you?
20 ll A
I think typically they would but on the whole --
i 21 ;
Q Did you attend Plan of the Day meetings?
i 22 l A
Could I fi ni s h?
23 Q
Yes.
Yes.
24 A
I think typically they would go through me; 25 however, there is -- the engineers, I had lead engineers in n
v ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37W Nationwide Coverage 8m3366M6
i.
t l
28729.0 i
BRT 4815 pa 4
1 each of the disciplines and the junior engineers under them.
2 They were used to working on a kind of a one-on-one basis or i
3 parallel basis with people in the plant.
So they also could i
i.
4 accept responsibility for accomplishing some tasks without my 5
assigning.
So, it could go both ways.
t i
l
)
6 I,
generally, I think, would be aware of issues i
i I
7 that were'being worked in the group.
Although init.iall.y I 8
was still getting up to speed wi th all the outstanding items l
l 9
tha t my department was responsible for, so there was so-e i
10 considerable period of becoming familiar wi th what was going i
11 on.
i
{
12 Q
Let me see --
13 A
It's a mixed bag, I think.
t 14 Q
Let me see if I understand.
If I understand j
j 15 clearly what you are saying, an item could appear on the Plan i
l
]
16 of the Day list and the individual that was raising that item i
17 could have talked to an engineer, lead engineer in your group l
18 about the problem.
They might already be working on it and 19 it would simply appear on the lis t as an item to be tracked j
20 and then perhaps you became aware of it at. the Plan of the
}
j 21 Day meeting.
i j
22 A
That's correct.
i 23,
Q So tha t every one didn' t have to go through you to 24 all the engineers in your group; is that right?
i l
25 A
That's correct.
O'.
i j
I l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202.4 7 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 4 6
__ _ _ _ _ _ _,- - _._- _ _..-_. _.. _-3700_ _.. _ _ _.. _.. -..
28729'0 BRT 4816 g
1 Q
In one sense it seems perhaps efficient, but it 2
also strikes me that 3L made it difficult for you to keep 3
track of what was going on.
4 A
My objective in assuming that kind of a role is to I
5 gradually gain control so that I have at least an awareness of the jobs.that are being performed by my people and to also 6
7 have a list so that I can utilize that information for 8
whatever purpose:
for control purposes, make sure the work 9
is getting done to enable myself to prioritize work; to use 10 i t as a basis for justification for resources as I may need 11 to assure that the work is getting done.
12 I don't think that in the initial changes that I 13 had the -- a system that I can recall, at least, in place, 14 that contained a listing of all the jobs that I could use in 15 that fashion.
16 My objective was to put some -- some kind of a 17 more organized approach together that I could use and 18 identify it with.
I don't think I ever got there.
But that 19 certainly was the kind of thing that, in that role, I would i
20 l attempt to do.
21 Q
And that pretty much is the way -- I recognize 22 that priority, in December of 1978, was the start-up period 23 L
-- that pretty much was the way the group operated under 24 Mr. Seelinger?
That an individual in opera tions or what have 4
25 you could come to any lead engineers and ask for help with a o
a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8 % 336 4 46
5 1
28729.0 BRT 4817
- O
' V i
)
i 1
problem and they 'd s tart working on it?
Perhaps it. would get 2
on the Plan of the Day list.
Mr. Seelinger might become i
l 3
aware of it that way?
j 4
A I guess -- I can only make an assumption that the i
t 5
. interactions were similar during Mr. Seelinger's tenure 4
4 6
Q Do I understand you to say that perhaps even up to i
7 March of '79 that you still really hadn't gotten to the place i
j t
1 I
8 that you want.ed to be in terms of managing th2s u ni t.?
l
)
j 9
A I don't think I ever got t.o that place.
You know, l
10 in a number of areas I was, both in terms of my training and 11 familiarity with the Unit 2 plants, the grasping, l
i 12 prioritization, et cetera, of issues, and so forth, i
13 Q
I t.hink that's very helpful and very candid.
l 4
l 14 Over on page 4 of your prepared sta tement the i
I 15 second full paragraph begins w i t.;..ne sentence:
"I think it j
i 16 is important to point out. that the PORC's ro]e was advisory i
}
I 17 in nature."
l J
10 I would like to get a little better f eel i ng for i
i i
19 why you think that was important.
If there was some issue
(
20 that the Operat ons Review Commit.tce identified and thought 21 was significant, would there be any problem, even though they j
i 1
j 22 !
were only advisory, into getting someone to give at.tention 1.0 23 that item and to act to resolve that item in a way thal was
(
i 24 acceptable to PORC?
25 You could be an adviser, but there are different
> 0 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
~~
c-,.
28729.0 BRT 4818 1
degrees of muscle in advising.
That's what I want to get a 2
feel for:
whether you felt if people didn't quit.e agree wit.h 3
PORC they could reject your advice, or whether PORC advice 4
was. binding.
5 A
Okay.
Let me address why I 1.hought it was 6
important to put that in here.
I guess it probably arises a 7
lot out of my nervousness in a lot of other. forums where I've 8
testified regarding the accident where I sometimes get the 9
sense that people t.hink that. PORC was the ruling body of the 10 plant.
That was not the case.
I have had that driven home a 11 number of times, i guess in my prior role in safety review.
12 It was chartered, the PORC was-chartered by tech specs, and I f) 13 think the words
- 1. hat are in the tech specs talk about PORC v
14 being advisory to the unit superintendent on matters relative 15 to safety and so forth.
16 When the PORC reviews any matter, we are really 17 making a recommendation to the unit superintendent and he can 18 accept or reject that recommendation.
I think, historically, 19 virtually in all -- you know, most cases the recommendations 20 are accepted.
So, in terms of the advisory nature, PORC was 21 not approver of anything.
Technically ~1t was not a group 22 that ran the plant, even though it consisted by and large of 23 department heads and key individuals from the plant.
It did 24 advise the unit superintendent..
25 In terms of clout, I think the PORC ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3364M6
~..
28729.O BRT 4819 OV 1
recommendations were virtually always regarded positively by 2
the unit superintendent and were followed.
3 I think tha t attempts to address thie points that 4
you've raised, but if there's anything specific I could try 5
to address that further.
6 g
Well, it i t were a conflict, say with the 7
supervisor of opera tions, how would such a conflic t get 8
resolved?
9 A
Well, I can't tnink of anyt.hing specific like 10 that.
I think that i t was my expectation that it would be 11 resolved at the superintendent -- unit superintendent's 12 level.
If PORC made a recommendation, il was disagreed with 13 by some other department head, it would be up to the unit 14 superintendent to resolve it.
15 There was, as I reca)), a tech-spec-mandated 16 authori ty on the part of PORC that, in the event of 17 disagreements with the uni t superintendent we would advise --
18 I think it was the generation review committee.
And then 19 they would get involved in any final resol u ti on.
But PORC 20 would have discharged its responsibili ty. completely a t that 21 point, in terms of the tech spec requirements are concerned.
22 Q
But the tech spec did, if I understand you
-23 correctly, provide a mechanism for getting resolution at a I
24 l higher --
l 25 A
I believe il did.
That's my recollection, sir.
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(X)
Nationwide Coverage 80fk3346646 a
t-7m,-
, ~
y n
e.
y
28729.0 BRT 4820 O
V 1
Q To be sure I understand, while PORC was only 2
advisory, 5t sounds to me - - as you say, it included a number 3
of department heads and a consensus by the group, I would 4
think, would have considerable clout.
And apparently you 5
don't recall occasions where PORC recommenda tions were 6
rejected, so that, in a real world as a matter of fact, the 7
fact that PORC was only advisory didn't really cause a 8
problem?
9 A
I don't think it did.
10 Q
Moving on to page 5 of your prepared s ta temen t, 11 the first fu)) paragraph which follows this discussion of the 12 character of PORC, you say, and I quote:
"That being said, I 13 should also point out that in a situation where I understood 14 that the plant was operating in violatioit of technical 15 specifications, I would have felt it incumbent on me to 16 immediately advise the unit superintendent of the problem."
17 And then, in the following paragraph you make 18 reference to Mr. Stier and his report, and you say "He has 19 also concluded that I was' involved in January 1979 in a 20 decision to con tinue opera ting TMI-2 in violation of the 21 l technical specifications."
22 Then you go on to say:
"Because I believe the 23 l latter conclusion is outside the scope of these hearings, I 24 have not addressed it in this s ta tement, even though I 25 disagree wi th Mr. Stier."
V i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 n
28729.0 BRT 4821-1 I would like to ask, first of all, have you had a r
2 chance to read the Commission order that established this 3
proceeding?
4 A
Sir, I've read so many documents I'm not really 5
sure I did.
I'm not sure.
I'd have to take a look at it.
6 g
Apparently i f: you read it you don't recall it 7
verbatim.
i 8
A No.
9
(!
In the Commission's order they have several items 10 that they asked this board to look at, so that this 11 proceeding is sharply focused and quite well-prescribed.
And i
I?
under item D, which begins on page 5 of that order, there is
- O 13
" 1te-
- th t re oe:
oie the ever tere er etaere e"a oe 14 in taking or failing to take any action in violation of 15 technical specification requirements?"
16 So my question to you is, we are looking at those 17 words, and I personally don't see how this matter of 18 operating, perhaps opera ting the plant in January of 1979 19 outside technical specification is outside the scope of this 20 hearing.
I would like to get you to help me as to why you 21 think it is outside, since the Commission speci fically tells 22 us to look for, try to make findings with respect to failing 23 to take action in violation of technical specification 24 requirements?
25 MR. VOIGT:
Judge Carpenter, I am the person who i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37m Nationwide Coserage 8233MM6
t l
l I
20729.0 I
i BRT 4822 O
j
! d.
j i
1 advised Mr. Kunder on this ma tter and I don't think he I
2 actually read the order, but I did.
And it is my view that j
i l
3 this proceeding is about leak rate testing and that the words J
4 that you read have to be taken in that context:
Was there a j
5 violation of the leak ra te test procedures?
f o
The incident thal Mr. S ti er is ta lk i ng about has 1
7 to do with actual leakage as opposed to the leakage that was i
j 8
measured by the test procedure.
So that's the distinction.
i i
9 But as I indicated to this board a few days ago,
}
10 Mr. Kunder is prepared to address this sub ject.
1 l
11 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
I 12 O
Well, Mr. Kunder, I assume the ref.erence here, j
l 13 when you refer to Mr. Stier'and his report, is primarily to 14 volume -- well, at least. includes volume I, which is entitled i
I 15 "The Production and overview."
And, in volume I,
beginning l
l 16 on page 114 there is a discussion of the January 2 to January I
i 2
17 15~
1979 period.
l l
18 Mr. Kunder, have you had a chance to read this i
19 '
recentJy?
j 20 A
No, I've not.
Not this particular passage.
i l
21 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Mr. Kunder, I think we'l'1 take a l
1 j
22-l 10-minute break for coffee and give you a chance to read it.
1 t
j 23 l I don't want to ask you questions about something you are not i
i I
I I
24 familiar with.
1 25 (Recess.)
{
4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3 % )
Nationwide Coserage 14 0 336-6646
< -, - - + - - - - - - - - - - -
. _. _ - - - - -.. - ~, - -, - -.. - ~ _ _ _ _
_. _ ~ -
T 1
I 28729.0 BRT 4823
?
,.J 1
BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
j f
2 Q
Mr. Kunder, during the break did you have a chance 4
L 3
to read, beginning at page 114,-Lhrough 119, the Stier. report i
i 4
summary of at J eas t Mr. Stier's view of. events wi th respect' I
+
j 5
to leaks and leak rate lesting in the period January 2nd to 4
i i
l 6
Lhe 15th of January 1979?
i
)
7 A
Yes, I did.
l i
)
I l
8 0
I might ask, what is your reaction?
Do you think i
I 9
it's factual?
(
10 A
I don't recall the leak rates you know, any i
11 awareness that we were -- had high leak rates.
All the j
i i
i 12 inf orma ti on that appears to be presented, I did not recal.1 in i
13 the past nor do I recall now, having any direct recollection 14 of those issues.
15 Q
Well, with respect to plant Jeakage, specifically i
1 l
16 leakage from the primary coolant system, what tools were 17 available at TMI-2 for getting a quantitative measurement of i
i
(
18 Lhe leakage rate?
(
]
9 A
I guess there were a variety of tools available.
i 20 Obviously leak rale measurements in accordance with the
~
i
)
21 surveillance procedure being one of them.
Longer-term 22 observations of some of the key plant parameters, such as j
23 makeup tank and pressurizer level and drain tank; reactor I
I 24 building sumps, auxiliary building sump; cooler -- drain I
i l
25 coolers from the reactor cooling vent _ilation systems;
. O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 202-347-3%v)
Nationwide Cmcrage 8m3364M6
20729.0 BRT 4824 d
1 1
observations by operators, you know, people who surveil plant 2
systems, for example, on operator tours on inspection of 3
equipment.
Those mechanisms were the processes which would 4
allow identificalion and in some instances where S
quantification can occur.
Those are the processes tha t could i
i 6
be used.
7 Q
As I understand these other ways of detect.ing and 8
qualitatively identifying leakage, they are only amenable to 9
becoming quant.itative if somebody goes and makes a 10 measurement, actually collects the leaking water over a known 4
11 time period and measures the amount of it.
Is that. a correct 12 impression?
13 A
1 think it's close.
It depends upon t.h e nature of 1
l 14 the leakage, the point where the leakage is going to, as to l
15 whet.her or not there are separate indicators that would 3
16 trigger recognition of leakage.
But I think by and.large 17 most leakage measurement techniques would require someone to 18 go in and observe level changes or volume changes or some 19 parameter like t. hat in order to assess the degree or quantify 20 the leakage.
21 Q
Well, in this time period, January 2nd to.the j
22 15th, according to Mr. Stier's report, there were several I
23 i valves which were known to be Jeaking; apparently visual I
24 inspection had led to identification that there was some l
25 leakage.
aut, as I understand it, one couldn't. say that. was ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide coverage an3%6M6 v
28729.0 BRT 4825 OG 1
identified leakage in a quantitative sense because there had 2
been no measurement of the leakage rate in the context of the 3
tech spec recognition of different limits for identified 4
l e a king e, vis-a-vis unidentified leakage?
5 A
I'm sorry.
Are you asking me a question?
6 Q
Yes.
My point is, I wanL Lo be sure I'm correct 7
that the fac t that somebody saw some of these valves leaking 8
didn't constitute making that leakage identified leakage; 9
noting where it was coming from was inadequa te absent a 10 measurement of the rate of leakage?
11 A
I don't recall the specific problems, leakage 12 issues, from that time -- at least independently, to know how
,m 13 people assessed the leakage in. terms of quantification or 14 otherwise.
15 The leakage -- some of the leakage points that.are 16 discussed in the passages I read talk about the pressurizer 17 route valves for the level tranumitters which were leaking 18 back a t that time period.
And my recollection, al least in 19 J ooking a t that particular issue durisig preparation through 20 the years, body-to-bonnet leak where steam is blowing - no, 21 I don't think that kind of a leakage pathway is easily 22 ;
measured in any practical way during operations.
I 23 l 0
I didn't suggest it was easily measured.
What I'm 24 trying to find out is, if you can't measure it can il ever be 25 in a formal sense, identified leakage, if you don't know how ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-(M6
28729.0 BRT 402i O
V 4
1 big it is?
The point I'm trying to make is the distinction 2
between the requirement that there be both a qualitative 3
identification, where the leakage is coming from, and a 4
quantiLative identification of how big the leak is, because 5
that's what the tech spec speaks to, is quantita tive limits.
6 A
My understanding of the process of taking a leak r
7
.and identifying that leak is that you need to be able to 8
measure the fluid volume as a function of~ Lime in order to 9
call it identified leakage.
How tha t was specifically
.10 handled in the instance that is discussed in Stier's report. I 11 just don't know.
12 Q
Well, the Stier report makes references to a b;
13 couple of notes which, apparently, they identify as being in t
V 14 your handwriting.
Do you agree that that's correct?
15 A
I've seen t.he notes that are referenced.
I don't 16 have them before me.
But I identified the handwriting on 17 that note as my own.
That is correct.
What I did not agree 18 with is the implications that Stier attributed to that. note.
19 Q
Could you be clear about it, in wha t way you 20 disagree?
21 A
Mr. Stier interpreted that note to mean tha t I i
22 knew that we had unidentified leakage in excess oC the limits 23 and that is just not the truth.
I would not knowingly be 24 aware of leakage in excess of the limits and support 25 continued operation.
That's just not George Kunder.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-3474700 Nationwide Coverage 800136-6M6
28729.0 4827 O
BRT 1
Purther, I don't think the operations note 2
suggests that I had that information to begin with.
I think 3
he has taken from that note what he wished to interpret and I 4
think he inappropriately did that.
5 Q
Well, let's look at it from a slightly different I
6 perspective.
I take the notes to be evidence tha t you aware 7
of this leakage.
Is that fair?
8 A
I think at the time the note suggests that I was 9
aware of leakage at those valves.
I think that's a fair i
10 conclusion.
11 O
What is a myutery to me, if you knew that th'e 12 valves were leaking, why you weren't curious, and maybe 13 something even stronger -- adamant, that the extent. of that 14 leakage needed to be determined.
Why didn'L you look into 15 it?
16 A
Well, I don't know that I did not become curious 17 and investigate it.
What I can tell you based on my 18 independent reccllection is I was never aware of an instance 19 where I was informed that leak rates were outside the bounds 20 of our tech spec 1 imi ts.
So, while I would typically be 21.
concerned about leakage in terms of identifying the nature 22 and implications, primarily looking at the safety 1
23 !
ramifications of the leakage from a variety of perspectives; 24 but I just don't have an awareness that there was any 25 associated out-of-spec condition with this.
j O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-)WX)
Nationwide Coverage 84G3366M6
28729.0 BRT 4828 C\\
V 1
Q But did you know whether it was out of spec or 2
not?
3 A
I think that if I had known it was out of spec I 4
definitely would have Laken some action.
5 0
I accept that.
But my question is --
6 A
So I hav'e to conclude that I did not know.
7 Q
Well, did you ask?
8 A
Well, I don't remember the period of time.
All I 9
can do is take a look at the. data that has been presented t.o 10 me since that time.
And knowing how I personally operate and 11 the technical perspective and the ethical perspectives that I 12 Lake in such matters, I know I would not have known that we 13 had a leak rate problem at that t.i m e in terms of being in 14 violaLion of any technical s peci f ica tions.
15 Q
We)), where.I'm having trouble, you were aware 16 that there was a leak but you didn't know how big the leak 17 was.
18 A
I don't know that.
19 Q
Well, how do you think that you knew that the leak i
20 j was not large enough to cause a technical specification i
21 i question?
j 22 A
I can only say that, because of the way I operate, 23 that I do not recall any period of time when I was aware of l
l 24 any leakage that was reported being in excess of the tech 25 specs or I would have taken action.
Since I did not do that O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80tk336-c646
28729.0 BRT 4829 g
1 my conclusion is that I was never aware of any problem 2
associated with that.
3 0
Well, I agree.
But what I'm trying to learn is --
4 this is a problem with these valves that apparently went on 5
for an extended period of time.
Several days, if not weeks.
6 Whose responsibility do you think IL was Lu u tze wlielher or i
7 not these leaking valves caused an unidentified leakage that 8
was in violation of technical s pecif ica tions ?
9 A
Typically, the leak rate' calculations, the 10 observa tion and the documentat. ion of any Cound or identified 11 leaks in the plant and any attempts to quantif y those leaks 12 where they were quantifiable, was typically performed by the t
13 operations organization.
14 Q
So you didn'L feel that it was appropriate for you 15 to ask aperations how big this leak was?
16 A
I thi nk that line of questioning is t.y pi ca l of i
17 something I believe that it was appropriate for myself to do.
18 Q
Dut you can't recall now?
You can't reca1J 19 quesLioning operations about:
Do we know how big this leak 20 ic?
21 A
No.
I don't recall.
22,
Q Looking at page 115 of the S tier report, there is i
23 !
a table with dates running from the 2nd of January 1979 24 through the 15th, and there's a column headed "Es tima ted 2s unidenu fied neakage" which shows, day after day, that the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide roverage IK10-33MM6
28729.0 BRT 4830 OG 1
best estimate of unidentified leakage are numbers larger than 2
1 gallon per minute, which is the technica] specification 3
limit.
4 There's also a column showing the leak rate tests 5
that were filed, what those leak rate tests showed and they 6
show numbels that are substantially scattered, and none of 7
them in excess of I gallon per minute.
8 Would you say it is a fair reading of that table 9
to conclude that the procedure tha t was used for measuring 10 net unidentified leakage was substantially erroneouu?
11 A
I don't think that is sufficient based on what I 12 would consider relati"ely scant informa tion regarding the 13 genera tion cf these numbers.
As a technical person I would 14 not draw that kind of conclusion without looking at far more 15 data.
16 Q
Have you had a chance to look at the basis for the 17 es tima ted unidentified leakage?
]
18 A
Hy that are you referring to have I looked at the 19 procedure, calculations --
20 Q
This is a summary volume that we are looking at I
21 ;
now.
There are many, many other volumes and some of those I
I volumes explain in some detail the data that was used to 22 l 23 l estimate the unidentified leakage.
24 A
I guess through the years, no.
I have seen bitu
)
l 25 and pieces during preparation of the procedures and so forth, l
O 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37tU Nationwide Cmcrage mn336-646
_ l
i 4
i l
28729.0 l
i BRT 4831 l
(
j 1
but to the best of my knowledge I have not really gone i
2 through the development of.the numbers, such as this, in any i
i 3
)
3 of the previous _ work I have done.
I f
)
4 Q
Well, since you haven't reviewed it but that I
5 material is part of this record, i f' il turns out that there 4
l 1
6 doesn't seem t.o be any defic 2 enc 2es an these estimates of l
}
7 unidentified leakage so tha t the ntimbere as shown on page 115 i
I
{
3 8
remain unchallenged, wouldn't it be f air to conclude, i
9 considering the persistent difference between the actual j
)
10 unidentified leakage and the leak rate test results, that the 11 leak rate test results were seriously in error; just on the
)
12 face of the two columns?
13 A
I guess I'd have to say that when I look at any i
14 issue there is a niimber of possibilities.
That might be one 15 possibility.
Another possibility may be that even if the i
f 16 leak rates were properly performed the variability in results 17 may naturally come out to be an shown.
I just don't know 18 that, and I think that I would have to, you know, Lake a look 19 harder at the inputs and understand the nature of the data 1
i 20 development.
}
I 21 I'm not trying to be evasive.
I'm just saying I s
l 22 think I would be making an inappropriate, sweeping statement i
{
23 l to say:
Yes, it in a problem or.it isn't.
.24 Q
Well, I quile agree with you thal Lhe leak rate i
25 test results on successive shifts.are variable.
If one were lC I
i, l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347-3700 Nrionwide Coverage Mn336(M6
%-m m
28729.0 BRT 4032 1
to take all the numbers in the column at the extreme right 2
and average them - I haven't done that carefully, but the 3
-central tendency might be something like a half a gallon per
(
4 minute and the central tendency of the estimated unidentified 5
leakage column might be something like 1.4 gallons per 6
minute.
And such asi avtragitig piocess Ltnds to temove the 7
variability and one sees not only a variability but a 8
systematic bias, a systematic discrepancy.
Do you follow me?
9 A
I think I do.
I would be suspicious of a 10 problem.
I'm not sure I would be willing to decide on what I 11 would attribute that problem to, if it is a problem.
But I 12 do think it would be something that as an independent 13 observer, looking back, you'd need to take a look at a lot 14 more in order to understand the nature of the difference.
15 Q
Well, we've had a lot of tes ti mony tha t opera tors, 16 shift foremen and in some cases, shi f t supervisors didn' t 17 think the results of this leak rate surveillance te s t.
were 18 believable, were credible.
I 19
-I guess this leakage from these valves was 20 probably common knowledge to the operators, don't you think?
21 You think they were unaware these valves.were leaking?
22 A
I would expect that i t would be common knowledge i
23 at that time.
24 Q
Well, what I have been puzzling over for something 25 like seven weeks now, talking to va'ri o u s people -- here is a 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3M)
Nationwide Coserage 800-336-(M6
l i
l 28729.0 i
BRT 4833 i O i kJ r'
1 day, like the 7th of January, where the best. estimate of 2
unidentified leakage -- which it's certainly not known with 4
l 3
certainty was exclusively coming from those valves; there I
4 could have been others but at. least. those valves were a 5
possibility, and yet the leak rate test says the leak rate 6
was minus
.2 gallons per minute.
How can that-be i
7
- acceptable?
I 8
The operators tell us that, they had the feeling
)
9 that these leak rate tests weren't believable because they f
l 10 knew t.here weren't any leaks.
And when a leak rate test. gave 11 2 gallons per minute, they just considered that to be some f
}
12 error on the part. of the carrying out of the surveillance 13 test and disregarded it.
}
f 14 Dut here is a case where I believe they would be j
15 aware that there was leakage, tha t it was unidentified,
- t. hey 16 hadn't any measurement of it, and yet they get. a leak rate 17 test, minus
.2 gallons per minute and accept it.
That's what 18 I'm trying to understand, why it didn't lead to some quest. ion I
{
19 to you or somebody:
Look, we got a problem here with this l
)
4 1
20 surveillance test..
It. is producing meaningless data;
.{
i 21 nonsense.
They know there's a leak and yet the test tells 22 them minus
.2 gallon per minute.
23 Can you help me with that prob'lem?
How could this l
i 24 be?
I t
25 A
I think there's, perhaps, two points.
One, the i
i O i
i 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage Nn336-66460
28729.0 BRT 4834 1
negative value is something that I think people have seen in 2
the past and have attributed to the variability of the data 3
or whatever the. forces are that cause the vari'a bili ty.
I 4
don't. tnink that people are used to seeing very high negative 5
numbers, but negative value, a face value number is.not 6
something that has never been observed.
Although I don't 7
recall specific discussions, my understanding is that people 8
have accepted that through the years in Unit 1,
as part of 9
the occasional variability in results.
10 I think the fact that one gets negat.ive value -I 11 don't know how the opera tors perceived that in Unit 2,
but I 12 could understand that that kind of a perception might exist 13 and be cause for not being alarmed by a face value number on 14 the negaLive side.
15 But the second point is I don't know what specific 16 response someone may have had to any of these numbers.
I do 17 recall being aware, in the period before the accident, of 18 concern.
I can't put my finger in any specific interactions 19 on this.
I just. recall i t was an issue.
The concern that I 20 perceived was in terms of the results not being 21 representative of the behavior of the plant, that I assumed 22 or presumed operators observed in terms of longer-term 23 inventory balances.
Obuerving long-term changes in makeup 24 Lank level, perhaps, reactor coolant drain tank level and the 25 other central volume systems that. existed.
That was my I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage Im336-6M6
28729.0 BRT 4835 n
1 I
i G
1 perception.
Whether tha t was accurate or not I don' t know.
2 That't the recollection I have.
3 I didn't perceive the concern in terms of the 4
procedure was totally useless.
I perceived it in terms o f. :
S The results did not come into close agreement or were ti representative of what they perceived the plant's behavior 7
really was.
8 I hope that clarifies the --
9 Q
Well, the idea that one could have a feelinJ for 10 what the leakage was would imply a perception -- you say 11 "long term," I think the implication is sort of cumula tive, j
12 for example, additions of water to the makeup tank.
)
13 But what's not clear to me is how, from shift to 14
-shift, there was any tracking of what that long-term trend 15 was.
Elow would a shiEt know what had happened two ahiEts 16 before or three shifts before?
17 A
I can only speculate that they -- there may have 18 been some tracking performed on the part of operators.
I 19 jusL don't know based on my independent recollection what 20 those tracking practices, if any, were.
21 Q
So, while you say that thac might have been a 22 basis you don't ':now for a fact that somebody did do the 23 I tracking?
24 A
That's correct.
25 Q
Well, coming back to Mr. Stier's interpretation of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8@346M6
l 28729.0 BRT 4836 ys
/
I Lj 1
this, isn't il true that you, as shown by t.h es e notes, were 2
aware that there was this Jeakage and you didn't know how big 3
it was?
4 A
I think it suggest.s that I was aware of
- t. h e 5
leakage, yes.
And I think the notes don'L, in my mind, 6
suggest anyt.hing specific with respect to my awareness of how 7
big the leaks were.
I can imply from reading that note and 8
knowing from a technical perspective the naLure of the ]eak, 9
tha t I would not have a measurement or knowledge or derive 10 any knowledge of measurement of the amount of leakage.
11 Q
Can you help us understand why you weren't curious 12,
as
- t. o how big it. was?
,--(,)
13 A
1 don't think the note suggests that I was not u
14 '
curious about how big
- t. h e leak was.
I believe that I would 15 have sat.isfied myself that the leakage was safe from any and 16 all perspectives.
I may not have verified, Cor example, by 17 my personal observa ti on of t.h e leakage or verified by 18 personal reading of plant indicators or verified by 19 personally checking lesult.s of leak rate Lests; but I think l
20 that I would have satisCied myself tha t we were opera ting in j
i 21 a safe mode.
And I think the fact that I attempted to keep 22 l some notes suggests that I was interested enough in Collowing 23 up on that.
24 I think, though, thal the notes are ineomplete and 25 un f or tuna Lel y, because of thal, one can Lake a look aL the
()
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i l
202-347-370)
Nationwide Coserage 800 h 6646
28729.0 BRT 4837 1
raw notes without considering any -- any other mallers or any 2
other data that one might expect to follow up on and you can 3
draw whatever conclusion you want.
Unfortunately, the notes l
4 don't help me clarify and they didn't help Mr. Stier clarify.
i l
S Q
But isn't the bottom li ne that the leakage was --
6 if we accept the Stier report as being valid, unidentified 7
leakage did exceed the technical specifica tions and yet the 8
plant continued to operate?
Can we get away from that fact?
l l
9 A
Gir, I was not aware of that.
I can tell you l
10 categorically that at no 1.ime was I aware of being in l
11 violation of tech spec requirements.
And I can feel very l
12 comfortable with that feeling because the way I operate is in 13 a manner where, it I had been awa re of that kind of a 14 situation I would have taken action.
15 So I conclude -- I believe I was satisfied that we 16 were operating safely i n accordance wi th our regulations.
17 Q
Isn'L it true thal the way you might have learned 18 what the leak rate was i t, by looking at the leak rate test.
19 results?
20 A
I'm sorry, could you repeat that question?
21 Q
You just said if you had been aware you would have i
22 '
taken action.
And I'm trying to understand how 3t might have 23 been thal you could have become aware.
And it seems to me 24 that the most direct way is to measure the leak rate -- the 25 leak rale test.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(U Nationwide Coverage 8%336-6M6
28729.0 BRT 4838 1
A I think tha t is one of the main methods by which I 2
would draw conclusions.
Whether or not I interrogated people 3
in order to determine what the leak rate results were, I 4
don't know.
The ops notes do not shed any direct light. on 5
that.
All I can say is that that is likely one of the things 6
that I would do, in overviewing whether or not there was a 7
problem.
8 Q
Did you share this sense that we've got, I think 9
nearly all if not 100 percent of the operators, that the 10 results of this leak rate surveillance test were unreliable?
11 Did you share tha t feeling?
12 A
Again, at 1.h e time under discussion, I don't think 13 I perceived the problem as being what I would charac terize as 14 unreliable but more one where the result d.id not agree or 15 I were not representative of the behavior of the plant.
I 16,
don't have any independent recol.lection of any of my 17 interactions that would have led me to that understanding.
I 18 don't --
19 Q
Let me interrupt you and go back.
You just. said 20 you didn't think it was unreliable; you thought it was l
21 unrepresentative.
I'm having trouble with distinguishing.
i 22 A
Well, perhaps that's a matter of my semant'ics.
l 23 But when people talk about the leak ra te procedure pr oblem, j
24 the perception, or the unders tanding that I recall tha t I had 25 at that time was the resul ts were not coming out to be the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3A0 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
f 4
I 1
l 28729.0 i
13RT 4839 i (Gh i
1 same as indicated by other plant pa ra me te rs.
i i
)
2 Q
And therefore unreliable, it seems to me.
j 1
3 A
I guess --
t I
t 4
0 Why wouldn't you go that far?
If you thi nk you l
i 5
know what the leak ra te is and you run a test and it doesn't j
)
l 6
agree wi th wha t. you think the test results should be, isn't i
l r'
1 7
that the primary basis that these people had for considering I
)
i j
8 it was unreliable?
{
9 A
Well, i t may be perceived t. hat way.
You may use I
10 the term "unreliability."
j I
11 I guess when I t.hink of the term "unreliability" I i
l 12 think of a wide variation or a variation in results.
j l
13 When I think of it not being representative of the 14 plant behavior, I think in terms -- men tally I interpret that i
15 as kind of a bias, so I'm thinking in terms of apparent j
16 bias.
That's the way I perceive -- "unreliability" might
]
17 mean you gets results rambling a.11 over the place wi thout, any i
18 particular pattern.
I don't perceive that the issue was that i
4 19 way.
It; may be perceived other ways to other people but 20 l that's the way I thought.
f i
21 Q
Were you aware of the pract. ice of if, when a leak I
22 rate surveillance test was run, if the computer printout 1
23 indicated a value for unidentified leakage that exceeded 1 24 gallon per minute, that very frequently the operators would 25 make the judgment that. tha t. was n ' t a valid. leak rate test end
%J 1
)
4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
28729.0 BRT 4040 1
then run another test, and if it came out less than 1 gallon 2
per minute, would discard the previous test?
3
'A No.
I was not aware of any of that.
4 O
Today, looking back, would you agree that such a 5
prac tice would produce a bias?
6 A
I think it is obvious to me, if the resu]tu come 7
in that vary and you crop off a percentage of that, it is 8
going to bias --
9 Q
Specifically the high ones?
10 A
-- it's going to bias the reported values trom 11 what the actual average of all the readings might have been.
12 Q
And you never became aware of. this practice?
13 A
No, sir.
14 Q
Even at Unit I?
15 A
No, sir.
I was not aware of tha t practice.
16 Q
On page 2 of your prepared s tatement a t the very 17 bottom of the page you say, "At one point my department was 18 requested to take a Jock at the leak rate procedure or 19 calculations to determine if a problem actually existed, and 20 if so, to resolve it."
21 Did that request lead your department to conclude 22 that there was a problem?
23 A
I believe it did, although I do not have 24 independent recollection at the time as to jus t wha t specific 25 resolution was.
My understanding is that i t. resul ted in a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-370)
Nationwide Coverage 801336-6M6
i j
i 28729.0 l
DRT 4841 i O i O s
f 1
change
- 1. 0 the procedure.
2 The reason I'm a litLle unclear about this is when 3
it was first quostioned by the NRC, shortly afLer the 4
accident, I became aware of the TCN, which I've seen in more 5
recent times during preparation.
My recollection a t that i
6 time was that was the first time I recalled seeing or being l
l 7
aware oE the specific TCN.
So I've connected the t.w o, and so i
8 my answer is yes, there was a problem that was found and 4
9 perceived to be corrected by the TCN.
)
i 10 Q
I would like to ask you to look at the NRC Staff's 1
l 11 preCiled testimony by Mr. Kirkpatrick and Mr. Wermiel.
12 MR. MC BRIDE:
I have i t, J udy'e Carpenter.
13 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Specifically page 17.
i
{
l 14 DY JUDGE CARPENTER:
l 15 Q
Mr. Kunder, this is technical lestimony that came I
)
16 in in t.h e first weeks of this proceeding and e.s a technical I
17 person at TMI-2, I would like to see if you~ agree with 1
1 18 Staff's conclusions.
I 19 On page 17 quest. ion 20 reads:
"How accur a te was 20 this test procedure at. TMI-2?"
i 21 And Mr. Kirkpatrick responds, "The test procedure
{
22 at TMI-2 was not sufficiently accurate to determine l
23 unidentified leakage of 1 gallon per minute due to 24 uncertainty in the data and computational errors."
r 25 It goes on to say, "In entering a guilty plea in O
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6M6
~
,.. _ _. _- 347-3700
,-.__-.._.-.._.._..___.___.-_,~,..____.__.I
28729.0 BRT 4842 1
the United of America versus Metropolitan Edison Company, 2
prim number 83301-0008, MetIopolitan Edison acknowledges, 3
inter alia, that it was on notice from sometime before 4
mid-October 1978 up to the time of the accident that this 5
procedure did not accura tely and meaningf ully measure the 6
amount of unidentified reactor coolant leakage."
7 I try lo get that to jibe with your statement that 8
your depart. ment was requested to take a look at the leak rat.e 9
procedure lo determine if a problem existed and, if so, to 10 resolve it, agains t. t he Staff testimony that Metropolitan 11 Edison was on not. ice from mi_d-OctcLer of 1978 that the 12 procedure was inaccurate.
13 How do we resolve this?
Do you agree with this 14 view of Staff?
15 A
With all the man-years of investigation and trials 16 and all that, litigation, I can only assume that their 17 findings are correct.
As to my independent knowledge back at 18 the time, I was no t awa re of the history that led up to the 19 Icak rat.e issues; for example the LER and the other -- the 20 closecut, specific closcout of the LER at that time.
It may 21 have been lost in t.he plethora of other issues and paper but 22 I was jus t not aware of that.
.I have no recollec tion of 23 knowing that history.before my arrival on Unit 2.
24 Q
Well, perhaps the Board will come back to the 25 LER.
I want to stay focused on the technical issue of 1.h e ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 804336-6M6
28729.0 BRT 4843 V
1 accuracy of this survei11ance tes t and the conclusion tha L a 2
test. that was not sufficiently accurate was used, day in and 3
day out, week after week, month after month, at TMI-2 without 4
any corrective action being taken even though the technical 5
support department was asked to take a look at the procedure, 6
see if a problem exists and to resolve it.
That's why I 7
don't understand why your department didn't identity these 8
problems?
9 A
I was not aware of the nature of the problem as it 10 is perceived today.
I have already indicated that I recall 11 an awareness that I had that there were concerns aboui. the 12 procedure, and to the best of my knowledge those concerns J
13 were addressed and resolved.
The information that I have s
14 learned since the accident, during the course of a variety of 15 interviews and investigations and litigation has led me to 16 accept this finding as apparently the way things were.
I did 17 not have that independent knowledge of that, however, back at 18 that time.
19 Q
I just want to be sure if you had a different view 20 and disagreed with Staff, this is your chance to express i t.
21 So I want to put it before you.
But apparently you see no 27 9 basis for any strong disagreement with Staf f ?
l 23 '
A I would say so.
That's not because I have 24 thoroughly deliberated on all the technical and-25 organizational and other aspects of this whole issue.
I have o
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
28729.0 BRT 4844 l'
been working in a Lola11y different area which has caused me 2
not to go back and take a look at procedures and analyze.
I 3
have prepared myself in areas that I can testify to based on 4
my recollection and I just have not gone through this whole S
process as exhaustively as all the bodies that have 6
heretofore litigated in this matter.
7 So all I can tell you is what I recall, what I can 8
testify to.
But in terms of the sweeping conclusions that 9
Mr. Kirkpatrick has made, I guess I accept that as well as 10 anybody else who would read the results of the hearings.
11 Q
Well, turning over to page 18, the next page, 12 question 22 reads: "Qu ee t.i on :
What significant computational 13 errors did the computer program contain?"
14 And Mr. Ki rkpat rick 's response:
"Several 15 computa tional errors in the computer program were identified 16 by NRC inspectors.
Some were relatively minor, but the three 17 which would cause errors of 1 gallon per minute or more in 18 all of the calculated leak rates are discussed below."
19 Without reciting all those, how is it that-the 20 existence of these three significant errors in the procedure 21 weren't identified when your department. was asked to look at 22 the leak rate procedure?
How did it just fall in the cracks?
23 A
Sir, I don't think I can give an answer to tha t.
24 I don't know.
25 Q
I must say I have been trying to understand this c
d
)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
->g>.
s.e_m c
28729.0 BRT 4845 OV 1
because they don't -- would you agree that these problems 2
with the procedure are not ones of great technical 3
complexity?
4 A
The two that come to mind
- t. hat I have learned 5
about after the fact which involve correction of the density 6
-- compensat. ion for the density changes on the reactor coolant drain tank and the makeup tank, I became aware that 8
one of them was found and corrected by that TCN.
I don't 9
have any recollecLion of thal at the time.
I don't know 10 whether or not I delved into that. detail with my si.aff when 11 they came up with that resolution and implemented the TCN.
I 12 All I can tell you is that it was missed at that ti me,
13 apparently.
14 Q
What I'm aski ng is, it is my impression from a 15 perspec tive of some technical background but certainly no 16 technical background in mechanical engineering or nuclear 17 engineering, tha t as a -- in the context of this leak rate 18 surveiljance procedure, these are relatively simple matters.
19 The fact that the tables in the computer program only went to 20 582 degrees, and the plant was operating with temperatures 21 greater than 582 degrees, tha t doesn' t seem to me to be very 1
22 difficult to find if somebody looked'for it.
I want to be 23 sure that I unders tand tha t i t is in my mind fairly r
24 technically straightforward to identify these errors and to 1
25 have corrected them.
I may be wrong.
That's why I ask you.
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-370n Nationwide Coverage 804336-6646
28729.0 i
BRT 4846 i
(3 V
l i
i 1
A Well, I think I can give you my-perspective on i
2 these kinds of things in a general sense.
When one -
l 13 Q
Let's stay with the leak rate surveillance test.
4 A
I'll apply it to leak rate surveillance tests.
I l
5 have found in my experience that if I look at any particular i
6 area long enough and hard enough and exp]or e all the angles i
f 7
and issues, particularly in a complex area which involves a I
8 variety of ins trumen ta ti on, calculational computerization, l
i i
9 organizational interface issues; after sorting all of that l
1 10 out, I find, too, that the issues are very, very simple when t
l 11 I break them down in that fashion.
l 12 Looking at it - looking at any one problem in the 3
s 13 midst of a ple tho ra of problems and issues that people deal 7
r j
14 with in the operation of the plant, it is just simply 15 possible for oversights to occur because people have not i
16 either had the time, taken the time, or had the experience or l
17 insights in order to break those issues down into their
~
18 simple elements.
Possibly that's the kind of process that l
l
\\
j 19 occurred in this area.
l l
20 I'm not sure I can be of much further help except I
i I
i 21 to speculate.
j 22
.)
Wel], I agree that that's a possibility, but I
23 wouldn't sound management avoid 'that possibility?
j 24 A
The concept of sound management, I think, is l'
j 25 certainly intended to avoid those possibilities.
But it is O
i i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. -.-- - _ _._ _ __-347-370)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _, _ -. _ _.. _ _.,, _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
202 Nationwide Coverage 80tk336-6646
2 0 / 2'3. U BRT 4847 sj 1
not an absolute sitvation either.
2 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
3 Q
I hope I wouldn't just muddy the waters-by this 4
question.
But, in looking at these problems that 1
5 Mr. Kirkpatrick cited, in my mind, anyway, in assessing the 6
problems with the leak rate test, there are at Jeast two 7
aspects which seem to be to be somewhat separate.
There is 8
t.h e computer programming aspect as opposed to the physics of 9
the matter.
We've talked to Mr. Fels, do you know Bill Feis?
10 A
Yes.
11 Q
Was he in your shop?
Did he work for you?
12 A
He, I think, worked for both myself and the Unit I n(j 13 superintendent, tech support, in a shared role.
His focus 14 was in. computers, as I recall.
15 Q
Because from talking to him, take the example of 16 '
what that TCN was ultimately addressed to.
It had to do, I 17 gather, with the relationship between mass and temperature 18 and density and some failure to correct for some factor or 19 other among those.
I won't pretend to understand it.
But 20 that to me, the relationship is a matter of physics, not a 21 matter of computer programming.
At least understanding it; 22 isn'L that right?
23,
A Yes.
I think the programming i tself is pretty 1
24 much that.
25 Q
I would have thought the program was a purely n
v ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage M4336#46
I i
i a
2 B / 2'). O i
BRT 4848 fl v
1 mechanical thing.
If I understand the right formula and the l
2 way this thing iu supposed to be factored int.o the test, then i
3 I can go to a programmer, I can go to Fels and say:
- Fels, 4
put this into your program.
He says, okay, and he does it.
5 His part of the process is purely mechanical; isn't it?
i
/
6 A
I think, assuming we are dealing purely wit.h 7
software, it's a matter of introducing that~ program change t
8 i n t.o the computer.
9 Q
Yes.
And that's not what I would call a physics 10 problem.
That's a matter of mainipulating the computer 11 controls in a certain way; right?
1 12 A
I believ2 that to be correct.
I 1
l 13 Q
What are we dealing with here, mechanics or 14 physics?
We are Lalking about these particular kinds of j
i i
15 problems.
And are lhese the kind of problems that your shop i
]
16 was supposed to deal ~with?
Did you handle both or just 17 physics?
18 A
I think 10 there was a problem and it involved the 19 software, that was Fels' area.
That came in under 20 engineering.
If problems were assessed to involve insLrument i
21 inputs to the computer, which it relied oa for the data --
22 intelligence, il you will -- that might be a maintenance 1
j 23 item.
24 If it involved a process which controlled the I5 inputs to the computer such thal paper had to be prepared, t
U 4
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80f>33MM6 1.-.
\\
l zu/zy.U i
BRT 4849
' h
\\
a l
1 approved by other people, there's probacly some J
)
2 organizational elements involved as well.
1 3
Q But you haven't yet referred to subs tantive i
1 4
knowledge.
You talked about organization and paper --
1 i
S somebody is supposed to know what's wrong with this damn 1
6 test; right?
i I
-7 A
Oh, that's a piece of. it, yes.
}
8 Q
Right.
And that's your shop; right?
q 9
A I think so.
I i
10 Q
Where you would come into the picture.
.You see
~
~
j 11 Fels comes in here and he says:
People are saying the l
12 computer has gone crazy.
The computer is producing these 13 crazy numbers.
Fels says, perfectly sensibly:
The computer isn't 14 15 crazy.
What it is being Lold doesn't make any sense, that's
)
16 why you get these screwy numbers.
17 And I would think that somebody ought to be able 18 to figure out what is wrong with the way the thing has been i
19 !
programmed because of a misunders tanding of the physics o t.
20 l the matter and fix that.
Is my perception of this right or l
21 wrong?
l 22 A
I think your perception is what I would logically i
23 '
expect to have occurred and understood to have occurred.
24 Q
Well, again now, these things that Kirkpatrick 4
25 refers to.
There are several different problems he cites, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 804336-6M6 i
LUID.U BRT 4850 v
1 several of which are nitpicking but two or three of which are 2
significant.
Is that. the kind of problem that has a 3
significant substantive physics aspect to this or is this 4
just mechanics, programming?
How would you characterize 5
those?
6 A
Well, the two that I can recall that I was aware 7
l of were the corrections for the specific gravities, and i
8 that's a physics issue.
That's a calculational problem that 9
needed to be resolved.
10 Q
And that kind of a problem, if your people were 11 asked to look at thal and somebody with some training in that 12 area looked at how the test was s truc t.ured, shouldn't they be 13 able to pick up on that and see that there was a mistake in 14 the test?
15 A
My expecta tion is that our people would be able to 16 deal with that kind of a problem.
And, again, I understood 17 that they did.
18 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
19 Q
Well, t h a t. ' s the point.
You just said you 20 understood that they did.
And yet the testimony is tha t -they 2) didn't.
That's what I'm trying to understand, how this could 22 b e.'
23 A
I don't -- what testimony are you referring to?
24 Q
Mr. Kirkpa trick says that there were seven 25 computational errors, three of which were quantitatively O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1
~ ~-+ c-n,, -
zu/zw.o BRT 4851 1
quite substantial, and they never got identified, except for 2
the one that we'll talk about in a minute that relates to the 3
temporary change notice.
4 A
I don't think there's any disagreement per se.
5 Mr. Kirkpatrick's findings are all after the fact.
6 0
Yes.
7 A
I have been lettifying to what I recalled during 8
that time period, that ~i s, that I understood problems were 9
resolved.
I was not aware of the specific nature of the 10 resolution until after the accident when I was discussing the 11 matter with the NRC at that time and I Jearned of the actual 12 substance of the change.
That's my recollection on it.
l Q
Would you say that -- well, you don't recall 13 14 assigning any particular engineer to respond to this request 15 that you look at the leak rate procedure?
16 A
No.
I don't recall making any assignment.
I 17 recall that the assignment had been made within the 18 mechanical section of my group but the specifica tion as to 19 who made the assignment, how it was tracked, interactions 20 that occurred -- I don't recall anything.
21 Q
I don't think we are going to get very far.
I'm 22 just curious:
Would you expect in general if an engineer 23 were assigned to look into a problem that he might look into 24 the problem and then go talk Lo the people who had originated 25 i t and perhaps propose a solution and then Jock to see if the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336 6M6
26729.6 BRT 4852 1
solution in fact worked?
2 A
I would expect that typical procets to occur.
3 Q
That it wasn't thal he would just send a memo to 4
somebody or whatever.
He woulu go over and sort of hands on 5
he sure that the solution he came up with was going to do the 6
job?
7 A
Yes.
I think I expect engineers to be responsive 8
and produce a resolution that will solve the problem.
9 Q
Well, I hear you saying you don't remember 10 assigning an engineer but tha t af ter the fact you became 11 aware that there was a temporary change notice came out, 12 apparently originated by Mr. Morck; is that correct?
13 A
That's correct.
14 Q
Would you have expected Mr. Morck to look and see 15 whether what he thought the problem was and what his sojution 16 to the problem was in fact was realistic?
17 A
I think I would expect him to make sure that his 18 solution is. realistic.
That's jus t one of the objectives of 19 any of our engineers' work.
20 Q
I'm contrac ting wi th tha t just sending it over to i
21 l who made the initial reques t -and if you don't hear any more I
22 from him, you assume everything is happy.
23 A
Well, I guess in retrospect with respect to this 24 particular issue, I would expect tha t wha tever would be 25 necessary to truly assure their problem is reso.lved, that ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(C Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
4 0 1 /. 't. U BRT 4053 1
1 that be accomplished.
I don't recall specifical ly wha t was i
2 done other than linking the TCN, et cetera, to thin issue f
1 3
later on.
i
+
4 0
We)), I would like to get. your help.
We have 5
before us this report by the NRR on these leak rate tests and 6
I would like t o have you turn to leak rate test number 150.
7 MR. MC BRIDE:
NRR test 150?
8 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Yes.
Mr. McBride, I'm going to 9
have just a few questions about this.
I think we ouiht to J
10 take a break at this point.
Perhaps during the break you 11 could familiarize Mr. Kunder with what the pieces of paper 12 are
- t. hat are number 150.
r 13 MR. MC HRTDE:
Sure.
14 (Recess.)
15 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
j 16 Q
Mr. Kunder, before the break I asked you to take a 17 look at the NRR report, specifically the pieces of paper that i
18 NRR has designated as Jeak rate surveillance test. 150.
Did 19 you have a chance to look at that material?
1 20 l A
I looked at some example calculation sheets.
l 21 Q
The question I wanted to ask, to' avail myself of 22 your engineering background, as I look at these pieces of t
23 l paper, the first page is the computer p r i r,~L o u t, which shows i
24 an unident.ified leak rate of approximate 1'y a half a gallon i
i l
25 per minute which is a result within the technical O
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3'00 Nationwide Cmerage 80tk336-6M6
1 l
j t
zurzy.u BRT 4854 i
O
\\
1 specification limit of 1 gallon per minute.
There doesn't i
2 seem to be anything wrong with this test t hat I can see.
But 3
then I turn over to the longhand calculation, which is the 1
4 third page in this group, which involves a correction of the 5
fluid collected in the reactor coolant drain tank back to the 6
density that it would have a t reactor temperature, with a 7
bottom line that this half a gallon result for this 8
surveillance test has now become minus 1 ga] Ion per minute.
i 9
Do you see what I'm talking about?
10 A
I was f ollowi ng you up to the point where the data i
l 11 gives you a minus 1.
I 1
l 12 Q
On the page where the hardwriting is seven lines.
13 It's the second page of this calculation.
14 A
Is tha t. the one where it says -- data sheet 4 at 15 the top?
j
}
16 Q
It's the fourth page in this group.
My copy, l'
somebody had folded over the top of this before they Xeroxed 18 iL so the word "a t.ta c h m e n t " is truncated on the front end.
l 19 A
I found it.
l
,f 20 0
I wanted to be sure that I understand these t
1 21 pa pers.
(
g 4
22 As l'look at that, it suggests that. as a result of 1
1 23 the temporary change notice this improvement produced a i
24 hand-calculated unidentified leak rate of minut. the actual i
1 25 numbers, the four figures is.9967, which in my mind is t l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS,. INC.
1 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80u136
- ---,.,..---_..--.----..-.,_.,,--,.,,.,.-.-..---.,_.--_.-6M6
i zurey.o HRT 485h 1
gallon per minute.
So I'm sort of comparing the botton line 2
of the first page and the bottom line of the result of t.h e r
3 temporary change notice.
I want to be sure I'm reading il 4
correctly.
5 Do you agree with me that what. happens is the test 6
result of plus a half a gallon per minute becomes minus 1 7
gallon per minut.e?
8 A
That's my understanding from what I'm reading here l
l 9
and what I tinders ta nd this change was intended to effect.
10 Q
Would you think that an engineer from your group, 11 if he had seen this, these pieces of pa per, would have had 12 some question about the correctness of the temporary change 1
O 13
""' ice?
or " '?
o ve
'"t"* "e "ta " ve ce '
'"e 34 temporary change notice was accomplishi ng the purposes for I
I 15 which he wrote it?
\\
^
16 A
Well, certainly in retrospect with the human 1
i 17 engineering aspec ts that I've continued to learn over the l
l 18 years, and looking back, this is not the kind of change that 19 J I would prefer to see put in place, a correction factor to 20 the operators.
At that time I don't recall being aware of l
21 the specific change, how it was implemented.
So I can't 22 comment with respect to understandings a t. that ti me.
l 23 Q
No, I understand tha t you probably were unawa re of 24 I this.
What I was trying to find out from you, as the 25 supervisor, whether it would have been your expec tation that.
O 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L J
" " " - " * ' ~ ~ '
i 1
25723.5 BRT 4856 1
the engineer who origina ted the change notice -- before you 2
told me, I believe, that you would expect him to follow i t.
I j
3 up; not jus t simply set these change no ticeu loose without 4
looking to see what. the consequences were.
I'm having 5
trouble understanding why this wouldn't lead to some question 6
in t.h e engineer's mind about the correctness of 1.h e temporary 7
change notice?
i 8
A I'm afraid --
j 9
Q Or not?
10 A
I can only speculate t.h a t the engineers thought j
11 they achieved the purposes for which they were asked to look I
12 into the problem and thought that they had corrected the
(
13 problem tha t was perceived.
To what extent follow-up was l
14 taken or should.have been taken, 1 just don't know.
A l
j 15 Looking back, with what I know today and the kind j
16 of sensiLivity that I have and I think I have had for a.long i
17 time to the way in which to human-enqineer this kind of i
r
{
18 change, I would not expect this to be the way we would do 19 business.
I would expect, you know -- in rttrospect, knowing t
20 that we did not similar]y make a correction to-or it was i
I f
4 21 overlooked, apparently -- the correction to makeup tank and 1
22 any of the other problems that Kirkpatrick had referred
- 1. 0, I J
i 23 would have hoped that those would have clearly been uncovered i
j 24 and resolved.
That's my expectation as I sit here 1.oday.
25 Q
Well, a pparen tly if I unders tand what you just f
4 L
]
1 i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8 % 336 4 646
~ -. - -. - -
26729.0 BRT 4057 O
I said, you don ' t have any unders tanding on how there could l
2 have been an oversight of the kind that was made?
3 A
No, I don't.
4 4
Q 1sn't the net effect of this temporary change 5
notice to bias each and every leak rate surveillance tes t in 6
a negative direction?
7 A
understanding the change as I do now --
8 0
Yes?
9 A
-- there appears to be a correction made on the 10 reactor coolan t drain tank and the corresponding correction 11 was not made to the makeup tank so that all the terms that i
12 are in the equation are referenced to the same tertipe ra ture,
j 13 0
To produce a bias -
14 A
And because of tha t omission, there is bias in the j
15 numbers.
16 Q
If you wanted to falsify a leak rate test this 17 d seems to be a dandy way to do it; to systematically make O
p 18 !
every calcula tion an error, and an error t.oward s the low side t
19 if the problem was tha t the leak rate surveillance test i
t i
20 l numbers were too big?
1 j
21 A
I prefer not to speculate I would not ever 4
22 expect people to use this method to falsify anything because 23 i t would appear t o ne t o be t oo open.
24 Q
Well, I won' t specula te as to which direction the
)
I 25 thought -- the lack of thought went.
But it just seemed to
- O 4
l i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
-. - 347-3700 -.
. ~. -. - -, -...... - -, _... -........
i i
1 2G729.G BRT 4858
'V 1
me just amazing that an engineer, looking at the situation, i
2 could decide to correct the wat.cr that came out of the system
^ thought I
3 without correcting the water that went. in.
Unleau. he l
4 this would be helpfu), numeri ciil l y?
S A
I think that a way that I have learned that, people 6
can make such oversights is that if they are beginning the 4
7 process with an objective to correct the problem as they 8
perceive it and do not follow up and explore all potsible 9
sources of error, and explore the matter in that more 10 comprehensive fashion, then those kinds of oversights can 11 occur.
It's kind of a human f ailitig that we all have.
If l
12 there is mi nds ets involved.
f mQ 13 If we speculate that the people were trying to 14 solve this with that kind at a mindset,
- t. hen I can see where 15 someone would just find the one problem and not explore i
16 others.
That. doesn t make it r3ght.
But thal is a possible j
j l
17 exp la tia t ion for that kind of behavior that I have seen in my 18 career.
1 j
i I
19 Q
So you are suggest.ing, perhaps, that Mr. Morck 20 went at this problem with the question being:
How come the i
j 21 leak rate test results appear to be higher than people think 22,
the actual leakage is?
And, therefore, looked for something l
4 23 i in the procedure that would produce results which were too i
24 high?
2s a
1m not suqqesting that specifically.
1 m simpa y go r
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
J 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-334644
25729.G BRT o fl59 O(,)
8 1
o'fering up what I have seen in terms of human behavior, to 2
explain your dilemma as to why you've not been able to l
3 unders tand how this kind of thing can possibly occur.
These i
4 things occur because people -- oversights ~is just one method i
S or one way in which human error creeps into what we do no 6
mat.ter what --
7 0
That's what I was asking about follow-ups.
You 8
see, I think everybody makes mistakes once in a while.
The
{
l 9
real perplexity is people make mistakes and never discover i
10 that they made a mistake because they didn't. bother to look.
I i
11 And I think your notion was that you would expect more I
t 12 responsible behavior and tha t ' u why I ask you whether you 13 felt an engineer, looking at these pieces of paper, wou.ld 14 say:
What is this?
The old procedure gives half a gallon i
15 per minute, I think I've improved it, and lo and behold, 1 i
16 get minus 1.
Not minus
.I but minus 1.
Not a small i
17 quan t i ta ti ve discrepancy, but as big as the limit was.
i 18 A
I agree tha t sitLinq here today, my a tLitude is i
19 that that kind of follow-up should occur.
I think we've 20 learned a host of lessons whereby the company, individuals, 21 NRC, the. industry as a who]e, has failed to follow up on 22 matters tha t were important.
Tnat was one of the lessons, I 23 think, that a lot of un have learned, that sensi tivit.y to 24 follow-up has certainly been sharpened.
I'm afraid it i
j 25 doesn't help explain any mindsets or the nature of the n
v h
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6M6
f t
I l
25729.6 HRT 4060 i
1 oversights that occurred.
All I can do is give you my 1
2 at.titude as I know i t.
today.
3 Q
I just want. Lo be sure that I understand the 4
situation clearly, which is that this temporary change i
1 5
notice, because of its failure to properly correct the 6
procedure, if anything made the precedure worse, produced a 7
real bias in it.
Al least.previously there was a tendency 4
8 for the two errors to cancel out; isn't that true?
t 9
A The caiculaLion as I understand iL now suggesLs f
i 10 that that is true.
I don't think --
i l
11 Q
There are two terms:
one is " water in" and one is c
12
" water out."
If n(.i t.her one of them are corrected properly 13 but they are both corrected in the same way, and if the t.wo j
l 14 terms are roughly the same magnitude, then isn't there, 1
l 15 unavoidably, no really big quantitative effecL?
I 16 A
1 did not have that understanding at the time.
17 Q
I understand tha t.
But I want to be sure that I 1
f i
18 understand that the net effect of this was to produce a i
19 substantial, significant bias in the leak ra te test
{
20
' procedure.
Do you agree wi th that?
i 21 A
It produced a bias.
I haven ' t. a ttempted to i
22 calculate how subs ta ri tial it is iri relationship t.o the other l
23 errors that were, apparently, found.
It was not --
l 24 Q
Well, the testimony before us is if you added 250 i
1 25 gallons to the makeup Lank that this would produce a bias of O
4 I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8%336 6M6
26729.o BRT 4861 1
1.7 gallons per minute i. n the test result.
What I'm 2
a tt empti ng to get you to agree.with, is that numbers like 1 h
3l or 1.7, in this case for lest 150, the discrepancy is about i
4 1.5 gallons between ihe two ways of carrying out the 1
5 calculation.
That's not small compared to a technical l
6 specification limit of 1 gallon per minute.
7 A
Oh.
8 Q
So it in a large bias compared to the purpose of 9
this test, which is to ascertain whether the plant was being 10 operated within the limits in the technical s pe ci fi ca t'i on s.
i 11 A
The numbers that.I have seen suggest that the t
]
12 correction is in the same order of magnitude as the limi ts in 13 the tech specs.
14 0
And the correction was in error?
15 A
Yes.
16 Q
Thank you.
17 A
Could I make a clarification of tha t?
18 Q
Certainly.
19 A
The correction as we know it today, being 20l:
incomplete, makes the result an error.
I had no awareness at T
21 :
the time that myse]f, nor people in the plant sLaff, l
22 !
understood that to be introducing an error.
I
?.3 {
Q Was your impression of Mr. Morck that he was 24 fairly careful?
j 25 A
1 regarded Mr. Morck as a competent engineer and O
i
)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j 4
202-347-3700 Nat.ionwide Coserage 86336-646
.~
.-~-
a s
L U i CJ. U BRT 4862 1
-- a s I did his engineering lead.
2 Q
But you can't unders tand why Mr. Morck didn't i
3 follow up this temporary change noLice Lo see what the 4
consequences were?
j 5
A I have no knowledge of. t.h e specific activity; so, i
j 6
no, I don't know.
}
7 Q
That causes -- I don't know where to look except i
l 0
to the supervisor to find out why there wasn't supervision.
9 A
You concluded that there was not supervision.
I t
10 don ' t know that.
All I can tell you is I don't recall 11 specific interactions on this matter; whether there were some
\\
i 12 between myself and Mr. Morck, or the lead mechanical or other l
13 peop]e, I just don't recall those.
t
.14 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you.
15 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
16 Q
Mr. Kunder, I just have a couple of things I'd I
17 appreciate your help on.
i 18 A
Yes.
19 Q
You knew Mr. Seelinger, didn't you?
20 A
Yes, I did.
l
)
21 Q
Were you aware of what his position at Unit 2 22 I was?
I mean, granted he was superintendent of whatever you 23 call it, technical support.
But what else was involved in 24 his job?
Or in his position, I should say, not necessarily t
j 25 his job.
l O 1
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
' " " - * ' ~ ' "
u
l I
/.0 / n. U BRT 4863
- O 1
A I perceived his job to be the same nature, the 2
same basic responsibilities as I had in Unit 1.
3 Q
Well, now we have it on the record that Mr.
1 4
Miller, who was the ti tular TMI-2 superintendent, actually --
5 well, f rom really a prac tical poin t of view, had turned over 1
6 that. particular function to Mr. Seelinger; Ihat in his I
7 opinion he was doing all the day-to-day running of t.he plant 8
as station - not s ta ti on -- unit superintendent.
9 Then you come over, but you have a unit 10 superintendent, Mr. Logan, was it?
j i
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
So this would seem to ne that the scope of the 13
-job, even though it had the same title was not quite what 14 Mr. Seelinger had.
Would you agree with that?
Or were you 15 even aware of it?
i 16 A
I thi n1: I was aware that he had the same title as 17 myself.
18 0
Dut you weren't aware of what his a c tu a.1 duties 19 were?
Is thal whaL you are saying?
20 l A
Well, I -- his actual duties, as I understood 21 them, were the same as mine.
t 22 Q
Okay.
Then I guess it didn't-make any oifferenct 23 one way or another on how you felt clout-wise or anything of 24 that nature?
25 A
I don't know.
Maybe not.
O 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3AU Nationwide Coserage 80433MM6 i
)
I 2 B / 2'). O lO BRT 4864 l
(
1 Q
Okay.
One other thing I wanted to ask you about.
2 I realize you weren't there at. the time that this LER ruckus 3
was kicked up.
But. let's just take a sort of a hypothetical
~
4 situation.
Something has gone wrong in that a tech spec was 5
being viola ted and it was a continuing sort of thing atid r
6 suddenly it was discovered.
Okay.
l i
7 Now, what would be the action that would follow l
r j
8 that?
Would this parti cular viola tion --- to whom would it l
(
9 go?
Viola tilig a tech spec is a serious thing.
[
l 10 The question is somewha t open-ended but that's l
11 okay.
Ultimately the unit superint.endent would be made aware l
12 of tha t kind of a violation.
The general thrust. of the plant 13 staff is to resolve the problem and ceav the viola tion and 14 repeti tive situations, as you've posed, the priori ty and the 15 attention that that kind of thing would get tends to rise 16 substantially because our attitude and objective was to not l
l l
17 violate tech specs.
I l
18 Q
Okay.
Now, would this go to PORC for resolution?
19 A
No.
Not. for resolution.
PORC would become aware 20 through the process of the review of the event and that was 21 part of the PORC charter.
The resolution might take on a 22 number of forms, depending on the actua~1 violation.
23 Q
Okay.
What would these forms be?
What kind of 24 options did we have at this. time?
It has been turned over to 25' PORC for their consideraLion.
Okay.
Now what are our ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37(x)
Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6 m-
I l'
28729.0 f
DRT 4865 OO 1
options?
2 A
It can take on the forms of, if opera tor 3
misunderstanding or mechanic's misunderstanding is at the f
4 cause of the problem:
t rai ni ng or information or briefing.
I 5
If procedural inadequacies existed, they would be f
f 6
correct.ed by whichever group had either custody or the 7
technical understanding in order to solve that problem.
10 a I
8 component. f a il ure wa:, a t issue, it would be fi xed.
9 If there was a conflict Crom a licensing 10 pers pec t i ve whereby tech spect needed to be changed, that t
l 11 kindLof thing would be sought.
t l
I2 i There's probably other forms, depending.on the h
1
,3 nature of the issue that, in general, would be employed.
h 14 Q
Well, what I'm trying to figure out is, who would l
l 19 !
141 whom to do what?
I I
l 16 A
I guess my understanding of how resolution 1
r 17 assignments were made is that, at whatever level in the i
1 18 oroanization the responsibility fe)) for solving that
)
19 problem, that manager or supervisor or that individual would 20 make the assignment and get the problem resolved.
21 If it was fairly global it could go all the way up
)
22 to the unit s u pe ri n te nd en t..
l 23 Q.
Well, let's track back along an actua.1 situation I 24 can remember.
We have in the record a situation of some leak
)
25 ra te Lests were inadvertently found by an individual from the oO i
1 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8@3E6M6
28729.0 BRT 4866 1
Nuclear Regula tory Commiss ion lying out on a de3k.
He looked l
l 2
at them and saw that they were over t.he tech spec limits.
He 3
goes to the gentleman who has been tagged with the day-to-day 4
operation of TMI-2, which is Mr. See]inger.
Mr. Seelinger l
5 sees t.he problem afLer being exhorted vigorously by the NRC 6
gentleman, and as nearly as I can tell, the next action that 7
was taken came out of PORC.
I l
8 Does this seem like a reasonable pr ogression so
(
9 Ear?
10 A
I think it would be.
11 Q
Okay.
Now, it came out of PORC and they decided 12 that. they would do an LER.
All right?
In the LER it says 13 that this is what is going to happen.
Th i:: is what happened, 1
14 this is how we are going to resolve it.
Okay?
And they
)
l 15 specify what it is:
that we will observe the tech spec C-~
1 16 now on; that we were interpreting it the wrong way.
Now we 17 will interpret i t.
the right way.
And this word then is l
18 passed down to 1.he troops by taking the LER and putting it in l
19 the "must read" file or whatever they cal 1 it and with a 20 check-off sheet..
f 21 Okay.
Now, does this fit what you have said here 22 as how PORC operates, on page 4 I guess it is?
23 You say, on page 4:
"Once POEC chose the 24 appropriate individual to follow through, it expected thal 25 individual to fulfill his responsibilities. They usually l
nv I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33M646
a i
i 1
i 28729.0 s
BRT 4857 y
s I
I requested some kind of 'documenta tion, so it could be I
2 demonstrated that something had happened."
And you also say l
l 3
l that the sign-oft sheel tha L was with the LER was such a j
J i
4 4
documentation so that you could tell when the time finally 5
(
5 came that something had happened right.
6 But now we are faced with a situation that, yes,
(
7 the LER gol into the "must read" file, and, yes, the 8
documentation was completed, all those little hierog]yphics z
(
9 on the check-off sheet nobody can really tell much aboul; and j
?
10 yet, although everybody remembered reading.it, nobody real]y 11 remembered remembering what il said.
And not only that, but I
12 they continued to do business at the same o.ld sLandard, up 1
13 until the Lime of the accident.
Never complied with the tech l
14 spec.
j l 'i Now, I wonder if you would sort of qive me your i,
16 l Lhinking on that kind of a control device.
Do you figure 4
17 that in the way to run a plant?
18 A
Well, Lirs t of all, the process tha t you have l
l f
l 19 described of bringing the matter to the attention of 1 h<
i was the kind of process tha L exis ted back a t thal time, au 1 l
20,
o i
i 21 recall.
Concurrent wi th that, or sometimes in serie:. w2th i
i 22 Lhat, correcLive actions miqht have beest taken.
But in'the 3
l i
the l
23 end you
- when you described the process of getting l
24 information or bringing the matter to the a tten tioni of PoHL,
~
25 1.ha t 's basica1]y the process that I expect and understood i
I J
l I
(
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I I
~_. c-,.
nu-o w.
a
1 I
l 28729.0 BRT 4068 t O V
I i
(
l occurs.
2 What. PORC typically does, as I have stat.ed here, 3
is they would review the maller.
The intention of that is to I
4 understand the signif.icance'of t.he problem, underst.and the S
causes, evalua te wha t corrective ac tion is necessary and make 6
recommendaLions.
I use t.he words " chose an individual 1.0 i
7 Collow through."
The PORC does not arbitrarily pick someone 8
out and say:
You must. do t. h i s.
Typically it recognizes that j
j 9
some person is the best person to do the job and there's some 1
10 nego ti a tion, if you will, for lack of a better word, t.ha t 11 occurs.
The person accepts responsibility for completing i
12 that action and the assignment is checked via PORC action I
item.
I i
13 i
wJ 14 Meanwhile, the report is prepared following the i
i 15 assessmont nr the Pope and in submitted.
That'e tha general O
I 16 process.
j
.7 The corrective act. ion
- 1. racking was formalized by l
18 requiring each correcLive, either short-term or long-term 19 corrective action that. still had not been complet.ed t.o be i
20 tracked on this PORC action iLem 1ist.
Again, thal's the 21 process that. was followed.
22,
The PORC, depending on the nature of the problem, j
(
i 23 I if there was a repair requi red we'd get some evidence, either I
24 completed job LickeL or a completed tesL, reporLed back thal j
25 the component or whateve; was back in service and back in
, p v
)
i 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage s n336 #46
4 l
28729.0 BRT 4869 i
1 compliance with tech specs.
2 If it was procedural changes that were required, i
f 3
the action item would be closed out after t.he procedure was 4
changed, approved, and issued f or use.
The expectation being
[
5 that 1. h e procedure solved the problem.
6 If briefing or instruction was intended, the POHC l
7 awaited some documentation that the intended briefings or 8
instruction was accomplished, and then closed the action 9
item.
i 10 The assurance that those correct.ive actions were 11 appropriate and got accomplished, the responsibility to I
12 follow up to whatever extent to test that at that time was I
13 expected to be the responsibility of the group involved in I
14 comple ti ng the action item.
That. was my understanding of the 19 p w.m.
16 That process is the same basic pr oces s that. is 17 employed in every nuclear plant that I'm aware of in the 18 na ti on.
Whether the process is a l. fault here or not I don't i
19 know.
I was not in Unit 2 at the time.
Whether the
]
20 attention to detail or the substance of carrying out those actions was aL fault is the purpose of this hearing.
I was 21 I
{
22 not in linit 2 at the time and I really don't. know ot.her than 23 wha t I know after the fact, which is the same thing everyone 24 else is aware of.
25 So, in answer to your Jast question, I think that v
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide CoveraFe 8%)46M6
_ _, ~ - - _. _ _ _ _ - - -. _. - -,.. _. - - - - - -.. - - - -. _ - - - - - _ - -.. _. - - - - _. _. - _ _ - _ _ _., _ -.. __.-
28729.0 HRT 4070 (s
g
- V'
(
1 while the process and the substance, attention to detail and 2
Collow-up can be improved, and that is one of the lessons I
3 that I think everyone has taken out of this, the process 4
itself is, in its generic form, is the same that in employed.
1
}
5 Q
This is wnat I can't understand.
I have to hope 6
and pray that on every other PORC action item that. ever came 7
out, or at ally time that the plant was f ouild to.be operating 8
out of the -- outside the technical specifications, that the 9
system or some comparable action would work and did work or i
10 has worked and will keep working.
What I can'L Ligure out is l
l 11 how did this particular one go so far astray?
It actually J
)
12 accomplished nothing.
A]l the paperwork was there.
PORC l
c'mpleted.
13 signed off on it in March of
'79.
Finally, as o
l 14 Everything is hunky-dory.
And they were still running tests i
15 l outside tho technical specifications.
16 How could this have happened?
17 A
Gir, I really don't know.
.I was not there.
I did 18 not recall -
1 19 Q
Well, you were there for December ist?
?
i 20 A
-- being aware of the LER or the-activities 21 uurrounding it until after the accident when I was ~ involved 1
i 22 in the questioning preparation.
I 23 0
Would you have any idea who the appropriate j
)
24 individual was who was supposed to straighton.this out?
i
}
25 A
Hased upon what I've learned after the fact, the O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide coverage 800-3366M6
F 1
28729.0 DRT 4871 ll t,,,,)
i 1
party tha t appeared to have a lead role was the unit 2
s u peri n tenden t, on Unit 2, precedino me, and his ataff, to 3
whatever extent his staff was involved in this.
I don ' t 4
know, however, that. I can assign any one person to that. role.
l I
5 Q
Well, you said here:
"Once PORC chose the
{
6 appropriate individual to follow through, it expected that 7
individual to fulfill his responsibility.."
Now this sounds
-\\
8 to me as if it was common practice that one fellow, one 4
i 9
person was given the responsibility to see that this rna t ter 10 got cleaned up.
And I'ra curious as to who t. hat individual 11 might be?
12 A
Well, there was no one individual for every 13 Collow-up ac tion or corrective item action.
It was an 14 individual who was assigned, or took responsibility, cit.her r
15 on t.h e i r own or via instruction from their department head, 16 to follow up.
And the reason I stated 1.his in terms of an 17 individual, it has been my practice to attempt, where l
18 possible, to assign a person so that I can go back and ask 19 the person rather than ask a group.
In terms of s ta tus and 20 being able to easily follow up on the natter.
'i 21 Q
That appears to me to be extremely good practtee.
1 22 You said just a: little while ago that you. thought.
.') 3 that it was your predecessor who was taking this l
24 responsibility upon himselE.
j 25 A
No.
I misunderstood your quesLion, then.
I'm O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 4 47-3700 Nationwide Cmerage s n336.tM 6
]
l j
I 28729.0 s
j BRT 4g72 1
guessing, based upon what I've seen since the accident, rhal i
2 Bubba Marshall was the individual in this case who took the l
3 responsibility for cetting the briefing of the opera tors 4
accomplished through the mechanism that they had in place.
5 I'm not sure of that.
But that's what I believe.
1 6
JUDGE KELLEY:
There's no need to quesa, is 1
7 there?
It says so right on the PORC ac tion item:
W.
8 Marshall, tab number --
9 MR. MC HRIDE:
30.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
-- 30.
There needn't be any 11 mystery as to who this individual was for this item.
l 12 THE WITNESS:
It may not be a mystery to you, i
O 13 etr-8"'
ata" ' n4ve
'"e coc"me"'-
i 14 Yes.
Tha t 's -- i n f ac t, there's two individuals t
.i l
15 mentioned.
16 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
17 0
Okay.
But what was Mr. Marshall's j
18 responsibilities there, as far as I can tell from that piece 19 of paper, his responsibility was to make sure that everybody l
20 knew about it.
And then he dropped it like a hot rock.
As 21 near as I could tell.
22 A
1 really don'L know.
All I can do is comment in 23 terms of wha t the process was and what I would generically 24 expect a person who was assigned the responsibility to do.
t t
.I 25 How he accomplished the specific correc tive ac tion is as i
! O i
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage NS33MM6
_..-._.....,._.__.,-._,_._,_...__m.___
,..___..__.__..,_,,_ai.,__.
28729.0 i
BRT 4873 O.
l' variant as the nature of the action itself.
2 O
Bu' vou had no way, PORC-wise now, because you 3
were chairman of the~PORC committee when this thing was 4
ticked off?
i 5
A No.
I was not chairnian of. the Unit 2 PORC.
6 Q
They did not sign oft on this until March, if my 7
remembrance is correct.
8 A
I'm getting coniused.
When you said -- when this 9
thing-ticked off, I assume you were talking about the October i
10 period that's under discussion?
i t
I 11 Q
No.
I'm talking about when PORC finally managed I
12 to finally Jay this thing to rest.
13 A
I see.
14 MR. MC BRIDM:
I have put back before the witness 15 the PORC action item to which you were referring, Judge 16 Bright, tab 30, volume V -C of the Stier report.
I 17 JUDGE BRIGilT:
I'm afraid -
1 18 MR. MC DRIDE:
1 said so the record is clear, 1 4
l i
19 have put back before the wiLness the PORC action item to i
20 which you made r ference, I believe, which it, tab 30 of 21 volume V-C of the S tier report.
I i
22 BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
I 23 Q
But the approval, the final sign-off, as I i
?
24 understand it -- and I'm sure Mr. McBride will tell me if any i
25 misunderstanding is there -- was not signed off, was n ' t -
i O-i l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationmide Coverage 84rk336-6M6
t 1
28729.0 l
HRT 4874 G
t i
t i
V I
1 action was not completed until sometime in March?
s 2
A That's when the-documentation that I see suquests j
i 3
that the paper was signed oEC.
I'm atraid I really can't l
4 comment beyond that in terms of the completeness or t.h e 5
timing of the actual correc tive action completion.
I t
6 0
Dut you were chair:aan of PORC at that ti me?
I
)
j 7
A Yes, I was.
t l
0 g
Hut you don't remember anything?
I'm sure that j
94 this would be a very small item on your tull pl a t.e, as we've i
l
),
i 10 heard it expressed.
l 11 A
I don't know about small but it is one of hundreds l
12 of items thal would corite across the PORC desk.
I shouldn't l
13 say " desk" per se.
We had a PORC administrator who handled 14 most of the paperwork and so forth.
It didn't specifically 15 come across my desk per se, if that helps.
j 1
1
}
16 Q
Dut there was no -- would you say that there was l
17 no real fo]Iow-up on this?
Nobody checked, to your i
18 knowledge, as to whether they actually were.following the 1
i l
19 tech spec?
I i
20 A_
No.
I would not say that.
I don't know what was 21 done.
I don't recall now -
22 Q
Does 5L seem obvious to you that nobody checked?
]
l i
23 Otherwise maybe something would have happened?
24 Well, iC.it's outside your knowledge, there's no l
]
25 need to continue.
5 l V) j l
I i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
8 n3%6M6 j
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage i
1
l j
28729.0 i
4875 BRT l
1 JUDGE KELLEY:
I have a few questions on the same 1
2 subject.
3 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
4 Q
A moment ago you were looking al this PORC action I
i a
you said that you were not able to 5
it.em form and I believe j
6 comment as to when all follow-up action was completed.
f 7
Reading this form I would infer from the block signature at 4
8 the bot. tom where it.says "all action completed," signed'R.P.
J 9
Warren, 3/5/79, that that.means just what it said:
All PORC i
10 action was completed on the 5th of March, 1979.
l 11 A
I think in terms of t.h e formality of closing out 1
i 12 the paper and saying the action is completed, thal's what
! h 13 that date means.
I.asn't --
w l
14 Q
Are you implying that something else was done by j
t i
15 PORC about this matter?
16 A
No.
I was simply tr ying to be as precise as I l
i
-I i
17 could and suggesL that as a prac Lica 1 matter the acLion, i
18 physical ac ti on, whether it be repairing the component. and i
l 4
19 restoring it to service or instruction'of personnel, in this 4
4 l
20 case, mity have been completed some time peri od,- hours, days, j
j i
1 21 k or maybe a week or so prior to the actual completion of the i
i a
3 22 ti paperwork.
l h
i 23 !
Q Oh.
Okay.
Sute.
i j
24 A
That's all.
.l i
I 25 Q
I thought you were implying that yet somethang 1
19 l
i i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M-347-1700 Nationwide Cmerage 804 336 u 46 l - _..~._.... _.._._,._..._ _ _. __._..____-.__ ___ ~_, _ _
l,_
l 4
28729.0 q
i BRT 4076 i
t i
1 else was still going to be done aCler tha t and that's what I i
a 2
didn't understand.
)
I
{
3 h
No.
j j
4 Q
All right.
Well, were you a member of PORC prior i
(
5 to December '70 when you assumed the tech support job?
)
6 A
No.
I assume we are talking Uni t 2 PORC?
I, 7
Q I assume what?
I'm sorry?
J l
8 A
I'm assuming in that response you are talking 9
about Unil 2 PORC.
10 Q
Yes.
Right.
Hight.
UniL 2 PORC.
j i
)
11 And you were not, by the same token, a member of j
12 Unit 2 PORC at the time of the events that generated this 13 particular LER, which were in October of
'78, sort of by 14 definiLion; isn't that correct?
l 15 A
That is true.
1 j
16 Q
And you adverted to the fact that your 9
j 17 predecessor, Mr. Seelinger, had been involved extensively in l
18 this LER, its genesis, and write-up; and we heard from l
}
19 Mr. Geelinger yesterday, as you probably know, and certainly i
{
20 [
the record demonstrates that that is true.
But I view this I
21 l from your perspective as something that you inherited when i
i i
I 22 you came on the job in the sense that it is something that 23 had already been done and was historic, except for the l
l 24 implementation phase.
Is that correct?
I
{
25 A
Yes.
I would like to clarity something.
I think n
v I-i I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M 347-37tu Nathmwide Coserage 800-336-6646
..- - ----..~ ~ -.-..---.-_,..,.
i 20729.0 BRT 4877 i
a 1
you mentioned that I attributed the responsibility for 2
dealing with this to Mr. Seelinger.
In case it wasn't clear, 3
I was not aware of tha t a t the time.
IC I said anything to 4
that effect it was in terms of what I have learned of the i
S situation since then.
6 0
Okay.
And i t really -- what. your comment bears 7
on, is the question I'm asking you now.
You come into the j
8 job in December '70 and what I would like to understand is:
r, 9
I assume there were a number of pending items before PORC in i
10 varying stages of progress, including, I suppose, some like 11 this where there had been an'LER that had already been 12 written, been sent to the NRC, and the only thing Jeft was to I
13 close out the implementation.
Is that right?
i 14 A
That's correct.
j 15 j
Q Do you recall making any effort to, to use the 16 cliche, yet up to speed on those items?
17 A
No, I don't.
It is quite probable that I did.
I
)
18 ius t don't recall those activities.
i i
19 Q
Well, what appears to be reflected in the papers 20 we have got and from.what you said in response to J udge 21 Bright, I just want to confirm whether this is true:
There i
I were the bureaucratic chores of gett ing the sign-off sheet l
22 ;
I 1
l 23 I back through Mr. Marshall and logging it in, but tha t, as I i
l 4
24l understand it, is purely a paper exercise.
I'm not saying it 25 doesn't have its significance bureaucratically, but that is i
o 1
i i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage Mn33M4m
,,,_,_,-,,,.---,..---.,--...,n,--__-
.,, _,. _ _,.,,, ~., -,. -,. -..,.. ~, - -, _ _,. -, _ - - - -, - - - -.,,, -., -. _ _, _
i
)
l 20729.0 BRT 4070
- O 4
i 1
what it is, it's'a paper exercise as I see it.
And I would i
1 l
2 Jike to know f r om your perspective, from the time you joined i
I 3
PORC, LER 78-62 was any more than a paper exercise?
4 A
I don't know that I could characterize it in any 5
way.
I just don't recall the LER nor the follow-up paper 4
6 sign-off to the LER.
l 7
Q All I can find in the record and from anybody's O
Lestimony is filing papers.
Marshall gets assignment.
9 Marshall sees to it LER gets in required reading book.
3 1
2 l
10 People sign required reading book.
Required readilig book 11 sign-up sheel comes back to the PORC.
PORC gets it, says, 12 oh, action completed on 3/5/79.
That's all I can find.
i i
13 1 don't see anything beyond that.
I understand 14 what that is.
I just want to know if, as far as you know, i
15 that's all that happened?
j 16 A
I have no basis to really know what occurred above 17 or beyond the paper.
18 Q
Do you have any basis for knowing that anything 19 occurred, above and beyond the paper, paper shuffling we just j
20 talked about?
21 A
I think I have a generic basis to believe t.ha t the 22 processs normally involved a lot of activities associated 23 with corrective actions.
The paper documents or attempts to 24 document tha t work.
25 0-Such as?
n 1
v i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37(U Nationwide Coserage 8(n3A%46
28729.0 BRT 4879
/"5 d
1 A
Well, there's-a Jol of work that is -behind the 2
scenes, in terms of discussions, preparinq equipment, al]
3 sorts of --
4 Q
Stick to this LER.
Forget the equipment.
This 5
LER is about instrueLing personnel; correeL?
6 A
That's my understanding, yes.
7 Q
And the objective here or ins truction to docum'nted by 8
Mr. Marshall was:
Ensure that the following is e
9 ops review; which I gather means ensure that the people over 10 in ops revi ew read this piece of paper and understand it.
Is 11 Lhat correcL?
12 A
That's basically my understanding.
13 Q
Let me ask you this.
On the PORC action item I 14 just read the lead-in sentence and then there's a quot.ed 15 sentence derived from the LER itself, beginning -- well, I'll 16 read it:
"The appropriate personnel will be instructed on 17 the requ i remen ts of the applicable sections of the lechnical 18 specifications and the requi rement to immediately invoke 19 applicable ac tion s ta tements when the provisions of the LCOs 20 are not met."
21 That's what I see on this piece of paper.
When I 22 firs t read this I seized on the phrase "will be instructed" i
23 '
and I thought, well, that's very interesting; there will be a 24 document along containing ins truc tions about. this matter lhal 25 I as a CRO might understand.
But no such document in t.his
(~)
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Ntionwide Coverage 8tn336-646
28729.0 BRT 4880 1
record was ever prepared.
2 Do you thi nk this sentence standing all by itself 3
and put in a required reading book is going to instruct those 4
CRos with regard t.o.the substance of this issue and what they 5
are supposed to do in the future?
1 6
A I'm afraid I can answer with. respect to my current 7
sensitivity to the issues, after seven years of litigation on 8
this:
It didn't go far enough.
9 Q
Wha t we need is an answer about what they would 10 have understood at the time.
Do you think that CRos, 11 accustomed to doing what they were doing, accustomed to 12 running leak rate tests and just keep on punching the button 13 until something under 1 comes out and throwing them away if 14 they are over 1 -- that's what. they were used to -- that this 15 single sentence buried somewhere in a narrative section of an 16 LER is going to
- t. ell them to stop doing t hat and do something 17 ditferent?
Do you really think that would do the job?
18 A
I can only assume t ha t. _the people involved felt 19 that was would accomplish the job.
I was n ' t a t -- I was n ' t 20 involved in the situation at the time and so I can't comment l
21 with respect to it.
22 Q
Would you agree wi th that?
Guppose you had been 23 involved.
If you had been Lold make sure those CRos are 24 instructed on the new way of doing business; would you have 25 Lhought tha t this sentence would do it?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage Hto 334M46
28729.0 BRT 4881
- O 1
A Knowing what I know Loday, which is --
2 Q
No, then.
Then.
3 A
I don't know.
4 Q
Well, weren't. you involved in the sense that the 5
need to see to it that this instruction was carried out was 6
an open item at the time you assumed the job?
7 A
could you repeat that, please?
8 0
When you became chairman of the PORC in-December 9
of
'78, this directive was outstanding and not gelling 10 carried out.
That's true, isn't it?
11 A
Based on the timing of the documentation, that 12 appears to be true.
13 0
It is true, isn't it?
It was closed out, we can 14 see from this exhibit, on the 5th of March, 1979.
So that 15 when you became PORC chairman in December
'78, one of the 16 things.that was on your plate was the implementation ot this 17 I,ER and the instruction that went along wi th i t.
Isn't that 18 fair?
19 A
I can assume that was the case.
20 Q
Okay.
I can understand why you might not remember 21 the details of this, bu t i t. woul d seem to me that this is one 22 Lhing to which you might have addressed yourself as a pending 23' item, and asked yourself:
I wonder if those CRos got the 24 word?
25 Do you think they understood it?
Do you have any j
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(n Nationwide Cmerage
- n 33&6M6
_~.
\\
28729.0 BRT 4882 3
1 recollecLion of asking yourself a question of that sorL?
2 A
No.
I do not, i
l 3
JUDGE KELLBY:
Pollow-up?
I (Discussion off the record.)
l 4
I 5
BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
i i
6 Q
Mr. Kunder, we have a few follow-up ques tions I
l 7
suggested by your counsel.
The firs t one reads:
Please turn i
1 8
to Sti er vol ume y-D, tab 4S.
1-i 9
A.
Okay.
I i
j 10 Q
The ques tion is:
Is that a copy of the document 1
l 11 referred to in Mr. Stier's discussion of leakage in January 1
1 j
12 1979 that was discussed by the Board with you today?
l 13 A
Yes.
It was referred to, I believe, as the. ops 14 notes by GAK or something like that..
]
15 Q
Can you say that the notes indicate that Mr. Hoyt, 4
i 16 at least, observed the leak in question?
1 l
17 A
Jt suggests thal IloyL and McGarry have eva1uated 4
i i
18 it, possibly observed it as part of that evaluation.
It i
l 19 suggests there the source of the information.
i d
20 Q
Well, the ques tion was :
Do the notes indicate 21 that Mr. Hoyt' observed the leak?
I take it your answer is l
22 you don't know?
i 23 A
Well, I would make an assumption, and it is 24 somewhat clouded by what I think I have seen since the 25 accident in terms of records of teactor building entrien by
,!O i
l
!l i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
(
202 347 3700 Nationaide Co<erage rm334M46 i
28729.0 BRT 4883
,O N._/
1 these two individuals to observe leaks.
So, you know, my 2
assumption is that they are the ones who observed i t, yes.
4
{
3 If you would have stuck this sheet in front of me, all I i
j 4
could do was make an assumption and speculate that that'was i
5 the case without the corroboraling data.
t f
6 Q
So they support the assumption but they don't
(
7 indicate, they don't directly indicate.
)
8 A
No.
Not directly I don'L think.
(
l 9
Q It doesn'L cay "we observed the leak."
)
{
10 A
No.
i 11 Q
Do the notes indicate the amount of leakage was in I
l j
12 agreement "wi th wha t we are seeing in the Rx"
- meaning 13 reactor -
" building"; thus indicating that someone compared i
14 the amount of leakage to indicators of leakage in the reactor 15 building?
16 A
It suggests to me that there was an evalual. ion f
17 made of some sort to unders tand the significance of the leak 18 i.: terms of where it ia going and the significance.
f 19 Unfortunately, the note does 'not give any more detail to 20 g determine whether they were talking about drain tank j
P I
21 indications, collected leakage, or sumps, or any other da ta,
l l
22 It leaves the question i n my mind somewhat ambiguous, as to
{
23 what i t. really means.
24 Q
1,e l ' s be sure I understand.
You are looking at 25 the words "However, leak ra te on MU tank agrees with what we l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
.02 347 3700 Nationside Coverage
- n.33MM6 l
a
k I
i 20729.0 l
BRT 4084 i O 1
are seeing in the reactor building"?
2 A
I'll read it.
It says, "However, leak rate on 3
makeup" -- MU -- " tank agrees with what we are uccing in 4
reactor building."
That's wha
- the acronyms stand for.
I l
i~
I 5
just don't know whaL to attribute the signiticanee of iL to, i
6 I found it too ambiguous to really draw any conclusions.
)
7 Q
Do your notes - and I presume this is a reference
{
(
8 to this note -- indicate that the amount of total leakage was 4
)
]
9 approximately 2 gallons per minute, well below limits for j
10 gross and identified leakage?
i i
l 11 A
I didn't follow thal.
I'm sorry.
Could you i
)
12 repeat it?
1 l
13 Q
It says, "Did your notes i nd i ca le-that. the amount.
14 of total leakage was approximately 2 gallons per minute, well 15 l below limi t:, for gross and identified leakage?"
I 16 A
I don't think i t sugges ts any comparison at all to 17 the limits, gross and identified.
It would be - - - if one just 18 interpreted the 2 ypm leakage indicated on makeup-tank level, t
l 19 however that data was derived, tha t value, if t.ha t 's the only l
l would be less than the l
20 measure of leakage out of the sysLem, 4
21 iden ti f ied leakage limit, as I recall.
I think that.was 10 4
22 i gallons per minute.
But beyond that I don't have enough 3
i
}
23 information here to really understand what the significance i
24 of this data was.
i 25 0
l'Il ask a question in the cont ext as written on lO i
i i
}
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 m,.m,
~_ m_,.
I 28729.0 BRT 4805 1
Lhis page:
Did you know, was this identified leakage or
)
2 unidentiLied leakage?
t 3
A 1 don't really know if I was aware tha t we had 2 1
{
4 gallon per minute unidentified leakage, that would have tech spec viola ^ ion situaLion.
That j
j 5
suggested to me being a i
6 would not have been allowed to remain.
So I don'L believe 7
that was the case since that kind of follow-up was neither 3
indicated in the note nor do I ever recall being aware of l
9 that kind of thing, such that I had to follow up in that 10 manner.
)
i 11 What we don't have, or what I don't have on the 12 note is any other parameters or additional information that I
13 helps puts this whole thing in context.
l i
14 The boltom paragraph ends - for some rea s o ri the 15 note isn't cr.,mplete and at some point in time i t became a l
16 l loose piece of paper on my desk, apparently, and I used to i
17 file all varieties of notes in my ops -- just had a little 18 file to put it for future reference if I should need iL.
And 19 l, that's the way it was left.
I I
20 j So I found the informaLion here did not really i
I 21 i give me a clear picture as to what the issue or concern was j
l 22 !
tha t I was, apparently, Lol10 wing up on.
I l
i 23 I O
The next questi on reads :
Given that the notas j
24 indicate that personnel observed the leak or leaks in j
25 ques tion, and Mr. Iloy t so testified, was it your view-that
- O 1
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m>m s _ m_,.
u
j i
i 28729.0 l
BRT 4886 i
O 1 V l
1 the safety implications of the leak had been evaluated?
{_
I i
j 2
A 1 thi nk the note suggests that the safety j
i 3
. implications were addressed, and to the best of my a
I
.l t
l 4
recollection would have been assured, or some follow-up i
i l'
S acLion would have occuried.
I just wouldn't leave it, a t
6 problem, in an unaddressed state if I knew that there were j
l 7
sa f e ty implications associated with it.
I j
8 Q
Was the leakage " identified" in the sense that you
)
9 and others knew what the leak was and what its significance
]
t i
e i
10 was?
k 11 A
Assuming that the leaking valves, the route valves 12 to the level transmitters were evaluated to the extent that 13
- t. hey were relatively contained, or not in a preocure boundary J
i 14 or not impacting other equipment, in that perspective I imply 1
l 15 from this note trat it was safe, t
16 in terms of identification the location of the l
17 Jeak in a qualitative sense it would be - that's one, couple i
18 of leaks tha t would have been identified.
l 19 In terms of the unidentified leakage value, which i
i 20 is a value you put into a leak rate determination, I would 21 not have likely taken this kind of an observation, which is a i
22 qualita tive observation of a leaking, perhaps a blowing
{
23 valve, and tried to quanti f y that.
I would have no basis to 1
l 24 do that unless it was physically measured and contained in 25 the way in which you could condense and contain all the
- O l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8m33&ws6 j
1 l
28729.0 BRT 4887 4
g 1
leakage.
So I would not have considered that an identified 2
leakage in the context of Jeak rate calculatione.
3 Q
So the note can be read to say thal Lhe 4
unidentified leakage was 2 gallons per minute; isn't that 5
true?
If it is not identified, it's unidentified?
6 A
1 think people can draw whatever conclusion - a 7
number of conclusions, but without more information I think 8
those conclusions would be speculative.
9 Q
Without any indication it was identified, isn't il 10 almost' automatically to put it in the unidentified 11 classifi.caLion?
12
'A Well, if the leakage -- any leakage in the plant 13 that is nol contained and measured, either in designed 14 coll ec tion point.s like the reactor coolant drain t.ank or in 15 receptacles, if the leakage is in a liquid aiid condensed form 16 so that we know we have all the leakage comi ng frasi that 17 pathway, if it can' t be quan tified, you know, then it is 18 uni denti fied.
It is t.reated as unidentified leakage.
19 Q
It's either A or B.
20 A
That's right.
21 Q
There's no other category.
And, if I understand 22 you, you are telling me that the 2 gallons per minute which 23 appears in your note wasn't identified so it muut. have been 24 unidenLified?
25 A
No.
I don't know that.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8m 33M646
l I
f 28729.0 BRT 4008 5
1 During this entire time, water is going into I
{
2 reactor coolant drain tanks and pressurizer level changes, et I
3 cetera.
And to take this 2 gallon per minute indicated on a
}
4 makeup tank ieve] indicator and use that dala point by.
5 itself, no one can say that that is identified or 6
unidentified.
You have to look at. the tota.1 equation.
And I i
I 7
did not, apparently, put down any other information that 1
4 i
l l
8 would help us now unders tand wha t that knowledge was back at t
l j
9 that time.
1 4
)
10 Q
I'm mystified.
As far as I can see the equation j
l 11 consists of two terms:
Identified and unidentified.
Are 12 there any more places to put the 2 gallons per minute?
It t
t 13 has to be one term or the other, j
i i
14 A
My point is we don't have whatever data is-1
]
l 15 available, in terms of my understanding of what was I
i
{
16 identi fi ed, to subtract from the 2 gallon per minute if one i
]
17 wanted to even use this da ta as an indication of precise
}'
18 leakage at the time.
i s
i 19 Q
To be sure ] understand, your point is you can't l
}
20 say It was identified, the 2 gallons per minute was 21 essentially identified on the basis of. the piece of paper l
22 that is in front of you.
4
)
23 A
That.'s correct.
i
.)
I 24 Q
Nor can you really go anywhere with any attempted
?
I 25 interpr etation based on the li t.tle bi t of informa ti on that's l
g l 0 i
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
]
202-347-37m Nationmide roserage an34(4M
-c---..---
. ~, -
I 1
b 28729.0 BRT 4889 4
s l
1 here?
i 2
A That's correct.
i 3
JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you.
l r
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Kunder, that, then, completes 5
our questioning process.
I want to say on behalf of the l
6 Hoard that we appreciate your coming down and talking with l
l
~ voluntary party 7
us.
We are aware at the fact that you were a i
8 in the case from the beginning.
That says something about 9
your a t ti tude of coopera tion that we appreciate.
i 10 Thank you very much.
You are excused.
I 11 (The witness stood down.)
j i
t k
bota l o er i r.
s.
d g i 1
thing.
We i j
14 we'll try to speak t.o the outstanding names of Morck and 15 Hezilla bv tomorrow.
j j
16 One other thing that bears mention at this ti me.
17 We have asked ourselves.whether we have or think we are going 18 to have technical questions, fairly narrow, specific, I
19 technical questions tha t we may waiit to put at least to the l
1 20 Staff, possibly to other of the experts.
I'm not sure about I
21 t h a t..
But thinki ng abou t Staf f only, we t.hink we may have a j
4 l
22 f ew ques tions t ha t we 'd want a little more light cast on.
We 23,
are not prepared, sitting here right now, to give you a 24 list.
I don't think. it would be very long in any case.
But 1
to the fact that we are asking
)
25 I just want to alert you
- O 4
I l
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-327-3700 Nationwide Coverage -
804334M6
l 28729.0 BRT 4890 O
v 1
ourselves a f ew q u e s t. i.o n s.
2 One example might be:
A number of wi tnesses, I 3
believe, said tha t they put water in during the leak rate 4
test in order to change the boron concentration because the 5
rods were getting out of position.
That may very well be.
6 But how are we going t.o tell that one way or the other from i
7 this record?
We don't know whether we can.
That's one 8
question it. would be good to have an answer on.
There may be 9
a few others.
10 They are fairly discrete, not broad areas but 11 fairly discrete points.
12 Then the ques tion is, in our minds anyway:
- Well, 13 how do we get this information?
We, I suppose, could try to 14 tote up our questions now and call Mr. Russell and whoever we 15 need to talk to.
They might come over next week for an hour 16 or two.
Then if the parties have some' specific questions or 17 follow-ups -- obviously they'd have follow-ups in tha t area, 18 too.
19 or wou]d it be better to def er calling back people 20 like Russell and Capra on questions of the kind I just i
21 referred to for two reasons:
One, we might find - we 1
22 obviously haven't read the record we've made here.
We might 23 I find all or almost all of them are answered pretty weil if
]
24 you do si t down and read the record; and you may, 25 furthermore, find new questions you didn't know you had when ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-(M6
)
1 28729.0 BRT 4891 l
1 you get into the record, i
2 So, is it better, then, to recognize that some j
3 ques tions may emerge from this record on further study and 4
have in mind
- t. hat we may want to call back one or more 1
i 5
experts for very limited specific points at some later date, j
o 4
'6 perhaps even after the proposed findings are in?
i
]
7 We don't have any firm view on this, but it is i
1 8
something that we are asking ourselves and we thought we j
9 would sha re it with you as'a concern.
Perhaps we could talk i
10 about that.
)
]
11 There may well be other options in the next day or 12 two, also, when we begin to Eigure out what to do about i h 13 that.
Right now a)) we want.ed to do was just voice the c,
14 concern and give some indication of our tentative thinking.
15 Maybe in a day or two we can ask you what you think.
Okay?
l 16,
I,unch until 1:30, then we'll pick up with Floyd.
l
]
17 (Wher eupon, at 12:25 p.m.,
the hearing was 1
1 18 receased, to be reconvened al 1:30 p.m.
this same day.)
i l
19 1
20 i
j 21 i
i 22 i
l 23 j
24 7
I 25 i
I i
j l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347 3700 Nanonuide Coverage mn3%N>s6
~..
28729.0 BRT 4892 1
1 AFTERNOON SESSION (1:30 p.m.)
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Floyd, good afternoon.
My name 3
is Kelley; Judge Bright is on my left, Judge Carpenter is on t
4 my right.
j i
i 5
Whereupois, i
6 JAMES P.
FLOYD J
i 7
was called as a witness and, having first been duly sworn, i
~
8 was examined and tes ti fied as follows:
1 9
JUDGE KELLEY:
I think I did that jus t backwards.
10 EXAMINATION i
1 11 BY MR. GEPHART:
l t
i i
12 Q
Mr. Floyd, do ye u have before you a seven-page i h 13 document bearing the caption of this proceeding and the title t
l 14
" Prepared Statement of James P.
Floyd"?
)
4 15 A
Yes, sir.
16 Q
Do you have any additions or corrections you wish i
i 17 make to this s ta temen t?
i i
l 18 A
Yes, sir.
{
19 Q
Let's take line 1.
l l
l 20 A
First line, 1 now reside in Middletown instead of 21 Elizabethtown.
i 22 O
Page 2?
23 A
Fourth ]ine down, page 2, "the operations
\\
i 24 department."
Deleting " anal scheduling opera tions i
I i
i 25 surveillances."
l l
i I
.I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 801)33MM6 j
28729.0 BRT 4893 1
Also, on page 2, end of the second paragraph 2
change "72-hour basis" to "24-hour basic."
3 Q
Page 3 is okay?
4 4
A Yes, sir.
5 Q
Page 4?
6 A
First line of t.he first full paragraph, change 7
"of" to the word "Lo."
8 Q
You mean the first. sentence of the first fu]l 9
paragraph?
j
)
10 A
Yes.
It should read, "I
jusued a memorandum in 11 October of 1978 Lo explain the change in i.n te r p re ta t i on to 12 l
operations personnel."
13 0
Okay.
14 A
The next centence --
l 15 Q
All rignt.
The next centence?
16 A
It should read on the fourth lino down "I
recall ll 17 first hearing of rounding off" -- insert the words "by the l
18 comput er" -- "from William Fels."
l 19 Q
Okay.
l l
20 A
And five lines up from the bottom, next to last.
j l
21 word "probab]y," strike it.
1 I
22 Q
Ju t.ha t it?
l 23 A
That's all the changes or corrections I have to l
24 make at this time.
25 0
Do you wish this statement to be bound in the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(433M6m
___._...____. - _. ~ _ _ _ _
l i
I 28729.0 I'
BRT 4894 l
1 record as your statement?
l 2
A Yes, sir.
l 3
JUDGE KELLEY:
So ordered.
4 (The document f.o.l l ows : )
4 5
i 6
2 7
8 9
4 10 1
11 l
12 4
13
]
14 1
)
15 l
16
)
p 17 1
18 I
19 20 1
j 21 l
22
)
23 1
24 i
25
\\
i
\\
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
nw.
-- u. c-.
,, u -
('-~D UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND
)
Docket No. LRP UNIT 2 LEAK RATE DATA
)
FALSIFICATION
)
-)
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES R.
FLOYD My name is James R.
Floyd.
I reside in Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania.
I am currently employed by the Harrisburg Steam O--
Works, Ltd. in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania as plant manager.
I have left the nuclear business and I have no present intention of seeking employment in the industry or applying to the NRC for a license.
I hold a Bachelor's Degree in Chemical Engineering from Columbia University.
I was employed by Metropolitan Edison 1965 and Company'or GPU Huclear Corporation between September 1
April 1983.
In 1968, I was assigned.to Three Mile Island as a Nuclear Engineer.
In approximately 1971, I became Supervisor of Operations in Unit L, which position I held until September 1975.
At that time, I became Supervisor of Operations in Unit 2 until after the TMI-2 accident, at which time I became a
()
Senior Engineer.
O During 1978 and through the time of the 1979 accident, I V
Island Station Unit was Supervisor of Operations for Three Mile included supervising the activities of members of 2.
My duties the Operations Department, and scheduling Operations It was also my duty to ensure that the required surveillances.
number of licensed personnel were manning the control room at all times.
I delegated the actual running of Unit 2 to the shift supervisors.
I provided any support they needed.
I expected them to discuss any problems they had with me, including problems with leak rate procedures.
All leak rate practices at Unit 2 originated in Unit 1.
For example, early on in Unit 1, John Herbein, as the Superintendent, instructed us to run the leak rate test once a O
shift.
We carried this habit over from Unit 1 to Unit 2.
Mr.
Herbein's direction was an administrative control, not a legal requirement.
He instituted this so that if a leak should 4
develop, we would be aware of it on an 8-hour basis as oppused to a 72-hour basis.
Similarly, throwing out leak rates was not by direction but something that grew out of Operations and was carried from Unit 1 to Unit 2 by me, the supervisors, and the foremen.
I am now aware that the control room operators believed that I thought it permissible to throw invalid leak rates away.
I,
- however, have no specific recollection of discussing with any CRO whether leak rates should be discarded.
It was my opinion that
()
blatantly bad leak rates (for example, excessively negative,
had no connection with reality; consequently, it was ones) permissible to discard them.
The shift supervisor had the ultimate responsibility for throwing out leak rates.
I never the NRC was unaware that we were discarding leak knew that ratas.
I now believe that discarding leak rates was inappropri.ite, but I did not have that opinion at the time, for the reasons I have stated.
I did not enforce the application of Exceptions and Deficiencies to leak rates.
I believe that this practice developed in Unit 1 because of the frequency with which we were running the procedure.
Because we were running the leak rate more than the technical specifications required, we did not use an "E and D" sheet for a bad leak rate.
The erratic test O
results that we first obtained in the early period of Unit l's leik operation could also have influenced our decision to treat rate tests differently than other surveillances.
Until October of 1978, it was the general opinion that we had to get one valid leak rate of less than one gallon per minute unidentified leakage into the record every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> to comply with the Unit's technical specifications.
After October 20, 1978, if there was a bad leak rate and an operator could not convince himself that it was invalid, steps were to be taken to shut the Unit down.
He would make this decision on the basis of his judgment, not simply on the numbers coming out of the computer.
Resolution of a leak rate higher than i gpm
()
was determined by the procedure; for example, was the reactor x
O steady state, were the power levels changing, did an at operator make an error?
Any of these things would invalidate the leak rate test and hence there was no need to enter the action statement.
I issued a memorandum in October of 1978 to explain the change in interpretation of Operations personnel.
My memorandum was issued two days after we started rounding off.
I I recall first learning of rounding off from William Fels.
He j
was re-programming the computer console.
I asked why and he I
stated that he was doing so on orders of James Seelinger.
J recall that Mr. Seelinger conducted a meeting in the shift supervisors' office in connection with rounding off and the clarification of the action statement.
I do not remember who O
agree with the decision to round off and was there.
I did not but I did not agree with the change in the 72-hour requirement, I went along with both decisions.
The change in our interpretation of the 72-hout requirement was certainly a soCe approach.
I probably learned of the decision to file a I
Licensee Event Report in connection with this matter when I was handed some leak rates to analyze for Mr. Seelinger.
I thought that the content of my Operations Memorandum was being carried out by the Operations staff.
I was probably tax in not following this up, prior to the accident, I had thought f
that the shift foremen would have less trouble with leak rates if they paid more attention to plant leaks.
I instructed them
()
in my October 1978 memorandum to keep a list of leaks.
I was 4
1
-a.
I!o remiss in not pursuing this.
Obviously, I put too much confidence in the list of leaks solving leak rate problems.
1 Prior to the time that Hartman's allegations were i
i publicized in 1980, I had no reason.to believe that the procedure for calculating leak rates at TMI-2 was not capable I'
i fj of producing accurate results.
I assumed that if the test were i
run properly, the result would be an acceptable measure of j
Sometime later,-I took the time to l
i there analyze the procedure in detail and soon concluded that I
were so many inaccuracies and errors built into the computer
)
program that the test results were essentially meaningless.
I i
know of no basis of asserting, as United States Attorney Queen 2
1
)
did in his Statement of Facts, that "the Supervisor of had no faith in the reliability of the test,"
Operations or that I believed in 1978-79 that " leak rate tests being 1
I filed for NRC review were
' worthless'."
Those 2
conclusions were reached by me only after the Hartman allegations were made, not during the time that TMI-2 was i
operational.
1 In my view, there was not an atmosphere at Unit 2 that l
would cause or pressure an operator to cheat on a leak rate I
I know of no instances where operators were directed by l
j test.
t i
management to manipulate results, 1
f I knew the leak rate procedure produced conflicting j
i i
results.
Because I could recall difficulties with erratic leak
()
rates when Unit i began commercial operation, I expected 1
i
-s-l!
i
O problems at Unit 2.
Apparently others, lacking this devised inappropriate methods to cope with leak background, rate problems.
I did not believe that hydrogen should affect the makeup If someone would have told me of the phenomenon prior to tank.
the accident, I would have tried to explain that hydrogen should not alter the level of the makeup tank.
I thought it allowable at any time to add hydrogen to the makeup tank if the makeup tank needed hydrogen, whether there was a leak rate in I would not have considered it appropriate to progress or not.
of course.
add hydrogen to deliberately tamper with a test, After the accident I did become aware that water additions to the makeup tank had not been recorded properly.
Two or y
three cases were brought to my attention by an NRC I & E inspector.
After I questioned the operators, whose names I no longer recall, I was satisfied that these occurrences were unintentional errors resulting from tatted communication.
The start and stop time of leak rates should have been recorded in the control room operators' log book.
If those times were not recorded, it was an error of omission on the I also should have been part of the control room operator.
aware of this omission because I was required to review the log book once a week.
Although I was on the distribution list for the morning reports, I did not scrutinize them.
I perceived the morning as a document used by my superiors to acquaint
()
report. _ _ _ _. _ _
D 9
I encouraged themselves with plant status on a daily basis.
the use of turnovers from shift to shift.
Turnovers were not i
required, but they were an efficient way to get the job done.
1 Each level (control room operator, foreman, shift supervisor) had his own page to prevent things from falling through the cracks.
Shift supervisors' notes were attached to the morning report because John Herbein had started the practice at Unit 1.
i I was only peripherally involved with the November 1, 1978 3
LER.
I have no recollection of being involved in any discussions that may have occurred between James Seelinger and Donald Haverkamp concerning our interpretation of when to' enter the action statement.
I have no recollection of seeing the March 16, 1979 TCN.
I did not sign it.
Two reasons for my
(
lack of knowledge of events in March 1979 were that I had recently suffered a broken ankle, which kept me from work muc5 of the time, and in late March I went to my annual week of l
training at Babcock & Wilcox in Lynchburg, Virginia.
In conclusion, I decided to appear before the presiding Board for two reasons.
First, I have information to contribute concerning the events of 1978 and 1979.
Second, I want to put this entire matter behind me.
Consequently, I will cooperate in any feasible way to ensure the final resolution of this subject.
O
i l
20729.0 BRT 4095 iO i
i 1
JUDGE KEI,I.EY :
Hy way of preliminary comment, l
3 i
2 Mr. F]oyd, this presiding board has been given the job by the 3
Commission to invesLigate leak rale lest CalaificaLions and 4
other improper practices associated with Jeak rate testing at i
5 Three Mile Island 2 between 1978 and
'79.
We have read your t
6 pretiled tentimony and we are, of course, familiar with the i
7 rather extensive record that has been developed to da to.
.We 8
realize tha t normally, a t l eas t, you yourself didn't run leak 9
rate Leata nor did you directly supervise the running of such 10 Lests in the manner, say, of a shift foreman.
Nevertheleus 4
i i
11 we understand that you had, as supervisor of operations for 12 lini t 2, overall responnibility for operationa in the unit, 13 including surveillance tests, leak rate Leuts; and you also 14 had some pa rt ici pation in events th'at have ansumed particular 15 intercul in the course of thlu investigation, stich an the I,ER I
i 16 that grew out of Mr. Haverkamp'n vinit of Ont.ober
'70.
17 What we'll be doing, essentially, is going through I'
18 your prefiled Lentimony.
We looked at earlier statementu l
1 19
'that you've given in the courue of this i nves t iga tion.
An i
20 you know, we are coming toward the end of a rather long l
21 procession of witneases in this inquiry, neveral of whom al 22 one time or anot her have referred to interactionn wi th you 23 atul those kinda oE things may come up, Loo.
24 I'll begin with nome questions for you and then 2S Judges Bright and Carpenter will aluo have uome ques tions for i O j
i 1
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm.,
~ _. m-,
~_
=-
i P
i 28729.0 1
BRT 4896 i
1 you.
Then we may have some follow-up ques tions from the l
{
4 l
2 parties.
1 3
We may be referring, from time to time to some i
1 4
documents.
Your counsel can supply you with
- t. hose as that i
5 becomes necessary.
In the case of testing and looking at l
l 6
particular tests we have done a lot of thal with the CRos and 1
l 7
some of the foremen.
I,know of a couple that I wanted to i
l 0
discuss with you.
But, in general, we wouldn't be going over 9
a lot at t.e s t s with you, juut. because of the na t.ure of your 4
10 position.
l j
1 11 EXAMIN ATION 11Y Ti]E Il0ARD l
12 HY J U D G E K E i,1,E Y :
}
13 0
I would like t.o begin by talking with you about 14 your role in t.he I,ER we have a l ready referred to.
I'm sure 15 you are familiar wit.h it; the for mal designa tion in "I,ER I
16 78-62 1T."
I believe, but in any case, you know
- t. h e document 17 I'm talking about.
I l
18 Dacking up a little bit in time, before the actual i
19 l I,ER was genera ted, we have heard some testimony about the 20 circumstaneen in which the 1.EH aroue.
I won ' t. I en ta t e them
?
i 21 in any great. detail, but am I correct. in recollecting that l
22 that Mr. llaver kamp made hla visit on the morning of OcLober I
23 luth, '70?
Does IhaL nound right to you?
i l
l 24 A
If the iecord indicates that.
l i
I j
25 0
f.e t me put il to you this way.
What is your 1O 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 37tn Naiionwkle rmerage muk33MM6
)
i i
I l
i 28729.0 i
BRT 4897 9
I 1
recollection of the circumstanceu obtaining at that time wit.h 2
reference to leak rate tests and the status of the plant?
4 1
3 Maybe a little more precise:
Were you operating in a 1
4 situation where it had been some days since you had had what
{
S we ca1L a good leak rale t es t.?
Thal is lo say, one i
j 6
reflecting unident.ified leakage under 1 gallon a minute?
l 7
A I do not know that to be a fact from firsthand j
I B
knowledge.
i 9
0 Well
.4 l
10 A
Poucibly becaune I don't remember.
I J
11 Q
We have heard testimony about your involvement in 1
{
12 those eventu; specifically on the morning Mr. Haverkamp 1
i 13 arrived on the acone.
Do you have any recollection about i
14 tha t.?
i 1
i l
15 A
I have a recollection ihat I saw Don in the
)
.l 1
}
16 control room and I paused the Lime of day wit.h him. at i
17
- Jeast, llu t I think I was on my way out of the control room i
l 10 promptly thereatler on another problem i. n the turbine 4
l j
19 building.
I have no recollection of any converuations with i
20 Don llaverkamp that day about this leak rate --- h i u leak rate I
i 21 problema.
22 Q
1,et. me yet back to that..
Did you, in t he normal 23 course of your job, run leak ra te t.es t a yournetf?
j 24 A
No, uir.
1 25 Q
Did you uupervino their running, in the uence of, l
9 i
i, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m u,.nm m m c_.,
m n_
i t
i i
I i,
l j
20729.0 l
DHT 4898 l
1 if you will, looking over the CRO'c shoulder, being directly 2
involved or interested in the performanee of the t.e s t, ?
3 A
No, sir.
4 JUDGE KELL.EY:
I would be happy to stand corrected
\\
I 5
on t.his, Mr. McBride, and I think I'd rather do i. L this way j
}
6 than sLart pawing through transcripts, but it was my j
ij 7
recollection that it was Mr. Chwastyk who L e s t i E i. e d b o ttore nu
{i j
8 about. that particular mor ning and recalled, I'J1 pa r a phra: e, 1
i
{
9 Mr. Floyd being in the control room and running leak ra te 1
10 tents?
i I
I i
I 11 MN. MC Hu1DE:
No, sir.
I 12 JUDGE KELLEY:
I'm not riuht, about Lhal?
4 13 MR. MC ilRIDE:
No.
It wan Mr. Mehler.
The record i
14 will reelect that Mr. Chwastyk was not there until the 19th.
15 JUDGE KULLEY:
The 19th.
Okay.
1 t
l 16 UY JUDGE KELLEY:
i l
17 0
We did have some Les t.imony --- I wa n n ' t. ce r t a i n i
18 Irom whom; Mr. 11ryan Mehler was one our witnesses and he's a I
4 j
19 shift uupe: vi nor ; is that right?
20 A
Yes, str.
l 1
i
)
i 21 Q
ili c recollection is you were in the contr ol room
}
i i
l 22 '
ralhor actively involved, at lea s t. intere9 Led in leak rate i
i J
i i
l 23 testino.
I believe he had the impr ession you wer e running a i
l
)
24 tesL yournelf.
l
{
25 A
J have no recollection of ever having run a test.
i O i
i i
i ACE-FEDERAL ' REPORTERS, INC.
m,.
m_ m m_,,
.. u-
2 i
l i
{
20729.0 l
4899 BRT i
1 myself.
I was noted to siL at the computer console l
i 2
frequently, and if a control room operator wanted to start a t
3 test I may have punched the 1ellers RCSL f or him, rather than j
l 4
move away from the machine so he cou.1d time it; if you ca.11 i
j S
that running a leak rate test then, maybe, yes, I was i
1 l
6 actively involved in it, l
i j
7 0
I got the impression that. this was a lit tle bi t I
j 0
unusual and I t h o ug h t., Listening Erom Mr. Mehler, that you i
9 were exhibiLiny a more than usua1 interest in 1eak rates thal j
10 pa rt icula r morni ng.
Now I'm wailing tintil you are here do I i
j 11 can ask you.
1
}
6 12 A
I have no recollection of that, sir.
13 Q
I would like to look al some Lesla.
}
14 MR. MC HRIDE:
Judge Kelley, I wi.11, i u n t.
to I
}
i 15 refreuh your recollection, tell lhal you Mr. Mehler did i
i i
1(i tentify about t.ha t morning and Mr. Floyd al t.h e computer.
lie l
17 aluo lesLifled thal iL wau not unusual because there were 18 other times that. Mr. Ployd was at the computer, i
f 19 JilDUR KHLLEY:
Well, I gueud I'd have to see lhe I
j 20 whole thing in context, but okay.
I would like to look at j
I 21 the tenLu leading up to the morning of the luth, aLarting, I
{
i i
22 !
ouens, with 12-A.
l I
23 l MR. GEPHAHT:
lie han the lesla in fIont of him, I I
I 24 i don'L ihink they have the numbers on them.
2S MR. MC HRIDR I'll get them out for you, ei ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j 202 4 474 700 Nationwide rmerage 80fM.4fM6
. - ~.. - - -. - -
4 j
28729.0 HRT 4900 t
I I
1 HY JUDGE KELLEY:
i 2
Q Starting with 12, correction.
I j
3 MR. MC HRIDE:
12 itself?
i i
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
12 ituelf.
j 5
MR. MC HRIDE:
Okay.
The witness has Leal 12, 7
i' 6
which was the 15th of October in front of him.
7 JilDGE KELLEY:
Right.
}
l 0
DY JUDGE KELLEY:
4 i
9 0
Let me explain a little bit.
Maybe this la j
10 unneceucary, but we are looking at the study aint analyseu ot 1
11 Leatu puts together by the NRC expertu, Mr. Capra and i
i 12 Mr. Ruuuell.
What. they did was pull together the 13 documenta tion pertaining Lo every leak rate leal tha t was run i
i l
14 io the 1aut uix monthu of opera Lion tha t waun ' t.
thrown away, j
i 15 Bear in mind that an unknown number, maybe more than that, J
16 c o l. thrown away.
But in any cane these ar e the annu Lhat.
l i
)
17 were filed as " good leata."
" Good" in the acuse of leau than 1
10 a gallon per minute.
l 19 lhtv i ng sa i.d that, we are about to look at unveral
,l 20 Leulings tha t exceed a gallon a minute, nut they are 21 exceptions.
They are among the very few t eu tu in that whole j
22 time period that didn't quL thrown away for reauons we have 1
l 23 yet to fathom.
But in any case, the teutu were found.
1[
l 1
1 24 you look at t.e u l 12 - and I don't intend f:or uu to diut.ec t 25 every 1ine of al1 theue documentu, we'd spend the next week 9
4 i
I i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-mm
- _ r _,.
m u_
e w 7.m
--enem -ter-*++-e*
- v,-
28729.0 BRT 4901 9
I 1
doing that.
I want to make a ra ther na rrow point or two 4
2 about the tents that we are going to look at and, you know, 3
to the extent you wish to comment or raise other pointa, Leel 4
free to do so, but it's not my intention to dissect every 5
line on these Lesla but to look at them in a narrow 6
perapective.
7 The one numbered 12, t h a t. is NRC Utaff analyniu 8
number, was run on the 15th of October bet. ween 1920 -- 7:20 9
in the evening, 8:20 in the evening -- in that what that i
10 means?
l 11 A
Yes, nir.
j 12 Q
okay.
And iL produced a negalive leak rate of I
il minus.35 gallona per minute; c o r rec t. ?
14 A
Yes, sir.
l l
j 15 Q
l.e l ' n annume that that's considered a good leak I
I 16 rate.
Were you aware of a practlen whr.roby at least some I
17 negative leak ra ten would be accepted?
l 10 A
Yea, sir.
l 19 0
Okay.
I,et'u consider this a good leak ra te on the
{
i 20 15th 00 October.
And i t' we 40 ahead through the next neveral i
21 tentu, which, for reasonn -- well, we needn't -- I don't know j
22 what the reason 13.
I don't think il matteru.
Inntead of 4
f f
23 running on to 13, 14, 15, t hey are numbered 13-A, H,
C, D,
F:
t i'
24 and uo f_ orth, does -- A wan run on the next day, just about.
25 24 houru later, and it produceu a leak ra te of 2.6 yallons I
i l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j 202 M M ?ou Nationwide rmerage mn3%6n46 I
l 1
1 1
i s
28729.0 BRT 4902 e
I 1
per minute; right?
l 2
A Yes, sir.
l i
3 Q
In excess of the tech speca?
i t
1 i
i 4
A Yes, sir.
l l
5 Q
So we 40 a.)ony 1o the next test and iL ia f
6 denominated 12-H.
That is run on the next day, the 17th, l
t 7
1:00, 1:30 in the afternoon.
2.1 qallons per minut.c.
Still f
0 double the allowed amount.
1 t
(
9 A
Yes, sir.
1 1
10 0
We go on t.o the next one, 12-C, run on the I ll t h,
l
]
l 11 5:00 in the morning?
i l
12 A
Yen, sir.
I 13 Q
It gives uu a leak rate of 1.78 gallonu per 14 minute?
l l
j 15 A
Yes, Hir.
l t
.p I
16 0
I'11 come back in a minut e Io Ihe handwriting on l
J j
17 t.ha t sheel a t the b o t. t o m, but let's pass i t l'or now.
We'll l ')
40 on to 12-D, also on the 10 t.h.
7:35 in the morning, two i
19 houra later.
That gives us a leak rate of 1.2 -- I can't f
20 read whet.her il's 29 or what.
{
6 i
21 MR. MC llRIDE:
It's 1.29, Judge Kelley, 10 you i
22 were to subtract 1.he second number from the Llrut.
I r
23 JUDGH KELLEY:
Okay, Line.
I 24 HY JtlDGE KEbbEY:
j 2S Q
Looking a little Curther ahead, next tent, 12-M, l
!9 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202. 47 37m Nationwide roserage N43% f4M 1
.. - -. ~.
. mn
4 l
l 28729.0 BRT 4903 1
B:00 -- now we are running tests almout back to back here.
1 l
2 5:00, 7:00, 8:00.
We are down to 1.32, but that's utill over 1
i e
i 3
the limit.
And on to tout number 13, down to 1.02, utill 1
)
4 over the limit unleau you Iound off the
.02.
S Up at the next test, 14, you get back to a Leut 6
under the tech spec 1 i m.i i, no far under it's negative,
.29, 7
in the aClernoon on the 18th.
But if you accept these Leutu 8
on their face, don't they detect a situation where almont.
9 three days, almout 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> had elapued between the laut good 1
t 10 leak rate teutu and the one that was finally generated at. a 11 little after noon on the 10th?
I 12 A
Yeu, sir, i
i 13 i
Q Uo that did you under s tand - maybe I should just i
i
}
14 ask you how you underulood the 72-hour Lech spec.
Let me i
j 15 give you how I underutand the record seems to -- excuun me.
f I ti Let'u u ta rt t.ha t over again.
17 You say, on paqe 3 of your ten timony, bottom 4
18 paragraph, "Until October ot '70 i t was the general opinion.
l 19 that we had to get one valid leak rate of lenu than 1 gallon f
20 per minuto unidentitled leakage into t.he record every 72 1
21 hourn to comply with the unit's tech noecs."
And I believe f understand the literal import. of the sentence.
22 l 1
j 23 Did that mean in your mind that au long au you did
)
1 4
i 24 tha t, LE you had intervening Leuta that were out of speca, i
I 25 that iL didn't require going into the action statement ao O
i i
i l
j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
02.147 1700 Nationwide Coverage 8mMMM6
~
-.-.,_,,,n.
J.
i a
l t
28729.0 t
BRT 4904 j
1 long as you got your next good one wiLhin the 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />?
?
A No.
That was not my understanding of. the way 1
)
3 business was done.
i l
l I
4 Q
Okay.
Then tell me what your understanding war,.
4 I
i S
A If you had a valid leak rate in excean oE 1 gallon j
l 6
per minute, I think you should have been in the tech spec -
l 7
in the action stalement.
H Q
Then we could explore what you mean by " valid,"
9 exactly?
j i
I 10 A
one that's not ruled invalid f or some rear:on as l
11 allowed by.the procedure.
)
12 0
Well, I'm confused, then, by your testimony here h
13 on page 3.
I thought your first nentence meant exactly the 14 way I stated it a minute ago:
Au lony as you get a good one i
15 every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, that's all you had to worry about.
f 16 A
The.l'n wh,. i that 4 t a te m e n t. aayr.
And that'c what 17 1 meant for il to say.
j 1H Q
Okay.
19 A
You meet the legal requirement if you yet a good 20 leak ra te every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
l l
21 Q
Okay.
And what if, during the 72 houru, you ran a 22 leak rate ten t and it produced a reading of 1.3, l e t. ' u uay, 23 '
and you didn't have any obvioun technical banic for throwinq 14 t.h e test out, i
1' 25 A
Then I would think you'd enter the action i e i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm o,
__ m o.,.
,a o -
.m
l l
20729.0 I
DRT 4905 O
i 4
i statement, just like we once did in Unit I and shut the unil 2
down because of it.
j 3
O So you are saying that under your jurisdiction, i
1 4
when you were in that job, that as far as you were concerned l
1 i
a j
5 any time a leak rate test came out. over the 1 qallon, 10 you i
6 couldn'L inva1idaLe iL on some technica1 baulu you - iL was l
7 your view you should 40 into the act. ion ut.atement?
l I
8 A
I would think that would be the proper thing to
(
f i
9 do.
i 10 0
Well, then maybe you could help me wit.h t.h i s 11 pa ragraph we a re looking al at the bollom of page 3.
I 12 thought that you were distinguishing one interpretation from
[
13 another, and that in the Cirut sentence you were giving me 14 the int er pret a tion that neemc to me to apply, and I'll go on i
15 to say what I understood the consequence of that to be.
1 I
16 und"rntood Iho conner]uence of that to be i could run Jeak i
17 rates now and forever more -- during the 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> I could j
lu keep right on running leak raten no mattei how many reuuttu I i
i j
19 not over i gallon I could utill keep doing il and not 40 in i
1 20 the action statement no lonq an i came up with a good leak e
21 rate before the 72 houru expired.
That's what I Lhought that i
i 22 meant.
That'n not true?
i 1
j 23 A
My memory of how we did buulnesu back in Octobe, j
24 of '70 la nol very clear, j
4 4
2s a
Tne record uhowo new buoineou wau done by n,e
!O l
I i
i 1
i l
1 l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
w on.,
n _, ~,,...
.. n -
1
i 1
f l
4 28729.0 DRT 4906 9
1 CROs, and that. is clear.
2 A
That. is clear.
l 3
Q Hut I want to understand what you thought.
I
~
4 Decouse, you see, in this paragraph you go on and say:
I l
i S
"After Oct.ober," and I thought you were going t.o tell me you 6
did it a different way.
And yet you are explaining the first l
I i
}
7 uentence as no different Crom what Collows, and that's why I
)
8 I'm confuned.
i i
9 A
- Well,
- t. hey are La.lking about different things.
l:
1 10 Q
Okay.
What's the magic oC October, then, in this i
11 pa rag ra ph?
What happened in October t.o make thingu 12 different?
l I
13 A
Well, the I,ER and the memo that I put. out an a l
l 14 reuult of
- t. h e LER, which inutructed I.h e people to enter the
{
15 action ntatement, which I cannot remember 10 before that I
[
t 16 waa 6hi'iking they were golny into the action a ta tement and it i
j 17
-} u n t waun't happening 90 1 put out. a memo to force it to
[
t 10 happen or whether, in 1:a c t, I was aware that we had a i
19 practice in the plant that we didn't go into the action l
20 utalement until we hit 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
t r
21 O
Are you saying you really don't remember what your t
i 22 opinion was het ore ihe I,E R ?
23 A
No, uir.
I do not remember what my opinion was L
24 betore the 1,ER, air.
l l
t 25 O
Then afLer tiin 1, E H, in that what we a re exprou rility i O i
I 1
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m _ m _,.
m o,_
i t
. ~... -
l.
l i
l 28729.0 BRT 4907 1
in the sentence, the second sentence in t.h e paragraph?
2 A
I think so.
3 0
"After October '70 if there was a bad leak rate, j
j 4
and an operator could not convince himself that i t was f
5 invalid, steps were to be taken to shut the unit down."
I i
6 okay, t-his interpretation question can get rather i
{
j 7
knotty.
If we are looking at these tents I would rather i
B Cocus on them again for a few minutes and then come back to j
9 thin rather 1.han wade all the way through this i n t.erpreta t.i on 1
l 10 question.
i j
i1 WhaL I wau aller, Mr. Floyd, wau whaL wau 1.h e
)
I 12 acenario the motning oJ the Floyd arrival, when you were in a f
~
13 situat. ion where you hadn't had a good leak rate for almost i
14 three dayc?
1, 1
15 MR. MC DRIDE:
The morning of the Haverkamp I
f 16 arriv.al, did you mean?
f 17 I JtIDGE KELLEY:
Haverkamp.
What did I say?
i l
18 MR. MC RRIDE:
Floyd.
19 Jt1DGE KELLEY:
He was already there.
All right.
i l
20,
BY JUDGE KELLEY:
I 21 O
May I put il ihlu way:
Under whatever j
l 22 interpretation one has of. the 72-hour requirement, thinqa 1
23 were looking pretty grim, weren't they?
You hadn't had a i
{
24 good leak rate Cor almost 72 houru.
That was a fairly I
l 25 serioue situation, wasn't it?
!O 1
i i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347.I7(H Natiurimide Coverage 8(Nk33M646 I
j
a t
1 i
1
)
28729.0 l
i FiRT 4908 4
i 1
A Yes, sir.
I l
2 Q
And t.ha t would have meant even under the most.
}
3 pro-plant-operation reading tha t one can dream of of this 1
t 4
particular tech spec, you are s ti l.1 going to have to shut the 5
thing down if you don'L get a good leak rate by 7:00 that day
{
f l
i 6
in the evening; t.ha t 's about when the 72 would r un out; j
\\
I 7
right?
j i
8 A
Right.
I didn't look at the times that closely.
I 1
i 9
Q About thal.
Okay.
f 10 In your time at TMI-2, was there ever a time when i
I 11 that f acili Ly was shut down for failure to meet the 72-hour 12 requirement?
h 13 A
Not to my knowledge, sir.
14 Q
Okay.
Never happened.
Can you cite any time that l
(\\
t 15 you came any closer to that development than this particular
,i i c.
( ; m..o_ o.
i 17 A
No, sir.
I just have the recollection in Unit. 1
]
j 18 that we did once shut the unit down for the 72-hour leak l,
19 rate.
So that historically it was a proven fact that we I
1 20 would do that.
}'
l l
21 0
That iL had been done once.
22 ;
A Yes, sir.
l 8
l 23 l Q
That's your recollection.
Yeu?
24 MR. MC HHIDE:
Judge Kelley, I wonder 10 we might j
l i
1 25 just clarif~y the record and ask the witness i fl, in his i
\\
t s,
I l
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 37m Nationwide caserage 800 336-6M6
-.m
r I
i i
28729.0 MT 4909 I O 1
reterence to the 72-hour rule at Unit 1,
he meant 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> or t
j 2
some-other period?
3 THE WITNESS:
24 ho'urs in tinit 1.
Different-I l
4 technical specification.
l f
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
All right.
i
{
6 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
l i
7 Q
So here we are on the morning of. the 18th and you i
i j
0 are on the verge of having to shut down the plant.
What is
{
9 your state of mind under those circumstances?
I 10 A
We have shutdown procedures.
We have people 11 trained to do it.
It's not a crisis.
i 12 Q
Why do you say tha t?
! h 13 A
People are there and the people are trained to do 14 it.
15 Q
Maybe 1 misunderstood you.
You say you had la shutdown procedures, what was your comment af ter tha t?
l 17 A
And people ar e trained to do it.
It was not a 10 crisis to shut it down.
i 19 Q
It was not a crisis in your mind?
f 20 A
No, sir.
21 Q
Could you expand on that a little bit?
I 22 A
Shutdown is a very normal evolution a t a plant.
1 i
23 ;
O A shutdown of a 1000-kilowatt reactor over a Icak i
i i
24 rate is a normal evolution?
4 25 A
It'a not a crisis evolution.
The health and
!O 1
i j
k l
1 ACE-FEDEIML REPORTERS, INC.
j i
202 347-37(n)
Nationwide Coserage 8(Xb3366M6 na-.--
~~
f 2
28729.0 BRT 4910
/O V
1 1
safety of the public aren't at utaice.
x 2
O Okay.
So, are you saying that this was just l
3 business-as-usual type of situation?
5 4
A No.
It was very unusual.
5 Q
What was your reaction to it?
tiow much attention 6
did you give it that day?
7 A
I do eat remember.
think I went off on another
~
i 0
problem that morn'ng while the control room was correcting 9
this problem.
10 0
In the course of Tf4I-2 's relatively brief 11 operating history, how many times was it shut down for i
12 problems as opposed to some normal, planned outage?
13 A
I don'L remember clearly but probably a majority 14 of the times that it was shut down was for a prob]em rather 15 than for a planned shutdown.
a 16 Q
Can you g2ve me an idea?
17 A
No, sir.
I can't.
I can't tell you if it was 18 shut down 50 times or 80 times.
)
19 Q
Did you have any faith in this leak rate test?
20 A
Yes.
In that the same procedure, at Jeast 1 21 thought it was the same procedure that we used in Unit I was 22 carried over to Unit 2.
And we initially had troubles with 23 i t in Uni t 1.
And the procedure revision form, on the front j
l 24 of that procedure will show you how often it was revised and
)
25 for what reasons.
And eventually it was gotten to the point gU ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
E-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
28729.0 BRT 4911 O
' v 1
where it would work, when we made the transition from Unit 1 1
2 to Unit 2, we took the procedure south wi th us and I thought 3
it was implemented on the computer the same as'it was in Unit l
4 1.
So yes, I had some faith in the procedure.
Not an 5
undying faith.
I knew it gave inconsis tent results but it 6
gave results that were satisfactory and we were ab]e to run 7
the plant by it.
8 Q
More specifically, did it give results that were 9
in your opinion an accurate reflection oE real unidentified 10 leakage?
11 A
It was an indication of. real unidentified 12 leakage.
I don't know that I believed the number of 13 significant digito that it gives out but it was an indicator.
14 Q
Well, how good of an indicator?
15 A
Close enough to 1 ga))on a minute tha t we could 16 meet the 1 gallon a minute limit of the technical 17 s pec i f i ca ti ons.
18 Q
Well, yot could actually meet it?
Or you'd get 19 this machine to spit out a piece of paper that said it was 1 20 gallon a minute?
I assume when you said you had faith in it 21 you had faith in its ability to measure leakage?
22 A
It was an indicator of Icakage.
I don't know that 23
" measure" is quite the right word.
24 Q
What I'm getting at is, if I had as little faith 25 in this tes t as mos t of the CROs in your plant -- and I can O
J ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3RO Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
I 20729.0 BRT 4912 lO I
1 tell you they had no Caith in it at all; they thought it was 2
an arbit.rary, silly administrative requirement., didn ' t hcive 3
anything to do with leakage.
It was just a big pain in the 1
j 4
neck.
t 5
A And, in fact --
6 Q
If I had tha t a ttitude and somebody said,. hey, 7
shut down the plant.
I'd say, you are crazy, I'm not going O
to shut down the plant for something like that.
It's i
9 irrational.
10 A
In hindsight it did appear to be ridiculous.
i 11 Q
You said at thal t.ime you believed in the test.
12 A
I thought it was a valid indicator of Jeakage.
13 0
If you had gotten a tes t result over 1 gallon, 1.2 l
14 gallons per minute you would have shut. the plant down?
l 15 A
No, sir.
The procedure tells you to run another 16 leak rate.
i 17 Q
So you run another leak rate and you get 1.3?
I 18 A
And if I can ' t declare the procedure invalid for i
19 some reason.as allowed by the procedure then I'm going 1.o 4
20 have to shut the plant down; yes, sir.
21 Q
And you never did that; correct?
22 A
That's true.
23 Q
Are you familiar with the records of t.ests in this 24 case?
25 A
No, sir.
1 1
4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37tU Nationwide Coverage 8@33M646
l 1
1 28729.0 i
BRT 4913 O
{
1 Q
Okay.
We'll get to that.
I started out on the 2
18th of October.
I wanted to get some fee] for your f
3 pa rtic i pa tion in was going on.
And if I understand you 4
correctly, you didn't attribute any unusually large f
1 5
significance to these events and you were prepared to shut 6
the p] ant down if you cou]dn't get a leak rate test within j
7 speck?
i 8
A Yes, sir.
l 9
Q I do want to clarify some notations on two or 10 three of these tests.
Look at 12-C.
I 11 A
I have it in f ront of me.
12 MR. MC.HRIDE:
Judge Kelley, I would like the 13 record to also reflect that I'm going to put before the 14 witness for his review in some cases, the better copies of i
15 these that Mr. Stier sent to you.
i l
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
Sure.
i 17 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
i.
l 18 Q
Looking at 12-C, at the bottom of the torm as I i
j 19 read it, it says " rounds off high but is correct ed by leak i
i 20 '
rate 10/18/78.
7:.35:27 start time, I.E.
into action 1
21 statement 5/13/02 and out of 22 MR. MC BRIDE:
"I t a t. "
j 23 JUDGE KELLEY:
- "It at 7:35: 37."
24 HY JUDGE KELLEY:
25 Q
Are you with me, Mr. Floyd, on the handwriting?
llO l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3AU Nationwide Coverage Mn336-6M6
i 8
l 28729.0 BRT 4914.
I i
1 A
Yes, sir, it's mine.
2 Q
First t ell me the circumst.ances under which, you 3
recall, you wrote this on this form?
l 4
A To the best of my recollection these forms, and I I
l 5
think it was only two of them, were presented to me in the I
1 6
control room in 11ni t 2 by Mark Bezilla wi th the request from 7
Jim Seelinger that I see if, from these forms, I determine
)
J I
8 whether or not the pl a n t is legal on a leak rate.
9-Q Is that the reference in your prepared tes timony, 10 you say you probably lear'ned the decision while - an LER in 11 connecLion with this matter, "when I was handed some 1eak
)
12 rates.to analyze from Mr. Seelinger"?
Is that the reference?
13 A
Yes, sir.
14 Q
You talk about the same thing there.
I don't know l
15 how critical 1L is but can you recall when you made these 16 notations?
17 A
I think the next one you look at is timed and 18 dated when I looked at it.
I 19 Q
Okay.
So if we look at.12-D, the "okay by i
20 l round-off" notation.
21 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, if I'can just hold 22,
this up for you to see in the copy that Mr. Stier sent to you 1
23 the handwriting continues and it says, "okay by round-off,
)
24 l JRF, 1200, 10/18/78."
25 JUDGE KEI, LEY :
Noon.
All right.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
1 i
I 28729.0 BRT 4915
- O 1
BY JUDGE KELLEY:
j 2
Q And -
l 3
MR. MC BRIDE:
And so does the next one.
\\
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
I know of three, I belleve.
Where j
i 5
it appears they were signed.
6 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
7 Q
These notations on these tests, from what you said l
8 about being asked to look.at several tests, one of them being i
9
--- havi ng a time notation at noon, wouldn't they all have l
10 be.en in thal neighborhood, the notations?
l 1
i 11 A
Yes.
I analyzed all three of them at the same 1
l l
12 time.
13 Q
I don't know that it's critica].
I'm just t.r y i n g 14 to nail it down.
Now, the slatement on the firsL one, f" irs t t
15 one being 12-C, which is at 5:14 in the morning, beginning 16 Lest on the 18th.
What I wanted to ask you about is the 17 concluding phrase "5:13/02 and out of it at 7:25:37."
I'm j
I i
l 18 not sure I understand that.
Could you explain what you meant i
19 by that?
l l
20 A
I mea nt ' tha t this leak rate that we are referring l
i 21 to as starting at 5:14 in the morning was, in fact -- rounds i
therefore that should have 22 off to above 1 qallon a minute and i
23 '
started a time clock in the action statement and that time
[
24 clock was stopped by the next leak rate, which was run at 25 7:35:27 in the morning.
Go at tha t time I was of the opinion"
- O l
i i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 2tC-347-37(o Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 1
28729.0 O
1 Lhat, when you had a bad Icak rate you started a time clock.
2 O
Wel1, I think I understand the reasoniny of your 3
statement, but why wouldn't the same reasoning apply to 4
preceding test. 12-B, run the day before in the afternoon?
5 A
I don't think 12-B was presented to me a L thal 6
time for analysis.
Dul it would have applied if I would have 7
seen it at t.ha t time.
8 Q
So if you had been asked to look at that, at that 9
time, applying that logic you would have been in the aclion 10 s t a t.emen t aL 1:00:20, the day before?
11 A
Yes, sir.
12 Q
Assuming that no good tes t came along wi thin the 13 nht f:ou r to six hours, you would have not only been in the 14 action statement., you would have been shutting the plant i
15 down; correct?
16 A
Yes, sir.
17 Q
Hul did you simply analyze this sequence of 12-C, 18
-D and
-E, and apply tha t in terpretation to them?
19 A
Yes, sir.
20 h Q
You didn't go back in Lime?
21 l A
No, sir These were handed to me and I analyzed l
i 22 i them on the spot.
23 '
O nut in order to analyze them, doesn't that kind OL y
24
, ana3ysis have t.o begin wiLh the last good leak rale LesL?
25 t
The unalysis I was asked to be done was these O
i I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
.._...m.
m _. _.
g._
28729.0 BRT 4917 e
y 1
three sheels of paper so I analyzed those three sheets ot 2
paper to the best of my abili ty.
My commission was not any i
f 3
broader than that a L the time.
i i
j 4
0 We]1, I guess I'm asking whet her - maybe I'm i
l 5
asking in retros pect - whether you think the commission 6
given to you as so described made any sense?
7 A
I didn't undersland your quesLion, sir.
1 i
8 Q
Well, if I want to know whether this plant has I
1 9
been in compliance with tech specs and I share your I
10 interpretation that you state about this time that.if you get i
11 a test in excess of a galloli and you can't see any obvious 4
technical grounds, then you are in 12 reason to throw it out on 13 the ac tion s tatement, you are stuck with it, so lo speak.
14 Then, applying that, though, it my boss says to me:
- Well, t
f 15 Kelley, was the plant in the action s tatement at - whenever 1
l 16 this test was run - 5:00 to 6:00 in the morning on the l
17 18th?
Wouldn't I say:
Well, I. don't know.
I'd have to find 18 the last test that was good, i
j 19 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, before he answers the i
20 question, can we just make it clear that you are not i,
l 21 intending to refer to the fact this Mr. Seelinger was 22 Mr. Floyd's boss?
1 23 JUDGE KEhl,EY :
It's a hypothetical.
Anybody could
{
f i
l 24 be his boss.
I'm trying to undersLand the analysis here and j
l t
j 25 my suggestion here is that I can't make an analysis that will O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j 202-347 3700 Nationwide'Coserage 800 33MM6
1 I
k 28729.O I
BRT 4918 i O
- l l
1 describe plant status in terms of the acLion statemenL unless l
2 I go back to the last good Jeak rate test.
3 THE WITNESS:
Thal's true.
h l
4 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
I 5
Q So an analysis drawn only from a tes t beginning i
l 6
with 12-C, which was not a good leak rate test, doesn't 7
really answer the question.
It docen't tell you whether the 8
plant was in the action statement or not.
9 A
It does not address itself to the time before that 10 test; that's true, i
1 11 Q
It might say:
This will get you into it.
I agree i
1 12 with that.
t
]
13 A
That's what it says.
14 Q
But if the question is -- I thought you were j
15 saying that Geelinger -
and I'm going back to Seelinger now I
'l j
16 on purpose, Mr. McBride -- handed you this, through Hezilla, l
17 if you will, and said:
Well, tell me if we were in the i
18 action slatement or not.
And then I would have thought that I
19 what Seelinger needs from you is an analysis that traces back 1
20 to the last good tes L.
21 A
That's not what I was asked for.
j 22 Q
Well -
\\
l 23 A
It was not my understanding of what I was asked i
{
24 for, anyhow.
I 25 Q
-Do you think what you were' asked for and what you 1 O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3HX)
Nationwide Coverage 800'3E6M6
8 1
i 28729.0 BRT 0919 p
j 1
U 1
gave makes sense analytically?
2 A
Yes, sir.
3 0
I don't understand that.
To me it doesn't.
Maybe 4
you can help me understand why.
f j
5 A
A man hands me t.hree pi eces o f.
paper and says:
Is l
f 6
the plant legal?
He wan ts to know right now, this ins tan t, 1
7 is the plant legal.
8 Q
Why don't you tell him, I can't tell you that?
3 9
A Well, I can.
From this paper I can tell him l
10 that.
I can say that an of 7:30 in the morning, the plant i
I 11 had a legal leak rate.
l 12 Q
Dut the problem with that analysis is you have --
4 (l
13 you hadn't had a legal leak rate for three days?
%)
14 A
I didn't know that.
15 Q
How can you answer him in the abs trac t?
Are you i
16 going to assume you had a good leak rate tes t?
Are you just.
(
17 assuming everything was fine until this test came along?
18 A
All I was asked for was to look at these three 19 pieces of paper.
l 20 Q
Okay.
I think we are going to beat this one to i
21 death -- perhaps we are agreeing to disagree.
I think -- I'm 22 happy to have you comment further --~ but that this analysis 1
i 23 l based on those three tests is not a valid analysis of plant 24 status because I think you have to go back to the last time J
I 25 you got a good leak rate test.
Do you disagree with that?
O 1
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3'to Nationwide Coverage 800 33M646
i j
4 28729.0 3
BRT 4920 l
lO
~
1 A
No, sir.
j I
2 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, may I suggest to you, l
i i
3 though, that the record does not disclose whether either i
1 4
Mr. Seeli nger or Mr. Floyd were aware of either test 12-A or i
5 12-B at this time.
l 6
JUDGE KELI.EY:
It may.not disclose that but it i
7 sure discloses the Eac t tha t they knew leak rate tests were 8
run once a shift, until the memory of man knoweth not 1.0 the j
I 9
con t ra ry, because nothing sugges ts that test 12--C wa s the 4
10 first test ever to come out. of the control room.
j 11 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Mr. Floyd,-I'm going to take the 12 liberty of interrupting Judge Kelley, with his permission.
i O 13 st"ce v " "
""ve dee" 1 x 1"9 " ' these tests t" oe'e'er, I
j 14 would you look agai n at test 12?
15 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
i 16 Q
All right?
l 17 A
I have test 12 in front of me.
l 18 Q
Your discussion with Judge Kelley, he 19 cha ra c terized this as "a good leak rate," meaning that the 20 identified leak rate was a number less than 1; namely, minus 21
.35.
22 As you look at this computer printout, would you l
23 agree that this is technically a good leak rate?
\\
\\
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
Can I just say, I said "let's 25 assume it was good for purposes of our discussion."
Whether O
i i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-U00 Nationwide Coserage ikn3 Ete46
l 28729.0 BRT 4921 l
I a negative is in good or not is a separate point.
2 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
i 3
Q Thal hypothetical and coming back to the real, I
1 4
4 what's your reaction to this computer printout?
I
~'
5 A
Well, taken literally at face value it says we 6
made water.
7 Q
Right.
I 8
A We are not in the habit of generating water 2n i
9 reactor plants, at least not in these quantities.
)
10 So, I think that's the reason I insisted before j
11 that it is an indicator of leakage as opposed to a 12 measurement of leakage.
l i
l 13 Q
I would like to explore that a little bit.
The f!
14 gross leak ra te shows minus a gallon - call il 1.6.
a j
15 If you look up at the strip chart record for this l
16 test, which is two pages following, the strip chart record i
17 for the makeup Lank level, you can see that the makeup tank i
18 level at the beginning of the test is lower than the makeup t
i l
19 tank level at the end of the test, which corresponds to the j
t 20 plant making water.
But if you look at the Cact that the I
l l
21 water leve] went down in the~ middle of the test and then went I
22 back up again in a manner very characteristic of a feed and i
23 bleed operat2on, isn't it fair to conclude that in the middle j
i 24 of this test there was a feed and bleed that completely
{
25 I invalidated the test?
O l
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage RG3346646 L
~. ~ - -
J
J
)
20729.0 BRT 4922 1
A In fac t the feed and bleed should not invalidate 2
the test.
This test is run as a point function, not a path 3
function over the course of the hour.
It looks at da ta at 4
the start of the hour and it looks at data at. the end of the S
hour.
And IE he added water and accounted for it in his l'eak 6
rate it. should not make any dif.ference to the number 7
generated.
j i
8 Q
Yes.
9 A
So there's no reason why the feed and bleed should 10 invalidate the test.
i 11 Q
Well, is there any indicat. ion that the operator 1
2 12 told the computer that he had added water?
j O
23
^
o"t ""
14 Q
Well, I invite your attention t.o the first page we 1
15 were looking at.
16 A
The listing of entries, I guess the one that says 17
" enter operator-caused changes from DS-4," whatever thal is, 18 must be t.h e one that refers to water additions or 19 subtractions from the system.
)
20 Q
The record will support the correctness of your 21 statement.
22 A
That was an assumption on my part.
I'm not that 23 familiar with this procedure.
And apparently he entered a 24 zero there when in fact he entered some 1940 gallons or
{
25 something according to this note on the other page.
O i
i i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide roserage 8043346M6
..--._..-._._.--_.__...._,,__.____,..._..-._..__.__,__,.._..I
28729.0 BRT 4923 O
1 Q
And then the computer goes on to printout a big 2
n e g a t.i v e ntuaber a nd it doesn't. cause him to say:
Oh, maybe 1 3
made a mistake.
This one is a mystery lo me.
4 If I try to visualize an individual standing at.
5l the computer al the end of the tes t, the computer asking 4
6 him:
Did you add water?
lie says no.
And then very shortly 7
thereafter the computer prints out this piece of paper which 8
he tears off and signs that say:. t.he gross leak rate was a 9i big negative number and he wasn't Laught to question it.
10 A
I don't know if he was taught to question i L or 11 not, sir 12 C
W e l.1, he didn't.
So if he didn't quest. ion it, 13 Lhen a minimum of Lraining wasn'L sufCicienL.
It didn'L 14 serve i Ls purpose.
15 A
Right.
16 Q
Iiut, would you think it would be necessary to train 17 somebody that making water isn' L wha L goes on in a nuclear 10 power plant?
19 A
I don't know that the operator would recognize 20 j that minus sign as a fact tha t we were making wa ter.
21 Q
Well, I wish I could disagree with you but I 22 f can't.
23 What I'm trying to get at was I agreed with you -
24 I agree with your notion that these leak rates, while not I
'l 25 '
cor:eivably, might not be perfectly accurate but might. be
- O i
i I
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347-37111 Nationwide Coserage
- U.33MM6
.... - -, -, - - - _ - -, -. -., ~ _,,,
. - - - -, - - -,.. - -, - - - -.. ~.. - __-.-- _ _ _ m,.. _.---__.-._... _
28729.0 BRT 4924 1
indicative, but given the lack of any quality controi., any 2
perception -- to me this is just blatant nonsense, that. the 3
leak rate -- the gross leak rate is minus a gallon, 1.6 4
gallons.
5 Given that, now I again to quest. ion whether or not 6
these leak rales and survei1 lance les L3 were indicative.
Do d
7 you follow me?
8 A
Yes, sir.
9 Q
If
- t. hey were done reasonably well, blatant things 10 like adding water and forgetting to tell the computer -
11
- which, A,
the procedure says don't do it; but, li, if you have 12 to, be careful -- just failed to comply with the procedure to 13 produce a spuriously false negative number.
And it got 14 Ciled.
It got approved.
Tha t 's what I have for several 15 weeks been trying to understand, this absolute Jackadaisical 16 attitude.
17 Can you see my problem, Mr. Playd?
I can see the 18 commonsense appeal that, yes, the leak rates weren't exactly 19 accurate but they were useful.
So I look at the evidence and 20 l I can see that minus
.35, presuming it the opera tor had put 21 in the amount of water that he added, the computer program 22 might have given it some credible results which might have 23 been indica tive, but you see, you have this problem:
There I
24 are too many cases where they were minus 6 gallons per 25 minute, filed, approved by the foreman.
So that I have ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2te-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
l i
28729.0 BRT 4925 l
1 trouble with your generalization tha t this leak rate test was 2
useful as an i ndica t or of the general level.
l 3
So is it perhaps that you thought it was but you i
4 never had a chance to look at these leak rate results to see 5l their true nature?
i i
6 A
I think that's a f air characterization.
i 7
Q Thaak you:
l
]
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let's take a coffee break and come l
9 back.
l 10 (Recess.)
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
I would li ke to have Mr. Floyd look 1
12 at a particular segment of Mr. Haverkamp's prepared 13 testimony.
14 MR. MC URIDE:
I have i t, Judge.
15 JUDGE KELLEY:
What I'm looking at in pa rticular 1
)
16 is pages 4 and 5, beginning at the bot. tom of 4 and the top of l
17 5.
It's Q and A number 7 in the prepared testimony.
Perhaps I
18 Mr. Floyd can take a moment just to read that.
It's really 1
l 19 short.
1 20 MR. MC BRIDE:
I was just reviewing this.quickly 21 to make sure this was not a portion of Mr. Haverkamp's i
22 l testimony that he had corrected and I don't believe it is.
23 l JUDGE KELLEY:
There's no such indica:lon on my i
]
24 copy.
1 i
25 DY JUDGE KELLEY:
)@
I i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
{
28729.0 BRT 4926 1
Q Again, my concern is really with quesLion and l
2 answer number 7, beginning at the bottom of 4 and going three 3
quarters of the way'down page 5.
If you want to look at
}
4 something e]se for context, that Q and A talks about 4
S Mr. Elaverkamp's recollection of some of the events of the 6 !
18th of. October and specifically describes _a discussion which 4
7 Mr. llaverkamp recalls as having occurred in Mr. Seelinger's j
8 trailer, between himself, Mr. Seelinger and for part of the i
t 9
time, Mr. Floyd.
10 And then, Mr. Floyd, Mr. Haverkamp attributes to l
11 you an interpretation of the 72-hour tech spec requirement 1
12 which, I believe, is substantia]Iy similar to the h
13 interpretation I was describing some time back.
I won't 14 characterize beyond that, i
15 Let me ask you if, one, do you recall this 16 conversation?
i 17 A
No, sir.
18 Q
Reading the i nterpreta tion of the tech spec I
j 19 attributed to you in that portion of Mr. Ilave rka m p 's.
4 20 testimony - how do you react to that?
Do you think that's a
21 an accurate description of what you would have said at the i
i 22 time?
1 23 A
I don't know what I would have said at the time, 24 sir.
1 25 Q
Do you have any reason to think that a
4 4
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I mm_m c_,
J n,, - -.,,,.--,.,,-.-
n,-,,.
,w rn
.---,-,,,,-~,n.a.-,---,,---,-.--.----w----,---m-~--------~~,-,w~---,~---*~,n,
I 28729.0 BRT 4927 l
t 1
Mr. Ilaverkamp's recollection would be incorrect?
i l
2 A
No, sir.
3 Q
Do you know Mr. llaverkamp personally?
Did you 1
4 know him at the time?
i 5
A Yes, sir.
6 Q
ile wa s someone you had done business with over a j
7 period of time?
8 A
Yes, sir.
9 Q
So there's no question about identity here?
i l
10 Everybody knew everybody else?
a i
11 A
Yes.
i 12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
There is one other section 13 of record that I would 1ike Mr. Floyd to look.aL, but I i
14 think, Mr. McBride, I can give you a citation and describe it 15 rather than take the time now to read it.
Yes terday - the 16 c i ta ti on I would give you would be transcript 4 745, beginning l
17 there and running.through 4756.
And however Ear _back and I
18 forth you want to read in addition, but that's kind of the l
19' guts of it.
i l
20 l'm not going to ask -
.we are not going to be 1
21 around here much more this afternoon.
I was going to give 22 you that as a homework assignment' if you will, rather than 23 stop everything now to have it read.
Yes?
24 MR. MC HHIDE:
It may not be necessary because I 25 believe during this portion of Mr. Seelinger's testimony
, O i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3NU Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
_ _ _.. _ _.. _ _.,...__-.__._.____.._i
i 28729.0 BRT 4928 1
Mr. Floyd was in the room.
He was here for a good bit of 1
yesterday but not for the entire day.
')
l l
3 JUDGE KELLEY:
There is another segment there f
4 which I didn ' t - wasn ' t able quickly to look up.
Maybe you
)
5 can help me, Mr. McBride.
It probably comes a little at?ter 6'
that.
But i t rela tes to a question, I think Judge Carpenter i
i 7
put to Mr. Seelinger:
Could he give examples of times when i
i 8
he and Mr. Floyd disagreed on issues-of some' significance and l
i I
l 9
Mr. Seelinger's response was to give a couple of examples:
10 one in which his viewpoint prevailed and another in which 3
l j
11 Mr. Floyd's viewpoint prevailed.
Do you know what I mean?
)
f 1
12 MR. MC HRIDE:
I do indeed, and-I have the 1
l 13 transcript reference for you, it's transcript reference 4464 14 to 65.
I i
15 MR. GEPHART:
We discovered it today.
l j
16 MR. MC BRIDE:
And Mr. Floyd heard i t, I believe.
l l
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, why don't we go ahead, since i
i i
i 18 that's relatively fresh in your mind.
Let me just paraphrase i
i 19 i t, to my recol.lection and then I'll ask you to comment, j
i:
i
{
20 Mr. Floyd.
,i
)
i
.l 21 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
l l
j 22 Q
Mr. Seelinger referred to a time, I.think he said 1
I 23 two, 2-1/2 weeks prior to October '78 when the question of I
i
}
24 interpreting this tech spec arose.
Someone there, j
25 unspecified, shi f L supervisor, I believe - or thought O
l V
l
\\
i l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I I
m m c _,.
i t
~ - - -. -. -
i 28729.0 BRT 4929 f
v 1
perhaps to be by Mr. Seelinger -- in response to Seelinger's 1
2 suggestion aboul reading the t.ech spec to mean " required 3
action statement whenever your test was over a gallon a 4
4 minute," said, rough paraphrase:
Well, we'd have to shut
{
S down Unit 1.
l i
6 Then Seelinger goes on in his description -- and I i
7 believe you said you were jus t about to go into a meeLing of 8
some sort, in which you were present -- and then some 9
discussion of L'h i s in terpreta tion ques t. ion ensued -- and I'm i
4 10 really encapsulating here and you can disagree or qualify or
(
11 whaLever -- but my reading of the transcript, iL doesn't come 12 out with crystal c]arity, but t.he thrust of the See]inger 13 remarks seem to be tha t the interpretation whereby you cnly i
14 needed one good test every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> and you could just keep i
15 on running tests, you kept them on the desk, you didn't throw 16 them away but you kept on running tests until you got a good 1
17 one, was acceptable and was somolhing that was acceptable and j
18 meant that you didn't have to go into the action statement 19 just because seme lest showing excessive amounts was l
20 generated during the 72-hour period.
)
21 And Seelinger indicated that you favored - that i
22 view; he was unhappy with that view, but. that for a period of f
1 1
j 23 i time there, that view was the one that was adopted.
t i,
24 Now that may not be a terribly fair quick summary I
25 but that's my recollection and that's what is in my mind,
.f O
i l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M646
~. -.
i i.
i' 20729.0 BRT 4930
(~/
\\
h
\\..
1
- anyway, i
i 2
Could you comment on that?
Your recollections I
)
)
3 about it?
Whether iL seems right or wrong to you?
\\
l 4
A My recollections of that conversation are zero.
l l
5 However, I don' t disagree wi th anything that Mr. Seelinger i
i 6
put in the record yesterday.
l i
7 There is a fine delail here tha L we migh t want to 8
try to clear up on the record at this point.
I still feel I 9
was of the opinion tha t, unless the leuk rate was invalidated j
l 10 for cause, you still went into the action statement.
11 Now, the crux of the matter seems to lie, looking 12 historically at some of these leak rates, that. people were t
13 not invalidating for cause but they were accumulating these 14 things on a pile for some dumb reason, and I don't think that 4
i 1
15 that came out clear yesterday, a t any point -- or even today 1
16 so far today, that there is a big distinction in my mind, if 17 the leak rate is invalidated for cause, thal's great.
IL's a 18 worthless piece of paper.
We made an errer in it.
We throw l
19 it away.
It's invalid.
j 1
20 But if I have a piece of paper that I think is i
21 valid and it says 1.2 gallons per minute, I start a four-hour
.22 time clock and six hours later I shut the reactor down.
23 Q
Well, my understanding though, what Seelinger had 1
1 24 to say, if that were so, you and he never would have had a 25 disagreemenL.
I understand whaL you just stated to be the i
f l
?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m-+ c-
28729.0 BRT 4931 (D
v 1
marching order that came out of the LER, supposedly.
2 Now, the CRos never got that message, never mind 3
about that.
But the Haverkamp reading, if you will, that's 4
what that is.
And I thought that Seelinger was saying that 5 'E Floyd was saying:
Just keep turning the crank, as long as 6
you get one every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
Not so?
7 A
I don't know wha t Jim said.
I don't remember his 8
words that well.
But it didn't impress me that way at 1.h e 9
time I heard it.
10 Q
Then I don't know what this discussion is about.
11 A
My statement is that in order to meet the tech 12 spec you have to have one good one every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
13 Q
Yes.
14 A
Now, when you start muddying up the waters --
i 15 that's just a statement of fact, that's pretty clear and 16 straightforward.
Now when you start muddying up the water 17 with " bad" leak rates.
The word " bad" is very awkward and I l
18 used it in prepared testimony I submitted here today and I'm 19 sorry I did it.
l
]
20 Q
1,e t ' s pause and define it.
In my mind and the 21 jargon we used here means a test tha t shows a result of more 22 l than 1 ga11on a mi tutte.
l 23 A
That's not true.
I mean it shouldn't be true.
i 24 Q
That's the way we use it here, good, bad or 25 indifferent.
That's in fact what we have done.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 1100-336 4 646
l 20729.0 BRT 4932 1
A All right.
2 Q
And when we say " good" leak rates, with the 3
inflection in our voice, we nean less than 1 gallon a minute?
4 A
That's not the way my mind approaches the problem.
i 5
Q Okay.
6 A
If a leak rate is valid, no matter what its 7
numbers are, if it can't be invalidated for cause it's then a 8
valid leak rat.s and you enter the action statement.
9 Q
Well, I accept that that's your reccllection today 10 as you wish to s t a t.e it but if that's -- then I don't 11 unders tand why you and Seelinger ever would have had a 12 disagreement.
I thought he was championing that point of 13 view and you were opposed to it.
That'r what I heard.
14 That's not your understanding?
15 MR. MC BRIDE:
Can I give you a transcript 16 reference in Mr. Seelinger's testimony yesterday that may 17 help you in addition to the one that we've described?
18 JUDGE KMLLEY:
Sure.
19 MR. MC BRIDE:
The earlier reference in his 20 testimony, which we came back to in the Staff's follow-up 21 questions which was what you referred to earlier and I gave 22 you the 1.ranscript cite 4764 to 65; earlier in the day he 23 testified at transcript 4671, and I'll be happy.to read this 24 for you if you Jike because I think it wil] help you.
25 JUDGE KELLEY:
Go ahead.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Natiortwide Coverage 800 336-6646
~,
~ -_.
28729.0 BRT 4933 1
MR. MC BRIDR:
I won't read the whole answer but 2
he was referring to the two times when he and Mr. Floyd 3
disagreed and they worked things out.
I'11 begin with that 4
as the antecedent.
5 "Two I do specifically remember.
One was a POD, 6
which stood for a Plat) of the Day meeting, which shortly 7
followed Mr. Haverkamp bri ngi ng this matter to my attention i
8 or bringing his question as to how it was to be interpreted 9-in our discussions.
I brought t.his up in a Plan of the Day 10 meeting.
I brought it up in the context of, the best of my 11 recollection, of the shift supervisor.
I believe Mr. F3oyd 12 was preseilt 11) the meeting.
And the context of my remarks 13 were:
You do understand that once you have begun a leak 14 rate, you are in s teady s tate opera tion and have begun a leak 15 rate test that if the results should come out and not meet 16 the acceptance criteria of I ga lloit per miittito uniden tified 17 leakage that you must enter a t the act. ion statement."
18 I'm still struggling to find it and I can find 19 here in a minute or two I think, another description of the 20 earlier meeting.
The earlier meeting was about the questioni 21 of whether nonsteady state could invalidate the test.
And 22 that was the distinction that I think you are having some i
23 difficulty in recalling from Mr. See]inger's test.imony f
24 yesLerday.
25 What he said was tital he went into t.he meeti ng ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37R)
Nanonwide Coverage 800-33M646
I t
28729.0 f
BRT 4934
!O l
I with an initial in terpre ta tion that if the number was over 1 l
2 you were into the action statement and the interpretation i
j 3
that they came to was that you could invalidate a test if it 1
l 4
was not in steady state.
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
Yes, and then we beat that ohe 1
6 around the bush a while and, lo and behold, not in steady 7
s ta te becomes an excuse to throw out. anything over 1 gallon.
4 l
j 8
That's my recollection.
j 9
MR. MC BRIDE:
Actually what he testified was that i
10 they would have retained them.
i 11 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
I know what you are 12 referring to.
I don't think it helps me.
I I
13 HY JUDGE KELLEY:
l 14 Q
I thought there was a disagreement at the time.
15 Now it is kind of hard to fi nd one.
Apparently everybody 1
16 thinks, Mr. Floyd, Mr. Seelinger - everybody bu t the CRos; 17 they didn't think that - thinks that you are into the act. ion i
18 statement unless you can invalida te a test on some technical 19 ground; right?
20 A
Yes, sir.
That's why I published my memo, the t
I l
21 '
CRos weren'L responding the way I thought they should have i
22 been responding.
I j
23 Q
Let's look at your memo.
24 MR. MC DRIDE:
With the X or without the X?
i l
l 25 JUDGE KELLEY:
Did you say with the X or without j O i
i ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37m Nationwide Coverage 80fk3346M6
i 28729.0 BRT 4935 j
1 the X?
2 MH. MC BRIDE:
I said with the X or without the 3
X?
4 JUDGU KELLEY:
It doesn't matter, does it?
5 MR. MC BRIDE:
There's one other difforence, Judge 6
Kelley, tab 34 with the addition of the X it has a 55 instead I
7 of 54 and it changes the first 5 to an 8.
l 8
JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
1 9
BY JUDGE KELLEY:
i j
10 0
Mr. Floyd memo, October 20, 1978, attached to t.h e 11 letter to the Commission under tab 37 in the Stier report.
,i j
12 Would you jusi comment briefly, Mr. F]oyd, on the i
13 genesis, purpose of this document?
(
14 A
All the way back in December of '77 I published a i
]4 j
15 memorandum, operations memorandum over my name that told the i
)
16 operators to believe his instruments, unless he had just i
17 calls to disbelieve them.
i i
18 When I found Mr. Fels reprogramming the computer l
19 to round off, I felt he was forcing the computer to lie to
}
j 20 the operaLors and so I wrote this memorandum to tell the j
21 operators that the computer was going to be lying to them by i
22 rounding off numbers.
And to the second paragraph, to 1
1
)
23 ins titute a procedure which I thought was in long-standing, 24 to reemphasize that, and to reemphasize the leak list that I i
25 thought the shifL supervisors would have carried over from O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6 4
>---------.-,v----..~.-.--*m---r------m-------
-w---
28729.0 BRT 4936 1
what happened in Unit 1 to Unit 2.
s 2
So I directed this to the shill supervisors and to 3
the shift Coremen so that the shift foremen would start 4
keeping this list of leak.
I had three purposes, so I ran S
three paragraphs.
6 MR. MC BRIDE:
Judge Kelley, the December 1977 7
memorandum tha t Mr. Floyd refers to you will find at tab 35 8
of the same volume of the Stier report.
9 OY JUDGE KELLEY:
10 Q
Referring to paragraph 1,
the one that talks about 11 rounding off, your use of the term " lying," the computer 12 would be lying, am I to infer from your choice of words that 13 you were not in favor of the decision to round off?
14 A
- Yes,
<t i r.
I had faith that the NHC would correct 15 that error.
So I was able to sit on that for a day or-two.
16 And when I didn't get it rescinded overnight or in two days, 17 I put out the memo.
I 18 0
Your paragraph 12 is the one of principal 1
19 interest.
I take it that it is this paragraph that was l
l 20 intended io convey the correct interpretation of the tech l
l 21 spec and the need to move towards shutdown in the event of a l
22 test result over 1 gallon?
23 A
Yes, sir.
24 Q
And, do I understand you correctly to say that I
25 paragraph 2, in your mind reflected merely a continuation of O
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336 4 646 6
_ _. ~ _
)
i, I
28729.0 i
BRT 4937 t
i 1
what you thought the practice had been all along?
2 A
Yea, sir.
3 Q
To put it another way, the interpretation that i
i I
4 emerged from the Haverkamp LER incident was that in your mind j
5 simply a restatement of the way things had always been?
6 A
I don't know tha t I can think now of all the 7
ramifications of that LER.
But in relationship to the 8
four-hour time clock it certainly is a more conservative 9
position than we had been taking.
10 Q
So it was a change in practice?
.I 11 A
It was meant to be a change in practice.
12 Q
Well, then, I'm not sure.
I thought we just 13 established that you thought that there was nothing new in 14 paragraph 2 that was a res ta tement of your long-held view?
1, 15 A
It was.
But -- unti] I looked at these three 16 pieces of paper in the morning and then went and checked the i
t 17 control room operators log and he hadn't started a time clock i
i 18 at S:12 or whatever -- in the morning.
19 Q
Do I undersLand that you were under the
{
I 20 impression, at least, at that time, that the substance of j
21 what is now paragraph 2 had always been what you ought to i
22 do?
But that you now see or then saw by looking at some 1
}
23 tests that they had not in fact been doing that so 1. hot the 24 practice might have been different from your impression?
A Yes, sir.
25 l r
O
, o 1
?
J
.i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80 4 336-6646
- - ~
--.-_.--_.__,-,____.___._____.~.___..__..._,____.._____....,___J
_3
{
28729.0 3
BRT 4938 1
Q What troubles me, frankly, abou t pa ragraph 2 is, 1
2 if I'm to understand it as an attempt to clari f y ma t ters, i f.
(
3 I'm to understand it as a change in what the practice -- at i
4 least by some people -- appears to have been on a rather 5
complex matter, as witness our discussion here this afternoon-6 and trying to get straight just what we mean by going into 7
the action s tatement and invalidating tests and all the rest, I
8 it is pretty complicated.
What troubles me.is whether, if 9
that single sentence lu meant to do service as an instruction 10 to supervisors, foremen and CRos, I question whether it would 11 do that.
12 Did you think that, having said paragraph 2, that 13 tha t would do it?
Everybody would read this and unders tand 14 it?
15 A
It's fairly clear to me, readi ng paragra ph 2, that l
16 if you get a number like 2 or greater out of the computer you 17 s tart a four-hour time clock now.
You don't wait.
And you 18 s ta rt the time clock at the time the final data was taken, s
19 unequivocal words.
I 20 It does not go into invalidati ng, bad'versus good; i
s 21 it is clearcut, concise, and I think, accurate.
l 22 O
Well, then I'm confused again.
Maybe you can 23 clarity this for me.
r.
24 This doesn't, to be sure, refer to invalidating I
25 tests.
TL seems to say literally on its face:
If that oo I
f ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37m Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
[ -
~
. _.. ~.-.. _.--. _, _.., _ _..., _, _ _ _ _. _. _ ___ _ _
l 1
28729.0 BRT 4939
!O t
1 computer tells you anything over - here it is 2 because of i
2 the round-off -- anything over the tech spec limit, bingo, 3
you are into the four-hour time clock; right?
i 4
A Yes, sir.
5 Q
No ifs, ands or buts?
6 A
Yes, sir.
7 Q
Did you mean that?
I 8
A No, sir.
1 9
Q Then how should it have been qualified?
10 A
Well, first of all the man uses a procedure.
The 11 procedure tells him what to do if he gets a number over 2 1
}
12 now, in this instance.
i i
13 Q
Right.
)
14 A
And that procedure is not superseded by this i
15 memorandum.
This is a complement to that procedure.
16 Q
Okay.
17 A
Nor do these memorandums ever invalidate technical i'
18 spec if ica tions.
They are supplements to and not in place i
i 19 of.
So I haven't relieved the man of the responsibility of 20 using tne procedure and using the procedure properly, which 21 is where you get into invalidation.
22 Q
To me, in my mind that's if not most of the e
23 problem, a big part of it.
What kind of latitude have I got t
i 24 to invalidate under the procedure 2301-D-3, whatever it is, 25 and under this memorandum of yours which supplements it?
If i
i i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide roserage 80(k336-646
i l
2 6
28729.0 BRT 4940 l
,lO 1
I read this literally, I would say, well, from now on if it f
2 says anythino over a gallon, into the four hours I go, i
i 3
immediately.
i 4
And, for example, let's suppose that I show the
(
5 test is invalid and I can prove it.
I miscalculated.
Put in i
j 6
200 gallons and wrote 500; some perfectly obvious basis for 3
7 invalidating tests.
Am I supposed to disregard that and go 8
into the four-hour time clock?
l 9
A No, sir.
4 1
10 Q
But it doesn't say that.
You say this memo is 11 clear on its face.
The sentence is clear.
i 12 A
I think it is in conjunction with the procedure.
13 Q
So, for one thing I'm supposed to understand I can j
14 still invalidate tests on, I suppose, various bases l
l 15 notwithstanding the message in this memorandum?
i l
16 A
That's true.
I
)
17 Q
How is he supposed to know tha t?
18 A
Ile*s worked with that procedure for a year.
He 19 should know what's in that procedure.
That procedure is i
)
20 signed by the plant superintendent.
This one is signed by i
i 21 the supervisor of operati.ons.
i i
22 If there's a conflict the procedure will win based i
l 23 on the authority of'the signee.
f i
j 24 Q
In this context, and again I mean, wi tness the j
I l
95 problems we are having here this afternoon just understanding
.! O 1'
i i
}
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
}
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
a 28729.0
)O BRT 4941 ii U l
1 each other with a fair -- you know, weeks of hearings on this t
2 subject, a lot of time and thought.
i 3
Did you ever consider calling a meeting of ali l
4 your CRos and foremen and supervisors and just laying this 4
I
/
5 out for them in very simple English, giving them some 6_
examples so that they would know what to do?
7 A
IL is impossible to cal 1 a meeting of~ thal group 1
8 of people because of the cont.inuing shift work.
I 9
Q Well, why don't you meet with every shiCL?
I l
10 A
If it had to be'done immediately we would meet i
11
.with every shift, I would go to the plant hefore 6:00 in the
]
i 12 morning to talk to the off-going shift at midnight.
You j
13 can't do il en masse but il can be gotten around in 24 14 hours1.62037e-4 days <br />0.00389 hours <br />2.314815e-5 weeks <br />5.327e-6 months <br />.
15 The other al ternative was put i t in the training i
16 program and cover it in the next six weeks if iL waan'L 17 pressing in time.
I 18 Q
Well, was that done?
19,
A Not to my knowledge; neither of those actions were I
20 taken.
21 Q
The t raining program is for the CHos; correct?
l 22 j A
And the foremen and the supervisors and myself.
I i
23 l Q
I-said to Mr. Seelinger yesterday, I find
\\
l I
24 paragraph 2 of your memo -- sure I think I know what it means you some i uestions to be sure.
I 25 now, although I had to ask l
1 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347 3700 Nationwide Cecrage 804 336-6646 iL
~ _.._ -...-__ _ _ _ _ - _ _ -- -,_._ _ _
w
28729.0 BRT 4942 p
1 find it cryptic; I find it not very i n f orma tive.
2 Particularly if we can't even establish clearly whether this 3
was a change in the way business was done or whether it was 4
Lhe same procedure that had pertained all along.
Even that.
5 is unclear.
9 6
It struck me that if you wanted to get this across 7
in writing, it probably would have Laken 3-or 400 words, a L
8 page or two.
Simple example everybody can understand.
9 The f act of the matter is t.h i s record shows that 10 most of the CRos that worked tor you didn't have the foggiest i
11 idea what this meant.
12 A
Yes, sir.
13 Q
They never got the message and they never 14 remembered looking at it; even though.they initialed, in the 15 LER which says somewhat the'same thing buried in one sentence 16 towards the end of the narrative, it just never got through.
1.7 As far as I can tell.
18 I mean, do you think you disagree with that?
19 A
No, sir.
20 MR. MC HRIDE:
Judge Kelley, I gave you an l
21 erroneous transcript reference earlier.
The earlier 22 discussion in Mr. Seelinger's testimony about the matter to 23 which you had some ques tions a few minutes ago is a long 24 answer that begias at transcript 4745 to transcri pt 4747.
25 That may help you.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 80fk336 6646
_. _ _ _ _. ~ _ _. _ _ _... _ _._.. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _. _ _ _.. _.. _ _ _ _ _ _. _.. _ _.. _ _ _
i 28729.0 1
BRT 4943 i O 1
BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
i j
2 Q
Mr. Floyd, this operations memorandum you were 3
just talking to Judge Kelley about, did you issue a lot of 4
those?
l 5
A This appears to be the 19th one that was issued in I
6
'78.
i 7
Q Do you recall whether they just got stuck in the
]
{
8 same reading book with everything else or whether there was j
9 something separa te, some separate treatment of theue?
I 10 A
There was a separate tolder on operaLions i
11 memorandum.
l l
l 12 Q
In your mind should that have been a flag tha t i
13 this wasn't exactly like everything else tha t went in the 14 reading book'>
1 1
f 15 A
I think in my mind the ops memos were more 16 important to be read by the-on-coming CRO, than the reading i
j 17 book.
I think the shift relief and log entry procedures I
1 18 required him to read the ops memo book upon taking the shifL.
i 19 Q
I see.
So it was very definite, keep current with 1
l 20 whaL's in thal book?
21 A
Yes, sir.
i 22 Q
So at least to that.-extent this should have stuck t
23 out in their minds?
i 24 A
I would have hoped so.
l 25 Q
Well, we are still trying to understand why it was i @
a k
i l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
(
202-347-37(O Nationwide Cmcrage -
8(n3364M6 i
l 28729.0 t
BRT 4944 lO f
1 Business as usual in spi te of this.
I'm trying 1.o get this 4
i i
2 feeling whether it just didn't rise above the general flow of 3
paper - -- a nd apparen tly it did; is that correcL?
It was a l
4 distinctly different piece of paper?
l 5
A It was an ops memo.
l l
6 Q
But in trying to learn, I don't know whether t.he i
7 opu memo just went in with the flood of everything else or j
8 you ar e Le]. ling me n o t.')
9 A
No.
10 Q
It should have st.uck out?
j 11 A
Yes, sir.
12 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you.
13 JUDGE KELLEY:
We are coming up on quitting Lime.
14 This is a good enough place, I think.
We are goi ng to I
15 adjourn for the afternoon and pick up with Mr. Ployd in the 16 morning.
I 17 We kind of Jean toward 9:00 instead of 8:30.
r 18 Anybody have any problems with tha t?
I don ' t think it will
)
19 compromise our getting things done.
All right?
9:00 1
20,
Lomorrow morning.
i i
21 j (Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m..,
the hearing was 22 ad j o'; r ned, lo reconvene al 9:00 a.m.,
November 5, 1986.)
l 23 i
24 4
r j
25 i O I
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
--. _.. --. _._.. -. -,.... -_ -- -- _ _ _._,-34 7 3 700- -. _ _ -, -. _ _. -... _ _. _.... _... -.,.
- _, ~.. _,.
202 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6646
r CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER O
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION l
l l
l a
DOCKET NO.:
LRP PLACE:
BETHESDA, MARYLAND DATE:
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this-is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
1 (sigt) te e
(TYPED JOEIi4 REITNER Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation
\\
-