ML20237G918
| ML20237G918 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 09/08/1986 |
| From: | Stier E GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., STIER, E.H. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| LRP-A-001A, LRP-A-1A, NUDOCS 8708140254 | |
| Download: ML20237G918 (780) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- /b y. 6 s auge a,, , . ,
'87 AUG 11 A8 :47 g r s. >
vtd r , x .,
{:oi,k-TMI-2 I REACTOR COOLANT I INVENTORY BALANCE TESTING NUCLEAR REGULATORT COMMISSION 2N[ Offict Exh. No.
~
,ge, g Y/f4/
tDEMittlED kN l
g; ,g / Ritt1VED - - -
g,,_ . REJECit0 C0"t's Off' - Q,g ((o centractne.
- 7 j ~
other Reporter
/
1 e
l
( 8708140D54 060908 i PDR ADOCK 05000320 G PDR j
J.
t TMI-2 REACT 0R C00LANT I N V E 14 T. O R Y BALANCE TESTING PREPARED FOR GPU NUCLEAR CORP.
BY EDWIN H. STIER INVESTIGATIVE STAFF:
FREDERICK P. DE VESA ROBERT T. WINTER SEPTEMBER 5, 1985 VOLUME VI (G)
WITNESS STATEMENTS:
Hoyt (Cont'd) - Manoskey
l l
i l
Il0 Y T , KENNETH 2/26/85 Stier Investigation
}
IN RE: TMI II LEAK llATE TEST PRACTICES
, ) :
DEPOSITION OF KENNETH R. IIOYT Verbatim report of deposition held at Trailer 110B, Three Mile Island, Middletown, Pennsylvania, on Tuesday, February 26, 1965
.10:00 a.m.
)
APPEARANCES:
EDWIN 11. STIER, EFUUIRE 333 Littleton Road Suite 102 Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 BY: FREDERICK P. DeVESA, ESQUIRE For - GPU Nu,: lear KILLIAN & GEPHART 216-218 Pine Street Post Office Box E86 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 BY: JANE G. PENNY, ESQUIRE For - Kenneth R. Hoyt CAPITAL CilY REPCX? TING SEfMCE CQAVER U f EDFRAL SOJARE STATKJi -
HAWlSBtJ?G PA 17108 ni tru vic m w u
_____________.__._____._o_____
2 4-1 .
ImNNETH R. HOYT, having been duly sworn, was called l an a witnens and testif.ied I
l' l an follows:
1-1 MD. PENNY: M I' . DeVesa, we'd be very grate-ful if we could clatify two m i n t.a k e n , that are on Mr. Hoyt.'s 5 t'l}rna ry 14, 19f:'i, 't i anner ipt .
'I h e firat ant;wer ihat. we have t.o clarjfy
- 11. .explanned on paqrt: fourtcen, fifteen, sixteen, and seven--
Leeli.in that i rannet ipt.
And you had asked Mr. licyt the question, 1
whether he could accurat ely t ell, whether he was operating I
t he plant at lenn t han one gallon per minut o unidentified i
l ea P a <j e . j l
Mr. Heyt., you had answered, yes, sir, to Mr.
linVe n a . You wsre able '
- t. o do so. Now, that is inaccurate,(;r i
! }
'it not;?
YllH WITNEM: Yes. I guess maybe I wasn't following his (pient ion uhen he naid accurately. My fault was that w were a)ound the one o.p.m., that i kept telling you I
l l._ a bou t. , you knpw. J L - t lie bal .1 park , my es t.imate that. we'were operat3pq sa f r l y'. had~fhat. was my fault, when you naid one i
< 1. p . m . arnl 2. did not Im y in.when you said accurately, Do I'd likn to clari'y that I, in no way implied, that we were l T l I
}
L i
<^'ApliAl rity lyr Gilt y^', cf fMrr l l J. ll1
- rp ll1,!i t< ; )/ l A ! W *'
) p L1, r ,l ti I '. . 1. i i : c' 11,1
3
')
accurately, precisely at that one g.p.m. mark. It was my ballpark estimate.that we were operating near that number.
MS. PENNY: And the second area we would like to clarify are those answers expressed on pages thirty-seven, thirty-eight, forty-five, fifty-three, fifty-four, fif ty--f ive and maybe one or two others that I've missed, where Mr. Iloy t was ar,ked to ntate, how many I,eak Dates he believed he retained.
Ile was anked to give an estimate of the porcentage he ret ailied . Ile indicated that he probably filed in the neighbot hood of 'tevent y 1 o nevant y-five percent .
Now fir. ll o y t , would you clarify that answer and explain why you want. to clatify it?
Tile WITNESS: Since the questioning, I took Lime to sit down atid ihink about the number of tiines I was on the shift., t.he number of I.eak Rates that you told me I had approved, and the nnmher of I,eak Rates that I should have had run in my shifts and my recollection of how many good onen and bad ones that I'd seen. And I would like to change that n uinbe r t.o put .i t. mor e in perspective of approximately fifty- j fif1.y 1atto on that. l I
DIRECT EXAMINATION i
l HY MH. l ic VE!;7, :
0 11'n your bont recollection at thin pojnt.,
CAPIIAL Cl!Y 7BOMING SUNIG t j /, // ! , l ll ! d ' / t 'J j I/J i ,l/ IP J l 6 p l l . f Pl f 8 l '/ ' ' lt e
4 that. you wouldl have approved for filing approximately half of i he Leak Rat e Test s that were brought to your attention?
A Yes, s.ir.
O Arul you thirik that you may have either din-cardra yourneIi or autborized Ihe discarding of a ppr ox i ma t.e l y 1
Iho of hot half of tho I,o a k Hate Ten t n , t. hat you might have i
i norn? '
A Yes, nir .
U Of t hone lht] f that. you authorj zed the d.in-fraidingof, can you qive mn some ent-imate of approximately h<ra many of Ihoue would have been t.ent tenults in excenn of F
t ,ne goilon per minute?
A Of t.he enen discarded?
O Yen.
A They were all more than one. c i
O !Jow , if I can pursue your clarification a
] i i t.] n bi t , 1:e n , what f act or a caused you to decide, which I ent would be la pt and which tentn would be thrown away?
1
{ A hfe l l , the first thing would have been, if it was an unsatisfactory tent., where .it was greater than one g.p.m. on t. b e p1 i n t.ou t , that. would, how you want to say, clasn' -
fy it an on unnat.inIactuty 1.oth Ita t e. I 1. would havo benn dir-l l
l carded 11 t.be plant. wan looked at and felt that the Leak P. ate CAPITAL CITY f?finp1lNr, SFrulCF t ovn p u ulu pta a wor MMra J
l t/J.4.T.js o , w 1/1r W
5
)
was an invalid Leak Rate.
O What if the plant was observed and there was a feeling 1.h a t perhaps, the leakage could ponsibly ex--
cred one el.p.m.? Wouldn't you still have thrown the test.
awayi i A 1 don't know. I really can't answer that, i 1,< c. oin e I don'1 ovet rera11 fee 1ing' ihat we had a 1,cak Rate l
that naid it w<u: gieater than one and also, had simultaneconly had the same feeling that the plant was really greatly in excenn of that one 4.p.m. F.o , I really can't give you an an-swer of what you'ie askinq.
O You just indicated that you think you may
) I lhave t.h r own m.n y , or have approved the throwing away of as '
I many as half 1he iests t hat you 1eceived, is that correct? j i
A Yen, sir.
D Toll me precisely what you would do, what
, you would l or d. at, befote you would aut hat ixe the f.hrowinq
.it,iay <>I a 1 e ".1 iepuli i li <'u 't n n of one gallon per mjhufe. i A We'd look at all the available pa rarm t ers that wi: had in the plant, to tell us how the plant. was opera-l tinq liy 1 oui of Ihi plant, to nee what was happening - - - T wrs l
l going io say, that did not, show up on indications. 7nd by t- L t I'm r e fi>1 i i nq to l i l: e valve liakage, et ce t.er a . ,
I i Afier a11 these thinqs were locherl at and if
( /dHAl Clly PHOdlNG MP/G is f o s- n utit ; n is :s e:
i s/ I i m .s o ( - 1 > ir <
6 l
t_
)
i the Leak Rate had come out greater than one and it was felt that the plant was safe and that we were in the ballpark num-ber of one and the plant was in good tight condition, then it would have been t.hrown away.
i O Try to be a lit t le bit more specific. Let's i annume for t.be moment that you were given a test result that l
- ". h o w < 1 l b.;l un ident i f icil leahage w,u, 1.4 qallonn per mi rm' e .
A Yes.
O Now, what would you look at., speci f i ca l .l y ,
in order t o de t.e r m.i ne whethet or not that test result was acentate?
A t would look a t- nimp levels. I would look l at nu ko up lank levein.
I l
l MU. I'l:NNY - i.e t. me i n t.e t t tig t. here. The qu(niion in, what would you 1ook at., when you received a T.ca P lta t e of 1.4 4.p.m.? !)id you look at thone parameters wheti you received t. h a t. piece of paper?
Till: WITNilSS: No.
MS. PI:NNY - You're being asked, what did l
you l ooh til when you received that piece of paper? !
l Till: WITNIES: Okay. When I received that ,
i piece of paper . Maybe I'd hetter clarify that. Sometimes it i
j wo n .1 d lie br iu r r, ofIer ihe i,e a k 1:n t e was done, before I would j see that p.iece of paper to look at it. And I'm referring to l
C N1TN f ITY R[ FUQilNC, SEfMCE te a ', q ue < u n a s u m
. <o D, .* 171r ;
p 7
looking at make up tanks, pressurizer levels, sump levels, while I'm .naking my tour of the plant, not simultaneously, when looking at the I,eak Fate-paper.
BY Mit. DeVESA:
0 1n it your testjmony, then, that. if you received a I,cah Hate Test result in excess of one gallon per mi tiu t e , you would not look at. anyt hing before throwing it away?
A A t_ the namn exael time I was looking af' it ?
O Yes.
A flaybe I would not, no.
)
O You might just throw it away?
A Yes, sir.
O And you would throw it away, based upon what
.information?
A On the information where I hac made my tour I t.htough the pjant arn1 J said, going back, all tnese indica t. ion .
I i that we have. While I was making my tour, I wot41d look at thene and tiy to determine how I felt that the plant was opera-t .i ng .
I 1
C Now, when you t hrew the test result away, it would have benn be!canno or your boller that that tent. re-sult was not a valid indicat. inn of what the actual plant CAPilAl Clly (UORilNG SEINICE o ,cff a o n i i n/a , j e r 1 ',% v :
> ti.141'J t1 l v . '
? 1' 9%
8 j
)
leakage was?
A Yes,isir.
i O Asul .you would not have thrown it-away, if l you feIt thai the t en t. tenu]t did ret i renant a valid measure h
j of whiit Ihe plant l eakaq<> was?
i l A i ' m not. nure I f.0110wed everythi ng you na ld i
on Ihat. nue.
O I'm tiying to understand,.whether.you would have thiown away-a font renult, which showed I Nik age in excenn 1
l o f . oni qa l li en p< i iil oni e, ii you helicved Ihat l e aka<te really 1
t w,n in one4- -
<ff 41o' qallon pit minute?
- l. .
I A tiaybe I ought to just make one statement.
fhere.
i I don't t hink t hes e was anytime that . I was shif t forema i, that 1 felt that the plant'had any gronn leakage, that we cou.1d .toa))y nay that we were 1.n the violation of tech specs.
of our greater than one g.p.m. So, therefore, all Leak Pates
- t. hat we had greater than one; throughout the time I was shift f or eman, were dincanded, i O And ihoy wete discarded.becaune of your bi'llof Ibat il t In y showed leakaqn was in excesn*of one gallon l
por tui nn t e, tboy luont have hoen wronq? l I
.: l'. Ven, sir. t
. i O Now, what I'm trying to understand is, what 1 inf or mat j on did you have available to support that belief and CAPITAL CITY REPORTING SEfMCE i mm.. o n: ca., s.,um w w 4 i j4 I T T l14.* b ' i I !! N1 de 1141 b I ll *4
- I I l w
9
)
when you obtained that information?
A That information was obtained by my plant tourn, that I made, by looking at temperature of the plant, presnure of the p l a n t. , leveln in various tankn, level, in numps, nynt.< m checks, where I -looked f or physical ; c. . That covert, ihn main thingn, and that wat, when I determino how the plant wan operating.
The lieak Ita t e paper, I may nat. Ic.oh at for up to -
the max would be about seven hours later.
O Do you remember telling me on February 14, I hai ih<. intormal i<m I ha t you might ' receive, reqarding ac-
) Iiviiy ot Icuel ineroane in t he cont.ainment. sump, would not I allow you io determine whethet or not unidentif.ied reactor coolant syntom leakage exceeded one ga))on per minut e?
A Yon, sir.
O Do you remember telling me that?
l l A Yen, sir.
1 0 Do you believe that the information that you mightinve necn from the makt up tank level trend, would have t 01 <1 you whether ycu were leaking in excens of one ga.11on per mi nui e or not? {
i A fli re aqain, it'n only my belief that that l I wan a 1allpark inut i ument at ..on and it was one of the Fore re-
/ i.
1
( AlinN < liv ; ~. icd 11NG SFINICF
,a : ,
, n , , n, , w.,4 p w i ,
i t,,' 11 o y , , I r i / u :o f
10 i
) liable instruments that we had for looking at Leak Rates. But due to the oscillations and et cetera, that we had in the i tank, you could only use that as a ba)) park estimate, I
i O And Jookinq a t. the various inntrumontn, i
i t hat ro i q h t t r '. 1 you what the temperature of the renet ni cool-l ant nyntom fluid won, would that t.e l l you whethor you hial l 1 "a t;u l< in c.re, . ,il oin qtilIon por minute?
d b A The temperature really did not give you an I
lindicalionof leakage, but it would give you an ind.ication
- whothet ilu- ma l. o up tanh chould bo arul ptennorizor l ove I r.
nhouId bo noiny up or goi rui down, duo to e >:pa n s i o n and con- .
i pr-a on or you, .a ct.
t
)
O .I f Ihene t.hings that. you have just roferrrd i !
f f o, ( ould iv >t tc11 you whethoi you had reactor coolant nystom !
i leal..ign i n o c c o < <, of one gallon per minute, then hou would j you, based upon I hr i n f orma t.i on that. you received from thene corn- tii 1.o l i i v o 1.ha t leakaqi wan under ono qallon pr r
{ i t em: ,
i
! fr. i n u l e
l A 1 quens I come to believe that by not boj nq able t ii fitol anylhing that told me that it. was great.er 1. h a n that, and from the fact of the training that we had. We wero i
told te, J ool, at thenu pa raine t e. rs, to do our own evaluation of I e
! them and to ina k o our 1<st judgment call on the conditjon of 1 1
the plani.
l l
cem nry pcrors r, r.rrucE qu<;'t \;> .nn ?n t.
,i. cy4 !1' F 4 .e e. I i f
11 1
O When you refer to other things, that would tell you that you were leaking in excess of one gallon per minute, what other kinds of things would you have been looking for, besiden thene things that we just discussed?
A I don't think there's anything outside of what we've already discussed.
Q If I understand you correctly, you looked at make up tank level, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
O You looked at sump level, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
O You looked at pressurizer level, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you looked at reactor coolant system temperature changes, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q You have indicated that none of those things could tell you with any degree of certainty, whether or not reactor coolant system leakage, unidentified leakage that is, exceeded one gallon per minute or not, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
) Q If that is true, how would looking at those-CAPITAL CITY REFORTING SEfNICE t dif'ft li t) 11 f )s I)fa l y WK CTtly t l a u f w av e.- 31 1/ it ut
12 items provide you with some justification in your belief that a Leak- Itate Test that showed leakage in excess of one gallon per minute, was invalid and therefore should be thrown away?
A What 1 looked at did not give ne that, what I annumed at that. time of operating, to be able to make that.
jnthpoent ca1J of one g.p.m. Today, I understand where aJJ my i
i mi:;f aken weto alul what I looked at.. I understand the --
th r e of the problems. But at the t.ime I was operating, thene art: things t ha t. I was t rying to look at. They are things that we wet" given t.o lely upon.
O l'm sorry, Mr. lioyt , but I just don't undot-n i , n.<l you. Att yiin tryinq 10 say thal bar! in 1978 a nel 1970,
) you bolleved Ihal tisone indicators that you just toferrect to, could have told you whetlo'r leakage exceeded one gallon per
- mi nut.e or not.?
A No, sir. I did not say that.
O Mo that: you knew back in 1978, 1979, that.
t horm plant innl i ument s and indicators that you just referred to, were not al le to tell you whether leakage exceeded one ga l 1(in }q1 ini nui e or not ?
A IJo , nir. They could not.
O Apparent 1y, then, you knew when you t.h r ew I
away 1 eal. itat e Tt ;t s .i n e a: ens of one ga.llon per minute, that '
you liad no way of knowing that. those tests were invalid, is L) i ho, con oci -
( /d'lI AI ( llY l/li T ll/Ilfl(s SLIMCF 4 ;q v o u4 .:jv u ,ute ai
- i p t 1 i .p y .
- e 519 v-
13 A Yes, sir, that's correct.
O I'm going to ask you again, just for pur-pones of clar.lficat. ion, was it not the practice at the timo,
, 1:aned upon what you've junt indicated to me, that any tont re-I l nuit in excenn of one gallon per minute, would be thrown away un toa t t et what the actual plant leakage was?
A The way you ntate the qucntion, yen, sir.
O J don't want to be unfair, Mr. Iloy t . Is there anything that you could add to that, which would in any way change your annwer?
A The only thing I can come back to, in saying
) we all loohrd at oui plant. We all felt t ha t: the thing wan crorat.ing cotlectly. And I don't think that anybody - .let's nay t.hal .1 did not feel that- there was anything unsafe, al-though I did have -- what do I want. to say? In my own mind, J knew the instrumentation had fluctuations to it. It had cerLain amount of inaccuracies to it.
Jt's kind of a.hard thing to explain your i
f r clings, when you're thinking back. I just didn't feel t h a t.
we vere leally jeopa r di zi ng the plant that far away from the one 9.p.m., that we vere really doing anything wrong by what we did.
I O Is i( your tentimony that you bel.inved you wet o operatjng the plant. safely?
)
CAPilAL CliY f?UOfmNG SEfNICE uw.y p o irnow a auApr warti i ii ' i n' H J - :/ i nt P
14 r
A Yes, sir. I did. 4 O And you come to that conclusion, based upon the fact that when'there was evidence of leakage, you attempted to locale t ha t. J o a k a g c* , identify it.s nouice, and correct. it7 I
I A Yes, sir, I do.
I i O Inn't that a different practice, then whet.he
] or not. you're ope r a t. ing the plant with leakage less than one gallon per minute? Isn't that n'difforent concern?
A Yes, sir, iL is.
l' I O Now my questionn earlier, had to do with l
I whethi:t 01 not you were opera t.i ng the plant with Icak a g t-
[ f l.,in excean of one gallon pel m i nu t.e , not wi th whet her or not.
you were operatiny ihe. plant unsafely.
What 1'm Irying to underntand in, did'you i havn ,iny conce r n w.i t h whe t het. or not. you actually had leakage t
I
-in et.nenn of one gallon per minute?
l A 1 don't. recall having a concern of that.
No, n .i r ,
i 0 And were you able to insure that leakage l'
did not exceed one gallon per minut.e, with the testing equip- !
)
[ inent .you had avai J able to you? '!
t i
i A No, rir. I was n o t- able to . insure it, i I Q Allt! Wa f- y lill t i ll lh .i .I .i t y IO infMire that yoii r /.plirl r 'nv pi from in gr,virr
- '
- f it f +i i ' .I I /a - .J i/ I 4 ' 1/ ' V .I I l
l e h f Fi t - I% 1 ' It th
15 did not exceed one gallon per minute, of some concern to you?
A 1 don't recall that it was.
O You did know at the time, that the requiro-ment s e mbodied in the technical specifications mandated that if you t neceded unident i f ied leakaqe in excois of one ga))nn l that you wolo to reduce the leakage within several por mi nut o, hourn or begin Io nhui tho plani down?
A Yt 'G , Sir.
O Wei e you able t o fulfill that requirenant cr a nhilt f or eman it TMI 11 in 1978 and early 19797
/\ 1 don ' t. underntand what. you nean by being
) able ta ful1iiJ t ha t. IequiiomenL. Wan 1 able to shut down the plant?
O Mne you able t.o live wtthin that require-ment ? Wcre you able to comply with that requirement?
MS. l>l:NNY : Did you comply to the lett.or of ihe. law?
Till? WITNESS: On paper, we thought we were i
compIy.inq w.ith it. 1 quess in rea1 1ife, actua1 facts thal l r
I have shown up n.ince Ihen, we were not complying with it.
I BY MP. D e V F.S A :
I i
l O You nean you thought you were complying i I
> with operatinq iho plant with leakage Icos than one gallon per mi nut e?
CAPlv\1 CITY REFORTING SErMCF u u s ,, m m < w n mm. i .
i v,11 m H r v . I '/ 1 /1' , '
. 1 16 1
1 A Yes, sir. I MS. PENNY: Leakage less than one gallon
]
per minute,
- -Till: W1 TNI:SS : We11, the 1.eak Rate that we had on .the comput er, they were indicating less than one g.p.rn.
We thought we were operating with that less than one g.p.m.
Maybe J 'm not. ululer st anding what you're asking. I i
l MS. PI:MNY : No. You're not. l 4
1 TilH WITNI:SS: Maybe we ought to get bach up t o your quest j on, if you can?
' l itY Mit. Dovl:S A - -l l
0 It's my understanding, from what you have l
just stat.ed, that. you were not able, based upon the testing equipment and the instrumentalJon that was available to you, t o know whet her or not actual leakage exceeded one gallon per minute, in t hat correct ? j t
i A That's correct, sir. j 0 Now, you did know that there was a require- l i
!- in, n I , t h.i f ii 1 < . i l. a . n - 0:a 9 odril one na1]on por minute, you wm < -
t o r oduce it within neveral hours or shut the plant down? ,
A Ycn, s .i r .
i I
o My cinent ion in, n o t. being ablo to know what L
act.ual loakayo wan with any degree of accuracy, how could you j l
CAPliAL CITY REPORTING SEIMCE i exu v o n num we ,wn o i(. 0;pfr- ;1 ? /18 :11 ;
17 l follow that requirement?
A Without the degree of accuracy, we could not .
O And is it your testimony that instead of I
,u . t tni l .l y following that requirement, what was done wan thM a book Itate Tent tesn]t, demonstrating satisf ac tory Jenkage, war. rulluni t t ed a t Jeant once every seventy-two hours?
A Yes, s .i t ,
O And when those test results were subm.it.tod, i t. was common knowledge, was it not, that those test renults were. not - n, ee u:ai i i y acettra t e?
A b- , nit.
)
Q And you 1:new, based upon your experience I with I,o l k !!a l e Te ': t n , that Ihe fact that you wnre- ah ) r- to ob-l 1.a i n a natisfarloty I.ca k Ita t.e Tes t , did not trean with any de-gren of certainly that that test result was accurate, corrnet?
A Yer:, sir.
O Now, did this inability on your part and the part. of your colleaguen, t.o comply with the letter of the law, did il generate any concern?
I A T10 ! t.ha t I can lecall. !
0 I)o you reca)) that. anyene complained ebout l the f ac t. t hei t , hey, t.he t.ech n i ca l specifications say we're l j
i
) Lupposed t o do this, and the test equipment and the instrumen-talion Ihat. we have, d oe r, not allow us to accurately do the rmTA! CITY RFIOPTING SEfMCE i: ,
,n:.n : o n o c ,, ,< u m y e r
> q / l i.y J +I i * . ( * /. 1 /18 p '.
___ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ^
a 18
)
job. Do you recall anyone complaining along those lines?
A I don'L recall any complaints. I do recall that the computet program was supposed to be tooked at. and P
ll' tiying to have nomething done to it, I don't remember what, to make it more accurate. I don't recall any compla.inta or
, meetingn. 3 i
i.
O An a r.hift. foreman, did you complain to your I shifi sup<rvisor, or any other superior, that you felt u n co m--
fortable or concerned'about the fact that you were not. able i
t.o accurately monitor and evaluate and quantify reactor coolan nyntem leakage?
I l
, A 1 don't iemember the words I had wi t h hi m.
)- 1 1 do remember we had conversations about Leak Rates, about
, the program for t he comput.er. I really can't recall any or ;
{
l' t.he wordings that we had. l, i
! O Well, f orget ting about the specific words f j for the moment., do you recall complaining or being concerned that you were unable to monitor reactor coolant system leakaqo and quant.ify it, as you were supposed to?
A The only thing I can recall along that lina l
is not really a concetn as to the leakage, but a concern en t.o ihe fIequency of needing to run the Leak Rates and of t-he computor needinq to be updated to have an accurat.e program ,
into i t. .
) :
i CAPIT/t CITY TUOTMING SEfMCE m , ,,- ,u.m m .,, - _ n l
] , - ,. -
_o
19
)
0 To whom did you voice those concerns, if anyone?
A The only one I can remember talking to, ri g h t, now, was my shift supervisor.
O Aini who was your shift supervisor?
A Normally, it was Bernie' Smith.
O 1)o you recall what his responne was, cen-etally?
A No, sir, i
O An a shift foreman, you had a responsibility l to insure that ihe techtiica1 specifications and the varioun company piocedtuen, iegarding reactor coolant synt.em leakage, were enforced, did you not ?
A Yen, sir.
I I
O I)i d you pernonally do anything to prevent. l t.h i o pi ar t. i ce of thiowfnq away Leak Itate Tests, not filjnq er.coptions in deficiencies, with respect to those tests, from fnot docuinen t i nq thone tentn in anyway?
I i
A rio , nir.
O I)i d you pernonally take steps to try to noe that the 1,ea k ita t e Test piocedure was im proved upon and ina d e more accurate 7
) A t!nt t hat. I ran reca114 CAPITAL CITY REPORTING SErMCE
.ac > t 1. t i j i ! 4 ld 1 L / f. l.1 ,! / IF 4 j i i ! 't 14$* I )/Pe
20 0 Did you do anything to bring about an im-provement in the situation in this practice that we've des-cribed or did you just acquiesce in the practice, as we des-c ri bed it?
A Acquiesce?
l O Acquience. l A What does that mean?
M f; . I'MNNY: Go along with i'.
IlY MR. l > eve!; A : .
I O J u n t. tolerate i t. . Go along with it.
A out side of t he conversa tions wi th my shi f t-n u pe r v .i so r , I')) have to say I just went along with it.
O Did you go along with this practice of I.ea):
l'a i e Ten t i nq an 'i t was conducted in'1978 of your own free will '
A Yen, sir.
O Did anyone in a position of higher authority than you, prensure you to violate any company procedures or t o vjo)at e the technical specifications with respect t.o reac-t.o t coo l a n t. nyniem l ea );a g e ?
)
A No, sir.
O Did anyone ever tell you or pressure you .
. info continuing to operate the plant, when you believed that the plant ought to be shut down because of reactor coolant t
I CAPITAL CITY REPORTING SErMCE lial /A i 1) l l l 4 l / l ' / f l/,!.4 ',l/ l t' J l tuttnJ"t< is 1/UJ
21 i
system leakage?
A No, sir.
i O In there anything that you can point t o, which would amount to some prensure from company management that forced you to toletate these var.ious procedural v.i o l a t.i on:
f.ha t we've talked about?
A I won't say there was any pressure, but I will bring back up to thic point of it was my underrlanding that the computer program was supposed to be being looked at and i t ying t o have nome new program put in the computer, that would bo more uccurato. And no I kept looking for t h a t- to happen. I can't say there was any prensure.
O So that. you hoped that at some point, the
, computer pr ogram f or doing I.eak Rate Testing would be improved upon?
A Yes, sir.
O And you nomehow became aware of information that Jed you to believe that i t was being worked on and that-hopefully, ii would have been improved?
A Yon, sit.
p 11u t in the sneantime, you continued to appiov' 1.0 u 1 1:s t e Tonts 1.h a t may have been inaccurate, in thatcorrec'f r A Yon, sir.
i CAPITAL OTY REPORTING SErMCE i n ni v o s u a ve.i a pa at u e i e :,,*r. . vi \tve
( __- _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . - _-
22
)
Q And you continued to throw away test results without documenting those test results, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
O And my question is, did anyone force you to do that or pressure you to do that?
A You made three statements in there. Are you asking me -- the pressure of all three?
Q Yes. They're based upon your testimony and the testimony of others. There was this practice of simply taking Leak Rate Tests in excess of one g.p.m. and throwing them away without. documentjnq them. There was also a practice
) ' of submitting satisfactory test results, which may have been equally inaccurat:e or meaningless, because they were satjufac-tory. What I'm asking you is, did you ever feel pressured in any way to tolerate or to perpetuate this kind of a-practice in any of its aspects?
A No. The only thing up along that line would be as far as the -- I guess it would come under documenting !
the bad leak rates. It used to be that we held on to them, and they were passed on to the supervisor. At one time, I there was an NRC inspector that came in and seen -- I don't I
i l know whether there was one or more than one -- laying on the shift foreman's desk.
Shortly after that, the instruction came f
i l
< u ma um<u om*auMu
- i. :,. ,i,, oii-) .n fi !
23
)
out that if we had a bad leak rate, that we would not leave it laying around after we would discard it. I don't know if you want to call that- prennure or not, but that was direction
- I t orn uppei m.ui.u,j oino u t .
O Well, can you tell me a little about where thin djiection came I t oin and how it. was communicated to you?
I l A Tha t. 's my I ecol lection that it was communi-cated t o ine , verbal]y, f r om my supervisor. Althot qh , it might have been wr i. t t.cri down . 1 don't recall who it came from. I don't know. 1'm sure with the NitC being involved, that they went to t.op management to talk about this problem. So, .
it appai en t.J y ccune down from there or someplace. That's only a quonn.
O well, why do you assume that this response to the Nlte innpection would have come f rom top management ?
I,ike i said, I assumed, it's a guess, becaus ?
A t.he tiltC wou ld have been involved with top management to d.is-cunn this problem. So, there's no reason not to believe that.
from in that- meetinq comep] ace, somebody was involved in that l mootinq that t ha t type of direction would have came down from t het o.
O 1f iop management became aware of the pro-blem, bocanne of Ihe t;lm innp"ction, their response enuld have bocn any numbot of t.h i n g n , could it not.?
CAPLIAL CITY PEFUMING SErMCE
- ,,.7 ..n, .w .i . n, a i (s t' i1 lI 1 / if d '.
l 24
)T A Yes, sir.
Q Now the fact that you received some communi-
! cat.Jon from your' shift supervisor led you to believe that he i i wan cominunicai i nq t.he manac ' ment response to the IEC inopec- l i
1 tion?
A Yes, sir, i
l i
O Was your shift supervisor Bernie Smith at that time?
A I can only nay probably. !'nety, ni ne t y- fi v' '
poteent of the t.j ine , he was. But there were a few occasions I
l when he'd be on vacat ion or somet.hing arul there'd be anothet '
nuporvisor filling in.
O Can you tell me with a little more detail, what it won that he probably told you as a result of t h i n TJIM' jnspection?
- )
A 1 cannot give you any kind of accurate words or atiything, ofher than that the direct. ion was that, if you I
had leak tale and you f. ee l i t. 's bad , it's greater than one, !
discard 3t and do not. leave it laying on the desk.
i O I;e n , understanding that you are not trying I ta provide exact words'with respect to the instruction that i
you received, you did, however, indicate that if you were tol.d j
{
) t.ha t. iI you recejved a bad Leak Rate, you believed it was bad, ;
'j.- l that you were not to leave i t. laying around. What did you in-j' l CAf11M ClN R[ TONING SErNIG y J i m jw n u n m %nm 'amevi s ti,id.'i'M s * . I f 11VP
_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a
25 s
.terpret that to mean?
A To dincard it by, basically, throwing it in the trash can.
O What did you interpret. bad Leak Date to mean?
A Anythinq greater than one. There was no known Itakage in the plant that required shut down of the p l a n t. .
O Did you int.erpret those instructions to mean t ha t. jf you got a Leak luit e Tes t in excess of one gallon por
, minuto, Ihai en iy have li e n .nsurale, that you would :t i11 i
) fthrow it away?
A If vie had a leak rate greater t.han one, that we felt was great er t han one, no, I would not interpret Ihai to lan a n 1o ibrow Ihat one away. But I don't recal1 iha' ever happening that we had one greater than one that we felt was accurale. So, therefore, that never came up.
IJow, I'm yetting confused agaln. I thouqht-O narlier you .indiented that when you got test results that were in excens of one gallon per minute, you were not in a position t o dot er mino whet her t. hey were accurate or not?
A no, ;it, w- wet e not. But I was iryin1 to clarify that, by saying that ene greater than one, that we ,
i
) f elt , r:o doubt, not taking any inaccuracies or anything like r M1ifl GIY pf FrpTING qrrMrF
, , ;p ; , n,s,e ,, v m .. sin a s l i/! 1 T ,l 4 p i l'\ 1/t M
- h. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _
26 11 that, if we had one greater than one and we could say to our-selves, gee, we know that this 1.5 is accurate, therefore, we have got to go into tech spec. criteria and shut down. That just never happened. .
l j 0 How could it happen based upon tho infornnti< iti i
l that you h<nl available to you?
A .I I eotild n ' t .
O r.o , t h o n , did you t heti i n t orpt o t. t ha t. i n --
ntruction to mean that every I,eak Rate Tent that was obtejned __
l in exeonn of orv' qallon per minuto, would bn thrown away and not lofI layinq atound on tho :uporvisor's desh?
A Yor, nir.
O And to the hent- of your recollection, it wc>uld have bron Hornie Sm.ith who would have told you that?
A Yon, nir.
0 You iemembot being int er viewed by Bob Pi D -
ter and me, rometime in November of 1984?
A Yon, nit.
O lio you have any recollection of recount.inq thin conversation with your shift supervisor at that t. i me ?
A in November?
O Yen. Did you tel) Mr. Wint er or ma, that you y had this convernat. ion with your shift supervisor about not C/411At CIIY REFORilNG SUNICE
, ,,u. v . , n : a i n o m.1 w. u e i v t < ,e r" p.4 . p/, 1 firg.
i 27-
.)
leaving Leak Rate Tests laying around on the desk at that time '
MS. PENNY: Was that an interview about Unit II?
MR. DeVESA: Yes..
Tile WITNCfift: Not that I recall, I didn't.
(Discussion off-the-record) liY Mit. DeVESA:
0 'So, your recollection is that you did not tol1 Mr. Winter or me, about this conversation with your chifI suporvisoi at that time?
.) A True.
O Do you remember that back in March of 1980, thorabouts, you were interviewed by a Keith Christopher and a Thoman Mart.jn of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission? Do you have any recollection of that interview?
A 1 don't remember names. I remember an in-terv}ew at NRC.
O Do you remember whether or not, you told those individuals about this discussion with your shift super-visot?
A No, sir.
) ! O Do you think that you have told anyone who C/Pil AL CRY REPORTING SEIMCE to.ut u n t ,n.e t u w w v J t i te-f or l / f < l/ 1/1f W h
4 l
28
)
was investigating Leak Rate Testing practices at Unit II, about this discussion between you and your shift supervisor?
A Not that I recall.
O Can you tell me now why you are first re-vealing this information at this point. in time?
l i
A Pr obabl y the first ti me I've been asked t h :i f ,
j O You think t.hin is the first time that. you I
{wereanhedwhetherot not. you were in anyway pressured to discard I ,ca k Ita t e Tent s or not follow the requirements .i n the i
proc.edu t en l eya rdi ng Leak Itat e Test ing?
A l'i rs t time I can ever answer I've been
)
prennured. Unua1ly the quention was, did I ever pressure any-body e]r.e.
p O So in any event, it's your best recollection at I h i s pc >i nt , and I know we're taiking about several inter-views and over a period of a few years, but it.'s your bent r ecollect ion that t h .i s is the first t.ime that you have told any individual who was investigating Leak Rate Testing prac-Licen about thin conversation with your shift. supervisor?
A Yen, sir. Can we take a break so I can get J
[ a drink of water?
l Mit. lieVE S A : Dure.
) (Shott break) r f.f'llti cir/ p[rrY)Tlf JG SfP/lrf
, t.. : n v , u.svu . v n . a n ., .
l l ".l J 8l p q 1 . J 'ti j !1(H
29
?
HY MR. DeVESA:-
Q Ken, what is it that causes you to believe that thin convernat ion t ha t you had wi t:h Bernie Smi th, may-have t.aken place in t enponne ' to an NRC inspection?
A Hecause I can recall that --
I can't rea))y say it was the conversation, but it happened right after that and t.ha t. it. was mentioned. I don' t know whether it come ' f rom Bernie or whether it coine f r om somebody else, but that. this direct-jon came an a renuit of this event happening.
O How would you have learned that the inspectioa had Iaken place?
A Thene things get passed on from one crew to
)
the next cIew.
Q You weren't. present when the NRC inspect. ion of October 18 took place, were you?
A No, sir.
Q But; you believe that you did learn about it shorLly thereafter?
A Yes, sir.
O Arul can you tel1 me generally what. it_ wan Ihat you learned?
A 1 learned that an NRC inspector had come l
into Iho <:on t i o l r oorn. Thai ihete was a 1.eak R a t.e layinq on Iho nhifI f of oman ':. den): greaier than one g.p.m. The plant w.n .
CAPilAl CliY PFIORTING SEfMCE
' ' Sfn f ' l l il I W pal 'l f lof T ".IAf D I l t aATAA'Ju rA . DA 1 lif W
I i,
30 i
t' i
still operating. No action had been taken on it and that the
,-NRC inspector started questioning people about it and went off to' a meeLing someplace.
O Do'you remember where you learned that from?
A To the best of my recollection, I guess ii was a pass on of information from one crew to another.
t i O Why would it have been important for some-one to pass Ihe informal-ion along, that the, inspector had f outui a 1,oa k llat.e laying around in excess of one g.p.m. and no a r t..i o n h a d been taken? Why would that have been impor -
t.a n t 7
) A 1 don't know if you could call that, had l>oen impottant ut no t. . A l o t. of things like that that hap-I pened involvinq different groups, let's say, was passed on an qonnip, for lackc of a better word.
O When you l' earned of that information, when you heald that i n f o r ma t i on , di d n ' t. iL become very apparent t.o i
l you at t ha t- time, that failing to enter the action statement when I.rak Itat e Test s showed results in excess of one gal]on ,
l PM mi nnt.e was wr opg?
A 1 don't recal1 any feelings on that.
L I l 0- wouldn't this have been one of the reasons l
why pr'ople would have made mention of this inspection? I A 1 don't bolieve so. I think it was more LAPl%I. CilY ldIOf>IING SUMG I J '/ // L t l ' l f il Lf l ^ t A lAl.1 'J A ?> d !
i s/J .or ly se im i sii tti
31
)
just like I say, it was a gossip type item.
O What would have been noteworthy about the NRC inpoctor. finding Leak Rate Tests in excess of one gallon per minute on-the shift foreman's desk, if there was nothing wrong with that?
f A The only thing I can give you is, is the i
fact that it wan laying thete and no nction had been t.aken on
.i t.
~O And that wan wrong, co r rec t.?
A Yon, sir.
O And you would have known that that was
) wrong al the t j ino , wou]d you not.?
A 'Yes, sir.
O IJow , when you learned of this inspection, were there any discussions around this time, that there wou]d be a new interpretation of the technica1 specifications?
A IJo t that I recall.
e O Do you recall any type of instruction that 1
j 1rorn now on, whenever a test result showed leakage in excenn )
of one ga))on per minut e, that you were to enter the action 4
statement to ieduce the leakage or to shut the plant down I within several houin, do you recal) that?
4 A flo , n il . Itut since all these investigations.
< A111/d f 11/ M lt Dill F ., ')l>/K )
, i . in , o w as., u n s ns u s n ieiitt4 t ei r
I 32 l were started, I - know that there's an LER, I think which you're leading up to, that you're going to ask me if I remember
~
seeing and, no, I do not remember seeing it at the time that it came out.
Q Okay. Well, don't try to anticipate my questjons. Before we get to the LER, which we will get to, I'm asking you whet her you recall any discussions about answer -
im; Ihr ., u l i o n n t a t emen t. , if ieut renul1n shownd leahaan in excens of one gallon per minute?
A No, sir.
I O no you rocall any dincussionn about how I
) ont er i ng the act ion st atement in response to any test re nu l t.
over one gallon pet m.i n u t e , vould cause repeat.ed shutdowns of Ihe plant?
A No, nir.
O Do you recall anybody expressing the concern t.hnt now that this NRC inspector had found these tests laying
- around, that you would not be able to operate the plant with-I out
- hut t ing it. down all the ti me ?
i A No, sir.
)
O As far as you can recall, the only type of verbal d.irective or instruction that you might have received ,
f rom any superior, was that your shift supervisor indicated ,
to you, that you nhould not leave Leak Rate Tests in excenn of
< muu r ir/ vii< oni y , r;ry/r r i4 n i.,i niain-r a m ,iMu J i
f I -
33 one gallon per minute laying around on the desk?
A Yes, sir.
O And that ihose tests should be thrown in t.he t_ rash can or words to t. hat. ef f ect ?
A Yes , si r.
O- And based upon the Leak Rate Testing prac-tice at t.he tjme, you irit.orpreted that to mean all test re-sults in excess of one gallon per minute?
A Yes, sir.
O Now, again this in important, do you be-lieve that the shi f t. supervisor who told you this was Bernie fimi i h ?
A I can only say that *ne likelihood of it being him is about ninety-five percent. I do not recall the exact supervisor by name or face, that told me that.
O Anide from this one conversation, did you have any conversat. ions about t.his NRC inspection or -- Did you have any conversations about this NRC-inspection with any-body else at the t.ime of the incident back in October of 197R of floveinber of 197tt?
A No. The only thing I can remember, like I nay, is being t old about it. I don't reca)) even t.alking to l anybody.chout i!.
O Did you have any conversations at that time, CAPITAL CITY REPCOTING SErNICE rne o u mtRN ww switw i 1, . ' Or "d, , ! /i 9 / if ut
34
)
about the need to enter the action statement, whenever a test result exceeded one gallon per minute?
l A no, sir.
I l 0 As far as you can recall, the on]y thing tha-wa:, nut.poned to be tteated differently, after the i ns pec t: ion of October, 1978, was t hat unsat i s f actory I.eak Rate Tents woro lto b" iir.med i a i < 1 y th1own away and not ] e f t- 1ayinu around on I
a dent' A Yes, sir.
O And it's your recollection that prior to oc t < ! e i of 19/8, unnatisfactoty I,eak Itat.c Tests were turned i
) i int o the nh i f t. nuper vinor or placed on his desk? i I l l
A Yen, nir.
! O What was done with those, at that. timo, do I
i you i < mi mhe Y Un you know whal 1he shift supervisor d.id wi t h Ihem?
l T. I don't know any of the routine that t.h"y i vmn t. thtough with them. Usually they would come back out and nay, okay, thin i ', invalid, run another one. And what ha ppe n er' to them or v:ho t ove r , I have no idea. l l
0 l'>u t you have a recollection that prior to October of 1978, when you qot an unsatisfactory Leak Rate Test, you would tut a jt j nt o the n h i f t. nupervisor?
A ven, sir. l mni nr< r4 rron strun I swn i. o , n , u.; u v a *,'ta i >
le t.ft1914 ,i/ 1/ H il' l I
l.
35 l ):
Q Would you generally turn it into the super-visor grsonally, or put it on his desk or in hi's basket?'
A They had a table in their office and norma]1 it was laid on t.he table, depending whether he was present at the 1. i mo or not , whethet it was given to him pornonally.
O Would you awa3L some kind of a communication f om the shift supetvinor, bofore you run another f.est or do anyihing?
A Yes, sir. It was normally left up to them 8
to inahe tihe '} udgmen t. ca l l .
O Af t er out.ober of 1978, when you were inntroer ted or di rect ed or t.o l d not to leave these tests laying aroun'1
)
did you also ntop connulting with your shift supervisor, re- !
garding i he tlit owing away of tests?
A No, sir. lie was made aware of what was Ibrown away. 1f ihere wan one run on that shift that was greater than one and tbrown away, he was made aware of it.
O So the only difference in the Leak Rate Testing piact. ice, if you will, was that the written document was not t.ut ned over t o t.he shift supervisor? l A Yes, sir.
t Q Dut other than that, there was the came !
I I
kind of colmult ation wit h the shif t supervisor, regarding
)
CAPITAL CITY REPORTING SEfMCE m vmo u . rasat M1AT& $1ATOl iIAM.T H (* PA 1/108
36 l
D what ought to be done in response to an unsatisfactory test result?
I i
i A Well, there's one other slight change in '
l l there, that. I be]Jeve was right about that time frame, that.
l we had one that was greater than one, that was thrown away i.
and as noon -an t he CRO's could thereaf ter, they immediately nt art.ed anot her one. It wasn't a matter of waiting for the r.npervi sor t o see the old one.
O You think prior to October of 1978, that you would have awaited the shift supervisor's guidance or i un t.1 uc t i on ~ 1>o f e n o you ne n t. Ihu ('RO to run aliot.ber t e n t. ?
! A Ynn, sir. I believe normally, it did happen
) 3 I that way.
O Ken, wha t. 1'd like to do,'if you'd bear wI t.h ine for awhile, I'd 1.1ke t.o go t.hrough somn speci fic .;
l testn or documents, that. you may have had something to do with j i
while you were an a shift foreman at TMI II. And I would ljkr' you to tell mo if you can recall af t er looking at the docume nt ,
j l
o r you can 1.o< nnn t i nc t from looking at the document, what occuried or what events the document pertains to. Do you unde'-r l'
n t utal that?
A Yen, sir. !
o T .o t ne begin by showing you some I,cak Ra+e Tests, dated March 22 and March 23, 1978. In fact, therearel l
.i CAPITAL CllY REFORTING SEiMCE f 1/ ff L 1l ll [ d f '/-l Jf1/f5 "Ib!> /}
n p f t f .t ? I 4 l '/ 1/18 Jt !
l
37 two tests dated March 23 and one test. dated March 22, 1978.
Will you take a look at those tests and tell me if you recog-nize your signature on the test results? Whether that means
! you appioved ihose t est iesults?
A Yes, sir, that's my signature on this one.
O 11 0 you recognize your signature on those
' tbree 1 est s -
t A l'm sorry I only looked at. the one. Yes, rit.
O W111 you examine the valun for idenf.ified l eal:.igi on noch o f Ihose trsts?
)
/ A The one run March 22, 1978, had 511, identi-fJed leafage, .6301 g.p.m.
O I sa.id ide n t.i f ied leakage?
A Oh, I'm sorry. Identified Icahage .1018 g.p.m.
O And in t.he other, would you also examine the values for identified leakage on the other two tests?
1l's not necessary 1 hat you read them, just examine them at. !
I t his poi tit.
l A Yes, sir.
f O Do you notice that each of those tests has !
precisely the exact. amount. for identified Icakage? l
)
rAPITAI QTV RFFORTING SEfNICF i vi u s a us,irn u mr5 mrnu 6 it i.9f',iti i * . I 't i / If ps I
38 Y
A Yes,-sir.
O Does;that, at this point, lead you to be-lieve tha t those tests are invalid and that identified leakage is not being accurately measured?
A T,ooking at them today,.yes, sir.
O Is it really possible that three tests, tbree consecutive t est s 1ike that, could carry precisely the same exact number to the decimal point for identified leakage?
A Well, I say anything is possible, but the probabilit.y of this being, is very, very slim.
O Isn't it. more likely that tha t number cam <-
h' about as the result of some type of computer program error?
l A 1 would think so, yes, sir.
O Would you have noticed that back in 1978?
1 A flo , sir. i O You did approve t: hose tes t.s results , did you not?
A Yes, sir.
O And each of those test results was obtainod in a reintively rhort period of time from one another, were they not.?
A Yes, sir. i
.') O And you approved all three of those results?
1 1
( :Al'llAl ( llY Id l T NIlI@ ',8f IMCf f OA1A P ll 4 l'Il4 "4 JiIAI.T 7 AIK Y l i t/ I 4 -l l7 F 4 l '/ 1/ 'l d' -
1 i
39 A
A Yes, sir.
Q Reviewing those tests, would it lead you to t . conclude..that. 'you d.id not. caref ully examine the inf ormation on i
^ those 1.001.s lenults befole you apJnoved then?
A No, si r . - What it tells me is that I did not.
wri t e down t he .idt n Li f l ed leakarle f rom one test to the next, i
l or m<morize 1 hem, at whichever I needed to do, to realize'thatl J
when J Jooked'ai the next. one, tha t. the number was the name.
O Would 1t alno tell you that you did not
<hoch the hift f ot oman 's log, each t i me t ha t- youLapproved l < o ,, o f I hone- t<>r.1 <nulin?
) A 1 don't: understand what you're anking from m..?
Q At th'a t time, when you approved a Leak Rate Test renult, you would have written the' numbers for identified and unidentified leakage in ihe chift fornman's log, would you not?
A Norma 3 ]y, wha t we wrote in was the unidenti-fied.
O You wrot_e nothing eine? Just t.he unidenti-fled? i A 1 don't reca)) writing the other numbers a))
the ti me . No, sir.
i MS. PENNY: Why don't you chech? The c h a e t. ' .
( ,Al11 At til V Rt I URlli1;, !allMCl p u til' o n i A on 's t h '1 5u n' a t v t i t ju s , I'r 11 P u'
40
)
are attached.
Tile WITNESS: I don't even see it wrote down here on thin one. I don't see it wrof.e down on this.one.
I did writ.e down the unidentified.
11 S . PliNNY: ,1dentify the date of that one?
Till: MITNiiSf;: This is March 22, 1978.
I!Y:Mit, lleVliSA:
O And t he ent.ry that you' re referring to, is in the chi f t f oreman's log?
A Yen, nir.
l-y' O And what i n f orma ti on , regarding the Leak Ita te Tent that'you enteted int o the shift foreman's log on I h.i t d;il e ?
A 1 wrote in, conducted RCS 1 eak Itate, .6301 9.p.m. for comput er, surveillance procedure, 2303-3Dl.
,0 So you only included the unidentified Jeakage?
A Yes, sir, l
Q So that as of the date of those three tests, about t.he time of those three tests, you think it would have boon your pract,3 ce to only write in the unidentified leakage l
in t he chif L foromon's log? i l
)
A Yes, nir.
J ( APil Al C IIY fJ1 KWTir 10 TiMG
,f- r. .: : i ! ,: r </ > , .v n y e J
}
. g e / ' ? 4' le s . t # ? / ".f Fi
41
)
Q And so, unless you'had taken note of the fact that the identified leakage had been or remained the same during'this period of time, you would not have necessari]'y i
! k n<wri I hat (.hene i ent n i enul t n were n o t. valid?
A No, sir. I would not have.
Q Iio you have any 1 ecollect ion that in oar]y f ti r t h o f ' 19'/ 8, which would inve been when you f j rnt started i uteni ng I,ea t Ital e Tentu, t.ha t there were varioun computet pro-qtam problornn Ihat cauned ruany inaccurate l' < m t reculIn io bo Oht.ained?
A I d o n ' t. iocal1 being awate of i t. t. hon. i do
) era)) I ha t. Ihey did make one computet change for Leak Itate.
I <1on ' t , von i < qnomlu i ihe timo riqht now.
O Do you remember what kind of change it wen?
A N o, nir, I don't.
Q I'd like you to take a look at a test of April 10, 1978 and ic11 me if you can tell whether you had any-thinu t o do w.i t h the preparat J on or approval o_f tha t particu-lar 1ont renoli.
A I did not have anything to do with thin. It looks like 1 signed it for another shift foreman, so that it j t
coujd be filed.
I i O And did anyone else participate in the appro-i l
cmm cnv romm smet l e n i o m ts um4 .it h. 9
- t/ ' i e P/ f v . l */, i / 18 11'. l
42
)
val of that particular test result at the time that you signed it for another shift foreman?
A ilim Floyd had nigned i t: for the Cno at f.he t iine , Adam Mi1Jer.
i 0 11 0 you have any recollection of i-h.in pa r t.3 - -
cular tent?
i i
A No, si r .
O Would it have been a common occurrence for Jim F1oyd to siqn a T.eak Ra t e Tent for a control room opeIa-t at ? l i
l A th>, nii.
h (
0 Would it have been a common occurrence for ;
1 you to approve a I,e a k Rate Tent for another shift foreman? ;
)
i A No, sir. '
O Can you tell from looking at the records, ;
j I
what events may have caused you and Mr. Floyd to have to sign this i.est result for another operator and shift foreman?
A No, sir. I can only assume that they harf l I
.i went home and the Ieak Rate had been left laying there, with- )
i 1
l out fhe nignat.usen on it. And in order t o prevent'it laying ]
there f oi twent y-f our hourn for them to come back on shift l and to sign it, t.ha t I war, asked to sign for the other for--
) man, j
.) l i
O can you 1.e l l from looking at the logs and I CMilAL CITY REPORTING SErMCE
! V RW R il II Df PN 't.!alAW TATioN 6 (Af i f J9 f 5 ., i% 1/H R j
43
- )-
various other forms'that are attached to the Leak Rate Test result, approximately how long after the test was performed that'you signed it? Or at least how long after you came on i
duty?
l A No, sir. I have no idea.
i O Does it appear that you rclieved Adams and
, Mi1ler on Ihe par 1icular date in quest. ion?
A Wo)), I did rel.ieve Chuck Adams, and roy CRO,' Pay Ilooher, had telleved Adam Miller.
O Hased upon the pract'jce of looking at plant .
i l i nn t i omon t s and obsorvinq plant conditions that you had des-l
} cri. bed carlier, would you have been in a position to determine Ihe accuracy of tha t. Lenk I'a t e Test when you approved it?
A No, sir. !
l i.
! O But you apptoved it, nevertheless?
I l A Yes, sir. !
O And J.im Floyd approved it, also?
A Yes, sir.
O And does looking at that Leak Rate Test, 1eiresh your recollection that there was a practice of ap- l proving satisfactory Leak Rate Tests, irrespective of what actual plant 1cakage was?
f
) A Yes, sir.
CAPITAL niY PFrORTING SEfMCE
[ J 't i//t I.' l l ll l 4 I?/ f 'l / JAl4 r,tA]p t j i 711er Je se , I I. i /1f A
l 44 l 1
i O When that test was approved, you really 1 i
were not able to determine whether it was accurate, were you? '
A No, si!.
, O And do you t hilik Mr. Floyd was able to.tell whelher .i t was accurate an of the time that it had been run?
A No, nir.
O Doe n'I it . i p pt 'a i ihal upon re po r t. i lirl for work f. hat. day, nomehow, you and Mr. Floyd found that thin tent I wan layjng around and because it was a satisfactory test, you decided 1o nign it and Lurn i t. in?
A Yen, n ir . It appearn tha t way.
)
O I underntand you do not have an independent reco l l eri .i on of Ihin t.e a l at this point in t.jme now?
A No, sir. I don't.
O Do you have any recollection of an incident !
wherein you would have been together with Jim Floyd, working on a Leak Itat e Test or approving a Leak Rate Test result? ;
A No, sir.
O That would have been an unusual ocurrence, would .i t not _?
T. An you can see, t.his happened on a day shiff. It was not ununnal for Jim Floyd to be in the contro)
) rooin on a day shif t . liow this came about, I have no recollec- i l
CAPITAL CITY PEPOPTING SEfNICE I ' c '// I ' I I li t I l'/ ! 'i / lR'i ';l Alle V I It/'1'tif P ,11 1/if /t ,
,. I
l tion, no, sir.
l 1 O Will you please examine the Leak Rate Test -
of April 16, 3978. Tell me if you recognize your signature ao the approval of the test t. hat was begun around 17: 45 on April 16?
A Yes, sir. It's my s.ignature.
O can you tell Ltom looking at the face of.
t he I.eak ~ Ita t e - Tes t resu]t pr.i n tou t , particularly the valuen for identified and unidentified leakage, whether that is an accurate test .tenult?
i l
- A No, si r.
I a
) O That t ent-. renult shows tha t. ' uniden ti fied l Jeakage is zero and identified leakage is printed out as all 7 t 's ou , doen it 1101.7 A That's true.
1 O And it's pretty apparent, just from lookinct at t ha t. pa r t..i cu l a r test result, that there's some type of a computet program etror here, which is causing an inaccurate renu)t, is ii nol ?
A Yen, sir.
f g And despite that. fact,,you placed your sig-i nature on that t<st renu l t and approved it as an offi':Jal t<m f i o s u .! f. Ion thai day, did you not.?
A Yes, sir.
CNMAI CnY REFORTING SFfMCE
, m.u v o n t a s.:n "a m w n n i e/1 i f .1, s . +t/uo
, 46 I
Q Does looking at that test result at this i
point, refresh your recollection that it was the practice at {
1 t ha t. t i.tne to metely sign and turn in any cat.isfactory test re-l l nult , no ma t t er how inaccurat.e it was?
A Yea, sir.
I O Take a .look at the test of May 27, 1978. !
l j Now, I hat t.en t appeatn ta be a manual leak rate test, that was p' 1 I onnod by Itay Poohet aiul appt oved by you, does i. t not?
A Yes, sir.
O Tf I can direct your attent. ion to line six-i.een of t h r- ma n n.* 1 c a l c u l a t.l o n , where there are values for reactor coolant drain 1:ank level.
A 1.i ne ajxteen?
O Yos. I'm sorry, it's line sjxteen, make up
(:ahk level.
I A Okay.
O Can you tell whether the information in-cluded .in Ihere, is accurat.e?
A Just by looking at it right now, no, I can't .
O Can you tel) whether or not the entry per-i t a i n .i n< 10 touko up Lank level, is listed in volts or inches !
in t hat calculation?
A That would be in volts.
I ApliAl CllY kl KWllNG SHMCE r t., jn. o i,1 :#, i.m-u .w A l r i/ }fT(1A= l '/ . 1/1' J'
47 X
Q Do the numbers that' appear on those parti-cular lines, appear to be numbers that are pertaining to volts or inches?
A To inchen.
Q Doen it appear that is the accurate way of i ncludj iig' tjhat information for manual Leak Rate calculation?
A No, sir.
l Q Will you review the following pages to see how tlione riuml>ers are carried f orth?
A 1.coks t o me like they're carried forth in pourids maan.
) poe:. it appear that that manual calculation O
f was prope r ly complet ed and done as t oquired by the procerluro?-
A All the blanks weren't filled in as they properly should have, but. the numbers for the final linen are a)) here. fome of them are not put in the proper places.
There are a few that are left. blank with the final number bein<!
shown.
O 'ran you tell from looking at that manual caten1etion, whethet it van properly completed and whether
.it's a valid LnM 1:at e Test result?
- 7. TJo , nir.
o Dnt you nevertheless, approved the sul -
)
ini nni on of that f.eak Hate Test. result, did you not?
i CAPil Al OlY lll.1U?llNG SLINICE r m.w o u U tm/.4 %uN;f st Am yJ in t t r to s , it 1/hr
48 A Yes, sir.
O Do you remember that back at that tiine i Ghen it was difficult to get a satisfactory Leak Rate Test result
{byuning the comput er, that. an a last tenort, you t urned t o a manual calculat jon?
MS. PENNY: This is Apri1 of 1978.
l TilM WITHMf;S: I r emember doing some riannal n l I don't iomombol i 1. bellig dolie an a 3 a s t- tenort.
11Y Ml! . lioV MM A :
l O Do you remember. it br_ing dbne becau:m You l
l w. - i < - u n. :b l e to get a solivfacloty Leak Rate Test renult from h l
- t ho comjiu t et ?
} A tio t that. 1.tecal1. No, si r.
\l )
l 0 Would it: surprise you, if J told you that !
I hin part icular t ent result- followed the last satisfactory t en t. renuli by Ii(ty-nine hours? ~
l A No. It wouldn't surprise me.
Q If you were aware at that time that i t. had l been fifiy-nine hourn since the last test result, might you 1
have approved a manual calculation by Ray Booher, even if it was not occurate?
t, t!o t if I was aware it was not accura te. No, l I cir.
- f. l
) CAPITAL CITY RETORiiNG SEIMCE
] i uon i n i i n . p y wa o i t l ue n t . :r 1/"e
_________________.--.--_a
49 l
8 Q Would you have directed him to run a manual calculation,or to do a manual calculation, just so that you could get. come kind of a satisf actory test result. in, because the computer would not give you a satisfactory' test re su l t- ?
A 1 don't. reca11 ever doing that. No, s3r.
l i Q Do you recall being asked the question by Mr. Martin, back in March of 1980, during your NRC interview, I about when hand calculations were perforked?
A No.
, O Wil1 you take a look at- your transcript of your inl ei v iew of March 1980, part icularly on page eight ?
) A If Ihat.'s what I said at that time, then I
t ha t ' n what I tecall at that t-ime. Today, I don't even reca))
thin. You've got to realize this is only about a year lator.
Now we're ia] king n.ix yearn later.
O wil.1 you turn to the end of that particular t.r a n n er i pt that you're looking at, and tell me if that bears ;
your nignat.ure? ,
)
A Yoa, sir.
O So that, if you said, and I'll quote, "If we W re down Io our tbree day limit, and we had not been nblo i
to get the comput"I to give us an acceptable limit, hand cal culstjonn were done then to noe if we were greater or less
) than our one 9.p.m. leak rate."
C APIML OtY RU OpiiNG SEINIG r s< w i. o ni nn u vu wia o s v s u nn ox . lt t r u c-
50
)
Apparently, if you said that at that time, that would have been your best recollection of the practice at that time?
A Yes, sir.
O 140w , given the fact that you made that state -
i ment and now Jonking at this manual calculation done by Pay I Bocher, doen .il~ in any way reftenh your recollection, that
!' thin un i n u a l calculation wa., done because you could not. get a m t i r,I art on y comput er heak Ita t e Ter, t. Iesuli at that t iine ?
A It very possibl y could have been.
It could have lu<n one of Iwo explanations- elt'her t he comput er wan
! <sul of nctvice or il wan not g i ving un accurate information h
l aml we run a hand calculation. You said.it was fifty-nine l
I hoorn, so we weien't r u n n i n g it because we wrre approaching the noventy-two hour limit .
O You don't. t.hink that fifty-nine hours is clone to appr oaching t.he sevent.y-two hour limit?
A Ne)), you're thirteen hours away, but that j nt311 g.i ves you t ime to run other Leak Rates. 4 7
i O Do you believe that it was common for you to go almost sixt y hours without a good Leak Rate? j I
h !
'A t 10 , sir. It wan not common. I l
i i O Pared upon your recollection of the prac-
)_ tice at t.ha t t .i m e , don't you think that as you were approachin, 4
l i
CADliM CIN REFORTING SEfMCE
) .
- o , n m n .. e w . c {
\
] on w.. o . u un i4
l 51
-).
sixty hours without a good Leak Rate, that you would have been somewhat anxious to get a good Leak Rate?
MS. PI:NNY: Would you have been anxious to get a good Leak Ita t e in Apr i 1 of 1978?
Till: WITNI::HD: I don't think that we would havn been. It would have been no big catastrophe if we shut
! down. I don ' t. see wliere it would have been any big anxious deal to obtain it.
BY MH. l >eVHS A :
0 You don't t.hink that there would have boen a problem, .i f you had shut down as a result of not being able t.o get a good I. oak Ita t e?
A No, .n i r .
O Do you ever remember doing that?
A No, sir.
O You don't remember considering doing t h a i- ?
A No, sir.
O nut you don't think that would have been a ;
i r ob]r m if you harl t o do il ?
I A tio , nit. Not .in that t i me ' f rame- i t- nhouldn'- ]
have be( n.
O l:ar l ie r , Ken, you indicated that you were c a .1 l e d , t.ha t . an a result. of the NRC innpection in October of CNWAL CITY REFORTING SErMG f in n t o n t .ne t 9 NM '.t/ b O i
,,,,4.. , , , i < i ist e
52 l
)' .
1978, you had this conversation with your supervisor or you were directed by your supervisor not to leave tests laying around. At that ti me , that same time, do you remember ever i receJ Ving any w itten communications f rom anyone, regarding what you were to do, i n renponse t o test reanit s in excens of one gallon por m.inut.e?
I
' l A No, sir. !
?
O You were a shifL foreman at that time, weren't you? )
t A fon, nir.
l O 1 01. me have> you take a look at an operatjonn! ,
! i l
c etm i, dated actabol 20, 1978, sent i o (In i t. II, shi f f. supnt- I
)
visor, nhift foreman, from Jim Floyd. Will you take a looh l'
at that and tel1 me if you temember if that was sent to you i nit :h i n Oc t obe 1 of 1978? l I
A 1 do reca)) something about the whole num- I bor Irak Itat on . I wou:ld have to say, yeah, I probably neen th.is memo.
0 11 0 you remember that subst'quent to Octobei 18, lW/8, t ha l. fhe Leak Rate Test program was modified, no thal l
the computer vould only printout whole numbers for Leak I'r, t e -
f Tout i < qu ] i.n 2 i 1 i l A ho, nil, 1 don't. i O
O Well, what is it that you do remember about )
CAPilAl CITY REFO? TING SEfNICE Imwt ? u H rtrw rev4 9 Atry: 1 tvlM Mfv ;/ t /1f 4
53 f
- whole numbers in connection with Leak Rate Tests?
A Really not enough to even to tell you any- .
thing. I just remember there was a period of time there,
! when we were looking at whole numbers. I can't even rccall right now, any of t.he circumstaneen around it.
O Do you recall though, that you were in-s truc t.ed that if'you got a I,eak Rate Test in'exceos of two 9.p.m. in t.his particular case, that. you were to enter the act ion st at ement ? Do you recall necing a memo that ynn in-t.e r p r e t.e d t h a t way?
l I A th > , I ilon ' t recall il.
) O That memo also refers to shift foreman be-ginning (o keep a list of known leakn, in order to ansist in
<let.ejminiog when Ihe acIion utatement ought to be entered into, doen it n o t. ?
A Yes, sir.
L. O Do you remember that in October of 1 9'7 8 ,
you, as a shift foreman, began to maintain a list of known leaks, no that. you would be able to determine when to enter the action ntatement?
A 1 don't remember the time frame. I do re- )
m6mber, as I've told you previous times, from making tours of the plant, checking for leaks, quantifying these leaks.
3 Maybe ihis is when that. started, as a result of this. I don't CAnliAt O1Y IUOllfNG SEfNCE I w w <u 6tt o mt'n W.1 s w o wwr h s i , w, 1/ ti d!
- I 54 remember that.
O But do you remember. maintaining a list of leaks, act.ual]y beginning to prepare and maintain a list of known leahn that.would be kept and turned over from one shjft io anoi her ?
A Yen, sir.
O Do you remember how that was kept arad where i1. was herit ?
A To the bent of my recollection, we kept it on a picco of'Iabloi paper on the foreman'n denk, t httt we I ni ne d <ivoi f i oio nin- I or om.in io Iho noxt.
)' O I'm norty. I didn'L get Ihat. Can you ro-pr a t. t hat ?
A .Tha t we hopt iL on a sheet of tablet paper on the shift. foreman's desh, that. was turned over from one :
nhift t.o the nexi.
t Q And how do you maintain that list? What did you put on that. piece of tablet paper?
l A Leakn that were found and what was quanti fim1 for ihe l ent ario , how many diopn, how much water was collocied 1 l
4
[ in a n.n l n .i no r fot ihe measure t.ha t. way, whether a work re- j quent- had been nubmitted to have it. fixed. That's about all ! l l
. J'can i omoinlic i that might liave been on that list. *
') What would happen if a leak got repaired?
O
) CAnTAL CliY REPORTING SEfNICE j :n m o r o an r m t - .'r e
- t. i y* ;/ t i t ,o
55 A It would be taken off the list.
O This is some kind of a running list that were kept. by all the shift foremen?
A 't'o t iio b< u t of my reco l l ec t- l on , yon, cir.
l Q 11u t i.t. wa s olio l i .s t.?
A Yea, s i! .
O Antl it w.u, just turned over from one s h i f t.
Io a n n i lie t ?
A Yes, sir.
j O An a loah wan repaired, i t- would bo neralcho l i
~
off the ] i fe t.?
A Yes, sir.
O And as a new leak was found, it would be added to tho 1 int ?
A Yes, sir.
O Wouldn't that list get rather long in a very short peljod of 1ime?
A 1 don't recall having any long list, no, sir.
(
0 Do you reca)) it ever being more than one {
payr?
A rio , sir.
O Wouldn't it inovitab]y become longnr and f CAollAl CITY f&PCX? TING SEINICE I vo lll t.' I t l l l 4 td,l % f V41 ',l All iJ l v.! Or j p p ., i /. i /1! p
56 I-longer as you added new leaks to the list and crossed out the old leake?
A No, sir. It was common practice to rewrite i
! notes, n (> if you had a tablet sheet full and half of them are scratched out and half of them are good, it was common Ihat a foroman, any of us foremen, we would write out a new cheet and t.hrow the old one away. Then you start with a lhrand now nhret and only the active items on that shent:. You I
j dJdn't junt keep flipping the papern.
I O So this would have been, primarily t hen, a nhorf Jint o f wlia t were known t.o bn activo leakn?
A Yon, sir.
) ,
I l 0 And as it got to be that there were too many leaks, t hat had al ready been repaired and crossed out, you might have just start ed a new piece of paper and put the cutrent inf ormat ion on it and discarded the old piece of pa-per?
A Yes, sir.
O Do you remember how long it was that you ompqr d in Ihis piactice of maintaining a list like this?
) A No, sir. I don't. '
[.
, O Do you think it was always your practice to ma i n t a i n a lint of leakn like this? j
- )
A When you say always, in what time frame ar0 CtPIT/4 CifY REPORTING SErMCE
- p t u ,o a s . i w.m w n. < I
/ -
gF i/ 1/18 dt
57
)
..you speaking? From March of 1978 through March of 1979?
Q Yes.
-A No, si r. It was not'always practiced in-tha t_ time frame. We did liave a practice for awhile and it
! neoms to me, that that practice did sort of fall by the way I
and we of. art.ed relying on work requests to go in,'to have l
l l.hinga fixed that we found. I - don' t! recall keeping a list l
right up 11nough to March of 10 '/ 9 .
O Do you t.hink Ihat. you br-gati maintaining ihin list i n i opolu;o t o a morno f rom J.im Floyd, or had it born the prartico pr io) to that time t.o maintain such a l i. n t ?
') A To the best of my recollection, we had a-prartice of doing thic prior 10 thin memo, just for normal shift inf or mat ion -t o be passed on f rom one shif t to another.
O And you would not remember specifically when t.hin practice seemed to fall into disuse?
A No, sir.
O An a shift foreman, did you attend the " Plan of t be Day" inoe t i ngs? I I
A No, sir. 1 l
0 Were you advised by your shift supervisor l
'of the result s of _ the " Plan of the Day" meetings? If
)- A only if it pertained to my shift. Other ,I ,
CAPITAL CIN REFOQTING SEfMCE f i ' /f t il f i f 4 f '/ l '/ / Vil'l ".I/ II' 4 l s t/ ' i'r.lv f . .t/ 1 ' 1818 :
fr.
58
)
than that, I normally wasn't.
Q Do you remember ever being advised in Octo-bor of ]978, that from now on, shift foremen were always to bo not..if.ied when exceptions or. deficiencies were found, when porforming surveillance? l i
A No, sir.
O Do you have any recollection? Now we're talking about this same period of time, when the inspection took place and i he I.EH came out, that you were told at that ti me , if t.here was any kind of an exception or deficiency found out on per . orrhi ng the survei1lanco, that shift foremen
) and shift supervinorn were immediately to be notified?
l A I do recall that we were to be notified. ]
I The time frame, I have no recollection of. l O Wan t. hat. anything new in Oct.ober of 1978? )
)
Do you have any recollect ion i hat it wan the practice prior
- t. o October of 1978, t ha t. it wasn' t. necessary to notif y shif t f or emen about Iinding an exception or deficiency?
A I think i.t was just a normal practice, if i
there was something wrong, that the shift foremen was notified. I can't give you anymore details than that.
O Take a look at I,ER 78-62, particularly the sign-off shoot t hat 's ai t ached ' to that I.ER. Does that sign-cf f F
sheet appear to cont ain your initials?
CARML CITV RErO? TING SErMCE l GiVf f: ll llI ! fAnt 'O l^(X v!Jlot i i v.l.4 T ,i" TM . 1 '/. t /18 0
- D 1
i 9, 59
& g Q} . }
- :4 -Q A Yes, sir.
l l 0 -Now, you've indicated earlier, you did not recall seeing t. hat LER prior to the time that'this matter be-n came under investigation?
A No, sir. That's true. .I did not recal1
!d t, unt.il somebody 'sh' owed it t o me in one of the investiga-tiono.
O Would it have been your practice at the Limo t o' ni gn somet hi ng t hat- you did not read?
s A- No, nir.
O Dut the existence of your . initials on t.he
) s.ign-off sheet, would lead you to conclude that you did, in
.,. fact, see that -part icular document and you did in f act , read
.it?
A Ven, sir.
O You have no recollection now, about what; your reponno was to t hat particular document at the t;ime?
A No, s .i r .
O You have no recollection of what your in-1.orpretation might have been of that LER at that time?
i A No, s .i t .
O 90 you remember whether in Novembor of 1978,
). anything happened to cause you to change '.he way you supervisetl ,
CAPITAL. CITY REPORTING SErMCE roAwr r> ti rrrnN souN4 STATCN pe e ,e in e e . i.A 1iinu
60 s-
') ..
the conduct of Leak Rate Tests on your shift?
l A No, sir. ;
O The practices regarding Leak Rate testing I i
i that you liave described for me today and l a st wee k , were un-I c' anged f2om October of 1978 right up until the accident?
A 1 don't recall any changes.
O Do you reuember that at some' period in time ir the winter of 1978, t. hat make up tank level instrumentation wa .1 jnaccurate and alfoct.ed Leak Hate Test results? ,
A I can iust; barely recall something to do wit 1 !
the make up tant level and, bu t. r ight today, I cannot recal]
h what. the problem was.
O Do you recall whet.her or not anyone on your nhift would have run a I,nak Rate Test., purposely, on a bad or a fan]f.y make up tank level transm.i tt er in order to get a !
more f avorable I.eak Itat.o Test result?
h No, sir.
O Do you have any recollection that one of the ways you might get a good I.eak Rate Test when it was becorning difficult to do that, was t.o run the I.eak Rate Test with a bad make up iank Ievel trannmi t t r>r?
A No, sir. My way of thinking would be, if you're using a bad one, you're more apt to get a bad Leak Rate, CAPITAL. CIN REPORTING SEFMCE r eAv.m u . IF ro.w r.ouARE svnN iyJM H Wv i'/, 1/1:P ',
61
)
Q Were you aware that at the time, there were t_wo make up tank level transmitters and that the operators had the capacity to shift or to switch transmitters, so that one would run on the atrip chart and one would run on the com-puter?
A Yes, sir.
- O And then they could switch and the other would run on i he computer and the other would run on t.he st rip c ha r t. ?
l A Yen, sir.
i O You were aware of Ihat?
) A Yes, sir.
O Take a look at. the test of December 14, 1978. First of all, can you tell if you approved that part.l-cular t en t. renult?
A Yen, nir.
O Can you compare the make up tank Icvel an indicated on the comput.erized printout and the make up tank 1ove1 ihat.'s rof1eet ed on the corresponding strip chart?
MS. PENNY: Between these two dots?
Mil . DeVESA: According to our consultant 8, Ihe dols would show where the make up tank level was.
) MF. PENNY- No, where the Leak Rate was, right ?
CN1TAL CliY REf 0RilNG SEINICE rowepy rrrmN foroE m^tc*1 H u prh M e, I.A 17 tit'l
62
't MR. DeVESA: Also the make up tank level, becauso it would be the beginning and the'end of the test, but the make up tank level would be recorded by the computer.
TIIM WITNESS: Well, the test was run from i 1944 to 2044, in what you have marked here.
I I
- DY Nh. DeVE!iA
l
! O Well, t lie tests are always corrected for I
chart t ime er) 01 s.
A Now I hai l've looked at them, vou]d you on l hack io your luestion?
l O My question is, in comparjng t.be make up
) tank level that's being reported by the computer, and the make up lank level t hat 's being recorded on the strip chart, first of all, does it appeat that those two levels agree?
A No, sir. It does not.
O Can we take a break for a minut.e here? !
(Brief recess)
IW MR. DeVl'S A :
f, O Pali you (ell from examining the s t r i p ch a r t-l and t he comput er pl int out at this time, whether or not that j particular test result- would be valid? I I
A The only t.hing I can say, t hr>re 's a margi na l difference between t.he computer's printout and the make up t.ank level, and what's on the chart (hat you're showing me _
rAMTAt OTY RFWWTING SEfNCE i e wa u a o r ,n.e1 um m o I t .'. : ,h f = . I i 1/ t' Pi
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ - - - -- - - ~
63-L here.
O Can you tell from examining the strip chart, that a few hours later, the instrument was switched and that
~
another instrument began sending information to the strip chart?
A Definitely something happened. I assume that t.he met.ers were switched.
O You're not able to conclude that from rc~
viewing the strip chart?
A No, not conclusively.
O Do you have any independent recollection
} of the t.est of December 14, at this point in time?
A No.
0 13nt you can t ell from looking at your sig-nature , that you did in fact, approve that test resul t ?
A Yen, sir.
O And you do not recall whether or not you were aware t hat the t e n t. result was invalid at the time, be-cause t_he faulty make up t.ank level transmitter was used to I
run 1,cah Rat e Test s?
l A flo , sir.
O W.ill you please take a look at the test of
) December.15, 1978 and first of all, tell me if you were the CAPilAl. UlY IUO?IING SEfMCE tweM R U . rrOEpc4 roumE sinoN 14 ',14 4' l H , % (-A ) / h pl
1
! 64
._ _1..
1 L._ .
1 j
l l
?
l I approver of that pa r t.icul a r Leak Rat e Test?- {
l 4
)
.A Yes, sir. j l 0 And can you tell me, which control room oprr< i-tor is listed an havJng performed that test?
A i 1. looks to me like liartman 's signa t.ure.
f 0 Ilartman was a control room operator annigned I
to your shift, was he not?
/ Y:, sit, l-r- o :, vii! ' on e ,un i t e I h<
, co:>< : n, .tin,
! "1i1 1 chaii for t h,; t patticulai t on t . .
l i 1
.l g- A ( i .oo k .i n q at t.he ot rip thas t ) ;
i O Now, can you tel] from l ool i ng a' ihe *; trip chaft thal beforo the time t.ha t the test was Inn, one makr- up ;
i I<> l tanh level j ou t i ninen t wa t; being' used to send information I
the nt rip char t secorder and that precit;ely at the t i n+ of l 1
t.h o I enf , the inntiument was owit.ched to another inntrumont, ;
i wh i ch wa:-- fat mot e et ratic and varj able than the instrumr e nt l !
- i
- ibat had been un<d to Iun on the ntrip chart? i
)
i A l.ookitty a t the strip chart, .it appearn l tha! way. Yon, ni . :
I O Jooking at t.ha t strip chart, does it ref recli ,
J your Jocolloction at all, that during December of 1978, one i J
of the moko up tank level instr ments did produce erratic ,
i l I
CAPITAL C11Y REPO? TING SEfMCE wm p u u num ,cyivs muro 14A'Mhp.lA 1/1r dt ,
p
?-
6 5 .'
1 1
L readings and results and the other instrument was more con-stant and accurat.e?
A No, sir. It doesn't.
O Does it refresh your recollection that there was a period of time, when it became necessary to switch in-struments, so t hat. you .could get a Leah Rate Test result by usjng ihe mote accurate instrument?
A 1 do remember at one time switching instru-m u n t. s . The time i n t.e rva l , that I don't remember.
O In lev.iewing the st. rip chart. now, does it.
appear io you, that what occurred in this part.jcular cane, wan
') that. t.he more accurate inst.rument was being used to run the cLrip chast and then at the time of the test, it was switchod I
t.o the comput er, so you that you would get a more accurate Len t. resul t ?
A It. appears that way. Yes, sir.
O Do you remember ever instructing your con-trol room operators to do that, when running a Leak Rate Test? ;
A No, sir. l t
0 Do you remember any discussions with Mr.
Ilartman or anyone else, regarding his knowledge and awareness of f hJ n part icular innirumentat.jon problem?
) A No, sir.
CAPITAL OTY REFORTING SEFMCE
, w ur o m u n 4 nu w .n iu r t r to p - '/up
{ t
66 l)!
O Will you take a look at the auxiliary opera-tor's log for December 15, 1978, which corresponds to the t.ime that this particular^ test was run?
A You did say pecember 15, right?
O liight. 'Ihin was a test that was run De-cembol 15. Now d i rect i ng your at tent.j on to the portion of 1
the aux.iljary operatol's log that seems to coincide wit.h the timo t.ha t. llii s particular Leak Itate Test. was run, can you J make ou t. in t.ha t. bad copy, an ent.ry that says," Add more II 2
to'MUT 20 p.s..i."?
A' Yes, sir.
) O Can you tell me, based upon your experience ,
1 as a sh)fI foreman, what t. hat. ent.ry appears to indicate?
-l A The only thing I can say is that an auxili- l ary oper at of added llydiogen to t he make up tank.
O Du ri ny Lho Leak Rate Test, correct?
A If Ihe time frames are all right, yes, sir.
O Based upon your experience as a shift f o r. ema n , 11 an auxiliary operator added Ilydrogen to the make up tank dul.ing 1.he I.cak Rate Test, would he not have done no ,
because he was directed to do no by a control room operator or a s h.i f I foioman? !
I A Ynn, sir.
I ;
UPil A!. CITY RErORilNG SEWCE e t /> * ' d i Ul M
,i:,er. e i t ', i
)
1 I
67 T). You don't recall that auxiliary operators O
customarily added 11ydrogen to the make up tank, without being directed to do.no, do you?
A No, s ,i r .
O Can you take a look at the corresponding con t.i o) 1com opesat01'u log f or tha t particular 'I,eak Ita t.e Tenf. ?
Te)) ne whether you find t.ha t that flydrogen addi tion was logged by l'ho cont rol room operat or during the rest ?
A No, n .i r . Jt was not..
O If one were t o examine t he str.ip chart t bal.
coine) den with Ih.it t eni , because of the fau)ty make up Iank l
1 eve] lont i ument at ion, it would be impossible to determine whether or not Ihere was a liydrogen addition made during the _
tent, would it not ?
A 1 don't believe I can answer that for you.
I don't know.
O can you examine the strip chart at this point and t. ell me whether or not you can tell?
A 1 have . looked at it.. I cannot determine it.
1 l
O in December of 1978, did you know that adding 11ydrogen during a Leak Itate Test, could produce a morr-f avorable t est result ?
A No, sir.
h O Did you know that operators working in your CAPITAL OTY REFORTING SEfMCE onwi u o o rwN no w# 9MION iiM.vthie ,1% 1/19t
68 c
{}
I' shift would add Ilydrogen during a Leak Rate Test, in order to get a more favorable test result?
A No, sir.
I I
O You are, of courne, aware at this point, tha' Mr. lia r t. man han admi t t ed tha t. It was his practice f rom time io time, to add Ilyd t ogen du r i ng a I,eak 11a t.e Ten t , in order ta get a trore favorable resull, are you not?
A Yen, sir. ,
Q in it your testimony that if he added Ily-droqen during t.hi: t cat. in order to get a more favorahlo i i enuli , you were not awate of it ?
A tJo , sir, I was not. If I was aware of i t, I would have 1old him he was full of it, because my under-standing of how that instrumentation works, if this had been the cano, addinq liydrogen would have only took and caused 1he level to go down, which would have made it look worse and that's what I believe yet today.
O So it was your impression at that time, that you would not be able to get a more favorable test result by adding Ilydrogen dur ing the course of the test? ,
I A No, nir. I think it would be a hinderance, i
Ib)I a !!i ' i p . l l
p tutt de :pii e i ha t. fact, you were not. aware
)
t ha t- oper a t orn working under your nupervinion, were adding Ily-( APilAl CITY PliOIMING SFIMG r e w p n i, >
- i.y ',i y er r, van * ,
i a. -* + a u l . . # A 1/tf vi
69
)
drogen to manipulate the test results?
A No, sir.
O Does looking at that particular test renult and the coi n caponding strip char t in anyway refrenh your toco]}eetion that thin make up Lank level in n t r u me. n ta t. i on l a o b ]< n: wan l tiown to you and the operat.orn and that, in fact, the tu a l. o up tant level innt t uinent wan chifted for the purpone of yet t i tig .t inol o accurate tent r e n u l t.?
A 1 don't recall any det.alln for nhifting. I do 1:now evt t ybocly w.in i t ai ned and underst ood that thore was two i nni rumonts I h.ti fed; one to fhe recorder, one to the com-pu t o r . A nti t ha t you shouId innure that the goort inst rument a-t-ion was f ood i riq 1:he comptit et . I quens that 'n about all I lcan ioca1] iqht now. I O Will you next t. urn to the t ent of Decembor i
i 1 (> , ]978, and f .i r s t of all, tell me whether or not, that in albo a I,o a k Ita t e Tout that you approved an a shifL f or en:c: n ?
A Yes, nir.
O Tha t 's a t e n t. started at 13:28, is it not.?
i A 't h e bent I can read what's here, yen, sir.
l l l'l:78.
l u l'd like you to also look am another tent o f. December 16, 1978, wliich apparently start.ed at 00:20 and anh you if you also would have approved that particular t est ?
CAh lN. OlY l>U UNING SEINICE ravspw m ?N w/M SWON
.f
'I 70 Yes, sir. !
A O The first t.est, the test run at 13:28, can you tell whether you were actually on shift when that particu-
- 1. -
l 3ar test was performed?
A tio , sir. I was not.
l-t l 0 Hut you app.ttoni1y came on duty nhort1y affer I
that t est won complet ed and approved of its submission, correct:?
A Yes, sir.
i 0 Can you toll from looking at the strip chatL. !
I l v hot he) of no t ' t.h,il ' n a va l i <l t<mi resuli and whother .i t <mn l
l rtui on the good mahn up Lank level transmitter?
i l
A J,ooking at. the strip. chart, no, sir, I can't ,
Q ran you examine t he chif t and daily check form, for the shift that completed that Leak Rate Test anel tell me what. information is contained therein, regarding the number of pump ut ar t s for that shift?
A Direct nilline suun pumps?
I, O Yen.
l A It says one start.
- l. Doen the fact that there was one pump start 1 0 on thal pattJcular chilt, indicate t.o you that the Leak Rare !
i I
TonL tenuJt ihat was ohtajned on that par ti cul ar test van con- i n.i n t olit wit h what ot her plant information wa: chowing you? t
)
J CAilitt CITY REPO'NING SEfMCE tu uriu IHen m mrgsrmnN .
i v.i 4 >>- e n e , tv 1/ tm !
.[
71 i
1 1
A I would say, yes, sir.
{
O Now will you take a look at the other tent, t hat.~ was perf ormed on December -16. The test that.was performe on your shift.,- and'alno examine the make up tank level atrip chatl'Ihal correnponda io t hat - part icular t est.
i Now, by ex.imining t.he s t ri p char t , doesn't, i t- ap}u ai ihat upon i epot i inq for duty, your shif:t swit.chal the make up tank leve] inh ti.umen t s , so that the more accurate
'lnnirumont was golny to the computer and the lenn accurato innt1ument was going to the strip chart?
A Yon, sir.
O I t- lookn like whoever ran that test on your nhl f f , hinw that there was a qood computer, a good ins t r omon t and a had inntrument and speci f ically swit ched over to run the 1."ah Rate To : t_ on t he qood . instrument, correct?
A Y e.: , sir.
O And it appearn that he did that approximate-ly, two hours before the end of the I,eak Rate Test that you approved, correct ?
A Yes, Sir.
O Does looking at that strip chart, suggest to you that per hapn anot her T,eak Rate Tent had been attemptad in the firat hour of the chift and that apparently, it come
)
out above one q.p.m. and might have been thrown away?
t '/.j1l Al CilY I4 KWillG SFINICE r vw p u n 14' pal 9auNd STAhi W
,, . i.,.,...
i 72 ;
L
'A possible.
O If you approved that second test result, wouldn't .it haveincome apparent to you, that the first test renult on t.he n i x t eent.h tha t you approved, had been run on 1
ihe had t rarismi t.t er?
- A 1 doli' t know.
l O In otherwords, it appears from the str.ip chatt, follow ino if you can, that. there was a tent renult. t he t-won obt ained shortly before you reported for work, correct?
A Yec, sit.
O And that tont renult apparently was obt ati nerl
)
by un.ing ihe bad inutlument. Do you agree with that?
l A ven, nir.
O Atui then upon teporLing for duty, comeone on your shift. swit ched to the good instrument and got anot.her iest renult.
A yen, nir.
O Is it your testimony that all this wou3d I have occurred without your 1;now] edge?
p A It could have. !
[
O you apploved each of those test resu)ts?
A ven, nir.
)
O one, which was apparently invalid, and the CAPITAL City 14RWTING SEfMG r ew.e, o n r w<s ouaur mtar o
T 73 l
other, which was apparently valid, correct?
A Yes, sir.
- 0 And, in fact, from looking at the strip chart o
.i t appears that there was even perhaps, another test run on the fi rst hour of the sh i f t. , which may have been in excecs of one q.p.m. and which was tbrown away, correct?
A It's ponni.ble.
O .And are you saying at this point, that you don ' t think you were aware of al] of this at that time?
A N o t- that T can recall.
O Pinally, take a look at- tho t o s t- of Dnconbor 17, 19 7 tt . Cou]d you tell me if you approved that test resujt?
A Yes, sir.
O Who was t he performer on t.ha t par tj ou l a r i ont ?
A 1.cohn t.o me 1ike llartman's signature. ;
o Will you examine the st. rip chart that go<n wit.h that part icular t est.
Would you agree from locking at the strip char 1, it. would appear that the make up tank level transmi tter i
was again shifted, so that the good transmitter was uned to tun t he livah 1:a t e Tes t.?
).
A Yes, sir.
CAPITAL CflY REPORilNG SEfMCE f1MYJ R tl liiVi'Al TJ MPE STATF W
. .. ,.,4....
74 Q Now, in looking at those test results during December, did it occur to you that each of those test results between December 14 and December 17 exceeded .95 g.p.m. for unident if .i ed leakaqc?
A Oh, l ' in not e at the t.ime i. l probably did.
I don'l i ecalJ now, i
O G.iven what you believed regarding the Invel of inaccuracy in Ihe f.e s t tenulIn, when you got trat renulf.n I iopeatedly of .95 and .97 q.p.m. during December of 1978, i
could you have been confident t. ha t you had not exceeded one i qa1 lou pi nii nu t - at t h a t. tino ?
l l
) A tio , sir.
O Do you recalI whether or not you did any- j thing to i ndependenL]y verify the accuracy of those test re-nuit.n or to bring thene t en t. renult.s to the attent. ion of your nupervinot?
A IJot t-ha t. I recall. No, sir.
O Do you have any recollection of a three or four or five day period in December, when you repeatedly I
were get t i ng a lmos t identifcal tent renults for unidentified leakage of .95, 47 gallons per minute?
A No, sit. l j O Wouldn't that have appeared to you to be CAPITAL OTY REKYJTING SETMCE t uv/i v o u r en c mig w w vi l
1 7.5 W i
f
)
c.
rather unusual or curious, that you could get three:or.four consecutive tent results, each saying .95, .97 g.p.m.? .
f A 1 quess today, looking back at it, I might think it's kind of funny, but I don't know what I was thinking back in those dayn. I don't know what to tell you.
O Might you have been thinking that as long an you conlcl ~ ip' t a nat icf act ory t' e s t recul t , you would n u hm.i t it, n o t. think I00 much about it. at all?
A We11, it would have been submitted. Yes, ii wou l <1 have.boen nuhmit.t.ed an a good one. I'd just like to once noro emphaniyo thai T nsule my tours of t b ra plant anel al1
) anil c ho< hed .uul tiied t.o find out-, whatever I could about. the j plant. So, probably wi t.h the comb.i na tion , I did not feel funny about submitt.iug it t. hat way.
O Wil] you t.ake a look at the tent of December 22, 1978. Toll me first of all whet.her you recognize that an a tent t. hat. you would have apptoved of?
A Yen, sir, o can you te1) me who the control room opera-tot it, for thal patiicular t en t.?
i A Onoe again, that looks l ike Hart man '- ; i q- J t
hatute.
Can you examine the strip chart thet corres-O pondn to that tent and tell me whether or not t.he good or the CAPITAL CITY fMOGNG SErMCE
....,.....,,,..,.,,,.....,,,v,
i 76 L
h bad transmitter was used for that test? ;
, 'A Well, looking at this strip chart verson l' t he of her one'n i ha t. I've just been looking at, I would say i
Ihat Iho good one was feeding the computer. l l
Q 11 's your opinion that the good one in 1.h a t case, was feeding the computer? I I
i A Yes, sir.
i
! .O could you tell me what level .the computer
.was Jocording on the make up Lank during that t e n t.?
A 1,ookn like it's snying 8 6.', inchon t. o n t a r t.
,nul 't:7. 5 Io Lininh.
O naaed upon year knowledge of operating make up iank jevet, do you nt113 be1leve that; the good ' innt.ru- l ment. was providing inf ormation to the comput er during the .I i
courne of that t.e s t.?
A Yes, sir.
Q It was common practice for you to operate the rinke up iank level at 86, 87 inches?
A liight now, I don't recall where our upper band was, eight y, eighty-five inchen, in there was our upper band.
O in any event, qiven the fact that the make i i
up tank Jevel wan reflected as being over eighty-seven inchen CN'lIAl ('lly Nfl t WilNG SFrMCF
, ;>..n u o u t .; vn u vM wa e n
77
)
by the computer that, was running the Leak Rate Test, that would not have caused you to realize that this was not a valid test result?
A No, sir. I can't see any reason why it would have.
O Can you take a look at the test of December 25, 1978?
A (Looking at the test of December 25, 1978)
Q Now is that a test that you approved?
A Yes, sir.
O Can you tel.1 me who the control room opera-tor wan on that t.e n t.?
A Looks like .it's Hartman's signature.
I O The name operator that was on the tent of liccember 22, 1978, correct?
r A Yor, sir.
O Can you t. ell me whether the good transmitter was being used to provide information to the computer during I
t.he coutne of that tent?
A 1 believe it was, from looking at this from what I've neen on t- h e other previous charts you've showed me. l O Can you tell? l i
l A No, rea))y, I can't for sure.
C AIMAl. CITY RHORTING SErMCE
, w e.m n m ,n.q w uwt r,mino
1 I,
i 78 I
I I Q Based upon the indications in that make up l
tank level strip chart, can you tell whether you had a valid i test at that point in time? I, A Prom lookirig at the strip chart?
l yen.
0 A No.
O Does the computer printout indicate any chalige in lu ennut izer level during the course of that. tent? l l
l A Yes. It shown an increase of nix jnchen, a 1 j i t. l e more.
l O An incleatie in preus11rizer level?
A Yes, sir.
O in ariy event, you cannot- Lo)) from loc ki ng a t- that. Part icular t est., whether or not the good instrument.
wan used to Iun ihe iest or not?
A No, sir. I can only assume f rom what. you've shown me before, t.ha t. this looks like the trace that you tell was the bad i nn t r ument before.
O Well, it's not important what I tell you, ten. 1 t 's a quest.lon of what you can tell from looking at tha L make up tonk level tiend, baned upon your experience as a nhift f r.r ema n . l l
A No, Fir. I cannot.
C@liAt Clly REFOfMING SEIMCE f WV\*/f f) i J f f IV IMI 'O JAPI ",IAIKTi I i/-l Or j $ I * , l1 i /if #t 4 i2 1.a
79 a
l O What can you tell from looking at that make ;
up tank level trend, as a shift foreman?
A We have oscillations'in the level transmitted That we're showinq pretty much, a steady rate of decreano throughout what's'shown. We're showing where we add water.
That's about what I see.
Q Wou]d you have observed the make up tank level during t. hat. period of time, if you were on duty as a shift foreman?
A Dur.inq the t:ime that-the Leak Date wan run?
O Int ri nq that day?
A inu i tnj the day, yen, sir.
O I mean, you indicated before.it was your
. pr act ice to from time ta timo, t.o examine the make up tank
.l e v e l , right?
A Yes, that's why I was asking for a clarifi-cation of 1.ime.
O And if you looked at that particular make op I.ank level, slope or irend, given the level of oscillations i he r t' , would you have been able t. o t.e l l whether or not you I were leaking in e/.cenn of one g.p.m. or not? l A If you sit. down and studied it, .]ook at other patametera to go alonq with it, yes, sir. I think you I
) could come int o your ballpark of saying where your plant is.
I C APilAL CllY RBOmNG SEIMCE
< t. :r a u s a r., n u v m . u n. .n .
t u t t er S p a .l/ ?/pp
1 i
j l
80 J l
i, O . What would you say the level of oscillation {
'l 1
on that strip chart was, in terms of the fluctuation from peak i to peak? i 1
1
, A It looks like we had fluctuation anywhnre l from three to five inchen.
O Given t. hat level of fluctuation, would it ,
l l bo 1ike1y lhaI one might at tain a valid Leak Rate Test renul t ?
I l A 1 1hink we could come up with a good Leak I
Rato. If you average all these fluctuations out, you still shouhl como out in your ballpark area.
O In t ha t. wha t you know a Leak Rat e Ten t. t.o ilo , average the fluctuat.ionn out? Doesn't it take the rea rli nq 0
at f.he beginning of Ihe t.c s t and t he end of the test?
A Yes, sir, l
i O And doesn't it base the Leak Rate Test re-sult primarily on exactly where the make up tank level begins and ends during the course of the test?
l A I believe it does. I don't know at this l point. I don't believe I know then. Maybe I did. I don't.
know if the computer averaged or whether it just took the point- a t. the beginning, at the end and looked at them. I do not. recal 1 right now.
O Can we tako a break for one second?
) MS, PENNY: Sure.
( APilAl CilY InIt WilNG SEfNICE t nnM p u in 4!<ni moni.t sur:
- r/M4J?D ,I/ i / 9 p',
. . i .i
81 1
(Brie.f ' recess)
BY MR. DeVESA:
Q Take a look at the test of December 26, 1978 and tell me whether that. is also a test that you approved?
A Yes, sir.
O And can you tell me who the control room
</po ra t.or was who turrformed that tent?
A It looks 1ike Ray Bocher's signature.
O Was he an operator on your shift?
A Ya":, oi ,
) O Now, can you tel1 from looking at t he s l'r.i p chart:, first of all, whether or not the good transmitter wan used io run Ihat partjeular ient?
A Looks like it was.
O Wou.ld you say the instrument that was sendito ;
niqnalr io Iho t.frip chart in that cane, was the bad inntru-Inen t ?
A Yes, nir.
0 No in your opi nion , your shift was monjt.or.1nq 4
the make up iarik level trend and slope by using the bad in-
{
strument dur.ing ihat period of time? l l
i A Ye:, , n i. r .
O Now, is there a reading for pressurizer CAPITAL CnY REPOfMING SEfNICE [
n wn v n niscm "a nt.f mMY t1 {
l i',M.9'# F 1, l '/. 1/1f 18
_ - , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ - - _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ .___ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _. _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ - - _
82
)
level during that particular test?
A Yes, sir. i O And what does the reading for pressurizer level tell you about that part.icular test r esu l t. ?
A 1t shows the pressurizer level drcieaned.
O liy how much?
A 13y approx i ma tW y f our t.een inchon.
l 0 That's quit.e a decrease, in it not.?
A Yen, nir.
O linen t haI t_t nd to suggeni that t ha t. wann't, y a va ) .i d ient. tenult?
l i
A 1i suggent.n the possib.i)ity, if you look at the make up t.ank. The mal:e up tank also went four and a half inchen up, no this in where some of the water went. to.
l'11 nay t_he poru.i bi li t.y is there, that- .it was invalid. Yes.
O Given your plant. tours and your examination of various inntrumonts and plant. information, would you have known about thin prer:nurizer level drop and the corresponding vote up lanl; l e 'm l increane, during the course of this I,e a k l
Ita t e Te n t' ?
l A No, sir. .Not unless I was looking at these I at the Iime ihat it w,n. boing tun. Thin _i n over an hour l
- ) . period, no-1']I nay no.
CAPilAL CilY RErO) TING SErMCE PDAYEP U ffDW^J TC VM STATG4 s e/J i.T,W P . I S t I'l #1 l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A
l 83 w
0 Take a look at the morning report of Decem-ber 26, 1978, which is a report that was reportedly submitted
, during this same shift. that we're talking about now. The author of that report is Ilcrnie Smith, is it not?
A Yes, sir.
O And Dernie Smit h was your shif t. supervisor, correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q ('a n you turn to Item thirteen of that ro-port and tell me if you can, what it means? I'm norry, T l em Ihi Iwn of Ihe atIached tutnover not.er, t.o that r< port.
) A The laul thing I can't-read. The fi rs t thini there it- says is "A". They're t.alking about a couple of foed water valves that had leaks on them. It says, they need furmanile to come in and fix. " ll " Item nayn, there's a flow element on the third stage " II " is bad. Check with somebody.
I don't know what it means there, today, on isolating this and <
"C", f not e list of other 1( ahn attached. And "D", something about shift workern all night and I don't know what the rent of jt nayn, j' Q itu t t hoi e in some ind ication there, that.
t bra e in a lint of leaks attached, is ihere not? f I
I YeG, Sil. j
) Q On your I,eak lla te Tost rennlt that you ap-C/PITAL CliY PERDRTING SEIMCE
. , ,, . . , u o m . . m. , ,
j lv ,~pg. 'q * ! st ,r' 1
84 I) . proved, is.there any indication that there's any identified leaPage that. is not being collected in the reactor coolant drain tank that wan dincovered by you or your colleagues on your chiit ?
A No, nir.
3 .O Now, considering the strip chart and the chifI noperv.inor's repor'. and the computer printout, is your op, inion t.o d a y , that t his was a valid I,eak 11at e Test r o n u l t- I that was nuhm.itted at that time? j A No, sir.
, Q 11 wistil d a p p e. n , inntead, t-bo t the 1,001: I:a l "
g Tont ionulI w,u: not valid, inn't that corroct ?
- -A you, nir.
I O Ken, I'd like to now talk about for a mornent ,
this period of iime in early January 1979. Do you have any
.i ndepe nd e n t recollection of that time period, January 1979, tho firnt couple of woehn before there was a plant shutdown?
A No, sir.
O Is there anything that sticks in your mind !
about t ha t. Iimo period, that you can remember?
A The only thing I can remember is, and this was brought. about and lefresned my memory from interviews, the leak that we had on the pressurizer, I believe that was I
about January 11, I went into the reactor building to look at .t FAPliol rlTV Pf FOpilNr,9FP/IrF n , .- u p i .i i r i , w u w n, t i l WI.T.K 4 i I6 ) ' l' L"
}.
l: o I;
85
<).
That's the only thing.
O Do you _ remember that now or are you just saying that you know that it occurred, because of certain do-cument.n that. have been uupplied to'you?
A 1 remember going in the reactor building.
The time frame, I did not remember, except through being told it was that. tiine f rame.
O And what is it that you remember about going into t.he react.or bui lding?
A' I iemoinber going in t.o 1dok at a 1eak. Sonm -
body - - - l e t '_ n uee how was it ? I don't. recal l whet hor it.
) was report ed that there was a leak, or the first time went in, just to check for' leaks. But I remember there was two ontiien. One went .j n niid found the leak on t.he prettuurizer and went .in la t er, I think it was almost a week later, to
.look at the leak again and see if it had changed very much from before.
O Do you remember anything else?
A That's all I remember about it.
O Do you remember how you determined whether it had changed bet. ween the first time and the second time that you saw it?
A ilust by my memory of what I had seen the CAPITAL. OlY REPORTING SETMCE rmano rrryom roer 9 Alm ivdPrHf*.IV 1/1f vt
( ,
86 W, -s .
,.;f
-first time when I was-in versus what-I had seen the second n
time.,
O Do you remember how long you were able to l ebcerve iho Innk?
A It was a very short time, probably thirty SUCofidH or no.
O Can you deneribe a little bit more fully,
! precinely how it was t hat. you eni et ed the react.or hui.1 ding I
i l-anil wln're you were and what you'did and what. you lochort at?
l t
A Which Iimo?
l 0 Why don't. we start with the first time j 1
) Iit nt ? I A To the best of my recollection, t.he first i a
.iime I went in, 1 was not. wearing a respirat or, Scott Air Pack, no I went - int o just the base of't.he "D" rings and loobd j
. up md neen t ha t thrie was a steam leak. Looked at- how much I drippaqo ve had coming down from that area and made my report !
from t hat , ! l The second time I went in, I --
, t l (
i ,
0- ('a n I ntop you for a moment, bei 01. 9 we get k
l on io t no necond ihinq? I
'?
A Ynn.
O Who wute you with on t.he first time, if you f
. .a n , . .m.m. , ?
I
.., CAPli At C!ly PrfrWTING 9FfMCF
. w i .< n i g a -s o er ';;mt, *
, po' M )sp.~ , et 191i)M 4
I i 87 s.
-) '
A- I don't really right ! now reca]I anybody *
' being with me the.first time. Probably an HP, but right now, I can't even remember that, i
O :Let.me have you t.ake.a look at Pad.iation Work ~ Permit-No. li 3 '1 fl , dated January.11, 1979. Take'a look at it and tel1.me if. it refreshen your recollection with re -
spect to who you were with at the t.ime?
.A 1;en nurkholder. Right now, Ken Burkholder uned to be an llP.
O JO:cune me , Ken. For the record,' can you ex-plain what an- fil' is?
I A .A Health. Physics Technician. He is the man responsible f or carrying the radiation instruments to do your l-i survei]1ancen. JC he's being your escort, to tell you what~tho r ada t .i on loveln are, to tell you your state times, banically, to protect you from gettinq into a radiation area, that you shouldn't be into.
O Go the fact that you were entering the reac-tor building, would have required that a person holding thin particular title or posiLion would accompany you?
A Yes, sir. (
l 0 l>o you remember that now, or are you junt. j able to reconstruct: that from the record?
)-
A On1y from the record. Off record, if I had l
i FAPITAI FITY pfTY'Y?TINr, SEINICF e s vi n. v o m ,nst > s i vu wn >t i ,
16 14 I.190 .1/ 1/ H e'.
{
88 )
") '
to make a name, it never would have been Ken Burkholder. For i
some reason just in the back of my head, I'm thinking of another 11P, that was not his name. But it appears from this {
record that I'm wrong.
O According to that radiation work permit, was anyone else wit.h you?
A Well, this han got a J. McGarry listed on i t. . I don't. reen him being with me. O Do ;you know who J. McGarry is? A Yes, I do. John McGarry. O You don't recall him being with you? ) A no, sir. O Wouldn't it have been customary to have nome one i'i om mm han ica i maintonanco with you, if you w"rv going fo look a t. some type of~ a serious valve leak? A No, I wouldn't. say it was customary. O Well, would this have been an ununual occur-rence then, if Mr. McGarry and the other qentleman entered the reactor bui] ding with you? - i A Wo)), what. do you mean by unusual? I guess I don't underntand. O Would this he something that would normally occur when you wou)F enter the reactor building, or is it nome-( .APll/d CllY kt IUNilt JG SEIultE
.noo i ; f a ! ', t n ' 1 .U 1I
) s v ! < c) - ,11 * / v v.
09
. .) .
thing that 'is out of the ordinary, that you would be accom-
-panied by someone from health physics and.someone from mechani -
! cal ma i nt enanco?
i A Well, the health physics,-that would have
.been normal f or him t o be wi th me. The mechanica] maintenance pernon, I real.ly can't answer that.- Probably nomebody told hi ru to go along with me to loc k at it, if he did, in fact, go with me. Pron ihis !!WP , I'm not even nure that' he did. The :'e wan a practice of I:WP's being.insued, where I could have signeel on .i ndi v.idua l l y, went and did something.
!<en Iturkholder could have gone into the t eact or building, individually, and done nomething. And John Mc(;arry cou ld have went in, individually, and done somet hing,
- t. hat would have showed up on the RWP looking just like thin.
Without ihe t.i me n that the people entered the building and exited the buildinq on here, they could have rnade an individua l entry. O Por the record, when you say looking just like t.h i s , you mean bearing information, which would make it 1 appear an though you entered together and you were~each ex-poned 1o a cortain amount of radiation? d 1 A Yen, sir. O And that's what that radiation work pernit suggests, does j t not ?
')
A Yen, sir. CAlHAL CHY REPORTING SErvCE vrin u m nv., s nw 2,a n ur un r . I1 1 Nn;>
90 1 0 But, based upon your knowledge of the way these radiation work permits were prepared, it is possible that you did not make this entry together? A It is that possibility. If you look at the dose received, also, John McGarry received sixty, I received a hundred and fifty, my escort received a hundred. 1 know my llP escort stayed back behind me, basically, and looking at the area and surveying like this. Okay? IIis exposure probably would have been comowhat less. John McGarry is considerably less. He must have been away from wherever he was at, quite a distance. If he went in to look at this, he was definitely further away. ) O This is what you assume from reviewing this particular permit? A Yes, sir. O You have no recollection of it? A No, sir. I do not recall John McGarry being with me. O in any event, you make this entry. Now, again, can you tell me where precisely, you walked and what yo u looked at? A Well, I entered the reactor building, took the elevator to the basement, went through the door in the I basement of the "D" rings, cl. imbed up the steps and ladder til l ( /4 'll/ L Lil / ld l'LAllll 10 tell//lLL i, i, i: li, r s t .. H F f f tilait 4 i
i 1 91 I got to a point where I . could almost. on horizontal level, look at the leak and then climb back down. I exited as fast as I could. f O Were you concorned about beinq oxponed io tadialion at I ha t. poi n t in time? h Ho, n .i 1 . O Why in t h a t 'l A isecause I had an IIP with me. I!e was doing 1.he monitoring and I had faith in him. Ile would tell me .i f Ibere wan any really hiqh exponuren to be walking into. And Itom what I reenived here, a hundred and fift.,, apparent.1y I did not ent er anyt h ing extraordinary.
)
O -Might that also indicate that you made your I observat ions in a very, very short period of time and quickly left? A I'm sure it was only in the neighborhood of about ihirty seconds that I was at that area. O Dencribe for me what you remember seeing at that time? j A 1 remember seeing a valve that was leaking. i It was blowing out. st eam. The steam was exiting from a point i E in 1he middle of the valve, which lead me to believe that it 1 was a body to bonnet gasket leak. There was a flume of steam { coming up in the neighborhood around four feet or so. This PAPITAI CllY RHORTING SFfMCE I i W/,1 D ll 4 f I W f.%) 't )1Af4 7/.N / I
) 1/.14' ' h ? * , l % 1/1' di
92 ') was condensing on some of the pipes. It was leaking to the floor. As I exited the area, I stopped on the basement and looked at the drips, from what I had done previously, and exited the area. G Now, if there had not been a Leak Rate Test since January 10, 1979, in fact since the early morning hours of January 10, 1979, you would have been aware of that fact as a shifi foreman on the eleventh, would you not? A Yes, sir. Q And it was customary that upon reporting for duty, you would somehow learn when the last satisfactory Leak Rate Test was, would you not? A Yes, sir. O Now, were you able, at that time, to make an estimate of what the leakage was that you were observing as a result of this entry into the reactor building? A 1 was only able to make wh.-t I considered a ballpark estimate. O Do you recall what the estimate was? A 1 believe I calculated that to be roughly around half a g.p.m. O' A half of a gallon per minute? A Yos, sir. FAPITAl CITY PFPOPTINr, SFPACF t bl. l}\ ti n i f I l 4 W I *t f ll fK F,ffs1Y if I l H.id dG I A i 1% 1/ ll h i ii
1 93~ q-Q How would you have come to that. conclusion? A .Tust by rough calculation'how much leakage-I'was seeing coming through the floor. You could look at what-van running on the floor, head r>d toward the floor drain area. O Do you remember this at this point in fime? I mean, you remember making this observation and' estimati ng that leakhye wan at a hall ii ga l .<on per minnte? A No, .1 really don't. remember. 'I junf remembe t hat. from some of t.he other interviews, where it's been brough ; up. O no you think that baned upon your discunnion , j of thin i ni'i<len t , ninee that time, previous .,tervjews, you ontimated t h.i n leakage to be at a half a gallon per minut.e? A Yes, sir. O Do you -- MD. PMNNY: Exeune me, a minute. You recall l mak i ng an est..i ma t e. You just don't recall the number. TilH WITNESS: I don't recall the number, J , I recall ma L j nq an en t .i ma l.e , yen. , l 1 ItY MR. DeVESA: P O Now, based upon your recollection of the in- I cident, do you think it was'possible for you to make an accu-rate en t.J mate of the amount of leakage that was coming from
)
the valve. CAPITAL OTY REPORTING SEfMCE ( u w a v u m w n o w.+ , w n ( a v.u f u s e 11 1/Uc
94
~)
A No, sir. 'Not an accurate one. l Q- This was the pressurizer relief valve, by { i the way?.
; A flo , sir. f I
Q What valve was it? 3 l A 'I'Im prennurizer level inst rumentation valvo. t l 0 You don't believe that. i t. was possible for ; i you Io make an accurate entimat:e? l l i l' A No, sir. No way. !
- i. !
l O At ilu' timo did you t hi rik i! Wa r. por :: i b i c - ;
! l
. f.or you t o makt- an accurat.c estimate? j
- h. I i ,
! A No, sir. !
l . : Q Uut you estimated it, nevertheless? ! l t A Yes, nir. ; i O What pur: pone would there be in you makinti up nome kind of an i riaccu ra te ent.imate at that time? f i A Ile c a u s e I was asked for an estimate number and I naid jt was to the bent of my -- what I can see and j l i what I can calculate, thin is what it is and apparently I !
.l sa.id atound ha1f a 9.p.m. j O Do you roirember that? po you renember heinoi asked f or an eniimat e fIom someone? ;
)
A i don'( 1 emt'mbo r~ t.hin case in pattirular, l.o r /J 'll Aj Clly I4 I( )(?ilNC, SHNICF r . w.; t. u o r y en er w ei ciru ti : 1 6 F.f tV J" ( * , I I. 1/918 !
95
]. I have been asked, you know I.just-know.in my mind, I was
'anked different times when I said, gee, I see a leak. Well, what's your estimate of what it is? What's your estimate of
'what. it is? That won junt sort of a normal phrase'when anybod*
sajd, well, i see a leak, to say, ve13, what do you estimate it to bo? I don't. remember t.his cace in particula r. O So you can't rcally'be sure that anynne anked you to estimate this leakage? A tin t < >no hutuir od percent co r ta .i n . No, sir. O You junt think that based upon the practicon t.ha t ex)nted a t. the time, jf you had entered the building and
}
obnntved leakage, you would have been asked by nomeone how much wan leakinq when you got out of the building? A Yes, sir. And there would have been no reason for anybody to look at it, without somebody asking, well, what did he nee, what do you t.hi nk , how much do you
- t. h i nk i t 's leaking. That was just normal routine for anybody Ihat noen anyt hing 1iko ihat, i
e Nou who would norma))y ask you that kind of ) a quention? A. tJorma l l y , it would be my supervisor would be the iirst person to ask me. I O And what would be the purpose of him finding ' l CAPITA! Cl1Y f6POf? TING SEfMCE u+n t u m a m . : > vu . v w a , . . I (, i .M j i 1 ,i4 1/hn
96
.out the amount of leakage?
A Because he would have other reports.and other people to talk to and he would have to have a number to l 1 pann on to th"m. O And you don'.t rea1ly remember if that oc-curred on this particular occasion? A 1 do linow I came out and give somebody an est i n.a l e , l i. 0 You do remember that? A Yen. O l'm sorry, but I'm not following you. Do ) you have a recollection, t ha t. upon leaving t.he reactor building, l you did communicate your est imate to someone? A Well, let's pot. it this way. Im sure I did, because I can remember r .i g h t now coming back to the control room, all hot. and sweat.y, and setting down and t:a l k i ng 1.0 somebody af t er 1 come out. And I'm only assuming from inere, t ha t. I give him all this entimates and numbers. O So you do remember that you did talk to comebody about what you had seen after leaving the reactor buj] ding? A You, uir.
- O And you do not remember specifica31y who you talked to or what you cald?
CmrAL CilY REPORllNG SEPACE
'ti tr f it lll 4 8 ! < / l/11 . / It d f tut' n t '; f . . t i 1/Hs
l 97 L i ) A- No, sir. O . Du t. you assume, based upon past practices,
'that you would have talked to your shift supervisor and you I
would have told him what your estimate of the leakage was? l A Yes, sir. Q And haned upon what has transpired since then, you believe that your estimate was that the leakage approximated a halt'a gallon per minute? A Yen,nir. Q Can you take a look at Radiation Work l'er-i
! miI's 14326 and i
.I 4 3 2 7 , which unre also issued on the namo day,
) I opponently, and tell Im - if yon can explain what thny pertain to?
l
! A The first one I'm looking at is 14326. A1]
I can make out. f r om ihis here, is that they entered the recato : buiIding Io do nomo k.ind of ops surveillance. It says on all 1cvels out side the secondary shields. And it was entered by Iwo people who were auxiliary operators at the time. l I I That's all I can make out from this. I have no idea what tboy were doing. 4 O Can you tell whether t hey were attempting tol t search.for the name at were thny attempting to observe the name Jeahaat that you were attempting to observe? j
)
A 1 don't bol.ieve no, because this is wrote rAPlI AL CllY REf0f?ilNG SEWCE tuvu p u r[rgraq ulus 9tM.v1 lii.!.i T j n l i . i / i / ii v'.
98 f 1 ') out. It says for ops surveillance and it says for all eleva-tions outside the secondary shields. So they were doing some-thing outside. It could have been nothing more than going in-sido to clo a f11e service valve check or something 1ike that, v e r y r, i mp ) <> . They could have been looking for leaks outside tho "D" ring. 1 have no way of knowing. , l 0 You don't I:emember? l 6' l 1 A No, sir. I,ooking at RWP 14327, probably I somebody decided to make an entry for inspection of something and Ihen they cancelled it. O 'ran you tc11 fIom 1ochinq at I ha t , wha t- t b r-
- i. imper I i on per t a i ned Lo?
)
l A~ No, sir. Other than it says, reactor opora-tions surveillance, outside the secondary shields again an<1 1' don't know what the intent was, that they had made thin DNP l out. Q Does it appear from loching at those radja-
- t. ion wolk petmits, t.h a t there were other searches for 1caks going on beniden the particular inspection that you made?
A 1 really can't say whether they are making l l thone ent. lion for looking for leaks or not.. Sorry. O Can you take a look at the Unit II " Plan i l i of the liny" meetings fot January -- the minuten of thoon j
) meetinns for January 11 to January 14, 1979? There was a CAPITAi CRV REPORTING SErMCE r m p r: , . ivy rm xy va e,mcv ,
e v!.Or)" f . . P/ 1/1r e
. ..61
w t 99 I
}
handwritten note on the'last page of those minutes, which per-tains to a'particular leak. Now first of-all, can you see that handwritt.en note? { A Which page? Q The last page. A 1 can make out RC-V-130A,' Packing, I don't i know what the .lant word in. O in Ihat t ef or mani f.e? A Ponsible. O Can you tell im what you think that.rer-tains to?
)
A tio , sir. I don't know. O Do you have any recollection of what that valve numbot in? A rJo , nir. O Doen t. hat have anything to do with the prr anurizer 1 eve) va1 von that you were making observatjonn on ; n t. Ihat t.imo? i I 1 A 1 don't remember the number of the valve i I wan .looking at. If somebody asked me for off the wall, I would have said .i t wan 134, but right~t.oday I'm not. sure,
~
o rio you don't know whether or not that entry
) pertains to a d.ifferent valve leak or the same valve leak? r C/J11/t GilY ISOI?llNG SEIMCE (
vna n u m vun < m x x stri o n [ paw 39p' re t7109
100 ) A No, sir. I don't. O Do you have any recollection, as to whether ' or not the valve that you were looking at had already been
, furmanited? There were at tempts to correct it by furnaniting it?
A No, sir. I don' t. believe it ever was bef oro . O So, if in this particular case, this ent ry pertains to refurmaniting that valve leak, it would seem that that might have boon a different leak?
. A Wha t: I can recal), I would say,.yes.
! O Pinally, take a look at the Shift and Daily I
p Survej1 lance Checks for January 11. Particularly examine the sump leve] information for the shift that you were working. l Can you tell me what it says, regarding the number of pump starts that were recorded on your shift? A It says there were three pump starts re-corded. O Now, you signed off on that particular shift and Dai)y Check,'d.id you not? - j l l' A Yo,t , sir. 1 I O So you would have been aware at that time, that there had been three pump starts reported? A Yes, sit. ' O Can you tell me how many pump starts were PAPliAl CITY RFfGPTING SEfNICE reMen i s t ,i t u vat w n f 4 t/J A 8F) 9 f.' I% i / if y'.
)
, i
_____._d
..: ;g 101 l recorded on the. shift before yours?
A. One. O And the shift after yours? i. A Three. O So t ha t. would signif y that there had been nomo increano i ti leaknqe to the nump, during the shift t h a t-you were workinq, correct? L l' A Yes, sir. O And you would have been aware of th a t_ ? I A Yen, uit.
) O Given all of this inf orma ti on that wan i available to'you at that time, would you have concluded that.
t j there was some type of a leakage problem? A Would you reank that- one? O G i veri the i n f orma t i on t ha t- was.availablo ! <i you, would you have concluded at that timo, that there was t.ome f.ype of a leakage problem at the plant? A Yeah, i quesn I would have. O And if t here had boon no I,eak Rate Test i nince. January 10, in t he early morning hours, would you have j alou annumed that there had been some I,eak Rate Tests that l had hion run since t h a t. Lime and t ha t. i t. cone out above one i g.p.m., and it had been thrown out? . CAf'liAt CITY PlNX? TING SEfNICE tu noo u t a w i .< ,nn4 w> tp d i 61 $9:'4< I/ 1/1f t: i
102 l}l A Yes, sir. Q Isn't that likely to have oc :urred? A Yes, sir. Q Now, can you explain why at this ti me , you i would not have entered t he action statement and begun to { l nhut ihe plant down? l A No, sir. I cannot. O Would you have had any indication an to 1 whethet or not un i den t.j i ied leakage was exceedi nc.) one qallon ' por minnie on t hin shi f t on January ll? A No, sir. h. O Do you have any recollection at t.his ti me an 1.0 this par t icularly troublesome day, when all indications are t hat you had some leakaqe problems and you didn't know what ihe leak rat.e was? Do you have any recollection of that to-day? A No, sir. ! O Do you think this kind of a thing happened qui t e frettuently at TM1 II? A You're referring to a leak and this type of pump statts or -- O 1'm roferring to a day, which you entered the r o.o l or boiidi101 Io look at a leak, whon the pump ni nrt n ( A!11 AL Cliv REK OllNG SEIMCE
/ , fjt t i I ; I l l il ' t' ' . / V f 4 r,l A TH' V I
;u 9.e)ns ; i t ? tr a:
I: 103 (.
,)
indicate to you that there's some kind of a' leakage problem, when the plant has been unable to get a good Leak Rate or.a-little bit of a time at this point, when you don't know exactly what.the Leak Rate is. .Is that something that happened quite frequently at..TMI II? A No, nir. I would not say no. i O Why at thin po i n t then, wouldn't yon remem-ber t.li.is kind'of.a day? A I guenn because i t. was six yea r:s ago. i' O In any event., you don't really have any m:- planatlon, teqarding why you would not have entered the ac t.i on si,ifemont at I ha t. Iime? y A No, sir. l 0 You don't tocal1 that, anyone direct.ed you not 1.0 o n t.o r the ac t l on nt.a t ement , do you? A No, sir. O I'd like you to 1.ake a look at the " Plan of the Day" work list for January 12, 1979. Handwriting on t.he bottom of the page talks about Repack.ing in particular, i 1 Valve, r i g h t' at t.he vety hottom of.the page. Is that your handwriting? A 1 wouldn't say so. No, sir. f 0 Do you recognize the valve that that particu -(
.)
lar entry refern to? It's RC-V-130A, someth'ng'like that? CAPliAt C11Y REPORTING SEINICE
/4 f Jl l l f )i 'd
- I l4I.i ".T[d F' d l g tj !1" 14 $ . 61 i / )l d t
104 e
)
j l A The one you just showed me on a previous j l POD, where they said something about Refurmanite. O That entry, again, indicates that someonc in Io lh> pack that. valve? A Yes, sir. l 0 Which would indicate that that valve is I leaking? A . Yon, cir. l 0 Again, you don't recall whether or not thaF' 3 the same vaIve that you obnorved leaking in the rea c t.o r I i hu.ilding? h l l A No, sir. No, I don't. i Q Take a look at the Shift and Daily Surveil-lance Checks for January 12, 1979. Can you tell me how many 1 ump n' tar Ls at:e recorded on your shif t on that i> art.icular day? I A Three. O And you signed off on that Shift and Daily Surve.iilance Check, did you not? b Yep, sir. O So you would have been aware of that infor-rea t ion al. t.be timo you signod it, correct? ! A Yes, sir.
)
O l'd like you to t.a k e a look at the Morninct rf.rirN city prFOQTING SEfNICE
!o v ro tir n en Tmrf winn
! n/.ug n p . h/. 1/UA
105 Report of' January 13. Apparently, it was submitted by Brian Mailer. Review Item seventeen on the turnover notes, that are attached. Can you tell me.whether or not that entry per-tains to the leakage that you had obnerved? And if so, what
- 1. h e significance of that entry is?
A 11'appearn t. hat it'n' talking about that valve. I cannot. be absolut ely sure. I don't recall any other leaks on the pressurizer valves at that timo. In thin stat.e-ment there, i t. nayn, they have permionion to go in and inolate i t. , if we need 1o. I don't think tilis can be done at power. I would t.e nd Io nide wit.h him on t ha t. . I don't. think i t-conld havo been dono at power, either.
.] O At leant you are of the opinion that that pa r t i co .l a i leak t ha t. you were looking at, could not. have beco repaired or taken care of, while the plant was at power?
A No, sir. I don't believe so. G You agree with that statement? A Yes, sir. O And you think that that entry pertained to l; the . leak ihat you were ] coking at? A I believe it might have. Yes, sir. O no you have any recollection of discunninq p-t his wJ th ni ian Mailer and telljnq him about this leak and
) what your opinionn were?
CAPITAL CITY REPORTING SEIMCE u vi n ' n n l a u t s WM 'N IV il s t/ t ut je # . I r i / t! A
106 I. A No, sir. O Do you know how he got that information? A l'm sure t hat. was passed or f rom the super-- visors through t heir not es arul et cetera, that they communi-cated from one shift to the next. O Wac thin leak that you had seen, was 1.his an important. enough leak for this type of information to be communicated from one rhift to anot-her?
'A Yen, sir.
O can you t.ol l me what Item twenty-five, t ha t-paLLinular net of turnover noten says? A 1t.em t.wenty-f.ive says, need leak rate. O Given your exper.ience with the manner in which t.hings were characterized at TMI II in those days, woulri ihat noyqost to you that Mailer wan reporting that they had not. gett c n a na t isf actory 1.eak Rate Test. on that shif t ? !
.l A Yen, sir.
O And that it was still necessary to obtain the nal .i sf act ory Leak Rate Test to satisfy the requirements? i A Yes, sir. I f I } ! O 11 you came on shift after that report had been submitted, would you have been aware of the fact that i +. was neccusary Io obtain a good Leak Rate Test? }), ! f'.APIML Cliv I?[FO?IING SErMG reye o r r ri t;/.r e,c." wn 9.unN . I l i. i.3 . P g . '/ * / ff s!
107 L li A' The information would have been on the board y the last time one was run. That's the way I would have re-ceived it. I don't think I would have received J t f rom the no t e.* n . Q If lio t.ent had been run, if no calicfactory test'. had been obt ained for more than thirty hours, you would have been aware of-that fact? A' )an, nir. O And you, of course, were aware of the leakag a problem, becau::e you apparent ly had been the ono to qo int o tho reactor bui1dinq and check it out, correct?
) A Yes, sir.
O l'd like you to take a look at the Leah Patn Test of January 13, 1979, starting time 9:37. Can you tell tr,e if you are the approver on that particular tent? A Yon, sir.
- f. O Which opor at or ran that test?
l A lt lookn li ke liar tman 's signature. O ran you exam.ine the strip chart that co r r < .',-j j pondo Io I ha t i on t and also the a t.t ached logs, contio1 rnom l; operator loq, and ihe nhift foreman log, and tell me .if you l. l can t<11 whet!.er or not a water addition was made during ihe test? You casi have a minute. l ] Con you tell me if a water addition was CAP!TAL C11Y REfCQTING SErMCE cxwr> u trDrmt scvArn swon s u r e .. i .o r . a \ l u e.
l i 108 ; i i ) l 4
.tnade during that test? I A Well, it appears that there was. Yes, sir. l 0 And how can you tell that?
A The computer printout says that. the proqram I wan nlarted at. 9:37. CRO log says that 10:00, there was a
\
l hundred and nevent.een gallons of water.put in and what- you { I h,tvn ma t'hed out. he re on t.he strip chart, shows that there was a n.ign.ifJeant level ineleane in the make up Lank at some , time afIer the .lcak rata started. ! O Was t hat water addition accounted for in the I,n a k Itat e Tent? l l
) No, nir. It wan not.
I
' i i A i i l !
O not it was loqqed? A Yen, nir. O Was it logged in the shift foreman's log Iy
? you? i i
A Yen, sir. O so you apparently knew that there was a
- l. water addit.. ion, Ihat. had been made at that time, correct? !
I i i A Yes, sir. O And that water addition, again, was not in-cluded .i n t. h e 1,e a k Pat.e Test calculation? l' . ): A No, sir. It was not. rAPiiAl Cily REPnrMING SErMCE
?!. i.* 6 l l 1 ; J !s/ i ? ) t/ l.1 J Ml8 4i i 1/ J 1.T }" i,4 .it * / 1' d'
109
.) Will you take a look at the Shift and Dai]y O
Surveillance Checks for January 13, same shift that the I.eak I? ate Tent was run on. What number of pump nt artn were re-cordvd on fhat pa rt ieular shiIt? A Two. O And you signed off on those pump starts? A Yes, sir. I Q Did the fact that there were two pump starts at t h a t. t.ime, indicate that there was nome amount of leakago Ihal w.u, going inIo t hi con i.a.i runen t. r,i un p ? l A Y e f, , sir. I can't say it was all coming from l
) ; the r eact or coolont nyn t em, but yeah, there won leakaqo uninq ;
' , !N l i 11 IheTe. .}
v i 1 l k I O can you take a look at the make up tank l lev < l , l o p< - for ihe pe r i od o f t_ime atound tho tunning of fho 1,ca k nate Tent ? There'n a fairly sharp decrease in the mak" up Ianh . level slope, is there not? A Yes, sir. O And that decreane would be consistent w.ii.h l n ot* type of leaetor coolant system leakage, would it not ? A Yen, uir. O ltaned on this information that you would have i brul ava i lable to you at the time, in thern anyway that the e Mitra clTY prP^iprit in c,rp /irr i 4 ., or : o oi ,- u "wii
, , . ! 9, g f e, e i 1pe
5
}in .I tent renult that you approved on January 13, could have hoc, a valid test result?
A Looking at it today, no, sir. Q ilow about looking at it on~ January 13,.19797 A Well, on that day, I must have thouaht it I I was. I signed it. l i I . I Q In tlia t your recollection today? Tha' you must have thought it was a valid t e n t. rhnult? ; A Yes, sir. l l Q Is it poss.ible that becaucr- you had gone thirty hours cince the last test result, that you submitt<d l that. test kn'owing that it was an invalid test r< n u l t' , ripply because it was sa t j F f ar t.ory ? A No, sir. i O You don't think that's what you did? A No, sir. O What does that test result show for idonti-find leakage, Mr. Iloy t ? l l I A .5778.
- O Doen i t. jndicate that there's any ideritj f i r: 1 l eal: age goinq to the nump t hat 's not bei n<; collect.d ir .be reac t.or coolant drain tank?
A no, uit. i CANN CHy PUCMING SFiMCE
111 Q But you knew for a fact, because of your. entry into the reactor building, that there was, in fact, iden.=
'tified leakage'that was going to the sump that wasn't being collected in the reactor coolant drain tank, did you not.?
A Yes, sir. Q So, at least on that score, you had to know that. thin test renult wan not valid,' correct? A Yes, sir. O And I'm going to ank you again, do you third: that. becaun<* you had not. obtained a good test result in more than 1.h i r t y hourn, that you would have cubmit-ted 1.h a t t.en t result. Knowing ihat it was inaccurat.e? A No, sir. O Are you telling me, that it's your impressio n t.o d a y , that. when you submitted that test result, you beljeved it wan an accurate reflection of what plant leakage actually was? A 1 must have felt that it was a good. Leak Ita t e , as f ,i t a: what we've been gett.ing. That's about a)) r can nay. O What amount of unidentified leakage is re-l poried on ihat pariicular I.e a k Ita te Test? l I' A .2639.
)
i CAPIIAL CliY IUU?IING SEFNK E ty"w p u n rmm a y W.y c.fMrv i i t/wr j* p . i A t/toq
1 112 1 l Q It's pretty low, isn't it? A Yes, sir. Q Now, you indicated enriter that some of the things that you would look at, would be tho make up tank 1 r've l I
- i i
trend, correct? I i ; A Yes, sir. ,
. l 0 Do you think that the make up tank level trend for January 13, 1979, suggests that unidentified leaNge:
i is at .26 g.p.m.? . A No, sir. > 0 I I: suggests that it's at como a rou n t. higb<r than that, doeu it not?
, A Yes, sir.
I I O And you also indicated that you raight take a look at the sump in ordet to ascerrain whether a Leak I'a v i Test was connist<nt wi t.h of het plant indications, would you I not? A Yes, sir. O Do ynu think that two pump starts is e n r.- sistent with only .26 g.p.m for unidentified leakage? A No, sir. O 1t'n a fm t that twe pump sta r i n wnti j d io-n i f y :ons j th rahl y b i 'Ib o r ! < .i k. s p - into th. containrrant' supp, I I (_ APRAL OT( Rf N?$NG Sf fMCF l
i 114
>=eu=
.I l
O Knowing all these things, which you did know on January 13 1979, what would have Icad you believe that that Leak Rate Test accurately recorded what actual unidenti-fied leakage was at that time? A There's nothing that would have led me to ' f believe what the act ual was. Looking at. make up tank levels j t j l
, like that, we look for trends and see if they were f o] J ewi n<J ;
j- I ! l ' what t. hey had been over a time period, not necessarily that < i one hour time. And we did have water that wen leakinu through [ t pressurizer relief valves going into reactor coolant drain i tank. And yes, the slopen were changing on the make up tank. l 1 O Well, my quention to you is, what i n f o nna - h) tion would have caused you to believe that the test result of 1 January 13, was a valid test renult t. hat accura t ely por t rayod leakage, as of that time?- i
! A I guess with what. I have nere t.o d a y , I can't Ill reca))
i what I wan Ihinking when I signed that. I a
,f Q Do you recalI whether or not you recomnondm!
to anyone that you enter the action statement at that point i fin 1.ime? i l A No, sir. l O Do you think t.ha t you did recommen'J to any-l .one that. you enter t.he action statement at t ha t. time? l l A No, sir, l f C ANM CW RECOphNG SFIMC E i
.o .,
I
.j.
l
.115 j.
--_L
__ '1 1 0 Now, you had indicated earlier that on Jan-uary 11, you estimated that the. leakage coming from the h pressurizer instrument valves, was approximately a half a I g<.p.m., correct? '. i i A Yes, sir. O Did you include that half a gallon per L minut e Irakage as identified leakage in the Leak Rate Test o r January 13, 1979? t A No, sir. O Do you have any recollection at this point, i as ta why t hat leakane wan not properly account ed for and on't< tified as of t h a t- I,ea k Rate Test on January 13, 1979?
)
, l The only thing I can t.h i nk of, wan bernus.'
t
.i t was only a ballpark estimate. There was nothing accurate about iL and that 's probably the reason it wasn't entered.
I There's no doubt in yout mind that you w"i" o
- aware of that leakage prior to January 13, 1979, corroc'?
j A Correct. x I I O I'd liko you to take a look at Radiation It's for January 13, 1979. Can you tell Work Permit 14337 me what the radialion work permit pertains to? A 1t says to check a ler k on t he prer.sur i z"r . O And I'd also like you to take a look at y, u t chift fotomon's 100 for that particular shift, which (,AM! At Ulv Inf CONG SFINCF
116 should be attached to the Leak Rate Test. Tell me whether i there is some type of an entry, that coincides with the radja-tion work permit? A Yen, sir. I O (*an you 1 e .1 1 mo whethet or not that en f t y, I" firnt of all, in .in your handwrit..ing? i
! A Yes, sir. It is.
I O And what does it say? f A 11 ruiya , made an innpect J on of the reactor { hn i lil i n<l l ii rip el. li al;.nio f i om UC-V-- 13 3 11, 114 n, 135 1t . I - l 'h > I a l lvalupJe I i oin I lione v a 1 v o n --- 1 Ca n ' l- read t.ha t. word -- ' ]f
! I j naio, a n 'rhu rsda y 's inspect ion. Survey of of her arran showr r1 l l
l ' l no of h< r lo.ikarn . r.oal:aqo in from body to bonnot aroan of ! ! l thone valven and appoars to be safe yet to operate. l 4 l .i i O So that an of the thirteenth, you apparent.ly
]
tuado another entty 1o observe the leaPage f. rom those valvon, I con rect ? l l A Yen, sir. j l O And you made a notation in the shift fore-ma ti ' s log al ihaL t J inc , t h a t. it Lippearn to be safe to operato, 1 col l ec t ? I A Yes, sar. O. Con you t ell me what kinds of considerate onn l CAPilAt City REPORTING SEfNICE rerwu o h rar,v.i 'n AW Wini 1 it.itw/9p .IA 1/ t! .
117
)
you would look at in making that determination, that it was safe to operate? A The considerations I would 'ake into the iact would be io look al. the valve, see how bad the steam was blowing from .it, whether it looked like it was increasinq from pievioun innpretion. Juni to annenn ihe )enkaqe and cee i j what it would look like, whether it was being detrimental to I
, Ihe valve or not.
I l 0 Do you have any present tocollection of going in the necond time around, into the reactor building? t A Wn, nir. I recall mahing t wo en t.ri en. ) O po you remember precisely, what yen did on
- 1. h e nocond entty?
A What I told you awhile ago on ny ent.ry, war. really what I did on the second entry. I guess I t.ho u g h t. J wan, the fitnt time I was talking to you, I thought I wan talking about L.he second entry. So I guess I've already answered that one fot you. O so you went in and you looked at the valve 1rakage f or appi oximat ely tbirty seconds. You concluded that it was the name an it was on the e]eventh, roughly, and you loft. Very quickly? l i A Yen, sir, t ) O And you think that you estimate the leakage = CAPITAL CITV REFORTING SEfMCE rv w r' n rn lata soirJ.T c.irmon irito a,- t/ 1/P3
i l 118 to be somewhere in the neighborhood of a half a gallon per minute? A Yes, sir. O Dut. you recognized at the time, that there wan no'possible way for you to accurately estimate the amount of t ha t. leakage? A Yes, sir. O And if you did give someone an estimate, it wan only because that's what: you would have been anked to do? A Yen, sir. Thai. would have bocn a nor ma] tooline Io do.
} ! )
! O l'd like you to take a look at an OPS notm, I
which Ivarn the date of January 13, 1979, which refern to Ihat name leakage and nays somet.hing to the effect that,"IloyL and McGa) y say not. j us t i f .i able to shut down ye + . " Firnt of alJ, do you recognize the hand-
! wr i t i nq- on i
- t. hat note?
l A IJo , sir. U 110 you know who wrote t.h a t. note? A No, sir. O Do you 1 errmmber discunning t h i s leckage ihe second time atnund, wi(b anybody? A No, si1. cal 1fAL Cf TY RUDfMNG SUNCE tu eri. usas u .mr ,1^ t e v i - :s; is. ;, 4/99,
. m . . . . l 1
I 319 Q That conversation which you say you think you may have had upon leaving the reactor building, that you eluded to earlier, do you think that conversation was after the first entry or the second entry? A That was probably after the second entry. Q Do you think you would have had a similar l conversation during the first entry -- after the first entry?; i A Well, I'm sure I did. Yes, sir. l O Do you have any recollection of talking to l George '/.und er (phonetic) about this leakage problem in January l' i of 1979? i A No, sir. O Do you remember telling anyone from ii.chrr 1cvel management, that you thought it was not justifiable l to shut down yet? A No, sir. O In your shift foreman log, you used the terminology that it appears to be safe to operate, correct? A Yes. i O Does that appear to be consistent with that OPS note that says, not justifiable to shut down yet? A Yes, sir. O The OPfi not e seems to indicate that one or i CAhfAL CIN ISORTING SEfMCF
- r. i.,<. ec . - m -
120 l} l ruare of those leaking valves, that the leakage from one or more of thone valves is actually decreased and that the leak-age from one of them has increase. Do you see that on the OPS , note? ! A Yes, sir. O Do you believe that you provided that infor-mation to whoever it was that prepared that note? A From the entries into the reactor building, it appears that I'm the only one tha't entered in to look at { i them, so I would say that probably, that information did come
]
from me. l
) Q Now, in your log, you indicated that total j leakage from the valves, from these three valves, was approxi- !
mately the same as the first entry, correct? 1 A Yes, sir. O This information would appear to be somewhat more detailed than what you had written down in your shift foreman's log? A Y :s , sir. O Do you remember providing any additional in-formation to anyone else? l 1 A No, sir.
) Q Based upon the type of leakage that you have CAPITAL CITY REPORTING SETNCE DRAVER U FEDERAL SQJA?E STATION llMUGUIX', ip 171f 8 n i t ti r ,t il 231 w11
121 l
\
described, would it have been possible for you to tell pre-cisely which valves were leaking more and which valves were leaking less, when you made your entries?. l A I think co. O If there was some type of a cloud of st eam
. or a flume of sicam as you described, how would you be able to tell, which of 1.hese valves was contributing more or less
)
! Io that. nteam cloud?
A Itigh t now, all I can recall is one valve that was blowing steam. I didn't even recall three valven i 1rakinq, until you showed me t his not o. So, based upon only I being able to iemember one valve that was blowing steam, I
! would say, probably the other t.wo had a packing leak onto l
t hem and probably looked at drips or somethinq ont o them. O The note also suggest s that the Leak Itate on t he make up Lank , agrees with what we're seeing in the buildiny, corroet ? A Yes, sir. l 0 Do you remember providing that kind of in-l f or mat-ion t o anyone? j A No, sir. O Do you think that you were the one, who provided that information?
) No, sir.
A Other than the information on the CAPITAL ON REropTING SEfMCE g
, r ova tc u irrn.* ca W>r stAvvi l i puid ,ig f 9 , I /, 1/ U #1 l; t 66 l 1 t sf ,, "14
122
.)
valves. O That indication that the Leak Rate appears t.o agree with the -- the I,cak Rate on the make up tank agrees with what we're seeing in the building. What does that. mean t.o you? A Where do you see where jt says -- oh! I would assume somebody would be looking at the pump starts and it says that the Leak Rate there, plus if there was any other known leakage in the building, that this was corresponding. O rio we have some attempt there, it lookn an ihough someone wa, comparing ihe leakage that might be de-monstrat.ed by looking at the make up tank level trend and looking at. the icactor building sump, and indicating that they agree with one anot.her, correct? A Yes, sir. O But that, of course, would not tell anybody how much leahnge was coming from those valves, that you had abserved, would .i t. ? A No, sir. O 'rhere is some type of an estimad.e contained on that no t:e , royarding the leakage that was coming from thos< valven, in t- h e r e not? ! l A Yea, sir.
]
Q And what is that estimate? CAPlUt CilY REPCmlNG SErMCE i m fjipo n o n o mr w rti i t/J f 'Je 9 . ($ 1/1f A Illiier ? It 't PN
123
)
A It says approximately 2 g.p.m. leakage in-r dicated on the make up tank level and I assume that they're saying that that's coming from those valves. O So, apparently that note suggests at least, and I realize you didn't prepare it, but it suggests at least, that since the make up tank level on the reactor building sump seemed to reflect leakage of two gallons per minute, and since there is evidence of no other leakage, then the leakage from these valves that you had observed must equal two gallons per minute, is that correct? A Yes, sir. Q Do you remember participating in this kind
)
of an evaluation process? A No, sir. O Do you remember taking the position that the leakage from these valves could be quantified at two gallons per minute by comparing the make up tank level trend and the reactor building sump information? A No, sir. O Do you remember at this point, taking the ) position that it was okay to continue to operate the plant? A No. I don't remember it other than from my notes and what I said there.
)
CAPITAL OTY REPORTING SETNCE twrr? U RDEGAL SouArd STATON I Wor /'J fr, IV 171rg u i s i t e ,8 g ,a n yt ta
l 124 = l 0 But based upon your notes, you would believe that you did in fact,' take the position that it was okay to i continue to operate the plant.? A Yes, sir. j 0 By the way, was it your responsibility as t hr: ahlft foreman, to make that determinat. ion? l ! l i . 1 A No, sir. ; 1 O Wasn't it the responsibility of the shift supervisor to evaluate t.he safety implications of reactor coolant system 1eakage and to make that determination? ' 4 , I A Yes, sir.
)~
d Do you have any recollection at this timo, ' an to why you apparently were being. called upon to make this determination? A The only thing I can say, is because I was the one that went in to observe the leakage and somebody askod! ! me my opinion. , i l O You indicated earlier, that you thought that! l I
! you had given an estimate of a half a gallon per minute, ac i
your un t..i ma t e of the leakage that wan coming from those valve *. i Do you ntill think that that's the estimate that you gave? A I think so. Yes, sir. l 0 And what is it in these documents, that
] '
i l CAPITAL CITY REPORTING SEfMCE i 4AWI f> t i IlI(P/4 'O JAf.f *.'^Ilf f i
- l/,4 4 x J ' r v , 1 /. t **
ii i t i r . i'**'P*,
--------- _---_--__.__-__--_-____a
i 125 I i causes,you to believe that, if anything? A I haven't seen nothing yet. That's just one of those feelings, like you get in the back of your head.
. That's the first thing that pops in my head, so, usually .
l t hat's right. O Doon the f act. that this OPS note estimat es the leakage t o be at. two gallons per minute, does that fact cause you t.o believe that perhaps your earlier testimony was inaccurate? A Well, it gives me reason to consider nome doubt, but Ihat'n all I can nay. Right now, I doubt what I'm thinking, .but I real]y don't. want to change'what I'm sayjng. O l'm not asking you to change it and I'm not even suggenting that you should doubt it. All I'm asking you l .i s , af t er hav3 ng seer. this not.e, which does deal with the j very name leakage that you were observing, does it' lead you to conclude that maybe you were wrong about what,you sajd about your ea r 1 J er en t..i ma te? A 1 raid, yen, .in ny mind right now, 3f'n a
. piinn il.i l i l.y t hal I'm w ong.
O Does that convince you that you estimated the leakage to be at two gallons per minute.? i { l; A No, sir. It does not convince me. I O Doon it, in anyway, refresh your recol1ec-CAPITAL CITY REPORTING SEfMCE r w.w: n i rFnFuta m'n^nt c;r^1scts it,au es .it t i t c. 7iIite J at ! .1
Q
.r ..,
. ..w s "G' t, _,
125 (a) tion, regarding whether or not you discussed this with George Kunder? l A No, sir. 1 Q Do you recall discussing this leakage with ; I Bernie Smith at the time? I i A 1 recall coing to the supervisor's off. ice , I l and talking with somebody and I can only assume that it was i l l Bernie Smith. I'm sure he was there from the RWP signatures, ; and et cetera, t i. I O Do you have a clear recollection of enterinn at that time, reqarding whether the plant I; into discussions ! I p ought to be shut. down? i, E p A No, sir. , i O Do you have any recollection of discussing l{ uith anyone the fact that Unit II should ho kept operatinq l I d
- until Unit I came back on line from the refuolirq outage?
I I h A No, sir. O An you sit here today, and you t e v i. r'w tl .r r,< various documiuts pertaining to the leakage of January, I n 7 , il do you think today, that perhaps the artion statement rhoute: 11 ave been enteted i n t.o a nti there should have boon :nr con- I l l irir rat ion of proeneding toward shutdown in Janut,ry 1979? l l'
. Y<m, sir, I clei.
I
126
).
Q And you think the failure to do that was in anyway, prompted by the desire to keep Unit Il operating un-til Unit I could come back from the refueling outage? A I don't know. O Do you have any recollection. regarding: what caused you to feel that the plant could continue to operate? A What made me feel it, was just by my obser-vations that I seen, of what leakage there was. I know that n a way was I ever thinking of trying to keep the plant running till Unit I was up, because to me, Unit II was my plant. I could care less about Unit I, whether it was up or down.
) Q And your main concern, as far as you can tell, was whether it was safe to continue operating' Unit II?
A I don't understand your question. Q You've indicated that you were not concerned with whether Unit I was operating or not? A True. O Were you primarily concerned with whether it was safe to operate Unit II or not? A Yes, sir. That was my first concern. 1 Q And whether or not Unit II was operating { with unidentified leakage less than one gallon per minute, was not a particular concern to you, was it? J CAPITAL CITYI?EPCRTING SErMCE n w tw o u tnn 'onn ytav3I II/ J adl*Ju ers i+ i / if f. Illi h rv tf 111 3814
l 127 H-I A I think.I'd like you to reword that. Q You've indicated that whether or not Unit II-could be operated safely, was your primary concern, correct ? A Yes, sir. Q And what I'm asking you is, were you con- i j cerned also, whether or not Unit II was operating with leakag" less than one gallon per minute? A Yes, sir. I was. Q That was of concern to you? i A Yes, sir. i O And based upon all of the documents that you've reviewed today, are you suggesting that you could have
.)
thought that Unit II was operating with leakage of less than one gallon per minute, back in January of 1979 ? A 13ack then I could have. Yes, sir. Today, , t I realize that apparently I made a lot of mistakes in some 1: l of my judgments. And there's a good possibility we were , l lIl operating above that. ) I Q What. possible information have you seen j today, that you think could have convinced you back in January of 1979, that. you were operat.ing with leakage lenn than one ; gallon per minute? I A 1 can see there was some errors made and what wan identifjod and not idontified on the computer i nput'r . !
..)
(:AP::A CITY DER? MING SUMCf j I
- - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ -___________A
f 128 Make up tank oscillations that we had, probably should have been corrected rather than continuing to operate. Possibly even this pressurizer valve leak and with the remarks that are made on this OPS note, there should have been judgment call from whoever wrote these, that we shut down and fix that. Q You don't think you were aware of these ihingri back in 1978?
'A .No, sir.
O Is it because the information wasn't availa-ble to you or because you weren't thinking about it? A 1 t.hink i t. ' s probably a combination of both. 1 l
) What went on in the supervisor's office and outside the offico, as far as what was wrote down and what was held in meetings, very seldom came back to the shift foreman level. We probably could have been better i nf or med , better communications back then, which might have helped the forerren do a little better job than what they were 'doing.
O Dut innofar as January 11, 12, and 13 is coneninod, the. information that we've described was all availa!- blo to yeu, wan ii not, l l A 1 don't recall that it was, sir. The RWP and t he notes in my book and t his type of thing here, I don't bo l j eve that wan.
) Q Well, irrespective of the OPS note, you CAPITAL CITY REPORTING SErNCE r v m t m rttitu.\ e n w.s s m rt i v.i , i n t . : /. i / tr e g ti 'l l i n 4 11 t1 M t.1
129 L L
) i were aware of the nature and the type of' leakage that was ;
i I
, existing at that time, correct?
A Yes, sir. O You were aware of what the mahn up rank leve l I trend was showing, were you not? A Yen, sir. j i O You were aware that the sump level activity wan on ihe ilici nane, were you not? A Yes, sir. O You were aware that a I.na k Fate Test had j i tioon submi t.t en , whleh wan of doubtful validity on January 13, ! ;
) were you not.?
l A Yes, sir. Now I am. 1 1 O Even at that time you were aware of it? l A At that time I probably was. I cannot say j today. O Hased upon all of that information, how could you have believed at that time, that you were operatirm t.he plant with lens than one gallon per minute? A 1 guess today I can't answer that for you. , O The last answer was -- i MS. PENNY: Back then. I
~]
BY MR. DeVFSA: l CAPITAL Cl1Y REPORTING SEfMCE vmfA v o y v isi a um ,wm
;*, en prp- ll 1l1* pt
't > I i e 4 e* ' P, i A
l . l t l 130 l O Back then you could not. You have no answer ? A No. My answer is that we were' concerned about the one g.p.m., although there was no accurate way, that we had, of telling whether we were precisely at the one g.p.m. or not and we operated at what we felt was safe and then the ballpark one g.p.m. O When you say ballpark one g.p.m., what do you mean by that? A Well, what I mean is that we felt the plant was real close to or underneath the one g.p.m. That we were running our Leak Rates and getting results that satisfied the Tech Spec. requirement and we did not find anything that told us that we were really outside of that, to the point that we had to shut down. O When you say outside o'f the limit to the point where you had to shut down, were you not obligated to shut down, if you exceeded one gallon per minute? A By Tech Specs., yes, sir. O And are you suggesting that based upon the information that was available to you in January, that you did not have reason to believe that you were outside the limit of one gallon per minute unidentified leakage? A All I can say is today, I can't think of
) anythinq that. would have at that time made me feel that our CAlWAL Cl!Y REPORTING SEfMCE TWAWR U f EDERtt SQUADE STATICT4 Itnu.t, Ivy.,11 UkB n.nu n n ,n u i
131
.) unidentified leakage was outside of that one g.p.m.
MS. PENNY: Why is that? THE WITNESS: That is because we were under I the impression that like on this pressurizer leak, once we , had located it and identified it, that that fell into the identified leak category, not to unidentified. BY MR. DeVESA: i O Did it not appear from looking at the sump 1evel and the make up tank level, that you had total leakage of approximately two gallons per minute, during the middle of January? , A Yes, sir. O Being unable to quantify the leakage that you observed coming from the pressurizer instrumentation, how l could you take the position that you knew that you had identi-fled leakage and therefore, you did not have an unidentified leakage problem? A I guess that's the way it was taught to me to be in ter pre t.ed . O Were you familiar with the Technical Speci-I fications at the time, regarding reactor coolant system leakage? A Yes, sir.
)
CAPITAL CITV QERDRTING SEfMCE DRAMQ U CEDfpAt SQUAQE STAilCtJ q/.:w.is le , t'A 1/1r g
'uri*'d
, c
' t s mu
132
)s Q Take a look at the definition of identified leakage 1:14B and tell me what it says?
A This says identified. You said unidentified. O No, I said identified. A Identified leakage, except controlled leak-age, and to close system. If the pump seals, valve packing leaks that are captured and conducted to a sump or collecting tank, leakage into the containment atmosphere from sources that are both specifically located and known either not to interfere with the operation of leaking detection systems or not to be pressure boundary leakage. O One of the components of a Leak Rate Test
)'
is a preciso number for identifled leakage, is it not? A Yes, sir. O In otherwords, for every valid Leak Rate Test, one ought to have a accurate number for the-amount of identified leakage, correct? A Correct. O So, that i t is possible to then subtract the identified leakage f rom t he gross leakage and arrive at an accurate figure for unident.ifled leakage, correct? A Yes, sir.
)
U in this particular case, that is the case of CM'lW CITY RUORTING SErMCE
! d i/ //l l ' l i f l ' '/ l ' * / V 'M ',f f ife 4j sva r e ,n - =,tf * !!r p 11 l ' li t d ;i 9' 41.1 s
'133 f ._
1:)= January-12 and 13 and 11, of 1978, ther e was identified leak- 1 age t ha t. could . not. be quantified, isn't that correct? l l A Yes, sir, i l I
, O Aiui' i n fort, yeu had t ur, a I.e a k 1:a t e T< " l ;- l l
wi t.hou t o,uan t..i I yl ng that leakage, i s n ' t. that. correct? i i A Yes, sir. l 0 That being the case, would not that Jeakage be leakage that intotferred with the operation of a leakage , i i detcet101i ny n t.e m ? l
)
i A I d i no ','. T i 'ih t lu iw , I don't neo how il wa o l<! , 1 i i i have intetfetied wiih Ihe l eals aq e det ect ion sy n t.em . l
' l Q Was Ihe I,cak Rate Tent procedure the Leak ,
i j lla f e Tent i ny pi act ice, wasn't t.ha t one of your leakaqo < lot eo i ,
! Lion nyctems?
I l A Yea, 811 .
, O Wann't. that sorne t hi ng that, you were r u ppe :.' '
I t.o one to dotert leakage? A Yer, sir. U And tho Iact t.ha t you couldn ' t. cpiant i f y 5, thib l< a ). a g e ihat wa: comitq Irom the pressurizer jnntIur< j tjon, vould int et f ere will t.he running of an accurate Irak ! 1' Rate Tent, would it not.? j A Yv.,. sir . [. CM)llAL UTV Rt40>IING SEfMCE i i OAV/ : i t ' :t L f 'X / Vdif SI/h a. ;
*Jl' t/ 1/ Ts v i I + 9,1 r ' .!
=
1 134 l 1 J
)' :
l 0 And. based upon-the definitions contained in
~t lie' Technical Specjlications, you were not authorized to con-
*idos that l eat arp
. .in identified leakage, isn't that so?
A N e' , sit. l'e ad i ng it leday, yes, rir. O You linlj ea ted that based upon your training back Ihen, you thought you had identified leakage, correct? A That's what I said, yes. O Now you were a shift foreman and you were t o be r espcninible for under. standing what the Technica) spacj-- ficationn said, wet e you not? -l l
- A y<r, sir.
I I U A t 'e you tellinq nio t.oday Ihat someone orl-vined you Ihat Ihe dofinition of i('en t i f i ed loakaqo was dif- ! l f eron t. than what wan in the Technical Specifications? l l A 1'd say I think so. Yes,-sir. O And who might that have been? A 1 cannot say, because I cannot recal] any- ; body specifically saying that to mo. I feel today, that that 'h whai I was thinhiny 1 hen. O Denp i t.e the fact t. hat. you were a shi f t i i foreman, who had an obligation t.o be aware of the Technica.1 ! f rpec.i f l ea l J onn ? ! i
) A Yes, sir.
CAPil Al CHY Im WiltG SErMCE i vr.u % n nnst.: cows woi i u,i pr h i * . i ' 1/ H e. 8fIll19 l il
l s 1 135 - l . O And you had an obligation to enforce those Technical Specifications? A Yes, sir. O And now, as you read the Technical Specifi-cations pertaining to identified leakage, you can see that ) I what you were characterizing as identified leakage back in I January of 197 9, could not properly be so characterized, i correct? !, A True. Q Take a look at the test of February 2, 1979. Is that a test that you approved? i ) l A Yes, sir. l 0 Could you tell me what value is listed for unidentified leakage? A .7513 g.p.m.
, O Can you t. ell me what value is recorded for identifird leakacg- othe'r than what was being counted by thn computer as going into the reactor coolant drain tank?
A 1.0783. O Other than what was going into the reactor coolant drain tank, identified leakage? ; A 7. o r o . . 1 O "o that
, ar. of the performance of t ha t. t.en t ,
r CAPil AL OTY REPOrmNG Sert /CE
. , , , , . ,r. . . .
l 136
)
the operat or was recording no identified leakage that was goiny int o Ihe sump, correct? A Cortect.
.O Now can you tell me what the Shift and Daily Checks for that shift. reveals?
A For sump pump starts? Zero. O For your shift, Shift and Daily Checks shows A l'm norry. It shows four on my shift. O And you signed off on that Shift and Daily Check iorm, cor rec t.? .
- )
j A Yen, sir. i i O So you would have been aware that there werr; I f our pump starts recor ded, on that shift, that that I,eak Date
- Test was run on, correct? !
A Yes, sir. O Take a look at the strip chart that corres-ponds to t ha t. paiticular test result. Can you tell from look I jng at ihe strip chii)t, whether or not the amount of the slop" on the make up tank 1cvel is consistent with the leakage of
.75 g.p.m.?
A It looks pretty close'to me. ; O And are four pump starts consistent with 1 i Af'llAl CilY (#IY UilNG SErMCF
\sanuo n \ A n i t u $ nbl.1 '.vis i n
,v 's e u r s . r/ 1/Ht i il -l l l t .I 8 '- % % Ui ).]
________.._umm.__ __________-_._______m.--
i 137
)
leakage in the amount. of .75 g.p.m.? I A 1 don't recall what started the pump, how , nur h watet wa t, ;, umped on any of that data, right now.
, Q 1,ook at the t o c t. of Febt nary 23, 19/9. Is t :
t hat a tent that you appr oved at; a shift foreman? l l A Yes, sir. ! l 0 ('an you tell me who the control room opota- j l I l tor wan tha t performed that. t ent ? I A bookn like llel llartman's signature. > I l 0 If it liad been forty-nine hours since the s o c ci ,'.I u 1 t e ,t , you wouId have known that fac' a t_ t h,z I
!q l a:;I
) ll time, would you no t. ' li A Vi n , sit. l { Q Now can you take a look at the strip clear t
' and tell me if t hej e was a watet addit.jon made durit.<! that.
4 t c .,1 y I i h li lt lookn like there was. Yes, sir. i i p il e can you tel1 me jf that. water addi t j on war h'
? < < e iu n t < d !<>r th t : im thai 1.e a k Rate calculation?
A ho, sii. Jt was not. f i G Uan you tell t' y locking at the make up tarl , Ivvel Ltoud, whethet or not t lia t trend was consistet.' wit.h I I ) ivaetot coolant synt en leakage greater than what the f.e a k i i. l b.f )f bl I llk l bf [o evk j
, , r . ' .i . ,arfp-
~, . ~ , .
u 3 ,e , -,.
138 l Hate Tent showed? A No, sir. f Q What did the Leak Rate Test show with re-I i spect to unident.ified reactor coolant system leakage? A .3217 g.p.m. O And it's your testimony that by looking at the make up tank level trend, you can't tell whether or not the Leak Rate Test result is consistent with that? A No, sir. I cannot. O Do you have any recollection of this parti-culas test" ,
)
A No, sir. j Q Do you have any idea why the water addition was not counted f or in the I eak Rat e Test result? l A No, sir. O Were you aware of the fact that the water addition was not accounted for? A 1 quess I was. The fact that it don't show , up here, but I 'm not cure if I'm aware of the addition. I'm aware of what was showed here. I'm not sure I'm aware or was aware even, of t.be addition. Q Well, was it recorded in your shift foreman l log' like the other water addition was? CAPITAL CITY REPOQTING SErMCE i 4./ /p I/!l ll 1 A l// I '/ /1/'I A ' l/ IP / I
; p t f 't .I I/ 1/1' f' il ll l l > l it #
ii iMII a
l. 139 u A Yes, sir. It was. O So you were aware of the addition, correct? A Yes, sir. i Q And you were aware of the Leak Rate Test? A Yes, sir. Q And you had signed off on the Leak Rate Tent and you also entered the water addition in your log, correct? A Yes, sir. I O Is it your impression at this point in time, that you would not. have known that the water addition took L) ! place during the I,eak Itate Test ? i l A It probably was an oversight on my part. . That's all I can nay. It looks to me like this was a prett.y ,' buny day, no it probably in :)un t one of thone hectic dayn, l that. somehow I overlooked iL. 1 f Q Do you think maybe you overlooked it, be-cause it had been fort.y-nine hourn since the last successful i t en t. and you weie anxious t.o turn in a satisfactory Leak Rate Test result? A No, sir. , i O You are aware of the fact that Mr. Hartman ; uas indicated that cu it becane raute and more difficult to get a good I,eak Rate Tes t, ihat he from time to time, added : CAPliAL CITY REFORilNG SEfMCE r ww,4 r> u Hr$% souARE SWON s u ' < r)n t , i t. 1/ W n >1= ;J 'I' 1,1
l 140
!) .
water during the course of a Leak Rate Test, in order to get a satisfactory test result, are you not.? i
; A sen, nit.
O Ii 11 yeni i e .I i nuiny that you wete suit aware thi he wan engaged in this type of a practice at Ihat i t iine ? I l A Go, sir. I d.id not.. O You specifically did not know on tiie tont of Illituary 23, 3979, t ha t. he had added wat.cr to get a betlet test rehu) t ? l A ! don'I t "c a l l it. I lia vn it in ny inq, I
) (IL(! !. i qii 1he nut vt i l l a tu:e.
All I can say in, it munt ' have la rji f 1 iim t.h e loohn of.Ihe en t. : len J had mmle Iha' day, a vet y bo: y l hect.te uay.and 1 nuni have ovellooked it. O Take a look at the teet of March 10, 19 7 (.' . You appioved t.hal t s 'n t , did you nrit? f A len, sir. l i
, Q cou1d you t. ell me who the control room opera-l I
t r . r v, a n , ein. po.11c- ci .t ! that ta ! i r A Ma] lia r t nia n . O Can you examilie the correst nding strip chart. 1 01 the pelicd duriry which the tect. was run?
) A (Examining the strip chart)
CAPilAL CITY REPORTING SETMCE pr. f n i. t . q ru ^x .w.rr c.'o t ; I t, 4 3 a! ) - < 1/ ll #- 6e s i .] i
- l' t
!. l i t,1 j O Do you not. ice that there is a flattening of i
the trace of the make up tank level trend right towards the j' tail end of iho tent? l A T r. ,'rii. s ! O Do you have any idea what would cause t.ha t kind of a flot t ening of a trace? i A No, si r. ] O in it. possibie t hat. the operator added small amount n of water iowardn the ial1 end of the test, in order
! t o creat e t.ha t flattening or tapering of.f of the make up tank j level slope?
). A 1 quenn i t 's posnible. I don't. know why j
! he would, j 1
0 Well.jf he did that, wouldn't that, in f ac'. ,l pr oduce a bet t er 'I,eak Itat e Test renult ? )
, ! A It could also have produced one going in j
In the middle of running this thing, l the othe I direction. t he oper at or has no idea of what the computer is going to spi t out . I don't know how anybody could judge putting some. [ l watet. I r; and :ny, well, this in going to make it . good or ti I~ is golog to make it way negative the other side, because 1
.added ioo much. j
'l 1
0 Well, if you only put a small amount of , i
) watfr in, is jt possible that it could have given you a worv-i CtJ'imi nry REWmlNG SfrMCE s
? I.'//l l/1 j l i I 4 I (.I
- X f 'Ali 8,I A !V 1[ j
.1. Ie'lai i t r te p.
2inqF 'si y t .1
' l
]42
)-
test' result? A Anything is possible, r' O Do you have any possible explanat. ion as to how adding a r:n.oll aniount. of wat er dur.i ng a Leak Pate Ton t could give you a_ worse Leak Rate Test result?
! A l'm saying it could have drove.it over t o the -- if t.be compu t er was -- Let 's say, wi t h nobody t.ouchi ng
. a ny t.h i ng , the'computet was going to give you up .5 .5 g.p.ni.
l !.ea k Ita te , okay? l
! O Right.
I i i A :I somebody added water, Ihoy could have-l
- ).- ldJove it J nLo t he negaLive djiecLion, saying that the syntom
; inade water, which would have 9.iven you also an invalid I.ea k i
; Rate. I'm saying thene are possibilities. Also, the poori- '
i ( l bility that you're sayJny, that-the operator adding water, made i t' come oni quod.- That's also a possibility. t j O lit t l you Weton't awaro of.that on March 10, l , l 1979? 8 A No, s.11 . i
)
j O lin t were you aware of t.he f a c t. , t h a t-- it war l get t i,ng mol n and nioi e difficult. t o obt.aln a satisf actory Loak fla t e 'J e n t 1y March 10, 1979?
'! A Yes, sir. -) -l i
O And were you aware of the fact that opera-CAMIAL CITV p[rO71NG SEIMCE l nm im nicansyvuswvw j -
.neno, . .< m. o i l t -l p 'r u td
, r
t: 143 J) i tors were ' finid3 ng it. necessary to run. more and rnore tests, in ordet' ' ( o get 'Li L good 1,eak Rat e Test a t that time? l Yes , , .s j t .
. y. s i
j y-A l [f - i
'l' O And you at i L1 think that it was-posnjble Ithat adding a.nnial) amount. of water would have produced a t
l1negat-fve rocu]t at ihat time? Al 11's poss.ible, l, 5 (. P .,-- I .O 14n 1 i sn ' t. i t. mor:e likely, that an operat n-
.I
! who is conf ront'ed wJ t h the difficulty in gett'ng a good f.eak g .) -
Rate Terit. iri March of 1979, would have added water . irs order- ; 1o get a l>Pt i er f( ni i onn } i ? I
?)' ' A l'r oni Whit t I'm Hening, yes, s .i r , i i
'3 <
.5 l
.7 s
j s ' 0 Ital you wer.e not aware that llartman was en-gaged sj n 't ha t! coriduct. in March of 19797 ' A No, sir.
, , l cu o were'you leviewing make up tank level strip !
charts at. that time? A I was Jooking at trends at them, en I valked l by d< i.i pq my Iourn. i :. l Q You don't reca)) noticing any unusual trace o.t movements on the nt rip char t at that time? A IJo , rir.
') !
O Look at the test of March 13, 1979. Is thati CAPITAt Cln' REFOMING SErMCE nua,4 9 u iH < pr,t rotw4 S'AiKy 4 sc .iraig. < / 1/ b u-
- li t r / J m l/1 I w
_______.._I____._____________ _ _i_. _ _. _ i
l i 144' a test _that'was also approved by you.? A Yes, sir. i O And who was the operator in that pariicolor i en t.7
.A' fla] Ilart man.
l O Would you examine the strip chart and tell me whether you nee a similar rise 3n.the slope of the make up I tank level.. trace? l A Yes, sir. . I O Do you have any idea as to what caused t.h a t l
- pat t 3 cular rise in t.he - make up t ank level trace?
A No, sir. I've seen other traces. This onn doesn't. r eally look ext raordinary f rom ot.her t races that l ' re looking at.
-Q - Do you know what caused those?
i i A No, sir. I do not. i. l 0 Ho i s you r answer t hat you're not aware of l what caused that partjcular slight r.ise at the end of thai l Leak Pate Twi t 7 A Yes, sir. I do not know what caused it.
-(Discussion off-the-record) !
j 11Y Mh. PeVICSA: I
) i 0 Do you have no explanat. ion as to what would CAP 4TAL CITV REPORTING SErMCE t v..y v o i!M 9N row 4 swoa
( lf
- 1 1 . e i f tt s-i; i i t . , i + 1.1
t I 145 l' l ')' have caused that rise at. the end of that test? A No, sir. I O There is no wa t;er addi t iori tha t is accounted for duting.that tent, is there? .l j l I ll 1 A' No, sir. ! I i O Finally, I'd like you to take a Jook at. the f.en t. of March 15, 1979, at 04:50. Now that test i s M>t - ap-l proved by you, is it ? _
)
l l l I A. No, s] r. l i l 1 l 0 ran you iel1 nm who arptoved that t "s t ? ! l ! A 14 T. Smith. I l 0 Do you have any recollection as to why Mr. i < Smit.h would have approved that test instead of you? I A No, sir. linless I was busy out in t he plant ' l j and he was tryiny Io lu tl p me ou t . O can you tell from looking at that strip , chart., whethet or not i here wa:, a Ilydrogen addition nado duzing ihat. i ent 7 - p
> A No, sir. I can't te.11 if Hydrogen would I ,
have been added. l l 0 Can you tell from looking at the ntrip chartj
- t. hat. something occurred to caime the make up tank lavel trend !
_.] t.o flatten out and reduce the degree of slope that it had been s C@ll A! CITY REFO?PNG SEfMCE r.. w.>u ru a aws rmo; i st.11 ? f y t =
') < f i i > . '6
)
i 146
)
-l following prior to the test?
i A I can see that, but I can't give you any 1 explanaiionn f or i t . l
~O And you don't recall what would have canned i
l you not i o approved that test? i A No, sir. 1 l l 0 Do you recall -- 1 l l A May I look at my records? l 0 Sure. l l i I j t I want to nee what kind of a day that wa: . l
) It looke ]jke 1 was out in the plant quite a bit, on that d ay . jl That.'s a)) I can see off the record. l
-! l 0 Do you recall that after March 15, 1979, that a temporary change notice was put into effect, which '
made a correct ion f or the temperature of water that was being I i collect ed in the reactor coolant drain tank? i i i l A 1 do reca)) something to do with the tem- i i
} per at ur e on t bo drain tank. I don't recall it being a Titi.
Just youi men t .i on i ng i ha1, I remember some piece of paper, i s omt i h i rig i o d o w.ii h the temperature on the drain tank. I
- t. Do you remernber that sometime, after the >
middle of - Ma r c.h , that when you ran a I,eak Rate Test, you would;{
.) t urn ar ound and have to correct, af ter get ting the printout, i i
you'd have to correct the number for identified leakage and ' cAJ1TAL CITY UmTING SEfMCE rem e n ru c y o rar r.wn s
} ,i,1<- i e */ug n i .ii
r -
.... ..m. . . . . . . . .. .
ll \ 147 f L ,) - then correct. the number for unidentified leakage? I
'A No, sir. I don't recall that.
t, - You don't irm"mber ever running a T>eak Rate
'I e n t , wheJe after you'got the pr int out , you would go through l 3
I a manual calculation and correct. the identj fied leakege num-ber, arni then subtract it from the gross leakage and come out ! with a corrected unidentified leakage number? .;
~A- No, sir. j i
l l MS. PENNY: When did you leave for I.ynchburg , I f .
! lu'ior e Ilu- ace isleiit ? !
l f Till: WITNMSS: Thaf was a week hefore ila-I accident. ( MS. l'UNNY: A week befote. ion don't r e c a .1 1
)thedate?
l \
! Tile W1TNESS: It would have been the Sunday i i l-
[ night before the accident, I went down there. 1 Tile WITNESS: No. I don't recall doirig any calcularionn 1 i.ke t ha t. . PY Mi<. DeV1SA: i i O Do you recall that as March approached, it ; war 'moje ar.d more diff.icult to get a good Leak Pate Test? A ven, sir, i 0 Do you recall that it was necessary for you L l I CAPITAL CITY PWWTitG SErNICE I rom D U HX3. WWE SWON i
. nNMJr .w . . 17116 1; tist *
'9 M
148 to throw away more and more Leak Rate Tests, as you came closer to the time of the accident? A i quess really I don't recall how raany cot l i i brown away cral how many kept. f l 0 Do you recall that the number Ihat got t h e ow: i l 3 away increaned an you came closer to March of 1979? A Prom what I recall, I would say, yes, it probab3y did. O Do you remember that from March 15, up until the Lime t. hat you Icft for Lynchburg, you were unable to get l i a Sat isf act.oly_ I,eak Itate Test result? l i i
) A No, sir.
l 0 Da you have any recollection, that from March 15 until the time of the accident, that you worked several connecut ive shifts without being able to get a satis- l Iactory Leak P.at e Test. result? j A No, sir. O Do you recall that you threw away a number of Leak 1 tat e Te: t results from March 15 up until the t.i rne f. h a ' you left for I.ynchburg? A If I ran them, and the records don't show that 1. submi t t ed any, then I threw them away. ,
, O .And is it your impression today, that if you t.hrew t hem away, it's because you believed that those test re ;
( APliAl CllY RLKJNNG SUMCE
! W. /,1 i eJ ll { 1 Id.14J1 Aid S'Mir y J 8
4 4 1 J r I = , ' 'r- 1/ il lP n I$#+ #d a D,1,1 {
-l 149' T\
-}
sults were inconsistent with what you thought plant leakage to be at that. time? A Yes, sir. O I have no further questions. Is there any-thing you'd like to add before we conclude? A No, sir. MR. DeVESA: Okay. Thank you, i ('lla- heariny was concluded at 3 : 4 0 p . ro . ) i . I i
* *
- i i
l
) ;
I { I 1 heleby certify that the testimony taken by im in the w i t h i n ina t t ot in fully and accurately indicatrd j in toy notes and t h.i s ir. a true and correct transcript of l l smre . ' i 4 I gO f> = Richard A. Frank { Court Iteporter i
-- ) .
CelTAL CITY REPORTING SErMCE l J '/ '/,1 lc l i Il[i(DN 'i f lMY #.IAITY j e t/J A.'! J ti f * , ( +/ 1/ di ft 1Ii( ,! p $1
- w. _ - _ _ - - - - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - _ - '
f i l. i ILLJES, TIIEODORE 8/10/82 Excerpts from B & W Transcript I l j i _ l
ho-UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
. . . - - - - - - . . _ _ _ _ .x GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORPORATION, :
1 JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, METROPOLITAN!{ EDISON COMPANY and
- PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, '
s Plaintiffs, 80 CIV. 1683
* * (R.O.)
-against-THE BABCOCK & WILCOX COMPANY and INC., s J. RAY McDERMOTT & CO.,
Defendants. : (
. _ .. _ _ . _ _ . . -.. . _x Deposition of GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES COMPANY'by THEODORE F. ILLJES, taken by Defendants pursuant to agreement, at the offices of Davis Polk & Wardwell, Esgs., One Chase Manhattan Plaza, New York, New York on Tuesday, August 10, 1982, at 9: 15 o' clock in the forenoon, befo're Nancy A. Rudolph, a i
Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of New York. 1. b. A ghe DOYLE REPORTING. INj CERTIFIED STENOTYPC REPORTE 369 Le xiN o ro N AvgNur New Yong. N .Y. fooI7 WALTER SH APIRO. C.S.R. C&l Atttr$ 5H APIRO, C.S.R. Tai.re m - 212 - 05/-B??O
e n n .. 1 2 2 APPe a ra nc e s 1 3 KAYE, SCHOLER, FIERMAN, HAYS & HANDLER, ESQS. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 4 425 Park Avenue New York, New York ( 5 By: ANDREW MacDONALD, ESQ., 6 of Counsel 7 8 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL, ESQS. 9 Attorneys for Defendants One Chase Manhattan Plaza 10 New York, New York l 11 By: ANN MCDONALD, ESQ., 12 of Counsel h a 13
' KILLIAN & GEPHART, ESQS.
14 Attorneys for Theordose r 15 Illjes
- Box 886 16 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 17 By: JAME G. PENNY, ESQ.,
18 of Counsel 19 , I 20 Also Present: 1 21 EDWARD HILL 22 23 l I 24 25
1 Illjes 35
]1 I
2 responsibility or personnel? l 3 Q What did they do? 4 A Well, they were in charge of the startup ( 5 and testing program. 6 Q Did you know that they also maintained a 7 . log? 8 A They had a room which they kept their 9 information and records in. Whether they had a log -- 10 I think every so often you would see o n.e with a book, 11 but I wasn't aware of a log. 12 Q You didn't review it? . 13 A No. 14 Q During the startup phase of the plant, on 15 occasion the shift test engineers would also be in the 16 control room, is that correct? 17 A Yes. 18 Q We talked before about when you were 19 relieving the shift, you would have a br2ef conversation 20 with the people who had been on the shift before you.
. 21 Did that sometimes include the shift test 22 engineers, that conversation?
l l 23 , A sometimes, it would. i . } i i 24 l g Are you familiar with something called an
- s
! unusual occurrence report? Have you heard of that kind 25
I 1 I11jes 36 2 of a document? 3 A Unusual event report. l 4 Q What was your understanding that that was used for? ( 5 6 A Something that transpired that was not in 7 the normal operating agenda of the plant. l 8 Q Did you ever fill out an unusual event l 9 report? 10 A Not prior to the accident, , 11 (Recess) 12 BY MS.' MCDONALD: - 13 Q Mr. Illjes, were you aware before the Three 14 Mile Island accident that there were limits with respect 15 to the maximum acceptable unidentified leak rate that 16 was allowed in the plant? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Were you aware that there was a technical 19 ! specification called reactor coolant sy s t em operational l 20 leakage which discussed that topic, namely unidentified I 21 I and identified leakage? k 22 A Yes. l 23 l Q Let me show you what has been previously 24 marked as B&W Exhibit 251 and ask you if you recognize o 25 that document.
Illjes 37 , 1 2 A This is our tech specs, technical 3 specifications. k 4 Q You were familiar with this document before ( 5 the accident? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Were you aware that Exhibit 251 required 8 that with any reactor coolant system leakage greater 9 than one gallon per minute unidentified leakage, that 10 that leakage must be reduced to within.the proper . 11 , limits within four hours or the plant had to be in i 12 ! at least hot standby in the next six hours and in cold 13 shutdown in the following 30 hours? I am referring in 14 my question to Section 3.1.6.2. Do you see that i 15 section? 16 A Yes. I Q Were you aware of that requirement before 17 l 18 the Three Mile Island accident? I 19 A Yes. l 20 Q Referring to Section 4.4.6.2D of that li 21 I tech spec, which reads, " Performance of a reactor 22 coolant system water inventory balance at least once 23 per 72 hours during steady state operations." were you l 24 U aware of that requirement before the accident? e 25 A Yes.
l-1 38 1113es 2 I am showing you now what was previously . Q 3 marked as B&W Exhibit 252 and ask you if you can 4 identify that document. ( 5 A That is labeled as " Surveillance Procedure i 6 2301-3DIRCS Inventory." } i I I Q Is it correct that the purpose of that ) 0 surveillance procedure, Exhibit 252, was to meet the l 9 requirements of tech spec section 3.4.4.6 and section 10 t 3.4.6.2 and section 4.4.6.27 , j II MR. MacDONALD: The sections that are in l 10* 2517 , l 13 MS. MCDONALD: Right. I4 Do you utlerstand the question? Q 15 Are you asking him whether MR. MacDONALD: j 16 this procedure related to the tech spec II requirements? 18 Q I just want to know, was B&W 252 the surveillance procedure that showed you how to comply l l 20 with the tech spec that is B&W 251? 21 A Yes, we used this procedure to comply with l 99
~~
i this. l 23
)
g Before the Three Mile Island accident, did l 1
' i
\
, 24 you ever make use of B&W 252, the surveillance !
i l 25 procedure?
I Illjes 39 Y 2 A Yes, we followed this procedure. { 3 Q Before the accident, did you ever personally l 4 perform a leak rate test? ( 5 A Yes. 6 Q Do you recall using this particular 7 procedure or one of its prior revisions? 8 A I believe we used a procedure similar to 9 this, yes, or one of its prior revisions. I don't 10 remember specifically actually taking the procedure out 11 of the drawer and following the procedure step by step, 12 but this procedure relates to the leak rate , 13 specification. 14 Q I take it before the accident, you were 15 familiar with how to do a leak rate test? 16 A Correct. 17 Q Did you do leak rate tests num.erous times 18 before the accident? I 4 19 i A yes. l 20 . g Have you ever supervised the performance
. 21 of a leak rate test done by others before the accident?
22 A No. I j 23 1 Q Can you try to explain in terms as simple 24 as possible how this procedure allows you to calculate
< a 25 leakage in the plant?
l 1 2113e3 4o f 1 2 A We actually don't do the calculation. We , ) i 3 use a computer to do the calculation, and if your 4 computer is programmed to do the calculation,by j 1 ( 5 . pressing a letter or two on the computer, automatically it calculates the 1e'ak rate for you. j 6 7 Q Is it correct that,the procedure, B&W 252 8 and its attached data sheets, in essence define 9 inventofy lost from the makeup tank 's a total leakage? 10 MR. MacDONALD: Are you asking him now for ) I 11 his recollection? 12 l . MS. MCDONALD: Yes. 13 A Part of the leak rate had to do with level-14 in the makeup tank. 1 15 Q To obtain the unidentified leakage in the 16 plant, did the process require that inventory in the ! 17 reactor coolant drain tank be subtracted from inventory ' l I8 lost from the makeup tank? j l 19 ' A I don't recall the c a l c u l a t i o n ~, how we 20 manually calculated. IJ Was the leak rate test, however, affected 21 lt Q
, l 22 ! by how much water the computer thought was in the makeup U l 23 tank?
21 MR. MacDONALD: Can I have that again? v d , 25 (Question read)
r
-- - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - ~ - - - -
l l
'I ~
l Illjes 41 2 A Yes. 3 Q Is it correct that the results of the leak 4 rate test would be affected by both temperature and pressure in the makeup tank? ( 5 6 MR. MacDONALD: Are you asking him now 7 whether the computer took that into account and 8 computed those calculations prior to the 9 accident? 10 MS. MCDONALD: I will accept that. i 11 A I don't recall taking that into account.. 12 Q You don't recall that both the figures 13 for the makeup tank and the figures for the reactor 14 coolant drain tank had to be adjusted so that they 15 t were measured in equivalent reactor coolant gallons? 16 In other words, taking account of the temperature and 17 pressure of the water in those tanks in order to obtain i l 18 a correct leak rate? 19 , A I remember the computer taking into account li 20 the level in the makeup tank. Other data that the j l 21 I computer took, as far as you are saying pressure and 22 i temperature, I don't remember the computer taking that ,( 23 ! into account. j l 1 33 l Q Did you ever perform any leak rate test in
, e !
25 which you did not use a computer? In other words, did
1 Illjes 42 l you ever do it b.y hand? j 2 b A I believe I have done it maybe once or { 3 l; 4 twice, but I don't recall specifically. l Q Referring to Exhibit 252, do you see at
)( 5 6 the end of that procedure, the last two or three pages, 7 there are some tables of numbers? Do you see what I ,
1 8 am referring to? It is pages 30, 31, 32, that 9 procedure. l ! 1 l 1 10 A yes. , l 11 Q Can you tell me what those tables are? I 12 i A I can barely read them. ' 13 i Q Are they steam tables, Mr. Illjes? 14 A It is listed as " Saturation Pressure" on 1 15 page 31, and there is pressure -- those could be steam t 16 tables, yes. l 17 i Q Are they steam tables? l l 18 i A Yes, those are steam tables or parts of it. ] l l 19 ! Q Do you know why those steam tables were l l 20 ] attached to this procedure? 21 l A I believe it had to do with calculation of l ( 22 a leak rate. 23 Q Does seeing these steam tables at the back r 24 h of this procedure refresh your recollection in any way 0 25 5 regarding whether temperature and pressure of the
Illjes 43 1 2 water in the makeup tank or the reactor coolant drain 3 tank had to be taken into account in calculating a i 4 leak rate? ( 5 A No. 6 Q Are you aware of any time when a leak rate calculation was made which produced a leak rate for 7 8 either identified or unidentified leaks which was in 9 excess of the tech spec limit? 10 A Yes. t 11 Q Did you obtain any of those results yourself 12 in your own performance of a leak rate test? , 13 A Yes. 14 Q Did you also observe other leak rate tests 15 performed by others that were outside the tech spec 16 limit, observe in the sense of see the results? 17 A Yes, usually this was attributed to an 18 oscillation in the plant and then another' leak rate was 19 calculated or the computer was set up to calculate i 20 ! i another leak rate, and we then got a lesk rate that 21 was within the leak rate specification within the time ( 22 ,. period. What time period was that? 23 'l Q l 24 A Reduced the leak rate within the four-hour period; it is in the four-hour period. I don't remember 25
1 l Illjes 44 ! 1 the time period without'looking at the document. 2 Q Is it your recollection that in every case 3 4 that you recall with a leak rate calculation that j t resulted in a leak rate outside the tech spec limit, ( 5 6 in every case a leak rate within the tech spec limit i 1 7 was then obtained within the four hours at TMI? 8 A The leak rate was ever required -- 9 required every 72 hours and as long as we had a good 10 g leak rate within the 72-hour period, we. satisfied the 11 requirements of the tech spec. 12 Q Mr. Illjes, going back to Exbibit 251, on 13 ! the first page, do you see the " action" statement i 14 ; there, section B? f 15 A Yes. ' 16 Q Doesn't that say that you must reduce the l l ) 17 i leakage rate to within limits within four hours or " f i 18 at least be in hot standby within the n e x t' eight hours l 19 and in cold shutdown within the following 30 hours? Il Answer to your recollection. 20 MR. MacDONALD: ii That is what it says is that right, just l 21 ll Q l l 22 !i reading the document. l 1 0 ' 23 E MR. MacDONALD: Everybody can read the l. U 24 [ document. [3}
\_/
d ll' 25 A That is what the document says, yes.
Illjes 45 1 2 Q So let me ask you a different question 3 then. 4 Every time that you recall getting or observing a leak rate which was in excess of the tech ( 5 6 spec limits, was it your understanding or do you recall 7 that the plant went into hot standby within four hours? 8 A No, that was not a requirement; insofar as 9 I can recall,the requirement was that we had a 10 performance surveillance every 72 hours,, and as long , 11 as we were able to get a leak rate within that 72 hours 12 I then we met, satisfied, the requirement of the tech -
' 13 spec.
14 Q Well, what was your understanding of the 15 meaning of this section B in the action statement? 16 A Well, at the end of 72 hours, you weren't 17 able to get a leak rate within those four hours, then i 18 we went into that action statement. You e'n t e r e d the 19 action statement. 20 ! Q Do you recall any occa si on when the 21 operators were unable to obtain an acceptable leak 22 rate within the 72-hour period? f I 23 A The computer calculated the leak rate and 24 there were many things in the plant which could change 25 a small amount, which would have an effect on the leak
i 1 Illjes 46 f 2 rate. A valve or a controller could cycle, and it 1 3 could change the calculation of the leak rate and, 4 therefore, you would have a leak rate either high or ( 5 lower. Sometimes, se even went into negative leak 6 rates, and so when we -- we made it a practice of 7 once a' shift taking a leak rate whether or not it 8 was satisfied within -- you always took a leak rate 9 once a shift, and within that period of 72 hours we 10 managed or we got satisfactory leak rat which 11 l satisfied the requirement of the tech spec within a i 12 72-hour surveillance period. 13 Q So it was your practice when you were on 14 shift or your understanding anyway was that each 15 shift took a leak rate until an acceptable one was I 16 obtained, is that correct? 17 MR. MacDONALD: Or until the leakage was l i 18 identified. 19 A Right. i 20 MS. MCDONALD: Thank you, Counsel. I li i 21 l Q That's right? l 22 ' A That's correct, or until the leakage was l 23 . identified. l
, e 21 ll' i
Q What do you recall doing with the data j 25 sheets upon which were recorded the unacceptable leak
I11jes 47 1 9 2 rates that you said you personally obtained? 1
)
A If we weren't required a leak rate and it 3 4 was not a leak rate within the limit of the tech spec, ( 5 then we didn't keep it. 6 Q You threw it out? 7 A I take it that is where it ended up, yes. 8 Q Did you ever throw one out? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Did you ever discuss with anyone at Three p 11 Mile Island the practice of throwing out leak rates 12 which came out unacceptable? - 13 i A well, you consider them unacceptabic. It's 14 difficult for a plant to get in a situation where you l can get a good leak rate. That was our i dea, the way 15 : 16 we were made to understand it, so if the plant was 17 l i slightly unstable or can cause some sort of l just' -- and the 18 perturbation in the control system we l. 19 ! paper work came back with, say, a higher than one I 20 GPM Icak rate and it was unidentified, then we didn't 21 keep it. We weren't required to keep it. 22 Q Did you record anywhere the fact that a 23 ' leak rate test had been done if the results were above I 24 the tech spec limit?
- l 25 A It was recorded on the computer printout.
1 i i 1 Illjes 48 )
)
I $) Were those computer printouts retained? l 2 Q 3 A some of them were. The good ones were 4 retained. ( 5 Q And the bad ones you would throw out? 6 A Maybe not right away. They were looked at 7 by other people before they were thrown out. 8 Q Wero you aware of any requirement to record 9 in the control room log the fact that a leak rate test 10 had been performed regardless of how it came out? 11 A I recall some method of record retention. 12 I don't know if it was in the log or not. We had a I 13 procedure or something that it would be passed on 14 ! whether or not we were within the 72-hour requirement 15 , of our surveillance to get a good leak rate. It was 16 passed on from one shift to the next. I don't know 17 where it was written down,in the control room operator 18 ' log or a turnover sheet or -- 19 I Q I am not sure I understand your answer. I I 20 { Do I take it that there was some permanent 21 record made of every leak rate test that was attempted L. 22 whether or not it came out under the tech spec? , l 23 A No, I don't know of any permanent record ! l 24 - that was kept of every time we pushed it or requested d 25 a leak rate from the computer.
Illjes 49 1 Q If I asked you to go and look for that 2 3 today, where.would you look? MR. MacDONALD: Look for what? 4
~ MS. MCDONALD: He said he didn't know
( 5 6 whether there was any permanent record, so I am 7 just wondering what the possibilities are. 8 A You said if there were any records kept. 9 You didn't say did we keep all records. 10 Q T see. 11 I take it that if the leak rate test did 12 not come out properly, the turnover sheet would also , 13 be thrown out, is that correct? MR. MacDONALD: I am going to object to 14 15 the term " proper." MS. MCDONALD: Under the tech spec. 16 17 A I am not aware of keeping turnover sheets 18 that we used back then or not. 19 , Q You said before that getting leak rates l 20 over the requirements of the tech spers was often 21 attributed to oscillation in the plant. 22 What did you mean by that? l 23 A The conputer has inputs from different l
, 24 I sensing mechanisms of equipment in the plant, and for 25 various reasons they are due to a component making a
(. . - - - -- _ _ -_. _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _
t 1 Illjes 50
') 2 i
correction for a setpoints in other words, a particular 3 temperature that something is supposed to operate at ) 4 that component turns on and changes the temperature in ( 5 the period of the leak rate calculation that is l 6 transpiring, 0.K.? Now, when that component changes,it i 7 also will change the input going into the computer, so I 8 it is difficult for the computer to see everything in 9 a stable condition when something like that happens, 10 and that is why it is difficult to get a good leak 11 rates one of'the reasons. I 12 Q Was Met Ed management aware of the practice , ) ( 13 of repeatedly taking leak rate tests until one of them i I ) 14 came out under the tech spec limit? l ' l i 15 A Yes. 16 Q Did you ever discuss this practice with Mr. 17 Floyd? 18 A Not to my recollection. 19 j Q Mr. Teelinger? I I 20 J A Not to my recollection, b 21 Q Mr. Miller? m i 22 , A Not to my recollection. N 23 f g Any shift supervisors? h 24 A There was a shift supervisor on shift at
- l t
25 i the time taking those leak rates.
1 Illjes 5.1 2 Q Do you remember his name? 3 A I believe it was Joseph Chwastyk. 4 Q Did anyone tell you that it was appropriate ( 5 or acceptable pursuant to this procedure, B&W 252, to
~
6 repeatedly take leak rate tests until the rate came 7 within the tech spec limit? 8 A Did anybody from -- 9 Q Did anyone at Met Ed tell y o.u that it was an 10 acceptable interpretation of these procedures to 11 repeatedly take leak rate tests until the rate came 12 withdn the tech spec? 13 MR. MscDONALD: Within the 72 hours? 14 MS. MCDONALD: Yes. 15 MR. MacDONALD: Regardless of whatever else 16 may have been done to correct leakage? 17 MS. MCDONALD: Right. 18 ! A Well, the shift foreman was in charge of 19 ; the plant and he was cognizant of what was going on, l l 20 so he usually got the leak rates signed and laid on his l l 21 desk, k What shift foreman are you referring to? 22 Q 23 A I don't remember who was my shift foreman. I 24 Let's see, we went through a few. 4 25 Q The way you answered that, I thought you
in 4 Illjes 52 1 were referring to one in particular. I'm sorry if I 2 3 misunderstood you. ; 4 A No. can you fecall who your shift foreman was, (< 5 Q 6 say, in 1978, '797 / 78 A I can recall Bill Conaway, and another prior j i 8 shift foreman was Dave Newman, but I don't believe he ) 9 was there when we were operating. There might be 10 I snother one in there, but I don't recall because I 11 switched shifts toc somewhere in there. I 12 i
- Q Are you aware of any instance in which leak 1
13 rate results were recorded incorrectly? l A The results were recorded by the computer, 14 i i 15 l so I don't recall recording or no results recorded l k 16 incorrectly to my knowledge. l 17 , Q When leak rates within the tech spec limits l , i 18 ; were obtained, were they not recorded in some log 19 other than the computer? 20 A It might have been recorded in the CRO log li 21. I that we satisfied the intended technical surveillance 22 ! r e q u i r e t.t e n t . I L 23 Q Do you ever recall either observing or {s 24 hearing that anyone had added water to the make:up tank 25 in order to affect the leak rate calculation?
1 I11jes 53 h . 2 MR.. MacDONALD: Are you talking about t 3 intentionally affecting leak rate calculations? i 4 MS. MCDONALD: Yes. ) No, not intentionally.
~( 5 A 6 Q- Did you ever hear, observe that someone 7 added water to the makeup tank in order to affect the B leak rate not intentionally?
9 MR. Mac0ONALD: By mistake, you mean? 10 i MS. MCDONALD: I don't know.. You threw in l 11 " intentionally." l I 12 MR. MacDONALD: I'didn't know what the 13 , question was geared at. 14 MS. MCDONALD: He said not intentionally, 15 i so I am picking up on his answer. I want to 16 know what he does know about it. 17 l A It is possible the control room operator 1 IS I that was signed into the book was in charge of the 19 panel area and the one or other two CRO's would be 20 ll taking care of paper work such as he could calculate : li" l 21 the leak rate or the normal practice of the same -- 22 there is a leak rate which is a period of approximately I t I 23 I of an hour to however long you want to make the leak i t 24 i rate calculation; in other words, you can make it
< a 25 longer than an hour. I believe it was normally an
1 Illjes 54 2 hour or two, or something like that. It's possible that 3 it would depend on the makeup tank for control function 4 of our control rods by diluting watersif the control ( 5 rods-reach the upper limit, the control room operator 6- would have to add water into the makeup tank, to cause 7 the control rods to drive back in, and he could have 8 been into this evolution while the leak rate was ongoing 9 or he had to make up to the makeup tank, and the other 10 operator didn't notify him that a leak rate was in 11 progress. It could be other situations too, where he 12 would possibly change the level in the makeup tank _ 13 unintentionally. 14 And changing the level in the makeup tank Q 15 in the course of doing a leak rate calculation would ! l l 16 affect that leak rate calculation, would it not? i 17 A The leak rate calculation was.part of the ] 18 makeup -- it took makeup tank level into effect. 19 Q Adding water to the makeup tans, would tend l 20 ' to make the leak rate seem less, is that correct, 21 rather than more? 22 MR. MacDONALD: Objection for a minute. I 23 just want a clarification now. Are we talking l about an inadvertent addition of water, not
, 21 25 ' somebody intentionally adding water?
4
.. . . . I
1 Illjes 55 ]
) 2 MS. MCDONALD: That is what I am talking i
3 about. 4 A Usually if somebody added water to the ] (. 5 makeup tank, it showed right up on the computer 6 because it ended up negative. It was, you know, that
)
I 7 wasn't a -- you knew it right away, and you would say 8 " Hey, buddy, you added water to the makeup tank." 9 What I am saying is, we didn't add water 10 to the makeup tank to affect the leak rate intentionally. 11 Q I understand you said that, but what I 12 would like to know, and I guess maybe you have - 13 answered it, for whatever reason the water wan put into 14 the makeup tank the leak rate would end up being lower 15 than it really was in real life, correct? 16 MR. MacDONALD: All other things being 17 equal, that is what you are saying? MS. MCDONALD: Yes. 18 l 19 A It could go lower or it could go negative. 20 . If you added water to the makeup tank, the computer F t didn't -- it sensed it could go below zero. we know I 21 (, 22 that that is -- 0.K. D* 23 Q It is impossible for the leak rate t 's 2 4 24 negative in real life, is that what you are s a y 16 'l
*J 4 25 A No, it is just measuring how much w^*"#
1 Illjes 56 I 2 you are putting into the system. Negative was ins 3 positive was.out, I believe. 4 Q Were you aware that this procedure, l l ( 5 Exhibit 252, said that adding water to the makeup , l l 6 tank should be avoided during a leak rate test? 4 a j 7 A That's correct, but there are other things { i 8 which would have taken precedence, like control rod 9 manipulation.or reactivity manipulations would have i 1 10 taken precedence over something like that. 11 Q Had you ever had a conversation with Mr. 12 Hartman regarding leak rate results for Three Mile . 13 Island? 14 A Not that I recall. l 15 Q Were you ever aware of anyone deliberately 16 adding hydrogen to the makeup tank in order to affect 17 the leak rate? 18 A Not that I recall. 19 i g Was it your understanding that the addition 1 20 i. of hydrogen to the makeup tank in the course of a leak 21 rate, whether or not it was done deliberately, would 22 1 affect the leak rate result? I 23 Ol
! A I am not sure when that knowledge came to I
24 me, whether it was before or after the accident, but
- l 25 now I know that the level instrument is sensitive to
1 Illjes 57
> 2 pressure. I don't remember when that knowledge came 3 to me.
4 Q You mentioned before oscillation in the ( 5 plant that you said might affect the leak rate. 6 A Correct. 7 Q Were there what might be described as 8 peaks and valleys? 9 A It could be plus or minus a half a degree, 10 which are sometimes just tolerances of the 11 instrumentation. 12 Q Were you aware before the accident of 13 operators attempting to take leak rate calculations at 14 a time when they thought the plant was in a condition 15 so that the leak rate calculation would come out 16 right? 17 A You tried to take the calculation when the 18 I plant was as stable as possible. And instrumentation 19 accuracy, you know, there is a percentage, some of II 20 , it is plus or minus.4, 10 percent, and that all -- all , l l 21 j that type of instrumentation was fed into ti.e computer
- l 22 I to calculate the leak rate.
I 23 Q You mentioned before the addition of water I 1 24 l to the makeup tank for some purpose involving the
- l 25 control rod drives,
I l l , I i 1 Illjes 58 l When that kind of an addition was donc, was 2 4 it n rmally done all at once? In other words, that X
, 3 4 gallons of water would be put into the makeup tank to fulfill that function at a given time?
( 5 6 A That's something that -- it depends on the situation. Why are you moving the control rods? Are 7 you moving the control rods in preparation for shutdown j 8 f 9 or are you moving the control rods in preparation for 10 power change or due to the control rods being out of the l 11 operating band? i l 12 Q Well, was it your understanding that the j l 13 additions to the makeup tank in order tr move control 14 rods would characteristically be an addition of, say, 15 20 gallons, wait 15 minutes and then 20 more gallons, I l l and wait 15 minutes, that kind of thing, or was it a j 16 l I 17 ; much larger addition? I am tryEng to get a feci of j l l 18 what kind of addition this was. I 19 , 'A It could be that situation. If you just 20 ; wanted to make a snall adjustment and see what the l 21 result would be after the water, if you were adding or l 22 diluting your boron concentration, you might want to 23 wait to see what the effect was going to be before you 24 ! put in another -- but 20 gallons is a very small amount. e l 25 Normally, it was 30-some gallons per inch or something
l 1 Illjes 59 2 in there. ! 3 Q Were there any procedures while you were 4 on shift to make sure that or to try to see that ( 5 people didn't add water to tne makeup tank during the G course of a leak rate test? 7 A The one you mentioned was on the leak rate 8 calculation. 9 Q You are referring to the procedure that 10 requires you not to -- < 11 A That you should -- 12 MR. MacDONALD: I object to the form. 13 What is the question? 14 Q -- required you to avoid adding water to 15 the makeup tank. Is that what you are referring to? IG MR. MacDONALD: I am still going to object 17 to the form of the question. , 18 A If you are not locked into a leak rate 19 calculation. In other words, you could stop that i 20 4 procedure in the middle of a leak rate if something l
\ , 21 else took precedence.
k Did it ever come to your attention before 22 Q I l 23 l the accident that a leak rate calculation would be in , i d 24 l progress, someone would mistakenly add water to the / i 25 makeup tank, and yet that leak rate calculation would
i l I l 4
~
1 111jes 60 2 not be performed again, those results would be 3 accepted with everybody knowing that water had been 4 added to the makeup tank? ( 5 A I'm sure the possibility exists that 6 water got into the makeup tank and that it affected t 7 the leak rate, and possibly it came out within l 8 requirements and somebody didn't catch it. I will j f< 9 say that that possibility exists. ) 1 10 Q Did you personally ever turn in'a leak l 11 rate result which you knew had been affected by the l 12 addition of water to the makeup tank during the test?
~
\ l i l 13 A I was made aware of that after the I I 1 14 ' accident. I did not intentionally do that. In other f 15 words, I told you before that that was not done l l 16 intentionally. It was donc, I believe a leak rate l 17 was taken and water got into the makeup tank through 1 18 control rod manipulation or something like that, and 19 , I was made aware of that after the accident. 20 Q How were you made aware of that? l 21 A I believe it was in MRC testimonyr not
- !l 22 testimony, but interview.
23 g You were interviewed by the NRC about leak 24 rate results? e 25 A Yes. l
.. ._____--____________-_---_-___________-_____-_-_-_____________-__________A
1 Illjes 61 { 3 2 Q Do you remember when that was? 3 A After the accident. 4 Q Do you remember whether it was '79 or '80 (_ 5 or '817 6 A Can I talk with Andy? 7 MS. MCDONALD: Sure. 8 (Witness confers with counsel.) 9 A I don't remember which interview that was 10 brought up as far as when the NRC was egncerned. 11 Q Had you ever testified about leak. rate 12 tests or calculations anywhere else other than to the 13 NRC? 14 A Now, you are saying testify -- 15 MR. MacDONALD: We talked about questions 16 , related to the testimony before the " grand jury, l~ and this is aside from the grand jury testimony. I 18 l MS. MCDONALD: No, it is not. i l 19 1 My question stands. L 20 3 i Are you instructing him not to answer on I
, 21 I some ground?
k. 22 l MR. MacDONALD: Yes, he is instructed not i i 1 1 23 to answer regarding what the substance of the i 24 ' grand jury testimony may be. The grand jury is j
- i 25 still sitting.
) Illjes 62 } } ) 2 g When you testified before the grand jury, 3 were your answers truthful to the best of your 4 knowledge? ( 5 A Yes. i j 6 g 'Did you answer all questions put to you? MR. MacDONALD: Again, he is instructed j 7 l ) 8 not to answer. f ( 1 9 MS. MCDONALD: I am not asking about the l l 1 I 10 substance of his testimony; I just want to know l 11 1 did he answer the questions that were put to him. ) I l 12 i MR. MacDONALD: He is instructed not to ' I i 1 f 13 ! answer. The grand jury is not the subject of t 14 this case. That is a separate proceeding and 15 i what is happening before the grand jury in its 16 ongoing investigations is something we are not 17 ! going to delve into in this or any other 18 deposition in the case at this point. 19 i MS. MCDONALD: Mr. MacDonald, I am not going I 20 . to try to ask him about the substance of his 21 I grand jury testimony, and I have no interest in I k. 22 delving into what the grand jury may be 23 , investigating. However, I do think it is fair to I
, 24 ,
ask him whether he answered all of the questions 25 put to him.
j 4 1 . .I11jes 63 a
" h' 2 MR.,MacDONALDs I just' told you my position.
i
'3 :BY MS.' MCDONALD:
)
4- iQL Have youever asserted your rights.under the-
'5- Fifth Amendment to' refuse to answer on the grounds.th'at
~
j
-(
6 it might incriminate you? t
. 7 'MR. MacDONALD: Again, I instruct him not
> 0= to answer. You are going into'the substance of
'P. the grand jury testimony at this' time. I. don't-10 think it'is proper'to go into it at-this point.
11 Q Mr. Illjes, have you'ever been given 12 impunity from prosecution by any-governmental body in
- 1 13- connection with Three Mile Island?
. l 14 MR. MacDONALD: The same instruction. You-15 I are entitled to ask.him any and all questions 16 that you want to ask him about'icsk rates; what II his recollection is, what took p l a c e, , and be 18 abic to obtain all the information you want about I
19 ' leak rates, but.no questions that relate to the I 20 l grand jury in an ongoing investigation.
.,,, 21 MS. MCDONALD: I disagree with you, but k.
22- we will just go on for now. 23 BY Ms. MCDONALD: 24 j g Mr. I11jes, were you ever aware that during 1 25 the calculation of a leak rate, water was added to the
l Illjes 64 1 ] 2 makeup tank and the person adding that water 3 deliberately wrote down that he had added less water 1 4 than, in fact, he had? Did that ever come to vour l ( 5 attention? So you understand my question, let's say an 6 7 operator added a hundred gallons of water, just 8 hypothetically. Did it ever come to your attention 9 that the operator deliberately wrote down either in the 1 10 log or told the computer that he had really added 50 11 gallons, or something like that? MR. MacDONALD: I object. I think it is 12 ~ i a hypothetical question. I will let him answer 13 ! l i t ., 14 M5. MCDONALD: 1 only gave him the 15 16 hypothetical as an example. 17 Q My question is, did it ever come to your 18 attention that an operator had misstated how much 19 water he added to the makeup tank in order to affect l. 20 i a leak rate test? 21 A I don't recall. 22 Q Did it ever come to your attention that 23 an operator added hydrogen to the makeup tank and l 24 , deliberately did not record the fact that that had
* ? /
25 been done in order to affect a leak rate test?
-m.
1 Illjes 65 p . 2 A I don't recall. 3 Q you are saying that could have happened, 4 but you don't recall? MR. MacDONALD: I object. ( 5 6 A To my knowledge, no one has added hydrogen 7 to affect the leak rate in the makeup tank. 8 MR. MacDONALD: Just so we are clear, when 9 he responded "I don't recall" in the prior answer, 10 I take it -- and we can inquire gri cross if you 11 want -- but to clear it up now, I take it the 12 l answer "I don't recall" refers to no one to his _ 13 knowlcdge. That is what I want to clear up. 14 Q That is my question. 15 Do you mean no one to your knowledge did 16 that? 17 , A Your question was did anybody add, for i 18 I example, a hundred gallons to the makeup tank and put 19 I 50 gallons in the leak rate or something like that. l i 20 ' I don't recall that happening. To my knowledge, that l [ was never done intentionally, 21
- k. Did it ever come to your attention that 22 Q i
23 , any operator made it a practice to start a leak rate i
, 24 l test using one level o f transmitter for the makeup
*
- l 1
25 tank and then in the middle of the test switch to using ____m_.____.______. _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ __
1 Illjes 66 2 a different level transmitter in the makeup tank in order to affect the leak rate test deliberately? f 3 i 4 A Not deliberately to affect the leak rate.
)
( 5 Q Did it come to your attention that that j 6 might have happened even if it was not deliberately i 7 to affect the leak rate test? j 8 A It's very possible that that could have happened. It's a matter of taking the logs and the I 9 ! 10 log, I believe, might have on it the different l 11 ! channels of the makeup tank level or if somebody wanted i 12 a level out on a computer, I could switch levels on _ l 13 the makeup tank level instrument channel. 14 (Recess) I i 15 BY MS. MCDONALD: 16 Q Mr. Illjes, up until the time of the q l 14 accident, am I correct in thinking that it was the I 18 I practice to attempt a leak rate test approximately 19 : once every shift? f l 20 A APProximately. k 1 I l 21 g Just so I understand what you said before, l (. 22 approximately? i 23 A APProximately. l 1 24 MS. MCDONALD: I would like to mark as f
- l Lcsk\ , ;. .i c) 25 B&W Exhibit 903 a portion of the conteol room log l
1
I I Illjes 67 67 1 !
)
2 and Mr. MacDonald, if you prefer that I mark } G the entire log of that book, I will certainly do 4 so. MR. MacDONALD: Let me see what you are ( 5 6 going to mark. MS. MCDONALD: What I would like to mark, 7 8 unless you have some objection, is pages 1 9 through 97 of control room log going from 10 February 14, '79 until September ,3, 1979. 11 If you prefer that I mark the entire log 12 from February to September, I certainly will. , 13 Just for convenience, I would like to mark 14 i just the portion I have handed to you, pages 1 15 through 97. IG (Pages 1 through 98 of the contro1 room log f r ora February 14, 1979 through September 3, 1979 17 l 18 I
, were marked B&W Exhibit 903 for identification I
19 as of this date.) 20 'i MS. MCDONALD: We have marked as B&W 903 l U 21 l pages 1 through 98 of the control room log
- l 22 i beginning on February 14, 1979.
I c 23 h BY MS. MCDONALD: 24 Q Let me show you that, Mr. Illjes. 25 Do you recognize that as a portion of a
i 1 Illjes 68 9 ) 2 control room log? ) 3 A Yes. 4 4 Q Was that control room log kept in the I { I ( 5. ordinary course of Met Ed's business? i 6 A It was kept as per what transpired in the 1 7 control room. l I y 8 Q Was it the regular course of business for i t l 9 Met Ed to maintain these logs? Was it the normal L 10 practice to keep these logs at Met Ed ip the course of 11 its business?
. 12 A Right.
13 Q Now, Mr. Illjes, would you turn to page 14 79 of that log? 15 Do you see the numbers at the top right-hand 16 and icft-h.nd corners? I apologize for tb.is copy. It 17 is difficult to read, and we have requested better i 18 copies, but haven't received them yet. 19 ; Now, do you see an entry made by you on page l l 20 i 79? l l l 21 A Several. 22 Q I believe the entry is for March 25, is l 23 l that correct? Can you tell? I 1 21 A Yes, that would be fla r c h 25th. l
, a l 1 i
25 I Q The 3:00 to 11:00 shift, is that correct?
. Illjes 69 1
That's correct. 2 A 3 g Do you see opposite 15/5 hours, "Added (
-- from "B reactor bleed j 4 300 gallons from reactor..."
tank to makeup tank 1"? { 5 6 A Yes. 7 Q Do you see 1540 hours, "Added 300 gallons 8 from B reactor coola,nt bleed tank to makeup tank 1"? 9 A Yes. Do you see at 1800 hours "Added..." I 10 g is that how you read it -- 11 believe it is "300..." 12 " gallons from A reactor bleed tank to makeup tank 1"?, 13 3 yes, 14 Q Do you see at 1915, "Added 600 gallons from i 15 ' B reactor bleed tank to makeup. tank 1"? 16 A Yes. II Q Do you see at 2115 hours, "Added 600 gallons l 18 ! ' from B reactor coolant bleed tank to makeup tank 1"? 19 g yes, t 20 ,i Q Do you see at 2255 hours, "Added 600 gallons 21 'i from B reactor coolant bleed tank to makeup tank 1"? (. ' 22 ', A Yes. i 23 p g Am I correct in thinking that comes out to II 24 ll 2700 gallons on that shift added to the makeup tank?
. t 25 Ms. MCDONALD: Strike that question.
1 Illjes 70 3 f 2 Q Can you recall, Mr. Illjes, why all this 3 water was being added to the makeup tank approximately 4 three days prior to the Three Mile Island accident? l i ( 5 A I believe during this time we had identified I 6 one of the relief valves, a leaking one, or maybe two, I ! 7 leaking into the -- well, one of the relief valves on j l l 8 the pressurizer had a leak. j [ \ ) 1 9 Q How did that relate to adding water to the I l l 10 . makeup tank? ., l 11 A Water would be made up to compensate for l 1 i - 12 that leakage. , t l 13 Q As far as you remember, were the numbers j l 14 of gallons that you wrote down here in this log the l 15 numbers of gallons that you added to the makeup tank? 16 A I believe if I wrote it down there, to the 5 17 best of my knowledge. l IO A leak rate test calculation was performed Q 19 on this shift too, wasn't it, according to'the practice? l 20 A I don't recall, but it was the practice to 21 perform a leak rate once a shift. 22 Do you recall whether you took account of I Q 23 the water you were adding to the makeup tank in 24 performing the leak rate test?
. l 25 i MR. M a c D O t4 A L D : He said he doesn't recall
Illjes 71 1 2 specifically. There is no basis for the foundation of your question. 3 MS. MCDONALD: You may still answer. 4 Could you repeat the question? ( 5 THE WITNESS: 6 (Question read) I don't recall this circumstance. I mean - 7 A 8 I can read the information out of the log, but I am 9 not -- I don't recall the situation. 10 Q Mr. Illjes, I would like to,go back and correct something. I think we identified this page 11 79 as being March 25, 1979. I believe if you compare 12 _ 13 page 76 to page 79, in fact that reads March 23rd, am 14 I correct, just so the record is clear? 15 A Which page do you want? IG Q I want to make clear what date page 79 is. 17 Can you determine that from your review of 18 the log? 19 , A It is 3/23/79. 1 20 Q March 23rd? A No, 3/25/79. If you go to the next page, 21 , 22 on page 80 it is clearly marked. 23 MS. MCDONALD: Off the record. 24 (Discussion off the record.) 25 BY MS. MCDONALD:
f 1 ! 1 Illjes 72 h 2 g It is, in fact, March 25, 1979, Mr. Illjes, 1 3 as far as you can see? l 1 4 A correct. j
' j g would you turn to page 75 of this log?
) ( 5 6 Do you see an entry written by you on that I , 7 Page? I 8 A Correct. l 9 Q Once again, do you see several items l 10 listed in this entry where you are adding water to the 11 makeup tank? I don't want to have to go through every J l 12 one of them, but do you sec geveral entries of that 13 nature? > 14 A Six. 15 g Do you see on that page 2031 hours, "Added I H2 to makeup tank"? g 16 A Correct. ) 17 l I l 18 I Q Do you recall why you added hy'drogen to 19 l the makeup tank on this date? 20 A Hydrogen was used to blanket the makeup 21 tank and in order to scavenge oxygen in the atmosphere 22 above the makeup tank or in the water. It absorbs or 23 chemically reacts in an oxidizing field. I 24 Q Is it your recollection that that is why l 25 you were adding hydrogen to the makeup tank on this
k l 1 111jes 73 1 2 entry on this day? 3 A To my recollection, that was our practice. I 4 when the pressure got to a certain point, we added (. 5 hydrogen to raise the pressure back up again. 6 Q I note that on some of these entries, for 7 instance 1532, " Add 500 gallons batch to makeup tank 8 1," what does that mean, " batch"? 9 A The makeup tank has a controller which will 10 automatically shut down at the end of a. specific volume 11 which will program into what we call the batch 12 controller, and a batch would be that volume which was 13 programmed into -- in other words, it was put in in one 14 instance or you can consider a batch, you can stop it 15 in between, and then consider a batch but there was 16 one 500 gallon calculation. You usually calculated 17 how far you want to move the rods in or how many ppm 18 you wanted to change the boron concentration in the 19 RCS. 20 g During these additions to the makeup tank 21 in March of '79, was it your purpose to increase or 22 decrease the boron concentration, generally? 23 A A log indicates that'during power, you have 24 fuel burnup, so the practice here would be to -- it s
- l 25 looks like either maintaining the boron concentration
Illjes 74 1 f I 2 the same or decreasing it. 3 g Mr. I11jes, can you tell me, does water , 4 that comes through the reactor coolant bleed tank,
~
5 does that have low-rated water in it? { , 6 A It could be. at Joesn't have to be. i
}
7 g without goiag through all of the other 8 entries where water may or may not have been added 9 to the makeup tank -- of course, we can go through 10 them if you prefer -- do you have a general recollection 11 ; that in, say, February and March of 1979 a good deal of i 12 l water was being added to the makeup tank during most o'f 13 . the shifts? l l 14 If you prefer to go through all of the 15 log, we can certainly do that. 16 i MR. MacDONALD: He can testify to his l 17 recollection and his awareness of something, 18 but he is not going to testify as to the I' 19 validity of what may or may not be occurring 20 at,another shift if he wasn't there. P 21 MS. MCDONALD: O.K., I will limit it to his ( 22 ' l I shifts. i 23 'l g Do you recall in those months, February l i 21 and March of 1979, on most of your own shifts you were e 25 i adding fairly large amounts of water to the makeup i e
tiljes 75 1 2 tank? 3 A we were adding water to the makeup tank, I i 1 4 yes. g You mentioned before that there was some ( 5 6 sort of valve leaking. 7 Can you tell me what you remember about 8 that? 9 A We were adding water to compensate for 10 the identified leakage which was coming,out of one of 11 the relief valves in the top of the pressurizer, 12 entering into -- to compensate for that leakage. ~
+ 13 Q Isn't it a fact, Mr. I11jes, that prior 14 to the accident, it was your belief, as far as your 15 review of the information available, that the 16 electromatic relief valve at the top of the 17 pressurizer was the one that was leaking?
18 MR. MacDONAI.D I am going to" object to 16 the question. 20 You can answer it. I just think we have 21 gotten far afield from the agreed upon areas, 22 which were precursor events and surveillance. 23 A To my knowledge, I recall it was either the 24 electromatic or another relief valve that had a leak.
-) 0 25 Now, we are saying information before the accident.
Illjes 76 L 1 2 Q Have you completed your answer? 3 A Y'8-4 MS. McD,0NALD: Could I have the last j { question and answer read back? ( 5 l 6l (Record read) j i i f l 7 Q Mr. Illjes, I would like to show you what I I
- l. 8 appears to be a transcript of a tape recorded 9 conversation between you and two gentlemen from the f I f- 10 l NRC. t l .
j MS. MCDONALD: Let's have it marked as / 11 i 12 B&W Exhibit 904. , l 13 (Transcript of a tape recorded conversation 14 between Mr. Illjes and two gentlemen from the 15 , i NRC was marked B&W Exhibit 904 for identification i 16 as of this date.) l 17 l BY MS. MCDONALD: I l 18 ) Q Mr. Illjes, is this the transcript that 19 you have in your possession that you mentioned earlier i 1 20 this morning? l 21 A I believe so, yes. l (_ 22 i, l Q rirst of all, do you recall having this 23 interview with Mr. Fasano and Mr. Resner from the NRC7 24 A I remember having an interview. There
) 4 25 were two people. I don't remember Resner's name. I
I I
.g- Illjes 150
-) }if 2J Q. After this March '78 incident, you mean? 3 A' Right, after this time period. I i 14 Q Let me'ask a clarifying question. Do you recall discussing;those.two. ( 5 L6 parameters with anyone prior to'the 1979 accident at
~
7- any time? I think I misunderstood your last answer. 8 A Well, the incident itself was brought up , 9 in1 training, I can remember, and it resulted in-10 ' installation of.a light on the'electromatic relief' 11- valve. 12' ,Q The training to'which you just referred ~., 13 occurred prior to the Three-Mile Island accident, is 14 that-right?. 15' A correct. 16 Q Do you recall'.anyone in that training
'17 telling you anything about what the pressurizer level 18 or the pressure did during that event? Namely, the 19 March 29, 1978 event.
20 A As I said, I don't recall specifically 21 discussing that with someone. We covered the 22 incident in training. I don't recall the exact nature 1 l 23 of the discussion. g 24 Q Except you remember something of the light? 25 A I remember going over the light was added
1 Illjes 151 2 comewhere downstrea~m or after that. MS. MCDONALD: I have no further questions. 3 4 MR. MacDONALD: Off the record. ( 5 (Discussion off the record.) 6 (Recess) 7 EXAMINATION BY MR. MacDONALD: 8 Q Mr. Illjes, do you recall testifying l 9 carlier today in this deposition on the subject of 10 leak rates? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Do you recall testifying about the , 13 technical specifications in respect to leak rates? 14 A Yes. 15 Q what was your understanding of the 16 technical specification requirements as they applied 17 to the four-hour time period you testified to carlier 18 today? 19 A That within the four-hour period that we 20 i either got a -- satisfied that leak rate requirement i 21 by requesting another one from the computer, or we 22 l identified the leakage to satisfy the action statement. 23 Q During the time that you were a CRO on j j 24 Unit 2 performing leak rates, did you ever perform a 25 leak rate test where you exceeded a one gpm unidentified
)1 b
I12jes 152 1 1 I ~ i 1 2 leak?
.M S . MCDONALD: Objection. Asked and l 3
4 answered. i A We exceeded, but within the four-hour ( 5 6 period we identified the part of the one gallon a 7 minute, greater than one gallon a minute, as being 8 identifiable leakage. 9 Q Did you ever have a situation when you 10 performed leak rate tests as CRO on Unit 2 where 11 within a four-hour time period you had not either, 12 after obtaining a leak rate in excess of one gpm, , 13 that you either had not identified the source of the l 14 I excess unidentified leakage or performed anothet 15 leak rate which resulted in a less than one gpm 16 l 1eakage rate? l Mr. MacDonald, you are 17 ; MS. MCDONALD: 18 , referring to another leak rate within the four i 19 ! hours?
'i Yes.
20 j MR. M a c D O ti A L D : 21 l A Not to my knowledge. 22 Q Do you recall testifying earlier in this g ll question by jl deposition, Mr. Illjes, in response to a 23 24 'I Ms. Mcdonald about management awareness of practices of-T a / 25 taking, repeatedly, leak tests?
F 1 Illjes 153 ( ) 2 A Yes. Q Who were you referring to when you testified 3 4 about Met Ed management? I , ( 5 A shift foreman, shift supervisor. 6 Q Anyone above that position? 7 A No, not that I recall. g MR. MacDONALD: I have no further questions, g BY MS. MCDONALD: I 10 A I have one or two questions. 11 So I understand your testimony on 12 cross-examination, Mr. Illjes, was it your - 13 understanding of the technical specifications on leak 14 rates that at any time that a leak rate in c. cess of 15 one gallon per minute unidentified was obtained within ) ) 16 four hours, you must either get an acceptable one 17 or identify the excess? f 18 A Correct. 19 . Q I just went to make sure I understand you. Since we are back on the subject of leak 20 l] 21 rates, where did you get the understanding that it ( ' 22 was an acceptable practice to throw out leak rates 23 l which were obtained which were in excess of technical i 24 - specifications?
/ ll i
25 A This was a common practice among the i .--____-._________a _mm-______.________w.m..___-._m__a-_. _____.___ m___ ._
Illjes 154 1 2 operators, to my knowledge, and to who, I never. received 3 any objection to throwing out the leak rates. It was 4 also an information item. If you want to know what ( 5 the leak rate was, it was considered an information 6 item, not necessarily a piece of paper which was a 7 legal document. It was a piece of information that 8 was available to us, but not some sort of document that 9 we held on to. 10 Q But acceptable leak rates Were documents 11 that you held on to, is that correct? 12 MR, MacDONALD: I object to the form of 13 the question. lt 14 Q Leak rates that were within the tech 15 specs were documents that you held on to, is that 16 correct? 17 A Acceptable rates were filed with the 18 surveillance procedure and signed as an acceptable 19 : or ari approved surveillance procedure to satisfy the i 20 tech spec. 21 (continued on next page) L 22 l 23 i l
/
25
i p. l } L 1 ILLJES, Tile 0DORE ) 2/7/85 i Stier Investigation i o ) , L
l 1 l l 1
'IN RE: TMI II LEAK RATE PRACTICES ]
DEPOSITION OF THEODORE F. ILLJES 1 4 4 l Verbatim transcript of deposition held at Trailer 110B, Three Mile j Island, Middletown, Pennsylvania, j on Thursday, February 7, 198* 10:10 a.m. t 1 APPEARANCES: lEDWIN H. STIER, ESQUIRE
!333 Littleton Road l Suite 102 lParsippany, New Jersey 07054
- BY: ROBERT WINTER, ESQUIRE I
i For - GPU Nuclear lKILLIANANDGEPHART
;P.O. Box 686 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 hlBY: JANE G. PENNY, ESQUIRE SMITil B. GE PII ART , ESQUIRE f
For - Theodore F. Illjes-l i li i I. i I CAPITAL CITY REPORTING SErNICE EnAWD U FEDER SO @E STATON l , - . . ;..,.,
i 2 INDEX TO WITliESS 1 WITNESS DIRECT t THEORDOIZ J. ILLJES 4 ! 1 i L i l- a 1 l l i 1
)
l-I l ! l ! I i : 1 j' ! l i i I i l i l l l '1
; I
! 1 4
1
! 1
! i l
i CAPITAL CITY REPOQTING SEfMCE cr.; cn o . rFra4 sopas swo.
l 3 SI1PUL&I1QN It is hereby stipulated by and between counsel for the respective parties that reading, signing, sealing, certification and filing are waived; and that all objections except as to the form of the question are reserved to the time of trial. MR. WINTER: For the record my name is Robert Winter. I'm working for Ed Stier. We have been retained by GPU to do an independent investigation of allegations surround-ing the Leak Rate Test practice at Unit 2 in 1978 up until the accident in 1979. h My questions today, Mr. Illjes, will pertain to your activities as a Control Room Operator during that period of time. I will ask you questions pertaining to the Leak Rate practice as you understood it back in that period of time. Before we begin, do you have any questions? l THEODORE F. ILLJES, called as a witness, being duly sworn, testified as follows: l THE WITNESS: No. In ! c m ac me m m sm ce ( CDe<M 9 U SECf% FQJAM STFON
,,f m 3 <r .. 2
DIRECT EXAMINATION }. BY MR. WINTER: O Perhaps we could start, Ted, by you giving us a short resume as to your position back in 1978 which what was your position, and did it change from the beginning of 1978 up until the accident? I A I was Control Room Operator at Unit 2, and at thel 1 - time of the accident--in 1978 I was Control Room Operator and !. at the time of the accident I was a Control Roon Operator. ! I r So my duties were the responsibilities of a Shif t Control
- Room Operator, licensed.
1 Q As a Control Room Operator, what were your - duties on that shift? A We ran--we ran the plant, changed power levels, l did surveillance, log taking. There was an evolution. We L usually got the procedure out to the auxillary operator. j Q Were there different duties allocated to CRO's on I a shift? , j A Yes. l l 0 Could you describe those for me? i A Okay. There were--we usually set it up to take , turns. One man would sign into the log and that's the Control I Room Opera tor Log, and he would be Kore or less--he would l' more or less run the shif t f rom a standpoint of he kept track CAPITe( OTY REPORTING SE7/CE cra n , ym sa $>c sv.m
5 of what was going on at the panel, and would tell the s auxiliary operators what's going on and he would probably keep the shift foreman current as far as the change in status of the plant. The other Control Room Operator would take care of paperwork. 11e might do a lot of xerox work. IIe would maybe ) I l run some of the surveillance, and would take care of switch-i ing and tagging. IIe was known as the switching and tagging l l CRO, and we alternated back and forth, j Sometimes some shifts had three or two and a trainee. Q Others have described it basically as three f functions, and one was the person on the panel? t t i I
/s Right, O And is that also the person responsible for log-
, ging?
j A Yes. , O Is it also the person responsible to take care
, of General activities that are controlled by the panel such as adding water? ,
b A That's what I meant by on the panel. An'; thing i d l that has to do with the control of tne plant. l Q That would include adding water, if necessary? , l A Correct.
) O It. wcu]d include adding hydrogen, if necessary?
CAPITAL. OTY REPCGTING SEfNICE rpaura u rEtm SO SN TA'm
I 6 H A Yes. I Q There is a reading CRO, is that correct? a A Yes. The, switching and tagging operator, if I reinember right, took care of the readings also. Because the readings ended up going behind the panel. We usually had the l switching ano tagging CRO take care of the readings. 1 F Q And there's on occasion a third CRO? I A Yes, sir. Q What was his responsibilities? l l A He would help out or it could be split up in three sections. One guy takes the reading, one guy does the f i i switching and tagging, and one guy takes the panel and does j the logging and controls the evolutions that are going on f t concerning the plant itself. But, I'm not sure exactly how--we had a trainee on shift so we--I don' t remember if--he helped us out when we f needed him. We let him study for the most part if I ij remenber correctly. I l Q Which CRO would perform the Leak Rate Test? '
}
',l, 1 A It would usually be the guy on the suitching l f I and tagging, but it could be the guy that's loggea into the l
l- , log. If one guy was busy, the other guy would help out '- 1 because that was within range of the panel where you could 1 t' be, l Q Well, I'm assuming any one of tne CP.O's could CAPliAL CITY REPORTING SErMCE COAS U FEDfig cp c, SwoN l 1
o 7 perform a variety of functions? A Yes. O And when we're talking here about designated duties we're talking about the general situation, and that j of course there are exceptions? i l A Okay. I 1
; O Before we continue I want you to understand something. I'm going to be focusing on the Leak Rate practice because that s the issue at this inquiry. It may seem to you i
. that perhaps I'm concentrating only on one aspect of your duties l
and that that is not proper. h Please understand I know you had other things to do, I d but the nature of this inquiry is what went on in the Control ii
] Room with respect to Leak Rate Tests, and that's where I'm I
s going to be concentrating, d p i A Okay. Yes, sir. j Q So in that respect, can you give me an idea of Il ll when you came on shif t when you would run a Leak Rate Test? l A It's possible that a Icak Rate Test could be in
, the computer prior to us getting on shift. ?:e'd get that on
{ relief or as far as I can rereaber, I don't really remenber I i when we specifically got Leak Rates. 4 4
't It would--it would seem natural that you probably if ll H there's nothing else going on in the computer we would put a I
l CAP TAL CITV REFORTING SEfNICE j to z.ic u na so m swa ;
i 8 Leak Rate in. f Q What did you understand your responsibility to be toward obtaining a Leak Rate Test? What did you understand you had to do when you came on shift? { l l A I don't remember what understanding something. ) I j Q How many times--how often would you run a Leak Rate Test? A oc Two, three times a shif t we would get one ia-maybe more or maybe less. Maybe none at all if something was going on. Q Is it correct to say that you would run a Leak Rate Test at least once a shift? l { A I would say that, but probably more than one. 1 O How did you learn that you would run a Leak l Rate Test on your shift? Why did you regard that as something l l you had to do on every shif t? l A Well, back then we understood the requirements
\ pe r e, for Leak Rate was to satisfy the toch specs we required to get a Leak Rate, a satisfactory Leak Rate once every 72 hours.
O il Q Why were you running them once a shift? h A My understanding is different today. O Why would you run them once a shift if you i believed it to be once every 72 hours? A Because the difficulty we experienced in getting CAP:TAL CiN REPORTING SErNCE tw:n u s+rm scm swm
ki i 9 Leak Rates, satisfactory Leak Rates. Q .Did anyone--do you recall anyone telling you to run one a shift?- - I A No. l Q Did you ever see any documentation which said j you were to run one a shift? f, A No, I don't recall any. Q Do you recall in your experience as a CRO at Unit 2 ever acting under a different practice, that is, once a day, once every 72 hours or was it always your understanding
- that you were to run a Leak Rate Test on your shift?
A If I didn't run--if I didn't run a Leak Rate Test for a shift, I didn't feel that somebody was--said do I three Leak Rates a shift. I didn ' t--I don ' t remeuber any thing I that we had to run a Leak Rate every shif t. t Q I'm trying to get an idea if it was your general II practice and wuS 'it always your general practice as a CR0 at Unit 2 to try to get a Leak Rate on your shift? A General practice? I can' t say whether it was
!p general practice or not, but I remerl>cr we ran a lot of Leak Rates. I couldn't tell you the exact frequency whether we did it every shift, three tines a shift. I can tell you we ran--
0 If you didn't run a Leak Rate, why wouldn't you run a Leak Rate? What kind of considerations went into a CA>iAL OTY QEPORTING SErMCE CcW7 U - FET 4 WW 9^'%
10 decision not to run a Leak Rate Test on your shift? A A million and one reasons, what's going on in the plant, you are busy doing something else, if you are doing some kind of testing somewhere else and-- ! l Q Did you understand any set rules for when a certain condition existed you were not to run a Leak Rate i Test? { A I didn't know what I understood as far as the rules. I don't recall specifically what the rules were back then. I mean, I'm not sure. I have been refreshed since thenj l I but I cannot recall specifically what the rules were. Q Reflecting back then, what would you say would be h the frequency of times in which you would not run a Leak Rate a Test on your shif t? In other words, we.s it rare that a Leak j l p! Rate Test wouldn't be run or could you give me some estimate l ! ! 1 l as to-- i q A I don't recall what the frequency was which we . Il h did not run a Leak Rate Test. l l 0 Ted, you indicated there were times in which you il frannumeroustestsonanyoneshift; do you recall chat? i A Yes, sir. ; i 0 What would lead you to that? ; A It could be that we hadn't got a satisfactory Leak Rate when we had the time to do it. We used it as a tool
- CARTAL Cav r<EPO7 TING SErMCE tr;ec> . cryw w jayE swo.
,/'1 ,
11 too. It was information that was there. I'm sure-- 0 Ne'11 come back to this. . MS. PENNY: What do you mean by numerous; can you quantify that? THE WITMESS: Like you may have had time to do two or three Leak Rates in a shift.
' BY MR. WINTER:
0 I'll come back to this later today. When you ran a Leak-Rate Test, what did you do after you got the results? A Well, if it was a high Leak Rate, we checked our instrumentation to see if we really had a Leak Rate. Sometimes somebody might have pumped the drain tank or added I water to the make up tank during the Leak nate it wasn't put into the computer. Q Let me stop you there. In that case if you found that when you ran a Leak Rate what would you do? A Probably throw it out or probably throw it out I would say. Q You wouldn't make a notation of that and keep O 3 or-- l the test h I don't believe so. Q Let's assume that didn't occur, that you didn't l
' find some operator action which caused the test to have a problem. What would you do with the tect?
CAPITAL OTv REPORTING SEfMCE v/.Tou RDF%"O 9 swo.
t 12
.A We had--you would probably see a change in the make up tank indicating a leak also, and we went out and looked for the leak, if we had had a leak.
O Now we're talking about a test which was over
]
one g.p.m., is that what we're talking about? A Yes. I mean, significantly over one g.p.m. i O And you indicated you would look at the make up I i tank and if you found a leak--if you found indications of a l l
' l leak, you would go out and look for the Icak?
A Yes, sir. 1 Q Let's assume you found the leak, what would you l I do if the test was over one g.p.m. after you found it? I i A Probably went in the trash can. We used-- Q Okay. , i A That's my answer. I know that. Q hhy would you throw away that test over one g.p.m. which api >arently was accurate if you went out and I found a leak? , 1 l A Decause I believe the way we interpreted the tech specs was that our requirement was only to have a satisfactory Leak Rate, a satisfactory Leak Rate once every l 72 hours. I We had already satisfied that within the 72 hours previous. CAPITAL CITY REPCOTING SErMCE mat.n o rcorm so e s'A'oN
13 but Again, I know that's the wrong interpretation now, unfortunately that's the way we interpreted it then. O So it was your understanding that if you obtain the Leak Rate above one g.p.m. and in fact after checking for leaks you found leaks that verified that one g.p.m. you would { i discard the test if it was within a 72 hour period? i A I'm not sure we did that a hundred percent of the l time, but there was also--you could start another Leak Rate and whatever leakage that you found you could measure it and add it into the computer and had a means of-- Q Let me-- A --adjusting the Leak Rate to compensate for the leakage if you verified that it was identified as leakage. Q I know you could do that, do you recall doing that? I don't specifically recall it. I believe we A I did it though. O Do you recall ever-- A It's hard to recall specific items that we did l back six years ago. Q Do you recall ever filing a test over one g.p.m.? i A Well, I have put them on my shift foreman's desk. He has to sign them before they get filed. f CAPITAL CITY REPCGTiNG SEWCE teus? u rrof% SOuwE SWO.
1 l 14 [ Q Do you recall ever signing a test yourself over f one g.p.m.? A Yes,he probably signed most of them. If I put them on his desk, he probably signed them. ! O Who was your shift foreman? j Eb\\ CowAvang i Jha4 Conway, A , O Those tests that you signed over one g.p.m. and put on the foreman's desk, what happened to them? A Probably put them in the trash can. I'm not sure whether there are some that's over one g.p.m. that are still current, but I believe if I signed some of them that were even: negative, under one g.p.m., in other words on the other side l l of zero. I have at least been made aware of that recently. i I Q Did you ever give your shift foreman a test over I
! one g.p.m. which you believed to be accurate or know that perhaps there were leaks that you went out and looked for?
A I don't recall specific instances, but I ' i i l apparently gave him Leak Rates or Leak Rate surveillance over I Basically they were to let him know 3 one gallon a minute. d ll that we didn't get a satisfactory Leak Rate that shift. j ' Q Well, let me ask you the question again. Do you ever remember giving him a test over one g.p.m. that i lyoubelievedtobeaccurate? ' I A A specific test? No, I don't ren. ember a specific { test. CAPliAL OTv REFORTING SEr?/CE tme ; crryw sonw p'm !
I 15 Q Do you ever remember discussing problems about Leak Rate results with your foreman? A Not specifically, but I'm sure I did. I don't remember any specific discussions, like Bill, we didn't get one this shift. O When you say, Bill we didn't get one this shift, do you mean you didn't get one below one g.p.m. this shift, is that what you mean? A That's what I mean. Q D.d you understand the practice to be when you were doing this tad providing the results to your foreman, did you understand the t ractice to be that one g.p.m. test would be discarded? A I don't know if you call it a practice. It was something that we did with the--since we were running them all l the time we weren't doing them as required--in other words, if we did a Leak Rate once every 72 hours we had to make it, we did it the 71st hour and we did it to satisfy it by the 72 hour. That was--we did them all the time. I Q Let me rephrase it. Did you understand the i l f! f practice to be that all tests above one 9.p.m. would be discarded if it was within the 72 hour period? i A I don't remember it as a practice. I rementer-- , i! I don't remember talking about it being a practice as far as discarding it. CAPITAL CITY QEPORTING SErMCE DoxMR u : ETA DNY S'A'rTV
I h 16 f What we were supposed to do when we ran them all the '- time we had stacks of them and they used to hang off the back of the computer, and if we didn't make a 72 hour Leak Rate, I guess you would have called it a practice. It was-- , l Q You did-- A We didn't specifically talk about it, no. O Perhaps you are attributing too much formality l. to _the word practice. Was it the course of conduct, was it , the way you acted, was it the way things were done, that it j
! j I i was above the one g.p.m. and within the 72 hours it was discarded? l 1
1 I A Yes. That was the course of what we did, yes. l )
]I j
l Q This was irrespective of whether or not you' found' i leaks as a result of gett ng a result above one g.p.m.? j l f A Yes. We could have found a leak. I say it was 1
! possible if we found a leak, and we got a bad leak rate, we I
[ ended up throwing away the Leak Rate. h Q And was it the practice, again I'm using the l i informal sense, if you got one below one 9.p..m. you would
]1keep it even though it was within 72 hours?
A I don't know if we did, but I probably got two l l good Leak Rates on one shift, and I don't know if we kept 1: a both of then or not. b Q You would file one of them even though it was j; CAPITAL CiW REFOQTING SEfNCE j com,s qor % co oc ver <4
17 within 72 hours, is that correct? A Yes. Q' Was this so even though you were out looking for leaks from time to time, you knew there were leaks in the plant and you got one below one g.p.m., you would still file ! that one? A If we got one below one g.p.m. , you are saying ! l \
'l there's still leaks out in the plant? That's possible. I don't remember specifically doing that.
t Q Ted, I'm going to ask you a few more questions j i' about the manner in which Leak Rates were performed. Now, i
; if you went out and found a leak, and were able to quantify i !
l I it, how would you account for that in the Leak Rate Test? A I believe you could add it into the computer, [ i l We had a way you could code it into the computer, as identified hl it h Leak Rate--as an identified leakage. ll Q Do you recall filling out any fonn?
]h I don't remember specifically filling out the A
[ form, but somebody since then has showed me that there is a forin in the back, surveillance procedure. f Q If water was added during the course of the Leak q e Rate Test, how would you account for that in the test? ll A You can add that also into the computer and it will autolaatically adjust itself, adjust the Leak Rate for E subtracted. y the amount of water that you added or CAPITAL OiY REPORING SErMCE CC F 19 J f[L( % R t4C S*A' O 4
i 1 I: o 18 I Q What did you understand--strike that. l l Did you know whether or not there were certain things 1 1 you were not supposed to do during the course of a Leak Rate I Test? A I'm not sure what I understood or didn't 'I understand back then, but I know now the procedure knowing l you would keep the plant as stable as possible, and if you didn't have to don't add water or make any changes to the RCS. O Are you saying that you understood.that generally, i i I to be the situation back in '78 or are you saying you know ! l i that now? i i li 1 i
!! A I don't know what--I don't understand--How is a II l jj person supposed to remenGer what happened in 1978.
n E [ E)Y MS. l'ENN Y : l ! .! l What do you remenber now? Q {h 1
; A I don' t remert.ber what I understood as f ar as i!
L the procedure is concernca. Sure, I probably read it sometime I back then, but I don't rero-lier specifically reading and what li
, I understood about it.
BY MR. WINTER: i Q Do you recall any discussions with the super-l visors, any ir.structions f rom your supervisors telling you what i to do and what no t to do during the course of a Leak Rate CAFM CN RERDRTING SEfMCE crc. .. a. xyw es a rvn,
19 Test? A No. O Do you recall any situation where you were questioned about having done something during the course of a Leak Rate Test and asked to provide reasonc why? A No, if you mean by my supe rvisors then.
.l Q Yes. 1 A No, I don't remenber.
O I'm going to shou you a copy of the procedure ! which pertains to the Leak Rate Test and ask you to read i a portion of it and then I'm going to ask you your under- ! i c '
!! standing of it from reading it and whether or not you can 4
11
;l recall what you thought to be the practice back then, okay? :
ii q li A Sure. j; i 3 Q This is Tech Spec 2301-3D1. If you coul6 read ! ti l'
" Section 3.1 and then -
.'I (Witness conplies. )
II j Is I remember not r,inimine operator changes to the
!j '
j, RCS and that's all I can rernember . i BY MR. WINT E.R : i 4 Q You have no recollection now of knowing the ; ld i; prohibitions that are listed in that section back in 197C? ! I Y A I'm sure we knew something about what was in the
;C proceduro, but I don't recall specifically. This doesn't f
CAPITA. OTY i?EPCnhNG SErNCE re.,o. q ma o n:s;.rf;
1 20 b refresh my memory what I knew about it, you know, I can read this now and it doesn't tell me what--how I understood it back then. Q Your recollection now is that you do recall there were prohibitions, but those specific prohibitions you
, really don't have recollection of now?
}
! A Right.
Q Let me ask you to read Section 3.4. (Witness complies.) Q Do you recall knowing what that section pertains l
' lto?
li l A I could probably tell you now, but I don't know I l what I recall about it then. Now that probably says that j L i 1 ild when you are taking the Leak Bate or you woula--in other i i h words, one guy could have a Leak Rate and the other guy can 1 ' bltakethe readings and you don't want him changing your l 0 i li indications back and forth. j i 4 li 0 You say indications, what do you mean? !
!i g
A You have a selector switch. One takes RCS g temperature cold leg or something like that. You have a l l l selector switch whicn you can select whatever temperature you want to go into the computer and the other one would ! i i jprobablyreadoutonthepanel. Sore tirles there is a l n h difforence. ! 1 CAPITAL CW REPDRTiNG SErMCE row.o u - ccw ra ,aw Tm. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . - ---_ - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - - - -
{ 21 Q You believe that's what it means having read it now? A Yes. Q Do you recall having any understanding of that i back in 1978 and 1979? A I would say that I probably had some understand-
! ing because it would be some of the differences were quite I
recently looking at the nake up tank level. One level would be up and down like this (indicating), and obviously if you put that on the computer it would be your Leak Rate which
!wouldprobablynevercomeout.
0 l MS. PENNY: That's a confusing answer, Ted. l lilBY MS. PEUNY: Q What do you know? [ s In other words, don't switch the switches back A [ a h and forth.
!i !
3 P
! O You had that understanding? l l
j A I'r. saying from looking at some of the if h indications that I've seen now I should have had that under-i standing. I don't know whether I did or not, f I mean that seems to me obvious. l SY MR. WINTER: n Q So, believe me, I'm trying to get an idea of what, O you are saying, i i A Why would an operator want to switch it back and CAPITAL OTv REPORT;NG SEiMCE cman u OFw :o TAW VATON
3 22
'forth. l
[ I Q So what you are saying is that it's common sense l that you wouldn't do something like that? A Yes. Q And that you believe that as a Control Room Operator you would have known such a situation in 1978? A I probably got upset at one guy for doing that, if I can recall. I might have said, you know, I'm doing something on the computer and I looked a t the indications and ' turned around and then there's John up there taking a reading on the panel and I ask them to hold off until we get done [withwhateverwe' redoing.
.i Q Ted, I'm going to ask you to look at Section
!i 6.3 of the same procedure, and see if you recollect that also?
(Witness complies.) I l C That sect. ion pertains to filling out a data L [isheet 4, I believe, for any water additions. Do you recall that j [1 being .the practice on Leak Rate Tests when you ran then? t J A We would fill out using the computer as far as the anount of water added. I'm not sure about the computer i data sheet. I don't recall specifically using a data sheet. l Q So are you saying that it-- that it was not your f practice or it was not your practice on your shift as you can recall to necessarily fill out that data sheet when you added CAPITAL CITY REFORTING SETMCE , couw) u Frva, so mi sT 3. !
23 water? A I believe because it was accounted on the compute c sheet. In other words, we didn't use this piece of paper or fill this piece of paper ov e each time we ran a Leak Rate. O This surveillance t ocedure that we're going over is the procedure used for computer programming? A Right. O Are you saying that since it was computerized l it was your practice not to comply with Section 6.3? A No, not complying with Section 6.3, but we notated the gallonage on the--in other words, if you are doing an evolution and you do it as a normal ordinary thing, you are not required to specifically have a procedure in your i 1 hand, and then fill it out. , l l A surveillance procedure, you have a document sheet ! which you sign off on, and that was part of the computer l printout. At least that's the way I understand it--that's the! way I understood it back then. i 0 Let me refer you back to Section 1 of this i i surveillance procedure. If you could read the last paragraph il
] of Section 1, that should indicate that this whole procedure j I! . !i is for the performance of the Leak Rate Test. >
l l , f A Right. l Q On the computer, and the data sheet calls for i
' 3etting forth reasons why you're going to do a certain CAPCAL CITY REPCMING SEIMCE CG /E?U SEDE,?ti TJ CE TATCN l
{
l. 24 l evolution during the course of the Leak Rate Test. T When you put it in the--just a number on the computer and enter that into the computer you are not providing any reasons. So, what I'm asking you is: Was it your practice, , 1 and when I say yours or others on your shift, to always fill out data sheet 4 when you did the Leak Rate? l A I don't recall filling out a data sheet 4. l Whether we did or not I don't recall doing it. ; O I'd like you to look at Section 6.4.4 and specifically point number two. I ask you to look at that .
. .1 l
and let me know whether or not you complied with that? l l { (Witness complies.) l J , Q Now, that calls for data sheet 3 when identified ; ] f! ,
;, leakage other than RC drain tank leakage is entered into the i
j! computer. Do you recall doing that when you 'iera performing ; u i a Leak Rate Test?
! Is I believe we did sor.ething like that. We filled Il p out paperwork.
I I can't remember the numbers or anything I i , I like that, but I believe we noted that down as identifieci ! 9 h leakage, i' I Co you recall tines when after you ran a Leak Q Rate Test or before on your shift you identified leakage but i f did not fill out a data sheet 3 or include it in a Leak Rate i 0 Test? 4 A If I understand your question--in other words, i CAPITAL CITY FlEPCrdNG SErMCE
- n vvcan.;rc q w m
j 1 l 1 25 f I it's possible that we got a satisfactory Leak Rate. We knew some of identified leakage and we didn't account for it in the i computer. ', i I Q That's correct? fi A That's possible. I O Why would you do that?
! i I
A It could have been that it was previously i f notated. I don't recall specifically doing that. I'm I I sayin' I don't-- i l 'O What you're saying is it's possible that that I could have been done, and that you don' t recall doing it. 1
- . Do you know whether it was done by others?
I h
,l , A No.
h g Q Why do you say it's possible it could be done? u II
;, A It could be that we not the requirements for il j the Leak Rage and we have just performed another Leak Date.
./
d We had already raet the 72 hour Leak Rate requirement. l
-i! O Ted, I'm going to ask you to read Tech Spec 9
,! 3462, which refers to limiting conditions for operation. I j ask if you were f a:tiliar with it back in 1978. Okay?
A Yes, sir. l O Were you familiar with that Tech Spec 3402 in 1978?
! A I was required to be f amiliar with toch :3pec.
CAPliAL CITY RERDQTING SETMCE m.v;"> u . rF4% coit nE swct4
26 Now, the interpretation back then I agree reading it ! l now is different. O Let me ask you some questions about it. A Sure. i l 0 That technical specification refers to leakage l limitations, and specifically one g.p.m. unidentified leakage i
! and ten g.p.m. identified leakage. Let me go back to your #
\ :
response that you believed it was possible that you would not l account for identified leakage from time to time on a Leak Rate ! ! Test. l g Is it not the understanding of that technical specifi- l-0
? catiop that you had to account for identified leakage to ,
l h
]bewithinthetechspec?
L e h A I'm saying it's possible the leak rate could have ; 1 n been in the computer. It's possible that we knew about the i Leak Rate, but we--if you get the idea we did Leak Rates all the tir'e, one, two or three a shift, then it's possible that h
) we didn't account for the leakage. Sometimes you might just i Ict that thing hand off the computer, and you just punched
;I it in and not specifically icentified the leakage.
ll You have so many things going that there are--you might l l not have accounted for.that leakage on a specific Leak Rate data. 6 i C Let me get to the point, Ted. You understood that l CAPITA!. Cliv '?EUTING SEfNICE i tre? u ccm so;g swoN l
f
.. , f
[ you had to monitor plant leakage, is,that correct? 1 A Yes. 3 Q And you understood that as a result of the tech r spec? ' A Ies. ! O tiew, what did you do,again when I say you I mean 1 8 to i l not only what you did but collectively on your shift, ! l fill that responsibility? How.did you monitor plant leakage? I l A I'd say our best indication was :ake'up tank,
'l and I'm sure wb used the Leak Rate--that Was a iequireraent.
As far.as the importance of the Leak Rate, {t'salotmore 1 l ( important today than it was back' then. I know'that. , I { Q. .The tech spec says you will use the Leak Rate ,
!. as a means of complying with the limitations seti for d) , is ,
s n l
- ,,.that correct?
, [ ,
A Well, you know, look at recently that sormebody ,
! h might have a LER that was brought up as concerning Leak Rate i il <
I thch--the way we were interpreting it, and the NPC knew how
' t h
}wewerelookingatthe'LeakRate, and as far as I'm !
concere,ed anytime they want to come up there arid check our Leak Rates, he could have cone up and looked a t. it, and , L li ' 1 whether he did or not I don't know, but they didn't take that i e i d [ as important. It didn't concern me as being important. L [ Q I want 1' get into that a little further. What I p' want to do now is get an understanding of how you or people CAPITAL OTY REPOQTING SErNCE m.wo o . croma out swm
bt er' 28 on your shift felt about the Leak Rate Test, how important was it to you then in complying with the tech spec, did you use other means to comply with the tech spec other than the Leak Rate Test. l So, the tech spec you understand it says that you will ' h perform a Leak Rate to determine if you are within the i i j limitations set forth, is that correct? [ A Yes. l Q I take it what you're telling me is you really , I didn't regard it as a means to determine whether or not you l lwerewithinthetechspec? I {
)
l I o A Let's see if I can put it this way: We required U it up to the point of 72 hours. That was the way I understood r l
)
it. The way I thought I understood it at this point. If you 3 would do something in between that wasn't required to do, but 1 you just want to use it for your own information, I believe I j that's the way we interpreted it. It wasn't required for us to do those Leak Rates until the 72 hour requirement. l: So, taking that as not being required, you didn't hang on to them. We might have let the shift foreman know, i O Let me--the tech spec-- 1 I A The tech spec-- h I , Q The tech spec says you shall operate the plant
}
} at all times within one g.p.m. unidentified leakage and within ten g.p.m. identified leakace. CAPITAL CJV REPORTING SEfMCE - i m.un u rFrfw row seoN I
l l 29
. A Yes.
O And if you find out at another point in time that that is not the case, you are to find the leaks within four hours and enter the action statement; do you understand that? A I do now. i 0 Did you understand that then back'in 1978?
}'
A Not the way you are saying it now, no. I don't recall understanding it that way. In other words, like if i I i we had 72 hours you couldn't satisfy less than one g.p.m. l unidentified Leakaae I< ate. I understood it we got to shut down. > Q Did you believe that you found that the plant was leaking you had unidentified leakage of-one g.p.m., you could remain unidentified for 72 hours? ' A Hot necessarily. We knew about'it. We were B doing something about it if it was greater than one g.p.m. O It could stay greater than one g.p.m. for 72 hours, is that what you believed? I
.l Is It changed. Okay. If you see a thing change l
) 1 sometimes it's abcVe one gallon a minute and sometimes it's ' lower than one gallon a minute. What are you supposed to i believe? I Q Let me give you a hypothetical. You get a Leak CAPITAL CITY REPOQTING SEfNCE coer? y rtney; souA?e swo, l; L___-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
30 Rate Test on your shift and it's above one g.p.m. and sure enough, you believe based on looking at the sump and looking at the make up tank that you do have a leak somewhere. , I Was it your belief back in 1978 that you could look around for that leak for 72 hours without going into an action statement? j A We interpreted it as, as I stated previously, we ' I j weren't required to do a Leak Rate except once every 72 I hours, and in between we used it as a tool. If it got j greater than one gallon a minute, we still felt our require- l ment was 72 hours.
- l. Q Let me ask you-- ,
if f A If we got above that, the next time we could a 4 h get below it. Like I say, it changed. H r i O Did you use the Leak Rate Test as a mechanism i i to monitor plant leakage or was it simply something you had i b p, to do because you had to get one every 72 hours? i' Y A I would say we used it and it was--I don' t know 4 b, what my thoughts were as far as something you have to get every 72 hours. O Are you telling me that you usec the Leak Rate i l Test to tell you whether or not that plant was leaking or did II l
! you use something else?
i ll A Sure. The Leak Rate told us whether or not the o I: CAPITAL CITY REPORTING SErNICE , ry . m u . ncnca v;,,rn yeny . '
._._____J
v 31 j t plant was leaking, but as far as the accuracy probably we , questioned it. The make up tank level was another indication. Another indication was the drain tank. O This tech spec requires that you specifically ( determine whether you-are within one g.p.m. and ten g.p.m.'s. I How reliable was the Leak Rate Test to tell you that? I
.A I can't tell you the exact accuracy of the Leak Rate, but apparently, in looking at some of the different ;
Leak Rates, I really couldn't say what I felt as far as how accurate it was. I'd say there was probably a question in my mind looking at all the Leak Rates because they are all over the place. How accurate really is the thing. I don't recall specifically saying from memory how I felt about the l il j accuracy of the Leak Rate calculation that was in the computer. Apparently, I think I remember them changing some things around in the computer, but--because something wasn' t l 001" coming our- right. I don't recall, and another time I think
,j our--since then I've learned we've rounded some things off. <
h ! s
!j I would have to say that there was a question as far as the 0 ,
accuracy of the calculations that were in the computer or Leakj I l ! I Rate. j l Q Is it your present recollection that you had a question that there was generally a question about the I CAPITAL CITY REPORTING SEfNICE cc,V D U rEDMR n#E SWON
1 32 accuracy of the Leak Rate at that time backs.in 1978? A I don't recall what my recollection was about the accuracy of the Leak Rate back in '78, '79. O What did you do to measure leakage or to deterning l l whether or not the plant was leaking? What did you do as a . I I CRO? A One thing was the Leak Rate calculated and one l l thing was the operators actively going out into the plant to find leakage, the make up tank level, drain tank, sump i levels. O Would anyone of those things that you just bl mentioned tell you whether or not you were within one 9.p.m. or ten g.p.m.'s specifically? I Is I would say the make up tank level it's possible 1 that you could determine if you could keep everything else the y s arie . The make up tank level dropped down two inches an I, hhouror something like that. That's kind of hard to see. You e
;l ll have to do it over a long period of time.
i
! O Do you recall ever doing such a thing to determine 9
hwhetherornotyouwerewithinoneg.p.r.' 4 d A No. j Q Do you know of anyone else that did such a thing?
! l
! A I don't recall specifically, but you could also )
i l i see if the--you usually kept the make up tank level paper out, CAPITAL CG REPORTING SErNCE ora.co u mu. co ie r:t v. m l 1 l _ _ _ _. _ J
11 1 33 ., ' if the make up tank level chart recorder is being pulled out the pen would change slope over a certain period of time, but that was fairly hard to do, but it's possible you could use it. O To come up with an exact figure as to whether or not you were within one g.p.m.? A Exact, no. You couldn't tell. Q But yet tha t's what the tech spec requires, right? A I believe--yes. Now I interpret that as to be the requirement. { Q Did you understand it back then that there was j i
! such a requirement? '
l A Yes, but the requirement was that we had to meet , t I I that 72 hour. That's the way I understood it then. That ! requirement we had to be in less than one gallon a minute i Leak Rate to be able to meet the requirement of the l I surveillance in a 72 hour interval.
\
I ! i Q But there was also the practice, am I correct, l! t [ to throw away all tests above one g.p.r. and to file tests U n lbelowoneg.p.n., is that correct? ! l A Yes. i We threw away tests--I'd say we probably ' threw some tests away that were below one g.p.m. too. O But you kept those below one g.p.m. as a general-- CARTAL CITV REPORTING SEruCE j tmwp u crofe^t scunot stra l
i 34
'1' A Yes, generally we did. Because that would move our interval 72 hours from that time to the--
Q That's my next question. The question was wouldn't that in f act start your 72 hour interval going i j again? A Yes. l l l
; Q Let me ask you to read the action portion of ,
i Tech Spec 3462, primarily Section B. i (Witness complies.) : Q Do you recall understanding that back in 19787 .
. 1 A As I said previous, that was supposed--as I l i, , 1 f said previous, I was required to be knowledgeable of the -
h j tech spec. Now interpreting might have--I don' t believe I,! j it was my responsibility to interpret the tech spec, but l' i I was to know about it, u g Q Portion B says with any reactor cooling system 0
;i leakage greater than one of the above limits, excluding ll l pressure boundary leakage, reduce the leakage rate to within ,
i limits within four hours. What did you understand that to mean? C l A In ny own mind nov looking at that I understand i ll
]itasitwasread, that if we had leakage within greater than one gallon a minute, we had to comply to an action statement.
O At anytime? CAPITR Cfly REFORTING SEfN!CE Em.m u rEmq cc as s'e. l
35 A Back then what I understood I don't really recall. I don't remember what I understood about the tech spec then. I can tell you as far as I know what our practice was, but I can't recall what my understanding was of the tech spec. Q If I had to--if you had to rate the means through ; 1 which you would measure leakage, and what you would believe ! to be the most accurate indicator of leakage, how would you !q rate the Leak Rate Test as compared to other mechanisms you . I used? i
! 4 A Of course the most accurate would be to go out I l
and measure them. I'd have to say that the Leak Rate was , probably the next best thing and then--but it wasn't--I , guess there were some other things you could see and notice , a change, but it wouldn't exactly give you a Leak Rate, but i you could see the change in it which was more sensitive such i as make up tank or drain tank or a change in temperature or ; the sump pump level. Those things would be more visible. , i Q As a CRO what cid you rely on to tell you what was happening in the plant? A I mentioned all those things. He also used the i Leak Rate. It was a tool. As far as relying on it, we used i it. I can't say we didn't use it. We had to rely on it some-! what. It gave us--it took everything into one. CAPITAL CITY QEPORTING SEIMCE j TON.*F?'! TEDf?N SObW 7ATO. ,
36 If I told you the plant is leaking, let me know g Q ] where it is and how bad it is, and you came in, what would you do? A Tne plant is leaking, where is it, and I notice it back then what would I do? I would probably notice the change in the make up tank first. I could punch it into the 1 lcomputerandthat takes an hour at least. I could go out with the aux operator and he could go out and identify the , leakage with a Sontainer, radiologically if he could get close to it, which back then you could do that with no problera. I l l Q Let me rephrase it a little differently. If I lj you could
; do only one thing to determine tne seriousness of
! I plant leakage, what would you do? Would you--and you had to be accurate, you had to know. Would you punch in a Leak l I
Rate Test? Would you look at the make up tank? Would you i i I l
! look at the sump? What would you do? !
i I
;s I'd say the most accurate now and I wanted to know the Leak Rate right now, I couldn't use the--this thing f i
!! takes an hour. So I wouldn't have- .ie would have to wait i
for an hour. Right now I would go out and have a guy measure. O I dida't ask you if you wanted to know the Leak Rate. We wanted to know the plant leakage, was there a problem with plant leakage. Wnat would you do? l C@lTti CITV REPORTING SErMCE t cm.sg u roc u, e,w v. con
37 You could only do one of those things? A That's a hypothetical thing that we didn't do. O I realize that. I'm asking you to give me-- A What I would do now? O No, back then if you had to make that determina-tion? l A I know back then I wouldn't use just one thing, i but you are saying if I had to use something specifically? { W Q Yes. A And I didn't know where the leak was? - O Right. i I A If I don't know where the leak was and you wantedl ll , to measure, the only thing we had down there was the computer.l , O how many--what was the portion of tests thrown l away as compared to those kept, if you can recall on your i, I i shift? , I
! A I don't recall that.
i p Q I'm not asking for an exact number. Were there more thrown away than were kept? Were there more kept than q a
] thrown away?
l!
! A I would say there were more thrown away than kept.
l Q Therefore, is it accurate to assume that there f were more above one g.p.m. than below one g.p.n. obtained as i a result of running a Leak Rate Test? CAPITAL C 'v REPOQTiNG SErMCE rnae > :-:f% "o o Swo:
l l I 38 A I would say possibly since we threw it away
*i something happened in between like a thing that I mentioned previous. In other words, he did something that would interrupt the Leak Rate. Wehadtopumpthedraintankorwe!
l had to take some kind of reading. We had to put something in the manual. Then we threw the Leak Rate away, but that's i something else that could have happened, or as if we got a j l I' ! greater than one gallon a minute, we could have thrown it j away. That's possible, yes, ! l Q Are you saying that--so I don 't misinterpret you,' are you saying that in your mind most of the tests that you threw away were those in which operator action or some-i i l thing happened during the course of the Leak Rate Test to i I! cause it to be inaccurate and that some of the others were 1 above one g.p.m.; is that what you are saying to me? i ll A I would say probably that they were greater than II
- l one gallon a minute then and threw them away.
Il F; MS. PENNY: You're not making yourself clear, b h ThE WITNESS: I heard the question so many tines. O MS. FENNY: Think a minute. 1 i THE WITNESS: Hit me again. BY MR. WINTER: t q Q I believe you said that there were more tests h d thrown away than kept, correct? f I CAP!TAL CITY r/EPOQTING SEIMCE j yas f , . qu r::s cTem emoti j
l 1 d 39 A' Yes. Q Then I said I take that to.mean that there were more tests obtained as a result of running a Leak Rate Test above one g.p.m. than below one g.p.m. because the ones below one g.p.m. would be kept. You said not necessarily so, because tests were thrown i away when operator action caused them to be inaccurate. A Yes. a O Were there more tests thrown away because they were above one g.p.m. or were there more tests throw away because of operator action? A I believe that it would be more tests were , i thrown away because they were just abot e one g.p.m. I don't-- Q Ted, how reliable could the Leak Rate Test have been because that means one of two things. If it was reliable i the plant was leaking above the tech spec limitation for a i lengthy period of time. Wouldn't that necessarily be so? l A Well, we got Leak Rates telling us otherwise. O I know that. They were filed. I A Yes. O And there were more times in which there were no tests filed than times when they were filed? i A Yes. Q So, what my point is, I'm asking you how , reliabic could that test have been if what you're telling me CAPTAL CliY REPORTING SETMCE onv;En u . rEoras sowc swt
40 is that you threw away more tests then you kept, and yet if th e test is reliable, you are throwing away reliable results, isn't that right? A I see where you are coming from. Yes. You're ! I saying how reliable is the Leak Rate Test and I made my l l point before. I said you could run a Leak Rate at one point j j and it would be under one gallon a minute and at another l point it would be over a gallon a minute. I'm saying the Leak Rate wasn't an exact thing. Whatever came out of the naf computer was then an exact thing. What elsewerewesupposedl 1 I to use. ,
! Q How in your mind how did you regard it. You l
I were throwing away more tests than you were keeping. Can you ' say today that that test was reliable? A Today can I say that that test was rel iable , i 1 l you are asking me today? i Q Right. Right. A I would say it wasn't an exact thing. It's what !
! we had to use. It was the best thing we had to use as far h
j as Leak Rate. ,
! O I'm asking you today knowing that you were throwing away more tests than you were keeping, can you say '
i
~ today that tes t was reliable, tha t you could rely on it to give you an accurate figure?
CMTAL CW REFORIING SEfMCE cce ,m ti grc m ca esstemcn
41 f A- Knowing what I know today about the accuracy 1 1 i of the make up tank and accuracy of the dif ferent instruments, and the accuracy of the level and temperature compensation, i 1, it's not--it's not an--in other words, it could give you 1 an error. I don't know what the error would be, but I'd say i it's not an extremely accurate instrument to tell you out of 63 or 63,000 some gallons of water to tell you one gallon a minute. It's not an accurate mean; of telling what the exact Leak-Rate is. O Let me ask you: The fact that you were throwing away more tests than you were keeping, did that mean anything to you as to the reliability of the test? I A I don't know back then you can't ask me that l , kind of question because I don't remember what I-- Q Does it mean anything to you today? I A- Sure. Q That fact alone? . A Sure. l l l Q What does that tell you today? ' l A That it wasn't all that accurate. I l l Q Why didn't it tell you that back in 1978 or did j it? A It's possible it did because of what I said f previously. They did change some things. I don't know--I l l CAPITA. CITY REPORTING SErMCE cpA G U TEDrpR SQJADE $T ON
42 don' t remember exactly what they changed. I think it had to 1 do with temperature, the temperature of the compensation somewhere. i I I O I'm going to ask you some questions about that l l later, Ted. Okay? l A Okay. I l ' (Recess.) AFTER RECESS i BY MR. WINTLR: Q Ted, this series of questions is really to try to i get an unders tanding of wha t you believed back in 1976, '79 as; I
- a CR0 to be the accuracy of the Leak Rate Test, and the reason i
I'm asking you whether or not since you knew you were throwing away more tests than you were keeping, whether or not you did consider that Leak Rate Test to be accurate back ll in '78 and '79, since you were throwing away so many tests? [j A I said to you that the Leak Rate carre up high and sometimes it carne up low. So, it would be--what I could , l h see there it's not an exact thing. It can't be all that h
- l accurate.
- 0 ji Q That's your understanding today?
I A Yes. I j Q And again my quention is, did you also believe n in ' 7 f3 and '79 as a result of what you are observing Ihthatback I I CAPITAL CITY PEPOR4NG SEiMCE way,, w x m v. n v.v a .
i 43 with respect to what you were getting out of that computer? i A I don't remember what I thought about in '78 and j
'79, but I woul-1 say from the ups and downs of the computer that I probably would think that it wasn't an accurate piece :
of information since the results came up high and low. l l BY MR. GEPHART: i l Q You don't mean inaccurate piece of information. I You didn't think it was an accurate-- A Accurate. Yes. BY MR. WINTER: ; Q You regarded it your responsibility to get a Leak Rate Test, a good Lea' Rate Test, at least once every 72 hours, is that correct? A Yes. Q And you also indicated before that there were times in which you would throw out numerous tests on your i shift on occasion? l l Is Yes. O Were there times when you did not get after having h
" tried that you did not get a satisfactory Leak Rate Test on h
i That is, one below one g.p.m.? j your shift. j A We didn't get one on each shift. I would say i lthat's--yes. We probably didn't.
- i O How would you communicate the f act that you were CAPITAL CITY REGNG SErMCE ma aro u raem scum snuco
44 not able to get a satisfactory Leak Rate Test, how would you communicate that to your next shift, the shift that was coming on? l A I believe we had a turnover, who also might have l left the results of the last Leak Rate on the shift foreman's ? l l l desk. Those are the different methods you would use to convey the Leak Rate, the turnover, the verbal, and it would be on the computer. The results of the last Leak Rate are on the computer yet, or we would let them sit on the desk or they would be in the trash can, j Q Now, I take it when you say that it would be on the foreman's desk that that would be on occasion, and it l wouldn ' t be--or was it your practice on your shift to w.it _ l you were not getting satisfactory Leak Rate Tests keep them, give them to the foreman so that he could turn them over to the next shift? A No. We just let him know that we didn't get a {SatisfactoryLeakRate. Q But you mentioned providing the Leak Rate to the l foreman and that it would still be available to the oncoming shift, fly question is : Was this a practice that you had or was this something that on occasion might happen and that in f act would be communicated to the next shift? CAPITAL CITY REPORilNG SEfMCE ct;:.:.s y u (E3!)% SO Md Smirf t ?
45 A I-can recall laying them on the shift foreman's desk. I don't know what the exact frequency was. I can also recall throwing them away, but I would usually tell the I shif t foreman that we didn't--or he would hear us talking that we didn't get a satisfactory Leak Rate. O And you mentioned the shift turnover. Could you explain to me what would go on so that the next shift would know that a satisf actory Leak Rate had not been i obtained? A We had notes that we kept of the things that we would want to be kept as far as the turnover is concerned l on a sheet of paper. It might have the time the last Leak i ll! i' i L Rate was taken. j I think also the foreman would keep that too. He would ; t have more--what do I want to say--more of a regimented i turnover than what we had, or formal I would say. , t 0 Do you recall a time when there was a blackboard in the Control Room that the last satisfactory Leak Rate would;! be posted on the blackboard? A No, I don't recall that.
), Q Were there times when multiple shifts one
! following the other could not get satisfactory Leak Rates? !
J j A I don't recall the specific time periods, but i 1 l I'd say that's probably--I could assume that. CAPITAL OTv REPORTING SEfMCE conwm U FEEf% QA?E SWGN i m,- ,- - .,2
46 Q When you say you could assume that, do you recall -- 1 I'm not asking you to recall specific times, but do you recall l occasions when that took place? A No. Q So, what you're saying, Ted, is that it's possible but you don't recall an occasion like that? 1 l A Yes, it's possible. MR. GEPHART: Off the record. (Discussion held off the record.) l l BY MR. WINTER: I i Q Did your foreman know that tests above one l l 1 g.p.m. were being discarded? l l A Yes--well, I assume that he did because he
- unders tood my words, and we laid the Leak Rates on his f b] desk. l lH :
d O Did the shift supervisor also know that? ! t 1 A I don't remember specifically telling him that l l I O information, but he was in contact with the shift foreman so 0 3 p I would say I assume he knew also. That was his responsibility d F l to know what was going on. l
.i ll Q Did you ever have occasion to bring the resul ts ll or discuss the results of Leak Rate Tests with your shift H
, supervisor?
i CAPITM CITY REPORTING SEiMCE m.vn ; m + r>( eo teac s' anon
47 1 A I don't recall any specific instances, no. It's l possible that I did though. Q I'm sure you are aware now of the L.E.R. that was issued back in October of 1978. I assume it's been shown to you a number of times. A Yes. i 1 Q I'm going to ask you to read that and then you tell me whether or not you recall its existence back in
]
, 1978 and '79?
(Witness complies.) I don't remember reading this at the time. It was-- we had a pile of information that we were supposed to read and initial. It was maybe 80 or 100 things at a time, f MS. PENNY: Could we take a one second break? ! l MR. WINTER: Sure. (Recess.) i [ AFTER RECESS !
'l BY MR. WINTER:
0 You do not recall seeing that L.E.R. and the I l narra tive pertaining to it back in 1978 and '79? l A No, sir. ! O I'm going to show you a document review form for ! l i L.E.R. 78-62. This is a copy of the original and it has your'i l I name typed in with initials next to it. Could you look at ; CAP!Ttt CITV REPORTING SErMCE cowrreu cEww scsw4 swm
48 that, please? A Yes. I l Q Does that appear to be your initials? A Yes. Like I said, we had many things like those l
! I l '
come through. O Were there times when things like this would I l l
! come through and you would initial that document and not ;
I i read what was attached to it? ! 1 A No, I read--I read them. It was not something i I just initialed. I read the information that was in it. ! .
! I Sone of the things, if I remember right, we might have j l actually discussed and went over.
I I i O Do you recall discussing-- A No. l 0 --this L.E.R.? f A No, sir, not prior to the accident, no. I i Q But I take it since your initials are on here you are saying that you would have read it? I j A If my initials are on there I read it, that's I j what r,/--I don't remember changing my practice. If sorrething 9 is in there for me to read for information, then I make sure it gets routed. I would read it and then put n.y initials on ' J
!! it.
I l O Taen I'm coing to ask you to read it again, Tea, CAPITAL CRV REPOrdlNG SErMCE j ccxe,w o Hrm so tot swm l
49 and you tell me what you think it raeans? (Witness complies.) A It says that in the performance of Leak Rate surveillance we exceeded the action statement for the tech spec 3.4 to 6.2. We exceeded the liraiting condition for operation and did not invoke the action statement. Again, at the tire ve didn't interpret the Leak Rate as we do now, and I know that I look at it and say how did ,i 1 we ever do that, but now we interpret it different. Q Well, let--will you give me an idea-- A I say when I look at that now and say we got i something like that we would be coniplying with that action l i I stater ent right away, but ue--and also we woulu get follow ups. We would receive training and we would have say a briefing from a supervisor and a note would be made in the midnight order book, and it would probably be a proceuure change. We do things completely different nou. O Ted, I would like you to read - . i A It's different. ! Q I understand that. What I'ra trying to get at now; since you have said to rae that having initialed it you would ! have read it. I'm trying to get an understanding of how i l reading it now you interpret what it says, and if you ! i interpreted it different or could have interpreted it i i differently back in '78, I would like to know that. CAPITAL CITY REPORTING SEfMCE cu:s;u ecorrm 90vs wem
?
50 A I would have to say I was a CRO and I knew--I E reported to my shift foreman and I--there was a concensus of our interpretation as far as everybody that was on our shift j the way we were interpreting I can't remember anybody I disagreeing. Q That brings up another subject, and I want to i see if you recall anything. There are people who have said I that neetings were held on that L.E.R. with Control Room people and what was discussed, and in fact, the NRC was I l l c notified that, in fact, all Control Room people were made l I t
! f ully aware of the L.E.R. and how they were to perform. t ll '
l
] Do you recall discussing it with your foreman, ever ,
h ! having any other forn,al discussion or infornal discussion l I l about that L.E.R. and how it was to be interpreted? !' llj A t I don't recall. If the NRC came up afterwards, l 0 hI don't recall tnat either. I don't recall tnis being l 0 l any big thing. i i l Q So having read this now, do you interpret it to l I mean that jou were not to discard Leak Rate Tests above one 0 ! y , [g.p.m.? j A (Shakes his head yes.) I know now we keep l anything that has to do with procedurally-- I l
, Q I understand that. I understand that's what yo,i !
<do now.
4 ! I'm asking you having read this now, do you interpret j CADITAL CITY REPORTING SUMCE cm.m u crm scuer cwo.
51 its contents based on what's written here to mean you are not to discard tests above one g.p.m.? , 1 l A I read that to mean that, yes. That's what I would do. v And as you indicated, would have read that back , 1 in 1978, why did you come to another conclusion? A If I read that back in '78, I'm not--I don't remember reading it, but I--
) but you said--
A I was doing what I felt what my shift foreman wanted me to do. I didn't have anybody telling me to do anything different. Q But you said you believed you read it because your initials were on there and it was your praccice to read things that you signed, is that correct? A Yes. Q And you said upon reading it now you interpret i it to mean that you don't discard tests above one g.p.m. l Assuming now that you read it back in '78 because you signed this, why would you not have concluded the same thing? l A It could be the shift forenan put some information out after tnat. I don't recall. I don't remember what the concensus was for that particular L.E.R. back then. b U You do not recall? l i A I don't know what-- CAPITAL CllY REPORTING SETNCE twesuett+g ypwtprm
52 Q Go ahead. A Apparently after the L.E R. we have Leak Rates both high and low within the 72 hour period. O They were discarded? A And they were discarded, but I--apparently--I don't know what the discussion was. I can't give you--I don't have an answer to tell you why I interpreted it now--I know l 1 why I interpret it now. It's obvious to me now. back then ! l I guess I did what everybody else was doing. I should have done what I would think as how I read that or question it. 1 That would be what I would do now. Going back then and saying l
! l I that, that we can't do, the tine has passed. l
;i i
l
; V Iss I indicated previously, there have been some l!
d people who said r.cetings were hold specifically on this I L.E.R. to discuss what to do in respect to it. A Yes. Q And I take it from what you have told :me you i believe that your shift foren.an didn' t have any problem with tae practice that was going on, that-- l A I'm saying-- l Q --is probably why you interpreted it tais way-- i
! interpreted in a ' Jay in which you coula discara tests. I'm i
h . Oaskingyouifyou recall n'eetings and discussions and group 0 11 ll discussions and individual discussions about this L.L.R. and I what it meant? CAPCAL CITY REPORTING SEfNCE , me.s u m we4scy'r4 v a,
53 A Na, sir. I don't recall the L.E.R. before the accident. Q Okay. Do you recall any time periods when you believed that the plant may becoming unsafe and perhaps it ought to be shut'down or that some action had to be taken to make the plant safer and raising those concerns with l your supervisors? A Yes. I think we did. There are a couple things i I can rementer. BY MS. PENNY: Q Which question are you answering there? I' A Time periods when we felt things were questio.ied
' and we discussed those with the supervisors.
i BY HR. WINTER: l Q Could you tell me what you recall? A I remember discussions about relief valve. i, I l Q What were those discussions? I A One on the steamlines the relief valves wouldn't C E Ecrirt FevutpL at the correct pressure. So it would cause you to cool down too fast and subsequently to then they were all replaced. j I think we also brought up bypass valve around an automatically opening cypass around our nine exchanges for the condensation system, which was never done. We had a CAPITAL CITY REFORTING SEfMCE EnxM9 U FE(V% SQUARE STATO:
54 1 l bypass valve, but you couldn't open it up under operation. I think that was planned to be done somewhere down in the outage, but it was never completed. Also our relief valve and pressurizer was leaking. One of them was leaking, but I don't recall which one, and that was to be replaced in an outage. I think I remember that was l the next outage as soon as Unit 1 started back up again that I i had to be replaced. 1 I think there were some other things I have learned since. I'm trying to get the ones I think I felt I knew before the accident. In other words, sorae things that I probably was aware l i l j of and voiced my opinions about, but I don't remember them, j l People refresh my memory, like the leak in the make up suction i line, which we put tape around. I think I probably voiced my i opinion on that one. l Q Was there any point in time when you brougnt up , these various problems when you b+:lieved that the plant l 1 s supervisors were not responding to your concerns? l A iio . 'ihey were--as far as I can remerier they ; i
, listened and soriothing was being done about it or it was in !
I I l the planning stage at least, or work requests were written ,
}l ana it was scheduled on the outage. l I
The one where there was an imr'ediate safety concern where CAPITAL Cliv REPormNG SFR/CE ym, . . nrm co me my; i
55 we could have a power excursion from the leaking steam relief valves, we shut down right there and then and replaced them. It cost us a lot of money. , Q Were there points in time when you were raising [ your concerns that you were also getting Leak Rates above one I g.p.m. and discarding them? Of course you are still within a 72 hour period. A Raising concern such as relief valve? I would say--but the relief valve was identified leakage which went into the drain tank. O How about when the suction problem--problem with
!! the make up suction?
it
\i l' A I don't remember that. I didn't remember that l I before the accident until recently. I can't help you out
.i h
q there. ' I
; Q Do you recall times when you were raising l il concerns about leakage that had been found and you were also ,
! i getting results above one g.p.m. and discarding them? l i i A I believe we had a pressurized level control I
! valve.
- i O Was this in January of 1978?
q A I don't remember when, but there was a leak I : I on that. I'm trying to think if that was before or after i
- the accident. I don't--
MS.PEUNY: 'i e d , you're not answering the 3 CAPITAL CITY REPORTING SETMCE j
, 56 the question. THE WITNESS: I'm trying to think. I can't pin that one down. BY MR. WINTER: 0 You indicated that you believe there was a pressurizer control valve. 1 - l A We shut down right away and fixed it. That's l what I was trying to say. You can't operate, so we shut it down. Q You can't operate very long because you can't fix it without shuting it down, is that correct?
, A I think you could fix it without shuting it down, I
lbut it's not-- Q You could isolate it? l A I think you can, yes. Q While the plant is-~ i A You had a bypass ~I don't think you could, no. You would have to shut down. O I'n not asking you the time frame, but do you recall that there vas a situation like that and at the same I l time you were getting Leak Rates above one g.p.m. and i discarding then? ,
! A No, I don't recall specifically. t I
Q I'n not asking you what--what do you mean by CAPITAL CITY REPORTING SErMCE cm.ur? U . FEDFM SOUW SWCN
f 57
~
specifically? A I don't. recall getting Leak Rates above one i gallon a minute and throwing them away while we had some leak going on. I don't recall that. O Well, let's assume that you ran them during l that period of time, would you have kept them? A I don't-- 0 .The answer is no?. l A No, we didn't as long as we got one within the 72 hours. O Do you--do you recall anytimes when the 72, hear time period was.approachiniy'and you had to get a good Leak I i Rate on your shift? ! A On our shift? , Q Yes. l A No. That is possible though. I don't recall d that specifically. O Did you feel at any point in time pressure from your supervisors to provide them with a satisfactory Leak I 4 Rate? , A I think we were all under the same sort of pressure. Sure, we all wanted to keep the plant on the line. ; I would say that, but if I didn't get a satisfactory Leak f Rate I felt personally I wouldn't ilave been held accountable because we didrl't and we shut the plant down, and that was i CAPliAL CITY RtGTING SEfNCE onwa u rEnrpa sm^9E swou
58 what we were going to do. In other words, if it got to 72 hours we were going to shut her'down. That is what I felt. If I did it or the next guy did it, it wouldn't make any difference. f Q Did you feel as a 72 hour time period got closer i I increasing pressure to get a good Leak Rate? A I would have to go by maybe what my feeling would 4 be now. I don't recall any pressure back then, but I would I f i say that would be--there would be pressure there. I uould ( feel some pressure. Q Ted, I'm going to show you Administrative
! Procedure 1010, that's the procedure that pertains to E.and.D.'s.
l !! l { I'm going to ask you whether or not after you read it if you-were {d l c familiar with that back in 1978? '
;l A Okay. ~
I; ' i j Q You can start from Section 3.2 and read through : 3.2.4.2? l i j (Witness complies.) i Q Through there. 4
)
! A Okay.
i \ I (Witness complies.) Q Were you familiar with that procedure back in 1 l 197B? l i l i I l A I reme:rber fil]ing out E. and D. sheets. , CAPITAL CITY REPORTING SEfMCE cwn:c:u itOEve %q ws swo: t 0
l 59 O Did you fill out E. and D. sheets with respect. to the Leak Rate Test procedure? A No. Going back to a previous answer, I got -- we did the surveillance -- if we did the surveillance in the ( l 71st hour, in between that it wasn't required but we did it I anyhow. So, I believe that was my reasoning that you wouldn't fill out an E. and D. sheet or other paperwork which if we actually were required to do the surveillance would have been filled out. Q So you believe since tests run in between the 72 hour period were not required, E, and D.'s did not have to be filled out on them? A I'm saying that's how I reason that now knowing what we did. O Well, what -- why didn't you believe in '78, if you can tell me, E. and D.'s would not be filed with respect to the Leak Rate Tests unless they were run'one hour before the i 72 hour period? I A I don't know. Were they? We might have filled them out and resolved them. I'm not saying we did or we didn't , but if we didn't I'm giving you the possibility of what our 1 reasoning was why -- my reasoning why we didn't. Q You threw out Leak Rates, right? A Yes. l l CAPITAL CITY REPORTING SErMCE core u :Eom naae s' eon n.r ,. 3,-3
l 60 [ o F. b
'O. Did you ever decide instead of throwing them out you were going to fill out an E. and D.?
'A I don't recall filling out an E. and D. speci-fically for.the surveillance procedure.
.Q Did you regard it as'your responsibility to decide when an E. and D. should be filled out generally or did you discuss that.with a supervisor before doing that E.
I l .' and D. on other procedures? y 'A' I believe it was the supervisor that normally 1 or the foreman that filled out the E. and D. sheets back then. I.believe that,'but I'm not sure about that, but I think that -
,is the way it worked.
It's different now. ] Q Do you recall ever discussing with the i supervisors whether or not an E. and D. should be filled out ! I with' respect to any certain Leak Rate Tests? J l' A No. ) 1 f Q Are you familiar with Administrative Procedure 1012 which requires that all surveillance tests, the beginning time a'nd ending time, should be logged? i l A
; I am now.
s' l O Were you familiar with that ba c :- in 1978? A I knew I was -- I was familiar we b ei to log the l l l i l surveillance at least how it shows up in the log of copies thati I i I have been shown to me, but apparently the beginning time of
]
CANAL CIN r/E;CG~tG SEWCE
- w/murwA.K. 1 suc m
, < c- ,
i i
t 61
) some surveillance were logged and some weren't.
O Was it your practice to log the beginning and ending time of Leak Rate Test surveillance? ! A I don't believe it was.
, I Q And why didn't you log the beginning and ending i times?
A Again, I go back to that--it was something - lat we weren't required--if we were doing something that we i l weren't required to do just do it for information, if there l were other surveillance 41ich probably we didn't log, I ! I A think that practice was probably--we should have been doing , i i I it and we didn't. l I don't know why we weren't. It's in the procedure. So, we should have been doing it. I can't give you a good reason why we weren't doing it. l Q So I take it you really can't explain to me , why you back in '78 did not log the beginning and ending times of the Leak Rate Test results? A No. We didn't because I think if you--have you 0
; looked--I don ' t re:aeni>cr logging or seeing it in the logs I
i i that we did log the beginning surveillance. We logged the 1 1 end. l
! O Your recollection is correct.
A Okay. CA;% CW RERDQBNG SErMCE
- ena ~ c~ u: ^rnvx s wm
62 0 And I take it at this point you can't explain Dl-i to me why that was the case in the face of Administrative Procedure 1012? A I can't.tell you that, no. Q Ted, I'm going to ask you some general questions about practices on the panel. Okay? j 1 A Okay. )
)!
4 Q When would you. add hydrogen, under what circum-stances would it be normal for the CRO to decide to add
- i hydrogbn?
l ] i A Well, if you were on a start up which you come i
! up to power and you want to add hydrogen to scavenge the ;
i I I oxygen out of the water, and when we were shut down I think , 1
.I i l
! We had nitrogen in it, but during the power operations we
)
1 had hydrogen. We maintained overpressure on the make up l l l tank.
; O fiow would you know that now is the time to add i !
t [ hydrogen? j l A The pressure would get down so low and possibly I 1
- i
! go to anticipate a drop in the make up tank and you wanted to ;
I i have it up so you don't get a low level or low pressure. l l i i i i l O Was there a time at Unit 2 when instructions werel J given by Ir. Logan to insure that hydrogen was at a certain i pressure level at all times; do you recall that? i 1 A No. ' CAPITAL C11Y REPORTING SElWICE cow 7 U TEDfM COM SWO4 i
63 Q How would hydrogen be added, what would have to be done? A At one time we could just add it from right at the panel, but I believe that valve wasn't functioning and we had to have an auxillary operator--it was still an open valve at the time, but it leaked. Then the aux operator had to go all the way outside the plant to a place between Unit 1 and Unit 2, valve in a hydrogen bottle, valve in a regulator, and then see he had one spent fuel cooler room soneplace and he would have guard piping around the valve. He had to go in that piping and line up the valves into the make up tank, and then we had to open our automatic' valve and and we'd let the j hydrogen build up so long. I forget how long it took. I i i don't think we did it very often. Some shifts like to do it and some shifts don't like to do it. h l Q Did you log hydrogen additions?
- i i A I would say if we added hydrogen we would have I
logged it. I'm not sure. It could be sometimes when we didn't log it. Sometires when you are busy you didn't and I
; soretimes you could.
Q Let's assume you wanted to add hydrogen because the pressure guage indicated that it was necessary, and the l valve was leaking. Describe for me physically what you would i do, who would you communicate with, what kind of communications I would you get back? CAPITAL OTv REPORTING SEiMCE co s w o u r c m TO w E S' M
64 A If the valve was leaking? s / Yes, and you had to do it through the use of l Q 1 an AO? A Well, we had--the shift foreman had the panel and; he would call up the Ao and probably open his valve and tell i the Ao to go down and line up the hydrogen, the AO would go i l 1 l down and line up the hydrogen. Ile should have called. ! Sometimes he might have missed it. I'm trying to think fwhetherthatalarmclearedwhichtoldyouthatyourpressure was within the normal band. I can't remember now. l l l I think that's the way it worked, the alarm cleared, I tha t low pressare alarra, and when that cleared you knew you l l had enough hydrogen so you would know to close your valve and j called hira back and said okay. I think that's the way it i
. worked.
I [ic Q Eo I understand it you called the Ao and told n j him to line up the hydrogen? i A Yes. I q Q By lining it up I take it you mean he had to k h open up certair valves so that hydrogen would then go into li h the make up tank or did son.cthing else have to be done a# ter it was lined up? l I think--see, we had a control valve on the Is j panel, and you could line that up and let the Ao put it in wr.en he got a chance, or ne could call you and then you could open CAPITAL CW REPOQTING SErMCE nnfa u cg u a,eesw m
65 l
\
it up. O So I take it that what you're saying is that you: could get a communication back from the Ao that it's lined ; up and then once that is done you could add it from the Control Room when you decided to do it, is that correct? 1 A We could line it up at the Control Room and let him add it, or we could do it from the Control Room, but the I one in the Control Room I think that there was the one that leaked. I don't--I'm trying to think what the reasoning was there. There was a leak in the pipe too somewhere. If we left it on the line, it would vent to the atmosphere. l Q Se are you saying that when'the hydrogen valve i f did not work--the hydrogen control did not work from the II l Control Room, that basically it all had to be done by the AO? l A Except the one froin the Control Room. If it l didn't work from the Control Room the AO had to line it all up because we isolated it right back at the regulator, right i U at the storage bottle where the hydrogen was kept under j pressure. k y So we had to go there and line it up and then I think j he also had to line it up in the aux building, auxillary l building, and he would tell us if we didn't have our valve open then we would open our valve, and we started adding i aydrogen to the make up tank. I don't think we did it very often because it was kind of a pain in the neck. CAPITAL CITY REPORTING SEIMCE orm? u rEnerw rog sTON
[ 66 / Q I still take it then that he would communicate 3.. back to you that he's lined all this up, and you would then open your valve, you could open your valve from the Control 1 Poom? , i 1 i i A You could, yes. But if you did that you would shoot your hydrogen--you would waste it because there is a I d leak in the piping.
' ! ]
)
). BY MS. PLNNY: , j t l l { Q What do you remember doing? Take a minute and i l l ) l l i l think, j i ) A I don't remember specifically doing it. I'm ; g trying to figure out--sonetimes I tried to figure what I would. i l 'li g co now, r.nowing there is a leak in the piping, that we had n the valve on the panel open. So as soon as the AO would line n it up it would go right into the hydrogen right into the il a make up tank. f I can't tell you which way we did it. Okay? O bt BY !!.R. Vi!UTr.n : Q If there was a leak in the piping you would still get--if you did it f rom the Control Roon you would j f j- still get hydrogen going into the n.ake up tank, but you would i!
'j also be leaking hydrogen, is that correct?
I A Right.
\
1 l Q And that would lead to depletion of your hydrogen? ) A Correct. CAPJte Oly REFORUNG SErMCE mesv.unm wwcuw4 l
l 67 Q And you would have to constantly replace it, is that correct? A Right. O Do you remember a time when that in fact was the case that there was a constant depletion of the hydrogen l supply? A I don't remember the instance, but I think there I I was--I don't remember when that happened, but I think--I knew j l we had a problem with the hydrogen and it leaked away. I That's what I remember. O Do you remember a time when hydrogen use was ! I being monitored because there was a depletion? i i A No. Q tiow , under what circumstances would it be i necessary to add water to the make up tank? A 'ro change--to raise the level in the make up tank, that's obvious. To change your rod position, control rod position, and in preparation for some sort of evolution i that you are going to cause say a drop in the pressurizer i 4 level. Say anticipating a power change. Adding chemicals, Q Anything else that you can think of ? i A I can't think of anything else. If I do I'll l tell you. l Q To change rod position how would water enable you to change rod position? CAPITAL CITY REFO7DNG SEIMCE yu.m u ema uxv men
68 f r A I'll give you an example. Say the rods were [ all the way out, by diluting the boron in the reactor cooling i system the rods would go in because the rods would control , l I ! the amount of power being put out by the reactor. By [ diluting or taking away boron it allows the power in the l reactor to increase. By putting the rods in it compensates I to the amount of water that--or the amount of dilution I i that the water--let me say that again. ! l i! l l The amount of baron that was taken out due to tne j ) j l l dilution or addition of water into the RCS through the make j p
\q up tank. i l
l l [ l t So, that's how we changed rod position. Does that l i t q answer your question? i O I take it you would add water tha t had boron b concentration in it to reverse that procedure? l 1 l . A Yes. l L Q That would come tron wnat? i t A That would come from a drain tank -excuse me, f c' It would come from tne reactor coolant bleed tank, or it f could come from the boric acid mix tank. Those are the two 3ources we used n.ainly. l Q So, as I understand it, there was a--the first n > g reason to add water would be to keep the make up tank within a certain level? l i A Yes. I i C@iTAt CiN ?E;CRTING SErMCE l :w % cw v.tec my .
i 69 Q Was there a defined level? A There was'a range. O What told you what range that you had to stay in?
! A We knew what the level was. I think there was a I '
band on the window. l Q Do you know what the level was back in 1978
, that you had to keep it in?
A It's written on the windou yet. Let's say I 60 to 90. ll lj Q When you were changing boron concentration, how I, would you know, for instance, how much domin water you would l have to add in order to bring the rods within a certain
] position and then again how would you know how much borated water you would have to add to bring your rods within a lj jj certain position?
O A We had a procedure which we could do a calcula- [ tion and change the concentration of water to how much water l { we needed to add. o d O You performed that procedure in both respects I when you were adding demin or when you were adding borated I water? i
- i. A Yes. We had a little calculation that we i
performed. If I reraenber right, you took the volure of the RCS, the volume o f the borated water that you were going to CAPITAL Cliv REPORTirG SErMCE m::noa u m co wy sinon
70 q l add, and the volume of the demineralized water or it gave you j that answer. f O What did you do with the paperwork that you filled out in order to comply with this procedure? A I don't know. I don't recall what we did. I think we kept this stuff. That went to the shift foreman. i l-t I think there was a. place for him to sign. ) Q Do you recall on occasion when you had to do , I this having the shift' foreman sign? A I don't recall any specific instance, but I ) remember filling out the procedure and using it. Q And you do recall a section on that procedure l' I l on that fona for the shif t foreman to sign? A I don't recall a section, no. I con't recall a g specific section. Q Do you believe that one was on that form? { A I don't renember. d . li ji - Q I'm going to show you a procedure 21031.2, which is Operator Procedure for Soluble Poison Concentration. Is that what you have been talking about? A Yes. , Q Enclosure 4 of that procedure appears to be the i formula which you have mentioned. I ask you to look at that and is this what form you had been talking about? A I don't recall the specific form, but that could CA:'AL CGV REPORTING SEfNICE W::eo U FEW' t L 'O ?! QL
71 I be the form. (Recess.) AFTER RECESS BY MR. WINTER: O Is that the form? A We used the form, but I can't tell you whether this was the form, but it says up here 6-3-77. It probably is the form we used. Q 1s there a section on that form for the performer and an approval? l A Yes. i l Q Does this form refresh your recollection as to whether or not what you were filling out had a similar section? A That probably was the form we used.
! Q Was it your practice from time to time, if necessary, to change rod position during the course of a Leak
[ Rate Test? l ! A It's possible that happened. It happens l automatically. When you say T-AVE the rods are at the top. They can't compensate it -- the temperature anymore, you have
;to add demin water in order to increase power. You usually add enough so the rods also come in and bring the T-AVE back CAPl!AL CIW r<E;OQI NG SEfMCE
[iAhD U FEE 94. SC/JK6 S'A'ON u.v. , y ec ,m
72 f up to where it is in the normal range again. [ Q Would you try to avoid such a thing during the l course of a Leak Rate Test? I l l A Yes. You should. - Q Would you avoid running Leak Rate Test if you had to do this procedure? A Would you avoid running-- l l O A Leak Rate Test if you knew that you were going to have to change rod positione? f l A Yes, but sometimes that wasn't possible because due to the leak--let me see if I can explain this to you--due ll to the leak in the pressurizer relief valve by the water l I always going into the pressurizer, evaporating and then going j [ out the relief valve, it concentrated the boron on the if l pressurizer. l ! So, when you opened the spray valve the sudden larger \ , l q concentration of boron from the pressurizer would go out ll 4 into the RCS, because by opening the spray valve you have bl l circulated the water in the pressurizer, and would add more c
) poison into the RCS.
y The rods would go back up again, and i 1 i l'
", you better have enough water in to shoot in to compensate ,
i for that. p Q So, on occasion you would have to do this , d ilduring the course of a Leak Rate Test? 1, i is Yes. I CAPIML CIW REPORTING SEiNCE o u n u m sen , ve cr.
73 O Would you fill out a data sheet as we talked I about which is consistent with the procedure so that this could be accounted for in the Leak Rate Test? In other words, there was a data sheet 4 that is required. It has to be filled out when you're adding water for any reason. It calls i i i for a description as to why you are adding the water. l If h1 these circumstances wnere you had to change rod f positilon by adding water, would you fill out a data sneet i explaining that? A We notated the water in the CRO log. I know l there times when we didn't remember to do that. The normal i practice was to notate the amount of water added and put it in' the CRO log. One of them sheets should have been filled out. O The 2103? A Yes. And we also-- i i l 0 Would you attach that to the test? l l A No. That was a different procedure. l I Q So, would there be any documentation? A Yes. You also put it on the coaguter sheet. You typed operator caused changes. That's the '. ray it was 1 I l worced on the typer for the computer. Q This would just tell you the gallonage that you added, is that correct? A Yes, you only added it in the make up tank. CAPI AL CITY REfo@NG SEWCE ya.s,. m u maq cc rc s'm. 1
74 I I 3 0 There would be no indication as to the changing of rod position during the course of a Leak Rate Test other than what was put on data sheet 4 if it was filled out? ( ) A This data sheet 4 you are asking? BY MS. PENNY: Q Do you understand that? I A I don't know what data sheet 4 is. Are you [ talking about-- l 0 Where would you put an explanation of what you , I were doing? A In the log. I ! BY MR. WINTER: O Let me refer you again to Procedure 23013Dl, i S ection 6.3.
,l i
h A Okay. You mean the data sheet 4. To my Il n l p recollection we only identified that on the coroputer console y 4 by adding the water in. When we added it into the make up ! l!
-! tank we noted it as an operator causad change into the i<CS or !
l !
!l into the trake up tank. It's possible that we used it, but li l'
i [ I don't recall using it. 1 i i . j Q Do you recall a time when there was a probles. l with the transmitters or transmitter feeding information from 1 j l l the make up tank as to the level to the computer and to tne ! El I strip chart? CAPR CSV QEK)QT!NG SEfNCE tv, . . r u s'exv ; qaraq Tr g
75 )
\
+
.. A I do now. I don't recall back then, but recently that's been brought up to me. I don't recall the specific
problem, that particular piece of equipment. ( 0 So in 1978, '79, it is your recollection now that you did not know there was a problem with the trans-mitters from time to time? 1 A Which transmitters? I don't recall any specific problem with the transmitters, no. w The transmitters I'm referring to are those which feed information as to make up tank levels to the
. computer which measures it of course for purposes of Leak Rate Tests?
i A Yes. l Q The transmitter that feeds information to the strip chart-- A I'm saying I do now, but I don't recall knowing that before the time of the accident.
!i l
Q rou are saying you don' t recall knowing. Arc
; you saying you did not know or that you can't recall now that Jl you knew?
l , A I can't recall that I knew. MR. WINTER: Why don' t we take our lunch break ). now. l (Recess for lunch.)
" TOTAL CITY 7EPORTING SErMCE rm in U WC-\ SON'c SWN
I I-76 i AFTER LUNCH l l- BY MR. WINTER: t Q Before I ask you any questions about cheating [ ] allegations. I want to go back to one thing. The sump, did }l } you utilize the sump to determine your identified leakage-- your unidentified leakage, whether or not your unidentified leakage was within the one g.p.m.? ? j A Well, what all I can remember is we kept track of the number of times that the reactor building sump was pumped. We looked through the computer printout. f Q Khat would that tell you? l A Well, you knew what the hign and low--in other ll words, when the pump started and when the pump stopped was at ' a certain level. So you take the difference of the level and l figure out how much water to pump down and over a period of l L l htimeyouc( ld tel1 how much water was going in the reactor i i l jj building sum;. O L a you use it to determine whether or not you had a leakage problem? h
'l A Yes. That was a tool.
I C Uhat would it tell you? I!ow would you use it? l
! A Well, all the water that was in the reactor i
! building would--that wasn't collected to go into the RC drain I il e
tank went into the reactor building sump. So if you had a i CAPITAL CfiY REPORilNG SEfNCE com.to u rEDiM PC M WO4
W 77 leak somewhere it would collect on the floor or go into a I drain and then end up in the reactor building sump. Q Do you recall using this to measure leakage, identified or unidentified leakage? A It's possible we did, but I don't recall a specific instance. Q Do you recall ever using it to determine if you I had a leakage problem? A Yes. I believe we did. Let's see, we pumped that--I know we kept track of it, but I can't remember doing any calculations to determine leakage. It's possible we did is all I can say. i Q how would the number of sump pump starts nelp i you in determining whether or not you had a leakage problem? A You knew the volume of the water that was lgoingintothesump over a certain period of time. So you could calculate a leak from that. Q Do you recall ever monitoring the sump, the l number of sump pumps because it was causing some concern? h lj A I remember keeping track of it on the cc.:puter 4 l' printout. We logged it somewhere. i O If you were having a number--an increasing nenber; I of s6mp pump starts and you also got a Leak Rate Test above one g.p m., would the Leak Rate Test be kept? A If the Leak Rate was above one g.p.m. ? If we l CARTAL CITY REPORTING SErNICE ! rnnso e rFxw co rroE swct. l
78 I had a problem we looked for it. In other words, apparently, 1 > if the sump pump comes-up and we have a leak somewhere we l l \ 4 would probably have gone in and looked at it, but whether or not we kept the Leak Rete, probably not. Q Ted, I want to clear up some confustion. Just a few moments ago you indicated that--this is my recollection-- ; ) that you did not recall any problem with the transmitters, level transmitters, to the computer and to the strip chart in the make up tank back in 1976? I A Yes. Q Earlier on it was my recollection that you had y indicated that you believed there was some problem although h i '/ou couldn't identify it. So, which is it? I mean you-- I n f .c
\
A You want me to remenber a specific instance, l but I ca- 't. i O No, I'm not asking you whether you remember a l l ! l speciEic instance. I ' ra j us t asking you whether or not you recall there was a probleta? i' I
] A I told you recently I recalled the problem that l'
I was nact aware of, but-- i i i 118 . PEL Y: Start that again. Go slowly and
! i l
I think. ThL WI'INESS: At one of my interviews it was ! l brought out an instance where the make up tank chart recorder , was going like this (indicating), that's a problem, but I CAPITAL Oiv REPORTING SErMCE to.wJn u ;Erfra so>Anc siATQ; 4
79 don't recall if it was before the accident.
)
BY MR. WINTER: O So, you do not recall knowing about the problem in the transmitters back in 1978? A No. O I'm going to show you Leak Rate Test No. 111, dated 12-5-78. You vere the performer on that test and I believe Kidwell is indicated as an individual on the log which I take that to nornally mean he is on the panel, is that correct? A Yep. Yes. O We have had this test and the chart reviewed o.c4\
,jpa examined by experts and they have concluded that the transmitter running to the computer u.as switched fror; the good one to the bad one during the course of this Leak Rate Test, and what that means is that the computer for purposes of the Leak Rate Test was seeing the bad transmitter; do you I understand that?
A In other words, at the tire one of the--was it
! declared out of selvice you are saying?
O Go. Do you understand that the make up-- ! l
}
A 1 guess I-- i l 1 0 --strip chart reads a different transmitter than the conputer? A les, but if we weren't using one it would have CAPJ4 CllY REPORTING SErMCE Cr<c.a.50 U FEDR'^1 FOJW NG
80
, been dieiared out of service. Usually you put a sticker or r
somethirig on there to declare it out of service. Okay. MS. PENNY: Can we go off the record for a secono? l (Discussion held off the record.) BY MR. WINTER: Q Do you understand that there are two transmitters? i
! A I understand that. t l
l 0 The computer reads one and the make up chart l i reads another and they both reflect level? i { A Yes. , h Q lj And that is it not so there is a switch on the : panel that you can switch one to the other, is thet right? A That's right. O i I'm going to show you a strip chart froai the test j dated 12-5, anc' ask you what you believe this strip chart indicates as to which transmitter is on the co:nputer and waich h h transmitter is on the strip chart; do you understand? A You are telling me by showing this you can say J one tra n sr.i t te r is on tne computer and one transmitter is on 1
" the--
Q I'm not going to say anything. I'm asking you I if you could tell from looking at this chart whether, in fact, i the transmitters have been switched in tne course o f tL.e test? CA?JAL CITV REPCMING SErMCE tu ,m n un en :., ymy
81 A Okay.
*)
Q The test on the chart is between these two dots. Do you see that?
, A Yes.
i
! i Q So, I'd like you to look at the strip chart I.
before those two dots and after and tell me if you believe that strip chart reflects a switch in the transmitters? l 1 j A I would say it is a possibility that right j l (indicating) that somebody did something j llsomewhereinthere l to take the swings out of--they indicated Leak Rate, and one l b d of those thirigs that could be done is switch the switch li to i l change one transt'itter to the computer and the other b transmitter to the make up tank. , e Q Does it not appocr that whatever was done was s t
;,: done immediately before the bcginning of the Leak kate Test and changed immediately after?
A Somewhere about 13 minutes or so. It wasn't changed afterwards, no. It docsn't look like it was. d , Q 'ihy do you say it doesn' t look like it was i changed afterwards? i A It looks like the level just went up. I i l . Q Let me ask you: Say 15 minutes before the l i I beginning of the test or so, perhaps less, the level drops ti
!;! now many inches?
F CAPITAL CITY RE;ORTING SErMCE i nrav m c r c- ti n swe, J
I 82 A l at's straight down. This here? O Yes. A Well, it drops 10 inches or so. It goes from i 82 to about 72, ten inches. l
~
O IJow , approximately 15 minutes or so after the l
! conclusion of the test does it not rise to almost a i
! l l similar degree?
B i t dl A Yes, but it's not straight up. So it's a l ! See, it was straight down. It's a gradual-- ldifferentrise. I or it's on a slope going up. i 0 When you say slope, it is not as I see it it does! ll llnotindicatestraight up, but it does have just a slight-- 4
> f' i A Tnat'line is 15 minutes, so that's about five l t, i t,
rain u te s . 4 I h Q So there's a five minute diversion of the line, l q B is that correct? '
- i A Correct.
[ l ll l
'l 0 But it'is alnoot a similar rise back up? i 4
1 A Io. l 4 i i O In height? ' A On, in he.tynt, yes. j la
!! O n.a t does not indicate to you that the 0 t htransmitterhasbeenputbackonthechart?
f' l A :o . l
! Vina; Ooes that indicate?
O ; JMTAL ON RERDQTING CEIMCE
- e s ,u ctr+.e4to etsn n'.
s
i 83 A somebody put in here unlogged, so it's probably water added. O That is an NRC allegation that water has been added because they can't find anything in the leg and they have come up with a conclusion that that must be a water i I addition? i I A I'm not sure if one transmitter works or the 1 other, but if you switch the transmitter back and forth it , I will give you a straight line because .Se pen movement is more or less immediate unless the swing was down here. You i can make a lot of different--you can come to a lot of
, different conclusions.
l 0 So, you do not necessarily conclude--
.I l; A I would say it's possible that they suitched 1<
'I
; because it's a straight line down.
I
,; O Immediately before thc test?
h I! A Yes. ll +c s +, i Q After the M , I don't think they switched. l
; MS. PUhNY: Who is on the Leak Rate?
ti (( Tiit WIT :ESS: Kidwell. i i Ask me the question again. BY MP.. WINTER: i O Is it your understanding or is it your belief from looking at that chart that the transmitter was switched at the beginning of the test, but you cannot conclude from CAPliAL CITY REPORTING SErMCE l ye, fro u rr;w sow 4 n o4
l ! 84 _ looking at the chart that it was switched back immediately after the test? A I'll say it this way: It's possible from what I can see that the transmitter was switched before the test-- after the test, but it doesn't look like it Was returned to
' the original position before the test.
Q l'or a rise of the kind that is indicated after ! the test, what would have to be done? What is done to cause I i that kind of a rise? ' i i A Well, let me see. You have 30 inches. It's about 300 gallons of water or so. t 9 Q Three hundred? l F 1 A Somewhere in there. Somewhere between 250 and L 300. Probably close to 300r h Q Lo you see anything on the lot to indicate that lli 300 gallons of water on there?
!i ti L A Apparently it's not logged. Either tha t or--
0 L Q Would that not be an unusual situation not to y ' d log 300 gallona? l A I have set.:n known to _to it, to forget to 30g it. [ I'd say it's an unusual situation.
!; O Is it still your position after looking at that h
h that you do not recall a problem with the level trananitters L ll at that point in tin.e ? ii A I don't recall it, no. I don't recall a problera . C@liA!. CtN REUMNG SEIMCE craf.rp n rrfr. w ars m on
r_ 85 l with Ehe level transmitter.
)
Q Your foreman was Conaway? l A Yes, sir. O I'm going to show you a job ticket dated 12-5-78, and ask you to look at it and look at the dates upon which it was completed, and then ask you if this refreshes your recollection as to whether or not you knew there was a problem with 1.oe level transmitter? (Witness complies.) A I don't recall that specific work request we call a job ticket. l BY MR. wit;TE R : i Q What is that for? h; 1 I A IIL 14 LT 1. , i t Q What is that? I i i A I don't recall specifically uhat the level ! ltransnitternumberis i but it's probably for the rahe up l {1 i
! l 23nk level transmitter. !
l Q What is the description? l i
- 1 I
A Level oscillation.
!i '
V O I ask you to look at the back sheet and see if f1 you can tell from the dates there when it was finally i repaired? t j A It doesn't say. It says when they started. It doesn't say when they completed it. Approval to corunence work? CAPITAL CITY REPORhNG SEiNCE l 7 m o.nocnr.1 w :: v ~y;
86 Q On the next sheet. A Okay. Let's see. Work performed by, date and time. It looks like 1207-78. Is that the date you are looking for? Q I'm asking you if that's from your view of that job ticket that is when the work was most likely done and i
! completed? ,
I
! A night. 12-20-70, and then it was comple ted i
' and the component aligned for testing 1-11-79. That's uhen they turned it back over to us.
l Q So is it fair to say that the work s;as not j I-completed until 1-20 or possibly 1-11'.- d i ll A 12-20 or 1-11. night. h l
, O I'r. sorry.
l l i l
,1 A nicht. l H '
l n '"his job ticket, it does not refresh your l [J o l I y recollection as to whether or not you kneu there was a l h 0 problen with the level transmitter? , l
!l:
l i; A 1.' ope . I
- i
.; 'Jh i n ticket is on the vcry nare Ur that y:su
- . ran a Leak nate Test?
i
!I !
a n Yes. 0 [r Q Do you recall ever a'.lvising Conaway that there j q was a problem with the level transmitter? I q - A Well, if we had a swing like that, I know I wouldt CAPM C." REPOpilNG SP/CE tm.m u-(rnme ro n x s'. , m
87 f 1 have advised'him, but I don't recall doing it. Q Back in 1978 were you aware that Leak Rate i Tests could be manipulated by hdving teste run on different transmitters at different points in time? i
. A I knew by switching the transmitter that you i
!couldchangetheLeakRates,butwedidn'tuseitto j 1
l' manipulate Leak Rates, no. L [n Q My only question to you now is whether or not (youknewbackthenthataLeakRateTest-- i; A I don't recall specifically remembering, but that r f would be obvious. l
- i 0 I can tell you that some people do recall l r
I discussions about utilizing the level transmitters in a way ; r 4 which would manipulate the results of Leak Rate Tests, i e i My question to you is do you recall a discussion or o discussions like that among CRO's back .in 1978. I am not i asking you whether ol. not you did. A Okay. I don't recall discussion to that effect, no. Q Did you ever switch level transmitters in a k nanner which you believed would manipulate the results of r 5
' Leak Rate Tests and assist you in getting one below g.p.m.? '
! 1: ll A No, not intentionally. Q If you recognized or people on your shif t i CAPITAL CliY REPORTING SETMCE [ oaf.Th J s[CWETAld 5'AION
88 , recognized that there was a problem with a level transmitter, I would it be the practice not to run a Leak Rate Test with the computer reading the inaccurate level transmitter? l l A That should be the practice. In other words, l ll you wouldn't want to run a Leak Rate Test using a transmitter i {! i I l that's doing something like that, but I see that probably
, happened there.
l I
}} Q I'm going to show you a test dated 12-11-78 in l I i which you were the performer and again Mr. Kidwell was on the j l
' l panel. Again, reflecting upon the work request the work has l
i not been completed yet on the bad level transmitter. We have
!i s had our exEerts look at this and it is their conclusion again '
k that the computer was reading from the bad level I transmitter, i j I'm going to ask you to look at this, look at the strip
, charc and sec if you can determine when the computer was switched to the bad one and whether or not the Leak Rate Test was in f act run while the con!puter was reading the bad strip chart. Before doing so, so you unJerstand this chart, the two dots are where tne computer in reading. Okay.
The strip char t obviously is where the lines are. The twa j dots are basically what the computer is seeing. I ask you to look at this whole strip chart and determine I for me when if you believe the computer was switched when it-- H
.; the transmitter was switched, when it occurred and whether or CAPtTAL CITY REPDQTING SErMCE i a -
89 not it was still in ef fect when the Leak Rate Test was run? 7) A There's no conclusive way to say that the make up tank level transmitter was switched, but I do notice that there is a swing on the chart somewhere up to 5:30, i 5:15, and then that swing stopped through the rest of the chart. I wasn't--I don't recall--in other words, looking at l
! I this this doesn't tell me whether somebody conclusively !
switched the level transmitter. There's a problem with the level transmitter and that's what--that's a possibility what happened. We could be standing there and look at that . level transmitter and it could swing. I don't recall l l !
!! specifically instances, but it happened. I Q Do you notice on the strip chart a change in i
pattern, a ra ther abrupt change in pattern in any one point in time on that strip chart? I i A Yes, that's what I'm talking about here, somewhere I i l around 5:15, 5:30 tnere was a change in pattern. I h Q h'ould that have beca on your shif t or the previous shift? hl i A Let's see if I aid it. ;his was prob wl;. fro. 4
!theprevious shift. I was on 7:00 to--so the other shift I
l snitched it. Ic happened before. Here's 6:50. If the chart was timed correctly, you're saying that the change in i l the chart was noted at 5:30. So that vac on the previous cap ~AL Cliv PFORilNG (E?tCE y . v. , tr- .Kmo- N '.
90 shift. Q Do you recall any prohibitions from your foreman or any supervisor once obviously this was recognized not to run Leak Rates on the bad level transmitter? i A I don't recall. It's possible that he did, but I don't recall. See, you wouid also want to know -- you would much rather look at the chart recorder which has the -- which doesn't have a swing on it. O So what you're saying if you had two trans-imitters while you weren't running a Leak Rate test you would I
'want the good one on the chart?
A Yes. l l Q And the bad one on the computer, but when you are running the test it would be vice versa? l A It's also possible since the guy that's l' not on the panel is doing the Leak Rates, he forgets to tell [ the guy on the panel to switch the good make up tank l e '.r e l l il to the computer.
; Q I'm going to show you a test dated 1 - 7 9 ,
l 1 run on your CAPCAL ON ?E ORTING SEfMCE tve m o trat, saa swoN , 1 ___________________________j
91 l 1 shift although you were not the performer or the CRO on the D log,and I'd ask you whether or not after review of that you l believe the computer was reading the bad transraitter. This is , k ( a rather poor copy, but you can see the lines. The conputer I reads wnere the dot are. A Do you want me to determine whether the good
' l l reading was on the computer?
O Yes. i
, I i
A You're saying the level transmitter hesn't been repaired here? I t G IIas not been repaired based on the--l-11 was i j the date where it was finished. h A 12-- 0 12-23 the work was aj.grovec to Lc performea, cin a i j 1-11 is where it is signed off as having been done. I A But you really4-do you have that docur ant there? Ol l Lot :.e show you sonethine. Work per forr.ied by , date anc jj t i rc.e . 2 Right. u q .-, Waat's tha;;. dcun-- it says was perforced by, , hun l l he dic it. t It was 12-20. lie r e , work is cor plete6, the 11ae l l for testing. , l Q Work was corpleted-- I ! t l [m) A In other wcrds, he did the work by this an(: .:., / l t/ i CAPITAL OW QEFORTING SErMCE i yv.t? e mos sown smo. l
92 , the time the paperwork got to us it was 1-11-79. So, it 7r could be that the thing was already fixed and by the time the paperwork got to us for sign off, it was 1-11-79. It
, could have been fixed and you don't know which transmitter I
I by looking at that chart. O Look at the chart and you tell me what you i believe from looking at that chart? l MS. Phi 2;Y : Bob, I think we have a I:.istake on i I l a transcript. Your question is does it look as though the I j computer is reading the bad transmitter or the goou i transmitter. You mean the bad transmitter, right? l i ilh. WIMIL: No. I'n asking him from viewing the chart and the lines whether or not he can tell whether 3 the corputer is r:adir.- tae correct one or the incorrect H il
'l on.
P 1 ?!S . PL: li : Okay. L y 'ri.E h!T! IA : I can't tell.
!i
. Di !;I: . S I.1"i L R :
h
'l
? U Why can't you tell?
l{ A because ;.wre's no real do Inite change in the-- : l l [ in the--u.11e s vaat t c.i s is .le r+ -- l
!! l
!! O Unfortunately, you do not have a better copy, but I
hyoucanseearataererraticpatternsoretin.eafterthetest. h ll Is your answer vou cannet tell? l h 4 l
! Com CrN reormNG SErMCE
; .. , , ,, m m , u v a 1
93
~
A No, I can't tell. Q I'm going.to show you a test. dated 1-8-79 in which Mel was the performer and you~were the person on the log which I take to mean you would be on the panel? A Yes. O Which I also take to mean if, in fact, there was i a shift in the transmitter you would have been the person i i to do it? ! A If I was on the panel, yes. Q I'm going to ask you to take a look at the strip chart and notice the variations occurring early on. The l test was run between the two dots. The level the cor puter i I was reading is where the two dots are located on the chart. i
'1he level of course where the chart is is what tue chart ,
was reading? i i I, Okay. I notice that I didn't come cn shift .
! until 11:00 o' clock.
I I j Q So, first of al], can you tell from looking at i the chart whether at one point the computer was reauing i} k the bad transmitter? it l l A Again I'll say, just because we had swings bacL l-and forth docan' t n.ean that we ' re on one transr..itter or ,
.j another. I would say--I'll say that. It doesn't--it coula swing and then it could stop swinging.
CAP:TAL CITY r?Ef0'mNG SErulCE Cct./Sp u rENRA 90 m S'Vm o__________.__.____.___________.______ .__ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
94 O Well of course, you do realize that a work request was put in? A Yes. Q At a point in time when there were similar swings because it was believed that there was a problem with I the level transmitter? l A Right. l Q I'm asking you to look at that chart. Do you see any swings on that chart which were similar to those i I which precipitated the work request? I A J There are some swings on the chart, and they [are similar to whether--that was probably the reason fur the j subnitting of the work request, true. 4 h O 2, ou , are there indications on that chart of sitnilar swings ? i i I, A Yos.
!! O When do thev cccur?
~
I h] ! j A ii Somewhere--i t 's o f f the cnart - here (indicating), i I and then it quits somcuhare around 7:00 p.m. the previous e i any. [ ! 1 Q l'n glad you pointe. tqtt out. n i< You notice that i 0 it quit. It quit. i I y A Yes. 3 lj 4 Q ror approximately how long a period of titue did it quit? CAPITAL CITV RPJmNG SErNCE I w:.,v . ;no: m we swa, l
95 I I'm asking you how long a, period'of time does it appear i
- )'
to have quit?
.A About an hour and a half.
Q Hour and a half?
! A- Yes. You got to add water here so you are I i
t probably raising the level, right. Q Of these two lines, how much is the space , l l between this line and that line (indicating) ? 1.ow much time I i 1 is that? ! A Ifdidn't swing down here. You probably added l { water. That's an hour between the two lines. From here to I l-y here is approximately an hour and a half. l In between 6:30 p.n. and 8:15 or--yes--3:15 p.m., and ' I then tne swings went away. t O What happens? f A Then the level was increased due to the addition .
! of'the water.
I l j Q How long does the chart remain consistent from , l; that point in time to where there appears to be an erratic , et d
" change?
4
; 7. tntil about tan after d:00, j Q Then waat happens?
I A Then you have your swings again. I
! Q tow, does that indicate to you a enange--a I
. Possible change in transmitter.?
I CAPITAL CliY REPORTING SErMCE DmAn u rm.; ecwt swcN
l 96 A I'd say it's possible. Q Now, when does the erratic swing change again? l l A 10:30 p.m. l l Q And is the chart then consistent with what appeared at 6:30 or at 6:45 or so? A Yes. Q Does that indicate to you tne possibility of i a transraitter switch? l l A It's possibic that the transmitter was switched. l l Q And, in fact, was a Leak Rate Test run when the l P transmitter was switched? ! j 1 H A Yes, if that's what was--if the transmitter c
.i F
!y !
itself was switched. '
] R I'm going to show you a test dated 1-10-79.
p l il ( j Again, it was run on your snif t. You were not the person ! l{ ' q w'to was the performer or on the log, that as Mr. " ell. I i b
!i ask you to look at the chart and indicate to tre whether or '
l ' I not you believe the computer was rea: ling the cc,rrect and i l d q l accurate trarlstitter or the inaccurate t r itn ar-i t te r ? i
!l h
Tae level that the con.puter is reading between I guess hit's-- c l [ A Is this a continuation--this is 1-10. l j l' l)l! l I
! I fJ l i
CAPITAL CW REPORTING SEfMCE ce f.n u cmcrug co en e.m.
, l I
- - -- ~~
97 Q The level the computer is reading between two
]
) and three is indicated by the dots.
- A Yes. When you change--I only see one place. I i
1 notice this here (indicating). o O Can you identify what you are looking at? ! l A I don't know what's going on. j Q What time are you pointing to on this chart? l A All through this same period of tir:e you are i also telling me that they were undergoing repair. I don't see anyplace on here where you have a switch. Like I said in the last one, there is a change and a possibility is there,j i j but when you switch tile level transmitt.er you should see a } il [ straight line. I;o place on here do I see a straight line. O I haven't asked you if you could locate it on that chart where it was switched, if it was switched, because : at some point in tirie--I'm asking you whether the computer based on the level indicated what the cor'puter is reading is I
; reatina the good transmitter or the bad transtaitter?
h A I have no way of knowing.
!j!
O lhy? n because evet. again that vork request says that it was signed off on 1-11. That could have been faxed by , s<, ,
, then.
O Wila t level is the computer reauing. Wilat is che CAPITAL CITY REPORTING SEfNCE I us.w u wm co ws wa l0 l
- . . _ - _ . - _ . - _ . -~ . . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -
98 level cf the Inake up tank the computer is reading? j A It would be reading the other transmitter from whatever this is reading. It should be close to the same. Q The dots are where the computer is reading. i A All right. 85 and--at the start and 88 at the
; finish. That's what the dots say. 85 and 88.
I! Q What is the strip chart reading? I i l A 74 and 71. I
! O Now--
l A liow do you know this--is that what tne Leak 1 l Rate probably says? l j Q Yes. The reason the dots are tnere is because i i
,! the computer is reading that. I l!
l A It says 85 to 62 on here. l l Q That's a very bad copy. Ol L A The certain number doesn't look like an eight.
!i'l Q Well, for the sake of this discussion that's n
h what the computer is reading. I'm asking you--assurue that's II il. the case. I'm asking you whether or not that indicates that the corputer is reading the accurate t ra n s:- i t t e r ? A From looking at tae results in here the level went down and you're saying that the level went up. i I g So I don't know from what looking at this here it gces from P l make up tank level 35 to make up t ak level 82. That's what the cor.puter is supposed to be reading, and here it says-- CAPITAL CITY r<Ef0RTING SErNCE ms.n u rm:n cows s'A'O. l
99 i MS. PENNY: Identify some of the here's.
~)
THE WITNESS: On the Leak Rate calculation on the printout from the typer on the computer which is supposed to be reading the opposite levels and what's in the make up 1 tank. l BY MR.. WINTER: , O Ted, I'm not going to dispute or argue with you-- A I'm just telling you what-- l C --what this face sheet says, because frankly I l can't read it. A This is the sa"te time though. I Q I can't read it. I'm telling you that tne
' experts said that's what it said, how assume that to be
- correct, okay, assume that to be correct, and I'm asking
.j i
you your opinion, assuming this to be correct does that I indicate to you that tne computer is reading the accurate i transmitter or the inaccurate transmitter? ! L ! i [ A If you are telling me and I'm taking your word H I J for it that is correct-- MS. P h :;.N Y : ;!n a t is that? h THE WITNESS: That looks impossible, because if
=
I this was the good level transt.itter it should go up also. ! j a l
, You're telling me that the bad level trans..itter went up. !
I i t It doesn't-- CAPITAL OTY RE;C9 TING SErNICE cowo o non A. so m.~: s' MON
l 100 BY MR. WINTER: I Q We are presently talking about the level read by ! l the computer from the beginning of the Leak Rate Test to the
! end of the Leak Rate Test. That is identified on that chart I
I e based on experts who have reviewed it, by two dots. Now, b I l l I'm asking you assuming those two dots are placed there ! l l ! I
' correctly, whether or not if that's what the tranmitter is !
( ! [ reading--the computer is reading, do you believe the computer o i {l to be reading an accurate level indication? 4 l A I can't take your word from the experts because l l J I--one expert says one thing and the other expert says . n another thing. I'm telling you what I think and see and you i h hear different things from different experts. I'm not taking i his word for it. l! a f Q Ted, I'm asking you to look at that and give me [ your opinion. 1 A an opinion you want. O I'm not asking you to accept the expert's e
" conclusion.
A Okay. Q I'n only asking assuming that ais coneJusion
, is accurate, that you give me your opinion based on what he L
says exists tnere? A Based on nis opinion. If he seiys taat toe I CAP!T4. Cliv REfo?TNG SEr?/ ICE l
i 101 I I difference in the beginning and the end actually increased, ] _.l in my opinion this would be that the two don't agree as far !{
,l as the chart indications and what's on the computer.
1 t Apparently, if that's the two dots that ne thinks was i l on the computer, that would be the level transmitter saying that that's not--that would an an inaccurate level transmitter. O Now, having looked at all this, does this refresh your recollection that for a period of time there were prob 1 cms back in 1978 with the level transmitters? A I don't recall the specific instance with the ; level transmitter, but of course there was, I sce. I don't
! renier.ber the problen with the level transriitter.
j Q Were you aware in 1978 that the addition of l
/ hydrogen during the course of a I,eak F. ate Test coulc. effect i
the results of the Leak Rate Test by giving a f alse level indication? e b j Is I rior to 19--prior to the accident, no. , 4 p n Gere you aware in 1978 that from time to tin'a when I i i you added hydrogen to the make up tank you would see a rise l a short rise in the nake up tank? ( A No. I l Q On the panel where is the hydrogen valve located i l in proximity to the strip chart? H
) A I just looked at that. That's underne.th to the l
right a little to the strip char t. CAPliAL Ory REPOQiP G SE7/CE cn: .n u um .:, was y ~.
102 ) Q In the same line of vision? A Fairly close. O Do you recall bringing to anyone's attention lthe fact that hydrogen could effect the results of a Leak j l l Rate Test? l A No, sir. ) Q Do you recall ever participate..g in a test of i that phenomenon because it was a subject of conversation? A No. O Do you recall your shift supervisor ever tell-ing you and others that they should not add hydrogen in the fcourse of a Leak Rate Test? l A No. !
, O I'm going to read to yor a portion of a jdeposition taken from Joe Chwastyk on April 24, 1984. ,
I ! Question: Let me refer you back in time to 1974, Unit l I 1 if you were aware at that time of the addition of i l,andask pr essure to the make up tank and its effect on the make up tankj i1evel indicator. More particularly, whether the addition of i h l! hydrogen to the make up tank would have an effect on the make l up tank level indicator? Answer: No, not in 1974. I
! Question: Was there a time in which you became aware jof that pher.omenon?
l That was the latter part of i Answer: Yes, there was. l CAPITAL Oiv QEPO9 TING SERVCE l 7x:.myoE A sa;t;z yt:os
103 JI 1978, I believe, Unit 2. Question: In Unit 2? f Answer: Yes. Question: You were not aware of it in Unit 17 Answer: Here my memory is just a little bit mixed up. It seems to me I remember something about hydrogen addition and the make up tank level in Unit 1, but it is very vague. I.do recall specifically the problem in Unit 2. Now in my mind I don't know if what I'm recalling is just my discussions with people in Unit 1 of the phenomenon in Unit 2, or if in
' fact there was a problem in Unit 1. I don't think there was a problem, that same problem in Unit 1 that we had in Unit 2.
i Question: The problem in Unit 2 occurred while you ! I i were there or was it there when you first went to Unit 2 and i ( spent most of your time at Unit 2? l Answer: I'm not sur? when the problem first cane about. I do knou somewhere in 1978 I think it was the latter hal f of 1978, it was brought to my attention that if you add hydrogen to the raake up tank while you were doing a Leak Kate you woulu get a validatable Leak Rate calculation from the computer. Question: Do you know who brought that to your a t tention? Answer: I believe it was my Cno's. I think I remember-CAPITAL CITY REPORTING SErNCE or>^m?u corm sa nEs AToa
104 I specifically it was Ted Illjes. 1 Do you recall that? A No. Q Do you recall anyone else on your shift mention-I i ing this to you? A No. I learned about that after the accident. I didn't 1:now anything about it before the accident. !
. l Q You say that, you mean how hydrogen could effect I i the Leak Rate Test?
A That's right. O Why would Joe Chwastyk say this? Was there any I ! reason in your nind why he would make scraething like this up? i l I i A Sonething that he couldn' t keep track of before the accident or after the accident like the rest of us. O I don't understand. What do you mean? ! A I learned about it af terwards, and in tne discussions with other I>eople they learned about it afterwards. {Idon't-- Joe Ch'.zastyk specifically says he knew about it. Q i
] A 1.e says he think,. I think I s c>e ci f i cal ly 0
'; remenber.
Q No. he says he knew about it-- A He says-- ! l { Q fie thinks he specifically rerer.ters it was you who told hin? t CAPITM CITY REPOQuNG SErNCE cc:.tv u nym en a swn
105 i i A It wasn't me. I don't recall anything -- know-ing anything about hydrogen in -- I Q Question to Joe Chwastyk: Did you ever observe j the phenomenon yourself at that point in time? Answer: Yes. I did simply because I could not !
. believe it. Because there was no technical reason that it should happen. I did observe it. I did. In fact, see, that it seemed to effect the Leak Rate. I immediately thought there was something wrong with our level transmitters, or there was something wrong from an instrument standpoint.
I had INC of course go look at it. I discussed it with INC people. I gave my operators directions not to add hydrogen when they were doing a Leak Rate until we could t find out. Do you recall any of that? A No. I Q I'm going to show you a test dated 12-20-78. I You were the performer, and Olson was the person on the log which I take to mean he would have been on the panel?
- l. A Yes.
Q I ask you to look at this chart and specifi-cally the Leak Rate Test which was run, and tell me if you can explain the rise at the end of the test? i CAPITAL CITY REPOQTING SETMCE CG%TR U FEDERAL 'QJADE 57ATCRJ u.- % nr pe 17. m
106 F r i L BY MR. WINTER: I O The NRC apparently believes this to be a hydrogen addition. I'd ask you to look at.this and tell l me whether or not such a rise at the end of the test has another explanation and let me know what it is. , i A It looks like there is a straight line in 1 it. They might have switched the level indication. I l O During the course of the test? A That's nossible. There's a straight line ; I there. It looks straight to me. Then he switched it back.
,There's a switch one way and then another way. I don't know i I -
I what happened here (indicating) toward the last part of the It
! est.
l I really can't tell you wha t -- what about the rest of these swings here? I mean what caused them? I mean we're swinging around here. O They are not in any way similar to the swing at the end of that test. l l CAPiiAL CITY REPORTING SEINCE C/M7 0 FEOfM SQ%?E STATON q . v w c re p '+ )
107 A Something like this would be similar (indicating) .
) Something like right here is similar. It's hard to know what the level transmitter was doing.
O Let me ask you this: -- A 12-20, that's when we still have a problem i l with the transmitter. Q Since you brought it up Ted, were you aware back in '78 of some people or the possibility of switching transmitters in the middle of a test during the course of a test and getting a slight rise or slight decrease in the level as a result of doing that? A I don't know what I knew, but what I know now i I wouldn't have intentionally switched the level transmitter l 4 to get a f alse Leak Rate. What I'm saying, if the guy on the , i Leak Rate panel or somebody was taking a reading and he ; l wanted to know what was on the other level transmitter and i i you are in the middle of the Leak Rate, it's possible he
' could have switched it and looked at it and switched it back again. I'm not sure whether-- i 0 Well, my question to you is: Were you aware that>
Y some people believed that to be a way in which you could I change level indications during the course of a Leak Rate l l Test. I'm not asking you whether you did it. I'm asking l you whether or not in 1978 you were aware of other people who knew that that was a way? CAPITAL CITY PEPC/ MING SErNCE twen u- w N o m s' e .
, y
. ./l l l[ ,.
~ .a fb hp ; ! ' , 108' im [: + c- lAl :-I wouldlsayLit was obvious because.that's.one-f ,
,'),
\.
p j .
.v '
'of,the indications that went to th'e' computer. . I don ' t
. , ~
'".~
IQ r
.l;; <
remember.specifically knowing, but how can anybody not know s ( w , 4 A'x
- w. . , hen:you. switch a transmitter you.get a different reading. 'l v
w l 14 - The'other reading is going to-go into the computer and you s.1 . areigoing to effect'it. h. p ,. So what you're saying to me is that upon your QI !- review'ofL that chsrt, that is'a possible explanation for the ! cau_se?of the rise-:at the end of the test?~ i
-A No, in the middle'of-it. It's not at the very ;
3 cnd . - I'm saying this slope here, this point right here
.l l (indicating).- l m !
i ;
/
l ' L r1 O 'The last half hour? i i i' 8} ' f LA' - Yes,. the last half' hour of the . test, but then i l- ;
.right here I--don't.know what happened. ~I don't have an '
i 4.; _ explanation for what happened here (indicating). _; j
.l 0 'Are you aware now of what people believe to be !
; !l .. -
3 the effect of hydrogen at points in time on a Leak Rate Test, i I i p and'how that is' demonstrated on the chart?
, Are you aware of ;.
l that now? g - li i-i [ 'A" llow it's demonstrated? ; l' \
, i t ,' Q Yes.- j A- The NRC has pointed it out to me. One might be so much straight up, another one would be this way. I don't E
\. b CAPITAL CITY REPORTING SEfMCE CWA GJU FECf% SQIAQ( STATION [
109 j
\
Q know what ' they are--where they get their information from or how they determined it's hydrogen or not. I would say I'm not aware of whai; a--in other words, what a change in the level transmitt er looks like as from the addition of hydrogen. Q You mean a change in tne chart? < A They're telling me ar d you are telling me that this here is--is caused by an addition of hydrogen. Sure the level went up, but the level went up here. Why did it go up.here? O So today you do not recognize or you do not
! understand--
l A It's never-- i-Q --how hydrogen could effect the Leak Rate? A I say it's never been demonstrated to me that l when you put hydrogen in the make up tank what the level looks like, c BY MS. P L:iN Y : Q '! e d , are you also trying to say that you don't
,I I
i j know what rise? A l'm saying that's obvious. You can tell what I that rise is from. What's that rise from? l L Q Can you tell a hydrogen rise fron a switch in I. l level transmitters? Can you tell the difference? CAPITAL OTv REPORTING SEfMG rm am u rrrf w s. w g re m
110 , A You should be able to because the level ) transmitter is a sudden rise. BY MR. WINTER: O So looking at that chart, so I understand what. you're saying, you believe it appears from your knowledge
- like a switch in the level transmitter you do not know--
3
~
A No, I'm saying it happened. It switched one way l and then they switched back before the end of the Leak Rate. l So, it shouldn't have changed the Leak Rate. O The switch occurred between how many minutes? , I A It looks like about ten, twelve minutes there. l l 1 1 l Q So it appears to you that there was a switch ! l - i in the level transmitters near the end of the test for about l ( 10 to 12 minutes? ,
! i l
A Yes, It was the first part of the last half l l l I I hour. f l C And you are not aware of the hydrogen effect? ! i
)
i A I was not aware of the hydrogen offcct on the l I' make up tank level before the accident, no. j Q You are saying you could not recognize it today if someone asked you what that was? A In other words, if you put a strip chart in front of me, I couldn't tell what the hydrogen rise was, no. Q I'm going to show you a test dated 2-17-79 in CAPI % CW REPORTING SErMCE
- um u m3 w ro m reo, 1
111 in which you were the performer and you were also the person on the log. What does that mean, that you were also handling the panel? i I A Apparently. I was on the log and I was handling I the panel. Did I do a Leak Rate? l Q Yes, you did a Leak Rate. I i
! There is a hydrogen addition based on an analysis of l '
s i the AO's log book, that's not in the CRO log book. You l
, indicated to me that you would log hydrogen additions? !
! I' i i A Yes.
I I l Q Is there any reason why you would not have logged it and the AO did? P e ll A Maybe he forgot to tell me when he was done. It
!; happened right here--
Q Who would have asked for it? e b A When did I have the shift? h
! O The test was 0411 to 0511. The addition based i
! on the chart. was at 05.10.
! i A I get different times on this one. Let me see your chart. The two don't jive. Okay.
g Q Do you notice the rise? II ( A Yes. O Approximately at the same point where hydrogen is added? t' A Yes. , CAPibt CITV REPORilNG SEfMCF l a.: n n n s ~. ;
h Jr j 1 [ 112 F g; O Is that not similar?- A I'm not saying that is hydrogen, but there's a rise. The log as stated, AO hydrogen addition somewhere at that time. He logged it. O Who asked the Ao normally to add hydrogen? A It should be the person on the panel normally would ask. ; Q In this case most likely that was yourself ? > A I'm logged into the log. You are saying I am. b Okay. ' Q Looking at that chart, you do notice the rise? A Yes. O At the end of the test? ( l ) l A I notice a rise in the make up tank level at the end of the test, yes. - l i 0 It is still your recollect. ion, however, that in l 1978 you had no recognition of that phenomenon? i A Yes. t O I'm going to show you test dated 2-19-79, at i lapproximately 1:30, and ask you to look at the chart and . advise me whether or not you see a rise at the end of the chart. I believe this is an NRC allegation as to jogged water addition. MR. WINTER: Off the record. < CARTAL Oiy r?EramNG SErMCE rnwtoa ra n 'c tafY:7Cn l l l
113 BY MR. WINTER: Q The NnC has this as a hydrogen allegation. Would you look at this chart between the points of the Leak Rate Test and advise me whether or not you do see a rise at the end of the test? A There's two tests that day. MS. PENNY: Take your time. I TIIE WITNESS: Okay. You're saying right here. l BY MR. WINTER: Q Yes. A Yes there is, but there is also a rise in the middle of the test too. l 0 I'm asking if you see a rise at the end of the I i test? A I don't see anything abnormal compared to the rest of the slope of the make up tank. There is a rise in the middle here too. This rise here is-- Q No. No. Here's the test. You are looking at j the wrong portion. i ll A Okay. Tnis test you're talking about. l Q Yes. Right. A This test? l l Q Yes. A I see a drop. I don't see a rise. I CAPRAL ON REPORTING SErMCE tanr> u . rEma saun smim
4 114 O What is the level of the make up tank? A It goes 75.2 to 71.5. It drops and swings back up a little. Q So you don't recognize any change? A No. There's not a significant change on there, ! no. i l i Q Apparently you ran a test shortly after that? q l Yes, l I A j i O Why did you run two tests on one day like that, l } back to back? A I said sometimes we ran three. j C Well, we have looked at all the Leak Rate Tests l filed, llero you have a successful one. With the exception li
!; of one other occasion there's never a circumstance where two ,
l' ! D are done back to back and filed. Why would that be done? ! I 1
- 1 li
, n Uell, like I said, we kept the good ones and
; I l l 0 advanced our 72 hour tire clock. I don't know if that's a I i l: fact, but as you said before, and I've indicated before that O
'le kept the good ones, and we also had one, two or three Leak Fates ovec a period of time. l Q Eut you didn't keep them all. You would file -
j i i i one and discard the other? l l i A I probably signed the good ones and bad ones, ; h ano laid then on the shift foreman's desk, but you'll nave to , I t i CAPITAL CITY REFOQTING SErMCE ma:p .: m me; w ex w m i
115 J
\
) ask him why he kept it.
O Is this an unusual circumstance that'you have two back to back and file them? A I don't know. Is it? I'm r.st sure what's in the j file. I don't know how many times I would have done that. j Q Well, it's the only ones with the exception of
! 1 one other occasion that we find in the history of tne plant l r
Leak Rate Test practice. A Aha. O I'm asking you whether you recognize this as an I unusual occurrence? i I
, A No. !
I i
; 0 The tact that two tests were filed back to back i is not unusual? ,
i A Yes. I see what you mean or what you are i I
; getting at. For ne to run one Leak Rate af ter another is not il n
[ unusual. To get a successful and file it and then get another I, successful and file it, I don't see any problem with that.
- l O I'm not asking you 3f you see any problem with L
3 it. I'm asking you if what occurred here is unusual? A If you're saying that you only found two of them,l i h) I would have to say that's unusual. ; I I l'irst of all, do you recall running two back to Q j, j back? i CAPITAL CITY REPOfMING SETNCE i to. var 9 u rn t. co.W sumoN
I l 116 l 1 I A Not that--somebody didnf t bring it up to me, h no. O Do you recognize it based on what you know now l I l as being an unusual circumstance? j i A I wouldn't' consider it unusual. I think-- . O I don't hear you. 3 i l I A If we ran more than one Leak Rate on a shift I L [ could have run more than one and cot a successful one and the i f l
'l first successful one was kept and the next successful one i l
I was thrown in the trash. { Q That's not what happened here. l ii ! A I4o , I kept both of them. : U Q That is what I'm asking you about, the fact that h hbothwerekeptandfiled. Do you recognize that an an l} qunusualsituation? A I would have to agree to that. Okay, It would a h l be unusual. 1 O I'm going to show you the second test for the h 19 th , IJo . 33. I ask you to look at that.
!Jow , my records indicate Gaegre and Benson consider this ;; to be a jogged water addition. I ask you to look at it and N
i; I also believe the IJRC considers it to be the same.
'c MS. Petit 4Y : This is 2-19, 1:36 and 2:36.
BY MR. WIZ'LP : if I O See if you see a rise and whether you can offer CAPITAL CITY REf0RTING SErMCE : roAwm u FENw so o e?"cn l
l .' 117 l an explanation'for that? A No. That doesn't make sense here what's on the log either. At 3:05 it says we added 500 gallons of water. I don't see it change the level of the make up tank. In the , log it says that we added water at 3:05 which was right at the beginning of the Leak Rate. So however long.it took t'o i go in-- , i MR. WINTER: Off the record, i BY MR. WINTER: l 1 Q Ted, I'd like you to look at the chart, time i { period between two dots which is when the Leak Rate Test was run, and'see if you can explain the rise which is indicated? l A Okay. My confusion-is that the lines on the { chart for the time of the Leak Rate between the two dots are not the same time as what's on the Leak Rate. That's what confused me. And you're telling me that you sonchow figured out that the times and adjusted the times on the chart. j Q Those two dots represent when the Leak Rate was
}
Now,-- lrunonthechart. l I. Okay. Do you notice on the chart it says I
; approximately three after 5:00--3:05 and on the chart anc on the Leak Rate it says 1:36. '
O It's been adjusted. The chart has been adjusted ' to reflect when the Leak Rate occurred. A How-- CAPCAL CITY REFORTING SEWCE twe.nu Rtom cowt 5%w f
118 Q Are you saying, Ted-- ) A I guess I'm questioning your adjusting the chart. I mean-- MS. PENNY: Off the record. 3 Let the record reflect that Mr. 111jes has ; I l looked at the chart again and now understands the time and is willing to answer the question. { TliU WITNESS: Yes, f MS. PENNY: As to whether he can see an ! l explanation for the change in the strip chart. . l THE WITNESS: Okay. MS, PENNY: Can you see a reason for that
! l l explanation?
"!HE WITNESS: I don't have an explanation, but I'm saying that there's a rise there where you indicated you don't have an explanation--I don't have an explanation for this rise in the level of Leak Rate, but I don't have an l
; explanation for this rise over here. I'm saying that that very--this here could happen right here (indicating) . The rise-- l l
l BY MR. WIh7LR: Q For the record, you are pointing to the area of t the chart in which there is no Leak Rate run which has a
] nunber of variations on it?
l A Right. CAPITAL CITY REPORTING SE7/ ICE ;
- w m u EFnmA ec as s c.m i l
. .- -- _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ ___ _ __u
i i 119 l
.\
l Q- Now, could you tell me going back to this-area on the chart where the Leak Rate was run, at approximately what levels in the make up tank fluctuates from beginning to end? A It starts out at 63 and goes'to about 59. Q I'm going to ask you to read a morning report ; l ' and attached to supervisor's turnover of 2-19-79. I refer I you to the turnover of Unit 2. This was written by Joe j Chwastyk after he turned over his shift. . 1 1 Read Item 1 for me, and the pareas one. (Witness complies.) MS. PENNY: This is 2-19-79. MR. WINTER: Right. THE WlTNESS: I got a good Leak Rate out of RCS and it looks like is due to MUR 1 outlet relief valve from relief tank, at 60 inch level at make up tank and five and six--I don't know what that word is--(indicating), hydrogen pressure we get good Leak Rate. Check MUV. BY MR. WIlsTER: G The rest refers to leaks. Le t me read it again I for the record. This is a turnover, shift turnover, written by Joe Chwastyk on 2-19-79, the very day these two Leak Rates Tests were run, which says, "Got a good Leak Rate. Leakage out of RSC looks like is due to MUR 1. One underneath that, I CARTAL CITY REPORTING SEfNCE ry;.v,Tp u ' rEDIP4 SQ iA9E S'AMA
120 at ou inen .tevel MUT d to 6 hydrogen pressure over pressure, h we get a good Leak Rate." Now, what do you think that refers to, Ted? A He's apparently--it sounds like hydrogen over-pressure. t-Q Which test do you think he's referring to, Ted? A Is he referring to the test here? ! Q He says 60 inch level, which one do you think he's referring to, . the first one we talked about or the second one? A This is at the 60 inch level, 59.
]
l 0 Which is the second test, is it not? , ll l l h A Aha. ' i O Joe Chwastyk says that somebody came to him, told I him what hydrogen could do, and then he ran a test. Two l I a I ll tests were run on this day. You were on the panel for both l(lofthoso. Isn't this in fact the day you went to hiri and l l i I told him what hydrogen could do? l l A No. , O What is he referring to here? Isn't he saying t i in his turnover the hydrogen--the addition of hydrogen has j an ef fect on the Leak Rate Test? I i l A It says that those conditions we got a good I Leak Rate. I Q What does that rean to you? j CAPITAL CITV REFORTING StrMCE y.wn u ri:rm waN swo.
121 A In other words, it doesn't say that he added 3 . hydrogen. It says at those conditions, and I'm not sure what - he means there. It could be taken for what you are allegating. i Q You ran two tests on this day, highly unusual. I
.70e Chwastyk said under oath--
1 > A I'm saying under oath-- f 3 i Q --that somebody came to him and he ran another l l l test. !
. I A I'm under oath here too. i
( , Q None of this refreshes your recollection, is that; correct? t A That's correct. l Q You still to this day do not remeraber knowing that hydrogen could have an effect on the Leak Rate Test? A Yes. Your foreman doesn't either. I'm sure if I could talk to the other two guys-- i h MS. PENNY: Off the record. u (Discussion held off the record.)
! ME. PENGY: Let the record reflect that we are i
i j going to break in ab cut 20 ninutes because Ted has an l appointment he cannot break and that we will have to resume at another date. THE WITNESS: Do you want another date? MS. PLM;Y: We don't know that we can. CAVAL CITY REPORTING SErNCE ! tr v n u meat souAw steoN !
122 \- MR. WINTER: What I'm trying to do now is to reach a point so that we finish going through these tests i that are loft and then we can continue on another area at a l ! later da te. Okay? \ f THE WITNESS: Okay. l BY MR. WINTER: r- i
; O I show you a test dated 2-12-79, in which there's!
; i
; an alleged water addition not logged, I believe, during the course of the test. I ask you to look at the chart and tell me what you believe it to be. The test was run by Kidwell 1
and you were on the log which I take to mean you were ; l I l
!! operating the panel? j O '
y
.I I A We secured spraying the pressurizer at 3125.
[ I [ can't read that. Unless he had to make--I had to raake a i i quick adjustment for rod height and I added water and I
, didn't know he had a Leak Rate in the computer. That's the 3
only explanation I can think of.
, O Were you aware at anytime of the prob 1cm in the N
Leak Rate calculation which did not account properly for the I j temperature gallonage in the RC drain tank? . l A I remember sor.ething about--we had an engineer l] that took care of that. I remenber sorse discussion about ' F 4i p that, but I don't remember when I found out about it. h Q Was it before the accident that you found out i yaboutit? CAPI A ON FUOQilNG SEWICE i cm.cn . ":+w no swo; or - < 1 __ __ __. ___.._____.____________________.___._________________.______.________.._____._______________._____d
l 123 A I remember some change in the Leak Rate before the accident, I think it was due to the temperature. I can't pin it down exactly. ,
. O Were you aware of the difference between how !
l ! gallonage was measured in respect to temperature in the make l l up tank as compared to the RC drain tank? j A You're saying-there's a difference. They l .i l wouldn' t--they bo th use the level transmitter. O Whether it was measured hot gallons, cold gallons? A No. O Your answer is no? A I don't remember the difference, no. Forget l it. If the make up tank level is temperature compensated ' you are saying? 0 'Ihat 's correct. l 1 A RC drain tank level is temperature compensated. I jI forget one is or isn't. Q Did you know at that point in tire.e back in '78, t l 0 back in February of '79 that there was a difference I i h between the two with respect to how they were-- l I l l A I don't recall any difference, no. i 1 O I'm going to show you a test dated 3-14-79, in which there are two water additions during the course of a test, and ask you if you could explain why at that point in CAPITA CITV REFORTING SEfMCE tw.9 u ww scumE swoN
1 1 124 I L i T. time water would be added? I ask you to look at tne log also. W A 'Okay. Which two times are they? : 1
.' O Again, the two dots represent where--you will I.
I see rises in between and-- I l [ A Okay. Right. During the Leak Rate between l 12:30 and 12:50 we had the spray valve on and that's why he added the water. He opened the spray valve. l Q So he-- A. He had to add water quick, a lot of water. i O There are-- I 1 A To compensate for--maybe one wasn' t enough. In ;
)-
1 o ther wo rd s , he had--if you notice here he wasn't equalizing l his boron in the pressurizer. The RPS is in automatic, RPS i Channel A is in bypass, i O Let me ask you something. The spray valve is , I demin water, is it not? i A Wo. The spray valve is the recire. that goes ,
-l t
into the pressurizer due to the Delta P across tne reactor and the pressurizer. O If water is evaporating, going out of the pressurizer, boron does not evaporate, correct? I , A Baron stays in the pressurizer. ; Q The spray valve is kept on, because it sprays I domin water into the pressurizer-- h i A :!o . CARTAL OTY REPOQhNG SEWICE meum erMti $Q#1 $T ON a
l 125
'O Why do they spray when there is evaporation? ) A To keep the concentration in the pressurizer the same as in the RCS.
Q What concentration? I i A Boron concentration. Q And if they don't put the spray on there will be more boron in the pressurizer? I A Right. Q So the spray is put on because the spray is ! demineralized water, correct? A No. O It is not-- ' A 'Ihe spray is not demineralized water. O What is it? A The spray comes into the top of the pressurizer. It comes off the discharge of one of the reactor cooling { i puraps which is horated water running through the reactor. Tne I sano water that runs through the reactor runs through the I spray valvo.
! U Why would they spray borated water into the l-j l
pressurizer wnich now has an unequal amount of boron in the I water, a higher amount of boron because of the evaporation? Why would that be done? f l A To keep the concentration. You want to mix that ) f water in the pressurizer with the RCS, and keep it mixed and CAPITAL OTY REPORTlNG SETNCE , y, Af.o i f(Te4 sr.UA9E SIA*CN j i
i-
)
126 1 f' keep it the same concentration in the. pressurizer, versus-h what's in'the RCS. If'you don't do that and you have a sudden outsurge from the pressurizer, you'1'1 shut down. , i You'll have such a large concentration of boron coming out I i l of the pressurizer and going'into the RCS when it goes through the reactor vessel, it will drop your power , \ 1 l L significantly. ) 0 You,have looked at the chart and you believe and you looked at the logs and you believe that the addition l of water at points that was indicated was necessary because
- i. 4 there was water, there was evaporation in the pressurizer,.is '
i that correct? I
-A lo cor4pensate for the water going out of the j i
l i 1 pressurizer you have to acd water back in to dilute the boron J in the RCS systern. l Q How do you do that? ! l A You add water to the make up tank which then
)
j i goes through the make up pump and into the reactor coolant
]
)
, loop. '
O And the spray in your nind-- l A In my mind had nothing to do with correcting the { situation. The spray when you turn that on--you didn' t want to put 4 the srray valve on waen they hau diamond manual. { l CAPITAL CW REPORilNG SErNCE mAMR u . FEDERN CO voE SWCh l l 1 i 1
127 MS. PENNY: What does that mean? g. THE WITNESS: That is the thing that controls the control rod. D-I-A-M-O-N-D. BY tiR. WINTER: O Go ahead. .
. So your explanation from looking at the logs and looking at the chart that is probably why he added water i twice in that frequency during the course of the Leak Rate Test, is that correct?
I A Yes. t O Okay. I I i
!4R. WINTER:
Okay. I Tl;E WITNESS: It's also taken into account in the operator caused additions, but if you notice it's put in the wrong place. BY MR. WINTLR: O By the way, is there any data sheet with respect l i to that addition? l .
. t >
I A In here incluoed? I il I! Q Yes. Do you see any there? , J l h A 14 0 . MR. WINTER: Okay. I think we're going to have l l to reschedule this fairly soon because t;e are running into tir,e problems. I he'll adjourn for today. f CAPITAL OTY REPORING SEfNCE l I cnwars .. m e n so wn suro.
} f d I hereby certify that the testirnony taken by me in the within matter is fully and accurately indicated in my notes
)
and this is a true and correct transcript of the sane. j Kn&Alow Kirberly Up' p11dn, l Court RepoYter l 1 I I l I i l
! t i
d li l i i l' l
! I li li s!
l a j' !
)
1 : j! i 1 l !! I o i' i! i ti N ij . I I l i i k. t CAPRAL CRV REPORTING SErMCF m mm rtn w sornt sw w _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - ________-___s
t MAY q 085 THE LAW FIRM OF KILLIAN & GEPHART 213 PlHE $1HEET P' ' **' JQHN D.ItiLUAN* I E LE ' dO N E ' smite o. cirHAnT HARRi& BURG. PENNSYL.VANIA 17100 0005 (717s 233 1051 YMOM AS W. t,COYT T E LE N + 642 3,7 80DLAY W,BARTON JOSEPM A LA vM AN, JR. JANC O.PChNY Li f1V F. PE 81RY M a tt o A P. C.OOtet TTI , , ,n = m - g-E .M9 L it L,. J f G HL
- JDMf4 M. M .C C N ALD 8 JOHN ADAM MATLAnbKi 9 ALg p E Durfit D IN NL W Y Of4 k i
. . i .
(
. . > . t . A.: n:r.y , . ;;1t. j
- . L'4Jei vu1ViO4 L. . i t. . L l i.
. ., . . . .4 (, t. u. ] G 1
.1 .,
i j
-*._,i~.<
.c.t. . , .~, ,s s . .. -
, :.x +
.s.
g s
.r
~,2Ons 4 d e-i t
- s . -
- , 4 . , '.. . 1 , , ,, acat e . .
. _. e r > , ,.+ . , ,r-
* -9.. , a1 a .' , C ;L. ., .i - > .;
1; , _. . . , .. . .
~ 4 T' ' *
..' .'( .f.",,
s . i .1 p' . ,: '
-- / } ,-i '.
i., s .. C- * ' '4 1 .. E t ;. c r
ILLJES, Tile 0DO R E 2/11/85 S t. :l e r Investigation I 1 I I l
J IN RE: 7til II LEAK RATE PRACTICES DEPOSITION OF THEODORE F. ILIJES \ *** Verbatim transcript of deposition held at Trailer 110B, Three Mile Island, Middletown , Pennsylvania, on Monday, February 11, 1985 4:06 p.m. APPEARANCES: KIRSTEN, FRIEDMAN & CHERIN 333 Littleton Road Suite 102 Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 BY: ROBERT T. WINTER, ESQUIRE For - Company KILLIAN & GEPHART 216-218 Pine Street Post Office Box 886 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 BY: SMITH B. GEPHART, ESQUIRE AND JANE G. PENNY, ESQUIRE For - Theodore F. Illj es CAPITAL C0Y REFORTING SEfMCE coAwtr> U FErxrh $QJAT STATION
f- l l 1 2 2 MR. WINTER: This is a continuation of a 3 deposition which was adjourned from last Thursday, February 7 4 THEODORE F. ILLJES, being duly 5 sworn, testified as follows: 6 DIRECT EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. WINTER: 8 Q Ted, before we start to get into specific 9 questions about plant conditions at specific time periods, 1 10 would like to go back a few steps and ask you to tell me what 11 things you looked at or what plant parameters you observed in 12 an effort to evaluate leakage? l 13 A I can tell you what I do now. What I did i 11 back then I will have a tough tine, but I would look at make-l i 15 up tank level, look at RC drain tank level, there are several 16 sumps which we could check, there would be monitors -- radia-l l 17 tion monitors which would indicate a leak, computer. l l
\
l 18 Q Uell, let's stick with the sump. Hoe would l 10 you utilize the sump back in '78 and '79 to evaluate leakage? 20 A Let's see. I believe, if I can renenbcr, ! 2t that the sump -- every time the sump -- you are talking about 22 reactor building sump. Is that correct? 23 Q Yes. ! l 31 A I believe the reactor building sump it came j , 25 up on the computer every time it was pumped. CAPITAL CRY QEFO? TING SErMCE
- mwr> u tmm co e,r4 seen
1 3 2 -Q And what does that mean to you?. How did 3 that assist'you in evaluating leakage? 4 A- Well, unless we had something specifically 5 draining, that would tell us that something was leaking in
. (
6 the reactor building. So it could be RCS or the Harvey nor- I T mal cooling., the river water system. That normally wouldn't 8 be leaking . into the reactor- building. 9 Well, let me give you -- so I can get an I Q 10 understanding -- 4 11 A In other words, cooling water systems, you i 12 .got nuke service, intermediate close, those type, la Q Let me -- as you have indicated, you have t i1 a variety of means for which you can evaluate IcAkage and in specifically unidentified or perhaps identified leakage. What la i
-- if you were running a leak rate test and you got above one i
ti gpm. and you looked at the sump and you had any number of sump 18 pump st6rts, what would that tell you? Would it give you any 19 indication of other problems? 20 A Yes. You would want to know whe:e it is 21 coming from. 23 Q Well, specifically what kind of questions 23 if that occurred would occur to you? g A- Well, I would want to see where it was coming 23 from. I could look on the panel. Say if I had a sump -- a CAPlw C11Y REPCG%G SUNCE ccxm r m v w. , m on
l 1 4 > 2 fairly frequent sump pump, you could look on the make-up tank i 3 and see if the level has changed in there or you could -- l 4 we have some leakage monitors on our normal cooling system n on the fan system. I am not sure if they were operational back ! a then, but you could check your make-up to your search tanks 7 for your cooling water system, radiation monitors if it was j s from an activity 9 Q Well, what I am trying to understand is to would this necessarily stimulate you to go and search for i l i 11 leaks because you believed you might have a leakage problem. ! 12 Again, the question was if you had above one gpm. on a leak I ll n ] rate test and also you happened to notice that the sump pump is j was pumping out at a certain frequency. 3 l r in A In other words, that would be in the reactor lj j i to i building you are saying? The leak would be in the reactor I ( . I l
, i 17 ' building?
l 18 . Q I an just giving you those two things as ! l ! 19 ioccurring during the course of the work duties and I am asking l i h 2n Qyou what that would tell you as a CRO, what would you do? h j i 21 ! A That the sump level is giving me frequent l 3, j -- that it's being pumped and an indication that I have -- what ' F 3]wouldIdo? h I would investigate for the leak, q ' i There are several methods that we could use g lI i g,
. to do that and I listed some of them. We could use the make- I CApiTN CITV RFOQ!iNG SEfMCE
- ... :.; ; w ,, : v.~rm ven n ;
1 5. 2 up tank level, I mentioned the computer. printout,-we could 3 actually with permission -- you just couldn't go in there, 4 but you had to have permission to go into the reactor build-5 ing. I believe we could -- could we go in there under pwer? f
.c Yes, I believe we could go in under power. 1 7 .Q Do you recall while you were working in the 8 control room putting the sump on a monitor?
1 9 A The sump on a monitor? i to Q Honitoring the nuniber of pumps and the ! u amount of gallonage that was moving? 4 12 A I remember it just being on the computer. la We had a sheet that was in with everything else,
' ii Q Do you recall any time period where you 15 specifically were monitoring what was going on in the sump?
hi A No. We had -- I think we collected the -- 17 we looked through the data sheets and did we take the number
.is of starts? I believe we did that, in Q Was there a particular number of starts- that an would raise some concern with you?
ai A 1 don't recall a particular ntriber of starts , l 1-23 no. 23 Q Was there a number, however, whether you can 21 recall -- was there a number -- 23 A 1 don't -- all I can do is tell you what I ' CAP 6TAL CITY REiORhNG SErMCE tr o m o a r w s v m s w *:<9
i 1 6 2 would do today. I don't recall back -- a numbec back then l l 3 that _ we had .to do something with, no. j l 1 Q Do you recall on the shift and daily a j l l 5 section that applied to sump pump starts? l 6 A No. ., l
'7 Q I am going to show you a copy of the shifc I
8 and daily of 1/6/79 and ask if you can look at that and there , 9 is'a section on there that applies to sump pump starts and let j 10 me know what you recall about that? 11 What did you believe the purpose of that to ! 12 be? j la A I don't recall what the actual purpose, but, f it lyouknow, in looking at it it's probably -- it's measuring f 15 leakage and -- f 16 Q Anddoesthathelprefreshyourrecollectionl li as to the number of sump pump starts that raight raise concern? 18 I believe there are six on that day. 19 A Yes. 2n Q Does the number six starts on one day mean 2t anything to you in respect to leakage problems? A .I could look do6tn here and figure'out how 22 23 much water, but I don't. recall the number of six pump starts l t 24 that related to a ler.kage problem back then and the inforun-23 tion you got there, I can figure it out. CART 4 OTY REFOpilNG SEI?/ ICE
;.w.merrn .w eswo.
J 1 7 2 Q But in any event, the number six doesn't 3 'seem to indicate at this point -- reflect a problem?
.t A Well, I would have to-look -- ,
l 3 MS. PENNY: That's not what he said. Listen 1 6 to the question. ; THE WITNESS:
~
7 Well, if that's a significant 8 amount of water and you are doing it -- if it's six, it's two 9 a shift or however many a shift, there's a problem, something to we want to do something about. I1 BY MR., WINTER: la Q But back in 1978, if you can recall, if you 13 saw the nunber six starts -- six sump pump starts in any one ii day, what would-that mean to you? . l is A I don't. recall what -- back then what it to meant to me. You know, would it -- it should have been~a i; cause for concern for me. I don't recall that. l- is Q You do not recall that the number six sump 1 19 I pump starts would have a cause of concern for you back in 19781 go A No. I am saying it should have, but I don't! i 21 recall it being, no. l 1 Q Y u realize it should have now? 22 [ l. I 33 A Yes. 2t Q I believe last week you indicated you did not 23 recall a particular problem with the level transmitters from CAPITAL CnY REPORTING SEfMCE rc.w.o u yrs >n w i>Es m
1 8 1 2 the make-up tank. Is that correct? l 3 A Yes. 2 Q I am going to show yousome documents in an 3 effort to perhaps refresh your recollection. This is Work 1 b l 6 Request No. C0345 dated 12/25/78 It's signed by Conaway. ] i I ask you to take a look at it and perhaps it will help re- l s fresh your recollection. 9- MS. PENNY: Do you know we saw this last to time? 11 MR. WINTER: No, I think you saw a different 12 one. H 13 g MS, PENNY: All right. We saw one sorcething i l ' ti l on Mr. Conaway, i t r, l MR. WINTER: Yes. This is additional ones, h to ' The first one was 12/5, this is now 12/25. I i; ' BY MR. WINTER: u Q So what does that indicate to you if field I 19 . w ork was cotepleted on 11/29/79? go i! MS. PENNY: Where is the 12/25/78 date?
!i 33 l MR, GEPilART: That 's what Mr. Winter said when he gave him the docunent.
,,3
~
, THE WITNESS: This is the second one.
i l l ;,3 i MS. PENNY: Is that 12/25/79?
'li 3,., THE WITNESS: I can't tell. Is it '79 7 CARIAL OTV RERJRTING SEfuCE ww .' u 4Das Trot 7 em
3 9 2 MR. WINTER: That's '78. 3 THE WITNESS: You want to know what -- l- 4 BY MR WINTER: { f i 7, Q Yes, number one, does that -- that's the i 6 second request put in by your foreman for this particular I problem. Does that refresh your recollection as to whether s or not you knew on your shift that there was a problem with. , ( 9 the level transmitters? l to A I don't recall. I don't recall remembering it having a specific problem with the make-up tank level trans-i2 mitter, i3 Q Ted, what we have donie here is we had an l y expert go through all of the plant recorda that we could re-t r, trieve in an effort to find out when the plant was having 1 to particular leakage problems and what was going on in the plant 17 when this situation was occurrittg. We have broken that down u by shift as to what each shif t was doing when this situation in existed, leak rate tests that were run on the chif t, on some an occasions leak rate tests were not run, what else was done on 21 the shift. Okay? What I am going to do is go through some of
,,,, this time period with you, see if you can recall what you did y .and why you did it. Okay?
34 A Yes. 3,,, Q The first date in January 1, 1979 You were C@lTA CRV REFOPHNG SEfMCE co ;. w a w m w e s w a .
1 10 2 on shift, there was no leak rate run on your shift. 3 115. PENNY: . What shift is that? 4 MR. WINTER: That's the 1500 shift. 3 MS. PENNY: This is January 17 o MR. WINTER: .That's right. 7 BY MR. WItirER: 8 Q Now, under what circumstances -- what cir-9 cumstances would cause you not to run a leak rate test?' I 10 believe we went through this last week and you gave some indi-11 cation as to plant conditions. Perhaps you could do that'
- 12. again for me. ,
)
13 A I would say what I think I did. In other ti words, if the plant was -- if we were doing other surveillance s i 13 ' that the computer was tied up,. involved in something that we to j ust didn't have time to do that or changing power level. 17 Q If you believe -- i is I A It could have been sottobody -- you know, I ; 19 am thinking now if there was a work request, if there is some-20 I body do!.ng work on the level transmitter.
.i et Q If you believed that the plant had leakage 33 problems, would that indicate perhaps you should run a leak j 33 rate test?
j j 33 A Yes. l 3,- Q The first shift, the 2300 shift, on 1/2 ran CANTAL CW REFORTING SEfMCE
. ..e u rumt ro uw wm 4
1 11 2 a leak rate test and it came out negative. Shift supervisor a Zewe in his daily status report refers to a number of leaks 4 from the pressurizer. In addition, he says the make-up tank r, level transmitter isn't working again. Now, that's two shif ts I l 6 that has recognized the problem with the level transmitter. 7+ You are certain that you to the best of your recollections to-8 day you cannot recall any problem with that level transmitter 9 back in '787 to A I don't recall specific prob 1ces with the u level transmitter, no. 12 Q The 0700 shif t on January 2 issues a num-la ber of RWPs. There is an RWP to go inside the D Ring to check it steam leaks. Do you recall back in '78 -- sorry, that's n January of '79 a problem with leaks from the pressurizer 16 occurring in the early part of January and continuing on 17 through January? 1A A No. 19 ! Q Did you ever have occasion to go inside the go ! D Ring yourself to look for leaks? h 23 il MS. Petit 1Y: You mean during this period?
, ,3 MR. WINTER: During this period.
33 q Tile WITNESS: I was inside the D Ring, but i
;n l I can't renember whether it was Unit I or Unit II. I don't 3, recall. As an aux operator I might have gonn in, but not as CAPITe( OTY 7EFCRTING SEINCF we., a cr:ms v;"toi siwv.
1 12 4 2 a control room operator. 3 Q That shift does not obtain a leak rate. 4 Your shift comes on at 1500 and also for the second time in 5 a row does not obtain a leak rate. Now, how often if you can , l 6 recall would it be that you would have two shifts where you l l 7 wouldn't obtain a leak rate? L 8 A Well, we might have gotten a leak rate, but 1 l- 9! it might have been thrown away. I don't know. We normally 10 -- if there's nothing going on, we usually have a leak rate 11 sent.in to the computer. I 12 l Q And it is my recollection from our discus-13 sion last week that this would occur even if you believed you ) It had plant leakage? , 11 A Yes sir. 16 Q Would it occur -- would discarding a leak i rate test occur even if you could not quantify the leakage 17l is that you knew er.isted? 'l n 10 'y j A I can't remember some of the circu:tstances. ; 20 If we had -- if we were able to quantify the amount of leakage ! t 21 j and added it in as identified leakage, I dor.'t know why we , i ! 22 ,wouldn't stick it in the computer and as -- there w:>uldn't be l l i ! 23 lnb reason not to. It doesn't make sense. l 2 Q Well, t. hat's not, my question now. Let's , 25 ' assume you have located leakage, but you haven't quantified it l CAN CW roomc SErMCE j g,.v r;, i n m v..ca y n y. l
1 13 2 for one reason or another and at the .same time you ran a leak 3 rate test and you got above one gpm., would you discard-that.
.4- leak rate test?
5 A I could tell you what I would do now. No,. l 6 we. keep all our paperwork.
-. Back then I cannot tell ycu whether) 7 we would or whether we would not. We frequently left numerous 8 leak rates on the computer or said, : you know, tell the fore-9 man we didn't'get a leak rate. It's'possible --~unfortunately !
to- .we did discard some leak rates where we -- you know, maybe we 11 could have identified the leakage and added the knownleakage 12 on to the leak' rate, la Q Well -- 1t A I can't -- 15 Q I take your answer and you correct me'if I l: 16 am not understanding you properly. Okay? I believe you said 17 that at~this point you don't recall, but.it is possible that 18 you obtained leak rates above one gpm. and when you had not l 19 .been able to quantify leakage and still discard it? l L 20 A That's.possible. There are a lot of things 21 going on in the plant and back then unfortunately, again, leak l 33 rates maybe to us weren't the most important thing in the p 33 worldoratthatparticularmomentandnowit'smuchdifferent.! 21 BY MS. PENNY: 33 Q But you are not disputing the fact that leak CAPITAL CITY REPORTING SEfNICE rm.uriu frofw s.urg swgo
1 1 14 2 rates over one gpm. were discarded? 3 A No, I am not disputing that. 4 BY MR. WlNTER: 5 Q And you are not disputing the fact that they , ) 6 in fact, may have been discarded when you weren't sure of the 7 amount of leakage that existed? 8 A That's possible, yes. 9 Q 1/4 on the 2300 shift they do obtain a leak to rate and in the daily status report Zewe writes two things. 11 We got a good leak rate and the second is INC to work make-up 12 tank level transmitter. Again, is there any recollection la that you have of being concerned with INC not taking care of it the level transmitters so you can do your job , anything that is i refreshes your recollection in that regard? I 16l A I don't remember that specific problem with 17 the level transmitter, ix Q On 1/5 POD meeting there is a note on the 19 minutes, Now, I have been advised by others that basically 20 l you may not be aware of this, the Operations people controlled 21 the POD meetings. They take the notes and control the agenda, gg In there is a note if surveillance out of spec., keep old
. ,3 sheet and prove deficiency and not that test was missed. Do 24 you recall --
33 A And? CARTAL OTY REFORTING SEfMCE rewsp a rmcom occ swm
1 15-
-2 Q- And not that test was missed. Do you recall 3 'any instructions from your supervisors during that period of' 4 time, January of 1979, that you were not to discard leak rate. ;
5 tests?
\
6 A- No. ! 7 Q Do you recall any instructions about'the. 1 8 necessity to file E and Ds with. leak rate tests? 9 A No, to Q On 1/6 your shift runs a leak rate, 11 MS, PENNY: What shift is that? 12 MR. WINTER: That's the 2300 shift. la BY MR. WINTER: 1: Q Joe Chwastyk in his morning report cautions la people to watch the pressurizer and writes D H R 9 B weld leak 16 getting worse. Have engineering look at it. And this has 17 been identified as the relief valve on the make-up pump suc-l 18 tion. I believe you acntioned sonething about that last week 19 Do you recall what .that was -- that problem? 20 A No. 21 MS, PENNY: Who's on that leak rate 1/6/79 from Ted's shift, 2300, 22 MR. WINTER: Kidwell is the performer and 33 23 Conaway is on the log. 25 MS PENNY: Conaway-is on the log? CAPITAL OTY REPCMING SEFMCE cweu rUNm. toe smire
1-16 f 2 MR. WINTER: Right. 3 MR. PENNY: The performer? MR. WINTER: I am sorry. ( Kidwell is both ! 3 the performer and the log. ti BY MR. WINTER: i Q Now, based on our expert, this tes t was rim on I { s the bad transmitter. There is the identified area -- identi- l 9 fled leakage area there is no Data Sheet 3 filed for D 11 R 9 B , to If you can, tell me why would that be if it has been identi-11 fied as leaking and has not been counted for in the leak rate i2 ! test? n A
, I can tell you again what we would do today.
it f! 5 would quantify it. Apparently it should have been done or,
- l i r, if it was done, the paperwork wasn't kept. I can't give you h
in a good reason why it wasn't kept or why it wasn't done, c Q You performed the next leak race test on 4 is !! 1/ 7. i l! I l in1 I MS. PENNY: What shift is that again? 2n ! MR. WINTER: 2300
\ {
31 : BY MR. WINTER: I. gg Q And you obtained a favorable result. Joe { g3 Chwastyk writes in his turnover D 11 R 9 B leak worse, putting 3;[maskingtapeonit. You don't account for that in the leak i I
]
- 3. , i rate test.
You don't account for that leak. I take it it i CAP!!AL Oiv I?FfG?TNG SEfMCf ( nas; s. . r . nc vs v. .a ver v.
1 17 2 would have been your practice to account for it based on what 3 you have told me? 4 A Well, it should have been. I I r, Q Do you have any explanation today as to why o you did not? 7 A No, but I can say that that should have been s accounted for and, as you say, we had paperwork to insert 9 that into the leak rate and identify it. 10 Q Now, we have gone through basically all the 11 leak rate tests run in '78 and ' 79 and we find very few Data 12 Sheet 3s filed for identified leakage. Did you believe it to la be the practice to file thoue kinds of -- the data sheets for 11 identified leakage or was it, in fact, not the practice? i, A I don't remember specifically what the 16 practice was as far as the data sheet. I myself don't remem-17 ber filing Data Sheet 3. la Q Now, you obtained a negative unidentified w leak. rate result on this test. I believe it's .2. I am 20 going to ask you to look at the shift and dailies, look at the 21 number of sump pump starts and tell me whether you could be-lieve based on that that the negative results you got was, 23 g in fact, accurate? 23 A You are talking about Kidwell. He logged 2, one start from 11:00 to 7:00. It took one starc so you milti-CAPliAL OTY pef 0RilNG SEfMCE 1 m .v v u m m .. x. m s w o .
1 18 , 2 ply 28 cubic feet times 7.48 gallons per cubic feet. So that 3 is, say, around about 7 times 3 -- about 210 gallons approx-4 imately for pump starts. I 3 Q So how many sump pump starts would be I i 6 necessary then for you to be concerned? ) l 7 A There was only one on that shift. i l ) 1 8 Q Right. So if you look at that, you would i 9 not have been concerned? 10 A Yes, I would have been concerned. 11 Q Why? 12 A I would want to know whether we had 200 ja gallons that we don't know where it's coming from.
- i. Q So are you saying that with one -- if you ;
la were running a test -- tu A If I knew the level was coming up in the , t 17 sump and I didn't know where it was cotaing from, I would want is to know where it was coming from. , 19 Q And one sump pump start would be enough to i 20 make you feel that way? gi BY MS PENNY: l l 22 Q Do you recall your practice, Ted? l 1 l A No, I don't recall my practice. I am telling ! g4 you what I do now. a BY MR. WINTER: l C-P!N CW REFORTING SEfMCE l w .u 4 un_ 9 c. swco l
1 19 2 Q Do you recall using the sump to get an 3 indication of what you might consider to be leakage problens 4 back then? 5 A I can remember counting the sumps on the 1 6 computer, but I don't recall the -- you know, relating it 7 directly to a problem that we had. Sure, if we had a signi-8 ficant amount of sump pumps, like one a shift, all I can tell 9 you is what now I would want to go in and find out where the 10 leak is coming from and identify it. 11 Q Is there any reason you believe you would 12 have felt any different back in 19787 la A I don't know whether it was -- if it was 11 identifled or not, but -- well, I just said I would have felt j 15 the same way. IG Q So with a negative result if you had known IT the number of sump pump starts, which was one, what would you id have felt about the negative result as to its accuracy? 19 A If it was a ner,ative result, I don't believe 20 now that's very accurate. 21 Q Do you have any idea what you would have 22 believed back then, back in 1978 '79? 23 A I could say I should have felt that it , et wasn't very accurate, but I don't remember. I know I signed l 25 leak rates that were greater than one and ones that were j
\
CtATAt OTY REPOQilNG SErMCE rws u mm vwi swoi l
1 20 2 negative. I mean, I did the leak rate. 1 3 Q Well, do you really believe whether or not 4 you cared whether it was accurate or not as long as it was 5 below one gpm.? Did you really care? l o A I cared about the -- I would -- it was my 7 job to be concerned.about -- 8 Q I am not asking you if you cared about 9 whether the plant was leaking. I am talking about the test to result. Okay? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Did you really care about that result as la long as it was below one gpm,7 Did you care much about its la accuracy? It's not the same thing about whether or not you j 15 cared whether the plant was leaking, tu A You are asking a question about, you know, l i 17 how I felt six years ago and I would want to say that I did 14 care, but 1 don't specifically remember what my feelings were 19 as far as one way or another about the leak rate. 1 I 20 Q The next shift on 1/7 has three as you have 21 -- as you saw -- had three sump pump starts and in the A0 log ) 22 the A0 writes tried to stop leak on D H R 9 B with more tape 2a with no success. So apparently that leak is still occurring 24 and perhaps getting worse, j j 25 A That sounds ridiculous. CMITAt Oiv TsormNG SErMCE c u un ~ w swm
1 21 2 Q What sounds ridiculous? 3 A Trying to stop a leak on a make-up pump 4 suction with tape. 5 Q Explain to me why you think that would be I i 6 ridiculous? 7 A Because you have an over pressure in a 8 make-up tank and the suction line is down in the make-up 9 valley and high pressure tape or whatever kind of tape they 10 used would never stop a leak such as that. I am not sure 11 exactly where you are saying where the relief valve was. 12 Q So in your opinion -- 13 A I mean, that doesn't matter where it was it on that pipe, the tape is not going to stop a leak. 1> Q So your opinion of the remedy that was tu chosen was at best a poor one? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Again, there is no leak rate obtained on 19 the 1500 shif t of January 7 and we get to January 8, 2300 20 shift, which is yours, and you obtain a successful leak rate. l 21 Now, again , this is -- you get a negative unidentified leakage l 22 of .5. Chwastyk writen in his daily report D R 119 B weld 33 leak getting worse and there is an indication that he wants 24 it brought to POD's attention. lie refers to other leaks as-23 getting worse in his daily report. On the leak rate test where CAPITAt OTY REPORIING SEWCE cuf.r; t. rn.acco n swa,
1 22 2 it indicates identified leakage there is no leakage other 3 than the RC drain tank identified leakage indicating that no 4 data sheet is filled out for the weld leak, which apparently 5 is getting worse, or any of the other leaks which Chwastyk is 6 referring to. 7 Does this help refresh your recollection 8 as to basically what yotrattitude and perhaps the attitude 9 of others was in respect to filling out those sheets? 10 A As I say we did fill them out, but I don't 11 know why they didn't put the leakage on the make-up tank or 12 on the make-up punp suction line. 1 l 13 MR GEPHART: Who did that leak rate? 1: MR. UINTER: That if -- the performer is la Mel and you are on the log, 16 MR. GEPilART: And do I understand that
,i '
17 1 Chwestyk reported to Reading two things, one that he had a 18 leak getting worse and we also have a negative leak rate? 19 MR. WINTER: And he also reported a negative en leak rate, that's right. 21 MR. GEPHART: And that was reporte3 to l 22 Reading? 2 MR. WINTER: That's right. Well, let's -- i ei that was put on Chwastyk's turnover. 23 MR. GEPHART: What did he report to Reading? CAPliAL CW REPOQTING $UMCE cm o u rrsw ecm e v ON
1 23 2 He had to report the negative leak rate. 3 MR. WINTER: That's correct, but it's not
. necessarily the turnover went to Reading.
5 MS. PENNY: On the front page of the daily i 6 report, isn't there space for.that -- for the leak rate? i 7 MR. WINTER: But not for the turnover. i 8 MS. PENNY: No. 9 MR. WINTER: -- the notes. lo MS. PENNY: But the actual fact that they 11 made the leak rate would be on the front page of the turnover? la MR WINTER: That's correct, but the infor-la mation on the leakage may or may not have gone to Reading, i 11 MR. GEPHART: But Reading was aware that 13 there was a negative leak rate, right? 16 MR. WINTER: That may be the case. IT MR. GEPHART: Well. I mean, it would be righ is on the front of the Reading report because the leak rate is 19 put on that daily -- the last leak rate. 20 MR. WINTER: This goes to Reading and Read-21 ing is aware of it. ( 33 BY MR. WINTER: 3 Q In any event, does this refresh your recol-21 lection as to your attitude or perhaps the attitude of others 33 as to the data sheet -- the necessity of filling out a data C&lTAL CITV REkCRTING Sf rMCE cci.uo u ncun c en vecs
i 24 2 sheet for identified leakage and accounting for it in a leak a rate test? 1 A You are apparently saying we did fill one 3 out , but we didn' t count the make-up tank suction. o Q There is no identification whatsoever on 7 this leak rate test. g A I thought on the leak rate test you said we 9 did fill one out, but it -- 10 MS, PENNY: For RCDT. 11 THE UITNESS: Yes. 12 MR. WINTER: That is accounted for by the la computer. The data sheet is for other than the RC drain tank, in MS, PENNY: Oh, I misunderstood that too. I l 13 thought there was a data sheet for this. l 1 MR. WINTER: I think we went through this laf. l 17 with the procedures last week. Data Sheet 4 for water ai t d j j l 18 Data Sheet 3 for unidentified leakage and there is no data l l 19 sheet for this identified leakage nor was there in the last go leak rate test the day before. 21 BY MR. WINTER: ,,., Q My question is -- i I ! g3y MS PENNY: There is no data sheet whatso-l 33 ever. 33 IDt. MINTER: There is no data sheet whatso-CMtiti Cliv r?EFO7 TING SEfMCE w //>u notrn w r 9.vv:
I 25 { 2 ever. 3 BY MR, WINTER: 4 Q My question is what was your attitude and 5 what was the attitude of others as to the necessity to fill 6 out and account for that identified leakage in the leak rate 7 test? 1 8 A As I said before, I don't remember what the 9 attitude was. Apparently if they are not on file and it's 10 very posible that I didn't fill it out, it's also possible 11 that I did fill it out, but I know I should have filled it 12 out. l ! 13 BY MR. GEPHART: I 11 Q Uell, should you have filled it out if you in didn't perform the leak rate? I 16 i A If he would have asked me to fill one out 17 or, you know, maybe I was running the plant and -- 18 BY MR WINTER: 19 Q Ted, all I am trying -- I am not at this 20 point saying you should have filled out this data sheet. I am 21 trying to show you leak rate tests that were run on your 22 shift and demonstrate to you that they were not complying with 23 the requirements -- the procedural requirements to account for n identified leakage. I am trying to get from you, if you know, 25 what the attitude was in respect to that. CAPliAt CITV REFOQTING SErMCE
;w.p u w w cries swo:
1 26 2 A I would have to -- I could make an assumption 3 of what I think what the attitude was. 4 Q Well, when you say what you think the 5 attitude was, is it your recollection of what you believe the o attitude was back in 1978 '797 7, A I don't remember what my attitude was. All 8 I could say is if we e.pparently -- if it wasn't filled out, o it must have been as a possible reason that we didn't have 10 time, it was, as before, the leak rate wasn't our focus area. 11 We didn't focus on that as the most important thing in the 12 plant and we should have put up more of the importance on la that. That's the assumptions that I could tell you. 11 , BY MS, PENNY: 15 Q Did you ever recall feeling that you should tu not fill these out, that you should be deliberately concealing 17 leakage, that you didn't want to bring leakage to someone's is attention? 19 A No ma'am. 20 BY MR. WINTER: 21 Q On January 9 your shift, the 2300 shift, 23 does not file a leak rate. The sump is put on a monitor -- 33 is put on a computer and is being monitored. I am going to 3 show you a copy of the shift and daily for January 9, ask you 23 to look at it and specifically the portion that pertains to CAPITAL CITV r/EPOr/ TING SErMCE con m o cew. <;:m v:xs
1 27 2 the' sump pump starts and give me your opinion as to what you 3 would glean'from that in respect to plant leakage? 4 A 'It's three starts on our shift.- Definitely 5 cause for concern. I e Q Would you run a leak rate to assist you - . ( 7 A I can answer you now. I should have run a 1 8- . leak rate. 9 Q Would it have been your practice back in to '79 to run a leak rate on a shift -- on your shift? 11 A Yes. 12 Q If I don't find a leak rate for your shift, l l n can I assume that one was run and discarded? l ti A I would say it's possible. I am not sure
'15 that we did run one.
16 -Q On the 0700 shift -- 17 MS, PENNY: 1/10/70? l 18 BY MR. WINTER: 1 19 Q 1/9/79 there is a supplemental work list at 20 the POD meeting for three leaks or leaks. in three valves in 21 the pressurizer, R C V 135, R C V 133, and 134 B. Do you know I' I 22 what they are, by the way,- those -- 23 A I do now. 2, Q Did you know back then what- they were? - 2,( A I should have because they are on a -- CAPITAL OTY REPORTING SEfMCF coute o rrrwA sr>m swm
1 28 l 2 Q If those valves are not fixed and 1/10 on 3 the 2300 shift you run a leak rate -- 4 MS. PENNY: You mean his shift? 5 MR. WINTER: Right. 6 BY MR WINTER: 1 7 Q Strike you run a leak rate. Your shift runs ! l 8 a leak rate. The leak rate obtained is .83 unidentified leak-9 age. I would like you to look at the shif t and daily sur-to veillance checks and specifically that area that pertains to 11 the sump pump starts and let me know your opinion as to prob-12 lems with plant leakage? I tal A That's a problem. Four sump starts. 1 li ! Q That would tell you there is a problem with l la plant leakage? 10 A Yes, if we identified it as coming from the 17l RCS. i lx Q The leak rate test which was run on your 19 shift does not account for any of the leakage from the en pressurizer valves mentioned on 1/9 nor does it account for 21 any leakage from the make-up pump valve, which apparently is 22 still continuing. You indicated before that you did not be-23 lieve that there was any attempt or intention to hide plant 23 leakage. This particular test not only doesn't account for i 23 the make-up pump suction leak, it now fails to account and creTt.t c:N RErormNG SErNCE m, >g - ; n.w ec. m wm _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .J
1 29 2 identify any leakage from the pressurizer. Do you have any. 3 explanation as to why that would occur?
. A No, but I don't believe we're hiding leak- (
)
5 age. It was being logged. You could tell from the make-up 6 tank level, you could tell from the amount of water that was I 7 going into the RCS. 8 Q Could you tell -- 9 A By the number of sump pump starts it was to obvious we had a problem. You brought it up a couple of 11 times in the POD -- about POD. I wasn't part of that meeting, 12 but -- ever, la Q Could you tell from any of those sources 11 that you just mentioned whether or not. you were within the in one gpm. limit required by the tech, specs.? 16 A You could do it roughly. In other words -- h 17 Q Could you be assured that you were specifi-18 cally within the one gpm. tech spec. limits frota any one of 19 those sources? 20 A Any one, no. 21 Q Excluding the leak rate test, from any of l 22 them? 23 A Well, you could take the sump level and see 2.i how much time it took to change the sump level as long as you 25 were assured that all the water going in the sump was from the CAPITAL CITY RERDPIING SEfMCE umt n u rt:m, sevm swm
1 30 f 2 RCS and not from -- h 3 Q llow could you be assured of that? j l 4 A You would have to isolate the rest of the j 5 sources. } ) 6 Q So are you saying to me that by virtue of l 7 your answer, are you saying that you would have to do all of 4 8 those things to possibly come up with a one gpm.? 9 A Yes, or you could take an activity level lo and measure the activity of the suup against the -- in other 11 words, the chemistry in the sump and the chemistry in the 12 RCS was the same, you could be reasonably assured that the la water is coming from the RCS, u What you are asking is do we have anything 15 else? I 1" MS, PENNY: To do it with. I IT THE WITNESS: To do it with, no, that it was l 18 accurate. 19 BY MR WINTER: en Q My question is, therefore, i s it not a fact 21 that you could not be assured under those circumstances that 33 you were within the tech. spec. limits of one gpm.? 23 A Say that again. 1 34 Q Given what you have just said -- 25 A Yes. CEL C:ry RUcrniNG SErMCE to^e .u yrs.1 coien swm l j
1 31 2 Q -- isn't it a fact that you could not be 3 assured that you were within the tech, spec limits of L vfspecificallyonegpm.? 5 A From other than taking a leak rate on the 6 computer, we couldn't be assured, no. f 7 Q All right. On 2/12/79 the 1500 shift you 8 ran a leak rate test and, when I say you, your shift runs -- 9 gets a successful leak rate test. The performer is Kidwell 10 and you are on the log, which I take it to mean normally you
- ) would be the person adding water, if necessary, and hydrogen 12 during the course of your shift. Is that correct?
la A Yes. 11 Q The leak rate obtained is a .89 and there is is an allegation that there was water added during the course Iti of the leak rate test. I am going to ask you to look at the 17 chart, look at your log and advise me why water should or 18 might be added during the course of that test? to The t.:st occurs between the two dots on the en chart. 21 A You want to know why? MS, PENNY: Look at your log, 21 23 BY MR WINTER: 24 Q If you can tell me? 3., THE WITNESS: What time was that? CAPITAL CITY RERDI? TING SEfMCE cony.n u nomce sr.wt smyya
l 1 32 2 MS. PENNY: It's on the log. 3 TIIE WITNESS: 2255. 4 MR. GEPilART: Look at your leak rate and 5 get the time of your leak rate off the back first. 6 TIIE WITNESS: We secured spraying down the 7 pressurizer. It could be that we had started and stopped a 8 couple of times and I see before that though we added quite 9 a bit of water there at 1750 and we had to add additional to amount of water. The coincidence of securing spraying down 11 of the pressurizer could be that our control rod band was 12 reached and we had to put water in in order to compensate I la for that in a short amount of time, but it should have been 11 logged as adding however much and it wasn't put on the leak 15 rate either. No operator caused changes. 16 BY MR. WINTER: 17 Q I take it that definitely appears to you to 18 be a water addition? 19 A It looks like a water addition. 20 Q And it is not logged nor does it appear on 21 the leak rate test. 32 N mi , what do you believe to be a reascn -- 23 if you can tell me, based on reviewing the logs and a review ei of that chart, what do you believe the reason to be for adding 23 the water? CAPITAL Criy REfGrmNG SEfMCE w:nv v mm y.wy swm
1 33 2 A To compensate for control rod position. i 3 Q I take it that -- ( 4 A In other words, when the rods get all the 5 way out -- ( a Q I understand. I 7 A -- you have to add demineralized water. ! 8 Q I understand what you are saying. I, there-1 9 fore, take it that your view of that chart does not indicate i 10 that the make-up tank level is in such an area that it had to 11 be replenished? 12 A It's possibly that it would before the end la of the leak rate. la Q At the time you added water? tri A Yes. ) 16 MR. GEPIIART: No, at the time you added thw l 17 water, What was the lower end of your band, do you recall? Is Tile WITNESS: Sixty. 19 MR. GEPilART: At the time you added the water l 2n you weren't near sixty. By the time you finished the leak 21 rate you would have been just a little below sixty. 33 BY MR, WINTER: 33 Q What is your answer as to why -- 34 A Well, I said, one, due to the controi rods. 3, It could have been misinformation since I was on the panel CAP!TM CIN REEORTING SFINCE vavp / u ct y % toin,E s Mon
1 34 2 and I didn't know we started the leak rate yet that I wanted 3 to get enough water in there so he would have no water addi- ) 4 tion until the end of the leak rate. l 5 Q Is that you recollection or -- I ! 6 A That's not -- that's what I am surmising. l 7 MS. PENNY: You are surmising. These are { 8 all assumptions. I i i 9 BY MR. WINTER: 10 Q I show you a test dated 2/17/79, you were 11 the performer and you were the person who is on the log. 12 Before I show you this test, let me ask you la something. Were you aware, if you can recall, back in Febru-I 11 ary a particular problem with relief valves the end of Febru-15 ary and part of March before the accident, problems with the 16 relief valves from the pressurizer that was increasing the 17 volume in the drain tank -- reactor coolant drain tank? Do 18 you recall that? 19 A Yes, I remember something like that. 20 Q Do you recall whether that was causing a 21 specific problem in getting good Icak rates? 22 A That would have been identified when the i 23 drain tank level went up, so -- 21 MS. PENNY: That's not the question. 25 THE WITNESS: I am trying to think. CAPITAL C!Tv r<EFORTING SErNCE con 49u mvw sax $ m vu
1 35 2 MS. PENNY: Was it causing a problem. , 3 THE WITNESS: Okay. Now, I don _'t know if 1 -- I know sometime there is -- I don't know when I learned 5 about this, whether it was before or after the accident. I , 6 think it was afterwards that we did a change to the campera-7 ture compensation in the drain tank. I am not -- I don't 8 recall. 9 BY=MR. WINTER: 10 Q- Do you recall any conplaints by Operations 11 people about the fact that the volume in the RC drain tank was 12 causing a problem getting good leak rate test results? The amount -- the increase is volume in the drain tank. Do you
~
la 11 recall. any complaints back in 1978 about that or any requests 15 to have that -- to have the leak rate test procedure corrected in to .. 17 A 1 remember something being done to the leak 18 rate procedure about the drain tank, but I don't remember 19 specifically what it was. 20 Q I show you this test dated 2/17/79. You 21 were the performer, you were also apparently handling the
; 22 panel. Hydrogen was added shortly before the end of the test.
2a It's logged by the AO. It is not in the CR0 log. Now, I take 21 it you had responsibility to put such an addition in the log?. 25 A It should have been my responsibility, yes. CAPITAL. CITY REPCMING SEfMCE rnAvo u 'MrsA " mar 4 SWm
,, , s3
l 1 36 J 2 Q Who has the responsibility to request ) I 3 hydrogen to be added? 4 A It should be the CRO, but if -- 5 Q Which CRO? I ) 6 A The CR0 on the log, but it could be one of l 7 the others if they were taking the readings and noticed the ) 8 level or the pressure was down low, i ! l ) 9 Well, I understand anybody as I think we Q 10 talked about last week that anybody has the authority to do 11 anything in the control room, but normally, as you have indi-12 cated tumerous times in the past, it is the person on the I la panel who has control over that situation. 1 1: A That's true norually. 1 1> Q And this is basically is what Aos say, they 16 say they receive their instructions from the person on the IT panel. On 2/17 that would have been you. 18 A Yes, apparently. 19 Q I ask you to look at the strip chart, un specifically the area where the hydrogen is indicated as being 21 added and you let me know whether or not you see a rise in the 33 make-up tank level? 3.; MR. GFPRART: Do you have anything to indi-2; cate when the request was made to the aux operator to add the 1 25 hydrogen and whether or not the aux operator then reported ! CARi4 ClN PEFOfMNG SEfMCE c u .< ..,, n r
,c 4 pm;
i 37 2 back to the control room that the hydrogen was added? 3 MR. WINTER: Well, we are talking to a num-4 ber of A0s and we have some indication as to when and what 5 time period elapsed between requests, but for this purpose I 6 want him to look at this -- at the chart -- and let me know -- T if he recognizes an increase in make-up tank level at the e; point where it 2.s added. 9 BY MR WINTER: to Q And, again, Ted, it's in between the two _ 11 dots is where the test is performed on the chart. I 12 j A It says that the A0 logged -- I don't see a la specific increase in overall -- in other words, compared to la some of the other ups and downs of'the make-up tank level, but 15 I it says log -- A0 log hydrogen addition is at the lowest point , - 16 If that's -- you know, it took a down dip and then it took 17; an up dip. ._ l in Q Do you see an increase at the end of the -- 19 test? eo li A There is an increase in the end of the test just before the dot. 21 22 Q llow many gallons would you say there is an g increase at the end of the test? g[ I A Well, it's a down swing and then an up swing, 23 it's all one curvation, whatever you want to call it. CAPITR OTY REPORTING SEfNCE _ cowr u rarm sown swoN
i i 1 38 2 Q I von't dispute with you at this point. I ! 3 just want to know how many gallons you see increased at the 4 end of the test? 5 A Approximately 120 gallons, but there was , 6 a decrease of 120 gallons just before that. l 7 Q !!y next question is do you believe that 8 would affect the leak rate test? l I 9 A I know now that hydrogen addition affects l l 10 the leak rate test. Back then I did not know, 11 Q Looking at that chart, do you believe the l i 12 increase at the end of the test would have an effect on the la test results? i: A If it increased, it's going to have to have i r, an effect on the end of the results -- on the results if it i to increased. l IT Q The answer is yes? 18 A Well, it would have an affect. 19 Q The answer is yes? en A Yen. 21 Q Now, last week, Ted, I believe you said that gg it was practice to log hydrogen additions? g3 A Yes. 34 Q Why in this case, if you can tell me, wasn't 33 that done? CAPIA! C!N REfGRiltG SErMCE aa.fg o men wea swoN
l 1 39 2 A To my recollection the method of adding ( 3 hydrogen you could tell the A0 when and tell him that we
)
4 needed hydrogen and it was up to him when he got it done 5 within a reasonable amount of time. In other words, he knew l 6 we needed hydrogen and he --
]
7 Q That's not my question, Ted. My question 8 is why, since it was your practice to log hydrogen addition , . 9 wasn't it done in this case? 10 A Well, I am saying that it's possible that it the A0 didn't tell me and I forgot to log it or he called up 12 to the control room and told somebody else and he forgot to n tell me. I should have noticed it on -- you know, you have a 11 pressure indication there -- 15 Q You mean the A0 forgot to tell you when he in completed what had been asked? I A It should have been logged. Okay. It's 18 possible that, as you said, he could have forgot to tell me 19 when he completed it being added. ! 20 Q But under any circumstance he would have 21 received his instruction to do it frora -- 22 A But the time. 2a Q -- the control roon. Is that correct? 24 A Yes, but he didn't -- he wouldn't get a es specific time to add it. CAP IAL OTY PERJRTING SEfulCE co^e u rirm SC'r4 Stea.
1 40 2 Q I understand that that's possibly the case, 3 but be would have received the instruction from the control 4 room, correct? 5 A Yea, he should have received the instruction 6 from the control room. 7 Q And he would have under normal circumstances 8 received that instruction from the person on the panel? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Now, since you were on the panel and you wera 11 the performer, why would you ask for hydrogen to be added dur-12 ing the course of a leak rate test that you were running? n MR. GEPIIART: If, in fact, you did ask. 1: Tile WITNESS: When did I ask him? Was it is before or after the test, I don't know. 16 BY MR. WINTER: 17 Q Well, under any circumstance would you ask is for him to add it during the course of a test? 19 A I shouldn't have. As far -- I didn't -- at 20 that time time know that hydrogen had an effect on make-up 21 tank level. 22 Q Now, we went through these last week, but 33 there are two tests run on the 19th and these are the two tests 3 in which there are hydrogen addition allegations. You arc on 25 the control panel for both. This is the same day in which Joe CAPITAL COV REfGRTihG SErMCE cow.o u uw. net soua,
, v -
1 41 2 Chwastyk writes in his daily report that you get a good leak 3 rate at 60 inches when you add hydrogen. Only one of these 4 tests is logged. 5 MS. PENNY: You mean hydrogen is logged on 6 only one? 7 MR. WINTER: No, only one of these test is 8 filed. Only one of these tests is reported on the daily re-9 port to -- 10 MS PENNY: Oh, they were both filed? 11 MR. WINTER: Yes, on the daily report to 12 Reading. la off the record. la (Discussion off the record.) 15 BY MR. WINTER: 16 Q Why would two leak rate tests be run on the 17 same day, back-to-back on the same shift? 18 A As I said before, we had -- if the computer 19 wasn't in use, we put a leak rate in on it. If it's all -- 20 what it did I would assume is to shorten the time in which the 21 72-hour clock would be reached where we would be required to 22 shut down. 23 Q Now, as you know and we have gone through 24 this before, Joe Chwastyk said he believed he ran an experi . 2, ment shortly after he believes you came to him and told him CAPITAL CIN REFORTING SEfNCE com u Ferna ramt smoN
1 42 1 2 what could be done when you added hydrogen during the course 3 of a leak rate test. Now, you are the person on the panel 4 for both of these tests. If hydrogen was to be added in the 5 second test, you nornally would be the person instructed when l l 0 to add it. Isn't that correct? j 7 A If I was on the panel, yes, in the log as 8 you would say, l 9 Q And it's still your belief that you were l 10 not aware back then of what the effect of hydrogen on a leak l 11 rate test? l 12 A Yes sir. la Q And you do not recall partaking in any l 1i experiment with Joe Chwastyk? j 15 A No, in MR WINTER: I have no more questions. 17 (The deposition adjourned at 5:34 p.m.) is *** 1 i 19 I hereby certify that the proceedings and 20 evidence taken by me in the within matter are fully and I 21 accurately indicated in my notes and that this is a true l 33 and correct transcript of same. l l Mf CV%l 24 !ary/A nn $lill / i 25 Il j t CANAL CRY REPORilNG SEfMCE l (WN.M] u HM M sr.umi swo,
h , T 4
, i JENKINS, DWAYNE 8/17/83 Statement to NRC s
h Place: Tli! Date: 8/17/83 STATEMENT (typed copy of original) I, Dwayne B. Jenkins, hereby make the following voluntary statement to R. K. Christopher who has' identified himself to me as an Investigator with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I make this statement freely with no threats rf promises of reward having been made to me. As background information I have been employed at Tli! since 1977 primarily as a mechanical engineer in Unit 2 plant engineering. I had no direct involvement in the leak rate program in Unit 2 as my work involved other areas which included general plant support to operations and maintenance departments as assigned (by) my lead mechanical engineer or super-sisor. I have no direct knowledge of operators adding Hydrogen or water to the make-up tank for the purpose of manipulating leak rate test results nor am I aware of any supervisory involved in such activities. I am not aware of any plant personnel rounding off leak rate test results nor throwing away test results. I do not remember any requests being made to the reading load dispatcher for plant power reduction as a result of excessive leak rate. I have read the foregoing statement consisting of 2 handwritten / typed pages. I have made and initialed any necessary corrections and have signed my name in ink in the margin of each page. This statement is the truth to the best of my knowledge and belief. I declare under penalty of perjury that the fore-going is true and correct. Executed on 8/17/83 at 10:30. INTERVIEWEE: Original signed by Dwayne B. Jenkins Subscribed and sworn to before me this 17th day of Aug 1983, a: 10:30 Ri. INVESTIGATOR: Original signed by R. K. Christopher 8/17/83 I
)
l K L E I N FEl,TER , RICilARD 8/3/83 Statement to NRC D e e e s - 0 D m____. _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .
. .o f
1 Place: TMI-1 Date: 8-3-83 STATEMENT , (typed copy of original) I, Richard G. Kleinfelter, hereby make the following voluntary statement to R.
' - F. Christopher. who has identified himself to me as an Investigator with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission. I make this' statement freely with no
- threats-or promises of reward having been made to me.
I am an I&C first class. Tech and.have been in that position for three years.
- During the time of 1978 to 1979 time period I was an Aux operator "B" fon "E" Shift. '(Sup.. B. Smith) (Foreman D. Hoyt) During the time frame of 1978 &
1979 I was never involved in a leak rate test. (sic) I have on occasion.added Hydrogen to the make-up tank and only under'the-directions of a licensed operator who were Ray Booker or Hal Hartman. The Shif t Supervisors never told me to add Hydrogen. Since I'never new (sic) they
- were doing leak rate testing I never new (sic) if I was adding Hydrogen when leak-test was being performed at that time. I did not know Hydrogen effected ~
the level . I have no knowledge that Hydrogen was added for the . express purpose of affecting' leak rate tests. And no knowledge that management was involved with leak rate testing. With regards to any water additions I do not know if water was ever added to-falsify leak rate tests, but licensed operators did know what additions were made tc make-up tk. that ccmputer could not see, throu5h minimum " batch" si:es that comp would not log. In other-words the operators on my shift new (sic) that by adding small amounts of water at a time the computer wculd not record these additions. This understanding comes from general discussions held in-ccn.re; rccm, u.c nc; frcm ar) specific kr.cwiedge cf incidents. I'have read the foregoing statement consisting of 2 handwritten pages. I have made and initialed any necessary corrections and have signed my name in ink in y the margin of each page. This statement is the truth to the best of my _=_- = _ _ _ ._- _ __ _______________ -
knowledge and belief. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing f is true and correct. Executed on 8-3-83 at 0920. INTERVIEWEE: Original signed by Richard G. Kleinfelter Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3rd day of Aus,1983 at 092E. INVESTIGATOR: Original signed by R. K. Christopher l l 4 1 l l 4 I I 1
@ i
.\
(
-(
L 1 K0lIL , IIENR Y 8/3/83 Statement to NRC t I
- r. .
STATEMENT (typed copy of original) I, Henry M. Kohl, hereby make the following voluntary statement to R. K. Christopher and P. J. Connolly who has (sic) identified themselves to me as an Investigator with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I make this statement freely with no threats or promises of reward having been made to me. Investigator Christopher is writing this statement for me at my request.
.I am currently an Auxilliary (sic) Operator A at TMI-2 and I have been in this position since Oct. 1978. I was primarily assigned to the D shift during the 1978 and 1979 time period.
I have never been directly involved in the performance of a RCS leak rate test during my employment at TMI. I have never been directed by a shift supervisor or licensed operator to add hydrogen or water to the make-up tank for the express purpose of affecting the leak rate test results. I have no knowledge as to wnether or not TMI-2 supervisors or licensed operators were falsifying leak rate test results. Further, I am not aware of any management personnel who were aware of any practice of falsifying leak rate test data or any other records. During the 1978-79 time period I had no knowledge that the acditi: c' hj: cgen to the make-up tank would af fect the tank level. I have read the foregoing statement consisting of 2 handwritten pages. I have made and initialed any necessary corrections and have signed my name in ink in the margin of each page. This statement is the truth to tne best of my knowledge and belief. I declare under penalty o f perjury that the fore-going is true and correct. Executed on e-3-83 at 07:30. INTERVIEWEE: Original signed oy Henry M. Kohl Subscribed and sworn to refve me tris 3rd day of Aug,1983, at 0731. ItWESTIGATOR: Ori ginal si gr.a: (. R. K. Christopher l l
7 ) l i l p ?. !~ j
- l. )
I I KUNDER, GEORGE i l 9/28/83 l l NRC OI
\
e _j
... UNIGINAL.,eO.,c. .- ,
t.
=x * *
- ;~ .
_o.at, r' * . .r * . ..ao .. s p'.y ,, h .: 7 6.,* r . - *. --
".*.'..1t . .,,,.. .., ., ,. .. . .s .'*jt. . .
r.
** "..I.,.,
. , " . ., . .c . v. .;
*.,..u4*. .
,c,.,...+
h.. .r .- ... s ; ,. ._ 2 . :y% . F.; . ..,. , . * # .
..r.,..
,.. u ..
..e: ..:. . . . , . ic s;- . e. ..,. s ,..,.. . .. .
. n. ... ~..v.
- 74. :* . . Q-/ ;3. '.,,b .n
, ,r,,, ,. f,. 3.g4. . s . ..yNrTED STATES OF AMERICA,' .5/jg.
- . 2 I
f .A. C .,t .gy . . ..
.. .2 . ;.9.,M. ,. * . ._i .3.. ,. g.t..... .? e..
~
.,, .M.6;58 ~, N.
N: 4
. . U. .,cI.lut REG.ULATORY COMMIS.SION mW. ..
J.;. , '.-th..,.:
- . m.
.%. . , r..
.,.,.,..g,..-,,.,.,y.. ..
c:
. # +. . .- .. ....
.. .pp. <
.. .s.
- r. . . ,. . . p. . ,
g,,, . v..
,.,2 . . . . . . .. . .
.;. . ~ u
. . . .'. . v . .s :.
.=
.- j ,
- a In the matter of: -
..,,, .JJy.t. - - %,
=
a
..r.* INVE..STIG.ATIVE INT,.E..R..V. I. EW O, F.:?,
.2?. . .-
..,,,4 ... . .
.' . - , 4
.'.w.,..
- e. . . , . ,
. **. . . ' ' .~ . ' *s.3, >* 3 ,E h '7". h :.$ $ f % .-U.'. ~. '..U N % W..N,.d'"Q .aN.. .;,A,t N p.'/E.T as v. N,. = .<'. h. "k',d.M..* N.. M. . .
O.ki h *f[*. l '*'3G.bk ': M.iS w ;. ~~4 n ,
. . - .r.$EORGB A..KUNDER ' : . . ?~.e.F: -> W 9 " 7J r.
Q *?.y~. W .$g 'A...y
.e. . . - . , .-
. . ~ . ,. u.... . . . -' . %.
.v..
e ... a .s. . . . - . . .mvpe. 3. . .
., . , - :a .
* ,.- (
s - ul , .n. r.. - G,. . . .
'. 4 .
- .~ ,
~-
~~ s *. .;,* - us. s f.* ta l , , , ,.
* '* y , . ,.] .- 2 . .
1 . =
..~-
..,e.. L.... :~..,.q
< w .. ;
. -' . . , . ~ ..se..c.,w ~. .- .~s,
,. r . .. .. .*-. . ..
s u.s s...$* c..."..'**',.. ~.-- ..is.r ; M.~ M:-
..,k..- *
.o
~t7 .-
.s *
;*- - '1 . . . . : *
.J e :. " %m w,. m . . ; .
" . . . . - .*
- A-
..':.,;b %.a .
- Y.,y* .
? , a : .4.. - ... . . r.'. y
'.y n *
...G :.
.ts . t 1:y.c. v
.m*y;q' ..*J 1.m,,cr, :~r? . o. '.
..+..a.<, * ~ . .g. i . ta a
*,e $-~.'. :;;~4yv . * - ' w' >?.2 (' <.: ... ~ .,i :* ;rf, . n H .t. Wo.n . . s :.
.y
. . , ,,,. . , . . . ' . 9 n.. y,.*.a. ~A . o
-t. r~.~. , .,. F";, b,:.,x s..a .
p's ....eg.m. ,;, . .. ""t'u** ;,,: . q~;;n, n,;; .c.; R.. , ,
, ~ ,,.s. :u . My s',m ; .j~ - t. .~. A .9. ,
- r.: 1 . . . .
. . .....,..r-1 v e.:: ; . : 5 ; , 4r :.,. .;- ;
. . ,; .-r p -- _ ; - . ;.
.r...
.s - . . , . ..
,,s....'..r..'.
,n ? ;, ;:.v..~'.'~....,,,. = 4
,~.~* . . . , : .... * ,* . s .
. '. .**i - ,
. - . ' . - . , , . . ....3,
% . . n.
. ... 1.
. , .- - . , . . , . s. . ,. < .; ., w ,.; . . c. .. . . *s ,. ,u,..
. s .- a
_~....w., . , .4 .
,w,-c a .=*: .*. w. 9,.
,.'.,a
- e'.. .s, s
.m . x. ,-t,u. ,. . v..
...-~..+
s - 7
.,P
.i, - . . . , .
. . .j ;, ,%. .~ , ;; . -
.; ; , _ . ,.j(..i 3.
.,jd,. y .. ..
. wf. .-
. c . ... .-
. .~. .
gr . ,. ..- .: ... a , . . . -
., , . 1 .48 Location- Harrisburg, Pa Pages:
Date: Wednesday, September 28, 1983
. s. O a.
c, #.._
. y .;.:a . . % :.
.~ . . - .. . ;~
.z. , . -
, ,1.; s. 2 ,
.- - , . ,. ~ '~ '
_ ..i.,i e.,/ . TAYLOE ASSOCIATES ,, . : .' .,
.' '/ ~
,....~ , ,
**..* .. .A ..
72,. ., '
~
Conn & _
- - . 2C51 Strust. N.W. Sete 1004 ~
Waskncoe. D C. 20006 - (:0h 29M950
;. :t S1 .
39 .f *"* r , s ,.* ,.;;* ,, ., , . . . . . . ,
* ( . ** 5'^
, '[ * . .t .
i . O,sy2 1 1 , UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l } 2 3 }. J INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW 4 OF 5 , GEORGE A. KUNDER f l y Americana Host Inn, Rm. 383 ! 8 4751 Lindle Road I Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 9 Wednesday, September 28, 1983 APPEARANCES: 11 R. KEITH CHRISTOPHER, Director 12 Office of Investigations, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 13 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 14 [ " DETER J. CONNOLLY, Investigator 15 ! Office of Investigations, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 16 631 Park Avenue i, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 1 17 1 18 j JANC G. PENNY, Esq. ' STEVEN D. SNYDER, Esq. 19 Killian & Gephart 216-218 Pine Stree i 20 tax 886 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 l 21 On be'/.alf of Mr. Kunder , j
\
l
;i 23 i
24 25 l
! I
. 2
-1 PROCEEDINGS 2
l (3: 45 p.m.) 3 MR. CONNOLLY: The date is September 28th, 1983. 4 The time is 3 : 4 5 p.m. , we ' re in Room 38 3 of the Americana 5 Host Inn, 4751 Lindle Road, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for 6 the purpose of obtaining information from George A. Kunder 7 regarding the alleged falsification of leak rate test data 8 at Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2, 8 Middletown, Pennsylvania, prior to March 28th, 1979. 10 Present in the room are myself, Peter Connolly, 11 Keith Christopher, both of us from the Office of Investigations, 12 NRC Region I; George A. Kunder, and his attorneys Jane Penny 13 and Steven Snyder of the firm Killian & Gephart, located 14 at 216-218 Pine Street, Box 886, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 15 The interview is being conducted under subpoena. 16 George, it's my intent to put you under' cath for the purpose 17 of asking these questions regarding false leak rate test data,, 18 l and before I do that, just so you understand the ramifications 19
' of providing inf:rration under oath, I'd lik.e you :: read ,
N U.S. Code Title 18, Section 1001. 21 t (Pause.)
**0 CC:. 31La* OO yOJ h a *.*e a nj * ' q u e s t lO n s 00n trning, U i
, this section?
24 MR. KUNDER: No. t5 MR. CONNOLLY: CJ you understand what the section o _ _ _ - - _ _ ---- - ----- - - - - - - - ---~--'---~- -~ - - ' ~ ~ ' ~
il -
'l states?
2 MR. KUNDER: I do. 3 Whereupon, 4 I 4 l GEORGE A. KUNDER, j l i 5 l i 1 after being first duly sworn, was examined and testified i 6 ! as follows: I i 7 MR. CONNOLLY: I For the record, could you please q l ) 8 state your name and spell it, also. ( I { ' l 1 9 THE WITNESS: My name is George A. Kunder. l 10 MR. CONNOLLY : What is your present home address A 11 of record, George? i 12 THE WITNESS: That is 1906 Light Avenue, j 1 1 13 in Middletown, Pennsylvania. i { 14 MR. CONNOLLY: And what is your age ? l 15 THE WITNESS: Thirty-seven. ) i 16 MR. CONNOLLY: And who are you presently employed 1 17 with? i 18 T;iE WITNESS: I'm employed by GPU Nuclear Corp. 19 MR. CD: ' 0LLY : And how len: '.r?.e y;u been e.ipl yed - T with GPL' Nuclear? i 4 21 I THE WITNESS: I've been employed with GPU Nuclear , l' i 22 si.- e its ;n:sp ;:n, I bellete a r: _n d :..e : s r ; .- . ; r.: cf .: 2. U ; MR. C ' ::';O LLY : And prier to GPL 'uclear, wno were , 24 i you employed with? 25 THE WITNESS: l I was employed by Metropolitan i
I Edison Company, a sister company of GPU Nuclear. - 2 MR. CONNOLLY : And when did you commence your 3 employment with Metropolitan Edison? 4 THE WITNESS: It was on or about September 1968. 5 MR. CONNOLLY : And your present job at GPUM? 6 THE WITNESS: What is my present job? 7 MR. CONNOLLY: Your present job, correct. 8 THE WITNESS: My job is the Unit 2 Manager of 9 Safety Review Group. 10 MR. CONNOLLY: And how long have you been in your II
! present position?
t 1 12 THE WITNESS: Since October 1982. 13 MR. CONNOLLY: prior to the March 1979 accident at 14 l Unit 2, what was your employment position with Metropolitan 5 !
,' Edison?
16 I i
, THE WITNESS: Just prior to 'the accident, I was 17 "! l 2
the Unit 2 Superintendent, Technical Support. . 18 i i MR. CONNOLLY: And when did you commence in that 19 . . F O s i *. ; 0 n ? 20 THE WITNESS: That was in December of 1978. 21 MR. CONNOLLY: And prior to that, what was your , no 5:s :.:-* THE WITNE5S: I was the Unit 1 Superintendent, og i
,' Technical Support.
2 l l MR. CONNOLLY: And when did you commence at Unit I? I ll ll
l l
.. l
.i ;
3' . l { l 1 THE WITNESS: That.was on or about the latter J l i f 2 'part of.1977. 31 MR. CHRISTOPHER: What did your position
~4 j
l'responsibilitiesentailat' Unit 2astheTechSupport s h 5 Superintendent, George? 6
, THE WITNESS: Briefly stated, I was responsible to I
7 supervise'the Plant Engineering organization, and one of my ' L 8 collateral duties, aside from that, was to coordinate the ! 9 ' planning for refueling outages, and I was also the PORC 10 Chairman, Plant Operations Review Committee Chairman, that is, s 111' ;in Unit 2. . 12 MR. CHRISTOPHER: What kind of day-to-day functions 13 would-you find yourself performing in a position such as 14 -; l ' tha t , ' b esides , you '<now, sitting in at the various PORC 15 meetings, what kind of hands-on type work would you find that 16 you were doing in decision making, and how did you interact I 17 with. operations? Just generally kind of tell me what your , i 18 day looked like, an average day looked like. I 5 19 (Pause.) . N , I'll make it easier for you. How closely, on a l 21 ; daily basis, did you work with the operations Department? I
-"** e:uld ': e ::.- F1:yd's r up f pe:;le.
23 d THE ',;IT!:ESS : I'm not sure how to answer that. , 24 MR. CHRISTOPHER: I'm just interested in the 2- extent that you interfaced on a daily basis with the Operations
\1
3 4 I people in discussing various plant problems, plant parameters, 2 that type of thing. Was it something you would see Jim 3 Floyd once a. day, once a week, or the shift foreman once a 4 day or once a month or twice a day. I'm just looking at how 5 often you dealt with those folks. 6 THE WITNESS: Well, the nature of my job, being 7 responsible for Unit 2 engineering activities, led me to deal 8 occasionally with Operations personnel in meetings on 9 occasion, verbal communication, and correspondence, receipt to ' j of correspondence, possibly generation of correspondence from 11 our department to their department. "any of the activities 12 lI were not necessarily those involving myself directly, but 13 rather, would also involve personnel who worked for me in i I4 l performing a variety of engineering tasks that were 15 ! assigned to our group. 16
, MR. CHRISTOPHER: Would you be involved in making I '
daily decisions with respect to different actual cperating ; 18 , parameters for the plant? I 19 ! THE W:T:::55 : Cou.d you be cre spe::fic? MR. CHRISTOPHER: Well, just generally. I'm Just 21 I trying to understand exactly how you interfaced with them i , no ce::re . ge: in:: :ne specif : uestic . C .- a da _3 cas:s -- u > q Obvious'y, we're going to talk about leak rates here today,
. i
'4 but on a daily basis there were various types of operating 25 issues that come into play. It may be from valve leakage l
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ~
il L i s 1 to excessive steam line pressures in a particular steam line i 2 and those type of things. Did you deal on a routine basis, ! i 3 in making an operational type decision as to how to respond 4 to those type of problems, with the Operations Department? 5 THE WITNESS: I guess I could best characterize : 6 my responsibilities there as really not having responsibility 7 for operational decisions. My role would have been largely 8 advisory to Operations or to the unit superintendent. 9 I t 1 21R . CHRISTOPHER: Which would have been Jim i i 1 10 Seeiinger or -- was it Gary Miller. It would have been 11 l Gary Miller as Unit Superintendent, correct? 12 THE WITNESS: Are you asking me who the superinten ' 13 dent was when I was there? l l'
! MR. CHRISTOPHER: Yes. Everything has changed l 15 l so much.
I l 16 l THE WITNESS: It was Joe Logan a t the uime I was j 1 l' " > at Unit 2. ' 1 18 i MR. CHRISTOPHER: And prior to that , how did that f i 19 work? : : hink we .te n t :hrou:h this On-= -= -- a- cav. :e 20 actually got in there for a short period of time, as I l 21 l l understand. In terms of functionally being che unit on s; srintendent. i a3 THE 'i:!N:SS: Weil, Joe was the uni: superin:endent 24 l f or a short pe riod of time . But specifically, what's your
*5 question? !
1 k 1
)
1
- - - - _ _ _ _ - --_ - --- a
r . e s 1 ;MR. CHRISTOPHER: Specifically, be fore Joe. was
- 2. unit superintendent, who was acting in that capacity?
- 3. THE WITNESS: To the best of my r' recollection, 4 Gary Miller was fi~1ing the role of unit, superintendent.
5 He -- wa s , I'believe, also filling a~ dual role in that he was j 6 also. named as the Manager of both units. , 1 7 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Okay. 8 MR. CONNOLLY: When did Joe Logan take over for 9 Gary Miller? 10 THE WITNESS: I don't specifically recall, but 11 it was right around the same time that I was assigned the i 12 Unit _2. job. 13 MR. CONNOLLY: And that was in December 1978? 14 l THE WITNESS: On or about that period, yes. l 15 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Are you f amiliar with' Technical 16 Specification'3.4.6.2,~regarding the limiting condition for
' i 17 operation regarding the reactor coolant' system leakage, George?
18 l THE WITNESS: I don't remember it that specifi-i 19 i cally, but I'm aware that there was a tech spec dealing with 3r , tne reactor coolant system leakage. 21 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Are you aware of or do you recall i i 22: 1that that technical specificati:n pla:sf a li-i; Of - 7111:r i J l 23 j cer i.inute for unidentified leakage within the RCS system?
.i 24 1 THE WITNESS: I understood that there was an 2 unidentified leak rate limit of about 1 gpm. I recall that i
d b o l I 1 was the general limit applied to PWRs, at least at TMI-l and 2 Unit 2, yes. 3 MR. CHRISTOPHER: To be specific I have it here in I 4 front of me if you wish to refer to it, it specifically states, 5 reactor coolant system leakage shall be limited to 1 gallon : 6 l per minute unidentified leakage. And feel free' to refer to it I 7 in any fashion that you'd like. ) 8 b How familiar are you with the Action Statement 8 t that's required as part of the technical specification, to particularly with respect to Part B of the Action Statement? 11 Please take a look at it before you answer. 12 THE WITNESS: I don't have any specific recollec-13 tion of the language from back at that time , but I'm aware 14 that limiting conditions for operations in the standard tech 15 spec format contain the LCO and then an Action Statement with 16 some type of follow-up action that's required if you cannot l 17 1 meet the most limiting conditions of the LCO. l 18 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Would you have been familiar 1' 19 5 enough with this particular technical specification back at M
- nat time to -- trying to place yourself back at that time 21 period -- to know that if you did not meet the technical 22 3,q if;;3:i:n, 33 7:; wou;d sp3 if;;3,,.. ,3 73 g ;; w3 23 to reduce the leakage er begin a colc snutcown?
24 THE WITNESS: No, I don't remember. 25 MR. CHRISTOPHER: I You don't remember whether or not i i l
\
,5 i
10 I you were involved in it at that time? You would not have 2 dealt with it directly at thac point in time? 3 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't say that. If you want 4 to read your question back, -- 5 MR. CHRISTOPHER: What I was trying to get at, 6 were you involved sufficiently in the leak rate test program 7 at that time so that you would have had an in-depth, detailed 8 knowledge.as to what the Action Statement would have required 8 you to do if you did not obtain an acceptable leak rate? _ = - 10 THE WITNESS: Your question does not spell out II in sufficient detail for me to answer it. I can say that 12 in general, I was aware of the fact thatwehadaspecificationl 13 and they have an action statement. I don't remember to what 14
, extent I could recall or know that action statement from
?
15 I memory without referring to the technical specifications, 16 even back at that time. 17 i It's normal practice for me to take a look at ; i 18 [specificlanguage in tech specs, even when I think I may I8 knew it because they are quite cumberstre, they are involved, ; and to avoid misunderstanding, you know, I would take a look l 21 l at the actual language. 5
'. F, . IMF:3!:FMIF- Are you fa..;.;ar . 9 :..e ,
'l I surveillance procedure that actuzilly 1=plements the technical 24 .. .
speci:1 cation? u 25 THE WITNESS : Not specifically. W If
1 1 11 j 1 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Did you actually run, during 2 this period and let's speak in the months prior to the 3 accident -- did you actually run leak rate tests yourself?
)
4 THE, WITNESS: I don',t recall doing any leak rate ' 5 surveillance myself. It was ndt, first of all, my job l 6 responsibility. 7 MR. CHRISTOPHER: It's primarily an Operations 8 Department responsibility? 9 THE WITNESS: Yes. And I' m ass uming you' re 10 talking Unit 2. 11 MR. COMNCLLY: Yes, Unit 2. Who would have -- l 12 whose responsibility would it have been in the Operations 13 Department to run those leak rate surveillance?
'4 14 THE WITNESS: My understanding is that operators, 15 by and large, do that hind of a function.
16 MR. CONNOLLY: Who would review their work? 17 ) THE WITNESS: Could you be more specific? , 18 l MR. CONNOLLY: Who would review the results of I i~ 19 their sur/eillance? r: 20 THE WITNESS: I'm not really sure -- l 21 1 MR. CONNOLLY: The cperator s conduct the
,., I, c ,
" 22 s r're 1 anre,.r;?ht, the' ; do their +s:s. , .~h a . . 2,_ _ : n 3 ::
23 the tes- "--- *-ere? 1 i 24 ! TAI WITNESS: Are you asking me what's happening f 3 to the specific pieces of paper, or in general, what was the l l l
r 12 1 l practice? 2 MR. CONNOLLY: Generally, what was the practice? _ 3 THE WITNESS: I understood the practice to be 4 that the person doing the test would have the whole surveil-5 lance package reviewed and signed off by normally the foreman G or shift supervisor or someone at that level, and then that 7 paper would be turned in. MR. CONNOLLY: Would you be involved in any of that process? Would you, after the shift supervisor or shift J 10 forenan signed off on these documents, would you be involved 11 in review of the documents? ; 12 THE WITNESS: No. .- MR. CONNOLLY: Where would it go from beyond the I' shift foreman or supervisor? Where would be the next order that the documents would go? 16 THE WITNESS: The general practice was that the - 17 data, surveillance results, whatever was really part of the 18 l package would be turned into the GMS coordinator -- 19 i MR. CONSOLLY: Excuse me, GMS? What do jc; 7.ean i 20 by GMS? l 21 THE WITNESS: It's an acronym for generation a;ntena.:e syster. To the ces: cf my P.newledge,that was
*J -
the term applied to that person. 94 And then that individual would assure that the results, in terms of the completion dates were inputted back n W
9 1: I into the computer and the records were reviewed for complete-2 ness presumably, although I don't have any independent 3 recollection of what he really did with the stuff. And then 4 those records would be filed. 5 MR. CONNOLLY: Did you have any role in your 6 position at that time in leak rate tests? 7 THE WITNESS : Could you be more specific? 8 MR. CONNOLLY: Did you have a role in reviewing the results of leak rate tests? Did you have a role in the 10 actual performance of a leak rate test? Did you have a role 11 in insuring that the leak rate tests were done according to
- i i l
procedures? 13 THE WITNESS: No, there was no direct role. 14 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Would you havs had any role in 15 hpreparingtheactualleakratesurveillanceprocedure itself? 16 i THE WITNESS: No, I would not. MR. CHRISTOPHER: Are you aware as to whether or l 18 -! not the operators were having problems getting good leak i I9 ra es: specifically, the unidentified leak ra e of 1 ga'10- . m ' per minute ? ; i 21 { THE WITNESS: I remember understanding there was e, l a :: r. r s r r abou: r.e pr::edare wh :n was referred :: -, D department apparently, berause I re.rember that the mechenica'. -
"4 l section in my department was responsible to try to resolve that concern.
I i
!4 I' MR. CHRISTOPHER:- W'iat was that - concern, George ?
2 THE WITNESS: .The concern was that the procedure, 3
'the calculation, was believed to be in error. And it was 4
'giving results of unidentified leakage that were higher than 5=
what was really characteristic of the plant behavior in terms 6 of leakage. l 1 7-MR. CHRISTOPHER: Was that in reference to the 1 8 procedure not accounting for the density changes? THE WITNESS: I don't remember what the concern 10 was specifically, but it had to do with the calculation. 11 Since that time, obviously, I'm aware, through past 12 discussions with the early NRC investigation -- but I'm I3 assuming you're still talking about my independent reccliec-14
! tion' prior to the accident.
15 MR. CHRISTOPHER: -What do you understand it to 16 l be now?
; What did you understand that particular problem to
- be at the time, as you understand it today?
18 l THE WITNESS: Do'you mean what do I know now? 19 <
'4 R . CHR!STOPHER: What do feu know ow?
l
*O L
THE WITNESS: Well, I understand that there was i 21 a belief that the specific gravities on one part of the ,
- al:ula:: n -- a..d I don'- reme-ber wn; h par: was a- :ssue --
,3
, was not being prcperly accounted for. And the results 24 I thereby reflected an incorrect leak rate. I don't remember if it was in the unidentified portion or the identified l
s i, 1 portion. 2 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Do you recall if what you're J 3 discussing is in reference to the technical change notice ) 4 that was issued in March of 1979 a few weeks prior to the I 5 accident? Is this the point in time that you're talking 6 about, or are you talking about some problem with the l i 7 surveillance procedure at an earlier time? Because there 1 8 was a technical change notice issued on March 16 of 1979. l 9 THE WITNESS: I'm aware of that -- 10 MR. CHRISTOPHER: There was another problem [ 11 earlier. That's why I wanted to make sure9hich one we're , i I 12 ' talking about. 1 I 13 , THE WITNESS: Yes. I don't understand it to be l I i \ 14 i - two issues. I understand that there was a TCN that was l 15 prepared to correct the problem, and in my prior discussions - - l ( 16 I think it was with Tim Martin of the NRC -- after the l I 17 ^ a::iden; when this issue was being investigated, I recall , 18 the subject of that was a TCN. 19 MR. CHRISTOPHIF: Se it 's /02r re:Ollec t.on that 4 N the discrepancy in the procedure was -- that your department 21 l was asked to address -- was, in fact, the end result would I i
- 20 ' 53ce beer :he ;;*, and :ne change ir ; 7,s c3;:__3:::n3.
I
~
23 lIi procedure? l 24 THE WITNESS: I understand it in more general i l 25 '. terms; that the problem was resolved and throug, the i
i J 16 1 subsequent focus on this matter, I understood that the TCN 2 was prepared. 3 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Okay. Do you know if there's 4 a requirement that all surveillance tests performed by the , 5 Operations Department be recorded in the control rcom j 6 operators' log? 7 THE WITNESS: Could you repeat that again? 8 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Do you know if there is a 9 requirement that all surveillance procedures performed by 10 the Operations Department, by the operators, if there's a 11 requirement that those procedures, that those surveillance, i 18 be recorded in the control room operators' log? e. THE WITNESS: I vaguely recall that there was a l I4 l procedure dealing with the keeping of control room operators' l i 15
; logs, and I don't remember the specific language. But the 16 l logging that surveillance items had been performed may be " one of those. '8 Are you aware of any procedure MR. CHRISTOPHER:
l 19 cr all0wance that specifically addresses whether er not you
*0 ~
need to keep the results of surveillance tests that did not et
~
, meet the technical specification requirements, whether they ,
per.; r -- specificale as it perta;ns :c :n* lea rate test.
"3
- Is there 2..ything that yce know of that would all:
i 24 i' Any an operator to discard the results of a surveillance? i 25 O W allowance for that in the procedures and tech specs or i
'l
. 17 g anything like that?
2 THE WITNESS: No, I don't remenber a policy that i discussed the matter in that context, either way, wheth.er 4 you save things or not. i 5 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Are you at all familiar -- maybe 6 the procedure you referenced is this AP 1012. It's an 7 administrative procedure. The scope of it is it describes 8 the various shift records and logs involved, any instructions 9 required to maintain records to conform to technical specifi- , 1 to cations and requirements of the FSAR. Is that possibly one 11 of the procedures that you're generally referring to in the 12 tech specs, of recordkeeping?
)
13 THE WITNESS : Did you read that for me? i 14 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Yes. The yellow highlighted l 15 part. gg THE WITNESS: Yes, this is the procedure that I
'l 17 i was familiar with. It's covering the requirements for ,
13 maintaining the control room log and the kind of things that 19 were intended to be in there. 20 MR. C1;RISTOPHER: Are you at any times asked to interpret procedures when there's confusion and those type
~
21
;7 of things? There's a confusier as t: '. : '.- a step Of a procedur$
23 should be carried out. In your position, would you routinely 24 , have expected to be asked for clarifications as to what a 3 ; procedure means in a particular step if it fell within your
f I'< i 1 department or within your area of expertise? 2 THE WITNESS: Although I'm not the sole authority 3 on these procedures, -- 4 I MR. CHRISTOPHER: I understand. i 5 THE WITNESS: -- it's not uncommon for me to 6 be asked for interpretations. In some cases I may have had 7 a hand in writing those procedures. 8 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Do you know if you had any 8 involvement in writing this particular procedure? 10 THE WITNESS: I don't remember. I couldn't rule 11 it out but I just don't re me mbe r . l 12 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Section 3.3.1.17 is under 13 1 Accomplishment of Testing. It states, " Record title and < 14 ! numbe r o f the te s t performed and the start and completion i 15 l times, or times of suspension of the test. The performance 16 of all periodic tests and inspections as required by the U y technical specifications shall be reccrded." i 18 I 1 Would you interpret that for me as it pertains to 18 the perf rmance cf a lea:. rate test? N p THE WITNESS: Do you mean can I interpret that i - 21 I from independe-- -acollection back at that time? I
'*E. CHE~37;PHEE: *:: . T0 day, HOW dO f;; ints prit, l
U [that prc:edure as it relates to the performance ci a leak
! i, i
24 rate test? Specifically, a leak rate test is run at that 25 l timeframe, a one-hour time period at .0 and .l. When you l _ _ __-____-_____ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - -- -~--
.9 I record the test in the control room log, would you record l 2
the start time of the test in the log, and then would you 3 record the stop time and the results? THE WITNESS: I'd be speculating to suggest to I 5 you that back then I would have handled in such-and-such a . 6 way. All I can tell you is that at this point in time, I 7 could view this in more than one way, and that is with respect ) l 8 to leak rates , it's not like the kind of test that involves 9 the start of equipment in the plant where the logging of that 10 test initiation has relevance to understanding the plant 11 behavior and what's happening. i i 12 I In the case of what you refer to as leak rate 13 tests, it's not a test in the context of others; it's a 14 t determination. And I can see that one could view that as the 15 moment you got the final results, it could be viewed as a I 16 3 point demand kind of a situation where the operator, if he 4 - ! 17 3
-l has tried to comply with this particular item, would log the 18 completion of the test, or the surveillance, that it had i
19 , L e e r. c:ne. I can see that it could be interpreted that at I og 1 the time that you s tart the data collection period for this J on i
- sst, t r.a : Or.e ;gh: 1:g : hat. : der': see ary:n ng in -his language that explicitly gives clear guidance to the operat:r ;
i e4 { with respect to the leak rate test. s I MR. CHRISTOPHER: You don't recall being asked for i i
- + -_---_--___---------------________;
I 20 j 1 any type of guidance in thAs area at that time? 2 THE WITNESS: No. 3 MR. CHRISTOPHER: The surveillance procedure -- l I 4 again, this is 2301-3D(1) -- states, it is the procedure I 5 which is meant to insure compliance with the technical I I 6 specification regarding leak rates and it states, " Reactor 7 coolant system leakages shall be demonstrated to be within 8 the above limits..." -- and referring to the 1 gallon per ' l 9 ' minute unidentified leakage, specifically - "... by 10 performance of a reactor coolant system water inventory 11 ' balance at least once per 72 hours *uri.g steady state 12 operation." 13 Can you tell me how, at that time, you reviewed G 14 the requirements of that 72-hour time period? 15 T H E WITNESS: Well, your question presumes I 16 recalled it in that context, and I don't. 17
!l MR. CHRISTOPHER: How do fou recall it?
18 THE WITNESS: My recollection is that I knew that !
- 1 19 I the leak rate determir.at;_r is perf:rred at c .ter/a1 or 20 j a frequenc'f -- I should say an interval -- that is less than l
21 i a week but longer than shiftly. I'd be guessir.g if I could i 22 7 3, e 7; 3 : 33 7; , ,73, 23
, But that recu;rement is s;mely tha* ' g steady ,
! 6 24 '
state operations you perform the leak rate determination 25 every 72 hours, plus or minus 25 percent, which is the I
.i. .. 21 1 language'right out of the tech specs. I ten,d.to conceptualize 2 it generally in those terms.
3 -MR. CHRISTOPHER: If you received let's call it a 4 bad leak' rate within:those 72 hours, in that period, what 5 at that. time would an operator be expected.to do if he 6 received a leak rate result in excess of the tech spee? 7 THE WITNESS: Are you saying that a bad leak rite 8 is a leak rate in excess of -- l 9 MR. CHRISTOPHER: In excess of 1 gpm. ! 10 THE WITNESS: And this is an unidentified leak rate? ; 11 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Unidentified. i 12 THE WITNESS: Because there are other leak rate { 13 criteria. f. 3 l 14' ; MR. CHRISTOPHER: I understand. If you received
.i
{ 1 i
)
15 l an unidentified leak rate in e xcess of 1 gpm, which is what' l 16
.the technical specification requires, what would'you expect
.I 17 ! the operator to do at that. point?
18 THE WITNESS: Well, I expect first that the operator 19 .eeds to begin analyzing what that data is telling him. , N Your hypothetical, unfortunately, does not assume any credit 21 for. knowing trends, plant con'ditions or anything like that. 22 ' And what ar eper3 :: -
- x;d depend, f rank;; , : ., a 1:t f d vartables. I'm r.o t sure I can address such a hypothetical 24 unle ss we ' re doing that in the context of really knowing the M. conditions. '
l l 1 1
22 1 MR. CHRISTOPHER: If you received a result in excesa 2 of 1 gallon per minute unidentified, period, nothing else, 3 would he be required to go into the Action Statement at 4 that point? i 5 THE WITNESS: You mean ignoring plant conditions 6 and ignoring the operational state of the equipment, computers 7 ar.d that sort of thing? 8 MR. CHRISTOPHER: The surveillance procedures 9 don't directly address things that you can take into account to or allowances to throw away, let's say, or disregard a bad 11 leak rate. 12 THE WITNESS: Are you saying that there are an 13 l awful lot of things that are implicit in the leak rate 14 i surveillance procedure that would bear upon the validity 15 I of the program? 16 MR. CHRISTOPHER: I'm trying to decide if an 17 operator got an unidentified leak rate in excess of one 18 l gallon per minute, was he required to immediately go into the 19 acti:n statement er did he '.a/e s e allcwance cf going to the M ilJ shift supervisor and the technical advisor and saying this is 21 ywhat I've got; what do we do about it? ,, d. - THE ..... ::: :: 7: ; mms :: a :s _; - A::::n U Statement is -- depenc;ng on piant condici:ns I ay be 24 l irresponsible. Your question is still very vague and 25 hypothetical because it ignores the fundamental plant I ,
/ 23 1 conditipns, trends, conditions under which he's doing the 2 leak rate determination. I'm not trying to be evasive; it's 3 just a simple technicality.
4 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Are you. aware of any specific i 5 ' operator who took a specific action after he received a leak 6 rate test in ex. cess of one gallon per minute? i 7 THE WITNESS: No. I would have no basis to know ! 8 that, no. 9 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Are you aware of any supervisory 10 individual who took action after he received a leak rate and 11 took some type of action after he received a leak rate in i 12 ! excess of one gallon per minute? t [ 13 THE WITNESS: Again, what conditions are you 14 l referring to? 15 MR. CHRISTOPHER: I'm asking if you are aware of i 16 a supervisor who received a leak rate that was in excess -- 17 a leak rate test result that was in excess of one gallon per , l l 18 i minute. And are you aware of what his response was after he i 19 received that test that was in excess of ene gallon per .inute? 20 THE WITNESS: Again, your line of questioning is , l 21 I very vague. I don't knc. if you're talking about pcwer 1 22 ::sra:i:ns or -- , q 23 MR. CHRISTOPHER: I'm as41ng /cu 1: you know -- are' q I' l 24 personally aware of any particular incident in which you
] .1 25
, observed a shift supervisor or shift, foreman receiving an .
I
)
1 , i
i 24 l I unidentified leak rate in excess of one gallon per minute. 2 And if so,what do you recall that individual's response to 3 that finding or that leak rate to be? 4 THE WITNESS : That's a dif ferent question, I'm 5 No, I have not observed any activity like that in afraid. ; 6 Unit 2 that I can recall. MR. CHRISTOPHER: Are you aware of the operators 8 throwing away leak rate mst results that were in excess of 9 one gallon per minute, that showed results in excess of one 10 gallon per minute? II THE WITNESS: No, I'm not aware of leak rate i 12 determinations being thrown away for any specific reason I3 because I have no basis to really know that information. 14 At that time you never heard that i MR. CHRISTOPHER: 15 it was not common -- you were not knowledgeable of the fact 16 that operators were throwing away unacceptable leak rate I i li test results, i 0 I don't know that to be a fact, but l THE WITNESS: i 19 I' not aware cf such a thin . 20 Of course, after the allegations had been made, 21
!, I'm aware that that's an allegation, but I don't have any i
_n a:e.. dent rs::..*::.:n :na: tne --
'3
R.
. CHR:3TIFHER: At that time you were .c t aware 24 that they were throwing away so-called bad leak rate test U results? l
' I i
. l
4 23 1 THE WITNESS: No, I was not aware of that kind 2 of thing. 3 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Is it acceptable to throw away 4 bad leak rate test results, to your knowledge? 5 THE WITNESS: You asked that question and you've l 6 been evading making it more specific. When you say bad leak 7 rates, I cannot characterize whether or not something is bad 8 or good or acceptable or not unless I know the conditions unde:- 9 which you' re hypothesizing. 10 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Irregardless of the conditions, 11 irregardless of the hypothesis. You have a leak rate ) i 12 unidentified that is in meess of one gallon per minute. Are I 13 you authorized to just throw that away and start over. Or I i 14 I do you have some requirement to keep that bad test as a i 15 matter of history or as a matter of record, irregardless of 16 whether you rationalized it away or invalidated it for some 17 ; re33cn, l 18 I THE WITNESS: Okay. I can think of instances 19 where it is perfectly acceptable :: threw that kind Of I I 20 paperwork away. 21 MR. CONNOLLY: Could you describe those instances? n
,, 'l
" THE .;;T':I5 5 : :'- .r: s;re : ::u.: :sscr ce a..
*1
- such instances. They are quite broad perhaps. But as an ,
!j 8 24 e xample of such an instance, it might be I go up to the J - control room, the plant is shut down, and I, for practi a, l
h
l
.t l l
1 call up the calculation on the computer and the leak rate 2 numbers that the computer prints out, -- if it can even print 3 ' it out under those conditions -- would be such that I'd get 4 a number. That numbe r ,what it is, would be acceptable in 1 5 my mind to discard that piece of paper because it has -- l 6 MR. CONNOLLY : You're describing an instance like 7 ' that in a shutdown? 8 THE WITNESS: You' re interrupting me. 9 MR. CHRISTOPHER: He can do that. 10 THE WITNESS: Can he interrupt? 11 MS. PENNY: He can try. You don't have to let him. 12 THE WITNESS: Well, if you want an accurate reflec-t 13 l tion of my recollection and my understandings, I do need to I4 ' complete my response. So to that extent, I'd appreciate to 15 go on. Could you repeat that former question? 16 f MR. CONNOLLY: You mentioned instances where leak II rate tes t data could be discarded -- , 10 THE WITNESS: No. Could you repeat -- 19
'4 R . C ONSOLLi : "f question is, you were describing 20 instance regarding a shutdown. What we're concerned with 21 done
'l is with operations. Can you describe an instance during ;
i i e
~~
036 3010. wherS 1; WOuld he, in f0Jr Opl?. ion, 1 il t i.~ a L 6 to j , i M
', discard leak rate test da:a?
24 THE WITNESS: Pete, we're not communicating. I D was not finished with my prior response, and I wanted to know i
27 > 1 what that question is so I could complete that response. And 2 I've lost my train of thought. I'd appreciate to do that. 3 Unless that's unimportant. 4 (The reporter read the record as requested.) 5 MR. CONNOLLY: The question concerns instances -- 6 you described one regarding a shutdown, a hypothetical one 7 regarding a shutdown. An instance during operation. What 8 would be an instance, for example, where you would be able 9 to throw a leak rate test away during operation of the plant? 10 THE WITNESS: Again, are we talking about my 11 understanding of the requirements back at that time? i 12 MR. CONNOLLY: Yes, we're talking about that time. 13 THE WITNESS: Okay. Back at that time, my i 14 j understanding was really not specific to whether or not you 15 i throw good leak rates or bad leak rates in the way you've l i 16 l tried to characterize them, away beca;s'e the requirements 17 were -- I don't recall them as being that specific or really 18 f my having an understanding of them in that specific sense. i 19 ' But judging here today, it would be .:t -- it N : would r.ct be inappropriate to discard a computer printout i 21 l showing the leak rate calculation for a situation where the 22 ,o3- , y,: 4----,. 3:3 er ;r:n_ :. ::,3 73 ,., _ o ;,,_ i i 23 with tne romputer or.sometning c: that nature. And an , 24 j example might be if it was known that the input to the M ! computer from some instrument which inputted data which was l l
' 2B I used in the calculation, and as a result of the inaccurate i
2
-input the computer calculation was similarly inaccurate. That 3
being the case, the operator would be forced to determine 4 the leak rate through either other means.-- fixing the 5 problem, doing it by hand, and there's no policy or specific j 6 language that I recall that'would have directed an operator 7-in that circumstance or that kind of circumstance to ret ain 8 that documentation. 8 It would not be inappropriate to save the documen-10 tation either and annotate it accordingly. But in terms of 11 the requirement or my understanding of the requi re me n t , I 12 don't recall having anymore an explicie understanding than 13 that. 14 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Do you know if there was a 15 conscious decision made by a member of supervision not to 16 log the start time of the leak rate tests because there were 17 i so many bad test results being received? : 18 l THE WITNESS: No. And your answer presumes that 19 we '.a d a l ot cf bad tests, and I guess : de.. ' t . w that to be a fact, either. 21 I MR. CHRISTOPHER: Just answer the question if you' '
.i on
?n:w ::.
- 3
,, I guess you've generally gene through a description' 24 of how operators determine whether a test is valid r invalid 25 by going through these parameters.
(Discussion off the record.)
c
?
29 L - I' 1 1
, MR. CHRISTOPHER: We've' talked about leak rate j (l 2 test-results that were being reviewed as to whether they I .
'3 were valid'or invalid for various reasons. l Are you 4- specifically aware of any leak rate tests that met the
)
~1 5 technical specification in that it met the one gallon per 6 minute unidentified, that was ever considered invalid?
7 THE WITNESS: I in't remember being aware of
-8 specific test results from that period.
9 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Are you generally aware of, , 10 looking back at that time, whether or not it was perceived 1 11 to be very difficult to get a good leak rate as it pertained , j I " I 12 to the unidentified leak rate? l 13 THE WITNESS: I remember that I understood that 14 ) there was no difficulty per se in understanding what the-15 overall leak rate characteristics were of the plant, but I 16 do recall understanding a difficulty in accounting for that 17 ( leak rate through the use of the procedures involved. l l 18 j We've discussed that, and that was the concern that was 19 referred to my department. In that con te. r. , that's what , N . I recall. 21 MR. CHRISTOPHER: I think you've answered this. I 22 Yru said jou are .:: . e rs:na' ;; sware :f an; leak rate tes: 8 f l M ' results that we re actually thrown awa;. . ',
,1 24 THE WITNESS: No.
I i 25 l MR. CHRISTOPHER: Did you ever hear any discussions l l . l
,: r, l
W 1 indicating, or general comments that would have told you 2 that the so-called bad test results or invalid test results 3 were being thrown away? J 4 THE WITNESS: No. I 1 1 5 MR. CHRISTOPHER: So if you were going to assume g ) 6 that they ran -- looking at it today as you knew it back at j l 7 that time, if they ran 600 leak rate tests during that i 8 year's period, you would have expected to find 600 test ' 8 results. 10 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't say that. I just don't 11 have any reason to know one way or the other how the specific 12 test results were, in fact, handled. I just understood like 13 everything else, the paperwork was handled according to the 14 ( general process I described. Exceptions to that, I don't 15 have any basis for independent recollection of specific 16 exceptions to that. i 17 j MR. CHRISTOPHER: Are you aware of what level of l 18 ! supervision would have to actually invalidate a leak rate? 19 In ct.'.or wo rd s , if it was unaccep able for sone reasen, c uld N the CRO do it on his cwn, or would it have to be invalidated 21 l by a shift foreman or a shift supervisor? Do you know? If i 1 20 i:.'re 7:ing :: de:ide -hst a . . ., : .:s s uns::ep:st'e -- :r, i M unacceptable but not valid. Did it re uire some particular 24 l supervisory level to make that decision? I M f THE WITNESS: The understanding I had was that the I I i .
i
. I l
9' i
, 31 1
1 control room operators were not only qualified, as well as l 4 I I 2 l other levels of licensed operators, were not only qualified { l 3 to make judgments as to the behavior of the plant, interpret 4 instrumentation, interpret data, but they had the obligation { 5 to make such determinations as it affected the safe operation j f j l 6 of the facility. I l ' l 7 To the extent that there was a recognition of a l l 8 problem with any specific leak rates, that was well within l i 9 their area of responsibility to determine the validity of to that kind of thing. 11 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Do you recall entering into any 12 discussions or attending any meetings where the topic of 13 problems wi- leak rates was discussed, the problem of. 14 l obtaining leak rates was brought to light in any fashion? 15 l THE WITNESS: Not in a specific -- t i 16 ! MR. CHRISTOPHER: In the months preceding the i 17 , accident. ! I ; I 18 l
! THE WITNESS: Not specifically. I don't remember 19 an; reet ngs specific to that
- . : d: rerember :ha-
, l N
mee tings held f or other purposes , such as the plant operations. l 21 I POD, plan of the day meeting, was the forun in which that kind I i 22
- i a .:r::le. c::.5 ' .a :e : e e.- -
da s : .s s e s . 5:: as tc an: { l U
' specific recollection Of such discuss;cns, I don't recall any., !
24 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Do you know if any recording or Ii { i l 25 record of those type of meetings are kept? I know such as the ; I e I l
9 11 ' 32-1 i-PORC, there's a PORC meeting history. Such as,' say, the POD. 2 Did they record the topics, minutes of those meetings, so 3 to speak?
\
4 THE WITNESS: HWe did keep an action iten list which
' i 5 .
was a computerized compilation of tasks related to a variety of topics, typically problems that existed in the plant. f j I wouldn't classify that as minutes per se because it was an , 8' f ongoing ist where items would be added, and when they were }' 9 completed would be dropped off the list. So to that extent, 10 that was a record that pertained to the POD activities. MR. CHRISTOPHER: And you' don't specifically 12 recall the leak rate testing, leak rate surveillance program 13
, or problems with excessive unidentified leakage being a 14 l predominant discussion during any of those type of meetings?
I' 15' i ) f THE WITNESS: Well, in the context of the concern , l 16 4 I expressed to. you earlier about the calculation being -- 1 f t cr~having problems with the calculation. I recall, although i l L 18 } l not from independent recollection at the time, but through h
- Os:-a::112n: activities that that part;cular task was an f 20 L
! -item that was 'isted on the POD. . But other than that, I don't 21' o.
have any specific recollection of such discussions. 22
. MR. CHRISTOPHER: Are you aware of the number of i I
~ 'J -
> leak rate test results being negative results? :n other words!
"4 having a minus net unidentified leakage, indicating the plant.
25 was making water? __m___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ ___ _ _._
I THE WITNESS: No, I didn ' t remember that in the 2 context of the way you stated it. I remember that it was 3 possible to have statistical variation in the results of tne 4 leak rate determination where it was' possible to get a , 5 negative value; typically, a very low value. : l 6 ) MR. CHRISTOPHER: By low you mean it would not be, I say, negative a gallon and a half per minute, or negative ) , 8 I ( two gallons; it would be in the lower range, close to the lj 8 minun fractional negative? l l 10 THE WITNESS: No, I don't.mean in any quantifiable II way. My experience, which is probably predominantly in 12 Unit 1, is that you can get a negative value. I don't recall 13 it in terms of any quantitative level. But you do get a 14 negative. j 15 I I The -- I don't recall any specific recollection I 16 in terms of Unit 2 experience in regard' to that, however. MR. CHRISTOPHER: h'ould you consider it a T.atter of, 18 reutine -- maybe routine is not, the correct word -- that you
]
19 iculd, en nurerous cccasicns, culd get a nega:ive leak ra e 20 when you'd run the tests? Or would that be something that i l' 21 ( would happen on only a rare occasion? i I
)
! ! l THE WII::I55: I find 1: nard to rea.13 q u a ;; f;. !
l l' t3 ! q i:. I ;ust knew that we experienced those R:nd of results. ,
"4
- i l j But I can't really characterize it in quantitative or such s
qualitative fashion. 1 1 { l l l U
I 34 1 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Specifically, for a period of 2 roughly a year prior to the accident there were 170 leax rate 3 tests that were of record. Of those 170, 39 were negative, 4 had a negative leak rate with respect to the unidentified. Do you consider that an inordinate number of negative leak 5 6 rates, or do you consider that -- one, do you consider that < 7 an inordinate number of negative leak rate results for 170 8 tests? 9 THE WITNESS: You presume in your question that I 10 know those statistics to be fact, and I don't. 11 MR. CHRISTOPHER: They are fact. 12 THE WITNESS: Fine. 13 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Assume that they are fact. 14 THE WITNESS: Well, I'm afraid that doesn't help me. 15 I can't really judge, just based on that kind of statistics, 16 whether that's good, bad, consistent with expectation or not. 17 )Idon't have any basis to really answer the cuestion. 18 ; MR. CHRISTOPHER: Are you aware of what supervisory 1 19 ' i cr Canagement individuals, if any, would have been aware of a XI ,- practice of operators throwing away leak rate test results? 21 -l THE WITNESS: I indicated to you before I'm not
** ' ware Of the pra t::t, 5: I cr;.5 ': hs;ir : 7.s s: is t: .i'. :
l 23 ray be aware of that kind of thing. . i 24 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Do ycu have any idea how often l l 2 l i leak rate tests were being'run during a shift? During the I 1
~L 1
1
)
I shifts as an average? 2 THE WITNESS: No, I don't. 3 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Do you know if they were run 4 once every three days as you could possibly interpret the 5 tech spec, or were they run once per shift? Do you have any 6 knowledge as to how often they would be run? 7 THE WITNESS: I thought we covered this ground. 8 I don't remember the frequency in specific terms. Hence, ) 9 I can't be anymore specific on your extension of that question, 10 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Are you aware of any instances l 11 where a shift supervisor requested the plant be shut down, i 12 Unit 2, to correct excessive valve leakage and that request l 13 being denied? j I 14 THE WITNESS: No, I'm not aware of that kind of a l l 15 request. I 16 l THE WITNESS: Were you awar3~ of any or do you 17 H reuall any discussions regarding indications of leakage from f 18 [ the code safeties and/or the PORV, as indi cated by higher than 19 .creal tailpipe temperatures? N THE WITNESS: No, I don't recall any specific l 21 4 discussions.
** "" "u'~ ~I?HIF: 2: f: rs:al_ _f thers . s rs ir-,
i i 23 discussions c: those types of :nd: cations as they related 24 j to your ability to get good leak rates? i 25 l THE WITNESS: No, I don't. l l
{i 36 e 1 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Were you aware of the I 1 2 increasing tailpipe temperatures that you were experiencing i 3 in those several months prior to the accident? j i 4 THE WITNESS: I understood that we had elevated 5 tailpipe temperatures prior to the accident, but I'm not 6 really sure as to the length of time or the timeframe over 7 which those tailpipe temperatures were elevated, nor do I 1 8 specifically recall the rate of rise, if they were rising. ) 9 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Do you recall -- you yourself -- 10 at that time being concerned with these rising tailpipe 11 temperatures? i 12 6 THE WITNESS: I remember being concerned about the 13 matter of leakage from the code safety valves and knowing i 14 l that ultimately during the upcoming outage, those valves were I 15 targeted for repair. And to that extent, .I was concerned. 16 l MR. CHRISTOPHER: Were you ever concerned to the 17 extent that you found it necessary to go to any member of the 18 management t eam and recommend that you not wait until the 19 Outage to shut dcwn to repair the leakage? N THE WITNESS: I don't remember doing tha t kir.d l 21 of thing. -- '- Are jeu :.cire :: a .- . ;nu_";;aals 1 23 that became sufficiently concerned ab ut that type of probier i 24 ! to do exactly that; to go to a member of the management team, 1 1 25 l be it yourself or someone else, and recommend that that kind I i
=
37
.l j ..
p' .. 1 'of action be instituted? . 2 THE WITNESS: No, I don't recall that there was a-f 3 belief that the plant shutdown for the repair of the valves ; 4 would have to be done in a shorter timeframe. It may have. , I l' b 5 been the case .that that was of concern. I don't recall it y 6 reaching a point where continued safe operation was unwarranted ., f-7 in view of the fact that I. understood we were complying with i l 8 overall tech specs concerning that. I just understood that ' L 9 that was of concern, and my recollection was in terms ofL i 10 code safety valves having to be repaired at the next outage. I 4 11 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Did you ever have any discussions i 12 with the' individual who actually prepared the computer program 13 for the performance of the surveillance tests? I believe that 14 , probably would have been Bill Fels. i i 15 - THE WITNESS: Bill was, as I recall, reporting up 16 through my office, at least in p art, an'd it would not be i 17 ; uncommon to have a discussion or discussions with him on 1 18 computer matters. But I don't remember any that were specific l 19 to this matter, alth: ugh I can't -- , 20 MR. CHRISTOPHER: as spe ;.fic discussions with 21 him regarding the program as it relates to the leak rate test. 22 THE WIT::III: E*;ht.
. 3;t : c a. * : d.s:: z.: :na; I
23 [I such discussions wculd have Occurred durin; the curse of 24 the engineering work on the matter. 25- MR. CHRISTOPHER: So you don't recall that he
- i
.I l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ i
, t 38 l.
1 brought to your attention an,y consistent problem they were 2 having with the leak rate test program? i 3 , THE WITNESS: No, I don't remember any. 4 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Are you aware of operators adding, 1 j 5 )3 hydrogen to the make-up tank for the express purpose of ( 6 attempting to affect leak rate test results? l l 7 - THE WITNESS: No. [
! (
8 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Do you know why hydrogen is 9 supposed.to be able to affect the leak rate test? 10 THE WITNESS: No. 11 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Have you ever heard -- 12 subsequent there have been studies. Now, have you heard l 13 { s'ub seque nt to the accident of additional events that <s 14 l happened, do you know now why hydrogen can affect the test 15 l results? Do you know why hydrogen could conceivably affect 16 the test results? l 17 THE WITNESS: No. And even to this day, I believe 18 ; le to be an effect that's not possible. 19 ' MR. CHRISTOPHER: What indications do the m Opera:crs -- what para..eters do they normally monitor in l 21 i deciding when to make hydrogen additions to the RCS? I ao ~U"
- T:T':ESS: C uld f ; res: sis that, please?
U MR. CHRISTC?HER: What parameters would y:u expset 24 l the operators would be watching in making a decision as to 3 l ts I. what times they would need to add hydrogen to the RCS and how i i e
y Pt "6
- 1. ,,
- 1. ,
M, s 29 A- '
,t s k
"I much hydrogen they would actually need to add? l 2
THE WITNESS: My recollection was that the dominant l 3 parameter was the pressure in the make-up tank, and you would {
'- add hydrogen to maintain the pressure as a funct. ion of the )
i 1 5 "[" level in the make-up tank at above a minimum value called for ' l J u 6 in the -- I believe it wap the B&W limits and precautions for 7 that parame ter. ) 8 )- MR. CHRISTOPHER: So they would essentially know 8
- that they had to keep a certain overpressure, if that's the 10 right term, in order to eliminate the free oxygen in the 11 system?
) - i 12 THE WITNESS: Yes. Basically, that's correct. L ) 13 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Are all water additions to the i l 14 RCS supposed to be recorded in the control room log? I . - a 15 i THE WTTNESS: 1 don't remember anymore if there was
- 8. -
j l 16 a requirement for that ornot. l i l 17 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Do you know if, in fact, operators
,s, i
18
< were not logging every water addition that they made to the RCS.?
18 t THE ;,':T::ESS : .:: , I don't. : d:n't ha*>e 'any l M independent knowledge of that. 1
)
'M MR. CHRISTO?HER: Are you a ware c ' cperators adding :
i M , . . water :: :ne ar:e-;p tar- : _ r _..; t . .e
- .rse :: a .. e a .- rate 1
23 test ind nc inputting that operator- nduced change into the , I
)1 24 fcomputerforthepurposes'ofaffectingthe leak rate test I
l 25 result? a 4 i u
. L' t THE WITNESS: No.
2 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Are you aware of any supervisory 3 individuals, the shift foreman or shift operations icvel, that 4 were aware of that? 5 THE WITNESS: No. 6 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Or any other ma.agement 7 individuals above that level that were aware of that? 8 THE WITNESS: I have no knowledge of that, nor 9 th eir practice. to MR. CHRISTOPHER: You don't recall any discussions gi or a general awareness that that was going on at that time? i t 12 THE WITNESS: No. 13 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Or by supervisory type individuals, 14 yourself or others immedia tely below you or above ycu?' 15 I THE WITNESS: No. 16 l MS. PENNY: And you were not aware of that practice, 17 correct? 18 ; THE WITNESS: That's right. I 19 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Did you ever enter into any 3 discussions witn an;. Opera:trs, ;nd;v; duals, where;n ;t was . I 21 communicated to you that they felt -- they, the operators --
' i i
1 :e.: :nat they .cere under a let of intense pressure .o get 22 23 70Cd leak r3tes, to the extent that an opera:Or fel: that he 24 was being intimidated, that his Job may be on the line or 25 that he would suffer some kind of adverse consequences by not i t s-_------_-__ . _ _ _ . . _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
L }-
', 41 l'
l- ) 1 performing a good leak rate test? j l I I 2 THE WITNESS: No. I'm not aware of that. And I'm ] 3 assuming good means -- you're not talking about doing a good 4 job at what he's doing. You're referring to getting results ; 5 4' that are acceptable and in rempliance with the tech specs. 8 MR. CHRISTOPHER: So you're not aware of any 7 unusual pressures being exerted on the operators to get a 1 8 : i }. I good leak rate test result. > 7 THE WITNESS: No. 10 MR. CHRISTOPHER: And you're not aware of operators II being directed to manipulate the leak rate tests in order to . 1 1 l l 3,' 4 I get good results in any fashion? 13 I THE WITNESS: No, I'm not aware of any such thing. 14 l , MR. CHRISTOPHER: Do you, from a professional j ) i 1 15 i standpoint -- can you deternine or make an assumption as to
\
j
\
i 16
.! whether or not this leaka?a that you were having from the code i
i I l safeties, would that or did that have an effect on your abilt:1 . 18
] to get a good, unidentified leak rate?
19 T:iE WIT::ESS : *:: , it sncuidn': "2te an; effe:: at all. 20 MR. CHRISTOPHER: And why is that?
.I og THE WITNESS: Because the leakage from a cole safetj
~ 2 ce -- assuring y u're ta' king about tne :nrcugn-sea:
I
'3 leakage as opposed to leakage to the external portions of
'4 the valve -- would ultimately end up in the drain tank where 25 l'
it results in increasing inventory in the drain tank. Anc my
?
I l
li 42 1 understanding of the methodology of performing a calculation 2 is that that is taken into account, and the manner in which 3 that's done .is that that is treated as identified leakage. 4 And that excepts leakage from any other of the leak-offs i 5 or leakage pathways, s:me of which are controlled leakage, i 8 f rom other portions of the RCS. 7 So in that context, assuming that the calculation 8 properly accounts for that, you should not see any change in 8 the unidentified leakage portion because you simply take the 10 total leak rate from the reactor coolant system and you -- 11 the methodology is that you subtract from that the identified ! 12 ' leakage. And you end up then with the unidentified leakage, 13 which by its very nature is not a measured quantity. 14 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Do you know if there was a period i 15 l of time in plant operations where the operators could not 16 add hydrogen to the make-up tank from the control room? U l Because of a malfunction. 18 THE WITNESS: I recall a time early when I came 19 i r.: t Unit 2 that there es a ecncerr with the hydr:ger 3 take-up, but I don't specifically recall the nature of it. I 21 l MR. CHRISTOPHER: Would auxiliary operators -- to l e, '
. . . . .:w_e ;e :: ..e ...: Ocerati:ns e =-- - ..ne: -- wr..:
1 23 l auxiliary cperatcrs te authorized to make hycrogen acci::cas 24 l to the make-up tank on their own volition, or would that be D required to be, say, approved by a licensed operator? l
y. h 4-l l 1 1 THE WITNESS: I don't really know. I can only ) 2 draw from my understanding and experience in Unit 1 as to how i i 3 the auxiliary operators and the operators interact. No rmr.l ly , ' 4 the control room operator is responsible for overall direction. 1 i j l 5 {ofthat kind of an activity, and he would normally do it. .
]'
I 6 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Do you have an independent 7 recollection, placing yourself back in-that time prior to the 8 accident, of LERs -- specifically, LER 78-62 issued in l 8 October of 1978 regarding an LCO violation for unidentified
- j 10 leakage? Do you at this time have any independent recollec-II tion of that specific LER? '
12 THE WITNESS: No. ) 13 MR. CONNOLLY: Were you at Unit 2 in October 1978? I I4 THE W: TNESS: No. I 15 . MR. CONNOLLY: Where were you in October 1978? 1 i p i-THE WITNESS: I was in Unit 1. , i I l.' t MR. CCNNOLLY: What was your responsibill;y at I 18
; Unit 1 at that time?
19
- S u p e r i r :e r.d s r. : , Te:r.;:31 TH7 WITNISS: .
. nit .
N Suppcrt. 21 MR. CHR:STOPHER: So you would have had *.0 review
- ci;: i.:'. :.ec : :e r , say, a
. *Eh a: . :,1 : 2, cr .: : = 5 917. s e 23
- ar LER at Jnit :?
f 24 i l THE WITNESS: No, not specifically. I SS Excuse me, will this take much loncer? I'd like , I i, il
U 44 8 I to leave at 5:00. - 2 MR. CHRISTOPHER: You can stop the interview at 3 any time you want, but e're very close to being done. 4 THE WITNESS: Let's go on. 5 MR. CHRISTOPHER: I t hink you've answered this. 6 You're not aware of how many leak rate tests operators were 7 running during any particular shift. Is that correct? 8 THE WITNESS: That's right. I MR. CHRISTOPHER: Were you aware of or did you 10 hear of operators attempting to jog water into the make-up 11 tank during the course of the leak rate test in order to 1 12 affect the result? By jogging I mean versus adding one amount 13 in one time, adding a little bit of water over the period of i " the one hour during which the test was run, l i 15 j THE WITNESS: Well, aside from the fact that you 16
; put water in at whatever frequency you want to maintain the
! I II !
level within the operating band, I don't know what the
. i 10 specific practices were.
19 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Eut jeu're .ct a..are of opera..rs ~ sttsr.pting to Jog this wate r in there for the specific purpose 21 of affecting a leak rate test?
...; .; 7m::.
1 3 MR. CHRISTO?HER: And I think we brought this up g 24 earlier when we referred to the technical change notice that 25 was issued to ccrrect a deficiency in the surveillance 9
I 45 : 1 procedure. Specifically, it states, to more accurately account 2 for RCS leakage collected in the drain tank. Do you have I 3 any independent recollection of -- as to who initiated the 4 TCN, who identified the deficient -- who originally identified 5 the deficiency in the surveillance procedure. Somebody 6 said hey, we've got to make this kind of correction. Do 7 you have any recollection as to how this TCN evolved? ) 8 TIiE WITNESS: No, I don't. 9 MR. CHRISTOPHER: And do you r ecall at that time 10 that while the TCN made corrections to the procedure to correcP 11 the inventory in the RCDT to the RCS operating conditions, ) 12 tha t it failed to make the sane corrections for the MUT 13 additions? Do you recall being aware of that at the time? j 14 THE WITNESS: No. l I l 15 ; MR. CHRISTOPHER: Do you have any recollection of l } 16 any individuals sitting in a pORC review that recognized that I 17 ] deficiency in the TCM at the time it was issued? , 18 THE WITNESS: No, I don't. 19 i MR. CHRISTOPHER: You're not aware of individuals i N ra:x nizing that deficiency and approving :: anywa; because it 21 I actually had the effect of working in the favor -- in favor 22 Of the pla-t ;r ter s : f O t t i. . i n ; a ;;;d Isak ra :s ' i i . 23 .n- -"r5S: No, : don't. 24 i MR. CHRISTOPHER: Were you aware of any management l I s j discussions or did you participate in any discussions to the l i I l
d 4 , 1 , 1 effect that Unit 2 would not be shut down to correct' leakage until Unit 1 was back online from the refueling outage? 3 THE WITNESS: No. 4 FR. CHRISTOPHER: I think earlier'you talked about l 5 having the repairs for the code safeties scheduled for the 1 6 1 next -- was that for the next outage? Is that what you 7 were referring to? O THE WITNESS: Yes. 8 MR. CHRISTOPHER: But you're not aware of any 1 10 l discussions that stated we need to keep the plant running II l until Unit 1 gets back online? i i i l' 4HE WITNESS: I don't remember any such discussions.l 13 MR. CONNOLLY: Whose responsibility would it be at 14
; that time to take Unit 2 of f the lir.e , shut Unit 2 down?
15 THE WITNESS: In terms of a planned outage or 16 forced outage or what? l. I MR. CONNOL*Y: By example, the problem with the la code safety valves. 19 MR. C H RI S TC P H EP. : This is say;ng *..h: .ad the authority to take the plant off line at 3:00 o' clock in the 21 l , morning, in essence. ,
,, I
.nz ....::: .he licensed rea::cr : era ;r has - s ..
"J authority to do such. .
l
'4 MR. CHRISTOPHER: Can he do that without the 25 approval of someone, say, be it the. load dispatcher or the I
I 47 1 unit superintendent? Can he unilaterally do that? Could he ) 2 at that time? 3 THE WITNESS: He's obligated under his authority 4 in order to insure the protection of personnel, the public 5 and the plant, to take emergency action to shut the plant 6 down-at any time he deems it necessary in the interest of 7 safety to do so. If s ou're relating to the code safety valve, 8 my understanding is that there was no immediate or near-term 1 9 impending need to do so, and that was -- so in that context- . 10 MR. CONNOLLY: Okay. My question is hypothetical. 11 During this time period, who in management position would , 12 have had the authority to shut the plant down because of the 1 l 13 - code safety problems? Who would have made that decision? 14 l THE WITNESS: Again, if you're talking about ) i 15 ;. hypothetically, wha. is the condition with the code safeties h L 4 16 that we're talking about? l 17 MR. CONNOLLY:
., Excessive leakage.
18 THE WITNESS: The leakage that we had? j 19 MR. CONNOLLY: Yes. You "ad a , leakage prchler with X) ' the code safeties. We've developed information during the 1 21 . course of our investigation that there were discussions held 22 2 :;t :ssein: the c la..: :nline u r. :: : Jn;; 1 are b a ::- :n;;ne i t' 23
, and then shutting it dcwn to f;x the probier with the code .
1 24 safeties. My question is who in manage. ment would have made 25 the decision to keep the plant online in that particular 1 1 l J
d ! 4 48 1 example I just gave. - 2 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 3 MR. CONNOLLY : Okay. Has anyone admitted to you 4 that they were involved in the falsification of leak rate 5 test data? 6 THE WITNESS: No. 7 MR. CONNOLLY: Has anyone told you that they know 8 of individuals who were involved in the falsification of leak 8 rate test data? 10 j THE WITNESS: No. 11 MR. CONNOLLY: Do you have any information regarding 12 any falsification of leak rate test data in Unit 2? l I3 THE WITNESS: No. I4 "R. CONNOLLY: That's all. I 15 ! MR. CHRISTOPHER: Okay, that concludes the 16 interview. The time is 5:08. I 17 j (Whereupon, at 5:08 p.m., the interview was 18 f concluded.) l 19 '
- o 21 l
22 i Z3 ! 24
- s
C3TI?*: ATE ?? ? ? !C T E O.: 35 i 2 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the
, I ::RC CC:ot:SSION
, In the matter of: Investigative Interview of George A. Kunder Date of Proceeding: Wednesday, September 28, 1983 7
Place of Proceeding: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
, were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript for the file of the Commission, to Suzanne Young 11 official Reporter - Typed 12 A l
~
_ m of ficidd Reporter - Signature _ r er is 16 i? } i i e 1 19 l l I 21 22 F a l 24
)
TAYLCE A SSOCI ATE S a re:st r.= co ==cressiosat a cacarcas sonrot<. vincisiA
( KUNDER, GEORGE 3/6/85 Stier Investigation -- - __-m_- ____ - ____m._-___m_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____.._____________________.________._____m.________ _____._
I k IN RE: TMI II LEAK RATE TEST PRACTICES l 1
* *
- l 1
DEPOSITION OF j GEORGE A. KUNDER Verbatim transcript of deposi tion held at Trailer 110B, Three Mile Island, Middle town , Pennsylvania , on Hednesday, March 6, 1985 10:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: EDWIN H. STIER, ESQUIRE 333 Littleton Road Suite 102 Parsipoany, Meu Jersey 07054 BY: FREDERICK P. DeVESA, ESQUIRE FOR: GPU Nuclear KILLIAN & GEPflART 216-218 Pine Street Post Office Box 886 Harrisburg, Panru;ylvania 17108 BY: SMITl! B. GEPII ART , ESQUIRE FOR: Georqe A. Kunder CAPITAL CITY REPORTING SEfMCE [$AMR V - ffDfRA SQJARE STATION
- , - n ,. .
---------_-___m._._______ _
l 2 l INDEX_TO WITNESS WITNESS.: DIRECT CROSS George A. Kunder 3 57 CAPITAL CIN REPORTING SEfMCE Enxee u FEncoAt wr6 siet'co -
l' 3 GEORGE A. KUNDER,. called as a witness, being duly sworn - by the Court Reporter, testi- ' fied as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DeVESA: i i 0 State your f till name and spell your las t name 1 for the record, please. l A. George A. Kunder. My las t name is , K-u-n-d-e-r. O Mr. Kunder, you were the superintendent of the Technical Support at Unit II from December of ' 78 until March of<'79, were you not? A. That's correct. l 0 Were you also chairman of the Plant . Operations - and Review Committee during the sanic period of time? A. Tha t is correc t. O Were you questioned by the Investigative Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding your knowledge of improper leak rates an'd practices at TMI II in September of 1983? A. I don't remember the exact date, but, yes. MR. GEPHART: Let the record show that the l transcript indicates tha t the sworn interview was conducted on Sep tember 28, 1983. BY MR. DeVESA: [ Resuming] 0 Have you had an opportunity to review the CAPITAL CITY REPORTING SEfNICF [WAWER U FEDf% SQuNE STAf l 0N u -< .~r r . - m a ' r;
KUNDER/ DIRECT
-4 transcript of that sworn interview recently?
A Yes, I have. , G And after reviewing that have you been able to de termine whe ther it accurately protrays the information that you conveyed to the NRC during that interview? A To the best of my knowledge it appears to. G Did you notice anything at this time that you l I would like to correct or any. obvious inaccuracies in the information tha t you provided to them? A. No, I did not de tect any areas that appeared l i to be in error. G As Chairman of PORC was it part of your i l l i
; responsibility to inves tiga te violations of the technical I
l l specifications? A. Yes it was. G Was it also a part of your responsibility as chairman of tha t commi t tee to make recomme nda tions to the unit superintendent and 'the GRC which were designed to prevent the occurrences of any violations that might be uncovered? A. I don't really recall the language in the charter. I'd have to take a look at the toch specs to clarify that. But I could say for sure that our role involved an advisory one to at least the unit s upe rin te nde n t . I don't know about the GRC for sure. CAPITAL CIN REPORTING SEIMCE EC/G U FED % SOME SWON
,,w;
KUNDER/ DIRECT 5 G Please take a look at the technical specifica-tions, 6.5.1.6, dealing with the Plant responsibilities of the Plant Review Committee, and tell me if that refreshes your recollec tion with respect to what those du ties were. A (Witness examined document. ) It doesn't appear to refresh my memory, but this is the charter tha t we wen t by. But I think at that time my understanding would have been that we would forward recommendations to both the superintendent and the Generation Review Committee Chairman. G Was i t also part of your responsibility as the Chairman of the Plant Operations Review Committee to review licensee event reports and to make recomme nda tions regarding their adequacy to the superin tenden t and the GRC? A Basically our role involved review of LER's. G And what purpose was this review for? A. Uell I perceived the review to be to identify safety oriented actions that would be recommended to preclude recurrence as well as to look in general for any unreviewed sa fe ty ques tions . G I'd like you to take a look at LER 78-62 and i the accompanying documents. l For the record I'll note tha t PORC Action Item relating to this LCR is a ttached, as well as a document review form pertaini g g g s g attached. rnAMR u ,FEDEW
- ,- SOJArE STATICN
.,~.o
KUNDER/ DIRECT ; 6 :; Will you please examine those for a minute , Mr. Kunder. f-A. (Witness examined documen ts . ) Okay. i G Do you have any recollection as to whether or not you saw that document, had anything to do with its fl i preparation or the review of that document in your capacity l I f as either superintendent of Technical Support or chairman of
]
l PORC in-December of 1978? J A No, I don' t have any recollection of seeing this or dealing with this. l l 0 Since that time you have been shown that ) I document, have you not? i A. Yes. ] l Q. Can you reconstruct today f rom having seen that document during prior interviews whether or not you saw the document or reviewed the document bac'k in 1978 or 1979? j i A. No. O So you have no present recollection of j reviewing this documen t , and you cannot tell whe ther you reviewed the document even today? l l A. That's correct, I do not. i
- 0. I'd like to direct your attention to the General Of fice Review Board mee ting minutes of January 10, 1979. Particularly Item 2 (c) (1) on page three and Item 2 ( f) on page four.
CAPITAL CITY REPORTING SErMCE CCAWEQ U - FEDb1At SQJAfE STATON u m e:r,- no o ma
KUNDER/ DIRECT 7 A 2 (c) (1) ? G. 2 (c) (1) on page two and 2 (f) on page four. f A (Witness examined documen t. ) Okay. O Now, do you have ai y recollection of attending 1 the meeting to which those minutes 7f January 10th pertain? j A No. G Was it a common thing for you to attend a GORB mee ting? A. I t was no t uncommon, based on my recent experience. I don't really recall the degree or the. frequency with which I attended back at th a t tl=e pe ri od . O If this mee ting took- place on January 10 th
~
would this have been the first meeting you might have attended as the chairman of PORC? A I couldn't say based upon recollection. I could only infer based upon looking.at all the Board meeting mi n u te s . G Do you have any recollection of how of ten GORB met? A. Just roughly. I recall the practice which was to mee t about on a quarterly basis more or less. It has l l changed I think wi thin the las t five years. And I'm not really clear anymore as to what the specifi6 f requency was- I know it was in that general frequency. G In any@MMSMTMMqge f rom at leas t COAWER U - FEffRAL SOJADE STAT ON n . . n e. v ; 4,. ,
8 KUNDER/ DIRECT your reviewing the documents that LER 78-62 pertains to the f ailure of the operations Department 'to enter into an action s tatement as a result of them exceeding li.miting c'onditions ( I e l for operation on October 18, 1978? l A. Could you repeat that? I've not tried to draw I any conclusions on this particularly and I don' t know that I'm prepared to really analyze the thing beyond wha t'-s wri t ten q here since I don ' t have pe rsonal involvement. 0 Woulc) you please repeat the ques tion.
!! (The pending ques tion was read by the Repor ter. )
Awm u . rtrew roaAx sw ON
, 3- n.,.-,,,
i KUNDER/ DIRECT 16 chairman, whoever happened to be performing that role at the
' mome n t . - And action items would be prepared to address any
)
. items that were not yet completed.
And then those action items would be coordinated l l } in terms of listing them and keeping the records. That would I } be done by the PORC secretary on behalf of the PORC committee. Th6t was the general practice , l l G Now if the LER was forwarded'to the Generation L Review Committee by PORC and the Generation Review Committec l believed that it was inadequate and wanted some changes made,
)
what would happen next? i p A. I don't really know for sure because I don't i recall any specific instances where they had problems with I l the LER. i 1 ! 1 l 0 .You don't recall any case where the LER, any I , l d LIlR , as it left PORC was ever changed? O l- A. I don't remember any instances off hand [! H
.t G Now what would PORC do to see tha t the action l i tems were success f ully comple ted?
\
- i. A. Well in general I recall that we reauired some form of documentation being submi tted along with a closo out package, so that we coald put that on file to demonstrate,
! to the extent practicable that the acti on had been comple ted.
I G Weuld the documentation generally be in the form of some type of a docunent review form, as attached to CARTAL CliY REPCRTING SEIMCE EMwfD o EEDEM SooArn s%rry; w n ,. .,o,
( n l KUNDER/ DIRECT 17
- this particular LER?
4;
~
A. That's one type of documentation that I recall ! was required.- Other types - ' 3 n t. involve for example, , 1 1 comple ted procedures or work reques ts of some thi ng to be fixed. j g If it were de termined today that this item was not properly resdived, th a t the appropriate personnel were not instructed with respect to the proper requirements of- the technical . speci fications , whose responsibili ty woulc' tha t be? ' A. The individual who had the responsibility for his people.
-a G Well, I'm not sure what you mean by th a t .
l
..! A. Well the individual who is responsible for the li adtion c For example, if he 's responsible to ins truct his s people on some particular topic, to train them in of fect, then that manager or supervisor, o r wh a te ve r , is responsible for comple ting th a t .
O And would PORC in any way be responsible for
. .)
l scoing that that action was taken be fore they signed off on it? A. Well aside f rom the f act we don' t have a PORC l ! l today the safe ty review body does the s ame thing. And that l safety review body does not go back as a required action and verify tha t the action has been comple ted through sanpling techniques, or throu g Q g g g ning of individuals conv.in u . FEDEr>tt cAUArr SWON x -, ,. ~. c . . . . ,
,. KUNDER/ DIRECT 18 ) on their level of knowledge and that sort of thing; although that is'an option. Q. Well in the case of this particular LER it i would appear that the only evidence that there had been scme
)
instruction regarding the contents of the LER is this document review form. -) But you indicated earlier from reviewing that 'i f arm and o ther documen ts at tached to the LE R that you could not tell f rom looking at' the records precisely wha t had been . l I done. l How could you have de termined that back in 1978 or ' 79 when it was your responsibili ty to review this? A. ' If at that time it was desired to follow up and determine did they really ins truct them adequately,
, thoroughly, did each and every individual that initialed in fact receive the instruction, and to a hundred percent follow up. That was the expection; which i t was no t.
l We would simply go out and interview people and de ter mi ne if there is unders tanding and who ther or not they
'had the kind of unders tanding and proper context, and assure that there was no misleading unders tanding involved So if you're looking for that level of de tail' obviously signatures or initials without dates no less, would not be suf ficient today or then to get to th a t level of detail
- CAPITAL Ch' REPORTING SEfMCE DRAAT7 U (EDt M SO A?E STAilON
- ___ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -._____m._________.___________m_-_____m___ __ _ __._ ________m___m
KUNDER/ DIRECT 19 i So when you ask that question it depends on the level of specificity that you.'re interested in as to whe ther this document here by itself can sufficiently address all i the questions. 0 Why was it not the expectation back in 1978 and early 1979 to have a hundred percent thorough follow up ; on each one of the LER's that were being reviewed by FORC? A. Well I don' t know how to answer why. I just ] know that th a t was the expectation and that actually contiriues
~
on through today. The docum: 7tation provided by the managerial supervisor, or whoever, again was responsible for the L activity, you know, had to supply a reasonable certification and reasonable te s t and that was the kind of documentation' that was considered reasonable to assure that the job was done. Q. Well in this case af ter reviewing the documents were you reasonably satisfied that the LER in ques tion was adequa tely described and that the follow up action was in fact taken? l l A. I don't know how I would have judged that back at that time specifically. Q. Well what other information would you have had available to you other than the documents that are he re now? A. Are we talkina back at chat time? CAPtTAL CiTV REFORTING SEfMCE DW.9? U FEDE% *C @f STCCW
KUNDER/ DIRECT 20 f- If'you recall. 0 j lu I don' t really remember this at all. G I unders tand tha t. But I'm trying to see what the practice is. We have the documents before you, at least. l we think we do, that you would have had available to you at f that time. f I-By your own review of those documen ts it appears that they are somewhat ambiguous or not at least completely capable of describing what occurred, and whether 1 I the follow up act' ion was satisfactorily taken. l Was the re any other information available - to you as chairman of PORC upon which you would have based this !
.1 decision that this item could be closed out?
I A. I suspect the re are in general other ways,
- depending on how deeply one wishes to follow up on f I j i
; independently verifying or checking whether the action was i I L donc properly. And tha t would be de termined , or the need to follow up to that extent is more the function of the
! significance of the i tem . It's a judgment call. i And big deal items wher'e there 's ques tions in the PORC's mind would be followed up 'in o ther ways . Like I said, you could talk to individuals and interview then to see how comprehensive, how much in depth, how thorough the ir understanding really was.
You could have the Audi ti ng Department do some CAPliAL CW REPORTING SErMCE
. ormwn v . storpet so mE swcf a
, c.. e n- . .,.
KUNDER/ DIRECT 21 _ work for you. There are other techniques th a t could be used. - Again, depending on how much in depth one wished to go back,- or one felt as a judgment tha t i t was requi red . O. Assuming for the momen t tha t PORC did nothing but review these documents that we have here today, ahose responsibility would that have been to have made th a t decision? A. That's basically a collective decision of the i group, of the commi t tee . - 0 As chairman what role would you play in re-viewing a document like this LER and making a determination I that no further inves tiga tion was required? -- A. I would have the same basic role and i' , the rest of the group to pass judgment on (li responsibility as l the adequacy of the close out. -- h j I t was not uncommon then, nor today, to [ require documen tation that people had, you know, had reviewed the LER and had been exposed to some sort of counseling or
. raining feedback.
l l ll 0 Based upon your review of a number of LER's at __ I,!
; that time, is it your opinion th a t this LER would have been ll __
' deemed to be of somewhat a routine nature?
l A. I don't really know. Each LER is dif ferent and __ I simply don't recall LCR's on a specific basis th a t well anymore from back at hifAICNSfCRTING C SEfNCE - (WNMRU FEDER f0JA9E SWG
[ KUNDER/ DIRECT 22 fu i G Well, you can tell now that this LER dealt with ! exceeding the limiting conditions of operation for reactor 1 coolant, sys tem leakage, correct? 1 1 1 A It appears to deal with tha t topic, yes. 1 g And it sugges ts th a t the reason that this l violation of the technical specifications took place was l 4 because of an improper interpretation cf those technical ) 1 1
. specifications by Plant personnel, correct? ]
! A. That appears to be the case. I O Given the nature of that kind of a violation l )- would it not be deemed extremely important tha t Plant L personnel were appropriately ins tructed so tha t they did not l continue to violate the technical specifications? i
^
A. It was apparent based on the write up here that j that was felt to be an important factor. Hence the corrective that appears to be specified and dealt with at tha t l action time, i G But the fact of the matter is there seems. to be no evidence tha t pORC did anything to inves tigate and to determine whether or not that correc tive action was taken, I other than perhaps to review the sign of f sbcet that is attached to the LER. Is that correct? A. No, I don't see that there is information here l that can lead you to conclude one way or the other whether CAPITAL OTY REPORTiNC SEfMCE cru en u ww soutm sTAICtJ c- -. << w
KUNDER/ DIRECT '23 1 PORC took any additional steps or not, G Well then where would one find. that information? A. From the document information I don' t know. O. If it became important to de termine jus t exactly what PORC'did in respect to this LER and all that is. available are those records, how might one determine what a else PORC relied on to de termine whether the action had been satisfactorily completed? A. It's sort of telling the expert his business. I assume you're interviewing people to try to piece toge ther any additional recollection. But beyond that I really don't : know. , I l
- G Well those people for the mos t part don't I
remember ever being instructed about the proper interpretation of the technical specifications. f I And ye t 'we have evidence in the file that PORC
! signed off on the fact that the action that had been reported, and in fact promised I suppose to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was in fact taken.
What we're trying to determine is how th a t li determination was made at PORC. We ask you as the l chairman of PORC at least initially what light you can shed l-on that. l
,1 Well I'm,giving you my recollection as to the general practice of giggggeb/ICf S EnANQ U FEDEQtt SQUAPE STATCtJ
,,.-r r. . .,e.
KUNDER/ DIRECT 24 (. any conclusions from that and apply it to a specific case,
'I -jus t don' t' know.
G You have been questioned previously about this LER, have you not? A At the outset we talked about the NRC, they did question me about that I think, as I recall. G I assume since 1979 you have had occasion to talk to people about this LER?
- a. Other than preparation and my interview, I don't remember any discussions outside this arena, no.
O But even in that context, in the context of prior interviews and in preparing for those interviews you've had an opportunity to attempt to reconstruct what action you had taken, what knowledge you had with respect to this LER, have you not? A. I think I've had tha t oppor tuni ty , yes. G Now have you done anything from 1979 until the present to at tempt to reconstruct and determine what you as chairman of PORC did with respect to this particular LER? A. No. The net result of all my i n terviews , my discussions, my reading of the material that people put in front of me, I don't remember dealing with the matter. And that's pre tty much been my recollection all along. G And have you attempted to do anything aside from responding to g g g og g gfg g our recollection and conw> u FEDE%. so;mE S*A'C#9 p,% .y .,.
KUNDER/DIRCT 25 to investigate and to inquire and to determine what in fact your role was in the oversight of this LER? - A. No. I didn't really have any direct role before I came to Unit Two and afterwards i don't remember dealing with the matter. I've had no reason to go back and' try and recons truct any of it either beyond, you know, my interview. O. Don't you think that as chairman of PORC the - role that you played in overseeing this LER, particularly.in
=
light of the questions that are being raised today, that your - role was somewhat important? A. Of course I felt it was an important role and I tried to do the job commensurate with tha t degree of importance. O. But you did not deem it i mt>o r tan t enough to go back and inquire and investigate and try to de te rmine jus t what in fact you did with respect to this LER or what _ PORC did wi th respect to this LER? MR. GEPilART : The record should reficct Mr. l Kunder has been consis tently advised by his Counsel not to discuss these matte rs wi th o ther people. l Q. After reviewing these documents are you ahic to shed any further light on what PORC did to de te rmi ne that this - LER had been adequately and accurately described and disposed 0f? CAPITAL OTY REPORTING SErMCE - En wr> U FEDFrW W D S W m
- 3. ;f n. .~. i _
t
l 1 J KUNDER/ DIRECT 26 A. No, I'm afraid not. O I'd like to go on to the period of January q l
.1979 if you will, and .ask you whe ther or not you can recall any particular problems with respect to reactor coolant f system leakage that stand out in your mind as occurring in January of 1979? .
l l A. I don't really remember any specifica in .the f January timef rame . G Do you have any recollection of leaking I pressurizer valves tha t in January of 1979 were becoming l l more and more of a problem and began to trigger discussions regarding whe ther the Plant ought to be shut down or not? l
! A. Not based on any independent recollection of tha t l- ! time period, no.
l O You attended nlan of the day nee tinas in l January of 1979 as supe rin te nden t of Technical Support? A. Nell it was my normal practice to a ttend aos t of those POD's. And I can only speculate tha t I attended many of them during that time period. O. George, please take a look at the supplemental POD work list for January 9th and January 14 th, 1979. Particularly on pages two and three, entries dealing wi th valves 133A, 135A, 135B and 134B. Do you have first of all any independent recollection of problems wi th leakace coming from those CAPilAL OTY REPORTING ~SETMCE D?MT'? U - FEDERAL SO A% SIAIKf4 uss-m- en >
KUNDER/ DIRECT 27
) valves?
A. I remember - I'd have to confirm my recollection , but I remember that there was problems with leaks from the root valve pressurizer level instrumentation lines. And I th ink that these valves are the same ones. I'd have to confirm that by looking at the drawing again to be sure. G Okay. I want you to take a look at some thing that is marked, File OPS Notes, RCS Leakage, 1/13/79. A. Yes. G Does looking at that OPS note in any way ref resh your recollection with respect to the significance of those leaking valves and whether you w'ere aware of them in January of 1979? A. No. I don't remembe r i t in terms of January. It s till doesn' t change that. Bu t it's consis tent wi th my recollection that the pressurizer root valves, which are the 135B and 134B, those type valves were having some leakage. G Do you have a recollection of those valves leaking, or have you been able to reconstruct from these _ _ records th a t thc y in f act were leaking at th a t time? 7 A. Well the dates on the notes and the dates on the supplemental POD suggest that they were identified as _ being leaking in the early January time period o f 1979. But it doesn't help me ggegg g g ggt that in terms of tpAto u . rErfr#t SQJARE STATON _ w ,; m r.<~. os ar-~ _
]
L KUNDER/DI RECT - 28 [ that' time period, Q. Can you tell me from looking at the supplemental POD: work lis t what was being done about those valves, if anything, when they were first discovered leaking and what i type of leakage'it was? A Well on the supplemental POD work list one entry associated with an apparent identification date of 1/2/79 suggests that by the bonne t leak. And sugges ts some indication of planning Furmenite at these valves . And I draw some inference from that tha t's wha t. i t appears to l: l l suggest. l Q Can you first of all tell me whe ther the leakage l l j f rom those _ valves would be reactor coolant system leakage? I L l A. Yes, that would be reactor coolant sys tem leakage. 1 I 0 And would you have known that at tha t time? I li I A That those valves were connected to the reactor coolant sys tem? G Yes.
! A Oh, yes.
G So if you attended this meeting and there was some discussion abo,ut these valves that were leaking, you and the other attendees would have known this was reactor coolant system leakage? A. That gQ g ggG SEfMCE onw,n u . REC (% SCHW StATICta
,- . w.e
KUNDER/ DIRECT 29 0 Now you indicated that f rom the supplemental work list at least it appears to you that plans were being made to Furmenite the se valves. Can you tell me what is meant by Furmeniting these valves? A The process of Furmeniting involves injection of a bitumihous material into a joint or the leaking area. And with heat and pressure that material hardens and seals off the leak. It is particularly employed in mechanical joint type leaks. G In this particular case would this process be employed in order to repair the leakage without shutting the Plant down? I A. The process could be used, you know, in an on-
-line environment.
l G Well if the Plant were shut down would that be the process that would be used to repair the le akage ? A. It had been used in past circums tances to repair the leakage even in a shut down situation, yes. O Would it not be preferable to somehow replace the valves if that were possible? A. Well that's a judgment. It depends on the circumstances. But normally replacement if it's feasible and practical, all things considered, is the preferred way. g Do you have any recollection as to why these CAPITAL CITY REPCRTING SErNCE Do^vs u reom some s'ADON
- v. -em v : . - . .
i KUNDER/ DIRECT 30 j j' valves were Furmenited? A I don' t recall whe ther they ' in f act were Furmeni ted . I don' t know. G Do you recall having any discussion with anyone abou't ge tting approval to Furmenite them in order that the Plant could remain operating? r A. I don't remember any activity associated with l th a t that I was involved with. ! G If there was some consideration of shutting the Plant down in order to replace these valves because the . i f- leakage could not be properly corrected, would you have been { privy to those discussions? A. I would typically be involved in those and it
, I ; I wouldn' t be a necessity, but it would be likely that I'm ]
I involved in these kinds of discussions.
\
G Do.you have any recollection of any such discus- ; l ! sions in January of '79? i l A. No, not really. q p y G There is also an entry on the POD work l i t. t that seems to suggest, I believe on page four, the next page, that there was some - on page three. I'm sorry. Some 1 approval from Reading to Furnenite these valves . Can you
, shed any light on the meaning of that particular entry?
A. My recollection i s vague and I can talk in l I don't know if that appliesherel 1 terms of gencral practice CAP Itt UTY REFORTING SEfMCE tymc.treu rr w tso mEsw o4 1
-. ...m
i KUNDER/ DIRECT 31
- or not. And that . is , whenever you would make a modification, _
I think I recall that if we Furmenited any device or component we treated that as a modification to the device. And modifications required Reading Engineering approval prior to I In this case Furmeniting. j applying the change. 1 That's my recollection that's the process that i was followd. That may or may nc>t apply to that kind of ac tivi ty . l G Who in Reading would have been consulted about this type of a repair? A. I don' t know specifically. But I recall that 3 it was the Reading Generation Engineering Staf f under Dick. t Clayman that would typically be involved in this kind of approval. ' l.
! G And again, you don' t have any- recollection of seeking that approval or having any discussions with anybody about Furmoniting these particular valves?
A. No, I don't recall that. O Af ter reviewing the OPS notes dated October 13, l 1979, can you recognize the handwriting on that OPS note as l your own? A. It appears to be all mine. O Do you have any idea - first of all, do you have any independent recollec tion today of having prepared that OPS note? CAPITAL OTY REFORTING SEfNCE CRA149 0. FEDERAL SO WE 51Ah0N rr .- . , , ,
.._.__________________.__________._.m____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _
1 KUNDER/ DIRECT 32 ) i A No I don't. G Can you shed any light on what would have caused you to prepare that OPS note on January 13, 1979? A. Nothing specific. It was not uncommon for me to, you know, ~make notes about Plant activities in areas that I migh t look into, or information I acquired, and then i i l I filed them. I'm guessing that's where this came from. 4 l j G The fact that this note bears the date January f 1 13, 1979 at the top,.would that sugges t th a t that's the date I you orepared this based upon your general practice? l A. I would say that would be the normal practice. , l
' But I wouldn ' t say in absolute terms that tha t would be the P da te that the entire note would be filled out. It could havel l
i It could have been the date ' been the date tha t I filed it. i
. I; that I did the first part. It appears to be two di f fe ren t f
1 entries. But whether it was closelv linked in time or far - [ apart in time I can't'tell based upon what I see here. i; G Can you attempt to at leas t explain the meaning of the various writings th a t appear on tha t no te ? ii l 4 A. Well the topic revolves around RCS leakage and i l the targe t appears to be the pressurizer level channel isolation valves. i Q. These would be the same valves th a t were l carlier re ferred to in the supplemental POD work list? A. Yes. That's correct. CApliAt CITY REPORTING SEfMCE cnaw; a cEspq so;^r>c STA'ON _ - _ - - . - _ __ ______-_m -__-_--______.m_a._ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _____2_- _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ .
KUNDER/ DIRECT 33 0 And according to that work list it would at least appear that leakage from those valves may have been discovered as early as January 2, 1979, if I remember what you said? A. I think it can be inferred. I don't know for sure. The date of January 2nd as I recall reflected the date when an item was entered on the list. I G I unders tand that you do not know for sure l because of the lack of specific recollection. But it would appear from your review at tiiis point that that leakage may have been discovered as early as January 2nd? A I think that's possible. G Okay. Continue please . i A. Well, based upon what I read here there appears t to be a suggestion from Hoyt and McGarry th a t it's not justifiable to shut down. It suggests a concern over the leakage. And sugges ts that based upon evaluation of Hoyt and I McGarry that the leakages were within limi ts or at least l it's okay. r G Now le t me stop you there for a nonent. Did you know at the time who Hoyt and McGarry were? A. Yes. R Hoyt was a shif L foreman, correct? A. I renenber him bei ng in Opera tions. I think he was a shift foreman. I'm not a hundred percent positive. CAPITAL CITY REPORTING SEfMCE tavsr> u . mxrut sown smoN q.m,..; .4 v
( s KUNDER/ DIRECT 34 l 0 And McGarry was in Maintenance, was he not?
-A.
~That's correct.
O Did he work for you or did he work for someone else? f A. Neither of them worked for me. G' Can you shed any light on why you would be l recording the fact that Hoyt and McGarry say it's not .I 1 justifiable to shut, the Plant down ye t? i What role would you have played in this process if neither of those individuals worked for you? i :A. I don't really know. I can only speculate based I l upon hou I' particularly operated. If I heard that there was a i i leakage I would be concerned to make sure th a t that leakage would be quantified and identified in terms of i ts ramifica-l tions on the Plant in terns of safe ty. l I G Well would you have had a decison? Would you q \ l- - have been an appropriate party to participate in the decision I as to whether or not the Plant should be shut down or not? A. No, not in a direct sense. From an engineering i s tandpoint my Departmen t could be called upon as an advisory role to provide input to the unit s upe ri n te nde n t . Typically our role was an engineering organization. : l. G Based upon the exis tence of this note dr you , think that is what occurred? A. I haveg gi g g g g g ow. 04 NATO U FEDEDAL "O.MDr STATION
KUNDE R/ DIRECT 35
--- i G Is it possible that you gratutiously as some l kind of a volunteer inquired of this problem and made this note?
[. (- l A I don' t know. G You don' t know whether that's possible or not?
- A. Oh, in my' role as a supe rin te nde n t of Tech Support, you know, it's not uncommon for me to be involved l in questions of what'we should do. As I said, I performed l
an advisory role to the unit s uperin tenden t . But I can't infer from this, or' based upon my recollection, I can't tell you whether or not I really was involved. It is possible, yes. i l 0 What I'm trying to unders tand is, is it possible that for some other reason other than because you were ! directed by the unit s upe rin te nde n t that you got involved in this? l A. It's possible. l G So tha t the f act that you apparently were looking; I l in to this and writing some notes about this problen does not necessarily mean tha t you were assigned to do any thing about this problem? A. That's correct. G And it could very well be tha t it's just because your role as superintendent of Technical Support had CAPITAL CITY REPORTING SEfNCE cnes Mo u rEoms so;Am STATION wa~ r v r> i ' y
KUNDER/ DIRECT 36 something to do with Plant equipment you might have inquired on-your own about'this? A. That's.possible. , I G Now you indica ted that the writirrg on the bottom of the page is in a different form than the writing on > l< the top of the page. I J l Can you shed any ligh t as to why you would have l 1 written the top and the bottom of the page in two dif ferent types of writing? Why you would have printed in f act on the top and wri tten on the bottom?
. A. Not really. I could have been rushed. Some-I change s tyles based upon tha t . I really can't i l lil times l ll draw any conclusions from that.
ll I G If you had written the bottom portion of this I note on a dif ferent date would you have dated it? I d ll A. I don' t know. l1 0 Where do you think you got the information from that you recorded on this note? l- l A. I really don't know tha t ei ther. I G Would it have been likely th a t you migh t have ; I fobservedthesevalvesyourself? A. No. I G Would you have made this estimate of reactor
]
i coolant system leakage that appears on this note? A. No. CAPITAL CIN REPORTING SErMCE CGAW? O FEDEM SQUArd STADON m e w oA $7r; i
KUNDER/ DIRECT 37
)
1 I 0 If the note suggests tha t someone is estimating tha t two gallons per minute of leakage is indicated on the makeup tank level, would you have made the observation of I the makeup tank level and then estimated the amount of leakage that was reflected on the makeup tank? A. I don't think it's likely. It's possible but not likely. Q. Then there's a final comment on the note that says, since no other leakage is existing the leakage from those valves is identified, and below it looks like "TS" which would mean the technical certification. l Do you have any recollection of writing that
. part?
J A. No. O. Do you have any idea how you would have come to i
' that conclusion?
A. I could speculate but that doesn ' t help. Q. Well perhaps at this point anything would help.
. Why don't you speculate as to hcw you migh t have c orce to that I
conclusion. A. Normal practice for me if I have a ques tion as to whe ther I'm in compliance with tech specs is to consult the tech specs. Specifically look at the criteria and compare whatever I knew, the data, to that criteria and form a judgmen t based on that. CAPliAL CITY REFO'? TING SErMCE EWA9 U FEDEM SO WM SWON
,,. m r - o . -3
[ KUNDER/ DIRECT 38 L G On ~ che top righthand portion of that note there is what appears to be a phone number and the name Logan. Do j you recognize that as a phone number? I A. It appears to be a phone number, yes. l> G And does it appear that you have written Logan and then the phone number on the righthand portion of that in-your handwriting? It looks like it. A. ! l 0 Would that suggest that you were keeping the . ( i l l unit s upe rin tende n t informed of this leakage at that time? n A. I really don' t know. 1 f l i
;. 0 Would it have been your practice to wri te this {
I. name and this phone number down for any other reason when 3 I \
] you were writing on this specific item?
L I A. I really don't know. P [ G At that time would you have had any awareness n [ as to the nature of this leakage,. what kind of leakage it 9
!i
['was, the significance of i t, other than what you were told? dlt i A. I don' t really remember. I don't really know. G If someone came to you and told you that these li lj valves were leaking would you be able to understand what I; a
!! kind of leakage it was and where the leakage was coming
!i h f rom and the safe ty implications?
il A. I think in general I certainly know enough and it have enough experiegpgpgggtgfyJgwhhCghe characterization toe.vm u GV% S 2UA9t S'MO,
KUNQER/ DIRECT 39 of leakage as related by someone else. And I would assume i that I could do that back then jus t like anybody, you know, { who has that kind of experience. l-G Does this note suggest to you that you were responsible for making the decision that the Plant no t be ! shut down on January 13, 1979? A. No, I wouldn't infer that at all. 0 Do you think that you were in fact respons}}