ML20247F205
| ML20247F205 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 01/26/1987 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247F042 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-89-2, FOIA-89-A-7 NUDOCS 8905300023 | |
| Download: ML20247F205 (69) | |
Text
__ -_ - _ _____ _ - -
l
..^
i-v 1
'BEFORE THE I
2 UNITED STATES 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
l
)
l 5
In the Matter of:
)
)
6 INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW
)
)
l 7
(CLOSED MEETING)
)
)
8 9
Room 800 Capitol Plaza Holiday Inn 10 sacramento, California 1
11 Monday January 26, 1987 12 13 An Investigative Interview was commenced at 14 4:00 o' clock p.m., with Edward M. Bradley.
15 PRESENT:
16 RONALD A. MEEKS Office of Investigations 17 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane 18 Suite 210 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 19 20 1
22 23 qd 24 x
N 25 8905300023 890516 PDR FOIA FRIEDMA89-A-7 PDR L
f 5 : 86 - 010 ni f1 a
b'i rihm
2 1
CONTENTS 2
WITNESS:
PAGE 3
Edward W. Bradley
]
4 Examination by Mr. Neks 4
5 6
EXHIBITS 7
(None) 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1
19 20 l
21 22 23 24 i
E - - --
3 1
PRQCEEDINEE
(
2 4:15 p.m.
i l
l 3
MR. MEEKS:
This is an interview gf Edward W.
4 Bradley who is Supervising Health Physicist for the Sacramento:
5 Municipal Utility District at SMUDS, which is the acronym L
6 for the utility district, Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating 7
Station, which is commonly referred to as Rancho Seco.
3 MR. BRADLEY:
I call it the " Ranch."
9 MR. MEEKS:
The Ranch, fine.
As agreed upon, 10 this interview is being recorded by a court reporter, Frances
~ 11 L. Rhudy.
12 Present at this interview are myself, Ronald 13 A. Meeks, Investigator for NRC's Office of Investigation, 14 as well as Mr. Bradley and the court reporter.
15 The subject of the interview concerns the 16 management and operations of Rancho Seco's liquid effluent 17 releases, liquid effluence program.
18 Ed, if you will stand and raise your right hando 19 I will swear you in.
20 Whereupon, 21 EDRARD W. ERADLEY 22 was duly sworn and testified as follows:
23 EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. MEEKS:
25 0
I have a copy, Ed, of your December 16, 1985,
4 I
letter to Mr. R. L. Powers concerning 10 CFR 50 Appendix I, 2
Source Turm Definition.
3 Now, in this letter or this memorandum, you 4
point out that you feel that the technical specification of
'which is the 5
Rancho Seco's lowwr limits of detection or LLDf 6
acronym for lower limits of dwtwetion, might not be adequate 7
because of Rancho Swco's physical makeup, where it is 8
situated and everything, that it might not be sufficient to 9
assure compliance with the dose objectives of 10 CFR 50 10 Appendix I.
11 Why don't you just give us the background to 12 this letter and that whole issue as you came to realize how 13 it existed and actually what it was?
14 A
In the memo, it discusses the Health Physics 15 midyear symposium that was held January 6 through 10, 1985.
16 And the topic of the midyear symposium was
- Environmental 17 Radiation."
I was talking with some NRC staff informally 18 over a cup of coffee after some of the sessions about Rancho 19 seco, the Lawrence Livermore National Lab and the Oak Ridge 20 National Lab environmental studies concerning the Rancho Seco 21 22 effluence, and it became apparent that the environmental setting surrounding Rancho Seco was quite different from the 23 standard plant assumptions used by both.NRC and the District 24 25 in developing the design basis and the technical
5 1
Cp:cificatieno which is licanco to operato Ranco Saco.
2 And.that one of the key items in the standard
.j plant assumptions was the amount of dilution water the liquid )I 3
l 4
effluent would be discharged into, and then the specifications 5
for the analysis of the liquid effluent being discharged.
6 I thought that this would be a.very interesting 7
. topic to investigate.
So when I got back to the District
/
g after the meeting, I told my supervisor -- at the time, Roger 9
Powers -- that I was going to investigate to see whether or 10 not the lower limits of protection for the District were 11 indeed adequate to give the District management reasonable 12 assurance that the design objectives of 10. CFR 50 Appendix I 13 were being met.
Roger Powers was not overly excited with the 14 15 prospect of me doing that investigation.
16 Q
Why don't you just identify Mr. Powers, his 17 title and then his position?
13 A
Okay.
Yes, Mr. Powers is Supervising Nuclear Engineer for Fuels, responsible for the nuclear enrichment 19 of the fuel and the fabrication of the nuclear fuel and the 20 reload license for Rancho Seco after refueling shutdown.
21 He was my supervisor after Bob Dietrich.
Bob 22 Dietrich was the supervisor of licensing.
And I was trans-23 ferred from Bob Dietrich to Roger Powers prior to this time.
24 25 Q
Was that Roger Powers' position back when you
6 1
1 first approached him on this LLD issue?
l 2
A Yes, Roger was my supervisor when I approached I
him on the LLD issue.
)
l l
4 Q
All right, about when did you transfer from sup'rvision?
5 under Mr. Dietrich's supervision to Powers' e
6 A
Let me look at the chronology there.
Just 7
approximately, it was toward the end of '84 I was transferre:
g from Bob Dietrich to Roger Powers sometime in the last few 9
months of 1984.
I don't recall the exact date, and I don't 10 see anything on the chronology that would indicate when.
11 Q
All right, why don't you just state the
~
12 chronology that you are referring to and explain that?
13 A
okay.
I have been tracking the chrono 1bgy -- a 14 chronology of events related to the Rancho Seco liquid 15 effluent environmental study beginning with April 4, 1983, 16 through -- fairly current, although I haven't kept it current 17 in the last few months.
It's current up through April '86, 18 outlining key dates, communication with the NRC, transmittals between the NRC and the District, telephone conversations, 19 20 meetings, and any other pertinent facts that may reiste to 21 that.
gg Q
Did you occupy the same position under Dietrich 23 as you did under Powers?
24 A
Yes.
25 Q
As it essentially the same as you have now as
-c
7 1
a supervising health physicist for Rancho Seco and SMUD?
2 A
No.
In the course of transferring from Bob 3
Dietrich to Roger Powers and under George Marqu,ardt, a lot 4
of my responsibilities have been stripped away, basically 5
narrowing down to just the environmental progre'm and the 6
reporting of effluence.
l 7
Q All right.
What were the major programs you had' s
before that?
9 A
At the time under Bob Dietrich, I was responsi-l 10 ble for the ALARA program, the emergency preparedness program,;
11 and acted in the capacity of the District's corporate health 12 physicist as oversight to RAD protection, oversight to the 13 environmental r.onitoring program and for the report 14 generation.
15 Q
Now, do I understand when you transferred to i
16 Mr. Powers, that is when these programs were removed from 17 you, just recently?
18 A
Prior to moving under Roger Powers, the i
19
' responsibility of emergency preparedness was stripped out 20 from under me.
J l
21 Q
All right.
And then the others with 1
22 reorganization just recently?
i 23 A
Right.
And then with the reorganization out j
24 under George Marque;rdt, I am not longer supervising the 25 ALARA program either.
I 8
1 Q
oversig'ht of the RAD protection?
2 A
Or RAD oversight, right.
Losing some of the 3
corporate responsibilities.
4 Q
All right.
So, I guess when you became aware
)
5 of this issue, you notified Mr. Powers.
And did he give you
)
6 any reason why he wasn't enthusiastic about an issue that
~
7 was germane to the proper function of the plant?
]
3 A
Yes.
My general batting average was that if I 9
ever investigated anything, I found something incorrect.
And 10 he didn't want me to start poking my nose around anything 11 because he knew I'd find some more problems.
12 O
All right, I understand.
When did you come to 13 work for SMUD?
14 A
I came to work -- I remember the day well --
15 February 4, 1980.
16 Q
All right.
And at that time were you under l
17 the supervision of Mr. Dietrich?
18 A
Indirectly.
Direct reporting to a Mr. Don l
19 Martin who reported to -- at the time, believe it or not, it j
20 was Roger Powers.
Don Martiro later reported directly to Bob y
l 21 Die trich.
And then through the course of events, I later 22 reported directly to Roger Powers again.
l 23 Q
All right, why don't you just go ahead.
Se hn was less than enthusiastic because he didn't want anything 24 25 I guess put on his desk that required or pointed out a
-__.______.-.--__m.---.
9 1
deficiency or a weakness er a soft spot in the effluence
(
2 program.
3 We won't explore the reasons for that right now 4
unless you have any overriding concern that he might have had 5
or any overriding factor that at that time caused him to take 6
this stance?
7 A
I think one of the main reasons I was trans-3 ferred from Bob Dietrich to Roger Powers was that Bob 9
Dietrich was losing control over me because I was finding i
10 too many deficiencies in the program, too many calculation
- 11 errors, too many embarrassments to the District.
Bob Dietrich was out of town on business travel 12 most of the time and was not in close contact for supervision 13 14 as management perceived it.
And Bob Dietrich really did not understand the calculational methodologies for demonstrating 15 16 compliance.with Appendix I, the ODCM.
i 17 Q
When you refer to ODCM, you are talking about l
18 the offsite dose calcuation?
l l
19 A
Right, the offsite dose calcuation manual.
And 1
I came to work one morning and management told me that you're l
20 l
21 no longer reporting to Bob Dietrich.
You're now reporting 22 to Roger PcWers.
23 I asked why.
And the only explanation that was l
given to me was that the effluent calculations for tha ODCM 24 25 were on the IBM main frame downtown.
And that P ger Powers
10 1
in his nuclear fuels management responsibility did all of his 1
2 fuels management calculations on the IBM computer downtown.
3 So, it was logical, therefore, to put me 4
reporting to Roger Powers since he did his calculations on 5
the same computer I did.
And, believe it or not, that was 6
the only explanation that was ever given to me.
7 I said, "Well, I don't agree with that because 8
radiological health and safety is a licensing issue ' and 9
that I should be reporting to licensing and not to the nucleag 10 fuel jocket, but nonetheless I would go along with 11 management's decision and report to' Roger.
12 Q
Who did Roger Powers report to?
13 A
Mr. Lee Keilman.
14 Q
And what was his title?
15 A
Manager of Nuclear Engineering.
16 Q
All right.
Didn't Powers take over for Keilman 17 at one point?
18 A
Correct.
19 Q
I know we are kind of getting off your 20 explanation.
But when was that, just for my information?
When Keilma.n was relieved of his responsi-21 A
bilities as the manager of nuclear engineering and went off 22 23 to be responsible for development of another geothermal pounr 24 plant for the District, Roger Powers became the acting 25 manager of nuclear engineering.
And that was some time in l
~
11 1
'86.
2 Q
All right.
So why don't we get back to you 1
1 3
explaining this issue to Powers, and then why d,on't you take l
4 it from there?
5 A
I believe Roger Powers hed orders'from Lee 6
Keilman to keep control of me.
And Lee Keilman had already 7
had a proven track record of not wanting to have anything to 3
do with health physics and environmental.
one of his first actions as manager of nuclear 9
10 engineering was to strip away contractor support for the 13 ALARA program, wherein I had approximately five to seven staff members, staff and contractor people, working in the 12 13 ALARA program prior to Ime Kielman taking the manager 14 position.
shortly thereafter, I was down to a total of 15 three to four people, one staff who was an engineering 16 17 specialist and two to three contractoni.
His whole concept of health physics was nothing 18 more than a high school Rent-A-Tec with a geiger counter.
gg And anything other than that, he just had no corrorehension 20 of and no desire to learn.
2) f l
22 C
so it; was in 1985 that Powers took over or l
l 23 Keilmr.n?
A Right.
24 25 Q
All right.
Go ahead, you ---
12 I
1 A
So the environment ---
i 1
2 Q
When was this again?
Was this the beginning of 3
1985?
4 A
The beginning of ' 85 when I became aware that 5
the LLD capabilities may not be adequate for Appendix I 6
compliance.
7 Q
When was that symposium held?
8 A
January 6 through 10, 1985.
9 Q
All right.
Then it was subsequent to that, in 10 January of 1985, that you brought this matter up with Powers?
~ 11 A
Right.
12 Q
so he took it to Keilman, is that what you saidP 13 A
Well, I think the environment that this' was 14 happening in was important because Keilman early in '84 was 15 already withdrawing resource support for the health physics I was 16 program in the District and the corporate program.
17 stripped of a lot of personnel resources ---
18 O
This was in 19847 19 A
This was in 1984.
And when the calculational
[
20 errors were discovered in early 1984, and all of the subse-21 quent special NRC rep "ing was required and the affluent 21 reports were still required and the environmental reports 23 still required, I was forced to do all that work by myself 24 independently without any contractor support.
25 Also in that time frame, the exempt compensation l
13 1
program pay-for-performance was also initiated in the District.
2 And in the 84 '85 time frame, Keilman and a few other of the 3
managers were on the job classification committee and I was
)
I i
4 basically given a four-or five-step demotion in the process 5
of classifying my position description in the District.
1 6
Also being stripped of some othe.r responsi-7 bilities, the entire environment which I was supposed to work 3
under in 1984 was stressed to say the least.
Trying to 9
fulfill all the regulatory requirements, the licensing 10 requirements of the District, doing a professional job and 11 maintain sanity working under that environment.
12 So in January of '85, coming back from the 13 Health Physics Nuclear Symposium with a new topic to*
14 investigate which was potentially embarrassing to the DistricG Powers, in the old SMUD mentality, played it like he normally 15 would have, basically don't tell me anything, I might have to 16 17 do something.
18 Q
So you explained to him that the technical 19 specifications for the Rancho Seco LLD might not assure 20 compliance with the dose objectives of Appendix I?
21 A
Uh-huh.
22 Q
What specificc11y did you suggest to him that be'done that he rejected, or at least didn't agree with?
And 23 24 then give us exactly what happened after that.
25 A
well, he did not want me to spend my time on
-_.___--_m_._______._____-_-_._-___________.___________-__m.-_______m_
14 I
the investigation, knowing full well I was already -- my time 2
was already more than fully committed on normal activities in 3
the District.
4 So, he said, "Well, if you want to work the 5
extra time, 97 ahead and do it.
But I'm not going to give 6
you the support to do it."
7 Q
Did you get paid for that time?
l 3
A Yeah, I made the time.
It basically took me 9
about -- well, from January to July to get it out, the first 10 draft.
So it took quite a while.
- 11 Q
All right.
And in conjunction with you'r study 12 of that issue and everything involved with it, the LLD issue, 13 did you have -- your letter points to the many conversations 14 or numerous conversations you had with Powers.
15 can you highlight the significant conversations 16 you had with Powers and/or Keilman and any other managing j
17 executive at Rancho Seco about this issue between January 13 and July of 19857 19 A
I know that twice in '85 I did talk to i
20 Rodriguez.
Whether or not it was in the January to July or 1
21 the July to December time frame.
I believe the two discuss-22 ions with Ron Rodrigust: were most likely in the latter half 23 of '85.
24 Q
All right, why don't you just ---
1 25 A
one of them ---
m_x
15 1
0
--- identify Ron Rodriguez, what his ---
I 2
A Ronald J. Rodriguez was the assistant general I
3 manager of nuclear, which is the highest ranking position in 4
the district responsible for Rancho Seco other than the 5
general manager.
6 Once I recall talking to Ron Rodriguez in his 7
office.
Another time, just over a cup of coffee in the 3
cafeteria in the SMUD headquarters building.
In both instances, I mentioned to him that the 9
10 detection limits may not be adequate for our liquid effluence 11 to demonstrate compliance with Appendix I.
He thought it was interesting but didn't seem too concerned either time.
12 13 Q
Did he ask you what you were doing about it?
14 A
He asked me how certain I was, I believe.
And I told him that my studies would indicate that they are 15 16 inadequate and that we should pursue it and strive'for a 17 greater accounting of our liquid affluent prior to discharge.
13 Q
So the issue from January to July 1985 was kind of at a status quo as you were researching the is' sue?
19 20 A
Right.
21 Q
And then in July you came out with a draft studg f
23 was iti
~
23 A
Yes, I came out with the draft study.
The draft study was directed towards Roger Powers.
If I recall 24 15 right, Roger Powers gave a copy to Michael Braun.
Michael u-__-______-__-__m_._.-
16 1
Braun was a nuclear engineer that was hired by Roger Powers l
2 to assist in the liquid effluent program, and later was 3
transferred out to the site to assist in the AIpRA program.
4 Mike reviewed the document and both Roger and l
5 Michael took light at the report and didn't think it had 6
much significance.
I waited quite some months for some more 7
definitive feedback from Powers and Michael.
3 And also, knowing that during this course of 9
time there was a high-point vent break at the plant.
And 10 there was a lot of concern by upper management not to have 11 another issue come forth for the NRC to keep us down any 12 longer.
13 But in the November -- let me see ---
14 O
The draf t LLD study was --
15 A
okay.
In the September time frame though, I 16 got a little anxious that it was taking so long to get this 17 issue in front of management, on the table.
So I took what 18 comments I had from both Roger Powers and Mike Braun and 19 revised the July draft with the comments that I had, and-20 reissued the report by memo dated October 29, 1985.
21 And this report by design -- the cover memo --
22 went to a lot more people outside of Roger Powers.
I went 23 around Roger Powers because I knew he wasn't going to do 24 anything with it.
So I sent a copy to Dave Kaplan, chief legal 25
i 17 1
counsel for the District, Fred Kellie, Michael Braun and 2
Ron Colombo -- Ron Colombo being the superintendent over 3
regulatory compliance -- to try and get a broader scope of 4
review on the report, raise the significance level of it and 5
try and get some action.
(
6 But also, prior to this, we were sued for a 7
billion dollars in a class action claim.
And I realized the 8
sensitivity of this issue as it related to the billion dollar 9
class action claim.
10 And that's why I gave a copy to Dave Kaplan 11 and stamped " Draft" all over the report, rather than stampingi 12 it " Final," knowing the legal significance of having the 13 final report on the street.
14 Q
What did that suit consist of?
15 A
The suit was --
16 Q
Let me rephrase that.
Did it concern the 17 liquid effluence?
18 A
Yes, the billion dollar class action claim was 19 a claim filed by downstream residents for alleged health 20 effects resulting from radioactive liquid effluent discharges 21 from Rancho Seco from 1980 through '84.
12 O
Now, in your letter of Decerber 16, 1905, it 23 kind of mirrors what you just explained to us.
You also 24 bring out the fact that -- I think it was Powers and/or Rodriguez requesteck that you not pu!.
.sh your draft LLD
{
25
-m-_____
-o 18 i
1 study until after startup.
Why was that?
l 2
A-I don't recall if it was -- I think it was a 3
mutual consent between myself and Rodriguez.
I, don't think 4
Rodriguez initiated the request, or if I even initiated the l
5 request.
6 But the knowing the sensitivity of another 7
issue come to light for the NRC for restart after the high-3 point vent break, and also my tenuous employment status with 9
the. District, I offered that as a sweetener to Rodriguez to 10 say, okay, let's get out of the high-point vent break and 11 then let's get into the LLD and solve it right away.
12 When the restart after the high-point vent 13 break became so delayed, I felt that I could no longer hold 14 up the report any longer, and that's why I issued the 15 October 29th memo.
16 Q
All right.
Now, just to make sure I understand.
17 this, so you and Rodriguez in at least one of the two 18 conversations you mentioned that you had with him about this 19 issue, you also talked about how it would impact at that 20 time on the -- what was the issue, around the vent?
21 A
The Rancho Seco restart after the high-point 22 vent break.
23 Q
High-point vent break, that's the word I was 24 looking for.
And you suggested that to him, that you would 25 hold off at that time?
^~- - - - - - - - - - _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _,, _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
19 1
I 1
A' Yes.
2 Q
And he concurred that that would be a~ good idea i
1 3
so it didn't impact upon the high-point vent is, sue?
l I
4 A
correct.
5 Q
All right.
Did Powers ever enter' into any of 6
these conversations about when you would publish your draft 7
LLD study?
8 A
He didn't want the issue to go any farther than '
1 9
the draft study in July.
]
10 Q
How did he express that to you?
j i
11 A
He says, you know, I don't think you have a 12 problem.
Michael Braun reviewed it and he doesn't think 13 there's a problem.
There's no problem, drop it.
14 Q
All right.
So, essentially, they didn't agree 15 with your stance that possibly your LLD technical specifica-16 tion couldn't assure on its own, so to speak, compliance 17 with Appendix I in dose objectives?
18 A
Right.
19 Q
Did they ever put that in writing?
20 A
No, not to my knowledge.
21 Q
Did they ever give you an explanation as to why 12 they did not agree with it?
I 23 A
Not.to my satisfaction if they did.
24 0
You don't recall exactly what their rationale 25 would have been, is that what I am understanding?
l m__----_------,,---u--,---
20 1
A Just that they didn't agree with my analysis.
2 Q
Did they submit any analyses or calculations 3
to show that there were two sides to this story?
4 A
None that made any sense.
Any comments that 5
they made basically demonstrated that they didn't understand 6
the problem.
7 Q
All right, could you just very briefly explain 8
what their stance was?
9 A
About the best of my recollection was that they 10 just didn't feel there was a problem, and it was therefore
- 11 unnecessary to pursue it any further, without any good 12 explanation that I can recall as to why they felt that it 13 wasn't a problem.
14 Q
Now this was prior to your October 29 submissios 15 of your study, your draft?
16 A
Correct.
17 Q
The official publication, so to speak, of your 18 study?
19 A
Right.
20 0
Which you had finished in July?
21 A
correct.
22 Q
So sometime in the period between July and 23 october is when they ---
24 A
Basically, there were only very, very minor 25 revisions made between the July draft and the October 29 memo.
-m__.m_m__.__ _, _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
21 i
1 I think the only thing that really changed was c moro dstsilad!
1 2
explanation of why I felt the problem existed.
3 Q
All right.
l 4
A The numerical numbers I don't think changed.
5 Q
Did your October 29 memo on that, change the 6
viewpoint of Powers or Braun at all?
7 A
No,.it did not.
g Q
All right.
What was Rodriguez's stance to the 9
publication of this.?
10 A
I don't recall any feedback from Rodriguez at
- 11 all on the October 29th memo.
Fred Kellie became very aware
-- well, I think I need to back up a littis bit.
12 There's a couple of things.that I think are 13 14 important prior to October 29th of ' 85.
15 Q
All right.
16 A
It's important to, I think, set the tone for thc environment that I was being forced to work under at this 17 18 time.
In early 1984, in performing the effluent dose calcu-1ations in preparation of the sami-annual radioactive 19 20 effluent release report, I discovered numerous calculational errors that converted effluent curies to offsite dose.
21 As a result of that, I almost lost my job with 22 23 the District.
I believe Mr. Lee Feilman tried to get me fired over that situation because I would not back down on 24 my calculations, even though management tried and tried and 25
- - " - - " - ~ - - - _ - _ - -. _ - _. _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _
p 22 1'
tried to get those calculations lowered.
2 Q
Ed, is this supposition on your part?
Or did 3
you receive some disciplinary action or counsel,ing or oral' 4
admonishment in relation to your feelings that they wanted to-5 remove you from your position?
-6 A
I received nothing in writing.
I don't believe 7
I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these things 8
occurred.
Although Mr. Keilman acknowledged later that.you 9
can't shoot the messenger.
10 Also, after I discovered the calculational 11 errors, Mr. Keilman brought in a team of-individuals from 12 Bechtel, Stone Webster, Babcock and Wilcoxs and even Don 13 Martin back to review all my calculations to see if my 14 effluent calculations were correct.
15 And over the course of one to two weeks, none 16 of those# individuals could find any errors in my analysis.
17 It was in a period of time after this that my job classifi-18 cation was reviewed under the new pay-for-performance program 19 of the District.
And I was basically demoted four or five
, 20 levels.
21 so I've been basically red-lined in the time 22 since then.
In a later discussion with Lee Keilman, Lee 23 Keilman told me that my moral and ethical standards were 24 possibly too high and that I should possibly compromise those 25 standards if I wished to remain employed by the District.
23 1
Q Did this relate to the calculation errces of 2
the 1984 ---
3 A
The performance ---
4 Q
--- semi-annual effluent report you were talking l l
5 about?
l
~
6 A
In the performance of effluent dose calculation and performance of generating special reports to the NRC in 7
7 3
response to the affluent situation, in the performance of the 9
land-use census, in just the normal performance of my duties.
10 as I felt as a professional I had to perform in radiological 11 regulatory compliance with the environmental issues in the 12 District.
13 Q
What was the question I asked you, as you 14 understood the question?
I think I asked you on one frequency 15 and you answered on another frequency.
Let me rephrase the 16 question.
17 This action was taken, your previous reply 13 was relating to the calculational errors that you had brought 19 up?
20 A
Yes.
21 O
And these conversations with Kailman took place
~
22 in 19847 23 A
correct.
24 Q
Did it spill over at all into 1985 concerning 25 the calculational errors?
__.-__m
___-..-___-__.-_._a
24 1
A Well, I would say yes..
Because the environment 4
2 really didn't change any since then.
3 Q
All right.
4 A
I think he still held it against me that I 1
5 proved his engineers wrong.
And that how could'this health I
6 physicist tell a whole bevy of engineers that they were wrong..
7 And he never forgave me for that.
g Q
So, going back to your October 29 memo, what p
action was taken with the publication of that draft lower 10 limits of detection study?
- 11 A
Things happened real quick here and dates are 12 going to be tough to recall.
But, basically, this is what 13 happened.
14 The report went out and Fred Kellie got a copy 15 but he didn't read it right away.
I believe Fred gave his 16 copy to Jim Reese who at the time was the plant health 17 physicist.
18 I was also discussing this report with a cost 19 engineer that was two cubicles down from me in the office on 20 Plaza 50.
This cost engineer was a former radiation protec-21 tion technician at Rancho Seco and worked in the radio 22 chemistry lab and did some of the counting analysis on the 23 liquid affluent discharges.
24 And he mentioned to me situations that occurred 25 in 1985 prior to his transfer into cost engineering, and
4 25 1
those situations related to samples being counted in which 2
gamma' peaks were identified, and then being told by super-3 visors above him to recount those samples at a lower count 4
time, whereby the analysis would show no gamma peaks being 4
5 present, such that they could then label the affluent as 6
being nonradioactive and discharge it from the site, recording 7
no activity in the affluent.
3 This was justified by the fact that the 9
counting analysis performed even at the shorter count tina 10 was still within the technical specification requirements of 11 the LLD.
12 But my LLD study showed that that was just --
13 that was a fact, that the Tec. Spec. LLD requirement.was 14 inadequate for demonstrating compliance with Appendix I.
And 15.
that if that was the common mode of practice out at the 16 Ranch, then maybe we really do have a problem with 17 demonstrating compliance with Appendix I and that we should 18 stop the practice of counting effluent samples at the 19 reduced count time.
l 20 When I learned this, I immediately went to 21 i
Roger Powers and told him what I'd learned.
Roger surpris-22 ingly became concerned over that and asked that ww do 23 something about it.
24 Q
Now when was this, approximately?
25 A
After the october memo.
So it must have been 9
26 1
in the November time frame.
2 O
Do you recall it was prior to your letter to 3
Powers on the source term definition of December 16th?
Or n
4 could it have been after that?
l l
l i
5 A
I think it was af ter the December 16th memo, 6
because I think it was ---
l 7
Q You don't mention that in your December 16 memo g
at all.
9 A
No -- oh, it was right after the issue of the December 16th letter that I discovered talking with the cost 10 11 engineer of the changing of the count times in the liquid l
12 effluent samples.
And that is why the changing count time was not mentioned in the December 16th memo.
13 14 Q
All right.
15 A
Roger Powers -- and I said that, well, maybe 16 we should go out and talk to Fred Kellie about this thing, 17 find out what's going on.
18 And so I counseled with a General Dynamics 19 consultant who was a consultant with the District at the time 20 on the reorganization of the health physics and radiation 21 detection group and chemistry group at the Ranch.
22 And this consultant advised me not to confront 23 Fred Kellie directly but to go round about to sea if Fred 24 was cognizant that he was doing all that the licenso required 25 for a counting of liquid effluence.
27 1
And I was going out to the Ranch either that 2
day or the next day anywa.y.
3 0
What was the name of this individ,ual?
4 A
I can't re:all his name right now -- Tom 5
Peterson, I believe.
Tom Peterson with General' Dynamics.
6 I was planning on going out to'the site either 7
that day or the next day through normal responsibilities.
An@
8 so I took it upon myself to go by and talk to Fred, but not 9
confront him directly about the count time situation.
10 And Fred was quite positive that he was doing 11 all that the license required for the accounting of liquid 12 effluence.
13 I came back, told Roger that Fred felt'that he 14 was well within the license requirements.
Roger went to Lee 15 Keilman, Lee Keilman went to Ron Rodriguez, Ron Rodriguez 16 went to George Coward, manager of the plant.
George Coward 17 then confronted Fred Kellie about changing the count time 18 and the countability of the liquid affluence.
19 And a big discussion arose then between Fred A
Kellie and George Coward as to what was going on.
And the 21 outcase+of*terarediseassion though was that it was within our 22 license to be able to change the eeunt tiins such that -- as 23 long a.s the lowre limit of detecion was utill within the 24 Tec. Spec. requirement, and to report according to that LLD 25 in the Tec. Spues.
28 o
l 1
And management concurred with that discussion, i
2 that as long as they were within the LLD requirement of the I
3 Tec. Spec., that they did not have to record previously-4 detected gamma peaks in the samples.
5 And so the whole issue dropped within a matter 6
of a week.
l 7
Q-What is your course of knowledge of this?
f l
3 A
Feedback from both Roger Powers and Fred Kellie.I y
In fact, Fred Kellie was understandably quite upset with me 10 for not confronting him directly.
And understandably so, I 11 regret not talking to him more directly.
12 But my counsel from the general physics 13 consultant was not to.
And so I was -- I don't know,'I felt 14 like I was between a rock and a hard spot.
And so Fred and 15 I,
I felt, have always had a good rapport between each other.
16 And so I was taken aback a little bit, I guess.
17 But Fred and I resolved and continue to work 18 together on this whole problem of trying to look at the LLD 19 issue further.
20 Q
Now, as I recall, there is a technical specifi-21 cation that requires peaks be identified and reported on your 22 semi-annual liquid effluent report?
23 A
That's correct.
24 Q
What technical specification, do you recall 25 exactly what it was?
__m________.._-_m.______.____
29 1
A Yes,'it's technical specification 4.21, and the j 2
table 4.21-1.
The requirement is actually in a footnote to 3
table 4.21-1.
4 It's interesting to note though, I am also now 5
responsible for the revision to the Rancho Seco technical l
6 specifications, to bring them in conformance with the standare 1
7 technical specifications and the Rancho Seco environmental l
8 setting.
9 And what I discovered in that investigation
{
i 10 and the revision process was that the lower limited of 11 detection table in Tec. Spec. 4.21-1 was actually only 12 capable of demonstrating compliance with 10 CFR 20, and not 13 the design objectives of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I.
4 14 I was in an NRC meeting two weeks ago wherein 15 Jack Martin, Ross Scarano, Sid Minor and a number of other 16 individuals from NRR Washington were present discussing 17 progress on this amendment to technical specifications for 18 the environmental technical specs.
19 And I told them about the standard Tec. Spec.
20 model for the lower limits of detection, enly in reference 21 to the 10 CFR 7:0 compliance e.nd not the design objectives of 22 Appendix 1.
23 They wsre quite surprised, as was myself, when j 24 I was doing this review and revision, and I believe there is i 15 a meeting being arranged in the near future wherein I'll be m
-m-
L 30 1
1 discussing this item further with NRR in Washington.
]
l 2
Q What.was it that you discovered, was it the 3
individuals drawing it up calculated it or designed it only 4
to meet 10 CFR 20 Appendix B requirements?
5 A
Yes.
The cross reference in the standard tee.
6 spec. specifically relating to the lower limits of detection 7
on the liquid effluence are only for demonstration of l
3-complainee with 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table 2.
9 And there is no cross reference of the lower j
i l
10 limits of detection table with the design objectives of 11 Appendix I.
12 It is inferred only on the basis that if you caa 13 comply with 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, that you will also' be in l
l 14 compliance with Appendix I.
15 _
And for the standard plant with many orders of I
16 magnitude of dilution, that's probably true.
But for the E
17 Ranch it's not.
18 Q
All right. I think you are f amiliar with the 19 word "Not" on the basis of the technical specifications?
i 20 A
That's correct.
21 Q
All right.
So it seemed like that kind of 22 supports your study that the LLDs would not assure compliance 13 with Appendix I in dose objectives, but only 10 CFR 20, j
24 Appendix B7 9
25 A
Correct.
31 1
Q And they put it there, there word -- do you know!
l 2
who was that responsible for the word "not" in there?
i 3
A Yes, Ron Colombo, the current sup,ervisor of 4
regulatory compliance, inserted the word "not" in the basis 5
of the tee. specs.
6 0
And what was the circulation in management on 7
that basis?
In other words, who were the individuals that 3
approved the word "not" being in there?
9 Essentially, what it says is the LLDs were not 10 designed, right, or they are such that they do not assure'
~ 11 compliance with Appendix I dose objectives, is that correct?
12 A
My discussions with Ron Colombo were not so
(
13 much that the LLDs were not capable of demonstrating
- 14 complainee with Appendix I, but rather Rancho Seco was not 15 designed to meet the design objectives of Appendix I.
16 O
All right.
17 A
And that's why the word "not" was inserted.
13 Q
So it is even broader than ---
19 A
Right, Rancho Seco was designed prior to 10 CFR 20 50, Appendix I.
And was designed to -meet requirements of 21 10 CFR 2 0.
22 O
So when they addressed Appendix I in the tee.
23 L
specs., they addressed it by inserting the word "not" on the 24 basis that they would not meet those design objectives 25 because of the nature of the plant?
32 i
1 A
That was the -- I believe the intent of the 2
word' "not" inserted in my discussions with Ron Colombo, yes.
3 Q
All right.
And who would be thos,e individuals 4-in management.that would sign off on that part of the 5
technical specifications?
^
6 A
Okay, it's my understanding that the normal 7
review process for a tec. spec. amendment submittal to the 3
NRC would be, regulatory complaince would be responsible for 9
drafting the amendment with input from responsible people.
10 That amendment would then go to the plant revies 11 committee for review and approval.
And the forwarded to the 12 management safety review committee for review and approval.
13 Wherein it would then be signed off by the general ma' nager-14 for transmittal to the NRC NRR.
15 Q
All right.
16 A
Now, also talking with Ron Colombo, there are 17 some situations where the management safety review committee 13 review and approval may not be necessary.
19 So on the particular amendment to the tee.
20 specs, which is commonly called RETS, radiological effluent 21 technical specifications, they became amendment 53 to our 22 license in July 1985.
. xg I don't krow if that particular amendmunt was 24 reviewed and approved by MSRC or not.
But I'm almest postive 25 it would have been reviewed by FRC.
33 1
Q All right.
Going back to Mr. -- Ted Peterson?
2 A
Tom Peterson.
3 Q
Tom Peterson, what was his basis,for not wanting.
4 you to speak directly to Fred Kellie about the counting time?
~
5 A
I really don't know.
6 Q
What was his position that caused you to put 7
faith in his position as a consultant?
8 A
He was wor. king with Fred Kellie quite closely 9
on the reorganization study for the chemistry and radiation 10 protection group at the Ranch.
' 11 And I felt Tom had a closer personal relation-12 ship with Fred and that I could use his counsel on how best 13 to approach Fred in a touchy situation, and I took his counse&
14 0
When you talked to Fred Kellie about it, what 15 did he say was the origin of the changing in the counting 16 time to preclude peaks?
17 A
We didn't specifically talk about changing 18 count times.
Although I think prior to and after the 19 conversation with Fred Kellie I did relate the entire item 20 with Jim Reese, the plant health pr.ysicist, because I had a 21 much greater rapport with Jim Rawss than I did Fred Kellie.
)
21 So I confided with Jim Reese about the entire J
J 13 issue of the lowar limits of detuation changing of the count 24 tines.
We even reviewed some of the effluent release permitsi
\\
15 over the mid-1985 time frame and noticed numerous examples
-__m___.m
34 1
of count times less than the standard accepted number of 2
4000 seconds.
3 So Jim and I were both aware that,the records 4
showed that count times had been reduced in the preparation 5
of the affluent release permits.
6 0
You mentioned mid-1985.
Is it mid-1976, is 7
that what you were referring to?
8 A
No, we actually reviewed the mid-1985 effluent 9
release records and observed count times ---
10 Q
All right.
11 A
--- less than 4000 seconds.
And this was prior 12 to my discussion with Fred Kellie in this indirect 13 conversation.
14 Q
Which, do I understand, would have been the 15 s; ring of 1986 or the first part of 19867 l
16 A
Okay, this discussion with Tom Peterson, Fred 17 K6111e and Jim Reese would have been within a week after the l
18 December 16, 1985, memo.
19 Q
All right.
In the NRC inspection report on 20 this matter, it talks about a 2000 second count.
You just 21 mentione.d a 4000 second count.
What is the origin of the l
22 4000 second count?
l 23 A
In some of the counting procedures, radio-24 chemistry counting prectdures at the Ranch, there is a l
25 standard set-up for liquid counting samples.
And their
.______m_-____
35 1
standard count-down time was 4000 seconds.
2 This was prior to ---
3 Q
The Canberra program?
4 A
No, this was prior to -- this would have been I1 4
5 in the 1984 time frame.
Up until I discovered'the calcu-6 lational errors in the affluence in early 1984, the default 7
count time was about 4000 seconds.
8 When the calculational errors were found and --
9 in February 1984, management thought it was still within 10 their license to discharge liquid affluence, even if the
~ 11 numbers exceeded Appendix I.
Because Amendment 53, RETS, had 12 not been approved by the NRC and our old license was still 13 in effect.
The Amendment 53 was transmitted to the Districs 14 15 in February with a 150-day effective date time frame.
And so 16 it wasn't until July 27 -- give or take a day or two -- that 17 Amendment 53 became effective.
18 So within 30 days after Amendment 53 being 19 offective, we exceeded right off the bat the design objective 20 numbers for Appends.x I, which then required a 30-day report 21 which was submitted.
22 The District management was still in the belief l l
23 that they did not have to do anything to reduce the liquid 24 effluent.
And it wasn't until I believe october 1984 that 25 Pierre Oubre, the current plant manager at the Ranch ---
M
36 1
Q At that time?
2 A
At that time -- said in a public forum at l
l 3
Herald, California, that Rancho Seco would not discharge any 4
more radioactive liquid effluent.
5 Don Martin corrected that statement to include 6
tritium, such that we could still discharge tritium but not 7
the other gamma-amiting isotopes.
As interpreted by site 8
staff, we could still discharge tritium but if we saw any 9
gamma-amitars in the liquid effluent prior to discharge that
]
1 10 we could not discharge it.
11 We would have to somehow pipe it back into the 12 plant and process it until it was below detection limits.
13 Q
Let me ask you a question.
In your conversa-14 tions with Jim Reese, did you discuss the origin of this 15 alteration of the counting time, in other words, the basis 16 of it?
17 A
Yes, I'm getting to that.
It's interesting 18 that it all relates to the 4000 second count time in this 19 1985 time frame.
Because after Pierre made the public i
20 statement that we were not going to discharge any more 21 radioactivity in our liquid effluent other than tritium ---
22 Q
When was this statement again?
23 A
This was I believe in October of '84.
24 Q
All right.
25 A
He then made -- there was then statements made
37
-1 that they wou1d solidify the resins on the secondary side of 2
the plant containing the radionuclides, rather than backflush 3
the resins and discharge the backflush water which is the 4
source of the radioactivity in the liquid affluent.
5 That they were going to take this' secondary 6
resin, solidify it in some manner and ship it off to Hanford 7
for buria1 as waste.
8 Q
May I interrupt you for a second.
The reason 9
for that, the resins being contaminated, was due to.the leaks 10 in the ---
11 A
Leaks in the steam generator, correct.
12 Q
--- steam generator?
13 A
Now, this public statement by Pierre pu't the 14 operations and the radiochemistry people in a di1emma because 15 what it boi1ed down to is, that if they saw any gamma-amiting 16 radioisotopes in the RHUT -- standing for the regenerate 17 ho1d-up tanks -- if they saw any gamma-emiting radionuclides 18 in the RHUT samples prior to discharge, that they could not 19 discharge that vo1ume of liquid offsite.
20 And so they looked at the tec.' specs. to.see 21 what they could do.
And they saw thw LLD requirement in the l
22 tee. specs. for counting liquid samples and liquid effluent.
l 23 They looked at the current counting capability of the 24 equipment and found,that they were well be1ow the tee. specs.
l 15 r.eu1 rem.nt on ana1ysing the 11eute eff1uent samp1es.
L c-38 1
And so a procedure was developed to calculate 2
the lower limit of detection on the liquid effluent samples 3
in comparison with the tee. spec. LLD value to verify that 1
I 4
the counting analysis was within the tec. spec. requirement.
5 And it was understood or it was the understand-6 ing of the -- both the regulatory compliance reviews and the l
7 radiochemistry people that as long as the counting procedure 3
and the analysis that was performed demonstrated that the 9
LLD was within the tec. spec. requirement, that they satisfies 10 the licsnse requirements for reporting radioactivity in 11 liquid affluent.
Q When did this analysis and conclusion take 12 13 place, again?
14 A
This was sometime in the first or second 15 quarter of '85 that this LLD procedure was developed.
And 16 this procedure was developed by radiochemistry and reviewed 17 and approved by the plant review committes.
13 Q
And the chairman of that committee is Ron 19 colombo?
20 A
Correct.
21 Q
Who else was on that committee at that time, do 22 you know?
23 A.
At that time?
I don't recall, there's been so 24 many personnel changes over the last couple of years.
I 25 really don't know who was on it.
_2_.-_-_-__.______m_
-9 o
39 1
Q All right.
A Ron Colombo and Fred Kellie are the only ones 2
3 I think with any consistency over the last couple of years.
4 Q
And did part of this information or all of it 5
come from. Tim Reese?
6 A
No.
Later conversations with Fred Kellie, too.
7 one thing that this later is important, af ter the evolution 8
of me talking with Roger Powers who talked to Lee Keilman 9
who talked to Rodriguez who talked with Coward who talked to 10 Kellie, and that loop was exercised in questioning Fred 11 Kellie on the changing of the count time.
12
'Q That was at the end of 19857 13 A
At the and of '85, yes.
14 Q
After your December 16 memo?
15 A
correct.
That it was at that time that I 16 became aware for the first time of this LLD procedure.
And 17 Fred and I had some discussions on that LLD procedure.
And 18 the existence of the LLD procedure was the justification then 19 for changing the count time on the samples and recording no 20 gamma-amiting radionuclides in the RHUT tank that would be 21 discharged into the environment.
22 Because if they saw any gamma-emiting radio-23 nuclides in the sample, the plant would have to reprocess 24 that liquid.
And in many situations in 1985, there was no 15 place to put that liquid.
The plant was literally floating
4 40 o
1 in water with no place to put it.
2 And so the LLD procedure was then a method by 3
which the-plant could discharge liquid and still be within 4
the public statement made by Pierre Dubre in Octdber of '84.
5 0
so then ---
6 A
And it also gave them the warm fuzzy feeling 7
that they were well within the license requirements because 8
it was covered by procedure, and the LLD was less than tec.
9 spec. values.
10 Q
Then this was at the beginning of 1985 that
~
11 they were ---
12 A
The ---
13 Q
That they did this study on the countin'g time?
14 A
Well ---
15 Q
The analysis on the counting time?
16 A
Yes, it was in the first half of 1985, I 17 believe, that the LLD procedure was created.
And the count 18 times were then changed at times.
It wasn't a high percentago; 19 of the time, because most of the time there was no detectable 20 gamma-amiting radionuclides in the RHUTs anyway.
21 But there were some situations where they did 22 see some activity once in a while.
Count times were decrease 6 I
23 below detection limits and then the volume of water was i
24 discharged.
4 25 Q
When you reported back to Powers in the latter m
41
- 1 part of' December 1985 after talking with Fred Kellie, and 2
then Powers went to Keilman, Keilman to Rodriguez, Rodriguez 3
went to coward and Coward went to Kellie, what was. reported y
4 up that chain and down to Coward was the fact that counting-
.l 5
times had been changed?
~
6 A
Had been purposely manipulated to not record 7
radioactivity in the liquid affluent.-
3-Q Right.
And in connection with that was the 9
knowledge also that possibly the LLD tec. specs. -- the toe.
j 10 specs. of the LLD values would not be sufficient to insure 11 compliance with Appendix I?
12 Those were both known by th'ose parties at that 13 time, right, as it went up through Rodriguez and back'down 14 to Coward?
In other words ---
15 A
Yeah.
16 Q
-- that is what I'm asking you.
What is it 17 that was going up and down, what was the information going 18 up and coming back down?
19 A
okay.
The information that was going through 20 the loop was that Fred Kellie was manipulating the count l
21 time such that the reporting of radioactivity in liquid 22 effluent was not being adequately performed.
23 And the people involved were quite concerned 24 about that.
When it finally got to Fred Kellie -- when it 25 was going through this loop, there was not the awareness of L___.______________________________
l 42 1
the LLD' procedure, which was an approved plant procedure 1
2 which allowed them to change the count time as long as the l
l 3
LLD was.below tec. spec. value.
1 4
Q Let me interrupt before you continue on.
You l
5 say there wasn't awareness.
Powers knew about.It?
6 A
Correct.
7 Q
Keilman knew about it?
3 A
Correct.
9 Q
And Rodriguez knew about it?
10 A
correct.
11 Q
All right.
At-that time they were also made 12 aware of the counting time.
So those'two knowledges, those-13 two separate sets of knowledge, combined at that time' with 14 Powers, Keilman and Rodriguez?
15 A
Uh-huh.
16 Q
All right.
17 A
They should have ---
13 Q
That's what I mean.
19 A
They should have been more sensitive, I feel.
20 By the time it got to Kellie and then back to me, it seemed 21 to really blow up though.
22 And the argument -- when Kellie brought up the 13 LLD procedure as the justification for doing that, everybody 24 agreed that that was acceptable practice.
Everybody in 25 management, Ron Colombo, and everybody that got involved in
_________m_______.____.m_____m_
43 l
1
'that discussion then, agreed that the LLD procedure was
)
2 justification for changing the count time and the' recording 3
of radioactivity in affluence.
4 And, again, it seemed like the issue died.
5 That it was then a nonproblem because of. the ISD procedure.
i J
6 Q
Do you have any personal of anyone that brought 7
up the footnote to the Tec. Spec. Table 4.21-1, calling for 8
identification of peaks?
9 A
No.
The first mention of the footnote to 10 Table 4.21-1 was during an inspection by Greg Yuhaus of Regica 11 V.
12 Q
All right.
13 A
It didn't seem -- I don't think that tlie plant 14 or even myself was not wholly aware that -- of the signifi-15 cance of the footnote and what it required.
16 Q
All right.
17 A
Now, at the time, over the course of 1985 from 18 January when I became aware that the LLD may be a problem and 19 then to the December 16th memo and then to the confrontation 20 with Fred Kellie, the question always came up, well, hadn't 21 you ever talked to Fred Kellie about the LLD problem before.
22 And I would have thought that I would have.
?.3 Because -- and I know I at least discussed this issue with a
Jim Reese more than once during 1985.
And I feel that at som:
25 point in time in '85 I must have talked to Fred Kellie about
___-------_-__----_---_----------,_____-_.__---_-_a
. 9 r
44 l
1 this : Issue.
But there's no documentation to that effect, you I 2-know.
3 The other possibility was that there were so l
l 4
many things going on during that time that it got lost in the l 5
shuffle, even if we did discuss it.
And Fred being under a 6
tremendous amount of pressure just in his normal day-to-day 7
responsibilities-of radiation protection on the site.
3 Q
All right.
Before we go on to the next issue 9
and that is, what action was taken on the LLD issue ais a 10 result of your December 16 letter, why don't we just take a
~
11 short break.
12 (A brief recess was taken.)
13 BY MR. MEEKS:
14 Q
Ed, what action was taken as a result of your 15 December 16, 1985, letter on the LLD issue?
16 A
Well, as we discussed, it went through the 17 management chain -- well, discovered the changing of the 18 count times.
The changing of the count time issue went 19 through the management chain to Fred Kellie.
20 Fred Kellie came back with the existence of 21 the LLD procedure, which was the justification for changing 22 the time as long as it was within the Tec. Spec. 4.21-1.
And 23 there was concurrence by management that that was acceptable 24 practice.
25 So the whole issue was dropped.
And there was
45 1
no further action. by management to pursue either the changing 2
of count times or the LLD issue.
3 I had to get on with the program psd I was then 4
responsible for generating the July through December 1985 5
radioactive affluent release report.
And so I'took the 6
material that was provided to me by chemistry and radiation 7
protection as to the reporting of radioactivity in the 3
effluence, generated the report and submitted it to the NRC.
9 That report would have been submitted probably '
10 the first week of March 1986 Then I commenced work on the 11 environmental operating report.
12 Q
All right, can I just ask you a question.
Were 13 you officially told that your concerns about the LLD'11mita-14 tions as related to compliance with Appendix I had been duly 15 considered and nothing was going to take place further on it 16 in light of the counting time study?
17 A
I was still very much concerned that the la counting and the analysis of the RHUT samples was inadequate, 19 but felt that because it had gone through the complete i
20 management chain and there was concurrence by management, 21 that the LLD procedure and the tee. specs. were adequate 22 from a license perspective.
And the environment which I was 23 still having to work under, that I couldn't pursue it any 24 longer.
25 Q
All right, but there was nothing in writing a-m--
_ma.__
_-_-.__-.___--__-____a_-
46-l..
1 that you recall?
l 2
A Nothing.
Nothing was in writing.
3 Q
All right.
Why don't you continue on then.
4 You were ---
5
.A Then an NRC Region V inspection.' team came and 6
started an inspection and was-looking through the affluent 7
release permit records, and discovered the changing of the 8
count times resulting in the NRC inspection report 8615 9
And then it seemed like a lot of activity took 10 place.
Commitments were made then to reevaluate the 1985 11 liquid affluent source term.
Contact were made with controls'
~
l 12 for environmental pollution to reanalyze the monthly 13 composite samples that were normally taken for Strontium 89
~
14 and 90 and gross alpha analysis to expand that analysis for 15 gamma-spectral analysis.
i 16 CEP only had a limited number of those samples 17 still available, I believe we got six to eight months out of 18 the 12 where they had samples still available for gamma-spec 19 analysis.
And than we used the actual accounting lower I
20 limits of protection as an upper bound of estimate of what
)
21 the affluent was and did the analysis and reevaluation of the 22 1985 liquid effluent analysis.
23 And that resulted in the special report 8608 24 which the district, submitted to the NRC, which was an 25 analysis on the upper limits of what would be expected to
6-47
.1 have been discharged.
And that analysis showed that the 2
. District did exceed the design objectives of Appendix I for 3
1985.
4 Q
All right.
And do'I understand now that the 5
technical specification on the LLD values was being redone 6
so that the LLD value now will assure compliance with ---
7 A
/
Well, it's -- this goes back to the discussion 8
I had with Jack Martin and Ross Scarano and the other 9
individuals from NRR two weeks ago which indicate'that the 10 lower limits of protection in the technical specification is
~ 11 only a demonstration of compliance with 10 CFR 20, not 12 Appendix I.
13 What we are currently proposing.for tho' 14 technical specification for Rancho Seco is a detailed dose 15 tracking mechanism not directly tied to an LLD value.
And 16 that is because an LLD value is a set value, which is good 17 for complaines with 10 CFR 20 because 10 CFR 20 is a 18 concentration limit at the site boundary.
19 This is contrasted completely with 10 CFR 50, 20 Appendix I, which is a calculated value of radiological l
21 exposure offsite which is dependant upon a lot of j
l 22 environmental values that are described in the ODCM and are 23 subject to change due to the land use census performed 24 annually, and any other new information gathered in the 25 course of the environmental monitoring program or the land
-_a---_-----.__----
j:
48
(
1 use monitoring program or the land use census.
2 So a concentration limit at the site boundary 3
is not necessarily a good method of demonstrat4ng compliance 4
with Appendix I.
10 CFR 20 is a curie limit.
Appendix I is 5
a dose milleram limit.
6 It is best, we feel, to develop a detailed 7
administrative dose tracking and trending-requirements in the 3
specs that would then give a demonstration of compliance with 9
a reasonable certainty that the design objectives of Appendix 10 I are being met.
11 So an LLD value for Appendix I is not a good 12 methodology.
13 Q
But do I understand that the technical' 14 specification on that LLD value, 3.17.2, is being changed?
1 15 A
Well, in the meeting I had two weeks ago with 16 Martin and Scorano, there were two avenues that we could 17 explore.
We could come in with a much lower LLD value which 18 would be extremely difficult for the site to operate under, 19 but which would give the NRC a reasonable assurance that the 20 design objectives are being met, that those detection limits 21 are always met.
1 22 The other option is to use the dose tracking l
l 23 methodology to do a analysis of the required detectable j
4 24 concentration relating to a dose offsite, and the normally 25 expected and then trended volume of water that is being
--_----__-m____-___________.______________m.
'a 49 l'
discharged from the site, and the accumulated offsite doses 2
calculated by the ODCM.
3 Q
So what you are telling me then is, whatever 4
the identifiable peaks that will be automatically calculated 5
into this running total?
6 A
Yes.
7' Q
Regardless of what the LLD is?
8 A
Correct.
9 Q
Right.
10 A
correct.
As a result of the NRC inspection
~
11 report 8615, the administrative controls over the liquid 12 effluence is much better than it was, much better account-13 ability of radionuclides in the RHUTs and a much greater 14 management control in signoff of the movement of water tc 15 the RHUTs and also discharge from the RHUTs.
16 And with the increased administrative controls 17 and the dose trending that they're now doing, we feel that 18 there is a much better assurance that there is compliance 19 with the dose objectives -- design objectives of Appendix I.
20 The LLD concept may be too narrow-minded of 21 a concept to apply to the Rancho Seco situation.
i I
l 22 O
Well, as long as any identifiable peaks are 23 reported?
24 A
Right.
25 Q
Then that concentration can be automatically
_________._-_m__.__.--.___m
4' 50
- 1. -
factored into the dose objectives as it relates to the amount 2
being released?
3 A
Even going all the way back into the late 1984 4
time frame -- and I was always very careful in the document preparation that I was responsible for to 'the hRC, that we 5
6 were striving to discharge radioactivity in our liquid 7
offluence to be within conformance of the design objectives 3
of Appendix I, and I was very careful never to say that we 9
would discharge zero radioactivity in our liquid affluence.
10 That seemed to have been forgotten by Pierre 11 in his October statement to the public.
And it's one of 12 those Catch-22s.
It is easier to demonstrate compliance with 13 Appendix I if you discharge radioactivity.
And it is' 14 difficult to demonstrate compliance with Appendix I if you 15 say you discharge nothing.
16 Because in the environmental radiological 17 detection capabilities that we are now able to attain, there 18 is no such thing as sero.
And if you look hard enough, you 19 can always find it.
20 The difficulty you run into is that if you 21 lower your concentration and your detection limits too low l
22 and you.can still see it, the volume of water that you are i
23 now discharging is tremendously large.
And that very small I
24 concentration multiplied by the extremely large volume of 1
25 water in combination may result in an offsite dose
9-51 1
calculation manual analysis in excess of Appendix I.
2 And so there is also 'some work on site to keep 3
the concentration of radioactivity in the known effluent --
4 liquid affluent, to keep that concentration high and not
~
5 dilute that volume of water with other sources of water in 6
the plant that are known not to contain radionuclides.
7 So that you now have a much smaller volume of 8
water that you have to worry about.
But that also allows you 9
to use a higher lower limit of detection value and still 10 see it.
11 And it is easier to analyze and also to 12
' demonstrate compliance with Appendix I.
So there is a lot 13 of variables that go into it.
one of the key variabies is 14 how many gallons are you discharging from the site, that 15 may or may not be classified as radioactive.
16 And it appears to be a common practice in the 17 industry that if you don't see it in your analysis, that it 18 is by definition radioactive.
Even though we all know that 19 there's no such thing as zero radioactivity.
20 Q
What was ANI's conclusion in their review of 21 this LLD issue?
Did they conduct an audit on this matter?
22 A
Yes.
ANI is very concerned and they were 23 reluctant to go into much detail in their audit report.
24 Because the audit r,eport would go public and there is great 25 sensitivity to the one and a half billion dollar class action 1
52 1
claim.
2 When the reporting of radioactivity in the l
1 3
liquid effluent problem came to light in the media in the 4
reporting of our activity in 1985, an additional half a 1
+
5 billion dollar claim was filed in addition to the one billion 6
dollar claim that was filed in 1985 7
Q All right.
When we refer to ANI in the record, 3
that is the American Nuclear Insurers?
9 A
Correct.
10 Q
That is the proper term for the acronym?
" 11 A
Yes, ANI.
12 Q
So, I want to understand what you are saying.
13 They concurred with you but they didn't make an official 14 report of that?
15 A
I think they made some inferences without 16 getting into too much detail.
But, yes, they were concerned.
17 0
Do you know through conversations with them --
18 and why don't we identify who you are talking about -- if 19 they did agree with your stance on the LLD issue?
20 A
They did agree with me on my stance on the LLD 21 issue.
They are very concerned.
They didn't put a whole lot 22 down in writing though because of the litigation.
One of the individuals I recall with ANI, his 13 24 name is Brian Colby,.
I don't recall the other individuals 25 at this time.
53 1
Q Did Brian Colby take part in the audit of this 2
issue?
3 A
Yes, I believe he did.
4 Q
And the audit concerned liquid effluence?
5 A
The liquid effluence, the offsite dose 6
calculation manual, the tec. specs., the radiological 7
environmental monitoring program, and associated effluent 8
control procedurer and management controls.
9 Q
When was this audit completed?
10 A
I don't recall the date.
i 1
~
11 Q
The year?
12 A
It-would have been early 1986 13 Q
Early 19867 14 A
Yeah, I believe it was early 1986.
An addi-l 15 tional individual with ANI, his name is Paul Fox.
I 16 Q
All right.
I would just like to go off the 17 record here and review your December 16 letter for a bit 18 before I ask you the next question.
19 A
According to my calendar, American Nuclear l
20 Insurers was at SMUD March 25th through March 27th 1986, 21 Q
All right, thank you.
f i
22 MR. MEEKS:
Why don't we just go off the 23 record and let me finish reviewing this December 16, 1985, i
i 24 letter.
25 (Brief recess.)
(.
54 1
BY MR. MEEKS:
2 O
All right, returning once again~ to your Decembes 3
16, 1985, memo, I have a few questions on that,
4 First of all, why don't you just explain once 5
again what the basis for that memo, the cause'[or that memo, 6
was in December 19857 7
A Okay.
At this time, the draft LLD study was on 8
the street now for about a month and a half.
Also, the 9
Lawrence Livermore National Lab was doing some environmental 10 studies downstream of Rancho Seco and they were still' 11 recording radioactivity being transported downstream from 12 Rancho Seco.
13 And according to their mass balance of'the 14 radiocesium being transported downstream and the known 15 quantities of residual radiocesium that was in the sediment 16 upstream at that point that they had already quantified in 17 earlier studies, that the mass balance didn't come out.
18 There should have been much less radiocesium 19 in the water going downstream, or all the radiocesium in the 20 sediments upstream should no longer be present.
And it didn'G 21 equate.
4 22 And so I had some samples drawn from both the 23 RHUTs and both of the retention basins the week of October 24 14th, and gave the samples to Lawrence Livermore National 25 lab for analysis.
__._.m.-___
55 1
And, sure enough, they saw quantities of 2
Manganese 54, Cobalt 60, CC-134 and CC-137 in these samples.
3 And Lawrence Livermore labs gave me a phone call right away, 4
which was later followed by a written transmittal.
5 And I wrote Roger Powers the med.o, the December 6
16th memo, describing the analysis I had had performed, and 7
emphasizing that we have a potential problem on our hands a
with the draft LLD study, what we now know exists, that we 9
are discharging radioactivity in our liquid effluent even 10 though we haven't reported any in 1985.
~ 11 And that we should back and reevaluate just 12 what we did do in 1985 and report this to the NRC as soon as 13 possible.
14 0
Do I understand you that the majority of your 15 requests for action in your memo were not acted upon until 16 after and in conjunction with -- not in conjunction, but as 17 a result of the Region V NRC inspection of 86157 18 A
I believe that to be true, yes.
The December 19 16th memo didn't get well received.
And it was right after 20 this memo that the count times were discovered -- the count 21 time issue was discovered.
22 And I don't believe a whole lot of activity 23 resulted from either this memo or the. changing count time 1
24 issue.
And I don't believe a whole lot happened until after 25 the NRC inspection that resulted in the inspection report
56 1
8615 2
Q When did you first notify NRC about Livermore 3
National Laboratory detection of Cesium and these other 4
nuclei that you report in your december 16 memo in the pathway 1
5 of the streams?
6 A
I don't recall offhand.
I'm looking at my 7
chronology of events. " October 1985, took basin and'RHUT 3
samples for LLNL.
October 29th, distributed the LLD study.
9 December 12, 1985, the District transmitted the LLNL data 10 for 1985 to the NRC Region V."
~
11 Now, I don't know if this transmittal included 12 the october analysis.
February'28, we transmitted to the 13 region UCID Report 20641, which was the 1985 environmental 14 studies downstream from Rancho Seco.
That report would have 15 included the October basin and REUT samples.
16 And the NRC Inspection Report No. 8615, I 17 believe, came out April 1, 1986.
So the NRC became aware of 18 the RET' and basins February 28, 1985 And then after 19 receiving that data, they began their inspection I believe.
20 Q
All right.
And you bring up four. questions ---
21 A.
There's another interesting point here that l
22 probably should be brought up.
Roger Powers recalls a meeting l 23 in November 1985 -- I don't recall details of the meeting.
24 But according to Rogtr Powers he recalls the meeting with 25 Roger Powers, Dr. Marvin Goldman at U. C. Davis, a Doctor Vic
_--u.---_-
57 r
1 Nashkin of Lawrence Livermore' National Labs, and Jack Reding l
i 2
who was the leading counsel retained by American Nuclear 3
Insurers in defense of the one and a half billion. class action 4
suit.
5 And the LLD draft study was brought up during 6
that meeting.
And the conclusion was that it was not an 7
important issue.
Roger recalls the meeting but I don't recall:
8 a lot of detail.
But it's in my chronology.
9 Q
All right, when did this take place?
10 A
Sometime in November '85
' 11 Q
All right, and you were present at that meeting?
12 A
Yeah.
Now, I have since tried to get verifica-13 tion of the transactions in that meeting. from Jack Reding 14 because he generally takes extensive notes.in a personal-15 confidential notebook that he keeps for litigation.
16 Now, most likely it will be personal and 17 confidential attorney privilege information.
But he'd be the 18 only person that would have written something down.
I don't-19 believe Roger Powers even wrote anything down from that 20 meeting.
21 So there's nothing in wriving other than what 22 I've got down here in the chrolology.
23 Q
All right.
You pose several questions in your 24 December 16 memo.
There are five of them.
The fourth 25 question is, "Are there other possible sources of radio-
58 1
nuclides to the basins other than the RHUTs that now need to 2
be quantified and controlled?"
3 Was any action taken on this particular subject 1 4
A No.
No action was taken on this particular F
5 question.
I was told that studies had been dons in the past 6
and that those studies are adequate.
And that there was no 7
need to reevaluate those studies.
8 Q
Who was telling you this?
9 A
Roger Powers.
10 0
All right.
Did he go through and discuss these 11 questions with you?
12 A
Yes.
13 Q
And he had his justification for nonact'ioh in 14 each of the areas that there was no action taken?
15 A
I don't know if he gave me any justification 16 for nonaction.
He -- Roger was appearing to be more 17 responsive by this time.
And he was at least going to Lee 18 Keilman now to try and pursue some of these issues.
And to 19 go through the management chain to get some of these questionE 20 res'olved.
21 But it was painfully' slow and sometimes down-22 right frustrating that little or no action was taking place.
I 23 O
Were you aware -- or when did you become aware j 24 of the temporary modification pipeline which transferred 25 water from the demineralized reactor cool-and-storage tanks I
l
l 59 1
to the REUTs?
2 A
Well, I think I was casually aware of the i
3 temporary mods just by reading various OA reports, and NRC 4
inspection reports, and an ANI concern of temporary piping 5
around site.
6 I was not aware of the significance of that as 7
it related to the NRC Information Bulletin 80-16, which 8
pointed out to nuclear power plant licensees that any 9
temporary mods or permanent mods to radioactive waste control 10 systems required a 50.59 analysis.
~
11 And the temporary piping mods between the 12 DRCST and the RHUTs did not include that 50.59 analysis.
Because at the time ' hose temporary mods were covered under 13 t
14 temporary procedure changes.
And those temporary procedure 15 changes did not include in the procedure a 50.59 evaluation.
16 And it was not until after the NRC Inspection 17 Report 8615 that this was brought to light.
18 0
But you were aware of it before the inspection 19 that resulted in the Report No. 8615, you were aware of the 20 temporary modification before that?
21 A
Yes, I was casually aware of temporary piping 22 to transfer water to the RHUTs.
13 Q
Specifically from the DRCST7 24 A
Well,,I don't recall specifically the'DRCST.
I 15 just recall that there was a tank in the tank farm area.
And l
mm
-__mu--
60 I
there was' temporary pipe to connect that tank to the RHUTs to 2
take care of the water management problem on site, and really 3
was not aware of the significance of that untiL after the 4
NRC inspection.
F 5
Because I was not in any review ' chain, or reviet 6
and approval chain, of any engineering design modem, any 7
review and concurrence of any procedure chain, or any review 3
of operational practices on site.
9 Q
Your awareness of that temporary piping to the 10 RHUTs existed.
What was your impression of the origin of it?
11 A
Just a tank of the tank farm.
But I was aware 12 that the tanks in the tank farm contained radioactivity.
So 13 it was my understanding that radioactive liquid'offlu'ont was 14 being transferred to the RHUT.
15 The RHUT was still the affluent control point, 16 so to speak, as for the reaccounting and reporting of radio-17 activity.
They would later be discharged offsite.
And so I 18 felt that at the time there was the adequate analysis and 19 administrative controls, once the water got to the RHUT, to l
l 20 adequately control and report the affluent.
l J
21 Q
When you say that the piping was to the tank 22 farm, is it -- in other words, is it your impression was 23 coming from the primary or secondary system?
24 A
primary.
25 Q
But you didn't know where in the primary
_m.---
--2_.-_m.________-m___
-____.___-.m.
61 4
1 system ---
1 2
A Right.
l 3
0
--- was its inception?
4 A
Right.
I have not received any Rancho Seco 5
facilities training, even though I have requested the training 6
a couple of times.
It has always come back that, well, you 7
don't have time to take the training no we will defer it unti&
1 8
a later date.
9 So I was never really able to get a complete l
10 systems knowledge of the Ranch and let some of those things 11 kind of slide.
12 Q
Now, in the temporary modification, as you 13 explained, there was no 50.59 review or safety review'or 14 safety analysis review of that modification.
15 Is SMUD still continuing to transfer water from 16 the DRCST tank to the REUTs?
17 A
okay, my recollection of previous District 18 practices relating to transfer of liquids from the DRCST to 19 the RHUT comes from the NRC Inspection Report 8615.
So that'O 20 the basis of my knowledge there.
21 And then other casual discussions with some 22 plant staff.
And the justification that I was given for not 23 performing the 50.59s on previous temporary mods that 24 connected the DRCST to the RHUT was that it was -- the 25 temporary mod was controlled by temporary procedures changes.
._-__-______m.
62 1
And the temporary procedure change did not require a 50.59.
2 And therefore, a 50.59 was not performed on thas 3
temporary transfer of liquid from the DRCST to.the RHUT.
4 There were two safety evaluations generated in this past year 5
198 ti.
one of them related to a, again, tempor*ary piping 6
modification to connect the DRCST to the RHUT, with the undero 7
standing that it was only for the transfer of one volume of 3
water from the DRCST to the RHUT.
And once that volume of l
9 liquid was. transferred, that that t.amporary piping mod would i
10 then be disconnected.
11 And so that safety evaluation was performed with 12 known quantities of radionuclides in the DRCST tank volume.
13 And the resulting effluent dose calculations were purformed 14 with those known quantities.
And the counting was done 15 correctly.
l 16 In addition to that, there is also a modifica-i i
I 17 tion in progress at the Ranch to make a permanent piping i
18 change to connect the DRCST to the RHUTs.
19 I became aware of the safety analysis of that 20 Permanent modification by review of a monthly plant operating 1
21 report which is a District report to the NRC Region on a 22 monthly basis.
And I receive these reports in preparation of 23 the semi-annual effluent release report, and the annual 24 environmental report.
25 In review of one of the monthly reports, I m-mm-,,
--_-------------_------,---------__-s.-----
63 i
o j
1 noticed a safety evaluation had been performed on the i
2 permanent modification of the DRCST to the RHUT.
So I went 3
to the QA document control, got a copy of the s,afety analysis l 4
and reviewed the safety' analysis, and discovered two errors 5
had been made.
.l 6
One error that was made that I' felt was that j
7 the safety analysis only included tritium and that the evaluao 3
tion did not include other gamma-emitting nuclides.
Knowing 9
that in 1984 there was multiple instances where known 10
. quantities of gamma-emitting. radionuclides were transferred 11 from the DRCST to the RHUT, it was in our affluent release
)
12 report and it was part of the public record that the gamma-13 emitting radionuclides were being transferred from th'e DRCST 14 to the RHUT.
- f So how could the safety analysis be performed 16 and not include those sources of radioactivity.
17 Another error was the 10-curie tank limit, whick 18 is also a technical specification requirement, incorrectly 19 referred to the 10-curie tank limit as 1seing in compliance i
20 with 10 CFR 50, Appendix I.
21 The 10-curie tank limit refers to compliance i
22 with 10 CFR 20, not Appendix I.
I talked to my supervisor, 23 George Marquardt, about this and wrote a current description 24 report documenting my findings and sent the ODR on to 25 regulatory compliance according to procedure AB-22.
64-o 1
I was later informed by regulatory compliance 2
that they are requesting the design engineer to go back and i
3 reevaluate safety analysis.
4 Q
When was this original' safety analysis done, 5
completed?'
l
~6 A
ch, I don't recall the date on the original 7
safety analysis.
I became aware of it I believe as a result 3
of the october or November plant status report.
And I believp 9
I wrote the ODR December of '86 10 Q
All right.
What is -- so I understand it, here 11 we have a safety analysis being conducted to make this 12 temporary modification permanent from the DRCST tank to the 13 RHUTs.
14 And you discovered it by means of some -- not 15 a directly related report, but some report going from SMUD i
16 to -- a monthly operation report, is that what you called.itp 17 A
Yes.
18 Q
- te NRC.
What is your review on thess. type 1
19 matters?
I mean, it seems like this would be a health 20 physics matter since I would assume this water is ultimately 21 destined to be released beyond the site boundary.
22 What are the procedures calling for health 23 physics review of analyses like this?
24 A
There is currently no procedures in the Distric9 25 that requires any health physics or environmental review of
65 1
any engineering design mod within SMUD.
2 The only -- they say that they are getting 3'
health physics review by Fred Kellie and the plant review 4
committsa.
But that's incorrect because Fred Kellie is 5
responsible for radiation protection.
6 Q
That concerns more the onsite ---
l l
7 A
i The onsite day-to-day radiation protection of I
8 the employees and the contractors.
Not so much the big 1
9 picture of HP and environmental.
10 The District has added a contractor health 11 physicist to the management safety revisw committee.
But I-12 question that membership, because the individual really has 13 no direct responsibility to HP and environmental.
14 And it's an incorrect assignment of that 15 individual to have HP and environmental review at management 16 safety review committee level.
17 I have strongly advocated a health physics 18 individual on the management safety review committee, dating 19 all the way back to 1983.
And on all instances on bringing 20 this issue up to upper management, I have been rebuffed.
21 Q
So there is no you or any other health physicisG 22 working for SMUD, you have no review of the changes to these 13 administrative controls, these alterations, these changes 24 that are taking place to bring SMUD or Rancho Seco into 15 compliance with the deficient areas that were reported in
66 1
86157 2
A To my knowledge, there is no formal' health, 3
physics or environmental review and sign-off of any licensing 4
document in the District.
5 That all the reviews and sign-odfs of licensing 6
documents and transmittals to the NRC are done by engineering 7
individuals only.
8 Q
You mentioned that -- was it Keilman? -- that 9
stated in your performance evaluation, indicated that you 10 paid too close attention to details, strived for perfection?
11 A
Yes, I believe that was in a performance 12 evaluation done by Bob Deitrich.
And Lee Keilman was the 13 manager of the department at the time, and he concurred, I 14 pay too close attention to detail.
15 Q
Did he make a statement in there about ---
16 A
I don't recall ---
17 Q
--- striving for perfection?
18 A
I don't recall the exact statement to that 19 effact, but it was related to me verbally more than once.
20 Q
Can I get a copy of that particular performance 21 evaluation?
l 22 A
Yes.
d 23 Q
I will consult with you before including it in 24 the report, if it becomes a part of the report.
But I would 25 like to have a copy of that to look at, if you don't mind.
_____._______..______.______.________.___m
__________-_.--_..___.---__-________m-m_--
4 67 o -
1 A
Yes.
Oh, Dal Raasch may have been the manager.
2 of the department at that time.
I'll have to look at the 3
performance evaluation to be sure.
4 Q
All right, are we talking about 19847 5
A I believe it was some' time in that time frame, 6
yes.
7 Q
All right.
Mr. Bradley, have I or any other 8
NRC representative offered you promises of reward in exchange 9
for this statement?
10 A
No.
~
11 Q
Have you give this statement of your own free 12 will?
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
Is there anything that you wish to add at this 15 time consarning the matters we have discussed?
16 A
Yes.
17 Q
Fine.
18 A
I feel Fred Kellie is being put in a position 19 as the District scapegoat on the count time and the LLD issuee 20 I strongly feel he is innocent on the issue and is a victim I
21 of SMUD. management's inability to deal with the problem.
22 Fred is a very diligent, very straight-forward,j 23 very honest individual.
And he was doing his job as best as 24 he could at the time under some extremely trying times, and lt.
25 his own situation with George Coward and Pierre Oubre at
~
_________._______.__m__
68 a
1 the time and trying to please their management which was in 2
accordance to Pierre's public statements at Herald in October 3
of '84 4
My only regret is that I didn't get the LLD 5
information to Fred sooner and deal with it mo e directly.
6 But in my own personnel position and environment in the 7
District at the time, I felt I had to go through the normal 3
management channels on this issue to regain some confidence 9
in a management that was playing it according it to their 10 rules rather than circumvent normal management channels.
11 MR. MEEKS:
All right, thcnk you.
12 (Whereupon, at 6:55 p.m.,
the investigative 13 interview was concluded.)
14
--ooo--
15 16 17 16 l
W 20 21 l
22 23 24 e
1 ThiG-is to cortify that tho outached precocdinga b3fors' tho UNITED STATES NUCIZAR REGULATORY CCici$5SION in tho mattor of:
i O,.
IE OF PROCIEDING:
INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW (CLOSEQ JiEETING)
DOCKET NO.:
NONE
', PLACE :
Sacramento, California '.
"DATE:
January 26, 1987 wars held as herein appears, and that this is the original tranceript theEsof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
1
_ Sigt). hh
(
(TYPED) Frances L. Rhudy#
Official Reporter r.
Reporter's Affiliation JAMES W. HIGGINS & ASSOCIATES 37 States Street (23 San Francisco, CA.94114
./~s v
E)M IBIT T
~
m
-