ML21035A256
| ML21035A256 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/02/2021 |
| From: | NRC/OCIO |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML21035A252 | List: |
| References | |
| NRC-2021-000029 | |
| Download: ML21035A256 (112) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Docket Number:
Location:
Date:
Work Order No.:
Predecisional Enforcement Conference RE Tennessee Valley Authority EA-19-092 teleconference Thursday, July 23, 2020 NRC-0998 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island A venue, N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 Pages 1-111
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+ + + + +
PRE-DECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE RE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA)
(DOCKET NO. EA-19-092)
+ + + + +
THURSDAY JULY 23, 2020
+ + + + +
1 The conference was convened at 8 : 00 a.m.
EDT via Video Teleconference, Kenneth O' Brien, Region III, Deputy Regional Administrator, presiding.
NRC STAFF PRESENT:
KENNETH O' BRI EN, Region III, Deputy Regional Administrator ALEX ECHAVARRIA, Region II,
Office of I nvestigations IAN GIFFORD, Office of Enforcement JOE GI LLESPI E, At torney, Office of the General Counsel NI CK HILTON, Senior Enforcement Advisor,
Office of Enforcement (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CRAIG KONTZ, Region II,
Office of I nvestigations MARK MI LLER, Region II, Director, Division of Reactor Projects MARCIA SI MON, Senior Attorney, Office of the General Counsel ANDY SHUTTLEWORTH, Director, Office of I nvestigations SCOTT SPARKS, Region II,
Senior Enforcemen t Speci a l ist ALSO PRESENT :
J IM BARSTOW, TVA, Vice President,
Nuclear Regulatory Affairs TIM RAUSCH, TVA, Chief Nucl ear Officer TRICIA ROELOFS, TVA, Director,
Data Governance & Analytics CHRIS RICE, TVA, Director, Plant Operations,
Wat ts Bar Nuc l ear Plant RANDY STAGGS, TVA, Director, Plant Support,
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant TONY WILLI AMS, TVA, Site Vice President,
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 2
BRENDAN HENNESSEY,
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw (202) 234-4433 Pi ttman NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3
MONICA HERNANDEZ, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman TOM HILL, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman MICHAEL LEPRE, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman DAVID LEWI S, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman DREW NAVIKAS, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman HOWARD FELDMAN, Blank Rome BARRY LEVINE, Blank Rome (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CONTENTS Opening Remarks.
- Director, Office of Enforcement Enforcement Policy Overview
- Office of Enforcement Staff Apparent Violation
- Office of Enforcement Staff External Presentation Complainan t Comments External Response to Complainant Comments Questions.
Closing Remarks
- Director, Office of Enforcement (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 4
5 5
6 6
32 55 78 103 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5
P R O C E E D I N G S 8 :0 0 a.m.
MR. O' BRI EN:
Good morning, everybody.
It ' s top of the hour, so I 'd l i ke to begin if we could.
This is Ken O'Brien again.
We are going to conduct a PEC today, a continuation of yesterday so we are going to go back on the record.
Before we begin, I
want to make sure everybody ' s available.
I'll check my team first.
Marcia?
MS. SIMON:
I'm here.
MR. O'BRIEN :
Nick?
MR. HILTON:
Good morning.
MR. O'BRIEN :
Scott?
MR. SPARKS :
Yes, Ken.
Good morning.
MR. O'BRIEN:
Good morning.
And t hen, Mr. Rausch and Mr. Barstow, do you have everybody that you need?
MR. BARSTOW :
Yes, we do.
Thank you.
MR. O'BRIEN:
Thank you.
I just have a brief opening statement and then I am going to turn it back over to you.
As we continue to today, the PEC started yesterday, we are back on the record and the court reporter i s available, we are going to discuss the (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NRC ' s letter to the TVA dated March 9th.
6 It document ed 12 appar en t viol ations that i ncluded factual summaries for those.
Today, as I understand it, we are going to discuss three of the 12 apparent violations, apparent v i olations 4, 7 and 9.
In summary, these apparent violations involved the deliberate failure to follow procedures associated with not ensuring that shift operations were conducted in a safe and conservative manner, not stoppi ng operations when unsure and only proceeding in a deliberate and controlled manner, not validating available information, a l lowing production to override safety and proceeding in the face of uncertainty, and two examples of a deliberate failure to provide the Commission complete and accurate information in a l l material respects.
Wi th that, I ' ll t urn the meeting over to you,
Mr.
Rausch and Mr.
- Barstow, for your presentations.
Thank you.
Good morning.
This is Tony Williams.
Before I turn it over to our attorneys to respond t o apparent viol ation 4, I want to briefly go back over some of my points that I made in my opening statement yesterday.
(202) 234*4433 I n 2015, Watts Bar was not where it needed NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7
to be.
We lacked conservative bias in decision making, we had weaknesse s i n operative fundamental s and we did not maintain a strong safety-conscious work environment.
These organizational failures contributed to the RHR event.
It was not a conservative decision to heat up withou t
- verified, effec tive, pressurizer level control of (audio interference).
While the environment at that time may have contributed to poor decis i on maki ng, our empl oyees did not intentionally violate procedures or NRC requirements.
While many of u s were not here at the time, we take responsibility for ensuring that these failures have been and remain corrected today.
Our operators understand that a proposed action must be determined to be safe in order to proceed, rather than unsafe in order t o stop.
Management behaviors have been changed to ensure employees feel free to raise concerns without fear of retaliation.
Our safety culture monitoring program has the tools to ensure subtle work envir onmen t i ssues are i dentif i ed and acted upon.
This event or similar events simply would not occur at Watts Bar today.
If faced with a simil ar operati on decision making,
ou r organizati on woul d (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8
react very different.
We would evaluate a condition as an infrequently performed test or evolution and additional controls that could be put in place for the infrequently performed test or evolution.
We have seni or leaders assigned to an evolution oversight commission with roles and responsibilities clearly established.
Standalone procedure would be developed and there would be formalities in the development of calculations and con t ingency steps.
Just-in-time training would be performed in the simulator to address operators ' profici-ency.
There would be use of an operation decision making index that has been -- that would be developed.
There wou ld also be station alignment with the on-watch operations crew authorizing -- with the authorization requirements.
As I described to you yesterday, TVA has worked hard over the last several years to fix these deficiencies identified in the RHR event. We at Watts Bar are confident that we have fixed those issues by ensuring ou r nuclear safety is an ongoing mission.
- Today, we are a different site with a different leadership. Our operators' f undamentals and performance are the best they ' ve ever been.
I n (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9
particular, we ' ve taken significant steps to improve our nuc l ear safety culture.
Some of those steps are discussed in our written response to the apparent violati ons form.
I am proud to say that TVA ' s improvements have been recognized by industry groups as well as the NRC.
At the same time, I am concerned that the NRC is seeking to revisit these events despite all the work and cooperation between TVA and the NRC to improve the work envir onment at Watts Bar.
I would like to turn it over to our counsel to set ou t TVA ' s position in more detail and to also address the concerns as I just stated from a legal perspective.
MR. LEWIS:
Thank you, Tony.
As you've just heard from Mr. Williams, TVA acknowl edges that its employees engaged in nonconservative decision making at Watts Bar on November 11th, 2015.
In response,
TVA has taken extensive corrective action and the safety cul ture at Watts Bar today is light-years ahead of where it was i n 20 15.
Although TVA does not deny that there were nonconservative actions at Watts Bar on November 11th, TVA denies apparent violati on 4 on both legal and (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 policy grounds.
10 And TVA also denies that the nonconservati ve decis i on making was the result of any deliberate misconduct.
First, TVA denies the apparent violation because the NRC has chosen not to regulate adherence to its safety culture policy statement.
As I will explain, the provisions in OPDP-1,
on which this apparent violation are based, are safety culture traits and their inclusion as part of TVA 1 s efforts to promote positive safety culture consi stent with the NRC ' s safety culture policy statement and the expectations therein.
The policy statement and the statement by the commissioners when it was issued clearly indicate that the policy statement does not create enforceabl e requirements and this implementation should not r *esult i n de facto requ irements.
Issuing a notice of violation based on violations of the safety culture traits in OPDP-1 would thus contradict the Commission's directions.
- Second, TVA denies the allegations of de l iberate misconduct by Messr s Johnson, Bl ankenshi p,
l(b )(7)(C) I, l(b )(7)(C) I and (b )(7)(C).
Even if the safety culture traits that have been inserted into OPDP-1 to promote good (202) 234-4433 safety culture were NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 treated as (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 enforceable regulatory requirements, which they should not be,
a ny violations of thos e traits were non-deliberate.
TVA has found no evidence including the PEC presentations over the past two weeks that would lead it to conclude that any employee deliberately violated the provisions of OPDP-1 cited in this apparent violation.
I 'll now explain our legal argument regarding OPDP-1.
The NRC bases this violation on certai n provisions of OPDP-1, a procedure governi ng conduct of operations for operations personnel.
Specifically, the NRC has identified violations of sub-parts A and E in Section 3.3 dedicated to conservative decision making.
This section of the procedure incorporates into OPDP-1 safety culture traits which the Commission through its safety culture pol icy statement has encouraged all licensees to foster.
As I will discuss,
the Commission has specifically chosen in its safety culture policy statement to encourage licensees to promote and foster safety culture as a matter of policy, but not to establish enforceable requirements.
Consequently, safety culture traits do not constitute enforceable requirements or provide the basi s for viol ations.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 The NRC ' s safety culture policy statement lays out various policy safety culture traits that the Commission expects licensees to foster.
As the Commission's policy statement explains, safety culture traits describe a pattern of thinking, feeling and behaving that emphasize safety.
OPDP-1 Section 3. 3 sub-parts A and E are exactly that, traits of thinking, feeling and behaving that emphasize safety, in particular conservative decision making that Watts Bar operators should exhibit.
The NRC has developed NUREG-2165 to present a common language agreed upon by the NRC and the nuclear industry for classifying and grouping traits and attributes for healthy safety culture.
There is a clear correlation between the provisions in OPDP-1 cited by the NRC and the traits described in both the policy statement and NUREG-2165.
While the Commission's safety culture policy statement sets forth expectations and encourages licensees to foster good safety culture, it does not create enforceable requirements.
In promulgating the safety culture policy statement, the Commission explicitly stated its policy statements do not constitute rules and are not enforceabl e against (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 licensees.
The policy statement also states that the traits of positive safety culture were not developed to be used for inspection purposes.
This stat-ement that the traits were not developed for inspection purposes implies that they were not developed for enforcement.
In addition, the policy statement states that the NRC will not monitor or trend values.
These will be the organization's responsibility as part of its safety culture program.
This statement too implies that the Commission did not expect that the staff would be treating values as enforceable requirements.
I n this regard, when the draft policy statement was presented to the Commission and at that time it included a statement, the draft policy statement did, the statement that the NRC will include appropriate means to monitor safety culture in its oversight programs and internal management processes.
Then-Commissioner, now Chairman Svinicki, obs-erved that this statement is fundamentally inconsistent with the statement that the safety culture traits are not necessarily inspectable and were not developed for that purpose, and the statement inserting monitoring (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 safety culture in oversight programs was deleted.
Commissioner Ostendorff expressed similar views.
He cautioned against implementation in a manner that could result in de facto requirements and he advised that the staff should come back to the Commission for further review and approval before any broader implementation. That TVA has incorporated the safety culture traits into OPDP-1 should not convert those traits to requirements enforced under 10 CFR Part 50 Index B Criterion 5.
The safety culture policy statement states the Commission's expectations that licensees take necessary steps to promote safety culture by fostering those traits as they apply to their organizational environments.
Emphasizing safety culture traits by emphasizing them in a procedure is a key means to do so,
to apply the procedures in the operations department's organizational environment, what method to do so.
Further,
the NRC staff ' s inspection procedures provide an example of the NRC encouraging licensees to incorporate safety culture traits into their procedures.
NRC Inspection Procedure 95003. 02 Appendix A,
(202) 234*4433 which is in sample NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 inspection (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 requirements, tells the inspector, review policies or procedures which address proceeding in t he face of uncertainty or unexpected circumstances to verify that related guidance is adequate.
This i s the very trait that ' s before us today.
Consequently, reflecting safety culture traits and procedures is simply part of a licensee's implementation of the policy statement, a licensee's implementation of the Commission's expectations, not requirements, and thus not subject to enforcement.
10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B Criterion 5 does not and should not alter that result.
Its well-established legal maxim recognized by the Commission that the specific prevails over the general, and I'm sure that Murray (phonetic) and Marcia will understand this is primarily for their benefit.
Criterion 5
establishes a
general requirement that activities affecting quality be implemented in accordance with establ ished procedure.
That general requirement gives way to t he Commission ' s specific direction that the promotion of safety culture traits under its pol icy statement does not create enforceable requirements, nor is it reasonable to interpret the requirement in Criterion 5
to accomplish act i vities affecti ng quality in accordance (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 with these procedures as applying to expected pat terns of thinking, feeling and behaving embodied in safety culture traits.
The logical interpretation of Criterion 5 is that a licensee must prescribe and adhere to specific steps of actions required to accomplish activities affecting quality and nothing more.
In this regard, as stated in Section 1 of OPDP-1, OPDP-1 provides both instructions and guidelines.
The expected behaviors in Section 3. 3 sub-parts A and E are in the nature of guidelines reflecting general principles of behavior and expectations.
These provisions are markedly different from the procedural steps in a
continuous use procedure,
for example,
compliance with which is required under Criterion 5.
- Indeed, when you look at the alleged violations, the issue is not so much whether the behaviors were
- applied, but rather whether the behaviors were sufficiently applied.
Not whether the operators stopped, but whether they stopped long enough.
Not whether they questioned assumptions,
but whether they were questioning enough. Not whether (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 they proceeded in a controlled manner, but whether it was controlled enough.
Further,
as a matter of policy, if the NRC turns safety culture traits into enforceable requirements when they are incorporated by licensees into written procedures or to emphasize them before operators it would be counterproductive.
Using voluntary reference to safety culture traits in a licensee ' s procedure as the basis for violations might encourage licensees to remove any mention of those traits from a ny quality-related procedure or instruction.
Further, it would be doing exactly what the Commission has said not to do, create de facto requirements without first coming back to the Commission and proceeding through appropri ate rulemaking.
And last but not l east, the NRC wou ld be entering into the realm of regulating attitude.
Fundamentally, the NRC would be regulating licensees' employees ' subjective judgments.
When is some action conservative enough?
When is an individual questioning enough?
This would represent a marked expansion of the NRC's enforcement regime,
one that is unprecedented.
NRC enforcement under Criterion 5 has (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 always focused on whether an operator has objectively follows specific procedures.
The NRC has never tried as far as we are aware to regulate the subjective values of operators who are trying to follow procedures, perhaps not in NRC' s estimation trying hard enough.
It would be a sea change for the industry to expose operators to this degree of management by the NRC staff.
Rather, as the Commission 's policy statement indicates, managing safety culture is l eft to the organization.
Further, the subjective standard created by safety culture traits is fundamentally incompatible with the NRC's deliberate misconduct rule.
The deliberate misconduct rule prohibits knowing and intentional violations.
That standard presumes that licensees and their employees knows what constitute a violation,
that the safety culture traits are so f undamentally subjective and susceptible to armchair quarterbacking that individuals at risk of sanctions under the deliberate misconduct rule can hardly be expected to know what the NRC will decide was, in hindsight,
conservative enough.
Even without the strong l egal and (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 prudential reasons for the NRC to refrain from enforcing safety culture, under 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B, Criterion 5, a factual record does not support a finding of deliberate misconduct.
Viewed fairly, the evidence does not support the allegations that TVA' s employees knowingly and intentionally violated the cited provisions of OPDP-1 on November 11th, 2015.
As has been discussed but bears repeating,
deliberate misconduct requires an intentional act or omission that the individual knows would cause a licensee to violate an NRC requirement.
Given the Commission ' s statements that its safety culture policy statement is not a rule, it's difficult to know, to see how any employee would know that not being conservative enough would cause TVA to be in violation of an NRC rule.
Regardless, it appears that the accused individuals believed on November 11th that they were acting appropriately.
They may have been wrong, but they were not deliberately violating the cited provisions of OPDP-1.
I'll discuss the evidence with regard to each individual argued by apparent violation 4
starting with the operators in the control room and (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 then turn to plant management.
Apparent violation 4 targets two operators in the control room on November 11th, Mr. Billy Johnson, the shift manager, and Mr. Todd Blankenship, a reactor operator.
With respect to Mr. Johnson, he stopped, he deliberated about the evolution before proceeding.
He discussed the plan with other control room operators and with the OCC operations representative.
I t appears he also discussed the plan with the operations director.
He heard from the occ operations representative and the operations director that the plant evolution would work.
Mr. Johnson reviewed the plant procedures and could not identify any restriction on the proposed evolution.
Although it appears he may not have been confident in the evolution, he did not view it as posing a safety risk because he was confident that he could control the pressurizer level by restoring RHR letdown, for example.
He directed the operators to proceed with the evolution knowing that he could control pressurizer level, and the operators reduced the pressurizer level before doing so. They proceeded with a heat-up very slowly.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 These points I've just made and the points I'm going to make on the other individuals are set out in more detail in our written response, so I am not going to go through all the quotes on which these are based.
But if you look at our written response, you'll see them laid out.
So were Mr.
Johnson's actions non-conservative? Yes.
Did he make mistakes? Yes.
But did he intentionally, knowingly violate NRC requirements? Of course not. He showed poor judgment and weaknesses in operator fundamentals.
He should have done more to confirm assumptions. He should have ensured the evolution was properly evaluated including with a simulator.
He should have put a procedure in place for the untried evolution including provisions controlling the pressurizer level.
But there's no evidence that Mr. Johnson considered taking those steps, knew that failing to do so would violate NRC requirements, and decided just to go ahead and violate them.
His conduct thus did not rise to the level of deliberate misconduct in TVA's estimation.
Mr. Blankenship.
Mr. Blankenship thought and deliberated about the evolution before proceeding (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 and he ultimately proceeded at his shift manager's direction.
Mr. Blankenship had questions about the ability to control pressurizer level and he raised those questions appropriately with his shift manager, Mr. Johnson.
He was led to believe by Mr. Johnson that those concerns had been addressed by the OCC and engineering.
As the operator at the controls during a
busy startup, Mr.
Blankenship was not in the position to be personally performing an engineering analysis.
The shift manager directed Mr. Blankenship to proceed.
Mr. Blankenship had no reason to suspect that his questions had not been adequately addressed or that his shift manager, Mr. Johnson, still harbored his own concerns.
Nothing suggests that Mr.
Blankenship could have or should have known, let alone actually knew that his conduct would violate an NRC r ule.
Further, Mr. Blankenship was not part of the non-conservative decision making that occurred on November 11th.
Mr. Blankenship was merely an operator who properly raised concerns, thought they had been addressed, and then complied with the instructions of his shift manager.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 7 1 12 13 14 15 16 1 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23 Further,
Mr.
Johnson had the command f uncti on.
Therefore,
the decision shoul d not be attributed to Mr.
Blankenship.
- Indeed, the enforcement policy provides this very situation as an exampl e where enforcement should not be taken against an individual.
I'll now t ur n to Watts Bar plant management.
Apparent violation 4 also targets three former members of Watts Bar plant management, Mr.
l(b)(?)(C)
I, the l(b)(?)(C)
I, (b )(?)(C)
Mr.
l(b)(?)(C) I, the l(b)(?)(C)
~ and Mr......
l(b_)(?_)(_C) ___
!, the l... (b_)_(?_)(_C_) _______
____.~
none of whom are current TVA employees.
While TVA expects all of its employees to exhibit the traits of good safety culture, of the three, only Mr. l(b)(?)(C) I was part of the operating personnel to which OPDP-1 applies.
But strictl y speaking, the safety culture provisions in Section 3. 3(e) of OPDP-1 appl y only to the control room team.
I am just saying that procedure applies. It ' s clearly that the expectations for safety culture applies to the e ntire s i te.
Regardless, there's no evidence that any of these three managers deliberately violated the cited provisi ons of OPDP-1 or otherwi se del iberatel y (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 acted non-conservatively.
Mr.1(b)(?)(C) 1*
Mr.1(b)(?)(C) deliberated about the violation before encouraging proceeding. In his position as....
l(b_)(_7_)(C_) ______
....,I, Mr *l(b)(?)(C) I was on site to provide support and oversight to the shift manager.
He was not part of the OCC.
He thus was not responsible for either manipulation of the plant controls or for the planning and scheduling functions of the OCC.
But Mr.1(b)(?)(C) I supported the plan to heat up on excess letdown based on his understanding that the plan had been validated by the OCC, including representatives from operations and engineering departments.
He was aware of questions from the control room operators, but he believed they had been answered by the work of the OCC.
He thought they could proceed safely.
He understood the plan.
He thought it was thought out.
After a heat-up of about 25 degrees, the steam generators would be able to provide cooling and they estimated that a
one percent increase in RCS temperature would correspond to a one-degree increase in pressurizer level.
To accommodate this expected rise, the operators reduced the pressurizer level to abou t 43 (202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 percent prior to removing RHR from service.
25 If the correlation between the temperature increase and the pressurizer level had been correct, the evolution may have been successful. Unfortunately, that correlation was incorrect and Mr.l(b)(?)(C) lwas mistaken, but it was just a technical mistake,
not a deliberate act.
Consistent with his belief that the evolution would be successful, Mr ~(b)(?)(C) I encouraged Mr. Johnson to proceed with the plan to heat up.
The apparent violation seems to suggest that Mr l(b)(?)(C) urging Mr. Johnson to proceed was improper.
an l(b)(?)(C)
As a general matter, it's not improper for I to urge the shift managers to stay on schedule by performing an evolution that the l(b )(7)(C) believes has been appropriately validated.
We ' ve looked at this i nteraction closely and as best we can determine, Mr* l(b)(?)(C) I did not direct Mr. Johnson to proceed or coerce him.
Mr.
l(b)(?)(C) I is adamant about this and we have found his accounts forthright.
What is particularly telling is that Mr.
Johnson in many interviews prior to 2017 made no mention of Mr.
l(b)(?)(C) having any particular involvement in proceeding with the heat-up.
I t seems (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 inconceivable if the heat-up had occurred as Mr.
l(b )(?)(C)
!directed or coerced Mr. Johnson into doing so that Mr. Johnson would not have said so.
In his 2016 interviews when he was laying his actions off on the OCC and Watts Bar senior management, and even in his written PEC response, Mr.
Johnson makes no mention of Mr.l(b)(?)(C)
- 1.
We have been unable to substantiate the allegation, which is in the factual summary of apparent violation 4 provided to Mr l(b)(?)(C)
~ that an employee witnessed Mr. l(b)(?)(C) telling Mr. Johnson that he wanted RHR removed from service as soon as possible and then challenging a resistant Mr. Johnson.
We are aware of a
statement by an l_(b-)(_7)-(C_) _______ __.l who, according to the statement, recalled witnessing an exchange between Mr. Johnson and an unidentified OCC staff member in the control room on November 11th, 2015.
But the auxiliary l_(b-)(-?)-(C_) _ __.I has declined to provide further information,
and we've been unable to ascertain whether the individual whom he thought he saw was Mr -l(b)(?)(C)
We ' ve also been unable to determine the nature of the challenge or how the auxiliary operator would challenge, would describe his recollection in his own words.
As you are aware, we requested release (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 of the OI report and other interviews, summaries, and transcripts.
This is one of the items that we are particularly interested in, but we do not have the benefit of that information.
It's possible that the auxiliary operator's account relates to some interaction between Mr. Johnson and Mr.j(b)(?)(C) I, as Mr -l(b)(7)(C) lhas freely admitted both in his PEC presentation and in past statements that he had a discussion with Mr. Johnson in the control room on November 11th, 2015, but as already discussed, Mr. l(b)(7)(C) has stated that he neither directed nor coerced Mr. Johnson.
That he understood from the discussion that Mr. Johnson was comfortable proceeding and that Mr.
Johnson decided to do so.
In his own PEC statement, Mr. Johnson acknowledges that he made the decision to proceed himself and he does not attribute any influence on his decision to Mr. j(b)(?)(C) 1-In
- sum, the interaction between Mr.
l(b)(?)(C) I a nd Mr. Johnson does not appear to TVA to have been improper based on the available evidence.
The l(b_)_<7_l(_C_) _______________ __,lexpres sing to the shift manager a desire to move forward and stay on schedule does not amount to a direction to proceed.
(202) 234-4433 Although TVA has acknowledged in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 connection with this apparent violation 4 and in our root cause analysis that personnel in the OCC and MCR made non-conservative decision making, TVA has not found any intentional effort to override or ignore operators ' concerns.
I' 11 now turn to Mr. l(b)(?)(C) and Mr.
(b)(7)(C).
TVA has not identified any evidence they need to conclude that Mr -l(b)(7)(C) I or Mr.l(b)(?)(C) I were aware that operators expressed concerns with the heat-up on November 11th, 20 15.
It seems that Mr.... r_)_(?-)(_c_) _I and Mr. (b)(?)(C) were likely briefed on the plan to heat up.
That would be normal, given their positions at the p l ant, but there's no evidence of which TVA is aware that they directed the plan for heating up on excess letdown, and there's no evidence of which TVA is aware that they directed Mr. Johnson to proceed with heating up, or that they told anyone else to direct Mr.
Johnson to do so.
I n fact, Mr. l(b)(?)(C) l has stated that he was not told to direct Mr. Johnson to proceed, and Mr.
Johnson has stated that he did not have any communications with senior management.
Rather, Mr.
Johnson appears to simply infer that Mr.1(b)(?)(C) lwould be upset with any delay, and thus he took it upon (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 himself to avoid Mr.l(b)(?)(C) 29
!attention by deciding to heat up on excess letdown.
- Further, there ' s no indication that either Mr. l(b)(7)(C) I or Mr. l(b)(?)(C) I recognized that the continued heat up might result in an uncontroll ed rise in the pressurizer level.
- Instead, it appears that apparent violation 4 is accusing Mr *l(b)(7)(C) I and Mr.,(b)(7)(C) I of deliberate misconduct again of intentionally taking actions that they knew would cause a violation of an NRC rule by virtue of their management styl es.
This is a pretty remarkable basis for alleging deliberate misconduct.
I don ' t think there ' s any dispute that, when Mr.1(b)(?)(C) I and Mr ~(b)(7)(C) I became senior managers at Watts Bar in mid-2014, the plant was performing poorly, and I don't think there was any dispute that in late 2015, operational procedure errors were still occurring in the operations department at Watts Bar.
So it should not be surprising that Mr.
l(b )(7)(C) I and Mr *l(b)(?)(C) I were taking actions to hold employees, include operations personnel, accountable for their performance, and it should not be surprising that some operators did not like it.
But for the NRC to then suggest that s uch efforts to improve performance constituted del iberate (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 misconduct is wrong.
One can disagree with their management styles, but there ' s little doubt that their actions were intended to improve performance and there's no evidence that their actions were intended to cause a violation to occur.
That is no indication that they took deliberate actions that they knew would cause the reactor operators t:o violate any procedures.
To sum it up, the five individuals targeted by apparent violation 4 do not appear to have engaged in deliberate violations of NRC requirements.
Mr.
Blankenship appears to have done nothing wrong.
Both Mr. Johnson and Mr *l(b)(7)(C) appear to have believed that they were retaining plant safety, and Mr l(b)(7)(C) I and Mr l(b)(?)(C) I were engaged in efforts t:o turn around the performance at Watts Bar to improve safety, the complete opposite of alleged deliberate misconduct.
Accordingly, this scenario is a good example of why the NRC was correct to decide not to enforce safety culture traits as a regulation, as requirements. Anybody's performance can be criticized and found wanting when scru tinized under subjective behavioral standards, but that should not expose them to charges of deliberate misconduct.
(202) 234*4433 Thank you for your time and attention and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 I'll now hand it back over to Mr. Williams.
MR. WILLIAMS:
Thank you, Mr. Lewis.
As just explained, TVA contests apparent violation 4.
TVA has acknowledged that the non-conservative decision making incurred on November 11th and has implemented corrective actions to fix the failures that occurred that day.
But as Mr. Lewis explained, none of the individuals implicated in apparent violation 4
deliberately made non-conservative decisions.
Mr.
Johnson stopped and deliberated about the evolution before proceeding.
And while he acted in poor judgment, he thought his actions were consistent with NRC's requirements.
Mr. Blankenship stopped and deliberated about the evolution before proceeding and only proceeded after being led to believe his concerns were addressed and being given the express direction to proceed.
Mr. l(b)(7)(C) I also deliberated about the evolution, and while he encouraged proceeding, he only did so because he understood that the heat-up could proceed safely.
And while it seems likely that Mr l(b)(?)(C) and Mrl(b)(?)(C) lwere briefed on the heat-up given their positions, there's no evidence that they directed the (202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 plant to heat up on excess letdown.
Finally, as Mr.
Lewis discussed, since the NRC has chosen not to enforce safety culture traits against the l icensees,
it cannot do so here.
This concludes our presentation on apparent violation 4.
Of course, we are happy to answer any questi ons you have.
MR.
O' BRIEN:
Thank you, Mr. Williams.
Consistent with our schedule, I believe the next point is for us to take a caucus, so why don't we do that?
Why don' t we take and have a caucus for the next hou r,
and we'll reconvene and come back on the record at 20 minutes before the hou r.
I s that acceptable to you?
MR. WILLIAMS:
Yes, i t is.
MR. 0 ' BRIEN:
Tha nk you very much.
We a r e off the record.
We ' ll come back at 20 minutes before the hour.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the r ecord at 8:36 a. m. and resumed at 9:15 a.m.)
MR.
O'BRIEN:
Good morning.
It ' s 15 minutes after the hour, as we agreed on a side call that we begin now.
Let me ma ke sure my team is ready.
Marcia?
Nick?
MS. SIMON: Sorry. Sorry, Ken.
I'm ready.
I just couldn ' t find my name on the list.
Too many (202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 people.
33 MR. O'BRIEN : Thank you.
Next, Scott.
MR. WARRINGTON : Yeah, Ken, ready to go.
MR. O'BRIEN : Than k you. Mr. Williams, are we r eady to go from your perspective?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.
We are ready to go.
MR. O'BRIEN : Thank you, sir.
We have but one, maybe two questions. And I' 11 take the questions myself, if that's okay with everybody.
The first question -- and I 'm not sure who might be able to answer,
but we're trying to understand you r knowledge of who was i n the OCC on the 11th of November of 2015 from an engineering perspective.
MS. ROELOFS:
Mr.
0 ' Brien, this is Ms.
Roelofs.
We will turn that over to our counsel to answer based on their investigation.
MR. O'BRIEN : Thank you, Ms. Roelofs.
MR. LEWIS : Yeah.
This is Mr. Lewis.
We have been unable to identify because Mr. l(b)(?)(C) I does not recall who were the engineering people he recalls wri ting input on that day.
We do believe that -- and I' ve asked TVA to remain because I can ' t quite remember, I t hink it's ~l(b_)(_?)_(C_) __
___,l may have been the engineering rep that day.
Tony, did I get that name (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 right? I can't remember exactly.
I think it's l(b)(l)(C) or (b)(?)(C)
MR.
WILLIAMS:
I believe it's Mr. (b)(?)(C)
(b)(?)(C)
MR.
LEWIS:
Casner.
Thank you.
MS. ROELOFS: Yes.
_r_w_x_~ ____
lfor the record.
MR. O' BRIEN: Thank you, Ms. Roelofs. That was exactly my next thing to ask.
And I was going to ask it. My follow-up question to that is then did you (b)(?)(C) get any information from Mr.
regarding the 1 percent to 1 degree rule, thumb rule?
Is that where that came from, or other aspects of that?
MR. LEWIS : No.
MS. ROELOFS: This is Ms. Roel ofs.
We'll t urn that over to counsel.
Looks like he's already in.
MR. O'BRIEN : Thank you.
MR.
LEWI S: Yes.
No, we were unable to determine where that came from.
MR. O'BRIEN : Did you get any information from Mr. l(b)(?)(C) relative to whose involvement in the discussions in the OCC that day with regard to heat-up?
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 35 MR. LEWIS: No.
MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you very much. That's all the questions we have relative to AV 4, Mr.
Williams.
If you're ready to move on to the next AV, that would be fine with us.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, we are ready to move on to the next AV.
MR. BARSTOW: Good morning.
Jim Barstow.
I' 11 open the comments around Apparent Violations 7 to
- 9.
Before counsel discusses apparent violations 7 to 9 I 'd like to share a few thoughts regarding those apparent violations to reflect some of the important issues.
Get my video on.
I 'll address that.
MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you, sir.
I appreciate your recognizing that.
Thank you.
MR.
BARSTOW:
You' re welcome.
Apparent Violation 7 essentially alleges that site personnel intentionally provided an NRC resident inspector with incomplete and inaccurate information.
The TVA management ' s expectations are members of the nuclear organization will be responsive to any NRC inspector questions in a timely and accurate manner.
TVA ' s review of the circumstances associated with Apparent Violation 7 indicates that the individuals who met with the senior resident (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 inspector on December 14th, 2015, were doing exactly what was inspected of them: answering his questions to the best of their ability.
This apparent violation is deeply troubling for TVA and for the nuclear industry because it would set a new precedent for what the NRC considers evidence of providing incomplete or inaccurate information.
Stated plainly, the NRC is relying on its own interpretation of an internal TVA document which site personnel have said would not be then provided to the resident inspector at the time alleged, rather than recognizing the intent of the author of the document and the interpretations that the intended audience had of the document.
The NRC is a l so substituting its own interpretation of language in a Condition Report written to capture the site's understanding of the inspector ' s question for that reason held by the aut hor of the Condition Report.
In the case of this Condition report, the NRC has not only misinterpreted TVA's words, but also incorrectly understood the date the CR was initiated.
As a result, TVA finds the basis asserted for Apparent Violation 7 to be entirely without merit.
(202) 234-4433 On the other hand, Apparent Violation 9 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 37 concerns statements provided to an NRC Office of Investigations agent on December 18th, 2015.
While a former shift manager has admitted to providing an incomplete statement, the l... (b_)_(7_)(_C_) __________ _.
has been wrongly accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence and taking a portion of his statement ou t of context.
In reviewing this alleged violation, TVA has been particularly concerned about the use of the l(b_)_(7_)_(c_) ____________ _,I interview as evidence because of the imprecise questions asked of them, the numerous interruptions by NRC personnel as they attempted to answer their questions, and ultimately the NRC's selective use of a statement taken out of context.
I will now turn the presentation over to Tom Hill who will take us through the details of these two apparent violations.
MR.
HILL:
- Thanks, Jim.
TVA denies Apparent Violat ion 7 for two primary reasons:
- First, TVA has not been able to substantiate that any written response was provided to Mr. Nadel on December 14th, 2015. Rather, it appears, contrary to the NRC ' s allegations, that Mr. Nadel was not given any written response.
(202) 234-4433 Second, TVA does not find the purported NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 written response described in the apparent violation, even if given, to be inaccurate or incomplete in response to Mr. Nadel's questions. Moreover, TVA has identified no evidence that Mr. (b)(?)(C) or Mr.l(b)(?)(C) knowingly and intentionally provided incomplete or inaccurate information to Mr. Nadel, even assuming, for the sake of argument that they did give him the purported written response and that it was somehow inaccurate or incomplete.
- Rather, the evidence available to TVA shows that Mr.
(b)(?)(C) and Mr. l(b)(?)(C) worked diligently over the weekend of December 12th, 2015, to answer Mr.
Nadel ' s questions,
which were focused primarily on the issue of whether RHR had been rendered i nope rable on November the 11th, not on the reasons for cycling the RHR valves which Mr. Nadel already knew and understood when he first approached
~l(b-J(_7l_(c_i ___ __.l, TVA senior reactor operator, on Friday, December 11th.
What Mr. Nadel was primarily focused on was the question he did not already know the answer Mr. l (b)(?)(C)
I to: had RHR been made inoperable?
~-----~ and Mr ~(b)(?)(C) I, and other TVA employees, continued working transparently to answer Mr.
Nadel's questions throughout December 2015, and were able to demonstrate (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 that RHR had in fact remained operable.
To my first point, the apparent violation is based on a faulty premise.
The NRC alleges a written response was given to Mr. Nadel, but it has declined to provide a copy of that document to TVA or to Mr. (b)(?)(C) or Mr *l(b)(?)(C)
Mr.l(b)(?)(C) I and Mr.
_l(b_)(_7_)(_C) _ ___.I both stated clearly at their PECs that they recall no written document being given to Mr. Nadel on December the 14th.
As Mr l(b)(?)(C) !expl ained, it would have been contrary to TVA 1 s standard practice, as well as his own standard practice, to give Mr. Nadel any kind of draft response or internal TVA document in writing.
And as Mr. l(b)(7)(C)
!explained, he did not prepare any documents with the intent to give them to Mr. Nadel on December the 14th.
From the language quoted in the NRC' s factual summary it appears to TVA that, in fact, the document the NRC alleges was given to Mr. Nadel in truth was actually taken from an internal TVA email attachment written for internal TVA use to brief TVA' s senior management.
Either Mr. (b)(7)(C) or Mr. l(b)(7)(C) believes they even took a copy of that internal email document at the meeting,
.so t hey could not have accidentally l eft it behind.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 Without more specific information regarding the document Mr. Nadel believes he received, and his recollection of the meeting, which of course would be available in litigation if needed, TVA simply cannot credit the allegation that Mr. ~
or Mr.
l(b )(?)(C) gave Mr.
Nadel any written response on December 14th, 2015.
And because it appears no written response that forms the basis for Apparent Violation 7 allegations was ever given, the apparent violation should now be dropped.
My second point.
The internal email that the NRC mistakenly seems to allege that Mr. Nadel was given was simply inaccurate.
TVA has reviewed the internal email attachment that appears to be the source of these allegations, and the facts and circumstances surrounding its creation. This factual background and chronology are laid out in TVA' s written response to Apparent Violation 7, and I'll not repeat them here.
The document that appears to be at issue would certainly not have been incomplete, inaccurate, or misunderstood had it somehow been provided to Mr.
Nadel when reviewed in the context of the verbal discussions and ongoing communications with Mr. Nadel over the weekend of December 12th, 2015, and into the (202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 (202) 234.4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 following week.
To render the purported written response inaccurate, NRC has seized on a single sentence in that document, and reading it without any context, given it an implausible interpretat ion.
The NRR alleges --
the NRC alleges the purported TVA written response 3B is inaccurate. That response stated, as you can see on the screen, that the RHR inlet valves were open for placing RHR letdown in service, and then goes on in subsection 1 to say that, this was done to allow the r epair of a valve inside containment on the normal letdown line.
NRC then alleges that this was purposely inaccurate because, in fact, the repair was initiated hours before the valves were opened. Clearly, had Mr.
_l(b_ )_(7_)(_c_) __
l been a better and mor e precise writer, and had he written in his internal email attachment because of instead of to allow, we wouldn't be here.
Thus, the sentence of subsection 1 would have read, This was done because of the repair of a valve inside containment on the normal l etdown l ine.
But Mr. _l(b_)_(7_)(_C_) ___ I superiors, even with his less-than-perfect choice of language, understood perfectly well that Mr. 1(b)(?)(C) was explaining to them why normal l etdown was not availabl e as they would have expected it to be during the heat-up.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 42 Indeed, in a contemporaneous December 14th memo, TVA senior reactor operator Mr* l(b)(?)(C) I uses the exact same to allow language to explain, and I quote, we had to remove normal letdown to allow the repair of a valve.
Is the NRC really going to find deliberate misconduct, an essentially criminal standard, because Mr - l(b)(7)(C)
I could have chosen two better words in an email intended for his boss Mr.,(b)(?)(C) I?
The NRC's after-the-fact reading of the document is nonsensical.
Obviously, the RHR inlet valves were not open to allow repair of normal letdown, as Mr. McKnapp excuse me - - as Mr. Nadel well knew and understood on December the 14th.
I ndeed, that was apparent even to me, someone without any technical background, let alone anyone familiar with nuclear power plants, especially someone like Mr.
Nadel who was also already very familiar with the events of November 11th, 2015, at Watts Bar.
As Mr. (b)(?)(C) and Mr ~(b)(?)(C) I have said in their PEC statements, Mr. Nadel was familiar with the plant configuration on November the 11th befor e he ever spoke to them on December 12th.
But they also stated that they recall walking through the plant configuration with him on December 12th, and again on (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 December 14th, at the same time this purported written statement is alleged to have been provided.
And as Mr. Nadel would have well known on December 14th when he allegedly received this document, the only possible reason to place the RHR letdown back in service with the plant in Mode 4
would have been to control pressurizer level.
I t ' s also clear from the documentary record that Mr. Nadel knew, even before speaking to Mr. l(b)(7)(C) I or Mr -l(b)(7)(C)
I, that the repairs to normal letdown had begun well before the RHR valves were open.
Thus, he already knew facts that make the NRC's now after-the-fact contrived reading of the alleged written response nonsensical.
On December the 11th Mr.
Nadel showed documents to a shift manager..
!(b_)(_?)(_C_) ___
_.I that cl,early highlight a log entry reflecting that normal letdown was already out of service early on November 11th when the B train of RHR was still in service.
You can see on the slide, normal charging, excess letdown is in
- service, normal charging and letdown are out of servi ce for repair to the valves.
By the time they met on December 14th, Mr.
(b)(7)(C) and Mr -l(b)(7)(C)
I had copies of the documents Mr.
Nadel had shown to Mr. (b)(?)(C)
The NRC ' s a l legation (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 44 in Apparent Violation 7 is premised on reading the purported written response to say that RHR valves were open to allow the repair on normal let down to start, but that obviously wasn't the situation.
Mr. Nadel had, before even approaching TVA to discuss the events of November 11th, determined as much for himself from the logs, which reflected clearly that normal letdown was out of service for repairs hours before the RHR valves were open to restore letdown. And Mr.1(b)(?)(C) I an~ (b)(?)(C) I knew that Mr. Nadel had reviewed the logs.
It is simply not credible that Mr. l(b)(7)(C) I or Mr. 1(b)(?)(C)
I would have written a document contradicting a log entry that they knew that Mr. Nadel had and knew about.
In the context of the ongoing communications at Watts Bar over the weekend of December 12th, 2015, and through that following week, the language of the purported written response would and could not have been misunderstood.
As Mr.
l(b_)_(7_)(_c_) _ __.I explained at his PEC, the email attached language was never meant for Mr. Nadel, rather it was meant to explain an unusual plant configuration to an internal audience of TVA management who would have realized that it was unusual to have RHR letdown in service in Mode 4, and would have wanted to know why.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 That is exactly what Mr. l(b)(?)(C) 45 I did on the morning of December 13th when he emailed the l
~b)(?)(C) attachment in question to his boss Mr..
explaining to Mr l(b)(?)(C)
~ who unlike Mr. Nadel would not have known that on November 11th normal letdown was out of service due to a valve repair.
In fact, l(b)(?)(C) l said at his PEC that he added 3B1 to his draft summary for Mr _,(b)(?)(C) in response to a similar question that had arisen in one of his internal verbal communications on the topic.
And as Mr.l(b)(?)(C) I explained at his PEC, he was not confused by the language, he understood it and its purpose at the time, probably given to his own internal correspondence with TVA management. There is every indication that Mr. !(b)(?)(C) ! and Mr* l(b)(?)(C) thought the purported written response was accurate and helpful, otherwise there is no explanation for why they shared it repeatedly within TVA.
There is also every indication that Mr.
(b)(?)(C) and Mr j(b)(?)(C)
I thought they were giving Mr.
Nadel a complete response to his questions.
- Indeed, the NRC has not a l leged that Mr. (b)(?)(C) and Mr.
l(b )(?)(C) failed to answer any of Mr.
Nadel's questions.
The only allegation is that this specific purported written response
- again, which TVA (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 46 believes was never provided was not complete because, in the NRC 's words, it omitted the actual reason why the RHR inlet valves were cycled, which was to arrest the increase in pressurizer water level resulting from the inability of excess letdown pressurizer water level during the heat-up.
But the written response, if it was given at all, was given as part of an ongoing weekend exchange of information during an in-person meeting.
First, as noted, Mr. (b)(?)(C) and Mr. l(b)(?)(C) I recal l discussing with Mr. Nadel on December 12th and 14th, 2015,
that RHR letdown was used to control the pressurizer level.
Second, given the recognition that RHR letdown was placed back in service, there can be no plausible uncertainty about why RHR was placed in service in Mode 4. The only conceivable purpose is to control pressurizer level.
In effect, the NRC is accusing TVA of not answering an unasked question,
which was not asked because it was clear that the answer to it was obvious and not worthy of pursuit.
Third, the purported written response, if it was given to Mr. Nadel, was not a single-page document.
But as with TVA's internal email it included Dataware graphs.
The graphs show plainl y (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 that pressurizer level was rising until the RHR valves were opened, at which point pressurizer level was arrested. The correlation is unmistakable. Of course Mr.!(b)(7)(C)
I was answering Mr. Nadel' s real questions, which were about RHR operability, not a question about the pressurizer level, and the handwritten notes are not targeting the pressurizer level.
If there is any confusion about the relationship between RHR letdown and pressurizer level, however, it would have been dispelled by the graphs.
Indeed, Mr. l(b)(?)(C) I and Mr. (b)(?)(C) have said that they do recall discussing a different graph prepared by Mr* l(b)(?)(C)
I with Mr. Nadel on December 14th which clearly showed the same correlation.
I f there is still any question that Mr.
Nadel knew and understood that RHR letdown was put back in service to arrest pressurizer level on the very next day, on the very next day, December 15th, l(b)(?)(C)
TVA' s from TVA wrote Mr. Nadel to confirm understanding of Mr.
Nadel's remaining l
~b)(?)(C) questions.
In framing the questions, Mr..
- stated, and I quote,
the MCR operators made the decision to commence the RHR letdown to manage pressurizer level and RCS pressure.
(202) 234-4433 And Mr. Nadel responded to Mr. _l(b_J(_7)_(c _) __ _.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 48 that same day that Mr. l(b)(?)(C) recital of the questions, quote, they look good. Moreover, the NRC' s accusation that information was omitted from a
response to a specific question, Mr. Nadel had not, however, asked why RHR letdown was placed in service.
It is thus unreasonable to accuse TVA of providing incomplete information by failing to answer an unasked question, especially one that Misters l(b)(?)(C)
(b)(?)(C) understood that Nadel knew the answer to.
and The NRC should not look back on its questions and decide that the follow-up questions were implicitly included, and then allege violations against licensees who failed to infer the right follow-up questions that they had to answer,
especially when they believed and understood the NRC already knew the answer to the unasked questions.
That is simply not the way to approach regulation of the industry.
l (b )(7)(C)
Mr..
has explained in his PEC statement that l_(b_)(_7)_(c_) __________ I on Saturday, December 12th, after Mr. Nadel's questions, shortly after he and Mr. (b)(?)(C) spoke to Mr. Nadel by phone that morning.
Mr
- l(b)(7)(C)
It was not a response to Mr. Nadel.
use of the CR in this matter was consistent with the general practice of Watts Bar at (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 49 the time.
Based on Mr.
l(b)(7)(C) notes of the Saturday, December 12th call with Mr. Nadel and Mr.
l(b )(7)(C)
CR1114975 indeed did accurately and compl etely reflect Mr. Nadel's questions.
does not challenge that Mr. l(b)(7)(C)
The NRC correctly understood and reflected Mr. Nadel' s questions. Based on Mr - 1 (b_)(_?_)(_c ) __
____. recollection of his preliminary investigation and the related email traff ic,
it appears that CR1114975 accurately and completel y reflected his preliminary findings.
Question 3, which is highlight ed here,
- was, why were the RHR valves cycled?
As stated before, Mr. Nadel ' s first two questions had focused on RHR oper abili ty.
The RHR valves were cycled for the following reasons:
The opened for p l acing RHR letdown service.
In particular, the condition report accurately and compl etely answered Mr.
Nadel's questions, as shown on the slide in the type of thread.
Critically, given that he knew the answer,
Mr. Nadel had not asked why RHR l etdown was put into service.
There was no reason for Mr. Nadel to ask the question when he already knew, and it was obvious that RHR l etdown would have been put back into service in (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 50 Mode 4 for one reason, and on ly one reason, to control pres s urizer l evel.
There i s no other possible purpose.
Consequently, in a document intended for the Operations Department and to track Mr. Nadel's questions like this Condition Report, there woul d be no need for Mr
- l(b)(?)(C)
I to have stated the obviou s.
Even if Mr. Nadel had asked such an unnecessary and s ubs tan ti ve question, TVA did not need Mr -l(b)(?)(C) write the answer i n t h is Condition Report. Failure to state the obvious in a Condition Report is not remotely equ ivalent t o giving the NRC incomplete information, let alone deliberately.
TVA thus finds no fault with CR1114975.
As wi th the purported wr itten response that I
discussed earlier, it is unreasonable and unworkable for TVA ' s Condition Reports to be expect ed to refl ect all the possible follow-up questions and answers the NRC might decide were relevant in hindsight.
This CR was appropriate at the time it was writ ten, which as Mr.l(b)(?)(C)
I explained to you was on Saturday,
December 13th, not as the NRC alleges Tuesday, December 15th.
And as you can see on the slide, the date is reflected in the top right -hand corner.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 51 Further, TVA objects to the NRC's efforts to turn TVA's internal tracking system into an after-the-fact basis for attacking its employees.
Mr.
l (b)(?)(C)
I
~---------~ the Condition Report in an effort to promote transparency with the NRC, and ensure a complete and timely response to Mr. Nadel' s quest ions.
It is really unfortunate for the NRC to twist his efforts into a baseless accusation of not only misconduct but deliberate misconduct.
TVA relies on the timely creation of Condition Reports for tracking important learning at its facilities.
Beyond finding that there was no misconduct here, TVA cannot understand the allegations of deliberate misconduct in Apparent Violation 7. The NRC has offered no direct evidence that Mr. l(b)(?)(C) lor Mr. l(b)(7)(C) intentionally and knowingly submitted inaccurate or incomplete information to the NRC or to TVA.
TVA is aware of no such evidence.
To the contrary, the record shows that Mr.
(b)(7)(C) and Mr l(b)(7)(C)
I were being highly responsive to Mr. Nadel ' s questions, diligently engaging with him for a Saturday morning teleconference and Monday meeting following his questions on Friday night.
(202) 234-4433 Mr.l(b)(?)(C) I and Mr ~(b)(?)(C)
I appear to have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 52 attempted in good faith to answer Mr.
Nadel's questions to the best of their ability and understanding.
Mr. l(b)(7)(C)
ICR1114975 in good faith, believing it captures Mr. Nadel ' s questions and his preliminary i nvestigation completely and accurately.
Nevertheless, the NRC appears to be relying on an unsupported and contrived reading of the document, which remember,
there appears to be no evidence was ever actually given to Mr. Nadel on December
- 14th, to infer that Messrs. l(b)(7)(C) I and l(b )(7)(C)
I, both experienced in nuclear plant operations, must have understood that contrived reading to be false.
Mr. l(b)(7)(C)
That would be equally true of Mr. Nadel.
I and Mr ~(b)(?)(C) lmust have known a reading of the document was false.
So too must Mr. Nadel have known it to be false at the time.
Indeed, the NRC's allegations would imply there was no confusion at all,
but that Mr. Nadel without any reason assumed that Messrs.1(b)(?)(C)
I an~{b)(?)(C) lwere trying to deceive him.
And again, TVA has seen no evidence that the document was given to Mr. Nadel or that he did read it in such a non-cynical --
nonsensical and cyn ical manner.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
- Moreover, 53 if the document had been intended for Mr. Nadel, there could have been no reasonable expectation by Mr. l(b)(?)(C)
I or Mr l(b)(7)(C) I that Mr. Nadel would read it in the counter-factual way that the NRC now proposes.
Consequently, the NRC's reasoning for attributing knowing and intentional misconduct to Mr. (b)(?)(C) and Mr. 1(b)(?)(C) seeks the NRC's own after-the-fact alleged and contrived reading of the purported written response.
I f the document really meant what the NRC alleges, it would have been pointless to give it to Mr. Nadel.
If the document was so clearly false that Mr. l(b)(7)(C) I and Mr, l(b)(7)(C)
I must have known it was inaccurate, then it could not possibly have confused Mr. Nadel.
Finally, if the purported written response was, as the NRC seems to imply, intended to conceal that there was a pressurizer level rise necessitating placing RHR letdown in service, it makes no sense that Mr *l(b)(7)(C)
!included a Dataware graph plainly showing the timeline of pressurizer level rise.
It is ridiculous to suggest that a document with this graph attached to it was meant to conceal a pressurizer level rise.
(202) 234-4433 Even more so, it is simply not believable NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that Mr. l(b)(?)(C) 54 or Mr. 1(b)(?)(C) I knowingly gave Mr.
Nadel a document that purposely failed to expl ain the relationship between pressurizer level and opening RHR valves deliberately, and then took this graph and explained it to Mr. Nadel at the very same meeting.
The allegations of deliberate misconduct here are false a nd contrived.
They should never have been made, and they certainly cannot be sustained.
As I have explained, in the first place TVA has not i den t i fied any basis to believe t h at a writ ten response was given to Mr. Nadel on Dec,ember 14th, 2015.
Second, to the extent the NRC alleges certain language was given to Mr. Nadel in writing,
that s uch language was inaccurate and i ncompl ete, TVA strongly disagrees. The language quoted by the NRC in i ts allegations was intended for a n internal TVA audience and was complete and accurate, even if Mr.
l(b_)_(7_)(_C_) _ __.! could have chosen better words and understood the context of the dialog that weekend between Mr.
Nadel and TVA.
Finall y, the NRC has a l leged del iberate misconduct by Mr
- l(b)(7)(C) I and Mr.,(b)(7)(C)
I, but TVA has seen absolutel y no evidence that either individual intentionall y, knowing l y s ubmitted i ncomplete or (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 inaccurate information to the NRC.
55 Deliberate misconduct is a ver y s erious allega t i on, one that shoul d be based on direct evidence,
a subjective be l ief, and not ba s ed on conjecture, inference, or s uspension of beli ef.
one s e cond.
Let me now turn to AV 9.
Excuse me for (Pause. )
MR. HILL : Thank you for your i ndulgence.
MR. O'BRIEN : Mr. Hill, would you like to take a short break?
MR. HILL : No. A s i p of water wa s helpful.
But thank you.
MR. O' BRIEN : Okay.
MR. HILL: Thank you.
MR. O' BRIEN : Go ahead.
MR. HILL: Okay.
Obviously, if t he p a nel wants to take a break, t hat ' s fine.
But I ' m prepared t o proceed.
Appar ent Violation 9 combines allegati ons of deliberate misconduct against two individual s, to Billy J ohn son, the shift manager who was on shi f t L(b2_(7_)(_C~------I (b )(7)(C) during the RHR event ;
Mr.
l(b_)_(?_)(_c_) ____________
.... I was not on shift du ring t he RHR event.
(202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 56 The NRC interviewed both on December 18th, 2015,
an d now accuses both of deliberately making inaccurate and incomplete statements.
In his recent written statement to the NRC, Mr. Johnson acknowledged that portions o f his interview with the NRC were inaccurate or incomplete.
TVA is not in a position to dispute Mr. Johnson 's own account of his own state of mind, so I will only say a
f ew words regarding the allegat ions against Mr.
Johnson.
In contrast, Mr. l(b)(7)(C)
I has vehemently den ied that he would or did make inaccurate or incompl ete statements, or that he did so del iberately.
TVA cert ainly concurs.
TVA has reviewed the NRC transcript o f Mr.
l(b )(7)(C) interview.
TVA finds Mr - 1 (b-)(_7)_(C_) __
defense of t he completeness and accuracy of his statements during the interview to be persuasive and compelling.
Sadly and ironically, TVA a l so notes that some of the NRC' s allegations about what Mr - l(b)(?)(C) said are themselves inaccurate.
TVA also has seen no evidence that Mr.
l(b )(7)(C) I knowingly or deliberately made incomplete or inaccurate statements to the NRC.
To the contrary, it (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 appears that Mr.l(b)(7)(C) 57 l was meeting with the NRC in an effort to be transparent and helpful.
Unfortunately, the questions posed to Mr. l(b)(?)(C) the participants, often speaking over each other and over Mr. l(b)(?)(C) made the interview and the transcript often confusing and lacking in precision.
Precisely, particularly under these circumstances, TVA finds the NRC efforts now to twist Mr -l(b)(?)(C) l words against him to be unwarranted.
The NRC alleges that Mr. 1(b)(?)(C)
I made three statements that were inaccurate or incompl ete.
Two of those alleged statements are simply mischaracterizations of his testimony and could be easily dismissed.
The third alleged statement is complete and
- accurate, however,
when understood, as it certainly should be, in context of the entire interview.
The NRC alleges that Mr. l(b)(?)(C) represented that the decision to continue with the heat-up was not influenced by anyone outside the control room.
To our surprise, we could not find any such statement in the transcript of Mr. ~l(b_)_(7_)_(c_) __ __,
interview.
We expected that the NRC, having its own interview transcript on which to base allegations (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 58 about the interview, was quoting or at least paraphrasing what Mr. j(b)(?)(C)
I said.
But according to the NRC's transcript of the interview, NRC never asked Mr. l(b)(?)(C)
I about whether the heat-up was " i nfluenced" by anyone ou tside the control room.
And Mr. l(b)(?)(C) I never said the heat-up was not influenced by anyone outside the control room.
To the contrary, Mr -l(b)(?)(C)
I discussed at l ength t he process that led to the plant heat-up,
which included discussions outside the control room.
And as you will note in the transcript,
the interview was conducted in such a way that it was impossible for the court reporter to even indicate who was asking specific questions.
usually as Participant.
They are i dentified "So who was on both sides of the discussion?"
Mr. l(b)(7)(C)
I answered, "Operations crew-wide and then, I guess, maintenance decisions."
And one of the participants then asked, "Was any of that documented in l ike a support or in any kind of OCC product? "
Mr.,(b)(7)(C)
I= "Yes, sir.
I don 't know if we have a picture of it, bu t I know that -- so we have (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 59 this, I ' ll use their words, like a stick and ball or you know, a white board of here's the l ayout. "
And the participant, "I'm visualizing like a
conference room with a
big white board or somewhere? "
"Yes, sir."
Mr
- l(b)(?)(C)
! was specifically asked who was involved in the discussion of the plant heat-up, including whether the discussion was documented by the occ.
Mr. l(b)(?)(C) explained that the discussion involved the OCC and was documented on a white board for the OCC.
One of the investigators, as I just read, even said on the record that he was visualizing that OCC room with the big white board.
It is obvious from Mr. l (b-)(_7)_(c_) __
interview transcri pt that he testifi ed the personnel outside the control room, namely the individuals in the OCC as well as Maintenance,
infl uenced the decision to heat-up.
And of course,
as we have already discussed in response to Apparen t Vi o l ation 4, there is nothing wrong with the OCC influencing the plant to heat up.
The OCC involvement, participation, and i nfluence i s normal and expected, and appropriate.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 60 This allegation against Mr. l(b)(?)(C) is not only unfounded; it is directly contradicted by the NRC's own transcript.
The NRC also alleges that Mr. 1(b)(?)(C) stated that there was no significant pushback from the control room operator. This allegation similarly has no basis in the transcript of Mr. _l(b_)_(7_)(_C_) __
___.I 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 25 minute interview.
The only time the word pushup -- pushback comes up in Mr.
...l(b_)_(7_)(_c_) __
75-page interview transcript is when the NRC investigators introduced it, and Mr. 1(b )(?)(C) asked for clarification of the term.
Mr ~(b)(?)(C)
~ "Pushback for what? I don't understand."
Participant: "Pushback to the heat-up with only excess letdowns being in service."
Another participant, presumably another one: "Or challenging it, challenging any of this? I'm not sure if you have any knowledge or understanding of what."
sequence?"
(202) 234-4433 Mr* l(b)(?)(C)
I= "No, sir."
"Are you aware of anyone challenging that So the NRC changed the words of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 61 question about pushback to challenges.
And when Mr.
~l(b_)_(7_)(_c_)_~I answered the NRC's questions regarding challenges to the plant heat-up, he answered to the best of his knowledge.
Mr.,(b)(?)(C) l has already explained in his own PEC how he understood the question, what he knew at the time.
TVA is not aware of any evidence that Mr. l(b)(?)(C)
I answer was incomplete or inaccurate, let alone deliberately so.
I n the NRC ' s own transcript Mr *...
l(b_)_(?_)(_c_) __ ~
response appears to be a
complete and accurate response to the questions that he was asked.
I don't Mr. l(b)(7)(C)
I=
"It was discussed.
I don't know that it was a challenge, but it was a healthy discussion of we put excess letdown in. II And at the end he concludes, "So I don't want to mix challenge and discuss."
So Mr.1(b)(7)(C)
I explained to the NRC on December the 18th that he was aware of a healthy discussion, but not what he would characterize as a challenge.
Mr.l(b)(7)(C)
I never spoke to the level of pushback, let alone denied that there was significant pushback -- whatever that means.
Indeed, the question (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 62 was changed to challenge.
Rather, he chose his own words and described a heal thy discussion of we put excess letdown in.
The interviewers were, of course, free to ask more questions, to probe.
They chose not to.
More than anything, one might speculate that the NRC may have intended these two allegations about outside influence and significant pushback to be intended for Mr. Johnson, then inexplicably left them in the allegations against Mr. l(b)(?)(C)
I-With allegations of deliberate misconduct that threaten an individual's livelihood and reputation, one would have hoped the NRC would have been more careful completing its transcript.
This was an interview that produced a jumbled and poorly worde d transcript with three NRC interviewers talking over each other and over Mr.
~l(b_)_(7_)(_C_) _ __.~ the stenographer not able to even identify who was speaking. It's certainly troubling that such a garbled transcript can now serve as the basis for an allegation of deliberate misconduct.
The onl y a llegati on that appears to perhaps have been actually rooted in Mr. ~l(b_)_(7_)(_C_) __
testimony is the NRC ' s allegation that he stated that he "stated that no one had brought forth concerns (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 63 regarding the Unit 1 startup before, during, or after the November 11th, 2015 event. "
l.. n Mr. l(b)(7)(C)
There's a
passage transcript where he was initially asked a somewhat similar question.
"Did anybody bring any concerns to you either before, during, or after that they had hesitations or concerns with the startup or any of the actions taken on that day?"
But that passage is immediately followed by a lengthy exchange where Mr - l(b)(?)(C)
I tried to clarify the questions as the investigators talked over each other and over Mr.l(b)(7)(C)
~ and then changed the question.
At times, the reporter could not even make out what was being said.
Again, Mr. l(b)(?)(C)
I: "Ask me that again."
One of the participants:
"Did anybody either, you know, forward planning to do this, during, or after this, bring any concerns to you concerning he actions, saying, you know, hey, I was concerned about doing this.
I don't want to do this, or--"
Mr - l(b)(7)(C)
I= "No."
There's simultaneous speaking.
Mr. l(b)(7)(C)
I=
"Sorry.
I didn ' t know if you were asking me like the lessons learned.
I've talked to-- "
(202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 (202) 234.4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 64 Participant: "No, sir."
"-- about vacuum or something."
Participant: "No, no."
Mr.l(b)(7)(C)
I: "No, sir, not - -"
Participant: "Based on these evolutions."
Mr. l(b)(7)(C)
I "No. "
"Like being Mr.1(b)(?)(C)
~ "I'm kind of worried about putting excess letdowns in.
Is that like what you ' re asking me?"
"No."
"Or did my operators or anyone come to you to say I was uncomfortable doing this and was told to do this anyway type of stuff?"
Mr. 1(b)(?)(C)
I= Oh no.
No, sir. "
Participant:
"Any concerns based on operators and that--"
question."
(202) 234-4433 Mr l(b)(7)(C)
I= "No, sir."
"-- type of manner?"
"Sorry.
I did not understand your "Okay."
"But no, sir. "
"Okay.
Anything else?"
"No."
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 65 The transcript shows that one or more of the interviewers -- their names are not included, so it ' s impossible to tell who -- continually rephrased the compound question about concerns before, during, or after the RHR event, and clarified that they were not interested in hearing about post-event lessons learned.
Their focus to Mr.l(b)(?)(C) I was : did any operators come to you to say I was uncomfortable during t his, was told to do this anyway type of stuff.
Mr.1(b)(7)(C)
I truthfully answered, "No, sir."
This was not an effective interview technique, and it certainly did not produce a useful transcript.
It is well known and well understood by investigators that compound questions can confuse a witness, especially when coming simultaneously from three interrogators speaking over each other.
Compound questions are also widely understood to result in answers t hat have little, if any, evidentiary value because it's impossible to know which question was being answered.
Here the question changed so many times in rapid succession that it is impossible to tell from the transcript what question Mr -l(b)(?)(C)
I thought he was answering.
After this confusing exchange, the (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 66 three interviewers decided to end the interview, not seek any clarification or follow-up on Mr. ~l(b_)_(7_)_(c_) __
efforts to address the shifting questions, as they certainly could have.
Given the i ncoherent questioning and the incomplete transcript, it is grossly unfair to accuse Mr. l(b)(?)(C) of giving a deliberately misleading answer to what were compound, confusing, changing, and imprecise questions.
Taken i n context,
l (b )(7)(C)
Mr.
statements were reasonable responses to imprecise, confli cting, and confusing questions that Mr.l(b)(?)(C) did his best to understand.
The factual summary to Mr _,(b)(?)(C)
~ it appears the NRC is also alleging that Mr. 1(b)(?)(C) gave inaccurate and incomplete statements in his remarks at the end of the intervi ew.
Her e is a passage referenced by the NRC:
"Anyt hing else you want to add, sir,
anything you want to c l arify? "
The first thing Mr *l(b)(?)(C) ldoes is talk abou t t h e fact that he respond s to the frankl y offensive suggestion that TVA chose Veterans' Day to do this evolution, you know.
(202) 234-4433 Then h e goes on to say, "Nobody brought up NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 67 anything of I
feel uncomfortable at any time,
particularly in the discussions of will excess letdown work the way it's supposed to work.
Nobody brought up anything that I was forced, coerced, or pushed into any kind of corner whatsoever, or attempted to hide anything at all.
This was simply I got to a place that I
didn't expect, and I
took an action to stabilize the plant. And now we're going to look back and get lessons learned out of it. 11 As Mr *l(b)(?)(C)
I expl ained at his PEC, he meant this statement to address his pr,esent recollection of what he observed and heard on Nov-ember 11th.
As he had already explained to the NRC, he was not at the plant when the decision was made to continue to proceed on only excess letdowns and to take RHR out of service.
When he returned to the plant that evening he spoke briefly to the outgoing shift manager, Mr.
Johnson, at the turnover in the control room.
Mr.
Johnson did not express any concerns about what had happened, he simply stated that RHR letdown had been used to control pressurizer level.
The atmosphere in the control room seemed calm to Mr. 1(b)(?)(C)
- 1.
As far as Mr. l(b )(7)(C)
I knew, on the 11th there had been an unexpected pressurizer excursion (202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 68 that was successfully controlled. His closing remarks to the NRC on December 18th were complete and accurate.
The NRC alleges,
however,
that Mr.
l(b )(7)(C) subsequently learned information based on emails he allegedly received in a meeting he allegedly attended that he ought to have disclosed to the NRC on December 18th.
Mr. l (b)(?)(C) I First,
.... ____ _. believed on December 18th that he was being asked about what he recalled from November 10 and 11 about what he actually observed firsthand that day, not as he was instructed by the interviewers, "lessons learned. "
But even if the questions were meant to include subsequent emails he might have received, nothing Mr. l(b)(?)(C)
I received could have told him that any operator had pushed back or been told to do something he was uncomfortable with.
As far as the emails Mr. l(b)(?)(C) received, NRC has not specified what documents these allegations rely upon.
Even if Mr.
l(b)(?)(C) understood that he was being asked about post-November 11th lessons learned, from our review none of Mr.
_l(b_)(_?_)(_c) ___
l email traffic before December 18th did or shoul d have alerted him to the fact he should have (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 69 told the NRC.
And Mr
- l(b)(?)(C) stated persuasively at his PEC that he did not, in fact, have any understanding based on his emails that was different from what he told the NRC.
TVA has searched and has identified three emails that the NRC night conceivably have alluded to.
Though, it is hard to imagine why the NRC would choose when making an allegation of deliberate misconduct not to identify specifically the emails it believes Mr.
1-(b_)(_?)_(C_) __ ! should have discussed.
First, as for a ~l(b_)(_?)_(C_) ____ ~I email from l(b-)(7-)(C_) ___
..... I, Mr.l(b)(7)(C)
I was actually asked about it and testified on December 18th that he did not recall ever receiving or reading it.
"Do you recall an email from ~l(b-)(?_)_(c_) ____ _.
in the hours or days after...
l(b_)(_?)(_C_) _____ I?
Do you recall an email regarding his experiences in this sequence?"
Mr.l(b)(7)(C)
I answer: "I don ' t know if I did or not.
I don't remember.
I can look and find it, II Of course, the interviewers could have shown Mr !(b)(?)(C)
I the l(b)(?)(C) lemail and asked him whether it refreshed his memory.
And even (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 if it did not, how he now would read it.
70 But they chose, for some inexplicable reason, not to.
But as Mr. l(b)(7)(C) I told you at his PEC, as he reads it now, he would simply have read it as l(b)(7)(C)
I titled it, "l(b)(7)(C) l(b)(?)(C)
I* II
- Second, on l(b)(?)(C) 1, Mr.
l(b )(7)(C)
!received an email from Mr. l(b)(7)(C)
I in which Mr. l(b)(7)(C) says about the events of November 11th that, in retrospect, knowing now that excess letdown had not worked as he had hoped, he "should have pushed back. "
l (b )(7)(C)
Mr..
correctly and reasonably assumed that this meant that Mr. l(b)(?)(C) lhad not, in fact, pushed back on November 11th -- I' m sorry -- Mr.
l(b )(7)(C)
Third, at Mr. l(b)(?)(C) interview of Mr.
l(b )(7)(C)
I the next day on December 16th, Mr. l(b)(7)(C) also explained at his PEC that he was not participating in the interview, not participating and was busy with other work.
And Mr* l(b)(?)(C) I and l(b)(?)(C) were just using Mr.
l._(b_)_(7_)(_C_) __
convenience.
office as a
However,
even if he had overheard Mr.
l(b )(7)(C)
(202) 234-4433 statement or read the summary of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 71 said was l
(b )(7)(C) interview later, nothing that Mr. ____ _,
inconsistent with Mr. 1(b)(?)(C)
I statement on Dec-ember the 18th.
Mr. l(b)(?)(C)
I evidently did say that some operat ors were uneasy about heating up on excess letdown, but he certainl y did not say or even impl y that any operators expressed concerns to the OCC that any "unease" was never addressed and resolved.
Especially read in context of Mr.
_l(b_)_(7_)(_C_) __
....,I email the prior day that he had not pu shed back, Mr. _l(b_)_(7_)(_c_) __ __.I comments about any unease was completely unremarkable to Mr.l(b)(?)(C) heard or knew about Mr. _l(b_)_C7_)(_C_) __ _.
Even had he statement, Mr.
l(b
)(7)(C) would have understood Mr. _l(b_)_(7_)(_c_) ___
statement to imply that the operators resolved any uneasiness before proceeding.
Overall, Mr *_r_)-(?-)(_c_) __
..... INRC interviews and transcript is j umbled,
confusing, and at times incoherent, as the interviewer made it clear -- as the interviewers made it, appears to be a completely fair account of what Mr.1(b)(?)(C) lknew at the time.
This is how Mr.l(b)(?)(C) I described it in his own PEC.
"If the NRC is going to accuse someone of deliberate misconduct by deliberately making false statements, the NRC needs to makes s ure that the questions asked are precise,
the answers are (202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 72 unambiguously false, that the transcripts cited fairly and accuratel y refl ect the interview.
None of these criteria have been satisfied here."
The NRC offers no evidence that Mr.
~l(b_)_(7_)_(c_) _ __.I knowingly and intentionally made inaccurate or incomplete statements to the NRC.
The NRC seems to be relying on the presumption that the statements were incomplete or inaccurate, which as I have discussed, is a false premise.
And simply inferred that Mr.
l (b )(7)(C)
I
~-----~ must have realized his statements were incomplete or inaccurate.
That is grossly unfair to Mr. l(b)(?)(C) sitting through the NRC interview in an effort to be transparent and helpful. As Mr.l(b)(7)(C)
I explained at his PEC, he did his very best to answer the NRC' s often confusing and compound questions.
Even if he misspoke at any point, it was caused either by the way that the interview was conducted or by a simple mistake.
There was certainly no effort to do anything but answer questions truthfully, completely.
- honestly, and Let me t urn to Mr. Johnson.
In his written statement, Mr. Johnson did not defend his statements to the NRC as entirely complete and accurate.
(202) 234-4433 TVA has no toler ance for employees that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 73 make incomplete or inaccurate statements to the NRC because TVA takes transparency and honesty toward the NRC with the utmost seriousness.
TVA cannot ignore that Mr. Johnson has expressed that he perceived his job to be at risk.
While Mr.
Johnson should have told the NRC investigators immediately about his job concerns and how they affected his mindset on November 11th, he has told us that he could tell the NRC shortly after December 18th about his complete recollection of the RHR event.
Does not excuse Mr.
Johnson from his statements on December 18th, but it would tend to show that he was not really trying to hide anything from the NRC.
Mr.
Barstow will now speak to the corrective actions the TVA has taken and is taking in connection with Apparent Violation 7.
MR. BARSTOW: Thank you, Mr. Hill. As Mr.
Hill has explained, TVA wholly denies Apparent Violation 7 and believes that there is no basis for asserting that TVA employees provided inaccurate or incomplete information to the NRC during the Dec-ember
- 14th, 2015 meeting with the senior inspector.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 resident (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 74 TVA has not been able to substantiate, and in fact believes to the contrary that the document with allegedly inaccurate and incomplete information was provided to the NRC.
Further, even if that document had been provided to t he NRC, TVA does not believe that it contained inaccurate or incomplete information.
Mr. l(b)(7)(C) lused Mr. 1(b)(?)(C) used language that he thought reflected the resident inspector's questions, and that he understood and answered the resident inspectors questions accurately.
Moreover, the document was intended for the NRC -- was not intended for the NRC and was specifically drafted to convey a meaning that would be understood by the intended audience.
As for Apparent Violation 9, TVA denies that Mr. l(b)(?)(C) I provided inaccurate and incomplete information to the NRC, although TVA acknowledges that Mr. Johnson's statement constitutes a violation of 10 CFR 50.9(a)
TVA acknowledges that Mr. Johnson made inconsistent statements about his expectations that proceeding with the heat-up on only excess letdown would be successful, and that he evaded and answered incompletely questions about operator concerns and (202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 75 influence from outside the main control room.
TVA also acknowledges that Mr. Johnson omitted from his statement to the NRC that his decision-making had been influenced by the fear of losing his job.
TVA acknowledges that Mr. Johnson's lack of candor appears to have been caused to some extent by his fear of losing his job.
Mr. Johnson ' s concern seems to have stemmed from the reported June 20, '14 discussion with a
plant manager about an organizational realignment planned for after the Unit 2 initial startup.
More broadly, TVA recognizes that there were problems with the work environment at Watts Bar in 2015.
TVA acknowledges much in the response to the NRC's Chilling Effect letter issued in March of 2016.
However, TVA has taken extensive action to address the issues identified in that Chilling Effect letter.
- Indeed, these actions have been the subject of numerous inspections, NRC inspections, over the past four years which TVA has partially outlined in its written responses to the apparent violations.
Importantly, the NRC documented its findings that TVA has made progress in improving the Safety-Conscious Work Environment at Watts Bar.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 76 TVA emphatically agrees that complet e and accurate communication with the NRC is essential at all times, and that no one should ever be afraid to provide information to the NRC.
- Recently, a
communication to all TVA nuclear employees reiterated TVA ' s policy and the chief nuclear officer ' s personal expectations in this regard.
While the actions of Mr. Johnson do not reflect TVA' s past or present expectations, it is worth noting that Mr. Johnson has explained that he corrected his omissions in the December 18th, 2015, interview just a few days later during a subsequent interview by an NRC representative in the Resident Inspector's Office.
While TVA does not have access to the information regarding his follow-up interview, Mr.
Johnson correcting his statement appears consistent with the guidance in Section 2.3.11 of the NRC Enforcement Policy.
The Enforcement Policy states,
and I quote, "In determining whether to take an enforc-ement action for an oral statement, the Commission may consider factors such as the reasonableness of the explanation for not providing complete and accurate information."
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 77 The Enforcement Policy further indicates that, and I quote, "No enforcement will be taken for the initial inaccurate or incomplete information if the matter is promptly identified and corrected by the licensee before the NRC relies on that information, or before the NRC raises a
question about that information."
TVA believes that the NRC ' s deliberations on the enforcement sanction for Mr. Johnson and TVA should take into account the degraded work environment that existed in 2015, and his effort to amend his interview statement in a relatively short period of time when afforded a private venue for consultation with NRC's representative.
This concludes our presentations on apparent violations on Apparent Violations 7 and 9.
MR. O'BRIEN : Thank you, Mr. Barstow.
We appreciate clearly your dialogue and information.
Given the time and the schedul -e,
I propose, if it ' s acceptable to you, that we break for a caucus and lunch, and return at 12:30.
Is that reasonable from you r perspective?
MR. BARSTOW: Yes, it is, Mr. O'Brien.
MR. 0' BRIEN: Thank you much.
At this point in time, before we break I want to make sure the (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 court reporter doesn ' t have any needs?
reporter, do you have everything you need?
78 Court So once we go off record, I'll let you get some from all of us here.
So we will go off the record, and we'll reconvene at 12:30 your time. Thank you, everybody.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 10:22 a.m. and resumed at 12:30
- p. m. )
MR. 0 ' BRIEN:
Mr. Hill and Mr. Barstow, we had our caucus, and we have a few questions for you relative to AV 7 and AV 9, and I'm going to let Marcia begin, if that ' s okay with you.
MR.
BARSTOW:
Yes, Mr. O'Brien, that's correct.
We ' re ready to take questions.
MR.
O' BRIEN:
Thank you very much.
I appreciate that.
Marcia?
MS. SIMON:
Thank you, Ken.
My first question is this:
based on Mr.
Hill's presentation, there were several references to the resident inspector not asking certain questions.
So, is it TVA ' s position that TVA only has to provide information to the NRC that is directly responsive to specific questions asked by a resident inspector?
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. ROELOFS:
This is Ms. Roelofs.
Bar stow will take that question.
79 Mr.
MR. BARSTOW:
Ms. Simon, I guess I would ask you maybe to rephrase that question.
And the reason I' m saying that is because we provide information to the NRC based on what they are interested in knowing.
So, if you could help me, try to rephrase your question, so I can better answer it, I guess?
MS. SIMON :
Okay.
I' ll try that.
MR. O'BRIEN:
Mr. Barstow, would you put on your camera, please?
MR. BARSTOW:
Oh.
MR. O' BRIEN:
Sorry about that, Marcia.
My apol ogies.
MS. SIMON:
Okay.
Now I have to think about my rephrasing again.
My t r a i n of thought was interrupted.
MR. O' BRIEN :
I apologize.
MS. SIMON:
Okay.
So, when you have an unusual event occur at the plant and you're i nvesti gating it,
and the res i dent asks questi ons about it, is it your position that you only have to provide information that responds to the questions?
I mean, don ' t you think that the NRC and the resident (202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 80 would want to know the entire, all the underlying facts related to that event?
MR.
BARSTOW:
- Well, thank you for rephrasing.
What I would say to that is that our intent would always be to be forthright, transparent, truthful, and provide information about the event.
MS.
SIMON:
Okay.
Because I ' m trying to --
MR. BARSTOW:
So, I'm not sure how else we should approach it.
MS.
SIMON:
- Yes, I mean, clearly, the resident had some specific questions. And I think one of the issues with this Apparent Violation is, even if those questions focused on a certain aspect of this event, there were other aspects of the event that the NRC might have been interest ed in.
And so, I guess the question is, why would TVA not provide information about certain aspects of the event just because he didn't ask about them?
I don't know if I asked that very well, but -- so, I guess what you're saying is TVA would make an effort to be as complete and accurate as possible.
Is that your response?
MR. BARSTOW:
I guess, first of all, I'll say my intent personally, and I think as TVA in general that I've found - -
I haven't been in the (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 81 position that long -- but, certainly, our intent would always be to provide information that we feel the NRC would be interested in and be able to understand the situation.
But, getting back to this specific AV, I think that, to talk specifics,
Mr. (b)(?)(C) and Mr.
_l(b_ )_(7_)_(C_) __
j both intended to provide as much information as they could to the resident inspector.
Specifically, they were focused on the operability question that the inspector asked.
I t hink they were aware of what the inspector knew already about the event.
So, in my opinion, and from what I've seen from the inspection and investigation activities that our counsel did and what I've read, their intent was to be open and transparent and provide information about the event.
So, I don't know how to -- I mean, I guess I struggle with a little bit your -- it feels a little bit like you're asking us to be a l ittle bit of a mind reader.
And this is my personal opinion, but t h e way you phrased the question, you said - - I can ' t remember how you said it now, but it made me think of us trying to guess what the inspector may be wanting to ask.
MS. SIMON:
That wasn't really what I was getting at.
I just got the impression -- and again,
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 82 I wish I had an encyclopedic memory and could remember exactl y what Tom said during his presentation -- but I got the impression at several points that there was an emphasis on the inspector didn I t, the resident didn' t ask this, and therefore, we didn ' t tell him.
And if I'm misinterpreting that, then I ' m sorry, but I got that impression.
And so, I'm asking you, is it TVA's view that that's why I asked the original question - -
that you only have to provide information to the NRC that is directly responsive to specific questions asked by the resident surrounding an event? Or would you be proactive, I
- guess, in volunteering more information, if you had it, even if the resident had not asked about it, if it was relevant and you thought it was of interest to the NRC?
MR.
BARSTOW:
- Well, because you're specifically asking about Tom Hill's presentation, and obviously, he's investigated this thoroughly, maybe I could ask Tom to weigh in here.
MR.
HILL:
Thanks, Jim.
I appreciate that.
Ms. Simon, if you got that impression, I'm not quite sure --
(202) 234-4433 MR. O'BRIEN:
Mr. Hill?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 83 MR. HILL:
Yes?
MR. 0 ' BRIEN:
Could I ask you to bring the microphone closer to you or to turn up the volume?
MR. HILL:
Is that any better? Usually, I'm not --
MR.
0' BRIEN:
Yes,
that is a little better.
Thank you.
MR. HILL:
Most people never suggest that they can't hear me.
So, you let me know.
Okay?
MR. O'BRI EN:
I 'm in that same boat with you.
MR. HILL:
Ms. Simon, or Marcia, if you don't mind, your characterization of what I had to say I don't think is at all accurate.
I was not trying to suggest in any way that the only circumstances under which a licensee should be providing information to the NRC is if they ' re asked a very specific, narrow question.
So, let's start with that premise.
Okay?
That having been said, I
think the questions that are posed are relevant in assessing after the fact the reasonableness and the accuracy and the completeness of the response that 's being given by the licensee.
You can't ignore the questions that were asked as you evaluate the answers that were given.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 84 Now, in the context here, I think all of that is sort of an academic exercise because I think the record is abundantly clear that, in fact, the issue of the pressurizer rise and the abatement of the pressuri.zer rise by opening the valve was cl-early discussed with Mr. Nadel over that weekend.
Both Mr.
l(b_)(_7_)(_C) _ ___.I and Mr. (b)(?)(C) have testified on several occasions, and certainly in their PECs, that they recall having had specific discussions with Mr. Nadel about that very subject, irrespective of whether Mr.
Nadel asked the questions on December 12 and December
- 14.
Secondly, Mr. l(b)(?)(C)
I, al though he did not bring the attachment that 's in question, or the email I ' ll call it the email attachment, for simplicity ' s sake he does not have any recollection, nor does Mr. l(b)(7)(C) I, of even bringing that to the meeting on December 14th.
And it certainly would have been contrary to their own practices and policies to bring an internal -email attachment with them.
He does have a recollection of bringing the graph that he created with him, and that was brought primarily for the purpose of discussing what they understood to be Mr. Nadel' s principal question which had to do with operability.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 85 However, the same graph that deals with operability also, unmistakably, shows the correlation between pressurizer rise and pressurizer abatement when the valves were open.
So, that's more evidence that the subject was clearly discussed.
Finally, or I think finally, I would say that the following day, on December 15th, there is absolute documentary evidence in the form of the email correspondence between Mr. _l(b_)(_7)_(C_) ___ ! and Mr. Nadel that the s ubj ect of the relationship between pressurizer rise and the opening of the valves was discussed.
So, I guess in response to your question, no, do I think that you absolutely - - does the license absolutely need to limit itself to answering questions that are specifically addressed?
No.
But, in this particular instance, whether the question was asked or not, the issue was discussed.
MS. SIMON :
Okay.
Thank you.
That was a very thorough response.
Tom, I will call you Tom if you call me Marcia.
MR. HILL:
Okay.
MS.
SIMON:
And this question is, of course, addressed to anyone from TVA who wants to answer it, but I have a feeling it might end up being (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 86 you.
I believe that you said in your presentation at one point that the only plausible reason for opening the valve, the RHR letdown, was to reduce pressurizer level. And the first question is, but could there have been a number of possible reasons why pressurizer level increased in the first place or increased enough to have them have to open that valve?
MR.
HILL :
I ' m sorry, Marcia,
I was distracted here for a second and I didn't catch the last part of your question.
Could you --
MS. SIMON :
Okay.
I ' ll just repeat the whole thing.
At one point in your presentation, you said that the only plausible reason for opening the RHR letdown valve was to reduce pressurizer level. My question is, but could there have been a number of possible reasons why pressurizer level increased in the first place or increased enough to have to open the RHR valve?
MR. O'BRIEN :
I' d offer you, Mr. Hill --
and I ' m going to throw you a lifeline here - -
I'd offer the licensee may choose to answer it, as opposed to you.
MR. HILL :
Well, now that's what I was abou t to say.
I think that's probably much more of a (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 87 technical question that the licensee is going to be better equipped to deal with than I am.
However, that having been said, let me say as a predicate that, my understanding, that in Mode 4 where they were at the time, at that particular point in the evolution, the only plausible reason for opening up the RHR valve would have been to put the letdown back in.
But I'll now welcome my colleagues on the more technical side to correct me or --
MS. ROELOFS:
Yes, from TVA - - and this is Ms. Roelofs -- Mr. Rice can address that question.
MR. RICE:
Ms. Simon, can you be explicit with what pressurizer level rise, which part of it?
Because is it stage or condition?
Because there are multiple events or plant maneuvers that could result in pressurizer level rising.
MS.
SIMON:
- Well, I'm referring specifically to this event.
My understanding is that, when you heat up the reactor, the pressurizer level rises.
And Mr. Hill said the only plausible, in the context of this event, the only plausible reason for opening the RHR letdown valve was to reduce pressurizer level.
And so, not discussing whether or not that ' s the case, but could there have been a (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 88 number of possible reasons why the pressurizer level increased in the first place? Or maybe the better way to ask it is, increased enough to have to open the pressurizer sorry -- to open the RHR valve?
MR.
RICE:
Yes, there are other plant failures or other maneuvers that could have resulted in pressurizer level rising.
However, given the condition that was there, the action would be the same, which would be to place RHR back in service through RHR letdown to reduce pressurizer l evel.
MS. SIMON:
Okay.
So, then, wouldn't the underlying reason why pressurizer level increase in the first place be part of a complete description of what happened during that event?
MR. RICE:
I was not in the position at the time or in the office at the time.
So, I'm not able to understand what conversations that previously transpired between Mr. Nadel and operations staff at the time.
MS. SIMON:
But I'm really just asking, if there are several possible reasons why the pressurizer level increased, wouldn't a complete description of what happened that day want to specify the actual reason why it happened in that event, as opposed to any one of the possible failures you just alluded to (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 89 that could have happened?
MR. RICE:
Yes, I can ' t speculate to that conversation at that time.
MR. O' BRIEN:
Mr. Rice, let me help, if I might, in this questioning.
There's been a lot of dialog here relative to putting the letdown back in service. Do you have a specific procedure for p u tting the letdown in service that does only just that?
MR.
RICE:
Are you referring normal l etdown or RHR l etdown?
MR. O'BRIEN:
RHR.
My apologies.
Thank you for the question.
RHR letdown.
Do you have a specific standalone procedure that puts RHR letdown in service without any other actions being taken by, say, for example, the procedure writers to change it or the shift manager to eliminate steps?
There i s a standalone section for establishing RHR letdown.
MR. O' BRIEN :
So, would the operator be allowed to go to that section without deleting things prior to it?
MR. RICE:
Without deleting things?
MR. O' BRIEN:
I mean any steps prior to those actions, s uch as starting t he RHR pump.
(202) 234-4433 MR. RICE:
Yes, I can say that starting NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 90 the RHR pump is a separate section of the same system operating instruction.
MR.
O' BRIEN:
So, you don ' t have a
procedure that they could go to without having to take some specific actions that would allow them to only open up the RHR valves?
MR. RICE :
I 'm sorry, which RHR valves?
Which RHR valves are you referring to?
MR. O'BRIEN:
Suction and letdown.
MR. RICE:
Okay.
To establish RHR, to put RHR in service, there is one section that is required.
That does open up the suction valves.
MR. O'BRIEN:
And it does also start the pump, correct?
MR. RI CE:
Yes, sir.
MR. O'BRIEN:
So, you have no standalone procedure without actions that would be needed to be taken to put RHR in service without taking other actions besides the ones that were taken?
MR. RICE:
May I confer for just a second before answering that question?
Roelofs.
(202) 234-4433 MR. O'BRIEN :
Sure, sure.
(Pause.)
MS.
ROELOFS:
Mr. O'Brien, this is Ms.
Mr. Rice, we have conferred, and Mr. Rice NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 91 will answer the question on the table.
MR. O'BRIEN:
Thank you very much.
MR. RICE:
Mr. O'Brien, this is Chris Rice again.
So, as I
was stating, there are two procedural sections inside the same system operating instructions.
They are required to be performed to establish the flow path to allow RHR letdown to reduce pressuri.zer inventory. As I stated yesterday in AV 6,
those procedure sections should have been performed in a
better
- manner, but it does require those two sections, as stated before.
MR.
O'BRIEN:
So, part of what I was trying to get to and it 's in response to Ms.
Simon's question -- is that, when you articulate as the answer that the complete answer, the accurate answer, is to put letdown in service, it omits the underlying reason for putting letdown in service,
because in that mode and at that time that would not be a normal activity in the sense that, yes, the other reason you had to do it was you had letdown of service, but that's really not the reason at all that you had to put it in service.
You had to put it in service because it appears -- I don't want to conclude anything at this point in time -- it appears you had (202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 92 undertaken an evolution that removed the source of being able to control it; that is, doing the evolution with RHR isolated.
And that ' s what caused you to end up having to be there, that in combination with normal letdown.
So, I'm trying to get back to Ms. Simon's question, which is the answer that was given that --
and it's an obvious answer, I think is what Mr. Hill said - -
that it was to control pressurizer 1-evel.
That ' s really not a complete answer in that there are
- many, as you are articul ated, many potential underlying causes that could cause you to be there.
And in this particular case, there were a number of underlying causes that were not articulated.
You don ' t have to answer that that I 'm articulating unless you guys disagree with me on that particular statement.
MR. HILL:
Mr. O' Brien --
MS.
ROELOFS :
I'm sorry, this is Ms.
Roelofs.
We will turn that over to our counsel to answer that question, please.
MR. O'BRIEN :
Thank you very much MR. HILL:
Well, it's more of a comment.
Maybe it is responsive to your question, Mr. O'Brien.
But it seems to me -- and I probably should have said (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 93 this in response to Marcia earlier -- in evaluating,
and t his really goes to t he q uestion of the obligati on of the licensee to give accurate and full information, which obviously we agree that i s the obligat ion MR. O' BRI EN :
Mr. Hill, I can barely hear you.
MR. HILL :
Sorry.
Obviously, we agree that the licensee is obligated to give complete and truthful information.
But I probably should have s uppl emented my response to Ms. Simon earlier.
That being s a id - -
and we all agree on that in the context of then after the fact evaluating whether or not somebody engaged, or the license engaged, in deliberate misconduct, okay, the question is, in fact,
by providi ng i ncompl ete i nformation,
- okay, the question that is posed, and how it is posed, and in the context of which it ' s
- posed, becomes very relevant.
So, t hose two ideas have to be, are not incompatible with each other, notwithstanding whatever the obligation may be on the licensee when you evaluate -- I guess I 'm j ust repeat i ng mysel f, and I apologize for that.
But when you ' re evaluating the high standard of deliberate misconduct, and you're evaluating i t because you' re c l aiming that there was (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 94 a failure to give further information, you really need to look at it in the context of the question.
And I would finally add that, as crafted currently, Apparent Violation No. 7 is really limited to the written documents that the NRC claims that it somehow received from Mr. l(b)(?)(C) I and Mr. l(b)(?)(C) I on December 14th.
In other words, the allegation, the Apparent Violation is not a generic allegation that the licensee failed to provide information with respect to the complete details of the evolution.
MR.
O'BRIEN:
Thank you, Mr. Hill.
I appreciate that clarification.
That was helpful for me.
Thank you.
Marcia?
MS.
SIMON:
That ' s actually all the questions I have on that, Ken.
MR. O'BRIEN :
So, I have another question
-- thank you, Marcia -- relative to AV 7.
And, Mr.
Hill, it goes t o some of the comments that you made,
and during the conversation you often pointed to - - my phrasing, please -- information you believed Mr. Nadel already had or already was aware of.
And I wanted to ask if you have specific evidence to demonstrate that Mr. Nadel knew the points that you have asserted that he knew at the time.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 95 MR. HILL : It ' s o u r understanding from the investigation that that information came to us from, of what Mr. Nadel knew, came to us in the first instance from Mr
- l(b)(?)(C) I with respect to Mr....
l(b-)(-7)-(C_) _ __.
interaction with Mr. Nadel on December 11th, and then,
as Mr
- l(b)(7)(C) I then reported, that interaction through Mr. l (b)(7)(C)
I (b)(?)(C)
._ ______ and Mr..__ ___ that evening and the next day.
MR. O' BRIEN :
So, let me be clear.
I want to make sur e I understood.
So, you have no direct evidence?
You have inference from a discussion from somebody else of what they believe Mr. Nadel knew?
You have no direct evidence of Mr. Nadel's statements and/or writings that c l early art icul ate the points that you made that you believe he knew?
MR. HILL :
I think it ' s correct to say that I don ' t have any specific writi ng of Mr. Nadel' s.
I would be delighted to see it, but I don't have it.
As I have, whether you would call it firs t hand or secondhand, I guess I have Mr....
l(b_)(?_)(_c_) _ __.lrecollections of what it was that occurred during his meeting with Mr. Nadel.
MR. O'BRIEN :
One of those things -- and I'll be a little more specific of what I believe --
you articulated t hat Mr. Nadel already knew o f or was (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 96 aware of the pressurizer level increase.
I ' m not clear that there was any dialog or any information that he articulated in his questions to Mr. (b)(?)(C) otherwise, to assert that fact.
, or MR.
HILL:
It's my understanding that certainly the fact that normal letdown was out of service as a result of the repair was known to Mr.
Nadel on the 11th.
And I know that the issue of the pressuri.zer rise was discussed between Mr. 1(b)(?)(C)
Mr.1(b)(?)(C) ~ and Mr. Nadel beginning on the 12th.
MR. O'BRIEN:
You have evidence that they talked about the operability of the RHR discussion from his discussion?
I want to make sure it's clear that you're saying you have testimony from Mr.
l(b_)_(7_)(_c _) _ _.I or Mr.l(b)(?)(C) I that they informed him that the pressurizer rise had occurred?
MR. HILL:
Yes, both on December 12th and 14th, they both say, they both say that that was part of the d i scussion on the morning of the 12th, and then again, in the meeting on the 14th.
MR. O'BRIEN:
Thank you very much.
That's all the questions I believe we have on any of these seven.
Let me make sure my team agrees with that and there isn't a question that arose as a part of the discussion.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 97 With that, we'll go to AV 9.
Marcia?
MS. SIMON:
Thanks, Ken.
I have a few questions that relate to Mr.,Johnson, and specifically to his statements regarding his, I guess his fears of losing his job.
In Mr. l(b)(?)(C) p Ec, Mr.....
1(b-)(_7_)(C_)_..,ldiscussed the decision that was made in June 2014 about the decision that Mr. Johnson would not be retained after Unit 2 came online.
And Mr.l(b)(?)(C) I said that this was, the primary reasons for that were Mr. Johnson's performance and potential and that this was something that was recommended by Mr. l(b)(?)(C)
..,.,..,.~..,,.,...----,
I; and Mr. l(b)(?)(C) I concurred, and that Mr,l(b)(?)(C) I and the HR representative met with Mr. Johnson in June 2014 to inform him of the decision.
And Mr. Johnson also discussed this in one of his TVA OIG interviews.
So, I have a couple of questions related to that June 2014 context, and I'm hoping you might be able to answer them.
The first one is, can someone provide any context to the decision? In other words, was it part of a larger-scale downsizing effort by TVA at Watts Bar or was this a more isolated decision about Mr. Johnson based on his performance?
Roelofs.
(202) 234-4433 MS.
ROELOFS:
Ms.
Simon, this is Ms.
We will turn that question over to our NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 98 attorneys.
MR. HILL :
Our understanding, Marcia, is that it was part of a broader - -
and I ' m blanking right now on the actual term of art that was used, but it was a -- it was not maybe -- well, I was going to say "reduction in force, " but I thought there was another term, actually, a reorganization or something.
But it was a broad - -
it was not, by any means, isolated to Mr. Johnson.
MS. SIMON:
Okay.
And are you aware of whether any other SROs or reactor operators were affected by that?
MR. HILL:
I believe the answer is yes, but I'd want to confirm that.
But I believe the answer is yes.
MS. SIMON:
Are you --
MS. ROELOFS :
I'm sorry, Ms. Simon, this is Ms. Roelofs.
We ' re happy to supplement the record with an answer to that question.
We would want to review our HR records to ensure that we gave you an accurate answer.
And so, we will take note of your questi on and suppl ement the record shortly following this conference today.
Thanks.
(202) 234-4433 MS.
SIMON:
Okay.
That sounds great.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 99 MS. ROELOFS:
Okay.
Thank you.
MS. SIMON :
And my next question is, Mr.
Johnson said he was told at that meeting that there would be no place for him within a year; i.e., as of June 2015, but, obviously, he was still employed as an SRO after June 2015.
So, my question is, are you aware of any follow-up with Mr. Johnson regarding his job status after June 2015?
MR. HILL:
I'm only hesitating because I wanted to make sure that my colleagues --
MS. ROELOFS:
No.
No, Ms. Simon, this is Ms. Roelofs again.
I think that's another one of those where we would want to review the HR records just to be certain we're answering your question.
We did look into this issue, but just because of the length of time that has passed, we weren't always able to find the precise records that we were looking for.
But, if we have your precise questions, we can look into the issue further.
And I
don ' t know if Mr.
Hill can supplement based on the investigation, but we're also happy to supplement or respond back to the PEC.
MS. SIMON:
Okay.
MS. ROELOFS:
So, I don't know if Mr. Hill has anything to add.
(202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. HILL:
100 Well,
I think it ' s probably be s t if we supplement to make sure we' re compl-etel y accurate.
We will supplement, but I believe the answer is I don ' t believe there was any further formal discussion with him after J un e of '15, if that was the question that you were asking.
MS. SIMON :
Yes, and MR. HILL:
After ' 15.
I think you were asking after the year it expired, weren't you?
MS. SIMON :
Yes.
MR. HILL:
I think that ' s what you were asking.
Yes.
MS. SIMON:
And I guess the first thought that came to my mind was -- and this is purely guess on my part was that perhaps June 2015 was an original target date for when they thought Unit 2 might come onli ne, and therefore, maybe he was g i ven that date with that in mind.
So, if that's something MR. HI LL :
Yes, I think you're probably right, Marcia.
MS. SIMON :
Okay.
MR. HILL: That ' s my recollection as well.
MS. SIMON :
That might be part of the --
i f you can determi ne that, and if that ' s what you (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 101 determine, you can let us know that.
MR. HILL:
I do know that Mr. J ohnson, in his words, after June of ' 15, felt he was living on borrowed time.
MS. SIMON :
Okay.
MS.
ROELOFS :
Ms.
Simon, this is Ms.
Roelofs.
We've taken notes to make sure that we got your questions down correctly, and we will ensure that we supplement the record with the information t hat you are seeking.
MS. SIMON:
Okay.
Thanks.
MS. ROELOFS :
You' re welcome.
MS. SIMON:
So, Mr, l(b)(?)(C) I also in his PEC discussed Mr. Johnson's performance evalua t ion and a statement that Mr. Johnson made saying t hat Mr.
l(b)(?)(C) I had had Mr. Johnson's performance evaluation (b)(?)(C)
And so, I have two questions.
The first question is, I think Mr. Johnson said he was given this evaluation around November 5th, 2015.
And I was wondering if there 's any way for TVA to confirm t hat.
(202) 234-4433 MS.
ROELOFS :
Ms.
Simon, this is Mr.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Roelofs.
102 We will add that to our list of items to s uppl ement.
We can certainly l ook into that.
MS. SIMON:
Okay. And then, this question is more general. Prior to this effort to redistribute the ratings, were there any communications made to operators that this process was going to be undertaken ?
MS. ROELOFS : Ms. Simon, I apologize. Can you repeat you r question?
MS. SIMON:
Yes.
So, prior to this effort to redistribute the ratings according to a Gaussian curve that Mr. l(b)(?)(C) I mentioned, were there any communications made to operators that this process was going to be undertaken?
In other words, that performance rati ngs were going to be redistri buted to a bell curve, basically?
MS. ROELOFS :
Ms. Simon, I think this is another area where we would have to look back in time and l ook at those communications and supplement the record.
MS. SIMON:
Yes, I ' m just trying to get a sense of whether the operators were p u t on not i ce that, basically, this was going to be a change in how performance was assessed.
MS. ROELOFS :
Yes, and I beli eve that was (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 103 the case, but I ' m just saying that, in general, with the TVA employees, I want to make sure that I have an accurate answer to your question.
And so, we will definitely look back and s upplement our answer in t hat regard.
MS. SIMON:
Okay.
Yes, so I ' m looking at when they would have been told and what they were told.
MS. ROELOFS :
Yes, we got it.
Thank you,
Ms. Si mon.
MS. SIMON:
Okay.
And those are all my questions.
So, thank you.
MR. O'BRIEN:
Thank you.
I want to make s ure, before we go on any further, make s ure that other team members, Nick and Scott, no other questions develop?
MR. HILTON :
Nothi ng for me.
MR. SPARKS:
Yes, I'm good, Ken.
MR. O' BRIEN :
Thank you.
Mr. Barstow and Ms. Roelofs, at this point in time, we are completed with our questions.
Would you like to take a short break or woul d you like to move directly to any closing comments you might have?
MS. ROELOFS :
This is Ms. Roelofs.
We wou ld like to take a short break.
If we may return (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 104 at, let's say, 20 after the hour?
MR. O'BRIEN:
Ms. Roelofs, you're doing a great job estimating the things I would ask.
Thank you.
Twenty minutes after the hour we ' ll come back on the record.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 1:08 p.m. and resumed at 1:20 p.m.)
MR. O'BRIEN:
Ms. Roelofs, I'm slow to l earn, but I' m trying to get there.
Since you' re recording things on your side, I'll ask you if you are ready, and whoever would like to give brief closing comments who would like to speak?
MS. ROELOFS :
Yes, Mr. O'Brien.
Thank you.
Mr. Rausch would like to give a few brief closing comments, please.
MR.
O'BRIEN:
Thank you very much.
I appreciate that.
Mr. Rausch?
CLOSING COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF TVA MR.
RAUSCH:
Yes, I would just like to check volume first.
Can you hear me
- okay, Mr.
O'Brien?
much.
(202) 234-4433 MR. O'BRIEN :
Very well.
Thank you very NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR.
RAUSCH:
Okay.
105 So,
I ' d 1 ike to address just one thing before I really close.
And it was a question that Ms. Simon asked that we answered regarding how we communicate with the NRC resident or senior resident, and how forthcoming, and what we do offer, and does it require a question in order for us to provide an answer.
So, I don't want to undo any of the dialog that has been had, but I just would like to tell you specifically how we function.
So, on any given day, if there is an abnormality in the power plant of any kind, one of us on the collective call or in a meeting is sure to ask who is going to inform the resident.
And typically, the Ops Director will take that action or one of the other Directors will say, "I've got communications with the resident. "
Well, they would either call or go in person and inform the resident of what the issue is,
what we know about it at that point, what ou r next steps are to l earn more about it, and then, we'll talk about when we'll get back to them following a prompt investigation or following six hours of investigation, or interviewing the operator or the mechanic, or whatever it is.
(202) 234*4433 So, our goal there is to ensure that we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 106 have effectively and efficiently and in a timely manner communicated with the resident to give them everything we know upfront.
From there, the residents typically will look through tools that they have at their disposal, our Corrective Action Program, our plant computer, other sources of information.
And they may go out actually and start asking questions of folks themselves, and typically do.
And then, from that point, when we do the follow-up, we'll traditionally get a question or a set of questions from them where they would like additional information or a specific chart or a drawing or a procedure that was marked up and actually used, and so forth.
And we'll go a lot of times and document the questions, like Mr
- l(b)(?)(C)
I did in one of the exhibits.
And we'll work through our regulatory affairs group to document those questions that we have lookups on, and then, we'll go get that additional information and t ake it back.
And from there, it typically goes into a back-and-forth communication where the resident would ask us for the additional information; we would go gather that additional information and provide it.
And then, if the evolution has moved to the next phase of understanding, we would proactively volunteer that (202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 107 information to the resident to help keep them informed as much as possible.
So, the way we function is to ensure we're providing what we believe they would be interested in upfron t,
forthright,
and initially without any prompting.
It ' s our goal to get to them before they have to reach out and ask from us.
We follow up when there is new information that we told them that we would f ollow up with, and then, in between, take their questions, respond to their questions, and then, go back to them either via telephone or, again, face to face, or a n email.
So, I just wanted to make sure that piece of ou r answer was not lost.
We do not only wait for a questi on, and we do not screen our responses to make sure we ' re only addressing the question. And our goal is to effectively and effici entl y communicate, so that they understand the issue as well as we do, as the investigation unfolds, as we learn more, and as we reach a resolution all the way up to we consider the issue resolved or we're going to move forward, or we 're going to continue with a startup, whatever it may be.
So,
that ' s how we function.
It's important for us to have trust and respect with our (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 108 residents, be forthright and timely, and be efficient in our communications with them.
So, I just wanted to make sure that was clear before we close the day.
Relative to today's Apparent Violations 4, 7, and 9, regarding Apparent Violations 4 and 7, we see these differently than the NRC does, in that we do not see a Violation 4, Apparent Violation 4 or 7, and we do not have any evidence of deliberate misconduct.
Relative to Apparent Violation 9 I specifically regarding Billy Johnson, we do agree with the Apparent Violation and we do agree with the deliberate misconduct associated with Billy Johnson.
We do not agree with the Apparent Violation No. 9 for Mr.l(b)(7)(C)
I, nor do we see any evidence of deliberate misconduct by Mr. l(b)(?)(C)
- 9.
I on Apparent Violation No.
So, with that, Mr. O'Brien, that concludes our remarks for the day.
MR. LEWIS:
This is Mr. Lewis.
Before you drop off, could I provide one correction of something I said earlier?
MR. O'BRIEN:
Sure.
And then, I have a few comments at the end, yes.
(202) 234-4433 MR. LEWIS:
Thank you.
I understand I
misspoke during my NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 presentation on AV 4.
I said that Mr.j(b)(?)(C) 109 1-- this is what I was told - -
I said that Mr. l(b)(?)(C) deliberated about - -
MS. ROELOFS:
I think Mr. Lewis is trying to speak -- this is Ms. Roelofs -- but he is on mute.
MR. O' BRIEN:
I ' m sorry, Ms. Roelofs, I missed what you were saying.
MR. LEWIS:
I am speaking.
Can you hear me?
MR. O'BRI EN:
Yes, I can.
MR. LEWIS:
Okay.
I was saying, during the presentation on AV 4, I said that Mr *l(b)(?)(C) deliberated about the violation, and I meant to say he deliberated about the evolution.
So, I apologize for misspeaking.
Thank you.
MR. O' BRIEN:
Thank you very much.
Are we okay to move forward, Ms. Roelofs?
MS. ROELOFS:
Yes, Mr. O'Brien.
We had a little issue with the audio at our end.
Were you able to hear the entirety of Mr. Rausch ' s closing comments?
could.
clarifying.
(202) 234-4433 MR. O'BRIEN :
Absolutely correct, yes, I MS.
ROELOFS:
Okay.
Thank you for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 110 MR. O' BRIEN:
No problem.
Before we finish today, I just want to go over the same thing I went over at the end of the day yesterday, and I'll do it again tomorrow before we finish.
And it I s just to remind everybody tha t, in listening to and having these PECs, there are two important points for everybody to walk away with.
- First, the Apparent Violations that are being discussed are subject to further review and may be changed prior to any resultant enforcement action.
That's fundamentally the purpose of the PEC.
And secondly, the statements and views expressed -- an expression of opinions excuse me --
by the NRC employees at this conference, or the lack thereof, are not intended to be the final Agency's determinations of relief.
So, I want to make sure everybody ' s aware of that.
And then, before I close, I want to make sure there are no other questions or needs, either from the reporter or anybody else before I close the meeting.
COURT REPORTER:
I'm good to go.
MR. O I BRIEN: Hearing none, I 1 11 say we' re off the record.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 good.
111 Excuse me.
Go ahead.
COURT REPORTER:
I was just saying I'm MR. O'BRIEN:
Is that the court reporter?
COURT REPORTER:
Correct, sir.
MR. O'BRIEN :
Thank you very much.
My apologies.
I talked over you.
With that, I' 11 close the meeting and we ' re off until tomorrow.
And my understanding is tomorrow we'll talk about AV 8, 10, 11, and 12.
Thank you, everybody.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 1 : 28 p.m.)
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433