ML20238C698: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
Line 1,849: Line 1,849:
2                        (Beach Exhibit 4 identified.)
2                        (Beach Exhibit 4 identified.)
3              BY MR. HICKEY:
3              BY MR. HICKEY:
4      Q      This is a letter dated February 4, 1984.          Looking 5 at Exhibit 4, Mr. Beach, you note that the letter addresses, 6 in the middle paragraph, the point that the violations were l
4      Q      This is a {{letter dated|date=February 4, 1984|text=letter dated February 4, 1984}}.          Looking 5 at Exhibit 4, Mr. Beach, you note that the letter addresses, 6 in the middle paragraph, the point that the violations were l
7 procedural control violations, which apparently occurred 8 because.of inadequate communications and because GPU Nuclear i
7 procedural control violations, which apparently occurred 8 because.of inadequate communications and because GPU Nuclear i
9 management did not adequately control the activities.              I'm 10  summarizing what the language of the letter is.          Was that --
9 management did not adequately control the activities.              I'm 10  summarizing what the language of the letter is.          Was that --
Line 5,203: Line 5,203:
V,cv                                  Ope a ting Liciase No. DPR-73 Docket do. 50-320 Respontt to Office of Investigation Report                                  l This letter is provide 1 in response to your letter of February 3, 1984, which                  3 forwarded a Notice of Violation based on the NRC Office of Investigations'                        )
V,cv                                  Ope a ting Liciase No. DPR-73 Docket do. 50-320 Respontt to Office of Investigation Report                                  l This letter is provide 1 in response to your letter of February 3, 1984, which                  3 forwarded a Notice of Violation based on the NRC Office of Investigations'                        )
investigation of al'agaticas raised by former THI-2 Site Operations                            i pe.rsonnel. The ar,:achmrat to this letter provides GPUNC's detailed response to each citatio9. For your convenience the documents referenced in the responses are '.nclesed even though all have been submitted previously to the NRC.
investigation of al'agaticas raised by former THI-2 Site Operations                            i pe.rsonnel. The ar,:achmrat to this letter provides GPUNC's detailed response to each citatio9. For your convenience the documents referenced in the responses are '.nclesed even though all have been submitted previously to the NRC.
A a general conclusion, on the subject of these violations, the following excerpt from GPUNC letter dated January 16, 1984, Mr. P. R. Clark to                              j Mr. P. R. Denton, is as appitcable to this Notice of Violation as it was the Office of Investigations Interim Report:
A a general conclusion, on the subject of these violations, the following excerpt from GPUNC {{letter dated|date=January 16, 1984|text=letter dated January 16, 1984}}, Mr. P. R. Clark to                              j Mr. P. R. Denton, is as appitcable to this Notice of Violation as it was the Office of Investigations Interim Report:
                     "1. Some activities at TMI-2 were not conducted in conformanca with applicable administrative requirements. We fully endorse the need for adecuate administrative controls. Mr. Kuhns' letter (of November 1, 1983) made clear that we accept respons    r ollity for any l
                     "1. Some activities at TMI-2 were not conducted in conformanca with applicable administrative requirements. We fully endorse the need for adecuate administrative controls. Mr. Kuhns' letter (of November 1, 1983) made clear that we accept respons    r ollity for any l
F l
F l
Line 5,229: Line 5,229:
GPUNC RESPONSE GPUNC concurs that the R8PC No-Load Test Procedure was written, approved, i and performed without the TWG's prior review and concurrence. The reasons for this administrative non-compliance are extensively discussed  ;
GPUNC RESPONSE GPUNC concurs that the R8PC No-Load Test Procedure was written, approved, i and performed without the TWG's prior review and concurrence. The reasons for this administrative non-compliance are extensively discussed  ;
in the THI-2 Management and Safety Allegations Report (Stier Report) prepared by Edwin H. Stier for GPUNC (Volume IV, Polar Crane Allegations Section pages 28-32 and 71-79) and provided to the NRC via Mr. Clark's-
in the THI-2 Management and Safety Allegations Report (Stier Report) prepared by Edwin H. Stier for GPUNC (Volume IV, Polar Crane Allegations Section pages 28-32 and 71-79) and provided to the NRC via Mr. Clark's-
   ,              letter dated January 16, 1984. As part of the corrective action for this Q,'              occurrence the TWG met on September 14, 1983, to review the no-load test plan and at this meeting verbally approved the results. As followup to this review TWG formally documented its approval of the no-load test (See GPUNC Letter 4410-83-L-0244 dated October 11, 1983, and GPUNC Letter 4410-83-L-0257 dated October 25, 1983). Additionally, GPUNC Letter 4410-83-L-0244 stated that AP 1047 would be complied with on a mandatory basis and that all personnel involved with polar crane activities, including contractors, would be trained on this procedure and other selected procedures. This activity is on-going. All personnel involved with testing of tne polar crane are trained on AP-1047 before their active involvement in such activity.
   ,              {{letter dated|date=January 16, 1984|text=letter dated January 16, 1984}}. As part of the corrective action for this Q,'              occurrence the TWG met on September 14, 1983, to review the no-load test plan and at this meeting verbally approved the results. As followup to this review TWG formally documented its approval of the no-load test (See GPUNC Letter 4410-83-L-0244 dated October 11, 1983, and GPUNC Letter 4410-83-L-0257 dated October 25, 1983). Additionally, GPUNC Letter 4410-83-L-0244 stated that AP 1047 would be complied with on a mandatory basis and that all personnel involved with polar crane activities, including contractors, would be trained on this procedure and other selected procedures. This activity is on-going. All personnel involved with testing of tne polar crane are trained on AP-1047 before their active involvement in such activity.
II. NOTICE OF VIOLATION GPU Nuclear Quality Assurance Program, paragraph 3.1.3.2, Revision 1, dated September 1, 1982, requires that the Quality Assurance department review administrative policies, procedures, and instructions which delineate the methods of complying with the Recovery Quality Assurance Program.
II. NOTICE OF VIOLATION GPU Nuclear Quality Assurance Program, paragraph 3.1.3.2, Revision 1, dated September 1, 1982, requires that the Quality Assurance department review administrative policies, procedures, and instructions which delineate the methods of complying with the Recovery Quality Assurance Program.
Contrary to the above, the Quality Assurance Department did not review      .
Contrary to the above, the Quality Assurance Department did not review      .

Revision as of 13:15, 9 March 2021

Deposition of a Beach.* Transcript of 871005 Deposition in Washington,Dc Re R Parks Allegations.Pp 1-244.Supporting Documentation Encl
ML20238C698
Person / Time
Site: Three Mile Island Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 10/05/1987
From: Beach A
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20238C505 List:
References
CIV-PEN, EA-84-137, NUDOCS 8712310168
Download: ML20238C698 (310)
v • d • e


Text

-

TRAXSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE IVAN W. SMITH r y g G ] N" L

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x In the Matter of:  :

Docket No. 50-320 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION  : EA-84-137 (Three Mile Island Nuclear  :

Station, Unit No. 2)  :

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x

(")

$. Y DEPOSI_ TION OF A RTHUR BEACH Washington, D. C.

Monday, October 5, 1987 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Stenotype Reporters v] 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 8712310168 871209 PDR ADOCK 05000320 T PDR

CR32485.0 SL/sjg 1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE IVAN W. SMITH 4

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 5"  :  !

In the Matter of:  :

Docket No. 50-320 6

GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION  : EA-84-137 7

(Three Mile' Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2)  :

8  :

_._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 9

DEPOSITION OF ARTHUR BEACH 10 Washington, D. C.

13 Monday, October 5, 1987 12 Deposition of ARTHUR BEACH, called for examination 13 Pursuant to notice of deposition, at the law offices of Shaw, 14 Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, N.W., at 10:15 a.m. r , Court Reporter, when were present on 15 behalf of the respective parties:

16 17 J. PATRICK HICKEY, ESQ.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.W.

18 Washington, D. C.

On behalf of GPU Nuclear Corporation.

GEORGE E. JOHNSON, ESQ.

20 -United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4 21 Office of the General Counsel {

Washington, D. C. 20555 1 22 On behalf of the United States

/~T Nuclear Regulatory Commission V Staff.

ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 37(K) Nationwide Cmerage 8(Kb336 6646 1... .

I

2 l.

.l .

1 CONTENTS 2 WITNESS EXAMINATION 3 Arthur Beach 4

by Mr. Hickey 3 by Mr. Johnson 203 by Mr. Hickey 240 5

6 7 EXHI BITS 8

^

Exhibit 1 26 9

Exhibits 2 and 3 89-10 Exhibit 4 97 Exhibit 5 109 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 t

l 1

I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 37(K) Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

I 32485.0 s1 3 b,-,

1 PROCEEDINGS l

1 Whereupon, 2

3 ARTHUR B. BEACH 4 was called as a witness and, having first been duly sworn, 5 was examined and testified as follows:

6 EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. HICKEY:

8 Q Would you state your name and position, Mr. Beach, 9 please?

10 A Arthur Bill Beach, deputy division director, 11 reactor projects, Region 4.

12 Q How long have you held that position?

13 A One day.

14 Q Give me your prior pcsition.

15 A Quality assurance branch chief, NRR.

16 Q And during what time frame did you hold that 17 position of assurance branch chief?

18 A April 15, 1987.

19 Q How about your prior position?

20 A Deputy directar of enforcement.

21 Q During what time period?

22 A September of '84, I believe, to April of '87.

i l

ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Nanonwide courage

,g ,y 3, ,,, _

32485.0 s1 4 O

1 Q Okay. And before being deputy director of 2 enforcement?

3 A I was the team leader for appraisals in I&E, 4 enforcement, inspection and enforcement, the old Office of 5 Inspection and Enforcement, and I was in that position from 6 May of '82 until September of '84.

7 Q Okay. Your professional qualifications were 8 previously furnished in response to an interrogatory answer 9 the staff supplied. I just have to ask you a question or two 10 about it.

11 A Okay.

O 12 O It reflects that in the time period prior to that 13 which we have just gone through you also served as a resident 14 inspector in approximately 1987 to 1982 in Region 4?

j 15 A Right.

16 Q And specifically you were assigned to the River 17 Bend facility?

18 A Right.

19 Q Did you know Larry King when you were in River ]

1 20 Bend?

21 A No, I did not. 1 22 Q And your duties as team leader for appraisal from I

ACE-FEDER Al. REPORTERS, INC, 202-347-3700 800-33(r6646 j

l 32485.0 l . ~1 s 5 L

O 1 - 82 to '84, could you elaborate for me what that job entails?

2 A Usually the teams were made.up_of anywhere from 10

.3 to 15 people in various disciplines e and we would.go out and L 4 review a: facility's performance, really. A team leader was 5 responsible for the report, the findings, and tying the-6 report together in the various areas.

7 Q' Under what circumstances, if you can generalize 8 about it, was the performance appraisal' team sent out? .I j 9 take it it was not routine?

10 A Right. We tried to do one site per region each 11 year.

O 12 Q And how were the sites selected?

13 A Management prerogative.

14 Q Were the facilities in any particular stage of --

15 were'they all operating facilities?

16 A Some were operating. The PAT team was split into 17 construction because the Commission desired because of the

~

18 number of problems that were identified at some plants to do 19 construction appraisals. And during that time performance 20 appraisals were-essentially stopped and the staff was rebuilt 21 and geared up to do performance appraisals which turned into 22 SSFIs which we are currently doing.

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

l 32485.0 s1 6 g~),

1 Q "SSFI" refers to what?

2 A Safety system functional inspections.

3 Q In your role as a PAT or whatever team leader, did 4 you have occasion to do an appraisal at Three Mile Island?

5 A No. Do you want me to explain how I ended up at i

I 6 TMI-2.

7 Q Yes.

8 A Okay. The chairman of the Commission directed, as 9 a result of the Parks' allegations, that two people be 10 detailed to OI for at least 90 days to follow up on the 11 technical aspects of the polar crane. And I was detailed to

~'

12 OI for that time period.

13 0 Was that the extent of your detail, 90 days, or

14. did it get extended?

15 A It got extended an additional 90 days. I was also 16 participating in the Comanche Peak operating area during that 17 time, which had some impact on the review at TMI.

18 Q Do you mean because you had other duties and other 19 time commitments beside the TMI task; is that what you are 20 saying?

21 A Well, the hearing came up right in the middle of 22 the appropriation of the report for TMI, and I had been the O

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

Nati riwide Coverage 202-347-3700

32485.0 s1 7

%,)

1 team leader at Comanche Peak.

2 Q Okay. Just to make it clear, though, you have 3 explained how you came to be involved in the investigation at l 4 TMI-2 regarding Mr. Parks' allegations. Am I correct, i i

5 though, that in addition to that you had no contact with TMI i i

i 6 as a PAT team participant? j 1

7 A Up until that time, yes, I did -- 1 8 Q Subsequently did you go back?

9 A I subsequently went up in 1984, for a week.

10 Q. For a PAT team?

l 11 A For the PAT inspection, yes. J 12 Q About when in 1984 was that?

13 A It was -- I think it was done in March of 1984.

1 14 Q Were you a team leader or just a member? )

l 1

15 A No, I just went as a participant.

16 Q So did you participate in writing a report about i

17 that? ,

1 18 A No. Only to see basically what changes had been ]

19 implemented since we had done the investigation.

20 Q Were your findings reflected in some kind of 21 report or document?

22 A Yes, there was a performance appraisal team l )

l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coserage g 7 ,gg 800-336-6646

32485.0  !

s1 8

/~T l

(../

I 1 report; I think it was issued in May of '84.

I 2 Q And did you write a section of it relating to ]

3 this?

4 A No, I had no written input. Maybe I should say an 5 observer instead of a participant. I may be off here -- yes, 6 it's '85, I'm sorry.

7 Q The PAT team in which you participated was in May 8 of '857 9 A '85. So this should be September of '85. I was 10 in enforcement from September '85.

11 Q You were deputy of director of enforcement from 1 (3

12 September of '85 to April of '87? 1 13 A Right, sorry.

14 Q And team leader for appraisals from May '82 to 15 September, '857 16 A Right.

17 Q Okay. The notice of deposition previously issued i l

18 in this case asked that you bring with you documents relating 19 to Mr. Parks and his allegations not previously produced in 20 the course of this proceeding. Did you make some effort to 21 determine whether you had any such documents, or did you 22 bring any with you?

ACE-FEDER AL R EPORTERS, INC.

" " ' N' 202-347-3700 800-336-6646

32485.0 s1 9 n-GI 1 MR. JOHNSON: Yea, Mr. Beach had already supplied 2 in.the course of the discovery documents, I believe, or 3 documents were produced from various NRC files and he -- I 4 will let him speak for himself, what he did in connection 5 with his deposition.

6 THE WITNESS: Do you want me to state what I 7 brought with me today?

8 MP. HICKEY: Yes.

9 THE WITNESS: The SECY paper, 86-30, the staff 10 review and response to the OR report SECY 84-36, the February 11 3rd, 1984 notice of violation, and the response by GPU dated

(

12 February 28, 1984, Parks' affidavit, and then annotated 13 index, which I believe is an attachment to the OI report.

14 BY MR. HICKEY:

15 Q Okay. Can I see the index and the first SECY 16 document, please? q l

17 A. Sure.

18 Q What did you say about the annotated in I

19 techniques, believe it was what?

]

1 20 A I believe it's part of the OI report, the j 21 September 1st interim OI report. l 4

22 Q Okay, I think it is not. I think that if I r) kJ l

I ACE-FEDER AL REPORTE RS, INC.

202-347-3700 800 336-6646 ,

, 1 L____________.___.____.__ l

32485.0 s1 10 I^))

1 recall correctly, this was a document produced later in 2 response to a Congressional inquiry whan the Office of 3 Investigations reviewed their prior collection of materials 4 to determine what sort of evidence they thought was contained 5 in it.

6 A I wasn't sure. It was loose in the enforcement 7 file when I went through it last week.

8 Q Mr. Lewis has just informed me that the September 9 '83 OI report does not identify this table of contents, this 10 index does not have that information.

11 A Okay.

.O,,

12 Q This document that you have brought, I have just 13 quickly reviewed, Mr. Beach, SECY 86-30, was this along with 14 the annotated index this you just referred to, in some file 15 you reviewed last week, that is what you said, where did this 16 I come from?

17 A That was in the office of enforcement's file, with 18 the enforcement action relating to Parks, which I was given 19 as -- which I was given as the SECY 86-30.

20 Q You gave us kind of a brief summary, Mr. Beach, as 21 you were reviewing your experience or qualifications and your 22 presence on the team investigating Mr. Parks' allegations, ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage g

I 32485.0 s1 11 0

1 specifically that you were there for a 90-day period and.then 1 l

'l 2 for another 90-day period.. I wanted to you ask whether you j l

3 have -- whether you had previously participated in any 4 investigations in your tenure with the NRC just detailing 5 prior to the Parks investigation. 1 6 MR. JOHNSON: Would you explain what you mean by )

7 " investigations."

8 MR. HICKEY: Well, is that a term you are familiar 9 with?

10 THE WITNESS: Sure.

11 BY MR. HICKEY:

O 12 Q Have you participated in previously, prior to I

13 Parks? 4 i

14 A Not as a participant in the Office of l i 15 Investigations. But when -- inspection and enforcement,

'16 before the Office of Investigations, had to do with 17 investigations, so I did several when I was a resident and as 18 a regional inspector.

19 Q There is in the report that was prepared some 1

l 20 language distinguishing or comparing inspections and 21 investigations. What you did when you were an I&E inspector j 22 before this detail into the Parks one, was that typically l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646

e. _ _. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ -

4 i'

L l

32485.0 s1 12

(')

s-1 called an inspection?

2 A But -- right, but before the Office of 3 Investigations evolved, inspection and enforcement had to do q

4 both investigations and inspections. Naturally, we did I 5 inspections, was our prime mission. But if we had i

1 6 allegations such as a resident has at the site you would do j l

7 allegation follow-up, which would be termed an investigation f

8 and would be written in an investigation report.

9 Q Were the' reports that were prepared from these two 10 kinds of activities different?  !

11 A Yes, one would have been an investigation report;

~'

12 one would have been an inspection report.

13 0 Apart from the title, how did they differ?

14 A One was based on interviews versus an inspection, 15 which was a routine, generally, type of effort, in accordance 16 with the inspection manual; whereas an investigation was 17 following up specific allegations.

18 Q Okay. And you said you had done some of these 19 investigative type activities in your duties as an I&E 20 inspector.

21 A Right, but making -- this is before the Office of 22 Investigations evolved.

f'T L.)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 800-336-6646

32485'.0' sl 13

'O:

1- ~Q Before this?

'2 A Right.

3 Q And would you --;did you have occasion to take

-4 statements from witnesses in the course of interviewing them 5 on investigations?

6 A We would take statements, but it wasn't to.the 7 refined level that the Office of Investigations takes 8 statements. I mean, we would write down basically what the-9 alleger was alleging to, now, there were also investigators 10 who usually. accompanied us, but he had no technical 11 background, so he would generally take the statements and we o 12 would do the follow-up effort.

13 Q Follow-up in the sense of what?

14 A Whatever their specific allegations were, we would 15 go to the site and do the technical part of the 16 investigation.

17 Q Before Parks, had you worked with OI on any 18 occasion?  ;

19 A With OI? No.  !

20 Q Mr. Johnson has informed us that the staff 21 contemplates calling you as a witness in the hearing of this 22 enforcement action involving Mr. Parks. I take it you are ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage

,,,,3,gg 800-336-6646 l 1

'32485.

s1 14 q.

s-1 aware of that?

2 A Yes.

3 Q And what do you understand that you are being 4 called to testify at the Parks hearing, Mr. Beach?

5 A The technical aspects.

6 Q Of what?

7 A Of the appendix D-10 of the OI report.

8 Q And your testimony will be based on information 9 you obtained during the course of your participation in this l

10 investigation?

i

_ 11 A Right.

~

12 Q I want to ask you some questions about your 13 participation in the investigation. I didn't ask you at the 14 outset, I typically do, whether the person I'm deposing has 15 ever been deposed before. This is a new experience for you 16 or have you had the pleasure previously?

17 A I have had the pleasure previously.

18 Q If you find that you have some question in your 19 mind about what I'm trying to get at or what my questions 20 really are asking, please say something to indicate that and 21 we can thrash out the clarity of the questions first before 22 you try to answer it.

/~T U

ACE-FEDER AL R EPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 800-336-6646 l )

32485.0

.sl 15 i i 1 A Okay.

2 Q And obviously, after the deposition is completed 3 you will have an opportunity to review the transcript and to 4 make corrections if you feel the reporter has written 5 something down inaccurately or if you misspoke and want to 6 correct it or something that you said. How did you -- how l

7 were you brought into the investigation of the Parks matter; 8 can you describe for me the early stages of that process?

9 A Well, I was at Comanche Peak on a Friday 10 afternoon, and I received a call from Jim Taylor, who was 11 then my division director, and he told me that he had O 12 received a call from Stella that I had been detailed to the 13 Office of Investigations for 90 Cays. And the following l

14 Monday morning I was to meet with Ben Hayes. And at that 15 point we were given a copy of the affidavit, and Roger Walker 16 and myself and Ron Meeks, the investigator, and Jim Vorse, an l 17 investigator from OI, and Fred, I can't remember his last 18 name, who supposedly was an NRR crane expert. <

19 Q Clemenson?  ;

1 20 A Clemenson were on the way to TMI.

21 Q Can you put a date on this; do you know when it 22 was? .

l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

h 32485.0 s1 16

(")N

't 1 A Late March or early April of '83.

.2 Q Okay. Mr. Parks' affidavit was released on March 3 23, you think it was shortly after that?

4 A Shortly after.

5 Q Did you get some kind of briefing or instructions 6 in this Monday meeting that you participated in with 7 Mr. Hayes?

8 A Basically, Roger and I were told to look not at 9 safety significance, but whether or not procedures were 10 actually being violated, and were also to look at the role 11 the TMI project office was performing at the site. And we

(-) 12 were to, from that review, determine whether or not Parks' 13 allegations were substantiated or unsubstantiated.

14 Q When you say determine whether Parks' allegations 15 were substantiated or unsubstantiated, did you understand --

16 well, let me back up a second.

17 You talked about Roger and I, did you and 18 Mr. Walker have a specific role that was different from the 3 J

19 role of other participants in this investigation?

20 A Yes, we were to accompany the investigators. The 21 investigators were to lead the interviews.

I 22 Q That is Meeks and Vorse?

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347-3700 80(b336-6646

32485.0 s1 17 O-1 A Meeks and Vorse.

l l

2 Q And we were there specifically to address the 3 technical issues that were involved.

4 Q Were you directed to accompany Mr. Meeks and 5 Mr. Vorse on all their interviews, Mr. Beach?

l 6 A No, no, just ones that involved any of the 7 technical issues that were involved; that is, there were some l 8 other investigations that I believe they were looking into, 1

9 that we did not participate.

10 Q Okay. Let me see if I can try to pin down a l

l 11 little bit what your scope was. Some of the allegations of l

') 12 Mr. Parks' complaint were charges that he had been harassed 13 by management for raising various concerns. Were you tasked 14 with investigating those allegations of harassment?

15 A No.

1 16 Q There were allegations in Mr. Parks' complaint 17 relating to Mr. Kunder, serving as then serving at TMI-2 and 18 specifically a charge that he had been identified as mystery 19 man during the accident. Were you asked to look into those 20 allegations?

21 A No, in no way.

22 Q When I say you, I'm assuming that you and l

l ,

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC. ,

_ ,. -~ __  ;

i i

< j.

, I

> , i 1

1 c , .

32485.0 <

., m

~

o 1 a

^ ,

s1 ,. ~

.8; ,

)'1 i '

j be'tr n ot 1 Mr. Walker vem a team t.nd that'that wou .,, J 2 Mr. Walker, you' had the saiae assignnwnt?

3 A Right. Yes. There Ytre, ubme intsrviews --- some

>p , ,

v' j\ j. ,1 4 of the interviews of, say, like people in positicns'such as 5 Thiessing, Ballard, vs would 'r N cPn and RoJer may go, j <- .

6 myself and Vorse may go to see,Ballard,,you know. ,we all [l t e;j 7 four of us were not together for each'l.adividual intervivw, !

l y

, t

,1 .n >- $

8 but as f ar as harassment, myste ry man', tho ? tress t: cow I .

9 balleve that was alleged M Gishel; Roge.tiand,I did not c ,

3. /

10 participate in those pa.rts of'the investiq24t69 i

., t , '.!/'

11 Q Yow about the allegations of Mr. Kir(; did you \',U' 12 have any asslgnment td investigate Mr. King's allegations?

13 A In the secend part of my detal.1, 7 accoinpanied l

, \ >

14 Meeks in the interview of Larry King. 'y,

} .

s.

p ,

15 Il Q Fut when yca started out on thiSs rask') during;the x .

6, ,- b 16 first 90-day period, did you understand '- what did you v i 17 understand about wheth4r', Mr. KInt} s "chims were 'within c; i e . t ,'

, ..  :' oi 18 without your scope of reE$0nsiD:Ijity? e

, / . ,

19 A It really ,nsn't addressed, we were jdit $ssigned Nl n-{

i .

20 to OI to locfc into tp.a allegations an>l make a technical 1. c. (j

,' . , 7 ;

21 determination 'whether or not thel allegations were '

22 substantiated., h O -

lt l

Au-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. .

, , , c. sanonwide con!< =ge

"[

- ~ _

,[

k' 32485.'0 i >

s1 4' t 19 o , t, . 1 O'

I f 3 0 2'n tryino to find out whose allegations?

. -)

/ .., t' 2 A Parks, i

- y 3 Q Only?

4 A King and Gishel statements stere involved, but we 5 really didn't participate in any of those. We were aware of 6 them, and hed, I guess, it was agreed that if we were asked, i 1

7 we would participate. .

8 Q But you didn't understand that you were being 9 charged or tasked to be assessing the validiJf of the points, i 4 l I

~10 complaints that Mr. King made?  ;

l 11 MR. JOffNSdth ' Do you understand the question? i

/7 i i O 12 THE WITNESS: Yes, it wasn't that spedific. ' We j l

\

13 wereawareofotherallegadons. Wa were really originally t

11 - g 14 directed to look into the"f sones involving the reactor ' , i l s l )

15 building polar crane and any other iyeues that we mii;ht s

16 identify during that re"lew.

17 BY MR. HICE.EY: x 1 o -

j 1

1B Q I think I'.m a little confused. As you set out for j

,19 Three Mile Island on this task that you had been delegated 20 to, were you trytng to assess whether what Mr. King said in 21 his allegations and wh'at Mr. Gishel said in his allegations {

l 22 were accurate? , :j O s.

I I

l l

ACE-FEDER AL R EPOWLERS, INC.

,, Nationuia 0 -ne gg y,_,,,,3

$_ _._ ___ _ _ _ _ . _ .______.._____.______.______________d

77 e y q- - 3 L

g. ~g

=>'

32485.0 Y '

y

(-

1 s1 +

'I '

Td.'1 C h 20

.t~

d -l' 'A It was'to determine whether or not procedures were

'i ,

2 or were not being violated.

.q.

, , 3 d I'm not trying to make it harder than it was, but 4 I'm trying to understand what you were asked to do. Your gi #

. s 5 last comments suggests to me that your focus was determining

%i ' ) . ..

) 6 whethur or not there were procedural violations and the l;p(

} *\ 7 source of'the allegation or whether something was' referred to 8 in M.v. KingCs affidavit or Mr. Gishel's affidavit or a

f.- 9 Mr. Parks' was not the focus; is that accurate?

i hi, f ' 10 A The most specific -- well, our major concern when-

% 11 we left'for TMI was to determine whether or not procedures 12 were or were not being violated. Whether or not'it was from Y 13 '

the -- naturally most of the discussions centered on Parks, 14 'but there were also the King and Gishel issues that were

)

15 discussed. Let me put'it this way. I didn't have an

-16 understanding, whether or not I'wasn't going to get involved 17 wi.'h t Gishel or King. It was, go resolve whether or not j 18 procedures are or are not being violated at TMI-2 as regards l

7/ 19 she' reactor building polar crane.

20 Q: When you stated that, as you have several times in 21 your last few comments, you stated the issue in a present 22 tense. That is, you were trying to determine whether at the

. O.  ;;

y ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 800-336-6646 m ' -

. .. _ _ _ _ . _. -_ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ - .A

.32485.0 sl. 21 O

1 time you made your investigation procedures were then being 2 violated, is that what.you meant to do?

3 A Right,.right.

4 Q Your effort was to determine the current statntes 5 of procedural compliance?

6 A At TMI-2?

7 0 Yes.

8 A At that specific time?

l- 9 Q And relating to the reactor building polar crane?

=10 A Yes.

11 Q And how did you attempt to undertake this, to O 12 fulfill this mission?

13 A Roger and I sat down with the specific allegations-14 'and wrote a list of what we thought the technical aspects of 15 the allegations involved. And then we formulated a plan as 16 to what we thought, what documents we thought we should look 17 at and who we should interview.

18 Q And you did that by reviewing Mr. Parks' 19' affidavit?

20 A To begin with, yes.

21 Q Did you review some other things in preparing this 22 list of what the technical aspects were?

C:) .

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage

, 33 N

32485.0 isl 22 Q

1 A We reviewed the existing team existing FSA,. final' 2 safety analysis report, and technical specifications.

3 Q. Okay. Anything else that you recall, in this 4 initial. identification of issues' process?

5 A OI, the two investigators had completed, I think 6 they had talked with Gishel at that time, and we read his 7 statement. 4

i 8 Q His statement meaning the affidavit that he 9 prepared?

10 A The results of his interview, and I believe the l

L 11 affidavit was attached.

() '12 Q Imd you prepared out of this, you and Mr. Walker 13 prepared a list of issues to be addressed; and accompanying

14. that, a lis't of documents that you felt should be reviewed 15 and witnesses that should be talked to?

16 A Right.

17 Q Do you know where that list or lists went?

18 A I threw that away a long time an ago. It wasn't a

19. formal list, it was just for discussion purposes with the -

i 20 investigators, as to who we needed to talk to,'and who was 21 going to go talk to them.

22 Q In the course of your briefing, initiation of this l O ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347-3700 800-336-6646 l

32485.0 s1 23 1 investigation, were you given any instructions or did you q l

2 discuss at all any practice you were going to undertake with

, 3 regard to obtaining documents, or not retaining documents?

l i 1 4 A I believe we made copies of each procedure that we q 5 looked at, or any memorandums that were looked at, and were l 6 filed with the Office of Investigation after we completed the 7 investigation.

8 Q How about any discussion about keeping notes, 9 keeping working papers, keeping lists, et cetera?

10 A Basically, at least the notes I kept, were the

, 11 input that I had in section D-10 of the OI report.

12 O I didn't understand your answer, the notes that 13 you kept --

14 A Basically resulted in my input to section D-10 of 15 the OI report.

16 Q I'm asking you something a little different. Did 17 you talk with Mr. Walker or with the other members of the 18 investigative team or other OI representatives about what you 19 should do regarding the keeping of notes, during the course 20 of this investigation?

21 A Well, each individual who was interviewed signed 22 an affidavit, so there was -- if we had questions, they were l

l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, } NC.

" # 800-336-6646 202-347-3700

i-

.32485.0 s1 24 (3J 1 asked in the interview, which were documented.

2 'MR. JOHNSON: I think this would be a good time to 3 break for coffee.

4 MR. HICKEY: Let me get one more question since it i

5 fresh in my mind.

6 BY MR. HICKEY:

7 Q Are you saying you didn't have occasion to discuss 8 with Mr. Walker or other OI personnel or OI personnel whether 9 you should retain your working papers or not, wss that 10 discussed?

11 A No, I guess what I'm saying is the way we O 12 performed the investigation, we really didn't leave work need 13 working papers aside from the general review of the affidavit 14 to determine what questions we were going to ask.

15 Q That may be a reason why it was or was not 16 discussed. My question was was it discussed or not?

17 A Not that I can recall.  ;

18 MR. JOHNSON: Take a short break.

19 (Recess.) j l

20 BY MR. HICKEY: I 21 Q Back on the record. During the break I showed the  !

i 22 witness a series of documents previously produced to us by C:) I i

ACE-FEDERAL. REPORTERS. INC.

Nationwide Coserage

32485.0 s1 25 O'

V 1 the NRC in discovery, some handwritten and some typed j 2 questions or comments relating to some of these issues.

l 3[ Mr. Beach, can you help us identify any of these, 4 the top document is a pile -- is a typed document with some 5 handwritten notes attached. Do you recognize it? I 6 A No, I don't recognize. I do recognize the last 7 few pages, like it's in Roger Walker's handwriting.

i 8 Q There is an eight-page handwritten memo that seems l t

9 to be the last document in the pile; is that what you are 10 referring to?  !

11 A Yes. 1 12 Q That is Mr. Walker's, you believe?

13 A It looks like his handwriting, and it looks like 14 they are questions that he asked of Parks.

15 Q How about the earlier documents in that pile, the 16 other handwriting?

17 A I have no idea what the typed -- the other pages 18 simply from deduction must have been Meeks's notes -- I'm 19 sorry, Vorse's, he was the lead investigator.

20 Q You know they are not yours and you don't believe 21 they are Walker's, so you conclude they are probably Vorse's?

22 A Yes, and they are not Meeks' so they must have

(

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC. l l 202-347 3700 800-336-6646

32485.0.

sli 26 O:

'l been' Jim's.

2 .Q There was one other gentleman'whose name appears.

3- in some of these reports?

'4 .A -Wa'lt Rogers.

5 Q Yes?

6 A 'Yes, he was not with us at this time.

7 Q At the initiation of the investigation?

8 A Right.

9 Q Maybe we might mark for purposes of the record 10 ,

just last-eight-page document, that was previously produced

~11 and has the.NRC number on the top, 030287007. And.it's eight-

.O- 12 pages of handwritten notes, which.the witness has identified <

13 as perhaps being Mr. Walker's notes, for an interview of-14 Mr. Parks: That will be Exhibit 1 to Mr. Beach's 15 ' deposition.

16 (Beach Exhibit 1 identified.)

17 BY MR. HICKEY:

1B Q When we were reviewing a moment ago, Mr. Beach, d

'19 the areas that were assigned to you and Mr. Walker, and those y 20 that.were not, I think you told us specifically that the-21 issues of harassment of Mr. Parks and the mystery man issue 22 were ones that were specifically not assigned to you; right?

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

.l. 202 347 3700 800-336 6646

32485.0 s1 27

,~\.

b 1 A' Right.

2 Q Were there others that were excluded from your 3 scope?

4 A I would believe that anything that was unrelated 5 to the technical aspects of his allegations would have been 6 part of the responsibility of the investigators.

7 Q Well, the mystery man allegations had, I think 8 it's fair to say, some technical issues involved in them.

9 Was there any discussion that you participated in as to why-10 you were not going to look into the mystery man?

11 A You know, I can't remember. I'm not sure whether 1

("3

~#

12 the chairman told us to stay out of it or whether Hayes told 13 us to stay out of it, but it was -- I do remember we were 14 specifically directed not to look into that area of the 15 allegation.

16 Q In evaluating the technical aspects of Mr. Parks' 17 charge, did you understand that part of your test was to 18 assess Mr. Parks' credibility?

19 A A lot of his credibility, I think, would hinge on 20 whether or not the specifics of the allegations were 21 substantiated or unsubstantiated.

I 22 O I'm not sure I understand your answer.

O 1

l l ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

saiionwide cmerage l ,,,,gg ggg_,33 33,3 ,

l l

32485.0 si' 28 1

10 1 A We were never told to, specifically one way or the-2 other, to'look at whether or not Parks-was credible. What

~

'3 I'm saying is, I-would think that a lot of his credibility 4 would be, if the-allegations were substantiated,.certainly he 5 would appear to be more credible than if they were not.

6 Q Let me show you a couple other documents, I won't' 7- mark them until I hear your answers, but here is a document i 8 listing issues from Parks' affidavitLwhich was previously 9 produced in discovery. I.will ask you1to take a moment and 10 see if those look familiar to you.

s

~

11 A These do not look at all familiar, but this O 12 appears to be documentation from the TMI project office, l 13 where they assign certain specifics of the affidavits to 14 individual people. I see Tom Poindexter was'the 15 coordinator. All these people worked in the program office.

16 Q Those were not documents that you used or were i

17 familiar with during the course of your investigation?

18 A No. I personally have not seen these.

19 0 The documents that I showed you earlier had some 20 categorization or. code letters by several of these i

21 allegations in both the handwritten and the typed versions.

22 I see this one here is 2P3, and over here is one 11P67, so L '

1 l

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.

Nationwide Coverage ggg

f .(

e :32485.0'

- sl 29 1 on . - Do you know whether those are references to some 2 classification or-coding system by which Parks' allegations 3 were identified?

4 A I have not'seen the coding system. If.I could 5 tell you.whose. handwriting it is I might be able to answer 6 the question better, but I -- that is Roger -- that starts 7 out in Roger Walker's, but stops, I don't know.

8 Q- The rest of it is,-and when you set up your list 9 when you and Roger put up the list of issues to be addressed, 10 you don't recall coding them at 2P6 or --

11 A We had something like you had where we went down, LO 12 asked a bunch of questions, writing them on a yellow pad.

-13 Q. When you went to the island first with your 14 colleague, I guess, Mr. Walker, what steps did you take to l

15 pursue your investigation? 4 16 A First thing we wanted to do was review some of the 17 applicable procedures, and then we would begin to set up l

18 interviews. How detailed do you want me --

]

19 Q A little more than that, if we could. Let me go 20 back to the list that you made up, maybe that is a good way 21 to get into it. You made up a list of' issues that you )

22 identified; correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood you to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage 800 3.4 6(,46

32485.0 s1 30 O

i 1 say primarily by going through Mr. Parks' affidavit. You l

l 2 looked at other documents as well, but that was the basic 3 source of your task. As you went through it, did you attempt 4 to identify all the allegations thai,were in Mr. Parks' 5 affidavit?

6 A What we were originally looking for was a starting 7 point. For example, it was observed that AP 1043 and 1547 8 was something that we wanted to become familiar with. I 9 think those were the first two procedures we asked for. We 10 wanted to look at a sample of ECMs, nothing specific but 11 let's go find out where they keep ECMs, let's review them.

O 12 Let's go find CDPI project instructions, find out what kind 13 of procedures they are, where they came from, get an 14 organization chart. That was the first thing we asked for.

15 So we could figure out who fit in where.

16 Q Okay.

17 A Very general, nothing specific.

18 Q You have a copy of Mr. Parks' affidavit there, you 19 will note that at the beginning he makes some fairly broad --

20 I would characterize them as nonspecific charges, and then 21 gives a bunch of his chronological background of where he 22 worked and when, so on. Am I correct that as you reviewed I)

\s l

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

l 202 347-3700 800-33(r6646 I l

32485.0 s1 31 t]/~

L 1 those pages you did not identify specific items to 2 investigate based on that type of material?

3 A In general, right.

4 Q But as you con,tinued on through the affidavit, 5 where you found something that looked to you to be a 6 technical, an allegation of a technical violation, you tried l l 7 to identify all of those and put them on your list to be 8 looked into?

l 9 A Well, not each specific one. We are looking, 10 because, for example, if I make an allegation to you_and I 11 tell you unit work construction so and so is misclassified, 12 if I don't understand what a unit work instruction is, it 13 may, in fact, be the case that that unit work instruction is, 14 in fact, misclassified but every other single one at the site 15 s appropriately classified, so we can't go get the procedure

~

16 f>r unit work instructions, see how it tied into the program 17 controls at TMI-2 and familiarize ourselves with some other

]

I 18 unit work instructions before we went to the specific ones 19 that were identified in Parks' allegation.

20 Q Okay. That tells me how you planned to address )

21 the issue that you identified, and I understand you to be 22 saying that you were not limiting yourself to the specific,

( l I

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide CoveraFe 800-33(*6646

32485.0 sl- 32 10 1 to-a specific claim-that Mr.. Parks may have-made. If he 2 pointed to a particular document as being improper or at' 3 issue, you-wanted to ask more broadly was it a 4 one-in-a-million happenstance or was it a common practice?

5 A Right, exactly.

i 6 Q Let me.try one more time to focus you on one more .

7 question, which is, as you attempted to identify _the issues 1

8 that Mr. Parks' affidavit, did you attempt to break out from 1 9 his affidavit and put on your list of things to be addressed l-10 each technical allegation that he made when including 11 harassment and when including the mystery man, but excluding O 12 those did you attempt to identify it and address it or.did 13 you feel that some were insignificant or a matter of opinion, 14 or for whatever reason there were some that you'said from the.

15- start we are not going to look into these, we will look into 16 those, but not these. That is my question.

17 A Okay. We did do that. But not in the beginning. l 18 In the beginning we were looking at the more general program, i

19 to see how everything fit together, because you can't ask any 20 questions if you don't understand the controls that were 21 being used.

l 22 0 Yes. When -- at what stage did you make that kind O  ;

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage 33 6

32485.0 si' 33 rO l

L 1 of' classification or distinction that we just discussed?

i 2 A I would say about.the end of the second week, 3 Roger and I' met with Washington. We sat down with the 4 documents we.had, and looked at the specific allegations.

5 Q And did you exclude some at that point-from 6' further consideration by you?

i 7 A You know, if you are asking did we look at each 1 1

8 and every specific --

9 Q Technical?

10 A -- technical allegation, I would say I don't think 1 11 we'did.

O 12 0 Okay. That is my impression, too. And I'm trying 13 to understand how you made-that cut or what groupings you u

14 made to say we will;~maybe you intended to look at them, you 15 .just didn't get to some of them, I don't know.. But if you. j 16 didn't look at them all, I would like to know on what basis 17 you decided which ones to look at.

18 MR. JOHNSON: It would be easier based on the 19 affidavit if you refresh his recollection by pointing out 20 one --

21 THE WITNESS: Let me give you some -- there were a J 22 lot of problems during this investigation, also. The people i

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage 33 I

32485.0 s1 34 1 at'TMI-2 were concerned by the fact that this was an 2 investigation, and everyone that was interviewed had a choice 3 -of whether or not they wanted their lawyer to be present. A 4 lotLof the documents that were asked for, if you asked for

5. every document that was in the Parks' allegation, especially 6- the memorandums, it was very difficult for some of the 7 organizations to find. You had -- at that time you had-a 8 Bechtel organization, you had a GPU-N organization.

9 Some of the documents, it was lying, you know, may.

10 have been interdepartmental. But it wasn't like you can sit.

11 down today and ask for this document and tomorrow it's' going O 12 to be there. Some dated back to 1982. They were upgrading j 13 their document control system, 1-think, at that time, and 14 they didn't have easy access to -- as I recall, each 15 memorandum was specific to each department. So if you asked 16 for a memorandum, you had to go'to that department to that 17 specific file cabinet and look for the memorandum or 18 document, and a lot of his allegations were memorandums, so 19 we may have decided some aren't relevant to what we are 20 looking at.

21 BY MR. HICKEY:

22 Q Some of Parks' allegations weren't relevant to I

i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

" " E 202-347-3700 800-336-6646

1 L '32485.0 i s1 35 m

i d

1 .what you were looking e.t?

2 A Some of the memorandum and that type, I mean it 3 had no effect one way or the other.

4 MR. JOHNSON: You are talking generally, I will 5 ask you to be mere specific, because I think when you get a 6 meaningful record based on this general statements here --

7 THE WITNESS: The only thing I'm trying to give 8 you a picture that if we asked for every specific document we 9 would have turned the investigation into a seven- or 10 eight-month investigation instead of one that was about two 11 months.

I

'~

12 BY MR. HICKEY:

13 Q Yes, I was really approaching from a different 14 area, which is whether your and Mr. Walker's identification 15 of.the issues, whether you excluded some of Mr. Parks' 16 allegations as not, for whatever reason, being ones that you 17 were going to pursue? '

18 A Okay. L 1

19 Q Can you tell me if you recall whether that was 20 done, you don't remember whether it was done or was not done?

21 A I know there were some we did not look at, and I, i

22 you know, but I guess I'm trying to tell you I don't know j p),

\. 1 l

i ace-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

" " # # "8 202-347-3700 800-3364 646

32485.0 sl- 36 1 -whether it was because'it was difficult to get the document-2 and we decided that it wouldn't have had any relevance-3 anyway, whether it didn't have any relevance period, whether 4 or not we.could have obtained it.

5 Q Do you remember any specific issues that you did

)

6 not address for whatever reason, Mr. Beach,. technical issues?

7 A Yes, you know, in just thumbing through here, I l

8 believe the allegation on the once-through steam generators.

I 9 Q That is on page? j 4

10 A Page 9, 11 Q' Let me find it here. That is an allegation -- -i O 12 make sure I'm looking at what you are looking at -- that is j l

l 13 an allegation in which Parks claimed that he was' working in W 14 late 1982 on preparation for draining the once-through steam 15 generators, and it was difficult because he didn't receive 16 engineering direction, so on? ,

i 17 A Right. i 18 O And --  ;

19 A And as I recall, this also became an issue on 20 whether site operations could use the containment entry 21 procedure to do the draindown or whether they really needed 22 to drain down both generators; I believe this comes up i

, 2 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202,347-3700 800-336-6646

32485.0-

.sl- 37 h

1: several times.

2 Q Well, why did you decide not to pursue this one 3 about' draining the once-through steam generator?

4 A I don't think that if we.would have ever' concluded

5. anything technically one way or the other, it was a general 6 -allegation, there was nothing specific.

7 Q All right. Look on the next -- two pages over,

-8 page 11.

9 A Okay.

10 Q' There's an allegation that beginning at the last

,11 ' paragraph on that page on January 6, 1983 there was a major O

~-a 12 development, et cetera, and continues up at the top of the 13- next page, to discuss this memorandum, disclosing, in 14- Mr.- Parks' words, that there were 30 times more radiation 1-15 under the Unit 2 reactor vessel than had been previously.

16 estimated, and then-he makes some other allegations. Why 17 don't you take a minute and review that.

18 I wanted to ask you whether you did look into the 19 allegation in substance that there had been a discovery that 20 .the radiation level was much higher and that added a sense of 21 urgency in the -- to the meetings that Mr. Parks is talking 22 about on pages 11 and 12.

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202 347 3700 800-336-6646

'32485.0 s1 38.

.( .

1 MR. JOHNSON: I don't understand the question.- I 2 ' den't know how the witness could. You are saying that did he-

'3 look into anLallegation that --

4 BY MR. HICKEY:

5 Q Yes, there's an allegation in paragraph that-6 begins at the bottom of page 11 and continues on page 12 7 where Mr. Parks claims that a particular memo disclosing 8 these high-radiation levels reflected an earlier mistake and 9 that it did not, and then that it added a sense of urgency to 10 do a bunch of things which he apparently thinks was improper

11 or inappropriate?.

O 12 MR. JOHNSON ' What is unclear about the question 13 is whether:he did an investigation as to.whether there was, 14 in fact, a memo on January 6, whether --

15 MR. HICKEY: Okay.. I can clear that typ.

16 BY MR. HICKEY:

17 0 You read the paragraph. Did you investigate any 18 aspect of what'Mr. Parks described in that paragraph?

19 A Yes, we looked at that and discussed with Mike 20 Barrett in the program office.

21 Q What happened next? Did you discuss it with 22' Mr. Barrett and then what?

ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 800-336-6646

32485.0 s1 39 (M

(-) ,

1 A We really, you know, again, the major, our major l.

2 purpose was the reactor building polar crane. This, as I can 3 recall, there was a question about the radiation levels, the i 4 project office was heavily involved in, that was one of their 5 strengths was health physics. In reading it, I don't think

, 6 that we could, the basic allegation says that this memo l

7 created disarray at TMI-2, and we could not substantiate 8 that, nor would there be any way for what we were supposed to 1

9 be doing. Even looking at other technical issues, could we q 10 substantiate that one memo put the project in disarray.

r~x 11 Q You referred to discussing the matter with Lake )

w 12 Barrett. I'm going to show you, well, it has been marked in 13 other exhibits, let me show you what appears to be a 14 statement of Mr. Barrett dated April 13 and 14, 1983, but I i 15 see that it's signed May 20, 1983, by Mr. Barrett; it's the 16 statement following his interview by Mr. Vorse and 17 Mr. Meeks.

18 Did you participate with Mr. Vorse and Mr. Meeks 19 in an interview of Mr. Barrett or just have some discussions 20 with him?

21 A I was not in this interview, but Roger and I 22 frequently discussed things of a technical nature with Lake.

(_)

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTE RS, INC.

Nationwide Cmcrage .

-32485.0

.s1 40 1 Q To get his views or information about various l

2 -procedural and other technical matters?

3 A- Right, and to see what view they had on'certain 4 issues.

5 Q Just to steer you a little bit, Mr. Beach, on page 6 7 of.31, paragraph 5 of Mr. Barrett's memo, relates to the 7 Jack Devine memo-that is the allegation which we read from 8 Mr. Parks' affidavit. Why don't you read to yourself 9 peragraph 5 of Mr. Barrett's statement.

10 A Okay.

'll Q Does that reflect what in substance you were told O- 12 by-Mr. Barrett about this allegation of-Mr. Parks' regarding 13 mistakes in contracting the underhead radiation levels?

14 A Yes.

15 Q In substance, Mr. Barrett told you that Mr. Parks' 16 characterization of the incident was not accurate?

17 A As I recall, yes.

18 Q You didn't pursue it further?-

19 A 7 hat specific --

20 Q Further than talking to Barrett?

21 A I believe that we had already looked at the memo,.

22 and then we went and discussed it with the project office.

-O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 l-L.

i

~324'5.0 8 I sl- 41.

l 1 Q And didn't pursue it beyond that?

]

2 A No. i

-1 3 Q Was it.your view following your discussion with' d 4 Mr.'Barrett that Mr. Parks'had mischaracterized the 5 circumstances-that are described in that paragraph.of his-I 6 affidavit you just read? l

.q 7 MR. JOHNSON: Would you repeat the question.

8 BY MR. HICKEY:

9 Q Sure. Was it your view after discussion with ,

l 1

10 Mr. Barrett and looking into the matter that you-did, that 11 Mr. Parks'had mischaracterized the events'he described on-th

.)

12 page '1 and 12 of his. affidavit? {

13 A You mean as far as it.being a mistake or that 14 there was mass confusion with~the project?

15 Q. In any way did,you think he had, and you can 16 explain which way you did, if you understand?

17 A I think our conclusion was basically even.if the 18 radiation levels were higher, it really didn't have relevance 19 to the issues that we -- we could not establish that the 20 project was in disarray at that time, due to 30 times more 21 radiation under the vessel or reactor building polar crane.or

-22 anything else. We were satisfied with Lake's explanations ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347-3700 800-336-6646 Q-___________

32485.0 3 sl' 42 1

\

9em i

%)(

1 and-felt that he was aware of the issue.

'2 0 .Did you determine whether it was accurate that ) 1 1

3 there was 30 times more radiation under the reactor vessel .J l

4 than they had previously estimated?-

)

i 5 A That was the problem. We had no way of- j 6 determining that one way or the other.

7 Q Okay. Well, let me ask my question one more j 8 time. .Did you conclude after reading this material on pages 9 11 and-12 of Mr. Parks' affidavit, your review of documents 1 l

10 and your-discussion with Mr. Barrett, that Mr. Parks.had ,

. 11 mischaracterized the events he described in that portion of )

(:)-_ 12 his affidavit?

5 13 MR. JOHNSON: I think he answered that question by l 14 saying that he didn't make a determination one way.or the .

)

15 other because he didn't think it was relevant. l 16 MR. HICKEY: I didn't hear him say the first part 17 of that, j

18 THE WITNESS: I couldn't say, if I don't make a 19 determination I can't say that he mischaracterized it.

20 BY MR. HICKEY:

21 Q So the answer is you didn't determine one way or 22 the other?

O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.

Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646, c _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _

32485.0 s1 43 k

1 A Because we couldn't.

2 Q Let me ask you to look just briefly at three pages 3 further on, page 14 of Mr. Parks' affidavit. It's the second 4 paragraph I want to focus on, because he is talking about a 5 meeting when he starts the first paragraph.

6 A Okay.

7 0 I'm referring specifically to the allegation 8 Mr. Parks makes that at a January 14 meeting, site operations 9 requested that design engineering consider and evaluate 10 storing the missile shields on the A-team generator, but that 11 that suggestion was rejected because it could delay the polar O#

12 crane schedule. And there's --

13 MR. JOHNSON: Where is that?

14 BY MR. HICKEY:

15 0 As it continues, at the meeting they also asked --

16 site operations also asked that design engineering evaluate 17 double rigging the crane for missile shield lifts to increase 18 the safety margin and minimize the chances of load drop, but i

19 this request was also rejected because it could significantly 20 delay the polar crane load test. Did you look into either of 21 those two issues, Mr. Beach?

22 A The issues here really involved scheduling and O

\~J ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 800-336-6646

'32485.0 s1 44 l

(

2 whether or not the -- it would, of course, be significant if 2 the schedules were being proved up at the expense of not 3 doing -- at the expense of safety, let's put it that way.

4 These two allegations, from our standpoint, if we had looked, 5 if we had spent time looking into it, it could delay the 6 polar crane schedule, it could delay the polar crane test.

7 I don't think that we could really substantiate 8 one way or the other whether or not the allegations are valid 9 or invalid from a regulatory standpoint, the safety 10 significance of the issues are schedules being pushed at the 11 expense of safety, other issues that we felt were more 12 important.

13 Q Does your answer mean that you did not look into l 14 the specific charges in these two paragraphs, the second and j l

'l 15 third paragraphs?

16 A During some of the interviews, I think we may have 17 asked a related question from some of those concerns in the 18 January 14 meeting, but as far as specifically looking into 19 notes or other specifics of that allegation, no, we did not.

20 Q And do you recall whether you discussed it in your 21 final report? I think you did not, but -- l 22 A No, no.

(2) ,

1 ace-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700

  • "" K00 3364646

l l

32485.0 s1 45 l

(

l Q No, you don't recall or no, you didn't?

2 A No, we did not discuss it in the report. l 3 MR. JOHNSON: In the report, what are you I

4 referring to? ,

1 5 MR. H1CKEY: September '83 D-10.

l 6 THE WITNESS: Appendix D-10. Also, I would say j 7 that from the NRC standpoint, if -- whether the crane was 8 double rigged or not was, there was nothing that said from an l 9 NRC requirement standpoint that the crane had to be double 10 rigged, obviously iust had to be adequate to carry the load.

11 BY MR. HICKEY:

O 12 O In other words, it was not to your knowledge a 13 regulatory requirement?

l 14 A Right.

15 0 I realize that you responded already to some ,

16 questions I have asked about these two paragraphs, but I'm i

17 trying to understand your response. Bear with me just a 1

18 minute. You didn't address these two particular paragraphs 19 that we have just been talking about and I think I heard you 20 say that one reason, or maybe the only reason that you didn't 21 was because you didn't feel that this -- I'm afraid I'm not 22 going to accurately paraphrase what you said. Would you ACE-FEDERAL REronTEns, INC.

l ,g gg Nationwide cmcrure ggg, l

u ;- -

~

x. .

p- y_,,c-,

y,.9, 4,,

p'h

, , ./ , L J ;p e .

n 3 , ,. # - ) '

I 32485.0 /' I/' ,

s1 -

.i I

,45 / s LO ,

4 3

- 'N, '

1 respond one more time.* Why didn g you pursue these two 2 prov$nions? '

, ,-y ( c ,, ,

r h 3 ~MR.' JOHNSOU :' Ceuld we have,the answer-read!back? j i  ! ,4 ,

), y o  ;.l l 4 You are asking hint to repeat what he said4 I '.h: may not k.

7

! r , ,1 g, l

5 remember what.he said. Cari we heAs 4the anever read back? ~4 L

i ,

6 MR. HICKEY: Sure, pal.

tc 7 (The' reporter read the record as 5equested.)

8 BY MR. HICKEY: t h '

, ,, 1 ,-

f 9 0 An I correct that what 3ou were expressire

o. _y .,

10 Mr. Beach, was that you didn't look into thoss istuos'beause

~11 you didn't think you would be able to resolve thera?

O 12 A Whether or not a sc$ea.11o is delayedLis not a 13 violation or a c'oncern of th Nk.' g mlent there is a. nafety-( ,/ (  ! w x 14 ' concern, and there's certainly,nothing('t. hat says;1t might be  ;

i , ,

15, nice to double

  • riscjp crane; it.n 'doesn't have to. W *y have- ,

16 adequate controls to epiure thabuhr they\yre un,tig, the ,

.I 17 r;tggAng they are using is adequate, witE adeh,uate safety '

18 margins for what they are lifting.

t So.to-look at those two i '

.[]

19 allegations, your end result would be whether oc no; the --

t >

20 '

the conclusion would be whether or not U 'sc6;4.A @ was Velayed J 21 andthatisnotofagreatconcerntotgeNRCp!

f 22 Q Uelf, .3taying on tihe double' rigging the crane, so O .

e t y < 1 o ,'-

l ,

y ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. >

> 202-347 3700 ( 800-h6646

'?.

_______,__-..__m --- .._.u lj

r ..

[

, 1 ', -

~

?.., b 3MG5.0 4iO

' ^

sti .

+i 7 1 r l ~ N.)s ,  ;

), we can focus our discussion a little more precisely, s, .

b i

.2 Mr. Parks says that the decision to evalun,te double rigging,' j t

1 3 the crane for missile' shield lifts was made and the decision I\

l i t 44 was to reject that evaluation,<not to perform that ,

5 evaluation, because it could significantly delay the load 6 test, and I understand tha2. Correct me if you think -

7 differently; Mr. Parks is saying it was not evaluated on the f ,

Fj merits, somebody didn't say I don't think it's necessary to I' .

.. 0 i l 0' double rig the crane because of some other technical' reason. '!

10 Mr. Parks cle.ims that the decision was based on the fact that.

. 11 itwoulddelaythkloadtest; that is what you understand 1 ,

] 1

' 12 from this allegation?

s s ^

13 i A Yes. - i '1 14~ Q You didn'a think thet was of regulatary N 4g

, 't 15 significance sufficient to warrant your investigating?

\

16 A Right. '

]

17 Q And tle reason for that? ]

18 MR. JOHNSON: I think he answered your question.

4 19 BY ER. HICKEY: ,

.,; i 20 0 That is the prioC answer you gave? j

r.  ;

21 A I think so', I hope so.

22 Q Al right. Let me ask you one or two more here.

O 1 l i 1

\ l l

ace-FEDER AL R EPORTERS, INC.

3 . ,.;,, , sanonwide cmerage ,gg33,,,,,

@g '

w

,32485.0' s1 48 1 Ch page~19 of Mr. Parks' affidavit, at the bottom, the last 2 paragraph, there's an allegation that at a particular meeting 3 on. February 15, there was a discussion of the polar crane 4 jf;unctional description'and Mr. Parks says that_that document, 5 the functional description was, "a Bechtel internal document

.)

] 6 at nhat' time,.not reviewed ~or approved by GPU:or the'NRC, to

  • I 7 my' knowledge." Did'you look into that allegation of 8 Mr. Parks'?

c#

9 A' Yes, we did look at the functional description of-10 tie polar crane.

4. Il 11 Q And did you determine whether or not as of

' ()-

12 February 15 it had been reviewed or approved by GPU or the i

13 NRC?

14 A' We could not make that determination.

.t i

-Q Did you attempt to, but were unable to, or you 15 f 3

'16 ,didn't try?

. h.

17 A We tried. Both from the fact that we got, we-had 18 a copy of the functional description and attempted to look at 19 the review dates, but we couldn't trace it.

~20 0 .What was the problem; it had dates on it on which 21 it had been reviewed?

22 A It had been revised several times. In fact, we O..

1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

" # #"# 800-336-6646 202-347-3700

32485.0 s1 49 1 were given two copies, as I recall, that were supposedly the ,

2 latest revision and they were different.

3 0 Well, had any of the versions been reviewed by the 4 NRC prior to February 15?

5 A I can't recall.

6 Q Let me ask you also, Mr. Beach, to look on page 17 l

l 7 of Mr. Parks' affidavit. I'm really trying to take a couple 8 of examples to see if they help identify any principles or r

9 broader approaches, but look at the last paragraph on page 10 17, it continues en to the next page, would you read that l 11 paragraph please.

12 A Okay.

13 Q Did you investigate or attempt to evaluate the 14 allegations that are made in that paragraph of Mr. Parks' 15 affidavit?

16 A We looked at the polar crane safety evaluation.

17 MR. JOHNSON: If I understand the question 18 correctly, he is asking you whether you looked into this 19 memorandum issued by the manager of the plant engineering; is 20 that correct?

21 MR. HICKEY: Yes, the allegation seems to be, 22 Mr. Beach, that this memorandum, at least, charges that many l

ACE-FEDER Al. REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Cmerage 33

32485.0 s1 50 1 things should be done and that some things haven't been done, 2 et cetera; in general, raised concerns about it.

3 THE WITNESS: As I recall, I don't remember 4 looking at that memorandum.

5 BY MR. HICKEY:

6 Q Do you remember these, the issues described in 7 this paragraph being addressed with Mr. Gishel by you or your 8 team?

9 A I do not.

10 0 Can you offer any explanations of why that issue 11 was not pursued?

12 A Let me say we may have, and I don't remember, but 13 I would think that I probably would. I think the last 14 paragraph or last sentence, I must emphasize this is within 15 management discretion, there is nothing essentially, it was 16 still a draft SER, and whether or not these -- if they were 17 comments, that is fine, the important thing is the SER that 18 is going to be used and is that adequate. Again, I don't 19 think we would have gained anything by looking into this as 20 to the safety significance of any problems at TMI.

21 Q Did you know Mr. Barrett or other members of the 22 program office before you embarked on this investigation?

ace-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage 800-33fr6646

32485.0 s1 51 1 A No, I did not.

2 Q Mr. Parks made a number of allegations about the 3 activities of the TMI program office. I will characterize 4 them. They were, in general, that there was improper 5 collusion between the program office and the licensee. Were 6 you aware he made those charges?

l '

7 A Yes.

i 8 Q Did you form any opinion about the validity of ,

9 those charges?

10 A I believe we formed a conclusion, I think, that 11 there was not a problem of collusion or things being done d I \

12 underhandedly. The program office was placed in a unique 13 position of being a reviewer of the licensee's engineering 14 documents, almost putting itself in the management chain, and l 15 we did comment as part of the review that the Tempo office l 16 should be given more of, should place itself in a more used 17 to position of regulatory oversight rather than reviewing I I

18 each specific document.

19 Q More typical, is that the idea?

20 A Yes, right.

21 Q Well, Mr. Parks' allegation certainly was that the 2 22 collusion was, to use your word, " underhanded," wasn't it?

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS INC.

" # 'W# 800-3 %-6646 202-347-3700 i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

32485.0 s1 52 0

1 MR. JOHNSON: Would you explain what you mean by 2 underhanded.

3 MR. HICKEY: Well, the witness has used the word 4 and I think we all understand it. It was an allegation of 5 improper collusion with the overtone that that carries with 6 it that it is some violation, some improper way to do things.

7 THE WITNESS: Well, your question referenced 8 collusion, so I -- whether or not Parks indicates a lot of 9 things with regard to his DOL complaint and the office giving 10 away his confidentiality, and --

11 BY MR. HICKEY:

O 12 Q I'm not talking about that. My question to you 13 related to Mr. Parks' other -- I know he makes those 14 allegations, you are right. My question to you related to 15 other allegations Mr. Parks has made; I thought you were 16 indicating you were aware of them. Let me put the question 17 directly. Weren't you aware that Mr. Parks claimed that the 18 TMI program office had an inappropriate, underhanded, 19 collusive relationship with the licensee at Three Mile 20 Island?

21 MR. JOHNSON: Based from the affidavit?

22 MR. HICKEY: Wherever he learned it.

(

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, } NC.

202-347-3700 800-336-6646

i 1

j 32485.0 )

sl- 53

)

O -

-1 THE WITNESS: From his interviews, I would say he 2 had, or has a lot of distrust for the NRC.

3 BY MR. HICKEY:

4 Q That is not quite what I'm asking.

5 A Well, I would assume'that comes from his opinion 6 that there was collusion going on at Three Mile Island.

7- Specific examples of collusion, I can only remember one draft 8 document that he says was reviewed by the NRC prior to it 1

9 being signed off through his management chain. .

10 0 Improperly reviewed, he claimed?

11 A Right.

O 12 Q And did you find that that had been improperly 13 reviewed or not improperly?

l 14 A As I recall, I don't believe that document had l l

15 been fully approved at the time we did the investigation, so 1

'l 16 it was, it was almost impossible to trace each revision and 17 comment because of the systems they had in place of issuing 18 draft SERs. l l

19 Q I understand you stressed that view.that your -I

20. investigation had some difficulties in completing it. It's a i

21 fairly simple question. I want to know whether you agreed or 22 disagreed with Mr. Parks' allegation that the program office O

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-1700 800-336-6646

32485.0 j s1 54 j

1

(/

s_ I 1 was improperly colluding with the licensee at Three Mile 2 Island?

3 A I guess it's a simple question to ask, but I don't 4 think his allegation is that simple, that they colluded based

)

5 on one document. What I'm saying is that we do not, did not '{

l 6 find collusion. I guess I'm disagreeing with you a little 7 bit that he alleged collusion, at least at the time we did 8 the review.

9 Q Page 31 of his affidavit says that some specific 10 minutes of a meeting prepared by Mr. Pastor, "In my mind also 11 demonstrated some collusion with the NRC, which was reviewing 12 procedures before they had all internal review comments 13 resolved."

14 A Some collusion on a procedure review is a lot 15 different than the way you term the question, is Lake Barrett 16 colluding with the director of TMI to -- in this whole 17 process of checks and balances, and I don't believe that is 18 the case.

19 Q You don't believe what is the case, that Parks 20 claimed that or that Barrett was?

21 A Both. I think that he, I think that he does, as I 22 said, have a mistrust for the NRC and what that stems from.

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS. INC.

" " ""E 202 347-3700 800-336-6646

I 32485.0 s1 55 1 Q Th'at-reference that I just pointed'you to with the 2 comment'about collusion occurs in a discussion by Mr. Parks i

3 about inadequacies of minutes not reflecting'the -- not 4 accurately reflecting the meeting that was' described by 5 Mr.' Parks.and that the omissions in Parks' view disguised the-6 serious nature cf the problems and should be considered. Did 7 you look into that allegation, Mr. Beach?

8 A There is nothing that requires that there be, as I 9 can remember, there was nothing that required minutes to be 10 taken of the meeting for management considerations. Again, 11 we tried to look at the things that we felt may have been O

V 12 violations of NRC requirements.

13 Q So that one you did not pursue?

14 A No.

15 Q Let me ask you'to look at page 17 of the 16 affidavit. The first paragraph'on that page talks about --

17 if you want to go back to the paragraph,'according to i 18 context?

l 19 A I'm familiar with this paragraph.

20 Q All right. And it relates to a claim that decay 21 heat removal pumps would be required in a particular accident 22 scenario, but these pumps had not been run or otherwise ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC 202-347-3700 800-336-6646 I

32485.0 s1 56 O

1 tested since the accident and no one knew whether they would 2 work or not. Did you look into that allegation?

3 A We basically looked into the fact of whether or i

4 not there would ever be a case whether those heat removal 5 pumps would, in fact, be needed.

6 Q What did you conclude?

7 A We concluded that they most likely would not be.

8 Q Because there were other pumps?

9 A Yes, there was, there was other ways to satisfy 10 it, if it ever became -- first, we could never substantiate 11 that there was actually a case where they would be needed or O 12 any type of pump would be needed.

13 Q You determined that by evaluating potential 14 accident scenarios, is that the nature of the process?

15 A Yes, we -- at that particular time, as I recall, 16 the project office had had information on this possible 17 scenario, and there was, as I recall, there were other ways 18 to get water to the core other than having to run the decay 19 heat removal pumps which we believe would be an immaterial 20 possibility anyway, most likely.

21 Q Do you recall being aware of some standby pressure 22 control system pumps --

O ACE-FEDER Al REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage

32485.0 s1 57

(_),

1 A Yes.

2 0 -- being available for that purpose, if needed, 3 and something called mini decay heat pumps?

4 A I recall there was three or four systems, in fact, 5 there was one I thought they could hook up similar to the SES 6 system they had, if necessary.

7 Q So your conclusion about this portion of 8 Mr. Parks' affidavit on page 17 was that you didn't consider 9 the accident scenario possible or feasible, at least to the 10 extent that it would require use of any pumps?

11 A Right.

Il

\- 12 Q And in addition, if pumps were needed, there were 13 other available pumps that would be adequate for the task? {

l 14 A Yes. /

15 Q Did you reach any conclusion as to what might have 16 motivated Mr. Parks to put this paragraph in his affidavit?

17 A No, not unless he was unaware there was other l

18 sources available. l 19 Q Assuming that he knew about the mini decay heat I 20 pumps and the other pump sources, do you have --

21 MR. JOHNSON: I object to the question based on 22 speculation; ask him not to finish.

ACE-FEDER AL R EPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 X00-336-6646

I 32485.0 s1 58

)

i 1 'BY MR. HICKEY:

2 Q I haven't asked the question yet, and I think 3 there is evidence in the record that he was aware of the mini l 4 decay heat pumps because he worked on them. The question is 5 assuming.Mr. Parks -- I'm asking you to assume that Mr. Parks 6 knew about the existence of these other pumps, did your 7 investigation reveal any other basis why Mr. Parks put this E

8 paragraph in?

9 MR. JOHNSON: I object; ask him not to answer that l'

10 question based on your asking him to assume a fact that is 11 not in the record, that is, that Mr. Parks knew that this --

' (,)

12 knew the system, knew that it wasn't necessary. I don't 13 think that is established.

14 BY MR. HICKEY:

15 Q Well, it is in the record. Let me take the 16 assumption out. You previously' answered the question, 17 Mr. Beach; correct me if I'm wrong, that the only theory, the i

18 other explanation you could give as to why Mr. Parks put this 19 paragraph in here is he was unaware of the existence of the 20 other pumps; is that correct?

21 A -Yes, that's correct. l l  ?

22 MR. HICKEY: Just for the record and Mr. Johnson's C:)

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 800-336-6646 .

32485.0 s1 59' LO.

1 information, Exhibit 1 to Mr. Parks' deposition, in his

-2 memorandum of November 3 of 1980 to his superior stating that 3 his responsibilities at TMI included the functional testing 4 of other installed.' plant recovery systems, i.e. mini decay 5 heat removal, so I think there was evidence to support my 6 question, but the witness has answered it.

7 MR. JOHNSON:- My objection.was based on the lack 8 .of -- not on whether there was a system or not, but the. lack 9 of -- Mr.' Beach's lack of knowledge about Mr. Parks' state of 1 10 mind. I 11 MR. HICKEY: I propose we break for lunch at this 12 point. If you want to consult about an answer you just gave, 13 you can certainly break for that. Do you have something you 14 needed to add.

15 THE WITNESS: No, I just didn't understand what  !

16 the problem was.  ;

I 17 MR. HICKEY: Why don't we break for lunch.

18 (Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the deposition was 19 recessed, to be reconvened at 1:00 p.m. this same day.)

20 21 22 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 800-33(r6646

32485.0 s1 60 (v..

1 AFTERNOON SESSION (1:00 p.m.)

2 Whereupon, 3 ARTHUR BEACH

-4 resumed the stand and, having been previously duly sworn, was 5 examined and testified furt.her as follows:

6 EXAMINATION (Continued) 7 BY MR. HICKEY:

8 Q At some point in the course of your investigation, 1

9 Mr. Beach, did you have an opportunity to interview 10 Mr. Parks?

11 A Yes, we did.

'] 12 Once or more than once?

Q

'l 13 A I remember once vividly. I'm not sure if I talked-j 14 to him again. I do know we interviewed him at least once.

15 Q Under what circumstances did you interview -- what 16 are you referring to?

17 A' We interviewed him in the NRC Office of i

18 Investigation headquarters to clarify some of the things that j i

19 he had said in his affidavit after we had been up to the 20 island and had done an initial review. l 21 Q Some interrogatory answers that the staff has l 22 filed indicate that an interview took place in Bethesda on r

l ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC. j Nationwide Coverage gg, 7g 0433We

_ _ _ _ _ .________________w

32485.0 i s1 61 1 April 27 with Mr. Parks. Does that sound like the interview 2 you are talking about?

3 A Yes, that is probably it.

4 Q And you may be aware that we deposed Mr. Meeks and 5 he described an interview on that date. When you interviewed i

6 Mr. Parks, who was present? I i

1 7 A I believe Mr. Meeks, Mr. Vorse, Mr. Walker, 8 myself, I don't believe Walt Rogers was there.

l 9 Q I think Mr. Meeks told us that he believed you and 10 Mr. Walker met first with Mr. Parks and that Meeks and Vorse 11 joined you later. Is that your recollection of the events?

12 A They may have gone in and out. I know -- I 13 thought they were in the interview, but maybe not.

14 Q Who was asking the questions when you were there?

4 '

15 Did you ask Mr. Parks questions?

16 A Yes, Roger and I, for our part. Now, I was not 17 present -- if they had asked Parks any questions, I don't 18 recall being present where they were asking him questions.

19 Q Where Meeks and Vorse were questioning Parks?

l 20 A Yes. )

i 21 Q So that if on that occasion Mr. Meeks and  !

22 Mr. Vorse inquired, for example, about the mystery man or i (

l ACE-FEL)ER AL R EPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646

32485'.0

~sl 62 1 about Mr. Marks' harassment claims, you don't remember

.2 hearing'any.such questions and you probably wouldn't have

.3 stayed for them?

4' A Right, if they had, I wouldn't have.

5 Q Okay. Was Mr.,Devine, Mr. Parks' lawyer, there?

6 A Yes, I'm sorry, he was.

7 Q Did you have questions or notes written out in 8 advance to - of areas you. wanted to cover with Mr. Parks?

9 A I did.not. Apparently the exhibit here, looks 10 like the questions that Roger -- some of the questions ~that 11 Roger had from the review of the Parks affidavit.

'O' 12 Q That is what has been marked Exhibit 1 to your 13 deposition?

14 A Right.

15 Q Did Mr. Walker go through those questions with 16 Mr. Parks on the occasion of your interview?

l 17 A I don't know if it was these specific ones, but 18 several of the questions that are in this exhibit were asked 19 by Roger.

20 Q You do recall some of them specifically, I take 21 ft? j i

22 A Yes. I O

l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

" " " * " E 202-347-3700 800-336-6646 4

_____.m__ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _. _

~3 2485.0 sl~ 63 1

'l Q Which ones?

2 A' Number 3, number 7, number 11, 18.

3 Q Let me stop you there for just one moment, if I 4 .may. I realize you haven't completed your. answer, but'while 5 we are on'18, do you remember Mr. Walker addressing with 6 Mr. Parks in your presence the claim in Parks' affidavit that.

7 the polar crane test review was a review question; is that I-8 right?

9 A Yes.

10 0 What did Mr. Parks'say in his response to that 11 question?

O- 12 A I believe it was his position that the failure to 13 follow the procedures and satisfy the test spec constituted 14- an unreviewed safety question.

15 Q But as Mr.-Walker puts the question, "Could you 16 explain specifically what aspects of the test were an 17 unreviewed safety question in your mind," did Mr. Parks 18 respond to that?

-19 A I can't remember what his specific answer was, 20 except that he believed that the. failure to follow the 21 procedures and.not satisfy the tech specs were, in fact, an 22 unreviewed safety question.

- (:r ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

" * " #'"E' 202-347-3700 800-336-6646

32485.0 s1 64

/~T V

1 Q The unreviewed safety question phrase that you are 2 using you were talking about -- you and Mr. Walker were 3 talking with Mr. Parks in the context of a specific 4 regulatory phrase; right?

5 A Right, 10 CFR 50.59.

6 Q Did you or Mr. Walker have a view prior to talking 7 to Mr. Parks about whether the polar crane test procedure was 8 an unreviewed safety question?

9 A Yes.

10 Q What was your view?

11 A That it is not.

O' - -

12 Q And you were asking Mr. Parks to explain to you 13 why he thought differently, I take it?

14 A Yes.

15 Q Did he offer anything that persuaded you that your 16 view was wrong?

17 A No, he did not.

18 Q Were you able to elicit from Mr. Parks any 19 argument or chain of reasoning under which he attempted to 20 explain his theory? ,

21 MR. JOHNSON: Asked and answered, he already said l 22 he doesn't remember any specifics in the answer he gave.

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage

,, 800-336-6646

- -_ i

32485.0 l s1 65 )

/~ l

T >

1 BY MR. HICKEY:

2 Q Well, see if a more specific question prompts more 3 of his memory. Do you remember putting forth any expression 4 of reasoning or argument or position as to why you thought it 4 5 was unreviewed safety?

l 6 A I don't remember, you know, I can't remember'the 7 specifics, except, I mean, it's my opinion, 8 MR. JOHNSON: He is asking what you remember.

9 THE WITNESS: From what Parks said, I do not 10 remember, except I thought he had an inappropriate 11 interpretation of the requirement, r~s ,

'- 12 BY MR. HICKEY:

13 Q And did you happen to discussion with Mr. Parks in 14 this conversation about the unreviewed safety question the 15 fact that Mr. Parks had agreed that the matter should be 16 addressed by the licensing department at TMI; that is, 17 whether there was an unreviewed safety question?

18 i MR. JOHNSON: I'm not clear on the question.

19 Would you repeat it.

20 BY MR. HICKEY:

21 Q When you discussed this subject with Mr. Parks, 22 did you discuss with Parks the fact that he had agreed that r~s .

')

\

I I

1 i

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 800-336-6646 u________._

1 l

~ 32485.O' i s1 66 1 the matter, whether it was an unreviewed safety question,-

2 should be addressed by the licensing department? R 2-A I remembered that from his affidavit. i 4 Q You remembered what from his affidavit?-

Th'at he said he believed.the issue -- that he'was 5 A' 6 willing to leave-the issue with the licensing department.

7 Q Okay. Let me ask you to go back. You were~

8 ~ identifying questions in Exhibit 1 that you remembered l 9 Mr. Walker and you discussing with Mr. Parks when you met-i'-

l 10 with him and you got up to 18 when I stopped you, i

11 A Right. This is just -- I remember we discussed

'O 12 the stop work order, number 23.

13 Q What do you remember Mr. Parks saying about that?.

l 14 A I believe he did not -- that he had had no 15 response from QA on that issue.

16 Q I take it what you are saying in going through 17 this exhibit, Mr. Beach -- which you have now completed, have i 18 you not?

19 A Yes.

20 0 Is that you have a specific recollection of these 21 questions that'you have identified, the others may or may not 22 'have been asked, but you have a specific recollection?

ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

" " "E 202-347-3700 800-336-6646

32485.0 s1 67

,~'

N,j) .

1 A Right, he may have asked every one, I don't 2 remember.

3 Q Were you taking notes during the interview?

4 A No, I was not.

5 Q Was Mr. Walker?

6 A I don't believe he was.

7 Q Any particular reason why you didn't?

8 A At the time of the-interview with Mr. Parks, as 9 far as I was concerned, we had completed our portion of the l l

10 investigation. i 11 Q I don't understand. When you talked to Mr. Parks, O 12 which you think was on April 27, in your view, you were done ,

1 13 before you talked to him. I don't understand what you are 14 saying.

15 A The issues -- we had made a conclusion, a 1 16 preliminary conclusion with respect to our portion of the 17 investigation of which -- what we believed to be the 18 situation at TMI-2. Okay.

19 0 "We" meaning you and Walker?

l 20 A Right. Roger and I discussed some additional l 21 issues that could be looked at that may or may not have added 22 to the conclusion that we were looking at, and we felt it O

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347-3700 800-336-6646

l o

32485.0 s1 -68

}

1 would.be prudent to talk to Parks before we issued or began 2 issuance of the interim report, okay? Basically what these 3 issues were would have been things that we would have looked 14 at and another trip to the island within the next several 5 weeks.

6 Q Okay, and so before going.back up to'the island 7 for another trip,.you thought it would be prudent -- you and 8 Walker thought it would be prudent to talk to Parks about-thel i

9 additional issues which you thought you might look into if 10 you went back to the island?

11 A Correct.

O 12 Q Did you, in fact, follow through on that?

13 A Yes.

14 Q Did you go back to the island based on this 15 interview you had with Parks?

16 A Yes, and that is when Walt Rogers joined us.

17 Q Okay. But I was asking you why you didn't take 18 any notes during your interview. I think you may have 19 answered it-in an indirect way. Let me try to get it more 20 express. You told us at the start of this deposition-that at 21 the outset you and Roger Walker made a list of issues going l

22 through Parks' affidavit; right? You went to the island, i l

i l

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 s

32485.0 sl- 69 1 reviewed-documents, talked to some people, presumably -- I- l l

2 twill ask you about'that in a minute -- and reached some

'3 preliminary conclusions without talking to Parks; right?

I 4 'A Right.

5 Q Did that cover basically all the issues on your

-- j 6 list that'you had originally made up? l l

7 A We were simply -- yes,_yes. l 8 Q Okay, but then there were some additional issues 9 that_you thought might warrant some further investigation, 10 .not on your'origital list and not based on Parks' affidavit?

\

.11 A Right, these were questions that we felt that-10 12 information wasn't sufficient in the affidavit to 13 substantiate one way or the other.

14 0 Okay.

i 15 A You know, if you'look at specific allegations.

16 Q. And so as to those l'ssues, you decided it would be 17 worthwhile to talk to Mr. Parks to see if he could flesh them 18 out further; is that the point?

19 A Yes.

20 0 Okay. Why didn't you take notes?

21 MR. JOHNSON: Objection. Why he didn't take notes

-22 or did take notes is irrelevant.

i ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC. {

l 202-347-3700 800-336-6646

32485.0 s1 70 v) l 1 MR. HICKEY: I don't think it's irrelevant at  !

2 all. It's relevant to what kind of information he got, how 3 he preserved it and who made the statement.

4 MR. JOHNSON: I think we had this discussion in 5 light of the pending request for deposition of Mr. Meeks.

6 The judge determined that the reasons behind the notetaking 7 or non-notetaking were irrelevant. Unless you can link some 8 kind of point with respect to reasons for follow up or 9 judgments about the merits of the allegations that Mr. Parks 10 was raising, I think this is totally off base. The internal 11 workings of the investigation are not what is at issue here.

b 12 BY MR. HICKEY:

13 Q Mr. Beach, I heard you say earlier when I asked 14 you the first time why you hadn't taken notes your answer was 15 you had made a preliminary conclusion about what we believe

~

16 to be the position at TMI-2 and you have gone on to elaborate 1

l 17 from that you had some additional issues that you thought you i 18 wanted to talk to him'about. And I'm trying to link those 19 two factss that you have given as an answer. You had made a 20 preliminary conclusion, but you wanted to talk to him about j l

22 o d t te I te 1 n y n rsta d o

l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

20L347-3700 800-336-6646 L________________ _ _ _ _ _ _

l

- 3 24 8 5 ~. 0 l s1 71 LO p 1 the answer.

l 2 A What I'm telling you is that as far as I was 3 concerned, if you are saying why didn't I take detailed notes 4 on what he had to say, there was not that much that he added 9

5 to the conclusions or the path that we were already headed at 6 TMI-2. Our, Roger and I's, part of the investigation we 7 believed to be completed. With the-interview with Parks --

8 and we wanted to satisfy.as to'how much information he needed 9 or what1he would be satisfied with to close out our portion 10 .of the report.

11 Q Roger and you understood that your part of the 12 investigation was completed. "With the interview of Parks" 13 meaning before the interview of Parks or --

14 A No, Roger and I had pretty well reached our 15 conclusions.

l 16 Q Before you ever talked to Parks?

17 A Right, but the question was did we need to address 18 specifically each individual allegation, and was there

]

1 19 anything that we had outstanding that may have changed any of l.

l- 20 the preliminary conclusions we had reached. And so what I'm j 21 telling you is there wasn't any need to sit there and take 22 detailed notes. If something came up that triggered 1 i l l L I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 800-336 6646 )

32485.0 s1 72

.)

1 something we already knew what we were going to go back and 2 look at. Okay.

l 3 We knew we had some engineering change 4 modifications to look at. We possibly jotted it down and 5 looked at it, but it wasn't one of these where we were 6 interested in each specific item that he had to say. It was i 7 basically clarification of things that were confusing in his l

8 affidavit, or may have conflicted with the documentation that l

9 we looked at when we had been at the island the first time.

10 Q Well, are you saying that it was not thought by 1

11 you what Parks told you was of the sufficiency needed to

() 12 write it down? ]

13 A As I recall from the interview, I don't think 14 there was anything that was stated that changed our 1 l

15 preliminary conclusions. I 16 Q Okay. Do you recall'any discussion with Mr. Parks 17 on this April 27 interview about the -- or Mr. Devine, l

i 18 Mr. Parks' lawyer, about having a court reporter present for 19 the interview?

l 20 A No, I don't.

l  ;

21 Q Were you at the island continually? I mean except 22 for weekends I suppose you had off from the time you went up i

l

()

ACE-FEDER AL R EPORl ERS, INC.

202-347-3700 800-336-6646 l

L _____ - _ __ - ___________ -______

32485.0 s1 73 1 after first being summoned to Washington, going up there with 2 EMI with the team and you were back on April 27 interviewing 3 Parks, were you at the island continually?

4 A No, we were not.

5 Q How much time did you spend up there?

6 A I think we were there about 8 days.

7 Q And during that time period you reviewed

-8 documents, you and Walker?

9 A Right.

10 0 And also talked to some witnesses, interviewed 11 some people?

O 12 A Right.

13 0 Who did you talk to?

14 A Blair Ballard. Do you mean in that time period or 15 later?

16 Q I understand you may have gone back. Let's talk 17 this time period up to the interview of Parks.

18 A As I recall, Blair Ballard. The single --

19 MR. JOHNSON: We are talking about after the 20 interview.

l l

21 MR. HICKEY: No, before.

22 THE WITNESS: Barton, I think. Barrett, not in

{

I l

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 I _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ - _ - _

-__-,,y ,

(l m'

\',

.\

s '

ej' 32485.0 L I' l  :

I s1 's f . ' 74

(~

(>j f. -

1 i. : the -- you know, off and on.'

i

\

2 BY MR. HICKEYr / I i

i

(,

3 Q Not a formal irflerview, but a n$mber of informal,. I 9

F l 4 contacts?

5 A Right, and Kanga.

6 ~) And in eaci case were you accompar2;h0 by either 7 Mr. Vorse or Mr. Meeks, cxcept for the Ba'rrett informally?

t 8 A Yes, yes. . j ,

g, { ..

Where you whn present id (hat n'is ( that item l 9 Q *f l s l 10 noted on the interview repcrt tltd. was attached io the.

11

,. p ,x '

i September '83 report? 'l 0 12 A Yes. (

i .

13 Q So if we want to confirn or jus 2 to cbf c,k your 1i 1 -e l 14 memory, if you were at any other interviewsi-'durin that time 15 period it should be noted on tQe raport of the ir.terviaw?

} +

16 A Exactly. ) *

i. , i s _ s Those are the ones you rek cher?

\

17 Q /

/

18 A Right. t .

19 Q Okay. Then you came back to Bethesda and met with 20 Mr. Parks and his lawyer. Did you then go back td'y ?

,. I' 21 A Yes, Roger and Walt Rogers Aere up, wdnt back for 22 l a couple weeks. I went at the and of that review.'( .

i (q/

e n k

l ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

t i Nationwide Cmerage g{

f o l

____________________.__l

, , ay z ,+

w r

v ,

.s},

, a; '

qo

~

9 ,

jt 32'485.0' 3 l, .

, ;I

'... s1 u

?p 75' I

^

O: -

1- Q .At'the end of the corsple weeks spent by Walker and w g 3 L

2f,' Rogers? ,,

I 3 iA Right. And then I was--- because of Comanche a

i'4 4 PeaksS I lsah.'at that hearing for most of' dune,~and when I went

5 back:to OI after the Comanche _ Peak hearing,'it was basically 6 "i. d.nalizingthereport. And we also completed interviews ,

5 4

+

7 whichIaccompaniedMeeks;o.nwithArnold,Kanga,harton,I ]-  %(

)

t

~8 think. There may have been ond or two more. I can't'!

- u i r 9 remember. 4' i

~ l'0 Q Late June, Larry King?

s } ,. 1 11 a

'A Right, and Larry King, you are right.  !

O 12 Q What did' Rogers and Walt -- I'm so ry, ~ Ro, ger - ,

13 Walker and-Walt Rogirs go back to pursue? \

.b

.14 A The'bi,ggest thing-we wanted to pursue which we ,

didn't feel like w\e had completed was the engineering'Achange; i .

a 15~

16- modification program. . ,

e , 3 i

.17 Q And what specifically about that were*you looking 18 into? Well, let me put,it this way.,.In the first round,jif 9

a 19 I can call it thdt, up until April 27, did you look hito t.ne, 20 engineering change modification program and issues related-to  ;

21 it? , ,

g 22 A We started to, okay, and we were having trouble )'

O L

R 1 .

1

'; 't

} ,

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, IN.C. f

^

202-347./ 60 -

W)-33M646 - '

i

i

( 1 3

-3248540-sl c w ,

76 s

1-M getting the packages, so we went back to Bethesda. Then it 4

2 was our intent to complete that portion of the investigation, 3 which I believe we left -- we may have left the numbers with 4 the site and had those packages pulled for us whenever we got j 5 back.

6 3 Q < Did you go back to review them or is that what

\ /~ Walker and Rogers did?

i G A Walt Rogers went back to take my place to help do

.., 9 that;.

10 Q Because you had to go back to Comanche Peak?

11 A Right.

12 O What conclusion or preliminary conclusion, if you )

{

13 would like to still characterize it, had you reached about j

+

14 ' the ECM program at the time you finished your first session 15 at the island up until April 27?

16 A We only had -- at that point in time, we could 17 only verify the unlike for like substitutions of the polar I

, I 18 crane and we wanted to insure that other ECMs in other 19 systems had not been misclassified or other procedures had 20 not been followed.

21 Q And when.you interviewed Parks on April 27, did he 22 give you any additional examples or direction or factual O

1, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

u_--

[ 2c2 347-37oo 800-336-6646

32485.0 s1 77

!O-1 'information'to point to additional ECMs that had not been 2 properly done?

4 3 A No, he didn't. No.

'4 Q Had you begun drafting any of your report before 5 you met with Parks on April 27?

6 .

A I had drafted my input.

7 Q How had you and Walker divided it up? What was 8 your input? Were you going to do certain sections or certain 9 subject matters or what?

~10 A At that point in time, we were -- at that point in 11 time, I was writing up the report of our findings concerning 12 violations ~ relevant to the polar crane. Roger was basically.

13 looking to make sure that we had all the bases covered with 14 regard to the allegations and procedural violations of the 15 polar crane outside of the ECM process.

16 Q You said you were writing findings on the polar 17 crane. Did you mean specifically on the ECM part of the 18 polar crane?

19 A No, no, we had a basic conclusion on the polar 20 -crane, but we wanted to look at the whole ECM process in it's 21 entirety.  !

k 22 Q Right, but in terms of drafting the report, you )

t ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

a> 202 347-3700 800-336-6646

32485.0 ,

s1 78 i

O -

l 1

1 were writing up a' discussion of the.ECM process in.the polar l 2 crane area for one subject? .

t 3 A Yes.

4 Q. And were you writing up something else?

'5 A Yes, preliminarily, I was writing up what we had 6 found or at least my input of our findings up to that point.

D 7- Q On what subject, though, on everything?

8 A Yes, on the procedural violations relevant-to the 9 reactor building polar crane.

10 Q Okay. What was Roger doing?

11 A Roger was looking to make sure that we'had covered-0 12 the general parts of the allegations to make sure that we had.

13 not left out anything significant.

14 Q General parts of the allegations meaning going 15 beyond the-polar crane?'

16 MR. JOHNSON: This is unclear. Are you talking 17 about the report writing or just anything?

18 MR. HICKEY: I'm talking about the report writing.

19 MR. JOHNSON: I don't think you are focusing on 20 that.

21 BY MR. HICKEY:

22 Q You drafted one part and I thought Roger drafted ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

" # E 202-347 3700 800-336-6646

__ I

32485.0 s1 79 1 something else?

2 A Yes, eventually, at -- preliminarily, at this 3 point in time, Roger wasn't drafting. He was making sure 4 there wasn't anything else with regard to the affidavit we 5' needed to look into where more specifics might have better 6 . defined some of the allegations.

7 Q Okay.

8 A We felt that was our obligation. We didn't want 9 to leave anything hanging. But again, I want to clarify that 10 does not mean we specifically looked at -- that we felt it

. 11 was necessary to look at each and every specific allegation 7

12 that Parks had made.

13 Q No, because I understood this morning from your 14 answers that were several allegations -- we pointed to some 15 that you did not look at?

16 A Right.

17 O All right. So Mr. Walker and Walt Rogers, in your 18 place, went back to the island after April 27 and did this 19 further looking into matters. And when do you come back into 20 it? You come back in late June or July and do some more 21 interviews?

22 A I came -- I believe that I went back up to the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 80(b336-6646

l 32485.0 s1 80 0

1 island the end of May, and then all of us went back to 2 Bethesda. I went to Comanche Peak. I think the 3 investigators continued in their investigation, and I don't l l

4 think -- I think that was the end of our presence at TMI. I 1

1 5 I'm talking about the technical people. As I recall, we met l 6 back in Bethesda in July to finalize the report.

7 Q Okay. You told us this morning you had two 90-day l

\ l 8 assignments to this task. If the first one was around late 9 March, early April. That would take you through April, May ,

10 and June, and they you got another 90-day assignment?

11 A Right.

O 12 Q Did you work the full second 90-day to your -- on 13 this project, which would, I guess, be July, August and 14 September?

15 A Yes, most of the time was finalizing the report 16 and doing -- just accompany the investigators in their 17 interviews.

18 Q Were you brought on these interviews in this July 19 time frame to serve as a technical resource person for the 20 Meeks or Vorse?

21 A That's all.

22 Q You hadn't sought these interviews for yourself to O

Acn-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

32485.0 s1 81

'(}

1 help you write your. report?'

2 A No, we had already reached our conclusions. In 3 fact, as I recall, Walt was back.at his site and Roger was 4 back in-the region, except for.the time of writing the-5 report, in that second 90-day period, and because I had tx) 6 leave for~ Comanche Peak, they felt obligated to go ahead.and 7 extend me 90 days.

8 Q How much time did you spend in that second-90-day 9 period writing the report? You spent some time doing some 10 interviews'you-told us, but how much time did.you spend

'11 finalizing the report, as'you put it? Writing?

12 A I would say.we -- several. weeks.

13 0 Who was participating in that process?.

14 A Roger, myself, Walt Rogers, Gene Galligher from 15 ' OPE, Meeks,.Vorse, with input from Roger Fortuna and Bill 16 -Ward on occasion, who were Hayes deputies.

17 Q Did you have input from Mr. Galligher with regard 18 to what ended up being Section D-10, the technical portion?

19 A Yes, he didn't provide input, he just overviewed 20 the report.

21 Q You are talking about the whole OI. report?

22 A No, just D-10.

O-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, Nationwide Coverage 33

lW 32485.0 s1 82 1 Q 10h, you are talking about just D-10?

2 A I will explain the organization to you. OI 3 reported directly to the Commission. The technical arm of 4 the Commission at that time was OPE, so Hayes requested 5 somebody from OPE to review the report, from a Commission 6 office, from a technical standpoint, over and above our 7 technical input.

8 0 Okay, with Mr. Meeks and Mr. Vorse, did-they 9 participate in or review or edit Section D-10 of the report?

10 A Yes.

11 Q And how about Mr. Fortuna and Mr. Ward?

12 A On occasion.

13 Q During the course of the first time you spent at 14 the TMI up until April 27 when you interviewed Parks, did you 15 have any arrangements made to get information that was being 16 gleaned by other parts of the investigative team? For 17 example, interviews you didn't go to or documents that you l

18 didn't review, but some other member of the team did? Was 19 there some practice you followed to get briefed on that or 20 brought up to speed?

21 A You mean if Roger went?

22 O Yes, if Roger Walker and Ron Meeks went to

)

I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

N"' ""id* C""#"

ommoo mm i

A

32485.0  !

I

's 1 - 83 OL 1 ' interview witness X and you were off interviewing witness Y, 2 ~how did you learn about --

l 3' A Well, we usually debriefed each other,-plus we had 4 the affidavit of the interview.

5 Q When did you complete your work on the report, 6 Mr. Beach?' 1 7 A End of. August.

8 Q Did you review other portions of the report beside 1

9 D-107 I understood you didn't write them?

10 A No. We may -- you know, there.was probably 11 affidavits of individuals that were interviewed that we

'O 12 looked at or we accompanied on, but that written statement 13 was signed..

14 Q By the witness?

15 A Yes, so I mean, as far as, you know, review it or

~

16 anything like that, no.

17 Q So the other portions of the report, aside from ,

1 18 D-10 -- what I'm getting at is you neither wrote them nor 19 reviewed the language for them?

20 A No. I 21 Q When the report was issued, there was a memorandum 22 from Mr. Hayes that.was issued with it, a cover memorandum, O

l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347-3700 800-33fr6646 i

ai_____________________ __ J

32485.0 s1 84 I .

1 for want of a better word. Did you review or participate in 2 the preparation of that document?

3 A To the best of my knowledge, I did not.

4 0 When you finished your work at the end of August, 5 did you then go back to Comanche Peak?

6 A Well, I went back to my division, not specifically 7 Comanche Peak, but I think I did an appraisal of inspection 8 at Perry.

9 0 After you completed your work in August, did you 10 have further occasion to go back to TMI or be involved in the 11 review of TMI work, except for this 1985 PAT observation that 12 you told us about?

13 A Well, right, we did not go back to the island. We 14 were still involved, at times, with responses to the staff 15 document to the interim OI report.

16 Q Okay. But in terms of any further investigative 17 efforts, let me put it that way.

18 A No.

19 Q You were done when you report your report the end 20 of August?

21 A Right. Now let me also clarify, for example, the 22 interview with Arnold and Kanga really never -- I don't O

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

sanonwide coserage ,,,,

,g,,,,,,,

ei

l 32485.0 s1 85 O

1 believe it ever changed anything that we had written in the 2 report. You know, I was simply accompanying OI in the course 3 of their interviews to complete their investigation. But 4 technically there was nothing that Arnold said or Kanga said 5 that changed anything factually in the report.

6 Q Well, I think I understand what you are saying.

7 I'll try to clarify it this way. You said earlier that you 8 really had written up a preliminary draft around the end of 9 April, right?

10 A Right.

11 Q Were there substantial changes or significant O 12 changes between what you wrote at the end of April and what 13 you ended up writing in your part of D-107 14 A Yes, there were significant changes when Roger and 15 Walt got back from their ECM reviews.

16 Q That was material you had not addressed?

17 A That's right.

18 Q They were looking at new material you had not 19 addressed?

20 A Right.

21 Q But I guess -- maybe I can put it this way. Did 22 you change the views expressed in your preliminary draft from O

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS. INC.

Nationwide Cmcrape

_ 800-336-6646 i

-)

0 32485.0 slb 86 2;0

.1 , .the way'they. ended up in the final?

2 A No.

3 Q You referred a. moment ago, Mr. Beach -- let me' i

4 just kind of pursue the chronology here with you.- I know you-5 brought with you a copy of the staff document which is SECY 6 84-36, which I think is dated, like, January 25, 1984. And 7 that document reflected staff comments on the OI interim 8 . report; right?

i 9 A Yes.

10 Q You got a copy of SECY 84-36 when'it was' issued?

11 A Yes.

12 Q Were you aware of it before then, before it came 13 out?

14 A No.

15 0 And you said you had some participation in 16 responding or commenting on'it; right?

17 A Right.

18 Q I will show you copies of these documents if you 19 don't have them and if it will help, but just to put the 20 chronology in context, on February 3, 1984 there was a notice 21 of violation issued by the Commission, the letter signed by 22 Mr.'DeYoung, the director of the Office of Inspection and '

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 800 336-6646 w___-__. _ _ _ - _ _

32485.0 sl 87.

1 Enforcement on~ behalf of the Commission?

2 A Right. I have that one.

3 Q Okay. And you were aware of that when it came 4 out, were you?

5 A Yes.

6 Q Shortly after the notice of violation was 7 prepared, did you and Mr. Walker issue an assessment of the  ;

l 8 SECY 84-36 document?

9 A I believe we did.

10 Q And that was the process you described a moment 11 ago, that after the staff document came out you were involved s

tJ

\~ 12 again in reviewing it and commenting on it?

13 A Yes.

14 Q How did you do that? Did you and Mr. Walker get 15 together somewhere to go over the SECY document or did you 16 just --

17 A We met at headquarters, yes.

18 0 Who else participated in that?

I 19 A Basically it was just Roger and I at that point.

20 Q Had you had any participation in the discussions 21 relating to the issuance of notice of violation?

22 A No.

l ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 800-336 6646

32485.~0 i sl, 88 i 1

. .O. -

.1 Q On February 3?

2 A ,No.

3 Since you didn't bring it with.you,:let me-ask the Q

4 . reporter. to mark as Exhibit 2 =-tio your . deposition, Mr. Beach,.

5 this document which I'm' showing you which is a memorandum 6 ' dated February 24, 1984 to Ben Hayes from R.D. Walker and.

'7 . Beach and ask you:if that is the document you'just referred.

8 to in your testimony.

'9 A Yes.

10 Q And you and.Mr. Beach met in Bethesda and. issued 11 that'to Mr. Hayes?

12 A Yes,-we did.

13 Q Did you have subsequent meetings after issuing 14 that. February 24 memo, Exhibit 2, to. discuss the OI September.

15 '83 report and the SECY document?

16 A Yes, because I believe the staff issued a response 17 to our memorandum, and the chairman told us all to get 18' together and resolve the issues.

19 Q And did you then have a meeting -- I guess I 20 cannot give you a date, but at some point did you meet with 21 representatives of.the staff to further address the issues 22 raised by the SECY document?

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347-3700 800-336-6646

a 32485.0 ]

sl. 89

)

( .

1 A Yes, we did, the OI report.

1 2 Q Let-me ask the reporter to mark as Exhibit 3 to

~

3 .your deposition this April 11, 1984 memorandum.to Mr. Dircks 4 from Mr. Insider, Beach, Rogers, and Walker.

5 (Beach Exhibits 2 and 3 identified.)

6 'BY MR. HICKEY:

7 Q Is that your signature on the second page of 8 Exhibit 3?

9 A It sure is.

10 Q Did the meeting -- I don't remember whether it was 11 one meeting cn more than one, . but was ' it that you -- was it O 12 one or more than one meeting with this group that resulted in 13 the issuance of this memo?

14 A It was one meeting. It was over several. days.

15 0 And then this memorandum was prepared for the 16 signatures of the four of you? ~ ]!

17 A Yes, I might also add that by the time this f 18 memorandum was issued, I had been with the PAT team to TMI-2. l 19 Q Okay. There's a reference in the memorandum --

20 A I believe there is.

21 Q The second paragraph talks about some reliance l

22 being placed on the preliminary findings of a recent

.O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 800-336-6646 b_______1._________

32485.0

" NO 1 performance appraisal team, (PAT) review, of TMI activities.

2 I understood you to say earlier this morning that your PAT 3 participation as an observer at TMI was in May of '85, but it L

4 might have been March of '84,'or maybe you made two trips?

5 A' No, if that's true, then the dates are off a year 6 again.-

7 Q So it-_was before this memo was-issued you were up 8 there as an observer?

9 'A Right,'so I became deputy director of enforcement 10 then in. September of '84. The original dates were right.

11 Q Do you remember when you were at the island with 12 the PAT team?

13 A -I think it'was the -- I think it was the third 14 week of March, which was'.their final week at the site.

15 Q And what did you do while you were there?

.16 A Talked with the inspectors on their finding, 17 talked with the Tempo. office, and sat in on the exit meeting.

18 Q The TMI program office you spoke to?

19 A Yes.

20 Q Were there particular areas that you were focused 21 on or interested in in this PAT review?

22 A Yes.

ACE-FEDERAL REPO"TERS, INC. )

" * "W#

202-347-3700' 800-336-6646

'32485.0 s1 91-1 Q What were they?

2 A Modification process and procedural adherence.

3 .0 Modification process referring to the engineering l 11 change modification procedure?

5 A' Yes. Change memorandum.-

6 Q And procedural adherence in general?

7 A Yes.

8 Q- Juxi the report of that performance appraisal team 9 review was issued then subsequently. Had you.been briefed on.

10 what it was going to say?

11 A Right.-

O ~12 0 Was it generally favorable?'

13 A Yes.

14 0 .Okay. Was the purpose of this. meeting that you 15 four gentlemen participated in that led to Exhibit 3 to reach 16 agreement on what the safety significance was of all the 17 allegations that had been made regarding TMI-2?

18 A It was basically to insure that Tempo understood 19 what our concerns were, that we understood where Tempo was 20 coming from, and to see if any of the problems that either 21 office had were still in existence.

22 Q And what did you conclude?

.O ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.  !

Nationwide Co"crat' 33W4  !

.. I

32485.0 s1 92 f

1 A I think that basically with the programs that they 2 had in place as a result of the PAT inspection, things they 3 had done at the site since we had done the investigation, and 4 a better communication with the staff on where our problem j i

5 was, we felt that things could be resolved and we didn't have 6 to continue this paper shuffle. You know, let me point out 7 that one of the problems we had, we were a part of the 8 staff.

9 We were directed by the Commission to be part of 10 the Commission investigation and we could not communicate our 11 findings with the technical staff, nor could the technical n

k) 12 staff communicate their interpretation of what our problem 13 was ta us. So until we had this meeting, we never really ]

14 were able to sit down and have an open communication of where 15 we were coming from with regard to the investigation.

16 Q Well, I'm a little unclear about your use of the 17 term " staff." The staff that you met with on leading up to 18 this April 11 memo, I assume it's the people that are listed i

19 here; right, insider, Beach? j i

20 A Well, the NRR staff. Basically the people that 21 wrote the SECY 86-30. j 22 Q And was that people from the TMI program office?

ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.

Nationwide Cmcrag 800-336-6646

32485.0 H s1 93 .

('1 s/

i j

1 A Yes.

2 Q Primarily?

3 A Right.

4 Q Okay. You had had discussions with the program 5 office during the course of your initial investigation up 6 there?

7 A That's right. [

8 Q In April 1983; right?

9 A That's right, i

10 Q But you said something about you didn't have the 11 opportunity or you hadn't had discussions -- you mean the im

']

' 12 program office?

13 A Part of our -- part of the investigation was to ,

14 also look at the way the program -- the business we could ask 15 questions. We could get information as to what they were 16 doing, but as far as communicat'ng i our findings, we couldn't 17 do that.

18 Q Well, you did, during the course of your 19 investigation, did you not, bring to the attention of the 20 program office any matters involving safety --  !

21 A Certainly.

22 0 -- which came up, because that is reflected on j I i, l

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide coverage 33 3yg 800-336-6646

32485.O i 94

,s1 h I'm.sorry, page 2 of Exhibit 27 1 page 2 of~ Exhibit'3.

2 A Right. .Of course. .I'm talking about the specific 3 findings with which we disagreed.

M ,

.4 Q' . ' By the.way, Exhibit 2 says, as you have tettified 5 already, on the second page, "It'was our intent" -- at the 6 bottom'last line, "It was our intent not to assess the safety

)

7 significance of.the procedural violations," et cetera..

8 .A- Right.

9 Q. Why did you make that determination at the outset 10 of'.your investigation?

11 A The chairman told us not to assess safety

..g g

12 significance.

. i 13 0 'That was the direction to you?

14 A That was.

15 0 .Okay. See if I can go a little bit further.here.

i 16 After the meetings that led to the issuance of Exhibit 3, the ]

'17 ' April 11 memorandum, did you have further involvement with a

18 TMI-2 matters after that?

19 A No.

j 20 -Q That was the end? l 21 A That was it.

22 Q When the interim report was issued in September l 1

ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 800-336-6646

32485.0 s1 95

(~h

\ad 1 '83, did you review portions of it that you hadn't been 2 involved in; that is, the rest of the report, except for 3 detail?

l 4 A No.

5 0 At about the same time there was a. report issued 6 by the Office of Inspector and Auditor relating to their i i

7 investigation of the activities of the program office. Did 8 you read that? '

i 9 A I read of it, yes.  !

10 MR. JOHNSON: Your question wasn't really too 11 clear. For what purpose was the review? As part of some l I,_\

'~

12 kind of review and approval cycle was the question or just 13 whether he read --

14 BY MR. HICKEY:

15 Q I just asked why did you read it.

16 A Just read it. l 17 Q An assignment or just curiousity?

18 A It was passed to me so I looked at it. l 19 0 Were you asked to comment on it?

l 20 A No.

l l

21 Q I had a couple specific questions I wanted to ask l l

22 you about the notice of violation. Did you say you do or do l l

l ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 800-3 4 6646 i

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l

tl 1:

L p

'32485'.0 s1. .96 1 .not have a~ copy?

2 A' -Yes, I do'have a copy.

-3 Qj And also the company's response?

.4 A .. -Yes.

L 5 Q Just to refresh your recollection, you-did review. .

'6 both the notice of violation and the company's response.at.

7 the. time.they were issued;.right?

.8 'MR'. JOHNSON: Would you please clarify what.you 9 mean by " reviewed."

l 10 BY MR. HICKEY:

l 11 Q' Well, did you read them?

' Qb 12 A Yes,.I was not in concurrence or.anything.

13- Q -For the issuance of the notice of violation?'

, 14 A Right.

1

.15 Q' But after it came out you read it?

16 A Right.

17 Q The notice of violation indicates -- I.'m looking 18 at -- well,.let's start with the letter. Do you have the 19 transmittal-letter?

20 A Sure.

i 21 Q The second paragraph of Mr. DeYoung's letter --

22 and I think, just so the record is clear, I'm going to mark

. .h.

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

^* " # ""

202-347-3700 800-336-6646 .

. . . . _ l

32485.0 s1- 97 o (~'\ '

l. ()

1 it.

2 (Beach Exhibit 4 identified.)

3 BY MR. HICKEY:

4 Q This is a letter dated February 4, 1984. Looking 5 at Exhibit 4, Mr. Beach, you note that the letter addresses, 6 in the middle paragraph, the point that the violations were l

7 procedural control violations, which apparently occurred 8 because.of inadequate communications and because GPU Nuclear i

9 management did not adequately control the activities. I'm 10 summarizing what the language of the letter is. Was that --

. 11 1 were those statements ' n accordance with your view?

12 MR. JOHNSON: Are you asking whether he agrees 13 with it now or agreed with it when he looked at it for the 14 first time?

15 BY MR. HICKEY:

16 Q Start with that.

17 A Yes, I would have no problem with that.

18 Q How about now? Are you making a distinction 19 between then and now?

20 A I think that was properly the problem.

21 Q Okay. The notice of violation on the first page 22 of the notice reflects, in the second paragraph, "Each

()

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 800-336-6646

32485.0 I s1 -

98 O

1 procedural violation is considered to be, at most, of minor 2 safety significance." Was that your view as of February '84?

3 MR. JOHNSON: Are you just asking for that much of 4 the statement that you just read?

5 MR. HICKEY: Right.

6 THE WITNESS: When the notice was issued?

7 MR. HICKEY: Yes.

8 THE WITNESS: The word " minor" is where I have a 9 problem. I'm not saying that it was safety significant, 10 either. We weren't sure at that time the level of safety 11 significance. Also, keep in mind we were not looking at O 12 safety significance, but generally when you talk about tech 13 spec violations by training, we are talking about significant 14 violations of NRC requirements. When you speak with -- about 15 the heater building polar crane, you are speaking of 16 something that is certainly not as safety significant as a 17 reactor coolant system. I would agree that they were of 18 lesser safety, and all I'm saying is if you read the policy, 19 you may minor -- you are talking about a safety level 5, and 20 I do not agree that these tech spec violations were at a 21 safety level 5 violation?

22 O

ace-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

I 202 347 3700 800 3E6646

32485.0 s1- 99 1 BY MR. HICKEY:

2 Q As.of that date in -- of the issuance of this l 3 notice of violation, is your comment about the enforcement 4 policy accurate then, too; that is, that you said " minor,"

5 you meant safety level 5 or are you talking about currently?'

6 A I have no problem with the characterization of the l.

7 safety level. I'm saying with reference to your question of 8 minor safety significance, minor is safety level 5 and, of 9 course, that was characterized as a safety level 4, which I 10 could agree to.

'11 Q' But because you believe that in February 1984.

12 minor safety significance had to or usually did or should 13 translate into safety. level 5, you have a disagreement with 14 that?

15 A If I felt it was that inconsequential, I wouldn't 16 have signed it, but that is generally the safety level 5.

17 Q Well, in a memorandum -- your memorandum that has 18 been marked Exhibit 3 reflects, does it not, concurrence by 19 you that the enforcement action that was taken in this notice l

20 of violation was -- 1 1

21 A Yes, because it was --

22 MR. JOHNSON: Wait, wait, let him ask the O

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

N "'I "* 'd

  • C " 8*

M 3700 800-33 s 6646 1

32485.0 s1 100

^

1 question.

2 BY MR. HICKEY:

3 0 -- was appropriate?

l 4 A Yes, because it's characterized as safety level 5 4. What I'm saying is that sentence conflicts with what they 6 characterize. If you just read that sentence, okay, then 7 that would -- if you asked me if I agreed with that sentence, 8 that sentence does not characterize the enforcement action 9 that was taken.

10 Q And what do you understand is the significance of 11 level 47 12 A Has the potential to be of significant concern.

13 Q Again, I meant to ask that question, as of 14 February '84?

15 A Yes.

16 0 Is how you were answering?

17 A Right; yes, sir.

18 Q Because there have been some changes in the l

i 19 enforcement policy, but I was addressing the enforcement 20 policy at the time of the violation issue.

21 A Yes, well, I don't believe that has ever changed.

22 0 Let me ask you to look at specifically item one of O

1 l

ACE-FEDER AL R EPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide cmcrape , 33 E_____1______ _

32485.0 s1 101 0

1 the notice of violation on page 2. Have you had an 2 opportunity to review this notice of violation?

3 A Yes, very well. Too many times.

4 Q The issue in item number 1 relates to the 5 performance of the no load test without prior review by the 6 test working group. What did you understand the nature of 7 the violation to be? Let me put it this way. Did you 8 investigate that particular claim or incident?

9 A Yes.

10 Q And what did you understand that occurred?

11 A That contrary to their technical specification and 12 administrative procedure, test working group had not met and 13 approved the no load test procedure as required.

14 O And you said that was a technical specification 15 violation also?

16 A Right. 681. It's also a violation of Reg. Guide 17 1.33, which is incorporated by tech spec, which implements 18 review and approval by the test working group.

19 0 When -- did you determine when that issue was L 20 raised and how it was resolved?

21 MR. JOHNSON: That is not clear.

22

()

ACE-FEDER Al R EPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 600-336-6646

o i 1 i

32485.0 s1 102

, , ~3 ,

C,/ Iy.

1 BY MR. HICKEY: '

h, i,

2 Q Did you determine whe't. Qa issue of the

+ ,

l 3 noncompliance of the no load test prone &lre, adn,?.pstrative

( -

)

4 procedure was raiced in youi investigation? *

  • l 5 A We did verify that th9 test working gro29 had not s

6 met until March 4, 1983. -1 t

I l

\~ \

7 MR. JOHNSOM: That wasn't his question. His I 8 question was did you determine when that issue that yo'1 are -

i l 9 discussing here or that is mentioned here in this hocument 1 10 was first raised, I assume at TMI-2.

11 MR. HICKEY: Yes.

, i v 12 MR. JOHNSON: That is the question.

i 13 THE WITNESS: You mean whether it was raised by l z ,

l 14 Parks or whether QA had identified it?

l ,

15 BY MR. HICKEY: e3 e

16 Q That is who -- I asked specifics;ly when, bub. go l

'\ l 17 ahead with your answer. ) i t v 18 A Well, I don't think there's any way we C,ould

3 19 verify whether or not Parks actually raiend the quest,0n.

s ,

) 1 20 Q You didn't resolve that matter in your own @ld? j 21 A What our concern was was t\ct for some six months, 22 test working group hadn't met and we were not -- to one could

(

(

]

( .'

' l 4 -

i

. t ace-FEDER AL REPonTEns, INc. 1

,gyggg warmae co ei . , now;,.i l 1  :

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ .J

3n 3.. .

1 q:

v 3  ;(

p. ,

}[ iM (j' ,

32485.0

n 4 sl .- N w '

'103>,

t ,-

1 verify what tects had or had not been performed.during that- jS 2 period; what other tests;outside of dhe no load test. .

3 Y i 3 Q_ Did'you'. identify (those tests that'were performed, ,

4 that did not have td[s review that should have had? _

\- .

%1 5 A- No.

6 Q- Nith regard to this specific no load test 1 i 4'

7 . procedure, what action'was takan? According to yedr ,

i f investigation, what did you' find out about what' action was.

'8 j

. . . . i- . .  !

I 9 taken when the matter of the none'mpliance o -

with the .

3 10 administrative. procedure'was raised?' ', '

11 A- Well, I believe the response was that an-O 12 evaluation was. performed after the test had been coniyleted . 4-o s

13 and from that evaluation there was -- w6an the evaluation Mas  ;

1 T '% '

14- performed after the. fact, therewerenoGidnificant- ,

15 concerns. Again, that is fine. The proble isthat-ib's'a 16 tech spec violation.

/- )4 j 17 Q What do you mean by that comment; "TNati is fine, !Vl o \

'18 but the problem is that it's a tech spec problem"? ' >-

e I

19 A Youdon'tevaluate--youdon'tviolatet;6chspecs({.

_, t .. i 20 and' evaluate it later with the basis saying that you -- there r

l 21 has been no noncompliance. The, tech specs is a license l

l 22 condition, and at the time we did the> investigation, DMI was

?-

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

207-347-3700 800-336-6646

]

..l

32485.0 s1 104

,. '19? an operating unit.

They still had, even though it.was not --

'8 2 their. license was for an operating unit and none of those r 'i ,

s J'O3 conditionsLhad been relaxed,.so therefore, until another'

,y g

a s?

4 method was.dhvised, they were re~ quired to meet their a ,

5 technical's'pbc..fication. -So the real thing we'were looking 6 for is how are you going to ensure in the future that you

,c  ;

t -

s ..

7 meet all youc tech spec requirements and'how do you-know that .

t , .

8 j' -no 'other tests have been performed. -

j ,

1[ 9-h ,

Q, But on the second of those two questions, h'

10 m 61@ostigation was made to attempt to determine that," you 11 l' didn't; find.any; right?

.O- 12 A We d'id,not find any others, but we would have --

s 13 we would hope that the Tempo office, once the. problem was 14 identified, would do a review and make sure no other tests s .

, :s Ee 15 were performed.

?

16 Q Do you know whether they did.or not?

y

'17p A I have no idea. I would assume that they did. ,

4 18 Q Did you learn in the course.of your investigation, r, ,

19 lir. Beach, that the no load' test procedure had been approved LJ

f. 3

'20 E by, site operations for implementation without TWG?

21 A I can't remember. Our concern focussed on that

< 22 test working group review.

o '

L

L *? z .i

'$ ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

h i, 202-3c-3700 N " * " # * "* '" " 800-336-6646 7 js bz :[ ," m o

32485.0 s1 105 1 Q Do you know whether -- did you learn whether the 2 NRC program office had approved the procedure without TWG 3 review?

4 A I don't recall.

5 Q Let me direct your attention to item 2 of the l 6 notice of violation, Mr. Beach.

l 7 A Okay. J t

8 Q That relation to an allegation about the failure j j 9 to review the document CDPI-20. Did you investigate that 10 subject in the course of your efforts at TMI?  !

11 A Yes, we did.

12 Q And did you determine who raised, first raised the 13 issue of the noncompliance of CDPI-20 requirements?

14 A Well, first off, the problem with CDPI-20 was a- )

l 15 little bit more than witnesses for QC coverage, it was a l

16 procedure which in the Parks allegation circumvented 17 technical specification and requirement for approval and 18 review of procedures. And when we reviewed CDPI-20, there 19 was a specific portion of that which did say that you could 20 circumvent GPU-N procedures in the performance of work in the 21 recovery program.

22 CDPI-20 was a bentover procedure. It did not ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage g ggg

32485.0 s1 106 ,

(

1 receive GPU-N approval in accordance with technical i

2 specification requirements. During the review, we discussed f 3 this QA. I believe Parks has raised this concern in a 4 meeting. QA had documented that CDPI-20 was not to be used. i 5 However, we felt that it was a little more, was more than 6 just not being used for safety-related work.

7 Q Who is "we"?

8 A The team, Roger and I, because we had found in the 9 review of the engineering change modification process safety 10 packages which had been improperly classified as not 11 important to safety. We felt that it wasn't adequate to say O~ . 12 you were going to use CDPI-20 in things that were NITS.

13 0 I'm not sure I followed all of what you just 14 said. Let me go back to my original question. Did you 15 determine in your investigation who first raised the issue of 16 the noncompliance of CDPI procedure?

17 A Yes, we did.

18 0 Who did you determine raised that question?

19 A Parks raised that in a meeting.

20 Q What evidence led you to conclude that Parks 21 raised that in a meeting?

22 A I believe there was his affidavit, there was O

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS. INC.

202-347-3700

l.

l l

32485.0 s1 107 l

b i

1 minutes of a February 17 meeting on the polar crane task l

l 2 force, and I believe Paine Ballard substantiated that in his 3 interview.

4 Q Let me direct your attention to Mr. Parks'

'S affidavit. Do you still have your copy of it there?

6 A Yes.

7 Q Specifically at the bottom of page 23, top of page 8 24, discussing a meeting in Mr. Kanga's office on February 9 23, in a meeting that had been ordered, according to 10 Mr. Parks, by Mr. Kanga, the previous day. About halfway 11 down on page 24 after Mr. Parks relates that Mr. Freemerman O 12 presented CDPI-20, Parks says that Mr. Ballard asked who in 13 QA reviewed and agreed to it, and Freemerman didn't know.

14 Parks said he had never seen it before, and Ballard added 15 that no one in QA would have approved it because of a 16 specific provision in the procedure. Then Freemerman asked 17 everyone to review it and approve it on the spot, Ballard and 18 site operations both deferred and agreed to review it 19 further. Does that suggest to you that Mr. Ballard of QA was 20 the one who first challenged the legitimacy of CDPI-20, 21 according to Mr. Parks' statements here?

22 A According to this statement yes.

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

"" # **# 800-336-6646 202-347 3700

32485.0 s1 108 1 Q You cited some other sources beside Parks, though, 2 for your recollection?

3 A Yes, it was.my recollection that I thought this 4 came up meeting on the polar crane task force CDPI-20 was 5 introduced --

6 Q This meeting described here is not a meeting of 7 the polar crane task force?

8 A No, but I remember if it wasn't in the interview 9 with Blair Ballard, maybe it was Dave Lake, but I remember 10 that we got into CDPI-20, and our biggest problem with the 11 use of CDPI-20 with, even after QA had written the problem 12 report, was they allowed it to be used on, for systems that 13 were not important to safety. And because we had had 14 problems with some of the engineering change modifications, 15 we felt they needed more controls and classifications, if 16 they were going to use a document such as CDPI-20.

17 Q Well, I understand that. You have just addressed 18 what you felt the implications were of CDPI-20, but I'm 19 trying to get you to focus on the question of who first 20 raised it.

21 A Okay.

22 Q You said that that language of Mr. Parks suggested n

U i i ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC. j Nanonwide coverage

,g ,,,gg ggg_,33.g,43 4

32485.0 sl 109

(~%

V 1 that Ballard did. But I'm trying to'see what other  !

2 recollection you have. I realize you probably haven't 3 reviewed all the statements of the witnesses, whatever 4 Mr. Ballard said, whatever Mr. Lake said on this subject 5 would be revealed in their reviews and the OI report?

6 A Yes. j 7 Q Okay. Let me go back and check those. Other than 8 that, do you have any other recollection of information that 9 would support the view that Mr. Parks raised this first 10 rather than Mr. Ballard?

11 A Not that I can recall.

A b 12 Q I will ask the reporter to mark so the record is 13 clear the company's response to the notice of violation 14 transmitted by a letter of February 28, 1984, as Exhibit 5 to 15 your deposition.

16 (Beach Exhibit 5 identified.)

17 BY MR. HICKEY:

18 Q Look at the GPU-N response that is on page 2 of 19 the response document. Did you -- well, I assume you 20 reviewed that when it came out in February; correct? l 21 A Yes.

22 Q Did you agree with the statements that were made (ms-]

ACE-FEDER AL R EPORl ERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage j

32485.0 s1 110 m

b 1 in the GPU-N response?

2 A When I went back up to the site in '84 with the 3 PAT team, CDPIs were no longer in use, so therefore any 4 concerns that I had were resolved. The problem that I have 5 with the specific, was provided a commitment to -- I'm sorry, 6 the problem was identified during the polar crane review 7 process and was corrected. We didn't believe it was i

8 corrected for the reasons that I gave a few minutes ago.

9 Q Okay. Could you state that again, then. That 10 rings a bell with what you said a moment ago. What is the 11 problem that we are talking about; the problem is the claim 12 that CDPI-20 replaced the existing GPU-N procedures?

13 A Yes.

14 Q And you said when you went back up with the PAT 15 team, no CDPI-20s were being used anymore?

16 A Right, CDPIs were not.

17 Q Were eliminated?

18 A Right.

19 Q And what is your problem about this statement or i

20 disagreement with this statement that follows?

21 A The problem that we had with the resolution that I l

22 the company proposed was that they would only use CDPIs for

(

l 1

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 1

I 32485.0 s1 111 h

1- work that was not important to safety. That safety l

l 2 classification we felt was being used inappropriately for 3 work that should have had a different classification; and 4- therefore, if you continued to use it, and classified it as 5 NITS, you may still be doing something important to safety-6 activities.

-7 0 Are you talking about the resolution'the company 8 proposed, proposed when or in what fashion?

9 A- On the -- actually this is part of the (Ni problem 10 report that was written in early March, late February, on'the.

11 reviews of CDPIs.

/^) I

"( / -12 Q And that suggested that they would in the'-future i l

l 13 only be used for work not important to safety?

14 A Right.

15 Q Was that concern or disagreement with that 16 proposal brought to the attention of GPU at the time or ,

i j

17 shortly after, at the time that the problem report was j 18 issued?

l 19 A No, it was, I believe we discussed it with Blair i 20 Ballard during our interview with him.

l 21 Q And did Mr. Ballard take any action, do you know? j i

22 A I don't believe so. i Q

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

  • " # #'*E#

202-347-3700 800-336-6646

.32485.0 s1 112 0

1 Q Was it being used when'you had your discussion

~ '

2 with Mr. Ballard during your investigation, was CDPI-20 being.

-3 used for NITS activity?

4 A' The work packages about the CDPIs were being_used' 5 but there was a' process to upgrade to unit work instructions, 6 which eventually would have resolved some of the concerns 7 with the CDPIs. I don't want to make this more complex than-8 . what it is, 'but the biggest problems in con.munication between

.9 the things at-TMI were, if the work that was actually being 10 done was NITS, you could use CDPIs or;whatever they wanted 11 to, as far as the NRC is concerned. The problem was that we.

() 12 had problems with some of the modifications that were being 13 classified NITS, and we wanted stricter controls from QA.

-14 Mr. Ballard at that time felt that if engineering classified 15 it as NITS it was NITS. It was not subject to QA review.

16 Q With regard to the spec response in this notice of 17 violation, Exhibit 5 to your deposition on item 2, did you --

18 the response states that GPUNC disagrees with the citation in 19 that CDPI-20 did not delineate requirements for QC activities 20 nor define -- did you evaluate that claim? a 21 A Well, they were absolutely right.

22 Q And therefore this citation in the notice of q l}

e ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646

32 485.0

~

sl' 113 0

1 violation, in your; judgment, is. erroneous?-

I A -It did'not address the specific concern.

-3' Q It was not.well taken, I guess is what I'm trying 4 to understand. .This charge in this notice of violation 2, 5' that the QA department did not review CDPI-20, which 6 delineated QC requirement on how to establish points;.that L 7 charge is wrong?

8' A Yes.

9 -Q Okay. And you have expressed some other views t

l l .10 about what was! happening with CDPI, but that is not'this l

11 notice of violation; right?

-O 12 A I'never saw anything.regarding hold point or any 13 point in CDPI-20.

14 MR. JOHNSON: Let me be clear. Are you saying~the-15 GPU-N response was erroneous or the violation was erroneous.

16 THE WITNESS: Their response says they disagree, L17 that it did not delineate QC, and I agree that CDPI did not 18 delineate QC requirement for states nor establish how to l 19 establish points for QC coverage.

P 20 BY MR. HICKEY: l 21 Q And are you aware, Mr. Beach, of any instance 22 'where then or subsequently, any problem was found to have LO ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 i 1

.-. _ _--___--_____-_-_______A

I' L32485;0 sl' 114 1 resulted from an inappropriate use of CDPI? My question 2 wasn't very clear. D'o you understand what-I'm asking, 3 because I will'try it again if you don't.

~4 MR. JOHNSON: It's vague.

5 BY MR. HICKEY:

6 Q You said you expressed earlier some additional 7 concerns about CDPI and specifically with about the QA 8 resolution of it and my question to you is in light of those L 9 concerns or all the concerns that you had about CDPI. Do.you l-10 .know whether anybody ever identified a specific instance in 11 which the use of-the CDPI procedure had resulted in some G 12' unsafe condition?

13 A Unsafe, probably not. But for those work packages 14 that we found that were improperly classified, I don't know 15 whether the CDPI was used or the containment entry procedure 16 was used.

17 Q If the containment entry procedure was used, that 18 would have been appropriate under the specifications?

19 A Depending on the time frame, yes.

20 Q Okay. But if CDPI had been used,.that would not j i

21 be -- that would be'a violation? j i

22 A Right.

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347-3700 h00-336-6646

32485.0 s1 115 cm U

1 Q And you just don't recall, you found some 2 instances of items that you thought were not correctly 3 classified as not important to safety and you don't remember 4 whether they involved CDPIs?

5 A Right, right.

6 Q Okay. Let me ask you to look at item 3 in the 7 notice of violation, please. I take it you are also familiar 8 with that one?

9 A Yes.

10 Q Did your investigation disclose who first 11 identified the use of these, performance of these 12 modifications without use of an ECM?

13 A What we did in this area was to try to estab31sh 14 the best we could what type of work was being performed under 15 AP1021 and 1043 and what kind of work should have been formed i

16 under 1021 and 1043, and what we found, which relates to 1 l

17 really the whole investigation. And the problems that were j i

18 identified was a, I guess, a communication breakdown between i 19 important to safety and not important to safety. I believe 20 that whenever we said important to safety, the people we were 21 interviewing and talking with believed we were saying 22 safety-related.

(O _/

ACE-FEDER Al. REPORTERS, INC. j Nationwide cmerage ,,,

gg l

_ _ _ _ - _ - I

32485.0 sl 116

. (')

(>

1 So we usually received the answer that it's not 2 important to safety, go on about your business. If you look 3 at these four packages that were here, these all are not what 4 I would call safety-related, but are important to safety, 5 which is the TMI's classification for safety-related. But 6 most facilities have an interim classification for those 7 things that aren't safety-related but have to have some level 8 of checks and controls because they have an impact on 9 safety-related systems.

10 What we ascertained in this was that if you 11 classified it NITS, it immediately circumvented procedures 12 1021 and 1043. And since we were only given a choice of 13 classifying it ITS or NITS, we felt there had to at least be 14 some type of quality check or engineering test performed to 15 ensure they would withstand whatever design function they 16 were intended to perform.

17 The whole construction of what Parks alleged and 18 all of the memoranda between the various parts of the staff 19 are centered right here in this safety classification system, 20 and I don't think it was until -- that I went up with the 21 performance appraisal inspection that everyone understood 22 where we were coming from, Tempo included. And I think what  :

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC. ,

Nationwide Coverage 800-33(w6646

- .__ __-__._____---__ - -______________ O

32485.0 s1 117

()

(%

1 happened in Parks' affidavit is they brought the concerns as 2 if they were safety-related. And from the interviews that 3 were conducted, that I was on, generally the individuals 4 would look at you and say you are crazy, it's not important 5 to safety. And in most any other application they were 6 probably correct.

7 What we were trying to say is you need at least 8 some level of control. Not a full-blown QA/QC program, but I 9 some level of control to say that, for example, the cable 10 will withstand whatever its design function is. If it's a i

11 test, a certification with the cable, but it doesn't mean you 12 have to go out, do an independent test, have a full-blown 13 QA/QC inspection, have a QA guy standing there. We were not 14 saying it was safety-related, just saying you have to treat 15 it some degree above not important to safety, because it does 16 perform a safety when it has loads hanging over the reactor.

17 Q Were you suggesting in your answer earlier that 18 kind of control you thought was required or desirable was 19 some review of the decision to classify something as

]

20 important to safety or not important to safety?

21 A Yes, and if you, TMI was committed to regular 1.29 <

22 if you looked at the classification of 1.29, there is a (D

\/

l l

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS. INC.

Nationwide Cmcrage 3G M 800-336-6646 L____-___--

'2485.0 d

81 118

(~

%/

1 classification.for systems that while they may not be 2 safety-related, they have some effect on safety.

3 Q And what flows from that classification?

4 A Things like heavy loads, lifting of heavy loads.

5 Q I mean, what happens if they are classified in 6 this category you described from Reg. Guide 129 of not 7 safety-related but having --

8 A You just have to ensure that it will perform its 9 intended function.

10 Q Do you have to have a QA review?

11 A No, you can have an engineering individual look at O 12 it and say it's acceptable.

13 Q Under the procedures in effect at TMI in the 14 carly, first half of 1983, engineering change memorandum were 15 reviewed by plant engineering, were they not?

16 A Right.

17 Q Are you saying that that was true only if they 18 were important to safety, only if .chey were classified, quote i

19 in capital letters, "important to safety"?

20 A With CDPI and the work packages that were being i I

21 used on the Bechtel side of the house, there was no system of 22 controls for things that weren't classified NITS.

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l Nationwide Coverage y ,,,,gg 800-336-6646

s 32485.0 s1 "119- )

1 Q Are you saying that if something was classified 2 NITS,.there was no engineering change memorandum prepared for j l

3 a modification of it? 1 4 A- There was no engineering change memorandum with j 5 'the appropriate -- that we saw that had the appropriate' 6 controls. For example, the cable that was used on the --:

7 that is, I see, that is one of the issues here. Lake Barrett 8 told us after,.-that there was some degree-of-QC inspection 9 'i nvolved in this effort.- Had we seen that documentation, we 10 may have agreed, but do you remember --

11 Q Agreed what?

12 A Agreed that that was appropriate, okay.. But 13 during'our-review, in the investigation, we were generally 14 told that it'was not important to safety. And therefore, we 15 did not see any of this documentation or engineering change 16 memorandum or any controls for things that were called not 17 important to safety. Now when I went up for the PAT 18 inspection they were doing a full-blown review for NITS and 19 ITS, which I -- they probably didn't need to be doing, but at 20 the time we did the investigation, from the people we 21 interviewed, if it was-NITS, there were no controls applied.

22 0 Well, the four items that are identified in this O

ace-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC. .

Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

32485.0 s1 120 1 notice of violation as A, B, C, and D, it's your l

.2 understanding that those were classified as ITS or NITS? I 3 A It was my understanding originally that these were 4 classified as NITS.

5 Q Do you want me to defer for a minute while you 6 check something?

7 A Sure, if you don't mind. Okay.

8 Q Okay. I don't know if you found something you 9 want to clarify or change what you said. I don't know what 10 you were looking at.

11 A No, nothing, no change.

12 Q Everything you said still stands?

13 A Yes.

14 Q I want to go walk back to the question I first puc 15 to you; it hasn't be answered yet.

16 A Okay.

17 Q During your investigation, who did you learn first I l

18 raised the issue of the four changes described in 3 A, B, C, 19 and D, being performed without ECMs?

20 A Okay. I believe it was sometime in March, that QA 21 identified that those four systems had been misclassified.

22 The reason that I gave you that background a few minutes ago i

I i

ace-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 800-334 6646

o 32485.0 sl. 121 1 is because this is one of the areas that we disagreed with' 2 the NRR staff, in their interpretation of our-finding. We .

3- identified 22 issues that we felt should have been classified 4- important to-safety.

5 -Q 22 what?

6 A 22 samples.or 22 ECMs.

7 Q Wait-a minute. I'm trying to talk about'-- I'm 8 trying to ask you about item 3 of the notice of violation.

9 .There's no charge there, is there, that an ECM was properly 10 or improperly classified. The charge is ECMs weren't used, 11- right? Just want to make sure we are talking about the same O 12 subject matter.

13 A Okay. Right. You are right.

14 Q The charge in item 3 --

15 A Your right. Getting ahead of myself.

16 Q That is all right. kay. That charge, that 17 modifications had been done without the required ECMs being 18 used was raised by QA department first, was it not?

19 A It was documented on a QA report dated in early 20 March.

]

1 21- 0 Well, the decision to do the review that led to 22 the documented QA report in early March was the decision by O.

I

'l ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 800-336-6646 ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ )

i i

i 32485.0 s1 122 1 Mr. Ballard and Mr. Kanga on the 22nd of February and 23rd of 2 February to have a meeting to get QA in to review the polar 3 crane issue? i f

4 A They did agree to have that meeting, yes.

I 5 Q Did your investigation reveal any evidence to 6 suggest that Mr. Parks raised the issue of, before anybody 7 else did, Mr. Parks raised the issue of these modifications 8 being done without ECM?

I l

9 A You mean before QA identified them? I 10 Q Yes, i

11 A We did believe that the issues were being raised. i

.O V 12 Q Do you understand my question is whether Parks 13 raised them. You just told me the issues were being raised.

l 14 I want to know whether you found any evidence to suggest that 1

15 Parks raised them before QA. f I

16 A We didn't find evidence that would verify whether j l

17 QA raised them first or Parks raised them first.

I 18 Q You didn't -- I 19 A I will say in discussions with Blair Ballard, I 20 don't think that QA raised them on their own.

21 Q What do you mean by that, what did Mr. Ballard 22 say?

I l

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, l

Nationwide Coverage g 3yg gg 3 t_-----------

1 32485.0 s1 123 O

1 A Because I don't believe he understood the -- and I

2 it's my opinion only, I don't believe he fully understood the 3 tech spec requirements and Reg 1.33. j 4 Q Did you have occasion to talk to either 5 Mr. Marston or Mr. Fornicola in the QA department?

6 A Yes, I talked to Mr. Fornicola.

7 Q Do you know whether either of those gentlemen 8 participated in the review of the polar crane work that ended 9 up identifying these changes without ECMs?

10 A I believe they identified the issues.

11 Q You commented earlier that you didn't think QA  ;

/~)

k/ 12 raised it on its own or you had a question?

13 A Yes, because I don't think they fully understood 14 what the violations of the requirements were.

15 Q You said that with regard to Mr. Ballard, was that 16 your view with regard to Mr. Marston and Mr. Fornicola also?

17 A With Mr. Fornicola, yes.

18 Q He didn't understand --

19 A I don't want you to take what I'm saying that 20 these people were complete -- in one of, in several of my 21 discussions with them, on -- again, I'm getting into 22 classifications of systems, but it has an impact on what was n

(_) l l

ACE-FE DERAL R EPORTERS, INC.

202 347-3700

"

  • 800-33(r6646

32485.0 s1 124

("\

LJ l 1 being raised at that time. There was no disagreement between 2 the QA people I talked to about the legality of CDPI-20 or 3 the use of ECMs for like for like or like for unlike. When I 4 say that I don't know that QA identified them first, I didn't 5 see any example where they had been into the unit, observing 6 work activities, for any audit from which they had reviewed 7 the work activity and written the problem report. Simply 8 documented on a problem document. And all of the discussions 9 centered that they identified these meetings, so it's hard to 10 tell who identified what.

11 Q Well, you do agree, do you not, that QA was the 12 first to document, by that I mean write up, put in written 13 record, that these four specific changes identified in this 14 notice of violation had been done without ECMs?

15 A In their formal reporting system, yes.

16 Q Let me just ask you to refer briefly to Mr. Parks' 17 affidavit at page 26?

18 A Okay.

19 Q It's the bottom paragraph on that page. He says 20 the original reason for the Tebruary 23 meeting was to seek 21 QA input: You will recall if you check back on page 22 that 22 the day before, on the 22nd, according to Mr. Parks, Kanga at O

ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide coserage

,g 33g 800-336-6646

32485.0 s1 125.

1 a meeting issued a directive that they should arrange another 2 -meeting this time with'QA in attendance to discuss the 3 applicability of 1043 and 1027. That is the 22nd.-

4 Now jumping ahead to page 24, this is the meeting 5 of the'23rd that followed from that. I'm sorry, I meant to 6 direct you forward to page 26. Mr. Parks there says that the n

7 reason for the February 23 meeting was to seek.QA input;_

8 Ballard asked Freemerman if there were any replacements of i I

9 unlike kind. Freemerman admitted-there have been. This 1

10 contradicted his position from the day before.- Ballard then- {

i 11 concluded that the program was in violation of the-QA manual--

12 and a. quality deficiency report probably would be issued.

13 Does that indicate to you, Mr. Beach, that Mr. Parks' version  !

14 of the meeting of February 23 reflects that Mr. Ballard  ;

15 raised the likely violation of the QA program?

16 A Yes, but I still have to point out that we would 17 expect these reviews to -- an aggressive organization would 18 find these things in process.

19 Q Was the polar crane in process or complete as of 20 February 22, 23?

21 A In process?

.22 Q You referred in your comments when we first G

u ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

i 32485.0 s1, 126 l

, i i started talking about this notice of violation issue' number 2' 3, about the type of work'that -- that you had a concern I

3 about what the type of work was that was being performed or 4 should liave' been under administrative procedures 1021.and 5 1043. Do you have any recollection'of Mr. Parks prior to the

~

6 issuance -- well, no, of Mr. Parks at any time raising an-1 7 issue about noncompliance with administrative procedure.1021?

8 MR. JOHNSON: 'Are you asking whether he has'a

-9 recollection now as to Parks having raised that?

10 MR. HICKEY: Yes.

11 THE WITNESS: What was the title of 1021?

O 12 MR. HICKEY: Engineering change memorandum; 1043 13 is work authorization procedure.

14 BY MR. HICKEY: .

15 Q Maybe I can narrow it some. I'm not really -- I 16 don't want to unfairly test your memory. Apart from Parks' 17 affidavit, and I believe it's not in there but we can all 18 checx that at our leisure, are you aware of any other place 19 where Parks raised an issue about the alleged violations of 20 procedure 1021?

~21 A No.

22 0 .So if it's in his affidavit, it's there; otherwise L

ACE-FEDER AL R EPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 800-336-6646

32485.0 s1 127 g

V 1 you are not aware of any?

2 A Right.

3 Q Okay. In your investigation, Mr. Beach, did you 4 conclude that the procedure for shorthand that is the Atfort 5 procedure, the procedure governing work, under which the 6 crane was turned over to Bechtel for refurbishment, required 7 the use of engineering change memoranda, or unlike kind 8 replacement?

9 MR. JOHNSON: Could you specify a little bit more 10 specifically this procedure.

11 MR. HICKEY: Yes, I can give you the number, but

(

'" 12 do you know the one I'm talking about?

13 THE WITNESS: Yes, but the answer to your question 14 is, I can't answer your question, because there is no way at 15 that site to turn the crane over to Bechtel, period. The )

l 16 maintenance ticket that was used CA-258 was in itself l l

17 illegal, because refurbishment of the polar crane was not, in 18 fact, a maintenance activity. And the problem that the 19 organization at that time was really restling with, was is i 20 this a construction process or is it an operations process.

21 Nothing in the GPU-N approved procedures at that time would 22 allow turnover of the crane to Bechtel. Therefore, they O

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

" # #* 800-336-6646 202-347-3700

32485.0 'l s1 128 1 could not turn it over and do construction tests later, 2 unless'they developed a new program with appropriate.

3 turnovers for refurbishment so they would satisfy technical 4 specification requirements.

5 BY MR. HICKEY:

6 Q Well,-you are saying that you are unaware of any 7 procedure that existed at the time the crane was turned over 8 that authorized the turnover for Bechtel for refurbishment?

9 A Right..

10 Q Okay. Wasn't there'-- I'm groping for the number, 11 there was a procedure revision, your testimony, I'm talking O. 12 about a procedure that at least purported to authorize that 13 turnover; you are saying there was none that you know of?

14 A The CA-258 was the mechanism that was used.

15 Q And that is authorized by procedure 1407-1; right?

16 A Right, right. But you can't use a maintenance 17 authorization to form a refurbishment of the crane.

18 Q When you talk about the turnover, nothing 19 authorizing the turnover, what are you referring to when you 20 say turnover?

21 A You said the crane could be turned over to 22 Bechtel?

(

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

" "" E#

202-347-3100 800-336-6646

32485.0 s1 129 1 Q Right.

2 A I'm saying I don't know of any procedure that 3 allows the crane to be turned over to Bechtel.

4 Q Did you review in the course of your investigative 5 work, procedure 1407-1, maintenance procedure 1407-1 job 6 ticket for?

l 7 A Yes, I did.

8 Q And specifically revision 13 to that procedure, 9 which was issued in the summer of '82?

10 A I don't remember which revision, job tech was 11 dated July 19, 1982, so hopefully it was to that revision.

12 Q Yes, this -- well, the last date appears to be 13 July 13, '82, with Mr. King, the site operations director, 14 signed it on that date. Owners signed it earlier, and 15 apparently the date typed on it is July 17, 19827 16 MR. JOHNSON: Do you mind showing him that 17 document you are reciting?

18 BY MR. HICKEY:

19 0 I'm going to show him in a minute, but he can 20 verify the dates then if he wants. But let me direct him to 21 something more specific. Enclosure 1 to revision 13, 22 Mr. Beach, relates to the " procedure for use of job ticket g

(/

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERE INC.

2(,2 347 3700

"

  • 800-3h6646

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _

. w

\ $

t.

32485.0 ,\\ ij, ..

s1 <\

5, 130 1 with an engineering change memorandum," and ' atop s that "this t

,s <

particular flow path described herein applies" - ,there is

.~ ,

2 3 other copy you can look at -- " applies Nahere the work is /

x 1- t 4 performed by construction, personal, (contracVrr),'c2 bf '1 (

( I

.{n 5 maintain personnel." And I (hink you will find tfv.6 then

, i /

6 there is an enclosure 2 on page 26, whie is et. titled 7 " procedure for use of the job' title for piant maintenance 8 performed by contractors, (non-ECM)." Did you review this 9 procedure in the course of your investigation?

1, i 10 A Yes, we did, '

f I. . s And specifically M ose enc 1 9tures?

11 Q g q. ( -

r~

t t t

>t

_. e ,

\ 12 A Yes.

13 Q And is it your testimony tnat the xnclosures and

- i s'

14 the procedure did not authorize turnov.tr ofiwhrk to a '

{

15 contractor, if the work was other 3hnn maintenance't,  ;

16 A '

Yes. ,'  ;

, l 17 Q And where do you find that in N re? Would you 18 point to something specific? s s l <

\ ,

1 19 A AP 1047 is the only approved tgchnical -

20 specification procedure at the site that allt.ws testing or s 21 turnover. I think if you consult Bob Arnold's intex hew that y 3 22 I had with him in August of '83, he will tell you the some ace-FEDER AL R EPORTERS, INL.

202-347-3700 '

h'50-M6%.

u -

5 I  !-

i f 32485.0 s1 131 '

n b, i 1 problem that I'm describing is what startad the whole thing J  :

(

2 with the reactor building polar crane was there warrno ,

3 mechanism approved by tech spec in the license to turn that 4 crane over to construction. And 1407 doesn'!t do dt.

5 0 Is it your testimony that Mr. Arnold didn't 6 believe 1407 was intended to do that?

7 A Right. Further, the job ticket I tiink if you 8 consult our appendix D-10, the ticket that was used 2-A 9 2678958 violates six conditions of procedure 1407, because it l 10 wasn't appropriately filled out, even if it had been -- even 11 if it was being used in accordance with the procedrare.

n 12 Q All right. Well, the things that you totad in 13 reviewing CA-258 were that some of the blanks on the form had 14 not been completed; right?

15 A More than blanks.

16 Q Maybe I misunderstocif you. I thought that is what 17 you just said. What did you flay?

i 18 A The procedure, the job ticket, was not used in 19 accordance with 1407.

20 0 You mean by that, that 1407 did not authorize l 21 issuance of the job ticket, CA'-258?

22 A The no, the job cicket was supposedly issued in O ,

1 1

)

i ace-FEDER AL REPORTERS. INC.

Nationwide coverage j

,g 37gg g 3, y,

_. 7-----

2Q ,

i

\

l  %

32485.0

@JL s1 '; ,1

~ , 132 g.

e

'J 1 accordence with 1407.

< , 2 Q But you are saying?

~

3 A But did not have sufficient information to satisfy i .

4 the requirements of 1407.

< 5 0 I'm trying to distinguish two things. I think you

// 6 talked about two different things. One of them is whether l

l 4

7 -CA-258 complisa with those portions of 1407 as requirements?

l 6  ! A Right.

, 9 O Let me finish, make sure you agree with it. That 1.

~

l 10l require completion of various blocks and forms on the job i

11 ticket itself; that is one question. And your testimony, I Li

12 think, istthat you found in your investigation that CA-258

<s _.

fj 13 was deficient in that regard. Some portions of the form were 14 not filled out as 1407 required them to be; is that one thing l

' LS

,; you said, so far?

16 A I think it's a little more than just portions of r p

'17 . the form not filled out, but --

18 Q All right. Let me go on to the second part, see 19 if you warit to clarify it further. In addition, I think you 7:

20 said there was another problem with the CA-258 job ticket and 21 l that was that -- in fact, the whole ticket, the whole job '

il 22 4 ticket, was not authorized by 14077 f l-

'IN,.)3 l

}

1: . ,

J ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347-3700

""

  • K00-33(-6646

-x_---__________ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

?.l L 32485.0 -i' s1L 133 1 A No, no.

'2

.Q- Okay, correct me.

3 A Okay. CA-258 could be authorized by 1407, 4 .Q- It was legitimate to turnover the crane?

5 A .No, no, the job ticket they used supposedly in 6 accordance with 1407 was not, did not satisfy all of the 7 procedural. requirements of 1407. That is one'. thing. Second 8 issue is 1407 is not a viable turnover document to Bechtel 9 for the refurbishment of the polar crane.

10 Q Not a viable turnover procedure, 1407?

'll A Right.

12 Q Cannot be used to turn over the polar crane, 13 properly used'to turn over the polar crane?

14 A Right.

15 Q Why is that?

16 A Because it is not the approved method for 17 authorizing work which is 1047 for testing and turnover at 18 TMI-2. If you want to use maintenance, if you want to do it 19 for maintenance, that is fine. But you can't read in 20 turnover for maintenance the same as turnover for 21 construction for testing.

.22 O If there had been no unlike kind changes to the th ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS. INC.

Nationwide Cmerage 800-33(r6646

32485.0 s1 134 1 crane, that is all changes were like kind, would there have 2 been, would the turnover under 1407 under your theory then 3 have been all right or not all right?

4 A If they classified it as a maintenance activity, 5 would have been. Let me distinguish between what, make sure 6 you understand where I'm coming from. There's a big 7 difference between turnover for maintenance and 8 postmaintenance testing, then actually severing the crane 9 from GPU control and procedures and giving it to Bechtel, 10 doing the work, then turning the crane back over to GPU-N.

11 To do that, you would have to do AP 1047. If you were just l

O 12 doing a maintenance activity, 1407 is appropriate.

13 Q Didn't the turnover to Bechtel under the procedure 14 require compliance with the GPU-N procedures, including use 15 of ECMs for unlike kind modifications?

l l 16 A Under the which?

17 Q Under the ATWC procedure?

18 A That wasn't used. Job ticket CA-258 is the 19 mechanism they tried to use to turn the crane over.

20 Q What does CA-258 say on it, do you remember?

21 A It's simply a standard job ticket.

22 Q Doesn't it say the work will be done in accordance <

O ACE-FEDER At. R EPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Cmcrape L__________.__._

32485.0 s1 135 m

V 1 with the work in containment procedures?

2 MR. JOHNSON: Why don't you show him some of these 3 documents. I don't understand why you are unwilling to show 4 him the documents.

5 MR. HICKEY: I'm not unwilling to show him the 6 document, Mr. Johnson, and I would be glad to find it for 7 him.- The witness is free to indicate he would like to see it 8 if he would. He seems to have some recollection of the 9 documents. If any time he doesn't, we can stop and we can 10 find it for him.

11 THE WITNESS: Where I'm confused is the --

b,^

12 BY MR. HICKEY:

13 0 It's the document book that is in front of you, 14 but I will be glad to find it.

15 I'm going to show you two documents, Mr. Beach, 16 that have briefly be marked as exhibit to Mr. Parks' ,

17 deposition. The first one, Exhibit 13, is a copy of CA-258, 18 and point out I want to direct you to the handwriting that 19 says " refurbish reactor building polar crane in accordance 20 with the Bechtel containment entry program." And then I'm 21 going to show you also Exhibit 17 to Mr. Parks' deposition, 22 which is TMI procedure 4300-ADM-3240.1. I O

1 l

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Nanonwide cmerage gg7g,gg gg

32485'.0 c sl- 136 70 1 MR. JOHNSON: Just for the record, this was not in

'2 front of us before.

3 MR. HICKEY:' This book'is access to and work in

~4 the containment building. The other was.on the table.

5 MR. JOHNSON: Before you.

.6 MR. HICKEY: Does it really; matter, my goodness.

7 Why don't we take a break.

8 (Recess.)

9 BY MR. HICKEY:

10 Q Did you have a chance to review the.two exhibits 11 while we were in recess, Mr. Beach?

12 A Yes, I did.

13 Q First question relates to the CA-258 job ticket l 14 and the reference I just read you to the containment entry 15 procedure. In your investigation did you determine that the

~

16 procedure referenced in that CA-258 job ticket was the ATWC 17 procedure which you also have in front of you?

18 A The problem with the job ticket is that the job 19 ticket is to be issued in accordance with procedures 14 A1.

-20 It then references a H 300 add-at main-3240.1.

21 Q That is ATWC, right, that is the same as ATWC, is 22 is not?

O ACE-FEDER Al. REPORTERS, INC, Nationwide Cmerage

, 800-336-6646

._______________2___.-_--. _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . __ _ . - _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ - - D

32485.0 sl' 137.

(

l 1 A Yes.- 1 1

1 2 Q. Access to and work in the containment building? )

J l 3 A Yes, and 1401, you know, I guess my point, my 4 answer to this question would be why, don't I just take a-5 notebook paper and say the job ticket and call itia job-6 ticket and use it in accordance with, you can't do it.

7 Q Let me ask you, try to answer my question as best.

8 you can. Did you determine in your investigation whether the 9 procedure referred to in CA-258, I don't have it precisely in 10 front of me, but in substance the Bechtel containment entry

.11 program or whatever it says, that that refers to the ATWC O 12 procedure; did you determine that or not?

13 A Yes, we looked at this procedure for work inside 14 containment. Entry to containment.

15 Q Did you determine that the procedure referenced'in 16 CA-258, is that ATWC procedure?'

17 A I believe they said they intended to use the 18 containment work order, GPU-N procedure here, which you have 19 shown me.  !

20 0 That is the job ticket CA-258 according to what 21 Radbill told you was intended to incorporate the ATWC 22 procedure?

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS. INC.

Nationwide Cmerage 800-33N6646

32485.0 s1 138 i I

gx L) 1 A As I recall, yes.

2 O Under the ATWC procedure, is it not required that )

3 unlike kind changes be documented on ECMs?

4 A I haven't reviewed, I don't remember this, but as j 5 I recall, yes, it does.

6 Q And does not the procedure also incorporate the J 7 testing requirements of 1047 as well as the 1043 and 1021 8 ECM. I don't want to -- I don't want to take your time to go i 9 searching through it. Do you have a recollection about l

10 whether it addressed that or resulted in your investigation? l 11 A It was our opinion that as I recall, this did not ,

-( ) 12 appropriately sever the crane from GPU-N procedures.

i

[

i 13 0 What is this, when you say this?

l 14 A This in accordance with the job ticket, because i 1

1 15 you still have to go back somehow to maintenance procedure i

~

16 1407.

17 Q When you say "this," just now for the record, you 18 were indicating with your hand the ATWC procedure?

19 A Yes, 4300 admin 3240.1.

20 Q All right. What you just said what is that the 21 ATWC procedure, if I heard you right, the ATWC procedure did i l

22 not remove the obligation to comply with the other relevant

()

l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 800-336-6646 C_______.______._

32485.0 s1 139 n

U 1 GPU procedures?

2 A Right.

3 Q Such as testing and engineering change memorandum, 4 et cetera?

5 A Right, right. According to my reading of the 6 procedure, yes. j 7 Q Okay. So had Bechtel performed their functions 8 under CA-258, the job ticket, as it directed in accordance 9 with the ATWC procedure, they should have utilized an 10 engineering change memorandum for any unlike kind 11 modification?

['} 12 A Right, and GPU would have still had control of the 13 crane.

14 Q Okay. Let me ask you to look at ito: 4 of the 115 notice of violation?

16 A Okay.

17 Q Okay. I'm asking you to look at number 4 of the 18 notice of violation?

19 A Okay.

20 Q And this relates, does it not, to a charge that l 21 certain safety equipment change modifications were 22 misclassified, the charge is were misclassified as described h

ACE-FEDER AL IlEPORTERS, INC.

NannWe Nerage ll 202-347-3700 800-336-6646 )

j

32485.0 s1 140 0 1 in the notice of violation count 47 2 A Correct.

3 Q Is this the subject matter that you stated was 4 investigated in your absence by Mr. Walker and your 5 substitute, Mr. Rogers, after you had had to go back to 6 Comanche Peak?

7 A Some of this was. I did some of these, he did 8 some of the others.

9 Q. Specifically, this is an investigation of whether l

10 they were properly classified?

11 A Right.

(D

\J '

12 Q Mr. Parks did not raise prior to his going public, 13 his issue, did he, Mr. Beach?

l 14 A You mean this specific, no, not with regard to l

15 1021.

16 Q Did you review, still have a copy in front of you, 17 did you review the response of GPU-N to this item 4 of the  !

18 notice of violation?  !

19 A Yes, I did.

20 Q You will note that GPU-N's response has some 1 21 disagreement with the charge in those violations, which you 1

22 have identified specifically. SECM 1121 rev. O, according to l

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC. '

202-347-3700 800-33 H 646 L__________-_

l'

.32485.0 s1 141

'N-p/ )

1 GPU-N was originally classified when issued as important to 2 safety. Did you investigate that or do you know whether that

'3 is accurate or not?

4 A I did not.

5 Q And you don't.know whether that is right-or-not?

6 A But if they still had acres on the structure,.then 7 I agree with their' response.

8 Q. That would make it ITS?

9 A Yes.

10 Q You'just don't know how it was classified when it 3

11 .was originally issued?-

12 A Right.

13 0 The second part of GPU-N's response to this charge 14 on the notice of violation'is.that the three other SECMs-did 15 not bypass quality control, but were subjected to applicable-16 QC inspection scope; did you look into that in the course of 17 your investigation?

18 A We looked at the classification. We did not --

19 whether or not it was reviewed by QA was not our concern. A 20 check by QA doesn't really mean anything to us. What we were

-21 looking for was an evaluation that whatever that modification 22 was, would function, as designed. Now let's see, they were O

ACE-FEDER AL R EPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 i

i 32485.0  ;

s1 142

~~~\

(Q 1 the --

2 O They are described on page 37 3 A Yes, our concern with the temporary equipment  !

4 hatch enclosure wall was that the fact that enclosure was 5 being anchored into I believe it was the containment l-6 building, which is a class 1 structure. While the hatch 7 itself might have been not important to safety, the fact that 8 they were putting anchors into the containment structure we 9 did, they had some type of controls.

10 Q Such as what?

11 A That would require a QC inspection to ensure the 12 anchors were installed in accordance with the design, not the 13 hatch, the anchors itself.

14 Q Do you know there was no QC inspection on the 15 anchors on this?

16 A At the time of the investigation it was marked 17 " NITS" and "no QC required."

18 Q You said two things there. It was marked two 19 things?

20 A Yes, " NITS" and then "QC required" was checked as 21 "not required." On the form of the ECM it has safety 1

22 classification then it has some checks, and it says QC  !

ace-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC. j Nanonwide cmerage gggg,,

gg,, 7gg

_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ a

32485.0 s1 143 m

V 1 " required" or "not required."

'2 Q Are you disagreeing with the statement, then, in 3 the GPU-N response that says that each of these documents, 4 which includes the temporary hatch, identified applicable QC 5 inspection scope, you are saying that is wrong?

6 A I don't know. When we saw, as far as I can 7 recall, on the documents we saw, say "QC not required," there 8 would be no way to determine whether or not a QC inspection 9 was performed or not. Maybe it was after we left or it had 10 been identified.

11 Q Would you agree, Mr. Beach,.that determining a b 12 classification of various projects as ITS or NITS involves 13 some exercise of judgment?

14 A Yes.

15 Q Do you think it's an area where reasonable people 16 can differ with the appropriate classification?

17 A Quite obviously.

18 Q Let me ask you to look at number 5. I have a i

19 feeling we talked about number 5 some already in the notice 20 of violation.

21 A Okay.

22 Q Because we talked about it. We talked about the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

i 1

I 32485.0' s1 144 h )

t Ll subject matter of ehe job' ticket when we discussed' item 3.

2 But specifically 1 e allegation is that the release of the

'3 polar crane to Bechtel for refurbishment via this job ticket 4 that is still in front of you was improper. What I want to 5 ask you about that charge is whether your investigation --

6 didn't your investigation disclose that that allegation was j 7 not raised first by Mr. Parks? ,

I 8 MR. JOHNSON: There are two negatives. You are {

9 asking'first, did it disclose that someone other than i 10 Mr. Parks first raised the allegation?

11 MR. HICKEY: Yes, thank.you.

o, -12 THE WITNESS: To the best of my recollection, yes. 4 i

j 13 BY MR. HICKEY:

-q 14 Q My inept question made your answer ambiguous. You j 15 believe you found that someone other than Parks raised it l

16 first?  ;

17 A

~

You know, I think this is the one we identified, 18 where we had problems with the original start, yes.

19 Q Parks didn't raise it?

]

20 A Yes.

21 MR. JOHNSON: You are referring back to the 22 original discussion about Ballard in the meeting; is that i f} '

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Cmcrape '

800-336-6646

]

)

132485.0 L s1 145 I

() i 1 what you were starting to say?

l 2 THE WITNESS: I think when we. looked at the job

' i.

3 ticket, that.is when we started having problems with it.

4 MR. JOHNSON: I was trying to clarify you were 5 . referring back to the earlier p.m. about number 3, when you 6 were asking your question.

7 MR. HICKEY: My last question was whether Parks 8 had initiated, first raised this allegation, and I understood 9 the witness to be saying no. .That is is correct, isn't it?

10 THE WITNESS: The way the violation'is. written to 11 1047,'that is correct;'that is my belief.

' O 12 BY MR. HICKEY:

13- Q There's a reference to 1047, did you mean 10477 14 A 1407, I'm sorry.

15 Q To ensure that I have understood what you told us 16 when we discussed number 3, in your judgment, based on your 17 review of the procedures, this use of the job ticket to turn 18 over the crane to Bechtel for refurbishment would have been 19 proper if it had incorporated the requirement for compliance 20 with the GPU-N procedures?

21 A No, that is not quite right. I said -- I believe 22 I said that if you had used an ECM with the UWI procedure, O

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide coverage 3, . 33

1 32485.0 s1 146 I'T  !

(/ 1 1 they could have done replacements. And I agree that that's j i

2 correct as long as the ECMs were performed in accordance with l l 3 the engineering change modification procedure. Where I have 4 problems with the turnover of the crane is that they used 5 1407, period.

6 Q And what is wrong with that is that it doesn't l 7 incorporate the GPU-N procedures?

8 A No, that it's a maintenance procedure, and they 9 are attempting to sever the crane for turnover to Bechtel.

10 Q Sever the what?

11 A From GPU-N procedures.

12 Q Specifically the ECM procedure?

13 A Right. All I'm saying is that the job ticket 14 wasn't the right way to go. I think they could have come up 15 with a way, but --

16 Q And whether, look at the GPU-N response, item 5 on 17 the notice of violation, which I understand you have reviewed 18 previously.

19 A Right.

20 0 That states, does it not, or claims that there was 21 a procedural basis which authorized the turnover and disputes 22 or disagrees with the charge in this notice of violation?

ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347-3700 800-336-6646

u 32485.0  !

sl- 147 h

V 1 A Yes, it does.

2 Q You are stating that you don't agree with that?

3 A Right, and my main reason for disagreeing, there 4 was a basis for being performed.

5 Q Pardon me?

6 A There was a basis for work to be performed on the l 7 crane; there wasn't any basis to turn the crane over to 8 Bechtel for refurbishment.

l 9 Q What was the basis for work to be performed on the l

10 crane?

11 A You could do some type of work with the crane, but (D

12 as I just said, with four 300 admin 32.01 if you used the ECM 13 with the approved GPU procedures. The violation is for the 14 licensee released the crane to construction for refurbishment l 15 work, not the fact that they did work on it, so the response 16 does not really adequately address the violation.

17 0 Okay. Let me ask it another way. Now on item 6.

18 A Okay.

19 Q I think I have really only one question. The 20 violation that is alleged in the notice of violation, item 6, 21 is not a charge that Mr. Parks raised, is it?

22 A You are correct.

%J ace-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700

"

  • 800-336-6646

V

'32485.0 sli 148 1 Q Okay. Do you have a copy of your D-10' report,

-2 Section D-10;of the September '83 report there?

3 A No, I don't.

.4 'Q. I have put.in front of the witness a copy of the 5 entire September 1983 office of. Investigations interim 6 report, as it's called,.regarding the allegations 1at TMI-2, l

7 .regarding, yes, and specifically included in it is exhibit l

8 D-10'results of the technical examination of alleged 9 procedural and' managerial deficiencies at Three Mile Island 10 Unit 2.

11- Before I ask you the specs on D-10, let me O 12 confirm,-Mr. Beach, you did-not review or draft or o

13 participate.in the drafting of, for example,.the summary 14 section that starts off the report. It's at page, . item B,.

15 actually, right in the front, entitled summary.

l 16 A No.

17 Q And then just a few pages on there. C-2, purpose 18 of investigation?

19 A No. j l

20 0 And C-3, which is entitled background, I will 21 direct you to one specific part of C-3, at the bottom of the 22 page it lists the allegations that it says were reviewed and O

l ~

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

j Nationwide Cmerage

, gg 20-33Wie L__ -- _ ---

32485.0' s1 149 A

O 1 categorized into five general areas of concern, then it goes

.2 ahead with six items., I assume that is a typo. Did you 3 participate in the preparation or did you. review-that portion j 4 of the report?

\'

<V 5 A. You know, those, I mean the breakdown could have 6 come from the way we were characterizing things in D-10, but 7 wt did not participate in the write-up of that section.

8 Q Okay. Let me ask you to'go to -- and is'there any 9 other part of the-report beside D-10 that you participated 10 in, remembering you said you also sat in on some interviews, 11 but other than that?

O g 12 A To the best of-my knowledge, no.

'i 13 Q Let's look at D-10.

14. :A Okay.

15 0 Can you fell me first, did you write all of D 16 originally or portions of it or how was your -- what was your 17 role in it?

18 A It was really a joint effort. I would -- the only 19 way I could characterize it is Roger, Walt and I provided'a 20 lot of input and then the colleagues that I described before 21 basically reviewed and edited the report.

22 Q Roger Walker, Walt Rogers and you?

() ,

l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide coverage

,,3,gg 800-336-6646

32485.0 l s1 150  !

(%

(.) l 1 A Gene Galligher, the investigators.

2 Q Mr. Fortuna and Mr. Ward?

3 A Right.

4 Q Okay. Let me ask you this. You are more familiar 5 with it than I am, but the section is broken down into, the 6 exhibit is broken down into different sections, different 4

7 paragraphs. Are any of those where you did not personally 8 participate in the investigation or reviewed any of those 9 subjects?

10 I asked in part because one of the interrogatory 11 answers suggested, for example, that section -- paragraph D 12 of section 2 plant modifications was authorized by 13 Mr. Rogers?

14 A Yes, he probably, let me -- there were three, I 15 believe. Let me put it this way. Each of us authors certain I

16 portions but we all sat down and went through each thing word 17 for word and agreed to it. You know, as far as participating 18 in the investigation, I did not look at those three ECMs.

19 Q The three ECMs you are referring to?

20 A Right, that he describes in paragraph B, the 21 containment modification and the, as far as the 22 investigations, as far as where it says I agree with his O

ACE-FEDER At. REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 800-3M-6646

f 32485.0 s1 151

(.

/

1 write-up, or our write-up.

2 Q Okay. But I guess what I'm trying to understand 3 is do you have any firsthand factual'information based on '

4 work that you did that you can'say that.what Mr. Rogers wrote 5 here is accurate or inaccurate; you really don't, do you?

l 6 You didn't look at the ECMs?

7' A Not at the site, no.

8 0 Well,_you don't have to look at them at the site;-

9 did you look at them somewhere else?

10 A Yes, he had copies of the ECMs.

11 Q I'm-not understanding what you said earlier. I

-O 12 thought you said:you had not_ looked at these specific ECMs?

13 A As part of the investigation. He looked at the 14 ECMs, identified them, brought back copies; of course, we 15 looked at them and agreed or made whatever changes to the 16 write-up we felt appropriate. What I'm saying is each one of -j 17 us did certain things. But by the time it was done, it was 18 all of us that had part of the investigation sat down and we 19 hammered it out between the six or seven of us.

20 0 Well, okay. I'm trying to get a little more 21 precise, because Mr. Fortuna, perhaps, and Mr. Ward, had not 22 .gone to the site and interviewed witnesses or looked at --

O i

I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

32485.0 sl- 152 r-'s

's 1 A Right, right.

2 Q -- ECMs or review procedures or anything like 3 'that. ,

4 A Right.

5 Q Some of you people had firsthand knowledge, 6 because you had gone up and looked at things, reviewed 7 documents and talked to witnesses? {

8 A Right.

9 Q But even as to that, you didn't have firsthand 10 knowledge of everything?

11 A Right.

O 12 Q You didn't do the whole investigation yourself? )  !

13 A Exactly. I 14 0 What areas did you have firsthand knowledge of? .

l 15 A As far as the investigations is concerned?  !

l 16 Q Yes.

17 A A, B, C.

18 0 Under 2?

19 A Yes. Some of B, some of C, in paragraph, section 20 3, D, and E.

21 Q Okay. I'm not sure that is clear on the record. l 22 Under 2, the only portions that you investigated personally l

ACE-FEDER Al. REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

. _ _ _ ______-_____ - _ _ m

32485.0 s1 153 A

' 'd 1 were A, B, and C; right? i 2 A Right.

3 Q And under 3, you personally investigated portions 4 of B and C, did you say?

5 A Portions of B and C and D.

6 Q Are you saying portions of D or all of D?

7 A Portions of D.

8 Q And how about E? l 9 A Yes, I did E. j 1

10 Q Okay. i

)

11 Q To what extent did you try and. write this Section

-) 12 D-10 or review it, to specify which violations you found were 1 1

13 raised by a particular alleger, that is were raised by I 14 Mr. Parks or Mr. King or Mr. Gishel? I asked to what extent l

15 did you attempt to do that or not?

16 A For each individual specific allegation, we 17 attempted to, when we could, I mean that is not much of an 18 answer, but that is very hard to do.

i 19 Q Why was it hard?

l 20 A Difficulty in obtaining documents, the tracing l

21 each individual document for comments, some of the SERs had 22 pages and pages of comments.

O

%d  ;

l I

ace-FEDER AL REPORTERS. INC.

I 202-347-3700 800-33fr6646

___--__________A

32485.0 '

s1 154 f}

1 Q Some of the allegations were very broad and' 2 Lgeneral, too, weren't they?

3 'A L That'is right.

4 Q Made it difficult to identify whether a' specific 5 or particular document or-violation was encompassed in the-6 allegation?

7 A' Yes. .

l 8 :Q For example, the first page of Mr. Parks' 9 affidavit, first paragraph, :five lines 'down says "I am 10 . submitting this. statement to express my personal knowledge:as-11 Econcerns.that the~ management of.Three Mile Island Unit 2 has 12 sacrificed its own system of safety-related checks and 13 balances for cleanup activities in order to meet unrealistic' 14 time schedules." That is a very sweeping allegation, is it 15 not?

16 A Yes.

17 Q But I note on page 1-3 of Exhibit D-10 that you l

18 have a reference to Mr. Parks in the second paragraph. You 19 said, "The alleger has indicated the reactor building polar l

20 crane was not properly transferred to BNOC for the 21 refurbishment project," and you cite Parks' affidavit'at page 22 5 and 15. Page 5 of Mr. Parks' affidavit alleges that the

.O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.  ;

202-347-3700 800-336-6646

p i

32485.0 81 155 y0f 1 deficiency about.the -- I'm looking at the bottom third of 2 .the page, Mr. Beach where it talks about CA-258, says'that 3 " work request-CA-258 was deficient, the containment entry 4 programs covers issues such as personne1' protection from 5 radiation. It has nothing to do with engineering functions-6 or designed QA engineering documentation." That really 7 doesn't allege that the turnover was improper, does it?

8 A The statement that "on July 19, 1982 GPU assigned 9 Bechtel to refurbish the crane in accordance with Bechtel 10 containment program pursuant to work request CA-258" is the 11 portion of the allegation to which we were referring.

O 12 -Q That is what you meant to incorporate on'page 1-3?

13 A The significant thing was the fact that there was 14 -- was the job ticket as we have discussed.

15 0 It was no secret on.the site that the turnover was-16 by virtue of the CA-258 job ticket?

17 A It was no secret that it had been turned over, but 18 as still exists, the belief that turnover by the job ticket 19 was appropriate.

20 Q How about the reference on page -- to put my 21 question more specifically, I don't see anything on page 15 22 in Mr. Parks' affidavit which reflects Parks indicating that O

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

  • "*E 202--347-3700 800-336-6646

32485.0 i l

sl 156 1 the. polar crane was not properly transferred to Bechtel? )

i 2 A "I believe this prompted a January 20, 1983 3 memorandum stating the polar crane, in fact, belonged to f I

4 Bechtel and that as so would not be involved in the 5 refurbishment." i 6 Q Is that alleged -- is that an allegation by Parks 7 that the crane was not properly transferred to Bechtel? i 8 A The memorandum 420083034 did, in fact, exist.

9 Q Yes. It did exist?

10 A Yes, and it stated that the crane belonged to ,

1 11 Bechtel.

O 12 O Yes. I don't understand what the point you are 13 making?

14 A Well, the point was from our reviews we believed 15 that Parks said the crane had basically been inappropriately 16 transferred, and our review, I would say, substantiated that.

17 Q Well, I understand your view that it had been 18 inappropriately transferred. I'm trying to focus on the 19 first part of your testimony which is Mr. Parks alleged that, l 20 and I have asked you to show me, we just looked at page 5, 21 now we are looking at page 15. Where does Mr. Parks make  !

l 22 that allegation? '

O

. ACE- FE D E R Al R EPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 800-336-6646

32485.0 s1 157

/T g

1 MR. JOHNSON: The witness just told you. Asked 2 and answered.

3 BY MR. HICKEY:

4 Q Is it in the memorandum?

5 . No, the memorandum exactly as he says it states.  !

6 Q It's not a memorandum by Mr. Parks, is it?

7 A No.

8 0 Look down at the next paragraph on page 1-3 of 9 your report. That talks about the allegers contending that 10 the safety importance of various plant modifications have 11 been improperly classified as NITS, in order to downgrade the 12 quality assurance and quality control for these 13 modifications, and you have a reference to page 35 on I 14 Mr. Parks' affidavit. Where on page 35 does Mr. Parks allege 15 that the safety importance of various plant modifications 16 have been improperly classified'?

17 A The question concerning --

18 Q As NITS in order to downgrade the quality 19 assurance for modification?

20 A The question regarding the safety classification i 21 for the cable, he is explaining why the structure of the 22 crane was important that only a person of limited i

ace-FEDER AL REPORTERS. INC.

202-347-3700 800-33 4 6646 i

Y  !

9_

A~

32485.0 j

.sl $- 158 o

LO 1- intelligence would think otherwise., From my review of le

'N' 2 package -- ,

i >.

3 ^MR. JOHNSON: Just forQ'llar ification, would you .. ( .

I a 4 indicate for.the record what portion of page you are on.

) (*%

5 THE WITNESS: Page 35,, midwayj h the 'page, thb I

.t ( i 6 cable, fromourreview,didnotshyw#chlptherehadbeelfay 7 test or any. level of QC or any other type of involvement to' 8 show that the cable would function as intended. And (in oar L;

( ,,

9 view you couldn't say that the crane ' structure was importanf, f< ,

10 and the hook was important, but the cable wan unimportant.

11 'But you have to ensure that that will ca'rry the' load for .j

^ '

'O

~

12 which it was intended to carry,'and'I m not saying that the

- 1 13 cable was safety-related; we just saw'no indication of 'any b

14 evaluation whatsoever, g

that the cable would function,<as -

15 required.

I havd heard from Lake Barrett that was' levels  :

19 is where.it was left. So we never saw evidence that there j

.g

)

20 had been any evaluation performed. I

> I

/

n 21 BY MR. HICKEY:

22 Q But Mr. Barrett said there had been?

O t 4 ,,

1 i

n* )

ACE-FEDER AL RJPOR f(RSc)lff.

Nationwide Cmcrage gg 800-33N N i

i s i a f' 32485.0 I sl 159 7 -

O 1 A Yes, when 1 went up for the PAT team.

2 MR. JOENSON: When you went up for the PnT team, I 3 is that the same time Parks made his allegation?'.,

4 THE WITNESS: No,'no.

5 MR. JOHNSON: You Were doing your evaluation?  ;

6 THE WITNESS: No, it was scmetime later.

7 MR. JOHNSON: I think it gets confusing.

I 8 BY MR. HICKEY:

9 Q Well, nothing in Mr. Parks' affidavit, says, does 10 it, that this, that the purpose or intent of the 11 classification of the cable was to downgrade QA and-QC for O 12 those modifications?

13 A If I put quotes around it, no.

14 Q I said " modifications" because that is the 15 language in the report, but the polar crane cable wasn't a 16 modification; I misspoke. You have on page 1-4 of Exhibit 17 D-10, Mr. Beach, a reference in the fifth line to Mr. Parks' l

18 affidavit, page 1, that is the broad allegati.on theat I read 19 to you a moment ago, but you can review it. Other than that, -

20 and the ones that we just looked"at, I don't sce any other 21 reference in section 1 to Mr. Parks'/ allegation where you 22 have specifically identified them. Your effort was, where O

V 1

1 ACE-FEDE R Al. REPORTERS. lNC 3,7g,gg Nuionw.de cmerarc ggg_333_gg43 'f

3 /p ; - p p,_-77

+~ .!L Ib .?.! , %

g ^ ;; f" Q, ,Q
  • y i"

.('

2 ll  % p l-

- ,/

Jlj 4[ i. ?32485.0 e .s1 n 4 3 '

160

.[ ' If 1 b you could,'to identify -- I'm sorry, there is one, I see one "7 . .y"

.F J/ :27i 'on:nage 1-2.-

fy -

n m s

.' ,~ 7 3 ,

Let me put the' question this way. ~ Where you g"g'i 4 could, you attemppad to identify 'or refer. to Mr. Parks' h 4 /

3 affidavitwhenjputhoughtitrelatedtoorsupported 3 5 a ,

+

' - 6 statements you were making in.this chapter?

y 4 7 A jYas. y N ., '(Rocess . )

9 BY MR.AdCKEY:

f i);d <

.c I! 1 10 " Q In section 2-A, on page 2-2, under the general-r, s s

., d- 11 subject of ? violations of administrative procedures, there's.a

~

f i-12 comment inethe first full paragraph that reads, "In s ,

13 laddLtion. It" appeared evident from this review that the 14 .allegers" contacted the QA department and pointed.out the

+

p 15 v3.dlations to requirements of AP 1047 in-order to initiate'QA.

4, 16 ' involvement." There isn't any c'itation.or reference after

-17 thatt. Is it your contention, Mr. Beach, that Mr. Parks did

'18 that?

._ .a ,

k.,,4 19 '

A From the documentation we reviewed, items 117 to 4

' h _.

l s .3 l20 1 145,t it appeared th t from the comments that we were looking-3 j5. y , , , f f'

21 I. at in that documentation, which is listed at the appendix to

, y 0 22 j D-10, thera was nothing ihat said, that was officially from q

t ,

'f

[j . ._ '[

' ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

'[ [ 202-147-3700 N"*"*' "*"" 800-336-6646 3> , y y

32485.0 s1 161

(_/

1 Richard Parks, that said, that identified a specific problem, 2 okay. But it was obvious from the memoranda and the 3 documentation we reviewed that he or Gishel had pointed out 4 the problem of the test working group.

5 Q So when you say, when you use the plural form in 6 that sentence, it was evident from the review of memoranda 7 that the TWG involvement only occurred because of the 8 allegers' insistence, you are talking about the allegers 9 being Parks and Gishel?

10 A Yes, and I think also King, also.

11 Q And you believe that in these documents there is

(}

\ 12 evidence which was Mr. Parks specifically raising or seeking 13 TWG involvement?

14 A Well, the So, which included plant engineering, 15 were pointing out that the test working group review was 16 required. J l

17 Q Yes. How about the second sentence, which is the l

18 one I asked you about first. Namely, "it appeared evident i

19 from this review that the allegers contact with the QA )

20 department and pointed out the violations to requirements of ,

I 21 AP 1047 in order to initiate QA involvement." I thought we 22 identified a while ago that even under Mr. Parks' affidavit, O

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

.-________________w

'32485.0 sl~ . 162 0 1. Kanga directed the. meeting to be held'with Ballard on the

(-

i' 2 23rd to review the applicability of 1047; isn't that right?

3 A That's right, Kanga did direct the meeting. You 4 know, to say that Parks definitely contacted QA, I can't say 5 that he did at first, I'can't verify that.

! 6 Q- That is all I'm really asking.

7 Q Let me ask you to look back at the' start of that 8' chapter, page 2-1, start of that section. Section 2.

l 9 A Okay.

1 10 0 The bottom of the page says that " failure to 11 involve the TWG resulted in some procedural requirements not 12 being met," then it goes on to identify seven specific ones.

13 With regard to the no load test. Those items were identified 14 by the QA representative at the TWG meeting on March 4, were 15 they not?

16 MR. JOHNSON: Will y'u o repeat that, please.

17 BY MR. HICKEY:

18 Q Sure. The seven items listed there were 19 identified by the QA representative at the TWG meeting on j 20 March _4, were they not?

21 A I believe that is correct.

22 Q And later documented in a quality deficiency O

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347-3700 800-336-6646 i

32485.O s1 163-O

.1 report that was issued on March 8, if.you want to look at 2 .it.

3- A Yes.

4 Q Look at page 2-4, would you please. ..The initial

~

5 subject addressed in section B1 is some. background material, 6 but I'm going to ask you about the opening sentence. It says-7 that "the tech specs establish the director of site 8 operations and the plant operations review committee as the 9 principals in the licensee organization to determine whether 10 . procedures meet the requirements of the tech specs."

11 Did you' understand that the requirement of the 12 tech specs was that both those groups, one of them is a 13 person, one is a committee, had to look at or review every 14 procedure that was written, in order to comply?

15 A If, in fact, it had an impact on safety.

16 Q If the procedure -- if what had impact on safety?

17 A If the procedure had an impact an safety such that 18 it was required to be in accordance with tech spec I

19 requirement or Reg. Guide 1.33.

20 Q Then both had to -- both the committee and the 21 director?

22 A Right, right.

O ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coserage 33

32485.0 s1 164 O

s/ j 1 Q Are you using the phrase "had an impact on safety" 2 in a technical sense or technical classification?

3 A Yes, I'm just saying that if it had no impact on 4 safety, that procedure in my mind would not have to be 5 reviewed by the director of site operations and plant 6 operations review committee.

7 Q But all procedures have -- was there a particular 8 classification of the procedures you are talking about?

9 A If the procedures had to satisfy Appendix A to 10 Reg. Guide 1.33. I'm saying if they wanted to go out and do 11 a procedure in the turbine building, that in my mind wouldn't

~

12 have to be reviewed by the director of site operations or 13 plant operations review committee.

14 Q You then talk about some description or background 15 on procedure, administrative procedure 1001, TMI document 16 control. Mr. Parks never made any allegations about 17 violations of any -- Mr. Parks never made any allegations of 18 violations of AP 1001, did he?

19 A No.

20 Q Later on in this section at II-6, Mr. Beach, you l 21 returned to the subject of construction department project, 22 in instructions DPIs, and you have got a comment down at the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 800-336-6646

32485.0 s1 165 Ov 1 bottom of that page, that the use of work packages for 2 containment work when performed under the sole guidance of 3 CDPI-11 circumvents the requirement of AP 1001. Mr. Parks 4 never made any allegation about that, did he?

5 A No.

6 Q And did you have any evidence that you uncovered 7 in your investigation that work packages had been performed 8 in containment under the sole guidance of CPPI-11?

9 A There were work packages that had been performed 10 in accordance with the Bechtel CDPI procedures that GPU was 11 in the process of making everything a unit work

(] Now 12 construction. If there was work in the containment.

13 whether those -- but I think they were for things such as 1

14 decontamination, I don't remember any specific --. to the best I l

15 of my knowledge, today, I don't remember any specific 16 modification that was performed'to CDPI-11. l 17 Q But you think it may have been used for some other 1 i

18 nonmodification work, that is that what you are saying?

19 A There were work packages that had been performed 20 under CDPI-11.

1 21 Q Solely?

22 A Yes, and I think they were basically for l O l i

ACE-FEDER AL R EPOR'I ERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646  ;

i

32485.0 s1 166

%)

1 decontamination work, as I recall.

2 Q But the UWI,.the UWI unit work instruction 3 procedure was in the process of being implemented in the 4 first months of 1983; isn't that a fact?

5 A Yes, that is correct.

6 Q There's a section at the end of this section 2, 7 which is subsection E, begins on page 2-23, and you didn't 8 identify.that when you went through your listing of areas 9 that, where you had done investigative work. I'm 10 paraphrasing what you said. Did you mean to omit E, or did 11 your investigative work at TMI interviewing witnesses and O 12 reviewing documents address some of the arer.s that are 13 discussed in subsection 2-E?

14 A It basically this was a -- this sort of 15 incorporated the comments or findings of the technical part 16 of the investigation with the investigators. This section 17 was a collection of inputs from basically the four to five 18 people that did the reviews at the site.

19 Q That did the review?

20 A Yes.

21 Q And for example, this paragraph that starts at the 22 bottom of page 2-23, interviews with GPU in management were O

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC, Nationwide cmerage ggy, 3yg

32485.0 s1. 167 O

1 conducted by the OR team, so on. And.then you can read the 2 rest of the paragraph to yourself, but it discusses the 3 confusion that existed, so on. Does that accurately reflect

-4 your view of what your investigation revealed?~

1 5 A Yes.

6 Q Do you remember whether you wrote that, or just 7 reviewed it?

8 A It had a large input into that paragraph.

9 Q 'Look at the bottom of that page, you got, I~say 10 you, but I realize it may or may not be-something you wrote, 11 but there's a reference to " interview with Bechtel project 0 -12 -manager and assistant. project manager which' indicated they 13 made a decision not to follow these procedures for the 14 reactor building polar crane refurbishment project." That 15 is, the -- who are the two individuals you are referring to 16 there?

I 17 A I believe that was Thiessing and'Freemerman, I l 18 think.

19 Q I think that is accurate, I think that is what-l' 20 their titles were. What did Mr. Thiessing say that indicated 21 that he considered these procedures that you listed right up 22 above and decided that in advance of doing the work and ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 800-336-6646

i 32485.0 s1 168 V,o 1 decided they didn't follow?

2 A It goes back to the discussion we had. He 3 believed that the crane had been severed from the GPU-N  !

4 organization, and was under Bechtel control for 5 refurbishment.

6 Q So in his view they did not apply?  !

f A

7 Right.

8 Q And is the same accurate about Mr. Freemerman?

9 A Yes, I would -- most anyone we talked to in the 10 Bechtel organization, I mean before it was really' integrated, 11 believed that.

A Nl 12 Q And did either, did Mr. Thiessing indicate to you 13 that he had focused on before beginning the polar crane work, 14 or considered these specific procedures, 1047, 1041, 1043?

15 A No, not, maybe not those specifically, just GPU-N 16 procedures in general.

17 Q What, well --

l 18 A He felt he was severed from the GPU-N procedures 19 to do the refurbishment on the polar crane.

20 0 The original plan was, was it not, Mr. Beach, to 21 have Bechtel prepare procedures which would be approved by 22 GPU-N?

ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ,

Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 L

l 32485.0 I

s1 169

/~n 1

Q) 1 A Yes.

2 Q And so when you talk really on the next page, 3 2-25, about the polar crane recovery description, you say it 4 reflects Bechtel's intention not to follow the licensee's

]

5 procedure then you go on and describe it. The fact that the 6 recovery description, which was an early document in the l

l 7 history of this procedure, did not contemplate Bechtel  !

8 seeking approval for modification or testing of the crane 9 from GPU-N, wasn't that because they anticipated that they 10 would be following procedures that had been approved by 1

11 GPU-N?

12 A I think if you looked at the affidavits of the 13 Bechtel managers involved, they believed that the CDPIs were 14 eventually the work packages were appropriate to do work and 15 that if GPU-N approved the CDPIs they would be under approved I 16 procedures to do the work.

17 Q So what the recovery description says on the top i 18 of 26 says that approval for modification or testing would  !

19 not be soug.. by Bechtel from GPU-N, isn't that because the i 20 assumption that was then being made was that the procedures, 21 CDPI procedures themselves would have been approved by GPU-N?

22 A In their view, that is true.

l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202-347-3700 800-3Xw6646

32485.0 s1 170 I (s 1 Q Let me ask you to look at section 3, if I may.

2 -First page. There is an introductory paragraph that includes 3 "the team findings and concerns with respect to this review, 4 that is a review of selected aspects of the on-site 5 managerial organization are as follows." One question is, is 6 there some distinction that is being drawn between findings i

t 7 and concerns? Did you understand that to mean two different 8 things?

9 A Yes.

10 Q What is the difference?

l 11 A Findings with respect to possibly not satisfying 12 NRC requirements. Concerns where the organization may not be 13 functioning as it should be. ,

14 Q Though not in violation of regulations?

15 A Not in violation of the requirements; right.

16 Q That is helpful. Mr. Parks never alleged, did he, 17 that the persons in the position of director, deputy director 18 or site operations director did not meet the qualification 19 for plant manager; that is the finding on page 2 of this 20 section? l 1

21 A Right. I don't believe he did.

22 Q Did you conclude that there was a violation of the j

/

U ace-FEDER AI. REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646

32485.0 s l~ - 171 OL

.1 . tech specs with regard to this item, that is the 2 qualifications of the personnel listed. The tech spec is 3 quoted on the page before, if you want to look.,

4 A Not a violation of.the requirements, per se.

5 There may have been a deviation to the ANSI requirements.

6 Q -I don't understand what you are saying. Are you 7 saying -- first of'all, when you say "per se," there was not 8 a violation of the tech specs per se. What do you'mean by 9 that? Was the tech spec violated or not or can't you answer 10 it that way?

11 A I personally don't believe there was a violation 0 12 of the technical specification requirements.

13 0 Okay.

14 A I think the one of the individuals involved may 15 have deviated from the commitments of meeting ANSI in 19.1, 16 but again you are weighing a site, a unique site that is not 17 completely operational. It's a recovery plant. And the tech 18 spec did implement operating license requirement and 18.1 19 refers to plant operations.

20 Q There was never a citation of an alleged violation-21 related to this, was there?

22 A- No.

O-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6646

.__._______._..__._____________________.2

32485.0 s1 172 g.

b 1 Q There is a, on the next page, 3-3, Mr. Beach, a 2 reference then to organizational conflicts, and halfway down 3 the page it talks about the organizational plan conflicting 4 with the technical specifications because of the manner in 5 which the reporting requirements are assigned. Did you 6 investigate that?

7 A Yes.

8 Q Does that state your view, was it your view that 9 the site operations director as plant manager was required.to 10 control the tech specs, was required to control every 11 activity at TMI-2?

(~. '

12 A Would you ask your question one more time?

13 Q Sure. Was it your view that the site operations 14 director, in order to comply with the tech specs, had to 15 control every activity that was going on at TMI?

16 A Activities.

17 MR. JOHNSON: That is a broad question. Could you 18 define that in any way. Every activity?

19 MR. HICKEY: Well, I'm trying to find out what his 20 view of the tech spec requirement was.

21 MR. JOHNSON: Asking the question, can you, 22 everything that had to be, everything that went on at TMI, A

tg ACE-FEDER AL REPORTE RS, INC.

Nationwide Cmerage 33

i l

32485.0 s1 173 es, J

'Q .

1 all sorts?

2 BY MR. HICKEY:

3 Q Yes. Is that what the tech spec required?

4 A Of work that was required by the technical 5 specification.

6 Q For example, Radcon activities?

7 A You know, if you have a strict reading of 8 Reg.. Guide 1.33 you can incorporate, it says radiation 9 protection, it was obvious that you had to do decontamination 10 work, but my view of this section was in reference to 11 procedures under GPU-N tech spec control, work that was 12 performed in accordance with those procedures.

13 Q Well, you are saying -- if I understand you, you 14 are saying that this technique says that you found a 15 violation of the technical specifications. Maybe it says 16 conflicts, maybe --

17 A It's not a violation. It's a concern.

18 Q I see. If there was a review or supervision by 19 the director of site operations of the recovery program's 20 activities, would that alleviate the concern; is that wnat 21 the nature of the concern is?

22 A The concern was that there be a person who ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationw.de Cmerage g ,,, 7gg 800-336-6646 4

.32485.0 s1 174 O

1 understands technical specification requirements to be in 2 charge of work performed in accordance with the technical 3 specification, who understand technical specifications.

4 Q And that was thought to be the director of site 5 operations?

6 A Yes.

7 Q Are you talking about a particular individual or i

8 who ever held that job? i 9 A And an operating facility a director of site 10 operations would be in charge of those types of activities.

11 Q Okay. But we are talking about TMI here.

O 12 A I know. Well, it's not a violation, we felt that 13 that could -- there may have been a problem as to why there 14 were problems in satisfying the technical specifications at 15 the time of the review. ,

l 16 Q Let me direct you to the next section, which is 1

17 "C," communication problems. And specifically item 4 in that 18 list on page 3-5. And there's a comment there that I wanted l 19 to ask you about. " Allegations received by the NRC l

20 originated from within the management level personnel," and 21 that "these allegations needed to have been taken to the NRC 22 indicates it's a severe communication problem with this

()

l ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

I Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

-32485.0 s1 175 0- 1 on-site management. organization."

2 -Q- . Was that a view that you shared at the time this 3 report was written, Mr. Beach?

4 -A. The point is the NRC encourages employees and 5 licensees to take their concerns to management, and in this:

6 particular instance mid-level management were the ones

-7 . reporting concerns. And that is where we felt it was 8 necessary to at least comment on the problem.

9 Q Well, what evidence did you unearth in your 10 investigation to support the statement that Mr. Parks' 11 allegations needed to be taken to NRC?

12 A It wasn't so much I believe that we'were talking 13 about Mr. Parks. It was probably, this was more reference to. ,

i 14 Larry King, site operations director.

15 Q When did Mr. King go to the NRC with some 16 problems?.

17 A Not that. Reading the first sentence, the 18 allegations were seen by the NRC originated within management 19 level.

20 Q Well, let me see if I can break it down. Is one 21 of the persons you are talking about in that sentence 22 Mr. King?

.O.

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.

4 202-347 3700 M&336-6646 e

32485.0 s1 '

176

(

1 A Yes.

2 Q Does the second sentence refer to Mr. King, that 3 these allegations needed to have been taken to the NRC?

4 A Refers to King and Gishel.

5 Q Well, Mr. King didn't go to the NRC, did he? He 6 went to Mr. Clark?

7 A Prior to Parks' affidavit, that is correct.

8 Q And Mr. Gishel didn't go to the NRC, he went to 9 Mr. Arnold, didn't he? Mr. Arnold sent Mr. Gishel's comments 10 to the NRC?

11 A True.

O 12 Q Prior to Mr. Parks' publication of his affidavit, 13 do you have any information that Mr. King went to the NRC?

14 A Not specifically that he went to the NRC. I mean 15 we have his concerns on the affidavit as well.

16 MR. JOHNSON: Could I talk to you for a minute 17 outside.

18 THE WITNESS: Sure.

1 19 (Recess.)

1 20 THE WITNESS: Prior to the Parks' affidavit, I am 1 21 not aware of him going --

22

() l 1

1 4

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 800-336-6646 L__z _ _ _ _ - - - _ 1

l 32485.0 I s1 177  !

, ("N l l (f 1 BY MR. HICKEY:

7 2 Q Who is "him"?

3 A -- King going to the NRC.

4 Q Look at 3-7 of the report. This is a portion of-5 section 3-E, which I think you told us you did?

6 A Right.

7 Q There's a reference on page 3-7, second paragraph 8 under item 2, indicating that the licensee's QA department 9 involved themselves in the determinations that procedures had 10 been violated but this occurred late in the project, after 11 the allegers had brought the violation to their attention.

O 12 That is not accurate, is it, Mr. Beach, as we discussed 13 earlier, that is the -- it's inaccurate in that the QA 14 involvement was not initiated by the allegers?

15 A As I said before, in instances it was obvious that i

16 QA was the first one to document the violations, in 17 accordance with their formal procedures -- or with their 18 formal program, I'm sorry. It is probably a broad 19 statement. I would think it would be difficult both for you 20 to say it's inaccurate and verify that QA was the first one i

21 to document it even though they had a written record.

22 I think if I went back through the documentation  ;

Ci v

ACE-FEDER Al. REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Cmerage

h 32485.0 1sl 178 10 1 and the -- in the appendices, I would probably come up with 2 some. notes on SERs and other things that could indicate that 3 plant engineering and SO had those' concerns and that would be 4 dated prior to QA involve.

5 Q Well, QA became' involved because Mr. King had 6 directed QA to be brought to the meeting on the 23rd of 7 February; isn't that right?

8 A On the 23rd of February, but the violations,.some.

9 of which had been occurring since October 20, existed some 10 five -- that is-five months before he phoned them, invited 11 them to the meeting. And I think that is unacceptable also.

O 12 I wouldn't necessarily give QA credit for identification when 13 the site was in noncompliance for five months.

.14- Q The question is related to your statement here 15 that it was after the allegers had brought the violatiuns to

~

16 their attention, that Mr. Parks brought some October 20 17 violation to somebody's attention?

18 A Yes, that was the test working group had not met.

19 since October 20, and it's not -- I said allegers, that is 20 not -- I believe there's a document which King's, under 21 King's signature that identifies that there's problems in 22 accordance with AP 1047 in the review.

O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646

i 32485.0 s1 '179

,c\

V 1 Q Did you mean to refer to Mr. Parks in this l

2 statement or just Mr. King? l l

l 3 A We were -- {

l 4 0 I suppose it could be King in addition, too? I 5 A We were referring collectively.

6 Q Did you have some evidence that Parks had raised 7 these violations, these procedural violations prior to the QA 8 involvement?

9 A There's - are you talking about Parks himself ?

10 Q Yes.

11 A Or the allegers.

12 Q Parks, Parks.

4 13 A I guess, let me answer the question this way.

14 It's broad in that I don't think that every violation that 15 was identified by QA was, in fact, previously identified by 16 the allegers. There are some just as there are some that QA 17 identified and were probably the first ones to identify to go 18 through the documentation, as I said before was very 19 difficult. But it was obvious for some of the procedure 20 violations that QA should have been involved earlier and they 21 were being brought to the attention by site operations.

22 Whether that be plant engineering, or the operations part of (3

%)

ACE-FEDER Al. R EPORTE RS, INC.

Nationwide Cmerage 33

32485.0 s1 180 t~s U

1 the organization.

2 Q Well, can you identify one procedural violation 3 that Mr. Parks brought to the attention of management at TMI 4 related to the polar crane prior to the meeting of the 20th?

5 A Parks himself, as I said I think, the one with the 6 test working group came under, there is a docilment that was l 7 from site operations. And I believe that was King's 8 signature, not necessarily Parks.

9 Q Well, are you saying there was an alleged l l 10 procedural violation by the TWG not meeting from October 20?

11 A Yes.

O 12 Q Was there some requirement that it meet?

13 A Yes.

14 Q On a routine basis or only if it had specific

)

15 items to consider?

A

^

16 I would hope that in five months they had more, 17 they did have some items to consider.

18 Q That were required for consideration by procedure?

19 A Right.

20 Q That we are talking about?

21 A And I would think it would be more than just polar 22 crane.

r

( l 1

ace-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC. )

202-347-3700 800-336-6646

32485.0 s1 181 )

1 V(%

1 Q But my question is very specific. Did Mr. Parks, l

2 to your knowledge, ever identify a procedural violation, 3 before February 17, procedural violation because TWG hasn't 4 met to consider anything? I 5 A I could not verify that Parks in fact identified l I

6 them. i 7 Q Let me ask you to look at 3-10, Mr. Beach. The 8 item B at the bottom of the page talks about design 9 verification of plant modifications and has a reference to 10 the allegers during the course of this investigation .

1 11 disclosing some facts, you can read the text there for

\

12 yourself, relating to modifications which should have had i

13 engineering change memorandum forms, but lacked the required 14 test data and/or QA records. Is that a reference to some 15 claim that Mr. Parks made or are you talking about other l

16 people? l i

17 A That was a -- yes, that was from Parks. i 18 0 When you say "during the course of this i 19 investigation," have you -- are you referring to the time 20 after his affidavit was made public?

21 A Yes. It was during the the second, the interview 22 of the 27th.

O ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Cmerage mig-336-6646

32485.0 s1- 182 1 Q Was it your understanding that the information  ;

2 about'these-engineering change memorandums an'd the lackiof  !

l l 3 test data was undocumented or unrecognized by management l l

4 prior to Parks disclosing it in the course of your 5- investigation?

6 A It was a very general allegation, and the only.

7 thing that I could find that was relevant to it were the two 8 'QDRs that are referenced on page 3-11.

9 Q Those had been in existence since 1981?

10 A Right, right.

11 Q I want to ask you a couple questions relating.to 12 some allegation that Mr. Parks made in his affidavit. You 13 may -- you can stop and'look them up, you may recall them 14 also._ On page 42 and 43 of his affidavit he has got an 15 allegation about dummy fuses. On page 42, it's the paragraph 16 that begins "a fourth memorandum called for'the installation 17 of dummy fuses." Did you investigate that charge, that there 18 had been an improper installation of dummy fuses?

19 A I don't ever remember seeing that, that 20 memorandum.

21 Q Do you remember being familiar with the issue at 22 all?

O ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347-3700 800-336-6646

32485.0 s1 183 h 1 A I remember very vaguely discussing, but I don't 2 recall we ever -- I don't think we ever identified anything i

3 with respect to their installation.

4 Q Do you know why you didn't look into that item?

5 A You know, speaking from memory, I believe that our 6 crane expert looked into that and found -- I believe that 7 Fred Clemenson looked into that, but it never became an 8 issue.

9 0 Well, did Mr. Clemenson determine that it was not 10 a problem, that the dummy fuses had been installed?

l 11 A I think that would be correct, since we didn't I'T k-'l 12 reference it in appendix D-10.

13 Q On the next page, 43, middle of the document 14 there's a document referring to ECMS 1017 installation of 15 temporary power for the polar crane, and Mr. Parks claims 16 that he discussed this substitution of welding cable for 17 power cable with a number of co-workers on the job. All of 18 them agreed it was unsafe and poor engineering practice. Did 19 you look into that claim of Mr. Parks?.

20 A Yes. Let me -- I believe that we looked through 21 the work package but were never able to substantiate whether 22 or not, whether welding cable had been substated or, in fact,

(

l l

l ace-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

" " # " '" E 202-347-3700 800-336-6646

32485.0 sl- 184 LO:

1 dummy. fuses had been installed.

2 Q Do you recall being informed either by 3 Mr..Clemenson or Lake Barrett that, in fact, welding cable 4 was as good as power cable for this purpose?

5 A No, because, I tell you, if I had, we would!have 6 probably asked for an evaluation. And since I don't ever 7 remember seeing or asking that question, I don't think.we 8 'could-substantiate whether this was welding cable or power 9 cable installed. .

10 Q. You looked at the ECM but you couldn't tell from 11 that whether that had been implemented; is that what you are O 12 saying?

13 A As I recall, S 1017, if we didn't include it in 14 D-10 we must have been satisfied with the evaluation.

15 Q That is that there was not a problem?

16 A Right, that there would have to have been an 17 evaluation if they made the substitution.  !

18 Q Do you know whether in the course of your 19 investigation anybody talked to Mr. Lawton or Snyder or 20 Clements or Grandy to confirm whether what Parks reports was 21 . accurate?  !

22 A I don't believe so. Because I think, as I said,

} l ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 800-336-6646

32485.0 s1 185

(~T V

1 when we looked at the ECM, if there hasn't be an evaluation 2 of like for like we would have identified it in the report.

3 Q You wouldn't have included something that was all 4 'right because you were attempting to address in D-10 concerns  ;

5 and problems, is that -- ,

6 A Well, if it was like for like, there's no, yes, 7 there's no problem.

8 Q So if welding cable is an adequate substitute, you 9 are saying you wouldn't -- if you concluded that, you 10 wouldn't put it in your report?

11 A Right.

12 Q Only if there was a problem would you put it in?

13 A In this particular instance, yes.

14 Q Of this cable, you mean?

15 A Yes.

16 Q Did you -- are you familiar with NUREG-0680 sub 5, 17 Mr. Beach, a document reflecting staff views about, in the ,

18 restart proceeding?

19 A The numbers certainly sound familiar. Do you have 20 a copy.

21 Q I don't think I have a copy here. Do you recall 22 when NUREG-0680 subpoena 5 was being issued as, being asked VO ACE-FEDER AL R EPORTERS. INC.

202-347-3700 800-336-6646

ys y s t 32485.0 .

i a l

sl 0 586 rx ,

1 to review it? >

2 A You don't havN{ a copy?

3 Q Let me take a' break and I wil1 get one.

5 4 A Okay. 3 . s 5 Q After the notice of violation that we marked as an

(

exhibit and addressed hrite today was isnued, did you ge 6 /s it l

7 participate in any reevaluation of th'e ytppropriateness of

}

8 that notice of violation at a later date? I should phrase l

9 the question'more precisely.

3,

\

10 We have already seen that on April 11, you and j l

11 your colleagues issued a memorandum that reflected some n

12 reconsideration of the notice of violation. After April 11, l l

13 at a later time did you have occasion to revisit or  !

e

\ +'

14 reevaluate the notice of vio,3ation? , i 15 A Yes, and onl* because of my new position, because  ;

16 of my position in enforcement, not as a member of the i

l 17 investigation team.

18 Q How did that --- .,

19 A That was a result of the polar crane break 20 mechanism and the issue of like for like substitution, which 21 resulted in, I believe it was a material false statement 22 violation.

O L_)

ACE-FEDER AL .R EPORT ERS, } NC. ,

i wilonwi* cmerage ,

. g,3 3 , g, j y g g 7,37gg

4 _

32485.0 s1 187 O' ,

1 Q I don't think that is accurate. But your nieoory .

2 may be failing you. Thare was.d notice of violation,isened, fl 3 but not for material violation?

4 A Okay. Then we are on revision e but f ronfth.e t. g 5 standpoint, this notice waa revisited, yer >.

6 Q For what purpose? .

7 A Why management.ciecided to revisit id, I mean? l7 8 Q Yes, you went back and reconsidered? .'

i s 9 A Yes. Well, there was sche co.:gern that that -

c 10 problem may not have been appropriately addressed in the-11 first notice of v121ation. ,

12 Q That problem referring to what? -

13 A The like for like substitution as demonstrated by i s 14 the polar crane break mechanism.

l 15 MR. JOHNSON: Can I consult with my client fcr a 16 second.

', '. -r

j  !
;

17 MR. JOHNSON: All right.

18 BY ER. hhCKEY: -'

19 Q Was any change or revision ma'de to the nocice'6f p

20 violation which we have been discussing Sanued in Februaly of 21 1984 as a result of your review or revisicing?

22 A No. The final enforcement ac !.on was issued as.a O -

r ACE-FEDER AL. .R EPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 *"f "N ,

<00-3 4 6846

m. .

w.

f; 3

p. >

> ,s 32495,0 61 ^ j 188 0

!3 V)';  ;

f

{ I separate violation.

l .o

I 2 0 :The final enforcement action of what?

n . f, fs

< ', A The one involving the polar crane mechanism, and I

8) n #

. /}/ 3} ,

((4;' -

4J) ' can't remember.

/ i 5"! Q The polar crane break mechanism?

g 6 A ., Rignt.

h 7 Q Was a separate notice of violation?

hi

? l , ,

, 8 l' A Ycs.

9 Q And no change was made in the notice of violation l  ?

10 'that had been issued of February of 19847

,. 11 A Right.

'12 Q I think when.I asked you earlier about your j

13 .fran11arity with the company's response to the February '84 s

^

17 , ,, j'

,,/ 14 ' n o t 1 6 4 , o f' v i o l a t'i o n , ! I neg.lected to ask you one specific j.' ,

,. o 15 question. Were you assigned or tasked with reviewing the ff ,

16 company's response to the February '84 notice of violation?

. 17 A No, I was not.

/

18 Q You had read it but that was just out of interest?

i 19 A Yes, just courtesy.

"d ,

i 20 0 Did you participate in the decision to issue the i

g?

y. 21 notice of violation related to the affidavit filed by

.i 22 Mr. Parks?

s a.. ,,

, t

/ ,

t F ' ace-FEDERAL. REPORTERS, lh I

" U"""#' "' "" 8 ' 800a36-6646 b,. 20?}4rch i

32485.0 s1 189

/~l

'V 1 A- No, I did not.

2 0 Were you in the enforcement branch at that time?

3 A Yes, I was.

4 Q Was there some particular reason why you did not 5 participate?

6 MR. JOHNSON: I don't think that is relevant. We i

7 are talking about internal discussions, he told you he didn't 8 participate. I think that is as far as you need to go. Why 9 he didn't participate, I don't think is important.

10 MR. HICKEY: It may it may suggest he had some 11 connection even if he didn't participate. It may be part of O'

\~ 12 his duties.

i 13 THE WITNESS: The way enforcement is organized is 14 there's one or two or three individuals handling reactor 15 operations and construction. One or two people that handle 16 materials and all physics, one or two people who do security ,

j 17 and then we have one individual who does H&I cases.

18 BY MR. HICKEY:

19 Q H&I?

20 A Harassment, intimidation.

21 Q Is this on the enforcement side?

22 A Yes.

ACE-FEDER AL R EPORTERS, INC.

    • " " "" ## 800-336-6646 202-347-3700 I

)

L -- "32485.0

's1 190 1 ~Q Were you over the person who does or did'H&I 2 reviews, were you his superior?

3 A Yes, by being the deputy, yes..

4 Q Who is the individual?

5 A Gene Holler.

6 Q Did Mr. Holler participate in the review of-7 materials and issuance of the notice of violation on Parks 8 harassment?

9 A I would assume he did.

1 10 Q You don't.know?

11 A' I have no idea. Basically, the way we handle it 12 is I did operations and Jane did the rest.

13 Q Jane Axelrod?

14 A .Yes.

15 0 .Did you review Mr. Holler's work or 16 recommendations-with regard to Parks' harassment?

17 A No.

18 Q Did you review any recommendations about the 19 issuance of those violations of Mr. Parks in any way?

20 MR. JOHNSON: I think he already said he had, no 21 connection with it. Asked and answered.

l>

~'

22 THE WITNESS: But that is a separate issue. The

o l

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

" # "# N00-336 6646 202-347-3700

32485.0 s1 191 1 break mechanism was a separate issue from the harassment.

2' BY MR. HICKEY:

3 Q No, I didn't ask about break mechanism.

4 A But let me finish. The combination of the NRV was 5 considered with the break mechanism not with the Parks 6 action.

7 Q I don't understand what you just said.

8 A The consideration of reissuing the notice of 9 violation.

10 Q The February '84?

11 A Right; was considered in. combination with the

(']

12 polar crane break mechanism, not the Parks harassment and 13 intimidation case. I 14 Q Okay.

I 15 A Okay. So from the standpoint -- from that ]

16 standpoint I was involved in reconsidering, reissuance of the t

i 17 NOV with the polar crane break mechanism, but not in any way I 18 associated with the Parks intimidation and harassment 19 question.

20 Q You may have misunderstood my question. I was 21 asking in the harassment, if you participated in that in any 22 way. If you participated in that in any way.

l ACE-FEDER At. R EPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide coverage 3 g , 33 I

l 32485.0 s1 192 l (O v 1 A No.

2 MR. JOHNSON: It was asked and answered.

3 BY MR. HICKEY:

4 Q During the course of your interviews-and 5 activities on site in this investigation, Mr. Beach, did you I

6 have occasion to have any discussions with anyone there about (

l 7 Mr. Parks' action in going public with his allegations on 8 March 23; did that subject come up in the course of your i

9 discussions? l 10 A Yes. I 11 Q And did you hear any views expressed suggesting 12 that Mr. Parks' return to the site would have been difficult -

13 after his public announcement?

]

14 A Yes.

15 0 Who did you have those discussions with?

16 A During the course of several interviews, I think 17 with Blair Ballard, Thiessing, John Barton; in fact, I think 18 Kanga, Arnold and I think most anybody that we talked to 19 believed that would be difficult.

20 Q Did you get any indications from NRC personnel at 21 TMI that they shared that view or held that view?

22 A Yes.

A V

i l

l ACE-FEDERAL. REPORTERS. INC.

Nationwide Coverage

,32485.0-s1- 193 1 Q Who was that?

2 A I think Lake.

3 Q Lake Barrett?

4 A Yes. I can't think of his assistant. Phil-5 Grant.

6 Q Mr. Grant expressed that view to you, also?

7 A It wasn't so much of his difficulty in coming, it 8 was basically the fact they were sorry that it was handled'in 9 the manner in which it was handled.

10. O Well, I'm trying to determine whether they, eitherL 11 Mr. Barrett or Mr. Grant, expressed to you'the view that O. 12 Mr. Parks' return to the site, given the way he had handled 13 it, would have been difficult.

14 MR. JOHNSON: He didn't-say given the way it was 15 handled. You are putting words in his mouth. You addressed 16 your question to the fact as I remember, too, the fact he 17 went public. He didn't say anything about how he handled it. l 18 MR. HICKEY: Given the way he handled it; I meant 19 bis going public.

20 THE WITNESS: I think Lake was concerned about the 21 organizational conflicts had he returned to the site.

22

o l

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3760 800-336-6646

32485.0 s1 194 I,

1 BY MR. HICKEY:

2 Q And it's impact on the work at TMI?

3 A Right.

4 Q Did anyone express to you the view that Mr. Parks 5 had falsified statements that he made in the affidavit; did 6 anybody express that opinion to you?

7 MR. JOHNSON: When?

8 MR. HICKEY: During the investigation.

9 MR. JOHNSON: What do you n.ean by f alsified?

10 MR. HICKEY: Falsely stated. George, wait a 11 second.

12 If he doesn't understand the word " false" or 13 " falsified," I will try something else. Do you have a 14 problem with the expression?

15 THE WITNESS: I don't recall anybody specifically 16 saying that he falsified statements, I think what is a good j 17 word, he didn't wait for the organization to take care or J 18 correct some of the problems.

19 BY MR. HICKEY:

20 Q Well, did you hear the view expressed that 21 Mr. Parks had improperly claimed that Mr. Kunder was the 22 mystery man and that had caused resentment?

ACE-FEDERAL R EPORTERS, INC. )

,, ,gg Nationwide coverare 300 333 6646

o 32485.0-

'sl' 195 1 .MR.' JOHNSON:- Again, where, when, how?

a.

2 MR. HICKEY: We are talking about during this 3 . investigation at TMI.

4 THE WITNESS: To be very honest, any time that I

'S heard anything about'the mystery man, we did not listen to 6 any comments with regards to the mystery man, didn't look at 7 the mystery man part of the allegation.

8 BY MR. HICKEY:

l 9 Q I understand you didn't seek it out, but I'm l l

10 asking.you if any came to your attention?

11 A I. don't. recall anybody, let'me correct that. In

!;'h 12' general,: any time the mystery man was brought up, I think'the L 13 general feeling was that that was an exaggerated or false 14 allegation.

15 0 .This is being brought up by people in the course 16 of your investigation at the Isiand?

17 .A Right. I'm just making it clear; we did not bring 18 it up, and we immediately strayed off into the technical part 19 of the allegations, not with the mystery man.

20 Q I understand. You have told us you didn't 21 investigate it and sounds like you didn't want to investigate 22 it. Who made these statements?

O-1 l*

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, }NC.

Nationwide Coverage 33

32485.0 s1 196 O

1 A I tell you, you can probably look.through, I think 2 - .I think Mr. Kanga and Barton alluded to it.-

It would be 3 in the affidavits.

4 Q Do you recall an incident, a claim that Mr. Parks

-5 made after he had published his affidavit regarding the 6 alleged concealment of'the fact that radioactive. cesium was 7 being trucked off-site in sewage from the personnel facility, 8 you know, when the men showered after coming out of the 9 containment?

'10 A I remember Lake discussing that with me.

11 Q Lake Barrett?

12 A Yes.

13' Q In Mr. Barrett's interview it has,the following 14 quote at page 28 out of 37. Do you-still have a copy? I 15 will show you this. "The traces of cesium-137 are so. minimal-16 that it meets EPA drinking water standards for 17 radioactivity. In my opinion, this issue was brought up just 18 to excite public emotions." Did Mr. Barrett make a statement 19 in substance like what I have just read to you about the 20 cesium allegation?

21 A Very similar.

22 Q Did you investigate the cesium allegation?

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700

  • 800-33(r6646 1

32485.0

.sl 197 1 A .No, we did not. 1 2 Q Do you-know whether others did, Meeks and Vorse?

3 A They may have. The only place I hear'd that was 4 from Lake, and I imagine he handled that in the project 5 office.

There's.one other comment on Mr.'Barrett's that I

~

6 Q 7 want to direct your attention to, on page 20. It's on Parks' 1

8 remarks concerning Kunder as the mystery man, and Mr. Barrett 9 states, according to his statement here, "Vic Stello and' John 10 Craig probably know more about the mystery man than anyone at' 11 NRC. .However, in my_ opinion, Kunder is technically very 12

' ~

astute and a stickler for details. He exerts a conservative 13 ' influence in his area of' responsibility and knows the inner 14 workings of TMI-2 as well as anybody. Parks may have had a 15 grudge against Kunder because PORC, (Kunder) sometimes 16 rejected Parks' procedures."

l 17 Did you ever have a discussion with Barrett during 18 your investigation during which Barrett made statements like 19 those I have just read to you?

20 A I can recall talking with him about Vic Ste11o's 21 position on the issue.

22 Q Do you recall any discussion of the possibility "O

ACE-FEDERAL REPOP.TERS, INC.

202-347-3700

  • "
  • 800-336-6646

32485'.0 s1 198 1 that' Parks.had'a grudge against Kunder?

.2 A. Yes.

3 Q Did you discuss-that with anyone other than 4 Barrett?

5 A Phil Grant'may.have been -- or Roger. It's.just 6 general conversation.

'7 -Q Did either Phil Grant or Barrett or both express 8 the view that they thought Parks did have a grudge against 9 Kunder?

10 A Lake did.

11 Q How about Grant?

.:O- . 12 A I don't recall.

13 Q I have here now, Mr. Beach, a copy of NUREG-0680 14 sub (5); it's not the full versjon, because it's a very. big 15 document, but you can at least see the title, and what is 1 I

d 16 attached here is section 10, running from page 10-1 through 17 10-23. That is the section that deals with the alleged 18 harassment of Parks, King and Gishel. Take a look at that.

I 19 A Okay, I have quickly gone over this. J 20 Q My question was whether you,'at the time that was 21 being issued, were involved in any way in the review or 22 issuance of that document?

O 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

" " # "E 202-347 3700 800-336-6646 J

1 32485.0 s1 199

.w)

('i 1 1 A Not this specific section.

2 Q- Some other section?

i 3 A Because of my involvement in enforcement, I did do  !

4 a partial review for the technical issues related to the low 5 grade tests at TMI.

6 Q But you didn't review the section on harassment at 7 all?

8 A No. /

9 Q This document I'm about to show you is the safety 10 evaluation report for the reactor building polar crane load 11 test. It's a letter from Mr. Snyder of the program office to O 12 Mr. Kanga, dated November 18, 1983. And attached to it is 13 the safety evaluation of the same date. Have you seen it 14 before, Mr. Beach?

15 A No, I have not seen this one.

16 Q All right. I will take it, then, you didn't 17 participate in any way in the review by NRR.that is reflected 18 in the safety evaluation report for the load test?

19 A No, once we issued the interim report on September 20 1, the only participation on these issues was the responses l

21 to the program office with Bernie trying to resolve our L

22 technical differences.

O 1

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC. )

Nationwide coverage 3gg_333 33,3 i

, g gg

l. _ _ _ - - _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ .

1 32485.0 l 200 sl-(~)

U 1 Q Okay. Then I don't need to pursue that with you 2 further. One last technical question.

3 We talked earlier when we were talking about 4 CDPI-20 and job tickets and so on, both of us were using an  ;

5 expression " turnover" at some points. When you talk about 6 turnover, what are you referring to, Mr. Beach?

7 A Basically, what I'm referring to was the 8 perception by the Bechtel employees that they had the crane 9 to refurbish in accordance with their procedures. And in 10 other words, to actually sever the crane, rather than GPU-N 11 turning it over in accordance with AP-1047, which is a

(')

k/ 12 testing procedure. That probably -- that is a poor answer to 13 your question, but --

14 Q Is it a . technical term; does turnover as you use 15 it have a precise technical meaning?

16 A Yes, generally when you talk about turnover, it 17 would be -- let's say you were coming the other way, you were 18 constructing a nuclear plant. Okay, when construction 19 finishes they would do the pre-op test, the .,ydro, and then 20 at that point walk down, turn over the records to operations 21 and it would be within the guise of the licensee's 22 operational program.

O ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage O 800-336-6646

I i

32485.0 l s1 201 1 C\

%.J .

1 Q Yes. But that is not -- we are not -- are you 2 using turnover in that sense, when we are talking about the 3 crane?

4 A Only the opposite, say, turning over from 5 operations to Bechtel to refurbish the crane.

6 Q I think I can say this is the last question. If 7 it was the intent of the job ticket CA-258 not to 8 administratively sever the polar crane so GPU-N procedures 9 would still apply, in other words, but only to initiate 10 refurbishment activities in accordance with GPUN procedures, 11 then would the issuance of CA-258 have been proper?

.I')

\/ 12 MR. JOHNSON: Repeat the first part of the 13 question.

14 MR. HICKEY: Sure.  ;

I 15 BY MR. HICKEY: '

16 Q If it wcs the intent of the job ticket CA-258 not 17 to administratively sever the polar crane so that GPU-N 18 procedures would still apply, but only to initiate 19 refurbishment in accordance with GPU-N procedures, then would 20 the job ticket have been properly issued?

21 MR. JOHNSON: You are talking about the very job 22 ticket CA-258, that document, you are talking about that very G

V ACE-FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC.

N"""""ide coverage ggy,,,gg 20m7a700

~ - - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _

L32485.0 s1 202 0

1 document,-as it exists now.

2 THE WITNESS: My problem, the reason I'm having 3 difficulty ~in answering'that question is because'CA-258 was 4 issued in accordance with 1407.. 1407 is' strictly _a 5 maintenance procedure that does not speak to refurbishment of

6. a polar crane.

7 BY MR. HICKEY:

8 Q Cannot be used to authorize refurbishment of-a 9 . polar crane?

10 A Not in accordance with the licensee's procedures

'll at the time of the investigation.

O 12 Q. And the procedure you are. referring to is.1407, 13 -1407. oral authorized maintenance,' not refurbishment?

14 A Right, right. Where'1407 became a. problem was.the 15 AP-1047, the 1043 and the 1021, which Parks did not address, 16 because those were the three procedures that really governed 17 you adhere to the. technical specification requirements.

'18 MR. HICKEY: I don't have any more questions, 19 Mr. Beach. Thank you very much for your time and 20 information.

21 MR. JOHNSON: I would like to break before I do my 22 cross. My examination. I have a few questions for

-( l l

ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

, , 202-347-3700 800-336-6646

w

^ '

32485.0 sl- 203 O

1 )Or.' Beach..

2 (Recess.)

3 EXAMINATION 4 BY MR. JOHNSON:

5- Q Mr. Beach, during the course of.Mr. Hickey's 6 questioning of you, I-asked you a series of questions 7 involving the notice of violation of February 3, 1984 and-the 8 company's response to it. And in the' course of asking the 9 -questions about that, on each ofsthe -- well, at least some-10 of the' violations that he asked'you about that are noted in.

11 .that document, Mr. Hickey asked you questions about who first O- 12' identified.the. violation or how you learned of the 13 violation. 1md specifically in terms of the turnover 14 violation, there was a substantial questioning concerning the 15 application of. administrative procedure AP-1047 and/AP-1043 16 with regard to turnover of the polar crane for refurbishment .

1 17 pursuant to job ticket CA-258.

18 Do you recall that questioning?

19 A Yes.

20 MR. HICKEY: Which notice of violation?

I 21 MR.' JOHNSON: February 13. j 22 MR. HICKEY: I know, but which one?

O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.  !

202-347-3700 800-336-6646

r 32485.0 s1- 204 i

1 BY MR. JOHNSON:

2 0 Well, there was questioning concerning that matter 3 number 5, and I think there was discussion related to it from 4' number 1. Okay. Let's do one thing at the time. With 5 respect to number 5, which had to do with job ticket CA-258, 6 was it your purpose in doing your investigation into the 7 question that is raised, first of all, subject of this 8 violation number 5, that was the subject of your 9 investigation at TMI in the spring of 1983, was it not?

10 A Right.

11 Q And in the course of that. investigation, you found.-

t ..
12. that there was a violation of AP-1043 and AP-1047'in 13 connection with the use of the job ticket to turn over the 14 refurbishing project to Bechtel?

15 A Yes. 5 16 Q And did you make a determination or was it your 17 purpose to make a determination who first raised that issue 18 at the site?

19 A From the interviews conducted with people we 20 talked to, there was a basic misunderstanding of whether or 21 not the polar crane had been actually turned over to Bechtel 22 or not.

O 4

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

NanonwW Comap 202-347 3700 800-336-6646

32485.0 s1 205

'l' MR. HICKEY: That is.nonresponsive to his 2 question. .Do you want to try it again?- ,

3. THE WITNESS: Well, I guess what I'm-saying is 4 that.it was difficult to determine who.first raised the. i 5 . issue, because to raise an issue you would have to expect 6 somebody to correct the problem, and --

7 BY MR. JOHNSON:

8 Q Try to answer my. question as directly as you can.

9 Was it your purpose to determine who first raised the issue-10 that I.just raised?

11 A That was not a specific purpose of our t .12 investigation.

13 ,

_Q And did you make a finding with respect to who l 14 first raised the issue?

15 A With regard to the job ticket?

16 Q The job ticket violation, yes. What don't you 17 understand?

18 A The job ticket was dated September 1982.

19 MR. HICKEY: I think July.

20 THE WITNESS: Or July 1982.

21 MR. JOHNSON: July or something like that.

22 MR. HICKEY: Your question was whether he made a O.

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

32485.0 s1 206

)

1 finding -- was the last question I think you asked him. I 2 don't know whether you are asking, whether you mean finding 3 in some specific or formal sense, but the witness previously 4 testified that the item number 5 was not raised first by 5 Mr. Parks, and to his knowledge, Mr. Parks didn't raise it.

6 You say finding; are you trying to exclude that testimony or 7 do you mean something different, something technical?

8 BY MR. JOHNSON:

9 Q Did you make, well, was it your conclusion as a 10 result of your investigation, to the best of your 11 recollection, that a particular office or particular person

) 12 had first raised that concern?

13 -A As a result of our investigation, we reviewed the 14 job ticket and the maintenance procedure 1407 and found  ;

15 several deficiencies as a result of the job ticket not 16 satisfying the maintenance procedure and the maintenance l 17 procedure not satisfying technical specification 18 requirements.

19 Q Okay. But I'm asking --

20 MR. HICKEY: That still doesn't answer the t l

21 question.

22

[)

s-  ;

i

, i I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.

m.w.mo ~ ~ * < ~ ~

l 8vo.

z

32485.0 s1 207 rm

(-)

1 BY MR. JOHNSON:

2 O I'm asking a specific question about whether you 3 reached a conclusion about who raised that matter first?

4 A I cannot recall.

5 Q Okay. Did you?

6 MR. HICKEY: Can I clear up, you say you do recall 7 if you reached a conclusion or you don't recall what the 8 conclusion was.

9 THE WITNESS: I don't recall that we reached a 10 conclusion as to who first identified it.

11 BY MR. JOHNSON:

12 Q I don't see a conclusion with -- about that in the 13 violation. You notice the violation -- I believe Mr. Hickey, 14 when.he was questioning you in regard to Section D-10 of the 15 OI's September '83 report, he went over certain paragraphs 16 that dealt with reference to Mr. Parks, and -- okay, there's 17 a reference on page I-3 of that report that says the allegers 18 indicated that the reactor building polar crane was not .

19 properly transferred to Bechtel Northern Company for the 20 reactor polar crane refurbishing project. Then there's a 21 reference to Parks' affidavit 5 and 15 and you were asked 22 about that?

s ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347-3700 800-336-6646

32485.0 sl 208 g

G 1 A Right.

2 Q And I would like to direct your attention to this 3 document that is, it's a GPU-N form which says in print at 4 the top " comment resolution" and this one, this document is, 5 appears as an exhibit to the Parks' June 1987 deposition, and 6 the version that I'm looking at is Respondent Exhibit 28, and i

7 the form that I'm referring to is attached to memo, " internal 8 office memorandum of GPU Nuclear dated February 28, 1983 from 9 David M. Lake to L.P. King."

10 The comment resolution, and I represent to you, 11 and counsel, correct me if I'm misstating it, is similar to

/~T

^J 12 the document that -- the previous Respondent Exhibit 27, the 13 only difference, main difference in the comment resolution 14 form being that 27 is blank on the right-hand side where it 15 says -- where it has places for the resolution; " accept 16 comment, reject comment, reason for rejection."

17 What it has is the comments themselves and the 18 form Respondent Exhibit 27 says "R. Parks," date of comments 19 2/17/83, and I represent to you that is the same comment that 20 appear on Respondents Exhibit 28. I'm using 28 because it's 21 a much clearer version, so this -- for now, you can just 22 ignore the typewritten portion on the right-hand side. I c:)

l l

' 1 1

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 800-336-6646

____-__________-___l

32485.0 s1 209

(~)

G!

I will refer you to the handwritten comments on the left-hand 2 portion.

3 A Okay.

4 Q Did you review this document during the course of 5 your investigation in 1983 at the site?

6 A Yes, I think UWI 4370, 389183 PCO-1 is one of the 7 exhibits of the OI report.

8 MR. HICKEY: I don't know if that is an answer to 9 the question.  ;

10 THE WITNESS: And as being one of the exhibits, I 11 have seen this comment resolution.

O l/ 12 MR. HICKEY: I think he asked whether you reviewed 13 it during your investigation at TMI.

i 14 THE WITNESS: Yes.

15 BY MR. JOHNSON:

id Q And you are saying that as a result of that? $

l 17 A As reference, yes.  !

I l

18 Q Do you recall what this document is at this time?

19 A It is a memorandum basically that forwards 1

20 comments, I believe, from regarding the polar crane load test 21 from site operations to Mike Radbill. He is head of the 22 polar crane task force.

()

I ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 E00-336-6646

32485.0

. slL 210.

O 1 .I will ask you to look at this document and Q'.

2 answer; I:would like to ask you a question, whether.this l

3 document can be fairly interpreted to raise'the' question.of-4 the propriety of the. turnover or transfer to Bechtel or to 5 recovery operations of the polar crane for refurbishing?

6 A' Okay.

1 l

7 Q I believe it's four pages.

8 A 'Okay.

9 Q 'Are there any specific comments as you are reading 10 through it that pertain to the question of transfer of the 11 polar crane for refurbishment'to Bechtel, pertain'ing to O. 12 turnover?-

13 MR. HICKEY: Pertaining in any way to turnover?.

l 1

14 MR. JOHNSON: Pertains'to turnover for 15' refurbishment of the polar crane. 4

~

16 THE WITNESS: The fact that the modifications to I 17 the polar crane were not done in accordance with-1043 and 18 testing done in accordance with 1047.

19 MR. HICKEY: Where are you referring to,

~20 Mr. Beach?

21 THE WITNESS: Item number 8.

22 MR. HICKEY: I'm unclear which question you are O

ACE-FEDER Al. REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 800-336-6646 r

i 32485.0 s1 -211 0

1- answering.now, because I think Mr. Johnson left us with two.

2 First one was does this -- can this document be fairly-1 3 interpreted to raise'the question that provided'the turnover; 4 then you. asked him other comments that pertained in any way 5 with the. turnover of the polar. crane. Which question are we 6 answering? i 7 THE WITNESS: The second question is number 8.

8 BY MR. JOHNSON:

9 Q So the answer to the first question is also yes,

'10 or can be. fairly interpreted?

11 MR. HICKEY: He hasn't said that-yet.

12 MR. JOHNSON: I'm asking if it.can be fairly.

13 interpreted the way it states.

14 THE WITNESS: Yes.

15 .BY MR. JOHNSON:

16 Q Okay. Now, it's true, isn't it, that this 17 document -- what is the date of this document?

18 A The date of the --

19 Q Of this comment resolution, this UWI form?

1 20 A February 17, 1983.

21 Q Who is the originator?

22 A Richard Parks.

G ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347 3700

"

  • 800-336-6646 I

32485.0 s1 212 L.)

1 Q Okay. When you were addressing Mr. Hickey's 2 questions concerning who raised the question of the propriety 3 of the use of the job ticket for -- job ticket CA-258 for the 4 polar crane refurbishment, did you have this document in mind 5 at that time?

6 A I was in error in that I thought the document was 7 signed by -- from King, manager of site operations.

8 Q Which document?

9 A The memo forwarding the comment resolutions.

10 Q So when you were answering the question before to

-11 Mr. Hickey, you did not have -- you had -- this is, it's your

. kr'}- 12 testimony that you believe this document was created by

)

13 Mr. King?

i 14 A Yes, and I did not remember the dates of the i i

15 document.

16 Q Okay. Mr. Hickey asked you several questions

)

17 about the involvement of QA in the issue of the job ticket 18 turnover in connection with the meeting that took place at i

19 the site, I believe it was February 23, and he asked you 20 wasn't it true that the issue of -- okay, well, that was 21 actually, that is the discussion of CDPI-20, isn't it?

22 A Right.

O ACE-FEDER AL R EPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverag 800-33(L6646

L .j 1 32485.0 -;

s1 213 lt} 1 Q. Do'you recall where, the questioning with regard, 2 .to who raised the job ticket matter, in your earlier 3 testimony before, here today? I can't recall exactly'in_what 4 connection it was raised. Do you recall that questioning?. .

5 'A Yes. I'--

6 Q And the reference was from, in part, the Parks' 7 affidavit and whether the Parks' affidavit raised it. Look -l 8 'on page 5.

9 A Right.

10 Q Okay. At the time you were asked'that question 11 concerning -- the question being who initiated this, brought lp -

V 12 this problem of CA-258 to the attention of QA, do you recall 13 being questioned about.that subject?

14 A Yes.

15 Q And do you recall your testimony?

16 A Yes.

17 Q. And what was that?

18 A That it was difficult to verify exactly who, from 19 my memory, first brought up the issue.

20 Q Okay. Seeing the document unit work construction 21 comment form initiated by Mr. Parks on 2/17/83, does that l',

l 22 indicate to you anything that would serve to reach a O

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

" " "E 202-347-3700 800-336-6646

32485.0  %

s1 214 o '

1 conclusion about whether the matter was raised first by 2 either QA or at meetings that were held on February 22, 23, 3 at the site, or subsequently dealt with by the TWGlat its

\' ,

4 meeting of March 4 or in a QDR dated March 8 of 19837 <

5 MR. HICKEY: I object to the form of the i, 6 question. I %

g,1 '

7 THE WITNESS: It basically says that Parks 8 commented -- comments on the polar crane load test as of

~

9 February 17, 1983, addressing v. lations of AP-1043 and 1047.

10 BY MR. JOHNSON:

11 Q With respect to what? Are you referring to number r ,L

'~'

12 87 13 A Yes.

14 Q Andthatspecifiestheuseofworkpackagesa>f-l 15 unit work constructions not complying? O , N i 16 A Andthetestingrequiredbhin test -- not 17 complies with AP-1047 and 1023.

18 Q Now, looking at the right-hand ' side which has 19 typed information, I represent to you that the right side is 20 signed by Mr. Radbill, and you can see the name at the top 21 there, and the date of the resolution says 2/25/83. Would 22 you read the comment, the reason for rejection that applies

(

ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage

., _y

, :, f .- y

./ 1

. 9 ,

/ i  ;, c.

32485.0 ,

j

sl c d 215 ' '

('}

[

l 1 to number 8? [,.

2 .,

2 A Testing to date was done underjjob ticket ntimber 3 CA-258, d-ted 7/14/82. AP-1047 does not apply.because this c

t ,

4 is a construction operational test. s

.,, 'y

{ 1 5 Q Now, in addition, it seems to me wiien you Were

, s 6 being asked about this and reference to item j5 in the notice.

.>/ 8 7 of violation, you were asked whether Mr. Parks had' raised the' f

8. question with regard to job ticket proceduze compliance 6

9 authorized by maintenance procedure 1407-1, and I belieVe ybu 10 said that Mr. Parks didn't raise that issue in terms'of 11 maintenance procedure 1407-1; is that corroct?

12 A Yes.

13 Q Now, in the comment resolution that we were just 14 referring to, he didn't mention maintenance procedure 1407-1, 15 did he?

16 A No.

17 Q Does that indicate that the -- that your 18 investigation disagreed with the statement that Mr. Parks 19 made in item L of his comment resolutio: '

20 hP. HICKEY: Would you say the question again, 21 please.

l 22 O

j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.

Nationwide Coverage 800-3364646 w____-- . _ - _ - _

p.pg r - - - - - -

Q) n - ), j' L

2 -

s,

. , ,e t  %.

b ' 32485.0} ? I L

s1 '

216

.f 1 7 BY MR. JOHNSON:

1 1 .

! r l y} Q The fact that you earlier said Mr. Parks never 3 raised this question in terms of maintenance procedure 4 1407-1,.does that statement mean that your opinion is that ll -

5 Wr. Parks didn't raise the overall question of the turnover

./,

6 perjjob ticket C-258 in this comment resolution item 8?

i/ , ,

.) < .> .

y 7, ,

MR. HICKEY: Objection to the form of the r e

'y 8 question, both leading and vague. Your questions to the g/5 '

e #

39 witness have all been very leading and it will be apparent on

/

10 the record. I suggest since he is your witness that you j 11 might want to ask him an ordinary direct question. But I 12 object to the form of that one.

13 BY MR. JOHNSON:

14 Q Well?

15 A It does address a violation of AP-1023.

16 Q Does it make it -- is there -- is it in any way, 17 well, does the fact that he does not mention a maintenance 18 procedure 1407-1 make it more or less invalid, this comment 19 8?

20 MR. HICKEY: Pardon me?

21 BY MR. JOHNSON:

22 Q The fact that he doesn't mention maintenance ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.

a n aFe 202-347-3700 800-33 & 6646

32485.0 ,

s1 217 I rN i U

1 procedure 1407-1, does that invalidate his comment number 8?

2 A No.

3 Q Okay. Mr. Beach, in doing your investigation, did 4 you focus on the sequence of events that led to the 5 identification of the issue involving use of CDPI-20? I will 6 repeat the question.

7 In the course of your investigation, did you focus 8 on the sequence of events that led to the discovery or 9 uncovering of the violation of CDPI-20 that is itemized in 10 violation number 2 in the February 3, 1984 violation?

11 A Yes.

fi

\/ 12 Q Well, what was the sequence of events, as you 13 recall?

14 A Well, CDPI-20 was being used as a Bechtel 15 procedure because if, as we discussed before, if Bechtel, in 16 fact, actually had responsibility for the polar crane and it 17 was severed from GPU-N, and CDPI-20 could be used because it 18 did not have the same controls as the GPU-N administrative 19 procedures --

20 Q All right, but my question specifically is, did 21 you focus on the sequence of events that led to who first 22 raised this concern?

O ACE-FEDER AL REPORT ERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverap gg

i32485.0' s1 218 LO-

-1 A Who'first raised it?

2 O Was that part of your investigation?

3 A' No' .

4 Q When you.were asked questions about.this, you 5 stated, I believe, and counsel can correct me, that you 6 couldn't verify that Mr. Parks raised it first; is that 7 correct?  !

8 MR. HICKEY: My recollection.of the discussion'is 9 -that in the affidavit Mr. Parks reflects that Mr.'Freemerman 10 advanced CDPI-20 to Mr. Ballard and Mr. Parks' rejected it'in

'll the affidavit.

O 12 THE WITNESS: Yes.

13 'BY MR. JOHNSON:

14 Q That is the discussion on pages 23 and.24 of the 15 Parks' affidavit, starts at the bottom of the 23, "Later that 16 day, I attended a meeting. Ron'Freemerman opened that 17- meeting by stating that he had read AP-1047 that night, the 18 night before, and it didn't apply to what we were doing on 19 the polar crane," then handed a copy of CDPI-20 to everyone?

20 A Right.

21 Q Do you know whether that was the first time that 22 concern, use of CDPI-20 was raised, the validity of that was o

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

' # *"## 800-336-6646

. 202-347 3700

32485.0 s1 ~ 219 1 raised, that is, by Mr. Ballard at that meeting of the 23rd?

2 A I d'on't.know that that was the first time. I know 3 that in interviews we conducted with several of the 4 ' individuals' involved,'GPU-N individuals all stated-they did 5 :not know about the existence of CDPI-20.

6 .Q Now, Mr. Hickey asked you, concerning the 7 statement that appears in your report of the OI of September 8 ,1983, page II-24, at the bottom of that page where it says l

9 " Interviews with BNOC project manager and assistant project 10 manager indicated that they made a. decision not to follow 11 these procedures for the reactor building polar crane

=O 12 refurbishment program project," and the itemized above are 13 three procedures as referenced AP-1047, AP-1021 and AP-10437 14 A Right.

15 0 And you identified these two individuals 16 identified here'by title as Mr.'Thiessing and Mr. Freemerman?

17 A Right.

18 Q Okay. Now, it says in the report they had made '

19 the decision not to follow these procedures and my question 20 to you is, was it your conclusion or belief that you were 21 expressing here that this was an unintentional or intentional )

22 decision?

O ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

"U "d* "" 8" l 202-347 3700 800-336-6646

_ ___ __ _ __ a

l

'32485.0 s1 220 O 1 A That they believed that the polar crane was 2 severed from GPU-N administrative control by the use of the-3 job ticket.

4 Q And how it was that they contacted -- whether they 5 intentionally decided'not to follow these procedures are not?

6 A I don't believe they intentionally.-- that it was 7 a willful decision not to follow them. I think they just 8 didn't understand.the requirements for complying with the 9 GPU-N administrative procedures.

10 Q okay. So it's not your testimony that it was an I

11 unwilling decision, they did it based on a belief they had- l

~

12 which justified it.

13 MR.. HICKEY: You are just putting words in the 14 witness' mouth. He said they didn't understand the 15 requirements.

16 MR. JOHNSON: Strike that question.

17 BY MR. JOHNSON:

18 Q Okay. During the examination'by Mr. Hickey, he 19 asked you a question, a series of questions concerning page 20 17 of Parks' affidavit involving a hypothetical accident 21 occurring which might require the use of decay heat removal 22 pumps to reflood the reactor vessel. Do you recall that I)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 800-336-6646 2__-..__- _ - _

'32485.0 s1 221

_OLg 1 discussion?

2 A Yes, I do.

3 0 And I believe it was your conclusion that 4 Mr. Parks was incorrect in his belief that an accident of 5 this nature needed to be examined, and secondly that assuming 6 he was correct and it needed to be examined, it was incorrect t i

7 in thinking that only the decay heat removal pumps were ]

8 available for that purpose to deal with that accident; is 9 that correct? l 10 A Right.

l l

11 Q That is what you said?

r's

# 12 A There were some other systems available.

13 Q But both aspects of what I said were your earlier 14 testimony?

15 A Right.

16 Q Did you reach any conclusion with respect to 17 whether the statements in the affidavit here -- is there any 18 evidence that you uncovered in your investigation that the 19 statement here that I'm referring to on page 17 was not 20 raised or raised in good faith by Mr. Parks?

21 A No, we did not.

22 Q You didn't address that question?

O' v

)

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.

" " "E 202-347 3700 800-336-6646

32485.0 sl- 222

)  !

1 A No. We addressed only the fact of were there 2 other systems available or if there was an accident scenario, 3 would these decay heat -- would those decay heat removal 4 pumps be required.

5 Q In Exhibit 1 to this deposition, Mr. Hickey asked 6 you some questions about that document, and you pointed to 7 questions 3, 7, 11, 18 and 23, and there was some discussion j 8 with Mr. Hickey regarding Parks' position as to unreviewed 9 safety questions; do you recall that?

10 A Yes.

11 Q Which question did that pertain to, do you recall?

12 A I think it was 18. ,

13 Q Okay. Did you reach a determination one way or 14 another whether Mr. Parks has raised that concern in good 15 faith?

16 A We -- no, we didn't icok at it from that 17 standpoint. We just felt it was a misunderstanding of the 18 requirements.

19 Q And with respect to matters which I think l 20 Mr. Hickey asked you, whether you looked at every allegation 21 in the 56-page affidavit of Mr. Parks, and he asked you 1

22 whether you examined every allegation, you said no; is that i ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Cmerage

,g ,ygg 33M64

.- .__.___ - ________ _ A

'32485.0' s1. 223 'I

. l 1 -correct?

'2 A -(Witness' nodded-head.) l 3 MR. HICKEY: -You-have to answer out loud.

'4 THE WITNESS: Yes.

5 'BY MR. JOHNSON:

~

l 61- .

Q And was there any-suggestion'one way or another as-

'7 to those allegations you did not investigate, as to whether-8 those allegations had been made in good faith or not?

9 .- MR . HICKEY: Suggestion by-whom?

! 10 BY MR. JOHNSON:

I l 11 Q What I'm trying to get at is in the course of your

(

LO 12 investigation, did you obtain any information or reach any 13 conclusion or -- let me start again.

14 Did the fact that you -- I'm addressing the fact 15 that you did not investigate certain of those concerns or 16 certain of those agencies' allegations. Was the' fact that 17 you didn't investigate some of those allegations reflective 18 of the determination by you that those allegations were not 19 made in good faith?

l 20 A No.

21 Q Toward the end of the deposition, Mr. Parks --

22 excuse me, Mr. Hickey asked you some questions about

'O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 800-336-6646

32485.0 s1 224 1 discussions you had or were a party to on the site in the 2 course of your investigation and interviews with various 3 people and whether statements were made by any individuals l

4 you talked to, whether it would be difficult to work with i 5 Mr. Parks. Do you recall that? l 6 A Yes.

7 Q Okay, and what was the context, difficult to work 8 with him, in what context did that refer to?

9 MR. HICKEY: Are we going to talk about a 10 particular statement.

11 MR. JOHNSON: No, I'm just asking him to refer 12 back to his earlier testimony and whether there was a 13 particular context; difficult to work with Mr. Parks in what 14 context.

15 MR. HICKEY: I don't see how you can answer that 16 without focusing on a particular conversation.

17 MR. JOHNSON: Well, you didn't, Mr. Hickey, you 18 asked him a general conversation, about whether the subject 19 of whether any of these people he talked to said --

20 MR. HICKEY: Whether it came up. I asked him 21 whether the subject came up and he did. And if you want to 22 explore with him in what context it come up, but I don't  !

)

l ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6646

1 1

32485.0 s1 225

/m b

1 think you ought to assume it was the same context for a 2 number of conversations.

3 BY MR. JOHNSON:

4 Q Okay. Do you recall any of the contexts in which 5 this came up?

6 A I think it was difficult to work with from the 7 standpoint there would be some hard feelings.

8 Q From what?

9 A As a result of the affidavit being public.

10 Q Okay. As a result of him going public with the i 11 affidavit?  !

I) ss 12 A Right.

13 Q And I believe in answer to your question of who 14 you spoke to, you used the names Mr. Ballard, Thiessing, 15 Barton, Kanga and Arnold; is that correct?

16 A Right.

17 Q Do you recall speaking to anyone else at the site 18 in which the subject came up?

19 A I may have, those are just interviews I l

20 remembered, very, more vividly sitting in on.

21 MR. HICKEY: Well, you referred earlier to 22 Mr. Barrett and Mr. Grant.

O ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coserage BOO-336-6646 j

32485.0.

s1 226 1 BY MR.,JOHNSONs 2 .Q- I'm talking about, not NRC. people at this point, 3 any non-NRC' people?

,i 4 A Right.

5 0 Were there any others'that you can recall?

6 A And GPU-N..

7. 'Q Or:Bechtel?

8 A No.

9 .Q Did you attempt to speak to any lower level  ;

10- individuals at the site about this matter?

11 A .Those are the'only interviews I can remember. I O 12 don't remember --

13 Q Did you interview any of the' individuals that 14 worked more or less on a direct level with Mr. Parks.at the

'15 ' site during.your investigation?

16 A I can remember talking to Ron Fornicola, and --

17 MR. HICKEY: John Fornicola, his'name is John.

18 THE WITNESS: And Morrison, I believe. I 19 MR. JOHNSON: Tom Morris?

l l 20 THE WITNESS: He was in QA. I think it.was l-21 Morrison.

22 MR. HICKEY: I don't remember.

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

  1. ^#

202-347-3700 800-336-6646

i 32485.0 J s1 227 O {

1 MR. JOIINSON: Tom Morris was not in QA, I don't 2 believe. Did you have any interviews with other than 3 these --

4 THE WITNESS: Witness Dave Lake, gee, I can't 5 remember if I talked to Freemerman or not. Those are the 6 ones I remember comments regarding the affidavit.

7 BY MR. JOHNSONr 8 Q You also were asked questions about the George 9 Kunder -- the allegation in Parks' affidavit that deals with 10 the mystery man, and you indicated that the discussions with i

11 Mr. Kanga and Mr. Barton, they indicated to you that these O 12 assertions in the affidavit were either exaggerated or false 13 allegations; do you recall?

14 A To the best of my knowledge, yes.

15 Q Do you recall anyone else making similar 16 statements to you?

17 A No. No. I mean, there may have been, but we were 18 not, we were trying to stay out of that as much as possible.

l 19 Q And why was that, why? <

20 A Specific direction by the chairman. j 21 Q Chairman, not to get into that?

I 22 A Not to get into that.

O q ACE-FEDER AL R EPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

32485.0 s1 228 10 1 Q When you were talking with Mr. Kanga and 2 Mr. Barton and the subject came up and it was their opinion, 3 apparently, that the allegations were false, did they I

4 indicate to you that they believed Mr. Parks had knowingly i 5 made false allegations?

6 A No, as I recall, it was just in discussing the 7 affidavit in general, they -- I remember them alluding to the 8 mystery man allegations.

9 Q And do you recall whether either of them said to 10 you that Mr. Parks had intentionally made false statements-11 about Mr. Kunder?

O

/ 12 A I can't answer whether they believed -- I mean, 13 they didn't agree with him, so whether they felt that he i

14 intentionally made them, I don't know. 3 I

15 MR. HICKEY: His question was whether they said 1 16 that.

17 BY MR. JOHNSON:

18 0 The question was whether they said it?

1 19 A Not that I can recall. It may be in the 20 affidavits for those.

21 Q Mr, Hickey asked you about the statement that 22 appears in a summary, I believe, of a statement that was O

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

"" " E 202-347-3700 800-336-6646

32485.0 s1 229-O-

1 given to you or to OI by Mr. Barrett or a response to 2 .Mr. Parks' allegations about Mr. Kunder, and he pointed out 3 some statements in which Mr. Barrett asserted that Mr. Parks 4 had a grudge against Mr. Kunder. Do you recall that m 5 statement he showed you?

6 A Yes.

7 Q' And he asked you whether you -- about discussions 8 you had with Mr. Barrett; Mr. Barrett said that to you and 9 you said --

.10 A Yes.

11' Q Do you recall Mr. Barrett indicating to you that.

12 statements made in the affidavit of Mr. Parks were made in 13 bad faith?

14 MR. HICKEY: Some specific statements or any 15 statements?

16 BY MR. JOHNSON:

17 O Any of his safety allegations?

18 MR. HICKEY: What does that mean?

19 BY MR. JOHNSON:

20 Q Well, let's stick with Mr. Kunder first?

21 A I think he believed that there was a personality 22 conflict between Kunder and Parks because of Kunder's  !

O I

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646

~

' 32485.0 i.

s1 230

.q.-

U 1 position as chairman of PORC.

2 MR. HICKEY: Mr. Beach, I know it's late, but 1

3 Mr. Johnson's question was fairly specific. I think he asked 4 you whether Mr. Barrett made any statements to you to suggest-5 'that Mr. Barrett-believed Parks had stated his allegation 6 about Kunder in bad falth. He just wants.to know if~you 7 remember Barrett saying something to you like that; you 8 either remember it or-don't remember it'.

9 .THE WITNESS: I guess depends on how you' interpret 10 . bad faith. No, I don't, I don't believe that bad faith was 11 an issue. 1 0 12 BY MR. JOHNSON:

13 0 Okay. What was -- you said that the polar crane 14 violations of. February 3, 1984 were revisited in connection 15 with a violation with regard to the handbrake mechanism; is 16 that correct?

17 A Yes.

18 O And why was that, or what was the connection 19 between the two?

20 A- There was a modification where the appropriate 21 procedural controls had not been utilized to change out a 22 handbrake mechanism. It was an unlike for like substitution.

O-ace-FEDERAL R EPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 4 6

-__2___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - _ . - - ._ _ - . - . _

H 32463.0 I s1 .231 ,

~( )

1 Q Okay. That describes what the handbrake violation 2 was about, but my question is, what is the connection between 3 that violation and the revisiting of'the first violation of 4 February 3, 1984?

5 A Its relation to the problems identified in the ,

6 -February 3, 1984 notice of violation in the ECM process.

7 Q Specifically, what was the relation? .)

8 A Where unlike for like substitutions had been made, 9 not in accordance with the appropriate AP-1043.

10 Q And that was something that was brought up in

.11 connection with the February 3,.1984 violation?

- O~ 12 A Yes.

13 Q And that was the issue that was brought up in the l 14 polar. crane handbrake violation?

15 A Yes.

16 Q And what safety level was the handbrake violation, 17- if you recall?

I 18 A I really don't know what the final enforcement --

i 19 I know what was said, I can't recall what the final violation ,

i 20 was.

21 Q Did it lead to a civil penalty?

22 A I think that it did.

O l

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coserage 3Me

32485.0 s1 232

O' 1 Q_ Mr. Hickey asked you some questions relating-to 2 Section D-10 of the OI 1983 report, III-7.- Particularly, the 3 paragraph under number 2 there that says licensee QA 4 department did involve themselves in the. determination that 5 the licensee's procedures had been. violated, but this 6 involvement occurred late in the RBPC after the allegers had l 7 brought the violations to-their attention. Was it in 8 connection with that discussion that you raised the issue of 9 whether Mr. King had-been in a memo that brought this matter l

l 10 up?

11 A Yes.

12 Q And is that where you had experienced your i 13 confusion with regard to the comment resolution and the cover l

1 14 memo?

l 15 A Yes.

16 Q Looking at the sentence, this sentence again, can l

j 17 you remember when you wrote this -- first of all, did you 18 write that sentence? I don't recall that you said you did.

i 19 A Yes.  !

20 Q Can you recall, now, after being shown that other q i

21 statement and the comment resolution, I mean, whether you had 22 in mind when you wrote this the allegation about the polar

(

ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide coverage I 202-347-3700 N00-336-6646 '

l

32485.0 j s1 233 m

U 1 crane that was raised by Mr. Parks on February 17, 19837 2 MR. HICKEY: Which allegation is that?

3 BY MR. JOHNSON:

4 Q The allegation concerning violation of AP-1043 and 5 AP-1047 with regard to turning over the polar crane?

6 A There are a lot of issues in the documentation we 7 reviewed that pointed out problems within the program for 8 working on the reactor building polar crane, and we believed 9 when we wrote this statement that the problems with the polar 10 crane had gone on for some time, a lot of documentation, a l

11 lot of what we felt were misunderstandings with GPU-N tech O

12 spec requirements, and that QA did become involved through 13 their QDCRs in late February and early March, but there is 14 evidence that these problems had gone on late December, 15 January and February.

16 MR. HICKEY: What problems are you talking about?

I 17 THE WITNESS: Problems with the polar crane load 18 test functional test meeting AP-1043, 1047; whether or not l l

19 the reactor building polar crane was turned over to Bechtel l l

' 4' 20 or under GPU-N administrative controls.

21 BY MR. JOHNSON:

22 Q Was one of those, one of the factors, one of the ACE-FEDER Al. REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage ,

i l

32485.0 s1 234

)

1 bases for this statement -- oh,-let me stop for a second.- My 2 question specifically related to the comment resolution of 3 Mr. Parks on February 17.

4 A I understand.

5 Q Could you address that, please?

6- MR. HICKEY: What is the question.

7 BY MR. JOHNSON:

8 Q The question is, did you have in mind when you 9 were writing this sentence, Mr. Parks' allegations, any of 10 the comment, not only just 8, but any of the allegations 11 including 8 in that comment resolution?

12 A His comment resolution also alluded to the fact 13 that the test working group was not meeting to approve 14 procedures as required.

15 MR. HICKEY: What comment is that?

16 MR. JOHNSON: I think you have it.

17 THE WITNESS: Item 2 test working group is 18 required to approve this procedure for AP-1047, last part of 19 issue 4, and approved by test work group and poured prior to  !

20 the implementation of the load test procedure.

21 MR. HICKEY: I'm not understanding your answer. j 22 What are you telling us by these comments?

(

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.

202-347-3700 800-336-6646

32485.0 s1 235 CE) 1 THE WITNESS: That he had identified that the test 2 working group had not met to approve procedures in accordance 3 with AP-1047 as required.

4 BY MR. JOHNSON:

5 Q And this was before licensee's QA department got 6 themselves involved in it?

7 A His exhibit resolution is dated February 17, 1983.

8 Q And to the best of your knowledge, when did the QA 9 department get involved?

10 A I believe the QDRs were around the 1st of March.

11 Q Okay. Now, where is the violation. I want to ask 12 you about the no-load test violation which was the item 1 of ]

i 13 the notice of violation. Did you make any determination as ]

l 14 to who first brought this matter to management attention? )

15 A Are you talking about the first part or the 16 meeting that would show that the test working group had not 17 met for any reason?

18 Q I'm asking you whether the violation where it says 19 " contrary to the above, the RBPC no-load test procedure was 20 written, proffered and performed without the TWG review and 21 concurrence"?

22 A Yes.

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 800-336-6646

32485.0  ;

s1 236

!3 V

1 Q Did you have any information one way or the other 2 in the course of your investigation who raised that, that 3 issue?

4 A Well, we got into that issue because we were 5 verifying the fact that the test working group from a review 6 of the notes had not met in the time period as referenced in 7 the violation.  ;

8 Q Okay, that was a document review that you were 9 doing?  ;

10 A Right.

11 Q ,In the course of that document review, did you see n

U 12 any documents to indicate the particular individual who 13 raised, first raised this matter?

14 A The document we were just talking about, the 15 comment resolution form?

16 Q Yes. ,

17 A Pointed out that the test working group was not  ;

I 18 meeting as required.

19 MR. HICKEY: I don't know if you have it in front l l

20 of you, but you just pointed to some part of the exhibit, was l

21 it 27 l

l' 22 A 2.

Q

.G I

1 I

i 1

i ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202-347-3700 800-336-6646

q v ,

f 32485.0 1 sl~ 237 1 Q 20?

1 2 MR. HICKEY: 2 says "the test working group is :i f

, required to approve this procedure."

3 4 THE WITNESS: Right.

5 MR. HICKEY: Did you mean to say that that 6 allegation, the test working group was not meeting on a more 7 general basis?

I 8 THE-WITNESS: That in conjunction with the notes 9 of the test working group that verified that the test working 1 10 group was not. meeting.

-11 MR'. HICKEY: Mr. Beach, I'm.not:trying to burn O .12 you, you. keep adding an issue about whether the test working 13 .

group was meeting on a regular basis or not. Do you see that 14 allegation in this exhibit that is in front of you?.

15 THE WITNESS: The fact that they were not meeting, 16 no.

17 MR. HICKEY: He said they didn't meet to approve  ;

i 18 this procedure; right.

19 THE WITNESS: Right, but in accordance with the 20 violation that is what was cited.

21 BY MR. JOHNSON:

22 Q PAT patient that they didn't approve this O .I 1

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage

)

800 336-6646

32485.0 sl' 238 1 procedure?

2 A Yes.

i 3 0 In this comment resolution of 2/17/83, do you 4 know, are you aware of what this unit work in instruction 5 4374389183 PC 02 concerned?

6 A Probably the polar crane functional test.

7 MR. HICKEY: Does that mean the no-load test?

8 THE WITNESS: No, the functional test. There is a 9 no-load test and a functional test.

10 MR. HICKEY: That is a term we haven't heard in 11 the deposition before.

12 THE WITNESS: There is an SER. After you do the .

l 13 no-load test, you have to do a test to see if it will perform 14 the function and there is an SER -- there's a separate SER 15 for the functional test.

16 BY MR. JOHNSON:

17 Q That is something different from the load test?

18 A No-load test, yes, 19 Q No, no, load test. Is the functional test same as i 20 the load test for the polar crane?

21 A When we were there, we were calling it the no-load 22 test, one test; the other was the functional test.

O I

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 800-336-6646

32485.0 sl' 239-1 Q But that.is the functional test is where it. lifts 2 a weight?

3 A Right.

4 MR.' HICKEY: Okay. We have been calling it a load 5 test because I think that is what the procedure calls it.

6 BY MR. JOHNSON:

7 Q Okay, now, 9, if you look at comment resolution on 8 304, 9 says "A functional test was performed on 2/4/83 l

9 no-load opposite test, get turnover for AP-1043 has not been 10 affected. That test and the test presently in review will 11 have to be performed after turnover," and then the comment O: 12 for that, I believe,.would be " reject comment, though no-load 13 test as titled was an operational test performed by 14 construction." Now, does that indicate to you one way or 15 another with' respect to the origin of the item 1 on the 16 notice of violation?

17 A Right, that would indicate that the test was 18 evaluated after performance of the no-load test.

19 Q But as to who raised -- did you reach any .

l 20 conclusion or have any evidence before you in your 21 investigation as to who raised this violation?

22 A That document would indicate that he raised it on O

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

l 32485 4 s1 240 l' 'the 17th of February.

2 Q Were you aware of anyone raising it before 3 Mr. Parks?

4 A No.

~5 MR. JOHNSON: I have no further questions'.

6 MR. HICKEY: I have to go over two matt'ers-with 7 you, Mr. Beach.

8 -THE WITNESS: Okay.

9 EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. HICKEY:

11 Q He started out asking you about item 5 of the.

12 notice of violation, and asked you-whether.your purpose'in 13 doing your investigation was to find out who first raised.the-14 violation regarding the CA-258 that is referred to in item 15 5.

16 And do you remember you first said it was hard to 17 identify these because you had to track things through the 18 documents. Then we tried to get more specific questions, and.

19 = you said well, we reviewed the job ticket on 1407 and"found

-20 several deficiencies.

21 And we asked you again, did you reach a conclusion 22 that a particular officer, Mr. Johnson, asked -- first raised O

V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6646

1 32485.0 s1 241 1 that concern; answer, I don't remember if I reached a 2 conclusion. I asked you to clarify what exactly you meant, 3 you said that again.

4 So when Mr. Johnson asked you whether this 5 document, polar crane comment resolution of February 17 by f 6 Mr. Parks, pertained in any way to turnover, how does that, j 7 in your answer -- your answer was yes. How does that relate I 1

8 to your earlier testimony that you didn't reach any 9 conclusions about who first raised it?

10 A Again, I will emphasize that the purpose of the 11 investigation was to determine whether or not from my

"# 12 standpoint violation of NRC requirements were, in fact, 13 occurring at TMI-2 with respect to the polar crane. There 14 were, this is four years later, there's 160 documents 15 attached to appendix D-10, and as I stated elsewhere in the s 16 testimony, it is hard to ascertain in a lot of instances 17 through QA who, in fact, was number 1; whether in fact Parks 18 was number 1.

19 The overriding issue is that there were problems i 20 there for several months and as we said in D-10, QA did get 21 involved, but it was late in the polar crane refurbish 22 program, in relation to when the problems appeared to be i

l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Cmcrage 4

l

I 32485.0 l s1 242 j

%ar 1 starting from the documentation that we reviewed. )

l 2 Q In what fashion does comment 8 -- Mr. Johnson has. >

3 it there in front of you. You said comment 8 pertains to the 4 notice of violation issue 5 regarding the turnover?

5 A Right. E 6 Q How does comment 8 pertain to it? j 7 A In that tha crane was turned over contrary to AP I

8 1043 and 1047. ,.

9 Q The turnover was contrary to 1043? ' 4. ,

10 A That is right. Bechtelcouldnothavppexhormed j,

11 the work that they were doing on the crane, 'if thely had , b O ^ l 12 followed AP 1043 and 1047.  ?( /

/s n 13 Q Doesn't Mr. Parks comment here, number 8, statW 4 l

14 that because these procedures don't address the I 15 modifications, thus the testing to date, the testing to date

.16 does not comply with turnover process / testing process, 17 delineated in AP 1043 and AP-1047?

l 18 A Yes. I 19 Q Wasn't that a complaint about the testing rather 20 than the turnover?

21 A Says the turnover process, testing process 22 delineated in 1043 and 1047.

O l  !

1 ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coverage l ,yg 800-336-6646 i

J

l

~32485.0 s1 243 1 Q What doesn't comply with regulations, procedures, 2 according to Parks, according to Parks' comment? i 3 A He le saying that the modifications to the crane 4 that were unlike for like were not performed in accordance 5  :'!.th the ECM procedure and were not appropriately tested in 6 accordance with the testing procedures.

7 Q Well, all right, I guess that is your interpretation of the words and you are just ignoring the 9 "thus," it says "thus" testing to date does not comply. He 10 doesn't talk about any ECM being done in violation of the 11 procedures, does he?

O 12 A Modifications to the plent, the work package, I 13 think he does.

14 0 You have talked twice now about some of these 15 problems, otherwise identified as existing for sometime. Let 16 me see if I can put it to you directly, straightforward as 17 possible.

18 A Okay.

19 Q No one disputes that Mr. Parks wrote these 20 comments on February 17, whatever they mean, and said that is 21 what he said on February 17. Did you find any evidence to 22 indicate that prior to February 17, Mr. Parks raised with O.

{

ace-FEDERAL I(EPORTERS, INC.

202-?i7-3700 h00,336-6646 l

- _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ i

i 32485.0 s1 244

/

G' 1 management ut TMI allegations of procedural violations 2 regarding the polar crane?

3 A You know, ' can't answer prior to February, but I 4 would say prior to February, no, I cannot.

5 Q Okay. I don't have any more questions for you.

6 Thank you for your patience.

7 (Whereupon, at 7:15 p.m., the deposition was 8 concluded.)

9 Subswibed and swom to before me 10 this dayof , 19 11 ARTHUR BEACH

,A Notary Public GE 12 My Commission Expires 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  ;

I U)

ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.

Nationwide Coserage ,

- - - - - - _ . -- - _ _ _ ________-_____-_0

i .- ' '

. oEpositioN 030287007 EXHlBli I_

~

O. h was

.uc-,, a .w.,,n 1.,-

I, s rc y 4 e f cu y < a + f ,d c. <. T y a> - > Ta Ta rA r l 9 s > > e 7> c,ye <a T;c ,, & lae.,..,u : . vc I u,J , a r/i .c- % a l. f r 72> d'

?

fe, a . 1 + Tin + Tha f . s T n ,,,e p e- v,7a c ya , a 7. -1 L,aea,,.,

a w a c f lia e ma,ycp., c, T; e ,.c s C Ce,,rT<uTl c,,) < o l' . , I,, sJi,'< a 7 a e. ITv; 7; > > .a; Th rh+ 1*o Ia r- C , s . t e. ?

2 0,, f a cp, 5 c + y c,a < cJ/; de v:T ycu s Ta rs Tha.T Bni, nth jch cl <,' n 9 Tha y e } a r e. a u ,s a , .e fa ,s;p ,i:a a 74 ?a S Te'. eo67hra Tho e , t. ,: .

To i Ts n,i d c,,no.3s d c c t d i T c at . Pc, y cu (lse,w c f n,.y74;iry T/:c, Tsi:,t TAa T TA;y i s TA s 5ob exfliciTly - h e- %,,, a. T% T ; + , s e T a s g ,,l a ,a b a d h .c J> Te. l >.s , d ac c F a.ilsT coa s s g v.. ic h.a ecee,ny(;<hed:'

('~}

J ?b Cs Yt Ya b3h,9YOhj bS f /af CMI' as,s ob r

  • i i

n pud) L h y G M pr T lt ' c.c.11ai<s 1.,7u T,y f upm - .. A s u a s el a f i e ; . << N

' T cuea id I; t'a. G cada, sTait] j c u/ <+aseiein3 Slncr 7Ai  !

ce,ifa in,non T caby. ya c3.s arr .9 c vurt.+ a. // at L; 7; e+ ln i Tha c. ca Ta ;a,nen '

c.e, . Id e,c /,

a. LA.!49 do yoa ha I;a v e Th a. w yc lo< c., .n e .

b a. Tu<u d e v'o < fei .- a:lu. but,,ws T v: a A t' l 0 + S s z.,x,;=

c. A d I~a97sta ,,a c. ] " u ,' c a /4fJcc) rX b 7:e.tCa T /=c.e,n Cab /Wh'ogaos'd Uf%cceds<a h l'/a et Sa c,i V e Sjuc ific c ,,; 7 ,,,,,

Thal ~>na da Th. f'olar [ cx a ffe fu<b kw 7~m sTa<Ky A) l ac7?vsty v i c e. a tri aistfan an e-e a c liv 17/ .  ;

i U

f'9.) Q-- h yo LL S tat ~ f/24 $~ 01chTal %rK'fo a days a sa ra. kins zi.+= d . To ia-h'I' ~,n:d i ften Mcns ; n li e ci c f A P J o >l o.a J <1Pic 9.>. Q.

f / ftin

  • E ir> Tlt ,5 fa s k e >\ cTik

~

yca .(g1 e sec 4 Af cTb:r alc d', fi cs }h c1; 9

1  ;

y  ;

i O rw rin ancara wrA rupph~u~ ? _

1

/ ) ' Cr, g:y s S yca 9 fay Th4I e,1c c f 7]i<1 hapic greurid s'u }:Seg c e , 7m i ,,2j-co' % t T t~a 9a fa Ty i S y,,p.,, ya, s. c c + The a a 9.' m <;&9 n,. y.;,.a n.,it ,.9 , ,

l y c u. cias << d 7ha T )fxa c b' K. :/d;,,3 /t/a, C r,a c. / ; ,,4; p ; c ,, 7 ,,, ; ,

hywTc.17~Th Lf57y~ cgr, ue ra>21 c,i/y 5 %

c. . a. r sc , r i,. r - + r r . w ,:c i , , , , - 7 , , ,,, p .

f, fa e,1,. 90f faacd hdeivs7 STeda-> T),eJ Th a fcla v'f'%'!' A ' l '

  • A

N ~M I~ G.3-/W L'ic la fa s N / 5

~

e p,; va Ti :s I t o p . I~ C 4 u!Z-W Ceaici fru i d* d Uf/ f 4 '"' " l 7 3 'l1* ? ' ' ?* ~" '

~ Tjs .-ccd..r'e w S v1clo Td ? i Q D. c ,: ta y ? i' yea,'a f6 dav, r , , , , ya r. yg ,, y n . 4 74 e ;,;7,, ,

,,, v; 0 w , f 1% 7a, ner.. /.2,,r a <<,t gs a ia L,7 % , .,,,r , s p -; e d. , ,

(u a.$'l%c, -962-9 *'ll'-'* ais.1 Y.9Sc -%5 V ~5 9 -fi-0)a 0 o a s;3ii< d e ff .

by i ridiusdu n 19 ise Tc; u };6od for TA.:. Tap d, Ccajjyou ple,tT)fy TfsS';nAieidul5 syc.cif7ea//r ,c,: ) .a.la bu'if.=. a S (~:> a. fir !cs ;7a, ,

ycu u.9a d io~ 06 L /:is!< Thal ~ rh.e.y avar= siey T ua/;bd't'o/ TA Tvg[

5.7, -/' .4 c < P

  • $* *A

$ S u b.n ,7h d 5, r.a ep<a Ec.:s 4pv To ci, fu y a G yo + , Tch yc- a F K Wa n>4 e ,1 2->V- p .d >n Tityis15 f i'cbl~v.1 wl 7li f.c cple fc//ce,'s f<cco claa-9 a a d surswad;4_9 tar T,J( pusc na I wa/s d :.n Tlief.w JLv+

a ,s j , e f to s.,7 ,r;e,,yo c e n s t a a v # 1a deetF,m toca ea Tha v .<;cns ,a.ga;, air-.,T>

a

. att b C c,a?feI k bc*' Va/EcaS fo'oca.dava 5, h.:) YC Lt WYE C W ilYlLE9,**fe'b//! //1 eeye. T we. s a.ver sa,pco ) To ?

9

i s.

[

i L) ya y. 6 of yoav afRJa,T' y v a S TaTa T/:a l' r/t a a .ia s a e i

9, c<,

uta c <afapasTa7lva on 711.a //ae L L , f r Te. s K R ..- c , p,, p u

&cw wAy rA; 9 is 9o 0- wkc # mca a 7% Ja. : cia.,,

To e.(a.c9 fy T)1e i]t a I~~ + I(S o f TA a /tLFT a s vi c.,,

% / e T y e a I a r d e o' 11 c T ;myc 70'iT To k1% Ty )

q y,4, g a ,,y ej y , u_ 5 f,( f, 97,4 ,z cn eca.,p ,,,, ,,7g w I c, p V e<,u',n i.n.1T9 i ,e ua;T 3 r eje,.u cap:ac7lv'Mc:- y9 c, /ene,cJ,,d,9

(<.>bla# cs 9 d e> c cc on s. ; Ted by af enfad c< DR %. ferr? c7L -

  • Tk at ii 7ho ('o {a . - c.<ain jj c csla; a jid]c p & c,,- d a

.ccn 9cieaS da c',5ie.i gmns,b y q . p , , n u sa y e.,,7 7; 9 ,4 p aad ve aca'S c f ne,d;flcu7%

e i .9 du ',ny n,;d z ce, ap ..'is d c. / 7, -

(~)  % bpopus a T To TA e aet; h i7 .d r cl e. ycv ic?i-w o Fany .,yec.ti .

9 aa co v: cle< fTeii9 ca ><taTy*</d~Gde<.

%l; Ty /9 Ow  ;

,ii y , t ,s t 7. O c d T/ % . E c h : t e ? _

' I' Di: t'a y 9 e a l Io you. Tu ll(' cf cc ll:ecllsts haTai.e -r Dc ,'a.1-<< ff ' '

,na,tay, a f <ec nwy ep,diew; an d %. y h%c, j k < o To. e f s;T.e c,o* a f; aa p To f; eta l;n n. 7d A c~iipea.1;ce . s9,en 9;b;};5c.s. e f cc,1974e.T)ox9 a.10 eyS;75 cpraf)en> D y, w; b jwRe:i:. / rG. % i'.,a1 t, p l '

yo u h. The. 97a f< Tha r 1;Tz cpwalicas ,.u a ma /n f rhica.<eekg .

wa. + >mfenn i lb e fiv sa fe.Ty' -/aIc, t~ a c?c. 6 7L 1 ,:ve, h'ad 15c ^<:icaIspc.w . i

. y, 9 td b.s er fec fe 99lutc< l Gade id S.

a. u/gc.T 97ac;f;c 7~< cK9 g-e= uwa a ssign d 72

., . sira o7m bas 5

, et t' [ l Ah h Ld.lU E ca h h j )f *' Y ( C b 'E > "f opr.Jl cap / cc apfne.% ?

c, 47' cc, a y e, u , de,.e a t.a. a n y a m,, ,,, rog, c,.,

o Tdor cle caismals7!ce o ( 7d' oce asp;9.i.,s.';ci 5

j

<, 3 1

ry y a. a/ m y ou 7x s:n T o. r r/7 i,

,wn g }

)2, on p.ya ic c+ yes a ffidav; Tfou gT.. ra rire r T/: e cuc. Kfainacp 169u a cu e S e a %la d w baiv ;Ffo c ur wy c pe,5ce+ a3, uj 7s a tra h a w.c ew,,. ye r rs ;r; ,oc. ryaary<.

j

a. Z 9 ; 7 yca.e aadu 9 Tend:ny tac,7 Th ; g e g //es a // w c,: cfa4py:s, a Tod << w L..,.> ;7 To 3 a 9 r affl y 7; zu c . k,:ne my, .= tm; t;. a b, ge a> .p. > cc< fcTy . alars d c < i.1:ye.7.,;rnu.M7)
b. " 7'Au r 7h sigize 76, sr <,1 <<

- Pwx a a yc..a o uwa s3 <b a na n rio sa r4 7 o, . . , u;i J ,r si:.o.c] %h 9foc .n7 u;n,=m T9 a , z d v.,9.& re, ,

Co4 tMlh?co1 T9 fc s' fr'sc :$o'e s 's t ')a v'.-ailqfc sx/b e

.O 'l ~).% fa,p- I'l a n d n o / yeae . h'<.doeaT you G lro f- T7:.o pff.cfic i .

(o - raf fat:ay Tin e frapga, ; 29 r %,9 a 1in.a. ; t' 7)a p,.e:,pa .; >.se 1- "'"*- d**cjf c) citi T, % u ,7efa- ThaT T/r:s fyc > -fL

  • wc ic

/( c'.,o 7~c v>< 777 e Yen /iin a d ny a f wa ra< /eu.sv , I fa e>,.-r

< T~ojo e f T4a 7%.a l n 7/7 cece To a a,a T-- le< I . t 3 % 7 cv=v pfi-e e T T~)i t Tef 'o f The t'ct sl- L'o u. y e,t.c # x f'fa is: 7~k.e 

                  .           To     Th.e      it se. ira o n d s.c, fa 7y' a f Th a ,:u Mc .pcp )

by Thi 9 < du e Tier in cuaJ& hal? I Or1 f ugt I.S c f yo g< a {fa da viT fea stert Nc,1 The folar-Cr:.< n .a ra f K Fe. c. a LfcTi=) -(c / Th e t'i.-1 7 T:'in a %

a. Cc Id you T.a Il u s who dec; b d T% < cuc uld b
  • O a ecr r 1
h. Wh af fa cad a.,5 g o v un ;} rh .:. ac7;<l'Tio s c f Ida l=cTF.) <

c, 14<'/t e T1e t'cTF ices.rb e, + h

d. e% T'w aff0)a r <., Tfe.d h et; nso: d Th t'c TF)

_ _ _ - - _ _ _ . - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - - .s

\, . e e g) 

      .5,                   5 4 e n .y a y..- l 9 c f 0 c u / c d fa de v; 7. yuudasc'iha ein;d-3<.,.a...;'

eo,w.wn Ticc h wa ,1 '71./nn<y- e a d !!1 - Pa . -Ton ;/t aih ,' e A o 

                                         ,91<. Fa. for1 pfa 5 d Th27 rh t',la C. a ea ha/cas                        e                     o d n oca,ra) an d r!!<.10np po& d Tlia T'> i,orw, ma dcu ,r a,.yaiho, a. , a.', s ,n s , T.a ofe r a fioi:S a as ava- o f 14e .ich 7)c tc7we,<tirg.< .t)

CA 3 99 w<.Thir cn 'Taly If I'iG ;t on d d id.dT ,Tl ivlouSc Tl e fela a'c > u it e Ie JbeisTa-l fc,- u.ics'K'ci;a 7A n. cpre,v Io f ' 7% 7~ We,'il Ifa g ae'</~I~ l cn pu3b14undl'? y? ou cl ; + c u s s y < e s ta , e . r h a 7 s c) b/cg,hry l us',1 II Tis a. nc u- 56 I? e n O' U d*,' Itse d c./z e. , e.To -i >.c 7;ci .. ' Coa id yea 3 ;w - a M a .- d a> n,c c a hn o an rti9kTf;n d 7-a c , C c a dv cu ,xsah l~ci, a f.  ?~ cev: c c itS ? 0 .ZwenT To . a d <n o.:: 0 &;u x  ! reg & p.-ic sp L 'n10- *' O I  % yu.ya , t e, o f y o a r- c.tfade..<i7' yo u sTa 7a. T 4. 7y e u.,- ,- v.*w c f Th < f cle c rait' Icad Tu,7y, vea Ja < a v ,z p.-i.>-tG9 e ;ps d es:47 c c as e oarp u': Th fa. ; /a < <. To fc //ca The r e- no.it; a (/7 f c Af ,>r c cmclus o .+ & Mc xi o ,1dMic 9 9.) o a of Tha 

                                                     <,7aq ,,n d Tn7 sfoi:c... / poco Lee (spicnh.
                                    .                   a. pun T)n , in na 7L t yo u M,a va d Thon assa tu        su b sh a M ) in ealeg.u << c; a.9 u/i14 r).. ,uThe L le g v anj         c ca       Teo ls   e,,, r, ;,,, d w.n ;i,1)c piar a,.ac ha d M r a TTla,7 7,',yja ,D                                                     l f a ieeda <a.

L. Wu.a- ya a cc,1c.w.u 6 a- v:ela ne o c f <? p to .y > sn c.-j cn Tlo fa t t T4k 7~ y o u cat slck d 7Aa Ta9 fi,i ys:cs tei, 1 O T. k a & st rar-, eon 7~ n r-st .A Ac T~cv; ,o vg ca / fh 7 o f .a, u ;y,ga 77;9,, c n I 1 opwn bih y ,, $o. p ka:y f % f 7] , s.m ; ,1. ,b , a 11abu,,!sbc<..od9;aycTod 

                                                                              ;) T1 s f f se Ti-// r.'2- in .oikcc 7 clo e _.,, o,11iS ct+7c,5,a

_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ . _ _ ~

y ?O' ' 

                                              .,2.a,7;,,a;,                           7.,7 a ,s a y ,7,u ac,:,,,c y ..,i,                                                                                                                      .

7ee7h 9pcifi ea l/y clo & c d .) I$ o<, yay. 2 I c. -f y ua./ a t h L. e;7 ya u d : e. - - - .A -a u e -,., cc,:s...a;, ? 

                                       < a.Ia tr .a To a c c,; e a. a ha Id h, y c .s nar T,eo peh, c., wrc M97 Tc , T*f *ocasu .'o su a. 9 a,; aosaevi0VJA S9 t'.27y y a adc*7?

C caN y cm a >:f/ d n Pfac.; fa c<r//y a Ac< 1^a .yd+ cf Tks Ta +Taiw2 a ,: ww:va nd sa toTr M Ti co:'ie p u - x:;cd ? c ,, p y > 9 ct y ,, u. c f fa h r y a A*seu>s r%. iw;T> <1 

                 }+

c.h S 9 ; fy 's ny T/t a Sclw L . wt. o lo <d G > T a. s s 'furiclTc'd To r 2,; c c. a e e,: ,T/ue71 e .., k > T, c c>u Id y a.,a aylefit p./ llc <f c0 e c a >dOCI.9 a ,1 ) f e c i {l c c< //y iuf9 a Tre/,';ca s. 0 , f 7 h ,,.a J e.c u ,, tut;; daf;na TA n e %,.n s ? . af'x. on racy M J yc.u- a ff- hv: f r a Tos.Tas.<n, car, y c ci ,;m :w hof 1)go -fa.lsw GWAo*' - . c<, w.. s ria 7h <, M Ws 'd' & >' cur s.Jupr7/y fcmo d (n.- Td e fo lo - C a,co ) 

                                     .             b. p; A : 7 n.o : c(s .m y f;n J; nap 1 ll.                enpya d o {y ow a fh dav'< T you d;scuss                                                                       a.               n,t ;<u'ic u ei n /I a.iert<fu.a.rqwf</ p clat ume in eel fse1Trc-i ad DST).y T~a                                a h Tuin ;n a Tha.a a-xTritt oye an s = .,, u -                                                                              e ,rpAaace                                                                           l avi ili any n,wiy     i              etis ci aJ. r:n;s7. .0% <a v;esu p 4be &~ay,,:~:

Q u aa. y cu - i. ,, ra , ,, , r, . ., 7s , , e ,1 .:.u, ,o c:t?e. I

s. a, y.- wa c , u. sc. r u;ra, ,a ri.,

u a aenm.,.-rem T <Jd,nes c en w . 'i + si a < r a .e o .,e d u.n v)c < < c9 ort t 

    -----.a.x-                             t    ---_w. _lA  _.__..--.-_-__.1*._-_.?   ---_-._.-__..m_-_-.      .__a       -     . _ -                 - - . _ - _ _ _      _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - - - _ . - . _ _ - . - . _ . . _ . _ - - . - -

                                                     . 1                                                          i p& 2,        Ca, ,> s 9 a- ~b o        o f y o u. r* -W c< ffa day,' 7 y ase d iS,c wcs a <.< & Pu -<

si,- < aben 8.,. d ut a,> s L; u' t- ~ > , n ; r r e , G u Id;,,w ra/ u+ & c+k---->+ :. ; o: 716 a am:Tr.e:e- me d wda.s % 14 y 

         &Yk.,, sa a any 6n lhy Ya.,Ita rla rh,, a <?:mirrix w e .m ro d c. b b ,-
                                                                                                                   \

1% c., f y 3 or c fyc a< a f & & , v > r r. . / . h a c. s . s a n ,. ,, by 7,h n Fc, n;ec/a et' c2 A TA u-TS c, ; J /g ; , ,,,,,, ,,,c p ,c .g .; cu u,z. T.zr b, e c. e. n 

                 < c : 70 , q /n b y             .s7~s7      w'v<- t ud w c,1              ~
                    /fa cesvy C c a 7~,its Aa d rSRLh5he d a 7~n,i J c f nc, u,.ph,p r

w 7A s; e <2dy, ccodue' , D; A cq,+ o.cw ra // y c u cu/:y ac va ch , Toy ws.i fi'c ..de w a s ; m .: d &: su h p a g u c,iT To ti ;> ,rt c.ar ay, ,m. /%9te,,74 C,lA dd O ,,,,- s,,,, u p . a-Oel f ey a 'Y$'$s f yo ete eft'cda;; 7you D. Ka. ; +5 ca x a.' lTh ittaa a9 %d6 d.a.< :fion 7'o sery Ths "uads,I;s d da,...cli,-h.7,i U S E tj, , A. c,,, ) 3 SS 8. a n d f *f th A'sredsTh T h L .cXIesti you p.// ao rha ine.)w di %xc c + ia rhs ;/asr 76n.viir n o to u he a not.qf /ic&h rc 7h %.e.n%h'"L&f p F, ea c.hasuctari>.n- rifa c o& 7!ca.'o + l H!sh% 

                               %ic         ald y#  a v bee < n d % c <<a a r co c

cut /Mf ceridMcitt for9 ccnsceva7ivR ? 

                                                                           ,$f;,i:e i1M*aryyr
       ** 5' cr1 y t. 0 X o-{ yots a (~fc.clavlT ya cd9 ic,,7-c d Tl7 -of'c lc >-              ,              }

Q . .- , <1 a / c . d 7~ s 1 yn w du a wi 74 a f <c s' so 74 r yc.<.. ' a.,=pcva } wo 9 b a i <. d e n 1~a<Anicc.] c eafhui ci:,/y i yo <r few Tdw f Ec. fi Th a T 7~di s l'% , ele " + ns f ipt.e <.,e rAata ll w: v. i'y a :o a To,im ha > a b..n c a w d

_h el e* . 

     *g     i e I'
    ;0       o e 7Aa7 A # r s 9 u j r.a .<? a , l'9. h,. c e he e,,, fa,/4,u,,,d,4xy qid us k d19 s f 74 <. Qf < op;<es,t T:i as f &// car 4 s w id L,e 7% pc s.). b Ap)r;,, ' s)=>v2, .JPic+3 cnd'#fIcY) isThahe,<0c7?

K pyee;y}ca/y t wh a r es ,u :<s a Teyru <>< y, g / ha ve >1 o 1~ b an >1 cc wved by Tb;p peca d... v ? e l O i 

                -                                                                                                                                      l l

l O j I 1' l l-_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ ________________________-____-_a

  • UNITED STATES '
        %g8                                  NUCLEARwAsednotcN,0.c.aoses REGULATORY COMMISSION l
     -)P*

c February 24,1984 , i 

                                                                                                                                                         ~
                                                                                                                                                         }

Ben 8. Hayes, Director, 01' - MEMORANDUM FOR:  ! 

                           "a     .

f R. D. Walker, Chief, Projects Section 2C, RIII - l 2 FROM: *A. 8. Beach, 3r, Jteactor Engineer, CIE . SU8 JECT: ASSESSMENT OF THE STAFF RE'iIIW ND RESPONSE lT , REPORT ON TMI-2 CLEANUP ALLEGATION-the staff provided the Commission its review of the NRC On January 25, 1984 Office.of Investigations' (OI) interim report entitled, "Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2 Allegations Rega . 1, 1983. Per your request, this memorandum provides W. R. Rogers, to another you our assessme response and corrective actions to 0! findings. gechnical member of the.0I Investigation Team, was also cons review of the matter involving containment penetrations. . If you need additional information, please contact us.

Enclosure:

As stated 

                                                            -           -    f Vh ,                                                -                      l R. D. Walker, Gnief, Rlll                                                      !

Ib see A. 5. Beacn, sr. Reactor Engineer, OIE 

                                                                                                                                                           )

i O . 

                                                                                          ) DEPOSIT."ON '
                      *-                                                                          !                            EXHIBli 0

WL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___N

y ,' Sumary of NRC Staff Review and Conclusions , heofstaff conducted Investigations a detailed (OI) report review that were of the the bases for specific findings their.overall conclu- irt The following sumarizes the. staff's findings as presented in SECY-sions. 84-36 pertaining to the broad categories of procedural control violations and onsite management deficiencies that were identified in the OI report: The staff agreed with the 01 report finding that thene had been ' 1) instances of GPUNC using procedural controls that differed from - ~ GPUNC administrative requirements. , 2) The staff found that there were cases'of quality assurance misclassifications, but the extent of the problem was less than that indicated in the 01 report. 3) The staff agreed with @e 0! report finding that the administra-tive procedures training program was not adequate, and problems in, - communication between various licensee organizations existed. The staff agreed with the OI report finding that the licensee's 4) QA/QC Department had not received proper manage . during 1981 and early 1982. 5) The staff detemined that the position requirements for plant O man'ager and the assignment of responsibilities in the licensee's Organizational Plan were in accordance with the Technical Specifications. . 6) The staff found that actions on the part of the NRC onsite / personnel facilitated the safety and promptness of the cleanup l 

                   -     effort and did not contribute in any significant way to the licensee's management problems.

7)' The staff determined that modifications to containment penetra-tions were appropriately made in accordance with the TMI-2 Tech-nical Specifications and NRC requir.ements. II. Assessment of Staff Conclusions The following provides our review of the staff characterization of the OI findings as presented in the September 1, 1983 report. ( l

1) The staff acreed GPUNCwith the using 01 recort procecural findinc c:ntrois :natthat there oiffereo had been from instances eT GPUNC acm1nistrative recu1rements but f elt tnat none of these
                       ' violations were safety-sign 1f1 cant.

Assessme$b * 

                                               .                                                                                 I Any matters involving safety'were brought to the Itattention was our of TMIPO during the investigation by the 01 Team.

intent not to' assess the safety signif,icance of the procedural 1

y. 

                                                          ,                                                    ~'

O. violations, but rather to determine whether procedure.1 , in fact, occurred.regarding GPUN violations II.A.2, and ofII.D. administrative pr 

                        . contained in staff report Sections II.A.1:

l 

   "                     Regarding56ction'!I.8.1,thestaffmaintsidsthatuseofGPUN work packages did not violate administrative procedure AP-1001,
  • paragraph 3.2.1 because it applied only to, activities that have a -

effect on plant operations and maintenance. . staff conclusion for tho'fo1Jowing reasons: a. AP-1001, paragraph 3.2.1 makes the procedura specifically , applicable to operations and maintenance in r.il respects- , and in general, to all procedures which are n potential or actual release of radioactivity. '

b. The operations and maintenance activities at TMI-2 include .

the work being perfomed inside the containment. We are in agreement with the staff that the new procedural requirements and other controls now being implemented shoul'd O adaau=t= ties. ta =5a5=<== ==fati coacaras farHowever, we d an instructional identify and informational specific activities that may (or maydocument not) requirefor GPUBNoC formal reviews," as stated in Sections II.B.2 and II.8.3.d of the staff's response. In fact, the staff, beginning on page II-23 states that a procedure (AP 4300-ADM-3240.01).in conjunction BNoC CDPI-11, entitled " Work Package Program for In-Containm Work" established GPUN approval for all activities conducted und proceduresThese / work packages as required by TMI-2 Technica statements are contradictory in that CDPI-11 - cations...." was used as a procedure for activities thatThe diduse require GPU fo of reviews as required by Technical Specifications. CDPI-11 in this manner was clearly much more than as an informational document. . 

               .                                                             i Department Project.
                              . Regarding the use of these Construct onInstructions                  The              (C circumvented the licensee's review and approval process.

staff, in its discussion of the 01 finding in f Section II.C. regarding the approval of CDPI-20, states " j 

         .                                                                                                             f revi'ew including QA review (either Bechtel or GPUN), then the g                    -

administrative handling of the polar. crane refurbishment wo been acceptable" (emphasis supplied). The fact remains that th 

                 ..              procedurft were not approved.

Relatedly, the staff's response asserts that CDPIs are purelyW instructional and informational documents." I by several Bechtel personnel during interviews conducted at

3 .'. site. It is evident both by the staff's contradictory statements in their response, and by the results of the discussions on site, that the intended.use cf CDPIs war unclear to the parties involved. Howeyer, whether deliberate or not CDPIsApproved did circumvent the procedures did, licensee's review and approval pro. cess. in fact, exist for the work activities involved; however, they a re not followed. . 

                                                                   ~.

- In conclusion, OI identified a number ofThe procedural OI report violations identified relevant to work activities in Unit 2.' what appeared to the 01 Team to be " practices" of procedural violations, rather than " instances." While ne nroblems were tiiscovered resu] tina from these violations that ma'y' havs anha=R immediate impact-en-tha 

                         '                                                                                                   havaltaul.ted.
                                                                 ' manner (Junhich +ha mek was beino conducted _ma.w                           ,              ,

in an undesirable si+un+4nn <f careactive actions had not been ' taken. - The staff found that there were cases of cuality assurance

2) misclassifications, but the extent of the proolem was less than X  !

that inoicated in the 01 report. , i Assessment O nesardinQuaiityAssura,iceforworepackakes,thestaff' dev ment as being limited to items classified as "Important to Safety."- . 

                                                                . The licensee's approved Quality Assurance Manual also required quality assurance involvement on items classified as " Benefits Reactor Shutdown" and "Important to Recovery" as well as                               .
                                                                     "Important to Safety." It is difficult for us to understand how the items addressed in the 01 report do not fall into one of the      .                    .

three safety classifications above. , In addition the staff, in Section II.B.4., indicates that with the exception of the polar crane inspection / testing, The 01 QA/QC Team was con-was provided 1 ducted on all the subject work packages. j no such evidence of this even when specific inquiries were made. l Bcyond that, the work packages themselves did not indicate such  ; quality assurance involvement. If the staff has established alternate methdds of documenting that proper quality assurance was applied to these items, then these alternate methods should be procedurally identified and controlled by the licensee. The staff is not part of the licensee's quality 

                                                                   ' assurance organization and is not responsible for classifying safety activities. Their review also does not constitute a quality i

O assurancereview for purposes of NRC requirements. 

                                                                                                                                                                      )
                 ~

Also, in Section II.E.4., the staff d:es not agree with the 01 report's findings that the proper classification of ECM-1135,

4 . 

                    " Reactor Gas Purge System Modification" is "Important to Safety."                                                                         '

The staff disagrees'.with the 0I. report for the two following. j reas.ons: . k* . - 1

a. Although the. gas purge system was originally conceived to 2

control the spread of contamination from the reactor vessel to 

                           . the reactor building, prior to its implementation (but                                                                                   *
                  *      ~

subsequent to the Classification of the ECM), it was found ' that the existi.ng in-place reactor building purge system - provided for effect'ive . control* of the spread of contamination to the reactor building.. b'. The gas purge system was not designed as an extention*of the reactor coolant system boundary. . l We note the following with respect to the staff's statements:

a. The staff does not take into account the fact that the '

licensee's safety classification of the ECM was assigned liased on the original purpose of the gas purge system. Its function was to control the spread of contamination This is clearly from the reactor a safety vessel to the reactor building. function; therefore, the classification "not important'to Av safety" is incorrect. A subsequent staff determination that  ; the system was not needed or used for its intended purpose

  • does not justify its original misclassification.
b. Notwithstanding the observations in 4. above, it is only necessary to understand that the gas purge system modification in fact is part of the reactor-coolant pressure system-Relatedly, we wou boundary as dsfined in 10 CFR 50.2(V)(2).

assume that the 66 control rod drive mechanisms remaining open i to the environment that are referred to in the staff's response also had their leadscrews removed under "Important to ' i Safety" documents as classified by the licensee's Quality  ! Assurance Manual inasmuch as these, too Likewise, are clearly part of in Section 1 the reactor coolant pressure boundary. j II.E.5., the staff disagrees with the OI report conclusion ) that ECM 1131, " Reactor Water Level MonitoringThe System" should staff once have been classified as "Important to Safety." l again maintains that the system was not designed as an exten-  ; tion of the reactor coolant system boundary and therefore it  ; is not part of the reactor coolant system boundary. As stated above, the fact remains it is part of the reactor coolant system boundary as defined in 10 CFR 50.2(V)(2). j The staff acreed with the OI reeort finding that the administrative 3) 

            ..             proceoures training procram was not aceouate ano orcelems in corrnunication cett<een various licensee orcanizatiens existec.

q 

                                                                  '-     -         - - - - ~ - - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

                                                          5 .,

O usessment We in general, agree with the staff's response in' Sections I 

              ' and -II.C.       However, we disainvoTvT.ng the..tratning program is significance        f   L _this. Tis h. gree wit               '

juin . . being .- E. 

                -Winadequate training program may be indicative of work not performed correctly or being perfonned by unqualified perso Certainly the number of procedural violations identified                                                            An ade-            in'the 0! report is r##1ective of an inadequate training program.

quate training'While no program 

                                                  " unsafe"isactivities fundamental      to aas took place                       basic                a result quality      of assu program.

this deficTency, to asigts,,1ts gigli'fkance only on this basis Tne Ttuffln reaching this conclusion, does not allow soecious. for the et hancement of safety provided by an adequate training program. 3, The staff agrees with the of report finding that the licensee's 4) CA/oc Department had not received proper ma during 1981 and early 19c2. O _ u ,es, ment-The staff in thft 'sunnary statement fails 'to address i;he more important issue involving the effectiveness of the TMI-Ul . 

                  . quality assurance program. misconceptions The                                                                   of the importan this section (Section III.E.) of the staff's response.

following point need to be addressed and properly reco - TMI-Unit 2 Recovery Program. , The staff agrees that the licensee's_ QA organization had not / I audited the current RecoveFy Programs Organization /BN I state the offsite QA Audit group had audited the Gaithers Design Engineering office. Gaithersburg Design Engineering office to those audits that we required to be performed of the Recovery Program at the Our concern is heightened by the staff's Audits are a necessary' element disregard of an effec- of thi safety significance. They in themselves may'not be tive quality asiurance program. 

                      ' adequate level of assurance, and to sati O.                      Appendix 4to10CFR50.                                                                                                                                 I The staff is incorrect when they state, on page III a7, "On the reactor building         ITS).        (polar crane structure is clas important to safety                                                                                         .
  • 6 As  ;

O the structure is ciassified as not important to safety.cNIT discussed earlier,i- the licensee's Quality Assurance Manual at the tioris as defi.ned Tr " Benefits Reactor Shutdown" and "Important time 

                      'to                     Recovery"            of the OIare effort.

mid-level classifications which require some level of QA/QC relative'to the importance of the task being performed. The OI report never stated or even implied that all activities

  • associated with the Polar Crane are "Important to Safety," but manyrequi of the activities were at least "Important*to Recovery,"d some - >

some level of QA/QC.' Thus .QC inspectors should have ha I involvement in these activities, arfd this is not "over and above This the requirements" but represents the licensee's coml  ; between the staff and us regarding many.of these findings. f The staff concluded that the licensee's quality assurance depart- l ment does not rely exclusively on the cognizant engineer to make a j proper safety classification of the activity to be pe TMI-Unit 2 in response to concerns of the OI Tea He explicitly group had audited the Design Engineering Group O assigned to perfor1a the task. . . staff's conclusion in this area. . We appreciate the QA improvements noted in the 

                   '.                the 01 investigation regarding Quality Assurance Management Suppor However, we would note that we were not necessarily as concerned with the length of time it took to take adequate corrective actions to the issues involved, but rather were more concerned with the length of time it took to initiate corrective actions on rathe significant findings. actions taken by management to defer correction of involved those identified deficiencies.
              . 5)                         The staff determined that the position requireme Organizational Plan were in accoraance witn tne Technical Specifications.

Assessment Regarding Section III.A. and III.B., the staff does notThe OI report did characterize the OI Team's finding correctly. Os ' not statt that Technical Specifications were violated, but rather a. it questibned whether the senior management structure at TM has sufficient depth in the area of nuclear power plant operating experience. . __m.______ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _

e ( 7 . 

 .O                     The basis far aar caacara === that na aaa ia the first thr** 1*vais of management at the facility met the requirements for plant mana-ger.. In particular the first two levels of management possess-strong construction backgrounds' with little or no reactor opera-tions experience. Neither of thess two upper level positions are qualified to be a plant manager per current standards. We have not. encountered a situation similar to TMI Unit 2 in.this regard at.                 '

currently licensed facilities. We felt strongly that one of the 

                             ~

i problems at TMI Unjt 2 was that the organization at its top, levels is dominated by people whose background is not adequate to under-stand Technical Specification and license requirements. The ' l methodology used and approved throughout the Polar Crane refur-hishment process is characteristic of people with construction backgrounds. In essence, this methodology simply does not incor-porate the review and procedural adherence that is required by operating licensed facilities via the Technical Specifications. . We do not believe the staff has adequately addressed this issue. The staff found that actions on the part of the NRC onsite ,- - l 6) - personnel faci 11taten tne safety and promotness of the cleanup effort and did not contribute in any sion1ficant way to tne . licensee's management problems. O . 

                          ^======*at               .

t 4 (

  • We stand by our conclusions in this area.
  • We do not impugn the integrity of any of the NRC TMIPO staffi nor do we question their
                      . dedication to duty. The intent of our comments was merely to point                         -

out areas in which the TMIPO organization, through their regulatory efforts,.did contribute to the problems manifested. in the allega- l tions. We believe that TMIP0 personnel in no way intentionally contributed to these problems. We remain convinced, however, that unless a more orthodox method of regulation is established for the TMIPO, the problems will remanifest themselves in part. ' 7) The staff determined that modifications to containment penetrations '- were appropriately made in accordance witn tne TMI Un1t 2 Tecnn1 cal 50ecifications ano NRC requirements. The staff does not agree with the OI report finding and finds that modifications to containment penetrations, definee by ECMs 963 and 954, were appropriately made in accordance with the TMI Unit 2 Technical Specifications and NRC requirements. Also the staff finds that ECMs 963 and 954 did not constitute an unreviewed safety The 

                       . question nor are they in violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix A.                                            l l

licensee follcwed 10 CFR 50.59 requirements and performed the O necessary safety evaluations in concludingThe were not irn unreviewed safety question. that*MIPO tne subject ECMs concurrently l l 

                                                                                                                                 )
          .                  arr.ived at the same conclusion as the licensee.                                                    l The staff position is that: The modification proposed by ECM 963 changed the service air piping system attached to the penetration                                   i

                                                                       '         ~                                                     . .

8 O- such that it now d. oes not " connect directly to the containment atmosphere" and therefore criterion 56 no longer applies while the system is in place. Criterion 57 is then the applicable criterion i 

                    .for the air connection and this criterion has been complied with.

Assessment . 

  ~               ' In no way is criterion 57 the applicable criterion for this air connection.                                    Sketches A and 8 of the 01 report clearly show the air. '               -

Ifne connected directly to the containment atmcsphere, while in use This connection to the atmosphere occurs through or when isolated. the air hose in use, through the unqualified flexible hose in the penetration, or through the rupture disk. Criterion 56 is~and has - to be, the correct General Design Criteefon to be applied. The staff does not provide a basis which identifies why the water penetration in the modification does not have to me.et General Design Criterion 56; therefore we assume the staff agrees with,us. - 

                     .Thus, Criterion 56 applies to this penetration The staff further asserts that the modification is consistent                                       The       with section 3.6.1.1 of the TMI Unit 2 Technical specification.

O cont =4n=ent 4nteorstv sche =e $==iementea or tae moo  % 4ticas4o dissimilar to containment spray systems +at typical Fwas. . We do not understand the relation between the Technical Specifica-tion (as stated below) and any modification except to assure that proper procedures exist after the modification'is implemented to . maintain containment integrity. Excerpt From Technical Specification , 

                                                           "3.6.1 PRIMARY CONTAINMENT                                                .

CONTAINMENT INTEGRITY 3.6.1.1 PRIMARY CONTAINMENT INTEGRITY shall be maintai all containment penetrations, includin'g at least two OPERABLE containment isolation valves or a double barrier in each pene-tration, shall be closed when not required open per procedures Purging or other approved pursuant to Specification 6.8.2. treatment of until approved by the NRC.

  • APPLICABILITY: RECOVERY MODE.

Q ' ACTION: , With one containment isolation valve per containment penetration open or inoperable, maintain the affected . penetration (s) closed with either:

V. . i.. . 

                                                     ~

9 . O

  • a At ienst one deactivated automatic vaive secured in the isolation position, or At least one closed manual valve, or a blind flange." l
                 ' ' b.

This Technical Specification is no't dissimilar to TechnicalNo other r

  • i 5p'ecifications at other facilities.cffice has the authority to apl

' basis for a Technical Specification without a license amendment submittal per 10 CFR 50.59(c) on the basis of this Technical Specification. The fact that the modifications as implemented are similar relevant. to containment spray systems at typical PWRs is n! during the plant licensing. process and are described in the FSAR. j If this were not the case and a PWR licensee were contemplating . 

   -          installingthecontainment.spraysystem,a10CFR50.59(c)                              license.

We feel that our position is con-submittal would be required. l sistent with the views expressed by Mr. H. R. Denton, Director, l Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in his memorandum 18, 1983. to Ben We 8.  ! Ha'yes, Director, Office of Investigations dated Julyd the contrast between the way they were implemented and what is required by the Code of Federal Regulations. One final comment that we wish to make with respect to the staff's . 

             . response to the OI report's findings is that the staff                   We appears may agree to minimize the safety implications of each finding.                            However, we that taken individually the findings may be minimized.

are convinced that these findings when taken collectively, did represent significant waaknesses in the licensee's management program and as such are, overall, of safety significance. i I h 

               ~

I O . 

                                  '~

1 

                                                             -                                                               t
                                                                                                                             )

1 

                                                                                                                          ]

                                                                                 - ~ - "

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

  .s'i [

g.g y 

                          )

wAsHIN3TcN, D. c.10655 April 11,1984 

          ~ ~ ~ ,o#

O 

                                                                                                                )-

3 MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. 01reks Executive Director for Operations  ; THRU: Harold R. Denton, Director e Office of Nuclear Reactor R io FROM: B. Snyder, Program Director, TMIPO:NRR A. Beach, Sr. Reactor Engineer, OIE W. Rogers, Sr. Resident Inspector, Davis-Bessa - R. Wa' kar, Chief. Engineering Branch 1, RIII .

SUBJECT:

SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE OF TMI-2 ALLEGATIONS O Ne TMIPO staff and the technical members of the OI team have. met 

            .ne March 2,1984 memorandum from B. Hayes (01), SECY-84-36, and other associatec documents and have reached'a consensus on the safety significance of the TMI-2 allegations. Based on all the infomation on this matter, we believe that the regulatory actions taken to date were appropriate, the GPUNC management is adequate to ensure the public health and safety of the cleanup and'that the unique NRC regulatory program is appropriate for the special TMI-2 condition.

Resolution of all issues raised in the March 2,1984 memorandum is found in tne In reaching resolution of these issues some attachment to this memorandum. reliance has been placed on the preliminary findings of a recent Perfomance We have been briefec Appraisal Team (PAT) review of the GPUNC TMI-2 activities. by the PAT leader and final PAT report will be available in about four weeks. On February 3,1984, the NRC's Office of InscectionAnand Enforcement assessment of (OIE) tne inci- iss an enforcement action relative to the allegations. The authors of this vidual and collective safety significance was discussed. O i i DEPOSITION l EXHIBIT , i { 

                                                                                .         T b Do           d

1 l 

                                               . Will.iam J. Dircks l   ..

O norandum find that the enforcement action appropriately addresses the issue safety significance and no further action is required. < 

                                                                         *^
                                            **)       3 B. Snyder, P ogram Director, TMIPO:NRR A. Beach, Sr. Reactor Engineer, OIE fh f                 u      J W. Rogers, Sr ' Resident Inspector Davis-Besse f     $. W       dr R. Walker, Chief, Engineering Branch 1, RII' O                                                             --

e t_ 

                                                                        ~~f.

Twss *W ttachment: As stated g- 752-Eb2L wolf CrcA

s. ,~

3 y2-255 g /G 

                                                                  ) Ug _ er .[Jzt/ l q ll' O

 *                                                           \

A 0 A O , l i 4 1 ATTACHMENT . O . 

                            )

l O l l l I

1) -

The staff agreed t:ith the OI report finding that there had been instances of GPUN using procedures controls that differed from. GPU administrative reouirments Out felt that none of tnese violations 

   -        were safety-significant.                                                                                      I Both the OI team and TMIPO staff agreed that GPUN did not adequately implement GPUN approved administrative procedures, improperly used l

AP 1001 and used unapproved Bechtel documents, e.g., Construction 3 J GPUN has eliminated AP 1001 ) Department' Project Instructions (CDPIs). and separate Bechtel COPIs replacing them with a new administrative ) control system. Both the TMIPO staff and the OI team have concluded that all issues associated with the in-containment work , package syste have been resolved. l O - 

                                                                                                                         \
                                                                                                                          \

O

2) _The staff found that there were cases of cuality assurance misclassify- f 

                '             cations, but tne extent of the creolem was less than that indicated in l

the OI report. l Both the OI team and TMIPO staff agree that the changes to the reactor gas purge system and the reactor coolant wter level monitoring system I were technically correct and had adequate quality controls. TMIPO staff felt that the changes to both systems were in fact " add ons" and thus there was no actual modification to the reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPS). Therefore, these changes were properly classified as l Not Important to Safety (NITS).- l The OI team's concern is that the licensee's evaluation associated with both of these changes stated that modifications to the RCPB could be i l O allowed without full QA control (i.e., NITS) because the RCS was depres-I surized. The members of the OI team felt this would be a bad precedent to establish. The MIPO staff recognizes that the narrative in the I licensee's safety evaluation was incorrect in its logic and that it could be interpreted by other utilities that changes to the RCPB could be made without full QA review when the RCS is depressurized. This would be incorrect. The MIPO staff and OI conclude that the changes should not be classified as Important to Safety (!TS) based solely on Regulatory Guide 1.33. However, the operating procedure for tnis system would require the applicable ITS reviews. 1 I O

3)' The staff agreed with the OI report finding that the administrative 

 ^

procedures training program was not adeouate and problems in O commua4 cat 4oa oetween various 4 4ceasee oroaa4zat4oas ex4sted. The OI team questioned the TMIPO staff conclusion that the safety significance of the inadequate administrative procedures training program was minimal . The TMIPO staff, after reviewing the safety significance of the tasks perfomed during the period that there was an inadequate administrative procedures training program, detennined that the safety significance However, both the OI team and associated with these tasks was minimal. the TMIPO staff recognize that an inadequate administrative procedures training program could have significant safety implications and that the 

                 "" '"'" "**d'd    *  ** '"'" d- '"' ""' ' '"'" ^" '

O review detemined that the administrative procedures training program , has improved significantly and is presently adequate to ensure proper instruction in the implementation of administrative procedures. 1 O

o 4). The staff agrees with the OI report finding that the licensee's OA/QC DeDart:nent had not received proper manacement support to 

                               'a$ur' *o au't' *aa t ='iv r==oiut'o" of o^ ia'at # 'a orooia=$

f.O durino 1981 and early 1982.

  • The OI team interpreted the TMIPO staff's response in SECY 83-36 to mean that audits were of no safety significance. This conclusion was based on the staff's statament that there was no safety significance associated with the licensee's failure to audit the Recovery Programs Organization /Bechtel Northern Corporation at the site. The staff did l

not mean to say that there is no safety significance to not doing audits l out rather that in this specific case the delay in auditing did not have any safety significance. The team agrees with this interpretation. Furthemore, the recent findings by the Perfomance Appraisal Team (PAT) confims that audits are being conducted. O . The intenretation of OI team that NITS under the existing QA program at the time of the investigation would not incorporate any of the applicable criteria of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B. However, review by the THIPO staff found that adequate QA controls had been applied. Recently the PAT review has found that there has been a significant improvement in the application of the QA criteria required by Aopendix B. l Based on the PAT review, the OI team and TMIPO staff believe that acerc-priate audits are being conducted and a significant improvement in QA j l controls is now in place. O i

e The staff detemined that the position requirements for plant manager Q 5) and the assignment of responsibilities in the licensee's Organization Plan were in accordance witn the Tecnnical Specifications. The staff agrees with the 01 team that the GPUN TMI-2 Director and Deputy Director's experience is more design and construction oriented than The OI team agrees that at most currently licensed operating reactors. the experience requirements of ANSI N18.1-1971 are met and the Technical Specifications have not been violated. It was the consensus that the qualifications of the top management are appropriate for the cleanup because of the conditions of the plant (i.e., cold, shutdown l condition with no active systems required for core cooling) and the nature of the activities required to effect cleanup (i.e., decontami-nation, dose reduction, radwaste management, and defueling operations) for a non-operating reactor. Furthemore, the current Director of . Site Operations has held a Senior Reactor Operators license. i O

O.) The staff found that act4 ens on the , art of the NRC onsite personnel facilitated the safety and oromotness of the cleanuo effort and did not contribute in any significant way to the licensee's ma_nagement proclams. The TMIPO does have the regulatory responsibility for planning, managing, 

                                                                                 ~

analyzing, reviewing and approving the licensee's proposed actions and The staff has applied its oversight procedures for the TMI-2 cleanup. responsibility with the recognition that the Comission's regulatory requirements (e.g., General Design Criteria of 10 CFR 50, Appendix A) were never written for a facility in the unique condition of TMI-2. The staff has interpreted the Code of Federal Regulations with flexibility, common sense and engineering judgement with our regulatory approach focusing on what the staff censidered to be the most appropriate use of staff O resources (e.g., emphasis on reviewing cleanup plans, procedures, and activities) . The TMIPO staff has and will continue to provide close over-sight of all cleanup activities while recognizing the need not to The OI team agrees interfere with the internal GPUNC review process. with this approach and recognizes the uniqueness of the cleanup and the necessity for NRC continuing detailed involvement. O

7 The staff detemined that modifications to containment penetrations O) ere aooroor4ateiv maee in accoreance w4tn ener Tat un4t 2 Tecnn4cai Specifications and NRC requirements. i The OI team did not agree with the administratalve regulatory approach the staff has taken on TMI-2 containment penetrations. They do not dispute the technical merits of the penetration modifications but were concerned with the administrative methods' used to comply with 10 CFR 50, f Appendix A because it differs from the nomal methods .with which they are familiar. They believe that the regulations require femal license amend-ments or a regulatory exemption for the various containment penetration modifications whereas the 1NIPO Jtaff believes the regulations and license provide the flexibility at TMI Unit 2 to allow the modifications to be made 

               ~

j during the current plant conditions under present practice; i.e., TMIPO O approval per Technical Specification 3.6.1. Both the OI team and TMIPO staff have concluded that this is really a moot point because the TMIPO l staff has infomed GPUNC, in a November 3,1983 letter, that before plant l conditions change by removing the reactor vessel head (scheduled for this summar), a femal docketed regulatory action will be necessary This position was in accordance with Technical Specification 3.6.1. concurred with by both the staff and the Office of the Executive i Legal Director. . 1 O i

4>- , l g UNITED STATts

g.  !

8 . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N ' 

  ~

wasmwoTow. o.c.rocee O \,..... m,m l l Docket No. 50-320 License No. DPR-73 EA 83-89 GPU Nuclear Corporation ATTN: Mr. P, R. Clark, President 100 Interpace Parkway Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 Gentlemen: I This refers to an investigation conducted March 25 - August 10, 1983 by the NRC's Office of Investigations into allegations raised by fonner TMI-2 Site Operations personnel dealing with procedural and management controls of activities conducted at TMI-2 concerning the refurbishment ' work associated with the reactor building polar crane. An interim report was issued by 01 on September 1. 1983. The Three Mile Island Program Office has reviewed the interim 01 report. The findings stated in this ' letter are based on the results of that review. ) l The violations described in the attached Notice involve procedural control violations. The violations apparently occurred because of inadequate communications between GPU Nuclear and Bechtel Northern Corporation (BNoC) - and because GPU Nuclear management did not adequately control the activities of BNoC to ensure compliance with GPU Nuclear's approved procedures as required by the Technical Specifications for TMI-2 cleanup activities and in particular for refurbishment of the reactor building polar crane. While these violations have been classified as a Severity Level IV problem in ar 3rdance with the 1 l NRC Enforcement Policy.10 CFR Part 2. Appendix C, I would emphasize that, in l line with the intent of Chairman Palladino's letter of October 7,1983 to l Mr. Kuhns, your personal priority attention should be given to addressing the matters involved in the violations to resolve them in a lasting manner. You are required to respond to the attached Notice and should Your followwritten the instructions specified therein when preparing your response. reply to this letter and the results of future inspections will be considered in determining whether further enforcement action is appropriate. CERTIFIED MAIL RU URN RtctlPT REQUESTED I O 7 DEPOSITION ' I EXHIBIT lJ it -8C/

5 l GPU Nuclear Corporation  ; In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790, a co'ay of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. The responses directed by this letter and the attached Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget, otherwise required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511. Sincerely, ff Richard C eYoung Director Office of spection and Enforcement

Enclosure:

Notice of Violation O . i O e O%

s . O NOTICE OF VIOLATION GPU Nuclear Corporation Three Mile Island Unit 2 Docket No. 50-320 License No. DPR-73 i EA 83-89 j From March 25 to August 10, 1983 the NRC's Office of Investi9ations (01) conducted an investigation into allegations dealing with procedural and management controls related to refurbishment of the polar crane, raised by , 1 fonner TMI-2 Site Operations Department Personnel. An interim report was issued by 01 on September 1, 1983. The investigation was conducted by a team  ! of 01 investigators assisted by NRC staff engineers of various disciplines. The investigation consisted of a review of more than 280 documents regarding the allegations as well as interviews of pertinent licensee, contractor and NRC personnel. The 01 findings confinne<1 many nf N allosau.o er p%a...I 4 contros vlotations and lack of adequate management attention toward contractor activities. Each procedural violation is considered to be, at most, of minor safety significance, but does reflect a failure on the part of GPU Nuclear to control the activities of its contractor, in particular with regard to the refurbishment of the reactor buildin more serious concerns.g polar crane which, if left uncorrected, could lead to O In accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy (10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C) and pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended ("Act"), 42 USC 2282 PL 96-295, and 10 CFR 2.205, the particular violations are set forth below: Technical Specifications, Section 6.8.1 requires written procedures to be established, implemented and maintained covering: (1) the activities of applicable procedures reconnended in Appendix "A" of the Regulatory Guide 1.33, November 1972 and (2) surveillance and test activities of safety-related equipment. Technical Specifications, Section 6.8.2 requires that each procedure identified in Technical Specification Section 6.8.1, and changes thereto, be reviewed by the Plant Operations Review Connittee and be approved by the Unit Superintendent prior to implementation. Contrary to the above, the licensee did not fully implement the requirements of these Technical Specifications for cleanup activities at TMI-2 and in particular those activities concerned with the refurbishment of the reactor building polar crane as evidenced by the following:

8 Notice of Violation .2 I. Administrative Procedure AP 1047, "Startup and Test Manual," p(TWG) as the central approval and coordinatinaragraph body for tha Unit1.1.2, 2 establis Recovery Test Program. Paragraph 2.2.C estab ishes review and approval of test procedures prior to test perfonr.ance as one of the principle responsibilities of the TWG. Contrary to the above, the RSPC Nodoad Test Procedure was written, approved and performed without the TWG's review and concurrence. Unit Work Instruction (UWI) 4374-3891-83-PG-2, the UWI for BNoC Work i Package M0048 which implemented the RBPC No-l.oad test was signed as having been completed by the Responsible Supervisor on February 16, 1983. However, TWG meeting notes show that the TWG had not met for any reason for a period beginning from October 2,1981 and ending March 4, 1983. II. GPU Nuclear Quality Assurance Program, paragraph 3.1.3.2, Revision 1, dated September 1,1982, requires that the Quality Assurance department  ; review administrative policies, procedures and instructions which delineate the methods of complying with the Recovery Quality Assurance Program. O Contrary to the above, the Quaiity Assurance oepartment did not . review CDPI-20 which delineated QC re hold / witness points for QC coverage. quirements and how to establish III. Procedure AP 1021 " Engineering Change Memorandum (ECM)," states that an ECM is the traveler by which proposed plant tie-in, bettennent and modification packages are assembled, reviewed and coordinated with GPU's site organizations for their effects on the existing plant systems, components and structures. Procedure AP 1043, " Work Authorization Procedure" establishes a means by which proposed changes to TMI-2 are initiated, reviewed and approved in accordance with plant Technical Specifications. It requires a Work Permit to be issued as the document to tuthorize initiation of work proposed by an ECM and track the ECM work through completion, turnover, test and final records retention. Contrary to the above, the following was performed using a BNoC Work Package instead of the required GPU Nuclear-approved ECM or Work Pennit. A. A temporary Jib Crane was installed on the RBPC trolley using BNoC Work Package M-0024. O

O - Notice of Violation 8. The Polar Crane Pendant, Cable and Festoon Cable was installed using a "non-like" for "like" component replacement via' BNoC Work Package E-0046. C. The trolley power / control bypass was installed using a "non-like" for "like" replacement via BNoC Work Package E-0055. D. 200 amp fuses were installed in place of 300 amp fuses in the polar crane main disconnect via BNoC Work Package E-0037. IV. AP 1021. " Engineering Change Memorandum," Appendix A. Section 12.1.1.2 states that if an instrument Not Important to Safety (NITS) is installed and its associated pressure ) robe penetrates an Important to Safety (ITS) barrier, then tie ECM shall be classified as Important to Safety and subjected to the applicable QC, instal-lation and inspection procedures. Contrary'to the above, the following Safety-Equipment Change Modifications (S-ECM)wereissuedwithmisclassificationsasfollows: A. S-ECM 1121. D-Ring Gantry Crane Railway was classified NITS instead of ITS. B. S-ECM 1066, Temporary Equipment Hatch Enclosure Wall was . classsified MITS instead of ITS. C. S-ECM 1053, Drain path from OTSGA was classified NITS instead of ITS. D. S-ECM 1099, UNICOM Communication System was classified WITS instead of ITS. V. AP 1043, " Work Authorization Procedure," describes the approved method of authorizing work for plant and equipment modifications. AP 1047, "Startup and Test Manual," authorizes the preparation, perfonnance and documentation of the test program. Contrary to the above, the licensee released the RBPC to construction (BNoC) for refurbishment work via Job Ticket CA-258. The Job Ticket procedure, which is authorized by Maintenance Procedure 1407-1, has no provisions for turning equipment over to construction and then subsequently turning the equipment back to operations after testing anc modifications have been performed. O. .

t 9 Notice of Violation VI. AP 1043, " Work Authorization Procedure," Section 3.11.1 establishes criteria to detemine whether a PORC review of a Work Pemit is required. Contrary to the above, Work Permit 222-1 which implemented Field Change Request FCR-P0014 involving Decontamination Experiment Penetration was incorrectly evaluated in that a PORC review was not performed, although such a review was required. These violations have been assessed as a Severity tevel IV Problem (Supplement I). Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, GPU Nuclear Corporation is hereby required to submit to this office, within 30 days of the date of this Notice of Violation, a written statement or explanation including for each alleged violation: (1) admission or denial of the alleged violation; (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted; (3) the corrective steps which have k en taken and the results achieved; (4) the corrective steps which will be ta u to avoid further violations; and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Consideration may be given to extending the response time for good cause shown, under the authortty of Section 182 of the Act. 42 U.S.C. 2232, the response shall be submitted ur. der oath or aff 4 ination. O roR rat NutteAR RtoutatoRr Coi+irssroa . ff Richard C D oung, n _ =- rector Office .f spection and Enforcement Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this d day of February 1984 9 O

Iw , EXIIIBIT E 6 4 

     ,. e

( OPU Nuoleer CIMF 100 Interpace Parkway Parsicoany, New Jersey 07054 i 201 263-6500 TELEX 136 482 Wnter's Direct Dir. Number: (201) 263-6797 4410-84-L-Or> 31 February 28, 1984 Office of Inspection and Enforcement Attn: Mr. Richard C. DeYoung US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Mr. DeYoung:

Three Mile IslaN. Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (THI-2) V,cv Ope a ting Liciase No. DPR-73 Docket do. 50-320 Respontt to Office of Investigation Report l This letter is provide 1 in response to your letter of February 3, 1984, which 3 forwarded a Notice of Violation based on the NRC Office of Investigations' ) investigation of al'agaticas raised by former THI-2 Site Operations i pe.rsonnel. The ar,:achmrat to this letter provides GPUNC's detailed response to each citatio9. For your convenience the documents referenced in the responses are '.nclesed even though all have been submitted previously to the NRC. A a general conclusion, on the subject of these violations, the following excerpt from GPUNC letter dated January 16, 1984, Mr. P. R. Clark to j Mr. P. R. Denton, is as appitcable to this Notice of Violation as it was the Office of Investigations Interim Report: 

                   "1. Some activities at TMI-2 were not conducted in conformanca with applicable administrative requirements. We fully endorse the need for adecuate administrative controls. Mr. Kuhns' letter (of November 1, 1983) made clear that we accept respons    r ollity for any l

F l l DEPOSITION  ! { EXHISIT l 

                                                                             ,t        q ~'              . l
                                                                                $r' /t A

O L' February 28, 1984 Mr. Richard C. DeYoung 4410-84-L-0031 deficiencies in their content or implementation. We have undertaken and are comitted to completing the actions needed to correct the identified problems.

2. Physical work at THI-2 was accomplished safely.
3. GPU Nuclear management displayed an active regard for safety.
4. GPU Nuclear management did not discourage the raising of safety issues or suppress their consideration.
5. GPU Nuclear management recognized the structural and communications problems within the organization, was actively involved in correcting them and is proceeding to complete those actions." ,

l CPUNC believes that the underlying causes for the non-compliances cited in the attachment have been identified and have been or are being effectively addressed. i Very truly yours, t 

                                                                    /s/ P. R. Clark P. R. Clark President sie Attachment

Enclosures:

Stier Report Volume IV GPUNC Letter 4410-83-L-0244 dated October 11, 1983 GPUNC Letter 4410-82-L-0257 dated October 25, 1983 GPUNC Letter dated January 16, 1984 from P. R. Clark to H. R. Denton 1 O 

        .                                                                                  l C            I. NOTICE OF VIOLATION Adsfrilstrative Procedure AP 1047, "Startup and Test Manual", paragraph 1.1.2, establishes the authority of the Test Working Group (TWG) as the central approval and coordinating body for the Unit 2 Recovery Test Program. Paragraph 2.2.C establishes review and approval of test procedures prior to test performance as one of the principle responsibilities of the TWG.

Contrary to the above, the R8PC No-Lead Test Procedure was written, approved, and performed without the TWG's review and concurrence. Unit Work Instruction (UNI) 4374-3891-83-PG-2, the UWI for BNoC Work Package M0048 which implemented the RBPC No-Load Test was signed as having been completed by the Responsible Supervisor on February 16, 1983. However,  ; TWG meeting notes show that the TWG had not met for any reason for a period beginning from October 2, 1981, and ending March 4, 1983. GPUNC RESPONSE GPUNC concurs that the R8PC No-Load Test Procedure was written, approved, i and performed without the TWG's prior review and concurrence. The reasons for this administrative non-compliance are extensively discussed  ; in the THI-2 Management and Safety Allegations Report (Stier Report) prepared by Edwin H. Stier for GPUNC (Volume IV, Polar Crane Allegations Section pages 28-32 and 71-79) and provided to the NRC via Mr. Clark's- 

 ,               letter dated January 16, 1984. As part of the corrective action for this Q,'               occurrence the TWG met on September 14, 1983, to review the no-load test plan and at this meeting verbally approved the results. As followup to this review TWG formally documented its approval of the no-load test (See GPUNC Letter 4410-83-L-0244 dated October 11, 1983, and GPUNC Letter 4410-83-L-0257 dated October 25, 1983). Additionally, GPUNC Letter 4410-83-L-0244 stated that AP 1047 would be complied with on a mandatory basis and that all personnel involved with polar crane activities, including contractors, would be trained on this procedure and other selected procedures. This activity is on-going. All personnel involved with testing of tne polar crane are trained on AP-1047 before their active involvement in such activity.

II. NOTICE OF VIOLATION GPU Nuclear Quality Assurance Program, paragraph 3.1.3.2, Revision 1, dated September 1, 1982, requires that the Quality Assurance department review administrative policies, procedures, and instructions which delineate the methods of complying with the Recovery Quality Assurance Program. Contrary to the above, the Quality Assurance Department did not review . COPI-20 whicn delineated QC requirements and how to establish l hold / witness points for QC coverage. l l 1 dc ' 

                                                            -l'-

g GPUNC RESPONSE GPUNC agrees that CDPI-20 was not reviewed by the Quality Assurance Department. However, GPUNC disagrees with the citation to that COPI-20 did not delineate QC Requirements for activities nor define how to - establish hold / witness points for QC coverage. CDPI-20, Control and Documentation of work after release by GPUNC, was a procedure written by BNoC for Document Control. Its intent was to define the methods for collecting documentation of work for turnover. l The QC requirements and Hold / Witness points for the Polar Crane were established in the Polar Crane Functional Description and were concurred with by Quality Assurance. These requirements were satisfactorily ' implemented during the polar crane refurbishment program. CDPI-20 claimed to replace existing GPUNC procedures, which is unacceptable. This problem was identified during the Polar Crane Review Process and was corrected. In addition GPUNC Letter 4410-83-L-0244 provided a commitment to convert all CDPI's (including COPI-20) into the THI-2 procedure program by the end of 1983. This activity was accomplished in that GPUNC procedures have been issued which supplant the functions served by CDPI's. Effective December 31, 1983 CDPI's no longer existed. III. NOTICE OF VIOLATION O' Procedure AP 1021, " Engineering Change Memorandum (ECM)," states that an ECM is the traveler by which proposed plant tie-in, betterment, and ' modification packages are assembled, reviewed, and coordinated with GPU's site organizations for their effects on the existing plant systems, components, and structures. I Procedure AP 1043, " Work Authorization Procedure" establishes a means by which proposed changes to THI-2 are initiated, reviewed, and approved in accordance with plant Technical Specifications. It requires a Work Permit to be issued as the document to authorize initiation of work l proposed by an ECM and track the ECM work through completion, turnover. test, and final records retention. Contrary to the above, the following was performed using a BNoC Wor < Package instead of the required GPU Nuclear-approved ECM or Work Permit. A. A temporary Jib Crane was installed on the RBPC trolley using 

                                                             'SNoC Work Package M-0024.

B. The Polar Crane Pendant, Cable, and Festoon Cable was l installed using a "non-like" for "like" ccmponent replacement l via BNoC Work Package E-0046. O l 

                                                                                   - 2'-

i 

                                                                                                                                \

C. The trolley power / control bypass was installed using a t] 

                                                     .          "non-like" for "like" replacement via BNoC Work Package E-0055.

D. 200 amp fuses were installed in place of 300 amp fuses in the polar crane main disconnect via BNoC Work Package E-0037. GPUNC RESPONSE GPUNC concurs that the activities identified in this section were initially installed via a Work Package instead of an ECM. This problem was identified and documented by GPUNC Quality Assurance via Quality Deficiency Report CHK-Oll-83 dated March 8, 1983. This and other circumstances surrounding the situation are documented in the Stier f Report (Volume IV, Polar Crane Allegations Section, Pages 16-23). In i order to correct the immediate problem identified by on-going Polar Crane l Investigations ECM's were generated for these modifications. GPUNC Letter 4410-83-L-0244 committed to provide ECM's for the Installation of the Jib Crane, Trolley Power / Control Bypass Cables, and the Pendant and i the Festoon Cable, and GPUNC Letter 4410-83-L-0257 documented completion of these ECM's. On November 1, 1983 an ECM was issued to document , elimination of the Polar Crane Main Disconnect Fuses, a further modification of the work identified in Item 0 above. To prevent recurrence of this event, GPUNC conducted training on AP 1021 j and AP 1043 for all personnel involved in Polar Crane Refurbishment and ) testing activities as committed to in GPUNC Letter 4410-83-L-0244. This 

       ]                                       training was completed as of November 11, 1983.

IV. NOTICE OF VIOLATION AP 1021, " Engineering Change Memorandum," Appendix A, Section 12.1.1.2 states that if an instrument Not Important to Safety (NITS) is installed and its associated pressure probe penetrates and Important to Safety (ITS) barrier, then the ECM shall be classified as Important to Safety and subjected to the applicable QC, installation, and inspection procedures. Contrary to the above, the following Safety-Equipment Change Modifications (S-ECM's) were issued with misclassification as follows: A. S-ECM 1121, 0-Ring Gantry Crane Railway was classified NITS instead of ITS. B. ~ 5-ECM 1066, Temporary Equipment Hatch Enclosure Hall was classified NITS instead of ITS. C. S-ECM 1053, Drain Path from OTSG A was classified NITS instead of ITS. D. S-ECM 1099, UNICOM Communication System was classified NITS instead of ITS. O

l . . .... . . - - - -- 

 ]                         GPUNC RESPONSE The apparent violation identified above identifies four specific ECM's which the NRC states were issued with misclassifications, i.e., the ECM's were classified NITS vice ITS and thus by implication would not be subject to the applicable QC installation and inspection procedures.

Contrary to the citation, S-ECM 1121, Revision 0, was classified Important to Safety when it was originally issued due to installation of ! Liebig anchors in an ITS structure. GPUNC does concur that S-ECM's 1053, 1066, and 1099 were classified as NITS, however, each of these documents identified appitcable QC inspection scope which was concurred with by GPUNC QA. Therefore, these S-ECM's did not bypass Quality Control. - Subsequent revisions to S-ECM's 1053 and 1099 were classified as ITS. Additionally, if a revision is made to S-ECM 1066, tne safety classification will be changed to ITS, a revision to this ECM simply to modify its safety classification is not needed in that the appropriate QC requirements are incorporated into the existing ECM. The general subject of improper safety classifications was also extensively discussed in the Stier Report (Volume IV, Allegations of Safety Review Deficiencies, Pages 2-9) and GPUNC Letter dated January 16, 1984, Mr. P. R. Clark to Mr. H. R. Denton. In order to prevent future problems with classifications a revised Quality Classification List (QCL) was issued on July 1, 1983, and Site Engineering was designated as' the organization responsible fer making interpretations of the QCL. V. NOTICE OF VIOLATION AP 1043, " Work Authorization Procedure," describes the approved method of authorizing work for plant and equipment modifications. AP 1047, "Startup and Test Manual," authorizes the preparation, performance, and documentation of the test program. Contrary to the above, the licensee released the RBPC to construction (BNoc) for refurbishment work via Job Ticket.CA-258. The Job Ticket procedure, which is authorized by Maintenance Procedure 1407-1, has no provisions for turning equipment over to construction and then subsequently turning the equipment back to operations after testing and modifications have been performed. GPUNC RESPONSE GPUNC agrees that the RBPC was released to BNoC for the refurbishment work via a Job Ticket. This issue is addressed in the Stier Report (Volume IV, Polar Crane Allegations Section, Pages 3-6) in which it is concluded that Maintenance Procedure 1407-1 invoked the provisions of 4300-ADM-3240.01, Access to and Work in Containment Butiding. Thus there was a procedural basis which permitted work to be performed on the polar crane, and the procedures were specifically designed to authorize a maintenance project such as the polar crane refurbishment. Therefore, n GPUNC disagrees with this specific citation, however, we do agree that () 

                                                                           .                               1 1

O the refurbishment work and testing subsequent to turnover should have l i been conducted in compliance with AP 1043 and 1047. We acknowledge those proddures were not utilized in the instances referenced in citations I and'III above and our corrective action helps ensure such non-compliance ) should not recur. VI. NOTICE OF VIOLATION AP 1043, Work Authorization Procedure " Section 3.11.1 establishes criteria to determine whether a PORC review of a Work Permit is required. Contrary to the above, Work Permit 222-1 which implemented Field Change Request FCR -P0014 involving Decontamination Experiment Penetration was incorrectly evaluated in that a PORC review was not performed, although such a review was required. GPUNC RESPONSE GPUNC agrees that Work Permit 222-1 was incorrectly evaluated with respect to the requirements for a PORC review. The noncompliance was the result of an individual instance of an incorrect evaluation by the responsible engineer and is judged not to be a programmatic problem. However, Field Change Request FCR-P0014 was not implemented untti ECH 963 was revised as required by the Field Change Request. Based on the ECH I revision a replacement Work Permit, 222-2, Revision 0, was prepared which G was correctly evaluated as requiring PORC approval; therefore, no work was accomplished on FCR-P0014 without the required PORC review and approval. Since the time of this occurrence, two major changes have taken place which affect the THI-2 review and approval process for Engineering activities. As of March 1, 1984 a new procedural system for performing changes will be initiated which affect those changes commenced after that l date. As part of this new system the work permit will be superseded by l the Unit Work Instruction which requires a much more detailed evaluation i of each work activity. Additionally, Technical Specification Change Request (TSCR) No. 40 was approved by the NRC and became effective en November 1, 1983. This change request, in part, requires that each Uni: Work Instruction be concurred with by an independent reviewer who dces ' not have direct responsibility for the performance of the activity under review. These changes were made independent of this event but will nel:: j to prevent recurrence. O

Attachment 1 4410-84-L-0031 1 Attachment 1 to the original latter was a copy of the Stier Paport, Volume IV. This doctanent is not being distributed internally. If pu desire to review the rescrt, please contact Mr. J. J. Byrne at extansion 8461 - mI-2. l O . e O

C J'_* . . .. . .. .{. .~ . [ ~~7 , . . . l ~y"~ ~-."~.~~ --"" ~. l.. s Attachment 2 4410-84-L-0031 g . .. * . OPU Nucteer Carperstlen men','a WNuclear M ddletown, Pennsylvania 17057 

                                                    .                                                                         717 944 7821           ~

5 ' TELEX 84 2348 Writer *a Direct DialNumber: October 11. 1983 - 4410,-83-L-0244 , TMI Progran Office ,"A Atta: Mr. L. H. Barrett Deputy Program Director r. - US Nuclear Regulatory Comission . "2" W%f 

                                                                                                                                                            **a %.am c/o Three Mlle Island Nuclear Station                                                                                      = = = = -

Middletown, PA 17057-0191 , 

                                                                                                                                                                 . m. .  .

Dear Str:

                                                              -                                                   , i4 4 ,. .

Three Mlle Island Nuclear Station Unit 2 (TMI-2 .  :":!'.2".;." Operating License No. DPR-73 l l;;';;u;;, g Docket No. 50-320 Additional Polar Crane Refurbishment Information u - . = . Z:"O!O.%. 

                                                                                                                                                     '!     C U.:!O. .
                                                                                                                                                            "+'*"-+e My staff is in the proc'ess of responding he you'r request for additional                                               -

UO2T"' information as stated in the above referenced letter. The purpose of this' letter is to provide the NRC staff with information available thus far j CO,.'t. . regarding the four items at issue and to inform you of projected dates for O',5 ;,1 the completion of those actions underway but not yet complete. Prtjacted g-*;'~ ' dates for the transmittal of supplemental information are included as well, m. . . a . The order of the below stated partial responses corresponds with that used T""Jt in the. referenced letter. . Ol"'.*4 % , 

                                                                                                                                                             %,4 g
1. Quality Assurance has performed a review of the work packages used to i accomplish the refurbishment of the Polar Crane. Fifty-two packages were reviewed to determine if: the appropriate approvals were obtained,  !

inspection results were documented, acceptable material was used, required l fests were performed and tests results were appropriately documented, modifications were approved by engineering, engineering reviewed and I approved the as-found conditions as a result of the inspections, and l there was overall compliance to administrative controls. The coments generated as a result of the review were satisfactorily 

                         ~

resolved by the Polar Crane Task Group and Design Engineering. There were no material or design problems found, however, it was found that the administrative controls for modifications and testing were not h complied brith in all cases. These discrepancies were documented on a Quality Deficiency Report. The corrective actions identified were: l'

1) Comply with the administrative controls for modifications and testing for all foture work and retrain all Recovery Program personnel responsi -

ble for authorizing work activities in these administrative controls; 

                                       -.-------,______,.__tt__                                      .

C ., ., ... .... ...- .~ C C , L ' ~ '"~ T, ,T , 

                                                                                                                                                         -C,-,-    - - -
                                                  ~*                           .

O'- ~ 

                                                                                 '.L N. 8'arrett                                             -t-               4410-83-L-0244
2) converts'11 Recovery programs procedures that are required to satisfy the TMI-2 License. Tech. Specs. Recovery Operations Plan, and Recovery l QA plan into the Unit 2 procedure programs; and 3) the Unit Work Instruc- j tion will be utt11:ed when required by procedure for all Recovery Programs work activities. *
                                                                                .'     The status of corrective action is as follows:

A. R'e covery Programs is in cotipliance with administrative controls for modification and testing. Recent changes to the technical specifications modifying the safety review process are being ac-companied by a revision of the basic procedures governing the ac-complishment of work at TPI-2. Training on the new procedural pro-gram ivill be a continuing process as the new procedures are approved and implemented. Please see Item 4 for addit 1onal corrective action. R. Conversion of Recovery Programs procedures (CDP!'s) into the TMI-2 procedure program is in progress and will be completed by the end of 1982 O c t P' atatiaa aad ==thari==tiaa a< a =av'.er 'ra9ra== art activiti > aredoneinaccordancewiththeUnitWorkInstruction(UWI) procedure. ,

2. EngineeringChangeMemoranda(ECM's)forchenbesnotpreviouslycovered by this process are being produced now and wi'1 be subjected to the nomal review routing, including the Site Operations Department. This process will be completed and copies of these approved ECM's made avail-able to the NRC by October 19, 1983. The three ECM's being produced cover modifications regarding the Jib Crane, Trolley Power / Control Bypass Cables, and the Pendant and the Festoon Cable.
3. The first functional test of the refurbished polar crane was the no-load test. This was successfully perfomed in February,1983. Though the Test Working Group (TWG) did not approve the no-load test procedure prior to perfomance, the TWG met on September 14, 1983, and reviewed the test plan and.results. These results, reported by both the Polar Crane Task Group 14,1983. Fomal documeand GPU QC, were verbally approved on ntation of TVG approval of the polar crane no-load test will beSeptember complete by October 19, 1983.

The polar crane load test was written and reviewed in accordance with AP 1047. The current revision contains all the required TWG approval , signatures. The Test Working Group is fully cognizant of all tests completed and contemplated for the refurbished polar crane. O 4 Administrative Procedures (AP 1021,1043, and AP 1047) and operational' requirements (Load Test and Operating Procedures) governing polar crane - refurbishment and testing activities will be complied with on a mandatory basis. All personnel involved with polar crane activities, including 9 _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - - . - - _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ ~

_  : = :.-- - = :.:.. - * = u == ::- - - - -
         ,.. . . . ~                                                                                                                       ,

e_ . 4410-83-L-0244 L. N. rrett .3 - i g contractors, are in the process.cf training on these procedures and requirements. Training on approved procedures will be complete by November 15. 1983. Training on procedures which are to be yet approved by NRC will be accomplished before implementation of the covered activity. We are continuing to review and monitor carefully all polar crane modifica-tions, testing, and refurbishment work to ensure compliance with all applicable procedures and administrative requirements, including training, prior to load testing. It is our intention to keep you fully informed of all significant developments in this regard. . Sincerely, . 

                                                                                                                                   /s/ 3. K. Kanga B. K. Kanga Director TMI-2                          l BKK/CMH/jrb cc: Dr. B.J. Snyder Program Director - TMI Program Office G

t _ _ - - _ - _ . - _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ -

.e z,. .;,;. . ....~;=~-.;====~r~*="***~~'~~'- ' Attachment 3 

                                                                                           ,      4410-84-L-0031 Nuclear                                                   SPU NuclearCarperstlee
==,ta

e u.~ , .. ,=7 ., 717 944 7821 

                                                   *        -                                TELEX 84 2384 WrNet's Direct DialNumber:

October 25 1983 4410-83-L6257 TMI Program Offica 1ert.8 Attn: Mr. L. H. Barrett Deputy Program Director .:.. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission gig.Wy c/o Three Mile Middletowu, PA Island Nuclear Station e r.. u n 17057 . ,_

Dear Sir:

j,7,", " Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (TMI-2) ellef6-??lf 17) ill;!;'!...? Operating License No. DPR-73 i $ Docket No. 50-320 

                                                                                                                      --k-l d C1,". .              I Additional Polar Crane Refurbishment Information                            [*;".7,;;'

i The purpose of this letter is to update the status of Items 2 U!"J'!1/1 u - - " i. . and 3 in GPUNC Letter 4410-83-L-0244 from B. K. Kanga to I C f .I' ' L. H. Barrett dated October 11, 1983. 0;;:;;;l.......,'.';..'.;- Item 2 stated October 19, 1983. that three (3) $CM's would be prepared by %f'J"  : These ECM's have been approved and are EZ:Z ,. ' i available for your inspection. g3 ';.y';,.

n. . a - .

Item 3 stated that the Test Working Group (TWG) approval of the " " " " '" ' polar crane no-load test would be formally documented. This = has inspection. also been done and the documentation is available for NRC .... m.,.... 

                                                                                                                   ,,,, gj6,0 myIf you            have staff.        any questions, please contact Mr. J. J. Byrne of                      " ' " "

Tk f)9, ;;;h" Sincerely, = fii'2 M m t 

                                                                           /s/ J. J. Barton for                    "

umm = B. K. Kanga Director, TMI-2 ( I BKK/RBS/j sp CC: Dr. B. J. Snyder, Program Director - TMI Program Office 

                                       ~ .           -

   ,Eij '                                           ' __ ;.iT ~l%r.-
                                                                                ~
                                                                                                                              .. r3.:Z-        ..T!? ' ~-
                                                                                                                                                                        - ~ . n e-<
                                                                                                                                         .                    .   .       4410-84-L-oo31
v.  ;.. .'

g,a.(.1p4-o m ge~ h us.' 

                                                                                                                                  .           p 2

SPU NoctnerC p 

      ~

ENuclear .*. * 

                                                                                                                                      ~
                                                                                                                                                     *J

( ese$00' 201 243 4 TELEX 138 482 u 0f . Wider's DirectOlalNumberi ] ,..g * 

                                                                                   ~

(201) 163-4797 Jaaaary 16, 1984 Mr. Enrold R. Dantes Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulaties United States Nuclear Reguistory Commissies y Mail Step P-428 *

  • Vashington, DC 20535 ,
                                                                                                                                   *                ~

Dear Mr. Destent On Septembe'r 1, 1983, the NEC's Office of Investigations (01) issued as l Interia Report en sa investigation isto allegations by Messrs. Parks,Thia l g pischel, sad King regarding activities at Three Mile Isised Dait 2. l Interia Report was forwcrded to the Commission by a assorandum dated September 1, 1983 from the Director of 01. This letter provides our comments on the 01 Interia tapert and its forwarding memorandua. It fulfills hath the promise is Mr. Villiam G. Kubas' letter dated Nevenber 1,1983 to NEC Chairasa Nunste J. Falladine to provide comments to the staff and separate l commitments made by other G7U Wuclear people la discussions with the staff. . We have waited to comment on the 01 Interia Report antil the compistion

  • of both the CPU Nuclear commissioned investigation by Edwis W. Stier,
  • Esq. into the allegetiens that faitiated the 01 investigation and of our tatsraal review. Yolumes I and IT of the Stier Esport, which relate to
           /

issues discussed in the 01 Interia Report, are enclosed for reference and 

           ;                                                              comparison with the 01 Interia Report. Also enclosed is a September 23,
  • 19831sttar from Mr. Stier addressing some of the asjer points.

The 01 Interia taport sets forth, in Part D-10 entitled, *tasalts of the Technical Essalaation of Alleged Procedural and Managerial Deficisacies 

             '                                                               at Three Mile Island, Unit 2", twelve general issues covered by 01's ta-vestigation. Stier's investigates severed is considerable detail the specific allegations in the employee's affidavits. The differsaces in scope and structure of the two investigations and the reports make it impractical to cross reference specific sections that cover the same 6                                                                             issues. Bowever, we have assessed the estent to which the Stier Report and the 01 Interim Esport cover the same issues and conclude that the Stier Report approzinates the severage in the 01 Istaria Raport in sont respects.

4 

                                                                                                         . .~~.: . . ,     :.~.      . -*. ~~; ~:- -          -
                             . T.". ' ' ' ~ _                       * . ,. '., .g~., .*.-~                                                                                                       .,,,,,
                                                                                      --- C.,3~~. C
             ....a.......                                                                                              .     .

o.. . 

                                                                                  ~

f *. , 

                                                                                                                                      =S=

Jaanary 16, 1984 

                                                                  ' Mr. Baro 14 E. Destes o

This latter and its attachment comment on 01's general issues. We . address the issues in the following categorisas l . y 

                                                                                 - Managensat's Attitados and Motivas                                                                                     ,

2 

              -                                                                  - Adherence to Administrative Requirements
                                                                                 - Technical Judgments on *Important to Safety
  • C1 ossifications
                                                                                  - Consistency of Orgenisattes and Stafflag with Technical                                                  .

Specifications 1 - Qh Fregram and Management Support of it 

                                                                                  - Functionias of the NEC's TM1 Fregras Office Each of these categories is addressed in Attachment I to this letter.

While the kik of the consents raly on the Stier Report, we have provided d == af n e O 44tei t == a it 7 i e of the TMI-2 Organisaties to the Technical Specifications based es sur e < internal review. , We recognise that the 01 Report is *1ateria". Nonetheless, we are con-corned by the conclusions which may have been drawn from the Interia Report and the forwarding memorandus of Septenhor 1, 1983 from the . Director of 01 to Chairpas falladise. We believe that the total informaties now available does met support the preliminary comelusions en the major issues which can be drawn from that senorandus. We believe that the Stier Report is defiattive and well bal-anced on those issues. Specifically, stier founds "The evidence gathered la the course of this investigates clearly demonstrates that the allegations, in their broadest sense, are unfounded. That is, the claims that the managensat 

                     ..;                                                            of TMI-2 is unconcerned about the safety of the recovery effort and retaliated agataat employees who attempted to call thess deficiencies to assagensat's attenties are contradicted by the
                          .'                                                        weight of the evidence".

This is directly contrary to the 01 menerandum stateneat, *The allege-o tions were not only substantiated but we found them to be illustrative rather than exhaustive *. While va klieve that this 01 statenest was likely intended to apply saly to precedural complianes a sees in that O' limited eense, it is in ear judgment, as smaggeration. Second,. the 01 senorandum states.

  • Dissatisfaction with this condition led the allegers to the course of acties that triggerod this lavestigs-tion *. Etter's investigates led him to eenclude that the procedural violattens were being addressed by,GPU Nucisar assagensat and that Parks,

[ l 

                                                                                                             ~~ r. - . - ~: ,, ,,.,
u-" - - . -
                                                                                            ~~*.=                                        .,       ,_
           ~-~ ": ~ _ . g _:..-- .~ .%._..      m .,_, _
-*:;;u.~,.-

D *. 

                                                                                                                 *S"                Jonesty 16,1984 Mr. Esseld B. Bestem                                                         ,                       ,
e 91schel, and Sing kasw this. Bis report ashes it slear that their pahus
  • allegatieas'were precipitated primartir by sther matters set affecting aafety whisk they felt endangered thstr seatinued employment at IME-1.

These matters did, la fast, result la perocanal actions by the senpany. Finau y, the 01 menerandetstates that, "The failure of sealer liseasee managenest to reopensibly semiter Sechtel's work and held Sechtet as- 

            **                                   comatable is the underlying cause of the TM1-2 procedural problems".
                       -                         Thus, it is implied that a fundamental defittency esists La the ab111ty                                              j and willingness of CPU suolaar maangement to saferse its proceduras.

5 This taplicaties is set supported by the et Interia Report, and it is .. 3 sentradicted by the Stier Report which found that the precedural deft-stencies which entsted for a persed daring the cleanup resulted fren i *1astfective communications during a major management reorganisaties" and ( - that the deficiencies sisarly were matther *asceptable to or tolerated l { by* GPU Nuclear managenest. stier slee found that GPU Weslaar management I 

                         ?                         had the appr,epriate concern for safety and was taking steps to identify                                           I and eerrect the procedural prehless.

O 'We unk ~ w r .oints at s- of au ~ t-sougames and u-cussions resulting from the public allegations are the fe u ertag

1. Some activittee at TM1-1 woru met oseducted is seaternance with appli- 3 sabia administrative requirements. We fully endorse the need for l l

adeguate administrativeisestrels. Mr. Euhna' letter ande staar that J - we accept responsibility for any defittenstes la their esotest er taplementaties. We have madertakes and are sensitted to sempleting the actions needed to serrest the identified prehless.

2. Physical work at TM1-1 was accomplished safely.
  • 3. CPU Wuclear management displayed as active regard for safety.
4. GPU Nuclear managensat did met discourage the raising of safety issues
                          .h                              or suppress their seasideraties.

[,.. ~

5. SFU Wue1 ear managenest recognised the structural and censuaications
                             ;                            prehless withis the organiaaties, was actively involved La serrecting them, and is proceeding to templete these actions.

A great deal of affert has already been spent en reopending to the alle-gations. We hope that both we and the vtc saa sov sessentrate our resources en costiautag to complete safely sad effectively the decentam-inaties sad defueling of 1ME-1. We will seatinus our efforts to ensure-fu raddre **!62 =1** O ==* identified. 

                                                                             =<                                                   .

We halieve it is also taportant to assure that savarranted damage. to the publis credibility of the aleasap program he prevented. Maar henset, h * 

                                                  . . ., g. .       . .... . . . . . .       ..-          ...
                                                                                                                   ..       3.      3       . , . ..                    . . .

m 

                                                                                                                                                                                        - _ - ....:. x wm                              . -  ~ - - - - - c . .,. , .                            ,

a, . .+,.: . . ....... = - 

                                                                                                     .        . 4:.m.- e,y.    -      > .., : ;

t ll * . . . . 

                                                                             ' . . . . ~.; . . 4 . . . . . . .L :. ...' . .             .            ..

Mr. M E. Seeges =4= . Jaamary 16,1984 esapetest, and wen-intentieaed employees et the ERC, SFU Wustear, and . Sechtet have been punisly sha11 eased and impagaed by the allegations whish, ~1a.tSe meet part, have been shows to te safounded. We teses that the Stier sayert win set the record straight is this regard. We believe there is sa addittenal importset lesses to be learned from the tavestigations of the allegettens. That lesses lavolves t,hs method by 

                                     ~;                                  which the reguistory presses deals with the applicaties of standard                                                                        ,

regulatory reguiremente, practices, and petities to a saigne sitanties 

                                        .                                each as that at 'Dt1-3. We believe that an of these who are seedusting.

reviewtag, sesitettag, sad investigattag a saique situaties, suah as the - l . sIsaasp, most have a fall anderstanling of the aircusatances and anst est . 

                                         .                               with , judgment to apply o'r adapt regstatory requirements and smides whiah                                                                1 i                                were writtes for vastly different tirewastanees.
                                         .                                A prise eaample of this is the app 11sattes to the carrent 1M1-2 sitaattom of .requiremeete developed for a plant operating at power levels ef
                                                                                                                         ~                                                                                          '

l 1,000,000 kilevatts er sore, pressure of 2,500 pounds per ogware f ash, and temperature of 600*F. D81-2 is new producing about 30 kitewatts of j heat, pressure of about 15 pounde per aguare insk, and temperature of O We win be paying slese attenties la the seeing meaths to toestifying etailar situattens, serrecting them ourselves, or ashlag receaseadations . to the ERC etsif to serrest them. la this way we wi n apply this learw- 

                                              !                           tag and by se doing facilitate the safe sad tiasly slaansp of Bit-2.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      )

varr t=1r rears e ((. P. E. Clark Presidaat 

                                            .'                             Pfk
  • i attaakaast 1 :u ur r e
                                                 -                         Enclosures - Yeluses I and IT of the Stier tapert                                                        .-   .  .-                    .
                                                            ..- *:     ,                                September 13, 1983 Lattar from Mr. Edvis W. Stier, Eag.
                                                 .                         Mes E. W. Dischamp F. g. hks                                               .,                    ,

I. 31aka, Esquire, Shaw. Pittana, Potts & Trwwbridge E.1. Fiafreck, Jr., Osirmes, OtEls

3. E. Kanta, Director TNtd
 ]                                                                                      I, E. Kintner, Executiva Tica' President .
                                                                                       ,7. E.1arsen, TMI-t Lisenstag & puelaar Safety Director C. F. Smyth, TMK4 Licensing Manager
                                                     -                                    E. E. Stiar. Esquire, Kirsten, Friadama, & Charia                                                                       -
                                                     -                                    J. E. Thorpe,* Diraster, Licensing & Bagniatory Affairs J. F. Wilama.. Esquire, 31shey, Liberman & Cook E                                                      !                                                                         .

l 

                                                                                                                                                                               ..:. ^
  • l . * '.~.~ ~r.':.~. .:".~.". *: ~ ~.~~; _ ~ ' ' ~ ~ =:.::. :
  . 212L;.               . &. .., . .:.~ :.. ~ {.'__"~~*=x.=
                                                                                                ~                                                                                                                               _. , _ _
 }V7                                            .

[ 

                                                                                                                                   ......e AtfAlmart E'
                                                                                                                     .             Manatement's Attitudes and Wetives the at[itades and actives of 1M1-1 assagement and seater eenpany assage-                                                                  -

meat toward safety are clearly a very fundamental issue. We abarge seu14 be es,re serious than that the Saeevery Fregram was being assaged under a policy oir attitude of disregard for safety. This issue is the major these of the allegattens and, presumably, a pria-alpal focas of the investigattens. N 01 Interia Report itself is set * 

                                                                              -              esplicit es management attitades. It does met state a finding on this Assue. Unfortunately, bewever, the 01 Interia Report is organised se that
                          '                                                                  it any11es sa taproper assagensat attitude.

j - yer example, is part ble of the et lateria toport, at page 1-4, it 5a e stateds , j "The general allegaties that procedure violattens sad a hie-sericalpattersofmisclassifyingthesafetyimprtanceof { r various plant modifications represent evidsace that the management of Three Mile Island Unit 11 (1M1) has sacrificed ~ its own systes of safety-related checks and balances for the TM1 Cleanup activities la ordeir to meet sarealistia time 

                                                                                              #               schedules' (parks' Affidavit, Pg. 1) . . .*

The 01 Report then lists the seven findtags concerning Managerial Organi-satten issues, such as the taadequacy of TM1-1 nanagement support fpr % and the seaflicts between the 1M1-1 erganisational structure and.Techai-cal Specificities requirements. The juataposities of the seves findings with the sweeping generalization gueted aheve suggesta tbt the 01 tsaa sacevered evidence of a v111fal desisten made by 1x1-1 hanagensat to cirtuavent its safety review system. Similarly, the 01 memorandum which forwards the lateria Esport to the Commissies, while met definitive, leaves the cisar impression that 01 l 

                                     ?                                                                                                                                                                                                      1
                                                                                          , concludes that there was a deliberate decisies en the part of Bechtel perseanal, to which CPU Nualear sealer managensat acquissesd, to circum-                                                                   ,
                                   '                                                            vest reguired adaimistrativa sentrols for the saka of aspediency.

3 s . 4 The Stier tapert is esplisit, and to the sentrary, en this critissi , issue. The Stier tapert sentains extensive analysis of gha attitude of 

                                                                                               '1N1-1 assagensat toward safety. Various administrative probless were                                                                       /'
  • investigated to determine the maderlying safety review polici.es spes
                                         '                                                       which TNI-1 manatement operated.                                  la Volume 1, Summary and Conclusions,
      -                                                                                           page 13, the Stier Esport stat,est
                                                                                                                  *The evidence gathered in the aestse of this investigates
                                                                                                                'sisarly desenstrates that the allegattens, in their broadest O.                                            -
                                                                                                                 ' sense, are mafounded. That is, the slains that the manage-mest of TNI-2 is enconceraad shout the safety of the

                                               ....:..=.=.- - - - - - . :--
                                                                                                            - m. .. . .      . .
        -                 .; . i.-..            _ _ - _ z-~~;.
                                                                  *~
                                                                                                     .    .- - =                .     :--: : :

a - .- . . 

         .<-.,     .   ~.._      ,
                                                                                       . s             r *:                         -

(~~ .4 ., M= 

                                                                                                                                                                                                  \-
                                                       . e #
  • recovery effort and retaliated against employees who
                                                    ' attempted to call these defielencias to manageseat's
                                                  # attention are contradicted by the weight of the evidence".
                                                      *Ameag the avseroas specifts allegations which have besa raised, we have determined that some.are factually correct.

Iowever, the manner la which they have been portrayed pab-licly presents a disterted picture of the adalaistrative problema encountered at 'D11-2 and e( the attempts made by management to selve these prehless. This report.will de-scribe tha Tarious adaiaistrative defielencies that entsted at M-2 during the period under investigates. Ourobjes-tive is to make a reasonable assessment of their seriousasse, discuss whether annagenest recognised the problems, and 

            -                                          describe any efforts undertaken by managensat to serrect the situaties". -
                                                         *The allegations imply that the management of TMI-2 was headed la the direction of increased tolerance of unsafe
  • practices. In contrast, the evidence shows that the tread O was toward tighter administrative esatrol to assure that safety standards were met. Whether the problems were brought to the attention of assagement by King Farks, Cischel er by others. 'DQ .2_ management was responsive. It anderteek steps to assess the validity of complaints and acted spes these -

that were well-founded. The allegations that accuse manage-neat of following a policy of ignoring problems brought to its attention and of punishing employees who raised the issues are matrue.* Therefore, on this most hesis of issues, we strongly disagree with any suggestion that TM1-2 assagement lacked appropriate concera for safety. 

             .i Ve believe that the 01 Interia Report and the forwarding memorandus do i                         met provide a proper assessoast of management attitudes for two basie-
             ..                         reasess:                                                                                             -m
              .                      . 1. The savestigation team did set ' nderstand                       a                     the salgue circumstances
               -                         . erested by the accident. Ne, they interpreted issues.in the in-appropriate costant of a acraal operating plant. This along with erroneous understanding of some issues, eyes as they would apply to as
      .                                          operating reactor, distorted the understanding of the TM1-2 situation.
2. The 01 lateria taport gives as eredit to the organization for identi-fleaties and response to the problems by management prior to the public allegations. The Stier Raport provides extensive documentation that the problems vers being addressed effectively. The documented actions by managensat strongly contradict the implication that manage-most was circumventing its own safety review system.

t O 4

1 

,    fy.,
     ~~"
                                                 ' - ^                        s        =."(-------                          .==~~M"*"--"      -
                     . . ~&::,::::7. g- ,- ;- yg .~ ,rm-- - ..::.-- . .

cy . 

                                                                   .                            .p          .
                                               .                                                                                                   1
                                                         .                                                                                         l
                                                           .'             Adherence to Administrative Reestrements This gendral issue is discussed at length is the Stier Report. The                                         l eospaar agrees that there were some setivities which did not eenfers to administrative requirements. The difficulties with ett11 sing the
         -                               pre-sceident administrative sentrols because of changed sendittens, the large susher of new perseasel at the site, and the need to provide a
         ;                               revised organisaties suited to.the unique situation led to as early and esatinuing emphasis se develeyeest and ase of adaimistrative sentrols.

The priority on the effort to revise adalaistrative procedures was tacreased relative to other requiressats as safety seasiderattene i permitted. Withis the prosedere revisies affert, priorities aise had to e he established. For saasple,' early la the post-accident time period, the 

          .                               Radielegical Centrols Program was completely and very effectively re-vamped, as was the Radioactive Waste shipptag Program.

Efforts to revise other adelaistrative precedures did not progress as rapidly as the company desired sad anticipated. This was due is largeThat part to the eateing technical and safety aseds which had to be set. O. ' situation should he evaluated is the seatest of the tremendous amount of work that was done safely, sospetently, and for the majority of the tasks accomplished is cespliance with the adelaistrative requirensats. Most importantly, as objective review shows that sealer company sad TM1-1 

            -                               assagement were and are addressing the underlying problems of the seed to revise esisting procedures, optimise the organisatiemal strustars, and'
                                            .tr,ais affected perseasel es adaimistrative requirassats.

AlthoughtheOkla'teriaReport.doessetreflectallthetrainingofforts that did exist, the company recognises that eers trainias sa adalaistra-tive precedures was needed. Consistent with the receaseadaties la the 01 Interia Esport, we have tattisted acties to assure that training and re-training is " comprehensive enough is nature to assure that all personnel understand the requiressats of the procedures." e 

                                                            ~

O 

                                   ~                                        -..                           . . .            . . . .                 ..      _..         _

l * .. *.~. ^ ~.T** . : ~.-.'.'.:: 

                                                                                                                                   * ~ ~ ~ ~
                                                                                                                                               - = .-~~--

v - .: - - - - L . *.* 

                                                                       .. ... ._-   .                          .-. ru ~ ~                                         .         .
                                       .                                                                                            * -        s                            ..

O .y,,..la A = , , , 

                                                                     ..?-          . . . . . .

4 Teche.ieal Judgments es 'fasertant_to safety" Classifications . This issue, as applied to the polar ersas, is addressed at length ta the stier Esport. This is probably the area wktsh mest clearly illustrates the problem of properly applying standard requirements to the saigue TMI-2 situaties. As an example, the 01 Interia Esport concludes that the entire polar crane refurbisbaeat program ehes14 have been classified as t . Zapertant to Safety (ITS) becsues the polar trane structural support is . classified as its:* sad when the program was alassified as set ITS is July, 1982, it.had met been determined if the structure would be ' - involved. This conclusies is technically and administratively l >; incorrect. Another tacorrect eenclusies is that temporary attachments to 6 the reactor coolant system aust satisfy 10 CFE 50 Appendia A destga 

                                        '                                 criteria as those criteria were originally applied to the destga of the
                                       -                                  plant.

O~ . Oe e e 1 0 l l O t.

L . .."" ~  :. . ~. . : '-~.~ -- - 

                                                                             ~; ~.T.;~~~'.~'~;.~:;r=.:.~. r ~ - . -, _,... , , ,___ .,_ .s,_ ,,           ,
   , -- \ , , .

y_v. . e v..

  • Ceastetencyofcrashasties'endStaffinswithTechstealSpecifications 4

This sategory of issues was met part of the allegations and thus is met addressed la the Stier Report. The first issue is this estegory is whether the M-2 organisaties was coasistaat with the Technical Spesi-fications. Centrary to the 01 Interia Report senclusion, there was set a esaflict between the Technical Speccisattens and the M-2 orgaatssties. 

       .'                            Specifically, the 01 tavestigation team inserrectly seasinded that the r
  • Plant Manager" posities should have sentrei and authority ever activi-
  • ties that were clearly outside the responsibility of the pre-accident counterpart posities (Unit Superintendent) simply beesuse the activity
       .,                            new takes place en site er has the werd *eperatica* 1a its faaettoaal b
         !                           title.

The M-2 orgeaisaties is stractared on the principle that la the amigae circumstance of recovery from an unprecedented sesident there are easy setivities which are completely beyond the scope er capabilities of a O .- , site Operations Department organised sad staffed to support "aermal* plant operations. At the same time, there is a vital sad legally maa-dated reopensibility assigned to the Site Operations Departasat to maintain the plant is a safe shutdown condities is searliance with i Technical Specifications and other requiramaats. l For these'reaseas, the organisaties established at M-2 (and refined es several occasions based es ear esperience through'the costee of recov-ary), includes two hay al-*= 

                                                                 'A Recovery Prograss Departaast heavily staffed by contracter personnel (primarily from two techtel companies) having credentials and experience appropriate for the saigue recovery tasks at hand, and
                                                                   'A Site Operations Department, which includes CPU's experienced and
                                                           . licensed operatore, as well as supporting maintenance, engineering, j

and other personnel, to provide the estensive plant familiarity, . operational espability, and legal secountability to asistais . safe . abatdown. J L These two major orgsalsational saits, with supportive elements, have been integested into a single GPUN Divisies for nazimum effectiveness. At the time of 01's investigates, the reopensibility set forth in the TM1-2 Technical Specifications for the Director - Sits Operations is that he 'shall be reopensible for overall sait operaties and shall designate O. in writing the succession of this responsibility during his absence". . This responsibility, sensistent with the Technical Specifications, is

  • assigned La the summary of responsibility fqr the Site Operattens Depart-neat contained la the internal CPU Nuclear Organisaties Pisa, Revision 10, dated Septenhor 1,1982, which states the Site Operations I

Q.h . j.j n 2 Eb~&i =:-& 2 =~ = %--.a; ).

~. - -

se, art a is res,.unis t. nadat I int is operation, miste==e, 

                                                                                                                         . =fe, reliable,   w offt-ad
                                                .nsia..rias                    a Thr.. En. zeland sait staat' manner seaststest with serporate requirements and is semplianse                                                        1 with all applicable laws, liseases, reguistory and technical require                          The ters =                       l seats".                   This  approach      is  seaststent    with  the ANSI  Standards.                                    ]
                                                 *eperaties" in the ANSI Standards does met taply that the Director = Site                                       -

f Operations has esclusive authority ever all activitise at the site, ser . does it puggest that activities of a antare inherently different fres mermal plaat operations (each as eleaayoperations) any met he assigned . 

                    ,I,                          to another departaast.
  • The TN1-2 organisattes has been reviewed and approved by the BBC.

This e'rganisaties is reasonable, responsive to the dessade of the TME-2 

                   .j                             situaties, and sempletely seaststent- with.the facility Technical                                                ,

Specifications. . { d The seceed issue is this category is whether, during Aprilhisy 1983, Jeha Bartes, the Director of Site Operations (acting), had the qualifi-O. sations as11ed for by the Technical Specificatieass i.e., these of a 

                                                ' "Flaat Manager" as defined in ANSI 518.1.

The TM1-2 Technical Specifications la effect at the time of theThe investi-satten clearly are based on the 1971 edities of this Standard. comparises of J. J. Bartem's goalifications for Director - Site Operations against ANSI 318.1 = 1971 is set f: A at the end of this j secties. We conclude that the findtag es stas issue is the 01 Interia ' 

                 -                                 Report is incorrest for two rassens:
1. Mr. Barten fulfilled the Technical Sp4cificaties requirements for designation as Directet - Site Operations. Mr. Sarton's 25 years of training nad esperience are particularly suitable for the position .
                            *                ,                of IMI-2 Direster = Site Operations.

The Technical Specifications, thrtsgh the reference to ANSI N18.1 - 

                          -                         2.                                                                                                                      !
                        ,j'                          -         1971, permitted the waivtag of certata requirements for,the "Flant
                                                        -     Manager" incleding that ha have the requisite espertence and traie-
                          /

ing mensally required by the NEC of a candidate for as Sto license The

  • if ena er more principal alternates falfilled that criteries.

Manager - Flaat Operations, she was designated is writing as the i principal alternate to the Director a Site Operations during the period of interest (April /May 1983), held a surrest sto license on EMI-2. . O . 6g I 

                                                           . . . .                        ..~. ..... ........ ..                            ...
.= . = :.- ==. .. ;;.= . u.:- .=- .
                                                                                                                                   ~T . = = = =                     :- --       :            --
  ~ =*LQ* G#i~Ct"~ *
                                                    ~~                                                                                            .
                                                                                                                                                                                                 \.
                                                                                                           .                           =7=

COMPA11805 0F J. J. BARTOR'S QUALIFICATIONS FOR 

                                                      .DIRECTot SITE OPERATIONS (F1 ANT MANAct1) VITE ANSI N15.1 = 1971 TECINIC L SPECIFICATION REQUIREMEN! =

Technical Specificities 6.3 . requires each member of the sait staff to meet er ascoed the sinissa qualifications of ANSI 

                                                                                           .                                                    E18.1 = 1971 ANSI E18.1 - 1971 Recrirement for
  • Float Manaaer* .. . ..
1. Tea (10) years of reopensible power plant esperience, threis (3) years nuclear power plant esperiesse. A aasiaan of fear (4) years of the I remaining seven (7) years may be fulfilled by academie traising. .
           ~                                                                                                                                                                          '
2. The Flaat Manager shall have acquired the esperience and training
                           -                        normally required for esaminaties by the AEC (now NRC) for sa SRO's license unless one er more perseas designated as a principal alternate meet the nuclear plant asperience and AEC eussinaties requirements la O                                     ,

which case the Plant Manager need have only one of his ten (10) years esperience he nuclear power plant asperience and he need met be eli-gible for AEC saamination.

3. At least ena of the persons filling positions deltasated above should
                                          -          have a recognised baccalaaraate or higher degree in sa engineering er scientific field generally associated with power producties.

J. J. Bartes's Qualifications J. J. Barten has a R$ME free the United States Marchant Marine Academy and thus fulfills this requirement. Three (3) years Engineering Officer of the Vatch U.S. Navy and Marchant Marine. 

                . .. . * . .. Fear (4) years service with Burne and Bee, Ime., involved is nuclear plant and startup activities.                                                                                    ,.      .
. . Seves (7) years service with New Tork shipbuilding Corporatten la various 4 . test positions in the Naval Nuclear Fever Department, including Manager 4 of the Startup orgamination.

' Eleves (11) years service with GPU is various power plant related activi-I "' ties, six (6) years of which were solely dedicated to saalear power plaats, including two (2) years previously in this sans posities.

i 

                                            . , - . _              3 3 - .- -.x.,. ._,- .                  ..=-_.=.                ._.
  - ~ . :-        .       r:           ,
                                             ;       ,_,,,; .;. .          ..         -..;.-         --..- ~ - .
                                                                                                                                                                      -~~~~.

t ,, 

                                                                                            .               =0-                   .

Additt laformationregardingBartes'sasportanceisasfe11sess - 

                                                      *,   Esceived staulater tralstag (eas week sourse).                                                                        <
  • Served as shift Test Engineer for entire Test Fregram os ese nuclear submarine, and for Eet Functional Testing after eers lead en another submarines both SSV power plaats.
  • Specialized nuclear power trainias program which prepared candi- )
dates for Shift Test Engineer la the Naval Raatter Fregram. Upes I complottom of this training, became the shipyard member of the Joint Test Group for both a nuclear submarina and nuclear frigate.
          ?
  • Served as Test Director (overall responsibility for Initial Criti-cality and Power Esage Tests) for three (3) ancisar outmarine test programs.

i Served as Nuclear Fever Ficat Test Director es heard one nuclear submarine during initial Sea Trials. 

                                           *
  • Served as Propulsies Flaat Test Director for initial Sea Trisis of one nuclear frigate. (This assignment included met only the reacter plast, but aise the complete propulsion plant and all the muziliary systems such as the electric power, SSTG).
  • In the posities of Director, Site Operations, J. J. Barton was qualified as *Esergency Directer" se defined in the 111-1
                                                   .          Energency Flas, and successfully served is this capacity during actual emergency situations and la guarterly and annual energency drills.

} J. J. Chvastyk, she was designated the principal alternate for 

                                     "         J. J. Barten la his capacity as acting site operations Director during April /May 1983, had apprezinately fifteen (15) years power plant esperience with GFUNhist-Ed of which thirteen (13) have been at TMI.
Chwastyk held as SRO license at TM1-1 from sevember 9,1977 to August 5,
                                   -           1983. Therefore, Barton was not reguired to have the esperience and
               ~

training reguired for maanisaties for sa sto license. I O 

                                                               ~

_.:._ ^~ ~T...._... **

  • aw - '-  ;~ * :. ; ~. '. ~ . . ., ~.~ := ~ ~ ^ * ~ " * '.~ " ' n- :

a- 

                                                                                                   ..: .. ..-                              -----                                I wm                                                                                    . ,.
                                                                                         ',*S * ' . . " * .
                                                                                  .r . ..,      .

F * " * *.* T'. . 

                                                                                                          =9=

l 

                                                          .?                    Q& Frearam and Msammensat Support of it r.

The issu's e ta this category are dealt with extensively la the Stier l 

             .                               Report. The Stier Report sonaluded that the S Fregram was met compre=

mised and was set lacking managensat support. i The 01 Interia Report comes to its sentrary senclusies based primarily i apes consideration of four areass 

                ;                             1. Tina 11asse of perforatag audits of the Recovery Frograms Departaast, 1

j 

           .                                  2. Effectiveness of S partisipetten la the polar stans refurbishment,                                                               ,
             ..                                                                                                                                                                  I
                '.                            3.        Ceay11aase of the S Fregram with 10 Ci150 Appendia 3 is abs mathed for classifying activities as ITS er set ITS, and
4. Timeliness of serrectica of S deficiencies. .

J O , Fe11eving are our soumnents es each of the four areses

1. QA Audits of the Recover / Prograss Department - The 01 interia Espert conclusion that the Audit Frogram was deficient is inserrect. Under our QA Program, we audit activities and organisattes salts.

a) In accordance with the CPUE Insevery Q& Fregram, the Racevery . Program Departaast activities were being semitered by Operationa 

                                                   .               E for esap11aase to the Technical Specifications es a routina basis.

b) The Recovery Program Departaset was established in September l l 1982. The QA audit asaducted, starting in September 1983, of its 

                   *
  • setivities and ergeaisaties satisfied the annual audit require-meat of the Technical Specifications. j
                                               '           a) Technical Specificatten requiromante for sedits of other activi-                                      -
  • ties of the TM1-1 Division have been and are being satisfied. l l
                                ........2.                 Effectiveness of Partietsation in the Polar Crane Refurbishment                                         ' " " * '

Progras (uPCI.7) - We disagree with the 01 Interia Report conclusied ' that the QA Departasat did met affectively participate fa~the 137C17. a) There was Rechtel quality Engineertag involvenest la the classi-ficaties of the polar creas activities and the establishment of the Engineering / Quality Eaguirassats. ( - CPUW S with Bechtel QA Engineertag la b) There 

                       -                                              regardwas  to thecoordinates Engineertag     by/ Quality Esguirements applied to the polar staae and other Sechtal work.

s) 8 FUR S did overview the p' alar trans preessa in regard to assur-t tag that the safety 

                                                                             -               ~-

classifiaaties was sensistent with the CFUN 

        ,.....e..
                                              . ' . . :.'. ~~ "" '~:. .7:~;*::.._::~~  _
                                                                                           ~~ ~ ~;-.: --    ~'-.; =..~_~. ..       -- ... . . .

t--": .-:.. - 

 . . .. w                         .

h. 

                                                                                 .                            .gg, .
                                                                        ~

d) Bechtel S had performed medits to assure that the Sesheet . ,

Engineering Fregram is'adeguate and being taptenested on seektel work deae is Gaithersburg includtag that on the polar staae.
3. Ceepliance of the E Premram with 10 CFR 50 Appendia 3 la the Nethod for casssifyiss Activities ITS or Wet ITS = The company disagrees with the lay 11caties la the 01 Esteria Esport that the process for desistems with regard to ITS/ WITS elassifiestions is act la seater- *
                                                          maase with the requirements of 10 CFE 50 Appendia 5 or la etherwise
     -                                                      inadeguate. The S Flaa specifies the need for classifying work as ITS er NITS. This requirement was est.
  • Apparently, based on Procedure 38 411, the 01 team inservestly
     -                                                       believed that the S Flas regstred additieaal classifiestieas. Whos ES-011 was issued, it was thought that the additional elassifiestions
      .                                                      over and above regulatory requirensets would he helpfs1 La the ses-                                       -

trel of the work. Bewever, attempts to tapleasat the additional. classifiestions turned out to to taptactical. This procedure has 

                                                    ,         recently been revised to delete those additional classifiestions and to provide elsesificaties of the system, parts, and seaposentr, into saly the ITS and WITS sategories. The S Flas requiressats relative to slassificaties of work as ITS er BITS uns set vietated as a result of these events.                                                                                   .

Centrary to the statsanat la the et Interia Esport, the S Flas does . set rely exclusively on the sogaisant engineer to aske,a proper safety classification, sad engineertag is set performing a S Depan~ meat function whos it ashas~ 1TS/IITS decistoms. RespenstM11ty tJ aaka this determinaties is properly sad formally ledged with the 

         -                                                     Engineering Departaast. The S Flas does set call for S to review all activities that have been classified as ITS or NITS although @

does perform a sampling verification of the safety classificaties process. Examples of tMe verificaties ins 1sde periodie S meni-toring of werk fuastions la addities to the audit functies. S searcises its reopens 1M11ttas is tMs area by:  : a) Eaview and concurresse with procedures definlag hev classifica-tiens are made, 

          .                                                     b)     Periodicverificabosofalassifiestionandtheelsesifiesties process.

4 Tinieliness of Correcties of QA Deffetenetes - The 01 Interia Esport seasludse that the @ Department did set receive proper management support to ensure adeguate serrective asties was takaa e.e correct S identified findings. We disagree with that general eenclusies. Fear sameplas are ased is the 01 Interia Esport to support its sea-l slastmas 

   . _,.,,._... ,_ : . 7... 3 3 5 , z . g ,: ; z.; a. c 2 .-r.. . . .
     -                                                                                                                         . . i.,m.: .. . . . . .
                                                                                                                                  .                     --. y .---..    . . . . . _ _ , , , _ _
g. ..
        ~ '                ~                                                                                    . .o      .

S - 

       .s                                                                                                                   33 p
  • r
v. .

a). The first essaple refers to a sleseest of two quality Defketeney

1 sports (QDEs) based on Bechtel's statenest that they will ase the established adalaistrativa sentrols for detag 173 work sad that work packages are to be used to accenplish recovery tasks which are determined to be wholly and particularly independent of the GFU Nuclear procedural systas. Centrary to the 01 Interia Report seaclusion, work outside the scope of the S Fregram any be properly performed to asether set of administrative aestrels.

Free a S Frogran point of view, that ens as acceptable resposas to the qpt. b) The second essaple deals with the time 11aese of backfitting 

          ?

destga verificaties documentation practices os design work per-formed laaediately after the sesident to the requirements of the

  • EN1-1 Modification GPUSC quality Assurance Flas ( SP=M1). Es '

recognition of the need for rapid tastallation of modifications during fattial Recovery Operations, the Plan did set reguire t< * < i== iri =< == ***

  • r O. *
                                                                         ~<

destga work by gualified personnel. The NEC esecurred with t < hat ] Plan. ' The decisies to preceed with backfitting of docuneataties es the Esrlier modifications was made fe11eving the develepasst,ef a seu f4 Flaa. Tha saw S Plas reguired documentaries of design veri- ' i if:stiva of modifications is recogetties of the estended time period of the cleanup program and the ased to retura to seraal a practices. .The 01 Interia tapert is correct as to the length of time it teek to elear that 4D1. Bewever, gives the estensivesass of the work affert lavelved and the relative tapercance of

  • having,'as eenpared to other high priority activities, the deco-mentation complete, the length of time for clearing the QDE was appropriate. Tha @R has besa elesed out and the documentation hackfit effort has been templeted. la any event, the time required in this lastance is not typical and does set reflect the degree of management support for the @ Fregram. Numeroes-
                 -                                                             instances esa be listed which show strong management supperg.

This is evidenced by the folleving tables . 3 e 

                                                                            ~

O .. U.

j,. .::. ::~.'.= - -- - :m .'- pi= 5 5 s . . . 

                                                                                                                                       -r          &'"~**"*'----

R [ [_ ~..~2. -. t . . . .. e 13 . . 

                                                                   .o t

SmotARY OF QUALITT DEFICIENCY rip 0ETS & ADDIT FINDINGS " .

l .

1981 1982 19838 a) Open at leginning of year 144 117 48 176 70 61  ; b) New items , 205 119 88 i 4 e) Items Baselved 3 d) Open at e:Indofyear 117 '48 43 s 

      $                                                                        e) Items is (d) eyes lesser  '

51 21 7 

      .                                                                               than 180 dare CI                                                 ,
                                                                               *asofsevenhori0.19=.

s) The third example relates to 4DRs where sisseest depended spes issuance of revised adalaistrative esacret pre'edures. c In 1981, verk was initiated en a semplete revisies of 'the adataistrative eestrels systems la see by GFUN. This was a asesive effort hat necessary to standardize sentrols la see at GFmi's three ancisar facilities and to refleet the semplessly rgstrustared argsmisaties pet inte place with the establishment of GFUN. This effort was well along by mid-1982. Bewever, the decisten to integrate lechtel and GFUN sospeaants of the TMI-2 srganisatica aise resulted in a decisies to have a stagle set of administrative procedures for all site work. Frier to these decisions, Sechtel 

         -                                      <                                was tasked with devoleptag separate procedures for their ensite, as well as offsite, work. Seth of these desistoms caused addi-
          -                                                                       tional revisions to the new procedures shout to be put inte 1                                                                       place. Transities to the aar procedures system teet place sa January 3,1983 with the issuance of the first forty-five new or
           -                                                                      revised adaimistrative sentrols procedures. We de met think this performance indicates a lack of management support for the @

Protras. 

         $-                                                      d) The fourth asemple reistes to afsclassificaties of safety systems.

Dissgressents ever classification have occurred during the re-severy effort. This is set surprising ta itsht of the saigue circumstances over the last couple of years. Iowever, sentrary O-J views were sessidered la reviewing the desistessi and the control i systems led to serrecties of errors is classification. It is also importsat to note that the Stier investigates seacluded that  ! j technical judgments en alassificaties were made la good faith. seroever, the applicaties of a~ase sencept in the scope of the @ l Programs that of *1apertant to safety

  • as aestrasted with " safety related" was a major shange for the sadmetry as well as for  ;

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ . _ _ _ _ l 

                                                                                                        ....,.....z...._.
                                                                               -a--_

fgg._ . 

               ._                                                         =... M *                                                                                                .
                                                           .                   ..          ..   . a ..,        .                                                                                              .

0% ., 

                                                                                     ., r:
  • l
                                                                          ..         .           .                      ..                                                                                                         t
                                                                                  .t                                                                                                                                               I 1>

l 

                                                                                      \             .                      .
                                                                                                   . Est-2. Thedespanysavedaggressivelytoimplenestthissescept                                                                      ]

l 

                                                                                                 ;    iresuittag in QL severage of many more activities. Maassement isupport for serrecting all et these problems preesdod the peh11s                                                           1 allegations and stace has resulted is revisies and update to the
  • Quality Classificaties List sad estabitshment of guidelisse en The revised guide 11 ass nore how classifications accurately refleet the are to be surrest sendi made. sieme at D81-2. .

s j l e l 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    \
  • 1l
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    )

i 

                                                                                                                                                               '                                                                     l 0                                                                                   .

1 e

1
                                    '                                                                                                                                                                                                1
                                          .                                                                                                                                                                                          i 1
     '                                                                                                                                                                                                                               i 1
                                                 .                                                                                                                                                                                   l
                                                                                                                                                .                                                                                    l t                                                                                                        ,

3 - _ - -. . . - . ..ra - _2 . 

                                 ^^                                                                                                                                                                                                           --           ^~ -- ~ ~ ~ - -
                 -.,,,, _                  * *:~~ .
                                                                                                                                                                                                            -~      -                              -

p,. = e - 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      -14 l                                                        .
                                                                       ~j                                                                    u
                                                               -)                                                                                                          Fumettonias of RC's TM1 FROGRAM OFFICE (TNIPO)

To t estent possihte, withmet the heaefit of interviews of the R C staff, this issue was addressed la the Stier lavestigattom. Eis report eencindes that there were as taproprieties en the part of the seepany or the TM170 staff in the costse of their internettens. In reopease to the ' allegaties that there was improper internal noe by members of the IM1-2 staff of RC's informal comments sa draft precedures or planned activi-tiesi explicit instruettens have hees fassed to help assure that does set happen la the future. . . 8 I 9 1 - t e t> ' 1 . O r 

                                                #                                                                                                                                              e t.

i - ' I 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         +

g' e 

            ,e07 e0 '        ~

j - r t 03 

 ~            S2 - 7 l

4 to c. )3 

 ^            ipo2                      ng      .

unn r t a enroio e a C n. 2 ( ki oY awr ,s t s s ht o t ar d e i u t r g re .i g n a on sd a e e g s n a i m o t Nhs i 4 a h yt b h n uh a o c d ay 4 r eh n d 4w e vcyl oo e t t o g l t m n rib e n a i r o ah i d t u pe t t es t egn h s ze e t rnoeait yl r i it r r thti e e oe e rccs hh b u eo ve s t t 

                                    =   oyrp               a       u        t carp               e       ag       s E   =_      moo       d e lP            n    u R _     e      c                  li        m U _

T _ h u t oei nbi aw i o t A _ yh g r cl p N= t r c . il i G = I = t a ,g m a sn e f o ff r c 7 a k 

   ~ .

8 9 1 S = D = 

                                    =

h yn tli t t th tru o rg e s n a 0 N = l cng eeiiyt o ea r A= l h p t 1 = errr e t G = f rp s ot s T N = o e ta n s i = C I = ucdh r o ra h U D = onnt u i ol t A= yi a t E = t c c ce R = f nsa c e i , 

                                    =  i od            a   r      l 't t.

e . 

                                 -=        irs      r      r      b         ss
                                    =      t ol        e   o       un     i y

- N = O = 

                                         ,swa ne        i   t    c       po       wa rd I =     ourt           r   o       yd       e T=     i qoi           o   n       re     h0 p

I = t n e ad t3 S = i ydi r e ti o O = snr v ov n P = oaor p t a nor di E = wuo rh eh D = eo u ap i t 

                                    =  d t ey o ll               fi
                                    =         h        c        .

es i w 

                         .              ret e             i t      ri      t us         c e we                   os C               onh a y o gl        h    uh e

o f e ec nse LN I wso pup eere t t os y d b ap nS er rd ad A , i rh s v t a h a eh e g i u a RS er ruel e t sc aa s h 

                                                                        . oe yv ER                     uyi onp        d n ct   t t

s ta sb o DE o yn l o i 

                                                    ,f hc a        u O m        sa e

ET w e s yi e s onl ahh ue oh l e nh 

              'r R                     Ad oAmwt                   Yt      Ut O

EP CE AR ,

I 1 CORRECTIONS *'O DEPOSITION Page Line Correction:  : i i l l I l 

                                                                                                                 ,.g

~ - - _ _ - . _ . _ _ _ . 1}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20238C698&oldid=3213855"