ML20202J013

Transcript of 950822 Investigative Interview of D Smith. Supporting Documents Encl

ML20202J013
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/22/1995
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI)
To:
Shared Package
ML20202H986	List: ML20202H980 ML20202J013 ML20202J022 ML20202J032 ML20202J040
References
FOIA-97-325 NUDOCS 9712110021
Download: ML20202J013 (63)

Text

-

~ 1 1!

ITNITED. STATES OF-AMERICA

'2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.

3

.+:+ + + +L 4'

OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS

+

5-INTERVIEW 6

---

x 7

IN THE MATTER OF:

Docket No.

8 INTERVIEW OF 195-013 9

DAVID SMITil

-i 10 11 ' U------------------------------x l-f Tuesday, August 22, 1995

-12 i

13 I

I 14 Conference Room 13, 2nd Floor 15 j

PSE & G Administration Building l

16 j

End of Buttonwood Road 17 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 18-4 19 The above-entitled interview was conducted at 20 9:09 a.m.

I 2 2.-

BEFORE:-

22'

.KEITH LOGAN, Investigator-l l

.23 J

- 24

I 25-ll 9712110021 971204

-PDR FOIA NEAL R. GROSS EXHlBIT

~

CASIN0! ; 1 - 9,a, -- 013-PAGE

/ OF$PAGE( )

I COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISEAS om aos isuso

-m ff7/2//pp3/ h * * ""

EXHIBIT 24 Case No. 1 95 013 Exhibit 24

3 l

(

1 APPEARANCES:

i 2

On Behalf of the Interviewoo 3

MARK J. WETTERHAHN, ESQ.

4 MARCIA R. GELMAN, ESQ.

5 oft Winston & Strawn 6

1400 L Street, N.W.

7 Washington, D.C.

20005-3502 8

202/371-5703 9

10 On Behalf of the Agency:

11 BRIAN McDERMOTT, RESIDENT INSPECTOR 12 475 Allendale Road 13 l

King of Prussia, PA 19406 14 610/337-5345 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURf REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 R$40DE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (mi 2344433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202) 234 4433

.--- ~... - -...-.. _- -.

3 I

1 PROCEEDINGS

?

2 9:09 A.M.

3 IINESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Ms._Narasimhan, welcome 4

anck, My name is Keith Logan.

We've spoken several times 5

sefore.

What we'd like to tio today, as we've discussed 6'

3rior to going on the record, is to go over a couple of 7

.ndditional points on the memo that you prepared on the POPS 8

system and the events surrounding that issue.

I 9

With me=today is Brian McDermott.

10

-MR. McDERMOTT For the record, my name is 11 Brian McDermott, a Resident Inspector with the Nuclear 12 3egulatory commission and I'm here today to provide 13

echnical back-up for Mr. Logan.

14 IiWESTIGATOR LOGAN:

And Ms. Narasimhan, is it 15

,still your desire to have Mr. Wetterhahn and Ms. Gelman 16 here as your counsel?

17 MS. NARASIMHAN Yes, it is my desire to have 18 bem here.-

19 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Mr. Wetterhahn, will you 4

20 identify yourself?

21 MR. WETTERHAHN For'the record again, my name r

22-Ls Ma,rk Wotterhahn_with the firm Winston & Strong, 1400 L

23 Street,.N.W., Washington, D'.C.

20005.-

With me is Marcia (24 Golinan, also of the firm.

25 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

As with last time, Ms.

NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISL AND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4433 WASHtNGTON O C 20005 -

(202) 2344433

4 1

today?

~

2

^ MR. SMITH:

Yes, it is.

3 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Thank you.

1 I

4 MR. WETTERHAHN:

One thing.was pointed out to 5

me.

You read the date on the transcript correctly, but 6

it's misdated 1994.

It should be 1995, I believe.

7 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:- I trust you've corrected 8

the transcript?

i 9

MR. WETTERHAHN:

We have not yet done so.

10 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

We'll do that then.

If we l

l 11 ban continue.

I 12 l

First thing I'd like to talk to you about, Mr.

l 13 Smith, is Ken O'Gara.

You supervised Mr. O'Gara for a 14 period of time here at Salam.

Is that correct?

15 MR. SMITH: 'Yes sir.

16 i

INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

What period of time was 17 that?

18 MR. SMITH:

From September of '93 through July l

19 f

'95.

20 IlWESTIGATOR LOGAN:

And what happened that you 21 no. longer were his supervisor?

22 MR. SMITH:

The responsibilities for the 23 nuclear licensing supervisor were divided into three 24 groups.

Ken O'Gara was assigned to.the NRR group and I'm.

' 2_5 ossigned to the Hope' Creek licensing group.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPOATERS AND TRANSCRISERS -

1323 AHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W

(202) 234 4433 WASMNGTON D C 2000$

- 202) 234 4433 -

_.. _. =,. -

5 1

IliVESTIGATOR LOGAll:

And the NRR group, what do 2

the initials NRR stand for?

3 MR. SMITH:

Nuclear reactor regulation group.'

4 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Okay.

And this change 5

took place in July of this year?

6 MR. SMITH:

Yes, it did.

7 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

What's your general 8

impression of Mr. O'Gara as an employee and I realize he's 9

a contractor employee, but --

10 MR. SMITH:

He -- my impression of Ken O'Gara.

11 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Was he a good worker, i

{ air?

12 l

13 MR. SMITH:

He's not my best worker.

He likes kochoosehisassignments.

He has an easy threshold for 14 i

15 frustration.

He --

16 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Is that indicative of Mr.

17 0'Gara or is that working in Salem?

18 MR. SMITH:

That may be both.

I think it's l

19 blso Ken's personality.

20 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

I see.

21 MR. SMITH:

He's not the most attention to betailperson.

He sometimes has a tendency to leave loose 22 23 ends.

24 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

So you have to or you had 25 to, I guess, oversee his work fairly closely in order to l

NEAL R. GROSS 3;

COURT AEPO8tTERS AND TRANSCAtBERS

'j 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUf. N W i

W2. 2344433 MSHMTON D C 70005 (202) 2344433

..,2 n

6l t

1 incuro that those loooo onds woro not mincod?

I 2

MR. SMITH:

That came through experience.by Ken i

3 3'Gara working for :ee.

I began to learn that.

4-INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

What caused you to learn n

7 5

this, Mr. Smith?

6

.MR. SMITH:

Various amendments that he would 7

arocess for me, responses to generic letters brought in and 8-my_ experiences with the Pops issue was also indicative.

9-(ou know,-he didn't go into all'the details that would be 10 leaded to-do a good licensing search.

l 4

INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

What would you have 11 12_

expected him to do that he didn't do on this issue?

l 13 MR. SMITH:

I would have expected that he knew e

i 14 labout Amendment 24.

15 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

What is Amendment 247 16 MR. SMITH:

Amendment 24 is'what provided the 17 basis for Unit l's licensing of the LTOP.

18 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Did you know about i

i 19 Amendment 24?

20 MR. SMITH:

Not until Brian McDermott appeared 21 on site in the November-December time frame of 1994.

22 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

What happened at that 6

23-uime?

24-MR. SMITH ; It was pointed out to me, Ken 25

'Gara brought the. amendment to mefand he told me point NEAL R. GROS'S--

. COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCR BERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENVE N W 1202i 234 4433

. A$HiNotON D C 20005 (202) 234 4433 -

w

,_.._,1.

, ~.. _

___,,1...--,,_.-

. z

7 1

blenk that ho did not know cbout thet cm ndmant until that 2

point either.

3 MR. McDERMOTT:

Mr. Smith, did you feel that 4

engineering provided you sufficient details on the issue to 5

perform the licensing function that your group was tasked 6

alth?

7 MR. SMITH:

It was a very tough situation.

8 They were very noncooperative in our needs.

Everything was 9

an hold to get information from them.

They did not 10

onsider our work a priority.

Oftentimes, it was a 11 situation of -- it got to the point where we were trying to

.0 12 nelp them co we could close this issue.

We would provide l

13 pnswers back to them and ask for concurrence rather than 14

-ssk them to do the work.

15 MR. McDERMOTT:

I'd like you to take a look at i

i I

16 s document.

It's a draft document entitled " Evaluation of 17 Nonconservative Low Temperature Overpressure Set Point for 18 3alem 1 and 2."

It's three pages in length, unsigned, 19

'andated.

It'does have a two-page attachment.

20 MR, SMITH:

Okay.

21 MR. McDERMOTT:

Can you tell me if you've seen 22

hat document before?

23 MR. SMITH:

No, I don't recall seeing this 24 document before.

25 MR. McDERMOTT:

Okay.

Was the design basis NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPOATERS AND TRAN$CAIBERS 1323 AMODE t$ LAND AVENUE, N W

(?02) 2M4433 WASNINGTON D C 2000$

(20h 2M4433

8 1

2n31yclo eniculations for tho POPS cyctem ovor diccucoOd 2

between licensing and the engineering technologies, tlie 3

group outside defense --

4 MR. SMITH:

Engineering design?

5 MR. McDERMOTT:

Engineering design.

6 MR. SMITH:

If it was, it was not discussed 7

r3etween myself and engineering.

What aspects of it, the 8

design, were discussed, I can't answer, if any, between Ken 9

3'Gara and engineering.

10 MR. McDERMOTT In your earlier interview, we 11 discussed a meeting-that took place in Frank Thompson's 12 office on or about April 20th of 1994.

13

[

And it was my understanding that at the h

14 conclusion of that meeting, engineering was to go back and l

15 perform some calculations regarding RH3 and regarding the 16 pressurizer bubble.

Is that correct?

17 MR. SMITH:

I believe that's true.

I don't 18 emember the exact things, but it was the pressurizer i

19 bubble, my recollection, of being the answer as to why we 20 did not have a concern with RCP's running.

21 MR. McDERMOTT What time did engineering come 22 back to you with a response to the questions that were 23 posed at that meeting?

t 24 MR. SMITH:

It was actually via a memo in the 25 May time frame.

We asked them information and I don't i

NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRtBERS 1323 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE 4 W (M2) 2344433 WASHINGTON O C 20005 --

(M21234-4432

l 9

1 think I got an official answer until the May meno that they 2

were closing out the DEF which was what we were looking 3

for.

4 MR4 McDERMOTT:

And as.to the content of that 5

memo, did you agree with how they were closing out the DEF?

t 6

MR. SMITH:

I had a concern because of the 7-450.7 number in there.

I don't remember any other concerns 8

that I had with the memo.

9 MR. McDERMOTT:

Was there any discussion at 10 that time that the calculations which were performed by i

il engineering indicated that the bubble would go away?

12 MR. SMITH:

That was not at that point.

I did 13 hot learn of that until the late summer, early fall time i

frame.

14 15 MR. McDERMOTT:

Thank you.

That's all the 16 puestions I have.

17 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

When they did the 18 calculations for the memo that you were just referring to, 19 dr. Smith, did they use a.LOFTRAN or a gothic code for 20 those calculations?

-21 MR. SMITH:

There were discussions in that time 22 frame about the code 9.

I was asked the question in the 23 nallway where I passed Vijay Chandra and he asked me about 24~

the ability to-use a code and what kind of approvals would

~

25 De needed on it and-he:was talking about-the gothic code.at NEAL R. GROSS '

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR BERS -

~

- 1323 b400E 'tSLAND AVENUE. N W

~~

-(

' 12024 234 1433 WASHINGTON O C 20005

. _. _. _ _ _... _. _ _. _ ' "* *',** 4 2 8 "_. _... _ _ _

-_...m.

10 j

t 1

that point.

Ha didn't_givo ma what was tho roncon for the 2

answer, question.

l

\\

3 I came to learn later that we wanted to apply j

t 4

the gothic code to the LTOP analysis.

I wasn't familiar at 5

that time what code was used.

LOTTRAN was something that I 6

learned about later, but when I put the picture together in 7

my mind now, I can't say for certain whether I know what j

8-code-was used to do the analysis in May.

9 INVESTIGATOR LOGANt Will you discuss what he 10-esked you, just a little bit in more depth?

He asked you l

11 pbout whether you could use another code or --

12 l

MR. SMITH What was the process for applying a 13-different code, whether you need approval to use updated i

-14 odes for calculations on safety related work.

15 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

And what was your response 16 to him?

17 MR. SMITH:

You didn't need explicit NRC 18

.spproval on all codes, if they were used to do fuel 19

' analysis, those ones were licensed, all right.

Others 20

ould be changed to the 50-59 process.

1 21 And I also told him that you had to have a Q i

l 22 program applied to the program.

23 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Did-he-specifically ask 24 vith regard to the POPS issue, using a gothic code on the 1

25

? OPS = issue?

J NEAl. R. GROSS CovRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR$ERS 1323 Ra400E ISLAND A%ENUE. N W j

arm ruuss

. w<smNovos o e rma

<rm ruuss

i 11 t

1 MR. SMITH: -Not in that conversstion.

It was r

2 not in that conversation.

When I first learned about the f

3 gothic code being applied to POPS, I can't recall, but it 4

was not in the, conversation in the passageway with him.

5 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN When did you first hear 6 -

that calculations were using th'e gothic code on the POPS 7

issue?

-8 MR. SMITH:

I can't recall exactly.

9 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Generally.

10 MR. SMITH:

It probably was the May time frame, 11 around thst, because that's when this ccaversation took 12 p' l a c e.

It was -- all -- when I'm giving that frame of I

13 reference all through the summer and fall and in June, 14 July, August, I had very little interaction with 15 engineering any longer on this issue.

So it had to either 16 be May and I think I knew by September that they were using 17 gothic.

18 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

When you found out they 19 sere using the gothic code, did you tell them they could, 20 tell -them they: couldn't?

Did you have any discussions at 21 all about it with them?

22

.MR. SMITH:

I asked them if it was a Q code.

I 23 das told at that point, in fact, it was, that it was being 24 3emonstrated to the NRC as a new code that was much more

'25 accurate than previous codes and I felt comfortable with

- NEAL R. GROSS CovRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVENUE. N W (204 2344430-WASHINGTON O C 20005 (202;2344433

.. _. _... - - - _.., _ _. -. _. _ _. - - _ _.., - ~ -, - _ -.. _. _.

12 1

the codo being uced.

i 2

INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

So yo'u didn't think there l

l 3

was any problem with them using the gothic code at that t

4 time?

5 MR._ SMITH:

No, I did not.

i 6

INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

I understand that you have l

i 7

had your staff in the past prepare what's called a four 8

week look ahead?

i 9

MR. SMITH:

That's right.

i 10 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

When did you start using 11 that-for your employees?

}

l 12 f

MR SMITH:

Actually,- that was not something 13 that I initiated.

That was something that was left over 14 jfrom the previous supervisor.

It was something that Frank l

15 Thompson had asked the previous supervisor to use to be i

16 hble to track accomplishments because one of the things 17 that Frank was looking for on a roll-up basis, was to be 18 able to say, to show senior management what work was i

19 accomplished by licensing because licensing doesn't usually-20 nave'a product that they can hand somebody and say this is 21 what'we did.

So that's how'he tracked our accomplishments.

-22 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

And when you became.a 23 supervisor, that was something you_ continued then?

r 24 MR. SMITH:

Yeah, I personally never-wrote-one 25:

while I even worked for the previous supervisor, so I NEAL-R. GROSS COURT _ REPORTERS AND TRANSCRisERS 1323 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE. N w (2021 234 4 33 WASMtNGTON D C 2000$

(202i 234 4 33

..-...=.....---_.-.__..,.._.__.__.___.__..,_.__,..-;_,._...,.._.i-.._-._

i 13 l I

1 didn't hold much faith in it.

What I do 10 I gathored l

2 these things and every once in a while when Frank said I 3

need my rollup of accomplishments, I would go-through them 4

and thumb through them and look for the things we had 5

accomplished and roll that back up.

6 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Let's go through if we can 7

some of the areas that have been on these forms.

l 8

'First we have in front of you what date?

9 MR. SMITH:

January 17, 1994.

10 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Off the record for a

?

11 minute.

12 (Off the record.)

4 13 INVESTIGATOR' LOGAN:

Looking at January 17, r

14 1994, before we look ahead, Ken O'Gara, can you explain 15 shat the different headings of this before we look ahead, 16 peaning whether or not they're standardized among the I

17 pubordinates you had at that time?

l 18 MR. SMITH:

There was no standard four week 19 look ahead.

Different people did it-in different mannera.

t 20 dhat I would do is like I told you before, I was looking 21 for accomplishments.

Later on, I asked that we create-a i

22 -

block that was strictly labeled as accomplishments so we 23

ould readily go back and clip and paste those.

But there 24

'aas no standard format on those.

25 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Looking at Mr. O'Gara's, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORT (R$ AND TRANSCRIBERS 132) RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W

@ 234 4433 W ASHINGTON. D C 2000$

(202) 2344433 d.

F

.,.--.m--.

.,..~.--.-~.-.----.m._,-,-,-.m,.,-,--

-. _... _ _, - _. _. ~... - - _, -, _,. ~.

,m

- -q 14 l

f 1

m hoc told un that tho took to b2 parformad hacding

[

2 represented sort of the items on his plate.

And that 3

ompleted tasks is what he did and areas of concern were i

things that were of concern to him and things that I

5

oncerned his function and that these were items that he

[

6 believed you were concerned.about too.

?

7 MR. SMITH:

Okay.

8 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN Is that generally shared 9

by you that'if he put an item area of concern that that 10 aould be an item that would be of concern to you as the~

11 nupervisor for that area?

l 12 MR.-SMITH:

It may be.

If I had tasked him to i

22 do a job and I expected completion of that job and there j

14 was something that was preventing him from getting the job 15 secomplished in time, it's very likely that he would put 16 phat down in the area of concern.

I'a reconciling that.

17 fl2 stored facility was my concern because I was being 18 pushed pretty hard for resolution of that issue.

19-MR. WETTERHAHN If one of your people had a 20 concern _was it your expectation that the first way you'd 21 learn about it was the four week look around?

-22 MR. SMITH:

No.

Actually, the normal course of 25 business was to come: and t' ell me, verbally tel) me.

The 24 normal way, actually, for Kenny to tell me about areas of L

25 co$cern was'with yellow stickies.

He would stick them on NEAL R.' GROSS COURT AEPORTER$ AND TRANSCRIBf A$

- i 1323 RH00E ISLAND AVENUE. N W

!I

^ 20212344433 '

WASHINGTON. O C 20005 (202t 2344433

(

2

- i e

.w..,.

w-...

,,,m,-

ve,-,

n,--,-,,,~m,,-w.,,wm+,.y.,....m...-

,-,.mm.e.,.,,w-m..e.,-,wr.

,m,,my,-w-..

r,

.r.o %

c.-4-#.,_-

y--

.w p-

1. ,vp

15

[

I my choir. 'That woo the normal way.

t 2

I think it was pretty well understood that I 3

did not read these things.

I did them as a clip and paste f

4 Jcb and if I was looking at this one, I'd be looking for

{

}

5 accomplishments.

That was the only mechanism,-tool that I

-6 ased these things-for.

7 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Mr. O'Gara,_I don't think l

8 in our earlier conversation with him, shared _that.

9 MR. SMITH:

Okay.

-10 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN Let me talk to you about i

11 hnother one.

If you look at the one after that, it's f

l 5

12_

hanuary 31st.

It's the next one, although it's not the I

' ext one in chronological, but it's the next one in the i

13 p

6

'p'heet.

14 15 MR. SMITH:

Okay.

16 i

INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Areas of concern, bottom, 17 is issue regarding POPS setpoint, nonconservatism may be is reportable under 50.72.

This is the end of January time 19 frame.

20 Do you recall him discussing this with him?

21 MR. SMITH - Not at that time frame, I do not..

22 I~do recall the March time frame bringing to my attention,

)

23 but I don't recall it-at this time.

(

~24 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Go off the record for-a 25 minute.

1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBE AS 1323 AHODE t& LAND AVENUE 'N W y m,,u m

. S -,ou O e um, m au-,,

.. -. - ~ - _- _.- -... -_ -

16

-[

1 (Off tha record.)

i 2

INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Mr. Smith, I'd like you to 3

take a.look at a series of f a>: pages.

It starts on page 2 4

and is dated 1/25/94.

5 MR. SMITH:

Where are you looking?

Okay, page 6

2.

i 7

INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Very top of the page 8'

indicates the dato and the number of the page.

[

9 MS. GELMAN!

The day is cutoff of mine.

10 MR. WETTERHAHN:

In reproduction that very top l

11 aine was left off, but it's on the original.

12 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

WE wi.11 stipulate it's I

13 1/25/94.

l 14 MR. WETTERHAHN Yes, we will stipulate that.

15 MR. SMITH: 'Okay.

16 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

And I'd like you to look 17 at each one of these pages and tell me whether you've seen 18 any and all of them before?

19 MR. SMITH:

I do recognize these.

In fact, I 20 think'in my last interview here I was also presented thesc.

21 I becane aware of these, actually, in the fall when Brian 22 4cDermott came on site for an inspection is when I saw L

23 these things if I recall correctly for the first time.

24-INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

The reason I'm asking is-l 25 that this is mentioned as an area of concern on Ken 1

NEAL R. GROSS-l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER $

I 1323 R@DC ISLAND AVENUE. N W 7 4 2344433 W ASHIN3 ton.. O C 20005 -

(702) 2 4 4433 i

4_-,

nn.,

-..,,, ~ - -

.wn--

--wn,,,-,-~,--,~r-r-

17 1 1

3'G2ro'o four w ck look ch00d dated Jcnuary 310t.

Tho fox 1

2 itself was dated January 25th.

It's an area that Ken 3

celieved he discussed and shared with you.

4 MR. SMITH:

Okay.

5 I!NESTIGATOR LOGAN:

And certainly is related 6

to the POPS issue.

7 MR. SMITH:

Right.

8 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Ken, I believe, has made 9

some margin notes on this as have other individuals.

10 MR. SMITH:

Uh-huh.

11 I!NESTIGATOR LOGAN:

I guess I'm just kind of purprised that you didn't see this in a timely manner or 12 lphould I say you don't recall seeing it in a timely manner?

13 h

14 MR. SMITH:

When I queried Ken last fall where 15 this came from, that's when he relayed this story to me of 16 how this came over the fax with no transmittal forms as to I

37 who it was being sent to.

18 So, if he did tell me about this --

19 I

ItNESTIGATOR LOGAN:

This memo came over with a 20 transmittal form?

21 MR. SMITH:

That's my understanding.

22 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

But it wouldn't have been 23 page 2?

24 MR. SMITH:

That's true.

Now that you say 25 that, that makes sense.

I don't know who it was sent to.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT AEPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBE AS 1323 AMODE ISLAND AVENUE N W (2:2,234 4433 W ASHINGTON O C 20005 (202) 234 4433 l

18 i

1 INVESTICATOR LOGAN:

You'ro tolling no that ho l

2 told you that it didn't come with a transmittal forn?

3 MR. SMITH:

That's my recollection right now.

i 4

4 INVESTIGATOR LOGA!'s Regarding this package 6

5 now, what do you think?

What would you have done?

It's 6

onjecture because you told us you didn't see it back in 7

January, but if Ken had brought it to you by January of i

8

'94, what would you have done with it?

I mean you i

i 9

oertainly have the advantage now of 100 percent hindsight 10 of what's take place.

11 MR. SMITH:

I would write an IR.

12 (Laughter.)

I 13 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

I'm willing to quote you i

14 on that because Mr. O'Gara said he showed it to you, or at 15 least certainly discussed it with you.

But is that your 16 feeling that the minute you saw-this you would have written 17 an IR?

18 MR. SMITH:

I can't say that that would have 19 occurred in 1994.

I can tell you that that would occur in 20 1995.

21 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

I'm trying to get back 22 to --

23 MR. SMITH:

In 1994, I probably would have J24_

esked him to look into this.

i 25 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Hindsight being what it is

[

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPOATERS AND TRANSCR$ER$

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (20212344413:

6 A$HtNGTON D C 20005 (202) 2344433 L.-.-.-.-.-~--.- ---.--..u---

i 19

{

I though, right?

i

?

2 MR. SMITH: -That's right.

Also, there's a 3

11fferent culture involved with this kind of issue.

l l

4 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Today?

\\

__ 5 MR. SMITH:

Today.

l 6

INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

As opposed to January 25th 7-

sf 1 cat year?

8 HR. SMITH:

Right, as far as the corrective f

9 sction progrNm.

i 10 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN - Did you ever_ discuss _ POPS 11 3r the POPS issue with Howard onorato?

l 4

12 MR. SMITH:

Are you talking about in 19947 13 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Well, ever.

14 MR. SMITH:

Yes, recently.

l 15 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Recently.

16 MR. SMITH:

In the last week or so.

17 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

What did you discuss with 18 fr. Onorato in the lest week'or so?

19-MR. SMITH:

It was pointed out recently by Ken 20 3'Gara that there may, in fact, have been an amendment that i

21 das_in effect during this situation that Vijay and Mahesh 22 Janak did not use for their understanding of what the 23 limiting pressure was for Unit 2 af.d I asked him who wrote 24 that amendment request, what the connection was, I wanted 25 to find'out whether. Ken actually wrote the amendment and NEAL R. GROSS o

_ count atroatens we rawscaetas Ip w a cos isuso wewe. s w y a:auen' j

wasmotos oe rows meuun u-._..,.__-..-,...__...;..--_-.u_...-,.----,_...-..-.-,.._..i,-._---.:,-,.u----,.----.m.

~ ~ - -. - -

I 20 1

that would really bother me if he knew about the amendmerit 2

and he told me how it did, so I asked about th6 history of 3

that amendment, who wrote it, who asked for that amendment.

4 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Who did?

5 MR. SMITH:

Mahev,

6 INVESTIGATOR It &

And when did -

request 7

it?

8 MR. SMITH:

2 i%, s9 3e t j rea, carJ 1993.

9 INVESTIGATOR

,cAtJ :

Wny ints it r,, ested?

10 MR. SMITH:

It s.a usen cn the ;apsules that I

11 pere withdrawn from Unit 2 and I

.vrot '",o Westinghouse I

12

' documents that provide ant

.ons like that.

a

• i-13 INVESTIGATOR Lov.,

Did n also tell you that 14 le had discussed the POPS ik..c ;iid 3

Narasimhan back

'n 19937 i

15 16 MR. SMITH:

Who?

I 17 j

INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Howard, i

l MR. SMITH:

No, I don't recall that with Gita.

18 19 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

So you're unaware that he 20 had any discussions with her?

21 MR. SMITH:

That Howard had discussions with 22 Gita?

I am not aware of that.

23 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Right.

My understanding 24 la that Howard at that time would have discussed it with 25 the licensing supervisor and this is in the March-April NEAL R GROSS COVAT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCRIBE 4$

1323 AHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W t??2h F344431 WASHtNGTON DC POCM

'?O?' ?M44M

-21 F

i i

tim 3 frcm3, 1993, prior to your arrival?

l l

2 MR. SMITH:

Right.

(

3 INVESTIGATOR LOGANt Subsequently though you

(

i 4

indicated the first time you did discuss this with Howard i

5 aan this year?

f 6

MR. SMITH:

Yes.

7 INVESTIGATOR 14GAN:

And at no time did he i

8 indicate that he had any prior discussions with Gita on the 9

POPS issue.

10 HR. SMITH:

I didn't ask him that question.

11 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

But at no time did he Y;

12 pention it to you?

13 MR.' SMITH:

No, he never mentioned it to me.

14 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN.

Now you were aware that in 15 brder to use an ASME code case, thht is not identified for 16 our plant, iC r equires an NRC approul?

17 MR. SMITH:

No, that's not true.

You can use 18 in ASME code case that's referenced in the regulatory 19 guldb.

I 20.

INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Okay.

Tl MR. SMITH:

They're approved for generic use, 22 aut--if they're nut or-not specifically identified on your l

2J document, you must mako application.

4 l

24

-INVESTIGATOR LOUAN:

And N514, are you aware of l

i 25

hat code case?

l

. NEAL R. GROSS i

1 COW T hEPORfERS AND TRANSCRIBERS p

1321 RHODE ISLAND AVENVE, N W

{

1232i 23u433.--

WASHtNotON O C 23005

!202i 238 4433 i

f l

..m -.

22 1-MR. SMITH:

Yoc, I em.

-l l

2 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Is that applicable to l

3 Salem?

4 MR. SMITH:

At the. present time, it was not in 5

1994.

l f

6 INVESTIGATOIt LOGAN:

At the present time, it i

7 ds?

j 8

MR. SMITH:

Yes.

9 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

But it was not in 1994?

10 MR. SMITH:

That's right.

11 INVESTIGA. TOR LOGAN:

Was it in 19937 12 MR. SMITH:

No, it was not.

l.

13 i

INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

And the, I guess, the I

i I

14 infamous Berrick memo dated 12/30/93 took credit for that i

15 code case, didn't it?

i 16 MR. SMITH:

That's right.

17 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

And you're aware that 18 credit should not have been taken in December of '93 for 19 that code case because NRC approval had not been given?

f 4

20 MR. WETTERHAHN:

I'm sorry,'when was he aware 21 of it?

22 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

He's aware of it. Not e

23 "when.

He's' aware of it right now.

24-MR. SMITH:

Yes, I am..

25 INVESTIGATOR: LOGAN:

And did there come a point b

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCNBERS 1323 RHODE f$tAND AVENVE4 NW

/(202;2N4433 WASHINGTON. D C P0005 (702) 2344433 l

i 23 i

i when you were required or requested to seek NRC approval 1

2 for the use of that code case?

F 3

MR. SMITH:

Yes, there was.

i

=4 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN!

When was that?

l 5

MR. SMITH:

I was requested at least in the May

)

6 time frame, the May 26 memo.

It was a parallel path that 7

we were looking at when this issue came up because C"en f

8 though engineering had indicat ed _ to us that there was other 9-Ways to be able to assure compliance with the 190 curves in 10_

tech specs, it was a foregone conclusion-that as the-11 reactor ages, we were going to need the ccde case, all 12 right, so the code case application was in process in the 13 spring of 1994 as well as an amendment request.

i 14 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN And that was the

{

15 responsibility of your office to do that?

l 16 MR. SMITH:

Yes, it was.

17 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Was there a discussion at l

18 that time that you also needed the code case approval so 1

19 you could stay within your design basis for the POPS L

20 system?

21 MR. SMITH: -Not at the present time because --

22 at.that time,1because we had assurance --

23 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Not at which time, which i

24 time?

25 MR. SMITH:

The spring-of 1994.

Even though

- NEAL-R. GROSS COURT R(. PORT [R$ AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOf t$tt ND AVENUE. N W (202i 2344433 WASHtNOTON D C 20005

' (202) 234 4433 5

24 1

the Corrick m:mo of December 30th had taken, I'll say the i

2 aany way, just taking credit for a code case, all right, 3

shich either through some misundersteiding or whatever, it 4

aas inappropriate.

When Ken asked them and told them that S

that code case was inappropriate, he was assured and 6

provided no assurance that there were other ways to be able 7

to assure compliance with the LTOP pressure valves, 1

8 aowever, they were not documented and there was --

9 INVESTIGA*0R 7OGAN:

The Berrick meno comes out 10 in 1993.

And you become aware of the fact that they've 11 inappropriately relied on the code case in 1994.

12 MR. SMITH: -Right.

13 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Looking at the CFR and the 14 ane hour reportability rule, when do you think that was a 15 reportable event that you were operating outside your 16 design basis?

17 MR. SMITH:

If the code case was, in fact, the 18 anly way that that thing could be, we had to be able to 19

omply with the PT limits, we were outside our design bacis 20 when we took credit for that code case.

e 21 I was operating under the understanding that 22 that was what was the initial disposition of this operating 23 experience that Westinghouse had given us, but it was not 24 vell thought out using that code case by engr.seering.

So 25 therefore, based on the fact that there were things NEAL R. GROSS CoVAT REPORTERS AND TRANSORIBEAS 1323 RwODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W

^ ;20212344433 WASHWGTON. O A 20005 (202t 234 4433

25 1

availcblo within tho docign bacio, that was my 2

understanding, all right.

We were not outside our design 3

basis. That was the way I understood it.

4 The use of the code case without NRC approval 5

is outcido your design basis if that is, in fact, what you 6

need to be able to show.

7 I!TVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

That's what you rely on?

8 MR. SMITH:

That's right.

I 9

MR. McDERMOTT:

When you say you had an 10 anderstanding of other options that were available, who i

11 provided that information to yot?

12

'!i i

MR. SMITil:

Ken O'Gara provided those options 13 to me.

14 MR. McDERMOTT:

And did you believe that Ken 15 had the full picture un the details of that?

16 MR. SMITH:

I think he had a good understanding 17 of the capabilities of the RH3 which I believe was the I

18 dnitial way of saying that we were within our design basis l

19 pndIhadexperiencewiththeRH3before.

I don't recall 20 bow, knowing that it was a pretty large relief valve, so 21 based on that and it's availability while in the low 22 temperature condition, all right, that sounded like a 23 Reasonable expectation that that valve would operate and 24 prevent us from hitting the upper limits of the PT curves.

25 MR. McDERMOTT:

Having that information in mind l

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REP 0ATERS AND TRANSCA$E A$

1323 AH00E ISLAND AVENUE N W i It02) 2344433 WASHINGTON D 0 ?*$

(202: 2344433

26

[

}

1 about the physical ecpacity of that valvo, did you discugs

[

2 sith Ken the ability to credit the RH3 valve as part of the 3

POPS system?

l 4

MR. SMITH:

Not in deta11, all right?

I relied t

5 an awful lot on his system knowledge and of his L

i 6

anderstanding nf the design basis of the systsm, to be able f

7 to tell me that kind of-information that the RH3 was I

available to mitigate this kind of transient, so based on 8

9 bim being_'able to tell me that, I had a comfort factor with 10 that.

f 11 i

MR. McDERMOTT:

That to me answers the question 12 about the capacity of the valve, but as far as tne issue of i

13 whether or not HR3 was part of this system that was

{

14 briginally --

t 15 MR. SMITH:

I did not ask that question to see 16 What the basis of the POPS system was.

I did not go into i

17 it.

You asked me a question in the beginning of this 18 ahether or not I felt as though Ken was a good employee.

I 4

19 would have to say that would be one cf the things when I 20 reflect back on this whole situation, he did not look to 21 sea what the bases of the tech spec was and how that 22

ompared-to the-use of the_RH3 and that-information was not 23

Jiven to me.

24 MR. McDERMOTT:

Would you expect.that 25-information to come from a licensing-engineer or from NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPO9fEA3 AND TRANSCRIBE A$

1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W 12021 #N4433..

WASHINGTON, O C PXcs.

Z2: 2344433

27 1

ao :ono in cOchanicci engineering?

i 2

'IR. SMITH:

I think it's-a relatively easy l

t 3

thing to look for, so I think that that would be within the

{

4 purview of a '.icensing engineer.

i t

5 In general terms, it usually should come from t

i 6

engineering, but something as simple as that, I think that i

7 that should be through the licensing engineer.

The 8

licensing engineer is easy to verify that kind of r

9 statement.

10 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

What if that kind of htatement came from engineering, would you expect the 11 I

12 licensing engineer to verify it?

i 13 MR. SMITH:

No, I can't say I would always 14 l axpect that to be the case.

15 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Back to the four week look t

i 16 hheads.

The concern that I'm having right now, Mr. Smith, i

17 is I look at Ken O'Gara's four week look aheads which were i

18 turned in to you and I look at the one dated January 31 and 19 1e has issue regarding POPS set point, nonconservatism may

'20 be reportable under 50.72, 21 Particularly with that one, he has an issue 22-there with a possibility of a reportabic event listed on it

-23l nnd you don't recall this issue being discussed at this

-24 time with - Mr. O'Gara?-

25 A

I don't recall specifically when.

I do recall, y

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCA1BERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W

~

, 21 234 4 433

' W ASHINGTON D C 20005

- (20h 2344433 =

W

t 28 1

all right, that thore woro other avonuos to purous.

If hs 2

wants to track it this way and some of the things that 3

could, in fact, that engineering said were not 4

documentable, this would be a 50.72 reportable, so this was i

5 carried -- I don't have a problem with carrying this as a 6

potential 50.72, as long as engineering do9s the annaysis, 7

to be abic to say whethm:

fact, they actually ne+ded the 8

code base at that point.

That was the thought process.

9 And if they were able to document use of RH3 or other ways 10 of being able to comply with the POPS, the PT limits the 11 POPS are based on, then it would not be rsportable.

12 As far as writing that statement down then, 13 that may very well have been true at that point.

We i

14 Weren't able to substantiate use of other things in the l de case, co it would have been reportable on the 50.72 and 15 i

16 that was demonstrated later in the November 1994 time frame 17 when we came to the realization that the analysis did not 18 pupport use of the PDP.

19 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Did you tell Ken to have 20 enginee'.ing look at this issue?

21 MR. SMITH:

Yeah, but I don't remember whether

.22 or not it was on this-date or whether it.was two weeks 23 later or three or four.

I believe it was March because 24 March was the time frame Ken was getting excited about.

25 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

All right, if you look at NEAL R. GROSS

- CoVAT AEPORTERS AND TRANSCRISER$

1323 RMODE t$tAND AvtNUE. N W i202: ?2444n.

WASHrNGTON. D C 200c$

(202> 244433

-. u-..

....-_.-,..._..._,..,-_....____n.._.

29 l

1 FebruGry 7th, teck completed from previous week.

It caya 2

Issue 1, POPS to NME for further review, no IR written.

3 MR. SMITH:

Where is that line item?

4 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Completed tasks.

5 MR. SMITH:

Okay.

6 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:,

So th,4 would tend to 7

indicate that it went to mechanical the prior week?

8 MR. SMITH:

That'r what it would indicate.

9 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

And no IR was written?

10 MR. SMITH:

Right.

11 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

So I guess then discussed.

12 Do you recall discussing it with Mr. O'Gara?

l 13 MR. SMITH:

I don't recall discussing the IR at I

14 hhat point, although I'll tell you, many times during this 15

'ahole pro.;ess we thought about an IR, whether or not one 16

'aas apr.ropriate, because if engineering wasn't willing or 17 able to document these other pieces of information that 18 bhey were verbalizing to Ken, that these tnings were 19 L vt.17 al.~ e, we were, in fact, using the code case and the bode case needed an IR to be generated.

20

'l INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Looking ahead to March 22 7th. first paragraph, No.

4, potential LER regarding POPS 23 set point analysis.

24 MR. SMITH:

Right.

25 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Tasks to be performed.

I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCA1BEAS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4 33

v. ASH!NGTON. O C 20005 (202i 234 4 33 1

30 1

gucco that maans that ono of tha things is on his picta in 2

the possibility that a Salem is going to have to prepare an 3

LER with regard to the POPS issue.

Is that correct?

4 MR. SMITH:

That'c wht t that would indicate to 5

me.

6 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Down under areas of 7

concern, again, he mentions the LER on POPS set point t

8 analysis.

And he mentions that again the following week of 9

Harch 14th, block 4 and at the bottom again, there's an 10 area of concern.

11 He mentions it again on March 21st.

12 j

MR. SMITH:

Right.

13 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Only under task completed i

14 for the previous week, he has potential LER and POPS set 15 point analysis, DEF to be written.

.i 16 MR. SMITH:

It was at this point now where I 17 aas involved with this issue, all right, because I remember 18 being involved with the issue at this point because of 19 Ken's frustration --

20 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Middle of March?

21 MR. SMITH:

Yes.

Ken's frustration level of 22 not getting engineering to want to reopen the OEF item to 23 document their closure of this NSAL, initiate a DEF or 24 initiate an IR.

One of those three things, it had to go 25 into a corrective action program somewhere and that's when N E A L R. GiFH J S S COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 AHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W 12021 234 4433 WASHtNGTON O C 20005 (202) 2M4433

. - ~.

31

-l' I mnds my call, my. initial call to:Howard Berrick that his 2

engineers Were not providing the support that was needed to 3

be able to close this issue out.

4 INVESTIGATOR L'IJAN:

Still no reportable event 5

though?

6-MR. SMITH:

You can have the assurance at that t

7 point from Howard Berrick that these things, it was just a 8

matter of workload that they weren't able to get to it and 9

to our needs because of other issues and that they could 10 get the paper to us, but please bear with them.

There was 11 b closable item based on other viable nonreportable, within l

12 design basis methods.

13 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

That's Howard Berrick's r

'ssurance to you?

14 b

15 MR. SMITH:

That's right.

16 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

So on that basis, you 17 don't feel that you have a one hour reportable event?

J 18 MR. SMITH:

At that point I did not feel that I 4

19 had a one hour reportable' event because there were other 20 means'to disposition that NSAL. INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Let's move on to following 22 week.

It's March-28th.

Ken has again this potential LER, 23 a task completed.

He lists meeting on POPS set point 24 analysis.

25 MR.: SMITH:

That's when I went --

3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCRIBERS r

1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W l

p< m _,,

.AS-NmONec m

,m -

32 1

INVESTIGATOR!- LOGAN:. That meeting would hava 2

been a me'eting between you and Howard and other 3

individuals?

4-MR. SMITH:

That's right.

5 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Do you recall who else was 6

at-that meeting?-

7 MR. SMITH:

Probably Vijay.- No, I don't 8

recall. -Howard, Mahesh, Vijay.

They were the primary

~

9 players '.

10 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Ken O'Gara?

11 MR. SMITH:

Ken O'Gara.

12 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

And in this case he also l

13 has DEF-reviewed.

14 MR. SMITH:

That-was because I was intolerable 15 at this point.

It needed to be in the corrective action 16 program-and I needed some formalized way to redisposition

-17 this OEF this NSAL.

It was not-appropriate because the OEF 18' program was not a_ corrective action program at this point.

l 19-It needed to be written up-as a-nonperformance report and 20' formalized the disposition, utilizing one of these i

T

. 21' slternate methods that they had that-did_not rely on=the

~

22 r, ode case.

2 3 l

-INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

April lith.

Potential LER 24:

<sgain, areas-of concern, DEF on POPS set point 25 bonservatism, POPS set point nonconservatism.

That's i

NEAL R.' GROSS COURT REPOATERS AND TRANSCRIBEAS 1323 AHODE ISL.AND AVENUE N W f20212344433 L WASHINGTON D C 20005 1202) 2M4433

,+

e-

33 1

ropeated.again on April 18th.

'2' MR. SMITH:

All right.

3 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

That's' repeated-again on 14 piay 2nd..The addition of.an area of concern listing 5

awaiting HR3 analysis --

6 MR. SMITH:

Where is that one?

't INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Bottom of the page.

8 MR. SMITH: -Okay.

9 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Is this still going back 10 to your meeting in March with Howard Berrick?

11 MR. SMITH:

The DEF was now out on the streets i

12 with a disposition set. It was still appropriate to carry 13-this as a potential reportable, if in fact, they were not 14 able to substantiate the things they had told us in 15 formalized analysis, but we had confidence at that point 16.

that they were able to that and I felt much more 17 comfortable now that it was in the corrective action f

18 program.

19 This would force a disposition.

Same comments.

20 INVESTIGATOR-LOGAN:

May 16th.

DEF regarding 21-POPS set point analysis and LCR.

22.

MR. SMITH:

Uh-huh.

23 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Why do we need an LCR?

24 4 hat-is it you're going to do_at this point in time?

25 MR. SMITH:

Well, as I mentioned before, there NEAL R. GROSS CovAT RE*0ATERS AND TRANSCAlef A$

1323 AHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W

, (22 234443J WA$HINGTON' D C 20005 (202) 234443J

34 1

was this concern with long term ability to bn ablo to cops 2

with the LTOP.

I'm trying to put pieces-together.

There 3

was-this concern and it was the code case and also it was 4

at some point where RH3-became a non-usable way of 5

dispositioning.

There was another way of dispositioning 6

this~.

I'm not sure whether it was at this point or not, 7

whether or not this LCR was to put RH3 within the POPS 8

design.

I'm not certain, f

9 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Okay.

The model of ar'as

-10 of concern, CCPLCR.

What does the CCP stand for?

11 MR. SMITH:

Centrifugal charging pump.

12 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Okay.

That's another hatio, correct?

13

.i 14 l

MR. SMITH:

Yes, that was an alternate boration 15 path.

16 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN

That's

.7 on the task to 17 be performed above, that's what he's referring to?

18 MR. SMITH:

Yes, that would be correct.

19 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

May 31st.

20-MR. SMITH:

May 31st.

-21 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Again, DEF regarding POFS 22 set point analysis net.d LCR.

23 MR. SMITH:

Yeah, it's interesting to see some 24 of the thin';s that Ken puts on these because at this point 25 there was disposition and does it reflect the fact that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPOATERS AND TRANSCRIBER $

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202} 234 4433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202) 234-4433

- ~.

35 1

it's been dispositioned?--I don't see that on.here.

21 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN: _And the-following week,.

3-June 27th, the f ollowing - one that we have,: anyway, it's 4

more than a-week later.

5 MR. SMITH:

Right.

This is what the I

5

lisposition of the DEF has' aske'd for.

7 INVESTIGATOR = LOGAN:

Regarding POPS set point 8'

analysis, need LCR and-code case letter.

9 MR. SMITH:

Right.

It asks for both of those I

10-in the May'26th memo.

I'm not sure.

11 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

And whose responsibility 12 would it have been to do this?

13 l

MR. SMITH:

It would have been Ken's.

14 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

And --

J 15~

MR.-SMITH:

Mine.

16

i-MR. WETTERHAHN

For the LCR and the code case, d

17 has there any rush on those, considering the disposition in 18 the May 26th letter?

19-MR. SMITH:

No, there was none.

There was no 20 argency to this.

21' INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

July 5th, pretty much the

'22 '

same comments'.

- 2 3~

MR. SMITH:' Okay.

24 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

July lith,_.again.

25 MR. SMITH:

Uh-huh.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

~

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASM!NGTON D C 20005

'(202) 2344433

36-10

-INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:. July 18th._ Seems-liko 2'

still an active-topic th'ough and not something that's faded

-3 into the woodwork.

4 MR. SMITH:

I wouldn't expect that it would 5

drop because engineering asked us to do something and we t

6 need to follow-up on it, but its priority certainly is 7

.not ~~

8 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

July 25th now, DEF 9

regarding POPS set point analysis, need LCR to credit RH3

.10 relief valve.

To address QA surveillance finding of minor 11 TS change for the max PT curve heat up rate will also be i

12 addressed.

Also need to prepare a letter to NRC requesting 13 approval of code case to extend PT curves 10 percent during i

14 LTOP conditions.

15 i

MR. SMITH:

Right, we had an audit at this

. 16 point.

We didn't, but the station had an audit and found a 17 discrepancy in the PT curves for sound station.

I forget 18 exactly what the discrepancy was, but we were rolling that 19

'into the same' amendment request that we would eventually

. 20 have-of the -- we were-going to roll the two together, 21 engineering had asked.us-for an amendment _ request and now 22-this-QA finding could also be resolved with the come 23 amendment request.

- 24 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Had you been looking at 25 3r. O'Gara's four week-look aheads and monitoring what-he NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4 433 WA$dlNGTON O C 20005 (2021 234-4433 I:

4 r

.+,r

37 1

wec writing down with regOrd to POP 3?

2 MR. SMITH:

No, I was not.

3 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Again --

4 MR. SMITH:

Again, let me give you a 5

perspective on this, all right?

I had at that time around 6

20 employees working for me.

It was not unusual for my in 7

basket to grow by four or five, six inches a day.

These 8

people -- it was just -- I would say I need these things, 9

they would be dropped into my in basket.

What I would do 10 ahen I went through my in basket is collect all of them, 11 throw them in a pile on the side because I knew when I had ltodothoserollupsfortheaccomplishments, 12 I needed 13 hhose to cut and paste from.

That's all that I did with I

14 those.

I moved them over to there.

i 15 l

Most concerns, all right, and matters that 16 needed my attention were brought to me directly by the 17 pngineer face to face.

If I was not in my office, it was lnot unusual to have stickies stuck on my seat that I needed 18 19 to follow up.

20 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Do you recall POPS being 21 anc of those stickies during this time frame?

22 MR. SMITH:

I recall it being an issue in the 23

?! arch time frame.

24 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

But not in the August time 25 frame?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REDOATERS AND TRANSCRIBER $

i:

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N w ll 12021 234 4 433 WASmNGTON D C 20005 (202) 734 4433 a

.... =

38 i

1

.MR. SMITH:

No.

2~

INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Because I look at the 3

August ist.

It is a fairly full paragraph on DEF regarding

.4 POPS and the LCR and to take credit for RH3, similar 5

statement on August 3, see the fourth paragraph.- A similar 6

statement August 15th.

7 MR. WETTERHAHN:

Didn't-these again just 8

nemorialize things that O'Gara had to do?

9 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Well, it says task to be 10 performed is the hading.

11 MR. SMITH:

Right.

He was carrying this-on his 12 late.

I 13 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

And on August 29th there's 14 presently a draft letter NMEs under preparation, request 15 resolution of comments of calculation completed --

16 MR. SMITH:

Where are you-now?

17 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Block 4 again.

18 MR. WETTERHAHN:

Date?

19 INVESTIGATOR-LOGAN:

August 29th, i

20 MR. SMITH:

Okay.

21 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN: -Calculation completed, 22 oupport the use of RH3.

'23 MR'. SMITH: ~Now-what has happened is my 24 vorkload has got to the point where we can now close out

,his item and we were getting to say we've got to get this 25 t

NEAL R. GROSS COUAT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 AGE ISLAND AVENUE. N W

.(2 % 234-1433 WASHINGTON O C 20005

***'m"

39

- l.'

out:lto cloco out -- it may hava even bnen from QA's 2

pressure to close out this surveillance finding..

I'm not 3-certain, but we had to'get this thing moving.

So at this

~

4 point Ken has now' requested the calculations from 5

engineering to be able to support this amendment request in 6

code case application.

And he's in the process of 7

reviewing these things and.has found a discrepancy between 8

what we were told in May and what is stated in the 9

calculations.

This is when this occurs.

10 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

In August?

11 MR. SMITH:

August sounds right.

12 MR. WETTERHANN:

Hold it, I want to get the 13 patesright.

1 14 ll INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

States for what?

15 MR. WETTERHAHN:

The date Mr. Smith may have

\\

16 written a memorandum on discrepancies.

17 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Okay.

18 MR. SMITH:

Whether it was brought to my E

19 attention at this. point, I can't answer.

I know it was 20 rought to my attention by here.

21 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

By where?

22 MR. SMITH:

By the time-I signed this memo that l

l-23 Ken-had' prepared for'me.

24 i

INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

What's the date on the l

25-memo?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTEAS AND TRANSCRIBER $

1323 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (2 @ 234 4433 wASHINGTM D C 20005 (202: 234-4433 1

s

40 1

MR. SMITH:

S ptcmbar 28,-1994.

2 INVESTIC.\\ TOR LOGAN:

Okay.

It's on here, 3

August 29th.

And under areas of concern on page 2, Ken has 4

POPS set point issue memo to NME and NES identifying calc 5

concerns.

6 MR. SMITH:

Right.

7 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Which is what you just 8

discussed.

9 MR. SMITH:

Right.

10 MR. WETTERHAHN:

Hold on for just a second.

11 das there a prior memo?

12 l

MR. SMITH:

I can't recall.

They may have just l

1 13

,been discussions.

h l

INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Let me frame a question.

14 l

15 We're looking at an August 29, 1994 document and it' states 1

16

,there is an issue memo to NME and NES identifying calc I

17 poncerns.

18 Was that August memo, August note, indicate 19 that there was already a memo in existence or was that fkeferring to a memo that later turned out to be the 20 21 September 28, 1994 memo?

- 22 MR. SMITH:

This later turned out to be the 23 September 28th memo.

24 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

And on September 6th, 25 pretty much the same paragraph on paragraph 4, except it's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISL AND AVENUE. N W (202) 734-4413 W ASHINGTON D C 20005 (202) 234 4433

.~

41 1_

axpandsd now.- It-nays "also currently-considsring-rsmoving

'2 PT' curves from tech specs, incorporating this information 4

?

3 into a pressure temperature limit report."

4 MP.-SMITH:

Right.

Things were evolving-now.

-5 There was this precedent on other_ stations' docket to be 6

able to remove PT curves from technical specifications-and 7

now again, this gets also rolled into the same amendment 8

request:that we were formulating to say-we're not going to 9-go into an amendment request for the'same issue, let's roll 10 all-this up into one big ball of wax.

t~

11 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

And_on September 26th, the

l 12

'next one we have,-_it's several. weeks later.

Seems to be 13 the sane notation, except the second-page it says task i

14'

' completed from previous week.

Second draft of code case 15 fetterthatincludeslatestcalcresultsfromNMEcompleted 16 with DAS.

17 MR. SMITH:

Right.

And I signed that on 18 5eptember 28th.

Something is goofy.

September 26th? _This_

l 19 p.iece is from September 6th, so I don't know.

Is that the 20 st e document?

-21 MS. GELMAN:

That's the' originals.

22 MR.-SMITH:

He may not have changed the date 23 when he updated.this.

But I signed this two days after he 124 said -- so it was with DAS and I signed that memo.

25 I!WESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Okay, October 3rd, second NEAL'R. GROSS COURT REFORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W

- Ij (202. 234 4433.

WASHrNGTON, O C 20005 G02; 2344433

-1(

42 1-paga, first pago t>eing similar to the previous ons.

Draft 2

code. case Jetter that includes this calc results from'NME, 4

'3 completed and issued for review and comment.

Now that's 4

the' September 28th letter that you referred to?

'S MR. SMITH:- No.

6 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN

Is that another letter?

7 MR. SMITH:

That's now the code case letter 8

that we're going to eventually submit to the NRC has been 9

drafted with 50.12 exemption request incorporated in it.

10

That is the one that's out for review and this memo has l

11 been resolved.

My September 28th memo has been resolved l d answered and now we have appropriate engineering 12 an i

lbupportthat'sabletogiveusacodecaseapplication.

13 14 My understanding is that the issues that were 15 in this are resolved and we can now put on a code case.

16 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

And there are similar 17 tasks to be performed listed on October 17th, October 24th.

18 MR. SMITH:

Wait a minute, tasks -- yeah, looks 19 like a similar write up.

20 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

There's a little bit at 21 the' bottom that varies somewhat.

22 Comments resolving the code case letter on the 23 second'page.

Going to NME for sign off, October 31.

24 MR. SMITH:

October 31.

You skipped the 24th?

-25 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

That's the next one, 2

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPOATERS AND TRANSCRIBE AS 1323 AHOCE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (702) 234 4433 WASHJNGTON. O C 200M (202i 234.4433

m._

43-11 October 24th, 21 MR. SMITH:

Okay, October.31.

3 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:. October 31'is similar on 4

the first page.

November 14th, similar on the first page,

.5_

but second page varies and Ken O'Gara saying, " area of 6

concern, code case-N514 letter requires additional work by 7-time.

NES won't approve until issue regarding PDP operation 8

bas been addressed by NME" --

9 MR. WETTERHAHN:

Just'one second.

We're 10.

turning the next one -- the first page is dated November 11

a4th?

i 12

- f INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

The second page is dated

'I-13 November 12th.

14 MR. WETTERHAHN:

Okay.

- 15 MR. SMITH:

Yes, this was the point at which II 16 the PDP operation was identified by Jay Bailey.

This was 17 at the point or based on that input, Ken came to see me and 18 I said we don't have any more areas'where we can go with 1

19 bhis.

We need to write an IR because the_only way to. meet

- 20 the PT curves _is the use of the code case.

There is no 21 analysis:available to be able to resolve this issue.

And I 22-verified that with a telecon with Vijay Chandra at that 23 point.

I asked him what the effect of the PDP on the-

- 24 calculations that we had supporting the code case 25 application.

When he told me it exceeded the limits on-NEAL R. GROSS I

COUAT REPOATERS AND TRANSCR'BER$

f 13'3 RHOOE ISuND AVENUE. N W n e-33

.. s,m,,,

y -

~

____._______-m 44 1-unitione, I~ asked Kenny to_ write an IR at that-point.-

2' INVESTIGATOR-LOGAN:

November 28th --

-f 3-MR. McDERMOTT:

Clarification before we move on-1 4

bere.

The IR that you're speaking of was written after 5

information was gained about the PDP?

i 6

MR. SMITH:

Right.

j 7

-MR. McDERMOTT:

The calcul'ations which were 8

affected by that new information were calculations which 9

changed the assumption regarding which pumps would inject?

10 MR. SMITH:

That included -- it was my 11 understanding it was using the high head safety injection i

12 pump.

That's right.

13 I

INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

November 28th.

Similar

'tatement on the first part. December 12th, again the first 14 s

15 page is pretty similar.

However, the second page has the i.

16 fact that the LER response with POPS has been drafted and 17 comments resolved.

16

.MR.

SMITH:

Because it was such a complicated 19-area and we typically did not write LERs, I asked Ken to

-;20_

vrite-this LER to help the station-out.

21 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

December 19th, similor.

Again,_except on-task completed he-has-sort LER response 22 23-from POPS and-code' case letter and sign off.

24 MR. SMITH:

That's right.

That;was corrective f

' 25 Action.

I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRAN$CRIBER$

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202.-234 4433 WASHINGTON D C 20005

(*02> 2344433

~

s---+

e.

-a.w

+

a.. -. ~.

s.

an n

i.a-me.

a.xa _a.

tm,,2 n.,=

s.--,+

ses

---.-~.+.u-

.a s

~-s-

+

,.s.

,,..maJ.

~45 1

INVESTIGATOR LOGAN Do you-remember working on-

'2 those?

- 3 MR. SMITH:

I remember reviewing.the LER.

I-4-

remember reviewing the code case letter,_yes.

5-INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

January 23rd, I guess the 6

one'~ difference'there is that Ken prepared a chronology for 7

POPS 4XT.

That's: Francis Thompson?

8 MR. SMITH

-Yes.

Where is that?

9 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Second page, block 3.

10 MR. SMITH:

Right.

11 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

January 30th, second page.

12 Completed tasks, line 3.

Issued chronology on POPS to-NSR.-

13

!!R. SMITH:

Where is that, issued chronology?

14 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

January 30th.

15 MR. SMITH:

'es, I remember this, too.

NSR was 4

16 now looking into the issue as follow up to Charlie 17 Lashkari.

They asked for any information that we had on 18 bhis.

19-INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

March 6th, the next one.we 20 nave.

Completed draft of basis change on POPS for unit 1, 21

omments, drafted and' addressed comments on case memo for 22 PXT.

t 23 Were you-working with Ken O'Gara on those?

24 MR. SMITH:

I. don't remember-the address 25 comments on code case memo or whether or not -- the

- NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPOATERS AND TRANS0AlBERS

- 1323 AHODE tSLAND AVENUE N W (202t 234-4433 WASM:NGTON O C 20005

'(202) 234 4433

46 1-Ipplication' won ~out:by thon.

'I-. don't know what' that ons

- is.

For'the basis change,.I do recall.that one.

I

_3 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

What was happening-there?-

14 -

MR. SMITH:

We had to restrict unit l's-use 5

off-- I can't remember this right now.

Unit 1 was 6=

inoperable for the-PT curves.-

We needed to remove the PDP,-

7 tag it out to be able to say tht.t we would be within the PT 8-limits, so that PDP, we had to have assurance that the PDP-9 was-not allowed to operate in order to be~able to remove 10-the action statement that was on unit 1.

In fact, it was 11 broken at that time, if I remember right.

So 3 wasn't a i

1 12 problem taking the PDP out of the picture, i

i 13 q

INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Okay.

Off the record for 14-a minute.

15 (Off-the record.)

16 ~

INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Mr. Wetterhahn -- this 17

'norning before the formal interview began, Mr. Smith, did 18.

you review the transcript?

19 MR. SMITH:

Yes, I did.-

20 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Of your prior intervied 21 dated March 14, 1995?

22 MR., SMITH:

Yes, I did.

23 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

And -you've made certain 2 4 '_

horrectionsinthemargintothat-transcript?

c 25' MR. SMITH:

Yes, I did.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W l l - (202) 234 4433

' WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202) 234 4433

.st_-

~

2

- _ - - _ _.. __.. _. _.. _. ~

1 47 l

- l'

-INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

In addition'to those

~

2-changes, may I' point out aiquestion and I will paraphrase f

3 it beginning'on line 1 on page 6.

And what advice did Mr.

t 4-O'Gara'give you when he asxed'~if-you should apply for the 5

code case formally?

Do you.ecall Mr. O'Gara ever asking 6

you whether you should apply for the code case formally?

7 MR. SMITH:

No, I do not recall that.

,'n fact, 8

he had.given me information in the discussions that took 9

place in that time frame, that told me of engineering's 10 ability to be able to redisposition the NSAL.

That 11 included potential credit for the RH3 and other mechanisms 12

,to redisposition this.

.That gave me a feeling that we l

13 didn't need to apply for'the code casc.

I 14 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

Considering that l

15 clarification and the other corrections you have initialed 16 and dated, is your testimor.y in the interview on March 14, 17-1995 true and correct to the best of your knowledge, 18 information and belief?

19 MR. SMITH:

Yes, it is.

-20 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

I have nothing further.

21 Thank you.for coming, Mr. Emith.

22-MR. SMITH:

Okay.

Do I sign this thing?-

23 INVESTIGATOR LOGAN:

I don't think you have to.-

24" (Whereupon, at 1:28 p.m.,

the interview was 25

encluded. )

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOCE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

l ' rJ02) 2344433 WASwiNGTON D C 20005 '-

(2C2) 2344433

t CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached 4

proceedings-before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:

Name of Proceeding:

INTERVIEW OF DAVID SMITH i

e Docket Number 195-013 -

Place of Proceeding:- HANCOCKS BRIDGE, NJ were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter redCced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.

f KAREN HANTMAN Official Reporter Neal R. Gross and Co.,

Inc.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCAtBERS 1323 AMODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202) 234 443?

WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202? 234 4 33

u. -.-

=_

A NOTES:

REPORT OF INTERVIEW WITH Kenneth O'GARA On August 16, 1995, Investigator Keith Logan, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Office of Investigations, Region I, King of Prussia, PA interviewed Kenneth O'GARA, Salem Generating Station (Salem), Public Service Electric & Gas CO.

(PSE&G) Hancocks Bridge, N.J. regarding his role in the POPS (Pressurizer Overpressure Protection System) Issues.

During this interview she was 1 epresented by attorneys Mark J. Wetterhahn and Marcia Gelman, who also represent PSE&G and other individuals interviewed during the course of this investigation.

Mr.

Wetterhahn end Ms. Gelman are with the law firm of Winston n Stra*Jn, 1400 L Street, NW, Washinton, D.C.

20005.

DANAX stated essentially as follows:

O ' G ARA 'i ra n s. Rev.

p.9 (3-12) (reflects work completed previsous week) Fe.

7, 1994:

four Week Look Ahead " Issue on POPS to NME (Nuc. Mech Ena.)

Isr further review.

No IR written."

Indicated that.he had not seen or written.

But had considered the need for IR p.

51 asked Mechanical Engineering to write IR; may also Salem Tech.

This was a result of the fax (1/25/94) that CL sent him and his discussions with Cl does not recall whetehr CL told him that plant was operating outside its design basis.

Thought plant was operating outside its design basis.

Told Dave Smith, showed him fax but does not specifically recall what was said.

Fax indicates we need emergency license change - would indicate to him that they were not operating within their license.

That's when they went back to look at the code case and discussed issue with salem technical

- CL.

Does not recall talking to WIEDEMANN ALso talked to DANAK, fax, whether ouside design basis, whether or not an IR was needed.

Uses DEF term because the DEF drives the IR -

in conversations with DANAK, SMITH, CL cannot specifically recall one over the other - may have used them interchangably.

SMITH told him to follow-up on it.

Engineering (DANAK) told him that credit for RH3 valve; CL was aware of the discussions going

- never hearch CL disagreeor agree with that positon.

He did not have enough knowledge to disagree with Engineering either Disc. w/Gita about a month ago, that she told DANAK in about Oct.

93, she had considered useing the RH3 valves as a way of relieving the pressure in the POPS system, differential pressure associated with 2 or 4 reactor coooland pumps operating, 39 lbs.

lyr a&m

.t

.cnd;73.lb3. forfburb:ctucaSalcawouldctilloxcccdthep/t limits (She was assuming the relief valves opened at 412 and.the procedural changes were in efffect; and that she discussed this with DB.NAK at that time.

Yet DANAK told O'GARA that they could take credit for the RH3.

End of 93 limited the controls.

End of Jan. had not did not have the results of the gothic code-not till apr. meeting The conversations with Gita are critical because the reason she had discounted the RH3 because there were problems with the use of that system, yet DANAK was aware of that at the same time he was telling O'GARA in 1/25 time frame that they were taking credit for the RH3.

Also mentioned that she had a rough and dirty cale on that numbers generated.

Had he been aware of this he would not have accepted the RH3 statement by DANAK.

In the 1/25 time frame, he believed DANAK had drafted the BERRICK memo, now he is aware that Gita was the primary cuthor.

Thinks tht had this information been known to him at the april meeting, the outcomo of the meeting woul dahve been different.

9

+

_ p.15 ' Engineering appears to have different a00umption0 depending on how that wasnted to decide the issue; 6/13/94 - calc-created 9/28 issue: initiate on 5/11/94 (would eventually;go water 1soldi)and contained assumptions which invalidate memo that mech /eng-issued-on on 5/26(don't have to considor because they don't operated in a water solid condition) concerning whatehr salem operates with a

. water solid pressurizer ---9/28 he wrote memo (Smith to Ranalli) on the differences between in assumptions and may cales-l l

l.

i l

l -.

l

. -.. ~. - -

pg. 20 chengos-

p. no change Reviewed Franklin Planner of O'GARA-for 93 & 94 -

relevant pts.

that Thomson said that he did not want to report that Salem was outsid7 its design basis because the plant would be shut down-(-

or something to that effect)

THOMSON said that if they operated the plant and got fined it-would only be a fine of $100,000, but if the plant-shut down, it would cost millions of dollars

~ ~,

.,, ~.

S2ith-CtertCd Ciphecizing tholuco of #FOUR WEEK LOO AHEAD" SHEETS

~

cl/31/1994 - AOC (Areas of Concern) " Issue regarding' POPS-setpoint nonconservatism_may-be reportable:under 50.72"\\\\_

4 2/7/94

Completed Tasks " Issue on POPS to NME' Lor further-review.LNo IR written."

?

3/7 - AOC

" Potential LEA on POPS setpointLanalysis."

3/14

"""""""" also under_ heading " tasks to be performed" 3/21 -

"" & ""- "AOC also-has DEF to-be written" i

3/28L : Compl.

"Mtg. or, POPS setpoint analysis.

DEF reviewed.";

same-TTBP 4/11.- AOC:"DEF on POPS Satpoint Nonconservatism"; TTBP still references " Potentia) LER regarding POPS setpoint ananysis."

4/18 - AOC: " TTBP:"

5/2; -

TTBP "

AOC DEF on POPS Setpoint Nonconservatism.

Awaiting RH3 analysis (Gothic v. Loftran) sometime in beginnning of May,.1994: He Indicated to DANAK that they could not_ credit Rh3 as part of init.nl evalluation (5/26/94 letter)- but he thinks.they knew that anywa,/ on 5/11/ taht two PORVS would not be enough =even using the octhic code; May 26 analysis said-that yu-did not have to use RH3 no credit for RH3 5/9 TTBP "DEF regarding POPS setpoint analysis" AOC : Same as prior 1

~

5/16 TTBP: "DEF oregarding POPS setpoint analysis.

Need LCR."

LCR issue ~may have been the resutit f discussions relative to not being able to accept RH3 5/31 TTBP:

6/27_TTBP:"DEF Regarding POPS setpoint Analysis.

Need LCR-and Coda Case Letter."

7/5 "-

7/11 "

7/18 7/25 TTBP:"DEF regardingfPOPS setpoint analysis.

Need LCR to l

credit RH3'Releif Valve.

To address QA' surveillance finding, Eminor: TS change.for the max..P-T curve hoatup rate will also be p

addressed.: Also, need to-prepara letter-to NRC requesting approval of code Casejto extend P-T curves _10% during-LTOP i

conditions."

sQA:survefilence is'an unrelated issue-

+,v y y re

+

s w-.r 1,...

---s

=e---

=**e

>1---=.-

--~-s---

E-

.. =...

L t

~8/1 #

i 18/15 8/29-nOC POPS setpoint Issue Memo to NME-& NES identifying calc L

econcerns~'(simialr for Comp. Tsks)-TTBP "

. 9/6-TTBP ret DEF &=RH3

10/3 : CTFPW:: " Memo - to: NME & NES completed & _ issued for raview and comment"

---

3/95 t

ge Y

w y

+-

eef w>y*

y.

=9ma

.ey 2

-~f

- NOTE ON DER PREPARED BY DANAK (94-0060).

- No" for IR and "No" for Operability

' --indicates a_ question-re

- ---copy to be forwarded by Csl.

/

This report was preparad on August 16,-1995.

Keith G. Logan Investigator 1

l e

._..._.m 4

L-

.o o

REPORT OF INTERVIEW 1WITH MAHESH DANAK e

On August:3, 1995, Investigator Keith' Logan,.U.S. Nuclear-Regulatory-Commission (NRC), Office of Investigations, Region I, King of-Prussia, PA interviewed Mahesh DANAK regarding and theLatatements contained in his 3/14/94 interview.

were c

also present during.this interview.'

stated essentially asEfollows:

1.

Gita didn't give him:the draft - it came from BERRICK as an assignment when was the first time he discussed it with her??

Definitely discussed it with her in May when she needed his signature and had prior to that when the LaBruna memo came out l

>2.-

Did not-initially know at the time he sent the memo to BERRICK that salem was operating outside it s design basis and that they could not.use the N-514 code case 3.

agreed with-what was presented to BERRICK for signature; does not recall what changes he may have made to the original P

4.

1 5.

6..

when did you first discuss with "anyone" ( and.who ) that code case approval;was needed...-both with Lashkari and O'Gara but does not recall which one first -- probably in March time-from -'as per FP and first OI interview 7.-

Even with the.' code case,-Salem could not tclerate four

. pumps operating ~,.so a-procedural change.was needed, k

.CL haditaken care of the-procedural changes for the pumps

_ prior,to the time.the BERRICK memo was signed; the pump change- (reduction) was point three in the 1/15/93 -

, Westinghouse letter and had'been acted on by_CL - going from

-four.to two-pumps.

discussed the BERRICK memo with CL prior to the time the i:

memo was' signed by BERRICk and therefore-CL was aware that Salem would be taking credit for the code case; but does not 4

(#

l rccoll cny C nticn by CL cbout tho n0cd to got tha codo ca e approved by the NRC prior to it being used by the NRC 8.

March, 1993 disc. W/ CL S O'GARA

--p.22 "could be outside its design bais" when did you first think/ suspect that Salem could be

(

outside its design basis Conversations with LASHKARI (or someone else) about this issue at this point?

he just

--p.

23 Danak is not responsible for writing the IR gives it to Charlie and Charlie is then responsible for writing it Thought that Charlie would have resp for prep of IR and not licensing because the DEF would go to the system engineer He recalled that CL was going to go to Licensing and have them do the 7R, but he does not recall is CL said why he wanted LIc to do it.

Dave SMITH - might have discussed this with him in March prior to the April meeting

--p.

23 his Franklin Planner reflects a discussion with licensing in March, 1993 9.

only those already mentioned - as best he recalls 10.

only person wno he sxpected to prepare IR - if it needed to be dono

4 11.

12.

(p. 49)

Statements by THOMSON....

13.

p.27 Between Berrick memo and April /94 meeting -

discussions with O'GARA - did he tell you he thought that licensee was operating outside its design basis does not specifically recall O'GARA telling him that Salem was operating outside its design basis but that may ahve been the reason that O'GARA was preparing the draft IR - and he is aware that af ter the DEF was issued on 4/19 and O'GARA talked to CL that O'GARA was working on the IR for CL.

He does not know why CL was not invited to the 4/20 meeting, since he later learned that CL was at the site.

He recalled that cl was pissedabout not bing there at the meeting.

He does not rucall' any discussion about CL not being there and he did not bring up the issue.

--when vere your first discussions with O'GARA about POPS??

did you believe - going into that meeting that the licensee was operatingn oustide its design basis?

you obviously discussed this issue with LASHKARI and you agreed with him that the licensee could not rely on the non-NRC approved code case (N-514) 4/20 mtg.

meeting decided not to report it even though it was.7 (equiv to 1.2 feet) over the limit, with gothic and/or RH3 they would be way below; Westinghouse used the lowest weld, which was conservative for Salem and he thought there would be more room to work with and that would get them below the.7 14.

DERRICK memo already prepared by about 12/25 (p. 13) 15.

Have you seen the 9/29/93 memo from Westinghouse to BERRICK?

when....etc......

94/95 Giscussion with Gita that she had discussed with licensing the LTOP issue with licensing at the time (while) she was preparing the Berrick memo (POPS issue & West memo) between 10/31/93 & 12/23/93 due date no discussions with Cita about the letter

--- not immediately assigr.ed to him but it was assigned to him prior to that assignment to finish up from where Gita left off

Gito novor told hic cpprovol woc nocded cnd ho htd no ind:p:ndent knowlege that Salem could not use N-514 (P. 15)-March 94 - remembers talking with LASHKARI about POPS knows at this point that he needed prior approval for code case exception Franklin Planner 3/18 meeting with licensing on LTOP 3/21 3/22 working on LTOP 3/23 He did not receive a copy of LASHKARI's draft IR in 1/31 although he did hear about it later WHEN DEF prepared by DANAK on 4/19/94 and signed by BERRICK - has some discussions with LASHKARI prior to DANAX'c signing it but DANAK stated that "HE" prepared it but not with LASHKARI although he had discussions with LASHKARI about what he was putting in the DEF.

The following are DANAX's comments to notations he made in his Franklin Planner:

12/23 started working on POPS issue - but does not recall the date the assignment was given; No mention in the FP about when it was given to him.

But does recall that he was aware that W was working on the Salem specific issue because GITA had asked him to review the request to W - since she wats a contractor, he had to sigh as a PSE&G employee.

Recalls something of a similar nature having come from LaBruna, but Gita was the lead on this matter and he only received the lead after she left.

He knows he must have looked at the file prior to this day but there is not any mention in the FP.

The day before Christmas was not a very busy work day!

12/28 still working on the POPS /BERRICK memo; but most of the work had already been done 12/29 last item on the list reflects the issuance of the BERRICK memo that both he and Gita had worked on; references to TELECON at the top of the page refer to the fact that LTOPS had work on another issue actuated the day before - unrelative to the POPS issue at. hand.

12/30

. Distributed the ATS POPS letter that BERRICK signed.

Number "MEC-93-917" had already been assigned before GITA left-

3/7 R0vicw;d GITA'O lottOr en RHR - thic io tho lotter provided to OI today.

He does not recall why he reviewed the letter at this time.

3/18 Meeting with (Don Durkosh - w/Westinghouset name is crossed off - so he believes this is not related to this matter).

" Meeting with Licensing on LTOP..(reportable, reportability or something like that)."

Normally he would have met with Ken OGARA but he does not specifically recall who he mat with at this time.

3/21

" Meeting on LTOP." (Could have been with O'GARA or CHANDRA -

but he does not recall.)

3/22

" Working on LTOP."

3/23

" Working on LTOP."

-4/4 "RH3 calculations by Vijay providing support for that..."

4/19

" Issued DEF 94-060 to address LTOP non conservatism" 4/20 "DEF for LTOP and Incident Report." (DANAK state that this could be the IR prepared by O'GARA.)

" Meeting with Licensing on DEF and incident report."

5/25

" Working on LTOP letter to address ATS item."

This refers to the work he did on the 5/26/94 letter.

5/2b

" Working on LTOP. Sent letter to J. Wiedemann."

8/3

" Returned call to C. LA3HKARI."

Recalls that LASHKARI left message and he called him back. CL wanted to find out what was going on.

8/19

" Working on LTOP."

9/14

" Reviewing POPS letter from Licensing from Ken O'GARA."

9/16

" Meeting on LTOP with licensing - D. Smith, K. O'GARA, VIJAY, BERRICK."

9/19 "LTOP meeting at Station (plant)."

.9/21

" Working on LTOP."

9/22

" Working on LTOP. Tom ARZENNI, Westinghouse."

9/26

" Working on LTOP."

9/27

" Issued LTOP problem report on machine and faxed attached attachments to Gordon CHEN." (CHEN replaced LASHKARI.)

t

- 10/13 "Reviawing Licensing Letter on Code case N-514.

Provided. comments'to Ken O'GARA today."

.-.. -. ~.....

~.... -

t 11/29

'#2-3 (PM).COOting en incid:nt rcport Cn LTOP#

12/14L PDP Positive Displacement Pump.

SORC meeting on-LTOP

[

LER at 5:30 l

12/15 Meeting on LER 1

.12/16 I

12/19 12/21

" signed a-50.59-prepared by licensing as reviewer-on LTOP..."

i r

f i

r 1

i 4

)

f 6

- i i

F t

h 4

r 4+.---

v-

, +

e e.y, e

e-r-

-nm-

-4.--"-n

'r.

a DANAK provided a copy of a draft memo on the same subjcet co tho BERRICK memo that he he believes he received from Gita, with Gita's handwritten annotatons, but does not specifically recall her giving it to him.

He does recognize the handwriting on the i

types pages to be that of GITA.

(The croceed off sections appears to state This was not accepted by

}

(Margin note: "This is discussed in the attgchment.")

(Margin Note: Increase due to the greater water specific volume change with temperature and the higher steam generator heat transer coefficient at the hotter conditions.)

GS notation DMIAK indicated tat this actaally means " steam generator."

Notet

....would provide adequate mitigation.

This report was prophred on August

,1995.

Keith G. Logan Investigator Case No. 1-95-013 l

l a

l

(_____.

REFERENCES f

Stan. LaBruna, VP Engineering, Previously VP Nuclear Operations, consider him as my mentor at Arti6cialIsland Joe Hagan, VP Nuclear Operations, Acting General Manager, Salem Operations John Zupco,Previously General Manager, Salem Operations Lynn Miller, Previously General Manager, Salem Operations Calvin Vondra, Previously General Manager, Salem Operations Harold Trenka, Previously my Supervisor and now Manager, Salern Revitalization Project Art Orticelli, Salem Maintenance Manager, Supported extensively when he was outage manager and Operating Engic:er Jim Gueller, Previous Operations Manager Lee Catalfomo, Salem Operations Manager John Trejo, Previous Radiation Protection Manager, Salem Operations Mark Shedlock, Previous Maintenance Manager Vince Polizzi, Previous Operations Manager Bob Stanley, Previously my Manager at E&PB during 1984 85 Pell White, My second manager at Salem Technical Depanment, Approx. 1989 91 John Ronafalvy, My first manager at Salem Technical Department All Senior Shift Supervisors, Salem Operations All presious and present Operating Engineers including John Mucemechi, Phii O'Donnell Peter Ott, Brian O'Grady, All Senior Maintenance Supervi:, ors, including Lu Nociti, Mike Cocking, John Eggenhoffer All Maintenance Engineers, including John Monission, Joe Pollock Various Maintenance and Planning Supervisors including Mike Laham, Bob Vanderdecker Tom Carrier, Radiation Protection Supenisorst John Wray, Salem Chemisry Supeniaors, Buzz Gailbraith, Gerry E&PB Supenisors and Managers such as Manny Bandeirra, Timm Taylor, Peter Galleshaw Howard Benick, Jerry Ranalli, Salem Technical Department all personnel including previous supervisors, JefiJackson, Manny Bandeitra, Peter Ott.

Mahesh Danak, Cliff sobel, Jack Southers,Dalip Bhavnani, Carl Timm Dave Vito SYirehdra Kumar bupta, Charlie Manero,Flo Ann Roberts Howard Onoreto Ron Cichon,, Jack'cucham, Bob Lemberger,,

/'

W

~

.~

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD January 13, 1995 During the course of a transcript review on January 12, 1995, the documents listed below were provided to the undersigned by Charles P. LASMKARI, a former Public Service Electric & Cas (PSEEG) employee at the Salen Generating Station, Salem, N.J.

LASHKARI stated that he met with PSE&G representatives and provided them with a copy of the allegations he raised with the NRC.

In addition,.he will be providing them with copies of other complaints he has filed.

1.

Timeframe listing which corresponds to his letter to the NRC which contained his allegations (pp. 1-2) 2.

A list of references (p. 3) 3.

A letter to the Department of Labor, Wage and Hour i

Division dated December 20, 1994 (p.4-6) 4.

An undated letter to the Division of Civil Rights, State of New Jersey, with attachments (pp. 7-20)

/

EAA w

'f/\\s_,Keith ogan Case No. 1-94-043

.