ML20202D175

Transcript of 940314 Interview of K Ogara Re Investigation Rept Case 1-95-013.Pp 1-58

ML20202D175
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/14/1994
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI)
To:
Shared Package
ML20199L462	List: ML20199L458 ML20199L503 ML20199L634 ML20199L652 ML20199L684 ML20199L695 ML20202D054 ML20202D097 ML20202D128 ML20202D133 ML20202D149 ML20202D169 ML20202D175 ML20202D673
References
FOIA-97-325 NUDOCS 9712040163
Download: ML20202D175 (58)

Text

. _ - -. _ -..

3 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

++ +++

4 OFFICE OF INVESTIGATION 5

INTERVIEW 6

1 1

---

~~---------------------x 8

IN THE MATER OF 9

INTERVIEW OF

Docket No.

10 KENNETH O'GARA

(not assigned) 11 j

12

---

~~-------------------~~~-x 13 Tuesday, March 14, 1994 14 15 Administration Building 16 2nd Floor Conference Room 17 Public Service Electric & Gas Co.

18 Nuclear Business Unit 19 Hancocks Bridge, N.J.

20 eE O"

21 The above-entitled interview was conducted at w

22 12:39 p.m.

04

• N 23 BEFORE:

'24 KEITH LOGAN,-Investigator

+5 25 BRIAN McDERMOTT, Investigator l

NEAL R. GROSS EXHST /O COURT REPORTIRS AND TRANSCR$tRS PAGE

/ OF8 PAGl'(S)

~

. egsg go, 1.93 013 "2* ""*5 'S'^ND ^nNut N wj.f.,f".

om tg>

4 7/ x d. S 3 womroN. o c exos an zunn ssa a

1 APPEARANCESt 2

On behalf of Ken O'Gara 3

MARK J. WETTERHAHN, ESQ.

4 MARCIA GELMAN, ESQ.

5 Winston and Strawn 6

1400 L Street, N.W.

7 Washington, D.C.

20005-3502 8

9 10 11-12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURf REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1J23 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202 2M4433 WASHINGTON. D C 70006 (202) 2344433

- ~.

2 1

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2

12:39 p.m.

3 MR. LOGAN:

Back on the record.

4 Whereupon 5

KENNETH O'GARA 6

having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness 4

7 herein, and testified as follows:

8 MR. LOGAN:

Mr. O'Gara, would you please spell 9

your full name.

Off the record please.

10 (Discussion off the recerd.)

11 MR. LOGAN:

Back on the record.

12 THE WITNESS: X-e-n-n-e-t-h Martin M-a-r-t-i-n 13 O'Gara O' G-a-r-a.

14 MR. LOGAN:

Thank you. My name is Keith Logan. I 15 am an investiga~or with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 15 Commission King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

With me today 17 is Mr. McDermott.

18 MR. McDERMOTT:

My name is Brian McDermott.

19 That is M-c D-e-r-m-o-t-t.

I am a Region One inspector 20 with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

31 MR. LOGAN:

Mr. O'Gara, you are appearing today 22 with counsel; is that correct?

23 THE WITNESS: Yes.

24 MR. LOGAN:

Mr. Wetterhahn.

25 MR. WETTERHAHN:

Good afternoon now.

My name is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPCMTERS AND TRANSCRIBER $

1323 RWJDE ISLAND AVENUE, N W

&^t) 234433 W ASHtNGTON. O C 2000$

(202) 2H4433

_ ~ _.

4 1

Mark J. Wetterhahn.

I am with the firm of Winston and 2

Strawn, 1400 L Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005.- With 4

3 me is Marcia Gelman also an attorney with the firm.

We

[

4 are here representing Mr. O'Gara.

l i

5 MR. LOGAN:

And do you represent other 6

individuals in this case?

7 MR. WETTERHAHN:

Yes and as well as that we have 8

been representing the company in this matter also.

9 MR. LOGAN:

And Mr. O'Gara, you are aware that 10 Mr. Wetterhahn does represent other individua.'.s that when 11 spoken to or we will speak to in this investigation.

12 THE WITNESS: Yes.

13 MR. LOGAN:

And with that knowledge is it still 14 your desire to have him here today as par lawyer?

15 THE WITNESS: Yes.

16 MR. LOGAN:

Thank you, i.

17 EXAMINATION 18 BY MR. LOGAN:

19 Q

Mr. O'Gara, if we could start out with a little 20 background information. If you could tell us please your 21 current position with your current employer and other 22 positions you have held with that firm.

I am hrincipN n ineer with Raytheon Engineers 33 A

24 and Constructors out of New York City who was formerly 1

i 25 Ebasco Services. I have worked for them for 14 years.

i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER $

132' kHODE ISA.AND AVENUE. N W (202) D44433 w ASHINGTON. D C 2000$

(202) 2344433

~.. _ _ _..,. _

1 Q

How long have you been here at Salem?

2 A

Since March of '92.

l 3

Q How did you come to work at Salem?

4 A

Our company has a contract with PSE&G to provide 5

licensing support.

6 Q

And in providing licensing support, what is it 7

that you do?

8 A

Submit license change requests, responses to 9

N.R.C.

generic type of correspondence, support PSE&G 10 mostly in their interf ace with the N.R.C.

11 Q

And do you know an individual by the name of 12 Chandra Lashkari?

13 A

Yes.

14 Q

When did you first meet Mr. Lashkari?

15 A

I don't know the exact time, but it was probably 16 within three or six months after I started working for 17 PSE&G.

18 Q

Are you talking the summer of 1992?

19 A

Yes.

20 Q.

And elid you have an opportunity to work with Mr.

21 Lashkari on any particular issues?

22 A

Yes.-

23 Q

And what were those issues?

24

'A There was a safety valve license change request

- 25 that I think he had sent to me to work on at one point or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPCNTR3 #ND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(2Ch FM4433 WASHINGTO" D C. 20005 CKC) 234-4433 4

er

-.ve.-s.

..s,m.-.-..-~..e.....-.--,-.,,..-.-.e4 y

,,y r-~

l e

I had come through ay supervisor and assigned to me to work i

2 on.

1 3

0

% 1r supervisor being who?

4 A

Dave Smith.

I 5

Q Go ahead.

6 A

That is pretty much*all that I can recall at

-7 this point. There were some issues with PORV's. I did a 8

lot of work with PORV's.

I know he was involved with our 9

response to generic letter 9201 which had to do with 10 reactor vessel structural integrity.

There was a project 11-team formed.

He and I were maybe one of 15 or 20 12 engineers involved in that.

13 Q

And in the time that you worked with Mr.

4 14 Lashkari, how did he get along with other individuals?

I 15 A

Fine no problems.

16 O

Did he seem to work well as a member of the 17 team?

18 A

Yes sure.

19 O

Did you also work on an issue that had to with 20 POPS?

21.

A Yes I did.

22 O

Tell me when you first became aware of the POPS 23 issue.

24 A

I received a telephone call followed by a fax of 25 some information. I think the date was the 25th of January NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENVI. N W.

(202) 2344413 WASMTON, D C 2000$.

(202) 2344433

,, -..~.,

1 1

1994.

I 2

O That ceems pretty good. How is it that you 3

remember that date so clearly?

i 4

A I just looked at it probably a week or so ago. 0 1

5 And what was that fax?

6 A

It was a copy of a letter that was addressed a # eY

.s without a from pers?on but it was addressed to VP N'-lear 7

8 operations.

Behind that the.e was a news article out of 9

an industry journal that identified a problem with POPS 10 tnat Diablo Canyon had and behind that was engineering's 11 response maybe an eight or 10 page letter responding to a 12 Westinghouse NSAL that was sent to us.

13 0

And what is an NSAL?

g Nuclear Safety Advisory Letter.

14 A

15 BY MR, McDERMOTT:

16 0

The response that you are speaking of that was 17 attached to that you mentioned that eight or so page 18 response was that a memo to someone?

19 A

It was a memo from Mechanical Engineering to 1 20 think Charlie Lashkari's supervisor John Wiedemann.

21 0

Is this the letter that you are referring to?

22 A

Yes, that is it.

23 MR. WETTERHAHN:

Lec's identify that.

24 MR. McDERMOTT:

We are referring to a memorandum 2B from Howard Berrick Salem Mechanical Engineering NEAL R, GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 13ra RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202; 234 4433 w ASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 234 4433

_.m....

t E

i supervisor to Fred Schnarr Reliability and Assessment l

2 Group and the memorandurc. is dated December 30, 1993.

3 BY MR. LOGAlh l

\\

4 Q

Mr. Lashkari faxed you that letter?

5 A

Yes after he talked to me and explained in 6

general terms what the issue was. He indicated that he 7

would be sending a hard copy of it and he faxed it to me.

8 0

Did he -- tell me what it was that he explained 9

to you what his concerns were.

10 A

He indicated to me that the response that 11 Mechanical Engineering had developed had taken credit for 12 an ASME code case which he did not believe at the time was 13 approved for us by the N.R.C. in general terms by the 14 nuclear industry.

15 Q

Could you be a little more specific.

16 MR. WETTERHAHN:

Do you know the specific code 17 case?

la THE WITNESS: The code case is N514.

' 19 BY MR. LOGAN:

20 0

Did Mr. Lashkari also send to you a copy of a 21 draft incident report that he had prepared?

22 A

No, he did not.

23 Q

Did he ever discuss that draft incident report

. 24 with you and let me show you a copy of it. If you could 25 tell by reading it whether or not.it appears as though he NEAL R, GROSS COURi AEPORTER$ AND TfMNSCRISERS 1323 AHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 2M4433 WASHINGTON. D C 2000$

(202) 2M4433

.-.. ~.

-...~

.~

5 1

may have dircussed that with you.

The dato on that R_

e 31MW 2

incident report is" M 31, 1993.

3 A

I have never seen the IR and I can't recall 4

whether or not I ever talked to Charlie about the writing 5

ef an IR at that point or talked with Mechanical 6

Engineering about writing an IR. One of the first things 7

when I read the letter and started doing sorde research 6

within probably the first week that I got this fax was to 9

recognize tht the N.R.C. had not approved the ASME code 10 case N514 and I was pursuing having Mechanical Engineering 4

11 as I recall I thought it was Mechanical Engineering to 12 urite a DEF to document that we had a concern.

13 Q

When you say Mechanical Engineering, who are you 14 talking about?

15 A

Engineering and Plant Betterment the Mechanical 16 Engineering group.

17 Q

Who?

10 A

Mahesh Danak.

19 MR. WETTERHAHN:

That is fine, 20 TH3 WITNESS: Okay.

21 BY MR. LOGAN:

22 Q

And why did you call Mahesh Danak?

23 A

-He was the engineer working for Howard Berrick pgy 24

.that I understood was responsible for t-:.e 2.s= w the 25 response that was provided to Fred Schnarr.

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

(202) 2.H4433 WASHIN3 TON. O C 20005 (202) 2344433

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

1C 1

EY MR. McDERMOTT:

i 2

Q You said you understood that he was preparing a

-3 DEF or DER?

4 A

Well, I thought a DEF was required.

5 Q

Why did you think tMt?

6 A

Baced on the information that was contained in

- t 7

the letter.

8 Q

What of that information.

What facts about that

[

9 made you believe that that form should be filled out?

1. *Y' 10 A

I did a review.

The N.R.C. issues guides 11 to approve code-cases for use and I performed a review of those wke g.\\aY d'

12 uides and concluded that the ASME code case la

! N534 which they were taking credit for in that responre 14 had not been approved for use by the N.R.C. So based on 15 that, it would identify that we had a potential concern 16 with POPS.

17 Q

So the DEF process as you saw it was the way to 18 handle that?

19 A.

If I remember correctly yes,

- 20 Q

Okay.

And was a DEF subsequently issued by 21 Mahesh Danak?

22 A-Yes, it was.

23 Q-When was that issued?

24 A

It was issued a period of time later. I think it 25 was April of '94.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRSERS

.1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, O C 20005 (202) 2344433

.---.-+-r

.%-,-r-r

,=-cm-,-wt=tt--,e

-- we-v v-t - r-we-e v-h---w-a,m---

w--,**--

--na w,--e=

4

--g---v--

-v---

-.%w,-w--

.-t-

13 i

1 Q

So your discussions took place wit-a in the 2

beginning of February?

3 A

Beginning to the first week in February.

4 O

And in April that was issued.

5 MR. '40GAN :

Off the record please.

6 (Discussion off the record.)

7 MR. LOGAN:

Back on the record.

Go ahead.

8 THE WITNESS: After the discussion started with 9

regard to the need to write a DEF or an IR, it was 10 Mechanical's position at that poinu that we could take 11 credit for relief valve RH3 and by taking credit for RH3, 12 then the issue or the concerns that we had that formed the 13 basis for possibly a DEF would not be valid.

14 BY MR. McDERMOTT:

15 O

Did you have.any concerns with the use of th..t 16 valve?

17 A

Well at that point there was more.

Again now we 5

18 are into fact finding to address you know another y

4 19

. technical issue taking credit for RH3.

20 0

So where did it go from there?

21 A

And over a period of time we still -- we weren't K

22 totally convinced that we didn't need a DEF and we asked 23 them to generate it and they drafted it scmetime in the 24 March time frame and eventually it was issued in the April 25 time frame that I identified earlier.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR$ERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (2C2) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433

12 f,

1 BY MR. WETTERHAHN:

2 0

When you say we and they, who are you referring 3

to?

4 A

de is Dave Smith my supervisor, Mahesh 1>anak 5

would cc I would think part of the way we were trying to 6

get Mechanical Engineering Maliesh's group to write the 7

DEF.

B BY MR. LOGAN:

9 Q

Was there some reluctance on their part

• o write 10 it?

11 A

They felt by taking credit for RH3 it would make 12 the problem go away. In other words they felt that RH3 13 would provide additional relief capacity such that we 14 would not have to take credit for the code case.

15 0

Did you agree with that decision?

16 A

Probably in the March April time frame I would 17 say that I still hadn't made up my mind at that point.

18 There wa.: c*.ill some research to be done.

19 O

Did you feel it was necessary to write an 20 incident report in thac time?

23 A

Yes.

22 Q

Did you do so?

23 A

Yes, I did, 24 0

When was that?

25 A

Probably the day after they issued the DEF.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER! *NC TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RW4)E ISLAND AVENUE N W

('!C2) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C 20005 (202) 234.4433

12 1

Q And what did you do with the incident report l

2 that you prepared?

3 A

I issued it to various peopin for their review 4

ar.3 comment to make sure that they were in agreement with 5

the conclusions that I had reached.

6 Q

And what happened?

7 A

Probably that afternoon Mechanical had indicated 8

some concerns with the fact that I indicated that it was 9

potentially reportable and that we should send the 1R to 10 the control room to let the shift make that decision. O 11 What were you told?

12 A

They still felt that we.could take credit for 13 RH3 as part of design basis and if could credit RH3 then 14 obviously there wasn't an operability concern at that 15 point in time.

16 0

What did you do?

17 A

Well, at that point we had a meeting in my 18 manager's office.

19 0

Your manager being?

20 A

Frank Thomson.

21 O

Okay.

22 A

And there were several people involved at that 23 meeting.

24 0

Who else was'there?

g4 Dave Smith, Rick Villar, Mahesh Danak, [f*Yf, 25 A

.J.

NEAL R. GROSS l

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 234 4433

14 1

Chandra, Howard Berrick and I think Jerry Ranalli but I am 2

not sure.

3 0

What happened at this meeting?

4 A

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the IR 5

and whether or not the IR that I had written had reached 6

valid conclusions with regard to reportability or whether 7

or not it even -- whether or not there was even a need to 8

write an IR at that point.

9 Q

So did you present your IR for discussion.

Was 10 that how it started?

11 A

Yes, I don't recall, but I know that I probably 12 filled my manager in with what the issues were.

My 13 supervisor was involved because I had already given him a 14 copy of the draft IR for his review and comment.

So there 15 were people that were familiar with the reason why we were 16 having that meeting. It wasn't like people walked in and 17 said why are we here guys.

There was a three hour period 18 of time in the afternoon of the day that I wrote the IR 19 where you know the issues were evolving.

20 MR, WETTERHAHN:

Let the record be clear.

Was 21 your question whether the IR or the draft IR was 22 physically presented at the meeting?

23 BY MR. WETTERHAHN:

24 0

Do you recall whether it was physically there or 25 just discussed?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234M33 WASHINGTON. D.C 20005 (202) 234M33

i 1!

1 A

.Oh no.

There were copies'there yes.

t

'2 BY MR.' LOGAN: Q At the meeting for everybody.

4 A

Yes sure. I probably had the original in my 5

-hand.

6 Q

And what seemec to be the position of each of 7

the individuals. I realize it is aw'hile for you now but as 8

best as you can recall what position was everyone taking 9

on this IR that you prepared?

10 A

The position that was being taken was not only 11 did we talk about RH3 and the ability to credit RH3 as 12 part of the design basis but a new issue came up-as well 13 that and if I remember correctly I think it was V.J.

14 Chandra. V.J. had done the original analysis. V.J.'a point 15 was that the way our tech specs were written we wouldn't 16 operate the reactor cooling pump in a water solid 17 condition.

1 18 One of the issues that got us over the pressure 19

. temperature limits was the fact that we had to consider 20 the pressure differential with the RCP's running and 21 running in a water solid -- with a water solid

- 22 pressurizer.

The way that we operate the plant is with a 23 bubble in the pressurizer.

That bubble will act as a 24 dampening as having a dampening type of effect and you 25 wouldn't see the same type of pressure surges that you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHtNGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 234-4433-

g.Y l'

1-normally would with 1-iim the start of a safety injection 2

pump and its injection into a water solid pressurizer.

3 That was a key point too. It was something new. It 4

was something.new that came up.

We don't even operate the 5

plant in a water solid condition. We really had to 6

consider that the pressure differential associated with 7

running the RCP's.

8 Q

What was the consensus?

9 A

The consensus was that it was not an operability 10 concern at that point in time, 11 Q

What was not an operability concern?

12 A

The POP's issue that formed the basis for the 13 DEF and the IR.

14 Q

And so was it your decision not to send that to 15 the shift supervisor then?

16 A

No. I think it was a consensus.

17 Q

Let me go back.

What was your position on 18 whether or not that IR should-go forward?

19 A

I agreed with the decisions that were made in 20 that meeting.

I 21 Q

That the IR should not go forward?

j 22 A

That is correct. We had reasonable assurance.

23 We had further work that obviously had to be done and 24-

_ based on the outcome of that further work obviously we 25 would approach that decision again then if we needed-to.

_ NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS i-(202) 234M33 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

WASHINGTON.' D C. 20005

'(202) 2344433

IT 1

Q-Now when you first proposed the IR, did'you do 2

so with the belief that you couldn't send it forward 3

without some sort of management concurrence?

p.T Iwouldwantmysupervisorsandmanagersh+t p

'4 A

e 5

agree with the decision that I had made yes.

6 Q

So but I mean it wasn't a question that you felt 7

there would be some repercussions if you chose not to do 8

so?

9 A

Oh no not at all.

Not at all.

10 0

Who called the meeting on April 21st or April 11 20th. I don't know that we have established that it was 12 the 20th or 21st.

13 A

I think it was just agreed that we had a f

14 difference of opinion with Mechanical and that war the pnepeW 15 appropriate thinK to d,o was to raise it up through the 9

16 management chain.

I don't think I called a meeting out I 17 probably suggested that we need to get together and 18 obviously reach some sort of conclusion or consensus on 19 the issue.

20 0

There was a difference between "our position and 21 the position of Mahesh Danak or Howard Berrick?

22 A

Probably Mahesh and Howard.

23 BY MR McDERMOTT:

-24 0

What do you consider to be the design basis of 25 the POP system?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTEMS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE N W.

(202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON. D C 20005.

(202) 234 4433

~

_. ~

1E

-1 A

Right now?

2 0

As it existed back in March of'1993 when the 3

NSAL was issued by Westinghouse.

4 A

Tech spec basis indicates two POPS provides

~

Sclan. Y 5

adequate relieving capacity assuming a single 54cw.

There 6

were some ---

7 Q

Adequate relieving capacity to mitigate what?

8 A

To mitigate a mass addition transient which is 9

an inadvertent st. art of the safety injection pump.

10 MR. WETTERHAHN:

Was your answer complete or 11 were you going to add something else?

12 THE WITNESS: Yes.

I think I was waiting for the 13 next question.

14 MR. WETTERHAHN:

Okay.

15 BY MR. McDERMOTT:

16 Q

Mass addition is that into a solid RCS?

j 17 A

Into a water solid RCS yes that is correct, i

l 18 Q

At what point was it recognized that the POPS l.

l 19 system being the two PORV's could not satisfy that i

i 20 requirement?

c__

21 A

Without RH3?

i 22 Q

Was RH3 part of the POPS system?

23 A

Prob:bly cometime in May we agreed that we 24 couldn't take credit for RH3.

25 BY MR. LOGAN:

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4 33 wASHtNGTON D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 I

15' 1.

Q So you agreed in April that you could take 2

credit for RH3 and then in-May you agreed that you-3 couldn't take credit for RH3, is that what you are saying?

4 A-In April as part of the April meeting the issue

1. 4R S

that came up was he.y back in 1989 before I came here they 6

deleted the autoclosure interlocks to RH1 and RH2 which 7

meant that RH3 would always be available if RHR is in 8

service. RHR was placed in service less than 350 degrees.

4 9

One of the things that we wanted to look at and we did 10 after that April 20th or 21st meeting was whether or not 11 that change to the design which was submitted to the 12 N.R.C.

and reviewed and approved.by the N.R.C.

could be 13 credited as part of our over-pressure protection.

14 And at some point in time after that meeting and 15 after discussions with my supervisor I said no I don't 16 think we can credit RH3.

One of the things that we were 17 looking at was the POPS basis.

18 BY MR. McDERMOTT:

19 Q

Where would you find the POPS basis?

20 A

It is in the tech specs.

21 Q

Is that not also described in the FSAR?

22 A

It may but we were.really looking a,t the tech 23 specs at that point.

24 0

In your research of the POPS issue and the l

25 discussions about whether or not you had to assume the t-l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS j

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

l~

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O.C. 20005 (202) 2344433

~

-.~

l

' reactor coolant system was solid in doing that research,

-2 did you review the safety evaluation related to amendment 3

. number 24 of the Salem unit one license?

4

A No.

The first time I saw that was when you were 5

here in December.

6 0

That was, December of 1994?

7 A

That is correct.

8 0

In your. opinion was there any point in the 9

progression of this POPS issue from the time -of the 10 Westinghouse NSAL until the 50.72 report was made in 11-November of 1994. In your opinion was the -- did the POPS 12 system meet its design basis during that time?

dC p

13 A

Yes. ( %. m te;.4 Q N seM b of M

• A ?

roAul a:A p b wd % d.1 % mL 14 0

And what.do you base that on.

Perhaps Ken I am l

15 catching you.

We probably need to fill in some more of l

16 the details?

^

17 A

I think you had better because I know you are A gY goingtosaythePhPforunitonewhichisthewhole 18 19 reason why we reported it under 50.72 in the first place, 20 but as we went and as we were going through the process, 21 up until that point in November we always felt based on 22 the.information uhat we knew at the time that POPS was 23 operable.

We had-the information in May of '94 that 24 indicated that we were operable. We had the information in 25 September and October of '94 that said we were operable NEAL R. GROSS.

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W l

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4 33 l

33 1

and it uasn't until the time that we recognized that the o A u#'

2 Py? nceded to be considered because of a separate design 3

issue that we were outside the design basis for unit one.

4 Once we recognized that, we did write the IR.

It went to 5

the control room and we did report it to the N.R.C.

6 Q

When the POPS system being two PORV's as 7

described in the tech specs and tha't system having two 8

redundant operated valves when you learned that one of 9

those valves alone could not mitigate the effects of the 10 over pressure transient and you had to rely on the RH3 11 valve, was that not a condition outside of the design 12 basis?

13 A

We were and that is why I wrote the IR the 14 initial IR.

15 O

That would be in April of '94?

16 A

That is correct.

17 Q

Okay.

18 A

We were looking at whether or not we could or we 19 couldn't credit RH3.

So we had some reasonable assurance.

20 If we could credit RH3 we would be okay.

We knew that,RH3 21 was available. The question was could we or couldn't we 22 not credit it.

We looked at that and said no we couldn't 23 credit RH3 but we also were looking at again how we 24 operate the plant with the bubble in the pressurizer and l

25 in the May time frame when Mechanical issued their l

l NEAL R. GROSS COUAT REPOATERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS l

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W I

(202) 2344433 wASHtNGTON. D C 20005 (202) 234 4433 i

= _..

22 1

response, we did not take credit for RH3.

We.took credit 2

for the bubble in the pressurizer which still showed-that 3

one PORV was adequate assuming a single failure.

4 Q

Okay.

At what point were discussions initiated 5

about changing what mass addition should be assumed for 6

this system?

7 A

I think I initiated discussions with regard to 8

that in the end of August of '94.

9 Q

Okay.

10 A

And the way that I came up with that there was a 11 change to the ECCS tech spec where they modified the 12 maximum flow rates associated with the SI pumps.

13 Q

Which SI pumps?

14 A

Both high head and intermediate head SI pumps.

15 Both flow rates changed.

16 Q

Okay.

17 A

As part of that license amendment and the subsequent SER, we basically said k, e 18-POPS is okay.

The 19 origin &l-analysis that wa.s done assumed a flow rate of

+f 20 1.1.ke 780 GPM but the new tech specs had flow rates in the 21 560 range for the high head pump and 675 range for the 22 intermediate head pumps.

I went back to Mechanical and I 23 asked them why are we using a flow rate of 780 GPM. The 24 flow rates that are in the tech specs which are the 25 maximum. flow rates that you can have that are balanced so NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS '

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W C02) 7344433 WASHINGTON, D C 2000$

(202) 234 4433

~

a t

1 that that is the most that you can have injecting into the 2

core.

Why can't we consider those flows.

That basically 3

started the discussion with going back and considering

-4 those flow rates as part of the issue, 5

Q Okay.

During that time ---

6 A

I think we need to go back a little bit.

You 7

missed a point in time on one of the issues.

8 O

Okay.

9 A

During the summer I was reviewing the calc that 10 was done to support a license change to include RH3.

We 11-wanted to add RH3 to give us back additional flexibility.

12 When I was looking at that cale and that cale had an 13 assumption that contradicted the assumptions that l

14 Mechanical had made in the May 26th letter, 15 The May 26th letter said you don't run the RCP's in a i

16.

water solid condition. You always have a bubble in the 17 pressurizer. The analysis that Mechanical had done indicated that what would occur is the PORV's would open, 18 19 the POPS would open. The pressurizer would eve'tually go 20 solid and at that point in time you could have an RCP

. 21 running.

You can't do that.

22 If you are telling me that that is true, then we are l

23 back to where we were in the April time frame in the April l

24 May time frame that we were again outside of the design 25 basis.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 ACOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 23m33

34 l'

1 Q

At that April time frame that you are referring 2

to, that was really the same position you were in in 3

December of '93 wasn't it?

4 A

That is correct.

5 0

okay.

So at that point in the middle of the 6

summer you recognized that you did in fact need to 7

consider the reactor coolant system being solid and the 8

start of the reactor coolant pump?

9 A

We needed to consider that an RCP would be in 10 service with a bubble in the pressurizer and if you had a 11 mass addition transient that the bubble would eventually 12 be bled out as the POPS opened and closed as they cycled.

13 And in order to address that we had Mechanical go back and 24 initiate a problem report which is the equivalent of DEF 15 and also to go back and re-analyze it assuming realistic 16 flow rates, the centrifugal charging pump which is the 17 high head and the intermediate head charging pump to 18 determine whether or not we would still be within the 19 design basis.

20 0

okay.

So that was the problem report was issued 21 when?

22 A

It was in September at some point in time.

The 23 problem report was issued on 9/2h /..

24 Q

Is this a copy of the problem report that you 25 are referring to?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (22 2M4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 234 4433

=_

_ ~__ _ ____

2!

1-A That is correct.

2 o

okay.

So it was really at the 9/27/94 time 3

frame that you went back and decided tc do what you are 4

. calling more realistic mass addition rates?

5 A

Yes, that is correct.

6 O

And how did you as an engineer in the licensing 7

area reconcile making that change given what information 8

you could gain from your research into the original 9

licensing basis for that' system.

What I am getting at Ken 10

.is I would like to know how you can -- what you felt was 11 necessary in order to change the assumptions that went 12 into that POPS analysis?

13 MR. WETTERHAHN:

Do you understand the question?

14 THE WITNESS: Yes.

What we did we were looking at the plant operating procedures.

The operating 15 16 procedures required that the SI pump be tagged out.

The 17 intermediate head SI pump be tagged.out.

Based on that we 18 said the vorse mass addition transient that could occur 19 would be the injection of a centrifugal charging pump with 20 a flow rate a max flow rate by tech specs of 560 GPM the 21 way we currently operate the plant.

Mechanical went back 22-and documented their evaluation of that mass additional i

23 transient in the problem report and again at that point we 24 were still within the design basis.

25 In other wcrds the way we operated the plant the NEAL R. GROSS COURT RFPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE SSLAND AVENVE. N W -

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 902) 2344433

26 I

worse case mass addition transient that we would have 2

would be a centrifugal charging pump and based on that 3

flow rate, we would still be within the POPS design basis 4

even assuming a single failure.

5 BY MR. McDERMOTT:

6 O

Okay.

To your recollection was there any 7

conversation at that point in time regarding PSE&G's 8

defense approach that used procedural and administrative 9

controls to limit which equipment could inject into the 10 vessel?

11.

A No, not at all.

We were just concerned and that 12 was the way we operated the plant.

13 0

Okay.

14 A

Why would we have to assume the additional flows 15 associated with the intermediate head SI pump.

16 0

Based on your review of the background documents 17 on POPS, what SI pump did it appear was used in the 18 original evaluation?

19 A

Probably intermediate head SI pump.

Again the 20 original evaluation had a flow rate of 760 GPM. Now we are 21 looking at a flow rate of 560 GPM. So I would have to say 22 based on the original 1977 analysis that they were looking 23 at the worse case.

l 1

24 0

Ken, what I would like you to do for me is take l

25 a look at the safety evaluation related to amendment NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 2M4433 WASHINGTON. O C 20005 (202) 234 4433

21 1

number 24.that'we discussed a few moment ago. In 2-particular if you could for me just take a look at the i

3-section-on page eight that is labeled operating 4

procedures.

5 MR. WETTERHAHN - Why don't we start at the 6

beginning.

Take a look and make sure you understand the 7

context.

8 THE WITNESS: I have seen this.

9 MR. WETTERHAHN:

Okay.

10 THE WITNESS: Okay.

11 BY MR. McDERMOTT:

12 O

Did the -- and this section just for che record 13 discusses precedural controls that were reviewed in the 14 exiginal safety evaluation that were part of a defense in 15 d.c o approach adopted by PSE&G for this.

Did the 16 procedural controls that you reviewed during the period of 17 time we are talking about here kind of determine which 18 pumps injected.

Did those procedural controls were they 19 any more restrictive than the ones discussed in this 20 evaluation?

21 A

No, not at all.

22 Q

So they appear to be the same type of procedural 23 controls not running the reactor coolant pump without a

.- 2 4 bubble in the pressurizer and removing power from both 25 safety injection pumps below 350.

They were the same type NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 2344433

26 1

of procedural. controls that-.were in place when you-did 9

t 2

this. review?

3 A

That is right.: They are the-same procedure 4

controls that we were taking credit for during the 5

process.

QSo it appears to me you are telling me 6

that you changed the design ba_ss mass addition transient 7

that would be useo to evaluate the system.

The original 8

bases included the intermediate head pump.

The revised 9

bases are now including the high head.

10 A

That is right because we did go back and change 11-the tech spec basis to clarify which pumps are going to be 12 in operation.

23 O

And you were doing this in the September time 14 frame?

15 A

Well, we didn't change the bases until for unit 16 two until December.

17 Q

But this was all being considered in your 18 evaluation to know that the system was operable; correct?

19 A

That is correct.

20 0

And that was in the September time frame.

21 A

Okay I would say yes you are probably right.

22-Again we didn't recognize that that piece of paper exisced 23 until the December time frame end that it when we changed 24 the bases for-unit two.

25 Q

So in ---

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (2C2) 2344433 W AbHINGTON. O C. 2000$

(202) 234 4433

25 1

A Like I said the first time I saw that piece of 2

paper was when you were here doing I guess you had some 3

involvement back when we notified the N.R.C. on the 4

problem with unit one when you were doing the inspection.

5 I think the result of you raising that question was the 6

change to the bases for unit two so that we would -- so we 7

would limit just the centrifugal and a PDP and that was a 8

result of I think a question that you had raised in l

9 discussions that were raised between the N.R.C. and PS.

10 Q

I am not sure that I followed that, but I don't 11 know that I need to comment on that at this point.

What I 12 am trying to understand ---

13 MR. WETTERHAHN:

Do you want to explain that a 14 little further?

15 THE WITNESS: I thought his question was that wa 16 knew back in September that we were changing the design 17 bases based on that document and I am saying no we didn't 18 recognize that we were changing the design bases by 19 crediting the flow rates associated with just the 20 centrifugal charging pump back in September because we 21 didn't know that that document existed.

22 BY MR. McDERMOTT:

23 Q

Okay.

24 A

It wasn't that clear cut to us what we were 25 doing that it was actually like a design basis change that NEAL R. GROSS l

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (2C2) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 2344 433

3C' 1

. required a tech spec change in order to take credit for 2

the centrifugal charging pump.

We didn't recognize that 3

until the December time frame.

1 4

Q What documents were you using to figure out what 5

the. bases was with the system?

We were using tech 'pec flow rates and look4.ng 6

A s

7 at the same. It says injection of a safety injection pump 8

and we said well obviously if the SI pump :.s tagged then 9

.the worse case is the centrifugal.

10 Q

okay, In your review did you ever and I don't 11 have a copy in front of me but the calculations that did 12 the original evaluation for the pump system, are you 13 familiar with the calculations I am referring to?

14 A

Yes.

15 0

And in your review of that calculation or when 16 did you review that calculation?

(

17 A

I received a copy of it in the February t.ime i

l 18 frame February of '94 time frame when the problem 19 originally arose.

l 20 0

And to the best of your recollection ia that i

21 document does it indicate which pump is assumed to be 22 injecting?

23 A

Actually it has an SI pump idsntified.

Could I 24 look to see which pump.

25 MR. McDERMOTT:

Do we have document available?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS H

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

. (202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON. O C. 2000$

(202) 234 4 433

31 1

MR. WETTEPHAHN:

Should have it.

2 THE WITNESS: Sure.

r 3

MR. LOGAN:- We are going to go off the record-4 for a minute.

5 (Discussion off the record.)

6 MR. LOGAN:

Back on the record. Go ahead.

Mr.

7 O'Gara, you were looking for that. document.

Lo you have a 8

copy of it?

9 THE WITNESS: No, I don't have a copy of it.

10 BY MR. McDERMOTT:

11 Q

What I was trying to establish Ken was whether 12 or not you had other technical information available that 13 would have led you to the conclusion that it was 14 intermediate head safety injection pump tTat was assumed i

15 to inject in the original design basis mass additional 16 transien's.

l 17 A

Yes just based on the flow rate assumed in the l

18 cale.

19 Q

So when the decision was made to change what 20 flow rate was assumed for.the system, did you consider 21 that to be a change in the design basis?

22

- A No,-we didn't at that point.

i 23 0

-Is there some reason why that would not be 24 considered a change to the design basis?

i 25 A

I. don't think the basis actually. specifies one t-l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W m 23u433 WASHINGTON. D.C 20005 (202) 2344433

,,n-

+

3 1

or the other SI pumps. So like I said'at that point in 2

time.we were just saying well the basis doesn't'specify 3'

what pump and this is the way we operate.

This is the way 4

we run the plant which is already by approved procedures 5

we should be able to credit.

There is no reason why we 6

would be outside of our design basis.

The procedures ---

7 Q

There was no additional research that was 8

necessary to determine if that was acceptable within your 9-licensing basis?

10 A

No, we didn't look that deep.

11.

Q If there were a change to the design basis, what 12 would have to be done in order to approve that change?

13 A

It would require either an 50.59 or depending 14 upon how the 50.59 was completed it might even require a 15

. license change.

16 Q

And to your knowledge was a 50.59 review done in 17 the september time frame?

18 A

No, it wasn't.

19 BY MR. LOGAN:

20 0

-Why?

21 A

We didn't recognize the fact that we were 22 changing the design basis.

All we were doing was taking 23 credit. for the way we currently operate the plant.

24 MR McDERMOTT:

That is all the questions I have 25 for the moment.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433

l 32 l

1 MR. LOGAN:

Off the record.

2 (Discussion off the record.)

3 MR. LOGAN:

Back on the record.

Brian.

m 4

MR. McDERMOTT:

Okhy Ken, I just have a couple 5

more questions here and we will be done.

6 BY MR. McDERMOTT:

7 Q

Can you just briefly go back to the January '94 8

time when you said the DEF was considered.

Why again was 9

that DEF not issued?

10 A

This -- when I first got involved with the issue 11 back in the January February time frame, it appeared that 12 a DEF would be required and then I started having 13 d;scussions with Mechanical Engineering Mahesh Danak and 14 that is when the issue with kH3 first came up and they 15 felt that a DEF wasn't required because we could credit 16 RH3.

So it was a new issue and something else that needed 17 to be pursued.

18 Q

Okay.

So the DEF would not be used to track the 19 inclusion of RH3 in the POPS scheme or is that not 20 normally how things are done?

21 A

Well, we weren't even sure we had a deficiency 22 at that point if we could credit RH3.

23 Q

How are engineering -- potential engineering 24 deficiencies tracked?

25 A

It could have been tracked through the OEF NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSORIBER$

1323 RHOOE LSLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4433 WASH:NGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433

34 1 i process'something along those lines.

2 0

So it is not necessarily tracked only through 3

the DEF process.

4 A

That is correct.

5 Q

Was it being tracked by one of the other systems 6

at that point do you know?

7 A

I don't recall.

8 Q

Okay.

The next thing I would like you to take a 9

look at Ken is a memorandum from Dave Smith to Jerry 10 Ranalli dated September 28, 1994.

At the end of this 11 memorandum ---

12 MR. WETTERHAHN:

Let's make sure that we get the 13 same one.

14 MR. McDERMOTT:

Certainly.

15 BY MR. McDERMOTT:

16 Q

I would like to know if Ken is familier with 17 that memorandum?

18 A

Yes I wrote it.

19 Q

Okay.

On page three item one discusses e 20 recently completed calculation and car. you tell us what 21 that calculation indicated?

22 A

Yes.

That calc was completed by Nuclear 23 Engineering Sciences to support adding RH3 to the tech 24 specs.

25 Q

Okay.

During the April the 20th or 21st meeting NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AVO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 FtHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON. O C 20005 (202) 2344433

3'~

~1 in 1994 2-MR WETTERRAHN:

Why don't we find out what 3

date.

4 BY MR. WETTEhrIAHN:

5 O

Do you recall--the date of that April meeting?

6 A

I think it was the date that I wrote the IR.

7 Q

Can you further identify it by date?

8 MR. LOGAN:

Let me ask this.

9 BY MR. LOGAN:

10 Q

Do you have a copy of the IR that you prepared?

11-A Yes.

12 O

ry you have a copy that we can take with us.

13 MR. WETTERHAHN:

I will transmit it to you.

l 14' BY MR. LOGAN:

15 O

Can you give us a copy to look at today?

i 16 A

Sure.

17 MR. LOGAN:

We would like to look at it.

Off i

18 the reccrd.

19 (Discussion off the record.)

'20 MR. LOGAN:

Back on the record.

Go ahead.

21 BY MR. McDERMOTT:

i 1-

. 22-Q-

Okay Ken, during that April meeting-I understand L23 that there was some discussion about some calculations-24 which were being requested of Mechanical Engineering.

Do l

25 you recall what specifically those calculations were to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

.,(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20006 (202) 234 4433

3(

1

-show?-

2 A

No.

I_would have to go back and look at the DEF i

3 that was written tc see if there-was a cale referenced or 4

numbers referenced before I could answer that.

5 BY MR. LOGAN:

6 Q

Do you have a copy of that DEF?

7 A

Yes.

8 Q

If you could identify the DEF uat you are 9

looking at.

10 A

The DEF number is 94-0060 and the DEF indicates 11 that initial 2nalysis completed taking credit for RH3 to 12 provide peak pressure for mass input case such that 13 current tech specs can be met without the use of the code 14 case.

15 BY MR. McDERMOTT:

16_

Q Okay.

So the calculations that were expected to 17 follow that April meeting were to show that the tech specs 18 could be met with the inclusion of RH3; is that correct?

19 A

Yes.

20 0

Okay. At the time of that meeting, what was your 21 understanding of the capability _of a single PORV to

_ 22 mitigate the mass addition transient?

23 A

It couldn't be met.

We went back to the 24 original analysis back to 1977 where if you added the 23 reactor coolant pump differential to the original analysis NEAL R. GROSS f

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005.

(202) 234-44'33

. ~ -.

3' 1

results'you would have exceeded the PT limits.

2 Q

And there were no further detailed calculations 3

necessary to verify that?

4 A

Not that I had seen e.t that poiat.

5 Q

Did you think they were necessary to verify 6

that?

7 A

Yes, they would be sure. To make that statement 8

in the DEF obviously there harl to have been something done 9

to support that statement.

So I would say yes you are 10 right there should have been some sort of calc done at 11 some point in time that indicated that RH3 was acceptable.

12 Q

Perhaps I didn't state my question clearly.

At 13 the time of the April meeting was there any question as to 14 whether or not a single PORV by itself would be able to 15 mitigate the transient?

16 A

No. Based on the information that wu had the one 17

?ORV would not be enough-18 MR. McDERMOTT:

Thank you.

19 MR. LOGAN:

If we could go off the record long 20 enough to copy those and then we will discuss them.

21 (Discussion off the record.)

22 MR. LOGAN:

Back on the record.

23 BY MR. LOGAN:

24 O

Mr. O'Gara, you had an opportunity during the 25 break to review and copy some documents for us.

l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRAN$CRIBERS

{

1323 RHODE LSLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433

~ _

4 3E 1

A Yes, sir.

2 O

Could you please identify those documents.

3.

A' These documents are three versions of a draft 4

incident report that I had'vritten.

The first version ---

5 Q

Let's start on page one.

What is on page one?

6 A

Pageoneisanincidentreportformin

1. pt 7

accordance with our procedure P 6.

8 Q

And that would be the cover sheet for the actual 9

incident report?

10 A

That is correct.

11.

O And that is what you can describe next the three 12 incident report versions and they are each two pages?

13 A

Yes.

14 Q

Please continue.

15 A

The first is an initial draft that I had 16 developed. The second version is a version that formed the 17 basis for a meeting on April 20th and the third version 18 includes changes that I had made based on discussion that 19 had taken place during the April 20th meeting as well as 20 research that I had subsequently performed.

21 Q

And when you said the second version was a 22 document that you had prepared for a meeting, you 23 indicated earlier in this interview that you prepared the 24 document, sent it to some individuals and also passed it 25 out at the meeting to each of those present. Is that the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

G02) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433

35-1 document that you were speaking about earlier?

2 A

Yes.

3 O

And that is a two page document exclusive of the 4

cover sheet.and it starts Westinghouse idencified in a 5

letter PSE 93-047 6

A Yes.

7 Q

And ---

i 8

MR. WETTERHAHN:

For clarificatio.

9 BY MR. WETTERHAHN:

il-10 Q

You circulated a 1 among people.

There are i

11 three versions and the first ma k in the upper right

@*lf

$E 12 hand corner April 20 ap:aph.

Is that the one you 1

13 circulated?

14 A

No.

i 15 0

The second one is marked April 20th meeting MTG 16.

in the upper right hand corner. Is that the one you 17 circulated?

18 A

Yes.

19 BY MR. LOGAN:

20 0

But those markings are placed-on the documents 21

!for purpose of this interview.

What; I was trying to get 22 to was the contents of the document itself. We have talked about the first page starting off Westinghouse identified.

23 24 At the bottom the last page on that first page is l

l 25 appendix; is that correct?-

NEAL R. GROSS count asmiras ANDin*Nscaietas I

1323 ah00E ISLAND AvfNUE, N W (202) 234-4433 '

WASHINGtDN. D C. 20005 c.2) 234M33

40 1

A Yes.

2 Q

The first word on the second page leads off with 3

the letter G and the last word on the second page is 1

4 purposes; is that correct?

I 5

A Yes.

t 6

MR. LOGAN:

Okay. Thank you, i

?

MR. WETTERHt.HN:

You were reading from the one

}

8 marked in the upper right hand corner ---

i 9

MR. LOGANt Meeting..

10 MR. WETTERHAHN:

April 20 meeting.

l t

11 MR. LOGAN:

That is correct.

12 BY MR. McDERMOTT:

1 13 Q

Ken, could you just kind of like highlight for 14 us what the major difference was between the one that was 15 discussed at the April 20th meeting and the one that you t

16 have labeled in the upper right hand corner subsequent to 17 4/20 meeting.

18 A

The significant difference is the addition of-I 19 tue second to. he last paragraph on page two and deletior 20 of the last paragraph from the earlier version.

21 Q

so that I understand that in what I will call 22 your draft subsequent to the 4/20 meeting you added a h

_23 discussion regarding RHR relief valve RH3 and you deleted 24' a statement from the dratt that was discussed at the 1

25 meeting which concluded that-Salem one and two are l

. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRSERS ~

.1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W, (20h 2344433.

WASH:NGtDN, D C. 20005

- (702) 2344433

.~.

43 I

considered outside their design basis per 50.72 (d) (1) (ii) 2 for reporting p rposes?

3 A

Yes and the discussion that we added had to do 4

with the deletion of the autoclosure interlocks for RH1 5

and 2.

6 Q

Okay.

In that discussion you talk about planf'~g), b" 7

specific submittals that were reviewed by the N.R.C.

in 8

support of licent.e amendments 95 and 71 for the Salem 9

units.

Were those amendments -- are those changes done 10 relative to the DOPS technical specifications?

i 11 A

No, I don't think so.

12 O

In fact your second draft did you conclude that 13 the system was outside of its design basis.

Was that 14 based on the paragraph that you added?

15 MR. WETTERHAHN:

Do you understand the question?

16 THE WITNESS: Yes I understand the question.

At 17 that point we weren't sure if it was reportable or not.

18 There wasn't a one to one correlation to it.

It was just 19 something that I added and I wanted Engineering to finish 20 their further evaluation before we concluded anything with 21 regard to whether or not an IR would be required.

In 1

22 other words it was deleted but it still didn't close the 23 book on whether or not the issue was reportable or not. It 24 was all pending completion of the further evaluation by 25 Engineering.

NEAL R. GROSS i

COURT REPORTERS MD TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W r

(202) 234 4433 WASHtNGTON. D C 20006 (202) 234 4433

e 43 1

BY MR. McDERMOTT:

2 0

Okay.

And what was that further evaluation to 3

do?

4 A

Looking at running with the bubble in the 5

pressurizer if you notice there is no discussion at all 6

with regard to that here and t' hat was one of the topics e f 1

7 our conversation at the April 20th meeting.

8 Q

so that the topic of whether or not this issue 9

wa reportable to the N.R.C.

was discussed at that April 10 20th meeting?

11 A

The topic of whether or not we were outside of 12 our design basis was discussed.

The final decision on 13 reportability is made by the shift.

We would obviously 14 propose a recommendation yes.

15 0

Was the shift aware of this?

16 A

No, they weren't.

17 0

Was there some specific reason why they were not 18 informed?

19 A

No.

20 BY MR. LOGAN:

21 Q

Whose decision would it have been to inform 22 them?

23 A

It would have been through the IR.

The IR goes 24 to the shift and then they would evaluate the issue and l

25 make a decision with regard to reportability.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1373 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W GA 2344433 wASHtNGTON. D C 20005 (202) F344433 r

~ ' '

a 42 1

1 Q

And who made the decision not to send the IR 2

forward?

3 A

It was the consensus of the meeting.

4 BY MR. WETTERHA10h t

5 O

Did you agree with that decision?

1 6

A At the time yes.

l 4

1 7

BY MR. LOGAN:

t 8

Q Do you still agree with that?

{

f 9

A Probably -- probably within a week or two 10 following the meeting I remember having discussions with 11 Dave Smith and those discussions were with regard to 12 whether or not we really could take credit for RH3 as part 13 of the design basis and at some point between the time that Mechanical issued their May 26th letter and our April 14 4

15 20th meeting I know the.t we informed them that we couldn't 16 take credit for RH3 as part of the design basis.

I 17 remember that taking place.

18 So at the time of the meeting I said yes I was in 19 agreement with the decisions, but probably within a week 20 or two after that once we recognized that you couldn't 21 take credit for RH3, obviously we were at a position at 22 that point where depending upon how Engineering completes 23 their final evaluation if they credit RH3 we are back into 24 -

IR and being outside of the design basis.

25 Q

Let me ask this questien.

What happens if --

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRSERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENVE. N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C 20006 (202) 234M

44

,j 1,

what is the down side to just sending in your IR to shift.

s I

2

\\ s. there a drawback.

Is.there some-hesitation.

What is I

i 3-the down side of this.

When in doubt, send it to the

\\

4 shift.

5 A

We weren't in doubt at that point.

We had a 6

reasonable assurance, that based on what Engineering was i

7 telling us that we would be okay.

We also knew that we 1

i 8

would-have an opportunity at some other point in time i

9-following that meeting that if we did indeed conclude that 10 we were outside the design basis and we couldn't take i

11*

credit for RH3 or we couldn't take credit for running the 12 RCP's or the bubble in the pressurizer, then obviously we s

13 would initiate the paperwork and send it on at that point.

14 so we were allowing and giving Engineering the opportunity 15

'to complete their further evaluation and review of the 16 issue and we also had reasonable assurance at that point 17 in time that we were okay that we were operable.

\\

18 Q

But two weeks later you said you had your 19 doubts.

i 20 A

.Yes, i

21 Q

Why didn't you send the IR through then?

22 A

Because they were finalizing their letter and 23 indicated to run the RCP's with a bubble in the

-24 pressurizer and you would be able to satisfy.the pressure i

25 temperature limits.

There was-a draft of that letter that NEAL R. GROSS :

COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCRitERS

(

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

GMm 2344433 w ASHINGT0*. D C. 20006 CP02) 2344433.-

, _.... _. _, _. _.., _.. _... _ _.,,..... _ _,, 2

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

I 43 I

was provided to us at some point in time before it was -

l 2

issued.

i 3

i 4

BY MR. McDERMOTT.:

l 4

5 Q

Who whose decision is it to take credit for the 6

bubble in the pressurizer.

Is it Engineering or is that a 7

license matter?

8 A

Essentially both of ours but we were looking at 9

it and saying Engineering provide us with the 10 justification. They need to document it in response to the 11 DEF that they had written.

So we felt comfortable that we j

12 could probably take credit for running the RCP's with the i

13 bubble in the pressurizer.

That is the way the tech specs 14 were written.

15 MR. WETTERHAHN:

Let me just follow up on that.

16 MR. LOGAN:

Sure.

i s

17 BY MR. WETTERHAHN:

18 Q

You said that several weeks afterwards you had a 19 hesitation about whether an IR would or.should have been 20 issued or-whether there was a technical issue outstanding 21 after the April 20th meeting.

Do you recall that exchange i

22 a few minutes ago?

23 A

Yes.

I indicated that we -- my supervisor and I i

24 discussed taking credit for RH3 and agreed that we 25 couldn't take credit for RH3 as part of our design basis.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT MEPORTEmS AND TRANSCM18ERS 1323 MHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W

.-(20h 2344433 WASHH3 TON, O C 2000$

(202) 2344433 I

44 i

1 O_

Would your concern have gone away if Engineering 2

came back with an analysis that didn't rely on RH3?

3 A

Yes and. hat is exactly what they did.

They did

[

4 not -- the final evaluation the letter that they had

)

5 issued on May 26th did not take credit for RH3 at all. It 6

took credit for the bubble in the pressurizer and I think 7

they also took credit for a preliminary calculation that 8

was done using the Gothic Code which also indicated that 9

two POPS would be sufficient with a bubble in the 10 pressurizer.

11 The reason that they did that is because there wang p,\\n\\

question with regard to exceeding the PT limits by QOf PSI 12 13 and we discussed that.7 and based on using the Gothic 14 Computer Code, Engineering indicated that there was a 15 sufficient margin. Although the numbers were greater than 16 the pressure temperature limits, preliminary calca using 17 the Gothic Computer Code indicated that we were okay.

18 MR. WETTERIMHN:

That is all.

19 BY MR. McDERMOTT 20 Q

Ken, when Engineering came back with the letter 21 that stated taking credit for the bubble in the 22 pressurizer that we were discussing, what was licensing's d

23 view of that?

jn go\\

W6 24 A

They had a question with regard to the.7 PSI 25 that exceeded the unit one pressure temperature limits.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSentetRs 1323 RHODE t$ LAND AVENUE, N W.

(702)2H4433 -

WASHsNGTON, O C. 20005 902) 2M4433

41 1

Q Okay. Was there any question raised about 2

whether or not taking credit for the bubble was 3

appropriate?

4 A

No.

5 BY MR. LOGAN:

6 Q

Ken, I have two documents heret.

They are both 7

from Mr. Lashkari. One is dated April 22, 1994 to John 8

Morrison manager of Salem Technical Department.

The 9

second one is dated January 30, 1994 to the Technical 10 Department manager.

They are each two pages. I would like 11 you to look at them if you will and tell me if you have 12 seen them before.

13 (Pause while witness reviews the document.)

14 MR. WETTERHAHN:

Let's -- can we identify the 15 letter and answer as best as you can.

16 THE WITNESS:

I haven't seen attachment number 17 two.

18 BY MR. LOGAN:

19 Q

Which is dated?

l 20 A

April 22nd.

21 Q

1994.

The second one is dated January 30, 1994.

l 22 A

I have seen this but not this version of it.

I 23 Q

okay.

And how did you see that?

24 A

It was part of the original fax that Charlie had 1

25 sent to me on January 25, 1994 as part of the initiation i

NEAL R. GROSS COL /HT REPORTERS AND TRAN$0RIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) FM4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 234 4433

4E 1

of the issue.

+

2 Q

Do you still have that fax that he sent to you?

j 6

3 A

Yes, I do.

l 4

Q Do you have it with you.

5 MR. LOGAN:

Let's go off the record.

l 6

(Discussion off the record.)

g 7

MR. LOGAN:

Back on the record 4 8

BY MR. LOGAN:

9 Q

Mr. O'Gara, you said you were going to check and 10 see if you had a copy of a fax that Mr. Lashkari sent to 3

11 you.

Were you able to find one?

12 A

Yes, I do have a copy.

13 Q

And is the document that I showed you the two 14 page document included with the items that Mr. Lashkari 15 faxed to you?

16 A

A version with some editorial changes.

17 Q

Not the same document but a similar version?

18 A

That is correct.

I 19 Q

Can you tell us for the record what is the i

20 difference in the one that you received from Mr. Lashkari 21 and the one that I presented to you?

22 A

There are several editorial changes. The 23 addressee on the version that you gave me is to the Tech.

24 Department manager.

The version that I received a fax of

_ as addressed to the Vice-President Nuclear Operations.

25 w

- NEAL' R. GROSS

{

count mEcoatens ANo in4Nscaetas 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVEN JE. N W (200 2344433 -

WASHtNGTON. O C 2000$

(202) 2344433

[

~ - -

45 1

The version that I was originally faxed does not have --

2 it does not identify the person from or a date.

3 0

Okay.

4 A

The first paragraph of the version that you gave 5

me includes the statement "EWR was written to me and PB to 6

evaluate this concern."

The version that you gave to me 7

has a new paragraph that reads " Based on above concerns 8

the N.R.C. issue info notice IN-93-58 which shows similar 9

concern has been reported to the N.R.C. by Byron Zion, 10 Diablo Canyon, Kewanee, Sequoyah and Point Beach.

11 Q

And the one that you received from Mr. Lashkari 12 does not have that paragraph?

13 A

No, it does not.

14 Q

Go ahead.

15 A

The nt+.t paragraph has several editorial changes 16 made to us minor wording changes.

17 Q

Do they affect the significance or the 18 conclusions?

19 A

No, it does not.

And the last paragraph is 20 identical.

21 O

And the date of the receipt by you of that 22 document from Mr. Lashkari is what?

23 A

I received this on 1/25/34 and that is l

24 identified by the fax markings.

l

-25 Q

And the date on the document that I presented to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTEQ.ND TRANSCR$ERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(2Q 2M433 WASHINGTON. O C 2000$

(202) 234 4433.

SC 1

you was what?

2 A

January 30, 1994.

3 Q

So it would appear that the one that you were 4

presented with by me may well be a later version of that 5

document?

6 A

Yes, that is correct.

7 MR. LOGAN:

Brian, do you have any questions 8

about that or anything else you want to look into?

9 MR. McDERMOTT:

Mr. Wetterhahn, can we look at 10 that for a second?

11 MR. WETTERHAHN:

Sure.

12 MR. LOGAN:

Do you have any q.lestions?

13 BY MR. McDERMOTT:

14 Q

Ken, do you know if this letter that was faxed 15 to you was also delivered to anyone else?

16 A

I am not aware if it was sent to anyone else.

17 BY MR. LOGAN:

18 O

The markings on the front of this that says or 19 appears to say first draft and that is the letter that was 20 faxed to you by Mr. Lashkari, is that your marking or was 21 that on the letter when you received it?

22 A

That is not my markings.

23 Q

Do you recall whether or not it was there when 24 you received it?

25 A

I have the original of that. I could check.

NEAL P GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 10NSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE..' W (202) 234 4 33 W ASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 2344433

.. _.. m _.

j l

51 1

Q okay.

Before you check, you are'not sure?

2 A

That is not my handwriting.

l 3

o What about the markings in the upper right hand-j 4

side. Are those your markings?_

5 A

That is my handwriting yes.

6 O

And what was it that you wrote on that document?

7 A

I wrote a note to myself that says "Was this 8

ever sent to Joe Hagan who was the VP of Nuclear Ops I a

9 think at the time and "has management been informed has an

-i 10 IR/DEF been written."

11 Q

And did you ever receive any answer to those 12 questions?

13 A

Just pursing the IR/DFF.

I can't answer the 14 first two qacations.

i i

15 0

I would like to talk to you again about that 16 April meeting.

You had indicated that there were several 17 individuals there. Can you recount for me who was present 18 and from what organization?

l 19 A

Frank Thomson manager of licensing and 20 regulation, Rick Villar station licensing engineer, Dave 21 Smith principle engineer in nuclear licensing, Mahesh

-22 Danak E&PB Mechanical Engineering, V.J.

Chandra E&PB 23 Nuclear Engineering Science, Howard Berrick-E&PB 24 Mechanical Engineering I think Howard is the-supervisor 25 and Jerry Ranalli. Like I said I think Jerry was present.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS -

i 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUC, N W.

(202) 2344433 -

WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202) 234 4433

1 l

5 1

He is the Mechanical Engineering manager.

2 Q

How during this meeting did you hear anyone 3

discuss any ramifications and by that I mean if we issue 4

this incident report the plant will have to shut down?

5 A

No.

6 Q

Did you hear anyone discuss the comparative 7

costs of shutting down costing a million dollars a day 8

versus being fined by the N.R.C. $200,000?

9 A

No.

10 Q

Did you ever hear anything similar to that or 11 like that remotely similar to that?

12 A

I heard Frank Thomson indicate that based on the 13 fact that we had reaconable assurance that POPS was 14 operable that he was relieved that we didn't have to send 15 the IR to the control room and that there wasn't an 16 operability issue involved wj; h the POPS. I don't remember 17 the exact words, but it was long those lines.

18 Q

Okay.

19 A

There was a lot of things going on following the 20 April 7th event.

21 O

Was the N.R.C. AIT team still at the site when 22 this meeting was going on?

23 A

I don't recall.

L4 Q

Have you ever heard anybody and it doesn't have 25 to be the people at this meeting.

Did you ever hear NEAL R. GROSS COUAT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1373 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. O C 20005 (202) 2344433

53 1

anyone in jest talk about the significance of fines versus 2

the penalty of shutting down and say hey we can operate 3

another six or seven days and save $7 million but hey if 4

we get caught it is only a couple of grand.

Did you ever 5

hear any sort of -- over a couple of beers you never heard 6

that said?

7 A

Ho.

8 0

I am sure you will hear it now that we have 9

discussed it.

Is there anything e'se that you can tell A

10 us about the POPS issue that we haven't talked about 11 today?

12 MR. WETTERHAHN:

Can you,-- I just had a 13 question.

14 BY MR. WETTER 1UdlN:

15 0

You spoke about your interaction with Charlie 16 Lashkari on a number of issues.

What was his involvement 17 to the best of your knowledge on this issue starting with 18 your phone call?

19 A

As the system engineer, we were keeping him 20 informed on what the status of the issue was and the 21 ongoing discussions that we were having with Mechanical 22 Engineering to try to resolve the issue.

23 0

Was he a participant in those discussions?

24 A

Yes, he was.

In fact he was involved with a 25 couple of meetings that took place in the May June time NEAL R. GROSS count nroonitRs AND TRANSCR$(R$

1223 nwoot asuNo avtNUE. N W (202) 2344433 WASH NGToN D C 20006 (202) 2344433 1

4 54 i

1 frame or at least I think one meeting that he was involved 2

in in the May June time frame.

l 3

MR. LOGAN:

On the POPS issue?

I 4

THE WITNESS: On the POPS issue.

l 1

5 BY MR. WETTERHAHN:

6 0

Did he express at a' meeting or otherwise to you-t 7

any disagreement with the way it was being handled with i

8 the technical way?

9 A

No.

I thought at one of those meetings we 10 talked about the 50.7 PSI issue that he was involved in. I 11 know that.

12 Q

Do you remember any comments that he may have 13 made?

14 A

I can't think of anything negative that he said.

(

15 I can't think getting up and walking out of there and 16 everyone not being satisfied with the resolution.

17 Q

So he wasn't opposed to any of the technical 18 pathways taken?

19 A

No.

20 BY MR. LOGAN:

21 Q

By_the same token to recall him being openly in 22 agreement with the decisions reached?

23 A

I couldn't say that either.

24 Q

So he was silent on the issue?

25 A

I just. don't recall but I remember that I 1

NEAL R. GROSS i

COURT RE*0RTERS AND TRANSCR$ERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENVE, N.W..

i (202) 2M4433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005 (202) 2M4433

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

5!

f I

thought we had the issue resolved as a group when we left

[

i 2

that meeting.

I can't recall if he ever specifically said 3

that ---

4 0

One way or the other?

5 A

one way or the other yes.

i i

6 BY MR. WETTERHAHN:

I 7

0 Was Charlie at the April 20th meeting?

8 A

No, he was not.

9 0

Did you have any contact with him on that date?

l 10 A

I recall I probably did yes.

11 0

Did you ask him to stand by at that meeting do 12 you recall?

13 A

I remember that I had given a draft copy of the l

14 IR to various people.

Charlie was involved in the issue 15 so I provided him -- I brought a copy of the draft IR for 16 his review and it was our intention that we were going to 17 issue the IR that day.

Su he was aware that we were going i

18 to bring it over to the control room at some point in 19

time, 20 Q

Did he call you to tell you that he was leaving

-21

-that day to the best of your recollection?

o i

22

'A I don't recall.

We didn't get out of the 23 meeting or the-meeting didn't take place until pretty 24 late. It was probably 5':30 or somewhere along that time 25 frame when the meeting finally ended.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR$(R$

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W 902) 734443)

WASHINGTON. O C 20005

_ 0 07) 7344433

-}

SE 1

Q But previous to that.and during the normal end 2

of the work day did Charlie say what's happening I have 3

got to go home or anything like that to the best of your 1

4 recollection or don't you recall?

l 5

A 3 don't recall.

6 MR. WETTERHAHN:

Thanks.

7 THE WITNESS: I know I talked to him I think the 8

next day to inform him on what the status was.

9 BY MR. LOGAN:

10 Q-Do you recall what he said?

11 A

I gave him a brief description of what the i

4 issues were and what Mechanical was doing and I. thought it 12 13 better that he talk tii Mahesh Danak.

14 MR. WETTERHAHN:

We have nothing further.

15 BY MR. LOGAN:

16 O

Do you have any knowledge about what Mr.

17 Lashkari's reputation was here at Salem?

18 A

No.

I got along with him pretty well.

19 MR. LOGAN:

Thanks for coming.

J 20 THE WITNESS: That is it?

21 MR. LOGAN:

Off the record.

22 (Discussion off the record.)

i 23 MR. LOGAN:

Back on the record.

- 24 BY MR. LOGAN:

25-Q Mr. O'Gara, you indicated when we were talking NEAL R. GROSS I

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W '.

f (202) 7344433 WASHtNGTON. O C 20005 (202) 2344433

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

t 51 I

without Mr. Wetterhahn here with your concurrence; is that 2

correct?

l 3

A That is correct.

4 Q

You just indicated that you were going to check

+

i 5

and see whether or not the first draft appeared on the 1

6 copy that you recelyed faxed to you from Mr. Lashkari and l

7 are those words those handwritten words first draft on L

i 8

that copy?

[

9 A

Yes, they are.

i 10 MR. LOGAN:

Thank you very much.

That is it.

11 (Whereupon, at 2:53 p.m. the interview was 1

12 concluded.)

I 13 1

14 l

15 l

16 r

17 i

18 19 20

'21 22 i

e 23 24 1

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR$ERS 1323 RCOE 4SLAND AVENUE, N W -

- 002)2344433 wASe<1 TON. D C 2m fr2) 2344433 i

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

..---.-n..-.-

0 CERTIFICLTE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:

Name of Proceeding:

Interview of Kenneth O'Gara Docket Number:

Not assigned Place of Proceeding:

Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey J

were held as herein appears, and that this As the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter I

redut; - to typewriting by me or under the direction of the I

court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.

[

w%

Barbara Burke Official Reporter Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

E NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCMtBER$

1323 RHODE ISLE?O AVENUE, N W (202) 234 4433 WASMrNGTON, D C. 2000$

(202)2344433

~--

O l

1 i

EXHI~ BIT il l

l l

l l

l t

^

CaseNd, 1 95 013 Exhibit 11

>