ML20072J044
| ML20072J044 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/02/1982 |
| From: | Herbein J GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-*, TASK-01, TASK-02, TASK-03, TASK-04, TASK-1, TASK-10, TASK-2, TASK-3, TASK-4, TASK-GB NUDOCS 8306290892 | |
| Download: ML20072J044 (124) | |
Text
295 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Q
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
(>
________________________________________x GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORPORATION, JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY and PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Plaintiffs, s
-against-80 Civ. 1683 (R.O.)
THE BABCOCK & WILCOX COMPANY and J.
RAY McDERMOTT &
CO.,
INC.,
Defendants.
x e
Continued deposition of GENERAL PUBLIC d
UTILITIES CORPORATION by JOHN G.
- HERBEIN, o
taken pursuant to adjournment, at.the offices of Davic Polk & Wardwell, Esgs.,
One Chase Manhattan Plaza,
New York, New York on Friday, July 2,
1982 at 9:45 o' clock in the forenoon, before Nancy A.
- Rudolph, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public
'g within and for the State of N r. w York.
DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
CERTIFIED STENoTYPE REPORTERS 369 Lgx t NGTO N AVENur l
WALTER SHAPIRO, C.S.R.
NEw Yonx. N.Y.
10017
~
CHARLES SHAPIRO, C.S.R.
TELEPHONE 212 - 867-8220 8306290892 820702 PDR ADOCK 05000289 T
PDR_
x
L' t
296 f'
4 2
APPe a ranc e si
({')-
KAYE, SCHOLER, FIERMAN, II AY S & II AN DLE R, ESQS.
3 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 425' Park Avenue 4
[.
.O BY:
RICHARD C.
SELTZER, ESQ.
and 6
AARON STIEF'L, ESQ.,
E of Counsel 7
8 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL, ESQS.
g Attorneys for Defendants 10 One Chase Manhattan Plaza New York, New York 11 BY:
ROBERT B.
FISKE, ESQ.
12 and KAREN WAGNER, ESQ.,
13 of Counsel 14 ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE, ESQS.
Attorneys for Witness 15 3 First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602 16 BY:
JAMES B.
BURNS, ESQ.,
17 of Counsel 18 19 ALSO PRESENT:
20-ERIC ABRAHAMSON 21 NINA RUFFINI 22 000 l
. 23 '
l 24 r%_
25
'(-)~
l
.m_.____.____m__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -. _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
""'~
1 297 JOHN G.
H E RB E I N,
having been-2
(~} -
previously sworn, resumed and testified further 3
v as folicws:
4 EXAMINATION (Continued)
-5 6
BY MR. FISKE:
7 Q
Mr. Herbein, during the period before the 8
Three Mile Island accident, Mr. Floyd was supervisor of 9
operations at Unit 27 10 A
That's correct.
11 Q
And was his immediate superior Mr. Miller?
12 A
No, he was not.
13 Q
Who was Mr. Floyd's immediate superior?
r-14 A
Joe Logan.
15 Q
Did Mr. Floyd continue on as supervisor of 16' operations for Unit 2 for a period of time after the 17 accident?
18 A
Yes, he did.
19 Q
Was he still supervisor of operations at 20 Unit.2 in the summer of 1979?
gg MR. SELTZER:
Throughout the entire summer?
33 MR. FISKE:
Well, that is what I am trying
' l 33 to find out.
24 A
I don't believe he was,for the entire summer.
25
-Q Did you, as vice president of generation, 7u,)
a 9
Herbein 298 y
believe that it was important for the person who held the 2
position of supervisor of operations at Unit 2 to have
()
3 a respectful attitude toward the training program?
4 A
Yes, I did.
5 6
Q Did it ever come to your attention that 7
Mr. Floyd did not have a respectful attitude toward the 8
training program?
9 A
Yes, it did.
[0 Q
When?
_ 13 A
I can't state a specific time and date, but 12 I believe it was generally in the summer of 1979.
13 Q
How did you first learn that he did not have
($
g4 a respectful. attitude toward the training program?
- V 15 A
Gary Miller indicated that Mr. Floyd had 16 turned in work that was not his own on a take-home
. 17 training department exercise.
18 Q
Apart from that conduct on the part of Mr.
19 Floyd, did it come to your attention in any other way 20 that Mr. Floyd had a disrespectful attitude toward the.
21 training program?
22 A
Not that I recall.
23 Q
And until Mr. Miller told you about Mr.
I i
24
.Floyd's_ conduct with~ respect to the examination, had you 25
. heard reports or complaints from anyone in the. training-t,,;
Nj' 9
x.,
Harboin 299 g
Program kbout Mr. Floyd?
2 MR. SELTZER:
Anything about Mr. Floyd?
MR. FISKE:
Yes; complaints.
4 MR. SELTZER:
Could I hear the question "9*1"2 6
MR. FISKE:
I will put it again, n
8 Q
Before Mr. Miller told you about Mr. Floyd's conduct on the examination, had you heard directly or g
10 indirectly any complaints from anyone in the training department about Mr. Floyd?
gg A
Not that I remember.
Perhaps you could be 12 m re specific about complaints.
I am not sure I 13
()'
understand what you mean.
g4 15 Q
well, any statement by anyone in the training department that.would indicate that Mr. Floyd was not 16 taking the training that he was supposed to be receiving 17 18 assidiously?
A I don't specifically remember any comments gg t
that nature.
20 Q
Let me show you four documents which had been og lh marked before as Exhibits 796,1797, 798 and 799.
I would 99 just like to have you take a minute,.if you haven't done 33 i
I so recently, to look at these_four documents.
-l 24 f
The first question is going to be, Mr.
b k.s) '
95
~
l' 1
Horbein 300 2
Herbein, whether you saw each of those documents in or-f'N about July 1979.
g 3
v 4
MR. FISKE:
Mr. Seltzer,.I don't think, 5
unless there is some reason', that Mr. Herbein 1
6 should be conferring with you privately about i
7 these documents.
8 MR. SELTZER:
I don't mind if the record g
reflects that he is conferring with me just as 10 you confer with your witnesses very frequently 11 during depositions..
12 MR. FISKE:
I would say very infrequently.
13 MR. SELTZER:
I am conferring no more than
()
14 you do with your witnesses.
15 MR. FISKE:
We won't prolong'the deposition 16 to debate that.
17 A
I am prepered to answer questions on these 18 four documents, sir.
19 Q
Does that mean, Mr. Herbein, that you.did 20 see them?
\\
og A
No, it does not.
22 Q
First of all, I would like to know which 23 i
ones you saw in the summer-of 1979.
{
24 MR. SELTZER:
'Do you recall seeing any of I
g-25 these and, if so, which ones?
La 1
i
+
g.. '
m___________.
l g
Horbein 301 v.
A I don't recall seeing any of the documents 2
I) in the summer of 1979, but I would like to clarify that.
3 4
Q Sure.
Why don't we take them one at a time.
Let's start with Exhibit 796.
Isn't this a memorandum 5
6 which Mr. Miller sent to you, Mr. Horboin, in or about 7
July 19797 g
A I don't know.
I don't ever recall seeing the memorandum marked B&W 796.
9 10 Q
Let me read you from Mr. Miller's testimony 11 in this case which he gave on June 10, 1982, reading 12 from Page 846 this is very brief:
13 "O
Let me show you a handwritten
()-
14 memorandum which we will have marked as B&W Exhibit 796.
15 It bears no date.
I am sorry, it does bear the date of 16 July 3,
I believe, at the end.
17 "Is 797 in your handwriting?
i 18 "A
Yes.
19 "Q
Do you recognize this as a memorandum
~
20-that -you prepared?
91 "A
- Yes, k
22 "Q
To whom did you send this memo?
23 l
"A Jack Herbein."
24 MR. SELTZER:
Could we see that before you r3 25 ask him any questions?
. (:f e
=
t
Horboin 302 2
MR. FISKE:
Sure.
()
MR. SELTZER:
I think you left out part of 3
Mr. Miller's testimony, probably because you wanteO 4
t speed things up, but Gary Miller goes on to say 5
6 that he didn't send it to Mr. I!o rb o in.
He sent it 4
f to somebody designated Barb, who is " Jack's 7
8 secretary," and then he goes on to say something g
about Barb was to get'a copy to him and me.
10 I don't think Mr. Miller did testify, when 11 you read the whole thing.in context, that he sent 12 a copy of this to Mr. Herbein.
?
{3 MR. FISKE:
Mr. Seltzer, I don't think we
^
14 have to debate it in great lengths when you send a
(
i
%/
15 memorandum to somebody, it goes to his secretary, 16 MR. SELTZER:
.When I send you things, I 17 usually send them to you, not your secretary.
18 When I send things to Mr. Klingsberg, I usually 19 send them to him and not his secretary.
20 MR. FISKE:
I think you understand it goes 21 to his secretary who delivern it to whoever you j
22 want it to go to.
I don't think we have to debate i
l e
1 23 J
that at great length.
1 1
24 -
Q But havi'ng read Mr. Miller's testimony and l
(f]
- 25
.having it supplemented by Mr. Seltzer,_does that refresh A_s f
h
.1 Horboin 303 2
your recollection that you received this memo from Mr.
[)
"iii"#
- ## "Y
- Y i"
- h*
f '9797 3
.o A'
It does not.
I don't recall receiving the 4
mem marked B&W 796.
5 6
Q Let's take the memo marked B&W Exhibit 797 which is a memo dated July 10, 1979.
Did you receive 7
g that memorandum in the summer of 1979, a copy of it?
A Not.that I recall.
9 10 Q
Is that the same thing as saying you don't 11 recall seeing this memo in the summer of '797 12 '
A I am saying I don't recall seeing it and I don't believe I got a copy.
13
. [}-
g4 Q
Let's look at Exhibit 798, which is a memo from G.
P.-Miller to J.
G.
Herbein.
Did you see a copy 15 gg of that memo in the summer of 1979?
A I don't rpecifically recall, but I would 17
.gg add that I have seen this particular memorandum a number of t' 4a - since the summer of '79 and I don't really gg 20
- ' #~S If I #*"*1"*d it 1" #"17 '79 I " "10 clarify tha t this memorandum seems to be unsigned on 91 22 the.second page.
23 Q
You mean there is no written signature?
2j A
That is what I mean, yes, sir.
v"3 25 Q.
Y ud see the name'G.
P.
Miller, do you s__] -
e
( O g
Horbein l
304
+
2 n
t, at the bottom of this memorandum?
w.
j T
i- !
h, I see that.
MR.' SELTZER:
.So it means that his
\\
4 i
k-decretary probably typed it; whether Miller signed 5
s.
,1
\\
ff on it and sent it is.another question.
6 I
?
7 Q
Have you seen Exhibit 796 and 797 on more y
, t
\\
(
8 than one occasion since the summer of '79?
(
\\}
h
/
A No, I don't recall that I have.
wp 9
5 is t
Q What were the circumstances under which you 10 w
saw Exhibit 798 sometime after the summer of 1979?
11 12 MR. SELTZER:
Let me talk to him first, to
\\
4 13 explore whethep these were in attorney-client 4
X,_
l s.
g,;
situations, just as you talked with your witnesses s
to explore the i, san,e thing.
15
.A g
a 4 4
' ' ~
^ ' [p,
(*
' MR. FISKE:
You don't have to add that, Mr.
", ~
p i-
\\y 17
'SelEzer.
I wilz make it clear.
s g *,
x N
haking
' ? >,
18 Q
I am not you about any meeting that
'9 t.
you had with couns,el.
I am s, imply asking you whether.
gg s
.*I' i
s outside of any meeting with counsel., you saw this
(
y 1
Exhibit 798i a t any time after the sumser of 1979.
'q~
'I
.g A
'.les, I believe I did,.but.I don't specificalig 22
\\,
\\.
g.
recall therinstance.
I believe it came.up at-the time 23 3
\\'
the x]
cperator g(\\-
24 eating issue occurred at Three Mile Island 3
~
p and this was po'st-aehident.
y.
N.).- JS p
np 1: %g
, ~.,
1
'j'
.b I*
- k. i '
m 5
c_
g 5
T g
l
1 Harboin 305 g
Q Well, that was July 19797 rs
$)
A That is incorrect, sir.
The operator 3
cheating incident that I am speaking about I believe was 4
in November -- correction -- October or November of 1981.
5 6
Q In other words, you are distinguishing 7
between operator cheating and supervisor of operations 8
cheating?
A.
Sir, you asked me the question when did I g
10 recall seeing this memo outside of particular meetings 11 with counsel.
I tried to be responsive to that.
I told 12 you that I believed, to the best of my knowledge, that I saw this memorandum at the. time of the operator g3
()
g,;
cheating incident, discussions, investigations, after the particular event took place in October, November 1981' 15 16 In other words g7 Q
Okay, I Gaink I understand that.
18 And at the time you saw Exhibit 797 in 19 connection with the operator cheating, is it your testimony that you didn't see Exhibit 796 and 7987 20 MR. SELTZER:
H e' has not tertified that he
., g lh
~
saw 797 in connection with the operator cheating.
33
-l MR. FISKE:
I'm sorry.
]
33 l
24 9
At the time you saw Exhibit 798 in-connection with the operator cheating in the fall of 1971 25
.l
Herbein 306
[
is it your testimony that you did not at that time see 2
~ [v}'
Exhibit 796 and 7977 3
A I don't remember that I did.
I want to 4
clarify one other thing.
5 After the particular event took place, i.e.
6 7
the cheating in October, November 1981, it didn't g
immediately come to the fore that cheating did in fact take place.
I believe that I saw this memorandum afte'r g
2.
10 the particular cheating incident involving two shift gg supervisors had in fact become public knowledge,.and 12 various investigations were taking place.
The point I am making is that I did not g3
{p)
- g4 become aware of this memo in the same month that the 15 actual meeting took place on the examinations; it.was after that became general knowledge.
16 17 Q
Just one last quescion on your receipt of gg 796 and 798, just so I understand.
gg -
MR. SELTZER:
Wait a minute, non-receipt.
He's never testified to receipt of it.
20 MR. FISKE:
That is what I am trying to o1 find out.
o.,
23 Q
With respect to Exhibit 796, is it your testimony, Mr.'Herbein, that you did not receive ~that 24 mem r is'it your testimony that you just don't 7'%
25
(_)
t e
e e
l g
Horboin 307 2
remember one way or the other whether you received it?-
4
(~'i MR. SELTZER:
Wait a second.
He has clearly V.
-3 4
testified twice already that he has 'no f
recollecti nt day f ever having received this.
5 6
Q Is that your testimony, Mr. Herbein,- 796?
A Yes, sir.
I' told you that.
796, I didn't 7
g receive it.
b g
Q Is that also your testimony with respect to 10 7907 I
gg MR. SELTZER:
798 he said he has received 12 and saw.
I g3 Q
In the summer of
'79.
{a')
g,g MR. SELTZER:
Why don't you state the 15 question?
16 Q
Is it your testimony that you did not
.f
~
receive Exnicit 798 in the summer of '797 g7 18 A
I said that I don't recall receiving 798 in gg.
the summer of
'79, and I' pointed out to you that it was 20 unsigned.
9g Q
How about Exhibit 799., did you see that in h
~'
the summer of 1979?
22 l
A I see that I am noted for a copy, but I-3 t
24 don't' remember receiving it in the summer of 1979,
,3 25 Q
Now, Mr. Floyd as supervisor of operations
. (
)
- LJ.
i e
o Y
kr
~
Ecrbein 308 1
of Unit 2 had'a license from the NRC, did'he not?
2
,- -)
MR. SELTZER:
You mean in order to be 3
4 supervisor of operations, he had to have a licenset MR. FISKE:
No, that isn't my question.
5 6
Q His position was supervisor of operations and he held a license, did he not?
7 g
A His position was supervisor of operations and he held a license.
9 10 Q
And what kind of a-license was that?
gg A
To the best of my knowledge, an SRO license..
12 Q
And is it correct that that license has to g3 be renewed periodically?
( )
A That's correct.
g4 15 Q
And is it also correct that'in order to 16 qualify for the renewal of the license, it is neesssary 17 for-someone holding an SRO to' complete certain training 18 requirements?
19 A
That is true.
20 Q
Including a requalification training?
A He was required to participate in
,, g (B!
~
33 requalification.
23 Q
And it is also correct, isn't it, that he
~24 -
was required to take an examination as part of that' j{%.-^4 25-requalification. training?
[l.
l b
1 Herbein 309 2-MR. SELTZER:
Are you referring to the take
("'T home test that Mr. Herbein referred to earlier?
(/
3 MR. FISKE:
I am referring to the 4
examinati n that was required by the NRC, whatever 5
6 form it was.
A I am not sure he was required to take an 7
3 exam.
9 Q
Is it your understanding that he could have 10 renewed his operator's license without ever.having taken gg any kind of examination?
12 A
I believe if someone-scored high enough, 13 there was only a requirement to take an annual
~
(-]
g4 examination.
\\_/
15 Q
And y u said if someone scored high enoughs 16 if someone scored high enough on what?
g7 A
I believe the original NRC exam.
gg Q
And by high enough, what did you mean?
gg A
I am~not sure of the requirement at'the time. -
It may have been greater than'70 percent in all sections.
20 og Q
Isn't.it correct, Mr. IIe rb ein, that under h
the requalification procedures in effect at Met Ed,.that 22 if-an Perator_ received less than 80 percen t <ns a 23 25 requalification examination, it was necessary that.he r3 25 attend the fundamental systems review lecture and
\\,)
,n D
V 4
I i
Herbein 310 receive further written tests in the areas in which he 2
re eived less than 80 percent?
3 A
I don't specifically recall that, but if thet 4
is what our procedures say, then I would agree that it :. s 5
a requirement.
6 7
g You learned, did you not, in the summer of g
1979, that Mr. Floyd had in fact received a score of less than 80 percent on certain portions of his g
10 requalification exam?
A I don't remember that.
gg 12 Q
Is it your testimony, Mr. Herbein, that you 13 didn't learn that in the summer of 19797 A
That he received less than 80 percent?
g4 15 Q
- Yes, gg A
That is what I just testified.
I previously g7 testified t.h 4 t it come to my knowledge that Mr. Floyd gg had turned in a training department work assignment that 19 was'in handwriting other than his own.
l 20 Q
Is it your testimony that you didn't learn in the summer of 1979 that Mr. F1.oyd had boon deficient l
,,I f
in certain areas of h :. a 197o-1v<'
requalification?
2'2 1
MR. SELTZER:
Why do you frame that.in the
.'3 g
negative, implying that somehow that is inconsistent with what Mr. Herbein just said, tlat 25 m
1 Herbein 311 the man submitted somebody else's answer to part 2
'n js,./
3 4
Q Just so it is clear, Mr. Herbein, I am not 5
talking about at this point Mr..Ployd's conduct in 6
submitting somebody else's. work as part of his own examination.
I am talking now about whether you learned 7
8 that even before that happened,-Mr. Floyd had been deficient in certain areas of his requalification 9
10 training?
s1 MR. SELTZER:
You mean even-before the 12 taking of the particular exam that is in issue, he 13 was already deficient; is that what you are asking?;
/'\\
. (,)
g4 MR. FISKE:
Let's make it real simple.
15 Q
Apart from his conduct in submitting 16 somebody else's work as his examination,.did you learn 17 that Mr. Floyd was dericient in certain areas of his-18
_requalification training?
19 -
A I don't believe I knew that.
20 Q
Well, would you-look dgain, Mr.-Herbein, at Mr. Miller's letter to the NRC, on which you are og h
22 indicated as' receiving a copy, and-I direct your-23 attention specifically-toLthe.second paragraph which'saysl
'24 "By way'ofsbackground, during the'1978-79 E fif 25 requalification year, Mr. Floyd wasEfound'to be v
s
,o
Herbein 312 g
deficient in four category sections:
3
- \\
"Section A: ' Principles of Reactor Theorty.
3 "Section E:
Safety and Emergency Systems.
4 "Section G:
Radiation Control.
5 "Section H:
Fuel Handling and Core G
. Parameters."
,.7 g
Having looked at that, is it still your testimony that Mr. Floyd had been deficient in any 9
10 categories of his requalification training?
A That is correct.
gg 12 Q
Mr. Herbein, you indicated MR. SELTZER:
Let me just clarify something.
g3 k-What you read refers to background before the g,g exam in question.
Were you asking Mr. Herbein 15 16 was he aware of this deficiency before the exam was taken or dia ne ever become aware of the g 7_
18 deficiency?
19 MR. FISKE:
Mr. Seltzer, my questions were 20 Perfectly clear.
I am-perfectly happy to stand'on them..They have beenfasked, they have been 91
~
22 answered, and I:am perfectly willing to proceed with the next question.
23 MR.. SELTZER:. I found the question ambiguous, 34 (A-l
,)
l25 and if you,want.to leave the record ambiguous, y.ou 9
1 Harboin 313 2
can.
I don't think the point at which Mr.
(m_)
Herbein has just told you he was unaware of it is 3
4 going to mean too much since you left it so uncertain.
5 6
MR. FISKE:
Well, if this will be helpful to 7
Mr. Herbein, I will be happy to rephrasa the g
question or re,-present it the way I thought I 9
presented it before.
l l
10 Q
Is it your testimony, Mr. Herbein, that in 11 the summer of 1979 you did not learn that Mr. Floyd was 12 deficient in certain categories of his requalificaticn g3 training, apart from whatever you may have learned about
,.( )
g4 his conduct in submitting somebody else's work on an 15 examination?
16 A
I did not know that Mr. Floyd was deficient 17 in his requalification requirements until it came to my 18 attention that he had turned in work that was not his own 19 on a training department work assignment.
When I became aware of that particular fact,-then I became aware that 20
~
i ng he had been deficient in his requalification requirementsf (B)
~
22
.Q Well, maybe that has been helpful.
23 Who was it that gave you that information?
l 24 MR. SELTZER:
WhicK information?-
1
. f'p 25 Q
Let's start with the information thtt Mr.
I
. L.)
O
______m_._--__m
1 Herbein 314 2
Floyd had turned in work that was not his own.
f A
I learned f_that from Mr. Miller.
3 4
Q And did you also learn from Mr. Miller that bef re d ing that, Mr. Floyd had been deficient in 5
certain areas of his requalification training?
6 MR. SELTZER:
Say that again?
7 g
(Quesion read back by the reporter.)
MR. SELTZER:
Are you asking at the time 9
10 that Miller first disclosed the submission of 11 w rk not his own, did Miller in the same 12 conversation disclose the prior deficiencies in 13 training, rather than in some other conversation?
(')
g4 MR. FISKE:
Well, let's start with that.
15 A
I believe initially Gary told me that_ Jim had 16 turned in a work assignment in handwriting other than his 17 own.
I believe at s v. e later time, Gary indicated that 18 the reason for the work assignment was due to Jim trying 19 to make up some of the required requal requirements.
20 Q
You were in the Naval Academy, were you not, Mr. Herbein?
og 22 A
Yes, sir.
23 Q
And you had an honor code there?
24
.A Yes, sir.
f')
25 Q
And did you consider when you were in the v
e
1
'Horbein 315 2
Naval Academy a violation of that honor code to turn in
(/
3 someone else's work as your own?
A We didn't even consider those kinds of things 4
there because we didn't do it.
5 6
Q As you understood the honor code in the Navy, 7
did you understand that it would have been against that g
honor code to engage in that kind of conduct?
MR. SELTZER:
Are you talking about take home 9
10 assignments?
gg MR. FISKE:
I am talking about turning in 12 work as your own that in fact had been done by g3 someone else.
If there is a distincion between
(}
14 take homework and work that is done in the course 15 f a monitored exam and Mr. Herbein wants to draw 16 that distinction, he can do it.
I am simply asking 17 a general questian.
18 MR. SELTZER:
I appreciate your asking a gg general question.
I also am objecting.
This is a 20 hypothetical.
You are trying to posit a situation kh,
91 under which somebody at the Naval Academy would be 22 put in the position that Jim Floyd.was.put in and 23 has hypothetically done what Jim Floyd has done, 34 and you are asking Mr. Herbein whether such 25 conduct would violate the Naval Academy honor code,
~
~ L) -
O
Horbein 316 g
and I think that is the hypothetical you esatablist-3 that there were any situations such as this Floyd 3
situation-at the Naval Academy.
4 MR. FI KE:
I m a ap1y try ng t i nd out
-5 what Mr. Herbein's standards of morality were as 6
7 viewed against Mr. Floyd, and I was starting with 3
the honor code in the Naval Academy because I g
thought that might be part of his continued 10 moral code, gg MR. SELTZER:
You are a former prosecutor 12 and I can see that you are really'getting into this 13 now as if you were back handling a narcotics case O)
(_
g4 and handling morals, and maybe that is gre i for a 15 jury but I think as purposes for discovery in this 16 case, you ought to talk about concrete things that 17 have relevance to the Three Mile Island accident 18 and you should not proceed with bizarre 19 hypotheticals that are not closely related to the 20 facts.
MR. FISKE: I think the integrity of the superviso@
og (B)
- 2 f operations at Three Mile Island-Unit 2 was a 23 very major issue in this case, Mr. Seltzer, and I1 24 think the reaction of the management at Unit 2 to
'b'I 25-this conduct by Mr.
Floyd is a very major issue m
W n
i Horbein 317 in this cases and if you disagree with that, when 2
,~
()
the time comes when we' argue this case, you can 3
make that point, but I certainly intend to 4
5 pursue this and maybe you can answer the question, 6
Mr. Herbein.
A Yes, sir, regarding Mr. Floyd's behavior, I 7
g characterized that as exceptionally poor judgment and not in accordance with accepted training practice.
9 10 Q
Did you consider that turning in someone else's work as h'is own reflected on Mr. Floyd's it-12 character?
13 MR. SELTZER:
I object.
There is no g4 testimony that he turned it in as his own.
15 Q*
You can answer that question, Mr. Herbein.
16 THE WITNESS:
Could I hear it again?
17 (Rec rd reaa back by the reporter.)
18 MR, SELTZER:
He already said it was 19 essentially poor judgment.
Do you want more reflecti ns on character than that?
20 MR. FISKE:
I-think'there is a difference.
og-O A
I have to'1d you how I would characterize 22 his behavior.
It was poor judgment and it wasn't 23 34 acceptable.
h 25 Q
when Mr. Miller told you about this, was l
~
~.
^l
'l 1 -
Herbein 318 that of concern to you?
2
' ih A
Yes, it was of concern and'I told Mr. Miller 3
to look.'into it.
4 5
Q Did you personally try t'o get as much inf rmation as you could about this particular incident 6
in order that you would be able to form your own
-.7
[
.g judgment as to how serious it was and what ~ actions should be taken?-
9
.10 -
A I relied on Mr. Miller to research the issue
~
11 with the resources available to him, and to advise.me l
12 accordingly on his findings.
13 Q
But was it important to you that after Mr.
4
()
Miller had completed that research, that you personally.
14 15 be aware through Mr. Miller's research of the facts that It;
.he had discovered?
17 A
Well, I told Mr. Miller to.look into'it.
If-18 I told Mr. Miller to look into it, then it follows-that-l-
19 it was important for me to have Mr. Miller look into it.
20 Q
Did he report back to you' after he looked' 1"U it?
e
- 91 AL
-Yes,-he-did.
22
- e 23 Q
Did he tell-you what he had-found?,
A Yes.
24
/"1 25 :
Q Did you have a meeting with'Mr... Miller to v
1 4o I
i s;
~
,,.. _ _.,,,. ~.,,.,. -.
.,-..,-a
l.
g Horbein 319 review what he -had found?
j 2
I$).-
3 A
I don't recall.
I know we discussed what he found.
4 5
Q Was that at Three Mile Island?
6 A
It Probably was, yes.
7 Q
Did you have an office there?
g A
I had a trailer there.
9 Q
Was your office in your trailer?
10 A
I don't recall specifically where we might have discussed it.
-Mr.
Miller and.I talked frequently gg 12 on the phone and saw each other on a daily basis..
13 Q
And at that time, did Mr. Miller explain to i
/
g,g you that Mr. Floyd had received deficient scores on 15 certain sections of his requalification exam sometime in g;
1978?
g7 A
I feel that came out as a matter of course 93 in discussing why Jim would have been required to do take 19 home work assignments that he in turn gave.back to the 20 training department in handwriting other than his own.'
21 Q
Did.you know that'having received those 22 inadequate scores, Mr. Floyd was required to attend the.
23 fundamental systems review lecture and. receive written
.g quizzes in'the areas in which he received: deficient 3
(~).
n scores?
- 5
.o e
r,
.,_..,y..
y
.. ~,
t Herbein 320 A
I don't really think we went into that.
I 2
vs -
think we addressed the fact that Jim, as a result of the 3
4 requal program requirements, had to do some take home 5
w rk assignments and'in the execution of those take home 6
work assignments turned _in papers that were in handwritint other than.his own.
7 8
Q Did Mr.-Miller-tell you that Mr. Floyd could not attend the fundamental systems review lectures and g
10 therefore had been sent fundamental review assignment tg packages covering the areas in which he was deficient?
12 A
I don't recall that kind of detail.
That is 4
n t to say that he didn't me ntion that, but I don't recall 13 m
k_,)
that.
y 15 Q
In ther words, putting it simply, did you gg understand one of the reasons why Mr. Floyd had these 17 quizzes that he was supposed to fill out was because he 18 hadn't been able to attend the' lectures and take the
_ig quizzes as part of the lecture program?
A It w uld serve to be reasonable:at this time 20 regarding my knowledge that I had at the time that Jim 9g hadn't attended lectures, and as a result of not 22 23 attending lectures-had to take homework assignments.
Q And did Mr. Miller tell you that he had been 24
['{
sent these assignments as far back as January 1979 to 25
~_ /
't
Herbein 321 complete?
9
~
im-()
MR. SELTZER:
Do you recall that detail?
3 l
THE WITNESS:
I don't recall that detail, no.
4 MR. FISKE:
Mr. Seltzer, you don't have to 5
t-6 interject that kind of a statement to Mr. Herbein.
7 There is no reason for that at all.
8 THE WITNESS:
I think I already indicated g
that the detailed point-by-point discussion that 10 you are trying to establish is beyond my recall.
11 Q
Well, I am simply trying to ask you about 12 these things one at a time and you can tell me as I ask 13 you about them whether that was told to you by Mr. Miller O
V 14 or not.
15 A
I think I succinctly stated tha~t I was 16 aware that Floyd didn't attend lectures and had to take 17 home work assignments.
1g Q
I am only asking you what you recall.
19 MR. FISKE:
And it isn't necessary, Mr.
20 Seltzer, for you to interject any comments.
21 MR. SELTZER:
Mr. Fiske, I think it is 22 Particularly inappropriate 23 MR. FISKE:
We don't need a speech now.
I 24 MR. SELTZER:
I figured you would say that
[^').
because you anticipate what I am going to tell l
25 v
D
1 Horboin 322 2
you and you don't like it.
I sometimes try to
.,rs l'~)
discourage your interjections when I am asking 3
4 your witnesses questions, and you repeatedly give me a shooing-away sign with your hands and I am 5
G going to do this, Mr. Fiske, whether you like it 7
or not.
8 Since you conduct yourself the way you think 9
is, fitting and proper for you without being 10 hindered by my suggestions, I am molding your 11 conduct.
I think that you can appreciate that.
12 MR. FISKE:
Like Al Smith said, we will 13 stand on the record.
g-k-
14 MR. SELTZER:
I am pleased to do that.
15 BY MR. FISKE:
16 Q
Did Mr. Miller tell you that Mr. Floyd had not 17 returned the first set of FSR assignments that-he had 18 been sent and therefore had been sent a second set in 19 March of 19797 20 A
I don't recall that.
21 Q
Did Mr. Miller tell you that Mr. Floyd had 22 been notified several times by telephone and in person 23 to get the assignments in prior to July 1,
19797 24-A I don't recall'that.
A
(
25 g
Did Mr. Miller say anything to you to indicato!
ss
!!srbein
-323 1
that Mr. Floyd had been slow in any way in completing 2
/~S N ')
these assignments,that he was supposed to complete as pars t
3 of his requalification training?
4 A
He may have mentioned that, but I have 5
6 indicated I don't remember the specific details that you are referring to.
7 3
Q You understood from Mr. Miller, did you not, that it was necessary for Mr. Floyd to retur'n the 9
10 materials by' July 1 in order to qualify for a renewal of' 11 his license?
12 A
No, I didn't understand that.
I stated g3 previously that I un'derstood that Floyd had missed g4 various lectures and as a result of missing those 15 lectures was required to do work easignments and turn 16 them back to the training department, and in the course 17 of doing that he turned in work assignments that were 18 in other than his own handwriting.
19 Q
And did you understand that there was any 20 kind of a deadline on Mr. Floyd for the completion of og that work?
~
ll 33 A
.I didn't understand that.
I don't know.that 33 I really thought about that or.c'onsidered that.
34 Q
Did you ask Mr. Miller what'Mr..Floyd's
' f')
25 explanation for this.was?
v 9
9
1
!! a r b o i n_
324 2
MR. SELTZER:
When you say "this," what is the antecedent?
3 4
Q Mr. Miller told you, did he not, that Mr.
5 Floyd had turned in an examination, part of which was 6
filled out by someone other than himself?
7 MR. SELTZER:
Ha said that about.six or 8
seven times aircody.
1 9
MR. FISKE:
Well, you just asked me what l
the "this" was and I am trying to establish the 10 11 predicate.
I 12 MR. SELTZER:
I understand that.
13 (Question read back by the reporter.)
()
14 Q
Isn't thet-correct, Mr. Herbein?
15 A
I thought I had stated that a number of 16 times.
17 Q
And I think you indicated that that kind of 18 conduct on the part of Mr. Floyd was a matter of concern 19 to you, right?
20 A
Yes.
I told you that I thought it was 21 exceptionally poor judgment.
.G 22-Q And you asked Mr. Miller to, in effect, try 23 l
to' find out what had happened, isn't that right?
.24 MR. SELTZER:
To. investigate, he said, and
(}
25 report back.
'l t'
Horboin 325 9
Q Is that correct?
(~(>)
A Y***
3 4
Q Now, was it important to you, Mr. Herbein, 5
to find out what Mr. Floyd's explanation was for this 6
conduct?
7 A
I believe it was and that is,as I have 8
indicated,why we had Miller look into the situation.
9 Q
Did you think you personally ought to talk 10 to Mr. Floyd to find out what his reason for this was?
11 A
Not really.
I relied on Gary to do that.
12 Q
And when you had this meeting with Mr. Miller g3
'in which he reported on the results of his inv,estigation,
()
14 did he tell you that he had discussed this with Mr.
15 Floyd?
16 A
Yes, he did.
17 Q
And did he tell you what Mr. Floyd had told 18 him was the reason why Mr..Floyd had handed in someone 10 else's work as his?
- 20 A
I believe he did.
91' Q
What was the reason?.
22 A
As I recall what Gary told me, it had to do 23 with Jim wanting to get his work assignments in before 24 he.left for vacation.
f) 25 Q
Did you understand how long Mr..Floyd was
-v e
s hs
1 IIerboin 326 2
going to be on vacation?
A No, I didn't.
3 4
Q Did you ask Mr. Miller why Mr. Floyd couldn't have waited until his vacation was over and then 5
6:
turned the work in as his own?
7 MR. SELTZER:
You mean turned in his own 3
work?
9 MR. FISKE:
Yes.
10 A
No, I don't believe I asked him that.
11 Q
Well, did the thought cross your mind that 12 this was somewhat strange, that someone would think that 13 it was important enough to go off on a vacation that they
,O
\\%,)
14 -
would turn in someone else's work as theirs rather than 15 simply waiting until the vacation was over to do their 16 own work?
17 THE WITNESS:
Would you repeat that question?
18 (Question road back by the reporter.)
19 A
I think I have already stated that I thought 20 Jim's actions reflected exceptionally poor judgment.
ng MR. SELTZER:
I think that is a better e
-22 characterization than your use of the mysterious 33 word " strange."
That is how the witness viewed 24 his conduct.
- ('}
25
-Q Didn't Mr. Miller tell you that it was
.\\s S
D n-r
+
Herhein 327 necessary as part of the relicensing qualification, 2
-s m J) _
that Mr. Floyd'have his test score in by July 17 3
MR. SELTZER:
I am objecting.
That's been-4 asked very clearly and answered --
MR. FISKE:
No, it has not.
6 MR. SELTZER:
You say it was not.
I am going to ask Nancy to go back and find it because I can see that you have a delight in wallowing in this.
We have been going for an hour on this.
He has answered it already.
MR. FISKE:
I have not asked him whether Mr. Miller told him that and you know that, Mr.
/( )
Seltzer.
I haven't even come close to asking him that question.
MR. SELTZER:
He has already said that he did not understand that there was a July 1 deadline for Mr. Floyd to submit this exam.
MR. FISKE:
And now I am asking him about a conversation that he had with Mr. Miller after 20 he has asked Mr. Miller to conduct an investigation 21 qp, into this e v:.d uw _, alcer Mr. Miller has had an 22 interview with Mr. Floyd and is reporting to Mr.
Herbein, and I am simply asking him in the course S
of Mr. Miller reporting;the results of his J
f 25 v
e e
Horboin 328' 1
investigation to him, didn't Mr. Miller tell him
[
2 that it was necessary for Mr. Floyd to have turned in this examination by July 1 as part of the relicensing process.
5
!!R. SELTZER:
If you will be a little less 6
misleading and admit that he has'previously 7
testified that he didn't think there was a July 1 8
deadline, and now you are asking him does the 9
fact that we have been talking about a Gary Miller 10 conversation refresh your recollection about a 11 July 1 deadline; I think that would be a more 12 straightforward way to proceed.
13 MR. FISKE:
Well, the record is perfectly clear as to what Mr. Herbein has said.
Whatever 15 is there is there.
16 I am simply asking him now, didn't Mr.
17 Miller ever tell you in the course of this 18 conversation that the July 1 deadline in effect had 19 licensing implications in addition to whatever 20 vacation implications may have been involved?
21 9
THE WITNESS:
As I recall our discussion, the 22 focus wasn't on deadlines and dates.
It was on 23 Jim Floyd's exceptionally poor judgment.. That
-24.
I was the thing that Mr. Miller was concerned about l
9
J 1 -
Herbein 329 3
and I was' concerned about.
(-).
'/
3 Q
Did Mr. Miller tell you in this report that
'~
4 he gave you that in the examinations which Mr. Floyd 5
had handed in, part of which had been done by someone 6
else, that in two categories he had received scores of 7
less than 80?
8 A
I don't remember that we discussed scores.
9 Q
Did he tell you in this discussion you had 10 when he reported on the results of his investigation, 11 that Mr. Floyd's test scores were deficient in any way 12 on these examinations that had been handed in, part of 13 which were done by somebody else?
i 14 A
I am not sure that we ever focused on test 15 scores.
The focus, it seems to me, was on the fact 16 that Floyd hadn't attended lectures and had to do take 17
_home work assignments that he in turn returned to the tg training department in handwriting other than-his own, 19 and the fact that that was poor judgment.
20 Q
In addition to whatever conclusions you 91 reached about Mr.'Floyd's conduct in having-'someone 22 else do part of the work, didn't you also learn from 23 Mr.-Miller that the test scores themselves on that work 24 had been deficient?
(l 25 MR. SELTZER:
Do you mean the portions.done Y
s 1
Ilarbein 330 2
by somebody else were not only done by somebody bl eise but were not a passing grade?
\\_/
3 4
MR. FISKE:
I am not trying to refine it 5
t the, question of whether it is part of the part 6
that the other parson did that was deficient or 7
the part that Mr. Floyd did was deficient.
I am 8
simply asking a more general question.
9 Q
Isn't it a fact that you learned frou Mr.
10 Miller that the scores that Mr. Floyd received on these 11 tests that were handed in were deficient?
12 A
I probably became aware of that at some time-13 in the summer of
'79.
I don't specifically remember
(~d)'
14 exactly when.
s 15
.Q Well, did you have a discussion with Mr.
16 Miller about what should be done to Mr. Floyd as a 17 result of this conduct on his part?
18 A
Yes, I believe we talked about that.
19 Q
Now, in the course of talking about that, 20 didn't Mr. Miller tell you that it was necessary under 91 your administrative procedures to-pull him out of his k
22 position as supervi,sor of operations and place him in a full-time accelerated program of retraining because the 23
{
24 scores that had been" received on ~ these tests were
. [^')
25 deficient?
-Lj
'S L_
1 Horboin 331 2
A I don't remember that we specifically talked "D*""
th***
3 4
Q Was Mr. Ployd relieved of his duties in 5
the summer of 1979 and assigned to full'-time study in an 6
accelerated program of requalification?
7 A
I know that as a result of my discussions 8
with Gary Miller and discussions with Mr. Arnold, 9
focusing primarily on the exceptionally poor judgment
~
10 that Jim had evidenced by turning in these work 11 assignments that were in other than his own handwriting, 12 we --
i.e., Mr. Arnold and I felt that it was la appropriate for this particular instance and other 5
' r-)s
(_
14 considerations that Jim be reassigned from his position 15 at that time as supervisor of Unit 2 operations.
16 so I recall 9e assigned Jim to the TMI-2 17 sinvestigation task force.
18
, MR. FISKE:
Let's mark as the next exhibit 19 the Metropolitan Edison operator requalification 20 program procedure.
21 (Document entitled Metropolitan Edison 22 Operator Requalification Program marked B&W 23 Exhibit 882 for identification, as of this date.-)
24 Q
Page 14, Mr. Herbein, paragraph'2.6 syas, N
23
" Accelerated Requalification Program."
v' 4
4 8
Horbein 332 i
j s
i
( ',
2, It reads as follows:
"An operator who does t
nt clear deficiencies assigned due to parformance 3
3 4
below! standards,en,cither the annual' written or oral 1
5 evluati na will be relieved,of responsibilit.ies and
_ A 6h., enter a. full time accelerated requalification program."
-- g h
..\\
g,'
'7 Did you have any discussions with Mr. Miller) 8 and Mr. Arnold about that requirement'of the i
),-
9 requalification program procedure as it applied to Mr.
4, 10 Floyd in the summer of 19797
\\
.h,i 11 A
I don't specifically remember that we did.
g
[
12 Q
Did you understand in or about Culy 1979 j
e 13 th'a t~ Mr. Floyd was going to enter a full-time
}4 accelerated requalification program?
s
~
2 A
I don't remember that I was aware of that.
~
,15 s.
4 N
+
A.
16 :
Q So you don't know whether he-did or'didn't?
17 You are testifying now that you don't remember whether hc 18 did or didn't enter auch a program?
19 A
I don't remember whether he-did or didn't.
s d
,~
[ 20 Q
Did you ever ask Mr. Miller at any time in d
h g,-'
('
.> g the discussions that you had with-him whether any'of T
~Q
~
(
,[
-[
22 this conduct by Mr. Floyd had anything to do with NRC t.
i s
s a 23 l
licensing?
w s-jy "i24 A
I didn't'think that was necessary.
I think
=f y
[
25 we recognized'that the attendance at lectures,and in l
\\
'n 8
-p
\\
f) t l
-j f
(
J b
i 7,
a
-. +
gm 4
cym n
_ a
1 g
Horboin 333 2
the absence of attendance at lectures one was required to
()
submit work assignments to the training department 3
4 governing the lecture material, that that in turn was a 5
training program requirement that stemmed from NRC l
l 6
requirements in 10 CFR 55.
l 7
Q Directing your attention, Mr. Herbein, to 8
Mr. Miller's letter to Mr. Collins of the NRC, which 9
is Exhibit 799, that is a letter which is asking the NRC 10 to renew Mr. Floyd's license, is it not?
11 MR. SELTZER:
The document speaks for 12 itself, particularly since Mr. Herbein says he 13 doesn't recall receiving it in or about the
~( )
14 summer of
'79.
15 Q
Look at the third paragraph.
Let me start, 16 Mr. Herbein, at the top.
It says, "In accordance with 17 Three Mile island Administrative Procedure 1006, 18 Metropolitan Edison Operator Requalification Program, I 19 hereby certify the satisfactory rating of Mr. Floyd-20 based upon his completion of an accelerated og requalification program in which'he achieved a score of k
~
33 99.8."
23 Then in the second paragraph which we I
~
24 read before, it refers to the-four categories in which 25 Mr. Floyd had been deficient in 1978 and 1979.
(_
i
\\
2
1 lierbein 334 The next paragraph says, "As a consequence 2
i he wa8 required t upgrade these areas in response to 3
Administrative Procedure 1006 and, on retesting, 4
received the following grades " and then there are four 5
6 grades listed.
7 Do you see that?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
And did you understand that that paragraph 10 refers to the scores which Mr. Floyd received on tests 11 which had been partially done by someone else?
12 MR. SELTZER:
I object.
Mr. Herbein has 13 already testified that he doesn't recall receiving
)
14 B&W 799 in the summer of 1979.
15 MR. FISKE:
I thought maybe having that 16 particular paragraph called to his attention might 17 refresh his recollection.
18 THE WITNESS:
No, it does not.
19 Q
Did you have any discussions with Mr.
20 Miller or Mr. Arnold in the summer of 1979 about'whether og Met Ed would support an: application to the NRC for the 22 renewal of Mr. Floyd's license?
l A
I believe that Mr. Miller told me that he 23 24 felt that Floyd had completed the training program l
.- r~'i 95 requirements and, as such, was going.to send.the letter
%.)
~
O,
g
!!orboin 335 to the NRC stating that Jim had accomplished the 2
r~s U
requirements: and in the course of that discussion, I 3
think I told Gary to send a copy of the letter to our 4
5 attorneys at the time and check it with them before we 6
sent a letter to the NRC.
7 Q
When was this conversation with Mr. Miller g
in which he told you that Mr. Floyd had completed the f'
l 9
requirements?
i, 10 A
I don't specifically recall when the 11 conversation took place, f
12 Q
Was that after you and Mr. Arnold had 13 decided that Mr. Floyd should be reassigned to the TMI-2 s
14 recovery program?
15 A
I am not sure.
16 Q
I take it that it was sometime after Mr.
g7 Miller haa reported to you on the results of his gg.
investigation in the-converAation that we discussed?
1 1
19 A
Yes, I believe that is true, i
l 20 Q
Did you have any discussion with Mr. Miller og.
as.to whether there should be disclosure to the NRC of k
22 the fact that Mr.-Floyd had turned in tests, part of I
l
. hich had-been'done by someone else?
23 l
w 24
- A No, I don't believe I discussed that with 7-} ~
25 Mr. Miller.
V
~
T g
i....g..
i i
_,________._m_
I g
IIorboin 336 2
Q Did you discuss with Mr. Arnold whether you
((')
should disclose to the NRC that'Mr. Floyd had turned in 3
someone else's work as his own?
4 A
No, I don't believe I discussed that with Mr.
5 6
Arnold.
7 Q
Did the thought cross your mind, Mr.
8 Herbein, as to whe ther or not the NRC should be told l
9 that Mr. Floyd had turned in someone else's work as 10 his?
11 A
No, that didn't cross my mind.
12 Q
Now, you said, Mr. Herbein, that you knew 13 that Mr. Miller was going to write a letter to the NRC
(
[4 asking that Mr. Floyd's' license be renewed?
~15 A
You have somehow established that.I knew 16 that.
I thought I indicated that Miller came to me and 17 said that Floyd had met the requirements and he was 18 going to send a letter to the NRC, and in the course 19 of 20 MR. SELTZER:
That is all he is asking.
og MR. FISKE:
That is all I asked you.
22 MR. SELTZER:
He.is coming back again to 23
.the point you testified to a moment ago.
He likes 24
.to get things four and five times.
(~)
25 Let's stipulate he said Miller told him that
- a l
tI' s
i
t florboin 337 2
he was considering sending a letter to the NRC t
}
l
( l renew Floyd's license.
That is on the record 3
twice now.
4 MR. FISKE:
Fine, that's wonderful.
I am 5
6 just asking that as a predicate to some questions that are going to follow.
7 3
MR. SELTZER:
Let's go on to those now.
9 MR. FISKE:
That is exactly what I am going 10 to do.
11 BY MR. FISKE:
I 12 Q
Did you ask Mr. Miller to show you a copy of 13 that letter before it went?
,~
\\/
14 A
No, I don't believe I did.
15 Q
Did you ask Mr. Miller to send you a copy of 16 it after he had sent it?
17 A
No.
18 Q
It was your suggestion that Mr. Miller 19 check the contents of this letter with your attorneys?
20 A
I believe I advised Mr. Miller that way, 21 yes.
22 Q
And did that suggestion result to any extent l
23 from your knowledge of Mr. Floyd's conduct in turning i
34' in someone else's work as part of his test?
9
(
25 A
I am not sure.
l
i iterboin 338 2
Q Well, can you tell us now any other reasor
(-)
why you asked Mr. Miller to check with your attorneys 3
4 before he sent this letter to the NRC?
5 A
well, I knew that we had reassigned Mr.
6 Floyd as a result of his exceptionally poor judgment and 7
activities that weren't in accordance with accepted 8
practices in the training department, and I just thought 9
that it would be a good idea to check with the attorneys l
10 before we sent letters to the NRC concerning Mr. Floyd 11 and his license status.
12 Q
Did you ask Mr. Miller to ask the attorneys 13
.whether or not you should disclose to the NRC the h
g
(,)
14 circumstances of Mr. Floyd's conduct?
15 A
No, I don't think I discussed that with Mr.
16 Miller.
17 Q
Well, did you have any understanding in your 18 own mind as to whether Mr. Miller was going to raise 19 that with the attorneys?
20 MR. SELTZER:
I object.
I think there is
.t an implication in your question that the attorneys I
22 were not already aware of the situation surrounding 23 Floyd.
I f
MR. FISKE:
I don't know whether they were 24 9
'~
25 or weren't.
6
g Horboin 339 2
MR. SELTZER:
On the possibility that the I.
ws 3
attorneys, whoever they are, were already aware, i
then Miller sending them a letter would be 4
5 sufficient t create the communicatic.,n you are 6
talking about or the communication on the subject 7
you are talking about.
g Q
Why don't you just answer the question.
A I can't state who was aware or not aware at 9
10 l the time I discussed this with Mr. Miller.
It seemed 11 to me that it was fairly general knowledge among all of 9
12 the support people that this particular incident with Jim 13 had taken place and that he had been reassigned.
e
(']
g4 Q
Did you tell Mr. Floyd that he was being 15 reassigned because of his conduct in turning in someone 16 else's work on his test?
17 MR. SELTZUR:
By "you,"
you mean Jack 13 Herbein personally?
gg MR. FISKE:
Yes.
A I am n t sure.
I believe I remember talking 20 3g to Mr. Floyd briefly and telling him that he was going 9
~
33 to be reassigned.
The particular details of that 23 conversation, I really don't recall.
i 34 Q
Did you make it known to the people at G
2s
]
_-.___m__
Horboin 340 g
Three Mile Island generally that the reason Mr. Floyd 2
I
')
was being reassigned was because he had turned in
(>
3 someone else's work on his test?
4 MR. SELTZER:
When you say the people at Three Mile Island generally, Mr. Herbuin testified 6
that it was generally known to the support staff.
7 What do you mean by people generally?
g MR. FISKE:
I mean was it made known to g
10 people generally throughout Three Mile Island.
MR. SELTZER:
Was it published in the company 12 newspaper?
Put on every bulletin board?
Please.
Q Was there an announcement or disclosure of 9
( j; the fact that the reason Mr. Floyd was being reassigned g
w was because of this conduct that he had engaged in?
Io.
A I saw no reason for a public flogging nor did 16 I think it would have been appropriate.
It was my 1 4 belief that it was generally known that this particular 18 incident had taken place and certainly it followed that gg there was a connection with the incident and the g
reassignment.
MR. FISKE:
Why don't we take a break l
and I will see if I have any more questions on
.g j
this.
g r~
MR.
SELTZER:
Why don't you finish up on U
9
1 Hsrbein 341 this and we will deal with questions that are 2,
6l) moro germane.
3 4
MR. FISKE:
I think I would prefer to take 5
a break so I can look back en this.
6 (Recess taken.)
7 BY MR. FISKE:
8 Q
Mr. Herbein, looking at Exhibit 796, 9
Page 2,
it says, "There will be problems but I think (1) We need his license."
10 11 Do you see that?
12 A
Yes, I see that.
13 Q
Did M r.
Miller tell you,in or about early9 (h
14 July 1979, did he express the view that you needed Mr.
15 Floyd's license?
16 MR. SELTZER:
What do you mean, that they 17 need to lift it, that they need to get it back?
18 MR. FISKE:
Please.
19 MR. SELTZER:
I don't know what you mean by 20 we need to get his license.
og Q
Did Mr. Miller express the view to you that h
22 Met Ed needed to have Mr. Floyd keep his license?
23 A
I don't remember that he did.
1 34 Q
Did you testify in the administrative 9
)
25 proceeding involving the question of Mr. Floyd's e
l 1
Horboin 342 l
2 cheating?
l s'~
A I did " **
q,*
3 j
4 Q
You were aware, I guess, that those were 5
g ing n at the time, right?
6 A
Are you speaking about the Milhollin 7
hearings?
8 Q
Yes.
A I was aware that the Milhollin hearings 9 ;
10 were taking place.
11 Q
Now, have you at any time gone back to your 12 secretary, Barb, and asked her whether or not she gave j
13 you Exhibit 7967
, ~\\
(,)
14 A
No, I don't believe I did.
15 Q
Have you looked in your files to see whether 16 Exhibit 796 is in there?
17 A
I don't cecall a specific file search to 18 see if we were looking for B&W 796.
19 Q
Have you looked in your files to see whether 20 Exhibits 797, 798 or 799 are there?
og A
My files were gone through a number of times' h
~
l 22 f 11 wing the Three Mile Island accident for a variety 23 of purposes, and I can't state what particular items I
~4 were looked for in connection with what particular 9
G
^'
/
25 investigation.
C/
l
__.._____m
Horboin 343 1
f i
i Q
S as you sit here today, you don't know 2
, I
')
one way or the other whether any of these four documents a
3 I
l 4
are in your files?
A I would state that
.O 6
Q As a result of any search that has been made of them?
7
.g A
Would you restate that question?
g Q
Am I correct that you do.not know today, as a 10 result of any search that has been made of your files, 11 whether or not any of t h e s.e four documents are in them?
12 MR. SELTZER:
I object to the way that you 13 have phrased it.
I think it is clear from Mr.
(
14 Herbein's testimony that many searches have to be ss 15 d ne of his files, and as a result of none of those 16 searches has he come to learn of these documents 17 being in his files.
gg MR. FISKE:
Well, I am not sure he's even 19 said that, Mr. Seltzer, and he certainly hasn't 20 said that a specific search was made of his files for these particular documents because I asked him
'g o
(Bi 22 that precise question, so I think you are i
23 mischaracterizing his prior testimony.
But if o4 there is any doubt about it, let me put it to you i
, ~N 25 I
^981"*
L,l
g Horboin 344 g
2 Q
Can you tell us today whether a specific
/
's search was made of your files to determine whether any 3
of these four documents are in there?
4 A
I can't state that that specific search has
.a been made.
6 7
Q Now, Mr. Herbein, directing your attention l
3 to, one more time, B&W Exhibit 799, which is Mr. Miller's letter to the NRC, I think the record indicates that that 9
was written on August 3,
1979.
Isn't it a fact that 10 t t
11 your decision to transfer Mr. Floyd to the TMI-2 12 recovery was not implemented until August 207 13 A
I d n't recall the specific dates.
14 Q
Without recalling the specific dates, isn't k/
15 it a fact that in sequence the transfer of Mr. Floyd I
16 occurred after Mr. Miller wrote to the NRC seeking to 17 have his license removed?
18 A
I was not aware of the specific soquence.
1 19 Could you go through again the date that you claim Mr.
20 Floyd was transferred and the date that this letter was sent to the NRC?
og 23 Q
Yes, I think the record of the administra-tive proceeding reflects that the letter was sent on 23 34 l
August 3rd and Mr. Floyd was transferred on August 20.
I j
25 Having told you that at your request, does i
O
i Horboin 345 2
that refresh your recollection that the events occurggp
((_)
in that sequence?
3 4
A No, it does not.
5 Q
Mr. Miller's letter to Mr. Colling says, 6
in paragraph 4, "As a consequence he was required to 7
upgrade these areas in response to Administrative 8
Procedure 1006 and, on retesting, received the following g
grades:
10 "Section A:
89.1; f
11 "Section 2:
75.6 L
l 12 "Section G:
80.5 13 "Section H:
63."
I Ik,j 14 Did you tell Mr. Miller to tell the NRC in 15' this letter that Mr. Floyd had received those scores 16 on those tests without disclosing that someone else had 17 dono part of the examination?
18 A
No, I didn't tell Mr. Miller to do that.
19 Q
Mr. Herbein, you did not yourself testify 20 before the Milhollin proceedings, did you?
91 A
That is true.
22 Q
Have you testified before any Federal Grand 23 Jury?
i 24 A
No, I have not.
e
( )
25 Q
Do you know whether there is at the present I
i
f 1
Horbein 346 1
2 time a Grand Jury investigation in progress into the ms circumstances surrounding Mr. Floyd's cheating?
3 A
I don't believe that I have knowledge on i
4 that one way or the other.
5 6
Q Let me show you a document which has been l
l 7
previously marked as B&W Exhibit 843.
This is a g
document which has been produced in the last two weeks 9
or so in the course of discovery in this caso.
10 Do you recognize Exhibit 843?
11 A
I recognize pages 45206 through 45209 as a 12 report submitted by Troffer and Colitz, Tsaggaris 13 and Shirk to me in regard to management audit that wa
(_,/
14 prepared during the period January 9 through 20, 1978.
15 The additional pages in this exhibit appear 16 to apply to the same subject as the February 14,1978 17 cover letter.
However, I don't recotnize all the pages 18 and the supplemental information.
19 Q
It is a fact, is it not, Mr. Herbein, that 20 in December 1977 you proposed sending a management
'o g interview team to TMI to conduct an audit?
i 33 A
Yes, I proposed that.
1 33 l
Q And were Messrs. Troffer, Colitz, Tsaggaris l
34 and Shirk selected as the people who compose that 9
(,)
25 audit team?
O
^ '
1 Horbein 347 o
A Yes, sir, I believe that's the group that
)
was selected.
3 4
Q And did you participate in their selection?
5 A
I believe that I may have, but I am not sure 6
at this time, although that seems to be reasonable.
7 Q
Who else participated in selecting those 8
four individuals to do this?
9 A
I don't really recall.
10 Q
Now, you recognized pages 45206 through 11 45209 as,the memorandum submitted to you by those four 12 individuals on February 14,1978?
13 A
I recognize that it is a report to me dated
,m
)
14 February 14, 1978, yes, sir.
v 15 Q
Was it your idea to have this audit?
16 A
To the best of my knowledge, it was.
17 Q
Paragrapn 2 describes this, the purpose of 18 this is to ascertain the need for specific priority 19 being directed specifically at improving areas at TMI 20 such as management's effectiveness and efficiency, 91 productivity, employee morale, et cetera.
(B
~
22 Do you accept that as a fair general 23 i
statement of the purpose of this audit?
24 A
That was the characterization that the r^,
25 people who submitted the report to me in February '78 t >
O
1 Herbein 348 ggg 2
ascribed to it.
9 Q
And did y u disagree with that 3
characterization?
4 A
I d n't know that I had occasion to agree 5
6 or disagree with those specific words.
l Q
Well, after you received this memorandum, dit 7
8 you ever tell any one of those four individuals that 9
they had incorrectly described the purpose of this 10 audit?
11 A
I saw no reason to.
12 Q
This memorandum indicates that you made this 13 proposal on December 5,
19773 do you see that?
O O
14 A
Yes, I see that.
15 Q
Is that correct?
16 MR. SELTZER:
Do you mean was it 17 approximately the beginning of December when he 18 made the recommendation?
19 MR. FISKE:
Let's do this, Mr. Herbein.
20 Q
Is it correct that you made this proposal og in early December?
dBP 22 A
Sir, I remember sending a management team 23 to Three Mile Island in a time frame while I was a vice 24 president of generation for Met Ed.
It seems reasona (h) 25 based on this letter, to state that it was probably 9
1 licrbain 349 2
December
'77.
I am missing the point that you are trying to establish.
Is it the preciseness of the 3
dates that you are after?
4 5
Q No, no.
Just early December is all I am 6
talking about is the time when you first made this 7
proposal.
8 Isn't it correct that in or about that time 9
comments were solicited from the managers and Mr. Miller, 10 including comments on whether or not the audit should be 11 Proceeded with during the period January 9 through 12 January 207 A
I don't recall that.
13 (3
\\_/
14 Q
Isn't it a fact that such comments which were 15 requested and received indicatdd that the time schedule 16 was overly optimistic to conduct a meaningful management 17 audit?
18 A
Sir, I don't remember that.
You are asking 19 me to go back with specific clarity and recall details 20 that occurred in the '77 '78 time frame.
I am unable 21 to do that.
9 22 I told you that I remember that as a vice d
23 l
President-generation I thought that we should go out and look at Three Mile and that I was instrumental in o4 I
J 25 having an audit team put together to go out and do that.
g IIerboin 350 2
That is what this implies and I have stated that.
g i
Q Let me read Y u Part of this first page of
'~
3 4
Exhibit 843:
" Comments forwarded to you indicated that 5
6 the time schedule propoued was overly optimistic to 7
attempt to conduct a meaningful man lement audit team g
when considering all the other efforts in which the team 9
members were involved.
The decision was made to proceed 10 with the audit as proposed and that the audit team would l
11 consist of G.
J.
- Troffer, J.
J.
- Colitz, A.
Tsaggaris 12 and J.
L.
Shirk.
13
" Preparatory meetings were held by the audi
\\ (\\ /
8 14 team to establish a detailed audit plan within the i
15 limited time frame.
The audit team felt strongly that 16 the timing could have been better and more pr paration 17 time would have been helpful.
Now that the audit is 18 completed, it may be that the approach taken to initiate 19 this audit is another example of ' Crisis Management' which 20 the TMI supervisors believe to be the primary mode of og operation within generation."
22 Now, having read that paragraph from that I
23 memorandum written to you back in February 1978, does
,l that refresh your recollection that the audit team had o4 9
25 requested more time for preparation and that you had e
- _ -. _ - - - - ~ - - - -
t Horbein 351 said that the audit should go ahead on schedule?
2 O
A I believe that based on the paragraph. you 3
have just read, that is reasonable to concludo.
4 Q
Page 2 of this document, the second paragraph 5
6 says, "The audit team intetviewed approximately fifty 7
supervisory personnel over a period of five days."
g Does that accurately describe the scope of thC interviews as you understood them at the time?
9 10 A
It seems reasonable to assume that since it 11 is in the report.
12 Q
Now, the next paragraph says, " Statements werc 13 made to the effect that an audit like this is performed tG I
14 give the personnel at TMI the feeling that ' management m
15 is concerned', only to eventually ' whitewash' the report 16 in the end.
The audit team feels it is extremely importae 17 that the findings or enis report be made known to the gg supervisors at TMI, including the feedback on corrective 19 steps to be taken."
20 Were such steps taken, Mr. Herbein, to make i
the supervisors aware of the findings of the audit report $
og kh
~
33 A
They may have been.
I am not specifically aware of the things that Gary and George Troffer and the 23 i
lothermanagers did to make the people aware at Three 34 O
l Mile Island of the findings and the follow-up action
~'
25
)
i i
Horboin 352 1
2 taken.
ll 3
Q On page 3,
Mr. Herbein, it says, "Long hours
}
4 and the lack of a satisfactory overtime policy seems to 5
have the largest effect on the morale of the TMI 6
Supervisory Staff."
7 Do you see that sentence?
8 A
Yes, I see that.
9 Q
Were : son aware of that fact before you 10 received this report?
11 MR, SELTZER:
You are asking him did he accept 12 as a' fact, before he got this, the statements in 13 that sentence?
,m t
i x>
14 Q
Did you know before you received this report 15 that long hours and the lack of a satisfactory overtime 16 policy were having a bad effect on the morale of the 17 TMI-2 supervisory staff?
18 A
I don't know that I would agree with that 19 characterization or that I would have agreed with that 20 characterization at the time.
That was the report that I 91 got.
I 22 I think that the implication that there was
{
i 23 l a lack of a satisfactory overtime policy is inaccurate, i
24 j We did have an overtime policy that was, I think, g
W 25 consistent with what other utilities were doing.
It was 9
t Horboin 353 consistent with what was done on the Three Mile Islan 2
Unit 1 start-up and I believed it to be satisfactory 3
and fair at the time.
4 5
Q S
y u disagreed with that conclusion, is that correct?
6 A
I disagree with the statement that there was 7
g lack of a satisfactory overtime policy.
9 Q
At the top of that page there is a sentence 10 that says based on these interviews, "There is a strong it feeling that Reading Management is too involved with 12 many decisions which should be made at TMI."
13 Did you agree with thag statement?
fx
- ()
g4 MR. SELTZER:
Was he aware that there was a 15 strong feeling; is that what you are asking him to 16 agree with?
g7 MR. FISKE:
That is a fair question.
18 Q
Were you aware before this report was written 19 that there was a strong feeling among members of the 20 supervisory staff that Reading management was too much involved in decisions that should be made at TMI?
3g
~
A I believe that I understood that the 22 J
33 l engineering personnel at the station would havo liked
- 3. ;
additional leeway in the design of station modifications 25 and minor plant additions.
Horboin 354 g
Q Did you understand that it was that
(.,)
philosophy that Mr. Miller was expressing to you when he 3
complained about your involvement in the review of TMI-2 procedures?
O MR. SELTZER:
I am not sure what you are referring to.
What are you referring to?
MR. FISKE:
The feeling that Reading managemenQ g
is too involved with many decisions which should be l
g l
10 MR. SELTZER:
What was the Gary Miller reference then, was that to the exhibit yesterday?
g MR. FISKE:
Yes.
13
(
( )
Q Was it Mr. Miller's memorandum to you in whi he took issue with your statement that you wanted to g
approve TMI-2 procedures.
g MR. SELTZEn. I object to that characterization.
g.
A I
think there is absolutely no gg coupling between this document dated February 14, g
1978 and the documents that we talked about yesterday relative to TMI procedures that Mr.
khk Miller transmitted to me in handwritten form in March of 1975.
I think that it is inappropriate 23 I
to characterize any association between time frames that were separated by three years.
9
(,
I harboin 355 2
Q I would like to return, Mr. Herbein, to the f}/
\\-
3 portion of this which begins at 45212, which says Three I
4 Mile Island Management Audit, January 9-20, 1978.
L 5
Auditors:
J.
L.
- Shirk, A.
Tsaggaris, J.
J.
- Colitz, G.
J.
6 Troffer.,
7 I ask you whether you recognize this as a 8
copy of the report of that audit group.
D A
Sir, I don't recognize it specifically as 10 the audit report, but it is dated and it's got the names 11 of the people who were on the audit team so I see no 12 reason to refute that it in fact is the audit report.
13 Q
Now, let me direct your atten tion to page Os 14 45218 of this document.
Paragraph 5 reads:
15
" Training:
There is a concern over the lack 16 of,.and time available for, training.
The personnel feel 17 that the Unit 2 training program is greatly inferior to 18 that of Unit 1 startup."
19 And I would refer you back to page 45'213, to 20 the statement in the second paragraph that says, "The 21 i
audit was conducted at TMI by interviewing approximately G
t 22 50 management and supervisory personnel."
23 And my question is, did you understand when 24 you read this that personnel' referred to in that
[t 25 paragraph 5' referred to the personnel who had been s_,-
s
t' Horboin 356 2
interviewed by the audit team as described in the 3
earlier page?
I 4
A I don't think there is anything on page 213 or 218 that implies that the 50 people talked to in the 5
1 6
course of the audit expressed the particular opinion 7
which you characterize as the training item on page 2.
8 I might add that --
9 Q
There is nothing to add.
10 MR. SELTZER:
Let him finish his answer.
11 MR. FISKE:
There is nothing to add.
i 12 THE WITNESS:
I think there is.
i 13 MR. PISKE:
You can make a statement.
I will 14 move to strike it as non-responsive.
l 15 MR. SELTZER:
Why don't you let him answer 16 without continuing with your intrusion.
17 MR. FISKE:
I will let him answer but I:will 18 move to strike it as non-responsive.
l 19 Q
My question, Mr. Herbein, was, didn't you i
20 understand that the statement-which was made on og paragraph ~5 was based upon Ehe interviews that had been lh)
~
22 conducted with the 50 personnel described in the earlier-
.23 page?
1 24 A
All I was stating, sir, was that I think it ID 95 is wrong to conclude that the concerns expressed about (m>
p 9
6
- - - _ _ - - ~.. _.... -. -.
1 Horboin 357 2
training on page 45218 imply that the 50 people
-m interviewed all expressed that concern.
3 4
Q I didn't maan to imply that in my question and I wasn't implying that that had or had not been a 5
6 unanimous conclusion of all 50.
I was simply asking 7
you, didn't you understand that that statement had been g
made based upon the interviews that had been conducted 9
as described earlier?
10 A
I understood that the report reflected the 11 concern outlined in item 5, entitled Training, on page 2 12 of the total report, or at least I believe that I read 13 the report and was aware that that particular fact was
.(_)s 14 stated at the time the report was issued to me.
15 I don't know that I made an immediate 16 association between 45218 and 45213.
I am not sure what 17 you are driving at.
18 Q
Well, let's go ahead.
Let's turn to page 19 45229.
This is captioned " Training."
I direct your 20 attention to Finding No.
1, which reads:
21
" Training in the Operations Department is at 22 the present time a serious matter.
With only a five shift 23 operation and all of the priorities associated with both 24 units,.very little time is being spent in training.
/
Auxiliary operators are being sent to Unit 2 and they.are
- - v)..
25
-e b.-,
l t
Horboin 358 2
not fully qualified on Unit 1.
The quality of operations 3-Personnel is on a continuous downhill trend due to the 4
lack of training.
The training that is being given on 5
U".it 2 is-very ineffective and of much lower quality than 6
that given on Unit 1.
The Training Department personnel 7
do not have the time to learn Unit 2 properly in order to 8
teach it effectively."
g Did you understand when you read that finding 10 that that had been based upon the interviews that had 11 been conducted with the group of people described 12 earlier?
13 A
sir, it appears that you are trying to
\\
14 establish the conclusion that findings as listed in 15 this report are based on the discussions that the team 16 had with the people at Three Mile Island, and that seems 17 reasonable to conclude.
However, I would point out that 18 I don't necessarily believe at'the time these findings 19 were made that I or my managers conclusively agreed with 20 all the statements that are made here.
21 To put that in perspective, let me point out--
22
.Q We will get to that, Mr. Herbein.
I am simply 23
.trying to take it one step at a time.
24 A
The.particular characterization of the
\\a).
25 training program took place at a' time when.we were about 9
- [:
g Horboin 359 to start Unit 2 and I don't feel that this is a very 2
. < ~.,
(_)
a urate refle ti n f j st where we were or that it is 3
characterized in a propor context.
4
- A*' **
5 6
MR. SELTZER:
I think that motion will be 7
posed in the proper fashion if you seek to raise 8
it at trial.
I think for obvious reasons it is a 9
proper statement to make.
10 MR. FISKE:
I am not obviously, Mr. Seltzer, gg trying to preclude Mr. Herbein in any appropriate 12 way from expressing to the full extent what his own 13 personal views are on this.
There is obviously a
(
g4 proper procedure for that,-that you are aware of as 15 I am, and I am trying to proceed in an orderly 16 fashion.
i 17 MR. SELTZER:
I think it is appropriate to be 18 noted that you want to read into the record 19 something and not get this witness' views on_it.
20 Here is the man who asked for the audit. If you just h-og:
want to read it into the record and not solicit 22 his comments on whether the audit statem:nt is i
23 true or not, that's fine.
24 MR. FISKE:
I.certainly intend to give Mr.
'f]
_p3 Herbein every opportunity to do.that, but I have w j.
Ni' Y
!! erb e in 360 1
to proceed by putting all the appropriate facts 2 L before him before I ask nim for that conclusion.
3 would you mark the next exhibit, plaase, as l
r 4 i B&W Exhibit 883.
5 (Th re a-:ia g e document entitled " Confidential h
, Minutes of Second Meeting TMI Ma r.a g e:ne n t Audit i
t I
Review" marked B&W Exhibit 983 for identification, g
as of this date.)
9
\\
n THE WITNESS: Sir, I would like to point out i >
that with regard to' B&W Exhibit 843, although I i
11 l
I[
i didn't particuldily agree'with the negative
{
g c or. 2 c ta tior.s as described by the group relative g
to the Three Mile braining program, I would point out that this veyy exhibit contains in the'
'6 a s t g
two pages, specific lly 45243 and 45244, actions that were proposon and accepted by myself relative 18 to specific concerns voiced in training; namely, the need for~six shifts, engineer training, gg
" "9 ""
"'"9' 20
- " " " "/
-surfervisory training,'dnd additional facilities.
I
.sg I*
s 9,'
j So while I didn't parcicularly agree with these i
t
\\
a l
chara c to riza r. ions, it was acknowledged that we j
y
.;}
I wanted to continue td improve in the area and that
- 9.,,
I r
' :.6 y
%j f
specific, followups $ccion was i.
~
g taken based on the
/c
,f
,f 4
i s
t
,r
\\
i Horboin 361
\\
g report made to me.
l(n)
BY MR. FISKE:
t 3
E 4
Q Let me show you, Mr. Herbein, a document 5
that I think has'just been marked as Exhibit 883 and G
which_is captioned " Minutes of Second Meeting TMI 7
Management Audit Review."
8 Do'you have that in front of you?
9 A
Yes, sir.
10 Q
At the top it.says " Attendees" and there is 11 a list of people there.
Do you see that?
12 A
What page are you on?
13-Q The first page, right under " Attendees."
(O/
14 A
Yes, sir.
15 Q
It is fair to say that those were people 16 who attended the meeting?
17 MR. SELTZEA:
You say "It is fair to say."
18 Mr. Herbein wasn't at that meeting.
19 MR. FISKE:
Well, let's find out.
20 MR. SELTZER:
He is not listed at the top og as an attendee, k
i 22 Q
Let's look at tha third page, "cc: Attendees."
23
.MR.
SELTZER:
That means it was sent to the 24 attendees and it was sent to the.other people.
./ TH 25
-Q' It'says. carbon copy Attendees, and then it-
~
L.)
l
-O
1 Horbein 362 2
says J.
G.
- Herbein, J.
J.
Colitz, Mr. Lawyer and Mr.
()/
f Hetrick.
Do you see that?
3 A
Yes, sir.
4 5
Q Y u did get a copy of thi,s memorandum?
6 A
I don't recall whether I did.
7 Q
Do you recall one way or the other?
8 A
I don't recall one way or another.
9 Q
Did it ever come to your attention at any 10 time, Mr. aerbein, before the Three Mile Island accident, 11 that you were regularly not receiving copies of memos on 12 which you were indicated as a recipient?
13 A
I have just told you that I don't recall
)
y receiving a memorandum that may or may not have come to me 15 in the 1977-78 time frame.
What I would' point out, 16 though, is that this appears to be minutes of followup I
17 meetings held on the original audit and, in fact, I think 18 if you go through this, you will find that my managers gg attempted to be responsive'to the concerns'that were v iced and I think that indicates'that the management 20 environment was favorable and wanted to improve our og 33 program'in all areas.
23 Q
I~am not asking at.the moment for a ringing defense of the management, Mr. Herbein.
I am' simply 24 c
l()
25 asking at~ the moment whether or not you received a copy Y
[
t I!crboin 363 tl.
k l-2 of this document, and I would like to ask again the i r^s
(,)-
3 questi n that I asked a moment ago which was, did it 4
ever come to your attention at any time before the 5
Three Mile Island accident that you were not receiving 6
copies of memoranda on which you were indicated as a 7
recipient?
[-
g MR. SELTZER:
That is a pretty hard thing to 9
uncover, isn't it, if you are not getting memos?
10 MR. FISKE:
I think there are plenty of ways I
11 that he could find out.
12 MR. SELTZER:
Why don't we stipulate that s
f 13 witnesses on both sides generally receive.the
.( )
g,g documents that they are marked for on copies.
I 15 think that I have had more difficulty in.this case 16 establishing that B&W witnesses received copies 17 of documents for which they are marked for copies-gg than I have in' any other case that I can remember 19 working on, so I would be very happy.to stipulate 20 that people generally receive what they are copied 7
on.
Would you like to do that?
9 dBi 22 MR. FISKE:
Why don't we let Mr. Herbein 23 answer the question.
We can discuss stipulations 24 at some other time.
We have a lot of things to
{
(') '
25 accomplish today.
We can discuss stipulations
\\,_
)
y
l 1
IIorboin 364 f
l 2
at another time.
rs L (_)
A Let me state that I think it is probably fair 3
4 to characterize my having received and by the 5
reference to myself, I mean my office having received G
copies of memorandums and letters on which I am l
7 generally snown for distribution, but I would point out 8
that I received a significant amount of mail and that I g
did not necessarily review all of the mail that my office 10 received.
11 Q
Let's go back to this memo, Mr. Herbein.
12 could you identify for us the positions that were held 13 by the people that are listed on page 1 as attendees?
(')
(_f 14 A
Very quickly, Bodden was manager of-15 maintenance; Klingaman was manager of engineering 3 16 Miller was superintendent'or manager of Three Mile Island 17 at'the times John Miller was management consultant to.
18 Met.Ed; Jim Rudolph was personnel director, or at least 19 a member of the corporate personnel department of Met Ed; 20 George Troffer was. manager of quality assurance, in og charge of training; Stan Truskie was a Ph.D. With 22 significant expertise in training matters;.
Lex Tsaggaris 23 was'former Naval Nuclear. Power Program officer who was 24 ur training department manager for Met Ed.
f')
25 Q
And is it correct from page 3 that Mr. Troffer u
l i
1 Horboin 365 2
served as chairman of this group?
. (m.
i,)
MR. SELTZER:
You probably mean page 57 3
4 MR. FISKE:
Yes, that is correct.
A Yes, that is correct.
6 Q
Would it be fair to say, Mr. Herbein, that 7
in or about February 1978 you believed that Mr. Troffer g
and Mr. Truskie and Mr. Tsaggaris were more familiar with f'
the operations and performance of the training department 9
10 at Met Ed than you were personally?
l 11 A
As I said,'Troffer was the manager of quality 1
12 assurance and as such, Mr. Tsaggaris reported to him a'nd 13 was responsible for generation training, so it would seem
()
g4 that they would be more familiar with that than I was.
15 Q
Do you know how this group was selected?
16 MR. SELTZER:
What group?
17 Q
Was there a group formed to review the 18 audit and implement its findings?
19 A
Yes, there was.
(
20 Q
Did y u understand that the people listed l
as attendess were members of that group?
9g se 22 A
They were members of the group or were 23 charged to support the group with the resolution of the 24 findings.
(3 25
-Q Now,. directing your attention to the.first' v.)
t -
tiorboin 366 2
part of this memorandum, Mr. Herbein, Finding No.
1, y
b.)
which is:
4 "Qu ting fr m the audit:
'The quality of perations personnel is on a continuous downhill trend 5
j due to lack of training.'
There was emphatic agreement g
on this, and it was felt that the root cause was lack of 7
g time for both trainers and trainees to properly accomplish I
training requirements."
9 10 Do you remember reading that statement at that time?
gg 12 A
well, I think it is the same statement that is listed out of the audit report that we just went 13 A(_,)
through and I indicated I thought it was reasonable to g4 believe that I receivell the audit report and road it.
15 16 Q
Now, were you aware at that time that a g7 re c omme nda t. ion was being made to move from five to six gg shifts in order to deal with this problem?
gg A
I think that it states on the document we are i king at as Exhibit 883 that there was a consensus 20 that moving from five to six shifts would solve.nost 21 f these problems.
I might point out that five-shift 22 23 peration, going into a startup and test program, was 24 really n t a bad thing.
Five' shifts permitted the 25' perations personnel the opportunity to review specific 6
g Horbain 367 l
2 tests and evolutions that_they norma 11:r wouldn't see at
)
full power operations with plant operating at steady 3
4 state.
In fact, there was a good bit to be gained by 5
having people on that shift to witness the startup and l
6 test evolutions.
It was our intention, following the 7
startup and test program, to return to six shifts and g
I think what you see here is a concurrence that going back to six shifts after the startup and test program 9
10 was completed would take care of.the concerns expressed l-11 here about the training program.
12 Q
And did you understand that one of the things 13 -
that hopefully would be accomplished by going to six I O
_(
j g4 shifts was that it would permit the trainees to attend 15 the scheduled training sessions?
16 A
It says here that if you go in five to six 17 shifts, this group at least felt that it would permit gg trainees to attend scheduled training sessions.
You gg understood that the sixth shift in a six-shift 20 arrangement has a full week assigned to them as a training week.
(gt i
22 9
'And did you understand that a target schedule
- 23 had been established _to go on six shifts of June 1,1978 24 for shift supervisor and shift foreman, and July 1,
1978
()
25-for control room operators and auxiliary operators?
G.
g
'Horbein
'368 2
MR. SELTZER:
Do,you mean other than the fact (W
\\m) that is what the document says, do you-have an 3-4 independent recollection?
~ * * * ' * ' "
- 5 6
A I don't know that I was aware of the 7
specific dates as I have indicated it was acknowledged 4
g and I think understood that we'all'-- and-by that I mean I
D myself and my managers -- wanted to get back to six 10 shifts when we were through the startup and test program it and then in fact had declared the unit commercial.
12 Q
Had it come to your attention, Mr. Herbein,-
13 that there had been a problem with attendance at training
()
g4 sessions up to February of '78?
4 15 A
I don't know thatlI specifically became aware 16 of that but it stands to reason that attending training 17 sessions is an easier task than it is on five, particular1 18 since the fifth shift acts as a relief shift.
19 Q
Do you know whe th'e r ' Unit 2 had gone on six 20 shifts by June'1 f-1978?
A I don't believe we had at that time.
'As I'
21 h
22 recall, we experienced a cooldown~ transient in April of
'78 andthad'to replace the secondary side steam safety 23
' valves.
That replacement took;most of'the summer of 24 25 1978.
I believe we returned to power-in the O
~
i Herbein 369 2
September-October time frame of 1978.
0
^#'
Y "
- "99**
"9 Y * "
3 fact that the unit was down during that period of time 4
5 prevented Met Ed from going from five to six shifts?
6 A
No, that prevented Met Ed from continuation 7
and completion of the startup and test program, and that 8
I believe was unde vtood at the time to be one of the g
requisites for moving from five shifts back to six shiftsc 10 Q
Did it come to your attention in June of gg 1978 that there were attendance problems?
12 A
I don't recall specifically that it did, but 13 I told you that it stands to reason that attendance would h
be more difficult on five shifts than it would with six.
g4 g3 Q
Let me show you a document which is marked as 1G Exhibit 303 and ask you whether you saw that document 17 ir. or about June 1978.
18 A
Yes, sir, I see the document.
gg Q
Did you see it in June of 1978?
A I d n't recall that I did.
20 og Q
Did it come to your attention in June 1978
~
that there was an overall attendance of over 44 percent 22 f r licensed personnel during the first five-week l
23 l
24 requalification training program which had been completed g
- 118# in 3""*?
25
1 1
Horbein 370 2
A I don't believe that came to my attention
('3 and I d n't see.that that really has any bearing on the l
3 4
issues before us.
I see nothing here that states these 5
pe pie specifically missed transient training or training 6
in the details of saturation and loss of coolant accidents-7 Q
ste ll, Mr. Herbein, I will move to strike that.
8 As we said before, you are really not here to argue the 9
case, you have got very capable lawyers to do that.
The i
10 only question is whether you learned in that period of 11 time whether there was an overall attendance of only 44 l
l 12 percent, and I guess the answer to that which you have 13 given us is you didn't, s that correct?
14 A
That is correct.
15 Q
Did it come to your attention in June of 1978*
16
-that -- excuse me, if you want to consult with Mr.
17 Seltzer, that is perfectly all right.
18 A
I au sorry, sir, would you please repeat the 19 question?
20 Q
I didn't have one, I was waiting for you to~
j l
21 finish talking to Mr. Seltzer, but I will put one now.
I 22 Did it come to your attention in June of 23 1978 that anyone in the training department was 24 complaining to people higher up in the company about
{
25 attendance in the training program?
O
2 A
Sir, we have established that it generally lh was more difficult to get the high attendance at training 3
sessions in a five-shift situation as opposed to a six-4 shift situation, and I would also point out that there 5
6 are other ways to achieve training outside of the classroom environment.
Certainly training did not stop 7
g because we were in a five-shift situation or because we were involved in a startup.and test program.
g 10 The startup and test program and the 11 assignments of people to five shifts to accomplish that 12 program was in itself a very effective dynamic way of 13 training operations personnel.
llh g4 MR. FISKE:
Well, I will move to strike the 15 last part of that answer, gg Q
Are you saying, Mr. Herbein, that a conscious g7 decision was made at Met Ed after the April 23 transient 18 not to go to a six-shift program until the plant resumed 19 operations?
l l
20 A
I made no such implication that there was a l
conscious decision made in April not to go to six shifts, 91 dB>
~
22 I believe I indicated previously that it was my thinking, 23
- generally understood, that we would sure do everything 24 possible to try and get the fellows back to six shifts lg 25 after the startup and test program was completed and the
~
t Herbein 372 9
2 unit had been put through its paces, the operators had c(d.
3 participated in the program and seen the evolutions, the run-backs, the operation of the ICS, the trip from 4
5 full Power.
After that and the completion of the 6
program along with the gained experience -- w e tried to 7
get people back to six shifts.
That is what I have l-g indicated.
(.
9 Q
And in February 1978 you had set a target li 10 date of June and July for this six-shift program, isn't I-11 that right?
12 MR. SELTZER:
I object.
You have asked that 13 before and it is stated in the document, and you
)
14 got his answers before as to whether he knew that 15
'those target dates had been set up.
~
16 A
Putting it in context, it seems to me this g7 meeting was probably haid in Llie early months of '78 18 and at the time, i.e. before the cooldown transient, we 19 believed we would be through'the program and able to go 20 back on the six shifts in the-July '78 time frame.
og l
Q Well, isn't it a fact, Mr. Herbein, that-(B)
- 1 33 " even after the April 23' transient, you were still I
23 Projecting June 1 and July 1, '78 as the targ'et date j
24 for going on the six shifts?
/'
25 A
I don't know how you drew that conclusion,
.(s-e f
g
.I u-
=
i e
.m
g Horboin 373 sir.
2 f)~
Q Well, let me show you the next exhibit, v
3 which we will mark as Exhibit 884, which is midutos of 4
the fourth meeting, TMI Management Audit Review, April 5
6 24, 1978.
7 (Document entitled " Confidential, Minutes of g
the Fourth Meeting TMI Management Audit Review, 9
April 24, 1978" marked B&W Exhibit 884 for 10 identification, as of this date.)
gg Q
Do you have that in front of you, Mr. Herbein5 12 A
This is B&W Exhibit 884?'
13 Q
Yes, which reflects attendance by Mr. Bodden,
()
g4 Klingsman, Miller, Troffer, Truskie, Lapinski, Reed, 15 Metzger and Baney.
l 16 I would like to direct your attention to g7 page 45192, M.
Herbulu.
It says " Area 9 Training."
18 Under Finding, "1.
Operations Training."
19 Under Actions, "L.
L.
Lawyer to install six shifts. June 1,
1978 - Shift Sueprvisors and Shift 20 Foremen.
July 1,
1978 CRO's and Auxiliary Operators."
9g (Bi
~
22 Do you see that?
23 A
I see that.
24 Q
Were you aware that on or about April 24,
.f 25 1978, after the severe transient the day before that w]
O e
1
'Horboin 374 this committee concluded that Mr. Lawyer should install 2
(3.
f six shifts beginning June 1 and July 17 M
3 4
MR. SELTZER:
I am concerned about the 5
completeness of this document and the relationship 6
of the pages, or the page that you are referring 7
to, to the cover page.
I notice that the cover g
sheet ends in the middle of a sentence and I don't see any reference in the cover sheet to the 0
' 10 attached pages, so it is entirely possible that the 11 attached pages were prepared before April 23, 1978, 12 and therefore the dates set to go into six shifts g3 may have been written before the April 23 transient 14 occurred.
15 THE WITNESS:
I think that is completely 16 accurate and probably reflects what really took 17 place, and I would also point out that the day 18 after the April 23 transient people really didn't 19 have the knowledge of t'he~ steam safety valve 20 difficulty that we subsequently gained when we 91 tried to test those valves and get them to pop I
33 and re-seat at the proper pressures.
It really 23 wasn't known to us that we were going to have a 24 fairly extensive outage.
J("D 25 Q
Which reason were you relying on, Mr.
. %)
O.
_m____'___._-
}
r.
1 Herboin 375 2
Seltzer's or-yours?
f~..
'N/
A I think both of them are pretty good 3
' reasons.
4 5
Q First of all, as far as the pagination of 6
this document, we have given it to you exactly how it was given to us by Met Ed.
7 g
MR. SELTZER:
I am sure we gave it to you 9
exactly as we found it, too.
q
-10 Q
I would point out on the first page it starts, "1
Area 8 Stores."
gg 12 A
It appears to me that the meeting held on 13 April 24 was primarily focused on stores.
g4 Q
Well, did you receive this document, Mr.
15 Herbein, in or about April, the end of April 19787 16 A
I don't recall whether I did or.didn't.
I g7 don't see that I am listed on distribution, but I 18 probably received it.
19 Q
So you don't know for a fact, do you, Mr.
20 Herbein, that the finding with respect to the projected schedule.for the six' shifts.was prepared before April 237
~g 9
(B>
A No, but I do know that it took us some fair 22 23 degree f analysis and testing of those secondary side
' steam safety valves in order to finally decide that they.
24
(
needed to be replaced, and that in turn extended the 25
,y
q I
t Herbein 376 2
outage into the late summer.
llk Q
Did you ever say to anybody on this committee,j 3
,g Mr. Herbein, "I think we ought to postpone going into six 5
shifts until after~this outage is over"?
6 A
I don't recall that.
I think I have previously stated that the tie in my mind to six shifts l
3 was getting through the startup and test program.
l l
9 Q
Did Mr. Lawyer ever tell you that he was 10 going to change the projected date for the six shifts gg from June 1,
1978 to some later time because of the 12 outage?
13 A
I don't recall that Mr. Lawyer coupled the ll) g4 outage and the return to six shifts together.
I have 15 told you that we tied, in my mind, the return to six 16 shifts to the completion of startup and test program, i
17 The starLup and tesc program, as we now know, 18 was deferred, delayed as a result of a need to replace 19 the secondary side steam safety valves.
20 Q
But was there ever a meeting of this committee in which it was concluded to defer the six 91 22 shifts until after the completion of the startup and 23 test program?
24 MR. SELTZER:
I object.
You have shown us 25 two sets of minutes of this meeting, and for neither gg O
b L
g.
Hcrboin 377 meeting was Jack Herbein an attendee..There is no 2
7%
()
f undati n to ask him about whether there was ever 3
a meeting of this committee.
4 MR. FISKE:
He got the minutes.
5 MR. SELTZER:
You are just being malicious 6
in say'ing he got the minutes.
You just asked did 7
g he get these and he said "I don't specifically g
recall getting these."
He is not marked for a copy 10 anywhere on them.
11 THE WITNESS:
I said I probably did but I am 12 not marked for a copy.
13 MR. FISKE:
I think the page that has the A(,,)~
people that were marked for copies was not produced t
g t
us.
15 16 THE WITNESS:
Maybe there wasn't a page.
37 MR. FISKE:
Whatever it is, we don't have it.
18 we have the one for the first meeting in which you gg were marked for a c o p y.-
MR. SELTZER:
And as to th'a t one, he said 20 he didn't recall getting it.
That is what sparked q
22 y ur inquiry as to whether.he learned there were
. g documents,'where he was-marked for copies and wasn't getting copies.
24 h_-
l 25 I
W
, ~ ~.
4
- 1' Horboin 378 BY MR. FISKE:
2 Q
Let me get back to my question, Mr. Herbein.
3 To your knowledge, was there ever a meeting of this 4
-i c maittee in which it was concluded that the six shifts 5
should be deferred until after the startup and test 6
7 program was completed?
8 A
I think it is incorrect to characterize the transfer from five to six shifts as a deferral.
I have 9
10 told you in my mind it was understood, between myself and the managers and Gary Miller, that we would try, no 11 12 guarantee but we would try to go back to six shifts at tho g3 end of the startup and test program.
()
Q When was the startup and test program over?
g4 A
I think we declared TMI Unit 2 commercial-15 16 at the end of December 1978.
That typically marks the 17 conclusion of the startup and test program.
18 Q
During the period of time up until' December, 19 did you receive complaints about the attendance at the 20 training program?
A Did I receive what about the attetadance?
ng 22 Q
Complaints.
23 A
I don't specifically recall, but I can state that there in my mind was probably concern among the.
24 25 training department personnel about the ability to g..
1 Herboin 379 2
conduct classroom training while the startup and test C
3
'3 program was going on with the five shifts assigned to 4
shift coverage and no specific six-shift assigned for 5
classroom training.
{
6-Q Did anyone ever tell you, Mr. Herbein, 7
that the problem with attendance was not one of how many 8
shifts you have but, rather, of line management g
commitment down to the foreman level?
10 A
I don't recall specifically that they did and 11 I think there are some assumptions in that statement.
12 Q
All right, let me show you a document which 13 has been marked as Exhibit 775, which is September 19,
[)
I 14 1978, a memorandum from Mr. Lawyer to Mr. Troffer, v
15
Subject:
Training and Six ops Department Shifts."
l 16 It starts by saying, "Your attached note 17 indicates that ops DeputLment eersonnel from the relief 18 shift during the past summer have been so busy relieving 19 for vacation that they have n o't fulfilled their obligation l
20 to perform requal training."
g And then it goes on to say, "While I agree.
(I>
22 that this is a problem and that we are probably poorly 23 utilizing the limited training manpower we have 24 available,'I do not necessarily agr'ee that-going to six
("/)
25 shifts will alleviate the problem."
w 5
O
-.4 i -
._____m.____ _ - - - - - - _
i Harboin' 380 l'
4 Then it goes on to say, "My current concern
-2
/]
with-the six shift resolution is based primarily upon my D'
3 i
belief that the problem is not so much one of how many 4
shifts we have as it is of line management's commitment 5
down'to the foreman level fer accomplishing training."
6 were you ever aware that Mr. Lawyer had 7
expressed.that view to Mr. Troffer?
8 A
I don't specifically remember that and I 9
don't specifically remember seeing a copy of this 10 memorandum until now.
11 Q
You did go to six shifts in December of '78?
~
12 A
I didn't say that.
13 Q
You completed the startup and test program 4
in December '78?
15 A
Yes, sir.
16
^
Q And did you ever befcre the accident go on six shifts?
18 1
A I am honestly not.sure'.
I think'we probably did not.
20 Q
Probably --
21 A
Probably.did not, but I don't know for sure.
22 Q
After the accident, did you go on six shifts?-
l 23 A
Sir, ILbelieve it is accurate to state that e-24 they are on.six shifts on Unit I right now.
I can't
.(s1-25 t/
e 4
9 T-e
1 Herboin 381 1
2 really state what kind of shift sequence they have got on Unit 2 at the present time.
3 4
Q I am talking about Unit 2 and I am asking 5
you specifically now with respect to the period of time 6
in November and December of 1979, was Unit 2 on six 7
shifts then?
f 8
A I don't know that but I am sure that somewhere 1
9 that fact is known.
I told you I didn't believe that 10 November-December '79 we had gone to the six shifts.
11 Q
Did it come to your attention in November-12 December '79,after the Three Mile Island accident, 13 that attendance was at an all-time low in the training
,~(,)
14 department?
15 MR. SELTZER:
This is six months after the 16 accident,.the training was low?
17 MR. FISKE
'ie s, even after the accident, 18 yes.
19 A
It may have.
I can't state for certain.
20 Q
Let me show you a document that has been 21 previously marked as.B&W Exhibit 563, which is a 9
22 memorandum to Mr. Lawyer from Mr. Zechman dated 12/20/79 23 and it indicates carbon copies to Mr.
J.
B.-Logan, 24 G.
P.
- Miller, J.
G.
Herbein.
Do you see that?
/];
25-A Yes,-sir,.I see that.
ks O
i l
1
'Horboin 382 2
Q Did you receive a copy of that memorandum?
g
(_) '
A I think we already established that where 3
4 I am listed for a copy, I probably did.
I would point
[
5 ut, th ugh, that the mail delivered in this time frame, 6
because of the particular location, may not.have 7
always reached me.
8 In other words, I can't state with the same
~
9 degree of certainty that I saw a memorandum after the
.10 accident -- or, excuse me, I can't state with the same 11 degree of certainty that I may have received the 12 memorandum after the accident as I could sta'te.it with 13 an equivalent degree of certainty prior to the O) 14 accident.
y 15 Q
This memorandum refers to the Unit 2 16 requalification period for November 5 through 17-December 14, 1979 and tates, "The results of this survey 18 indicated an all-time low"
" low" is underlined 19 "in classroom attendance for this short period of a little 20 over one month."
og Now, having seen that document, does this h
22 refresh your recollection that you learned.in November 23 and December of 1979 that attendance at this post-accidenG 24
'requalification training program produced an all-time
(~}.
25 low in classroom attendance?
YJ 6
Harboin 303
.1 A
I don't know that I recall those words about 2
-n).
having an all-time low in classroom attendance at the
(
training program.
4 Q
The next-to-the-last paragraph says, "I
5 believe we have' reached the point where the clout of 6
senior management personnel such as yours is required to 7
proclaim the mandatory requirement for operations personnel to attend the requalification lectures and to impress upon them their responsibility to meet the requirements of their license."
Do you. remember being asked in November-December of 1979 to exert your clout to let the people 13 know that they were' supposed to meet their (d'
14 responsibilities in attending the training program?
A Mr. Zechman is going to Mr. Lawyer, a senior manager on my staff in December of
'79, and it doesn't seem to bear on the issue at all whether or not someone 18 con,tacted me.
There is no basis for that.
As I said, Zechman is going to Lawyer, 20 Lawyer is a senior manager.
It appears that the request 21 9
- is from Zechman to Lawyer.
It doesn't say that it is to 22 Herbein,and to ask me was the request to me seems.not to-relevant.
be 4
- 24 Q
Did you take any steps in' November-December-v e
A e
t v~r t
Horboin 304 1
1979 to see whether Mr. Lawyer was exerting the kind of 2
-(~T' clout that Mr. Zechman asked him to do?
'U-3 A
Mr. Lawyer was a responsible manager and we 4
asked him to assist Dick in the oversight of some of the 5
training program areas, so I saw no reason to believe G
and have no reason to believe now that Mr. Lawyer would 7
not have responded to particular concerns raised by 8
Zechman.
9 Q
well, did you know that Mr. Zechman had 10 appealed to Mr. Lawyer on a number of occasions before 11-the accident to exert his clout to impress on operations 12 people that they should attend the training lectures?
13 i
1 A
I don't recall that and I don't recall that p(.)s 14 we discussed those specific requests from Zechman to 15 Lawyer prior to the accident.
16 Q
Is it your testimony that you were not aware before the accident that Mr. Zechman had made requests of his superiors to try to ex.ert some clout to get tne 19 operations people to attend the training sessions?
20 l
A I was not aware of specific requests from lk Zechman directly to Lawfer.
I stated previously I 22 was aware that there was a concern about attendance at 23 classroom lectures while we were on five shifts and 24 going through the startup and test program, and I might U(3 25
m.
1 Harboin-385 add that all training'that operators received is not 2
j L(
classr a training, we rely extensively on shift 3
operations and watching the startup and test activities, 4
5 just as we rely on transient training at the simulator.
MR. FISKE:
Well, I am going to object to the 6
last two portions of that answer as being non--
7 8
responsive.
D
.(Luncheon recess:
12:45 p.m.)-
10 000 11 12 13 14 15 4
16
- 17 18
}
19-20
- 21 22 24
' (.:
25
- ~.
f, 1
v v
i w
n y
e v
c
+
t 386 2
A FTE RNO O N.
S E SS I ON
%,/ -
3 1:50 p.m.
4 5
JOHN G.
HE RB E I N,
having been 6
previously. sworn, resumed and testified further 7
as follows:
8 EXAMINATION (Continued) 9 BY MR. FISKE:
10 Q
Mr. Herbein, could you look again at 11 Exhibit 563 rou had Mr. Zechman's post-accident memo 12 about the all-time low in classroom attendance.
13 MR. SELTZER:
For a short period.
L/
14 Q
For the entire period of that particular 15 training program.
16 MR. SELTZER:
Which he says is just a short 17 period.
That is the one you mean?
18' MR. FISKE:
Yes.
19 Q
There is a sentence in the first paragraph 20 that says, "Because of the poor attendance, Ed Frederick g
had to prepare 132 ' care packages' to be sent out for
.22 make-up and to be tracked."
23 Do you see that?
24 A
I see that sentence.
- (^)
25 u.
s
..7
1 Horboin 387 2
Q Did you know what a " care package" was in or I'T O Nm/
about November '797 3
A In November
'79, did I know what a care 4
5' package was?
6 Q
Yes.
A I am not sure when I became aware of the 7
8 term " care package," but in general, I believe it referref to the take-home work assignment that one was required 9
i 10 to oomplete and return to the training department when r
11 that particular person had failed to attend a classroom 12 lecture.
13 Q
And did you understand that when someone r's
(_)
g4 failed to attend a lecture, then one of the instructors 15 had to prepare a " care package" t-be given to the 16 absent trainee to review?
g7 A
I knew that we had care packages.
I am not gg so sure we went through the deduction the specific caro 19 package had to ha made up each time one was required.
20 Q
Did it come to your attention any time before the Three Mile Island accident that the low level of og h
2 22 attendance in the training program was putting a heavy 23 burden on the instructors because of the large number of'
/
24 care packages that they had to prepare?
(~'w) 25.
A I don't recall that specifically and I believC i
t-41- * ' '
_d.
.7 7
I,
')
q.
>(/ t' ["
pr 4:
r-Horboin
,/ [j 388 4.:
.j I
I r,l~
i s
O
,l O A
l, fb 5,
2 sI have already mentioned that I was not aware of that, or
',r '
, g. \\.
r
. Q il'
. 'f-[
at lea t Iidon't believe that I was aware of this 4
.enamorandum and its contents in the December '79 time
/
(,
5
^f**"**"
,11 I
Mr. HerDein, in case you 6
Q/
Well, my questior;,
g 7
c1'idn ' t understan'd it, was relating to a period of time e
i e
i 8'
'before tite accident.
s
+
f 6.l
'would you like " koch 6ar it again?
..: c 10 A
Yes, I would.
3
! 11 Q
The question is, did it over come to your u.
12 attention before the accident that the low level of j
'/
t y,,
attendanco in the training program was putting a heavy
't;
/,
q $,,
burden on the instructors becduse of the large number of
/)/
~
.ies care packages that they had to prepare?
(
I
(
s
't A I don't believe that it did.
16 4
'/
\\
j t
w
,p 17
$,Q Let me show y o u',
Mr. Herbein, a' copy of a i
).
\\
,'fi g.J at '
3 18 document which we will metrk Os the next B&W exhibit.
_s s
j_7
',4 1.)
O 19
- /
(Three-page document c,
'l May.7, 1976,
- i. g l t,y
/
'A u
" subjects. Simulator Training c'osts," to J.
G.
- ' 20 r
- ys
/
t t
Herbeinifrom A.
Tsaggaris, marked B&W Exhibit 885
/.'
31 s O,.
/,I
\\'
y-t'
\\
s m/ 22 ~
t fo.; identification,-'as of this date.)
r,.
y
(
i[' )
.[
23
' C/
Do yoh havh in front of you,_Mr6 Herbein, 1-G
}
'\\
f 24
(.jExhibt)(BB S ?
1 '
t 31
,/
r r s,
J.
A
};p,3,i,J3d.1 m
, 2s gj wa
,b << ?
^
(f.
g.
'..;n,
- [-
$k j#
- 3
,y
. g s
. , r a.yS " *
. a.
y x..
4 4 )lD.. (k. s'.
- l. J x
3 /jyr y!
3,.
- m,p,as'f,
- ,rk,; vI
+,
aa n j,!
E W','l
~ '
g*}_
s
. 5J
^
't w
r 1
Horboin 389 2
.Q Do you recognize this as a copy of a memorandum that Mr. Tsaggaris wrote to you in or about 3
4 May of 1976?
A' I see the document.
It is B&W 885.
It is a 5
6 letter from Tsaggaris to Herbein.
7 Q
Did you receive that back in May of 19767 g
A It is addressed to me so I believe I probably g
received it.
4 10 Q
Do you remember receiving it?
11 A
Not specifically, no.
12 Q'
Do you remember raising questions with Mr.
13 Tsaggaris about the use of the B&W simulator for operator
()
14 training?
15 A
Not specifically, but I recall that we 16 explored at one point the possibility of sending operators 17 to the simulator every two years as opposed to every one 18 year, and in the process of that exploration and 19 discussion, eventually decided not to do that, and I think 20 to the best of my knowledge we never went through and 21 actually executed in every two years as opposed to every
- 22 one year.
i 23 Q
Do you remember asking Mr..Tsaggaris the 24 possibility of cancelling the simulator training program 25 conipletely?
l O
_m_. _ _ _ _
g Herboin 390 F
i 2
A We may have asked him to consider cancelling
()-
the simulator program but that in no way implies that we 3
4 would have actually done that.
We relied on the simulator 5
extensively for transient, training and specifically
(
6 LOCA training.
7 Q
Was that an emphasis that you understood g
was important before the accident, an emphasis on LOCA 9
training?
l 10 A
I think that transient training, which 11 includes LOCAs, was important.
I believe we recognized 12 that.
13 Q
Did you ever ask O
(_)
14 A
The primary mechanism for our receiving such 15 transient training, which included loss of coolant 16 accidents, was at the b&W simulator.
17 Q
After you uagerienced the transient with the 18 open pilot operated relief valve in March of 1978, did 19 you ask B&W to simulate that k'ind of a loss of coolant 20 accident?
21 (Question read back by the repvrter.)
22 A
No, we did not.
We had no reason to believe 1
23 that there was any reason for that. type of simulation.
24 Q
Let me show you a document that I think had
/")
25 previously been stapled to Exhibit 885 bVt which we will
(/
O
i Harboin 391 1
mark separately as B&W 886, which is a memorandum from 2
G Mr. Tsaggaris to Messru. Harboin, Colitz and Miller,
/b 3
dated April 27, 1976, 4
(Memorandum dated April 27, 1976, from A.
5 Tsaggaris to Messrs.
J.
G.
- Herbein, J.
J.
Colitz 6
4 and G.
P.
Miller, marked B&W Exhibit 886 for 7
identification, as of this date.)
8 Q
Do you have that in front of you, Mr.
9 Herbein?
i 10 A
Yes.
11 Q
Is this a memorandum that you regularly 12 received in the regular course of business?
13 A
I assume that it is.
I am listed as an x
14 addressee.
15 Q
And do you understand that this memorandum is 16 referring to poor attendance in the requalification 17 program?
18 A
It says in paragraph 1 that three problem 19 areas are apparent, and it says, item "a; Poor lesson 20 attendance (in some cases ~
lesson attendance)."
no 21 i
h Q
Now, looking at paragraph 3 where it says, 22 i
"In view of the above problems I would like to_ propose 23 some new administrative guidelines..." -- do you see 24 that?
f y
~5 Q.
9
Horboin 392 A
Yes.
2
^rN Q
"a.
Each lecson is given six times, once for
(-)
3 each shift."
Do you see that?
A Yes.
Q Does that indicate that there was a six-shift program in process at the time this memorandum was written?
g MR. SELTZER:
For which unit?
10 Q
F r whatever people were being trained in the g
requalification program.
A I am not sure that is what Alex meant to 3;
imply, but again, I can read the sentonce as written and 13 that seems to be a logical conclusion.
g4 15 Q
was Unit 1 on a six-snift basis?
A I don't specifically recall.
They may have 16 been.
p gg Q
Did it come to your attention, Mr. Herbein, 19 that there were attendance problems with Unit 1 while the operators there were on a six-shift basis?
A I don't recall that it-did, but we have just 21 9
reviewed a memorandum from Tsaggaris to Herbein, Colitz a
er a e pril 27, 1976, and it states there is 23 24 poor lesson attendance.
.rN 25 Q
Did you understand in the spring, summer, i
a ~
\\v/
G O
_________._m.._
-____.-__--_m-
1 Harboin 393 fall of 1978 that the attendance problems that were going 2
[)
on at Three Mile Island included poor attendance on the 3
v 4
part of Unit 1 operators as well as Unit 27 A
Let me state that I think we have 5
6 misconstrued something here.
This memorandum does not 7
refer to all of the personnel in the requalification g
program.
On careful examination, it says that we are 9
talking about non-shift personnel in the requalification 10 program which would include a much narrower grouping.
11 I read this now, as I focus on this 12 April 27, 1976 Taaggaris to Herbein memorandum, to imply, 13 as I believe you did in your questions, that this somehow
{}
g4 applied to all of our operating personnel.
I think that 15 is incorrect.
16 Q
My last question, Mr. Herbein, was relating 17 to the spring, summer and fall of 1978.
I wasn't 18 referring to this 1976 memorandum.
19 MR. SELTZER:
You'certainly confused me with 20 that one, og MR. FISKE:
Would you read the last question gg to Mr. Herbein, please.
I would like to hear it 23 again.
If anybody was confused, let's just ask 24 exactly the same question I asked before.
rx 25 (Whereupon the question referred to was read
'L) e y
1 Horboin 394 spring,I back as follows:
"Did you understand in the 2
J
)
summer, fall f 1978 that the attendance problems 3
4 that were going on at Three Mile Island included 5
Poor attendance on the part of Unit 1 operators as g
well as Unit 2?")
BY MR. FISKE:
7 3
Q Do you have any troublo understanding that 9
question, Mr. Herbein?
10 MR. SELTZER:
Apparently even though it came 11 right after this 1976 memo, he was shifting gears 12 without saying --
13 MR. FISKE:
The beginning of the question
()
14 indicated in the spring, summer and fall of 1978.
15 g
- Mr.
Herbein, that is the period of time that 16 we are talking about.
Th'e question is, did it come to 17 your attention that the attendsnce problems involved 18 Unit 1 operators as well as Unit 2 operators?
19 A
I think I generally commented in previous 20 testimony that I was aware there were difficulties with g
classroom attendance at.Three Mile Island. In the context k
22 which we spoke previously, I believe they were primarily 23 due to the five shift operation that we had established-24 in the time frame just before executing the full startup 25 and test program on Unit 2.
L, a
9
,,e y
s r
w-
r g
Horboin 395 2
Q Did anybody tell you during 1978 that the P
/~}
attendance problems at Unit 2 were worse than the Unit 1 Q
3 4
people?
5 As I recall, the particular thrust of our A
6 comments and discussions has been directed towards Three Mile Island Unit 2.
7 g
Q' And I am now asking you when you knew there g
were problems with attendance, did you try to find out 10 whether the Unit 2 attendance was worse than the Unit 1 l
attendance?
11 i
12 A
I don't know if I did or I didn't.
l 13 0
Did you try to find out whether Unit 1 was
(~'s; 14 on a six shift basis at that time?
U 15 A
Well, I believe we have just established that 16 this memorandum seems to indicate, and I am speaking now I
17 with regard to B&W Exhibit 886 i
l Ig Q
You mean the 1976 memo?
19 A
I am referring to B&W 886, which is April 27, 20 1976 -- that it seems that we were'in six-shift operation at the time.
21 O
22 Now, going back to the November '78 time i
23 frame on Unit 1 and Unit 2,
I believe we had the shift 24 Supervisors and shift foreman on Unit 2 in five shifts.
g4 25 I believe the operators were on five shifts.
'u.)
O e
_ _________-- - ----- A
1 Harboin 396 I am n t sure about Unit 1.
I can state that 2
)
.the Unit 1 and Unit 2 shift supervisors were in fact one 3
and the same; in other words, one shift supervisor was 4
ver b th units, and by being over both units they were 5
6 in five shifts, and I think it is hard -- it would be r
7 hard for me to envision that we would have had five shift 8
supervisors that in turn would have been over Unit 1 and Unit 2,and then five shifts on Unit 2 while having some 9
10 other number of shifts, for example, six on Unit 1,
so 11 I think we were probably,in five shifts on both units, 12 although, you know, I am not positive.
13 Q
Did you try to find out whether_there was' bad
[}
14 attendance on Unit 1 during the sammer of 1978?
15 A
sir, I think I have indicated previously my 16 concern with training at Three Mile Island, with a lot 17 of areas as evidenced by the task group that I put 18 together that went out to Three Mile to interview the 19 people in the January time frame, so I was concerned.
20 Did I make an effort to find out?
It seems to me that I 91 certainly did make an effort to find out about training.
kh s
]
22 I put together a. task force.
I sent them out and you 23 pointed out very ably we talked to 50 people in the
. 24 course of a five to ten-day period.
-[\\
25 Q
And I at asking you during this period of
(_)
1
)
Herboin 397 time in the late summer, spring, fall of 1978, when you 2
^)
knew there were problems with attendance, did you try to f(./.
3 find out whether they were bad or there was a problem witi 4
attendance on the part of Unit 1 operators?
a l
6 MR. SELTZER:
Maybe he already knew and 7
didn't need to find out.
3 MR. FISKE:
Well, let him answer the question.
A I don't know that I differentiated g
10 exclusively between Unit 1 and Unit 2 and I dealt with g;
general kinds of things like training at Three Mile 12 Island.
g3 Q
Did you make any effort to try to find out g4 whether Unit 1 was on a five-shift or a six-shift
(
15 basis?
16 A
At the time I probably knew.
Right now I 17 don't remember that I specifically did or didn't gg establish that knowledge.
You know, it seems to make 19 sense that in that time frame, if someone had asked me 20 what is the shift lineup and how many shifts are there, that gg I would have probably been able to state what they 9
22 were, but now I can't go back and create that.
23 Q
Well, let me ask you this question 34 specifically.
Do you remember coming to any conclusion l
es\\
25 that the attendance at Unit 2 was worse than that of
(
,_l O
-\\
- _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ -
^^'
t Herboin 398 2
of Unit 1 and that Unit I was on six shifts whereas
()
Unit 2 was on five?
3 4
THE WITNESS:
Would you read that question 5
"981"?
6 (Question read back by the reporter.)
7 A
I don't remember coming to that conclusion.
g Q
Let me show you a document which has been marked as Exhibit 293. This is a copy of a letter from Mr.
9 10 Seelinger to Mr. Elliott dated March 6, 1975.
11 Did you receive a copy of this document at 12 the time?
g3 A
Well, I am listed for distribution and I see
()
g4 my handwriting at the t.op of the first page, so I assume g,;
it is safe to conclude that I received a copy.
16 Q
Let me show you another document which I am g7 not sure hac been markca.
18 MR. FISKE:
Mark it as Exhibit 887.
It is 19 a copy of a memo from Mr~.
Seelinger to you and
{
l l
20 Mr. Arn Id, dated March 3,
1975.
21 (Memorandum dated March 3,
1975, from J.
L.
22 Seelinger to J.
G.
Herbein and R.
C.
Arnold, marked l
23 l
B&W Exhibit 887 for identification, as of this 24 date.)
b'^3 25 Q
Did you receive Exhibit 887 in or about e
_K____~.-______.___----____.--
1 Harboin 399 2
March of 19757
/^\\
(_)
3 A
I am indicated as a copy of the memorandum 4
and I am also a -- correction 5
MR. SELTZER:
It says you are the author.
6 A
Well, again, I am listed for distribution.
7 The letter is to Mr. Arnold from me, but it is signed by 8
Jim Seelinger so I assume that I got a copy.
9 Q
Let De just show you one more document,
-10 which we will mark as Exhibit 888, which is a copy of a 11 memorandum to a number of different people, including 12 yourself, from Mr. Seelinger, dated March 13, 1975.
I 13 (Copy of two-pagc memorandum dated. March 13,
, j~s
, (_)
14 1975, from Jim Seelinger to a number of people, 15 marked B&W Exhibit 888 for identification, as of 16 this date.).
17 Q
Do you have chat in front of you?
18 A
Yes, sir, I do.
19 Q
Did you receive a copy of that memo in or 20 about March of '757 21 A
I am indicated as an. addressee.
I assume I 22 did.
'here is some handwriting.
23 Q
UP at the top t
24 Do y ou see some reference to " Red Book"?
f s,
25 A
Yes, sir.
t l-
~s t
D y,
t Herbein 400 2
Q Do you know what that refers to?
q;)
A no, I don t.
3 4
Q You actually participated, did you not, in 5
this particular simulator program in April and May of 6
19757
~
7 A
Well, I am listed as a proposed attendee from g
28/ April to the May time period.
9 l Q
Do you renember whether you went?
10 A
I believe I did.
11 Q
On the second page of Mr. Seelinger's memo, 12 he lists in paragraph 7 a number of evolutions in which 13 each of the students will participate.
(}
14 Do you see that?
15 A
Yes, sir.
16 Q
And paragraph 8 lists a number of evolutions 17 and it says each group of two ar three students will 18 participate in approximately seven evolutions selected 19 from that group.
20 Do you see that?
A Yes, I see that.
21 lI gj Q
The last item says, "Others as time allows, 23 j and if possible, as rer
'd by the Met Ed Shift 24 Supervisors"?
25 A
Where are you
'. n g from now?
e 9
1 Horboin 401 2
Q Item " i. "'
f~l Did you participate in any discussions at 3
u 4
that time as to which evolutions, if'any, you wanted to recommend to B&W to have simulated?
5 6
A I may have but I don't recall specifically 7
whether I did or didn't.
I know I was interested.in tha l'
8 simulator transient training.
\\
9 Q
And did you ask them to simulate any to transients at that time that hadn't already been I
{
11 simulated?
{
l 12 A
well, I think'you see here transients listed 13 in number 7 and I think you,see transients listed in
}
14 number 8 so, you know, we were interested in having 15 transients simulated and I think we were very agressive 16 in the way we approached B&W on that fact, and were 17 interested in simulator training.
18 Q
Do you know of any transient that Met Ed 19 suggested to B&W that it simulate on the simulator?
20 MR. SELTZER:
You mean other than the ones 21 in 7 and 87 (B>
i 22 MR. FISKE:
Yes, other than the ones that 23 are already listed.
24 MR. SELTZER:
That is a pretty hefty group
)
25 that is there, i
9
1 Harboin 402
~
2 MR. FISKE:
I am not asking him to characterize the heftiness of this group.
I am 3
4 simply asking him whether at any time, and I am n t limiting it to 1975, at any time, to your 5
6 knowledge, did Met Ed recommend to B&W that they 7
simulate any kind of a transient other than the g
ones that were already being simulated on the g
simulator?
10 MR. SELTZER:
I don't understand.
There are 11 transients suggested here.
Are you asking is he 12 aware of other occasions on which Met Ed made g3 similar requests for specific transients to,be 1,g shown?
15 MR. FISKE:
No, I am asking whether he is 16 aware of any situation in which Met Ed requested that a particular type of transient be simulated i-18 on the simulator which was not already on the 19 list.
20 MR. SELTZER:
I object.
_There is no 37 foundation that Mr. Herbein is aware of some 9
22 pre-existing list.
23 MR. FISKE:
Well, he can answer the question.
I 24 A
I had no reason at the time this memorandum 25 was prepared that we had need for particular simulator o
i
1-Harboin 403 i
l 2
schooling in additional transients, and I certainly didn'
^
know that saturation was an important phenomena that we
(
3 should have been schooled on and could see at that time nG 4
reason to request that additional transients be 5
6 incorporated into the training.
7 Q
Mr. Herbein, were you aware that one of the 3
symptoms of a loss of coolant accident was an alarm on radiation monitors?
9 MR. SELTZER:
You are asking him as of what 10 11 point in time?
12 MR. FISKE:
Before the Three Mile Island 13 accident.
fg 14 A
You are asking me was I aware that loss of C
15 coolant accident procedure listed a radiation alarm as 16 one of the symptoms?
17 Q
Yes.
18 A
I would say I was generally aware that that 19 was the case and I might also add that we didn't initially 20 get radiation alarms as I understand it on the March 28, 21 1979 transient.
O 22 Q
And you learned after the accident, didn't 23 you, that the rupture disk on the drainitank had blown?
i l
24 A
Did I learn after the accident that the drain 25 tank rupture disk blew?
Yes.
I am not surefwhen I
/"N l
O k
Herbein 404 1
learned that.but I think I did.
2 (qJ 3
Q And you learned, didn't you, that thousands of gallons of water had spilled out from the drain tank 4
int the sump and with the result that the sump pumps 5
6 were running and pumping that water out of the building?
MR. SELTZER:
The sump pumps were pumping 7
g the water out of the building when?
MR. FISKE:
At a point in the transient.
9 4
10 MR. SELTZER:
At some point in the transient?
11 MR. FISKE:
Yes.
12 A
I think it has been established that the PORV g3 lifted, failed to reseat' unbeknownst to the operators
(}
g4 who believed that the valve had closed on the basis of the 15 position indicator light being off, and that because of 16 that valve being open, we discharged a significant amount 17 of coolant into the drain tank which then pressurized, 18 and in the process of pressurizing, burst the rupture 19 disk, and following that the drain tank overflowed to the 20 reactor building sump, which then transferred the contents ver int the TMI-2 auxiliary building.
I think all that 21 O
oo i has been well established.
~~
l 23 Q
And didn't you learn after the accident l
that there was a. substantial period of time after the 24 ry 25 pumps -had been turned off when water continued to flow l (m) r O
1 Horboin cus 2
out of the drain tank and collect on the floor of the reactor building?
()
3 4
A Now you are speaking something in a different 1
context and time frame.
The pumps are now off and we 5
6 are discharging coolan*. from where?
l l
1 7
Q The water is still coming out of the drain
}-
g tank onto the floor and into the sump, only now it is no j
9 longer being pumped into the other building, it is just 10 Piling up on the floor of the reactor building.
11 A
If you say that is the particular sequence 1
12 that is well documented, why, I'll go along with that.
13 I am not exactly sure where you are headed.
14 Q
All of this, of course, you learned was 15 as a result of or in the course of a loss of coolant 16 accident, correct?
17 A
You say I learned this was all in the course 18 of a loss of coolant accident?
19 Q
After the accident, you learned that all of 20 this water collecting on the floor that was coming from 21 the drain tank that had come from the pilot operated G
d 22 relief valvo was all something that was occurring as a l
l 23 result of a loss of coolant accident, right?
24 A
I don't know that I understand your question.
j-
. 25 Would you please repeat it?
_[
9 O
I harboin 406 2
Q After the accident, when you found,out that (3
3 water had flowed out of the pilot operated relief valve
(_)-
4 or to the point where the rupture disk on the drain tank 5
blew and water poured out of the drain tank and into the 6
.rmp and then onto the floor of the reactor building, l
L 7
you learned all that had happened as a result of a loss of 1
l-8 coolant accident, isn't that right?
l 9
A Well, if the coolant l's on the floor of the t
10 reactor building and it was lost from the reactor l
l 11 coolant system, then I would say yes, there has been a
\\
l 12 loss of reactor coolant, but I don't know that we in the
{
13 context we now understand LOCAs deduced that early into
()
14 the accident.
That was one of the problems.
We didn't t
15 understand --
16 Q
That is not my question.
I am not asking 17 you for a long dissertation of why you didn't diagnose it 18 after the accident.
I am asking you whether after the 1
1 19 accident you recognized this had all happened as a result 20 of a loss.of coolant accident?
21 A
It seems to me that you are trying to 22 establish some common terminology between the PORV that i
23
! failed open, the indicator light that failed to. indicate 24 the valve was open,.the subsequent discharge of coolant 25 through that open valve into the' drain tank with the burst
(~)
'J e
Heruoin 40/
rupture disk, to a simple loss of coolant accident.
That is CwJ s
Q Let me put it to you very simply.
Did you make any investigation after the accident to find out why it was that these radiation monitors that were supposed to 6
be a symptom of a loss of coolant accident didn't go off any sooner than they did?
3 A
They probably didn't go off because the rea tor had not been operating for a sufficient period 10 of time to build up an inventory of fixed products in the lant sufficient to activate the response of the 12 radiation monitors.
g "Q
When you 'just expressed,that conclusion as to g
w/
what you think probably happened, are you stating that 15 that is as a result of some investigation that you know 16 was made, or are you just expressing an off the top of the head opinion sitting here today?
18 A
I think it is an opinion and I also believe gg it is a fairly well established fact that the activity in the Unit 2 reactor coolant system at the time of the TMI-2 accident was'certainly a very low level, as one w uld expect with a brand new core, and as a result of 23 that wouldn't be liable tt reduce -- wouldn't be liable "q
to produce responsive indication in the event of a 9
~
v)
O
Horboin 408 g
discharge of coolant into the reactor building.
2 I')
Q I take it before the Unit 2 started up,
(_/
3 sveryone was aware of the type of fuel that you had, 4
correct?
3 6
and not coal?
7 MR. FISKE:
That it was clean, as you just g
stated.
g A
No, sir, that is not correct, and I think 10 that may be well one of the things that threw the gg Perators off, in addition to the absence of correct 12 indication on the PORV; i.e.,
the absence of specific g3
()
g4 activity in the reactor coolant system' sufficient to cause the in-building radiation monitors to respond.
15 Q
Are y u telling us, Mr. Herbein, that the 16 operators didn't realize that the fuel they had at the g7 18
- arly Part of'the cycle was a fuel with very little radi activity in it; is that your opinion that you are 19 expressing here now?
20 A
You are speaking in the context o'f fuel, and g
h I was speaking of radioactive coolant that is actually 22 cir ulated ver the fuel, and.my statement had to'do with 23 4 very 1W 8Pecific activity in that coolant as a result 24 of the core being new.
('
25 s
T
~
e
1 Horboin 409 2
Q Yes, and that is what I am trying to find outq Is it your testimony that you don't think the operators
(
3 were aware that there was very little radioactivity in 4
the coolant because the fuel was now?
5 6
A I think the operators were aware that there 7
was a new core and there wasn't much radioactivity, but 8
I don't think they made the association that if you have a loss of coolant accident, you are not going to get the 9
10 responsiveness out of the reactor building radiation 11 monitors that you would typi'cally expect of a reactor thaa 12 had been operating for a few months of its cycle.
13 Q
Wouldn't you expect as a vice president of 14 generation that the person at Met Ed that was in charge
(}
15 of setting the set points for the radiation monitors that 16 were supposed to be a symptom of a loss of coolant 17 accident would set those set points low enough so that 18 they would take into account the low radioactive contents 19 of the. coolant and not allow water to spill all over the 20 fl r for more than an hour and fifteen minutes after 21 any monitor was activated?
O 22 A
I had no occasion to call him and tell him 23 to adjust the set point.
24 Q
You assumed like Mr. Miller'and others that 25 you referred to that he would do.the job the way he was-OV e
G
g Horboin 410 supposed to do it?
2 MR. SELTZER:
I object.
There is no foundation that the vice president of generation is 4
91Ving 8pecific consideratioh to this point.
5 6
Q Is that something you are telling us, Mr.
Herbein, you never considered before the accident?
7 8
MR. SELTZER:
Setting the radiation monitors for the low amount of fission products that was g
10 in the reactor coolant system?
gg MR. FISKE:
Yes.
12 Q
Did it ever occur to you before the accident, Mr. Herbein, that the radiation monitors that were 13 g4 supposed to be a symptom of a LOCA should be set at a set 15 point which would take into account the quality of the fuel 16 that was in the reactor at that time?
A 17 We never had cause or background explanation gg from vendors to indicate that the monitors should be 19 adjusted on a length of core cycle basis; i.e., change the set point every three months as fission product 20 a tivity builds in the coolant.
We never were. told that 21 22 by our nuclear steam supplier.
We never knew that that was a consideration that we should consider so:that our 23 instrumentation in the reactor building would respond to 24 1 sa of coolant accidents very early in the core life.
p.
-25 v.
O
g Horboin 411 Q
Isn't it a fact, Mr. Herbein, that the set 4
~
( !
points for the radiation monitors were determined by people at Met Ed?
4 A
Well, they may have been determined by p,eople at Met Ed but, again, we did rely on the people that 6
provide us with the nuclear steam supply system to give 7
us advice and counsel in specific areas that had to do 8
l w
e nuc ear s eam supP y system, ad h part W ar, 9
transients such as loss of coolant accidents that were 10 fundamenta'l to the nuclear steam supply system.
gg 12
-Q Do you know whether anybody at Met Ed that was responsible for setting those set points asked B&W for 13 any advice before determining what the set points would 34 be*,as to what those set points should be in terms of the 15 quality of the fuel that then existeds do you know one 16 way or the other on that?
17 18 A
I know that the site team was included in gg the daily meetings we had, and specifically to the best of~
my knowledge was involved with these kinds of discussions, 20 and certainly had the opportunity to contribute to set g
O point adjustments on monitors associated with fission g
Product activity on the reactor coolant system.
23
-l Q
Did you personally.have any conversations
~
g with anyb dy at B&W n the subje t f the radiation n
2s g
-J 1
1 Harboin 412 2
monitor set points?
(%
A Id n't spe ifically b lieve that I did.
O' 3
4 THE WITNESS: Can we take a break?
5 MR. FISKE:
I think we are just about through.
6 THE WITNESS:
Let's take a break.
7 (Recess taken.)
l, g
BY MR. FISKE:
9 Q
Mr. Herbein, let me show you the last 10 document in this deposition which is a copy of a document 11 previously marked as B&W Exhibit 864, which is a memorandu{:
l 12 dated April 20, 1976 from you to Mr. Arnold.
1 13 Do you have that in front of you?
r~%
14 A
Yes, I have the memorandum before me.
U 15 Q
Is that your signature on page 27 16 A
That is mine.
17 Q
This relatos, does it not,.to some closing 18 remarks l
19 MR. SELTZER:
You better read the whole 20 document.
21 Q
-- by Mr. Buzy of the NRC following an 22 examination of Gary Miller for his SRO license?
23 A
I am going to ask you to ask that question 24 again after I am finished reading the document, 25 All righ't, sirg I have got toe memorandum g3 t\\, '
0 6
Horboin 413 in front of me.
I recall that it is a memorandum --
2
(~T MR. SELTZER:
Wait a second.
What is the
(-)
3 question, before you start giving an answer.
THE WITNESS:
Please ask the question again, 5
sir.
6 Q
Do you recognize this as a copy of a o
memorandum that you wrote to Mr. Arnold concerning some comments which Mr. Buzy made following the SRO examination of Gary Miller?
A I vaguely remember that Joe sat down and commented to me after Gary Miller's exam, an'd it appears from this that I documented those comments in a memorandum 13 to Mr. Arnold six years ago.
(-
Q Joe Buzy was with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?
16 A
Yes, he was an examiner from the Nuclear 17 Regulatory Commission.
Q Was his title Examiner?
A I don't know what his title was.
He came 20 for the purpose of administering the Nuclear Regt11atory 21 lll Commission formal CRO/SRO written and oral examinations.
Q Paragraph 7 of this memorandum says, " Joe stated definite steps should be taken to insure wide 24 promulgation of our abnormal occurrences both among our L
g I!orboin 414 2
supervisors and licensed personnel here at TMI, as well
)
as between the other B&W units, i.e.,
he mentioned that 3
no one at Oconee was aware that we had experienced an 4
5 unplanned criticality last April 1975.
6
" Joe strongly recommended that we circulate the event reports between training coordinators and plant 7
g superintendents."
9 After you made this report to Mr. Arnold of 10 Mr. Buzy's recommendations, was action taken at Met Ed gg to put into effect a procedure whereby event reports 12 were circulated between Met Ed and other B&W units?
13 A
Well, if you will recall, we created the users
{}
g4 group, workin'g very closely with B&W,I believe in the 15
'73 '76 time frame, and certainly one of the 16 representations that B&W made to us in the process of g7 getting me to assist in forming that group was that it I
18 would be beneficial to us, and that one of the bensifts gg specifically would be the exchange of experience based on 20 B&W's ability to bring us all together and promote that exchange with the benefit of their analysis and 21 h'
22 interpretation of' specific events.
g3 Q
And in addition to the oral exchange that:
24 resulted from those meetings, did you take a,ny steps to 3';
25 put into effect the procedure as-recommended by Mr.
r n
A,
-i l
- t, y
Horboin 415 t
2 Buzy to circulate written event reports?
A I think I have testified previously that 3
~ \\,_)
information that I obtained at EEI Nuclear Power 4
Subc maittees in the form of plant reports,obviously the 5
B&W users group, meeting minutes brought back by Miller, 6
7 O'Hanlon,Seelinger, these folks, NRC bulletin circulars, s
.g notices, the Nuclear Regulatory Clearing House documents, 4::
9 Power reactors documenta tion, the gray book, i
10 experiences from the General Offico Review Boa.rdirgere-in
'-)
fact circulated in our organization and we had no r'eason'"
11
,ri, 12 to believe that transients that were occurring'at'other g3 B&W geactors were not being communicated to us by-thb j
B&W site team as a result of their direct input fromi' g4
~ t[ e 15 Lynchburg.
d o ' c' 16 Q
Did you have any reason to believe that y /, '
y
/
u 'l,,
17 transients occurring at other plants weren't being rr 18 communicated to you in the form of documents that you.%
19 just. referred to in your last answer?
A I had no reason to believe that the 20 j..
r transients were not being ' communicated to me.
21 s'.
- 22 (Continued on Page 415-A) 23 m
i 24
!1 25
- $.i,' "a p.
\\
i t
' w_./
1 1
i-1 sl j/
p / :5 d
,$},
u.
- u
p-
- a.
tv
.s a: f,,,.' a* /,.<.
~
' - ~ ' ^ ~~
~ ^-
Lt e
n
.2)..
- ef-1, 4 (.*.
.g.
['
"[ [. s i,j > j~y", -
/,
prf.a
Herbein 415-A
-+
s a c,
_W
.,', ?)/ -
</
d k
_ f.'1-
- . y -
1+
j g
U af '
i' 2
/
MR. FISKE: 'jThat.is all I havep Mr.
<t-
/Y
~y
/l 6
p
., /
s.
i h V ] f y vseltzer.,
pfIy 3
[
4
- (?l:me noted:
2:55 p.m.'..
>s<
b
.' (
,J r'*,
/,4 t'f
\\
? -
r
,o o
.\\s
,' o 5
z c).
'?
f-f r y(..
.l.
T.
.s gj;a ;
6 y
r*
i E sn ; g)
,Q,
(,
~
,.-y/
~ f,.
Subscribed and' sworn to before me 1-a
./
/
/
/
s
<t
, [< e r.
.this~>
day of 1982.,
8
.4.
s
-/
Y
/
r/
a',.
3 9
,s.
- D hc
\\;
nq f)
-r,.-
4 11
.,l 9
l
9
'/,
'y4..
i t
d
, s I4
[
13 l;
f~ c rQ~ *,.
- f
+
f
[
/.,
g4 l.
f ~ w,, ;g
,e, 1,,. p,,yf' s
.r-e
,).
p
,!e 15 -
',,.g Y(
/*'
'av4 y
y p-h
- f
'lJ
,R$'
).
,, )---
t g~ j; t, f,f
- /
/
p y,M ".17
/
't
/,'
.i..
18 4e i
ns I,
19-js 1,
) -
sa
~
g
+
I 6-g y
{** '. #'
v,-..f'
)6.
.4 10
,e... -
- r. y 4 9 e
s.. ).
ht
/
a
,o 4.p u.
,$;y A1
.\\
n g
{
9 42 i
W;?
^
s n
a.
- r,.> : Y
- c 1
, /,a 4.
~.-"
'j m e
,.7 g.
y
,24
~
W
.g
~
- .[ t J(25 -
y
(; 6,w
\\; h
./
l -.*NA/
, t.
k
. ll ' $
_-,j a 1(x - -
.,//f&y,5 ld.- e a.
f.
wt.- i t,
a
~ 3,$ j s.,.
If
-a.
y,
'p,
-x
-}
2.
-__t_',__
_____}
I 1
416 CERTIFICATE l
2 STATE OF NEW YOR'K
)
3
- ss.:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
)
i 4-7 NANCY A.
RUDOLPH 5
, a Notary Public of the State of New York, do hereby certify that the continued deposition of JOHN G.
HERBEIN 8
Was taken Defore me on Friday, July 2,
1982 consisting i
9 l
of pages 295 through 415 I further certify that the witness had been previously sworn and that the within transcript is a true record of said testimony; h.
That I am not connected by blood or marriage with any of the said parties nor
(
interested directly or indirectly in the matter in controversy, nur am I in the employ of any of the counsel.
18 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 19 hand this 3 day of d /fd,
20 g
/
(.
21'
(
22 b
23 g
/
NANCY;A. RUDOLPH
^
-24
'25 t
O
417 l
I ND E X l
ps l
i
)
WITNESS PAGE l
v John G.
Herbein 297 i
EXH I B I TS l
B&W FOR IDENTIFICATION 882 Document entitled Metropolitan Edison Operator Requalification Program 331 883 Three-page document entitled I
" Confidential Minutos of Second Meeting TMI Management
()
Audit Review" 360 884 Document entitled " Confidential, Minutes of the Fourth Meeting I
TMI Management Audit Review, April 24, 1978" 373 I
885 Three-page document dated May 7, 1976, "
Subject:
Simulator Training Costs," to J.
G.
Herbein from A..Tsaggaris 388 886 Memorandum dated April 27, 1976, from A.
Tsaggaris to Messrs.
l J.
G.
- Herbein, J.
J.
Colitz and l
lh G.
P.
Miller 391 887 Memorandum dated March 3,
- 1975, from J.
L.
Seelinger to J.
G.
Herbein and R.
C.
Arnold 398 888 Copy of two-page memorandum dated
[p3 March 13, 1975, from Jim Seelinger to a number of people 399 ooo e
___________-_-____.____-.___a