ML20149E523
| ML20149E523 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1987 |
| From: | Counsil W TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149A806 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-37 OL, NUDOCS 8802110100 | |
| Download: ML20149E523 (87) | |
Text
v, a ., . - w.m. w . . ~ ,- . w. w...v.~. - . . n. npa . ~ a. .
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 : BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3
4 IN THE MATTER OF: )
)
5 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING )
COMPANY, ET AL. ) DOCKET NOS. 50-445-OL 6 ) 50-446-OL (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM )
7 ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 )
AND ) t
, 2)F o 3 4e s -
51 Aja 10 **************************
ORAL DEPOSITION OF 11 W. G. COUNSIL OCTOBER 15, 1987 12 **************************
- RECEIVED -
s 13 i
NOV 3 1987 14 15 WILLIAM G. COUNS!!!
16 ORAL DEPOSITION OF W. G. COUNSIL, produced as a 17 witness at the instance of the Intervenor CASE, taken 18 in the above-styled and numbered cause on October 15, 19 1987, at 1:30 p.m., before James M. Shaw, RPR, 20 Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public in and 21 for the State of Texas, at the Law Offices of 22 Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels & Wooldridge, 2001 Bryan ;
23 Tower, Suite 3200, in the City of Dallas, County of ;
24 Dallas, State of Texas, pursuant to the Federal Rules 25 of Civil Procedure.
8802110100 000100 PDR FDIA PDR
} _
WILLIAMS 00-37 UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, ... , , .
INC.
3 FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISFION:
4 JANICE E. MOORE Office of the Executive Legal Director 5 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commi ssion 6 Washington, D.C. 20555 7
i FOR THE CITIZENS ASSOCIATION 8 FOR SOUND ENERGY:
I JUANITA ELLIS, PRESIDENT !
9l JERRY ELLIS 10li 1426 South Polk .
! Dallas, Texas 75224 l 11' l l
12 BILLIE P. GARDE Trial Lawyers For Public Justice !
13 3424 North Marcos Lane Appleton, Wi s con si n 54911 ,
14 i i
15{FOR TEXAS UTILITIES GE NE RAT IN G COMPANY:
16 I ROPES & GRAY l 225 Franklin Street !
17 Boston, MA 02110 l BY: WILLIAM S. EGGELING !
18 !
19 ROPES & GRAY 1001 Twenty-Second S t r <2 e t , N.W.
l';,
Washington, D.C. 20037 !
20 BY: ROBERT J. STILLMAN DAVID MARTLAND 21 !'
22 WORSHAM, FORSYTHE, SAMPELS & WOOLDRIDGE 2001 Bryan Tower, suite 2500 ;
23 Dallas, Texas 75201-2168 BY: ROBERT A. WOOL D RI D GE, <
24 25 UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING S E RV I CE S , I N C..
- e,nn e... .e -nu.- ,,,,i nee
3 1 W._G._COUNSIL, 2 the witness hereinbefore named, being first duly 3 cautioned and sworn to tell the truth, the whole 4 truth, and nothing but the truth, testified under 5 oath as follows:
6 EXAMINATION !
7!,
_B Y_ __M _S__. _ G A__R_D_E : l I
8 Q. Mr. Counsil, as you know, I'm Billie Garde.
9 I'm an attorney representing the intervenor in the .
10 licensing case, CASE, Citizens Association for Sound 11 Energy. I'm taking your deposition in connection 12 with an issue that has been on the table for some 13 time, since the fall of last year.
14 The purpose of my deposition today is to 15 ask questions regarding the CPET, not its
, 16 implementation, the program edict aspects of that l
17 program and what it is intended to do, so that we can 18 reach some kind of a determination on whether its 19 a de qua cy can be litigated without the need for 20 li t i ga t i ng implementation.
21 (Counsil Exhibits 1 and 2 22 (marked for identi f i ca t i on .
23 Q. I'm going to show you what has been marked
. 24 as Deposition Exhibits 1 and 2, which is the subpoena 25 that was issued to you minus Judge Bloch's signature, UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
hhft Ac TPVhe /SIA) OCC.41AA
4 1 and a notice of deposition. I would like to ask if 2 you have seen this document --
these two documents 3 before?
4 (Witness perusing document.
5 Q. Have you seen these two documents bcfore?
6 A. Yes, I have, many months ago.
7i Q. All right. Have you brought any documents.
l l 8f with you to this deposition in response to the notice!
- I 9lof deposition? i i .
10 A. No, I have not, i 1
11; Q. Did your counsel ask you to bring any i
12, docum ent s ?
I i
A. No, he did not.
13l 14j MS. GARDE: For the purpose of this i
15, transcript, Nr. Eg g e l i ng , I would like to repeat what ' '
16lj I said yesterday, which is that we requested 17 Mr. Counsil to bring documents with him to this 18 deposition. We entered into a s ti pul a tion regarding 19 the nonproduction of those documents. That was not a 20 waiver of the requirement for him to produce 21 documents in response to this notice of deposition.
22 It did not turn out to be a problem with 23 Mr. Hansel. I don't anticipate it will turn out to 24 be a problem with Mr. Counsil. In the event that it 25 does, I'm saying for the record that I'm disappointed UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
na t.t a c mrvae t si 4 s are_esna
5 1 that he was not asked to review his files and 2 identify documents responsive to the notice.
3 Do you want to respond?
4 MR. EGGELING: I will give you the 5 same response I gave you yesterday, which was there j 6 was a stipulation entered into and it has been 7 complied with. l 8 MS. GARDE: And as stated yesterday, l 9 we disagree with that. I think --
10 MR. EGGELING: You have yet to 11 address why the stipulation hasn't been complied with.
12 MS. GARDE: I have made that very 13 clear.
14 MR. EGGELING: I disagree.
I 15 MS. GARDE: The stipulation does not
{
16 waive in any way, shape, or form your requirement to l
17 have your witness search for documents responsive to l
18 a subpoena. It deals with other thir.gs in terms of l
I 19 nonproduction and how to proceed with nonproduction.
I 20 For this deposition, I would like to go j i
21 around the table and have overyone identify 22 themselves that is present in the room. I have 23 identified myself.
24 MR. WOOLDRIDGE: Bob Wooldridge.
25 MS. MOORE: Janice Moore representing UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
na r.r.a c . TPvas (?la) A;; 9100
6 1 NRC staff.
2 MR. M A RT L A N D : David Martland with 3 Ropes & Gray.
4 MR. STILLMAN: Robert Stillman, Ropes 5 & Gray.
6 MR. EGGELING: William S. Eggeling.
7 THE WITNESS: William G. Counsil.
8 MS. GARDE: That is the witness.
9; Q. (BY MS. GARDE) All right. Mr. Counsil, I
10' when did you go to work for Texas Utili ti es?
11' A. May 1, 1985.
}
12 Q. And prior to your actually going to work 13 for Texas Utilities, did you enter into discussions 14' with Texas Utilities officials regarding your 15! potential employment?
16 A. Yes, I did.
17 Q. When did those discussiono start?
18 A. Approximately February 1985.
19 MR. EGGELING: Slow down.
20 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Who initiated those 21 discussions?
22 A. Mr. Michael Spence.
23 Q. When was the first trip that you made to
. 24 Texas regarding your potential employment?
25 A. Approximately the beginning of March of
. UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
nat,LaR. Trvam f 7141 RSS-93OO
7 1 1985.
2 Q. During that visit, did you meet with Mr.
3 Spence and others regarding the Comanche Peak plant 4 and its current condition?
5 A. I met with Mr. Spence and others, but 6 little was discussed about the current condition of 1
7 Comanche Peak.
8 Q. Did you review during that first meeting 9 any documents? ;
i 10 A. No, I did not.
l 11 Q. Had you been sent any documents by Texas 12 Utilities to review before that meeting occurred? .
13 A. No, I wasn't.
14 Q. Following the March 1985 meeting, wore youj t'
15 provided documents to review regarding the condition 16 cf Comanche Peaki j 17 MR. WOOLDRIDGE: Before he ca m e to l 18 work?
19 MS. GARDE: Yes.
20 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) I'm looking at before 21 March -- before May 1, 1985, after your first meeting.
I 22 A. There was a period of time at the I 23 last -- roughly the last week in April of 1985 where 24 I was provided with. newspaper clippings from the 25 local press, the media, and I believe one other UNITED A M E P.I C A N REPORTING S E RV I C E S , INC.
n L t.t.a c . trvac t oi a s oce_cann
8 1 document which I never got around to even looki ng at.
2 Q. Are those the only documents you reviewed 3 before accepting employment?
4 A. I received those documents after I had 5 accepted employment.
6 Q. Okay. When was the first time that you 7 were provided with or read --
Let me do it twice.
8 When was the first time you were provided 9! with the January 8th, 1985 letter from the Nuclear 10 Regulatory Commission to Texas Utilities?
11li (Off-the-record discussion l
12: (between Mr. Eggeling and 11 (Mr. Counsil.
14, A. 1 don't know.
15 Q. (B7 HS. GARDE) Was it after you had
.I 16; accepted employment?
17 MS. GARDE: Mr. Counsil, I object to 18! you curning to your counsel every tima you are 19 answering a question. If you don't know, just say 20 you don't know.
21 MR. EGGELING: Let's not worry about 22 objecting to the witness' ability to consult with his l i
23 counsel. I'm not sure you have the right to object 24 to that.
25 MS. GARDE: Well, t hen , I want the ,
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING S l[RVI C E S , INC.
D A f f.A R . TRYAq f $1 di AMM.Cinn
1 9
1 record to reflect that he is talking to you before he 2 answers the question.
3 MR. EGGELING: You have the ability 4 to do that.
5 MS. GARDE: So --
6 (Off-the-record discussion 7 (between Mr. Eggeling and 8 (Mr. Counsil.
9 MR. EGGELING: Give her the answer 10 she asks for.
11 A. I don't know.
12 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) All right. At the time 13 that you had --
Well, when did you decide to accept 14 employment with Texas Utilities?
15l A. Last week in March 1985.
16 0. At the time that you decided to accept i
17l empicyment with Texas Utilities, had you done any i
18l site visits?
19' A. I had been to the site once in April 1984.
20 (Off-the-record discussion 21 (between Mr. Eggeling and 22 (Mr. Counsil.
23 Q. And your April 1984 visit was not in
. 24 connection with potential employment with Texas ,
25 Utilities? -
l l 1
1 I
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
na t e s e mevne tsies oce esnn
9 10 1 A. It was not.
2 Q. Other than that April 1984 visit, did you 3 go to the site between the time you were offered 4 employment and the time you accepted employment?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Okay. Did you review any documents from 7 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, including the 8 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board prior to your 9! acceptance of employment?
10 MR. EGGELING: You mean, I take it, 11 documents related to Comanche Peak?
l MS. GARDE: Yes.
12l 13 A. No.
14} Q. (BY MS. GARDE) When was the first time i
15l you reviewed the CPRT program plan?
i 16! A. Late May 1985.
I l
17 j Q. What was the context in which you reviewed I
18' the program plan at that time?
19 A. For information.
20 Q. Were you given a briefing on the program 21 plan by any other official of Texas Utilities?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Who was that?
24 A. John Beck.
25 Q. Was this a formal briefing for which UNITED AMP.RI CAN REPORTING S E RV I C E S , INC.
na t.t.a c mevac I $14 ) a c e, _ c i n n
11-1 documentation was prepared?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Was Mr. Hansel at the briefing?
4 A. No. ,
5 Q. Was Howard Levin at the briefing?
6 A. No.
i 7 Q. Was it just Mr. Beck? ,
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Were you asked at the meeting between j 10 Mr. Beck and yourself to make an evaluation of the !
11 C P RT ' s adequacy?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Have you e v e r' been asked to make an 14 evaluation of the adequacy of the CPRT? ;
i 15 A. May I ask a clarifying question? !
i 16 Q. To me? i 17 A. Yes. .
18 Q. Yes. You ~on't understand my question?
19 A. That is correct. Are you talking formal, 20 i nf ormal?
21 Q. Formal. I 22 A. Formal, no.
23 Q. Have you reviewed the CPRT independent of 24 a request for a formal review and made determinations 4
25 on its adequacy?
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
DALLAS. TEXAS (214) 855-5300
~
12 1 A.- Yes.
I 2 Q. When did you begin the process of 3 reviewing the CPRT to determine its adequacy?
4 A. Late May of 1985.
5 Q. At the time that you began this process of 6 reviewing the CPRT to determine its adequacy, had you 7 reviewed the January 8th, 1985 NRC letter?
8 A. No.
I 91 Q. Had you reviewed any of the SSERs 10 ! published to that poi nt by the Nuclear Regulatory 11{ Commission from 7 through 107 l
12j A. No.
t
, 13! Q. At what point did you review either the I
14: January 1985 letter or the SSERs 7 through 11 in 15 connection with the CPRT adequacy review that you 16: were conducting?
17 MR. EGGELING: You are assuming that 18 he did?
19 MS. GARDE: I hope that he did.
2 0 l6 MR. EGGELING: Well, let's ask the 21 question.
22 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Have you ever reviewed the '
23 SSERs?
. 24 A. Yes.
25 O. Have you ever determined whether or not i
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING S E RV I C E S , INC.
na v e w e mevne toias occ_c,nn
[
13 1 the C P RT was adequate to resolve the problems of the
( 2 SSERs?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. I want to understand the process in 5 which that happened. We are in late 1985, and you 6 have begun a review of the CPRT. At what point did .
l 7 you review the NRC's SSERs or letters that were j 8 generated from the technical review team?
9 A. One clarification. :
1 10 Q. Okay. l 11 A. You said "in late 1985." I said I started 12 in May of 1985.
13 Q. Okay. I meant to say "late May 1985."
14 That is what my notes say. I apologize. I l
15 A. Literally, over that summer.
16 Q. Was there a deliberate process that you 17 followed in the materials that you reviewed in 18 connection with your CPRT adequacy review?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Did you determine what documents to review 21 in order to reach conclusions about the CP RT adequacy?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Did you have any assistant that 24 specifically helped you work on your review of the 25 adequacy of the CPRT?
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
na r r a c movac I 91 a ) amm_minn
14 1 A. No.
( 2 Q. Did you review, in this process of 3 determining the CPRT adequacy, the Lobbin report?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Have you ever read the Lobbin report?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Did you review the report of the
- 8. Management Analysis Corporation?
9 A. May I ask a question?
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. I don't know if there was more than one.
12 I looked at the one dated 1978.
13 Q. Okay.
14 A. I take it that is what you are referring i
15 to?
16 I Q. That is what I'm referring to.
17 Did you review the decision of the Atomic 18 Safety and Licensing Board of December 1983 regarding 19 design quality assurance?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Have you ever reviewed that decision?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Did you review the proposed findings on 24 the Walsh Doyle allegations prepared by CASE in the 25 context of reviewing the CPRT's adequacy?
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
n a r.T.a c . Tvvac ( 71 4) nms_sinn
15 1 A. No.
( 2 Q. Did you review the proposed findings on 3 the harassment and intimidation issues from the ASLB 4 Docket 2 in determining the CPRT adequacy?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Did you review the quality assurance ,
7 audits conducted by Texas Utilities since the time 8 construction at the site began in det ermi ning the 9 CP RT adequacy?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Did you review any of the special NRC 12 inspection reports, the document that is referred to 13 as the SIT team report? Do you know what I mean when 14 I say the "SIT team report"?
15' A. Yes, to the latter question.
16 Q. Do you know what I mean when I say the 17 "SIT team report"?
18 A. Yes.
i 19 Q. Did you review it in the context of the l, 20 determining the CPRT adequacy?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Do you know what the CAT team report is?
23 A. Yes, I do.
. 24
- Q. Did you review the CAT team report in the 25 context of determining the C P RT adequacy?
i UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
n a r.r.a c Trvac (214) 855-5300
16 1 A. No.
' 2 Q. Did you review the Region IV inspection 3 and enforcement inspection reports for the Comanche 4 Peak site from the time those inspections began until 5 May 1985 in the process of your determining the CPRT 6 adequacy?
7' A. No.
8' O. Did you review summaries of any of the i
9' documents that I have just asked you about prepared i
10i for you by someone else at Texas Utilities?
l 11 A. No. ;
12 Q. Okay. Were you given oral briefings on 13{ any of the documents that I have just asked you if 14! you reviewed by anyone in Texas Utilities in the I !
15 process we have been discussing?
16 A. No. !
17 Q. Other than the CPRT document itself, what 1 18 did you review beginning in late May 1985 and over 19 the summer to determine the adequacy of that program 20 plan? .
21 A. Nothing.
22 Q. At the end of the time period that you 23 have specified you spent reviewing the CP RT to 24 determine its adequacy, did you reach a conclusion on 25 whether or not it was adequate?
UNITED AMERI CAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
n a t.T,a s . TEXAS (214) 855-5300
17 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What was the basis of that conclusion?
3 A. My experience.
4 Q. In the industry?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. What was that conclusion?
7 A. That it was in fact adequate. l-8 Q. That it was adequate? !
t 9' A. Correct. j i
10 Q. What in your opinion was it adequate to !
11 tell you about the plant?
12 A. Two very basic things. One, whether 13 design had been accomplished appropriately. And 14 secondly, whether the hardware as constructed was l l
15 built properly.
16 Q. Did you reach a conclusi on on whether the 17 CPRT would identify all deficiencies in the hardware 18 at the site?
l 19 A. No. 1 20 Q. No, you did not reach an opinion on that? .
21 A. No, I did not reach a conclusion.
22 Q. When you reviewed the CPRT to determine if 23 it was adequate, did you look at whether or not the 24 CPRT was adequate to find deficiencies? :
\
25 A. Yes.
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.*
na r e a c mevac 1914\ ann.mann
18 1 Q. But you reached-no conclusion on that, 4 2 okay. Then I don't understand your testimony. I 3 want to understand your testimony. Let me ask the 4 question again.
5 Did you reach a conclusion on whether or 6 not the CP RT was an adequate program to identify all existing deficiencies at the Comanche Peak site?
7l 8 A. Yes.
9 Q. What was that conclusion?
4 10 A. That through its self-e xpanding nature , it i
11! would in fact identif y deficiencies at the I
12i Comanche Peak site.
l 13l Q. All deficiencies?
14: A. - No.
15 3 Q. Was that of ce"cern to you?
I 16 A. No.
17 Q. Why not?
18 A. Predominantly, one cannot be assured that 19 all, quote, deficiencies have been found until the 20 start-up test program has been completed. Obviously, 21 the plant would not have completed the start-up test 22 program.
23 Q. Are you familiar with the term of art that
. 24 the CPRT will not be the results of record for the 25 Comanche Peak project?
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING S E RV I C E S , INC.
na v e n e mevne (91 4) as;_sino
19 1 MR. EGGELING: I'm not familiar with
,I 2 the term. Can you put it to some specific place it ;
3 comes from?
4 MS. GARDE: Well, it is what I was 5 reading yesterday from its page in the -- often used 6 phrase in the CPRT.
7 MR. EGGELING: Well, I respectively ,
i 8 suggest that it is not used, but I may be wrong. Why:
?
9 don't you get whatever you want? I think you l l'
10 misquoted it.
11 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Let me try to ask it a 12 different way, and if I can't do that, I will get off 13 the CPRT.
14 Are the results of the CPRT inspection 15 program going to be included in the permanent records 16 of the site?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Are the permanent records of the site that 19 your previous answer went to all of the documents 20 upon which the plant is going to be certified as safe 21 to the NRC?
22 A. I don't understand the question.
23 MS. GARDE: Okay. Let me get the 24 CPRT. All right. We should probably go off the 25 record for a minute and see if I can find it. !
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
na r.r.a c . TRyan (714) 855-5300
20 1 I have this paper pulled, so we are just going to i
2 have to wait until I dig through a lot of paper, so 3 we might as well stretch our legs.
4 (Off-the-record discussion.
5 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Mr. Counsil, I still 6 haven't found the page that I'm looking for. If I l 7 change my question to ask you whether or not the l 8 CP RT will be the program of record, do you understand' 9' the question?
- 10. ,
A. No.
11l ,
MS. GARDE: Okay. We can go off the 12' r e c o ti d .
13 (Off-the-record discussion.
14' MR. EGGELING: Counsel, shouldn't we 15 reflect that Mr. and Mrs. Ellis have joined us?
16 ! MS. GARDE: Oh, yes.
17 MRS. ELLIS: Hi.
18 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) If I ask you if you 19 recognize the phrase that the CPRT will not perform 20 inspections, calculations, or designs of record for 21 Comanche Peak, do you recognize that phrase?
22 A. Yes.
23 0. Okay. What does that mean?
24 A. That they will not perform inspections of 25 record, calculations of record, or designs of record.
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING S E RV I C E S , INC.
n a r.r.n u mrvac f 914 ) Ass sinn
21 1 Q. Okay. What does "of record" refer to?
8 2 A. Meaning that it would substitute for that 3 which was done previously.
4 Q. Meaning that it will not substitute for
, 5 that which was done previously?
6 A. As a permanent plant record.
7 Q. It will not substitute for that which was t i
8 done permanently as a permanent plant record?
9 A. Correct. ,
i 10 MR. EGGELING: Listen to the questionf 11 again. Done permanently?
12 MS. GARDE: Why don't you just 13 testify, Mr. Eggeling?
14 (Off-the-record discussion i 15 (between Mr. Eggeling and 16 (Mr. Counsil. .
17 A. The answer --
l 1
18 MR. EGGELING: Read back the question.
19 THE WITNESS: Read the question.
I 20 (Record read back. ;
21 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) If that question is l
22 changed to reflect the word "previously" instead of 23 "permanently," is your answer the same?
24 -
A. Yes.
25 O. Where previous i n s pe c t i o'n s or calculationc UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING S E RV I C E S , INC.
D A LT, A S . TEXAS f214) 855-5300
22 1 or designs were performed and the CPRT finds no
.t 2 deviations when they conduct their re-inspection work, 3 will those original calculations, inspections, or 4 designs be the permanent record for Comanche Peak?
5 A. Not necessarily.
6 Q. Why not?
7 A. Primarily, because we have expanded in 8 many areas at the end of the corrective action 9 program. And some of those records we will then 10l; substitute for the permanent plant records.
r 11! Q. So if the CPRT does not identify any ,
I deviations on a particular inspection, that 12 j 13! inspection may still be changed by the corrective i
14 faction program so that there is another inspection of I
15; records is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17, Q. And that inspection of record that is I
of the corrective action program, is 18'l generated out 19l that fed back into the CPRT?
20 l6 MR. EGGELING: Do you understand the i
21 question?
22 THE WITNESS: No.
23 MR. EGGELING: Ask her to rephrase it 24 and explain what she means by "fed back."
25 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Corrective action program, i
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
n= v v s e movne i 31 4) ass _ston
23 1 as I understand your testimony, may perform
.I 2 inspections that become the inspections of record 3 substituting for previous inspections done at the 4 plants is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. And that process does not 7 necessarily come from a CPRT conclusion about a 8 certain inspection; is that correct? j 9 A. Yes. j 10 Q. And your corrective action ~ program f, 11 inspection, which becomes the permanent record of the i
12 plant -- permanent inspection of record, is that ,
13 inspection of record given or provided to in any way 14 the CPRT for its eva l ua t i on?
i 15 A. No. ,
16 Q. Did the CPRT program provide a basis for ,
17 the decision to embark on a corrective action program?;.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Was that decision to embark on a 20 corrective action program -- Strike that.
21 The CPRT program always en vi si oned that 22 the project would do the corrective action; isn't 23 that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And the project refers to Texas Utiliti es UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING S E RV I C E S , INC.*
- n a r,r,a c ervac ( 91 4) Ass _%1on
24 1 and any of its subcontractors separate from the C P RT I 2 function, doesn't it? ,
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And the procedures by whi ch the corrective 5 action program does its work is not a part of the 6 CPRT, is it?
A. It is not.
7 8l; Q. Is the project bound by the I
9 recommendations of the CP RT regarding what corrective 10 j action to take?
11i A. Can you rephrase that question? l I
12 Q. To date, the CP RT has not provided to the 13 project the final report on VII.c., have they?
14i A. No. ,
15' Q. They have, however, provided to the s t
16: pro $ect all the results reports that have been 17 completed and are published and available even to 18 CASE, haven't they?
19: A. Yes, f
20 Q. They have also provided information not
}
21 !
yet available to CASE covered under the in process 22 definition; isn't that correct?
23 A. May I get clarification on "in
. 24 process"?
25 Q. Yes, okay. This isn't a trick question. l UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING S E RVI C E S , INC.
n a r.t.a c . TFYa4 ( 21 4) R55-5300
25 1 Mr. Counsil.
( 2 A. It is just --
I would like some 3 clarification on "in process."
4 Q. Well, it is a legal de f i ni ti on the lawyers 5 have used to keep CASE and the board from having 6 access to documents that don't -- so that their work 7 is not disturbed by having to provide information to 8 us and stop the work.
I 9 A. Now can I have the question repeated, ;
10 please?
11 Q. Okay. I'm trying to find the classes of 12 information. There is a class of inf ormation we all 13 have. There is a class of information you don't even j i
14 have yet from the CPRT. Is there a class in the 15 middle that you have but CASE doesn't?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. All right. The corrective action program 18 that is described in the CPRT program plan in 19 Appendix -- I think it is Appendix H, are you 20 familiar with that appendix, the corrective action 21 program appendix of the CPRT?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Okay. You are familiar with your 24 corrective action program, but not the CPRT chapter 25 that describes it?
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
nm e r a c mrvse t $14 ) Ass 5100
26 1 A. I have to have it in front of me.
I 2 Q. It is Appendix H. Mine has writing on it, 3 and I don't have a clean copy. I would ask your 4 counsel if he has a clean copy of Appendix H of the
6 MR. EGGELING: I don't know.
7 MS. GARDE: Do you have it?
8 MR. EGGELING: Yes.
9 MS. GARDE: Okay. Could you give it 10; to the witness? !
- i 11 ! MR. EGGELING: (Indicating). I I
12 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) All right. Mr. Counsil, I 13 would draw your attention to page 1 of Appendix H, 14 under Introduction and Purpose, first paragraph, last 15 sentence that starts with "Corrective action."
16 MR. EGGELING: Excuse me. The l
17 document we are looking at does not have anything i t
18 called Introduction and Purpose. ,
I' 19 MS. GARDE: Then we have a different -
20 program.
21 MR. EGGELING: You were looking at l ,
i 22 Revision O. Revision 1 is a current revision.
l t
23 MS. GARDE: Is that included in t
24 Revision 47 25 MR. EGGELING: All I'm telling you is ;
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
n a t.r.a c . trvac (91 4) Ass.;1no
27
, 1 what I have --
I 2 MS. GARD: Are you looking at 3 Revision 47 4 MR. EGGELING: Yes, ma'am.
5 MS. GARDE: Okay. I have Revision 1 6 also, so I do have a clean copy. Well, that doesn't 7 help.
8 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) I'm going to have to show l 9 you my copy then, and I'm going to show you ;
i 10 Revi si on 0 of Appendix H, Introduction and Purpose, ,
11 and draw your attention to the last line in the first 12 paragraph which is yellowed in starting with 13 "Corrective Action." Do you see that? ,
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. Could you read that sentence, 16 please, to yourself?
17 (Witness perusing document.
18 Q. Have you read it?
19 A.
Yes.
20 Q. Okay. That statement says that the 21 corrective actions will be prospective in nature.
22 Let me ask you first: Whether the revision has 23 changed the corrective action program so that it is
, 24 no longer prospective in nature?
25 A. No. .
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES. INC.
DALLAS, TEXAS (214) 855-5300 -
28 1 Q. It is still prospective in nature? l 2 'A. Yes.
3 Q. And the CPRT is still recommending 4 proposed corrective actions to the Comanche Peak ,
l 5 project? l 6 A. Yes. )
i 7 Q. And those corrective actions are still 8 prospective in nature; is that correct?
9 MR. EGGELING: Within the meaning of 10, that sentence? -
11' MS. GARDE: Within the meaning of 12' that sentence.
13 MR. EGGELING: Excuse me. l 14 THE WITNESS: The report is that. l "
1 15 MS. GARDE: Then I want him to tell t
16 me that on the record. i 17 MR. EGGELING: Answer her question.
18 Let her ask you the question.
-I '
19 THE WITNESS: Yes.
20 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) All right. Are they only 21 prospective in nature?
22 A. No. <
j L
23 Q. They are also r et roacti ve , retrospective; j -(
, 1 24 is that true? . ;
25 A. Not necessarily. .
i i f
' UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
DALLAS, TEXAS (214) 855-5300 !
29 1 Q. Does the corrective action program 2 actually dictate rework of hardware?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Does the corrective action program 5 actually dictate redesign?
I 6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Does the corrective action program 8 actually dictate changes in FSAR or licensing 9 commitments?
10 A. It may.
11 Q. Okay. Was the retrospective aspect of-the 12 program considered at the time Revision 0 was -- of 13 Appendix H was prepared?
14 MR. EGGELING: The question, please?
15 MS. GARDE: Very confusing.
16 MR. EGGELING: Can you define what 17 you mean by "retrospective aspect"? ,
18 MS. GARDE: I just asked him. He 19 just testified about things that are retrospective in' 20 nature.
21 MR. EGGELING: He never used that 22 term. I never used that term. The program doesn't 23 use the term. If you are going to define them as ;
24 that, please do so. I don't think we have 25 established that yet on the record.
I !
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING S E RV I C E S , INC.
DALLAS. TEXAS (214) 855-5300 ,
30 1 MS. GARDE: Okay. I won't use that 2 term then, yet, if that is offensive to you.
3 MR. EGGELING: I don't know if it is 4 offensive. I don't know what it means.
5 MS. GARDE: All right.
6 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) What does "prospective" 7l mean in the context of the sentence in Revision 0?
I 8j A. Corrective to the future.
9 Q. Hypothetically, does that mean that if a 10 procedure is identified that is flawed, that that i I
11l procedure will be corrected for all future use of I
12 that procedure? Is that a bad hypothetical?
13l A. The term "flawed" -- ;,
l 14; Q. All right. Could you give me an example, j 15 or do you want me to come up with another one? I 16 want to make sure I understand "prospective."
17 A. I would rather you propose them.
18 Q. Okay, fine. Hypothetically, if the CPRT l'
19 has identified a deficiency or a deviation, and I -
20 know those are two terms that have different meanings, 21 does the corrective action program di ct at e corrective 22 action which only goes into the future either use of 23 the procedure or solving the deficiency or the
. 24 deviation identified?
25 A. No.
f I
UNITED AME RICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
DALLAS. TEXAS (214) 855-5300 :
31 1 Q. Okay. What else does it do?
' 2 A. Considers preventative actions immediately, 3 and also evaluates whether anything must be done to 4 correct what was done in the past.
5 Q. All right. The consideration of what must i
6 be done to correct things that were done in the past ;
I 7 is what I understand "retrospective" means.
8 Using that definition of "retrospective,"
9 did the first revi si on of Appendix H contemplate 10 retrospective action?
I 11 A. Yes, to the best of my knowledge.
12 Q. All right. Did you write Appendix H?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Did you review Appendix H7 15 MR. EGGELING: Prior to something?
16 MS. GARDE: Ever.
17 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Have you ever reviewed 18 Appendix H7 19 A. Yes. ;
20 Q. Did you review it at the time that it was 21 published with CPRT Revision 3?
l I
22 A. Yes.
l 23 MS. GARDE: Mr. Eggeling, I have seen l 24 you look at your watch a couple of times. Is it f 25 lunch? '
\ l UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC. l DALLAS. TEXAS (214) 855-5300
32 1 MR. EGGELING: Yes. I promised we i 2 would go to lunch about now. p I
3 MS. GARDE: Okay. This would be a 4 good stopping point.
5 (Lunch recess.
6 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) All right. Before the 7 lunch break, Mr. Counsil, we had a di s cus si on about i
8l your judgment on the CPRT program plan adequacy being 9! based on your experience in the industry. Do you I r 10' recall that testimony?
i lif A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. I want to go back and briefly put 13 on the record at this deposition what your e xperi ence 14 in the industry is. I'm sure at some point we are ,
15; going to have a resume of you, if there isn't one 16 already available, so it doesn't have to be very 17 specific, but how long have you worked in the nuclear 18' power industry?
19 A. Since 1962.
20 Q. All right. Has it always been in the 21 commercial side of nuclear power production?
22 A. No. The first five years was Navy nuclear I
23 power.
I 24 Q. Was it on a Navy submarine?
,I' 25 A. Yes.
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC. !
DALLAS, TEXAS (214) 855-5300 .
33 1 Q. And then what did you do?
2 A. In May of 1967, I joined Northeast 3 Utilities in a subsidiary that at that poi nt in time 4 was called the Millstone Point Company.
5 Q. And who was your actual employer?
! )
6 A. The Millstone Point Company. t 7 Q. How long did that job last?
8 A. I was employed by the Millstone Point 9 Company until 1972 when the r,ame was changed to 10 Northeast Nucleer Energy Company. And I stayed with j i
11 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company at the Millstone 12 site until January of 1976 when I joined the i 13 Northeast Utility Service Company.
l 14 Q. How long were you with Northeast Utility l 15 Service Company?
16 A. Well, until I left and came to Texas.
4 17 Q. During your experience that you have 18 roughly outlined, have you ever been involved with a ,
19 re-inspection program such as the CPRT7 20 A. Yes, but not as extensive ao the CPRT 21 program.
22 Q. And what program --
Yas there more than 23 one re-inspection program?
. 24
- A. Yes.
25 Q. How many were there?
i UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES. INC.
DALLAS. TEXAS (214) 855-5300
34 1 A. Oh, there have been numerous in my career ,
' 2 for limited type re-inspections, but two of the most 3 major were the system --
major evaluations of 4 Millstone one and Connecticut Yankee.
5 Q. Were those programs dictated by the NRC7 6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Were those programs dictated by the NRC 8l because of a quality control, quality assurance 9 program breakdown?
10! A. No.
11! Q. What were the problems at the Millstone i
12- facility that gave rise to the re-inspection?
I l
4 13 t A. There weren't any. It was a program by i
14; the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to assess the ten 15- old plants in the United States to today's standards. i 16' O. Was it the same program at Connecticut i
, 17 Yankee?
I 18 j A. Yes.
I 19 j Q. Have you ever been involved in any of the -
20 re-inspection efforts that you have had something to 21 do with with the program that is initiated because of 22 quality assurance, quality control programmatic 23 defects?
24 A. Partly. .
25 Q. And which program was that?.
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING S E RV I CE S , INC.
DALLAS, TEXAS (214) R55-5300
35 1 A. I consulted as a member of a three-person
( 2 team at the Pilgrim Nuclear Station in early 1980.
3 Q. What were the problems at Pilgrim that 4 gave rise to that effort?
5 A. Largely reliability based type problems; 6 that, and management.
7 Q. Document reliability? .
8 A. No. Reliability of the plant itself, i
9 Q. How does the reliability of the plant {
10 itself translate into QA/QC aspect?
11 A. Predominantly through challenges to safety l 12 systems.
13 Q. Were those challenges raised by the 14 Nuclear Regulatory Commission? l ,
i 15 A. No.
16 Q. Who were they raised by?
17 A. The plant itself.
18 Q. Okay. What was that utility? .
F 19 A. Boston Edison Company.
20 Q. Did that audit have anything to do with 21 the -- Strike that. .
22 other than the experience that you have f 23 just described, is there any other experience that
, i 24 you have had that provided the' base of your work in ' i i
25 raviewing the CPRT in the summer of '85 for its t UNITED AME RICAN REP ORTING S ERV ICE S . INC. !
na t.T.a c . TFxAs (214) 855-5300 l
36 1 adequacy?
I 2 A. Literally hundreds of examples on the 3 day-to-day workings of a nuclear power plant.
4 Q. Your experience with an operating plant?
5 A. And construction plants.
6 Q. But those are what is covered by the time 7; period that you kind of broke down?
i 8l A. Yes.
9I Q. Have you aver been a part of a i 10 professional organization that looked at or was 11! looking at quality assurance, quality control 12 problems in the nuclear industry?
13! A. Yes.
I Q. Okay. What was that?
14) 15' A. I served on the policy committee of the 16! Atomic Industrial Forum for a number of years. In ;
t I
< 17, addition to that, I was the chairman of the industry 18 review at the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, i
19' entry review group of the analysis and engineering 20 division of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations. !
21 Q. Did your work at INPO look at quality j i
22 control, quality assurance at plants under 23 construction?
- 24 A. Not at quality control, per se. That was 25 quality assurance.
i UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING S ERVICES, INC. ;
n A t,L A S . TEXAS (214) 855-5300 j
37 1 Q. What was that time frame?
( 2 A. 19 -- Early 1980 through spring of 1983, 3 plus a few ad hoc type committees at the same
' 4 organization.
5 Q. At INPO?
6 A. Correct. <
7 Q. Capital I-N-P-0. Are you a member of the 8 American Society of Quality Assurcnce Engineers? ,
l 9 A. No.
10 Q. Are you a certified engineer?
11 A. I don't understand the question.
12 Q. Do you have a degree in engineering? l 13 A. Yes. ,
14 Q. Are you certified in any state?
~
MR. EGGELING: Do you mean licensed?
15l i
Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Are you licensed in any 16l ir 17 state? ; ,
i 18 A. No. i 19 Q. Did you review the attribute checklists of 20 the CP RT program plan for any of the ISAPs? !
i 21 A. No. l 22 Q. Have you ever reviewed them? ;
23 A. No.
24 MR. EGGELING: Were those different ,
25 questions? !
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES. INC.
DALLAS. TEXAS (214) 855-5300 -
r-38 i MS. GARDE: I have asked him has he i 2 ever reviewed them.
3 MR. EGGELING: I understood, but I 4 thought that was the same as the first one.
5 MS. GARDE: It might have been.
6 MR. EGGELING: Okay.
7 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Do you have a direct 8 interface role with the CPRT review team leaders?
9, A. No.
I 10' O. Do you have a direct interface role with 11l the senior review team? t 12 A. On occasion. ,
13, Q. On what occasion would you have a direct 1 44 interface with the senior review team?
i i
1 51 A. When they invite me to a meeting and/or i ;
l 1 l invite me to make a presentation to them.
16 j 17 Q. Have you done any such presentations in 18; the last year?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What were the approximate times of those :
21 presentations? Let me start by asking: What is the t i
22 approximate number? !,
23 A. The last year, a pproximat ely a dozen times.
24 Q. Did you make a presentation to the senior
~
25 review team in March of 19877 !
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
DALLAS TEXAS (214) 855-5300
, . ~. .
u 39 1 A. I don't know.
I 2 Q. Did you make a presentation in the spring 3 of 1987 on the subject of the corrective action 4 program?
5 A. I, and I believe several others.
6 Q. You ani several others made a presentation on the corrective action program? I 7
8 A. Yes. .-
j 9 Q. Okay. Was your presentation on the ,
s '
10 corrective action program the reason that 11 Appendix H was revised?
^
12 A. I don't know, 13 Q. Okay. 'Did you have anything to do with t
14 ' he revision of Appendix H?
~
i i
- 1 15 A. No. ,
16 Q. Do you have any idea whether 17 Appendix H accurately-r'eflects the corrective action 18 program that has subsequently been,. described at 19 public meetings by, yourself and othein?
20 A. Could you reword.that question, pleaso? ,
~
21 Q. Yeah._ There in an' Appendix H which you ;
22 looked at before, okay?
23 MR. EGGELING : . ' He' ha s looked at --
. 24 -
MS. GARDE: Well, he had it open, but
~
25 I will let him look at it again. _
UNITED AME RI CA N REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
DALLAS, TEXAS (214) 855-5300
40 1 MR. EGGELING: You had'him look at a
( 2 different -- You had him look at a previous 3 nonexistent noncurrent revision.
'4 MS. GARDE: Well, not exists, but 5 noncurrent.
6 MR. EGGELING: Noncurrent.
7l; A. Can I have a moment? Would you like me to 1
, 8l read the whole thing?
9l Q. (LY MS. GARDE) Let me ask you the 10, question first, okay?
11! The question is Whether Appendix H, 12' Revision 1 -- Appendix H, Revision 1 accurately 13! summarizes what the corrective action program is as 14 envisioned by the CPRT?
15- (Witness perusing document.
A. Can I have the question back?
16l 17 Q. Have you reviewed it?
l 18 A. Yes.
19' (Record read back.
20 A. It accurately states the CPRT and SRT 21 responsibilities for their portions of the corrective 22 action program.
23 Q. It does not outline what Texas Utilities' 24 corrective action pcogram is or does?
25 MR. EGGELING: Is that a que s t i on ?
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING S E RV I C E S , INC.
DALLAS. TEXAS (214) 855-5300
41 1 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Is that true?
( 2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Will the corrective action program 4 referred to in Appendix H rely on the results of the 5 CPRT for any purpose?
6 A. I'm sorry. I don't understand the 7 question.
l 8 Q. Okay. Excuse me. Texas Utilities has ;
i 9 created a corrective action program; is that correct? ,
10 A. Correct. f i
11 Q. And that corrective program is referred to '
12 in Appendix H; isn't that correct?
13 A. No. !
I 14 Q. Okay. Appendix H of Revision 4, 15 development and overview of corrective actions for 16 CPRT identified discrepancies. Corrective actions as 17 referred to in Appendix H, are those corrective 18 actions done by the CPRT, or are they done by Texas 19 Utilities?
20 A. The CPRT has as one of its arms the 21 project personnel of SU Electric and the nuclear 22 divi si on . They are part of the CPRT.
23 Q. All right. What involvement is there in 24 the corrective action program?'
25 A. They are involved with carrying out the UNITED AMERICAN REPOR. TING SERVICES, INC.
DALLAS, TEXAS (214) 855-5300
42 1 corrective actions associated with and identified by 5
2 the CPRT.
3 Q. All right. Is there an additional 4 corrective action program of Te xas Utilities beyond 5 that generated by the CPRT efforts?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. What is the source of that program?
8 A. Could you rephrase the last part of that 9' question?
10 ! Q. Okay. What is the --
What is that other 11- effort?
12 A. The other effort is the hundred percent 13l design validation of all safety-related systems 14; associated with Comanche Peak.
I 15' O. And that is not --
The hundred percent 16 design validation of all safety systems does not stem 17 from any of the work by the CPRT; is that correct?
18' A. No.
19 Q. Okay. What efforts of the CPRT feed into l 20 the hundred percent design validation of all safety l
21 systems?
22 A. The findings of both the design adequacy 23 program as well as, if they are concerned with design,
. 24 those coming out of the quality of cons t r uc ti on 25 program. .
I l
l UNITED AMERICAN REP ORTING S E RV I CE S , INC.
[
na r.r.a c movac t ot as one cinn
. .. .. . . . . . :. s ~ .. . . . . . .,
43 1 Q. So to the extent that any design QA/QC i 2 issues are --
emerge from VII.c. or the collective-3 evaluation report or the collective significance 4 report, they will feed into the hundred percent 5 design validation of all safety systems; is that a 6 correct statement?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Is there no n - CP RT work that also has 9 provided a basis for the creation of the design 10 validation re-inspection?
j i
11 A. Yes.
l l
12, Q. What was that? !
13 A. By and large, an informal review of some l 1
14 work had commissioned starting in May of 1986 by 15 Stellar Webstor Engineering Corporation, in addition 16 to my own observations and those of Larry Nace and 17 other findings by the NRC doing findings and 18 inspection reports by the Nuclear Regulatory
, 19 Commission.
20 Q. Is the informal review by SWEC written upon 21 any documents?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Did you create any documents after that 24 review?
25 A. Yes.
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
na r.r.a c movac I 91.4% occ cino
. . - ~ ~ a . . ~., . . n . . . . s u . e,. u . - . a a . . . . - . ,
44 1 Q. Okay. Were any of the documents that_you
( 2 created fed back to the CPRT?
3 A. Not to my knowledge.
4 Q. What was-done with those documents?
5 A. The document.
6 Q. Okay, the document?
7l A. Was placed in the file.
8 Q. Well, what file? Are we talking about
,I 9! CPRT results files, are we talking about corrective i
10 j action report files, your file? Is this a secret?
11 A. No.
I 12 Q. Okay.
13 MR. EGGELING: Wait, and ask him a 14l question.
15 MS. GARDE: He has his fingers over 16 his mouth. I guess it is a secret.
17 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Is the location of this 18 document a secret?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Is it a public document?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. What document is it?
23 A. Sole source determination as to who is 24 going to carry out the hundred percent design 25 validation.
I UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
na r , m e mev.c im.s nee e,nn
- - - . - - . ~ _ . ~ . -. - .. ~ . _ . . .. , r... . . ,;, n . ... m ... . ~,
1 1
45 1 Q. Is the CPRT reviewing design QA/QC 2 issues?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. What aspect or part of the C P RT is doing 5 that?
6 A. Largely, the S RT , assisted by review team 7 leaders.
8 Q. Is the effort that the S RT is performing 9 in regards to design QA/QC being done in accordance 10 with any procedures of the CPRT?
11 A. I don't know.
12 Q. Have you been in on any of the meetings 13 where the SRT reviewed or discussed in any way design 14 QA/QC issues?
15 A. I have to ask you to give me a de f i ni ti on 16 of "design QA/QC" and what you mean by it, and then I 17 can answer the question.
18 Q. All right. When I use the term "derign 19 Q A /QC " -- And let me clarify that, and if that 20 changes any of your previous answers, please, let's 21 do that at this point.
22 A. Okay.
23 Q. By that, I mean any evidence that the
. 24 quality control or the quality assurance of the 25 design process did not work or was --
or worked UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING S E RV I C E S , INC.
nn e r n e mev c iss .s nee cena
_ - , . . - . . g . m m- c., . .. n.y w.~ %. . . s,3 ., m,u , ,0 . .e . . ,~. ., . . . . .. . . . . . . -- y . ., . .s . m , ., . . . . - . s 46 1 during the time period before your involvement in the
' i 2 site.
3 A. The original question was, did I sit in on
! 4 any of these?
i 5 O. Well, I asked you if the CPRT was i
6 reviewing design OA/QC, and I'm meaning, as I just 7 defined, historical compliance with the QA/QC program 8I as to design. And you said the --
the S RT assisted 9 by RTLs is doing that. Is that answer still correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. Have you been in on any of those 12 meetings?
13, A. No.
I 14 I Q. How do you know those meetings occurred?
15 j A. I know that the S RT has sat and discussed ,
i 16 and has had presentations given to them on large bore 17 and small bore pipe supports and the design of the 18, same, as well as on cable tray supports, as well as I
19 on conduit supports. And I know that members of the 20 SRT have sat in on public meetings concerning same 21 subjects.
22 Q. It is your belief that these 23 meetings --
It is your understanding that these 24 meetings also looked into the QA/QC aspects of the 25 different systems that you have just identified?
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
_wm ; v n.,.s,+v;an. .v.y m. y ...y . m ..y:.cw.n . ~ ~ ~ ,
47 1 A. Looked into the design aspects?.
,' 2 Q. The QA/QC aspects of the design.
3 MR. EGGELING: Is there such a thing?
4 A. There are quality assurance aspects of.
5 design, and they do look into those quality assurance 6 aspects of design.
7 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) But that is a -- Well, 8 strike that.
9 Is the source of the inf ormati on 10 considered by the SRT the CPRT work that is being 11 done?
12 A. Partially.
13 Q. Okay. What else factors into that?
14 A. The hundred percent design va l i da t i on 15 being carried out by the architect engineering 16 crganizations on site.
17 Q. So the SRT of the CPRT is also considering 18 information from the corrective action program in its 19 work?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Is it your understanding that when the S RT 22 finally releases the report of the CPRT, that it will 23 address those aspects of the design validation 24 program that it reviewed?
25 A. In its co ll e ct i ve significance report.
, UNITED AMERICAN R EP O RT I N G SERVICES, I N C ,.
a .. e. . e . a .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ,: r .. . .. 1 :. . .., .. . . . , . ., . .n.,.. ..y 48 1 MS. GARDE: Off-the-record comment.
I I
2 (Off-the-record discussion.
3 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) All right. Back on the 4 record.
5 Mr. Counsil, I'm going to show you an 6 August 16th, 1985 letter signed by you to l 7, Mr. Vince Noonan regarding subject: CPRT quality I
8faspects. It has a few pencil markings on it which -
, 9; are mine, and in the upper right-hand corner, a ,
10 handwritten note which is also mine, 11 Did I say the wrong date?
l 12 MR. EGGELING: I don't believe so. ;
13; A. I think you did, but I'm not sure. Can I l -
14 l have the date? i i
15'i Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Well, just say the correct
}
16' date on it.
17 A. August 16th, 1985.
18 Q. Well, whatever. ,
19 (Counsil Exhibit Number 3 20; (marked for identification.
21 (Witness perusing document.
22 Q. Have you reviewed the letter?
23 A. Yes.
. 24 Q. 2s that your signature on the last page of :
25 the letter? -
I t
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
n xv .~ es . . a m .v.. r. . . na..v u s w v. . . . s . c. . . . . . n .. . . .. c . m . . . . s . u. .. ; . v . . .v. . .w..
. ,~ m,a . . .v.u, . . n .. ..v. .. w 49 1 A. Yes.
I 2 Q. Do you recall preparing that letter?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Did you prepare that letter, or did 5 someone prepare it for your signature?
6 A. It was prepared for my signature.
7 Q. By who?
8 A. A number of people.
9 Q. Was it a collaborative effort?
10 A. I'm sure.
11 Q. Can you tell by looking at the document 12 that is marked as Exhibit 3 who prepared it? Is 13 thero any indication that --
on the letter that tells 14 you who prepared it?
15 A. No. Other than it is under John Beck's 16 direction.
17 Q. All right. Do you recall Mr. Beck 18 providing you that letter for your signature?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Is the letter true?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. When you signed the letter, did you make a 23 determination on whether the facts in that letter 24 were true?
25 A. I don't understand your question.
l UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING S E RV I C E S , INC.
.... m .... .....~.:...,a :..t.a u ...w .. . 3..,,. , 3,.,. w ...>.c %.a.......s.... ..y .... ........e.,r.J...-... .
i l
50 '
1 Q. Okay. Do you recall signing that letter? !
I 2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. Do you recall discussing the 4 contents of that letter with Mr. Beck or anyone else 5 before you signed it?
6 A. I can recall discussions on the letter 7' with Mr. Beck. The letter normally would come from 8 my licensi ng organization, but I do not remember I
9 talking to them about it.
10 Q. Okay. Let me draw your att enti on to a I
11 particular paragraph. Page 3 of the letter, the 12 second to the last paragraph which is bracketed and 13 penciled by me, so the record will reflect that, I 14 want to ask you What is the basis of the statement 15 contained in that paragraph? Do you need to review 16 it again?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Okay. What is the basis of that statement?
19 A. The basis of the statement, is we made in 20 several public meetings --
I believe b e t' o r e this 21 letter was even sent to Mr. Noonan, at his 22 request --
was that we at Texas Utilities did not 23 want to apply our QA program to third party 24 investigations ongoing because our QA program at that 25 point in time was in question.
UNITED AME RI CAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
-.c. . . . .. .u . . . u . . u .. , .
.. u ,,n . . .a . . , . . . w:, .; , a . a ,. s. . , . . n ,, . q.- . . . . . g. . . ,. , r . . q. a . , . ., v,u . .. . w . . .. , .-
51 1 But consequently, we enforced upon the 2 third party personnel, whether it be ERC or Tenera 3 Corporation, that they in turn established their QA 4 program and have their QA programs conduct audits of 5 their work, and that we in turn wculd hire i l
6 independent third party people called the overview 7
quality team, and they in turn would audit the SRT to j ll 8 insure that the SRT as well as the two organizations 9 --
QA or ga n i za t i ons were carrying out their functions.
10 Q. And their functions in that sentence 11 refers to what in --
what you just said in your 12 answer, their functions?
13' A. The program requi r ement s of the CPRT 14 program plan. '
15 Q. What about compliance with 10CFR50 B? l l
16 A. It included compliance with the f 17 appropriate aspects of 10CFR50, Appendix B.
18 Q. Okay. Does the CPRT in your view meet the 19 requirements of 10CFR50, Appendix B?
20 A. Yes. ,
i 21 Q. And it does so through the QA/QC programs l
I 22 of ERC and Tenera; is that correct?
23 A. As well as procedures established by the 24 S RT themselves as overviewed by the OQT.
l 25 Q. Okay. I will get to the OOT in a minute.
l UNITED AME RI CAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
- 7. . w . w. ., . . . :. .v w. w c a :u..vaan w .,sv.i s..a.n m .r w y..w w .s ..,.y;we g w.w..w..i n.
. . .v y1.s..e.. ,
52 1
1 Right now, I just want to ask you about the actual l l
2 program in place in the CP RT that meets the )
i 3 requirements of 10CFR50, Appendix B. And those are i
4 the programs of ERC and Tenera individually; is that l l
5 correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 MF. EGGELING: Why are you carving 8 the answer?
9! MS. GARDE: I want to ask him --
10, Q. (BY MS. GARDE) The OQT is an overview, 11! right, that is what you just said? It overviews the 12' SRT's insuring compliance with --
13 MR. EGGELING: But he also said it I
14l was an ingredient that formed the basis of his i
15] conclusion that it met Appendix B.
16l MS. GARDE: I --
l 17 MR. EGGELING: I want to know how you 18 can carve that out?
19 MS. GARDE: Because they are two 20 different things. One is the program for --
ERC has 21 its own program, whether it is OQT or not.
22 MR. EGGELING: I agree.
23 MS. GARDE: Tenera has it own program, 24 whether there is an OQT or not.
25 MR. EGGELING: We understand that.
1 UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
p .u .w. - ..
... .-,...w.u...,.w. ,. . ,- . .,....m . ,.. ......s..s ~.<.....s . . ..c..,- q. , . . . . m .w 53 1 MS. GARDE: Before I go on to the 007, 2 I want to make sure there isn't any other program out 3 there besides Tenera's and ERC's own QA/QC program.
4 MR. EGGELING: Okay.
5 O. (BY MS. GARDE) So you don't have your own 6 program out there?
7 A. Yes, we did.
8 Q. Okay. Then what is your own program that 9 was being used within the CPRT?
10 A. Point of clarification, once again. CPRT 11 included the project. We applied to the project our 1
12 full QA plan. ,
i 13 4
O. Okay. I don't understand your answer, so 14 I'm going to ask you to e xplain again. What is the 15 basis of the statement as contained in the letter 16 that the CPRT met 10CFR50, Appendix B requirements? l 1
17 A. As far as that statement in the letter, it 18 refers to third party aspects of the CPRT program 19 plan for the third party aspects of the CPRT program 20 plan and the very limited work that they did. Those 21 pieces of the Tenera quality assurance program that 22 applied to their work were --
It was in fact enforced 23 on their portion of the work, and they were audited 24 to that work by their own OA o'rganization.
25 Similarly, for the ERC portions of the work, their
, , UNITED AME RI CAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
~ ~ . - . .. . ~ . u ... .a . n w. . .. . - . s,-,. a n .. . .
.a -v , .n . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,~. a .. c. m . . . . n . . u. . a , , y. . . . .. .u.
54 1 QA program applied for th?c work that was in progress.
(
2 Now, in both instances, that was 3 overviewed by the overview quality team, initially l 4 reporting to me, to see that both the SRT and they 5 were carrying out their QA functions.
6 Q. That answer does not include any 7fdiscussion of the site work that was done at the CPRT?
?
8j That is what I didn't understand about your previous t
9! answer. You testified there was also work done by 1
10l the project under the CPRT. What covered that work?
11 What QA program covered that work?
12' A. For any of the corrective actions carried l
13 out by the project in carrying out their 14 responsibilities to the CPRT, the TU Electric QA 15l: program was in full force.
i 16' O. All right. Mr. Counsil, what about the 17 work that was done before ERC and Tenera came on to
- 18. the scene and got involved in the CPRT?
l 19; A. I don't know.
20 Q. So to the extent that that letter applies, 21 it only applies to ERC and Tenera work and project 22 work done under the corrective action program 23 subsequent to your involvement with the CPRT program;
. 24 is that correct?
25 (Witness per using document . -
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING S E RV I CE S , INC.
m .m w.. m .e- n w w.wsu.m..v.. s. w ...e n .o.g.p .p. e,<..m ..m p .m.. w .....zr,.
...... ..~.x....
s 55 1 A. Would you read it back now, please?
2 (Record read back.
3 A. Not completely. The letter does not 4 address the project portion that was under the TU 5 Electric QA program. It does address the OQT 6 portions and the quality assurance requirements !
7 placed upon ERC and Tenera Corporation.
8 Q. All right. Where in the letter is that 9; clarification made?
10, (Witness perusing document.
i 11 A. Page 2 of Attachment 1, you have 12 undorlined, "The SRT has required the design adequacy 13 and quality of construction review team leaders to 14 develop procedures, using Appendix B as a guide, to 2
l
- 15. control their operations."
16 Next paragraph, "Additionally, all 4
17' inspection personnel used in the CPRT effort are-18 required to be certified Level 11 and Level III in 19 accordance with ANSI N45.2.6 and Regulatory Guide 20 1.58. The QA/QC review team leader is responsible i
21 for verifying that the qualifications of all !
22 inspectors utilized in the CPRT effort meet these 23 requirements.
24 Investigative a ct i vi ti res and e va l ua t i on s 25 are controlled by issue-specific action plan l
1 l
UNITED AMERICAN REP ORTING SERVICES, INC. q
, ._ m .- . m ., . z . . c . . . . . . . . . ., u. m u ,w. . , ... . , # 3 . , , .r.ym. 3.. . . . 3 . . ,., . . , c ,. .p e .r . . . . , , v ., u.,- , g . .. . . . .. ~ .
56 1 (ISAPs) which require senior review team appr ova l .
- ! 2 These ISAPs are supplemented by detailed instructions 3 and procedures, and all i mpl em ent a t i on activities and 4 results are documented and controlled in the CPRT 5 central files."
6 Q. Are you r eadi ng thos e statements because 7 you believe that that answers my question about where 8; it is clarified that that letter refers only to the 9 ERC and Tenera work?
10l; A. I'm leading to that.
11i O. Okay.
12 A. "In addition to the review conducted by 13 the CPRT to assess safety significance, procedures 14 require that these documented deviations and
- 15. deficiencies are formally transmitted in a timely 16 manner to TUGCO so that they may be evaluated and 17 resolved in accordance with the requirements of the 18 Comanche Peak QA program."
19 It goes on to list those specific 20 procedures that are applicable to the design adequacy l
21 program and those that are specific to the ERC type 22 program.
23 And going back to the original statement I
~
24 you asked me to evaluate, and that, "It is our view l
25 that these steps and the 00T, taken together with the UNITED AME RI CAN REPORTING S E RV I C E S , INC.
m.ru..u.s.r.... - ....c.:.n....oc..u... m .... 1. m w w.2...v.w,.~ rr.,r m ..o.. .u ,sw.w ut - .ss m..~..
57 1 carefully structured, third party nature of the_CPRT 2 program itself, provide a vigorous and open process 3 which meet the requirements of 10CFR50, Appendix B, 4 and essentially guarantees its integrity and that of 5 the final product and conclusions."
6 Now, I do not believe anywhere within the 7 document it states directly that they will apply 8 their own p.ograms and we will apply ours to that 9 project activity, but it is implied throughout the !
l 10 document.
1 11 Q. So if the NRC --
Mr. Noonan made a 12 representation that that August 16th letter stated 13 that all CP RT activities from the inception of the '
14 CP RT in the fall of '84 were done in compliance with 15 the Appendix B, that statement would have been wrong; ;
I 16 isn't that correct?
17 A. I don't know.
18 Q. That letter describes the state of the 19 world in August 1985; isn't that correct?
20 A. Yes. ,
21 Q. How much before August 1985 does that 22 letter describe tne state of the world; how far back?
23 A. Near as I can remember, approximately two
. 24 months, ballpark.
25 O. And so the work done between the beginning UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
- m.m,ya.,rarm-- .. . m .u -. . . . . m. . w..c u .....s. . , .,. w ..,.s am .e . . ~
58 1 of the CPRT and the fall of 1984, up to the two
' 2 months before that time period which would have been ,
3 June '85, late May, June of '85, do you know of your 4 own personal knowledge whether it was done in 5 accordance with 10CFR50, Appendix B?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Who would know?
8 A. Mr. Beck should.
9 Q. You mentioned before the OQT. The OQT is ;
10! the overview quality team; is that correct? f 1 1 11' A. Yes.
12' O. Do you recall wri ti ng a letter to 13l Mr. Noonan on July 23rd, 1986 about the overview l
14' quality team? I will let you look at the 15' document --
it has got a lot of markings on little I 16 stickies --
just for the purpose, I'm not going to 17 mark this, just for the purpose of confirming that 18 that is the letter that I just asked you about.
19 MR. EGGELING: How are you going to l 20 confirm that for the record, if you are not going to 21 mark it?
22 MS. GARDE: Well, I'm not going to 23 use it, except to ask some questions from his memory 24 now. .
25 MR. EGGELING: Then don't show him i UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
-- - - _, na., .;,, . ,. n..u..+ .v,,..,. w.m.,,.-,.....,,...a.m n.- ..,..>......... ..
59 1 the letter. He can't confirm anything unless he 2 takes it up in the record.
3 MS. GARDE: I'm refreshing his 4 recollection as to whether or not this is a 5 July 23rd letter in which he informed Mr. 3eck. !
6 MR. EGGELING: This is a piece of !
\ \
7 paper situa ted in a room on the 24th floor of a "
8 b 'iding
- Dallas. Until you mark it and make it !
L 9 part of this deposition record, this means nothing. '
10 You are either going to mark it, and then you can '
11 validate it, or don't ask him questions about it.
12 MS. GARDE: Do you want me to go make 13 a copy?
14 MR. EGGELING: Would I like to go !
15 make you a copy? No, ma'am, I'm not your secretary.
16 MS. GARDE: Would you like to make a 17 copy machine available for me, so I can make a copy? l i
18 MR. EOGELING: Then I'm sure we can f 19 do that. !
1 20 MS. GARDE: Let's take a break to do i
,I ,
21 that. i 22 MR. EGGELING: Certainly.
23 (Recess.
24 (Counsil' Exhibits 4 through 6 l 25 (marked for identification.
UllITED AMERI CAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
. _ _ _ ue. _c an.m .mn.u.sa a u .,,.. w u.,. . .;. ; . o.g.a .w. m.8.o;. m .m .use. wp 60 1 Q. (BY MS. G A RDE ) Back on the record. I'm 2 going to show you what has been marked as Counsil 3 Exhi bi t 4, which is a two-page letter which has some 4 markings on it of words circled and two sentences 5 underlined. For the record, those are my markings, 6l and that is the condition that I gave you the letter.
7! (Witness perusing document.
8j Q. My question is: Is that your signature on 9 the second page of this letter?
10 (Witness perusing document.
11! A. Yes.
12 Q. That is your signature, all right. Does 13i this letter; that is, Exhibit 4, identify and briefly 14 describe the OQT that you referred to in your earlier 15[ testimony? I i
16l A. It is a very brief description of the OQT t
17i and their responsibilities.
18 Q. But there is not a second OQT. It is thisl i 19; OQT as described in Exhibit 4? j i
20 A. Yes. ;
, t l
21 Q. Is the OQT that you have referred to in !
22 that --
as briefly described in Exhibit 4, a j 23 l component of the actions by the project to insure i
. 24 that the CP RT is in compliance with 10CFR50, i
25 Appendix B?
l l
l UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
__ _ _ ~ _ - ,, w~ 6 .!,.. ......s &=h.'..e...>. '
..e,*'o..
, . u . i * ,= * <- k 4
- 6' . '**. = * -d W 9 / * *. '; ,Y * * /* 'i- " e *
- N ' * * * * * *
- 61 1 A. No.
! 2 Q. Okay. What reliance do you place on the 3 OQT for the purpose of the statement that the CPRT is 4 under 10CFR50, Appendix B?
5 MR. EGGELING: What statement?
6 MS. GARDE: Well, he has both 7 testified to and referred -- I mean, we had this i
8 whole discussion where you said that I was making 9 him --
As far as this to Noonan, when he testified j, 10 that the OQT was a part of the basis for that l
t 11 statement in the letter, Exhibit 3, last paragraph 12 that we discussed at some length before the break.
13 I'm now back to that statement. I haven't finished i
14 with that statement.
15 MR. EGGELING: Let's get that 16 statement out be ca us e it wasn't quite the same as the 17 statement that you just made.
18 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Do you recall your earlier 19 testimony in response to my question about the 20 statement on page 3 of your letter which is marked as 21 Exhibit 3 that referred to the OQT?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. And the OQT that you referred to in 24 your previous testimony is the same OQT as described 25 in Exhibit 4; is that correct?
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING S E R' I C E S , INC.
- - . .. ~- ,.
s . . , . .;e..u w.cm. ?> . ..w,,..n , w s..s.. -
.a .,u av - a . r. . . .. . .. . a e , , . . . . , . . u. . : ., ..
4 62 1 A. Yes.
Q.
2 Okay. What role does the OQT play in the 3 statement in the letter, Exhibit 3, page 37 4 A. The OQT was assigned the responsibility 5 for the SRT to insure that both Tenera Corporation as 6 well as ERC were adequately carrying out their 7 program requirements under their Appendix B program.
8! Q. And the OQT described in Exhibit 4 came 9- into existence when?
10, A. Approximately June of 1985.
11! Q. Did the OQT do any backwards audits of 12i CPRT work?
13 A. I don't know.
14 Q. Who would know?
l i
15' A. John Beck, John Streeter.
I 16 Q. Okay. Was the OQT supposed to identify 17 defects in ERC implementation of its program?
18' A. Can you define "defects" for me, please?
19 Q. Failure to comply with its own 20 requirements.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. Was that function --
the OQT effort
- 23 governed by a procedure or an audit program plan of i
24 some type?
25 A. Yes.
UNITED AMERICAN RE P ORT IN G SERVICES, INC.
m , ..~ . . v a.<m. - .n .n.we.w w. .. . ..m . . . . . . . o . w .
.. we w. . . . . ..-.....,..x.. ...,,, . .
63 1 Q. Was that audit program plan put in writing?
.' 2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. What was that? Can you describe it?
4 Do you know the number?
5 A. No, I don't.
6 Q. Can you give any description of it at all?
7 A. It is a program plan, plus I believe they 8 had an attachment to the program plan that had an i
4 9 audit schedule of what they would look at and when 10 they would look at it.
11 Q. And that was one document?
12 A. I don't remember.
13 Q. Okay. You didn't have anything to do with i
14 writing it?
l t
15 A. Nc. I 16 Q. Are you familiar with inspection report f 17 8704 issued August 31st, 1987 and addressed by letter l 18 to you from Chris Grimes?
, 19 A. If I could see it, I might be.
20 Q. Okay. It has been marked as Council 21 Exhibit 5. I 22 (Witness perusing document.
23 A. Without reading it all, I have at one time
- l. 24 read it, yes.
25 Q. All right. I'm going to"also show you an l
l l
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING S E RV I C E S , INC.
~-
l \
p s - w . .. -2.. w w .r.r. ,... w ....c u..;.o .,..:e c u ~ . m .. w n , v .. . ~ .m a . .. p .. . . . . . . ., . . . w . . ~
64 1
attachment to 8704 which has been marked as Counsil 2 Exhibit 6. I'm going to ask if you recall ever 3 reading that document?
4 (Witness perusing document.
5 A. No.
6 Q. Okay. All right. As to Exhibit 5 --
As 7 to Exhibit 5, the inspection report -- Are you 8 looking at that document? I don't want to finish my 1
, 9! question until you listen because I don't want to 10 repeat it, and I probably will repeat it.
11;I All right. As to Exhibit 5, do you recall
}
12l reading the notice of vi ol a t i on that deals with the i
13l safety significance evaluation group of the CPRT?
I A. No.
14l I
15- Q. Okay. Let me draw your attention to 16' pages --
to the bottom of page 3 through the middle 17 of page 5. The question is: Should the OQT have 18' identified the problems that are written in that 19 inspection report on those pages? Do you need time 20 to read that?
21 A. Yes.
22 MS. GARDE: Okay. Off the record.
23 MR. EGGELING: Am I correct --
or is 24 the witness correct *in understanding that we want him i 25 to take the time to read 46 single-spaced pages?
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
~ ,o. , mrir wasan.mmt.ou w m.s cw. . = v, - , c-%-sw.w o vw, e v e -* ve: m v v -
65 1 MS. GARDE: That is not what I said.
2 MR. EGGELING: I missed something.
3 THE WITNESS: Pages 3 through the 4 middle of page 5.
5 MR. EGGELING: 3 through the middle 6 of 57 7 THE WITNESS: Right here, there, 8 through here.
9 MR. EGGELING: Okay.
10 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Have you finished it?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. Do you know if the OQT identified 13 the problems discussed in those pages --
14 A. No, I do not.
15 Q. Do you know if they -- Hadn't finished my !
16 question. I wanted to know --
I was going to ask you,'
17 first, if they identified those problems before the 18 NRC did; and is the answer to that you don't know? !,
19 A. I don't know. ;
20 Q. All right. Do you know who will know? l 21 A. Probably John Streeter.
l 22 Q. Do you know if they have reviewed those 23 problems after that inspection report?
24 A. No, I do not.
25 Q. Do you know who will know that?
, UNITE D AME RI CA N REh0RTING SERVICES, INC,
aom m m m m onesu. a. m e.so..- n.x..o..,...s.:e.e . m. . . n 7, o .. s . m ,. . q. . a o .:.o. . . .m. o a .
66 1 A. John Streeter.
4 i
t 2 Q. Okay. Would you have expected the OQT to 3 identify the concerns addressed in that inspection 4 report on the pages we.have designated?
5 A. Not necessarily.
6 Q. And why not?
7j A. They were over vi ewi ng the aspects of 8l Tenera and ERC; in this case, how they were t
9; conducting their QA program. So if it didn't show up I
10- in the QA program, I have to answer not necessarily.
11 Q. Is it possible for you to reach a 1
12 conclusion on the adequacy of the QA/QC program at 13 l Comanche Peak by reviewing only the results of the i
14 I CPRT?
l 15, A. Would you read that back for me, please?
16 I (Record read back.
17 A. It should be.
18 Q. Okay. What do you mean by "it should i
19 be"?
20i A. K' e l l , not having had the final reports, ;
. 21 I'm kind of foreseeing what might take place in the 22 future, nor having looked at them in draft even.
23 The program was structured to determine whether or
. 24 not there were programmatic --
any type of program 25 deviation, programmatic breakdowns within any of the !
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES. INC.
- .e. . - 3.um~ mom.a..,s.~..;.+.a,.m.~ rum .. ifs. ......;... e.u,,,~,..a..6i,y. J.e w 67 1 18 criteria of Appendix B. Consequently, the final
' 2 collective evaluation re port , again, which I have not 3 seen, should point cut if in fact problems did exist.
4 And that woald be, for instance, although 5 criteria that are involved in the quality of 6 construction, the collective significance report will 7 also, obviously, take into consideration not'only 8 that, but those aspects of the QA program that go j i '
9 beyond just quality of constructior..
- i 10 Q. If the CPRT -- This~is a hypothetical '
11 question. If the CPRT program conclusions, the ,
12 collective evaluation report were to conclude within '
t 13 each of the 18 criteria that t. h e r 'e ' h a d been a '
- 14. programmatic breakdown of the QA/QC program, would it I
i 15 be n ece s s ar y for you to wait for the results of the ,
^
l 16 corrective action program to determine if the plant !
17 was licensable, in,your' view?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. The purpose-.of the CPRT has changed 20 through the last revision. Are you aware of that
~
21 change?
22 MR. EGGELING: You are stating it has 23 changed?
24 MS. GARDE: Let me restate it.
25 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Are you aware that the UNITED AMERI CAN REPGRTING SERVICES, INC.
arm.vem tw.emssweeseam-at eeu. .e o w ,w;.mv.es.e , w ose.pewa %..% .o = m .m.v.u.a ap 68 1 purpose of the CPRT has changed in the last revi si on?
2 MR. EGGELING: Are you stating that 3 to be a fact?
F 4 MS. GARDE: I turned it into a 5 question.
6 MR. EGGELING: You still have --
I 7 mean, why don't you ask him did the purpose change?
8 MS. GARDE: Well, is he aware?
9l MR. EGGELING: But that assumes that j
! l 10i it changed. '
lli MS. GARDE: Okay, that is fair.
I Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Did it change?
12l 13! A. No.
f 14l ,
MS. GARDE: Off the record.
15 '
(Off-the-record discussion.
i 16! Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Has the goal of the 17 program changed?
18 A. I don't know.
19 Q. Did you review the interrogatory answers 20 provided in response to the CPRT interrogatories?
21 A. I don't know.
22 MS. GARDE: All right. Go ahead and 23 mark this one.
24 (Counsil Exhibit Number 7 25 (marked for identification.
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
- e< . r..a /..s.1..a..s,_.r .. a; w o,.s,n...o m eow.
- ,g..:,. g. ,, . , , , ; ., u, . . . s, ; . o 9 , a n oq p s my e
69 1 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Mr. Counsil, I'm going to
- 2 show you a copy of Applicants' Answers to CASE's CPRT 3 Program Plan Interrogatories, Set Number 7. And I 4 want to draw your attention to page 2, the paragraph 5 that starts "The CPRT does not," and I want to know 6 if you reviewed that statement?
7 (Witness perusing document.
8 MR. EGGELING: I understand you wish 9 him to read the answer to Interrogatory No. 17 10 MS. GARDE: And I want to know if he 11 reviewed that.
12 MR. EGGELING: Ever?
13 MS. GARDE: Well, let's start with 14 did he review it before it was sent in.
15 MR. EGGELING: Read the whole answer, 16 unless you already know the answer to the question.
17 (Off-the-record discussion c 18 (between Mr. Eggeling and
, 19 (Mr. Counsil.
20 (Witness perusing document.
21 A. I believe I read it before.
i 22 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Okay. Do you remember ,
i 23 when? i
. 24
- A. No.
j 25 Q. Do you have any reason t 'o disagree with I l l UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
aw s.s w.. , : e ea,ee ;o m. m e,w..,. w w ea a o c.s.w .ec. % omoo. m m .w m gew wm m-s,%.v.
70 1 the goal of the program that is stated in that answer?
3 2 A. No.
3 Q. Okay. Have you ever reviewed Revision 4 4 of-che CPRT?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. I would like to draw your attention to 7 Revision 4, page 2 of 49. In the introductions and 8 objective section --
9jl MS. GARDE: Do you have it?
10l; MR. EGGELING: Probably.
11! MS. GARDE: Okay. The second l
12 paragraph. Do you want me to show him my copy?
13 MR. EGGELING: I don't know.
j 14' THE WITNESS: What does it say?
15 j MR. EGGELING: Well, we have had
)
16 times in the past where it wasn't the same. That is 17 the problem. Do you want me to look at your copy to 18 see if it is the same? I will check. It appears we
. 19 have the same copies.
20- O. (BY MS. GARDE) All right. Mr. Counsil, 21 I'm going to show you page 2 of 49, which has got 22 pink underlining in it which I did, and I want to 23 draw your attention to the second sentence.
24 Would you read that thi ng --
Since I only 25 want that eentence, I want you to read.it into the UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
w etetscow e d.%.owcom e s --o.oyce.a;c....-...e.c,&...-.ro.,, . .e , o o e 3 m .s. . , .._..o...s. 6_ -
71 1 record. I won't have to attach the document. Just 2 read that into the record.
3 MR. EGGELING: Right here.
4 (Indicating) 5 A. Okay.
6 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) I want you to read it out 7 loud. I t
l 8 A. Oh, just the pink? {
i 9 Q. No. l
' 10 A. The whole paragraph?
11 Q. The sentence that starts after the pink. ,
12 MR. EGGELING: Read the whole 13 paragraph.
14 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) I want you to read into l l
15 the record, "CPRT is further charged," to there.
16 (Indicating) 17 A. "CPRT is further charged with the mission f i
18 of advising TU Electric management whether there is I 19 reasonable assurance that all design and construction i
20 defects that would have prevented the f acility f rom j 21 being capable of operation in accordance with NRC 22 regulations have been detected and appropriate 23 corrective actions for such defects have been defined 1
24 hereinafter referred to as the CPRT mission."
25 O. Okay. Is there any difference between UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING S E RV I C E S , INC,.
m n o m es,v m .e w . maw e.m aaer.cm oa m w pgy.nowp m ,,an.uu m n,c.w....;.u;a..
72 1 that statement and the statement that you looked at 2 previously that starts with the goal of the program, 3 in your mind?
4 (Witness perusing document.
-5 A. The goal --
It is not a goal. A statement 6 .
in Revi si on 4 reads to me as more encompassing than I
71 the one in the interrogatory.
I 8; Q. Okay. So the Revision 4 statement, you I
9i believe, makes a broader commitment than the first 10l statement?
11l A. Yes.
i 12; Q. Is that the only difference that you 13 l perceive between trose two statements?
14; A. I think I used the term --
statement in 1
15 Rev. 4 is more encompassing, not necessarily broader.
i i
16; Q. Okay. Did Revi si on 4 expand the work of 17 the CPRT?
18 A. To the extent that the overview of hundred 19 percent design validation would give them more work, 20 it did.
213 Q. But only as to design validation, not as 22 to construction?
23 A. Design --
The corrective action program
. 24 for design includes hardware validation to the design, 25 so that does encompass construction.
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES. INC.
. . . .. . w_.+. . ..o e .ww w2, .ec. Sv..s,..o,w,%r, gom . ex g, u yow. . e.% pmp, mm
,g, 73 1 Q. And that is under Texas Utilities' 2 corrective action program?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Not under the CPRT program?
5 (Off-the-record discussion I l
6 (between Mr. Eggeling and I 7 (Mr. Counsil. I 8 A. Would you ask that question, please?
9 Q. Does the corrective action programs that ,
10 you referred to, including the design validation i 1
11 program, expand the scope of the CP RT?
12 A. To the extent that they are ove r vi ewi ng 13 one hundred percent of design validation, yes.
14 Q. Is that work being done by the CPRT? l 15 MR. WOOL DRI D GE : The overview work? !
l 16 MS. GARDE: The overview work.
17 A. The overview work is being done by third 18 party personnel under the direction of the S RT .
19 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Those third party 1
20 personnel are who?
21 A. The S RT themselves, the review team 22 leaders, and any other consultants hired by the SRT 23 to overse6 what the project is doing.
24 Q. Do you know who those people are?
25 A. Some.
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
. .- c : ac . , ,. w c 4 2, 7. . . a,w as.- . .: . .. : o , g.:.; . ... c. . o,, :. . r,. yo .. c .<, p q .wo x . , . .... g .3, . . o .. s s.
74 1 Q. Is the hundred percent design validation i 2 program that you were just referring to fully 3 explained and identified in Revision 4 of the CPRT?
4 A. Not to my knowledge.
5 Q. Where is it located?
6 A. In the letters to the NRC and transcripts 7 of public meetings.
8; Q. Is the CPRT program changed to reflect i
9! those design validation programs in a manner that 10; CASE could find that information within the CPRT7 :
i 11 A. I don't know.
12 Q. Okay. Have you forwarded to the NRC any 13 letters or documents that contain the details of the 14 hundred percent design validation program? ,
15 A. I don't remember.
4 16 Q. Is it possible to conclude a thorough 17 review of the CPRT without reviewing the expanded 18 scope of the design validation program?
19' MR. EGGELING: What expanded scope? ,
20 MS. GARDE: I asked him if he 21 expanded the scope. He told me that it was expanded 22 to include the design validation program one hundred
. 23 percent design validation. l 24 MR. EGGELING: He didn't say he '
25 expanded the design. He said he expanded the design UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
a a.%, a .m.m amee m w.m.. .w . .. ,~ ,xw n . .o .. o uu .c. o a 9 . <. , . 3,w., % %.s .w - u sa.wans.au -
75 1 of the C P RT in its overview of the design validation
' 2 program. Now, you are talking about the expanded 3 scope of the design validation program, and there has 4 yet been no testimony about any e xpansion of that 5 scope.
6 MS. GARDE: I think he --
I think 7 that he and I understand each other as to what you ;
i 8 said he testified to. ;!
9 MR. EGGELING: But the written record 10 does not because you have used words that were not 11 correct.
12 MS. GARDE: Okay, fine.
13 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Is it possible to conclude 14 a thorough analysis of the CPRT in the form of an 15 audit --
it is a hypothetical question --
without l
16 reviewing the design validation program itself?
17 A. When completed, yes.
f 18 Q. But not yet?
- 19 A. Have to ask a clarifying question. Are 20 you now talking implementation of the CPRT program, 21 or are you talking adequacy of the CPRT program?
22 Q. I'm talking adequacy of the program. Can 23 I complete a thorough review of the CPRT program plan
. 24 w i*t ho u t having the design validation program that you 25 just referred to in my hands? '
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING S E RV I C E S , INC.
m m . w. n . ~. . . . .,am,.w. e m a ce.w.m..w, ,v.. m. w. . . . ., .w . .~ .a . . xy 9 . ~ . -. . . .- . .~. . , . . .- . ... .c o
76 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay. I can do that without the design 3 validation program?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay. Why?
6 A. The program plan allows for expansion, 7 wherever it may lead.
8 MR. EGGELING: My alarm just went off, 9 which is the signal that we have reached the time we 10, promised to let Mr. Counsil go.
11 ! MS. GARDE: I mean, I can't hear l
1 21 Mrs. Ellis. Let her finish explaining to me what she 13 said, and then you can speak.
I 14 j (Off-the-record di s cus si on I
15' (between Ms. Garde and 16 (Mrs. Ellis.
17 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Is the design --
18 MR. EGGELING: You told me I was 19 going to get to speak after you finished.
20' MS. GARDE: Okay.
21 MR. EGGELING: We have reached the 22 time when we agreed that Mr. Counsil could be 23 released. It is 3:27.
24 MS. G ARDE : Okay. We didn't agree to 25 a 3:27 release. I said that I would try to finish UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
,m.g. - ooa - - ve ~ a % w...o m v,- v, p op - m uyse e ,w cr.~ , s+
77 1 and I am nearly finished. But we had an hour long 8
2 lunch break, and he has been a more difficult witness, 3 not because he has not been an un coope r a t i ve witness, ,
4 probably because I have had a lot of problems with 5 the questions. And I haven't --
I didn't agree to 6 any arbitrary cutoff. I'm not going to keep him here 7 until --
I understand what we agreed to. Mr. Hansel 8 ran longer, we took an hour long l unch , and this has 9 been a very difficult examination, so I'm not 10 finished with him yet.
t 11 s I have some more questions and I intend to l '
i 12 proceed. If you want to take a break now and let '
I 13 Mr. Counsil go and have me recall him at a later time l
14 that is convenient, I will be glad to do that.
15 MR. EGGELING: If you want to begin .
16 with Mr. Counsil in the morning at an early hour, we 17 can bring him in. You knew what the day's sechudie 18 would be and that Mr. Counsil's health precluded him 19 going into 3:30 in the afternoon when we discussed it 20 at least three times, and it is two minutes from 3:30, 21 That was our agreement.
22 MS. GARDE: That was not our 23 agreement, but I will let Mr. Counsil go, if that is 24 what you are asking, and we wi11 start again.
I mean, 25 that is fine with me. I don't want to --
I don't
. . UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVI CES, INC.
.m w . ~ u., ~ o s..w g . . m e w m . _ ,o . % , e m o,c.o..,0 f . e c .e.o v. s of a a . ,. m . % . y .;. 0,,..
78 1
want to upset his health any more than necessary, and 2 I say that with all due respect. This is hard and 3 tiring, and I don't want to have to have you stay any 4 longer. If you are tired and you want to go, go.
5 Pick it up later.
6 (Off-the-record discussion 7 (between Mr. Eggeling and 8 (Mr. Counsil.
9? MR. EGGELING: Mr. Counsil advises me I
t 10; if you can complete it in 30 minutes, he can wait i,
11, that much longer.
12! MS. GARDE: I think I can complete it i
13 I in 30 minutes.
14 THE WITNESS: Do we have an agreement 1 5 ', for 4:00?
16 MS. G A RDE : We will have an agreement 17 till 4:00. If I have a lot of difficulty, I will 18 state it on the record at that time. I don't think I 19: will. All right.
I 20 MR. EGGELING: Do you want a break?
21 THE WITNESS: No, I'm fine.
22 MS. G A RDE : Do you want a break?
23 THE WITNESS: No, ma'am.
. 24 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Isn't the design 25 validation program an integral part'of the CPRT at UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
-ne,n. cme n wv.~ ,-a.c....e.,w .a a.. v - ~ . . . - c .- . -:..;.-.x y a; ,. ;. ra. .-
79 1 this time?
i 2 A. Only insofar as it concerns and is being 3 carried out by the project, and the project reports 4 to CPRT it is part of.
5 Q. Okay.
How does the project report to CPRT?[
6 A. If you look under the --
look at an 7 organizational chart, the project gets all of the 8 information coming out of CPRT. They're shown on, 9 quote, the CPRT block diagram. They do not report 10 directly, for instance, to the SRT as an example. l 11: They report to me. But in the blocks that we have '
i 12 shown back in 1985, the CPRT, per se, included the '
13 third par t y acti vi ti es as well as the project i
14 activities. And the reason for that was that the 15 project had to carry out the project cor r ect i ve 16 action sequence.
17 Q. Does the project's cor r e ct i ve action work 18 get reported back to the CPRT?
19 A. Yes, through the project status reports.
20 Q. What are the project status reports?
21 A. They are going to be the final reports of 22 each of the corrective action program plans.
r 23 Q. Does the CPRT have any responsibility for 24 reviewing those project status reports and making a 25 statement on whether or not they agree with the work UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
m --u---mm , , . . , , n.o g % , . . . 4 . ....s.. .a u. e ; o m u .e g s . . .. . w,ww v.c -
80 1 done by the project?
2 A. They do not have a responsibility to do so 3 through the project status reports themselves.
4 However, they do have the responsibility to take that +
5 work into consideration in writing their collective i 6 significance report.
7 Q. So the collective significance report is 8; not going to be issued until after the project status I
9 reports are complete?
10! A. That's correct.
lli Q. Okay. Now, in the process that we have i
12' both referred to as the hundred percent design 13-. validation program, which you are not sure is 14 described in any public document that has been 15 provided to the NRC, so I only know it by your 16 description of it, is there identification of 17 deficiencies done in that program?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Are those deficiencies which are 20 identified through that program reported back to the 21 CPRT?
22 A. If identified by the CPRT before ca r r yi ng 23 out the implementation of the corrective action, we 24 received concurrence of the SRT or review team leader l 25 both, for such cor r e c ti ve action.
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES. INC.
- n. . n- c. v y-- m o w w. om a www.pw, a m w o-4-mm . ma w m .n n a- .m o, .
81 1 If identified by the corrective action 2 program, meaning the three major contractors working 3
for the project, they are reported via the project 4 status report.
5 Q. Where does the po s t - co n s t r uc t i on hardware 6 validation program fit i nto the CPRT?
7 A. It doesn't. It is wi thi n the corrective !
I.
8 action program, capital corrective action program f 9 conducted by the project. That is the hundred !
10 percent design validation. i 11 Q. The PCHVP is the hundred percent design 12 validation program?
13 A. It is a part of it. -
14 Q. Okay. It is a component of the one 15 hundred percent design validation?
i 16
^
A. Yes.
i 17 Q. So all of your testimony as to the design l' 18 validation program applies equally to the PCHVP? :
l 19 A. I don't know.
l 20 Q. Okay. The post-construction hardware 21 validation program is a component of the DVP; is that '
22 correct?
23 A. With DVP standing for design validation?
24 Q. Program.
25 A. Program, yes. j i
UNITED AMERI CAN REPORTING SERVICES. TNC.
- ,w w w w m u m....u - oy. w 4.yc,..u,4 y c.- p -.w . . m o .,.. . .g ,
~o 7.m.# .,e w e v . y e...
82 1 Q. Design va l i da t i on program is an expanded
- 2 result from the CPRT is that correct?
3 A. I think I testified earlier that the 4 answer to that question is yes, partially, but there 5
were other things that drove the one hundred percent 6 design validation, in addition.
7 Q. All right. I understand that. The 8 post-construction hardware validation program results 9 will be reported in what document?
10 A. Project status reports.
11 Q. And the project status reports will be 12 r evi ewed by the CPRT and included --
Their review 13! will be included in the collective significance 14, report; is that true? +
i 15 I A. Yes. May I clarify that, please?
16 Q. Yes.
17 A. The co n ci '; u i on s drawn from that review 18 will be included in the collective significance 19 report.
1 20 Q. Thank you.
21 So in order for there to be a complete 22 r e vi rew of those portions of the CPRT --
Strike that.
23 The collective significance report is 24 being written by the CPRT is that correct?
2f .% . By the SRT.
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTTNG CPD"TrPC '""
...,_u.,g,,,, _
,,,,,,,_____a., ,,.ng .
83 1 Q.
The senior review team of the CPRT7 2 A. Yas.
3 Q. And they will have in hand when they write 4
that report the results of the CPRT program plan and 5
the design validation program; is that correct?
6 A. Those are big volumes. They will have 7
reviewed them, yes, but whether they are going to be 8 sitting in front of them, I can't answer that at the 9 time.
l 10 Q.
You answered the question the way I 11 intended you to answer the question.
12 MS. GARDE: I don's think I have any ;
13 ,
more questions, but I want to talk to Mrs. Ellis for 14 a minute.
15 (Off-the-record discussion 16 (between Ms. Garde and 17 (Mrs. Ellis.
18 MS. CARDE: I have no more questions.
, 19 (Off-the-record di scus si on .
20 (Deposition concluded at 3:40 p.m.
21 22 23 24 25 .
- UNITED ~~-- AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES.
- INC.
-~..v........~..........,oe. . - . . , . .. . ., . ,..m., . . . . . . . ..s 34 1 CORRECTIONS AND SIGNATURE 2 PAGE LINE CORRECTION REASON FOR CHANGE 3
4 (SEE ATTACHED) 5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 I, W. G. COUNSIL, have read the foregoing 13 deposition and hereby affix my signature that same is f
14 true and correct, except as noted herein.
15 16 __ 4/ , =
W. G. COUNSIL '
17 18 19 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me by the said 20 witness on this the 36% d ay o f TMm/w _,
1987.
21 e
23 NOTARY PUB 1IC IN AND FOR THE
, STATE OF TEXAS
. 24 '
25 My commiscion expires: _3_//3 j10 ___
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, INC.
f')h T T h c m te V > c ( *) 1 A ) O t t . t *4 6 6
._._.y . ,,9 , , ,.o. . u , .m , , , ,. . a . c mm , ,, . .s , ,. . , , . , . . s , , , , . , . .
t ERRATA. SHEET f W. G. Counsil !
(October 15, 1987)
Page (line)- Correction 34(3) Correct "system -- major" to "Systematic Evaluation Program" 36(17-18) Correct "industry review" to "Industry Review Group" 36(19) Correct "entry review. group" to "Industry Review Group" 43(15) Correct "Stellar" to "Stone I and" t t
77(17) Correct "sechudle" to "schedule" i
l r
I
[
i i
+ :
If
, L
[
- o nw. w .a we.g.n .s . . s. . . m .o . . . . .w . o . .. ;. ag . ; . .---- - . n w. . . .
85 1
3 I, James M. Shaw, RPR, Certified Shorthand 4
Reporter in and for the State of Texas, do hereby 5
certify that, pursuant to the agreement hereinbefore 6
set forth, there came before me on the 15th day of 7 Oct obe r , A. D., 1987, at 1:30 o' clock p.m., at the 8
offices of Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels & Wooldridge, 9 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 3200 Dallas, Texas, the 10 following named person, to-wit: W. G. COUNSIL, who 11 i was by me duly sworn to testify the truth and nothingI 12 i but the truth of his knowledge touching and '
13 concerning the matters in controversy in this cause:
14 and that he was thereupon examined upon his oath and 15 his examination reduced to wri ting under my 16 supervision that the deposition is a true record of 17 the testimony given by the witness, same to be sworn 18 and subscribed to before any notary public, pursuant 19 to the agreement of all parties.
20 21 I further certify that I am neither attorney or 22 counsel for, nor related to or employed by, any of 23 the parties to the action in which this deposition is 24 taken,'and further that I am not a relative or 25 employee of any attorney or counsel employed by th. '
i UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES,
, INC.
0 . u m.e. ....o sm o., . .;g . 0 ,. . . . m - m w ._ . #-,. . v c.- ..w .e . .. ........m i =
86 1 parties hereto, or financially interested in the 2 action.
3 4 In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand 5
and affixed my seal this 26th day of October, A.D.,
6 1987 7
8 s T 9' _____ ___ _ku2______________
JAMES M. SHAW, RPR, CSR IN AN FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS 10l': 2414 North Akard, Suite 600 Dallas, Texas - 75201 11! (214) 855-5300 1
12' My commission expires:
13 December 31, 1988
- CSR No. 1694 14 15' 16 17 18
+
1 91 20 21 22 23 I
, 24 .
25 -
UNITED AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES,
...... -- INC.