ML20244A792
| ML20244A792 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/19/1984 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20097F079 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-487 NUDOCS 8906120148 | |
| Download: ML20244A792 (107) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- C UNITED STATES OF AMEmica NUcLEAa REGULATORY COMMI5510N In the matter of: TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et_al
- Docket No. 5 0-4 45 50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 & 2) 4 N CAMERA SESSION O
Deposition of: Location: Glen Rose, Texas Pages: 1 ~ 99 Date: Thrusday, July 19, 1984
,lnfor%&a in this recTf vias c:ie'ed ie m omiv:cc vs.h ib r :dca cf Inf rmstica S01, etTiCOI:s .
TUtn - TAYLOE ASSOCIATES Court Reportm
- 6251 hmt. N W $mu toes "
w unaasion. D C : cons 520D N3.M30 890612014e 890607 ?j PDR FOIA -
.H, U.GE84-487 PDR 1 '
1 l IN CAMERA 9 mge-1 ' UNIT ET) STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM"ISSION 2, 3 BEFORE'THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD A 5
................ . - y.
In the matter of: : 6, : TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC : 7i COMPANY, et al. : Docket Nos. 50-445 8
- 50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric :
Station, Units 1 and 2) : 9
...... . ..... . . . . . .x 10 II Glen Rose M8 tor Inn 12 Glen Rose, Texas 13 July 19 , 1984
! eporition of:
I called for examination by counssI f or the NRC Staff,
'$ taken before J.F. Couglin, Court P.c o o r t e r ,
I7 beginning at 8:42 'p.m., pursuant to agreement.
'S,!
to . I i 20 ' 21 22 i Staff's Discovery Deposition: Volume I. l 23 ; l 2a i O
.2 i l
1 mgc-2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 -On behalf of the Applicants Texas Utilities Elsctiic Company, et al.: ' w.. , _ MARK L. DAVIDSON, ESQUIRE ; 4 . Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds i 1200 Seventeenth Street, Northwest 5 Washington, D.C. 20036 6 On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff: 7 CEARY S. MIZUNO, ESQUIRE Office of the Executive Legal Director 8 U.S. Nuclea r Regula tory Comtnis sion Washington, D.C. 20555 9 On behalf of the Witness Danny Walter: 10 MICHAEL L. SPEKTER, ESQUIRE 11 Suite 1102 1717 K Street, Northwest 12 Washington'. D.C. 20006 13 15 16 17 IB 19 20 1 21 l 22 l L 23 l 24 25 b
3 i l mgc-3 1 lEEEX f 2 WITNESS: MR MIZ NO. 5 6 _ 7 8 o 10 11 12
'3 No Exhibits.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o 4 i D
-----------'-----___m_
'4 fc431bl l
1 P RO CEEDI N G S
- 2 MR. MIZUNO
- My name is Geary Mizuno, counsel 3 for the NRC Staff. We are beginning the oiscovery deposition:
I 4 of Witness F. Will t.he other parties 5' at this deposition please ident.ify themselvec for the 6 record?
~
7 MR. SPEKTER: Michael Spekter, appearing a for 9 MR. DAVIDSON: What is your affiliation, .
)
10 Mr. Spehter? l i 6 11 MR. SPEKTER: I'm appearing as a r e p r e s e'n t a t i ve 12 of CASE, an intervenor in this matter. 13 MR. DAVIDSON: My name is Mark L. Davidson. 14 I am a member of the ffrm of Bd.3 hop, Liborman. C30k. j i ! 15 Purecil and Reynolds, counsel for Applicant, Texas Utilities l ' I i 16 Electric Compaty. ' l7 MR. MIZUNO: , you are still aworn. 18 THE WITNESS: Yes. ,i l 19 Whereupon. I 20 21 tesumed the stand and, having been previously duly sworn, j ( 22 was examined and testified further as follows: 1 2'3 EXAMINATION 24 BY HR. MIZUNO: . I 25 Q are you a piping stress ergineer? G
1 5 pj l- .fc341b2
') 'l l
i 1- A No .I'd net. - l . L 2 I Q Are you a pipe ~ support engineer?
- 3. A No, I'm not.
4 l Q. Do you have any' educational ' qualifications. 5! ! in those two areas? i 4 j No, I do not. l-6 A 7 Q 'You work hs a startup engineer atJ the 8 Comanche Peak site? 9 A I do. 11 ic Q You did,'right. 11 Okay, can you briefly describe your work?. A 12 Performance of ptercquisite and' pre-operatAonai-13 test procedures and mainta'inin.g;perfo'rmants of naintenanc6 14 activities and with associated systems. 15 Q Okay, when-you say performance of test le procedures, do you mean that'you are responsible for i7 developing t h eta o r for ittplementing-them? -~ I is A Both responsibliities, including implementing to thoae procedures and also wricing.certain pre-operational 20 procedures. 21 Q And you also. conducted tests? 22 A Correct. i 1
- 23. Q Approximately how much of your time, unile 24 you were in Comanche Peak, was. spent.in development or ot
{ 25 writing up test precedures? I {.' s
---_._-~_-_-_--__._-_'__-----_- - . _ _ - _
n
.g.
-.s fc341b3~ -{-.
.i p
i A I would.say at.least.six' months. 2 Q And was this -- and how 2any months did?you 3 spend actually condiacting the tests? 4 d A Jr is hard to define,a break-off1 point. 1 There! l 5j was ~ conducting tests'and writing procedures all at the same .- I i e time. i 7 1 Q You were doing both of these at the same f a time? 9 A Cotreet. I 1. 10 Q 1.f you had to eas.imate-what percentage of- i your total time &c Comanche Peak was apent developing j 11 , 12 tests, what would you say it wasi , { s 13 A At the beginning', approximately.80 percent j 14 and tcwards ths end, possibly 20 percent. 1 15 Q Now, in .sddition lo perfortsing test procedurespl 16 as you put it, whet else did you do? 17 A If, in the performance of testing -* l is performing testing activities, component failures, I l l in ' generated documentatice indicating failure, a docunentatice 20 required to itpair that failure, and so on. I 21 Q Now, your work in performing. test-22 procedures, i.e. development and conducting -- developing 23 procedures and conducting these taats, were these activities 3 checked by QC personnel? ! A 25 1 believe the procedures were reviewed or QC i l T 4 5
7 -1 fc341b4 l. 1, had specific witness points that they added to the procedure.L t. 2 Q What do you maan by witness points? ) 3 A-That wculd be tne point'at which they 4 requeste'd a witness, that portion of'the'tecting. ; 1 5 Q Would that be' considered e hola point?- 6 A. Yes, a hold point, l l 7 Q Now you've indicated thac'these hold points', '! E or witness points, are pointe where QC personnel would be ! 9 required to ir.spect a portion cf a test beiag done. Does this 1 IC mean theb that theee hold points were.during the cork that i I 1. 11 1 you would characterize as ccnducting tests? I 12 A ies. 13 Q Were there -- were there personnv.1 or memebers 14 of the QA department to r e v f.e w the work that Tybu did in-15 developing tents? ' la a I believe they had input as to the connent 17 of the test ) IB Q Can you describe, in greater detad!, what 19 you mean by input? 20 A 1 believe they had a' review of the procedure 21 prior to final approval. 22 Q You developed a procedure and a QC/QA 23 personnel would then review the procedure at some point, 74 prior to its being finally approved? Is that correct? 25 A Correct. , l \ ( s
V d 11
'B- 'l I
'fc341b3 , -
. l.
1 1 Q In~your testimony-yesterday and todey,-you- ' 2 Indicated that.there vere two incidents of-harassment, i
}
3i intimidation, that were inainuated in your affidavit.- Is l q 4 that true? a
;l 1
5 A Correct. -j l l 6 Q Ths first incident _is insinuated, to use your i .; 4 i term, on pageu 10 and 11 of your affidavit, which is- I g Voir Dire Exhibit F-3. 9 MR. DAVIDSON: I will just. state, Mr. Mizuno, J to that I think that after some further questioning, the witness it agreed that there had been no description or mention of those I _ l 12 incidents of harassment'and intimidation in the' affidavit. j 13 And I don't believe that it any-longer stands as his'testimonv i ) 14 y that there really is any mention of those incidents in 15 the affidavit. 16 And I don't think, therefore, your question i
, 17 properly charac,terized what is the current state of the 1 is record. 1 i
19 MR. MIZUNO: I am just trying to determine 20 whether he believes that this portion of the affidavit l 1 21 insinuates or relates to the first instance of intimidation i 22 just for a link up. i ! 23 M R .. DAVIDSON: I do not purport to direct ! L 24 you, as to how you should take your depositic.r. I just l l 2 want t-c ke it cler.: that I believe the witness has .already '
= . _ _ _I
.. i n: ,
- 1 9 l fc341b6 i
! l l \
testified. that there is no mention of the incident in the 1 2 affidavit and that it'is not' described, with any' detail,. . 3 vithin the bounds of that document, either th't a incident j l 4 or any other, either harssement or 1-intimidation.
).
f 5; MR. MIZUNO: Okay. 1 ! i j i 6 BY MR. MIZUNO: l f 1 i, L 7 Q You indicate here, on page 10 of your- 'l l
-1 8
affidavit -- do you have that in front of you? 9 A Yes, I do. 1 10 i 1 Q You indicated that Specification ES-100, i l e 11 in particular'Section 4.11.3.2 is not in conformance, or l
'2 is not consistent, with the minimum separations required by 13 Regulatory Guide 1.75. Is t' hat not correct?
14 A Correct. 15
'Q First, I would like to know what' specific 16 section of Regulatory Guide l'.75 are you referring to '
17 in this senteucci 1 18 A Without reviewing Rev Guide 1.75, I-do not i 19 feel like I could adequately answer that question right now. ! i 20 Q At the time that you signed this affidavit, , i j 21 were you clear as to what section of the Regulatory i a 22 Guide was inconsistent with ES-100? l l 23 A Yes. l 1 i 2d ! Q But you are not clear tou? 25 A i Well. I believe Reg Cuide 1.75-is a cable 1 l g -, i ,
+ 1
_ _m_m
J
._w 10 fc341b7
/
( t separation and I con't believe the Reg Guide contains 2 information outside the bounds of separation criterias. 3ll Specifically it addresses' conduit to conduit 4
! and tray to tray separations and insinuates tray to conduit separations.
5 Those would be the specific instancea which t would apply to this o n 6- part here.
- 7) Excuse me.
Q You said insinuate a tray to e conduit separation. What do you mean by insinuat,3? o A 1 would have to actually look at the Reg icl Cuide procedure right-now to make a decision. It talks i it about tray to tray, tray to conduit type separations, or 12 conduit to conduit. 13 ( Do you recall specific language in Regulatory
) 14 Ouide 1.75 wh4.ch speaks to a minimum separation between a 15 conduit and a tray?
ie (Pause.) 17 A If I remember correctly, the conduit to tray i tg !
! separaticn is treated as similar to the tray to traJ and in tray to conduit, which would be dealing in three foot 20 minimum clearance under the bottom of a ladder tray and ,
21 five foot -- i that would be three foot under a cable s p read irig j 22 room and five foot outside cf the cable spreading room.
;3 Q
you did not anever my question.
;c i My question was did yourtcall explicit language in Regulatory
;3 '
Guide 1.75 which spoke to the requirement of minimum
Ls 11 q cfc341b8
.)-
1 . I separation between cable trays and conduits?
- i 2 A Well, maybe if yourexplain. You say l
3 explicit language. Maybe'if you define -- J j 4 (
, Q You want me.to define explicit? 1 5 A- Yes.
}<
6 Okay. E:t p l i c it means clearly. stated, something' t Q n 7' that you don't have to read betwaen the. lines, in a ) 8 colicquial phrase. i i Is that clearer for gou? ' 9- A Without looking at Reg. Guide 1. 75 , 'I cannot 10 adequately answer that question, l 11 Q Why can't you adequately' answer it? I 12 A Are you saying .from my memory, if I remember?.), ,
.I 13 Q Yes, from your merc.ory.
14 A No, I do not remember right now the explicit 15 information. 9nd34 16 3 1
'7
=I as m ;
t, 20 1 2I l l 22 ! j l 23 j
' l
\ I l 'b
.s i I
' I, w.
I
ewm-5 12 ( fc351bl ' 1 i 1 BY MR. MIZUNO:
\m- J 1
2 Q But you do understand the term explicit.? l 3! A Yes. i j d. Q You indicate here that Regulatory Geide ' 5 1.i5 requires certain minimum separations, is that true? ! 6i -- A Carrect. I 7 1 Q What is the basis far your belief that ! 6 Regulatory Guide l 1.75 sets forth mandatory requirements > ; 4 ; 9 for separations? I l
, i K) to put it --
excuse ta e , perhaps -- let me
'I withdraw that question end let re make.my question clearer. )
12 i What is the b e ra i s for your belief that the ' 13 minimum separations, which are contaited in Regulatorty k- 1d Guide 1 75, are mandatory as opposed to something which is t 15 suggestive? l 16 A Comanche Peak is obligated to Reg Guide 1.75< l 17l If I remember right,drey are committed in their FSAR ! I fB commitments. l' l Q Is that the end of your answer? ' 20 A Yes. i i 21 Q Can one he committed to fcllowing a Regulator >lt 22 -- strike thot. D' l MR. Dt31DSON: I'm going to move to strike 1 N . ,- y , t - your answer 3. . 9 i because?g j you were responsive. The 25 l gentleman asked you on what do you base your belief that the
- MM b
e
,- o
- o- .a l
13 n.~__. m - i
~fc351i2
~
' .l i -
'l I
- separation' requirements, to which you refer in-your.
1: j iffidavit, are mandatory under Reg Guide.l.75, as-opposed 2 l 3 .to suggesting or recommending. /And you, haven't' told!us 3
- what you' based that.beliefHon. l.
J l 5 MR. SPEK7ER: I would request.that Mr. Mizuno 6 make his'own objections, as to whether'he believes-the ! 7 answers are responsive Dr. hot. 8 MR. DAT'IDSON: v I suggest. Mr. Spekter, that i. 9 1 be allowed to participate in this proceeding, since j_ I 10 I am' representing a party here. And.I'will . invite:you. ' 11 to do the same when you think its appropriate. 12 MR. MIZUNO: I guess I would prefer to followl l 13 through on the ba. sis of his answer. 14 BY MR. MIZUNO: 15 Q If the Reguiatory Guide -- let's us hypothesize 16 that Regulatory Guide 1.75 set.forth a suggested minimum 17 separation and did not require a specific minimum separation, le whatever it may be. And the Applicants in this case were i 10 , committed to following Regulatory Guide 1.75, does a l-i 20 commitment to follow the Regulatory Guide necessarily 21 require the Applicants to change a suggestion to a 1 ( ) 22 requirement in the Regulatory Guide? 23 A i I'm not sure if 1' understand yoor. question i 4 24 correctly.
- i 25 Q Okay, let me withdraw it. Let me try it 4
i _m a w - _
- a. = = = = =
I _____.m__ _ _ _ _ - _ - . ___2_ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -- .-.3
.y. _ ._ .- .- 5 :(
'14
~ '
, fc351b3- l-F 4 'l from another standpoint.
2
- 1. asked you'what was-the basis for your.
3 belief that Regulatory Guide 1.75, with regard'to' minimum , 1 4 l separations, were requirements. And you answered, as~'I . 5 recall, that the Applicants. art committed to Regulator.v 6 Guide 1.75. l Is'that-not true? e - 7 A Correct, blaybe what you'reLgetting-at, . 8 or maybe a more defined ensver there would be that within' O Reg Guide 1.75 there is words to the effect thatT"shall"- ; 10 l issue a commitment that this be the case. I don't -- p ' t 11 7 Q What does the shall apply to? , 12 A It applies to separation criteria. .lt :
'3 specifies a conduit to conduit ' separation criteria-shall '
l Id be this. l 15j Q Are you familiar with the regulatory role I lo that Regulatory Guides play in the nuclear industry? 17 A No,'I'm not. d
'8 I Q Is it your understanding e. h a t hegu1~ae.ory 10 .
Guides are NRC requirements, as opposed to NRC suggestions? > l 20 A Is it my opinion that they're requirements? 21 l ' Q No, I said your understanding' I-22 A Yes, I believe chac they are Requirements. 3 23 I' Q Okay, and what is the basis for your belief? j~ .I 24 A i H The fact that the plant is committed to it ; 25 in the final Safety' Analysis Reoort and-it-specified several ! 6 l i 1 i
.. 2
~
'l5 1,_.-
fc351b4~ l'
.j 1
different -- when you're' performing test procedure writing ! 2 and all, one of the things that you'have to look at is to I 3l ! make sure that you meet those commitments. , J l 4! Q You indicated, in your testimony, that i, . 5 Regulatory Guide 1.75 provides that. conduit separation sito ul d: g 6l be at least five feet from the bottem of the tray. and three , 7 f feet f r o.n the side and except in cable spreading room, where ' B it can be two feet from the side and three feet from the 9l bottom. ' i l l to Can you point to the specific language in the
]
11 Regulatory Guide tnat sets forth these. requirements?- l 12 A Not without reviewing the' Reg Guide. . J 13 Q Well, is this language, which I have.just ) [if i 14 read to you from page 10 o f you r a f fiday'it , a quote from I 15 the Regulatorf Guide or is this your aummary of.what the I
; )
i 16 Regulatory Guide states?
)
t . 17 A I believe if it was a quote that it would havel ] IB been placed in quotes I I l 10 i I j Q So this is merely your paraphrasing of the- i, !
, i 20 ! language contained in Regulatory Guide 1.75?
' l 21 ! !
MR. SPEKTER: I would like to reflect that
]
22 Mr. Davidson is showing a document of rome kind. l 23 MR. DAVIDSON: I am showing Mr. Mizuno a copy [ 24 of the Regulatory Guide and asking him whether he wishes to 25 use it in furtherance of his examination. l
' 1
.q 16.
'l
.fc351b5 I I (Pause.)- ?
l 2 BY MR. KI?,UNO :
'3 1.
Q Does the witness remember the question? 4j A Which fs do I.believe that I paraphrased t 1 5, the Reg Guide? ~1 1 6 Yes. ( Q 7 A Are you ready for the answer? 8 Q Yes, please ankwer the question. s
.j 9 {
A Yes, 1 believe it was paraphrased. e
)
n Q Okay, turn to page 11 of your-affidavit. ( 1 i 11 > You use the word " errant specifications" _ T2 there. Will you .- identify what errant specifications-you are ' t l'
, talking about? '
f 4 14 i A Will you direct me closer and identify where i n , 15 that is at? ! ! t
} :
io l Q Yes. If you look at the third sentence ! l 17 from the top. "The entire plant has been built using-16 errant specifications." My question is yhat' errant 10 l spe c i fica t ion s are you talking about at this p o in't ? ! 20 ' A Hbich would be -- the errant specAffcations
*2 )
are specifications in error, would be the ES-100 specification 22 .. 1 Q So you are specifica1.y talkic.g about . just
. i 23 1 F.S-100 and a particular swetion, 4.11.3.27 24 A 1 will not go as far, no. It indicates 26 i additional speci.f aca tion , more than one. It possibly also
)
i k.
17'
- ~
ic351b6 j meant that it wes dealing with the butt splicing incident, ! , 2 also. , 3 Q Well. in this p a ra r.ra p h it says f. e r e that 4 4
!~ "I am particularly concerned with,the above situation since,}
5 if I am c.crrect in my interpretation of the regulations. l c. t then the entire plant has been built using errant'specifica-
- 7) tions.," I do not see any diEcussion of the butt spilcing j
e1 prior to that. I o! A Gkny, correct. I t. would'be the ES-100. i k 10 That particu13r section which co!/ers cable separation. ti slolations. I
- 2) Q And similarly, wb.c n fou speak about r,
interpretation of regulations, I assume you are just meaning i 14 Regulatory Guide 1.75? j 15 (Pause.) 16 A Where are you specifying the interpretation? 17 i Q If you look on top of page 11. j 1 18 A Okay. 10 Q' Right. I "If I am correct in my interpretation : 20 ; of the regulations." I assume that that phrase is referring j i 21 to Regulatory Guide 1.75? 22 A Correct. - 23 Q Now you indicate, still at page 1.1, in that 24 paragraph you say "I am not the only one who believes that {' 25 25-100 is in violation of_ Regulatory Guida 1.75." Then you e 9
- t. _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
f
.18 ' d
.. - -- 1
'f c35th7 - {'- !
i
'I 1
indicate an instance where a Design. Change. Authorization, I j 2 1 an'd we shall from now on refer _to that as a LCA, was written 3 1 against ES-100 to " change a portion of the procedure j -] 4 unrelated to cable separation." Is that-your summary 5' of your affidavit,.at thit ^ point? 6j : f (Pause.) 7 A Are you summarizing what I have testified 3 prior to or what's in the affidavit?
! i, 9
Q Wha't's in the affidavit. i 10 ' A Well, the affidavit, I believe, says-that: 11 i the Gibbs & Hill e m p l oy e e who war asked to authorize the 12 ! change refused to sign it off because of the violation 13 existing in the ES-100. i 14 Q So that violation -- your belief that there , 15 i was a violation in ES-100 is unrelated to cable separation. l i lo is it not? 17 ! A No, I believe -that the violation Nas related IB to cable separation. 10 ( 9 May i refer your attention to the sentence f l I 20 l that says -- the portion of the sentence which says
*I '"A l ,
21 ! design" ; i "A DCA was written against ES-'100 to change a l l 22 portion of the procedure unrelated to cable separation." < 23 { ! You indicated that Regulatory Guide 1.75 was only related i j 24 to separation. i 25 ! A Maybe 1 could mvre clearly-answer that, in ! y. l l
'l i
. .u, 9
'19
.' } '
fc351b6 ' i l-1- giving you an expla.atio. there. '! 2 -Q Pl' ease do. I 3 A The. phone conversation with'the Gibbs & Hill ; i 4l emplo,ee, I believe that there were several lines.that were [- I i 5 being modified, within the ES-100 specification, particularly
- 6. under the section of cable separation. The modification that, j 7 was occurring under this DCA was more of a wording change 8 versus an actual technical change e which would'bc cbraging.
i 7 the requirements of the specification. 10 He refused to authorize the wording change l
! .I 11 because he felt that the ES-100 was in violation, as far 12 as its specifications.
13 Q ES-100 was in viblation.o'f what? ; 1 14 A Of the Reg Guide 1.75. 15 Q And what portion of ths Reg Guide did that to engineer believe was in violation of ES-100? 17 A Dealing with separations, train separatio'ns. , end35 18 l
.j 19 i i !
20 l 21 !. i l 22 1 i'
^
23 74 1 a _.___..____-m- _.-- -_-- -
.fc36jon1 19-A l I BY MR. MI2UNO: {- 2 Q Was it that portion'of the Regulatory Guide ' 3 1.75 regarding separation between a conduit and a tray?' l' 4
'l A .Yes, 11 believe so. '
i' 5' t Q Now, let me ask you how were you' aware 6 that a DCA was written against_ES-100 as indicated in 7 your affidavit at this point? 8 A I do not. remember the exact course that I ! 9 !- took that made me obtain that information I~ 10 Q I didn't ask you that question. I didn't 11 ask you how you;obtained the information. I am.asking 12 1. you what was that information which allowed you to 13 conclude or allowed you to become aware of this fact? ; 14 i A
}!a y b e I don't understand your question.
15 Q Let me rephrase myself, then. 16 A All right. 17 Q You set forth an instance whre a DCA was 18li written against ES-100; correct? ! i I* A J Correct. 20 ' Q How did you become aware of this? 21 A Well, okay. While researching the SA-100 f 22 background, the documentation associated with it and so. 23 forth, I do not remember the exact inci' dents which 24 indicated to me there was an open DCA against this ES-100 25 But that was during the time -- during my researching I i
36jon2- 19~0 (n) NJ I came up with a DCA number and a person to call that was 2 handling that DCA number and Gibbs & Hill -- 3! Q Excuse me. You came across a DCA number? I 4 A Right. 5 Q That's what 7 was looking for. Can you tell 6 me what number DCA that was? 7 i A No, not without -- no. i 8l Q Can you tell me who originated the DCA? c A 1 do not remember. 10 Q Well, do you have that DCA in your possession 11 either here or at your house? 12 A I do not believe I do. 13 MR. DAVIDSON: Ca'n you search for it,
'# ! ~
15! THE WITNESS: Who is doing the asking? ! to MR. MIZUNO: I was going to ask you that. 17, BY MR. MIZUNO. l 1 1B Q Will you search for that DCA and if you find j to ' it will you transmit it to the staff and the applicants !
' 1 23 if they request it? By the middle of next week? i 21 A Yes.
I 22 MR. DAVIDSON: Consider the request made, sir. 23 BY MR. MIZUNO: I 24 Q Was the Gibbs & Hill employee who was asked 25 to authorize the change the same person who wrote the DCA? i
19-C 36jon3 - -, i
. ]
I. 1 A I do not remember. !
?
MR. DAVIDSON: You do not remember, or do i 3 you know? 4 ' THE WITNESS: I-don't remember. I, to the J i 5 best of my recollection, the DCA was generated at the ' 6t plant site, sent up to'Gibbs & Hill for final approval 7 and by that it means the chances-are that he probably 3 8 did nog write the DCA to which he was being . requested. 9 MR. DAVIDSON: But my problem is you say you , to don't remember but we haven't established that you ever ., 11 knew. i 12 THE WITNESS: Well, the thing is that without -- 13 okay. When I say I don't remember, I remember that I~ looked: 14 at the name of who generated it and I looked at the 15 na$e'--]
! I SY MR. MIZUNO: 4 le Q Excuse me.
I You generated what? The DCA? A ; 17 , Who -- yes. I looked at the name of who 18 generates the DCA and I do not remember who actually 10 generated the DCA at this time. 20 Q Fine. Now, you indicate here that a Gibbs & t I i 21 Hill employee was asked who was authorized to change. ! 22 refused to sign off on the DCA. From what document did you 23 get this? What was th'e source of the information for 1 24 that statemenc? 25 A A telephone conversation with a Gibbs & Hill
-l l
l--___E__..-__-_-_--_---_-.-_-__-- - _n______ . _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - - . . _ _ - _ - _ . - - . _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ - -_. . . _ - - . _ . _ - - - - . _ - - ._- _- __.-- _._-___.n_ _ _ . _ - _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ - - - . - _ - - _ _ . _
Jon4 19.D I. i 1 i employee. ; 2 Okay. Q What Gibbs & Hill employee was that 3 that you spoke on the phone with? ; i d . A I do not remember. ! i 5 Q Do you keep a log of your telephone 6{ conversations? i 7 A No, I do not. Not as a general rule. 8
; Q Did you keep a note of this or a memo of this?
9 b telephone conversation? a 10 A I do not know if I have a memo or not.
'l Q Can you check and see whether you did?
12 A Yes, I will. 13 Q And if so, will you please provide that to ;
'd the staff?
15 MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Mizuno, will you check to to see whether you have that document with you? 17 THE WITNESS: I know I do not have that ! i 18 document with me. I 10 ,i MR. DAVIDSON: You are certain of that? l 20 THE WITNESS: Yes. 21 MR. SPEKTER: What dor.ument are we t a l kin g-22 i about, gentlemen?
- l 23 THE WITNESS: The DCA. t 24 i BY MR. MIZUNO: l 1
25 Q Now, we spoke about the DCA carlier. Now we t
i 4 r Jon5- 19-E i I I are talking about a possible log or a memo that 'l t 2 demoralizes the telephone call with the Gibbs & Hill 3 employee. i 4 ; MR. DAVIDSON: I hope you don't mind, 5 Mr. Mizuno, but the witness did state that he saw'the - 6 i l name of the person -- he believes he saw the name of the 7 l Person who initiated the DCA or the document in question 8ll that is the disputed or questionable DCA ' i 9 ! { But did you ever spean to such a person? l I 10 (i Or were you ever introduced to such a person? ' II , THE WITNESS: I don't know. I know I had 12 seen the name. It could have very well been one of the 13 l engineers on s i t e' . So I could 7ery well have spoken to 5 j 14 ! 1 him. 15 l MR. DAVIDSON: But the only basis to your j l 16 i knowledge of who initiated that DCA is the nama appearing 17 I on the document; is 6at correct? i 1 IB < THE WITNESS: If you will repeat the questions, j 10 j please? , j 20 ; MR. DAVIDSON: The reporter does that. 21 MR. MIZUNO: May I continue? 22 MR. DAVIDSON: He has got a question pending. 23 l We haven't established what his basis was for knowledge -l 24 as to who initiated the DCA. 25 MR. MIZUNO: I realize that, but this is my
19-Fi jon6 '-
' l" .
n l \ discovery. 2 MR. DAVIDSON: I am.sorry. I withdraw the' 3 question. I just was hoping we could cover all these 4I ' things.and then I wouldn't repeat any.of it, because I 5 am going to be accused by Mr. Spekter of repeating 6 questions that you have asked because you covered a topic; 7 but you haven't covered the question that I want, and 8 therefore I thought it would be helpful if I brought it I 9 in now. < 10 MR. SPEKTER: I appreciate that. No, I 11 do, I Jo want you to -- I would like you to try to if 12 you have -- as long as Mr. Mizuno -- 13 MR. Y!ZUNO: I would prefer if you waited ! 14 until I finished' indicating a subject. 15 MR. DAVIDSON: I am going to reserve those lo questions for later. And 'I hope you understand, 17 { Mr. Spekter. that I will not reepeat questions that IB!j Mr. Mizuno has asked and I am taking pretty good notes to j j here. I know what he is asking. I know what he is not 20 asking. 21 And there will be questions like'that 'and I hope ' you will bear with me when I raise them, that I assure you- 'i-22 that they will be the questions that I believe that j Mr. Mizuno did nct ask. I 24 ! end36 . MR. SPEKTER: 25 I am sure that would be appreciated by all the parties.
.j
]
20- j fc37pbl t i i BY MR. MIZUNO: 2 Q 1 believe we left off with .. 3 committed to checking his records and giving us a copy of 1 4 any log or memo that will memorialize his telephone call .) 5 between himself and the Gibbs & Hill employee recording th'is 6- particular DCA. I s that true? 7 A Correct. I B Q 'ow you indicated that you physically -- I G i strike that. I 10} You indicated that you reviewed the DCA..
't You actually saw the DCA; is that correct? k i
A Correct. 12f ' 13 O And you also recall seeing the name'of the 14 person who you believe originated the DLA on that DCA; is 15 that true? 16 A Correct. L 17
. Q Now going back to the last sentence in that 18ll paragraph, you indicate here that the "Gibbs 6 Hill employee i
i 10 . who was asked to authorize the change refused to sign off l 20 on the DCA because.of the violation exis ting in ES-100." 21 Was your only basis'for you believing this i l i 22 was the telephone call that you had with the Gibbs & Hill i i 23 employee? i 24 A Yes. 25 Q You did not see any notation or writing to 1 l l I
'l 21 37pb2
/~' I that effect on the DCA or any attached form? k 2 A Correct. 3 Q And you do not recall the Gibbs & Hill that i e! you spoke with?
$ A So, I do not.
oi Q Do you recall the time that you spoke with l 7 him? 6 A It would have been in the time frame that 9I the questions were arisen over this DCA or over this incident I 10 i Q Okay. You did not indicate when you -- I I 11 A Okay. What was the -- the letter generation 12 was in December some time. I would have to look back over 13 j the files to find it. 14 Wis a t letter g e n e r a t f o r.? Q i 15 A I The startup memo indicating or identifying the j 16 problem with the separation. l 17 MR. DAVIDSON: If it willhelpyoul }
'B , the date of the memorandum that you prepared that ' -
10 you testified to for approximately an hour and a half here 20 i today is December 19th. 21 BY MR. M1ZU50: 22 Q You indicated t.n a t you, in the course of 23 research, you became aware of this design change authorization 24 Is it your testimony now that this search took place after 2.'
- you wrote the startup memo?
22 37pb3 [') v 1 A No, it took place prior to me writing the 2 startup. 3 Q Prior to writing? 4 i A Right. 5 Q Do you recall whether or how long before you
$ wroce your startup memo this occurred?
7 A l I believe within.a week. 8, l Q How long from the time that you identified l 0 l this DCA passed befor'e you spoke with the Gibbs & Hill 10 employee that you talk about? 11 A Can you rephrase the question? 12 A How long of a period of time passed between 13 i the point when you first identified this DCA and the time 14 that you had the telephone call with a Gibbs & Hill employee 15 whose name you cannot remember at this time, who told you 16 that it was another Gibbs & Hill employee, or maybe a 1/ Gibbs & Hill employee was asked to a :2 t h o r i z e the changel ' i 18 : A Oksy. I do not -- 10 f MR. DAVIDSON: I object to the form of the 20 question. I did not understand .i t . I'm not certain the 21 witness could either. l Mr. Mizuno. I'm sorry, I'm totally l 22 confused as to the time frames here. 23 Let me just clarify the times so we can Apve ;
~ .
24 forward. I'm sorry. g . Q .,g did you state t ria t you 25 did this research and discovered the DCA before you wrote
.23
~
l 37pb4 i 1 the memorandum, the startup memorandum of December 19? 2 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did do research prior 3, to that. I ,
% r 4- MR. DAVIDSON: And you said that it took 5 place how much prior to the writing of the memorandums 6 THE WITNESS: Aprpoximately a week.
i 1 7 MR. DAVIDSON: So that would be December 12; q 8 some time between December 12 and December 19. 1 o THE WITNESS: Yes, to MR. DAVIDSON: Okay. 1 11 MR. MIZUNO: I That wasn't my question. ! 12 j MR. DAVIDSON: No, but you see, now you've 4 l if' got a time frame. You can find'out when between the 12th 14 and the 19th he had a conversation. ) 15 MR. MIZUNO: 1 don't think you can say that. is MR. DAVIDSON: Then you can ask him if it i 17 l was after the 19th. ! J
}
18l BY MR. MIZUNO: t 10 ; i Q I want to ask what period of time passed ; 20 between -- how long was it between the time that vou first I
)
i 21 identified this DCA and the time that you called up Gibbs & 22 Hill? 23 A During this time period that I was doing ~ j i , 24 research, I've already explained that I do not know exaEtly ! 25 how I came about having the DCA number. I could have possibly I
. , .n ,
24 37pb5 f: 1 1 1 called Gibbs & Hill requesting to speak to somebody who- '.! l i H, was handling.ES-100' specifications ~or modifications or 2 3 ' design changes to'that. And in talking .th thi s person, j ri i he.could.have been the one that actual]- gave me the ; 5 DCA number saying, possibly saying that he had a'DCALpendingl S e that he could.not sign. And that maybe he had talked with l 7 somebody recently and see how the research could'have e possibly derived that -- h-
! i 7 i Q I see. So:you are not clear whether the
! i-10 telephone cal'1 which you.had with Gibbs & Hill was also the- <
$1 ' telephone which identifies-this DCA. t 12 A Correct.
f 13 Q What was your reason for calling Gibbs &' Hill?i 1.4 A Tc resear..h the ES-100 rpecificatior.s. i i 15 Q What do you mean by research? 13 A To find out why there was a discrepancy between l I ! 17 that and the reg guide. . 3
!- 1 18 f Q Did you have a particular question'in-mind- l 15 that you wanted to ask Gibbs & Hill when you. called them? ;
20 A The specific thing that questioned.me_with I 21 the ES-100 is I tried explaining it briefly. The ES-100 j ., 22 specifies that an open cable in free ait 'has to maintain. ' I 23 at least three foot distance between any conduit and any l 24 cable tray. Okay. 1 25 They allowed a conduit to run within one inch
.l o
, . -l
- 1 25.
l I?'b6 p 1 of the bottom of an open tray vhich had' cables in it. And j 2 this'is the reasoning that I cal).ed Gibbs 6.H111 was to-3 clarify why there was an inconsistency, e v e n ' i rr t h e 1'r own' ; ; 4} ES-100 documentation. 5 Q' Was that the question that- you specifica'lly 6t asked the Gibbs & Hill person? I I 7l A I specifically questioned the Gibbs & Hill: I 8' person. It looked to me that the ES-100 was in conflict 7 with Reg Guide 1.75 and also in conflict with itself. 10 Q And what did he reply? It A He replied he felt it was in conflict with l 12 ! Reg Guice 1.75 also. < 13 Q Then what else did he indicate? I I I4 A 1 hat the reason for the conflict between the 15 ES specifications within itself was because that one section : 16 of that ES-100 was in conflict'with the. reg guide. 1 17
, Q How did he identify for you this DC.A? i 18 l 1 A
i ( Again, I've already admitted that I am I 10 ! r -i unaware of whether he identified to me the DCA or I questioned ) 20 him on this DCA number, or whether !. e brought up the fact ; I 'l 21 that he had a DCA pending right now that he will not approve i i i end 37. 22 because of this. -l 23 $ l t 24 1 25 i I
.v: : e. . }
I e
~I,
]
, v. .
FCji ' 3 8 /1-26 3-
'l
~l i i BY MR. MIZUNO:
2 Q The Gibbs & Hill employee that you spoke to, 3 was he an engineer? 4 ' A I~do not remember his exact title, but I believe 5 him to have been and engineer. 1 6' Q When you called Gibbs & Hill, who did you ask' 7 for? Or what did you first say when you called Gibbs & Hill 2-8 A To the best of my recollection, I believe I 0 asked to spea> to somebody handling ES-100 spec'ifications 4 10 or who possibly had generated that specification. 11 Q Did you ask the -- okay. And then what 12 ! happened -- after you made this request? i 13 ' A I was transferred to-the person. i I don't know ' 14 l if I went through several other people first or not. i 1 15 Q When you finally got over this person, did the 1 I l it person identify himself to you? j 17 A Yes. t i 18 l Q Did he identify his position? i
, i 10 ; A I do not remember. !
} {
20 ' ! Q Did you ask hin? i 1 j i i 21 A 1 do not remember that either. l l 22 Q This design change authorization was written
. 1 23 against what section of ES-LOO? "
2d A It had to be incorporated somewhere underneath I : 25 this 4.11.2 -- 4.11-3.2. !, l i i i
1 27 FCji 18/2 ___ - - _ (3 I (v) Q Why do you say "it had to be"? Do you recall? 2 A 'J e l l , after using the affidavit to. refresh my memory, the 4.11.3.2 is the section of tha ES-100 which I 3l i
! deals with cable separations.
~<
Therefore, this DCA, if it was affecting the 6
; s e c t ro n in question, had to have been under that section, j 7 i Q But if you notice, in that very same sentence i i
0 you indicate that this DCA was written against a portion of
', ES-100, which was to change a cortion of the procedure, 4 i
1"
- l
, meaning the ES-100 procedure, which was unrelated to 'l i
cable separation. 1"* I MR.,DAVIDSON: Mr. Mizuno, when you 'ay . i I3 f " unrelated to cable separation," are you quoting from _ affidavit? I i ~c MR. MIZUNO: Yes.
'O MR. DAVIDSON,: I would appreciate it if you f i
17 I would use quotation marks where you use such language so i 18 that me may respond as to wha: there is a discrepancy. j BY MR. MIZUNO: l i
'o Q However, you indicated earlier, on page 10,
'1 that Section 4.11.3.2 deals with cable separation.
A As I indicated earlier, this DCA changed words 23 around -- okay? And at the time of writing this affidavit, the t , 1 '3 changing of words did not indicate to me -- or I did not i
4 , 1
; rCjl 38/3 28
; .(
i I , 1 I feel that it was a change in the cable ~ separation. such , s t 1
'2 as that they~did not say that we are going to. change
}
'3) the 3-footu 2-foot requirement, or the 1-inch requirement, .l i '
4 we're going to change this word possibly. 1 , t 5 Well. I woeld have to have the DCA to'give'you I
- a direct indication here of what was actually -- you would 1
7 liave to look at the DCA is'to what was being changed. f
}
Bj_ Q At the time that you wrote this af fid'avit . , j 0 j
- was it clear in your minc as to what portion of ES-100 j i
to j was being changed?
'I A Yes, it was.
'? I Q And do yot recail if the language -- did you '
13 ,) recall the language at that tihe that was being changed? l j 14 ' A I believe it's in. quotes in my affidavit, it l 1 15 -- meaning -- quotee; it means that it is a direct 16 derivative out of the ES-100 specifications, i I
- i U
Q Where is that qucte? q 18 l- i MR. DAVIDSON: I think the witness misuriders tood ( {
'3 i you. He didn't respond --
he wasn ' t _ re spondittg to your ! 20 question about ES-100. He was saying that he was qsoting i l 21 from the Reg Guide. And that's not what you' asked him. ; I 22 THE WITNESS. So, I believe the quote there is l 23 from the ES-100 specifications, I j 2d i B '.' M R . M1ZUSO: ' 25 Q So. let me make this very clear then. ; i
- s. A i
i
29' y !l
,TCjl'38/4 7.
l l J 1 You wr.re.saying that'the DCA.which you referred
~
2 on page 11 of your.effidavit, which'you say was-written ;
} .I 3j *against the ES-'100 to " change a portion of'the procedure.
}
d; unrelated to cable separation," that that DCA was,vritten> >
- n 5 against a portion of:ES-100 Section 4.11.3.2 'and j 6 specifically the words which?you have quoted ontpage 10
-]'a 7 of your affidsvit'!
]
.a 0 ,
A Let me.-- okay, the deal here is that.the DCA-0 was written, and part of'the language used on'the DCA;was' W this information in1 quotes on page 11.
'l
, The actual change-was not taking place _ in the:
2 )l information.that is in quotes. It was taking place in q 1
?? l information previous to that.
l Id MR. DAVIDSON:' ook,lI thick'I can 15 clarify this. O'herwise; c I'm going to have extensive ' 16 examination o r. it. i7 You state, tin your :af fidavit , Lthat the!DCA was ! l IB
-t written against and'was written to do a follow-up'te. 1; 10 effect.the ft11owing-change -- and I'm going to quote the l
20 change you say it was designed'to'effect: " change a. M portion of the procedure unrelated.to 4able separations" l l
?'
Now, is it not the case that.your' testimony I 23 remains today that the DCA was written to effec't a change ! i 24 in a procedure unrelated to cab 12. separation? l is that true l 25 or ant? i 4M
.a
= = _- -
m ,~,_m--- am )
~4 i Fbji 38/5 30 l
i THE WITNESS: Maybe we should not have said ' (m}
's- #
2 " unrelated," or I should not have said " unrelated to 3! cable separations," due to the fact that Sectica 4.11.3.2 )
\
4l 1s totally related to cable se?aration, but yet it was ~l l
- unrelated to the couplaint or a l l e g e d ' i n c e ..s i s t e n c i e s . I on my-part or the part that -- whJch did not fit the f 6: --
j
\
7 Reg Guide. ,. --- (
- ~
3 e MR. DAViDE0N. hh g*g are you s2,ying now c' that this statement., as writter is inaccurace' i i l 10 l , THE 'a'I T N E S S : No. I believe it's being 1
; interpreted inaccurctel". l 1
l 12 ; MR, DAVIDSON: $ t How can one ictarpret it any j 1
- ] other way?
() (~% 14 t You s cte that ~he c DCA was vricten $p e f f ecL_ .- l-l 15 " change a portion of the procedute unrclated to cable ' l I Io separation." I i ! 17 There is no way to read that any ot"ner ucy, f , i 18 Either it is related to cable separation, Gr 10 l it's not related to cable separktion. i N Now, my questiott ls -- and you have every , 21 right to change your testimony if yo.u wish, -- l l 72 so, there's no trick intended here. If there's an f.ccccuracy ; 23 here or there's been a misstatement or it's been written 24 incorrectly, all you Lave to do is correct it. 25 But the question is -- you've s t a t e .1 that the f3 l
'~
]
1
. FCjl 38/6 31 ]
l I i' I DCA that we've been talt.ing about was written against."a. !
)
1 i 2 portion of the procedure' unrelated to cable separation." j 4 3 Now, you've testified, in response to. ] 4
; Mr. Mizuno, that it was releted to cable. separation. !
5 Now, it can't be both. 1
. :)
-l o So, the question is: Is the statemen't, as YI written, correct?
j ./~- ) 8i Or, do you now realize the statement, As' written, j 9i is incorrect? .I
-{
i l is l THE WITNEE3: Without being able to specifically
]
l' I ideatify the information in the ES-100 specifications j
'2 i right ocv, I c a n n'o t make a decision whethat or not.the ;
l 0 informat1on was unrelated or related to cable separation
~
)
14 violations. ' 15 MR. DAVIDSON: Well, do you wish -- the, issue j i 16 - i is not uhether it was in the ES-100. The question is -J. j 17 whether the DCA was designed to do 'what .you.said it was - 2
)
18 to do, to deal with a portion of.the procedure unrelate'd 'i ' j
! l 0
to cable separation. j i 22 l You say you need the DCA to make that statement? " i 21 ) THE WITNESS: Yes. t
'I I
22 MR. DAVIDSON: Did you have a DCA at.the timo 23 that you made this affidavit? i {
! l
[ 24 TME WITNESS: 1 believe so, i 25 MR. DAVIDSON: So therefore, this statemen't is I 4- 1
,1 i
m R _. ~ _ _ . - . _ - - - - _ - _ - - _ _ ._. - - - - _ _ - , _ u - . ~ r - .,-_-uu __ -- _ - - . - - - - i u------
/
FCjl 38/7 32
~
l f I correct, so far as you know? I, 2 And you have no basis to'say it's incorrect now? 3 THE WITNESS: To my understanding, this L
- 9. o l
d i-staterant is ccrrect. ' 5 MR. DAVID. SON: You'have no basis to's67 it is 6 incorrect; correct? i l 7 j~ THE-WITNESS: Correct. I ' J . ' 63 MR. DAVIDSON: So therefore, the' statement '
~
*I stands as is, and therefore there is no way for you now t
to{ to state that the DCA does nct deal with -- that it does l'
; deal with something related to cable separation; isn't that i
12 } correct? 3 13 l THE WITNESS: Well, the DCA definitely' deals l Id l l with cable separation. l IS MR. DAVIDSON: No, sir, that's not what you've 20 written. But I can see that you wish to argue the point. !
'7 l THE WITNESS: I wish -- I l
IB ! M R .. DAVIDSON: Mr. Mizuno -- 1
'*l j
MR. MIZUNO: Okay 20 i MR. DAVIDSON: -- go ahead. i 21 1 MR. MIZUN0t I.think I'm going to. I 22 THE WITNESS: I wish to take a time out to i 23 5. peak to counsel.
}'
1 24 MR. SPEKTER: Fine. ! 25 Let's take a minute. i L C ___ _ _ - _ _ . .
n
$, s M)
.i d
FCjl 38/8 ~
. 33 (!
1- l
- 3. :
- j e, .-
I~
.(Off the record at 9:29 p.m.) I. .
2 (.Ar t.o rne y Spekter confere:tce with witness.') end 38' 3I I > d i s 1 4 I b.' l 7'
.B l
i f; Y 10 t l n J 9
, I 13 , .
.i 1- j 1a 'b a
t I I ie -l 17 i~ l ta ;.- a 1 -
'O, I j' i l 1
20 ; - 1
- 2) .t\
1 2h , u ! 1 4 t u 'w*' e
..s .;
s . 1 i . _ _ _ _________________1_
~-
, r r s 34
'Ic.391b1 _
n - L '1 4 (Back on the r e c o r d - - '9 : 37 p . m . ) . [- , 2 M R .. SPEKTER: Let's go back to the, prior. .; 4 ! 3 question, l 1 1 4 MR.'DAVIDSON: :1 don't think there's'a , )
$ question pending.
o MR. MIZUNO: Mr,. Reporter, is there . a 1 i j , 7l question pending?' ! l 6: (Reporter responds negatively.)- 9 ' 3 4 BY MR. MIZUNO: ; I 10 I Q You. indicated thet you ' reviewed this I It Design Change Authorization. Are you presently familiar . 12 with the content of this DCA? 13 l A 1 am. familiar with parts of che content. I s i , 14 ? I, do not remember full content of the DCA right now. . i-I 15 Q Do you recall what the DCA's purpose was?
'o A No, I do not.
I 1 i 17 ( < You do not? You indicate here that it was Q j- .!
.i 18 written against ES-100 to change a portion of the procedure. I 10 , unrelated to -cable separation. Is that true? l-1 23 ' 'A Yes, that is what's written there.
?! Q But you do not recall whether that. statement 1 I 22 is coirect? : i 1
23 ! A I do not remember, at thia time, whether the 24 DCA was written to correct a typographical error in the .i i 25 procedure, or to correct content in the cable separations. ! l
' )
j'
' o I i
* . } 1 l
l i
l
,j
" L35 l 2 - ! fc391b2 I l 'l t I i I do not reacmber at this time. ; 2 Q Well, what did the'DCA say? j 3 A I do not remember. -; 4 !
, Q You. indicated that you had a DCA -- this l
5 DCA, at the' time when you were preparing'this affidavit?' 6 - Is that true? I 7 MR. SPERTER: I. don't believe,that's what he-B. testified. + 9 l THE WITNESS: Will you repeat the last t 10 ] question. 4 1 i MR. MIZUNO: No, I won't.because you answered I
]
12 it -- \ I'm sorry, that's right. j 13! i BY MR. MIZUNO: 14 ; Q Did you have a copy of'this DCA at the time .i 15 you were preparing this affidavit? i'
)
1 16 A I do not remember if'I had a copy at the 1 I 17 time. I do not remember. i i IB !' Q By preparation I mean from the time that . i 19 ! you first -- well, I take that back. l 20 ' Can you d e s c r-ib e how you prepared this 21 affidavit? i 22 : A The affidavit was prepared by notes or- ) 23 conversations with Ernie Hadley and me showing him pieces l ) l ( 24 of information that I had and paperwork. And then he l 25 transcribed the notes into an affidavit. : l s i l
+
36 3-dc391b3 l
' Y Q 1 see, . so that the original wordc of this l
'2 affidavit werc not' written down'by you:but were actually 3' generated by Mr. Hadley?
3 l '4 i A Correct. 5 i 5 Q At the time that:you were providing'this o; 1 information, in the form of notes, to Mr. H6dley did'you 7f 'have the DCA with you?
- 8. A I do not remember if I had this specific- i 9} ~DCA.
1 to Q Do you recall whether you had this DCA -- do it you recall reviewing this DCA prior to you signing.chis 12 affidavit in its completed form? 13 A Your question.was whether or not I had reviewed i. 14 the PCA prior to me signing this form? i i 15 Q Yes, let me clarify this. Between the time ! j that you first had your first~ conversations.and transmitt1ng
~
io 17 of notes to Mr. Hadley and the time that.you finally' signed 18 this affidavit, did you review the DCA? :
; i ic A 1 do not remember if I did or not. l i
t l 22 MR, DAVIDSON: Mr.-Mizune, point of j l i" l 21 clarification. You will recollect there was testimony here ' 22 that this affidavit was prepared over a continuous drafting . l 23 period of about two months with some 15 telephone 24 conversations with Mr. Hadley and with a review and revision ! 25 ! of two prior drafts, possibly three, before this final was
.t:
a i _____________m ___-_--a- - - - " - ' - - ' - - - -
37 ) l fc391b4 ' h 1 given to . 2 MR. MIZUNO: That's right. And f. h e period ; l 3 I'm referring te is this period between the time that l 4 first contacted Mr. Hadley and started giving 5 him hie notes and the time that he finally signed this { e affidaSit. ! !
? BY MR. MIZUNO: 1 1
P Q Now your second incident involving alleged i
; harassment or intimidation, I believe you earlier testified G dealt with an incident regarding ferroresonant transformers,
- 1 which are a part of' Westinghouse invertors? ;
i 1 12 ! A Yes. 13 Q In your discussion of your actions irvolving 14 ferrortsonant transformers, is set forth on pages 13 to 14 , l , 15 of your-affidavit? i 16 (Pause.) 17 A Yes. it is. 1B Q You indicated that there.was some corrective i 10 ; action taken in response to these ferroresonant transformers 20 failing and that corrective action was to replace the 21 transformer, is that true? , 22 A . Send it back -- replace or send the transformed 1 23 back to the plant for reworking. 24 Q To be very clear on this point, on page 13 25 ' of your affidavit, you say that in February of 1983 two l m b)
t 5 -'
.38- 1 4
1 l fc391b5 .t. t i a
! i of the transformers failed-on the same weekend.and a ' '
2 l l third transformer failed with1n one monrh of that' time. Is ! 3! i that not true? ' l j 4 4 A Yes. ' 5 Q What was the corrective action taken for 1 6i f these three transformers? o
-l i
7l A The immediate c'orrective action was to-1 B' -- what in commonly called as PET, which would be Permanent
*} I Equipment Transfer..from Unit 2 to Unit 1.
10 Q 'And what d.oes ~~ PET involve? li A It'means physically removing the transformers 3 l 12 f ' out .J Unit 2 and placing them into Unit 1. j 13 !
, Q Does that mean t'h a t the invertors, the l Id Unit 1 invertors remain in Unit 1 but that'the transformers l
I 15 ! in those invertors were removed and were replaced with i !
; i 16 I
transformers which were obtained from the Unit 2 invertors? 17 I A , Correct. ! IB ! Q How do you know that that was done? ! I i 10 j A I did it. To rephrase that, I did not l t j 20 ' physically do it. I supervised the work and generated 21 i paperwork for that.- ' i ! 22 Q Let's first talk about the failure of these 23 i ! three transformers. Were you responsible for generating i 24 any documentation documenting the failure of these 25 three transformers, which you reference on page 13? l i l' ij ! 1 l I 4 __m________m__________. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _a . ..
, c 39 .
( fc391b6- _. 4 i. 1 { 1 A Yes, I was. i 2 Q Do you recal) what' form or what type'of 'l
)
3, documentation you did that on? l i 4 A It was a TDR, which is Test Deficiency. Report. -' 5 Q Did you generate more than one TDR? 1 6j A .I believe so.
,i 7
Q Did you generate one TDR'for - to cover 8 both transformers which' failed on theLsame weekend in O . F e b r u a r .v .?
?
10 l A 1. don't think so because I believe they were i it l under different system numbers. Therefore, .they would have ' I 12 i piubably fal1Gn'under different tDRs. i 1 do not remember 13 ; exactly, at this time.
, i 14 Q Do you recall the TDR numberst' I l t i 15 1 i A No, I do not.
l l it Q Do you have copies of them in your briefcase' s ) 17 or at your home? ! ! I 18 A : 1 do not think I do. ' I
. i 19 i Q Can you search your files to locate those l* !
,i 20 TDRsi i 21 I
A I will search my files. I 22 ; Q And provide us a copy next week, if you do. L j 1 23 find them? i 24 A Yes, I will. i
< l i
25 Q Do you know what systems these transformers i
> . .a<
'> 1
-I
~
, :r q 40-Lic391b7 \:
-l
( 1 were on? ~' r 2 A I believe they wouldihave beep- in the system'
.3 range of 02AT -- I know the ballpark. It would b'e , 0 2 A T ,
4.} 02AW, or possibly 02AU. The exact system numb 6r:I
'5 1 don't remember.
6 Q 'I want.to be: clear that .he systems'that 7 you're recalling are for the'two transformers which failea 8 on the same weekend'? 9 i A Correct. 10 Q Can you generally describe-what systems i' these invertors were on? Were they on-something. dealing I 12 ; with instrumentation? 13 A These invertors feed power to reacter
'4 protection panels which I believe feed power to various 15 forms of instrumentation. i-lo Q Would you be able to find - physically find ;
17 these transformers if you went to the plant? t t 18 A Yes. I ! 10 I i Q Turning .our attention to the third transformer l 1 20 that failed within one month of that time, of the first i 21 i failure -- or of the two transformer, Do you recall l~ 22 generating the TDR with-the failure of that third 23 transformer? 24 A Yes, I do. I ' i l 25 Q Do you recall the TDR number at this time? I i n , ' s N I I
41 dc391b8 1 A No, I do not.-
- 1 2 Q Would you -- do you.have a copy'w.ith you? A
- 3. A No, I do not. i 4 I.
Q
! Do you have a copy -- do you believe you have; i
5 a copy at home? 6 A -I do not believe that-I do have'one. 1 7 Q Can you search through the' files? 8l : A I will, i i i o' MR. DAVIDSON: Will you produce that by the. l ' t 10 beginning of next week? I 11 Tile WITNESS : Yes. I 12 .l- MR. SPEKTER: 1 That's understood to be , 13 l l applicable to all the documents that he's going to be
}
14 searching for, thst he wi'11 make every ef f or t -- if he can j 15 find them -- to provide chem early next week. l 16 ' MR. DAVIDSON: Thank you, Mr. Spekter. I 17 appreciate it. f. 1B BY PR. MIZUNG: ! i toj Q Can you recall what system this third
;]
! -j 20 ! transformer was on --
I should say the invertor was on? i l 21 A 4 lt would have fell under one of-the three { 22 systems, or in the range of systems that Inlisted earlier. I t L, 23 0 What do you mean by range of systems? 24 A When I said 02AT, 02AU and'02AW. There are I i !
\
25 several ather systems in there and it could possibly be one '; i 6 l
.. #. . . 3 4 4.
; i j
- - . - _ - - - - - - - - - -- - _ - - - - _ - - - - - ------------a
42 fc391b9 ! s 1 of those. A 2 Q 1 see. Could you also. locate that third 3 transformer, if you went out to the field? ; 4 l A Yes, I could. ,- 5 (Pause.) 6! Q You indicated that you generated TDRs, I 7 Test Deficiency Reports, for each of these failures. 8; A Correct. i 9 Q Do you mcall - the resolution of the TDR? 10 A Well, I believe there is no specific section II i on a TDR for a resolution. There is a section for' corrective 12! action. 13
! Q And the corrective action was to replace 14 these transformers, by taking them from Unit 2?
IS A Correct. 16 Q Was there any documentation of the fact that i
'7 these transformers were replaced?
'B A Yes. !
I*lt Q And what kind of document would that be 20 located? t-21 I A The Test Deficiency Report would identify that! 22 they had been replaced. end39 23 I
'i 24 i
l l 25 i i
**m i j
I i i
.~ 43 I. fc40pbl (,-~) 1 BY MR. MIZUNO: 2 Q you indicate in a sentence that. 3i "If any two of the transformers fail, there is an automatic l 4 scram, and the plant shuts down." Is that a correct statement 5 of the sentence in your affidavit? e - (Pause.) ) 7 j A Yes. E Q What is the basis for your belief in this regard? I i 10 A These transformers are transformers dealing with reactor protection, which means that there is four
- , channels of operation. And it is ny understanding and 13 , knowledge that loss of any two of these channels or failure Os_/ 14 of any two of these channels will create a scram duriag l
15 , operation. I 16 Q And what is the basis for your belief that ! l 17 i these transformers are on -- what did you call it -- a reactor
.)
i IS safety -- A Reactor protection. ! 20 Q -- reactor protection system? 21 A They are called reactor protection inverters. 22 : Q What is your basis for believing that the 23 systems that they are locating on would cause a scram if 24 two of these systems failed? 25 A Well, the common logic at the plant reactor
/
f l
44 i ( 40pb2 i t i ['m} QJ 1 protection systems is that two out of four will cause a i { 2 scram. 3. Q You know these systems are specifically 4 related to initiating a scram? 5 A Yes -- well, yes they will cause a screu. e: You are dealing with instrumentation down the line. Now i _ 7 i whether or not the exact failure of the inverter directiv - 8 lI will cause the scram or indirectly it is a very good G > possibility that it would not be s direct cause of scram, 10 but would be an indirect cause of scram because of loss of power to instrumentation. e m
'2 0 ('hj M ; R .4 2 did you review the entire system
'2 that these inverters were on, located on?
{()x 14 A These inverters are a system to theirself. I 15 ! l Q You indicate that these inverters are part 16 of a reactor protection system. Have you reviewed the 17 ! entire schematic for the reactor protectio n system that these
'8 inverters are a part of?
1 I* A You mean, have I reviewed it, individual l 1 22 loads to which they feed? 2' .
, Q What do you mean by loads? l l
22 l A Equipment. 23 j Q Yes,
' 1 i i 24 l A Am I correct in your assumption what you're i
25 l asking me is have I reviewed what downstream equipment they l @m-l i i l
45' ) 40pb3 1 1
\.
possibly could be feeding? 2 Q Yes. 3} A Yes,.I have. t-4 1 Q What are they? >- 1 5 A- If I remember right, there is - '11cannot' . 6 remember the. paddles.
. I believe the solid state,sequencers.
7 or of f some of them. There is various. levels, equipment 3 B indicated such as pressurizer levele loop temperatures _ loop.'
~
*l pressures, main coo 1 ant pumps. DPs, all' of1these types of-10 instruments, if I remember right receive-power from these 11 ! inverters.
I 12j Q What you_mean by level instrument, you mean 13 ! measuring -- i 14 A Pressurizer levels, steam generator levels, } 15 and so on. l lo i Q And you indicated that you did review'the ' 17 entire schematic for this system in order to' determine what IB these transformers provided' power for, the inverters provided f 10 power for in this case? 20 A Yee. I have reviewed the schematic,at one 21 time or another. Maybe not necessarily when I was in during 22 the failure time period. i 23 Q If these inverter fail, you indicate.that it ;. 24 will cause an automatic scram and the plant. shuts down. i
-i 25 'l Doesn't that shes that the failure of-these-inverters'will !
l l
. a -;
\
46 40pb4 1 not have any significant safety impact? l { 2 (Pause.) 3 A No, that doesn't indicate that to me,. ! t 4j Q Why not? t 5 A The reasoning for the scram.would be as a 6 safety function because of losing two of those inverters. 7 Any time you lose instrumentation associsted'with the plant, e such as pressurizer level, loop temperatures, loop pressurrs, 9 l main coolant pump DPs or steam generator levels, you'run a { i ' 10 ; higher risk of accident. '- i Now, 1 am not able to determine how much of 12 I 1 an effect these transformers have on the safe shutdown of. 13 ' the plant load.. i 14 } Q Well, you indicate here that the transformers ' 15 fail then there will be an automatic scram. le A Yes. 17 Q And that shuts down the plant. 18 A Correct. Ic Q If the plant shuts down. automatically, then -3
}
why is there a safety problem? To put it another way, if 23 l 21 these inverters fail., would it cause the plant'to not shut 1 l 4 22 down? \ Would a scram somehow be prevented from happening?- { 23 A .1 I do not know. We are reaching i* co arers 24 of operations which I'm not totally familiar with_to answer. I i 25 Q If that is the case then, how do you know .that i s ~ ;.
~_ !
i 47 ; i 40pb5 ,
/~') I failure of the inverters would cause failure of level G'
2 indicators. I believe you put it, which would in turn cause l 3 an automatic scram? i I, { 4i A By me controlling the systems, part of my l t 5 requirement was to de-energize them periodically for
\
cj maintenance and testing purposes. In order to do that, I l 7 was informed and knew that they fed various instrumentation i SI off of the primary plant, and therefore I had to receive G approvals from such as operations and so on. 13 I had to do checking as far as their loads -- Q jhf 4 that doesn't answer my quest ~ ion.
, 1.. .
# e w _
'2' How do you know that failure of the inverters which then
'3 ! leads to failure, I would ,uppose of what you call the
( l (_)h ' indicators, and you indicated several different ones, 15 pressure, temperature would thereby result in a scram? I lo A Any failure of two out of the four will 17 cause a scram. I 18 ' Q What is the basis for your belief in that? 10 A Receiving information from operations, 2' ' talking to operations personnel. I 21 What kind of information? Q Can you recall l 1 22 what documentation that was given to you? ! l 23 A No, I do not. ' i I 2d Q And who are the operations people who told l 25 i you this? I
/7' f
x_ ___ _ _ _ A
48. 40pb6' 1 A' I do'not remember. < 2 Q Do you recall whether they -- strike th'at. 3 You indicated that you wrote.several startup 4 memos on this problem. And I would like for you to identifyf . 5 what problem are you speaking of? 6[ 3 _ A The ferroresonantftransformer failure. 7- problem. 6 Q And what was the substance of your memos? o! What were you complaining about regarding the ferroresonant i 10 transformers? 11 , A The amount of . failure in such a shcrt period 12 of time. i 13 Q Did you indicate'in 4ny of those memos that ,I 14 a 10 CFR 50.55(e) report should be filed? 15 A I do not-remember. f le l' Q Can you recall the identification of the 17 startup memos that you wrote on the ferroresonant transformers 18 A No, I do not. 10 Q The dates of these memos? 20 I A 1 do not remember the dates of the memos.
*21 Q Do you have copies of these memos with you?
22 A No, I do not. j 23 Q Do you have them at home? i l 24 A I do not believe I do . - ! 25 MR. DAVIDSON: you haven't' looked
i
- 49,
~
.h i
40pb7 i 1 in your bag yet'this time for those documents. l 1 2 THE WITNESS: -I do know what is in my' bag 3 and I do.not have copies of those memos. j 4 . MR. M1ZUNQ: That would be. ongoing request.. I 5 MR. SPEKTER: Understood and noted. e' MR. DAVIDSON: I take'it. Mr Spekter, that' l 7 I don't have to indicate that when Mr. Mizuno requests a. B document obviously we anticipate cnat that document will J 7; also be supplied to Applicant counsel. j-i ' to l MR. SPEKTER: If one party requests a document: 1 11 ! it will be provided to both parties. And it's my understandir { 12 i i that if I request a document, it will be provided from both 13 parties. Or if one.other party would request a' document : 4 14 that the other two parties would get it. ! 15 MR. DAVIDSON: Fair enough. , 16 BY MR. MIZUNO: 17 Q Do you recall whether you sent these menos. 16 to engineering. .the electrical testing group, Impe11 and- j: 10 the TUSI? I 20 l (Pause.)
?! A' I didn't send them enywhere. It is stated
^i 22 there, it says I wrote several startup memos on this problem,I 73 which were distributed to.
24 -Q Okay. So that means that -- vell. then who 25 were these startup memos directed to?
-e
, 4 ,', 'f l
l- .l
+ a &_______._m__________________._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ .____.__._____._________________.__________________b
50 40pb8 i 1 A I believe'they would have followed similar l-1 2 channels as to the ES-100 violation memo s'own h earlier, i 1 3 6 Q , Do you recall whether the'startup memos went ' [ j 4 out under your signature or under someone'ulse's signature? f 5 A 1 do not remember. 6-
-Q How do you know that these memos.were j 7
distributed to engineering, electrical testing, group, Impell 8 and TUSl? 9 A That would be the normal transfer route. l y 10 Q Did you ever receive -- do you ever recall 1 11
; receiving any of these memos --
I'm sorry -- do you recall
'2 ever receiving a copy of a' memo which indicatbd;that a ny: J 13 of these groups had received this memo?
14 A No. 15 Q Do you recall'seeing any letter or memorandum to from these four groups indicating or memorializing the 17 fact that they had received your startup' memo? 18 A Well, I received -- I. received a reply to the i I 1 19 memos, thereby indicating to me that these' organizations had !! 20 [ received the memos. 21 Q These replies were from what organizations 2T or what individuals? 23 A Well, as written here, the electrical testing. 24 group and Impell are similar, under the same organization. 25 thereby the memos would have been within the organization f
. .ht*
I
v. 51 40pb91 I when I generated them. Er,gineering'and TUSI could be 2 interpreted as being under the same umbrella there. 3 Q But I'm asking you -- l. l 4 MR. DAVIDSON: From whom did you' receive the 5 reply? o THE WITNESS: I received the reply, I believe , I 7 frem Westinghouse or TUSI Engineering. I doinot remember ai
-t if it was direct. Well, I would imagine that Westinghouse's
)
oj reply was by way of engineering, TUSI Engineering. I 10 BY MR. MIZUNO: 11 Q Is that .the only reply that you recall- , 12 , receiving regarding your startup memos on ferroresonant 13 transformers? 14 A The only formal reply. 15 Q Do you recall receiving any informal'. replies? 16 A There was meetings with Westinghouse which ' i 17 identified problems and so on, and there were several ! i 18 j telephone calls.
! l to Q L e r. ' s go through each of these meetings and 20 telephone calls.
Do you recall how many meetings there were?; 21 A I The exact number, no. I believe there was j ' 22 one or two. 23 Q Do you recall who attended these meetings? 24 A I believe it was me, Art London, Westinghouse 25 representatives, Westinghouse site representatives and ! l
.- i.
h) . , , Eh =
A a
.c -
32 i 1
-l 40pb10 l I possibly TUSI Engineering . representatives.' L!
i 2 Q I heard you'said it was yourself_.and'then' - 3 A Art London, i i 4 Q Art London. I see. 5 A Yes. l 6 l Q Fine. Do you know when these meetings'took j i 7 ! place? i 8 A I do not remember the exact timeJor place 1. Ci Q You cannot even set forth a-time peribdcin e i. 10 which these meetings took place? ' o 11 A b' e ' r e talking over such a.large span of time-i n order for this pro'lem to be resolved. 12 f.i c I believe that q 13! ( if you obtained the documentation, associated with these - 14 . 1 could possibly better direct you to a time frame that it l. end 40. 15 was done on.
'6 ! 3
-{
,7 J
I le , i I to ! 20 1 21 1 22 3. - 23 24 1 25 l r .zj - v,4 l l i
.. y i
fc41jonl' ~
'03' '
j 1 i i i BY MR.'MIZUNO: ' 2 Q What-about the taped-telephone calls'-- 3l well, strike that. ; d ' Was the're any memorialization of these 5 meetings?
-i ol A Meaning what? I 7i Q Memorialization. Was a memorandum or'a l i B; note generated which summarized the meeting? e 9
MR. DAVIDSCN: Mr. Reporter, may we.please- pg 10 have a break? Mr.Ireby is here to speak with Mr. Mizuno. 31 (Off the' record - 10:09 p.m.) l ; 12 i (On the record --10:22 pm.) i ,i 13 MR. MIZUNO: Let me start off. 14 MR. DAVIDSON: Of course. That is'what I was' l ' l. 15 : going to ask you to do. - -
'6 MR. MIZUNO: While'we were off the record I l 17 indicated to the parties, the other parties..that' my !
l \ > IB I discovery questions are substantial. i < I do not foresee i j being able to complete my discovery deposition tonight. 20 I propose that we go to 11 o' clock ~ tonight. l 21 Given the length of the. depositions.today and
'22 the need for some of the parties to be back here at'7 l !
j I 23 o' clock in the morning I think -- 1 propose -- I 24 ' indicated that once.I finish my -- this portion of'the 25 discovery deposition that Mr. Davidson would resume his l l, l ' l-i i '
. av ,
*[.
i i l
1'
. .a=: - .
.41jon2 54 j 1
i l i 4 () continuing discovery deposition tomorrow morning, at whatever time it is scheduled to go'on.
~
3! MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Mizuno, I believe that is 7:30; is that correct, Mr. Spekter? 5 MR. SPEKTER: That is my understanding. ! I MR. MIZUSO: And that the staff also I 7 indicated to the parties that it was notifying everyone j 1 that it would be conducting further discovery in deposition form at some later date to finish up the I staff's questions. I MR. SPEKTER: So long as that is understood I that it is at the general convenience of the parties, it U is the desire o5 CASE that discovery (s) u deposition at least be completed in its entirety by i tomorrow, if it can. I ie I If that is not possible, and I don't know 17 ; exactly when you could get back, Mr. Mizuno, to complete , le !
; your discovery questions tomorrow in the event that they )
are to finish this evening. Is there any time tomorrow uhen you would-be finished with your assigned duties that conflict with this
}
particular hearing?
'3 i
"R. M12USO: 1 cannot state the time since I i ,.l
t have been assigned to a witness at 7 o' clock in the l
, i morning. And, in addition, there is a panel of )
l rx i '
- \_,) ' '
i i
f ,
, . 1 --}l 41jon3' 55
)
1 1 Applicant irebuttal witnesses to allegations of the case .- if E 1 2 l vith Ms. Darlene Snider which I have been assigned to l 3; f I cover so I do not so I do not know how long these -
.j-d
. depositions would run. Ifsuspect they.wouldLrun the
~ i 5, major part of the day, t 6 MR.'SPEKTER: As long as the time can be 7} agreed upon to continue the discovery deposition. I do. Bl i 1 not know when that ' time could be, though, at this' current '! 9 juncture that would be i i convenient.to both'the witness ; { 10 l and to.the parties. i l' MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Spekter,.if'I may, I 22 disc'usseo some of these very same questions with ^ i 13 ' - --.
- !r . Roisman, if you will remember earlier today, so-mahbe T
't 14 I can shed some light on.chis. i 1,
1 \ 15 First of all, Mr. Mizuno, you certainly .e
) 'i' 16 '
have the agreement of the Applicant,that if you have l l 17 1 commitments elsewhere tomorrow that y o'u should be ,
-l IB 4 1,
permitted to attend to them. ! d t i
'O We are all working here under tremendous i 1 i l { {
20 f pressures and distinct limitations as to time and staffing. { ! 21 i ! for a very compressed and difficult schedule of. depositions i 22 and the taking and making of discovery and evidence. 23 1 , We certainly sympathize with the problems } l 1 < 24 faced by the staff and we have faced some similar on i 25 behalf of the Applicant, and therefore we have no obj ec ti ons
' i 4 . . :i, c '
]
'I l
- - - _ . _ . _ _ - - _ - _ . . - - - . _ <. . _ . _ . . - . . , .- - . - . . . - _ . . _ . __- _ . - _ _ _ . - . _ +---_
r >
~
= _ . _
l I 41jon4 56 ! s i i 7") I 1 ( w-
) to your doing your very best to complete your discovery 2 )
deposition tonight and if you are unable to do so to 4 3l recommencing and completing that discovery at some other ) time on which the witness may be made available. 5 I appreciate very much your agreement that O I l we ar Applicant may continue our dLscovery depos.iton i i 7 I tomorrow morning at 7:30, even though you will not be able ' l c i
; l to represent the Staf.f witness, but will have to have ;
someone other than yourself attend who may not be as 10 l' aware of the record as you are.
,- l I think that is quite fair and reasonable j
,, j i
and accommodating offer by the Staff. I
,3 ,
,_s As to when the witness may be available,
/
i y i K- ' Mr. Roisman did advise me that the witness is likely 4 i t to become soon reemployed and that in view of that fact he would not think it likely that Mr. Walter could be i i made available during a weekday, 18 lt He secondly stated to me that he thought it unlikely tha g gyg )would want to come to Glen Rose, Texas again to give ny further discover) deposition
'l or, indeed, cross-examination.
'?
He felt that in view of the fact taat you 23 and Mr. Spekter were in Washington and the CASE a+.torneys
'a are located in Washington and that otners such as the Staff j and myself are also headquartered in Washington that any i /F'N i I tY $
V 1 L s enanny
^
9 _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _..__..m ___.__m_______-._______a
a => 41jonS 57 t
,l
(,- ,) I further either discovery or cross of this witness would v 2 most readily be held in Washington. So I think it will - 3
; solve tw issues.
4 he said that he did not think it likely that 5 Q5 weuld be acailabic earlier than August 4, altirbugh I suspc.r. that as the waekend precedes that on 7! I which we might be sble to work something out with 8 Mr. Mizuno. MR. SPEKTER: I cannot meet that weekend 10 f bifore. That is an impossible weekend I' o r me. 1' l
". R . b AV ID S O." : That wou?d be the weekend of ie' the 27th?
13
,s MR. SPLKTER: The weekend of the 30th and
( ) 14 i l the 31st -- no, the 27th. I cannot meet on that weekend. 15 ! l I have prior commitments. Just to iaform the record now. le l MR. DAVIDSON: I understands although 1 17 ! suppose that similar to the Staff, CASE could provide i 16 another attorney to defend what as opposed to taking one, t; So that is something that we have to consider. MR. SPEKTER: That is Mr. Roisman's decision, 21 i yes. 22 MR. DAVILSON: Of course it is and we 23 will leave it to him. But I just wanted to make this 24 i l information available to you, Mr. Spskter, and to you, ! 25 t i ! Mr. i z u tt o , because it was a c o r, v e r s a t i o n I had a r. d , in l ! l es - i v W_-- - - _ _ ~ - -
- - - n. = :. .
, . y 'p '- ;
^ ' '-
_q 4', j 58
- ]
41jon6 -- - 1 I f a c t ., I think you heard some of that, Mr. Spekter, .or . 3 2 i vete a party to;some of'st, during that break that ue 3 1 nsd earlier tcday. -
\
d In'any event,'I.have'no.c,bjection to proceeding: 5 t in that m a r.n e r . I' don't know whether you d o. , Mr. Spekter. . 4
- i ~MR. $?EKTER: I . h a'r e no ob j e rcion ' a t .= thia -
( . i . 7' time. Let u r, procee4 and get as.far as we can by 8
; 11. o' clock and then break. ,
end41 *i ' s i l 10
'.J ti 1 I
12 f
^
13 - L ia . a I 15 !
, I- !
, i l
g 1
- 7 !
l i 18 i l 19 ' i h l 20 ; i-i l , 2I i 22 l 23 l1 2a ' l l 25 l I i 1
- b ws
_ + it.
m J
.1
-r, 1 J
[ =FCjl/42/1l .- 250 i j
,)
u
, 1 r i I V -
BY MR. MIZUNO: '
.Ij Q I believe we left off..on the bottom.cf~page 13, l l
3l vith me asking. you. a';ou c the~ replies'to.your start-up. . l 4 l m e ia o S .
.i l
' 4
~
And'you' indicated that'there.was a:. reply.--~ 0 1' vou believe there.was a repif from' Westinghouse that ponsibly any have been sent through TUSI. .. e Is.that c o r r e c t *: 1 A Correct. * ' 10 i Q Were there ny other replies'that you can think j 11
, of to vour start-up memos?
i 12 ! A None other than the ones I ' v'e already listed --
'3 1
or the ones I've aircady mentioned to you. 14 Q You nie a n the W6st1Gghouse response? 15 A I think previously we mentioned the Westinghouse i le i meeting. 1 t7 } Q Okay. , 3 i \ tg I i But in written . form, there.is nothing --
-j !
m j A Nothing in written form.
*a 4
1 > Q Okav. ' i
'i A But I --
22 I Q Do you.have a copy of that We s tin ghouse - re spons e ? l!
'3 A I do not believe I do. 1 j j
'a Q Either with you or -- can you' check the records? I f'
'5 A I know I de not --
I know I.do.not have one with
, g ; ,s a 4 i
J 1 m____.__ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ = _ _ . . _ _ _ -
s
}
FCj i- ' 4 2 /2 ~ ' 60 l
},
, ),
I
)
3 me. And I do not believe I have one in ny. records at ., _ j 2 l home. 'l _0kay, l 3l .Q j. q j M R '. MIZUNO: .I would~11~ke to. request that'the i
.i 5-witness search his files for the document.
I 6 MR. SPEKTER: This is the Westinghetse response? 7 MR. MIZUNO: Yes. 8,, BY MR. M1ZUSO:
*I! Q Do yot' knew the'date of that response
- l I -
IC! A No, I do noc. II I do not remember the date of that response. l 12 ! Q You do recall reviewing that response? l 13 h A Yes. 4 Id ; Q Do you know the time period that this response- i IS ! came past you? }
'$ l A There were several responses,. spaced out over .l~
l
'2 i the full tiue period of the incident. I '
4 t Q The written response I'm referring to, i.
. .i A
I" j There were several. written responses, back and 20 i forth. l 1 23 Q Okay. 22 May I ask that you look for.-- through your files' 'l 23 for all of these responses. < 24 1 A of cil sf them. ! I 25 i Q Okay. You indicate that Westinghouse maintained .)
,I '
4 l
-:-__- _2
3 FCjl~42/3
'61.
- i l -i
)
_N'
}.
I that no other nuclear plants had reported having problems ; I 2 with the transformers. 3 This is from the bottom of page 13 over to' i g d ' i i page 14 of the affidavit. '
)
5, Do you see those words? 6 A Correct. 7 Q What was -- how did Westinghouse make th'is 8 I information known to.you? 1 S - A It w.as mentioned in one.of their responses. l 10 Q Okay. You indicate in the next sentence'that it is l i 12 ' your belief that "after the transformers at Comanche Peak- ' 13 failed, Westinghouse i t discov2 red sona defective transformers < 14 in its factory." 15 What is the basis for your belief? ' 10 A A telephone conversation with ,a factory member j {
'7 ; 'l at the Westinghouse plant. -
{ 18 Q Was this part -- was this telephone conversation ! 10 part of the " responses" you got back'from Westinghouse on , 20 this transformer problem? : I ; 21 A No, it was not. ! i 22
-Q It was not. }
)
23 Can you indicate whether there were any ! 24 telephone logs or notes that you generated memorializing , l 25 this telephone conference with'a Westinghouse factory
,o ec 3 ,, ;
. w- w
- M k.
____,__________m_ -
-1 l
;i
- 621
.FCjl 42/4' ^
i i k 1 representative *l i i 2 A I do not remember any, 3 Q Can.you' search your' records for those?- ! 4 i A I will 5 Q Do you reca11'the date that this occurred -- 6 or time period -- when.you had'the. telephone' call with -- t l ] 7 A I do not remember the exact date or-time' period. i B Q Did you.-- chese defective transformers that l
.l
\ I Gl Westinghouse discovered, they were same type that failed i j
{ ' o i 10 i at Comanche Peak? ' a f it A ins. I
. \
12 l Q And the Westinghouse factory representative-
.)
13 told you that? r ; i 14 A Yes. 15 l Q Okay.
'6 You indicated that you had a third incident -I 4
'7 of intimidation or harassmere i volving a conversation I l
I i 1B : that you had with Art Lcndon.
;c D:s you recall thet? j 20 ! (Pause.)
i 21 Do you recall your testimony regarding the i 22 third incident? I 23 A Was it involving Art Loondon? Or was it 24 involving Ken L-u ke n ? l I-l 25 Q 1 understand that you had an incident where -- ) i l A f Ee 4 1 b I
Fuji 42/5 63 l I alleged incident where'you had a conversation with 2 Mr Landon, where Mr. London stated, "If you have enough tira 40 find problems, then you have enough time'to do 3l - 4 work"?
- 5. A Yes, there was an incident to-that.
6, That is a separate incident from the two Q I 7 incidents that we discussed earlier?
.i Bl i A I believe there is -- with that incident-that
^ '
you're bringing rp there, there is a total of four 10 incidents. 11 Q Okay. I 12 ! Let us just stay with this third incident right 13 now -- 14 l A Okay, t i 15 Q -- okay?
- i
't And let us call -- for convention's sake. let's ;
i
!7 call the first incident the incident where --
involving j i 18 the ES-100 specification and where Mr. Powers became j
- l 10 angry at you and told you you were treading thin ice -- j i
20 ' A Correct. i 21 Q -- and let's call incident 2. the incident [ 22 involving the ferroresonant transformers. I i i 23 A Correct. ! ' h- , 24 Q Okay. 25 I A_ There was two incidents involving;ferroresonant ' i E t I i ___________...__________.___m_- --
FCjl 42/6 64
.I i
t transformers. I ~, li - 2 Q Okay. 3l .One beir(g Mr. Vogelsang -- s c A Correct. 5 Okay. Q 6 And what was the other-one? 7 Was that where Mr. London said --
- 6) A No, the other one was with Ken Luken. ;
9 l Q Ken Luken? i 10 j A yes. i t 11 Q Okay, i 12 l ( ?/a u s e . ) 13 Let us consider those 2-A and 2-B. i d .I A j Okay, i i 15 Okay. Q { l 1 i bl And we'll call this the third incident. I 17 Okay. Mcw, you indicated that it was your I } 18 I belief that there are many problems which you identified l which caused Mr. London to -- to tell you that ~ . - tell you 23 3 that statement, the statement invciving "If fou h aire l { 21 enough time to fine problems, you have enough time'to do 22 I. , more work"? i l 23 A. Correct. 24 Okay. Q I 25 Are the problems which you believe that i r l
. - _________-__x
,su 5 FCjl 42/7 65 l
i 1 i i. :i Mr. London -- thet les Mr. London to make the'atatament i 1 2 to you, the problems which you have identified in your 1
* )I affidavit? !
'q A No, i do not belgeve l'have directly' identified 5
those problems in the affidavit. J 6 Q We:1, stated another'-- okay,, stated'another 7
-Way, you indicate there are -- you indicate several j
1 8 problems in -- in your affidavit involving _ butt slicing, j S! i results of testing, PT 55-11, and -- and another one-t 10 involving XCP-EE-3 -- 51 A Is it "3" or "8"? 12 I Q It looks like "3" on mine. It could-be an."8". i
'3i What --
well, let me ask you, on page 9, you 14 refer to prerequisite test instruction XCP-EE -- a' number, i IS which either looks like a "3" or an "B" -- what number I 16 i are you referring to there' ' l 17 A That is an XCP-EE-8. I t 18 Q EE-8? i I 39 f A Yes, my copy shows EE-8. 20 Q Okay. [ t 21 Are these incidents incidents.you believe were j 22 the basis for the problems ybich you reported which form j 23 the basis for Mr. London saying. "If you have~enoughJtime 24 to find problems, then you h r.v e envugh time-to do.more > 25 werk"?
, l
- a. . . .. .-l.
3
]
l i 66 1 ?Cji 42/8. . l s
, l i i A I believe that the --
the SCP-EE-B issue could' j 2 have been the reason 3ng1for the problem -- mn finding'that 3 problem could have beer. part ~ of the reasoning for j q l 4 i Mr. London's making that statement. ' 5 Q Are there any other problems that you have' 6 i identified in this affidavit that you be11 eve could be -- 7 could'have been the basis for-Mr. London's statement to B you? j 0 j A Not to my recollection at this' time. , 1 19 ! Q So, therefore, all the otheV proble'ms, j 3: 1 including the ferroresonant t rans'lormer and the ES -- a 12 f '
'l F.S-100 separation --
things were -- you do not believe j 13 were a basis for Mt. London making that statene.nt to yout u, , I A l'm going to make a -- I do not Yemember. L5 i ! Q It's not a remembrance. I'm asking you for l i l lo i l y,our belief. i 'l 17
- A My belief at this time is 2 do not think he l 18I' i was identifying those pr6blems as the reasoning.for him !' ;
I assigning additional work. '
- D ' i Q Well, 1 didnt ask you whether it was -- h e l 21 'I identified it. I'm asking you whether it was-your belief, !
22 tiow o r at the time that you wrote -- signed tnis a f fid avit -- 23 that these were the problems that resulted in Mr. London 24 i 1 saying this statement to you? 25 I And by "this statemeat," I refer to this: "If l _m _ _ ._ _._ .-_.___.____.______________________._.2 .___o
FCjl 42/9 '
"67-
- , i 1 j I
1 you.have enough time to find problems, you hava enough , t ~; 2 time to do more work." 3 A We are speaking of problems other than the' ; .. , i 4 XCP-EE-S? ' 5 Q Yes.
*! A So, I do'not be1.ipve th9 other problems are .
7 associated with Mr. London's st.stement. a I Bj Q Fine. i _j (Pause.) 10 Let's turn to page 9 of your affidavit. II (Pause.) i
'2 ] You indicate here that note 1 to Section-7.8 --
73 is that Section 7.8 of S C P- EE-8 ? Id A Yes.
} i 15 Q Does that test instruction apply to prerequisite ' l l t l le t testing or preoperational testing or both?
17 A XCP-EE-8 is a prequisit'e test. IB Therefore, that note, meaning within XCP-EE-8, j
'O i :
has to pertain to prerequisite testing. < I 20 Q Does prerequisite testing occur before i 21 1 preoperational testing? i
! i 22 A yes, l )
23 Q Do you know what test procedure.or test -l 24 instruction applies to prooperational testing? t 25 (Paure.) l l i
FCjl .42/10 ,_ 68 l i 1 A 1 am not sure if.that is'a correct question. 2 LPreoperational test procedures are vrftthn 3 independently -- individually. i. 4 Q Yeu are not answering the question. 5 A I don't think that your question c~n a be 6; answered. i 7i Q Let us try it this way. B Are there test instructionsfor test' procedures 9 for preoperational testing?
- to A There is start-up administrative procedures l'
for preoperational test instructions. I2 i MR. SPEKTER: Are there of aren't t h e r e't 13 l MR. DAVIDSON: Thank you, Mr. Spekter. Id MR. MIZUNO: Yes. i 15 ! MR. SPEKTER: 'I'm j ust trying to move things-
)
i t O along. i ~} 17 ! Maybe you didn' t understand. i la THE WITNESS: I understand. i There is no prerequisite test which specifies 20 preoperational testing. 21 MR. SPEKTER: Then there aren't. I 22 MR. MIZUNO: That's.not my question. j 23 l He has answered nothing. j ; 2d , 1 BY MR. MIZUNO: ! i 25 Q Okay, let us start from here. e , 1 1 i I { ___________--_-_J
4'2/11 FCjl 69 i I l I i' ) I
. Prerequisite test instruction,'XCP-EE-8, applies l -l
.r 2 to prerequisite testing; is that' correct?
3 A Correct. ;- Q Are there. analogous test instructions or-test L ' S procedures which apply to_preoperational testing?' ; a j 6 (Pause.) 7 MR. SPEKTER: . Are,'they 'the same or similar?- B (Pause.)
* ! BY MR. MIZUNO.: ,
i 10 Q If you don't'know, you can also say, "I don't l
=4 li know."
I2 A. I don't understand your question.
'3 1 Q What don't you understand about my _ question?> J
'd A Okay. XCP - EE-8 is a prerequisite test., A. f'i 15 1' preoperational test will have a letter designation such as j lo "PT" or "AT." They are two separate forme of'a test.
'7 Q Okay. That's very good. -
'8 l Have you reviewed the procedurea which control )
W
.o r describe the preoperational testing, the preoperational 20 tests? ,
21 A Which I have mentioned is the start-up 22 administration procedures, which define how to write a 23 preoperationa'. test. 2d Q No. I'm not asking you about how to write.-- 25 I'm not asking you about instructions or directions about t
~
' % A '4 ., _
TC',i 42/12 70 i , l
.)
I how to wri'te a preoperational test. ! l-2 I'm asking'you whether there have -- whether l 3I there are tests which have been written'for preoperational i d -- instructions written for preoperational tests? I 5 A I still do not understand the question. I am- , 6; sorry. i 7i I know what type of test procedures.are on the 1 0 site. And your form of questioning is totally -- ' 9 l Q All right. I to i What is a prerequisite test instruction in 11 general? I \
'2 i A It is a generic test procedure. i j
13 Q What does the test procedure do,? j. M A Test pumps -- and SCP=E -- } i i 15 Q No, I'm not asking about a specific -- j 16 A Okay. ! 17 Q l'm asking what does .a test. procedure do in l is genernl? !
'l 1 i 3 10 l A Prerequisite testing.
1 l ! 20 i Q ! l Just prerequisite testing. l I i 1 21 A Prerequisite testing would be testing prior to 22 preoperational testing -- individual testing. ! 23 Okay. Q ( 24 !
.i The prerequisite test instruction - does the '
25 prerequisite test instruction describe the prerequisite test 4 Ve~ , .- e 1
.FCjl 42/13 l
I 71
]
I j. I to be conducted? !'i i 2' Either describe it or indicate how it's to b'e 3 performed. t A The prerequisite' test procedure -- 5 Q Yes. 0' A -- does describe how to perform the test -- 7 Q So -- 8 A -- step by step. .
*I Q. Can this prerequisite test procedure --
is set 10 forth in the prerequisite test instruction?. II A You're asking about a prer'equisite test I2 instruction, which I'm not familiar with the terminology
'3 of prerequisite test instruction. ,
Id Q You're not familiar with the term " prerequisite 15 test instruction"?
'6 A Well, not in the frame that you're using'it.
17 Q Well, okay. l.e t us start all'over. 18 Can we-have a -- can we go.off the record at this point? end 42 20
,(Discussion off the record.)
21 l 22 l i i I 23 24 25 t
.& - \-
72 l t i mgc 43-1 1 MR. SPEKTER: Let's go back on the record, 2 and I think the record should reflect that during the 1 3 time we were off the record, all three counsel had a d . I conversation, and I also had a chance to speak with . 5 l 6 BY MR. MIZUNO: 1 7 Q k h g g prerequisite testing is B different from preoperational testing; is it not? 9 i A Yes. 10 Q Okay. Let us just stick with prerequisite i j
)
15
; testing at this point, okay?
12 Okay. A - I
\
13 ' Q Now at the very top of page 9, y o .: talk about ,
'd CPSES prerequisite testing, Instruction XCP-EE-8.
15 A Correct. I i , lo t i Q Now before we get into the specifics of i { i i 17 what this specific test instruction does, okay, can you ! I 18 describe in general terms what a prerequisite test l ;
. Instruction does? I l
i s A A pretcquisite test instruction will allow 21 you to test individual components throughout the plant. 22 such as -- it's a generic test procedure. It tests l 23 individual components. 2d Q I'$M E / W EB the problem that I have with ;
~
25 your explanation is twofold. You talk about " allows" O ! ____.-_--L
73 mgc 43-2 1 you to test something. 2 A It ' tells you how to test.something. 3 Tells. Okay. Q . l: d
}
Now does it tell you how to test something.- , 5 or does it also tell you what tests.should be perform.ed? 4 6 .A It does not tell you what tests should 7 be performed. It tells you how to perform them. ! 8 A specific test. Q A A specific test. I J 10 Okay, fine. Q Now let's talk about XCP-EE-8, 1: ' entitled " Circuit Control Testing." 12 i It is my. understanding, based upon-your answer 13 to my previous question, that this particular test i i 14 instruction tells you how to perform circuit c o nt rol
'S testing; is that true?
to A Yes. 17 Q Okay. IB A It defines the guidelines and acceptance 10 requirements for testing. { 20 Okay. Q Does that -- what do you mean by 21 " guidelines"?
" A k'e l l , it gives you a step-by-step breakdown, I 23 walking through, and it will tell you which parts should- !
2d be tested and what their tolerances or specifications that ) 25 should be tested. too. i l l J
< e a'
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ^^
74 i l I i i I (~% g )mgd 43 3 1 Q In other words the acceptance values or 2 rejection values? t j 3 A Acceptance criteria. , i d Okay, fine. Now -- I Q i I I 5 (Pause.) 6 - MR. DAVIDSON: I said that Mr. Spekter 7 commented that things were now moving along, and I said i 8 no small measure of thanks due to you, Mr. Spekter, for
- making certain that that was going tc occur.
10 , MR. SPEKTER: I take no personal credit.
'l BY MR. MIZUNO:
12 Let me ask you about preoperational testing. Q 13 Is there a documant similar to the prerequisite test (' l
\s l' instruction --
I will take that back. j l 15 Is circuit control testing a test that is i I 16 required for preoperational testing? I 17 A - Ye s . !
! l IB Q Is there a document similar, analogous to I
10 the prerequisite testing? ! t 1 I I 20 MR. SPEKTER: Define that word. It might l 1 21 help -- " analogous" -- for f 22 MR. DAVIDSON: I think it does mean "similar l 23 to." 2d THE WITNESS: Your conplete question is? j ; 25 j 4 I 4
75 mgc 43-4 i BY MR. M1ZUNO: 1 2 Q Is there a document similar to a prerequisite ' i 3 !- test instruction, XCP-EE-8, which describes the procedures } 4 I l and the acceptance criteria for a person conducting circuit j i 5 j control testing due to preoperational test? j 6 A Yes. 7 Q And what is that document? i 8 A If I remember right, it is under startup { O administrative procedures. f I to Q It is a document that is a portion of a 11 < 1arger document known to you as Startup Administration 12 Procedures? I i l 13 A I believe so, if my memory is correct. 14 Q Okay. Have you had a chance or have you is had the opportunity in the.past to review those startup
'6 operation procedures with regard to circuit control 17 testing?
18 A (No response.) ! i l' Q Do you want me to rephrase the question { i 20 for you? ! 1 21 A Well, you've lost me. You've gotten into 22 the situation where you're comparing apples and oranges. 23 No. Q Okay. Let me rephrase the_ question, 2d then, okay? i 1 25 51R . DAVIDSON: You are interested to know 1 i a - l
d 76~ mgc 43-5 1 what is the apple and what ic the orange? 2 MR MIZUNO: Yes, that's what I'm trying, q. 3 to get at. l d BY MR. MIZUNO: 5i Q You indicated that there was a document I i 6 within a ' larger document known as the startup operations 'l
)
7 procedure; is that right? { j B A 'Let me -- maybe it would help you if I- i 9 explain the way I feel -- are you'asking how these ! i i 10 , procedures are derived or what_gives you -- 11 Q No. i 12 A Okay. ! 13 Q Okay. You indicated that there was a 14 document similar to Prerequisite Test Instruction XCP-EE-8, 15 which describes how to do circuit control testing. doing 16 preoperational testing, and you indicated yes. 17 A No. I was not indicating yes to that type IB of a statement. 19 Q Okay, then, what were you' indicating yes 20 to then? 21 A We're dealing -- XCP-EE-8.is a generie 22 test proceddre which identifies specific step-by-step-23 of testing individual components. 24 Q And the acceptance criteria. 25 A And the acceptance criteria assoc'inted with- 1 _-__________-__-----A
77 a
'I mgc 43-6 that.
2 Q Which is, if I may; interrupt -- s 3 i A Okay. 4 Q -- which is to.be done during prerequisite. I 5 testing.. 6 A Correct. 7 I Okay. B Q [ ;- A once you have completed all of your 9 prerequisite testing, you are ready to perform a 10 preoperational test on the system. : 11 , Q Okay. 12 A This preoperational test will test all of
'3 the components as a whole.
14 Q Okay. 13
- t. Now both of these procedures, preoperational
'6 and prerequisite are outlined in the startup administration 17 procedures, which will define what the requirements'are
'B for each one. There are certain requirements of I'
information or labeling of prerequisite test procedures', 20 just as there is circuit requirements to maintain uniformity 21 on preoperational test procedures. 22 . Q Okay. 23 A lla ve I-answered the question'that.'you are 24 asking? I'm not sure. J 25 Q Yes, I think you have now.
. , a ,
+ .r- , '.1j i
78 !
, mgc'43-7 I A Okay.
2 '
- q. Having hadLan opportunity, having~reviewedL 'i 3
the procedures governing preoperational testing -- have-I d you reviewed them?- l 5 A Yes. I 6 l ; (Pause.) ' 7 Q You indicated here that it is possible that l 8
, a system can pass through both stages of testing without 4
ever'undetgoing an energized functional. test; 'is that true? ;
.i 10 A Correct. I I II Q Can you point to a specific portion of the _
j 12 l procedures that gavern preoperational testing that would 1 l r 13 1 cad you to conclude that a system can-go through I# preoperational testing without undergoing an energized 15 functional test? 16 l (Pause.) 17 A Let's' repeat or,prephrase the question. 18 1 just need a repeat of the question.. I'm not sure if I. understand it.
?O MR. MIZUNO: Can we have'the reporter repeat 21 the question? !
22 (The reporter read the record as requested.) 23 THE WITNESS
- No. !
1 24 1 BY MR. MIZUNO: - 1
,5 Q Can you answer that question, please? i l l i
I
. j j
1
'I !
j ____2_..__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ .m. _. _
79 I mgc 43-8 I A The answer to.the question is no, the 2 reason being -- preoperational test procedures are written l 3 step-by-step, and they are specifically identified for d individual systems. Therefore, they have to identify -- l 5 i when the person is writing the procedure, he has to 1 6 I identify valve numbers, light indications that he's'got I 7 to look at and so on.and so forth. I 8 In a generic procedure, he does not have to ' do that. H) Where the possibility for having this pass i
'I through both would be the fact that if a de-energized l 12 I functional-test was performed in an XCP-EE-8, thereby j 13 if the person who wrote the procedure, preoperational '
Id procedure, neglected, wh1ch he could by all rights, 15 observing that energized function of a light indication, 16 then thereby the circuit or equipment being tested would 17 pass through both procedures without actually being 18 noted or logged as being senior tested, l' Q Okay. As I understand it, then, you are 20 saying that your concern is the fact that the preoperational-21 testing may not require testing of a system in its 22 energized functional state. 23 (Pause.) 24 A I am making the statement that a preoperational I 25 4 test may be lacking in the fact'that it will not look at 4 1 I i 1
.___- -____-_.________ A
.i 80 mgc 43-9 1 all light indications' associated with that system.
i 2 Q Okay. You say "may be." ' 3 .A Yes. 4 Q Do you know whether it is, in fact, the case { 5' at Comanche Peak? ' 4 l 6 A 1 do know that there is procedures where i 7 that is the case. { B Q Okay. Can you identify those procedures? o A 1 do not have those procedures. I I 10 Q Can you recall them? i 11 A No, I cannot. j 12 i Q Do you recall reviewing those while vou were ! t 13 at toe plant? 14 A Yes, I do. 15 Q Did you approve them? to A No, I did not. 17 Q Did you disapprove them? 1 I 18 A I -- when we say " review," it was not in 1 to a formal manner of doing a formal review. 20 (Paust.) 21 MR. MIZUNO: Can the reporter repeat back 22 the answer to the last question -- not the last question, 23 but the question before? I 24 ('P a u s e . ) i 25 MR. DAVIDSON: The answer, I believe Mr. Mizuno; i i !
., $U.
i i i l
.____-___-__a
i
..w -.
81 . i i 7-I mgc 43-10 is looking for is wher testified where a 2 systems engineer could neglect to log or otherwise make 3 a test and. note all the light indications, d Do you recollect that testimony, 7 ! $ 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. 6 - ! MR. DAVIDSON: But let's have it' reread for l i 7 Mr. Mizuno. ! l 8 (The reporter read the record as requested.) . c . BY MR. MIZUNO: l , 10 Q In that answer, do you recall stating that II i the test procedure does not look at certain indications? ; 12 Did you mean that the procedure does not require that 1 "' 1 the tester to confirm the status of an indicato ? a' A Yes. 15 Q And you did not mean to state that the tester,
'O himself, may have overlooked it.
'7 A Correct.
'O Q Your concern is that the test procedurs itself procedure may be inadequate because it fails to tell 20 the tester to do something. .
21 MR. SPEKTER: I might mention that Mr. Davidson ' 22 is finishing his dinner.at this time, and it's eleven 23 g clock at night. 24 And sympathetic to that concern; 11 appears , 5 that the court reporter cannot hear the testimony, and it's 6
t 82- . l L I mgc 43-11 very disturbing to the witness.also. 2 MR. DAVIDSON: My many apologies, Mr. .Spekter.l t 3 MR. SPEKTER: If you could'perhaps stop d
'for a moment --
I S' MRg DAVIDSON: I would be happy.to accomodate i 6. ygy, 7 BY MR, MIZUNO: !- 0 I-Q Your answer did not precisely respond to j my question, because I'm asking you -- you indicated'that 10 l your concern was that a cert procedare may not direct the' tester t o review the' status of an indicator or to confirm 12 some parameter.
'3 en the other hand, on page 9 o f your . a f fidavit ,
you indicate here that your concern is that it is-15 possible that a system can pass through both stages of to testing without ever undergoing an energized funer.ional
'7 test.
18 My question is, do you b'elieve that it's the -- do you believe that tne test' procedure may be . 20 \ inadequate because it does not direct the tester to ! 21 energite the system and conduct an energized functional ;
?? l
. test?
23 (Pause.) 24 A I feel -- I hope I can temember both -j 25 phrases that you stated and your question and answer it' 3 i 1
]
- _- . - _ - _ - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~
'k
83 I mgc 43-il I correctly. 2 (Pause.) l 3 Now I've lost the~ train of the question. d MR. SPEKTER: I think it's time to stop. ! 5 It's after eleven o clock. l 6 THE WITNESS: I would like to go ahead'and. 7 try to complete this one section, if possible. I feel- [ 8 like it's not that hard of a section, but it is becoming fi technical. ID MR, SPEKTER: I wovid say it's the most I. 1'
i technical thing that we've seemed to have covered so far, .
'2 and I think that that's is one of the reasons that record UI should note that, 14 MR. M1ZUNO: The Staff believes that this 15 cross-examination -- I'm sorry -- this discovery is perfectly 16 legitimate, since the Staff must know what the concern of
'l the witness is before it can prepartlany. reasonable response la to this concern, since this apparently is --
it is the 10 witness' belief that this is a problem. <
'O I
Now if Counsel for Intervenor believes that i i 21 it is not legitimate for the Staff to uaderstand precisely 22 what the witness is indic6 ting with his problem, will you =l i please state it on the record. 24 Mk. SPEKTER: I think our determination was 25 1 made earlier today that the a f f t.d a v i t was appropriate
)
I j
- _ _ _ _ . -- _ .__ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - -_O
~
84' l f
)
mgc 43-12' -) to glean discevery information from during this discovery , 2 deposition. I I think that was decided by all parties- l i 3 early~on, and I would request that we proceed. > d MR. MIZUNO: Okay. 1 End 43 5j . 6 7 .I l i, 8 ! t , o , ; 10 , l 11 l i 12 l 1 l 1 13 ' ' a. l 14 g 15 1 i, s -9 17 , 1 4 18 20 i l 21 ! 22 1 23 24 25 i
%- 't ,
l 4 l l l l 1
.--m.__---. _ . _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ -.-__:.-_--..u
y _rg'_m E- " i I fc441bl- 85 J _ .1 i
'}
- MR. MIZUNO. The only . reason that Staff s
2 counsel made tnis request te counsn1 for the Intervencr was l 1 3 because I.believe he heard counsel state that he thought ' a this line of questioning was irrelevant. And therefore was 5 my indication that I tl:ought that thig was Sighly relevant i 6' end L-so indicated why i thought it w&s relevant. 1 j 7 t MR. SPEKTER: Fair enough. l e'
, MR. MIZUNO: It might have been off the o
record. I'm not sure at this time. 10 ! MR. DAVIDSON: i think we're on the record. Mr.Mizun,. and I wuuld say that I certtinly agree with you 2I that this is highly relevant disenvcry and I would urge you 1 M to press on, I
].
14 i LY MR. MIZUNO: l 15 '7 - i Q , do you wattt ce to continue 4* your explanation? -- 17
, A If you will refresh the question that you are
'B asking.
t Go ahead and refresh er rephrase your question, l please- ! 0 Q V3p? y you're willing to go on? Ycu're { 21 not tired? Do you think you're in a state'where you can ', 22 l understand what I"m laying? i 4 23 ;l a .! i I believe I can understand -- yes, I'm not ; 24 going to answer the question if I don't understand. I 25 ' Q Fine. don't want to press you. N ! {. ^ 'l i I s---____--_._-_-____. , - _ . . . _ . . _ .s
l 86~
.Cc441b2 1
1 A l I understand that. l 2 Q You i.ndicated earlier, in response to one 3i I of my questions, chet your concern was'that a pre-operationa ' 4 ' ! i' test procedure did not direct a tester to conduct a check ' 5 of an indicator er to check a parameter, to set whether it 6 had met the acceptance criteria. Is that correct, or 7 something to thtt --
', -l B} A Correct. '
j l 0 4 { Q Now, given that answer, I would like tofhave j 10 ) you explain hov your concern, as stated on page 9, that it i 11 is possible that a system can pass through both stages '
'2!' of testing without ever u n d e r g o i,n g an energized functional t
! j l? I 1 test fits into your concern, as expressed earlier. i 14 A
Let me make sure I understand. You are 15 wanting whw I feel, er why I have this concern? Would it ; It help you if I gave you a hypothetical situation or an 17 explanatf..on of has this r.ould occur! ' 18l 1 N c .. 19 , i
! MR, SPEKTER: Please try to answer the t j l 23 question if yoy c a n .. If you c a r. ' t . . p l e a s e say that you 21 ' can'r, 22 BY NR. MIZUNO:
i 23 Q Art ches2 two separate concerns, I guess? I 24 When you say two separate concerns, the fact i - A
] !
25 that you can get past EE-8 without having a functional test? :
. -1 f
1 l l
;l
oi ; i _ ~ . - - fc441b3 i (n)
%)
1 That is definitely a concern. 2 MR. DAVIDSON: No, yon're really. slipping off 3 the point. Let me help you We have an d
; affidavit that makes one statement and now you've made i 5
au allegation about what your concern is and it's not I. I i concistent with the statement in the affidavit. _ We had 7 this problem once before. 1 l i B The problem is that what you've testified C here te now is that when they do the pre-operational testing . 1 10 that there may be en omission of a specific check on a i l 11 component indicator light at the time. 'Ihat is what you 'v e ; I 12l told us It
!. h e pr.oblem? !
_j 12 } THE W'TNESS: Correct.
'4 MR. DAVIDSON: Iot what you have: 't' told us -
{ 13 what the problem is, what you stated in your affidavit, ! i
. (
'o which is that the pre-operational test will be undert; ken I l
17 without an energized functioning. And that is because I ' i 18 -! think the fact .of the matter is that the nystem is energized J 10 l j for a fun.tional p r e t-o p e r a t i o n a l test. ! ! 20 And I think this is a misstatement and 1 ' i 21 i think that is the problem. And what Mr. Miruno is trying to ; 22 do is find out if it's a mietaxe, if it was taken down i 23 improperly, Mr. Hadley may have misunderstood your statement 2' or what. That's what he is trying to find out because the 25 concern you've identified now is different from the one J --m______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .* _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ . _ _ . . _ . . _ __ _.
88 fc44164' f 1 1 you stated in the affidavit, just as when you had that 2 passage about-the DCA and said'it was' unrelated to c a bi'e~ ~ ~ ' 3 separation. And then~ it turned out that you caid'it was. >
\
d There are inaccuracies, or at least 5 discrepancies, between your written sworn. statement and 6 , toe statement you are making here. ' i 7 And all Mr. Mizuno-is doing-is.trying.to find 8; out which one is correct. 9 i THE WITNESS: You're taking the last line off 10 of this sentence here. This last line here specifically-l' identified the prerequisite testing. It is specifically 12 l i l'd e n t.i f i e d towards the prerequisite test. t 13 ; MR. DAVIDSON: i So in other words, you're not 14l talking about a prablem of the energized functional testing i 15 in pre-operation phase? ' to THE WITNESS: Okay. We're talking -- t 17 MR. DAVIDSON: 1 understood Mr. Mizuno's i
;B questien to be directed to that issue. Go therefore, we 10 .
misunderstood, or Mr. Mizuno misunderstood the reference 23 in that statement. Is that your posicion? ; 21 THE WITNESS: It specifies, right in that 22 statement, that I am further concerned because the test 23 \ instruction provides no guidelines that assist an STE in ! 24 determining when the energized functional testing is l 1 25 : impractical. And there is no notation on the test document f
' * +-
r ,- o i
89 fc44LbS.
,, '(
that indicates the functional testing was de-energized. 2 Now when I say this notation, this notation 3 which is in captions or in quotes up here from this sect' ion i 4 is in the test procedure XCP-EE-8. 5 MR. DAVIDSON: So that's prerequisite testing? 6 THE WITNESS: Correct. 7 MR. DAVIDSON : But they.do do energized I 8j pre-operational testing in pre-operation? That's not what.
*! you were referring to here?
l to i 1 THE WITNESS: There is an energized functional 11 test in the pre-operational but it also identifies that it I
'2 '
is possible, with the pre-operational t e s t ', oreit can~ pass .{
?3, by there without being noted or witnessed to function i t 14 l correctly. '
A 15l' ! MR. DAVIDSON: Well, that's not what your ! i i lo affidavit indicates, though, because your affidavit says IT that it refers to XCP-EE-8 and says that note one provides i B that energized functional testing of control circuits is I 19 desireable. However, if the STE deems it, impractical, the
- 20 energized functional testing will suffice. 1 21 !
THE WITNESS: Correct. .i j 22 f MR. DAVIDSON: That's with reepect only -- , ; I 23 (Simultaneous oiscussion) I 24 MR. M1ZUNO: I see. I think I know what his 25 problem is. I know what hie, problem i s 1.
, s
.i. Op3;
90
= I fc441b6 1 i
1 THE WITNESS: That statement . identifies it. 2 MR. MI7.UNO: 3 Q You're saying that, okay, we're looking at j 4i your quotation here, energized functional testing of control-5 circuits is derireable: however, if the STE. deems-this 6t impractical, de-energized functional testing will' suf fice. 7' You're saying that the' de-energized functional' 8 1 testing will suffice, is a direction to.the pre-operational ,
- 0. tester t hat --
IC jl A No. That statement is a notation or-a note 11 within the prerequisite test procedure. Now, if you'll- notice I that the next portion of the sentence says "Since steps 12 ! i 13 performed during prerequisite are not necessarily repeated 14 during pra-operational" which means that during a i l t 15 prerequisite it might say to function this light and. verify + 16 that it works properly but during a pre-operational'it 17 l may not say that. It raa y not specifically look at that !
'B, light to verify that it'does operate correctly.
( 10 ! MR. DAVIDSON: You mean the system, then, 20 you mear, a component? j i 21 THE WITNESS You have to -- pre-operational i 22 is testing systems. Prerequisites is-testing components. 23 MR. DAVIDSON: That's my point. -You said 24 since that's performed daring p r e r e q's i s i t e and not I 25 necessarily repeated during pre-op and I don't know what that
^
. g,; .
- _y
c l, 91. fc441b7 ~ -
't t.
i 1 means -- not necessarily. j Now we can all left 'it to your ! D 2 speculations as to what is or may not;or necessarily will ;
'l' 3 be done. '
1 4
'You then say that this means that it is i 5, p o s s i b l e -- and I think t h a t in the realm of things ma'ny. things.
lf 6 are possible, but whether they'are.probably'is another 7 matter -- that a system can' pass through both stages.of' j 4 5 testing. I think you've ' confused. component with system. 9 Prerequisite you said tests components, a pre-op tests the j to ' I system so that you can't put the two together, the way you 11 have here. 12 1 That's aII, I think, Mr. Mizuno is.getting at. -) 13 THE WITNESS: Okay, we should.possibly, state ;
'd that instead that a system can pass through both phases 15 of testing because an -- i 16 i BY MR. 1112 UNO : j 17 Q An XCP component? . .
18 A Yes, an XCP-EE-8 cannot test the system, { t 10 l it can only test the component. ' 20 , So you wish to change your affidavit, at this.j e Q I, 21 point, to cross out the word system -+ 22 MR. DaVIDSON: 1 don't think this is proper, 23 Mr. Mizuno. All I think he can do is admit that that's'an 24 inaccuracy in the .sffidavit and that that.is not.what he , 25 would make as his testimony today. I don't think we're going
?
4*,4 4 4 i -_-____L..-._-_.-_-_- _ _ _ _ ~ _ - _ - _ _ - - - - _ . _ - -
7 (- - 1 g i fc441b8 g 92 I o
-l,;I
!~ : i 1- 4 L I 1 to change anything.'
]
2 MR. SPEKTER: I vauld concur with'that. a i 3i~ MR..DAVIDSON: He reviewed that statement.- jl l
-l 1
! 'l 4 He spent two months' preparing it. He hadLIS conversations j. l 1
5 with Mr. Hadley. 'He had ceveral ccnvetsations.with Billie l i 'j 6 , Garde. He read it over. Ee swore to it. I: don't?think i i 7 this is the time .for him to start suggesting'tha't there'are , d i 9 ! i inaccuracies, but if there are inaccuracies and he wants !: o '. to make changes in his testimony, he should make changes' I lo I I in his testimony as of-today.and state that he no longer I i i 11 , adheree to t h a'c sworn tescimony. f i I ! r2 B9t he doesn't change the affidavit. ' 13 l MR. M12UNO: i guess that's what I'm saying] 14 is that he car't physically change the affidavit. l
~
1 15 MR. DAVIDSON: No, sir. ! 16 MR. MIZUNO: What I am trying-to do is that 17 I believe he adopted this affidavit as a. statement in this 18 proceeding. I i
\ l 10 l MR. DAVIDSON: And it's another inaccuracy. )
I ' j 20 ' MR. MIZUNO: I would like to know whether .
! l I
21 if, since it contains an accuracy, he normally would not 22 adopt a testimony. i i 1 23 MR. DAVIDSON: I think you've made a point. 24 MR. S PEKTER: I believe the. point has been , 25 l made. I believe that the record has been made on this and .I I j
- y. , . ,
. , . j i
- - . - - . - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - a
C3 ! fc441b9: ! I l I i 1 I think we should proceed. I I j 2 MR, DAVIDEbN: h'hy don ' t you fir.ish.up your -l 3j a point.- 4' l
. j 4 BY MR. MI2UNO: 1
-l 5 Q Two more questionc in this area. 01rst.of eli all, can you point to specific components or specific 7 Systems where this occurred?
1 i B A Shown in the. affidavit or -- ; 7 Q Shown in the affidavit. ! 10 1 A :i No, I can't -- yot're asking me to identify ' s t? specific instances where this 6ccurred? l 1
;2! MR. DAVIDSON: Mr.~Mizuno, may I L h e. v c a .
!3 moment with you?
t d 14 j (Counse2 Davidson conferring with counsel ! l 15 ' Mizuno.) ic BY MR- MIZUNO: =i i i 17 Q What I'm asking you, are there specific i' is instances that you know-of -- yes, I v111 ask that question.
; i 19 ; Will ell components be energized when the system is in i't s i
20 er.ergized functional state? 21 (Pause.) 4 No, all components and necessarily-in a< 5 22 A
.i ?
23 circuit will not be energized at.all times. 'Yo have re;nys'[ i 24 in there that do not energize portions of that circuit -1 1 25 m.less they are activated. So theref ort, there would be !
)
I A6:* * -' 1
94'
~.
j fc441b10 . ! l d f 1l' aections of that circuit that would not be energized at 2 all times. ' i 3 MR. DAVIDSON: Can you energize the system, 4 however. without energizing the compnnents? j 5 THL'UITNESS: Yes, when you've got a red-6j ,reen light, both red-green does not iudicate at'the same J I 7l time I a- MR. DAVIDSON: What would it be necessary' 6 oj to do in order to effect both? , < i to THE WITNESS: Okay, the question what would { 8 11 be necessary? It would be necessary to create the l 1 12 conditions which would be required to energize both of them.. < 12 ; MR. DAVIDSON: Go ahead, Mr. Mizuno. t
, 4 t
14 l MR. MIZUNO: Okay. i
! l '
35 ; hY MR. M1ZUNO: ' i i i3 { Q Does XCP-EE-8 require the testing of all I '! i' j 4 17l' components? i j i. is , (Fause.) I i !' 1 ic A Is that the end of the question? >i
- [ Q Perhaps let me put this in a hypothetical j ;
21 form. Let's supposs we have a control circuit and indicator,l , 22 let's say you have a line running to an indicator with a- [ l 23 relay perhaps. And when the line is energized, the. relay l l 24 will click on and the indicator light will go on. ' l 25 Does XCP-EE-8 require you to verify the - t
,je
_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ -- - - - ^
4 95 t fc441bl1 , 1 entire circuit in both conditions, the on and off condition?- 2 A Yes. It questions that-it does' function l 3 properly, which would require you to operate it on both the , a on and off position. 5 Q Does XCP-EE-8 require, if there are more 6l than one multiple conditions that a system could be in, does it require you to verify the condition'of all -- of all~ j S,! possible modes of the system? i i 9i A ) I I believe t. h e statement in XCP-EE*8 is that ' 10 ) the circuit-functions properly which would require you
'I to simulate or just several different situations of the 12 1 circuit.
13 I believe that where this statement falls into I i4 prima concern with me is during the retesting phases of the i t i i 1 15 rework. The problem there is that they were going out and ! retesting the circuit and insteac of doing energized testing ! i lo 17 on that circuit, they were only'doing phone-outs of_the l 18 cables. They would determ a cable -determinate it, instead ; 10 of renergizing the circuit and verifying that those light i
?O indications are working properly, they would do a phone-out i l 21 of the ccble -- which is a form of de-energized function.
22 MR. MIZUMO: I think we should end at this 23 point. I think I just heard a new allegation, just now, so -- l 24 MR. SPEKTER: I think we should end at this 25 point. I think we're going far afield. We have gone'a half i
' ' ' ~
.s ( i l
a
- 96- !
fc441bl2 ' () I 2 an hour past what we said we would do. night. It is 11:30 at-I i We've all been working since before 9 o' clock thin { 3 morning-and I think it would be prudentlfor all of.us to 'l d stop now and pick it upgat 7:30. tomorrow morning. 5 MR.'DAVIDSON: Mr..Spekter. I certainly i 6 -l
'wouldn't. disagree with your statement that.now is.as good 7
a time as any to conclude.. I do;not'know what it is you 8 intend to convey when you state gratuitously that we
- are going far afield.
O All of the questioning that Mr. Mizuno hag
'I undertaken, that I have listened to this evening,~has 12 been with respect to the- affidavit of nd you ;
13 stated, on the record, not more tha n 20 minutes - that i, 14 questioning with respect to the allegationsiana assertions- ! 15 made in that affidavit was. plainly relevant. < 16 And all counsel have agreed to that.-for j i 17 the purpose of this discovery deposition. i te MR. SPEKTER: That is correct. I 19 MR. DAVIDSON: I think'your comment was 20 totally gratuitious as well as unfounded and contradicted 21 i by your own statement. ' 22 i MR. SPEKTER: I certainly did not^mean the 23 comment to be gratuitious. However, I feel that now we 24 are talking about circuits and other items t '.i a t , to my i l 25 1 understanding, are contained in the affidavit.and for that i a ..: __.___.__.___m.----. - ------ - - - - - - - - - -
I 97 - 1 i fc441b13 ! () 2 I reason I think we are going too far afield. Mr. Mizuno feels thef are pertinent. 3 MR. MIZUNO: Well, I would like to' state , a; I would like counsel for Intervenoi- to indicate -- excuse 5 me. First I would like to state that I believe that my L e questfons have been directed to trying to understand the 2,, 7 concerns of , as containsd in his affida%it. Bt ' I personally find some of his statemen*.s to 4 k
! be very hard to understand and my questions have been )
to trying to elicit my understanding in terms that 11 can understand. Obviously, there is a difference in a ' 12 way of expressing ideas and trying to get our ideas a c r o s s'. l .
'3' And I'm trying to do it in several different fashions.
() 14 Nonetheless. I do believe that my questions 15 ' were hil directed towards that and very precisely like that. l ( 16 I try to limit my hypothetical situations to very simple I I 17 i i situations which were intended to elicit the witness's ! 18 understanding of my thought processes. ! i 10 i I would like for counsel for Intervenor to 20 ! indicate now what specific questions or areas of exploration - 21 MR. SPEKTER: I withdraw the objection, i 22 MR. DAVIDSGN: I would like to put up, i 23 i ! Mr. Mizuno, that you did make a statement on 6e record 24 i with which I concur and that is -- in fact, you made two-25 statementu the general thrust of which was -- and'the most i I .i i,
- .--------_=--__J
~ - .
~
y ! 7 98 fc441bl4 !
/~ t
( 1 recent one was -- your examination had been conducted on 1
\~- )
2 i the basis of the allegations and assertions made in the J 3, affidavit. 1 4 ' But you aleo pointed out that in' response $Y 5 to questions predicated on the affidavit, that , 6 once again has introduced some new information and made i i 7 some new allegations that are not contained in the i i a, affidavit. j i
*l I!c is also, I might add, as we discussed i
10 l' earlier here, changed some of the statements in his l I 1 i affidavit, or at least recanted from them or indicated q 12 that they are not accurate represent.ations of what he j l
'3 ' i r understands to be the facts with which he offers as his i /.
1 Id testimony today. l i 15 I think the point that Mr. Mizuno is making 16 is the one I made to you, Mr. Spekter, in an off the' record I i 17 conversation that one of the problems we've had in completing! i 18 this deposition is not only that many of 10 answers are not responsive to the questions, but that every-20 ' time a question is asked 1 comes up with some new l 21
./
thought, new idea, or new allegation that hasn't previously 22 been disclosed and hasn't been contained in his affidavit. 23 And all of ther have to be examined. And if 24 that weren't the case, this would have been a deposition 25 completed, both by Mr. Mizuno and myself, much earlier. O .
v _- -_
' 99 fc441bl5 1
\nd it's just unfortunate. I make this i
2 i statement only.because I think that Mr. Mizuno and I.both 3 deserve the right to clarify that. {. f 4 And as for your withdrawing your o bj e c t io n'. . ' 5 I note that and I appreciate it. 6 MR. SPEKTER: Your point has been made. 7 (Whereupon, at 11:32 p.m., the taking of-this 6 deposition was~ recessed, to . reconvene sine die.) 9! , 10 t1 i I 12 , a 13 ; 14 l 15 16 1 17 l i (J _ 19 l l ' 20 - i I < , 21 I, l i , i 22 i i l ! 1 ! 1 l 23 2a 25 s
- 6
(_ .- , d i
' )
\
I CERTIFICATE OF PROCEEDINGS l This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the 2 NRC COMMISSION 3 i In the matter of: Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al. 4 Deposition of Danny Walter Date of Proceeding: Thursday, July 19, 1984 5s ( j Place of Proceeding: Glenn Rose. Texas 1 0 Iwere held as herein appears, and that this is the original ! 7 , { transcript for the file of the Commission. Bi ol 4 j J. F. COUGHLIN l
!O ' Official Reporter - Typed 11 l 1: l l M 13 OffJcial Reporter - Signature:
14 !
- s l
!= -
I i 17 i ,
\ l i
I 18 t f io 20 21 i
.o n.
j i 23 24 25
. }l
' k I
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS Wam2R u L.3tstwa21ta}}