ML20244A808
| ML20244A808 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/20/1984 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20097F079 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-487 NUDOCS 8906120155 | |
| Download: ML20244A808 (12) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. ~- O lIahA_ ASLD ( UNITED STATES OF AMi[RICA l t, NUCLt.Aa REGULATORY COMMISSION l , g.,:-fl, j v m_ In the matter of: l k TEXAS UTILITIES EI.ECTRIC COMPANY, et al Docket No. 5 0-4 45 j 50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 & 2) 55 j i I 4. 1 ("., IN CAMERA SESSION a j J Depcsition of: Larry D. Howard j t i l i q$0% Locatian: Gleb Rose,- Texas Pages: $.6,500-56,509 Date: Friday, July 20, 1984 g b A IGktr.uis.c ja th;; cggg,,135 dM'] I b ' g,j g' 'q !is accctoC3 enth the Fr:cdom at int:g7ngt;gn rict, ecrrpi;c,; 'Cl k-g, h hl Af Ef' A I / e-6 AYLOE ASSOCIATES coun Roon a ,uA2s i scrwt. N W. $wn 100s 8906I20155 090607 "*'a*** D C M6 PDR FOIA 132 3bMm L HUCED4-487 PDR { ,a u N ') Y lN h I
'56,500 ~IN CAMERA age-1. UNITED'. STATES.0F. AMERICA 'l NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 y 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY &. LICENSING BOARD 4 5 x-In'the matter of: 6 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC 7 COMPANY, et al.
- Doc.ket Hos.-50-445 g
~ 50-446 ~- (Comanche Peak Steam Electric g Station, Units 1 and 2) -x 10 11 Glen Rose f-iotor Inn Glen Rose, Texas-12 13 July 20, 1984 14 Deposition of: LARRY D.
- HOWARD, (IN CAMERA) 15 called for examination by counsel for the-Interveners,.
taken before Mar 11ynn Nations, Court. Repo rt e r, 37 is beginning at 7 : 15 a. m., pursuant to agreement. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 j j. .___.z--__--.__.r_.~i____$_a
56,501 I 1 mge-2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 On-behalf of the Applicants Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al.: 3 BRUCE DOWNEY, ESQUIRE 4 Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 1200 Seventeenth ~ Street, Northwest j 5 Washington, D.C. 20036 6 I On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff: 1 7 GEARY S. MIZUNO, ESQUIRE J Office of the Executive Legal Director j 8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j Washington, D.C. 20555 i 9 10 On behalf of the Intervenor Citizens Association for Sound Energy: ) 11 l l MS. BILLIE GARDE i 12 Law Clerk i Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, P.C. 13 2000 P Street, Northwest, Suite 611 Washington, D.C. 20036 15 a lh 17 18 I9 20 I 21 22 l 23 24 l 25 1 )L
mn11b1 ( 56,502 l 1 P R-O C E ED IN G S 2 Whereupon. l 3 LARRY D. HOWARD l j d took the stand and having been first duly sworn, was 1 5 examined and testified as follows: I 6 MR. MIZUNO: I think we should identify 7 ourselves for the record. This is Geary S. Mizuno and B 1 represent the NRC Staff. 9 MR. DOWNEY: I'm bruce Downey and I 10 represent Texas Utilities Generating Company and faciliated 11 entities. Applicants in this proceeding. 12 MS. aRDE: I'm Billie Garde, representative l i 13 ef the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice. Id EXAMINATION I 15 BY MS. GARDE: 16 Q Will you state your name for the record, 17 please? 18 A Larry D. Howard. 19 Q Mr. Howard, you've agreed to testified 20 voluntarily as a witness here today, isn't that correct? 21 A Yes, ma'am. 22 Q And the purpose of your testimony is solely 23 to provide your firsthand knowledge about an incident of n 24 intimidation, harassment or threats of 25 Isn't that correct?
56,503 i mge-3 1 I N D_ E X 2 WITNESS: EXAMINATION BY: 3 1ARRY D. HOWARD MS. GARDE: '70,503 4 5 k l 6 7 8 s i 10 11 ] 12 !3 14 15 16 17 i 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
56,504 inllb2 1 MR. DOWNEY: Objection, a leading question. 2 MS. GARDE: I withdraw the question. 3 BY MS. GARDE: 4 Q Mr. Howard, how long did you work at the 5 Comanche Peak plant? 6 A Nine years. l 7 Q What was your last date of employment there? I 8 A January the 22nd, I believe. 9 Q 19842 10 A Yes, ma'am. l 11 Q Did you work with an engineer with an 12 engineer named 13 A Yes, ma'am. 14 Q And what war your position? 15 A I was a field' electrician. 16 Q On or about December 29th, did you vitness lbeing verbally abused by his supervisor? 17 18 A Yes, ma'am. 10 Q I'd like to ask you a few questions about 20 that incident. Please answer these as directly as possible. 21 Now Mr. Heward, immediately prior to the 22 incident, where were you sitting? 23 A About four foot from, desk. I 24 Q And in what building was that? 25 A That was in an office trailcr provided by
56,505 Enllb3 1 the company. 2 Q And were you waiting for I for g 3 something? 4 A Yes. 5 Q And what was that? 6 A Some more work, field testing of some sort. 7 Q And while you were waiting for your work 8 assignment., did get interrupted? 9 A Yes. 10 Q By whom? 11 A A man from TUGCO. 12 Q Do you remember his name? 13 A No. 14 Q Did he have someone with him? ) i 15 A Yes. 16 Q And where did he go. 17 A They just stayed there with the fellow j 18 from TUGCO. 10 Q Where did he stand, with the fellow from 20 TUGCO. 21 A Between he -- between 'and myself. t 22 Q And what did he say to a l 23 A Well, he wanted him to sign a document 24 regarding some troubles in the battery rooms, cable 4 25 separation violations. i
56,506 mn11b4 1 Q Did ycu hear him say that? 2 A Yes, I heard him tell, }to go ahead and 3 sign this document. 4 Q What else did he say? 5 A Well, there was some pretty harsh words there, 6 as far as him demanding ]to ~ go ahead and sign.this 7 d ocumen t, even though ,was not satisfied with the paper-l a work and the procedure.s, the way that they read. did l 9 not 10 Q Did you hear respond to the gentleman 11 from TUGCO's comment? 12 A Yes, ma'am. 13 Q And what did 14 A He said he was not going to sign this until 15 he got his feedback from a phone call that he had made. l 16 Q Do you know where that phone call was to? 17 A The best I remember, I believe it was to l 18 New York. l Ic Q And what did the gentleman from TUGC0 say then ' 20 A He got pretty upset and told ~~ "l hat he t 21 would sign this document today. He said he wanted it signed 22 today so they could go ahead with the proceedings. 23 Q Do you recall the gentleman saying that he 24 should sign it er face the consequences? 25 A Yes. l s
56,507 allb5 ~' 1 MR. DOWNEY: Objection. Ask him what he 2 heard. That's a leading question. 3 MS. CARDE: I'll restate the question. 4 BY MS. GARDE: 5 Q What else do you remember tha't the gentleman 6 from TUGC0 said? 7 A He told he said, you vill sign this e or you will face the consequences, or something in that 9 manner. He had gotten real upset by then. 10 Q Didl attempt to explain the problem 11 to the gentleman? 12 A did explain the problem to the 13 gentleman, but the gentleman did not seem to carry what 14 thought, or didn't seem to have any regards to 15 ) abilities or anything. 16 Q Did the gentleman f rom TUGC0 then leave? 17 A Yes. 18 Q And where did he go? 19 A He went into Art London's office. 20 Q Did he return? 21 A Yes, he and Art both did. 22 Q And what did -- when they returned, did they ~ 23 return back to desk? 24 Q And were you still sitting in your desk? 25 A Yes. 1
56,508 1 l mn11b6 i Q And what did either -- or any of the three i 2 of them say to if anything? j 3 A Well, it was about the same thing over j 1 A again. And then Art told him, he said, go ahead and sign } 5 it. And said, vell, I'm not going to sign it until j i e I get my feedback, you knes, from trying to get this 'I i j 7 little differcnce settled. And Art told him, he said, you i 8 just go ahead and sign'it. I'll accept responsibility. 9 And said it's my responsibility, or in j io so many words. And then I just, you know, sort of -- one i Ji 1 6 11 of them told him, he said, you either sign this -- and then 12 they got into some more heated discussion there and he said j 13 you are walking on thin water l-you know -. thin ice. I l 14 In other words 15 Q What did you take that c o m m e r. t to mean? I 16 A I tock the comment to mean either you did it ) 17 the way that we want it, or you're going to be relieved of is your duties. That's the way I would have taken it if somebody in had told me that. 20 Q And then did you leave the area? ] 21 A Yes, I just after all this, after they'd' 22 gotten through with most of the words and stuff, well I 1 23 just got up and left. I didn't feel that it was my business. 24 MS. GARDE: No further questions. 25 MR. DOWNEY: I would like to close this ( l I 9
I 56,509 .~ ~ fn11b7 3 t + l I transcript and begin the discovery deposition. 2 (Uhereupon, at 7:30, the taking of the 3 deposition was adjourned.) 4 5 l l b l 7 g Larry D. Howard 9 10 l '1 12 l 13 14 l i 15 l 16 17 18 1 19 l 20 l i 21 22 23 24 25 ~ __E_______.
j CERTIFICATE'OF PROCEEDINGS 2 This is to' certify that.the attached proceedings before the' 3 NRC COtG1ISSION .4 In the matter of: Texas' Utilities Electric Company,'et al. 3 ' Deposition of Larry 'D. Howa'rd 6 ate of~ M cCce & g: Tridsp,l July. 20 1984 7 Place of Proceedihg: GlenLRose, Texas were held as harein' appears, and-that this is the original transcript for the file of.the Commissich. 10 ..Marilynn Nations Official. Reporter
- Typed 12
- t3 r.
f,i. S ; Jg ^j v 'f'
- V I. t ~ ' *
.s l Of ficiadJ Reporter , Signature 4 9 1 15 16 17 1Q' 10 i 21 ] 22 1 -i as j 1 a4 2: .... u: TAYLOE ASSOCIATES RECl57F. RED PRoFEs5foN AL. REPORTERS 3 NoMFoLK. VIRGINIA. a
k , NtettaaRtccraTocYCowwlssson. " " ~ ~ i 1 ,#~ ~, . p_p o ?, ,? ' u YE' ip \\ ( -.l eg, tu instreotil _
- '^*'
y TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC 9.a. - i ~~ 1 COMPANL et al Docket No. 50-4 45 l 50-446 I (comanche Peak Steam Electric { scacien, Uni, ts 1. t 11 1
- /..r IN CAMERA SESSION l
c,, l l 1 I Deposition of: 1 l ~ l 1 Locados: Glen Rose,- Taxas Pages: f00-130 l ':tf J. Due: Friday,g July 20, 198d no : c.;; .f.. a-e. l e 44 Iciprmation irethis record was deleidd y In b;midance with e Freedom of Information Act, exemptions __ ' g j g/h'-MA N_ $1A,_.,,3 y-Qiy {, 4 9 AsaY fyf'? ~' ,. 3, - TAYLOE A$$0CIATL5 cd co,tt w, z 'y, hf' __._, 1623 ! %3 w. Suse f &ag, !. ,~ j hasme, o c. ms
- f '.
(N21 NkMSS y ~% p. i s s _3 w as (9 '9 E e9eu.34Mt up _
10'O fc/mn-1 i i 1 UNITED STATES OF AM2RICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 I 3; BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & L'ICENSING BOARD d 1 s 5 ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~k In the matter of: 6 i TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC 7 COMF ANY, et al. {
- Docket Nos. 50-445 8
50-446' (Comanche Peak Steam electric o'] Station, Units 1 and 2) 1 i 10 11 Glen Rose Motor Inn 12,l Glen Rose, Texas { 13, July 20, 1984 3 i I I Disc. v.ery i Deposition of: -(IN CAMERA) 15 i called by examination by counsel f or the NkC staff, isl taken befor6 J. F.
- Couglin, Court
'r< e p o r t e r, 37 i 3g beginning a t 12 : 5 5 y.m., pursuant to agreement. P-IQ i 20 21 22 Staff's Discovsyy Deposition: Volume II. 24 25 1 4
fc/mn 101 1 APPEAR 2NCES: i I 2 I On behalf of the Applicants. Texas Utilities Electric 3 Company., et al. 4 MARK L. DAVIDSON, Esquice k Bishop, Liberman, Coo,.Purcell & Reynolds 5 1200 Seventeenth Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20036 l j 6 ) Oc behalf of the Witness, Danny Walter: 7 MICHAEL L. SPEKTER,' Esquire a Suite 1102 1717 "K"
- Street, N.
W. 9 Washington, D. C. 20006 l 10 On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff: 11 GEARY S. MIZUNO, Esquire GRECORY A. BERRY, Esquire j 12 Office of the Executive Legal Director l U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 13 Washington, D. C. 20555 1 14 ) 15 16 I7 [ 18 t 1Q 20 21 4 s' i l l 24 25 1 I l ___-__.a__
) Ec/ma ,'{ 102 li I l 1 i 3 I N D E X 1 2 y t WITNESS: J EXAMINATION 1 ) i l [yMr. 5 ( l Mizuno 103 6 1 5 7 8 l 'f 9 } 10 l l 11 12 EXHIBITS I 13 (NONE) ) te i 1 l 15 i i I 16 17 18 19 20 l l l 21 l 22 23 24 25 i
-~ _iy . ) 1rm I' )
- 1-II l
fe/mn-1 j l i P3g$11plyg1 i i i 2 Whereupon, i s k. 3 i 4 a witness, was called for examination and.having.been i 5 previously duly sworn, was examined and testified f u r t h'e r l .i as follows: 1 6 4 7 EXAMINATION 'l 8 BY MR. MIZUNO: l;1 9 Q Do you know who Larry Howard is? l 10 A Yes, I do. j, Q Do you know what his position is? 12 A NOW7 13 Q At the beginning of ?. 9 8 4. 34 A Yes. He was an electrical test group craft personnel'. 15 f g Q Was he the person who observed you being told 37 by Mr. London that you were walking on thin ice? 18 A I do not believe that the walking on thin ice g was by Mr. London. I believe it was by Fred Fowers. 20 Q Fred Powers, all right. So it was Fred Powers I who told you that you were walkitig on thin ice? l 73 22 A Correct. 23 Q Did Art London join you at some later time? 24 A Join me and Fred Powers? 25 Q Yes. i I 1 e m___-----.--,_-_----
104 1-2 I A Yes, he did. 2 Q Was Mr. Howard still there? 3 A I do not remember. d Q You do not remember. Du ring y0wr conve rsa tion 5 or your argument with Mr. Powert was there anyone elue besides 6 you and Mr. Powers and Mr. Howard? 7 A I do not remember. It was in the chart-up 8 trailer offices. There could have been other people walking 9 through and around. 10 i Q No one who was waiting along with Mr. Howard? II A I believe there possibly could have b e e r. i 12 i because with Mr. Howard I had additional craft personnel. I' 1 They usually run in pairs so he very well could have had I# somebody with him. 15 0 But you don't recall? I6 A I don't recall. l } I7 i Q Do you recall anyone accompanying Mr. Powers? IO A Yes, I do. ) Q Do you know how that person was? l { 20 A I do not remember who that was. 21 Q Do you recall whether he was a supervisor? 1 22 A 1 do not remember. I do not recall what his i 23 position was or who he was. 24 Q Do you recall him being as part cf the start-up 25 group? k f i h l
105 1-3 1 A 1 do not. 2 Q On page nine of.your affidavit, let me read you 3 a sentence which states, "I am further' concerned-because d the test instruction provides no guidelines'that assist an 5 STE in determining when energized functional testing is 6 impractical." Do you see that portion of that sentence? 7-A (Reviewing documents.) B Correct. 9 Q When'you refer to test instruction,.you.are 10 referring to the prerequisite r.est instruction XCP-EE-3? l i 11 A Yes. i i 12 Q Do you recall our discussion yesterday about i 13 the sentences prior to the sentence I have just read you 14 referring to the fact that since' tests performed during a 15 prerequisite are not necessarily repeated during preop. this j 16 means that it is possible that a component can pass through-l 17 those stages of testing? 18 A
- Yes, 10 i Q
Fine. I assume that the fact that you are 20 concerned that test instruction provides no guidelines 21 that. assist an STT. in determining when energized functional i 22 testing is. impractical is separate from the concern'that l i i 23 you were discussing last night? 24 h Coteact. I believe so. i 1 2$ Q All richt. Did you ever make your concern that I
106 j 1-4 i l I there are no guidelines to assist an STE in determining 2 whether en3rgized functional testing is impractical to your: 3 supervisors? l A Yas, I did. 5 Q How did you do that? 6 A I brought up the procedure in the note that there should be no reason possible that can.be given to where a I 8 deenergized f unc tional est would suffice as a form of { functional testing. l 10 Q This note that you wrote -- II A I am not sure if 1 wrote a note or not but I 12 did bring the concern up to Tom Miller identifying that the 13 note was inside the statement and the note. I believe, is in j I' ' indicated to him that there should never be'an quotes. 15 occasion -- you see, they were informing me that~ this note 16 was put in there that in case Q (( '8 A I am leadin off again. I will stay to the question. 70 Q Let's start again. You indicated th'at you ' i 21 brought this concern about the lack of guidelines for 22 determining when energized functional testing is impractical 23 to the attention of your supervisors? 2' A Correct. l 25 Q You also indicated that you didn't know whether l 4
i 107 1 1 you did it orally or whe.ther you did it in written form. 2 Is that true? 3 A True. Q Could you have done both? 5 A Possibly. 6 I Q But you do.not recall whether it was both or 1 1 7 ) one or the other? 8 I A I know it was at least orally and I am not 9 I positive as far as the written. 10 Q-So you were certain that you did it orally 11 but yoa are not sure whether you also did it in written 12 form? 13 A Correct. 1.4 I Q If these was such a note, vould it possibly be 15 contained within the notes that you brought with you? 16 A No, it is not. I 17 Q Would it be contained within the documents that } l 18 I you have at home? 19 A I don't believe 1 would have a note associated 20 with that. 21 Q All right. Would you have made a log or a note 22 that memorializes your telephone call with Mr> Miller on this 23 matter? 24 A I don't believe 7 called him. I believe I went 25 to his office and I don't believe I had a log of that. 1
100 I Q All right. Can you check your records for a note l 2 which may have memorialized your oral. conversation with'Mr. I 3 Miller and also-any written notes or memos that you sent_to 4 Mr. Miller? 5 A I will. i 6 Q Or any other person on. site regarding'this' 7 problem? l 8 A I will. i '-j end#1 9 10 i II 12 l 13 14 l 15 16 i l 17 l 18 l io .i. i 20 21 22 23 24 25 .1 l l I 4 .]
l'09 fc/mn 2-1 i I (Discussion of f the record.) 2 BY MR. BERRY: 3 Q if a record were made would you be 1 d in possessi'on of it? 4 5 A I would believe that I would be in possessic t 6 of a record involving these incidences here. 7 Q So consequently if you don't come'with the l 9 record, is it fair to say that there was not a record made? R 9 A No. I left large amounts of records in my desk 10 even at the site. There were notes written all over those 11 records. I don't remember exactly what records I took out,- 12 which records 1 left, which ones were handwritten person notes 13 either way. I have also as indicated earlier that.I have 14 given GAP documentation and I do not recollect or remember 15 what documentation I have given them. t to BY MR. MIZUNO: 17 Q lthe documentation that you gave to i IB GAP or CASE, were those documents derived from your files 19 at home or from the documents which are contained'in your 20 briefcase? 21 A I may have possibly even given them iny d 6cumen t s 22 that I had but I do not remember which documents I gave to 23 them. 2d Q Perhaps you misunderstand me. I au asking 25 whether all the documents that you gave GAP or CASE, whatever 6 ___mm____m_________ ___.__._m_
1 110 / '-2 1 they may be, were derived entirely from your own files. I I 2 your own documentation? q 1 3 A Yes, they were derived entirely from my own f i 4 files. i I j j i '! 5 Q All right. Now you indicated that you brought l 6 this to the attention of your supervisor, Tom Miller, in 7 some fashion. 8 A Yes. z ( 9 Q But you don't necessarily recall in what form? j \\ 10 A Yes. i I I t 11 Q Did Mr. Miller pursue your concern to your 12 knowledge? I 13 A I believe so. j i 4 14 Q What was that? l f l 15 MR. BERRY: May we go off the record for a l 16 second? 17 (Counsel conferring off the record.) 1 1 1 IB BY MR. MIZUNO: i 10 Q I believe the question was what was i g 20 your knowledge of what br. Miller did to follow up your 21 concern? I i 22 A I know that he had listened to me during my 1 23 concern. He may have spoken to Art London concerning it, 24 too. 25 Q Did Mr. Miller ever tell you what he did' I i
'l 1 111 2-3 1 1 1 i 1 A I do not believe he did, i 2 Q Did you wer receive any. kind of response from
- i. i l
3 any of your supervisors or from any other organization!whether - i d on-site or off-site regarding your conce.rn involving j i 5 guidelines for determining whether energized functional i 6 testing is impractical or not? 7 A Formal as in written form or verbal? 8 Q Uh -- 9 A I received no formal form. I did receive verba: 10 form. 11 Q By formal, you mean that you received no l ) 12 written? I i i 13 A Correct. Id Q But you did receive a verbal response you 15 indicated? 16 A Yes. I 17 Q Where did that response come from? I 18 A Art London. e 19 Q Do you at what time Mr. 1 20 A 1 don't know how much time frame had elapsed i 21 from me bringing it.up to Tom Miller and Art London. 22 Q Do you recall whether you felt at the time t 23 that it was an unduly long period? l 2d A The problem that 1 addressed, they felt had no l J 25 immediate significance so it could have taken a shorter i I k
I q 112 i i i I period of time 'but yet.I think I am not even sure if it'took ) 2 a week but it did take a couple of'several. days, I believe. I 3 Q Do you now believe that it took him.an unduly j d long time for them to get back to you? 'l 5 i 1 A No. I-will not make that statement. 'They,had ~] 6 other workloads that were present at_the time. 7 .) Q My original question to you though was o little j 8 ] different although the information that you.did give me was also information that I wanted. My original. question 10 was in what time period did you receive a response? In' [ II other words, a date, a month? 12 1 A I don't remember the exact date or month on_that, 13 i Q All right. It was in 1984? 14 A I believe so. 15 \\ Q Was it towards the end of your employment 16 period? I7 l A I don't remember. It was not towards the tail 18 end. I do not think that I had already given notice. Q All right. What did Mr. London tell you in his j 20 oral response to you? 21 A That it was.their feeling that my eliminating l 22 i the note it put too stringent of restrictions or left the l 23 possibility that they would have problems in doing that. l 24 He could not identify the problems but he did not want to 25 remove that note. I 1 i I
- n. mm -
i 1 i i
1 113' J 'l I i Q Let me return back to your -- 2 THE WITNESS: Can we break just for one quick 1 3 minute so I can talk to counsel? A MR. MIZUNO: Fine. (Witness and counsel conferring.) 6 'l 2nd#2_ 7 1 0 10 1 11 1 12 i l-is I 14 15 16 17 18 ) to l l 20 21 i 22 l l i i 23 i 2a 25 \\ l _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - - _ = -. - - - _ - ^
l 114. I fc/mn I j j l i I BY MR. M1ZUNO: (Resuming) 2 Q when you first made your. concern 3 known to Mr. Miller, what precisely did you tell.him? j. I 1 d A The exact words I cannot remember right now. l) 5 The inf orma tion t hat I was relating.to him was that I felt l i 6 that there was no reason to have that note in the procedure -{ li 7 in the fact that there was never a circumstance that could I 8 arise that would require deenergized functional testing l j 9 to be performed. 10 Q So you did not tell him that your concern 11 was that there were no guidelines to assist an STE in. 12 determining whether energized functional testing is 13 impractical? Rather you told Mr. Miller that you could not I Id foresee any reason why deenergized functional testing 15 will suffice? Is that the case? 16 i A 1 may have brought that up, also. Part of the 17 argument is that there is never any reason to do deenergized 18 functional and even with your note implemented in here, l l' you don't define under what conditions you can do deenergized,i i 20 functional testing. It just leaves it up to the. discretion i 21 of the STE which could be anything or a number of things. ) 22 I I believe 1 related that question -to him 23 possibly in the examples or something. Maybe I.am not I 24 answering your question. 25 Q No. You answered my question. If you believe i 1 I ,i 1
] i 4 115 l 1 i that deenergized functional testing is never reasonable ] 2 then why are you concerned about guidelines to determine 3 whether an STE should nerform the energized functioncl. 4 testing? 5 i A' It was used as an example or a' phrasing to'an 6 example. j 7 Q Why don't you describe the example? 8 A The \\ example being that a component cables ere 1 e .i lifted and by lifting the cables the cables are reterminated i 10 j again. The subsequent retesting for that should be an energized functional check but under this procedrue and the 12 notation there,.c was allowing STE's to not perform an i 13 1 energized functional test..to perform.a deenergized functional i4 test which as indicated in this statement cannot be documented 15 or justified on the test records because there was no 16 "was it deenergized or was it energized."- 17 t My concern to him was.that that is a problem 1B in itself. i i in I Q Did you tell L.. Miller this? 20 A Mr. Miller did know'that there was-deenergized 21 functional testing. 22 . !'. l Q Did you tell hini the substance of'what you are 23 saying now to Mr. Miller? 24 A Yes, in one or more conversations or in one or l 25 more different words, l i t I ) l
116 1 Q So you had-more than one conversation with Mr. 2 Miller where you expressed your concern? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Did you tell Mr. Miller or indicate to'him that you also had a separate concern that there were no' guidelines 6 assisc an STE in determining whether energized functional' to 7 testing is impractical? 8 A I believe so. -I bel.ieve that'came up during the 9 conversation. 10 I Q All.right. Now Mr. London's response to you indicated that they could not drop noterone to section ?.8-12 i of this prerequisite test instruction? 13 A Correct. 14 Q Did he indicate to you why? 15 A Yes. to I Q Jhat did he say? 17 A He indicated in words to the effect that he felt that it lockec, him in to always performing energized-I 19 functional testing and he felt like it would put a hamper 20 or slow down on the testing procedures to the extent that 21 it would require _ functional testing on all circuits'instead l of'being able to do deenergized functf.onalLtesting and 23 would further slow down the start-up process. l 24 Q Did Mr. Londed ~ cell you anything else in this conversation? l a
117 l i I A I-don't remember at this time. 2 Q Did he say anything else'with, regard to your 3 concern in this conversation? d A During this time period it.may have been -- 5 now I am saying "may have been" because.I have already 6 indicated that I don't remember the exact dates.and times-7 but this time period may have'been'the fact that he was' 8 going to if I could find'. al ? these problems that I maybe could do additional workload on the site. to Q Apart 'from that, the statement' involving I 11 finding problems and doing additional work. did he further 12 discuss with you the technical merits of your concern 83 regarding the fact that there are no guidelines? 3d A I do not remember if he did or'not, end#3 15 I 16 _l. 17 18 19 20 k 21 22 23 1 24 I I 25
I 1 118
- 4 f r Imn-(
BY MR. MIZUNO: (Resuming) f.{ l 2 Q I am going to read.you the remainder of your i last sentence in that parafraph which beings, "And there 3 t is no notation on test documentation that indicates the functional testing was deenergized." Am I correct in 5 i t assuming that that is a separate concern of yours? {' 6 ( A Yes. 7 I g MR. MIZUNO: May we have just a short break? MR. SPEKTER: Surely. 9 10 (Discussion off the record.) i i I MR. MIZUNO: I would like to thank both counsel jj and the witness for indulging the staff in the short break. 12 MR. SPEKTER: It is our pluasure, Mr. Mizuno. 13 j, BY MR. MIZUNO: (Resuming) Q yu indicate here that one of your 15 concerns is that there ks no notation on test documentation. Which test documentation are you referring to? 37 A The EE-8 test procedure documentation such that 18 they take a print and stamp it with an SCP-EE-8 stamp 3, ) and that automatically becoces the test documentation. 20 { Q I see. In other words, there are many copies l 21 I f this test instruction with blanks to be filled out? 22 A No. The SCP-EE-8 tsat procedure has no blanks 23 in it to speak of and that test procedure is not actually 24 J turned in. It gives instruction on how the test and 25 j l i
11') I tells you what acceptance' criteria you will specific and 2 in the documentation that that test was. performed will be on-3 a print such as a termination print or a control circuit 4 print that has been. yellow highlighted ind' citing that'those 5 components have been tested. 6 .Q What do you mean by a print? Do you mean a 7 computer printout? B A No. 1 mean a print such a. 2.3, 2.3-E-1-LOO or 9 something. We are' talking about physical riant prints. l' 10 If you would like to see-one. I believe Mr. Davidson had I t.. 11 one in his information that he had brought to the~ hearing 12 earlier. 13 Q Are you referring to drawings? 14 A Yes. 15 Q You are now indicating that there are spaces on 16 the drawings for you to indicate that gystems have been 17 te6ted? I I 18 A the way this procedure would go would be'that 19 you w;c)d take a control circuit drawing cut with you-j 20 and a termination print out with you. Yoa would verify l I 4 i 21 termination from point "A" to point "B" and you would also l i }. 22 have a control circuit printout there with you and this 'l 23 would have li,g h t indications and relays ar.d all. As y es: 'l 24 tested the system, you would highlight these termination i 25 points from point "A" to point B" indicatirig'that yea had l i 1
q, 120' 1 verified they were terminated correctly and that they 2 functioned correctly and then you would go to the system 3 print which identified the components and you would yellow 4 line through that indicating that you had performed a 5 functional test there. 6 The reasoning for this last statement is'that 7 there is a stamp 8 Q -Stop there. A Okay. 10 Q When you say " highlighting," you meant using a 11 highlight pen where you can see through -- 12 A A yellow highlight pen, yes. 13 Q On these prints, I believe you mentioned two Id different types of prints. 15 A Yes. 16 Q 1s there any space or designated area for you to j 17 sign your name or indicate your initials? 18 A They have a rubber stamp which is red ink and you 19 will take that rubber stamp and stamp it in the red ink and t l 10 k then stamp an imprint onto the document or the 'frawing and i 21 by signing that block, you 1 indicating that you performed are 22 the highlighted sections indicated above. 23 Q What are the words on the rubber stamp? 2d ) A Test record and then it will require, I believe. l 25 test procedure and then you will place in there XCP-?.E-8 and i 1 t i .m m M
/ 121 o { i system number across the top-and that would bt about the information without going ~into the signature block. 3 I Q There ic-a sigrature block there? A Yes. 0 Q How is the signature block identified? 6 A Performed by, reviewed by and that.is it. 7 Q All right. What signature blocx would.you
- l 8
sign the performed by signature area or the reviewed by j I 9 signaturc area? I { 10 A I could. sign both blocks. I' i i Q All'right. What is the difference between I-12 performing a test and reviewing the test? 13 A They had craft personnel signing the performed by 14 bloci. I, 15 Q All right. 16 A The reviewed by block even-.though it says 17 " review," was def.jned by upper level management to be 18 a actual -- when you sign that, you are taking responsibility 19 that that circuitry is correct. 20 1 l Q This is your concern that~ is related on pages 2' frur through five of your affidavit? 22 1 .i A (Reviewing document.) 23 It does identify another concern in pages four 24 through five. i i i 5 Q Now let us suppose that a craft person does the i s I I l I
122
- (
l 1 test and he signs the " performed by" area' signature block, 2 what does the'craftsown do ase.uming that you were.the person ! 3 who provides that particular test? 4 A If I was the person -- I'ran my testing not. t 5 necessarily in line with the rest of the other system test engineers. They felt like I always spent too much of my 7 time out in the field. I would collect the documentation, 8 grab the craft, we would go into the field. I would direct 9 them as to place jumpers here or lift this wire.right 10 through communications throughout1 the plant and I would'be i 11 i marking up the drawings and indicating what was being tested i 12 i and what had been adequately functioning. i' 13 Q This occurs after the craftsman has signed 14 " performed" the test? 15 A No. 16 Q If that is not the case, I want you to confine t 17 ) yourself to the situation where a craftsman performs the i J test end then signs the signature block indicating that he i 19 performed the test. 20 A Okay. 1 21 Q At that point, what does he do? 22 A He would bring it back over'to the engineer { 23 that he received the document from and give it to him. I 24 ; Q Suppose that person was you..what would you do I 25 at that point? I ( (;- 'l I 1 i l l ) 1 .--_-______x_-
123 A On an XCP-EE-8 I cannot remember instances where I did not go cut into the field with them. With 3 other STE's, they sat in their office and the documentation was brought back to nem and he looked at it to make sure all the information that they expected to be highlighted 6 was highlighted and that was it. They signed it. 7 Q In your mind by signing the " reviewed by" 8 signature block, what does that indicate? A It indicates and it was told to me several times 10 that you are responsible to the fact that that circuit II would function the way the pr1nt showed when you sign it. end#4 12 Tl.ere may be a more clarified answer. I 13 l 1a 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 l i 24 1 25 1 8 } ___2--
124 fc/mn . gn i Q No. Just end it right there, please. 2 Now these two types of prints that you were 3 talking about, those prints are what you considered,to be d the test documentation that you were referring to in the 5 last sentence in your affidavit, the last sentence in the s 6 paragraph on page nine? 7 A (Perusing document.) 8 Correct. 9 Q Your concern is that 10 A You said that these d o c um e r. t a t i o n s, the-reason 11 that there is no comment on there.7 will submit that on'my 12 test documentation I made handw'ritten notes that I_vac.only 13 performing phoning of cables not actual energized functional j a 14 testing as a general rule. 15 Q I guess by the fact that you say that you haad i 16 wrote in some notes that this was above and beyond the 17 requirements of the test procedure? 18 A Correct. I h 19 Q Your concern was that the test procedure did not [ t 20 have a requirement for the cr4fts person or'the engineer, 21 the STE, the reviewing engineer.to-indicate whether the ten t b 22 was done in an energized or,a deenergized state? l 23 A Correct. 24 Q These prerequisite testing, the documentation i 25 that you generated as a result of performing these c t
_125 ) i prerequisite tests and in particular. I am referring to the i 2 test procedure that we have been talking about, the XCP-EE-8. 3 A Yes. 4 Q Were the test documentation reviewed by a QC 5i inspector? i 6 A No. l 7 Q What happened to these prints, to this test i 8 documentation once you had completed your signature? ~ 9 A Once I had completed my signature, once the 10 " performed by" and the " reviewed by" blocks were signed. 11 the test document in question went over to a computer 12 system for them to log down that this tsst had been 13 perforned and then it was sent over for filing to the 14 best of my knowledge is how the System ran. 15 Q What computer system was that? 16 A I don't know exactly which computer system. 17 About halfway through the process they decided to start 18 trying to note what procedures were performed so that they 19 could have easy recall on documentatt.on. The computer 1 20 system basically listed that an SCP-EU-8 wcs performed on 21 this system on this date. That is the information that it l 22 gave. i I \\throughout 23 Q enis three days of 24 deposition you have bee spending time talking about the i 25 fact that there were several instances where you felt you
~! l 126 I! I were intimidated or 'narassed. TAs a. result of these actions j 2 did you ever during your. time at Comance Peak *adi to 1 3 i properly perform whSt you believe was neceseary because d of this intimidation er harassment?- 1 3 5 A I believe I may have dropoed some issues due to I O the harassment instead of pursuin.g them. ~Accordingly. I 7 may have'just dropped them. i 8 ! l Q When you say " dropped them," you mean not i j bring them to the attention of your supervisors? i 10 A Correct. k Il Q Can you recall sny of them at this time? ) 12 A I d o no t remember at this time. 13 Q Were these issues that you cannot remember at .i Id this time, do you recall whether any other engieeers in the 15 i start-up group had concerns that were the ones that ,v o u l '6 dropped? I7 A I am aware that several others well, this IB is going to lead into your asking me where and why several 4 l' other start-up engineers had the same concerns that I did 20 and additional concerns but did not voice their' opinions i 21 due to the problem. I 22 Q I don't want to hear why they didn't voice their 23 concerns. l 24 A Okay. 25 l Q But you are telling me though that these l i ( ( j
[ l ( 127'.. j j.1 I i I inspectors or enginee a that had concerns sin ilar 't o yours .i ? i were not brought up w i t li their supervisors? l 1 3 A Correct.
- i. !
Q What iA the bae$t ~~ l 5 MR. DAVIDSON: Excuse me,.M r. Hieuno,.but l' i. s' 6 could sweer tha estified that'he d idn t 7 remember what'. concerns they were and nos he.is saying that i B he remembers though that uther people shared those concerns 9 and I am wendering how he could possibly make !.hn t E connection. II \\ MR. MIZUNO: That is right. That'is fer someone 17 else to d.ecide how hu car. do that. I3 MR, SPEKTER: I think that as arguing and I ,I l' would like him to answer the question, please. 15 3Y MR.. MIZUNO: (Resuming) 16 Q 1 would like to know what is the basis for 17 your bel;teving that other engineers bad the same concerns I 18 tha: you did which you did not pursue? 19 A I would speak to other engineers with problems 20 that I had brought up such as butt' splicing and l 21 Q Excuse me. You are now talking about problems i
- 2 which you brought up.
I want to limit your discussion to 23 those p.,Slems where you said you can't remember what they 24 were but you definitely remember that you dropped them 25 because of intimidation and harassment. I want to focus just i l 4 i t
~ T 7,_. -,_ c .Tl 4... 4 .e$q 128 I 1 1 on those. A All right. 3 Q However nebulous they may be. k 4 A If I don't rememSer what the problems'I might 1 'O have dropped for intimidation and harassment, then therefore-6* I couldn't possibly remember if they were brought up oy j ether fellov uorkers.. 8 MR. MIILNO: That might be a point. All right. 9 I think we can end there-That ends my discovery deposition. IC MR. SVrKTER: .Thank you, Mr. Mizuno,.and you have; i 11 'I h had complete opportunity to finish your discovery deposition-l 1 12 and we are donc prior to two o' clock, i f .s that c o r r e r. t ? '3 MR, MI Z L'NO : Yes. } MR. SPEKTER: Therefore, we ~will not have to-15 teet on August 4 as we had previously agreed.to continue to 1 the disccvery deposition. 17 i MR. MIZUNO: To continue a discovery deposition, 18 that is true, but the staff does reserve its right to ~ to conduct a cross-examination deposition.to develop the 20 evidentiary record in this case. 21 MR. SPEKTER: That is understood. I believe i 22 that it is my understanding at this point that cross-23 examination is going to be held at the hearing, itself. I 24 MR. DAVIDSON: That is, Mr. Spekter, one of the 25 proposals that has been put on the table. I unfortunately i I J
~ 129 i. !li 1 l can't tel.1 you what has been decided so Y am limited in what 2 I can contribute. However, I obviously can't t a'k e,a n y 3 objection to the reservation of any of Mr. Mizuno's rights. 4 He in-fully. entitled to do so and I think he stated his l 5 position yesterday and he has renewed his position here i 1 6 today. I 1 7 t f As for your understanding. I believe it is also j.{ 8 mine that there was one suggestion on the table now that JJ it 9 Ii rather than have come back for a cross !l to l .i evidentiary deposition that he may appear at the hearing. I think at some point in the future we ought to resolve 12 the issue. 13 MR. SPEKTER: Yes. I agree it should be ) 14 i resolved in the future and I just wanted to make it perfectly! i 15 clear that it is, of course, the intervenor's position
- l 16 that certainly in such sin evidentiary deposition that both j
17 the applicant and the NRC are certainly entitled to cross 18 this witness at some particular time in the future wherever 4 19 that is decided. 20 MR. MIZUNO: The Staff just wanted to make 21 clear that when it said " evidentiary deposition," that it i 22 i was not aware of these pending proposals as co how to 23 f develop the record and all the staff was doing was trying 24 to reserve its right to develop t h r. record in the l evidentiary proceeding. 4 _________________._____m
130 ~i -ii 1 1 il l 1 i Thank you very much. MR. SPEKTER: Thank *vou. 3 (Whereupon, the instant deposition was concluded at 1: 44 o' clock p.m.) 6 l / \\ 7 8 9 10 11 1 12 13 b 15 i Ib 17 18 19 i 20 2i 22 j 23 2a i i 25 i e
i t' e e-.- u.- 1 l CERTIFICATE OF ' PROCEEDING _' S s 1 i This is.to. certify that the atezched procee' dings b e f o re ; tiie ! 'll a < NRC COMMISSION-b 3 In the-matter of: texas Utilities Electric Company', et ai-4 Dcte of Proceeding: Friday, July '20. -1986 1 5 Place of Proceeding: Glen Rose. Texas 6 '} were held aus herein appears, und that this is the original-7 traascript for the file of the Commission. 8 i 9 .J. F. Cout,nlin. 10 Official Reporte: - - Ty p e d. 11 -l, &p 13 O f'f i cial Rep 6 rt e r - Signa t ur e 14 15 I -j u. I 17 ' I l l i, i [. 20 i-l. 21. + I 22 l i~l l1 22 u' 24 25 I I I Ii i i TAYLDE ASSOCIATES. i REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL. REPORTERS NORFOLK. VIRGINIA l !}}